Inscriptions from Israel: Jewish or non-Jewish Revisited

Jan Willem van Henten & Luuk Huitink, Amsterdam

 

Currently, two projects aim at digging up the inscriptions from the Land of Israel and making them available to specialists and non-specialists alike.[1] One is a long standing and well-funded project of a highly esteemed international team, the other a far more limited but nevertheless creditable project that focuses on getting what is available now in epigraphical editions and scholarly publications on the internet.[2] Obviously, the much expected outcome of both projects will, among other things, be consulted by scholars and students who have an interest in the history of ancient Judaism, eager to fill in the gaps in their knowledge, which is based on literary sources, and to read those sources in their socio-cultural context by linking them to non-literary documents; and vice versa. Yet, during such a process a danger may loom up of circular argumention or bias in the attempt to reconstruct or contextualize. How can we be certain that an inscription has a Jewish origin? Sometimes we cannot, and then things get complicated. As far as we know, at the moment neither project involved deals explicitly with this problem. In this brief contribution we shall call attention to the questions implied by the famous debate about the criteria for determining the Jewishness of inscriptions. We argue that this debate is relevant for the inscriptions from ancient Israel as well. Inscriptions are considered Jewish on the basis of particular personal names, references to Jews/Judaeans, Hebrews, Jewish offices, institutions, practices etcetera, specific terminology, Jewish conventions of decoration or the archaeological context.[3] Most of these criteria do not yield decisive evidence for of an inscription's Jewish origin, which led Pieter van der Horst to the proposal that inscriptions should only be considered Jewish if two or more criteria are met.[4] The outcome of this debate is that in many cases one cannot be sure of a Jewish origin, because one criterion is often not decisive; unfortunately, two or more criteria are not always met, simply because inscriptions lack the information for checking more than one criterion. What should be done about such inscriptions? How should the balance be tipped in favour of putting the inscriptions in either the Jewish or else in the non-Jewish category? Or should we acknowledge that we do not know sometimes, or that in some instances we can argue either way? Evidently, the latter position may lead to a third category of possible Jewish inscriptions.

We would like to illustrate the issue of the inscriptions' Jewish origin by briefly discussing several inscriptions from Israel. One inscription (no. 1) contains a formula which is usually taken to be Christian, but is attested in a few Jewish contexts as well. This inscription shows how cautious we should be in assigning a category to an inscription. Two other inscriptions considered Jewish by scholars, but may not be Jewish at all (nos. 2 and 5). In one other case, we argue the other way around (no. 3), while there are reasons, in our opinion, to consider one other inscription as possibly Jewish (no. 4). We also think that our additional category of possibly Jewish inscriptions matches the realities of (late) Antique society in Israel/Palestine better. The population of cities like Caesarea Maritima consisted of a wide variety of ethnic and religio-cultural groups. Certainly there were occasional tensions between these groups, but there must have been many interactions and overlaps as well. We know that a Jew, for example, was proud to see his name included in an inscription commemorating the restoration of the Hadrianaeum, just as Gentiles could readily designate themselves προσηλύτος .[5]

 

1. SEG 26.1683

Scythopolis (Beth Shean); dedicatory inscription from the Beth Shean B synagogue; sixth century CE

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Bahat, D., 'The synagogue at Beth-Shean - Preliminary Reports', Qadmoniot 5 (1972), 55-8 (inc. photograph; in Hebrew)

Lifshitz, B., 'Varia Epigraphica', Euphrosyne 6 (1974), 23-48, no. II (27-9)

Ovadiah, R., & Ovadiah, A., Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine Mosaic Pavements in Israel, Rome, 1987, 36, no. 31 B (inc. photograph) (with SEG 37.1467 and 1532)

 

TEXT (with Lifshitz) AND TRANSLATION :

π(ροσ)φ(ορὰ) ὧn κ(ύριο)ς γ|ινόσκι τὰ | ὄνοματ|α· αὐτὸς | φυλάξι ἐν | χρό(νω|).

