The following is the epitaph of Domnos, son of Eustochios:
Source: William Tabbernee, Montanist Inscriptions and
Testimonia: Epigraphic Sources Illustrating the History of Montanism (North
American Patristic Society Patristic Monograph Series 16; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University
Press, 1997), 415
Tabbernee offers the following commentary:
“Baptism for the dead”?
Kütahya, in wall of wash house
in Greek quarter IV²⁻³
Ed. pr. — Perrot/Guillaume/Delbet Exploration
I [1862]: 118-119 no. 79 with French trans. and facsimile of majuscule
copy.
Rectangular marble
slab. Height: 1.05m.; width: 2.40m.; thickness unobtainable. Original size and
exact shape unknown. Leaf carved at conclusion of inscription. Mason’s guide
lines visible. Quadratic epsilons,
sigmas, and omegas. Rho has short
diagonal hasta at end of loop. Upsilon
has cross bar in tail (cf. 3). Erasure after second sigma in l.4. Ligatures
at ll.2-5 (in ll.3-4, vertical hasta of phi
doubles as iota). Letter height:
0.07m. Figure 76. Plate 33.
Τὸν κλυτὸν ἐν ζωοῖσι, τὸν ἔξοχον
[ἐ]ν μερόπεσσι, τὸν πρώτιστον βουλῆς
ἠδὲ πόληος ὅλης, τὸν πτωχοὺς φιλέοντα
[ε]ἵνεκεν εὐσεβίης, (vac.) Εὐστοχίου φίλον υἷα
5 τὸν ἀθάνατοι φιλέεσκον (vac.) τοὔνεκα καὶ πηγαῖς
λούσαμεν ἀθανάτοις (vac.) καὶ μακάρων νήσσοις
ἔμβαλον ἀθανάτων Δόμον, ζήσαντα
τρὶς ἐτέων δεκάδας. (leaf)
[Here
lies]
the
one who was
renowned
among the living, prominent among humanity,
foremost
in the council and the whole city loving the poor on
account
of his piety:
5 Eutochios’ beloved son, | he whom the
immortals loved and
whom,
therefore, we also washed in immortal fountains and
deposited
on the isles of the blessed immortals:
Domnos, having lived three
times ten years.
. . .
Christian?
Despite the absence of
overtly open profession of Christianity, there is little doubt that this
epitaph is Christian. The name Domnos was extremely popular in Christian
circles (cf. 60 and see ad 34), and
the metaphors may have Christian as well as classical allusions; see Calder,
“Notebook,” 270-271; Grégoire, 60; W.M. Calder, in Buckler/Calder/Cox, 142;
Mitchell (1980: 204). For example, the reference to “washing” (cf. 1 Cor 6:11;
Just, 1 apol. 61-66) may be a synonym
for baptism. “Immortal” water from springs or fountains would have been deemed
better than “still water” for baptizing, although not quite as good as actually
baptizing in running water (cf. Did. 7.2).
For the use of “fountain,” a metaphor for baptism, see Just., dial. 14; cf. the epitaph of Pectrios
(Autun, ancient Augustodunum, Gaul, c.350): CIG 4 [1877]: 9890 (= EG 4 [1978]:
487-494 no. 1 with Italian trans. and photograph), l.2 [but note restoration].
“Baptism
for the dead?”
Calder (Buckler/Calder/Cox,
142-143; cf. “Notebook,” 269-270) claimed that Domnos had been baptized by the
leaders of his particular Christian community and that the monument was set up
by them. H. Grégoire accepted Calder’s hypothesis but argued (60-61) that in
Domnos’ epitaph baptism is presented as a supreme reward for a virtuous life
and that it is described as a funeral rite. He concluded that this is probably
the first epigraphic attestation of “baptism for the dead.”
“Baptism for the dead”
had been practiced by various Christian groups since the time of St. Paul (1
Cor 15:29), but the exact nature of this practice was rarely described.
