Ancient Synagogues - Archaeology and Art: New Discoveries and Current Research (Handbook of Oriental Studies: Section 1; The Near and Middle East) 900425773X, 9789004257733

Citation preview

Ancient Synagogues—Archaeology and Art: New Discoveries and Current Research

Handbook of Oriental Studies Handbuch der Orientalistik Section 1, Ancient Near East Editor-in-Chief

W.H. van Soldt (Leiden) Editors

G. Beckman (Ann Arbor) C. Leitz (Tubingen) P. Michalowski (Ann Arbor) P. Miglus (Heidelberg) H. Gzella (Leiden)

VOLUME 105

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/hdo

Ancient Synagogues—Archaeology and Art: New Discoveries and Current Research By

Rachel Hachlili

Leiden • boston 2013

Cover image: The Qasrin synagogue during the excavations, 1984. Photo courtesy of Zeev Radovan. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hachlili, Rachel.  Ancient synagogues-archaeology and art : new discoveries and current research / by Rachel Hachlili.   pages cm. — (Handbook of oriental studies. Section 1, Ancient Near East ; volume 105 = Handbuch der Orientalistik)  Includes bibliographical references and index.  ISBN 978-90-04-25773-3 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-25772-6 (e-book) 1. Synagogue architecture. 2. Synagogue art. 3. Jewish art and symbolism. 4. Synagogues—History. 5. Excavations (Archaeology) 6. Jews— Antiquities. I. Title.  NA4690.H285 2014  726’.3—dc23

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 0169-9423 ISBN 978-90-04-25773-3 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-25772-6 (e-book) Copyright 2013 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

2013023183

To my Family Gad, Guy, Liat, Niv, Sigal, Andrew, Oren and Romi

CONTENTS List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................................... xv Figure Credits ....................................................................................................................................................... xxix List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................ xxxi Preface .................................................................................................................................................................... xxxiii Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................

1

I The Synagogue .............................................................................................................................................. 1. The Synagogue and the Temple ....................................................................................................... 2. The Origin and History of the Synagogue ..................................................................................... 2.1 Textual and Epigraphic Evidence .......................................................................................... 2.2 Terms for Synagogue Found in Inscriptions ...................................................................... 3. The Emergence of the Synagogue .................................................................................................... 3.1 Synagogue Activities .................................................................................................................. 3.2 Administration of the Synagogue .......................................................................................... 3.3 Community Officials Cited on Dedication Inscriptions ................................................. 4. Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................

5 5 6 7 10 13 16 17 18 20

II Second Temple Period Synagogues ....................................................................................................... 1. Description of the Second Temple Structures ............................................................................. 1.1 Capernaum ................................................................................................................................... 1.2 H. Et-Tuwani ................................................................................................................................ 1.3 Gamla ............................................................................................................................................. 1.4 Herodium ...................................................................................................................................... 1.5 Jericho ............................................................................................................................................ 1.6 Korazim ......................................................................................................................................... 1.7 Masada ........................................................................................................................................... 1.8 Migdal I .......................................................................................................................................... 1.9 Modiʿin—Hurvat Umm el-Umdan ........................................................................................ 1.10 Qiryat Sefer ................................................................................................................................... 1.11 Horvat ʿEthri ................................................................................................................................. 1.12 Horvat Burnat .............................................................................................................................. 1.13 Qumran .......................................................................................................................................... 1.14 Migdal II ........................................................................................................................................ 1.15 Shuafat ........................................................................................................................................... 1.16 Ornamentation ............................................................................................................................ 2. The Architectural Features of the Structures ............................................................................... 2.1 Characteristic Features of Synagogues of the Second Temple Period ....................... 2.2 Origin of the Second Temple Synagogues Architectural Plan ...................................... 2.3 Relations between the Jerusalem Temple and the Second Temple Structures ...... 3. Function of the Second Temple Synagogue Structures ............................................................ 4. Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................................................

23 23 23 26 26 28 28 30 30 33 34 34 36 36 37 37 39 39 43 43 45 46 46 50

viii

contents

III Recently Excavated and Newly Published Synagogues ................................................................. 1. Early Synagogues ................................................................................................................................. 1.1 Nabratein Synagogue ............................................................................................................... 1.2 ʿEn Gedi Synagogue I ............................................................................................................... 1.3 Eshtemoa I .................................................................................................................................. 1.4 H. Rimmon I (Stratum IV) ..................................................................................................... 1.5 Kafr Misr I ................................................................................................................................... 2. Galilean Synagogues .......................................................................................................................... 2.1 Arbel .............................................................................................................................................. 2.2 Barʿam ........................................................................................................................................... 2.3 Capernaum ................................................................................................................................. 2.4 Gush Halav .................................................................................................................................. 2.5 Hamam, Hurvat Wadi .............................................................................................................. 2.6 Huqoq ........................................................................................................................................... 2.7 Kafr Misr ...................................................................................................................................... 2.8 Korazim ........................................................................................................................................ 2.9 Meroth .......................................................................................................................................... 2.10 Nabratein ..................................................................................................................................... 2.11 Horvat Shemʿa ............................................................................................................................ 2.12 The Tiberias Group .................................................................................................................. 2.13 Sepphoris ..................................................................................................................................... 3. Qasrin ..................................................................................................................................................... 3.1 Synagogue I (A) ......................................................................................................................... 3.2 Synagogue II (B) (Stratum IVa, b) ....................................................................................... 3.3 Description of Architectural Elements ............................................................................... 3.4 Architectural Ornamentation ............................................................................................... 4. Golan Synagogues ............................................................................................................................... 4.1 Dabiyye ........................................................................................................................................ 4.2 Deir ʿAziz ..................................................................................................................................... 4.3 ʿEn Nashut ................................................................................................................................... 4.4 H. Kanaf ....................................................................................................................................... 4.5 Umm el-Qanatir ........................................................................................................................ 4.6 Ed-Dikke ...................................................................................................................................... 5. South Judea Synagogues ................................................................................................................... 5.1 Eshtemoʿa .................................................................................................................................... 5.2 H. Susiya ....................................................................................................................................... 5.3 H. ʿAnim ....................................................................................................................................... 5.4 H. Maʿon (Judea) ....................................................................................................................... 5.5 Characteristic Features of South Judean Synagogues .................................................... 6. Other Synagogues: ʿEn Gedi, Caesarea, Sumaqa, Maʿon-Nirim ............................................ 6.1 ʿEn Gedi ........................................................................................................................................ 6.2 Caesarea ....................................................................................................................................... 6.3 Sumaqa ......................................................................................................................................... 6.4 Maʿon (Nirim) ............................................................................................................................ 7. Concluding Remarks ..........................................................................................................................

55 55 56 56 58 58 58 59 59 60 61 63 64 66 67 69 69 72 73 73 76 79 80 83 90 100 110 111 111 113 114 114 116 117 117 118 119 119 119 120 120 121 122 124 124



contents

ix

IV Synagogue Architecture and Ornamentation ................................................................................... 1. Characteristic Features of Synagogue Architecture .................................................................. 1.1 The Façade ................................................................................................................................... 1.2 Interior Architecture ................................................................................................................. 1.3 The Gallery ................................................................................................................................... 2. Characteristic Features of Galilean and Golan Synagogues ................................................... 2.1 Galilean Synagogues ................................................................................................................. 2.2 Spolia in Galilean Synagogue ................................................................................................. 2.3 Characteristic Features of Golan Synagogues ................................................................... 2.4 Architecture and Art: A Comparison of Galilean and Golan Synagogues ............... 3. The Torah Shrine ................................................................................................................................. 3.1 The Torah Shrine Structure .................................................................................................... 3.2 Types of Torah Shrines ............................................................................................................ 3.3 The Form of the Torah Shrine ............................................................................................... 4. The Ark of the Scrolls ......................................................................................................................... 4.1 Inscriptions .................................................................................................................................. 4.2 Traces of the Ark of the Scrolls ............................................................................................. 4.3 The Ark of the Scrolls in Jewish Art .................................................................................... 5. Orientation of the Synagogue .......................................................................................................... 6. The Conch as Symbol of the Torah Shrine .................................................................................. 7. Elements Associated with the Torah Shrine ............................................................................... 7.1 The Curtain/Veil (Parochet) ................................................................................................... 7.2 Chancel Screens ......................................................................................................................... 7.3 The Seat of Moses ...................................................................................................................... 8. Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................................

125 125 125 139 151 155 155 156 157 161 163 163 168 192 199 199 199 200 205 206 209 210 211 217 220

V Synagogue Art, Significance and Impact ............................................................................................. 1. Architectural Ornamentation .......................................................................................................... 1.1 Ornate Façade of Galilean and Golan Synagogues ......................................................... 1.2 Ornamented Lintels .................................................................................................................. 2. The Art of Capernaum and Korazim ............................................................................................. 2.1 Capernaum .................................................................................................................................. 2.2 Korazim ......................................................................................................................................... 2.3 The Capernaum and Korazim Architectural Ornamentation Styles ......................... 3. Golan Art ................................................................................................................................................ 3.1 Composition and Style of Architectural Ornamentation .............................................. 4. Wall and Floor Decoration ............................................................................................................... 4.1 Frescos ........................................................................................................................................... 4.2 Floor Decoration ........................................................................................................................ 5. Mosaic Pavements Art ....................................................................................................................... 5.1 Mosaics in Galilean and Golan Synagogues ...................................................................... 5.2 Mosaic Floor Composition and Style ................................................................................... 5.3 The Decorative Schemes of the Nave Carpets .................................................................. 5.4 Iconographically-Decorated Functional Mosaic Floors ................................................. 6. Unidentical Symmetrical Composition ........................................................................................ 7. Iconoclasm ............................................................................................................................................. 7.1 Iconoclasm in Synagogues ...................................................................................................... 8. Concluding Remarks ...........................................................................................................................

223 224 224 228 235 235 239 243 246 248 249 249 250 251 251 254 256 272 273 276 276 282

x

contents

VI Jewish Symbols ........................................................................................................................................ 1. The Jewish Symbols Panel ............................................................................................................. 2. The Menorah—Light, Cult, and Symbol ................................................................................... 2.1 The Menorah of the Second Temple Period .................................................................. 2.2 The Menorah on Second Temple Period Artifacts ...................................................... 2.3 The Menorah in the Synagogue ......................................................................................... 2.4 Free-Standing, Three-Dimensional Menoroth ............................................................... 2.5 Depictions of the Menorah and Its Function in the Synagogues ............................ 2.6 The Menorah as a Symbol ................................................................................................... 2.7 The Form of the Menorah ................................................................................................... 2.8 The Significance and Symbolism of the Menorah ....................................................... 3. The Ritual Objects Accompanying the Menorah ................................................................... 3.1 The Lulav .................................................................................................................................. 3.2 The Ethrog: Citron ................................................................................................................. 3.3 The Shofar: A Ram’s Horn ................................................................................................... 3.4 The Incense Shovel ................................................................................................................ 4. Other Accompanying Ritual Objects .......................................................................................... 4.1 The Hanging (Suspended) Lamp ....................................................................................... 4.2 The Showbread Table ........................................................................................................... 4.3 Menoroth Discovered Recently in Israel and the Diaspora ...................................... 5. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................

285 286 292 294 295 301 302 307 312 318 322 324 325 327 328 328 330 330 334 335 338

VII The Jewish Calendar Represented in the Zodiac Design ............................................................ 1. The Calendar ...................................................................................................................................... 1.1 The Gezer Calendar ............................................................................................................... 2. The Zodiac in Jewish Art ................................................................................................................ 2.1 The Zodiac Panel Design in Synagogues ......................................................................... 2.2 The Four Seasons: The Outer Square Frame ................................................................. 2.3 The Signs of the Zodiac: The Outer Circle ..................................................................... 2.4 The Zodiac Signs ..................................................................................................................... 2.5 The Sun God, Moon and Stars: The Central (Inner) Circle ....................................... 2.6 Comparable Zodiac Designs ............................................................................................... 2.7 The Zodiac in Later Jewish Art (13th–19th c.) ............................................................... 3. Meaning and Significance ..............................................................................................................

339 339 340 345 346 354 358 361 366 373 382 386

VIII Illustrated Biblical Tales ....................................................................................................................... 1. Biblical Narrative Scenes ................................................................................................................ 1.1 The Binding of Isaac (the Aqedah) ................................................................................... 1.2 The Hand of God .................................................................................................................... 1.3 The Visit of the Angels to Abraham and Sarah ............................................................ 1.4 Noah’s Ark ................................................................................................................................ 1.5 Three Biblical Narrative Scenes at Wadi Hamam: The Temple Construction, Samson in a Battle Scene, and the Exodus 1.6 The Temple Construction Scene ....................................................................................... 1.7 A Battle Scene—Samson and the Philistines ................................................................ 1.8 Exodus—The Maritime Scene ........................................................................................... 1.9 Samson Placing Torches between the Tails of Foxes, Huqoq ..................................

389 389 390 397 401 402 407 409 410 412



contents

xi

2. Prominent and Notable Figures ....................................................................................................... 2.1 King David ................................................................................................................................... 2.2 David with Goliath’s Weapons .............................................................................................. 2.3 Daniel in the Lions’ Den ......................................................................................................... 3. Symbolization of Historical Events and Divine Intervention ................................................. 3.1 The End of Days ......................................................................................................................... 3.2 The Twelve Tribes ..................................................................................................................... 3.3 The Consecration of the Tabernacle, its Vessels, Aaron, and the Daily Offerings ....................................................................................................................................... 3.4 The Style and Composition of the Biblical Illustrated Tales ....................................... 4. Origin, Interpretation, and Significance of the Biblical Themes ...........................................

414 414 417 418 420 421 422

IX Motifs in Jewish Synagogue Art ............................................................................................................ 1. Fauna—Animal Motifs ....................................................................................................................... 1.1 Lions and Lionesses .................................................................................................................. 1.2 The Eagle ...................................................................................................................................... 1.3 The Bull/Ox ................................................................................................................................. 1.4 Horned Animals ......................................................................................................................... 1.5 Animal Chase Theme ............................................................................................................... 2. The Human Figure ............................................................................................................................... 3. Genre Motifs .......................................................................................................................................... 4. Birds .......................................................................................................................................................... 4.1 The Bird-in-Cage ........................................................................................................................ 4.2 Peacocks ....................................................................................................................................... 4.3 Fish and Dolphins ..................................................................................................................... 5. Mythological Motifs ............................................................................................................................. 6. Flora—Plant Ornaments .................................................................................................................... 6.1 The Vine ....................................................................................................................................... 6.2 The Wreath .................................................................................................................................. 6.3 The Garland ................................................................................................................................ 7. Selected Geometric Ornaments ....................................................................................................... 7.1 The Rosette .................................................................................................................................. 7.2 Inhabited Double Meander ....................................................................................................

435 435 436 447 455 456 456 456 460 461 464 464 466 466 470 470 470 471 471 471 471

X Artists, Workshops and Repertoire ...................................................................................................... 1. Artists and Mosaicists Identified by Inscriptions ....................................................................... 1.1 Jewish Artists .............................................................................................................................. 2. Galilee and Golan Artists and Workshops ................................................................................... 2.1 The Capernaum Artists and Workshops ............................................................................ 2.2 The Korazim Workshops and Artists .................................................................................. 2.3 Golan Artists ............................................................................................................................... 3. Artists, Mosaicists, and Workshops of Mosaic Pavements ...................................................... 3.1 The Hammath Tiberias B Synagogue Artists .................................................................... 3.2 The Wadi Hamam Synagogue Mosaicists .......................................................................... 3.3 The Sepphoris Synagogue Mosaicists .................................................................................. 3.4 The Beth Alpha Synagogue Mosaicists ............................................................................... 3.5 The Gaza-Maiumas Mosaicists and Workshop ................................................................

473 474 481 482 483 485 488 489 490 493 493 496 500

425 428 428

xii

contents

3.6 The Beth Sheʿan Workshop .................................................................................................... 3.7 The Maʿon-Nirim and Beʾer Shemʿa Workshop ............................................................... 4. The Repertory Sources and their Sequence ................................................................................. 4.1 Jewish Pattern Books ................................................................................................................ 5. Concluding Remarks ...........................................................................................................................

503 507 508 511 513

XI Inscriptions ............................................................................................................................................... 1. Dedicatory Inscriptions ................................................................................................................... 1.1 Donors’ Professions and Occupations .............................................................................. 2. Literary Texts ...................................................................................................................................... 3. Unique Inscriptions .......................................................................................................................... 3.1 Theodotus Inscription ........................................................................................................... 3.2 Qazion Inscription .................................................................................................................. 3.3 The List of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses ............................................................... 3.4 The Inscription on the Chair of Moses ............................................................................ 4. Explanatory Inscriptions ................................................................................................................. 4.1 Inscriptions Citing Biblical Verses ..................................................................................... 5. Location of Inscriptions in Synagogue Design ......................................................................... 5.1 Inscriptions with Dates ......................................................................................................... 6. Epithets and Appellation ................................................................................................................ 6.1 Concluding Remarks .............................................................................................................. 7. Amulets .................................................................................................................................................

517 517 519 520 523 523 526 527 531 532 532 534 536 536 537 537

XII Coins and the Synagogue ..................................................................................................................... 1. Numismatic Evidence: Coins Discovered in Synagogues ...................................................... 1.1 Sites ............................................................................................................................................. 1.2 Early Coins in Synagogue Deposits ................................................................................... 1.3 The Currency of the 5th c. CE ............................................................................................ 2. Value and Purchasing Power of Money ...................................................................................... 2.1 Purchasing Power of the Money ........................................................................................ 3. Coin Collections—Categories and Types .................................................................................. 3.1 Hoards ........................................................................................................................................ 3.2 Caches, Treasuries, Community Boxes ............................................................................ 3.3 Coin Assemblages: Large Numbers of Coins Assembled over Long Periods and Placed in Hiding Places or Buried in the Fill or Foundations ......................... 3.4 Small Groups of Scattered Coins ....................................................................................... 3.5 Coins Placed in the Torah Shrine Area Possibly Serving as a Geniza .................... 4. Coins in Context: Discussion and Interpretation ....................................................................

539 540 540 555 556 556 557 559 559 560

XIII Women ...................................................................................................................................................... 1. Images and Representations of Women .................................................................................... 1.1 The Zodiac Sign of Virgo ...................................................................................................... 1.2 The Seasons .............................................................................................................................. 1.3 The Jewelry and Attire of Female Figures ...................................................................... 1.4 Head Ornamentation ............................................................................................................. 1.5 Neck Ornamentation ............................................................................................................. 1.6 Attire ...........................................................................................................................................

567 567 567 570 574 574 576 577

560 562 562 562



contents

xiii

2. Women’s Status in the Ancient Synagogue ............................................................................... 2.1 Women in the Synagogue .................................................................................................... 2.2 Did Women Participate in a Special Section of the Synagogue Building, Separately from Men? ........................................................................................................... 2.3 Women in Office ..................................................................................................................... 2.4 Women Donors .......................................................................................................................

578 579

XIV Dating  ........................................................................................................................................................ 1. Synagogues Dated by Inscriptions .............................................................................................. 2. Dating Galilean Synagogues .......................................................................................................... 2.1 Dating of the Upper Galilee Synagogues ........................................................................ 2.2 Other Galilean Synagogues ................................................................................................. 2.3 Dating of the East Lower Galilee Synagogues ............................................................... 3. Dating Golan Synagogues .............................................................................................................. 3.1 Qasrin ........................................................................................................................................ 3.2 Dabiyye ...................................................................................................................................... 3.3 Deir ʿAziz .................................................................................................................................. 3.4 ʿEn Nashut ................................................................................................................................ 3.5 Kanaf .......................................................................................................................................... 3.6 Umm el-Qanatir ..................................................................................................................... 4. Dating of Other Synagogues .......................................................................................................... 4.1 Hammath Tiberias A ............................................................................................................. 4.2 Maʿoz Hayyim ......................................................................................................................... 4.3 South Judean Synagogues .................................................................................................... 4.4 ʿEn Gedi ..................................................................................................................................... 4.5 Maʿon (Nirim) ......................................................................................................................... 5. Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 5.1 Dating of the Galilean Synagogues ................................................................................... 5.2 Dating the Golan Synagogues ............................................................................................ 5.3 Chronological Development of the Synagogues by Artistic and Stylistic Décor ..........................................................................................................................................

583 583 586 586 589 594 595 595 597 597 597 598 598 598 598 599 599 599 600 600 600 603

579 580 581

605

XV Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................. 609 Supplement: Qazion—A Galilean Riddle .................................................................................................... 1. The Qazion Complex: The Monumental Main Cultic Building, the Pools, and the Western Structure ............................................................................................................................ 1.1 The Northern Façade ............................................................................................................ 1.2 The Western Façade ............................................................................................................. 1.3 The Hall ..................................................................................................................................... 1.4 The Pools and Causeway ..................................................................................................... 1.5 Entrance to the Qazion Main Building ........................................................................... 1.6 The Western Structure and Altar ...................................................................................... 2. Architectural Elements and Decoration .................................................................................... 3. The Finds ............................................................................................................................................. 3.1 The Pottery ............................................................................................................................... 3.2 The Coins ..................................................................................................................................

617 621 622 630 633 640 642 643 644 652 652 659

xiv

contents

4. The Inscribed Lintel ......................................................................................................................... 4.1 The Inscription ....................................................................................................................... 4.2 Dating of the Inscription ..................................................................................................... 4.3 The Qazion Inscription in Context .................................................................................. 5. Qazion in Context ............................................................................................................................ 5.1 Dating of the Qazion Monumental Complex ................................................................ 6. Interpretation and Significance of the Qazion Structure ..................................................... 7. Concluding Remarks ........................................................................................................................

661 662 664 665 667 668 669 675

Qazion Appendix: List of Loci ................................................................................................................... 676 Qazion Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................... 677 List of Synagogue Excavations ........................................................................................................................ 683 List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................................... 685 Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................................... 687 Glossary .................................................................................................................................................................. 715 Index ....................................................................................................................................................................... 717 Index of Sources .................................................................................................................................................. 735 Color Plates ............................................................................................................................................. following 738

LIST OF FIGURES Figure ‎I‑1 Inscriptions on mosaics: a. Hammath Tiberias B; b. Beth Sheʾan B small synagogue .................................................................................................................................. Figure ‎I‑2 Hammath Tiberias Greek inscription ............................................................................... Figure ‎II‑1

11 12

Second Temple period synagogue plans: a. Jericho; b. Masada; c. Herodium; d. Qiryat Sefer; e. Gamla; f. Modiʿin .................................................................................. Capernaum I, plan (after Loffreda 1985:44, Fig. 43) .................................................... Gamla synagogue .................................................................................................................... Herodium synagogue ............................................................................................................. Jericho, three phases of the synagogue: 1—the first phase: the Courtyard House; 2–the second phase: additions of the synagogue hall, ritual bath and adjoining bathroom; 3–the third phase: additions of the triclinium and adjacent kitchen ...................................................................................................................... Masada: a. early building; b. the synagogue ................................................................... Masada synagogue .................................................................................................................. Migdal synagogue general view ......................................................................................... Modiʿin—3 stages plan ......................................................................................................... H. ‘Ethri building plan ........................................................................................................... Migdal II plan .......................................................................................................................... Gamla, decorated architectural items: a. Doric capital; b. lintel ............................. Migdal decorated stone ........................................................................................................ Jericho, Goliath Tomb plan and sections ........................................................................ Jericho, Goliath Tomb courtyard and miqveh: a. looking south; b. looking east  Jericho, Goliath Tomb courtyard and miqveh reconstruction by E. Netzer: a. looking west; b. looking northeast ................................................................................

53

Plans of Galilean synagogues: 1. Korazim; 2. Capernaum; 3. Barʿam; 4. Meiron; 5. Nabratein I, II, III; 6. H. Shemʿa; 7. Meroth I, II; 8. Gush Halav; 9. H. ʿAmudim; 10. Arbel I, II; 11. Wadi Hamam ............................................................ Figure ‎III‑2 ʿEn Gedi Synagogue I, plan and mosaic pavement* .................................................... Figure ‎III‑3 Hamam synagogue plan ....................................................................................................... Figure ‎III‑4 Huqoq synagogue mosaic pavement* .............................................................................. Figure ‎III‑5 Kfar Misr plan .......................................................................................................................... Figure ‎III‑6 Korazim synagogue plan ...................................................................................................... Figure ‎III‑7 Meroth synagogue hall, looking north-west* ................................................................. Figure ‎III‑8 Synagogue plans: a. Hammath Tiberias B; b. Hammath Tiberias A; c. Tiberias . Figure ‎III‑9 Hammath Tiberias B synagogue plans: a. Stratum IIb; b. Stratum IIa ................... Figure ‎III‑10 Hammath Tiberias B synagogue plans: Ib, Ia ................................................................ Figure ‎III‑11 Sepphoris synagogue plan ................................................................................................... Figure ‎III‑12 Qasrin synagogue and village* ...........................................................................................

57 58 65 66 68 70 71 74 75 77 78 80

Figure ‎II‑2 Figure ‎II‑3 Figure ‎II‑4 Figure ‎II‑5

Figure ‎II‑6 Figure ‎II‑7 Figure ‎II‑8 Figure ‎II‑9 Figure ‎II‑10 Figure ‎II‑11 Figure ‎II‑12 Figure ‎II‑13 Figure ‎II‑14 Figure ‎II‑15 Figure ‎II‑16

24 25 27 29

30 31 32 33 35 37 38 39 40 51 52

Figure ‎III‑1

* Figures marked with an asterisk are included in full color within the separate quire found at the back of the book.

xvi

list of figures

Figure ‎III‑13 Qasrin synagogue and village plan .................................................................................... Figure ‎III‑14 Qasrin excavation plan ......................................................................................................... Figure ‎III‑15 Plan of Synagogue I ................................................................................................................ Figure ‎III‑16 Relief with a five-armed menorah and a peacock ........................................................ Figure ‎III‑17 Synagogue I and II—schematic plan with floors ......................................................... Figure ‎III‑18 Qasrin main entrance portal ............................................................................................... Figure ‎III‑19 Decorated lintel of western portal .................................................................................... Figure ‎III‑20 Synagogue hall, looking north ............................................................................................ Figure ‎III‑21 Qasrin synagogue hall, east room and Torah shrine, plan and section ................. Figure ‎III‑22 Qasrin Synagogue II, looking southwest, after excavations* .................................... Figure ‎III‑23 Qasrin Building III (C), Mosque, the last phase, plan ................................................. Figure ‎III‑24 Architectural members found in the Qasrin synagogue site .................................... Figure ‎III‑25 South part of Qasrin synagogue with architectural items, looking southeast ..... Figure ‎III‑26 a. Triangular ashlar basalt stone, a gable fragment?; b. Two-sided corbel stone  Figure ‎III‑27 Capital and base of a diagonal fluted column (no. 33a, b) ....................................... Figure ‎III‑28 Doric capitals, Attic column bases .................................................................................... Figure ‎III‑29 Semi-attached double column in situ in the synagogue hall .................................... Figure ‎III‑30 Five-branched menorah decorating: a. basalt stone; b. basalt slab ........................ Figure ‎III‑31 Door-jamb (no. 92) and stone (no. 145) with ‘Tree of Life’ ....................................... Figure ‎III‑32 Inscriptions: a. on the architrave (no. 143); b. ashlar stones with Aramaic inscriptions (no. 144) ............................................................................................................. Figure ‎III‑33 Golan synagogues plans: a. Umm el-Qanatir; b. Dabiyye; c. ʿEn Nashut; d. Qasrin; e. Deir ʿAziz; f. Kanaf; g. Ed Dikke ................................................................. Figure ‎III‑34 Umm el-Qanatir. General view, interior, looking south* ........................................... Figure ‎III‑35 Umm el-Qanatir. General view, interior, looking north* ........................................... Figure ‎III‑36 South Judea synagogues: a. Eshtemoʿa; b. H. Susiya; c. H. ʿAnim; d. H. Maʿon ... Figure ‎III‑37 ʿEn Gedi synagogue plans (Phases 1–3) ........................................................................... Figure ‎III‑38 Sumaqa: a. plan; b. reconstruction* .................................................................................. Figure IV-1 Figure IV-2

Syrian gable parts, Korazim ................................................................................................. Syrian gable, full façade reconstructions: a. Barʿam (drawing, Kohl and Watzinger); b. Capernaum (Orfali) ................................................................................... Figure IV-3 Façade reconstructions: a. Baram; b. Meiron; c. Nabratein ....................................... Figure IV-4 Façade reconstructions of Gush Halav: a. by the excavators; b. by E. Netzer ..... Figure IV-5 Korazim, two options for the reconstruction of the upper story with Syrian gable .............................................................................................................................. Figure IV-6 Reconstructed façades: a. Beth Sheʿarim; b. Susiya ..................................................... Figure IV-7 Synagogue façades: a. Barʿam; b. Meiron ........................................................................ Figure IV-8 Qasrin, single entrance ......................................................................................................... Figure IV-9 Qasrin: a. decorated arch fragment; b–c. window fragments ................................... Figure IV-10 Capernaum window fragments .......................................................................................... Figure IV-11 Projecting pilasters on the façade and the west wall of the hall, Capernaum .... Figure IV-12 Capernaum: a. hall interior; b. façade .............................................................................. Figure IV-13 Façade and hall of synagogue, Korazim .......................................................................... Figure IV-14 Interior of synagogue, Susiya .............................................................................................. Figure IV-15 Interior of synagogue and façade, Eshtemoʿa ................................................................ Figure IV-16 Decorated pedestals, ʿEn Nashut .......................................................................................

