The View from Jerusalem

The Monogram Tomb (loci 65-80) received its name from a sign that was found on a fragment of a broken ossuary.

Dominus Flevit, Photo 75; p. 65, Fig. 17:1
Fr. Bagatti calls this symbol “monogramma costantiniano” which draws from the insignia which Constantine followed into battle and victory, after having seen a vision of it in the heavens. This symbol is also known as the “Christogram,” since the monogram is composed of the first two letters of the Greek word “XPISTOS” (that is, “Christos” or Christ), the letters CHI RHO (XP). However, the actual origin and significance of this symbol before its adoption by Constantine as a Christian symbol has been questioned. Monograms of this type, usually considered engraver’s marks, have been found in such pre-Christian contexts such as the coins of Herod the Great. (The date is to the left of the central image and the engraver’s mark is to the right, following the practice of Seleucid coins and the Tyrian shekels which were currently in use at the temple).

The discovery of this sign, along with the inscribed ossuary which was then read “Simon bar Yonah,” led Bagatti to believe that this tomb belonged to a Judeo-Christian cemetery. In addition, there were ossuaries in this tomb inscribed (primarily in Hebrew) with the names “Shimon”, “Ishmael”, “Martha and Mariam/Maria”, “Salome and her son”, “Philo of Cyrene” (in Greek), “Yehoni the artisan”, “Judah the proselyte” (in Greek) and “Shappira” (Sapphira), “Mariam”, and “Qimi, Yehonatan”.

Besides the “monogramma costantiniano”, other symbols were found on the ossuaries, including an “X” (ossuary no. 6), a serpentine line (no. 9), another “X” and a cross (no. 12) among others, which, more often than not, prove to be lid alignment marks. Alignment marks may often be the insignia or monogram of the engraver or stone mason. However, oftentimes these marks may simply be unique creations, intended both to properly link lids to their specific ossuaries within the workshop and, at the same time, to indicate lid direction. Other examples of such marks, including common, crude signs, like the “X,” were simply intended to indicate lid direction. (In the case that the direction of the lid was not obvious, lid direction marks were added in order that the hand carved lids would be placed in the intended direction during the second burial interment ceremony. Otherwise the lid could dislodge and fall upon and crush the bones inside the ossuary.)

Lid alignment marks in Dominus Flevit, p. 54, Fig. 16.

Dominus Flevit Tombs

Locations of the Dominus Flevit and Talpiot tombs with respect to the traditional tomb of Jesus.

 

Vista from Dominus Flevit toward the Temple Mount (Dome of the Rock today)

 

The Dominus Flevit Tomb Complex was discovered and excavated in the early 1950’s by Bellarmino Bagatti. The 6 dunam complex, the largest of its type, contained both late Second Temple period tombs of the loculi type, as well as third and fourth century tombs of the arcosolium and pit type

 

Dominus Flevit Tomb Complex

The loculi type tombs which covered, in particular, the north and southeast sections of the excavated area, generally consisted of one or two chambers, with a sunken floor, surrounded by loculi cut into the walls. More often than not, there is also a small chamber in each tomb expressly cut for holding ossuaries.

 

Inscribed and decorated ossuaries from the north and southeast tomb complexes

Seven hard limestone sarcophagi were found among the caves. These were often elaborately decorated with rosettes, wreaths and floral patterns. There was also a total of 122 ossuaries, often with the normal double rosette design, found in the various tombs of this complex. 43 of the ossuaries were inscribed with names.

The southeast tomb complex which includes the Monogram Tomb loci 65-80 (in the lower right)

Bagatti ascribed names to the various tombs according to significant items which were found within. The tomb with the ossuary inscribed “Simon bar ….” was named after another ossuary with the XP monogram (also called “Christogram) inscribed on it in charcoal. In fact most inscribed ossuaries in this tomb were inscribed with charcoal, including the ossuary in question.

The Monogram Tomb

(loci 65-80)

The “Simon bar …” ossuary was found in a chamber (loc. 79) in the Monogram Tomb which was created to be a repository for ossuaries.

Partial Ossuary with the “Simon Bar . . . .” inscription

Last Friday we returned to the Museum of the Flagellation where this and other important inscribed ossuaries from the tomb complex were on display.

The “Simon Bar . . . .” inscription as it looks today.

Does this read “Simon bar Jonah” as the filmmakers of “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” assert?

