No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Christianos in CIL iv, 679: The Possibility of an Image
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 June 2024
Abstract
There are good warrants for believing that either the word Christianos or the word Christiani, a reference to the Christians, was probably in a graffito on the wall of the atrium of the house now identified as vii.11.11 in Pompeii when Giuseppe Fiorelli excavated it in 1862. Karl Zangemeister edited it in 1871 as CIL iv, 679 and included two divergent transcriptions. In 1995, Paul Berry published a book in which he claimed that he had made an image of the word Christianos using an industrial microscope and high-intensity light. A research project to investigate that claim could be potentially useful for verifying or falsifying Berry's results.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
1 For the work of a maximalist see, e.g., Longenecker, B., The Crosses of Pompeii: Jesus Devotion in a Vesuvian Town (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016) 152–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar (on CIL iv, 679) and idem, ‘Pompeian Artifacts and Jesus-Devotion: The Contours of the Issue in the Early Twenty-First Century’, VC 73 (2019) 271–96 (the presence of Christians in Pompeii); for a sceptic cf. Hofmann, H., ‘Satorquadrat’, PWSup 15 (1978) 478–565Google Scholar, esp. 549–50. See the extensive updated bibliography of V. Weber, Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum … Voluminis quarti supplementum. Partis quartae fasciculus primus: Inscriptiones parietaria Pompeianae … Supplementi pars quarta [abbreviated as CIL iv Supp. 4.1] (ed. V. Weber, A. Varone, R. Marchionni, and J. Kepartová; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011) 1245. Below I will refer to the sources that I have found most useful – with no aspersions on the rest of the literature. Cf. H. Solin, CIL iv Supp. 4.2 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020) 1559 (two more sources). I have made liberal use of AI for the translations of several modern languages, which I have checked.
2 Lacerenza, G., ‘Per un riesame della presenza ebraica a Pompei’, Associazione italiana per lo studio del giudaismo 6 (2001) 99–103Google Scholar, esp. 103.
3 Cf. Fiorelli, G., Gli scavi di Pompeii dal 1861 al 1872 (Napoli: Tipografia Italiana, 1873) 97Google Scholar (no transcription of the inscription). See idem, Descrizione di Pompei (Napoli: Tipografia Italiana, 1875) 278–81 (the caupona), esp. 279 (on 276, he dates the excavation of vii.11 to ‘1 ott.–13 nov. 1862 + 15 dec. 1862 –22 lgl. 1863’ – which contradicts Kiessling's publication of the graffito in May 1862; probably Fiorelli forgot to include the spring date for the partial excavation; on 281, e.g., he mentions ’26 mgg. – 31 lgl. 1862’ as one of the dates for the excavation of vii.12). To my knowledge Fiorelli never published a precise chronological account of the excavation. See A. Kiessling, ‘Scavi di Pompeii’, Bullettino dell'Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica (No. v, Maggio 1862) 92–8, esp. 92 (‘not yet entirely excavated’). For an image of Kiessling's page, see http://arachne.uni-koeln.de/item/buchseite/688976 A set of superb photographs of the house is available (last accessed 25 Sept. 2023) on the site: https://pompeiiinpictures.com. There is also an entrance now identified as vii.11.14 on the Vicolo del Lupanare. I will mention some of the doubts about the inscription below in §2. For the characterisation (‘shabby’) of the caupona, cf. J.-P. Cèbe, La caricature et la parodie dans le monde romain antique des origines à Juvénal (BEFAR 260; Paris: De Boccard, 1966) 340.
4 Berry, P., The Christian Inscription at Pompeii (Lewiston: Mellen, 1995)Google Scholar v–vi – a poor description of the apparatus and methodology used, to be discussed in § 3 below. Cf. C. Osiek, review of Berry, Christian Inscription, CBQ 59 (1997) 570–1.
5 Communication of 2 July 2023. Professor Benefiel is the director of the Ancient Graffiti Project and past president of the American Society of Greek and Latin Epigraphy.
