For Salvation's Sake: Provincial Loyalty, Personal Religion, and Epigraphic Production in the Roman and Late Antique Near East (Studies in Classics, Outstanding Dissertations, 3)

STUDIES IN CLASSICS Edited by Dirk Obbink Oxford University Andrew Dyck The University of California, Los Angeles A ROU...

Author: Jason Moralee

300 downloads 441 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

STUDIES IN CLASSICS Edited by Dirk Obbink Oxford University Andrew Dyck The University of California, Los Angeles A ROUTLEDGE SERIES

STUDIES IN CLASSICS DIRK OBBINK AND ANDREW DYCK, General Editors SINGULAR DEDICATIONS Founders and Innovators of Private Cults in Classical Greece Andrea L.Purvis EMPEDOCLES An Interpretation Simon Trépanier APHRODITE AND EROS The Development of Greek Erotic Mythology Barbara Breitenberger A LINGUISTIC COMMENTARY ON LIVIUS ANDRONICUS Ivy Livingston RHETORIC IN CICERO’S PRO BALBO An Interpretation Kimberly Anne Barber

“FOR SALVATION’S SAKE” Provincial Loyalty, Personal Religion, and Epigraphic Production in the Roman and Late Antique Near East

Jason Moralee

ROUTLEDGE New York & London

Published in 2004 by Routledge 29 West 35th Street New York, NY 10001 Published in Great Britain by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane London EC4P 4EE Copyright © 2004 by Routledge Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group. This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to http://www.ebookstore.tandf.co.uk/.” All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system without permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Moralee, Jason, 1973– “For salvation’s sake”: provincial loyalty, personal religion, and epigraphic production in the Roman and late antique Near East/Jason Moralee. p. cm.—(Studies in classics) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-203-48531-9 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-203-57896-1 (Adobe e-Reader Format) ISBN 0-415-96778-3 (Print Edition) (hardcover: alk. paper) 1. Middle East-History—To 622.2. Middle East—History–622–1517. 3. Middle East—Politics and government. 4. Middle East—Religion. 5. Salvation. 6. Inscriptions, Latin—Middle East. 7. Inscriptions, Greek-Middle East. I. Title. II. Series. DS62.M58 2004 939′.405–dc22

Contents LIST OF FIGURES

vi

LIST OF TABLES

vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ix

SERIES EDITORS’ FOREWORD

xii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

xiii

CHAPTER ONE Introduction CHAPTER TWO The Salutary Ideology CHAPTER THREE The Reception of the Salutary Ideology in the Near East CHAPTER FOUR The Demise and Transformation of the Salutary Ideology CHAPTER FIVE Pagan, Christian, and Jewish Dedications for Personal Salvation CHAPTER SIX Localizing Provincial Loyalty and Personal Religion: Three Case Studies CONCLUSION

APPENDIX

1 17 30 47 55 77 93

98

NOTES

158

BIBLIOGRAPHY

191

INDEX

204

List of Figures 1. Personification of Salvation depicted with features reminiscent of Salus Publica. Mosaic from the “Bath of Apolausis” near Antioch, fifth century A.D.

52

81 2. Adadiabos depicted in the very moment of asking his god for the salvation of himself, his children, and his household. Relief of Aphlad Theos, from the Temple of Aphlad, Dura Europos, A.D. 54.

List of Tables 1.

Dated Dedications for the Salvation of the Emperor by Emperor and Region

5

2.

Total Number of Inscriptions by Region

8

3.

Dated Inscriptions by Region

8

4.

The Religious Affiliation of the Dedicators of Inscriptions for the Salvation of Emperors and for Personal Salvation, 100 B.C.-A.D. 800

9

5.

Geographical Shift in Dedications for Personal Salvation

10

6.

Dated Dedications for Salvation from the Near East

10

7.

Dated Dedications for Salvation from Syria

11

8.

Dated Dedications for Salvation from Lebanon

11

9.

Dated Dedications for Salvation from Israel

11

10. Dated Dedications for Salvation from Jordan

12

11. Percentage of Roman, Greek, and Semitic Names by Region in the 33 Dedications for the Salvation of the Emperor 12. Percentage of Roman and Civil Occupations in the Dedications for 34 the Salvation of the Emperor 13. Gods Addressed in the Dedications for the Salvation of the Emperor

36

14. Percentage of Roman, Greek, and Semitic Names by Region in the 58 Pagan Dedications for Personal Salvation 15. Gods Addressed in the Pagan Dedications for Personal Salvation

59

16. The Distribution of Christian Dedications for Personal Salvation

64

17. Percentage of Roman, Greek, Semitic, Biblical, and Anonymous Names by Media in the Christian Dedications for Personal Salvation

66

List of Abbreviations AE

L’année épigraphique

AJA

American Journal of Archaeology

AJPh

American Journal of Philology

ANF

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids, MI, 1971–86

ANRW

Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Berlin, 1972–

Baumann, Spätantike Stifter

P.Baumann, Spätantike Stifter im Heiligen Land, Wiesbaden, 1999

BMCR

Bryn Mawr Classical Review

BMGS

Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies

BSOAS

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies

CAH

The Cambridge Ancient History, London, 1923–

CAHL

Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land, Jerusalem, 1990

CCL

Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina

CIG

Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, Berlin, 1828–77

CIJ

Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum, Rome, 1936

CIL

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin, 1862–1959

CRAI

Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres

DACL

Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, Paris, 1913–53

Dijkstra, Life and Loyalty

K.Dijkstra, Life and Loyalty: A Study in the SocioReligious Culture of Syria and Mesopotamia in the Graeco-Roman Period Based on Epigraphical Evidence, Leiden, 1995

Di Segni

L.Di Segni, Dated Greek Inscriptions from Palestine from the Roman and Byzantine Periods, Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997

DOP

Dumbarton Oaks Papers

Dura Report

The Excavations at Dura-Europos, Preliminary Report, New Haven, 1928–

Gregg and Urman

R.C.Gregg and D.Urman, Jews, Pagans, and Christians in the Golan Heights, Atlanta, 1996

IGLS

Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, Paris, 1929–

JRA

Journal of Roman Archaeology

JRS

Journal of Roman Studies

Kirk and Welles (1962)

G.E.Kirk and C.B.Wells, “The Inscriptions,” in Excavations at Nessana (Auja Hafir, Palestine), vol. 1, London, 1962

LCL

Loeb Classical Library

Lifshitz (1967)

B.Lifshitz, Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives: Répertoire des dédicaces grecques relatives à la construction et à la réfection des synagogues, Paris, 1967

Littmann IIIA

E.Littmann, D.Magie, Jr., and D.R.Stuart, Syria: Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria in 1904–5 and 1909, Division III, Greek and Latin Inscriptions, Section A, Southern Syria, Leiden, 1921

LSJ

H.G.Liddell and R.Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. ed., Oxford, 1996

MAMA

Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, Manchester, 1928–

NPNF

A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd ser., NewYork, 1890–1900

PBSR

Papers of the British School at Rome

PEFQ

Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly

PG

J.P.Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Paris, 1857–66

PIR

Prosopographia Imperii Romani

Prentice

W.K.Prentice, Greek and Latin Inscriptions, Part III of the Publications of an American Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1899–1900, New York, 1908

Prentice IIIB

W.K.Prentice, Syria: Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria in 1904–5 and 1909, Division III, Greek and Latin Inscriptions, Section B, Northern Syria, Leiden, 1922

RB

Revue biblique

RE

A.F.von Pauly, Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, new ed., Stuttgart, 1903–73

RIG

Roman Inscriptions in Britain, Oxford, 1965–

SC

Sources chrétiennes

SCI

Scripta Classica Israelica

SIG

Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3rd ed., Hildesheim, 1960

SEG

Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum

TAPA

Transactions of the American Philological Association

TDNT

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI, 1964–76

Wadd.

P.Le Bas and W.H.Waddington, Inscriptions grecques et latines recueilles en Asie Mineure, Hildesheim, 1972

Welles

C.B.Welles, Gerasa, City of the Decapolis: The Inscriptions, New Haven, 1938

Winkler, Salus

L.Winkler, Salus: Vom Staatskult zur politischen Idee, Heidelberg, 1995

YCS

Yale Classical Studies

ZDPV

Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins

ZPE

Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Series Editors’ Foreword Studies in Classics aims to bring high-quality work by emerging scholars to the attention of a wider audience. Emphasizing the study of classical literature and history, these volumes contribute to the theoretical understanding of human culture and society over time. This series will offer an array of approaches to the study of Greek and Latin (including medieval and Neo-Latin), authors and their reception, canons, transmission of texts, ideas, religion, history of scholarship, narrative, and the nature of evidence. While the focus is on Mediterranean cultures of the Greco-Roman era, perspectives from other areas, cultural backgrounds, and eras are to be included as important means to the reconstruction of fragmentary evidence and the exploration of models. The series will reflect upon the role classical studies has played in humanistic endeavors from antiquity to the present and explore select ways in which the discipline can bring both traditional scholarly tools and the experience of modernity to bear on questions and texts of enduring importance. Dirk Obbink, Oxford University Andrew Dyck, University of California, Los Angeles

Acknowledgments What follows is a substantially revised version of my University of California, Los Angeles doctoral dissertation filed in the spring of 2002. The list of individuals who have assisted me either professionally or personally since I began this project in 1999 would be too long to read. I hope they will forgive me for my tacit recognition of their collegiality, support, and friendship. Nevertheless, there is a handful of people and institutions I must thank explicitly. The Lady Davis Fellowship Trust granted me a research fellowship from 1999–2000, which allowed me to work with Hannah Cotton of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. With a dissertation-year fellowship from the UCLA Department of History, I continued my research in Germany, where I benefited immensely from discussions with Angelos Chaniotis of the University of Heidelberg. Most of the revisions and rethinking was done while I enjoyed a postdoctoral lectureship in the UCLA Department of History, during which I had access to the fine libraries and interlibrary loan services of the UC system and the Getty Research Institute. In addition, the support for faculty research in my current position has been wonderful. Tom Griffiths, Dean of Faculty at Illinois Wesleyan University, generously provided a substantial amount to offset publication costs. Above all, I warmly thank my dissertation advisor, Claudia Rapp, for her enduring patience and encouragement. I would also like to thank the other members of my doctoral committee, Ronald Mellor, Michael Morony, and Susan Downey. Susan Downey’s seminars on the material culture of the Roman Near East inspired this topic. Michelle Bonnice, Claudia Rapp, Andrew Dyck, Angelos Chaniotis, and Ronald Mellor read the dissertation with a view toward its appearance in this series. Their comments have been invaluable and undoubtedly saved me much embarrassment. Individual chapters have been read by Neil McLynn and the participants of PENATES, a biennial meeting of scholars in southern California sponsored by the MultiCampus Research Group in Late Antiquity. Meike Gotham, Thalia Anagnostopoulos, and Srdjan Rajkovic generously offered assistance on particular points. The errors that remain are, of course, my own. Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to my parents and grandparents by dedicating this to them.

Chapter One Introduction The task of the historian is first to recognize the seeds and to indicate—across all layers of debris—the continuity of development.1

People in the Roman world turned to the gods for “salvation” (sôtêria) from a range of destructive forces, known and unknown, mundane and supernatural. With just a little prodding, a few words, and a humble sacrifice, the gods would grant the ephemeral quality of sôtêria. Salvation did not last a lifetime, much less for eternity, for this salvation pertained to specific moments of anxiety, sickness, disorder, and dislocation. Often people asked the gods for the salvation of themselves and their families. Just as often they asked for the salvation of others, usually superiors to whom they were obligated, including patrons and especially the ultimate patron of the Roman world, the emperor. Herodian, a historian from Syria and a Roman official writing in the early third century A.D., mentions two instances. In 187, the emperor Commodus, the cruel son of Marcus Aurelius, survived yet another conspiracy. The official line must have stressed the gods’ role in the unraveling of the plot. Always wise in matters of state, the gods had saved their beloved Commodus, for after the conspirators had been executed, the emperor sacrificed to the goddess Hilaritas, whose festival day it happened to be, and voted a public thanksgiving. Dispelling any lingering doubt about the stability of the emperor’s imperium, Commodus confidently joined the procession of the goddess. With a collective sigh of relief, the people then celebrated Commodus’ salvation (sôtêria).2 Naturally, many were also eager to negotiate their own salvation, for which, once received, they would offer sacrifice and thanks to the gods. In a suspiciously dramatic narrative, Herodian records that the emperor Caracalla, after killing his brother and co-emperor Geta in the arms of their mother, rushed from the scene, shouting out that he had just been “saved” (sôthênai) from his brother’s treachery. He headed straight to the Praetorian Camp, where he entered the shrine of the Roman standards, prostrated himself before the images, and gave thanks and sacrificed for his own salvation (hômologei te charistêria ethue te sôtêria).3 In both accounts, Herodian is not interested in religion for its own sake. His intent is rather to show how bad emperors cynically used religious rituals—specifically the offering of thanks to the gods for sôtêria—to dupe the masses and mask political murder. For our purposes, the particular circumstances are not as important as the off-handed mention of the practice itself, specifically the emperor’s duty to the gods to perform sacrifice for his own salvation, and the participation of the people of Rome in offering thanks for the salvation of the emperor during a public festival. In this way, the Roman people affirmed that the emperor had been “saved” by the gods and also registered their abiding loyalty to the current emperor. For Herodian and his audience, all of this was

For salvation's sake

2

perfunctory, the humdrum of ceremonial life at the capital. By the third century, such rituals were indeed practiced not only in Rome but also in the far corners of the Roman world. Herodian’s audience was of course aware of this fact and must have been sensitive to the outrageousness of the abuse of standard religious rituals. This book is about the means by which a range of individuals and collectives secured salvation, their motivations, and those who were intended to receive the salutary benefits from the gods. Quite often, the means took the form of inscriptions that commemorated both the desire for salvation and its fulfillment through the formula hyper sôtêrias or pro salute, in Greek and Latin respectively, after which was normally written the name of the person who was to be, or had been, saved: “For the salvation of so and so.” What follows is a case study of the use of this epigraphic formula in the Near East. In this region, the formula hyper sôtêrias was in use for years before Rome arrived in the first century B.C. and absorbed the region in its vast, polyglot empire, and its use lasted until the middle of the eighth century A.D., when Greek was dying out as a spoken language and the region was ruled not from Rome, Constantinople, or Damascus but from Baghdad. Indeed, the formula is so common that editors, when they are confronted with yet another example of this type, shrug it off as a pious “ejaculation,” devoid of true religious sentiment or historical significance.4 Because of this attitude, there has been no attempt to understand the notable persistence of this formula and others like it over nearly a millennium. Since Roman provincial boundaries shifted over the centuries, sometimes in ways that we cannot fully follow in detail, the geographical focus will be the modern states of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel, rather than the equivalent Roman and early Byzantine provinces of Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, and Mesopotamia.5 Occasionally it will be necessary to journey outside these modern borders, to gather, for example, a rare inscription from the rafters of the chapel at Mt. Sinai, deep in the wastes of the Sinai Peninsula. During the 900 years that the formula was in use, from the first century B.C. to the eighth century A.D., it was used more or less constantly in the religious koinê of town, village, and countryside, among pagans, Christians, and Jews. This regional focus and chronological limit are ideal for a study of this type for two reasons. First of all, in this region, thousands of inscriptions have come to light, revealing a society that included a surprising variety of local cultures, all living with, and adapting to, the Roman military and administrative apparatus and, later, the rise of Christianity and the triumph of Islam. Second, despite the availability of evidence, the inscriptions from this region have received relatively little attention compared to those from either Asia Minor or Egypt.6 In the Greek world, dedications for sôtêria originated as a form of payment to the gods for a vow made during periods of danger and uncertainty. Thus sôtêria came to be part of the language used to express thanksgiving to the gods for salvation received or anticipated, tying the dedicator to the divine in a personal relationship.7 Unlike in other parts of the empire, in the Near East this mentality was not restricted to a Greek cultural milieu. There were also equivalents in the local languages that were in use among Babylonian elites in the first millennium B.C., revealing analogous religious mentalities that existed in the region for several centuries before the establishment of the Hellenistic kingdoms and the coming of Rome. Kings, for example, prayed to gods for their own “life” (namti) in exchange for the dedication of temples, wells, and fortresses.8 Imperial subjects also made offerings for the king and queen’s “life.” In one case, a temple magician made such a dedication on behalf of the queen.9 And some asked the gods for

Introduction

3

their own and their family’s “life.”10 A similar expression is found in Old Aramaic inscriptions from Iran (?) that date to the seventh century B.C.: CL HYY, “for life.” This Aramaic formula continued to be used virtually unchanged until the third century A.D. in Petra, Palmyra, Hatra, and elsewhere.11 Although native formulaic equivalents for sôtêria existed in a variety of languages, I would not want to posit a direct Semitic influence on Greek religious practice, since votive offerings to gods for salvation’s sake must have developed independently in the Near East and the Greek world.12 Still, it is plausible to suggest that the Greek idiom, attested from at least the second century B.C., found fertile ground in the cultures of the Near East, since there was already an epigraphic habit of this sort. Thereafter the Greek formula fused with these native traditions and joined the Aramaic formula in constituting part of the region’s religious imagination.13 It is important to keep these deep-seated traditions in mind as we consider the evidence from the Roman period. When people in the Near East began to make dedications for salvation’s sake in Greek and Latin, they were building upon a firmly established, older tradition, of which they may or may not have been fully aware. Moreover, this tradition and the mentality behind it might explain the density of dedications for salvation’s sake in the Near East, relative to the surrounding regions.

THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE In the Near East, dedications for salvation’s sake in Greek and Latin spanned the transition from the pre-Roman to the Roman period and from the Roman to the Christian period. There are two types of dedications: those made for the salvation of the emperor, and those made for personal salvation. The number and variety of sôtêria dedications for the salvation of emperors or personal salvation recorded in the Near East is substantial, more than 400 inscriptions. Including those with dubious readings, the total number of the dedications for the salvation of emperors is 191, virtually all of them in Greek. The dedications refer to twenty-four emperors, from Tiberius (A.D. 14–37) to Justinian (A.D. 527–65), over a 500-year period and were commissioned by individuals widely separated in space, from the plush steppe of northern Syria to the inhospitable mountains of the Sinai peninsula. However, nearly all of these dedications can be dated to the second and third centuries, the boom period of epigraphic production throughout the empire. The number for personal salvation is 221; these span a similar expanse of territory but a much longer time period. In my sample, the first dedication for personal salvation dates to 69 B.C. and the last to A.D. 762. Not included in this tally, however, are inscriptions that contain words related to sôtêria, such as those that thank the gods for “having been saved” (sôtheis), not an uncommon formulation;14 nor dedications in Aramaic that ask for the similar quality of “life.” “For the Salvation of the Emperor” Over two hundred individuals, some acting as groups, made dedications for the salvation of the emperor through the formula or its Latin equivalent pro salute. These dedications were set in a variety of contexts. In temple precincts, the pious visitor


4

might see dedications for the salvation of emperors on stoas, statue bases, and altars. As he entered the temple, he might also see such dedications on the walls flanking the entrance or on the massive lintel that framed the door. Walking through a well-off town or village, a visitor might notice that public buildings, such as gates, arches, nymphaea, theaters, and baths, were dedicated for the salvation of emperors. In the camp, a soldier might see dedications for the salvation of emperors on the walls of military structures, such as principia and fortresses. Public works projects, such as aqueducts, bridges, and roads, also bore such inscriptions. Take as an example this dedication from a temple at Hebran, a village in southern Syria:

For the salvation of Lord Caesar Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius, the temple was built from the sacred (funds), in the eighteenth year of Antoninus Caesar, the commissioners of the construction being Aristeidos, son of Thaimos, Uaithelos, son of Emmegnos, Emmeganê, son of Chamenos, ekdikoi, Thaimos, son of Abchoros, Enos, son of Masechos, Emmeganê, son of Naros, templetreasurers.15 It was A.D. 155 and the emperor was Antoninus Pius. The dedicators are otherwise unknown and the village insignificant. Nevertheless, this inscription, and the hundreds like it from throughout the empire, is a local affirmation of the imperial ideology. From the first to the fourth century, the rate at which inscriptions for the salvation of the emperor were produced mirrors the “epigraphic habit” of the Roman empire as a whole (see Table 1 and Table 6).16 After a scattering of dedications in the first century, a sharp rise occurred during the reign of Trajan and continued throughout the second century with the exception of a significant drop during the reign of Commodus. The cluster of epigraphic activity during the Golden Age of Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius is hardly surprising. This was a period of explosive urban development in the Near East, despite intermittent warfare, rebellion, and a major plague that struck in the latter half of the second century.17 After the death of Septimius Severus, the dedications continued, if at drastically lower rates, until the middle of the fourth century. But the epigraphic habit alone was not the only factor that fueled the production of these inscriptions. From Trajan on, the legend SALUS AUG appeared on coins consistently until the fourth century.18 The “salvation of the emperor” had thus become an official slogan of sorts, coinciding, no doubt, with the increased production of dedications for the salvation of emperors. In addition to sôtêria, the dedications contain key words that reflect different aspects of Roman imperial ideology. These dedications ask for the salvation and victory (nikê or victoria) of the emperor; salvation, victory, and safety (diamonê or incolumitas); salvation, fortune (tychê), and safety; salvation, safety, and concord (harmonia);

Introduction

5

Table 1 Dated Dedications for the Salvation of the Emperor by Emperor and Region Emperor

Israel

Jordan

Lebanon

Syria

Total

Tiberius

1

1

Claudius

2

2

Nero

1

Vespasian

3

3

Titus

1

1

Domitian

3

3

Trajan

1(L)

5

Hadrian

1

3, 1(L)

Antoninus Pius

1

8

Marcus Aurelius

2

5, 1(L)

Commodus

2

3

Septimius Severus

1

5, 8(L)

1

2

5

11

1, 1(L)

3

10

1, 3(L)

3

16

13

21

1

2, 1(L)

9

1(L)

2, 2(L)

19

3(L)

3, 2(L)

8

2, 1(L)

3

1

1

1

4

Philip

3

3

Valerian & Gallienus

3

3

Aurelian

2

2

Probus

1

1

10

10

Caracalla Severus Alexander Maximinus Thrax Gordian III

1

1, 1(L)

Diocletian & Maximian Maximin & Galerius

1

1

Constantine

1

1

Constantius II & Constans

2

2

Justinian Total

1 10

1 51

13

64

138

Note: (L) denotes the Latin formula pro salute.

salvation and concord; salvation, concord, and prosperity (eudaimonia); salvation and health (hygeia); and salvation and return (epanodos). Some of these formulas did not last long. For example, dedications for salvation and health flared up only in connection with the construction of an aqueduct in southern Syria under Trajan. Some arose relatively


6

late: dedications for the salvation and safety of the emperor began to appear in the latter half of the second century and were especially prominent in the early half of the third century. And some tended to concentrate regionally: most of the dedications for the salvation and victory of the emperor were made in Syria (encompassing parts of Roman Syria and Arabia), beginning during the joint reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, at a time when Rome was at war with the Parthian king of kings, and lasting until the fourth century, when the final dedications for the salvation of the emperor were made in the Near East at a time when Rome was again at war—this time with the Sasanian king of kings.19 The decline in the sôtêria dedications for emperors after the fourth century is dramatic: in the 204 years between A.D. 361 and 565, only one dedication survives.20 It was found at the Monastery of St. Catherine at Mt. Sinai. This obscure inscription, cut on a wooden panel used to decorate one of the ceiling beams that still support the chapel’s roof, pays homage to the monastery’s founder, Justinian the Great (A.D. 527–65):

+ For the salvation of our most pious emperor Justinian. +21 The utter physical and temporal isolation of this inscription is striking. No other dedication for the salvation of an emperor made in a church is known to me. Unlike most of the pagan dedications of this type, this dedication is virtually hidden from public view. This inscription was not meant to be read by human eyes. And unlike the earlier dedications, the dedicators in this case consciously chose to remain anonymous, an impulse that seems alien to the classical conception of the purpose of epigraphic writing. This one anomalous exception highlights the dearth of this once popular formula providing a stark contrast to the epigraphic habit in Late Antiquity: the sixth century, like the second century, was a boom period in epigraphic production, and during this time, dedications for personal salvation, as will be shown in detail shortly, continued almost without interruption.22 “For the Salvation of Me and My Own” After imperial dedications, the second major type of dedication for salvation involves individuals who sought salvation for themselves, their families, and, in some cases, their patrons. Pagan dedications for personal salvation were virtually all made in religious contexts. Individuals asked the gods for salvation, often in fulfillment of vows, by dedicating altars, statues, and cult reliefs. The language is essentially the same as that used in the dedications for the emperor’s salvation. Take the following inscription as a representative example:

Introduction

7

To Zeus Most High, the answerer of prayer, Iulios Eros, freedman of Gaios Iulios Bassos, erected this altar for the salvation of his son Iaeibas, in the year 490, in the month of Xandikos.23 This dedication was found displaced in a Muslim cemetery but was originally a votive altar dedicated in April A.D. 179 and left in one of the temples of Palmyra. Such inscriptions have rarely been treated as historically significant, except as examples of the awkward application of Greek among the less educated provincials. William K.Prentice, the editor of the inscription, noted: “The writer of this inscription evidently had very little idea of Greek syntax, or else the stone-cutter was extremely careless.”24 This fact can be interpreted in another way. For Iulios Eros, whatever his level of literacy, syntax and morphology were less important than form. By using a formulaic prayer, this freedman expected Zeus to listen and, if appeased by his gift, grant salvation to his (ailing?) son. In the Near East, the dedications for personal salvation predate those for the Roman emperors.25 In the Hellenistic period, as discussed in the next chapter, dedications for the salvation of rulers featured in the epigraphic habit of the age, itself a tradition that is related to the use of the formula in the language of decrees since at least the fourth century B.C.26 In my sample, the first dedication for the salvation of an emperor was made in A.D. 22/23 at Gerasa in Jordan.27 By contrast, 90 years earlier, in 69/68 B.C., a certain Apollophanês dedicated a column for personal salvation at a local temple near Majdal Anjar in Lebanon.28 Similarly, at Dura Europos, an isolated city on the Syrian Euphrates just within the western-most territories of the Parthian empire, eight dedications for personal salvation appear in the first century A.D., beginning in 31/32, more than 100 years before the first dedications for the salvation of the emperor appear in the city.29 What are the number and distribution of the dedications for personal salvation? It would seem natural, counting absolute numbers and momentarily ignoring differences in distribution over time, that such inscriptions would significantly outnumber the dedications for the emperors, since there were obviously more individuals than emperors in need of salvation. But that is not the case. The number of dedications for personal salvation is only slightly higher as a whole. During the first three centuries, such dedications were far less common than the dedications for the salvation of the emperor: in this period, the total number of dedications for the salvation of the emperor (excluding those with dubious readings) is 173, for personal salvation, 59. By contrast, while dedications for the salvation of the emperor died out after the fourth century, dedications for personal salvation became relatively common from the fourth through the sixth century: 147 examples survive. Broken down according to region, the number of dated and undated inscriptions is presented in Table 2 and Table 3. Along with Table 2 and Table 3, Tables 6 through 10 show, at least in the broadest possible sense, the temporal and geographical distribution of dedications for the salvation of emperors and dedications for personal salvation in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel. For these tables, I had to rely on the dated inscriptions, which admittedly can be deceptive. Specifically, dated inscriptions constitute a small percentage of dedications for personal salvation. If it were possible to chart the 150-odd undated dedications, the tables would more accurately represent the pagan dedications for personal salvation, especially in Lebanon, where only two out of twenty-three pagan dedications for personal salvation


8

are dated. Furthermore, most Christian dedications are likewise undated, obscuring the intensity of the dedicatory habit in Late Antiquity.

Table 2 Total Number of Inscriptions by Region Israel

Jordan

Lebanon

Syria

Total

Emperors

10

65

25

74

174

Personal

59

30

29

92

210

Total

69

95

54

166

384

Table 3 Dated Inscriptions by Region Israel

Jordan

Lebanon

Syria

Total

Emperors

10

51

13

64

138

Personal

19

12

9

55

95

Total

29

60

24

113

226

The persistence of the habit of making dedications for personal salvation in Late Antiquity allows us to appreciate not only the conservative nature of epigraphic language and religious sentiment but also how the use of the formula shifted in subtle ways. Take as an example this dedication from a Jewish synagogue built at the end of the fourth century A.D. in Apamea, a booming provincial capital perched above the Orontes River in Syria:

Ilasios, son of Isaac, archisynagogos of Antioch, made the mosaic of the entrance for the salvation of Phôtion, (his) wife, and children and for the salvation of Eustathia, (his) mother-in-law, and in memory of Isaac and Aidesios and Hêsychion, (his) ancestors. Peace and mercy on all your blessed community.30 On the face of it, the impulse behind this inscription, indeed the very language used, was shared by Iulios Eros, the freedman from Palmyra who sought salvation for his son more than 200 years earlier. However, this inscription and all the other Jewish and Christian inscriptions like it work under a fundamentally different assumption. Beyond the registering of names and the fulfillment of simple religious obligations, these inscriptions asserted membership in a religious community defined by its own traditions and boundaries. Likewise, these inscriptions asserted membership, in a local sense, in a specific synagogue or church. Ilasios asks his God (here not explicitly mentioned, but to be inferred from context) for the salvation of himself and members of his family. This much is to be expected. But by including the prayer for his community in the final line,

Introduction

9

Ilasios represents himself to God and his peers as the head of his family and the leader of an entire religious community (plêthos). Moreover, for Ilasios the inscription functioned as a memorial. The addition of the formula “in memory” (hyper mnias) to the dedication for salvation’s sake signals his intent to use the inscription as a bridge between the living and the dead within his own family as well as between the dead and the community from which they departed.31 In conjunction with the founding, decoration, and refurbishing of churches and, to a lesser extent, synagogues, there was a revival of the epigraphic habit in the sixth century and an accompanying increase in the number of dedications for personal salvation throughout the Near East.32 We can imagine the change visually. Even though the tradition of making dedications for personal salvation certainly had deep roots in the Near East, as evidenced by a number of pagan dedications beginning in the first century B.C., individuals made dedications for the emperors in greater numbers during the first four centuries. Walking through a city or village in this period, one would undoubtedly see many dedications for the salvation of emperors embedded in a variety of locations, from the theater and hippodrome to the city gates to the humble altars left to collect dust in temples. By the sixth century, however, dedications for the emperor were relics of the past, at most the raw material for Christian buildings, while dedications for personal salvation were appearing in large numbers, though primarily localized in religious places, such as churches and synagogues. Indeed, Christians and Jews demanded that God grant them and their families salvation at rates far surpassing their pagan predecessors; they were responsible for about seventy percent of all such dedications (see Table 4). Dedications for personal salvation in Late Antiquity appeared in new locations, particularly in Israel and Jordan. In the biblical Holy Land, Christian and Jewish communities flourished. They built churches, monasteries, and synagogues, decorated them with mosaic pavements, and left inscriptions to record the names of the dedicators. Tables 5 through 10 show that for many in these communities in this region, dedications for salvation’s sake became part of the language of public life to a degree not attested before the sixth century. Significantly, the only pagan dedication for personal salvation found in Israel, dated roughly to the third century, was initially preserved not by the careful work of archaeologists but by Late Antique Christians, who reused it in the church at Horvath Hesheq.33

Table 4 The Religious Affiliation of the Dedicators of Inscriptions for the Salvation of Emperors and for Personal Salvation, 100 B.C.-A.D. 800 Emperors Pagan

Personal

Total

171

62

233

Christian

1

125

126

Jewish

1

23

24

173

210

383

Total


10

Table 5 Geographical Shift in Dedications for Personal Salvation Israel Pagan

Jordan

Lebanon

Syria

Total

1

0

22

37

60

Christian

47

30

6

44

127

Jewish

11

0

1

11

23

Total

59

30

29

92

210

Not only did the formula for personal salvation predate the arrival of Rome and come to flourish in Late Antiquity, it also survived the eclipse of Roman rule in the Near East. After more than a century of Muslim rule, the last dedication for salvation in this region was made in 762 at a monastic site in Jordan near Mt. Nebo, where Moses was said to have taken his first glimpse of the Holy Land. This inscription, dated according to the World Era and surrounded by a depiction of the four rivers of Eden, shows how “Christian” the formula had become, and marks the end of a 1,000-year tradition in the Near East.

34

Through God’s foresight, this revered monastery of the Holy Theotokos was founded under Job, bishop of Medaba, and George, recluse, for the salvation of those who have made offerings, in the fifteenth year of the indiction, year 6270.

Table 6 Dated Dedications for Salvation from the Near East (n=226)

Introduction

11

Table 7 Dated Dedications for Salvation from Syria (n=113)

Table 8 Dated Dedications for Salvation from Lebanon (n=24)

Table 9 Dated Dedications for Salvation from Israel (n=29)


12

Table 10 Dated Dedications for Salvation from Jordan (n=60)

The identity of the intended audience for personal inscriptions is a complicated question. On the face of it, the dedications found in a religious context address the gods or God of the sanctuary, whether pagan, Christian, or Jewish. The dedicators assumed that these divine forces were literate in either Greek or Latin and that they would be persuaded to grant salvation by votive inscriptions or satisfied with the thanks thus conveyed for salvation already granted. Mostly located in prominent places, these dedications also functioned as public documents. For example, at Gerasa three of the major entrances to the city bore dedications for the salvation of emperors.35 The Gerasenes who set up these inscriptions sought to impress those entering the city by publicly declaring their loyalty to the state. How literate a person needed to be in order to read such a dedication is of course impossible to measure. Yet, the ability to read a formulaic inscription, to make out a name and a few key words, is hardly too much to ask of an ancient viewer. For the dedicator and his audience, inscriptions were intended to be texts and monuments. In a society that was painfully self-conscious of personal status, the dedications for salvation’s sake functioned to profile the dedicator’s role as patron and benefactor of his community.36 Once read and the formula recognized, what meaning did sôtêria (or salus) convey? Part of the answer has little to do with the word itself, since inscriptions have a purely symbolic function as a way for individuals to inscribe themselves into posterity. In this regard, the registering of names was a crucial function of all inscriptions.37 Yet, sôtêria certainly meant something to those who referred to it in inscriptions. Werner Foerster and Georg Fohrer, in a series of articles included in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, have produced an exhaustive survey of the meanings and uses of sôtêria and related words.38 Taking into account the long history of the word in pagan, Jewish, and Christian texts, Foerster and Fohrer point out that sôtêria primarily meant bodily salvation, including physical and psychological healing, safety, protection, and deliverance, which could be attained from either gods or men. This earthly understanding of sôtêria permeated the vocabulary and religious mentality of all Greek-speakers, irrespective of their religious formation or inclination. Only rarely—in a handful of Jewish and Christian texts—does the term refer to the eschatological event of

Introduction

13

redemption, when the Messiah will wash away sin and grant eternal life to the believer. For the sake of uniformity, the term that is used consistently throughout this study to translate sôtêria is “salvation,” since the range of meanings is rather slippery.

THE PRESENT WORK AND PREVIOUS SCHOLARSHIP To my knowledge, there is no previous study of the regional scope of the epigraphic formula hyper sôtêrias. The most insightful scrutiny of the formula has been in the scholarship concerning the development, iconography, and significance of the cult of Salus at Rome, which emerged in the late fourth century B.C. This goddess personified the enduring salvation of the Roman state from sedition and warfare. Early on, she was worshipped as Salus Publica. By the end of the first century A.D., her name changed: Salus Publica became Salus Augusta and, later, Salus Augusti. The specifically imperial connotation of her designation as the Augustan Salvation corresponded to a ruling ideology that proclaimed the emperor to be the savior of the kosmos. In order to affirm the emperor’s special role as savior of the world, imperial subjects, including senators, were expected to make sacrifices and consecrate vows annually or on special occasions for the salvation of the emperor and the state. As a handy gloss, I have dubbed this set of ideas the salutary ideology, since the notion was promulgated actively by the state as part of Rome’s justification for empire.39 This term does not mark the discovery of new territory; rather, it is a new name for what has become familiar in other terms. Lorenz Winkler, for example, has used the terms Salusvorstellung and Heilsvorstellung interchangeably to describe the ideological basis for the propagation of the official cult of Salus on coins throughout the empire.40 In Chapter 2, I provide a brief overview of the salutary ideology from the first to the fourth century A.D. It will be argued that dedications that ask the gods for the salvation of the emperor (hyper sôtêrias Sebastou or pro salute imperatoris) are, like the numismatic and literary evidence, manifestations of the salutary ideology. Scholars have long noted that dedications pro salute imperatoris/hyper sôtêrias Sebastou are expressions of imperial ideology. Seen against this back-drop, dedications for the emperor’s salvation become evidence for the local acceptance of Roman rule. For example, these dedications have been seen as traces of the imperial cult in regions such as Germany and Asia Minor.41 Others see them, quite generically, as an affirmation of loyalty to the state.42 The significance of the present study is its regional and chronological scope. This allows us to see dedications for salvation’s sake in specific contexts and also in the long term. From this height, we can see not only beyond the disappointment that the epigrapher feels upon considering yet another example of the vacuous language of isolated and decontextualized votive texts but also beyond the generic significance usually ascribed to these inscriptions as attestations of the imperial cult and provincial loyalty. In Chapter 3, we consider why people affirmed the salutary ideology in the form of inscriptions, the terms they used, the contexts of the inscriptions, and the identity of the dedicators. Exploring these issues will reveal the complex ways in which affirmation of imperial ideology in this form intersected with the political, social, and religious concerns of a broad spectrum of elites and collectives. The aggregate of the inscriptions, in other words, allows us to analyze the ways in which dedications for the


14

emperor’s salvation became embedded in city, village, and countryside. Chapter 4 considers the demise of the salutary ideology as affirmed through inscriptions and the transformation and survival of this ideology in other spheres. In probing the significance of the dedications for the emperors, we must also consider the dedications for personal salvation. I argue that both types of dedications should be treated together. People made dedications for the salvation of the emperor and dedications for personal salvation simultaneously, and both types persisted in the physical spaces that people in the Near East inhabited in the first three centuries. Indeed, there is some evidence that individuals made dedications both for the salvation of the emperor and for the salvation of themselves and family members on the same objects. What is the connection, if any, between the two types of dedication? Does the use of the one shed light on the use of the other? In Chapter 5, I suggest that those who made dedications for the salvation of the emperor were tapping the deeply rooted tradition of making dedications for personal salvation, a tradition that in this region stretches back hundreds of years. To ask the gods for the emperor’s salvation was not only to affirm the ideological claims of the state but also to seek for him what they might seek for their own children. In this sense, loyalty to the state was cast in the most intimate of terms. Dedications for personal salvation have received little attention, except for Christian examples dated to the sixth century, which are sometimes claimed, misleadingly, to have been inspired by those for the emperor, or as exempla for pagan notions of salvation. A.D.Nock, for example, understood the desire for sôtêria as rooted in “primitive religion,” which “seeks to satisfy a number of natural needs.” To make provision for attaining salvation was therefore a rational way of living in a world full of inexplicable troubles: “Soteria and kindred words carried no theological implications; they applied to deliverance from perils by sea and land and disease and darkness and false opinions, all perils of which men were fully aware.”43 This mundane desire for salvation, as Richard Reitzenstein revealed long ago, was the ultimate goal for initiates into the mysteries, not salvation in the eschatological sense. Walter Burkert has echoed these views in his recent study of the mysteries.44 In addition to going through costly initiations or sending up prayers along with burnt sacrifices to the gods, people purchased magical amulets inscribed with prayers to receive salvation from terrible chthonic gods.45 This earthly sense of sôtêria persisted in the dedicatory inscriptions of synagogues, churches, and monasteries, though a few argue that the formula was charged with new significance under the influence of a particularly Christian notion of sôtêria. To ask for “salvation” in a church through the formula hyper sôtêrias was to ask for the eternal salvation granted only by Christ.46 The epigraphers, who have done the spadework of bringing the inscriptions to light— through cleaning, restoring, editing, and publishing editions of, and commentaries on, the inscriptions—have had surprisingly little to say about hyper sôtêrias. The initial discussions focused on formulas discovered in Christian inscriptions from the early Byzantine period. Two French epigraphers working in Jerusalem in the late nineteenth century, Paul Séjourné and E.Germer-Durand, provided some of the earliest comments on the formula. In the first issue of the journal Revue biblique, published in 1892, Séjourné translated an inscription as asking “for the salvation (sôtêria) of Sophronia’s soul and for the repose (anapausis) of Barichê.” The word “soul,” however, is nowhere to be found in the actual inscription. By referring to Sophronia’s “soul” in his translation, Séjourné

Introduction

15

introduced a blatantly Christian reading of the text that invoked the future salvation brought through Christ’s forgiveness of sin. Later, in the same volume of the journal, Germer-Durand implicitly contested the assumption that sôtêria referred to the Christian “salvation of the soul.” While, according to Germer-Durand, the formula did have a specifically Christian coloring, he noted that the use of the formula is ultimately derived from the pagan sense of sôtêria as a quality referring to affairs of this world and not the next: “Cette formule, qui ne s’appliquait chez les païens qu’au salut du corps, c’est-àdire, à la santé, a, dans la langue chrétienne, un sens plus étendu. Salutem mentis et corporis, disons-nous dans la prière liturgique.” This insight laid the foundation for the current view of the formula as rooted in a pagan mentality.47 In 1902, William K.Prentice, an American epigrapher, put further emphasis on the pagan roots of the Christian use of hyper sôtêrias. In a discussion on the possible Christian liturgical source for hyper sôtêrias, Prentice suggested that the formula may have been derived from dedications for the “salvation and victory” of the emperor, “a stereotyped formula…which occurs frequently in the inscriptions of Syria.”48 This view was followed some years later by Peter Thomsen, a German epigrapher responsible for publishing all the known Greek and Latin inscriptions from Jerusalem.49 It was surely correct to root the Christian formula in the pagan past, but Prentice and Thomsen failed to highlight the influence of pagan dedications for personal salvation, which had a longer history in the Near East than the dedications for the emperors. Even though 100 years have passed since Prentice’s article appeared, his privileging of the dedications for the emperors has remained unshaken. Peter Baumann, in his recent study of the images and inscriptions found in Late Antique synagogues and churches from the Holy Land, began his discussion of the Christian epigraphic formulas with hyper sôtêrias. Baumann correctly insists, as Germer-Durand, Prentice, and Thomsen did, that the Christian formula shows a continuity of a pagan religious mentality in Late Antiquity. The example that Baumann provides, however, is a long dedication from Gerasa for the salvation of the emperor, which he then compares to a Christian dedication for personal salvation, thus ignoring the rich evidence at hand for more comparable data: the pagan dedications for personal salvation.50 How can we explain this undue favoring of the dedications for the emperors as the model for Christian dedications for personal salvation, when this genealogy is false? After all, Christians and Jews after the fourth century did not make dedications for the salvation of the emperor! The reason for the scholarly emphasis on dedications for the salvation of the emperor is twofold. First, these dedications do indeed tell us about the spread of imperial ideology in the provinces and perhaps also provide information concerning changes in the selfrepresentation of the emperor.51 The other part of the reason is less historically based, having to do with an intellectual bias that the art historian Thomas Mathews calls the “Emperor Mystique.” Mathews points out, quite convincingly, that scholars of early Christian art have labored under the false assumption that Christians adopted official, imperial models to build a Christian elite culture after the conversion of the emperor Constantine to Christianity in 312. In this scheme, it becomes self-evident to argue that Christ was depicted as the super-emperor and Christian liturgical service simply adapted imperial court ceremonial. In short, all Christian culture must have imperial precedent or be derived from imperial ideology. This, according to Mathews, creates “a selfconfirming system which pretends to accommodate all the evidence while actually


16

practicing a radical exclusion.”52 Though it was not his subject, Mathews might have mentioned Christian epigraphy in his critique of the “Emperor Mystique.” When the epigraphers began publishing the Christian hyper sôtêrias inscriptions, rather than going back to pre-Roman, not to mention Aramaic, evidence for the use of the formula for personal salvation, this evidence was excluded. They became mesmerized, as it were, by the glow of those inscriptions that include the emperor’s name.53 This is problematic. Beyond drawing an inaccurate line of descent, this genealogy obscures the significance of the pagan dedications for personal salvation for what they can tell us about religious attitudes and the role of these inscriptions in daily life. This bias also keeps us from asking how the two types of dedications—those for the emperor and those for personal salvation—might have informed the meanings associated with each one. The themes of this study—the local use and significance of dedications for the salvation of the emperor and dedications for personal salvation, the transformation of the salutary ideology, and the persistence of the desire for salvation in the epigraphy of Late Antiquity—come together in Chapter 6. Turning from the general conclusions drawn in the preceding chapters to the particular use of these dedications in certain locations, I consider the use and reuse of dedications for salvation’s sake in Heliopolis and the villages and cult sites of the Bekaa Valley, in Dura Europos, and in Gerasa. In each case, one senses the importance of formulas in general and key words, such as sôtêria, in particular for the articulation of fundamental values. Far from being just innocuous ejaculations, formulas provided people with the means of communicating complicated ideas and emotions across vast distances of time and space: loyalty to the distant emperor and to local patrons, piety to the gods, protectiveness of the family, and rememberance in the history of a place, whether a shrine, a city, or a village.

Chapter Two The Salutary Ideology THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SALUTARY IDEOLOGY Before analyzing the dedications for the emperors, we must provide an overview of the origin and development of what is referred to here as the salutary ideology.1 Then we turn to a scattering of literary sources to indicate how the salutary ideology was promulgated in the provinces, for a sense of how it was received, whether enthusiastically, with reservation, or, in rare cases, with hostility. This literary evidence provides the background and interpretive framework needed for understanding isolated individual inscriptions as well as the concentrations of inscriptions under discussion here, while careful consideration of the epigraphic material adds contour to the image that can be pieced together from the literary sources. As will become apparent in the following pages, mentions of the salutary ideology in literary sources do not reveal why individuals and communities displayed loyalty to the state by making dedications for the salvation of the emperor. These sources do, however, establish that such an ideology was promulgated and that it had an impact on the lives of those living under Roman rule. The epigraphic material, which will be discussed in the chapters to come, does show the provincial perspective on this ideology, however. By the death of Augustus, a specifically Roman imperial ideology was established around symbols and slogans that advertised the emperor’s role in “saving” the state from its enemies. This salutary ideology came together in the fractious days of the Late Republic from the fusion of the native Roman cult of Salus Publica and the Hellenistic veneration of saviors (sôtêres). Beginning in the fourth century B.C., Romans venerated the Italian goddess Salus Publica as the guarantor of the “salvation” (salus) of the state (Livy 9.43.25, 10.1.9), rather than attributing victory to the individual Romans who fought in battle.2 It was taboo to honor individual Romans in this way due to Rome’s traditional hatred of kings. The Roman conception of who was ultimately responsible for Rome’s military success and the safety of her people placed that responsibility on the goddess Salus, not on generals. This attitude would change. In the Late Republic, Rome’s generals, as they became enmeshed in the politics of the Hellenistic world, encountered a culture that publicly celebrated saviors, both human and divine, in festivals called Sôtêria.3 The earliest Sôtêria festivals were held in Priene (297 B.C.) and Delphi (279 B.C.). These festivals commemorated historical acts of salvation and venerated both the heroes and the gods who had saved the cities in which the festivals were held. In the case of Delphi, the Sôtêria celebrated the salvation of the city from the advance of Brennos, a Celt who planned to sack the shrine and carry off its vast treasure as plunder. Delphi was an international cult-site that attracted Greeks from throughout the Mediterranean world. During the Sôtêria, therefore, sacrifices were made for the salvation of the shrine itself and of all Greeks. Other Sôtêria festivals were soon established, drawing crowds with the


18

promise of gymnastic, equestrian, and musical competitions. Less dramatic acts of salvation might also be celebrated: Anne Bielman has recently assembled a corpus of inscriptions from the Greek world that commemorate the salvation of captives. Those who provided money to pay ransoms were hailed as liberators for securing the sôtêria of those taken as prisoners of war or abducted by pirates.4 In addition to such celebrations, Rome’s generals encountered a culture that honored living rulers as saviors (sôtêres) and asked the gods for the rulers’ salvation.5 Dedications for the salvation of Hellenistic kings appeared in the East at the beginning of the second century B.C. in response to the ruling ideology, promulgated by the successors of Alexander, that the king was the savior of his people.6 For example, five slave manumissions from Susa (modern Iran), mostly broken away after the preambles, illustrate this ideological claim and show how it was reflected at the local level. Dated from 200 to 142/141 B.C., the inscriptions involve the transfer of slaves to the Temple of Nanaïa, a local goddess associated with Artemis. The slaves would serve the goddess for a specified number of years and then be released. To add solemnity to the manumissions, the slave owners asked the goddess for the salvation of the Seleucid kings and their wives.7 In addition to showing veneration for the ruler, hyper sôtêrias was used symbolically in Hellenistic diplomacy. A series of inscriptions from the walls of the Temple of Cybele at Pessinus in Asia Minor preserves the correspondence between Attalus II, the king of Pergamon, and Attis, the temple priest (163–156 B.C.). In one letter, Attalus writes to acknowledge that the priest, an indispensable political ally in the region, had “made sacrifices to the gods for our salvation” 8

To ask the gods for the salvation of the king was the priest’s way of ritually affirming his loyalty to his Pergamene ally. Hellenistic imperial ideology deeply influenced Roman ideas of rulership in the Late Republic. In the second century B.C., during the conquest of the East, Roman commanders received cultic honors as “saviors” (sôtêres). Statues of famous Greeks and Romans stood on inscribed bases that honored the men depicted above them as saviors.9 The first Roman to take such a title was T.Quinctius Flamininus, who in 196 B.C. was celebrated as a savior at the Isthmia for having liberated the Greeks from Philip V and was later voted divine honors (Plut. Flam. 10; Polyb. 18.46.10ff). Though such accolades were unheard of in the past, Romans began to honor their own citizens as saviors by awarding them the corona civica, an oak crown that had been bestowed until the last century of the Republic on only those who had saved the life of another citizen, not on those who had saved the state from danger. Thus Cicero, for his role in thwarting the Catilinarian conspiracy, received the corona civica (Pis. 6), and Caesar received the same crown after the civil wars had left him the sole guarantor of the salus publica. Octavian inherited his uncle’s role as savior; even Cicero praises the young man for restoring the salus rei publicae (Phil 3.27). After defeating Antony and taking the name Augustus, the first Roman emperor received the corona civica for delivering the state and its citizens from grave danger, ob cives servatos (RG 34.2), just as Cicero and Caesar had. Now the ruler of Rome was the savior of his people, like the Hellenistic monarchs defeated by Rome’s generals.10 During his 40-year reign, Augustus gradually established the idea that the emperor was the savior of Rome as a ruling ideology through the revival of religious ritual, the institutionalization of vows for the salvation of the empire and the emperor, and the

The salutary ideology

19

dissemination of state religious observances to the far corners of the empire in the form of festival calendars. This is a large topic,11 but a few examples will have to suffice. A key element in the development of this ideology was Augustus’ interest in the archaic priesthood of the Arval Brothers. Their duties included the provision of costly sacrifices for the salvation of the reigning emperor.12 This was a solemn duty, for, as one of their inscriptions states, the salvation of all depends on the safety of the emperor: ex cuius incolumitate omnium salus constat.13 The Arval Brothers did not bear this responsibility alone. Augustus, it would seem, ensured that such ceremonies would be celebrated from high to low, in Rome and in all the cities of the empire. In his own proud words: The senate decreed that vows should be undertaken every fifth year by the consuls and priests for my health [vota pro valetudine mea]. In fulfillment of these vows games have frequently been celebrated in my lifetime, sometimes by the four most distinguished colleges of priests, sometimes by the consuls. Moreover, all the citizens, individually and on behalf of their towns, have unanimously and continuously offered prayers at all the pulvinaria for my health.14 In the Greek copy of this document found inscribed on the Temple of Rome and Augustus at Ankara, vota pro valetudine mea is rendered showing that the meaning of valetudo, at least in this period, was equated with that of sôtêria, or salvation. Thus when vota were offered on behalf of the emperor in the eastern provinces, they were expressed by the formula hyper sôtêrias. It should be recalled, moreover, that this was language typical in the veneration of living Hellenistic kings.15 By A.D. 38, the prayers for the salvation of state and emperor were fixed. On 1 January, prayers were offered for the salvation of the empire. Two days later, on 3 January, prayers were offered for the emperor’s salvation by priesthoods, such as the quindecimviri sacris faciundis and the Arval Brothers.16 Such vota, extraordinary in the past, now became institutionalized as part of the official calendar of the Roman state. More than 200 years after the death of Augustus, the Arval Brothers were still climbing the Capitoline Hill on 3 January to ask the chief gods of the state for the emperor’s salvation. Soldiers stationed at Dura Europos followed the same calendar, more or less, established by Augustus, and they, like the Arval Brothers worlds away in the capital, offered vota ob salutem domini nostri Augusti on 3 January.17 These vows likewise became a test of loyalty for individuals in Rome and in the provinces. In A.D. 37, an embassy from Assos, a city on the western coast of Asia Minor, arrived in Rome to swear an oath of loyalty to the emperor on behalf of their city. Before departing, they climbed the Capitoline Hill and sacrificed to Jupiter Capitolinus for the salvation of the emperor.18 A dramatic example of the formula’s use as a loyalty test is highlighted by the fate of Thrasea Paetus. A senator opposed to Nero’s flamboyant disregard for Roman tradition, Paetus was condemned for disloyalty. His detractors pointed out before the senate that Paetus had failed to take the loyalty oath (ius iurandum), neglected the New Year vows, and refused to offer the customary sacrifices both for the emperor’s salvation and, in this case, for the emperor’s divine voice. Rather than face Nero’s justice, Paetus took his own life.19


20

In the decades following Augustus’ death, the connection between the salus of the state and the salus of the emperor grew stronger. Salus Publica became venerated as Salus Augusta, further associating the goddess to the person of the emperor. By the reign of Vespasian, Salus Augusta began to be identified as Salus Augusti (Salvation of the Emperor)—the genitive, Winkler argues, signifying that the personification of salus was no longer a divinity independent of the emperor’s person.20 This assimilation surely coincided with the diffusion in the provinces of the notion that the emperor’s salvation guaranteed the salvation of the entire empire and all its inhabitants. According to slogans publicized in the second century, the emperor claimed universal authority and propagated the notion that he was the savior of the world.21 The emperor’s representatives abroad, particularly provincial governors and military officials, could therefore demand public recognition of the emperor’s role as savior. In response, the provincials offered vows for the salvation of the emperor (pro salute Augusti or hyper sôtêrias Sebastou).22 In this way, provincial loyalty was expressed through the fulfillment of a simple obligation; the salvation of the state and its inhabitants depended on the salvation of the emperor, both of which could be secured through offering vota pro salute Augusti.23 By the beginning of the second century, vota for the salvation of the emperor were a regular part of everyday life in the provinces. At least until the middle of the fourth century, they accompanied not only the New Year celebrations, but also other events, such as anniversaries of the emperor’s accession and religious festivals. Threats against the emperor, including sickness in the imperial household, declarations of war, trips outside Rome, political unrest, and plots against the emperor, also demanded such dedications.24 Petitions (libelli) to the emperor himself sometimes began with a prayer for the emperor’s salvation or an acknowledgment of the emperor’s salutary power. A village now in Bulgaria wrote to Gordian III in the first half of the third century A.D. to ask for help against marauding soldiers. They began their petition by stating that the emperors’ policy of maintaining the prosperity of villages is long-standing. “This policy,” they continue, “is both salvation (sôtêria) to the people and profitable to your most sacred fisc.”25 To understand how the salutary ideology took root in such places, let us now turn to the letters that Pliny the Younger wrote to Trajan while Pliny was governor of Bithynia. His reports provide evidence for the promulgation and enthusiastic reception of the salutary ideology in the provinces.

PLINY THE YOUNGER AND THE PROMULGATION OF IMPERIAL IDEOLOGY The correspondence between Trajan and Pliny the Younger supplies a wealth of information about the administration of the empire. Pliny painstakingly documented the problems that he encountered, often consulting the emperor for solutions. The bestknown letter exchange is that regarding the status of Christians in his province.26 He reports that Christians were being accused of forming illegal associations. To restore order and defuse tensions, Pliny organized interrogations in which accused Christians were asked to sacrifice before a statue of the emperor. The episode reveals that the imperial governor was in charge of maintaining order, proper religious observance, and loyalty to the state, all of which were interrelated in the eyes of the emperor.27


21

A handful of letters show that Pliny was similarly responsible for leading public sacrifices for the salvation of the emperor on festival days such as 3 January, when people throughout the empire were making vows for the salvation of the emperor. Reporting on this festive occasion as it was celebrated in Nicomedia, Pliny writes: We have made our annual vows, Sir, to ensure your safety [incolumitas] and thereby the salvation [salus] of the State, and discharged our vows for the past year, with prayers to the gods to grant that those vows may always thus be discharged and confirmed.28 The emperor Trajan answers: I was glad to hear from your letter, my dear Pliny, that you and the provincials have discharged your vows to the immortal gods on behalf of my salvation and safety [pro mea salute et incolumitate], and have renewed them for the coming year.29 Here the emperor expects Pliny to play two roles. First, Pliny is the chief representative of the state from the perspective of the locals (provinciales). At state-sponsored religious functions, Pliny leads them in their collective display of loyalty to the emperor. Second, Pliny represents the provinciales from the perspective of the emperor. Under Pliny’s guiding hand, the stretch of empire along the southern shore of the Black Sea was running smoothly, a status affirmed by vows for the salvation of the emperor. This letter exchange also suggests that these vows were typical of provincial life. Led by imperial officials, these vows were not only expected but also to be anticipated at regular intervals, thus marking time in the provinces. When accompanied by a festival, they also required long-term planning. Each occasion furnished Pliny with an opportunity to announce to the emperor that “public vows and thanksgiving” (vota publica et gaudia) had been renewed. In return, the emperor duly registered his “dear” (carissimus) Pliny’s watchful efforts and offered mild words of encouragement.30 Even though orchestrated by Pliny, the festivals for the emperor’s salvation could become tense, for they set the stage for competing elements within the community to struggle with each other for prestige. On 3 January of the following year, Pliny tells us, the locals split into two groups, the soldiers (commilitones) and the provincials (provinciales), that competed in their enthusiastic displays of loyalty to the emperor. The potential for a large, bloody riot was very real. In his report, Pliny sought to reassure the emperor that the security of the region had not been compromised. He claimed that the demonstrators displayed loyalty (pietate); in addition, they all prayed that the gods “preserve” (servarent) the emperor and the state as “flourishing” and “safe” (florentem et incolumen). In the midst of the incident, Trajan’s imperial virtues, including his sanctity, reverence, and piety (sanctitate obsequio deorum honore), were celebrated. Trajan was of course “glad” (libenter) to hear about it.31 Trajan’s day of accession was 28 January, and the occasion was an annual public holiday in the provinces. Pliny, addressing Trajan, describes it as the “day by which you, Lord, saved the empire” (diem, domine, quo servasti imperium), perhaps reflecting the


22

way in which the holiday was presented to the provinciales. Configured in this way, the celebration had to be grand: We have celebrated with appropriate rejoicing…and have offered prayers to the gods to keep you in health and prosperity [incolumen florentemque] on behalf of the human race, whose security and happiness depend on your salvation [saluti tuae]. We have also administered the oath of allegiance to your fellow-soldiers in the usual form and found the provincials eager to take it, too, as a proof of their loyalty.32 Trajan was again “glad” (libenter) to hear the news, especially, it seems, because the occasion again brought together the soldiers and provinciales in a collective display of loyalty: I was glad to hear from your letter, my dear Pliny, of the rejoicing and devotion [religione] with which under your guidance [te praeeunte], my fellow-soldiers and the provincials have celebrated the anniversary [diem imperii] of my accession.33 Roman generals since the Late Republic were regularly hailed as “saviors” in the provinces. Trajan’s father, for example, was greeted by the people of Tiberias as “savior and benefactor” during the Jewish War.34 But Pliny’s characterization of Trajan as the savior of the human race differs from such spontaneous acclamations. Coins issued in about 111 with the legend salus generis humani confirm that Pliny’s statement was officially sanctioned ideology. According to this ideology, Trajan, like Augustus before him, is, by virtue of his position as emperor, the savior of the empire and its inhabitants.35 The emperor’s salvation (saluti tuae), as Pliny puts it in the letter under consideration, is thus necessary for the security (securitas) of the human race (genus humanum).36 Pliny was therefore mouthing the official slogans of the regime. It was at festivals for the salvation of the emperor that consensus was created in the provinces, intimately tying the fate of individuals to that of the emperor through the drama of the rituals. In this case, an imperial official dictated the formula (te praeeunte) for the soldiers to repeat. The provincials followed their example and swore a similar oath “as a proof of their loyalty” (certatim pietate). It is important not to overlook how Trajan’s short responses emphasize Pliny’s own role in organizing the event: the celebrations took place under the legate’s guidance. To inaugurate public works, imperial legates also sponsored dedications for the salvation of the emperor. As we shall see in Chapter 3, from A.D. 75 to 262, a dozen imperial legati appear in dedications for the salvation of the emperor as directors of public works, including gates, walls, aqueducts, and temples.37 To give an example from Trajan’s reign, Cornelius Palma, Trajan’s imperial legate in Syria, was particularly active in southern Syria, thus appearing in a guiding role in a number of dedications for the salvation of the emperor.38 As judges, patrons, and military commanders, imperial legates were thus instrumental in the dissemination of the state’s ruling ideology. But how successful was the program? As noted above, the salutary ideology became a regular feature of provincial life, affirmed on fixed days and special occasions. Surely not everyone wanted


23

to participate in these festivals and such persons could quietly excuse themselves, since there was no decree that all should celebrate for the emperor’s salvation.39 Some, however, were more conspicuous in their refusal to participate in such festivals.

