The "Christianos Graffito" discovered in Pompeii (1862)

[Leucius Charinus]

A separate thread to discuss the earliest purported Christian inscription.

I have added two links to papers on the "Christianos Graffito" found at Pompeii (buried in 79 CE) in the 19th century. The discussion of the inscription has always been marred by association with far-fetched speculation that goes well beyond the evidence. It also took a firm step backwards early on by the publication of the inscription in the well-known reference, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum vol. 4, in a greatly obfuscated form (but without any new evidence to justify the many changes made, relative to the three eyewitness accounts).

A turning point in the discussion came from M. Guarducci, “La più antica iscrizione del nome dei Cristiani”, in: Romische Quartalschrift, 57 (1962), pp. 116-125. Guarducci identified the probable first word of the inscription, the name "Bovios." This led to the reconstruction of this line of the inscription as "Bovios is listening to the Christians." Like others, Guarducci also identified the fourth and fifth lines as coming from a different hand.

Guarducci, Wayment and Grey, and Tuccinardi differ in their reconstruction of the fifth line.

Jesus Followers in Pompeii: The Christianos Graffito and “Hotel of the Christians” Reconsidered
https://www.jjmjs.org/uploads/1/1/9/0/1 ... ompeii.pdf

Christian Horrors in Pompeii: A New Proposal for the Christianos Graffito
https://www.jjmjs.org/uploads/1/1/9/0/1 ... inardi.pdf

For the purpose of this thread, the most interesting part of the inscription would be the presence of the word Christianos (accusative plural).

There are three accounts here: Giuseppe Fiorelli (the archaeologist who found the inscription first), Giulio Minervini (another archaeologist who arrived soon after in order to make a sketch), and Alfred Kiessling (an archaeologist who saw it later that year, making another sketch).

The statement from Fiorelli was that he “read at the end of the first line . . . HRISTIANOS or . . . HRISTIANVS.” Fiorelli indicates, by this, that he was not able to make out clearly the letter before 'H' here. The statement from Fiorelli can be compared to the two sketches regarding this part of the inscription (the fourth and fifth lines):



All three witnesses are very clear about the letters 'RISTIAN' here. The first two witnesses clearly saw the end of the word here (which Fiorelli says was "OS" or "VS" and which Minervini sketched as "OS"). The first two witnesses also saw the "H" here as well, which Kiessling's sketch can show only in a deteriorated form. Of course, Kiessling was aware that the graffito was already on its way to fading, which is the best explanation of why the "H" is not clearly visible in Kiessling's sketch and why the last two letters now left only one line visible to Kiessling.

As a result, we can conclude that the graffito read 'HRISTIANOS' here. The first letter must have been hard to make out, based on Fiorelli's statement. Both Minervini and Kiessling attempt to draw the preceding letter: Minervini more clearly as a 'C', Kiessling as just a slightly curved line. All three witnesses may have been dealing with damage at this part of the graffito already.

Even with the difficulty of reading the first letter (which might be marked as a letter whose form is being reconstructed from context), a fairly cautious conclusion regarding the the inscription having the word 'Christianos' here can be reached.

Being cautious
https://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk ... -language/

One of the most noticeable stylistic aspects of academic communication is the tendency for writers to avoid expressing absolute certainty, where there may be a small degree of uncertainty, and to avoid making over-generalisations, where a small number of exceptions might exist. This means that there are many instances where the epistemological strength (strength of knowledge) of a statement or claim is mitigated (weakened) in some way. In the field of linguistics, devices for lessening the strength of a statement or claim are known as hedging devices. Analysis of research reports have shown that discussion sections tend to be particularly rich in hedging devices, particularly where writers are offering explanations for findings.

Being critical
https://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/being-critical/

As an academic writer, you are expected to be critical of the sources that you use. This essentially means questioning what you read and not necessarily agreeing with it just because the information has been published. Being critical can also mean looking for reasons why we should not just accept something as being correct or true. This can require you to identify problems with a writer’s arguments or methods, or perhaps to refer to other people’s criticisms of these. Constructive criticism goes beyond this by suggesting ways in which a piece of research or writing could be improved.
… being against is not enough. We also need to develop habits of constructive thinking.
Edward de Bono

Two criticisms are cited between the two papers cited above (which I have read):

(1) “a figment of pious imagination”

The first is from the classical historian Mary Beard in "The Fires of Vesuvius: Pompeii Lost and Found" (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010), 302. Here the criticism is described as 'dismissing a Christian reading of the graffito as “a figment of pious imagination,” although typically without carefully engaging the full range of relevant evidence.' Elsewhere the author is described as "open to the possibility that Christians were in the city of Pompeii, but do not include the Christianos graffito as evidence". It might be added that Mary Beard has produced historical documentaries which include the martyrdom of Perpetua.

(2) 'accusations of fraud - the original eyewitnesses invented
the graffito and that “in fact, probably no one ever saw it!”

