Eternal Path International Forum - View Single Post

ufojoe · 03-22-2007

I could care less if Simcha is Jewish or Buddhist. If the evidence holds up to scrutiny, it won't be because of the religion of anybody involved. By the way, Discovery Channel made the filmmakers cut out the last hour of the show. It was supposed to be three hours. The extra hour contained more science.

There was a story that went around all over the net and on many news stations. The story stated that the Mariamne inscription was wrong and that
it actually said Mary and Martha. Of course, the press didn't follow up and tell you the rest of the story.

Here's a blog entry from James Tabor, who was featured in the Discovery documentary. Tabor is Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte where he has taught since 1989. He previously held positions at the University of Notre Dame (1979-85) and the College of William and Mary (1985-89). His undergraduate and M.A. degrees were in Biblical Languages (Pepperdine University), and his Ph.D. is from the University of Chicago in the area of Biblical Studies, with an emphasis on Christian Origins and ancient Judaism, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, John the Baptist, Jesus, James, and Paul.

* * * * *

March 15, 2007
Leah Di Segni on the Pfann “Correction” of Rahmani
Filed under: Tabor's Blog — James Tabor @ 7:24 pm

When Stephen Pfann announced his “corrected reading” of the Talpiot inscription (IAA 80.500) as published by L. H. Rahmani (#701) just four days ago, insisting the veteran epigrapher had missed a word (kai/and), and misread the name Mariamne, I must admit it gave me pause. I am no epigrapher but I had studied the inscription carefully over the course of two years and nothing that Pfann was proposing rang true to me. It looked to me like a clear and lovely inscription of one hand, with the “stroke” or eta before Mara indicating a double name or signum of one woman. I also had a tremendous respect for Rahmani having worked through his Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries quite carefully over the years. I posted my reservations on my Blog.

I was amazed at how quickly Pfann’s reading was picked up by the media and flashed around the world with headlines such as: “Expert Shows Fatal Flaw in Tomb Theory.” I even watched Dr. Pfann on CNN two nights ago and I think he made the rounds on a few other national TV programs. I just did a Google search and that story has now become the “truth,” since it has been printed in over 12,000 sources, including multiple Christian Blogs that welcome anything that seems to contradict the “Mary Magdalene” hypothesis. I was also surprised to see Pfann’s paper this morning up on the SBL Web site and I posted a caveat to Forum editor Leo Greenspoon suggesting that maybe the Pfann reading might bear a bit of “peer review” by a Greek epigrapher, since it would surely be taken by the public as a new breakthrough in the discussion if posted on an academic site without comment. [Pfann has written me since I put up this post that he did in fact consult with several leading epigraphers who agree, or partly agree, with his reading, but that it was the Associated Press that rushed the story out without mentioning anyone but him]

Immediately after reading Pfann’s paper I met with Prof. Michael Stone, who is our distinguished visiting professor of ancient Judaism here at UNC Charlotte this year, and who happens to have been Pfann’s teacher. I asked him for his opinion, and quite modestly he said, I have no expertise in ancient Greek epigraphy so I would not dare to say, but if you check with Leah Di Segni you will get a view that should settle things for all of us. I was impressed with Michael’s modesty since those of us who know him know that his Greek is as good as it gets, as are all his languages, but he still knows that technical training in epigraphy is quite different from one of us who reads Greek texts taking a turn at such things.

I contacted Dr. Di Segni, hesitant to impose on her time, but she graciously said she would take a look. I just heard from her today. She contextualized her view with a statement of how highly she regards Rahmani and expressed surprise that anyone proposing to “correct” him would not ask him, his “eye” being as good today as it ever was. Dr. Di Segni recalls that she was consulted by Rahmani when he prepared the Greek inscriptions and she writes: “I well remember that, while here and there I had some suggestions about interpretation of a particular form (for instance, Mariamenon being an hypochoristic form of Mariam), I could not but confirm all his readings. I have not changed my mind now.”

Di Segni’s conclusion then and today: She reads the inscription as a double name, Mariamenou/Mara, both being personal names, or signum, indicated in this inscription by a single “stroke” (signifying ho kai or he kai so-and-so), thus one woman with a double name. This is much like saying “aka” or “also known as.” Di Segni is not of the view that Mara is an epithet, “Mistress Mariamenon”: if so, it would precede the name of the lady. She notes that this use of the double name or signum became common only in the late first century, so this would be a rather early occurrence, if one accepts the reasonable surmise that secondary burial in ossuaries in Jerusalem ended with the destruction of the city in 70 CE.

I pass this on to readers here and colleagues and I hope it will get posted on the SBL site and on some of the more responsible Blogs, to offer some context to Dr. Pfann’s paper. How one might contact the hundreds of papers or the TV programs that have carried the Rahmani “correction” around the world I have no idea.

In the meantime, back to the discussion of this ancient lady, Mariamne also know as Mara.