TERTULLIAN AND ORIGEN: THE LIMITS OF IDEOLOGY Tertullian, the Christian apologist born in the territory of Carthage in the middle of the second century, provides a starkly different view of such civic duties and festivals.40 In about 197, Tertullian wrote his Apologeticum, a work that set out to prove in the Christian apologetic tradition that Christianity was justifiable in pagan terms and more desirable for its truth. The date is important. Septimius Severus had just conquered the last of his rivals, the civil wars were over, and dynastic succession was assured. Tertullian’s description of the victory celebrations at Carthage is vivid. The celebrations transformed the city, in the churchman’s opinion, into a gigantic tavern or, worse, a brothel. The streets were blocked with bonfires, couches, and feasting merrymakers. Danger loomed from gangs on the prowl. The victory laurel hung from the doors of private houses. But not everyone participated. There was a noticeable lack of enthusiasm in the Christian community.41 This invited criticism: Were Christians partisans of the emperor’s enemies? Even though Severus had vanquished his rivals, it was still a tense time. The remnants of the opposition were being hunted down throughout the empire; soldiers were out in force; and there were denunciations of traitors. In fact, not long before, Christians had been arrested and brutally interrogated at the office of the proconsul.42 To allay such suspicions, Tertullian addressed his Apologeticum to a broad audience consisting of magistrates, learned pagans, and Christians.43 In this context, accusations against Christians of refusing to perform their duties to insure the salvation of the emperor took on a dangerous significance, thus impelling Tertullian to justify the Christians’ apparent disloyalty. First he argues against compulsive religious observance from a pagan point of view. Next he shows that Christian Scripture obliges Christians to honor their earthly rulers. And finally Tertullian attacks the notion of sacrifice, arguing that prayer to God for the emperor’s salvation is more efficacious. Tertullian presupposes a situation in which Christians were being forced to make sacrifices for the emperor’s salvation. Compulsion, even within pagan worship, he parries, is absurd. The pious seek favor from the gods voluntarily. Furthermore, it is blasphemous to honor a living being—the emperor—more than Jupiter himself. Sacrifices for the emperor thus challenge the primacy of the Olympian gods.44 Then Tertullian dismisses the power of these gods to grant salvation to the emperor. Like Caesar’s guards, the gods are dependent on the good will of the emperor. He, after all, maintains the beauty of their temples and provides them with fine statues: How shall they [the gods] who are thus in Caesar’s power, who belong entirely to him, have Caesar’s salvation [salus] in their hands, so that you can imagine them able to give to Caesar what they more readily get from him?45


24

Thus, Tertullian concludes, it is foolish to search for salvation from false gods while ignoring the one divinity that has the power to grant salvation to the emperor. Knowing that the salvation of the emperor is not in the “leaden hands” of the statues of gods, the Christians “invoke the eternal, the true, the living God for the salvation of the emperor [pro salute imperatorum invocamus].”46 To Christians, the emperor is thus utterly dependent on God. For Caesar cannot wage war on heaven, cannot send troops or levy taxes there. Since God alone is the source of the emperor’s worldly authority, Christians look toward heaven with arms outstretched and offer ceaseless prayers (precantes) for all the emperors. Further, they pray for the emperor’s longevity, a secure empire and imperial house, strong armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous people, and a calm world—all the things, in short, that Caesar desires from his false gods.47 Clearly, some were aware that Christians prayed for the empire in the way that Tertullian describes but dismissed such prayers as disingenuous displays meant only to convince the authorities to leave the Christian community in peace. In response to this criticism, Tertullian enjoins those “who think that we care nothing for the salvation of the emperors [de salute Caesarum],” to read Christian texts, where Christians are obliged to love their enemies and to honor their rulers.48 The Roman emperor is central to God’s plan, since a strong empire provides security to Christian communities.49 “What God has willed,” says Tertullian, “we all also desire: safety [saluum].”50 Since God, working behind the scenes, actually appoints the emperor, it can rightly be said that Christians are more responsible for the salvation of the emperor than the pagans, for Christians ask it of the God who can provide it. And by subordinating the emperor with respect to God, as is appropriate, Christians put the emperor in God’s favor.51 Tertullian thus establishes that Christians were among the most loyal subjects of the emperor. Yet, a problem lingered. Traditional displays of loyalty to the emperor demanded sacrifice to pagan deities. These sacrifices involved, Tertullian reports, grains of incense, “tears” of an Arabian tree, drops of wine, the blood of a tired ox, and, worst of all, a polluted (pagan) conscience.52 He points out that a mere sacrifice for the salvation of the emperor is no guarantee of genuine loyalty. All the rebels and murderers of emperors in recent memory, “on the very eve of their traitorous outbreak, offered sacrifices for the salvation of the emperor [et sacra faciebant pro salute imperatoris], and swore by his genius, one thing in profession, and another in the heart.”53 Christians, by contrast, refuse to offer sacrifices but offer instead “prayer sent forth from a chaste body, an unstained soul, and a sanctified spirit.”54 In principle, Tertullian was thus willing to perform religious rites for the salvation of the emperor, but in a specifically Christian way: through prayer and leading a chaste life. Tertullian then discusses the foolishness of worshipping the genius of the emperor. By sacrificing to the genius of the emperor, one was paying homage to the emperor’s spiritual double. Oaths taken by the genius (or tychê) of the emperor became part of everyday life, as in matters involving taxes and the sale of goods,55 as well as in judicial proceedings, such as those against the Christians. To give one example, in the trial of Polycarp, one senses the proconsul’s frustration as he presses the old man to mumble a few banal words: “Have regard for thine age…. Swear by the genius of Caesar, repent and say, ‘Away with the Atheists.’”56 To Tertullian, this practice, however much a part of everyday life, was pure devil worship. His reasoning is that the genii are nothing more


25

than daimones. They should be exorcised, not worshipped. Nevertheless, and here it is important to pay attention to Tertullian’s own words, the Christian was prepared to offer a compromise. “Though we,” he says, “decline to swear by the genii of the emperors, we do swear for their salvation [ita per salutem eorum], which is more reverential than all the genii.”57 Tertullian reinterpreted the imperial ideology of sal vation in light of Christian belief. In doing so, he opened the door for Christians to participate in the rituals of the state. He agreed with his critics that individuals should pray to a divine power for the emperor’s salvation. Thus in the pagan and Christian imagination, the emperor’s welfare is held in the balance by the divine, on the one hand, and by the piety (which easily stands for political loyalty) of his subjects, on the other. Like pagans, Tertullian prays for the emperor, imperial house, armies, senate, and Roman people to maintain peace and prosperity for all. Revealing a detailed knowledge of the standard means by which loyalty was expressed in the provinces, Tertullian’s list of benefactors (the emperor, imperial house, etc.) parallels that used in several dedications for the emperor’s salvation from the Near East. Two inscriptions dated to 150, one from Philadelphia and the other Gerasa, explicitly mention the involvement of the imperial legate L.Attidius Cornelianus in massive building projects: the theater at Philadelphia and Temple of Artemis at Gerasa. The inscriptions ask for the salvation of the emperor, his children, and his entire household, and for his strength, and that of the sacred senate and Roman people.58 To the north, a dedication was made at Apamea for the salvation and victory of the emperor, the sacred armies, sacred senate, and (Roman) people.59 Writing in Palestine some 50 years later, on the eve of the Decian persecution, Origen composed his own apologetic work, the Contra Celsum, to address lingering pagan accusations similar to those Tertullian had dealt with earlier. Like Tertullian, Origen supports the state partly for practical and partly for religious reasons. Christians, he states, do not want to call down the wrath of the imperial authorities on their communities without reason. Further, according to Paul’s letter to the Romans (Rom. 13:1–2), the powers of the earth are ordained by God. Those who resist kings and princes do so against the will of God.60 However, Origen, in agreement with Tertullian, draws the line at oaths taken by the genius of the emperor. His words are resolute: “We shall not swear by the tychê of the emperor, nor by anything else that is considered a god.” If the tychê of the emperor is a demon (Origen is not sure), then such an oath would be blasphemous. Even if the tychê is nothing but “fortune,” that is, an abstract concept, Origen asks, why swear an oath according to a force with no real existence?61 More than disregarding the genius of the emperor, Origen rejects the view that the emperor is the source of earthly prosperity, here departing from Tertullian’s more accommodating view. Pliny the Younger, as quoted above, declared that the security (securitas) of the human race (genus humanum) was dependent on the salvation of the emperor, thus providing an ideological basis for dedications for his salvation. Pliny’s view is also echoed in one of Celsus’ reproaches: If you are commanded to swear by a human emperor, there is nothing wrong in that. For to him has been given whatever there is upon earth; and whatever you receive in this life, you receive from him.62


26

Origen’s reply: We deny, however, that all things which are on the earth have been given to the emperor, or that whatever we receive in this life we receive from him. For whatever we receive rightly and honourably we receive from God, and by His providence, as ripe fruits, and “corn which strengtheneth man’s heart, and the pleasant vine, and wine which rejoiceth the heart of man.” And moreover, the fruit of the olive-tree, to make his face to shine, we have from the providence of God (Ps. 103:15).63 With a paraphrase from the Psalms, Origen thus dismisses the claim that the emperor is the source of life. Even though Origen was willing to concede that the emperors and the empire were part of God’s plan, and that to them a certain measure of honor was due, his views show that an irreparable crack had formed in the salutary ideology.

SÔTÊRIA ON DEMAND: PHILO, CHRISTIAN MARTYRS, AND IMPERIAL LEGISLATION When the emperor’s salvation (sôtêria) was neglected by a lack of traditional displays of loyalty, force could be applied to the unwilling. Passages from the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs and from Philo’s Embassy to Gaius preserve moments when the rituals for the salvation of the emperor were demanded from recalcitrant Christians and Jews. Philo’s Embassy to Gaius, written after A.D. 40, suggests that by the reign of Gaius (Caligula), the practice of making sacrifices for the salvation of the emperor was widespread in the provinces and that the practice was a means of demonstrating loyalty to the state. After the terrible anti-Jewish riots of 38 left much of Alexandria’s Jewish community in rubble, embassies of the opposing sides were invited to Rome to clarify the cause of the events to the emperor Gaius. Philo himself represented the Jews and so provides an eyewitness account. The representatives joined Gaius in the gardens of Maecenas and Lamia on the Esquiline Hill, where the emperor was personally overseeing a costly construction project. After a tense introduction, the leader of the Greek embassy, Isidorus, burst out with what he knew would be a damning accusation. The Jews were “disloyal” because they had refused to sacrifice for the salvation of the emperor: My lord, you will hate these Jews here, and the rest of their compatriots too, even more when you learn of their ill-will [kakonoia] and impiety [asebeia]. When everyone else was offering sacrifices of thanksgiving for your [salvation] [sôtêria], these people alone could not bring themselves to sacrifice.64 Philo rebuffed the accusation by insisting that the Jews had in fact sacrificed on at least three occasions for Gaius. The instances of the sacrifices that Philo mentions reveal the types of occasions when the emperor’s salvation was sought in a collective, sometimes festive manner. The first occasion is already familiar from Pliny’s letters: the accession of the emperor. The second was for Gaius’ recovery from a serious illness. The final


27

occasion was in anticipation of the emperor’s victory in Germany.65 In response, Gaius quipped that the sacrifices had been made to the Jewish God and were therefore ineffective. Nevertheless, the emperor was impressed and, after ridiculing Jewish dietary laws, allowed the Jewish embassy to leave Rome unharmed. The expectation is that “everyone” should make sacrifices for the emperor’s salvation, and that those who refuse could be suspected of impiety and malice toward the emperor. Jews had in fact made an arrangement with the Romans that both sides found satisfactory. Philo reports, in trying to prove that Roman tolerance of Jewish religious practices was long-standing, that Augustus had established daily sacrifices to God on Highest (Theos Hypsistos) in the Jerusalem Temple. The sacrifices included two lambs and a bull and were still being performed in the reign of Gaius.66 Josephus, in his Contra Apionem, highlights the peculiarity of the practice, adding that the sacrifices were paid for by the Jewish community and were instituted specifically on behalf of the emperor and the Roman people.67 This unique honor was meant to keep Roman officials from insisting that imperial statues be erected in the Jerusalem Temple, an intolerable blasphemy that the Jews were willing to lay down their lives to prevent.68 In addition, as the outbreak of the Jewish revolt of A.D. 66 illustrate, the sacrifices were a measure of the emperor’s popularity. First, Jewish rebels captured Masada and slaughtered the Roman garrison, and then Eleazer, son of the high priest, ordered the temple officials to stop accepting sacrifices from foreigners, resulting in the rejection of the sacrifices offered for the emperor and the Roman people.69 To Jew and Roman alike, both acts, the slaughter of Roman soldiers and the withholding of sacrifices, constituted a declaration of war. Some Christians adamantly refused to engage in standard displays of loyalty. And they, like the Jewish rebels, suffered. In A.D. 180, Christians from a town near Carthage were put on trial. The alleged crime involved their refusal to sacrifice on behalf of the emperor. The actual trial proceedings (acta) survive nearly intact. The Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs illustrate the imperial perspective on loyalty to the emperor and how it should be articulated. The acta show, for example, that the imperial governor, the presiding official at the trial, perceived loyalty to the emperor, proper religious observance, and dedications for the salvation of the emperor as interrelated and nonnegotiable obligations on the part of the provinciales. A certain Speratus and a number of others were summoned to the proconsul’s office (secretarium) in Carthage. The proconsul, Saturninus, conducted the questioning. Why not renounce your beliefs and ask for a pardon from the emperor, he asked. Speratus, speaking for the group, answered that they had never cursed “our emperor”; moreover, even faced with their present difficulties, the Christians continue to honor him (imperatorem nostrum obseruamus). For the proconsul, however, loyalty to the emperor required cult observance: “We too are religious and our religion is simple: we swear by the genius of our Lord the Emperor, and we make supplications for his salvation [et pro salute eius supplicamus], which is what you also ought to do.”70 Supplications were publicly sanctioned affairs that required sacrifice. Since Speratus and the others remained obstinate in professing their Christian beliefs, thereby refusing to sacrifice publicly for the emperor’s salvation, the proconsul saw fit to offer them the most humane form of capital punishment available—beheading.71


28

Imperial demands for affirmation of the salutary ideology flared again in the persecutions of the third century. The firsthand account of the sufferings of Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria during the persecution of Valerian, is preserved in Eusebius’ Church History. The governor, Aemilianus, reminds Dionysius and his companions that the emperors have shown philanthropia toward the Christians since the emperors gave the Christians the “means of salvation” (exousia sôtêrias), if only would reverence the gods who “save [sôizontas] their empire [autôn tên basileian].” Echoing Origen’s attitude, namely, that the Christian God is solely responsible for the prosperity of the empire, Dionysius replies that Christians reverence the “one God” who gave the empire (basileian) to the emperors Valerian and Gallienus, most beloved of God. Only to this God would the Christians “pray” (proseuchometha) “for their empire” (hyper tês basileias autôn).72 Dionysius would escape and return to Alexandria as its bishop. Though Dionysius could not have foreseen it at the time, his brand of Christian loyalty to the state—stressing prayer to the one God over sacrifice to the many—would prevail within a few years. Issued in 311, the so-called Edict of Galerius granted a limited sort of religious toleration to the Christians, so-called because we should keep in mind that this edict was published in the name of not only Galerius but also Constantine and Licinius. This was an official document, meant to be binding throughout the empire. Unfortunately, the edict itself has not survived in epigraphic form, but it was seen and copied by two independent witnesses, Lactantius, who preserves the actual wording of edict in his On the Deaths of the Persecutors, and Eusebius, who translated the edict into Greek for inclusion in his Church History as positive proof of the triumph of Christianity.73 Thus the wording of the edict that has come down to us is authentic, which allows us to locate a key moment in the transformation and ultimate demise of the salutary ideology. On the one hand, its intent is straight-forward. After years of sporadic and sometimes fierce persecution, Christians were free to gather for worship in churches. While Christianity now enjoyed a measure of legal protection, the edict was conservative in the demands it made upon Christians. In return for protected status, ritual affirmation of personal loyalty to the emperor was still necessary. All peoples, it states, can worship as they please, so long as they pray to their own god for the salvation of the emperors and the state in addition to praying for their own salvation (debebunt deum suum orare pro salute nostra et rei publicae ac sua).74 On the other hand, the edict was also conciliatory. Galerius and his co-rulers did not demand supplications (supplicare) for the salvation of the state and the emperors. Rather, they asked for prayer (orare), which others, such as Tertullian and Dionysius, had repeatedly advocated as an acceptable way for Christians to display their loyalty to the state. If Galerius had intended all the empire’s inhabitants to continue making dedications for the salvation of the emperors, he was fighting against the tide. Note the tone of the edict. A person “ought” (debebunt) to pray for the salvation of the emperors, implying that there was a lack of this activity. This was, in fact, the case. By 311, if the epigraphic evidence is indicative, the salutary ideology was undergoing transformation. Relatively few inscriptions are extant from the latter half of the third century, and the handful of these that are dedications for the salvation of the emperor display a different character than those dating from the second century. These third-century dedications, like this edict, are top heavy with imperial self-confidence. Imperial subjects no longer asked for


29

the emperor’s salvation through the medium of inscriptions. This was done exclusively by imperial officials, a fact that betrays the breakdown of not only the epigraphic habit but also the symbolic exchange that underpinned the salutary ideology. The Late Antique emperor brought salvation to the empire, but he did not need his subjects to ask the gods for his own salvation in return. In the middle of the fourth century, calendars still attest games held in honor of Salus as well as the 3 January vota.75 The latter continued to be practiced in the sixth century on behalf of the “state and Roman people,” but not specifically for the emperor’s salvation. Judging by John the Lydian’s description of the vota publica as they were administered in the reign of Justinian, the festival had a carnival atmosphere, in which the presiding officials could be ridiculed according to long-standing tradition. Auguries were also taken, reports of which were given by the consuls to the emperors.76 By the end of the eighth century, the church disallowed these vows, though the underlying notion that the emperor needs divine protection to rule effectively continued to be expressed in the centuries to come through acclamations and the emperor’s accession ceremony.77 In Chapter 4, the resonance of the salutary ideology in other ways is discussed in more detail. The salutary ideology is just one aspect of Rome’s imperial ideology. In this chapter, I chose to bring to light texts that focus on the role of the emperor as a figure who provides salvation but who at the same time relies for his own salvation on the provincials’ piety. The salutary ideology, as I call it, is by no means particularly distinct from V.Nutton’s “beneficial ideology,” Lorenz Winkler’s Salusvorstellung, or what others might subsume under more general terms: Roman imperial or political ideology. The distinction is simply a matter of focus. Whatever its called, this ideology, as detected in the variety of sources mentioned above, created the basis for a symbolic exchange that underpinned the practice—widespread throughout the Mediterranean world—of commissioning Greek and Latin dedications for the salvation of the emperor. What has been lacking in the discussion, however, is an indication of why, besides some vague sense of patriotism or compulsion, people affirmed this ideology by paying for inscriptions, permanently and publicly monumentalizing their loyalty to the state. To address this question, we turn now to the analysis of the inscriptions from the Near East that ask for the salvation of the living, distant emperor.

Chapter Three The Reception of the Salutary Ideology in the Near East The twelve Arval Brothers constituted an archaic priesthood revived by Augustus in the last decades of the first century B.C. as part of his program of religious renewal. At least once every year, the Brothers climbed the Capitoline Hill, the religious and political focal point of Rome, and prayed to the chief gods of the state, Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, as well as Salus Publica and other divinities, for the salvation of the emperor.1 Once inside the portico of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the leader (magister) of the Brothers would say: “Since the immortal gods, their power propitiated, have heard the prayers [vota] of the world, which were eagerly undertaken for the salvation of the emperor [pro salute imperatoris], his wife, and all their house, it is right for the college to fulfill their previous vows and to proclaim new ones.”2 The Brothers scrupulously recorded the names of the priests, date of the dedications, the type and number of animals slaughtered, and the names of the gods, who if appeased by the blood offerings and prayers would grant salvation to the emperor and the inhabitants of the empire. This information was later inscribed for posterity and kept at the sacred grove of the Brothers just outside Rome, in an archive that would span three centuries.3 The very act of record keeping was obviously crucial to the participants in the rituals, especially the registering of their names, which publicized the social status of the individual priests and bolstered the sense that each was a member of a religious community that traced its origins to the distant past.4 Seen from this perspective, these inscriptions provided a means by which each individual priest could, at least to a certain extent, fashion his identity through the public affirmation of loyalty to the emperor. The activities of the Arval Brothers modeled ritual life in the provinces, too. J.M.Reynolds has shown, for example, that the prayers and sacrifices performed by the Brothers were also performed in North Africa and, one suspects, throughout the empire.5 Expression of loyalty to the state through the performance and the recording of formulaic prayers in inscriptions that asked the gods for the salvation of the emperor thus provided an officially sanctioned and universally recognized way for individuals and collectives to publicize acceptance of the rule of the current emperor and, by extension, Roman rule more generally. I would argue that the complex rituals of the Arval Brothers and their analogs in the provinces as well as the simple votive texts that ask for the salvation of the emperor are rooted in what has been described earlier as the salutary ideology. The purpose of this chapter is to go beyond the walls of Rome in an attempt to understand how, in which terms, and by whom the salutary ideology was affirmed in the Near East. A broad cross section of society did so, including citizens and noncitizens, soldiers and civilians, and peoples of various ethnic origins. It is not enough, however, to know who made the dedications. We need to understand what Mary Beard calls the

The reception of the salutary ideology in the near east

31

“processes underlying the text’s production.”6 What motivated people to leave inscriptions of this sort? Just as the Arval Brothers sought to inscribe their names on marble tablets that were be displayed for centuries, inscriptions affirming loyalty became a vehicle for elites in the provinces to fashion individual and collective identity. In addition to recording the formula hyper sôtêrias/pro salute, the inscriptions reveal the role that dedications for the salvation of the emperor played in the mundane business of everyday life in this region. These dedications, while ostensibly made in reaction to a centrally promulgated ruling ideology, were motivated by local concerns, including social, religious, and legal obligations, which we can detect, though not in great detail, through the content of the inscriptions. While dedications for the emperor’s salvation can never reveal the complex ways in which the state was involved in local society in the same way that, for example, papyri can for Egypt, nevertheless they do suggest how ritualized forms of loyalty to the state intersected in significant ways with the rhythms of local political, social, and religious life. The Near East is ideal for a study of this type. The region and its peoples had a longstanding epigraphic habit. It is therefore possible to view dedications for the salvation of the emperor in significant numbers and over time.

THE EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE FROM THE NEAR EAST The literary sources discussed in Chapter 2 shed light on how the salutary ideology was promulgated and affirmed in the provinces. Pliny’s letters to Trajan demonstrated the role played by imperial officials and the military in this process. By organizing annual festivals for the salvation of the emperor in which soldiers participated en masse, the imperial legate set a powerful example for the provinciales to follow. The writings of the apologists Tertullian and Origen brought to light a debate that had emerged by the end of the second century. Some were accusing Christians of disloyalty because they did not participate in the standard rituals for the salvation of the emperor. Christians countered by asserting that, although refusing to sacrifice for the salvation of the emperor, they would pray to God on behalf of the emperor. Christian martyr acts and Philo’s description of his meeting with Gaius suggested that the consequences for neglecting or openly flouting the salutary ideology were a matter of life and death. As a whole, the literary evidence therefore suggests that imperial officials elevated the promulgation of the salutary ideology to a matter of high priority, and that there was pressure at the local level to affirm this ideology and to participate in rituals for the emperor’s salvation. The epigraphic evidence allows us to examine the reception of the salutary ideology more precisely than the literary sources permit. The dedications for the emperor’s salvation in aggregate can form the basis of a regional study over a long period of time, and they can illuminate aspects of the social identities of individuals who affirmed this ideology, including their names, occupations, degree of direct association with the state, and motivations. The inscriptions also reveal the contexts of the dedications, whether civic, military, or religious. As we shall see, it appears that the salutary ideology was widely affirmed by a variety of imperial and local elites. Though many of the dedicators were connected directly to the state as imperial or military personnel, through citizenship, or many were the provinciales mentioned by Pliny. The social profile of the dedicators


32

also shows that the provinciales viewed the salutary ideology as an outgrowth of their political, social, and religious life. They affirmed the ideology while simultaneously expressing civic pride, elite status, and respect for patrons, familial bonds, and religious obligations. Before proceeding any further, two preliminary points should be made. First, we must bear in mind an important limitation of the epigraphic evidence. One of the annoyances of epigraphic data is that it is often difficult to know exactly how representative the inscriptions are for the regions in which they are found or for the empire as a whole. Hence, there is a need to gather the maximum number of examples of a particular type of inscription to approximate a representative sample as closely as possible. Of the thousands of Greek and Latin inscriptions from the Near East, 190 dedications for the salvation of the emperor from the first to the fourth century (and an isolated example from the sixth century) have been identified, 155 of which are suitable for the type of analysis proposed here. These 155 inscriptions yield an impressive list of some 217 dedicators—on the face of it, an encouraging number. But, as Maurice Sartre has noted, there were 1.5 to 2 million people living in this region at any one time. At a rough guess, at least 10 million people lived in the Near East during the first four centuries after Christ. Of these, only about 15,000 are known by name.7 In other words, the 217 individuals in my sample whose names we know represent less than two percent (217/15,000) of all the known names of people attested epigraphically from this region— itself only a tiny fraction of the entire population. However, this should not cause too much dismay. Though the generalizations made here must remain provisional, the 217 names and the social profiles that they generate are representative of the sort of people and collectives who could afford and would be inclined to commission inscriptions of all types, including dedications for the salvation of the emperor. Second, for the following sections, it is important to understand how inscriptions were perceived in antiquity. An inscription was a potent way by which a person could fashion his social identity, defined here as that set of characteristics that locates an individual in society. Dedications for the salvation of the emperor thus became an aspect of the dedicator’s public image.8 In making a public display of loyalty to the emperor, the dedicator could profile himself by publicizing his family background, social status, and real or imaginary relationship to the state, as well as his relationships with his peers and with the gods.

NAMES: ROMAN, GREEK, AND SEMITIC Table 11 shows that about half the individuals named as dedicators had Roman names, recognizable by the use of a wholly Roman name (tria nomina) or by the inclusion of a Roman name (usually transliterated into Greek) in combination with Greek or Semitic names. Given this high percentage, the impulse is to imagine Italians arriving as an occupying force, imposing their culture on the region, and demanding ritualistic displays of loyalty to the state from a fair number of the Semitic locals. Names, however, can easily mislead. Indeed, it is safe to assume that most of the individuals in my sample, including those with distinctly Roman names, originated from the Near East.9 None the less, names can provide clues regarding an individual’s social identity. For our purposes,


33

the delineation of “Roman,” “Greek,” and “Semitic” names in this and the following tables points to cultural categories, not ethnic or racial ones. It is assumed that each category broadly reflects a sociological type. When thus tabulated, the data reveal relative degrees of subscription to the salutary ideology.

Table 11 Percentage of Roman, Greek, and Semitic Names by Region in the Dedications for the Salvation of the Emperor (n=143) Israel Roman Greek Semitic

Jordan

Lebanon

Syria

Overall

50% (2)

53% (27)

58% (25)

51% (23)

54% (77)

0

39% (20)

28% (12)

16% (7)

27% (39)

50% (2)

8% (4)

14% (6)

33% (15)

19% (27)

Though the application of the data for determining which types of people, culturally speaking, affirmed the salutary ideology is novel, the approach of isolating Roman, Greek, and Semitic names to draw conclusions about the penetration of Roman rule in the cities and countryside certainly is not. By examining the names from the Hauran in southern Syria, Sartre has shown that even within a subregion there can be significant variation in the concentration of Greco-Roman and Semitic names that, in his view, speaks to the penetration of, and adherence to, Greco-Roman culture. At Bostra, the capital of the province of Arabia, fifty-five percent of the names are Semitic, while fortyfive percent are Greco-Roman. In the Ledja, a region comprised of a number of cities and villages that lie north of Bostra, more Semitic names are evident: sixty-eight percent as opposed to thirty-two percent Greco-Roman. Lying south of Bostra, the site of Umm alJimal is even further removed from Greco-Roman influence: eighty-five percent of the names are Semitic, fifteen percent Greco-Roman.10 Putting aside, then, the idea that names correspond to racial or ethnic groups, other than cultural categories, what do the names tell us? As shown above, those with Roman names were responsible for fifty-four percent of the dedications. This slight majority suggests that those who either had or wanted to be perceived as having a close connection to the state had the resources and desire to affirm publicly the salutary ideology most vigorously. This is only partially the case. These self-styled Romans, whether citizens or not, should not obscure the dedicatory activity of those with non-Roman names. In Table 11, those with Greek and Semitic names, together constituting forty-six percent of the dedicators, made nearly as many dedications for the emperors as those with Roman names. Take the following two examples: Zaidallos, a councilor of Madaba, originally from Petra, left a dedication for the salvation of the emperor, and Neitiras, son of Sachouos, dedicated an altar at a temple in a village near Mt. Hermon.11 Individuals such as these were certainly not Roman citizens, nor did they portray themselves as Romans, and yet they sought to affirm the salutary ideology in significant numbers, to link their names permanently to the state in the form of inscriptions.


34

OCCUPATIONS Table 12 shows that the largest category of dedicators (forty-two percent) had a direct connection to the Roman state through their occupations. They were administrators, soldiers, veterans, or freedmen of military personnel. Likewise, strengthening the impression gained from Table 11, Table 12 reveals that provinciales made dedications for the salvation of the emperor to a significant degree. For example, those who held local magistracies made thirty-eight percent of the dedications, and local collectives, such as cities, villages, mother-villages (mêtrokômiai), and councils, made another twenty percent of the dedications. Taken together, local elites and collectives—the provinciales—made more than half of the dedications, fifty-eight percent, for the salvation of the emperor.

Table 12 Percentage of Roman and Civil Occupations in the Dedications for the Salvation of the Emperor (n=114) Israel

Jordan

Lebanon

Syria

Overall

Roman

25% (1)

43% (22)

40% (4)

43% (21)

42% (48)

Civil

25% (1)

37% (19)

60% (6)

35% (17)

38% (43)

50% (2)

20% (10)

0

22% (11)

20% (23)

a

Others a

Others include collectives like colonies, cities, villages, tribes, councils, and other groups that made dedications, including religious and occupation-based groups.

MOTIVATIONS These data, while revealing that a broad cross section of society in the Near East affirmed the salutary ideology, fail to address the question of why these individuals and groups did so. In Beard’s words, what were the “processes underlying the text’s production”? Fortunately most inscriptions make no secret of their makers’ motivations. First, consider the contexts of the dedications. Eleven percent (14/124) of the contexts can be identified as military and administrative (roads, boundary stones, aqueducts, military locations, bridges), surprisingly low given that most of the dedicators had Roman names and an overt connection to the state through their occupations. Fifteen percent (18) are civic in nature (gates, baths, triumphal archs, theaters). The vast majority of the dedications, seventy-four percent (92), arose in association with cult activity (altars, statues, temples). To attain salvation for emperors, dedicators addressed an array of Greco-Roman and Semitic gods, many clearly of a local character (see Table 13).12 The cult of Theandrios (also Theandritês) furnishes a good example. Known literally as the God-Man (theos+anêr=theandrios), Theandrios was an Arabian deity worshipped especially in the cities and villages of southern Syria. At Athila (Atil), the site of a temple, Julios


35

Prok(los?) dedicated a gateway (pylê) to Theos Ouaseathos Patroiôs Theandrios for the salvation of Caracalla and Geta in 211/ 212, affirming his loyalty to the emperor through the worship of his “ancestral” (patrôios) god.13 From the same god, the Saamênoi, an Arab tribe of the small town of Zorava (Ezra), sought the salvation and victory of the emperor.14 Unlike Julios, the members of the Saamênoi were probably not Romans in the strict sense. Nevertheless, they likewise affirmed the salutary ideology through their devotion to a local Arabian deity. The religious importance of these dedications is made explicit, in that many are embedded with general expressions of personal religious sentiment: ,15

,16

,17

,18 causa pietatis,19 piae fidelis.20 Some

made dedications after receiving an oracle:

,21

.22 One offered prayer and thanksgiving: .23 The most common religious formulas involve the ,24 votum/vota solvit/solverunt,25 votum libens animo fulfillment of vows: 26 27 solvit, ex voto libens solvit. None of these phrases is particular to the dedications for the salvation of the emperor, a point that is nevertheless of some significance, for it reveals that, from the perspective of the provinciales, loyalty to the emperor was primarily rooted in, and expressed through, local religious observance.28 Were Christians and Jews among those who made dedications for the salvation of the emperor? Considering context and the gods addressed in the inscriptions, most of the dedicators were obviously pagan. For those inscriptions that fail to mention gods, is it safe to assume that their dedicators also were pagan? As noted earlier, the Christian apologist Tertullian (ca. 197) and others allowed for prayers for the salvation of the emperors: nos enim pro salute imperatorum Deum invocamus aeternum, Deum verum, Deum vivum (Apol 30.1). If this attitude is at all representative, it is possible then that some of the dedicators were Christian. There is, however, no evidence of this. During the fourth century, at the beginning of the large-scale Christianization of the empire, four dedications were made for the sal vation of the emperor—none of them conclusively Christian. The earliest was found on a broken slab at Ecdippa, a road station between Ptolemais (Acco) and Tyre, and dates to the joint reign of Maximinus, Maxentius, Constantine, and Licinius (309–11). The dedicator’s religious identity is obscured because his name is missing. Moreover, his identity is further complicated since Ecdippa had a substantial Jewish community in Late Antiquity.29 The next dedication was found on fragments of a lintel, apparently once part of a temple at Tsil, a village in southern Syria, and seems to refer to Constantine or Constantius II: “The One God, Lord, the Only, the Heavenly, protect (your?) temple forever…for the salvation and victory of our masters Const…”30 Despite the monotheistic tone, there is nothing essentially Christian here, since the “One God” inscriptions span the religious spectrum.31 The last two dedications from the fourth century also contain tantalizing references to religious activity but remain stubbornly ambiguous. An inscription found at Mothana, another village in southern Syria, states: “the sacred platios [=plateia, a “road” or “place”?] was set up on the sacred day for the salvation and victory of our masters Constantius and Constans, Augusti,” in 343/344.32 Is this a reference to a festival for the salvation of the emperor, a local pagan holiday, or a Christian feast day? It is unclear.


36

Table 13 Gods Addressed in the Dedications for the Salvation of the Emperors God Agathê Tychê

Israel

Jordan 2

Lebanon

Syria

32

Tychê Megalê Sakkaia Zeus Epikarpios Zeus Heliopolitês

Total 4

38

1

1

1 1

Zeus Helios Sarapis Zeus Kronos

1 1

2

1

1

1

Zeus Megistos

1 1

Zeus Megistos Keraunios

1

2

1

1

Zeus Ouranios

1

1

Zeus Olympios

3

3

Jupiter Optimus

1

Jupiter O.M. Conservator

2

Jupiter O.M. Heliopolitanus Jupiter O.M. Sarapis

8

1 2

Aphroditê

2 1

Hera

1

1

Iuno Regina

1 1

Kyria Artemis

2 8

1

Apollo

Kyria Nemesis

1

1

3

3

1

1

Mercury

3

3

Venus

3

3

Apis

2

2

Liber Pater

1

1

Sol Invictus Mithras

1

1

Heis Theos

1

1

Sunnaoi Theoi

1

1

Theos Arabikos

2

2

Theos Arabikos Epêkoos

1


Theos Hagios Arabikos Theos Azizos

37

1 1

Theos Bêl

1

Theos Lykourgos

1

Theoi Olympioi

1

Theos Theandrios

1

Theandritês

1

Thea Epêkoos Leukothea

1

Thea Ourania

2

Thea Patrôia Artemis

1

Pax

1

Spes

1

1

Temperantia

1

1

Total

7

57

2

22

15

101

Finally, at Tafas, a village near Mothana, a bridge was constructed for the salvation and victory of “our masters” Constantius and Constans, “the undefeated emperors,” while Flavius Antonius Hierocles was governor of the province. According to the inscription, Hierocles was totally devoted to the divinity of the emperors.33 These ambiguous examples from the fourth century serve to isolate even further the one unquestionably Christian dedication for the salvation of the emperor that has already been mentioned: the dedication for the salvation of Justinian at St. Catherine’s, which was produced in the sixth century.34 Philo and Josephus write that the Jews were not fundamentally opposed to making sacrifices for the salvation of the emperor, as long as the emperor observed the freedom of Jewish communities to gather and worship in synagogues.35 But did Jews make dedications in the same way that pagans did? At Qizion, a village in the Galilee, a lintel inscription, perhaps from a synagogue, states that the dedication was made for the salvation of Septimius Severus and his family “by a vow of the Jews” ([ex] euchês Ioudaiôn). The emperor’s travels in the region between 196 and 198 provide the context for the dedication.36 Analogous is the Latin inscription from Pannonia left by a Jew, Cosmus, a military man (praepositus stationis) from the synagogue at Spondilla, who appealed to Deus Aeternus for the salvation of Alexander Severus and his mother,37 and a fourth-century bilingual inscription from the synagogue at Ostia.38 Thus, of 174 inscriptions for the salvation of the emperor, only two definitely nonpagan dedications have turned up in the Near East. The possibility does exist, however, that a small number of the other inscriptions were made by those who did not wish to identify themselves explicitly as Christians or Jews. In addition to expressing acceptance of the salutary ideology and piety, the inscriptions demonstrate the degree to which the dedicators used the formula as a means


38

of affirming social status. This includes the use of the formula as publicity for the dedicators’ public benefactions (glossed as philotimia or euergesia) and promotions. Both local magistrates and military officers used dedications for the emperors to publicize favorable change in their own status.39 It was a fairly insignificant posting, but Flavius Basilides nevertheless dedicated an altar at Bostra on his promotion to tesserarius, which made him responsible for keeping the watchword of the camp while serving on the legate’s staff.40 Another group of dedications for the emperors involves the execution of wills. The heirs, whether individuals or the city in which the deceased lived, used the dedications in carrying out the last wishes of the testator (ex testamento or ek diathêkês). In my sample, Gerasa was the only community acting as an heir that dedicated a public structure for the emperor’s salvation; in 130, it financed and dedicated the triumphal arch at the southern approach to the city for the salvation of Hadrian.41 Individual heirs appear also at Gerasa and elsewhere.42 At Heliopolis, for example, four individuals from the Fabian tribe, identifying themselves as heirs (heredes) of a cavalryman from the III Augusta, made a dedication for the salvation of the emperor.43 At Gdita, not far from Heliopolis, two brothers made a dedication to Juno Regina for the emperor’s salvation at the behest of their mother.44 At Bet Ras, a Roman settlement in the Jezreel Valley, M.Arrius Sabinus, the brother and joint-heir (synklêronomos) of the deceased, dedicated a religious structure and a statue in accordance with his brother’s last wishes.45 The multiple ways in which the dedications functioned strengthen the impression that the phenomenon had significance at the local level as a means of fashioning one’s social identity. Through the shared language of formulaic inscriptions, the dedicators communicated their relative place in a self-consciously hierarchical society that was stitched together by obligations.46 The dedications for the salvation of the emperor allowed individuals, cities, and collectives to express their obligation to the distant ruler and their acceptance of the idea that their own salvation was intimately tied with the emperor’s. Simultaneously, the dedicators expressed their obligation to their gods, cities, villages, peers, and ancestors. By including the emperor in the nexus of social relations at the local level, the dedicators literally inscribed the emperor in the affairs of their cities and villages. This was a view of the emperor from the periphery.

THE DEDICATORS In the preceding pages, the underlying factors for the dedications for the salvation of the emperors were analyzed by examining the dedicators’ names and occupations, as well as their motivations for the dedications. To add detail to the generalizations presented above, this section discusses the types of individuals and collectives that affirmed the salutary ideology. Pliny’s letters to Trajan that describe festivals for the salvation of the emperor have suggested the organization of what follows. Recall that Pliny put on such festivals primarily for the soldiers. These mass displays of loyalty then established a model for the provinciales to emulate. Thus, in this section, I begin with provincial governors and military personnel and then move on to local collectives, officials, and other individuals. By organizing the material in this way, I hope to create a balanced view of the reception of the salutary


39

ideology that emphasizes the broad participation of imperial, military, and local elites. Unless stated otherwise, all inscriptions referred to in the following pages are dedications for the salvation of the emperor. Imperial Officials The dedications by Q.Aiacius Modestus, legate of Arabia from 205–7, are unique in that they are personal dedications by an imperial legate for the salvation of the emperor, not dedications in which legates appear in the background. He dedicated eight altars for the salvation of the emperor at the Temple of Zeus and Aphrodite (Qasr al-Bint) at Petra; the temple was probably the cult center of Petra and perhaps its record house.47 By appealing to Apollo, Liber Pater, Pax, Spes, and Temperantia, Modestus was deliberately invoking the tutelary gods of the Severan regime, as well as calling to mind the promise of rebirth that had accompanied the Secular Games held in Rome during the previous year.48 In 204, Modestus was in Rome helping celebrate these games, which were declared in honor of Liber Pater, Hercules, Apollo, and Diana, as a member of the priesthood of the quindecimviri sacris faciundis. As quindecimvir, Modestus would have been responsible for consulting the Sybilline Books during the festivities and for conducting sacrifices for the salvation of the emperor (RG 9, Tac. Ann. 16.22), the latter a duty that he was obligated to continue in the provinces, where it was a rather obvious statement to the locals that even the emperor’s on-the-spot representatives had to affirm imperial ideology. These legati were indeed model citizens, leading patriotic ceremonies, the traces of which are mostly lost, and providing a framework in which it was deemed beneficial for the provinciales to dedicate building projects and religious paraphernalia for the salvation of the emperor. Acting in this capacity, imperial governors, including legati and praesides, in the Near East sponsored a number of construction projects, including gates in city walls, aqueducts, bridges, military structures, temples, theaters, baths, propylaea, and stoas. Showing their role as sponsors of the constructions, the governors are introduced almost exclusively by the preposition epi, meaning “under the administration of,” though dia is also used. The financiers who actually paid for the projects were listed below, for the emperor and his agents certainly did not pay for these structures directly, and they dedicated them for the salvation of the emperors.49 Including Q.Aiacius Modestus, eleven legati Augusti pro praetore are mentioned in the sôtêria dedications.50 L.Ceionius Commodus, the earliest legate in my sample, is mentioned in an inscription from the arch of the northwest gate at Gerasa dated to 75/76.51 Cornelius Palma is mentioned in three inscriptions involving the construction of an aqueduct to channel water from the Auranitis (Jebel Druz) to Kanatha dated to between 104 and 108.52 In 150, L.Attidius Cornelianus is mentioned at Philadelphia and Gerasa.53 P.Julius Geminius Marcianus, legate under Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, is mentioned four times circa 163: thrice at Gerasa, and once at Philadelphia.54 In Syria, Avidius Cassius is mentioned seven times in dedications for the salvation of the emperor found in large and small settlements: once in the city of Kanatha, twice in the mêtrokômia of Phaina (Mismiyyeh), once in the village of Aerita (Ahire), twice in the village of ElMushennef, and once in the village of Salkhad.55 Cassius’ successor, Martius Verus, legate in 177 or 178, appears in a dedication from Shebha.56 In 189/190, Asellius


40

Aemilianus is mentioned at El-Mushennef.57 Furnius Julianus appears in a dedication from the fortress at Koser il-Hallabat in 212.58 At Bostra, under Gordian III, M.Domitius Valerianus is mentioned in 238/239.59 The last legate to dedicate such an inscription was Coccienus Rufinus. In 262/262, under Gallienus, he dedicated a gate in the city wall of Adraha (Dera) during an effort to fortify this city against the incursions of Arab tribes, the Sasanian threat, and perhaps also the growing strength of Palmyra.60 At Adraha, one praeses, an equestrian governor with civilian duties, commissioned a building for the salvation of the emperor.61 In 274/275, the dekania, or guardhouse, was built by the foresight (pronoia) of the praeses Flavius Aelianus, who at that time also held the rank of perfectissimus. Aelianus had the help of a number of local officials, such as episkopoi and proedroi, and military officials, including two centurions.62 At Palmyra, Sossianus Hierocles, praeses under Diocletian, oversaw the construction of a large bath complex between 293 and 303.63 A procurator Augustorum also made a dedication for the salvation of the emperor.64 Minicius Martial is mentioned at Dura Europos circa 209–11 as the official presiding over the restoration of the Mithraeum. The temple was restored, states the inscription, under (sub) Martial, by (ab) a centurion of the vexillationes of the legions IV Scythica and XVI Flavia Firma.65 Military Personnel Centurions often show up with imperial administrators in inscriptions. Their prominence in dedications for the salvation of the emperor, found in both the villages and the cities of the Near East highlights their role, like that of the imperial governors, in the promulgation of the salutary ideology, in that they, too, are often mentioned as sponsors of constructions that were actually paid for by locals, though they just as often made personal dedications for the salvation of the emperor.66 The inscription from Dura Europos just mentioned was dedicated by the centurion Antonius Valentinus for the restoration of the Mithraeum during the Roman occupation of the city.67 In southern Syria, a number of villages benefited from centurions who sponsored or directly paid for constructions that were dedicated for the salvation of the emperor. At the village of Aerita, a veteran dedicated a gate under Avidius Cassius and the centurion T.Aurelius Quirinalis (169/170).68 This Quirinalis is also mentioned at the village of Phaina, a settlement where several centurions appear in dedications for the emperors.69 Around the same time, the villagers there dedicated part of a temple under the centurion Egnatius Fuscus.70 Acting alone, the centurion C.Helvius Marianus dedicated the chapel (naos) and cult statue (agalma) for the temple during the reign of Commodus.71 In the third century, the centurion L.Aurelius Maximus, also acting alone, built monuments to Peace (tên Eirênên) and Isis (tên Eisin).72 At El-Mushennef, three inscriptions mention centurions: twice contributions were made to the Temple of Zeus under the centurion Quirinalis Gemellus and the imperial legate Avidius Cassius;73 and in 189/190, the (possible) centurion Anicius Romanus, the imperial legate Asellius Aemilianus, and the koinon of the Manênoi, a local tribe, dedicated the upper floor (hyperôion) of a building.74 In 191, the centurion Julius Germanus, as the benefactor and founder of the Airêsioi (euergetês Airêsiôn kai ktistês), dedicated the Tychaion of the village of Is-Sanamen from the proceeds of the tax (apo tês epigraphês).75 At Shebha, in


41

177 or 178 the stratêgos Ailamos, son of Dabanos, dedicated a building under the imperial legate Martius Verus and the centurion Petusius Endemus.76 At Hebran, M.Bodrios Konsta(n)s dedicated an altar to Zeus Megistos.77 Moving south to Adraha, two inscriptions dated to 274/275 mention the centurions Honoratus and Marcus.78 Nearby, at Abila, a rock-cut inscription, dated to 163, 164, or 165, associated with a Roman road mentions the centurion M.Volusius Maximus.79 At Gerasa, two dedications for the salvation of the emperor mention centurions. In 130, the centurion Marcus Calventius dedicated an altar (?) for the Temple of Artemis, perhaps as a thank-offering for the privilege of wintering (hibernati sunt) Hadrian’s bodyguard (equites singulares) in the city.80 Upon his son’s return from Britain, the father of a centurion (both of their names are lost) refounded (epektisen) the Temple (naos) of Zeus Epikarpios.81 During the reign of Commodus, two cavalry commanders (decuriones) from the cohort II Ulpia Paphlagonum Equitata dedicated an altar to the tychê of Dura Europos.82 Their names were Nigrenius Tromentina and Aelius Tittianus. Based on the possible restoration of emeriti in line eight of the inscription, these two officers perhaps made their dedication in expectation of their release from military duty.83 At Dura Europos, the actuarius of the cohort II Ulpia dedicated the shrine of Minerva Sancta in 194 through (per) Trebonius Maximus, tribune (tribunus) of the cohort. Unfortunately, his name has been lost, though it is likely, considering his patronymic— son of Mocimus—that he was not a Roman citizen.84 As an actuarius, he was the secretary of the military detachment who probably served in the officium of the praefectus alae. At Heliopolis, during the reign of Caracalla, Aurelius Antonius Longinus, speculator of the III Gallica, dedicated the capitals of two columns, decorated in bronze, for the salvation and victory of Caracalla, his mother Julia Domna, and the senate. Based on the first two components of his name, it is likely that Longinus attained Roman citizenship as a result of the Constitutio Antoniniana, and he may have made this rather costly dedication in return for some imperial favor received directly from the emperor.85 As speculator, Longinus was part of the officium of the imperial legate and his main duty was espionage.86 At the village of Dmer, Marcus (?) Annianos, strator of the ala Vocontiorum, originally from Thelsea (Khan il-Maaluliyeh), dedicated the entablature of a temple in 245.87 About 15 years later at Adraha, Ulpius Domitianus, strator, with the help of Flavius Verus, architect and former strator, dedicated a building for the salvation of Gallienus (ca. 261/262).88 These stratores were charged with saddling the horses of their superior officers, usually prefects, while serving either in the officium of the legatus legionis or in that of the praefectus alae.89 Finally, we know of one tesserarius who made a dedication for the salvation of the emperor. Flavius Basilides dedicated an altar at Bostra to Jupiter Optimus Maximus Conservator on his promotion to that office.90 The tesserarius had the important job of passing along messages, usually written on tesserae. He was among the low-ranking officers under the command of the praefectus alae or that of the legatus legionis.9l


42

Soldiers and Veterans Found reused in the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem, an inscription states that the vexillatio of the III Cyrenaica made a dedication for the salvation and victory of Trajan in 116.92 One of the inscriptions from the temple at Athila was dedicated by M.Aurelius Ulpius Serrênos, stratiôtês of the III Cyrenaica during the reign of Caracalla.93 Three soldiers (milites) of the III Cyrenaica, cohort Aurelia, dedicated a small altar at Petra for the salvation of the emperor in the late second or the early third century.94 Soldiers (milites) of the cohorts VI Hispanorum, I Thracum, V Afrorum Severiana, and III Tracum (?) constructed a new fortress (castellum novum) through the imperial legate Furnius Julianus in 212 (mentioned above).95 Veterans often settled in the regions where they were stationed. They usually had a sizable pension and a strong connection to the state that provided them with benefits, including exemption from civic munera.96 A number of these veterans endowed buildings in their communities and dedicated them for the salvation of the emperor. At Gerasa, during the reign of Domitian, the veteran and decurion T.Flavius Dionysios gave 3,000 drachmas to pay for a portion of the seating in the South Theater.97 At Heliopolis, during the reign of Hadrian, the veteran L.Varius Magnus, along with three others, dedicated a statue at the behest (ex testamento) of L. Antonius Silon.98 Nearly 90 years later, during the reign of Caracalla and Geta, the veteran and former beneficiarius Antonius Silvanus, originally from Apamea, dedicated an altar with his wife and children.”99 From the villages of southern Syria, we hear of two veterans who made dedications for the salvation of the emperor. At Hebran, a certain veteran dedicated part of what appears to have been a temple in 156.100 In 171/172, the veteran and hierotamias Rufus dedicated part of a building at Sahwet el-Khudr with his fellow hierotamiai (mentioned below).101 Locals Collectives Of the cities claiming the distinction of polis in the Roman Near East, just four made dedications for the salvation of the emperor: Gerasa and Kanatha of the Decapolis, and Apamea and Bostra, Roman colonies. As will be shown in detail in Chapter 6, Gerasa made the most dedications. Beginning early in the reign of Domitian (ca. 81–83), Gerasa, appearing in the inscription as polis, dedicated a block in the South Theater.102 In 130, in advance of Hadrian’s visit to the city, using funds bequeathed by a certain Flavius Agrippa, Gerasa dedicated the triumphal arch at the southern entrance to the city, and perhaps also a statue (thriambos) of the emperor to crown the structure.103 In 150, during the reign of Antoninus Pius, Gerasa dedicated the tympanum near the central doorway of the propylaea of the Temple of Artemis, under L.Attidius Cornelianus, legatus Augusti pro praetore (legates in this section are also accounted for above).104 Dated to 190/191, the dedicatory inscription of the Nymphaeum publicizes Gerasa’s role in building this impressive monument, as well as the city’s loyalty to the distant emperor. Kanatha dedicated two inscriptions for the salvation of the emperor; unfortunately the nature of both is obscure.105 The two colonies of Apamea and Bostra dedicated one inscription each for the salvation of the emperor. Apamea did so through the “council and people of


43

Claudia Apamea.”106 Bostra, identifying itself as a “colony” (kolônia), dedicated a structure of some sort for the salvation of Gordian III in 238/239.107 It is also possible that Petra, as a mêtrokolônia, may have made a dedication for the salvation and victory of the emperor in the third century.108 Villages also made dedications for the salvation of the emperor as collectives, reflecting the role of village assemblies in public building and in declaring loyalty to the state. With just three examples, the evidence, however, is slim. At Umm iz-Zetun in southern Syria, the sacred Kalybê, probably a religious structure, was dedicated “by the community of the village” in 282.109 The villagers of Phaina, identifying themselves as the Phainêsioi, dedicated the local temple for the salvation of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, under Avidius Cassius, legatus Augusti pro praetore, and Egnatius Fuscus, centurion.110 The third example is from Kafr ed-Dik in southern Samaria. Dedicated to the Olympian Gods, the inscription asks for the salvation of Hadrian, called here “savior and benefactor of the world and of the village Kaparanaia.”111 Presumably the village of Kaparanaia set up the inscription to show their loyalty to Hadrian during his tour of the Near East. The tribe was an important political and social uńit throughout the empire, equivalent in some ways to cities and villages.112 Like those more formally defined entities, tribes could act as collectives in public building and in articulating loyalty to the state. Out of fifty-one attested tribes, we have evidence for three from southern Syria that made dedications for the salvation of the emperors. The koinon of the Manênoi (or Maniênoi) did so in 189/190 under Asellius Aemilianus, legatus Augusti pro praetore, for the salvation of Commodus. 113 At Zebire, two tribes, the Arisênoi and the Iachphirênoi, joined together to build the Tychaia, a shrine for the goddess of Fortune, in 213.114 There is also evidence for agricultural collectives making dedications for the salvation of the emperor.115 The “farmers of Zorava” (Zoraouênôn geôrgoi) dedicated a victory monument (tên neikên) in their village.116 On the hill rising up behind the Temple of Artemis at Gerasa, an inscription was found on a statue base dedicated to Kyria Artemis by the “gardeners from above the ravine” (kêpouroi tês anô pharangos). By dedicating this statue, these gardeners, perhaps owners of an orchard, were eager to show their piety to the most revered deity of their city, as well as their loyalty to Septimius Severus, Caracalla, Geta, and Julia Domna, all of whom are named in the inscription.117 Local Officials Turning to members of councils (bouleutai or decuriones), we begin to highlight individual provinciales who left their names and sometimes their professions or social identities on dedications for the salvation of the emperor.118 Most of the councilors who made such dedications served in cities (poleis), although bouleutai are also attested in villages. At Gerasa, T.Flavius Dionysius, veteran and councilor (dekadarchês), dedicated a portion of the seating in the South Theater during the reign of Domitian.119 In 238, M.Aurelius Solôn, a leading member of the council (bouleutês tôn prôtôn), dedicated an altar to Zeus Kronos and Thea Ourania.120 At Kanatha, the city dedicated two inscriptions (mentioned above) through (did) councilors whose names have been lost.121 Just north of Kanatha, three councilors from Philippopolis (Shebha) made a dedication, perhaps for a temple, in 247/ 249 122 perhaps these councilors made their dedication shortly after the


44

emperor Philip raised the settlement to the distinction of colony to honor his hometown and, as one scholar suggests, to deepen Roman influence in the region.123 In the Roman colony of Heliopolis, the decurio L.Julius Severus, son of Moschus, dedicated a statue base during the reign of Gordian III (238–44).124 At Dmer in the Damascene, Gauros, son of Oasichathos and councilor and hierotamias (see below), paid for the inner shrine of a sanctuary. Since Dmer was a village, it is unclear whether this Gauros was a member of the village council or a resident of the village serving on a city council elsewhere.125 One inscription from my sample provides evidence for a stmtêgos making a dedication for the salvation of the emperor. Stratêgoi originated in the Hellenistic period as military and civil administrators. With the arrival of Rome in the Near East, the stratêgoi lost their military authority to the imperial legati and other administrators. Eventually the title came to refer to a local leader.126 At Shebha (later Philippopolis), under the stratêgos Ailamos, son of Dabanos, a temple was dedicated in 177 or 178. G.M.Harper suggests that Ailamos was the “supreme official” of the village.127 Ailamos evidently had a relationship with Rome, as he acted in conjunction with the imperial legate Martius Verus and centurion Petusius Endemus, both of whom are mentioned before he is in the dedication. The gymnasiarch was responsible for providing for the general upkeep of the gymnasium by supplying, for example, the costly oil necessary for sporting events.128 During the reign of Claudius (ca. 42–43), two gymnasiarchs from Gerasa, Aristonas, son of Aristomachos, and Atheniôn, son of Atheniôn, grandson of Loupos, made contributions for the construction of the Temple of Zeus Olympios.129 Also at Gerasa, three local administrators (epitropoi) made a dedication in the South Theater for the salvation of the emperor during the reign of Antoninus Pius (153/154). The three, Dêmêtrios, Malchaios, and Marsos, were related by blood, and they made this dedication at the behest (ek diathêkês) of a certain Athêniôn.130 Also at Gerasa, in the South Theater during the reign of Trajan, the sacred synod (a theatrical “guild”) in the service of Dionysus dedicated a statue and its base for T.Flavius Quirina Gerrenus (discussed at length in Chapter 6). In the middle of their dedication (lines 8–9), we hear quite remarkably of the celebration of a competition (agôn) for salvation of the emperor being hosted by Gerrenus with noteworthy grace and generosity.131 In the court of the “Temple of Bacchus” at Heliopolis, was an altar dedicated with a Latin inscription during the reign of Caracalla by Isas and Vettus, who identify themselves as archontes. These men were probably the leaders of a village outside Heliopolis, not the municipal magistrates of Heliopolis. Two others also contributed to the dedication: Foebus and Myla, identified as mutatores. Given their names and title (mutator), Foebus and Myla were probably public slaves charged with changing money at rates favorable to the city.132 A few freedmen (apeleutheroi or liberti) dedicated inscriptions for the salvation of the emperor. A certain Nymphaios had an inscription made at Abila, probably in the first century A.D. From his own resources, he built a road and a chapel that he planted some greenery around.133 In the middle of the second century, a freedman from Gerasa dedicated an altar. Unfortunately, his name has been lost, but he does identify himself as the freedman of Apollônios, son of Antiochos.134 At Heliopolis, an imperial freedman (Augusti libertus) paid for the capital of a column in the Propylaeum to be leafed in bronze for the salvation of Caracalla.135 C.Tittius Carmaeus


45

(?), identifying himself as a plumbarius, was a man of some means at Heliopolis. He consecrated a number of statues for the salvation of the emperor. This plumbarius probably owned a lucrative business that dealt with the manufacture of lead objects.136 Local Religious Officials Nine priests made dedications for the salvation of the emperor, eight in Gerasa, and one in Paneas/Caesarea Philippi. At least six of the priests from Gerasa were involved with the imperial cult.137 Zabdiôn, son of Aristomachos, priest of Tiberius, contributed 1,000 drachmas for the construction of the Temple of Zeus in 22/23.138 Sarapiôn, son of Apollônios, grandson of Dêmêtrios, priest of Nero, contributed toward the construction of an andrôn, or meeting hall, and its doors.139 Asklepiodôros, son of Malchos, grandson of Dêmêtrios, priest of Trajan, dedicated a statue of Zeus Olympios in the South Theater.140 Malchos, son of Dêmêtrios, grandson of Malchos, priest of Antoninus Pius, dedicated statues of Zeus Helios, Sarapis, and Isis in 143.141 In the middle of the second century, two other priests of the imperial cult dedicated one statue each for the salvation of the emperors.142 Priests of particular gods also made dedications for the salvation of the emperor. In the second century, Alexandros, brother of Anthos, priest of Dionysus, dedicated the antae and altars for Theos Arabikos at Gerasa.143 At Paneas/Caesarea Philippi, Valerius Hispanos, priest of Pan, dedicated a statue of Kyria Nemesis and her temple circa 177/178.144 Finally, the regional high priest of the imperial cult made a dedication in 119/120 for the salvation of the emperor while the priest was at Gerasa. Diogenês, son of Emmeganos, “priest of the four eparchies in Antioch the metropolis,” dedicated a statue of Justice when his son Eumenes was named agoranomos.145 Like so many other dedications for the emperors at Gerasa, this one was set up in the South Theater, where inscriptions would be read and reread by the theatergoers. Three villages in southern Syria provide evidence for hierotamiai making dedications for the salvation of the emperor. The only reason to believe that this office involved religious duties is the “sacred” (hiero-) component of its name. Prentice has translated the term as “treasurers of the temple,” which was followed by Enno Littmann and Duane Stuart’s “temple-treasurers.”146 In the inscriptions, the hierotamiai appear in groups of two or three. At Hebran, three hierotamiai built a temple in 155 from the sacred funds: Thaimos, son of Abchoros; Enos, son of Masechos; and Emmeganê, son of Naros.147 Included in the list of dedicators of the temple at Hebran are three ekdikoi: Aristeidos, son of Thaimos; Uaithelos, son of Emmegnos; and Emmeganê, son of Chamenos. Though the duties of the ekdikoi are unclear, together, the ekdikoi and hierotamiai probably formed a building commission of some sort.148 At Sahwet el-Khudr, a building was constructed in 171/ 172 through (dia) Vaddos, son of Aslamos; Molemos, son of Ananos; and Rufus, veteran, all hierotamiai.149 In 245, two hierotamiai dedicated a temple at Dmer: M. Aurelius Haneos, son of Gaoros, and Gauros, son of Oasichathos, councilor (mentioned above).150


46

CONCLUSION Expression of loyalty to the state in epigraphic form was part of the political, social, and religious culture of city and village life for more than three centuries. Making dedications for the salvation of the emperor was done by everyone from imperial officials of the highest rank to soldiers and village councilors who lived in places that will have scarcely interested the emperors. The power and significance of the salutary ideology lies, therefore, in creating a common means of expressing an intertwined set of values across the linguistic and geographic limits of a vast empire. Primarily through the Greek formula hyper sôtêrias Sebastou, “for the salvation of the emperor,” Near Easterners, whether Romans in the strict sense or not, publicly affirmed their acceptance of Roman rule and its real and symbolic importance in maintaining the sôtêria of the empire. The social identity and motivations of these Near Eastern Romans can be detected by analyzing their names, occupations, and religious affiliations, along with the contexts for the dedications. These data reveal that the underlying impetus to affirm the salutary ideology involved obligations that emanated from local affairs: public benefaction, self-promotion, administration of the last wishes of the deceased, and religious sentiment. This suggests two interrelated developments. First of all, the degree to which imperial ideology affected, even modeled, provincial life is clear. With every dedication for the emperor that was purchased and every imperial festival attended, people crafted an imperial identity that transcended race, social status, and political clout, a sense that they, no matter their geographic location, were part of the vast Roman oikoumenê.151 Second, the virtual ubiquity of affirmations of this ideology was genuinely, and we suspect freely, cultivated by the provinciales and by the military personnel who found themselves, and often settled, in the region, since this ideology allowed these disparate individuals and groups to affirm social distinctions at the local level, as well as to express deeply rooted religious ideas, namely, that the gods granted salvation to kings and individuals through the formula hyper sôtêrias, a topic we shall return to in Chapter 5. Focusing on dedications for the salvation of the emperor is just one way by which it is possible to assess the impact of Roman rule on the Near East. A fuller assessment, however, would extend the conclusions reached here with an in-depth analysis of artistic and architectural forms, urban planning, the application of Roman law, and the interaction between provincials and the state as indicated by correspondence with the emperor, the granting of Roman citizenship, the settlement of veterans, and the myriad ways in which the presence of Roman soldiers affected local society and economy. Much of this work has already been done in part, and attempts to offer synthesis have recently appeared in print.152 The dedications for the salvation of the emperor from the Near East add some definition to the picture that is now emerging of this region and how its peoples adapted, in a variety of complicated ways, to being subjects of Rome. Near Easterners, as individuals, collectives, and residents of cities and regions, became Roman gradually, on their own terms, and, save for a few exceptional cases, peacefully and willingly.