The New Testament and its Marys

Formal and Familiar Personal Names

From the previous survey one can infer that Mariam and Maria were often interchangeable, as Dominus Flevit ossuary DF 7 suggests, and that the Marys of the New Testament were comfortably referred to as both MARIA and MARIAM (as the list below indicates). This is common when an individual will be called their formal name (e.g., “Mariam”) in one context or by one person, but will be called the familiar name (e.g., “Maria”) in another context or by another person.

Although we must not bridge history naïvely by making broad comparisons too casually, there are still some intuitive aspects of social etiquette that appear to be timeless. Although nuances of etiquette and protocol change temporally and regionally, in today’s world the general rules concerning formal and familiar address still persist. An individual may struggle to know whether they know a person well enough to address them by their familiar name. They may change their usage from familiar to formal in a more formal setting when they are making introductions. When they are writing, they may use the familiar name in a private letter, but might use the formal name in a contract or when writing a history. Commonly, the social level of the individual forbids them from addressing those from a higher status in the familiar mode or may forbid them from addressing them at all.

Evidently these social rules and sensitivities already applied during the first century with current rules of etiquette, and their various nuances, being applied in writing, in court, in gatherings, in birth and in death. The varying standards of handwriting, of naming and of social structure found in the literature and in the tombs illustrates the complexity of putting these rules into practice, if they are being applied at all.

In the New Testament these rules also apply. In making the following assessment, we must do so realizing that literary and textual issues may come into play that are not not being dealt with here. In each source gospel, the appearances of Mary Magdalene are too few to make sweeping generalizations. However, the following is presented as a general set of observations which might prove to be helpful.

In Mark’s gospel, Mark feels quite comfortable to call everyone by their familiar name, whether it is “Maria” the mother of Jesus, “Maria” Magdalene, or “Jose” the brother of Jesus. This may be because the author knew them personally within the context of the Jerusalem church community.

In Matthew’s gospel, the writer appears, in general, to be more comfortable using the familiar name for Jesus’ mother but both formal and informal names are used for Mary Magdalene (Mariam 2x and Maria 1x). He also calls Jesus’ brother by the more formal name “Joseph” (as opposed to the “Jose” found in Mark’s Gospel).

Luke uses the formal name “Mariam” for the mother of Jesus almost exclusively in the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. If Luke might have known her, or even interviewed her, as the introduction to the Gospel and Acts may imply, she would have been well advanced in years, conveying a respect he felt was due to her. If she had died by then, the less familiar tone would also seem appropriate. The two times that Mary Magdalene is mentioned the name “Maria” is used, perhaps reflecting a certain familiarity with her.

John’s Gospel is unique in that the author circumvents the usage of any form of the name “Mary” for the mother of Jesus at all times. Instead he uses the term “mother of Jesus” or “his mother”. Placing issues of the identity of the Gospel writer aside for the moment, if the beloved disciple has been adopted by Mary through Jesus’ agency (John 19:25-27) then it would only seem appropriate that the writer would not use either personal name for his mother.

In John’s Gospel, Mary Magdalene is only mentioned in the context of the crucifixion and resurrection accounts (John 19:25; 20:1, 11, 16, 18). In the first three occurrences the familiar “Maria” was used. However, the change to the formal “Mariam” in John 20:16 might be significant. It is there that she realizes that she is looking upon the resurrected Jesus for the first time as Jesus himself addresses her as “Mariam.” The passage reads: “She turned and said to him in Hebrew, ‘Rabboni!’ (which means Teacher).” As if a symbol of her transformation, both in character and in status as the first disciple to see the risen Lord, the formal form “Mariam” continues to be used as “Mary (Mariam) Magdalene went and said to the disciples, ‘I have seen the Lord’; and she told them that he had said these things to her” (John 20:18).

One Mary was highly acclaimed as the one who bore and gave birth to the the Messiah.

Another Mary was highly acclaimed in that she was the first to see the risen Messiah and the first to do and proclaim his first words after his resurrection.

Many have been given this name and it still remains a common name today.

“Oh, it’s a jolly holiday
With Mary
Mary makes your ‘eart so light
When the day is gray
And ordinary
Mary makes the sun shine bright!
Oh ‘appiness is bloomin’
All around ‘er
The daffoldils are smilin’
At the dove
When Mary ‘olds your ‘and
You feel so grand
Your ‘eart starts beatin’
Like a big brass band
Oh, it’s a jolly holiday with Mary
No wonder that it’s Mary that we love!”

From Mary Poppins, sung by Bert.

The Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries (CJO) lists three ossuaries with the name MRYH inscribed on them (CJO 152, 706, 796). Dominus Flevit lists two ossuaries with the same name (DF Nos. 7 and 34).

