¹ Meeks, Wayne A., The First Urban Christians (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983) 32.Google Scholar

² So, for example , Sanders, E. P., Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 183–90Google Scholar ; Tomson, Peter J., Paul and the Jewish Law (CRINT 3.1; Assen: Van Gorcum and Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 51–55Google Scholar ; or Essler, Philip F., Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts (SNTSMS 57; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987) 30–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar , 65-70 ; Lampe, Peter, Die stadtromischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten (WUNT 2.18; Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1987) 26–29Google Scholar.

³ (2 vols.; Rome: Pontificio Instituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 1936). For , Rome, see especially CII 1. lvi–cxviiGoogle Scholar . See also Piana, George La, “Foreign Groups in Rome during the First Centuries of the Empire,” HTR 20 (1927) 183–403, esp. 341-93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Leon, Harry Joshua, The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia: JPS, 1960) 73–74Google Scholar . Leon's groundbreaking work, originally his 1927 doctoral dissertation at Harvard, was completed when he was Professor and Chair of Classics at the University of Texas at Austin.

⁵ For example, the prologue and corrections to the 2d ed. of CII (see 1. 21-97); compare Kant, Lawrence H., “Jewish Inscriptions in Greek and Latin,” ANRW 2.20.2 (1987) 672–713Google Scholar ; Horst, Pieter Willem van der, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1991)Google Scholar . The most recent work has been done by Rutgers, Leonard V., “Archaeological Evidence for the Interaction of Jews and Non-Jews in Late Antiquity,” AJA 96 (1992) 101–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar , and idem , The Jews in Late Ancient Rome: Evidence of Cultural Interaction in the Roman Diaspora (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 100CrossRefGoogle Scholar , who estimates the number of inscriptions now at 594, but new explorations in a hitherto unexcavated Jewish catacomb have just begun.

⁶ , Leon, Jews of Ancient Rome, 135–66Google Scholar . On the question of certainty regarding the number and identity of the Roman synagogues, see esp. 159–65. Most recently , Horst, van der (Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, 73–84Google Scholar ) corrected the number to ten. These calculations depend on how one identifies the various group names given in the epitaphs. At least some of these clearly refer t o particular congregations, but in other cases they may be ethnic markers or may refer to a subgroup of one of the other known congregations.

⁷ , Leon, Jews of Ancient Rome, 167-94, 229–56.Google Scholar

⁸ See Horst, van der, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, 73–84Google Scholar , and esp. 88–89 ; , Kant, “Jewish Inscriptions,” 694Google Scholar.

⁹ Goodenough, Erwin R., Jewish Symbols in the Graeco-Roman Period (13 vols.; New York: Bollingen, 1952-1965)Google Scholar esp. vols. 1-3.

¹⁰ Smith, Jonathan Z., “Fences and Neighbors: Some Contours of Early Judaism,” in Green, William Scott, ed., Approaches to Ancient Judaism (BJS 9; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1980) 1–25Google Scholar ; reprinted in Smith, Jonathan Z., Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982) 1–18Google Scholar.

¹¹ Brooten, Bernadette J., Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: lnscriptional Evidence and Background Issues (BJS 36; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982) esp. 58-62, 68-70, 75–76Google Scholar ; see also Kraemer, Ross S., “A New Inscription from Malta and the Question of Women Elders in Diaspora Jewish Communities,” HTR 78 (1986) 431–38Google Scholar ; idem, “Non-Literary Evidence for Jewish Women in Rome and Egypt,” Helios 13 (1986) 85–101Google Scholar ; compare Horst, van der, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, 102–9Google Scholar . In his recent work, however , Rutgers, Leonard (The Jews of Late Ancient Rome, 134–35Google Scholar ) has questioned some of Brooten's conclusions regarding the nature of this “leadership.” Nonetheless, it is clear that women occupied much more prominent social positions within the Roman Jewish congregations than hitherto suspected, and this includes significant patronage.

¹² See especially Meyers, Eric M. and Kraabel, A. Thomas, “Archaeology, Iconography, and Nonliterary Written Remains,” in Kraft, Robert A. and Nickelsburg, George W. E., eds., Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters (SBLCP; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) 175–210Google Scholar ; Kraabel, A. Thomas, “Impact of the Discovery of the Sardis Synagogue,” in Hanfmann, George M. A., ed., Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times: Results of the Archaeological Exploration 3f Sardis 1958-1975 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983) 178–90Google Scholar ; idem, “The Roman Diaspora: Six Questionable Assumptions,” in Vermes, Geza and Neusner, Jacob, eds., Essays in Honor of Yigael Yadin (JJS 33 [1-2] 1982) 445–64Google Scholar ; idem, “The Diaspora Synagogue: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence since Sukenik,” in ANRW 2.19.1 (1979) 477–510Google Scholar ; idem , “The Social Systems of Six Diaspora Synagogues,” in Gutmann, Joseph, ed., Ancient Synagogues the State of Research (BJS 22; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981) 79–93Google Scholar ; idem, “Unity and Diversity among Diaspora Synagogues,” in Levine, Lee I., ed., The Synagogue in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: ASOR, 1987) 49–60Google Scholar ; Seager, Andrew R., “Ancient Synagogue Architecture: An Overview,”Google Scholar in Gutmann, Joseph, ed., Ancient Synagogues, 39–48Google Scholar ; White, L. Michael, “The Delos Synagogue Revisited: Recent Fieldwork in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora,” HTR 80 (1987) 133–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar . Most recently see Overman, J. Andrew and Mclennan, Robert S., eds., Diaspora Jews and Judaism: Essays in Honor of, and in Dialogue with, A. T. Kraabel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992Google Scholar ) [this work contains many of the previously published articles of Kraabel cited above]; and Urman, Dan and Flesher, Paul V. M., eds., Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery (Leiden: Brill, 1995)Google Scholar.

