1

Demythologyzing the Talpiot Tomb: The Tomb of Another Jesus, Mary and Joseph

By Stephen Pfann, Ph.D. University of the Holy Land

[Pl. 1: Photo of Tabor, Jacobovici, Cameron with CJO 701 and 704]

The 2007 documentary on the Talpiot Tomb produced by Simcha Jacobovici and James Cameron in cooperation with professor of religion James Tabor, superimposed the faces of Mary Magdalene, Jesus and Mary the mother of Jesus on the the tomb's ossuaries including those pictured above. This image has captured the imagination of many by attaching the identity of the first century's most famous family to these ossuaries. The documentaryʼs claim that these ossuaries can be identified as those of Jesus and his family is based on the following assumptions: 1) the cluster of names found in the tomb includes the names Joseph, Mary, Jesus and Joseh makes this tomb statistically significant; 2) finding an ossuary a Jesus son of Joseph and, perhaps more importantly of a "Mary also called Mara", perported to be Mary Magdalene, providing the "Ringo", the linch pin, that forms the basis of an astounding hypothesis. 3) the existence of other followers of Jesus, including Simon Peter, in Jerusalem's necropolis increases the likelihood that Jesus' family tomb appropriately belongs in the same area. According to the hypothesis built upon these premises, it would be extremely unlikely if it was the tomb of anyone other than the central character of the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth and his family. However, marshalling in the inscriptional evidence on names at our disposal from the Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries and Dominus Flavit it becomes clear that these names are far from unique, in fact they are among the 1st century Jewish worldʼs most common names. As a result, finding them together in the same tomb should not surprise us. Thus there is good reason to believe that identifying these ossuaries as those of Mary Magdalene, Jesus and Mary is a form of identity theft. The Jewish family of Joseph of Talpiot would almost certainly object if they could speak up today. This article provides a full epigraphical analysis of the three inscriptions upon which the hypothesis is based. Careful epigraphic analysis reveals that a) the inscriptions central to the films argument have been misread, b) separate scribal hands have written the different names which changes the number of individuals and identities of

2 those who had been buried in each ossuary . The evidence brought here discredits the hypothesis that the Talpiot Tomb is Jesus of Nazarethʼs family tomb. The final section of the article begins to explore the profile of the family buried in this tomb, providing a new basis for scholarly discussion. If we allow the tomb and the ossuaries to speak for themselves we learn not of the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth but of the family tomb of a certain Joseph of Talpiot otherwise unknown to history.

Let the original family of the Tomb speak for itself: Demythologyzing the Talpiot Tomb.

"The first time they have been laying side by side in 2000 years" Simcha Jacobovici

Faces of the actors Mary Magdalene, Jesus and Mary were superimposed over the ossuaries in the film. Indelibly infused on the façades of ossuaries belonging to another family: not Jesus of Nazareth, but perhaps, a Jesus of Talpiot. In this way we have witnessed a form of identity theft, an identification which the original family of this tomb would almost certainly and strongly object to if they could speak up today. But what about this original family? What story would they tell? This story lies silently in the tomb, its bones and its ossuaries. I would like to explore here the story of the family which the tomb itself can whisper of with a few tantalizing indications that lie there if we could only allow the tomb to speak for itself.

Contrary to Jacobovici’s assumption, the names found in the ossuary are not rare. In fact, they are among the most common names known from the inscriptional evidence of the 1st century. Below I present basic data from the current corpus of inscriptions, that allows us to frame the discovery in the Talpiot tomb within its proper epigraphical context.In order to create a statistical probability with which to assess the Talpiot tomb names, one must first create a working database. This can be done by making a general overall census of inscribed ossuaries based primarily upon the Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries.

Such a survey of the entire corpus of inscribed ossuaries brings to light the proportions of names and the ethnic character of those in first century CE Judea able to afford burial in ossuaries and tombs. Remarkably, only 72 different Jewish names are represented among the 286 personal names found on the 233 inscribed ossuaries. The reason there are more names than ossuaries is because some ossuaries contain two or three names using the formula "x son of y." These 72 personal names include their shortened forms and their Greek or Latin equivalents. What are the implications for establishing a statistical probability of occurrence? We must bear in mind the following points:

• We see that a very small pool of personal names was used when naming a child in first century Judea and Galilee.1 • Only 72 different names are represented in the inscriptions. • A remarkably low 16 of the 72 personal names account for 75% of the inscribed names (214 in all), • Thus 16 names account for 92% of the 233 names inscribed on the corpus of Jewish ossuaries.

1 When compared with the large pool of individual personal names in use today in North America and Europe.

3

• All of the names that are associated in the Gospels with Jesus of Nazareth and his family (father ‘Joseph’, mother ‘Mary’ and brothers ‘Jacob/James’, ‘Joseph/Joseh’, ‘Simon’, and ‘Judah/Judas/Jude’2) are found in the list of the sixteen most commonly inscribed names. • Four of these names: Simon, Mary, Joseph and Judas are among the top five in the frequency list of names appearing below. If we count up the total occurences of these names, we arrive at 109 out of 286 names. This is fully 38% of the entire list of names appearing in the inscriptional corpus. This underscores just how extraordinarily common the names of Jesus’ family are.

The frequency list of personal names on the inscribed ossuaries is as follows: Salome (Shalom, Shlomzion) 26 Simon (Shim'on) 26 Mary (Miriam, Maria) 22 Judas (Yehudah, Yudan) 21 Joseph (Yehoseph, Yoseh) 19 Lazarus (El'azar, Eli'ezer) 16 Joezer (Yeho'azar) 13 John (Yehonan) 12 Martha 11 Jesus (Yeshua') 10 Saul 10 Ananias (Hananiah) 10 Matthew (Mattitiyahu, Mattai) 8 Jonathan (Yehonatan) 6 Jacob/James (Ya'aqov) 5 Ezekias (Hezekiah) 4 Total names extnt 4x or more 214 Other less common names include: 3x: 'Amah, Hanan, Shalum, Shappira 2x: 'Azaviah, 'Ahai, Haniah, Hanin/Hanun, Yatira, 'Ezra, Shamai, Seth

The names in the Talpiot tomb were apparently not just "common" but "extremely common." Based upon inscriptions from the corpus of published ossuaries, viewed along side the witness of names published in contemporary literature of the first century, statistically speaking, we find the following frequency for each of the relevant names: For males,3 • 7% are named "Jesus" • 13% are named "Joseph" or "Jose" • 15% are named "Judah" or "Judas"/"Yudan" For females, • 31% are named "Mariam" or "Maria".4

2 This list of names gives the official form and its more “familiar” forms, including those appearing in standard English translations of the New Testament: hence “James,” even though the Greek manuscripts have “Jacob.” 3 Since there are 144 males and 70 females in the inscriptional corpus, this percentage is arrived at by dividing the number of cases of the apearance of “Jesus” (10 times) by the number of total male names (144).

4

By extending the statistics to the various tombs of various sizes in the Jerusalem area, these statistics can also be applied to the interred who have gone nameless. Thus, statistically, • statistically, one out of every 10 average-sized tombs would have a "Jesus son of Joseph."5 In the Talpiot Tomb, there is a real possibility that, out of the 10 inscribed names, there were represented there minimally • 2 Joseph/Joses (CJO 704 and 705) • 2 Mariam/Marias (CJO 701 and 706) There is also a serious possibility that we have 6 • 2 Yeshuas/Yehoshua (CJO 704 and 702)

The Jesus Tomb hypothesis rests almost entirely on the statistical improbability of this specific collection of names occurring randomly. The hypothesis is based on the notion that if the individual names are rare; a fortiori (how much more so) is it unlikely that these names were brought together by mere chance in one tomb? However, given that these names are each quite common, it should come as no surprise to find them together. As pointed out above, the statistical data from the inscriptions would render a likelihood of finding these same names together in 1 of every 10 tombs. We may conclude that the Jesus Tomb hypothesis is based on faulty assumptions about the rarity of such names in the first century CE.

The Jesus Family Tomb Hypothesis is further weakenned by the fact that the key inscriptions have been misread. The number of hands have been misidentified, leading to the mistaken conclusion that only one person’s bones were laid to rest in each ossuary. However, close analysis reveals that multiple scribal hands are present and multiple sets of bones were interred in each ossuary. The correct reading of the inscriptions provides a renewed basis for discussion of this tomb and its actual family.

Part 1: The Typology of the Ossuaries from the Talpiot Tomb

Ossuary Subgroups Ten ossuaries were found in the Talpiot tomb, nine of which were catalogued in the Israel Antiquities Authority archives (IAA 80.500–80.508). They were first published by L. Y. Rahmani in the Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collection of the State of Israel (CJO 701–709, respectively).7 The standard for inclusion in the catalogue was based upon the presence of distinctive features such as decoration or inscriptions. The tenth ossuary, described by the excavator as found in a broken state and neither decorated nor inscribed, was not catalogued.

4 (See the above footnote), since there are 70 female names in the inscriptional corpus, this percentage is arrived at by dividing the number of cases of the apearance of “Mary” (22 times) by the number of total female names (70). 5 Based upon Prof. Feuerverger’s calculations and my own independent calculations. 6 Also, if “Yudan” represents the previous partially-erased name of CJO 704, then two Yehudah/Yudans were also buried there. This is not to mention countless others sharing the same names who may have been interred but without their names being inscribed.

7 Subsequently, the tomb and its ossuaries were officially published by Amos Kloner in the journal of the Israel Antiquities Authority; A. Kloner, "A Tomb with Inscribed Ossuaries in East Talpiyot, Jerusalem," Atiquot XXIX (1996) 15–22. The description of the ossuaries and their inscriptions largely followed that found in Rahmani, p. 222–4; pl. 101.

5

Of the nine which were catalogued and could be accessed for this study, all were made of the local Jerusalem soft limestone (chalk), were slight to moderately tapered and were furnished with four low feet. The following chart summarizes this information, while specifying a fewdistinguishing features that could also be ascertained among the ossuaries:

Ossuary Cat. No. IAA No. Limestone Low Feet Decoration Inscribed 1 701 80.500 semi-hard X X X 2 702 80.501 soft X X X 3 703 80.502 soft X --- X 4 704 80.503 soft X --- X 5 705 80.504 semi-hard X --- X 6 706 80.505 soft X --- X 7 707 80.506 soft X X --- 8 708 80.507 soft X X --- 9 709 80.508 soft X X --- 10 ------Table 1: Stylistic Features of the Talpiot Tomb Ossuaries

Six of ossuaries were inscribed (CJO 701–706) and two ossuaries were both inscribed and decorated (CJO 701, 702). Only ossuary #10 was neither inscribed nor decorated.

Decorated Ossuaries Five of the ten ossuaries were decorated (CJO 701,702, 707-709). CJO 701 was polished, surface-sealed, and chip-carved while CJO 702, 707, 708 and 709 have a semi-smooth finish and are chip-carved.

Undecorated Ossuaries Five of the ten ossuaries were not decorated (CJO 703, 704, 705, 706 and the 10th, uncatalogued ossuary). CJO 703, 705 and 706 featured rough adze or chisel-finished surfaces. CJO 704, on the other hand, has a smooth, finish.

Ossuaries Grouped by Form Polished, surface-sealed, chip-carved, decorated ossuary with gabled lid: CJO 701

[Pl. 2: Photo of CJO 701]

Basing themselves on Rahmani’s reading of the name on this ossuary, the filmmakers contend that it once contained the bones of none other than Mary Magdalene, inscribed here as "(Little) Mary, the Master." Subsequent study has shown, however, that the inscription on

6 the side of ossuary CJO 701 was misread in the original publication, a fact that as has been supported independently by numerous scholars.8 In fact, the inscription preserves names of not one, but two individuals:"Mariame” and “Mara," written in two distinct scribal hands, as I demonstrate below.

The filmmakers further assert that, because the mitochondrial DNA found in the ossuary was from a single individual and did not match that taken from ossuary CJO 704 (the "Jesus(?) son of Joseph" ossuary), the two individuals must have been married. However, mitochondrial DNA, as opposed to nuclear DNA, can only distinguish children of a single mother. In the case of CJO 701, the mitochondrial DNA from the two individuals interred in this ossuary would be indistinguishable if, in fact they were sisters. Thus, the mitrochondrial DNA evidence alone is not able to affirm or deny the number of individuals interred in CJO 701, if they are siblings borne of the same mother. Furthermore, tombs frequently contained members of extended patriarchal (and not matriarchal) families and occasionally even included the remains of dear friends or guests from outside the clan.9 (See Appendix A on the significance of DNA analysis)

The relatively large size of ossuary CJO 701 indicates that it was not manufactured in order to hold the bones of only one person but was intended to contain two or more individuals (for a sense of the comparative size of the ossuaries, see the photo at the beginning of this article).10 The contrast is apparent when a comparison is made with the volumes of the other personalized ossuaries, all of which name only a single individual, and are significantly smaller than CJO 701. Only CJO 707, is larger. It, too, likely would have held the remains of several individuals.11 The number of individuals, their names, and the sizes of the ossuaries are summarized in this table:

Ossuary No Number of Named Individuals Measurements in cm Volume in liters CJO 701 “Mariame and Mara”” 2 68.5 x 26 x 32.5 57.9 CJO 702 “Yehudah” 1 55 x 23 x 27 34.2 CJO 703 “Matiah” 1 55 x 28 x 34 52.4 CJO 704 “Yeshua(?)” 1 65 x 26 x 30 50.7

8 Some of the most experienced epigraphers in the world, including the Editors of Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (SEG) 46, 1996, including J.J.E. Hondius, A. Salac, M. N. Todd, E. Ziebarh, as well as to Phillippe Gauthier «Bulletin épigraphique», (BÉ) 14,1998 in Revue des études grecques (Paris); in addition to epigraphers Tal Ilan, Emile Puech, and Jonathan Price all agree that the inscription as published by Rahmani represents a misreading. 9 As is the case depicted in the Gospels when Jesus is interred in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. 10 It is possible that CJO 701 was designed to contain the bones of one very large person, but then, it would likely not have been a woman (in particular, not a diminutive "Little Mary", as the earlier reading of the inscription might infer). 11 At Jericho, multiple burials in ossuaries were the exception rather than the rule, especially in the case of the 32 ossuaries inscribed with personal names. Twenty-four (75%) contained one individual each. The remaining eight ossuaries (25%), which contained multiple burials, primarily included single adults with children (5 ossuaries), children (2 ossuaries), or a woman and a man (1 ossuary; likely a married couple); Hachlili, Jericho, pp. 93–111. This apparently gives evidence for actual practice of the Mishnaic ruling that prohibits two individuals who were forbidden to sleep together in the same bed from being entombed together on the same bench (or in this case, in the same box). The inscriptions on the ossuaries (sixteen inscriptions in all) tended to conform, by both age and gender, with the contents of each ossuary, item for item, with the exception of Ossuary XIX where the bones of a woman and one child were found while the inscription notes a mother and her two sons; Hachlili, Jericho, p. 108. Ossuary XIII was inscribed with two names, MANHMOS and SIMWN; the first name, however, may actually be a patronym. In Jerusalem, at the Akeldama tombs, single adults (and notable pairs or couples) were often buried with children and infants. There are, however, a number of examples bearing Greek inscriptions where only a single name, presumably of the father or the mother, was inscribed; cf. Avni and Greenhut, pp. 51–53, Table 2.1a.

7

CJO 705 “Yoseh” 1 54.5 x 26 x 34.5 48.9 CJO 706 “Mariah” 1 52 x 27 x 33 46.3 CJO 707 uninscribed 67 x 31.5 x 38.5 81.3 CJO 708 uninscribed 51 x 27 x 31.5 43.4 CJO 709 uninscribed 61 x 26.5 x 31.5 50.9 Table 2: Measurements of the Talpiot Tomb Ossuaries

Thus, the large size of CJO 701, and the number of named individuals strongly indicate that the ossuary was not designed to contain the bones of only one individual.12

Semi-smooth finished, chip-carved, decorated ossuaries: CJO 702, 707, 708, and 709

[Pl. 3: Photo of CJO 702, 707, 708, 709 (top, l-r; bottom l-r)]

This form has a façade bearing two chip-carved metopes, each composed of a simple carved border framing two large rosettes. It is among the most common forms of decorated ossuaries.13 Each of these four ossuaries has smoothed sides, and surfaces that were neither polished nor sealed. Although simple in form, the craftsmanship indicates that special care was taken in cutting the decoration. In all four cases, each of the rosettes stands erect (except for a slight clockwise turn on the right rosette of ossuary CJO 709).