CJO 152:

CJO 706:

 

Final mem is used here as the first letter of the name. This is not an isolated error among the inscribed ossuaries. The practice of using a final form at the beginning of a personal name may be similar to the way that, in Greek and Latin minuscule writing, names are often captitalized (as is also the practice in modern European languages). (See also CJO 428 and 502.)

CJO 796:

Here, the name “Mary” is inscribed three times on the same ossuary, all three times as “MRYH,” and all referring to a single individual.

DF 7:

‘MARTHA AND MARIA.” Again, the name “Mary” is listed three times on the same ossuary, once as “MRYH” and twice as “MRYM” (as noted yesterday in Part 1 of this series).

DF 34:

“MARIA DAUGHTER OF AGRA”

CJO 428:

This ossuary is noteworthy for several reasons. First of all, we can see that the inscription actually reads “MRYH SHM’WN“, not “QRYH”. The transcription in CJO is in error; there the final mem used as the first letter of MRYH has been misread as qof. Note the similarity with CJO 706 (above), where the initial “M” is the same form as that used here. Secondly, the second name “Shim’on” has actually been deliberately scratched out. The last letter in this name (which is clearly “Shim’on”) provides a clear parallel to the final nun on CJO 243, the ossuary of MRYN, discussed yesterday.

CJO 414:

At first glance, the reading “QRYH” is seemingly feasible. However, a closer examination of the inscribed ossuaries indicates that the more likely reading is “MRYH”. A comparison of the first letter of the name with the unquestioned mem of “Shim’on” in the previous inscription (CJO 428), establishes the case for “Maria”.

CJO 31:

As mentioned in the previous posting (see above), the name here is preferably to be read “MRYH.”

A summary census. Thus far in this posting and the previous one, we have surveyed all the occurrences of the names MRYH (Maria) and MRYM (Mariam/Miriam) in two published collections, that of the Israel Antiquities Authority (CJO) and that of Dominus Flevit (DF). We have noted all occurrences of the names listed in the catalogues, reviewed each one, and made corrections, in some cases eliminating an ossuary reading and in others adding a previously unrecognized Mary or Mariam. This is not a complete census of named ossuaries, both published and unpublished, but represents a credible sampling of the existence of these two names, based upon the largest published collections, CJO and Dominus Flevit.

The present count of the names among the inscribed, catalogued ossuaries is MRYH 10x; MRYM 8x. If one takes into account only the census of ossuaries with one identified person per ossuary (CJO 796 and DF 7 each contain only one individual whose name is written 3 times), then the actual count would be MRYH 7x; MRYM 6x; mixed MRYH/MRYM 1x.

Along with the Greek and Latin forms of these names, whether MRYH, MRYM, MRYN, MRYWN, etc., “Mary” was one of the most popular, if not the most popular, name given to a daughter during the Second Temple Period. In this survey of the ossuaries, it is noteworthy that MRYH “Maria” has a slight edge over the use of MRYM “Mariam/Miriam”, a preference that is similarly reflected in the literature of the period. And if this survey illustrates anything, it is that the writing of Maria/MRYH in Hebrew was anything but rare.

MARIA (27x) and MARIAM (27x) in the New Testament!

At surface glance, Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene were called by both names in the New Testament. However, on closer examination, it emerges that the individual authors preferred to use one name over the other.

For Mary the mother of Jesus:
Matthew prefers MARIA (4x, infancy narrative) to MARIAM (1x, as called by the townspeople of Nazareth).
Luke prefers MARIAM (11x) to MARIA (1x; all occurrences in the infancy narrative).
Acts uses MARIAM for Jesus’ mother (1x).
Mark uses MARIA for Mary the mother of Jesus (1x).
John intentionally avoids her name (cf. John 2:1, 3, 5; 19:25-27).

For Mary Magdalene:
Mark uses only MARIA (4x).
Matthew uses MARIAM (2x) and MARIA (1x).
Luke uses MARIA (2x).
John uses MARIA (3x) and MARIAM (2x).

For other Marys:
Matthew uses MARIA 2x for Mary of James and Joseph and 1x for the “other Mary” at the tomb.
Mark uses MARIA 3x for Mary, the mother of James, Joses and Salome. (In fact, Mark uses MARIA exclusively for all Marys.)
Luke uses MARIA 1x for Mary of James. Luke uses MARIAM 2x for Mary of Mary and Martha.
John uses MARIAM 8x and MARIA 1x for Mary of Mary and Martha. John uses MARIA 1x for Mary of Clopas.
Acts uses MARIA 1x for the mother of John Mark.
Paul uses MARIA 1x for a Mary of the Church at Rome.

