1  

Beneficence to the Poor in Luke’s Gospel from a Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective

Professor James R Harrison, Sydney College of Divinity. In coming to grips with the issue of beneficence to the poor in Luke’s gospel, we need to address two methodological problems. Who were the ‘poor’ in antiquity and to what extent did ancient benefactors show any concern for (what we would call) the ‘destitute’? In this paper, we will then investigate, focusing on the honorific inscriptions,

• Luke’s portrait of the poor and the wealthy; • Luke’s portrait of honorific benefaction culture; • Luke’s alternate paradigm of beneficence for third generation believers.

This paper, originally delivered at International SBL 2013 (St Andrews, Scotland), has been popularized for the ‘every-day’ reader. The ancient documentary extracts referred to throughout the paper are found in the Appendix and should be read in conjunction with the argument presented. 1. Defining the ‘Poor’ in Antiquity The difficult task of identifying and modelling the poverty scales in antiquity has consumed recent New Testament studies on poverty. The works of Meggitt, Scheidel, Barclay, Friesen and Longenecker have dominated the discussion. The difficulty of defining what ‘poverty’ actually was in antiquity, given the conceptual ‘slipperiness’ of its Greek (ptochos; penes; penichros) and Latin terminology (the meaning of which, Whittaker argues, is imprecise) remains a stumbling block. As Saller notes, even the wealthy elite philosopher and tutor of Nero, Seneca, could blithely claim that he was ‘poor’. Significantly, no exhaustive scholarly coverage of the Greek and Latin terminology of poverty has been undertaken, with Longenecker only attempting a limited foray. A detailed and critical coverage of this evidence would have placed us in a stronger position for understanding Luke’s evidence than the analysis of hypothetical statistical scales.

Moreover, the visual evidence, although sparse, is ignored in the process. Three examples will suffice:

(a) An Egyptian relief reveals the harsh social conditions for the destitute, depicting starving nomads in a time of famine, their emaciated bodies revealing the outline of their rib cages. At the bottom lower left of the relief, a woman picks vermin from her hair with her left hand and conveys the morsels to her mouth with her right hand.

(b) The Ashmolean museum statue of a gaunt Aphrodisian fisherman, with ribs exposed, underscores the tenuous nature of his existence.

(c) At the British museum (Exhibit GR 1922. 7-12.6) there is a bronze figurine of a grotesquely emaciated man carrying a wine jug and a cockerel.

These images employ a consistent iconography (exposed ribs, emaciation) in identifying the poor and profitably intersect with the Lukan references to ‘hunger’ (Luke 1:53; 6:1, 3; 21, 25; 9:11b-17; 15:14-16; cf. 14:13). But even here caution is required. Is the emaciation of the man carrying the cockeril and wine jug due to malnutrition or physical disease (e.g. tuberculosis, cancer, parasitic infection), or both? Does the presence of the wine jug and cockerel indicate that the man has some minimal resources, or has he stolen these items because of his abject poverty? Without sufficient context, these interpretative questions are impossible to answer.

  2  

Above all, what is required is a renewed appreciation of Luke’s Gospel among historians for its social vignettes of the powerless. Luke’s narrative provides first-century evidence for the economically marginalized of antiquity, largely ignored in the elitist literary and inscriptional evidence. Whatever the inconsistencies of the Greek and Latin terminology of poverty might be, we need to find evidence from that corpus (i.e. literary, epigraphic, papyrological), which is consonant with the Lukan portrait of impoverishment, and bring both traditions into dialogue with each other, adding whatever visual evidence might be available. 2. Defining the ‘Poor’ in Benefaction Studies Although the semantic domain of the honorific inscriptions intersects richly with the New Testament, as Danker has shown, we still face a methodological problem. The closest epigraphic approximations that we have to Jesus’ beneficence in the gospels, apart from the healing inscriptions of Asclepius, are (a) donations of grain, sold at reduced prices or distributed gratis during times of famine (Extracts 1.1-1.3), and (b) accounts of the doctors caring for the sick in times of crisis (Extracts 2.1-2.2). This subset of benefaction inscriptions might be seen as providing useful social background to the ‘feeding’ and ‘healing’ ministry of Jesus. But there remain ideological differences between the Lukan evidence and the eulogistic inscriptions, notwithstanding the overlap of terminology.

