---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mentioned earlier (Talpiot Tomb Various) Stephen Pfann's new reading of the "Mariamenou Mara" ossuary. He has published his full reading in a very clear, eight page illustrated PDF:Mary Magdalene is Now Missing:A Corrected Reading of Rahmani Ossuary 701By Stephen J. Pfann, Ph.D..
I have to admit that to my untrained eye, the case is pretty convincing that we should, all along, have been reading this as MARIAME KAI MARA (Mariame and Mara). The thing that is particularly helpful in Pfann's piece is his illustrations of parallels to the way KAI is written here. The article is a model of clarity. But I should stress that I am no expert at all in reading inscriptions, so I am looking forward to hearing the learned reactions of other experts to this interesting new
proposal.
The only thing that puzzles me a little is the title of the piece, "Mary Magdalene is now missing", in that it might be said that Mary Magdalene was never there in the first place, or at least that the case for her identification, even on the previous reading, was weak, as Pfann goes on to note in p. 2 of the current piece. In so far as the new reading provides us with a Mary and a Martha, we have one additional NT related name in the tomb (Luke 10.38-42; John 11-12). As Pfann points out, these are common names ("Yet Another Mary and Martha?", p. 6), so it is still a long way from Simcha Jacobovici's hoped for "Ringo", but the new reading does not detract from a modified case that could be mounted on the basis of a Mary and a Martha, all the more so in that the Acts of Philip, on which the programme makers are keen, assumes that Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany are the same person (See Mariamne, Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany). I should make clear that I would not want to make such a case, but I point it out for the sake of fairness
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Mark. In fact, in reaction to Pfann's reading, I posted on Ben Witherington's March 12 blog* that I half expected Tabor to present a Mary Magdalene = Mary of Bethany argument based on the Bovon's interpretation of the Acts of Philip. It would be a tough argument to make since it would have to be based primarily on a record that documents a talking leopard and since (as I understand it) it would have to overcome the geographical difficulties of the now solitary Mary coming from both Magdala and Bethany. Not to mention a brand new ad hoc argument to explain why Mary of Bethany's inscription was written in Greek. On the other hand, the following statements from Tabor yesterday** suggest that he may very well attempt to make it or some other argument equally difficult to make:
Or alternatively, IF we have two names, the proverbial “Mary and Martha,” then every N.T. reader knows these were two of the most intimate sisters in Jesus’ life–indeed, some have suggested that “Mary,” who sat as his feet and was commended by him in Luke, did in fact become his companion. This is the home that Jesus stayed in the last week of his life. This family was the closest to him of any he had in Jerusalem. So ironically, “Mary & Martha” just pushes things all the more toward a “Jesus family tomb.” My own view is that the ossuary of the N.T. “Mary and Martha” has already been found on the Mt. of Olives, where they live. I write of this in my book, The Jesus Dynasty, p. 236.
Among Tabor’s three categories of intellectual disposition on the tomb evidence, the above statements suggest he is in the category that’s pretty sold on this being the “Jesus Family Tomb.”
Accordingly, even if Tabor is wrong about one of his pivotal arguments (that these are the bones of the Honourable Lady Lord Mary) – he doesn’t think he is, but that’s of no real consequence (“It’s just a flesh wound!”) – and it turns out instead that they are the bones of a certain Mary and Martha, then, happily enough, there just so happens to be a Mary and Martha in Jesus’ life. It clearly follows that since this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, these must be the bones of these two sisters, Mary and Martha of Bethany. Of course there’s the small hurdle of his book putting him on record that Mary and Martha’s bones are elsewhere, but the facts in that book are sufficiently flexible, and in the name of truth, he’s already abandoned views expressed in that book for the ultimate good of getting Jesus’ bones in that tomb. After all, his bones are out there somewhere, and this tomb is as good as any and better than most.