This second criticism is from the author Eric Moorman from his article "JEWS AND CHRISTIANS AT POMPEII IN FICTION AND FACTION." The author discusses the Christian inscription as follows:

p.68

The christianos inscription

One of the most frequently studied graffiti is that of christianos, a word that originally formed part of a longer text that faded shortly after its discovery in 1862, as it had been written with charcoal. Alfred Kiessling had apparently noticed it on the south western wall of the atrium of a house in the Vicolo del Balcone Pensile (VII 11, 11) in 1862. The story of the discovery and the documentation by Kari Zangemeister (CJL IV 679) and others contains a great deal of suppositions that make it rather suspect. In fact, probably no one ever saw it!

Moreover, the two transcriptions of the text show great differences, including the spelling of the word itself/ and it has been suggested that the word never actually existed. Giuseppe Fiorelli, who made a (third), unfortunately unpublished copy of the text, wanted to interpret christianos as the name of a wine. Margareta Guarducci, one of the leading experts in the field of ancient epigraphy, renowned within and beyond Catholic and scientific circles alike for her research on the tomb of S. Peter beneath the papal altar in S. Peter's cathedral, strives to read some Christian content into the texts and constructed the sentence as follows:

Bovios audi(t) christianos/s(a)evos o[s]ores
///
'Bovius listens to the Christians, those cruel haters/

albeit without explaining her reasoning.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... nd_Faction

Prior to this section Eric Moorman also identifies three earlier fiction books the subject of which involved the community of Christians in Pompeii. These books were in circulation prior to the discovery in 1862. He discusses these three books in depth and then writes in his summary:

p.71

Fiction versus Faction

Upon examining the precise timing of discovery of these possible (or imagined) proofs of the presence of Jews and Christians at Pompeii, we can conclude that none of them were known when our three discussed authors (Bulwer, Anonymous, and Fairfield) wrote their
texts.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... nd_Faction

To the above I can add my own criticism in the form of a sketch of a brief timeline:

TIMELINE

1853 - Pius IX moved beyond collecting [Christian relics] by appointing a commission - "Commissione de archaelogia sacra" - that would be responsible for all early Christian remains."

1855 - Roger Fenton's assistant seated on Fenton's photographic van, Crimea



1857-1861 Giovanni Battista de Rossi publishes first volume of "Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae". The first volume had to be revised due to (multiple) identified frauds.

1862 - Pompeii graffito is discovered by the eminent Neapolitan archaeologist Giuseppe Fiorelli

1862 - Neapolitan archaeologist, Giulio Minervini, “sketched the signs appearing on the wall.”

1862 - German archaeologist Alfred Kiessling, who was the last scholar to see the artifact in person and the first to publish the related news (Bullettino of 1862 with transcription of the two lines) that “. . . a charcoal inscription was found, unfortunately largely vanished. . . . As far as I know, this is the first of the monuments found in Pompeii, referring to the Christians”

1864 - Visit by Fiorelli and Giovanni Battista de Rossi, but by then the charcoal graffito had completely disappeared.

1871 - Karl Zangemeister authored the official edition of the graffito [7] for the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL IV.679), also publishing Kiessling’s apograph (Tab. XVI.2) for the first time. Kiessling’s apograph, was the later testimony. He changed the Christianos into ceristirae or christirae

1900 --------------------------

1961 - Margherita Guarducci “Bovio is listening to the Christians, cruel haters.”

2005 - ERIC M. MOORMANN "Jews and Christians at Pompeii in Fiction and Faction". Included accusations of fraud - the original eyewitnesses invented the graffito and that “in fact, probably no one ever saw it!”

2014 - Mary Beard, Fires of Vesuvius, 302; cf. Alison E. Cooley and M. G. Cooley, Pompeii and Herculaneum: A Sourcebook (2nd ed.; London: Routledge, 2014), 107–108, 159 ( “a figment of pious imagination” )

2015 - Thomas A. Wayment "Jesus Followers in Pompeii: The Christianos Graffito and “Hotel of the Christians” Reconsidered. JJMJS No. 2 (2015): 102--146

2016 - Enrico Tuccinardi "A New Proposal for the Christianos Graffito"; JJMJS No. 3 (2016): 61--71

Four Points:

1) If a photograph of the inscription was captured before it disappeared I would be less skeptical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photography

2) The involvement of the papal archeologist Giovanni Battista de Rossi, even at arm's length, rings all sorts of warning bells for me.

3) The involvement of Pope Pius IX who "moved beyond collecting [Christian relics] by appointing a commission - "Commissione de archaelogia sacra" - that would be responsible for all early Christian remains" also rings all sorts of warning bells.

4) All other epigraphic and physical manuscript evidence related to the nation of the Christians appears in the 3rd century with nothing from the first two centuries other than this "discovery" from the 1st century which within days disappeared under the Pompeii rainstorms.


Conclusion

My fairly cautious conclusion (FWIW) is that this supposed 1st century Pompeii graffito has very little historical integrity.

[Peter Kirby]

(1) “a figment of pious imagination”

(2) 'accusations of fraud - the original eyewitnesses invented
the graffito and that “in fact, probably no one ever saw it!”

2) The involvement of the papal archeologist Giovanni Battista de Rossi, even at arm's length, rings all sorts of warning bells for me.

3) The involvement of Pope Pius IX who "moved beyond collecting [Christian relics] by appointing a commission - "Commissione de archaelogia sacra" - that would be responsible for all early Christian remains" also rings all sorts of warning bells.

