The Acts of Philip, Mariamne and the Jesus Tomb
One of the claims made on the website about the bone boxes found at Talpiot in 1980 is that one of the ossuaries is inscribed with the name of "“Mariamene e Mara”. From this, it is concluded that this particular ossuary was the ossuary of Mary Magdalene. Why? According to the Jesus Family Tomb website:
So, the reason that this is supposed to be Mary Magdalene's ossuary is because of the use of the name "Mariamene" which is close to the name of "Mariamne" from the Acts of Philip. Is this a particularly strong claim?
First, I should point out that the claim on the website is overstated. Dr. Bovon hasn't "determined" that the woman named "Mariamne" is Mary Magdalene. The word "determined" connotes that it is the final word on the matter. In fact, the first definition for "determine" is "to settle or decide (a dispute, question, etc.) by an authoritative or conclusive decision." But, as other sources seem to show, Dr. Bovon isn't making a claim of final determination. Rather, he simply "believes" it to be Mary Magdalene (of course, it is an informed belief, but it remains his belief and I have found nowhere that other scholars are largely in agreement with that belief). Certainly, it is an overstatement to claim (as the Jesus Tomb website does here) that "Mary Magdalene is often identified by the name 'Mariamne.'" (emphasis added)
Second, the Acts of Philip is hardly a contemporaneous work with the Gospels or the Epistles. It is apparently the work of an heretical community that lived in the Fourth Century -- at least two hundred fifty years after the events of the New Testament. It includes tales of talking leopards (v. 96: ". . . lo, a great leopard came out of a wood on the hill, and ran and cast himself at their feet and spoke with human voice: I worship you, servants of the divine greatness and apostles of the only-begotten Son of God; command me to speak perfectly"), a talking baby goat (v. 97: ". . . after I had wounded it, it took a human voice and wept like a little child, saying to me: O leopard, put off thy fierce heart and the beast like part of thy nature, and put on mildness . . . "), and a fierce black dragon (v. 102: "They journeyed five days, and one morning after the midnight prayers a sudden wind arose, great and dark (misty), and out of it ran a great smoky (misty) dragon, with a black back, and a belly like coals of brass in sparkles of fire, and a body over 100 cubits long, and a multitude of snakes and their young followed it"). But this is the type of literature that comes from heretical groups, and the group that produced this document was of that type. According to Harvard Magazine:
Now, certainly, Dr. Bovon is a well-respected researcher, and it certainly is possible that the Mariamne of the Acts of Philip is Mary Magdalene of the New Testament. As the Harvard Magazine article notes, "the name 'Mariamne' is a variant of 'Mary,' and when the third-century Christian writer Origen mentions the Magdalene, he uses the quite similar name 'Mariamme.'" But notice that Origen, who lived and wrote one hundred years closer to the events, uses the name "Mariamme" when the name used on the ossuary is "Mariamene". Is that close enough to conclude they are talking about the same woman?
What can we learn about woman named "Mariamne" from the Acts of Philip? Well, to start with, this woman was the "sister of Philip." Now, it could be that that language is used in the same way that Christians (and the Bible sometimes) use the terms "brother" and "sister" when referencing any other Christian. But the context seems to suggest that the reason she is called sister of Philip is to single out who she is. Here is the text of verse 94 of the Acts of Philip where the "sister" term is referenced:
Now, if the term is being used generally, why doesn't it say later, "but Martha his sister was she that ministered . . ."? It seems apparent to me that the use of the term here is to show that Mariamne is really the actual flesh and blood sister of Philip. Now, this would be new information from the New Testment that doesn't seem to reference Mary Magdalene as being the sister of the Apostle Philip.
What else does the Acts of Philip tell us about this Mariamne? The Encyclopedia Magdalena gives this nice little summary of the activities of Mariamne in the Acts of Philip,
Okay, so she prepared bread and salt and Jesus called her "chosen among women". Those might be consistent with Mary Magdalene even though nothing in the Bible says either of those things about her. But, of course, if one is going to accept that "sister" could have the Christian meaning where every believing woman is a "sister" to every Christian, then the phrase "chosen among women" could simply be a reference to the fact that she is a believer (e.g., Mark 13:20) which would not single her out for any special status whatsoever. Moreover, I don't have a problem with her participating in healings or baptizing converts -- those also seem to be consistent with what any believer was capable of doing during the early years of teh church. But slaying a dragon and turning into glass boxes or clouds of fire? Doesn't that effect the credibility of this book?