What does this data tell us? Most importantly that, in stark contrast to the claims of the producers and writers of the “Lost Tomb of Jesus” and the “Jesus Family Tomb”, Mary the mother of Jesus is most commonly known as “Mariam” in the New Testament, and Mary Magdalene is most commonly known as “Maria”. This would lead one to expect that should their tombs be found and verified one day, they would be inscribed accordingly (i.e., that of Mary the mother of Jesus as “Mariam” and that of Mary Magdalene as “Maria”–the opposite of the ossuaries from the Talpiot tomb). Or perhaps one would even find both forms of the name, as in the case of Dominus Flevit ossuary inscription number 7!

“. . . Maria!

Say it loud and there’s music playing,

Say it soft and it’s almost like praying.

Maria! I’ll never stop saying Maria!

The most beautiful sound I ever heard Maria…”

From West Side Story

How do you solve a problem like Maria?

How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?

How do you find a word that means Maria?

A flibbertijibbet! A will-o’-the wisp! A clown!

Many a thing you know you’d like to tell her

Many a thing she ought to understand

But how do you make her stay

And listen to all you say

How do you keep a wave upon the sand

Oh, how do you solve a problem like Maria?

How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?

(From the Sound of Music)

Much has been made of two women named “Maria/Mariam” in the Talpiot tomb, whose names are preserved on the two ossuaries: CJO 701 (where Rahmani read Greek “Mariamene”), and CJO 706 (where he read Hebrew “Maria”). In each case, the identity of the named individual was put forth as absolutely essential for understanding the relationship between the tomb’s contents and the family of Jesus of Nazareth.

1) The central importance of the name Mariamne (understood as “Mary Magdalene”) for the producers of the film and book is indicated in the following quotes:

The Jesus Family Tomb book: “the key to the whole story”

Jacobovici writes,
“But other than the Jesus, son of Joseph ossuary, to use Feuerverger’s term, the most ’surprising’ of all the ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb is the one inscribed ‘[the ossuary] of Mariamne also known as Mara.’ From the beginning, we focused on this particular ossuary because it seemed to be the key to the whole story. Everything depended on this unique artifact.” (Page 204)

“Lost Tomb of Jesus” Documentary
“By the end, his [Feuerverger's] model concludes that there’s only one chance in 600 that the Talpiot tomb is NOT the Jesus family tomb, if Mariamne can be linked to Mary Magdalene.”

Premiere press conference
Simcha Jacobovici:
“I’ll just add that the reason that the scientists involved went for DNA tests of these two, partially because Mariamne was kind of the linchpin of the cluster, but partially because it seemed that it was most easy to get DNA from this particular – there’s more stuff at the bottom of the ossuaries than in others.”

James Cameron:
“…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.”

Discovery Channel website: “The Lost Tomb of Jesus: Simcha Interview, Part 4 -The director tells how the critical turning point in the investigation came with the discovery of the ’second’ Mary.”

Jacobovici:

“The thing that was used to dismiss the tomb [the presence of Mariamne] was the thing that at the very end of the day would prove that - or make the argument that - this tomb may indeed be the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.”

Jesus Family Tomb website: “Probability”

“The minute that I realized that the second Mary, Mariamne, is Mary Magdalene - that’s Mary Magdalene’s real name - I said, ‘We’ve got something significant here…”

Ringo illustration:

“….What if they didn’t know that Ringo’s real name was Richard Starkey, and Ringo was his nickname? In a sense, statistically speaking, Mariamne, the second Mary in our tomb is ‘Ringo’…..What if I connect the dots? And that’s how the investigation began, because at least at that point, the evidence was compelling enough to go to statisticians, to go to DNA experts, to go to patina experts.”

2) The central importance of the name Mariah, understood as “Mary (the mother of Jesus)”, for the producers of the film.

Until now, we have not dealt much with the Hebrew name “MARIAH” found on ossuary CJO 706. However, the filmmakers made much of the name’s “rarity” among the ossuaries. They explained the name as a Latinized form of the Hebrew name MARIAM, written in Hebrew letters.

Quotes from the film “The Lost Tomb of Jesus”:

Narrator: “Maria. Mary. Found in the same family tomb as ‘Jesus, son of Joseph’. Could this be the ‘Virgin Mary’s’ ossuary?”

(Mary’s name and face is made to glow from within the ossuary.)

