The Proclus inscription at Dura

Greek Learning Greek
1

The following is a sketch of a Greek inscription that I’d like to get some further information upon. It was discovered at Dura Europos and is dated to the early to mid 3rd century.

A description of this inscription is provided in _"Pre-Constantinian nomina sacra in a Mosaic and Church Graffiti "_by James R. Wicker (Southwestern Journal of Theology • Volume 52 • Number 1 • Fall 2009}

[indent]Number 18 is a graffito below and to the right of number 17.
It sits above the scene of David and Goliath and below the scene of Paradise.
The letters fit within a decorative green band that frames the David and Goliath scene.88
Its length is about 1.3 m, and the letters are large, coarse, and square: 4–5 cm.

It contains the nomina sacra: ΧΝ ΙΝ.
It reads ΤΟΝ ΧΝ ΙΝ ΥΜΕΙΝ ΜΝ[Η]CΚΕC[ΘΕ] [ΠΡ]ΟΚΛΟΥ,
“to our Christ Jesus. Remember Proklus.”
Proclus may have been the benefactor. Or,
it could be “Remind Christ of Proclus among yourselves,”
a call to specific intercessory prayer.[/indent]

I would like to start with three questions about the interpretation of this inscription.

Firstly being Greekless I cannot even find the Greek words for “remember” or “remind” to compared them to what I can see in the image above. I guess I can make out “Proklus” at the end, but everything else is unclear and if someone could put these words in lower case greek that I can look up and check it would be a great first step.

Secondly, I also understand that within the Greek words that form this inscription there are what has been identified as “nomina sacra” or abbreviated names. Having said this, I would like to explore whether there may be any alternative explanation for the terms “XN IN” that do not involve the Christian nomina sacra system.

Thirdly - because this is a partial inscription, with bits missing - I would like to ask whether anyone might come up with a different emendation of the Greek letters that are missing from the inscription in order to derive any number of alternative Greek words and their corresponding translation.

Thanks for any information!

2

There is no chance whatsoever that χν ιν are anything other than the Christian nomina sacra for Χριστὸν Ἱησοῦν. in lower case, using modern orthography and word divisions:

τον χν ιν υμειν μν…σκεσ… οκλου (note the spelling variation υμειν for υμιν and the lovely lunate sigmas in the original).

There is a science to this. Epigraphists study thousands of such inscriptions and know Greek sufficiently well to be able to fill in the gaps, much as someone whose first language is English would clearly recognise a mangled poster with the words “esident enn…dy” as President Kennedy." The reconstruction and reading of the inscription given by our source really can be nothing else.

3

Thanks for that.

There is no chance whatsoever that χν ιν are anything other than the Christian nomina sacra for Χριστὸν Ἱησοῦν.

Characteristically the Christian nomina sacra have an overbar above them.
In a 1940 monography Michael Avi-Yonah wrote:

p.27

  1. The earliest example of contracted nomina sacra on inscriptions are the Dura-Europos graffiti in the chapel, dated A.D. 232-3 (EDE 1931/2, p.241). These have no mark over them. Such unmarked nomina sacra continue to crop up in the course of centuries, but they probably represent little more than individual freaks; it seems, however, probable that the system as described by Traube was not adopted for inscriptions before the 4th century.

Michael Avi-Yonah,
Abbreviations in Greek Inscriptions
Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine
(Jerusalem: Government of Palestine, 1940)

As reprinted in
Abbreviations in Greek Inscriptions
Al. N. Oikonomides
Professor of Classics
Loyola University
Chicargo. Illinois
ARES Publishing 1974


There is a science to this. Epigraphists study thousands of such inscriptions and know Greek sufficiently well to be able to fill in the gaps, much as someone whose first language is English would clearly recognise a mangled poster with the words “esident enn…dy” as President Kennedy."

Thanks. Yes I do understand this.

τον χν ιν υμειν μν…σκεσ… οκλου

I can see Proclus and the “nomina sacra” but I cannot put the other elements of the inscription into its translation. (Including the grammar … like which words are nouns or verbs with a case.

  • how does one translate “τον”
  • what are the words … " υμειν" and “μν…σκεσ.” (which is “remember” or “remind”? IDK.)

Many thanks for the assistance here!