Offering of those, whose names God knows; may He guard them at length.[6]

COMMENTS:

This intriguing inscription is flanked by two birds. The formulas in the inscription are, according to Lifshitz, 'tout a fait unique dans l'epigraphie grecque-juive'. He thinks the same holds true for the abbreviations.[7] The text is surprising because of the formula προσφορὰ ὧν Κύριος κτλ., which looks rather Christian, as Lifshitz notes. For some Christian usages of the formula we point to SEG 16.826 and 37.1274. Nevertheless, the context of the inscription here is undoubtedly Jewish and it may be instructive to look for Jewish antecedents of this formula. Apart from the parallels listed by Lifshitz for the words προσφορὰ and Κύριος, we add here that the combination of the two occurs in the Septuagint (cf. Sir. 14:11 and 50:13). Furthermore, Κύριος appears in M. Schwabe & B. Lifshitz, Beth She`arim. Volume II: The Greek Inscriptions, Jerusalem, 1974 (henceforth BS II) nos. 130, 151 and 184. The word is also found in CIJ 725a;[8] cf. also Horbury & Noy,Jewish Inscriptions from Graeco-Roman Egypt, no. 134. The verb γινώσκω is used with a similar meaning in many passages in the Septuagint, e.g. Ps. 90:14: ὅτι ἔγνω [i.e. God] το— ὄνομα μου. All in all this is a formula that could be either Jewish or else Christian, but is now attested in a Jewish inscription. This instance shows us that we have to be careful in claiming an exclusively pagan, Christian or Jewish usage for a formula. In our short notes on the next inscriptions we will discuss some additional formulas.

2. CIJ 1405; SEG 8.206

Jerusalem, Ophel Hill; fragment of a marble plaque; third century CE

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Macalister, R.A.S. & Garrow Duncan, J., 'Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem', PEF Annual 4 (1923-5), 132, fig. 128

Schwabe, M., 'Eine juedische Grabschrift vom Ophelhuegel in Jerusalem, ZDPV 55 (1932), 238-41, pl. 23,4

 

TEXT (with Schwabe) AND TRANSLATION:

Ἐνθά[δε κεῖται Νι]|κώ π’ ἐ[τῶν· ἐν]| εἰρ{γ}ή[νῃ ἡ κοί]|μισ[ίς σου.

Here lies Niko, aged 80; in peace may be your sleep.

COMMENTS:

This inscription is a caveat for students of Jewish epigraphy, since, apart from the first line, it is so badly damaged that it defies any restoration. Yet, by the end of his article Schwabe manages to give a complete reading of the inscription. He restores the first line with Macalister and Garrow Duncan to ἐνθάδε κεῖται, which indeed seems to be the most plausible restoration (and the only one Macalister and Garrow Duncan are prepared to propose). Then Schwabe suggests: 'Bei Annahme dieser Ergaenzung wuerde die Inschrift auch juedisch sein koennen', which he explains in a footnote: 'Es ist die haeufigste Eingangsformel juedischer Epitaphien'. This is correct, but especially in the case of Roman Jewish epitaphs: cf. van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, 41, and H. J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome, Philadelphia, 1960, pp. 122ff, who looked at 328 epitaphs from Rome, 239 of which contained this formula or a variant thereof. On the other hand, in the Caesarean corpus of Lehmann & Holum, for example, the first formula is found only once, in a Christian (!) epitaph (no. 197). In BS II only 20 out of 221 inscriptions containing a variant of this formula can be found; Ἐνθά[δε κεῖται is found only four times, and just twice at the beginning of the epitaph.[9] Furthermore, Schwabe cites non-Jewish examples from Israel as well. Thus, so far there is no reason to be sure of a Jewish provenance.

