The past two weeks have seen great discussion about many aspects of the “Jesus family tomb.” Many commentators have focused on the validity of the statistics that were used. Not considering myself to be a mathematician, I’ve stayed away from that area. However, some useful material has been presented on the names engraved on the ossuaries. Most has focused on the one reputed to represent Mary Magdalene. Early in the discussion, Richard Bauckham, professor of New Testament at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, analyzed the Greek inscription (the results of which were related in the first post of this blog). More recently, Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land, Jerusalem, suggested that two different hands had undertaken the engraving, and that the inscription therefore related to two separate women whose bones had been put into the ossuary at different times. This has led to yet another response, taking us back full circle to James Tabor. Prompted by Pfann’s widely circulated and eagerly accepted paper, Tabor approached one of the most respected Greek epigraphers for her input. The result? Leah Di Segni of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, dispensed with Pfann’s conclusions. Nevertheless, she dismissed any chance of Mary Magdalene being the person identified in the inscription and, in so doing, turned The Lost Tomb of Jesus script on its head. In her opinion, the names “Mariamenou” and “Mara” would have to be reversed if they are to be read as “Mary, the Master,” as proposed in the documentary. Di Segni has effectively reinforced Bauckham’s assertion that the inscription should be translated “of Mariamene, also known as Mara.” In other words, the woman whose remains were interred in the ossuary was known in her day by both a Greek and an Aramaic name. Interestingly, the inscription is also an indication that her interment took place toward the end of the century-long period during which ossuaries were used in the Jerusalem area, as the use of a slash between two names was common from only the late first century C.E. Tabor appears to have accepted Di Segni’s reading. And so, with the statistics under incessant fire and Mary Magdalene lost, the case presented so enthusiastically and doggedly by Tabor, Jacobovici and Cameron appears to have sunk like the Titanic. At the very least, their attempt to link Mary Magdalene to the ossuary (and, by extension, to the tomb) has surely lost its steam, and the discussion of the Talpiot tomb will probably disappear from forums and blogs as quickly as it disappeared in Britain in 1996 when the BBC tried to present a similar argument. |