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 101 103 104 105 106 107 108 112 115 116 117 121 123 126 127 127 128 128 129 134 135 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144



list of figures

Figure IV-17 Corinthian capitals, Capernaum ........................................................................................ Figure IV-18 Ionic capitals: a. H. ʿAmmudim; b. diagonal Ionian capitals, Korazim ................. Figure IV-19 Decorated diagonal Ionic capital, ʿEn Nashut ............................................................... Figure IV-20 Qasrin: a. Golan-type capital; b. Decorated capital ..................................................... Figure IV-21 Double corner column: a. Capernaum; b. Meiron ....................................................... Figure IV-22 Details of benches, Capernaum ......................................................................................... Figure IV-23 Synagogue reconstructions: a. Korazim; b. Meroth ..................................................... Figure IV-24 Gush Halav reconstruction ................................................................................................. Figure IV-25 H. Shemʿa interior and reconstruction of stage 2 ........................................................ Figure IV-26 A schematic illustration of the Torah Shrine with the Ark of Scrolls ................... Figure IV-27 Schematic illustrations of aedicula locations ................................................................ Figure IV-28 Galilean synagogues with two aediculae flanking the main entrance: 1. Nabratein Synagogues 1, 2a, b; 2. Capernaum; 3. Korazim; 4. Meroth stages I and II .......................................................................................................................................... Figure IV-29 Reconstructions of the pair of aediculae, Nabratein Synagogue 2 ......................... Figure IV-30 Reconstruction of inner wall with two aediculae, Capernaum ............................... Figure IV-31 Korazim, reconstruction of aediculae (Yeivin 2000:plan 14) ................................... Figure IV-32 Korazim: a. aedicula; b. ‘Seat of Moses’ complex reconstruction (May and Stark reconstruction 2002:Pls.12, 22) ............................................................................... Figure IV-33 Meroth: a. larger aedicula; b. reconstruction of the hall with two aediculae ..... Figure IV-34 Kochav HaYarden lintel ....................................................................................................... Figure IV-35 Beth Sheʿarim carving, Catacomb 4, hall A ................................................................... Figure IV-36 Plans of synagogues with a single aedicula: 1. Gush Halav; 2. Meiron; 3. ʿAmmudim; 4. Hamam; 5. H. Shemʿa; 6. Dabiyye; 7. ʿEn Nashut; 8. Umm el-Qanatir; 9. Qasrin; 10. Maʿoz Hayim I; 11. Rehov; 12. H. Rimon; 13. Horvat ʿAnim; 14. Sepphoris .............................................................................................................. Figure IV-37 Gush Halav Torah Shrine suggested reconstruction, looking southwest: a. earlier aedicula; b. later aedicula .................................................................................. Figure IV-38 Umm el-Qanatir, the aedicula, looking southwest ...................................................... Figure IV-39 Qasrin, the aedicula ............................................................................................................... Figure IV-40 Plans of synagogues with niches: 1. Arbel; 2. Susiya; 3. Eshtemoʿa; 4. Beth Sheʾan B; 5. ʿEn Gedi; 6. Beth Sheʿarim; 7. Hammath Tiberias B; 8. Hammath Tiberias A; 9. H. Maʿon (Judea) .......................................................................................... Figure IV-41 Eshtemoʿa—niches and bema ........................................................................................... Figure IV-42 Susiya—niches and bema ................................................................................................... Figure IV-43 ʿEn Gedi—niche and structure .......................................................................................... Figure IV-44 Plans of synagogues with apses: 1. Deir ʿAziz; 2. Maʿoz Hayim II, III; 3. Hammath Gader; 4. Beth Alpha; 5. Jericho; 6. Gaza; 7. Maʿon (Nirim); 8. Kafr Misr III; 9. Gerasa; 10. Beth Sheʾan A; 11. Naʿaran .......................................... Figure IV-45 Beth Alpha—apse area reconstruction ........................................................................... Figure IV-46 Susiya hall: a. looking west, main bema and secondary bema on the right; b. plan* ...................................................................................................................................... Figure IV-47 Susiya hall: a. with main bema and secondary bema, looking north; b. secondary bema, looking north* .................................................................................. Figure IV-48 Decorated lintel of aedicula, Nabratein .......................................................................... Figure IV-49 Decorated aedicula pilaster, Korazim .............................................................................. Figure IV-50 Qasrin: a. small keystone; b. double column of aedicula ..........................................

xvii 144 145 146 148 149 150 152 153 154 164 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 175 176

177 179 180 181 183 184 184 185 187 188 189 190 193 194 195

xviii

list of figures

Figure IV-51 Umm el-Qanatir: a. two decorated aedicula columns; b. preliminary reconstruction of the aedicula (by Yeshua Dray) ........................................................ Figure IV-52 Façade of Torah Shrine on architectural parts: a. Korazim; b. Kokhav HaYarden; c. Asaliyye ........................................................................................................... Figure IV-53 Ark depicted on mosaics: a. Beth Alpha; b. Beth Sheʾan A; c. Jericho* ................ Figure IV-54 Free-standing Ark on mosaics and on items: a. Beth Alpha; b. Naʿaran; c. Jericho; d. Capernaum; e. Naʿana ................................................................................. Figure IV-55 Mosaic depictions of the Torah Shrine façade with an ark inside: a. Hammath Tiberias; b. Sepphoris; c. Susiya* ............................................................. Figure IV-56 Illustrations of arks depicted inside the Torah Shrine façade: on mosaic pavements—a. Hammath Tiberias; b. Sepphoris; c. Susiya; on reliefs—d. Beth Sheʿarim; e. Pekiʾin; f. Susiya screen ................................................................................ Figure IV-57 Carved Ark on wheels, frieze part, Capernaum ........................................................... Figure IV-58 Sanctuary designs on mosaics of Samaritan synagogues .......................................... Figure IV-59 Ark illustrations in Jewish catacombs, Rome ............................................................... Figure IV-60 Two small conches decorating the Torah Shrine, Korazim ..................................... Figure IV-61 Conch motif: a. on an arch key stone, Capernaum; b–c. decorated frieze items, Korazim ........................................................................................................................ Figure IV-62 Chancel screen parts: a. Hammath Tiberias A screen post; decorated screens; b. Hammath Gader; c. Rehov ............................................................................................. Figure IV-63 Chancel screens with: a. menorah; b. with a Torah Shrine, Susiya ....................... Figure IV-64 Tiberias ornamented screen ............................................................................................... Figure IV-65 Gaza decorated screens ....................................................................................................... Figure IV-66 Susiya decorated screens ..................................................................................................... Figure IV-67 Carved basalt Seat of Moses, Korazim ............................................................................ Figure IV-68 Hammath Tiberias, a limestone chair ............................................................................. Figure V-1 Figure V-2 Figure V-3 Figure V-4 Figure V-5 Figure V-6 Figure V-7 Figure V-8 Figure V-9 Figure V-10 Figure V-11 Figure V-12 Figure V-13 Figure V-14 Figure V-15 Figure V-16 Figure V-17

Synagogue façade entrance-frames, Types A, B, C ...................................................... Ornate portals Type A: a. Barʿam; b. Meiron; c. Arbel ................................................ Ornate portal Type B: H. ʿAmudim ................................................................................... Ornate portals Type C: a. Korazim main portal; b. Qasrin ........................................ Lintels Type 1: a. Qazion; b. ʿAmudim; c. Capernaum; d. Japhiʿa ............................ Lintels Type 2a: a. Barʿam side lintel; b. Nabratein; c. Gush Halav ........................ Lintels Type 2b: a. Barʿam upper synagogue central lintel; b. Barʿam lower synagogue central lintel; c. Beth Midrash, Meroth ..................................................... Lintel Type 3, Qasrin ............................................................................................................. Lintels Type 4: a. Qasrin; b. Tayibe; c. Yahudiyye ........................................................ Decorated lintel, Raqit ......................................................................................................... Reconstruction of the south façade of the hall and courtyard, Capernaum ....... Lintels: a. three portals of the hall façade; b. courtyard south portal ................... Reconstruction of the Capernaum synagogue with east and north courtyard portals ........................................................................................................................................ Lintels of: a. eastern courtyard portals; b. northern courtyard portals; c. portal between the hall and courtyard ........................................................................................ Frieze parts on the Syrian gable façade, Capernaum ................................................. Frieze parts of the interior walls of the hall galleries, Capernaum ........................ Parts of exterior frieze decorating the southern façade, Korazim .........................

197 198 200 201 201 202 203 204 205 207 209 213 214 215 215 216 218 219 224 225 226 227 229 230 231 232 233 234 236 237 237 238 239 240 241



list of figures

Figure V-18 Figure V-19 Figure V-20 Figure V-21 Figure V-22 Figure V-23 Figure V-24 Figure V-25 Figure V-26 Figure V-27 Figure V-28 Figure V-29 Figure V-30 Figure V-31 Figure V-32 Figure V-33 Figure V-34 Figure V-35

Parts of inner frieze and cornice of the hall, Korazim ................................................. Comparable friezes: a. Capernaum; b. Korazim ............................................................. Conches: a. Korazim; b. Capernaum .................................................................................. Two consuls of the main façade entrance, Capernaum .............................................. Golan synagogues façades: a. Qasrin; b. ʿAsaliyye; c. H. Kanaf ................................. Kafr Misr mosaic pavement ................................................................................................. Geometric designs decorating aisles, Hammath Tiberias B, Stratum IIa* ............. Geometric patterns decorating the single aisle carpet, Sepphoris ........................... Beth Alpha Synagogue mosaic pavement ........................................................................ Scheme A: tripartite nave mosaic pavement .................................................................. Tripartite nave mosaic pavement, Hammath Tiberias B, Stratum IIa* .................. Tripartite nave mosaic pavement, Beth Alpha* ............................................................ Nave mosaic pavement, Sepphoris .................................................................................... Naʿaran mosaic pavement .................................................................................................... Hammath Gader mosaic pavement ................................................................................... Beth Sheʾan A synagogue plan with tripartite nave mosaic pavement .................. Huseifa synagogue mosaic pavement ............................................................................... Huseifa: Mosaic details drawn at the excavation (in 1933): a. the zodiac season; b. the Aramaic inscription; c. the Hebrew inscription; d. the left menorah; e. the vine scroll design ..................................................................................... Figure V-36 Scheme B carpet, Gaza synagogue* ................................................................................... Figure V-37 The inhabited scroll mosaic, Maʿon-Nirim synagogue* ............................................... Figure V-38 The inhabited scroll mosaic, Beth Sheʾan B small synagogue ................................... Figure V-39 Scheme C design ...................................................................................................................... Figure V-40 ʿEn Gedi hall mosaic pavement* ........................................................................................ Figure V-41 Jericho nave mosaic pavement ........................................................................................... Figure V-42 Torah Shrine panel, Beth Alpha .......................................................................................... Figure V-43 Torah Shrine panel, Susiya ................................................................................................... Figure V-44 Central circle of the zodiac panel, Beth Alpha .............................................................. Figure V-45 Disfigured zodiac stone reliefs, Meroth ............................................................................ Figure V-46 Iconoclasm on the Susiya mosaic pavement: a. Torah Shrine panel; b. the central panel with remains of the zodiac; c. fragment at the western panel with remains of Daniel in the Lions’ Den* ...................................................................... Figure V-47 Disfigured zodiac signs, Naʿaran synagogue: a. Taurus; b. Cancer; c. Lion; d. Virgo; e. Libra; f. Pisces ..................................................................................................... Figure V-48 Damaged geometric panel, Naʿaran ................................................................................... Figure VI-1 Figure VI-2 Figure VI-3 Figure VI-4 Figure VI-5 Figure VI-6 Figure VI-7

Jewish symbols mosaic panel: a. Hammath Tiberias B; b. Sepphoris; c. Susiya* .................................................................................................................................... Jewish symbols on a mosaic panel: a. Hammath Tiberias B; b. Sepphoris; c. Susiya (drawing) .................................................................................................................. Jewish symbols on mosaic panels: a. Beth Alpha; b. Beth Sheʾan B* ........................... Jewish symbols on mosaic panels: a. Beth Alpha; b. Naʿaran .................................... Stands and candelabra ........................................................................................................... Reconstructions of the Second Temple menorah ......................................................... Menorah graffito on a Jerusalem house wall ..................................................................

xix 242 243 244 245 247 253 255 255 256 257 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 266 267 268 270 270 271 274 274 275 278 279 280 280 287 289 290 291 294 295 296

xx

list of figures

Figure VI-8

Second Temple menoroth: a. incised on a wall in Jason’s Tomb in Jerusalem; b. incised on ossuaries; c. painted on Nahal Michmas cave; d. engraved on a stone sun-dial, Jerusalem .................................................................................................... Figure VI-9 Migdal menorah on stone base ......................................................................................... Figure VI-10 The Arch of Titus relief, Rome .......................................................................................... Figure VI-11 Drawing of the menorah on the Arch of Titus, Rome ............................................... Figure VI-12 Stone with menorah and conch relief, Capernaum .................................................... Figure VI-13 Marble menorah, Maʿon (Judea)* ..................................................................................... Figure VI-14 Marble menorah, Susiya ...................................................................................................... Figure VI-15 Marble menorah, Horvat Qoshet* .................................................................................... Figure VI-16 Stone menorah, Hammath Tiberias A* .......................................................................... Figure VI-17 Cast-bronze menorah, ʿEn Gedi ........................................................................................ Figure VI-18 Sardis marble ‘Socrates’ menorah ..................................................................................... Figure VI-19 Pairs of menoroth on mosaic pavements: a. Hammath Tiberias B; b. Sepphoris* ........................................................................................................................... Figure VI-20 Unidentical menoroth: a. Susiya; b. Beth Alpha; c. Huseifa* ................................... Figure VI-21 Umm el-Qanatir carved menoroth: a. on east aedicula column; b. on west aedicula column ..................................................................................................................... Figure VI-22 Lintels with menoroth: a. ʿAssaliyye; b. Korazim; c. H. Shemʿa; d. Japhiʿa .......... Figure VI-23 Coins of Mattathias Antigonus, with menorah on one side and showbread table on the other .................................................................................................................. Figure VI-24 Menoroth on capitals: a. Caesarea; b. Hammath Tiberias A; c. Capernaum; d. Column base, Ashqelon .................................................................................................. Figure VI-25 Menoroth on Golan architectural items: a. ʿEn Nashut capital; b–c. Qasrin ...... Figure VI-26 Menoroth on two sides of Ashqelon chancel screen ................................................. Figure VI-27 Single menorah on mosaic pavements: a. Jericho; b. Hulda; c. Gerasa* .............. Figure VI-28 Menorah and shofar on mosaic pavements: a. Maʿoz Hayyim; b. Tel Menorah* ..... Figure VI-29 Menoroth depicted on mosaics with inhabited scrolls design: a. Maʿon (Nirim); b. Beth Sheʾan small synagogue B.* ................................................................ Figure VI-30 Forms of menorah bases* ................................................................................................... Figure VI-31 Forms of menorah arms* .................................................................................................... Figure VI-32 Menoroth on lintels, Eshtemoʿa ........................................................................................ Figure VI-33 Light fittings on menoroth* ............................................................................................... Figure VI-34 Ritual objects flanking the menorah on synagogue mosaics: a. Hammath Tiberias B (4 objects); b. Maʿon-Nirim (3 objects); c. Beth Sheʾan A; d. Jericho (2 objects) ................................................................................................................................ Figure VI-35 a. Lulav and ethrog; b. lulav, rendered on synagogues* ............................................ Figure VI-36 Lulav and ethrog flanking an inscription, Tiberias mosaic* .................................... Figure VI-37 Ethrog rendered on objects ................................................................................................ Figure VI-38 Shofaroth accompanying menoroth* .............................................................................. Figure VI-39 Shofaroth on the Beth Midrash mosaic, Meroth* ........................................................ Figure VI-40 Incense shovel rendered on objects in synagogues* .................................................. Figure VI-41 Menoroth with hanging lamps: a. Beth Sheʾan B small synagogue mosaic; b. Naʿaran mosaic; c. Kefar Yasif; d. H. Kishor lintel; e. Susiya chancel screen  Figure VI-42 Polycandelons, chains and glasses: a. Hamam; b. Sepphoris; c. Kefar Hananiya .................................................................................................................................. Figure VI-43 Menorah flanked by lions on the Ma⁠ʾon (Nirim) mosaic floor ...............................

297 297 298 299 302 303 304 305 305 306 306 308 309 310 311 313 313 314 315 316 316 317 319 319 320 321 325 326 327 328 329 329 330 331 332 333



list of figures

xxi

Figure VI-44 A lion and two menoroth on the ʿEn Nashut lintel .................................................... Figure VI-45 Panel of symbols at the el-Hirbeh Samaritan synagogue .......................................... Figure VI-46 Showbread table on mosaic pavements: a. Sepphoris; b. el-Hirbeh Samaritan synagogue* .......................................................................................................... Figure VI-47 Four menoroth from Umm el-Qanatir ............................................................................

334 336

Figure VII-1 The Gezer calendar ............................................................................................................... Figure VII-2 ʿEn Gedi inscription .............................................................................................................. Figure VII-3 Illustrations of the zodiac panel: a. Hammath Tiberias B; b. Sepphoris; c. Huseifa; d. Beth Alpha; e. Naʿaran ............................................................................... Figure VII-4 Schematic illustrations of the zodiac panel: a. Hammath Tiberias B; b. Sepphoris; c. Huseifa; d. Beth Alpha; e. Naʿaran ..................................................... Figure VII-5 The Sepphoris zodiac* ......................................................................................................... Figure VII-6 Hammath Tiberias B zodiac* ............................................................................................. Figure VII-7 Beth Alpha zodiac* ............................................................................................................... Figure VII-8 Naʿaran zodiac* ...................................................................................................................... Figure VII-9 Remains of the zodiac, Huseifa ......................................................................................... Figure VII-10 Remains of the zodiac, Susiya* ......................................................................................... Figure VII-11 Illustrated table of the seasons on the mosaic pavements at Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, Huseifa, Beth Alpha, and Naʿaran ......................................... Figure VII-12 Illustrated table of the seasons on the mosaic pavements at Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, Huseifa, and Beth Alpha* ........................................................ Figure VII-13 Remains of the seasons, Naʿaran: a. Spring; b. Autumn ............................................ Figure VII-14 Illustrated table of three zodiac signs—Aries, Taurus, and Gemini— on mosaic pavements at Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, Huseifa, Beth Alpha, and Naʿaran ..................................................................................................... Figure VII-15 Illustrated table of three zodiac signs—Aries, Taurus, and Gemini— on mosaic pavements at Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, and Beth Alpha* ............................................................................................................................. Figure VII-16 Illustrated table of three zodiac signs—Cancer, Leo, and Virgo—on mosaic pavements at Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, Huseifa, Beth Alpha, and Naʿaran ............................................................................................................................. Figure VII-17 Illustrated table of three zodiac signs—Cancer, Leo, and Virgo—on mosaic pavements at Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, and Beth Alpha* .......... Figure VII-18 Illustrated table of three zodiac signs—Libra, Scorpio, and Sagittarius— on the mosaic pavements at Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, Huseifa, Beth Alpha, and Naʿaran ..................................................................................................... Figure VII-19 Illustrated table of three zodiac signs—Libra, Scorpio, and Sagittarius— on mosaic pavements at Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, and Beth Alpha* ............ Figure VII-20 Illustrated table of three zodiac signs—Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces— on the mosaic pavements at Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, Huseifa, Beth Alpha, and Naʿaran ..................................................................................................... Figure VII-21 Illustrated table of three zodiac signs—Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces—on mosaic pavements at Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, and Beth Alpha* ...................................................................................................................... Figure VII-22 The sun god design: a. Sepphoris, the sun; b. Hammath Tiberias B; c. Beth Alpha; d. Naʿaran ...................................................................................................................

341 344

337 337

347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 356 357 358 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370

xxii Figure VII-23 Figure VII-24 Figure VII-25 Figure VII-26 Figure VII-27 Figure VII-28 Figure VII-29 Figure VII-30 Figure VII-31 Figure VII-32 Figure VII-33 Figure VII-34 Figure VII-35 Figure ‎VIII‑1

list of figures The sun god: a. Hammath Tiberias B; b. Sepphoris; c. Beth Alpha; d. Naʿaran* ... Stone ceiling with zodiac, Palmyra ............................................................................... Part of a stone ceiling with zodiac, Palmyra .............................................................. ‘House of the Calendar’ triclinium mosaic, Antioch ............................................... Zodiac on mosaic, Sparta ................................................................................................. Zodiac design on Tallaras Baths mosaic, Astypalaea: a. the zodiac; b. Summer season; c. personification of a month* .................................................. General design with zodiac on villa mosaic, Thessaloniki .................................... Zodiac design on a villa mosaic, Thessaloniki .......................................................... Three months: April, May, June, and the South Wind on the villa mosaic, Thessaloniki* ........................................................................................................................ Calendar mosaics at Beth-Sheʾan: a. Monastery of the Lady Mary; b. funerary chapel at El-Hammam* .............................................................................. Zodiac design, Sefer Evronot, Germany, late 17th c.* ............................................... Zodiac design, Seder Shemirat Shabbat, Moravia (?), 18th c. ................................ Broadsheet with the Blessing of the Moon, Poland, 1850: Libra, Sagittarius, and Aquarius ........................................................................................................................

Binding of Isaac (The Aqedah) on mosaic panels: a. Sepphoris; b. Beth Alpha* ..................................................................................................................... Figure ‎VIII‑2 Binding of Isaac on mosaic panels: a. Sepphoris; b. Beth Alpha ......................... Figure ‎VIII‑3 Binding of Isaac, Dura Europos synagogue wall painting ...................................... Figure ‎VIII‑4 Rams/Sheep in front or tied to trees on church mosaics: a. upper mosaic of the baptistery chapel, Cathedral, Madaba; b. Presbyterium, chapel of the Twal family, Madaba; c. Presbytery, Church of St. George, Khirbat al-Mukhayyat; d. Church of Massuh* ........................................................................... Figure ‎VIII‑5 Khirbet el-Kôm graffito inscription with Hand of God .......................................... Figure ‎VIII‑6 Hand of God image in various biblical episodes, Dura Europos wall paintings ................................................................................................................................ Figure ‎VIII‑7 The Men’s (Angels’) visit to Abraham and Sarah, Sepphoris nave mosaic, Band 7 .................................................................................................................................... Figure ‎VIII‑8 Noah’s Ark on the Gerasa synagogue vestibule mosaic pavement: a. the dove and the heads of Shem and Japhet; b. part of the rows of animals; c. the full animal rows ..................................................................................... Figure ‎VIII‑9 Noah’s Ark at Misis-Mopsuhestia: a. the nave mosaic; b. the later pavement .............................................................................................................................. Figure ‎VIII‑10 Temple construction, Hamam mosaic* ....................................................................... Figure ‎VIII‑11 Samson in a battle scene, Hamam mosaic* ............................................................... Figure ‎VIII‑12 Exodus scene, Hamam mosaic* ..................................................................................... Figure ‎VIII‑13a Samson and pairs of foxes tied to torches by their tails, Huqoq mosaic* ........ Figure ‎VIII-13b Samson carrying the gate of Gaza on his shoulders, Huqoq mosaic ................. Figure ‎VIII‑14 King David, Gaza synagogue mosaic pavement* ..................................................... Figure ‎VIII‑15 David with Goliath’s weapons, Meroth synagogue mosaic* ................................. Figure ‎VIII‑16 Daniel in the lions’ den: a. part of mosaic pavement, Naʿaran synagogue; b. survived mosaic fragment, Susiya; c. part of the stone relief, ʿEn Nashut ........ Figure ‎VIII‑17 The vision of the End of Days, Meroth, Beth Midrash mosaic ............................ Figure ‎VIII‑18 Japhiʿa mosaic fragment ...................................................................................................

371 374 374 375 376 376 377 378 379 380 383 384 385 392 393 395

397 398 399 402 404 406 408 409 410 411 411 416 419 420 421 423



list of figures

xxiii

Figure ‎VIII‑19

The Consecration of Aaron to the Service of the Tabernacle and the Daily Sacrifice, bands 3 and 4, Sepphoris synagogue mosaic* ........................................ 425 Figure ‎VIII‑20 The Consecration of Aaron to the Service of the Tabernacle and the Daily Sacrifice: a. Bands 3 and 4, Sepphoris mosaic drawing; b. Panel WB2, Dura Europos wall painting ....................................................................................................... 426 Figure ‎VIII‑21 Biblical episodes on Christian catacomb paintings at Via Latina, Rome: a. Binding of Isaac, Room L; b. Binding of Isaac, Cubiculum C; c. Noah, Cubiculum O; d. Daniel, Cubiculum O* ...................................................................... 433 Figure IX-1 Figure IX-2 Figure IX-3 Figure IX-4 Figure IX-5 Figure IX-6 Figure IX-7 Figure IX-8 Figure IX-9 Figure IX-10 Figure IX-11 Figure IX-12 Figure IX-13 Figure IX-14 Figure IX-15 Figure IX-16 Figure IX-17 Figure IX-18 Figure IX-19 Figure IX-20 Figure IX-21 Figure IX-22 Figure IX-23 Figure IX-24 Figure IX-25 Figure IX-26 Figure IX-27 Figure IX-28 Figure IX-29 Figure IX-30 Figure IX-31

Lions: a. Stone lion head, Barʿam; b. Basalt lion, Korazim .................................... Golan basalt reliefs: a. Striding lion, Kanaf; b. Lioness, ʿEn Nashut ................... Stone orthostat relief, ʿEn Nashut ................................................................................. Damaged relief of a lioness, Nabratein ........................................................................ Lions: a. Column base decorated with a hunting lion and a bird, Umm el-Qanatir; b. Lion on a gable, Korazim ...................................................................... Lion depicted beside a pillar, Zumimra ...................................................................... Lions flanking vase on lintels: a. H. ʿAmmudim; b. Sumaqa ................................. Lions on mosaic pavements: a. Hammath Tiberias; b. Beth Alpha; c. Maʿon-Nirim* ................................................................................................................... Flanking lions placing their paws on bull heads: a. Sepphoris mosaic; b. Tiberias stone .................................................................................................................. Lions flanking inscriptions on mosaic pavements: a. Hammath Tiberias; b. Sepphoris; c. Hammath Gader; d. Beth Alpha* .................................................... Lions’ heads: a. H. Tuba; b. Rehov ................................................................................. Lioness feeding her cub: a. ʿEn Nashut; b. Qusibiyye; c. Korazim ....................... Lioness and her cub on mosaic pavements: a. Gaza; b. Leopardess and her cub, Maʿon-Nirim* .............................................................................................................. An eagle depicted on a lintel soffit, Gush Halav ...................................................... Eagles on Golan reliefs: a. Qusibiyye; b. Jaraba ......................................................... a. A pair of harrier eagles flanking a wreath, H. Tuba; b. Stylized eagle with spread wings, Dabura ........................................................................................................ Pairs of harrier eagles: a–b. Dabura; c. Kafr Harib ................................................... Eagle on capital, Umm el-Qanatir ................................................................................. Eagles: a. ʿEn Nashut orthostat; b. Umm el-Qanatir capital .................................. Eagle on gable apex, Korazim ........................................................................................ A single carved eagle: a. Dabura; b. Hafar .................................................................. Eagle, H. Shemʿa .................................................................................................................. Eagles on mosaic pavements: a. Maʿon-Nirim; b. Japhia ....................................... Bull: a. Beth Sheʾan B small synagogue; b. Beth Alpha ........................................... Horned animals on mosaic pavements: a. Beth Sheʾan B; b. Susiya; c. Naʿaran entrance ............................................................................................................ Animal chase scenes, Gaza mosaic ............................................................................... Elephants: a. Maʿon; b. Beth Sheʾan B .......................................................................... a. Head within an acanthus medallion, Korazim; b. Human figure, Dabura ....... Nikae engraved figures: a. ed Dikke; b. Rama ............................................................ Vintage scenes carved on the hall inner frieze, Korazim ...................................... Genre subjects rendered on the running border, Beth Alpha ..............................

