Was Mary Magdalene a prostitute? Photo: Private Collection/Bridgeman Art Library/Courtesy of IAP Fine Art.

Was Mary Magdalene a Prostitute?

Was Mary Magdalene a prostitute who repented or simply an influential female follower of Jesus? Mary from Magdala has popularly been saddled with an unfavorable reputation, but how did this notion come about? In From Saint to Sinner, Birger A. Pearson examines how Mary Magdalene’s notoriety emerged in the early Christian tradition. Pearson writes that later interpreters of the Gospels attempted to diminish her “by identifying her with other women mentioned in the Gospels, most notably the unnamed sinful woman who anoints Jesus’ feet with ointment and whose sins he forgives (Luke 7:36–50) and the unnamed woman taken in adultery (John 7:53–8:11).”

Read From Saint to Sinner by Birger A. Pearson as it originally appeared in Bible Review.

FREE eBook: Life in the Ancient World.
Craft centers in Jerusalem, family structure across Israel and ancient practices—from dining to makeup—through the Mediterranean world.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Who was Jezebel? Image: Russell-Cotes Art Gallery and Museum, Bournemouth, UK/Bridgeman Art Library.

Who Was Jezebel? How Bad Was She?

Who was Jezebel? For over 2,000 years, Jezebel, Israel’s most accursed queen, has been condemned as a murderer, a temptress and an enemy of God. Who was Jezebel, really? Was she really that bad? In How Bad Was Jezebel? Janet Howe Gaines rereads the Biblical narrative from the vantage point of the Phoenician wife of King Ahab. As Gaines writes, “To attain a more positive assessment of Jezebel’s troubled reign and a deeper understanding of her role, we must evaluate the motives of the Biblical authors who condemn the queen.”

Read Janet Howe Gaines’s article How Bad Was Jezebel? as it originally appeared in Bible Review.

---

Our website, blog and email newsletter are a crucial part of Biblical Archaeology Society's nonprofit educational mission

This costs substantial money and resources, but we don't charge a cent to you to cover any of those expenses.

If you'd like to help make it possible for us to continue Bible History Daily, BiblicalArchaeology.org, and our email newsletter please donate. Even $5 helps:

---

Rahab the Harlot or just the inkeeper? Image: CCI/The Art Archive at Art Resource, NY.

Rahab the Harlot?

As described in the Book of Joshua, Rahab (a heroine nonetheless known as “Rahab the Harlot”) assisted two Israelite spies in escaping down the city wall of Jericho. Was Rahab a Biblical prostitute? While the Biblical text identifies her as a zônāh, a prostitute (Joshua 2:1), Josephus reports that she kept an inn. Anthony J. Frendo critically examines the textual evidence.

Read about Anthony J. Frendo’s conclusions on Rahab the Harlot.

FREE ebook: The Holy Bible: A Buyer's Guide 42 different Bible versions, addressing content, text, style and religious orientation.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Who is Lilith? Courtesy of Richard Callner, Latham, NY.

Who Is Lilith?

Fertile mother, wilderness demon, sly seductress—the resilient character Lilith has been recast in many roles. Who is Lilith? As Janet Howe Gaines writes, “In most manifestations of her myth, Lilith represents chaos, seduction and ungodliness. Yet, in her every guise, Lilith has cast a spell on humankind.” Follow Lilith’s journey from Babylonian mythology, through the Bible, to medieval lore and modern literature in Lilith by Janet Howe Gaines.

Read Lilith by Janet Howe Gaines as the article originally appeared in Bible Review.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Tabitha in the Bible

Deborah in the Bible

Anna in the Bible

The Creation of Woman in the Bible

What Does the Bible Say About Infertility?

5 Ways Women Participated in the Early Church

The post Scandalous Women in the Bible appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Rarely does the world of Biblical archaeology make as much news as when filmmakers James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici announced at a press conference in late February 2007 that they had identified the remains of Jesus. Those remains, the two filmmakers claimed, had been in an ossuary, or bone box, inscribed “Jesus son of Joseph” that had been uncovered in 1980 during construction of an apartment building in the Jerusalem neighborhood of East Talpiot. As if that were not news enough, Cameron and Jacobovici further claimed that the tomb also contained the ossuaries of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and of Mary Magdalene. And if that weren’t enough, they went on to claim that another ossuary in the tomb, inscribed “Yehudah [Judah, or Judas in Greek] son of Jesus,” was the son of Jesus of Nazareth and of Mary Magdalene, who, the filmmakers said, were married. The Talpiot tomb, they concluded, was nothing less than the tomb of Jesus and his closest family.

Cameron and Jacobovici’s views were elaborated soon after the press conference in The Lost Tomb of Jesus, a program that aired on the Discovery Channel.

It did not take long for the criticism against the show’s claims to mount. Some of the criticism was personal and ugly, sometimes motivated by a misguided sense of defending Christianity. Much of the criticism, however, came from scholars who raised substantive objections to the program’s claims. Some quickly pointed out that the Talpiot tomb- cut into bedrock and containing niches for ossuaries- was a type of tomb popular among Jerusalem’s wealthy in the first century.

Jesus’s family was not wealthy, these scholars noted, and would not have had such a family tomb. Several other criticisms were raised: Jesus’s family, coming from Galilee, would not have had a tomb in Jerusalem; if they had one at all, it would have been in their home region. The scholars also noted that the purported ossuary of Jesus is inscribed simply as “Jesus son of Joseph.” People from outside Judea, these scholars argued, would have been called by their city or region of origin- Mary of Magdala, Paul of Tarsus and, indeed, Jesus of Nazareth. Scholars also pointed out that Jesus, in the Gospels, is invariably called “Jesus of Nazareth” and not “Jesus son of Joseph,” which is how the Talpiot ossuary is inscribed.

FREE ebook, Who Was Jesus? Exploring the History of Jesus’ Life. Examine fundamental questions about Jesus of Nazareth.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Other objections included the fact that the Jesus ossuary contained no title, such as Master or Messiah, that we might expect Jesus’s earliest followers to have inscribed on the bone box of their revered teacher. Also missing was any history of veneration of the Talpiot tomb as the burial place of Jesus; the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, in contrast, was thought by early Christians to be the site of Jesus’ death and burial as far back as the second century.

None of the proceeding objections are by themselves strong enough to be fatal to the claim that the Talpiot tomb was the tomb of Jesus and his family. But note that every one of those objections has to be wrong for the claim to be right- even if one of those objections is correct, the Talpiot tomb is not the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that these objections are indeed all wrong. Even if we grant that Jesus’ family had a tomb in Jerusalem (and not in Galilee), that they could afford (and had a desire to own) a rock-cut family tomb of the type favored by Jerusalem’s wealthy, that Jesus’ ossuary would have been inscribed simply as “Jesus son of Joseph” (and not “Jesus of Nazareth” or with the title Master or Messiah), and that the early Christian community in Jerusalem not only would have forgotten where their leader had been buried but would later come up with an entirely spurious tradition that he was buried where the Holy Sepulchre would later be built- if we assume all that, how strong a case do the makers of The Lost Tomb of Jesus have? The answer is: a surprisingly weak one.

When the Talpiot tomb was discovered in 1980, the excavators found ten ossuaries inside; six were inscribed. In addition to the one inscribed “Jesus son of Joseph,” there were ossuaries inscribed “Mariamne Mara,” “Maria,” “Mattia,” “Judah son Jesus” and “Joseh.” The “Mariamne Mara” inscription is written in Greek letters; the others are in Hebrew/Aramaic.

