Stand to Reason Blog

Something about Mary

One of the main lines of evidence the documentary makers of "The Lost Jesus Tomb" follow is the cluster of names on the ossuaries found together.  The names were all common ones in first century Israel, but there is a sort of specified complexity finding this particular cluster of names associated with Jesus that raises the odds.  On "Larry King Live" last night, James Tabor said that the odds of finding those names together is 600 to one, which frankly doesn't strike me as too great odds.  Maybe coincidence territory.  And connecting the names as one family might be a bit of a leap of reasoning, we'll have to wait and hear the whole case.

Here's a question I have about the name Mary found on two ossuaries.  Neither ossuary gives any indication, from the evidence I've seen, that refers to Magdala, which would make one of them Mary Magdalene or Mary from Magdala.  Yet that seems to be what Simcha Jacobovici assumes.  Here's what he said on Larry King last night:

And her name was a variant of Miriam, a Greek variant, Mariamene. So there's two Marys in the tomb, one named Maria, which is -- comes down to, in the Christian tradition, the mother of Jesus; but the other one, Mariamene.

They couldn't have known in 1980 that in the 1990s, the scholars -- New Testament scholars at Harvard, Princeton, and so on -- would conclude that Mary Magdalene's title was Mary from Magdala, the city Magdala. But her name is Mariamene. They didn't know that. So the archaeologists didn't know what the New Testament guys knew and the New Testament people didn't know what the archaeologists knew.

Indeed, Ben Witherington points out that that neither of the Mary ossuaries makes a reference to Migdal.  So what leads the filmmakers to assume this is Mary Magdalene and Jesus' wife? 

Apparently the nickname Mariamene, which some scholars say Mary Magalene was known by, leads them to think this is Mary Magdalene.  But Jacobovici's comments indicates that Mariamene was a variant of Mary or Miriam, which presumably any Mary might have been nicknamed.  In fact, Miriam is a biblical variation of Mary.  The reason some believe Mary Magdalene was sometimes called Mariamene is based on fourth century apocrypha, written many, many years after the eyewitnesses were dead.  Darrell Bock, who has seen the show says:

[T]here is the name Mariamne, a variation of Maria, one of the most common of names of the time. It is like saying every Susan married to a Richard can only be one family and that finding that Maria and Maria are related names is a surprise (a little like calling William, Bill)....

[T]o get Mariamne to match Mary Magdalene and not a host of any other Mary’s, one has to appeal to an apocryphal Acts in a fourth century manuscript. Without that, there is not even a possibility of a connection.

Now if it had mentioned Magdala along with this particular cluster of names, well, that would strike me as surprising and interesting.  But absent that, I don't see the connection in their reasoning.  I picked up the book yesterday so I'll see what they've got to say.  Maybe there's more to it.

And the evidence to support the suggestion that this Jesus was married to one of the Marys in the tomb?  Their DNA doesn't match.  "They must have been married!"  Bock points out:

[T]ere is the DNA showing that Mariamne and Jesus DNA residue do not match. Now with how many women in Judea would Jesus’ DNA not match? Even women named Mary/Mariamne? This proves nothing.

I have to wonder, absent a specific mention of Magdala, whether this leap of reasoning would have occurred to most anyone prior to The Da Vinci Code.  Despite how silly that book is and the claims it makes, some people now think that there's a good chance Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.  I suspect that book and the recent efforts to resuscitate the Gnostic gospels makes something like this documentary more plausible in people's minds.  What we're witnessing is The Da Vinci Code Effect:  strands of data connected with conjecture leads to baseless conclusions.  We'll see.

Before One Can Know God...

In the book Truth with Love: The Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer, Bryan Follis traces the use of reason and apologetics in the Reformed tradition from the Reformation to now.  I found Jonathan Edwards's understanding of the role of rational knowledge in our spiritual lives to be insightful though contrary to today's popular opinion.

Edwards knew that we need to go beyond mere rationality in our relationship with God, saying, "There is a difference between having a right speculative notion of the doctrines contained in the word of God, and having a due sense of them in the heart."  (This and all quotes below of Jonathan Edwards's work are from "Christian Knowledge" in Jonathan Edwards on Knowing Christ.)  However, Follis says:

While recognizing the limitation of any knowledge of God obtained by reasoning alone, [Edwards] argued that we cannot enjoy a "spiritual" knowledge without first having a "natural" (or rational) knowledge of divine things.  Thus the "special illumination of the Sprit of God" was not some abstract or mystical experience, for he was convinced that "God deals with man as with a rational creature."  Hence "no object can come at the heart but through the door of the understanding: and there can be no spiritual knowledge of that of which there is not first a rational knowledge."  Reason, for Edwards, was inadequate but essential: before one can know God, one has to know about God.