Chapter Four The Demise and Transformation of the Salutary Ideology In the preceding pages, I showed how the salutary ideology intersected in a number of ways with the everyday life of elites, both imperial and civic, citizen and noncitizen, by allowing them to express at the local level a range of social and religious values and concerns, including philotimia, euergesia, patronage, and piety. Salvation as a ruling ideology was therefore a successful “program.” In the late third century, however, something happened. It is difficult and perhaps ultimately impossible to sort out precisely why, on the one hand, the emperors beginning with Diocletian no longer expected the provinciales to affirm the salutary ideology in the same way as before and, on the other, the elites discontinued the age-old custom of honoring their rulers through the formula hyper sôtêrias. The impulse is to posit an explanation based on the transformation of society under the influence of Christianity. Such an argument might go as follows. Diocletian had only recently instituted the Great Persecution, which lasted from 303 to 311 and resulted in the unprecedented slaughter of Christians in Palestine and throughout the Near East, as related by Eusebius of Caesarea, a native of the region and an eyewitness to the events. For later generations, Eusebius’ accounts of the horrific events in the Near East—Book VIII of his Ecclesiastical History, and De martyribus Palaestinae, quickly translated into other languages, including Syriac—reinforced memories of Christian bravery in the face of imperial might, providing Christians with exemplars to venerate in their daily lives.1 The martyrs’ uncompromising resistance to displays of loyalty to the emperor was thereafter enshrined in the collective imagination and historiography of Late Antiquity.2 Indeed, a few individuals in northern Syria sought salvation from the martyrs by making dedications in their memory.3 The memory of Christian martyrs from the distant and recent past who dramatically opted to stand in opposition to the demands of pagan administrators and emperors might therefore have contributed to the demise of the habit of making dedications for the salvation of the emperor in the form of inscriptions.4 And it might also be pointed out that, as victims of the salutary ideology, Christians selfconsciously reused dedications for the salvation of the emperor in the construction and decoration of churches to demonstrate Christianity’s triumph over the old religion, a suggestion to which we return in Chapter 6. There may be a bit of truth in all this. But I would argue that Christian triumphalism and an enduring sense of their own past suffering are at best imperfect solutions to the problem of why the habit of making dedications for the salvation of the emperor died out in the fourth century. It is easy to show that the process of change was underway already in the 260s, when Christians would not have been in a position to alter the epigraphic habit in any significant way, and that dedications for the emperors persisted well into the


48

fourth century, decades after Constantine converted to Christianity in 312. Indeed, the salutary ideology persisted for centuries, despite its pagan baggage, though expressed in different ways. So what happened to the inscriptions? Why did the salutary ideology no longer have to be affirmed through them? It is necessary to consider the demise within the larger context of epigraphic production throughout the empire. After A.D. 250, the production of inscriptions dropped dramatically. In 1908, while reviewing the recently published inscriptions gathered during Princeton University’s archaeological expeditions to Syria,5 Louis Jalabert noted that the inscriptions fell into either of two periods, the first between A.D. 90 and 250, the second between 324 and 609. He drew attention to the dearth of inscriptions in the intervening period of almost three-quarters of a century. Jalabert’s tentative explanation for this lack of epigraphic activity was logical enough: the lacuna had to do with “political circumstances, internal problems, and the first invasions” of the Sasanians.6 These factors certainly played a role, but to what extent? Recent scholarship on this issue points to transformations in imperial ideology and in the nature of the political culture of cities as a more nuanced way of explaining shifts in the epigraphic habit in Late Antiquity. Before considering these explanations, it is important to stress that neither had economic activity in the region disappeared nor, despite Palmyra’s revolt, had the provinciales lost their desire for Roman rule.7 To account for the general decline of the epigraphic habit after 250, several scholars have pointed to factors other than Jalabert’s broad economic and political troubles that were certainly plaguing the empire during this period. They argue that a shift in attitudes about inscriptions, in their intended audience and perceived function, temporarily uprooted the epigraphic habit.8 According to this view, the factors that Jalabert mentioned—civil war, invasions, and political changes, together constituting the “the crisis of the third century”—disrupted the urban culture that gave rise to large-scale and persistent public spending. In the latter half of the third century, local elites ceased to see themselves as independent, willing subjects of the emperors. Instead, local magistrates increasingly linked their own fortunes to the state by fleeing from their traditional duties as city councilors to join the imperial bureaucracy. This upward drift “sapped,” in the words of Simon Price, “the vigor of the Greek city” by leaving it with fewer individuals interested in maintaining the imperial cult and, by extension, in making dedications of all types, including those for the salvation of the emperor.9 The distancing of emperor and subject, which is apparent in other spheres, changed the nature of the dedications for the salvation of the emperor. Before the third century, the partnership of ruler and ruled as found in the dedications for the salvation of the emperor implies the foundation of an ideological consensus: the emperor’s salvation would guarantee the salvation of the entire known world.10 Participation at the local level was fundamental for the whole imaginative system to function. For his part, the dedicator sacrificed the costs of a dedication for the salvation of the distant emperor with the expectation that his own salvation would thereby be secured. Before the late third century, imperial governors, such as Pliny, had led the soldiers in asking the gods for the emperor’s salvation and the provincials followed suit. Acting in this capacity, governors virtually always appear in the dedications along with other officials, often locals, in a leading role.11 By the 280s, however, the salutary ideology, as it had slowly taken shape

The demise and transformation of the salutary ideology

49

over the course of the first two centuries, began to give way. Consensus was now presumed.12 Panegyrics from the late third and early fourth century, preserved in the XII Panegyrici Latini, reflect the emperor’s new role as the sole provider of the empire’s salvation, a power emanating from his status as an unambiguously divine figure. In a speech dated to 291, the emperor Maximian, Diocletian’s western counterpart, is told, “the first days of your rule…mark the beginning of [the city of Rome’s] salvation [salus]”13 Later, he is praised for spending all his “nights and days in perpetual concern for the salvation of all [pro omnium salute].”14 Emphatically affirming the emperor’s role as savior, the orator later asks: “What good would have brought us such unhoped-for salvation [salus] had you not been present?”15 Similarly, in a panegyric before the future emperor Constantine, another orator declared the emperor to be the salutifer, “bearer of salvation.” In an earlier age, this title was more suitable to Apollo than an emperor.16 It is precisely at this moment that dedications for the salvation of the emperor begin to reflect the emperor’s assertive self-reliance. In the inscriptions from the late third to the early fourth century, imperial officials now appear as the sole dedicators. The provinciales no longer played a role in securing the emperor’s salvation. Between 238 and 350, some twenty dedications for the salvation of the emperor were made, all of them, however, in association with provincial governors. At Adraha, governors dedicated fortifications, including walls and gates, for the salvation of the emperor.17 Similarly, under the direction of the governor Sossianus Hierocles, the baths at Palmyra (to Dioklêtianon balanion) were dedicated “for the salvation and victory of our lords, the Augusti and Caesares, and for the concord [homonoia] of the people of Palmyra.”18 Diocletian’s tax official (censitor) in Syria, Julius Sabinus, planted several boundary stones, in association with a massive tax reform, and dedicated them for the salvation and victory of Diocletian and his co-rulers.19 At Tafas, a village in southern Syria, Flavius Antoninus Hierocles, praeses of the province, made a dedication “for the salvation and victory of our undefeated despotai Constantius and Constans.”20 Unknowingly, this imperial governor had made the last preserved dedication for the salvation of the emperor, save for the enigmatic sixth-century inscription from St. Catherine’s. Thus, part of the answer to the question of why the dedications for the salvation of the emperor died out in Late Antiquity has little to do with the rise of Christianity. Rather, the demise had to do with a shift in the ruling ideology that left the emperor more distanced from his subjects, and thereby undercut the culture that fueled the production of dedications for the emperor’s salvation. As mentioned earlier, another part of the explanation for the demise of the production of dedications for the salvation of the emperor has to do with concrete changes in the nature of civic politics, including the decline of institutions such as councils, whose members were filling the ranks of an expanding imperial bureaucracy. In earlier centuries, the state relied on the councils for the smooth running of the empire, from the maintenance of security and the collection of taxes to the cultivation of an atmosphere in which the making of patriotic inscriptions was deemed valuable as a marker of status. Thus, as the traditional functions of civic institutions faded, so too did the ideological impetus for making the dedications for the emperors. The provincial governors, local notables, and clergy, who took up the administration of cities beginning in the fourth century as the councils declined in importance, failed to resurrect the practice of


50

commissioning such dedications when the epigraphic habit came to life again in the fifth and especially sixth centuries.21 The political climate of the city no longer favored the production of public inscriptions, and the Christian sense of the past lionized those who resisted the state’s ideological demands, but the fundamental idea that the emperor needed prayers for his salvation continued to be expressed in other ways and by other types of elites. By the middle of the fourth century, the clergy and especially the bishop had become the leaders of their communities, a role affirmed by the state through the granting of a number of privileges. Christian (and Jewish) religious officials were, for example, exempt from the costly duties delegated to city councilmen. Though they increasingly took on administrative functions, the clergy theoretically were to apply their energies only to the performance of religious duties. In 361, the emperor Constantius ruled that the clergy should enjoy exemption from public duties, since their religious duties were more crucial for the maintenance of the welfare of the state: “We are aware that Our State is sustained more by religion than by official duties and physical toil and sweat.”22 Thus, through the upholding of Christian religio, the church took up the long-standing pagan practice of asking the gods for the salvation of the emperor and the state, which, as we demonstrated in Chapter 3, likewise occurred primarily in religious settings. Under the Christian emperors, the way in which this religio was fulfilled was through the performance of prayers and the liturgy, of which we get an occasional glimpse in the literary sources. In the immediate aftermath of the Synod of Ariminum, which met in 359 to affirm the unity of Christian belief amid fierce fighting between the Nicene and Arian camps, bishops sent a letter to Constantius urging him to allow them to return to their dioceses so that they, along with their congregants, might offer prayers (euchai) for the emperor’s salvation, for the empire, and for peace (hyper sês sôtêrias kai basileias kai eirênês), which, according to the letter, God has continuously given to the emperor.23 Clearly, this practice was nothing new. The signatories to this letter assumed that Constantius would be persuaded to disband the bishops so that they could conduct the duties expected of them by the state. These prayers, because they are by definition ephemeral, did not leave much trace in the historical record, so it is difficult to assess how regularly Christians offered prayers specifically for the emperor’s salvation at this time and thereafter. Centuries later, however, the practice became ritualized. During the performance of the liturgy of John Chrysostom in Constantinople and elsewhere, Christians regularly prayed on behalf (hyper) of the emperor, though by then without specifically asking for his salvation.24 The salutary ideology did not so much die out in the fourth century as fade from the physical space of the Late Antique city, to be expressed, at least for a time, in an oral medium within the context of religious services administered by priests and bishops. The emperor’s salvation, whether guaranteed by pagan gods or the one God, was in either case considered vitally important for the maintenance of the empire’s prosperity. The intangible quality of sôtêria, which the emperor almost by definition possessed, had to be carefully guarded. In his late-third- or early-fourth-century manual on how to write a speech in praise of the emperor (basilikos logos), Menander Rhetor advises the speechmaker to conclude with a description of the general prosperity of the cities and countryside, emphasizing that this good fortune is dependent on the person of the emperor. “What greater blessing,” the author declares, “must one ask from the gods than


51

the emperor’s salvation?”25 In the same spirit, Ammianus Marcellinus, at the end of the fourth century, affirms that the salvation (salus) of the emperor should be protected by the just enforcement of the law against treason, since the salvation (salus) of others depends on the emperor’s.26 More than a century later, the emperor Justinian could still be hailed in inscriptions for “saving [sôzôn] all the cities by his generous largess” for, in this case, having constructed a fortress at Maan in Syria.27 Implicit in these texts is the notion that the emperor was a savior who needed salvation, a paradox that left room for individuals and groups to play a role in either approving or disapproving the emperor’s rule, if not by inscriptions then by prayers and acclamations. The announcement of the Theodosian Code in the senate of Rome on 25 December 438 was accompanied by repetitive acclamations. As part of a long and exhausting list of chants, the senators shouted out: “Our hope is in You [the emperors], You are our salvation!” (spes in vobis, salus in nobis). The line was repeated twenty-six times.28 Looking forward, in the tenthcentury ceremony of accession, God was directly asked to “save” the emperor: “King of Heaven, save [sôson] the King on Earth.”29 Only if the Heavenly King “saves” the Earthly King will the Christian people prosper. In legal parlance, the emperor’s sôtêria came to suggest more generally “a symbol of the welfare of the emperor,” which, for example, could be invoked in legal procedures involving contracts.30 Thus, a law issued in 395 “Concerning Pacts and Business Arrangements” (de pactis et transactionibus) declares that even those “who have inserted our names [Arcadius and Honorius] in the agreements and have sworn by the salvation of the emperors [salutem principum] in confirmation of the pacts into which they have entered” must adhere to the law and surrender their property if found in violation of it.31 This legal use of salus principum is found in an archive of documents from Nessana dated to the latter half of the sixth century. At least two of the documents are property contracts in which those concerned had to swear by the “Holy Trinity and the Imperial Salvation” (eis hagian triada kai basilikên sôtêrian).32

FROM SALUS PUBLICA TO SALUS PRIVATA: THE PERSONIFICATION OF SÔTÊRIA IN THE BATH OF APOLAUSIS The transformation of sôtêria in the realm of ideas and literary and epigraphic texts has its analogue in material culture. We have mostly discussed sôtêria as an abstract quality that could be attained from the gods. But what happened to Salus/ Sôtêria, the goddess who personified this quality, after the one God triumphed? In the fifth century, along the slopes of a valley north of the metropolis Antioch, wealthy farmers established a group of villas. In 1938, based on a tip from local farmers, the Princeton archaeological expedition excavated the site. During this season they uncovered a series of handsome mosaics in the settlement’s bath-house.33 In the center of the cold bathing room (frigidarium) they found a large personification of Sôtêria in mosaic (see Figure 1), and in a small apsidal room to the west they discovered another mosaic, this one a personification of Apolausis, “Pleasure.” From this moment on, scholarly attention focused on the smaller of the two mosaics, that of Apolausis, mostly for aesthetic reasons. She was simply more attractive. Jean Lassus, the first to describe the mosaics, described Sôtêria in this way:


52

[In the center of the mosaic] are the head and shoulders of a woman who is indicated by an inscription as personifying Soteria, Safety, but perhaps here simply Health. The drapery is fairly heavy and the design even a little confused. The figure has no distinctive attribute; she is robust, even massive, with a cold expression accentuated by the manner in which her glance is turned away. Despite imperfections she gives an impression of power and retains a high decorative value.34

Figure 1 Personification of Salvation depicted with features reminiscent of Salus Publica. Mosaic from the “Bath of Apolausis,” near Antioch, fifth century A.D. The image, hardly “confused” and “cold,” was virtually dismissed. Sôtêria was somehow typical of Late Antique personifications, a little naïve but charming nonetheless. Lassus’ reading of Apolausis was a far more sympathetic:


53

[The mosaic in the apsidal room] represents the head of a woman, Apolausis, or Enjoyment [le divertissement]. Whereas Soteria is massive, she, on the other hand, is graceful and slender; the face and neck are long, the shoulders narrow and the waist slender. A light, thin veil placed over the head above a heavy wreath and falling vertically on either side of the face accentuates the impression; and the gesture of the right arm, with the elbow held low, the forearm bent vertically, the long fingers delicately holding a rose, adds to the elegance and grace of the young woman.35 This subjective bias even informed the naming of the bath. In the initial report, it was labeled, for the region where which it was found, the “Bath at Toprak-en-Narlidja.” Yet a decade later, in Doro Levi’s study of the mosaics of Antioch, the bath had transformed into the “Bath of Apolausis,” despite the fact that the Sôtêria mosaic is the “focal center” of the complex.36 While Levi avoided most of Lassus’ obviously slanted language, even acknowledging Sôtêria’s disposition as “serene,” he nevertheless favored Apolausis: Apolausis is a girl with delicate, refined features, who slightly raises her eyes to the sky, almost as if inspired by the perfume of a flower which she holds delicately between the fingers of her right hand as she raises it toward her face.37 Levi’s discussion focuses almost entirely on Apolausis, specifically, on the “motif of a woman raising a flower to her nostrils,”38 while saying nothing further about Sôtêria, except that the two personifications testify to Libanius’ comments on the healing waters of Antioch and Daphne, as well as to similar comments found in poems from the Greek Anthology.39 I would like to offer a new identification of Sôtêria that takes account of the specific traits chosen by the artist to represent her. Contrary to Lassus’ assertion that she has “no distinctive attribute,” Sôtêria does indeed have a startlingly obvious attribute: her crown.40 Even Levi missed its significance. Sôtêria, he writes, is “adorned over the forehead with a fine garland of gold leaves with a green jewel—probably an emerald—in the middle.”41 But the crown is of a specific type. The gold crown of leaves with a large gem set in the middle is the standard representation of the corona civica, originally made from oak leaves and given to a man who had saved the life of a fellow citizen.42 As mentioned in Chapter 2, in the Late Republic the corona civica was awarded to those, such as Cicero and Caesar, who had saved the res publica from dangers, both internal and external. After Augustus, the corona civica became associated with the position of princeps and was fundamental to the salutary ideology.43 The emperor, by virtue of his position alone, became the savior of the state and its inhabitants. As such, the emperor was often depicted wearing the corona civica in statues and relief sculpture. In addition, the image was occasionally imprinted on coins. Like Sôtêria’s crown, the corona civica was leafy with a large gem set into its apex.44 In the early fourth century, this crown was still commonly applied to the free-standing statues of Diocletian and Constantine, and it persisted until the middle of the fourth century, when the corona civica gave way to the diadem, at a time, it must be stressed, when the salutary ideology was undergoing transformation.45


54

Clearly, the fifth-century artist who designed the mosaics for this farming community north of Antioch drew on the rich tradition of imperial representational language. It is worth noting that the corona civica was still being used in Antioch to denote imperial status in relief sculpture. A sixth-century relief from the Martyrion of Babylas depicts an emperor, perhaps Constantine, with the corona civica. The figure stands frontally, his eyes gazing out at the viewer. The only trait that distinguishes him as an imperial person, as opposed to, say, a saint, is his corona civica, here also a leafy crown with a space for an inlaid stone.46 The coupling of Sôtêria and the corona civica raises the possibility that the artist was specifically influenced by the depictions of Salus Publica. She was the personification of the salvation of the state and in her later forms, Salus Augusta and Salus Augusti, was seen throughout the provinces on coins. Salus was initially depicted wearing a leafy crown, earrings, and a necklace of round stones—all the attributes that distinguish the characterization of Sôtêria in the bath mosaic.47 This influence cannot be proved with any certainty. But if this is right, Salus Publica became, as the literary, epigraphic, legal, and artistic evidence in Late Antiquity suggests, a vague symbol with little to relate its iconography specifically to the centrally promulgated ruling ideology that it once so effectively personified. Salus Publica emerged in the Late Antique world as Salus Privata. It is also at this time—no coincidence surely—that the iconography of Salus on coins begins to shift away from the manifestations that were common in the second and third century: a standing or seated woman flanked by an altar and a snake. During the political shuffling in the aftermath of the second tetrarchy, the image of Salus began to be assimilated with that of Victory and other personifications. By the reign of Constantine, the standard depiction of Salus Augusti—a woman standing with snake and patera—was replaced by a new depiction, a woman holding two children to her breast, with the legend SALVS ET SPES REI PUBLICAE.48 The legend SALVS REI PUBLICAE is thereafter never depicted with a personification of Salus, but rather with Victory, the emperor, or a Chi-Rho flanked by the alpha and omega.49 The habit of making dedications for the salvation of the emperor could be chipped away from the salutary ideology, which, as we have seen, continued to resonate in a variety of ways, including legal formulas and speech writing, but the habit of making dedications for personal salvation would persist for several centuries during the gradual Christianization of the empire. In the next chapter, the deeply rooted practice of approaching the gods for personal salvation and its transformation in Late Antiquity will be discussed. For this, it may be useful to keep the Sôtêria mosaic in mind. First, the iconography of the mosaic is an indicator, along with the other manifestations quoted above, of the strange afterlife of the salutary ideology in the fabric of private life. Second, the mosaic points the way toward the movement of sôtêria from public inscriptions on city gates and theaters to strictly personal and religious contexts in churches and synagogues. Just as Salus Publica became Salus Privata, the desire for salvation (salus or sôtêria) became localized, interiorized if you will, in churches and synagogues.

Chapter Five Pagan, Christian, and Jewish Dedications for Personal Salvation This chapter focuses on the pagan, Christian, and Jewish dedications for personal salvation. By “personal salvation” I mean salvation for all individuals exclusive of the emperor, including that of the dedicator himself, his wife, children, parents, siblings, clients, and patrons. Irrespective of religious affiliation, the individuals responsible for the dedications in the Near East all believed that earthly salvation could be attained from divine forces primarily by means of the formula hyper sôtêrias, a belief that had deep roots in the religious practice of the region, stretching, one could argue, from the first half of the first millennium B.C. to the middle of the eighth century A.D. It has been widely assumed that Christian dedications for personal salvation grew out of the dedications on behalf of the emperors, as discussed in Chapter 1. The simple fact in the Near East that there was a long-standing tradition of making dedications for personal salvation that pre-dates the arrival of Rome gives lie to this view and has broad implications for how we should understand both types of dedications. First, it is obvious that the Late Antique dedications for personal salvation, both Christian and Jewish, derive from the earlier pagan habit of making dedications for personal salvation. Second, since both types existed simultaneously for at least three centuries, often in the same context, a question arises about the relationship between the two. It is worth asking whether the habit of making dedications for personal salvation informed how people understood the dedications for the emperor’s salvation. Did dedications for personal salvation constitute part of the semantic field that contained the range of possible meanings associated with the dedications for the emperors?

PAGAN DEDICATIONS FOR PERSONAL SALVATION The Numbers and Distribution The earliest pagan dedication for personal salvation in my sample is from a site in southern Lebanon. In 69/68 B.C., a certain Apollophanês dedicated a column of local stone for a temple at Hammara near Majdal Anjar.1 Subsequently, at Dura Europos several individuals bearing Semitic and Greek names made dedications of this sort in the first and second centuries.2 The last pagan examples are from Lebanon and date to the end of the third century. In A.D. 292/293, a certain Pausanias made the last pagan dedication for personal salvation known to me at Heliopolis (Baalbek):


56

Pausanias, for the salvation of Teimosthenês, [his] master, having prayed (or made a vow) to Lady Aphrodite, dedicated [this statue] in the year 604. Pausanias’ dedication was made on a small circular base for a statue. All that remains of the figure, however, is a claw, suggesting that it was one of the sphinxes associated with the local depiction of Kyria Aphrodite at Heliopolis.3 Sixty-two pagan dedications for personal salvation have been published. They are primarily from Syria and Lebanon; only one such dedication is from Palestine, and none from Jordan. Due to their simple votive character, most of these inscriptions are undated, though the bulk of the undated inscriptions were likely made during the middle of the second century A.D., when the epigraphic habit was at its height (see Table 6). The dedicators were demonstrably pagan, venerating a variety of gods to attain their own salvation, that of their families, and also that of their patrons (kyrioi). These dedications, although appearing steadily until the third century, were not as common in the region as those for emperors (see above, Chapter 1). Nevertheless, these dedications demonstrate the significance of sôtêria in local religious life, and therefore, I would argue, they provide a more complete understanding of the use of the formula hyper sôtêrias in the dedications for the emperors. It is just possible that when viewed from the perspective of the provinciales, that dedications for the salvation of the emperor were perceived as an extension of age-old rituals that they performed for personal salvation. In Syria, the largest single concentration of dedications for personal salvation is from Dura Europos: eighteen of the thirty-nine dedications from Syria.4 The city’s vigorous habit of leaving dedications for personal salvation will be addressed in Chapter 6. There it will be shown that individuals with both Greek and Semitic names made dedications for salvation’s sake using the Greek formula hyper sôtêrias, and they continued to do so they the Roman occupation of the city. All of the inscriptions were intended to publicize contributions to the construction and decoration of the city’s many temples and, later, Roman military buildings. Twenty other examples have surfaced at sites scattered throughout Syria; predominately, these were from the small cities and villages of the Hauran in southern Syria, and a few were found at religious centers of regional importance: Palmyra, Hierapolis, and Emesa. As at Dura Europas, the dedicators at all these locations appealed to a range of gods for salvation by dedicating portions of temples, stelae, columns, altars, statues, relief sculpture, and, in one case, a tomb.5 In Lebanon, twenty-two dedications for personal salvation have turned up at twelve locations.6 The cult centers of Heliopolis, Niha, and Deir el-Qala yielded more than half of these dedications. In this region, fourteen altars bearing dedications for personal salvation have been discovered at Heliopolis, Btedel, Hebbe, Niha, Ras Baalbek, Hermel, Deir el-Ahman, Deir Labas, Deir el-Qala, Hamara, and Sahin—all cities, villages, or cult sites in or near the Bekaa Valley.7 The remaining nine dedications from Lebanon also are religious in nature. To give one example, at Harbata, a village in the Bekaa, Achlabos dedicated a small statue of a female figure for the salvation of his daughter. The figure holds a flower in her left hand, while her right hand is raised and open, a gesture that

Pagan, Christian, and jewish dedications for personal salvation

57

suggests the making of an offering.8 The statue and dedication represent a father’s care for his (ailing?) daughter as well as his belief that his devotion to the gods would protect her. Given the numbers of dedications from Syria and Lebanon, the virtual absence of dedications for personal salvation before the fourth century A.D. from Israel and Jordan is arresting. The only pagan example known to me is from Horvath Hesheq in Israel: [.......]|I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) H(eliopolitano)|V(eneri) M(ercurio) de|cur(io) c(oloniae) pro sa|lute sua et lu(liae)|Curriae uxor(is)|suae et filior(um)|v(otum) l(ibens) a(nimo) s(olvit). [So and so], to Jupiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus, Venus, and Mercury, decurion of the colony, for his own salvation and (for the salvation) of his wife Iulia Curria and of his sons, fulfilled his vow with a willing heart.9 Like so many of the others, this dedication is from a small altar. Its original context is not clear, since Christians in Late Antiquity displaced and reused the altar in the construction of a church. As noted in Chapter 1, the dearth of inscriptions in Israel and Jordan would shift after the fourth century, when most of the dedications for personal salvation were made in these regions by Christians and Jews, after the epigraphic habit was sparked by the influx of people in association with Holy Land pilgrimage. Names: Roman, Greek, Semitic Despite the fact that dedications for salvation’s sake, for both rulers and the ruled, were part of the cultural substratum of the region, there was a difference in the types of people involved in the production of each kind of dedication in the Roman period. An analy sis of fifty-two pagan dedications for personal salvation has yielded the names of seventyseven individuals. In the dedications for the emperor, there is a majority of Roman names (see Table 11). By contrast, in the dedications for personal salvation, only twenty-nine percent of the dedicators had Roman names, while forty-eight percent had Semitic names. In addition, three individuals from Syria characterized as having either Roman or Greek names had a Semitic patronymic or attached a Roman nomen to their name.10 However, Table 14 is based on a smaller sample of names than Table 11 is, so even one or two chance finds could have tipped the balance significantly. Upon closer inspection, the names from Lebanon in both types of dedications are comparable. The big difference lies in Syria, where the majority of dedicators asking for personal salvation had Semitic names. The Desire for Salvation and the Dedications for Personal Salvation Dedications for salvation’s sake were part of a personal dialogue with the gods. Whether offerings deposited in shrines or dedicatory inscriptions set into architectural elements, they were visual proof that the dedicator had properly honored a god, in many cases through the fulfillment of a vow (euchê). In return, people presumed that the god would grant salvation to the beneficiaries named in the dedications, whether they were emperors


58

or freedmen. The preparation of the offerings and the rituals that accompanied them were public affairs. The dedicator had to buy the object from a local craftsman, take it to a scribe for a suitable inscription, and then leave it at a temple, where the object was at least temporarily displayed. If made in fulfillment of a vow, the dedication of these inscriptions may have included a kind of performance, in which the formulas were actually uttered for an audience, perhaps just the people milling about the temple. Or they were performative in the sense that the inscriptions were meant to be read and re-read by casual visitors and by elites engaged in competitive displays of public religiosity, for whom these texts were the most obvious way of publicizing their names.11 Each inscription was therefore the product of the community and, because it recorded the names of the dedicators, also became part of the community’s public record or, as one scholar recently labeled it, the community’s “civic memory.”12

Table 14 Percentage of Roman, Greek, and Semitic Names by Region in the Pagan Dedications for Personal Salvation (n=77) Israel

Jordan

Lebanon

Syria

Overall

Roman

100% (1)

0

52% (11)

18% (10)

29% (22)

Greek

0

0

38% (8)

18% (10)

23% (18)

Semitic

0

0

10% (2)

64% (35)

48% (37)

Philo of Alexandria, writing in the middle of the first century A.D., helps us to visualize the physical context for sôtêria dedications. He describes the Sebasteion at Alexandria as a structure full of dedications, paintings, statues, and precious objects of silver and gold. Within the temple’s precinct were stoas, libraries, meeting rooms, groves, propylaea, and places for relaxation—all lavishly decorated. Located at the head of Alexandria’s harbor, the temple was popular with those contemplating a journey by sea, because the temple “gives hope of salvation [elpis sôtêrios] to sailors when they set out to sea and when they return,” Philo writes.13 It is easy to imagine that many of the dedications (anathêmata [en] graphais) mentioned by Philo were intended for personal salvation and included the formula hyper sôtêrias. After all, seafaring was extremely dangerous.14 Salvation from the gods, in the sense of protection from unpredictable forces, would therefore have been in high demand. The provision of salvation (sôtêria) was one of the services that people expected from the gods. Indeed, the epithet sôtêr (or conservator) was often attached to their names. In the Near East, Zeus Sôtêr was the preeminent savior god.15 In this guise, he was called upon to grant salvation at Dura Europos, Dionysias (Suweida), Bostra, Skythopolis (Bet Shean), Gerasa, and Petra.16 But a god did not necessarily have to be dubbed a “savior” (sôtêr) to save. Table 15 lists the gods addressed in the dedications for personal salvation. Though shorter than Table 13, which lists the gods addressed in the dedications for the salvation of the emperor, Table 15 likewise shows a diversity of Greco-Roman and Semitic gods who could be called upon to grant salvation.17 It would be natural to assume that an individual seeking personal salvation would do so from gods associated with


59

mystery cults. Grateful devotees of Isis, for example, advertised her saving powers by reading long aretalogies. A passerby, going about his business on a busy day, might hear

Table 15 Gods Addressed in the Pagan Dedications for Personal Salvation God

Israel

Jordan

Lebanon

Syria

Total

Agathê Tychê

1

1

Zeus Hypsistos Epêkoos

2

2

Zeus Megistos

1

Zeus Sôtêr

1

Jupiter Optimus

1

Jupiter O.M.Dolichenus Jupiter O.M.Heliopolitanus

1 1

2

3

Adonis Theos

1

Athena

1

Kyria Athena

1

Artemis-Azzanathkona

1

1

Azzanathkona

1

1

Aphlad

1

1

Atargatis Thea

2

2

Theos

1

1

Theos Bel

1

1

Theos Helios Shamash

1

1

Theos Megalos Nazalôn

1

1

Deus Connarus

1

1

Deus Hadaranes

1

1

Aglibôl

2

2

Iahribôl

3

3

Malach-Bel

1

1

Semea

2

2

Genius Col(?)

1

Genius Dura Total

10

6

1 1

1

27

34


60

as he neared an Isaeum: “if when called, you [Isis] came for my salvation.”18 In my sample, there is, however, just one example of a dedication for personal salvation that involves a god of mysteries. In 175, Thaisamsos, son of Iabsymsos, dedicated an altar to Adonis Theos at Dura Europos. He did so in fulfillment of a vow for his salvation and that of his wife, reserving the right to renew the vow annually by making a burnt offering at the temple.19 Since this dedication lacks any clear reference to mysteries, it is impossible to know whether the dedicator had gone through an initiation to save himself and his wife. More often, those seeking salvation appealed to popular Semitic deities. At Palmyra, Aglibôl, Iahribôl, and Malach-Bel, the preeminent gods of the caravan city, granted salvation; at Dura Europos, Atargatis Thea, Theos Bel, and Theos Helios Shamash.20 Or they turned to Semitic deities in Greco-Roman guise: Zeus Hypsistos Epêkoos, Zeus Megistos, Jupiter Optimus, Kyria Athena, Artemis-Azzanathkona, etc.21 There are evident differences in the gods listed in Table 13 and Table 15. In the eyes of the dedicators, gods associated with Zeus-Jupiter and Agathê Tychê were primarily responsible for granting salvation to the emperor. Perhaps Zeus was, in some cases, thought of as Baal, Hadad, or Bel, the great father deities of the Near East.22 Zeus Ouranios, “Heavenly Zeus,” is, to give one example, a more or less faithful translation of Baalshamin, “Lord of the Heavens.” People in need of personal salvation, however, turned less often to father deities—or to Agathê Tychê, who, though addressed in at least a third of the dedications for the salvation of the emperor, appears in only one of the dedications for personal salvation.23 Lastly, the gods referred to in various guises as Theos, “God,” could be counted on to grant salvation to the emperor far more often than to individuals.24 To turn the ears of the gods to mundane human concerns, people most commonly dedicated altars as votive offerings. Compared to statues and architectural elements for temples, altars were relatively cheap, especially if made from local limestone, and functional, since they could be used repeatedly for sacrifices. Since it was a reusable offering, the altar stood not only for a single sacrifice but also for the possibility of future sacrifices, with each use renewing the invocation for salvation inscribed on the altar. Although most altars were small with little or no decoration, a few were decorated with representations of the gods addressed in the dedication, perhaps to increase the altar’s value in the eyes of the gods and therefore its efficacy.25 In one case, the dedicator, an imperial courier (koursôr) named Eutychês, had his own image placed on the altar: a hooded man holding a staff in one hand, leading a saddled horse with the other.26 The image of Eutychês leading his horse to approach the divine to ask for salvation is a personal testimony of his faith that the gods would grant him and his family salvation. It is frustrating that his motivations, even with the help of the self-portrait and inscription, remain opaque. The Augustan poet Ovid provides a helpful glimpse at the rather personal emotions that motivated such dedications. Begging Isis, the protector of mothers, to save his lover Corinna from a botched attempt at an abortion, the poet lays bare his desperation and utter dependence on the will of the goddess. To move her, Ovid vows an altar with the inscription: Servata Naso Corinna. “Ovid is grateful for Corinna saved.”27 A short verse, a humble altar—Isis did not need much to relieve human suffering; it was simply taken for granted that the gods would save. Ovid’s plea is rather tender. Others, however, demanded salvation from the gods by commanding them to save.28 And some turned to magic. An amulet now in Jerusalem, but whose provenance is unclear, depicts a


61

god known as the “Sacred Horseman.” Riding a horse galloping to the right, the god spears an enemy who has fallen under the horse’s legs. The inscription makes it clear that the scene is meant to ward off evil:

The One God, save [and] protect your servant Severina. The One God [who triumphs over] evil. The horseman is flanked by a lion and a snake, apotropaic symbols that, along with the depiction of the slaying of evil and the inscription, emphasize the intent of the amulet: to protect and save its owner.29 In return for aid, the dedicators advertised the salvation they had received from the gods, simultaneously profiling themselves and the savior gods. If Corinna is “saved” (servata), Ovid promises to sing Isis’s praises—indeed he has already publicized his relationship to Isis by making the dedication within a poem. Similarly, at Dionysias (Suweida) in southern Syria, Antiochos, son of Diomêdês, made a dedication to thank Zeus Sôtêr-Phôsphoros (“Illuminator”) because the god had saved (sôtheis) him from the “bottom of the stormy seas and the edge of the terrifying earth.” The dedication, Antiochos says, was meant as “proof of Zeus’ miraculous deeds.”30 Social Functions Like dedications for the salvation of the emperor, votive offerings to the gods for personal salvation had consequences in this world. As a marker of social identity—that complicated set of characteristics that locates an individual in society—dedications for salvation’s sake function in multiple ways. They announce social identity by including the dedicator’s title, social status, tutelary gods, tribal affiliation, and genealogy. By making this information public, the dedicator was literally inscribing himself into the historical record of his community or a holy place.31 The potency of these dedications comes from their ability to link the realm of gods and men in a way that had consequences in this world. While establishing a relationship between the dedicator and the gods, the dedications simultaneously established a relationship between the dedicator and the beneficiaries named in the inscriptions. In his study of the Aramaic epigraphic formula CL HYY, “for life,” a formula in use from the first century B.C. to the third century A.D., Klaas Dijkstra has shown that such dedications must be viewed through the lens of the Mediterranean system of patronage. In other words, the relationship between dedicators and beneficiaries determines the social meaning and function of the dedications. If the dedicator was inferior to the beneficiary—a patron, official, or emperor—then the dedication functions to show loyalty. If the dedicator is superior to the beneficiary—wife, children, and members of the extended family—then the dedication affirms the authority of the benefactor and obliges the beneficiary to honor him.32 Taking Dijkstra as our guide, let us first consider the inscriptions in which the dedicator appears in a position inferior to the beneficiary. At Dura Europos, Sur, Tharba, and Yabrouda (all sites in Syria), dedications for the


62

salvation of individuals not explicitly related to the dedicators have surfaced. The implication is that in these inscriptions the beneficiaries were of higher social status than the dedicators, who were therefore seeking to establish or reaffirm a patron-client relationship.33 Clearly inferior are Alkimos, Julianos Dionysios, Callistus, and Apollonius, who made dedications for the salvation of their “lords” (kyrioi or domini), that is, patrons.34 At Heliopolis, Dura Europos, and Palmyra, freedmen made dedications that honored former masters, perhaps as part of the obsequium that was a master’s due.35 Appealing to Jupiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus, Q.Baebius Ianuarius sought the salvation of his own wife Baebia Thallusa and that of their patronus (i.e., former master) Baebius Novatus.36 In 211, Agatocles, a freedman (libertus) of the centurion M.Antonius Valentinus, asked for the salvation of his former master and the protection of the centurion’s dependents (eiusque omnium).37 At Palmyra, Julius Erôs, freedman (apeleutheros) of C.Julius Bassus, another Roman military official, asked Zeus Hypsistos for the salvation of his own son.38 Although the beneficiary of Erôs’ dedication was his son, not his former master, the freedman still felt obligated to honor his former master by mentioning his name even in his personal communications with the gods. Now let us consider dedications involving family members and dependents. In these inscriptions, the dedicator emphasizes his superior status with regard to the beneficiaries. The dedication at El-Michrife of Krispos, son of Beenathalos, for the salvation of his father is the sole exception.39 Krispos will have been socially inferior to his father. Usually the dedicator honors his ancestors not by asking for their salvation, as in the case of Krispos, but by providing a patronymic in the dedication. Because life expectancy at this time was rather low, it was probably the case that most would not have been able to ask for the salvation of a living father, let alone a grandfather.40 Thus the dedications, while paying homage to dead ancestors by providing a patronymic, looked to the future by asking for the salvation of the dedicator’s own children. Often they are referred to anonymously as tekna.41 But sometimes they are named, as a particularly detailed example from Heliopolis demonstrates: Carmaeus Montianus Quintillianus, son of Tiberius, of the Fabian tribe, son of T.Carmaeus Quintillus, also called Pastor, asked for the salvation of himself, his wife Firmina, and his children Firminus, Montanus, and Marcella.42 The dedicator looks back two generations to his grandfather, while simultaneously looking to the future of his family line as represented by his sons and daughter. It should be noted that this inscription and others like it also emphasize the dedicator’s relationship to his wife.43 Although women in their role as wives show up frequently in the dedications, they rarely act as dedicators. An isolated example comes from the cult site of Bel-Marcod at Deir el-Qala in Lebanon. There, Antistia Victorina Fabaria asked for the salvation of herself, C.Antistus and Antistus Victorinus, Salvus, Hotarion, and Cara.44 She is clearly assuming the traditionally masculine role as head of the family in her attempt to secure salvation from the gods, a role that would be taken up in Late Antiquity by Christian and especially Jewish women (see below). A handful of dedications ask for the salvation of members of the extended family. Two brothers from Dura Europos made a dedication for the salvation of themselves, their brothers, children, mother, and kin (synaimôn).45 This inscription thus opens the possibility that the dedication was meant to profile the entire family, possibly even the


63

tribe to which they belonged.46 A tribal affiliation might also be alluded to in a dedication from Ourim el-Joz (Syria), in which Astêronas asked for the salvation of himself and his “brothers.”47 Especially detailed is a dedication from Heliopolis: Julianus asked for the salvation of himself, his children Julianus, Secunda, Gemella, his wife Gemella, his brothers Titus (?), Marcus, Gaius, his sister Herra, his nephews Callistus and Quintus, and his niece Secunda.48 A few sought the salvation of themselves and their dependents (tou pantos oikou, tôn idiôn, or suorum omnium). To give one example, having received an oracle from Deus Connarus, a local god from the Bekaa Valley, Baebius Aurelianus Dius, a decurion of Heliopolis, made a dedication for the salvation of himself, his wife Antonia Diodora, an honesta femina, their children, and all his dependents (suorumque omnium).49 Lastly, some used the dedications to publicize their titles. At Dura Europos, Epinikios reports that he was herald (keryx) and priest of Theos at the time of the dedication, and Seleukos reveals that he was stratêgos and epistatês, the highest municipal office until the Roman occupation of the city.50 Architects and municipal magistrates also profiled themselves in the dedications.51 For example, a local councilor from a settlement in Israel left a dedication for himself, his wife, and children.52 Ostensibly religious in nature, the dedications had the important function of establishing and reaffirming social distinctions at the local level. Central in this regard was the family. Some dedicators look backwards and proudly trace genealogies to their grandfathers; and looking forward, they not only profiled the immediate family but brothers, sisters, and kin as well. In this way, distant kin could also receive both salvation from the gods and public acknowledgment of their relationship to powerful individuals in the community. Overall, such dedications glued individuals and groups together. The dedications linked patron and client by ritually affirming their interdependence. The dedications also placed the father at the head of the nuclear family. His piety would guarantee the salvation and survival of his family into the future. This function of providing a symbolic means of bridging individuals and groups that were some distance apart, either in social status or physical space, is precisely how I believe we should see the relationship between dedications for personal salvation and dedications for the salvation of the emperor. Although it is impossible to prove directly, I would suggest that the practice of approaching the gods for personal salvation laid the foundation for the spread of the salutary ideology, which was affirmed here as elsewhere under the same set of assumptions about the role of the gods in providing relief for those who ask with the right words accompanied, of course, with the right gifts. We have, to my knowledge, only one instance of an individual who asked for the salvation of himself and his family members as well as the salvation of the emperor on the same cult object. On one side of an altar found at the Temple of Bel-Marcod at Deir el-Qala in Lebanon, Mummeius Ingenuos asks Jupiter Optimus for the salvation of the emperor Pertinax, while on another side he asks for the salvation of himself, his brothers, and his children.53 In this way, Ingenuos made loyalty to the emperor a family affair, collapsing the real and symbolic gap between the emperor and himself by locating the emperor within the nexus of his own family’s relationship to a local god. This was, moreover, a relationship that he sought to publicize at a regional cult site, where countless visitors will have read his inscription. People were not blind to inscriptions. They were not simply lifeless objects, but objects with texts that could potentially be read, even ridiculed. In a passage often


64

cited, Pliny the Younger describes the cult site of the god Clitumnus, situated near Spoleto in Italy, as a place full of votive inscriptions, “which many hands have written on every pillar and wall.” He continues: “Most of them you will admire, but some will make you laugh—though I know you are really too charitable to laugh at any of them.”54

CHRISTIAN DEDICATIONS FOR PERSONAL SALVATION Christian dedications for personal salvation can be found in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel (see Table 16). As Peter Baumann has recently stressed, these Christian dedications must be seen as rooted in a pre-Christian, pagan religious mentality.55 This means that it should come as no surprise that those regions that produced dedications for personal salvation before the fourth century should continue to do so in a Christianized landscape. If the pagan gods could be counted on to aid the needy in exchange for gifts, so too could the Christian God.

Table 16 The Distribution of Christian Dedications for Personal Salvation Israel

Jordan

Lebanon

Syria

Total

Dated

14

11

5

25

55

Undated

34

17

1

18

70

Total

48

28

6

43

125

Before discussing the distribution of the Christian dedications, a few words regarding the dates, or lack thereof, are necessary. On the whole, dedications for the salvation of individuals include less information for dating than the dedications for the salvation of emperors. The simple reason is that the emperor is often mentioned by name, thus making it possible to narrow down a date. While Christian stone decoration, such as lintels, capitals, marble screens, and posts, was seldom dated, more expensive offerings, such as silver liturgical objects and mosaic pavements, often were. Thus Table 6, illustrating the mass of dated personal dedications in the second half of the sixth century, reflects the dedicatory activity of only the wealthiest individuals.56 Lacking is a sense of the continuity of the habit of making such dedications during the fourth and fifth centuries, before the reinvigoration of the epigraphic habit in the sixth century.57 The Numbers and Distribution The earliest dated dedication for personal salvation in a clearly Christian context was found on the pediment of a temple tomb in northern Syria. Dated to 384/385, it commemorates the restoration of the tomb by Bassimas and Mathbabea:


65

[There is] one God alone that helps. For the salvation and memory of the living. Bassimas and Mathbabea renewed (the tomb) in the year 433.58 William K.Prentice looked for parallels to the formula “for the salvation and memory of the living.” He noted that it may have been suggested by the formula “for the salvation and victory,” stereotypically (Prentice’s word) used in dedications for the emperors. Further, Prentice allowed for the influence of the Christian liturgy, to which he also pointed to explain the phrase “the living” (tôn zontôn): “In the present inscription I refer to those living in the world beyond the grave, as in believe the words the prayer for the dead” found in the liturgy.59 Thus, according to Prentice, there were at least two possible influences that informed the Christian use of the hyper sôtêrias formula: dedications for the salvation of the emperor, and similar formulations that were being used in the nascent Christian liturgies of Syria at the end of the fourth century. So powerful, however, is the attraction of looking for imperial precedent that Prentice—and he has not been alone—failed to identify a third possible influence: pagan dedications for personal salvation, a tradition that, unlike the dedications for emperor, was deeply ingrained in the culture for hundreds of years and had not yet completely died out in the region.60 In Syria, concentrations of Christian dedications have turned up in the north, especially in the small cities and villages of the limestone massif, a rocky but fertile region that stretches north and east of the Orontes River. A quarter of the dedications from Syria were found on silver objects, which were stored in the church treasury and perhaps used in the celebration of the liturgy.61 The remaining dedications were found mostly in the region between Aleppo and Damascus, while in the Hauran, a region in southern Syria that produced most of the pagan dedications for the salvation of emperors and those for personal salvation, virtually no Christian dedications have surfaced.62 After the dedication of 384/385 from the monumental tomb in northern Syria, the next dated Christian inscription was found at Esbous in Jordan. Dated to between 450 and 500, the mosaic inscription commemorates the paving of the presbyterium of a church. In form, the dedication is a prayer: “For the holy memory of the priest Quintianos, and for the salvation of his children. Amen.”63 Beginning in the first half of the sixth century, local elites and pilgrims established a number of churches and monastic sites southwest of Amman around Mt. Nebo, reflecting trade with Saudi Arabia, the influx of pilgrims en route to Jerusalem, and agricultural development.64 Twenty-five (out of a total of thirty) dedications for the salvation of individuals from these settlements have been found in mosaic; there are also a few dedications on other media, such as bronze liturgical objects and marble decoration.65 It will be recalled that pagan dedications for personal salvation are virtually absent from the epigraphic record of Jordan and Israel. The early-sixth-century demographic boom brought prosperity—and dedicatory activity—not only to Jordan but also to Israel, where population levels in many parts of the region reached a number not attained since.66 Two inscriptions, one from a mausoleum located between Jerusalem and Bethlehem (Bet Safafa), and the other from a shrine for St. George on the Golan Heights (Mumsiyye), suggest that the Christian use of the formula began in the late fifth century and lasted at least until the beginning of the seventh century.67 Beginning in 601, several dedications were made at Nessana, a populous village in the western Negev that thrived


66

at this time due to the traffic of pilgrims on their way to Mt. Sinai and to the exploitation of the surrounding countryside for wheat, barley, and grapes.68 Here, church officials and local elites sought their own salvation by donating portions of stone decoration and mosaic paving for the three churches in the village, leaving a total of ten such dedications to commemorate their spending.69 In Lebanon, the five extant mosaic dedications for salvation are all dated. In 500 (514 or 515), the mosaicist (psêphôthetês) Elias dedicated a mosaic pavement for a church for his own salvation.70 The next thee dedications date to between 530 and 575, and the last dedication, from Mutatio Heldua, dates to 605/606, thus following a pattern similar to that of Jordan and Israel, where the formula began to come into use at the beginning of the fifth century and faded by the middle of the seventh century.71 Names by Media: Roman, Greek, Semitic, Biblical In the Christian dedications for personal salvation, there are specifically Late Antique features of the onomasticon, including the use of Biblical names and the appeal to God for the salvation of anonymous present and past benefactors (karpophorountes or karpophorêsantes) (accounted for in Table 17 as “anonymous”). Because of the variety of Christian dedications, it has been possible to tabulate the names according to the media of the dedications. Individuals with Greek names made the largest number of dedications on all media, including the two most expensive types of dedications: those on objects of precious metals, such as silver and bronze, and those incorporated into mosaic floors. The preponderance of Greek names in the public writing of this period points to the high status of the dedicators. The clergy, for example, tended to have Greek names.72 Nonetheless, as with the pagan dedications, it would be a mistake to miss the importance of the number of Semitic names and Biblical names. Contexts Where did Christians place their pleas for personal salvation? Entering a Late Antique church a pious visitor would have seen over the entrance a large stone lintel with an inscription in which an individual or a group of individuals asked God for their own salvation.73 For example, at Androna (Syria), Dometios, son of Mareas, and his wife

Table 17 Percentage of Roman, Greek, Semitic, Biblical, and Anonymous Names by Media in the Christian Dedications for Personal Salvation Media

Roman

Greek

Semitic

Biblical

Anonymous

Total

Metal

4% (1)

66% (18)

4% (1)

26% (7)

0

27

Stone

26% (10)

28% (11)

13% (5)

26% (10)

7% (3)

39

Mosaic

10% (10)

39% (40)

19% (19)

19% (19)

13% (14)

102

Total

13% (21)

41%(69)

15% (25)

21% (36)

10% (17)

168


67

Synklêtikê, in exchange for the money spent on the construction of the church, made their dedication for salvation’s sake.74 As his eyes became adjusted to the light flooding in from the clerestory, our visitor might notice, if the church were paved partially with stones, that a few flags had rough inscriptions scratched into them, also for salvation’s sake. On the floor of the Church of Mary Theotokos on Mt. Gerizim, the Samaritan holy mountain, Bartholomaeos (?) Alexander asked for his own salvation and that of his household.75 Looking now at the columns and their ornately carved capitals, he would have noticed the names of others asking for salvation. At Nessana, several elements of columns and capitals attest this practice. To take one example, on a capital from the South Church, Abraamios, son of Chorzos, asked for the salvation of himself and his son Stephanos.76 As our visitor moved towards the altar and the reliquary, his eyes would have been drawn to the mosaic floor. Here was a world in miniature, where cities, plants, animals, and humans were twined in vine scrolls, colored vibrantly.77 Scattered throughout this paradisaical imagery were the names of the church’s benefactors, many of whom sought salvation through their efforts to beautify the interior of the church. In Jordan, as noted earlier, twenty-five examples of the formula hyper sôtêrias have been found in mosaic pavements; in Syria, eight; in Lebanon, five; and in Israel, eighteen.78 Having now reached the marble screen that separated the congregation from the sanctuary, our visitor would have admired the finely carved marble decoration. On the marble screen from the Church of St. George in Philadelphia (Amman), a monk and priest named George sought the salvation of the “masters” (despotai), perhaps wealthy patrons who lived in or around the bustling Late Antique city.79 Elsewhere donors used the formula on marble or limestone tables, plaques, bases, etc.80 If there was a baptismal font in the church or in one of the adjacent structures, our visitor might have seen a dedication for salvation running along its edge, as on the font found at Khirbet Zacharia (Israel), a site lying along the road from Lod to Jerusalem.81 Finally, seeking blessed oil, he might have caught a glimpse of the small marble box containing the relics of a martyr. On its lid, there might have been a dedication for salvation. An example of such a reliquary was found at Bassah (Syria). In this case, Elias, a deacon of the church, sought his own salvation.82 If the visitor had come during the performance of the liturgy, he would have seen the procession and use of the church’s treasure of silver and bronze liturgical objects: patens for the bread, chalices for the wine, censors, crosses, ewers, etc.83 It is doubtful that he would have been able to see the small inscriptions on these objects, but if close enough, he would have read the names of their proud donors. In northern Syria, a large collection of silver objects from a village church has been discovered, suggesting that most churches, no matter how small, had a substantial collection of such objects.84 Sixteen of the items include ornately carved inscriptions asking for the salvation of the donors.85 It would not have been lost on our visitor that here, within the confines of the church, he was literally immersed in a society in miniature. He could trace the names of dozens of individuals, some undoubtedly familiar to him as family members, neighbors, and patrons.86 It would become clear also that, especially if he or a member of his family was sick, salvation (sôtêria) was attained through donations to the church. If there was any doubt, a priest might have pointed to a particular type of dedication that read: “for the salvation of the benefactors present and past.” Thirteen dedications of this type survive


68

from Syria, Jordan, and Israel.87 If our visitor was both wealthy and inspired by the message of the anonymous dedication, he might have begun to make arrangements for a large donation to the church, perhaps a silver plate or a portion of a new mosaic during the restoration of the church, so that he could join the society of donors who attained salvation through pious giving. Although most of the Christian dedications for personal salvation have been found in churches or other religious structures, a few have turned up in other contexts. In Syria, a certain Agathonikos had a rock-cut dedication for a road made ca. 563 for his own salvation.88 At about the same time, the Ghassanid phylarch Flavius Almoundaros dedicated a fortress in thanksgiving to God and St. Julianos for the salvation of himself and that of his children.89 In addition, four dedications from burial sites in Syria and Israel ask for the salvation of the builders of the tombs, and not necessarily for the salvation (in the metaphysical sense) of those entombed.90 Social Functions in Christian Contexts In the Christian dedications for personal salvation, just as in, as I argued earlier, the pagan dedications for personal salvation, the relationship between the dedicator and the beneficiaries determines the meaning and function of the dedication. If, on the one hand, the dedicator was inferior to the beneficiary, he was profiling himself and his family (by providing a patronymic) as well as his relationship to individuals of higher social status. If, on the other hand, the dedicator was superior to the beneficiary, he was still profiling himself and his family, while simultaneously placing the beneficiaries in his debt. Further, the beneficiaries were not exclusively those named in the dedication but could also be the church itself and its leaders, thus placing the institution in debt to its most generous benefactors. In return, a benefactor of a church might reasonably expect to hear his name read in the liturgical service, to administer ecclesiastical institutions, to propose candidates for the priesthood, and to pass on these rights to his heirs.91 Dedications thus reinforced entrenched differences in social status and also created new opportunities for elites to gain further influence over the affairs of their communities.92 Consider first the dedications in which an inferior asks for the salvation of an individual of higher social status, thus showing respect and honor, perhaps in the hope that the beneficiary would grant favors in return. The most obvious dedications in this regard are those that ask for the salvation of a despotês, a title that usually indicates a wealthy landowner. At Philadelphia, the monk and priest George dedicated a marble plaque to honor several unnamed despotai whose generosity (philotimia) led to the construction of the church.93 Just to the south, in a village that supported two churches, both decorated with mosaics, Magnus and his wife dedicated the mosaic of the chancel of Church B for the salvation of “our despotês and tribune” Stephanos and that of his wife (?) Matrôna and their children.94 A few dedications imply a social distinction between the dedicator and the beneficiary. At Khirbet Attir, a site in Israel, Zacharias, son of Jesse, a contractor (ergolabos) by trade, dedicated a portion of the mosaic in the nave of a church for the salvation of the hêgoumenos, or monastic leader, who presumably had charge over the community.95 Or an inferior church official might dedicate a portion of the church’s decoration for the salvation of his superiors. At Kafr Kama, also in Israel, the deacon Arianos dedicated a


69

portion of the mosaic of his church for the salvation not only of his bishop, Euphrasios, but also for that of a powerful individual of high imperial rank, Theodoros, the most glorious stratêlatês.96 The second type of dedication, which is also analogous to the pagan examples, asks for the salvation of the dedicator and that of his wife or other family members. Presumably the dedicator was higher in social status than the members of his family who appear as the beneficiaries of the dedications. For example, a paving stone from ElBarduneh (Syria) has an inscription that asks for the salvation of Kosmas, Roma, and their children.97 As head of the household, Kosmas was providing for the spiritual and physical protection of his family, even if his votive offering—a paving stone—was less than sumptuous. While this was a simple dedication, others could be quite complex. At Mekhayyat, a village in Jordan with a thriving Christian community in Late Antiquity, Ammonios, his wife Epiphania, and their children John and Sargos dedicated a portion of mosaic pavement in a church for the salvation of Saolas, son of Kassisêos, and that of his children Mike and Maria, daughters of Kalonikê.98 The specificity of this dedication is striking, especially since it provides the names of not only the dedicator’s children but also those of the beneficiary. The two families are forever linked by the dedication. Women too played a role, though much less frequently, in securing the salvation of their families. A silver chalice from a collection of liturgical objects found in northern Syria records that Thekla gave the item for the salvation of herself and her children.99 The absence of her husband’s or father’s name is conspicuous. At a martyrion in Brad (Syria), however, Kyra, daughter of Hêsychios, dedicated a mosaic pavement for the salvation of not only her husband but also members of her extended family, Markianos and Hêsychia, as well as her own children.100 Kyra was paying homage to her father, and therefore to her ancestors and perhaps even to her tribe, by including her patronymic. In the Late Antique Near East, as is true elsewhere, Christians made special mention of the dead in public epigraphy by employing the formula hyper anapauseôs: “for the repose” of a deceased individual usually named in the inscription. Though it could be used independently, the formula often accompanied dedications for the salvation of the living. The society of names in the church and other holy places thus included the names of the dead.101 At Horvath Hesheq (Israel), for example, Demêtrios, a deacon, together with his son George dedicated an apse mosaic for their salvation and for the repose (hyper anapauseôs) of Demêtrios’ father, Somas, as well as that of the donor’s dead children, Demêtrios and Theodora.102 Profiling personal social status, advertising patron-client relationships, and commemorating the dead were all social functions of the dedications for salvation. In addition, the Christian dedications functioned to elicit future donations, so as to add names to the society of faithful donors. In the fourth-century liturgical service embedded in the Apostolic Constitutions, the pious are adjured to make offerings (karpophorein) to the church.103 The same language is used in Christian epigraphy in the Near East. A large mosaic inscription from the Church of the Virgin Mary at Madaba and dated to 663 was dedicated “by the zeal (and) ardor of the Christ-loving people of the entire city of Madaba for the salvation [sôtêria], succor, and forgiveness of the sins of the those who have made offerings [karpophôrêsantôn] (and) for those making offerings [karpophôrountôn] to this holy place.”104 This dedication, and others that also use this formula (hyper sôtêrias tôn karpophorêsantôn), held a promise: prestige, power, and


70

salvation (whether temporal or eternal is ambiguous) would be the reward for a large donation to the church. The name of a dedicating church-goer might be read during the liturgical service or inscribed in the list of donors kept in the church’s record office.105 But beyond the satisfaction of seeing his name spelled out with hundreds of small tesserae on the floor of his local church, the donor would receive the moral satisfaction of having provided for the religious needs of his community, as was expected of those of elite status. John Chrysostom, in a series of homilies on the Acts of the Apostles (circa 400), pleads with his congregation in Constantinople to use their wealth for the construction of churches and for the support of the clergy, rather than for baths and markets. Such donations, he states, will aid the poor in their quest for salvation by providing them with a house of worship rather than places for bawdy entertainment. The reward would be earthly prestige and eternal life, an irresistible combination to a Late Antique Christian: For only consider what a praise it will be, that, whereas others have built splendid tombs to have it said hereafter, “Such an one built this,” thou hast reared Churches! Bethink thee that even until the coming of Christ thou shalt have thy reward, who has reared up the altars of God.106 Influence of the Christian Liturgies John Chrysostom’s view of donations as not only a social but also a religious duty invites us to consider how dedications for salvation functioned in a religious sense. More than just borrowing the epigraphic language of the pagan past, Christians in the Late Antique Near East shared in the mentality that led their predecessors to make dedications for salvation’s sake. Pagans looked to their gods for the salvation of their emperors, their patrons, their families, and themselves, and they expected to receive it in exchange for votive offerings. The relationship thus established with the god was personal. Recall, for example, Ovid’s dedication to Isis for Corinna servata, or the altar of the courier Eutychês depicting himself to the gods as he was in everyday life, hooded with a riding cloak and leading his horse. The dedicators desired to be snatched from death, cured of terrible illnesses, the restoration, in short, of the wholeness of the body in the present.107 To Christians, the word sôtêria, especially when used in the epigraphic formula hyper sôtêrias, was similarly perceived. Christian elites also looked to their God for earthly salvation in exchange for votive offerings, but of course in the context of a church, rather than a pagan sanctuary. As one scholar recently put it: “Spezifisch christlich ist eigentlich nur der Kontext und die Dedikation des Kultbaues.”108 Thus the religious function of the Christian dedications for salvation’s sake demonstrates the essentially conservative nature of religious mentality and vocabulary in this region. Sôtêria, as it appears in the books of the New Testament and in the works of the postapostolic fathers, was used mainly in the pagan sense of earthly deliverance. Paul, while sailing to Rome, urges those on the boat to eat: “Wherefore I pray you to take some meat: for this is for your health [sôtêria]” (Acts 27:43, see also Luke 19:9). But, of course, sôtêria had an additional, specifically Christian meaning: it stood for the future salvation that Christ brings through the forgiveness of sins (Acts 4:12, Rom. 13:11, 1 Th. 5:9).109 The distinction, however, between earthly and eschatological is not always clear, as


71

Christian religious texts often show a striking ambiguity in the use of “salvation.”110 If both meanings permeate the Christian literary tradition, sometimes in ways indistinguishable from one another, a difficult question arises: when sôtêria is demanded from God through the medium of inscriptions, was the term theologically loaded, pointing to the future event of eternal salvation? If so, did this specifically Christian understanding of the term come from texts, liturgies, or homilies? In recent scholarship, the extent to which the Christian use of older epigraphic formulas was informed by the Christian message, especially as represented by the liturgical services held regularly in churches, is a vexed issue. The debate started in the last years before the beginning of the twentieth century, when an American archaeological expedition set out to record the ancient monuments and inscriptions of Syria. The series of publications that emerged from their journeys is still fundamental reading for anyone interested in the material and epigraphic culture of the Roman Near East. In a village near Antioch in northern Syria, one of the epigraphers on the expedition copied an enigmatic text and showed it to his colleague, William K.Prentice of Princeton University. Prentice, after determining that it was not a quote from the Bible, wondered whether the text was derived from a liturgical service as yet unattested in the epigraphic record: It then occurred to me that possibly this inscription contained a quotation from some form of public worship in use among the churches of this region, and that the passage quoted might be found in some of the Greek liturgies which had had a literary tradition. This proved to be the case.111 This was an exciting discovery, for it suggested that the extant liturgies, the earliest manuscripts of which date only to the eleventh century, at least dimly reflected ancient church ritual.112 Correspondences between the epigraphic record and the literary versions of the liturgies thus proved that “certain portions of this liturgy [the Greek and Syriac versions of the “Liturgy of St. James”] were in existence, and were probably in use, in Northern Syria” by the fifth century.113 Specifically with regard to the formula hyper sôtêrias, Prentice noted that it might be related to a passage in the “Liturgy of St. James.” But given his knowledge of the pagan dedications for the salvation of the emperors, he was cautious: “Much stress, however, which might easily have been cannot be laid on this phrase suggested by the stereotyped which is comparatively common in the inscriptions of Syria.”114 In the following decades, Prentice’s faint suggestion that hyper sôtêrias is related both to pagan antecedents and to the extant liturgies was accepted by the two great French epigraphers Louis Jalabert and René Mouterde, as well as by Glanville Downey, a historian involved in Princeton’s archaeological excavations of Syria in the 1930s.115 In an article published in 1951, Downey wrote: “The formula is of particular interest because it reflects very closely one of the prayers in the Dismissal in the Liturgy of the Syrian Jacobites.” He concluded: “These inscriptions, then, take their place among the numerous votive texts which were inspired by liturgical usage.” Downey was careful to stress that the word sôtêria was


72

“reflected” in and “inspired” by the liturgies. He stopped short of saying that the Christian eschatological understanding of the term was thus implied. On the contrary, after listing the various meanings of sôtêria found in the New Testament, Downey concluded that the meaning most appropriate here is that found in Luke 1:71, where sôtêria is used in an earthly sense to mean “preservation.”116 The implication is that even if the formula hyper sôtêrias is attested in the liturgies, it does not necessarily imply the eternal “salvation” attained only through Christ. But the choice of meaning is, of course, entirely at the discretion of the epigrapher. James Russell, for example, in his publication of the inscriptions of a site in Cilicia, stated that the one example of the formula hyper sôtêrias in his sample should be “construed…in an eschatological sense…for its spiritual salvation in the hereafter.”117 Reacting to such seemingly arbitrary interpretations, Peter Baumann, in a recently published dissertation on the images and inscriptions found in the mosaic pavements of the Holy Land, firmly declares that the liturgies, and any specifically Christian notions associated with the end times, should not be used to ascribe theological meanings to epigraphic formulas. Any attempt to detach the formulas, and here he specifically refers to hyper sôtêrias, from their pagan prototypes is misguided, and snatching meanings derived strictly from the liturgies is unzulässig, or inadmissible. The formulas were, in his opinion, simply part of a Christian Alltagswissen, and not theologische Spitzensätze.118 Baumann’s contribution to the debate is in locating the formulas, hyper sôtêrias among them, in their sociological context. The formulas, he argues, derive their meaning from their form and their placement in the church. It did not matter what the formulas said, since their primary function was to profile the names of the donors. Theology, at least in the production of short, votive epigraphic texts, was less significant for the donors than the philological inclination of modern commentators is willing to allow. The donors above all wanted their peers to read their names writ large: According to their sense, all the formulas must have been understood in more or less the same way. Rather than offering a platform for theological reflection, they introduced to all readers, in an understandable way, the portion of the inscriptions in which the financial contributors were named—they were place-holders that provided the “correct” framework [for the conspicuous display of names].119 This is a rather strong statement about the banality of the content of formulaic inscriptions. Surely this conclusion is mostly correct, since it appreciates the role of inscriptions in the articulation of status in small-scale Late Antique communities.120 Nonetheless, this study has shown that in the Near East the desire for salvation, as articulated by the formula hyper sôtêrias, genuinely emanated from the religious imagination of the age. Inscriptions with their formulaic language, while not generally the place for “theological reflection,” did reflect a Christianized language that was routinely repeated in other contexts. Available in homilies, public readings, and liturgical performance, the specifically Christian understanding of sôtêria as a future event would not have been too obscure to readers, especially given that the vast majority of the dedications were made in a specifically Christian context—the church, which, it should be noted, was often dubbed “the holy place” (ho hagios topos) in these inscriptions.121 It


73

was in this special structure, the “holy place,” that sociology and theology merged, a point not lost on Late Antique Christians, who for at least 300 years used all available surfaces to ask for personal salvation while simultaneously praising God through their votive offerings. The church’s status as a place to ask for personal salvation was sanctioned not only by God but in some cases also by the emperor himself. Two sixthcentury inscriptions from a church in central Anatolia dedicated to St. Michael mark the boundaries of the church’s territory. They state that within the lands protected by this saint, the emperor Justianian granted asylum to those in need—“for the salvation [pros sôtêrian] of those who seek sanctuary.”122

JEWISH DEDICATIONS The Numbers and Distribution The dated Jewish dedications for personal salvation begin in A.D. 391 and continue until the early seventh century. In my sample, there are twenty-three Jewish dedications: eleven from Israel, eleven from Syria, and one from Lebanon.123 The numbers can be deceptive, however, since the eleven examples from Syria are from the same site: the synagogue at Apamea. In Israel, the majority of the eleven dedications for personal salvation are from major centers of Greek culture: two from Ascalon, two from Gaza, two from Skythopolis, and one from Caesarea Maritima.124 These cities had mixed populations of wealthy, educated Christians and, judging from the elaborate mosaic floors of the synagogues, wealthy, educated Jews. The fact that both Christians and Jews sought sôtêria in exchange for donations is hardly surprising. Baumann has shown that all the formulas used in Jewish contexts are also attested in non-Jewish contexts and that the Greek formulas were consistently translated directly into Aramaic inscriptions. He concludes, therefore, that there were no Jewish epigraphic formulas independent of preChristian or Christian formulas.125 Contexts Nearly all the dedications are from synagogues. Like our hypothetical church-goer, a visitor to a Late Antique synagogue in the Near East would have seen dedications for salvation’s sake on stone decoration, such as lintels, marble slabs, and columns, as well as in mosaic pavements.126 In a Jewish household, our visitor might have seen a bronze door-knocker dedicated by a mother for the salvation of her son or a bronze amulet decorated with religious symbols (menorah, lulav, shofar) and dedicated for the salvation of its owner.127 If he was staying with the community at Skythopolis, our visitor might have been invited to the house of a local industrialist named Leontios. His house, located in the southern part of the city, was lavishly decorated with a mosaic pavement. In the upper panel, the mosaic depicts Ulysses and the Sirens; in the lower panel, a Nilometer and the city of Alexandria; and conspicuously set in the middle panel, a menorah along with several pigeons and an inscription asking for the salvation of the house’s owner and that of his brother:


74

Remember for the good and for the offering, since the Lord Leontios, kloubas [an industrialist of sorts], has paved this place from his own resources for the salvation of himself and that of his brother Jonathan.128 Social and Religious Functions The preponderance of Roman and Greek names in the Jewish dedications for salvation’s sake is notable. Jews in Late Antiquity used the Greek idiom hyper sôtêrias since the formula was part of the language traditionally used by elites to express status, irrespective of religious affiliation.129 Like their pagan predecessors and Christian contemporaries, Jews donated considerable sums of money for the founding, decoration, and restoration of their religious structures. In return for their monetary sacrifice, the donors sought salvation for themselves and their families—while simultaneously profiling their wealth, connections, and social status—through the medium of formulaic inscriptions placed prominently throughout the synagogue.130 Take as a striking example the dedications from the synagogue at Apamea. Built in 391 and destroyed shortly thereafter, the synagogue was located midway along the main north-south road (cardo) of the city, a conspicuous location that testifies to the high social profile of the Jewish community it served.131 Those responsible for the impressive structure—including the archisynagôgos of Antioch, Ilasios, as well as several women—left a total of twenty dedications set into the mosaic floor, eleven of which are dedications for the salvation of the benefactors and their families. Here is Ilasios’ dedication: Ilasios, son of Isaac, archisynagogos of Antioch, made the mosaic of the entrance for the salvation of Phôtion, (his) wife, and children and for the salvation of Eustathia, (his) mother-in-law, and in memory of Isaac and Aidesios and Hêsychion, (his) ancestors. Peace and mercy on all your blessed community.132 Through this dedication, Ilasios announced his rather high status as archisynagôgos of Antioch, praised his wife, children, and mother-in-law publicly, and paid homage to his dead ancestors. Furthermore, the final line of the inscription puts the entire Jewish community at Apamea into his debt for his beneficence. Several women also donated to the synagogue at Apamea. Indeed, individual women made nine of the eleven dedications for salvation’s sake. Although they are simple texts, the dedications reveal, according to Margaret Williams, that “the standing of women within the community was very high.”133 The following example is typical of their dedications:


75

Alexandra, having made a vow, made 100 feet (of the mosaic pavement) for the salvation of all her own.134 Joining Alexandra in this society in miniature were several other women: Ambrosia, Domnina, Eupithis, Diogenis, Saprikia, Kolônis, and another Eupithis.135 In 605/606, Lady (kyria) Domna, an elite member of the Jewish community at Ascalon, together with three other male kyrioi (apparently all of equal social status, given their shared titles, despite gender differences) dedicated what appears to be a marble screen for their salvation.136 Dedications for salvation’s sake were thus one way in which women could profile themselves in a world where high-status positions were reserved for men. The kyrioi of Ascalon call to our attention the function performed by the dedications of advertising social distinctions within the community. Jews often used the term kyrios in inscriptions within their religious structures as a marker of high status.137 In addition to those at Ascalon, examples of Jewish kyrioi in dedications for personal salvation have turned up at Skythopolis.138 In sum, these elites, whether styled kyrioi or not, could not only attain salvation through their donations but also assume greater social prominence by having their names spelled out on the floors and decorations of synagogues, and thus inscribing themselves into the history of the religious community.