The “Mariamne Mara” ossuary is key to the filmmakers’ argument- and it is the one over which their claims are particularly unconvincing. They argue that Mariamne, one of several Greek variations on the Hebrew name Miriam, refers to none other than Mary Magdalene (the name Mary, too, derives from Miriam). They point to the fourth-century apocryphal work the Acts of Philip, in which a woman named Mariamne plays a prominent role. The filmmakers, basing themselves on an interpretation by Francois Bovon, of Harvard Divinity School, argue that this Mariamne was thought by the author of the Acts of Philip to be Mary Magdalene.

There are several severe problems with this theory, however. The Mariamne in the Acts of Philip is not identified as Mary Magdalene and does not do any of the notable things Mary Magdalene does in the Gospels (for example, Mary Magdalene is healed by Jesus in Luke 8:8; is witness to Jesus’ place of burial in Mark 15:40-47; and is witness to the resurrection of Jesus in Mark 16:1-8). The Mariamne of the Acts of Philip also does numerous things for which we have no parallel in the Gospel accounts (such as converting talking animals and slaying a dragon!). Indeed, the Mariamne of the Acts of Philip is identified as the sister of Martha. So whatever we are to make of the Mariamne of the Acts of Philip, she is not Mary Magdalene.

About eight times in the Gospels the form Maria is used to refer to Mary Magdalene (and a ninth time, if one counts Mark 16:9, part of Mark’s ending added much later). Four times the Semitic form Mariam is used. We see the same variation of names in reference to Mary, the sister of Martha, and to Mary, the mother of Jesus. In fact, Mariam is used in reference to the mother of Jesus more than a dozen times.

Accordingly, to identify the Mariamne of the Talpiot ossuary with one specific Mary of the New Testament is little more than special pleading. The Mariamne in the Talpiot tomb is almost certainly someone else.

The filmmakers also take the second name on that ossuary- Mara- to be a title, the feminine form of the Aramaic title for “Master” or “Teacher.” To the filmmakers, this gives added weight to their identification of the Mariamne in the ossuary with Mary Magdalene. In their view, Mary Magdalene was a central and honored early leader in the church, and her role was acknowledged by the inscription on the ossuary- “The Honored Teacher Mariamne.”

But here, too, the filmmakers are almost certainly wrong. Some epigraphers think the Greek inscription on the ossuary actually reads “Mariamne and Mara.” This interpretation is supported by similar, even identical, forms in Greek papyri (for example, P.Oslo 2.47; P.Oxy. 2.399; 4.745; P.Columbia 18a; and, from Palestine, 5/6Hev 12; 5/6Hev 16; and XHev/Seiyal 63 and 69). And, in fact, there is another ossuary, at Dominus Flevit, in which the names “Martha and Mary” are inscribed, thus providing an example where the names of two women are given.

In any case, we have no certain examples of “Mara” as a title (besides, the Aramaic Mara is normally masculine). The inscription on this ossuary should be read either as “Mariamne, known as Martha” or perhaps as “Mariamne and Martha,” to indicate that there were two women in the ossuary (it was common for ossuaries to hold the remains of several people).

Our website, blog and email newsletter are a crucial part of Biblical Archaeology Society's nonprofit educational mission

This costs substantial money and resources, but we don't charge a cent to you to cover any of those expenses.

If you'd like to help make it possible for us to continue Bible History Daily, BiblicalArchaeology.org, and our email newsletter please donate. Even $5 helps:

There are also problems with the interpretations of the other names found in the Talpiot tomb. We know of no one in the family of Jesus by the name of “Mattia” (Matthew). The filmmakers point to ancestors of Jesus who had forms of that name, but their point is not convincing and is another example of special pleading.

The filmmakers also misunderstand another of the names found in the Talpiot tomb. The name YWSH should be pronounced “Yosah” (as Professor Tal Ilan in fact does in the documentary), not “Yoseh,” as the documentary consistently does. “Yosah” is not the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek form Joses, the name of Jesus’ brother (as in Mark 6:3 and elsewhere). The Hebrew equivalent is YWSY (and is found on a number of ossuaries in Greek and in Hebrew). The documentary’s discussion of this name is very misleading.

The Talpiot tomb also contained a “Judah son of Jesus.” The filmmakers suggest this Judah is the son of Jesus and of his wife Mary Magdalene. This whole line of interpretation needs to be challenged.

There is no credible evidence anywhere, at any time, that suggests that Jesus had a wife or a child. Had he a wife, it would not have been an embarrassment or something that needed to be kept secret. A wife of Jesus would have been a celebrated figure; children would have occupied honored places in the church. But there is no hint of this. Even the second century Gnostic Gospels of Mary and of Philip do not support the claim some make that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married or were lovers.

This important point seems not to have registered with the filmmakers. The inscription “Judah son of Jesus” argues against the identification of the Talpiot tomb as the tomb of Jesus and his family. Whoever this Jesus was, he had a son named Judah; Jesus of Nazareth had no children and he had no wife.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

And finally, the filmmakers also misinterpret the pointed gable (or “chevron,” as they call it) above the rosette (or “circle”) at the entrance to the Talpiot tomb. They suggest that the gable and rosette were an early Jewish-Christian symbol. They also call our attention to an ossuary at the Dominus Flevit church (some of whose ossuaries may have belonged to early Christians), which on one end has markings similar to those of the Talpiot tomb entrance.

The pointed gable and rosette pattern has nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, this pattern predates Jesus and the Christian movement by many years. It is found on Hasmonean coins and on coins struck by the tetrarch Philip, son of Herod the Great, well before the activities of Jesus and the emergence of his movement. The gable and rosette pattern is also found in Jewish funerary and synagogue art, usually symbolizing the Temple or the Ark of the Covenant. The pattern is seen on several ossuaries that we have no reason to think are Christian (see Rahmani nos. 282, 294, 392, 408, 893). The pointed gable over the rosette is a pre-Christian Jewish symbol that referred to the Temple and is not a Jewish Christian symbol. Given Jesus’ criticism of the Temple cult, it is especially ironic that the filmmakers have confused a Temple symbol for a sign used by the earliest Christians.

Was there a Jesus family tomb in ancient Jerusalem? We think there likely was not, but if there was it was almost certainly not the Talpiot tomb.

Steven Feldman is the former Web Editor of the Biblical Archaeology Society.

Craig Evans is Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College, Acadia University, in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada. He earned a doctorate in biblical studies at Claremont Graduate University in 1983. Prior to his appointment at Acadia he was Visiting Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and for twenty-one years was Professor of Biblical Studies at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia, where for many years he chaired the Religious Studies Department and directed the graduate program in Biblical Studies. He was also for one year a Visiting Fellow at Princeton Theological Seminary in Princeton, New Jersey.

Professor Evans is author or editor of more than fifty books. Among his authored books are To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9Ð10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation (1989), Luke (1990), Jesus (1992), Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation (1992), Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Prologue (1993), Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts (1993), Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies (1995), Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration (1997), Mark (2001), The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: MatthewÐLuke (2003), Jesus and the Ossuaries (2003), and Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies (2005).

Professor Evans has also authored more than two hundred articles and reviews. He served as senior editor of the Bulletin for Biblical Research (1995Ð2004) and the Dictionary of New Testament Background (2000), winner of a Gold Medallion. Currently Evans is serving on the editorial boards of Dead Sea Discoveries, the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, and New Testament Studies. He is also writing Matthew for the New Cambridge Bible Commentary series and a book on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian faith. His newest book, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, was released by InterVarsity Press in December 2006. At the spring 2006 commencement the Alumni Association of Acadia University honoured Professor Evans with the Excellence in Research Award.

