Tonight I got together with friends to watch the "Jesus Tomb" special on the Discovery Channel. Normally, I ignore such things, but I'd jokingly suggested we could turn it into a Rocky Horror Picture Show-type event, and my friend (half) took me up on it, so, even though we didn't do that, we had fun anyway.

There were, unsurprisingly, quite a number of lose ends and problems revealed. But one in particular blew me away. One which reveals exactly how -- I don't know, what it is: desparate? confused? dishonest? ignorant? deluded? (not good, whatever it was) -- the producers were in trying to arrive at their desired conclusion.

I had wondered precisely how they justified their claim "Mariamene e Mara" (the inscription on one ossuary) was "Mary Magdalene". This is, after all, probably one of the most crucial leaps they make: It's part of their probability calculation, it's part of their claim Jesus had a wife, it's part of their claim he was buried in this tomb.

Tonight, I found out. They claimed that the "gospel" The Acts of Philip referred to Mary Magdalene as "Mariamene". That was the proof.

How many problems do we have here? Let me count...

(1) As you can see here, The Acts of Philip was created about 300 or more years after Jesus died. That's a bit like treating a document created in 2100 AD, purporting to be written by or about George Washington, as a reliable firsthand account of his life.

Surely you'd think such a move would be insane. Simcha Jacobovici and James Cameron didn't.

(2) Furthermore, given that dozens and dozens of such spurious gospels exist, one has to wonder why this particular text is treated as reliable, when others, which contradict it, are not. Probably because it gives Cameron his missing link. Or does it... ?

(3) Next, ignoring both those problems, the "Mariamme" in Acts of Philip is Philip's alleged sister. There is no mention of Mary Magdalene in this book, and there is no implication -- none at all -- that "Mariamme" is she, or even has anything to do with her. And she certainly isn't married to Jesus.

(4) Finally, and most damningly, The Acts of Philip also depicts Jesus as having been risen and ascended to heaven (not buried in a tomb), as not at all being married to "Mariamme", and, finally, depicts this "Mariamme" as buried in the Jordan river -- not a tomb outside Jerusalem.

Cameron, Jacobovici, and the rest of the crew treat Acts of Philip as a reliable witness in one area (a woman Mariamme was a follower of Jesus) yet completely ignore what it has to say regarding these other elements. They also insert elements which aren't there at all.

Cherry picking? Worse, perhaps: Fabrication? Glaringly so, apparently.

So that's it: this gospel isn't generally viewed as reliable, doesn't date anywhere near the events in question, doesn't say anything Cameron said it did, and says all sorts of sorts of other things Cameron ignores. It gives not a single hint that "Mariamme" was Mary Magdalene, was married to Jesus, or was even buried in a tomb.

And this is the key piece of evidence Cameron cites to draw his connections.

How do you ignore all that and make the claims they did, with a straight face?

Beats me, but they did it.