The reconstruction and reading of the inscription given by our source really can be nothing else.

Thanks for your confirmation on this. I am aware that although Avi-Yonah lists χν ιν as nomina sacra he does point out that they are not present with the overmark like this

____
χν ιν

and that he calls them “individual freaks”. {Perhaps he calls them this because they represent exceptions to Traube’s theory of the nomina sacra - a system using an “over-bar”? ]

It was for this reason that I was wondering whether in this case there may be a possibility that the χν ιν could represent something else, and what that “something else” could possibly be.

I am at a loss here because as my questions above clearly indicate, I cannot read Greek and cannot understand the possible contexts of the χν ιν

4

ΤΟΝ ΧΝ ΙΝ ΥΜΕΙΝ ΜΝ[Η]CΚΕC[ΘΕ] [ΠΡ]ΟΚΛΟΥ

τὸν = article, masculine accusative
ΧΝ = χριστόν, Christ, masculine accusative (ΧΣ would be nominative)
ΙΝ = Ἰησοῦν, Jesus, masculine accusative (ΙΣ would be nominative)
ὑμεῖν = ὑμῖν = 2nd person pronoun, pl., dative
μνήσκεσθε = μιμνήσκεσθε = remember, verb 2nd person present imperative middle
Πρόκλου = Proklos, genitive

The article (the word “the” in English) is often present in Greek where it’s not in English. “The Socrates,” and so on. Compare Colossians 2:6 Ὡς οὖν παρελάβετε τὸν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον, ἐν αὐτῷ περιπατεῖτε

It is unusual that they do not have an overbar. But Greek doesn’t really abbreviate anything (unlike Latin) outside the tradition of nomina sacra. And these are very typical. Here is ΧΝΙΝ in a 4th century manuscript of the above Colossians verse:

EDIT:

I do find the word order a little unusual. My first guess (though I don’t know as much as the people who have actually studied these inscriptions) would have been that the accusative is an oath. “By Christ, your Jesus, remember Proklos!”

I suppose it is possible that ΙΝ is not Ἰησοῦν, but instead a phonetic variant for ΕΝ. And this is actually what your second translation has, and then the meaning would be “By Christ among you, remember Proklos!” I find this pretty unlikely. But someone who probably knows better than me thought that it was possible.

5

“Individual freaks” is simply a colorful way of saying that occasionally we find text or inscriptions where the overline is absent, but that the NS are still obviously intended. I wouldn’t read to much into the phrase.

6

How often does one find ιν for ἐν? Unlike the itacism vowels, the pronunciation difference between ι and ε remains consistent right up through modern Greek. I did a search through my transcribed versions of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and various papyri collections, but could find no such example. Maybe someone else has better data? It does appear as a dialectical variant:

Arc. and Cypr. ἰν IG5(2).3.5, al., ICS217.9, 27; also sts. in Crete, Inscr.Cret.2.xii16 Ab 2, 3 (Eleutherna, vi B.C.), 2.v 1.5 (Axos, vi/v B.C.). (LSJ)

But that wouldn’t be a factor in Dura-Europos, where the Greek would be solidly the Koine of late antiquity.

I like your take on the actual syntax of the inscription.

7

Many thanks !!!

The article (the word “the” in English) is often present in Greek where it’s not in English. “The Socrates,” and so on. Compare Colossians 2:6 Ὡς οὖν παρελάβετε > τὸν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν > τὸν κύριον, ἐν αὐτῷ περιπατεῖτε

It is unusual that they do not have an overbar. But Greek doesn’t really abbreviate anything (unlike Latin) outside the tradition of nomina sacra. And these are very typical. Here is ΧΝΙΝ in a 4th century manuscript of the above Colossians verse:

EDIT:

I do find the word order a little unusual. My first guess (though I don’t know as much as the people who have actually studied these inscriptions) would have been that the accusative is an oath. “By Christ, your Jesus, remember Proklos!”

I thank you for your elucidation of all this above.

I suppose it is possible that ΙΝ is not Ἰησοῦν, but instead a phonetic variant for ΕΝ. And this is actually what your second translation has, and then the meaning would be “By Christ among you, remember Proklos!” I find this pretty unlikely. But someone who probably knows better than me thought that it was possible.