Professor Evans has given lectures at Cambridge, Durham, Oxford, Yale, and other universities, colleges, seminaries, and museums, such as the Field Museum in Chicago and the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Ottawa. He also regularly lectures and gives talks at popular conferences and retreats on the Bible and Archaeology, including the Biblical Archaeology Society summer sessions, as well as fall sessions at the annual Society of Biblical Literature meetings. He has lectured on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jesus and archaeology, canonical and extra-canonical Gospels, and the controversial James Ossuary and has appeared several times on the television programs Faith and Reason and the John Ankerberg Show. He has appeared in the History Channel presentation on the Historical Jesus and the recent BBC and Discovery Channel presentation on Peter the apostle. He was also featured in Dateline NBC’s specials “The Last Days of Jesus” and “Jesus the Healer,” which aired in 2004 and were watched by more than 25 million North Americans. In 2005 he appeared on Dateline NBC’s “The Mystery of Miracles” and “The Birth of Jesus,” as well as History Channel’s “The Search for John the Baptist.” Professor Evans also appeared in 2006 in National Geographic Channel’s documentary on the recently discovered Gospel of Judas and in Dateline NBC’s “The Mystery of the Jesus Papers.” He also appeared in National Geographic Channel’s recently aired documentary sequel to the Gospel of Judas, entitled “The Secret Lives of Jesus.” He has recently been interviewed for documentaries investigating the extracanonical Gospels, the resurrection of Jesus, and the controversial Talpiot Tomb in Jerusalem.

Professor Evans lives in Kentville, Nova Scotia, with his wife Ginny; they have two grown daughters and a grandson.

This article was first published in Bible History Daily on March 11, 2007.

The post The Tomb of Jesus? Wrong on Every Count appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Was Mary Magdalene a prostitute? Was Mary Magdalene wife of Jesus? Her being a repentant whore was not part of the Biblical text. Pictured here is Chris Gollon’s painting The Pre-penitent Magdalene. Photo: Private Collection / Bridgeman Art Library / Courtesy of IAP Fine Art.

When novelists and screenwriters try to insert something salacious into the life of Jesus, they focus on one woman: Mary from Magdala. Was Mary Magdalene a prostitute? Was Mary Magdalene the wife of Jesus? Birger A. Pearson addresses these popular notions in the article “From Saint to Sinner” below.

As Pearson notes, there’s no substantial evidence to either of these theories. As for her being named in the New Testament, none of the Gospels hints of her as being Mary Magdalene, wife of Jesus. Three Gospels name her only as a witness of his crucifixion and/or burial. All four Gospels place her at the scene of Jesus’ resurrection (though Luke does not list her as a witness). Only in the Gospel according to Luke is there even the slightest implication that she might have had a past life that could raise eyebrows and the question: Was Mary Magdalene a prostitute? Luke 8 names her among other female followers and financial supporters and says that she had been released from the power of seven demons.

Theologians in later centuries consciously tried to downplay her role as an influential follower of Jesus. She became identified with the “sinful woman” in Luke 7 whom Jesus forgives as she anoints his feet, as well as the woman “taken in adultery” whom Jesus saved from stoning. In the sixth century Pope Gregory preached of her being a model penitent.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

Only the Western church has said that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. The Eastern church has always honored her as an apostle, noting her as the “apostle to the apostles,” based on the account of the Gospel of John which has Jesus calling her by name and telling her to give the news of his resurrection to the other disciples.

As Birger A. Pearson sets forth in “From Saint to Sinner” below, a noncanonical Gospel of Mary enhances her role to a greater proportion. Her ongoing role in the early church is subject to speculation, but she is indeed getting more respect in theological circles, not for being Mary Magdalene wife of Jesus nor for being Mary Magdalene a prostitute but for being a faithful follower of her Rabboni—her teacher.

FREE ebook: The Galilee Jesus Knew

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

“From Saint to Sinner”

By Birger A. Pearson

Dan Brown, William Phipps, Martin Scorsese—when looking for a lover or wife for Jesus, they all chose Mary Magdalene. It’s not surprising. Mary Magdalene has long been recognized as one of the New Testament’s more alluring women. Most people think of her as a prostitute who repented after encountering Jesus. In contemporary British artist Chris Gollon’s painting of The Pre-penitent Magdalene (above), Mary appears as a defiant femme fatale adorned with jewelry and make-up.

Yet, the New Testament says no such thing. Rather, in three of the four canonical Gospels, Mary Magdalene is mentioned by name only in connection with the death and resurrection of Jesus. She is a witness to his crucifixion (Matthew 27:55–56; Mark 15:40–41; John 19:25) and burial (Matthew 27:61; Mark 15:47).¹ She is one of the first (the first, according to John) to arrive at the empty tomb (Matthew 28:1–8; Mark 16:1–8; Luke 24:1–12; John 20:1–10). And she is one of the first (again, the first, according to John) to witness the risen Christ (Matthew 28:9; John 20:14–18).

Only the Gospel of Luke names Mary Magdalene in connection with Jesus’ daily life and public ministry. There, Mary is listed as someone who followed Jesus as he went from village to village, bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. “And the twelve were with him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means” (Luke 8:1–3).

To learn more about Biblical women with slighted traditions, take a look at the Bible History Daily feature Scandalous Women in the Bible, which includes articles on Jezebel and Lilith.

The epithet “Magdalene,” used in all the Gospels, indicates that Mary came from the mercantile town of Migdal (Taricheae) on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee.² She must have been a woman of some means, if Luke’s account can be trusted, for she helped provide Jesus and the twelve with material support. She had also experienced Jesus’ healing power, presumably involving an exorcism of some sort.³ It should be noted, though, that the author of the Gospel of Luke has a tendency to diminish Mary Magdalene’s role, in comparison with her treatment in the other three canonical Gospels. For example, Luke is alone among the canonical Gospels in claiming that the risen Lord appeared exclusively to Peter (Luke 24:34; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:5). No appearance to Mary is recorded in Luke.⁴ Accordingly, his reference to seven demons may be tendentious.⁵

So how did Mary become a repentant whore in Christian legend?

Critical scholarship has provided the answer to this question: It happened as a conscious attempt on the part of later interpreters of the Gospels to diminish her.^a They did this by identifying her with other women mentioned in the Gospels, most notably the unnamed sinful woman who anoints Jesus’ feet with ointment and whose sins he forgives (Luke 7:36–50) and the unnamed woman taken in adultery (John 7:53–8:11).⁶ This conflation of texts was given sanction in the sixth century by Pope Gregory the Great (540–604) in a famous homily in which he holds Mary up as a model of penitence. Pope Gregory positively identified the unnamed anointer and adulteress as Mary, and suggested that the ointment used on Jesus’ feet was once used to scent Mary’s body. The seven demons Jesus cast out of Mary were, according to Gregory, the seven cardinal sins, which include lust. But, wrote Gregory, when Mary threw herself at Jesus’ feet, “she turned the mass of her crimes to virtues, in order to serve God entirely in penance.”⁷

Thus was invented the original hooker with a heart of gold.

FREE ebook: The Galilee Jesus Knew

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Interestingly, the legend of Mary the penitent whore is found only in the Western church; in the Eastern church she is honored for what she was, a witness to the resurrection. Another Gregory, Gregory of Antioch (also sixth century), in one of his homilies, has Jesus say to the women at the tomb: “Proclaim to my disciples the mysteries which you have seen. Become the first teacher of the teachers. Peter, who has denied me, must learn that I can also choose women as apostles.”⁸

Mary’s historical role as an apostle is clearly tied to her experience of an appearance of the risen Christ. As noted above, in the Gospel of John, Mary Magdalene goes alone to the tomb, where she is the first to see the risen Jesus. He tells her to tell his “brethren” that he is ascending to God the Father. She then goes to the disciples and tells them what she has seen and heard (John 20:1, 11–19).⁹ Later that same day Jesus appears to the disciples gathered behind closed doors. He thus confirms in person the message Mary had given them. In contrast to Luke’s picture of Mary, in John she emerges as an “apostle to the apostles.”¹⁰

The discovery of a Coptic papyrus fragment reignited the discussion on Jesus’ marriage. Read more about this early Christian text featuring the words “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife …,’” new tests conducted on the papyrus fragment’s authenticity and why one Coptic manuscripts expert believes he has demonstrated that the gospel is a forgery.