6 G. B. de Rossi, ‘Una memoria dei Cristiani in Pompei’, Bullettino di archeologia cristiana 2.9 (Settembre 1864) 69–72. Digitized at https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.17351.31
7 Cf. Kiessling, ‘Scavi di Pompeii’, 92.
8 De Rossi, ‘Una memoria’, 70.
9 Fiorelli, Gli scavi, 97.
10 De Rossi, ‘Una memoria’, 71 (the claim and Minervini's transcription). But see the critical question about de Rossi's claim by A. Varone, Presenze giudaiche e cristiane a Pompei (Naples: n.p. (Portosalvo), 1979) 72 – to be discussed below.
11 Wayment, T. A. and Grey, M. J., ‘Jesus Followers in Pompeii: The Christianos Graffito and “Hotel of the Christians” Reconsidered’, JJMJS 2 (2015) 100–46Google Scholar, esp. 105 refer to a non-existent source: ‘Giulio Minervini, “Collected Works (1854–1862),” published in Bullettino Archeologico Napoletano (Naples, 1862)’—that journal ceased to exist in 1860. H. Solin, CIL iv Supp. 4.2, 1559 comments on their article: Wayment and Grey ‘have recently discussed it at great length but with little fruit’. There are pearls to be found within, however.
12 CIL iv, 679, Plate 16, § 2 (Kiessling) and 3 (Minervini). Digitized at : http://arachne.uni-koeln.de/item/buchseite/555185
13 CIL iv, 679.
14 Varone, Presenze, 72.
15 Everything below comes from Zangemeister's remarks in CIL iv, 679 (K. Zangemeister, ed., Corpvs Inscriptionvm Latinarvm … Volvmen qvartvm … Inscriptiones parietaria pompeianae hercvlanenses stabianae … (Berlin: Reimer, 1871) 41). I thank Robert Kaster for his very generous translation of much of the material that follows. Any errors are my own.
16 Kiessling, ‘Gli scavi’, 92 states he only could read those lines.
17 For which see de Rossi, ‘Una memoria’, 70–2.
19 De Rossi, ‘Una memoria’, 72—a point emphasized by Varone, Presenze, 72 who notes the problem: ‘Minervini in fact in his transcription in the second line does not write: NER VII and in 5 and 6 AET/8’, as reported by Kiessling. This would suggest that ‘when Minervini made his transcription already some letters had dissolved compared to the time when Kiessling made his’.
20 For Fiorelli, in addition to de Rossi's article, cf. also Fiorelli, Gli scavi, 97 as noted above.
21 That is, A(nte) d(iem) K(alendes) A(priles)—before 1 April—the number of days (such as tertium) before 1 April is missing.
22 CIL iv, 760 is an obscene inscription that includes – in its midst – the letters tcloftorgc. On some theories about the meaning of those signs (namely, another language), cf. Varone, Presenze, 75 n. 98. He rejects the hypothesis of another language, ‘it is better, however, not to believe any such interpolations in other languages, and to judge that line is simply uninterpretable, in that it is not well readable’. Cf. the edition and trans. of R. Wachter, Pompejanische Wandinschriften: Lateinisch – deutsch (Sammlung Tusculum; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019) § 1195.
23 Zangemeister, in a parenthesis, notes that de Rossi conceded the possibility and refers to ‘B.[A.]N. 1860 p.24’, which is CIL x, 3149, a funerary stone dedicated to Ursenae Crist(a)e, to be corrected to Crestae.
24 For an extreme example of the speculations that will never end, cf. Tuccinardi, E., ‘Christian Horrors in Pompeii: A New Proposal for the Christianos Graffito’, JJMJS 3 (2016) 61–71Google Scholar.
