Name:Mark-Tao •
Title: "Mariamene e Mara" could this be Mary & Martha •
Date posted: 03/16/07 12:39
Q: The strongest argument against the Mary Magdalene ossuary seems to center around the idea that "Mara" should be read as Greek for Martha and not Hebrew for Master. The same argument also includes the suggestion that the two names were not writen by the same hand.
I think this is a strong argument. I can see no reason why anyone would write a person's name in Greek on their ossuary, then add their formal title in Hebrew on the same ossuary. Both the name and title should appear in the same language. There is said to be no other example of an ossuary with a name writen in two languages.
That being said, I think the idea of a Mary & Martha ossuary makes the case for biblical Jesus even stronger. These were the two sisters of Lazarus, the guy that Jesus was said to have raised from the dead. The Gospels show that Jesus was a frequent visitor to their house. Their home was just outside of Jerusalem, to the East. It was where he was said to be coming from just before he went to celebrate the Passover that would lead to his death.
This does nothing to account for the ossuary that claims to be from the son of Jesus, but I think a Mary and Martha ossuary makes perfect sense.
Name:Ronk •
Date: 03/16/07 15:48
A: I was waiting for someone to make a comment about the "Mariamene e Mara" on the Mariamene ossuary. I saw it on the local news the other day. I think Mark you may be onto something here if this translates into Mary & Martha on the ossuary. You are right there is some evidence that Mary Magdalene had a sister named Martha. So this makes this even stronger that this ossuary may be Mary Magdalene's. I know the inscription on the ossuary the word Magdalene is not inscribed on it. But if it did some experts would say WOW this may really be something here. But if this really says Martha and Mary and if we know that Mary Magdalene had a sister named Martha. Then this would be as if the word Magdalene was inscribed on the ossuary. This makes for a very stong case that this ossuary may be the one.
Name:exact55 •
Date: 03/16/07 21:58
A: @Mark
You are correct that this has a stronger probability than Mary Magdalene the master.
It was written as two names with a vertical stroke between them so a translation could read Mary / Martha. Of course the greek name throws a bit of a spanner in the works for the Lazarus sisters argument.
This evidence is one of the weakest points of the movie argument but is very necessary for the statistical argument and the Jesus son argument.
Name:vvk •
Date: 03/18/07 3:39
A: I don't think 2 names in the same ossuary, with the same hand writting or mabe Jesus married both of them, but only one had kid a son name Judah.
Name:JMD •
Date: 03/18/07 4:47
A: Naw, it's Mary known as the master -see Tabor's weblog: http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/
There's a LOT more detail about the inscription there, far, far more than anything presented here, and thus a much stronger argument.
Jesus said, in one of the so-called 'heretical' texts, when some of the envious male disciples were in an uproar about Mary Magdalene, asking her to leave, that he'd therefore 'make her male, like you other males' and that way, she would be their equal. (this is a 'wry' side of Jesus; notice he doesn't say 'like us males' but rather, 'like you males', as Jesus already knows women are equal, so left himself out of it -but since some of the male disciples were far less enlightened, well, he figured then I'll just make Mary male to their eyes, and then they will have to accept her authority, and maybe won't be so childish, and keep asking her to leave.
Therefore, it makes perfect sense she'd have "Master" on her ossuary.
By the way, it can't be two people in there - so it can't be 'Mary and Martha' - because the DNA tests run, on the Mariamne ossuary, showed that only 'one' woman's remains had been in there, not two.
Besides, they already found the 'Mary and Martha' ossuary, right by their brother Lazarus' ossuary, in one of the earliest Judeo-Christian cemetaries in Jerusalem, along with Peter (who is supposed to be
in Rome...teehee) -course, maybe you think it's just a trio of siblings with the same NT names?
I think the title 'Mary known as the Master', really spooks some of you, doesn't it? And that's the real reason why you keep trying to disclaim 'master' and insist on downplaying it to 'Mary and Martha'? (even if you'll never admit to it.)
A woman with such a powerful title is a bit unnerving for you, eh? And by Jesus' authority, too! All those centuries ago! Yowza! And I suppose just the idea of Mary Magdalene being referred to as "Mrs. Jesus Christ" is also a rather frightening thought, for you too, isn't it?
*Big Grin*
Name:Anchorite •
Date: 03/18/07 6:56
A: I AGREE
Whatever the key
To proper life
Must come from Man and Wife
Anchorite07
Name:exact55 •
Date: 03/18/07 11:43
A: @JMD
Sorry I can't agree with Tabor apolgetics.
