“Memorial” as a designation for the tomb
It is hardly surprising, given the function of the tomb as the primary
occasion for the remembrance of the deceased, that the most common use of the
idea of memory in our inscriptions occurs in the designation of the tomb as a “memorial.”
Also, it is an indication of the high level of currency of the designation that
several different Greek and Latin words are used in this way.
The most common Greek terms to be used in this way are μνημα and the closely related μνημιον, occurring, for example, several times in
Palestine and Egypt. These seem to appear consistently at the beginning of the
inscription, followed by the name of the owner of the tomb, or in some cases an
entire area (BS ii 11, 106), in the genitive case. However, one striking
deviation from this use of μνημα/μνημιον as part of an
identification formula can be seen in the relatively much earlier fragmentary
epitaph of Theon (JIGRE 114, 1st cent B.C.-1st cent. A.D.), which
concludes with the very straightforward first-person statement ενθαδε μνημηω κειμαι αποφθιμενος, “I lie here dead in the tomb.”
The ”tomb of” identification formula can also be seen with the Latin memoria,
which, judging from the presence of the Greek transliteration μημοριον, was perhaps even more widely known than μνημα. An interesting combination of this with
another identification formula, “here lies,” can be seen in hic est memoria
Isidora (JIWE i 187). A similar combination appears in the
trilingual epitaph of Mellasa (JIWE i 183), in which the hic est
memoria of the Latin text is translated into the Greek ωδε εστην μεμν[ι]ον. Here, the fact that both the Greek and
Latin words are used as equivalent to the הקבר in the Hebrew text indicates
that they simply mean “tomb,” without any reference to actual idea of
remembrance. This is even more clearly the case in the epitaph of Aurelius
Samuel (JIWE i 145), in which the deceased declares “I . . . bought the
memorial for myself and my wife,” and warns “let no-one open the memorial and
put someone else’s body on top of our bones.”
A strong contrast to this use of memorial strictly to mean “tomb”
is observable in the statement dormition eius est memoria eius in the
epitaph of Peon Geta (JIWE i 174). As Noy points out, the dormition
here may also mean “tomb,” as is the case in the blessing sit pax super
dormitorium eorum of JIWE i 121. There are, therefore, four possible
combinations: “his sleep is his memorial,” “his sleep is his tomb,” “this tomb
is his memorial,” and “his tomb is his tomb.” The second and last of these,
however, are plainly to be ruled out as not being meaningful, so that in either
case, memoria is not to used to mean “tomb,” but “memorial.” Of the two remaining
options, the latter, perhaps to be interpreted “his tomb is that by means of
which he shall be remembered,” is the most likely.
Finally, it is not surprising that this aspect of remembrance is also
fresh in the occurrences of the term μνεια, “memory,” in the metaphorical sense of “memorial>” For example,
in the epitaph of Ursus (JIWE ii 253), the words μνεια του μ<ε>λλονυμφιου, “memorial of the man about to marry,” neither
appearing at the beginning of the epitaph nor containing the name of the
deceased, presents a striking contrast with the use of other terms as part of
an identification formula, above. Similarly, the words μνια αυτου (JIWE ii 167) and μνια σου (JIWE ii 354), occurring near the
end of the epitaphs in which they occur, seem to express simply and
deliberately that the tomb is meant to be the occasion for the remembrance of
the deceased. IT is noteworthy that this seems to be the only memory-related word
used in the Jewish inscriptions of Rome, and also that this word is not used in
this way elsewhere. (Joseph S. Park, Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions
[Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 121; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2000], 129-31)
The Greek formula
Although there are among the Jewish inscriptions of Rome no Hebrew
occurrences of the present formula, there are three Greek equivalents. The LXX
of Prov 10:7 seems to have been followed in the μνημη δικαιο[υ]
σ[υ]ν ενκωμιω, “the memory of
the just man with praise,” which honors an anonymous teacher of the law (JIWE
ii 307) buried in the Randanini catacomb. The μνια δικαιου εις ευλογιαν in the Monteverde epitaph of Macedonius (JIWE
ii 112), on the other hand, follows the Aquila version. Macedonius (JIWE
ii 112), on the other hand, follows the Aquila version. Finally, the form μνημη δικαιου ις ευλογιαν ου αλητη τα ενκωμια appears on the epitaph of Amachius (JIWE
ii 276), also from the Randanini catacomb. As van der Horst points out, this very
interesting variant contains elements of both the LXX and Aquila versions.
The general meaning conveyed by these three Greek adaptations of Prov 10:7
in a this-worldly remembrance and praise of the deceased, Unlike the Hebrew
formula examined above, the fact that these are all different from each other
seems to indicate that the authors probably reflected upon and made references
to their respective version of the Greek bible rather than imitate a set a
formula. This is somewhat in contrast to the ε.ε.η.κ.α. formula, which comes after each of them.
There is, in addition, a similar Greek formula in the epitaph CIJ
731c, 4th-5th cent.), from Crete: μνημη δικεας ις εωνα, “the memory of the righteous forever.”
Although the lack of the word “blessing” or “praise” in this formula makes it
unlike any of those found in Rome, the first two words are sufficiently
recognizable for it to be considered as based on Prov 10:7. It is possible to
take this formula as simply declaring or wishing that the deceased is never to
be forgotten. However, the meaning of the words εις αιωνα does not seem to be exhausted by a merely
this-worldly remembrance. (Joseph S. Park, Conceptions of Afterlife in
Jewish Inscriptions [Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
2. Reihe 121; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000], 142)