¹³ See my Building God's House in the Roman World: Architectural Adaptation among Pagans, Jews, and Christians (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990) esp. 60–101Google Scholar ; idem, “Delos Synagogue Revisited”; idem, The Social Origins of Christian Architecture, vol. 2 : The Christian Domus Ecclesiae in its Environment (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1997)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ This was the conclusion reached by the principal Italian excavator , Squarciapino, Maria Floriani in various works: “La sinagoga di Ostia,” Bolletino d'Arte (1961) 326–37Google Scholar ; idem, “Die Synagoge von Ostia Antica,” Raggi: Zeitschriftfiir Kunstgeschichte und Archdologie 4 (1962) 1–8Google Scholar ; Kraabel concurs in his earlier work on this subject (see “Diaspora Synagogue,” ANRW 2.19.1 [1979] 498)Google Scholar.

¹⁵ I follow here the standard referencing system for the Ostia excavations (see fig. 1). It divides the city into 5 regions (I–V) with each block (or insula) marked (lower case Roman), and each edifice within a block in arable numerals.

¹⁶ The primary publications of the excavations to date are Floriani Squarciapino, “Sinagoga di Ostia”; idem, “Sinagoga recentemente”; idem, “Synagoge von Ostia”; and Hempel, Heinz L., “Synagogenfunde in Ostia Antica,” ZAW 74 (1962) 72–73Google Scholar . The most complete report (following the 1962 season) is that of Squarciapino, Floriani, “La sinogaga di Ostia: secondo campagna di scavo,” in Atti di VI Congresso Internationale di archeologia cristiana, 1962 (Rome: Pontifical Press, 1965) 299–315Google Scholar ; also published as idem , La sinagoga di Ostia (Rome, 1964)Google Scholar an extensive English summary of this same article appears in “The Synagogue at Ostia,” Archeology 16 (1963) 194–203Google Scholar (but it is weak in documentation and detail). Other brief reports of the find were made by Meiggs, Russell, Roman Ostia (2d ed., Oxford: Clarendon, 1973) 587–89Google Scholar ; Wischnitzer, Rachel, The Architecture of the European Synagogue (Philadelphia: JPS, 1974) 5–7Google Scholar (and fig. 3) ; and Shanks, Hershel, Judaism in Stone: The Archaeology of Ancient Synagogues (New York: Harper & Row, 1979) 162–69Google Scholar ; however, these are generally derivative of Floriani Squarciapino's summary in Archeology and are full of errors”. The most complete discussion based on Floriani Squarciapino's reports after the second season (noted above) is that of Kraabel, A. Thomas, “Diaspora Synagogue,” ANRW 2.19.1 (1979) 497–500Google Scholar.

¹⁷ See Pavolini, Carlo, “OSTIA (Roma): Saggi lungo la via Severiana,” in Notizie degli Scavi di Antichitd 8.35 (1981) 115–43Google Scholar . Figure 2 is taken from Pavolini's Figure 1.1 also report my own field observations and analysis in my forthcoming book, The Christian Domus Ecclesiae in its Environment, nos. 83–85. The discussion derives primarily from the second season reports (in Italian and English) of Floriani Squarciapino and on the discussion of Kraabel, together with the author's own field survey, conducted in stages from 1983-1994. See also the discussion in my Building God's House, 69–71, 79.

¹⁸ Compare Meiggs, Russell, Roman Ostia, 133–41Google Scholar and 539-48. For further discussion of this type of masonry, see Blake, Marion Elizabeth, Roman Construction in Italyfrom Tiberius through the Flavians (Washington: Carnegie Institute, 1959) 66Google Scholar . The most recent work on the Roman brickwork of Ostia is in Boersma, Johannes S., Amoenissima civitas (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985) 303Google Scholar . Boersma's work is an extensive analysis of the construction history of Insula V.ii, which contains the collegia! hall known as the House of Fortune Annonaria (V.ii.8). Generally, Boersma dates the opus reticulatum/mixtum a masonry in that complex to the Trajanic period. See esp., 198-225.

¹⁹ I intentionally take a cautious approach to the dating, since the secondary literature often dates the synagogue naively as “from the first century,” thereby leaving a faulty impression (so , Shanks [Judaism in Stone, 162]Google Scholar following Squarciapino, M. Floriani [“Synagogue,” 196])Google Scholar . The masonry of the core of the building makes it very unlikely that the edifice predates the Flavian period (that is, not before the 70s to 90s) and it is probably later, most likely from the time of Trajan or even Hadrian. This later dating, based on Boersma's work, now finds support n i Pavolini's work on the buildings across the street from the synagogue edifice; and, significantly, these buildings show phases of masonry work similar to those in the synagogue itself. See , Pavolini, “Saggi lungo di via Severiana,” 124, 141–42Google Scholar.

