LostTomb

(14) The narrator says, as footage of Jerusalem is shown, "The 'Acts of Philip' clearly tell us that Mary Magdalene,
Jesus' most trusted apostle, dies here, in Jerusalem." That's a threefold falsehood. First, "Acts of Philip" does not
describe anyone as "Jesus' most trusted apostle." That phrase in the narration is completely fabricated. Second, "Acts of
Philip" does not clearly tell us anything at all about Mary Magdalene, since the female character is Mariamne, Philip's
sister, and nowhere in the Gospels is Mary Magdalene ever described as Philip's sister. Third, "Acts of Philip" does not
refer to anyone dying in Jerusalem. It says that Mariamne's body "shall be laid up in the river Jordan." Did the narration-
writer think that the Jordan River flows through Jerusalem? If not, why did he treat a reference to the Jordan River as if it
is a reference to Jerusalem?

(15) The narrator says, "The statistical probabilities are compelling. The cluster of names in the Talpiot tomb,
extraordinary. The connections to the Gospels, too strong to dismiss." Every one of those points is erroneous.
There is no evidence that Mary Magdalene was ever called "Mariamne" in the first century," and "Acts of Philip" -- besides
featuring a dragon, a talking leopard, and so forth -- associates the name Mariamne with a different individual, Philip's
sister. And besides that, "Acts of Philip" is assigned a date in the fourth century. The proposed connection between the
Talpiot tomb and the family of Jesus is not compelling in the least. Without that connection, and without the assumption
that Mariamne = Mary Magdalene, the statistics are not compelling. And while the cluster of names at Talpiot is unique in
the sense that it includes a unique inscription, "Mariamene/Mara," it would not be unique, or even unusual, to find the other
names in many families that inhabited first-century Jerusalem in 20 B.C. - A.D. 70.

(16) Dr. Tabor, in a segment about the James ossuary, says, "I checked the dimensions; I was just curious. The
missing ossuary was catalogued; it's just gone. The dimensions of that ossuary are the same as the James
ossuary."

The dimensions recorded in Amos Kloner's description of "A Tomb with Inscribed Ossuaries in East Talpiyot,
Jerusalem," for the tenth ossuary (IAA #80.509) are "60 x 26 x 30 cm."

How Dr. Tabor can read that, and then honestly say that they are the same dimensions as the James ossuary, is a mystery
to me. The dimensions given for the James ossuary in the Nov/Dec. 2002 issue of the magazine Biblical Archaeology
Review, were described as follows: "It is 20 inches long (50.5 cm) at the base and flares out to almost 22 inches (56 cm)
at the top. Although one of the short sides is perpendicular to the base, the other is slanted, giving the box a trapezoidal
shape. The ossuary is 10 inches (25 cm) wide and 12 inches (30.5 cm) high." The height and width match, approximately.
But what about the length? It looks like there are two ways that Tabor can call these two different measurements of
length "the same" ~

(a) Amos Kloner misread another archaeologist's handwritten note about the length of the tenth ossuary. The
archaeologist intended to write "50," but he was sloppy, or distracted, or something hit his hand as he was writing. When
Kloner read the handwritten note, he misinterpreted it to say, "60." Thus the tenth Talpiot ossuary should have been
catalogued with a length of 50 cm.

(b) Tabor has re-measured the James ossuary more accurately than anyone else. Instead of being 56 cm long along its
longest edge, it is 60 cm long along its longest edge. Other archaeologists' measurements were off by more than an inch.
In a discussion with Ted Koppel, Tabor said, "We've re-measured it; they do," that is, the dimensions of the two
ossuaries do match.

Dr. Tabor said, "The date and the recorded dimensions are extremely suggestive." If either of the two theories
given above is true, then the dimensions are indeed very suggestive. But there is another theory: the theory that Dr. Tabor
misread Kloner's dimensions, and thought that Kloner had recorded a length of 50 rather than 60 cm, and that this is why
Tabor wrote, in The Jesus Dynasty, p. 32, "Just recently I noticed that the dimensions of the missing tenth ossuary are
precisely the same, to the centimeter, to those of the James ossuary."

