Mark Goodacre
My paper gathers together my thinking about Talpiot Tombs A and B as they have emerged here on the NT Blog over the last five years. The primary focus is the more recent claims about Talpiot Tomb B (Is it is fish? Is it a vase? Is it a stick man with seaweed wrapped around his head? Are those scales of a fish or patterns on a vessel? Are those fins or handles?) but there is some discussion also of Talpiot Tomb A, and I am afraid that I could not resist the temptation to bring out John, Paul, George, Alan, Martin and Ziggy for a reunion concert.
Renewed thanks to Ralph Hawkins for the invitation to speak last month at SECSOR, to Mark Elliott for inviting us to publish our papers on Bible and Interpretation, and to James Tabor and Christopher Rollston for stimulating exchanges.
Mark, Our communication via Bible and Interpretation website regarding the Talpiot tomb was prematurely ended by the web administrator. I responded to your last comment but it was not posted because the administrator felt it was better to allow the debate to end. Your last comment was "Does anything in your comment, Susan, correspond to anything I actually say?" My response is that I feel exactly the same way. You never addressed my issue either. Will you at some point in time?
ReplyDeleteHi Susan. Thanks for your comment. Let me illustrate. You say, "Mark is willing to proclaim for all time that the historic Jesus was unmarried" but this is not something I have ever said, let alone proclaimed for all time. You also ask about my "faith in the historicity of the Gospels" which also suggests a lack of familiarity with my scholarship. Do you see what I am getting at?
ReplyDeleteNo because it is the basis of your argument; "Contamination of non-matches and contradictions". What else could it mean except contradictions to Gospels? Your argument is that since the Gospels do not say that Jesus was married and, therefore, does not have a child, then this could NOT be the tomb of the family of Jesus. Wouldn't that be exhibiting faith in the historicity of the Gospels? If there is a nuanced middle ground, it escapes me. So, no, I do not see what you are getting at.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Susan. OK, let's break it down so that we can see where the misunderstandings lie:
ReplyDeleteNo because it is the basis of your argument; "Contamination of non-matches and contradictions". What else could it mean except contradictions to Gospels?
Let's be clear: Jacobovici's and Tabor's case is based on correlation between the tomb names and the names in early Christian texts. This is their claim, not mine. It is the basis for their identification of the tomb. What I am pointing out by way of critique is that the correlation is not as strong as they claim. In other words, the contradictions / non-matches matter because they compromise the basis of Jacobovici's and Tabor's case.
Your argument is that since the Gospels do not say that Jesus was married and, therefore, does not have a child, then this could NOT be the tomb of the family of Jesus.
No, the point is that Jacobovici's and Tabor's case is based on the remarkable correlation between the names in the tomb and the names in early Christian texts. Under such circumstances, it is important to point out that there is no correlation at this point. This has nothing whatsoever to do with questions about the general plausibility of Jesus' marriage to anyone, and this is not any part of my critique.
Wouldn't that be exhibiting faith in the historicity of the Gospels?
No, it's a question about how one tests theories. One has to take the case seriously, try to understand it, and then answer it on its own terms in line with one's knowledge of the history.
Sorry to be so dense but that was not helpful at all. Can we just leave T & J out of it? If they had not pointed out that Hippolytus used the form of Mary that matches the ossuary it would still be true. Perhaps someone else would have noticed. Eventually it would have surfaced. Would you prefer it was kept a secret?
ReplyDeleteYour next point is that there "is no correlation at this point" to early Christian texts. This makes no sense. It is the correlations that alerted scholars to the possibility of this being the tomb of the family of Jesus in the first place!
I agree that one has to take this case seriously and answer with knowledge of history. But if every answer is contingent on a previous conclusion, then how can any new information be acquired? Sometimes new information causes a re-evaluation (at least in secular history).
Lastly, the name correlations are remarkable. If you could give an example of just one name correlation that is not remarkable then maybe I could better understand your reasoning.
Thanks, Susan. Sorry that it was unhelpful. No, we can't leave Tabor and Jacobovici out of it -- their case is what is under discussion. My article is written as a response to their case.
ReplyDeleteHippolytus is writing in the third century, up to two centuries after Jesus' death. The idea that he uniquely preserved a special spelling of Mary's name is the kind of claim that makes Tabor's and Jacobovici's case so problematic. If you are looking for impressive correlations, scanning for particular spellings in any text from the first few centuries of Christianity is a problem. Moreover, even if it were a unique spelling for Mary Mags witnessed in the first century, there's still the question of whether the ossuary reads that (cf. Pfann's reading). And there is the larger question of whether one should expect to find Mary Magdalene in a Jesus tomb. But all this is stuff I have covered in my article.
