The View from Jerusalem

Should we throw out common sense?
During the course of the year I have heard that common sense can be deceiving with respect to probabilities and statistics. In fact, the theological advisor of the film assured many that “statistics are counterintuitive”.

The best known epigraphers and archaeologists who have worked on tomb inscriptions were confidently unanimous. They all said that the names on the Talpiot ossuaries were simply too common to link these ossuaries with any known historical figure. The response of one such scholar was “Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics”.

A year ago, Professor Andrey Feuerverger, a mathematician from the University of Toronto, told the world at a press conference that, based upon the assumptions that were given to him, the probability that the ossuaries of the Talpiot tomb were those of Jesus and his family was a 600 to 1 likelihood.

Now, a year later, the official publication of Prof. Feuerverger’s continued research on the topic has been published and is available to the world to see. It is called “Statistical Analysis of an Archaeological Find–A Bayesian View”. He now says that, based upon a priori assumptions , the probability should be raised to a “1600 to 1 probability” that the ossuaries of the Talpiot tomb were those of Jesus and his family.

Several statisticians were provided with copies of Feuerverger’s paper for review before its publication. The paper and the accompanying reviews are now available together on the web site of the Annals of Applied Statistics. Most of the reviewers, while offering constructive criticisms of the work, applauded the paper’s insightful advancements in the application of statistics to archaeological finds. Others were less generous in their final assessment, including Camil Fuchs and Don Bentley. (A decent summary has been provided here by Christopher Heard at the site Higgaion).

One thing keeps passing the non-statisticians by almost without notice. Feuerverger and his reviewers stress that the conclusions of their work are only valid if the a priori assumptions that were provided to them were true. In other words, if the premises of the filmmakers were faulty, if the assumptions were untrue, then the statistical probabilities are also false. Don Bentley puts it quite simply: “we can only accept the conclusion if we are willing to accept the assumptions.”

Let’s try some other a priori assumptions:”If the Moon were made of cheese . . . . ”

“If the cow can jump over the moon . . . ”

“Assuming that money can grow on trees . . .”

Assuming these things are true then the conclusion based upon these premises must be . . . . A) True or B) False.

******************

Now how about these premises (which are actually true):

What if we found a first century tomb with names on ossuaries “Jesus(?) son of Joseph”, “Joseh”, and two Marys . . .

And . . .

1) add to that: the unrelated names Mara, Mattiah and Judas son of Jesus also appeared in the tomb . . .

2) Also, these names represent less than 1/4 of all of the skeletons that were once in the tomb.

3) Also, add the fact that one of every five women among all ossuaries were named “Mary” (or some form of that name, this is actually true) . . . .

4) And at the same time, almost one in every twenty people (male or female) were named “Jesus”

5) Add to that: nearly one in every ten people (male or female) were named ”Joseph”

6) Also: one in every ten tombs should statistically have another ‘Jesus son of Joseph’ . . . .

Assuming these things are true, this really means that the tomb Jesus of Nazareth and his family has been discovered. True or False

Unfortunately, most people listening to the statisticians believe that they are giving statistics that have a bearing on real history. However, that is not true at all. On the contrary, if we are listening to them carefully we will find that they are only speaking hypothetically. Their premises, which form the basis for their statistics, are only a priori assumptions. The statistician must reserve his judgment as to the veracity of the assumptions which others have given him. He leaves this for others who are more qualified to judge. These same statisticians admit that if they would be given other assumptions, then they would have deduced totally different statistical probabilities.

Prof. Camil Fuchs of Tel Aviv University, after challenging the apparent positive and not the expected dispassionate view toward the a priori assumptions, goes on to conclude:

“Feuerverger was quoted as saying that ‘I did permit the number one in 600 to be used in the film. I’m prepared to stand behind that but on the understanding that these numbers were calculated based on assumptions that I was asked to use’, a statement far removed from the rigorous demand of a-priori assumptions. (In his webpage, Feuerverger (2007) mentions that the quotations in the interview are ’sufficiently accurate to be considered fair’).

“In spite of the fact that in my opinion, the analysis of the “surprisingness” based on the configuration of names failed to yield the stated conclusions, I refrain in this article from passing judgment on the subject matter issue of whether or not this is the tombsite of the NT family.