What I am driving at is this: the Acts of Philip is a late, exaggerated account of the life of Philip, the Apostle, that were drawn up by a heretical community who wrote about a woman named Mariamne who may or may not be Mary Magdalene. This is a highly tenuous strand to base a claim that a box carved with a similar (not identical) name of "Mariamene" is Mary Magdalene of the New Testament.
From the Acts of Philip, a fourth century work ostensibly written about Mary Magdalene’s brother, Phillip, and recently recovered from a monastery at Mt. Athos in Greece, Professor François Bovon (Harvard University) has determined that Magdalene’s name was "Mariamne."
So, the reason that this is supposed to be Mary Magdalene's ossuary is because of the use of the name "Mariamene" which is close to the name of "Mariamne" from the Acts of Philip. Is this a particularly strong claim?
First, I should point out that the claim on the website is overstated. Dr. Bovon hasn't "determined" that the woman named "Mariamne" is Mary Magdalene. The word "determined" connotes that it is the final word on the matter. In fact, the first definition for "determine" is "to settle or decide (a dispute, question, etc.) by an authoritative or conclusive decision." But, as other sources seem to show, Dr. Bovon isn't making a claim of final determination. Rather, he simply "believes" it to be Mary Magdalene (of course, it is an informed belief, but it remains his belief and I have found nowhere that other scholars are largely in agreement with that belief). Certainly, it is an overstatement to claim (as the Jesus Tomb website does here) that "Mary Magdalene is often identified by the name 'Mariamne.'" (emphasis added)
Second, the Acts of Philip is hardly a contemporaneous work with the Gospels or the Epistles. It is apparently the work of an heretical community that lived in the Fourth Century -- at least two hundred fifty years after the events of the New Testament. It includes tales of talking leopards (v. 96: ". . . lo, a great leopard came out of a wood on the hill, and ran and cast himself at their feet and spoke with human voice: I worship you, servants of the divine greatness and apostles of the only-begotten Son of God; command me to speak perfectly"), a talking baby goat (v. 97: ". . . after I had wounded it, it took a human voice and wept like a little child, saying to me: O leopard, put off thy fierce heart and the beast like part of thy nature, and put on mildness . . . "), and a fierce black dragon (v. 102: "They journeyed five days, and one morning after the midnight prayers a sudden wind arose, great and dark (misty), and out of it ran a great smoky (misty) dragon, with a black back, and a belly like coals of brass in sparkles of fire, and a body over 100 cubits long, and a multitude of snakes and their young followed it"). But this is the type of literature that comes from heretical groups, and the group that produced this document was of that type. According to Harvard Magazine:
Among the revelations turned up in this unexpurgated Acts of Philip, especially in the story of a visit to Hell, are glimpses of a heretical community whose members may have written or transmitted the text. Devoted to ascetic practices, the group flourished in Asia Minor during the fourth century A.D. Members were to eat no meat, drink no wine, shun wealth, and abstain from sexual intercourse. Both sexes wore men's clothing made only from plant fibers. Even the sacrament of the Eucharist was modified, with water replacing wine. Sect members believed that this level of purity not only guaranteed salvation after death, but allowed them to "talk with God" in this life.
Within the community, women as well as men served at all levels. One list mentions "presbytides" (female elders, or priestesses) alongside "presbyters" (male elders, or priests). Deaconesses are paired with deacons, as are virgins with eunuchs. (It is unknown whether the latter rank required surgery or merely celibacy.)
Such groups did not escape the notice of the official church. The council of Gangra (circa A.D. 343) declared such ascetic excesses to be anathema, and another fourth-century council, at Laodicea, "forbade the appointment of presbytides," says Bovon.
Now, certainly, Dr. Bovon is a well-respected researcher, and it certainly is possible that the Mariamne of the Acts of Philip is Mary Magdalene of the New Testament. As the Harvard Magazine article notes, "the name 'Mariamne' is a variant of 'Mary,' and when the third-century Christian writer Origen mentions the Magdalene, he uses the quite similar name 'Mariamme.'" But notice that Origen, who lived and wrote one hundred years closer to the events, uses the name "Mariamme" when the name used on the ossuary is "Mariamene". Is that close enough to conclude they are talking about the same woman?
What can we learn about woman named "Mariamne" from the Acts of Philip? Well, to start with, this woman was the "sister of Philip." Now, it could be that that language is used in the same way that Christians (and the Bible sometimes) use the terms "brother" and "sister" when referencing any other Christian. But the context seems to suggest that the reason she is called sister of Philip is to single out who she is. Here is the text of verse 94 of the Acts of Philip where the "sister" term is referenced:
94 It came to pass when the Saviour divided the apostles and each went forth according to his lot, that it fell to Philip to go to the country of the Greeks: and he thought it hard, and wept. And Mariamne his sister (it was she that made ready the bread and salt at the breaking of bread, but Martha was she that ministered to the multitudes and laboured much) seeing it, went to Jesus and said: Lord, seest thou not how my brother is vexed?