CONCLUSION The persistence of the formula “for salvation’s sake” until the eighth century, when Greek began to be a dead language in the Near East, points to the importance of ritual as a deep-seated aspect of historical change and continuity.139 Dedications for salvation’s sake laid the foundations for the continuation of an ancient religious mentality evident since the first half of the first millennium B.C. in Sumerian, Babylonian, and Old Aramaic inscriptions.140 In the years following the Roman occupation, this practice, and the formulaic Greek inscriptions that accompanied it, allowed for the promulgation of the salutary ideology. Now the Roman emperor, like the Near Eastern monarchs before him, would receive dedications for his salvation. In Late Antiquity, though dedications for the emperors faded from public view, those for personal salvation found renewed expression in churches, monasteries, and synagogues, possibly, some would argue, through a biblicized idiom. And by being fused into the Christian liturgy, the pagan formula hyper sôtêrias was incorporated into Christian ritual and remains embedded in the liturgy of the Orthodox Church to this day.141 The secret to the long-term success of the dedication for salvation’s sake lay in its ability to channel a host of concerns, from the political and social to the deeply religious, into a simple written form. For pagans, Christians, and Jews it was vitally important to have a personal relationship with a god based on the provision of votive offerings. In return, the donors expected “salvation,” “help,” “longevity,” “succor,” “peace,” or even “forgiveness of sins,” often in combination with one another. Thus, at the root of the habit lies religious devotion. Nevertheless, we should be sensitive to the fact that the sociological must have emanated from the religious. Through religious formulas, the dedicators profiled their own social status and also that of their families. In a highly selfconscious society, having one’s name prominently on display was a fundamental by-


76

product of generous giving and fervent religiosity. These religious formulas also functioned to prolong the local memory of the dedicators and their ancestors. To understand the deep continuity of religious mentality among pagans, Jews, and Christians, it is useful to consider briefly a text by the pagan sophist and satirist of the second century A.D., Lucian of Samosata, in Commagene. In the concluding paragraph to De dea Syria, Lucian describes a ritual performed in his day at Troizen, one the he compares later to a similar ritual performed at Hierapolis in Syria. Young men, he tells us, cut off their beards and young women their locks of hair, and left the clippings in containers made of silver and gold. Then they nailed the containers to the wall of the temple and departed only after inscribing their names next to the containers. Lucian, after relating this ritual, proudly states: “When I was still a youth, I, too, performed this ceremony and even now my locks and name are in the sanctuary.”142 As an adult looking back at this rite of passage, Lucian could assert membership in a community of faithful visitors to this shrine in Greece. The recording of his name next to many others’ confirmed that he had successfully paid due honor to the gods and located himself within the history of the shrine, a fact that Lucian could deploy much later in the writing of his account of the cult activities at Hierapolis to bolster his own authority as an author with wide experience in things religious. We should see dedications for salvation’s sake in this light. Even if some Christians and Jews added an eschatological meaning to sôtêria in some of their literary texts, the pagan, Christian, and Jewish dedications for salvation’s sake all share the assumption that religious structures functioned as a place of religious devotion, social profiling, memory, and local history.143

Chapter Six Localizing Provincial Loyalty and Personal Religion: Three Case Studies The preceding chapters have provided an overview of how dedications for salvation’s sake appeared and functioned in the Near East. Such an overview, however, needs to be supplemented by case studies to show how and why the dedications for salvation, either for the emperor or for the individual, were made in particular places. As case studies, I chose Heliopolis (modern Baalbek in Lebanon), Dura Europos (Syria), and Gerasa (modern Jerash in Jordan). At each city, a number of dedications were found in a clear archaeological context with sufficient variation in historical development and distribution of inscriptions to invite comparison. Heliopolis, Dura Europas, and Gerasa all received a foundation of Greek culture in the fourth century B.C. under Seleucid rule, as was evident in their use of Greek language, religion, and municipal institutions and offices. The three cities also became subject to Roman rule. The particular ways in which both types of dedications—those for the emperor’s salvation and those for personal salvation—appear in these cities allow us to see the arrival of the dedications, their use in context, and their local significance. Gerasa also provides ample evidence of the fundamental shifts that occurred in Late Antiquity under the influence of Christianity. Heliopolis and the Bekaa Valley Heliopolis was a religious focal point, used for centuries by the inhabitants of Phoenicia as a cult center. Augustus refounded the city as a veterans’ colony, and from the first century on, Latin was the administrative and religious language of the city. Thirteen dedications for the salvation of the emperor were made in connection with the cult of Jupiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus.1 The earliest dedications appear in the reign of Hadrian, later than we would expect for an Augustan colony, but not unexpected, in that the epigraphic habit as a whole was just then gathering steam.2 Roman citizens made all but one of these dedications—among them a veteran, a former beneficiarius, a speculator, and a freedman. The exception involves two slaves named Foebus and Myla.3 The dedication by C.Tittius Carmaeus (?) provides an evocative example of a dedication for the salvation of the emperor. Carmaeus was a plumbarius, probably the owner of a shop that manufactured high-quality religious objects out of lead that were sold to pilgrims as gifts for the gods or as souvenirs. His dedication describes a building program that was meant to impress the local authorities. Carmaeus had intended to set up a statue of Victory between statues of Sol and Luna, all dedicated for the salvation of the emperor. Jean-Paul Rey-Coquais, the editor of the inscription, suggests that Carmaeus had in mind an “intention symbolique.” The two luminaries, Sol and Luna, symbolized the extent of the earth, while Victory stood for the emperor and his total power over the


78

kosmos.4 The last dedication for the salvation of an emperor was in the reign of Gordian III (239–44). L. Julius Severus, the son of a certain Moschus, when elected to the city council, dedicated a statua lucifera to Jupiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus for the salvation of Gordian III.5 This statue held a torch to provide light during night festivals. Such was the expense of being granted the privilege of serving in a high-profile magistracy and, in this official capacity, displaying loyalty to the state on behalf of one’s city.6 In Heliopolis, eight dedications for personal salvation also appear, virtually all dedicated by Roman citizens.7 While the dedications for the salvation of the emperor reveal the real or imaginary ties to the state at the local level, the hyper sôtêrias/pro salute dedications for private individuals reveal the role the formula played in the everyday life of a Roman colony, notably in patron-client relationships. Pausanias made his dedication in Greek to Kyria Aphrodite for the salvation of his master Teimosthenês.8 Similarly, Q.Baebius Ianuarius dedicated an altar to Jupiter for the salvation of his patronus Baebius Novatus.9 Five dedications reveal the practice of making dedications for the salvation of close family members.10 To give one example, T.Pontius Claudius Bruttienus dedicated a statue to Jupiter for the salvation of himself, his daughter Tiberina, and his wife Iuventia, in fulfillment of a vow (votum solvit).11 Let us now move to the countryside outside of Heliopolis to measure the penetration there of the salutary ideology. In the villages and rural shrines that line the plush Bekaa Valley, only one dedication for the salvation of the emperor has turned up. At the village of Gdita, a certain C.Aetrius Crescens Mundus, son of Publius, of the Fabian tribe, together with several members of his family sought the salvation of Antoninus Pius.12 In contrast to this lone dedication, thirteen dedications for personal salvation in Greek or Latin from nine sites appear, all in religious contexts.13 The earliest dates to 69/68 B.C.14 For salvation, these individuals invoked not only Jupiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus, as we would expect, but also Juno Regina and the local gods Hadaranes and Dea Syria, both worshipped at the nearby sanctuary of Niha.15 The names of the dedicators are more often derived from Semitic roots than those found in the Heliopolitan dedications. To give two examples, the name of Haiaeus, from Deir el-Ahman, is derived from the Semitic root for “life,”16 and, the name of Achalabos from Harbata, is derived from the root for “milk.” The latter is an interesting case. Whatever his background, Achalabos named his daughter Quintilliana, a distinctly Latin name, and made his dedication for personal salvation using a common Greek formula in a fairly remote location.17 Three points follow from the distribution of dedications at Heliopolis and the Bekaa Valley. First, inhabitants of, and visitors to, this colony made dedications for the salvation of the emperor and for personal salvation in about equal numbers. Second, all but one of the dedications for the salvation of the emperor were made at Heliopolis, suggesting that the direct presence of the Romans created an environment in which explicit affirmations of the ruling ideology were perceived as valuable and perhaps in some cases necessary. Outside the colony, in the smaller settlements of the Bekaa, the pressure to subscribe to the ruling ideology was not as strong for reasons that are not at all clear. I can only speculate that those who wished to make dedications for the salvation of the emperor did so at larger towns, such as Heliopolis, where resident imperial officials would take note of their conspicuous displays of loyalty. Though unlikely, it

Localizing provincial loyalty and personal religion

79

could be that the notoriously feisty peoples who raided the Bekaa from the surrounding mountains discouraged the practice in the countryside.18 Finally, the distribution of inscriptions reveals that dedications for the salvation of the emperor arose in a region that already had a habit of asking the gods for salvation. The significant point is that dedications for personal salvation appear earlier than those for the emperor and also were more common in the region as a whole; they were made not only at Heliopolis but up and down the Bekaa Valley and were dedicated by those with Latin names, as well as those with Greek or Semitic names. Foreshadowing a trend that will be discussed shortly, Christians at Heliopolis reused a number of pagan dedications in the construction of the fifth-century church that was built in the ruins of the courtyard of the Temple of Jupiter.19 Although no Christian dedications for salvation’s sake have come to light at Heliopolis, the reuse of older inscriptions shows that they retained a symbolic power centuries after their original use. Dedications to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, by being incorporated into the church at Heliopolis, perhaps served to emphasize God’s triumph over paganism. Dura Europos The second case study brings us to Dura Europos.20 Dura was an outpost of the Parthian empire until the middle of the second century, when the Fertile Crescent was conquered by the armies of Lucius Verus. Between A.D. 33 and 175, sixteen dedications were made for salvation’s sake in religious contexts.21 The gods addressed in the dedications include Adonis, Zeus Theos, Zeus Megistos, and Artemis; the great Semitic gods Atargatis and Bel; and the local deities Aphlad and Azzanathkona.22 The main shrines of the city, including those for Adonis and Artemis, were based on Near Eastern models of religious architecture, despite the Hellenistic plan of the city, the public use of Greek, and a population at least partially composed of the direct descendants of the original Macedonian settlers. The sanctuary of the god, where individuals left their dedications for salvation’s sake, was Babylonian in inspiration: surrounded by a series of rooms forming a courtyard, where altars were placed for sacrifice.23 The dedicators were from the local elite, including Semitic merchants, who moved to Dura and set up shrines to their own gods. The intended beneficiary of the dedications was not the Arsacid king of kings, as might be expected. Rather, the Durene dedications for salvation’s sake originated from the tradition of asking the gods for personal salvation. The dedicators gave voice to this tradition by employing the Greek religious formula hyper sôtêrias, which was only then beginning to come into use in the Near East.24 From A.D. 31 to 54, six dedications were made, three by a single family with a Macedonian pedigree, and the other three by individuals with Semitic names. They display the simultaneous use of the formula as a means of honoring powerful patrons, showing deference to the gods, and publicizing one’s own family name. Ammônios, son of Apollophanês, dedicated the phalloi of the Temple of Artemis, religious paraphernalia evidently important for the cult, in 31/32, as well as an altar in the neighboring Temple of Atargatis in 36, both for his own salvation and that of family members.25 In 51/52, one of his grandsons, Xenokratês, made a dedication in the Temple of Bel for the salvation of Seleukos, the local ruler of the city, stratêgos and epistatês.26


80

In 33/34, just a year after Ammônios made his first dedication, Rechimnaios, son of Boumaios, asked the deity Azzanathkona for the salvation of himself and his children.27 In 54, an association (hetaireia) consisting of a number of men with Semitic names constructed a meeting hall (andrôn) and dedicated it to Aphlad for the salvation of the stratêgos Seleukos, the same individual who was the beneficiary of Xenokratês’ dedication.28 Most of their names are new to Dura. Who were they? Klaas Dijkstra suggests that these men were probably a tightly knit group of foreigners, most likely merchants, seeking to establish themselves at Dura. Though it is obviously impossible to know about any discussions that Seleukos may have had with these men, the official may have had his own motivations for courting these new arrivals.29 If that is so, these men may have used their dedication strategically to establish a mutually beneficial patronclient relationship with Dura’s chief magistrate. In the same shrine was found a rather personal dedication carved into one of the most stunning pieces of relief sculpture from Dura (see Figure 2). The relief depicts the god Aphlad standing on two fierce griffins. The god is crowned and wears Persian military dress. His breastplate is covered in blazing stars. To his right stands a priest making sacrifice to the god. Between the two figures is the dedication: This foundation of the sanctuary [hieron] of Aphlad, called god of the village of Anath on the Euphrates, Adadiabos, the son of Zabdibolos, son of Silloi, erected as his vow [euchên] in behalf of the safety [or salvation (sôtêria)] of himself and his children and his entire house.30 The inscription and the accompanying relief make clear the connection between the hyper sôtêrias formula and religious practice, a connection hinted at by the many altars found throughout the Near East with the same formula carved into their bases.31 Having approached the god in suitable garb, the smoke of the incense still rising from the altar, Adadiabos is captured at the very moment of his plea for salvation before Aphlad, the god of his village. The relief and text therefore publicize Adadiabos’ piety to the gods and his peers. From 54 to 175, ten dedications for salvation were made in similar contexts, that is, mostly for the dedication of rooms in temples, and by those with Greek or Semitic names. The temples involved include the Necropolis Temple, the Temple of Adonis, and the Temple of Zeus Megistos. All the dedications are for the salvation of individuals and their families. A short dedication by Malchiôn (MLK= “king”), son of Somesos (ŠMŠ=“sun”), points to the broad use of the formula among the various ethnic groups at Dura. Malchiôn was evidently from Hatra, and when the occasion arose, he dedicated part of the pronaos of the Temple of Artemis with an inscription in both Aramaic and Greek to Theos Helios/Shamash for his own salvation.32 After Rome’s occupation of the region began in 165, two dedications for salvation’s sake were made by locals. In 169/170, Seleukos, the stratêgos and epistatês of the city, dedicated portions of the Temple of Zeus Megistos explicitly in fulfillment of a vow (kat’ euchên) for his own salvation and that of his children.33 It is tempting to read between the lines. Had Seleukos lived to see his city overrun by Roman soldiers from all corners of the world, his power eclipsed by military officials? Seleukos’ salvation—his sôtêria— may indeed have become threatened, thus requiring a plea to the gods for his salvation


81

Figure 2 Adadiabos depicted in the very moment of asking his god for the salvation of himself, his children, and his household. Relief of Aphlad Theos, from the Temple of Aphlad, Dura Europos, A.D. 54.


82

and a public reassertion of his personal status. The second dedication involves Thaesamsuos, son of Iabsumson, who in 175 dedicated an altar to Adonis Theos for his own salvation and that of his wife Eklapatos in fulfillment of a vow (kat’ euchên), “on the condition that he shall make a burnt offering to the god every year.”34 This dedication assumes that the salvation being sought from Adonis was to be everlasting, at least as long as the rite was maintained once per year. By the 230s, Dura had a detachment of Roman soldiers, barracks, shrines for Roman military cults, an amphitheater, principia, and a large residence for a Roman official, probably the one charged with overseeing river traffic (dux ripae). In a drama that was performed throughout the empire, the soldiers at Dura—according to a military calendar dated 223 to 227—offered vota pro salute domini on 3 January.35 Perhaps in connection with this ritual affirmation of loyalty, Roman military personnel made five dedications in Latin for the salvation of the emperor and one for the salvation of an individual.36 For the emperor’s salvation, the military men appealed to the gods Azzanathkona, the Genius of Dura, Jupiter Optimus Maximus Conservator, Sol Invictus Mithra, and Jupiter Optimus Maximus Dolichenus. Save Azzanathkona, an enigmatic local goddess, and the Genius of Dura, these gods and their particular epithets are typical of the camps. To give one example, two decuriones of the second equestrian cohort, Nigrenius Tromentina and Aelius Tittianus, dedicated an altar to the Genius of Dura for their own salvation after receiving a vision (ex v(isu)).37 The last dedication for the emperor’s salvation involved Antonius Valentinus, a centurion. Between 209 and 211, he restored the Mithraeum for the salvation and safety (incolumitas) of Septimius Severus and the emperor’s two sons.38 In 211, this centurion’s former slave, Agatocles, sacrificed to Jupiter Dolichenus for the salvation of his former master and that of his household in fulfillment of a vow.39 It is fitting that the last dedication for salvation’s sake at Dura should be for an individual within the context of normal social relations, a freedman honoring his former master.40 As the dedications for the stratêgos and epistatês of the city show, the habit of honoring a superior existed before the arrival of the Roman soldiers. At the same time, there is no evidence that the Durenes followed the example of the Roman military in making dedications for the salvation of the emperor. In any case, the excavators have not uncovered any material evidence that locals affirmed the salutary ideology before the Sasanian Persian army destroyed the city in 256/257. And we cannot know, of course, whether the locals participated in the festivals listed in the Severan military calendar (Feriale Duranum), when on 3 January at least they might have asked the gods for the emperor’s salvation. Greek graffiti provide additional evidence for the soldiers’ belief that the gods—Zeus in particular—had the power to save. In the Temple of Azzanathkona, a shrine frequented by soldiers, was scrawled, “Lord Zeus, save [sôze] the vexillatio of the Antonines!”41 Similarly, a graffito from a housing block states, “May…, the chiliarch, be saved [sôzestô]!”42Another, on the wall of a room in the Palace of the Dux Ripae, asks, “Lord Zeus, save [sôze]…Lord… Lord Zeus save…remember the writer… Zeus Olympios save….”43 Although these graffiti do not contain the formula hyper sôtêrias, the word “to save” (sôzein) forms the basis of both the formulaic inscriptions and the graffiti. Deploying such words was apparently how soldiers sought their own salvation, especially those who could not afford an altar or were perhaps heading out into the desert on patrol and had just enough time to carve a few words in Greek, just to be on the safe side.


83

The evidence at Dura brings the observations just offered for Heliopolis and the Bekaa Valley into sharper focus. The practice of making dedications for personal salvation had deep roots in the cultures of the Near East, as demonstrated by the fact that the earliest inscriptions from Dura are dedications for personal salvation made in the context of social relations and religious practices that had nothing to do with the salutary ideology. Indeed, equivalents can be found in nearly all the languages and cultures of this region, on artifacts from Babylonian signet rings and Persian legal documents to Aramaic inscriptions at Palmyra.44 Dedications for the salvation of the emperor must therefore be seen as an extension of the language of local piety. Just as at Heliopolis, at Dura Europas the arrival of the Roman state in the form of soldiers and administrators elicited dedications for the salvation of the emperor. Gerasa For our final case study we turn now to Roman Gerasa. From A.D. 22 to 238, Gerasenes and visitors to Gerasa left fifty-five dedications for the salvation of living emperors.45 This represents a remarkably persistent public affirmation of loyalty to the state. In contrast, the number of similar dedications discovered at nearby Heliopolis, a Roman colony since the reign of Augustus, is only thirteen.46 Indeed, the dedications of this type from Gerasa far outnumber those from any city in the Near East. Part of the explanation is, of course, the lucky survival of the inscriptions from Gerasa. But that is only part of the explanation. For the Gerasenes these dedications were more than just “a display of loyalty.”47 They were essential to the social and religious life of the city. This is evident in the variety of contexts in which these dedications appeared. Intended to be displayed to an audience that included both gods and men, the dedications appear throughout the city, from altars in temples to the starting gates in the Hippodrome. Fortunately, most of the contexts are identifiable and therefore yield invaluable information on the use, reuse, and significance of these dedications over several centuries of the city’s long history. The fifty-five dedications for the salvation of the emperor from Gerasa are our best source for how the salutary ideology was affirmed in a provincial city of some administrative and economic importance. This assumes that the dedications for salvation represent a conscious reaction to imperial ideological demands of the sort that Pliny describes.48 If so, how did this ideology surface and become part of the city’s daily life and its landscape? On which occasions did people at Gerasa leave dedications for the salvation of their distant ruler? Who were the dedicators and what were their motivations? Where did they leave the dedications? Which gods secured the salvation of the emperor, the gods of the Roman state or local gods thinly disguised as Olympians? Gerasa lies north of modern Amman (ancient Philadelphia) along the traditional northsouth route between Damascus and Aila, the Roman port on the Red Sea. Traditionally held to be a Hellenistic foundation, Gerasa enters the historical record in the first century B.C. as a member of a loose federation of other Hellenistic cities in the region called the Decapolis. Ruled briefly by Alexander Janneus, the Hasmonean king of Jerusalem, Gerasa was liberated by Pompey and incorporated into the newly organized province of Syria in 63 B.C., the year that marks the beginning of Gerasa’s local era.49 Like so many other cities in the region, Gerasa entered a new period of prosperity under Roman rule. In the reign of Tiberius, the Gerasene elite began to beautify their city with new


84

monumental constructions. The earliest dated inscription belongs to the Temple of Zeus Olympios, an imposing structure situated on a hill overlooking the famous oval forum.50 Dated to 22/23, this inscription is a dedication for the salvation of the emperor by a local who had recently been elected priest of the imperial cult: To Good Fortune. To Zeus Olympios for the salvation [sôtêria] of the emperors [sebastoi]51 and for the concord [homonoia] of the people, Zabdion, son of Aristomachos, while priest of Tiberius Caesar, in the year 85 [= 22/23], gave from his own resources for the construction of the temple 1,000 drachmas, for the sake of piety.52 Robert Fink’s impressionistic portrait of Zabdion, son of Aristomachos, as a Near Eastern Roman is worth quoting at length: “Here at once is an epitome of Jerash. Zabdion bears a Semitic name, but his father’s is Greek. As priest of Tiberius Caesar, he represents the imperial cult and centres in himself the expression of his city’s loyalty to Rome; but at the same time he supports and does reverence to the Olympian Zeus.” Fink goes on to suggest that this Olympian Zeus was but a thinly disguised Semitic Baal.53 More can be said, however, about the first instance of the imperial cult in Gerasa. This, I would argue, was a landmark event in the history of the city, a marking of its self-conscious integration into the Roman state. Elected priest of Tiberius Caesar, Zabdion was undoubtedly one of the first Gerasenes to affirm and propagate Rome’s imperial ideology publicly and in essentially the same language as the Arval Brothers in Rome.54 Zabdion was surely a city councilor and local aristocrat, since the cost of holding the office of priest of the imperial cult was high.55 Unfortunately, it is impossible to know how this man came to be the first priest of the imperial cult or indeed how the imperial cult was established in Gerasa. If procedures followed elsewhere at this time hold here, Gerasa will have sent a petition to the emperor and Roman senate requesting permission to establish such a cult.56 Tiberius granted a number of such requests in the early 20s, though he discouraged the practice in general.57 In any case, Zabdion’s display of loyalty created a precedent: public affirmation of the emperor as savior had consequences at the local level. Zabdion used this occasion to profile his ties to the state. He was priest of the imperial cult. He was a local grandee in the eyes of his Gerasene peers. He could finance public constructions. His status was, moreover, used to adorn the religious focal point of the city in this period, the Temple of Olympian Zeus. Futher, his spending was “for the sake of piety” (eusebeias heneken). A religious man generous to his city and loyal to the state, Zabdion was indeed a model subject. Who then followed his lead? The next four dedications for the salvation of the emperor also come from this temple, highlighting its importance as a place where the elite inscribed themselves in the collective memory of the city and displayed loyalty to the emperors. The dedicators include two gymnasiarchs, holders of a prestigious and costly municipal office; a priest of Nero; and in the wake of the Jewish revolt under Vespasian, an asylum seeker who donated 10,000 drachmas to the temple treasury.58 One of the gymnasiarchs, Aristonas, son of Aristomachos and most likely a brother of Zabdion, dedicated 1,500 drachmas for the salvation of the emperor while fulfilling his official obligations.59


85

These sons of Aristomachos—Zabdion and Aristonas—clearly intended to praise their family through their display of loyalty to the state. Among the other families who left dedications for the salvation of the emperors were the Flavii Flacci, Gerasene Romans who attained citizenship, probably during the Jewish revolt, though military service. Of the Flavii Flacci who made dedications for the emperors, T.Flavius Gerrenus is the most distinguished. His dedication will be discussed at length below. He and his kinsman T.Flavius made dedications for the salvation of Trajan, and years later, Flavius Julianus and Flavius Cerialis, also Flavii Flacci, made a dedication for the salvation of Commodus.60 This was a family tradition of sorts. Like the two priests of the imperial cult and the two gymnasiarchs already mentioned, others made dedications for the salvation of the emperor while holding public office. An agoranomos, an agonothetês, and a bouleutês—all important municipal magistrates— made dedications or hosted festivities for the salvation of the emperor.61 Seven priests of the imperial cult, including the regional head priest of the imperial cult under Hadrian, financed projects such as the erection of cult statues and altars.62 Ameros, son of Ragelos, archibômistês, an otherwise unattested religious official, contributed to the construction of a shrine dedicated to Hera and the local god Theos Hagios Pakeida for the salvation of Vespasian.63 Individuals and collectives devoted to Artemis contributed to the construction of the Northwest Gate and the Temple of Artemis.64 Economic associations, such as a collective of gardeners, and another Zabdion, who represented the members of the Great Artemisiac College of Fullers, made dedications to Artemis for the salvation of Septimius Severus and the imperial household.65 Under the emperor Domitian, the city itself began making dedications for the salvation of the emperor, and it would continue to do so until the third century.66 Between 81 and 83, Gerasa dedicated a decorative stone block for the South Theater, a venue that joined the adjacent Temple of Zeus in providing a place where the Gerasene elite could publicly display their loyalty to the state.67 Also at this time, individual Gerasenes made two dedications for the salvation of Domitian in the South Theater, one by a former cavalry officer.68 Glen Bowersock has argued that the Flavians showed keen interest in systematically developing the cities of Syria. At Gerasa, this interest is reflected in the layout of a new street plan, a fortification wall, a city gate, and the beginnings of the massive Temple of Artemis that would dominate the city in the second century.69 But Bowersock did not point out that much of this construction, including the Northwest Gate, was dedicated for the salvation of the Flavian emperors. This gate deserves special notice, since it heralds direct imperial involvement in the development of Gerasa’s physical and symbolic topography. The “devotees of Artemis” (hoi t[ê]s Ar[temidos]) dedicated the “sacred gate” (tê[n hi]eran pylên) for the salvation of the emperor from their own resources and in fulfillment of a vow. They did this, says the inscription, “under” (epi) L.Ceionius Commodus, legatus Augusti pro praetore.70 Other imperial governors (legati) would also sponsor projects dedicated for the salvation of the emperor, including the construction of the North Gate in 115, statues of Zeus Helios, Sarapis, and Isis in 143, a propylaeum and stoa for the Temple of Artemis in 150, additions to the Temple of Zeus in 163, and the dedication of a new theater in the northern part of the city between 162 and 166.71 In the second century, construction intensified not only at Gerasa but throughout the region.72 This coincided with the general prosperity of the region under the Antonines


86

and with the incorporation of Gerasa into the province of Arabia, organized by Trajan in 106. From then on, the imperial presence at Gerasa is noticeably denser. Inscriptions mention the procurator of the province and soldiers.73 Statues of the emperor depicting him in all his familiar poses, from the militant to the pious, adorned the city.74 And dedications for the salvation of the emperor became more frequent and florid.75 Considering only the dated inscriptions, Trajan received six dedications for his salvation; Hadrian, three, two of which coincided with his visit to the Near East; Antoninus Pius, six; Marcus Aurelius, three; Commodus, two; Septimius Severus, five; Caracalla, two; Maximinus Thrax, one.76 Indeed, by the middle of the third century, dedications for the salvation of the emperor adorned three entrances to the city, including the triumphal arch governing the southern approach to the city; all major entertainment venues, including the South and North Theaters and the Hippodrome; the massive temples dedicated to Zeus Olympios and Artemis; and a host of smaller shrines. Inside the precincts of these religious structures, there were altars and cult statues dedicated to the gods for the salvation of the emperor. And while crossing in front of the cascades of water flowing through the city’s Nymphaeum, the observant passerby might notice that the inscription that followed the curves of its baroque facade asked for the salvation of the emperor. In short, the city’s political, religious, and social sites were literally covered with affirmations of Roman imperial ideology. Why should the Gerasene elite decorate their city in this manner? One possibility is that the Gerasenes made their dedications on imperial holidays. It would be worthwhile to know, for example, whether any of the dedications occurred on 3 January, when according to the state calendar vows will have been offered for the salvation of the emperor. But the evidence is inconclusive. Of the thirty-nine dated inscriptions, only ten yield the day and month on which the inscription was dedicated. None of these dates corresponds to the known imperial holidays.77 If any of the other dedications were made on such holidays, the dedicators chose not to include that information. The content of the inscriptions, however, provides other clues to the motivations of the dedicators, showing that the dedicators were preoccupied with their own affairs, even while asking the gods for the salvation of the emperor. The use of the formula to publicize the tenure of costly municipal offices has already been mentioned. In addition, Gerasenes asked for the salvation of the emperor while displaying their religious devotion. For them, a diverse pantheon of gods and goddesses—both Olympian and Semitic—could be propitiated to attain salvation for the emperor. Some were international and familiar: Zeus Olympios, Kyria Artemis, Hera, Apollo, Isis and Sarapis, and Bona Fortuna. Some were local and decidedly less familiar: Zeus Kronos, Zeus Poseidon, Theos Arabikos Epêkoos (The Arabian God Who Answers Prayers), Theos Hagios Arabikos (The Holy Arabian God), Theos Hagios Pakeida (The Holy God Pakeida), Thea Ourania (The Heavenly Goddess), and Zeus Epikarpios (Zeus the Fruit-Bearer).78 If Zeus Olympios is, as some have suggested, a “colorless term” which easily suggests the Semitic Baalshamin, and if Kyria Artemis is equally “colorless,” the list of familiar Greco-Roman gods narrows considerably.79 In other words, one way in which the Roman imperial ideology was affirmed at Gerasa was through the language of local religion; the dedicators thus were motivated, at least to a certain extent, by religious devotion.80


87

Like local politics and religion, hometown pride also motivated individuals to leave dedications for the salvation of the emperor. Generally speaking, all the dedications are expressions of civic pride. But some make the point explicitly through the inclusion of the formula têi kyriai patridi, literally, “for the sovereign fatherland.” Fink interpreted the phrase to mean “for the Roman state.”81 But it is now agreed that the phrase must refer instead to Gerasa itself as the “fatherland” of Gerasenes.82 Eight individuals made dedications for the salvation of the emperor while simultaneously displaying pride in their “fatherland.” The first was a citizen, T.Flavius Dionysius, a veteran and former decurio of the cavalry, who donated 3,000 drachmas toward the construction of a block of seats for the South Theater under Domitian. This habit would continue for well over a century. A certain Athenodoros dedicated the last dated example in 197. While serving as a market official (agoranomos\ Athenodoros displayed philotimia (ephiloteimêsato) “for the sovereign fatherland” (têi kyriai patridi).83 Even the small altar on which this inscription was carved was sufficient to reflect the value-system that formed the basis for the urban culture of the Roman world: philotimia. Philotimia, “competition among good citizens who want to distinguish themselves and be honoured,” as Paul Veyne defined it,84 together with the other virtues of “good citizens,” such as piety (eusebeia) and hometown pride (têi kyriai patridi), created a culture of conspicuous spending among the elite, which led to the striking monumentalization of Gerasa. Local pride was therefore necessarily coupled with national patriotism and an acknowledgment of the distant, living emperor’s power to maintain the security of the world in which the Gerasene elite thrived. The inscriptions, as a whole, suggest that local concerns underpinned the decision to make costly dedications for the salvation of the emperor. That is not to suggest that the emperor’s presence was little more than symbolic. Though there is no evidence from Gerasa of imperial officials compelling the Gerasene elite to display their loyalty to the emperor, those projects that were completed “under” (epi) imperial governors suggest at least direct imperial interest in propagating imperial ideology. One lengthy inscription clearly demonstrates the role played by imperial and local pressures on the career of a Gerasene Roman. It is an honorary decree that describes the inauguration by a guild of actors dedicated to Dionysus of an annual festival for the salvation of Trajan (lines 1–3), probably just after Trajan organized the province of Arabia in 106.85 The city nominated T.Flavius Gerrenus to be the first presiding official (agonothetês). According to the inscription, Gerrenus was chosen because he was a “friend of Caesar” (philokaisar) and a “local patriot” (philopatris) (5–6). In addition, Gerrenus was known by “provincial governors and procurators” for his cooperation with the state (6–7).86 Gerrenus accepted the honor because he wanted to display “his exceeding loyalty (eusebeia) to the house of the Augusti and because of his affectionate goodwill toward the city” (10–11).87 Surpassing the efforts of previous festival officials, Gerrenus entertained the guild of artists and meted out worthy prizes to both the victors and the vanquished (11–17). To honor this exceptional display of generosity (called philotimia throughout the inscription), the guild decreed that a statue of Gerrenus bearing a commemorative inscription be placed in the South Theater, the main venue of the festival. In the years to come, the contestants in the games were urged to honor Gerrenus by laying wreaths at his statue. The penalty for neglect was a fine of 25 denarii, which was payable to the guild.


88

On other occasions, too, visitors to the theater had to lay wreaths at Gerrenus’ statue or pay the same fine to the city (15–19).88 Josephus provides a parallel in his description of the games that Herod the Great established at Caesarea in Palestine for Augustus in 10/9 B.C. His account helps us imagine the prestige attached to the host and gives a sense of the political, social, and religious importance of such festivals to the participants. Herod’s games were to be held every four years. For the first festival, Herod provided gladiators, wild beasts, horse races, and other live entertainment. Impressed by Herod’s plan, Augustus and Livia sent 500 talents to offset the expense. Thousands came for the spectacle, including embassies from neighboring cities. Like Gerrenus, Herod hosted his guests and invited them for nightly banquets. In the end, the games had their calculated effect. According to Josephus, Augustus reflected that Herod, because of his unbounded generosity, “deserved to be king of all Syria and Egypt.”89 Some 50 years later, the grand festival was still running. Agrippa I, tetrarch of Judaea, arrived at the festival in 44—here described by Josephus as “spectacles in honor of Caesar instituted as a kind of festival for his salvation [sôtêria].”90 Since imperial officials would be there, Agrippa thought the festival would be an ideal opportunity to display his loyalty to Rome, on the one hand, and his political influence and social status to his people, on the other, as his grandfather Herod had done decades earlier. At daybreak on the second day of the festival, Agrippa, clad in robes of shimmering silver, made his way to the theater. Beams of light danced off his robes as the sun came up. In reaction to this “wondrous” (thaumasios) spectacle, a man in the crowd shouted out: “You are more than mortal in your being!” Through these words, even if uttered by one of his toadies, Agrippa had been publicly equated to a god. When he made no attempt to deny the accolade, Agrippa, we are told, was immediately dealt divine justice for his arrogance: an intense pain shot through his heart and stomach, slowly killing him over five days. Though his plan went awry, Agrippa saw the festival for the emperor’s salvation as a moment when all eyes, especially those of imperial officials, local dignitaries, and the crowd in the theater would be focused on him. Why did the sacred guild of actors inaugurate such a festival at Gerasa? Why did Gerrenus spend so much to host a festival that was held in honor of the distant emperor? Given that the office (agônothetês) was a particularly costly honor,91 did the sacred guild or state officials resident at Gerasa have to press Gerrenus into hosting the festival? What could Gerrenus hope to achieve by his generous spending? Though the circumstances behind Gerrenus’ nomination are obscure, it is apparent that Gerrenus, like Herod and Agrippa I, used the opportunity to affirm his role as an elite person par excellence within Gerasene society. He had the resources to make an ordinary day into a festive holiday for all the people. On display was his status as a Roman citizen of considerable means, one who could confidently style himself “friend of the emperor” (philokaisar) and “local patriot” (philopatris). How this obscure local brought himself to notice of the emperor’s officials before the festival is unknown. But perhaps as a result of his spending, he might be mentioned to the emperor himself. Herein lay the seduction of acts of loyalty. This publicity held the possibility of securing for Gerrenus exemptions from costly civic duties and even promotion into the imperial administration.92 And in any event, Gerrenus would live on after death through his statue as a great patron of his fatherland. In this drama, the roles played respectively by Gerrenus and by the people of Gerasa who enjoyed his largesse reinforced the status quo. Gerrenus and his like were the


89

supreme benefactors (euergetai) of Gerasa: their philotimia created an opportunity for the entire community to come together to celebrate Gerrenus’ excellence as well as the superiority of their ultimate benefactor, the emperor Trajan. As we saw with the dedication of the merchants who settled in Dura and sought to establish ties to the chief magistrate of the city, the dedications for salvation opened up a dialogue with the emperors in a mutually beneficial way. The inscriptions announced personal and communal loyalty to the state, depending on whether the dedicator was an individual, a collective, or the city itself. In so doing, the dedications configured Roman rule as a deliberate choice by the locals, not as rule imposed by brute force. Even more, the dedications were proof that rule from afar was tangibly beneficial for all the empire’s inhabitants.93 The fact that resources could be spent on dedications, statues, and festivals in honor of the emperor attested to both emperor and subject the prosperity of the empire. It is also important to note that such dedications were grounded in the perceived efficacy of votive offerings to secure personal salvation.94 In this frame-work, the emperor became, through the language of local piety, part of the individual’s family. The “salvation” (sôtêria) of the “savior of the cosmos” (sôtêr tou kosmou), as the emperor was sometimes called, depended, at least in the eyes of the dedicators, on individuals who were willing to maintain his salvation (sôtêria) through their age-old religious customs. In return, the emperor would ensure their personal salvation and the future of their families by granting promotions, bestowing exemptions, and upholding the security of the empire. Christian Gerasa: Spolia and New Articulations Some 300 years after the last dedications were made for the salvation of the emperor, Gerasa had become an unquestionably Christian city. In the sixth century, a dozen churches, many lavishly decorated with mosaics, marble, and silver liturgical objects, rose in and around the classical city. Most of the churches were constructed from portions of pagan temples.95 This spoliation also included the reuse of inscriptions, a practice that has received surprisingly little attention in discussions of spolia at Gerasa.96 At least thirty inscriptions were reused in Christian ecclesiastical buildings, beginning in the fourth century with the construction of the cathedral complex (A.D. 375).97 Indeed, half of all churches at Gerasa had old pagan inscriptions built into their walls or used as supports for columns. In the cathedral, a pagan altar was even used as a support for the new Christian altar.98 Eleven of these reused inscriptions were dedications for the salvation of the emperor. There were three from the cathedral; two from the Propylaea Church; two from the Church of St. Theodore; two from the Church of St. George; and two from the Clergy House.99 The Clergy House provides a tantalizing glimpse at how pagan inscriptions, including dedications for the emperor’s salvation, could be used as spolia in a domestic context. The churchmen who woke up there every morning could have seen two inscribed pagan altars, one of them turned upside down and used as a small table.100 Was it simply a matter of aesthetics to reuse an old inscription, assuming that inscribed stones were considered decorative, or was there an ideological element involved? Spolia served practical, aesthetic, and ideological purposes. Practical necessity and convenience probably explain most cases of despoliation in cities such as Gerasa.101


90

Quite simply, the stones were already cut, readily available, and old-fashioned. But while a change in aesthetics required a reorganization of civic space, new architectural forms, and new decorative programs, did not discourage the mixture of old and new.102 Finally, ideology, in this case religious ideology, made spoliation an act of piety. Spolia could be seen as victory trophies, as marking the ultimate triumph of Christianity over its former persecutors.103 Even if the congregation was illiterate, its members would have been able to recognize that the inscriptions were old. I can easily imagine the bishop reading (and in some cases translating) them for the curious or using the pagan inscriptions to emphasize a point in a sermon. Drawing his audience’s attention to a dedication for the salvation of the emperor visible in, say, the Church of St. Theodore, he might have commented on how St. Theodore resisted making sacrifice to the pagan gods out of his love for the one God.104 These “defeated” inscriptions could then be set against the bright, exuberant mosaics and their “victorious” inscriptions. The one strengthened the ideological goals of the other. Take the example of reuse from the Clergy House just mentioned. There, the practical, aesthetic, and ideological purposes of spolia converge. An altar, originally dedicated to a local Arabian deity, was used, perhaps even by Gerasa’s bishop, as a simple table decorated with an antique inscription. The altar was turned upside down, most likely in a self-conscious display of a reversal of roles: the instruments of pagan ritual would now serve Christian needs, however mundane. In the middle of the sixth century, when civic life at Gerasa was as vigorous as it had been under the Antonines 400 years earlier, two new dedications for salvation were made. These were the first and last dedications for personal salvation to have survived from this city.105 In their use of the pagan formula hyper sôtêrias to acquire personal salvation, the dedications typify the 130 Late Antique Christian and Jewish examples from throughout the Near East.106 The first dedication is from the Church of Bishop Isaiah. Set prominently in the center of the nave, it pays tribute to the metropolitan of Arabia and the bishop of Gerasa. The dedication identifies Beroios and his wife Eulampia, the benefactors, as lamprotatoi (=clarissimi), signifying senatorial rank, and goes on to state that the pair paid for the construction of the entire church “for their own salvation and (that) of their children.”107 In addition, they asked for the “repose of their parents.”108 The second dedication for personal salvation was set into the nave mosaic of the Mortuary Church, called thus by the excavators because of the inclusion of a cave crypt in the design of the church.109 Giving thanks to God, the dedication asks for the salvation of a father and mother.110 Although noting their relationship to one another, the dedicators remain nameless. This anonymity is significant, for it calls to mind a number of similar dedications that ask for the salvation of “those whose names God knows.” 111 The sense is that the dedicators’ names would be noted in Heaven—and that the earthly praise accrued through pompous dedications was utterly transient. Finally, the epigraphic record at Gerasa highlights the development towards a specifically Christian understanding of pagan formulas guided by the quotation of biblical texts.112 Christians could point to specific passages in Psalms to express the ageold desire for divine help in this life. A mosaic inscription in the diaconia, a building perhaps used for the reception of offerings, quotes from Psalms twice, once to praise the holiness of God’s temple, and once to cry out for deliverance: + “Your holy temple, wondrous in righteousness.” (Ps. 64 (65):6)


91

+ “Lower your ears, Lord, and listen to me, for I am a beggar and poor, protect my soul, for I am yours. Save your slave, O God, who has trust in You. Have mercy on me, Lord, for I cry to you throughout the day” (Ps. 85 (86):1–3). By God’s approval the diaconia was established in the month of Artemisios, indiction 13, year 627.113 Calling in this manner on God for personal salvation, it should be recalled, is not particular to a monotheistic worldview. The language of this inscription, in fact, mirrors that used by pagan soldiers at Dura Europos in the second and third centuries. In Gerasa itself, at about the same time, an altar was dedicated commanding Helios to save (Hêlios sôzas) its dedicator.114 Because the hyper sôtêrias formula could take on myriad meanings—ranging across pagan votive religion and the display of loyalty to the Roman emperor to Christian theological concepts—it survived the change to a Christian empire. Not far away, the formula even survived the change to the Umayyad Caliphate at Damascus in the seventh century, and then to the Abbasid Caliphate at Baghdad in the eighth century. The last dedication for salvation’s sake from the Near East was made in 762 at the Chapel of the Theotokos, part of the monastic settlement at Wadi Ayn al-Kanisah, a site not far from Gerasa.115 This has been a case study of the use of the formula hyper sôtêrias in three cities. Gerasa was an ideal choice because so many dedications for the salvation of the emperor have turned up there. Spanning three centuries, they reflect a keen awareness of imperial ideology in this city. It is no coincidence that the Arval Brothers in Rome, pious visitors to the Temple of Jupiter at Heliopolis, soldiers at Dura Europos, and the Gerasene elite all sacrificed for the salvation of the living emperors. The focus for a case study of this type might have been any one of hundreds of settlements, not only from the Near East but also from the western frontiers of the empire.116 Wherever these dedications are found they show that locals, both provinciales and soldiers, expressed their loyalty to the state in regional terms. I hope it has also been clear that, although made in response to imperial ideology, these dedications were by-products of religious belief and activity as well as the values of an urban elite. Whether the dedication was occasioned by the acceptance of municipal office, the discharge of personal obligations, the fulfillment of religious vows, or hometown pride, in the minds of the dedicators, the emperor played a role in their lives. His salvation was linked to the financial resources of thousands of well-to-do citydwellers, such as the individuals profiled here; their sacrifices would secure the emperor’s salvation. In turn, the salvation of the masses, those who attended the festivals for the salvation of the emperor, depended on these dedicators, thus linking the man in the street with the emperor through the local elite and their spending habits. It is worth stressing again that loyalty to the state was rooted in the hustle and bustle of everyday life in the provinces. At first sight, dedications for the salvation of the emperor testify to the homogeneity of the empire. One could, for example, point to dedications that use the very same language in Britain, the Danube, North Africa, and Asia Minor.117 The evidence gathered in these case studies, and especially the evidence from Gerasa, reveals an unexpectedly complex picture of the motivations behind the dedications, one that coincides with conclusions that are now being reached through a new look at provincial architecture. Recent research on the archaeology of Gerasa, for example,


92

suggests that the Romanitas of the city was superficial, a mirage that has misled a generation of scholars. The most obviously Roman features of the second century city— the triumphal arch, the adjacent Hippodrome, the colonnaded streets—upon closer inspection appear designed and adapted according to local tastes and forms.118 It is into this Gerasa, this Near East, that I suggest we set the dedications for the salvation of the emperor. Though these inscriptions are salient affirmations of what has been termed the salutary ideology, they are likewise a product of the distinctive culture of the region and the deep-running religious currents flowing throughout the Near East.

Conclusion This book has gathered together and analyzed nearly 400 inscriptions from the Near East that ask for the salvation of the Roman emperors or for personal salvation, whether that of the dedicators themselves, their patrons, wives, children, or other family members. In both cases, the formula that they used was hyper sôtêrias/pro salute, “for salvation’s sake.” Because the formula had a life span of hundreds of years, we must assume that it held some enduring significance for people in this region. Therefore our task has been to detect the various ways in which dedications for salvation’s sake intersected with the political, social, and religious lives of people living in the Near East. We have shown that the dedications for the salvation of the emperor reflect the reception of a particular aspect of Roman imperial ideology, an aspect glossed here as the salutary ideology. This ideology propagates the belief that the salvation (sôtêria/salus) of the emperor is maintained by dedications to the gods for his salvation. In return, the emperor guarantees the salvation of the empire and its inhabitants. This obligation created an empire-wide method of displaying loyalty to the emperor himself and of affirming the benefits of the empire in general. This ideological framework generated a host of religious activity, including the rituals and record keeping of the Arval Brothers in Rome, the spread of the official cult of Salus Augusta, the personification of the salvation of the state, the 3 January vows for the emperor’s salvation, and the dedications for the salvation of the emperor. The tabulation of the individuals and collectives involved in making the dedications for the salvation of the emperor makes it clear that a broad crosssection of society—including military and civic elites, citizens and provinciales, men and women—affirmed the salutary ideology. This has been easy to demonstrate: inscriptions are full of names and self-profiling. The more interesting questions, however, are why this array of people and collectives made the dedications, and what these inscriptions tell us about the local perception of the Roman Empire. The study of the dedications for the salvation of the emperor addresses the issue of how consensus was fashioned and maintained in the Near East. In a more general sense, this takes us back to a question first posed by Edward Gibbon more than 200 years ago and recently restated by Clifford Ando: why did the Roman Empire last as long as it did?1 These inscriptions reveal the various ways in which the provincials perceived and used Roman authority for their own purposes. From the perspective of the provinciales and military men deployed throughout the provinces, loyalty to the emperor as expressed in dedications for his salvation, was couched in the familiar language of local piety. As we have also seen, throughout the Near East, men and women who turned to an array of Roman, Greek, and Semitic gods for personal salvation used the formula hyper sôtêrias. The provinciales and military men sought to identify themselves publicly as belonging within the Roman system by applying the same formula on the emperor’s behalf. In so doing, the provinciales and military men integrated the Roman emperor into their daily lives by literally inscribing the emperor’s name into the history of their families, communities, and camps in the same language that they used to ask the gods for the


94

salvation of their closest relations. I would argue that dedications for the salvation of the emperor functioned to bridge the vast distance between the emperor and the provinciales, and between the imperator and his troops. In this way, ruler and ruled were locked in a partnership at the symbolic level. Participation in this system, whether through making a dedication or attending an imperial festival, was deemed essential to maintaining the imaginative infrastructure of the empire. But the affirmation of the salutary ideology was more than a symbolic gesture that functioned on an imaginative plane. Participation also had concrete consequences. Proof of loyalty—the dedications—provided a means by which local elites could reinforce differences in status at the local level. Moreover, the use of a formulaic vocabulary that was understood from one corner of the empire to the other in these inscriptions reveals a view of the emperor from the provinces—a view of the center from the periphery. If inscriptions of a religious nature were the primary means by which people “signed up for paganism,” as Mary Beard puts it, perhaps we can view dedications for the emperor’s salvation as a means by which people “signed up for empire.”2 This study has shown that they signed up in this way because it was in their own interests to do so. The last dedications in the Near East for the salvation of the emperor fall in the middle of the fourth century. At first sight, this is easily explained by pointing to the overall decline in the production of inscriptions at this time. As there were fewer inscriptions being produced, naturally there would be fewer dedications for the salvation of the emperor. But the epigraphic habit gathered steam again in the sixth century, and when it did, virtually no new dedications for the salvation of the emperor were made in this region, although other epigraphic formulas, including dedications for personal salvation, survived in a new, Christianized landscape. This raises the question of why a system of symbolic exchange so crucial to the ruling ideology dissolved. The disappearance of a habit that had lasted nearly four centuries is partly due to a shift in the imperial ideology that left the emperor more distanced from his subjects. This shift can be seen in the panegyrics delivered before the emperors in the late third and early fourth century and is corroborated by the inscriptions dated to this period. Both types of evidence demonstrate that the emperor was still considered a savior but he no longer relied on the dedications of his subjects for his salvation. The emperor’s ability to save was thus taken for granted. In the following decades, the cultural basis for the dedications ebbed away as the nature of city life changed. Though affirmation of the salutary ideology in the form of inscriptions was no longer necessary, and public officials no longer commissioned inscriptions of this sort, public demonstration of loyalty to the state never went out of fashion. In the fourth century, loyalty to the emperor was expressed through other, less durable and therefore less traceable means, such as acclamations and prayers in churches for the salvation of the emperor and the state. It is worth adding that by the fifth century, the elites responsible for public building and public forms of writing were largely Christianized. Their memories of the deaths of the martyrs, who suffered intolerable pain or humiliating apostasy at the hands of imperial administrators, possibly helped put an end to the habit of making public dedications for the salvation of the emperor. Too much weight should not be placed on this argument, however. The salutary ideology was already undergoing transformation in the middle of the third century, and after the triumph of Christianity, it was easily blended with

Conclusion

95

particularly Christian notions of rulership. The notion that the emperor was an earthly reflection of God, the Savior, continued to resonate in Byzantium for hundreds of years. No lead has been turned to gold here. Scholars have long noticed that dedications for the salvation of the emperor represent the residue of imperial ideology in the provinces, although they have done little with these inscriptions beyond registering that fact. This neglect is perhaps justified. There are other, more dramatic examples of ideological leftovers to be analyzed: temples of the imperial cult, petitions and responses, sculpture, and coins. Nevertheless, we need to understand why people produced these inscriptions and kept them around for decades, even centuries. It is not enough to point to the epigraphic habit to explain the production of these texts. Of course, people produced dedications for salvation’s sake in an environment where inscriptions were being produced anyway. They dwindled in numbers, too, when the production of inscriptions as a whole fell. But this does not really explain why an individual would go to the trouble of making a dedication for the salvation of the emperor, or why there are concentrations of such inscriptions in one place and not elsewhere. Why are there so many dedications of this sort at Gerasa (around fifteen percent of all inscriptions!), while at Ephesus only one dedication for the salvation of the emperor has turned up among more than 5,000 inscriptions, and this a dedication on behalf of Maximinus Thrax? Why, too, has only one dedication from Aphrodisias turned up, again from the third century?3 Given the remarkable survival of inscriptions at these great cities, this cannot be due to the accidents of discovery and time. Looking to the south of our region, we find that Greek dedications from Egypt “on behalf of” (hyper) of the emperor quite common. They do not, however, ask specifically for the emperor’s salvation. In fact, dedications for the emperor’s salvation are comparatively rare in Egypt, though there are a few examples, especially using the Latin version of the formula, pro salute imperatoris/domini nostri.4 The same questions could be asked at the village level. Why are there so many dedications for the emperor’s salvation at villages such as Athila, Hebran, and Phaina in southern Syria, and virtually none in the villages of the Bekaa Valley?5 This unpredictable incidence of inscriptions leads to a somewhat unsatisfactory generalization: production of these inscriptions, while widespread in the most general sense, arose in particular places and at particular times, perhaps due to personal whim, which is almost impossible to account for in the record, or local tradition, which is easier to locate but nonetheless slippery as basis for making conclusions. Before turning to local tradition to speculate on its relevance for our purposes, I should state what the lack of dedications for salvation’s sake cannot tell us. It would indeed be a grave error to read the absence of these dedications as an indicator of a less-than-enthusiastic reception of imperial ideology. For example, though only one dedication for the salvation of an emperor has turned up at Ephesus, there is a mass of other inscriptions that ask for the health and safety of the emperors and of honorific inscriptions that mention the names and titles of the emperors.6 The city of Ephesus was hardly disloyal despite the lack of the sort of dedications under investigation in this study. The dedications for personal salvation from the Near East represent the continuity of a phenomenon deeply rooted in the religious language of the Near East. Predating the dedications for the emperor is the Near Eastern habit of making dedications in Sumerian, Babylonian, Aramaic, and Greek for the salvation of rulers or for personal salvation. My hypothesis is that dedications for the salvation of the emperor, and by extension the


96

salutary ideology, took root in the fertile ground of the religious traditions of the region, which resulted in the relative density of dedications for the salvation of the emperor. Of course, this is only a suggestion, one that can in no way be applied to other regions. For example, there are large concentrations of dedications for the salvation of the emperor in places such as Britain, Africa Proconsularis, and Dacia, where there was no earlier epigraphic habit on the order of what we find in the eastern provinces. Still the habit took root. Turning the equation on its head, in Asia Minor, there was, by contrast, not only a long-standing tradition of epigraphic writing that pre-dated Rome’s annexation of the region but also a tradition of asking the gods for personal salvation, for the salvation of the entire village, and even for the salvation of cattle.7 Yet, it is my impression that dedications for the salvation of the emperor are fairly uncommon in Asia Minor relative to the thousands of inscriptions that have been discovered so far. In the end, the distinctiveness of the Near Eastern inscriptions remains elusive. If there is any, it must be attributed to the Semitic background, which may have informed how people used and understood dedications for salvation’s sake. For now, the conclusions reached here will leave us on safer ground. The various ways in which the dedications allowed elites to delineate and reproduce social distinctions at the local level is generally applicable for all inscriptions and all regions. The details, of course, will change. The significance of our focus on the hyper sôtêrias/pro salute dedications is to point out the obvious: demonstrating provincial loyalty was a natural extension of the push and pull of competing elites in the provinces. While honoring the emperor with dedications for his salvation, people used the occasion to fulfill religious and social obligations that pressed upon their daily lives. There is no doubt, however, that, whatever the reasons behind the production of these inscriptions, the dedications for the emperors faded out in the middle of the fourth century, and that the dedications for personal salvation survived the transition to a Christian society, lasting well into the eighth century in both Christian and Jewish contexts. Like their pagan predecessors, Late Antique elites, regardless of their religious identities, sought salvation from the travails of this life through the donations that they made in their religious structures. The dedications for salvation’s sake, whether pagan, Christian, or Jewish, persisted for several centuries because they played several roles, simultaneously projecting important messages to gods, rulers, patrons, peers, and family members. The dedications for salvation’s sake made by pagans and, later, by Christians and Jews in Late Antiquity all functioned in this multivocal way. Though their motivations and intentions may have differed, the formula functioned in the similar ways to inscribe social and religious identity. By taking the language of formulaic inscriptions seriously, as seriously, I hope, as those who originally paid for the inscriptions, this study has contributed to our present understanding of the role of epigraphic formulas in the social and religious history of the Near East over a period of time that saw revolutionary political, religious, and cultural change. In the midst of this change, elites shared the conservative language of public inscriptions to communicate to one another their basic values and aspirations, some public and some rather intimate, thereby locating themselves within the great hierarchy of powers linking the Olympian gods to the emperor and to one’s own household. These individuals used the dedications to establish a personal relationship with a divinity for protection from the various evils and troubles of this world and to pay homage to

Conclusion

97

ancestors and patrons. The distance is vast separating Apollophanês, the dedicator of the first inscription included in my sample, a pagan of the first century B.C. from the hills of southern Lebanon, and George, a Christian recluse living in a monastic community near Mt. Nebo in Jordan in the latter half of the eighth century A.D. Yet, they are linked unselfconsciously to each other through their desire for salvation, a desire each chose to articulate by evoking the formula hyper sôtêrias.

Appendix I. DEDICATIONS FOR THE SALVATION OF THE EMPEROR a. Salvation (Sôtêria, Salus) For the salvation of the Augusti.

JORDAN Dated 1. Gerasa (Jerash): lintel, entrance to Fountain Court, A.D. 67/68, reign of Nero, dedicated by Sarapiôn, priest of Nero (Welles 49). 2. Gerasa (Jerash): architrave blocks, unknown shrine of Hera, A.D. 73/74, reign of Vespasian, dedicated by Ameros, archibômistês of Pakeida and Hera (Welles 17). 3. Gerasa (Jerash): block from arch, NW Gate, A.D. 75/76, reign of Vespasian, dedicated by men associated with Artemis, under L.Ceionius Commodus, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (Welles 50). 4. Gerasa (Jerash): block, Temple of Artemis, A.D. 79/80, reign of Titus, dedicated by the devotees of Artemis (Welles 28). 5. Gerasa (Jerash): altar, Propylaea, Temple of Artemis, A.D. 98, reign of Trajan, dedicated by Diogênês (Welles 29). 6. Gerasa (Jerash): block, provenance unknown, A.D. 115, reign of Trajan, dedicator’s name lost (Welles 120). 7. Gerasa (Jerash): pedestal, original provenance unclear, A.D. 115/116, reign of Trajan, dedicated by T.Flavius (Welles 119). 8. Gerasa (Jerash): molded block, S.Theater, A.D. 98–117, reign of Trajan, dedicated by Asklepiodoros, priest of Trajan (Welles 10). 9. Gerasa (Jerash): block, S.Theater, A.D. 119/120, reign of Hadrian, dedicated by Emmaganos, priest of the four eparchies in the metropolis Antioch (Welles 53). 10. Hamameh: base, temple?, A.D. 126/127, reign of Hadrian, dedicated by Leountas (SEG 14:830). 11. Gerasa (Jerash): altar, burial cave, A.D. 150, reign of Antoninus Pius, dedicated by Dêmêtrios (Welles 21). 12. Gerasa (Jerash): block, S.Theater, A.D. 153/154, reign of Antoninus Pius, dedicated by Dêmêtrios, Malchaios, Marsos, epitropoi (Welles 54). 13. Gerasa (Jerash): blocks, original provenance unclear, A.D. 155/156, reign of Antoninus Pius, dedicator’s name lost (Welles 22).

Appendix

99

14. Gerasa (Jerash): altar, original provenance unclear, A.D. 159/160, reign of Antoninus Pius, dedicated by M.Ulpius Tiberinus (Welles 24). 15. Gerasa (Jerash): altar, original provenance unclear, A.D. 238, reign of Maximinus Thrax or Gordian III, dedicated by M.Aurelius Solôn, councilor of the first men (Welles 26).

JORDAN Not Dated 16. Gerasa (Jerash): slab, N.peristyle, Temple of Artemis, 1C, dedicated by Alexander (Welles 27). 17. Gerasa (Jerash): block, original provenance unclear, 1C, dedicated by Leônidas (Welles 9). 18. Gerasa (Jerash): altar, original provenance unclear, 1C, dedicator’s name lost (Welles 117). 19. Gerasa (Jerash): block, original provenance unclear, early 2C, dedicated by Alexander, priest of Dionysus (Welles 20). 20. Gerasa (Jerash): block, original provenance unclear, 2C, dedicated by Flavius Macer (Welles 38). 21. Gerasa (Jerash): pedestal, original provenance unclear, second half of 2C, dedicated by Antiochos (Welles 39). 22. Gerasa (Jerash): block, perhaps lintel, original provenance unclear, 2C, dedicator’s name lost, centurion (Welles 42). 23. Gerasa (Jerash): block, original provenance unclear, 2–3C, dedicated by the city Gerasa (Welles 114). 24. Gerasa (Jerash): block, original provenance unclear, middle of 2C, dedicated by Apollônios, priest of the emperor (Welles 121). 25. Gerasa (Jerash): block, original provenance unclear, middle of 2C, dedicated by Mêtras, priest of the emperor (Welles 122). 26. Gerasa (Jerash): altar, original provenance unclear, middle of 2C, dedicator’s name lost, freedman (Welles 125). 27. Gerasa (Jerash): altar, original provenance unclear, 2C, dedicator’s name lost (Welles l27). 28. Gerasa (Jerash): block, original provenance unclear, 3C, dedicator’s name lost (Welles 136). For the salvation of the Lords, Augusti, and that of their entire house.

Appendix

100

LEBANON Not Dated 29. Abila (Nebi-Abel): original provenance unclear, 1–2C?, dedicated by Nymphaios, freedman (CIG 4521). For the salvation of (the) Lord.

LEBANON Dated 30. Abila (near Brahila): altar, original provenance unclear, A.D. 187/188, reign of Commodus, dedicated by Lysas, Zênonos, and Augusta Amathanas (SEG 31:1383). For the salvation of the Lord.

JORDAN Not Dated 31. Gerasa (Jerash): altar, original provenance unclear, 2–3C, dedicator’s name lost (SEG 32:1538). For the salvation of Lord Caesar.

SYRIA Not Dated 32. Hebran: altar, original provenance unclear, date unclear, dedicated by M. Bodrios Kônsta[n]s, centurion? (Wadd. 2289=M.Dunand, Le musée de Soueïda, 89, no. 179, pl. XXXV). For the salvation of the Lord, Caesar, Augustus.

Appendix

101

LEBANON Dated 33. Blat (near Byblos): lintel, from temple, reused in church, ca. A.D. 148/ 149, reign of Antoninus Pius, dedicated by Aspasios (SEG 46:1779). For the salvation of the Lords.

LEBANON Dated 34. Abila (Nebi Abel): lintel, religious structure, A.D. 166/167, reign of Marcus Aurelius, dedicated by Diodôros and 10 others (SEG 39:1565).

LEBANON Not Dated 35. Abila: column, original context unclear, 2C, dedicated by Dischasdeinionus (SEG 46:2054). For the salvation of the Lords, Emperors.

ISRAEL Dated 36. Paneas/Caesarea Philippi (Banias): niche, cult site of Pan, A.D. 177/178 or 178/179, reign of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, dedicated by Valerius Hispanus, priest of Pan (Di Segni no. 4).

ISRAEL Not Dated 37. Tell Radra (near Skythopolis): block, original provenance unclear, 2-3C, dedicated by a person from Phaina (Mismiyyeh) (SEG 37:1538).

Appendix

102

JORDAN Dated 38. Gerasa (Jerash): altar, original provenance unclear, A.D. 197, reign of Septimius Severus, dedicated by Athenodoros, agoranomos (SEG 46:2064). For the salvation of our Lords, Caesars.

ISRAEL Dated 39. Paneas/Caesarea Philippi (Banias): Temple of Pan, A.D. 158/159, reign of Antoninus Pius, dedicated by the physician Quadratus (SEG 46:2036). [name] For the salvation of the Emperor [name], Caesar, Augustus.

JORDAN Dated 40. Gerasa (Jerash): block, S. Theater, A.D. 81–83, reign of Domitian, dedicated by the city Gerasa (Welles 51). 41. Gerasa (Jerash): block, S. Theater, A.D. 92, reign of Domitian, dedicator not named (SEG 27:1010 bis). [name] . For the salvation of the Emperor [name], Caesar, Augustus, and that of his entire house.

JORDAN Dated 42. Gerasa (Jerash): podium, S.Theater, A.D. 83–96, reign of Domitian, dedicated by T.Flavius Dionysius, veteran and decurion (Welles 52). 43. Philadelphia (Amman): architrave, original provenance unclear, A.D. 138–61, reign of Antoninus Pius, dedicator’s name lost (IGLS 21 no. 16). [name]

[name] .

Appendix

103

For the salvation of Emperor, Caesar [name], Augustus, and that of [name], his son, and that of (his) other children, and that of (his) entire house, and that of the holy senate and Roman people.

JORDAN Dated 44. Philadelphia (Amman): marble paving stone, theater, A.D. 150, reign of Antoninus Pius, under L.Attidius Cornelianus, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (IGLS 21 no. 17). [name]

[name]

. For the salvation of Emperor, Caesar [name], Augustus, and that of [name], his son, and that of (his) other children, and that of (his) entire house, and for his strength, and that of the holy senate and Roman people.