Who's Writing the Ficiton Here?

As I mentioned yesterday, the claims about the remains of Jesus immediately put me in mind of Dr. Paul L. Maier's work of fiction A Skeleton in God's Closet.  That was the premise of the mystery.  So Dr. Maier has thought about this idea and he's also an expert in ancient archaeology and follows these developments closely.  Here is his response to the news so far:

Paul L. Maier, Ph.D., Litt.D
Department of History
Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, MI 49008

February 25, 2007

Dear Friends and Readers,

Thanks for the profusion of e-mails I’ve received over the last two days regarding the Talpiot tombs discovery in Jerusalem, a.k.a., “the Jesus Family Tomb” story.  Some of  you also suggested that “life seemed to be following art” so far as my A Skeleton in God’s Closet was concerned.  Believe me, this is not the way I wanted my novel to hit the visual media!

Alas, this whole affair is just the latest in the long-running media attack on the historical Jesus, which – we thought – had culminated in that book of lies, The Da Vinci Code.  But no: the caricatures of Christ continue.

Please, lose no sleep over the Talpiot “discoveries” for the following reasons, and here are the facts:.

1)  Nothing is new here:  scholars have known about the ossuaries ever since March of 1980.  The general public learned when the BBC filmed a documentary on them in 1996.  James Tabor’s book, The Jesus Dynasty, also made a big fuss over the Talpiot tombs more recently, and now James Cameron (The Titanic) and Simcha Jacobovici have climbed aboard the sensationalist bandwagon as well.  He

2) All the names – Yeshua, Joseph, Maria, Mariamene, Matia, Judah, and Jose --  are extremely frequent Jewish names for that time and place, and thus most schol-ars consider this merely coincidental, as they did from the start.  One-quarter of Jewish women at that time, for example, were named Maria.

3) There is no reason whatever to equate “Mary Magdalene” with “Mariamene,”
as Jacobovici claims.

4)  So what if her DNA is different from that of “Yeshua” ?  That particular :Mariamme” (as it is usually spelled today) could indeed have been the wife of that particular “Yeshua.” 

5) What in the world is the “Jesus Family” doing, having a burial plot in Jerusalem, of all places, the very city that crucified Jesus?  Galilee was their home.  In Galilee they could have had such a family plot, not Judea.  Besides all of which, church tradition – and Eusebius – are unanimous in reporting that Mary died in Ephesus, where the apostle John, faithful to his commission from Jesus on the cross, had accompanied Mary.

6) If this were Jesus’ family burial, what is Matthew doing there – if indeed “Ma-tia” is thus to be translated? 

7) How come there is no tradition whatever – Christian, Jewish, or secular -- that any part of the Holy Family was buried at Jerusalem?

8) Please note the extreme bias of the director and narrator, Simcha Jacobovici.  The man is an Indiana-Jones-wannabe, who oversensationalizes anything he touches.  You may have caught him on his TV special regarding The Exodus, in which the man “explained” just everything that still needed proving or explaining in the Exodus account in the Old Testament!  It finally became ludicrous, and now he’s doing it again.  – As for James Cameron, how do you follow The Titanic?  Well, with an even more “titanic” story.  He should have known better.

There are more arguments, to be sure, but I want to get this off pronto.

With warm regards,

Paul L. Maier

Tale from the Crypt

We don't know yet what the details are of James Cameron's evidence for claiming Jesus' remains have been found.  There'll be plenty to respond to, I'm sure.  Greg opened the radio show yesterday with some general comments about how to think about these kinds of claims. 

One thing to keep in mind that this evidence, after it's examined, has to stack up against the positive evidence we have for Christianity.  Too often people forget that there is plenty of evidence to explain away that has withstood 2000 years of criticism.  Paul did say that if Jesus wasn't raised from the dead, physically, then our faith is in vain so Cameron's claim goes to the foundation of Christianity.  It's our central claim and we can't just respond by "taking it on faith."  Jesus offered Himself as evidence for His claims.  But anticipating Cameron's evidence is less than conclusive, Christianity has plenty of evidence going for it that will have to be stacked against what he offers.  He doesn't offer us this new information in a vacuum. 

Sure, there are people happy to jump on anything to debunk Christianity.  Look how many people actually believe in the truth of the Da Vinci Code.  But we have good reason on our side and that doesn't evaporate with Cameron's evidence.