CJO 702 an unbroken ossuary, bears the simplest design—a single row of beads on all lines and is inscribed “Yehudah bar Yeshua.”

CJO 707, uninscribed, broken and subsequently repaired, features a double row of beads around the perimeter. Twenty circlets have been incised in all the open fields.

CJO 708, uninscribed, broken and subsequently repaired, has a double row of beads around the perimeter.

12 Nor does the mitochondrial DNA analysis prevent this from being the case. 13 This form is called "Type One" by Hachlili; cf. Hachlili 2005.

8

CJO 709, uninscribed, broken and subsequently repaired, has a double row of beads along the top border. A box with an “X” separates the two rosettes.

In general, based upon having a shared style of ossuary with one of the inscribed personalized ossuaries (CJO 702, Judah bar Jesus), which has a paleographic date of the first century CE, most of the uninscribed ossuaries were also from the first century CE. These were nicely cut and ornamented with relatively large rosettes but of a medium quality limestone that tended to break after the sealed surface eroded. The personalized CJO 702, Judah bar Jesus ossuary was the smallest ossuary in the tomb which again might indicate that the deceased may have been a youth. However, in this case, the decorative motifs would indicate that the family by then was better off, providing the youth with a more ornately decorated ossuary. The inscription itself was carefully carved to emulate the appearance of a formal handwritten script donning both serifs and shading, typical of hand written ink inscriptions written by a highly skilled formal scribal hand. The first name "Yehudah" was inscribed with larger rectilinear letters with spacing comfortably provided between the letters. The lettering in the remainder of the inscription was relatively smaller and cramped, evidently due to a misjudgment of the scribe in that he did not leave enough room to finish the inscription with the same generosity of letter size and spacing. In fact, various letters have been slighly, even substantially, rotated (cf. especially the final letter ayin, next to the left border) to provide ample room to squeeze in the entire patronym.

Roughly dressed, chisel or adze-finished, undecorated ossuaries: CJO 703, 705, and 706 The surfaces of these three ossuaries were roughly dressed with an adze or chisel. Dissimilarities in the scoring patterns left by the hack marks indicate that a different blade was used for carving each ossuary. This relatively common type of ossuary surface (found on about 1/4 to 1/3 of all ossuaries) seems likely to be mimicking the shaved appearance of simple, otherwise undecorated, wooden coffin and wooden ossuary prototypes.14

Far more numerous among the necropolises of Jerusalem and Jericho is a class of ossuaries which uses this same type of surfacing as the base for additional decoration, including pairs of rosettes set within frames which normally contaifn zigzag lines (in place of the common uniform beading on other ossuaries). This texturing, along with red ochre surface staining, again appears to convey the appearence of somewhat earlier wooden prototypes found at sites such as Jericho, En Gedi and Qumran.15

14 Wood carving tools were commonly utilized in the stone carving industry in Jerusalem; cf. Hachlili 2005. 15 For examples of wooden coffins from Jericho see Hachlili and Killebrew Jericho: The Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period. p. vii) color plate III 1 and III 2 from For those from En Gedi, see Avigad, N., "Expedition A: the Burial Caves in Nahal David", IEJ 12 169–183. especially Pl. 22. Also see Hadas, G., Nine Tombs of the Second Temple Period at ‘En Gedi (’Atiqot 24), Jerusalem (Hebrew. English Summary, pp. 1–8); also see by the same author "Wood industry in the Second Temple Period as reflected in the En Gedi finds", Michmanim 16:23-35(Hebrew; English abstract pp. 40-41). See Appendix B on the development of the rosette ossuary.

9

[Pl. 4. Mattiah-Joseh-Maria.jpg]

In addition to their unornamented, chiseled surface texturing, CJO 703, 705 and 706 share the following features:

1. They were all in a similar broken state when found in situ.

2. They are nearly identical in size (cf. Table 2 where the measurements are ± no more than1.5 cm any direction); CJO 703 "Matyah" (52.4 liters); CJO 705 "Yoseh" (48.9 liters); CJO 706 "Maryah" (46.3 liters)

3. The standard low feet of contemporary ossuaries are garnished on these ossuaries with an unusual horizontal line inscribed to separate the body from the feet.

4. The openings were not grooved to secure a lid. The two lids that survived were of similar manufacture, with cushion-like, non-squared profiles, and were carved to sit over the opening without a groove.

Furthermore, with respect to viewing these three ossuaries as a special group:

5. All three were inscribed with personal names.

Informal Name hirm hsoi hitm Formal Name Mirm Psohi ohittm [Pl. 5: Inscribed names of CJO 703, 705, 706]

10

6. Each inscription is an informal form of a personal name (i.e.,) a shortened form or a nickname) as opposed to the formal name (thus: Matiah vs. Mattityahu; Jose vs. Yehoseph; Maria vs. Mariam.16 (Cf. Appendix C.)

7. The inscriptions are deeply inscribed with a similar tool in a relatively large lapidary script with hollow triangular serifs. This is a style that is typical of less that 5% of all inscribed ossuaries.

8. All the inscriptions have only a personal name without a patronym (i.e., “son/daughter of so and so” is lacking).

The story of a family tragedy? The traits enumerated above, held in common by these three ossuaries, appear to unite them as a group. The similar form, the decoration and the size of the ossuaries, along with the peculiar script style and the informal personal names of the inscriptions, make these a unique set among the known ossuaries of Jerusalem's necropolis. These stylistic features suggest that the three were the product of a single workshop and likely contained the remains of individuals who died at the same event or very close to the same time. In fact, the use of the informal names of the deceased along with the relatively small size of these ossuaries might suggest that those interred were children or youths and were part of an immediate or extended family. Without the bones, it is impossible to determine the actual cause of their deaths. Whatever the case, these factors could well imply a profound family tragedy had occurred, calling for the commissioning of the three at one time.

16 It was quite common in antiquity, as today, to utilize informal names in familiar settings among friends and family, as in the case of children. In more formal, less familiar or professional settings, the formal name would be used (in this case Mariam, Mattityahu and Yehoseph). Cf. ossuaries which have both names types: Mattiya/Mattai CJO 42; Martha/Mara CJO 468. Also, in literary texts, individuals can commonly be referred to by either form of their name, depending upon the context. For example, in the New Testament, Mary the mother of Jesus is called both Mariam (27x) and Maria (27x), Mary Magdalene is called Mariam (4x) and Maria (10x). Jesus' brother is called Joseph (1x) and Jose (1x). For more details cf. Pfann, (blog: www. uhl.ac/blog; "How do you solve a problem like Maria?" and "Jose, can you see?"). Compare Hachlili, R. 194, 205-233.

11

[Pl. 6: CJO 704 from three sides, inscribed side in the foreground]

Undecorated Ossuaries Two smooth-finished, undecorated ossuaries were recovered, CJO 704 (inscribed side shown below) and uncatalogued ossuary no. 10. The inner rim of the long sides of the opening of CJO 704 were grooved to secure a lid.

Part 2: Four Key Ossuaries for the Evaluation of the Talpiot Tomb The following detailed sections are devoted to the three inscribed ossuaries that were featured in The Lost Tomb of Jesus and in subsequent documentaries and discussions about the tomb. Two ossuaries, CJO 704 and 701, were recovered from the tomb itself. The filmmakers also treated a third and fourth ossuaries as keys to the interpretation of the Talpiot tomb. They hypothesize the existence of a Jewish-Christian necropolis in which Jesus' followers were normally buried within a short distance of one another in Jerusalem. In each case, the reading of the inscriptions on these ossuaries has been influential in the building of the film's dramatic conclusions. However, in each case the published reading of these inscriptions has proven to be erroneous. A revised reading of these ossuary inscriptions and their implications follows.

12

I. Ossuary CJO 704 "Jesus, Son of Joseph"?

[Fig. 1 CJO 704 inscription jpg]

Fig. 1: “YESHUA (?) BAR YEHOSEPH” (Rahmani); “YUDAN(?) BEN YEHOSEPH”

Almost universally, epigraphers, including myself, have managed with some difficulty to make out the names “Yeshua(?) bar/ben Yehoseph” (i.e., “Jesus(?) son of Joseph”) on CJO 704. The reading was first published by L. Y. Rahmani, aided by Joseph Naveh, in A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries. At that time, Rahmani transcribed it with a question mark (?) after the name "Yeshua(?)." Two years later Amos Kloner, who had excavated the ossuary, followed the reading in his excavation report.

The first word "Yeshua(?)" is imbedded among numerous scratches on the surface of the ossuary. The name was not inscribed carefully. Both extra and missing features must be explained. This is not to say that the name Yeshua cannot be imagined among the initial lines of the inscription. I first saw the ossuary at an initial viewing in the warehouse in Beth Shemesh, where the producer suggested the name might be present on the ossuary. While looking at the ossuary itself, illuminated with the play of light from a small flashlight, I, too, could discern the name. However, upon subsequent examination of the excellent pictures taken by veteran photographer Ze'ev Radovan, a much more complex inscriptional picture began to emerge among the scratches, based upon line width and depth, and patina variations.

A close study of Radovan’s pictures indicates that two distinct instruments were utilized in inscribing this ossuary. The main inscription is characterized by rather shallow and wide lines that were made by a somewhat dull, pointed object. This inscription appears to have been subsequently interrupted by secondary deep scratches that were made by a sharp, pointed object. Moreover, this side of the ossuary also contains numerous inadvertent scratches. The challenge for the epigrapher is to distinguish which scratches in the inscriptions are intentional and which are accidental.

13

[Pl. 7: Photo of the inscription of CJO 704]

The various instruments used to create the scratches The first instrument: A dull-tipped knife created troughs with a shallow "U"-shaped trough. The instrument was generally held horizontally, creating an appearance of artificial shading, with broad vertical lines (except in the letter heh) and thin horizontal lines. This tool was utilized to inscribe both the private name and the patronym of the first individual whose bones were interred in this ossuary. The private name was effaced and largely scraped away, presumably when the first bones were removed and then replaced with the bones of another individual.

The second instrument: A blade was utilized in an effort to scrape away or obfuscate the strokes of the original personal name. However, this was not done thoroughly, leaving vestiges of the original name still on the surface.

The third instrument: A sharp-tipped instrument (a nail or a knife?) created troughs with a deeper, more "V”-shaped section. There is little evidence of shading, although there was some variation in the depth of the grooves. This tool was utilized primarily to inscribe over the first private name with that of the second individual. Although largely erased, some of the remaining strokes from the original name remained and were apparently incorporated into the strokes of letters of the subsequent name.

Patina inside and outside the letters Our patina analysis, of course, involved the use of a microscope with careful examination with various light sources. However, even on the basis of a close examination of Radovan’s photographs, some preliminary observations can be made with regard to patina variations on the ossuary inscriptions. Of first importance is the fact that the grooves of the last two words (bar/ben Yehoseph) share uniform color and texture of the patina and their patina matches that of the uninscribed surfaces around them.

The area of the first word contains scratches made by two or three different instruments. First, a dull instrument was used to inscribe the private name. One sharp instrument was used by a subsequent hand to inscribe letter strokes. The color and texture of the patina in the scratches made with the dull knife match the surface around them. However, the scratches that were made with a sharp pointed instrument by the final hand appear fresher and cut through the lines of the first inscription. Their patina appears to be slightly lighter and

14 smoother than that of the surrounding surfaces, which normally indicates a somewhat later set of scratches.

The variations in line depth and width and in patina texture and color likely indicate inscriptional activity on at least two occasions by subseqent hands utilizing different instruments. How can an epigrapher work to distinguish the underlying original inscription from the secondary activity? If one could “remove” the scratches of the second instrument from the picture, which of the remaining lines would make up the original name? As an exercise in epigraphic methodology, by utilizing the features of Adobe Photoshop, we can examine levels of inscriptional activity on the ossuary that may help to answer these questions. First of all, the superfluous "X" on the far right, in itself could be judged to be made up of two separate inadvertant scratches since they appear to have been produced by two separate instruments (and thus should be eliminated). The deep fresher-looking scratches created by another sharp instrument also can be isolated and eliminated:

15

Pl. 7a Lines which precede the Yeshua inscription, brown represents early strokes which are suspected as being scratches, yellow represents strokes which are suspected to be remnants of a previous inscription.

Stages in the inscriptionREAD THIS PARAGRAPH FOR CORRECTNESS The picture below shows how the earlier level of inscriptional activity appears with the secondary writing removed. In it, we see a series of letters of shallow scratches made by a dull-tipped knife. The underlying, barely legible vertical and horizontal strokes could form the letters of a certain relatively short name. Because this name was overwritten subsequently by a more deeply inscribed name, which also apparently incorporated some of the earlier strokes, only a few strokes remain clear. Reading the inscription is further hampered by the fact that virtually all strokes of the inscription are at least partially filled with hardened mud. (see the preliminary report to the Israel Antiquities Authority below, Appendix A, 3.2) This eliminates the possibility of examining irregularities in the bottom of the trough of each stroke throughout much of the inscription. In a practice strip elsewhere on the ossuary, an experiment was made to remove the mud with instruments including a water pick. In each case, the fragile patina disintegrated along with the hardened mud. For the time being, this leaves observations of the irregularities in the edges of the inscribed lines as the main means of distinguishing early and later strokes.17 For example see the following example where an apparent single line of Nb/rb is actually comprised of two distinct, subsequent strokes:

17 (by Dr. Ari Greenspan, 21 June, 2007; see Pl. 6 above)

16

Pl. 7b Arrows indicate where the division of the earlier cross stroke of the beth (left of the arrows) is met by the later line of the last hand which connected the nun of Yudan with the beth of ben, (to produce bar). Also, in the detail above on the right, note the scoring of the surfaces of both the limestone and the mud which provides evidence of aggressive brushing that was applied subsequent to the ossuary's discovery (in an early effort to remove the mud). (In upper photo recent in marks are visible and should be ignored. See Appendix A)

Although the surviving strokes may, with some imagination, derive from a certain limited number of possible names, my tentative choice would be that of Ndi.

17

Pl. 7c Psohi Nb ndi An artist's rendering of the earlier stage in the inscription with a restoration of the previous personal name Yudan.

Ndi/Ndoi Yudan is an alternative informal form of the name hdohi Yehudah and is found written in both forms on another Jerusalem ossuary (CJO 370) pictured below. On this ossuary, the name Yudan was overinscribed on a clumsily smoothed (or erased?) surface, irregularly shaved with the blade of a knife. Whether it is actually an erasure of a third, earlier name, a mistake made by the scribe himself, or an imperfection on the surface of the ossuary, is difficult to discern.

Pl. 7d Yudan, Yehudah and Yehudah from CJO 370

Coming back to (CJO 704), the letters of Psohi Nb Ndi are written in a similar form of square script and with a similar dull tipped instrument. However, relatively speaking, the strokes of Ndi are larger and less uniform. This may support either the idea that: 1) Ndi was written subsequent to the final two words of the inscription Psohi Nb which originally followed the undeciferable name of another son or 2) that Psohi at first stood alone, centered on the side of this ossuary which once contained only the remains of the partriach whose bones were finally removed in order to make room for his sons.18 Evaluation of each name The personal name written by the final hand is not immediately easy to ascertain. Frank Moore Cross classified it as "a jumble of lines and scratches." The original publication provided a question mark after the name "Yeshua" and dots above the first two of the four letters eo’u’i of the Hebrew transcription, signifying in that volume that the identification of those letters remained uncertain.

18 Although the consistency of the mDNA readings in the ossuary would appear to argue against Joseph's bones ever being in the ossuary. In other words mDNA readings of remains of Joseph's sons and daughters should soley match those of the mother and not him. If his remains had been in the ossuary, (leaving sufficient DNA behind on the bottom of the box), even after his bones would theoretically be removed to be replaced by a son, there should be a second mDNA reading that differed from that of his sons.

18

[Pl. 8: Yudan ben Yehoseph outlined]

Ben/Bar "the son of" (Hebrew and Aramaic) is not as easy to discern as one would expect. In the case of both readings, Nb or rb, there is at least one extra stroke that doesn't fit the drawing. The actual strokes used for this word may well have changed from one hand to the other.

Yehoseph. The letters are clear, though certain of them were apparently "retouched" by the final hand. Since there is real difficulty in establishing the reading of the personal name, the following is an analysis of each individual letter.