(17) In the movie-segment about patina-fingerprinting, the presentation of the data had an enormous impact on how
viewers encountered the data. The graphs in which the signatures of trace elements appear were onscreen for only a few
seconds, and viewers -- unless they went back and used freeze-frame -- were not given the opportunity to look at the
graphs side-by-side because the graph for the "fingerprint" from the Mariamne ossuary remained onscreen as the graph for
the "fingerprint" of the James ossuary was superimposed over it. The red and green colors did not appear distinct.
However, if a TV-viewer were to freeze the picture very, very shortly before the graph of the James ossuary' trace-
element profile overlaps the graph of the Mariamene ossuary's trace-elemental profile, obvious differences can be viewed.
Working from left to right, the second big spike is a lot higher in the Mariamne profile than in the James profile. The
Aluminum (or, aluminium, for those outside the USA) profile is also a lot higher in the Mariamne profile than in the James
profile. And the spike next to the Aluminum spike, on its immediate right, is also a lot higher in the Mariamne profile than in
the James profile. Differences also appear, as far as I can tell, in the K (potassium), Ti (titanium) and Fe (iron) spikes; in
each, it looks like the James ossuary's profile is lower.

These differences, cumulatively, appear to be significantly greater than the difference between the first random sample and
the Mariamne ossuary and the difference between the third random sample and the Mariamene ossuary shown in the film.
Their elemental profiles appeared to vary from the Mariamene ossuary's profile mainly due to higher levels of S (sulphur).

So here is what I think: if the James ossuary's elemental profile had been placed alongside the Mariamene ossuary's
elemental profile (rather than superimposed on it), and if the differences between the two profiles had been highlighted in
the same way that the differences between the random samples' elemental profiles and the Mariamene ossuary's profile
were highlighted, viewers would have concluded that the James ossuary's elemental profile contained variations not shared
by the Mariamene ossuary's profile that were as great or greater than the discrepancies of the random samples' profiles.

In other words, Charles Pellegrino's exclamation, "It matches!", combined with some visual sleight-of-hand, has given
viewers a false impression about the degree to which a meaningful connection between the Mariamene ossuary and the
James ossuary has been established. The narrator's statement, "The patina-samples from the Talpiot tomb match
with the James ossuary" has not been shown to be true in any meaningful way. Robert Genna wrote to Ted Koppel,
"We didn't do enough sampling to see if in fact there were other tombs that had similar compositions."

(18) While the point of the whole patina-fingerprinting enterprise was to establish that the James Ossuary is from the
Talpiot tomb, James Tabor wrote, in the week after the movie was aired on the Discovery Channel, "I do not know
whether the missing 10th ossuary from Talpiot is the same as the one acquired by Oded Golan, the so-called
"James ossuary."" The patina-fingerprinting doesn't seem to have made him any more confident about the identification
than he was before. If a unique "fingerprint" had been proven, why would Dr. Tabor still be saying that he does not know
whether or not the James ossuary is the tenth ossuary from Talpiot? An elemental profile comparable in complexity and
uniqueness to a "fingerprint" would be proof, and if Dr. Tabor does not consider Pellegrino's experiment to be proof, why
should anyone else?

(19) In a scene that features Andrey Feuerverger writing on a chalkboard, the words on the chalkboard are "Additional
factors" under which, line by line, are written "DNA evidence," "cross on Yeshua ossuary," and something else, partly
obscured from view, something like "signs of literary �" or "seque. (sequence) of literary langauge," or something like that.
When Feuerverger makes a comment shortly thereafter, the same chalkboard, now behind him, is filled with line after line
after line. However, the writing on the chalkboard is out of focus; I found it impossible to discern what the other words
were. [Cue suspenseful music.] Why were the extra lines of writing added? Is it likely that Dr. Feuerverger was
spontaneously writing notes on the chalkboard between takes, when this segment was filmed? Or could this have been a
clever effort to suggest to viewers in a subliminal way that there are many, many pieces of additional evidence?