JORDAN Dated 45. Gerasa (Jerash): tympanum, near central doorway of propylaea, Temple of Artemis, A.D. 150, reign of Antoninus Pius, dedicated by the city Gerasa, under L.Attidius Cornelianus, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (Welles 60). [name] . For the salvation of [name], Augustus.

SYRIA Not Dated 46. El-Ayin: fragment of architrave, temple, A.D. 238–44?, reign of Gordian III?, dedicated by Thaimos and Onoathos (Wadd. 1968A). [name] . For the salvation of [name], Augustus, the Lord.

Appendix

104

SYRIA Dated 47. Tayibeh (Palmyrene): original provenance unclear, probably a religious structure, A.D. 134, reign of Hadrian, dedicated by Agathangelos from Abila (Wadd. 2631). [name] . For the salvation of [name], Caesar.

SYRIA Dated 48. Sahwet el-Khudr: original provenance unclear, A.D. 171/172, reign of Marcus Aurelius, dedicated by Vaddos and Molemos and Rufus, the veteran, all hierotamiai (Wadd. 1969). [name]. For the salvation of Caesar [name].

LEBANON Dated 49. Heliopolis (Baalbek): socle, original provenance unclear, ca. A.D. 130, reign of Hadrian, dedicator’s name probably lost (IGLS 2727). [name] . For the salvation of Caesar [name], Augustus, the Lord.

LEBANON Dated 50. Wadi Abu Musa: rock-cut inscription, near remains of Roman temple, A.D. 184, reign of Commodus, dedicated by Diogenês (SEG 26:1652). [name] [name] . For the salvation of the Caesars, Emperors [name] and [name], and that of their entire house.

Appendix

105

JORDAN Dated 51. Gerasa (Jerash): blocks, N. Theater, A.D. 162–66, reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, under Geminius Marcianus, leg. Aug. pr. pr., consul designate (Welles 65). [name] . For the salvation of Emperor [name], Augustus.

SYRIA Dated 52. Hebran: fragment of lintel, temple?, A.D. 156, reign of Antoninus Pius, dedicator's name lost, veteran (Littmann IIIA no. 663). [name] For the salvation of Emperor [name], Caesar, Augustus.

.

SYRIA Dated 53. Dionysias (Suweida): stele, original provenance unclear, A.D. 104–8, reign of Trajan, under Cornelius Palma, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (SEG 7:969). [name] For the salvation of Emperor, Caesar [name], Augustus.

.

ISRAEL Dated 54. Kafr ed-Dik: slab, original provenance unclear, ca. A.D. 130, reign of Hadrian, dedicated by the village Capharanaia (Di Segni no. 199).

SYRIA Dated 55. Bostra: block, original provenance unclear, A.D. 138–61, reign of Antoninus Pius, dedicator’s name lost (IGLS 9048).

Appendix

106

56. Kanatha (Qanawat): block, original provenance unclear, A.D. 170, reign of Marcus Aurelius, under Avidius Cassius, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (Wadd. 2331). [name] For the salvation of Emperor [name], Caesar, Augustus, the Lord.

.

SYRIA Dated 57. Kanatha (Qanawat): block, original provenance unclear, A.D. 124/125, reign of Hadrian, dedicated by Asvadanos, Thaimos, Moinios, Sameatos, Thaimos, and M. Ulpius Philippikos, agoranomos (Wadd. 2330). [name] [name]. For the salvation of Emperors [name] and [name].

SYRIA Dated 58. Shaarah: block: original provenance unclear, A.D. 161–69, reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, dedicated by Proclus, Saios, and Adeios, stratêgoi (Littmann IIIA no. 803). [name] [name] . For the salvation of the Emperors [name] and [name], Augusti.

SYRIA Dated 59. Athila (Athil): temple, ca. A.D. 211, reign of Caracalla and Geta, dedicated by Julius Proclus? (Wadd. 2374A). [name] . For the salvation of [name], the Lord.

ISRAEL Dated 60. Eleutheropolis: altar, from sacellum of amphitheater, A.D. 180–92, reign of Commodus, dedicated by Elkias (?) (SEG 46:1819).

Appendix

107

[name] For the salvation of Lord Caesar [name], Augustus.

.

SYRIA Dated 61. Athila (Athil): temple, A.D. 151, reign of Antoninus Pius, dedicated by Waddelos (Prentice no. 427A). 62. Hebran: lintel, temple, A.D. 155, reign of Antoninus Pius, dedicated by Aristeides, Oaithelos, Emmeganês, ekdikoi, and Thaimos, Enos, Emmeganês, hierotamiai (Littmann IIIA no. 659). [name] For the salvation of the Lord [name], Caesar.

.

SYRIA Not Dated 63. Kanatha (Qanawat): original provenance unclear, A.D. 180–92?, reign of Commodus?, dedicated by the city Kanatha, through a councilor whose name is lost (Wadd. 2331A). [name]. For the salvation of the Lord, Emperor [name].

JORDAN Dated 64. Gerasa (Jerash): block, near S. entrance to necropolis, A.D. 184, reign of Commodus, dedicated by Flavius Julianus, Liberalios, Flavius Cerealis, and Marcianos (SEG 32:1537). [name] For the salvation of the Lord, Emperor [name], Augustus.

.

Appendix

108

SYRIA Dated 65. El-Mushennef: fragment of lintel, temple, ca. A.D. 171, reign of Marcus Aurelius, under Avidius Cassius, leg. Aug. pr. pr., and Quirinalis Gemellus, centurion (Prentice no. 381). 66. El-Mushennef: fragment of entablature, temple, A.D. 222–35, reign of Severus Alexander, dedicator’s name lost (Prentice no. 382).

JORDAN Not Dated 67. Gerasa (Jerash): block, original provenance unclear, A.D. 212–17?, reign of Caracalla?, dedicated by the city Gerasa (Welles 132). [name] . For the salvation of our Lord, [name], Augustus.

SYRIA Not Dated 68. Adraha (Dera): block, tower, A.D. 262?, reign of Gallienus?, dedicator’s name lost (Littmann IIIA no. 636). [name] For the salvation of our Lord, Emperor, [name], Augustus.

.

SYRIA Dated 69. Adraha (Dera): block, original provenance unclear, A.D. 274/275, reign of Aurelian, under Flavius Aelianus, praeses, Honoratus and Marcus, centurions (SEG 16:813). 70. Adraha (Dera): block, original provenance unclear, A.D. 274/275, reign of Aurelian, under Flavius Aelianus, praeses, Honoratus and Marcus, centurions (SEG 16:814).

Appendix

109

SYRIA Not Dated 71. Adraha (Dera): original provenance unclear, A.D. 261/262?, reign of Gallienus?, dedicated by Ulpius Domitianus, stratôr (SEG 16:810). [name] For the salvation of our Lord, Emperor [name], Caesar, Augustus.

.

JORDAN Dated 72. Gerasa (Jerash): base, S. Theater, A.D. 105/106, reign of Trajan, dedicated by theatrical guild (Welles 192).

JORDAN Not Dated 73. Gerasa (Jerash): block, original provenance unclear, A.D. 211–17?, reign of Caracalla?, dedicator’s name lost (Welles 14).

SYRIA Not Dated 74. Athila (Athil): fragments, original provenance unclear, probably a temple, date unclear, dedicator’s name probably lost (CIG 4611B). [name] [name] . For the salvation of the Lords [name] and [name], Augusti.

SYRIA Dated 75. Harran: original provenance unclear, A.D. 209/210, reign of Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta, dedicator’s name lost (Wadd. 2460).

Appendix

110

76. Philippopolis (Shehba): block, original provenance unclear, A.D. 247–49, reign of Philip and son, dedicated by Julius Sentius, Amonis, and Alexandros, councilors (Prentice no. 395). [name] [name]. For the salvation of the Lords, Emperors [name] and [name].

JORDAN Dated 77. Gerasa (Jerash): base, on hill near Temple of Artemis, A.D. 209–11, reign of Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta, dedicated by the “gardeners from above the ravine” (SEG 35:1573). [name] [name] For the salvation of the Lords, Emperors [name] and [name], Augusti.

JORDAN Dated 78. Philadelphia (Amman): fragments of architrave, probably from temple on citadel, A.D. 161–69, reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, under Geminius Marcianus, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (IGLS 21 no. 18). 79. Gerasa (Jerash): block, original provenance unclear, A.D. 209/210, reign of Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta, dedicator’s name lost (Welles 131).

SYRIA Not Dated 80. Dmer: lintel, temple, A.D. 245?, reign of Philip and son?, dedicated by Marcus? Annianos, stratôr (Prentice no. 358). [name] [name]. For the salvation of our Lords, [name] and [name].

SYRIA Dated 81. Dionysias (Suweida): boundary stone, ca. A.D. 297, reign of Diocletian and Maximianus, no dedicator mentioned (SEG 45:2011).

Appendix

111

[name]

[name]

. For the salvation of our Lords, Emperors, Caesars [name] and [name], Augusti.

SYRIA Dated 82. Dmer: fragments of temple wall, A.D. 245, reign of Philip and son, dedicated by M.Aurelius Haneos and Gauros, councilor, both hierotamiai (Prentice no. 357). 83. Adraha (Dera): block, original provenance unclear, A.D. 259/260, reign of Valerian and Gallienus, dedicator’s name lost (SEG 16:807). 84. Adraha (Dera): block, original provenance unclear, A.D. 259/260, reign of Valerian and Gallienus, dedicator’s name lost (SEG 16:808). [name] [name] [name] [name] . For the salvation of our Lords, Emperors, Caesars [name], Augustus, and [name], and [name], and [name], Augusta.

ISRAEL Dated 85. Qizion: lintel, synagogue or temple?, A.D. 196–98, reign of Septimius Severus, Caracalla, Geta, and Julia Domna, dedicated by the Jews (Di Segni no. 75A-B). [name]. For the salvation of our most pious Emperor, [name].

EGYPT Dated 86. Mt. Sinai: wood board attached to ceiling beam, Basilica, Monastery of St. Catherine, ca. A.D. 530, reign of Justinian, dedicator not named (I.Sevcenko, DOP 20 (1966):262, no.5). Pro salute Caesaris. For the salvation of Caesar.

Appendix

112

LEBANON Not Dated 87. Masi: column?, temple, date unclear, dedicated by M.Longinus Falcidianus (IGLS 2976). Pro salute Imperatoris. For the salvation of (the) Emperor.

JORDAN Dated 88. Petra: small altar, provenance unknown, A.D. 161–69 or 211–17, reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus or Caracalla, dedicated by the soldiers (milites) of Leg. III Cyrenaica, cohors Aurelia, M.Valens?, M.Ulpius, and C.Julius (IGLS 21.4 no. 44).

LEBANON Dated 89. Heliopolis (Baalbek): altar, court of Temple of Bacchus, ca. A.D. 212, reign of Caracalla, dedicated by Quintus Vinus, Gaeus Cassaeus, Isas, and Vettus, archontes, and Foebus and Myla, mutatores (IGLS 2717).

LEBANON Not Dated 90. Heliopolis (Baalbek): pedestal, Hexagonal Court, date unclear, dedicated by C.Tittius Carmaeus?, plumbarius (IGLS 2723). 91. Heliopolis (Baalbek): paving stone, Temple of Bacchus, date unclear, dedicated by T.Flavius Solanus Lampôn (IGLS 2799).

ISRAEL Not Dated 92. Jerusalem: block, original provenance unclear, date unclear, dedicator’s name probably lost (P.Thomsen, ZDPV 64 (1941):208, no. 6A).

Appendix

113

Pro salute Imperatorum. For the salvation of (the) Emperors.

LEBANON Not Dated 93. Heliopolis (Baalbek): threshold between Hexagonal Court and Grand Court, date unclear, dedicator not named (IGLS 2800). Pro salute Domini Nostri Imperatoris Augusti. For the salvation of our Lord, Emperor, Augustus.

LEBANON Not Dated 94. Heliopolis (Baalbek): altar, Hexagonal Court, 3C?, dedicated by L.Julius Himerus (IGLS 2745). Pro salute Dominorum nostrorum. For the salvation of our Lords.

SYRIA Not Dated 95. Bostra: altar, original provenance unclear, 3C?, dedicated by Flavius Basilides, tesserarius (IGLS 9014). Pro salute Imperatoris Caesaris nostri [name]. For the salvation of Emperor, our Caesar, [name].

JORDAN Dated 96. Gerasa (Jerash): block, perhaps altar, propylaea of Temple of Artemis, A.D. 130, reign of Hadrian, dedicated by Marcus Calventius, centurion (Welles 30). Pro salute Imperatoris Caesaris [name] Augusti. For the salvation of Emperor, Caesar, [name], Augustus.

Appendix

114

LEBANON Dated 97. Heliopolis (Baalbek): base, N. of Grand Court, A.D. 128–38, reign of Hadrian, dedicated by L.Varius Magnus, veteran, L.Valerius Melior, pupillus, and Rufus and Fuscus, pupilli (IGLS 2714). 98. Heliopolis (Baalbek): pedestal, W. of Great Temple, A.D. 139–61, reign of Antoninus Pius, dedicated by Q.Tedius Maximus (IGLS 2715).

LEBANON Not Dated 99. Niha: column, original provenance unclear, date unclear, name of emperor erased, dedicated by Quintus Antidius (IGLS 2938). Pro salute Imperatorum Augustorum [name] et [name]. For the salvation of (the) Emperors, Augusti, [name] and [name].

LEBANON Dated 100. Abila (Nebi-Abel): rock-cut inscription, Roman road, A.D. 163, 164, or 165?, reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, dedicated by M.Volusius Maximus, centurion (Wadd. 1875). Pro salute Imperatoris Caesaris [name] Augusti liberorumque eius. For the salvation of Emperor, Caesar [name], Augustus, and his children.

LEBANON Dated 101. Gdita: base, original provenance unclear, A.D. 138–61, reign of Antoninus Pius, dedicated by Gaius Baebius and Gemellus Baebius (IGLS 2964). 102. Gdita: block, original provenance unclear, A.D. 138–61, reign of Antoninus Pius, dedicated by C.Aetrius Crescens Mundus (IGLS 2966). Pro salute Imperatoris Caesaris [name] et [name] Caesaris et [name] Augustae, liberorumque eius et totius domus divinae eius. For the salvation of Emperor, Caesar [name], and [name], Caesar, and [name], Augusta, and that of his children, and that of his entire divine house.

Appendix

115

LEBANON Dated 103. Berytus (Beirut): original provenance unclear, A.D. 196, reign of Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Julia Domna, dedicator not named (Wadd. 1843). Pro salute Imperatoris Caesaris [name] Augusti et Imperatoris Caesaris [name] Augusti et [name] Caesaris et [name] Augustae totiusque domus divinae. For the salvation of Emperor, Caesar [name], Augustus, and Emperor, Caesar [name], Augustus, and [name], Caesar, and [name], Augusta, and the entire divine house.

JORDAN Dated 104. Petra: altar, temple, Qasr al-Bint, A.D. 205–7, reign of Septimius Severus, dedicated by Q.Aiacius Modestus, clarissimus, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (IGLS 21.4 no. 1). 105. Petra: altar, temple, Qasr al-Bint, A.D. 205–7, reign of Septimius Severus, dedicated by Q.Aiacius Modestus, clarissimus, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (IGLS 21.4 no. 2). 106. Petra: altar, temple, Qasr al-Bint, A.D. 205–7, reign of Septimius Severus, dedicated by Q.Aiacius Modestus, clarissimus, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (IGLS 21.4 no. 3). 107. Petra: altar, temple, Qasr al-Bint, A.D. 205–7, reign of Septimius Severus, dedicated by Q.Aiacius Modestus, clarissimus, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (IGLS 21.4 no. 4). 108. Petra: altar, temple, Qasr al-Bint, A.D. 205–7, reign of Septimius Severus, dedicated by Q.Aiacius Modestus, clarissimus, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (IGLS 21.4 no. 5). 109. Petra: altar, temple, Qasr al-Bint, A.D. 205–7, reign of Septimius Severus, dedicated by Q.Aiacius Modestus, clarissimus, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (IGLS 21.4 no. 6). 110. Petra: altar, temple, Qasr al-Bint, A.D. 205–7, reign of Septimius Severus, dedicated by Q.Aiacius Modestus, clarissimus, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (IGLS 21.4no. 7). 111. Petra: altar, temple, Qasr al-Bint, A.D. 205–7, reign of Septimius Severus, dedicated by Q.Aiacius Modestus, clarissimus, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (IGLS 21.4 no. 8). Pro salute Domini Imperatoris Augusti nostri [name]. For the salvation of Lord, Emperor, our Augustus [name].

SYRIA Dated 112. Koser il-Hallabat: lintel, fortress, A.D. 212, reign of Caracalla, dedicated by the soldiers (milites) of cohorts I, III, V, VI, under Furnius Julianus, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (Littmann IIIA no. 17). Pro salute Domini nostri [name] Augusti. For the salvation of our Lord [name], Augustus.

Appendix

116

SYRIA Dated 113. Bostra: altar, original provenance unclear, A.D. 222–35, reign of Severus Alexander, dedicator’s name lost (IGLS 9056). Pro salute Dominorum [name] et [name]. For the salvation of (the) Lords, [name] and [name].

SYRIA Dated 114. Dura Europos: block, barracks, A.D. 217, reign of Caracalla or Macrinus?, dedicator’s name lost (R.N.Frye et al., YCS 14 (1955): no. 59). Pro salute Domini nostri Imperatoris [name] Augusti. For the salvation of our Lord, Emperor [name], Augustus.

LEBANON Dated 115. Heliopolis (Baalbek): column base, Propylaeum, A.D. 211–17, reign of Caracalla, dedicator’s name lost, imperial freedman (IGLS 2713). Pro salute Domini nostri Imperatoris Caesaris [name] Augusti. For the salvation of our Lord, Emperor, Caesar [name], Augustus.

LEBANON Dated 116. Deir el-Qala: altar, Temple of Baal-Marcod, ca. A.D. 193–200, reign of Septimius Severus, dedicated by Mumeius Ingenuos (Wadd. 1858). 117. Heliopolis (Baalbek): statue base, Hexagonal Court, A.D. 238–44, reign of Gordian III, dedicated by L.Julius Severus, decurion (IGLS 2716). b. Salvation and Victory (nikê) For the salvation and victory of the Lord, Caesar.

Appendix

117

SYRIA Not Dated 118. Kanatha (area of Deir Khuleif): original provenance unclear, 2–3C, dedicated by the city (polis) Kanatha, through so and so, son of Alebos, councilor (SEG 46:2073). . For the salvation and victory of the Lords.

SYRIA Not Dated 119. Zorava (Ezra): block, original provenance unclear, 3C?, dedicated by the Saamênoi of Zorava (Wadd. 2481). . For the salvation and victory of the Lords, Emperors.

SYRIA Not Dated 120. Phaina (Mismiyyeh): block above niche, temple, 3C, dedicated by L. Aurelius Maximus, centurion (Wadd. 2526). 121. Phaina (Mismiyyeh): block above niche, temple, 3C, dedicated by L. Aurelius Maximus, centurion (Wadd. 2527).

For the salvation and victory of our Lords, Emperors, Caesars.

SYRIA Dated 122. Palmyra: baths of Diocletian, A.D. 293–303, reign of Diocletian, by the zeal of Sossianus Hierocles, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (SEG 7:152).

Appendix

118

SYRIA Not Dated 123. Sachama? (Zaïdal): stele, boundary marker, road between Homs and Palmyra, 3C, dedicator not named (IGLS 2560). . For the salvation of the Lords, Emperors, and for victory.

ISRAEL Dated 124. Senaim (Mt. Hermon): altar, temple, A.D. 165/166, reign of Marcus Aurelius, dedicated by Netiras (SEG 42:1409). [name]. For the salvation and victory of Caesar [name].

JORDAN Not Dated 125. El-Mushaqqar: block, original provenance unclear, date unclear, dedicated by Zaidallos (IGLS 21 no. 64). [name] For the salvation and victory of Emperor [name], Caesar, Augustus.

.

SYRIA Dated 126. Salkhad: fragment of molding, original provenance unclear, A.D. 169/ 170, reign of Marcus Aurelius, under Avidius Cassius, clarissimus, consular (Littmann IIIA no. 155). [name] For the salvation and victory of Emperor [name], Augustus.

.

Appendix

119

SYRIA Dated 127. Aerita (Ahire): block, original provenance unclear, A.D. 169/170, reign of Marcus Aurelius, dedicated by T.Claudius Magnus, under Avidius Cassius, clarissimus, consular, and T.Aurelius Quirinalis, centurion (Wadd. 2438). 128. Phaina (Mismiyyeh): architrave, temple, A.D. 165–75, reign of Marcus Aurelius, under Avidius Cassius, leg. Aug. pr. pr., and T.Aurelius Quirinalis, centurion (SEG 46:2074). [name] For the salvation and victory of Emperor, Caesar [name], Augustus.

.

SYRIA Dated 129. Phaina (Mismiyyeh): temple, original provenance unclear, A.D. 180–92, reign of Commodus, dedicated by C.Helvius Marianus, centurion (Wadd. 2528A). [name]. For the salvation and victory of Lord, Caesar [name].

SYRIA Dated 130. El-Mushennef: inscription in cave, A.D. 189/190, reign of Commodus, under Asellius Aemilianus, consular, Anicius Romanus, centurion?, and the community (koinon) of Manênoi (Wadd. 2213). [name] . For the salvation and victory of the Lord, Emperor [name], Augustus.

SYRIA Dated 131. Is-Sanamen: block, Tychaion, A.D. 191, reign of Commodus, dedicated by Julius Germanus, centurion (Littmann IIIA no. 652). [name] . For the salvation and victory of our Lord, [name], Augustus.

Appendix

120

SYRIA Dated 132. Adraha (Dera): block, original provenance unclear, A.D. 261/262, reign of Gallienus, dedicated by Coccienus Rufinus, clarissimus and leg. Aug. pr. pr. (SEG 16:809). 133. Umm iz-Zetun: block, temple?, A.D. 282, reign of Probus, dedicated by the community (koinon) of the village (Littmann IIIA no. 765). [name]. For the salvation and victory of our Lord, Emperor [name].

SYRIA Dated 134. Athila (Athil): temple, original provenance unclear, A.D. 211–17, reign of Caracalla, dedicated by M.Aurelius Ulpius Serrênos, stratiôtês of Legio III (Wadd. 2374B).

SYRIA Not Dated 135. Zorava (Ezra): stele, original provenance unclear, 2–3C, reign of Marcus Aurelius or Caracalla, dedicated by the farmers of Zorava (Wadd. 2479). [name] [name] . For the salvation and victory of the Lords, Emperors [name] and [name], Augusti.

SYRIA Dated 136. Phaina (Mismiyyeh): lintel, temple, A.D. 161–69, reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, dedicated by the Phainêsioi, under Avidius Cassius, leg. Aug. pr. pr., and Egnatius Fuscus, centurion (Wadd. 2525). 137. Philippopolis (Shebha): lintel, original provenance unclear, A.D. 177 or 178, reign of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, dedicated by Ailamos, stratêgos, under Martius Verus, leg. Aug. pr. pr., Petusius Endemus, centurion, and Ailamos, stratêgos (Prentice no. 392).

Appendix

121

[name] . For the salvation and victory of our Lord, Emperor, [name], Augustus, and that of the holy armies and holy senate and Roman people.

SYRIA Not Dated 138. Apamea (Qalat al-Mudik): block, original provenance unclear, 2–3C, dedicated by the council and people of Claudia Apamea (IGLS 1346). [name] [name], For the salvation and victory of our Lords, [name] and [name], Augusti.

.

SYRIA Dated 139. Kafr Lab: boundary stone, A.D. 297, reign of Diocletian and Maximian, under Julius Sabinus, clarissimus, censitor (SEG 20:337). 140. Kafr Lab: boundary stone, A.D. 297, reign of Diocletian and Maximian, under Julius Sabinus, clarissimus, censitor (SEG 20:338). 141. Kafr Nabo: boundary stone, A.D. 297, reign of Diocletian and Maximi-an, under Julius Sabinus, clarissimus, censitor (SEG 20:340). 142. Kafr Nabo: boundary stone, A.D. 297, reign of Diocletian and Maximian, under Julius Sabinus, clarissimus, censitor (SEG 20:341). [name] [name]. For the salvation and victory of the Lords, [name] and [name].

SYRIA Dated 143. Tsil: fragments of lintel, original provenance unclear, A.D. 312–37, reign of Constantine, dedicator’s name lost (L.Di Segni, SCI 13 (1994):109, no. 50). [name] [name] For the salvation and victory of our Lords, [name] and [name], Augusti.

.

Appendix

122

SYRIA Dated 144. Between Hezre and Tell Ade: milestone, A.D. 286–305, reign of Diocletian and Maximian (IGLS 499). [name] [name] . For the salvation and victory of our Lords, [name] and [name], Augusti.

SYRIA Dated 145. Mothana (Imtan): pillar, original provenance unclear, A.D. 343/344, reign of Constantius II and Constans, no dedicator (Wadd. 2035). [name] [name] . For the salvation and victory of our Lords, [name] and [name], the undefeated Emperors.

SYRIA Dated 146. Tafas: column, dedication of a bridge, A.D. 343–48, reign of Constantius II and Constans, while Flavius Antonius? Hierocles was governor (SEG 7:256). [name] [name] [name] [name] . For the salvation and victory of our eternal Lords, [name] and [name, and [name], and [name], the undefeated Augusti.

ISRAEL Dated 147. Ecdippa (Achziv): fragments, original provenance unclear, A.D. 309–11, reign of Maximin and Galerius, dedicator’s name probably lost (Di Segni no. 35).

Appendix

123

[name] . For the salvation of the Lord, Emperor, Caesar [name], Augustus, and the entire house, and for (his) victory.

SYRIA Dated 148. El-Mushennef: temple, A.D. 171, reign of Marcus Aurelius, under Avidius Cassius, clarissimus, consular, and Quirinalis Gemellus, centurion (Prentice no. 380A). Pro salute et victoria Imperatoris [name] Caesaris Augusti et Populi Romani. For the salvation and victory of Emperor [name], Caesar, Augustus, and that of the Roman people.

ISRAEL Dated 149. Jerusalem: block, original provenance unclear, A.D. 116, reign of Trajan, dedicated by the vexillatio of Legio III (P.Thomsen, ZDPV 44 (1921):1, no. 1). Pro salute et victoriis Domini nostri [name] Augusti et [name] Augusti [or Augustae]. For the salvation and victories of our Lord, [name], Augustus, and [name], Augustus [or Augusta].

LEBANON Dated 150. Heliopolis (Baalbek): column base, Propylaeum, A.D. 212–17, reign of Caracalla and Julia Domna, dedicated by Longinus, speculator (IGLS 2711). 151. Heliopolis (Baalbek): column base, Propylaeum, A.D. 212–17, reign of Caracalla and Julia Domna, dedicated by Longinus, speculator (IGLS 2712). Pro salutem et victoriam Domini nostri [name] Augusti. For the salvation and victory of our Lord, [name], Augustus.

Appendix

124

SYRIA Dated 152. Dura Europos: fragments, Praetorium, A.D. 194, reign of Septimius Severus, dedicator’s name lost, actuarius of the cohort (Dura Report V no. 561). Pro salute [name] Augusti et victoriam Domini nostri Imperatoris. For the salvation of [name], Augustus, and for the victory of our Lord, Emperor.

SYRIA Dated 153. Dura Europos: altar, near Palmyrene Gate, A.D. 185–92, reign of Commodus, dedicated by Nigrenius Tromentina and Aelius Tittianus, decuriones of cohort II (Dura Report I no. 1). c. Salvation, Victory, and Safety (Diamonê, Incolumitas) [name] . For the salvation and victory and eternal safety of Emperor, Caesar [name], Augustus.

SYRIA Dated 154. Bostra: block, perhaps lintel, original provenance unclear, A.D. 238/239, reign of Gordian III, dedicated by the colony, under Marcus Domitius Valerianus, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (IGLS 9057). [name] . For the salvation and victory of our Lord, Emperor, Caesar, [name], Augustus, and that of (his) entire house, and for (his) eternal safety.

Appendix

125

LEBANON Dated 155. Heliopolis (Baalbek): altar, original provenance unclear, A.D. 209–12, reign of Caracalla and Geta, dedicated by Antonius Silvanus, veteran, ex-beneficiarius (IGLS 2744). d. Salvation and Safety [name]

[name]

. For the salvation of the Augusti, and for the eternal safety of [name] and [name], Emperors, and that of their entire house.

JORDAN Dated 156. Gerasa (Jerash): blocks of architrave, Temple of Zeus, A.D. 163, reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, under Geminius Marcianus, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (Welles 11). [name] [name] . For the salvation of the Augusti, and for the eternal safety of the Lords [name] and [name], Caesars, Emperors, and that of their house.

JORDAN Dated 157. Gerasa (Jerash): block, original provenance unclear, ca. A.D. 163, reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, under Geminius Marcianus, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (Welles 12). [name] For the salvation and safety of [name], Augustus, the Lord.

.

Appendix

126

ISRAEL Dated 158. Bet Ras: architrave, original provenance unclear, A.D. 180–92, reign of Commodus, dedicated by M.Arrius Sabinus (SEG 8:91). [name] . For the salvation and eternal safety of the Lord, Emperor [name], Caesar.

SYRIA Dated 159. Zebire: Temple of Tychê, A.D. 213, reign of Caracalla, dedicated by the tribes Arsênoi and Iachphirênoi, (dependent on?) the settlement of Habibênoi and their patron Bassus (Wadd. 2512). [name] [name] . For the salvation and eternal safety of our Lords, Emperors, [name] and [name], Augusti.

JORDAN Dated 160. Dhiban: block, original provenance unclear, A.D. 201–9, reign of Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta, dedicator's name lost (IGLS 21 no. 178). [name] [name] . For the salvation and safety of the Lords, Emperors [name] and [name], the Augusti.

SYRIA Dated 161. Ferkan: boundary stone, A.D. 297, reign of Diocletian and Maximian, under Julius Sabinus, clarissimus, censitor (SEG 20:342). [name]

[name],

.

Appendix

127

For the salvation and safety of our Lords, [name] and [name], Augusti.

SYRIA Dated 162. Burg Heidar: boundary stone, A.D. 297, reign of Diocletian and Maximian, under Julius Sabinus, clarissimus, censitor (SEG 20:335). 163. Baziher: boundary stone, A.D. 297, reign of Diocletian and Maximian, under Julius Sabinus, clarissimus, censitor (SEG 20:339). Pro salute et incolumitate Dominorum nostrorum Imperatorum [names] Augustorum. For the salvation and preservation of our Lords, Emperors, [names], Augusti.

SYRIA Dated 164. Dura Europos: block, Middle Mithraeum, A.D. 209–11, reign of Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta, restored by Antonius Valentinus, centurion, under Minicius Martial, procurator Augusti (Dura Report VII–VIII no. 847). e. Salvation, Safety, and Power (kratos) . For the salvation and safety and power of our Lords.

SYRIA Not Dated 165. Maximianopolis (Shaqqa): fragments, original provenance unclear, 2C, dedicator’s name lost (SEG 7:1007). f Salvation, Fortune (Tychê), and Safety [name] . For the salvation of Emperor, Caesar [name], Augustus, and for the fortune and safety of his entire house.

Appendix

128

JORDAN Dated 166. Gerasa (Jerash): panel, Triumphal Arch, A.D. 130, reign of Hadrian, dedicated by the city Gerasa (Welles 58). g. Salvation, Safety, and Concord (harmonia) [name] . For the salvation and eternal safety of Emperor, Caesar [name], Augustus, and that of his entire house, and for the concord of the holy senate, and Roman people.

JORDAN Dated 167. Gerasa (Jerash): architrave, Nymphaeum, A.D. 190/191, reign of Commodus, dedicated by the city Gerasa (Welles 69).

h. SALVATION AND CONCORD . For the salvation of the Augusti, and for the concord of the people.

JORDAN Dated 168. Gerasa (Jerash): block, probably from the Temple of Zeus, A.D. 22/23, reign of Tiberius, dedicated by Zabdiôn, priest of Tiberius Caesar (Welles 2). 169. Gerasa (Jerash): slab, Temple of Zeus, A.D. 69/70, reign of Vespasian, dedicated by Theôn (Welles 5). . For the salvation of the Augustus, and for the concord of (his) entire house, and that of the people.

Appendix

129

JORDAN Dated 170. Gerasa (Jerash): block, Temple of Zeus, A.D. 42?, reign of Claudius, dedicated by Aristonas, gymnasiarch (Welles 3). 171. Gerasa (Jerash): slab, “Forum” area, probably from the Temple of Zeus, A.D. 43?, reign of Claudius, dedicated by Atheniôn, gymnasiarch (Welles 4). i. Salvation, Concord, and Prosperity (eudaimonia) [name]

sic

. For the salvation of the Lords, Emperor, Caesar [name], Augustus, and that of his children, and for the concord and prosperity of the council and people of the homeland.

JORDAN Dated 172. Gerasa (Jerash): blocks, unknown Temple of Sarapis and Isis, A.D. 143, reign of Antoninus Pius, dedicated by Malchos, priest of the emperor, under Aemilius Carus, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (Welles 15). j. Salvation and Health (hygeia) [name] For the salvation and health of Emperor [name], Caesar, Augustus.

.

SYRIA Dated 173. El-Afine: original provenance unclear, commemorates the construction of an aqueduct, A.D. 104–8, reign of Trajan, under Cornelius Palma, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (Wadd. 2296–97). 174. Kafer: stele, original provenance unclear, commemorates the construction of an aqueduct, A.D. 104–8, reign of Trajan, dedicator’s name lost (SEG 7:978). 175. Raha: stele, original provenance unclear, commemorates the construction of an aqueduct, A.D. 104–8, reign of Trajan, dedicator’s name lost (SEG 7:977).

Appendix

130

176. Unknown provenance: block, commemorates the construction of an aqueduct, A.D. 105, reign of Trajan, through the foresight of Cornelius Palma, leg. Aug. pr. pr. (SEG 41:1594). k. Salvation and Return (epanodos) [name] . For the salvation of Lord, King [name], and for (his) return.

SYRIA Not Dated 177. El-Mushennef: fragments, temple?, A.D. 41?, reign of Agrippa I?, dedicated by the Synod of Concord (Prentice no. 380).

II. DEDICATIONS FOR PERSONAL SALVATION a. Pagan . For salvation’s sake.

SYRIA Not Dated 178. Dura Europos: gypsum slab, bilingual (Aramaic and Greek), 1C?, dedicated for the salvation of Malchiôn, son of Somesos (R.N.Frye et al., YCS 14 (1955):131–37, no. 3). 179. Hierapolis (Manbij): small stele, local temple, inscription under relief depicting Dea Syria enthroned and flanked by lions (IGLS 231). . For one’s own salvation.

LEBANON Not Dated 180. Btedel: altar with busts of Mercury, Sol, and Luna, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of Flavius, Quintus?, Beryllê, Marthônê, and Vitellia (IGLS 2910).

Appendix

131

[name] . For the salvation of [name].

SYRIA Dated 181. Dura Europos: “salle aux gradins,” Temple of Artemis, A.D. 31/32, dedicated for the salvation of Ammônios, son of Apollophanos, grandson of Seleukos, Lysanios, and his brothers (SEG 2:778A). 182. Dura Europos: gypsum stone, Temple of Azzanathkona, A.D. 33, dedicated for the salvation of Rhechimnaios, son of Boumaios, and his children (Dura Report V no. 504). 183. Dura Europos: gypsum slab, part of plaster basin, Temple of Atargatis, A.D. 36, dedicated for the salvation of Ammônios, son of Apollophanos, and his children (SEG 42:1357=R.N.Frye et al, YCS 14 (1955):128–29, no. 1). 184. Dura Europos: gypsum slab, Temple of the Palmyrene Gods, A.D. 51/52, dedicated for the salvation of Seleukos, son of Lysias, grandson of Seleukos, stratêgos and epistatês of the city, by Xenocratês, son of Seleukos, grandson of Ammônios (Dura Report II no. 4=SEG 7:361). 185. Dura Europos: cult image, Temple of Aphlad, A.D. 54, dedicated for the salvation of Adadiabos, son of Zabdibolos, grandson of Silloi, his children, and entire house (Dura Report V no. 416). 186. Dura Europos: block, next to bas-relief of Aphlad, Temple of Aphlad, A.D. 54, dedicated for the salvation of Seleukos, stratêgos, and members of an association, including Baribagnios, son of Rachipnaios; Nabousapdos, son of Abeppos; Sabdisapsos, son of Zabdibôlos; Naboudaraos, son of Phalazzacheis; Abouis, son of Zabidadados; Salapis, son of Phalazacheis; Roupês, son of Ochchanos; Nabouazzanês, son of Raxipnaios; Theogenês Zabidadados, Adadiadbos, son of Zabdibôlos; Addaios, son of Phalazacheis and their children (Dura Report V no. 418). 187. Dura Europos: stone tablet, Temple of Atargatis, A.D. 92/93, dedicated for the salvation of Nikanôr, son of Dionysios, his wife and children (Dura Report III no. 159=SEG 7:358). 188. Dura Europos: gypsum block, Necropolis Temple, ca. A.D. 100, dedicated for the salvation of [name], his children and brothers (Dura Report VII–VIII no. 917). 189. Dura Europos: gypsum lintel, “pronaos 47,” Temple of Adonis, A.D. 152, dedicated for the salvation of, his wife [name] and children (Dura Report VII–VIII no. 870). 190. Dura Europos: gypsum slab, “chapel 38,” Temple of Adonis, A.D. 153, dedicated for the salvation of Abemmêlos, son of Salamg; Barnaios, son of Belakabos; Barnaios, son of Baathaios; Barnanaios, son of Bathaladados; Mêmarnaios, son of Abidnêr; Ronnaios, son of Bargatês; Sêttabos, son of Bargatês; Daddas, son of Goros and their children (Dura Report VII–VIII no. 871).

Appendix

132

191. Dura Europos: gypsum block, room D8, Temple of Azzanathkona, A.D. 161, dedicated for the salvation of Barbabous, son of Zabidkonos, grandson of Rhaeibelos, and his children (Dura Report V no. 453). 192. Dura Europos: gypsum slab, Temple of Zeus Megistos, A.D. 169/170, dedicated for the salvation of Seleukos, stratêgos and epistatês of the city, and his children (R.N.Frye et al., YCS 14 (1955): 139–42, no. 6). 193. Dura Europos: gypsum slab, “chapel 5,” Temple of Adonis, A.D. 175, dedicated for the salvation of Thaesamsuos, son of Iabsymsos, grandson of Zabidados, and his wife Eklapat (Dura Report VII–VIII no. 873).

SYRIA Not Dated 194. Dura Europos: gypsum stele, “Shrine of Epinicus and Alexander,” 1C, dedicated for the salvation of Epinikos himself, the kêryx and priest of the God, and his children (Dura Report VII–VIII no. 867). [name] . For the salvation and health of [name].

SYRIA Not Dated 195. Dura Europos: block, Temple of Atargatis, 1C?, dedicated for the salvation and health of Diogenês and Dionysios, sons of Damonikos and Menandros, their brothers, children, mother, and relatives (Dura Report III no. 148=SEG 7:359). [name]. For the salvation of [name].

LEBANON Dated 196. Hammara (Majdal Anjar): column, temple, 69/68 B.C., dedicated by Apollophanês for the salvation of [name] (SEG 37:1446=SEG 40:1410). 197. Sahin: altar, original provenance unclear, A.D. 260/261, names lost (IGLS 4027).

Appendix

133

LEBANON Not Dated 198. Deir el-Qala: inscription for fountain, Temple of Baal-Marcod, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of Quintus?, and his children (Wadd. 1855). 199. Harbata: statuette of a female figure holding a flower in one hand, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of the dedicator’s daughter Quintiliana (IGLS 2905). 200. Hebbe: temple?, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of Pyrrhos, Castor, and Publios (IGLS 4049). 201. Niha: altar, temple B, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of Ammônios’ sons (IGLS 2931). 202. Niha: base, pronaos of temple, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of Vesios Ammônios’ sons and brothers (IGLS 2932). 203. Niha: altar depicting a hooded figure leading a saddled horse, date unclear, dedicated by Eutychês, cursor, for the salvation of his house and children (IGLS 2939). 204. Ras Baalbek: altar, original provenance unclear, date unclear, dedicated by [name], for the salvation of himself, his wife, children, and brothers (IGLS 2902).

SYRIA Dated 205. Nazala (Qaryatain): perhaps altar, original provenance unclear, A.D. 157, dedicated by Ablaios and Iaraios, sons of Moschos, for the salvation of themselves and their children (IGLS 2697). 206. Palmyra: small altar, original provenance unclear, A.D. 179, dedicated by Gaius Julius Bassus for the salvation of his son Iaeibas (Prentice no. 353). 207. Palmyra: fragment of column, original provenance unclear, ca. A.D. 269, dedicated for the salvation of Septimia Zenobia, clarissima, empress, mother (Wadd. 2628).

SYRIA Not Dated 208. El-Michrife: limestone statue base, original provenance unclear, date unclear, dedicated by Krispos, son of Beennathalos, for the salvation of his father (IGLS 2502=SEG 1:540). 209. Emesa (Homs): limestone bas-relief depicting Keraunos, Athena, a military god, and a larger god mostly lost, date unclear, dedicated by [name] for his own salvation and that of his children (IGLS 2220).

Appendix

134

210. Emesa (Homs): small altar with busts on three sides, date unclear, dedicated by [name] for the salvation of Kallistos, his wife and children (IGLS 2223). 211. Ourim el-Joz: vestibule of tomb, date unclear, dedicated by Astêronas for the salvation of himself and his brothers (IGLS 671A=SEG 8:58). 212. Palmyra: original provenance unclear, bilingual (Aramaic and Greek), 2C, dedicated by Mannaios son of Ammathos, grandson of Addoudanos, great-grandson of Phirmôn, for the salvation of himself and his children (SEG 7:147). 213. Palmyra: original provenance unclear, 2–3C, dedicated for the salvation of a certain man and for his own (SEG 7:149). 214. Sur: lintel, original provenance, date unclear, dedicated by Hêrak-leidês son of Alaphallos, architektôn, for the salvation of Hêrodês, son of Bereneikianos (Littmann IIIA no. 797(8)). 215. Sur: altar, original provenance unclear, 2–3C, dedicated by Mabogaios, son of Anêos, for the salvation of his son Maleichathos (Littmann IIIA no. 797(9)). 216. Tharba: original provenance unclear, date unclear, dedicated by Omainathê son of Salos, grandson of Emranos for the salvation of Dôsitheos son of Phê-likianos (SEG 7:1071=Wadd. 2203B). 217. Tharba: original provenance unclear, date unclear, dedicated by [name], son of Aboudos for the salvation of his son Orailos (Wadd. 2203D). 218. Yabrouda (Yabrud): altar, original provenance unclear, date unclear, dedicated by Italos? Tamalatos, son of Seanios, citizen of Kara, and Ostarbêlos? for the salvation of Claudius Cassianus (IGLS 2709). . For the salvation of the lords.

SYRIA Dated 219. Durbah: small stele decorated with eagle, original provenance unclear, A.D. 115/116, dedicated by Alkimos for the salvation of the kyrioi (IGLS 2104 =Wadd. 2640). . For the salvation of the lords.

SYRIA Dated 220. Djeneine: lintel, original provenance unclear, A.D. 178, dedicated for the salvation of the kyrioi (Wadd. 2186). 221. Kanatha (Qanawat): original provenance unclear, A.D. 253/254, dedicated by Julianos Dionysios for the salvation of the kyrioi episkopoi Anemos, son of Sabinos; Baulanê, son of Odenithos; and Pasiphilos, son of Kamasanos (Wadd. 2412F).

Appendix

[name] For the salvation of [name], master.

135

.

LEBANON Dated 222. Heliopolis (Baalbek): base for statuette, A.D. 292/293, dedicated by Pausanias for the salvation of his master Teimosthenous (SEG 40:1414). Pro salute [name]. For the salvation of [name].

ISRAEL Not Dated 223. Horvath Hesheq: marble altar, reused in church, 3C, dedicated for the salvation of the dedicator, probably a priest of Jupiter, his wife Julia Curria, and his sons (L.Di Segni, CAHL, no. 5, pp. 385–87).

LEBANON Dated 224. Deir el-Qala: altar, Temple of Baal-Marcod, ca. A.D. 193–200, dedicated by Mummeius Ingenuos for the salvation of the emperor, himself, his brothers, and his sons (Wadd. 1858).

LEBANON Not Dated 225. Deir el-Ahman: altar, temple, date unclear, dedicated by Haiaeus for the salvation of himself and his children (IGLS 2908). 226. Deir el-Qala: base, Temple of Baal-Marcod, dedicated by Antistia Victorina Fabaria for the salvation of herself, C.Antistus, Antistus Victorinus, Salvus, Hotorion, and Cara (Wadd. 1859). 227. Heliopolis (Baalbek): base, original provenance unclear, date unclear, dedicated by T.Pontius Claudius Bruttienus for the salvation of himself, his daughter, and his wife Juventia (IGLS 2720).

Appendix

136

228. Heliopolis (Baalbek): altar, original provenance unclear, 3C, dedicated by Baebius Aurelianus Dius, decurion of Colonia Heliopolis, for the salvation of himself and of his wife Antonia Diodora, their children, and all their own (IGLS 2743). 229. Heliopolis (Baalbek): original provenance unclear, date unclear, dedicated by Carmaeus Montanus Quintillianus, son of Tiberus, for the salvation of himself, his wife Firmina, and their children Firminus, Montanus, and Marcella (IGLS 2748). 230. Heliopolis (Baalbek): altar, original provenance unclear, 3–4C, dedicated by a certain Julianus for the salvation of himself; his children Julianus, Secunda, and Gemella; his brothers Titus (or Tiberius), Marcus, and Gaius; his sister Herra; and the children of his sister, Secunda and Quintus (IGLS 2751). 231. Heliopolis (Baalbek): fragment, original provenance unclear, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of [name] and his own (IGLS 2752). 232. Heliopolis (Baalbek): block, original provenance unclear, date unclear, names lost, but apparently by a military man (IGLS 2756). 233. Hermel: altar depicting Jupiter Heliopolitanus, Mother Goddess, and Hermes, original provenance unclear, date unclear, dedicated by Gaius Antonius Abimmes for the salvation of himself and his own (IGLS 2904).

SYRIA Dated 234. Dura Europos: gypsum altar, Dolichenum, A.D. 211, dedicated for the salvation of M.Antonius Valentinus, centurion of the vexillatio of legio III and XVI Flavia Firma Antoniniana, and all his own, by Agathocles, his freedman (Dura Report IX, III no. 970). Pro salute dominorum. For the salvation of the masters.

LEBANON Dated 235. Deir Labas: altar, original provenance unclear, A.D. 117–138?, dedicated by Callistus and Apollonius for the salvation of (their?) masters (IGLS 2952). Pro salute [name] patroni For the salvation of [name], patron.

Appendix

137

LEBANON Not Dated 236. Heliopolis (Baalbek): altar, dedicated by Q.Baebius Januarius for the salvation of his patron Baebius Novatus, and of his son?, and his wife Baebia Thallusa, his children, and brothers (IGLS 2719). b. Christian For salvation’s sake.

JORDAN Not Dated 237. Kastron Mefaa (Umm er-Rasas): inscription on molded plaster pilaster, south part of ambulatory, church of St. Stephen, 6–8C (SEG 37:1612). . For one’s own salvation.

SYRIA Not Dated 238. El-Bire: mosaic of martyrion, 4–5C, dedicated by Julianos, deacon, for his own salvation (IGLS 252A). [name]. For the salvation of [name].

ISRAEL Dated 239. Horvath Hesheq: mosaic, nave of church, A.D. 519, dedicated for the salvation of Demetrios, the deacon, of his son George, and all their house (Di Segni no. 76). 240. Kafr Kama: mosaic, chapel of church of St. Thecla, A.D. 536/537, dedicated for the salvation of bishop Euphrasios, gloriosissimus commander (stratêlatês) Theodoros (Di Segni no. 92*=SEG 45:1954).

Appendix

138

241. Maale Adummim: mosaic, refectory of Monastery of Martyrius, A.D. 567/568 or 582/583, dedicated for the salvation of our holy father Genesios, priest and archimandrite, and his community in Christ (L.Di Segni, CAHL, no. 6, pp. 158–59). 242. Mumsiyye (El-Ghassaniyye): block, original provenance unclear, A.D. 532, dedicated for the salvation of John and Thomas (SEG 46:1969). 243. Nessana: abacus, baptistery, North Church, A.D. 601/602, names lost (Di Segni no. 302). 244. Nessana: slab, North Church, A.D. 605, dedicated for the salvation of Flavios Sergios, son of Victor, and Victor, his son, and Abraham, son of Abu-Zonainos, his hired hand (Di Segni no. 303).

ISRAEL Not Dated 245. Jerusalem: marble fragment, church of St. Veronica, names lost (P. Thomsen, ZDPV 44 (1921):9, no. 14). 246. Jerusalem: mosaic, eastern slope of Mt. Sion, dedicated for the salvation of Mary (P.Thomsen, ZDPV 44 (1921):11, no. 21=SEG 8:194B). 247. Jerusalem: marble plaque, found reused in Dome of the Rock, 5C?, dedicated for the salvation of Mary (Wadd. 1901=P.Thomsen, ZDPV 44 (1921): 50, no. 97). 248. Khibbutz Shoval: marble column, original provenance unclear, 6C?, dedicated for the salvation of Prokopios and brothers (SEG 36:1333). 249. Khisfin: mosaic, original provenance unclear, 5C, dedicated for the salvation of George (Gregg and Urman, no. 85). 250. Mt. Gerizim: flagstone, church of Mary Theotokos, 6C, dedicated for the salvation of Bartholomeos? Alexander and his entire house (L.Di Segni, CAHL, no. 2, pp. 344–45). 251. Mt. Sinai: second archway, ascent to Moses Mountain, SW face, 6C, dedicated for the salvation of Abba John, hêgoumenos (I.Sevcenko, DOP 20 (1966): 263, no. 11). 252. Nahal Og: graffito in burial cave, 5–6C, dedicated for the salvation of Thomas the deacon (SEG 45:1961). 253. Nahariya: mosaic, church, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of Leontios, priest and periodeutos, and all his dependents (SEG 37:1523). 254. Nessana: abacus, Room 5, North Complex, dedicated for the salvation of so and so, son of Ieêtos (Kirk and Welles [1962], no. 64). 255. Nessana: capital, original provenance unclear, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of Alôbeos, son of George, priest, son of Phesanes and Mulaika, daughter of Patrikios (Kirk and Welles [1962], vol. 1, no. 73=SEG 8:306). 256. Nessana: abacus, original provenance unclear, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of Victor son of Ieêtos (Kirk and Welles, [1962], no. 746=SEG 8:307). 257. Nessana: abacus, original provenance unclear, date unclear, dedication for the salvation of Valens? (Kirk and Welles [1962], no. 75). 258. Nessana: capital, original provenance unclear, dedicated for the salvation of Abraham, son of Chorzos, and Stephenos, his son (Kirk and Welles [1962], no. 95).

Appendix

139

259. Nessana: block, original provenance unclear, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of Flavios Zênobios (Kirk and Welles [1962], no. 99). 260. Oboda (Avdat): white marble table, monastery, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of Kasiseos and Victor, son of Stephanos (A.Negev, The Greek Inscriptions from the Negev, no. 32). 261. Sobata (Shivta): original provenance unclear, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of Zonainos and Stephanos (A.Negev, The Greek Inscriptions from the Negev, no. 72). 262. Umm el-Baqar: marble screen, 6C?, dedicated for the salvation of Olephos (SEG 36:1331).

JORDAN Dated 263. Mekhayyat: mosaic, church of St. George, A.D. 535/536, dedicated for the salvation of Rabbos, oikonomos, and [name], priest and paramonarios (IGLS 21 no. 100C). 264. Quweisme: mosaic, south aisle of Church A, A.D. 717/718, dedicated for the salvation of Sobeos, priest and oikonomos, and Makedonios, Abbibas, and John, his brothers (IGLS 21 no. 53). 265. Siyagha: mosaic, first baptistery, A.D. 531, dedicated for the salvation of Mousêlios, scholastikos, and his wife Sergô; Philadelphos, scholastikos; Gothos, scholastikos; and their children (IGLS 21 no. 74). 266. Wadi Ayoun Mousa: mosaic, upper church, ca. A.D. 550–600, dedicated for the salvation of Phidos, Thomas, and Elpidos, deacons, and Kasiseos, monk (SEG 40:1532).

JORDAN Not Dated 267. Gerasa (Jerash): mosaic, nave of Mortuary Church, 6C, dedicated by father and mother for their children (Welles 333). 268. Hesban: mosaic, nave of church, 6C?, dedicated for the salvation of a certain priest, and for Philadelphos and his house (IGLS 21 no. 60). 269. Hesban: mosaic, church, 6C?, dedicated for the salvation of Philadelphos and Elias, his son (IGLS 21 no. 61). 270. Kastron Mefaa (Umm er-Rasas): mosaic, near front entrance of church of St. Stephen, 6–8C, dedicated for the salvation of Isaac; Martyrios, son of Porphyrios; Sabinos; Theodoros, his brother; and Marinos (SEG 37:1600). 271. Madaba: bronze cross, 6–7C, dedicated for the salvation of Theôphanos (SEG 8:330). 272. Mekhayyat: mosaic, church of St. George, 6C, dedicated for the salvation of Saolas, son of Kassisêos, and his children, Mike and Maria, daughters of Kalonikê (IGLS 21 no. 101).

Appendix

140

273. Mekhayyat: mosaic, church of St. George, 6C, dedicated for the salvation of Saôlas, archdeacon, by Anastasis, son of John (IGLS 21 no. 104). 274. Siyagha: mosaic, apse of church, 6C, dedication for the salvation of a certain clarissimus (IGLS 21 no. 72).

LEBANON Dated 275. Sidon (area of Jiye): mosaic, baptistery of church, A.D. 573/574, dedicated for the salvation of Theôdoros, the mosaic designer?, and his father Ulpianos (SEG 40:1786). 276. Sidon (area of Zahrani): mosaic, narthex of church, A.D. 541, dedicated for the salvation of Baracheos, sub-deacon, and his sons Neestaros and Baracheos (SEG 40:1789).

LEBANON Not Dated 277. Berytus (area of Bet Mery): mosaic, church built in vault of ancient bath, 6C, dedicated for the salvation of Haeiannos, oikonomos, his children and house (SEG 40:1776).

SYRIA Dated 278. Brad: mosaic, martyrium and basilica of Julianus, ca. A.D. 395–402, dedicated for the salvation of Eusebios, the husband (or the dedicator); Markianos, her brother-in-law, Hesychia, her daughter, and children (SEG 40:1779). 279. El-Burdj: entrance to a fort, A.D. 566–580, dedicated by Flavius Al-Moundhir, phylarch, famiosissimus, patrikios, for his own salvation and that of his children, gloriosissimi (Wadd. 2562C). 280. Qreye: near reservoir, A.D. 538, dedicated for the salvation of Saios, son of Philokalos (Wadd. 1966). 281. Soran: mosaic, diaconicon of church, ca. A.D. 490, dedicated for the salvation of [name], and Juliana, his daughter (SEG 40:1767). 282. Tell Minis: mosaic, church, A.D. 529, dedicated for the salvation of a certain man and his wife (SEG 46:1773).

Appendix

141

SYRIA Not Dated 283. Ayoun Mousa: mosaic, church, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of Salamanos, Paulos, and Maximos, and their children (IGLS 21 no. 96B). 284. Bassah: reliquary, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of Elias, deacon, son of John (É.Michon, RB 14 (1905):576). 285. Imma (Al-Berke): lintel, original provenance unclear, 6C?, dedicated by Flavius Basssus, magistros, for the salvation of himself, his wife Nonna, and their children (IGLS 625). 286. Melihet el-Atasch (or El-Hariri): inscription above door, original provenance unclear, 6C?, dedicated for the salvation of Anomos?, gloriosissimus, comes (Wadd. 2412Q). 287. Phela Treasure: chalice decorated with figurés of Christ, archangels, the Virgin, a deacon, and a military saint, 6–7C, dedicated for the salvation of Elpidos and his house (M.Mundell Mango, Silver from Early Byzantium, no. 62, pp. 232–33). . For the salvation of the present benefactors.

ISRAEL Dated 288. Khirbet el-Beiyudat: mosaic, in front of bema of church, A.D. 536–570?, dedicated for the salvation of the benefactors (Di Segni no. 203*C=L.Di Segni, CAHL, no. 3, p. 268). . For the salvation of those who have made offerings.

ISRAEL Not Dated 289. Herodion: mosaic, room next to Eastern Church, latter half of 6C or later, dedicated for the salvation of the past benefactors (L.Di Segni, CAHL, no. 4, pp. 184–85). 290. Mt. Sinai:, mosaic, apse of basilica, Monastery of St. Catherine, 6C, dedicated for the salvation of the past benefactors (I.Sevcenko, DOP 20 (1966): 263, no. 7).

Appendix

142

JORDAN Dated 291. Wadi Ayn al-Kanisah (near Mt. Nebo): mosaic, Chapel of the Theotokos, part of monastery, A.D. 762, dedicated under (epi) Job, bishop of Madaba, and George, recluse (enklistos) (SEG 44:1410).

JORDAN Not Dated 292. Hesban: mosaic, church, 6C?, dedicated by the zeal of John, deacon (IGLS 21 no. 62).

For the salvation and succor of the benefactors past and present.

ISRAEL Not Dated 293. Wadi el-Qelt: mosaic, cell 11, St. George of Choziba, 6C, dedicated for the salvation of benefactors past and present, whose names God knows (J.Patrich, CAHL, pp. 214–15, 218).

For the salvation and succor and forgiveness of the sins of benefactors past and present.

JORDAN Dated 294. Madaba: mosaic, church of the Virgin Mary, A.D. 663, dedicated by the people of the city (polis) Madaba (IGLS 21 no. 131). . For the salvation and longevity of the past benefactors.

Appendix

143

ISRAEL Dated 295. Ein Fattir: mosaic, in front of steps to bema of church, A.D. 546, dedicated for the salvation of the benefactors (Di Segni no. 224A-B=SEG 42:1421).

For the salvation of and as an offering of the donors and future donors.

JORDAN Dated 296. Mekhayyat: mosaic, “church of Priest John,” ca. A.D. 562, dedicated by the zeal of John, priest (IGLS 21 no. 106). . For the salvation of the benefactors and their children.

JORDAN Dated 297. Yadudeh: mosaic, facing door of church, A.D. 502, dedicated by the zeal of Silanos, deacon (IGLS 21 no. 56). [name]. For the salvation of those who have made offerings: [name].

ISRAEL Dated 298. Nessana: mosaic, East Church, A.D. 601, dedicated for the salvation of Sergios, exassessor and monk, and Pallous, his sister, and John, deacon, her son, principalis of the metropolis of Emesa (Di Segni no. 308=SEG 8:312). [name] For the salvation of [name], and for all the donors.

.

Appendix

144

ISRAEL Not Dated 299. Jerusalem: mosaic, Dominus Flevit Church, last half of 7C, dedicated for the salvation of a certain priest of the Holy Sepulcher, and his brothers (J.T.Milik, RB 67 (1960):550–55, no. 22). [name]. For the salvation and the forgiveness of the sins of [name].

SYRIA Dated 300. Deir el-Adas: mosaic, nave of church of St. George, A.D. 722, dedicated for the salvation of Peter, priest and hêgoumenos (SEG 40:1521ter). [name] [name]. For the salvation of [name], and for the repose of [name].

ISRAEL Dated 301. Horvath Hesheq: mosaic, southern apse before altar of church, A.D. 519, dedicated for the salvation of Dêmêtrios, deacon, and his son George (Di Segni no. 78).

ISRAEL Not Dated 302. Khirbet Zacharia: edge of baptismal font, dedicated for the salvation of Sôphronia (J.Germer-Durand, RB 2 (1893):212). 303. Mt. Sinai: votive cross, Monastery of St. Catherine, 6C?, dedicated for the salvation of Theôdora (I.Sevcenko, DOP 20 (1966):264, no. 16). 304. Nessana: small marble column, probably from a church, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of George, son of Patrikios, hêgoumenos (Kirk and Welles [1962], no. 77).

Appendix

145

JORDAN Dated 305. Gerasa (Jerash): mosaic, central apse, church of Bishop Isaiah, A.D. 559, dedicated by Bêroios and Eulampia, clarissimi (J.M.C.Bowsher, “The Church Inscriptions,” no. 1). 306. Mekhayyat: mosaic, church of Sts. Lot and Procopius, A.D. 558–73, dedicated for the salvation of Rabatha, daughter of Anastasia, by Stephanos and Elias, brothers and children of Komitissa (IGLS 21 no. 97).

JORDAN Not Dated 307. Provenance unknown: mosaic, church, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of Elpidos, son of Annos (SEG 45:2029).

SYRIA Dated 308. Riha Treasure: ewer, A.D. 582–602, dedicated for the salvation of Megas, gloriosissimus, ex-consul, patrikios, curator (M.Mundell Mango, Silver from Early Byzantium, no. 37, pp. 175–77). 309. Riha Treasure: ewer, A.D. 582–602, dedicated for the salvation of Megas, gloriosissimus, ex-consul, patrikios, curator (M.Mundell Mango, Silver from Early Byzantium, no. 38, pp. 178–79).

SYRIA Not Dated 310. Herake: lintel, original provenance unclear, date unclear, dedicated by John, son of Domnos, for the salvation of his brother and Proklos?, his father (IGLS 1584). [name]. For the salvation of the benefactors and for the repose of [name].

Appendix

146

SYRIA Not Dated 311. Region of Arsous: threshold of church, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of the benefactors and for the repose of Julianos, periodeutos? (IGLS 733). [name]. For the salvation and longevity of [name].

JORDAN Not Dated 312. Philadelphia (Amman): marble plaque, probably from church of St. George on the acropolis, late 6C, dedicated for the despotai who provided the funds for the church (IGLS 21 no. 43). [name]. For the salvation and peace and longevity of [name].

JORDAN Not Dated 313. Quweisme: mosaic, nave of Church B, 8C?, dedicated by Magnos and his wife for the salvation of his master (despotês) Stephanos, tribune (IGLS 21 no. 54B). [name]. For the salvation and succor of [name].

ISRAEL Dated 314. Khirbet Atthir: mosaic, nave of church, A.D. 632 or 633, dedicated for the salvation of Thomas, hêgoumenos (Di Segni no. 228).

Appendix

147

ISRAEL Not Dated 315. Bettir: mosaic, perhaps from a monastic building, 6C, dedicated for the salvation of Alypios and his dependents, and for George (SEG 8:230). 316. Ein el Gedide: mosaic, 6–7C, dedicated for the salvation of our holy fathers [names], priests, and deacon [name], and those whose names God knows (SEG 8:232). 317. Khirbet el-Makhrum: mosaic, monastery, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of our holy father Aiglôn, hêgoumenos, and his community in Christ (SEG 37:1458).

JORDAN Not Dated 318. Deir: mosaic, nave of church, 6–7C, dedicated for the salvation of Theodôros, gloriosissimus and illustris, by the zeal of [name], clarissimus and epitropos (IGLS 21 no. 175). [name] [name]. For the salvation and succor of [name], and for the repose of [name].

ISRAEL Dated 319. Bet Safafa: mosaic, chapel, A.D. 491, 596, or 701, dedicated for the salvation of Samuel, his family, and his dependents (Di Segni no. 222*). [name]. For the peace and salvation of [name].

JORDAN Not Dated 320. Siyagha: mosaic, hermitage of Prokapis, 5C, dedicated for the salvation of father Prokapis, priest (SEG 40:1537). 321. Siyagha: mosaic, church, 6C, dedicated for the salvation of Anôsa, doulos, and his house (IGLS 21 no. 84). . For the salvation and remembrance of the living.

Appendix

148

SYRIA Dated 322. Ruweha: pediment, temple tomb, A.D. 384/385, dedicated for the salvation of “the living,” perhaps the dedicators Bassimas and Mathbabea (IGLS 680= Prentice no. 263). [name] [name]. For the salvation of [name], and for the memory and repose of [name].

ISRAEL Dated 323. Khisfin: mosaic, apse of church, A.D. 604 or 618/619, dedicated for the salvation of Leonitios and Eugenios, sons of the dedicator Olympios (Di Segni no. 60). [name] [name]. For the memory of [name], and for the salvation of [name].

JORDAN Dated 324. Esbous: mosaic, presbyterium of North Church, ca. A.D. 450–500, dedicated for the memory of Quintianos, priest, and for the salvation of his children (SEG 45:1990).

SYRIA Dated 325. Huarte: mosaic, basilica of Photios, A.D. 484, dedicated for the remembrance of Thomas, and for the salvation of his children (SEG 29:1590). [name] [name]. For the memory and death in Christ (and) repose of [name], and for the salvation and succor of [name].

Appendix

149

ISRAEL Dated 326. Bet Shean: mosaic, entrance hall of Monastery of Lady Mary, A.D. 553/ 554 or 568/569, dedicated for the salvation of John, gloriosissimus, honorary prefect, Peter, Anastasios, comites, and their house (Di Segni no. 106). [name]. For the salvation of and as an offering of [name].

JORDAN Dated 327. Mekhayyat: mosaic, nave of church of St. George, A.D. 535/536, dedicated for the salvation of Stephanos and Elias, brothers and children of Komitissa (IGLS 2l no. 100A).

JORDAN Not Dated 328. Ayoun Mousa: mosaic, church, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of Matrôna (IGLS 21 no. 96A). 329. Mekhayyat: mosaic, “church of Priest John,” 6C, dedicated for the salvation of Sergios, son of Stephanos; Procopios, son of Porphyria; Roma, Maria, and Julian the monk, douloi (IGLS 21 no. 107). [name]. In fulfillment of a vow and for the salvation of [name].

SYRIA Dated 330. Deir Debbbane (near El-Bara): rock-cut inscription commemorating the construction of a road, ca. A.D. 563, dedicated for the salvation of Agathonikos, comes (SEG 20:367). 331. Hama Treasure: chalice, A.D. 547–50?, dedicated for the salvation of Symeonis, magistrianos, and his dependents (M.Mundell Mango, Silver from Early Byzantium, no. 1, pp. 68–70=SEG 7:90).