“Furthermore, notwithstanding the reservations from the analyses applied to the discussed data, I applaud the bold initiative taken in the discussed paper to develop a new approach to tackle a problem characterized by a degree of complexity that precludes the straightforward application of the classical hypothesis framework. The general problem of rendering judgment on whether a multiple characteristics observation represents the pursued specific entity or is just the result from random draws is interesting and intriguing. Cases of disputed paternity and DNA matching come to mind in this context. Unlike the Talpiot case, in those cases a standard for comparison is available. The new approach and concepts of ’surprisingness’, ‘relevance’ and ‘rareness’ may evolve and prove beneficial in cases in which no such standard exists.

“Classical methods, usually based on Bayesian analysis, are available for those cases, but their application may be difficult in complex situations. If the new approach is to be applied, its performance needs to be compared to existing methods in situations in which it is known whether the null hypothesis (or the analogous null hypothesis) is correct. I think that the features of the approach still need to be investigated theoretically or by simulations under various conditions of complexity. In any case, the assumptions have to be pre-specified to ensure valid results and a valid comparison.”

In all fairness, Prof. Feuerverger himself pronounced at the symposium:

“Without Mary Magdalene, the tomb is like any other tomb with an unremarkable common set of names.”

Andrey Feuerverger, Mathematician, University of Toronto

 

A comment has been added to our post “Fair Representation” of yet another participant in the Jerusalem Tomb Symposium who wants to be fairly represented by speaking for himself. (Prof. McDonald earlier signed the Duke University Statement)

“I agree with the comments of Eric Meyers and most others who attended and participated in the meetings in Jerusalem. There was an array of excellent contributions that enlightened all of us on the forensic, geological, archaeological, biblical and DNA evidence related to Jewish burial traditions and the particulars of the Talpiot Tomb. Like others attending, I felt that the evidence presented at the conference could in no way be considered supportive of the film produced earlier by Simcha Jacobovici. In fact, had I been him, I would have been embarrassed at the results that challenged his film overwhelmingly. How he could say at the end of the proceedings that he felt “vindicated” is beyond me and most of those I talked to after the conference was over. Many of us thought that the news media high jacked the logical conclusion of the conference and missed the obvious point that there was no way that the anyone could demonstrate that the Talpiot Tomb was the place where Jesus was buried (secondarily after his body decomposed) or that there was evidence that he was married to Mary and that they sired a son, or even that it was the family tomb of Jesus (which logically would have been in Nazareth, not Jerusalem). There was no evidence at the conference to prove any of those postulations or theories.

Thanks for letting me make this statement.

–Lee Martin McDonald”

Other Symposium participants may add their own comments as they stand up to speak for themselves. These will be bound into a single publication in the near future.

The Varied Faces, Names and Shades of Color of the Josephs of History. (Just to name a few)

Throughout the history of Israel and the Jewish people there have been many Josephs, starting with Joseph the son of Jacob. Each one was the namesake of the first. However, the name Joseph took on several forms.

Joseph, son of Jacob

Throughout the Hebrew Bible the name “Joseph” is spelled “YWSF” in the original language (with a single exception, below). Apparently, YWSF is short for the name YEHOSEF “(God) will cause increase” .

In Psalm 81:6 the same individual, Joseph the son of Jacob, is called YHWSF in the Hebrew.

“He made it a decree in Joseph, when he went out over the land of Egypt. I hear a voice I had not known.”

In this one place, the name Joseph is awarded the full spelling. In all other places in the Biblical narrative, he is called by the shortened form YWSF.

Apparently an even shorter form of Yehosef was in use at a later period: “Yoseh” (or the later form “Yosey”).

In the superior Kaufmann manuscripts of the Mishnah this shortened form YWSH “Yoseh” occurs 357 times and YWSY “Yosey” only 62 times.

In the Eshkol edition of the Mishnah YWSY “Yosey” is found 429 times; (YWSH “Yoseh” does not occur at all.)
In both sources the name YWSF “Yosef” occurs only 11 times en toto (not all the same references, however).

In both sources the form YHWSF “Yehosef”, which predominates in the ossuaries, does not occur at all.

Yoseh ben Yoezer and Yoseh ben Yohanan, the first of the Zugot “Pairs” (from c. 174 BCE)

In the Kaufmann manuscript: YWSH BN YW‘ZR “Yoseh ben Yoezer” occurs 6 times (Hagig. 2:2, 6:7; Eduy. 8:4; Sota 9:9; Avot 1:4 [2x])

In the Eshkol manuscript:
YWSY BN YW‘ZR “Yosey ben Yoezer” occurs 5 times (Hagig. 2:2, 6:7; Eduy. 8:4; Sota 9:9; Avot 1:4 [2x])

However, surprisingly the formal form “Yoseph ben Yoezer” also appears in that edition:
IWSF BN YW‘ZR occurs once (at Hagig. 6:7) for the same person.

