DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45613#0013
Preface to Division III, Section B.
VII
increasing number of the Christian inscriptions and the more enlightened study devoted
4o them seem to me to confirm the opinion that those, who were most influential in
the organization of the Christian Church and in the formulation of its doctrines, because
they were living in a pagan world and because many of them were pagans themselves
before their conversion, brought into the earliest Church much that was wholly foreign
to the teachings of their Master.
Some of the inscriptions in this collection are among those published by M. Sey-
mour de Ricci in the Revue Archeologique, Sept.-Oct. 1907, p. 281 ff. Professor
David Robinson, in his review 1 2 of my former volume, Part hi of the Publications of
an American Archaeological Expedition to Syria in i8gg-igoo, New York, 1908,
said: “An acquaintance with this article by Dr. Ricci, who republishes from a manuscript
in the Hague copies made of Greek and Latin inscriptions of Syria by the Belgian
consul Gosche about 1 700, when the stones were much more legible, would have saved
Professor Prentice several mistakes and enabled him to give better readings than his
own.” Professor Robinson did not mention that I discussed the value of the Gosche
inscriptions in my Preface, p. xm. The question raised here is one of general importance.
Undoubtedly two of the inscriptions, A. A. E. 5., Ill, Nos. 98 and 100, cited in my
preface, were better preserved when seen by M. Gosche than two centuries later. It
is doubtful whether the others were appreciably more legible then than now.3 M. Gosche
was not always a perfectly accurate epigraphist, as his copies, No. 1 = A. A. E. S.
Ill, 14, No. 18 = A. A. E. S. Ill, 57 = P. A. E. S. Ill, b, 1076, and No. 20 -
A. A. E. S. Ill, 61 = P. A. E. S. Ill, b, 1086 show. Even where the earlier copy
is more plausible than mine, it is not certain that Gosche’s reading is correct. Plausibility
is not the final test of the accuracy of a copy. In particular, in his No. 6 = A. A. E. S.
No. 9, I believe that M. Gosche read into the document what Professor Robinson
approves. In the presence of the stone itself I tried for a long time to read the name
of a month after εγενετω, and I do not believe that I neglected to try any combination
of letters such as that reported by the Belgian consul. And when this earlier copy
was published by M. de Ricci I tried to reconcile it with the excellent squeeze of the
inscription in my possession. I still believe that in this instance and some others what
M. Gosche wrote was not really upon the stone.
Critics of the earlier parts of the present publication have commented upon the
fact that I did not give credit to MM. Deissmann, Mercati and Clermont-Ganneau for
their comments 3 on the inscriptions published by Dr. Lucas in the Byzantinische Zeit-
schrift.4 A word of explanation is due to these scholars. That I was not unaware
of the contributions made by them is, shown by my own commentary, e. g. under
No. 969 below. That I did not mention their emendations in other cases was because
their remarks concerned obvious faults in the copies furnished to Dr. Lucas, or were
based upon citations of the original verses which were quoted in these fragmentary
inscriptions and which could be found by any one in the Concordances to the Greek
Bible. For the rest, my critics have rendered great service in correcting some of
my mistakes.
1 American Journal of Philology, xxx (1909), p. 205.
2 Perhaps Gosche Nos. 10 and 25 should also be excepted.
3 Philologus lxiv (1905), p. 475-8. Byz. Zeitschr. xiv (1905), p. 587. Byz. Zeitschr. xv (1906), p. 279-84.
4 Byz. Zeitschr. XIV (1905), p. 1-72 and 755 f.
VII
increasing number of the Christian inscriptions and the more enlightened study devoted
4o them seem to me to confirm the opinion that those, who were most influential in
the organization of the Christian Church and in the formulation of its doctrines, because
they were living in a pagan world and because many of them were pagans themselves
before their conversion, brought into the earliest Church much that was wholly foreign
to the teachings of their Master.
Some of the inscriptions in this collection are among those published by M. Sey-
mour de Ricci in the Revue Archeologique, Sept.-Oct. 1907, p. 281 ff. Professor
David Robinson, in his review 1 2 of my former volume, Part hi of the Publications of
an American Archaeological Expedition to Syria in i8gg-igoo, New York, 1908,
said: “An acquaintance with this article by Dr. Ricci, who republishes from a manuscript
in the Hague copies made of Greek and Latin inscriptions of Syria by the Belgian
consul Gosche about 1 700, when the stones were much more legible, would have saved
Professor Prentice several mistakes and enabled him to give better readings than his
own.” Professor Robinson did not mention that I discussed the value of the Gosche
inscriptions in my Preface, p. xm. The question raised here is one of general importance.
Undoubtedly two of the inscriptions, A. A. E. 5., Ill, Nos. 98 and 100, cited in my
preface, were better preserved when seen by M. Gosche than two centuries later. It
is doubtful whether the others were appreciably more legible then than now.3 M. Gosche
was not always a perfectly accurate epigraphist, as his copies, No. 1 = A. A. E. S.
Ill, 14, No. 18 = A. A. E. S. Ill, 57 = P. A. E. S. Ill, b, 1076, and No. 20 -
A. A. E. S. Ill, 61 = P. A. E. S. Ill, b, 1086 show. Even where the earlier copy
is more plausible than mine, it is not certain that Gosche’s reading is correct. Plausibility
is not the final test of the accuracy of a copy. In particular, in his No. 6 = A. A. E. S.
No. 9, I believe that M. Gosche read into the document what Professor Robinson
approves. In the presence of the stone itself I tried for a long time to read the name
of a month after εγενετω, and I do not believe that I neglected to try any combination
of letters such as that reported by the Belgian consul. And when this earlier copy
was published by M. de Ricci I tried to reconcile it with the excellent squeeze of the
inscription in my possession. I still believe that in this instance and some others what
M. Gosche wrote was not really upon the stone.
Critics of the earlier parts of the present publication have commented upon the
fact that I did not give credit to MM. Deissmann, Mercati and Clermont-Ganneau for
their comments 3 on the inscriptions published by Dr. Lucas in the Byzantinische Zeit-
schrift.4 A word of explanation is due to these scholars. That I was not unaware
of the contributions made by them is, shown by my own commentary, e. g. under
No. 969 below. That I did not mention their emendations in other cases was because
their remarks concerned obvious faults in the copies furnished to Dr. Lucas, or were
based upon citations of the original verses which were quoted in these fragmentary
inscriptions and which could be found by any one in the Concordances to the Greek
Bible. For the rest, my critics have rendered great service in correcting some of
my mistakes.
1 American Journal of Philology, xxx (1909), p. 205.
2 Perhaps Gosche Nos. 10 and 25 should also be excepted.
3 Philologus lxiv (1905), p. 475-8. Byz. Zeitschr. xiv (1905), p. 587. Byz. Zeitschr. xv (1906), p. 279-84.
4 Byz. Zeitschr. XIV (1905), p. 1-72 and 755 f.