 |
 Mariamaenou-Mara (îÄøÀéÈí ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ) Name-Inscribed Ossuary (front) |
This ossuary and that of Yᵊhud•âhꞋ Bar YᵊshuꞋa were the only two (of nine) remaining ossuaries from the Talpiot Tomb complex that were catalogued by Ra•khᵊm•ânꞋi as decorated. Because this, along with the ossuary of YᵊshuꞋa Bar Yᵊho•seiphꞋ, were the only two ossuaries from the Talpiot tombs that the IAA (Gath? Zias? Kloner?) had not vacuumed out, these were the only two that could be examined for DNA.
The enhanced inscription is color-coded to distinguish each letter from adjoining letters. Where lines deteriorate to barely visible traces or is indistinguishable, but there is reasonable consensus on the letter, the path is marked in yellow. In the case of two unconnected upright lines where there is reasonable agreement that the letter is a Greek η, it is marked in hot pink. Where there is nearly unanimous agreement that a mark is a naturally caused marring and not a letter, but one might expect to find a Greek ι, the mark is designated in dark blue with the possible, but indistinguishable, remainder of the letter in yellow. The controversial part is shown in aqua.
 |
 Mariamaenou-Mara (îÄøÀéÈí ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ) Ossuary Name Inscription (back)  |
Lei•wiꞋ Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ Ra•khᵊm•ânꞋi and Leah Di Segni, both being authoritative and vastly superior epigraphers, unlike Prof. Stephen Pfann, Ra•khᵊm•ânꞋi's original assessment stands:
"Μαριαμηνου: Here the name is the genitive of Μαριαμηνον, a diminutive of Μαριαμηνη (cf. Schwabe and Lifshiz 1974: No. 8), one of the many [variant Hellenizations] of the name îÄøÀéÈí – Μαριαμ / Μαριαμη. The present variant was further contracted to Μαριαμνη, which was explicitly equated with Μαριαμη (No. 108:Inscr. C). See also Bagatti and Milik 1958:77-79, No. 7."
The Greek inscription itself may illuminate both the times and the woman within. Several factors that Christians have ignored and denied for centuries combine to suggest that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was intimate—obscenely "immodest" by ancient Middle East and his own Pᵊrush•iꞋ RibꞋi moral standards unless he was married to the woman—with îÄøÀéÈí ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ.
The Gospel of Philip (GPh), a 3rd-century Gnostic work that follows the Hebrew Ma•titᵊyâhꞋu tradition more closely than any other states that îÄøÀéÈí ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ was the κοινωνος and that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa often kissed her on the mouth. Those who deny that this describes a wife are clueless that [1] this would have been unspeakably obscene for an unmarried couple; and [2] there was no word for "wife"—in Hebrew or Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) Greek! "His woman," in Hebrew or Greek, absolutely meant "his wife." (That's still true in Hebrew today. àÄùÑÀúÌÄé is the term roughly translated as "my wife.") There existed no further elaboration of the matter. Κοινωνος describes an unusually close, even more intimate, marital relationship!
Christians contradict themselves arguing that GPh isn't authoritative because it is a 3rd-century work—not realizing that the earliest complete mss. of their Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) is about a century after that—4th century (with only a few fragments of papyri dating into the 2nd century C.E.)! By their reasoning, GPh is, therefore, more authoritative than Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) and its canonized "Gospels."
Further, Christians have ignored the preponderance of (non-Hellenist) Judaic (Hebrew & Aramaic) literature, relying solely – petitio principii (circular reasoning) – on Hellenist-Christian (Greek, Latin and Aramaic translated from Greek) sources to "explain" anomalies. It's no surprise that Hellenist-Christian sources corroborate Hellenist-Christian doctrines.
The sobering truth is found, inter alia, in the Encyclopedia Judaica: "The deliberate renunciation of marriage is all but completely alien to Judaism. Scarcely any references to celibates are to be found in the Bible or in the Ta•lᵊmudꞋ… Celibacy among Jews was a strictly sectarian practice; Ιώσηπος ascribes it to some of the Essenes. Equally exceptional is the one solitary case of the [2nd-century C.E.] Talmudist [Shim•onꞋ Bën-Az•aiꞋ]…" His celibacy, in fact, was so exceptional that it merited criticism, which he had to answer. His example demonstrates a number of things. Despite the title being occasionally mistakenly ascribed to him, he was never ordained a rabbi. He was always considered a disciple, never a rabbi or "sage"—since one has to become an adult to be ordained as a rabbi and, in the Judaic community, marriage was an intrinsic element of adulthood. Thus, the ruling principle that one could not be a rabbi without being married is not contradicted by the example of Shim•onꞋ Bën-Az•aiꞋ.