The above isn't critical and rational; it's a statement of prejudices.

[Peter Kirby]

4) All other epigraphic and physical manuscript evidence related to the nation of the Christians appears in the 3rd century with nothing from the first two centuries other than this "discovery" from the 1st century which within days disappeared under the Pompeii rainstorms.

It was there for more than a few days, long enough to be seen by three people, two of whom drew sketches.

The discovery of the 1st century graffito is consistent with other physical evidence. The nature of the Pompeii archaeological site makes this kind of find very credible. There are over 11,000 graffiti samples found in Pompeii. The eruption of Vesuvius preserved many physical artifacts that otherwise would have been lost to the elements long before the nineteenth century. If we were wondering where we might find a first century artifact that was in some way about Christians, then this would not be an unusual place, given the very high number of extant graffiti.

Integrity requires us to acknowledge the existence of the graffito, which was noted or sketched by three different archaeologists on three different occasions. This was over an interval of more than just a few days, and yes, once exposed to the elements and the standards of 19th century archaeology, it soon enough became illegible, which would be expected.

If the question is instead about the existence of Christians in the first century (instead of just about the distribution of the physical evidence), it can be noted that the presence of Christians in the first century can easily be seen to be likely for other reasons, such as the reference from Suetonius to the punishment of Christians for the fire at Rome in the mid first century. This is consistent with the reference in 1 Peter 4:16 to suffering "as a Christian," something also seen in the letters of Pliny. These references all have "Christian" being the name given by those outside the group, not least in the context of conflicts with other groups (sometimes 'persecution'). The name "Christian" itself is a Latin-form ending (-ianus) on the Greek word "Christ," which is consistent with a historical context of the metropolitan city of Rome where Greek speakers mingled with a Latin public. It would be reasonable to suggest that the name "Christian" (Suetonius) or "Chrestian" (Tacitus) was already being used in Rome during the time of the punishment inflicted by Nero on the same. This is what the relevant historical evidence speaks to, in any event.

The two papers that I linked show that some researchers have the integrity to move beyond old prejudices and to consider the evidence in a fair-minded way.

[Peter Kirby]

A separate thread to discuss the earliest purported Christian inscription.

Referring to Christians, anyway.

I have added two links to papers on the "Christianos Graffito" found at Pompeii (buried in 79 CE) in the 19th century. The discussion of the inscription has always been marred by association with far-fetched speculation that goes well beyond the evidence. It also took a firm step backwards early on by the publication of the inscription in the well-known reference, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum vol. 4, in a greatly obfuscated form (but without any new evidence to justify the many changes made, relative to the three eyewitness accounts).

A turning point in the discussion came from M. Guarducci, “La più antica iscrizione del nome dei Cristiani”, in: Romische Quartalschrift, 57 (1962), pp. 116-125. Guarducci identified the probable first word of the inscription, the name "Bovios." This led to the reconstruction of this line of the inscription as "Bovios is listening to the Christians." Like others, Guarducci also identified the fourth and fifth lines as coming from a different hand.

Guarducci, Wayment and Grey, and Tuccinardi differ in their reconstruction of the fifth line.

Jesus Followers in Pompeii: The Christianos Graffito and “Hotel of the Christians” Reconsidered
https://www.jjmjs.org/uploads/1/1/9/0/1 ... ompeii.pdf

Christian Horrors in Pompeii: A New Proposal for the Christianos Graffito
https://www.jjmjs.org/uploads/1/1/9/0/1 ... inardi.pdf

For the purpose of this thread, the most interesting part of the inscription would be the presence of the word Christianos (accusative plural).

There are three accounts here: Giuseppe Fiorelli (the archaeologist who found the inscription first), Giulio Minervini (another archaeologist who arrived soon after in order to make a sketch), and Alfred Kiessling (an archaeologist who saw it later that year, making another sketch).

The statement from Fiorelli was that he “read at the end of the first line . . . HRISTIANOS or . . . HRISTIANVS.” Fiorelli indicates, by this, that he was not able to make out clearly the letter before 'H' here. The statement from Fiorelli can be compared to the two sketches regarding this part of the inscription (the fourth and fifth lines):



All three witnesses are very clear about the letters 'RISTIAN' here. The first two witnesses clearly saw the end of the word here (which Fiorelli says was "OS" or "VS" and which Minervini sketched as "OS"). The first two witnesses also saw the "H" here as well, which Kiessling's sketch can show only in a deteriorated form. Of course, Kiessling was aware that the graffito was already on its way to fading, which is the best explanation of why the "H" is not clearly visible in Kiessling's sketch and why the last two letters now left only one line visible to Kiessling.

As a result, we can conclude that the graffito read 'HRISTIANOS' here. The first letter must have been hard to make out, based on Fiorelli's statement. Both Minervini and Kiessling attempt to draw the preceding letter: Minervini more clearly as a 'C', Kiessling as just a slightly curved line. All three witnesses may have been dealing with damage at this part of the graffito already.

Even with the difficulty of reading the first letter (which might be marked as a letter whose form is being reconstructed from context), a fairly cautious conclusion regarding the the inscription having the word 'Christianos' here can be reached.

