While reading about Tzaferis' discovery of a crucified man in northern Jerusalem in 1968 two other archaeologists, Joseph Zias and Eliezer Sekeles, found many flaws with the conclusions that Tzaferis had come to while examining his evidence. They went on to write a reappraisal of the findings from the excavation. The team was allowed to reopen the investigation into how the crucifixion actually took place. In doing so, they were able to find many details that were missed by the medical team who originally examined the remains, which is attributed to the limited amount of time they had to complete the original examination.
             The thesis of the article is very clear and to the point. Zias and Sekeles clearly state that the original examination of the archaeological evidence was wrong and they give strong points to back up their argument. Their ability to give valid examples of where Tzaferis went wrong is what makes their thesis so strong. In their examination of the forearms, they concluded that the deceased was in fact tied, not nailed, to the beam but rather tied to it instead. They back up this claim by giving sources which show evidence of this practice in ancient Egypt where crucifixion is believed to have originated. Another important fact they discuss is the issue of nailing the feet to the beam. By examining the ankle bones they determined that the feet were actually nailed separately to the sides of the wood, not together as it was once believed.
             These two important facts along with the others included in the article give it a strong persuasion power. The information is laid out in a way that makes the reader take the side of the authors. The citing of specific sources gives their argument a credibility that is hard to argue with. Their opinions never sway from side to side which is an important element in their believability. Nothing in this article jumps out as being inadequate or difficult to understand. The author...