(For Yose ben Yohanan: predictably, the Kaufmann manuscript has “Yoseh” (4x) and the Eshkol edition has “Yosey” instead (Hagig. 2:2; Sota 9:9; Avot 1:4; 1:5 )

Joseph the Priest or Yoseh the Priest?

In Mikv. 10:1 and Hal. 4:1, both the Kaufmann and Eshkol manuscripts read YWSF HKWHN “Yoseph haKohen”.

In the Eshkol edition, the formal form YWSF HKWHN “Yoseph haKohen” is used 3 times (Eduy. 8:2; Avot 2:8 [2x])

However in the same passages, the Kaufmann manuscript of the Mishnah uses the informal form YWSH HKWHN “Yoseh haKohen”.

All of these passages are referring to the same priest.

Joseph the brother of Jesus? or Joses the brother of Jesus?

The same phenomenon. Two different versions of the story, Mark’s and Matthew’s, and the two different forms IWSF/IWSHS used by the two authors.

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. (Mark 6:3)

Of Jesus’ brother: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?” (Matt. 13:55)

~

We would contend that the given individuals were called by the formal name by some and by the informal name by others. Other scholars say that “Jose” is merely the Galilean way of saying “Joseph” (see Anchor Bible Dictionary: “Joseph: 10″. Whatever the case, the bottom line is that both forms were considered to be alternative forms of the other by the ancient sources.

By the way, believe it or not, among the ossuaries the Biblical spelling “YWSF” is by far the rarest of all of the spellings for “Joseph”, occuring on only one ossuary CJO 573: PYNHS BR YWSF (written twice for the same person).

Throughout the year there has been an emphasis by supporters of the “Jesus Family Tomb” hypothesis as to how very rare the name “Yoseh” was during the Second Temple Period, based on the following assumptions.

1) The name “Yehosef” is seen as the predominant form of the name.

2) It was also assumed and asserted that when the shortened form Yose was used during that time, it was far more likely to be spelled YWSY than YWSH.

3) Thus YWSH/Yoseh was very rare indeed.

However, after having rechecked the sources and having reassessed the frequency of Yoseh during that time, a different picture began to appear.

Any student of ancient Jewish literature realizes that the proper evaluation of one’s sources is absolutely essential to the discipline. Such an evaluation yielded the following observations.

1) Utilizing the best manuscripts of early Jewish sources written in Hebrew or Aramaic, the name applied to living individuals during the Second Temple Period was often YWSH and not YHWSF. (As in the case, for example, of Yoseh b. Yo’ezer and Yoseh ben Yochanan, the first of the zugot from the second century BCE.)

2) According to Ilan (p. 159 note 96) YWSH is correctly listed as the predominant form used in Galilean synagogue inscriptions (10x), over against YWSF (1x) (cf. Naveh’s corpus in On Stone and Mosaic, p. 152).

If this is the case, then why do we find so many individuals named “Joseph” in Second Temple funerary inscriptions?

It is clear that among the Jewish Hebrew ossuary inscriptions, the use of the formal name YHWSF “Yehosef” (17x) by far predominates over the informal, familiar form Y(W)SH “Yoseh” (2x). However, this is to be expected in funerary inscriptions. In any individual’s lifetime he would be called one of the two alternatives depending upon the formal or informal context in which the name was used. On an ossuary or a grave stone during the first century, like today, the formal name “Joseph” was almost certainly more appropriate than the deceased’s informal name “Joey” or “Joe” (which he might have been called while he was still alive). This does not mean that there are some people running about named “Joseph” and a separate group of individuals named “Joey”! Parallel to this are the formal and informal forms of the names Mariam/Maria, Yehoshua’/Yeshua’, Matitiyahu/Mattiah, Yehochanan/Choni, etc. (See “How do you Solve a Problem like Maria“).

The near exclusive use of the informal “IOSES” (Greek for “Yoseh”) among the Greek inscribed ossuaries.
One should be careful to note that among the Greek inscribed ossuaries, the familiar form “Ioses” is used nearly exclusively (5 occurrences over 4 ossuaries). The formal name IWSEPOS is found only once. This is a fact that was not brought to the attention of the audience by the filmmakers.

This is astounding, since the filmmakers also did not point out that the New Testament occurrences of this name IWSHS “Joses”, limited to the Gospel of Mark, are also in Greek. This name is used once in a list of Jesus’ brothers.

