Katherine Frisk’s article “Who Moved the Stone?” is a mess. It’s a tissue of speculation pretending to be “A Critical Analysis of the Crucifixion.” This offends me deeply – not as a Christian (which I am), but as a student of philosophy.
A simple Google search yields a suitable working definition for “analysis.” Let’s say that an analysis is a “detailed examination of the elements or structure of something, typically as a basis for discussion or interpretation.”
In the first place, Frisk’s work is insufficiently detailed. She makes numerous ill-evidenced claims.
Frisk asserts that we “know” Joseph of Arimathea to have been “the uncle of Yeshua” and that Joseph “was a trader[,] …well travelled[, and]…had been …[on] the British Isles and …the Silk Road…”.
On the received philosophical account, “knowledge” is justified true belief. To put it another way, in order for a person to know some proposition, p, that person has to: believe p; have good evidence (reasons) for believing p; and, in fact, p has to be true.
Since we do not have independent access to the truth of propositions, when faced with knowledge claims, we are impelled to consider the caliber of the claimant’s evidence. What is Frisk’s evidence for her claims about Joseph of Arimathea? Who knows? She does not provide any.
In a piece on Joseph of Arimathea, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) manages to classify the data correctly. The BBC article lists under the subheading “The legends of Joseph of Arimathea” such “stories” as that Joseph “was Mary’s uncle, and thus Jesus’ great-uncle” and that “[h]e was a merchant who visited England…”.
Mind you, it’s not that a text should be disqualified from counting as an analysis because it endorses as true claims that are elsewhere reported to be “legendary.” However, we would at least expect proper analyses to acknowledge the tendentious nature of the endorsement. Perhaps it would not be out-of-line to ask that the author spend a little energy arguing in favor of such disputed claims.
All such expectations and hopes are frustrated in the present case. Frisk merely lays it down that the extra-biblical, legendary material in question in simply part of what “we know” about Joseph of Arimathea. This is a slipshod “analysis” even by non-scholarly, journalistic standards.
Another problem in the same vicinity is that Frisk does not scruple to disclose many of her sources. Sometimes, the oversight is egregious. For instance, she writes that “it is believed that Yeshua travelled with Joseph.”
Even Wikipedia, which is often (and not necessarily unjustifiably) criticized for its haphazard editing standards, would likely see a bare assertion such as "it is believed" decorated by a little “by whom?” in red, superscripted letters.
It is highly relevant whether such a declaration is, for example, made by a recognized expert in some pertinent field or is copiously and relevantly evidenced, regardless of who made it. Without any evidence, most readers will have no idea why someone should claim that “Yeshua travelled with Joseph,” and without any citations, readers have no idea even where to look for evidence if they would like some.
In fact, the few source-attributions that Frisk does give leave something to be desired. Albert Henry Ross’s pseudonymous Who Moved the Stone?, whatever interest it may have, can certainly not pretend to represent the state-of-the-art of “historical Jesus” scholarship.
Or again, at the end of her diatribe Frisk quotes from another columnist, one Palash Ghosh, who wrote about the so-called “Roza Bal” theory, which holds that Jesus didn’t really die and resurrect in Palestine, but is instead buried in the Asian province of Kashmir. Frisk reproduces the risible insinuation that the New Testament’s talk of Jesus’s ascension to heaven “really” designates his having repaired to Asia, since “Kashmir is known as ‘heaven on earth.’”
It is difficult to take this sort of thing seriously. If one consults the original article, one discovers that Ghosh, to his credit, admits that the stories about Jesus’s alleged, Kashmiri comings and goings have “no concrete incontrovertible evidence to validate” them. So much for that.
It also should not be too much to ask for an analysis to avoid employing ambiguous terms. Yet we find Frisk writing: “Yeshua was known as a Nazarene.” She then begins to speak about “the Nazarene laws,” even referring us to the Old Testament book of Numbers.
Careful readers will note, however, that Numbers chapter six discusses regulations pertaining to Nazarite vows. As it is applied to Jesus, the word “Nazarene” designates the fact that he hailed from the town of Nazareth. “Nazarite,” on the other hand, names a male who had sworn off wine, cutting his hair and touching corpses.
Presumably, Frisk is depending upon the phonetic similarity of the two words to establish the truth of her belief that Jesus was a Nazarite. She will have to do better than this, however.
It is arguable that John the Baptist had been dedicated according to the Nazarite vows while in utero. John’s father Zechariah had been told by an angel: “Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall name him John. …He will drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb, and he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God.”
Jesus explicitly contrasts himself with John. “John came neither eating nor drinking, and they said, ‘He is possessed by a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they said, ‘Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is vindicated by her works.”