437 438 439 440 440 441 442 442 443 444 445 445 446 448 449 450 450 451 452 452 453 453 454 455 457 457 458 459 459 461 461

xxiv

list of figures

Figure IX-32 Genre motifs: a. Maʿon-Nirim; b. Beth Alpha* .............................................................. Figure IX-33 Birds on the mosaic pavements of Beth Sheʾan B: a, c. Synagogue; b. House of Leontis .................................................................................................................................. Figure IX-34 Birds, ʿEn Gedi mosaic* ........................................................................................................ Figure IX-35 Birds pecking grapes: a. ʿEn Nashut; b. Kanaf ............................................................... Figure IX-36 Bird-in-Cage: a. Maʿon-Nirim; b. Gaza; c. Naʿaran ....................................................... Figure IX-37 Peacocks on inhabited scrolls pavements: a. Maʿon-Nirim; b. Gaza; c. peacock en face, Beth Sheʾan B small synagogue .................................................... Figure IX-38 Sea-goat next to a pair of eagles, cornice fragment, Capernaum ........................... Figure IX-39 House of Leontis mosaic, Beth Sheʾan ............................................................................. Figure IX-40 Odysseus on the upper panel, Nilotic themes on the lower panel, House of Leontis, Beth Sheʾan* ............................................................................................................ Figure IX-41 Inhabited double meander motif on stone, Barʿam .................................................... Figure ‎X‑1 Figure ‎X‑2 Figure ‎X‑3 Figure ‎X‑4 Figure ‎X‑5 Figure ‎X‑6 Figure ‎X‑7 Figure ‎X‑8 Figure ‎X‑9 Figure ‎X‑10 Figure ‎X‑11 Figure ‎X‑12 Figure ‎X‑13 Figure ‎X‑14 Figure ‎X‑15 Figure ‎X‑16 Figure ‎X‑17 Figure ‎X‑18 Figure ‎X‑19 Figure ‎X‑20 Figure ‎X‑21 Figure ‎X‑22 Figure ‎X‑23 Figure ‎X‑24 Figure ‎X‑25

Aramaic inscriptions on lintels: a. Barʿam; b. ʿAlma ................................................... Aramaic inscription on basalt architrave, Dabura ....................................................... Aramaic inscription on a basalt column, near Gush Halav ...................................... Aramaic inscription on a basalt stone, Qasrin .............................................................. Greek inscription on a marble board, Tiberias ............................................................. Greek inscription of mosaicists Marianos and his son Aninas: a. Beth Alpha; b. Beth Sheʾan A ..................................................................................................................... Aramaic inscription on Beth Sheʾan small synagogue B pavement ....................... Aramaic inscriptions on synagogue pavements: a. Kafr Kana; b. Sepphoris ....... Capernaum carvings: a. Lintel part of the western portal of the synagogue façade; b. Fragment of the inner frieze/cornice ........................................................... Comparison of Korazim conches executed by: a. Master A; b. Master B; c. Jointly by Masters A and B; d. Master F ..................................................................... Korazim carvings: a. Master A, Workshop I, Southern façade frieze and cornice; b. Master E, Workshop II, inner frieze fragments ....................................... A common design on synagogue friezes: a. Korazim; b. ed-Dikke; c. H. Khawkha ......................................................................................................................... Chancel screens: a. Hammath Gader synagogue; b. Rehov; c. Beth Sheʾan church of the Monastery of the Lady Mary; d. Massuot Yitzhaq ............................ Hammath Tiberias B seasons* ........................................................................................... Zodiac signs with human figures, Hammath Tiberias B* .......................................... Zodiac signs with animal figures, Hammath Tiberias B ............................................ Hammath Tiberias B lions ................................................................................................... Comparable figures on: a. Panel 4; b. Panel 11, Hamam mosaic* ........................... The four seasons, Sepphoris* ............................................................................................. Zodiac signs with human figures, Sepphoris* ............................................................... The four seasons, Beth Alpha* ........................................................................................... Zodiac signs with figures, Beth Alpha* ........................................................................... Zodiac signs with animals, Beth Alpha ........................................................................... Lions, Beth Alpha ................................................................................................................... a. King David, Gaza synagogue; b. Adam on mosaic, North Church (The ‘Michaëlion’), Haouarté ..............................................................................................

462 462 463 463 465 465 467 468 469 472 475 477 477 478 478 479 480 480 484 487 487 488 489 491 491 492 492 494 495 495 497 498 499 500 501

Figure ‎X‑26 Figure ‎X‑27 Figure ‎X‑28 Figure ‎X‑29 Figure ‎X‑30 Figure XI-1

list of figures Lioness and giraffe on both mosaics, Gaza: a. David scene; b. inhabited scroll mosaic ......................................................................................................................... Beth Sheʾan workshop, human figures: a–d. House of Leontis; e–g. Monastery ..................................................................................................................... Beth Sheʾan workshop, animals: a–c. Small Synagogue B; d–f. Monastery ....... Lions flanking symbols and inscription: a. Nabratein aedicula stone lintel; b. Maʿon-Nirim mosaic; c. Hammath Tiberias B mosaic panel ............................. Animal chase on fragments of synagogue mosaic borders: a. Beth Sheʾan B; b. Gerasa .................................................................................................................................

xxv 502 505 506 512 512

Figure XI-8 Figure XI-9 Figure XI-10 Figure XI-11

Synagogue inscriptions of donors: a. Gaza; b. Gerasa; c. Maʿon-Nirim; d. Susiya .................................................................................................................................. Synagogue inscription ‫“ שלום על ישראל‬Peace on Israel”: a. Jericho; b. Huseifa ................................................................................................................................ The Rehov synagogue inscription ................................................................................... The ʿEn Gedi synagogue inscription .............................................................................. Theodotus inscription ........................................................................................................ The inscription of the priestly courses at Caesarea, reconstructed ..................... Map of the Galilean villages where the priestly courses survivors settled (after Avi-Yonah 1964:45) .................................................................................................. The Korazim ‘Cathedra of Moses’ inscription ............................................................. Lintel inscription, Beth Midrash, Meroth ..................................................................... Greek inscription, middle panel, House of Leontis, Beth Sheʾan ......................... Greek inscription in narthex, Gerasa synagogue .......................................................

Figure XII-1 Figure XII-2 Figure XII-3 Figure XII-4 Figure XII-5

Plan of the Capernaum synagogue ................................................................................. Gush Halav hoard ................................................................................................................ Treasury cache, Meroth ..................................................................................................... Coins in situ in the Meroth synagogue treasury cache ............................................ Meroth gold coins ................................................................................................................

542 546 549 550 550

Figure XIII-1 Figure XIII-2 Figure XIII-3 Figure XIII-4

Virgo, Hammath Tiberias B* ............................................................................................ Virgo, Naʿaran ........................................................................................................................ Virgo, Beth Alpha ................................................................................................................. Beth Alpha female figures with possible breasts: a. Virgo sign; b. Winter (Tevet) in the zodiac panel; c. the second boy (or Sarah) in the Binding of Isaac panel* ........................................................................................................................... Virgo signs: a. on Calendar 354; b. the Vatican Ptolemy, Vaticanus gr. 1291; c. Sparta zodiac mosaic; d. Münster zodiac mosaic .................................................. Hammath Tiberias B seasons: a. Spring (Nisan); b. Summer (Tamuz); c. Autumn (Tishri); d. Winter (Tevet) ............................................................................ Sepphoris seasons: a. Spring (Nisan); b. Summer (Tamuz); c. Autumn (Tishri); d. Winter (Tevet) .................................................................................................. Beth Alpha seasons: a. Spring (Nisan); b. Summer (Tamuz); c. Autumn (Tishri); d. Winter (Tevet) .................................................................................................. Huseifa, Autumn ..................................................................................................................

568 568 569

Figure XI-2 Figure XI-3 Figure XI-4 Figure XI-5 Figure XI-6 Figure XI-7

Figure XIII-5 Figure XIII-6 Figure XIII-7 Figure XIII-8 Figure XIII-9

518 518 521 522 524 528 529 531 533 535 535

569 570 571 571 572 573

xxvi

list of figures

Figure XIII-10 a. Cap, Sepphoris; b. Cap, Huseifa .................................................................................. 575 Figure XIII-11 A cloak (pallium) or veil completely covering the head of Winter (Tevet): a. Hammath Tiberias B; b. Sepphoris ............................................................................ 577 Figure XIII-12 Huqoq mosaic, fragment on northwest corner* ........................................................ 578 Figure XIV-1 Figure XIV-2 Figure XIV-3 Figure XIV-4

Greek dedicatory inscription, Gaza ................................................................................ Aramaic inscription, Beth Alpha ..................................................................................... Hebrew inscription, Nabratein ........................................................................................ Hebrew inscription, Dabura .............................................................................................

Figure Q-1

Maps: a. Map 1, sites in Galilee; b. Map 2, Roman temples in the Hauran, Trachon, and Bashan .......................................................................................................... Conder and Kitchener 1881—schematic plan ............................................................ Discovery of the inscribed lintel on the site, 1984; Rachel Hachlili sitting on the right .................................................................................................................................. Qazion complex, general air view (photo Sky View)* .............................................. Plan 1, general plan of the main cultic structure, the pools, and the Western Structure ................................................................................................................................. Plan 2, the main cultic structure .................................................................................... Air view of the northern portico façade W1 and Pool 1, causeway W8 on the right, W4 in the background* .......................................................................................... The east part of the north portico W1 façade: a. looking south; b. looking east; c. Section C-C .............................................................................................................. The collapsed west part of W1* ....................................................................................... The stylobate of the northern portico colonnade (W1)* ......................................... Three column bases and pedestals (AF 1, AF 6, AF 2) on the eastern part of W1: a. courtesy of Prof. Dr. Joachim Marzahn, Oberkustos. Archive of the DOG, c/o Vorderasiatisches Museum Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; b. Section C-C, reconstruction with three bases ............................................................................................ Column base AF 6 remained on the east part of W1; items AF 1, 2, 3, 5 have fallen into Pool 1* ................................................................................................................ Found fallen into Pool 1: Column pedestal and bases AF 1, AF 2, AF 4; column base AF 60 on top of lintel AF 3; doorjamb AF 5 ..................................................... Bases and pedestals on the northern façade from east to west ............................ The north portico: a–b. Paving stones abutting the northern inner W4; c. The central entrance threshold* ................................................................................. Drawing of the paving stones and threshold on W4. W4, Section B-B .............. Western façade: a–b. looking east; c. Section A-A* .................................................. Western façade: a. looking east; b. looking south* .................................................... Plate 2, Doric capitals of the piers .................................................................................. Air view of the main cultic hall* ..................................................................................... Plate 3: Main and side north entrances: doorjambs (AF 10, 11) and thresholds (AF 58, AF 42) .............................................................................................................................. Plate 4: Lintel (AF 3) and doorjamb (AF 5) of main north entrance .................. Remains of threshold stone and doorjamb of the western side entrance of W4* .....................................................................................................................................

Figure Q-2 Figure Q-3 Figure Q-4 Figure Q-5 Figure Q-6 Figure Q-7 Figure Q-8 Figure Q-9 Figure Q-10 Figure Q-11

Figure Q-12 Figure Q-13 Figure Q-14 Figure Q-15 Figure Q-16 Figure Q-17 Figure Q-18 Figure Q-19 Figure Q-20 Figure Q-21 Figure Q-22 Figure Q-23

583 584 584 585 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 624 625 625

626 627 628 629 630 630 631 631 632 633 634 635 635



list of figures

Figure Q-24 The well-preserved stone threshold of the western entrance* ................................ Figure Q-25 a. Base of the inscribed lintel; b. Threshold of the western entrance* .................. Figure Q-26 Probe 3: a. Floor no. 1, looking east; b. Floor no. 1 and Floor no. 2 on the right, looking north ................................................................................................................ Figure Q-27 Probe 3 drawing, looking north ......................................................................................... Figure Q-28 Crushing basins* ..................................................................................................................... Figure Q-29 W26 with a square and some semi-circular features, looking south* ................... Figure Q-30 Causeway W8: a. Looking south; b. Looking west* ...................................................... Figure Q-31 Pool 2—northeastern interior corner* ............................................................................ Figure Q-32 The Western Structure* ........................................................................................................ Figure Q-33 The altar .................................................................................................................................... Figure Q-34 Plan 3, with the location of architectural fragments ................................................... Figure Q-35 Plate 5: Architrave and cornice fragments ..................................................................... Figure Q-36 Plate 6: Various architectural items .................................................................................. Figure Q-37 Lintels with tripartite metope pattern ............................................................................. Figure Q-38 Plate 7: Various architectural fragments ......................................................................... Figure Q-39 Roman period pottery ........................................................................................................... Figure Q-40 Mamluk pottery, undecorated handmade ware (12th–14th c.) ................................ Figure Q-41 Glazed ware .............................................................................................................................. Figure Q-42 Miscellaneous pottery ........................................................................................................... Figure Q-43 Stone and basalt bowls and mortars ................................................................................ Figure Q-44 The Tiberias coin .................................................................................................................... Figure Q-45 Coins 2–11 .................................................................................................................................. Figure Q-46 The inscribed lintel: a. inscription on the façade; b. rear of the lintel; c. left side of the lintel; d. right side of the lintel ......................................................... Figure Q-47 The Qazion Greek inscription* .......................................................................................... Figure Q-48 Severan Tondo. Courtesy of Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Antikensammlung. Photograph: Johannes Laurentius* ...................................................................................

xxvii 636 636 637 638 639 639 640 641 643 644 645 648 649 650 652 653 655 656 658 659 660 660 662 663 664

Figure Credits Courtesy of the Israel Antiquity Authority: Figs. I-1, 2; II-3, II-8, II-9—Shlomit Bdolah-Weksler, II-10— Boaz Zissu and Amir Ganor; II-12, 13; III-5–10, III-13–32, III-36–37; IV-1, IV-5, IV-13, IV-16, IV-18–19, IV-21, IV-23, IV-31–34, IV-41–42, IV-46–47, IV-49, IV-60–67; V-1–4, V-6–9, V-16–20, V-23–25, V-28, V-31, V-33–34; V-35—British Mandate ATQ Files: file no. 70, ‘Isfiya (Huseifa); V-36–38, V-41, V-43, V-45–48; VI-1a,c, VI-3b, VI-9, VI-13–16, VI-24–29, VI-32, VI-36, VI-39, VI-43–44; VII-6, VII-8–10, VII32; VIII-14–18; IX-1–3, IX-6, IX-10a, IX-12–13, IX-15, IX-17–18, IX-20–21, IX-23–30, IX-32a, IX-33–37, IX-39–41; X-1–17; XII-3–5; XIII-1–2, XIII-6, XIII-9–10; XIV-1–4. Courtesy of The Israel Museum Collection, Jerusalem: Figs. VII-34, 35. Courtesy of the Israel Government Press Office: Figs. IV-14, 15a. Courtesy of Prof. Assimakopoulou-Atzaka at the Byzantine Research Centre in Thessaloniki: Figs. VII-28–31, X-25. Courtesy of the Klau Library, Cincinnati. Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion: HUC Ms. 906. Sefer Evronot: Fig. VII-33. Courtesy of Studium Biblicum Franciscanum: Fig. VIII-4. Courtesy of Prof. Eric Meyers, the Excavations of Gush Halav, H. Shema, Meiron and Nabratein: Figs. III-1:4, 5, 6, 8; IV-3, IV-4a, IV-24–25, IV-28:1, IV-29, IV-36:1–2, 5, IV-37, IV-47; IX-4, IX-14, IX-22; X-29a, XII-2. Courtesy of Prof. Jodi Magness, The excavation of Huqoq. Photos: Jim Haberman: Figs. III-4, VIII-13a, VIII-13b, XIII-12. Courtesy of Prof. Zeev Weiss, The Sepphoris Excavations. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem: Figs. III-11; V-30, VI-2b, VII-3b; VII-11, 14, 16, 18, 20 Sepphoris; VII-22a, VIII-2a, VIII-7, VIII-20a, IX-9a— Drawings: Pnina Arad. Figs. V-25, VI-1b, VI-46a, VII-5; VII-12, 15, 17, 19, 21 Sepphoris; VII-23b, VIII1a, VIII-19; X-19–20; XIII-7, XIII-11a, XIII-12b—Photos: Gabi Laron. Fig. VI-42b—Drawings: Sara Halbreich. Courtesy of Uzi Leibner, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The Hamam Excavations: Figs. III-3, IV-36:4—Drawing: Benni Arubas. Fig. VI-42a—Drawing: Sara Halbreich. Figs. VIII-10–12, X-18– Photos: Gabi Laron. Courtesy of Ilana Gonen and Yeshu Dray. The excavation of the Umm el-Qanatir synagogue: Figs. III-33a, III-34–35, IV-36:8, IV-38, IV-51, VI-21, VI-47, IX-5, Photos: Ilana Gonen and Yeshu Dray. Courtesy of Prof. Shimeon Dar: Figs. III-38, V-10. Figs. V-11–15—after Orfali 1922; Fig. IV-2 after Kohl and Watzinger 1916. Courtesy of S. Magal: Figs. II-3, IV-12a. Photos David Harris—Figs. VI- 3a, 26, 27b. Zeev Radovan—Figs. II-15, III-12, 19a, 30a,b, 31b; IV-15b, 16, 19, 35, 57; V-2a, 16, 19a, 21, 29, 37, 42, 43; VI-1a, c, 3, 12, 17, 29, 39; VII-8; VIII-14, 16; IX-32, 38, 40, XIV-3.

xxx

figure credits Drawings

Prof. Ehud Netzer: Figs. II-1a, 5–6, 11, 14, 16, IV-4b. Dr. Orit Tzuf: VI-25, VIII-6, 9. Adi Weichselbaum: Figs. IV-30, 45, V-27, 39, VI-34, 41. The figures were arranged for publication by Rachel Hachlili with the help of PhotoScape (a free photo editor software).

LIST OF TABLES Table II-1. Second Temple synagogues ........................................................................................................

41

Table III-1. Catalogue of Qasrin architectural items ...............................................................................

93

Table IV-1. Synagogues architecture (a, b) ................................................................................................. 129 Table IV-2. Synagogues architecture (a, b) ................................................................................................ 165 Table VII-1. The seasons .................................................................................................................................. Table VII-2. The Hebrew Calendar: Zodiac signs and the names of the months .......................... Table VII-3. Comparative chart of the zodiac panels in the synagogues ......................................... Table VII-4. Comparison chart of zodiac and calendar designs .........................................................

355 359 372 381

Table VIII-1. The emblems of the twelve tribes of Israel according to Numbers Rabba 82 ....... 424 Table XII-1. Examples of sites with identified coins ............................................................................... 539 Table XII-2. Coins from Capernaum synagogue ...................................................................................... 543 Table XII-3. Coins found in synagogues ..................................................................................................... 553 Table XIV-1. Building history and dating of Gush Halav, Meiron, Nabratein, and H. Shemʿa synagogues .................................................................................................................................. Table XIV-2. Nabratein .................................................................................................................................... Table XIV-3. Gush Halav ................................................................................................................................. Table XIV-4. H. Shemʿa .................................................................................................................................... Table XIV-5. Capernaum ................................................................................................................................. Table XIV-6. Korazim ....................................................................................................................................... Table XIV-7. Meroth .......................................................................................................................................... Table XIV-8. Qasrin ........................................................................................................................................... Table XIV-9. Hammath Tiberias B ................................................................................................................ Table XIV-10. South Judean synagogues ..................................................................................................... Table XIV-11. Dating of Golan synagogues .................................................................................................

586 587 588 589 590 593 594 596 598 599 605

Table Q-1. Catalogue of Qazion architectural fragments ...................................................................... 646 Table Q-2. The coins ......................................................................................................................................... 659

PREFACE The new synagogue excavations in the last decades, together with the lively debates on the theme, have brought to light a large body of new material on ancient synagogues, which now allows for a comprehensive treatment of the art and archaeology of this important institution. The compilation of this recently excavated material, and especially the latest results, together with previous materials, current research, and studies on this specific subject, is now ripe for presentation. This book emphasizes various aspects of synagogue archaeology and art which are dealt with in detail, including some particularly neglected aspects of the field (such as coins, women, inscriptions, etc.). The discussion takes the form of a general comparison, divided according to topics such as architecture, art, Jewish symbols, biblical narrative tales, and other specific subjects, which together create what I hope is a conclusive case for the existence of a distinctive Jewish synagogue architecture and art during the Second Temple and Late Antiquity periods. Special reports on two excavations I was personally involved in are presented at some length: Qasrin in Chapter III and the Supplement at the end of the book, which is devoted to the final report of the excavations at Qazion. A deeper understanding of the artistic Jewish heritage left us by our ancestors can help to penetrate the mists of time separating us from those periods. I should like to mention my indebtedness and special gratitude to Liel Almog, my English editor, for her thorough and diligent work. My sincere thanks are due to the following institutions and individuals who allowed me to publish and the use of their photographs and drawings: to the Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem, for permission to publish many of the photographs from excavations. To Arieh Rochman-Halperin, Sylvia Krapiwko and Yael Barschak of the Israel Antiquities Authority Archive for their help and assistance. Thanks are due to the Israel Museum for permission to publish two illustrations from their collection. I should like to acknowledge my gratitude and thanks to Prof. Assimakopoulou-Atzaka at the Byzantine Research Centre in Thessaloniki, and to Anastasia Pliota, a postgraduate PhD student in the University of Athens for presenting me with the data, bibliography and photos of Greek mosaics at Astypalaea and the villa at Aiolou St., Thessaloniki. Thanks are due to the Klau Library, Cincinnati. Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion for permission to publish a manuscript photo. Thanks are due to the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Archive, Jerusalem for permission to use the photographs of the mosaics of Jordan. My sincere thanks are due to my colleagues and friends who granted me permission to use their illustrations: To Prof. E. Meyers for permission to use various illustrations and plans from the excavations at H. Shemʿa, Gush Halav, and Nabratein. To Prof. Jodi Magness for permission to use the photographs of the recently excavated synagogue at Huqoq. To Prof. Zeev Weiss and the Sepphoris Expedition of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for permission to use the plan and various photographs of Sepphoris mosaics. To Ilana Gonen and Yeshu Dray for permission to publish photographs and the plan of their recent excavations at Umm el-Qanatir. To Dr. Uzi Leibner of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for permission to use the plan and photographs of mosaic pavements at the Wadi Hamam synagogue. To Prof. Shimeon Dar for permission to use the plan and reconstruction of the synagogue at Sumaqa and the lintel from Raqit.

xxxiv

preface

Finally, affectionate thanks to my family: Gad, Guy, Liat, Niv, Sigal, Andrew, Oren and Romi for their enormous and unfailing help, patience, understanding and encouragement. Rachel Hachlili The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, Haifa University December 2012

INTRODUCTION This book on ancient synagogues, their archaeology, and art, documents the study and research on the subject, including archaeological excavations, through several decades. It is also a revision and re-evaluation of the book Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel which I wrote in 1988. The time span covered by this book begins in the Second Temple period and continues until the end of the period of Late Antiquity (late second century BCE–seventh–eighth centuries CE). This study examines the available current data, and attempts to reach a comprehensive interpretation of the material presented and its significance. It will attempt to examine the forces of both continuity and discontinuity, thereby drawing attention to what is truly distinctive in synagogue art. It will discuss the extensive development of Jewish synagogue art and archaeology, its symbolic and iconographic vocabulary, and its characteristic features, and assign these to their proper context. Jewish synagogue archaeology, architecture, and art comprise a specific form that was created to serve the local Jewish communities following the destruction of the Second Temple. Its form and content were determined by the desires of both the upper and lower classes, and it was executed in accordance with the spiritual and secular requirements of local congregations. Architecture and art styles were employed to satisfy both functional and recreational needs. Synagogue architecture, art, symbols, iconography, inscriptions etc. reflect a culture that did not come into being not as a consequence of national isolation. While absorbing and assimilating elements from its Hellenistic, Roman pagan and later Christian surroundings, Jewish synagogue art, as will be shown, retained and clung to its own fundamentally spiritual basis, and to its essential beliefs and customs. The worship of objects, whether natural or man-made, was very popular in ancient times. With the proliferation of polytheistic beliefs, the necessity for organized symbols was acknowledged. In the case of Judaism, however, visual art was not an indispensable attribute of worship. On the contrary, a constant battle raged between the Jewish religion, which expressed its values in abstract terms, and pagan worship, with its symbols and tangible objects. Although Judaism rejected pagan symbols in principle, these symbols nonetheless penetrated Jewish art as decorative motifs, void of their original meaning. Jewish art found expression in various aspects of Jewish life: secular, sacred, and funerary. It adorned synagogues and private buildings, tombs, sarcophagi, and ossuaries; the synagogue interiors and exteriors, especially, are vigorously and splendidly decorated. The expression of Jewish art of the Second Temple period (second c. BCE–first c. CE) found in public buildings frequently identified as synagogues is aniconic and non-symbolic. Most of the motifs used are taken from the environment. They consist of plant and geometric motifs expressing growth and productivity and are similar to patterns used in Graeco-Roman pagan art. In the struggle against paganism, Judaism at that time offered staunch resistance, especially by insisting on obedience to the “no graven image” commandment and by guarding against its violators; hence the strict adherence to a non-figurative art form. Though Jewish synagogue art after the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple (70 CE) and the Bar Kokhba War (132–135 CE) retained a degree of continuity with the past, it developed completely different, varied and versatile characteristics. The synagogue art which evolved during the period of the third to the seventh/eighth centuries was primarily a popular art, based on a definitive spiritual outlook. Jews employed figurative art, images, and symbols. They did so with rabbinical tolerance or even approval. The initiative for the growth of a versatile Jewish art form, and especially

2

introduction

its figurative and symbolic aspect, lay with the Jewish population itself, both the national and local communities. The elaborate decoration found in synagogue art reflected the natural wish of society to live in a visually pleasing environment, as well as the desire of man to conquer material and mould it to his needs. Moreover, it provided an outlet for the human frailty that seeks to impress and attract attention, and to demonstrate power through symbols and motifs, through magnificence and beauty. The following study enables us to reconstruct a vivid picture of the past in which the spiritual and material nature of Judaism is disclosed. The selected studies are compiled into several chapters. Chapter I discusses the history, development, and origin of the synagogue. Chapter II describes the architecture, art, and excavations results relating to synagogues of the Second Temple period. Chapter III presents summary reports of new discoveries of synagogues throughout the country and of newly published final reports of various synagogues. Chapter III includes a comprehensive summary of the excavations conducted at the Qasrin synagogue (in the Golan) in 1982–1984 by Rachel Hachlili, Ann Killebrew, and Zvi U. Maoz, not yet published in a final report. The summary contains some of the work done in the 1970s by other excavators. The detailed plans published here include the older plans which have been revised on the basis of the new finds from our excavations, drawn and prepared for publication by Natalia Zak. A detailed catalogue of the architectural items found throughout the Qasrin synagogue structure and its surrounding is also presented. Chapter IV describes the architecture of synagogues based on several characteristic features. Chapter V presents the art of some specific synagogues such as Capernaum and Korazim, and general features of the art found in the Galilee, the Golan and elsewhere. Chapters VI–VIII survey and discuss the themes on the mosaic panels, based on the tripartite composition found in some of the synagogue mosaic pavements. The main nave pavement carpet is usually divided lengthwise into three panels, each thematically distinct, with a recurring design and theme: Chapter VI is devoted to the Jewish symbols panel, situated in front of the Torah shrine, containing a depiction of a Torah shrine or ark flanked by a pair of menoroth, each of them in turn flanked by two or four ritual objects. Chapter VII discusses the Jewish calendar as represented by the zodiac scheme (usually the second panel), which is composed of the seasons, zodiac signs, and the sun and moon and includes a comparison with similar zodiac designs in other countries, and similar motifs in later Jewish art. Chapter VIII examines the narrative themes and images of biblical illustrated tales, which are sometimes depicted on the third panel (these chapters have already been broadly discussed in some of my previous articles and other books). Compositions and styles are analyzed and the meanings and interpretations are discussed; sources and origins are also commented on. Chapter IX deals with various motifs featured in synagogue art. Chapter X focuses on the artists and workshops that created the synagogue relief, sculpture and mosaic art and probes the sources of the repertoire and the transmission of motifs. Chapter XI examines the inscriptions found in synagogues, while Chapter XII discusses the coin hoards and group collections discovered in synagogues and their meaning. The concern of Chapter XIII is the representations of women in synagogue art and the distinctive position of women in the synagogue. Chapter XIV attempts a comprehensive discussion of the debated subject of dating the synagogues. The book’s contents are summed up in Chapter XV, with a review of some of the evidence presented earlier and conclusions about the archaeology, architecture, and art of ancient synagogues excavated and discovered in Israel. The book includes a Supplement reporting the final results and analysis of excavations of the Qazion monumental complex, conducted in three short periods in the years 1993 and 1997, under the



introduction

3

direction of Rachel Hachlili and Ann Killebrew. This unique and extraordinary buildings complex, though not a synagogue, was constructed by Jews, according to the Greek inscription carved on the entrance lintel. The report presents the outcome of the excavations and our thorough and profound research of the unusual architectural remains and finds. Included are detailed plans corroborated by air photos taken by Sky View, a revised account of the inscribed lintel (presented with the help of the research by Paul Harvey [2013]), a description of the finds, and a comprehensive discussion by the author of the possible functions of this exceptional complex (see a different interpretation by Killebrew 2013). The book discusses the extensive history, development, and tradition of Jewish synagogue art, as well as its symbolic and iconographic vocabulary and its characteristic features, and assigns them to their proper context. It endeavours to examine both the forces of continuity and those of change, thereby drawing attention to what is truly distinctive in this archaeology and art. Explanatory Notes (1) Chronological terms used for dating are BCE )Before the Common Era), i.e. BC, and CE (Common Era), i.e. AD. As most of the dates are in the Common Era (CE), not all of them have been labelled; only dates before the Common Era (BCE) are clearly specified. (2) The discussion of synagogues in the text, as well as their appearance in the charts and tables, is either based on geographical location from north to south, or is alphabetical.