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. (Mark 6:3)

<>It is found twice referring to the brother of “James the less”, the son of Clopus and Mary.

¶ There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, (Mark 15:40) . . . Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid. (Mark 15:47)

Then why are these same individuals called by the formal name IWSHF “Joseph” in Matthew’s Gospel?

Of Jesus’ brother: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?” (Matt. 13:55)

<>Of the sons of Clopas and Mary: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. (Matt. 27:5)

Whether a historian uses the formal or informal name when referring to an individual may depend upon how familiar the individual was to them or on whether or not the individual was deceased. There is reason to believe that these individuals could be alive 30 years after the crucifixion when Mark wrote his Gospel. However, it is unlikely that that they would still be living 50 years later when Matthew’s gospel was generally understood to be written. (It may also be simply a reflection of their own personal style.)

There are so many holes in the film there is no need to add this one to the list. We can, on the other hand, challenge the assertion that was made by the filmmakers that the name Yoseh was so rare. In fact, what comes down to us is in Greek. The Gospel of Mark passage is unique with respect to providing this shortened Greek name for Jesus’ brother. However, in Greek inscriptions, the shortened form “Iose/Ioses” is more popular than “Iosepos”.

YWSY or YWSH?
1) In Tal Ilan’s treatment under YWSF, the sole form of “Yose” in the ossuaries is spelled Y(W)SH, on two Jerusalem ossuaries (cf. T. Ilan, Lexicon, p. 152 no. 89 [Ilan rightly corrects this reading]; p.154 no. 118, 133).

2) In the early second century Murabba’at papyri, YWSH, but not YWSY, is found (papMur 46).

3) In most of the Tannaitic manuscripts, YWSY is simply a minority alternative spelling of YWSH, both pronounced the same. YWSH (pointed “Yoseh” in vocalized versions) is by far the predominant form of the word in the superior Kaufmann manuscript of the Mishna.

[Prof. Ilan (p. 157 note 3) infers that YWSH is the Palestinian form of the name since it is found in the Vienna manuscript of the Tosefta in place of YWSY (found in the Erfurt manuscript). Unfortunately, Ilan’s numerous examples of YWSY come primarily from the handy concordances of Kasowski, which have been the standard source for scholars up until only very recently. The manuscripts that formed the basis for Kasowski’s concordances of the Mishna, the Tosefta, the Mechilta, the Sifra and the Jerusalem Talmud, are today considered inferior and are currently being replaced by electronic concordances which rely upon better manuscripts (e.g., Accordance Bible software now provides the Kaufmann manuscript of the Mishnah).]

In conclusion, we really don’t have any compelling evidence for the predominant use of YHWSF, as opposed to YWSH during the Second Temple Period, but rather the occasional use of both depending upon the formality of a situation. Also there is no evidence for the use of YWSY, as opposed to YWSH during the Second Temple Period, but rather, the contrary. In the case of the Talpiot tomb, YWSH should probably be pronounced “Yoseh” following the contemporary Greek pronunciation of that name (which preserves no examples of “Yosah”).

Also of interest: see Preliminary Autopsy of CJO 703 (80.502) and CJO 705 (80.504) Mattiah and Yoseh

Bibliography:

Hachlili, R., Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period. Brill: Leiden and Boston. 2005.
Rahmani, L.Y. A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel. Jerusalem. The Israel Antiquities Authority/The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. 1994.

With the ossuary of Mary Magdalene generally accepted as a pipe dream of only a few, certain of the remaining Jesus Tomb theorists are willing to place their bets on this ossuary inscription,”Yoseh/Joseh”.

“Statistical: Even without any a priori inclusion of Mary Magdalene in a Jesus family tomb, just the names we have, based on Kilty’s calculations, endorsed by Fuchs, yields a .48 probability. This is far from random, in fact it means if we had two tombs to look at one of them would probably be the Jesus family tomb. Even one in ten would be interesting but .48 I find quite compelling, given the other evidence of history and epigraphy.” From James Tabor’s statement.

Although the abandonment of the Mary Magdalene for Joseh reduces the odds of the Talpiot Tomb being that of Jesus and his family from 1:1600 (previously 1:600) to 1:2, maybe the world will warm up to Joseh after growing cold on Mary Magdalene! However, if we try to follow the logic of the theorists, we may end up just as lost in the web of their logic as before. To arrive at this 1:2 probability (in other words, a 50-50 chance) that the Talpiot tomb is the “Jesus family tomb”, one must allow for another unfounded, a priori assumption to be introduced as real evidence.