“Throughout history, from the first Greek writings of Mark, the earliest Gospel, the ‘Virgin Mary’s’ name has come down to us in only one form, ‘Maria’. It is a Latinized version of the Hebrew, ‘Miriam’.

“After Jesus’ death, Mary continued with his teachings and must have gathered a large following. In those times of religious transition, Roman converts also began to follow Jesus, and so as her popularity grew amongst his followers Mary’s name was Latinized. That’s why the New Testament records her name as ‘Maria’. Written in Hebrew, the name ‘Maria’ is very rare, but it’s exactly what was found on the ossuary in the Talpiot tomb.

“If in 1980 archaeologists had considered - even for a moment - that they had discovered the ossuary of the Virgin Mary, what other family members might they have expected to find next to her?”

HOW DO YOU SOLVE A PROBLEM LIKE MARIA?
So, just how much of a problem is Maria? The production team asserted that the two Mary’s are critical pieces of evidence for their hypothesis. In response, a clear and and thorough analysis of the two ossuary inscriptions must be made to evaluate their claims.

1. CJO 701. We have treated the Greek MARIAME KAI MARA inscription in much detail over the past two months. We found that the names Mariamne (CJO 108) and Mariamene (CJO 701), as suggested by Rahmani, do not actually exist on those ossuaries. In both cases the inscriptions had been misread in the Catalogue, and in both cases MARIAME (the most common form of the name Mary among the ossuaries), should be read instead. See the article published on this website.

2. CJO 706. The filmmaker’s assert that name Maria is rare. How true is this statement? One has only to read through the CJO and Dominus Flevit publications to establish a database of the use of the name Maria among the ossuaries. Had the filmmakers taken the time to do so, they would have found that the “MARIAH” written in Hebrew is actually quite common among the ossuaries, and is, in fact, preferred to “MIRIAM.”

The index to CJO presents 6 ossuaries inscribed with the name “MRYM” (Miriam/Mariam) in Hebrew script: CJO 31, 243, 351, 502, 559, 821. The name is preserved on 1 ossuary at Dominus Flevit (No. 7). The index to CJO presents 3 ossuaries inscribed with the name “MRYH” (Mariah) in Hebrew: CJO 152, 706, 796. Dominus Flevit lists 2 ossuaries with this name (Nos. 7, 34). Therefore, an initial survey indicates the combined totals of CJO and Dominus Flevit as: 7 ossuaries with “MRYM” and 5 ossuaries with “MRYH.” However, this figure is incomplete for two reasons. First of all, the inscriptions on Dominus Flevit No. 7 refer to an individual woman who is called both Mariam and Maria. She is known by both forms of the name, which has been inscribed 3 times on the ossuary (twice as Mariam; once as Maria). Secondly, a close reading of all the inscribed ossuaries recorded in the CJO catalogue reveals a number of inaccuracies in the original readings, with the result that the census is actually reversed. Let’s survey the names provided by these sources.

MRYH (in Rahmani, The Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the State of Israel Collection):

CJO 31:

This was transcribed MARIAM by Rahmani. However, the final letter of the word on the right is a poorly written cursive he which is found elsewhere among the inscriptions (cf. CJO 353 “Hananiah”, CJO 801 “Yeho’ezar”; and Dominus Flevit Fig. 19 for several examples). The distinctive upper stroke of the letter rising above the ceiling line is characteristic of heh in this period, and is not found on the letter mem. Thus, it is far more likely that the inscription should be read “Mariah Yohana” rather than “Mariam Yohana”.

CJO 243:

The name should clearly be transcribed MRYN (as in the Latin CJO 497 MARION; and, in Hebrew, papMur 10A and Murabba’at ostracon MRYWN; cf. T. Ilan, p. 295) and not MRYM as trancribed by Rahmani. The last letter is a final nun, not a mem. The circle at the top of the letter is a hollow serif. (Cf. CJO 57 “Yohanan,” 293 “Alon,” and 428 “Shimeon,” for similar final nuns, correctly read.)

CJO 351:

= MRYM

CJO 502:

= MRYM

CJO 559:

= MRYM

CJO 821:

= MRYM

Thus, of the 6 suggested readings of “MRYM” (Mariam/Miriam), 1 is actually “MRYH” (Maria) and 1 is actually “MRYN” (Marion), leaving us with 4 certain “MRYM”s in the index.