(20) Charles Pellegrino, as he was preparing the "patina-fingerprinting" experiment, said, "For right now, we're just
taking other samples of the accretion from inside the ossuary." I think he must have been talking about the
Mariamene ossuary. If the idea was to test the patina for trace-elements that would be indicative of the location where the
ossuary was placed, why test from the inside of the ossuary? Would patina from the inside of the Mariamene ossuary
have the same "fingerprint" as a sample from the outside of the Mariamene ossuary? Was any such comparison made?

(21) When the movie focused on the ossuary which had the inscription "Yehuda bar Yeshua," the narrator said, "The
ossuary belonged to a child." Since everyone who has parents can be called a child, that is technically true, but the
impression given by that statement to most viewers, when combined with a dramatization of a scene in which a boy stands
beside Mary Magdalene during Jesus' crucifixion, is that there is evidence that this was the ossuary of someone who died
as a child. Its dimensions are 55 x 23 x 27 cm, though; it's not particularly small.

(22) The narrator theorizes that the "Beloved Disciple" mentioned prominently in the Gospel of John is the offspring of
Jesus of Nazareth and Mary Magdalene. A dramatization depicts a twisted version of John 19:26. Here is what John
19:25-27 says, in English: "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of
Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He
said to His mother, 'Woman, behold your son!" Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold your mother!' And from that hour that
disciple took her to his own home."

The "Lost Tomb" narration says this: "He then says to Mary, 'Woman, behold your son.'" Notice that the Biblical
text has been blurred:

John 19:26 ~ "He said to His mother�"

Lost Tomb narration ~ "He then says to Mary . . ."

This deviation from the text is performed to facilitate what follows: the narrator says, "Traditionally, this scene has
been understood as Jesus addressing Mary his mother. But can this be later theology?" The answer is that it
cannot be theology any later than the Gospel of John itself, because the Gospel of John explicitly says that Jesus was
addressing His mother. The narrator's question serves no purpose other than to lead the listener away from the conclusion
that would be drawn from an honest presentation of the text.

The narrator continues: "Could it be that Jesus was talking to Mary Magdalene, his wife, asking her to protect
their son?" The answer to this question is made clear by reading the very next verse of the Gospel of John: "Then He
said to the disciple, 'Behold your mother!' And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home." It is clear in the text
that Jesus is inviting the beloved disciple to protect and care for Mary, Jesus' mother. Again the narrator's question only
distracts the listener away from the conclusion that would accurately be drawn from an honest presentation of the text.

(23) During footage of the inside of the Talpiot tomb, the narrator says, "We found a book that Jesus referred to as
the key to his ministry." Then Simcha Jacobovici says, "The book of Jonah. Jesus says in the Gospels, if you
want to know -- his apostles say, 'What are you up to, master?' and he says -- you want to know what I'm up to,
read the book of Jonah." However, what Jesus is recorded to have said -- in Matthew 12:39-40, Mt. 16:4, and Luke
11:29-30 -- are words to the effect that his time spent in the tomb would fit the pattern of the prophet Jonah, who spent
time in the belly of a great sea-creature. Jesus does not call this a "key," and he does not explicitly invite anyone to read
Jonah, and Matthew 11:38 reports that he was talking to some scribes and Pharisees, not answering a question from the
apostles. Jacobovici's statement bristles with inaccuracies and invention.

(24) Toward the end of the movie, the narrator says, "On the other hand, maybe the fact that there was a son in the
Talpiot tomb means that the Jesus found in this tomb is not Jesus of Nazareth. Accordingly, you would have to
believe that living around the same time, in the same place, there was another Jesus, who also had a father
named Joseph, and two close male relatives named James and Jose. And two women in his life - one called
Maria, and the other Mariamne."