More to come.

Forensic handwriting analysts look for distinct diagnostic features to identify or distinguish various individuals, including slant, size, overall form and shape of letters; the consistency of space and slope between adjacent letters and words on a line; the apparent fluidity of writing, and the pressure of the pen.

A number of these diagnostic features have already been dealt with in previous posts. The following image can help to clarify the distinctive features related to line formation.

The Linearity of the Inscription
The baseline of MAPIAMH is horizontal and virtually straight (with the exception of the bottoms of the second A and M, each of which appears to be avoiding a blemish on the ossuary’s surface).

The line of letters of KAI MAPA was initiated noticeably above the baseline of MAPIAMH and its letters form a shallow U-shaped or garland-shaped line (or chain). The garland shape is even more prominently featured in the draped underscore which was added to combine both stages of the inscription.

Metrics of the Inscription
SPACE between words: MAPIAMH and KAI: 10 mm, but between KAI and MAPA: 5.5 mm. The wide space between MAPIAMH and KAI indicates that these two words are well separated with no such space provided before the H eta, (providing further evidence, besides the change in script, that the inscription is not to be read MAPIAM H KAI MARA “Mariam who is also called Mara”.

SPACE between letters of MAPIAMH = 6, 4, 11, 14, 9, 3.5 mm; KAI = 4 and 0 mm; MARA = 0, 2.5, 3.5 mm. Although both the beginning (MAPIAMH) and the end of the inscription have the same number of letters (KAI MAPA), the end (KAI MAPA) is only 3/4 the length of the beginning name (MAPIAMH).
STROKES: Maximum width of stroke of the letters in MAPAIMH = 2.0 mm (both M’s, P, I, H); KAI = 2.5 mm ( I ); MAPA = 2.2 mm (2nd A). The looped underscore is 2.5 mm wide and therefore matches the width of the letters in KAI MAPA. Either two different tools were used to inscribe CJO Ossuary 701, or else the hand that made the second part of the inscription pressed much harder.

In summary, at least twenty-five features–epigraphic, syntactic and forma–have been set forth which argue against the suggestion that the inscription is speaking of only one person. In particular, it is no longer prudent to speculate that this ossuary belongs to Mary Magdalene, nor, to the best of our knowledge, to any other known individual from ancient history.

I was sent the following cartoon of the DNA and statistics experts, evidently modified slightly, (Thanks to Tabtoons):

“Without Mary Magdalene the tomb is like any other tomb with an unremarkable common set of names.”

Andrey Feuerverger, Mathematician, University of Toronto

With or without an “eye for form”, it is still possible to distinguish between various scribal hands and forms of script (that is, cursive vs. semicursive vs. standard, etc.). Another way to distinguish scribal technique, script form (cursive vs. semicursive) and individual style, is to simply count up the number of separate strokes that make up each letter. Cursive tendencies produced by various scribal hands lead to varying degrees of cursiveness and, at times, distinctive forms. These forms may be termed as cursive or semi-cursive depending upon the extent to which these tendencies are found. One cursive tendency is to connect consecutive letters without lifting the pen, to form connected writing or ligatures as in the AI of KAI. However, the most common cursive tendency is to execute individual letterforms without lifting the tip of the pen from the writing surface. A letter that might take four strokes in formal or semi-formal script may be inscribed by three or two strokes in a semicursive hand, and by two, or even one, stroke in a cursive hand.

The following version of the MAPIAMH KAI MAPA inscription is colorized, each color representing a separate stroke (i.e., where the tip of the tool was actually lifted from the surface of the ossuary before inscribing the next stroke). blue = the first stroke, yellow = the second stroke, red = the third stroke, and green = the fourth stroke.

Each letter was analyzed under a binocular microscope, and high definition digital images were procured and analyzed. The first seven letters, MAPIAMH, were executed by 17 strokes, but the last seven letters, KAI MAPA, were executed by a mere 8 strokes.

Below is a comparison chart of letters found in the two parts of the inscription which, though the same letter of the alphabet, were distinctive in the extent of their cursiveness. Letters from other inscriptions of similar scripts and style have been included for sake of comparison and corroboration.

Diagnostic Letter Forms

Not all letters of any given script are of equal value when it comes to analyzing the typological character of the “handwriting” of an inscription. The M (mem) is considered a “diagnostic form”, being one of the best for determining the “cursiveness” of a script, since its formal or semiformal form can be formed from four independent strokes with no connection between the letters, while its cursive form, especially in later periods, can be formed by one stroke, and connected to letters on both sides (in “connected writing”). “A” alpha, “H” eta, and “K” kappa are also good diagnostic forms, since the letters vary from a three-stroke form (formal or semiformal script) to a two-stroke form (semicursive script) to a single-stroke form (cursive script). Other letters such as “P” rho (= R) and “I” iota often display little distinction between the semiformal and cursive forms of the script.