²⁰ See , Meiggs, Roman Ostia, 544–45Google Scholar , 550-53. One edifice that Meiggs correctly attributes t o this later period is the House of Cupid and Psyche (Reg. I.xiv.5), which likewise employs opus sectile floors (compare pp. 259-62). Another example of fourth-century renovation worth noting is from the House of the Fortuna Annonaria (Reg. V.ii.8), built originally under Antoninus Pius. There is both opus latericium or opus testacium and opus vittatum brickwork in the building. Compare , Meiggs, Roman Ostia, 254Google Scholar , 545, and pi. XlVb. See also the excavation reports from this region by Becatti, Giovanni, Scavi di Ostia, vol. 6: Edificio con Opus Sectile fuori Porta Marina (Rome: Instituto poligrafico dello Stato, 1967)Google Scholar.

²¹ One of the columns was apparently broken in antiquity and repaired before its reuse in the renovation of the synagogue. I am grateful to Leonard Rutgers for this observation.

²² The aedicula is clearly secondary to the column and its footing, around which it is carefully built. The use of a fine opus vittatum a (see fig. 4) is distinctive. On the south side, moreover, the aedicula wall abuts a remnant of the original opus reticulatum edifice, a terminating section, probably the original door jamb into room D or some other part of the building.

²³ In the niche structure's original configuration, these colonettes rested on the floor and framed the podium steps. Later construction enlarged the podium so that the steps were no longer free standing, and the colonettes became part of the podium. For discussion of the form of the aedicula, see Squarciapino, Floriani (“Synagogue,” 198Google Scholar ) and , Kraabel (“Diaspora Synagogue,” 498Google Scholar ), who cite the inscription from Side, Pamphylia for a structure in the synagogue called a “simma” (that is, Greek lunate sigma). See also Robert, Louis, “Inscriptions grecques de Side,” Revue philologique 32 (1958) 36–47Google Scholar.

²⁴ This conclusion finds support from the fact that the creation of the new entrance from the Via Severiana at the steps down into A blocked an existing cistern. The marble well standing beside the steps probably dates from this time. Thus, while the east wall of area A contains some elements in the earlier opus reticulatum masonry, it does not appear to have been part of the same integral structure as the original eastern wall of areas B and G. In area E there is evidence of earlier partition walls that must have been removed when it was renovated as a dining hall. There is evidence of an earlier doorway into F and E directly from area C.

²⁵ The L-shaped spur on the exterior of B may well substantiate this. A surviving wallspur n i opus reticulatum between C and D also indicates some elements of internal partitioning in this area dating from the period of the earliest structure. This, too, would be consistent with area B being the original entrance (separated from D) to the building directly frpm the Via Severiana.

²⁶ It is noteworthy, then, that the dominant axial orientation of the entire complex in the earliest opus reticulatum phase(s) seems to be north-south, that is, from the Via Severiana toward the seashore. This orientation is evident in the parallel lines of alleyway J, the original passageway from C through F, the original passageway from B through G, and the alleyway (?) A. As fig. 2 makes clear, other contiguous structures of integral construction with the opus reticulatum phase lay to the south side of room E and also seem to connect to the rear areas of the edifice at K (and perhaps also to area A). Inasmuch as the south wall of room F was sealed only in the later renovation, it might have also provided access to these southern rooms i n the earliest phases. It appears that the axial orientation of room D was east-west from some earlier stage, probably as part of its initial adaptation for dining and assembly, and this became the basis for the later orientation of the building.

²⁷ Squarciapino, Floriani, “La Sinagoga,” 314–15.Google Scholar

²⁸ Ibid. For discussion of the inscription see below.

²⁹ “Synagogue,” 197-98.

³⁰ “Diaspora Synagogue,” 499-500. This would result in making the subsequent enlargement of the aedicula podium (which Kraabel does not discuss) part of stage 4. The crucial piece of evidence here is that the plaque of the Mindi(u)s Faustus inscription (late second to early third centuries) was reused in the floorwork of the final synagogue.

³¹ Significantly, both edifice K and the row of buildings across the Via Severiana also exhibit the same type of later masonry from renovations.

³² Squarciapino, Floriani, “La Sinagoga,” 306–7.Google Scholar

³³ Again, no systematic excavation report has taken this evidence into account in the building's construction history. This section of the north wall of room D is the only portion of the building that still exists at a height exceeding ca. 1.5 m above the floor. The excavator found i t toppled into room D; it has since been restored. Numerous other fragments of these walls survive, but have never (to my knowledge) received careful study.

³⁴ It also appears that there were some original windows or apertures in the first-floor level of the western and southern walls of room D which the opus vittatum renovation also sealed. At ca. 3.40-3.50 m above the original floor level of room D, the opus latericium band is consistent with first floor ceiling height in the House of Fortuna Annonaria (Ins. V.ii); see Boersma, Amoenissima Civitas, 153. The planning involved in the renovation buttressing is further evidenced by the way that the window fill was bonded into the exterior pier, thus forming an integral wall to support the new roof.

³⁵ An unanswered question remains regarding a source of lighting for assembly hall D in this renovated form, since all the earlier windows went out of use. The columns supporting the interior elevation may have carried a kind of shallow clerestory construction to allow for interior lighting. Unfortunately, nothing of the roofing or ceiling treatment survives to confirm this conjecture.

³⁶ See the discussion of the epigraphic evidence below, at note 47.