If I have mischaracterized Tabor’s “intellectual disposition” here, then why does he even suggest that “Mary & Martha just pushes things all the more toward a Jesus family tomb” if he doesn’t believe that those are the bones of Mary and Martha of Bethany? How can Tabor assert that the Mary & Martha inscription on the Talpiot ossuary in question supports anything about the Jesus family tomb if the bones of Mary and Martha are in the Mt. of Olives tomb, as Tabor believes? Are all his scholarly conclusions so disposable that he is willing to discard any one of them just to get Jesus’ bones in the Talpiot tomb? Ironically enough, he tells us (for all we know, with a straight face), “Some have suggested that Mary [of Bethany] … did in fact become his companion.” Now for the time being, of course, Tabor has Jesus firmly bound in holy wedlock to Mary Magdalene. But if it should turn out that maintaining this position does not reflect favorably on his Jesus Tomb theory, then it is perfectly reasonable, according to Tabor’s “First Principle,” to conclude that Jesus was married to Mary of Bethany. And what’s more, the ossuary previously belonging to Mary Magdalene now belongs to Mary and Martha of Bethany. All of these have now somehow become probable. Otherwise, how does the Mary & Martha inscription magically “push things all the more toward a Jesus family tomb”?
What is Tabor’s “First Principle”? It is "no big mystery.” From his association with the irresponsible claims in the documentary and his writings in the last two weeks, it seems plain for all to see: Any historical probability (e.g., Jesus of Nazareth was not married, Jesus of Nazareth did not have a son, a Jesus the Messiah ossuary would have a real inscription instead of graffiti, the ossuaries would have toponymic markers, the secret of Jesus’ bones would be exposed, etc.) or any of his own previous scholarly conclusions (e.g., the identity of Jesus’ father or the identity of Jesus' wife or identity of the bones in the Mariamene/Mara box) is less probable than his belief that the Talpiot tomb held the bones of Jesus of Nazareth.
I am not advancing an ad homimem argument here against Tabor’s Jesus Tomb theory. His arguments stand or fall on their own merit. I am merely attempting to understand and explain why he has persistently shown himself willing to embrace so enthusiastically (at times dogmatically and at times even desperately) arguments which have so little merit. And of course I’m attempting to put him in one of the three categories of presuppositions he so smugly posted on his Jesus Dynasty web site.
I realize, that as a colleague of Tabor, it would not be appropriate for Mark to agree with my characterization of his "intellectual disposition," I invite him or anyone else to point out any error in my facts or my logic. I am willing to stand corrected.
I posted the substance of this post as a comment on Mark Goodacre's blog, and Tabor has replied that he wrote the paragraph quoted above with "tongue in cheek." OK, but it had that "familiar ring" to it. Several people I've talked to thought he was serious too. I'm glad to have his word that he wasn't.
* http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/03/stephen-pfann-rules-out-mary-magdalene.html
** http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/
FINAL NOTE (hopefully): Today, Tabor has revised his original remarks (revision below). I'm not sure what the qualifier "up to this point" is intended to convey. Perhaps that is just "tongue in cheek" as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final note: It is interesting that if Pfann were right, and I am not yet confinced thereof, the reading: Mariame and/also Mara can mean in common Greek, even today: Mariame also [know as] Mara [honorable lady], and Mariame is a quite early and common name for Mary Magdalene. Or alternatively, IF we have two names, the proverbial “Mary and Martha,” then every N.T. reader knows these were two of the most intimate sisters in Jesus’ life–indeed, some have suggested that “Mary,” who sat as his feet and was commended by him in Luke, did in fact become his companion. Up to this point my own view, with Bagatti and others, is that an ossuary that well might refer to the N.T. “Mary and Martha,” ( Dominus Flevit #27/burial #70), with clearer indications of two individuals (according to Milik’s reading) rather than two names for one individual, has already been found on the Mt. of Olives, near Bethany where they lived, along with Shimon bar Yonah, Lazarus, and a few others, see The Jesus Dynasty, p. 235-236 and Finegan, The Archaeology of the New Testament, pp. 368. By the way, this Mt. of Olives ossuary has the names repeated twice, one the cover of the lid and on the long side or face, with Miriam one time and Maria the second time, all Aramaic. Tomb 70 is in a little complex off by itself, separated slightly from the main necropolis complex. Shimon bar Yonah was in tomb 79.
No comments:
Post a Comment