[Pl. 9: Photo of Yehoseph]

Yeshua?- Evaluation of each letter

Yod, as in many ossuary inscriptions, is formed by a simple vertical line, sans serif, and is hardly distinguishable from the waw. Heh is typical of non-cursive, perhaps semi-formal, hands of the period. The top line of this letter is suspected as having been retouched by the final hand. Waw (see yod above). Samekh appears semi-formal in style and is relatively "squat" in its proportions. Pe is a final form.

19

Pl. 10: Close-up of "Yeshua?" written over erasure

Changes made by the final hand Sometime after the original inscription had been made on the ossuary, a second inscription was added. This involved writing over the original first name with the name eoui. The final hand executed this by (1) adding certain elements to the lines of the original inscription with a sharp pointed instrument to form the name eoui, and, (2) eliminating certain strokes from the previous inscription.

Yod: There are two potential candidates for this letter. First the yod of the underlying word may have served also for this one. However, it is shallow and has not been retouched to make it more visible, as one would have expected, as had been done to some of the other letters. Secondly, it seems more likely that the short stroke descending from the lower stroke of the "V" of the cursive shin was intended to represent the cursive yod of eoui. This is similar to at least one other example in CJO 3, read as either xbuui YISHSHABACH (or perhaps better (o)rcuui YISSHACAR[W] cf. Ilan, p. 181). Also another example of a small diagonal stroke for yod is found in the YEHOSEPH BAR KEFA‘ inscription.

20

Fig. 2: Yehoseph bar Kefa‘; Ossuary CJO 3

Shin: Consisting of three strokes instead of one full stroke (cf. Dominus Flevit, Ossuary 29, below), or the more common two-stroke form which consists of a vertical stroke and a rotated "V" (cf. the second shin in CJO 3). The "V" of our shin is broken into two separate strokes and the vertical tail drops to an extraordinary depth. This stroke may be left from the underlying waw from Yudan, in which case it was recut to make it more pronounced.

Waw: If this letter actually exists, the engraver seems to be incorporating part of a letter (the leg of the dalet, see Yudan below) from the previous inscription, adding some retouching.

‘Ayin: The ayin was formed by adding a long diagonal stroke to existing elements from the previous word (in red below). Apparently a short tick was added to the upper end, again to emulate an ink trail. The trail ends at, and intersects with, a stroke from the earlier inscription.(in black below) The final form of this composite letter is composed to emulate the typical single-stroke cursive ‘ayin of the period. (See below, Dominus Flevit, Ossuary 29; CJO 706)

21

Sequence of strokes leading to the ‘ayin

Compare the following letters. On the left appears a cursive Ayin, made with only one stroke. On the right appears a semi-formal Ayin made of at least two strokes.

Pl.11: Sequence of strokes leading to the ‘ayin

Single stroke cursive ‘ayin Dominus Flevit, Ossuary 29; CJO 706 Fig. 3: Single stroke cursive ‘ayin Dominus Flevit, Ossuary 29; CJO 706

In order to help readers see the difference between the two scribal hands, I bring two

reconstructions of how the inscription would have looked had it all been done in just one of the two scribal hands. See Figures 4 & 5. Fig. 4: The inscription if written entirely in the semi-formal style of first hand. (Based upon DF 29 and CJO 704)

22

Fig. 5: The inscription if written entirely in the cursive style of the second inscriber’s hand. (The patronym "Yehosef" draws upon CJO 704 and Caiaphas ossuary)

Parallel evidence for the practice of erasing and overwriting The suggestion that this ossuary bears an instance of overwriting is strengthened by the fact that such a practice can be shown to have occurred elsewhere. One potential example comes from the same corpus of ossuaries: Ossuary CJO 428. On this ossuary the inscription presents one deceased occupant Noemu Shim‘on, written in cursive script, which is then scratched out and replaced to the right by hirm Maria written in a formal script with some lapidary overtones. A double groove left on various strokes on both names may indicate that a similar or identical tool was used to inscribe both names, even though the styles are clearly different. The scratches that were used to strike through "SHM‘WN" are not double-grooved and so appear to have been made by a separate tool (possibly on a later occasion).19 In the above analysis, I have shown that 1) several different tools were used on this ossuary; 2) there are two different scribal hands (likely at two different times); and 3) as a result, we can conclude that at least two individuals, if not more, were interred in this ossuary. This additional epigraphical information raises real problems for the “Jesus Family Tomb” hypothesis. Was Jesus of Nazareth really buried in a reused bone box? This does not agree with the synoptic gospels and John, which specify that he was placed in a new tomb that had never been used. From a historical perspective, does it seem likely that the devoted followers of Jesus placed him in a reused ossuary, first scratching out the name of a brother, in order to scratch in his informal name with a messy scribal hand? Is this messy inscription that can

19 This inscription was transcribed QRYH SHM‘WN in the CJO catalogue. However, the first word should almost certainly be read MRYH, the scribe having used a final mem at the beginning of the word, as in MRYH of CJO 706 above.

23 only be read with great difficulty the only trace left of Jesus? The epigraphical information from this ossuary does not cohere with the information we have a) from the New Testament that Jesus was laid where none had been laid before; nor does it cohere with b) what we know on historical grounds about Jesus’ high status among early Christians.

Pl. 12: Ossuary CJO 428; photo and line drawing

In conclusion: The contention that this ossuary bearing the name "Yeshua bar Yehosef" is in fact the ossuary of Jesus of Nazareth is hampered by the following factors. 1) This is not the only extant ossuary that has survived from the Jerusalem with the name "Jesus son of Joseph" cf. CJO 9

Pl. 12a "Jesus son of Joseph" from CJO 9 2) In fact, statistically, one in every 10 tombs in the Jerusalem necropolis would contain the remains of one "Jesus son of Joseph" (whether indicated by an inscribed ossuary or not). 3) Jesus of the gospels who was the first to be buried in a tomb (John ) Based upon the above evidence the "Jesus son of Joseph" of CJO 704 was only one in a sequence of individuals who were interred in the ossuary, even aside from the fact that he was not the first to be buried in the tomb. 4) The name "Yeshua" on this ossuary is one of the most carelessly scrawled name found in the Jerusalem necropolis and certainly the most inelegant found on this ossuary and in this

24 tomb. Added to the fact that the name was written on an otherwise plain, undecorated ossuary makes this a very unlikely candidate to be the ossuary of a highly honored member of this family, let alone the revered leader of a popular movement.

II. Ossuary CJO 701 "Marimenou (h kai) Mara"?

Ossuaries CJO 701 and CJO 108* The filmmakers assert 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. The analysis presented here shows that the names Mariamene (CJO 701) and Mariamne (CJO 108) do not actually exist on those ossuaries. In both cases the inscriptions have been misread by Rahmani in the Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries, and in consequence by the filmmakers. In both cases “Mariame”, the most common form of the name Mary among the ossuaries, should be read instead. The filmmakers make it clear that their case rests upon these names, and the apparent rarity of the name “Mariamene.” If the reading is instead "Mariame", the most common form of the most common female name, there is in fact no reason to be surprised at finding it at all. Even in a tomb with a Jesus son of Joseph (found on two ossuaries) it does not surprise us, given that “Mariame” has the highest occurrence of any name in the inscriptional corpus, namely 32% of all women in the inscriptional corpus bear this name. Thus, the epigraphical evidence brought here removes the central pillar of the Jesus tomb hypothesis.

The filmmakers make it abundantly clear that their hypothesis stands or falls based on the reading “Mariamene” for ossuary CJO 701. The inspiration for the hypothesis, Simcha Jacobovici writes: “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.” 20 At the press conference he stated “Mariamne was kind of the linchpin of the cluster.”21 Feuerverger gives a very low probability that the Talpiot tomb is not Jesus’ family tomb, if and only, “if Mariamne can be linked to Mary Magdalene..”22 Yet this crucial linkage cannot be made using accepted historical methodology.

The moviemakers make an elementary error regarding the name of Mary Magdalene.Following Prof. François Bovon of Harvard University, the filmmakers and their advisors have accepted Mary Magdalene's name in the apocryphal Acts of Philip as being "Mariamne." James Cameron states, "…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."23 However, the filmmakers do not rely exclusively on the estimable work of Bovon, but go on to make highly tenuous assumptions that fly in the face

20 Jesus Family Tomb: the discovery, the investigation and the evidence that could change history. 204. 21 Viegas, Jennifer (2007-02-25). "Jesus Family Tomb Believed Found". Discovery Channel. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/25/tomb_arc.html?category=archaeology&guid=20070225073000. Retrieved 2007-02-28. 22 Lost Tomb of Jesus Documentary. See also “Statistical Analysis of an Archaeological Find” in Annals of Applied Statistics, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2008. 1-112. 23 Viegas, Jennifer (2007-02-25). "Jesus Family Tomb Believed Found". Discovery Channel. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/25/tomb_arc.html?category=archaeology&guid=20070225073000. Retrieved 2007-02-28.

25 of the earliest soures. Yet it is only on the basis of such tenuous assumptions that their thesis holds together. They make the unsupported assumption that “Mariamne” was also the current and accurate name for the actual historical figure Mary Magdalene of the first century. Yet Prof. Bovon nowhere claims that the name "Mariamne" of the Acts of Philip should be the linked to the historical figure of the first century. Rather he said that this character is presented as the sister of both Philip of Bethsaida and Martha of Bethany, whose persona evolved over time to become the fictitious gnostic sage and evangelist. This fictitious character is more closely linked to the Mary of Magdala in the Manichean Psalms, the Gospel of Mary, and the Pistis Sofia. In order to correct their mistake, Bovon has publically stated, “I do not believe that Mariamne is the real name of Mary of Magdalene.”24 . These later gnostic stories also speak of a close relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus, and give a high prominence to her in the early church. The filmmakers have gone further than the gnostic sources upon which they base the idea, and surmise that Jesus and Mary were married and produced a family. Yet, in response to their film, Bovon has publically stated: “the reconstructions of Jesus' marriage with Mary Magdalene and the birth of a child belong for me to science fiction.”25 None of these assumptions—(1) that the name of Mary Magdalene was not Maria or Mariam, as recorded in the Gospels, but rather Mariamne; (2) that the Mariamne of the Acts of Philip is to be identified with Mary Magdalene, though the Acts of Philip never says so explicitly, and (3) that Jesus was married and fathered a child—none is supported by any of the earliest records dealing with these individuals, namely the synoptic Gospels, the gospel of John and Josephus.26 When the filmmakers form their view of history based apocryphal stories rather than our earliest sources, they exercise creativity quite beyond that warranted by artistic license. It is rather an issue of poor methodology. Historians can consider it little more than a hack job at revisionist history. What follows shows that the hypothesis is also built on an error in epigraphy.

Part 1: The original reading of Ossuary CJO 701

Fig. 6: “MARIAMENOU MARA”; CJO 701.

24 Bovon, François, "The Tomb of Jesus," SBL Forum , n.p. [cited March 2007]. Online:http://sbl- site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleID=656. 25 Ibid. 26 He published this clarification in the Society of Biblical Literature Forum, March 2007.

26

The original publication of the ossuary by archaeologist L.Y. Rahmani (with L. Di Segni; followed by A. Kloner), interpreted this inscription as reading MARIAMENOU-MARA: "of Mariamene (a.k.a.) Mara." Problems with the published reading A panoply of problems are inherent in the original reading of CJO 701 by Rahmani and Di Segni. These problems fall into several categories: lexical difficulties, the “signum” formula; use of appositives; and epigaphic issues. The lexical problems 1. The name MARIAMNH is unattested before the third century CE (aside from CJO 108 and 701, which are in question here). 2. MARIAMHNH is nowhere else attested for MARIAMNH. 3. The retrograde reading of nu is nowhere else attested in legible inscriptions of the late Second Temple Period. 4. According to Dr. Rahmani, an unattested lexical form MARIAMHNH is here expressed in a diminutive form MARIAMHNON.27 He suggests that this would explain the otherwise unattested neuter genitive MARIAMHNOU. However the diminutive endings, as a rule, should be for masculine nouns -iskos/iskou; feminine -iska/iskas and neuter - ion/iou (Smyth, Greek Grammar, §852). In this case,28 hypothetically, a neuter diminutive form in the genitive should produce MARIAMHNIOU (not MARIAMHNOU). The problem is compounded by the fact that none of these irregular forms are attested elsewhere. 5. A ligature for OU, is epigraphically problematic since it begins to appear regionally (and only sparingly) during the early second century (and, even then, does not resemble this form at all, cf. especially P. Yadin mss 12 and 14).

Problems associated with the suggested elements of the signum formula A signum is a term used for an added second personal name, like a middle name or alias. According to Schwabe and Lifshitz (Beth Shearim II, p. 64), if it is introduced by the formula H KAI or O KAI “who is also called” followed by two personal names are typically foreign to one another. Thus ethnically Jewish names are paired with Greek names, Greek names with Jewish.29

There are several immediate problems, however, in applying the above profile or definition of this term to the inscription of CJO 701: 1. Mariamne and Mara are both Jewish names, thus falling outside the profile for the suggested H KAI + signum formula in use here. 2. If MARA is taken to be translated by the title “Master” (so Tabor and Pellegrino), then it is not a personal name; again placing it outside the signum profile. 3. In Greek inscriptions of the Second Temple Period, no inadvertent scratch (and there are 47 in this area in and around the inscription), stroke or “clear diacritical mark” is ever substituted for a letter, word or phrase (including H or H KAI). The vertical stroke that Dr. Rahmani suggests "probably represents an eta," is unattested elsewhere. In the parallel inscription suggested by Dr. Rahmani, Beth Shearim 101, SARA H MAXIMA,

27 James Tabor quotes Leah Di Segni on this issue in his blog: “I well remember that, while here and there I had some suggestions about interpretation of a particular form (for instance, Mariamenon being an hypochoristic [sic] form of Mariam), I could not but confirm all his readings.” However, if the name were actually a hypocorism of the name (i.e., MARIAMHNH) there would be no need to change to the neuter endings. 28 Given that Rachmani/De Segni’s proposed reading is built off of the neuter adjective instead of the feminine. 29 For example, Schwabe cites SAULOS (DE) O KAI PAULOS: “Saul who is also called Paul” Acts 13:9.

27

the eta is written in full. On the basis of Beth Shearim 101, Dr. Rahmani suggests that the presumed eta would represent the full formula, h kai. 4. The earliest inscriptional use of signa comes from the beginning of the second century (Schwabe) or from the end of the first century (Tabor as quoting Di Segni).

A basic grammatical problem with the proposed reading

In a signum, the two names must be in the same grammatical (especially inflectional case) form. In CJO 701, they are not. Names in apposition to one another cannot be a mixture of genitive and nominative forms, as has been proposed for this inscription. This would be a jarring violation of basic grammatical rules. Since the first name, according to Dr. Rahmani's reading, is in the genitive case, standard Greek grammar would dictate that both the noun MARIAMHNON and its appositive/signum H MARA should agree with respect to the inflectional form (Smyth, Greek Grammar, §976ff). In this case, both should be in the genitive i.e., MARIAMHNOU THS KAI MARAS.30 Or, if a relative pronoun were used then MARIAMHNOU OU KAI MARAS,31 would be the expected reading, with the relative pronoun agreeing with the preceding noun in both inflection and the neuter gender. The example provided from CJO 868 ALEXAS MARA MHTHR IOUDAS SIMON UIOS AUTHS does not provide a parallel.32

Epigraphic observations concerning the two parts of the inscription must be taken into consideration 1. The inscription bears two writing styles, documentary and cursive, each being characteristically clear, distinct and consistent for each of the two parts of the inscription (bringing into question the proposed unity of the inscription). Both of the scribal hands preserved on the ossuary betray writers who are both practiced and comfortable in writing Greek. 2. The second part of the inscription KAI MARA was written with an instrument similar to that of the first, but with a comparably sharper point.

