None of the articles posted or any I have read have shown any real research. So, prove to me that there has been real research, by archeologists, geneticists, statisticions, cryptologists...... Or are you saying, you really don't know either? From what I have read, it seems that these were poo-pood years ago and not thoroughly studied, and that the name Mary Magdeline was not associated or understood because it was called Mariamne instead, which she is not refered to in the canonized text, but in earlier Christian writings she IS refered to in this name, thus them missing out on that point, and possibly over looking it for that reason. DD
Just as I thought, Christian groups are threatening to exert pressure to the advertisers on the Discovery channel. Christian's upset at Discovery exert pressure More of the same Also confirmed by the Drudge report. Why are people so afraid to question religious doctrine? DD
Here's the thing I really find mystifying. After any tomb is found in Jerusalem, you would think it would be a high priority to protect the site and try and determine if it had historical significance. In this case, because the ossuaries had inscriptions, the logical place to start would be deciphering them. Again, you would think this deciphering would occur before they remove anything from the tomb or generally disrupt the site. If this occurred, they would have found that several of the ossuaries had names (common or not) with potential historical/biblical significance, including one that possibly was inscribed Jesus, Son of Joseph. At this point, you would think that greater than normal resources and attention would be brought to bear on investigating the find. However, this doesn't seem to be the case at all. It looks as if after this tomb was found, they either removed the ossuaries before deciphering the inscriptions, or deciphered them and then immediately dismissed the possibility that they could have historical significance and removed them from the tomb. And even removed the bones from the ossuaries (which I understand under normal circumstances is what occurs in accordance with orthodox Jewish customs). That doesn't make sense to me. This may or may not be the Jesus family tomb, but there were enough intriguing early aspects to this find, that it deserved much closer scrutiny. Instead, it seems they said "These are common names for the period." and left it at that. What if they find another tomb with an ossuary with the inscription that might be decipherd as "Jesus"? Should it be treated as casually as this tomb because this was a common name?
No doubt, but because they are a Jewish state, I am not sure they place as much value on whether he was THE Jesus as the rest of the Christian world. If the scientific study continues and the possibility remains that this is Jesus and his family, a lot of people in Israel will look really incompetent and stupid. And, IMHO, they don't want to be pissing off the Christian dominated USA, because that is where their entire economic existance comes from...... DD
no...she's not referred as that in earlier writings. that name doesn't appear until the 14th century, as i understand it. that's part of the criticism.
I understood it to be that she was refered to in the Acts of Philip under the name Mariamne. That is the claim of the show anyway.
please read this one. it's one leap after another. http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps...20070304/OPINION03/703020330/1058/ADVERTISING One of the key elements of the statistical argument offered by the book is the assumption that "Mariamne also called Mara" is Mary Magdalene. The Jesus Family Tomb claims that the Acts of Philip refers to Mary Magdalene as Mariamne. Since our earliest extensive manuscript of the Acts of Philip is a 14th century text, the value of the testimony of the Acts of Philip is questionable at best. However, this theory that Mariamne is Mary Magdalene is actually the speculation of Francis Bovon and is not confirmed by the Acts of Philip at all. The Acts of Philip portrays Mariamne as the sister of Philip but never identifies her explicitly as Mary Magdalene (In fact, since she is associated with Martha at one point in the Acts of Philip, she would more likely be Mary of Bethany than Mary Magdalene if the author of the Acts intended to identified as one of the named Marys of the New Testament). Neither Mary is ever identified as Mariamne in the New Testament or, for that matter, in any other known text. The researchers also argue that the name "Mara" is actually the title "master" or "lord" and identifies Mary Magdalene as a female apostle. This element of the argument involves an enormous amount of speculation based on questionable evidence. The researchers could not cite one ancient text in which Mary was designated a master or lord or in which that word "mara" was used as a synonym for "apostle." Most importantly, the researchers are likely incorrect in their assumption that the "Mara" of the inscription was a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic word meaning "master." In fact, "Mara" was the eighth most commonly used name among Palestinian Jewish females in the period 330 B.C. to 200 A.D. and the name is widely believed to be a mere abbreviated form of the name "Martha." If this "Mary" is not Mary Magdalene and if the James ossuary is not the missing tenth ossuary from Talpiot, the presence of the names from the inscriptions in the Tomb of the Ten Ossuaries is not unusual.