It is a little interesting how I overlooked this graffito when developing the Early Christian Writings website. It's by someone who is not a Christian but is referencing Christians, which is the kind of thing that I took note of otherwise. It's an inscription, but I had a couple other inscriptions on the website. There's no reason it shouldn't be on the website.

These kinds of "guilt by association" may have affected me.

(1) "The Crazy Bin." This graffito has a history of being yoked together with other, unjustified claims about Christians in Pompeii.

(2) "First Century." There's always something a bit provocative and incredible in something tagged as "first century" in this field.

So I passed over it. This wasn't a well considered decision, more of a heuristic one.

It wasn't until I became familiar with the evidence itself, through the recent papers on the inscription in English (which weren't written when my website was first created), that it became plain that this needs to be included in the evidence regarding early Christians.

Before then, I had the same knee jerk reaction as the OP.

[Peter Kirby]

One thing that I have noticed from making my thread is that the things we are interested in on the forum aren't always the same kind of things that most scholars are concerned about. For my thread, I was most interested in instances where the word is spelled out. However, apart from a few articles from Tuckett arguing about whether P52 had the name Jesus spelled out and pointing out a manuscript of Acts (08) with fewer abbreviations, that doesn't generally seem to be the focus. Most scholars in the field frame the discussion more in terms of "explaining the origins of the nomina sacra" and that guides what they note editorially. So while my editorial habit in my thread led me to try to find every instance of the word spelled out, their habits would often focus on finding instances of the abbreviations and their various forms. The explanation (IMO) is that a spelled-out form isn't all that interesting to them because it doesn't represent new information. It is a word; that is a spelling. Of course as we know they may limit too quickly the range of possible words corresponding to these abbreviations, but that is beside the point here.

For the typical scholar, there is no new information in this graffito that is relevant to their research. They aren't investigating whether there were Christians in the first century, and the graffito tells us little more than that. For their purposes, there is little reason for them to be even concerned with the graffito in the first place since it isn't relevant to their interests. Apart from the other guilt by association factors that have come up here, not finding the inscription interesting and relevant enough to their studies is enough to neglect it.

But this is the internet, and one rule of the internet is that everything that can be claimed here eventually will be. So one thing that is claimed is that there weren't Christians in the first century. For people who are thinking about such things, suddenly an otherwise inconsequential inscription takes on whole new relevance.

There are so many interesting things to try to learn about in the study of the origins of early Christianity. We didn't need this graffito to conclude that there were Christians in the first century, but it sure does save time (for those who are reasonable) not needing to debate it further.

[Peter Kirby]

I have added two links to papers on the "Christianos Graffito" found at Pompeii (buried in 79 CE) in the 19th century. The discussion of the inscription has always been marred by association with far-fetched speculation that goes well beyond the evidence. It also took a firm step backwards early on by the publication of the inscription in the well-known reference, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum vol. 4, in a greatly obfuscated form (but without any new evidence to justify the many changes made, relative to the three eyewitness accounts).

A turning point in the discussion came from M. Guarducci, “La più antica iscrizione del nome dei Cristiani”, in: Romische Quartalschrift, 57 (1962), pp. 116-125. Guarducci identified the probable first word of the inscription, the name "Bovios." This led to the reconstruction of this line of the inscription as "Bovios is listening to the Christians." Like others, Guarducci also identified the fourth and fifth lines as coming from a different hand.

Guarducci, Wayment and Grey, and Tuccinardi differ in their reconstruction of the fifth line.

Jesus Followers in Pompeii: The Christianos Graffito and “Hotel of the Christians” Reconsidered
https://www.jjmjs.org/uploads/1/1/9/0/1 ... ompeii.pdf

Christian Horrors in Pompeii: A New Proposal for the Christianos Graffito
https://www.jjmjs.org/uploads/1/1/9/0/1 ... inardi.pdf

For the purpose of this thread, the most interesting part of the inscription would be the presence of the word Christianos (accusative plural).

There are three accounts here: Giuseppe Fiorelli (the archaeologist who found the inscription first), Giulio Minervini (another archaeologist who arrived soon after in order to make a sketch), and Alfred Kiessling (an archaeologist who saw it later that year, making another sketch).

The statement from Fiorelli was that he “read at the end of the first line . . . HRISTIANOS or . . . HRISTIANVS.” Fiorelli indicates, by this, that he was not able to make out clearly the letter before 'H' here. The statement from Fiorelli can be compared to the two sketches regarding this part of the inscription (the fourth and fifth lines):



All three witnesses are very clear about the letters 'RISTIAN' here. The first two witnesses clearly saw the end of the word here (which Fiorelli says was "OS" or "VS" and which Minervini sketched as "OS"). The first two witnesses also saw the "H" here as well, which Kiessling's sketch can show only in a deteriorated form. Of course, Kiessling was aware that the graffito was already on its way to fading, which is the best explanation of why the "H" is not clearly visible in Kiessling's sketch and why the last two letters now left only one line visible to Kiessling.

As a result, we can conclude that the graffito read 'HRISTIANOS' here. The first letter must have been hard to make out, based on Fiorelli's statement. Both Minervini and Kiessling attempt to draw the preceding letter: Minervini more clearly as a 'C', Kiessling as just a slightly curved line. All three witnesses may have been dealing with damage at this part of the graffito already.