CHAPTER one

THE SYNAGOGUE The synagogue institution was a revolutionary concept in terms of worship and faith. It offered a new form of religious practice that encompassed not only the privileged few who belonged to the priestly caste but the larger community as well, thus providing a venue for individual expression. The synagogue also served as a structure to house the Torah shrine, its most significant object, which was built on the wall facing Jerusalem. In no way did it supplement or substitute for the Temple and its sacrificial cult: The salient elements of temple worship—offerings and sacrifices—were not transferred to the synagogue, not even symbolically. Finally, it was also used as an assembly house for communal as well as religious occasions (Hachlili 1998:13). 1. The Synagogue and the Temple The Jerusalem Temple and the synagogue are the two important institutions which distinguish Judaism. Throughout Jewish history, both have been dominant in Jewish religious, social, and cultural life. The Jerusalem Temple was the focal point for the Jewish nation, the centre for worship, and the place where the political, economic and spiritual affairs of world Jewry were discussed and determined. The Second Temple conformed with the First Temple of biblical Israel in its main religious and architectural features. During the first c. BCE–first c. CE, the Temple in Jerusalem was still the centre of worship and ritual for the entire Jewish community in Judea and the Diaspora. Here Jews could participate in ceremonies and in the teaching of the Law that were conducted in the Temple courtyards, and could settle administrative questions in the Temple courts (S. Safrai 1987). The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was a turning point in the creation of the synagogue, in terms of both architecture and the customs and rituals practiced. The response to the catastrophe of 70 CE was the adoption of Torah reading, study, and prayer as a replacement for the sacrificial cult, making public worship the custom of the synagogue. This new, important, and unique Jewish institution already existed during the Second Temple period (Schürer et al. 1979, II:427–428; Cohen 1984:151–174; S. Safrai 1987:31–51). The relationship between Temple and synagogue was strengthened by the use of related iconography and Temple symbols in the architecture and decoration of synagogues (Hachlili 1988:Chapters VII–IX; 1998:Chapters II, VII). The Jewish communities in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora were anxious to preserve and commemorate the sanctity of the Temple, its sacred vessels, its cult, and its ceremonies, so they used them in the synagogue decorations as well as in the religious services. There are many fundamental differences between the Jerusalem Temple and the synagogue (see Hachlili 1988:135–140; Olsson and Zetterhom 2003; Levine 2004:11–14, 27–30). While it stood, the Temple was the only center for national activity, and its ritual was primarily one of animal sacrifice. By contrast, the synagogue was specifically geared to serving the local community. Worship in the Second Temple period synagogues was probably conducted only on Sabbaths and feast-days, not daily (S. Safrai and M. Stern 1976b:918). • The Temple, according to tradition, was situated in Jerusalem, on Mount Moriah, the sacred site where the Sacrifice of Isaac took place: one Temple for the one God (Josephus, Ant. 4, 201; Against

6

chapter one

Apion 2, 193). Synagogues, on the other hand, could be built anywhere throughout the Land of Israel and the Diaspora. Thus the synagogue, by becoming the centre of public life, was a very revolutionary development, and a new concept in the history of ancient Judaism. • A small group of priests practiced in the Temple, and entry into the Holy of Holies was allowed only to the High Priest. The ordinary worshippers who came to the Temple were relegated to the outer courtyards of the Temple precincts. In the synagogue, by comparison, all the participants were involved in and conducted the ceremonies; worshippers took turns in reciting prayers and reading the Scriptures. Leadership of the synagogue consisted of lay worshippers and the concept was that of a community institution. • Scripture reading was not an essential part of the Temple service and was introduced only during the Second Temple period. Furthermore, Scripture reading was not a substitute for Temple sacrifices or liturgy: it simply supplemented Temple worship (S. Safrai 1976b:912). Prayer and study in the local synagogue replaced sacrifice in the national Temple as the means of serving God. Synagogue services took place at regular times, on the Sabbath, feast days and special occasions (as did offerings in the Temple). Later, the plan of the synagogue building included a prominent location for the Torah shrine housing the Ark of the Scrolls, and this attests to the fact that the congregation came to pray and read Scripture; Jewish synagogal and funerary art bearing representations symbolizing the Temple testify to a preservation of Temple customs. Scholars debate the relation between Temple and synagogue. Levine (2004:11–14, 27–30) contends that no rivalry existed. Each institution served particular needs and functions, and they were dissimilar in their organization; there is no evidence in contemporary Halakhic or exegetical sources regarding the sanctity of the synagogue. Other scholars (Binder 1999; Strange 2003) suggested a significant degree of influence of the Temple on the synagogue; in their view the synagogue served as an extension of the Temple, which it imitated and was patterned after. Synagogue buildings were generally erected on a high place in a city or village, in the centre of the town, or near a water source. Both the spiritual and social concepts of these places of worship dictated the external design as well as the interior plan (Hachlili 1988:135–140). A central hall, occasionally with structures attached to it, composed the main building. The most prominent interior synagogue feature was the Torah shrine; worship took place facing Jerusalem. Archaeological remains of synagogues illuminate various aspects of Jewish life which are otherwise sparsely documented: these include the importance of symbolic, decorative and representational art in local Jewish life. The largest concentration of synagogue remains in the Galilee can be dated from the end of the second c. to the fourth c., which testifies to the region having been the center of Jewish life at that time. Simultaneously, however, synagogues began to be built in Judaea and elsewhere. 2. The Origin and History of the Synagogue The origin of the synagogue is today one of the crucial and most disputed issues in the study of Jewish history. Various theories have been promoted, concerning the period as well as the form, function, and location of the first synagogues (Hachlili 1988:135–138; 1997; 1998:14–22; Levine 2000, 2003a; Binder 2003; Olsson 2003b). As early as the mid-third c. BCE, inscriptions mention Egyptian synagogues; Jews in the first c. CE believed the synagogue to be a very ancient institution dating back to the time of Moses; Talmudic tradition mentions the fact that there were synagogues during the Babylonian exile.



the synagogue

7

Methodological issues related to the debate surrounding the meager evidence and the small number of synagogues which existed in the Second Temple period are mentioned by Levine (2003b:190– 92). The historical reliability of the literary sources is in dispute. Two aspects of the synagogue’s origin should be considered: is there enough evidence to sustain the contention that “the earliest dated evidence indicates the time of origin” and, does the mention of synagogues in early inscriptions from Hellenistic Egypt indicate that they began there and then? Any examination of the origins of the synagogue must consider the textual, epigraphic and archaeological evidence:1 2.1 Textual and Epigraphic Evidence Literary sources, such as Josephus (Against Apion 2. 175) and the New Testament (Acts 15:21), attest to the existence of synagogues in the first c. as centres of scripture reading and study (see Oster 1993; Cohen 1997; McKay 1998:105, 118–128; Levine 2000:124–129; Claussen 2003:150–152). Evidence for the origins of the synagogue is largely based on semantic analysis, on literary and epigraphic evidence, and on textual sources, in particular the interpretation of the terms synagogue, beth Knesset, and proseuche, all of which appear in inscriptions and attest to the existence of synagogues in the first c. CE. ‫( בית כנסת‬Beth knesset): This is a Hebrew term meaning ‘house of assembly’ (Schürer et al. 1979, II:429–430). Zeitlin (1975:20) maintains this term “betrays the origin and character of the synagogue”. After the return from the Babylon exile, the Jews gathered in secular assembly houses scattered all over the country. Rabbinical literature (BT. Ketubot 105a; JT. Megillah III, 1, 73d) mentions synagogues in Jerusalem, accusing Titus and Vespasian of destroying either 394 or 480 synagogues. A Jerusalem synagogue is recorded in Tosefta Sukkah 4, 5. These rabbinical statistics are considered an exaggeration (S. Safrai 1977:67), and not an accurate reflection of historical reality. συναγωγη (synagogue): The word synagogue has several interpretations: the Septuagint uses it as the translation of ‫( עדה‬edah), meaning ‘community’. Josephus in Ant. 19. 300, 305 refers to a synagogue building in Dor which was used by Jews for cultic purposes; in War 2. 285–289, he describes access to the Caesarea synagogue as being restricted, indicating that he is refering to a building, not to a congregation or assembly (Kloppenborg 2006:242–244). Josephus might have been anachronistic, as Kee argues. The only time Philo uses the term synagogue is in describing the Essenes gathering at this place on the Sabbath for readings. The New Testament reports Jesus’s and Paul’s visits to synagogues (Lk. 4:16–22; Acts 13:13–16), and especially to a synagogue at Capernaum (Mk. 1:21; Lk. 7:1), where the term means ‘meeting house’ (Griffiths 1987:5; White 1990:87). The Gospels describe Jesus’s activities in Galilean synagogues (in the 1st c. CE): at Capernaum (Mk. 1:21, 23, 29, 3:1, Lk. 4:33, 39, 6:6, 7:5; Mt. 12:9); Nazareth (Mk. 6:2; Mt. 13:54; Lk. 4:15, 16, 20, 28); various unnamed locations in Galilee (Lk. 8:41); in either Galilee or Judea (Lk. 13:10). Kloppenborg (2006:239–241) holds that it is possible that Luke (7:5) added these verses, thus they do not provide compelling evidence of the synagogue as a building; Luke might be presenting a later Diaspora practice rather than early 1st c. CE Galilean one. The Gospel writings refer to an assembly and make no comments that could clearly testify to the existence of an architectural structure called a synagogue. The word synagogue appears in an important piece of epigraphic evidence, the Greek inscription of Theodotos, found on Mount Ophel in Jerusalem (Fig. XI-5). The inscription records the dedication

1 Flesher’s (1995a:34, 39) suggestion, that based on both literary and archaeological evidence, the synagogue originated in Egypt and gained acceptance as a major religious institution in the Galilee and not in Judea, is unconvincing.

8

chapter one

of a synagogue which was built for various functions, particularly for reciting the Law and studying the commandments, possibly for use by pilgrims from abroad (Frey 1952:no. 1404; Roth-Gerson 1987:76–86; Kloppenborg 2006). The inscription is generally dated to the first c. CE, but Kee (1990:7–8) and McKay (1998:125–28) suggest a later date, the second half of the second century, which in Kee’s opinion fits well with the evidence of archaeological remains of synagogues built after the destruction of the Temple. Hoenig (1979:451–452), in his definition of synagogue, excludes those institutions in which the Law was read without the accompaniment of prayer. Schürer et al. (1979, II:429–440) maintain that synagogue signifies “the congregation (the group gathering), not the place of assembly (the building).” Proseuche (προσευχη): The meaning of the term is prayer (or vow) and it is applied to buildings, not people. According to inscriptions, the proseuche was established in Egypt as early as the 3rd c. BCE; it was the official term for the synagogue in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt (Horbury & Noy 1992:215, nos. 9, 13, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 117, 125; Schwartz 2001:217–220). Philo, who mentions this term eighteen times, emphasizes the educational function of the proseuche. He uses ‘synagogue’ five times, at least once in reference to a building in which civic activity is conducted (Kasher 1987:125; Kee 1990:5; McKay 1998:118–122). Josephus (C. Ap 2.10–12) quotes a statement by Apion from the third book of his History of Egypt: “Moses . . . in Egypt . . . who, being pledged to the customs of his country, erected proseuchai (prayer-houses) open to the air, in various precincts of the city”, which Binder (2003:119) suggests is either Heliopolis or Jerusalem. Proseuchai are mentioned by Josephus in various places:at Tiberias, three meetings are described—one in a large building, where Sabbath morning assemblies were conducted (Life 277), followed by a concluding meal (Life 279), and two others, without details (Life 280, 290–303); in Dor (Ant. 19, 300); and in Caesarea (War 2, 285–290).2 In the Diaspora, the term proseuche appears in inscriptions and papyri from Delos,3 Cyrene, and the Bosphorus region (Overman 1999), as well as on several later synagogue mosaic floors (such as the Elche synagogue). Proseuche also meant a place of instruction and the teaching of the Law (Hengel 1975:27–54; Schürer et al. 1979, II:425–426, 439–440; Trebilco 1991:134; Rajak and Noy 1993:76). Hengel (1975:27ff, 166) implies that the proseuche may have been influenced by Hellenistic shrines and that the term means ‘house of prayer’. Kasher (1987:122) maintains that for Egyptian Jews prayer was as important as sacrifice; thus the proseuche could discharge the non-sacrificial duties of the Temple and serve as a suitable location for expressions of faith. Grabbe (1988:402, n. 5) contends that proseuche can be interpreted as a form of Diaspora synagogue. Others assert that the term generally refers to the Jewish synagogue building (Kraabel 1979:492–493). Noy (1992:119) believes the word appears mainly, but not only, in a Jewish context. Schwartz (2001:217, 220) states that proseuchai (the term later applied to the synagogue) “were erected by Jewish ethnic corporations in some Egyptian villages as early as the 3rd BCE . . . but had no control over most of the Jews’ legal activities.” Not all Jews participated and “the Jews were not different from other groups of immigrants in Hellenistic Egypt”. McKay (1998:120–22) argues that the New Testament texts present varied evidence of the synagogue activities: Sabbath gatherings for teaching (“teaching and learning was communal and public rather than individual and private”), reading the Law, and debates. Sometimes the building is only implied. Perhaps there was a development because of the differences in the gospel accounts. Philo’s

2 Jos. Life 277, Thackeray 1961:103, note b: “proseuche ‘oratory’ another name for synagogue . . . the distinction sometimes drawn between the two words seems untenable.” 3 Mazur (1935:21) reads proseuche in the inscriptions from Delos as votive, without a Jewish connotation.



the synagogue

9

and Josephus’s evidence is not detailed enough but is quite similar, though they do differ regarding time and location. Inscriptions of the 1st–2nd c. CE found in Panticape and Gorgippia and a 3rd c. inscription from Phocaea cite the proseuche as a communal building and list some of its civic activities (Frey 1972:8; 1975:495–96; 500–501). Some inscriptions from the Bosphorus Kingdom relate similar data on the use of the term, proseuche being the building and synagogue, the community (Gibson 1999; Overman 1999; Levine 2000:113–115; 2004). McKay (1998:123–124) proposes that two inscriptions on a 2nd c. CE lintel from Corinth and a lost inscription from Olbia might indicate the transition of the term’s use from assembly to building; a 2nd c. CE papyrus from Arsinoe-Crocodilopolis uses the phrase the ‘rulers of the proseuche’; while a description on the 1st c. CE Berenice inscription uses synagogue to indicate a building. Hence McKay assumes that both proseuche and synagogue could referred to a building. Kee (1999:15, 18, 20) claims that the New Testament evidence and other pre-70 CE Jewish writings show that often, synagogue means an assembly, a gathering of people, or a congregation, rather than an actual building, both in the Land of Israel and in the Diaspora. Only at the end of the 1st c. or the beginning of the 2nd c. CE did a shift occur, and synagogue came to apply to both a building and an assembly. Kee dates the Theodotus inscription to the mid or late 3rd c. CE and argues that this inscription testifies to “the evolution of the synagogue from voluntary gathering to institutionalized structure and organization not as proof of the institutional and architectural form of the synagogue in the time of Jesus, but as a process taking place in the pre-Constantinian period”. Kloppenborg (2000:276–77) refutes Kee’s assumption and agrees with most other experts who view the Theodotus inscription as evidence of a pre-70 CE synagogue at Jerusalem, based on three important considerations: (1) The pre-70 CE term synagogue (in Greek) means only a ‘gathering’, ‘assembly’ or ‘congregation’, not a building. Another inscription from Bernice/Benghazi (Bernike in Cyrenaica, dating to 55/6 CE) mentions renovating a synagogue, in which case the reference must be to a building; (2) The paleography of the inscription is a lapidary script similar to and consistent with Herodian script, therefore antedating 70 CE; (3) The stratigraphy of the site in which the inscription was found is Herodian and rules out a date later than 70 CE. He concludes that the synagogue in Jerusalem was constructed in the late 1st c. BCE or early 1st c. CE. He further cites the writings of Josephus, as well as Philo’s discussion of the Essenes (OmnProbLib81), as evidence that by the mid1st c. CE the term synagogue was used to refer to both the congregation and the building. Interpretations vary as to the chronological, geographical, substantive, and architectural differences in meaning between these terms (see also Levine 1987:20–22; 2000, 2003): The term proseuche is earlier, having been used from the third c. BCE to the first c. CE. However, the term synagogue was used by Josephus in the first c. CE to describe a synagogue at Caesarea (War 2.14, 285–289) and one at Dora (Ant 19.6.3, 300–305). The term proseuche refers to the Diaspora whereas synagogue refers to Judea (Hengel 1975:41ff), yet this is not always the case. Josephus refers to a pro­seuche at Tiberias. Scholars maintain that proseuche usually refers to a building for assembly and prayers, and synagogue to the actual congregation or community (Frey, CIJ I:lxx; Hengel 1975). The proseuchai in third c. BCE Egyptian inscriptions do not automatically prove the existence of the synagogue. Kee (1990:5) argues that “the religious function would be highlighted by the choice of proseuche; the term synagogue would imply nothing more than that a meeting had convened.” Synagogue was used exclusively for Jewish edifices, while proseuchai, in the Hellenistic world, referred also to pagan loyalty shrines. Some scholars argue that the term proseuche is generally used when referring to the Jewish synagogue building, or when describing different forms of buildings— proseuche being an imposing structure and synagogue being a more humble one (Hengel 1975:166; Schürer et al. 1979, II:439–440). However, the exact opposite is also argued.

10

chapter one

McKay (1998:116) accurately summarizes the debate on the terms by noting (a) that the New Testament accounts of activities in ‘synagogues’ do not necessarily reflect the historical reality of the time; (b) that synagogue buildings did not always have a recognizable architectural plan; and (c) that the term archisynagogos often refers to the existence of a synagogue assembly or congregation, but not necessarily of a building. The research includes examination of literary sources and archaeological remains and finds, all of which facilitate the establishment of both the history and development of the institution and the evolution of the synagogue as a building. It is apparent that there is no single perceivable origin. The synagogue institution as well as the structure developed according to the location (country or city, village etc.) or the date, and thus we find in synagogues some common functions but also many different ones, and many types of structures. Synagogue and proseuche are terms used throughout history to describe an institution, a building, a concept, connected with Judaism and Jews, established in various countries and throughout the centuries (until the present). Synagogue and beth knesset refer both to the congregation that assembled for religious, communal and other functions and to the building in which they gathered. The data examines the evolution of the synagogue—individually or in groups sharing some common characteristics—and tries to establish the point of time and place in which the synagogue evolved into a unique type of religious institution. 2.2 Terms for Synagogue Found in Inscriptions Various terms are used to describe the synagogue, though possibly the functions and activities of the institution were similar everywhere. Several terms are found on Aramaic and Greek dedicatory inscriptions discovered in synagogue buildings in the Land of Israel, in which the donors explicitly declare their donations to the synagogue: (a) ‫כנישתה‬/‫( כנישה‬knisha, knishta) in Aramaic, meaning ‘gathering’ or ‘assembly’, is similar to the Hebrew beth knesset and the Greek synagogue, though in the following inscriptions it refers to the synagogue building to which the donations were presented. The terms appear carved on architectural elements and on mosaic pavements with inscriptions (Naveh 1978:11): ‫ דכנישתא‬on an Aramaic dedicatory inscription engraved on a column shaft from Beth Govrin refers to the donor who bought the column “for the synagogue” (Naveh 1978:no. 71). ‫ דכנישתה‬appears twice on the south panel of an Aramaic inscription enclosed in a frame below the left lion in the Hammath Gader synagogue mosaic pavement; here it refers to donations to the synagogue, one by a couple and another by a woman (Naveh 1978:no. 34). ‫ כנישתה‬appears in an unpublished Aramaic inscription from the ʿEn Gedi synagogue, found on the mosaic pavement of the western aisle; it relates that all the inhabitants of the village, including Jonathan the Hazan, paid for the repair of the ‫( כנישתה‬Barag et al. 1972:53; 1981:118; Barag 2006:24, 19*; Naveh 1978:11, 105). ?‫ לכנשתא‬is possibly carved on a dedicatory inscription on a basalt stone found at Hammath (north of Tiberias) (Ilan 1991:144). (b) Several inscriptions use the word ‘holy’ with varied implications: either a ‘holy place’, i.e. a building or site, or a ‘holy community or holy group’, perhaps a group with high status in the community, or that sector of the congregation which determined norms and regulations (Naveh 1978:77–78). Schwartz (2001:275) contends that these inscriptions’ terminology was meant to convey the idea that “the Jews regarded themselves as constituting religious communities:”



the synagogue

11

a

b

Figure I-1. Inscriptions on mosaics: a. Hammath Tiberias B; b. Beth Sheʾan B small synagogue.

‫( אתרה קדישה‬atra kadisha), a ‘holy place’, is used in several Aramaic dedicatory inscriptions to describe the synagogue site (the same expression in Greek is άγίος τόπος, see below): An Aramaic inscription at Hammath Tiberias B (on Panel 13 in the eastern aisle, mosaic 56) states that a blessing is bestowed on anybody who presents charity to this ‘holy place’ (Dothan 1983:53–4, Pl. 21:1, 35:3). The Aramaic inscription in the Beth Sheʾan small synagogue (enclosed in a frame within the outer border of the mosaic design) refers to the congregation which repaired the ‘holy place’. At Naʿaran the term occurs in four Aramaic dedicatory inscriptions: on the north part of the hall mosaic, under Daniel’s arm, above the right menorah, and above the left menorah. An unusual inscription on a bronze polycandelon mentions the ‘holy place’ of Kefar Hananiah (Naveh 1978:nos. 16, 26, 46, 60, 64–66); the same term appears also in the Targum (Levine 1992:221). ‫ בכל אתר‬,‫( לאתרה‬leʾatra, bekhol atar), ‘everywhere’, referring to a holy place, a synagogue site, occurs on mosaic pavements at Hammath Gader and Naʿaran. ‫ המקום‬,‫ כל מקומות ישראל‬,‫( כל מקומות עמו ישראל‬hamakom, kol mekomot Yisrael, kol mekomot amo Yisrael), ‘the place, ‘all places of Israel’, ‘all the places of His nation Israel’, which are carved on the Barʿam synagogue lintel and on an inscription from ‘Alma, quite possibly have the same connotation (Naveh 1978:56, nos. 1, 3, 32, 65). The following Aramaic dedicatory inscriptions refer sometimes to the synagogue congregation as a ‘holy community’:

12

chapter one ‫( כל בני קרתה‬kol benei karta) ‘all the congregation of the place—a holy site’ is found in Aramaic inscriptions on the mosaic pavements at Huseifa and Beth Alpha, on a marble screen at Susiya (Naveh 1978:nos. 39, 43, 83) and on an unpublished inscription at ʿEn Gedi. ‫( קהלה קדישה‬kehila kadisha), that is, the ‘holy community’ which donated the mosaic, appears in the Aramaic dedicatory inscription on a mosaic pavement at the entrance to the Jericho synagogue; the same term is found on a marble chancel screen at the Susiya synagogue, referring to the ‘holy community’ that maintains [the place] (Naveh 1978:nos. 69, 84). ‫( חבורתה קדישתה‬havurta kadishta), meaning ‘holy group/community’, occurs on the Beth Sheʾan small synagogue mosaic (enclosed in a frame within the outer border of the mosaic design) and refers to the ‘holy group’ which repaired the ‘holy place’ (Naveh 1978:no. 46). Barag (1972) proposed that Jews living in purely Jewish villages used the term ‫( כל בני קרתה‬kol bnai karta) ‘all the congregation of the place—a holy site’ while the term ‫( קהלה קדישה‬kehila kadisha), ‘holy community’ was used in dedicatory inscriptions in towns/villages of mixed populations. Naveh (1978:123) disagrees with this distinction between the two terms; see the Susiya inscription, where both terms were used. Greek inscriptions found in synagogues name the structure synagogue (or proseuche in the Diaspora). The Greek terms are similar to the Aramaic ones, also referring to the synagogue as a ‘holy place’: σύναγωγή appears on the Theodotus inscription (Fig. XI-5, see the discussion above). The Gerasa Greek inscription on the mosaic floor in the vestibule mentions first ‘the most holy place’ (the building), and then blesses the ‘synagogue’ (Fig. XI-12), which in this case indicates the assembly or the congregation (Roth-Gerson 1987:46–48, 160–161, no. 10). άγίος τόπος (agios topos) ‘the holy place’, similar to the Aramaic ‫אתרה קדישה‬, appears at Hammath Tiberias on Greek inscription no. 3 in the mosaic of the easternmost aisle (Fig. I-2) (Dothan 1983:61, Pl. 21:3, 35:4; Roth-Gerson 1987:no. 17).

