This ossuary and that of Yәhudâh Bar-Yәshua were the only two (of nine) remaining ossuaries from the Talpiot Tomb complex that were catalogued by Rahmani as decorated. Because this, along with the ossuary of Yәshua Bar-Yәhoseiph, 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 (eta; æ), the Greek η 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 (iota; i), 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.
Levi Yitzkhaq Rahmani and Leah Di Segni, both being authoritative and vastly superior epigraphers, unlike Prof. Stephen Pfann, Rahmani's original assessment stands —
"Μαριαμηνου [Mariamænou]: Here the name is the genitive of Μαριαμηνον [Mariamænon], a diminutive of Μαριαμηνη [Mariamænæ] (cf. Schwabe and Lifshiz 1974: No. 8), one of the many variants of the name מרים [Miryâm] Μαριαμ/Μαριαμη [Mariam/Mariamæ]. 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 Ribi Yәhoshua was intimate (excessively "immodest" by his own Pharisaic Ribi standards… unless he was married to the woman) with Miryâm of Migdâl (Hellenized to "Magdalene").
The Gospel of Philip (GPh), a 3rd-century Gnostic work that follows the Hebrew Matityâhu tradition more closely than any other states that Miryâm of Migdâl was the κοινωνος and that Ribi Yәhoshua often kissed her on the mouth. Those who deny that this describes a wife are clueless that there was no word for "wife"—in Hebrew or NT Greek! "His woman," in Hebrew or Greek, absolutely meant "his wife." (That's still true in Hebrew today. אישתי is the term meaning "my wife.") There existed no further elaboration of the matter. κοινωνος describe 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 NT date to the 4th century, with only a few fragments (papyri) dating into the 2nd century C.E.! By their reasoning, GPh is, therefore, more authoritative than NT and its canonized "Gospels."
Further, Christians have ignored Judaic literature to "explain" anomalies. The plain truth is found, inter alia, in the Encyclopedia Judaica (5.268—Celibacy): "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 Talmud… Celibacy among Jews was a strictly sectarian practice; Josephus ascribes it to some of the Essenes (Wars 2.120-21). Equally exceptional is the one solitary case of the [2nd-century C.E.] Talmudist [Shimon ben-Azzai]…" His celibacy, in fact, was so exceptional that it merited criticism, which he had to answer. His example demonstrates a number of things. 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 marriage was an intrinsic element of adulthood. Thus, the principle that one could not be a rabbi without being married is not contradicted by the example of Shimon ben-Azzai.
Further, Shimon ben-Azzai not only lived after the destruction of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh and, therefore, could never have qualified as a Ribi like Ribi Yәhoshua, Shimon ben-Azzai was a "disciple-colleague" of Rabbi Aqiva—following Bar-Kokhvâ as a false messiah.
Moreover, according to Talmud (Masëkët Khagigâh 14b), he strayed into mysticism in later life. No serious person would cite Shimon ben-Azzai as an anachronistic paradigm for a Ribi not marrying.
Beyond all that, the example of Shimon ben-Azzai demonstrates that, if Ribi Yәhoshua hadn't married he would have been castigated for it by his enemies and would have been required to answer the charges just as Shimon ben-Azzai—later—would have to do.
The only Biblical figure to have been celibate was Yirmәyâhu—and that because he was explicitly commanded not to take a wife by ha-Sheim (Yirmәyâhu 16.1-4) because of an impending exile! There would be no exile until more than a century after the death of Ribi Yәhoshua. Further, without such an explicit Biblical command, there can be no justification for breaching the Halâkhâh and remaining celibate. Other Biblical figures are speculated to be celibate only in the minds of Christians. Arguments that Mosh′ ëh 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 deliberately and insidiously deceptive.
