Josiah Concept Ministries

In the first post in this series, I discussed the significance of names to the Jesus Family Tomb. The conclusion by the producers was that it is statistically unlikely for the cluster of names to occur in any other tomb than the Jesus Family Tomb (1 in 600 that it was anyone else’s tomb).

I have already discussed that the statistics can be made to say whatever a person chooses to have them say. What is really important is the underlying assumptions that drive the statistics. I have even demonstrated that by using a different set of assumptions that a person can show that it is more likely to uncover a tomb with that cluster of names than not. Also, this pdf document discusses a correct interpretation of those statistics.

The name that the documentary made the biggest deal about was Mary Magdalene. Everyone seemed to agree that the presence of that name was a slam dunk in identifying this tomb as the tomb of Jesus Christ.

I can’t disagree with them. If they could prove that Mary Magdalene was present in this tomb, while it may not be 100% proof positive, it would certainly create a very compelling case.

While this is the strongest evidence to bolster the case, it is actually the weakest evidential link. Mary Magdalene’s presence in the tomb is based on a theory by Francois Bovon, the Frothington Professor of the History of Religion at Harvard Divinity School. This theory is pure speculation, and it fits well with the conspiracy-laden “reality” presented by the Da Vinci Code. A brief news story is presented here, outlining some of the professor’s views of the early first century church.

The Acts of Philip was discovered in 1972, and appears to be a fourteenth century manuscript. Professor Bovon claims that it was originally from the fourth century. Do I dare dispute a Harvard professor? While I can’t dismiss the possibility, I submit humbly that a story of a dragon being slain fits better with medieval literature than fourth century literature. I submit, humbly, that a quest to slay the dragon fits better with Arthurian legend than with fourth century history.

There are examples of animals talking in the Bible, so I am not going to be so bold as to claim that the leopard and the kid speaking in this manuscript automatically discount it from being authentic history. Instead, I’m going to point to the fact that worship in the Bible was reserved for God alone, and that the only Biblical person accepting worship was Jesus. Then, we’re going to look at the Acts of Philip v. 101: “And they fell and worshipped [sic] Philip and Bartholomew and Mariamne; and all set out together praising God.”

Contrast that with this from the canonical Acts of the Apostles (10:25-6), when someone tried to worship Peter: “When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, ‘Stand up; I too am a man.’” There was no rebuke recorded in Acts of Philip. This is a sharp contrast to the canonical books, and it seems likely to be a later work because of the Catholic practice of praying to and venerating saints (Philip and Bartholomew, as apostles, were also canonized as saints of the Church). This practice would have been unknown earlier, and manuscript support for it would have been unnecessary.

All that said, there is still no support in the Acts of Philip to tie “Mariamne” with Mary Magdalene. Mariamne is identified as Philip’s sister, but nothing in the canonical gospels identifies Mary Magdalene as Philip’s sister. An indirect tie exists, when Mariamne is called “chosen among women” (v. 95). I could believe that Jesus would call the first witness to His resurrection “chosen among women.”

If the author intended Mariamne to be Mary Magdalene, why not just call her such? It seems to me that this is just another example of the producers of this film trying to make the facts fit their conclusion, when this is so clearly not the case.

Try again!!!