25 Schiller, H., ‘Ein Problem der Tacituserklärung’, in Commentationes philologae in honorem Theodori Mommseni scripserunt amici (Berlin: Weidmann, 1877) 41–7Google Scholar, esp. 46 argues, ‘Its meaning is quite uncertain; even if one admits that Christiani was written, and by that word the Christians were intended, so it still proves nothing for our place and for this time (the Neronian persecution), but it is indeed unproved that Christiani was written here and not some surname (cognomen) Chrestianus was spoken of here.’ Cp. the similar views of Schultze, V., ‘Die Christen-Inschrift in Pompeiji’, ZKG 4 (1881) 125–30Google Scholar, esp. 129–30 and Mallardo, D., ‘Le questioni dei cristiani a Pompei’, Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 1/2 (1934–35) 116–65Google Scholar, esp. 157–9. Cèbe, La caricature, 339 considers the possibility that christianos is ‘the accusative plural of the cognomen Christianus’.
26 Schiller, ‘Ein Problem’, 46.
27 For the plural Chrestiani, cf. Tacitus, Ann. 15.44.2, Tertullian, Nat. 1.3.9 (cp. Apol. 3.5).
28 See CIL vi, 24944 (i ce): Faustus Antoniae Drusi ius / emit Iucundi Chrestiani oll(arum) (Faustus, slave of Antonia (dead 1 May 37 ce) wife of Drusus, bought the right of the funerary urns from Iucundus Chrestianus). Iucundus could have been a libertus (freedman) of Chrestus – a possibility noted by Heikki Solin. See also Epaphroditus Chrestianus in CIL x, 6638 B (38–39 ce) and Herenni Chrestiane (Herennius Chrestianus) in CIL vi, 1056 (205 ce). Cf. J. G. Cook, ‘Chrestiani, Christiani, Χριστιανοί: A Second Century Anachronism?’, VC 74 (2020) 237–64, esp. 256–7, J. Bremmer, ‘Ioudaismos, Christianismos and the Parting of the Ways’, in Jews and Christians – Parting Ways in the First Two Centuries CE?: Reflections on the Gains and Losses of a Model (ed. J. Schröter, B. A. Edsall, and J. Verheyden; BZNW 253; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021) 57–88; J. L. Moles, ‘What's in a Name? χριστός/χρηστός and χριστιανοί/χρηστιανοί in the First Century AD’, in The Collected Papers of J. L. Moles (2 vols.; ed. J. Marincola; Leiden: Brill, 2023) i.937–79; and E. Castelli, ‘La nascita del termine ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΣΜΟΣ. Un nuovo punto di partena e alcune considerazioni sull'uso della parola in Ignazio di Antiochia’, REAug 68 (2022) 233–58. On individuals with two cognomina, cf. H. Solin, ‘Name’, RAC 25 (2013) 729–95, esp. 757.
29 Cèbe, La caricature, 339: ‘In our opinion, it is foolhardy, to say the least, to build an entire theory on a document whose only surviving reproductions do not agree with each other. How can we be sure that it actually contained the word christianos? If it did, how can we be sure that it actually referred to Christians?’
30 Fiorelli, Gli scavi, 97. Where Fiorelli's transcription is, is a mystery. In fact, de Rossi, ‘Una memoria’, 71 writes, ‘But the air having soon made the letters fade, he (Fiorelli) did not come in time to make an exact drawing of them’ – presumably that does not preclude that he later did some kind of transcription. Antonio Varone (communication of 27 June 2023) writes, ‘the transcription Fiorelli says he made has never been found, nor did he ever publish it. It is possible that he actually never did one or otherwise did not consider it preferable to the others’.
31 De Rossi, ‘Una memoria’ 71 argues that there were two inscriptions – the upper (the top three lines) with bigger letters with more space between them. For aetas used with wine, cf. OLD s.v. § 4b: Celsus 2.26.1 vinum cui nihil adhuc aetatis accessit (wine that has not as yet reached great age).