That is mostly false. You would have to believe that there was another man named Jesus, son of Joseph, living around the
same time, in Jerusalem, and that he had a close family member, probably his mother, named Maria. That's it. The other
factors ought to be tossed out of the equation:

It has not been shown that the Joseph at Talpiot is not the husband of the Maria at Talpiot, and if Joseph and Maria are a
husband-wife couple, as Rahmani suggested, then there is no other male relative named Joseph to be considered, as far as
the family at Talpiot is concerned. (Rahmani wrote, in regard to the Joseph ossuary at Talpiot, "The similarity of this
ossuary and its inscription with that of Marya on No. 706, both from the same tomb, may indicate that these are the
ossuaries of the parents of Yeshua (No. 704) and the grandparents of Yehuda (No. 702)." You already knew that from
the movie, right? No? Why not?)

It has not been shown that the James Ossuary has anything to do with the Talpiot tomb, other than that all the ossuaries are
from approximately the same place and time, which is true of the vast majority of ossuaries found in Jerusalem and its
environs. Thus, there is no close male relative named James to be considered, as far as the family at Talpiot is concerned.

It has not been shown that Mariamene/Mara was ever a name applied to Mary Magdalene in the first century, and even in
"Acts of Philip" -- composed in the fourth century, over 200 years after Mary Magdalene died -- the name Mariamne is
given to a sister of the apostle Philip (who was from Bethsaida, not Magdala); the text never says that Mariamne is Mary
Magdalene, and it never says that Mary Magdalene or Mariamne died in Jerusalem. Thus, there is no woman named
Mariamene/Mara to be considered, as far as the family of Jesus of Nazareth is concerned, and there is no woman named
Mary Magdalene as far as the family at Talpiot is concerned.

Jacobovici's links between the Talpiot tomb and the family of Jesus are shattered. And when they shatter, the significance
of Feuerverger's statistics -- made under the assumption that those links are valid -- is so greatly reduced as to become
trivial. What remains is this: one would have to believe that in first-century Jerusalem, there was a fellow named Jesus
who, like Jesus of Nazareth, had a father named Joseph and a family-member named Mary. If we accept Rahmani's
suggestion that the Joseph at Talpiot and the Mary at Talpiot were married to each other, then the odds that such a person
existed work out like this: Feuerverger estimated that 1 in 190 males were named Jesus son of Joseph. Figuring that men
named Joseph did not specially avoid marrying women named Mary, one in four of those men named "Jesus son of Joseph"
would have a mother named Mary. So, 1 in 760 (190 x 4) males in Jerusalem had a father named Joseph and a mother
named Mary.

Now let's look at Jerusalem in the late Second Temple period, c. 20 B.C. - A.D. 70. Even though Tabor has used a
population-level of 50,000 for some statistics, and although others have used much higher estimates of Jerusalem's
population at that time, I will use a lower number in some calculations here: 40,000. (I consider the number 40,000 to be
considerably too low, and I could adopt an estimate of 80,000 provided by respectable researchers, but I'm using 40,000
anyway, to make a point.) Figuring that four generations occupied this 90-year period, that adds up to 160,000 people. If
half of those 160,000 people were male, then there were 80,000 males. What is 1/760th of 80,000? 105.263. So, without
resorting to any speculations about Jesus of Nazareth, we need not limit ourselves to the statement that statistics suggest
that another individual named Jesus-son-of-Joseph existed, whose family fit the names in the Talpiot tomb as closely as the
family of Jesus of Nazareth. We can say -- and demonstrate -- that statistics suggest that at least 105 such individuals
existed. (And this is only in regard to individuals named Jesus-son-of-Joseph whose mother was named Mary; if it were
expanded to simply include individuals named Jesus-son-of-Joseph who had a family-member named Mary within four
generations, this would describe at least 421 individuals.) So when the Talpiot tomb was discovered in 1980, and seemed to
confirm that one of those 105 men had a family-tomb, it was not particularly surprising. It was not a uniquely significant
discovery then, and it is not a uniquely significant discovery now. It is part of the evidence of the heritage of Jerusalem,
and that should be enough.