³⁷ See , White, Building God's House, 95 and n. 126.Google Scholar

³⁸ For depictions of this type of ark, or 'aron, in Roman Jewish inscriptions, see CII 1.315, 327, 337, 343, 401, and 460. The stylized depictions found in Rome are, in my view, remarkably consistent in type and may represent a distinctive local development. Also, a number of decorative glass plates show similar depictions (see CII 1.515-22). The ark for scrolls does not seem to have been introduced prior to the mid-second century. The shift from a portable wooden chest to a fixed architectural implacement (in which the chest might still have a role) represents a significant advancement in synagogue planning.

³⁹ That the eastern orientation (toward Jerusalem) was not normative in earlier periods is one of the recent conclusions of archaeological work. Nonetheless, both the Sardis and Ostia synagogues reflect this later reorientation to the east.

⁴⁰ See above, n. 20. See also , Kraabel, “Social Systems of Six Diaspora Synagogues,” 87.Google Scholar

^4I A hitherto little-known inscription suggests that another Jewish community may have resided at nearby Portus, the imperial harbor. Compare Squarciapino, Maria Floriani, “Plotius Fortunatus archisynagogus,” Rassegna mensile di Israel 36 (1970) 183–91Google Scholar . Also note that several other Jewish inscriptions are assigned to the area of Portus. These include CIl 534a (from the Lifshitz's prologue in the 2d ed., p. 44) and a number of funerary monuments (CII 535–51). One should also note, however, that at least two of these indicate some possible connections either to a synagogue community from Rome proper (CII 537: “synagogue of the Carcaresians (sic);” compare , Leon, Jews of Ancient Rome, 142–44)Google Scholar , or to another inscription from Ostia itself (CII 551a: the name lustus; compare CII 533, discussed below). More generally on Portus, see idem, “The Jewish Community of Porto,” HTR 45 (1952) 165–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar . This study, however, certainly needs updating in the light of recent work.

⁴² Squarciapino, Floriani, “La Sinagoga di Ostia,” 314Google Scholar ; see also , Kraabel, “Diaspora Synagogue,” 498Google Scholar . Another publication of the inscription by Floriani Squarciapino issued in La ressegna mensile de Israel has been unavailable to me.

⁴³ See my Social Origins of Christian Architecture, no. 84a. I am grateful to Signora Anna Blie, director of the Jewish Museum of Rome, for allowing me the chance to study the cast. The stone measures 54.50 x 29.90 cm. Letter heights by line are: line 1, 4.10 cm; lines 2-3, 3.50 cm; lines 4-5, 3.00 cm; lines 6-7, 3.20 cm. The stone is cracked vertically along the middle, and the bottom line is lost except in the very center. Lines 6-7 show signs of an erasure, with letters recut in a second hand for most (but not all) of line 6.

⁴⁴ Although line 1 is in Latin and the rest in Greek, the hand is the same for all lines, to line 6.

⁴⁵ Lines 2-3: KE (lapis) is an orthographic variant for και, and αιπο/Hεεν (lapis) for εποιμοεν.

⁴⁶ Line 4: For κειβμτον (lapis), read καιτον, meaning “ark.” See also , Kraabel, “Diaspora Synagogue,” 498Google Scholar , for parallel references of the usage.

⁴⁷ Lines 6-7: These lines show an erasure corrected in an undeniably second hand. Most notable is the change from a square M in the first 5 lines to a curved form (μ), especially in the name Mindi(u)s Faustus. However, the lunate E at the end of Line 6 seems to be from the first hand, and was only slightly damaged by the erasure. It is difficult to speculate, therefore, on the cause of the erasure and the nature of the original wording of the text.

⁴⁸ I have corrected the name to Mindius based on other inscriptions from the immediate environs of Ostia. It must have been a fairly common name. It occurs in a list of the members of the Corporis Fabrum Navalium, an association of shipwrights at Ostia (found atPortus, CII 14.256, line 246). Two texts from Isola Sacra deserve special notice in this regard. For the texts, see especially Thylander, Hilding, Inscriptions du port d'Ostie (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Rom; Lund: Gleerup, 1952)Google Scholar . Thylander's no. A181 (from tomb N. 73) gives the name L. Mindius Diocas (and his wife Julia Zoe) and is datable to the reign of Antoninus Pius (138-161 CE). Thylander's no. A182 (from tomb C) gives the name L. Mindius Dius (and his wife Genucia Tryphaena) and dates from the time of Hadrian (117-138 CE). The complete text of the latter is as follows:

L. Mindius Dius

fecit sibi et Genuciae

Tryphaenae coniugi

incomparabili cum qua

vixit atvnis xxiiii mens iii

et Lucceiae Ianuariae maritae

et Anniae Laueriae contuvernali

suae santissimae et libert[is] libertab[usque] suis pos[ter(is)q(ue)] eor[um]

h[oc] m[onumentum] e[xterum] hferedem] n[on] [s(equetur)].

In fronte p[edes] xxx, in agro p[edes] xxxi.

L(ucius) Mindius Dius made (this tomb) for himself and for Genucia Tryphaena, his incomparable wife with whom he lived for 24 years and 3 months, and for Lucceia Januaria, his (second) wife/spouse, and for Annia Laveria his most holy domestic partner, and for his freedmen and freedwomen and their posterity. This monument shall not succeed to the possession of a foreign heir. In width 30 feet and in depth 31 feet.