On the other hand, there are actually additional ossuaries in CJO which are inscribed with the name “MARIAM” that were mislabeled by Rahmani! The following ossuaries were mistakenly read “MARIS,” instead of the more appropriate “MARYM”

CJO 820:

= MRYM! (That is, “Mariam and Shimeon, children of Shaul”)

CJO 822:

= MRYM! (That is, “Awira, son of Mariam”)

In both cases, Rahmani has mistakenly read final “mem” as “samech.” However, samech in this period is more triangular in shape and does not have an extending line to the left, which is a characeristic of mem at this time (for samech, cf. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic, Hebrew and Nabataean Documentary Texts, Vol. B, p. 197; for mem, see p. 193).

In conclusion:
Two Mariam’s were removed (one as Mariah and one as Marion); two were added (both previously mistakenly read as Maris). Substituting the corrected reading of these two inscriptions for the two that were already corrected leaves the count at 7. But remember, one of the disqualified ossuaries must be added to the list of MARIA ossuaries, which now total 6.

With still more evidence to come, “MARIAH” will move into a comfortable lead in tomorrow’s posting, so stay tuned.

Is it unusual to find a Jesus (”Jesus (?) son of Joseph”) and a “Judah son of Jesus” in a Talpiot tomb? What are the chances that there might be another one like this in Talpiot? Not too likely?

Until we find the next one, perhaps this one will suffice:

CJO 113 is inscribed in Greek: IHSOYS IOYD(OY), “JESUS SON OF JUDAH”; ornately chip-carved.

CJO 114 is inscribed in Greek: IHSOYS ALOTH, “JESUS, WOE” (according to Sukenik); plain, roughly dressed with crosses inscribed in charcoal on all four sides

Both are from a single tomb in Talpiot (published in Rahmani’s catalogue), located not far from the “Lost Tomb of Jesus.” What are the odds?!

“Chip-carved” ossuaries

IIa-c. 80.500, 80.501, 80.506, 80.507, and 80.508 were “chip carved”, i.e., both smoothed and with deeply incised or carved designs on one long side. In all five cases, the design was comprised of two rosettes which were surrounded by frames composed of rippled lines. Of the three subcategories below, the differences were not significant enough at this point to define clear separations among them. However, the fact that one of these was inscribed in Greek and another in Aramaic is worthy note. In general, it has been generally held that those who could afford such decorated ossuaries were of a higher social class or economic bracket. That being the case, it might then be assumed: “the more detailed and the more beautiful the design, the higher the economic bracket.” Since chip-carved ossuaries are almost exclusively decorated on one long side of the ossuary alone, it has been suggested that these were intended to be displayed sideways in the tomb. This was confirmed in one Akeldama tomb where such an ossuary was found in situ inside an arcosolium with its decorated side facing outward. (Cf., G. Avni and Z. Greenhut, eds., The Akeldama Tombs, IAA Reports I (1996) cover photo.)

IIa. CJO 701 (IAA 80.500) was chip-carved, decorated with rosettes and inscribed in Greek documentary and cursive scripts. This is the MARIAME KAI MARA ossuary, inscribed on the back, that has been held as being so significant for identifying this tomb with the family of Jesus. The article “Mariamne is Now Missing” and connected summary and Ringo blogs, including the autopsy of the ossuary, are readily available here on the UHL web site.

To what extent this ossuary and its occupants are connected to those in the other chip-carved ossuaries is difficult to say. Just the same, what distinguishes this ossuary from the others is that, besides having a Greek inscription, the rosettes are smaller and more elaborately cut. Like ossuary CJO 707, it has six eyelettes (some say these are prophylactics against the “evil eye”). Unlike others, the lid is gabled, although some have questioned whether this lid might not have been intended for another ossuary, since it doesn’t quite fit this ossuary and the stone-cutter’s mark on the ossuary body does not match the one on the lid.

IIb. CJO 702 (80.501) was chip-carved, decorated with rosettes and inscribed in Aramaic. This is the YEHUDAH BAR YESHUA ossuary, inscribed on the front. The ossuary shares similarities with the remaining chip-carved ossuaries including two rosettes that have both been carefully carved to stand erect (a feature that is less common than one might expect). The outer border of the design has a single row of decoration, while at least two of the other chip-carved ossuaries have double rows. This may be due to the fact that its height is less than all others that have been recorded from the tomb (27 cm.). Unlike the remaining ossuaries, it has a cut groove for the lid.