Now, if the term is being used generally, why doesn't it say later, "but Martha his sister was she that ministered . . ."? It seems apparent to me that the use of the term here is to show that Mariamne is really the actual flesh and blood sister of Philip. Now, this would be new information from the New Testment that doesn't seem to reference Mary Magdalene as being the sister of the Apostle Philip.
What else does the Acts of Philip tell us about this Mariamne? The Encyclopedia Magdalena gives this nice little summary of the activities of Mariamne in the Acts of Philip,
- she prepared bread and salt for the "breaking of bread"
- Jesus called her "chosen among women"
- she should not wear her summer dress (also translated as "women's aspect")
- she assisted with healings
- she baptized converts
- she assisted in the slaying of a dragon
- when threatened, she turned into a glass box or a cloud of fire
- she is prophesied to die in the Jordan river
Okay, so she prepared bread and salt and Jesus called her "chosen among women". Those might be consistent with Mary Magdalene even though nothing in the Bible says either of those things about her. But, of course, if one is going to accept that "sister" could have the Christian meaning where every believing woman is a "sister" to every Christian, then the phrase "chosen among women" could simply be a reference to the fact that she is a believer (e.g., Mark 13:20) which would not single her out for any special status whatsoever. Moreover, I don't have a problem with her participating in healings or baptizing converts -- those also seem to be consistent with what any believer was capable of doing during the early years of teh church. But slaying a dragon and turning into glass boxes or clouds of fire? Doesn't that effect the credibility of this book?
What I am driving at is this: the Acts of Philip is a late, exaggerated account of the life of Philip, the Apostle, that were drawn up by a heretical community who wrote about a woman named Mariamne who may or may not be Mary Magdalene. This is a highly tenuous strand to base a claim that a box carved with a similar (not identical) name of "Mariamene" is Mary Magdalene of the New Testament.
Comments
Since we're making assumptions about the occupants of this tomb, why not assume that this is Martha, the sister of Lazarus?
www.wildrye.com
Of course, there's the whole "but MaryBeth wasn't the same woman as MaryMag" thing. {g} (Granted, there are some very minor hints in the story that they were, but still...)
Interesting takes. For the record, I didn't take a position that "e Mara" means "also known as Martha". But, as Mary H. pointed out, the phrase (apparently) can, but not necessarily must be translated as "known as the Master". I don't read this language in which the names were scratched onto the tomb, but I have read (in other places) that the phrase "e Mara" can be translated "also known as Martha." So, you really shouldn't bury your own head in the sand insisting that the "known as the master" phrase is the only accurate translation.
Now to your particular comments:
Mary H.,
Mary Magdalene may be commonly believed to be an important person in the life of Jesus, but if she were commonly believed to be an elephant that doesn't make her an elephant. The question isn't what do people living in this post-"Da Vinci Code" world commonly understand, but what does the evidence show.
The problem with the hypothesis is that it is so problematic as to be mostly conjecture. I admitted that it's possible that this is Mary Magdalene, but my post went to the issue of the problems inherent in reaching that conclusion. Ranting that we are somehow "small minded" isn't a response to my arguments, but a simple ad hominem.
Galileo, if you would take the time to look it up, was punished not for what he said about the universe but for belittling the Pope. His claims which seemed to be contrary to the Bible were used as the justification.
I welcome you to consider that the Jesus Family Tomb is real, but you are the one who needs to look to the arguments against making that identification. Personally, I have read a lot about this, and I think that while it is possible that this really is the tomb of Jesus it is so remotely likely given the various objections that are raised that there is more chance that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus than that this is really his tomb.
Otis L,
Please be specific: what did the commentor not understand? If you are asking if I watched the documentary, you should note that this was written a week ago -- long before the documentary. I received my information from news sources that discussed the find in advance of the documentary.
"Do you believe that finding the body of King Tut was really a hoax?" That is a non sequiter.
It isn't impossible that we would not find the body of Jesus, but I think that it is very unlikely because either (1) Jesus raised from the dead and ascended bodily into heaven (as Christians claim) or (2) he was poor and wouldn't have been buried in a tomb (as non-Christians generally claim). It is very unlikely that this is the tomb for many, many reasons, some of which I have blogged on.
I personally don't think that there's any question that Jesus existed -- it is only a group of people who have the same credibility in the academic community of holocaust deniers who claim otherwise.