Appendix

150

332. Hama Treasure: chalice, A.D. 602–10, dedicated for the salvation of John, Thomas, Mannos, the sons of Theophilos (M.Mundell Mango, Silver from Early Byzantium, no. 2, pp. 71–73=SEG 7:88). 333. Kapropera (El-Bara): lintel, original provenance unclear, A.D. 525/526, dedicated for the salvation of Panteleôn, commerciarius (IGLS 1473). 334. Phela Treasure: paten, A.D. 577, dedicated for the salvation of Agathangelos and Theodoros, excubitor (M.Mundell Mango, Silver from Early Byzantium, no. 63, pp. 233– 234). 335. Tell Minis: mosaic, church, A.D. 540, dedicated for the salvation of Elias, son of Salmeos (or and of Salmeos) (SEG 46:1775). 336. Umm er-Rejim: lintel, original provenance unclear, A.D. 519/520, dedicated for the salvation of Mamas, klêrouchos and primiskrinios, and all his own (IGLS 1729). 337. Unknown provenance: bronze disc, part of a candelabrum, before A.D. 471, dedicated for the salvation of Ardabourios (SEG 36:1469).

SYRIA Not Dated 338. Androna (El-Anderin): lintel, church, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of Dometios, son of Mareas, and Synklêtikê, his wife (IGLS 1691=Prentice no. 922). 339. El-Barduneh: basalt paving stone, dedicated for the salvation of Kosmas, Romê, and their children (IGLS 1910=Prentice IIIB no. 855). 340. El-Rhayel: lintel, original provenance unclear, 5–6C, names lost (IGLS 1881 bis). 341. Epiphania (Hama): plaque, original provenance unclear, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of Tiberios, klêrouchos (IGLS 2005). 342. Et-Tehh: limestone base, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of Timotheos? (IGLS 1720). 343. Hama Treasure: cross, mid-6C, dedicated for the salvation of Thomas, son of Isaac, and his dependents (M.Mundell Mango, Silver from Early Byzantium, no. 9, pp. 91–93=SEG 7:101). 344. Hama Treasure: cross, mid-6C, dedicated for the salvation of John, son of Symeonios, and his dependents (M.Mundell Mango, Silver from Early Byzantium, no. 10, pp. 94–95=IGLS 2037; SEG 7:100). 345. Phela Treasure: chalice, 6–7C, dedicated for the salvation of Maria, her child Theodore, and Theodoros (M.Mundell Mango, Silver from early Byzantium, no. 61, p. 232). 346. Ruweida: lintel, tomb, date unclear, names lost (IGLS 1794). [name]. In fulfillment of a vow and for the salvation and the forgiveness of the sins of [name].

Appendix

151

ISRAEL Not Dated 347. Provenance unknown: bronze incense burner, 6–8C, dedicated for the salvation of the maker of the incense burner (SEG 44:1375). [name] [name]. In fulfillment of a vow and for the salvation of [name], and for the repose of [name].

SYRIA Dated 348. Stuma Treasure: lamp, A.D. 574–76/78, dedicated for the salvation of Sergios, tribune and argyropratês, and for the repose of his wife Maria (M.Mundell Mango, Silver from early Byzantium, no. 33, pp. 155–58). 349. Stuma Treasure: paten depicting the Communion of the Apostles, A.D. 574– 76/78, dedicated for the salvation of Sergios, tribune and argyropratês, and for the repose of his wife Maria (M.Mundell Mango, Silver from early Byzantium, no. 34, pp. 159–164). 350. Stuma Treasure: paten, A.D. 574–78, dedicated for the salvation of Sergios and Anna (M.Mundell Mango, Silver from early Byzantium, no. 36, pp. 171–74=IGLS 697).

SYRIA Not Dated 351. Hama Treasure: flask decorated with Christ, the Virgin, and two saints, mid- to late6C, dedicated for the salvation of Megalê, her children, and her nephews (M.Mundell Mango, Silver from early Byzantium, no. 15, pp. 108–11=IGLS 2035; SEG 7:98). [name] [name]. For the repose of [name], and for the salvation of [name].

LEBANON Dated 352. Nabatiyeh: mosaic, A.D. 500 or 514/515, dedicated for the salvation of Elias, perhaps the mosaicist (SEG 35:1495). 353. Sidon (area of Zahrani): mosaic, annex of church, A.D. 535, dedicated for the salvation of Sabarios, the son of the deceased (SEG 40:1796).

Appendix

152

SYRIA Dated 354. Riha Treasure: “Riha Paten,” depicting the Communion of the Apostles, A.D. 577?, dedicated for the salvation of Megas, Nonnous, and their children (M. Mundell Mango, Silver from early Byzantium, no. 35, pp. 165–70=IGLS 695).

SYRIA Not Dated 355. Antioch Treasure: chalice, 6–7C, dedicated for the salvation of Thekla and her children (M.Mundell Mango, Silver from early Byzantium, no. 41, pp. 188–91). [name]. For the salvation and repose of [name].

SYRIA Not Dated 356. Phela Treasure: paten depicting the four rivers of paradise, 6–7C, dedicated for the repose (and perhaps also the salvation) of Sabiniane, Martha, and Maria (M.Mundell Mango, Silver from early Byzantium, no. 64, pp. 234–35). [name]. For the salvation of my masters, [name].

ISRAEL Not Dated 357. Suman: slab, original provenance unclear, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of the masters, names lost (SEG 46:1994). . For the salvation of and help of those who suffer.

Appendix

153

ISRAEL Not Dated 358. Bab el-Oued: stone stele, original provenance unclear, date unclear, dedicated for those who suffer (J.Germer-Durand, RB 3 (1894):256–57). [name]. For the salvation of, [and] help of, [name].

SYRIA Dated 359. Krad ad-Dasiniya: basalt paving stone, original provenance unclear, A.D. 529, dedicated for the salvation of Thomas, Iamblêchos, and Paul (IGLS 2144). [name]. For the salvation of [name].

LEBANON Dated 360. Mutatio Heldua (Khalde): mosaic, church, A.D. 605/606, dedicated for the salvation of Jôsê and Benjamin, his son (SEG 32:1451). . With health and salvation for all time.

SYRIA Not Dated 361. Region of Aleppo: red-brown gem, magic charm, 4-6C (IGLS 221A–B). By the Holy Trinity and by the Emperor’s salvation.

Appendix

154

ISRAEL Dated 362. Nessana: papyrus document relating to the division of property, A.D. 562 (G.E.Kirk and C.B.Welles, The Excavations at Nessana, vol. 3, no. 21, line 22, pp. 67–69). 363. Nessana: papyrus document relating to the partition of inheritance, A.D. 566 (G.E.Kirk and C.B.Welles, The Excavations at Nessana, vol. 3, no. 22, line 12, pp. 70– 74). c. Jewish . For salvation’s sake.

ISRAEL Dated 364. Ascalon: marble slab, perhaps a chancel screen from a synagogue, A.D. 605/606, dedicated for the salvation of Master (kyrios) Kommodos and another whose name has been lost (Di Segni no. 146 = SEG 8:267). [name]. For the salvation of [name].

ISRAEL Dated 365. Gaza: marble basin, synagogue, ca. A.D. 509, dedicated for the salvation of Reuben (Roubêl), Issê, and Benjamin (C.A.M.Glucker, The City of Gaza, no. 40, p. 146=Di Segni no. 152*). 366. Samaria: bronze door-knocker, original provenance unclear, A.D. 572, dedicated by Marcellina for the salvation of Baracheos, her son (SEG 46:2052).

Appendix

155

ISRAEL Not Dated 367. Ascalon: column, perhaps from a synagogue, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of Menamos, his wife Matrôna, and their son Samuel (CIJ II:965= SEG 8:266). 368. Bay of Atlit: bronze object found off the coast of Atlit, 5–7C, names lost (SEG 44:1368). 369. Bet Shean: mosaic, House of Leontios, 5C?, dedicated by Master (kyrios) Leontios for the salvation of himself and his brother Jonathon (Lifshiftz [1967], no. 77B, pp. 68–69). 370. Bet Shean: marble lintel, synagogue, date unclear, dedicated by Nonnos of Cyzica for the salvation of himself, and his house (Lifshiftz [1967], no. 77C, pp. 69–70). 371. Caesarea Maritima: marble column, perhaps from a synagogue, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of the dedicator’s daughter Matrôna (Lifshiftz [1967], no. 67, pp. 52–53). 372. Gaza: marble plaque found between Jaffa and Gaza, 6C?, dedicated for the salvation of Jacob, Lazaros, and Mareina? (Lifshiftz [1967], no. 72, pp. 56–57 =SEG 8:277). 373. Ramat Aviv (Tell Qasile): mosaic, perhaps from a Samaritan synagogue, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation the dedicator’s children (SEG 37:1526). 374. Provenance unknown: bronze amulet decorated with menorah, lulav, and shofar, date unclear, dedicated for the salvation of Lady (kyria) Matrôna (A.Reifenberg, Ancient Hebrew Arts, 143, fig. 2).

SYRIA Dated 375. Apamea: mosaic, synagogue, ca. A.D. 391, dedicated by Alexandra for the salvation of all her own (Lifshiftz [1967], no. 41, p. 42=IGLS 1322). 376. Apamea: mosaic, synagogue, ca. A.D. 391, dedicated by Ambrosia for the salvation of all her own (Lifshiftz [1967], no. 42, p. 42=IGLS 1323). 377. Apamea: mosaic, synagogue, ca. A.D. 391, dedicated by Domnina for the salvation of all her own (Lifshiftz [1967], no. 43, p. 42=IGLS 1324). 378. Apamea: mosaic, synagogue, ca. A.D. 391, dedicated by Eupithis for the salvation of all her own (Lifshiftz [1967], no. 44, pp. 42–43=IGLS 1325). 379. Apamea: mosaic, synagogue, ca. A.D. 391, dedicated by Diogenis for the salvation of all her own (Lifshiftz [1967], no. 45, p. 43=IGLS 1326). 380. Apamea: mosaic, synagogue, ca. A.D. 391, dedicated by Saprikia for the salvation of all her own (Lifshiftz [1967], no. 46, p. 43=IGLS 1327). 381. Apamea: mosaic, synagogue, ca. A.D. 391, dedicated by Kolônis for the salvation of herself and her children (Lifshiftz [1967], no. 51, pp. 44–45=IGLS 1332).

Appendix

156

382. Apamea: mosaic, synagogue, ca. A.D. 391, dedicated by a certain woman for the salvation of herself and her children (Lifshiftz [1967], no. 54, p. 45 = IGLS 1335). 383. Apamea: mosaic, synagogue, ca. A.D. 391, dedicated by Eupithis for the salvation of herself, her husband, her children, and her entire house (Lifshiftz [1967], no. 55, p. 45=IGLS 1336). 384. Apamea: mosaic, synagogue, ca. A.D. 391, dedicated for the salvation of the dedicator’s wife Hesychion (Lifshiftz [1967], no. 56, p. 46=IGLS 1337).

LEBANON Not Dated 385. Niha: original provenance unclear, 4C?, dedicated by Ammônios for the salvation of sons of the dedicator (Lifshiftz [1967], no. 62, p. 49). [name] [name]. For the salvation of [name], and for the memory of [name].

SYRIA Dated 386. Apamea: mosaic, synagogue, ca. A.D. 391, dedicated for the salvation of the dedicator’s wife Phôtion, their children, and Eustathia, his grandmother (Lifshiftz [1967], no. 39, pp. 40–41=IGLS 1320).

Notes NOTES TO CHAPTER ONE 1. S.Giedion, Building in France, Building in Iron, Building in Ferroconcrete, trans. J.Duncan Berry, orig. pub. 1928 (Santa Monica, CA, 1995), 85. 2. Herodian 1.10.7 (LCL), 66–67. Both passages from Herodian are cited in RE III.A.1, s.v. “Soteria” (Pfister). 3. Herodian 4.4.4–7 (LCL), 392–93. 4. “Ejaculation” is H.C.Butler’s term, in Early Churches in Syria, Fourth to Seventh Centuries, ed. E.Baldwin Smith, orig. pub. 1929 (Amsterdam, 1969), 252. More recently, Yoram Tsafrir, in his discussion of the Greek inscriptions from Rehovot-in-the-Negev, states: “Apart from the single religious inscription, the contents of the inscriptions and the formulae are of no special interest;” see Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev, vol. 1, The Northern Church, Qedem 25 (Jerusalem, 1988), 183. 5. Those interested in locating the places mentioned in the following pages will want to consult The Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, ed. R.J.A.Talbert (Princeton, 2000). 6. While students of the epigraphy of Egypt, Asia Minor, Syria, and Jordan have enjoyed growing epigraphic corpora since, in some cases, the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, scholars have only recently begun to assemble a corpus of the Greek, Latin, and Semitic inscriptions from Palestine, which will eventually appear as the Corpus Inscriptionum Judaeae/Palaestinae, edited by Hannah Cotton et al. 7. J.W.Hewitt, “On the Development of the Thank-offering among the Greeks,” TAPA 43 (1912):95–111, esp. 101. 8. A.T.Clay, Miscellaneous Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Collection (New Haven, 1915), 5–6, no. 4. Also note that in the Hebrew Bible the righteous king, e.g., David, “saves” his people; see TDNT, vol. 7, 974–75; 2 Sam. 3:18. 9. Clay, Miscellaneous Inscriptions, 7, no. 7. 10. Ibid., 7–8, nos. 8, 9. 11. Dijkstra, Life and Loyalty, 246ff. 12. H.Haerens, “ΣΩTHP et ΣΩTHPIA,” Studia Hellenistica 5 (1948):57–68; A.D. Nock, “Soter and Euergetes” orig. pub. 1951, reprinted in Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, ed. Z.Stewart, vol. 2 (Oxford, 1972); W.Burkert, Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical, trans. J.Raffan (Oxford, 1985), 137. 13. Bilingual examples: Palmyra: SEG 7:147; Dura Europos: R.N.Frye et al., “Inscriptions from Dura-Europos,” YCS 14 (1955):131–37, no. 3, pl. III. 14. See Chapter 5, pp. 72–76, for a discussion of the pagan mentality behind the sôtêria dedications that includes reference to sôtheis inscriptions. 15. This inscription is from the Monastery of St. Catherine at Mt. Sinai, which is in modern Egypt. However, I include it because the Sinai Peninsula in Late Antiquity belonged to the province Palaestina Tertia. 16. Now a classic: R.MacMullen, “The Epigraphic Habit of the Roman Empire,” AJPh 103 (1982):233–46; idem, “The Frequency of Inscriptions in Roman Lydia,” ZPE 65 (1986):237–38; the current state of the question is provided by G.Woolf, “Monumental Writing and the Expansion of Roman Society in the Early Empire,” JRS 86 (1996):22–39,

Notes

159

bibliography at n. 1; also useful because of its eastern focus, O.M.Van Nijf, The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East (Amsterdam, 1997), 23–28. 17. R.P.Duncan-Jones, “The Impact of the Antonine Plague,” JRA 9 (1996):108–36. A useful overview of the second century boom is M.Sartre, L’Orient romain: Provinces et sociétés provinciales en Méditerranée orientale d’Auguste aux Sévères (31 avant J.-C.—235 après J.-C.) (Paris, 1991), 195–96. 18. Winkler, Salus, 127ff. 19. For individual references see Appendix. The Roman ideological use of Victory: M.McCormick, Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge, 1986), 11–34; T.Hölscher, Victoria Romana: Archäologische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Wesenart der römischen Siegesgöttin von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 3. Jhs. n. Chr. (Mainz, 1967). 20. For further comments, see Chapter 4. 21. I.Sevcenko, “The Early Period of the Sinai Monastery in Light of Its Inscriptions,” DOP 20 (1966):262, no. 5. 22. Baumann, Spätantike Stifter, 287, diagram 1; J.H.W.G.Liebescheutz, Decline and Fall of the Roman City (Oxford, 2001), 11–19. 23. Prentice no. 353=Wadd. 2572, adapted trans. Prentice. 24. Ibid. Lines 3–4 should read: 25. But see G.Alföldy, referring to evidence from the western part of the empire: “Die pro salute Augusti gesetzten Weihinschriften lieferten offenbar ein Modell für ähnliche Formulierungen wie z.B. pro salute sua et suorum in privaten Votiv-texten,” in “Augustus und die Inschriften: Tradition und Innovation: Die Geburt der imperialen Epigraphik,” Gymnasium 98 (1991):319. 26. P.J.Rhodes, The Decrees of the Greek States (Oxford, 1997), 31, 522–23. 27. Welles2. 28. SEG 37:1446=SEG 40:410. The text is lost after the hyper sôtêrias. I am simply guessing that it was for his salvation rather than for a king. 29. SEG 2:778A (A.D. 31/32); Dura Report V:177–78, no. 504 (A.D. 33); SEG 42:1357=Frye et al., YCS 14 (1955): 128–29, no. 1 (A.D. 36); SEG 7:361=Dura Report II: 91–93, no. 4 (A.D. 51/52); Dura Report V: 112–13, no. 416 (A.D. 54); SEG 7:358=Dura Report V:113– 16, no. 418 (A.D. 54); SEG 7:358=Dura Report III:61–62, no. 159; Dura Report VII– VIII:320, no. 917 (ca. A.D. 100). 30. IGLS 1320. 31. Compare IGLS 680=Prentice no. 263. See the comments of C.R.Galvao-Sobrinho, which although focusing on Christian epigraphy, are significant for Jewish epigraphy in Late Antiquity, in “Funerary Epigraphy and the Spread of Chritianity in the West,” Athenaeum 83 (1995): 453–58. 32. Baumann, Spätantike Stifter. 33. L.Di Segni, CAHL 385–87, no. 5. 34. SEG 44:1410; others from the eighth century include: IGLS 21 no. 53 (A.D. 717); SEG 40:1521ter (A.D. 722). Note P.-L.Gatier, “Les inscriptions grecques d’époque islamique (VIIe–VIIIe siècles) en Syrie du Sud,” in La Syrie de Byzance l’Islam (Damascus, 1992), 145–57. 35. Welles 50, A.D. 75/76 (Northwest Gate); Welles 56/57, A.D. 115 (North Gate); Welles 58, A.D. 130 (Triumphal Arch at the southern approach to the city). 36. G.Woolf, “Literacy,” in CAH, 2nd ed., vol. 11 (Cambridge, 2000), 875–97, for references also to earlier scholarship. 37. M.Beard, “Writing and Religion: Ancient Literacy and the Function of the Written Word in Roman Religion,” in Literacy in the Roman World, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supp. Ser. no. 3 (Ann Arbor, 1991), 44–48; Baumann, Spätantike Stifter, 295. See Chapter 5, pp. 76–79.

Notes

160

38. TDNT, vol. 7, 965–1024. 39. C.Ando, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire (Berkeley, 2000), 19–48, on modern definitions of ideology and their applicability to Rome. 40. Winkler, Salus; Winkler’s ideas are based on the little, but comprehensive, book by H.U.Instinsky, Die alte Kirche und das Heil des Staates (Munich, 1963). See also S.Weinstock, Divus Julius (Oxford, 1971), 162–67. 41. S.R.F.Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge, 1984); U.-M.Liertz, Kult und Kaiser: Studien zu Kaiserkult und Kaiserverehrung in den germanischen Provinzen und in Gallia Belgica zur römischen Kaiserzeit (Rome, 1998); M.Beard, J.North, and S.Price, Religions of Rome, vol. 1, A History (Cambridge, 1998), 348–62; T.Hauken, Petition and Response: An Epigraphic Study of Petitions to Roman Emperors, 181–249 (Bergen, 1998), 111. 42. R.O.Fink, “Jerash in the First Century A.D.,” JRS 23 (1933):113–14. 43. A.D.Nock, Conversion: The Old and New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo (Oxford, 1933), 8–9. In the same work, Nock also revealed the perception that philosophy had the ability to “save” (sôzô) those devoted to its precepts, 180–81. 44. R.Reitzenstein, Hellenistic Mystery-Religions, trans. John E.Steely (Pittsburg, 1978), 25, 30, 41; W.Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge, MA, 1987), 13; see also M.-J.Lagrange, “Attis et le Christianisme,” RB 16 (1919):417–81, esp. 473 for a kind of pagan eschatological use of sôtêria. 45. R.Kotansky, “Incantations and Prayers for Salvation on Inscribed Greek Amulets,” in Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, ed. C.A.Faraone and D. Obbink (Oxford, 1991), 107–37. 46. The earthly view: G.Downey, “The Inscription on a Silver Chalice from Syria in the Metropolitan Museum of Art,” AJA 55 (1951):349–53; M.Mundell Mango, Silver from Early Byzantium: The Kaper Koraon and Related Treasures (Baltimore, 1986), 108–11; IGLS 2027; Baumann, Spätantike Stifter, 293–95. The eschatological view: P.M.Séjourné, “La Palestine chrétienne: Découvertes récentes et explorations,” RB 1 (1892): 118–25; J.Russell, The Mosaic Inscriptions of Anemurium (Vienna, 1987), 87; P.Donceel-Voûte, Les pavements des églises byzantines de la Syrie et du Liban: Décor, archéologie et liturgie (Louvain-laNeuve, 1988), 473–75. 47. Séjourné, “La Palestine chrétienne”; E.Germer-Durand, “Épigraphie chrétienne de Jerusalem,” RB 1 (1892): 560–88, quote at 586. 48. W.K.Prentice, “Fragments of an Early Christian Liturgy in Syrian Inscriptions,” TAPA 33 (1902): 81–100; restated in Prentice, 221–22. 49. P.Thomsen, “Die lateinischen und griechischen Inschriften der Stadt Jerusalem und ihrer nächsten Umgebung,” ZDPV 44 (1921):11: “Die Formel ist von Widmungen für die .” 50. Baumann, Spätantike Stifter, 273–76; L.Ullmann and E.Galili, “A Greek Inscription Mentioning Discovered off the Carmel Coast,” SCI 13 (1994): 116–22, esp. 119. But see MAMA IX, ed. B.Levick, S.Mitchell, J.Potter, and M. Waelkens (London, 1988), 168, no. 551. This is a Christian dedication for personal salvation from Asia Minor. The editors comment: “It is worth noting that his Christian dedication has precisely the same form as many typical pagan dedications of central Anatolia.” 51. For example: Ando, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty, 171 n. 193. 52. T.F.Mathews, The Clash of Gods: A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art, rev. ed. (Princeton, 1993), 12–22, quote at 16. 53. Aramaic dedications “for life”: Dijkstra, Life and Loyalty.

Notes

161

NOTES TO CHAPTER TWO 1. I use the term “salutary ideology” on analogy with V.Nutton’s “beneficial ideology,” see V.Nutton, “The Beneficial Ideology,” in Imperialism in the Ancient World, ed. P.D.A.Garnsey and C.R.Whittaker (Cambridge, 1978), 209–21. The salutary ideology is addressed to varying degrees in the following: H.U.Instinsky, Die alte Kirche und das Heil des Staates (Munich, 1963); S.Weinstock, Divus Julius (Oxford, 1971), 163–74, 217–27; K.H.Schwarte, “Salus Publica: Domitian und Trajan als Heilbringer des Staates,” in Bonner Festgabe Johahnes Straub (Bonn, 1977), 225–46; J.R.Fears, “The Cult of Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology,” in ANRW 17.2 (Berlin, 1981), 889–948; M.A.Marwood, The Roman Cult of Salus, BAR International Series 465 (Oxford, 1988); Winkler, Salus; J.B. Rives, “The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire,” JRS 89 (1999):135–54, at 145 and n. 56. 2. E.M.Orlin, Temples, Religion, and Politics in the Roman Republic (Leiden, 1997), 142, 179– 80. 3. RE III.A.1:1221–31, s.v. “Soteria” (Pfister); G.Nachtergael, Les Galates en Grèce et les Soteria de Delphes: Recherches d’histoire et d’epigraphie hellenistiques (Brussels, 1977). With references to scholarship since Nachtergael: C.Champion, “The Soteria at Delphi: Aetolian Propaganda in the Epigraphical Record,” AJPh 116 (1995):213–20; P.Sánchez, L’Amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes: Recherches sur son rôle historique, des origines au IIe siècles de notre ère (Stuttgart, 2001), 305–9. 4. A.Bielman, Retour a la liberté: Liberation et sauvetage des prisonniers en Grèce ancienne: Recueil d’inscriptions honorant des sauveteurs et analyse critique (Paris, 1994), 251–53. For comments and further bibliography, see SEG 44:1736. 5. E.R.Goodenough, “The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship,” YCS 1 (1928):55–102. 6. See TDNT, vol. 7, 1003–4, 1009–10. 7. F.Cumont, Mémoires de la Mission archéologique de Perse 20 (1928):84–88; idem., “Inscriptions grecques trouvées a Susa,” CRAI (1931):278–92. Editions: SEG 7:18 (ca. 200 B.C.); 17 (ca. 183 B.C.); 22 (142/141 B.C.); 24 (second century). 8. C.B.Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period (New Haven, 1934), 244, no. 59. Welles notes that the inscriptions were actually carved in the first centuiy A.D., presumably by the priests to awe visitors to the temple by demonstrating its ancient significance. 9. I.Schmidt, Hellenistische Statuenbasen (Frankfurt am Main, 1995), nos. IV.1.90, 118 (Julius Caesar); IV.2.3, 4; V.16; VII. 14, 23; XII.4. 10. On Augustus’ role as “protector”: J.Béranger, Recherches sur l’aspect idéologique du principat, Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, Heft 6 (Basel, 1953), 252–78. 11. See J.Rüpke, Kalender und Offentlichkeit: Die Geschichte der Repräsentation und religiösen Qualifikation von Zeit in Rom (Berlin, 1995), 396ff; G.Alföldy, “Augustus und die Inschriften: Tradition und Innovation: Die Geburt der imperialen Epigraphik,” Gymnasium 98 (1991): 289–324; P.Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, trans. A.Shapiro (Ann Arbor, 1988); T.Hölscher, Victoria Romana: Archäologische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Wesenart der römischen Siegesgöttin von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 3. Jhs. n. Chr. (Mainz, 1967), 109–12. 12. Acta Fratrum Arvalium, ed. Henzen (Berlin, 1874), 90ff; Marwood, The Roman Cult of Salus, 37–52. 13. Acta Fratrum Arvalium (ed. Henzen), 110ff. 14. Augustus, Res gestae divi Augusti, 9, ed. and trans. P.A.Brunt and J.M.Moore (Oxford, 1967), 22–23: Vota pro valetudine mea suscipi per consules et sacerdotes quinto quoque anno senatus decrevit. Ex iis votis saepe fecerunt vivo me ludos aliquotiens sacerdotum quattuor amplissima collegia, aliquotiens consules. Privatim etiam et municipatim universi cives unanimiter continenter apud omnia pulvinaria pro valetudine mea supplicaverunt.

Notes

162

15. Augustus, Das Monumentum Ancyranum, 9, ed. E.Diehl (Berlin, 1935), 12–15. Winkler has shown that the meaning of valetudo shifted in the second century to mean health that was absent and hoped for, while salus referred to a current state of well being; Winkler, Salus, 90–92. 16. Weinstock, Divus Julius, 218; Acta Fratrum Arvalium (ed. Henzen), 90ff. 17. See the military calendar from Dura-Europos dated to 223–27. R.O.Fink, Roman Military Records on Papyrus (London, 1971), 423, no. 117, col. 1, lines 2–4. For commentary it is necessary to consult: R.O.Fink, A.S.Hoey, and W.F.Synder, “The Feriale Duranum,” YCS 4 (1940):1–222; A.D.Nock, “The Roman Army and the Roman Religious Year,” orig. pub. 1945, reprinted in, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, ed. Z.Steward (Oxford, 1972), 2:736–90. 18. Assos: Ancient Roman Statutes, ed. A.C.Johnson, P.R.Coleman-Norton, and F.C.Bourne (Austin, 1961), 136, no. 160=C.G.Bruns, Fontes Iuris Romani Antiqui, 7th ed. (Tübingen, 1909–12), 278–79, no. 102; P.Herrmann, Der römische Kaisereid, Hypomnemata 20 (Göttingen, 1968), 105–7; K.Hopkins, “Divine Emperors or the Symbolic Unity of the Roman Empire,” in Conquerors and Slaves (Cambridge, 1978), 225.

For the loyalty oath: Winkler, Salus, 42; P.G.H.Willems, Le droit public romain, 6th ed. (Louvain, 1888), 420–22; M.Hammond, The Augustan Principate in Theory and Practice during the JulioClaudian Period (New York, 1968), 102–9; Weinstock, Divus Julius, 217–27; H.Mattingly, “The Imperial ‘Vota,’” Proceedings of the British Academy 36 (1950):155–95; Herrmann, Der römische Kaisereid; C.Ando, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire (Berkeley, 2000), 359–61. 19. Tacitus, Ann. 16.22: Quin et illa obiectabat, principio anni vitare Thraseam sollemne ius iurandum; nuncupationibus votorum non adesse, quamvis quindecimvirali sacerdotio praeditum; numquam pro salute principis aut caelesti voce immolavisse; ed. C.D.Fisher (Oxford, 1906), 391–92; E.Koestermann, Cornelius Tacitus Annalen, Bd. IV, Buch 14–16 (Heidelberg, 1968), 379–80. 20. Winkler, Salus, 95. 21. Pliny, Pan. 57.4; A.Deismann, Licht vom Osten: Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt (Tübingen, 1923), 311–12. 22. Ibid., 119–21; Schwarte, “Salus Publica.” Pliny the Younger was one such legate who promulgated the salutary ideology by hosting festivals for the salvation of Trajan in Bithynia. See below pp. 27–30. 23. Mattingly, “The Imperial ‘Vota.’” 24. Philo reports that the Jews of Alexandria sacrificed on three occasions for the salvation of Gaius: upon his accession, to mark Gaius’ recovery from a serious illness, and in anticipation of his inevitable victory in Germany. See below pp. 34–35. Also R.Selinger, The Mid-ThirdCentury Persecutions of Decius and Valerian (Frankfurt am Main, 2002), 36–44. 25. T.Hauken, Petition and Response: An Epigraphical Study of Petitions to Roman Emperors, 181–249 (Bergen, 1998), text: 86, 11. 15–17, trans.: 95, comm.: 111, including analogous examples from elsewhere=SIG3 II:888:

26. Pliny, Ep. 10.96–97. 27. On the role of the governor in maintaining order: T.D.Barnes, Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study (Oxford, 1971), 143ff.

Notes

163

28. Pliny, Ep. 10.35 (LCL), 321, adapted translation: Sollemnia vota pro incolumitate tua, qua publica salus continetur, et suscepimus, domine, pariter et solvimus precati deos, ut velint ea semper solvi semperque signari. See A.N.Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford, 1966), 611, where it is argued that this letter and no. 100 (see below) can be dated to 3 January. 29. Pliny, Ep. 10.36 (LCL), 321, adapted translation: Et solvisse vos cum provincialibus dis immortalibus vota pro mea salute et incolumitate et nuncupasse libenter, mi Secunde carissime, cognovi ex litteris tuis. 30. Ibid. Ep. 10.102 (LCL), 411. 31. Ibid. Ep. 10.100–1 (LCL), 409, 411. 32. Ibid., Ep. 10.52 (LCL), 343, adapted translation: Diem, domine, quo servasti imperium, dum suscipis, quanta mereris laetitia celebravimus, precati deos ut te generi humano, cuius tutela et securitas saluti tuae innisa est, incolumen florentem-que praestarent. Praeivimus et commilitonibus ius iurandum more sollemni, eadem provincialibus certatim pietate iurantibus. See Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny, 633–34. 33. Pliny, Ep. 10.53 (LCL), 343: Quanta religione et laetitia commilitones cum provincialibus te praeeunte diem imperii mei celebraverint, libenter, mi Secunde carissime, agnovi litteris tuis. 34. Josephus, BJ 3.459 (LCL), 704–5. 35. H.Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, vol. III, Nerva to Hadrian (London, 1936), 87, no. 410, pl. 16.1; Winkler, Salus, 119; Schwarte, “Salus Publica”; J.R.Fears, “Trajan and the Ruler Cult,” unpublished paper presented at the Societas Colloquium, Cumae, Italy, May 24–28, 2001. 36. See also Dio Chrysostom, Or. 3.39, 62.4; further references, TDNT, vol. 7,467–68. 37. See Chapter 3, pp. 49–50. 38. Wadd. 2296–97; SEG 7:969; SEG 41:1594. 39. Rives, “The Decree of Decius,” 145–47. 40. Discussions of Terullian, Origen, and the other apologists and their views of the Roman state: Instinsky, Die alte Kirche; M.Fiedrowicz, Apologie im frühen Christentum. Die Kontroverse um den christlichen Wahrheitsanspruch in den ersten Jahrhunderten (Paderborn, 2000), 196–202. 41. Tertullian, Apol. 35, trans. in the The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. A.Roberts and J. Donaldson, vol. 3 (Buffalo, 1885) (hereafter ANF), 43–44; ed. E.Dekkers, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina (Turnholt, 1954) (hereafter CCL), 144–45. Barnes assumes that this description refers to the specific celebration of the victory of Severus, Tertullian, 87–89. I have no reason to doubt this assertion, but it must be said that Tertullian is generalizing here. See also Weinstock, Divus Julius, 174; S.R.F.Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge, 1984), 240. 42. Barnes, Tertullian, 109–11, for the atmosphere in Carthage at the time of composition. The interrogations: Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs, see below, pp. 35–36. 43. Barnes, Tertullian, 109–11. 44. Tertullian, Apol 28 (ANF), 41, (CCL), 139–40. 45. Ibid. 29.3 (ANF), 41, adapted, (CCL), 140: Ita qui sunt in Caesaris potestate, cuius et toti sunt, quomodo habebunt salutem Caesaris in potestate, ut eam praestare posse videantur, quam facilius ipsi a Caesare consequantur? 46. Leaden hands: ibid. 29.4 (ANF), 42, (CCL), 140–41. Pray: ibid. 30.1 (ANF), 42, (CCL), 141: nos enim pro salute imperatorum Deum invocamus aeternum, Deum verum, Deum vivum. 47. Ibid. 30.4 (ANF), 42, (CCL), 141. 48. Ibid. 31.1–3 (ANF), 42, (CCL), 142, citing as scriptural proof, Matt. 5:43 and I Tim. 2:2. 49. Ibid. 31.3 (ANF), 42, (CCL), 142; 32.1 (ANF), 42–43, (CCL), 142–43. 50. Ibid. 32.3 (ANF), 43, (CCL), 143: Id in eis scimus esse, quod Deus voluit, ideoque et saluum volumus quod Deus voluit.

Notes

164

51. Ibid. 33.1–2 (ANF), 43, (CCL), 143: Sed quid ego amplius de religione atque pietate Christiana in imperatorem, quem necesse est suspiciamus ut eum, quem Dominus noster elegit, ut merito dixerim: Noster est magis Caesar, a nostro Deo constitutus? Itaque, ut meo, plus ego illi operor in salutem, si quidem non solum ab eo postulo eam, qui potest praestare, aut quod talis postulo, qui merear impetrare, sed etiam quod, temperans maiestatem Caesaris infra Deum, magis illum commendo Deo, cui soli subicio; subicio autem cui non adaequo. 52. Ibid. 30.6 (ANF), 42, (CCL), 142: non grana turis, unius assis, Arabicae arboris lacrimas, nec duas meri guttas, nec sanguinem reprobi bovis mori optantis, et post omnia inquinamenta etiam conscientiam spurcam. Tertullian emphasizes that Christians do not offer such things as sacrifices. 53. Ibid. 35.10 (ANF), 44, (CCL), 146: Atque adeo omnes illi, sub ipsa impietatis eruptione, et sacra faciebant pro salute imperatoris et genium eius deierabant, alii foris, alii intus. The omnes illi here refer to a series of examples alluded to by Tertullian in 35.9: Did Christians support Avidius Cassius in 175, Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus, strangle Commodus in 192, or murder Pertinax in 193? For the interpretation of the historical allusions in the text, I am indebted to Barnes, Tertullian, 110. 54. Tertullian, Apol. 30.5 (ANF), 42, (CCL) 142: orationem de carne pudica, de anima innocenti, de spiritu sancto profectam. 55. See W.H.C.Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (Oxford, 1965), 118– 19; Marcus Minucius Felix, The Octavius of Marcus Minucius Felix 29.5, trans. G.W.Clark, Ancient Christian Writers, no. 39 (New York, 1974), 106, esp. n. 480; 328–29 for further references. 56. Eusebius, HE 4.15.18, trans. in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd ser., vol. 1, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (New York, 1890) (hereafter NPNF), 190; Eusebius Kirchengeschichte, ed. E.Schwartz, (Lepizig, 1908), 144: . 57. Tertullian, Apol. 32.2–3 (ANF), 43, (CCL), 143; quote at 32.2: Sed et iuramus, sicut non per Genios Caesarum, ita per salutem eorum, quae est augustior omnibus Geniis. 58. IGLS 21 no. 17; Welles 60. 59. IGLS 1346. 60. Origen, Contra Celsum 8.65.10–14, trans. in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. A. Roberts and J.Donaldson, vol. 4 (Buffalo, 1885) (hereafter ANF), 664; ed. and trans., M.Borret, Sources chrétiennes (Paris, 1969) (hereafter SC), 322–25. 61. Ibid. 8.65.26–37 (ANF), 664, (SC), 324–25. 62. Ibid. 8.67.20–23 (ANF), 665, adapted, (SC), 330–31:

63. Ibid. 8.67.23–29 (ANF), 665, adapted, (SC), 330–31:

64. Philo, Legatio ad Gaium 355, ed. and trans. E.Mary Smallwood (Leiden, 1961), 142, 143, using here Smallwood’s translation, but substituting “salvation” for her “recovery”:

Notes

165

65. Several inscriptions dedicated, in fact, for the salvation and victory of the emperor confirm that military campaigns and perceived threats significantly influenced the epigraphic habit. See above, pp. 5–6; also Appendix, pp. 140–48. 66. Ibid. 157, 317 (ed. Smallwood), 94–95, 132–33, and commentary, 240–41. 67. Josephus, Contra Apionem 2.76–77 (LCL), 322–25: Aliis autem honoribus post deum colendos non prohibuit viros bonos, quibus nos et imperatores et populum Romanorum dignitatibus ampliamus. Facimus autem pro eis continua sacrificia et non solum cotidianis diebus ex impensa communi omnium Iudaeorum talia celebramus, verum cum nullas alias hostias ex communi neque pro filiis peragamus, solis imperatoribus hunc honorem praecipuum pariter exhibemus, quem hominum nulli persolvimus. 68. Josephus, BJ 2.197 (LCL), 398:

69. Ibid. 2.409 (LCL), 482–83:

70. The Acts of the Christian Martyrs, H.Musurillo, (Oxford, 1972), 86–87, discussion of the text, xxiii: Et nos religiosi sumus et simplex est religio nostra, et iuramus per genium domini nostri imperatoris et pro salute eius supplicamus, quod et uos quoque facere debetis. See comments on this passage by A.A.R.Bastiaensen, Atti e passioni dei martiri (Milan, 1987), 407. 71. See also Passio SS. Perpetuae et Felicitatis 6 (ed. Musurillo), 113: fac sacrum pro salute imperatorum. F.Millar, “The Imperial Cult and the Persecutions,” in Le culte des souverains dans l’Empire romain, ed. W.den Boer (Geneva, 1973), 145–65. 72. Eusebius, HE 7.11.6–8 (ed. Schwartz), 656. 73. Instinsky, Die alte Kirche, 13–20; K.Bihlmeyer, “Das Toleranzedikt des Galerius von 311 (Lactantius, De mort. persec. c. 34),” Theologische Quartalschrift (1912): 411–27, 527–89. Lactantius fails to reproduce the prescript, which lists the names of the emperors in whose name the edict was promulgated. Eusebius, however, does (HE 8.17.3–5). See Bihlmeyer’s discussion, 527–42. 74. Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, 34.5, ed. S.Brandt (Vienna, 1893), 213, provides the text of the edict: unde iuxta hanc indulgentiam nostram debebunt deum suum orare pro salute nostra et rei publicae ac sua, ut undique versum res publica praestetur incolumis et securi vivere in sedibus suis possint. Eusebius, HE 8.17.10 (ed. Schwartz), 340, provides the Greek translation, which does use not the expected hyper but rather peri to introduce the salvation clause:

75. M.R.Salzman, On Roman Time: The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1990), 153–54; D.E. Trout, “Lex and Iussio:

Notes

166

The Feriale Campanum and Christianity in the Theodosian Age,” in Law, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity, ed. R.W.Mathisen (Oxford, 2001), 162–78. Coins attesting vota publica in fourth century Rome: A.Alföldy, A Festival of Isis in Rome under the Christian Emperors of the IVth Century (Budapest, 1937). 76. John Lydus, De mensibus 4.10, ed. R. Wünsch (Stuttgart, 1967), 74–76; S.Mac-Cormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, 1981), 168. 77. M.Maas, John Lydus and the Roman Past: Antiquarianism and Politics in the Age of Justinian (New York, 1992), 64–65.

NOTES TO CHAPTER THREE 1. M.Beard, J.North, and S.Price, Religions of Rome, vol. 1, A History (Cambridge, 1998), 194– 96; M.Beard, “Writing and Ritual: A Study of Diversity and Expansion in the Arval Acta,” PBSR 53 (1985):114–62, see 116–17, 132–33. 2. Translation of a representative inscription from Beard, though her “health” has become my “salvation;” see “Writing and Ritual,” 123. This point is made in other ways; for example, one inscription declares that the salvation of all depends on the safety of the emperor: ex cuius incolumitate omnium salus constat; Acta Fratrum Arvalium, ed. G.Henzen (Berlin, 1874), 110ff. 3. Acta Fratrum Arvalium (ed. Henzen), 90ff; M.A.Marwood, The Roman Cult of Salus, BAR International Series 465 (Oxford, 1988), 37–52. 4. Beard argues that the inscriptions represent “symbolic, non-utilitarian writing;” see “Writing and Ritual,” 139–41; for a refinement of her views on “symbolic writing,” see M.Beard, “Writing and Religion: Ancient Literacy and the Function of the Written Word in Roman Religion,” in Literacy in the Ancient World, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supp. Ser. No. 3 (Ann Arbor, 1991), 35–58. 5. J.M.Reynolds, “Vota Pro Salute Principis,” PBSR 30 (1962):33–36, pl. XXII. 6. Beard, “Writing and Ritual,” 148. 7. M.Sartre, “Les progrès de la citoyenneté romaine dans les provinces romaines de Syrie et d’Arabie sous le Haute-Empire,” in Roman Onomastics in the Greek East: Social and Political Aspects, ed. A.D.Rizakis (Athens, 1996), 239–50, n. 6, 240–41; F.Cumont, “The Population of Syria,” JRS 24 (1934):187–90. 8. F.Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.-A.D. 337 (Cambridge, MA, 1993), 230: inscriptions and coins are “the most deliberate of all symbols of public identity.” See also G.Woolf, “Monumental Writing and the Expansion of Roman Society in the Early Empire,” JRS 86 (1996):29. 9. Millar, The Roman Near East, 527; Sartre, “Les progrès de la citoyenneté.” See also the comments of R.Alston, Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt: A Social History (London and New York, 1995), 64–65. For a definition of ethnicity, see J.M.Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge, 1997), chaps. 1–2. 10. M.Sartre, “Le peuplement et le développement du Hauran antique a la lumière des inscriptions grecques et latines,” in Hauran I: Recherches archéologiques sur la Syrie du Sud a l’époque hellénistique et romaine, (Paris, 1985), 189–202, esp. 199. 11. IGLS 21.2 no. 64; SEG 42:1409. 12. Agathê Tychê: Prentice no. 432G (Zorava); Littmann IIIA no. 765 (Umm izZetun); SEG 7:849; SEG 16:810 (Dera); SEG 37:1538 (Tell Radra); SEG 46:1819 (Eleutheropolis); Welles 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 17, 24, 26, 28, 38, 49, 52, 53, 54, 58, 69, 91, 117, 120, 121, 122, 127, 131; SEG 27:1010 bis; SEG 32:1537, 1538; SEG 35:1573; SEG 39:1653, 1655, 1658 (Gerasa). Tychê Megalê Sakkaia: SEG 34:1519 (Maximianopolis). Zeus Heliopolitês: IGLS 2727 (Heliopolis); SEG 46:1819 (Eleutheropolis). Zeus Kronos: Welles 26 (Gerasa). Zeus

Notes

167

Megistos: SEG 46:1779 (Blat); M.Dunand, Le musée de Soueïda: Inscriptions et monuments figurés (Paris, 1934), 89, no. 179 (Hebran). Zeus Megistos Keraunios: Wadd. 2631 (Tayibeh). Zeus Olympios: Welles 2, 5, 14 (Gerasa). Zeus Ouranios: SEG 39:1655 (Gerasa). Zeus Helios Sarapis: Welles 15 (Gerasa). Zeus Epikarpios: Welles 42 (Gerasa). Theos Bel: SEG 7:1007 (Maximianopolis). Heis Theos Kyrios Monos Ouranios: L.Di Segni, “ in Palestinian Inscriptions,” SCI 13 (1994):109, no. 50 (Tsil). Jupiter Optimus: Wadd. 1858 (Deir el-Qala). Jupiter Optimus Maximus Conservator: Dura Report V, no. 561 (Dura Eurpos); IGLS 9014 (Bostra). Jupiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus: IGLS 2711, 2712, 2713, 2714, 2715, 2716, 2717, 2723 (Heliopolis). Jupiter Optimus Maximus Sarapis: P.Thomsen, “Die lateinischen und griechischen Inschriften der Stadt Jerusalem und ihrer nächsten Umgebung,” ZDPV 44 (1921):1, no. 1 (Jerusalem). Mercury: IGLS 2711, 2712, 2713 (Heliopolis). Venus: IGLS 2711, 2712, 2713 (Heliopolis). Iuno Regina: IGLS 2964 (Gdita). Apollo: Welles 38 (Gerasa); IGLS 21.4 no. 1 (Petra). Liber Pater: IGLS 21.4 no. 2 (Petra). Sol Invictus Mithra: Dura Report VII–VIII:85–87, no. 847. Apis: SEG 31:1383; SEG 39:1565 (Abila). Sunnaoi Theoi: Welles 15 (Gerasa). Theoi Olympioi: Di Segni no. 199 (Kafr ed-Dik). Theos Arabikos Epêkoos: Welles 21 (Gerasa). Theos Arabikos: Welles 22 (Gerasa); SEG 14:830 (Hamameh). Theos Hagios Arabikos: Welles 20 (Gerasa). Theos Azizos: SEG 37:1538 (Tell Radra). Theos Ouaseathos Patroios Theandrios: Wadd. 2374A (Athila). Theandritês: Wadd. 2481 (Zorava). Theos Lykourgos: Littmann IIIA no. 663 (Hebran). Aphroditê: SEG 41:1590 (Petra). Hera: Welles 17 (Gerasa). Kyria Artemis: Welles 28, 29; SEG 35:1573 (Gerasa). Thea Patrôia Artemis: Welles 27 (Gerasa). Kyria Nemesis: Di Segni no, 4 (Paneas). Thea Epêkoos Leukothea: SEG 32:1538 (Gerasa). Thea Ourania: Welles 24, 26 (Gerasa). Pax: IGLS 21.4 no. 3 (Petra). Spes: IGLS 21.4 no. 4 (Petra). Temperantia: IGLS 21.4 no. 4 (Petra). 13. Wadd. 2374A. For Theandrios: commentary at Wadd. 2016 and 2374 with further references; D.Sourdel, Les cultes du Hauran à l’époque romaine (Paris, 1952), 78–81; G.W.Bowersock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity (Ann Arbor, 1990), 4, 18, showing that the cult was actually international, being attested at Athens and in north Africa. 14. Wadd. 2481. 15. Welles 2, 3, 4, 17, 20, 27 (Gerasa); SEG 32:1537 (Gerasa); SEG 46:2071 (Hebran). 16. Welles 125 (Gerasa); Littmann IIIA no. 663 (Hebran). 17. Welles 136 (Gerasa); SEG 37:1538 (Tell Radra). 18. SEG 31:1383 (Abila). 19. Welles 30 (Gerasa). 20. Dura Report VII–VIII:85–87, no. 847 (Dura Europos). 21. Welles 29 (Gerasa). 22. SEG 39:1565. 23. IGLS 2744 (Heliopolis). 24. Welles 24, 26 (Gerasa); SEG 14:830 (Hamameh); SEG 39:1655 (Gerasa); Prentice nos. 358 (Dmer), 380 (El-Mushennef). 25. Welles 30 (Gerasa); Dura Report I: no. 1 (Dura Europos); Dura Report V: no. 861 (Dura Europos); IGLS 2714 (Heliopolis), 2966 (Gdita); Wadd. 1875 (Abila). 26. IGLS 2713 (Heliopolis), 2715 (Heliopolis). 27. IGLS 2711, 2712 (Heliopolis). 28. For Asia Minor: S.R.F.Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge, 1984), 101ff. For the interpretatio graeca: M.Sartre, L’Orient romain: Provinces et sociétés provinciales en Méditerranée orientale d‘Auguste aux Sévères (31 avant J.-C.-235 après J.-C.) (Paris, 1991), 491–93. 29. Di Segni no. 35.

Notes

168

30. ; W.Ewing, “Greek and Other Inscriptions Collected in the Hauran,” PEFQ (1895):43, nos. 3–4; also Di Segni, “ 31. Di Segni, “ scholarship.

in PalestinianInscriptions,” 109, no. 50.

in Palestinian Inscriptions,” 94–115, with references to earlier

32. ; Wadd. 2035, note commentary from 2034 on the

]

33. SEG 7:256: [‘ [

.

]

; R.Mouterde, “Inscriptions grecques conservées a l’Institute Français de Damas,” Syria 6 (1925):230–31, no. 1, pl. XXVIII 3a-3b. Price, Rituals and Power, 246: this formula is typical of the third century. Contemporary examples from the west using the formula devotus numini maiestatique eorum: U.-M.Liertz, Kult und Kaiser: Studien zu Kaiserkult und Kaiserverehrung in den germanischen Provinzen und in Gallia Belgica zur römischen Kaiserzeit (Rome, 1998), 135–39. 34. See Chapter 1, note 21. 35. See below. 36. Di Segni nos. 75A–B=CIJ II, 972. Before 70, Jews sacrificed for the emperor at the Jerusalem Temple. The relevant primary evidence is Philo and Josephus: Philo, Legatio ad Gaium 155–58 (ed. Smallwood with facing translation), 92–95, 132–33; see also her commentary with references to Jewish law, 240–41; Josephus, Contra Apionem 2.76–77 (LCL), 322–23; Wars 2.197 (LCL), 398–99; 2.409 (LCL), 482–83. That this inscription and those like it represent a continuation of that practice in a local context more than a century after the destruction of the temple is not very likely. 37. CIJ I, 677. 38. AE 1967 [1969], no. 77: pro salute Aug(usti)|

39. The language in the Greek inscriptions used to describe career advancement usually employs a phrase based on the word epangelia; see commentary for Welles 53. SEG 46:2054 (Abila), 2064 (Gerasa); Welles 53 (Gerasa); SEG 46:2054 (Gerasa); Welles 192 (Gerasa); Welles 3, 4 (Gerasa); Welles 10, 15, 121, 122 (Gerasa). 40. IGLS 9014. 41. Welles 58. 42. Welles 22, 54. 43. IGLS 2714, 2745. 44. IGLS 2964. 45. SEG 8:91. 46. For the historical implications of Christian formulaic language, see I.Sevcenko, “The Sion Treasure: The Evidence of Inscriptions,” in Ecclesiastical Silver Plate in Sixth-Century Byzantium, ed. S.A.Boyd and M.M.Mango (Washington, DC, 1992), 39–56. 47. IGLS 21.4, nos. 1–8. 48. IGLS 21.4 nos. 1–8, see pp. 33–40 of the commentary on Modestus, the Secular Games, and the deities.

Notes

169

49. Constructions involving legates and other imperial personnel: gates: Wadd. 2438; SEG 16:813; Welles 50; boundary stones: SEG 20:335, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342; aqueducts: SEG 7:969; SEG 41:1594; Wadd. 2296, 2297; bridge: SEG 7:256; praetorium: Dura Report V, no. 561; fortress: Littmann IIIA no. 17; Temple of Zeus and Augustus: nos. Prentice 380A, 381, 382; temple: Wadd. 2525, 2528; IGLS 21.2 no. 18; statues of Zeus Helios, Sarapis, Isis, and the synnaoi theoi: Welles 15; baths: SEG 7:152; IGLS 21.2 no. 17; theater: Welles 65. 50. For this office, see RE XII.1:1144–47 (v. Premerstein); A.von Domaszewski, Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres, 2nd ed. with introduction by B.Dobson (Cologne, 1967), 173–84. On Roman administration, see H.I.MacAdam, Studies in the History of the Roman Province of Arabia: The Northern Sector, BAR International Series 295 (Oxford, 1986), 54–57. 51. PIR2 II 603; Welles 50. 52. PIR2 II 1412; on this aqueduct, see MacAdam, Studies in the History, 52. Wadd. 2296–97 (El-Afine); SEG 7:969 (Dionysias); SEG 41:1594 (unknown provenance). 53. PIR2 I 134; IGLS 21 no. 17; Welles 60. 54. PIR2 IV 340; Welles 11, 12, 65; IGLS 21 no. 18. 55. PIR2 I 1402; Wadd. 2525, 2528, 2331, 2438; Prentice nos. 380A, 381; Littmann IIIA no. 155. 56. PIR2 V 348; Prentice no. 392. 57. PIR2 I 1211; Wadd. 2213. 58. PIR2 III 592; Littmann IIIA no. 17. 59. PIR2 III 168; IGLS 9057. 60. PIR2 II 1211; SEG 16:809. Adraha’s fortifications: H.-G.Pflaum, “La fortification de la ville d’Adraha d’Arabie (259–260 a 274–275) d’après des inscriptions récemment découvertes,” Syria 29 (1952):307–30; E.Kettenhofen, “Zur Geschichte der Stadt Der’â in Syrien,” ZDPV 107 (1991):77–91. 61. Praeses (or hêgemôn): RE Supp. VIII:598–614 (Wilh. Enßlin); H.J.Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis (Toronto, 1974), 148–49; Mllar, The Roman Near East, 174, 191: replaced, in the late third century, the Republican practice of sending legati Augusti pro praetore to the provinces. His duties were primarily civilian, as opposed to those of the military governer (dux). 62. PIR2 III 197; SEG 16:813, 814. 63. SEG 7:152. 64. For the title, see Domaszewski, Die Rangordnung, xxxvi ff, 141ff; RE XXIII. 1:1240–79 (H.-G.Pflaum). 65. PIR2 V 618; Dura Report VII–VIII:85–87, no. 847. 66. For centurions, see Domaszewski, Die Rangordnung, xx–xxix, 80–112; RE III. 2:1962–64 (v.Domaszewski); differing somewhat concerning the ranks of centurions, G.Webster, The Roman Imperial Army (London, 1969), 118–21. The coupling of legati and centurions in inscriptions led Jones, followed by MacAdam, to suggest that the legati gave over administrative duties to centurions so that the whole region could be governed more effectively. This view has recently been challenged by Grainger, who suggests that centurions were used for their experience on an ad hoc basis and that “centurion-rule” is a modern myth: A.H.M. Jones, “The Urbanization of the Ituraean Principality,” JRS 21 (1931):265–75, esp. 268; MacAdam, Studies in the History, 54–55; J.D.Grainger, “Village Government in Roman Syria and Arabia,” Levant 27 (1995):184; Egypt: Alston, Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt, 86–96; Syria: N.Pollard, Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians in Roman Syria (Ann Arbor, 2000), 88, and passim. Literacy of centurions: J.N.Adams, “The Poets of Bu Njem: Language, Culture and the Centurionate,” JRS 89 (1999):109–34. 67. Dura Report VII–VIII:85–87, no. 847. 68. Wadd. 2438.

Notes

170

69. SEG 46:2074=Wadd. 2528. 70. Wadd. 2525. 71. Wadd. 2528A. 72. Wadd. 2526, 2527. 73. Prentice nos. 380A, 381. 74. Centurion was restored by the editor, Wadd. 2213. 75. “Proceeds of the tax” is Littmann and Stuart’s translation; Littmann IIIA no. 652. 76. Prentice no. 392. 77. Wadd. 2289=Dunand, Le musée de Soueïda, 89, no. 179, pl. XXXV. 78. SEG 16:813, 814. 79. Wadd. 1875. 80. Welles 30. 81. Welles 42. 82. Domaszewski, Die Rangordnung, 57; Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 148–49; RE IV.2:2352–53 (Fiebiger). 83. Dura Report I: 42–44, no. 1; decurio: Domaszewski, Die Rangordnung, 57; Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 148–49; RE IV.2:2352–53 (Fiebiger). 84. Dura Report V: 226–29, no. 561, esp. 228 n. 15. 85. IGLS 2711, 2712. 86. Domaszewski, Die Rangordnung, 32; RE III.A.2:1583–86 (F.Lammert). 87. Prentice no. 358. 88. SEG 16:810. 89. Domaszewski, Die Rangordnung, 38, 55; also see commentary of Prentice no. 358. 90. IGLS 9014. 91. Domaszewski, Die Rangordnung, 58–59, 62; RE V.A. 1:854–55 (F.Lammert). 92. Thomsen, “Die lateinischen und griechischen Inschriften,” (1921):1, no. 1. For ethnicity and recruitment: J.C.Mann, Legionary Recuitment and Veteran Settlement during the Principate (London, 1983), 41–44; Alston, Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt, 221 n. 31; Pollard, Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians in Roman Syria, 160. 93. Wadd. 2374B. 94. IGLS 21.4 no. 44. 95. Littmann IIIA no. 17. 96. RE Supp. IX:1597–1609 (A.Neumann); MacAdam, Studies in the History, 176–211; Pollard, Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians in Roman Syria, 159–64; B.Isaac, The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East (Oxford, 1990), 318ff; F. Millar, “Empire and City, Augustus to Julian: Obligations, Excuses and Status,” JRS 73 (1983):76–96, veterans discussed, 85–86. 97. Welles 52. 98. IGLS 2714. 99. IGLS 2744. 100. Littmann IIIA no. 663. 101. Wadd. 1969. 102. Welles 51. 103. Welles 58. 104. Welles 60. 105. Wadd. 2331 A; SEG 46:2073. 106. IGLS 1346: . 107. IGLS 9057.

Notes

171

108. SEG 41:1590=IGLS 21.4 no. 24: [ ]. The problem, as Sartre notes in his commentary, is that the title of “mother-colony” is not attested for Petra. But we do know that Petra received the honor of metropolis from Trajan, and later under Elagabalus, the title of colony; see G.W.Bowersock, Roman Arabia (Cambridge, MA, 1983), 84–85, 120. This inscription may thus be from the third century. 109. Littmann IIIA no. 765: 110. Wadd. 2525.

.

111. Di Segni no. 199 (ca.130): . 112. MacAdam, Studies in the History, 114–16, 147. 113. Wadd. 2213; MacAdam, Studies in the History, 124. 114. Wadd. 2512; MacAdam, Studies in the History, 133. 115. H.I.MacAdam, “Epigraphy and Village Life in Southern Syria during the Roman and Early Byzantine Periods,” Berytus 31 (1983):113; MacAdam, Studies in the History, 84–90, for the role of tribes in their communities. 116. Wadd. 2479. 117. SEG 35:1573. 118. RE IV.2:2319–52 (Kübler). 119. Welles 52. 120. Welles 26. 121. Wadd. 2331A; SEG 46:2073. 122. Prentice no. 395. 123. C.Körner, Philippus Arabs: Ein Soldatenkaiser in der Tradition des antoni-nischseverischen Prinzipats (Berlin, 2002), 211–25. 124. IGLS 2716. 125. Prentice no. 357. For the little evidence we have of village councils, see G.M. Harper, “Village Administration in the Roman Province of Syria,” YCS 1 (1928): 142–45. MacAdam, “Epigraphy and Village Life,” 108, following Jones, states that councilors when encountered in villages should be seen as recipients of an honorary title or serving on a city council elsewhere. More developed is MacAdam, Studies in the History, 151–54. 126. Wadd. 2071; Grainger, “Village Government,” 183–84; for the Hellenistic back-ground: RE IV.A. 1:183–252 (Bilabel); RE Supp. VI:1071–158 (W.Schwann). 127. Harper, “Village Administration,” 120–21. See also the comments of Isaac, The Limits of Empire, 362–63. 128. RE VII.2:1969–2004 (J.Dehler). 129. Welles 3, 4. 130. Welles 54. At Welles 192, Welles translates as procurators. See Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions, 142–43. 131. Welles 192. The theatrical group identifies itself in the following way (lines 3–4):

]. For a more detailed discussion of this inscription, see “Gerasa,” Chapter 6. For the office: RE I. 1:870–77 (Reisch). 132. IGLS 2717. But the mutatores might have been free merchants, see OLD, s.v. “mutator.”

Notes

172

133. CIG 4521. If correctly restored, the wording of the planting is interesting: . 134. Welles 125. 135. IGLS 2713. 136. IGLS 2723. The “intention symbolique” of this ensemble was suggested by the editor of the inscriptions. See “Heliopolis and the Bekaa Valley,” Chapter 6. 137. The costs involved in maintaining the imperial cult discouraged all but the most wealthy local elites, who in return for their expenditure might hope to climb the social ladder by making contact with imperial administrators and gaining equestrian status, thereby securing exemption from local obligations: G.W.Bowersock, “Greek Intellectuals and the Imperial Cult in the Second Century A.D.,” orig. pub. 1973, reprinted in Studies on the Eastern Roman Empire: Social, Economic, and Administrative History, Religion, Historiography, ed. D.Maffei and H.Fuhrmann, Bibliotheca Eruditorum no. 9 (Goldbach, 1994), 293–326. 138. Welles 2. 139. Welles 49. 140. Welles 10. 141. Welles 15. 142. Welles 121, 122: the original contexts are unclear, and the inscriptions are undated. 143. Welles 20. 144. Di Segni no. 4. 145. Welles 53. 146. Prentice no. 357; Littmann IIIA no. 659. See also LSJ, 823, s.v. “hierotamias.” 147. Littmann IIIA no. 659. 148. Littmann IIIA no. 659; LSJ, s.v. “ekdikos”; RE V. 2:2160–61. The editors of the inscription note that the ekdikos was the “representative of the community in transactions with the imperial government.” This conclusion, however, is based on evidence from the epigraphy of Asia Minor. There is no good reason to assume that the functions of the ekdikoi in Syria were the same: Harper, “Village Administration,” 135–37; MacAdam, Studies in the History, 107; Grainger, “Village Government,” 186, and Table 5, 192. 149. Wadd. 1969. 150. Prentice 357. 151. See Pollard’s comments on different forms of identity, especially his notion of “institutional identity,” in his Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians in Roman Syria, 7–8. 152. Millar, The Roman Near East; W.Ball, Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire (London and New York, 2000); Isaac, The Limits of Empire; Pollard, Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians in Roman Syria; Sartre, L’Orient romain.

NOTES TO CHAPTER FOUR 1. Eusebius, HE 8 (ed. E.Schwartz), 732ff; De martyribus Palaestinae, ed. E. Schwartz (Leipzig, 1908), 907–50; the longer Syriac version of De martyribus Palaestinae was edited and translated by W.Cureton as History of the Martyrs in Palestine (London, 1861). 2. W.H.C.Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (Oxford, 1965), 118–19. 3. SEG 40:1779 (Brad, Syria, ca. 395–402); IGLS 252A (El Bire, Syria, fourth to fifth century). It is significant that these sôtêria dedications are some of the earliest examples of Christian epigraphy in the Near East. 4. For related comments, Winkler, Salus, 178. 5. Prentice. 6. L.Jalabert, “Deux missions archéologiques américaines en Syrie,” Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 3 (1908):716–17, 719.