First, elite benefactors gave money towards gymnasia, baths, theatres, temples, games, festivals, and, occasionally in times of crisis, distributions of grain or money. The emphasis was on giving to citizens, whether elite or non-elite, with the people at the bottom of the hierarchy rarely being considered: that is, freedmen, non-citizen peasants (paroikoi, katoikoi), metoikoi (‘metics’ or immigrant foreigners), and slaves.

In Extract 1.2, where such individuals are mentioned, the departure from giving to citizens is acknowledged: ‘desiring thoroughly to please the citizens … in order that the city might incur no expense on his account’. In addition to the non-citizen peasantry, the slaves mentioned in the inscription belong to the household of the invited Roman dignitaries. No distribution to ‘all and sundry’ is envisaged here. In other words, we do not find in these inscriptions any justification for the development of the concept of ‘charity’, as enunciated by Bolkestein and Hands. Brown is correct in saying that charity, as we know it, with its concentration on the poor per se, arose from a combination of Jewish and Christian perspectives c. 300-400 AD. However, we may demur partially with Brown, noting that these developments are already embryonic in Luke’s gospel, Acts and the Pauline house churches.

Second, the motivation articulated in the ‘grain distribution’ and ‘doctor’ inscriptions is far removed from Luke. Philotimia (lit. ‘love of honour’), gratitude to the city for its public recognition, piety towards the gods, good will towards the citizens, and so on, are the motivating factors, with cities exalting the moral profile of the benefactor and employing grandiloquent language in praise of him or her (Extract 1.1). As Zuiderhoek has convincingly argued, this tendency increased in the first and second centuries AD. The enhancement of ancestral honour, by acquiring civic magistracies and moral esteem, drives these benefactors. But, irrespective of the motivational differences, these inscriptions highlight the fragility of urban and rural life in the eastern Mediterranean basin.

Third, Sorek has argued that inscriptions from Israel honoring benefactors have a different motivation to the Graeco-Roman honorific inscriptions. The Jewish inscriptions emphasise that the recipient will be ‘remembered for good’ by (implied)

  3  

God and, in one remarkable inscription (Extract 3.1), the perspective of covenantal mercy (Hebrew: hesed) is also brought into the equation. Luke agrees with this in his strong emphasis on divine eleos (Greek: ‘mercy’) impelling the beneficent actions of Jesus and believers (Luke 1:54; 2:72-73; 6:36; 10:33, 37; 18:39). To be sure, the eulogy of the Jewish elders for the centurion benefactor of the Nazarene synagogue in Luke 7:4-5 reflects traditional benefaction motifs. For example, the language of ‘worthiness’ (v. 4: axios) has benefaction resonances, while the centurion’s ‘love’ for ‘the nation’ (v. 5: agapa gar to ethnos) probably represents Luke’s rewording of the inscriptional ‘zeal for the nation’ motif (New Docs 6 [1992], 25; cf. CIG 3.5361; Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 158-159). But the eulogistic restraint of the Jewish elders in Nazareth stands in contrast to the benefaction motifs, moral accolades and coronal honours of the Diaspora inscriptions honoring synagogue benefactors (Extracts 3.2-3.2).

Therefore, Luke invests considerable time explaining why the ‘poor’, including the ‘destitute’, are at the centre of Jesus’ messianic vocation:

(a) There is divine preference for the humble poor (Luke 1:52b, 53a; 6:20-21), in

the present and at the eschaton, over against the self-sufficient rich and the arrogant rulers (1:52a, 53b; 6:24-25);

(b) In his Messianic declaration of the presence of the Isaianic age of salvation (Luke 4:16-21 [Isa 61:1-2a; cf. 49:8-10; 58:6-7; 4Q521 2 II, 1-14; 11QMelch II, 13-20]), Jesus prophetically announces that his Spirit-anointed ministry (Luke 3:22; 4:1, 14, 18 [cf. Isa 61:1a]; Acts 4:27; 10:38) effects the Sabbatical cancellation of debts (Luke 4:18; cf. Deut 15:1-2) and the Jubilee release of slaves (Luke 4:18; Lev 25:8-17). While the Sabbatical and Jubilee ‘release’, as enunciated by Luke, embraces both spiritual and social dimensions, Jesus envisages an upending of the social and economic relations of his day. Other Lukan texts spell out a similar social agenda (Luke 7:22; 14:13, 21), including the social elevation of the same marginalised groups mentioned in Luke 4:18.