However, Schwabe restores the last two lines, without even knowing the length of the lines, as ἐν] εἰρ{γ}ή[νῃ| ἡ, stating: 'So erhaelt man die uebliche juedische Schlussformel.' This formula appears to be Jewish, but, once again, it is mainly found in Rome -- Leon counted 167 examples -- but not at all in Caesarea and only once in Beth She`arim (BS II, no. 173). Leon lists 112 epitaphs that contain both Ἐνθάδε κεῖται and ἐν εἰρήνῃ ἡ κοίμισίς αὐτοῦ (or a variant, like σου, which is less common[10]). Van der Horst, l.c.<, in fact states that such epitaphs 'must be regarded as typically Roman Jewish'. The numbers show great regional differences and it can hardly be expected for both formulas to occur on an epitaph from Israel. Yet, Schwabe wants to read it that way; but to be able to do so, he must ignore the gamma in -ΕΙΡΓ- and complete the letters -ΜΙΣ- to κοίμισις = κοίμησις, while the letters -ΜΙΣ- are hardly readable.

Schwabe considers the inscription possibly Jewish, but according to Frey it suddenly is Jewish. Frey even 'improves' on Schwabe's restorations, apparently in order to make the case for a Jewish inscription stronger. Schwabe reads the name Νικώ, but Frey changed this into Ιακώ, because '[l]e nom de Νικώ n'a pas encore ete trouve dans l'epigraphie juive'.-ΠΕ-, read by Schwabe as π' ἐ[τῶν, indicating the age of the deceased, is read by Frey as the first two letters of a proper name, because 'dans les inscriptions juives, le chiffre indiquant l'age est place apres le mot ἐτῶν, non avant.' A glance at the indexes of Vol. 1 of CIJ and Horbury & Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt, seems to confirm this theory. However, because of the lacunae all the suggested readings remain rather speculative, and the inscription, therefore, may better be considered possibly Jewish. By implication, it can be Christian or pagan as well.

3. SEG 14.847; CAT. II

Gophna; funerary stele; after 200 CE

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Schwabe, M., 'A Greek Epigram from Gofna', Scripta Hierosolymitana 1 (1954), 99-119, pl. 2

Peek, W., Griechische Vers-Inschriften [= GV] I, Berlijn, 1955, no. 1185

Merkelbach, J. & Stauber, J., Steinepigramme aus dem Griechischen Osten. Band 4: Die Suedkueste Kleinasiens, Syrien und Palaestina, Leipzig, 2002, 332, no. 21/11/01 Gophna

TEXT (with Peek) AND TRANSLATION:

Ρυσαλέηϛ γραίηϛ καμάτων ἀνά|παυμά με λεύσειϛ, |
οἶκον, ὅν ἱδρύσαϛ τῆσδ' ἀνέ|θηκε τέκοϛ, ||
ὕστατον ἀνθρώποιϛ, ἡδὺν πό|νον, εἰκόνα δόξηϛ, |
φαινόμενον ζώοῖϛ τερπνό|τατον λιμένα. |
ὅστιϛ γὰρ ναίει με, πόνων μό||χθων τε πέπαυται, |
σῆϛ δ' ἐσορᾷϛ βιοτῆϛ πουλύ με | τερπνότερον. |
ἓν δὲ τέλοϛ πάντων· σειγὴ μία· | κοινόϛ ὁ πλοῦτοϛ ||
καὶ πενία παρ' ἐμοί· πᾶσι πέφυ|κα δ' ἴσοϛ. |
ταῦτα μαθών, ὦ ξεῖνε, τὰ γράμ|ματα τῆσδ' ἀπὸ δέλτου ||
ἴσθ' ὅτι Μοιράων ὁ σκοπόϛ ἐστ||ιν ὅδε. ||
σῆμα δὲ σοί, Νικώ· κτίστου δ' ὄ|νομ' εὐθὺ μαθήσῃ |
[ἐξ ἀκροστιχί]δοϛ λαϊνέαϛ. | [πάραγε.]
The acrostichon reads: Ροῦφοϛ ἕκτισε.