32 Varone, Presenze, 75. Longenecker, Crosses, 164–5, using both transcriptions for the fourth line, conjectures pro vicis audi Christianos (listening to the Christians would be good for neighborhoods). audi would be bad Latin for an active infinitive (i.e., ‘heed the Christians for the neighborhood's sake’ is all Longenecker could get out of that phrase). Volker Michael Strocka (review of Longenecker, Crosses, in Early Christianity 8 (2017) 523–8, esp. 526) responds: ‘I do not know if a Pompeian could understand this. However, it is true that the presence of Christians in Pompeii is not proven by this line, but the Christians as a group were definitely present in the public opinion (after the Neronian persecution).’
33 There are 509 entries for Kiessling in the WorldCat—https://www.worldcat.org. Consulted on 26 June 2023. Of course, not all are different books.
34 Varone, Presenze, 74. Cf. de Rossi, ‘Una memoria’, 70–2.
35 For such a view, cf. C. Carletti, Epigrafia dei cristiani in occidente dal iii al vii secolo: Ideologia e prassi (Bari: Edipuglia, 2008) § 15 (145–6): ‘There are many serious suspicions that, as in the case of some graffiti in the Paedagogium (see n. 12 (SEG 47:1512: the crucified man with a donkey head)) … it is a subsequent intervention, the work of visitors, educated and uncultured, who penetrated the buried city.’ Carletti's student, epigrapher Professor Antonio Felle, also believes that the graffito is a ‘modern writing’ (communication of 7 July 2023). H. Solin, CIL iv Supp. 4.2, 1635–6 (on CIL iv, 1227) argues against attributing Pompeian inscriptions to ‘clandestine diggers’.
36 Fiorelli, Gli scavi, 97.
37 de Rossi, ‘Una memoria’, 70–1.
38 de Rossi, ‘Una memoria’ 72.
39 For an excessively speculative interpretation of a possible Christian reference for these marks, cf. Longenecker, Crosses, 176–86.
40 M. Guarducci , ‘La più antica iscrizione col nome dei cristiani’ , RQ 57 ( 1962 ) 116–25, esp. 122–3. Cf. also Varone, Presenze, 76.
41 Cf. the very interesting entry: N. M. Boyd and J. Bogen, ‘Theory and Observation in Science’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/science-theory-observation/>
42 R. Bultmann, ‘Is Exegesis without Presuppositions Possible?’, in New Testament Mythology and Other Selected Writings (ed. S. Ogden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 145–54 (originally published in TZ 13 (1957) 409–17).
43 M. Beard, Pompeii: The Life of a Roman Town (London: Profile, 2008) 302. Cp. E. Dinkler, ‘Älteste christliche Denkmäler – Bestand und Chronologie’, in idem, Signum Crucis: Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament und zur Christlichen Archäologie (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967) 134–78, esp. 138–41: ‘The reading of the scribble, presumably blurred by the effects of the weather, was characterized from the beginning by wishful thinking, which alone can explain the diversity of the transcriptions.’ That is an ad hominem argument also (i.e., the accusation of ‘wishful thinking’). Hofmann, ‘Satorquadrat’, 549–50 notes the existence of three different transcriptions (for the primary word in question) and concludes that the ‘inscription cannot be used as a witness for or against’ the presence of Christians in Pompeii and that one suspects that ‘for the reading CHRISTIANI the wish has been the father of the thought’. That is an ad hominem argument which is a logical fallacy.