Could you provide a little more background to IN as a phonetic variant for EN. What does “EN” mean? Is it related to the word “Enthusiasm”?

8

That’s what I thought. The author represents them as exceptions to Traube’s overline rule.

9

EN, ἐν, is a preposition followed by substantives in the dative case, usually translated “in” or “on,” occasionally something like “among” or other variants in English as the context might demand. Since the word following IN, ἰν, HUMEIN, is in the dative case, J. is suggesting that IN could be a spelling variant for EN (and this was also assumed in one of the two translation your source supplied in the OP). See my response above on that issue. J.s’ explanation of the syntax reading the word as the nomen sacrum is a much better explanation.

And yes, the en- in enthusiasm is a good connection:

https://www.etymonline.com/word/enthusiasm

c. 1600, from Middle French enthousiasme (16c.) and directly from Late Latin enthusiasmus, from Greek enthousiasmos “divine inspiration, enthusiasm (produced by certain kinds of music, etc.),” from enthousiazein “be inspired or possessed by a god, be rapt, be in ecstasy,” from entheos “divinely inspired, possessed by a god,” from en “in” (see en- (2)) + theos “god” (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts). It acquired a derogatory sense of “excessive religious emotion through the conceit of special revelation from God” (1650s) under the Puritans; generalized meaning “fervor, zeal” (the main modern sense) is first recorded 1716.

10

In addition to my questions above about the “EN” (EDIT: thanks for the answers) , does anyone observe (In the sketch above) the appearance of a purposeful(?) additional space prior to the first iota? There appears to be substantially more space (denoted as - ) preceding the first instance of iota in “N-I” than the second instance in “E-I”. What might this space otherwise denote within the context of the inscription - if anything?

http://www.russellcottrell.com/greek/utilities/GreekNumberConverter.htm

Finally, Is it at all possible that the (over-bar-less) “XN” might represent “χη͵” (the number 608). This extra space might be explained by a mark , after “χη͵”. “By the 608 among you, remember Proklos!” ???

Thanks for any guidance on these questions.

11

I don’t think that “608” needs a response.

Because it is interesting, here is a full-color copy of the orignal. However the sketch was made my someone with a magnifying glass, and is better than can be done even from the hi-res image.

And if you’d like to de-Christianize Dura-Europos that badly, you’ll also want to explain away these (no Greek required!):

Christ Walking on Water
Christ Healing a Paralytic

EDIT: And this was found in the town dump.

12

In chiastic response, the answer to your latter question is no. The letter is clearly a nun,* not an eta. I’ve been thinking about that space as well. We have

ΤΟΝΧΝ ΙΝΥΜΕΙΝ

It occurs to me on reflection that the spacing might indicate that the former two are taken together, and so the latter two. That would be an argument that J.'s suggestion that IN=EN might be the case.

EDIT * Nu, of course. I’ve been reviewing Hebrew lately, and I wrote nun above, a linguistic freudian slip.

13

This is above and to the left of the David and Goliath painting. It also has a space after τὸν Χριστὸν.

See page 96 of the Dura-Europos Final Report for a detailed discussion. The accusative case at the end is blamed on common confusion of case in later Greek. The τὸν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ὑμῖν formulation, which had confused me, is suggested to be the same as τὸν θεόν σοι, which is apparently common, both in pagan and Christian texts. Here is a discussion, in German, of the dative case in τὸν θεόν σοι: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40265624

However, here is the source, of the “Remind Christ of Proclus among yourselves.” See pages 241 and 284. I don’t understand why there is no discussion of ΙΝ versus ΕΝ. Perhaps, someone working from a sketch, rather than the actual image, assumed that Ι could have been an Ε with crossbars removed? Or maybe Ε → Ι is very common here, and I have never heard of it.

Still, I think that the 1967 final report, which does not reference ἐν ὑμῖν at all, would be more likely to be correct.

EDIT: Welles retraced both texts at Yale, and claims an overbar for each, which would certainly make ἐν impossible.

14



Even though there is a consensus that we are dealing with Christian nomina sacra I’d like to be able to rule out the possibility that the “XN” isn’t, in this instance, a number.

Because it is interesting, here is a > full-color copy of the orignal> . However the sketch was made my someone with a magnifying glass, and is better than can be done even from the hi-res image.

