Correction with an Apology

I recently posted the following remarks along with a cartoon of the Black Knight (sans appendages) from Monty Python and the Holy Grail defiantly denying he was whipped with the rather well-known shibboleth, "It's only a flesh wound!":

Without any acknowledgement (to my knowledge) of Richard Bauckham's well-researched article, Tabor is back to deriving "Mariamne" from the inscription Mariamenou/Mara, a reading for which there seems to be no basis other than his stock circular one: It supports his creed that this must be Jesus' tomb. Regarding this or any other post of mine, if a reader sees errors in either my statement of facts or my logic, I sincerely request that he/she point it out. A modification and an apology will then be in order and will be forthcoming. I do not wish to be unfair.

It appears that the promised correction and apology are warranted after all. Dr. Tabor has patiently pointed out that (1) my statements of facts are not accurate, that (2) he has never had any other position, and (3) that his basis for his position is and always has been Rahmani's comments on the Mariamenou/Mara inscription.

When Dr. Tabor first pointed out the inaccuracy of my statements, I continued to argue that he had not responded to Bauckham's article, which I thought relevant to the issue. However, I have since found Rahmani's comments and now understand that Bauckham's study and Dr. Tabor's choice not to respond to it in no way supported either the wild-ass assertions I made or the ill-considered rhetoric with which I embellished them. For both of these irresponsible transgressions against "due diligence" as well as against civility and common decency, I sincerely apologize both to Dr. Tabor and to anyone else who might have read my blog.

I still think that Dr. Bauckham's study (link below) strongly suggests that even with the "Mariamne" reading of the inscription, a connecton of the Talpiot the ossuary with Mary Magdalene is by no means established, but that was not the point I made in my post. I asserted that Bauckham's study suggested that the "Mariamne" reading was wrong and that Dr. Tabor needed to reply to it before he "returned" to that position. I was wrong in both statement of fact and in logic, and for that as well as the rude rhetoric, I apologize. I will make every effort to insure that it does not happen again. I do not admire careless and sloppy argumentation, and I admire even less Christians who engage in it, and I am downright contemptuous of Christians who engage in it in a public forum. Add to that the compounding of my offense by failing to participate in public discussion with both "meekness and reverence" ... my only feeble response is that I have no excuse, and I sincerely regret it. I should be made of better stuff. I hope this confession and apology is acceptable to those offended, especially Dr. Tabor. I may have other comments to make on the ongoing discussion in general and Dr. Tabor's arguments specifically, but I will make a diligent effort to practice self-control and exercise a bit more "sweet reason" in my polemics.

Ben Lewis

Richard Bauckham's article can be found at:
http://www.christilling.de/blog/2007/03/guest-post-by-richard-bauckham.html