(25) After the broadcast, Simcha Jacobovici said, "At each stage, I tried to shoot down the hypothesis." James
Tabor wrote, "I have conducted all my research using the highest standards." I will let those two statements speak
for themselves.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

"The Lost Tomb of Jesus" movie, directed by Simcha Jacobovici and written by Simcha Jacobovici and Graeme Ball, was (C)
2007, Discovery Channel, VisionTV, and Channel 4. Quotations from it are provided here for review purposes.

After spending a few hours digging through the "Lost Tomb of Jesus" movie, I found some things -- whether mistakes,
quirks, questionable comments, misleading statements, half-truths, outright deceptions, or other interesting content -- which
I thought deserved some special attention. Here are 25 artifacts found in, or close to, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," listed in
approximately the same order in which they appeared.

(1) Simcha Jacobovici reads "Jesus, son of Joseph" on an ossuary and says, "Amazing is not the word for it."
That's certainly true, since the name-catalogue used by Jacobovici, compiled by Tal Ilan, implies that 1 in 190 men in
Jerusalem in the Second Temple period would be named "Jesus, son of Joseph." It is not amazing that someone would
someday find a tomb containing the ossuary of one of those men.

(2) Tabor says, "If you're going to be historical and realistic, he was, would be put in a permanent place of
burial." Tabor, who has complained on his blog that Christians bring their own assumptions to the table, is carrying some
assumptions of his own. He assumes that miracles do not happen, and he calls this theological assumption about God's
existence, will, and power a "historical" approach. But he does more: he implies that those who disagree with his own
theological assumptions about God's existence, will, and power are not being realistic.

(3) A graphic used to depict Jesus' genealogy includes "Boraz" instead of "Boaz" and "Amminabod" instead of
"Amminadab."

(4) Jacobovici, describing the names on the Talpiot ossuaries says, "There isn't a single name that doesn't fit the
Gospel story." Since the Gospel-story includes the statement that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, finding the name
"Jesus son of Joseph" on an ossuary that contained bones does not fit the Gospel story. Luke and John point out that
Jesus ate with His disciples after His resurrection. Obviously, if Jesus rose bodily, He would have left no bones behind.

The name Mariamene/Mara does not fit the Gospel story very well, since "Mariamene" never appears in the Gospels as
the name of any individual whatsoever. If the tomb of Mary Magdalene were to be found in a location other than
Magdala, the name that should be expected to be on it would be "Mary Magdalene," because that is the only name by
which she is known to be called during her lifetime and for a considerable time thereafter.

Regarding the name "Matthew": as a common first-century name, it "fits" only in the sense that it does not contradict
anything the Gospels say. Jesus could have had a relative named Matthew, and a statistical case could be made that a
large Jewish family, living in Jerusalem for three or four generations in the first century, would be exceptional if it did not
have a family-member who had some form of the name Matthew. There's just one detail to clarify here: Tabor said that
in the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3, there are "Five, six, seven, eight Matthews." The names Matthat (3:24),
Mattathiah (3:25), Maath, Mattathiah (3:26), Matthat (3:29), and Mattathah are in the list -- six names (not seven or eight).

(5) After David Mevorah uses the word "far-fetched" to refer to any supposed connection betweeen the names on the
Talpiot ossuaries and Jesus of Nazareth, Tabor says, "It's not so far-fetched." It looks like this footage of Tabor was
arranged as a response to the footage of Mevorah..

(6) The scene with the adulteress in John 8 is very inaccurately portrayed. It pictures Jesus rushing in to intervene as an
adulteress is stoned; stones are already being thrown at her. Also, the dramatization is set in a non-urban setting. But in
John 8, no stones are thrown, and the woman is brought to Jesus (He doesn't rush to the scene), and the location is within
the Temple complex in Jerusalem.