The positive role played by Mary Magdalene in the Gospel of John was considerably enhanced in Christian circles that honored her memory. The Gospel of Mary, quoted in the accompanying article, is the product of one such early Christian community. In her recent book The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene, Jane Schaberg presents the following nine-point “profile” of Mary:

(1) Mary is prominent among the followers of Jesus; (2) she exists as a character, as a memory, in a textual world of androcentric language and patriarchal ideology; (3) she speaks boldly; (4) she plays a leadership role vis-à-vis the male disciples; (5) she is a visionary; (6) she is praised for her superior understanding; (7) she is identified as the intimate companion of Jesus; (8) she is opposed by or in open conflict with one or more of the male disciples; (9) she is defended by Jesus.¹¹

All nine characteristics are prominent in the Gospel of Mary, although many of these nine points are found in other noncanonical texts.

Our website, blog and email newsletter are a crucial part of Biblical Archaeology Society's nonprofit educational mission

This costs substantial money and resources, but we don't charge a cent to you to cover any of those expenses.

If you'd like to help make it possible for us to continue Bible History Daily, BiblicalArchaeology.org, and our email newsletter please donate. Even $5 helps:

That, in my view, is more important than viewing her as Jesus’ wife.

“From Saint to Sinner“, a sidebar to the article “Did Jesus Marry?” by Birger A. Pearson, originally appeared in the Spring 2005 issue of Bible Review. The article was first republished in Bible History Daily in October 2011.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

Birger A. Pearson is professor emeritus of religious studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is one of the world’s leading experts on the Coptic gospels and has written hundreds of articles and books on Gnosticism and the Nag Hammadi codices. Since 1968, he has been involved in Claremont University’s Coptic Gnostic Library project.

Notes

a. See Jane Schaberg, “How Mary Magdalene Became a Whore,” Bible Review, October 1992.

1. Luke 23:55 refers to “the women who had come with him from Galilee” without naming any of them.

2. On that town, see esp. Jane Schaberg, The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha, and the Christian Testament (New York: Continuum, 2002), pp. 47–64.

3. Reference to seven demons may mean that she was totally possessed. On the seven demons see Esther de Boer, Mary Magdalene: Beyond the Myth (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997), pp. 48–55.

4. See esp. Ann Graham Brock, Mary Magdalene, the First Apostle: The Struggle for Authority (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), pp. 19–40.

5. In a secondary ending to the Gospel of Mark, it is said that Jesus “appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons” (Mark 16:9). The secondary ending is probably dependent upon the Gospel of Luke. As the best manuscripts attest, the earliest versions of Mark end at 16:8.

6. Mel Gibson makes that identification in his movie, The Passion of the Christ. On the tendentious conflation of traditions, see esp. Schaberg, Resurrection of Mary Magdalene, pp. 65–77, 82.

7. Quoted in Schaberg, Resurrection of Mary Magdalene, p. 82.

8. Quoted in de Boer, Mary Magdalene, p. 12.

9. Vv. 2–10 are probably a later interpolation into a more original account and interrupt the flow of the narrative.

10. On this term see Brock, Mary Magdalene, the First Apostle, p. 1. Brock’s book is a valuable discussion of the apostolate in early Christianity and Mary’s role in it.

11. Schaberg, Resurrection of Mary Magdalene, p. 129.

12. de Boer, Mary Magdalene, pp. 59–60.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Where Was Mary Magdalene From?

Discoveries in Mary Magdalene’s Hometown

Magdala’s Mistaken Identity

The Three Most Important Women in Mark’s Gospel—All Unnamed

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

How Mary Magdalene Became a Whore

New Testament: The Case of Mary Magdalene

Excavating Mary Magdalene’s Hometown

5 Myths About Women in the New Testament Period

Discovering Women in Scripture

The post Was Mary Magdalene Wife of Jesus? Was Mary Magdalene a Prostitute? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Discovered in the center of a first-century C.E. synagogue at the Galilean site of Magdala, the Magdala Stone bears one of the earliest images of the seven-branched menorah. Photo: Yael Yulowich, courtesy Israel Antiquities Authority.

Imagine a first-century Jew living in the land near their Temple in Jerusalem, yet they are too far away to make frequent visits. What did the Temple represent in their daily life? Did they locate God’s presence in the Jerusalem Temple alone or also in their midst when they gathered in the synagogue? For a people living in the diaspora, unable to visit the Temple frequently, what kept the memory and centrality of the Temple fresh in their minds? An intriguing stone uncovered at the site of Magdala on the western shores of the Sea of Galilee in September 2009 might offer a clue. Carved with symbols from the Temple, the quartzite stone was discovered in the middle of an ancient synagogue.

The so-called Magdala Stone is a stone block carved with symbols of the Temple in Jerusalem, with the core of the Temple represented (the Hall, Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies). The stone measure 1.8 by 2 feet with a height of 1 foot. Found almost in the center of the synagogue, the Magdala Stone is believed to be a piece of ceremonial furniture on which the Torah and other sacred scrolls were placed. But is it simply a bimah (a traditional holder for the scrolls), or does it have some deeper significance?

Our website, blog and email newsletter are a crucial part of Biblical Archaeology Society's nonprofit educational mission

This costs substantial money and resources, but we don't charge a cent to you to cover any of those expenses.

If you'd like to help make it possible for us to continue Bible History Daily, BiblicalArchaeology.org, and our email newsletter please donate. Even $5 helps:

The front of the Magdala Stone displays an obviously Jewish symbol, the menorah (see image below). It is currently the oldest carved image of the Second Temple’s seven-branched menorah found in a public place. Its tripod base indicates the likelihood that the artist saw the actual menorah in the Temple.

The seven-branched menorah on the Magdala Stone. Photo: Courtesy Israel Antiquities Authority.

The menorah on the Magdala Stone appears to rest on top of a decorated square—symbolic of the altar of sacrifice. It is flanked by two jars, perhaps representing the water and oil used in the Temple. If a rabbi stood in front of the stone, facing the menorah, he would set his gaze south toward Jerusalem, as though entering the Temple itself.

FREE ebook: The Galilee Jesus Knew

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Along the sides of the stone, the onlooker sees several pillared archways and another set of archways within, giving it a three-dimensional feel (see image below). Talgam speculates that these archways represent the gates of the Azara, or the wall around the Sanctuary and the wall of the Sanctuary itself. A small object at the start of these archways has the shape of an oil lamp from the Herodian period. One can imagine walking through the Temple’s passageways illuminated by oil lamps.

Pillared archways on the side of the Magdala Stone. Photo: Courtesy Israel Antiquities Authority.

Scholars still debate the meaning of several objects on the top of the Magdala Stone (see image below). For example, opinions differ about the interpretation of two clusters of three hearts—six hearts in total. Are they pretty space fillers? Are they ivy leaves? Are they bread loaves? Motti Aviam, Professor of Archaeology at Kinneret College on the Sea of Galilee, interprets these as bread loaves that were offered on the shewbread table. Splitting each heart in half conjures up an image paralleling the way bread was offered on the shewbread table: two sets of six bread loaves. The symbols representing the shewbread tables look like upside-down cups. Finding this symbol on ancient coins gives credence to this interpretation.

The top of the Magdala Stone. Photo: Courtesy Israel Antiquities Authority.

Another fascinating symbol dominates the center of the top of the Magdala Stone: a six-petaled rosette. It is flanked by columns with palmette capitals, echoing ancient Jewish historian Josephus’s description of the area directly before the Holy of Holies. The rosette itself symbolizes the actual veil before the Holy of Holies. Josephus describes this veil as being decorated with flowers—perhaps with this very rosette.