On the one hand he accepts Rahmani as 'the' expert epigrapher when considering the / eta and translating it as known as then he ignores his translation of the two names in preference of the Mary known as master (Magdalene) as proposed by Simcha.
I have seen photo's of the inscription. The two names are separated by a line similar to / the first name is considered a diminutive form of Miriam or Mariam and would normaly be translated as such (Rahmani). The second name Mara is a contraction of Martha (Kloner). If one wanted to translate the / as known as (which is quite possible and is translated as such by Rahmani and accepted by Kloner) then the translation should probably read Mariamenou known as Mara or little Maryam (Mary) known as Martha.
Amos Kroner in Atiquot vol. 29 (1996) "A Tomb with Inscribed Ossuaries in East Talpiyot" states that based on demographic data one could expect on average 1.7 bodies per ossuary. This implies that there is about a 70% chance that this ossuary held two bodies. So the Pfann two bodies hypothesis is certainly possible and should not be dismissed out of hand.
Mary/Martha could be Mary known as Martha or even Mary & Martha but in my opinion it is a bit of a stretch to translate it Mary known as the master and to extrapolate from that Mary Magdalene.
Name:BMillikan •
Date: 03/18/07 14:46
A: Article from Stephan Pfann (one of the panel experts and mentioned on the page on "Experts"). He is also featured in the film itself.
http://www.uhl.ac/MariameAndMartha.pdf
Name:Mark-Tao •
Date: 03/18/07 22:25
A: Ronk,
Mary Magdalene is not the same Mary who had a sister named Martha. They're two different people. At least that's my understanding of it.
exact55,
good stuff. Lots to think about in your posts. I don't see why Mary & Martha could not have been writen in Greek?
vvk,
I haven't a clue what you're trying to say.
JMD,
I support equal rights for women. I am not threatened by the idea of Mary Magdalene being a powerful woman. It doesn't make much sense to write her name in one language and then add her title in another language. Shouldn't both words appear in the same language?
As for having found the Mary & Martha ossuary in another tomb, this is news to me. If that is true, then this still could be a Mary & Martha, or Mary aka Martha. It just wouldn't be the famous sisters from the bible. I would like to know more about this claim that their ossuary has already been discovered.
Name:JMD •
Date: 03/18/07 23:11
A: Well, if it's a bit of a stretch exact55, to come to 'master', you want to play that game, then the same can also be said for Mary and Martha - it's a bit of a stretch, dearie.
Mark-Tao - why should it be so surprising to have both Hebrew and Greek? She was Hebrew, but spoke Greek, too; travelled there. Just as Jesus' mother has 'Maria' on hers, is Latin for Mary, but, that too is no surprise -recall we still have 'Ave Maria' ?
Since you choose not to read Tabor's thoughts on this, -I already read Pfann- I guess I'll just have to post some stuff from it here.
Per Tabor's weblog:
"Let me summarize two views that have been proposed regarding the Mariamene inscription and how it reads. I want to emphasize here that the epigraphy discussion, per se, should be unconnected to speculations or proposals as to who this woman (or these women) might have been in relation to the discussion of whether or not the Talpiot tomb might be the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.
The clear issue is rather how does on properly read the inscription itself, that is, what does it say?
(1) The reading proposed by Rahmani, the editor of standard Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the State of Israel Collection ( and supported by Leah Di Segni who recently revisted the question) is the following:
[This is the ossuary] of Mariamene [aka] Mara
According to this reading we have two names for one woman. The first name is rare in this diminutive form, it is in the possessive case (showing whose ossuary this is), and the “aka” is signified by a little stroke that stands for the Greek letter “eta,” which is the feminine article, like saying “the one also known as.”
(2) The “corrected” reading proposed by Stephen Pfann and others (though I have only seen Stephen’s paper on this so far):
Mariame and Mara
According to this reading there is no name “Mariamne” at all, but rather the more common name Mariame, and then the name of a second woman named Mara (that Pfann takes as Martha). Pfann also thinks the second name was added later, by a different “hand.” His conclusion is that the ossuary held two women.
So to put it simply:
a) One woman with two names, including the rarer form Mariamne, or,
b) Two woman with two separate but more common names, Mariame & Mara/Martha
In considering this question I encourage those interested with access to Rahmani to also look at ossuary #108 in his catalog, where we have a second “Mariamne,” also in the genitive, with just the same style and form of letters. It seems to me to be rather decisive in favor of Rahmani, et al. More on this later."