44 Cf. B. D. Shaw, ‘The Myth of the Neronian Persecution’, JRS 105 (2015) 73–100, esp. 89 n. 76 with reference to J. Boman, ‘Inpulsore Cherestro? Suetonius’ Divus Claudius 25.4 in Sources and Manuscripts’, Liber Annuus 61 (2011) 355–76, 355 n. 3 (who dismisses it in one apodictic sentence: ‘the Pompeian inscription HRISTIλN, cannot be said to refer to Christians at all’ – with no argument whatsoever) and P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians in Rome in the First Two Centuries (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003) 7–8. On the historicity of the Neronian persecution, cf. also Shaw, ‘Response to Christopher Jones: The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution’, NTS 64 (2018) 231–42, C. P. Jones, ‘The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution: A Response to Brent Shaw’, NTS 63 (2017) 146–52, B. van der Lans and J. N. Bremmer, ‘Tacitus and the Persecution of the Christians: An Invention or Tradition?’, Eirene. Studia Graeca et Latina 53 (2017) 299–331, and Cook, ‘Chrestiani’.
45 I take this formulation from Senior Reader Ian Morton.
46 Cf. Shaw, ‘Myth’, passim and Cook, ‘Chrestiani’, 237–64.
47 Cf. the images at https://pompeiiinpictures.com/pompeiiinpictures/ and Wayment and Grey, ‘Jesus Followers’, 146.
48 See CIL iv, 2012–24. Cf. iv, 2016 (west wall of the atrium) Mulus hic muscellas docuit (here a mule taught young she-mules). Wachter, Pompejanische Wandinschhriften, § 1260 (p. 443) attributes a sexual meaning to the saying (cf. G. Ustrnul, ‘muscella’, ThLL viii.1697.20–26). In CIL, iv, 2203 mula refers to a prostitute (CIL iv, 2204 Μολα—the same reference). Cp. Cèbe, La caricature, 339.
49 Wayment and Grey, ‘Jesus Followers’, 108–9.
50 Kiessling's transcription is marked with a ‘2’. One cannot check Kiessling's transcription, as presented by Zangemeister, against the original (as I have remarked above).
51 CIL iv, Table 1. Digitized at http://arachne.uni-koeln.de/item/buchseite/555155 Reproduced by V. Väänänen, Le latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompéiennes (ADAW.S 3; Berlin: Akademie, 19663) 147.
52 Rebecca Benefiel comments, ‘they (R and A) can be quite close in form so that a character might be read one way or the other. The R can have more of a diagonal than a loop (e.g. row 5, 12 (of Zangemeister's table; section iv)) and the A of course can be written without a horizontal bar (e.g. row 4 (of section iv))’ (communication of 2 July 2023).
53 Communication of 18 July 2023. Solin reads the cursive letter (lambda-shape) as an R and the ligature as AI (as Zangemeister). Kiessling, ‘Scavi’, 92 interpreted both differently.
54 Communication of 26 June 2023.
55 Cf. A. von Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten Dreijahrhunderten (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924) 625 n. 8: ‘the reading (HRISTIAN) is completely uncertain. If the word “Christian” really appeared in it, it would only prove that people in Pompeii knew about the Christians, not that they lived there.’
56 Dinkler, Signum, 141. Cp. Varone, Presenze, 72.
57 In § 1.
58 Varone, Presenze, 77.
59 Varone, Presenze, 77.
60 Varone, Presenze, 76.
61 Varone, Presenze, 78.
62 Communication of 26 June 2023. (he praises her as a powerful and famous scholar and notes she was a devout Catholic).
63 One can concede this and remain agnostic whether Christians actually were in Pompeii.
64 Communication of 26 June 2023.
65 Cf. the quote above (Fiorelli, Gli Scavi, 97).
66 Berry, Inscription, iv–v.
67 Berry, Inscription, v.
68 Berry, Inscription, vi. See Plate 7 for Berry's plan of the house (with the atrium) and wall he identifies as ‘location of the Christian inscription’. He (24) claims ‘Kiessling's miners first uncovered the southwest wall of the atrium in the House of the Christian inscription’ – but Fiorelli excavated the house – not Kiessling.