Based upon this (admittedly meager sampling of) evidence – which is, however, more than Frisk gives – I conclude that Jesus probably was not a Nazarite. I could be wrong, of course. But it would take a lot more than what Frisk has amassed to demonstrate it.
Finally, it seems odd for an “analysis” to be shot-through with wild speculations. But this is practically Frisk’s calling card.
Leaving aside the irrelevancies cataloged in the opening paragraphs, Frisk volunteers that she has “a strong suspicion that [Joseph of Arimathea] was the father of Yeshua and not his uncle.” Since, for all she has shown, this is pure speculation riding on the back of a legend, it’s worthless from the standpoint of analysis.
Or consider a more involved example. Frisk writes: “When Yeshua said that he was thirsty, he was given a sponge which was lifted to his mouth to drink. …What was in the sponge? We are told vinegar and hysop [sic]. Hysop [sic] is an expectorant used to clear mucus from the lungs. It is also a cough reliever and an antiseptic and stimulates the central nervous system. Vinegar is used to lower blood pressure, is an antiseptic and can also be used as a pain killer. …Yeshua was not dead. The mixture he had been given to drink lowered his blood pressure to the point where his heart was bearly [sic] beating and he was put into a deep unconscious state which gave the appearance of him being dead.”
Firstly, it is not altogether clear who administered the vinegar/wine mixtures. This version of the “swoon theory” falters immediately if the “they” or “he” who administered the drink were in league with the Jews or Romans.
To be sure, some commentators report that “[t]he women of Jerusalem had prepared a painkilling potion of drugged wine for condemned men to drink…”. So far so good. However, “…Jesus, committed to the full agony of the cross, [initially] refuses it.”
Even later, when he does accept the vinegar-soaked “sponge,” it’s not clear that Frisk’s interpretation is adequate. “This offer of a wine-soaked sponge may have been an act of mercy, because the wine could act as a painkiller. Perhaps the man thinks Jesus is delirious from pain. But sour wine was usually a remedy for thirst, and it many have been an attempt to revive him to perpetuate his suffering.”
Secondly, the he-faked-his-death theorists cannot suitably account for the disciples' belief in Jesus’s resurrection. After all, even supposing that Frisk is correct and that “Yeshua …was treated by two highly trained physicians [she means Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus],” Jesus’s devastated and worn appearance would hardly have inspired a belief in his divinity.
To put it slightly differently, even if Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus had succeeded in saving Jesus’s life – on the unlikely hypothesis that Jesus survived the crucifixion – he still would have looked like a man who had just been beaten half to death and nailed to a cross. Anyone who observed him would have been more likely to pity than worship him.
But even this depends on the truth of the hypothesis that an unassuming, thirty-something year-old Palestinian male could have fooled professional Roman soldiers into believing that he had died on the cross, when he was actually still alive. Frisk gives short shrift to this problem. She does not really argue for her view at all.
She basically provides a description of the medicinal properties of a couple of herbs that Jesus may have briefly sucked from a sponge. She exaggerates the effects. Frisk wishes us to believe that Jesus “cleared his lungs” from a single lick of hyssop and from a few drops of vinegar reduced his blood pressure to the point where his heartbeat would have been undetectable.
Anyone with even a cursory familiarity of herbal remedies will probably find Frisk’s flight of fancy fairly amusing. Vinegar (other translations say wine) has many amazing and salubrious properties. I drink a diluted mixture to relieve sore throat symptoms. It is quite true that it is possibly useful as a natural means of counteracting high blood pressure.
The idea that the vinegar was administered as part of a concerted effort to assist Jesus in “faking” death on the cross strains credulity. Are we supposed to believe that this was some sort of super-strength, “pharmaceutical-grade” vinegar? I probably drink more vinegar at one time than Jesus could have managed to suck from a sponge while asphyxiating to death on the cross and I have never once fallen to the floor from dangerously low blood pressure.
Suppose that the explanation is supposed to be that Jesus, in his weakened state, was more susceptible to the effects of the vinegar. But Frisk is mum on why a person who is so thoroughly weakened from scourging and carrying his cross to his execution site should be highly susceptible to the mild effects of vinegar, but strong enough to carry out an operation of “faking” his death.
We cannot forget that the crucifixion culminated when Jesus was stabbed through the heart with a Roman spear. I was in rough shape for a week after I went through hernia surgery. To hear Frisk tell it, Jesus was tortured for hours and run through with a spear, but after a few days of rest, he was right as rain!