Also from Tabor's weblog:
"I was amazed at how quickly Pfann’s reading was picked up by the media and flashed around the world with headlines such as: “Expert Shows Fatal Flaw in Tomb Theory.” I even watched Dr. Pfann on CNN two nights ago and I think he made the rounds on a few other national TV programs. I just did a Google search and that story has now become the “truth,” since it has been printed in over 12,000 sources, including multiple Christian Blogs that welcome anything that seems to contradict the “Mary Magdalene” hypothesis. I was also surprised to see Pfann’s
paper this morning up on the SBL Web site and I posted a caveat to Forum editor Leo Greenspoon suggesting that maybe the Pfann reading might bear a bit of “peer review” by a Greek epigrapher, since it would surely be taken by the public as a new breakthrough in the discussion if posted on an academic site without comment. [Pfann has written me since I put up this post that he did in fact consult with several leading epigraphers who agree, or partly agree, with his reading, but that it was the Associated Press that rushed the story out without mentioning anyone but him]
Immediately after reading Pfann’s paper I met with Prof. Michael Stone, who is our distinguished visiting professor of ancient Judaism here at UNC Charlotte this year, and who happens to have been Pfann’s teacher. I asked him for his opinion, and quite modestly he said, I have no expertise in ancient Greek epigraphy so I would not dare to say, but if you check with Leah Di Segni you will get a view that should settle things for all of us. I was impressed with Michael’s modesty since those of us who know him know that his Greek is as good as it gets, as are all his languages, but he still knows that technical training in epigraphy is quite different from one of us who reads Greek texts taking a turn at such things.
I contacted Dr. Di Segni, hesitant to impose on her time, but she graciously said she would take a look. I just heard from her today. She contextualized her view with a statement of how highly she regards Rahmani and expressed surprise that anyone proposing to “correct” him would not ask him, his “eye” being as good today as it ever was. Dr. Di Segni recalls that she was consulted by Rahmani when he prepared the Greek inscriptions and she writes: “I well remember that, while here and there I had some suggestions about interpretation of a particular form (for instance, Mariamenon being an hypochoristic form of Mariam), I could not but confirm all his readings. I have not changed my mind
now.”
Di Segni’s conclusion then and today: She reads the inscription as a double name, Mariamenou/Mara, both being personal names, as indicated by the use of the signum, indicated in this inscription by a single “stroke” (signifying ho kai or he kai so-and-so), thus one woman with a double name. This is much like saying “aka” or “also known as.” Di Segni is not of the view that Mara is an epithet, “Mistress Mariamenon”: if so, it would precede the name of the lady. She notes
that this use of the signum became common only in the late first century, so this would be a rather early occurrence, if one accepts the reasonable surmise that secondary burial in ossuaries in Jerusalem ended with the destruction of the city in 70 CE.
I pass this on to readers here and colleagues and I hope it will get posted on the SBL site and on some of the more responsible Blogs, to offer some context to Dr. Pfann’s paper. How one might contact the hundreds of papers or the TV programs that have carried the Rahmani “correction” around the world I have no idea."
and this from Tabor (he received in an email):
"Bob is married to a women from a small town in Crete and this comment is based on her input:
In modern Greek, many times when two adjectives are used to describe someone (as in ‘the learned and famous Dr. X’) the adjectives are split, one preceding and one following the subject. Thus, if the Mariamene ossuary were to mean, ‘our beloved (woman) and leader, Mary’, one would say (literally), ‘our beloved Mary and (fem. article) leader’. That is, she is beloved AND she is their ‘leader’ or ‘master’. This is what I believe the correct reading of the ossuary should be (in phonetic Greek): Mariamene (our beloved Mary) kai y Mara (and leader [assuming that Mara means ‘leader’ or ‘master’]). The ‘y’ (ipsillon) is represented by a stroke and is the feminine article.
The word ‘kai’ is commonly used in Greek not only as a conjunction by also to add ‘emphasis’. Thus, someone might introduce you to a Greek audience by saying: ‘O Professor X, KAI o gnostos’ (meaning ‘the FAMOUS Professor X’).
____
As for Kloner, so what about 1.7 per avg in ossuaries? Does that mean all ossuaries, both inscribed and blank ones? Or just inscribed ones? (as there are more blank ones it seems, than inscribed ossuaries.) Maybe some mothers occusaries, which have their name on it, have a small child or even two, within it, not named on the ossuary -women who died in childbirth would likely have two people inside theirs. Perhaps several siblings are in one together. Or a married couple could be in one. So it could be 1.7 per average, but so what?
