Mosaic inscription in the N. aisle of a basilical church in Khirbet Zikhrin, 6 km. S. of Aphek-Antipatris. Mentioned by M. Fischer, RBi 93 (1986) 273/274 (dr.). Inscription
Χρι̣[σ]τέ, βοήθι | τῇ δούλῃ σου | Ἀθανασίαν (sic)
Apparatus Criticus
2. ΤΗ: ligature
3. for the name Ἀθανασία/Ἀθανάσιος cf. SEG 30 1835
a similar mosaic inscription, which probably used the same formula, was found E. of this specimen, F.
Dated 691 by ed. pr. on the basis of L. 11: ΑΞΧ Θ(εοῦ): “an 691 de Dieu” [this seems doubtful and perhaps we should date the inscription before 642, i.e. the date of the “effondrement du pouvoir byzantin”; cf. the mention of the emperor in L. 1, Bingen]
3. J. seems to have read ιππυ[ at the end of the line [i.e. ὑπη[ρετῶν with iotacism, Bingen]
3-4. perhaps παλαιοτέρων καὶ] | νεωτέρων, ed. pr.; but this seems to be too long in comparison with the other lines, Bingen, who prefers ὑπη̣[ρετῶν καὶ].
Comments 6
Mosaic inscription in the N. aisle of a basilical church in Khirbet Zikhrin, 6 km. S. of Aphek-Antipatris. Mentioned by M. Fischer, RBi 93 (1986) 273/274 (dr.).
Inscription
Χρι̣[σ]τέ, βοήθι | τῇ δούλῃ σου | Ἀθανασίαν (sic)
Apparatus Criticus
2. ΤΗ: ligature
3. for the name Ἀθανασία/Ἀθανάσιος cf. SEG 30 1835
a similar mosaic inscription, which probably used the same formula, was found E. of this specimen, F.
Reply
Reply
Painted in red on white stucco. Ed. pr. J. Jarry, BSAC 24 (1979-1982) 111 -113.
Inscription
† Νικã ἡ τύ[χη τοῦ] βασί[λεω]ς [. . .
καὶ τῷ ταπεινῷ πρ(εσβυτέρῳ) Νικωχάρῃ [- -]
κ(αὶ) τῶν συνώντων ὑπη̣[ρετῶν - - ]
4 νεωτέρων καὶ Ἰωάννου καὶ [. . .] η αὐτοῦ [- -]
κὲ φυλάξων τὴν εἴσοδον κ[αὶ τὴν]
ἔξωδων † Ἀμ[ὴν. . .] ἀ̣π̣ι̣α̣κ̣[- -]
ΚΕ καὶ ἐν θαλάσῃ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς
8 φυλάξων τὰ σώμ[ατα - -]
ΚΕ μνησθίτι καὶ ἐμοῦ τοῦ μοναχ[οῦ] Ν̣αραξίου
ἔγραψα
[ἐν] Ἰανουαρίῳ ΚΖ ἐν ΑΞΧΘ
12 Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς Χ(ριστὸς)
νικᾷ
Apparatus Criticus
Dated 691 by ed. pr. on the basis of L. 11: ΑΞΧ Θ(εοῦ): “an 691 de Dieu” [this seems doubtful and perhaps we should date the inscription before 642, i.e. the date of the “effondrement du pouvoir byzantin”; cf. the mention of the emperor in L. 1, Bingen]
3. J. seems to have read ιππυ[ at the end of the line [i.e. ὑπη[ρετῶν with iotacism, Bingen]
3-4. perhaps παλαιοτέρων καὶ] | νεωτέρων, ed. pr.; but this seems to be too long in comparison with the other lines, Bingen, who prefers ὑπη̣[ρετῶν καὶ].
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment