282 CHAPTER TEN
The synagogue inscriptions are obsessed with memorialization, more so
than is usual in dedicatory inscriptions.^18 Forty-five of the seventy-odd relevant
inscriptions begin with the formula “dakir(or pl.dekirin)letab,”—“may X be
remembered for good,” or its Greek, or in one case its Hebrew, equivalent.^19
At first glance, it seems obvious that the nearest parallels to the synagogue
inscriptions are those found in temples and churches—a feeling certainly
strengthened by the similarity of the dedicatory formulas used in all three types
of structure. Thedakir letabformula is common in dedicatory inscriptions in
Syria and its vicinity, though it is rare elsewhere. Linguistically, the most strik-
ing parallels to the synagogue inscriptions are votive inscriptions in Aramaic
from several temples of the first through third centuries at Hatra, in Mesopota-
mia, where thedakir letabformula is usually qualified by the addition of the
words “before the god Y.”^20 In some rural Syrian shrines, Greek inscriptions
pray that the donors “be remembered” (without the words “for good”).^21 Many
inscriptions from Palestinian churches read, “O Lord, remember your servant
X” or “O Lord, help your servant X.” All these dedications could be seen
primarily as transactions between the individual and the gods, or as a way for
individuals the fix eternally their place in a chaotic and ever changing cosmos,
as Mary Beard has argued is the case for pagan votive inscriptions. Surely, the
inscribed dedications from Hatra are in this sense, despite their geographical
marginality, conventional artifacts of Greco-Roman religion: the dedicant in-
scribed on a statue or other image his name or the prayer that the god remem-
ber him for good. The cella of the shrine, where the dedication is placed, was
not an especially public place: laypeople might enter it occasionally, but
mainly it was the province of the priests and the gods. No one expected their
dedicatory inscriptions to be read; what mattered was the act of naming.
Notwithstanding the similarity in language, the synagogue inscriptions dif-
fer from the pagan inscriptions in several important ways. They never ask that
the dedicant “be remembered for good”qodam elaha, before God, simply
that he be remembered for good. While there is no reason to doubt that God
is implied, there is also no reason to think that the ambiguity of the common
formula is not significant. Here the context of the inscriptions is important, for
(^18) This is reflected also in rabbinic legislation. According to T. Megillah 3[2]:3 an object do-
nated to a synagogue may not be used for any purpose other than that for which it was donated
as long as the donor’s name is remembered or, if the object is inscribed, as long as his name
is legible (see Lieberman,Tosefta Kifshutah, for this interpretation); writing here functions as
memory.
(^19) Cf. also the inscriptions from Na’aran, where the donors are blessed not with the common
wish that God bless their work or that their lot (in the world to come) be among the righteous,
but rather with the statement that “their lot is in this (holy) place,” that is, that their generosity
to the synagogue has secured their immortality (Naveh,On Mosaic, nos. 61–66).
(^20) See, for example, A. Caquot, “Nouvelles inscriptions arame ́ennes de Hatra,”Syria 29
(1952): 89–118.
(^21) E.g.,IGLS2.359