Even with the difficulty of reading the first letter (which might be marked as a letter whose form is being reconstructed from context), a fairly cautious conclusion regarding the the inscription having the word 'Christianos' here can be reached.

Based on the evidence, the inscription is part of this table of epigraphy and papyri that I have painstakingly gathered.

viewtopic.php?p=164468#p164468

Date	Rome	Western	Grecian	Phrygia	N. Greece	Syrian	Egypt	Papyri
-80		c̣hristianos
-230			Χρει̣[σ]τιανὸν
-250	Χρι[σ]τὸς					Χρισ		τις χρηστο̣[...]
-250								Χρηστιανὸς̣
-260								χρησιανὸν
-260								Χρηστιανῶν
-280				Χρειστιανοι
-300	Cristo		Χρειστιανὸς	Χρειστιανοι				χρισ[...]
-300	Crissto			Χρηστιανοῦ				Χρηστοῦ
-300	Crheto			Χρηστια̣νοὶ				χρησια[...]
-300	Crhistum
-310				Χρηστια̣νοὶ
-320		[C]hri[s]ti				Χρηστου		Χ[ρ]ήστου
-325	Christo	Cristi
-330		Crissi[ani]		Χρηστιανοὶ				Χρειστ[όν]
-340			Χρειστιανῶν			Χρηστέ		Χρηστ̣ι̣α̣νικοῦ
-340						Χριστῷ		Χριστοῦ
-345						Χρειστοῦ		Χρηστιανοὶ
-350	Χριστοῦ					Χριστέ	Χριστοῦ	Χρηστοῦ
-355								Χρηστιανῶν
-365		Cristus				Χρ̣ιστέ
-365	Crisianam	Cristus				Χριστὸς
-370		Christus				Χριστιανῷ		Χρηστου
-375	Christo					Χριστὸς	Χριστου	Χρι[στὸς]
-380	Cristianae	Cristaeanus				Χριστός		Χρηστῷ
-390	Christi	Cristiana	Χριστὸς			Χριστέ
-390	Christi	Cristi				Χριστῷ
-400	Christum		Χρειστιανῶν	Χρησιανοί	Χρειστιανοὶ	Χριστὸς	Χριστοῦ	Χρειστου
-400	Christi		Χριστο̣[ῦ]		χρηστιανῶ̣[ν]		Χριστ̣ο̣ῦ̣	χρε[ιστ]ια\νι/κ̣ῶν
-400	Christi		Χριστοῦ		Χριστῷ		Χριστοῦ	Χρηστῷ
-400	Christo						Χριστοῦ	Χριστοφόρῳ
-400	Christus						Χρηστοῦ	ὁ χρηστός
-400	Christi							Χρι\σ/τοῦ
-400	Cristi
-400	Cristi
-400	Christi
-400	Christus
-400	Χριστους
-400	χριστιανα
-500		Χρηστῷ			Χρηστιανοῦ

It is one of a couple finds that came up during that study that genuinely enhance our understanding of the subject. Another one is the τις χρηστο̣[...] papyrus, where I provided a reading that may never have been proposed before, according to which this could be an anti-Marcionite text referring to this name in a negative way. This evidence helps us significantly when trying to understand the history of these terms. While the inscription on the one hand tells us that there is nothing surprising about finding the term Christian in an early period, given that it is found in the first century, the papyrus gives us a window into a diatribe against an alternative name, τις χρηστο̣[...]. The papyrus is consistent with the reference from Alexander of Lycopolis about those who give special meaning to using the letter eta.

This also provides a context for the third century papyrus with an allegedly "gnostic" prayer and the inscription of a fourth century meeting-house of the Marcionites with this word. Particular communities used this word, such as the Marcionites and later the Manichaeans.

The geographic distribution of the references, where some places have an abnormally high number of the eta form, supports the highly credible theory that both forms were ancient and that different groups preferred different forms.

[Peter Kirby]

Roger Pearse posted on the graffito on his blog in 2017:

https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/201 ... m-pompeii/

The “Christianos” graffito from Pompeii
Posted on December 30, 2017 by Roger Pearse
The buried Roman city of Pompeii was rediscovered in 1748, and excavations for antiquities have continued ever since. Modern archaeological methods only originate around 1880 with Flinders Petrie in Egypt; so a great deal of work was done under conditions that all of us today would lament. Sometimes this means that we cannot be certain of what was truly found.

I read in the last few weeks an article by Wayment and Grey in the JJMJS, revisiting the primary evidence for a famous but largely forgotten find; that of a graffito which mentions the Christians.[1] The original discovery and publication were such a mess that the item has largely been forgotten or dismissed as imaginary.[2] The authors go back to the sources, to try to shake out what, if anything, can certainly be said. It seems to me that they do a fine job.

The actual sequence of events seems to have been as follows.

In 1862 the Neapolitan excavator Giuseppe Fiorelli and his team excavated a large building in the less-reputable side of Pompeii, opposite one of the larger brothels.[3] It had two entrances, and was described as a caupona, an inn. In the atrium he found a bit of graffiti, drawn in charcoal on a wall. This apparently included the word “Christianos”, on the basis of which Fiorelli grandly named the building the hospitium Christianos, the hotel of the Christians.