Translation: “Yehudah the son of Yeshua” The lettering was clearly and deeply inscribed in the standard square Jewish script of the day on an ornately decorated ossuary. This style of script, although not uncommon, is not written in the standard lapidary script but although it is still lapidary in form, it rather emulates the formal script used with pen and ink on papyrus and parchment documents and literary works. In this case the he and the waw are easily distinguishable. The left downstroke of the he is inscribed separately from the rest of the letter. The bottom stroke of the bet finishes well to the right of the vertical down-stroke. The ayin is rotated counter clockwise 45 degrees due to the constraints of the space left for its execution between the waw and the decoration. The form of the bet and the ayin resembles those of the mid to late first century CE.The first name YEHUDAH was written clearly and spaciously. The patronym BAR YESHUA is inscribed in a cramped fashion since the scribe was running out of room before a line of decoration immediately to the left. There is no apparent reason, however, not to believe that all three words were inscribed by the same person and at the same time.The father’s name does not necessarily have be identified with the Yeshua of ossuary 704.

IIc. CJO 707, 708, 709 (IAA 80.506, 80.507 and 80.508) were chip-carved, decorated with rosettes and were uninscribed. These each have two rosettes which have been carefully carved to stand erect. Although the border design varies on each, CJO 707 and CJO 708 have a double outer border. CJO 709 has a double row top border and a significant bordered margin separating the two rosettes. All three ossuaries were discovered in a broken condition and have been repaired at the museum.

Recently, the BAR website provided an article coauthored by Craig Evens and Steven Feldman which enumerated a number of holes in the “Lost Tomb” hypothesis. It is good to provide surveys of the study every so often. There are so many holes in the hypothesis that it is hard to take inventory of them all. With a few exceptions, the list is basically correct. Here are two suggested modifications:

“Some epigraphers think the Greek inscription on the ossuary actually reads “Mariamne and Mara.”

This must be a mistake. The revised readings for the so-called “Mariamene” ossuary that have been set forth are actually MARIAME KAI MARA “Maryame and Mara” (Pfann, Puech. et al.) and MARIAM H KAI MARA “Mariam who is also (called) Mara” (Tal Ilan et al). The name “Mariamne” has not been suggested as a reading.

“The filmmakers also misunderstand another of the names found in the Talpiot tomb. The name YWSH should be pronounced ‘Yosah’ (as Professor Tal Ilan in fact does in the documentary), not “’Yoseh’, as the documentary consistently does. ‘Yosah’ is not the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek form Joses, the name of Jesus’ brother (as in Mark 6:3 and elsewhere). The Hebrew equivalent is YWSY (and is found on a number of ossuaries in Greek and in Hebrew). The documentary’s discussion of this name is very misleading.”

The quotes of experts presented in the film should not be taken at face value or as being definitive. It is important to recheck the quotes of any expert, especially against their own work.

In Tal Ilan’s treatment under YWSF, the sole form in the ossuaries is spelled Y(W)SH (cf. T. Ilan, Lexicon, p. 152 no. 89 [Ilan rightly corrects this reading], p.154 no. 118, 133). In the early second century Murabba’at papyri, YWSH, but not YWSY, is found (papMur 46). In most of the tannaitic manuscripts, YWSY is simply an 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). According to Ilan (p. 159 note 96) YWSH is the predominant form used in Galileen synagogue inscriptions (10x) over against YWSF (1x) (cf. Naveh’s corpus in On Stone and Mosaic, p. 152).

We really don’t have any compelling evidence for the use of YWSY, as opposed to YWSH during the Second Temple Period (or even for some time later). 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”).

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 of the filmmakers that the name Yoseh is so rare. 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”.

SJP

CJO 703 (80.502) MATTIAH.

Surface condition and measurements: The ossuary was found in a broken state. Repaired at museum.

The surface of this ossuary was roughly dressed with an adze or chisel.

The ossuary was measured and the deeply incised inscription was traced.

Ossuary height: 35.6 cm

Outer dimensions of rim of ossuary: 25.4-28.3 cm x 55 cm

Interior dimensions of rim of ossuary: 22.5-27 cm x 48.6 cm

Interior dimension of ossuary floor: 15.4-18.3 cm x 41.3 cm

Inscription length: 9.7 cm

Letter height: he is 2.7 cm high

Vertical depth of inscripition lines vary: 1 to 2 mm

UV light test
There was no apparent distinction between the UV florescence of the incisions of the inscription and other outer surfaces on the ossuary (except where modern repairs, chips and abrasions were apparent).

CJO 705 (80.504) YOSEH.

Surface condition and measurements: The ossuary was found in a broken state. Repaired at museum.

The surface of this ossuary was roughly dressed with an adze or chisel.
The ossuary was measured and the deeply incised inscription was traced.