Apparently Cameron's conclusions depend to some extent on James Tabor's scholarship so it's good to revisit Darrell Bock's assessment of Tabor's methodology and conclusions.

Update:  Here's the documentary website at Discovery.

Amos Kloner, the archaeologist who originally oversaw the dig, is skeptical.

Here's an article on Discovery with some of the details.

The Skeleton in God's Closet?

James Cameron, "king of the world," claims in a new documentary to have identified Jesus' remains.  He plans to announce his film tomorrow.  It'll be interesting to see his evidence.  Obviously, I'm skeptical.  DNA evidence?  Who would you even compare it to?

Interestingly, it bears striking similarity to Dr. Paul L. Maier's fiction A Skeleton in God's Closet, which turns out to be a plot to discredit Christianity.

Amazing Grace

We are great sinners.  And Christ is a great Savior.

That is one of the primary thoughts and convictions I have leaving "Amazing Grace."  I just got back from seeing the movie and thought it excellent.  And deeply moving  How are we capable of perpetrating such inhuman treatment on other humans?

The descriptions of slavery will wrench your soul, as they should.  I heard a few details I hadn't heard before.  And the personal price Wilberforce paid for his long struggle for abolition will break your heart.  This man's passion for the campaign wasn't wholly explained in the movie, I think, but his utter commitment was obvious.

When he and his compatriots finally prevail in outlawing slaving in the British Empire, it's a true victory that the audience shares with him.  I felt like standing and cheering with the other MPs in Parliament that supported the bill.  When our country had many more years to tolerate the intolerable, the British Parliament, even the Prime Minister, was debating the morality of treating human beings as property.  These were great men.  An immeasurable justice was finally righted in that vote. 

As John Newton says in the movie, "They [the slaves} were the human beings, and we the apes."  Yet John Newton was wholly changed because God saved Him.  And men and women like William Wilberforce could literally not live with the existence of slavery on their consciences informed by their Christian convictions.

That is one small disappointment in the movie.  Though Wilberforce' and other's Christianity was quite clear, how their abolitionist convictions grew out of that was never really argued for.  And I thought that would have been quite bracing.

Wilberforce and his compatriots gathered information and evidence about slavery to add to their persuasive case so that those cloistered from the true horror could begin to understand.  In one case they invited a group of MPs and their wives on a boat cruise of a harbor, eating fine food and enjoying music, only to be brought along side a slaver that still stank of the death of 400 slaves in the holds during the voyage from Africa.  They couldn't avert their eyes any longer.  After presenting his evidence  to Parliament, Wilberforce concluded, “Having heard all this you may choose to look the other way, but you can never again say that you did not know.”

The modern horror of abortion needs to be confronted in the similarly.  Understanding the humanity of the unborn and the horror of abortion adds understanding to the moral persuasion.  It's too easy to hide from the ugly details of injustices in our world.

The dignity of vocation was a subtle message in the movie.  As a young man, Wilberforce considered withdrawing from the world to lead a meditative life with God, but his friends persuaded him to stay in politics and campaign for justice.  Our world needs Christians in every profession bringing their light to bear on all aspects of life.  God working through mankind at a otherwise mundane task can bring change in the world.  Christians need to be in the world living out Biblical convictions.  “The principles of Christianity require action as well as meditation,” Newton counsels Wilberforce.

Don't miss this movie.  It's about a serious subject, but it's about a man who has been too long forgotten and is a true hero.  And his vision of justice extended beyond slavery, to issues about a civil society concerning us today.  I was personally inspired and Wilberforce is added to a very small group I consider my heroes.  He's a truly great man we should know about and be inspired by.  I'm kind of ashamed I never made an effort to read about him. 

It's not a stuffy movie.  The characters are human, humorous and light at times.  There's political intrigue, some romance.  One of the nice things aobut the period dramas being made these days is that the characters are three-dimensional, not boring fuddy-duddies.   I took my teenage niece with me and she enjoyed it, too.  The audience at the showing I was at applauded at the end.

We all need amazing grace.  And with God's grace amazing things are possible.

Abortion and Breast Cancer: It's Time to Take the Link Seriously

Time Magazine ran a cover story last week on pregnancy resource centers. In the course of the article, Time mentions one opinion that centers "inflate" the risk abortion poses for breast cancer. I can't speak for what individual centers have claimed, but I can clear up some confusion on the question.