Curiously, the rosette is a common Jewish motif found on ossuaries, sarcophagi and monumental tomb façades from the late Second Temple period to the second century C.E. Considering this connection, one wonders if it signifies a passing through the “veil” of this life into the presence of God, just as passing through the veil into the Holy of Holies is an entry into God’s glory localized in the Temple.

FREE ebook: Jerusalem Archaeology: Exposing the Biblical City Read about some of the city’s most groundbreaking excavations.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

This brings us to the final symbol representing the deepest part of the Temple on the Magdala Stone: the Holy of Holies. Two wheels appear suspended in the air with triangular shapes underneath, representing fire (see image below). Early Jewish writings use this imagery to represent the heavenly realm. The wheels are interpreted as the bottom of the chariot, symbolizing God’s throne. The fiery chariot described in Ezekiel 1 and 10 gives credence to the symbol representing God’s presence dwelling both in the Temple and in the heavens.

The back side of a replica of the Magdala Stone at the synagogue. Photo: Magdala Project.

The richness and completeness of the symbols forces the question: Did the Jewish people in Magdala believe God’s presence was among them in a particular way as they gathered around Scripture? If so, Magdala offers more than mere first-century archaeology. The site allows us also to ponder the crossroad of Jewish and Christian history and faith.

Magdala is open daily to the public from 8:00 to 18:00. For more information, visit www.magdala.org.

Jennifer Ristine coordinates the Visitors Center and the Magdalena Institute at the site of Magdala in Israel. Previously an educator, she has been helping in the development of Magdala’s site since September 2014.

This story was first published in Bible History Daily in January, 2019

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Discoveries in Mary Magdalene’s Hometown

Magdala 2016: Excavating the Hometown of Mary Magdalene

The Fishy Secret to Ancient Magdala’s Economic Growth

Ancient Bronze Marvels at Magdala

Understanding the Jewish Menorah

Ancient Synagogues in Israel and the Diaspora

The post The Magdala Stone: The Jerusalem Temple Embodied appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Does this ancient menorah graffito show us what the Temple menorah looked like?

The Jewish menorah—especially the Temple menorah, a seven-branched candelabra that stood in the Temple—is the most enduring and iconic Jewish symbol. But what did the Temple menorah actually look like?

In early August 2011, the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) issued a press release announcing the discovery of “an engraving of the Temple menorah on a stone object” in a 2,000-year-old drainage channel near the City of David, which was being excavated by Professor Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron. (An unusually well preserved iron sword in its leather scabbard, which presumably belonged to a Roman soldier, was also found there.)

The IAA release went on to say that “a passerby who saw the [Temple] menorah with his own eyes … incised his impressions on a stone.” The excavators were quoted as saying that this graffito “clarifies [that] the base of the original [ancient] menorah … was apparently tripod shaped.”

But does it?

Depictions of the Jewish menorah with a tripod, or three-legged, base were indeed quite popular in late antique Judaism (fourth–sixth centuries C.E.). This can be seen clearly on the mosaic floors of several synagogues (Hammath Tiberias, Beth-Shean, Beth Alpha and Nirim), not to mention inscribed plaques, oil lamps and even a tiny gold ring from the fifth century.

FREE ebook: Ten Top Biblical Archaeology Discoveries. Finds like the Pool of Siloam in Israel, where the Gospel of John says Jesus miraculously restored sight to a blind man.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Although there is thus later artistic support for a tripod-based Jewish menorah, the evidence from the late Second Temple period, when the ancient menorah was still standing in the Temple, is rather different. The handful of contemporaneous depictions we have seem to show the Jewish menorah with a solid, usually triangular base. These include the fragmentary ancient menorah graffito discovered by the late Israeli archaeologist Nahman Avigad in his excavation of the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem, multiple coins of the last Hasmonean king Mattathias Antigonus (40–37 B.C.E.) and the decorated stone table discovered at Magdala. (The Temple menorah pictured on the Arch of Titus in Rome has an unusual octagonal tiered base that is usually rejected as unrealistic.) Therefore this recently discovered crude drawing of a Jewish menorah hardly settles the question of what the Temple menorah’s base looked like.

Another glaring problem is that this ancient menorah has only five branches. The Temple menorah had seven branches, as did the ancient menorah in the desert Tabernacle described in Exodus 25:31–40. Although the rabbis prohibited making seven-branched menorot like the one in the Temple, some Second Temple Jewish menorah depictions (including those referred to above) do contain seven branches. So was this ancient menorah with five branches meant to represent some other Jewish menorah? Or was the artist simply in a hurry or confused? And would it have been possible for a Yohanan Q. Public to come in from the streets of Jerusalem, walk into the Temple and see the Jewish menorah?

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

The answer to that last question is: It depends on what time period we’re talking about. According to Professor Victor Hurowitz of Ben-Gurion University, the priestly laws of the Pentateuch prohibited viewing the menorah because the entire inside of the desert Tabernacle was off-limits to commoners (only priests could enter), and when moving the Tabernacle, the vessels (including the menorah) were covered. These restrictions continued in the First Temple period (1000–586 B.C.E.), Hurowitz explained.

But things may have changed in the Second Temple period (538 B.C.E.–70 C.E.). Hebrew University professor Israel Knohl contends that the Mishnah and the Temple Scroll indicate that in the late Second Temple period the usual purity laws related to Temple rituals were loosened somewhat during the three major pilgrimage festivals of Sukkoth, Pesach and Shavuot. To encourage popular participation in the Temple rites and the festival service, the ritual purity laws that normally constrained common Israelites to the outer Temple courts were relaxed: In “a two-way movement,” ordinary Israelites were permitted to enter the inner courts, and the sanctified ritual objects, including the menorah, were moved from the Temple to the inner courts.

FREE ebook: Paul: Jewish Law and Early Christianity. Paul’s dual roles as a Christian missionary and a Pharisee.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

It is therefore possible that the artist of this recently discovered graffito could have gotten close enough during a pilgrim festival to see the menorah brought out by the priests and displayed before all the people, but the rough drawing he etched into the stone is far from giving us a clear view of what the Temple menorah looked like.

Based on “Strata: Is This What the Temple Menorah Looked Like?” Biblical Archaeology Review, November/December 2011.

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published in October 2011.

Pictured below are a number of important menorah depictions from antiquity

The Temple Menorah appears in the fragment of a first-century graffito etched in plaster found in excavations in Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter merely a few hundred feet from the Temple Mount. It is one of the earliest depictions of the candelabra that illuminated the Jewish Temple. The seven-branched Menorah rests on a triangular base.

A graffito on stone found during the excavation of a 2,000-year-old drainage channel near the City of David shows a five-branched menorah with a tripod base.

This engraved stone with an early depiction of a seven-branched menorah (facing panel) was discovered in the central hall of the Magdala synagogue, which dates to the first century C.E. or earlier. The stone may have served as a table on which Torah scrolls were rolled out.

As they huddled in the cistern of their Nahal Mikhmas cave, in a last-ditch effort to hide from Roman soldiers, Jewish refugees from the Bar-Kokhba Revolt (132–135 C.E.) drew messages in charcoal on the plastered walls, including this seven-branched candelabrum, or menorah, which may resemble the menorah that stood in the Temple.

A bas relief on the Arch of Titus in Rome depicts the celebratory procession of Titus’s victorious troops after defeating the First Jewish Revolt (66–70 C.E.). They carry the spoils of the Temple on their shoulders: the Menorah, the Showbread table and the trumpets. The unique tiered octagonal base of the Menorah is considered unrealistic by many scholars.

A flame lights each of the seven branches on this 1-by-1-inch carved menorah on top of a stone oil lamp that had been declared a forgery but was recently defended as authentic in a journal publication by several eminent scientists.

