Latin Epigraphy More significant, however, is John’s report that thetituluswas writtenin three languages,Ἑβραϊστί,Ῥωμαϊστί,Ἑλληνιστί. The latter two are of
course straightforward, namely Latin and Greek. But it remains systemati-
cally uncertain what is meant byἙβραϊστί. The problem arises because, while
it is certain that both Hebrew and Aramaic were in use among the Jewish
population of Judaea, there was no clear and distinctive terminology for dis-
tinguishing between them.ἙβραϊστίorκατὰτὴντῶνἙβραίωνδιάλεκτον
can be used by Josephus and New Testament writers to describe words which
are in fact in Aramaic.^3 As regards the various dialects of Aramaic used by
gentiles in the Near East, there is a fair degree of consistency among observers
writing in Greek or Latin. They speak ofSuroi(or sometimesAssurioi)in
Greek and ofSyriin Latin, and of people speakingsuristior ‘‘in the Syrian
language.’’ We would not expect from them a detailed knowledge of dialects,
or of regional variations. But it is significant for their global view of what
we call ‘‘Aramaic’’ that outsiders applied terms cognate with ‘‘Syrian’’ to local
dialects in use throughout the entire region; thus to Pliny the Elder, Hiera-
polis in northern Syria ‘‘is called Mabog by theSyri’’; Josephus records that
Palmyra was still called ‘‘Thadamora’’ among theSuroi; and Eusebius says that
Petra was called ‘‘Rekem’’ among theAssurioi.^4
But although the Aramaic used by Jews in Judaea was also just another
dialect of the Aramaic which outsiders thought of as ‘‘the language of the
Syrians,’’ and was distinct from Hebrew, it does not seem that, within a Jew-
ish context, there was a clear distinction of nomenclature between the two.
Indeed it is clear that there was not. So when either Paul in Jerusalem, or
Josephus outside the walls of the city during the siege of.., is described
as making a speech to the peopleτῇἙβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ,orἑβραΐζων,we
cannot be sure whether Hebrew or Aramaic is meant. Either is in fact pos-
sible.^5 But if either could be used as a spoken language,a fortiorieither might
have been used, along with Latin and Greek, in the formal context of the
tituluson the Cross.
In the Near East, therefore, Latin entered into a more complex set of lin-
guistic relationships than we can trace in any other area of the Empire. By and
. For the most detailed survey, see still Schürer, Vermes, and Millar,HistoryII, –.
For the confusion, see esp. , n. . See also H. M. Cotton’s new edition of the famous lines
ofP.Yadin, lines –:ἐγράφηδ[ὲ]Ἑληνεστὶδιὰτ[ὸ][ἡ]μᾶςμὴεὐρηκ[έ]ναιἙβραεστὶ
ἐ[γγρ]ᾴψασθαι, in Y. Yadin, J. C. Greenfield, A. Yardeni, and B. Levine,The Documents from
theBarKokhbaPeriodintheCaveof LettersII:Hebrew,AramaicandNabataeanDocuments(),
–.
. Pliny,NH, ; Josephus,Ant. , ; Eusebius,Onom., ed. Klosterman, , .
.Acts:; Josephus,BJ, .