A note on irregularities in ossuary inscriptions The reading proposed by Rahmani and Di Segni for CJO 701 requires that the inscriber made at least 10 errors or anomalies in Greek grammar and spelling. Such as reading is based on the assumption that irregularities in ossuary inscriptions are commonplace. However, the frequency of variants and errors among the corpus of ossuaries is quantifiable. On the corpus of ossuaries from Beth Shearim, for example, a certain number of orthographic variants are relatively common, especially iotacisms (about 1 in every 5 inscriptions). Actual spelling errors are few (about 1 in 25 inscriptions). Grammatical/syntactic errors are relatively rare among these inscriptions (no more than 1 in every 45 inscriptions). The count of variants and errors are somewhat less among the published ossuaries of the Second Temple Period. The odds that ten or more anomalies should actually be found in an inscription on a single ossuary

30 Viz. Schwabe, Beth Shearim II, p. 85, no. 199: TOPOS THEODOSIAS THS KAI SARAS TUROU. 31 Viz. Abel, 1913, 276, no. 13. 32 There, the anarthrous MARA, rather than carrying the genitive inflection of ALEXAS that precedes it, is grammatically bound to agree with the nominative inflection of MHTHR (this parenthetical string of nominatives ultimately gain their inflections from UIOS AUTHS, which presents a type of casus pendens at the end of the inscription).

28 is extremely low and indicate that such a suggestion is untenable and not an acceptable reading of the inscription given the normal rubrics of epigraphic methodology. 33

It is difficult to imagine that an apparently literate Hellenistic Jew of first century Jerusalem could produce such an extraordinary list of anomalies, lapses in basic Greek grammar and writing errors, all within the space of two words.

In the light of this, we really need to look for a better alternative for the transcription. According to normal epigraphic methodology, the reading to be preferred is the one that accounts for the greatest amount of elements with the least number of difficulties.

Part 2: A new reading of CJO 701

In place of this problematic reading suggested by Rahmani, the following reading presents no such problems: MARIAMH KAI MARA (“Mariam and Mara”). MARIAMH is the preferred Greek word used among the ossuaries for "Mary" (in Rahmani, CJO: MARIAMH 5x, MARAIAMH 1x, MARIEAMH 1x, MARIAM 1x, MARIA 1x; from Dominus Flevit MARIAMH 1x, MARA 1x).

The first name and the first scribe

Fig. 7: Mariame, CJO 701

The first name on the ossuary was written in the contemporary Greek documentary style of the first century. Four letters of the first name are clear and erect: M, A, R, I. The next two letters are written a bit more askew (apparently due to the scribe's avoidance of a scratch or imperfection between the two letters) but are certainly recognizable, and in the same style: A, M. This is followed by a proper, documentary H of this period, in the same style as the previous letters. So far, the word as it stands forms 'MARIAMH," which is the normal Greek form of the Hebrew name “Mariam.” (“Mariame” appears seven times in the Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries.)

Of particular note, are the "M" mu, the “A” alpha and the “P” rho of the inscription. The lines on both parts of the inscription were inscribed, not deeply, with a dull, pointed metal object. This instrument may have been a metal stylus which was commonly used for taking notes on portable wax tablets and which makes similar marks.

33 It doesn’t take an epigrapher to see the inherent problems here. Sadly, the errors are basic enough that any one who has had even a very basic education in Greek, and has done their homework, should have been able to avoid these pitfalls. It is unfortunate that such sloppy homework by the film’s advisers has led to such a needless waste of scholarly time and energy.

29

The mu "M" is formed by a number of separate but intersecting strokes. The separate strokes are indicated by the nonalignment, scissor-like appearance of the ends of the various strokes where they intersect.

The alpha "A" is formed by two strokes instead of three, comprising a right-tilted "V" followed by a left-tilted diagonal line. This reflects a semi-cursive tendency in this letter that appears in non-literary documents as well on ostraca and tituli picti in the first century CE at Masada and elsewhere. (Tituli picti are inscriptions on wine jars.)

The rho "P" (= R) is inscribed with two strokes. The vertical stroke descends well below the baseline. This feature is common among the ossuaries and is also typical of non-literary documents of the period as well as on the ostraca and tituli picti of Masada.

The eta "H" (=long E) is formed with two strokes in the semi-cursive tradition. This letter preserves the squared appearance of the "H" of the formal script but reduces the number of times the pen lifts from the writing surface from three to two. This form stands in stark contrast to the form of the contemporary cursive eta which is formed in a single looping stroke, without lifting the pen from the writing surface which stands behind the formation of the lower case "h" (as can be seen in the ossuary CJO 108 below).

Fig. 8: The "H" (eta) from left to right: 1) Formal, 2) Semiformal, 3) Semicursive, 4) Cursive Masada Inscriptions, First Century CE

This name is followed by a gap that is sufficiently wide to signify a space between distinct words.

After this series of letters, the irregularities begin. Rahmani suggested that the next letter was an “N.” However, it can only be read so if it is taken to be retrograde (i.e., written backwards.) The suggestion that it should be read as a retrograde “N” raises the question of whether it is truly an "N" at all. Among all of the ossuaries inscribed in Greek listed in Rahmani's Catalogue and the numerous ossuaries from Dominus Flevit (on the west slope of the Mt. of Olives), there are no other cases in which it has been suggested that an "N" has been written in this way. Furthermore, the following two letters do not resemble the combination “OU,” as proposed in Dr. Rahmani’s original publication. This combination would form a ligature that does not exist on the ossuaries or at Masada. An OU ligature does appear later in early second century manuscripts from Nahal Hever and Wadi Murraba‘at but the resulting ligature, in all cases, combines the O with a true Y or V shaped upsilon which in no way resembles the combination on this ossuary.

30

Pl. 12: The contrasting styles of the two Greek names on CJO 701

As we shall see, this is not because the scribe suddenly introduced anomalous letterforms, nor even changed his handwriting style in mid-sentence. Rather, it is because a second scribe had subsequently added the last two words of the inscription in a different handwriting style. Upon closer examination, it appears that the three letters Dr. Rahmani read as "NOU" are almost certainly to be transcribed by the common word “KAI” and, written in the Greek cursive form of the word.34

Cursive tendencies and the second scribe Cursive tendencies among various scribes led to varying degrees of cursive letterforms. These cursive forms often appeared in official documents that normally would be written in the formal Greek documentary script. These forms may be termed as cursive or semi-cursive depending upon the extent to which these tendencies were exhibited. The most common cursive tendency was to execute individual letterforms without lifting the tip of the pen from the writing surface. Another tendency was to connect consecutive letters without lifting the pen to form ligatures. This tendency is known as "connected writing" when the interconnection of letters is more prevalent. 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 by the first scribe while inscribing MARIAME. Also, from the standpoint of horizontal line space, although each scribe inscribed a total of seven letters, the cursive style of the second scribe allowed him to write his seven letters in 3/4 of the space of the first.

34 The KAI reading was independently confirmed by E. Puech and T. Ilan. It was also made by others earlier: in BE 1998 and SEG 46 1996. Thanks to Prof. Jonathan Price for these latter references.

31

Fig. 9: KAI in cursive writing from CJO 701

As usual for both the semi-cursive and cursive "K," its left vertical stroke ascends above the rest of the letter (cf. P. Yadin 12 [olim 5/6Hev12] and P. Yadin 16 [olim 5/6Hev16] below). A kappa that is written with only two separate strokes rather than three might be termed "semi-cursive" (as in the case of P. Yadin 12). The kappa on this ossuary exhibits the full cursive form of this letter, which requires that the letter's three strokes be executed without lifting the tip of the pen (cf. Masada tituli picti 858 and P. Yadin 16 below).

Pl. 13: "KALON KERAMION" Masada tp 858

This is also true concerning the cursive form of the remaining letters A and I which, as in this case, were commonly written together as a ligature, i.e., without lifting the tip of the pen (cf. both P. Yadin 12 and P. Yadin 16 below). At times the entire word is written without lifting the pen, as is clearest in P. Hever 63 (olim XHever/Seiyal63) and 69 and P. Yadin 16. (The cursive form of the “A” appears also in the second name "MARA").

Pl. 14: P. Yadin 12 exhibiting KAI with a semi-cursive kappa followed by the cursive ligature AI

32

Pl. 15: P. Yadin 16 exhibiting KAI with a cursive kappa, ligature AI and connected writing, and ligature OU

Following normal scribal practice of the period, the scribe engraved the words of his inscription in scripta continua: with no space between the words, writing KAIMARA. He, or someone else, subsequently provided a stroke, a word divider, to separate the KAI from the name, apparently to distinguish the two words, resulting in KAI'MARA. (On the other hand, the stroke might defensibly be judged to be a mere accidental scratch since this area of the ossuary's surface is plagued with other superfluous and accidental scratches both among the letters of this inscription as well as on the uninscribed surfaces.) The proposal that the scratch serves as a so-called signum (representing "that is" or "also called ...") is untenable since it does not resemble such a stroke and such punctuation is not used in contexts where cursive scripts are used.

The scribe also continued in the cursive style with respect to the word MARA.

Fig. 9: The second name MARA written in cursive style

The mu “M” of the second name Mara is written with two strokes, including one continuous looping gesture. The first leg of the letter is initiated below the base line upon which the body of each letter sits, with the center of the letter sitting higher and formed like the letter "U", and the right leg curving toward the next letter. This is typical of Greek cursive and miniscule forms of the letter (e.g., see Masada tp858 and both P. Yadin 12 and P. Yadin 16 above). This stands in contrast to the practice illustrated in the first name of this inscription, where the entire letter “M” remains above the base line and the middle forms a pronounced "V").

The alpha "A," in both cases, appears to have been written with one continuous looping stroke. The first form exhibits a counterclockwise rotation with its final stroke finishing high near the letter's ceiling line. This is common among medial forms of the letter (i.e., a letter appearing before another letter in the same word) where the letter ends in a place near to where the initial stroke of next letter rho will begin (not dissimilar to the formation of the alpha of the ligature "AI" in the previous word KAI). The second example is a typical final form of the alpha (being the last letter of a word or line) where the final diagonal stroke of the enlarged letter descends and ends, almost emphatically, at its baseline.

The letter rho "R" (resembles a "P" but is pronounced like "R") is drawn with two strokes as is generally the case in most contemporary, locally inscribed papyrus documents, with the

33 crescent shaped head written first, followed by the down stroke which descends well below the baseline.

Do we have another signum MARIAM H KAI MARA? Several scholars have suggested reading CJO 701 as: MARIAM H KAI MARA "Mariam who is also Mara", as an alternative reading to MARIAMH KAI MARA "Mariame and Mara." In light of the clear change of scribal hands between MARIAMH and KAI, this suggestion should be rejected. Such a reading is beset with the following inherent problems.

1. The "H" eta is not detached from MARIAM. 2. The "H" eta is in the same square/triangular, semiformal/semicursive, documentary writing style of the first name MARIAM, and not in the rounded/looping, cursive writing style of the words KAI MARA. (See Appendix 2 in this article) 3. MARIAMH is the normal formal name for "Mary" among the ossuaries, not MARIAM. 4. According to Schwabe and Lifschitz, the extant examples of the signum formula introduced by H KAI provide a second personal name that is nationalistically different over against the first, e.g., PN (Jewish/Semitic) H KAI PN (Gentile/Greek) or vice versa. On the contrary, the two names MARIAM and MARA are both Semitic Jewish names. 5. No signum formulae appear in the inscriptions before the end of first century. (according to Di Segni; the beginning of the second century CE ccording to Schwabe and Lifschitz).

Natural and inadvertant scratches on the inscription's surface Ossuaries are notorious for the knicks, scratches and tool marks which may occur anywhere on the object's surface. In the photographs there appears to be a small line surviving between the last two letters of MARA. Upon close examination, it is clearly a small natural pit that must have preceded the inscription. This is similar to natural pitting found in various places elsewhere on the ossuary.

Pl. 16: Pitting on the surface of CJO 701

Part 3: Another MARIAM—not MARIAMNOU—inscription? Ossuary CJO 108

34

This ossuary contained the remains of a single, named individual. The name MARIAMH was initially written on the top and bottom of the ossuary's lid. Both original inscriptions were likely inscribed in lowly lit to unlit circumstances, since many of the strokes of the inscription were misaligned, providing illegible results. On the top of the lid (below left), the name was re-inscribed above the original inscription. On the bottom of the lid (below right), the name was re-inscribed below the original inscription, which had been cancelled with a line cut through the middle letters.

Fig. 10: Ossuary CJO 108 top and bottom of lid

It seems likely that the first line on the lid's bottom did not read MARIAMNOU, but rather MARIAMH, as it does in the other three occurrences on this lid. The line to the left of the eta (below in red) appears to be an accidental scratch. See the restoration of the eta below (in blue).

35

Fig. 11: Ossuary CJO 108 lid bottom with eta in former name restored

If this reconstruction is correct then there is no certifiable example of the name "Mariamne" until the third century CE.

Part 4: Yet another Mary and Martha?

This revised reading of the inscription on CJO 701, based on contemporary inscriptions and documents, would leave the words MARIAME KAI MARA "Mariam and Mara." Mara, as noted by Tal Ilan among other scholars, was a common shortened form of the Aramaic name “Martha.”

Due to the fact that (1) an ossuary would often contain the bones of more than one individual and (2) these two names are among the most common female personal names of the first century, the combination of these two names together on an ossuary is not unique.

In fact an ossuary was discovered at Dominus Flevit (DF 7) on the west slope of the Mt. of Olives that has the Hebrew equivalent of the two names as a pair written three times on the same ossuary (however, with the order reversed: "Martha and Maria").

Fig. 12: Dominus Flevit Ossuary 7: Martha and Maria

Multiple burial and DNA The fact that two individuals were named on the side of an ossuary does not limit the remains within to be only from those two individuals. There may have been others inside whose names were not inscribed. To give us an idea of how many individuals might have been interred a single ossuary, one should consider Ossuary 37, also from the Dominus Flevit tomb complex, which bears the names of five individuals, indicating that the ossuary contained at least five distinct burials. The named individuals buried in the ossuary were Zacharias, Mariame, El'azar, Simon, and Sheniit(?).The variety of scripts and character of the cuts indicate that the inscriptions were written by different individuals with distinct

36 instruments. There may be the skeletal and DNA remains from at least five individuals in this box (and perhaps more from others whose names were not inscribed on the ossuary).

Fig. 13: Dominus Flevit Ossuary 37

In addition to numerous other ossuaries that name more than one individual, there are others in which names are connected by KAI "and", which more often than not indicates family relationships. This latter type includes several that were apparently written on a single occasion by a single scribe (which may indicate that the bones of those individuals were interred simultaneously; e.g., CJO 560, 800, and 139, representing two brothers, a mother and her two sons, and apparently a husband and wife, respectively).

However, on inscribed ossuary CJO 490, KAI is used to connect two individuals. Two distinct scribal hands, and thus two different inscribers, are evident in the two parts of the inscription. The initial name FASAHLOU "of Pasael", was deeply inscribed in a rounded lapidary script. This is followed by a squared lapidary hand whose inscribed letters had been merely draft-outlined and left unfinished: KAIEIFIGENEIAS "and of Iphigenia".

Fig. 14: CJO 490

Conclusion regarding CJO 701 The so-called "Mariamene" ossuary contained the names and remains of two distinct individuals. The first name on the ossuary, “MARIAME” was written in the common Greek documentary script of the period on the occasion of the interment of the bones of this woman. The second and third words “KAI MARA” were added sometime later by a second scribe, when the bones of the second woman Mara were added to the ossuary. This scribe's handwriting includes numerous cursive elements not exhibited by the first scribe who wrote “Mariame.” In view of the above, there is no longer any reason to be tempted to link this ossuary (nor the ambiguous traces of DNA inside) to Mary Magdalene or any other person in Biblical, non-Biblical or church tradition.

37

APPENDIX 1

Greek Paleography of Jewish Ossuaries

Lapidary Scripts

Lapidary script (deeply engraved) CJO Ossuary 490

Pseudo-Lapidary script CJO Ossuaries 64 and 405

Formal Scripts

Formal Script (in ink) CJO Ossuary 789

Semi-formal Scripts

Semi-formal script CJO Ossuaries 333 and 868

38

Semi-formal script (with semi-cursive tendencies) Dominus Flevit 37 (tomb 437; ossuary 115)

Semi-cursive Scripts

Semi-cursive script CJO Ossuary 701 and Dominus Flevit 41 (tomb 452; ossuary 61)

Semi-cursive script (with cursive tendencies) CJO Ossuary 782

Cursive Scripts

Cursive script CJO Ossuaries 108 and 701

39

APPENDIX 2

MARIAM H KAI MARA: An Alternative Reading?

It now seems incumbent upon me that I should 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 hyopthetical, 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 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 MARA) written the entire inscription.