Jews who fled Jerusalem after the First Jewish Revolt settled in the south and created oil lamps showing the menorah, as one expression of their yearning to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple. The menorahs on these lamps all had more branches (such as this one) than the seven-branched Temple menorah because of the Talmudic prohibition against depicting the Temple menorah.

This early-fourth-century C.E. Roman gold glass (formed by laminating both sides of the base of a glass bowl with sheets of gold) bears images of seven-branched menorahs, a lulav (palm branch), an etrog (citron) and a shofar (ram’s horn)—all ritual objects used in Temple services. In its upper register, the gold glass depicts not the Temple but an open Torah ark with its scrolls displayed.

Two seven-branched menorahs flank a gabled ark in this scene decorating a floor in the fourth-century C.E. synagogue at Hammath Tiberias, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. A lulav, or bound palm branch, and an etrog, or citron, both associated with the holiday of Sukkoth (Tabernacles), are shown to the left of each menorah, while a shofar, the ram’s horn sounded on Rosh Hashanah, lies below an incense shovel to the right of each menorah.

The seven-branched menorah was one of the typical Jewish symbols often found on Jewish grave markers from the Hellenistic through the Byzantine periods (300 B.C.E.–500 C.E.), most of which were written in Greek.

This tiny, 24-karat gold ring, only one-quarter inch in diameter, was probably made for a newborn infant. It is the only example from its period—c. 5th century C.E.—of a gold ring with a depiction of the seven-branched menorah. However, a number of contemporaneous bronze and silver rings with menorah depictions have been found.

One of two seven-branched menorahs on the mosaic floor from the fifth-century C.E.. synagogue at Beth-Shean.

This damaged panel from the Sepphoris synagogue mosaic (fifth–seventh centuries C.E.) features an ark (or perhaps the Temple) flanked by menorahs.

The Ark mosaic from the sixth-century C.E. synagogue at Beth Alpha, which was located directly in front of the synagogue’s actual Torah shrine, contains depictions of sacred vessels and objects used in the Temple, including two seven-branched menorahs that flank the Ark.

A menagerie of roaring lions, doll-like elephants, caged birds and free, and even a hen laying an egg surrounding the central menorah enliven this sixth-century C.E. floor mosaic from a Jewish synagogue in Nirim, Israel.

Built in the eighth century A.D., the Jericho synagogue featured an elaborate mosaic carpet that included this famous medallion depicting, from left to right, three Jewish symbols: a palm frond (lulav), a menorah and a ram’s horn (shofar). The inscription below reads “Peace unto Israel” (Hebrew, Shalom al Yisroel).

A nine-branched menorah, flanked by an incense shovel on the left and a shofar on the right, appear in relief on this arch stone (likely belonging to a synagogue) from the Jewish village of Yahudiyye.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Hanukkah, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and the Apocrypha

The Magdala Stone: The Jerusalem Temple Embodied

1,600-Year-Old Bracelet Stamped with Menorah Motifs Uncovered in Dig

Modi’in: Where the Maccabees Lived

Where the Heroes of the Maccabean Revolt Lie

The Ophel Treasure

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

The Temple Menorah—Where Is It?

Is This What the Temple Menorah Looked Like?

Did the Temple Menorah Come Back to Jerusalem?

The post Understanding the Jewish Menorah appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

The Golan synagogue dates to the Second Temple Period—before the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. Like other ancient synagogues in Israel, it has benches lining its walls and a mikveh not far from its entrance. Photo: Hanay’s image is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

In “Synagogues—Before and After the Roman Destruction of the Temple” from the May/June 2015 issue of BAR, Professor Rachel Hachlili of the University of Haifa examines ancient synagogues in Israel and throughout the ancient Near East.

Rachel Hachlili explains that there is some debate as to whether or not synagogues existed before the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. On the one hand, we have textual evidence—such as the New Testament—that identifies certain structures as synagogues where Torah reading, teaching and prayer took place. For example Mark 1:21 says that Jesus and his disciples traveled to Capernaum, and “when the Sabbath came, he [Jesus] entered the synagogue and taught.”

Additionally, we have uncovered buildings from the Second Temple period (before the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.) that look similar to post-destruction synagogues. Later synagogues were sometimes built on top of these earlier structures, thereby suggesting a continuity of use.

However, all of the Second Temple-period synagogues lack the main architectural characteristic of later synagogues: the Torah Shrine. Usually situated on the wall of the synagogue facing Jerusalem, the Torah Shrine was the receptacle for the ark containing the Torah Scrolls. It became the focus of the later synagogues: “The Torah Shrine determined the arrangement of the interior of the post-destruction synagogue. This synagogue plan usually consisted of a hall divided by columns into a central space with side aisles and sometimes with a front (or side) courtyard. It all focused on the Torah Shrine.”

Should the earlier structures without the Torah Shrine still be called synagogues? If not, what is the meaning of “synagogue” in the Bible?

In her BAR article, Rachel Hachlili analyzes the main differences between the post-destruction synagogues and their possible earlier precursors:

The Second Temple-period buildings were used for Torah reading and as a study center. They had a didactic aim and also served as a meeting place for the community. The synagogues of Late Antiquity, by contrast, emphasized prayer and ceremonies; their functions were liturgical and ritualistic. The focal point of the early buildings was the center of the hall, while that of the later synagogue was the Torah Shrine built on the Jerusalem-oriented wall. In the early structures, benches were constructed along all four walls; they faced the center for the hall. In the later synagogues, the benches faced the Torah Shrine. Architectural decoration in the pre-destruction buildings was simple. The later synagogues were richly ornamented both outside and inside and included mosaic floors and wall paintings.

While there were differences between the pre-destruction and post-destruction synagogues, they still shared many similarities—both architectural and functional. Regardless of whether these earlier structures deserve the term “synagogue” by the current definition, the meaning of “synagogue” in the Bible almost certainly refers to these Second Temple-period buildings.

For further details about ancient synagogues in Israel and in the diaspora, read the article “Synagogues—Before and After the Roman Destruction of the Temple” by Rachel Hachlili in the May/June 2015 issue of BAR.

BAS Library Members: Read the full article “Synagogues—Before and After the Roman Destruction of the Temple” by Rachel Hachlili in the May/June 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

Interested in mosaics and synagogue imagery? Learn more in “Jewish Worship, Pagan Symbols: Zodiac mosaics in ancient synagogues” by Walter Zanger and the Scholar’s Study “Explore the Huqoq Mosaics.”

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Jesus and Synagogues

Ancient Synagogues—Archaeology and Art

Review: Ancient Synagogues Revealed 1981–2022

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

First Person: The Sun God in the Synagogue

Scholar’s Update: New Mosaics from the Huqoq Synagogue

Samson in the Synagogue

Turkey’s Unexcavated Synagogues

New Synagogue Excavations In Israel and Beyond

Godfearers in the City of Love

Golan Gem

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

The post Ancient Synagogues in Israel and the Diaspora appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Where was Mary Magdalene from? Known today as Magdala, this expansive site on the Sea of Galilee was called Taricheae in the time of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Photo: AVRAM GRAICER, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Where was Mary Magdalene from? According to early Christian tradition, the famous disciple of Jesus was from a town called Magdala, hence her name, Mary of Magdala. However, a place known as Magdala is never explicitly associated with Mary Magdalene in the Bible. Furthermore, the archaeological site known today as Magdala, about 4 miles north of Tiberias on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, was actually called Taricheae in the time of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. How then do we reconcile the archaeological and textual evidence with early Christian tradition?

In the Fall 2022 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Joan E. Taylor  looks for answers to the seemingly trivial question: Where was Mary Magdalene from? Professor of Christian Origins and Second Temple Judaism at the King’s College London, Taylor reviews the ancient literary and archaeological evidence for the location of Magdala. Her article, “Magdala’s Mistaken Identity,” also clarifies the historical identity of the archaeological site that many associate with Mary Magdalene in the Bible.