Figure I-2. Hammath Tiberias Greek inscription.



the synagogue

13

The expression occurs also on two Greek dedicatory inscriptions not found in a synagogue building: a dedicatory inscription carved on a chancel screen from Ashqelon, dated to 604/5 CE and referring to six donors who presented a donation to the ‘holy place’. Another is carved on a marble board from the area of Gaza (Roth-Gerson 1987:nos. 3, 23). άγιώτατος τόπος (agiotatos topos), ‘the most holy place’ appears within a medallion in the inhabited scrolls of the Gaza synagogue mosaic, referring to the mosaic which was donated by two patrons (Fig. XIV-1; Roth-Gerson 1987:no. 21). The same term appears in the mosaic inscription on the floor in the vestibule at Gerasa (Fig. XI-11) in a border of the panel showing Noah’s ark; the inscription flanks a menorah and ritual objects which would be seen by anyone leaving the synagogue (Fig. VIII-8b, c; Roth-Gerson 1987:no. 10; Piccirillo 1992:290). A different institution, the ‫( בית מדרש‬Beth midrash), an academy or school, is referred to in a Hebrew inscription carved on a basalt lintel found at Dabura (in the Golan), which states that ‫‘ זה בית מדרשו של הרבי אליעזר הקפר‬this is the academy/school of Rabbi Eliezer ha-Qappar’ (Fig. XIV-4). The lintel is decorated by a pair of eagles each holding a snake in its beak, which form a wreath; the inscription is engraved within this wreath and flanks it (Urman 1972:16–23; 1981:155–6; Naveh 1978:no. 6). Eliezer ha-Qappar was a sage who lived at the end of the 2nd or early 3rd centuries and is mentioned in Talmudic sources. Possibly the inscription indicated the entrance to a school that might have existed at Dabura at that time., or it might have been a later building that referred to the sage of the earlier period. The Beth midrash was either an independent institution or it was connected to, or part of, the synagogue. At Meroth, a Beth midrash was found (Ilan 1989:31–36), in the form of a large side room on the western half of the courtyard, in Stage III in the first half of the 7th c. CE. 3. The Emergence of the Synagogue Several theories are posited for the first appearance of the synagogue (Hachlili 1997; 1998:15–22; see also Chapter II, Second Temple Period Synagogues): (a) In the Land of Israel during the First Temple Period: Some scholars maintain that the institution of the synagogue was created by the Deuteronomic Reformation of King Josiah in 621 BCE in Judea (Gutmann 1975:73; n. 7, 8; 1981:1–3, citing the scholars who advocate this theory). They suggest that the bamoth, places for the sacrificial cult, were transformed into meeting places for public worship, with prayer and songs but without the sacrifice. Rural congregations needed these meeting places because of the difficulty of undertaking long pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Furthermore, they cite Psalms 74:8 and Jeremiah 39:8, mentioning the destruction of moʾadei-el and beth ha-am in an attempt to read these words as indicating a meeting place, that is, a synagogue. However, bamoth continued to be used as sacrificial sites after the death of Josiah, hardly lending credence to this theory. S. Safrai (1976b:912–913, 918) sees the synagogue as developing from the public Torah reading assemblies at the time of Ezra in the fifth century BCE. (b) The biblical city gate with its adjoining exterior and interior open spaces: Levine (2000:26–31; 2004:28) proposes this structure as the antecedent, forerunner, or point of origin of the synagogue. Almost the same communal and religious activities were performed in these sites: public gatherings, judiciary and court activity, prophetic activity, a place where the kings sat to hear the peoples’ complaints, a market place, communal meals. In some ancient Near East cities, religious practice consisted of the worship of gods at the city gate. Levine further claims that

14

chapter one

the transition from the city gate to the synagogue building occurred in the Hellenistic period, when the city gate underwent a change and became strictly functional. The need for a new setting for the abovementioned activities eventually created the synagogue; the lack of data makes it difficult to indicate a precise date for this transition or to trace the process. Binder (2003:123, and n. 12) agrees with Levine’s theories on the synagogue’s city gate origins and contends that “local public assemblies moved from city gates to open city squares and finally into specialized synagogue buildings”. Claussen (2003:148–150) maintains that the city gate is the forerunner of the synagogue for communal functions “while more religious and educational functions had their original place within the family”. (c) The Babylonian Exile: This event, which followed the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE, is considered by some to be the cause for the development of local houses of worship (Moore 1927:283; Zeitlin 1975:18; Gutmann 1975:72). The exiled Jews in Babylon gathered together for communal worship and instruction. On their return to the Land of Israel (in the late 6th c. BCE) they brought with them their synagogue concept. Kraeling (1979:33) also thinks that Babylon was the “pioneer and contributor” to the development of the synagogue. The later Babylonian synagogues of the Talmudic period (fourth to sixth centuries CE) are considered traditionally to be linked to the beginning of the Babylonian Diaspora (Oppenheimer 1987:147; Gafni 1987). However, no archeological remains of such places have been found in Babylon. Possibly, the meeting places in Babylon were for community purposes only, the congregation maintaining them in memory of the Temple worship and to encourage the hope of rebuilding the Temple. (d) Egypt: The Jewish Diaspora in Egypt probably dates from the sixth century BCE. As already mentioned, some scholars assume that the synagogue structure has its roots in Egypt in the third century BCE and that it was established by Diaspora Jews, maintaining that likely, the synagogue first developed in Ptolemaic Egypt, even though the Jewish earliest buildings are temples (Hengel 1971:157–184; Griffiths 1987:2–6; Kasher 1987:127ff; Grabbe 1988:401–410; Flesher 1995:28–29, 39; Claussen 2003:146–150). This assumption is based on dedicatory inscriptions found at various sites that use the term proseuche. According to Josephus the structure and altar of a temple built in Leontopolis (Tell el-Yehudiyeh) by the priest Onias IV in about 160 BCE were copies of those of the Jerusalem Temple (Ant. 12:388; 13:64–72; 20:236; War 1:33; 7:431–432). A temple of Yahweh was erected by the Jewish colony in Elephantine at the end of the first millennium BCE (Schürer et al. 1986:145–6; Griffiths 1987:2; Kasher 1987:120–122). Both temples were used for sacrifices, in contrast to the synagogue, where sacrifices were not offered. Kasher (1987: VII), discussing the synagogues in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, contends that they were originally assembly places for prayer and played a central role in the religious life of the Egyptian Jewish community. He further suggests that these prayer houses should be defined as synagogues because of the various buildings added to them. Griffiths (1987:14–15) concludes “that the earliest synagogues arose in Ptolemaic Egypt, and that in two respects—the pylon and the basilica—their architecture was sometimes influenced by the tradition of their environment. Their main purpose—combining worship and instruction—may well have reflected a double emphasis found in Egyptian religious institutions, especially in the Per Ankh.” Levine (2004:87–89) maintains that the synagogue may have originated in Egypt but no compelling evidence has been found. (e) The Jerusalem Temple: On the basis of rabbinical tradition, S. Safrai (1976:912–913, 918; 1977:46– 47) assert that the synagogue originates in the Torah reading and prayer assemblies conducted in the Temple courts on Sabbaths and festivals following the return of the exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah (fifth c. BCE). These assemblies were later institutionalized and led to the creation of the synagogue (in the first century CE). The synagogue



the synagogue

15

later developed into a place where the local community met daily for Torah reading and prayer. This theory has been refuted by Hoenig (1975:69–70) who concludes that “. . . to assert that there were regular ‘religious meetings’ in the Temple court is also incorrect. The populace gathered there on the festivals, but mostly as observers of the Temple ritual—not as participants in a synagogue service”. Runesson (2003:65–69, 84) maintains that in the 5th century BCE the post-exilic priestly leadership imposed Torah reading on the returning exiles, and this later influenced the activities of the 1st century synagogues. Binder (1999:222–226; 2003:119) promotes the theory that the Second Temple courts and precincts influenced the development of the early synagogues and argues that the earliest synagogue resembled the temple courts (see also Millar 1998:64, n. 67, Levine 2003b:182–185). (f) Judea, Second Temple period: Several scholars date the origin of the synagogue to the second century BCE on the basis of epigraphic and archaeological evidence (Hengel 1974, I:82, Zeitlin 1975:21–26; followed by Gutmann 1975:75; 1981:3–4). This thesis maintains that the emergence of the synagogue should be linked to the Hasmonean revolt in second century BCE Judaea and to the rise of the Pharisees, who developed this unique institution as a secular meeting house for dealing with socio-economic issues of the local communities, and for reading and interpreting the Torah to the assembly, where prayers and ceremonies were practiced by individual Jews. Other scholars refute this thesis: Neusner (1982:75–83), in his analysis of the literary and archaeological evidence, maintains that there is no evidence that first century Pharisaism encouraged the building of stylized architectural or institutional organizations for group worship. Grabbe (1988:408–410) contends that literary and archaeological evidence show that the synagogue in Palestine was a post-Maccabean phenomenon and that there is nothing Pharisaic about it. Flesher (1995) maintains that only Galilean synagogues are attested in archaeology and in literary sources. There is no evidence of this phenomenon in Judea or Jerusalem because of competition with the Temple, thus the synagogues in Jerusalem were only for Diaspora communities. Two positions are noted by McKay (1998:104–106) in synagogue research: a traditional or ‘optimistic’/‘maximalist’, claim “that the synagogue as an institution with dedicated buildings existed and was well known in the 1st c.”; no apparent evidence for such an assertion is maintained by the opposing ‘skeptical’/‘minimalist’ position which claims “that the synagogue did not reach a form of more or less recognizable consistency with that of the present day until the third and fourth centuries CE”. Olsson (2003a:29–30) contends that both McKay’s definitions and Kee’s (1990) assumption that the early synagogue was only an informal gathering place, and that no building for religious gathering is found before the third and fourth centuries CE “seem to depend too much on concepts from our time”. Claussen (2003:150, 161), on the basis of early epigraphic evidence from Ptolemaic Egypt, holds that the synagogue’s origin and development was multifaceted: “1) for the more communal functions—the ancient city-gate was the forerunner, 2) religious and educational functions had their original place within the family”. He further claims that “early Diaspora synagogues were little institutionalized social entities, often, if not mostly, meeting in the context of private homes and large families”. McKay (1998:112–113) points out imperative questions concerning the leadership: “Was a synagogue a group of elders, or a committee meeting of Jewish males, or a meeting for study?” On the matter of activities and functions of the synagogue: “Were psalms sung or prayers said, and if by whom and how often? Was the primary function of the meeting civic, educational or religious?” On the community assembly: “Did the group meet in a room in someone’s house, or in the open air, or in a special building?”

16

chapter one

The evidence of structures dating from the first century BCE to the first century CE at remote sites in the Land of Israel and in the Diaspora, taken together with the terms proseuche, synagogue and beth knesset, indicates that the communal structures we call synagogues served as multipurpose places of assembly (see also Levine 2003a, b). Certainly it is conceivable that the pre-70 CE structures had didactic functions as well as being centres for assembly and for the community, but they were not places of cult or worship. As long as the Temple existed in Jerusalem, the Jews were careful to avoid any competition with it (the full description and discussion of the Second Temple structures is in Chapter II). It appears that the origins of the synagogue as an institution are to be found also in the assembly halls of the Second Temple period. Following the destruction of the Temple, they were adapted to function as places of local worship in addition to their previous function of community center, becoming symbols of the uniqueness of the Jewish community. Scholars’ arguments and the evidence reveal that no one type of institution was promoted; on the contrary, the communities in each place developed noticeably at some particular time, establishing their own distinctive structures, which fulfilled their needs and served assorted functions through gatherings in public courtyards or city-gates and meetings in houses (in Delos) or in public assembly structures. Moreover, these needs, together with tradition and the influence of neighboring cultures, affected the architecture. Late Antiquity synagogues operated as a combination of congregational assembly hall and, more importantly, a place for reading the Torah, for obligatory prayer and for instituting and teaching religious law, the halacha. The congregation inside the hall prayed facing the Torah shrine, and, therefore, facing Jerusalem and the Temple. Thus, the distinctive feature of the later synagogue—the Torah shrine built on the Jerusalem-oriented wall—emerged, determining the synagogue orientation and symbolizing the sanctity of the place, which acted as a reminder of the Temple. The synagogue building began functioning as an assembly hall for the local congregation, in addition to serving as a spiritual, religious, and social centre for the community. 3.1 Synagogue Activities The functions and activities—religious, public, local and communal—fulfilled by the synagogue are discussed by many scholars (S. Safrai 1976:922–927; Z. Safrai 1995; Levine 2000:19–41, 124–159; 2004:27–30; Binder 2011): (a) Reading the Torah (the Scriptures): This was the primary purpose for the synagogue congregants, who participated both in reading and in attending to other readers. Schwartz (2001:241) maintains that according to the Mishna, the Torah was read in the synagogue (M. Berakhot 4:4; Megilla 3) which suggests “the synagogue sanctity was derived entirely from the Torah scroll.” He supposes that “by the 3rd century the Torah scroll was deemed a regular feature of the synagogue. Certainly in the 4th and 5th centuries the image of the Torah shrine was a fixed component of the synagogue iconography.” In the 4th to 6th centuries, as the synagogue itself was reaching maximal diffusion in the Palestinian countryside (and the Diaspora), the Ark of the Scrolls was given an increasingly central place in the structure of the synagogue. (b) Study: The synagogue was the main locus of Torah study on all levels. There local sages conducted the reading, study and interpretation of the Scriptures. Often, scholars would be employed by the synagogue elders. Education of school children is reflected in rabbinic literature. Most of the time was devoted to Torah study, in both synagogue and beth midrash (Z. Safrai 1995:182–187; Levine 2000:374–380).



the synagogue

17

(c) Prayer: In the Second Temple period, prayer took the form of blessing the congregation. Regular prayer services were held on the Sabbaths and the feast days. Daily prayers involving a large number of worshippers were established only after the destruction of the Second Temple (S. Safrai 1976:922–927; Levine 2000:19–41, 124–159; 2004:27–30; Binder 2003:120–21 contends that the synagogue was a place of prayer, unlike McKay 1991, 1994). Prayer became more important from Yavneh on (2nd c. CE) (Z. Safrai 1995:182). (d) Assembly hall and town hall for the local Jewish congregation: As such, the synagogue served as a centre for community fund-raising, charitable collections, congregational affairs, and as a type of court of public interests (S. Safrai 1976:942). Levine (2000:19–41, 124–159; 2004:27–30) contends that “the synagogue of this period was primarily a communal institution serving the many and varied needs—including the religious ones—of the local community”. These services included: social and political gatherings, religious instruction, Torah reading and prayer, collecting monies for the Temple and for local needs, communal meals, a hostel, as well as a local archive. Hostels are mentioned in rabbinic literature (Z. Safrai 1995:190–191). (e) Adjoining institutions: These included schools and annexes with hostels, guest houses, and residences for synagogue officials. Sometimes ritual baths (miqvaoth) or water sources were built close by (see cistern or miqweh—at Barʿam, Beth Sheʿarim, Eshtemoʿa, Horvat Shemʿa, MaʿonNirim, Maʿon-Judea, Meiron, Naʿaran, Susiya). At the New Moon or the end of the Sabbath, the synagogue or an adjacent room served as a dining room. (f) Other civic activities and functions conducted in the synagogue: These included the courts and political assemblies, possibly treasuries, and the preservation of documents in a geniza. The court operated in the synagogue, originally as a local court and later, from the Amoraic period, as a rabbinic court (Z. Safrai 1995:187–190). Levine (2000:370–372) maintains that the synagogue was used as a communal court and a place for administrating punishment and the manumission of slaves (see the Crimea inscriptions). The synagogue was also the usual location for the town officials. “The synagogue served as the office for the community administration” (Z. Safrai 1995:194–198). (g) Charity: Acts of charity were carried out in the synagogue (Z. Safrai 1995:191–194; Levine 2000:372– 374). Perhaps the large caches of coins found at Hamath Tiberias, Beth Alpha, Meroth, ʿEn Gedi, Hammath Tiberias, and Maʿon (see Chapter XII) were used as communal funds for charity; at Arbel a communal charity box was found, consisting of a carved stone cupboard with a small door towards the north, on the east side of the north wall, placed outside the building so that individuals could donate (Ilan 1991:117). (h) Institutional functions: As proved by evidence from rabbinic literature and archaeological data, included: meeting place, library, manumission, meals, mourning, healing and magical powers, debts and vows, residence (Levine 2000:366–386). The synagogue’s distinctiveness (in comparison to temple and church) is in its concentration of many varied communal activities, and especially in its court and school activities, which are rare in other institutions. 3.2 Administration of the Synagogue Synagogues generally belonged to a local community and were governed by three representatives: (1) the archisynagogus (Rosh ha-knesset)—the president; (2) the receiver of alms, who was a civic official; and (3) the minister (hazzan). The archisynagogus managed religious and financial affairs and the hazzan was the executive officer in charge of the practical details of running the synagogue. He was the master of ceremonies and a paid employee (S. Safrai 1976:933–937; Schürer, Vermes and Millar 1979, II:427–439; Levine 2000:387–428; Binder 2011).

18

chapter one

Fine (2005:206, 212) concludes that “Jews in antiquity understood synagogue sanctity within two specific categories: the sanctity of the Torah scrolls that were publicly read and were stored in synagogues, and the use of Temple imagery to provide metaphors for sanctity . . . Synagogues are considered ‘holy places’ . . . and from the Second Temple Period the cult object of the synagogue was the ‘Sacred Scripture’.” Fine further argues that “the ‘glue’ connecting all of the imagery was the liturgy that was enacted within the ancient synagogue.” Construction of a synagogue would be decided upon by the heads of the community and would be financed by private and public donations. This is known from the numerous dedicatory synagogal inscriptions found in excavations. The donors who paid for the erection, repair, and rebuilding of synagogues were usually Jews. Inscriptions generally mention the name of the donor and his donation, which was usually in the form of money. Most of the inscriptions are in Aramaic; thus, AviYonah deduces (1961b:32) that the donors did not belong to the Hellenized classes. The officials directly associated with the synagogue had a variety of titles: archisynagogus, archon presbyter (elder), hazzan, and teacher (Levine 2000:386–426, discusses these in detail; Binder 2011). There was no fixed classification for synagogue leadership or spiritual authority; the local communities decided on the location of the synagogues and the types of their leadership, as well as on the nature of activities and practiced functions. For the building of the synagogue and its economy, the community was dependent on its own funds together with contributions by local donors. 3.3 Community Officials Cited on Dedication Inscriptions Inscriptions cite some of the titles of synagogue leaders and officials, indicating the existence of public or community offices. In most cases, though, they represent only the epithet mark or title name, but provide no real information on the selection, activities, and tasks of these officials, who were probably the founders of the synagogue, or else donors holding respected positions there. These commemorative inscriptions honoured the important and worthy position of those community officials who were wealthy enough to donate some part of the synagogue (see Chapter XI). 3.3.1 Aramaic or Hebrew Titles • ‫( רבי‬rabbi), sage, appears on quite a number of dedicatory inscriptions: An Aramaic dedication inscription within a frame under the right lion on the Hammath Gader synagogue mosaic pavement lists a rabbi among the donors. A mosaic fragment of an Aramaic inscription from Sepphoris mentions a rabbi who donated a dinar to the synagogue. The daughter of a rabbi is mentioned on the Aramaic dedicatory inscription of the mosaic pavement in the hall of the Naʿaran synagogue. The rabbis of the community are referred to on an Aramaic dedication mosaic inscription at the entrance to the Jericho synagogue. In the ʿEn Gedi narthex inscription, the second-last line refers to a rabbi (Fig. XI-4). In the south corridor of the Susiya synagogue a Hebrew inscription cites a rabbi and his rabbi son, both also priests, who dedicated the mosaic pavement and the plastered walls. On the basalt lintel from Dabura (discussed above) the Beth midrash of a rabbi is cited (Fig. XIV-4; Naveh 1978:nos. 6, 29, 33, 60, 69, 70, 75). • ‫( כהן‬cohen), priest, appears on various inscriptions, most of them set in mosaic pavements: A Hebrew inscription in the south corridor of the Susiya synagogue cites a father and son who are both priests and rabbis. On the mosaic pavement of the Eshtemoʿa synagogue, an Aramaic inscription refers to a cohen. An Aramaic inscription on the Naʿaran synagogue mosaic pavement in front of the hall, above the menorah, refers to a cohen who donated the mosaic. Two Aramaic inscriptions



the synagogue

19

painted on two ceiling tiles at Dura Europos mention Samuel the priest and archon who was in charge of building the synagogue (Naveh 1978:nos. 58, 74, 75, 88, 89). On the aisle mosaic at Sepphoris, Aramaic inscription 3 mentions ‘Yudan son of Isaac the cohen’ (Weiss 2005:203–4, Fig. 8). The same title, ό ίερεύς, ‘priest’, appears on the Greek inscription of Theodotus (Roth-Gerson 1987:177–78, no. 19, see above). • ‫( מנחמה‬menahema), appears on an Aramaic inscription set into a mosaic panel at Susiya. Naveh (1978:118–119, no. 77) interprets it as possibly a legal representative, probably a lawyer or a defense counsel; on the same inscription the term ‫( תשהדה‬which Naveh interprets as witness or notary) also appears. • ‫( קומס‬ό κόμης, comes(, the title of a state official, appears on an Aramaic dedicatory inscription placed within the wreath on the upper panel of the Hammath Gader synagogue mosaic pavement and on a Greek dedicatory inscription engraved on a stone lintel from Sepphoris (Naveh 1978: no. 32; Roth-Gerson 1987:173, no. 24). • ‫( חזן‬hazzan), an important synagogue functionary mentioned above, appears on an Aramaic inscription engraved on a stone from H. ʿAmmudim; it also occurs on an Aramaic inscription carved on a basalt column from Fiq and on an unpublished Aramaic inscription from ʿEn Gedi (Naveh 1978:nos. 20, 28; Barag et al. 1981:118). • ‫( פרנס‬ό προνούμενος, ό προνοητής, parnas), a community leader or royal official, occurs in an Aramaic inscription on the Naʿaran synagogue mosaic pavement next to the left lion (Naveh 1978:no. 63), and on two Greek inscriptions in the mosaic pavement of the Hammath Tiberias synagogue (Dothan 1983:59–60, nos. 1, 2; Roth-Gerson 1987:168–169, nos. 16, 18). 3.3.2 Greek Titles • άρχισυνάγωος (Archisynagogos), one of the most important titles, and almost exclusively Jewish, meaning ‘head of the synagogue’, appears in several donors’ inscriptions (Lifshitz 1967:nos. 79, 66, 74; Roth-Gerson 1987:171–72, nos. 19, 24, 27; Hachlili 1998:400). Scholars suggest that this title was synonymous with the Hebrew title ‫( ראש הכנסת‬rosh ha-knesset). Rajak and Noy (1993:88–89) argue that he was a civic patron with a title and high standing in the community. The title is used in inscriptions found in the Land of Israel: in Jerusalem on the Theodotus inscription stone plaque (see above); ‘the Berylos inscription’ on a mosaic pavement at Caesarea (Avi-Yonah 1960:47); an inscription on a stone lintel found near Sepphoris that refers to two archisynagogoi, one of Sidon and one of Tyre (Huttmeister 1977:403–407; Roth-Gerson 1987:no. 24; Weiss 2005:3), and on two inscriptions on marble slabs which might have belonged to the synagogue at Beth Sheʿarim (Roth-Gerson 1987:134, 137, 143, nos. II, VI). The archisynagogos was very influential in the Jewish community. The title was sometimes inherited, being passed on from father to son, probably in important priestly families, and perhaps for life (see the Jerusalem Theodotos inscription, above and Chapter XI). The task of the archisynagogos was to arrange the worship in the synagogue, to supervise the study and reading of the Torah, to preach, and to perform other general tasks. He could also have other functions, such as priest, a title cited in the Jerusalem Theodotus inscription, while in the Caesarea inscription, Berilos is referred to as frontistes, ‘an inspector’ (Roth-Gerson 1987:174, no. 27). The archisynagogos could also be in charge of a specific community based on geographical origin (see the Sepphoris lintel inscription), a shared profession, or a specific neighborhood of a town. Some archisynagogoi donated entire synagogue buildings or parts of them, as well as architectural decorations etc.

20

chapter one

Inscriptions mentioning archisynagogoi on epitaphs are found at several sites in the Roman Empire, for example, at Aegina, Apamea, Ostia, and Hammam-Lif. Thirty-two inscriptions mentioning 40 archisynagogoi are dated to the first to sixth centuries CE (Rajak and Noy 1993:85, appendix 1; Frey 1952:nos. 548, 553, 584, 587, 596, 638, 741, 759, 756; Lifshitz 1967:nos. 1, 16, 29, 33, 37, 85; Leon 1960:171–173, nos. 265, 282, 336, 383, 504; Roth-Gerson 1987:171–172). (For more on the archisynagogos, see also Schürer, Vermes, Millar, Black 1979, II:434–435; M. Stern 1983:169–171.) • ό λαμπρότατοι πατρίαρχαι ‘the illustrious patriarchs’ (presidents) is a title that appears on Hammath Tiberias synagogue mosaic inscriptions 1 and 2. The patriarchs who held office in the synagogue during the 4th century were: Judah III (290–320 CE), Hillel (320–370 CE), Gamaliel V (370–385 CE), and Judah IV (385–400 CE) (Dothan 1983:57–59, Inscriptions nos. 1, 2; Roth-Gerson 1987:169– 170, nos. 16, 18). • ό πρεσβύτερος, ‘the elders’, appears on the Theodotus inscription from Jerusalem. The elder was probably a member of a specific community council (Roth-Gerson 1987:172–173, no. 19, see above). • ό φροντιστής, ‘the administrator’, occurs on an Caesarea mosaic inscription; this epithet was used by Jews and also by others (Avi-Yonah 1960:47; Roth-Gerson 1987:174, no. 27). • ό μιζότερος, ‘commissioner/warden’, appears on the Hammath Tiberias synagogue mosaic inscription. This epithet might have indicated a position in the Jewish community or a high standing in some economic activity, such as director of assets (Roth-Gerson 1987:169, nos. 17; for a similar epithet on a tomb inscription at Beth Sheʿarim, see Schwabe and Lifshitz:no. 200). • Πρωτ]εύον ‘principales’(?), is possibly mentioned in Greek dedicatory inscription 12 at the Sepphoris synagogue. This was an executive committee chosen from members of the city council, who were responsible for the city administration (Di Segni 2005:215). 4. Conclusions The synagogue was a revolutionary Jewish institution and played a central role in the life of Jewish communities in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora. Evidence for the origin of the synagogue comes from literary, epigraphic, and archaeological sources (Hachlili 1998:24). These sources, however, are not homogeneous in either date or location, and it is lamentable that many scholars combine inscriptions, sources such as Josephus, the New Testament, and late rabbinical literature, as well as the archaeological evidence, into one monolithic model from which they draw their conclusions (see also the criticism by Hoenig 1979:451–452; Grabbe 1988:401–2 and n. 2; Kee 1990:3–4). The terms proseuche, synagogue, and beth knesset were used both before and after the destruction of the Temple; it is not possible to differentiate between them chronologically, geographically or architecturally. The meaning of these terms and their religious significance evolved from the earliest inscriptions of the third century BCE in Philo’s and Josephus’ days, to the Delos inscriptions, and thence to the later inscriptions found on fourth–seventh century CE synagogue architectural items and mosaic pavements. Moreover, it is likely that one term refers to completely different institutions of the same period. Following the destruction of the Temple, the sages of Yavneh established the ‘act’ (mizwa) of compulsory prayer, a new institution in Jewish life, serving social and educational purposes (Cohen 1984:165; Fleisher 1991:28 and n. 9; on the sanctity of the synagogue see Fine 1993). This imposition of prayer on the Jewish community as law was one of the most important acts in the history of the nation. It not only healed the theological calamity, it also strengthened the dispersed survivors into a unique national and religious unit (Fleisher 1991:34–35).



the synagogue

21

Scholars portray the synagogue in various ways: Levine (2004:30) holds that “in Late Antiquity the synagogue’s religious framework grew noticeably; it continued to operate as an association fulfilling the needs of the local community as it had from its inception. The diverse expressions of this new institution was the outcome of the lack of any higher authority that governed its functions and rules, its administration, the building and decoration designs, and the decisions regarding activities or worship and liturgy.” The synagogue did not develop from one origin; rather, it evolved and progressed in time and place according to the needs of particular congregations.

22

chapter one

Map of synagogues’ sites.

CHAPTER two

SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD SYNAGOGUES Archaeological evidence for the existence of synagogues in the Second Temple period is inconclusive. The public structures discovered at the fortresses of Masada, Herodium, and Gamla were remodeled as local assembly halls during the years of the revolt against Rome, when it was extremely difficult for the congregation to travel to Jerusalem to participate in the Temple worship. Other remains are the basalt structure at Capernaum, which is in debate, and another synagogue, now lost, reported at Korazim. The recently uncovered public structures at Hasmonean Jericho and in several Jewish villages—Horvat ʿEthri, Migdal I, Modiʿin, and Qiryat Sefer, are also deemed to be synagogues of this period. However, remains of such structures in this period are rare. They may have been covered or destroyed by later structures. Moreover, they lacked distinctive architectural features and symbols, making classification difficult. These structures, built while the Second Temple stood in Jerusalem, are considered by scholars to be synagogues on the basis of circumstantial evidence. They share some similarities in their architectural plan and therefore, in function, even though no actual proof has been uncovered (Hachlili 1988: 84–86; 1997:40–43). The structures might have had a focal point in the center of the hall; however, they lack the most important feature of the later synagogue: the Torah shrine. This chapter explains the suggested identification of these Second Temple period structures as synagogues (see also Levine 2003b:190–2): how they are identified as such; what purposes or tasks they fulfilled; the structure types; were they community, social, or worship centers? What was the role of religious rites and their expression in the function of the structure? The following discussion, relating to the archaeological, epigraphic, and literary evidence, will try to provide some answers to these issues. 1. Description of the Second Temple Structures 1.1 Capernaum The structure at Capernaum, found under the later white synagogue, consists of several basalt walls abutted by a cobbled basalt pavement. The walls run under the south wall and the east and west stylobates of the prayer hall of the later construction, and were reused as foundations for the limestone walls of the latter. Benches are assumed to have lined the aisles. No entrance has been discovered (Corbo 1982; Loffreda 1982; Strange and Shanks 1983). The excavations date this early synagogue (I) to the first century CE, based on the pottery found under and in the cobbled basalt pavement. Thus, the excavations prove that the synagogue (II) of the fourth-fifth centuries CE at Capernaum was erected above an earlier first-century basalt synagogue, somewhat similar in plan to both the later Capernaum synagogue and the other Second Temple period synagogues. Corbo (1982:Photos 1, 2, 5, 8, 10) maintains that the basalt wall belonged to the first-century synagogue, whereas Loffreda ascribes it to a level between the first-century pavement and the Late Roman synagogue (Loffreda 1992:826). While Corbo believes that all the basalt remains were part of a single structure, Loffreda (1993:49; 1997:239) proposes a two-phase development for the earlier synagogue, including a renovation sometime between the 2nd and 4th centuries, before it was replaced by the limestone edifice in the 5th century CE.