(7) The narrator says, "In many early Christian writings, Mary Magdalene is highly respected as a missionary."
False. Mary Magdalene was, and is, highly respected because she was an early follower of Jesus, and was the first to
encounter Jesus after His resurrection. (Unless one uses Dr. Tabor's "realistic" approach, in which case she was either
lying or delusional or the reports of her actions are false.) Mary Magdalene is hardly mentioned in early Christian
writings except in regard to her actions recorded in the New Testament.

(8) The narrator says, "The strong leadership displayed by Mary Magdalene, who would have been regarded
as suspect by an evolving male-dominated church, so from the second century, when church fathers began
suppressing dozens of early Christian writings, the church rejected two texts that held Mary Magdalene in
the highest regard: The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and a text describing her brother's ministry - the Acts of
Philip." Besides the grammatical glitch there, it should be noted that the narrator's statement about an "evolving male-
dominated church" is tinted so as to imply that in the early church, women and men normally had equal access to all
church-offices, and this state of affairs was altered by later clergymen. That's not what happened. The Judaic roots of
Christianity should be considered here. Synagogue-leaders were generally males, and in Christian churches, elders were
generally males. The apostles were males; Judas Iscariot was replaced with a male; the seven helpers of the apostles in
Acts 7 were males; First Timothy 3 and Titus 1 give specific instructions that elders ought to be husbands of one wife.
This does not mean that women had no important roles in the early church; Paul's high regard for women such as
Priscilla, Phoebe, Chloe, Junia, and others shows that they did. Nor does it mean that women were altogether forbidden
from participating in the church-services; Pliny the Younger, in the early second century, mentioned some female
Christian "ministrae" or deaconesses, for instance. But if listeners get an impression that in the early church, all church-
offices were usually open to men and women alike, that's a false impression.

(9) In the statement quoted about in #8, the narrator says that "from the second century," the church rejected the
Acts of Philip. That would have been a neat trick, since the narrator proceeds to say, "In the Acts of Philip, written in
the fourth century - the oldest known account of Mary Magdalene's travels - she does not die in France."

Inasmuch as "Acts of Philip" was written in the fourth century, it was impossible for anyone in the second century to
reject it. The narrator's statement that church-leaders in the second century rejected the "Acts of Philip" is a complete
fabrication.

(10) Didn't the narrator say that "In many early Christian writings, Mary Magdalene is highly respected as a
missionary"? This seems similar to James Tabor's statement elsewhere that "Mariamene" is "known in early Christian
sources as the form of the name "Miriam/Mariam" used for Mary Magdalene." Now we are told that the earliest known
account of her travels is from the fourth century. If we generously suppose that Mary Magdalene died in A.D. 90, and
that "Acts of Philip" was written in A.D. 301, this would mean that the "earliest known account of her travels" was not
written until over 200 years after she died.

(11) Dr. Francois Bovon's statement, "Mariamne is the same woman as Mary of

Magdala" does not mean what the film-makers seem to have thought that it means.

He meant, basically, that the author of "Acts of Philip" based the character named

"Mariamne" on his conception of Mary Magdalene. Dr. Bovon did not mean to

suggest that such a conception is historically correct. Nor did he mean to indicate

that "Acts of Philip" is a historically reliable text.

Using a translation by M.R. James, let's take a brief look at the "Acts of Philip."

Its opening chapters feature, among other things, a story about how Philip traveled to

Athens and miraculously caused the Jewish high priest Ananias to be swallowed up by the earth, in stages. The character
called "Mariamne" appears in the eight chapter, which is titled, "Wherein The Kid and the Leopard in the Wilderness
Believed." You read correctly. This chapter reports that a young goat and a leopard became believers.

This chapter also says that "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, do you not see how my brother is vexed?" And he said, "I know, thou
chosen among women; but go with him and encourage him, for I know that he is a wrathful and rash man, and if we let
him go alone he will bring many retributions on men."