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"

40

However, this inscription clearly was 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"

APPENDIX 3

Documentary vs Cursive: An Eye for form vs Stroke Counting

An "Eye for Form"

Although most of those interviewed can quickly see the difference between the two parts of the Mariame kai Mara inscription, non-cursive vs cursive, 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.

41

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:

1) MARIAMH KAI MARA: “Mariame and Mara”

OR, alternatively

2) MARIAM H KAI MARA: “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) MARIAMH KAI MARA: “Mariame and Mara”

42

OR, alternatively

2) MARIAM H KAI MARA: “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 MARIAMH and the next KAI MARA.

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:

MARIAMH KAI MARA: “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 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.)

43

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”.

44

Different Strokes for Different Folks

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 MARIAMH KAI MARA 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 MARA, 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.

45

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 MARIAMH consistently utilizes semiformal to semicursive letter forms, and the last part KAI MARA consistently uses cursive forms, illustrates the great care the two inscribers/scribes took as they wrote the

46 names in this inscription. If such a single individual wrote the entire inscription, there would almost certainly have been a deliberate consistency manifested throughout.

Resealing the Ossuary Lid: The Straight and the Narrow and the Bottom Line (according to additional diagnostic features)

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 MARIAMH 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 MARA was initiated noticeably above the baseline of MARIAMH 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: MARIAMH and KAI: 10 mm, but between KAI and MARA: 5.5 mm. The wide space between MARIAMH 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 MARIAM H KAI MARA “Mariam who is also called Mara”.

47

SPACE between letters of MARIAMH = 6, 4, 11, 14, 9, 3.5 mm; KAI = 4 and 0 mm; MARA = 0, 2.5, 3.5 mm. Although both the beginning (MARIAMH) and the end of the inscription have the same number of letters (KAI MARA), the end (KAI MARA) is only 3/4 the length of the beginning name (MARIAMH). STROKES: Maximum width of stroke of the letters in MARAIMH = 2.0 mm (both M’s, P, I, H); KAI = 2.5 mm ( I ); MARA = 2.2 mm (2nd A). The looped underscore is 2.5 mm wide and therefore matches the width of the letters in KAI MARA. 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.

Arriving at the Bottom Line

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

"It s 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."

In actual fact, this is not at all true: The epigraphers at the conference both contested the reading of the inscription as “Mariamene.” Actually Jonathan Price and I agreed on the reading of every letter in the inscription: M-A-R-I-A-M-H-K-A-I-M-A-R-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. Furthermore, Mary Magdalene is not referred to by the Greek name Mariamene in any literary sources before the late second-third century AD, at a time when the name "Mariamme" and "Mariamne" both went into general use as alternative forms for the name Maria/Mariame. 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.

48

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).

III. Ossuary Inscription DF 11 "Simon, Bar Yonah"?

The final resting place of Simon Peter or the family of Barzillai?

Assumptions and Challenges in Film and in Ink: The Lost Tomb of Jesus

In the film "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" the filmmaker spent a considerable amount of time establishing a funerary context within the Jerusalem necropolis in which the existence of a not only belonging to Jesus of Nazareth but also his family and disciples makes good sense. For this their search of the necropolis led them to the Dominus Flevit tombs on the western slope of the Mt. of Olives. The purported discovery of an ossuary belonging to Simon Peter was presented as a compeling tour de force for establishing this context. The Church Fathers attest to St. Peter’s martyrdom and burial in Rome and the Catholic Church has recently authenticated Peter’s tomb under the Vatican. 35 However, the authentication of the tomb and its bones has not convinced everyone. In fact, interest in his final resting place has recently been resurrected, by the makers of the film “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.” Despite the lack of any ancient literary support, the filmmakers look to the ancient Jewish-Christian necropolis at Dominus Flevit and its ossuaries as key support of their hypothesis. They contend that a fragmentary bone box found at Dominus Flevit (DF 11) once contained the remains of Simon Peter who was buried, they assert, not in Rome, but in Jerusalem.

The following transcript from the film presents their position:

35 See S. Pfann “Has St. Peter returned to Jerusalem? The final resting place of Simon Peter and the Family of Barzillai" for a summary of the literary sources and history of the authentication of the tomb; http://www.uhl.ac/Lost_Tomb/ShimonBarzillai/

49

Film consultant James Tabor: “Now, I don’t know if everybody will recognize that immediately, but Jesus said to Simon Peter, who’s venerated later as the Pope and the head of the Church, ‘You are Simon Bar-Jonah, blessed are you Peter’. See his name is not Peter; that’s a Greek word. His name was Shimon–Shimon Bar-Yonah.”

Narrator: Today, only a piece of the ossuary remains. The Franciscans have stored it in a small museum beside their church. It bears an indisputable inscription; the only one ever found spelling the name “Simon Bar-Jonah.” (bold added)

Narrator: Simon was one of the twelve original apostles of Jesus. According to the Gospels, Jesus renamed him Peter, in Aramaic, Kepha, which means rock. He’s considered a saint by many Christians and the first pope by the Roman Catholic Church. According to tradition, Simon Peter was crucified and buried in Rome. So how could his coffin be here in Jerusalem? The fact is there has never been any credible archeological evidence found in Rome underneath the Vatican that points to Simon Bar Jonah, Simon Peter. And here sits an ossuary discovered at Dominus Flevit bearing his name. So if this is a Judeo-Christian necropolis, it is part of a network of cemeteries and tombs that belonged to the early followers of Jesus, including Jesus’ Family.

Bellarmino Bagatti originally read the inscription on ossuary DF 11 from right to left, as one would normally approach a Semitic inscription. He assumed that he was reading the normal Jewish Aramaic script which was the predominant script among the ossuary inscriptions that he had read thus far. He could quickly read the first name shin - mem - ayin - waw - nun = Noemu, “Shim‘on” or “Simon”. The reading of this first name remains undisputed (although mem and ayin were a little unusual).

Pl. 16: Photo and drawing of the inscription DF 11

The next word that would naturally be anticipated was “the son of,” normally the Aramaic word beth – resh, rb bar, and so it was.

50

Fig. 15: rb bar (“son of”) on DF 11

Pushing on, Bagatti had to make sense of some unusual letterforms which he took to be yodh - waw - nun - heh hnoi Yonah (or “Jonah”). Surprisingly, however, it turns out that not a single letter was read correctly (see below).

Fig. 16: hnoi Yonah (“Jonah”)?

The final editor of the Dominus Flevit inscriptions, J. T. Milik, was more cautious. Although he did not reject outright the earlier reading as possible, he did suggest some alternatives for the patronym (i.e., for the father’s name, the third word in the inscription).

He presented his conclusions on this inscription as follows:

11. locus 79, ossuary 19.36 In the upper corner on the long side, confidently sketched using charcoal with very fine features; name (length. cm. 9,5; letters 11 - 0,8 - 1,5), fot. 81 and fig. 22,1; ... rb Noemu

The reading of the patronym, as luck would have it, is not sure. The reading proposed in Liber Annuus III, p. 162 (hnoi) remains possible, but other possibilities for it can equally be proposed, such as hniz correspondent to Zhna of n. 21. The two cases of a supposed nun are both a little unusual and the he is rather abnormal although it has an affinity to "Palmyrene". Alternatively, these last two letters can be considered as a single one, that is, a he with a bifurcated left leg, that would have been inexpertly executed with a piece of charcoal; to notice the double feature in the charcoal tracings fig. 22,7 and 6; fot. 80; LA VII, p. 247, fig. 16. In this case it would have to be read hiz, hoz etc.

The writing is cursive. The shin was made with charcoal by a single stroke. Another unique feature is the curves of the mem and of ‘ain, like a cross formed from two oblique features; beth + resh is a ligature. On the frequency of this name Simeon, see n. 5. (Translation by author from Bagatti and Milik, 1981, p. 83)

Having read Milik’s assessment, let us examine the inscription more closely. This inscription was written upon the stone surface with a sharpened stick of fine charcoal. Like a carbon pencil or a pastel, the tip must be sharpened, and then resharpened, as it loses its sharpness as it is used. This may explain why the lines appear to be thicker and more heavily shaded in the second part of the inscription.

36 "DF 11" means "Dominus Flevit ossuary inscription number 11". This inscription was found on the 19th ossuary registered in Locus (chamber) 79 at Dominus Flevit.

51

Pl. 17: Photo revealing shading of certain letters on DF 11

In this inscription this feature has allowed for certain cursive features, in the case of the yodh, waw, beth and ayin which were written as straight or slightly curved lines, without the serifs or hooks that are typical of lapidary or pen-and-ink traditions. These forms can easily be taken to be typical of the contemporary cursive or semi-cursive Jewish script. At the same time, however, certain of these letterforms are also found in other contemporary national Aramaic scripts, including those of Syria and Nabatea. (See script chart below.)

Futhermore, the use of a charcoal stick allows the inscriber to create shading in the lettering that would otherwise be possible only with pen and ink. Heavier strokes appear to have been used to create shading in the parts of the shin, resh, zayin, lamed and, in particular, in the alef (where double strokes were applied to add shading). These letters are closer to forms typical of the Syriac and Seleucid Aramaic scripts. 37

At least one inscription written in the Seleucid script has been discovered in Jerusalem. The sarcophagus of Queen Helene of Adiabene was engraved atclm Ndj “Sadan the Queen”, in both Seleucid Aramaic (below) and Jewish Aramaic script (not shown here).

37 J. Naveh, The Early History of the Alphabet, pp. 149-50 and "An Aramaic Inscription from El-Mal – A Survival of 'Seleucid Aramaic' Script." IEJ 25 (1975) 117-23. Naveh considers the Seleucid Aramaic script to be a precursor to both the Syriac and the Palmyrene scripts and that vestiges of the Seleucid script continued at least into the first century C.E. (on, e.g., the Queen Sadan sarcophagus inscription).

52

Fig. 17: Queen Sadan’s (Helene’s) inscription according to J. Pirenne

This inscription shares several letters in common with the Simon ossuary from Dominus Flevit (DF 11), including dalet/resh, nun, mem, lamed and alef. The mem does bear some resemblance to that of the Dominus Flevit exemplar, except that, in the latter, the left stroke pierces through the top of the right stroke and the leftward curve of both downstrokes is less dramatic. Dalet in the Syriac family of scripts, as usual, is identical to resh. That being the case, the form of the dalet of the Sadan inscription shows a distinct similarity to the resh of the Dominus Flevit inscription. The final nun bears a certain similarity to that of DF 11, in that its tail curves or tilts backward under the word, as is typical of the Seleucid family of scripts, including Syriac and Palmyrene. The lamed is formed as a diagonal line ending with a leftward curve at the bottom. In DF 11, the letter originally taken to be a nun, should rather be read as lamed although the lower curve of the letter is less dramatic (but see the chart below for the Syrian family of scripts). In the drawings of both Pirenne and Naveh, the final letter, the alef, is strikingly parallel to the final letter of the Dominus Flevit ossuary, which should likewise be read as alef (and not as heh).

Other examples from the Syrian script families also provide valid parallels, as do examples from the Nabatean and Jewish national scripts.

53

Fig. 18: The script of DF 11 compared to contemporary Semitic scripts

Bagatti’s reading of YONAH in DF 11 was problematic for a number of reasons. If the word were truly YONAH, the short stroke of the yod should be followed by the long stroke of the waw. However, the reverse is actually the case on this ossuary; the longer stroke is first and the shorter stroke is second. What was thought to be a yod was actually a zayin. What was read as waw was actually a yod. The nun and the heh were actually a lamed and an alef. As it turns out, not even one letter of the patronym had been read correctly. If the scribe actually intended to write YONAH, the inscription would have appeared more like the example below on the left in Fig. 19, as compared with the original inscription, pictured on the right.

54

When we compare the letters of the patronym to the exemplars from the Seleucid/Syriac family of scripts in Fig. 18 above, a new reading emerges that is not beset by problems. The first letter of the patronym has a shaded head and form similar to the zayin of other exemplars from this script family. The second letter is clearly a yod, and is too short to be read as a waw. The third letter of the patronym appears closest to the lamed of the Seleucid Aramaic script (but also occurs more rarely in cursive Jewish script), and does not resemble the nun of the local Jewish Aramaic script nor of any other contemporary script. And the final legible letter, as noted above, is actually alef, with its clearest parallels in the Seleucid/Syriac tradition. The actual reading of the patronym should then be transcribed BR ZYL’ as below (right).

Fig. 19: Shimon bar Yonah theoretically (left); Shimon Bar Zila (right)

To summarize, the script of DF 11 bears certain traits that are shared among several scripts of the Aramaic family of scripts from the 2nd cent B.C.E. until the first century C.E. These include the cursive and semi-cursive traditions of the Judean Aramaic, the Seleucid Aramaic, the Syriac, the Palmyrene and the Nabatean national script families. The script of this inscription could well fit within the local Judean Aramaic script tradition with the potential exception of a few letters (the alef in particular). The script of this inscription could fit within the Southern Syrian, Seleucid Aramaic tradition with the exception of a few letters (in particular, the expected hooked head of the waw and yodh is not found in DF 11). Bearing in mind the unusual feature that the inscription was inscribed in charcoal, a number of these irregularities can be explained in such inscriptions.

A Family Named "Zila’"? Based on certain elements akin to Seleucid/Syriac Aramaic script, the patronym could then be read as ZYLA’ and the full inscription as SHM‘WN BR ZYLA’, “Shimon Bar Zila’”38 However, etymologically the word ZYLA’ could convey the sense of being of low value

38 Milik’s suggested reading “Shimon bar Zinah” is closest to our reading. However, he neglected to note the Seleucid Aramaic alef and the lamed.

55 which, if read BR ZYLA’, might convey a derogatory sense to the individual. This actual name is unattested elsewhere. 39

A Family Named "Barzilla’"? It is also possible that the patronym is to be read alternatively as BRZYLA’, that is, as a single word, since there is no space separating the words in the inscription. 40 In this case, etymologically, the name may actually have been derived from the word BRZL "iron" which would convey a stronger image, perhaps of a family who was involved in the manufacture of iron.

Although the name alizrb "Barzilla’" is not attested elsewhere, it may in fact be an alternative form of the well-attested name ializrb "Barzillai". In the catalogue of extant Jewish names, it was evidently quite common for names ending in -’Y to have an alternative form in -’ such as abhd/iabhd Dahavai (“Goldsmith"; note also aqorb/iaqrb; auroq/iauroq; aqnp/iaqnp; apr/iapr; amhz/iamhoz).41

The Family Name "Barzillai"? This Jerusalem family has its roots deep within Biblical history. In the midst of King David's turmoil with Absalom, a rich Gileadite by the name of Barzillai came to his aid. He provided David and his weakened troops with food and supplies, allowing them to gain the upper hand and defeat the army of Absalom (2 Sam 17:27–29). David, deeply indebted to Barzillai, invited the aged man to take up residence near his palace in Jerusalem so he could be looked after in an honorable way. However, Barzillai asked the king to convey his offer to a younger member of his family, Chimcham by name, and David complied (2 Sam 19:31–40). David directed Solomon to make sure that the family would continue to be provided for in perpetuity (1 Kgs 2:7). Later, a member of one of the priestly families married one of the

39 The name ZYLAY "Zilai", with an additional yodh, does occur once in Rabbinic sources, specifically in the Babylonian Talmud, It appears, however, as “R. Zilai,” without the word "bar." "Our Rabbis taught: The absence of oil is a bar to the saying of grace. So said R. Zilai. R. Ziwai said: It is no bar. R. Aha said: Good oil is indispensable. R. Zuhamai said: Just as a dirty person is unfit for the Temple service, so dirty hands unfit one for saying grace. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: I know nothing either of Zilai or Ziwai or Zuhamai, but I do know the following teaching, viz.: Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: some say it was taught in a Baraitha, Sanctify yourselves: this refers to washing of the hands before the meal; And be ye holy: this refers to washing of the hands after the meal; 'For holy': this refers to the oil; 'Am I the Lord your God': this refers to the grace." (BTalmud Ber. 53b; Soncino edition). When Emile Puech was presented with an early draft of this paper, he agreed with the reading ZYLA’, but has suggested, privately, that the name is instead a Palmyrene equivalent of the Greek name "Zoilos" (which appears among other examples, in a bilingual inscription from Tel Dan: bd]n ndr zyls l'[lh'.) Stark's list of Palmyrene names provides numerous examples where the –os Greek ending can be found as -s, or -ws, or -’. 40 The fact that the normal cursive ligature for bar, "son of" (which should have a reduced resh) is not used here may provide additional support for the suggestion that the name was read as one word: "BARZILLA[I]" and not as "BAR ZILLA[I]” This inscription's bet/resh ligature of bar is, in most ways, typical of the Judean Aramaic cursive tradition, with the bet and the down stroke of the resh being drawn with one continuous looping stroke, (cf. Mur 18 and Dominus Flevit ). However, the head of the resh is fully formed with an upper cross stroke. The bet is connected to the resh in such a way that it thus appears to be rotated slightly clockwise as it appears in cursive Judean Aramaic. The bet is also often rotated in other forms of Aramaic script, as can be seen in the Seleucid Aramaic inscriptions of el-Maj and Dura Europas. 41 T. Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Antiquity, pp. 321, 365, 407, 403.