The resting-place from tiresome cares of a wrinkled old woman is what you behold in me, a house, which her child erected and dedicated, a last resort for humans, a sweet labour, an image of her good name, seeming a most refreshing port to the living. For whoever dwells in me, he has brought his toils and troubles to an end, and you see that I am much more enjoyable than your life. One is the end of all; one silence; with me wealth and poverty are one and the same thing. To everyone I am equal. Having understood these words from this tablet, stranger, you must know that this is the aim of the Moirai. The grave is yours, Niko; the name of the builder you will learn straightaway from the first stone letters . Off you go. The acrostichon means: Rufus built it. (Transl. L. Huitink)

 

COMMENTS:

For a discussion of the appearance of Greek funerary epigrams in Israel/Palestine and more examples, see H. B. Rosen, 'Die Sprachsituation im roemischen Palaestina' in G. Neumann & J. Untermann (eds), Die Sprachen im roemischen Reich der Kaiserzeit, Koeln, 1980, 229-30. Rosen thinks that these inscriptions do not necessarily say much about the education of the dedicator; rather their stock-literary motifs and phrases indicate that they were produced in great quantities and the scribes simply put in the name of the deceased, often unmetrically. This observation is not entirely satisfactory in our opinion. Although it may be true that the dedicators did not actually write the texts, there still had to be a 'market' for such epigrams, that is people they appealed to. Furthermore, this particular inscription is an acrostichon and it is therefore unlikely that it consists of a totally pre-written text. It contains some exceptional phrases, such as Ρυσαλέηϛ γραίηϛ. Merkelbach & Stauber only offer parallels for line four and the first half of line seven.

Peek, who is interested in the literary merits of inscriptions, includes this inscription in his collection as an example of funerary epigrams in which the grave itself speaks. This particular literary motif seems to be unparallelled in Jewish epigraphy. However, it is fruitful to consult P.W. van der Horst, 'Jewish Poetical Tomb Inscriptions' in J.W. van Henten & P.W. van der Horst, Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy, Leiden etc., 1994, 129-47, about the Jewish metrical 'speaking tombstone' inscription (CPJ 1530; GV 1861; Horbury-Noy No. 38). Van der Horst (p. 136; cf. Horbury & Noy, Jewish Inscriptions from Graeco-Roman Egypt, p. 72) also discusses the use of Μοῖρα in another Jewish metrical inscription (BS II no. 127 line 6).

Schwabe reads the name of the deceased as Νυσώ, Peek and Merkelbach & Stauber read Νικώ. Neither is hitherto attested (cf. the comments on our no. 2), but Schwabe offers parallels of other female names ending with -ω. The Roman name Ροῦφοϛ, on the other hand, is found at least four times in Jewish contexts, as T. Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. Part 1. Palestine 330 BCE - 200 CE. Tuebingen, 2002, p. 38 shows. Schwabe concludes that the inscription 'contains nothing which a Jew might not have said in an epitaph'. Furthermore, Merkelbach & Stauber draw attention to the fact that the text fills the entire stone and that no image is present; they connect this to the Second Commandment (Ex. 20:4-6). However, many non-Jewish tombstones bear no images either, and we think that the presence of an image should in the first place be connected with economic factors rather than with religious beliefs. The completion to πάραγε in the last line is plausible. There are many Jewish epitaphs in which the passer-by is addressed, cf. van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, pp. 49ff. All in all it is not unlikely that part of the people to whom this kind of highly literary funerary epigrams appealed consisted of well educated Jews.

4. SEG 8.137

Caesarea; funerary inscription

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Cobern, C.M., Recent Exploration in the Holy Land, Meadville, 1916 (3^rd ed.), useless photograph on p. 110, translation on p. 111

Alt, A., 'Studien aus dem Deutschen evang. Institut fuer Altertumswissenschaft in Jerusalem. 35. Epigraphische Nachlese', ZDPV 47 (1924), 89-9, No. 10

Lifshitz, B., 'Notes d'Epigraphie Grecque', Zeitschrift fuer Papyrologie und Epigrafik 6 (1970), 57-64, no. 6 (64)

