An “Eye for Form” (updated)
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.
- Blog feed
[...] feature the MARIAMHNOU that has been claimed to exclusively denote Mary Magdelene. In a fascinating lesson on epigraphy dealing with letter form, and one dealing with strokes, Stephen Pfann shows the “Mariame kai Mara” [...]
Pingback by biblicalia » Blog Archive » Biblical Studies Carnival XXVI — February 1, 2008 @ 2:02 am
I participated in the panel on epigraphy at the Talpiot tomb symposium, and here is my take: i read MARIAM H KAI MARA,”MARIAM ALSO KNOWN AS MARA”. I chose to ignore the third iota before “MARA” as a slip of the nail likely to have been used by the inscriber. One has to bear in mind that the family members who usually carved the inscriptions on ossuaries made spelling mistakes and/or omissions occurred in the carving of the letters and it was too late to add and certainly not possible to erase/hide a letter. Therefore one could definitely ignore the third iota, as well, imagine that it was meant to be added in between the ro and the alpha of the “MARA”, to make a “MARIA”.
There is another Greek speaking “Mara” inscribed on an ossuary of the Dominus Flevit Necropolis. Please refer to my book (2001), the prosopographic note no. 380. So even though the theory of “MARA/MARTHA” or “KYRA/KYRIA and MARA/MARIA” (Cf. Bagnall) all meaning “lady/master/teacher” either in Aramaic or Greek, is very appealing, one should remain careful and perhaps translate “MARIAM also known as MARA” (her nickname). This being said one does not preclude the other as “MARA” could be apprehended as a nickname or the title (teacher)with my reading of the inscription.
I can see two hands in the inscription as well : before and after “H KAI”. The alphas, the mus and the ros are different. Therefore i am not ruling out the possibility that the second part of the inscription was added later(not too much later), in order to further identify this particular ossuary.
The earliest spelling of Mary Magdelene’s name in the literary sources is MARIA/MARIAM. The one time Jesus addresses MM in our canonical records, he uses MARIAM (cf. Schaberg).
This inscription would be bilingual if read “MARIAM H KAI MARA”, with “MARA” being a title. The Aramaic “MARA”, feminine form of “MAR” for “master/teacher” would have been transliterated in Greek characters on this ossuary inscription, along with MARIAM, a Greek version of the semitic name MIRYAM. The inscription would be unilingual if read “MARIAM H KAI MARA”, with “MARA” being a nickname.
According to Christian tradition, MM spoke both languages, Aramaic and Greek, common in the North. In fact her and her family could very well have been descendants of Gallilean pagans converted to Judaism during the Hasmonean conquest of the area and perhaps MM’s first language was indeed Greek. Therefore, chances are that her relatives would have inscribed her ossuary in her mother tongue. Also because relatives would visit the tomb in the years after the burial and would need to be able to read the inscriptions or at least recognize the characters on the ossuaries of their beloved ones.
Last but not least if two women were to be buried in the same ossuary it should have been mother and (unmarried) daughter (cf. Rahmani’s catalog).
In conclusion, unless the negative evidence outweigh the positive evidence for the identification of the Talpiot tomb with the family tomb of Jesus, i see no reason, in light of the above, to exclude the possibility that this particular ossuary might have been the one of Mary Magdelene.
Comment by claude cohen-matlofsky — February 6, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
Thank you for your response.
1) Concerning the consistencey of the H “eta” and the spacing which connects it with the end of the first name see the next posting on the letter stokes and handwriting analysis.
2) Concerning Mary Magdalene: In the earliest source Mark, Mary Magdalene is called MARIA all three times (not MARIAM, the textual variants actually don’t help here; four times if one includes the Mark 16:9).
3) The source where Jesus calls Mary Magdalene “MARIAM” is in the latest source, the Gospel of John (John 20:16). He calls by her formal name (not a name of endearment as others have insisted). Up until this verse she is called MARIA H MAGDALHNH by the narrator.
4) The term “Lady” is found in other ossuary inscriptions (cf. The Akeledama Tomb. IAA Reports). However, there “KYRIA” is used. The use of an Aramaic title MARAH here would be ambiguous (potentially to be confused with the common personal name) and out of place here. In fact the name MARA in that case would translate as “Lady” or “Mistress” (not “Master), being the counterpart to Aramaic MAR “Lord”. If the title were to be used the Aramaic emphatic form MRT’ “The Lady/Mistress” would be used in such a predicate position (Greek would transliterate to MARTA).