Indeed, many scholars argue that it is not at all clear that Mary’s biblical nickname (“the Magdalene”) means that she was from a place named Magdala. And although some early Christian authors claimed that Mary’s nickname indicated she was from a village called Magdala, they did not know where it was located.

It was only in the sixth century that Christian pilgrims began visiting the site north of Tiberias that we know today as Magdala (Migdal, in Hebrew). An expansive monastic complex developed around the site, and European pilgrims from the Byzantine to medieval periods describe visiting the site that included a church dedicated to Mary Magdalene.

Ancient Taricheae was an important port in the first centuries BCE and CE. The local synagogue had floors paved with mosaics, and featured a beautifully carved stone that may have been used to read the Torah. Photo: עמוס גל, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

The problem, however, is that archaeology and ancient texts show that today’s Magdala, which has recently been developed as a hotel and pilgrimage resort, was a prosperous trade center called Taricheae during the first centuries BCE and CE. It had a busy harbor, warehouses, extensive baths, and other public buildings. It also had at least two synagogues that served its 40,000 inhabitants.

Intriguingly, there were multiple towns or villages in Roman Palestine called Magdala, or Migdal. Meaning simply “the tower,” such names were typically given to places associated with towers or fortifications. “Both in the Bible and in later Christian and rabbinic literature, we find many towns and locations named for towers: Migdal Eder (“Tower of the Flock”), Migdal Tsebayya (“Tower of the Dyers), and Migdal El (“Tower of God”), to name a few,” writes Taylor. She then goes on to argue that Migdal Nunayya, a small Jewish village on the immediate outskirts of ancient Tiberias (and about 3 miles south of today’s Magdala) seems to fit the profile. It was the only Magdala along the shores of the Sea of Galilee that would have been known in the first few centuries CE, and its name means “Tower of the Fish,” a possible reference to its fishing industry.

Mary Magdalene with her attribute, a vessel of ointment. This oil painting by the Dutch artist Jan van Scorel dates to c. 1530. Photo: Jan van Scorel, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

So was Mary Magdalene of the Bible from this village just north of Tiberias? We may never know. Neither is it clear exactly why and how the ancient city of Taricheae came to be called Magdala in the Byzantine period.

To explore the possible meanings of Mary Magdalene’s name and to review the historical evidence for her biblical hometown and the Galilean site of Magdala, read Joan E. Taylor’s article “Magdala’s Mistaken Identity,” published in the Fall 2022 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

Read more about Mary Magdalene in Bible History Daily:

Mary Magdalene Understood

Discoveries in Mary Magdalene’s Hometown

Read more in the BAS Library:

Excavating Mary Magdalene’s Hometown

The post Where Was Mary Magdalene From? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

The Magdala synagogue with the Torah reading table in the center of this image. Photo: Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

But what does the epithet Magdalene mean? A later tradition took it to mean “from Magdala.” The only possible Gospel reference to a place of that name is Matthew 15:39, where we see Jesus coming “to the region of Magdala,” rendered, however, in some manuscripts as Magadan. And it isn’t until the sixth century that literary sources inform us about pilgrimage to Mary Magdalene’s alleged hometown on the shores of the Sea of Galilee called Magdala.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

The place-name Magdala is very likely preserved in the name of Qarīyat al-Majdal, an Arab village, which existed by the Sea of Galilee until 1948. Ancient sources, for their turn, speak of a place called Taricheae, which is a derivation of the Greek “factories for salting fish,” or more precisely, “the vats used for salting fish.”

From these same ancient sources—written in Greek and Latin—it is apparent that Taricheae was a considerable city, likely the most important center on the western coast of the Sea of Galilee until the foundation of Tiberias, in 19 C.E. It is also apparent that the source of the fame and wealth of this former fishermen’s village was fish trade. The population of Taricheae grew to approximately 30,000 by the mid-first century, as a prominent Jewish historian Flavius Josephus implies in his account of the Roman suppression of the First Jewish Revolt in 66–70 C.E.

FREE ebook: The Galilee Jesus Knew

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Josephus also recorded the abrupt end of the city in the year 67:

“Titus leapt on his horse and led his troops to the lake [the Sea of Galilee], rode through the waterfront and entered the town first, followed by his men. […] Abandoning their posts, [the rebel leader] Jesus and his supporters fled across the country, while the rest rushed down to the lake. There they ran into the enemy advancing to meet them; some were killed as they boarded their boats, others as they tried to swim to those who had put out before. In the town there was a massacre, the same fate befalling the strangers who had not succeeded in escaping—and who tried to resist—and the residents who offered no resistance at all. […] Those who had taken refuge on the lake, when they saw the city had fallen, sailed off and kept as far out of range of the enemy as they could.” (Jewish War 3.10.5; trans. by Gaalya Cornfeld)

Modern archaeological excavations at Taricheae/al-Majdal/Magdala on the shore of the Sea of Galilee confirm the testimonies of ancient authors about the affluence and prosperity of this Galilean city and give more credence to the identification of Taricheae with Magdala.

The Magdala Stone most likely served as a Torah reading table. Photo: Courtesy of Magdala (@experience_magdala).

Following the uncovering of a well-preserved ancient boat near Magdala in 1986, the most exciting discovery took place in 2009, when archaeologists of the IAA—ahead of the development of the local tourist center—discovered a synagogue. One of perhaps only eight synagogues identified so far in Israel as dating from the first century C.E., it provided one splendid find—the so-called Magdala Stone, a Torah reading table sculpted in stone with reliefs depicting a seven-branched menorah and possibly the Jerusalem Temple.

The discoveries in Mary Magdalene’s hometown, by the Magdala Archaeological Project under the direction of Marcela Zapata-Meza of the Anahuac University of Mexico, revealed four ritual baths, or mikva’ot. These baths and the synagogue further strengthen the image of a Jewish city bursting with religious life. But on-going excavations also reveal tangible signs of the reported destruction, indicating that the Jewish population of the city took measures to protect their sacred sites from desecration by the approaching Roman army in 67 C.E.

Mikva’ot, or ritual purification baths, at Magdala. Photo: Marcela Zapata-Meza.

For a full description and discussion of the newly discovered mikva’ot in Magdala and what the Magdala excavations tell us about the moments preceding the Roman conquest of the city on the western coast of the Sea of Galilee, read Marcela Zapata-Meza and Rosaura Sanz-Rincón’s article “Excavating Mary Magdalene’s Hometown” in the May/June 2017 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

Related reading in Bible History Daily:

Magdala 2016: Excavating the Hometown of Mary Magdalene

The Fishy Secret to Ancient Magdala’s Economic Growth

Ancient Bronze Marvels at Magdala

The Magdala Stone: The Jerusalem Temple Embodied

Where Was Mary Magdalene From?

^{A version of this article was published in Bible History Daily in June 2017}

The post Discoveries in Mary Magdalene’s Hometown appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Archaeologists excavating the second synagogue found in the hometown of Mary Magdalene in Magdala, Israel.
Credit: University of Haifa

Earlier this week, the University of Haifa announced the discovery of a first-century C.E. synagogue in Magdala, Israel. Magdala (Migdal in Hebrew) is thought to be the birthplace of Mary Magdalene, as well as the main base of operations for Flavius Josephus, historian and Jewish rebel. Although this is one of only a handful of synagogues from the first century ever excavated in the Galilee, it is remarkably not the first uncovered in the ancient city of Magdala. Another synagogue was discovered in the city in 2009. Now, these two synagogues together shed light on the religious life of Jews in the Galilee during the period of Jesus’s ministry. “We can imagine Mary Magdalene and her family coming to the synagogue here, along with other residents of Migdal, to participate in religious and communal events,” commented Dina Avshalom-Gorni, co-director of the excavation. Although Magdala is not specifically referenced as the hometown of Mary Magdalene in the Bible, most scholars accept that her name means Mary from Magdala.