24

chapter two

a

b

e

c

d

f

Figure II-1. Second Temple period synagogue plans: a. Jericho; b. Masada; c. Herodium; d. Qiryat Sefer; e. Gamla; f. Modiʿin.



second temple period synagogues

25

Figure II-2. Capernaum I, plan (after Loffreda 1985:44, Fig. 43).

Bloedhorn (1989:52) suggests a possible connection between some of the Capernaum capitals and the basalt foundations, but there is no evidence for this. Loffreda (1997: 239) summarizes the Capernaum basalt synagogue findings as follows: “(1) The basalt wall is later than the first-century stone pavement found in the central nave of the prayer room. At the same time it is not simply a foundation of the white synagogue. (2) The basalt wall is built above the floors of a series of structures which remained in use until the 4th century CE, judging from the ceramics and some coins. Therefore even assigning a 3rd century date to it creates problems. (3) The basalt wall was probably built in view of a synagogue which was never completed, maybe because of the earthquake of 363 or some other earthquake in the 4th century . . . a few coins of the 4th century, which we attributed during the excavation to level A of the occupation, penetrated into this context from the fill. (4) If it is in vain to look for the pavement of this intermediate synagogue at the level of the foundation of the basalt wall (as Corbo suggests), it is just as vain to look for it at the preserved summit of that wall because

26

chapter two

apparently no such pavement ever existed. If it had existed at that height, we would have found some trace, and above all we would not have so easily found late Roman coins in the whole depth of the podium of the white synagogue.” Runesson (2007:237–39, 251–257, Table 1) maintains that the basalt stone synagogue—consisting of outer walls and pavement—is the first public building constructed in Capernaum dating to the 1st century CE. He proposes three main suggestions for the function of the basalt remains: (1) The basalt remains belong to a 1st century CE synagogue (as proposed by Corbo 1982, Loffreda above, Avi-Yonah 1973:43); (2) They were the foundations for an earlier limestone synagogue destroyed by an earthquake, whose materials were re-used for the construction of the later limestone synagogue (as Bloedhorn 1989 maintains), which means there was a synagogue at Capernaum until the 3rd century CE; (3) The remains were constructed as a foundation for the limestone synagogue (as Foerster and Magness contend), which means there was no previous synagogue and the basalt remains are dated to the 5th century CE. Runesson argues that the size of the basalt pavement indicates a public building (also Binder 1999:189–90), possibly a 1st century CE basalt synagogue (I) found beneath the later limestone synagogue nave. This basalt synagogue was renovated and expanded between the 2nd and 4th centuries and that the basalt wall belongs to this stage. He claims (2007:251, Table 1) that the Capernaum basalt synagogue, which probably was considered “a symbol of Jewish political and religious control,” was destroyed by the 5th century CE, in the clash between non-Jews and Jews when the town administration was transferred to the Byzantine Christians. Runesson (2007:255) contends further that Capernaum Synagogue I was a public edifice utilized for local legal, administrative, and religious meetings, and that it was the synagogue attended by Jesus; he asserts that Room 1 in insula 1 served Jesus and his movement and was the house of Peter and Andrew. This structure is possibly a Second Temple period synagogue and, if so, the only early synagogue found buried under a later one. 1.2 H. Et-Tuwani H. et-Tuwani is a site in the south Hebron mountain area. Among the remnants found is a structure in the southwest (Har-Even 2012:17–19, Figs. 4, 5). The structure consists of a rectangular hall, 8 m wide, of which only the west side survived. Stepped benches are hewn in the rock along the north, west, and south walls; only some parts survived. The building apparently served as a synagogue, based on its similarity to other structures identified as synagogues, although no columns were found in the et-Tuwani building. The structure is dated from the 1st c. BCE until the 2nd c. CE, after the Bar Kokhba revolt or even later. 1.3 Gamla An assembly building complex discovered at Gamla, on the upper terrace and adjacent to the eastern city wall, is dated to the 1st century BCE—1st century CE (Gutman 1981; Syon and Yavor 2001; see also Strange 1999:35–39 for analysis; Netzer 2004:10–13; Yavor 2010:41–61). The structure is constructed of basalt stones (outer measurements 21.5 × 17.5 m, inner 19.7 × 15.3 m, the hall—13.4 × 9.3 m) with two (or possibly three) entrances: the main one on the western wall leading to the hall (the threshold has survived), the other on the same wall to the north leading to the northeast corner leading to the aisle; the possible third entrance is on the eastern corner of the southern wall (Figs. II-1e; II-3). Four colonnades (16 columns) with four double columns in the corners (two still in situ) divide the hall; the columns are capped by Doric capitals but have no bases. The colonnades are surrounded by rows of steps and an upper landing. The excavators propose that a row of columns existed in the center of the hall and that three pairs of Ionic columns were set between the Doric columns of the west and east rows. Netzer [2004:10–12] disagrees, arguing that no central row of columns should



second temple period synagogues

27

be reconstructed and that the Ionic capitals might have fallen from rooms on the upper level in the west. Five rows of stone benches along the walls surround the columns in the main hall on all four sides. Close to the benches is a basalt stone pavement about one meter wide; the hall area was divided into two uneven parts by a band of stone pavement; the central hall was unpaved and mats were probably placed on the compressed soil (Netzer maintains that the hall was completely paved with basalt stones). A small raised niche (1.3 × 1.2 m) in the north-west corner has been suggested, though without any proof, as a place for an ark in which scrolls may have been kept.1 A small basin found in the eastern aisle was fed by a channel and may have been used for washing hands. A similar basin was found in the Hasmonean period synagogue at Jericho. A miqveh was discovered south of the synagogue. Netzer also disagrees with the excavators’ reconstruction of a gabled roof and suggests a flat roof on wooden beams, and that the center of the hall ceiling was higher and

Figure II-3. Gamla synagogue.

1 An unlikely proposal by Strange (2001:111) places the ark “on the additional platform on the narrow end opposite the main entrance and in front of the fifth bench on that wall.”

28

chapter two

clerestory windows were set in the walls of the main hall (a clerestory is also proposed by Strange 2001:104, Figs. 3–4). On the east a small room with benches was discovered, possibly a study room. Probes conducted under the synagogue floor (Yavor 2010:47) showed a fifth stylobate, carrying two Ionic columns with bases and capitals, dividing the Gamla synagogue hall into two parts (ratio of 2:3). This may have been where the Torah readings were held. The roof was not tiled as no tiles were found, and it was probably constructed of wooden beams. Finds at the synagogue were from the final stage and battle. They included 350 ballista balls, 35 arrowheads, and many nails and pottery items, among them Herodian lamps, broken jars, and cooking pots. The excavators (Yavor 2010:50–51; Fig. 2.43) reconstruct the Gamla synagogue as follows: Doric columns surmounted the four peripheral colonnades, while Ionic capitals were carried by the two columns of the fifth stylobate. The roof is gabled on trusses and a central clerestory. Netzer (2004:10–13, Figs. 4–5) suggested a different reconstruction, with the center of the hall and the upper landing fully paved. The colonnades were placed directly on the paving and not built on stylobates with deep foundations. He also maintains that the strip in the center of the floor is a chance remnant of the dismantled paving. Moreover, the roof of the synagogue was flat, as was the general practice in that period (but see Yavor’s reservations [2010:52] regarding Netzer’s reconstruction). Netzer (2004:20) contends that the 1st century BCE Gamla synagogue was a prototype for the Second Temple synagogue plan. The dating of the Gamla synagogue is difficult: the early phase of the synagogue probably dates to the end of Herod’s rule. The coins found on or below the hall floor are Seleucid (200–125 BCE) and Hasmonean (125–63 BCE); the latest coins are Herodian. It is possible that an even earlier synagogue existed at the site (Syon and Yavor 2001:11). Yavor (2010:60–61) now proposes that the synagogue was a single-phase building, except for the auxiliary rooms which were added slightly later, and that it could not have been constructed earlier than the turn of the era. Therefore, on archaeological grounds it should be dated like other buildings in the Western Quarter to the 1st century CE. He is right in suggesting that the Gamla structure functioned as “a Jewish community center serving religious and secular needs.” 1.4 Herodium A triclinium at Herodium was converted by the zealots into a hall (15 × 10.5 m) divided by four columns, with benches lined along three walls (Foerster 1981:24; Netzer 2004:14–15). Three entrances were found on the east leading into a large courtyard (Figs. II-1c, II-4). The hall was covered either by a ceiling, mainly above the benches, or by a light screen cover. The walls were plastered with stucco; a stepped miqveh was found close to the hall. 1.5 Jericho A complex of structures built on the eastern fringe of the Hasmonean Palace complex, at the end of some houses and adjacent to a water conduit at Jericho is identified as a Hasmonean period synagogue (Figs. II-1a, II-5). The synagogue complex, “built with abode walls on top of fieldstone foundations” has three phases (Netzer 1999; 2004:15–18; 2007; Netzer and Laureys-Chachy 2004:184–192). In Phase 1, the Courtyard House, a rectangle building, about 20 m × 10 m, with several rooms surrounding a courtyard, was erected. Phase 2 contained a rectangular hall (ca. 16.5 × 11.5 m) entered through the courtyard from the east; the hall was divided by 12 pillars supporting the roof, and benches were erected along the northern and western walls; a small niche was found on the northeastern corner of the hall, with a subterranean cell that was probably a genizah for storing scrolls. Phase 2 structures also included a water system, and a bathing suite consisting of a miqveh and two



second temple period synagogues

29

Figure II-4. Herodium synagogue.

plastered rooms connected by a corridor. An attached room that included a U-shaped triclinium, a small, triangular room on the west side, and a kitchen was added in Phase 3. The synagogue was erected between 75–50 BCE by the Hasmonean queen Shlomzion and was probably destroyed by the earthquake of 31 BCE. Herod’s second palace was built on part of it, about five years later. The synagogue served the royal estate and staff as well as the workers of the nearby large agricultural farm, but not the royal family (Netzer 2004:17). Netzer based his identification of the Jericho structure as a synagogue on the similarity to the Gamla synagogue building. He maintains the space could have accommodated 120 people at Jericho and about 430 at Gamla. The identification of the Jericho structure as a synagogue has been contested by some scholars: Maoz (1999) argues that the Jericho structure is not a synagogue but a vegetable or decorative garden adjacent to a building. Levine (2003b:187–88) aptly claims that the comparison of Jericho to Gamla is questionable because of too many differences: the location of the Jericho synagogue is peculiar; the argument that it served the palace staff is not convincing; and no community was found close by.

30

chapter two

1

2

3

Figure II-5. Jericho, three phases of the synagogue: 1—the first phase: the Courtyard House; 2—the second phase: additions of the synagogue hall, ritual bath and adjoining bathroom; 3—the third phase: additions of the triclinium and adjacent kitchen.

The Jericho structure is more reminiscent of Hellenistic-Roman villas and may have been part of one, being used as a garden surrounded by a portico with a triclinium on one side. Netzer (2000), however, refutes these interpretations. 1.6 Korazim A synagogue was identified by J. Ory in 1926, about 200 meters west of the later Korazim synagogue. Ory describes a small building apparently divided by two rows of three columns each, with five stepped benches along three walls and an entrance on the eastern wall. These remains were lost (apparently destroyed?), as they were not located in the later survey carried out in the 1970s (Foerster 1981:26). 1.7 Masada The assembly structure at Masada was converted by the Zealots from an earlier building, during the war against the Romans (66–74 CE). The earlier building, consisting of a hall and an anteroom on the east (Fig. II-6a), was changed into a building with an entrance on the southeastern wall, comprising



second temple period synagogues

31

an entrance room (10.5 × 3.7 m) and a main hall (10.5 × 8.0 m) divided by five columns set on pedestals (Figs. II-1b, 6b, 7). Four tiers of benches were built along the walls. The walls were coated with white plaster and the floor was ash lime plaster (Yadin 1966:181–191; 1981; Foerster 1981:24–29; Netzer 1991:405–413; 2004:14). A small room (1043) (5.7 × 3.5 m) was built into the hall on the northern corner, and in it several fragments of scrolls were discovered. In the intermediate phase between the Herodian and Zealot periods, a layer of animal dung was found. Nevertheless, I consider the room to have been separate from the synagogue, because it has no benches and it was undoubtedly separated by walls from the

a

b

Figure II-6. Masada: a. early building; b. the synagogue.

32

chapter two

Figure II-7. Masada synagogue.

actual synagogue hall. Furthermore, the floor of this room, unlike that of the synagogue hall floor, was of beaten earth. In a later phase of this room, while the synagogue was still in use, two pits were dug in the floor: a circular one containing fragments of the book of Deuteronomy (MasDeut (1043/1–4) [Mas 1c]) and an oval one holding fragments of the book of Ezekiel (MasEzek (1043–2220) [Mas 1 d]) (Yadin 1966:188; Netzer 1991:409–410, ill. 648, plan 35). The pits found beneath this room (1043) apparently contained a genizah, according to Yadin (1966:187). Tov (2003:238), who states that the scrolls were found under the floor of the synagogue and must have been damaged or otherwise “deemed unfit for public reading, rendering their religious storage in a special burial place (genizah) mandatory.” However, the scroll fragments were not under the synagogue floor, but in pits in a separate room. It



second temple period synagogues

33

is unlikely, therefore, that they were part of a genizah. The more probable explanation is that they were thrown into those pits together with the other organic material, pottery sherds and debris found there. Yadin (1981:21) bases his contention that the Masada structure was a synagogue on the finding there of a type of genizah containing scrolls and an ostracon with the inscription ‘priestly tithe’ (cf. Netzer 1981c:51). Netzer (1991:412–3) argues that the original building might have been a stable that the Zealots later converted into a synagogue. Yet it is difficult to accept the notion that a stable would have been converted into a synagogue. 1.8 Migdal I In the north-west part of the Migdal site, a structure identified as a synagogue of the Second Temple period (50 BCE–100 CE) was recently discovered (excavated by Dina Avshalom-Gorni and Arfan Najjar of the IAA in summer 2009; Avshalom-Gorni and Najjar 2009). The structure consists of a complex building with a temenos, an entranceway, which served as a learning room and leads into an almost square hall, with the main entrance on the west. The main hall (the excavators termed it a ‘grand reading hall’) inner structure (about 120 m) has stone benches built along the walls. Two columns are revealed at each end of the west wall. The south and north walls are slightly longer than

Figure II‑8. Migdal synagogue general view.

34

chapter two

the other two (Fig. II-8). The floor was covered by an unfinished mosaic pavement, and the walls and columns were painted with coloured frescos. A square decorated stone was found in the center of the reading hall, on a floor of pebbles and plaster, though it is not clear if the stone was found in situ (Avshalom-Gorni and Najjar 2010:7). The stone is engraved with geometric, plant, and architectural designs on all four sides and on the upper face; it has four small legs and, on the top, remains of horns on its four corners (Fig. II-13, see below). In the first Jewish war against the Romans, Migdal became a Zealot stronghold, and the structure was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. 1.9 Modiʿin—Hurvat Umm el-Umdan A public structure discovered at Modiʿin—Hurvat Umm el-Umdan has been identified as a Second Temple period synagogue (Onn, Weksler-Bdolah and Rapuano 2004; Onn and Weksler-Bdolah 2005). The original Hellenistic structure—the Seleucid hall (stage 1, end of 3rd–early 2nd centuries BCE) was a rectangular building (7.00 × 3.80 m) with an entrance on the western wall and was probably not a synagogue. Above this first structure, a public building with three stages was constructed (Figs. II-1f, II-9). Synagogue I (Stage 2): The earliest synagogue was built above the Hellenistic structure and has been dated to the end of the 2nd—late 1st centuries BCE (the Hasmonean period). The public structure, which contains a trapeze-shaped hall (10.5 × 6.7 m) surrounded by a courtyard, used parts of the earlier structure it was built on. The entrance to the structure was in the center of the east wall. Wide benches (or a basis for them) were attached to three of the walls. The walls were decorated with colored wall paintings. Two fixtures were found in the center of the hall, one a square bimah (1.1 × 1.1 m) and the other a round base? In the courtyard a sort of sitting bath was found. Synagogue II (Stage 3): The Herodian synagogue (11.5–10.5 × 8.6 m) was built above the earlier, destroyed structure in the late 1st century BCE. The main entrance to the structure was in the center of the eastern wall and there was another entrance on the northern wall. The hall was divided by two rows of four columns each, of which the stone bases survived; the columns were added to hold the roof or another storey. Benches surrounded the hall on four sides; the center of the north bench was pronounced (perhaps a special seat). The floor was plastered and the same round fixture was in use in this stage also. The courtyard floor on the east was plastered and a bench was built along three walls, with the sitting bath still in use. In the courtyard west of the synagogue, a two-room miqveh was found. Synagogue III (Stage 4): The synagogue was reconstructed at the end of the 1st or beginning of the 2nd c. CE, perhaps even in the 3rd. The entrance on the northern wall was closed, another entrance was opened at the north part of the eastern wall, and a new plastered floor was set. The plan of the structure in all its stages is characterized by the benches built along the walls, which indicates the importance of the hall’s center with its fixtures and identifies it as a synagogue; it also provides proof for the existence of synagogues in villages as early as the Hasmonean period. 1.10 Qiryat Sefer In the ancient village of Qiryat Sefer (H. Badd ʿIsa), an isolated small square structure was found between two groups of buildings containing residential rooms, storerooms, and an olive press (Magen et al. 1999; 2004:200–206, 217–18, Figs. 30–42). The square public structure (building VI; 9.60 × 9.60 m) has an entrance on the north. The façade was built of ashlar stones characteristic of Herodian building, such as those of the Jerusalem Temple Mount. The façade and main entrance on the northern wall were built of large ashlar stones, supporting a lintel decorated with a rosette within



second temple period synagogues

1

2

3

4

Figure II-9. Modiʿin—3 stages plan.

35

36

chapter two

a triangle in relief. Another entrance, on the western wall, had ashlar jamb posts surmounted by a lintel decorated with tabula ansata in low relief. The rectangular hall (2.50 × 3.70 m) contained four columns with Doric capitals in the center, and four pilasters attached to the northern and southern walls. Two rows of stone benches were found along three sides of the hall (Fig. II-1d). The synagogue walls and columns were probably plastered with red paint. The floor was paved with large limestone flagstones. Magen et al. propose a reconstruction in which the pilasters and columns carried arches with wooden beams on top. Netzer (2003:279; 2004:20, Fig. 11), however, suggests no arches but a higher ceiling in the central part of the hall. Two additional rooms were discovered, one of them a square room (2.40 × 2.00 m) on the south side of the structure built of flagstones, which probably served as a storeroom for ritual items. A small entrance on the west wall of the structure leads into a small plastered chamber (3.00 × 1.20 m) that might have been a pool. The edifice is dated to the 1st century BCE–early 2nd century CE, possibly continued in use until the Bar Kokhba Revolt. The excavators feel certain that this public structure served as the village synagogue, because of its location, typical structure, and features that are comparable to other contemporary synagogue buildings such as Masada, Herodium, and Gamla. Netzer (2004:19–20) maintains that the Qiryat Sefer synagogue building might have served as both a triclinium and a reading hall serving about 30 people sitting on the benches. The following public structures are questionable; scholars hesitate to include them among the buildings considered to be synagogues. 1.11 Horvat ʿEthri A public structure (M), part of a cluster of buildings, is built on the northeast of the village of Horvat ʿEthri (Zissu and Ganor 2002, 2004, 2010). The broadhouse structure consists of a hall with an entrance on the south-eastern wall and a courtyard, with two miqva’ot beside the courtyard. The hall (13.0 × 7.0 m) had large stone boards on the inner walls, and three columns on pedestals in a central row to support a ceiling (Fig. II-10). To the north of the building a wide space with a bench was attached. The floor was made of beaten earth. The building is dated by the excavators to the end of the 1st—early 2nd centuries CE, and probably served as a synagogue in the period between the wars against the Romans and the Bar Kokhba revolt. A public hiding cave (XV) was found under the building. Yet it should be noted that no benches are found in the building, which generates a different plan from that of the other public structures of this period considered to be synagogues. Scholars (Levine 2004:89; 2007b:29) have doubts if this public structure was a synagogue. Netzer (2004:20) maintains that the central columns divide the space differently from what we see in other synagogues; but see Maoz 2003, who argues that this synagogue is a perfect example of a simple synagogue structure one would have found in a village at the end of the 1st or 2nd centuries CE. 1.12 Horvat Burnat A large rectangular structure (12.6 × 8.4 m) in the north part of a residential building was discovered in the north part of area D (no. 25) at Horvat Burnat. The construction is of high quality; there is an entrance on the southern wall but no benches (Amit 2007b:29–31, Fig. 8; Amit et al. 2008). Amit argues that this hall is similar to hall M1 at Horvat ʿEthri and some other structures of the Second Temple period which should be considered as triclinia—the largest room in courtyard houses of extended families (“‫ = ”בית אב‬ancestral home) found in various villages and farm houses (Hircshfeld 1987:47–9; 165–6). This room was used for family assemblies, such as dinners and other social activities.



second temple period synagogues

37

Figure II-10. H. ʿEthri building plan.

1.13 Qumran Qumran Room 77 is proposed by Levine (2000a:60–63; 2000b:905) as a place that combined dining and worship activities and thus might have served as a place of worship, i.e. a synagogue. Locus 4 with the benches and Locus 30 (the scriptorium) are also associated with assemblies, gatherings, and learning. Prayers, psalms, and hymns found among the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that worship was an integral part of the Qumran residents’ life; in the Damascus Document (CD xi.21–xii.1) ‫בית‬ ‫השתחוות‬, a ‘house of prostration’, is mentioned. In addition, references to an Essene synagogue are found in Philo’s writings. 1.14 Migdal II A small building was uncovered in Migdal (Magdala) (Fig. II-11), situated on the western shore of the Kinnereth (Sea of Galilee), and is dated to the first century CE. This structure (8.16 × 7.25 m) contained five rows of benches along its northern wall and three rows of columns, of which the southern ones were corner columns. It is considered a synagogue which later became a water installation (Corbo 1976). Netzer (1980:116 and note 13) asserts that the small structure at Migdal is a nympheum, a spring house. Groh (1995:58–59) claims that the structure was a synagogue that was abandoned in the early 2nd century CE and later reused as a water collector.

38

chapter two

Figure II‑11. Migdal II plan.



second temple period synagogues

39

1.15 Shuafat In 1991 archaeologists uncovered an agricultural settlement near Shuafat, an Arab suburb just north of Jerusalem (On and Rafyunu 1993; Levine 2000:68). The settlement was founded in the 2nd century BCE and was inhabited until 31 BCE when a catastrophic earthquake inflicted considerable damage on the area. The complex measures about 50 meters square and contains the remains of several miqva’ot. In the early 1st century BCE, a subterranean room in this complex was renovated. Benches were erected around the walls of the room, which was divided in half by a low stone wall. A niche was cut into the wall that was oriented toward Jerusalem. Based on this general information, On identified the room as a synagogue, this claim is no longer accepted and the building complex is no longer identified as a synagogue. 1.16 Ornamentation Ornamentation was a rare phenomenon in the Second Temple synagogues, judging from the archaeological evidence presently available. At Gamla, several Doric and one Ionic column capitals were found in the structure, four of them heart-shaped double corner columns (Peleg-Barkat 2010:160, Figs. 5.2:3, 4; 5.10:16–19; 5.11; 5.14:20; 5.15). One Doric capital was decorated with a simple double meander design. A fragment of a carved lintel, possibly from the main entrance, shows a six-petaled rosette (Fig. II-12a, b).

Figure II‑12. Gamla, decorated architectural items: a. Doric capital; b. lintel.

40

chapter two

The decorative architectural items of the Gamla synagogue (as well as the ‘basilica’ and some private houses) were created by artists of a local school, that was partly influenced by trends in Judea and the Hauran and were unique in their structure (Peleg-Barkat 2010:170–171). Some simple Doric capitals and two lintels were found at Qiryat Sefer (Magen et al. 1999:27; 2004:204, Figs. 40–41): a lintel, decorated with a rosette within a triangle in relief, adorned the façade entrance. Another lintel, with tabula ansata in low relief, was placed on the ashlar jamb posts on the western wall entrance. The synagogue of Migdal I is more richly ornamented (Avshalom-Gorni and Najjar 2009, 2010): a mosaic pavement covered the floor, and the walls and columns were painted with colored fresco (plaster). A square decorated stone (50 × 60 × 50) with geometric, plant, and architectural designs on all four sides, was found in the center of the Migdal I hall. The top of this stone is a relief depicting a large six-petaled rosette flanked by a pair of palm trees with geometric motifs above and below them, some in the shape of large and small ivy leaves and lozenges (Fig. II-13). On one of the stone’s short side panels (façade, north) a seven-armed menorah with a triangular base set atop a pedestal is engraved. The panel with the menorah is divided into three symmetrical parts: the central design is a seven-armed menorah, each arm decorated with several knobs, with a triangular foot placed on a square base, decorated with a lozenge; the second part consists of two flanking vessels/amphorae; the third part is a paired architectural design, in which three columns bearing an arch flank the other items at both ends. Hence the menorah and the flanking vases appear to be enclosed in what might be the façade of a structure. This menorah is a unique find, being the only one found in synagogue decorations of this period.

Figure II‑13. Migdal decorated stone.



second temple period synagogues

41

The other short side (the back) is decorated with several geometric designs on its upper part. Columns similar to those on the front short side divide the main part into two metopes, within which are two wheels with three half-circles under each of them. The two long sides have the same design, consisting of a cornice surmounting four arcades each enclosing a palm tree, except for the corner arcade which includes a sort of two-handled jug. The interpretation of the stone’s function has to consider the fact that its face is also decorated and was thus meant to be seen. It appears to have been used as an incense altar as the broken corners on the stone’s face suggest, or as a base or stand for a table on which the Torah may have been placed for readings and as the excavators noted that the stone was found in situ it is possible that the reader knelt when reading the scroll. The style and motifs which appear on all the panels of the stone are comparable to Second Temple period art, such as architectural items and stone tables found in Jerusalem, as well as ossuaries. The ornamentation of many ossuaries consists of a central motif flanked by other patterns, frequently rosettes. Compare especially the depiction on an ossuary which has a two-handled stylized amphora flanking a five-armed menorah, while the three columns are comparable to the design on another ossuary (Rahmani 1994:Fig. 41, Ossuaries nos. 815, 841F and L). The geometric patterns on the Migdal synagogue stone are comparable to the ornamentation of architectural fragments found at the Jerusalem Ophel site where the Theodotus inscription was discovered (see the pattern of the wheel/rosette, Weill 1920, II:Pl. XXVB, which is similar to the design on the back of the Migdal stone). Various ornamentations found on other Second Temple objects are also comparable: the decoration on the Temple Mount architectural examples, as well as the rosette and some of the designs on stone tables (Ben Dov 1982:138, 159; Avigad 1983:Fig. 185); also similar is the rosette on the Gamla basalt stone (Fig. II-12). Aviam (2013) suggests that the Migdal stone symbolizes, in its design and ornamentation, the Temple in Jerusalem and some mystical elements, and that the block was used as a base for the Torah reading table in the synagogue. The repertoire of ornamental aniconic motifs in Jewish art of the Second Temple period reflects a restricted choice of floral, geometric, and architectural patterns, some adopted from Hellenistic art displaying Oriental elements, and some representing local art traditions. Animate motifs and symbolic emblems, except for the menorah, are absent (Hachlili 1988:65–83). This stems from the reluctance of all Jews, including the ruling families, such as that of Herod and his dynasty, to decorate any building or tomb with religious or iconic symbols. It seems that in this period the biblical prohibition of “no graven image” (Ex. 20:4; Deut. 4:16, 27:15) was carefully observed. In their struggle against paganism and idolatry the Jews refrained from using animated motifs and representational art. The change in attitude of Jewish art, resulting in the use of figurative motifs, came only with the decline of paganism during the third century CE. Table II-1. Second Temple synagogues. Synagogue

Date

Meas. in m

Entrance Benches Miqveh orientation or water source

Capernaum I

1st c. CE

18.5 × 24.2

East

Et-Tuwani, H.

1st c. BCE– 2nd CE

8.0 × ?

South

Columns 2 rows

4 Corner rows

Décor Floor Basalt

+

Décor Misc.

42

chapter two

Table II-1 (cont.) Synagogue

Date

Meas. in m

Entrance Benches Miqveh orientation or water source

Gamla

1st c. CE

15.1 × 19.6

South

+

+

Herodium

1st c. CE

10.5 × 15

East

+

+

75/50– 31 BCE

20 × 10.5

South

Jericho Courtyard House-stage 1 Synagogue I—stage 2 Synagogue II—stage 3

Columns 2 rows

Décor

4 Corner rows +

+

+

+

Floor +

Décor Misc. Doric Ionic Lintel Niche, basin

+ +

12 pillars Niche, basin

20 × 28 16 × 11 hall

Masada

1st c. CE

12 × 15

East

+

Migdal I

50 BCE– 100 CE

120 sq

West?