Formality and Cursiveness of Different Scribal Hands

In all cases, the letters of MAPIAMH display semiformal or semicursive features (four-stroke M’s, two-stroke A’s and H’s), while the letters of KAI MAPA consistently display cursive features (two stoke M’s, one stroke A’s and K). In the case of the letters of the other inscriptions displayed above, although there is a general consistency as to script form (DF 41, CJO 782 = semiformal to semicursive; CJO 108 = cursive), mixture of the various categories of script can happen when the scribe is not being careful. For example, CJO 782, written in semiformal to semicursive script, has one cursive “one-stroke” A. The scribe of CJO 108 who primarily wrote in cursive script, included two formal to semicursive forms of the letters “M” and “H” within words which are otherwise cursive and which include fully cursive forms of M and H. The fact that the first part of inscription CJO 701 MAPIAMH consistently utilizes semiformal to semicursive letter forms, and the last part KAI MAPA consistently uses cursive forms, illustrates the great care the two inscribers/scribes took as they wrote the names in this inscription. If such a single individual wrote the entire inscription, there would almost certainly have been a deliberate consistency manifested throughout.

Although most of those interviewed can quickly see the difference between the two parts of the Mariame kai Mara inscription, it appears that there are a number of scholars, even epigraphers, who cannot see it. The ability to note or distinguish various letters is generally known as having “an eye for form.” Not everyone has it. Inability to see distinction in form is similar to color blindness, depth perception or nearsightedness. The individual often does not know that they have this challenge until someone else tells them that they are able to see something that they themselves cannot see. Fortunately, to a certain extent, an “eye for form” can be taught to those who lack it. The other forms of visual challenge mentioned above cannot.

An eye for form has long been known as an essential requirement for being an illustrator:

“Do you like to sketch and draw? Were you one of those kids who spent hours in school doodling in your notebook? Do you have an eye for form, color, and composition? Then you may have a future as an illustrator.”

It is also an essential skill which allows individuals to distinguish between various alphabets.

For example:

“The Russian alphabet with its Byzantine Greek letters is easily mastered by those who have an eye for form, while others may have some trouble. …”
JSTOR: “Hints for Teaching Russian”

In order to actually discern the difference between the beginning and the end of the Mariame kai Mara inscription, one must have an eye for form.

This is one case where it may be more important to have “an eye for form” than to have a background in epigraphy.

MARIAM H KAI MARA: An Alternative Reading?

It now seems incumbent upon me to address this suggested transcription in the body of the article since a few have raised the question. Allow me to do so by presenting several hypothetical, graphic examples. Each is generated using the letter forms of either the first or second scribe. The first example (in blue, below) is the complete transcription generated in the scribal hand of the first scribe who wrote the original MARIAMH.* The letter forms convey a more squared or angular appearance than that of the second scribal hand. The transcription would appear as follows, if the entire inscription had been written by the first scribe:

If all words of the inscription were in the standard Greek documentary script (as above) then the inscription could be read either as:

MAPIAMH KAI MAPA: “Mariame and Mara”

OR, alternatively

2) MAPIAM H KAI MAPA: “Mariam who is also Mara”

The second graphic example (in red, below), is how the transcription would appear had the second scribe (who originally wrote KAI MAPA) written the entire inscription. Note how the letter forms are more looped or rounded in form.

Likewise, if all words were in the Greek cursive script (as above) then the inscription could be read either:

1) MAPIAMH KAI MAPA: “Mariame and Mara”

OR, alternatively

2) MAPIAM H KAI MAPA: “Mariam who is also Mara”

In particular, note how the eta is formed like a small cursive, rounded English “h”, unlike the angular appearance of the one in inscription CJO 701 which is typical of the semicursive/semiformal documentary tradition of scripts. There is also a clear distinction between the kappa (”k”) of the the semicursive/semiformal documentary tradition and the kappa of the cursive tradition found in CJO 701 and CJO 108. The space between the eta and the kappa provides the starting point of the decisive change from one scribal hand MAPIAMH and the next KAI MAPA.