Robert, L., BE 1971, 695

C.M. Lehmann & K.G. Holum, Caesarea Maritima, no. 247

TEXT AND TRANSLATION:

The text is that of Lifshitz:

Μημόριον | Ἱερίσσαϛ | τῆϛ Τασέλλαϛ| [----]

The memorial of Hierissa of Tasella...s

COMMENTS:

Much about this inscription remains uncertain. The confusing translation by E. J. Goodspeed in Cobern's publication runs (no Greek text is given apart from the photograph): "In the month of Lous the priestess passed away ... on the eigth day of the year ... of Christ." Alt criticizes this translation and after reconsidering the photograph deciphers the word μημόριον. He thinks Ἱερίσσαϛ must be a name in the genitive, and does not reconstruct the rest of the inscription. Lehmann & Holum have not seen it and follow Lifshitz's text, which has an extra line in comparison to Cobern's reading. The name in that line, Τασέλλα, is interpreted by Lifshitz as a geographical name, for which he refers to CIJ 901; cf. also Robert for various versions of the name. Lehmann-Holum think it might be a matronymic; however, matronymics are rare in inscriptions and another Τασέλλα has not yet been found. At any rate, we cannot rule out this possibility completely.

The other name, Ἱερίσσα, is even more interesting and also not known from elsewhere. Lehmann-Holum hesitantly suggest that it is a commemoration of various Jewish priests, in which case Ἱερίσσαϛ should be read as Ἱερῖϛ (= -εῖϛ) σαϛ-. Since such a reading would blur the syntax and leaves us with the unclear syllable ΣΑΣ. This cannot be correct. Although a clear photograph is not yet available, we allow ourselves to make another, rather bold, suggestion. Perhaps we do have here a Ἱερίσσα, not one of the kind Cobern wants - a Christian 'priestess' is rather unlikely -, but in the Jewish sense of 'priestess', 'woman of priestly descent', living in Israel/Palestine (cf. CIJ 315 from Rome and the comments of P. W. van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, who notes about Jewish priests: 'Most probably these were kohanim in the sense of "descendants from Aaron", or "persons of Levitical descent" ...' (p. 96)). There were priests living in Caesarea; cf. Lehmann & Holum, Caesarea Maritima, no. 167, which is dated to the fourth - mid seventh century CE (editors don't provide a date for our inscription). Our reading would certainly gain plausibility, if the last (missing) line contained the name of this priestess: "The memorial of a priestess from Tasella, X."

The word μημόριον is used by Jews to denote a grave; cf. van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, pp. 41f., who lists all Greek words denoting 'grave' that occur in Jewish epitaphs and Lehmann & Holum, Caesarea Maritima, p.25, who warn us that "[n]one of these terms for the tomb is exclusive to Jewish or Christian usage, nor does any designate a particular type of tomb."

5. SEG 26.1697; CAT. II

Wadi Haggag (Sinai); graffiti on a rock; after 300 CE

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Negev, A., 'Inscriptions on Rock No. 5 in Wadi Haggag, Sinai', Eretz-Israel 12 (1975), 132-41 (in Hebrew, English summary on p. 123*)

-, The Inscriptions of Wadi Haggag, Sinai, Qedem Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology No. 6. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1977, No. 242, fig. 183 (with SEG 39.1635)

Di Segni, L., 'Heis theos in Palestinian Inscriptions', SCI 13 (1994), 94-115, no. 35b (with SEG 44.1340 and 1367)

TEXT AND TRANSLATION:

Negev's text:

Εἷϛ Θεὸϛ Υ ד Θ | ὁ βοηθῶν | Οὐαλέριοϛ Ἀντι|γούνου στρα|τηγόϛ. γ' ἰνδικτι(ῶνοϛ)

One God. God Highest. One. The helper of Valerius son of Antigonus, strategos. Third indiction year.

Di Segni's text:

Εἷϛ Θεὸϛ ΥϙΘ | ὁ βοηθῶν | Οὐαλέριοϛ Ἀντι|γούνου στρα|τηγόϛ. γ' ἰνδικτι(ῶνοϛ))

One God. One God the helper of Valerius son of Antigonus, strategos. Third indiction year.