 

(c) The divine power of overflowing grace (6:38) animates the believer’s beneficence towards and love of the enemy (6:35a), as well as to the poor. While there is embedded in this teaching the notion of recompense (6:38a, 38c; 18:29-30), the motif of ‘overrun’ (6:38b: ‘pressed down, shaken together and running over’) also points to the anterior richness of God’s grace and his ability to furnish believers with whatever is required for diaconal ministry.

(d) We have already noted that because God has extended covenantal mercy to

believers (6:38; cf. 1:54; 2:72-73), they are to extend mercy to others (10:37). The same principle is advocated because of God’s impartial kindness to the ungrateful and wicked (6:35b), with the ‘ungrateful’ being especially loathed by the popular philosophers and the composers of the inscriptions.

To what degree does Luke’s portrayal of the poor intersect with these visual and

inscriptional materials?

  4  

3. Luke’s Portrait of the ‘Poor’ In Jesus’ parables the plight of the urban and county poor is underscored, as well as the economic systems oppressing them. We commence with two of Jesus’ most famous representations of the poor. First, a rich man, clothed in purple and fine linen, sumptuously feasts in his house while Lazarus, a ptochos (‘poor man’), daily begs at his gates and has his sores licked by the dogs (Luke 16:19-31; cf. Acts 3:2-3, 6, 10). According to the Graeco-Roman visual evidence (New Docs 10 [2012], §21), domesticated dogs were often depicted feeding from the scraps dropped from the master’s table in the household. But, in this parable, packs of undomesticated dogs aimlessly roam the city streets and, sensing the vulnerability of Lazarus, decide to investigate his physically exposed state. This is confirmed in other literary sources. The Roman writer Martial (Ep. 10, 5, 9-12) wrote of a beggar who had to protect himself against scavenger birds who already had begun picking at his body.

Second, in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, a famine sweeps through the land (Luke 15:14-16), forcing the son into destitution and causing him to return as a refugee to his native land. Jesus’ parable accurately reflects the social dislocation and desperation of the communities that received the corn distributions of the inscriptions, or, alternatively, experienced the abject privation displayed in the Egyptian relief, both mentioned above. More generally, brutal economic realities such as debt bondage (12:57-59; 7:41-42), the over collection of taxes and extortion by officials (3:13-14), and the devouring of widows’ houses (20:47-21:4) feature in Jesus’ exhortations and parables (Oakman, Jesus and the Peasants, 33ff, 146). Clearly, in Jesus’ view, the Herodian and Roman rulers, and their agents, maintained the interests of the privileged and powerful over against the weak and poor.

Scattered throughout the gospel of Luke are also small vignettes of the poor embedded in the story line: the shepherds (Luke 1:8-20), various widows (2:26-38; 4:26; 7:1-10; 21:1-3), and a blind beggar (18:35-43). Jesus, too, came from a poor family, evidenced by Mary’s offering of two doves for her purification (Luke 2:24; cf. Lev 12:8) and by his own lower social strata occupation, noted elsewhere in the gospels (Mark 6:3; Matt 13:55). Jesus’ itinerant life of privation (Luke 9:58; cf. Mark 15:24; Matt 8:20;), dependence upon the beneficence of others (Luke 8:1-3; 10:38-42; cf. 9:3; 10:4, 7-8), and, his inability to produce a coin when required (20:21-26), underscore his personal poverty.

At Golgotha Jesus hangs naked and mutilated upon the cross, reminiscent of the naked demoniac at Gerasenes (8:27), while others cast lots for his only possessions, his clothes (23:34b). If Christ’s prayer for the forgiveness of his tormentors is authentic Lukan tradition (23:34a), he is here portrayed as an impoverished benefactor (23:34b), brokering divine grace for one of the condemned criminals alongside him (23:42-43).

Finally even Jesus’ disciples experienced privation on occasion, reduced by their hunger to gleaning corn on the Sabbath (6:1, 3; cf. Deut 23:25), or complaining about their own abandonment of homes in following their Master (Luke 18:28).

4. Luke’s Portrait of the Wealthy Having seen the plight of the poor, we can better appreciate Jesus’ relentless attack against the rich. They will suffer eschatological reversal on judgement day (Luke 6:20-21; 24-25; cf. 18:24-27). The reasons given are diverse. They have been seduced by the consolation and satiety of this life (6:24-25a), or have been absorbed in a

  5  

frenetic accumulation of goods in the search for security, status and pleasure (8:14; 9:25; 12:16-21), or have become embittered over the unsuccessful contest for a family inheritance (12:13-15; cf. 16:13-14). Ultimately, all such activities are myopic, focused on self rather than riches of God, and ignore Jesus’ call to costly discipleship (12:21; 18:22-23). Not only does such a lifestyle exude indifference to the poor, but also it manifests itself ethically in the exploitation of the weak for economic gain, either via unmanageable debt or property acquisition (7:36-50; 20:26). Jesus, therefore, reveals himself as an astute observer of the powerful elites and their unjust and acquisitive behaviour.