But how does that thus automatically mean there is a 70 per cent chance of this ossuary for Mariamene containing two people?! Talk about a bit of a stretch! *laughs* Don't you think if they have inscribed ossuaries, that it'd be just them in there if their name is on it? just one person? Come
on! These aren't just regular everyday 1.7 per ossuary kind of people this theory is presenting!
But if you're going to accept the 70% chance of ossuaries containing more than one person, that thus means that you should accept also that the Jesus son of Joseph and the James son of Joseph, and the Judah son of Jesus, also have a 70% chance of containing two people. Which just doesn't make a whole lot of sense, so Kloner's words are empty, really -as often is the case with him.
Well, I stick by a.k.a. at least for now - so far, the opposing arguments are too thin - and not just as regards this highly controversial issue either. (such as the lame 'Jesus was born in Nazareth, so his family tomb would be there.' Not a good argument, proves nothing, doesn't hold water - Nazareth was a small town, with not much going on - why would the family stay there? Besides, didn't Jesus say that a prophet isn't welcome in his hometown?)
I am biased I will admit it - I've always felt this deep connection between Jesus and Mary Mag, for many years, now. You can ridicule me on the following statement, I don't care - because I also believe Mary Magdalene is the most enlightened of all Jesus disciples/apostles - a truth that's been hidden, due to the myth of male superiority, due to their fears and their agenda.
So this tomb is an exciting find for me, as it just backs some personal beliefs of mine, for one thing, though mostly, it is just an amazing discovery in itself!
So, can you all admit to your bias?
But why am I not surprised that Mary Magdalene's ossuary is causing the most controversy! Ah, at least she's more on the minds of people today, and that's a good thing.
Regarding Kloner; he often comes across as too suspicious, like he's hiding something? I've noticed, when reading various articles totally disputing this tomb claim, and the author will quote/interview Kloner, that he always seems to like to have to note, that Simcha and Cameron are just in this for the money, out to make a buck, whatever. Why is he always obsessed with money? Why not just talk about the evidence? Could it be a 'freudian slip'? -because ...nevermind.
Besides, truth be told, the knee-jerk reactionaries right now, who get absolutely nothing out of this interesting discovery/theory, aren't really worth my time, though I read them anyway, and realize how thin their arguments are.
I am going to wait and then 'seriously' read what is being said later about it - because the truly intelligent scholars, scientists, various experts, etc., -no matter what stance they take; either don't know, or lean towards yes, or lean towards no, but still, no matter what their initial feelings about it,
they are being a bit cautious, are going to want to study this more in depth, before presenting their viewpoints - that shows wisdom and intelligence. Those various experts spouting off from day one, disputing this find 100 per cent right away, are not very good critical thinkers.
But, since I'm not part of academia, I can say what I want, when I want, and figure I'll support it, until proven otherwise, (if ever), as they make a good initial case, in my opinion, (documentary and book), even if further work needs to be done on this theory -I'd like to know whose ossuaries are in that tomb next door.... hope there will be further documentaries, due to this one.
Peace to all, and thanks to Simcha and crew!,
JMD
Name:Mark-Tao •
Date: 03/18/07 23:23
A: JDM,
when I see a really long forum post, I don't even bother reading it. If you want people to respect what your saying, then you can start by respecting their time.
Here's the webster's dictionary definition of the word FORUM.
FORUM: a public meeting place for open discussion. (notice the word discussion. That means more than one person gets to say something.)
See how I said what I needed to in a short amount of space?
It's pure magic.
Name:JMD •
Date: 03/18/07 23:32
A: Well, things get detailed with this inscription, so I put lots of info, to back up my argument. Don't read it then, if you are so afraid....
Just believe what you want.
-JMD
Name:Mark-Tao •
Date: 03/18/07 23:40
A: JMD,
no fear here. Just getting bored with people who download their books onto the forum and then sign their name at the end of their post. It all looks too self-important for my taste.
Name:JMD •
Date: 03/18/07 23:41
A: *snickers*
Name:exact55 •
Date: 03/19/07 6:33
A: @JMD
Wow :) and I didn't even disagree with your perspective.
I agree Mary and Martha as Lazarus sisters is also a very big stretch.
Mark is right long posts are a turn off.
Take care Kasper
Name:JMD •
Date: 03/20/07 0:05
A: No problem. I'm outta here. Lots of other boards out there.