The color copy seems to be a final restoration for display (c.2000+) whereas I think the sketch was made c.1932. I have been trying without success to locate a photograph of the south wall in situ (the other walls have photographs). I would assume that the sketch, and any possible photographs may have been included in the Preliminary Report EDE 1931-2. I have not been able to find this preliminary report online.

However the sketch in the OP clearly shows no over-lines, when it should if they were visible to the artist. That no overbars were present in this preliminary report is confirmed by Avi-Yonah’s remarks.


And if you’d like to de-Christianize Dura-Europos that badly, you’ll also want to explain away these (no Greek required!):

Christ Walking on Water
Christ Healing a Paralytic

The captions summarise the artistic assessment of these murals by Yale (final report by Kraeling) and have not been substantially challenged. Another mural located in the panel directly below these has seen a range of artistic assessments - “The Women at the Tomb”, “Procession of Woman”, “Wise and Foolish Virgins”, “Women at a Wedding Tent”. Such assessment is notoriously subjective, and may suffer from confirmation bias. Unlike the David and Goliath mural, there are no captions on the figures.

The presence of the Greek nomina sacra appear to me to be the strongest evidence, in a series of different forms of evidence (murals cited by captions, water trough = baptismal font, nomina sacra), that support a Christian presence at Dura.

EDIT: And > this > was found in the town dump.

This was supposedly buried in the siege ramp a block away from the Christian building. It is a fascinating manuscript, and is also thought to witness the nomina sacra “IN”.

The Christianisation of Dura appears to have relied in part on the interpretation of the Proclus (XN IN) and Sissaeus (XPIC) inscriptions as exhibiting nomina sacra. My purpose here was to receive expert opinion the possibility of any other alternative explanations for these inscriptions from first principles that do not involve Christian nomina sacra. (Likely missing overbars).

I am grateful for all comments received. I think I can follow the IN as EN discussion on the surface but its depths elude me. I cant read German. I have the enthusiasm to learn what is possible and what is not when it involves a first-principles reconstruction of this inscription.

15

Thanks! It looked like some indication of a breather space.

Also from what I have read, Dura was extremely multicultural. Towns on the border between two empires often tend to be. A great many languages are attested there from inscriptions. Aramaic is apparently well attested.

16

Thanks for the reference to this second inscription. (#17) I was going to ask about this one as well. This is the draft information that I have gathered:

  • Sissaeus inscription

Two of the baptistery graffiti contain three clear examples of category one nomina sacra, with one suspension and two contractions, and all three containing the overbar. Number 17 is “on the south wall between the doorways, at the left of the niche. . . . A deep, coarse, graffito, length, 29 cm., height, 8 cm., letters, 1–2 cm.”84 Hopkins says the niche to the right of the inscription would have contained holy oil, used to anoint the baptismal candidate in Syrian baptisms.85

The inscription text contains the nomen sacrum ΧΡΙC.
It reads ΤΟΝ ΧΡΙC ΜΝΗCΚΕCΤΕ CΙCΕΟΝ TON ΤAΠΙΝΟΝ, [86]
and the suspended nomen sacrum in full form is ΧΡΙC(ΤΟΝ).

One rendering is “Christ (with you). Remember Sisaeus the humble.”
The accusative is an acclamation, and the “you” is understood.
It was a typical practice of early Christians to refer to themselves as “humble.” [87]
The abbreviation of Χριστόν with an overbar is not the usual form of a nomen sacrum for “Christ.”

Although “XPIC” does not seem to appear in the usual forms of nomona sacra (as admitted by Yale),
Avi-Yonah lists an example of a Greek inscription containing XPIC (with an overbar) from the 5th century.


RE: IN-EN

The accusative case at the end is blamed on common confusion of case in later Greek. The τὸν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ὑμῖν formulation, which had confused me, is suggested to be the same as τὸν θεόν σοι, which is apparently common, both in pagan and Christian texts. Here is a discussion, in German, of the dative case in τὸν θεόν σοι: > http://www.jstor.org/stable/40265624

However, > here > is the source, of the “Remind Christ of Proclus among yourselves.” See pages 241 and 284. I don’t understand why there is no discussion of ΙΝ versus ΕΝ. Perhaps, someone working from a sketch, rather than the actual image, assumed that Ι could have been an Ε with crossbars removed? Or maybe Ε → Ι is very common here, and I have never heard of it.