By the way...even their own website suggests that the Acts of Phillip dates back to the 4th or 5th century. That's about 300-400 years after Mary Magdaelene would have been dead. And ther e's no earlier text that refers to her in this way at all. Huge leaps.
Yeah, but they were Gnostic texts passed down from the time of Jesus and left out during the Niocene council conducted by Constantine, which we have discussed before. The church destroyed or tried to destroy a lot of the writings of Jesus because they did not approve of the Gnostic doctrine or how Jesus was thought of in those writings. Which, IMHO, invalidates a lot of the writings as historically accurate, as the whole story is not told, but only portions of it are told...and those portions were decided by politics. DD
no. it's a 4th century work. it is not from the time of Jesus. it's arguable it was not even written before the Council of Nicea ever met. and it's the ONLY text, gnostic or otherwise, to use this phrasing. and even within this, most scholars don't believe the name is attributed to Mary Magdaelene at all. are you sure you're reading all this? we have a bunch of gnostic texts. they're free for you to read online. i have. guess what...they still say Jesus was Christ. GASP!!!! the question is whether he was spirit or flesh and blood.
Yes, I agree about the Gnostic texts and Jesus, but I thought that the Acts of Philip were based on the Apostle Philip who was one of Jesus original disciples, and that the earliest findings of the Acts of Philip was the 4th century, but that it could be a transcription of a much earlier work. Link to good article about the Acts of Philip and Mariamne not associated with the show "These traditions are different in many ways from later Church practices. For example, instead of the Eucharist with its ceremonial consumption of bread and wine, Philip’s fellow Christians simply sat down to a common meal of vegetables and water. Church leadership was democratic rather than hierarchic, and men and women served equally as priests. In fact, the manuscript describes Philip and the apostle Bartholomew traveling from town to town with Philip’s sister, a woman named Mariamne. Bovon believes this woman to be Mary Magdalene." DD
all sorts of things were written in the names of apostles that weren't theirs. historians suggest the document was written in the 4th or 5th century. i know it's very chic to talk about gnostic documents. generally i find those that do have no clue what historians think about when they were written...and rarely have those folks actually read them. it's more fun to talk in whispers about conspiracies. read the Gospel of John. much more gnostic than most of the "gnostic gospels" i've read.
as posted above: The Acts of Philip portrays Mariamne as the sister of Philip but never identifies her explicitly as Mary Magdalene (In fact, since she is associated with Martha at one point in the Acts of Philip, she would more likely be Mary of Bethany than Mary Magdalene if the author of the Acts intended to identified as one of the named Marys of the New Testament). Neither Mary is ever identified as Mariamne in the New Testament or, for that matter, in any other known text. Christianity was not centralized. The gnostic texts and the Book of Acts in the Bible suggest that. But the central themes aren't nearly as different as you might like to believe.
Max, Do you believe there is good evidence that the "Jesus" ossuary says "Jesus, Son of Joseph" on it.
i don't know. i've read a couple of criticisms, which i've posted here, that question that. Stephen Pfann says he thinks it's the name, Hasun. I have a hard time believing that a man this important would be buried with such simple text when his followers were using much more grandiose terms about him. And I have a hard time believing the family tomb would be anywhere other than Nazareth.
Max, There is no conspiracy, it is a fact that the Christians of the 1st -4th century all had very different versions of Jesus and church hierchy. The Niocene council, in a very political way, eliminated a lot of early Christian teachings, and had them burned, or destroyed. We are still discovering a lot of things about early Christianity that are not in the approved version of the new Testement. No conspiracy, other than the actual one run by Constantine.... DD
You don't think that the followers might have done it hurredly and in simplistic terms so that the Romans would not find it? DD
quick comment. I think earlier someone said that wheter you believe in the allegations or not was a matter of faith (rhester?). After reviewing the last page or so of comments, truer words could not have been spoken.
Oh really? "Another rich source of information on early Christianity is the collection of Coptic writings known as the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, found in Egypt in 1945. Believed to represent a branch of Christianity called Gnosticism, which stressed salvation through knowledge, the Nag Hammadi manuscripts comprise gospels, prayers, sermons, and theological treatises which, like The Acts of Philip, represent a viewpoint "very distant from mainstream Christianity" DD