56

"daughters of Barzillai," whose family name he carried thereafter. After the return from exile in Babylon, the Barzillai priestly family was denied their right to be inscribed in the priestly register because of the current issue over ethnic mixture (Ezra 2:61-63 = Neh 7:63-65).42 However, the priestly (and likely non-priestly) descendants bearing the Barzillai name continued to live in Jerusalem. If this suggested reading of DF 11 proves to be acceptable, this ossuary would offer the first archaeological and epigraphic evidence of the family name "Barzillai" during the first century C.E.43

In conclusion, the restoration of the name as BRZYL’[Y] "Barzillai" could potentially link this Simon with a famous Jerusalem family which had its roots in Gilead, or even link him to the priestly branch of that family. Whether he is connected with the priestly branch of the family Barzillai or with the non-priestly descendants of the family, or is simply a member of a family named "Zila’" must remain open for discussion. The name of this individual does not appear elsewhere in inscriptions nor in ancient literature to enlighten us more as to who he was.

However, in any case, this new reading does, of course, exclude “Simon Bar Jonah” as an acceptable reading for this ossuary inscription. It also returns the discussion of the potential location of Simon Peter’s bones from Jerusalem back to their traditional place, Rome.

Summary and Conclusions After this survey, it appears that the string of premises that were presented in order to establisht the Talpiot Tomb as that of Jesus and his family began with a sort of "comedy of errors" that issued from a set of mistakes in transcription and interpretation made in the original publications of the inscriptions. The series of premises presented by the filmmakers utilized a series of studies in archaeology, the sciences and statistics which were intended to further establish the identity of the tomb and its inhabitants, yet unaware of the faulty reading of the inscriptions which was an all important starting point for their argument. All other lines of argument connected with the original translation and interpretaion of these inscriptions then must be abandoned in their entitety. But what about the real family that was buried in that tomb? Is their much to be said about that family based upon the information at hand? The following is a effort to draw out of this information an alternative view of this Jerusalem family, but this time, first of all by removing the mystique of Jesus, his family and disciples removed from the presentation.

The inscribed ossuaries and their subgroups Of the ten ossuaries discovered in the Talpiot tomb, six were inscribed with names (CJO 701–706). This is a striking statistic when one bears in mind that (1) the ossuaries of any given tomb are normally considerably fewer in number than the actual number of interred individuals44, (2) the quantity of inscribed ossuaries is generally much smaller than

42 The accepted Biblical spelling of the name as found in Ezra 2:61 is ißL¥zrßB≥ . However, alternate spellings can be seen in other Biblical manuscripts: ilizrb Kennicott mss 4, 48, 80. 89, 224; ialzrb Kennicott ms 93. 43 The Barzillai name continued to be in use in the Middle East and Europe over the centuries. One family member of special note was Judah ben Barzillai (Albargeloni), also known as "Ha-Nasi." He was a Talmudic scholar from Barcelona at the end of the 11th and the beginning of the 12th century C.E. "Barzillai" continues to be a common and respected family name among Jews in the world today. 44 Kloner estimates that 35 individuals would have been interred within this tomb (at a ratio of 3.5 individuals for each ossuary in a tomb: 1.7 within each ossuary, 1.8 outside of each) based upon statistics drawn from other

57 uninscribed,45 and thus, (3) the majority of individuals interred in Second Temple tombs remain nameless. However, in the case of the Talpiot tomb, a relatively high percentage of 60% of the ossuaries bore inscribed names. The following list summarizes the characteristics which divide these inscribed ossuaries into subgroups. According to the present study:

1. Three of the six inscribed ossuaries have single personal names, apparently intended for single individuals (CJO 703, 705, 706).46 These three are further united by the fact that they provide the optional informal, familiar names of these individuals ("Mariah", "Yoseh" and "Mattia"), instead of their formal birth names ("Mariam", "Yehoseph" and "Mattitiyahu"). Also, the rather rare, chisel-finished style of the ossuary, along with the unusual lapidary form of the script, draw these into a single cohesive group.

2. The remaining three were inscribed with the names of two or more individuals (CJO 701, 702, 704).

3. The patronyms (i.e, the family name) of two individuals were supplied (CJO 704: "Yeshua son of Joseph"; CJO 702: "Yehuda son of Yeshua").

4. Two ossuaries were supplemented with the name of a second individual, inscribed by a different hand from the first on subsequent occasions, indicating two separate burials in each ossuary (CJO 701 and 704). In CJO 701 the words "and Mara", written in Greek cursive script (as opposed to the first name "Mariame" in standard Greek documentary script), indicate that a second individual's bones were added to the ossuary. In CJO 704 the name "Yeshua" was written in Aramaic cursive script over an earlier name which had been partially erased (which had been written along with the patronym, in block-form Jewish Aramaic Script), indicating perhaps that the bones of the first individual interred were actually replaced by the bones of the second, "Yeshua".

5. In the case of the Talpiot tomb, then, the names of as many as ten separate individuals may be found on the ossuaries within it, including the partially erased name of CJO 704.47

At the outset, based upon the personal names found in the Talpiot tomb, this tomb could be seen as a model for presenting names of what would be expected from a very average Jewish family of the first century. This is similar, to be sure, to the disbursement of names in Jesus of Nazareth's family. But it is also apparently the case for any first century Jewish family living

Jerusalem tombs. Kloner, A., "A Tomb with Inscribed Ossuaries in East Talpiyot, Jerusalem," ‘Atiqot 29 (1996) 22. Zias posits an even higher number per ossuary citing one tomb on Mt. Scopus that contained 90 skeletons with only one (uninscribed) ossuary. Zias, J., "Human Skeletal Remains from the Mount Scopus Tomb." ‘Atiqot 21 (1988) 97–103. 45 In most tombs, no more than 25% of the ossuaries are provided with names. For example, of the 897 ossuaries in the State of Israel (CJO) collection 233 were inscribed, bearing in mind that numerous unremarkable, undecorated or uninscribed ossuaries from tombs are not provided with a number. Rachmani, Y., CJO, p.1 (Preface) 46 What is intended as a personal ossuary, for a single individual, is quite often supplied subsequently with the bones of additional individuals without being inscribed on the ossuary. For example, the Yehosef bar Kefa' ossuary, although inscribed with a single name, included the bodies of 8 individuals. Greenhut, Z., "The Caiaphas Tomb in North Talpiyot, Jerusalem." ‘Atiqot 21 (1988) 63–71. 47 The total would be nine names, however, if "Yeshua" which is found on two ossuaries (CJO 702 and 704) is taken to be the same individual, i.e., the person interred in CJO 704 and the father of the person interred in CJO 702, where Yeshua is a patronym.

58 in Judea and the Galilee. For all practical purposes this tomb perhaps should be called the “tomb of Joseph, Jesus, or Mary of Talpiot.” Since the names are so common, ubiquitous even in 1st century Jerusalem and Judea, we ought not to obfuscate the identity of the Talpiot tomb inhabitants by misidentifying them with a family from Nazareth.

Who was this Jesus of Talpiot? And who were his family? To have so many inscribed names and ossuary styles in this tomb allows us to say a certain amount about the family or families buried there. Due to the paucity of material and bone remains that have been preserved, however, we are limited from saying too much. With that in mind, the following scenario can be advanced with some caution.

In Jerusalem, for a family to possess a rock cut tomb, especially with an ornamented facade, would speak of a family of some wealth. Like most of Jerusalem's tombs the tomb was equipped with loculi or chokim, narrow benches deeply cut perpendicular to the cave walls where bodies were inserted head-ward or foot-ward though the narrow opening. However, unlike most tombs, this tomb was furnished with two arched elevated benches called arcosolia, where certain members of the family could be laid sideways, prominantly on display parallel to the walls of the tomb. This allowed the visitors to pay respect to the deceased while viewing the entire body. This form of display was more the exception than the rule, like lying in state, normally reserved for prominant members of the family or the community. The wreath ornament place above the door of a house or a tomb normally indicated that a patriarch or family member of some accomplished status or renown was resided within. The laurel or olive wreath was awarded to accomplished men of letters, statesmen, military heroes, and champion athletes. The first two occupations seem a more likely match for this tomb since rulers, scribes and priests figured prominently in various tomb inscriptions in the necropolis naturally connected with the Jerusalem scene.

Plate: wreath hanging below a gabled doorway of a Roman period home or shop

59

Plate: façade of the talpiot tomb which features a wreath hanging below a gable doorway

A significant, majority proportion of the ossuaries of the tomb were actually inscribed with names, and more significantly in lapidary scripts (CJO 702, 705, 706, 707) or most significally in practiced scribal hands (CJO 701). Since names were normally inscribed by family members, it is clear that at least certain of the family were literate . Along with the tomb's wreath façade, this would appear to indicate that there may have been a number of literate professionals in the family, perhaps including those from the city's scribal class, with different sectors of the family being literate and skilled in writing in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The various sectors of the family can be subdivided into the follow sectors, accompanied by the indicated distinctive features.

Subgroup 1: Undecorated semi-hard limestone; common cursive Aramaic inscription overwritten on square stick Hebrew script. CJO 704. (Early 1st cent. BCE to mid 1st cent. CE.) Most basic unornamented design. Inelegant scripts. including a rather sloppy cursive. Story: Patriarchal line. Father and 2 or more sons in succession.

Represents the two generations which precede the style conscious generation of successful professionals that followed. It is likely that the generation of Joseph or his children were contemporaries with the tragic story of subgroup 2 below, but previous to the professional success stories of subgroup 3 of the following decades of the first century.

Subgroup 2: Three Roughly dressed, chisel or adze-finished, undecorated soft limestone, relatively small private ossuaries; each of the three single names deeply inscribed in lapidary script. CJO 703, 705, and 706.

Story: Family tragedy. : (Early 1st cent. BCE to early1st cent. CE.) informal names. individual ossuaries

The inscriptions on "Mariah,” “Mattiah,” “Yoseh,” and “Yehudah bar Yeshua” were written in clear, deeply engraved lapidary scripts, spanning the duration of the tomb's posited history, i.e., the late first century BCE to the mid or late first century CE.48 The beauty and regularity

48 Based upon the ceramics found in the tomb, A. Kloner staes, "This burial cave was probably used for three or four generations. The finds which included a small quantity of sherds allow fro a Second Temple period dating, i.e., from the end of the first century BCE or the beginning of the first century CE, until approximately 70 CE." Cf. A. Kloner, "A Tomb with Inscribed Ossuaries in East Talpiyot, Jerusalem," Atiquot XXIX (1996) 21.

60 of the script on these four ossuaries would suggest the work of a professional engraver connected with the family.

It appears that somewhat early in the family's history of using this tomb, approximately in the late first cent BCE, a tragedy took place that took the lives of three young family members: Maria, Mattiah and Jose. The informal form of all three names are utilized, conveying a sense of youth, familiarity or even endearment. The size of each is relatively small which may confirm the young age of the individuals inside, however the fact that each received their own personal ossuary and were not placed in a single ossuary together would indicate that the three had already arrived at puberty, teenagers, when restrictions against uniting those who should not lie together was enforced. The lapidary script, the script that was generally reserved for signs and momuments, which unites these ossuaries was, as a matter of use, less common than normal handwritten scripts which are pervasive on the inscribed ossuaries. However the lapidary form was also used throughout this tomb's history, indicating that certain family members were skilled enough to write in lapidary script, i.e., if in fact the cultural norm was upheld where family members inscribed the names of the deceased on ossuaries.

Subgroup 3: Four Semi-smooth finished, chip-carved, decorated ossuaries with large rosettes; one of which (CJO 702) is deeply inscribed with shaded script: CJO 702, 707, 708, and 709

Story: This set of ossuaries reflects a successful, more (1st cent. CE.) professional family based upon the style. The ossuaries of this large sector of the family, for the most part, went nameless, being uninscribed, designed for multiple burials. That is with the exception of the one small personalized one in Aramaic (CJO 702). The volume of the ossuaries and the language which would indicate that this sector of the family were the majority of the extended family and were apparently local Hebrew or Aramaic speakers.

Although there are no motifs nor inscriptions on the ossuaries of this group that would indicate the professions of this group, it would seem likely that the tombs façade was decorated at the same time as this type of ossuary was introduced into the tomb, reflecting a period of style consciousness that might accompany an added sense of need to bestow honor on the deceased that matched their estate in life.

61

Subgroup 4: Polished, surface-sealed, chip-carved, relatively large shared ossuary decorated with small rosettes with gabled lid;Greek inscripion of two names written in practiced semicursive and cursive scribal hands: CJO 701 : nicest ossuary (1st cent. CE.)

Story: Relatively well to do, immigrant, extended family, professional

The two Greek inscriptions, "Mariame" and "and Mara," were both beautifully inscribed. “Mariame” reflects a well-practiced first century CE documentary scribal hand, while “and Mara” reflects a well-practiced first century CE cursive hand. The existence of this ossuary with its Greek names may bear witness to two individuals from a family of Hellenistic Jews

62 who immigrated from the Diaspora, as has been found in numerous tombs in Jerusalem.49 The fact that they were placed in this tomb containing other ossuaries inscribed with Hebrew names may indicate that they were part of the extended family of those in the tomb. On the other hand, it could also be that they were close friends of the family, and were alone in Jerusalem away from the rest of their immediate family who still resided abroad. Whatever the case, the Greek presence in this tomb was seemingly very limited and their bones were not buried in a more exclusive Hellenistic Jewish family tomb as has been found in several other locations.

Part of the extended family had immigrated from the diaspora well literate in Greek (evidenced by the inscribers) and bearing graecized Jewish names (born by the deceased). Who was Mariam? Perhaps an adult, since her formal name was used. Since a husband's name was not inscribed along with hers, she was probably unmarried. Since all mitochondrial DNA found within was of a single matriarchal line, she must have been buried with a kinswoman, either a daughter (in which case she would have been, at least, formerly married) or an unmarried sister named Mara (that is, Martha). Since she had a Greek form of a Jewish name, she might have been a Greek-speaker who had come from the Diaspora to Jerusalem. Her immediate family was well-to-do since the ossuary she was laid in was well crafted. Some family members may have been scribes, or well educated, who could write quite skillfully in both standard and cursive Greek script.

The first and second generation Working with the limited data provided by the names on the inscribed ossuaries and the mitochondrial DNA samples, the following family tree can be suggested.

Yehoseph appears to be the first generation patriarch of the family tomb who was married to the unnamed matriarch (named here mDNA1) who provided the mitochondrial DNA of the two, second generation sons "Yudan?"50 and "Yeshua" (of ossuary CJO 704).

Yehoseph + mDNA1 / \ Yudan? Yeshua

Based upon considerations of paleography and ossuary style which would place CJO 703, 705, and 706 in the late 1st cent BCE to the very beginning of the 1st century CE, the ossuary cluster containing Mariah, Yoseh and Mattiah could also be part of the second generation.51 If the deaths of these three were contemporary and familial as suggested in this article, the following scenario appears:52

? + ?

49 As in the case of the Greek inscribed ossuaries of the "Simon of Cyrene" tomb from the slopes of the Mt. of Olives. It is well known that it was the primary use of Greek language, the adoption of certain aspects of Greek culture and the continued use of Greek names that separated the Hellenists from the Hebrews in the Jewish world both abroad and in Jerusalem. Of which Acts 5 provides an example of the separation and tensions between these two groups in Jerusalem. 50 The speculative name Yudan? is used here only for comparison’s sake to indicate the first person interred in CJO 704. The reading is far from certain due to the poor state of preservation of the lines of the first inscription. 51 The relatively small sizes of these three ossuaries fit well with those in the southwest niche in Gibson's drawing. 52 Potentially, these three could be siblings or cousins to Yeshua and Yudan?, above.