Epiphanius, who attributed it to the Cerinthians, knew of two explanations:
vicarious baptism (haer. 28.6.4) and
clinical baptism (ibid., 28.6.5). The former refers to the baptism of a
substitute on behalf of the deceased; the latter to “death-bed” baptism. Of the
two, only the latter can possibly apply to Domnos. There is no hint that
someone else was baptized on his behalf. If the verb λούσαμεν (l.6) does indeed refer to a baptism
combined with a funerary lustral rite, it may
be describing clinical baptism. Such a baptism was conducted not only for the
sake of the deceased, but also for the sake of the previously deceased, i.e., so that the most recently deceased may
be united with them in the “communion of saints.” This understanding of what
occurred in clinical baptism may, in fact, be the original meaning of the term
“baptism for the (sake of the) dead,” vicarious baptism resulting from a
misinterpretation of 1 Cor 15:29; see M. Raeder (1955: 258-260); J. Jeremias
(1955: 151-159). That “baptism for the dead” is indicated intentionally by the
use of λούσαμεν in l.6 of this
inscription is, however, by no means certain; see also Mitchell (1993: 104
n.419).
Montanist?
Calder
(Buckler/Calder/Cox, 142-143; “Notebook,” 269-270), postulated that the use of λούσαμεν
may well have been a Montanist trait. He based this hypothesis on the view that
Montanists had a unique baptismal formula, emphasized the priesthood of all
believers, and that Kotiaieion was “not a very orthodox city” in close
proximity to a district in which Montanism was strong from late III onwards.
None of these alleged criteria, however, guarantees Domnos’ epitaph to be
Montanist. That Montanists actually baptized “in the name of the Father, Son
and Montanus” is questionable (see ad 71)
and their “emphasis on the priesthood of all believers” is really an emphasis
on including women into the ranks of the clergy; see ad 5 and cf. 87. There is no evidence that Montanism, any more or
less than mainstream Christianity, permitted the laity to perform baptisms
other than in extremis. That there was a Montanist community in Kotiaieion is
theoretically possible, as there is evidence of Montanists in nearby Dorylaeion
(63) and, probably, Nakoleia (55), but not
in the Plain of Altıntaş unless the Xp.–Xp. inscriptions are indeed Montanist.
The only other alleged epigraphic evidence for Montanism in the city of
Kotiaieion itself (54, 64-66) is based on the mistaken interpretation of a comb
as the letter pi (58) and on the a priori assumption that all
inscriptions with the formula τὸν θεὸν σοι μὴ ἀδικήσεις are Montanist; see ad 59. It is likely, however, that a
Montanist prophetess lived in the Phrygian highlands within the territory of Kotiaieion (68).
Grégoire’s view that
Domnos’ epitaph contains a reference to “baptism for the dead” hypothetically
provides a more plausible criterion for judging this epitaph to be Montanist,
as Montanists were accused of the practice (Filastr., haer. 49). As Filaster charged Montanists with a practice which
differed from official Christianity, Filaster could not have been referring to
clinical baptism. Domnos’ epitaph, however, if it alludes to baptism for the
dead at all, must be referring to clinical, not vicarious, baptism, the latter
of which must have been the charge leveled at Montanism. Even if that charge
were accurate, which is unlikely (see Tabbernee, 483-385; but contrast Strobel,
245), it cannot be used to point to Montanism here in that it is not the same kind
of baptism for the dead.
Novatian?
Unlike
the case for a Montanist presence in Kotiaieion, there is indisputable evidence
for Novatianists there and in the Upper Tembris Valley as a whole; see pp.
347-349 above. Calder (“Notebook,” 271) and Grégoire (61) considered the
possibility of this inscription being Novatian and did not reject this option
altogether. If accurate, there could be an indirect connection with Montanism,
should it ever be proved that Montanism merged with Novatianism in N. Phrygia;
see pp. 356-357 above. Mitchell cites this inscription as “a possible Montanist
text” (1980: 202; cf. 1993: 39 n.234) but also points out that Domnos may have
been a Novatianist (104). (William Tabbernee, Montanist Inscriptions and
Testimonia: Epigraphic Sources Illustrating the History of Montanism [North
American Patristic Society Patristic Monograph Series 16; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University
Press, 1997], 414-15, 417-19)