Thanks to you and others who are researching the Jesus family tomb. I have recently started reading material about this and I'm sure I will sound very uneducated. I have a college degree but even that makes me no expert. I am however an expert of Faith and I have been tested repeatedly in my personal and spiritual life. I became a believer of Jesus Christ (God's Son) before I knew theology existed.
A number of miraculous events happened in my teen years that resulted in a changed life. I have been a Christian for 30 years now and have had multiple opportunities to abandon my faith.
Explain to me why folks like Otis and Mary aren't able to convince me otherwise? Something happens in your heart and soul that you can't theorize or debate. I have questioned the validity of the Bible and have found sufficient evidence to back up the claims it has made.
Finding this tomb will not alter the faith of true believers. There are many experts who say this is not the "Holy Familie's" tomb based on the fact that they were poor and lived in Nazareth.
Please bear with my simplistic comments as I suggest that there are people out there who will exploit this so long as it makes them rich and they can stir up a controversy.
We lay people are very interested in this finding but will not be shaken by anything an investigative journalist and a film maker have contrived to make a buck.
Thanks for your patience with me as I realize I am out of my league as far as education is concerned compared to all of you.
God Bless
Secondly, the Israeli scholar who first reported on the tomb when it was found in 1982, and who published his findings, does not agree at all with this documentary-- which incidentally makes egregious mistakes, among them the assumption that that the names on the ossuaries found in that tomb were anything but the usual names taken by the majority of Jews living in first-century Judea. He says many of the scratches on the ossuaries are just scratches, not names.
In the New Testament there are copious Mary's, several Simons, and so on. "Mariamne" was a popular name, and a royal name as well. But that does not mean make the Mariamne buried there automatically the wife or sister or any other close relative of King Herod, though using the documentary's line of logic, we would be forgiven for assuming she was, as there were several Mariamne's in the Herodian dynasty.
And, the well-known ossuary marked "Yaakov bar Yosef brother of Yeshua" found some years ago has been found to be a fraud as far as the "brother of Yeshua" scratches are concerned. Yet the documentary failed to note the enormous controversy over that last phrase on the ossuary.
As for the "Acts of Philip," that is a text that has nothing to do with the New Testament, but is as has been already explained an heretical text dating from hundreds of years after Christ.
Frankly, I found the documentary outrageous, condescending, and insulting to any thinking person, not only to Christians.
This blog writer I think has set his case out pretty well that Mariamne in Acts of Philip is NOT Mary Magdalene. Which really hinders Jacobvici's whole premise.
Certainly, I don't deny that the tomb appears to have a Mary and Jesus and other similar names. To that extent it is certainly true that there is evidence that it is Christ's family tomb. But evidence when examined closely may show weaknesses that make it extremely unlikely that the evidence proves what the proponents claim. Thus, I can agree that the evidence superficially seems to suggest the people identified in the NT. But my point is that under closer examination, it doesn't hold up at all. Thus, to the extent that you say that I "cannot deny all the evidence pointing to this site being Christ' family tomb", that's exactly what I do by examining the evidence more carefully than the makers of the documentary.
Similarly, the name Joshua or Jesus - Jeshua, in Hebrew, was very common, so, Jesus was called Jesus of Nazareth, a small Galilean town which probably had no more than two or three with the name and possibly only one.
The problem can further be illustrated by the names of the women mentioned in the gospel: Elizabeth, Mary, Herodias, Mary, Joanna, Susanna, Mary, Martha, Mary and possibly one more, depending how you count, also a Mary. So, then, roughly half the women named in the Gospels are named Mary!
Now let's bring it forth to today to bring home the concept home. My name is Donald. Over the years, i have met many with my name, seen others with my name in print and have even met people whose last name is Donald.
But suppose that the name goes into obscurity in the future, or, at least becomes rare and two thousand years from now someone finds a tombstone with the name Donald inscribed on it. What justification would he or she have to assume that it was my tombstone? Just as there were many Joshuas in Roman Palestine, there have been and are many Donalds in piedmont North Carolina, where I currently reside. Any of us would require far more information than we are requiring of these men who made this documentary and rightfully so. It would be ingenuous to require less.
http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/marymagdalene.html
"don't we have approximately 750 million religions in the world? Which one's "real"?"
While I doubt that there are 750 million religions (which incidentally calculates to about one different religion for every four people), I don't doubt that there's a bunch. So what? Simply because people hold different views does not make every view equally viable. We should be deciding which religion is true. As we discuss regularly on this blog (as do hundreds of other bloggers), there are good and valid reasons to believe that Christianity is true.
