Comments on: Help reading a Christian inscription spotted in Imma (near Antioch) http://www.currentepigraphy.org/2007/11/08/help-reading-an-inscription-spotted-in-imma-near-antioch/ ISSN 1754-0909 (Online) Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:11:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.10 by: K. Rigsby http://www.currentepigraphy.org/2007/11/08/help-reading-an-inscription-spotted-in-imma-near-antioch/#comment-2407 Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:25:14 +0000 http://www.currentepigraphy.org/2007/11/08/help-reading-an-inscription-spotted-in-imma-near-antioch/#comment-2407 This looks plausible. I'd leave the archbishop's name unrestored--there are too many Philo- names possible. This looks plausible. I’d leave the archbishop’s name unrestored–there are too many Philo- names possible.

]]> by: PaulIversen http://www.currentepigraphy.org/2007/11/08/help-reading-an-inscription-spotted-in-imma-near-antioch/#comment-2403 Sat, 10 Nov 2007 10:53:23 +0000 http://www.currentepigraphy.org/2007/11/08/help-reading-an-inscription-spotted-in-imma-near-antioch/#comment-2403 How about this <a href="http://www.currentepigraphy.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/imma2.jpg" title="imma2.jpg" rel="nofollow">revised text</a>? How about this revised text?

]]> by: K. Rigsby http://www.currentepigraphy.org/2007/11/08/help-reading-an-inscription-spotted-in-imma-near-antioch/#comment-2394 Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:41:12 +0000 http://www.currentepigraphy.org/2007/11/08/help-reading-an-inscription-spotted-in-imma-near-antioch/#comment-2394 Line 1: ok; but what would a month be doing in the first line? 3-4: could be οὗτ|[ος ὁ τόπος/οἶκος/ναός 5: my error, of course 880. ΠΦ does look better; but I can't make out what follows. If 580, then not territory of Antioch, yes? Line 1: ok; but what would a month be doing in the first line?
3-4: could be οὗτ|[ος ὁ τόπος/οἶκος/ναός
5: my error, of course 880. ΠΦ does look better; but I can’t make out what follows. If 580, then not territory of Antioch, yes?

]]> by: PaulIversen http://www.currentepigraphy.org/2007/11/08/help-reading-an-inscription-spotted-in-imma-near-antioch/#comment-2388 Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:39:00 +0000 http://www.currentepigraphy.org/2007/11/08/help-reading-an-inscription-spotted-in-imma-near-antioch/#comment-2388 Dear Professor Rigsby, Thank you for your comments. I believe the letter in question in line 1 is inscribed like a μ (miniscule mu) -- a very common form on late inscriptions (and of course on papyri). I'm reasonably certain of the reading of the first and second lines. There are several examples of this formula in Christian literary sources. I'll have to think some more about your suggestion for line 3 -- it looks quite promising. However, if right, it makes the ουτ(-) or θυτ(-) that follows very enigmatic. I believe you have solved the riddle of the beginning of line 5. In fact, I now see the lower horizontal of the delta. I would now restore something like: [- - - - - - - - - lei]tourgesantos [presb(uterou) kai/ke p]eriod(eutou). etous Π??. As for the year, πω would yield 880 (= A.D. 568/9), not 890, right? I wonder whether the second letter might not be a phi, so we have ΠΦ = 580. But then there would be two traces after this. Could these two traces be the abbreviation i(ndiktionos) ι'? The overline over these last two traces also seems to be higher, perhaps indicating they belong to a different dating system. Dear Professor Rigsby,

Thank you for your comments. I believe the letter in question in line 1 is inscribed like a μ (miniscule mu) — a very common form on late inscriptions (and of course on papyri). I’m reasonably certain of the reading of the first and second lines. There are several examples of this formula in Christian literary sources.

I’ll have to think some more about your suggestion for line 3 — it looks quite promising. However, if right, it makes the ουτ(-) or θυτ(-) that follows very enigmatic.

I believe you have solved the riddle of the beginning of line 5. In fact, I now see the lower horizontal of the delta. I would now restore something like:

[- - - - - - - - - lei]tourgesantos
[presb(uterou) kai/ke p]eriod(eutou). etous Π??.

As for the year, πω would yield 880 (= A.D. 568/9), not 890, right?

I wonder whether the second letter might not be a phi, so we have ΠΦ = 580. But then there would be two traces after this. Could these two traces be the abbreviation i(ndiktionos) ι’? The overline over these last two traces also seems to be higher, perhaps indicating they belong to a different dating system.

]]> by: K. Rigsby http://www.currentepigraphy.org/2007/11/08/help-reading-an-inscription-spotted-in-imma-near-antioch/#comment-2380 Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:26:46 +0000 http://www.currentepigraphy.org/2007/11/08/help-reading-an-inscription-spotted-in-imma-near-antioch/#comment-2380 Line 1: maybe aiwnion estw? I can't make out a M. In line 3, epenohqh In line 5, [p]eriode(utou). Year pw = 890 Sel. = A.D. 578/9, but maybe there is another letter after? Line 1: maybe aiwnion estw? I can’t make out a M.
In line 3, epenohqh
In line 5, [p]eriode(utou). Year pw = 890 Sel. = A.D. 578/9, but maybe there is another letter after?

]]>