63

/ | \ Mariah Yoseh Mattai

The third generation Paleographically, the Yehudah bar Yeshua ossuary is situated well into the first century C.E. It is feasible that Yehudah could be the son of Yeshua bar Yehoseph. Such a suggestion could be strengthened if matching mDNA1 would be obtained from Yehudah's ossuary CJO 702. Otherwise, he could simply be the son of another "Yeshua," bearing in mind the frequency of this name among the Judean population of the late Second Temple Period. It is quite possible that the remaining uninscribed ossuaries, decorated in similar style, were also from the second and third generations, but this suggestion is based upon stylistic considerations alone.

Yehoseph + mDNA1 / \ Yudan? Yeshua |? Yehudah

In the light of the Greek language, different ossuary style and different mDNA, CJO 701 stands apart from the other ossuaries. The two individuals that were placed within, Mariame and Mara, were related by matriarchal mitochondrial DNA since the lab results attested to only one mDNA sequence (here dubbed mDNA2). Since this sequence did not match the mDNA of ossuary CJO 704 (mDNA1), one can infer that the family relationship was vertical, spanning two or more generations, i.e., mother-daughter (or grandmother-granddaughter).

Mariame (=mDNA2) | Mara

Alternatively, this could also mean that Mariame and Mara were potentially sisters or cousins, descended from the same matriarch.

mDNA2 + ? / \ Mariame Mara

64

[Fig. 20: Layout of tomb hypothetically arranged in clusters according to ossuary type.] Picture of Tomb (Steve Jr.)

Appendix A

Preliminary Observations for an Ossuaries Report of the Talpiot Tomb (Submitted to Miki Saban of the Israel Antiquities Authority)

By Stephen Pfann and Steven Cox

On Thursday, May 3, 2007, four members of the University of the Holy Land staff visited the Israel Antiquities Authority storage facility at Beth Shemesh in order to study four inscribed ossuaries from the Talpiot tomb.53 This was the second viewing of the ossuaries by Stephen

53 The UHL staff members present were Dr. Stephen Pfann (epigrapher), Steven Cox (forensic scientist), Stephen Pfann, Jr. (CGI/digital reconstruction) and Glenn Zehr.

65

Pfann and Steven Cox, who in 2006 and visited the warehouse with Simcha Jacobovici and the film crew.

Under the supervision of IAA Warehouse Supervisor, Miki Saban, his assistant opened the lids of ossuaries 80.500 (CJO 701, Mariame kai Mara) and 80.503 (CJO 704, Yeshua (?) bar Yehosef). The containers of samples that had been gathered by Steven Cox during the filming in 2006, and which had been left in the ossuaries by Cox, were no longer in the ossuaries. Also, the quantities of soil, pulverized bone material and seeds that had been present in ossuary 80.500 in 2006, and are visible in the film, were now missing.

1. CJO 701 (80.500) MARIAME KAI MARA

1.1 Surface condition and measurements. We measured the ossuary and rechecked the earlier rubbing that Dr. Pfann had made more than two years ago when the ossuary was still in the IAA warehouse in Romema. While examining the inscription, we found noticeable black ink spots on the surface of the ossuary. These spots had been made since the ossuary was last photographed in February. Apparently, an ink pen had been carelessly used as a pointer, either during the short time the ossuary was in New York, or since then, with the resulting marks on the ossuary’s surface.

1.2 Inscription. We examined all parts of the inscription with optivisors and a boom-supported, stereo- microscope. For the purpose of this report, the “first part” of the inscription refers to the strokes making up the word “MARIAME,” and the “second part” of the inscription refers to the strokes constituting the words “KAI MARA.”

1.2.1 General characteristics of incisions. The incisions in the chalk surface were distinguished by width, depth, the steepness of the sides of the trough and the form of the bottom. All strokes that make up the letters in the inscription share some similarities, which would suggest that a similar tool, with a bifurcated tip, was used throughout. A double groove appears in strokes that slope to the right, while strokes that are vertical or slope to the left have a "V" shape. From the discernable angle of execution of the various strokes, it is apparent that both parts of the inscription were made by right-handed writers. However, the similarities end there.

1.2.2 Unique characteristics of incisions. Most of the strokes that make up the name MARIAME are comparatively shallow compared with those of the second part of the inscription. According to preliminary measurements, the width of the points of the instruments used to inscribe the first and the second parts of the inscriptions is different. Comparing similar strokes from all parts of the inscription, the strokes from the first part were consistently 80% to 90% narrower than those of the remainder of the inscription, whether the instrument was fully depressed or not. Troughs at the bottoms of the strokes were also distinguishable between the two parts. These measurements made it apparent that similar but clearly distinct tools had been used in the writing of the first and the second parts of the inscription. The drooping line that rides below the inscription is consistent with the strokes made by the second instrument.

1.2.3 “Stroke” before Mara. The mysterious "stroke" that stands before MARA has a gently rounded trough, similar to other inadvertent marks on the ossuary's surface. The shape of this trough eliminates it as

66 having been made by either tool utilized for the inscription, since the trough is neither double-grooved or "V"-shaped.

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

2. CJO 703 (80.502) MATIAH.

2.1 Surface condition and measurements. The ossuary was measured and the deeply incised inscription was traced.

2.2 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).

3. CJO 704 (80.503) YESHUA (?) BEN/BAR YEHOSEF.

3.1 Surface condition and measurements. We measured the ossuary and made a rubbing of the inscription on tracing paper. Similar to the inscription of ossuary 80.500, there are a couple of small black ink spots on its surface around the lettering, but not so numerous as on ossuary 80.500. The ossuary appears to have been broken and repaired since the previous visit a year ago.

3.2 Inscription. We examined all parts of the inscription with optivisors and a boom-supported, stereo- microscope. The incisions in the chalk surface were distinguished by width, and the steepness of the sides. However, the depth of the trough and the form of the bottom was nearly impossible to measure since dried mud now nearly fills most of the strokes of this inscription. The source of this mud is problematic, since no other ossuaries from this tomb have such a characteristic and since the mud was not present during the viewing one year ago. Moreover, the mud is most prominent in the grooves of the inscription, but not so much in other scratches on the ossuary.

3.2.1 General characteristics of incisions. The incisions in the BEN/BAR YEHOSEF part of the inscription apparently were made by the tip a knife with a rounded, dull point. Most vertical strokes were relatively wide with gently sloping sides and a shallow, rounded trough. The horizontal strokes were thin and shallow. All three strokes of the letter "H" were made with the narrow line of the tip. The best letter in which to see the variable width of the knife tip is the final letter "F," where an entire rounded stroke is made without lifting the knife from the surface.

3.2.2 Unique characteristics of incisions. In the first part of the inscription, strokes similar to those of BEN/BAR YEHOSEF appear, but connected with an earlier name which was later over-inscribed by the name YESHUA. The strokes that can be identified as part of the name YESHUA are made with an entirely different instrument. Its incisions have steeper more pronounced sides. However in certain

67 cases, strokes from the earlier inscription have either been touched up or utilized “as is”, as part of the later inscription. Also, the cursive form of the script of YESHUA contrasts with that of the rest of the inscription.

3.2.3 UV light test. The presence of the dried mud was immediately apparent under the UV light source. Mud and soils absorb UV light with the result that the letters appear almost black on a slightly fluorescing limestone surface. Again, the presence of the dried mud in the incised inscription is unique among the ossuaries of this tomb.

4. CJO 705 (80.504) YOSEH.

4.1 Surface condition and measurements. The ossuary was measured and the deeply incised inscription was traced.

4.2 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). Appendix B

The Evolution of the Rosette Ossuary

Ornate Display Ossuaries (two types) These ossuaries tend to be decorated on only one long side. Evidence from undisturbed tombs shows that they were intended to be placed in an arcosolium (e.g., Akeldama Cave 2, chamber C, ossuary 20), on a bench (e.g., Jericho Tomb H, chamber A), or simply on a floor against the wall (e.g., Akeldama Cave 1, chamber D, ossuary 8) with the decorated side facing outward. The prominence of its position in the tomb could be seen as either a permanent fixture or temporary display, depending upon whether the ossuary was intended to be displaced by later ones.

The more permanently positioned types, produced to contain multiple sets of bones, would logically be larger and made of harder stone. Their surfaces are flattened, polished and sealed with a wash containing tree resins. One relatively rare type of coffin or ossuary, typically used for highly honored community members, was produced from hard limestone. Its decoration, drawn from monumental architecture, is cut in high relief (cf., e.g., the sarcophagi from Queen Helena of Adiabene's tomb, Herod's family tomb, and the Herodion tomb and ossuary 21 from Akeldama Cave 2, chamber C). A more common type, utilized a high quality chalk limestone. Its design is cut deeply into the surface in glyptic, low relief, generally executed with the aid of a wood worker's knife utilizing a wood carver's technique known as "chip-carving". (Another ossuary from Akeldama Cave 2, chamber C, ossuary 20, was found still positioned in the chamber's northwest arcosolium with the carved façade facing outward.) The most common motif utilized on the ossuaries is two rosettes surrounded by decorated frames. These permanently stationed ossuaries also should be large enough to contain multiple sets of bones as in the case of ossuary CJO 701 and CJO 707.

The types for temporary display were, at least initially, intended for individual burials, and could be well decorated. In this case, however, the stone tends to be softer (it can be

68 scratched with a finger nail) and the surface is neither finely smoothed nor sealed. They also tend to be smaller since they are intended for individuals not groups. Of these, there are two prominent types: one is undecorated with a consistent finish on the four vertical sides, either chisel or adze-shaved as in the case of CJO 703, 705 and 706, or finely leveled and smoothed, as in the case of CJO 704.

Others are similar in all ways to the previous type, but provide a decorated face on one of the long sides, most commonly with two rosettes. The earliest form of this type of ossuary appears in the last decades of the first century BCE and is reminiscent of wooden chests and coffins from the 3rd through the first centuries BCE, sporting etched and inlaid decorations. The stone surfaces are shaved with chisels or adzes and decorated with tools normally used for working wood. These depict designs, especially rosettes, which have been engraved with shallow tipped tool including a compass, a straight edge and free-hand zigzag lines which replace inlays or their wooden prototypes. The overall hand-chiseled surface of this special form of limestone ossuary, being that it lacks smoothness in detail, it appears to be inelegantly designed. However, with its shallow engraved façade (including rosettes) and often accompanied by a red ochre wash, this form appears to me to be reminiscent of wooden coffin prototypes hearkening from the first cent. BCE. In particular, these seem to emulate those coffin types which have inlaid54 or etched designs (e.g., at En Gedi)55 and have red- ochre painted or reddish-brown stained56 as one can find in the wooden coffins of Ein Gedi, Jericho and Qumran. This type of stone ossuary has been found in numerous locations including, in particular, Jerusalem and Jericho. (CJO 522, 571-573, 579, 595, 608, 609, 612, 671, 672, 675 + many at Jericho).

The wooden coffins were typically supplied with legs which were 10 cm high, in order to protect the wooden box from direct contact with the dampness common to the stone benches and surfaces of the burial caves. In time, these legs became the shorter, even vestigial, 1-2 cm high on the stone ossuaries of the first century CE. One might also say that other wooden coffins whose surfaces were shaved smooth and supplied with a red ochre provided a prototype for the shaved plain and red ochre stained ossuaries of the late Second Temple Period.

This apparently represents an earlier or interim form of the in the history of the Jewish stone ossuary, which developed in a time and place where the described wood cutting technology was still being applied to the form and decoration of wooden coffins. It appears that wood working tools continued to be used on soft limestone roughly mimicking the hand-chipped surfaces and inlaid design once common to wooden coffins and ossuaries. The preceding suggests that this type of ossuary design began already in the late first century B.C.E. but may well have had a continued use into the first century C.E., contemporary with later designs. This is supported by the paleographic dates of some of the inscriptions (e.g., CJO 705 MTYH is late 1st cent. BCE while CJO dates to no earlier than the mid 1st cent. CE)

54 Avigad, N., "Expedition A: the Burial Caves in Nahal David", IEJ 12 169–183. Pl. 22. 55 Hadas, G., Nine Tombs of the Second Temple Period at ‘En Gedi (’Atiqot 24), Jerusalem (Hebrew: English Summary, pp. 1–8); "Wood industry in the Second Temple Period as reflected in the En Gedi finds", Michmonim (Hebrew). 56 (cf. color plate III 1 and III 2 from Hachlili and Killebrew Jericho: The Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period. p. vii)

69

Parallel to this line of decorated ossuaries, a form developed whose design was deeply incised with wood carving knives in method known today as "chip-carving" which is applied to levelled ossuary surfaces which were smoothed or even polished. (cf.

The second type, typical of group 2 in this tomb (CJO 702, 707-709), has a leveled surface with deep, chip-carved decorations, predominantly with rosettes set in detailed frames.

Appendix C

The Significance of Formal and Informal Personal Names and their Frequency in Archaeology and the Literature Formal and Familiar Names

It seems to be the nature of humankind to prize being seen as honored by the outside world and more casual among family and friends. This is reflected in clothing, cuisine and in the names that they employ on various occasions. 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 use 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 also 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 writing and forms appellation found in the literature and in the tombs illustrates the complexity of putting these rules into practice, if they are being applied at all.

From a brief survey of both the epigraphic and the literary witnesses one can infer that individuals often went by two personal names, one that was formal, the other informal (or familiar).

On two and perhaps three ossuaries from the State of Israel CJO collection and the Dominus Flevit DF collection of ossuaries, have formal and informal names for single indivicuals on three different ossuaries. From the Talpiot tomb, on CJO 703, besides hitm Matyah, the more formal (h)ittm Matityah appears. Ndi Yudan appears as an alternative informal form of the name hdohi Yehudah on another Jerusalem ossuary (CJO 370). From Dominus Flevit, on DF 7, besides the formal name Mirm Maryam, is the informal hirm Maryah appears. On yet another, both htrm Martaand hrm Marah appear (CJO ??). In all cases it is understood that there are two names, formal and informal utilized for single individuals.

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

70 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) correctly lists YWSH 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“).

Perhaps, surprisingly, among the ossuaries the predominent 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).

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.

Joseph the Priest or Yoseh the Priest?

In Mikv. 10:1 and Hal. 4:1, both the Kaufmann manuscript, considered by most to be the most reliable manuscript of the Mishnah, and the popular Eshkol edition read YWSF HKWHN “Yoseph haKohen”.

Elsewhere, 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”.

71

All of these passages are referring to the same priest. Textual criticism would support the suggestion that he went by both names.

Formality of Patronyms

When one finds a name that includes the father's name, i.e., a patronym, so and so son of patronymic, normally the father's formal name is used. eoui Yeshua, though a shortenning of eouohi Yehoshua, seems to function in this period as both an informal and as a formal name in its own right. The unique, oui "Yeshu" (cf. CJO??) may in fact have been used as an informal name and does not as a patronym nor in formal contexts. See Hachlili, 193 on this point. However we have some exceptions to this rule, such as Yudan (??). More research is required on this subject

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 Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary 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

72

significant. It is there that she realizes that she is looking upon the resurrected Jesus for the first time and Jesus himself addresses her “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).

.

Another Jesus, Mary and Joseph, even in the same tomb

Appendix D

A Forensic Science Analysis of “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” Documentary

Steven J. Cox57 University of the Holy Land

Introduction and Scope of this Essay Occasionally in a persons’ career, an event will transpire to challenge one’s professional expertise. “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” documentary provided me with such a challenge. As a forensic science expert I was invited by Simcha Jacobovici to view and examine the three ossuaries which have become pivotal in the discussion among scholars, scientists, and archaeologists of the interpretation of the tomb.58 This paper addresses only a few of the many issues that are, from the viewpoint of forensic science, in error within the documentary. For the sake of credibility, I will concentrate on facts and opinions in the areas where I have professional experience and am classified as a legal expert in the field.

