An article just appeared in National Review about the actual outcome of the Princeton Conference in January which among other things discussed the controversial Jesus tomb theory about the Talpiot tomb. Here is the link:
In terms of fair representation of what all the scholars at the conference (save one) concluded about the matter (namely they all rejected or were highly dubious about the theory including all the archaeologists and epigraphers present), this article provides a far less distorted picture than the original coverage of Time magazine.
Its time to roll the stone in front of that tomb theory once and for all, as it has been tried, and found wanting over and over again in various ways. The forthcoming article by Richard Bauckham on the onomasticon is decisive in my judgment.
Thanks for the link, Ben. I especially appreciated getting to see the brief note from Geza Vermes. But, I didn't notice a reference to the Bauckham article you mention. Have you mentioned this previously, and I just missed it?
Hi Craig: Richard's article will come out, I reckon towards the end of this year in a volume from B+H Publishers.
I remember that TV special and James Cameron's uncharacteristic zeal to "blow the lid" on this issue. It was rather odd and made me think of Betrand Russell's observation,
“Zeal is a bad mark for a cause. Nobody has any zeal about arithmetic. It is not the vaccinationists but the antivaccinationists who generate zeal. People are zealous for a cause when they are not quite positive that it is true.”
Thanks for the head's up on Bauckman's article. I look forward to it being released.
Post a Comment