 

COMMENTS:

This inscription is part of a large group found on the rocks of Wadi Haggag in the Sinai desert. In SEG only what is now called 'Rock No. 5' is treated (in his monograph Negev treats all the rocks and counts 267 inscriptions). We mention Rock No. 5 here, exempli gratia, because it contains the most interesting graffiti when it comes to the question of a Jewish origin. On the rock ten Greek and eighteen Nabataean inscriptions were found. "One remarkable feature is that no clear signs of Christianity were found with either of the inscriptions", Negev comments (p. 62). The present graffito is intriguing because of the three characters in the right top angle of the inscription. Negev suggests it contains a and Θ and reads this as an abbreviation of Θεὸϛ Ὕψιστοϛ. The character in between these two he considers to be a Hebrew dalet meaning, as an abbreviation, 'One'. Negev provides Jewish parallels for the formula Θεὸϛ Ὕψιστοϛ (cf. also CIJ 725a; SEG 26.1683, LXXGen. 14:18ff.; 1 Es. 6:13; 8:19-21; Jdt 13:18 among other passages). The question of the formula's Jewish character has, apparently, lost its importance almost completely with the article by Di Segni, who wants to read the three characters as the Greek ypsilon-koph-theta (ΥϙΘ), making up the number 499, which is the numerical value of Εἷϛ Θεὸϛ. This is more plausible than Negev's proposed reading, with its unparalleled usage of the dalet. Isopsephism, on the other hand, was very popular among all sorts of people in Egypt. What, then, points to a Jewish origin in this inscription? Certainly not the Εἷϛ Θεὸϛ formula (which we would now have twice), as Di Segni explains: it may be Jewish, but in most cases it was not (one should, however, ignore the remark in SEG 39.1635 that the formula 'is a clear sign of Christianity'). The two engraved palm branches are, as Negev states, not exclusively Christian or pagan; the symbol was used by Jews as well. One of the palm branches has seven leafs, which leads Negev to interpret it as a menorah. In SEG 39.1635 it is thought that this amounts to special pleading. Both personal names may be Jewish. Ilan refers to many occurrences of Ἀντίγονοϛ (Lexicon of Jewish Names pp. 263f.) and although the terminus ante quem for her corpus is 200 CE, there is no reason to assume that after this date the name disappeared.

Οὐαλέριοϛ is, of course, a Roman name (Valerius), but may constitute a worthy illustration of the theory explained by B.H. McLean, An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great down to the Reign of Constantine (232 B.C. - A.D. 337), Ann Arbor, 2002, 91f., namely that after Caracalla's citizenship edict in 212 CE, 'Jewish personal names were often absorbed into the Roman citizen's formula - becoming cognomina - and used for formal purposes.' McLean adds that 'the situation is complicated for the middle to late third century A.D. by the opposite tendency of persons of modest (and sometimes higher) status (including Jews) to drop the full citizen nomenclature in inscriptions in preference of a single personal name.' Rosen, 'Die Sprachsituation im roemischen Palaestina', p. 234, gives a different analysis of the matter by stating that Roman names could occur in Palestine via the Greek language in which they were common already. The Roman names, then, would be just as unsurprising as the Greek ones; this seems to us not to be entirely in keeping with the epigraphical evidence. In Ilan's onomasticon only 3% of all people bear a Latin name; Ilan suggests that these names were at first borne by Roman officials and 'did catch on occasionally' (p. 13). Either way, Οὐαλέριοϛ could be the name of a Jew, but not necessarily so.

Di Segni concludes about the Jewish nature of this inscription: '[t]he absence of Christian symbols suggests that the writer was a Jew.' (p. 106) We, however, would like to suggest that it is safer to consider the inscription as equally possibly Jewish, Christian, or pagan. The date offered by Negev is criticized in SEG 39.1635 and Di Segni; we follow SEG.