Last, Jesus was intimately acquainted with the honorific culture of the local synagogue (21:46), with its trappings of wealth and status (‘long robes’), civic esteem (‘formal greetings in the marketplaces’), and special honours (‘chief seats in the synagogues’, ‘places of honour at the banquets’). Some of Luke’s Graeco-Roman audience may have been aware of honorific inscriptions rewarding synagogue benefactors (often Gentile) in the Diaspora (Extracts 3.2-3.3), But, more likely, they would have seen numerous equivalents of these honours in the ubiquitous Graeco-Roman honorific culture, with its rhetoric of moral esteem and primacy of place for the honorand. To cite but one example, the wealthy elites were given reserved front row seats of honour in the theatre, the archaeological remains of which are still present in the theatres of Priene, Aphrodisias and Hierapolis. For Jesus, however, this exalting of self in a heated quest for primacy was anathema (Luke 14:7-11; cf. Prov 25:1-10). 5. Luke’s Assessment of Benefaction Culture In Luke 6:32-36 Jesus undermines the dynamic animating the ancient benefaction system: namely, the actual return of ‘honour’ (v. 32a) and ‘favour’ (v. 33a), or with a view to the future, the projected return of ‘honour’ and favour (v. 34a). Deliberately playing upon the ambiguity inherent in charis (vv. 32b, 33b, 34b) — ‘favour’ or ‘thanks’ — Jesus explodes any idea that the disciples can expect any ‘favour’ or ‘thanks’ returned. They are, after all, commanded to love and benefit their enemies (v. 35) — the ungrateful and deeply suspicious recipients whom Jesus has chosen to test the genuineness of the disciples’ love. In Luke 14:13-14 the same point is made in the context of the honorific rituals associated with ancient feasts. In addition to the poor, those marginalised by the Jewish holiness system — the crippled, lame and blind (IQSa 2.3-9) — are to be invited ahead of all other dignitaries precisely because they cannot reciprocate favour.  

The ‘sinners’ of the Graeco-Roman world, Jesus acknowledges (Luke 6: 33c, 34c, 35c), operate effectively within the benefaction system on the basis of self-interest and reciprocity, but no one, other than God, consistently operates in a selfless manner by nature. Ultimately, the kindness of God (v. 35) and his covenantal mercy (v. 36) is the basis for Jesus’ alterative to the ancient benefaction system. The honorifics and accolades (‘sons of the Most High’) of this new system, while not unimportant, are postponed until the eschaton (v. 35b; 14:14b). In sum, the unconditioned nature of God’s covenantal ‘mercy’ and his impartial ‘kindness’ to the ‘ungrateful’ and ‘wicked’ stood in contrast to Seneca’s understanding of clementia. In Seneca’s view, the projected recipients of clementia should demonstrate their worthiness by exhibiting a behavioural change. If this did not occur, justice would be compromised, with the result that mercy would degenerate into the unstable emotion of pity (misericordia).

  6  

Last, in contrast to the imperial and Herodian elites, who appropriated the honorific of euergetes (Luke 22:25; Select Extracts 4.2, 4.4), the benefaction community of Jesus is characterized by the abandonment of any status and titles in the service of their Master, whose exemplum informs their personal sacrifice (22.26-27). 6. Reconfiguring Jesus’ Critique of Benefaction Culture Jesus, along with the John the Baptist, demands in Luke’s gospel that his followers divest themselves of their wealth and give to the poor and the enemy (Luke 3:11; 6:30a, 35a; 11:41; 12:33; 14:13, 22; 18:22; 19:8). The ‘poor’ are one of the several marginalised groups that, according to Jesus’ Isaianic understanding of his Kingdom mission (LXX Isa 61:1-2a; Lk 4:18-18), were at the heart of his missionary outreach (4:18a; 6:20-21; 7:22). In Luke’s gospel, however, Jesus also devotes considerable attention to the operations of Jewish and Graeco-Roman benefactors. As we have seen, he is critical of the reciprocity ethic animating the ancient benefaction system (6:32-34; 14:12, 14a) and is dismissive of the honorific accolades that it spawned for the Gentile kings (22:25). The indifference of the wealthy to the poor — who are excluded from the carefully chosen circle of the benefactor’s clients — is graphically underscored (10:29; 16:19-22), as is the myopic blindness of the wealthy to eschatological judgement (12:16-21; cf. 6:24-25).

