Review of Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae, Volume VI: The Negev and Addenda

Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae, Volume VI: The Negev and Addenda, 4 parts, eds. Walter Amerling, Hannah M. Cotton, Werner Eck, Avner Ecker, Johannes Heinrichs, Benjamin Isaac, Alla Kushnir-Stein, Jonathan Price, Ohad Abudraham, Peter Weiß, Ada Yardeni, Marfa Heimbach, Dirk Koßmann, and Ofer Pogorelsky (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2026).

This volume is the sixth of Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae (CIIP), which was originally intended to cover all inscriptions from the modern-day territory of ancient Judea and Palestine dating from Alexander the Great’s conquest to the Arab subjugation of the region. However, due to international regulations, the areas of the Holy Land under Palestinian administration, and the state of Israel’s illegal occupation of the Golan Heights,[1] that goal is no longer attainable and this sixth volume is the corpus’s final one. 

The editors have divided it into four parts. Parts 1–2 cover epigraphs from the territory of the Negev, presenting them in order from north to south and when two or more locations are on the same latitude, the editors present them from west to east. Unfortunately, unpublished inscriptions in the Thamudic language—the language of a pre-Islamic tribe who lived in the Arabian Peninsula—are not included because the editors were unable to find someone proficient in the language who could do the hard work of examining these epigraphs in person; what is known as an autopsy. They included, however, the already published Thamudic inscriptions, adopting the readings and comments of the original publications. Part 3 contains additional inscriptions from the Negev and Part 4 addenda and corrigenda, corrections of errors in the previously published volumes of CIIP.

As in other volumes in this corpus, CIIP VI begins with a preface, explaining the corpus’s purpose and contents (see “Preface,” pp. vii–x). A table of contents (“Table of Contents,” xi–xxvi), and other front matters follow: “Author’s Sigla,” (p. xxvii), “Abbreviations,” (pp. xxxix–xliv), “Diacritical System,” (p. xlv), and keys to transliterations of non-Greek and non-Latin ancient languages: Armenian, Aramaic, Syriac, Georgian, Hebrew, and Aramaic (p. xlvii–xlxi).

Parts 1–3 present over 2,000 epigraphs from the Negev: Part 1, nos. 7819–9058; Part 2, nos. 9059–9108; and Part 3, nos. 9109–9992. The presentation of individual inscriptions follows previous volumes. Thus, each entry contains a number, title, a date for the epigraph (when possible), and a short description of its provenance and context. Next follows a picture or drawing of the artifact (if available), the inscription’s original text, a transliteration of the original language (in some cases), and a fresh English translation of the epigraph. Finally, each entry ends with a short commentary on the inscription, and a bibliography. At the end of Parts 1–2, the editors provide maps with keys (pp. 1130–33), and, at the end of Part 4, an index of personal names for the entire six-volume corpus (pp. 1979–2092).

To give one example, CIIP 8313 is an interesting Aramaic graffito written in Greek letters that dates to the first and second centuries AD. The epigraph was found on the wall of a cave in Naḥal Dimonah in Wadi Jaraba. The text, which is written left to right, reads:

σιμαθα καιαμα λαμαν
δαελαα σαβη ου ιαεβ λαλ

To read the inscription, though, one must transliterate it into Aramaic and then reverse the order of the letters:

סימתא קימא למן דאלהא צבא הו יהב לך

Thus, the graffito translates as follows: 

“The treasure is available, God will give it to whomever He wishes.”

The author of this text is unclear, but the reference to the “treasure” (σιμαθα/סימתא) that God bestows raises the possibility that the author may have been a Semitic speaking Christian. The supporting evidence for this position is that the Gospels record Jesus speaking of “treasure” (θησαυρός) in heaven (Matthew 6:20; 19:21; Mark 10:21; Luke 12:33; 18:22) and the Syriac version of St. Matthew’s Gospel (dating roughly to the third century AD) translates the Greek term θησαυρός with the word sîmtâ in Matthew 6:20, which is an Aramaic cognate of the term for treasure, sîmāṯâ (σιμαθα/סימתא), in our inscription.[2]

The editor of CIIP 8313, Jonathan Price, argues that the key to interpreting our text lies in another graffito from the cave that is directly above the inscription in question. This epigraph reads:

Μνησθῇ Ζοραιθα
κ(α)λ(ὰ) τ(ὰ) λ(α)χ(ά)ν(α) τ(ὰ) π(α)ρ(α)θ(ά)λ(α)σ(α)
αααααααααα.

