Mariamne as key name in the investigation of The Lost Tomb of Jesus
posted February 28th, 2007 at 6:22 pm by Betty
It’s just a name, but one that’s becoming more interesting these days. The name is Mariamne. In the last few days it has been found on blogs and websites — as one of several names and combination of names scratched on ossuaries (coffins or bone boxes) found in what is now being called by Simcha Jacobovici and James Cameron (in a documentary to be aired on Sunday on the Discovery Channel) the “lost tomb of Jesus.” In addition to inscriptions identifed by the investigators as Yose (Joseph), Maria (Mary), James (brother of Jesus) and Yeshua bar Yehosef (Jesus, son of Joseph), Judah, there is Mariamne, found next to Jesus. Apparently two Marys were found next to Jesus, identifed in the documentary as Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Mariamne, or Mary Magdalene. Simcha tells us in an interview that finding out that Mariamne is a name for Mary Magdalene was a key moment in the investigation.
(see The Lost Tomb of Jesus on Discovery Channel’s Website) .
Glad to have the focus once more on Mary Magdalene and I can’t fault the point, especially since Simcha refers to the Acts of Philip where two scholars (Francois Bovon and Antti Marjanen*) have connected the figure in the text named Mariamne to Mary Magdalene. ( Mary Magdalene is referred variously in ancient texts as Maria, Mariamne, Mariamme, and Mariam.)
It’s just a name but in this context, it could be explosive. But let us reserve any kind of judgment until all the evidence is in. What I have picked up in academic circles is that the evidence has been barely looked at - certainly not by a wide range of scholars. Those that have been privy to these details haven’t been legally allowed to discuss in academic circles. Sounds a bit early to be airing conclusions. And so much for “evidence.” This is beginning to sound like the Gospel of Judas controversy over the National Geographic documentary. (See April DeConick’s Blog on the Lost Gospel of Judas)
This is not a blog endorsing Cameron’s thesis - nor is it one denying it - just a blog that is interested in the subject. And especially the inscription Mariamne. Whether the tomb turns out to be the historical evidence for the physical existence of Jesus that Jacobovici and Cameron are suggesting or whether the whole thesis crumbles, we will have for the trouble another memory of Mary Magdalene (known in this case as Mariamne).
To find out about Mary Magdalene, under the name of Mariamne, take a look at two ancient texts:
The Acts of Philip and the Martyrdom of Philip. In the latter document, she is travelling with Bartholomew and Philip proclaiming the gospel. In the former, she is especially prominent in the second half of the text. Mariamne has healing gifts and is a teacher and preacher (though, alas, some manuscripts vary as to how much they want to emphasize her preaching and teaching). Also, she shares in the preparation of the bread and the salt for the communion, and she baptizes the women, while Philip baptizes the men. We have an apostolic trio, Bartholomew, Philip, and Mariamne and all of them suffer persecution, save for a miracle that occurs in protection.
In the Acts of Philip, Mariamne is not only a famous figure of the past. She is being presented as a model and a justification for women’s ministry. No mention is made that she had been married to Jesus. That possibility we find suggested (intimated?) in another text dedicated to Philip - the Gospel of Philip - where she is given her more common name, Mary.
So much for names but keep your eye on Mariamne. 
lost tomb of jesus
jesus family tomb
the gospel of philip
april deconick
gospel of judas
gnosticism
mariamne
* See Francois Bovon, “Mary Magdalene in the Acts of Philip,” Which Mary? (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002,)75-89. and Antti Marjanen, The woman Jesus loved : Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi Library and related documents (Leiden: E. J. Brill, l996),49.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 28th, 2007 at 6:22 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
I’ve written a comprehensive rebuttal to claims and evidence of this film. Please read it and decide for yourself.
You will find it at extremetheology.com
March 1st, 2007 at 11:19 am
Dear Chris,
Thank you for sending to us your rebuttal to the claims and evidence of this film. While I can’t talk about the DNA evidence or the statistics in the comprehensive way that you do, I do agree with you that the so-called “evidence” for the claim is inconclusive.
We need to have all the evidence in before we interpret and conclude. And this hasn’t happenned yet. Scholars haven’t had the chance to talk through the evidence.
The James’ ossuary is certainly problematic as well as the fact that there are people in the tomb that aren’t in the Jesus’ stories. And there is the problem that we don’t know the actual forms of the names on the ossuaries and that some are unmarked. All this effects the statistics to be sure.
Where I think you and I differ is that I think we should remain historically neutral at this point.
Some Christians seem to be starting from the point that all this is impossible and it goes against their faith.
I don’t think my faith will be changed if this turns out to be Jesus’ tomb. ( I need to write more about this.) It certainly wouldn’t change my faith if we discover that Mary Magdalene and Jesus were married and they had a child. In some ways, this thought is welcome.
I wait to see the film, read the book and research, and then begin the conversation about the faith.
Many blessings,
Betty
March 1st, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Hmmmm, I’ve read the Rosebrough rebuttal, and although I, too, cannot talk about DNA and statistical evidence, I cannot agree. For one thing, too much emphasis is placed on the “evidence” of the canonical scriptures, when there are so many other gospels that are just as valid. Another problem I have with the canonical scriptures as we have them is mistranslation.
I do not pretend to be a biblical scholar, just a spiritual seeker who is drawn to Mary Magdalene and her role in the early christian movement. The Apostle Paul claimed to be a witness to Jesus’s resurrection, yes, but why did the vision he saw of the risen Christ need to be the physical body as we understand it? My faith isn’t the least bit changed by evidence that MAY prove that Jesus died and his bones have been found. My understanding of the “body” has grown to include manifestations beyond the physical. I’ve certainly come to know that we don’t know very much! There are new ways of understanding and thinking about the physical that are being discovered every day (I spend a lot of time around physicists!).
I agree with Betty that all the evidence hasn’t been studied and discussed by scholars and that conclusions cannot be drawn until this happens, if at all. I also know that no matter how much scientific evidence is presented to support one theory, there are going to be others presenting scientific evidence to disprove that same theory. Academic debate would be pretty boring otherwise.
I, too, will see the film and read the book and research. However, there are times that I go on “faith” and draw my own conclusions based on what feels right and true to me down deep in my soul. What feels true to me is that Mary Magdalene was more than just one of Jesus followers, that, no matter the lack of evidence at this point in time, She was more intimately tied to Him than we had previously been taught. And if they had a child…so much the better. That child is representative of all of us all as we are the Children of True Humanity.
Bridgitt
April 9th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
There is a critical distinction which separates us neatly into 2 camps. We each must ask ourselves “What evidence would cause me to change my mind?” If the answer is that “there is no ‘evidence’ which would cause me to change”, then this is not an issue which is amenable to science or discovery.
So if someone is ‘convinced’ that Mariamene is Magdalane and no evidence would shake their stand, it really is not an interesting issue any more. Similarly, if someone says that there is no evidence that could ever convince them that Jesus had biological offspring, there isn’t any point in trying to have a discussion. Rational discourse is only possible if there is a possibility that I can change my mind in the face of better or more complete evidence.
June 9th, 2007 at 10:18 am
I am only searching for the truth here. I am open to any hypothesis (there are no theories yet) as the evidence comes in. In my view Maria Magdalene was an aristocrat by birth, Her father surely named her in the greek fashion Mariamme as all well born children were named instead of the popular class Miriam. Her relatives at her death could have placed the original birth and infancy name on the ossuary. (She needed another name also because there was a Maria already there). In Sophia and Philip and so many there is the Mariamme version. Herod was married to 10 wives, and two were Mariamme, also his granddaughters were mariamme. It was chic in those times to have a gree name for Mary.