Notwithstanding, Jesus commends the Gentile centurion benefactor of the synagogue (7:1-10), advocates the astute use of wealth to establish ‘friends’ for the Kingdom (16:9a), endorses the disciples’ dependence upon benefaction for their mission (10:7; cf. 8:3b), and promises reward for the ‘poor’, not only in the present (6:38; 18:30a) but also at the eschaton (6:20b, 21b; 14:14b; 16:9b; 18:30b). Jesus praises an impoverished benefactor (21:1-3) and subsequently models the same exemplum on the cross (§3 supra).

Luke, in contrast to the other gospels, highlights the righteous character of Jesus’ martyr-like death (23:40-41, 47), emphasising with inscriptional benefaction language how Jesus, as soter (23:35b: allous esosen, sosato; 23:39b: soson seauton kai hemas), delivered his dependents from catastrophe by experiencing the terrible consequences himself. The derisive inscription of ‘King of the Jews’ (23:38: epigraphe [cf. vv. 35b-36a, 39b]) — intended to mock rather than honour the impoverished benefactor in this instance — was placed above Christ on the cross. But, ironically, it pointed to his true identity and messianic role (23:35b, 37b, 38b, 39b). Notwithstanding, the Graeco-Roman sources are highly critical of benefactors who impoverished themselves, either dismissing them for their lack of acumen, or rejecting them entirely as a kakos.

Furthermore, Jesus challenges his disciples with the new paradigm of the ‘Servant’ benefactor (22:26-27), criticising the self-promotion and officiousness of the imperial and provincial elites. He celebrates the salvation of the unworthy benefactor Zachaeus, who, though lacking moral esteem of the honoured (19:1-10), far surpasses in generosity the local civic benefactors. In sum, Luke provides for his auditors, with a view to his own age, a nuanced, paradoxical and unconventional portrait of Jesus’ critical response to the beneficence of the local elites, the Herodian house, and imperial overlords. But, in so doing, Luke also provides his auditors with new models of beneficence that would challenge the assumptions and operations of Graeco-Roman beneficence for third-generation believers.

  7  

Beneficence to the Poor in Luke’s Gospel from a Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective

Documentary Extracts

1. Benefactors providing grain or monetary donations to citizens 1.1. S.M. Burtsein, The Hellenistic Age from the Battle of Ipsos to the Death of Kleopatra VII

(Cambridge 1985), §111 (OGIS 194). Provenance: Thebes. Honorand: Kallimachos. 39 AD. […] the severe famine caused by a crop-failure like none hitherto recorded, and when the city had been almost crushed by [need], he having devoted himself wholeheartedly, voluntarily contributed to the salvation of each of the local inhabitants. Having laboured [as a father on behalf] of his own fatherland and his legitimate children, with the good will of the gods, in the continuous abundance of [food] he maintained nearly everyone; and [he kept them unaware] of the circumstance from which he furnished the abundance. The famine continued in the present year and became even worse and [……] a failure of the flood and misery far worse than ever before reigning throughout the whole and the condition of the city being wholly critical and […] and all having become weak from want and virtually everyone seeking everyone seeking everything, but [no one] obtaining it, he, having called, upon the greatest god, who then stood at his side, [Amonrasonth]er, and having nobly shouldered by himself the burden again, just as a bright star and a good daimon, he shone upon everyone. For he dedicated his life wholly […] […] for the inhabitants of Thebes, and, having nourished and saved everyone, together with their wives and children, just as from [a gale] and contending winds, he brought them into a safe harbour. 1.2. A.R. Hands, Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome (London 1968), §D10 (IG VII 190).