“May Zoraitha be remembered. Beautiful are the vegetables by the sea” (CIIP 8314).

Price suggests that the same person who composed CIIP 8313 also composed CIIP 8314 and that the latter is a writing exercise; hence, the eleven alphas that go in between the consonants are found at the end of the graffito. Therefore, he, relying on an earlier publication of these epigraphs, concludes that Zoraitha “was probably a nun whose native spoken language was Aramaic; she produced a writing exercise—a whole sentence in which the same vowel follows each consonant—playing with a leading feature of Semitic scripts, i.e., their lack of vowels. It is reasonable to assume that the other inscription (i.e., no. 8313), Aramaic in Greek letters, was also a kind of writing exercise (was she perhaps learning how to write in Greek?).”[3]

While the second inscription, CIIP 8314, may be a writing exercise, I reject the conclusion that Zoraitha authored CIIP 8313 because there are too many differences in the ligatures of the letters, especially of the alpha, theta, eta, kapa, and mu, of the two graffiti (see Image 1 and 2). These discrepancies bespeak that Zoraitha did not author CIIP 8313. To this end, we do not know who composed our graffito in question but are left with the possibility that it may have been an early Semitic speaking Christian who lived in or visited the ancient Negev. Other than that, we cannot deduce anything else from our limited evidence.[4] Perhaps future epigraphic discoveries will shed light on this enigma.   

Image 1: CIIP 8313

Image 2: CIIP 8314

In sum, this new volume, like all the others in the corpus, is indispensable for those who want to know more about the world of the Holy Land from Alexander the Great to the Arab conquests, especially the inscriptions that the denizens of this world produced! Therefore, if you can afford it, I highly recommend it and you can pick up your own copy directly from De Gruyter: Parts 1–2 and Parts 3–4.

I am grateful for the gratis copy of this work that De Gruyter provided, which in no way influenced my review of it. 


[1] See the U.N.’s Secretary General’s report: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/sg-report-the-occupied-syrian-golan-14nov25/.

[2] Michael Zellmann-Rohrer, “Semitic Loanwords and Transcriptions in the Greek Epigraphy of Judaea-Palestine,” in Inscriptions and the Epigraphic Habit, eds. Rebecca Benefiel and Catherine M. Keesling, Brill Studies in Greek and Roman Epigraphy 20 (Leiden: Brill, 2024), 300–1.

[3] Jonathan J. Pricer and Shlomo Naeh, “On the Margins of Culture: the Practice of Transcription in the Ancient World,” in From Hellenism to Islam: Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East, eds. Hannah Cotton, Robert G. Hoyland, Jonathan J. Price, and David J. Wasserstein (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 268–69 (257–88)

[4] Even if Zoraitha authored both graffiti, I find the conclusion that she was a “nun” totally speculative and lacking of any evidence to support it, other than the fact that Zoraitha was a woman. 

Review of Greek Inscriptions by Peter Liddel

Peter Liddel, Greek Inscriptions, Ancient Scripts (Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2025)

In this excellent, short, approachable, and image filled introduction to Greek Inscriptions, epigrapher Peter Liddel aims to introduce Greek inscriptions to non-specialists and to demonstrate how one can use them to understand “ancient Greek history, society and culture” (1). To accomplish this goal, he divides his work into six chapters. The first, “Cultures of Writing” (18–35), explores the shapes of inscriptions, their language, where ancient Greeks placed them, and how epigraphers edit and date them. In the second chapter, “Human Expressions” (36–51), Liddel examines how inscriptions contain the ancient experiences of Greeks from life to death. The third chapter, “Communities and Their Inscriptions” (52–65), delves into how inscriptions reveal the organization of ancient Greek city-states, how they were expressions of authority, and how they displayed honor of certain Greeks. In chapter four, “The Supernatural” (66–79), Liddel probes how inscriptions evidence ancient cultic practices, ancient sacred accounting and bookkeeping, and the connection between writing on an object and the divine. Chapter five, “Beyond Hellenism” (80–91), looks at Greek inscriptions in Egypt and the role of inscriptions in the coming of Rome as the dominant superpower in the Mediterranean World and then the empire’s conversion to Christianity. In the final chapter, “Legacies” (92–103), Liddel discusses the reuse of inscriptions from their original context, the beginnings of the science of epigraphy, and why inscriptions still matter today. Finally, Liddel provides a helpful guide to further reading for those who wish to learn more. This work is a great resource for any novice looking to understand more about ancient Greek inscriptions! 