If one uses an eye for form, this inscription appears to have been written in two distinct script styles (standard Greek documentary script and Greek cursive script). This being the case, then two scribes were involved in the writing process and, we can assume, on separate occasions. In my judgment, in order not to do violence to the epigraphic evidence, the inscription should only be read as:

MAPIAMH KAI MAPA: “Mariame and Mara”

The overall appearance of cursive writing is that there is a graceful sequence of looping strokes as can be seen
in KAI MARA. This stands in contrast to the triangular, squared and rather jagged succession of strokes in the
more formal script used in the first part of the inscription (i.e., with MARIAME). Also, from the standpoint
of horizontal line space, I argue that although each scribe inscribed a total of seven letters, the cursive style of
the second scribe allowed him to write his seven letters, but within ¾ of the line space of the first.

There are certain occasions when a single scribe will inadvertently insert or mix cursive letters with semicursive or even formal letters in an inscription. However, in the case of CJO 701, the first part of the inscription is written in one consistent semiformal or semicursive scribal hand. The second part of the inscription is written in one consistent cursive hand as can be seen in the alphabet chart below. (Note that the second A and M were malformed, as the scribe apparently worked to avoid an imperfection or blemish on the surface of the ossuary between these two letters.)

The two alphabets of the inscription alongside related alphabets

Although the now established reading of the letters of this inscription eliminates “Mariamenou” as a possible first name, (thus not in favor of a possible link with the Mary Magdalene of the Coptic tradition), the reading MARIAM H KAI MARA, “Mary who is called Mara” may still be raised as a a possibility. This would allow that one woman and not two would have been named.

For example, one participant at the Symposium felt that the case was not necessarily closed for Mary Magdalene, even if the first name turned out to be a common form for any “Mary”. If one translated the last word “Mara” in an extraordinary way as “Master” instead of the normal “Mara/Martha” then the case for Mary Magdalene might still be open.

Jane Schaberg contends:

“In my judgement, the tomb is not the tomb of the family or dynasty of Jesus, but perhaps of important members of the movement.

Various readings of the possible Mary Magdalene inscription were proposed: including mariam he kai mara, mariamne kai mara, and the disputed caritative or diminutive form. Epigraphers have more work to do, hopefully with enhanced techniques. I have argued that it is quite possible, even probable, from readings of NT gospels and the apocryphal Gospel of Mary, that some first century people regarded her as “mara” - master. Thus I am one of the few voices from the conference in favor of serious consideration of the tomb as providing exciting opportunities for rethinking “resurrection” and the importance of Jewish mystical tradition of this time (cf. Knohl).”

Whether one can actually discern a compelling distinction in scribal hand between the first and last part of the inscription is important for establishing whether to attribute one or two possible meanings to the inscription. Fortunately, other methods can be utilized to test this question, even aside from utilizing an “eye for form”. More to come.

On the “Jesus Dynasty Blog”, James Tabor had some issues with the Duke University Statement, one of which bears upon the epigraphy panel:

2. In fact, epigraphers at the conference contested the reading of the inscription as “Mariamene.” Furthermore, Mary Magdalene is not referred to by the Greek name Mariamene in any literary sources before the late second-third century AD.

It is the case that two epigraphers at the conference disagreed with L. Rahmani’s reading of Mariamene, but it should be pointed out that those two, Stephen Pfann and Jonathan Price, also disagree with one another in significant ways.

Actually this is not at all true. Jonathan Price and I agreed on the reading of every letter in the inscription: M-A-P-I-A-M-H-K-A-I-M-A-P-A.

Prof. Price has since emphasized, “the ‘Mariamene’ ossuary does not say Mariamene at all; I thought that was clear from my own presentation, and the correct reading is supported by the editors of BE and SEG, who are among the most experienced Greek epigraphers in the world”

He explained that the reading could be either MARIAMH KAI MARA or MARIAM H KAI MARA. “Mariame and Mara” or “Mariam, who is also Mara”.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS:

“Whichever reading, MARIAMH KAI MARA or MARIAM H KAI MARA is accepted, both of which are extremely common first century names, neither is MARIAMHNOU, with an ‘N’ (said to be the typical name of Mary Magdalene by the filmmakers).” (Price and Pfann)

MARIAMH is by far the most common Greek form of the name “Maria” found inscribed on the ossuaries. There is therefore no reason to suggest that the ossuary had any connection with the Mary Magdalene of either the canonical Gospels or the Gnostic traditions.

SEG 46 1996 — Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum.
BÉ 1998 — «Bulletin épigraphique», in Revue des études grecques (Paris).