Before it was completely destroyed, another Neapolitan scholar, Giulio Minervini, a few days after the find,

“warned of the finding, rushed to Pompeii and . . . with diligent care and without any concern to read a meaning rather than another, sketched the signs appearing on the wall.”

Shortly afterwards a German scholar, Alfred Kiessling, also visited the site and transcribed what he could see. He also published the existence of the find, and that it had already disappeared.

Two years later in 1864 G.B. de Rossi visited the site and confirmed that the graffito was not now to be seen. But he obtained from the lax Fiorelli a statement of what the inscription had said when he saw it, and also a copy of Minervini’s sketch of the item, and Kiessling’s. He published what he had, in a not too coherent manner.[4]

The formal edition of the graffito was printed in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL IV. 679). Unfortunately this was rather a mess, based on the sketch by Kiessling, who saw it only when it was on the point of disappearing, and containing features not found in any of the sketches.

The end result was three transcriptions, plus an edition, all differing very significantly and some not even containing “christianos”.

Furthermore anybody who has looked at ancient graffiti even a little – or even damaged painted texts like those in the Mithraeum of Santa Prisca – will be very well aware of how difficult it is to read them, and how subjective the readings tend to be.

Finally, and exasperatingly, there were not lacking those fools who, based on this, made up entirely imaginary “pious” fairy-tales about a “hotel of the Christians”, a neighbouring Jewish hotel, the presence of St Peter and St Paul, and every element of hagiographical invention. There are various “cross” items in Pompeii, which have been seen as evidence of a Christian presence, without any adequate justification; and likewise the mysterious ROTAS square, of which the same can be said. There are certainly people capable of seeing evidence of Christians in contexts which actually do not support them. Older Italian literature – and much of the literature on this item is Italian, and also difficult to access – is particularly prone to this kind of excess, in my experience.

In the circumstances it seems entirely natural to consign so dubious an item to obscurity.

The charm of the Wayment and Grey article is to sweep all this dross out of the way. Instead they try to locate the original sketches, and then to do some real, modern archaeology to determine precisely what the building actually could, or could not, tell us, about its function.

The results are really very interesting; although of course we must see what the specialists think of this.

The first element in this was to place the materials in due order.

Wayment and Grey give the Minervini sketch as follows:



The Kiessling version, after a few days, they give as this, only covering the last two lines:



Seen in this order, it is evident that the rain has washed away the C of Christianos, and part of the S, creating I. Most of the other differences are likewise explicable as the effect of weathering; although not the mysterious appearance of the 8X at bottom left, which Kiessling could see but Minervini did not.

In 1962 Guarducci attempted to clarify the meaning of the inscription.[5]:

BOVIOS AUDI(T) CHRISTIANOS | SEVOS O[S]ORES
Bovio is listening to the Christians, cruel haters.

With “sevos” read as “saevos”. The name Bovius is rare but attested. The graffito then becomes a jeer, of a kind not unfamiliar to us all.

The authors go on to offer a fresh critical edition of the material; and also to investigate the house, which they find unsurprisingly to be a dodgy inn with a room also equipped for prostitution with a stone bed. All this is valuable, and I can only refer the reader to it.

Is the inscription genuine? I think we can be sure that it did exist!

But did it really read “CHRISTIANOS”? In my immensely unqualified opinion, there seems no good reason to suppose otherwise. Three separate and reputable people saw it (and the CIL editor did not); and the differences in their transcriptions may be a consequence of weathering as the graffito decayed in the Neapolitan rain.

What can be deduce from this? Well, not that much. It means only that somebody in the area had something to say about the Christians, very shortly before ash buried the city of Pompeii. Beyond that … it is quite hard to be sure. But no harder than with many other written items, we should add.

But the wise man will await the verdict of the specialist. All the same, the article is a nice piece of work, which gives us back something lost in confusion. It also highlights how costly sloppy archaeology can be.

[Peter Kirby]

An online article from a museum also comments on it informally.

https://theleonardo.org/pompeii-lecture ... istianity/

Pompeii Lecture Series: The Beginning of Christianity in the Center of the Roman Empire
Over a century and a half ago, in the 1860s, a curious inscription was found among the ruins of Pompeii.
It was a little slice of life, a graffito left behind in the first century. But there was a particular word that caught the imaginations of archaeologists, religious scholars, and others – Christianos.

Statues in Pompeii: The Exhibition at the Leonardo
Statues in Pompeii: The Exhibition at the Leonardo
This was proof, the argument went, that early Christians were present in Pompeii by the time Vesuvius erupted. Some experts went so far as to call the place where the scribbles were found the Hospitium Christianorum, the “hotel of the Christians” where worshippers may have met. But as BYU ancient scripture expert Matthew Grey told The Leonardo guests last week, the real story is more complicated than that.

Finding out when and where particular cultures appeared, and how they spread, is a complicated task. In the case of early Christianity, it’s not always clear how the belief system took root in different counties. When the religion appeared and became established in various places is pieced together from scraps of evidence that are often difficult to interpret. In the case of early Christians and Rome, Grey said, experts have gone back and forth between suggesting a vibrant Christian community in Pompeii to none at all. Grey and some colleagues suggest something in the middle.