Notes

173

7. F.Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.-A.D. 337 (Cambridge, MA, 1993), 164–83; G.W.Bowersock, Roman Arabia (Cambridge, MA, 1983), 8. 8. J.H.W.G.Liebescheutz, “Epigraphic Evidence on the Christianisation of Syria,” in Limes: Akten des XI. internationalen Limeskongresses, ed. J.Fitz (Budapest, 1977), 489; R.MacMullen, “The Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire,” AJPh 103 (1982):246; R.MacMullen, “The Frequency of Inscriptions in Roman Lydia,” ZPE 65 (1986):238; C.Roueché, Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity: The Late Roman and Byzantine Inscriptions, JRS Monographs no. 5 (London, 1989), xxii; J.H. W.G.Liebescheutz, “The End of the Ancient City,” in The City in Late Antiquity, ed. John Hall (New York, 1992), 1–49; J.H.W.G.Liebescheutz, Decline and Fall of the Roman City (Oxford, 2001), 11–19. 9. S.R.F.Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge, 1984), 60, also the table on p. 59. 10. See for example, Dio Chrysostom Or. 3.39, written with Trajan in mind. 11. The prepositions epi and dia are common: Wadd. 2296, 2297, 2331, 2399, 2438, 2460, 2525, 2528; Prentice nos. 381, 392; Littmann IIIA nos. 17, 155; SEG 7:969, 985; SEG 16:809, 810, 813, 814; SEG 41:1594; IGLS 2716, 9057; IGLS 21.2 nos. 17, 18; Welles 12, 15, 50, 56/57, 60, 65. 12. V.Nutton, “The Beneficial Ideology,” in Imperialism in the Ancient World, ed. P.D.A.Garnsey and C.R.Whittaker (Cambridge, 1978), 219–21; H.P.L’Orange, Art Forms and Civic Life in Late Roman Empire (Princeton, 1965), 3–8. 13. Panegyrici Latini X.1.5, In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini, trans. C.E.V.Nixon and B.S.Rodgers (Berkeley, 1994), 55, 524. 14. Panegyrici Latini X.3.4 (trans. Nixon and Rodgers), 59, 525. See K.M.Setton, Christian Attitude Towards the Roman Emperor in the Fourth Century (New York, 1941), 28; R.Rees, Layers of Loyalty in Latin Panegyric, A.D. 289–307 (Oxford, 2002), 84–5, 114–15, shows passing reference to the salutary effects of imperial rule mentioned in the panegyrics. Rees (190–91) points out that panegyric is a local reaction to imperial ideology, an interpretation that adds support to our view of dedications for the salvation of the emperor. 15. Panegyrici Latini X.5.1 (trans. Nixon and Rodgers), 61–62, 525. 16. Panegyrici Latini VI (VII).21.6 (trans. Nixon and Rodgers), 251, 583. See the brief discussion of the term salutifer in connection with Apollo in B.Müller-Rettig, Der Panegyricus des Jahres 310 auf Konstantin den Grossen (Stuttgart, 1990), 285. 17. Adraha: SEG 16:807, 808 (A.D. 259/260); 809, 810 (261/262?); 813, 814 (274/ 275); Littmann IIIA no. 636 (262?); see Millar, The Roman Near East, 164, 169, 174. 18. SEG 7:152; Millar, The Roman Near East, 182. 19. SEG 20:335, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342. See Millar, The Roman Near East, 194–96; Appendix A, 535–44, for a complete list and discussion of these boundary stones. 20. SEG 7:256; R.Mouterde, “Inscriptions grecques conservées a l’Institute Français de Damas,” Syria 6 (1925):230–31, no. 1, pl. XXVIII 3a–3b. Note the analogous dedication from Aphrodisias by Flavius Quintilius Eros Monaxius, praeses of Caria, dated to ?355–60; Roueché, Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity, 35–39, no. 5. 21. On the rise of the notables and its consequences: Liebeschuetz, Decline and Fall, 104–24, 403–6; on decline of competitive civic spending by councilors: Ibid., 172–73. 22. Cod. Theod. 16.2.16, ed. T.Mommsen (Berlin, 1904), 840; trans. C.Pharr, (Princeton, 1952), 443: scientes magis religionibus quam officiis et labore corporis vel sudore nostram rem publicam contineri. The church’s role in performing religious duties for the welfare of the state was already instituted by Constantine: Liebes-cheutz, Decline and Fall, 140–41. Exemptions for Jewish patriarchs and presbyters: Cod. Theod. 16.8.2–4. It is significant that Jewish religious officials are not asked to practice their religio for the sake of the empire. 23. Socrates Scholasticus, HE 2.37.73, Sokrates Kirchengeschichte, ed. G.C.Hansen, (Berlin, 1995), 160; repeated in Sozomen, HE 4.18.14; Theodoret, HE 2.19.13. For a recent survey of

Notes

174

the leadership roles exercised by elite bishops, see C.Rapp, “The Elite Status of Bishops in Late Antiquity in Ecclesiastical, Spiritual, and Social Contexts,” Arethusa 33 (2000):379–99. 24. The Greek Liturgies, Chiefly from Original Authorities, ed. C.A.Swainson (Cambridge, 1884), 92. But the accretions from the sixteenth century do indeed ask for the salvation of the emperors: Ibid., 133. 25. Menander Rhetor, 377.21–22, ed. and trans. D.A.Russel and N.G.Wilson (Oxford, 1981), 92–93: 26. Amm. Marc. 19.12.17 (LCL), 542–43: Nec enim abnuimus salutem legitimi principis, propugnatoris bonorum et defensoris, unde salus quaeritur aliis, consociato studio muniri debere cunctorum. See D.Earl, The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome (London, 1967), 111. ; IGLS 1809, dated to A.D. 547/548. Compare with other examples of imperial constructions that save locals from earthquakes and barbarians: IGLS 288=Prentice IIIB no. 318=F.Trombley, “War and Society in Rural Syria c. 502–613: Observations on the Epigraphy,” BMGS 21 (1997):188–89; IGLS 785, 1600=Prentice IIIB nos. 1019, 1020. 28. Cod. Theod. [Gesta senatus urbis Romae 5], (ed. Mommsen), 2, (trans. Pharr), 5. 29. Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, De cerimoniis, ed. J.Reiske (Bonn, 1829–30), 430:

27.

. This passage is cited and discussed in S.MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, 1981), 245, 266. 30. S.Weinstock, Divus Julius (Oxford, 1971), 174. 31. Cod. Theod. 2.9.3 (ed. Mommsen), 91, (trans. Pharr), 46, adapted: qui nomina nostra placitis inserentes salutem principum confirmationem initiarum esse iuraverint pactionum. 32. C.J.Kraemer, Jr., ed., Excavations at Nessana, vol. 3, Non-literary Papyri (Princeton, 1958), nos. 21, 22, pp. 67–74. Compare also no. 30, pp. 91–93, for a possible third example of the formula. Kraemer translates basilikê sôtêria as “the Emperor’s Health,” which is not literal enough. If the restoration is correct, a letter from a priest dated to 578–582 from Lebanon requesting a grant of asylum for his church contains the phrase ; A.Dain, “Une inscription relative au droit d’asile conservée au Louvre,” Byzantion 5 (1929–30):315–16, 318, lines 8– 9. 33. For the preliminary report on what was initially called the “Bath at Toprak-en-Narlidja,” see R.Stillwell, in Antioch-on-the-Orontes, vol. 3 The Excavations 1937–1939, ed. R.Stillwell (Princeton, 1941), 7, 19–23, plan V, 258, pls. 57–58=IGLS 870. 34. Stillwell, 20–21, pl. 57. The best color photograph now in print is in F.Cimok, ed., Antioch Mosaics: A Corpus (Istanbul, 2000), 234–35. Unfortunately, the editor mistranslates sôtêria as “renewal.” 35. Stillwell, 21, pl. 59; Cimok, Antioch Mosaics, 235–37=IGLS 871. 36. D.Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements, vol. 1 (Princeton, 1947), 304–6, pls. LXVIId, LXVIII, CXXI, CLXVIII. Levi provides the most detailed description of the mosaics. 37. Ibid., 305. 38. Ibid., 305–6. 39. Ibid., 306, an idea first suggested by G.Downey, “Personifications of Abstract Ideas in the Antioch Mosaics,” TAPA 69 (1938):359–60. Libanius, Or. 11.242; The Greek Anthology 9.636, 815. 40. I am indebted to Peter Brown, who originally drew my attention to this mosaic, to Ann Kuttner, who pointed out the distinctively imperial nature of the crown, and to Susan Downey and Scott McDonough, who discussed the mosaic and its problems with me. 41. Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements, 305.

Notes

175

42. Appian 2.16 (106); Weinstock, Divus Julius, 163; Winkler, Salus, 27–35. 43. Weinstock, Divus Julius, 164; Winkler, Salus, 94; P.Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, trans. A.Shapiro (Ann Arbor, 1988), 93–94. 44. Examples of portrait sculpture from the Julio-Claudian period: C.B.Rose, Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio-Claudian Period (Cambridge, 1997), Tiberius and Claudius at Caere (Italy), 85, pls. 71–74; Augustus in the Ravenna relief (Italy), 100–12, pls. 99, 99, 101; Claudius at Vasio-Vocontiorum (France), 131–32, pl. 170; Augustus at Aenona (Croatia), 135–36, pls. 179, 180; Augustus and Claudius at Lepcis Magna (Libya), 185, pls. 235, 236; Tiberius at Lepcis Magna (Libya), 184–85, pl. 233. Coins from the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian depicting the corona civica: H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, vol. III, Nerva to Hadrian (London, 1936), 67 nos. 252, 253; 81 no. 371; 183 nos. 867, 868; 194 no. 917; 338 no. 782; 447 no. 1373*; 448 no. 1381†; 476 no. 1554*; 485 no. 1614. 45. R.Delbrück, Spätantike Kaiserporträts: Von Constantinus Magnus bis zum Ende des Westreichs (Berlin, 1933), 54–56; statue of Constantine at Rome, 113–18, pls. 30–32; statue of Constantius II also at Rome, 135–36, pls. 46–47; H.P.L’Orange, Das spätantike Herrscherbild: Von Diokletian bis zu den Konstantin-Söhnen, 284–361 n. Chr. (Berlin, 1984), bust of Diocletian from Nikomedia, now in Istanbul, 23; porphyry group of tetrarchs from the Vatican Museum, 6ff, pl. 5a–b. 46. K.Weitzmann, “The Iconography of the Reliefs from the Martyrion,” in Anti-och-on-theOrontes, vol. 3, The Excavatons 1937–1939, ed. R.Stillwell, (Princeton, 1941), 145, no. 451, pl. 25. 47. E.A.Syndenham, The Coinage of the Roman Republic (London, 1952), 154 no. 922, c. 55 B.C.; see Winkler, Salus, 27. 48. P.M.Bruun, The Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. VII (London, 1966), 137 no. 335; 205 no. 459. 49. J.P.C.Kent, The Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. VIII (London, 1981), 123 nos. 34ff; 403 nos. 20–21; J.W.E.Pearce, The Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. IX (London, 1951), 133 nos. 64ff; J.P.C.Kent, The Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. X (London, 1994), 480–81, 485, 487, 488.1 should also note that coin issues of SALVS REI PUBLICAE contemporary with the Sôtêria mosaic that were minted at Antioch do not depict Salus; Pearce, The Roman Imperial Coinage IX, 284 no. 43; 292 no. 67(a); 293 no. 67(b); 295 nos. 70(a–c).

NOTES TO CHAPTER FIVE 1. SEG 37:1446=SEG 40:1410; see also Chapter 1, pp. 7–17. 2. See “Dura Europos,” Chapter 6. 3. SEG 40:1414. Other third-century examples: Dura Europos: Dura Report IX.3: no. 970; Kanatha: Wadd. 2412F (kyrioi can mean here either emperors or masters); Palmyra: Wadd. 2628; Sahin: IGLS 4027; Heliopolis: IGLS 2751 (date based on script). 4. Dura: altar: Dura Report IX. 3: no. 970 (A.D. 211); stele: Dura Report VII–VIII: no. 867; phalloi: R.N.Frye et al., “Inscriptions from Dura-Europas,” YCS 14 (1955):128–29, no. 1; cult image: Dura Report V: no. 416 (A.D. 54); temples: SEG 2:778A (A.D. 31/32); Dura Report V: no. 504 (A.D. 33); Dura Report II: no. 4 (A.D. 51/52); Dura Report V: no. 418 (A.D. 54); Dura Report III: no. 159 (A.D. 92/93); Dura Report VII–VIII: no. 917 (ca. A.D. 100); Frye et al., YCS 14 (1955):131–37, no. 3 (first century?); Dura Report III: no. 148 (first century?); Dura Report VII–VIII: no. 886 (A.D. 114); Dura Report VII–VIII: no. 870 (A.D. 152); Dura Report VII–VIII: no. 871 (A.D. 153); Dura Report V: no. 453 (A.D. 161); Frye et al., YCS 14 (1955):139–42, no. 6 (A.D. 169/170); Dura Report VII–VIII: no. 873 (A.D. 175).

Notes

176

5. Unclear context (temples?): Hebran, Littmann IIIA no. 662 (A.D. 152?); Djeneine, Wadd. 2186 (A.D. 178); Kanatha, Wadd. 2412F (A.D. 253/254); Palmyra, SEG 7:147, 149 (undated); Sur, Littmann IIIA no. 797(8) (undated); Tharba, Wadd. 2203B, 2203D (undated); stele: Durbah, IGLS 2104 (A.D. 115/116); Hierapolis, IGLS 231 (undated); Palmyra, Wadd. 2628 (ca. A.D. 270); altars: Nazala, IGLS 2697 (A.D. 157); Palmyra, Prentice no. 353 (A.D. 179); Sur, Littmann IIIA no. 797(9) (second to third century); Emesa, IGLS 2223 (undated); Yabrouda, IGLS 2709 (undated); statue base: El-Mishrife, IGLS 2502 (undated); relief: Emesa, IGLS 2220 (undated); tomb: Ourim el-Joz, IGLS 671A. 6. See “Heliopolis and the Bekaa Valley,” Chapter 6. 7. Greek altars: Btedel, IGLS 2910 (undated); Hebbe, IGLS 4049 (undated); Niha, IGLS 2931, 2939 (undated); Ras Baalbek, IGLS 2902 (undated). Latin altars: Heliopolis, IGLS 2719, 2743, 2748, 2751 (undated); Deir el-Ahman, IGLS 2908 (undated); Deir Labas, IGLS 2852 (undated); Deir el-Qala, Wadd. 1858 (undated); Hermel, IGLS 2904 (undated); Sahin, IGLS 4027 (A.D. 260/261). 8. Statues: Harbata, IGLS 2905 (undated); bases: Deir el-Qala, Wadd. 1859 (undated); Heliopolis, SEG 40:1414 (A.D. 292/293), IGLS 2720 (undated); Niha, IGLS 2932 (undated); column: Hamara, SEG 37:1446=SEG 40:1410 (69/68 B.C.); temple: Deir el-Qala, Wadd. 1855 (undated); unclear context: Heliopolis, IGLS 2752, 2756 (undated). 9. L.Di Segni, CAHL 385–87, no. 5. The restoration of the second line of this inscription is controversial. Di Segni prefers to put the names of the gods in the genitive. Note the parallels she provides in her commentary on the text, 386 and n. 27. 10. IGLS 2502:

; Littmann IIIA no. 797(8): ‘

.

Also, Wadd. 2628: . 11. The Greek word for vow, euchê, can imply an audible cry or prayer: W.Burkert, Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical, trans. J.Raffan (Cambridge, MA, 1985), 69. Dura Europos: Dura Report VII–VIII: no. 871 (Temple of Adonis, A.D. 153), 873 (Temple of Adonis, A.D. 175); Frye et al., YCS 14 (1955):139–42, no. 6 (Temple of Zeus Megistos, A.D. 169/170). The fourth example is dubious, since it is much earlier than the rest and heavily restored: Dura Report VII–VIII: no. 886 (Temple of Zeus Theos, A.D. 114). Interestingly, kat’ euchên was not part of the epigraphic vocabulary at Dura before the middle of the second century. Yabrouda: IGLS 2709 (altar, undated). Emesa: IGLS 2223 (altar, undated). Heliopolis: IGLS 2719 (altar, undated), 2720 (base, undated), 2743 (altar, undated), 2748 (undated), 2751 (altar, undated), 2752 (undated), 2756 (undated). Hermel: IGLS 2904 (altar, undated). Deir el-Ahman: IGLS 2908 (altar, undated). Deir Labas: IGLS 2952 (altar, undated). Deir el-Qala: Wadd. 1858 (altar, Temple of Bel-Marcod, undated). 12. O.M.van Nijf, “Inscriptions and Civic Memory in the Roman East,” in The Afterlife of Inscriptions: Reusing, Rediscovering, and Revitalizing Ancient Inscriptions, ed. by A.E.Cooley, BICS Supp. 75 (London, 2000), 21–36. 13. Philo, Legatio ad Gaium 151 (ed. Smallwood), 92–93, adapted translation: . For the disposition of votives in temples, see W.H.D.Rouse, Greek Votive Offerings, orig. published 1902 (NewYork, 1975), 342–47. 14. W.Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge, MA, 1987), 13. Examples of those saved by gods from the dangers of sailing: RB 19 (1910):156–57; CIJ II, 445, no. 1537. 15. TDNT, vol. 7, 969; Ael. Arist., Or. 43.1; 43.30. 16. Dura Report II: no. 4; SEG 7:967; Di Segni no. 96; Dura Report V: no. 561; Welles 39; IGLS 9014; IGLS 21.4 no. 27. M.Sartre, L’Orient romain: Provinces et sociétés provinciales en Méditerranée orientale d’Auguste aux Sévères (31 avant J.-C.-235 après J.-C.) (Paris, 1991), 482–84. 17. Agathê Tychê: Wadd. 2412F (Kanatha). Zeus Hypsistos Epêkoos: Prentice no. 353; SEG 7:147 (Palmyra). Zeus Megistos: Frye et al., YCS 14 (1955):139–42, no. 6 (Dura Europos).

Notes

177

Zeus Sôtêr: Dura Report II: no. 4 (Dura Europos). Jupiter Optimus: Wadd. 1858 (Deir elQala). Jupiter Optimus Maximus Dolichenus: Dura Report IX. 3: no. 970 (Dura Europos). Jupiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus: IGLS 2719, 2720 (Heliopolis); IGLS 2952 (Deir Labas); Di Segni, CAHL 385–87, no. 5 (Horvath Hesheq). Adonis Theos: Dura Report VII– VIII: no. 873 (Dura Europos). Athena: IGLS 2220 (Emesa). Kyria Athena: SEG 7:1071 (Tharba). Artemis-Azzanathkona: Dura Report V: no. 453 (Dura Europos). Azzanathkona: Dura Report V: no. 504 (Dura Europos). Atargatis Thea: Dura Report III: no. 159; Dura Report VII–VIII: no. 870 (Dura Europos). Theos: Dura Report VII–VIII: no. 867 (Dura Europos). Theos Bel: Dura Report: VII–VIII: no. 917 (Dura Europos). Theos Helios Shamash: Frye et al., YCS 14 (1955):131–37, no. 3 (Dura Europos). Theos Megalos Nazalôn: IGLS 2697 (Nazala). Deus Connarus: IGLS 2743 (Heliopolis). Deus Hadaranes: IGLS 2908 (Deir el-Ahman). Aglibôl: IGLS 2220 (Emesa); SEG 7:149 (Palmyra). Iahribôl: Dura Report III: no. 148 (Dura Europos); IGLS 2220 (Emesa); SEG 7:149 (Palmyra). Malach-Bel: SEG 7:149 (Palmyra). Semea: IGLS 2220 (Emesa); SEG 7:149 (Palmyra). Genius Col(?): Wadd. 1859 (Deir el-Qala). Genius Dura: Dura Report I: no. 1 (Dura Europos). 18. G.H.R.Horsely, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity I:10, no. 2, lines 10–11: . On aretalogies and Isis Sôteira: Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults, 16; R.Reitzenstein, Hellenistic Mystery-Religions, trans. John E.Steely (Pittsburg, 1978), 39. 19. Dura Report VII–VIII: no. 873. For Adonis in the Near East: Sartre, L’Orient romain, 483– 84. There is no evidence that Adonis was the subject of a mystery cult at Dura. 20. Palmyra: SEG 7:149. Dura Europos: Dura Report III: no. 148; Dura Report VII–VIII: nos. 870, 917; Frye et al., YCS 14 (1955):131–37, no. 3. 21. For references see n. 17 above. For Zeus Hypsistos S.Mitchell, “The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews, and Christians,” in Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, ed. P.Athanassiadi and M.Frede (Oxford, 1999), 81–148. 22. D.Sourdel, Les cultes du Hauran a l’époque romaine (Paris, 1952), 19ff. 23. Ibid., 49–52. 24. The habit of using the anonymous “Theos” to refer to a god is derived from Jewish and Arabian traditions; see Sartre, L’Orient romain, 492. 25. SEG 31:1383 (Abila); IGLS 2904 (Hermel); IGLS 2220, 2223 (Emesa); IGLS 2910 (Btedel). 26. IGLS 2939 (Niha). 27. Ovid Amores 2.13(14).25, ed. E.J.Kinney (Oxford, 1907), 56; The Art of Love, trans. R.Humphries (Bloomington, 1957), 58. 28. Demands: Dura Report V: no. 483A; Dura Report IX. 3: nos. 954, 955. See “Dura Europos,” Chapter 6. 29. P.Thomsen, “Die lateinischen und griechischen Inschriften der Stadt Jerusalem und iher in nächsten Umgebung,” ZDPV 44 (1921):121–22, nos. 207A–B; L.Di Segni, “ Palestinian Inscriptions” SCI 13(1994):103, no. 27. See the well-illustrated discussion of the Christian adaptation of the Sacred Horseman in Y.Israeli and D.Menorah, eds., Cradle of Christianity (Jerusalem, 2000), 159–61. Compare the copper amulet from ‘Evron in Israel, dated to the fourth or fifth century. The inscription states that God “will grant health and ); see salvation for the whole body” ( R. Kotansky, “An Inscribed Copper Amulet from ‘Evron,” Atiqot 20 (1991):81–87. 30. SEG 7:967: ]. See R. Mouterde, “Inscriptions grecques de Souweida et de ‘Âhiré,” Melanges de l’Uni-versité Saint-Joseph 16 (1932):75–79. Another example of sôtheis: Prentice no. 417A=Wadd. 2343 (Kanatha).

Notes

178

31. G.Woolf, “Monumental Writing and the Expansion of Roman Society in the Early Empire,” JRS 86 (1996):32: “[I]nscriptions did more than simply preserve memory, they also publicized it.” 32. Dijkstra, Life and Loyalty 295. 33. Dura Europos: SEG 2:778A; Dura Report II: no. 4; Dura Report V: no. 418; Sur: Littmann IIIA no. 797(8); Tharba: SEG 7:1071; Yabrouda: IGLS 2709. 34. Djeneine: Wadd. 2186; Durbah: IGLS 2104; Kanatha: Wadd. 2412F; Deir Labas: IGLS 2952. 35. By law, freedmen were obliged to offer their former masters obsequium: Dig. 37.14.1; 37.14.19; 37.15.9; 38.1–2; 49.16.6; W.Waldstein, Operae Libertorum: Untersuchungen zur Dienstpflicht freigelassener Sklaven (Stuttgart, 1986). 36. IGLS 2719. 37. Dura Report IX.3: no. 970. 38. Prentice no. 353. 39. IGLS 2502. 40. Estimates based on evidence from Egypt suggest that male life expectancy at birth was around 25 years: R.S.Bagnall and B.W.Frier, The Demography of Roman Egypt (Cambridge, 1994), 108; R.Saller, Patriarchy, Property, and Death in the Roman Family (Cambridge, 1994), 12–42. 41. Dura Europos: Dura Report V: no. 453, 504; Dura Report VII–VIII: nos. 867, 871; Frye et al., YCS 14 (1955):128–29, 139–42, nos. 1, 6. Emesa: IGLS 2220. Palmyra: SEG 7:147. 42. IGLS 2748. Other examples of children named as beneficiaries: Nazala: IGLS 2697; Heliopolis: IGLS 2720. Sur: Littmann IIIA: no. 797(9). Tharba: Wadd. 2203D. 43. Dura Europos: Dura Report III: no. 159; Dura Report VII–VIII: nos. 870, 873. Emesa: IGLS 2223. Horvath Hesheq: Di Segni, CAHL 385–87, no. 5. 44. Wadd. 1859. 45. Dura Report III: no. 148. 46. Dijkstra, Life and Loyalty, 290–91. 47. IGLS 671A. 48. IGLS 2751. 49. IGLS 2743. Other examples: Heliopolis: IGLS 2752. Hermel: IGLS 2904. Palmyra: SEG 7:149. Dura Europos: Dura Report V: no. 416. 50. Dura Report VII–VIII: no. 867; Frye et al., YCS 14 (1955):139–42, no. 6. 51. Littmann IIIA no. 797(8); IGLS 2752. 52. Di Segni, CAHL 385–87, no. 5. 53. Wadd. 1858. 54. Pliny, Ep. 8.7.7, translated and cited in M.Beard, “Writing and Religion: Ancient Literacy and the Function of the Written Word in Roman Religion,” in Literacy in the Roman World, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supp. Ser. no. 3 (Ann Arbor, 1991), 39; she goes on to provide analogous examples from elsewhere: 40–42, following W.Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA, 1989), 219. 55. Baumann, Spätantike Stifter, 271; DACL 7.1 (1926), s.v. “Inscriptions grecques chrétiens” (L.Jalabert and R.Mouterde), 689. 56. Baumann, Spätantike Stifter, Table 1, p. 287. 57. C.R.Galvao-Sobrinho, “Funerary Epigraphy and the Spread of Christianity in the West,” Athenaeum 83 (1995):431–66, see esp. Figures 1–7 for a comparable spike in the sixthcentury West. 58. IGLS 680=Prentice no. 263. 59. Prentice no. 263, p. 222. Prentice was right to draw attention to phrase “in memory of the living,” since, even if referring to those “living” in the hereafter, this formulation stretches the standard use of hyper mnêmês, which normally refers to the dead. 60. See the discussion above of the “Emperor Mystique,” Chapter 1, p. 21.

Notes

179

61. For the finds, see M.Mundell Mango, Silver from Early Byzantium: The Kaper Koraon and Related Treasures (Baltimore, 1986). 62. An exception: SEG 40:1521ter (Deir el-Adas, dated to 722). 63. SEG 45:1990: . 64. M.Piccirillo, Chiese e mosaici di Madaba (Jerusalem, 1989); R.Devreesse, “Le christianisme dans la province d’Arabie,” RB 51 (1942):110–46. 65. Deir: IGLS 21 no. 175; Esbous: SEG 45:1990; Gerasa: Welles 333; Bowsher (1986), no. 1; Hesban: IGLS 21 nos. 60, 61, 62; Kastron Mefaa (Umm er-Rasas): SEG 37:1600, 1612; Madaba: SEG 8:330; IGLS 21 no. 131; Mekhayyat: IGLS 21 nos. 97, 100A, 100C, 101, 104, 106, 107; Philadelphia (Amman): IGLS 21 no. 43; Quweisme: IGLS 21 nos. 53, 54B; Siyagha: IGLS 21 nos. 72, 74, 84; SEG 40:1537; Wadi Ayn al-Kanisah: SEG 44:1410; Wadi Ayoun Mousa: SEG 40:1532; IGLS 21 no. 96A; Yadudeh: IGLS 21 no. 56; Provenance unknown: SEG 45:2029. 66. C.Dauphin, La Palestine byzantine: Peuplement et populations, BAR International Series, 726 (Oxford, 1998). 67. Beit Safafa: Di Segni no. 222*; Mumsiyye: SEG 46:1969. The dates for both of these inscriptions are controversial. 68. H.D.Colt, ed., Excavations at Nessana, vol. 1 (London, 1962). 69. Kirk and Welles (1962), 165, no. 72=Di Segni no. 303; Kirk and Welles (1962), 167, no. 77; Kirk and Welles (1962), 166, no. 73=SEG 8:306; Kirk and Welles (1962), 141, no. 17=Di Segni no. 302; Kirk and Welles (1962), 174, no. 95; Kirk and Welles (1962), 166, no. 74=SEG 8:307; Kirk and Welles (1962), 166, no. 75; Kirk and Welles (1962), 162, no. 64; Kirk and Welles (1962), 175, no. 99; Kirk and Welles (1962), 173–74, no. 94=Di Segni no. 308=SEG 8:312. 70. SEG 35:1495. 71. SEG 40:1786, 1789, 1796; SEG 32:1451. 72. A.Negev, The Greek Inscriptions from the Negev (Jerusalem, 1981), 86; Kirk and Welles (1962), 132; Y.E.Meimaris, Sacred Names, Saints, Martyrs, and Church Officials in the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Pertaining to the Christian Church of Palestine (Athens, 1986), 264. 73. For a visual tour of the interior of a Late Antique church: Piccirillo and Israeli, in Cradle of Christianity. 74. IGLS 1691=Prentice no. 922; also IGLS 625. 75. Di Segni, CAHL, 344–45, no. 2; also IGLS 1910=Prentice IIIB no. 855; IGLS 2144. 76. Kirk and Welles (1962), 174, no. 95; 167, no. 77; 166, no. 73 (= SEG 8:306); 141, no. 17 (= Di Segni no. 302); 166, no. 74 (= SEG 8:307); 166, no. 75; 162, no. 64; 175, no. 99; also SEG 36:1333; SEG 37:1612. 77. For the symbolism in the mosaic decoration of churchs: Baumann, Spätantike Stifter, C.Dauphin, “Symbolic or Decorative? The Inhabited Scroll as a Means of Studying Some Early Byzantine Mentalities,” Byzantion 48 (1978):10–34; C. Dauphin, “Byzantine Pattern Books and ‘Inhabited Scroll’ Mosaics,” Art History 4 (1978):400–423; P.Donceel-Voûte, Les pavements des églises byzantines de la Syrie et du Liban: Décor, archéologie et liturgie (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1988), 476ff. A particularly interesting attempt at integrating mosaic inscriptions, portraits, and decorative motifs for an overall interpretation of the symbolic intent of the patron is A.Parrot, “La mosaïque de Serge a Soueida,” RB 43 (1934):97–104. 78. Jordan: Deir: IGLS 21 no. 175; Esbous: SEG 45:1990; Hesban: IGLS 21 nos. 60, 61, 62; Kastron Mefaa (Umm er-Rasas): SEG 37:1600; Madaba: IGLS 21 no. 131; Mekhayyat: IGLS 21 nos. 97, 100A, 100C, 101, 104, 106, 107; Quweisme: IGLS 21 nos. 53, 54B; Siyagha: IGLS 21 nos. 72, 74, 84; SEG 40:1537; Wadi Ayn al-Kanisah: SEG 44:1410; Wadi Ayoun

Notes

180

Mousa: SEG 40:1532; IGLS 21 nos. 96A–B; Yadudeh: IGLS 21 no. 56; Provenance unknown: SEG 45:2029.

Syria: Brad: SEG 40:1779; Deir el-Adas: SEG 40:1521ter; El Bire: IGLS 252A; Huarte: SEG 29:1590; Khirbet Saad: SEG 45:1983; Soran: SEG 40:1767; Tell Minis: SEG 46:1773, 1775. Lebanon: Jiye: SEG 40:1786; Mutatio Heldua: SEG 32:1451; Nabatiyeh: SEG 35:1495; Zahrani: SEG 40:1789, 1796. Israel: Bettir: H.Vincent, RB 7 (1910):254–61=SEG 8:230; Choziba, Wadi el-Qilt: J.Patrich, CAHL 214–15, 218; Ein el-Jedide: SEG 8:232; Ein Fattir: Di Segni no. 224A-B=SEG 42:1421; Herodion: Di Segni, CAHL 184–85, no. 4; Horvath Hesheq: Di Segni no. 78=Di Segni, CAHL 381–82, no. 2; Di Segni no. 76=Di Segni, CAHL 383– 84, no. 3; Iethira, Yathir (Khirbet Attir): Di Segni no. 228; Jerusalem: J.T.Milik, RB 67 (1961):550–55, no. 22; Kafr Kama: Di Segni no. 92*=SEG 45:1954; Khirbet el-Beiyudat: Di Segni no. 203*C=Di Segni, CAHL 268, no. 3; Khirbet el-Makhrum: SEG 37:1458; Khisfin: Gregg and Urman nos. 83, 85; Maale Adummim: Di Segni, CAHL, 158–59, no. 6; Monastery of St. Catherine, Mt. Sinai: I.Sevcenko, “The Early Period of the Sinai Monastery in Light of Its Inscriptions,” DOP 20 (1966):263, no. 7; Nessana: Di Segni no. 308 =Kirk and Welles (1962), 173–74, no. 94=SEG 8:312; Skythopolis (Bet Shean): Di Segni no. 106. 79. IGLS 21 no. 43; also SEG 37:1523; SEG 36:1331. 80. Base: IGLS 1720; block: Kirk and Welles (1962), 165, no. 72=Di Segni no. 303; Thomsen, “Die lateinischen,” (1921):9, no. 14; 50, no. 97; Negev, The Greek Inscriptions, 39, no. 32; Gregg and Urman 213–14, no. 174=SEG 46:1969; Gregg and Urman 240–41, no. 199=SEG 46:1994; A. Alt, Die griechischen Inschriften der Palaestina Tertia westlich der Araba (Berlin, 1921), 15, no. 10; P. Figueras, “New Greek Inscriptions from the Negev,” LA 46 (1996):278–79, no. 11; stele: J.Germer-Durand, “Épigraphie palestinienne,” RB 3 (1894):256–57. 81. P.M.Séjourné, “La Palestine chrétienne: Découvertes récentes et explorations,” RB 1 (1892):118–25. 82. É.Michon, “Antiquités gréco-romaines provenant de Syrie conservées au Musée de Louvre,” RB 14 (1905):576. 83. Mundell Mango, Silver; S.A.Boyd, “A ‘Metropolitan’ Treasure from a Church in the Provinces: An Introduction to the Study of the Sion Treasure,” in Ecclesiastical Silver Plate in Sixth-Century Byzantium, ed. S.A.Boyd and M.Mundell Mango (Washington, DC, 1992), 5–37. 84. Boyd, “A ‘Metropolitan’ Treasure,” 17. 85. Hama Treasure: Mundell Mango, Silver, no. 1=IGLS 2028; Mundell Mango, Silver, no. 2=IGLS 2027; Mundell Mango, Silver, no. 9=IGLS 2038; Mundell Mango, Silver, no. 10=IGLS 2037; Mundell Mango, Silver, no. 15=IGLS 2035. Stuma Treasure: Mundell Mango, Silver, nos. 33, 34; Mundell Mango, Silver, no. 36=IGLS 697. Riha Treasure: Mundell Mango, Silver, no. 35=IGLS 695; Mundell Mango, Silver, nos. 37, 38. Antioch

Notes

181

Treasure: Mundell Mango, Silver, no. 41=IGLS 2044. Phela Treasure: Mundell Mango, Silver, nos. 61, 62, 63, 64. 86. Baumann notes that the inscriptions were intended to be viewed; see his Spätantike Stifter, 289–91; see also the comments of S.S.Blair, Islamic Inscriptions (Edinburgh, 1998), 108. 87. Syria: Region of Arsous: IGLS 733. Jordan: Hesban: IGLS 21 no. 62; Madaba: IGLS 21 no. 131; Mekhayyat: IGLS 21 no. 106; Wadi Ayn al-Kanisah: SEG 44:1410. Israel: Choziba, Wadi el-Qilt: Patrich, CAHL 214–15, 218; Ein Fattir: Di Segni no. 224A–B=SEG 42:1421; Herodion: Di Segni, CAHL 184–85, no. 4; Jerusalem: Milik, RB 67 (1961):550–55, no. 22; Khirbet el-Beiyudat: Di Segni no. 203*C=Di Segni, CAHL, 268, no. 3; Monastery of St. Catherine, Mt. Sinai: Sevcenko, DOP 20 (1966):263, no. 7; Nessana: Di Segni no. 308=Kirk and Welles (1962), 173–74, no. 94=SEG 8:312. 88. SEG 20:367. 89. Wadd. 2562C. 90. IGLS 680=Prentice no. 263; IGLS 1794; SEG 45:1961; Di Segni no. 222*. 91. Baumann, Spätantike Stifter, 24–25. 92. Ibid., 22. 93. IGLS 21 no. 43. 94. IGLS 21 no. 54B (Quweisme). See also Gregg and Urman 240–41, no. 199=SEG 46:1994 (Suman, Israel). 95. Di Segni no. 228. 96. Di Segni no. 92*=SEG 45:1954. 97. IGLS 1910=Prentice IIIB no. 855. 98. IGLS 21 no. 101. 99. Mundell Mango, Silver, no. 41=IGLS 2044. 100. SEG 40:1779. 101. W.K.Prentice, “Fragments of an Early Christian Liturgy in Syrian Inscriptions,” TAPA 33 (1902):95. Anapausis was used in the sense of the Christian life after death by the second century, G.W.H.Lampe, ed., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961), 115, s.v. “anapausis”; its use in Christian public epigraphy may have been influenced by liturgical services, in which the names of the dead were read: DACL 7.1 (1926), s.v. “Inscriptions grecques chrétiennes” (Jalabert and Mouterde), 673–74, 681. For a list of sites in Jordan and Israel where the formula was found, see Baumann, Spätantike Stifter, 367. 102. Di Segni no. 78=Di Segni, CAHL 381–82, no. 2. Other examples of the combination of hyper sôtêrias and hyper anapauseôs: Sevcenko, DOP 20 (1966): 264, no. 16; Kirk and Welles (1962), 167, no. 77; Séjourné, RB 1 (1892):118–25; SEG 35:1495; SEG 40:1796; Di Segni no. 222*. 103. Const. ap. 8.10.12, Les Constitutions apostoliques, ed. M.Metzger, Sources chré-tiennes (Paris, 1985–87), 3:168, 170. 104. IGLS 21 no. 131:

:

105. A seventh-century list of donor’s names and contributions and the purposes to which the contributions were to be put has been found at Nessana; C.J.Kraemer, Jr., ed., Excavations at Nessana, vol. 3, Non-literary Papyri (Princeton, 1958), 227–33, no. 79. 106. John Chrysostom, In acta apostolorum homiliae, 18, The Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, [trans. J.Walker and T.Sheppard] (Oxford, 1851), 260–61; PG 60:147:

Notes

182

. See R.MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire (A.D. 100– 400) (New Haven, 1984), 64–65. 107. TDNT, vol. 7, 966–69. 108. Baumann, Spätantike Stifter, 276. 109. TDNT, vol. 7, 991–93. 110. Ibid., 990–98. 111. Prentice, “Fragments of an Early Christian Liturgy,” 81. 112. The Greek Liturgies, Chiefly from Original Authorities, ed. C.A.Swainson (Cambridge, 1884), xxxvi. 113. Prentice, “Fragments of an Early Christian Liturgy,” 91. 114. Ibid., 94–95. 115. DACL 7.1 (1926), s.v. “Inscriptions grecques chrétiennes” (Jalabert and Mouterde) 689; G.Downey, “The Inscription on a Silver Chalice from Syria in the Metropolitan Museum of Art,” AJA 55 (1951):350–51. 116. Downey, “The Inscription on a Silver Chalice,” 350. 117. J.Russell, The Mosaic Inscriptions of Anemurium (Vienna, 1987), 87. 118. Baumann, Spätantike Stifter, 293–95. 119. Ibid.,295. 120. P.Brown, The Making of Late Antiquity (Cambridge, MA, 1978), 27–53, on the “Age of Ambition.” 121. For a list of sites termed “holy place”: Baumann, Spätantike Stifter, 372–73. For an example of the power of preaching to transform society: P.Brown, Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire (Hanover and London, 2002), 74ff. 122. S.Mitchell, Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor II: The Ankara District: The Inscriptions of North Galatia, BAR International Series 135 (Oxford,1982), nos. 207, 208, . texts and translation: 123. Syria: Apamea: IGLS 1320, 1322, 1323, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1327, 1332, 1335, 1336, 1337. Lebanon: Niha: Lifshitz (1967), 49, no. 62. Israel: Ascalon: Di Segni no. 146=SEG 8:267; CIJ II, 965=SEG 8:266; Bay of Atlit: SEG 44:1368; Caesarea: Di Segni no. 152*=C.A.M.Glucker, The City of Gaza in the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Oxford, 1987), 146, no. 40; Lifshitz (1967), 52–53, no. 67; Gaza: Lifshitz (1967), 56–57, no. 72=SEG 8:277; Ramat Aviv (Tell Qasile): SEG 37:1526; Samaria: SEG 46:2052; Skythopolis (Bet Shean): Lifshitz (1967), 69–70, no. 77C; Lifshitz (1967), 68–69, no. 77B; Provenance unknown: A.Reifenberg, Ancient Hebrew Arts (New York, 1950), 143, fig. 2. 124. See previous note for references. 125. Baumann, Spätantike Stifter, 322. 126. Lintel: Skythopolis (Bet Shean): Lifshitz (1967), no. 77C. Marble slabs: Ascalon: Di Segni no. 146=SEG 8:267; Gaza: Di Segni no. 152*=Glucker, City of Gaza 146, no. 40, Lifshitz (1967), 56–57, no. 72=SEG 8:277. Columns: Ascalon: CIJ II, 965=SEG 8:266; Caesarea: Lifshitz (1967), 52–53, no. 67. Mosaics: Apamea: IGLS 1320, 1322, 1323, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1327, 1332, 1335, 1336, 1337. 127. SEG 46:2052; Reifenberg, Ancient Hebrew Arts, 143, fig. 2; see also the bronze object from the Bay of Atlit, SEG 44:1368. 128. Lifshitz (1967), 68–69, no. 77B, including the discussion of kloubas. 129. Sartre, L’Orient romain, 399, where it is noted that Jewish names are “rare” in Jewish contexts. 130. M.Williams, “The Contribution of Jewish Inscriptions to the Study of Judaism,” in Cambridge Ancient History of Judaism, vol. 3 (Cambridge, 1999), 78, 86. 131. E.L.Sukenik, “The Mosaic Inscriptions in the Synagogue at Apamea on the Orontes,” Hebrew Union College Annual 23 (1950–51):541–47; B.Brenk, “Die Umwandlung der

Notes

183

Synagoge von Apameia: Eine mentalitätsgeschichtliche Studie,” in Tesserae. Festschrift für Josef Engemann (Münster, 1991), 1–25. 132. IGLS 1320. For the Greek text, see Chapter 1, p. 9. 133. Williams, “The Contribution of Jewish Inscriptions,” 79–80. 134. IGLS 1322. 135. IGLS 1323, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1327, 1332, 1335, 1336. 136. SEG 8:267; also note other dedications by Jewish women: Reifenberg, Ancient Hebrew Arts, 143, fig. 2; SEG 46:2052. 137. Williams, “The Contribution of Jewish Inscriptions,” 80. 138. Kyrios Lentios: Lifshitz (1967), 68–69, no. 77B; Kyria Matrôna: Reifenberg, Ancient Hebrew Arts, 143, fig. 2. 139. S.MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, 1981); R.Darnton, “The Symbolic Element in History,” Journal of Modern History 58 (1986): 218–34; D.A.Warner, “Ritual and Memory in the Ottonian Reich: The Ceremony of Adventus,” Speculum 76 (2001):255–83. 140. J.Teixidor, The Pagan God: Popular Religion in the Greco-Roman Near East (Princeton, 1977), 3–17. occurs in the Antiphons of the Great Litany: John Chrysostom, 141. The phrase The Divine Liturgy. (Brookline, MA, 1985), 3. 142. Lucian, De dea Syria, ed. and trans. H.W.Attridge and R.A.Oden (Missoula, MT, 1976), 58–61, text with facing translation: See also Lucian: On the Syrian Goddess, ed. and trans. J.L.Lightfoot (Oxford, 2003). 143. See references to sôtêria in later Judaism, TDNT, vol. 7, 984–87.

NOTES TO CHAPTER SIX 1. IGLS 2711, 2712, 2713, 2714, 2715, 2716, 2717, 2723, 2727, 2744, 2745, 2799, 2800. 2. IGLS 2714, 2727. For the epigraphic habit, see Chapter 1, note 16. 3. IGLS 2717. 4. IGLS 2723, commentary, 57. 5. IGLS 2716. 6. On the summa honoraria, which was paid for such promotions, see G.W.Bowersock, “Greek Intellectuals and the Imperial Cult in the Second Century A.D.,” orig. pub. 1973, reprinted in Studies on the Eastern Roman Empire, ed. D.Maffei and H.Fuhrmann, Bibliotheca Eruditorum no. 9, (Goldbach, 1994), 293–326. 7. IGLS 2719, 2720, 2743, 2748, 2751, 2752; SEG 40:1414. 8. SEG 40:1414. 9. IGLS 2719. 10. IGLS 2720, 2743, 2748, 2751, 2752. 11. IGLS 2720. 12. IGLS 2966. 13. Latin: Hermel: IGLS 2904; Deir el-Ahmar: IGLS 2908; Btedel: IGLS 2910; Deir Labas: IGLS 2952; Gdita: IGLS 2964, 2966. Greek: Ras Baalbek: IGLS 2902; Harbata: IGLS 2905; Niha: IGLS 2931, 2932, 2939; Gerrha: SEG 40:1410. 14. Hammara: SEG 37:1446=SEG 40:1410. 15. Jupiter: IGLS 2904; Juno: IGLS 2964; Hadaranes: IGLS 2908; Dea Syria (not identified explicitly in the inscriptions, but assumed based on context): IGLS 2931, 2932, 2939. 16. IGLS 2908.

Notes

184

17. IGLS 2905. 18. F.Millar, The Roman Near East31 B.C.-A.D. 337 (Cambridge, MA, 1993), 35–36, citing Strabo, Geog. 16.2.18 (755). 19. Reused dedications for salvation: IGLS 2720, 2743, 2748. The basilica: T.von Lüpke, “Die Basilika,” in Baalbek: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1898 bis 1905, ed. T.Wiegand, vol. 2 (Berlin and Leipzig, 1923), 130–44. Heliopolis in Late Antiquity: H.Winnefeld, “Christentum,” in loc. cit., 149–51. On spolia, see note 96 below. 20. S.B.Downey, “The Transformation of Seleucid Dura-Europos,” in Romanization and the City: Creation, Transformations, and Failures, ed. E.Fentress (Portsmouth, RI, 2000), 155– 72; Dijkstra, Life and Loyalty, 259–81, collects the evidence for the dedications for salvation as comparative material for the Semitic equivalent of the formula, CL HYY, “for life.” 21. In chronological order: SEG 2:778A; SEG 42:1357=R.N.Frye et al., “Inscriptions from Dura-Europas,” YCS 14 (1955): no. 1; SEG 7:361=Dura Report II: no. 4; Dura Report V: no. 418; Dura Report V: no. 504; Dura Report V: no. 416; SEG 7:358=Dura Report III: no. 159; SEG 7:359=Dura Report III: no. 148; Dura Report VII–VIII: no. 867; Dura Report VII– VIII: no. 917; Frye et al., YCS 14 (1955): no. 31; Dura Report VII–VIII: no. 870; Dura Report V: no. 453; Frye et al., YCS 14 (1955): no. 6; Dura Report VII–VIII: no. 873. 22. For a general discussion of religion at Dura, see C.B.Welles, “The Gods of Dura-Europos,” in Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben: Festschrift für Franz Altheim zum 6.10.1968, vol. 2 (Berlin, 1970), 50–65. 23. S.B.Downey, Mesopotamian Religious Architecture: Alexander through the Parthians (Princeton, 1988), 124–29. 24. See G.W.Bowersock on Greek as “a language of local piety,” in his Hellenism in Late Antiquity (Ann Arbor, 1990), 29–30. 25. SEG 2:778A; SEG 42:1357=Frye et al., YCS 14 (1955): no. 1. 26. Dura Report II: no. 4=SEG 7:361. 27. Dura Report V: no. 504. 28. Dura Report V: no. 418. 29. Dijkstra, Life and Loyalty, 266. 30. Dura Report V: no. 416:

; Dijkstra, Life and Loyalty, 267; for the village Anath, D.L.Kennedy, “Ana on the Euphrates in the Roman Period,” Iraq 48 (1986):103–4. 31. See the discussion of altars in Chapter 5, p. 75. 32. Frye et al., YCS 14 (1955): no. 3. 33. Frye et al., YCS 14 (1955): no. 6. 34. Dura Report VII–VIII: no. 873; Dijkstra’s translation, Life and Loyalty, 272. 35. R.O.Fink, Roman Military Records on Papyrus (London, 1971), 423, no. 117, col. 1, lines 2–4. See Chapter 2. 36. Dura Report V: no. 561; Dura Report I: no. 1; Frye et al., YCS 14 (1955):59; Dura Report VII–VIII: no. 847; Dura Report IX.3:970. Three other pro salute fragments were found scrawled on the walls of the principia, but for whose benefit, whether for the emperor or for an individual, is unclear: Dura Report V: nos. 566A-B, 577. 37. Dura Report I: no. 1. 38. Dura Report VII–VIII: no. 847. 39. Dura Report IX.3: no. 970. 40. Soldiers’ slaves: M.P.Speidel, “The Soldiers’ Servants,” in Roman Army Studies, vol. 2 (Stuttgart, 1992), 342–50. 41. Dura Report V: no. 483A. 42. Dura Report VI: no. 613.

Notes

185

43. Dura Report IX.3: no. 954–55. 44. Babylonian: A.T.Clay, Miscellaneous Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Collection (New Haven, 1915), 7, no. 7; 7–8, no. 8; 8, no. 9; 13, no. 15; 15, no. 17; 16–17, no. 20; 28–30, no. 31; 50–55, no. 38; 58–60, no. 41; 62–66, no. 44; 81–84, no. 52. Aramaic: Dijkstra, Life and Loyalty. Persian: M.Boyce, “On the Sacred Fires of the Zoroastrians,” BSOAS 31 (1968):52– 68; J.-P. de Menasce, Feux et fondations pieuses dans le droit sassanide (Paris, 1964); S.Shaked, “‘For the Sake of the Soul’: A Zoroastrian Idea in Transmission into Islam,” orig. pub. 1990, reprinted in his From Zoroastrian Iran to Islam: Studies in Religious History and Intercultural Contacts, Variorum Collected Studies Series (Aldershot, 1995). 45. Welles 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 (Latin), 38, 39, 42, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56/57, 58, 60, 65, 69, 91, 114, 117, 119,120, 121, 122, 125, 127 (?), 131, 132, 136, 138 (?), 192; SEG 27:10 l0bis; SEG 32:1537; SEG 35:1572, 1573; SEG 39:1653 (?), 1655, 1658; SEG 46:2064. 46. IGLS 2711, 2712, 2713, 2714, 2715, 2716, 2717, 2723, 2727, 2744, 2745, 2799, 2800. 47. A.D.Nock, “Religious Developments from the Close of the Republic to the Reign of Nero,” in CAH X, 1st ed. (Cambridge, 1934), 493–94. 48. A.D.Nock, “The Roman Army and the Roman Religious Year,” orig. pub. 1945, reprinted in Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, ed. Z.Stewart, vol. 2 (Oxford, 1972), 772–78. Here Nock discusses the popular awareness of imperial festivals. He concludes that people were aware of the festivals but that this did not necessarily mean that certain holidays dictated when people made dedications to the gods: people “acted in accordance with their whims or circumstances” (775). This will be confirmed by the evidence from Gerasa. 49. R.O.Fink, “Jerash in the First Century A.D.,” JRS 23 (1933):109–24; C.H. Kraeling, “The History of Gerasa,” in Gerasa: City of the Decapolis, ed. C.H. Kraeling (New Haven, 1938), 27–69; E.Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.A.D. 135), rev. and ed. G.Vermes, F.Millar, and M.Black (Edinburgh, 1979), 2:149–55; H.Bietenhard, “Die syrische Dekapolis von Pompeius bis Traian,” in ANRW2.8 (Berlin, 1977), 220–61. 50. J.Seigne, “Le sanctuaire de Zeus a Jerash,” Syria 62 (1985):287–95. 51. Welles suggests that the sebastoi meant here are Tiberius and Livia: commentary Welles 2. Millar, by contrast, suggests Tiberius and Augustus: F.Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 B.C. A.D. 337 (Cambridge, MA, 1993), 412. This is not accurate: dedications for salvation’s sake were intended for living emperors, and by 22/23, Augustus had been dead for nearly a decade. Fink has the most convincing explanation: when sebastoi is used to refer to a single ruler the imperial house is meant (Fink, “Jerash,” 116, and notes 52–53). 52. Welles 2:

53. Fink, “Jerash,” 113–14; Millar, The Roman Near East, 412. 54. For example, this contemporary inscription from the acta of the Arval Brothers, dedicated for the “salvation and safety” of Tiberius: Acta Fratrum Arvalium, ed. W.Henzen (Berlin, 1874), XXXIII, lines 4–5. 55. G.W.Bowersock, “Greek Intellectuals and the Imperial Cult in the Second Century A.D.,” orig. pub. 1973, reprinted in Studies on the Eastern Roman Empire: Social, Economic, and Administrative History, Religion, Historiography, ed. D. Maffei and H.Fuhrmann (Goldbach, 1994), 293–326. 56. R.J.A.Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome (Princeton, 1984), 416–17, 420. 57. Tac. Ann. 1.78, 4.15; Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome, 417 n. 39. Note Tiberius’ rescript to the people of Gytheion in Laconia: SEG 11:922; on this inscription and for earlier

Notes

186

scholarship: M.Kantiréa, “Remarques sur le culte de la domus Augusta en Achaïe de la mort d’Auguste a Néron,” in The Greek East in the Roman Context, ed. Olli Salomies (Helsinki, 2001), 51–60. 58. Welles 3 (A.D. 42?), 4 (43?), 49 (67/68), 5 (69/70). On the asylum seeker: K.J. Rigsby, “A Suppliant at Gerasa,” Phoenix 54 (2000):99–106. Rigsby suggests that Theon, the asylum seeker, made his dedication for the salvation of Vespasian in 69/70, the year of the Jewish rebellion, civil war, and strife in the Near East, because he was possibly an assimilated Jew who, though a resident of Gerasa, was harassed by his neighbors in the aftermath of the Jewish revolt and sought refuge for himself and his children at the temple. 59. Welles 3. 60. Welles 192 (A.D. 105/106?); Welles 119 (A.D. 115/116); SEG 32:1537 (A.D. 184). On the Flavii Flacci: A.H.M.Jones, “Inscriptions from Jerash,” JRS 18 (1928):155; A.H.M.Jones, “Inscriptions from Jerash. Part II,” JRS 20 (1930): 47, no. 64. 61. Welles 192 (A.D. 105/106?); SEG 46:2064 (A.D. 197); Welles 26 (A.D. 238). 62. Welles 10 (A.D. 97–117); Welles 53 (A.D. 119/120); Welles 15 (A.D. 143); SEG 39:1653 (first century); Welles 20 (second century); Welles 121 (second century); Welles 122 (second century). 63. Welles 17 (A.D. 73/74). 64. Welles 50 (A.D. 75/76); Welles 28 (A.D. 79/80); SEG 32:1538 (second to third century). 65. SEG 35:1572 (A.D. 207), 1573 (A.D. 209–11). 66. Welles 51 (A.D. 81–83); Welles 56/57 (A.D. 115): this is not a dedication for Trajan’s salvation; the city is honoring Trajan fictitiously as its own savior (sôtêr) and (re)founder; Welles 58 (A.D. 130); Welles 60 (A.D. 150); Welles 69 (A.D. 191 or 190); Welles 132 (A.D. 211–17 or 218–22); Welles 114 (second to third century). 67. Welles 51. 68. Welles 52 (A.D. 83–96); SEG 27:1010 bis (c. A.D. 92). 69. G.W.Bowersock, “Syria under Vespasian,” orig. pub. 1973, reprinted in Studies on the Eastern Roman Empire: Social, Economic, and Administrative History, Religion, Historiography, ed. D.Maffei and H.Fuhrmann (Goldbach, 1994), 85–92. 70. Welles 50 (A.D. 75/76); L.Ceionius Commodus: PIR2 603. 71. Welles 56/57 (A.D. 115); Welles 15 (A.D. 143); Welles 60 (A.D. 150); Welles 11 (A.D. 163); Welles 12 (c. A.D. 163); Welles 65 (A.D. 162–66). 72. Urbanization of Gerasa and the region: A.N.Barghouti, “Urbanization of Palestine and Jordan in Hellenistic and Roman Times,” in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan I, ed. Adnan Hadidi (Amman, 1982), 209–29; J.Seigne, “Jérash romaine et byzantine: Développement urbain d’une ville provinciale orientale,” in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan IV, ed. M.Zaghoul et al. (Amman, 1992), 331–41; D.L.Kennedy, “The Identity of Roman Gerasa: An Archaeological Approach,” Mediterranean Archaeology 11 (1998):39–69. 73. B.Isaac, The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East (Oxford, 1990), 346. 74. Inscribed statue bases: Welles 141ff. 75. Examples of florid dedications from the second century: Welles 60 (A.D. 150); Welles 69 (A.D. 191?). Compare to analogous examples from Philadelphia, IGLS 21 no. 17 (A.D. 150); and Apamea, IGLS 1346 (second to third century). 76. Welles 29 (A.D. 98); Welles 192 (A.D. 105/106?); Welles 56/57 (A.D. 115); Welles 119 (A.D. 115/116); Welles 120 (115/116); Welles 10 (A.D. 97–117); Welles 53 (A.D. 119/120); Welles 58 (A.D. 130); Welles 30 (A.D. 130); Welles 15 (A.D. 143); Welles 60 (A.D. 150); Welles 21 (A.D. 150); Welles 54 (A.D. 153/154); Welles 22 (A.D. 155/156?); Welles 24 (A.D. 159/160); Welles 11 (A.D. 163); Welles 12 (c. A.D. 163); Welles 65 (A.D. 162–66); SEG 32:1537 (A.D. 184); Welles 69 (A.D. 191 or 190); SEG 46:2064 (A.D. 197); SEG 35:1572 (A.D. 207); Welles 131 (A.D. 209–11); SEG 39:1655 (A.D. 209–12); SEG 35:1573

Notes

187

(A.D. 209–11); Welles 14 (A.D. 211–17); Welles 132 (A.D. 211–17 or 218–22); Welles 26 (A.D. 238). 77. SEG 27:1010 bis (year 155 of the local era, month of Panemos); Welles 29 (year 160, twenty-first of Artemisios); Welles 15 (year 150, twenty-second of Xandikos); Welles 60 (year 213, twenty-fourth of Dios); Welles 21 (year 212, first of Daisios); SEG 32:1537 (year 247, fifth of Hyperberetaios); Welles 69 (year 253, ? of Xandikos); SEG 46:2064 (year 260, second of Gorpiaios); SEG 35:1572 (year 270, eighth of Gorpiaios); Welles 26 (year 300, twenty-second of Dystros). Compare to the list in W.F.Synder, “Public Anniversaries in the Roman Empire,” YCS 4 (1940):223–317. Though none of our dates correspond to any in Synder’s list, it does provide examples of dedications for the salvation of emperors that were made on various public holidays: 241, no. 18; 245, no. 25; 255, no. 41; 264, no. 53. Dedications on 3 January are listed on p. 266. But see the comments of Nock, “The Roman Army,” 772–78. 78. Temples and shrines: Temple of Zeus Olympios: Welles 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 14; Temple of Artemis: Welles 28, 29, 30, 60; SEG 35:1573; Temple of Sarapis and Isis: Welles 15; Shrine of Zeus Epikarpios: Welles 42; Shrine of Hera: Welles 17. Cults: Thea Ourania: Welles 24, 26; Theos Arabikos: Welles 20, 21; Theos Hagios Pakeida: Welles 17; Apollo: Welles 38; Zeus Poseidon Enosichthon Sôtêr: Welles 39. 79. Millar, The Roman Near East, 412. 80. Dedications that include expressions noting the fulfillment of religious obligations: eusebeias heneken, eusebeias charin, eusebountas, eusebôn, kat’euchen, votum solverunt, honoris et pietatis causa: Welles 2, 3, 4, 49, 17, 50, 29, 30, 24; SEG 32:1537; SEG 39:1655; Welles 14, 26, 27, 20, 125; SEG 32:1538; Welles 136. 81. Fink, “Jerash,” 124. 82. E.Olávari, “Excavaciones en el edificio publico romano junto al Cardo Maximus, Gerasa, 1983,” in Jerash Archaeological Project, 1981–1983, ed. F.Zayadine (Amman, 1986), 477. 83. Welles 52 (A.D. 83–96); Welles 119 (A.D. 115/116); Welles 15 (A.D. 143); SEG 46:2064 (A.D. 197); Welles 121 (second century); Welles 38 (second century); Welles 122 (second century). 84. P.Veyne, Bread and Circuses: Historical Sociology and Political Pluralism, abridged with intro. by O.Murray, trans. B.Pearce (New York, 1990), 108. 85. Welles 192; for the Romans at Gerasa: P.-L.Gatier, “Onomastique et presence romain a Gérasa,” in Roman Onomastics in the Greek East: Social and Political Aspects, ed. A.D.Rizakis (Athens, 1996), 251–59. 86. “Provincial governors and procurators” is Welles’ translation of

.

87. Welles’ translation of ; I prefer, however, “loyalty” to Welles’ “piety.” 88. For imperial festivals: L.Robert, Études anatoliennes (Paris, 1937), 319–320; S.R.F.Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge, 1984), 101ff., 210–11; M.Sartre, L’Orient romain: Provinces et sociétés provincales en Méditerranée orientale d’Auguste aux Sévères (31 avant J.-C.-235 après J.-C.) (Paris, 1991), 342–43. See P.Herz, “Herrscherverehrung und lokale Festkultur im Osten des römischen Reiches (Kaisar/Agone),” in Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion, ed. H.Cancik and J.Rüpke (Tübingen, 1997), 239–64. Herz does not mention the festival at Gerasa. 89. Josephus, AJ 16.138–141 (LCL), 261–63; also BJ 1.415 (LCL), 196–97. For Herod’s participation in and promotion of the imperial cult, see A.Schalit, König Herodes. Der Mann und sein Werk (Berlin, 1969), 421ff. Other textual evidence for such festivals: Pliny the Younger, Ep. 10.35–36, 52–53, 100–101; Tertullian, Apol. 35. Festival at Gytheion in

Notes

188

Laconia, A.D. 15: SEG 11:923; trans. R.Sherk, The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian (Cambridge, 1988), 31–32, no. 34. 90. AJ 19.343 (LCL), 376–77, trans. slightly altered: Josephus’ text is quoted by Eusebius, HE 2.10.3. See also A.Brent, The Imperial Cult and the Development of Church Order (Leiden, 1999), 123. 91. See RE.I, 1:870–77, s.v. “Agonothetês” (Reisch). 92. V.Nutton, “The Beneficial Ideology,” in Imperialism in the Ancient World, ed. P.D.A.Garnsey and C.R.Whitaker (Cambridge, 1978), 212–13; F.Millar, “Empire and City, Augustus to Julian: Obligations, Excuses and Status,” JRS 73 (1983):76–96, quote on 80. F.Quass, “Zur politischen Tätigkeit der munizipalen Aristokratie des griechischen Ostens in der Kaiserzeit,” Historia 31 (1982): 188–213, on several careers from Asia Minor involving individuals very much like our Flavius Gerrenus, some styled “friend of the emperor” and “patriot” as well. 93. These ideas are based on John Ma’s study of the language of Hellenistic inscriptions in Asia Minor, Antiochos III and the Cities of Asia Minor (Oxford, 1999), esp. 194, 219, 238. See also Veyne, Bread and Circuses, 143–56. 94. For example, Welles 195. 95. J.W.Crowfoot, in Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa, 195–97; F.W.Deichmann, Die Spolien in der spätantiken Architektur (Munich, 1975), 47ff. An early call to examine Christian spoliation: L.Jalabert, “Deux missions archéologiques américaines en Syrie,” Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 3 (1908):718–19. 96. B.Brenk, “Spolia from Constantine to Charlemagne: Aesthetics versus Ideology,” DOP 41 (1987):103–9. For a recent survey of the literature on spoliation, see M. Alanen, “Architectural Reuse at Jerash: A Case Study in Transformations of the Urban Fabric, 100 B.C.-750 A.D.” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1995), 18–24. On the reuse of inscriptions, see Alison E.Cooley’s introduction to the volume The Afterlife of Inscriptions: Reusing, Rediscovering, Reinventing, and Revitalizing Ancient Inscriptions, ed. A.E.Cooley (London, 2000), 1–5. 97. Cathedral: Welles 17, 114, 124, 125, 196; Shrine of the Virgin Mary: 20; Church of St. Theodore: 107, 115, 127, 136, 138, 142, 166, 178, 179, 184; Church of the Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs: 252, 256; Clergy House: 18,24,208,214; Church of St. George: 119, 121; Church of St. John the Baptist: 6; Propylaea Church: 13, 122, 132, 136, 144, 148, 173, 174, 181, 193. 98. Welles 124. 99. Cathedral: Welles 17, 114, 125; Propylaea Church: 122, 132; Church of St. Theodore: 127, 136; Church of St. George: 119, 121; Clergy House: 18, 24. 100. For a description of the finds, Fisher in Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa, 271ff. 101. If the repeated call to stop looting ancient monuments in the Theodosian Code is any indication, carting off pieces of older temples, which had fallen into disrepair, was commonplace by the middle of the fourth century; Cod. Theod. 15.1.1ff, discussed by Deichmann, Die Spolien, 100. 102. Brenk, “Spolia from Constantine to Charlemagne,” on the Arch of Constantine and the Lateran; A.J.Wharton, Refiguring the Post Classical City: Dura Europos, Jerash, Jerusalem, and Ravenna (Cambridge, 1995), especially chap. 3, on the organization of space in the ecclesiastical complex at Gerasa. 103. Deichmann, Die Spolien, 100. 104. Sermons did make reference to the physical decoration of the church to buttress theological points. Indeed, in his own sermon on St. Theodore, Gregory of Nyssa makes reference to the mosaic pavement of the church, though not to any pagan relics that may have been in the

Notes

189

church: De Sancto Theodoro, ed. J.P.Cavarnos, in Gregorii Nysseni, Sermones Pars II (Leiden, 1990), 62–63. 105. J.M.C.Bowsher, “The Church Inscriptions,” in Jerash Archaeological Project, 1981–1983, ed. F.Zayadine (Amman, 1986), no. 1, p. 319, pl. II, 3; Welles 333. 106. See Chapter 1, pp. 9–10; Chapter 5, p. 98. 107.

.

108. . 109. Crowfoot, Gerasa, 254–55. 110. Welles 333. Translation and interpretation of this short dedication is rather difficult: . 111. Baumann, Spätantike Stifter, 296; G.Pugliese Carratelli, “Cuius Nomen Deus Scit,” Studi mediolatini e volgari 1 (1953):193–96; R.Reich, “God Knows Their Names: Mass Christian Grave Revealed in Jerusalem,” Biblical Archaeology Review 22.2 (1996):26–33, 60. 112. For quotes from the Bible in Christian epigraphy: W.K.Prentice, “Fragments of an Early Christian Liturgy in Syrian Inscriptions,” TAPA 33 (1902):81–100; Prentice, 7ff; Jalabert, “Deux missions,” 720–27. 113. My emphasis. Welles 331, see commentary for variants from the Septuagint:

114. Welles 195. 115. SEG 44:1410; others in the eighth century include: IGLS 21 no. 53 (A.D. 717, Quweisme); SEG 40:1521ter (A.D. 722, Deir el-Adas). 116. U.-M.Liertz, Kult und Kaiser: Studien zu Kaiserkult und Kaiserverehrung in den germanischen Provinzen und in Gallia Belgica zur römischen Kaiserzeit (Rome, 1998), 135–39, 158–61. 117. A few examples chosen at random: Maryport/Alauna, Britain: RIB 850; Timgad, Numidia: AE 1957, 82; Vetel/Micia, Dacia: AE 1977, 705; Nakoleia, Asia Minor: MAMA V, ed. C.W.M.Cox and A.Cameron (Manchester, 1937), 92–93, nos. 197, 198; Egypt: AE 1940, 148=AE 1948, 213. 118. Kennedy, “The Identity of Roman Gerasa,” 64–66.