03-22-2007	#4 (permalink)
ufojoe Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1	I could care less if Simcha is Jewish or Buddhist. If the evidence holds up to scrutiny, it won't be because of the religion of anybody involved. By the way, Discovery Channel made the filmmakers cut out the last hour of the show. It was supposed to be three hours. The extra hour contained more science. There was a story that went around all over the net and on many news stations. The story stated that the Mariamne inscription was wrong and that it actually said Mary and Martha. Of course, the press didn't follow up and tell you the rest of the story. Here's a blog entry from James Tabor, who was featured in the Discovery documentary. Tabor is Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte where he has taught since 1989. He previously held positions at the University of Notre Dame (1979-85) and the College of William and Mary (1985-89). His undergraduate and M.A. degrees were in Biblical Languages (Pepperdine University), and his Ph.D. is from the University of Chicago in the area of Biblical Studies, with an emphasis on Christian Origins and ancient Judaism, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, John the Baptist, Jesus, James, and Paul. * * * * * March 15, 2007 Leah Di Segni on the Pfann “Correction” of Rahmani Filed under: Tabor's Blog — James Tabor @ 7:24 pm When Stephen Pfann announced his “corrected reading” of the Talpiot inscription (IAA 80.500) as published by L. H. Rahmani (#701) just four days ago, insisting the veteran epigrapher had missed a word (kai/and), and misread the name Mariamne, I must admit it gave me pause. I am no epigrapher but I had studied the inscription carefully over the course of two years and nothing that Pfann was proposing rang true to me. It looked to me like a clear and lovely inscription of one hand, with the “stroke” or eta before Mara indicating a double name or signum of one woman. I also had a tremendous respect for Rahmani having worked through his Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries quite carefully over the years. I posted my reservations on my Blog. I was amazed at how quickly Pfann’s reading was picked up by the media and flashed around the world with headlines such as: “Expert Shows Fatal Flaw in Tomb Theory.” I even watched Dr. Pfann on CNN two nights ago and I think he made the rounds on a few other national TV programs. I just did a Google search and that story has now become the “truth,” since it has been printed in over 12,000 sources, including multiple Christian Blogs that welcome anything that seems to contradict the “Mary Magdalene” hypothesis. I was also surprised to see Pfann’s paper this morning up on the SBL Web site and I posted a caveat to Forum editor Leo Greenspoon suggesting that maybe the Pfann reading might bear a bit of “peer review” by a Greek epigrapher, since it would surely be taken by the public as a new breakthrough in the discussion if posted on an academic site without comment. [Pfann has written me since I put up this post that he did in fact consult with several leading epigraphers who agree, or partly agree, with his reading, but that it was the Associated Press that rushed the story out without mentioning anyone but him] Immediately after reading Pfann’s paper I met with Prof. Michael Stone, who is our distinguished visiting professor of ancient Judaism here at UNC Charlotte this year, and who happens to have been Pfann’s teacher. I asked him for his opinion, and quite modestly he said, I have no expertise in ancient Greek epigraphy so I would not dare to say, but if you check with Leah Di Segni you will get a view that should settle things for all of us. I was impressed with Michael’s modesty since those of us who know him know that his Greek is as good as it gets, as are all his languages, but he still knows that technical training in epigraphy is quite different from one of us who reads Greek texts taking a turn at such things. I contacted Dr. Di Segni, hesitant to impose on her time, but she graciously said she would take a look. I just heard from her today. She contextualized her view with a statement of how highly she regards Rahmani and expressed surprise that anyone proposing to “correct” him would not ask him, his “eye” being as good today as it ever was. Dr. Di Segni recalls that she was consulted by Rahmani when he prepared the Greek inscriptions and she writes: “I well remember that, while here and there I had some suggestions about interpretation of a particular form (for instance, Mariamenon being an hypochoristic form of Mariam), I could not but confirm all his readings. I have not changed my mind now.” Di Segni’s conclusion then and today: She reads the inscription as a double name, Mariamenou/Mara, both being personal names, or signum, indicated in this inscription by a single “stroke” (signifying ho kai or he kai so-and-so), thus one woman with a double name. This is much like saying “aka” or “also known as.” Di Segni is not of the view that Mara is an epithet, “Mistress Mariamenon”: if so, it would precede the name of the lady. She notes that this use of the double name or signum became common only in the late first century, so this would be a rather early occurrence, if one accepts the reasonable surmise that secondary burial in ossuaries in Jerusalem ended with the destruction of the city in 70 CE. I pass this on to readers here and colleagues and I hope it will get posted on the SBL site and on some of the more responsible Blogs, to offer some context to Dr. Pfann’s paper. How one might contact the hundreds of papers or the TV programs that have carried the Rahmani “correction” around the world I have no idea. In the meantime, back to the discussion of this ancient lady, Mariamne also know as Mara.