Further, Shim•onꞋ Bën-Az•aiꞋ not only lived after the destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ and, therefore, could never have qualified as a RibꞋi like RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, Shim•onꞋ Bën-Az•aiꞋ was a "disciple-colleague" of Rabbi A•qiꞋvâ—following Bar-KōkhꞋvâ as a false mâ•shiꞋakh.
Moreover, according to Ta•lᵊmudꞋ ( Ma•sëkꞋët Kha•gig•âhꞋ 14b), he strayed into mysticism in later life. No serious person would cite Shim•onꞋ Bën-Az•aiꞋ as an anachronistic paradigm for a RibꞋi not marrying.
Beyond all that, the example of Shim•onꞋ Bën-Az•aiꞋ demonstrates that, if RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa hadn't married he would have been castigated for it by his enemies and would have been required to answer the charges just as Shim•onꞋ Bën-Az•aiꞋ—later—had to do.
The only Biblical figure to have been celibate was Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu—and that because he was explicitly commanded by é‑‑ä, due to exceptional circumstances of an impending exile, not to take a wife! (There would be no exile until more than a century after the death of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa.) Further, without such an explicit Biblical command, there can be no justification for breaching the Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ and remaining celibate. Other Biblical figures are speculated to be celibate only in the minds of Christians. Arguments that Mosh•ëhꞋ was celibate, relying on a Hellenist Jew in the Egyptian Diaspora contradicting the Bible, are simply foolish. Labeling a Christian (Geza Vermes), baptized a Roman Catholic at age 7 who became a priest, a "Jewish scholar" because his parents were Jews killed in the Holocaust is contra-Biblical (see, inter alia, Ei•sauꞋ).
In a similar vein, Christians argue (with no supporting documentation) that most 1-century Jews didn't obey Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ. The fact is that the Dead Sea Scroll (4Q) MMT describes the entire Jewish community as holding the Oral Law to be the core of the community; central to everything in their lives. Christians are ignorant of Judaism. They have no clue that each of the major three sects had their own version of Oral Law—which they kept meticulously! Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, by contrast, was only the Oral Law of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ; not of the Hellenist Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ in the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ nor the Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ of Qum•rânꞋ. So, it's true that ⅔ of the 1st-century Jewish sects did not obey Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ (the Pᵊrush•imꞋ version of Oral Law)—but they DID obey their own versions of Oral Law. The critical point here is that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa belonged to which sect??? Pᵊrush•imꞋ!!! He not only DID obey Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, he taught it!!! These same clueless Christians, quoting their "authorities" who don't know Judaism from Hellenism (literally – it's identical to Christianity!) then presume to teach their followers all about "rabbinic decrees." When the blind lead the blind…
Ency. Jud. continues, "The norm of Jewish law, thought, and life is represented rather by the opening clause in the matrimonial code of the Shu•lᵊkh•ânꞋ •rukhꞋ: 'Every man is obliged to marry in order to fulfill the duty of procreation, and whoever is not engaged in propagating the race is as if he shed blood, diminishing the Divine image and causing His Presence to depart from Israel.' The law even provides for the courts to compel a man to marry if he is still single after passing the age of 20" (although this has not been enforced since the late Middle Ages).
"The Jewish opposition to celibacy is founded firstly on the positive precept to 'be fruitful and multiply' as a cardinal duty…" In other words, marriage is a mi•tzᵊwâhꞋ. If RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa hadn't married then he had not kept úÌåÉøÈä. Christians under the erroneous impression that their "Christ" was perfect should reexamine the implications of its celibacy!
Beyond that, "Secondly, celibacy is incompatible with the Jewish scheme of creation in which a man is regarded as half a human being, unless he be married, and in which 'he who is without a wife lives without joy, without blessing… without peace,' based on [bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ] 5.2). Thirdly, far from regarding celibacy as a means to the attainment of holiness, Judaism views it as an impediment to personal sanctification. This is strikingly illustrated by the rabbinic use of the term [Qi•dush•inꞋ] for marriage and by the insistence that the Ko•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dolꞋ be married (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 21.13), especially at the time when he officiates in the [QoꞋdësh ha-Qâdâsh•imꞋ] on the holiest day of the year (Ma•sëkꞋët Yom•âꞋ 1.1, based on wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 16.6, 11, and 17). For similar reasons, unmarried people are also debarred from holding certain public and religious offices, notably as judges in capital cases ( Ma•sëkꞋët Συνέδριον 36b) and as synagogue readers (Sof. 14.17; cf. OH 53.9)" (Ency. Jud., ibid.).