Another Possible Epigraphic Reference to Lucius Sergius Paullus

In 1895, the German epigrapher Ludwig Bürchner visited the Greek island of Samos to record inscriptions, which he placed in a notebook that currently is in the archive of the Inscriptiones Graecae at the Berlin Academy (Germany). One epigraph that Bürchner noted was a Latin epitaph that may refer to Lucius Sergius Paullus; the most probable candidate for the Cypriot proconsul whom Paul and Barnabas encountered on Cyprus (Acts 13:7).

This funerary inscription remained unknown to most of the scholarly world until 1964, when another German epigrapher, Günter Dunst published all known Latin epigraphs from Samos, which were known at that time.[1] In the process, he pointed out the existence of a certain first century AD “grave inscription” (Grabinschrift), which refers to “a slave of L(ucius) Ṣẹrgius Paullus” (eines Skiaven des L(ucius) Ṣẹrgius Paullus) named “Gemellus” (Gemellus).

Some historians have accepted Dunst’s identification. Professor Werner Eck (Cologne University, Germany) comments on the epitaph:

Vermutlich ist dies der in der Apostelgeschichte bezeugte Sergius Paulus; sein Sklave war vielleicht auf der Fahrt nach dem Osten auf Samos gestorben. Er erhielt ein eigenes Grab und der volle Name des Herrn sagte, dass der Verstorbene kein Niemand gewesen ist.

Presumably, this is the Sergius Paulus attested in the Acts of the Apostles; perhaps his slave died on Samos on his journey to the East. He received his own tomb and his master’s full name testified that the deceased was not a nobody.[2]

In 2003, Prof. Klaus Hallof (Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Germany) edited all the Samian inscriptions and revisited the epigraph in question. After consulting Bürchner’s notebook, he reproduced the following text, restoring the name Lucius Sergius Paulinus, not Lucius Sergius Paullus:

Gemello ∙ L(uci) ∙
Ṣẹrgi ∙ Paul–
[i]n[i ∙] servo
– –m ∙ f(aciendum) c(uravit) ∙ Dro–

“For Gemellus, the slave of L(ucius) Sergius Paulinus, who made this . . . Dro . . .”[3]

I have been unable to examine the epigraph or see a picture of it. Presumably, the inscription is lost and Prof. Hallof informs me that the squeeze that Bürchner made is of poor quality. Therefore, it remains debatable whether or not the stone refers to the member of the Sergii Paulli whom Paul and Barnabas probably met.

Nevertheless, Alexander Weiß proposes that even if the epitaph refers to Lucius Sergius Paulinus, he still may be associated with Lucius Sergius Paullus:

denn Paulinus wäre wohl ein Freigelassener oder ein Nachkomme eines Freigelassenen dieser Familie.

For Paulinus is probably a freedman or a descendant of a freedman of this family.[4]

Weiß may be correct. Hopefully, future epigraphic discoveries will shed light on this epigraph and the presence of Lucius Sergius Paullus or Lucius Sergius Paulinus on Samos and his possible connection to early Christianity.

[1] Günter Dunst, “Die lateinischen Inschriften von Samos,” Helikon 4 [1964]: 284

[2] Werner Eck, “Sklaven und Freielassene von Römern in Iudaea und den angrenzendenzenden Provinzen,” Novum Testamentum 55 (2013): 19

[3] IG XII.6 no. 711

[4] Alexander Weiß, Soziale Elite und Christentum Studien zu ordo-Angehörigen unter den frühen Christen (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2105), 73.

Most Important Inscription for Roman Public Religion

What if there was an inscription that provided records of actual sacrifices offered in Rome by one of the city’s colleges of priests?

What if this epigraph dated to the time of the composition of the New Testament documents? 

Would such a source illuminate not only public religion in Rome but also public religion in the Roman colonies mentioned in the New Testament like Corinth, Philippi, and Pisidian Antioch?  

Such an inscription does in fact exist! 

It is called the Arval Acta after the priestly college who offered the sacrifices mentioned in the epigraph, the Arval Brothers. The Arval Brothers were a priestly college that consisted of twelve men who served for life and who were drawn from senators in Rome. They served the Roman deity Dea Dia who was the goddess of grain and fertility. The Arval Brothers had a cultic site in a sacred grove of trees atop a hill 7-8 km west of Rome. Temples of Dea Dia and other goddesses were on the hill and at its bottom a bath and imperial temple in which the Arval Brothers gathered to recline at sacred banquets. 

Bust of the emperor Lucius Verus depicted as an Arval Brother from 160 CE © Marie-Lan Nguyen / Wikimedia Commons

Each year the priestly college appointed a president (magister) whose main duty was to offer a number of sacrifices throughout the year. Most of these were directed to Dea Dia but in the imperial period (post 31 BCE) a number of these sacrifices either were offered to deceased and officially deified emperors called divi or to the gods on behalf of the reigning emperor and his family, especially for his health and for celebrating important days like his birthday. 

To provide an example:

A(nte) d(iem) (undecimum) k(alendas) Octobres (vacat)| Taurus Statilius Corvinus promagister collegii fratrum arṿ[ali]um| nomine, quod eo die C. Caesar Augustus Germanicus conṣ[ensu]| senatus delatum sibi patris nomen recepisset in Cạ[pitlio]| Iovi, Iunoni, Minervae hostias maiores (tres) inmolavit et ad templum| novom divo Augusto unam. (vacat). | Adfuerunt Paullus Fabius Persicus, M. Furius Camillus, Appius Iunius| [Silanus, P. Me]ṃmiuṣ [Reg]ụḷụṣ, C. Cạẹcịṇạ, Ḷ. Ạṇṇịụṣ Ṿịṇịcịạṇụ[s,]| [C. Calpurniu]s Piso. (vacat)

On the eleventh day before the Calends of October (Sept 21, 38 CE), because Caius Caesar Augustus Germanicus received the title father of the fatherland, which was offered with the senate’s consent, the vice president Taurus Statilius Corvinus sacrificed on the Capitoline Hill in the name of the college of the Arval Brothers three adult victims to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, and a victim to Deified Augustus at his new temple. Paullus Fabius Persicus, Marcus Furius Camillus, Appius Iunius Silanus, Publius Memmius Regulus, Caius Caecina Largus, and Lucius Annius Vinicianus, and Caius Calpurnius Piso were present (Commentarii fratrum Arvalium 12c lines 83-91; translation D. Clint Burnett).

Each year the president chose to have certain (or all?) their sacrifices recorded in a codex. Beginning from Augustus’s reign (21 BCE) and continuing into the third century CE (241 CE), portions of these sacrifices were inscribed on marble plaques placed in Dea Dia’s temple. Numerous of these engraved marble plaques have survived and they make up the Arval Acta, which are our most important primary source for public Roman religion in the entirety of the Roman Empire.[1]

Commentarii fratrum Arvalium 48 © https://drc.ohiolink.edu/handle/2374.OX/187237

Currently, I am working through the Arval Acta, translating them from their original Latin, which is no easy task. However, as I work through the text I cannot help but think of the numerous ways in which this inscription could produce nuanced readings of 1-2 Corinthians, Philippians, and Acts of the Apostles as well as refine our understanding of the relationship between Paul and the Roman Empire. Therefore, I want to encourage my New Testament colleagues to pick up this amazing epigraph to expand their understanding of public religion in the Roman Empire and its connections to the New Testament.    


[1] For more on the Arval Brothers see Mary Beard, “Writing and Ritual: A Study of Diversity and Expansion in the Arval Acta,” Papers of the British School at Rome 53 (1985): 114-162; John Scheid, Commentarii fratrum Arvalium qui supersunt: Les Copies épigraphiques des protocoles annuels de la confrérie arvale (21 AV.-304 AP. J.-C.) (Rome: École Francaise de Rome, 1998), iii-xxii.

Material Culture and Why I Use It To Reconstruct Early Christianity

This week I had the pleasure of being part of a panel on the use of documentary sources or material culture as I prefer to call it and the interpretation of the Bible at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, which due to COVID 19 was online this year. My task in the panel was to address how I determine a source to be documentary or material, what method I use to interpret documentary sources or material culture, and what value these sources have in the interpretation of the Bible. 

As a historian of early Christianity who focuses on the Greco-Roman period of history, I determine a source to be documentary or material if it restores the human touch to the inquest of history. Thus, I define documentary sources as archaeological, papyrological, numismatic, statuary, inscriptional, and ceramic (i.e., pottery) evidence that individuals living in antiquity produced. In essence, almost anything that does not consist of written literature that scribes copied throughout the centuries. 