Ossuary height: 34.2 cm

Outer dimensions of rim of ossuary: 26.5 cm x 59.5 cm

Interior dimensions of rim of ossuary: 20.4 cm x 48.4 cm

Interior dimension of ossuary floor: 14-15 cm x 40.5 cm

Inscription length: 8.3 cm

Letter height: he is 2.8 cm high

Vertical depth of inscripition lines vary: 1 to 2 mm

UV light test.
There was no apparent distinction between the UV florescence of the incisions of the inscription and other outer surfaces on the ossuary (except where modern repairs, chips and abrasions were apparent).

CJO 706 (80.505) MARIAH.

On exhibit in the United States.

Ossuaries CJO 703, 705, 706 (IAA 80.502, 80.504, 80.505)
The surfaces of three of the ossuaries were roughly dressed with a chisel. Dissimilarities in the scoring patterns left by the chisel marks indicate that a different chisel was used for carving each ossuary.

These three ossuaries were also similarly and beautifully inscribed and were readable without additional lighting. The names MARIA, YOSEH and MATTIYAH were deeply inscribed with beautiful large letters (2.5-3 cm high and 1 to 2 mm deep) by a practiced, almost certainly professional, scribal hand. On the spot, and without any further need for examination, it appeared that all three may well have been inscribed by the same individual. They all contain similar features including open heads or serifs on the letters in the common lapidary script of the day (engraved on stone buildings, plaques, ossuaries as well as metal plaques and scrolls), yet each with a peculiar individual style similar to the other two. Of the other, less than twenty ossuaries that are written in Hebrew lapidary script in the State of Israel Collection (L. Y. Rahmani, A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries, Israel Antiquities Authority and the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities [Jerusalem: 1994]) and Dominus Flevit collections, few are as beautifully and well inscribed as these.

Curiously, in all three cases the names that were used were common abbreviated forms of a known Jewish name.

MATIYAH (for MATITIYAH); Rahmani 703.

Translated: “Mattiyah” or “Matthew”. The space between the left downstroke and the horizontal head of the letter heh first starts to appear during the first century, but only in lapidary script, intermittently, on ossuaries and in the Copper Scroll. It is unusual that it is found on three of the six inscribed ossuaries from this burial cave (Rahmani ossuaries 702, 703 and 705). This space does not become an essential part of the letter in the written pen and ink scripts for yet another few centuries. This inscription was added to the side of the ossuary where it would be readily visible if placed in one of the loculi.

MT[Y]H (First two letters are cursive) was lightly inscribed on the interior. This was likely done by the stone mason or a family member to assign the ossuary to this individual before the permanent inscription was added to the exterior of the box.

Another ossuary, CJO 42, bears both the formal name and the nickname of a single individual named “Matthew.” Again, the temporary inscription was first written with less carefully executed letters, some in cursive style, on the back of the ossuary. But the permanent inscription was written on the front, decorated side of the ossuary.

 

 

 

 

YOSEH (for YEHOSEPH); Rahmani 705.

Of these three inscriptions, this one makes the widest use of the open headed serifs. YOSEH (sometimes transliterated Jose) is a shortened form of the name Yehoseph/Joseph and, although it is found only once in the Hebrew section of Rahmani’s catalogue, the Greek form of the name is found an additional three times.

The filmmakers failed to clarify that “Yoseh” (Hebrew) with its equivalent “Iose” (Greek) is by far the most common shortened name for Yehoseph/Joseph from the second century BCE until the first century CE (cf. Yoseh b. Yo’ezer and Yoseh b. Yohanan, the first of the “pairs” who established and ruled the first Sanhedrin in Jerusalem). In second to third century Beth Shearim, among the Greek inscriptions, the name “Yoseh” (7x) is actually more common than “Yoseph” (6x). The New Testament provides both of these names for Jesus’ brother (though Yoseh/Jose occurs in Mark only).

Although the Greek form of the name is more common in the inscriptions, this is offset by the numerous Hebrew examples of the name connected with the leaders of Jewish communites from the second century BCE to the fourth century CE. Cf. the online Jewish Encyclopedia under “Jose”

MARIA (for MARIAM); Rahmani 706.

The first letter “M” is somewhat unusual in that it is a “final form” of the letter normally reserved for the end of words. This is not unique and may or may not have been accidental. The exact same combination of letters for “MARIA” was found by A. Kloner on an ossuary from the Giv’at Hamivtar district of Jerusalem. (Rahmani, no. 428, ).