So there is a bit of detail in "Acts of Philip" about Mariamne's life before she went with Philip. The text says that "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." This is reminiscent of a character in the Gospels: Mary of Bethany, who lived in Bethany (south of
Jerusalem) with her sister Martha and her brother Lazarus. A story about Mary and Martha occurs in Luke 10:38-42,
and the sisters appear again in John 11, and in John 12, where "Martha served" at a dinner in Bethany attended by Jesus
and His disciples, and Mary anointed Jesus' feet with expensive perfume. So if the name "Mariamne" is to be tentatively
associated with anyone in the Gospels, it's not Mary Magdalene; it's Mary of Bethany. But a third option -- that

this character is a sister of Philip, and the author of "Acts of Philip" has blended

her story with Mary of Bethany's story -- is quite tenable. Dr. Bovon fully realized

this, and has stated that he was describing Mariamne as a literary figure rather than

a historical one. In an article published online by the Society for Biblical Literature,

Dr. Bovon stated, "I do not believe that Mariamne is the real name of Mary

Magdalene." His statement about Mariamne was presented out of context in "The

Lost Tomb of Jesus."

Back to "Acts of Philip." In addition to the chapter in which Philip, Bartholomew, and Mariamne encounter a talking
leopard and a talking goat, there is another story in which Philip and his companions cause the destruction of a 150-foot-
long dragon by holding a cup and sprinkling the air in the form of a cross (which causes the dragon to wither and die in a
flash of lightning). Then comes the chapter titled, "Out of the Travels of Philip the Apostle: From the Fifteenth Act to
the End, Wherein is the Martyrdom." This chapter, too, mentions Mariamne. It says that when Philip the apostle was
preaching in Hierapolis (a small city in Asia Minor, that is, western Turkey), "With him were Bartholomew, one of the
Seventy, and his sister Mariamne, and their disciples. And they assembled at Stachys' house. And Mariamne sat and
listened to Philip discoursing." A little further along, a woman named Nicanora, who had an eye-disease, is mentioned.
As Nicanora believes the message, she is healed. Mariamne explained to her what had happened.

The healing of Nicanora sparks a series of events which result in violence against the Philip and his companions: "They
stripped and searched the apostles for charms, and pierced Philip's ankles and thighs and hung him head downward, and
Bartholomew they hung naked by the hair. And they smiled on each other, as not being tormented. But Mariamne on
being stripped became like an ark of glass full of light and fire and every one ran away." Then John arrives. John
attempts to reason with the people, but before he can build his case, they interrupt and attempt to capture him, but they
are miraculously prevented from doing so.

Next, Philip decides to use his miraculous powers. The others try to talk him out of it, but he prays -- or incants -- in
Hebrew, that the earth will open up and swallow the men who are troubling him -- and "It opened and the whole place
was swallowed, about 7,000 men, except where the apostles were." The voices of the swallowed-up people are heard,
begging for mercy, saying "Lo, the cross enlighteneth us," and then another voice says, "I will have mercy on you in my
cross of light." Then Jesus appears on the scene and rebukes Philip, but Philip defends his course of action.

After that, Jesus explains that because Philip had been unforgiving and wrathful, Philip would have to wait 40 days after
his death before entering Paradise. Then Jesus says, "And Bartholomew shall go to Lycaonia and be crucified there, and
Mariamne's body shall be laid up in the river Jordan." Then Jesus brings almost all of the swallowed-up multitude out of
the earth, and the people repent, and go to Philip -- but he instructs them not to take him down. Then Philip quotes a
statement of Jesus that is similar to a statement found in the "Gospel of Thomas" -- "The Lord said to me: Unless ye
make that which is beneath to be above, and the left to be right (and the right left), ye shall not enter into my kingdom."
(In Gosp.Thom. Log. 22:26-27, Jesus said that the disciples will enter the kingdom "When you make the inner as the
outer and the outer as the inner, and the above as the below.") So Philip stays in place, and then dies, after giving various
instructions. Forty days after Philip's death, "The Savior appeared in the form of Philip and told Bartholomew and
Mariamne that he had entered paradise, and bade them go their ways. And Bartholomew went to Lycaonia and
Mariamne to Jordan, and Stachys and the brethren abode where they were." And that's all that "Acts of Philip" says
about Mariamne.