In the end, the Mariam of John’s Gospel is far removed from the MARIAMH of the Talpiot Tomb.
Comment by uhl staff — February 7, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
1)In fact,I had read your next posting before writing my comment on this one. I did not find it convincing for reasons of well accepted
imperfections in ossuary inscriptions that i mentioned in my previous comment.
2)let me be more precise however regarding the chronology of the spelling of MM’s name in the Gospels. It is true that in Mark, MM is four times called MARIA, by the way it is also interesting to notice that in this earliest source, out of the four times she is three times at the side of Jesus’ mother at the time of his death and burial, enters his tomb, and who else other than a wife or a sister should be in these circumstances? Matthew, using the passages from Mark as his source, twice changes the name to MARIAM (Matthew 27:61; 28:1). In any case we both agree that the name MARIAM is indeed used for her in the Gospels.
3)The Akeldama Tombs are also my source for the KYRIA question. See my book (2001) notice no. 351. KYRIA is indeed the equivalent of the Aramaic MARTHA’ and of the latin DOMNA. It means lady/mistress (feminin for /lord/master/teacher). KYRIA, MARTHA and its hypocoristic MARA, and DOMNA are all used as proper names in these three languages. KYRIA in its Hebrew transliteration is known to the Jewish onomastic of second temple period Jerusalem (cf. A. Kloner:” A Burial Cave of the Second Temple Period at Givat Ha-Mivtar, Jerusalem”,… 1980).
Christian tradition present MM as a preacher/teacher therefore the Aramaic hypocoristic MAR(TH)A on this inscription could very well refer to her preaching/teaching ability.
4)What Bagnall says is that he does not know what the warrant is for Rahmani to believe that MARA is short for MARTHA. More likely is that MARA is short for MARIA (cf. interpretation of the name in SEG 33, 1281), with omission of the iota. The same phenomenon is found in the name KYRA/KYRIA. In this case we would have “MARIAM H KAI MAR(I)A” (MARIAM also known as MAR(I)A)on this Talpiot tomb inscription. I do not see why the inscriber could not have omitted either the (TH) or the (I) in his carving of the inscription in Greek characters.
So really both MARIAM and MAR(TH)(I)A (the second being:lady or teacher, a title of distinction in any case, or possibly used as her nickname) could have identified Mary Magdalene.
Comment by claude cohen-matlofsky — February 7, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
It is excellent that you have done your homework (with references). Now let us review the following points:
There seems to be a confusion here between what should be considered a title and what is a personal name (regardless of its etymology).
1. “Mara” is universally a personal name in the funerary inscriptions and not a title. Similarly “Kyria” and “Domna” are found as personal names and not titles in these cases mentioned.
2. MARA cannot mean “teacher” as has been supposed. The Hebrew word MWRH (√YRH: to teach) is pronounced “MORAH” in the feminine. This form is not found in the local Aramaic.
3. If one chooses to read -H KAI together as a signum (against the non-matching metrics and forensic handwriting analysis) then this actually would clinch this point. Whenever a signum formula was used, it never(!) linked a personal name to a title. It is always providing a personal name of a person as an alias for another personal name (as a general rule, of different ethnic origen, cf. Schwabe, Beth Shearim).
We are aware of the query as to whether MARA is a shortened form of MARTHA or MARIA. The reason why we would tend to go with the former is that in at least one case the names (in Hebrew) MRT‘ and MRH on two sides of an ossuary (CJO 468), apparently refer to the same individual. Whatever one’s leanings, it doesn’t solve the issue at hand.
In review, to expect to find Mary Magdalene, or any other historical figure in the midst of such common names (at least 20% of names used by Jewish women of that time were either Mary or Martha) takes a real stretch of the imagination. In the light of the data that has been presented between us, it is not prudent methodologically to propose a conclusion of such historical significance based upon such string of unfounded premises and the resulting speculation. Nonetheless, the process of research and discussion which have issued from this exercise has hopefully helped to review and reestablish sound methodologies and ground rules for further discussions in this field.
With all due respect and appreciation of your truly studied interest in this field.
Comment by uhl staff — February 8, 2008 @ 2:26 pm