69 B. Aubé, ‘De la Légalité du christianisme dans l'Empire romain pendant le ier siècle’, CRAI 10 (1866) 184–205, esp. 189. Berry, Inscription, 29 also errs in his claim that Johannes Overbeck (Pompeji in seinen Gebäuden, Alterthümen, Kunstwerken für Kunst- und Alterthumsfreuden (Leipzig: Engelmann, 18753) 437) ‘was the first of the nineteenth century archaeologists to designate the wall surface as running in tandem in the Vico Lupanare’ (i.e., on the west wall of the atrium in vii.11.11). All Overbeck writes is, ‘Completely isolated, but hardly to be doubted, is the mention of Christians in an inscription written with charcoal in the house Number 26 in the Vico dei Lupanari’. Berry (ibid., 29) also claimed Overbeck saw the faded inscription – which is surely an error since de Rossi a few days after its discovery could not see it himself.
70 Berry, Inscription, 27.
71 Image from Berry, Inscription, Plate 1; overleaf of page one.
72 Communication of 27 June 2023.
73 Plates 9 and 10 are in overleaves from Berry, Inscription, 25.
74 Communication of 26 June 2023.
75 Communication of 27 June 2023. He does note that ‘one isotope of carbon could convert to another carbon isotope, and that would not change the character of charcoal on the wall’. And with regard to Berry's lens apparatus, he comments, ‘I believe he meant that the transparent film was placed “after” the lens system (could have been aimed physically below the lens) of the microscope so that the focused light would travel through the transparent film, and the absence of light would form the trace of the charcoal letters’.
76 Longenecker, Crosses, 155 n.4. Longenecker's comment that the inscription is ‘tantalizing’ is accurate (idem, ‘Pompeian Artifacts’, 276). Longenecker (ibid.) argues that the agreement of Fiorelli, Kiessling, and Minervini that ‘the graffito made reference to the Christians’ settles the debate—a faulty claim since Fiorelli doubted the reference (see § 1 above).
77 Cp. the negative result on the authenticity of Chicago ms 2427: M. M. Mitchell and P. D. Duncan, ‘Chicago's “Archaic Mark” (ms 2427): A Reintroduction to its Enigmas and a Fresh Collation of its Readings’, NovT 48 (2006) 1–35 and M. M. Mitchell, J. G. Baraba and A. B. Quandt, ‘Chicago's “Archaic Mark” (Ms 2427): II. Microscopic, Chemical and Codicological Analyses Confirm Modern Production’, NovT 52 (2010) 101–33.
78 R. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008) 295, e.g., states that since neither Paul (nor any other writer of the first two generations) used the term ‘Christian’, it is ‘unlikely that the label ‘emerged in Antioch during the 30s and 40s CE’. That is an argument from silence and a petitio principii (begging of the question)—surely, one can claim that the Petrine author may have been second generation (1 Peter 4.16). Cf. J. H. Elliott, 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AYB 37b; New York: Doubleday, 2007) 135: ‘the earliest date before which 1 Peter was written is 92 ce’—due to the twenty-year period mentioned in Pliny, Ep. 10.96.6 by apostates. He (ibid., 138) opts for the period between 72 ce and 93–96 ce. Luke's sources may well have used the term in their description of what some outsiders called Christ's followers. Cf., e.g., R. Bultmann (‘Zur Frage nach den Quellen der Apostelgeschichte’, in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson 1893–1958 (ed. A. J. B. Higgins; Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959) 68–80, esp. 77–8) ‘If we go further backwards, it is very likely that the main body of 11:19-26 also comes from this source [the Antiochene]. The author has edited it, however, especially by sending Barnabas from Jerusalem to Antiochia as inspector’). Cf. also J. A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (AYB; New York: Doubleday, 1998) 83, 86. In addition, we do not have Tacitus’ (Ann. 15.44), Pliny's (Ep. 10.96), and Suetonius’ (Nero 16.2) first-century sources. Cf. Cook, ‘Chrestiani’, 240–8. χρηματίσαι, used in Acts 11.26, indicates an official public (and not a self-) designation according to the research of Van der Lans and Bremmer, ‘Tacitus’, 319–20.