But you already knew that the "Acts of Philip" had these stories in it, right? If readers realized what sort of text "Acts of
Philip" is, they would not consider it historically reliable. Jacobovici and Tabor did not divulge the plot-details of "Acts of
Philip" that show that it is not historically reliable. Jacobovici plucked details from "Acts of Philip" that looked helpful,
while avoiding the rest. As a result, most viewers were given the false impression that "Acts of Philip" is a
straightforward account of someone's missionary journeys.

(12) Dr. Bovon said that in "Acts of Philip," Mariamne "preaches" and "baptizes." He was a co-discoverer of a
medieval copy of "Acts of Philip" in 1974, so perhaps he is referring to something in the text that was unknown to M.R.
James in 1924, when the translation I've relied on for these quotations was made. On the other hand, he might be treating
references to things done by the group of missionaries as if they were done specifically by Mariamne. The text of "Acts
of Philip" (as M.R. James had it) does not justify such a statement, inasmuch as it says that when Philip was preaching,
Mariamne "sat and listened to Philip discoursing."

(13) Bovon's statement that Mary Magdalene is the Mariamne in "Acts of Philip" is not persuasively supported.
Mariamne is never identified in "Acts of Philip" as "Mariamne," while the description that is there describes Mariamne as
a sister of Philip the apostle. Philip was from the city of Bethsaida, not Magdala. Tabor, in a discussion with Ted Koppel,
said that the name Mariamne is "used for Mary Magdalene in a second-century source."" He identified the source to
which he referred: Hippolytus. In the lengthy composition "The Refutation of All Heresies," Book Five, chapter 2,
Hippolytus wrote, "These are the heads of very numerous discourses which (the Naassene) asserts James the brother of
the Lord handed down to Mariamne. In order, then, that these impious (heretics) may no longer belie Mariamne or
James, or the Saviour Himself, let us come to the mystic rites . . ." and that's all there is to his reference to Mariamne.
Hippolytus does not identify "Mariamne" as Mary Magdalene. Hippolytus' statement could just as easily refer to another
individual, such as a sister of Philip.

When Ted Koppel asked about the date of Hippolytus, Tabor said, "That would be, Hippolytus, second century, so
we're getting within a hundred years." However, Hippolytus died in 235. Since he did most of his writing in the
second half of his lifetime, he is typically described as an early third century witness, rather than a second century
witness. (Tabor exhibits an unusual method of text-dating in his book The Jesus Dynasty; on p. 62 he mentions "a 4th-
century A.D. Christian text called the Acts of Pilate, which might have origins reaching back to the late second century,"
but on p. 227 he refers to "A 2nd-century Christian text called the Acts of Pilate.")

Another third century writer, Origen, also used the name "Mariamne." In Book 5 of "Against Celsus," chapter 61,
Origen wrote that Celsus had claimed to know various sects that included "Marcellians, so-called from Marcellina, and
Harpocratians from Salome, and others who derive their name from Mariamne, and others again from Martha." Origen
replied that "we have never at any time met with these sects." Where is the identification of "Mariamne" as Mary
Magdalene? As we saw was the case with Hippolytus, there is no such explicit statement in Origen's writings either.
Instead, Mariamne is mentioned along with Martha. Martha's name also appears in "Acts of Philip" in close proximity to
the name "Mariamne." Aside from these two fleeting and nebulous references, there is hardly any foundation for the idea
that "Mariamne" is Mary Magdalene; the evidence, if it points anywhere, points toward Mary of Bethany as the person
being identified as Mariamne, but it may just as credibly point to an author's confusion of traditions and legends involving
persons with similar names.