I'm on the campus of Texas A and M this week training pro-lifers through interactions with abortion-choice advocates surrounding the Justice For All Exhibit. Because one Exhibit panel informs women of the risks abortion poses to both their health and their baby's life, it includes the phrase "abortion may be a risk factor for breast cancer."

On Wednesday, one A and M student was angry that the exhibit was "inaccurate." His beef? "It claims abortion causes breast cancer and that has been debunked." I assume Time's comment about "inflating the risk" is in the same vein: If you claim there may be a connection, you're inflating the risk.

Time cites a 2003 National Cancer Institute meeting as evidence. Frequently, students I talk with also cite this as evidence that there isn't a connection between abortion and breast cancer. If only it were that simple.

The question of whether abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer is not a question that can be resolved by a meeting of National Cancer Institute scientists. It should be resolved in the peer-reviewed medical literature. Sure, the opinion of one or even 100 scientists can be helpful, but unless they give their reasons, we can't evaluate what they've said.

So, what does the literature say? In a subsequent post, I'll summarize the research. For now, I have two suggestions:

1. Remember that our moral case against abortion doesn't hinge on the answer to this question. If abortion isn't a risk factor for breast cancer, I'll gladly breathe a sigh of relief, even as I continue to make the case that it's wrong to kill the unborn for the reasons most women have abortions. If abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer, we should take care to inform women of the risk so they can make appropriate monitoring decisions. Our case against abortion is sound regardless of what the evidence shows on breast cancer. Whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, we can all work together to evaluate the evidence on breast cancer with an open mind. Women's lives may depend on it.

2. Use the following resources to begin to form your own opinion:

Perhaps the most important study is Janet Daling's 1994 study. Here's the abstract.

Thorp, et. al published a meta-analysis, "Long-Term Physical and Psychological Health Consequences of Induced Abortion: Review of the Evidence" (Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey. 58(1):67-79) in January 2003. Here's the abstract and the article.

Chris Kahlenborn's book, Breast Cancer: Its link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill, explains the scientific complexities in layman's language. Portions are available online.

Breast Cancer Prevention Institute has some excellent fact sheets that carefully respond to recent studies claiming to refute the idea that abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer. One explains why the National Cancer Institute meeting didn't settle the question.

Looking Back at the Witnesses

Hebrews 11 describes the "great cloud of witnesses surrounding us"--people who trusted God and continued on even though they "died in faith, without receiving the promises [of God's future plan], but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance."  Now we can clearly see how God used their lives to move history toward His purposes, but they never had the benefit of seeing what God would ultimately do with their actions.  They only knew that God was trustworthy, so they put their faith in Him and kept moving forward.

It's probably better that we can't often see the results of our own work.  We stay humble, and we're forced to look back to the lives of others from the past for encouragement.  We see who God is when we see how He worked through them.  We learn about His character and His power.  Knowing these things about the past helps us to trust Him now with our own lives.

Each year at the Desiring God Pastors Conference, John Piper tells the story of another great Christian from history.  You can download them here.  I've heard them all, and I wait eagerly for each new one.  The stories are amazing.  These "witnesses" were not superheroes.  They suffered depression, fear, hopelessness, physical pain, loneliness, and persecution just as anyone might who is working to make a difference in this world--to bring glory to Christ and to help others know, love, and serve Him.

Listening to these riveting stories, you can't help but be encouraged by the fact that God does work in history and He uses simple, sinful people like you and me.

Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God (Hebrews 12:1-2).

Continue on in faith!

Do My Eyes Deceive Me?

Do we live in a visual culture? How do our visual senses help or hinder our thinking about truth?

Watch this video, then share your thoughts in the comments section.

As for me, I grew up in the last quarter of the twentieth century, a time rich with images on billboards, television, and magazine stands. I think the visual inputs I've received thousands of times each day have warped my ability to appreciate beauty and reality like I was meant to. This saddens me, makes me want to limit how many images I'm exposed to when I'm not actively reflecting on them, and drives me to consider how I might purposefully retrain my visual senses.

Monday at Berkeley

Our fourth day here in Berkeley was challenging.  We had presentations by atheists David Fitzgerald on the existence of Jesus, Larry Hicok on the problem of evil, and Richard Carrier on the meaning of life in atheism.  Students minds were thoroughly stretched by the end of the day. 

As part of preparation, several high schoolers were assigned the task of responding to the atheist's presentations immediately following and then the atheist was allowed to respond to the response.  Student anxiety was at an all-time high beforehand!  But I guarantee you these students studied harder and prepared more than they probably ever have before.  And in the end, it was a valuable part of their training to defend the faith and love God with both heart and mind.