Датировка грекоязычных еврейских надписей на стеле из Афродисиады: гипотезы и аргументы

Статья посвящена дискуссии о датировке надписей на стеле в г. Афродисиада. Исследовательница М.Вилльямс предлагает свою датировку, основываясь на ономастических аргументах. Гораздо более обоснованными выглядят аргументы Дж.Магнесс, датировка которой основана на датах монет, обнаруженных под мозаичными полами. Дополнительная аргументация основана на том соображении, что упоминаемый в надписях термин palatinos использовался начиная с IV в. как обозначение военных или гражданских лиц, служивших при дворе; вместе с тем, закон от 418 г. ограничивал использование евреев на государственной службе и прямо предписывал евреям оставить должность палатинов по завершению их службы и запрещал им впредь занимать эту должность. Это соображение делает дату IV в. более правдоподобной.

Ключевые слова: Афродисиада, надписи, датировка, нумизматика

The Dating of the Aphrodisias stele inscriptions: hypotheses and arguments

Discussion on the dating of two Jewish inscriptions in the Greek language has lasted for a few decades. The original editors considered that the two inscriptions on the two faces of a nearly 3 metres high stele formed a single inscription, which was produced before Constitutio Antoniana (212 CE). Later this view was challenged and, after heated discussion, it became evident that there were two inscriptions on the stele with different and later dates. The last input into the discussion and the latest dates belongs to Margaret Williams. She analysed the Jewish onomasticon from three Asia Minor sites: Hierapolis, Sardis, and Aphrodisias and came to the conclusion that in these cities the Greek rendering of Hebrew names differed from the point of view of their Hebraization. The proportion of Jewish names in Sardis is greater than in Hierapolis, and in Aphrodosias, the proportion is greater than in Sardis. She explains this difference as a matter of date. In the Byzantine period, the number of Semitic names increased considerably and their Greek forms became more Hebrized. Given that the Aphrodisias onomasticon is more Hebrized than that of Sardis, the Aphrodisian inscriptions should be considerably later than the inscriptions from the Sardis synagogue, traditionally dated to the 4th century. For the Aphrodisias inscriptions she proposed dates in the fifth or even the sixth century. Williams had published her article before Jodi Magness published her study of Sardis synagogue in which she argued that the Sardis synagogue should probably be dated not to the fourth century, but to the sixth. The dating of Sardis synagogue is based on the dates of the coins under the synagogue’s mosaic floors. The excavators disregarded as intrusive all later coins even those from sealed contexts or near the edges of the floors. Magness consulted field notebooks and unpublished reports and came to the conclusion that some of the later coins from the 5th and the 6th century were in the mortar bedding of the mosaic floors. If Magness is right — and I must admit that her numismatic argument seems to me persuasive — she completely destroys the chronological conception that was proposed by Williams. Three years before William published her article, Gary Gilbert made some additional arguments for the dating of the later inscription on the stele to the fourth century. He argues that the mention of the official palatinus and three proselytes in this inscription offer a secure basis for dating this inscription to the fourth century.

Keywords: Jewish inscriptions in Greek from Aphroodisias, the Dating of Sardis synagogue, the position of palatinus in Roman imperial administration

https://doi.org/10.34680/2411-7951.2019.6(24).16

 Article.PDF

←  →