Mary Magdalene has left
the room

A suggested new reading of
ossuary CJO 701

Stephen J. Pfann

T

he name “Mariamene” is of central importance to the story
line of the documentary “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” and its
companion book. Since “Mariamene” is unique (and likewise,

“Mariamne,” is rare) among the ossuaries, this name is also highly
significant when creating statistics and probabilities concerning
the uniqueness of the Talpiot cave and its inscribed ossuaries. The
filmmakers considered the name on this ossuary to be like the Ringo
among John, Paul, and George—the names, when found together in
the tomb give the entire site a specific connection with history.

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.” However, in order to maintain this
reading, one must first accept a string of premises that are based
upon the following anomalies and exceptions:

1. Except for the two first-century inscriptions thought to

bear the name “Mariamne” (CJO 701 and 108, both
now in question), the spellings of MARIAMNE and
MARIAMENE do not appear before the third century

CE

(Beth Shearim).

2. The ending for the proposed familiar form of the name,

MARIAMENOU, appears as -OU, rather than the
expected diminutive ending -IOU.

3. The connection of the two letters OU (as a ligature)

begins to appear regionally and only sparingly in the
early-second century (and is not written in the form
found in this inscription).

4. MARIAMENOU is assumed to contain a backwards N

and not an ordinary K.

5. An arguably accidental scratch before MARA is assumed

to stand for the feminine article H “eta,” an unknown
abbreviation for H KAI, which in turn is an inaccurate
version of THS KAI, meaning “who is also called. . . .”

6. If MARA is assumed to be a signum (alias) for the first

name, it cannot be a title.

7. In a signum, the two names must be in the same grammatical

(especially inflectional case) form, but they are not.

8. In a signum, the two personal names are typically foreign

to one another (e.g., Hebrew/Greek), but Mariamne and
Mara are both Jewish names.

9. There are no examples of a scratch or punctuation mark

standing for a signum (or any other phrase) among the
Greek inscriptions of this period.

10. The existence of two consistently distinct handwriting

styles, documentary and cursive, brings into question
the proposed unity of the inscription.

Both of the scribal hands preserved on this ossuary are exceptional

and betray writers who are both practiced and comfortable in
writing Greek. Therefore, 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.

According to normal methodology, the reading to be preferred

is the one that accounts for the greatest number of elements
with the least number of difficulties. Therefore, in place of
Rahmani’s original reading, I suggest the following reading:
MARIAME KAI MARA.

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): 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 “MARIAME,” which is the normal
Greek form of the Hebrew name “Mariam.” (“Mariame” appears
seven times in the Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries.)

This name is followed by a gap that is sufficiently wide to

signify a space between distinct words. As we shall see, this is not
because the scribe suddenly introduced anomalous letterforms,
nor even changed his handwriting style in mid-sentence. Rather,
I suggest that it is because a second scribe had subsequently added
the last two words of the inscription in a different style. Upon
closer examination, I suggest that the three letters Rahmani read
as “NOU” should be translated by the common word “KAI” and,
written in the Greek cursive form of the word.

Cursive tendencies among various scribal hands lead to varying

degrees of cursive forms. These cursive forms often appear
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 are found. The most common cursive tendency
is to execute individual letterforms without lifting the tip of the
pen from the writing surface. Another tendency is to connect
consecutive letters without lifting the pen, to form ligatures.

130

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 69:3–4 (2006)

The overall appearance of cursive writing is that there is a

graceful sequence of looping strokes as can be seen in KAI MARA.
This stands in contrast to the triangular, squared and rather jagged
succession of strokes in the more formal script used in the first
part of the inscription (i.e., with MARIAME). Also, from the
standpoint of horizontal line space, I argue
that although each scribe inscribed a total
of seven letters, the cursive style of the
second scribe allowed him to write his seven
letters, but within three-quarters of the line
space of the first.

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 (see
below).

“

K

ALON

K

ERAMION” 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, that is, without lifting the tip of the pen.
At times the entire word is written without lifting the pen.

Document exhibiting KAI with a semi-cursive kappa followed

by the cursive ligature AI (5/6 Hev12)

Another document parroting the same text containing KAI

but with cursive kappa, ligature AI and connected writing

(P. Yadin [olim 5/6 Hev]16)

There are no examples of a scratch or
punctuation mark standing for a signum
(or any other phrase) among the Greek
inscriptions of this period. In fact, the
scratch that stands after KAI and was
identified by Rahmani as standing for, in
itself, “H KAI,” was not made with either
tool that was utilized in writing the two parts of the inscription.
The strokes of the inscription have either double grooved or
deep V-shaped troughs in profile. However, the scratch in

question has a shallow U-shaped profile as can be seen in the
upper right of the photo.

The scribe also continued in the cursive style with respect to

the word MARA. Mara, as noted
by Tal Ilan, among other scholars,
was a common shortened form
of the Aramaic name “Martha.”

Several scholars have suggested

reading the ossuary CJO 701 as MARIAM H KAI MARA
“Mariam who is also Mara.”

If all the words of the inscription were in the standard Greek

documentary script (as above) then the inscription could be
read either as

MARIAME KAI MARA, “Mariame and Mara,” or, alternatively,
MARIAM H KAI MARA, “Mariam who is also Mara,”
including the standard signum formula “H KAI.”

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.
(Note also the clearly distinct form of the H (eta) used in these
two reconstructed lines.)

Likewise, if all words were in the Greek cursive script (as above)
then the inscription could be read either: MARIAME KAI
MARA: “Mariame and Mara,” or alternatively MARIAM H
KAI MARA: “Mariam who is also Mara.”

However, 1) the eta is not detached from MARIAM; 2) the

eta is written in the same squared documentary style (and not
cursive) as the MARIAM; 3) MARIAMH (and not MARIAM)
is by far the normal formal name for “Mary” among the ossuaries;
and 4) according to Schwabe and Lifschitz, the signum formula
should have two names of distinct ethnic origins.

Above all, I have argued here that the inscription was written

in two distinct script styles—standard Greek documentary
script and Greek cursive script—consistent within the two
parts of the inscription.

This being the case, it seems logical to postulate that two

scribes were involved in the writing process. It is also logical to
postulate that the writing took place on separate occasions. In
light of the above, I suggest that the inscription should be read
as, MAPIAMH KAI MARA, “Mariame and Mara.”

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 69:3–4 (2006)

131