S. Pfann, “A Reassessment of CJO 703: Mary Magdalene has left the Room” Near Eastern Archaeologist 70 (2007).

“Another revelation concerned Andrey Feuerverger, Professor of Mathematics and Statistics from the University of Toronto, who had done the initial statistical study that concluded a 600:1 probability in favor of the tomb being the Jesus family tomb. At the conference, Professor Feuerverger revealed for the first time that his statistical model has now been peer-reviewed and accepted by the leading statistical journal Annals of Applied Statistics and will be published in their first issue of 2008 in February.” Marketwire (press release) January 17, 2008

Even the “Yeshua? bar Yehosef” inscription does not help the cause. Feuerverger estimates that statistically, with an average of 25 bodies occurring in each tomb (that’s low according to Joe Zias), there should be one “Yeshua bar Yehosef” in every 10 tombs. With a minimum estimate of 1,000 tombs in the area around Jerusalem, there should be at least 100 individuals by that name among the city’s tombs. Two of these individuals have been discovered thus far. There must be many more (even among the unidentified bones among the uninscribed ossuaries of the area).

“Without Mary Magdalene the tomb is like any other tomb with an unremarkable common set of names”. “This is not my expertise. It is up to the epigraphers to prove that this is or is not the ossuary of Mary Magdalene.”

James Cameron:

Mary Magdalene: “the missing piece, the Ringo”

Press Conference at the New York Public Library, March 2007

“Now, the missing piece was provided by Simcha, and I just want to say right now, Simcha is the real live Indiana Jones of this project, and he’s, although he will quite humbly, immediately say that he’s not an archaeologist, he happens to know so much about archaeology and, you know, Biblical history that he can compete with them in a conversation without flagging, for hours on end, and as a documentary filmmaker, he has the instincts of an absolute bloodhound. And when he got wind of the fact that there were these ossuaries with these names, he was able through his research group to find the missing piece of information, which is that Mariamne is, according to certain Christian texts, of the early Christian texts such as the Acts of Phillip and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Mariamne is the name of Mary Magdalene. So that’s the missing piece, that’s the Ringo, and that’s what set this whole investigation in motion. Now, every film is a journey, every investigation is a journey, and this journey took us into places we didn’t think it was going to go – and I’ll let Simcha unveil some of the aspects of that.”

However at this Symposium:

on Maria/Mariame/Mariamenou (repeat)
The epigraphers on hand, J. Price and S. Pfann agreed on the letter by letter reading of the inscription on the so-called Mary Magdalene ossuary, though they did not agree on the presence of two scribal hands (note, however, that Pfann provided evidence from microscopic photos for the two hands). Both Price and Pfann read: MAPIAMH KAI MAPA (or MAPIAM H KAI MAPA). Either way, both agreed that the names are common forms of Mary and that the all-important and unusual form Mariamne (with an “N”) is not to be found in this inscription, as the original catalogue incorrectly reads and the filmmakers insist.
Download “Mary Magdalene is now missing”

Gnostic Gospel expert A. DeConick pointed out that “Mariamne” does not actually begin to be used for Mary Magdalene until the 3rd century CE and even then, not exclusively. The Mariamne of the Acts of Philip, used to support the filmmakers’ claim, is actually a composite of two “Mary” characters from the New Testament: Mary of Bethany (the sister of Martha and Lazarus) and Mary Magdalene. In addition, she is purported to be the sister of Philip, a designation known only from the Gnostic gospels and in tension with the New Testament accounts. S. Pfann pointed out that the sole first-century historical witness to Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother of Jesus, the New Testament, provides mixed uses of the two names Mariam and Maria for both characters, since every Mary had a formal name “Mariam” and an informal name “Maria” (like Jennifer/Jenny; Kathleen/Kate; Elizabeth/Betty). In the New Testament, Mary the mother of Jesus is designated Mariam 13x and Maria 6x, while Mary Magdalene is called Mariam 4x and Maria 11x. (Note that the scale tips in the opposite direction toward “Maria” for Mary M.) In all cases, the earliest witness Mark uses “Maria” for both women. If anything can be derived from this, it is that if there is indeed a “Lady Mary” in the ossuary, it should refer to the mother of Jesus, rather than to Magdalene (not seriously!).

Link to “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?”
Ten scribal errors in three words? One Too Many Mariamenes
In layman’s terms: The Ossuary of RIKEGŒ ¬ “RICH”

“Without Mary Magdalene the tomb is like any other tomb with an unremarkable common set of names.”

Andrey Feuerverger, Mathematician, University of Toronto