Specifically, this paper addresses the patina examination, results and inferences made in comparing the “James Ossuary” and the “Jesus Ossuary” with regard to the question of

57 My area of expertise as a forensic scientist is in microanalysis of ancient and modern materials. I have spent over 12 years as a practicing forensic scientist with U.S. state and federal government organizations and am a certified expert in criminalistics. These certifications incorporate many varieties of scientific instrumentation to solve medico-legal problems. My technical expertise is heavily weighted in scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive spectroscopy, energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence [EDXRF], micro-EDXRF and optical microscopic analyses. In addition to the 12 years spent as a practicing forensic chemist, I have worked in the scientific equipment manufacturing sector for over 13 years, in the same instrumentation disciplines, both in design and in instruction of instrumental, software and technical aspects used in these areas of SEM/EDS, EDXRF, micro-EDXRF. At the University of the Holy Land, I applied these skills to archaeology. Not only do I teach the technical use of these tools, but I also endeavor to teach a firm grasp of forensic logic in the interpretation of results. 58 To set the record straight, while the filmmakers documented me taking samples inside the purported MARIAMNE ossuary and recording a preliminary observation under their authority, they did not at that time or subsequently communicate to me that there was a plan to submit samples to a lab for DNA analysis. Furthermore, the samples I collected and left in the ossuaries were appropriate for preservation purposes and for future microscopic analyses rather than for DNA analysis.

73 whether they could have originated from the same tomb. The filmmakers have stated, “This is key evidence indicating that the ossuary inscribed “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” is the missing ossuary from the Talpiot tomb.”

Definitions of Key Terms and Context Patina is very crucial to this documentary and to the TLTJ team’s conclusions. So, what is this material called patina? Although the documentary tries to define it with some wonderful graphics, the presentation falls short. The patination process on stone surfaces is the result of a myriad of complex processes which can be categorized in terms of biodegradation, weathering and/or environmental exposure. These processes involve not only environmental factors such as the presence, absence or restriction of air, soil, microbial nutrients, fresh water moisture, salt water moisture, pollutants, etc., but also weathering processes such as leaching and complex biodegradation actions from lichens, algae, bacteria and fungi. These destructive or constructive processes result in organic and inorganic surface films described as patina.

One should ask: “What can be deduced from patina analysis?” One thing is certain, patina cannot be used as an independent dating tool. To quote a prominent international expert in this field who is involved with the “James Ossuary” trial, “...there is no currently available technique to date the manufacture, engraving or processing of stone artifacts. Existing scientific tests may, at most, cast doubt on the authenticity of such items, or provide evidence that reinforces the probability that the items are ancient, e.g., by the detailed analysis of multilayered and structured patina grown with time” [Krumbein 2005].

Furthermore, Professor Krumbein states, “...tests used to date patina on the basis of isotopic composition have never received broad scientific recognition by the scientific community due to its [sic] numerous limitations and this type of analysis is not considered to constitute unequivocal evidence” [Krumbein 2005].

Additional uses of patina should also be questioned, such as, can patina examination results be used to indicate provenance? The answer is a definite “maybe.” Patina can contain microscopic material and chemical markers to exclude or include certain geographic zones from contributing to the patination process. These geographic zones can be related to differences seen in arid, marsh, or tropical regions, etc. In conjunction with such zonal indicators, the complete and/or partial exposure to environments such as wind, soil, sunlight, saltwater, freshwater, and cave environments, etc., can be indicative also. These, of course, have underlying components of geology, chemistry, botany, microfossils, microbial interactions, and morphological changes in stone due to any or all contributors. In this context, provenance can be ascertained.

Another important question is whether patina be an indicator of modern adulteration or forgery. Absolutely. The changes in patina composition, type and location can be highly indicative of such man-made interventions.

The more specific question in this case is: “Can patina conclusively prove that a common origin exists between the ‘James Ossuary’ and the ‘Jesus Ossuary’?” Patina analysis could possibly give a positive answer here, but only under very stringent criteria. What is certain is that the TLTJ team’s conclusion of “yes” could not have been deduced by their work, as will be demonstrated below. In respect to this question, however, the documentary states, “Over time, in a tomb, minerals and sediment accumulate on ossuaries. This accumulation is called

74

‘patina’ and it can be scientifically analyzed to produce a chemical and mineral fingerprint specific to an ossuary or tomb. Every ossuary discovered in a particular tomb will have the same patina fingerprint.” This is an unproven assumption. There is no conclusive scientific study supporting such a claim. It is a speculation that has not been established with scientific protocol and methodologies. In fact, within a cave or tomb, different ecologies and environments can and do exist which would cause different patina formation. Only relative correlations could possibly be deduced without corroborating scientific support.

Observations of Error One must keep in mind that, as with any scientific examination, there are prerequisites or qualifying criteria to validate the examination’s conclusion. Error has to be dealt with. In other words, it is not a valid scientific approach if there are systematic or statistical errors that have not be defined, eliminated and/or minimized. For example, why perform a trace chemical analysis on an ossuary that has been cleaned chemically? Can there be a real possibility that the cleaning processes contributed to the trace chemical results and the human intervention contaminated the natural chemistry of the ossuary? The answer, of course, is “yes.” Then, this real possibility has to be logically accepted or rejected by additional testing. The analytical conclusion, as well, has to be weighted to reflect the doubt or possibility of contamination error.

It should be obvious in watching the documentary that there is abundant error in the scientific processes and logic. First of all, when the SEM/EDS spectra are reviewed by Dr. Pellegrino, he states, “The signature is the same. It matches.” First of all, it must be emphasized that the samples used for this examination do not include all of the ossuaries from the Talpiot tomb. Only one ossuary from the Talpiot tomb is used to make a comparison to the “James Ossuary” and a limited number of unrelated ossuaries are chosen as random [control] samples. However, at least three ossuaries were available in the documentary that could have been tested. And in fact, there were a total of nine ossuaries from the tomb that could have been analyzed for more accurate patina opinion. As Dr. Gibson points out, “I went to the storerooms of the Israel Antiquities Authority in Beit Shemesh. They provided me with this computer sheet which indicates that from this tomb, that are nine items, it says it quite clearly. Number of items - nine. And it has the description of these, these ossuaries and where they’re located in the storerooms.” The foundation of the comparison in the TLTJ documentary is deeply biased toward an expected outcome. In other words, an opinion has been preconceived (i.e., that the James and Jesus ossuaries are possibly from the same tomb) and then select data is searched to support this predetermined notion (i.e., testing of only the two ossuaries). Again, nine ossuaries are available to test a theory, but only one is chosen from the Talpiot tomb to support a preconceived opinion.

Next, it should be noted there are many procedural errors that would influence the opinions stated in this documentary. Take, for the first example of this type, an error called “sample collection error.” The film explicitly shows Dr. Pellegrino collecting samples from inside the “Jesus Ossuary” with an ungloved hand. The samples he collected were loose debris not removed from the surface of the stone. Therefore, the collected material has no definitive connection to any location of the stone surface from the ossuary. Many possible sources of origin are now in play. The transcript also confirms that Dr. Pellegrino collected samples from inside the “Jesus Ossuary”. Pellegrino states, “Well, right now we’re just taking other samples of the accretion from inside the ossuary.” Since a comparison is being made to the “James Ossuary”, where did those samples originate? Did they come from inside the ossuary or from outside the ossuary? Even though there is probably patina on the inside surface and

75 the outside surface of both ossuaries, the patina from inside would be different from that on the outside. Not only would patina differ from inside to outside, but patina in contact with soil, water, etc. would be different from the other patina sites on or in the ossuary. It is a grave error to not know from where the samples were collected and in what environment they were established.

The subsequent procedural error is known as “sample contamination errors” in forensic science. As stated above and presented in the documentary, the samples were collected by ungloved hand from the “Jesus Ossuary.” This presents a severe case of possible sample contamination. Can the possibility of sample contamination be eliminated from the “James Ossuary”? Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, the “James Ossuary” was contaminated by cleaning. Professor Krumbein states, “The microscopic, morphological and ultra- morphological tests we conducted confirm that the ossuary inscription has been cleaned and treated more than once over a period of many years, sometimes clumsily...” [Krumbein 2005]. Again, human intervention is confirmed and the possibility of sample contamination cannot be eliminated for both ossuaries. This contamination could or could not contribute to the chemical profile seen in the SEM/EDS results. However, because of the possibility and the lack of proof to exclude the possibility, the conclusion must reflect the risk.

A not so obvious error but, nonetheless, one of the most critical procedural errors, involves sample preparation and the orientation of the sample to the SEM/EDS instrument. This would be very obvious to an experienced forensic professional. To the laymen it would go unnoticed. The only scientific instrument used in this documentary for patina analysis was a scanning electron microscope [SEM] with energy dispersive spectroscopy [EDS]. The tool images particles that the unaided eye can’t see [SEM] and then provides an elemental profile of what is being imaged [EDS]. Specifically in this documentary, patina is a film on the surface of the limestone ossuary and the patination process is a surface morphological/chemical issue. To compare the surfaces to one another would not be a surface side up examination of the particles. Rather, it would be necessary to embed the particles in an epoxy material and polish the mount smooth to reveal cross-sections of the particles being examined. This would allow the viewing and analysis of the film as it penetrates into the stone thickness. Furthermore, this presentation would allow a complete analysis of many other morphological changes created by the patination process. This type of sample preparation is absolutely essential for SEM/EDS analysis as well as for optical microscopy. Now, couple this error with sample orientation errors from the documentary. Again, Dr. Pellegrino performed a random collection of loose debris inside the “Jesus Ossuary.” When particles collected in such a manner are mounted and coated for SEM/EDS analysis as in this case, it would be impossible to know conclusively if you were analyzing the surface side of the particle or some other side of the particle. Therefore, the analysis could be the chemistry of the interior wall of the ossuary more than the surface wall of the ossuary. In other words, patina could not have been analyzed at all and only the limestone component of the ossuary was being represented. This means that one could not be certain if the analysts were examining the true outside surface of the ossuary or the inner composition of the ossuary wall. This error applies to both ossuaries in the documentary.

The final error I would bring to the reader’s attention encompasses poor research. Again, the documentary states, “This is key evidence indicating that the ossuary inscribed “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” is the missing ossuary from the Talpiot tomb.” If what I have written thus far is not convincing enough to the reader that this statement is unfounded and untenable on the basis of the data presented in the film, then consider this one last piece of

76 evidence. The “James Ossuary” clearly has been the subject of an extensive series of examinations because of its historical implications and legal ramifications. I bring to your attention a result produced by Professor Krumbein, an international authority in these matters, who in his thorough examination of this ossuary presented his findings in an Israeli court of law. Dr. Krumbein states, “Based on a comparison of the ossuary surface to many other ossuaries, it appears that the cave in which the James Ossuary was placed, either collapsed centuries earlier, or alluvial deposits penetrated the chamber together with water and buried the ossuary, either completely or partially. Further the root or climbing plant marks as well as the severe biopitting on the top and bottom parts of the ossuary indicate that the ossuary was exposed to direct sunlight and atmospheric weathering and other conditions that are not typical of a cave environment, for a period of at least 200 years” [Krumbein 2005]. This evidence proves that the “James Ossuary” existed in an environment totally different from the known conditions of the Talpiot tomb. There is no evidence of the Talpiot tomb having collapsed. There is no evidence of alluvial soil penetrating the Talpiot tomb with water and soil [mud]. There is no evidence of the “Jesus Ossuary” or the other eight ossuaries being buried partially or completely in mud. There is no evidence on the Talpiot ossuaries of plant growth. There is evidence that the Talpiot ossuaries have been in their secure niches for more than the last 200 years, contrary to the habitat of the “James Ossuary”. Therefore, the possibility that the “James Ossuary” and the “Jesus Ossuary” shared a common origin from the same tomb is beyond reason, scientific fact, and proper scholarship.

Proper Forensic Opinion In respect to examination of material from the “James Ossuary” and the “Jesus Ossuary,” the ultimate and more accurate forensic assessment which could be derived from the examination of these samples showing only a matching EDS spectrum as presented in this documentary is as follows: The samples purported to have been collected from the respective ossuaries, untraceable to source and unidentifiable in orientation, indicate the ossuaries could have originated from the same quarry from where they were hewn. To further qualify this opinion as conclusive and unique would require more testing of known samples of ossuary stone from numerous quarry sites in and around Jerusalem. This would allow a database that would provide a more confident chemical profile than what was shown in the documentary. To arrive at an opinion stating the ossuaries shared a common tomb or cave environment in the last hundreds of years requires an enormous leap of logic and stretch of forensic science.

Concluding Remarks This paper was written to address the filmmakers’ inferences and statement, “This is key evidence indicating that the ossuary inscribed ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus’ is the missing ossuary from the Talpiot tomb.” I believe this paper should not only challenge the reader to question the validity of this statement but also prove that it is unfounded. It should be very evident at this point that the TLTJ team’s statement is, at best, an overstatement of opinion based on limited fact, poor scientific protocol, unresolved sources of error and shrouded in poor research. In my opinion, one of the greatest tools a forensic scientist learns is not how to operate an instrument. Rather, it is how to logically assess the weight of the result derived from examining evidence or artifacts. In forensic work, someone’s life hangs on the scales of justice. Be it a suspect or a victim of crime, the result and the following testimony will affect that person’s life forever. Thus, a forensic scientist has to approach making conclusions and opinions very, very seriously. If this type of conservative and cautious reporting had been applied to the TLTJ documentary, the program probably wouldn’t have gotten much notice or, at best, it would have produced more responsible journalism.

77

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY ON OSSUARIES AND INSCRIPTIONS

Bagatti, P.B. and Milik, J.T. Gli Scavi del “Dominus Flevit”, Parte 1. Jerusalem. Franciscan Printing Press. 1981.

Benoit, P., Milik, J.T., and de Vaux, R. Les Grottes de Murabba’at. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert II. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1961.

Cotton, H.M. and Geiger, J. Masada II: The Latin and Greek Documents. Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Society/The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 1989.

Cotton, H.M. and Yardmen, A. Aramaic Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Nahal Hever and Other Sites. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXVII. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1997.

Ilan, T. Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Part 1: Palestine 330 BCE-200 CE. Tübingen. Mohr Siebeck. 2002.

Hachlili, R., Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period. Brill: Leiden and Boston. 2005.

Lewis, N., Yadin, Y., and Greenfield, J.C. The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Caves of the Letters: Greek Papyri; Aramaic and Nabatean Signatures and Subscriptions. Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Society/The Hebrew University of Jerusalem/The Shrine of the Book. 1989.

Naveh, J., Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography. Jerusalem, Magness Press, (1982).

Naveh, J., "An Aramaic Inscription from El-Mal–A survival of 'Seleucid Aramaic' Script." IEJ 25 (1975), pp. 117-123.

Pirenne, J., "Aux Origenes de la graphie syriaque", Syria 40 (1963), pp. 101-137.

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. Called CJO in this article.

Schwabe, M. and Lifschitz, B., Beth Shearim, II: The Greek Inscriptions. Jerusalem. Hebrew University. 1974.

Smyth, H.W., Greek Grammar. (Revised by G.W. Messing) Cambridge. Harvard University Press. 1920, (1956).

Snyder, G. F., Ante pacem : archaeological evidence of church life before Constantine. Macon, Ga.: Mercer, 1985

Stark, J. K., Personal Names in Palmyrene Inscriptions, Oxford (1971), pp. 133-137: Appendix IV, A. The Transcription of Greek Personal Names in Palmyrene, p. 137

78

Yardeni, A., Textbook of Aramaic, Hebrew, and Nabataean Documentary Texts from the Judaean Desert and Related Material. Jerusalem, Magness Press, (2000).

79

Micromorphology, composition and origin of the orange patina on the marble surfaces of Propylaea (Acropolis, Athens), The Science of the Total Environment 308 [2003] pp. 111–119, Kyriaki Polikreti, Yannis Maniatis. OXALATE FILMS AND RED STAINS ON CARRARA MARBLE, Annali di Chimica, 95, [2005], Marco Realini, Chiara Colombo, Antonio Sansibetti, Laura Rampazzi, Maria Perla Colombini, Ilaria Bonaduce, Elisabetta Zanardini, Pamela Abbruscato. Biodeterioration and its control – biotechnologies in cultural heritage protection and conservation: Patina and cultural heritage – a geomicrobiologist’s perspective, Wolfgang E. Krumbein. Studies of Patinas and Decay Mechanisms Leading to the Restoration of Santa Maria de Montblanc (Catalonia, Spain), Studies in Conservation, Vol. 41, No. 1. [1996], pp. 1-8, M. Garcia-Vallés; F. Blázquez; J. Molera; M. Vendrell-Saz. X-ray characterisation of bulk stones from the patina to the depth stone, Journal De Physique IV France 118 (2004) pp. 295–300, B. Brunet-Imbault, I. Rannou and F. Muller.

For more information see the University of the Holy Land web site: www.uhl.ac