Some supposed items of Christian ephemera, such as a potential indentation of a cross on a wall found in Pompeii, have turned out to be misinterpreted. In that case, the “cross” is most likely an indentation left by a bookshelf. That fits with the idea that first century Christians generally did not use a crucifix as an iconic symbol. And while the famous Christianos graffiti does have something to say about the religions of the time, it’s in a different way than earlier experts speculated.

The actual graffito is long gone, Grey said, as exposure to the air eventually destroyed the writing. But working from transcriptions and drawings of the text, Grey and colleague Thomas Wayment proposed that the graffito includes the line “Bovios is listening to the Christians.” This squares a little better with other details of the hotel, such as depictions of Roman household gods and being across the street from a brothel. The graffito was not a sign of worship. It may have been teasing someone named Bovios for spending some time entertaining Christianity.

At present, the trail goes cold from there. Perhaps Bovios was being made fun of for associating with early Christians, a group that intentionally set themselves apart but were also looked down upon by Roman polytheistic society. It’s also unknown what Bovios’ interaction was – whether it happened in Pompeii, at some other place, and when the exchange happened. At the very least, though, the ancient scrawl is a small signal that word of Christianity was spreading through Rome in the years prior to the devastation inflicted by Vesuvius, a contrast between an ancient cultural minority and the majority it would someday become.

[Peter Kirby]

A separate thread to discuss the earliest purported Christian inscription.

Referring to Christians, anyway

And with the caveats of being extant, dated, and explicit. Most evidence is lost. Most artifacts are not dated. And most references are not explicit.

Most artifacts are not dated and are not explicit because they are not created with reference to our concerns, where it would be nice to place it precisely in a certain time period and firmly with a certain interpretation. They are just what happens to remain from the material culture of the past.

Larry Hurtado and Roger Bagnall refer to what could be the earliest Christian inscription.

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2012 ... -graffito/

The Earliest Christian Graffito?
April 2, 2012
In my previous posting I briefly described Roger Bagnall’s new book, Everyday Writing in the Graeco-Roman East, and I mentioned his lead chapter on a body of graffiti from ancient Smyrna. Among the items he discusses in this chapter, I was particularly (predictably!) intrigued with one that Bagnall confidently claims must be Christian (pp. 22-23). Here are the basic data:

The graffiti in question are on plastered surfaces in the basement of a city structure, and there are multiple layers of plaster laid on across time.
One graffito includes a date, which Bagnall correlates to 125/126 CE.
The layer of plaster beneath the layer on which this dated graffito is written is partially exposed, and on this exposed plaster is “a most remarkable graffito, incised into the plaster rather than written with ink or charcoal.” This graffito reads:
ισοψηφα

κυριος ω

πιστις ω

The first word, ισοψηφα, means “of equal value/number”, indicating that the graffito is an example of “isopsephy”, the ancient practice of comparing words of equal numerical value (by adding up the value of their letters). The letters of each of the two words, κυριος (“Lord”) and πιστις (“faith”), = 800, which is expressed by the omega after each one (the omega = 800).

The distinguishing centrality of these two Greek words in early Christian vocabulary (as well as the interest in 8 and multiples of 8) combine to prompt Bagnall’s judgment that the graffito “can only indicate a Christian character” (22).

As this graffito is on a layer of plaster just beneath the layer with the dated graffito, it must be dated earlier than 125 CE, perhaps some years earlier. This would make this certainly the earliest identifiable Christian graffito, and perhaps also likely the earliest artifact of Christian writing.

This is of course not explicit. It's also possible that this was a non-Christian Jewish inscription. Like many artifacts, it is ambiguous. Certainly the interest in this kind of isopsephy is widespread, not just a Christian phenomenon.

Isopsephy was taken up by ancient Jews, and the Jewish practice is called “gematria” (from the Greek word “geometria“), and it is interesting that among our earliest literary examples are instances in NT writings that likely stem from Jewish-Christian authors: the best-known one Revelation 13:18 and also (more subtly) Matthew 1:17 (alluding to the numerical value of “David” in Hebrew characters). Roughly contemporary are instances in 3 Baruch and Sibylline Oracles 5, lines 12-51. The second-century Christian text, Epistle of Barnabas, uses the technique in expounding the meaning of the 318 servants of Abraham (Gen 14:14) as the cross of Jesus (318 written as the Greek letters TIH, the T = cross/crucifixion, and the IH the first two letters of Jesus’ name). For a helpful introduction, see the entry on “Gematria” by Gideon Bohak in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, eds. J. J. Collins & D. C. Harlow (Grand Rapds: Eerdmans, 2010), 661.

But there is one thing in particular that stands out to me here (my emphasis):

The distinguishing centrality of these two Greek words in early Christian vocabulary (as well as the interest in 8 and multiples of 8)

Which reminds me of these references:

Irenaeus writes about the interpretation of Χρειστος, in eight letters, in Against Heresies 1.15.2. (Additional context.)