The first Magdala synagogue, discovered in 2009, featured many decorative elements, including rosettes with meander patterns on either side.
Credit: Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority

This is the first time that two synagogues have been found in a single settlement from this period. Yet, it was not altogether surprising, and several excavators had previously suggested that Magdala, given its large size, would have had more than one synagogue. Located on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee, Magdala was a large Jewish settlement during the first century. Its population is estimated to have been around 30,000. This new synagogue helps scholars understand the deeply Jewish nature of Magdala and the Galilee as a whole in the first century, a subject that has been widely discussed and debated. As stated by Adi Erlich, head of the Institute of Archaeology at the University of Haifa, “The fact that we have found two synagogues shows that the Jews of the Second Temple period were looking for a place for religious, and perhaps also social, gatherings.”

FREE ebook: The Galilee Jesus Knew

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

The Magdala Stone bears one of the earliest images of the seven-branched menorah. Credit: Yael Yulowich, Israel Antiquities Authority

The newly excavated synagogue is a simple, square-shaped building, constructed out of basalt and limestone. It consisted of a central hall with a bench along one side and two small rooms. One room is thought to have been used to store scrolls. Each of the rooms and the bench were coated with plaster. By contrast, the first synagogue discovered in Magdala was far more elaborate. In addition to six columns, the synagogue contained several mikva’ot (Jewish ritual baths) and beautifully colored frescoes. Most stunning of all was a large stone that sat in the middle of the room and possibly functioned as a table for reading Torah scrolls. This has come to be known as the Magdala Stone. Etched into the stone are numerous images, including one of the earliest depictions of a menorah, thought by some to be an actual representation of the menorah that stood in the Jerusalem Temple. A possible explanation for the difference in the synagogues is their location within the town, with the first synagogue having been discovered in the town’s commercial area, whereas the new synagogue was located within one of its neighborhoods. According to Adi Erlich, “the local synagogues were constructed within the social fabric of the settlement.”

Read more in BHD:

Discoveries in Mary Magdalene’s Hometown

2,000-year-old Mikveh found in Lower Galilee

Members, read more in the BAS Library:

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

Excavating Mary Magdalene’s Hometown

How Jewish Was Jesus’ Galilee?

The post Archaeologists Discover New First-Century Synagogue in Magdala, Israel appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Huqoq excavation director Jodi Magness proudly stands atop the eastern wall of an ancient synagogue at Huqoq. Jodi Magness and her team undertook the Huqoq excavation in the summer of 2011 to help clarify her understanding of the dating of certain types of ancient synagogues. But wonderful surprises lay in wait for the dig team at Huqoq, including a Samson mosaic published for the first time in Biblical Archaeology Review.

Archaeologist Jodi Magness has a theory about the dating of certain ancient synagogues. Magness, the Kenan Distinguished Professor for Teaching Excellence in Early Judaism at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, believes that the traditional dates for so-called “Galilean-type” ancient synagogues needs to be pushed back a couple hundred years to the fourth–sixth centuries C.E. Until 2011, however, she had to rely on others’ records of the excavation of ancient synagogues. She then decided that she needed to do her own synagogue excavation to get some clear answers. The Huqoq excavation was born.

Huqoq was a prosperous village in antiquity and was occupied for much of history until it was abandoned in 1948 during Israel’s War for Independence. Located near the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee, just 3 miles west of Magdala and Capernaum, Huqoq is mentioned twice in the Hebrew Bible, as well as in Rabbinic literature.

As the point where three of the world’s major religions converge, Israel’s history is one of the richest and most complex in the world. Sift through the archaeology and history of this ancient land in the free eBook Israel: An Archaeological Journey, and get a view of these significant Biblical sites through an archaeologist’s lens.

Jodi Magness and her Huqoq excavation team set out to locate the ancient synagogue amid massive heaps of stone rubble, guided only by displaced architectural fragments that likely came from a monumental building at Huqoq—the synagogue itself.

While they opened excavation trenches in search of the synagogue, Magness and her team also explored other areas of the site to get a better sense of the context and a more complete picture of Huqoq’s history.

The Samson mosaic from Huqoq shows a scene from Judges in which torches are tied to the tails of foxes.

By the end of the first season at Huqoq, Jodi Magness’s team had uncovered the eastern wall of the Huqoq synagogue. And 2012 brought another surprise when a high-quality mosaic floor was revealed inside the wall. The Huqoq mosaic consists of three sections separated by areas where the bedding is intact but without mosaics. The first section shows a Hebrew or Aramaic inscription flanked by two remarkably well-preserved female faces that University of Louisville scholar Karen Britt suggests may have been donors to the religious community. The second mosaic section runs along the synagogue wall and does not include figural decorations.

The third section of the mosaic shows a portion of the body of Samson (published for the first time in Biblical Archaeology Review) alongside foxes tied to torches and an inscription. The Samson mosaic shows Samson as a military figure with an orbiculum, similarly to a nearby depiction in a synagogue at Wadi Hamam. Depictions of Biblical scenes are rare in ancient synagogues, and Jodi Magness explores why two nearby communities chose to decorate their synagogues with Samson’s exploits. In her evaluation of this unique ancient depiction of the Samson mosaic showing the scene from Judges 15:4, Magness examines evidence from rabbinic, early Christian and local communities to show that contemporaneous opinion of Samson ranged from disreputable to messianic.

To view the Samson mosaic and to learn more about how the Huqoq excavation is shedding new light on ancient synagogues, read Jodi Magness, “Samson in the Synagogue,” in BAS Library as it appears in the January/February 2013 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Read more about the Huqoq excavations in Bible History Daily:

The Mosaics of Nebo: A Visual Journey through Nebo’s Beautiful Byzantine Mosaics

Mosaic Inscription from a Synagogue at Horvat Huqoq: Huqoq excavator David Amit provides a translation of the mosaic text between two female faces in the Huqoq synagogue.

This Bible History Daily article was originally published in December, 2012

The Huqoq Synagogue Mosaics: Huqoq mosaics specialist Karen Britt provides a detailed artistic analysis of a Huqoq mosaic featuring an inscription and two female faces.

New Huqoq Mosaics: The 2013 excavations revealed additional depictions of Samson in the Bible and a possible portrayal of a scene from the Apocrypha.

Huqoq 2014: Update from the Field: Jodi Magness and Karen Britt discuss a new mosaic discovered during the 2014 excavation season.

Jodi Magness Reflects on a Lucky Discovery: In her Archaeological Views column “A Lucky Discovery Complicates Life” in the March/April 2015 issue of BAR, Jodi Magness reflects on the consequences of discovering stunning mosaics at Huqoq.

Huqoq 2015: New Mosaics Unearthed at Huqoq Synagogue: The Huqoq Excavation Project has uncovered more stunning mosaics during the 2015 excavations in a fifth-century C.E. synagogue in the Galilee.

New Huqoq Mosaics: Noah’s Ark and Exodus Scenes
During the 2016 season at Huqoq, mosaics depicting two well-known Biblical stories were uncovered.

Huqoq 2017: Mosaics of Jonah and the Whale, the Tower of Babel and More: The 2017 excavation season at Huqoq unearthed more stunning mosaics depicting Greco-Roman and Biblical scenes, including the story of Jonah and the whale and the construction of the Tower of Babel.

Huqoq 2018: Mosaic Depicts Israelite Spies: The 2018 season revealed more Biblical mosaics, including one referencing Numbers 13:23.

The post A Samson Mosaic from Huqoq appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.