Chris Weimer

I've been in personal contact with Dr. Tabor, and I assure you that your statements about him are strawmen.

Chris Weimer

You're very, very right. I missed the crucial word if. Apologies.

lee_merrill

How then is my statement false? "They certainly were giving the impression that this book was, well, gospel, in the area of identifying Mary Magdalene."

This is I conclude--shoddy scholarship, I'm sorry, but it is, there are various major points that would be flat out wrong.

The gospel is talking about Philip's sister! The 3rd-century Coptic translation that we have only one copy of...

And the Hippolytus quote was not talking about the Magdalene (Tabor says it is). It is not even the same special name in question.

Let's see, then there is "The claim is made in the debate follow up show that Oded Golan said that somewhere around 1980 he bought the James ossuary. This is false. Golan has consistently maintained that he bought this ossuary before the Israeli law changed in 1978. In fact he claims to have bought it in the mid-70s and at the trial that continues in Jerusalem a 1970s era picture of him with the inscribed James ossuary was produced. The reason that the date is important is because after 1978 all such important artifacts found in Israel belong to the state of Israel. They cannot belong to a private collector like Oded Golan. For the reader wanting to see proof positive of this, see p. 84 of the Brother of Jesus book. The other reason that is important is it means the James ossuary could not possibly have come from the Talpiot tomb at all since it was not opened until 1980." (Witherington)

Sauron

It's false, because it's not true. And you've yet to show even one data point to support your claim that it's true, lee,

You seem to think that your assertion that something is X, constitutes proof that it is X. It doesn't work that way.

Diogenes the Cynic

In other words, Oded has every reason to lie about when he came into possession of the ossuary.

lee_merrill

Not to mention the picture! The picture also apparently would need motives for describing what is false.

This is classic. Oh dear...

Now your statement here would mean that they were not arguing that the gospel of Philip identifies Mary Magdalene. In which case, what were they arguing for when they mentioned this?

But the point remains that they were arguing that it did identify her, and this is shoddy scholarship, for the mention of Mary in the gospel of Philip is about Philip's sister! It is also a Coptic translation of a 3rd century document, there also being only one copy. For this, and an ossuary that was blank and was (we are yet told) not blank, that was missing, and yet was sent to Boston, for the forthcoming DNA work with the "family" members (only the DNA with which we would need to work has somehow disappeared) and other considerations, we are being asked to believe in the refutation of orthodox Christianity.

Chris Weimer

First, you linked that statement with James Tabor. Second, the only claim was that this gnostic gospel preserved the tradition of Mary Magdalene being called Mariamne, now shown to be probably false, both on the identification, and certainly on preserving the tradition.

You've twisted their statements to say something it originally didn't. That's a strawman, and that's deceitful tactics, whether you meant it or not. Shoddy criticism is just as bad, if not worse, than shoddy scholarship.

Actually, if you saw the documentary, or did your homework, you would have realized that a) Francois Bovon found another copy, and b) they were identifying Philip's sister as Mary Magdalene, which, admittedly so, is quite a stretch.

This underlies your basic misunderstanding of the issue. The Hippolytus quote could be talking about Mary Magdalene, though it could be talking about another Mary close to Jesus' ministry, but that doesn't leave us with a lot of options. And the name in Hippolytus in some manuscripts read Mariamne, while, apparently, others read Mariamme. The exact relationship between these two names is uncertain.

That shows nothing of your understanding of James Tabor's opinions on the matter. Red Herring.

Sauron

Simplest format I could think of. Hoping that would help you.

It means exactly what I said it means.

1. You tried to tell us that Tabor was claiming X.
2. But you have not proven the X.

You keep getting stuck on this idea that your claims equate to proof.

ApostateAbe

OK. I think a bunch of things in the gospels reflect the way the earliest form of Christianity, including Jesus. Maybe around 25% of what is written in the gospel of Mark is credible, and less as time goes on (Matthew, Luke, John, Thomas, Gnostic, Judas, etc.).

lee_merrill

How is this not his view? Surely he subscribes to what was said of this book, this being his very area of interest.

So then shoddy scholarship…

What then were they arguing for?

My mistake, two copies, then, and a stretch is rather an understatement, this being from the 3rd century.

Then Tabor should not say he found another instance of this name, yet this was the claim.

Herring is being served, I definitely agree.

"For this, and an ossuary that was blank and was (we are yet told) not blank, that was missing, and yet was sent to Boston, for the forthcoming DNA work with the 'family' members (only the DNA with which we would need to work has somehow disappeared) and other considerations (there also being apparently another ossuary inscribed with 'Jesus son of Joseph') we are being asked to believe in the refutation of orthodox Christianity."

And for all that, Sauron claims I only--make claims!