In addition to its onomastic similarities, the form of this epitaph will also prove useful for the discussion below of the second Jewish inscription. While both inscriptions are in Latin, the names of both wives have clear Greek influences. The mid-second century dating for both is significant. One may note, moreover, the names Dius and Diocas (which could even be cognates) in the light of the badly damaged portions of Lines 6 and 7 in our Jewish text, which yield portions of two more words Me[…] and Dio[…]. The similarity to the two names from Isola Sacra is striking. Another possibility is the name Livius Dionysius, from the second Jewish inscription below. There is, of course, no way of being certain, but it would be typical of the form of such inscriptions if Lines 6-7 would have given the name of important relative s (or patrons).

It is not impossible that Mindius Faustus was somehow related or attached to the families of Mindius Diocas and Mindius Dius. Thus, it should be noticed that L. Mindius Dius (in the epitaph above) had three wives: the first, a legal marriage, was to Genucia Tryphaena (termed conjux or “wife”), who was deceased at the time of the dedication. Mindius Dius was still living with Lucciea Januaria, to whom he was married (here using marita [“wife or spouse”] instead of the more usual conjux), and he also had a contubernalis (a “domestic partner,” usually a slave or freedwoman, where there was no legal status to the marriage) named Annia Laveria, most likely a freedwoman. Mindius Dius might have produced children by all three, and their familial position and inheritance would have been quite variable, depending on his wishes. Mindius Faustus could have been a Jewish freedman, or the descendant of a freedman from such a complex family, but such a reconstruction must remain highly speculative. I am grateful to Dr. Hanne Sigismund Nielsen of the University of Aarhus for pointing out these inscriptions to me and for other suggestions in the epigraphic analysis.

⁴⁹ Line 3: σονατων would normally mean “gifts,” but could bear here the derived meaning “funds” (presumably given for the project). Still, the use of this term is unusual and another option suggests itself. Given the generally nonstandard orthography of the text, one might read the omicron for an omega, hence σωνατωμ, a variant found in some papyri (compare P.Petr. III.42; so Moulton, James Hope and Milligan, George, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (1930; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 168, 174Google Scholar . This orthographic variant s i also common among Greek epitaphs from Rome (see Horst, van der, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, 26)Google Scholar . This spelling would seem a natural substitution also in a Latin context, given the regular use of the loanword domus in Greek as σομοσ. Read in this way, then, the phrase would refer to the house or rooms from which the synagogue was renovated. A similar use of the term Stojiaxa as “rooms” associated with a synagogue building (as hostelry) may be found n i the Ophel synagogue inscription (CII 1404 ; , White, Social Origins of Christian Architecture, no. 63)Google Scholar . In either case, it is not possible to read the επομοεμ merely as an auxiliary verb with αμεøνκεν (as Squarciapino, Floriani [“Synagogue,” 203] suggested)Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ See , White, Building God's House, 77–85Google Scholar . It is also possible to identify the work with phase 3a, a few decades later. See also Lifshitz, Baruch, Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 7; Paris: Gabalda, 1967)Google Scholar.

⁵¹ , Leon (Jews of Ancient Rome, 76–77Google Scholar ) had earlier estimated 76%, but these numbers have subsequently been revised through the work of Solin, Heikki, “Juden und Syrer im westlichen Teil der romischen Welt. Eine ethnisch-demographische Studie mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der sprachlichen Zustande,” ANRW 2.29.2 (1983) 590–789Google Scholar , esp. 701-2 . Horst, Van der (Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, 22Google Scholar [following Solin]) gives the following breakdown: 68% Greek, 18% Semitic, 12% Latin, and 2% bilingual (usually with Greek as one of the languages).

⁵² , Leon, Jews of Ancient Rome, 76–77Google Scholar , 79-89; compare Horst, van der, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, 25–34Google Scholar.

⁵³ The formula is found in earlier periods (including late Julio-Claudian and Flavian), but much more rarely than in the Antonine era. For first-century examples, see CII 6.918, 940, 2042, and 3751. By itself, the formula is thus inadequate for dating the inscription absolutely.

⁵⁴ See Vermaseren, Maarten J., ed., Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae (2 vols; The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1956-1960) no. 273CrossRefGoogle Scholar (from the Planta pedis mithraeum in Ostia [Reg. III.xiii.2] in the Porta Marina quarter, probably under Marcus Aurelius), and no. 510 (= CII VI.727, from Rome, under Commodus).

⁵⁵ Note also the Mithraic inscription from Noricum (, Vermaseren, Corpus Inscriptionum Mithriacae, 1438Google Scholar ; CII 3.4800, dated to the year 239 CE), which seems to come from members of the imperial bureaucracy who were also patrons of the local Mithraic cell. See , White, Building God's House, 56–57Google Scholar . Also for Rome, note the salutation to the emperor Septimius Severus and his sons (datable to 207/208), probably by an imperial client (CII 6.3768):

Pro Salute et Victoria et Reditu

Impp. Caesar. L. Septimi. Severi. Pii

Pertinacis. et. M. Aureli Antonini Augg

[[et P Septimi Getae nobilissimi Caesaris ]] et Iuliae

Aug m(atris) k(astrorum) totiusq(ue) domus divinae numeroque eorum

L. Accius Iustus ex voto d(onum) d(at) c(um) s(uis).

For the health, victory, and safe return of the emperors Caesar L. Septimius Severus Pius Pertinax and M. Aurelius Antoninus, the Augusti, [and P. Septimius Geta, most noble Caesar], and Julia Augusta, Mother of the Camp, and the entire divine house and all their ranks. L(ucius) Accius Justus made this gift from a vow with his household.

