Mariamene and Mary Magdalene

Was Mariamene another name for Mary Magdalene?

There are no good historical reasons to trace the name “Mariamene” to Mary Magdalene.

Sources dating from the middle to late third to fifth centuries like Hippolytus, the Gospel of Mary, and the Acts of Phillip are far too late to be helpful with historical questions pertaining to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.¹⁰ It is amazing that Tabor refers to these sources as “several early Christian texts” and the “earliest history of the Jesus movement” while holding that the Gospels are often too late to be helpful!¹¹

Further, even in Hippolytus (in “Refutation of All Heresies”) and the Acts of Phillip (dated by Bauckham to the late fourth to the early fifth century), the person “Mariamene” is never specifically identified as Mary Magdalene. Although Mariamene is mentioned several times in the Acts of Phillip, Joseph Fitzmeyer states that “there is not one instance that suggests she is Mary of Magdala.”¹² Witherington adds that in Hippolytus, the name is not even the same as on the Talpiot ossuary.¹³

Fitzmyer thinks that this lack of identification is the “biggest problem” for the claims by Jacobovici and Pellegrino. For example, the “ou” ending of the name “Mariamenou” is actually masculine/neuter, so how could it even be a woman's name? For these and other reasons, “the whole account about ‘the Jesus family tomb’ loses its most crucial piece of ‘evidence.”’¹⁴

Further, “Mara” does not mean Master or Teacher, but is short for Martha. Joseph Fitzmyer calls the Talpiot thesis translation a gratuitous assumption.¹⁵

Witherington says that Mary was known as being from Magdal or Magdala. Without that geographical designation, the name is far too common to tie to Mary Magdalene.¹⁶

“THERE IS NOT ONE INSTANCE THAT SUGGESTS SHE IS MARY OF MAGDALA.”

JOSEPH FITZMEYER

What could the ossuary name “Mariamene” indicate?

Bauckham thinks that the woman buried in the ossuary probably had two names: “Mariamenon” (Greek) and “Mara” (Semitic). Since the former is “a term of endearment” it probably indicates a bilingual family that spoke Greek at home, another problem for identifying this as Jesus' family.¹⁷

Witherington also concludes that the ossuary probably contained the remains of two women, or a woman and child, or one woman with two names. Perhaps favoring the two persons view is that there appears to be a “slash line” between the names. Still, none of these names is that of Mary Magdalene.¹⁸

“I MUST SAY THAT THE RECONSTRUCTIONS OF JESUS' MARRIAGE WITH MARY MAGDALENE AND THE BIRTH OF A CHILD BELONG FOR ME TO SCIENCE FICTION.”²²

FRANCOIS BOVON

“THERE IS NO REASON AT ALL TO CONNECT THE WOMAN IN THIS OSSUARY WITH MARY MAGDALENE, AND IN FACT THE NAME USAGE IS DECISIVELY AGAINST SUCH A CONNEXION (SIC).”²¹

RICHARD BAUCKHAM

“NO REPUTABLE HISTORIAN OF CHRISTIAN ORIGINS SERIOUSLY THINKS THAT JESUS WAS MARRIED TO MARY MAGDALENE (OR ANYONE ELSE, AS FAR AS WE KNOW).”²³

MARK GOODACRE

Pfann concludes that the “Mariamene” ossuary is really that of two persons: “Mariame” and (“kai”) “Mara,” the latter being added to the ossuary later.¹⁹ Tabor responded to Pfann that a specialist, Di Segni, thinks Pfann is mistaken and still holds to the view that Miriamene is a double name for a single woman buried in the ossuary.²⁰

Baukham concludes: “There is no reason at all to connect the womain in the ossuary with Mary Magdalene, and in fact the name usage is decisively against such a connexion (sic).”²¹

The bottom line is that scholars have uniformly rejected the suggestion that Mariamene is Mary Magdalene.

Was Jesus married? Did he have children?

Harvard scholar Francois Bovon, whose work on Mary Magdalene is cited by Tabor and the Talpiot Hypothesis thesis, still concludes, “I must say that the reconstructions of Jesus' marriage with Mary Magdalene and the birth of a child belong for me to science fiction.”²²

Mark Goodacre of Duke University adds that “no reputable historian of Christian origins seriously thinks that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene (or anyone else, as far as we know).”²³

It would seem that in theological terms, nothing negative would follow either from Jesus being married or his fathering children. It could be true even if the New Testament never recorded it. After all, it was normal for first-century Jews to marry and if this were the case, Jesus would be the model for husband-wife relations, as well as fatherhood! So there is no need to disregard these hypotheses for such reasons. However, the chief problem is not the theoretical concept itself, but the revisionist history that is the main ally of these ideas, as it attempts to invent this thesis without any evidence.

Not one ancient historical source claims that Jesus was married, either to Mary Magdalene or to anyone else. Neither are there any ancient historical sources that teach that Jesus had children.

There are several considerations in the New Testament that appear to argue against the claim that Jesus was married, although it probably should be acknowledged that none of these proves the case, either. As just indicated, Jesus' wife is never mentioned, even though it would be normal. Arguments from silence are notoriously weak, so we cannot place too much emphasis on this point, but it is worth mentioning. Jesus' teaching about being single for the kingdom of heaven's sake (Matt. 19:12) is also a pointer.

If Jesus had been married, this would have been a wonderful clincher to Paul's argument that apostles have the right to bring their wives with them in ministry, although the best Paul could do was to refer to Peter and Jesus' brothers (1 Cor. 9:5). That would have clinched Paul's argument by itself!²⁴

Acts 8:30–34 implies that Jesus had no descendants. At the cross, Jesus committed his mother to John, not to his son (John 19:26). Jesus' brother James is the leader of early church in Jerusalem (Acts 15). But since there is no evidence at all that Jesus was married, it should not be necessary to mention his lack of offspring!

Goodacre states that the available evidence argues that Jesus did not have a son. It will not do to postulate otherwise without historical data by saying that “our evidence is incomplete,” or that we should be open to it, or simply that we cannot rule out the possibility.²⁵ Positive evidence is needed.

The James Ossuary. Photo: Biblical Archaeology Society of Washington, D.C./Getty Images.

↑ Back to top