Were some created just to establish a sense of "right and wrong" among their people? A sense of fear to control their people, if anything?
Actually, I expect that most were created to try to understand our inborn sense that something exists beyond ourselves and to explain why some things are known to be right and others known to be wrong. Now, some people may have abused and twisted them into tools of power, but that doesn't change the likelihood that they were formed more searchingly.
Isn't it possible Jesus was simply a man trying to make a difference? Couldn't his beliefs be worshipped and followed despite the fact he was simply a "man"?
Yes, it is possible that Jesus was simply a man. However, the words and actions of Jesus as recorded in our most reliable sources say that Jesus didn't make those claims about himself. There are many reasons to believe the Gospel accounts, at minimum, have a historical core (even if you don't believe every single account in them).
Does it really matter if he was "resurrected"?
Yes, it makes all the difference in the world. Jesus' resurrection demonstrates that He is who He said He was: God come in the flesh to conquer death.
There are too many lies in the world to know the truth.
Oh? How do you know that is true?
"don't we have approximately 750 million religions in the world? Which one's "real"?"
While I doubt that there are 750 million religions (which incidentally calculates to about one different religion for every four people), I don't doubt that there's a bunch. So what? Simply because people hold different views does not make every view equally viable. We should be deciding which religion is true. As we discuss regularly on this blog (as do hundreds of other bloggers), there are good and valid reasons to believe that Christianity is true.
Were some created just to establish a sense of "right and wrong" among their people? A sense of fear to control their people, if anything?
Actually, I expect that most were created to try to understand our inborn sense that something exists beyond ourselves and to explain why some things are known to be right and others known to be wrong. Now, some people may have abused and twisted them into tools of power, but that doesn't change the likelihood that they were formed more searchingly.
Isn't it possible Jesus was simply a man trying to make a difference? Couldn't his beliefs be worshipped and followed despite the fact he was simply a "man"?
Yes, it is possible that Jesus was simply a man. However, the words and actions of Jesus as recorded in our most reliable sources say that Jesus didn't make those claims about himself. There are many reasons to believe the Gospel accounts, at minimum, have a historical core (even if you don't believe every single account in them).
Does it really matter if he was "resurrected"?
Yes, it makes all the difference in the world. Jesus' resurrection demonstrates that He is who He said He was: God come in the flesh to conquer death.
There are too many lies in the world to know the truth.
Oh? How do you know that is true?
As for the 750 million, I simply googled it, out of curiousity. I'll focus on Christianity. Which one is considered "true"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination
"Note: This is not a complete list, but aims to provide a comprehensible overview of the diversity among denominations of Christianity. As there are reported to be approximately 38,000 Christian denominations,[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
If we explore one religion daily, we couldn't get through the entire list of Christian denominations in a life-time. So which do you dismiss? Which do you research? How do you know you've found the right religion if you can't explored all of them?
"Yes, it makes all the difference in the world. Jesus' resurrection demonstrates that He is who He said He was: God come in the flesh to conquer death."
What happens to Christianity if Jesus's remains are discovered?
"Oh? How do you know that is true?"
I'm capable of seeing, hearing, etc. I observe people lie, manipulate, and hurt each other repeatedly. I've seen religious, good-mannered, up-standing citizens become vile & evil people. Then they return to their pews as if nothing happened. I'm not targeting a religion. I'm well aware of others who follow the same path without a God. My point is, it's difficult to keep faith without seeing an indication of truth.
With respect to having to explore them all, I don't think that is necessary. You don't live your life that way in making other decisions. At least, I don't expect that you would look at every single house on the market before determining which house to buy. But C.S. Lewis made the point that there are only a limited number of overall religious views in the broader sense, and you can quickly eliminate many religions on these broader grounds. Thus, if you believe that there is only one God, you can eliminate all of the religions that say that there are many gods or no gods. If you then decide (as Francis Schaffer did) that God must be both a unity and a diversity in one, then you have already limited your choice to Christianity. Then, it is simply choosing which denomination is most in line with your understanding. It really isn't as difficult as you make it out to be.
If Jesus remains are discovered then Paul was right when he said, "If Jesus was not raised from the dead, we are the most to be pitied." But I have no reason to believe that they will be found because I have every reason to believe that Jesus is risen.
Your final paragraph misses my point. If we cannot know what is true (as you seemed to suggest), then you can't know that we cannot know. You are only guessing. You see, I believe we can know the truth. I know the truth about many things. In the same way that I know that I can know the truth about certain events in history, I can know the truth about the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
groupon clone| Angry birds clone| Groupon Clone|