+

+

+ Mosaic Fresco, pebbles Decorated stone table

+

Modiin— Hurvat Umm el-Umdan Seleucid hall (stage I) Synagogue I (stage II) Synagogue II (stage III) Synagogue III (stage IV)

3rd–2nd BCE 2nd–1st c. BCE Mid 1st c. BCE–1 CE Late 1st– 2nd c. CE

7.00 × 3.8

West

10.5 × 6.7

East

+

11.5–10.5 × 8.6 11.5–10.5 × 8.6

East

+

+

+

East

+

+

+

Qiryat Sefer H. Badd ʿIsa

1st–early 2nd c. CE

9.6 × 9.6

North

+

+

Stone boards

–

+?

Doubtful synagogues. Horvat Burnet 1st c. CE

12.5 × 8.5

South

Horvat ʿEthri

1st–2nd c. 13 × 7 CE

West

?

Migdal II Spring House

1st c. CE

8.16 × 7.25

East?

+

Qumran Room 77

1st c. CE

8.5 × 4

+

3 column +

+

Basalt

Seco

Lintels, Doric capital Wall painting



second temple period synagogues

43

2. The Architectural Features of the Structures The characteristic features of the Second Temple structures are defined by the archaeological evidence. The excavated structures can be divided into three types: (1)  Detached buildings: The structures at Gamla, Migdal I, and Qiryat Sefer (and perhaps Capernaum, if it was a structure and not the foundation walls of the white synagogue) were structures intentionally designed to serve as places of assembly. They had various decorated elements and other additions, such as a niche and basin in Gamla and Jericho (Netzer 1999:212, Yavor 2010:54). Courtyards or public squares in the buildings fronts are found at Modiin and Qiryat Sefer. (2) Converted structures: The Masada and Herodium buildings, originally triclinia that served as reception and ceremonial halls, were converted into assembly halls (synagogues). The change involved altering the arrangement of the columnation (by reusing the columns in different places), and adding stepped benches along the walls. Masada and Herodium were built at a time of war, which was not conducive to architectural innovation. The structures were constructed by modifying previously existing buildings; the only changes were those essential to serve the new function. By the reuse at Masada and the supplementary columns installed at Herodium, as well as the addition of benches around the walls, the previous Herodian triclinium was thus altered into an assembly hall, as the new Zealot congregation required. (3) Some public structures or halls built adjacent to or on earlier buildings. The Jericho synagogue was built on the fringe of the Hasmonean winter palace and was added to an earlier courtyard house (the first phase—Netzer and Laureys-Chachy 2004:184, ill. 218) (Fig. II-5). In the village of Modiʿin, a Seleucid hall was converted into a synagogue. Both these synagogues are dated to the Hasmonean period. The H. et-Tuwani synagogue is the southwestern structural part of a large building and its beginnings are in the 1st century BCE. I n addition, there are several structures whose identification as synagogues is in doubt, among them Horvat ʿEthri, Horvat Burnet, Migdal II (the Spring house) and Qumran Room 77 (see above). 2.1 Characteristic Features of Synagogues of the Second Temple Period Certain features are common to the majority of the described structures (Fig. II-1; Hachlili 1988:84; Netzer 2003:282; 2004:22; 2007:13, 20*): (1)  The most important and outstanding feature, and the central element in public buildings of the Second Temple period, is the stepped benches erected along the walls of the hall and facing the focal point in the center. They were constructed after installation of the wall and floors. The benches continued to be an essential aspect of the later synagogues of Late Antiquity. Regarding the function and role of these benches, it is clear that their placement directed the attention of those present to the focal point, in the center of the hall. The congregation sat there during the reading of the Torah, and during sessions of instructions, lectures, and political and social discussions, while the readers and lecturers either stood in the center or stood up in their place while leading, and the community members responded from their places. This layout of the hall functioned as a kind of theater in the round; all those sitting on the benches could watch and participate. It is also possible that the benches were used occasionally as a kind of rack to place items on when ceremonies, feasts or banquets were conducted in the hall.  The benches in these synagogues are worth a description on their own.

44

chapter two



The benches at Gamla are arranged in a singular method (Fig. II-1e). Five rows of benches constructed of ashlars and upper landing are placed around the four walls. The uppermost row forms the upper landing. Remains of a fifth row of seats abut the eastern wall (Yavor 2010:47).  At Masada four rows of benches were built along the walls and a single bench along the inner wall (Fig. II-1b). In Herodium three benches were constructed; the middle one is wider along all but the eastern, entrance wall (Fig. II-1c). In these two halls the benches were constructed from stones and architectural fragments from older buildings and in Masada they were plastered.  In Jericho, in the second stage, the arrangement of the benches was complicated: three benches were erected along the northern aisle and one along the western wall; on the narrow eastern and southern aisles wooden benches may have been added if necessary (Netzer 1999:213). Migdal 1 had benches built along all walls of the hall. In Modiʿin hall (2), from the Hasmonean period, the stepped benches were constructed along three of the hall’s walls. In the Herodian period hall, there were two to three stepped rows of benches along all the walls. The center of the north bench was built in a way that made it conspicuous; perhaps it was intended for some prominent dignitary, or as a space for the Torah scroll, or it might simply have served as a walkway into the hall from the north entrance (Fig. II-9; Onn and Weksler-Bdolah 2005:110–111). At Qiryat Sefer, higher levels—benches paved with stone slabs—were built along three of the walls, with a low step in front of each bench; the benches were intended for sitting but could also serve as ledges and so the hall could function for the Torah reading or for entertainment purposes (Fig. II-1d; Magen et al. 2004:204–205; Netzer 2004:19–20).  The focal point of the benches was the center of the hall: at Gamla, Yavor (2010:47) concludes that the paved strip in the center of the hall, though unusual, “is the fifth stylobate carrying two columns and dividing the hall into two parts”, which might have had a construction function but could also have served as a place for reading the Torah. Netzer (2004:12) maintains that a wooden bimah for reading the Torah was placed in this central area. At Modi’in, two installation were found in the hall’s center floor: in the north what was apparently a square bimah (1.1 × 1.1 m) paved with field stones; in the south, what was probably the round base of some unidentified installation made of small stones survived. The carved stone found (but not in situ) in the eastern part of the hall at Migdal 1 was also probably some kind of installation, which might have served as a table/podium in certain ceremonies (Gorni and Najjar 2010). (2)  The buildings contain oblong halls divided by rows of columns into a central nave and surrounding aisles, except for Capernaum where there are no columns and H. ʿEthri which has three columns in a row in the center of the hall. (3)  No distinctive architectural features are observable on the exteriors of these structures, and ornamentation in them is rare, though decoration appears on architectural items at Gamla, Migdal 1, and Qiryat Sefer. (4) The orientation of the structure and its entrances lack certain distinguishing marks of the later synagogues, such as the orientation towards Jerusalem. (5) A ritual bath (miqveh) or a water source is an adjunct of the building in some of the structures (Gamla, Herodium, H. ʿEthri, Masada, Modiin) (see note 2). (6) Some of the synagogue halls (Jericho, Gamla and Masada) include additional small rooms and a niche, all of which probably served as repositories (and a genizah), as well as a basin probably for ritual washing of the hands. (7) The buildings were probably single-storeyed. Amit (2007b:27–31) maintains that only four of these features, together with those suggested by Netzer, can serve as specific criteria to identify a public building as a synagogue; the others are not integral to the structure. In addition to fulfilling the four criteria, the buildings at Qiryat Sefer and



second temple period synagogues

45

Modiʿin are situated in a prominent place in the village and they have a courtyard or a space in front, which might support their identification as synagogues. Amit argues further that only if there are benches and columns installed should such buildings be regarded as synagogues. This would exclude the halls at Horvat ʿEthri, Horvat Burnat, and other similar structures of the Second Temple period, which should be considered triclinia in courtyard houses found in various villages and farm houses. He cites three other similar buildings that were identified as synagogues, but will need to be checked after full publication.2 2.2 Origin of the Second Temple Synagogues Architectural Plan Scholars propose several possible origins for the architectural plan of these synagogues (Hachlili 1988:86). Yadin (1965:78–79) proposes that the Masada synagogue plan is derived from secular Hellenistic halls such as the ecclesiaterion, the bouleuterion, and the telesterion. Avigad (1967:96–97) suggests that the Hellenistic basilica was the source of inspiration, mainly because of the similar style of columnation in the hall. Foerster (1981:28–29) compares the synagogue structure to the assembly halls—pronaoi—of the eastern pagan temples, as at Dura, but Chiat (1981:50–52) and Maoz (1981a:40–41) reject this possibility. Maoz (1992:337) maintains that the origin could have come from Alexandria via Jerusalem. Binder (1999:218–226) promotes the conjecture that the courts of the Second Temple influenced the early synagogues. He integrates (1999:44–45) Levine’s theories on the origins of the early synagogues in the city gate with Strange’s insights regarding the architectural influence of the temple courts on the earlier synagogue structures, claiming a possible intermediate stage comprised of assembly places in the city squares. Strange (1999:43) argues that the four synagogues (Gamla, Herodium, Masada and Migdal II) are similar in architecture; what is remarkable is the peculiar arrangement of the columns, which caused those sitting or standing on the benches to have to peer between the columns in order to see the activities being conducted in the central space. He (1995:75–6; 1999:45; 2001:109–110, Fig. 7; 2003:53–57) also suggests that the origin of these structures is the Court of Israel in the Jerusalem Temple and that the arrangement of the columns separating the benches from the center of the hall imitated the Women’s Court in the Temple (quoting War 5, 199—incorrectly, as Levine 2003b:182 pointed out). Furthermore, based on architectural evidence, Strange (2003:53–57) holds that the seven Temple period synagogues in Israel (Capernaum, Gamla, Herodium, Jericho, Qiryat Sefer, Masada and Modiʿin) followed a kind of cultural template, consisting of a distinctively Jewish type of basilica inspired by the Second Temple courts. The architectural plan contained columns arranged between the center of the hall and the benches, and might also have contained an ark (though no proof exists). He argues for clerestory roofing above the central hall, which provided light for the hall and benches. He concludes that these structures’ “were appropriate for hearing declamation of Torah rather than watching a spectacle.”

2 Reich (1995:296–7) notes an interesting detail. Some of the Second Temple synagogues had a miqveh connected to them (Gamla, Masada, Herodium, the Theodotos inscription in Jerusalem, which was found in a cistern), while the later period synagogues usually do not, except for Sasa and Korazim. Other synagogues have only water installations (see Beth Sheʾarim, Khirbet Shemʿa, Maʿon). It seems that in the Mishnah and Talmud periods there is no linkage between the two institutions of the synagogue and the miqveh. The linkage in the Second Temple period might be due to the practice of holding sacred meals, which would have required some purification ritual by the participants, or that the reading, study, or worship of the Torah (by the Zealots) required some purity. Adler (2008:72) maintains that the miqveh built adjacent to these synagogues was intended “for ablutions prior to engagement in Torah study and prayer for individuals who had experienced seminal emission” following a rabbinical enactment. Yet it should be noted that not only synagogues had an adjacent miqveh; the Goliath Tomb at Jericho also had one which had different function.

46

chapter two

Yet it seems entirely unnecessary to seek so far afield for the sources of the architectural inspiration. By placing these structures within their historical as well as their actual context, it becomes obvious that they were the result of local improvisation. The most important and distinctive element of these Second Temple period communal synagogue structures are the benches lining the walls, which must have been specifically added for the congregants to sit upon when congregating and worshiping, the focus being the center of the hall. This arrangement of benches also continues into the later synagogues, where, however, the benches, occupy less space. By contrast, in later synagogues the focal point becomes the Torah shrine, which is usually constructed on the Jerusalemoriented wall. 2.3 Relations between the Jerusalem Temple and the Second Temple Structures This subject is widely debated among scholars: Binder (1999:31–32, 123–126, 481) argues that the synagogue was actually an extension of the Temple, in that the tasks, offices, liturgy, architecture, art, and sacred rites were adopted by the early synagogue. Everywhere, the synagogue imitated the Temple as a sacred area, enabling the Jews, wherever they were, to participate in the central ritual. Binder (2011) contends that a single cultic system, centered in Jerusalem, included both the Temple and the synagogues. The synagogues were gathering spaces for prayer and the reading of scripture on Sabbaths and holidays; Jewish communities around the world conducted these rites and thus participated vicariously in the Temple ritual. Levine (2000:72–3) maintains that in the late Second Temple period, the Temple assumed a central role in Jewish society because of the accumulation of power by the priesthood—“because of the growth of Jerusalem as an urban centre and as a focus of significant pilgrimage, and the enhanced role of the Temple Mount (at least in Herod’s time) as the setting for a wide range of social, economic religious and political activities.” The synagogue, on the other hand, had developed as a definite institution offering local civil and communal activities. Flesher (2001:141, 148) distinguishes the Temple from the synagogue by suggesting two types of Judaism: Temple Judaism, which ‘belonged’ to the priesthood, and synagogue Judaism, which offered the individual Jew full participation. Levine (2003b:182–185) argues that no such division existed. Furthermore, he claims that there is not enough evidence for Binder’s far-reaching thesis; he maintains that the two institutions—the Jerusalem Temple and the synagogue—were different in their essence, function, and organization but did not compete: The Temple stood in Jerusalem and was managed and conducted by priests; it embodied the sacred in Judaism. The synagogue could be built anywhere and at most was a ‫—מקדש מעט‬the ‘lesser sanctuary’ first referred to in the 3rd century (BT, Megila 29a). The Temple was a place of sacrifice and ceremonies conducted in a hierarchical sacred setting under priestly leadership, whereas the synagogue was a community institution led by laypersons. In the synagogue, reading the Torah in public, often with exclamations, was the common custom. 3. Function of the Second Temple Synagogue Structures Although archaeological, epigraphic, and literary sources exist for the function of the Second Temple period synagogue, the subject is still intensely debated. The archaeological evidence clearly suggests that these early structures were places of assembly where the community sat on the benches and watched and participated in activities such as worship, ceremonies of various sorts, and social endeavors, conducted from in the center of the hall. The Greek Theodotus inscription from Jerusalem (Fig. XI-5) plainly stated the functions of the synagogue: for Torah readings on the Sabbath, feast days, and the first day of the month, as men-



second temple period synagogues

47

tioned also in literary sources (Jos. Ag. Apion 2. 175; M. Megillah 4a; BT. Megillah 27a; NT—Lk. 4:17–20; Acts 13:15, 15:21), and for teaching the commandments. The synagogue was clearly also a place of teaching and learning, as evidenced by epigraphic data from the Diaspora. The inscription further states that the structure also included guest rooms and water installations for use by strangers, possibly pilgrims from Rome or the general public; other scholars thought the synagogue might have provided assistance for the poor, but it was not to be turned into a hostel, an activity that was not always seen as proper. The water installations, possibly large basins, were needed for washing, drinking, and the purification of visitors. Scholars agree that reading and teaching the Torah was the key liturgical function (Strange 2003:53–57; Olsson 2003b:134). However, the Torah shrine and the Ark of the Scrolls is found only in synagogues that postdate the Temple’s destruction (Hachlili 1988:167–187; 1997:44–45). It is possible that prayers were also recited in the early synagogues. Josephus (Life 277, 279, 280, 290–303) cites public prayer services and political discussions at the Tiberias proseuche (Binder 2003:120–121 and notes 7, 8; Levin 2000:49–50). Jews assembled in the synagogue not only for Torah readings and prayer but for communal, social, political, and judicial activities as well. Kee (1990, 1994, 1999:7–11) denies the existence of liturgical and religious functions in the Second Temple synagogues. He argues against the use of sources like Josephus and the New Testament, and maintains (based on McKay 1994) that prayer and other religious practices were not part of synagogue activity until the 3rd century CE, the same date he assigns to the Theodotus inscription (see Levine 2003b:179–181 and others who refute this thesis). Flesher (1995:28–29, 34, 39; 2001:141, 148) posits the origin of the synagogue in Egypt, from where it was brought to Israel. He further contends that in the early 1st century CE, synagogues existed only in the Galilee, far from Jerusalem, where they served as a local religious and cultural institution. These early Galilean synagogues were the source for the later synagogues. He argues that in Judea there is no evidence that the synagogue was a major religious institution, claiming that the Masada structure is not a synagogue, while the synagogue in Jerusalem—known only from the Theodotus inscription—served Diaspora communities that brought with them their synagogue tradition. S.J.D. Cohen (1999:91, 102–105) concludes, on the evidence he presented (of seven passages from Josephus, New Testament and the church fathers), that communal Jewish prayers and Torah study were led by Pharisees until 70 CE and later by rabbis. He maintains that the synagogue belonged by definition to the community, and was known as ‫( בית עם‬bet am—‘a house for the community’). Its origins derived from the social ethos and political forms of the Hellenistic Period, not sectarian piety: “it was predominantly a democratic lay organization, not beholden to a single group or party . . . no office was empowered to enforce standards in all synagogues, and no political mechanism existed to enforce standards. The liturgy was not standardized . . . Synagogues are not rabbinic, no inscriptions nor the Theodosian code place rabbis in positions of leadership in the synagogue.” Levine (2003a:3, 17–21) holds that the synagogue served communities with a specific religious outlook—the belief in the God of Israel and the tradition that involved first and foremost Jerusalem and the Temple—and that it included practices and customs comprising a yearly cycle of feasts and rites from birth to death. The activities were similar and so were the terms synagogue, pro­seuche, and archisynagogos. The worship consisted of liturgical communal practices such as the Torah readings and the Sabbath liturgy and “set the Jewish community apart from surrounding cultures . . . The resultant character of each community (its practice and its physical settings) was unique and depended upon its constituency and particular social and cultural context, although its inheritance tradition . . . had a crucial role in shaping its institution. The nature of this process as well as its ultimate expression clearly differed from locale to locale.” Schwartz (2001:221–225) contends that the Jews assembled in these structures to conduct their sacred rites. The literary sources mention regular ritual activities such as common meals and

48

chapter two

fundraising; only a few mention prayer or sacrifice. Torah reading is not mentioned, but the Sabbath played an important role in the life of the community. Schwartz argues that Second Temple synagogue structures may suggest a number of practices: the congregation assembled in a large room and there was no separate space for clergy; Gamla and other synagogue buildings indicate that some ritual activity was conducted in the center space; a connection might be noticed “between the synagogue and a sense of autonomy or self enclosure.” Furthermore the sources may imply that in 1st century Palestine, synagogues existed in several large villages, at least in Galilee. Discussing the origin and diffusion of the synagogue, Schwartz (2001:215–16) mentions additional support for his theory regarding origin: As only a few 1st century, synagogues have been discovered, it seems that only a small number of Jews had regular contact with them, hence they did not play an important role in Jewish society of this period. He argues that the synagogue spread and developed into a significant aspect of Jewish society no earlier than the 4th century CE, in contrast to Levine (and others) who regard it as having started in the 1st century CE (for which there is a paucity of evidence). Miller (1998:63–65) holds that it is questionable if the history of the synagogue can be reconstructed from buildings that could accommodate only a small number of worshippers. He maintains that it is a “complex situation in which ‘great’ or ‘central’ synagogues were really the exception, and other, semi-public, or even private houses of worship also existed, but were less visible . . . not that all synagogue structures were once houses, rather that the synagogue institution began in domestic settings,” in contrast to Kee’s (1990) proposal that a house could be transformed into a synagogue. Horsley (1999) maintains that the synagogue should be considered as a local assembly center of town or village communities, for discussion of, economic, communal, and social affairs as well as the Torah readings. No evidence is found to suggest that the Pharisees or scribes were leaders of these local assemblies. Olsson (2003b:133–135) suggests “four basic dimensions to define a ‘synagogue’ that should be considered in discussing the origin and development of the synagogue: (1) The synagogue as an institution; (2) The synagogue as a liturgical activity; (3) The synagogue as a non-liturgical activity; (4) The synagogue as a place/building where these activities take place.” Olsson suggests that the synagogue reflects clear outside influence—“political strategies of the Persian empire, Hellenistic modes of life, Greco-Roman temples, and the collegia institutions.” Kloppenborg (2006:238) summarizes several aspects of the Second Temple synagogues: (1) In the Gospels the term is sometimes editorial and does not reflect function; (2) At the time of its introduction, in the Greek language, the term should be used only in clear reference to the building in which the assembly occurred; (3) These synagogues have no inscriptions indicating their function and lack the architectural features of the later synagogues. Though the plan seems designed to serve a public, it is not clear what public functions were intended. Runesson (2003:64–5) contends that a discussion of the synagogue’s origin entails a four-fold definition: liturgical and non-liturgical activities as well as spatial and institutional aspects. He (2003:79, 83–4, Table 4.2; 2007:245) also maintains that, based on epigraphic and literary data, the reading and teaching of the Torah is a distinctive and central function of the early synagogues in Israel. This phenomenon was introduced in the mid-5th century (450) BCE at the city gates and other public places in the region and was “performed by government-approved officials and controlled from the capital.” Thus, it was different from the public synagogues of the 1st century. Furthermore, he dates the origins of the semi-public synagogue in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, claiming that “while the non-liturgical activities of the public synagogues remained the same, the institutional aspect developed, as we now find the first evidence of non-priestly reading and teaching of Torah in the Hellenistic period.” Runesson (2003:80–84, Table 4.2) distinguished two categories of Second Temple buildings, according to the type of assembly they might have held: (1) Public assembly: “a kind of municipal



second temple period synagogues

49

institution, in which the administrative, religious, and political affairs of the local community were dealt with” such as those found at Capernaum I, Gamla, Qiryat Sefer, and Nabratein and dated by him to the mid-5th century BCE; (2) Semi-public assembly: “which provided an institutional framework for groups sharing, for example, a common understanding of the Torah, in a way similar to the collegia of the Greco-Roman world,” found at Herodium, Jericho, Masada, and Qumran, which date to the Hellenistic period and were influenced by Hellenistic organizational forms (the thiasoi). The examples he brings of semi-public association synagogues, which he bases only on literary and epigraphic sources, are the synagogue of the Essenes (Philo, Prob. 81–2), the synagogue of the Freedmen (Acts 6:9), and the synagogue cited in the Theodotos inscription. Runesson (2007:245, note 52) maintains that “institutions of both types, public and semi-public, were referred to by the same terms, no fixed terminology for what we today call ‘synagogue’ had emerged in the 1st century CE.” Richardson (2003) emphasizes the Diaspora-style architecture of the synagogues, which constituted collegia, on the basis of the functional similarities between the two. He believes the early synagogues originated in the Diaspora and developed from meetings in private homes. He assumes a linear movement of the synagogues from the Diaspora into Israel. Binder (2003:125 and n. 16) objects to Richardson’s assumption and maintains that these were two independent and different institutions “that intersect at various points in time and space.” Levine (2003b:172–3; 2004:18–21) also opposes the linear hypothesis, noting that the synagogue did not reflect the collegium and was not mentioned as such in any documents or inscriptions. He concludes that characterizing the synagogue as a voluntary association is inappropriate as it served a specific community. He also contends that there were cultic connections between the synagogues and the Temple courts. Rocca (2011) maintains that the Tiberias proseuche described by Josephus (Life 134, 294–295) served as both a boulē (seat of the city council) and a synagogue (house of prayer). Thus, according to Josephus, the main Second Temple period building in Tiberias, which was shaped like a Roman basilica, served both secular and religious functions. Rocca contends further that the buildings at Gamla and Kiriat Sefer served the same variety of functions but were in the form of Helenistic bouleuteria. Levine (2003b:192–194) contends that the Jewish literary sources, the Gospels, and the Theodotus inscription emphasize the religious aspect of synagogue activities but that in fact the Second Temple structures were communal structures, exhibiting none of the religious components such as the Torah shrine, ornamentation, or inscriptions found in later synagogues. The 1st century synagogue was mainly a community institution serving local needs, including some religious ones, including the new element of reading Torah on the Shabbath and holidays. However, when this actually happened is not yet clear. The biblical forerunner of the synagogues was the city gate and the transition occurred in the Hellenistic period. The synagogues show regional diversity shaped by local customs and needs. Nevertheless, the miqveh indicates the importance of purity. Levine holds that the model for such communal gatherings dealing with local, social, political, and religious issues is the Hellenistic bouleuteria or ecclesiateria. It is interesting to note that the evidence appears to support two seemingly contradictory possibilities: the archaeological data point to a community assembly concept with no religious aspects or finds, whereas the literary and epigraphic evidence portrays a religious perception, citing customs such as reading and teaching the Torah on Shabbath (see Levine [2003b:190–192] for a discussion of these issues). It seems quite apparent that these two different concepts are describing the same institution, a special structure which served both the assembly activities (as the architectural remains prove) and the religious—worship and ritual—customs (described in the written sources) that evidently were conducted within the structure. An exception is the Migdal I synagogue, in which a unique decorated base/bimah stone with a menorah and other designs was discovered (see above).

50

chapter two 4. Concluding Remarks

The local structures identified as community assembly halls had their focal point in the center of the hall. This explains the benches lining the walls, implying that the congregation would have faced inwards. These structures were erected according to an architectural conception which saw the hall as a place of assembly for a congregation which would gather for various social activities and for worship (Hachlili 1988:84–88). Scholars assume these structures to be synagogues on the basis of circumstantial evidence— the similar architectural characteristics that suggest shared functions. Yet no actual proof has been uncovered to date. They ostensibly served didactic purposes, and possibly services were conducted on Sabbaths and feast days (although no convincing proof of this supposition has been found), but they were not places of cult or worship. As long as the Temple existed in Jerusalem, the Jews were careful to avoid any competition with it. The existence of synagogues in the first century CE that served as assembly centers for scripture reading and studies is also attested by epigraphic and literary sources, such as Josephus (Against Apion 2, 175), the New Testament (Acts 15:21), and the Theodotus inscription from Mount Ophel which records a synagogue in Jerusalem. The structures also share a similar construction date—the first century CE—although some of the structures, such as Jericho, Gamla, and Modiʿin may have been erected before this time. The assembly structures of the Zealots at the fortresses of Masada, Herodium, and perhaps the later Gamla building, probably served as local assembly halls during the years of the revolt against Rome, when it was extremely difficult for their congregations to travel to Jerusalem and participate in the Temple worship. With the destruction of the Temple, local structures began to flourish which, out of the need to replace the national center—the Temple in Jerusalem—became sites of local worship and community centers. In these halls reading of the Torah was emphasized, and thus the distinctive feature of the later synagogues, the Torah shrine, emerged. The role of the synagogue is perceivable in the literary and epigraphic data as well as the archaeological remains. The literary and epigraphic sources describe the grouping and assembly of the congregation in the synagogue or proseuche and imply some of the functions, such as a place for reading the scriptures, a study site, a public social meeting space, a place for religious ceremonial meals, the collection of charity, and a hostel (also according to Theodotus’s inscription). The benches lining the walls in the Second Temple ‘synagogues’ are their most distinctive feature. An integral part of the structural plan, they were constructed at the time of the actual building and with the same materials. Most likely they faced the center of the hall, so that the congregation would have faced inwards. The benches clearly represent the synagogue activities, both those that involved seated assembly and those that provided a platform or support for teaching and learning. It should be noted that the benches were a distinctive feature of the later synagogue too. The recent excavations of structures in villages indicate once again how difficult it is to prove that these halls are actually synagogues. As Amit (2007b:29) points out, the structures function as assembly halls for extended families and could also have served religious needs. Therefore, only halls with benches and columns should be considered synagogues. It is in this context that the Goliath Tomb at Jericho should be studied. It contains a large structure (12 × 12 m) with benches built on all sides, and an adjacent ritual bath (miqveh) in front of the tomb; this structure functioned as a ‘mourning enclosure’ adjoining a tomb (Figs. II-14–16). In light of the benches, it is certainly similar to some of the synagogues halls. However, as no columns were found, it seems that it was not roofed but rather an open-air courtyard; the miqveh, however, was located in a roofed room (Hachlili 1988:91–92; 1999:37, Figs. II-67–68, 78; Netzer 1999; 2004:18; 2007:18).



second temple period synagogues

51

Figure II‑14. Jericho, Goliath Tomb plan and sections.