⁵⁶ For the inscriptions and discussion see , Leon, Jews of Ancient Rome, 140–42.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Compare , White, Social Origins of Christian Architecture, no. 85Google Scholar . The stone is now in the Museo Nazionale della Therme in Rome.

⁵⁸ Line 1: Frey proposed the term universitas (“community”). Given the tone of the text, I suspect that either collegium or even synagoga (meaning “congregation”) might as easily fit. My own preference (since certainty is out of the question), given the tone of the rest of the text and the kind of honors being bestowed, would lean toward collegium, which may also be restored below in line 6.

⁵⁹ Line 3: [ex conlat]ione (“from the collection”) is Frey's restoration. The reading ex compositione (“by agreement”) would also fit the space and the sense, if the preceding verb were an abbreviated form, such as comparaver(unt), or something similar.

⁶⁰ Line 6: Frey proposed no reconstruction for the lacuna at the beginning, though the sense i s clearly understood in his translation: “pere (de la communaute) et de gerusiarque” (“father of the community and of the gerusiarch”) (CIL 393). I propose to read patro]no for the partially preserved word, making the titulature a double reference “father and patron of the collegium” and “gerusiarch” (an ablative in apposition with patre), instead of supplying a missing genitive. One should note that Frey supplied gerusiarchae in the lacuna of line 4, thus using a first declension dative form of the noun. In line 6, however, the attested use of the same word in the ablative (gerusiarche) clearly follows a third declension form. If we were to correct the reading of line 4 for consistency, it should read gerusiarchi. Nonetheless, certainty i s difficult since this is the only occurence of the word in Latin in an inflected form (i.e. not nominative) among the inscriptions from Rome and environs. The only other Latin instance is CII 1.56 (from Puteoli). The 13 remaining instances are all in Greek. On the change from -ae to -e in the orthography of Jewish Latin inscriptions, see Horst, van der, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, 35Google Scholar.

⁶¹ If one follows the alternative reconstruction of lines 2-3 suggested above (n. 59), it would yield a slightly different meaning: “who by agreement provided a plot for…” (thus suggesting a gift or purchase of property owned by the Jewish community itself). This latter reconstruction is, in my view, supported by similar formulaic legal provisions found in other tituli; see nn. 66 and 73 below. The plot could also have been donated by Livius Dionysius himself, and the deed transfer could have been mediated through the coilegial organization.

⁶² Compare the similar inscriptions from Isola Sacra in n. 48 above and nn. 66, 73 below.

⁶³ See the important work of Werner Eck on the form and dating of funerary inscriptions i n the environs of Rome : “Inschriften aus der vatikanischen Nekropole unter St. Peter,” Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 65 (1986) 245–93Google Scholar ; idem, “Romische Grabinschriften. Aussageabsicht und Aussagefahigkeit im funeraren Kontext,” in Henner von Hesberg and Paul Zanker, eds., Romische Grdberstrassen (Abhandlung der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften; Munich: Akademie Verlag, 1988) 61–83Google Scholar ; and idem, “Inschriften und Grabbauten n i der Nekropole unter St. Peter,” in Neukam, Peter, ed. Die Anlike im Brennpunkt (Munich: Bayerischer Schulbuch-Verlag, 1991) 26–58Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ On the formulaic nature and the social relationships reflected in these inscriptions, see the careful study of the tombs and texts from Isola Sacra by Nielsen, Hanne Sigismund (“The Physical Context of Roman Epitaphs and the Structure of the Roman Family,” Analecta Romana instituti Danici 23 [1996] 35–60Google Scholar ). I thank Dr. Nielsen for allowing me to use a draft of this article and for other assistance in the analysis of the Ostian inscriptions.

⁶⁵ The difference of interpretation here derives from the uncertain reconstruction of lines 2-3, as noted above in notes 59 and 61. The lacuna at the beginning of line 3 makes it impossible to be sure as to the method of the land's acquisition.

⁶⁶ Other funerary tituli regularly mention the legal provisions for the acquisition of the land on which the monument was built. Compare the wording of a Hadrianic-period titulus of an imperial slave from tomb 94 at Sacra, Isola (Thylander, Inscriptions, no. A251):Google Scholar

Dis Manibus

Trophimus Caes[aris] n[ostris] ser[vus] et Claudia

Tyche sibi et Claudiae Saturninae

filiae pientisimae quae vixit ann[is]

xv mensibus vi dieb[us] xiii, et libertis

libertabus[que], posterisque eorum.

Comparato loco a Valeria

Trophime p[ro] p[arte] IIII huius monumenti.

To the divine shades. Trophimus, slave of our Caesar, and Claudia Tyche (his wife), (made this tomb) for themselves and for Claudia Saturnina their most pious daughter who lived 15 years, 6 months, and 13 days, and for their freedmen and freedwomen, and their posterity; having furnished a plot for Valeria Trophime of 1/4 part of this monument.

The woman Valeria Trophime (lines 7-8) appears to be a client or relative of Trophimus to whom the latter allocated a quarter of his tomb monument. The formula here is comparable t o that found in line 2 of the Julius Justus inscription. Compare also the wording of , Thylander, Inscriptions, no. A189 (dating from the time of Antoninus Pius):Google Scholar

Octavius Felix [….]

Maxima et Iunia E[….]

comparaberunt [….]

loco concessu

Iulio Zotico et A[….]