In a similar vein, Christians argue (with no supporting documentation) that most 1-century Jews didn't obey הלכה. 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! Halâkhâh, by contrast, was only the Oral Law of the Pәrushim; not of the Hellenist Tzәdoqim in the Beit ha-Miqdâsh nor the Tzәdoqim of Qumrân. So, it's true that ⅔ of the 1st-century Jewish sects did not obey xHalakhah—but they DID obey their own Oral Law. The critical point here is that Ribi Yәhoshua belonged to which sect??? Pәrushim!!! He not only DID obey Halâkhâh, he taught it!!! These same clueless Christians, quoting their "authorities" who don't know Judaism from Hellenism (literally) then presume to teach their followers all about "rabbinic decrees." When the blind lead the blind…
Christians have flocked to the Essenes (and the Egyptian Diaspora sect—Θεραπευται— thought to have spun-off from the Essenes) as "one sect among many" serving as an example of Jewish celibates… not realizing that the Essenes were Tzәdoqim at great variance with the Pәrushim in matters of Oral Law (see links). Ribi Yәhoshua was recognized, in NT, as a Ribi! Ribi? Pәrushi? H-e-l-l-o-o. 
The example of the Essenes being celibates is like the example of Shimon ben-Azzai being a celibate—an excellent corroboration that Ribi Yәhoshua, a Pәrushi, was married according to Halâkhâh.
Ency. Jud. continues (ibid.), "The norm of Jewish law, thought, and life is represented rather by the opening clause in the matrimonial code of the Shulkhân Ârukh: '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' (Sh. Ar., EH 1.1). 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…" (ibid.). In other words, marriage is a mitzwâh. If Ribi Yәhoshua hadn't married then he had not kept Torâh. 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' (Masëkët Yәvâmot 62b, based on [bә-Reishit 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·in′ ] for marriage and by the insistence that the Kohein ha-Jadol be married (wa-Yiqrâ 21.13), especially at the time when he officiates in the [Qodesh ha-Qâdâshim] on the holiest day of the year (Masëkët Yomâ 1.1, based on wa-Yiqrâ 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 (Masëkët Sunedrion 36b) and as synagogue readers (Sof. 14.17; cf. OH 53.9)" (Ency. Jud., ibid.).
The Nәtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 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, Miryâm of Migdâl is always listed ahead of his own mother with the glaring single exception of a description that is a patently impossible Hellenist redaction: "John" claiming that Ribi Yәhoshua, at his execution, awarded "John" custodianship of the Davidic Dynasty when, in fact, Ya·aqov Bën-Dâvid and his brother, not John, became responsible for their mother upon the death of Ribi Yәhoshua (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 Yokhânân 'ha-Matbil' Ben--Zәkharyâh ha-Kohein was unmarried is contrary to all expectations, without any credible evidence or support and simply wrong.
Anti-Torâh Paul, who was excised by the Nәtzârim Beit-Din as an apostate is a powerful argument why Torâh-teaching Ribi Yәhoshua was married!
Accounts of "Mary" anointing Ribi Yәhoshua, both before and after his execution, unless she were his wife, would have been way beyond the pale of transgression Halâkhâh regarding modesty.
This, in turn, raises the suggestion that the enigmatic Μαρα, inscribed after Μαριαμηνου on her ossuary, may be the 1-century designation, comparable to the modern European-Yiddish "rebbetzin," for "Ribi's wife"!!!
Some scholars have speculated that a couple of these "Marys" 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 Roman redactors. A conflation would resolve the serious conundrum of how Ribi Yәhoshua, a Ribi Pәrushi, could be so "immodest" with two different Miryams. Such scenes would only be appropriate for a wife. However, the evidence militates against this (there being two distinct ossuaries containing the two different women). On the other hand, later confused gentile Hellenist 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 in these intimate scenes, such intimacy with two women implies that Ribi Yәhoshua was a polygynist, married to two women, which is entirely compatible with Biblical Torâh!
The Torâh mitzwâh is to be fruitful and multiply. It is almost certain, therefore, that Ribi Yәhoshua and Miryâm of Migdâl had children. However, the silly scenario presented in the Da Vinci Code is sheer fantasy. There is every reason to expect that there exist genetically-authentic descendents of Ribi Yәhoshua and Miryâm of Migdâl, just as there is every reason to expect that there exist genetically-authentic descendents of non-Hellenist Kohanim. However, they would be within the Jewish, not gentile or Christian, communities. Further, there would be no way to identify them. Tradition is no substitute for the long-extinct yukhasin (see Nәkhëmyâh 7.63). Today, they would be ordinary Jews.
 |
|
 |