Even if Frisk’s speculations do not strike other readers as prima facie absurd, we are still left with the fact that she simply has not supplied arguments or evidence sufficient to support the weight of her contentions.
Her proffered “analysis” is nothing of the kind. She makes free use of legendary material without defending (or even acknowledging) her use of it. She does not scrupulously cite or even evidence her many controversial claims. At intervals, she employs ambiguous language. And her speculations, which in smaller quantities might suffice to bar her piece from being “analytic,” are present in such measure as to persuade this reader that her main aim must surely have been to propound her own idiosyncratic version of the shopworn “swoon theory.”
A more honest title would have been: “Jesus Faked His Death: A Series of Groundless Conjectures Inspired by the Crucifixion.”
 Katherine Frisk, “Who Moved The Stone? A Critical Analysis of the Crucifixion,” Veterans Today, Dec. 1, 2015, <http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/12/01/who-moved-the-stone/>.
 It’s not entirely clear to me what “critical analysis” is meant to convey, in this context. “Critical,” “criticism” and the like can of course involve “analysis” of sorts, often pertaining to dramatic or literary works. It probably isn’t charitable of me to assign that meaning, here. Otherwise the Frisk’s subtitle expresses something redundant such as “An Analytic Analysis of the Crucifixion.” Maybe she’s trying too hard to sound studious.
On the other hand, “critical” can describe a person who is “inclined to find fault or to judge with severity, often too readily.” Despite her claim to have “[m]any …books researching all things Christian” until her “bookshelves were bursting at the seams,” it may be that Frisk falls into the category of a person who is too ready to find fault with Christianity. Such is a matter for psychology. I forbear from making any further guesses along these lines.
I am curious to know, however, with what reading materials did Frisk stuff her shelves? She specifies only one title: Who Moved the Stone? I presume that this refers to the work (London: Faber and Faber; New York: Century Co.; 1930) by “Frank Morison,” which was the pseudonym of one Albert Henry Ross. More on this in the text body.
 If we proceed on the assumption that Frisk’s subtitle is seriously intended, one might find it striking that roughly one-quarter of the article is manifestly irrelevant to the reported main topic. The first nine or so paragraphs have nothing whatever to do with the crucifixion.
Frisk starts off speaking about “proving life after death.” She makes the multiply problematic claim that “[y]ou cannot prove life after death to anybody — the same way you cannot show them a radio wave,” and then promptly discontinues that line of inquiry.
Just for the sake of completeness, I say that her claim is “multiply problematic” for the following reasons. It is arguable that “proof” – in the sense of something like an “indubitable demonstration” – at best only applies to logic and mathematics. Other spheres of inquiry lack either incontestable axioms or uncontroversial transformation rules, or both. However, this implies that most spheres of inquiry will not allow knowledge seekers to derive “theorems.” This is simply to say that most disciplines proceed through adductive or inductive methods and arrive at conclusions that that can only be said to be true with such-as-so probability. What Frisk should talk about instead of “proof,” then, is evidence. This is her first problem.
Her second problem is that “you cannot provide evidence of life after death” is not obviously true. We have to know more about what standards of evidence will be in play, what specific pieces of evidence are to be considered, and so on.
A third problem is that Frisk’s claim that “you cannot show [somebody] a radio wave” also seems contentious. What is the operative meaning of “show,” for instance? Would it count as “showing” if we were to configure a radio receiver or radio telescope to produce some sort of visual indication of the presence of radio waves? She has hardly ruled it out. And this is just her opening sentence.
She proceeds to ramble on about crickets, Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducees, and the Shroud of Turin – all without the least expression of how these matters are relevant to an “analysis of the Crucifixion.” Perhaps these matters could be shown to be relevant. But Frisk does not exert any effort to show this. This is not the sort of thing would expect of an analysis.
 In an important sense, journalism and academic writing are quite different. (By “academic writing,” I mean writing that is fitting for an “academic context.” A research paper would count, for instance – provided that it meets all requirements for its particular course. Of course, the level of study is pertinent. A paper turned in for a high school physics class will presumably be less-detailed than a research paper submitted in a graduate-level physics course. Another sort of academic writing is that which is prepared for publication in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.)
One obvious difference is that the attention to detail is going to be greater in (acceptable) academic writing. It is questionable, therefore, whether a piece of journalism could ever count as an “analysis” properly so-called. But let this pass.
 “Joseph of Arimathea,” BBC, n.d. [ca. 2014?], <http://www.bbc.co.uk/thepassion/articles/joseph_of_arimathea.shtml>.