Artemidora itu amb[itu….]

D

Octavius Felix [… and (his wife?) ] Maxima, and Junia E[…] have furnished […] a plot by agreement to Julius Zoticus and A[…] Artemidora [for passage] in entry and circulation…

For the legal conditions of property easement, see also n. 73 below.

⁶⁷ For gerusiarchs (or gerousiarchs) at Rome, see Leon, Jews of Ancient Rome, 180–83. I am in complete agreement with Leon (pp. 168-70, following Schürer, Emil, Gemeindeverfassung derJuden in Rom [Leipzig: Teubner, 1879] 15Google Scholar ; , Frey in CII l. cii–cxiGoogle Scholar ) that the gerusia did not represent a central counCII of elders over all the Jewish congregations in a city (except perhaps i n Alexandria), and certainly not in Rome. Instead, it seems that it represented the volition of individual congregations to adopt for themselves a collegial organization (and appropriate titles) in imitation of other collegial groups in their immediate locality. For patronage roles and titles in synagogue communities, see , White, Building God's House, 77–85Google Scholar . For comparable honorific Jewish texts, see , Lifshitz, DonateursGoogle Scholar ; see , White, Social Origins of Christian Architecture, nos. 64Google Scholar (Lifshitz, Donateurs, 100), 65 (CII 766), 68 (CII 738), and 71b ( , White, “The Delos Synagogue Revisited,” HTR 80 [1987] 141–44)Google Scholar . For the title pater/mater and other social implications, see , Brooten, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue, 57–72Google Scholar (she discusses the Castel Porziano inscription on p. 70).

⁶⁸ D'Arms, John H., Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981) 127CrossRefGoogle Scholar , 137 n. 82, and App. 1, nos. 62–65 (compare CII 14.369, 461, and 5322). At least two of these (nos. 63 and 65) also married outside of their gentilicium (“family lineage,” traditionally denoting the Roman orders by the gensnomen of the Roman trianomina), which gives further testimony to their social prestige; see also D'Arms, Commerce and Social Standing, 134 and App. 2. Given the second-century date of this text, it is important to note that such familial names passed on through layers of freedmen; they tended “to cluster and repeat themselves, especially within the collegia” (ibid., 137 ; see , Meiggs, Roman Ostia, 323)Google Scholar . On the problems of onomastic changes in the later empire in general, see Salway, Benet, “What's in a name? A Survey of Roman Onomastic Practice from c. 700 BC to AD 700,” JRomS 84 (1994) 124–51Google Scholar . On the problems of Jewish names, see especially Solin, Heikki, “Die Namen der orientalischen Sklaven in Rom,” in Nuval, Noel, ed., Lonomastique latine (Paris: Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique, 1977) 205–9Google Scholar . On the use of polynomy as a sign of social status, rare among the Jewish epitaphs from Rome, see , Rutgers, The Jews of Late Ancient Rome, 167Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ , Meiggs, Roman Ostia, 202Google Scholar ; , D'Arms, Commerce and Social Standing, 138Google Scholar and App. 1, nos. 68–74. Of these, three (nos. 70, 72, and 74) married outside their gentilicium; see App. 2.

⁷⁰ The office of treasurer of the Augustales alone cost 10,000 sesterces (HS). Two Ostian Augustales established foundations in the amounts of HS 40,000 and HS 50,000, respectively. See , D'Arms, Commerce and Social Standing, 129Google Scholar ; , Meiggs, Roman Ostia, 221Google Scholar . See also Duncan-Jones, Richard, The Economy of the Roman Empire: Quantitative Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974) 176Google Scholar.

⁷¹ , D'Arms, Commerce and Social Standing, 133Google Scholar . Such freedmen were prominent in the guilds and collegia of Ostia, especially those engaged in building and shipping. Usually, the freedmen Augustales held the highest offices in these collegia, while the patrons of the same collegia were from the decurionate. In other words, these organizations furnished yet another mechanism for establishing and maintaining the social connections. See also Ramsay MacMullen, Roman Social Relations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974) 97-100. For the use of private benefactions to foreign cults as a mechanism in this upward mobility, note the case of N. Popidius Celsinus at Pompeii (discussed in my Building God's House, 31).

⁷² , D'Arms, Commerce and Social Standing, 40–45Google Scholar , 132. On the upward mobility of freedmen (especially of non-Italian background) into the decurionate at Pompeii, with implications for population growth and socioeconomic conditions, see the study by Jongman, Willem, The Economy and Society of Pompeii (Amsterdam: Gieben, 1988) 284–311Google Scholar . More generally on slaves and freedmen in the economic and social activities of the Roman world, see also Treggiari, Susan, Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969) esp. 205–6Google Scholar (for Jewish groups and collegia) ; and Keith Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978) 64–74, 163-72Google Scholar.

⁷³ Here one may note two other family tombs from Isola Sacra, since they reflect similar names. The following inscriptions come from a closely connected set of families, and they buried closely as well:

Tomb 88 (Thylander, Inscriptions, no. A160, dated under Hadrian):

Iuliae C. f. Quintae et

M. Antonio Hermeti

fili parentibus

piissimi

For Julia Quinta, daughter of Caius, and Marcus Antonius Hermes, their children (have made this monument) to their most pious parents.

