435-438, fig. 2, pl. XVIII (phs., dr.) (ed. pr.) | |
250-251 | |
649-657, no. 224 B, fig. 275 (ph.) | |
57, no. 71 |
SEG 42 (1992): 1421; 45 (1995): 1951
CIIP IV.1 (2018): 3195 b (ph., dr.)
In the mosaic pavement of the nave, near the steps leading to the bema, but not on its axis.
Pres. loc.: In situ.
Five-line inscription, opening with a palm branch, within a tabula ansata (245 x 47 cm) in the mosaic pavement of the nave, near the steps leading to the bema, but not on its axis. Letters traced in black tesserae on a white background; mainly oval script, but omega square and theta drop-shaped, as are some of the omicrons. Stigmas of various shapes for abbreviation and sometimes as a substitute for letters. Trema used at least once to indicate a numeral.
(palm branch) Έπ[ὶ τ]ο[ῦ] θεοσεβεστάτῳ κ(αὶ) ὁσιο(τάτου) ἡμο̑ν
ἐπισκόπο(υ) Ἀναστασίου ἀνανεόθη τὸ πᾶν ἔργον τ(ῆς)
ἁγιοτάτη(ς) ἐκλη(σίας) ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας καὶ μακροημερεύ<σε>ος
το̑ν καρποφορησάντον. Ἐψηφόθη μινὶ Μαρτίου ἰνδ(ικτιῶνος) ιδʹ.
Ψηφοθεσία Κλαυδιανοῦ κ(αὶ) Ἰμαννουέλ. ιεʹ Μ(αρτίου).
In the time of our most God-fearing and saintly bishop Anastasius the whole building of the most holy church was renovated for the preservation and longevity of the benefactors. It was paved with mosaic in the month of March of the 14th indiction. Mosaic work of Claudianus and Emmanuel. March 15th.
L. 5 ιε´ μ(ηνὸς Μαρτίου) Alpi (apud Chambon–Strus), ι´ (Μαρτίου) ἔ(τους) μ´ or Ἰε(ρουσαλή)μ Strus (1992), Ἰ(ησοῦς) Ἐ(μμανουὴλ) (ἐκ) Μ(αρίας) = Ἰ(ησοῦ) ε(ὐλογητὲ) μ(νησθητι Strus (1995), ιε μ(--)SEG.
Dated mosaic building inscription commemorating the renovation of the church under bishop Anastasius, March 563.
Iotacisms, short vowels instead of long ones, grammatical errors. The last three letters of l. 5 (ΙΕΜ) have engendered much discussion. Strus's opinions were biased by his desire to locate Ein Fattir, and more importantly, the adjacent Beit Jimal, in the diocese of Jerusalem, though there is more evidence for the fact that it was in the diocese of Eleutheropolis. He (Strus 1992) initially brought two interpretations, but later rejected both: the first proposes that the letters provide missing chronological data, particularly, a "Year 40" based on a hypothetical era of Jerusalem, for which there is no evidence; the second suggests that the letters were an abbreviation of "Jerusalem" from which the mosaic workers may have hailed. Later, Strus (1995) suggested that the letters, through isopsephisim, stood for at once the cryptogram "Jesus Emmanuel of Mary" and the invocation "Jesus, bless, remember." The religious belief expressed by this hypothetical cryptogram is in keeping with the theology of Anastasius of Jerusalem (making it possible to place Ein Fattir in the diocese of Jerusalem and resulting in a date of 476), but not with that of the 6th-century Anastasius of Eleutheropolis, who is likely to have been the bishop mentioned in the inscription. While we cannot rule out the possibility that the letters represent a cryptogram, Strus's particular proposal raises many problems and is therefore unacceptable. Alpi's interpretation that the letters refer to the date is the most logical one. As the paleopgraphy corresponds to the second quarter of the 6th century, on the one hand, and a bishop of Jerusalem in the mid-5th century would have been called ἀρχιεπίσκοπος, not επίσκοπος, on the other, it is most likely that the bishop mentioned is Anastasius of Eleutheropolis and that the inscription dates from the March of the 14th indiction that fell in his term, namely, March 536.