In consulting with several experts in late 2nd Temple ossuary inscriptions one point that I think is rather vital has come out that might account for some of the honest differences between experts on reading the names on the Talpiot ossuaries.

There is a great difference between writing on papyri where one can have a flowing cursive script and scratching on stone, as any calligrapher knows, where lines can cross but one does not have diphtong ligatures, so common in the way one would on papyrus. That is why Rahmani’s reading of the Mariamene/Mara inscription should be taken with great weight. This is his speciality.

This was the basis of Dr. Michael Stone’s reluctance to offer any opinion on the disputed ossuary inscription. Having worked on thousands of Armenian inscriptions he knew that “knowing Greek” (which he surely does) does not in any way qualify one to read epigraphical names on ossuaries. That caution might be well advised for others who might be even less proficient in languages than Prof. Stone.

It seems there is no end of folks with just a bit of Greek, or even some experience in reading Greek papyri, who are ready to jump into the discussion and declare, yes, I see that “kai” on the ending of Mariamene, what do you know, Rahmani was wrong.

I also think it is unfortunate that there would be any kind of “lining up” of experts on this side or the other of an issue like this, as if one were collecting points. No one epigrapher speaks as an “oracle,” but I think the judgment of Leah Di Segni, confirming Rahmani’s reading, should be taken with great seriousness, and others who are highly regarded agree and can speak for themselves, but I am not about to get into listing names.

Comments are closed.