NOTES TO CONCLUSION 1. The most recent, comprehensive attempt to answer this question points to the “extraordinary efficiency of the Roman imperial bureaucracy” as the primary means of forging consensus; C.Ando, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire (Berkeley, 2000), 411. 2. M.Beard, “Writing and Religion: Ancient Literacy and the Function of the Written Word in Roman Religion,” in Literacy in the Roman World, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supp. Ser. No. 3 (Ann Arbor, 1991). 3. Die Inschriften von Ephesos, Teil II, ed. C.Börker and R.Merkelbach (Bonn, 1979), 103, no. 301; C.Roueché, Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity: The Late Roman and Byzantine Inscriptions, JRS Monographs no. 5 (London, 1989), 35–39, no. 5.

Notes

190

4. Dedications “on behalf of” (hyper) of the emperor from Egypt: É.Bernand, Recueil des inscriptions grecques du Fayoum, tome 1 (Leiden, 1975), nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 27, 33, 34, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 99, 101. Pro salute imperatoris: AE 1902, 162=AE 1905, 131 (Luxor); AE 1911, 121=AE 1996, 1647 (Al-Muwayh); AE 1940, 148=AE 1948, 213 (?); AE 1971, 481=AE 1989, 756 (Gebel-el-Tehneh/Akoris); AE 1987, 974 (Fayoum). 5. Athila: Wadd. 2374A, 2374B; Prentice no. 427A; CIG 4611B. Hebran: Wadd. 2289=M.Dunand, Le musée de Soueïda (Paris, 1934), 89, no. 179. Phaina: Wadd. 2525, 2527, 2528A; SEG 46:2074. 6. Health and safety (hyper hygiêas kai diamonês): Die Inschriften von Ephesos II, 138–39, no. 412 (Titus); 203, no. 510 (Tiberius). 7. A few examples: MAMA IV, ed. W.H.Buckler, W.M.Calder, and W.K.C. Guthrie (Manchester, 1933), 81, no. 173 (salvation of dedicator and villages); 178, no. 178 (dependents and village); MAMA VII, ed. W.M.Calder (Manchester, 1956), 69, no. 303 (cattle).

Bibliography I. LITERARY SOURCES The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. 1972. Edited by H.Musurillo. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ammianus Marcellinus. 1982–86. Ammianus Marcellinus. Translated by John C.Rolfe. 3 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 1971–1986. Edited by A.Roberts and J.Donaldson. Revised by A.C.Cox. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B.Eerdmans. Appian. 1912–13. Appian’s Roman History. Translated by Horace White. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London: W.Heinemann. Augustus. 1935. Res gestae divi Augusti: Das Monumentum Ancyranum. Edited by E. Diehl. 6th ed. Berlin: W.de Gruyter. ——. 1967. Res gestae divi Augusti. Edited and Translated by P.A.Brunt and J.M. Moore. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Codex Theodosianus. 1952. Translated by Clyde Pharr. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ——. 1962. Edited by T.Mommsen and P.M.Meyer. 3rd ed. 2 vols. in 3. Berlin: Weidmann. Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. 1829–30. De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae. Edited by J. Reiske. 2 vols. Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae. Bonn: Weber. Constitutiones apostolorum. 1961. In Didascalia et Constitutiones apostolorum, edited by F.X.Funk. Reprint, Turin: Bottega d’Erasmo. Eusebius of Caesarea. 1861. History of the Martyrs in Palestine. Edited and Translated by W.Cureton. London: WilliamsandNorgate. ——. 1908. Eusebius Kirchengeschichte. Edited by E.Schwartz. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. ——. 1952–60. Histoire ecclésiastique. Translated by G.Bardy. 4 vols. Sources chrétiennes. Paris: Éditions du Cerf. The Greek Anthology. 1969. Translated by W.R.Paton. 5 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London: W.Heinemann. The Greek Liturgies, Chiefly from Original Authorities. 1884. Edited by C.A.Swainson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gregory of Nyssa. 1990. De Sancto Theodoro. Edited by Johannes P.Cavarnos. In Gregorii Nysseni Opera. Sermones Pars, II. Leiden: E.J.Brill. Herodian. 1969. History. Translated by C.R.Whittaker. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London: W.Heinemann. John Chrysostom. 1851. The Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles. Translated by J.Walker and T.Sheppard. 2 vols. Oxford: Parker. ——. 1859. In acta apostolorum homiliae. In J.-P.Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 60. Paris: Migne. ——. 1985. The Divine Liturgy=He theia leitourgia. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press. John Lydus. 1967. Liber de mensibus. Edited by R.Wünsch. Reprint, Stuttgart: Teubner. Josephus. 1927. The Jewish War. Translated by H.St.J.Thackeray. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London: W.Heinemann. ——. 1930. Jewish Antiquities. Translated by H.St.J.Thackeray et al. 7 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London: W.Heinemann. ——. 1966. Against Apion. Translated by H.St.J.Thackeray. Loeb Classical Library. London: W.Heinemann.

Bibliography

192

Lactantius. 1893. De mortibus persecutorum. Edited by S.Brandt. In L.Caeli Firmiani Lactanti Opera Omnia, Pt. 2, Fasc. 2. Vienna: F.Tempsky. The Liturgy of Saint James. 1896. In Liturgies Eastern and Western, edited by F.E. Brightmann. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lucian of Samosata. 1976. De dea Syria. Edited and Translated by Harold W.Attridge and Robert A.Oden. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. ——. 2003. Lucian: On the Syrian Goddess. Edited and Translated by J.L.Lightfoot. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Minucius Felix Marcus. 1974. The Octavius of Marcus Minucius Felix. Translated and Annotated by G.W.Clark. Ancient Christian Writers, no. 39. New York: Newman Press. Origen. 1969–76. Contra Celsum. Edited and Translated by M.Borret. 5 vols. Sources chrétiennes. Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Ovid. 1907. Amores. P. In Ovidius Naso, Vol. 1, edited by R.Ehwald. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner. ——. 1957. The Art of Love. Translated by R.Humphries. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Panegyrici Latini. 1994. In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini. Translated and Annotated by C.E.V.Nixon and B.S.Rodgers. Berkeley: University of California Press. Philo of Alexandria. 1961. Legatio ad Gaium. Edited and Translated by E.Mary Small-wood. Leiden: E.J.Brill. Pliny the Younger. 1915. Pliny: Letters. Translated by William Melmoth. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London: W.Heinemann. Plutarch. 1926. Galba. InLives, Vol. 11. Translated by Bernadotto Perrin. Loeb Classical Library. London: W.Heinemann. The Presanctified Liturgy of Saint James. 1896. In Liturgies Eastern and Western, edited by F.E.Brightmann. Oxford: Clarendon Press. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. 1890–1900. 2nd ser. 14 vols. New York: Scribner. Serapion of Thmuis. 1962. Sacramentarium. In Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum. Edited by F.X.Funk. Vol. 1. Reprint, Torino: Bottega d’Erasmo. Socrates Scholasticus. 1995. Sokrates Kirchengeschichte. Edited by G.C.Hansen. Berlin: Akademie. Tacitus. 1968. Annalium ab excessu divi Augusti libri. Edited by H.Furneaux. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Tertullian. 1954. Apologeticum. Edited by E.Dekkers. In Opera, Pars 1, Corpus Chris tianorum, Series Latina. Turnholt: Brepols.

II. INSCRIPTIONS AND PAPYRI Acta Fratrum Arvalium 1874. Edited by Wilhelm Henzen. Berlin: G.Reimeri. Alt, Albrecht. 1921. Die griechischen Inschriften der Palaestina Tertia westlich der Araba. Berlin: W.de Gruyter. Baur, P.V.C., and M.I.Rostovtzeff, eds. 1929. The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Preliminary Report of First Season of Work, Spring 1928. New Haven: Yale University Press. Abbreviated as Dura Report I. ——. 1952. The Excavations at Dura-Europos Preliminary Report of Ninth Season of Work, 1935– 1936. Part III, The Palace of the Dux Ripae and the Dolicheneum. New Haven: Yale University Press. Abbreviated as Dura Report IX.3. Baur, P.V.C, M.I.Rostovtzeff, and A.R.Bellinger, eds. 1932. The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Preliminary Report of Third Season of Work, November 1929–March 1930. New Haven: Yale University Press. Abbreviated as Dura Report III. Bernand, E. 1975. Recueil des inscriptions grecques du Fayoum. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill.

Bibliography

193

Bielman, Anne. 1994. Retour à la liberté: Liberation et sauvetage des prisonniers en Grèce ancienne: Recueil d’inscriptions honorant des sauveteurs et analyse critique. Paris: De Boccard. Bowsher, J.M.C. 1986. The Church Inscriptions. In Jerash Archaeological Project I, 1981–1983, edited by Fawzi Zayadine. Amman: Department of Antiquities. Boyd, Susan A., and Marlia Mundell Mango, eds. 1992. Ecclesiastical Silver Plate in SixthCentury Byzantium. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Bruns, C.G. 1909–12. Fontes Iuris Romani Antiqui. 7th ed. 2 vols. Tübingen: I.C. B. Mohr (P.Siebeck). Clay, A.T. 1915. Miscellaneous Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Collection. New Haven: Yale University Press. Clermont-Ganneau, Charles. 1920. Mission épigraphique a Palmyre. RB 29:359–419. Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. 1977. Vol. 3. Edited by August Böckh. Berlin: Officina Academica, 1853; reprint, New York: G.Olms. Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum: Recueil des inscriptions juives qui vont du IIIe siècle avant Jésus-Christ au VIIe siècle de notre ère. 1936. Vol. 1, Europe. Edited by P. Jean-Baptiste Frey. Rome: Pontificio istituto di archeologia cristiana. ——. 1952. Vol. 2, Asie Afrique. Edited by P.Jean-Baptiste Frey. Rome: Pontificio istituto di archeologia cristiana. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. 1862–1959. Berlin: G.Reimerum. Cumont, Franz. 1928. Mémoires de la mission archéologique de Perse 20:84–88. ——. 1931. Inscriptions grecques trouvées a Susa. CRAI: 278–92. Dain, Alphonse. 1929–30. Une inscription relative au droit d’asile conservée au Louvre. Byzantion 5:315–26. Di Segni, Leah. 1990. The Church of Mary Theotokos on Mount Gerizim: The Inscriptions. In Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land: New Discoveries. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Maior 36. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press. ——. 1990. The Greek Inscriptions in the Northern and Eastern Churches at Herodion. In Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land: New Discoveries. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Maior 36. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press. ——. 1990. Horvath Hesheq: The Inscriptions. In Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land: New Discoveries. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Maior 36. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press. ——. 1990. Khirbet el-Beiyûdât: The Inscriptions. In Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land: New Discoveries. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Maior 36. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press. ——. 1990. The Monastery of Martyrius at Maa’ale Adummim (Khirbet el-Murassas): The Inscriptions. In Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land: New Discoveries. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Maior 36. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press. ——. 1994. in Palestinian Inscriptions. SCI 13:94–115. ——. 1997. Dated Greek Inscriptions from Palestine from the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Ewing, W. 1895. Greek and Other Inscriptions Collected in the Hauran. PEFQ 41–60: 131–60, 265–80, 346–54. Figueras, P. 1996. New Greek Inscriptions from the Negev. LA 46:256–84. Fink, Robert 0. 1971. Roman Military Records on Papyrus. London: Press of Case Western Reserve University. Fink, Robert O., A.S.Hoey, and W.F.Synder. 1940. The Feriale Duranum. YCS 4:1–222. Frye, R.N., J.F.Gilliam, H.Ingholt, and C.B.Welles. 1955. Inscriptions from Dura-Europos. YCS 14:(1955):123–213. Gatier, Pierre-Louis. 1986. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. Vol. 21, Inscriptions de la Jordaine. Tome 2, Region Centrale. Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.

Bibliography

194

Germer-Durand, J. 1892. Épigraphie chrétienne de Jerusalem. RB 1:560–88. ——. 1893. Épigraphie chrétienne de Palestine. RB 2:201–15. ——. 1894. Épigraphie palestinienne. RB 3:248–59. Glucker, Carol A.M. 1987. The City of Gaza in the Roman and Byzantine Periods. BAR International Series 325. Oxford: BAR. Gregg, Robert C, and Dan Urman. 1996. Jews, Pagans, and Christians in the Golan Heights: Greek and Other Inscriptions of the Roman and Byzantine Eras. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Hauken, Tor. 1998. Petition and Response: An Epigraphic Study of Petitions to Roman Emperors, 181–249. Bergen: The Norwegian Institute at Athens. Horsley, G.H.R. 1983. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Vol. 1. North Ryde, NSW, Australia: Macquarie University, The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre. Die Inschriften von Ephesos. 1979. Teil II, Nr. 101–599. Edited by Christoph Börker and Reinhold Merkelbach. Bonn: R.Habelt. Jalabert, Louis, and René Mouterde, eds. 1929. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. Vol. 1, Commagène et Cyrrhestique. Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. ——. 1950. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. Vol. 3, Region de l’Amanus, Antioche. Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. ——. 1953. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. Vol. 3.2, Antioche (suite), Antiochene. Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. ——. 1955. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. Vol. 4, Laodicée, Apamène. Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. ——. 1959. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. Vol. 5, Emésène. Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Johnson, A.C., P.R.Coleman-Norton, and F.C.Bourne, trans. and ed. 1961. Ancient Roman Statutes. Austin: University of Texas Press. Kirk, George Eden, and C.B.Welles. 1962. The Inscriptions. In The Excavations at Nessana (Auja Hafir, Palestine), vol. 1, edited by H.Dunscombe Colt. London: British School of Archaelogy in Jerusalem. Kotansky, Roy. 1991. An Inscribed Copper Amulet from ‘Evron. Atiqot 20:81–87. Kraemer, C.J., Jr., ed. 1958. Excavations at Nessana. Vol. 3, Non-literary Papyri. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Le Bas, Philippe, and W.H.Waddington. 1972. Inscriptions grecques et latines recueilles et en Asie Mineure. Vol. 3. Paris: F.Didot, 1870; reprint, Hildesheim: G.Olms. Lifshitz, Baruch. 1967. Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives: Repertoire des dédicaces grecques relatives a la construction et a la réfection des synagogues. Paris: J.Gabalda. Littmann, Enno, David Magie, Jr., and Duane Reed Stuart. 1921. Syria: Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria in 1904–5 and 1909. Division III, Greek and Latin Inscriptions. Section A, Southern Syria. Leiden: Brill. Michon, É. 1905. Antiquités gréco-romaines provenant de Syrie conservées au Musée de Louvre. RB 14:564–78. Milik, J.T. 1960. Notes d’epigraphie et de topographie palestiniennes. IX. Sanctuaires chrétiens de Jerusalem a 1’époque arabe (VIIe–Xe s.). RB 67:354–67, 550–91. Mitchell, Stephen. 1982. Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor II: The Ankara District: The Inscriptions of North Galatia. BAR International Series 135. Oxford: BAR. Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua. 1933. Vol. IV, Monuments and Documents from Eastern Asia and Western Galatia. Edited by W.H.Buckler, W.M.Calder, and W.K.C.Guthrie. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ——.1937. Vol. V, Monuments from Dorylaeum and Nacolea. Edited by C.W.M. Cox and A.Cameron. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ——. 1956. Vol. VII, Monuments from Eastern Phrygia. Edited by W.M.Calder. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Bibliography

195

——. 1988. Vol. IX, Monuments from the Aezantis Recorded by C.W.M.Cox, A. Cameron, and J.Cullen. Edited by B.Levick, S.Mitchell, J.Potter, and M. Waelkens. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Mouterde, René. 1925. Inscriptions grecques conservées a l’lnstitute Français de Damas. Syria 6:215–52. ——. 1932. Inscriptions grecques de Souweida et de ‘Âhiré. Melanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 16:75–82. Mundell Mango, Marlia. 1986. Silver from Early Byzantium: The Kaper Koraon and Related Treasures. Baltimore: Walters Art Gallery. Negev, Avraham. 1977. The Inscriptions of Wadi Haggag, Sinai. Qedem 6. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. ——. 1981. The Greek Inscriptions from the Negev. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Minor no. 25. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press. Patrich, Joseph. 1990. The Cells (Ta Kellia) of Choziba, Wadi el-Qilt. In Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land: New Discoveries. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Maior 36. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press. Prentice, William Kelly. 1908. Greek and Latin Inscriptions. Part III of the Publications of an American Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1899–1900. New York: Century. ——. 1922. Syria: Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria in 1904 and 1909. Division III, Greek and Latin Inscriptions. Section B, Northern Syria. Leiden: Brill. Reifenberg, A. 1950. Ancient Hebrew Arts. New York: Schocken Books. Rey-Coquais, Jean-Paul, ed. 1967. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. Vol. 6, Baalbek et Beqa. Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. ——. 1970. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. Vol. 7, Arados et Regions voisines. Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Roman Inscriptions in Britain. 1965-. Edited by R.G.Collingwood and R.P.Wright. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rostovtzeff, M.I., ed. 1934. The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Preliminary Report of Fifth Season of Work, October 1931–March 1932. New Haven: Yale University Press. Abbreviated as Dura Report V. Rostovtzeff, M.I., A.R.Bellinger, C.Hopkins, and C.B.Welles, eds. 1936. The Excavations at DuraEuropos: Preliminary Report of Sixth Season of Work, October 1932-March 1933. New Haven, Yale University Press. Abbreviated as Dura Report VI. Rostovtzeff, M.I., F.E.Brown, and C.B.Welles, eds. 1939. The Excavations at DuraEuropos: Preliminary Report of Seventh and Eighth Seasons of Work, 1933–1934 and 1934–1935. New Haven: Yale University Press. Abbreviated as Dura Report VII–VIII. Roueché, C. 1989. Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity: The Late Roman and Byzantine Inscriptions. JRS Monographs no. 5. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Russell, James. 1987. The Mosaic Inscriptions of Anemurium. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaft. Sartre, Maurice, ed. 1982. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. Vol. 13, Bostra. Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. ——. 1993. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. Vol. 21, Inscriptions de la Jordaine, Tome 4. Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Séjourné, Paul M. 1892. La Palestine chrétienne: Découvertes récentes et explorations. RB 1:118– 125. Sevcenko, Ihor. 1966. The Early Period of the Sinai Monastery in Light of Its Inscriptions. DOP 20:255–64. ——. 1992. Sion Treasure: The Evidence of Inscriptions. In Ecclesiastical Silver Plate in SixthCentury Byzantium. edited by S.A.Boyd and Marlia Mundell Mango. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.

Bibliography

196

Sherk, Robert K. 1988. The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stillwell, Richard, ed. 1941. Antioch-on-the-Orontes. Vol. 3, The Excavations 1937–1939. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Sukenik, E.L. 1950–51. The Mosaic Inscriptions in the Synagogue at Apamea on the Orontes. Hebrew Union College Annual 23:541–47.

Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. 1923–97. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. 1960. Edited by Wilhelm Dittenberger. 3rd ed. Leipzig: S.Hirzel, 19; reprint, Hildesheim: Olms. Thomsen, Peter. 1920. Die lateinischen und griechischen Inschriften der Stadt Jerusalem und ihrer nächsten Umgebung. ZDPV 43:138–58. ——. 1921. Die lateinischen und griechischen Inschriften der Stadt Jerusalem und ihrer nächsten Umgebung. ZDPV 44:1–61, 90–168. ——. 1941. Die lateinischen und griechischen Inschriften der Stadt Jerusalem und ihrer nächsten Umgebung: 1. Nachtrag. ZDPV 64:203–56. Tsafrir, Yoram. 1988. Excavations at Rehovot-in-the-Negev, vol. 1, The Northern Church. Qedem 25. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology. Ullmann, Lisa, and Ehud Galili. 1994. A Greek Inscription Mentioning Discovered off the Carmel Coast. SCI 13:116–122. Welles, C.B. 1934. Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period. New Haven: Yale University Press. ——. 1938. Gerasa, City of the Decapolis: The Inscriptions. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research.

III. COINS Bruun, P.M. 1966. The Roman Imperial Coinage. Vol. 7. London: Spink. Kent, J.P.C. 1981. The Roman Imperial Coinage. Vol. 8. London: Spink. ——. 1994. The Roman Imperial Coinage. Vol. 10. London: Spink. Mattingly, Harold. 1936. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. Vol. III, Nerva to Hadrian. London: Trustees of the British Museum. Pearce, J.W.E. 1951. The Roman Imperial Coinage. Vol. 9. London: Spink and Son. Spijkerman, A. 1978. The Coins of the Decapolis and Provincia Arabia. Edited by Michele Piccirillo. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press. Syndenham, E.A. 1952. The Coinage of the Roman Republic. London: Spink and Son.

IV. SECONDARY SOURCES Adams, J.N. 1999. The Poets of Bu Njem: Language, Culture and the Centurionate. JRS 89:109– 34. Alanen, Marie. 1995. Architectural Reuse at Jerash: A Case Study in Transformations of the Urban Fabric, 100 B.C.-750 A.D. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles. Alföldy, András. 1937. A Festival of Isis in Rome under the Christian Emperors of the IVth Century. Budapest: Institute of Numismatics and Archaeology of the Pázmány-University. Alföldy, Geza. 1991. Augustus und die Inschriften: Tradition und Innovation: Die Geburt der imperialen Epigraphik. Gymnasium 98:289–324. Alston, Richard. 1995. Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt: A Social History. London and New York: Routledge.

Bibliography

197

Ando, Clifford. 2000. Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bagnall, Roger S., and B.W.Frier.1994. The Demography of Roman Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ball, Warwick. 2000. Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire. London and New York: Routledge. Barghouti, A.N. 1982. Urbanization of Palestine and Jordan in Hellenistic and Roman Times. In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan I, edited by Adnan Hadidi. Amman: Department of Antiquities, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Barnes, T.D. 1971. Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Baumann, Peter. 1999. Spätantike Stifter im Heiligen Land. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag. Beard, Mary. 1985. Writing and Ritual: A Study of Diversity and Expansion in the Arval Acta. PBSR 53:114–62. ——. 1991. Writing and Religion: Ancient Literacy and the Function of the Written Word in Roman Religion. In Literacy in the Roman World. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supp. Ser. No. 3. Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Beard, Mary, John North, and Simon Price. 1998. Religions of Rome. Vol. 1, A History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Béranger, Jean. 1953. Recherches sur l’aspect idéologique du principat. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, Heft 6. Basel: F.Reinhardt. Bihlmeyer, K. 1912. Das Toleranzedikt des Galerius von 311 (Lactantius, De mort.persec. c. 34). Theologische Quartalschrift: 411–27, 527–89. Blair, Sheila S. 1998. Islamic Inscriptions. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Bowersock, Glen W. 1983. Roman Arabia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ——. 1990. Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ——. 1994. Greek Intellectuals and the Imperial Cult in the Second Century A.D. In Studies on the Eastern Roman Empire: Social, Economic, and Administrative History, Religion, Historiography, edited by D.Maffei and H.Fuhrmann. Bibliotheca Eruditorum no. 9. Goldbach: Keip. First published 1973. ——. 1994. Syria under Vespasian. In Studies on the Eastern Roman Empire: Social, Economic, and Administrtive History, Religion, Historiography, edited by D. Maffei and H.Fuhrmann. Bibliotheca Eruditorum no. 9. Goldbach: Keip. First published 1973. Boyce, Mary. 1968. On the Sacred Fires of the Zoroastrians. BSOAS 31:52–68. Boyd, Susan A. 1992. A ‘Metropolitan’ Treasure from a Church in the Provinces: An Introduction to the Study of the Sion Treasure. In Ecclesiastical Silver Plate in Sixth-Century Byzantium, edited by Susan A.Boyd and M.Mundell Mango. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Brenk, Beat. 1987. Spolia from Constantine to Charlemagne: Aesthetics versus Ideology. DOP 41:103–9. ——. 1991. Die Umwandlung der Synagoge von Apameia: Eine mentalitätsgeschichtliche Studie. In Tesserae: Festschrift für Josef Engemann. Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Brent, Allen. 1999. The Imperial Cult and the Development of Church Order: Concepts and Images of Authority in Paganism and Early Christianity before the Age of Cyprian. Leiden: Brill. Brown, Peter. 1978. The Making of Late Antiquity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ——. 2002. Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire. The Menahem Stern Jerusalem Lectures. Hanover and London: University Press of New England. Burkert, Walter. 1985. Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical. Translated by John Raffan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ——. 1987. Ancient Mystery Cults. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Butler, Howard Crosby. 1969. Early Churches in Syria, Fourth to Seventh Centuries. Edited and Completed by E.Baldwin Smith. Amsterdam: Adolf M.Hakkert. First published 1929.

Bibliography

198

Champion, C. 1995. The Soteria at Delphi: Aetolian Propaganda in the Epigraphical Record. AJPh 116:213–20. Chaniotis, Angelos. 1997. Review of Salus: Vom Staatskult zur politischen Idee: Eine archäologische Untersuchung, by Lorenz Winkler. BMCR 8.3:280–84.

Cimok, F., ed. 2000. Antioch Mosaics: A Corpus. Istanbul: A.Turizm Yayinlari. Darnton, R. 1986. The Symbolic Element in History. Journal of Modern History 58: 218–34. Dauphin, Claudine. 1978. Byzantine Pattern Books and ‘Inhabited Scroll’ Mosaics. Art History 4:400–423. ——. 1978. Symbolic or Decorative? The Inhabited Scroll as a Means of Studying Some Early Byzantine Mentalities. Byzantion 48:10–34. ——. 1998. La Palestine byzantine: Peuplement et populations. BAR International Series, 726. Oxford: BAR. Deichmann, F.W. 1975. Die Spolien in der spätantiken Architektur. Munich: Beck. Deismann, Adolf. 1923. Licht vom Osten. Tübingen: J.C.B.Mohr. Delbrück, R. 1933. Spätantike Kaiserporträts: Von Constantinus Magnus bis zum Ende des Westreichs. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Devreesse, R. 1942. Le christianisme dans la province d’Arabie. RB 51:110–146. Dijkstra, Klaas. 1995. Life and Loyalty: A Study in the Socio-Religious Culture of Syria and Mesopotamia in the Graeco-Roman Period Based on Epigraphical Evidence. Leiden: Brill. Domaszewski, Alfred von. 1967. Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres. 2nd ed. with an Introduction by B.Dobson. Cologne: Böhlau. Donceel-Voûte, P. 1988. Les pavements des églises byzantines de la Syrie et du Liban: Décor, archéologie et liturgie. Louvain-la-Neuve: Département d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Art. Downey, Glanville. 1938. Personifications of Abstract Ideas in the Antioch Mosaics. TAPA 69:349–63. ——. 1951. The Inscription on a Silver Chalice from Syria in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. AJA 55:349–53. Downey, Susan B. 1988. Mesopotamian Religious Architecture: Alexander through the Parthians. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ——. 2000. The Transformation of Seleucid Dura-Europos. In Romanization and the City: Creation, Transformations, and Failures, edited by E.Fentress. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Dunand, Maurice. 1934. Le musée de Soueïda: Inscriptions et monuments figurés. Paris: P.Geuthner. Duncan-Jones, R.P. 1996. The Impact of the Antonine Plague. JRA 9:108–36. Fears, J.Rufus. 1981. The Cult of Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology. In ANRW 17.2. Berlin: De Gruyter. Fiedrowicz, Michael. 2000. Apologie im frühen Christentum: Die Kontroverse um den christlichen Wahrheitsanspruch in den ersten Jahrhunderten. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh. Foerster, Werner, and Georg Fohrer. 1971. In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Friedrich, translated by Geoffrey W.Bromiley, vol. VII. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B.Eerdmans. Frend, W.H.C. 1965. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church. Oxford: Blackwell. Galvao-Sobrinho, Carlos R. 1995. Funerary Epigraphy and the Spread of Christianity in the West. Athenaeum 83:431–66. Gatier, Pierre-Louis. 1992. Les inscriptions grecques d’époque islamique (VIIe–VIIIe siècles) en Syrie du Sud. In La Syrie de Byzance a l’Islam. Damascus: Institut Français de Damas. ——. 1996. Onomastique et presence romain a Gérasa. In Roman Onomastics in the Greek East: Social and Political Aspects, edited by A.D.Rizakis. Meletemata 21. Athens: Research Center for Greek and Roman Antiquity.

Bibliography

199

Giedion, Sigfried. 1995. Building in France, Building in Iron, Building in Ferroconcrete. Translated by J.Duncan Berry. Santa Monica, CA.: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities. First published 1928. Grainger, J.D. 1995. Village Government in Roman Syria and Arabia. Levant 27:179–195. Haerens, H. 1948. et Studia Hellenistica 5:57–68. Hall, Jonathan M. 1997. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hammond, Mason. 1968. The Augustan Principate in Theory and Practice during the JulioClaudian Period. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 19; reprint, New York: Russel and Russel. Harper, G.M. 1928. Village Administration in the Roman Province of Syria. YCS 1:105–68. Harris, William V. 1989. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Herrmann, Peter. 1968. Der römische Kaisereid. Hypomnemata 20. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Herz, P. 1997. Herrscherverehrung und lokale Festkultur im Osten des römischen Reiches (Kaisar/Agone). In Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion edited by H. Cancik and J.Rüpke. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Hewitt, J.W. 1912. On the Development of the Thank-offering among the Greeks. TAPA 43:95– 111. Hölscher, Tonio. 1967. Victoria Romana: Archäologische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Wesenart der römischen Siegesgöttin von den Anfangen bis zum Ende des 3. Jhs. n. Chr. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Hopkins, Keith. 1978. Conquerors and Slaves. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Instinsky, H.U. 1942. Kaiser und Ewigkeit. Hermes 77:313–55. ——. 1963. Die alte Kirche und das Heil des Staates. Munich: Kösel Verlag. Isaac, Benjamin. 1990. The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Israeli, Yael, and David Menorah, eds. 2000. Cradle of Christianity. Jerusalem: The Israel Museum. Jalabert, Louis. 1908. Deux missions archéologiques américaines en Syrie. Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 3:713–52. Jalabert, Louis, and René Mouterde. 1926. Inscriptions grecques chrétiens. In Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, vol. 7.1. Paris: Libraire Letouzey et Ané. Jones, A.H.M. 1931. The Urbanization of the Ituraean Principality. JRS 21:265–75. Kantiréa, Maria. 2001. Remarques sur le culte de la domus Augusta en Achaïe de la mort d’Auguste a Néron. In The Greek East in the Roman Context, edited by Olli Salomies. Helsinki: Foundation of the Finnish Institute at Athens. Kennedy, D.L. 1986. Ana on the Euphrates in the Roman Period. Iraq 48:103–4. ——. 1998. The Identity of Roman Gerasa: An Archaeological Approach. Mediterranean Archaeology 11:39–69. Kettenhofen, E. 1991. Zur Geschichte der Stadt Der‘â in Syrien. ZDPV 107:77–91. Koestermann, Erich. 1968. Cornelius Tacitus Annalen. Bd. 4, Buch 14–16. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Körner, Christian. 2002. Philippus Arabs: Ein Soldatenkaiser in der Tradition des antoninischeseverischen Prinzipats. Berlin: De Gruyter. Kotansky, Roy. 1991. Incantations and Prayers for Salvation on Inscribed Greek Amulets. In Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, edited by C.A.Faraone and D.Obbink. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kraeling, Carl H., ed. 1938. Gerasa: City of the Decapolis. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. Lagrange, M.-J. 1919. Attis et le Christianisme. RB 16:417–81. Lampe, G.W.H. 1961. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Levi, Doro. 1947. Antioch Mosaic Pavements. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bibliography

200

Liebescheutz, J.H.W.G. 1977. Epigraphic Evidence on the Christianisation of Syria. In Limes: Akten des XI. internationalen Limeskongresses, edited by J.Fitz. Budapest: Akdémia and Kiadó. ——. 1992. The End of the Ancient City. In The City in Late Antiquity, edited by John Hall. New York: Routledge. ——. 2001. Decline and Fall of the Roman City. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Liertz, Uta-Marie. 1998. Kult und Kaiser: Studien zu Kaiserkult und Kaiserverehrung in den germanischen Provinzen und in Gallia Belgica zur römischen Kaiserzeit. Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae, vol. 20. Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae. L’Orange, H.P. 1965. Art Forms and Civic Life in the Late Roman Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ——. 1984. Das spätantike Herrscherbild von Diokletian bis zu den Konstantin-Söhnen, 284–361 n. Chr. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. Lüpke, T.von. 1923. Die Basilika. In Baalbek: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1898 bis 1905, edited by T.Wiegand, vol. 2. Berlin and Leipzig: De Gruyter. Ma, John. 1999. Antiochos III and the Cities of Asia Minor. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Maas, Michael. 1992. John Lydus and the Roman Past: Antiquarianism and Politics in the Age of Justinian. New York: Routledge. MacAdam, H.I. 1983. Epigraphy and Village Life in Southern Syria during the Roman and Early Byzantine Periods. Berytus 31:103–15. ——. 1986. Studies in the History of the Roman Province of Arabia: The Northern Sector. BAR International Series 295. Oxford: BAR. MacCormack, Sabine. 1981. Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press. MacMullen, Ramsey. 1982. The Epigraphic Habit of the Roman Empire. AJPh 103: 233–46. ——. 1984. Christianizing the Roman Empire (A.D. 100–400). New Haven: Yale University Press. ——. 1986. The Frequency of Inscriptions in Roman Lydia. ZPE 65:237–238. Mann, J.C. 1983. Legionary Recruitment and Veteran Settlement during the Principate. Edited by M.M.Roxan. London: Institute of Archaeology. Martindale, J.R. 1980. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. Vol. 2, A.D. 395–527. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marwood, Martin A. 1988. The Roman Cult of Salus. BAR International Series 465. Oxford: BAR. Mason, Hugh J. 1974. Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis. Toronto: Hakkert. Mathews, Thomas F. 1993. The Clash of Gods: A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art. Rev. ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mattingly, Harold. 1950. The Imperial ‘Vota.’ Proceedings of the British Academy 36: 155–95. McCormick, Michael. 1986. Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byz-antium, and the Early Medieval West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meimaris, Yiannis E. 1986. Sacred Names, Saints, Martyrs, and Church Officials in the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Pertaining to the Christian Church of Palestine. Athens: National Hellenic Research Foundation, Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity Menasce, J.-P. de. 1964. Feux et fondations pieuses dans le droit sassanide. Paris: C. Klincksieck. Millar, Fergus. 1973. The Imperial Cult and the Persecutions. In Le culte des souverains dans l’Empire romain, edited by Willem den Boer. Geneva: Fondation Hardt. ——. 1983. Empire and City, Augustus to Julian: Obligations, Excuses and Status. JRS 73:76–86. ——. 1983. Epigraphy. In Sources for Ancient History, edited by M.Crawford. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——. 1993. The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.-A.D. 337. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mitchell, Stephen. 1999. The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagan, Jews, and Christians. In Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, edited by P.Athanassiadi and M.Frede. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bibliography

201

Müller-Rettig, Brigitte. 1990. Der Panegyricus des Jahres 310 auf Konstantin den Grossen. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Nachtergael, Georges. 1977. Les Galates en Grèce et les Soteria de Delphes: Recherches d’histoire et d’epigraphie hellenistiques. Brussels: Palais des Académies. Nijf, O.M.van. 1997. The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East. Amsterdam: J.C.Gieben. ——. 2000. Inscriptions and Civic Memory in the Roman East. In The Afterlife of Inscriptions: Reusing, Rediscovering, and Revitalizing Ancient Inscriptions, edited by Alison E.Cooley. BICS Supp. 75. London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London. Nock, A.D. 1933. Conversion: The Old and New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ——. 1972. The Roman Army and the Roman Religious Year. In Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, edited by Z.Stewart, vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press. First published 1945. ——. 1972. Soter and Euergetes. In Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, edited by Z.Stewart, vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press. First published 1951. Nutton, V. 1978. The Beneficial Ideology. In Imperialism in the Ancient World, edited by P.D.A.Garnsey and C.R.Whittaker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Olávari, Emilio. 1986. Excavaciones en el edificio publico romano junto al Cardo Maximus, Gerasa, 1983. In Jerash Archaeological Project, 1981–1983, edited by Fawzi Zayadine. Amman: Department of Antiquities. Orlin, Eric M. 1997. Temples, Religion, and Politics in the Roman Republic. Leiden: Brill. Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. 1995. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. Pflaum, H.-G. 1952. La fortification de la ville d’Adraha d’Arabie (259–260 a 274–275) d’après des inscriptions récemment découvertes. Syria 29:307–30. Piccirillo, Michele. 1989. Chiese e mosaici di Madaba. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press. Pollard, Nigel. 2000. Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians in Roman Syria. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Prentice, William Kelly. 1902. Fragments of an Early Christian Liturgy in Syrian Inscriptions. TAPA 33:81–100. Price, S.R.F. 1984. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Prosopographia Imperii Romani saec. I. II. III. 1987–89. Edited by Paul de Rohen and Hermann Dessau. Berlin: G.Reimeri. Pugliese Carratelli, G. 1953. Cuius Nomen Deus Scit. Studi mediolatini e volgari 1: 193–96. Quass, Friedemann. 1982. Zur politischen Tätigkeit der munizipalen Aristokratie des griechischen Ostens in der Kaiserzeit. Historia 31:188–213. Rapp, Claudia. 2000. The Elite Status of Bishops in Late Antiquity in Ecclesiastical, Spiritual, and Social Contexts. Arethusa 33:379–99. Rees, Roger. 2002. Layers of Loyalty in Latin Panegyric, A.D. 289–307. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reich, Ronny. 1996. God Knows Their Names: Mass Christian Grave Revealed in Jerusalem. Biblical Archaeology Review 22.2:26–33, 60. Reitzenstein, Richard. 1978. Hellenistic Mystery-Religions. Translated by John E.Steely. Pittsburg: Pickwick Press. Reynolds, J.M. 1962. Vota Pro Salute Principis. PBSR 30:33–36. Rhodes, P.J. 1997. The Decrees of the Greek States. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rigsby, Kent J. 2000. A Suppliant at Gerasa. Phoenix 54:99–106. Rives, J.B. 1999. The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire. JRS 89:135–54. Robert, Louis. 1937. Etudes anatoliennes. Paris: E.de Boccard. Rose, C.B. 1997. Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the JulioClaudian Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bibliography

202

Rouse, W.H.D. 1975. Greek Votive Offerings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902; reprint, New York: Arno Press. Rüpke, Jörg. 1995. Kalender und Offentlichkeit: Die Geschichte der Repräsentation und religiösen Qualifikation von Zeit in Rom. Berlin: W.de Gruyter. Saller, Richard. 1994. Patriarchy, Property, and Death in the Roman Family. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Salzman, Michele R. 1990. On Roman Time: The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sánchez, P. 2001. L’amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes: Recherches sur son rôle historique, des origines au IIe siècles de notre ère. Stuttgart: F.Steiner. Sartre, Maurice. 1985. Le peuplement et le développement du Hauran antique a la lumière des inscriptions grecques et latines. In Hauran I: Recherches archéologiques sur la Syrie du Sud a l’époque hellenistique et romaine, vol. 1. Paris: P.Geuthner. ——. 1991. L’Orient romain: Provinces et sociétés provincales en Méditerranée orientale d’Auguste aux Sévères (31 avant J.-C.-235 après J.-C.). Paris: Éditions du Seuil. ——. 1996. Le progrès de la citoyenneté romaine dans les provinces romaines de Syrie et d’Arabie sous le Haute-Empire. In Roman Onomastics in the Greek East: Social and Political Aspects, edited by A.D.Rizakis. Athens: Research Center for Greek and Roman Antiquity. Schalit, A. 1969. König Herodes: Der Mann und sein Werk. Berlin: De Gruyter. Schmidt, Inga. 1995. Hellenistische Statuenbasen. Archäologische Studien, Band 9. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Schürer, Emil. 1979. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135). Revised and Edited by G.Vermes, F.Millar, and M.Black. Edinburgh: Clark. Schwarte, K.-H. 1977. Salus Augusta Publica: Domitian und Trajan als Heilbringer des Staates. In Bonner Festgabe Johannes Straub. Bonn: Rheinland-Verlag. Seigne, J. 1985. Le sanctuaire de Zeus a Jerash. Syria 62:287–95. ——. 1992. Jérash romaine et byzantine: Développement urbain d’une ville provinciale orientale. In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan IV, edited by M.Zaghloul et al. Amman: Department of Antiquities. Selinger, Reinhard. 2002. The Mid-Third-Century Persecutions of Decius and Valerian. Frankfurt am Main: P.Lang. Setton, Kenneth M. 1941. Christian Attitude Towards the Roman Emperor in the Fourth Century. New York: Columbia University Press. Shaked, Shaul. 1995. ‘For the Sake of the Soul’: A Zoroastrian Idea in Transmission into Islam. In From Zoroastrian Iran to Islam: Studies in Religious History and Intercultural Contacts. Variorum Collected Studies Series. Aldershot: Variorum. First publish 1990. Sherwin-White, A.N. 1966. The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sourdel, Dominique. 1952. Les cultes du Hauran a l’époque romaine. Paris: P.Geuthner. Speidel, Michael P. 1992. The Soldiers’ Servants. In Roman Army Studies, vol. 2. Stuttgart: J.C.Gieben. Talbert, Richard J.A. 1984. The Senate of Imperial Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ——. ed. 2000. The Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Teixidor, Javier. 1977. The Pagan God: Popular Religion in the Greco-Roman Near East. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Trombley, Frank. 1997. War and Society in Rural Syria c. 502–613: Observations on the Epigraphy. BMGS 21:154–209. Trout, Dennis E. 2001. Lex and Iussio: The Feriale Campanum and Christianity in the Theodosian Age. In Law, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity, edited by Ralph W.Mathisen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bibliography

203

Veyne, Paul. 1990. Bread and Circuses: Historical Sociology and Political Pluralism. Abridged with Introduction by O.Murray. Translated by B.Pearce. New York: A.Lane. Waldstein, Wolfgang. 1986. Operae Libertorum: Untersuchungen zur Dienstpflicht freigelassener Sklaven. Stuttgart: F.Steiner. Warner, David A. 2001. Ritual and Memory in the Ottonian Reich: The Ceremony of Adventus. Speculum 76:255–83. Webster, Graham. 1969. The Roman Imperial Army. London: Black. Weinstock, Stefan. 1971. Divus Julius. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weitzmann, Kurt. 1941. The Iconography of the Reliefs from the Martyrion. In Antioch-on-theOrontes. Vol. 3, The Excavations 1937–1939, edited by Robert Stillwell. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Welles, C.B. 1970. The Gods of Dura-Europos. In Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben: Festschrift für Franz Altheim zum 6.10.1968, vol. 2. Berlin: De Gruyter. Wharton, Annabel Jane. 1995. Refiguring the Post Classical City: Dura Europos, Jerash, Jerusalem, and Ravenna. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Willems, Pierre Gaspard Hubert. 1888. Le droit public romain. 6th ed. Louvain: Ch. Peeters. Williams, Margaret. 1999. The Contribution of Jewish Inscriptions to the Study of Judaism. In Cambridge Ancient History of Judaism, vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Winkler, Lorenz. 1995. Salus: Vom Staatskult zur politischen Idee: Eine archäologische Untersuchung. Archäologie und Geschichte Bd. 4. Heidelberg: Verlag Archäologie und Geschichte. Winnefeld, H. 1923. Christentum. In Baalbek: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1898 bis 1905, vol. 2, edited by T.Wiegand. Berlin and Leipzig: De Gruyter. Woolf, Greg. 1996. Monumental Writing and the Expansion of Roman Society in the Early Empire. JRS 86:22–39. ——. 2000. Literacy. In The Cambridge Ancient History. 2nd ed. Vol. 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zanker, Paul. 1988. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Translated by A.Shapiro. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Index

A Abila, 51, 56, 123, 124, 137 Abortion, 75 Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs, 34–36 Actuarius, 52 Adonis, 73, 98, 101 Adraha (Dera), 50, 51, 52, 62, 131, 132, 143 Aelianus, Flavius, 50 Aemilianus, Asellius, 50, 51, 54 Aerita (Ahire), 50, 142 Africa, North, 112 Africa Proconsularis, 118 Agathê Tychê, 74, 106 Aglibôl, 73 Agonothetês, 104, 107, 109 Agoranomos, 56, 104, 107 Agrippa I, 108–109 Aila, 103 Aleppo, 81, 178 Alexander III, the Great, 24 Alexandria, 73, 91 Almoundaros, Flavius, 84 Altars, 75, 99, 110, 111 Anatolia, 90 Ando, Clifford, 116 Androna (El-Anderin), 82, 174 Anonymous dedicators, 82, 84, 111 Antioch, 64, 67, 88, 91 Antoninus Pius, emperor, 5, 53, 55, 106 Antony, Marc, 25 Apamea, 9, 53, 90, 91, 144, 180, 181 Aphlad, 98, 99–100 Aphrodisias, 118 Aphrodite, 70, 96 Apollo, 106 Apostolic Constitutions, 86 Aramaic, formula “for life,” 3, 4, 21, 99, 118 Archibômistês, 104 Archontes, 55 Aretalogies, 73 Arsous, 170 Artemis, 33, 54, 74, 98, 106 Arval Brothers, 25–26, 39–40, 103, 112, 115

Index Ascalon, 90, 92, 178, 179 Asia Minor, 3, 112, 119 Assos, 26 Asylum, 90, 104 Atargatis, 74, 98 Athena, 74 Athila (Atil), 44, 118, 130, 132, 144 Atlit, Bay of, 179 Attalus II, 24 Augustus, 23–26, 29, 39, 67, 95, 108 Auranitis (Jebel Druz), 50 Aurelius, Marcus, emperor, 5, 6, 50, 54, 106 Ayoun Mousa, 165, 173 Azzanathkona, 74, 98, 101 B Baal, 74, 103 Baalshamin, 74 Bab el-Oued, 177 Bassah, 83, 165 Baumann, Peter, 20, 89, 90 Beard, Mary, 40, 44, 116 Bekaa Valley, 21, 71, 78, 95–97, 101, 118 Bel, 74, 98 Bel-Marcod, 77, 79 Beneficiarius, 53, 96 Berytus (Beirut), 138, 165 Bet Ras, 48, 149 Bet Safafa, 81, 172 Bet Shean, see Skythopolis (Bet Shean) Bettir, 171 Bible, 88 Acts, 87 Luke, 87, 88 1 Th., 87 Psalms, 33, 111 Romans, 33, 87 Bielman, Anne, 24 Blat, 124 Bona Fortuna, see Agathê Tychê Bouleutês, 54–55, 57, 78, 103, 104 Bostra, 43, 50, 52, 53, 73, 129, 136, 139, 148 Bowersock, Glen, 105 Brad, 85, 165 Braziher, 151 Brennos, 24 Britain, 112, 118 Bronze, church objects, 81, 82, 83 Btedel, 71, 154 Burg Heidar, 150 Burkert, Walter, 19

205

Index

206

C Caesarea Maritima, 90, 108, 179 Calendars, 26, 37, 101, 106 Caligula, emperor, see Gaius Caliphate, 112 Caracalla, emperor, 1, 44, 52, 53, 54, 55, 106 Carthage, 35 Cassius, Avidius, 50, 51, 54 Censitor, 62 Centurions, 50–51, 54, 55, 77, 101 Christianity; see also women, as dedicators art, 21 bishops, 62, 63, 110, 111 Christ, 19, 20, 21 church, 10, 11, 19, 20, 81, 82–84, 93, 97, 110–112 clergy, 62, 81, 82, 86, 111 eternal salvation, 19, 20, 87–89, 93 liturgy, 20, 21, 63, 80, 81, 83, 84, 86, 87–90, 93 martyrs, 59, 117 monasteries, 11, 19, 93 persecution, 27, 33, 36, 59 prayers for emperor and empire, 30–32, 36–37, 45, 62–63, 117 prayers for personal salvation, 81 rise of, 3, 59 sin, 20 Chrysostom, John, 63, 86 Church Objects, see bronze; silver Cicero, M.Tullius, 25, 67 Cilicia, 89 Claudius, emperor, 55 Coins, 5, 67–68, 117 Collectives, 18, 43, 53–54, 115 agricultural, 54, 105 cities, 53 economic, 105 religious, 105 tribes, 54 villages, 54 Commodus, emperor, 1, 5, 51, 54, 104, 106 Commodus, L.Ceionius, 49, 105 Constantine, emperor, 21, 36, 45, 60, 61, 67 Constantinople, 63, 86 Constantius II, emperor, 63 Cornelianus, L.Attidius, 50, 53 Corona civica, 25, 67 Councilors, see Bouleutês Councils, city, 61–62, 96 Cybele, 24

Index

207

D Dacia, 118 Damascus, 81, 103 Danube, 112 Dating inscriptions, problems in, 80 Dea Syria, 97 Decurio (military), 51, 101, 107 Decurio (municipal), see Bouleutês Dedications for the salvation of the emperor, Appendix salvation, concord (harmonia), 152–153 salvation, concord, prosperity (eudaimmonia), 153 salvation, fortune (tychê), safety, 151 salvation, health (hygeia), 153–154 salvation, return (epanodos), 154 salvation, safety, concord (harmonia), 152 salvation, safety (diamonê), 148–151 salvation, safety (incolumitas), 151 salvation, safety, power (kratos), 151 salvation (salus), 135–140 salvation (sôtêria), 121–135 salvation, victory (nikê), 140–147 salvation, victory, safety (diamonê), 148 salvation, victory (victoria), 147–148 Dedications for personal salvation, Appendix Christian of benefactors, 166–168, 170 and forgiveness of sins, 168, 175 and in fulfillment of a vow (euchê), 174–176 and health (hygeia), 156, 178 and help (boêtheia), 177 and memory (mnêmê), 172–173 and as an offering (prosphora), 173–174 and peace (eirênê) and longevity (makroêmereusis), 170 of patrons, 177 and repose (anapausis), 169–170, 171, 173, 175, 176–177 salvation (sôtêria), 161–166 and succor (antilêpsis), 171–172, 173 Jewish and memory (mnêmê), 180–181 salvation (sôtêria), 178–180 Deir, 171 Deir Dabbane, 174 Deir el-Adas, 169 Deir el-Ahman, 71, 97, 160 Deir el-Qala, 71, 77, 79, 140, 157, 160 Deir Labas, 71, 161 Delphi, see Sôtêria festivals Deus Connarus, 78 Dhiban, 150 Diamonê, see imperial ideology

Index

208

Dijkstra, Klaas, 76, 98 Diocletian, emperor, 50, 59, 67 Dionysias (Suweida), 73, 76, 128, 134 Disloyalty, 30, 32, 34, 118; see also loyalty Djeneine, 159 Dmer, 52, 55, 57, 133, 134 Domitian, 53, 105, 107 Domna, Julia, 52, 54 Downey, Glanville, 88 Dura Europos, 8, 21, 26, 50, 51, 70, 71, 73, 76, 77, 78, 95, 98–102, 109, 112, 140, 147, 148, 151, 154, 155–156, 161 Durbah, 159 E Ecdippa (Achziv), 45, 146 Eden, 11 Egypt, 3, 40, 108, 118, 135 Ein el-Gedide, 171 Ein Fattir, 167 Ekdikos, 57 El-Afine, 153 El-Ayin, 127 El-Barduneh, 85, 174 El-Bire, 162 El-Burdj, 165 Eleutheropolis, 130 Elites, 3, 18, 41, 49, 72, 81, 84, 92, 112, 115, 116, 119 El-Michrife, 158 El-Mushaqqar, 142 El-Mushennef, 50, 51, 131, 143, 146, 154 El-Rhayel, 175 Emesa (Homs), 71, 158 Emperor, see imperial ideology Epanodos, see imperial ideology Ephesus, 118 Epigraphic habit, 5, 62, 70, 95, 116, 117 Epiphania (Hama), 175 Epitropos, 55 Esbous, 81, 173 Et-Tehh, 175 Eudaimonia, see imperial ideology Eusebius, 36, 59 F Family, 21, 41, 42, 76, 77, 78, 79, 84–85, 91–93, 96, 104, 109–110, 115, 119 children, 19, 53, 71, 76, 77, 78, 81, 84, 85, 91–92,99, 111, 115 emperor’s children, 33, 47, 101, 105 Ferkan, 150 Festivals, 27–30, 57, 101, 112; see also Gerasa (Jerash)

Index

209

Fink, Robert, 103, 107 Flamininus, T.Quinctius, 25 Foerster, Werner, 17 Fohrer, Georg, 17 Freedmen, 43, 56, 77, 96, 101 G Gaius, emperor, 34–35 Galerius, Edict of, 36–37 Gallienus, emperor, 36 Gaza, 90, 179 Gdita, 48, 96, 138 Genius, 32–33, 35, 101 George, Saint, 81, 83 Gerasa (Jerash), 8, 17, 20, 21, 32–33, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 73, 95, 118, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 128, 131, 132, 133, 137, 149, 151, 152, 153, 164, 169 Christians, 110–112 civic pride, 107, 112 festival for the salvation of Trajan, 107–109 Gerrenus, T.Flavius, 104, 107–109 imperial cult, 103–104 imperial officials, 105 location, 103 magistrates, 104–105 religion, 106 South Theater, 105, 106, 107, 108 Temple of Artemis, 105, 106 Temple of Zeus Olympios, 103–104, 106 Gerizim, Mount, 163 Germany, 18 Germer-Durand, E., 20 Geta, emperor, 1, 44, 53, 54 Gibbon, Edward, 116 Gordian III, emperor, 27, 50, 53, 96 Graffiti, 101 Greek Anthology, 66 Gymnasiarch, 55, 104 H Hadad, 74 Hadaranes, 97 Hadrian, emperor, 5, 48, 51, 53, 54, 95, 104, 105 Hammameh, 122 Hammara (Majdal Anjar), 70, 71, 157 Harbata, 71, 97, 157 Harper, G.M., 55 Harran, 133 Hatra, 3, 99 Hauran, 71, 81 Hebbe, 71, 157 Hebran, 4, 51, 53, 57, 118, 124, 128, 130

Index

210

Hêgoumenos, 85 Heilsvorstellung, 18 Heliopolis (Baalbek), 21,48, 52, 53, 55, 56, 71, 77, 78, 95–97, 101, 112, 127, 135, 136, 137, 140, 147, 148, 159, 160, 161 Helios/Shamash, 74, 99, 112 Hellenistic diplomacy, 24 imperial ideology, 24–25 kingdoms, 3 period, 8 veneration of saviors, 23–24 Hera, 105, 106 Herake, 170 Hermel, 71, 160 Hermon, Mount, 43, 142 Herod the Great, 108–109 Herodian, 1, 2, 166 Hesban, 164, 167 Hezre, 145 Hierapolis, 71, 93, 154 Hierocles, Sossianus, 50, 62 Hierotamias, 53, 55, 57 Hilaritas, 1 Holy Land, 10, 20, 71, 89 Horvath Hesheq, 11, 71, 86, 159, 162, 169 Huarte, 173 Hygeia, see imperial ideology Hyper anapauseôs, 86, 88 Hyper mnêmês, 10, 88; see also memory I Iahribôl, 73 Identity audience of inscriptions, 17 dedicators’ identity, 18, 39 motivations/contexts for dedication for the emperor, 44–48 names in dedications for personal salvation, 72, 82, 91 names in dedications for the emperor, 42–43 occupations in dedications for the emperor, 43–44 social identity, 41–42, 48, 54, 57, 76, 119 status, 47–48, 78, 84–86, 91, 99, 116 Imma (Al-Berke), 166 Imperial ideology, 18, 23, 57–58, 106; see also dedications emperor as savior, 18, 23–24, 26, 29, 54, 61, 67, 104, 109, 117 health and safety, 118 imperial cult, 56, 103–104, 117 salutary ideology, 18, 23, 37, 40, 41, 50, 57–58, 59, 60, 67, 79, 92, 96, 101, 102, 115, 116, 118 salvation and concord, 5, 103 salvation and health, 5

Index salvation and return, 5 salvation and safety, 101 salvation and victory, 5, 20, 47, 52, 62, 80, 88 salvation, concord, and prosperity, 5 salvation, fortune, and safety, 5 salvation, safety, and concord, 5 salvation, victory, and safety, 5 Incolumitas, see imperial ideology Isis, 73, 75, 105, 106 Islam, 3 Is-Sanamen, 143 J Jalabert, Louis, 60, 88 Janneus, Alexander, 103 Jerusalem, 20, 81, 103, 136, 147, 162, 168 Jews and Judaism; see also women, as dedicators archisynagôgos, 91 dedications for emperor, 47 dedications for personal salvation, 90–92 dietary laws, 34 God, 35 Jewish war, 29, 104 synagogues, 9, 10, 18, 20, 47, 90–93 texts, 17 John the Lydian, 37 Josephus, 35, 47, 108 Julianus, Furnius, 50 Juno, 48, 96 Jupiter, 31, 39 Optimus, 74, 79 Optimus Maximus Conservator, 52, 101 Optimus Maximus Dolichenus, 101 Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus, 77, 95, 96, 97 Justinian, emperor, 4, 7, 64, 90 K Kafer, 153 Kafr ed-Dik, 54, 129 Kafr Kama, 85, 162 Kafr Lab, 145 Kafr Nabo, 145 Kanatha (Qanawat), 50, 53, 55, 129, 130, 140, 159 Kapropera (El-Bara), 174 Kastron Mefaa (Umm er-Rass), 161, 164 Khibbutz Shoval, 163 Khirbet Attir, 85, 171 Khirbet el-Beiyudat, 166 Khirbet el-Makhrum, 171 Khirbet Zacharia, 83, 169

211

Index

212

Khisfin, 163, 172 Koser il-Hallabat, 50, 139 Krad ad-Dasiniya, 177 L Lactantius, 36 Lassus, Jean, 65 Late Republic, 23–25, 29, 67 Law Codex Theodosianus, 63–64 contracts, 64 wills, 48, 53 Ledja, 43 Legates, 29–30, 49–50, 55, 105, 107 Legatus, see legates Levi, Doro, 66 Libanius, 66 Libellus, see petitions Licinius, 36 Literacy, 17 Littmann, Enno, 57 Liturgy, see Christianity Livia, 108 Livy, 23 Loyalty, 18, 23, 26, 27–28, 31, 34–35, 38, 39, 42, 54, 57, 59, 76, 96, 102, 103, 107, 109, 112, 115, 116, 117, 119; see also disloyalty Lucian, 93 M Maale Adummim, 162 Madaba, 11, 43, 86, 164, 167 Magic, amulets, 19, 75, 90 Malach-Bel, 73 Marcellinus, Ammianus, 64 Martial, Minicius, 50 Mary, 82, 86 Masi, 135 Mathews, Thomas, 21 Maximianopolis (Shaqqa), 151 Maximinus Thrax, emperor, 106, 118 Mekhayyat, 85, 164, 168, 169, 173, 174 Melihet el-Atasch, 166 Memory; see also hyper mnêmês “civic memory,” 73 place, 22, 93, 104 Menander Rhetor, 63 Messiah, 17 Michael, Saint, 90 Mithra/Sol Invictus, 101

Index

213

Mithraeum, 50, 51, 101 Modestus, Q.Aiacius, 49 Mosaics, 10, 81, 83, 85, 91 Moses, 11 Mothana (Imtan), 45, 146 Mouterde, René, 88 Mumsiyye, 81, 162 Mutatio Heldua (Khalde), 81, 178 Mystery religions, 19, 73 N Nabatiyeh, 176 Nahal Og, 163 Nahariya, 163 Names, see identity Namti, 3 Nanaïa/Artemis, 24 Nazala (Qaryatain), 157 Nebo, Mount, 11, 81, 120 Nemesis, 56 Nero, emperor, 26 Nessana, 64, 81, 83, 162, 163, 168, 169, 178 Niha, 71, 97, 137, 157, 180 Nikê, see imperial ideology Nilometer, 91 Nock, Arthur Darby, 19 Nutton, V., 37 O Oboda (Avdat), 163 Octavian, 25 Origen, 33–34, 36 Orontes River, 81 Ostia, 47 Ourim el-Joz, 158 Ovid, 75, 87 P Paetus, Thrasea, 26 Palma, Cornelius, 30, 50 Palmyra, 3, 8, 9, 50, 60, 62, 71, 73, 77, 102, 141, 157, 158 Paneas/Caesarea Philippi (Banias), 56, 124, 125 Panegyrici Latini, 61 Patrons/patronage, 76, 77, 78, 83, 86, 96, 98, 99, 119 Pergamon, 24 Persia Parthian king of, 6, 98 Sasanian king of, 7 Personifications, 65, 68 Pertinax, emperor, 79 Pessinus, 24

Index

214

Petitions, 27 Petra, 3, 43, 49, 53, 73, 135, 138–139 Phaina (Mismiyyeh), 50, 51, 54, 118, 141, 142, 143, 144 Philadelphia (Amman), 32–33, 50, 83, 84, 126, 133, 170 Philip V, 25 Philip, emperor, 55 Philo, 34–35, 47, 73 Philotimia, 47, 59, 107, 109 Pilgrims, 81, 96 Pliny the Younger, 27–30, 33, 48, 79, 103 Plumbarius, 56, 96 Plutarch, 25 Polybius, 25 Polycarp, 32 Pompey, 103 Praeses, 50 Prayers, 19, 30–32, 39, 45; see also Christianity Prentice, William K., 8, 20, 57, 80, 88 Price, Simon, 61 Priene, see Sôtêria festivals Priests, pagan; see also imperial ideology of Dionysus, 56 of Pan, 56 of Theos, 78 Procurator, 50, 105 Q Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, 49 Qizion, 134 Qreye, 165 Quweisme, 164, 171 R Raha, 153 Ramat Aviv, 179 Ras Baalbek, 71, 157 Reitzenstein, Richard, 19 Relationship between dedications for emperor and for personal salvation, 78–79, 92–93, 97, 116, 118–119 Relics, 83; see also spoliation Res gestae divi Augusti, 25–26, 49 Rey-Coquais, Jean-Paul, 96 Reynolds, J.M., 39 Rituals, 92 Roman Army, 50–53, 101–102 soldiers, 52–53 veterans, 52–53, 96, 107 Romanization, 113

Index Rome, 18, 34, 39, 49, 64 Rufinus, Coccienus, 50 Russell, James, 89 Ruweha, 172 Ruweida, 175 S Sachama (Zaïdal), 141 “Sacred Horseman,” 75 Sahin, 71, 157 Sahwet el-Khudr, 53, 57, 127 Salkhad, 50, 142 Salus, goddess, 18 Salus Augusta, 18, 26, 67, 115 Salus Augusti, 18, 26, 67 Salus Publica, 18, 23–24, 26, 39, 67 Salusvorstellung, 18, 37 Salutary ideology, see imperial ideology Sarapis, 105, 106 Sartre, Maurice 41, 43 Secular Games, 49 Séjourné, Paul, 20 Senaim, 142 Septimius Severus, emperor, 5, 30, 47, 54, 101,105 Shaarah, 129 Sheba/Philipopolis, 50, 51, 55, 133, 144 Sidon, 165, 176 Silver, church objects, 81, 82, 83, 85 Antioch Treasure, 176 Hama Treasure, 174, 175, 176 Phela Treasure, 166, 174, 175, 177 Riha Treasure, 170, 176 Stuma Treasure, 175, 176 Sinai, Mount, 2, 7, 81, 135, 163, 166, 169 Siyagha, 164, 172 Skythopolis (Bet Shean), 73, 90, 92, 173, 179 Slavery in dedications for the emperor, 56, 96 manumission, 24 Sobata (Shivta), 163 Sol Invictus, see Mithra Soran, 165 Sôtêria festivals, 24 Delphi Priene, 24 Sôtheis, 4, 76 Speculator, 52, 96 Spoleto, 79 Spoliation, 10, 60, 71, 97, 110–112 Spondilla, 47 Stratêgos (municipal), 55

215

Index Strator, 52 Status, social, see identity Stuart, Duane, 57 Suman, 177 Sur, 76, 158 Susa, 24 Sybilline Books, 49 Synod of Ariminum, 63 T Tacitus, 49 Tafas, 47, 146 Tayibeh, 127 Tell Ade, 145 Tell Minis, 165, 174 Tell Radra, 125 Tertullian, 30–32, 36, 45 Tesserarius, 52 Tharba, 76, 158 Theandrios, 44 Thea Ourania, 106 Thelsea (Khan il-Maaluliyeh), 52 Theos Arabikos Epêkoos, 106 Theos Hagia Pakeida, 105, 106 Theos Hagios Arabikos, 106 Tiberius, emperor, 4, 103–104 Theodore, Saint, 110 Thomsen, Peter, 20 Trajan, emperor, 5, 6, 27–30, 55, 104, 105, 107, 109 Tribes, see collectives Tsil, 45, 145 Tychê, see Genius U Ulysses, 91 Umm al-Jimal, 43 Umm el-Baqar, 163 Umm er-Rejim, 174 Umm iz-Zetun, 54, 143 V Valerian, emperor, 36 Valerianus, M.Domitius, 50 Verus, Lucius, emperor, 6, 50, 54, 98 Verus, Martius, 50, 51, 55 Vespasian, emperor, 26 Veyne, Paul 107 Victoria, see imperial ideology Vota publica, 26–29, 37, 101, 106, 115 Vows, 72, 73, 99, 101, 105, 112

216

Index

W Wadi Abu Musa, 128 Wadi Ayn al-Kanisah, 166 Wadi Ayoun Musa, 164 Wadi el-Qelt, 167 Winkler, Lorenz, 18, 26, 37 World era, 11 Women, as dedicators, 77–78, 85, 92 Y Yabrouda, 76, 158 Yadudeh, 168 Z Zebire 54 150 Zeus, 8 Epikarpios, 51, 106 Helios, 105 Hypsistos-Epêkoos, 7, 74, 77 Kronos, 54, 106 Megistos, 51, 74, 98 Olympios, 101 Ouranios, 74 Poseidon, 106 Sôtêr, 73 Sôtêr-Phôsphoros, 76 Theos, 98 Zorava (Ezra), 44, 54, 141, 144

217

For Salvation's Sake: Provincial Loyalty, Personal Religion, and Epigraphic Production in the Roman and Late Antique Near East (Studies in Classics, Outstanding Dissertations, 3)

Recommend Documents