Tomb 89 (Thylander, Inscriptions, no. A180, dated under Antoninus Pius or Marcus Aurelius):

D. M. Coniugi

carissimo Messia

Candida fecit et sibi

et libertis libertabus-

que posterisque eorum

locus concessus ap

Gavinis II, Chresimo

et Eutycho et ap Antonis

II, Iuliano et Polione

itu ambitu introitum

liberum.

To the divine shades. For her dearest spouse, Messia Candida made (this monument) also for herself and for her freedmen and freed-women and their posterity; the plot having been agreed upon by the two Gabinii, Chresimus and Eutychus, and by the two Antonii, Julianus and Polio, for free passage in entry and circulation.

The Gabinii mentioned owned the adjacent Tomb 90 (cf. Thylander, Inscriptions nos. A122-123) and the Antonii are most likely associated with Tomb 88 (cf. A160, noted above). Tomb 89 was a secondary construction using the tombs on either side.

⁷⁴ Puteoli may have reached its zenith a little earlier than Ostia, though both continued to be commercially significant for shipping throughout the principate. Ostia seems to have gained importance especially after construction of Trajan's harbor. It rose to its peak in the second t o the fourth centuries, but declined after the time of Constantine, when the commercial interests shifted to Portus. See , Meiggs, Roman Ostia, 64–82Google Scholar . Significantly, Puteoli was set up on the model of and with contacts from the famous Hellenistic commercial center of Delos, where there were both Jewish and Samaritan enclaves. It seems clear, moreover, in the case of the Samaritan group, that trade and shipping played a part in their activities. A number of other immigrant enclaves (such as the Poseidoniasts from Berytus) on Delos were also organized as commercial agencies or cultic collegia. See my “Delos Synagogue Revisited,” 144-46, 152-53. Also at Puteoli, there is the well-known case of the Tyrian merchants who dedicated a monument to Helios Seraptenos. See Nock, Arthur Darby, Conversion (Oxford: Clarendon, 1933) 66–67Google Scholar ; compare , White, Building God's House, 31–32Google Scholar . On the comparison of Puteoli and Ostia, see also , D'Arms, Commerce and Social Standing, 122–26Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ The two inscriptions are, respectively, CII 76 (CIL 10. 2258):

DM

P(ublius) Claudius Aciba

sibi fecit

To the divine shades. Publius Claudius Akiba made (this monument) for himself. and 75 (CII 10. 1931):

DM

P(ublius) Caulio Coerano

Negotiatori

ferrariarum et

vinariariae

Acibas lib(ertis)

Patrono merenti

To the divine shades. Publius Claudius (sic) Coeranus, merchant of irongoods and wine (sic), Akiba, his freedman, (made this monument) for his deserving patron.

Frey's listing indicates that he considered the Jewish identity of Akiba dubious, despite the name. Others would disagree. On the use of formula DM (Dis manibus) in clearly Jewish contexts see Kant, Lawrence, “Jewish Inscriptions in Greek and Latin,” ANRW 2.20.2 (1987) 683Google Scholar ; compare Horst, van der, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, 42–43Google Scholar ; , Rutgers, The Jews in Late Ancient Rome, 269–72Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ See my article “Finding the Ties that Bind: Issues from Social History,” in Semeia 56 (1991) esp. 15–21.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ , D'Arms, Commerce and Social Standing, 130Google Scholar ; , Eck, “Romische Grabinschriften. Aussage absicht und Aussagefahigkeit im funeraren Kontext,” 61–83Google Scholar . For the measurements: 1 Rom. ft. = 0.295 m; 1 m = 3.39 Rom. ft., 1 sq. m = 11.495 sq. Rom. ft.

⁷⁸ A tantalizing glimpse of the centripetal pull of provincials into this social mix appears even in a casual reference from a private letter from Egypt, in which it is reported that “Herminos went off to Rome and became a freedman of Caesar in order to receive offices” (εομιμοσ απνλøεν ισ þωμιπμ]/ και απελενøεþοσ ελενεπ[ο]/ καιμαþοσ ιμα οπικια λαβ[π]). The text is from P.Oxy. XLVI 3312, lines 11-13 (ed. John R. Rea); for the text and discussion, see Horsley, Gregory H. R., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 3 (1983) 7–9Google Scholar . The letter is variously dated between the first and third centuries CE. Note that the Greek word OJClKia (1. 13) is a Latin loanword (officia). This text clearly deals with a case of a local man who has gone to Rome to join the familia Caesaris, the imperial bureaucracy consisting of freedmen and slaves. It is noteworthy, however, that there is no mention of his becoming a slave, but only a freedman. As an imperial freedman he would have achieved a significant boost up the social ladder at Ostia or Rome. In general, Leon was very skeptical of the notion that most of the Jews of Rome had come originally as slaves; he tended, therefore, to discount the idea of freedmen, Jewish (Jews of Ancient Rome, 142)Google Scholar . But see also Fuks, Gerhard, “Where have all the Freedmen Gone? On an Anomaly in the Jewish Grave-Inscriptions from Rome,” JJS 36 (1985) 25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar . A recent study of slavery and manumission practices among Jews and Christians is that of Harrill, J. Albert, The Manumission of Slaves in Early Christianity (Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1995)Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Note CII 551a, which gives the name lustus (in Greek) in a Jewish epitaph from Portus.

⁸⁰ See , Kraabel, “The Roman Diaspora: Six Questionable Assumptions,” 457–58Google Scholar ; , Smith, “Fences and Neighbors,”Google Scholar in idem. Imagining Religion, 17–18.