 Frisk elsewhere claims that Jesus’s “childhood had been spent in Egypt, studying in the great schools in Alexandria…”. Again, what her source is for this claim is anybody’s guess, because she does not say. It is noteworthy, though, that the Babylonian Talmud does associate Jesus with Alexandria – in the same passage wherein the Talmudic authors accuse Jesus of “worshiping” a “brick.” The Talmudic hostility towards Jesus, as well as the late dating (3rd-5th-centuries, A.D., compared with the 1st-century A.D. Gospels) of the Talmudic corpus, renders the Talmudic witness of dubious value in terms of investigating the Jesus of history.
In the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, folio 107b, we read: “What of R. Joshua b. Perahjah? — When King Jannai slew our Rabbis, R. Joshua b. Perahjah (and Jesus) fled to Alexandria of Egypt. On the resumption of peace, Simeon b. Shetach sent to him: ‘From me, (Jerusalem) the holy city, to thee, Alexandria of Egypt (my sister). My husband dwelleth within thee and I am desolate.’ He arose, went, and found himself in a certain inn, where great honour was shewn him. ‘How beautiful is this Acsania!’ (The word denotes both inn and innkeeper. R. Joshua used it in the first sense; the answer assumes the second to be meant.) Thereupon (Jesus) observed, ‘Rabbi, her eyes are narrow.’ ‘Wretch,’ he rebuked him, ‘dost thou thus engage thyself.’ He sounded four hundred trumpets and excommunicated him. He (Jesus) came before him many times pleading, ‘Receive me!’ But he would pay no heed to him. One day he (R. Joshua) was reciting the Shema’, when Jesus came before him. He intended to receive him and made a sign to him. He (Jesus) thinking that it was to repel him, went, put up a brick, and worshipped it. ‘Repent,’ said he (R. Joshua) to him. He replied, ‘I have thus learned from thee: He who sins and causes others to sin is not afforded the means of repentance.’ And a Master has said, ‘Jesus the Nazarene practised magic and led Israel astray.’” This passage is archived online as “Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin Folio 107b,” Come and Hear, <http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_107.html>. Cf. Robert E. van Voorst, “Jesus Tradition in Classical and Jewish Writings,” Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter, eds., Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, vol. 1, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2011, p. 2,174; archived online at <https://books.google.com/books?id=LuKMmVu0tpMC&pg=PA2174>.
 Apparently, this fable was originated by the Jewish agent Nikolai Aleksandrovič Notovič, who first reported it as the “Life of Saint Issa” in his La vie inconnue de Jésus-Christ (“The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ”), Paris: P. Ollendorff, 1894.
 Palash Ghosh, “Jesus Christ: Was the Savior Buried in Kashmir, India?” International Business Times, Dec. 24 2013, <http://www.ibtimes.com/jesus-christ-was-savior-buried-kashmir-india-1519716>.
 Ibid. It is difficult to surmise from this whether Ghosh thinks that there is concrete evidence, it’s just not “incontrovertible,” or whether he is saying that the available evidence is neither concrete nor incontrovertible, or something else. Is there any evidence at all? What is it?
 “Nazarene,” Angus Stevenson and Maurice Waite, eds., Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2011, p. 956; archived online at <https://books.google.com/books?id=4XycAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA956>.
 George A. Barton and Ludwig Blau, “Nazarite,” Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906 ed., <http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11395-nazarite>. Besides the difference in the two words that has just been noted, it may be useful to observe that “Nazarene” also designated “Ebionites,” or “member[s] of a group of Jews who (during the early history of the Christian Church) accepted Jesus as the Messiah; they accepted the Gospel According to Matthew but rejected the Epistles of St. Paul and continued to follow Jewish law and celebrate Jewish holidays; they were later declared heretic[s] by the Church of Rome” – due to the fact that, as a rule, they rejected the Jesus’s divinity. This is according to “Nazarene,” WordNet Search - 3.1, Princeton Univ., <http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=Nazarene&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=>. “Nazarene” was also sometimes “an early name for any Christian,” ibid.
 Later she employs the word “Nazarite,” asserting – again without evidence – that “Lazarus had completed a …Nazarite ceremony only a week prior to the arrest of Yeshua…”.
 The Holy Bible, The Gospel According to Luke, chapter 1, verses 13-17, New American Bible, Revised Ed. (NABRE).
 The Holy Bible, The Gospel According to Matthew, chapter 11, verses 18-19, NABRE. Cf. David L. Jeffrey, A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature, Grand Rapids, Mich.: William. B. Eerdmans Publ., 1992, p. 543; archived online at <https://books.google.com/books?id=zD6xVr1CizIC&pg=PA543>. It is arguable that Jesus’s raising from the dead Jairus’s daughter, the widow’s son and Lazarus (Matthew 9:25; Luke 7:13ff; and John 11:43ff) would have placed him in danger of breaking his oath to refrain from dealing with the dead – had He made such an oath.