Let me unpack what I mean. Archaeological evidence comes from controlled, scientific excavations—whether they be large like the city of Philippi (see Image 1) or small like a cave near Khirbet Qumran (see Image 2)—conducted by qualified archaeologists. Papyrological evidence consists of ancient written documents on papyri or ostraca (i.e., pottery sherds). This dataset is diverse and contains private letters, reports, census, and much more (see Image 3).

Image 1: Forum of Philippi, Greece (© Wikimedia Commons: Marsyas)
Image 2: Cave 4 from Khirbet Qumran, Israel (© Wikimedia Commons: Effi Schweizer)
Image 3: Bill of sale for a donkey from Houghton Library, Harvard University (© Wikimedia Commons)

Numismatic evidence consists of coins that local cities and empires produced (see Image 4). These sources are diverse too and contain texts and images that help to reconstruct cults, magistrates, and customs of individual Greek cities. Statuary evidence are images that ancient artists created and that individuals viewed, which were erected throughout Greco-Roman cities (see Image 5). For a discussion of some of the famous statues of mainland Greece, see the second century CE traveler Pausanias and his Description of Greece. 

Image 4: Coin from Philippi, Greece depicting statue base of the Deified Julius crowning the Deified Augustus (© Wildwinds.com)
Image 5: Statue of Augustus from Thessalonica, Greece (© Livius.org)

Inscriptions are messages engraved, incised, or scratched on durable materials that imperial and local governments as well as individuals set up in conjunction with monuments (see Image 6). There are myriads of surviving Greco-Roman inscriptions (close to half a million) and this lot, like papyri, is diverse and consists of official decrees, funerary inscriptions, magical curses, and much more. Finally, ceramic evidence is pottery that individuals made, distributed, and used (see Image 7). Pottery is one of the surest chronological dating methods on an archaeological excavation because of the diversity of pottery in time and place and the constant changes in its appearance and shape.

Image 6: Gate of Mazaeus from Ephesus (© D. Clint Burnett)
Image 7: So-called scroll jars which is a distinctive pottery type to Qumran (© Wikimedia Commons: Public Domain)

To say that these sources are variegated is an understatement. Each type of documentary source has its method of interpretation with limitations and possibilities. As a historian of earliest Christianity, I try not to prefer one over the other (even though I am partial to inscriptions, see Image 8 and click here to purchase my book on inscriptions) because I am convinced that historians must use all these documentary sources to reconstruct antiquity. However, I confess to the ire of my friends and colleagues who are ceramicists that I find pottery the least exciting of documentary sources with which to work. In my reconstruction of history, I endeavor to use all these sources for one common goal: to provide what I call narrative glimpses, always incomplete, into the lives of ancient individuals. Thus, I am convinced that each documentary source that I use has a life of its own and a story to tell, which I labor to reconstruct. 

Image 8: My book on inscriptions!

In the end, every narrative glimpse that I reconstruct will be incomplete due to the fragmentary nature of the source. However, I am an optimist and something is always better than nothing. To reconstruct a given narrative glimpse, I approach whatever documentary source with which I am working contextually. That is, I interpret each datum in light of its archaeological context. Consider the following example. 

In the winter of 1855, a statue base with an inscription was discovered on the Greek island of Calymnus (on the western coast of modern-day Turkey, see Image 9) among the partial remains of a temple dedicated to a personification of Apollo, Delian Apollo, who appears to have been Calmynus’s patron deity. The inscription (see Image 10) dates to 37 CE and says: 

Image 9: Calymnus or Kalymnos is marked on this Google Map

 The citizen-body of the Calymnians dedicated (a statue of) Gaius Caesar [G]e[rma]nicus beside Apoll[o] [De]lian the Guardian of Calymnus because of his piety . . . (Ὁ δᾶμος ὁ Καλυμν[ί]ων συνκαθιέρωσε Ἀπόλλ[ω]νι [Δ]αλίῳ 
Καλύμ[ν]ας μεδέοντι άϊον Καίσαρα Γερ[μα]νικὸν εὐσεβ[είας ἕνε][κεν . . . . ]; my translation).