Without wanting to sound rude, Susan, a part of the problem is that you don't seem to read what I actually say. There is another case in point here. For example, I point out that there is no correlation at this point, the question of Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene. You respond, "This makes no sense. It is the correlations that alerted scholars to the possibility of this being the tomb of the family of Jesus in the first place!" One cannot answer the specific point with a general, broadbrush appeal like this. Of course their case is based on correlations -- that's the very issue we are discussing -- but what I am drawing attention to is the lack of correlation on this specific point. Do you see what I mean? In order to construct a response, it is essential to make sure you understand and fairly represent what your opponent is saying. At *that* point, one can have a meaningful debate.
It is not their case! Tabor and Jacobovici did not discover this tomb. They did not translate Refutation of all Heresies. They did not create patina. Is "scholarship" the ability to build a firewall around each piece of evidence so that it is evaluated without regard to circumstance? It is extremely remarkable that a third century historian would preserve a UNIQUE spelling of Mary Magdelene. It is so remarkable that a few scholars took note. Also, surely you have heard of the alternative view that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene. This is not just because of Dan Brown. This theory was around before he wrote his book. There are many reasons modern historians suggest he was married. From my experience of Jewish culture, it is impossible to imagine an unmarried teacher of Torah. The correlations are specifically compelling. How you can say these similarities are broadbrush and unremarkable blows my mind! It just seems to me to be a case of institutional bias or cognitive dissonance.
ReplyDeleteThe James (brother of Jesus) ossuary sat in this same tomb for 2,000 years. This cannot be denied. The scientific facts will eventually trump all the firewalls built around the individual pieces of evidence. Science will win in the end. Thank you for your time attempting to explain your position. I know you are a busy guy.
Thanks, Susan. If we can't agree even on the basis for the discussion, i.e. that we are discussing Tabor's and Jacobovici's case, then we really can't get anywhere. My piece is a critique of their case, explicitly so.
ReplyDeleteBut your comment again shows, I am afraid, that you don't read carefully what I am saying, and this makes it practically impossible to have a sensible conversation. So you say, for example, "How you can say these similarities are broadbrush and unremarkable blows my mind!" But what I had pointed out was that your answer to my specific point was broadbrush. The problem is that there is simply no reasonable alternative to reading what your discussion partner is actually saying. Otherwise, it's like trying to play chess using the rules of rugby.
OK, I went back and re-read your post and I do see where I misunderstood. When you say "one" you mean "me". Maybe my lack of comprehension stems from not knowing many people who communicate using the King's English. I have been investigating the form of Mary(Mariamne)and found that it was a popular name with the elite of Judea and Galilee. I was unable to find if it was a popular form in Samaria. IMO, migdahl is the ivory tower or the tower of the tooth. One won't agree but this tower is for sky burials. Eurocentrists who give Jesus blond hair have no problem visualizing Mary with a white neck. The tower is not as much concerned with the neck as the throat. The tower of teeth that devour the deceased and send the remains to the belly of the earth serpent to be used as sustenance for the next cycle of birth. This same serpent exists in every female because we have the ability to reproduce. Perhaps this is why Mariamne appears in the diminutive; she is a smaller version of the earth serpent. In light of this, Hippolytus is a more credible source not less. He says she was a Naassene and was exorcised of 7 demons. I have an idea of what these demons may be but it is a long explanation.
ReplyDeleteAccording to my investigation, the tower of the tooth was reserved for burial of the elite. Perhaps this is the source of the "Ivory Tower" euphemism. There are two other points I would like to mention and if one wants more information, I would be glad to give it. (1)The "hairdresser" reference in the Talmud is alluding to the practice of tying a hair or string to a holy tree. (2)In the Ethiopian church, "Gahdla" is a hagiography. Thank you for your patience.
Thanks, Susan. Your comment about the "king's English" made me smile. I am writing about Mary Magdalene myself at the moment and so it's good to reflect a bit on these issues. Best wishes, Mark
ReplyDeleteI am looking forward to it.
ReplyDeletehttp://falashaleott.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteI wrote a post to explain more fully the earth serpent just to give an alternative viewpoint. It is called "The Black Madonna".