Dura was very multi-cultural and multi-linguistic.

Still, I think that the 1967 final report, which does not reference ἐν ὑμῖν at all, would be more likely to be correct.

Thanks for your comments on this stuff.


EDIT: Welles retraced both texts at Yale, and claims an overbar for each, which would certainly make ἐν impossible.

It may be inferred from Avi-Yonah that the Preliminary Report (5th session 1931/32) did not exhibit any overbars. They may have come from the field notes of Hopkins or others, but they do not appear to have been represented until the final report.

I would not be asking these questions if the artistic sketch in the OP showed overbars over “XNIN”. I have not seen any pictures of the Sissaeus inscription and its “XPIC”. I have read the final report (thanks for the links btw!).

I do have a question about the Sissaeus inscription. Could “XPIC” be possibly interpreted as an abbreviation of χρίστης … white-washer … the tradesman or artisan / stucco-maker ?

17

I have now realised you have linked to the Preliminary Report which I could not previously find! Thanks very much for that link. I will read it with interest.

18

ΤΟΝ ΧΝ ΙΝ ΥΜΕΙΝ ΜΝ[Η]CΚΕC[ΘΕ] [ΠΡ]ΟΚΛΟΥ

Here are the interpretations gathered together from the Preliminary Report (PR) and the Final Report (FR) and elsewhere at the moment:



"Make mention of Proclus to the Christ among you" (Hopkins, PR, p.241)

"Remember the Christ among you and Proclus" (Hopkins, PR, p.241)

“Remind Christ of Proclus among yourselves” (Hopkins and A.D. Nock, PR, p.284)

“To our Christ Jesus remember Proclus” (Pre-Constantinian nomina sacra in a Mosaic and Church Graffiti, James R. Wicker, Southwestern Journal of Theology • Volume 52 • Number 1 • Fall 2009, p.67] I included this but cannot find it explicitly cited in either the PR or the FR.

“By Christ, your Jesus, remember Proklos!” (jeidsath, Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:29 am)


A.D.NOCK and the “In yourselves” interpretation

A.D. Nock (in consultation with Hopkins) appears to be the one who has provided the “In Yourselves” interpretation (see above). If in deriving this interpretation, the “IN” is being interpreted as “in yourselves” (possibly by being perceived as a phonetic variation of “EN”), then it follows - does it not? - that A.D Nock probably did not see any overbar over the “IN”. [This is consistent with Hopkins and the PR]

That is, “EN” in yourselves is not a “nomina sacra” and an overbar would not be present.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Nock


OTHER INTERPRETATIONS?

Supposing for a moment that the abbreviations here have no overbars …

On other Greek inscriptions X has been identified as an abbreviation [1] for:

χάρις … beauty, grace, goodwill 1.(Judaism, Christianity) The grace or favor of God.
χρηστός … (khrēstós) 1.good, useful
χρόνος … • (chrónos)
χρυσά • (chrysá) = 1.neuter plural form of χρυσός ‎(chrysós‎) gold
χώρᾱ • (khṓrā) 1.location, place, spot; 2.the proper place; 3.one’s place in life;

And N has been identified as an abbreviation [2] for:

νίκα … (nika) I conquer, am victorious, overcome, prevail, subdue.
Νικάτωρ … victor
νικητής … (nikitís) -.winner, victor

Alternatives therefore may be listed as:

The grace of the victor in yourselves – remember Proclus;
the good victor in yourselves – remember Proclus;
the golden victor in yourselves – remember Proclus;
the place or time of the victor in yourselves – remember Proclus.

Remember that this is inscribed directly above the mural depicting the moment of (the future King) David’s victory over Goliath.

I would be interested in any feedback on these alternatives.

[1] Michael Avi-Yonah, Abbreviations in Greek Inscriptions, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine (Jerusalem: Government of Palestine, 1940) As reprinted in Abbreviations in Greek Inscriptions Al. N. Oikonomides, Professor of Classics Loyola University Chicargo. Illinois,ARES Publishing 1974., p.110

[2] Ibid p.87