Dr. Bovon, scholar used in the film, shares his thoughts
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Dr. Bovon's work was used to connect Mariamne to Mary Magdalene
A core assumption in the documentary is that the Talpiot tomb contains the ossuary for Mary Magdalene. They connect the name 'Mariamne' to Mary Magdalene by using Dr. François Bovon's research on late 4th century Acts of Philip. They do this on page 64 in Jesus Family Tomb
and also in the film. And Dr. James Tabor, the only scholar that I know of that defends the film's assertions also posted on his blog regarding Bovon's work...
Dr. Bovon's public letter
But what exactly does Dr. Bovon think of this? Does he really support the assertion that Mary Magdalene is in the Talpiot tomb? You can read his post at the Society of Biblical Literature. In the post, he calls parts of the documentary as "science fiction". He also notices a kind of double discours.
His e-mail to me
I asked Dr. Bovon to clarify his fifth point on his public letter, specifically where he states: "My interest is not historical, but on the level of literary traditions". Why didn't he want to use Acts of Philip as a historical source that Mariamne was the historical Mary Magdalene?
His response:
A core assumption in the documentary is that the Talpiot tomb contains the ossuary for Mary Magdalene. They connect the name 'Mariamne' to Mary Magdalene by using Dr. François Bovon's research on late 4th century Acts of Philip. They do this on page 64 in Jesus Family Tomb
and also in the film. And Dr. James Tabor, the only scholar that I know of that defends the film's assertions also posted on his blog regarding Bovon's work...
"Recent scholarship (Schaberg, King, Marjanen, Bovon, Brock) on Mary Magdalene has gone a long way toward rehabilitating her important place in earliest history of the Jesus movement." --Dr. James Tabor, March 24, 2007.
Dr. Bovon's public letter
But what exactly does Dr. Bovon think of this? Does he really support the assertion that Mary Magdalene is in the Talpiot tomb? You can read his post at the Society of Biblical Literature. In the post, he calls parts of the documentary as "science fiction". He also notices a kind of double discours.
His e-mail to me
I asked Dr. Bovon to clarify his fifth point on his public letter, specifically where he states: "My interest is not historical, but on the level of literary traditions". Why didn't he want to use Acts of Philip as a historical source that Mariamne was the historical Mary Magdalene?
His response:
"The traditions concerning Mary Magdalene or Peter developing in the second, third and fourth centuries are relevant for the life of communities of those centuries. They may carry archaic evidence concerning the historical Mary or the historical Peter, but it is not their most interesting aspect. They are more important to understand the texts that furnish them and the communities reading these texts. For an historical knowledge of the first century I would be hesitant to use them."
Labels: jerusalem, Jesus family tomb, lost tomb of Jesus, talpiot, talpiyot