Provenance: Pergae. Honorand: Soteles. 60 BC. … he undertook to meet the expense of the statue and of its erection out of his pocket, desiring thoroughly to please the citizens. And in order that the city might incur no expense on his account, when he set up the state he sacrificed to all the gods and gave a dinner to all the citizens and residents (paroikoi) and to the Romans residing with us and to the slaves of all these and their sons and slaves’ children. 1.3. Hands, Charities, §D 39 (TAM III 4). Provenance: Termessus. Honorand: Atalanta. Late second

century AD. … has promised in a time of great corn shortage to provide an ample supply for the commons, and in fulfillment of her generous promise [philotimia] she provides corn unstintingly from the month Idalianos of the present year … 2. Doctors as benefactors 2.1. Hands, Charities, §D.68 (IG V 1145). Provenance: Gytheion. Honorand: Damadius . 86 BC. … came to practice in our city, showing himself second to none in his skill, as befitted his reputation, and the best of [public] doctors, so laying claim to the highest regard of the magistrates and of our city, and since he became a [public] doctor among us and, having practiced as such, was opportunely called upon by the people, and during a stay of two years among us provided the due treatment, skillfully serving those in need, showing unlimited energy and devotion (philotimia) in serving fairly all alike, whether poor or rich, slaves or free or foreigners … 2.2. Hands, Charities, §D.65 (IG XII 1032). Provenance: Carpathos. Honorand: Brycous. 200 BC. … and since he has been irreproachable in all his dealings with us and has completed his stay of five years, looking after the citizens and the rest of those dwelling at Gortyn, and has by the enthusiastic and earnest application of his skill and his other care saved many from great dangers, never failing in his energy; and since, when many allies were with us at the time when we were at war, he displayed the same care for them and saved them from great dangers, wishing to show gratitude to our city .

  8  

3. Synagogue benefactors: Palestine and Diaspora 3.1. S. Sorek, Remembered for Good: A Jewish Benefaction System in Ancient Palestine (Sheffield:

Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010), 107, 160. Provenance: Beth She´an B synagogue (Israel). Fifth to sixth century AD.

Remembered for good all the members of the Holy Congregation who endured to repair The Holy place and in peace shall they have their blessing. Amen Great peace, hesed, in peace 3.2. A. Runesson (et al., ed.), The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins to 200 C.E.: A Source Book

(Leiden/Boston 2008), §103 (CIJ 2.766). Provenance: Acmonia (Asia). Second half of the first century AD.

This building was erected by Julia Severa; P(ublius) Tyrronios Clados, ruler of the synagogue for life and Lucius, son of Lucius, ruler of the synogue, and Popilios Zoticos, ruler, restored it with their own funds and with money which had been contributed: they painted the walls and the ceiling, and they secured the windows and made all the rest of the ornamentation; and the congregation honoured them with a golden shield on account of their virtuous disposition (enarete), goodwill (eunoia) and zeal (spoude) for the congregation. 3.3. B. Lifshitz, Donateurs et Foundateurs dans les Synagogues Juives (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1967), §13.

Provenance: Phocaea. Third century AD. Tation, daughter (or wife) of Straton, son of E(m)pedon, having erected the assembly hall and the enclosure of the open courtyard with her own funds, gave them as a gift to the Jews. The synagogue of the Jews honoured (Tation, daughter (or wife) of Straton, son of E(m)pedon, with a golden crown and the privilege of sitting in the seat of honour. 4. Imperial benefactors and their clients 4.1. Runesson, The Ancient Synagogue §34 Qatzion (Israel). Synagogue or non-Jewish temple? 196-

198 (197?) AD For the salvation of the Roman Caesars L[ucius] Sept[imius] Severus Pius Pert[inax] Aug[ustus], and M[arcus] Aur[elius] A[nton]inus [[and L[ucius] Sept[imius] G]]eta, their sons, by a vow of the Jews. 4.2 S. Sorek, Remembered for Good, 49. Provenance: Jerusalem antiquities dealer, 1967. Round

limestone weight. IEJ 20 (1970): 97-98.

[Year] 32 of Kin[g] He[od] Be[nefactor] (eu[ergetes]) [Loyal to C]aesar. (philok[aisaros]) of the Insp[ector of Markets]. Three minas. 4.3. Runesson, The Ancient Synagogue §176. Ostia, Italy. Second half of the second century AD

(original); second half of the third century CE (reinscribed, indicated by [[ ]], [[[ ]]]). For the health of the Emperor(s). [[Min(d)ius Faustus]] [[[with his houseold]]] built and produced (it) from his own gifts and erected the ark for the holy law. 4.4. New Docs 9 (2002) §10. Provenance: Sardis. AD 41-51 The people hallowed Tiberius Caesar god Augustus, the imperator, uncle of Tiberius Claudius Germanicus Caesar Augustus, the imperator, and founder of the city and benefactor (euergetes tou kosmou) of the world, out of piety (eusebeia) and thanksgiving (eucharistia) …