 Matthew 27:33-34 and 46-48: “And when they came to a place called Golgotha (which means Place of the Skull), they gave Jesus wine to drink mixed with gall. But when he had tasted it, he refused to drink. ...And about three o’clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’ which means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ Some of the bystanders who heard it said, ‘This one is calling for Elijah.’ Immediately one of them ran to get a sponge; he soaked it in wine, and putting it on a reed, gave it to him to drink.”
Mark 15:22-23 and 34-37: “They brought him to the place of Golgotha (which is translated Place of the Skull). They gave him wine drugged with myrrh, but he did not take it. ...And at three o’clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?’ which is translated, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ Some of the bystanders who heard it said, ‘Look, he is calling Elijah.’ One of them ran, soaked a sponge with wine, put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink, saying, ‘Wait, let us see if Elijah comes to take him down.’ Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last.”
Luke 23:33-38: “When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him and the criminals there, one on his right, the other on his left. [Then Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.’] They divided his garments by casting lots. The people stood by and watched; the rulers, meanwhile, sneered at him and said, ‘He saved others, let him save himself if he is the chosen one, the Messiah of God.’ Even the soldiers jeered at him. As they approached to offer him wine they called out, ‘If you are King of the Jews, save yourself.’ Above him there was an inscription that read, ‘This is the King of the Jews.’“
John 19:16b-30: “So they took Jesus, and carrying the cross himself he went out to what is called the Place of the Skull, in Hebrew, Golgotha. There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus in the middle. Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, ‘Jesus the Nazorean, the King of the Jews.’ Now many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, ‘Do not write The King of the Jews, but that he said, I am the King of the Jews.’ Pilate answered, ‘What I have written, I have written.’ When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four shares, a share for each soldier. They also took his tunic, but the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top down. So they said to one another, ‘Let’s not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it will be, in order that the passage of scripture might be fulfilled [that says]: ‘They divided my garments among them, and for my vesture they cast lots.’ This is what the soldiers did. Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold, your son.’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother.’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. After this, aware that everything was now finished, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, ‘I thirst.’ There was a vessel filled with common wine. So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop and put it up to his mouth. When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, ‘It is finished.’ And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.”
 The closely related “disciples-stole-the-body” canard was an early competitor to the “swoon theory,” and one which the Gospels attribute to the Jews. “While they were going, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had happened. They assembled with the elders and took counsel; then they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, telling them, 'You are to say, His disciples came by night and stole him while we were asleep. And if this gets to the ears of the governor, we will satisfy [him] and keep you out of trouble.' The soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has circulated among the Jews to the present [day].” Matthew 28:11-15.
 Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 2nd ed., Downer’s Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2014, p. 121; archived online at <https://books.google.com/books?id=5N3fAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA121>.
 See again Matthew 26:29.
 Keener, op. cit., p. 122. Italics added.
 Again, according to Matthew and Mark, Jesus refused to drink when a vinegar preparation was originally offered to him. When he finally does take some, it was administered on a “sponge.” It’s not like he took a hearty swig from some decanter. It seems reasonable to suppose that he would only have managed to extract a small amount.
 I leave aside Frisk’s additional assertion that “[a] person who is dead and whose heart has stopped beating will not bleed if cut or stabbed with a sharp object.” This is simply untutored speculation. What kind of “cut” or “stabbing” is in view? There is a difference, for instance, between a superficial cut and having one’s thoracic cavity penetrated with a war spear. From the fact (if it is a fact) that bleeding does not typically occur in cases of superficial cuts to a fresh corpse, it hardly follows that bleeding will not occur even in cases where one is stabbed through the heart. Serious work has been done on the question of Jesus’s injuries. (See, e.g., William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 255, no. 11, Mar., 1986, pp. 1,455-1,463 and Frederick T. Zugibe, The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry, New York: M. Evans and Co., 2005. Edwards, for instance, who is credited as a medical doctor, expressed no disquiet about the Biblical report of “blood and water,” and said at one point that “the setting of the scourging and crucifixion, with associated hypovolemia, hypoxemia” might have involved “an altered coagulated state,” op. cit., p. 1,463.) Frisk evinces absolutely no awareness of any of it and therefore can hardly be said to have dealt responsibly with the subject.
 Or possibly, the subtitle could have been “And the Miraculous Properties of First-Century Palestinian Vinegar.”