M. Segre, “Tituli Calymnii,” Annuario della scuola archeologica di Atene e delle missioni Italiane in oriente 22-23, (1944-1945) [1952]: no. 105
Image 10: Caligula’s temple sharing inscription (© Segre, ‘Tituli Calymnii”)

Because of the findspot of this inscription and a Greek term (συνκαθιέρωσε) and a linguistic construction (Ἀπόλλ[ω]νι [Δ]αλίῳ Καλύμ[ν]ας μεδέοντι, a dative of place) used in it, I have argued elsewhere that this statue base is of a temple sharing image.[1] That is, a statue of a benefactor that is set up inside the temple of a deity next to their cultic image. In this case, the benefactor is Caligula and the temple is that of Delian Apollo. During the Hellenistic and Roman periods, Greek kings and Roman emperors were in the best position to offer benefactions to Greek cities and thus there is more evidence that monarchs shared Greek temples than any other individual from antiquity. When rulers shared temples, it was to acknowledge the ruler’s piety and beneficence and to showcase that the deity in whose temple the ruler’s image was erected approved of and supported their reign. Provided that I have identified correctly this inscription from Calymnus, we can reconstruct the following narrative glimpse. 

Caligula provided some concrete benefaction for Calymnus, which the city interpreted as stemming from his piety. Hence, the mentioning of “because of his piety” (εὐσεβ[είας ἕνε][κεν . . .]) in the inscription. To show appreciation for this gift, the citizen-body met to decide how best to honor the emperor. Someone must have put forth the motion, which was subsequently ratified, that Caligula should share the temple of Delian Apollo and that his statue should be set up next to that the deity’s, which indeed occurred. This short narrative glimpse, however, is incomplete. We neither know the benefaction for which Calymnus granted Caligula temple sharing with Delian Apollo, details of other divine honors that the emperor received, nor if and when the island polity removed him from being Delian Apollo’s temple sharer. Nevertheless, without this inscription and archaeological site from Calymnus, we would never have known that Caligula has a relationship with this tiny, insignificant island. 

In my estimation, documentary sources such as this inscription and archaeological site from Calymnus are invaluable for reconstructing the social history of the early Roman Empire and thus the context of the spread of nascent Christianity for two main reasons. First and foremost, they are direct witnesses of the past that provide windows into the lives of non-elite men. Almost all surviving Greek and Latin literature are either by elite men or those who were patronized by them, much of which focuses on major events that and persons who changed the course of history in the Mediterranean world and the ancient Near East. In short, they focus on history from above. What is more, this literature has been passed down through the copying, editing, and sometimes alteration of scribes until the invention and widespread use of the printing press. Such is not the case with documentary sources where we can construct the social history of non-major cities such as Calymnus and where we can find letters and inscriptions composed by non-elite men, women, children, and slaves and sometimes archaeological sites where such individuals lived and worked. In short, documentary sources provide us with a history from below. Such information often supplements and sometimes contradicts surviving Greco-Roman literature. 

Second, documentary sources are contextual data allowing historians to contextualize early Christian documents in a way heretofore unrealized. Archaeological sites, inscriptions, coins, statuary, pottery, and the occasional papyri finds outside Egypt provide evidence for local cults, customs, law-codes, and traditions. This information has the potential to help us contextualize more concretely early Christian texts whose provenance and addressees are certain. To provide an example, I have been able to show in my contextual work that contrary to the oft-repeated false claim that the Roman emperor was hailed as Lord (kyrios) during Paul’s tenure as the apostle to the Gentiles (from the early 30s to the early 60s CE) inscriptions and coins from Philippi, Corinth, and Thessalonica indicate that the denizens of those cities did not acclaim the emperor with this title.[2] For all these reasons, I endeavor to employ documentary sources, as much as literary sources, in any research project that I undertake. My hope is that my fellow New Testament scholars will do likewise!   


[1] D. Clint Burnett, Christ’s Enthronement at God’s Right Hand and Its Greco–Roman Cultural Context, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 242 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021)

[2] D. Clint Burnett, Studying the New Testament Through Inscriptions: An Introduction (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2020); “Imperial Divine Honors in Julio–Claudian Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence,” Journal of Biblical Literature 139 (2020): 567–89; reprinted in The First Urban Churches 7: Thessalonica, edited by James R. Harrison and Larry L. Welborn (Atlanta: SBL Press, forthcoming); “Divine Titles for Julio–Claudian Imperials in Corinth,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 82 (2020): 437–55; Christ’s Enthronement.