But Jesus, he affirms, has the following unspeakable origin. From the mother of all things, that is, the first Tetrad; there came forth the second Tetrad, after the manner of a daughter; and thus an Ogdoad was formed, from which, again, a Decad proceeded: thus was produced a Decad and an Ogdoad. The Decad, then, being joined with the Ogdoad, and multiplying it ten times, gave rise to the number eighty; and, again, multiplying eighty ten times, produced the number eight hundred. Thus, then, the whole number of the letters proceeding from the Ogdoad [multiplied] into the Decad, is eight hundred and eighty-eight. This is the name of Jesus; for this name, if you reckon up the numerical value of the letters, amounts to eight hundred and eighty-eight. Thus, then, you have a clear statement of their opinion as to the origin of the supercelestial Jesus. Wherefore, also, the alphabet of the Greeks contains eight Monads, eight Decads, and eight Hecatads, which present the number eight hundred and eighty-eight, that is, Jesus, who is formed of all numbers; and on this account He is called Alpha and Omega, indicating His origin from all. And, again, they put the matter thus: If the first Tetrad be added up according to the progression of number, the number ten appears. For one, and two, and three, and four, when added together, form ten; and this, as they will have it, is Jesus. Moreover, Chreistus, he says, being a word of eight letters, indicates the first Ogdoad, and this, when multiplied by ten, gives birth to Jesus (888). And Christ the Son, he says, is also spoken of, that is, the Duodecad. For the name Son, contains four letters, and Christ (Chreistus) eight, which, being combined, point out the greatness of the Duodecad. But, he alleges, before the Episemon of this name appeared, that is Jesus the Son, mankind were involved in great ignorance and error. But when this name of six letters was manifested (the person bearing it clothing Himself in flesh, that He might come under the apprehension of man's senses, and having in Himself these six and twenty-four letters), then, becoming acquainted with Him, they ceased from their ignorance, and passed from death unto life, this name serving as their guide to the Father of truth. For the Father of all had resolved to put an end to ignorance, and to destroy death. But this abolishing of ignorance was just the knowledge of Him. And therefore that man (Anthropos) was chosen according to His will, having been formed after the image of the [corresponding] power above.

Refutation of all Heresies 6.44, attributed to Hippolytus, also writes about the interpretation of Χρειστος, in eight letters.

Those names which with Him are pronounced in silence and with faith, are Arrhetus and Sige, Pater and Aletheia. And of this tetrad the entire number is (that) of twenty-four letters. For Arrhetus has seven elements, Sige five, and Pater five, and Aletheia seven. And in like manner also (is it with) the second tetrad; (for) Logos and Zoe. Anthropos and Ecclesia, exhibited the same number of elements. And (he says) that the expressed name-- (that is, Jesus) --of the Saviour consists of six letters, but that His ineffable name, according to the number of the letters, one by one, consists of twenty-four elements, but Christ a Son of twelve. And (he says) that the ineffable (name) in Christ consists of thirty letters, and this exists, according to the letters l which are in Him, the elements being counted one by one. For the (name) Christ consists of eight elements; for Chi consists of three, and R of two, and EI of two, and I [ota], of four, S [igma] of five, and T of three, and OU of two, and San of three. Thus the ineffable name in Christ consists, they allege, of thirty letters. And they assert that for this reason He utters the words, "I am Alpha and Omega," displaying the dove, which (symbolically) has this number, which is eight hundred and one.

The name Ιησους had the value of 888, and the name Χρειστος consisted of eight elements, as they attest. This would support Bagnall's contention and, further, the validity of considering isopsephy (given that the inscription describes it explicitly) in such contexts.

[Peter Kirby]

Larry Hurtado and Roger Bagnall refer to what could be the earliest Christian inscription.

Peter Head points out that the dating may instead be 'the last part of the second century and the first part of the third':

Anyway, recently I came across the publication of these texts on the new book shelves in the Sackler library: Graffiti from the Basilica in the Agora of Smyrna (eds R.S. Bagnall, R. Casagrande-Kim, A. Ersoy, C. Tanriver; New York: New York University Press, 2016)

In this analysis the dating is shifted back to ‘the last part of the second century and the first part of the third’ (p. 40). Other evidence for Christian presence is also noted (pp. 45-47). It is a full discussion with photos of a range of graffiti texts.

Peter Head explains in a comment:

There is a date amidst the graffiti (T16.1: the numbers refer to different bays in the structure): 'in year 210'. Initially this was taken to refer to the era of Sulla (from the Roman conquest of Asia Minor in 85 BC hence AD 125/6). But there are complications to this view and some evidence that dates could also be assigned relative to the battle of Actium (31 BC hence AD 179/80). But in fact there are fewe inscriptions showing what dating system was used in Smyrna, and it is unknown how popular and idiosyncratic graffiti dates would be.
T13.1 refers (in the plural) to 'emperors' which suggests a date after AD 161 - the joint rule of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. Further there was a bad earthquake in AD 178 and the general feel of this book seems to be that the re-plastering on which the graffiti was written post-dates that earthquake. Not completely secure, but broadly seems a plausible type of argument.

Personally, I have found many inscriptions that use the Augustan year, counted from 31 BCE, so this seems credible to me.

This makes the date of this graffito 179/180.