Christians are quick point to the only, apparently-Hellenist, Egyptian Diaspora sect of Θεραπευταί (thought to have spun-off from the Essenes) as "one sect among [a non-existent] many" serving as an example of Jewish celibates; not realizing that the Essenes were Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ at significant variance with Pᵊrush•imꞋ in matters of Oral Law (see links). RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was recognized, in Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), as a RibꞋi! RibꞋi? Pᵊrush•iꞋ? H-e-l-l-o-o. 
The example of the Essenes being celibates is like the example of Shim•onꞋ Bën-Az•aiꞋ being a celibate—an excellent corroboration that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, a Pᵊrush•iꞋ, because celibacy was not included among his exceptional teachings, was married—according to Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ.
The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) lists her ahead of his own mother at occasions where only a wife and mother would be: at his execution by the Romans, at his interment and checking, after 3 days, to verify that he was dead. Indeed, îÄøÀéÈí ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ is always listed ahead of his own mother with the glaring single exception of a description that is a patently impossible Hellenist redaction: "St. John" claiming that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, at his execution, awarded "St. John" – not even of Beit-Dâ•widꞋ!!! – custodianship of Beit-Dâ•widꞋ when, in fact, Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ" Bën-Dâ•widꞋ and his brother, not "St. John", became responsible for their mother upon the death of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa (cf. "Jn." 19.25-27). In Judaism, only a wife could take precedence over his own mother at these times of tragedy.
The notion that Yō•khâ•nânꞋ 'ha-Ma•tᵊbilꞋ' Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ Bën-Tzâ•dōqꞋ ha-Kō•heinꞋ was unmarried is contrary to all expectations, without any credible evidence or support and simply wrong.
Hellenist (anti-úÌåÉøÈä) Παύλος, whose writings are cited as insinuating celibacy – and who was excised by the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Beit Din as an apostate is a powerful argument why úÌåÉøÈä-teaching RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was married!
Accounts of "Mary" anointing RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, both before and after his execution, unless she were his wife, would have been obscene, way beyond the pale of transgression Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ regarding modesty.
This, in turn, raises the suggestion that the enigmatic Μαρα (perhaps related to the Aramaic îåÉøÄé) inscribed after Μαριαμηνου on her ossuary, may be the 1-century designation, comparable to the modern European-Yiddish "rebbetzin," i.e., "RibꞋi's wife"!!!
Some scholars have speculated that a couple of these "Marys" (in addition to the mother) may be the same woman, a conflation. They may be right in some respect(s). One might then wonder if these apparently-two women could be a later conflation by later, confused, gentile Hellenist Roman (Christian) redactors. A conflation would resolve the serious conundrum of how RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, a RibꞋi Pᵊrush•iꞋ, could appear so "immodest"—obscene, in 1st-century Judaic community terms—as gentile Christian Roman redactors confused, centuries later, wife-MiꞋrᵊyâm with family friend MiꞋrᵊyâm, painting both as "affectionate MiꞋrᵊyâms" (one eventually even being described by the Christian Church as a whore). Such scenes would only be appropriate for a wife.
Yet, the evidence militates against a "single MiꞋrᵊyâm theory" in addition to his mother (there being two distinct ossuaries containing remains of the two different women, in addition to his mother's ossuary). On the other hand, later confused gentile Hellenist (Christian) Roman redactors may well have confused which of the women was referred to in a given setting. To the consternation of Christians who maintain that these are two different women, other than his mother, and both exchanged "affections" with him in these intimate scenes, such intimacy with two women other than his mother would imply that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was a polygynist, married to two women—which is entirely compatible with Biblical úÌåÉøÈä!
The úÌåÉøÈä mi•tzᵊwâhꞋ is to be fruitful and multiply. It is practically certain, therefore, that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and îÄøÀéÈí ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ had children. There is every reason to expect that there exist genetically-authentic descendants of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and îÄøÀéÈí ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ, just as there is every reason to expect that there exist genetically-authentic descendants of non-Hellenist ko•han•imꞋ. However, they would be within the Jewish, not gentile or Christian, communities. Further, there would be no way to identify them. The silly scenario presented in the Da Vinci Code is sheer fantasy. Moreover, tradition is no substitute for the Biblically-ordained, and long-extinct, yo•khas•inꞋ (see Nᵊkhëm•yâhꞋ 7.63). Today, in the physical domain, there are only ordinary Jews.
 |
|
 |