The Goliath tomb at Jericho proves that a large structure with benches and an attached miqveh, which served as a family tomb, could also be considered an assembly area and be used for funerary purposes. The appearance of this structure at Jericho might imply that such open-air benched courtyards were used for local community assemblies—not only for meetings of a civil or religious nature but also for burials. Furthermore, a miqveh adjacent to such a structure indicates some connection to purification customs. However, these conventions should not be considered only in the context of the synagogue. Thus, the architecture of a structure suggests only its general purpose but does not in any way indicate more specific uses to which it was put. The Second Temple structures were clearly assembly halls, serving different purposes for extended families, village communities, or expanded congregations in the town. The Zealot assembly structures at the fortresses of Masada, Herodium, and Gamla likely served as local assembly halls and probably also absorbed refugees throughout the years of the revolt against Rome, when travel to the Temple in Jerusalem was nearly impossible. During the time these structures were serving as small community centers, they may also have been used for worship, though no convincing evidence for this has yet been found. The pre-70 CE structures conceivably had didactic functions in addition to being community centers, but although services would be conducted on Sabbaths and feast days, they were not places of cult or worship, at least while the Temple stood.

52

chapter two

Figure II‑15. Jericho, Goliath Tomb courtyard and miqveh: a. looking south; b. looking east.

No inscriptions are found in Second Temple structures, which implies that the custom of adding inscriptions to a building’s architectural elements or mosaic pavements was not yet in practice, nor were benefactors’ donations customary, or else they were not inscribed anywhere (the only exception is the Theodotus inscription, which was not discovered in the vicinity of a synagogue structure). The structures of the Second Temple period shared few features with the later synagogue; the synagogue reached its unique form, though with many variations, only in Late Antiquity, when many similarities in architectural and functional features became noticeable. The Second Temple period structures differ from later synagogues in plan, function, and decoration. First, architecturally, no new conceptions in construction have been discerned (also Chiat 1981: 54–56); rather, the impression is one of local extemporization. Second, these structures only existed for a short time, in the first century CE, and were not rebuilt, except perhaps for Capernaum (see above). Third, these assembly halls lack the most important feature of the later synagogue: the Torah



second temple period synagogues

53

a

b

Figure II‑16. Jericho, Goliath Tomb courtyard and miqveh reconstruction by E. Netzer: a. looking west; b. looking northeast.

54

chapter two

shrine. Finally, during the first century, the Temple in Jerusalem was still the center for worship and ritual for the entire Jewish community, in both Judea and the Diaspora; there they participated in the Temple ceremonies, especially in sacrificial rites, in the teaching of the Law as conducted in the Temple courtyards, and in the settling of administrative questions in the Temple courts. In summary, some distinctive architectural and functional differences emerge from a comparison of the Second Temple period structures and the synagogues of Late Antiquity: The pre-70 CE synagogue was a house for reading the Bible and for study; reading had a didactic aim. The later synagogue emphasized prayer and ceremonies, and its functions were liturgical and ritualistic. The focal point of the early synagogue was the center of the hall, while that of the later synagogue was the Torah shrine built on the Jerusalem-oriented wall. In the early structures, benches are constructed prominently along all four walls and they face the center, whereas in the later structures the benches face the Torah shrine. Architectural decoration in the early synagogues was simple. The later synagogues are richly ornamented both outside and inside, and the halls are decorated with mosaic pavements or wall paintings. In general, it was only some time after the destruction of the Second Temple, when the Torah shrine was given its place of distinction in the later buildings, that the synagogues became official functioning religious institutions.

CHAPTER Three

Recently Excavated And Newly Published Synagogues In recent decades, quite a number of newly discovered synagogues have been excavated and several synagogues have been published. In this chapter, the monumental structure at Qazion, excavated in the 1990s, is presented for the first time. It is included even though it is not considered a synagogue per se, but rather a Galilean structure associated with or utilized by Jews in the late 2nd–early 3rd centuries CE. The early synagogues dated to the same period will come afterward, followed by synagogues presented by region: Galilee, Golan, and south Judea. The characteristic features of each of these structures and groups will be discussed and compared. Qazion, located in the eastern Upper Galilee, one km north of the village and synagogue at Meroth, is an important site associated with the origin of early synagogues in the Galilee. The site includes a most fascinating complex in which an important lintel with a Greek inscription was discovered. After more than one hundred years of research, scholars, on the basis of the site survey and the inscribed lintel, are divided between two possible identifications and functions of the Qazion structure: Either it was a Jewish synagogue or it was a pagan Roman temple, dedicated by a Jewish Galilean community to the Roman royal family. The site was excavated during three short periods in 1993 and 1997, by Rachel Hachlili and Ann E. Killebrew (1999, 2012) (on behalf of the Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa) (see the Supplement: Qazion—the final report on this site). 1. Early Synagogues There was an interruption in the building of synagogues between 70 CE and the mid 2nd–early? 3rd centuries CE, for which scholars are still seeking explanations. Levine (2005:126, 182, 185) proposes several reasons for this gap: (1) The Second Temple period synagogues were destroyed in the chaos of the two wars with Rome (2000:169); (2) Synagogues of the early stage were domus ecclesiae or a house space which is difficult to identify (Levine 2000:185); (3) The earlier buildings could have been dismantled or destroyed during the rebuilding and renovations of later synagogues on the same site (2000:171). E. Meyers (2010) supports this last suggestion in his presentation of all the details of the Nabratein synagogue 1 (135–250 CE), which shows already the sacred orientation in the form of a pair of aediculae on the Jerusalem-oriented wall. Levine (2000:173, 179) suggests the renewal of synagogue construction only at the end of the 3rd century CE, demonstrating the emergence from the 3rd century crisis. Levine views the establishment of synagogues as an attempt to fortify the authority of the Jewish leadership and the status of the community during the crisis, but in some settlements, at least, the construction of synagogues seems to correspond to a period of material affluence for the settlement as a whole. Schwartz (2001:226–27) maintains that 2nd–3rd century CE synagogues existed, because they are mentioned in the Mishnah and the Tosefta, but in few numbers and possibly only in the largest settlements. Perhaps no monumental structures were constructed and, like in the Christian communities, the worship was practiced mainly in private dwellings. Bar (2002:48) argues against Levine’s views and concludes “that Jewish life in the Galilee was not markedly impacted by the crisis of the 3rd century.” He also questions “why these lavish structures were built at the time of a supposed economic crisis. How was a small rural community in the Galilee

56

chapter three

able to finance the construction of such opulent buildings?” He does not accept the explanation that new synagogue constructions “were made possible through the destruction of older houses of prayer . . . for there is no evidence at all of acts of destruction of synagogues or of persecutions at this time.” It seems most plausible, as Levine suggested, that at least some of the later synagogues were constructed on top of earlier ones, and made use of some of their architectural items. After completing our examination of the data and the excavation reports published during the last decades, we may possibly find that several synagogues are dated, by their excavation, to the above-discussed gap (the late second-early third centuries CE): Nabratein I (ca. 135–250 CE), ʿEn Gedi I (end of 2nd–early 3rd centuries), Eshtemoʿa I (2nd–early 3rd centuries), Hammath Tiberias B IIb (first half of the 3rd century), H. Rimmon I (mid-3rd century), Beth Shearim I (period III, second quarter of the 3rd century) and Kafr Misr I (early 3rd century) (see Table III-1). 1.1 Nabratein Synagogue The earliest Nabratein synagogue (Period II, ca. 135–250 CE) is a broadhouse building (11.2 × 9.35 m) with a main entrance (not in the center) on the Jerusalem-oriented southern façade (Meyers and Meyers 2009:30, 34, 67–69, 397, Fig. 7; Meyers 2010). Another entrance was on the northeastern corner. Two platforms are attached to the interior of the southern wall. The excavators propose that the southeast platform functioned possibly for the display of the Torah scroll when in use, or as the seat of honor, while the southwest platform was for storage of the scrolls—the aedicula base. In the center of the hall is an imprint or negative of a reader’s table or lectern. Two rows of benches are constructed along all the walls except the south one. The four columns and stylobates were included in the plan, though it was impossible to determine whether these columns were already used in Synagogue 1 or belonged to the later structure (Fig. III-1:5 left). The floor was thickly plastered. Early and Middle Roman pottery, as well as coins of Trajan and a coin of Hadrian, were found under it, reinforcing a mid-2nd century date for Synagogue 1, which stood until the mid-3rd century. Meyers (2010:438–39, 447) maintains that Nabratein Synagogue 1 (ca. 135–250 CE) was constructed over an earlier structure with chambers and tunnels used for other purposes. The characteristic features of the later synagogues, such as the platforms for aediculae and the reader’s lectern in the center, are already present here. Nabratein Synagogue 1 “is a unique structure and may well represent the earliest synagogue in Galilee. The very existence of a synagogue by the late 2nd arguably reflects the emergence of Galilee as a destination for Jews fleeing north after the Second Revolt against Rome.” The discovery of many Herodian lamps and stone vessels “from this period also points to the growing religiosity of the population.” Also dated to this period are the underground chambers in Field III (Aviam 2004:127), indicating a “demographic shift, which made Galilee the heart of the Jewish people after 70 CE.” 1.2 ʿEn Gedi Synagogue I Synagogue I (Stratum IIIB, dated to the end of the 2nd–early 3rd centuries CE), was a trapezoid building, with a modest hall and entrances on the north wall (Barag 2006:17*–18*, Figs. 31, 32). A mosaic covered the floor with a rectangle design (8 × 3 m) divided into three squares; only two parts of the decorated frames survived; the rest was destroyed by the platform of Stratum II. A swastika in black was depicted in the center of the southern square (Fig. III-2). The mosaic pavement was in use, with some repairs, in Phase II (Stratum IIIA) as well.



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

57

Figure III‑1. Plans of Galilean synagogues: 1. Korazim; 2. Capernaum; 3. Barʿam; 4. Meiron; 5. Nabratein I, II, III; 6. H. Shemʿa; 7. Meroth I, II; 8. Gush Halav; 9. H. ʿAmudim; 10. Arbel I, II; 11. Wadi Hamam.

58

chapter three

Figure III‑2. ʿEn Gedi Synagogue I, plan and mosaic pavement.

1.3 Eshtemoa I The building of Eshtemoa phase I, with the exedra in the front and the three niches accessed by the bema in the northern wall (Fig. III-35a), was built in a single phase in the Late Roman period, apparently during the 2nd or 3rd centuries CE, or the end of the 3rd–beginning of the 4th centuries, and may have existed until the 7th or 8th centuries (the pottery and glass finds are dated to the same period) (Yeivin 2004:157, 83*, 96*). In the second phase the steps were changed, so that they led to a decorated niche with an inscription, with the other niches still functioning. Repairs made to the floors in the building may have been carried out in the third phase, when the building functioned as a mosque. The dates and conclusions are confusing, as there are discrepancies between the Hebrew and English reports. 1.4 H. Rimmon I (Stratum IV) The earliest synagogue at H. Rimmon, dated to the mid-3rd century CE, is a broadroom type; its southern wall was not found. A stylobate with three pedestals was found in situ east of the structure, and along the northeastern corner a rectangular niche was found. The walls were plastered and painted. The floor was made of crushed lime on a foundation of small stones (Kloner 1989:44). 1.5 Kafr Misr I The synagogue in Kafr Misr in the east Lower Galilee has three successive phases, dating from the 3rd to the early 7th centuries CE (Onn 1994).



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

59

Phase I was probably constructed in the early 3rd century CE and lasted until the early 4th century, perhaps being destroyed in the earthquake of 306. The synagogue is a rectangular building (13.65 × 17.50) with two entrances, in the north and east; the assembly hall (12.00 × 15.70) central area is divided by two rows of eight column bases in front of the benches (Fig. III-5). Porticos (2.40 m wide) and basalt benches with uneven heights are set along all four interior walls; the central sunken space of the hall had a plastered floor which was lower than that of the porticos. It sloped gently northward, enabling the water to drain off through a channel under the northern part of the synagogue. The southern portico, on the Jerusalem-oriented side, was paved with white limestone, which contrasted with the basalt stone of the building; Onn suggests it was the bema. The interior walls of the hall were decorated with red, white, and black stucco. Onn (1994:132) compares synagogue Phase I with the Second Temple synagogue at Gamla (Fig. II-1e), which has a similar plan. Both have a water channel and on this basis he contends that Gamla is the prototype of the Kafr Misr Phase I structure. Another comparable structure is the later Arbel synagogue (Fig. III-5), which has porticos and benches along three walls and a floor in the center that is on a lower level than the porticos. 2. Galilean Synagogues The following upper and lower Galilee synagogues were either recently excavated or published in a final report, and will be evaluated in this volume (Fig. III-1).1 2.1 Arbel The synagogue building at Arbel, in the lower east Galilee (surveyed by Kohl and Watzinger 1916:59– 70) was cleaned and restored in 1987 by Ilan and Izdarechet (1989; Ilan 1991:116–118; 1993:87–89; Fisher 1988). 2.1.1 Phase I The building (20.35 × 18.50), located in the center of the village, has a south-north orientation and is dated to the 4th century. The main entrance is on the east, hewn in the rock, with perhaps another entrance on the west. The façade on the east contained a portal, all the parts of which—lintel, doorposts, and even the threshold—were made of one block (Fig. V-2c). Possibly there was an arch above the lintel. A large courtyard on the east was paved with basalt ashlar stones (Fig. III-1:10 left). The hall was divided by three rows of columns placed on pedestals; the two corner ones are heart-shaped. The hall had two floors: The first had several Corinthian capitals (some dated to the 4th century, others to the 6th–7th centuries, Fisher 1988:132); the second floor consisted of Ionic capitals and a Doric frieze that covered the walls. Their pilasters are not all identical, suggesting repairs and reconstructions at various periods. Benches were found along the east and west walls. The early floor was of stone, the later one, of mosaic. The walls were plastered on the inside. The roof was made of wooden beams and clay tiles.

1 Frankel et al. (2001:111, 131, 151–52) mention that a large increase in the number of sites in Galilee are recorded during the Roman period (170 compared to 106 in the Hellenistic period). They further note that the pattern of settlements in the Roman period is divided between the western pagan area and the eastern Jewish section. They list the evidence for 19 Jewish settlements: in upper Galilee nine places are certain, with probable identification, and one less certain; in lower Galilee, six, and in Phoenicia, in western Galilee, ten.

60

chapter three

It is possible that there was an aedicule on the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall (Ilan and Izdarechet 1989:114). On the east side of the north wall, a kind of cupboard was found that perhaps served as a cash box (Ilan and Izdarechet 1989:108 and photo on p. 65). 2.1.2 Phase II This phase is dated to the 6th to mid-8th centuries CE The main changes are a round niche serving as the Torah shrine and at its front, a bema (Fig. III-1:10 right). Avigad (1967:98–100, Fig. 5) noted the three original courses and concluded that the niche is an original part of the synagogue plan, in contrast to the opinion of Kohl and Watzinger (1916:63) that this niche was a mihrab that was added at a later date, when the building turned into a mosque. There was an additional entrance on the north wall, opposite the Torah shrine. The synagogue was probably destroyed by a fire in the mid-8th century. Leibner (2009:264) maintains that Arbel remained in existence after the late 4th century CE and continued to be in use until the Early Islamic period. 2.2 Barʿam Two synagogues were found at Barʿam: the upper (large) synagogue was discovered in the main village, while the lower (small) synagogue was built in a smaller village at a distance of about 400 m. It was surveyed and excavated in 1998 (Aviam 2001:168; 2004:147–169; 2007:41). 2.1.1 The Upper (Large) Synagogue The synagogue building at Barʿam survived with its façade almost intact. The façade had triple portals and a portico of six columns in front of it (Fig. IV-2a, IV-7a). The hall was divided by columns into three aisles, with corner columns in the northern end (Fig. III-1:3). In recent excavations conducted in 1998, Aviam (2001, 2004:149–159; 2007), suggested a different history for the Barʿam building from the one proposed by Kohl and Watzinger as a result of their survey in 1916. This synagogue had two stages: all that remains of the early stage is one south-north wall. It was a rectangular structure and smaller than the later one, with remains of a plaster floor. The Barʿam synagogue building in its second stage had a portico in front of the triple portal façade on the south, which Aviam contends was rebuilt from spolia-architectural parts brought from other sites. It led to a hall divided by three rows of columns on pedestals and four corner heart-shaped columns, which should be dated to the Byzantine period (Aviam 2001:159, 165; 2007:35–6). He also argues for a fourth, southern row of columns. However, the only evidence for that is a fragment of a stylobate discovered in Area A. His suggestion, that this was the base for a corner column he compares with the northwestern and northeastern row columns, seems rather doubtful. A more reasonable interpretation is that it was the base of an aedicula. The floor of the hall was made of limestone tiles. About 15 coins were recovered from Area B (close to the main entrance) and 32 bronze coins were discovered under the tiles in Area D (the north-west corner of the hall). The upper Barʿam synagogue building is dated by Aviam (2001:165–166; 2007:37), based on the coin and ceramic data, to the 5th–6th centuries CE, with emphasis on the unique form of the synagogue because of its portico and four rows of columns. He further argues that the Barʿam synagogue, as well as those of Capernaum and Gush Halav, were built with spolia (2007:39–40, Figs. 8–11). Among the spolia, Aviam mentions the east column of the portico. which is smaller in dimension from the base and lacks the characteristic torus, and may have been reduced to fit the new structure. The east column in the hall’s northern row was also reduced and lacks the characteristic torus; it is also larger in dimension than its base. The eastern façade window is not well-built; its threshold is



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

61

attached to the western window jamb, not incorporated as in the west window. The gable is built to the east. The screen in the window lintel has no holes. The inscription on the threshold is in an odd location, on the left. 2.2.2 The Barʿam Lower (Small) Synagogue This synagogue was found in an adjacent village. The plan is that of a rectangular structure with foundations of stylobates for three rows of columns, possibly with one entrance in the south (the portal was recorded in the 19th century, but has since been destroyed). The lintel of this entrance was found with an inscription dating to the second half of the 4th century CE. The building was almost completely dismantled below floor level, leaving only a few architectural fragments, among them Corinthian capitals, and about 50 coins and a Byzantine bronze amulet (Aviam 2001:168–9; 2004:159–161; 2007:33–4, Fig. 1). 2.3 Capernaum The synagogue of Capernaum is a monumental white limestone structure raised on a platform of basalt stones (Corbo 1972, 1975; Loffreda 1972, 1981, 1997) and consisting of a hall (20.4 × 18.65 m), an eastern courtyard (11.25 m wide in the façade), and a balcony/porch in front of the southern façade. On the northwest corner of the building is a small side room or annex, with an entrance in the north to the hall (Fig. III-1:2). The hall is divided into a central nave and three aisles (on the west, east and north) by three rows of Corinthian columns set on pedestals and stylobates. Two rows of benches line the west and east walls. Two aedicula platforms (M and N) were constructed on the inner Jerusalem-oriented southern wall, flanking the inner main entrance (Fig. III-1:2). The synagogue was paved with flagstones. The hall had a triple entrance on the southern Jerusalem-oriented façade, an entrance on the north to the side room, and an entryway on the east to the east courtyard. The courtyard was also divided by three rows of columns set on pedestals and stylobates, which possibly created a central unroofed portico. The courtyard had three entryways on the north and east walls and two on the south wall (Figs. III-1:2, IV-12a). The Capernaum synagogue was constructed according to a single plan that was implemented in successive phases, as recorded by the excavators (Loffreda 1972:25–26). The hall was built independently, and the courtyard, the porch/balcony, and the side room on the northwest were added later, with no link between them. The walls of the porch/balcony and the side room were built against the walls of the hall; even the foundations were constructed independently, and were shaped by different techniques. The inner walls of the hall were plastered before the erection of the side benches, which were built against the plaster. The stone pavement of the hall and the mortar underlying it were installed before the construction of the benches, which partly overlap that pavement. Both elements are later than the foundations of the aedicula platforms (M and N) flanking the inner main entrance, since the mortar stops against those foundations. The courtyard was constructed last, and the pavement not before 474 CE. The synagogue was erected within a reasonably short time span and all parts—the hall, eastern courtyard, side room on the northwest, and south balcony/porch belong to the original plan; there is no proof that any part of the synagogue was rebuilt. Many decorated architectural members were discovered, including lintels, frieze elements, and window parts. Heart-shaped corner columns reinforce the corners of the hall and courtyard. Two dedicatory inscriptions on columns were discovered, one in Greek on a column found in the nave, and the other in Aramaic, on a column found in the courtyard (Naveh 1978:no. 18; Roth-Gerson

62

chapter three

1987:no. 20). Avi-Yonah (1981f:60) maintains that the text of the Greek inscription is not Byzantine, neither in the form of the script nor in the names. Loffreda (1997:231–33) concludes that the Capernaum synagogue was initiated only after the completion of all its component parts. He suggests that the study of the coins and ceramics could lead to a conclusion that the setting of the stone floor of the hall should be assigned to the final phase of the project. The beginning of this synagogue’s construction has been dated not earlier than the second half of the 4th century CE, and its completion, at the beginning of the 5th century (Loffreda 1972:25–26; 1981:52, Corbo 1975:168). Maoz (1999) claims that the Capernaum synagogue was erected out of spolia imported from different ancient synagogues. Further, he maintains that this synagogue never served as a regular communal edifice but was built “for the purpose of Christian use of it as a pilgrimage site purporting to be the very place in which Jesus had preached” (but see Schwartz [2001:211], who dismisses Maoz’s arguments). Maoz’s radical solution for the Capernaum synagogue is very far-fetched: (1) The synagogue plan and architecture recall other Galilean synagogues. Note especially the three-entrance façade, the division of the hall by rows of columns and so forth; (2) It is difficult to accept that such a monumental structure was erected merely for the purpose of pilgrimage, with no more substantial use; (3) There is enough evidence to prove the building was used as a regular synagogue, despite the various discrepancies in the architecture. Runesson (2007:235–6) prefers Maoz’s theory (1999), which explains those architectural discrepancies in the building that are hardly explainable if new material, or reused material from only one earlier building, was used. The Capernaum mobile ark relief is, in his opinion, from a 3rd century synagogue, a claim which satisfies the art history criteria, according to which the architectural ornamentation belongs to the 3rd century. Furthermore, he dates the construction of the limestone synagogue to the 5th or even 6th centuries, which fits the analysis of the coins. Runesson (2007:239, 255–57, Table 1) describes the development and history of Jewish and Christian Capernaum (combining Loffreda 1997 and Maoz 1999): (a) Synagogue I: A basalt synagogue dated to the 1st century CE is found beneath the limestone synagogue II nave. At that time Capernaum was a Jewish town and the basalt Synagogue I was a meeting place for religious, administrative, and local activity, possibly attended by Jesus. Room 1 in insula 1 might have been a house which in the late 1st or early 2nd centuries CE was adapted for the use of Christ-believers (the house of Peter and Andrew), which Runesson terms ‘association synagogue’. (b) Synagogue I: Renovations and expansions were made in the earlier synagogue, to which the basalt wall belongs, between the 2nd and 4th centuries CE. In the same time period, perhaps in the 3rd century, Synagogue I was renovated while the town was still under Jewish control (however, Runesson does not present any proof at all for this speculation). In the 4th century CE the original wall of room 1, within an enclosure wall, was constructed as the domus ecclesia built by the Jewish Christ-believers community. Capernaum’s population became more mixed and its economy grew at that time, with the town becoming more non-Jewish and perhaps having some conflict among the different groups. Pilgrims arrived to see the House of Peter. (c) Synagogue II (limestone): a new limestone synagogue was built in the 5th century CE using the earlier basalt synagogue walls as foundations, and with spolia collected from abandoned 3rd century Galilean synagogues. At the same time, Byzantine Christians built the octagonal church, destroying the domus ecclesia, which probably meant the displacement of the Jewish Christ-believing community. Synagogue I was destroyed and power was transferred to the Byzantine Christians. The white limestone Synagogue II was built, perhaps with the support of the



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

63

house of the patriarch: “. . . it represents an attempt to affirm Jewish presence and identity in a society being transformed . . . applying archaizing architectural designs and ornamentations in accordance with what would have been acceptable to the rabbis.” The community of this synagogue “would be more likely the association synagogue, having no public function.” (d) The atrium/courtyard to the east, not connected to the main hall and without the basalt pavement beneath it, was added last. The Capernaum synagogue was abandoned in the 7th century CE. Runesson (2007:251) proposes three groups involved in the life of Capernaum: “Byzantine Christian, Christ-believing Jews, and Jews not sharing this belief, a minority by this time.” He concludes (p. 257) that “monumental architectural discourse, invented centuries earlier when Galilean Jewish identity was relatively unthreatened, served the increasingly marginalized Jewish community in 5th–6th century Capernaum.” The initial date proposed now for the construction of the Capernaum synagogue, on the basis of the recent identification of many coins found in all parts of the synagogue building, is no earlier than the beginning of the 5th century, while the final date of the project is in the last quarter of the 5th century (Loffreda 1997:233). However, the archaeological report of the Capernaum excavation is still only partly published. The excavators’ late chronology is rejected by some scholars who still maintain the traditional dating, which assigns the construction of the synagogue to the 3rd century (Foerster 1971:208, 1992:315–16; Tsafrir 1995:153–156). On the basis of the data, Corbo (1975:168) and Loffreda (1997:231–2) suggested the hypothesis that the construction of the prayer room was begun under the reign of Julian the Apostate and perhaps with his financial aid. This would imply a fairly conspicuous space of time between the beginning and end of the synagogue’s construction. 2.4 Gush Halav Two synagogues have been found in Gush Halav. One, located in the upper city, in the modern village, was excavated at an earlier time; the second, which is of interest in the context of this chapter, was located in the lower city. The history of the lower city Gush Halav synagogue is divided into four periods spanning the midRoman to Byzantine periods (Meyers et al. 1990:10–13, 62–64, 74–98, 120–122, 246–249; Figs. 14–16, 19A, B, 22–24, 31; Belkin 1990). Period I of the synagogue is dated to 250–306 CE, based on third-century coins and stratigraphic reasons. The synagogue had one main entrance on the southern wall and two interior entrances on the east and west; eight columns divided the hall into a nave and aisles; benches were built on the west, and one along the northern end of the nave (Fig. III-1:8). An earlier large platform for an aedicula was found on the inner west side of the main entrance, on the southern Jerusalem–oriented façade. The floor was partially plastered. The end of this structure coincided with the earthquake of 306 CE. Period II (Late Roman), is dated to 306–363 CE, based on numismatic and ceramic evidence. It went through extensive renovation: the walls, stylobate, and other architectural members were recut and reset. A pair of heart-shaped columns was erected in the north end on top of a low wall. The column with the Aramaic donation inscription was re-erected by the excavators in the southeast of the hall. The lintel of the southern main portal had an eagle carved on its underside (Fig. IX-14). This structure might have had a simple, mostly white, mosaic floor. The earthquake of 363 CE brought serious damage to the structure. The synagogue of Periods II-IV is reconstructed with a mezzanine to the north for extra seating, a clerestory, and side storage rooms (Meyers et al. 1990:120–122, Figs. 22, 24, 31).

64

chapter three

Period III (Byzantine 1), dated to 363–460 CE, needed extensive renovation after the earthquake. Architectural parts were reused. The aedicula platform on the inner part of the south wall, west of the main entrance, was renovated, raised, and reduced in size. Period IV (Byzantine 2) is dated to 460–551 CE. Nothing was changed in the ground plan. Floors were renewed, in the “western corridor” which also served as a repository and storage area for various items; a hoard of 1,950 coins, found stored in a cooking pot in the final plaster floor of the “western corridor,” was deposited shortly before the destruction of the synagogue by the earthquake of 551 CE. Netzer (1996:450–452, Figs. 1–3) maintains (contrary to the excavators) that the Gush Halav synagogue was erected as a singular architectural unit (in period II-306–363 CE, rather than period I-250–306 CE) in the first half of the 4th century CE, and was not destroyed in the earthquake of 363 but continued to function until the mid-6th century. He suggests a different plan and reconstruction, and maintains that the decorative parts of the southern portal, the lintel, and the two monolithic doorjambs, the uneven column bases and capitals, as well as the pair of double columns and some of the ashlar stones, could have been spolia taken from earlier buildings. 2.5 Hamam, Hurvat Wadi The site of Hurvat Wadi Hamam is in the east Lower Galilee at the foot of the Mt. Nitai cliffs, on a strategic position above an ancient road and above the source of the Arbel river. Remains of a large Jewish village from the Roman-Byzantine period were discovered at the site. Three seasons of excavations revealed a synagogue structure in area A (Leibner 2010). The Hamam synagogue building, constructed of basalt, is a north-south oriented basilica. The exterior of the trapeze-shaped structure measures 17.2 × 14.7 m and the inside dimensions are ca. 15.4 × 12.8 m (Fig. III-3). The main entrance appears on the Jerusalem-oriented southern façade, and a decorated lintel found earlier might have belonged to this entrance as well; another entrance, that would have required the worshippers to enter and exit the building by climbing on the benches, was found, indicating that this portal was probably a later addition; yet a third entrance was found on the western wall, leading to an annex room which might have been vaulted (Leibner 2010:227–230, Fig. 6). Three rows of columns divide the hall into three aisles—two vertical rows of four columns, each with double (heart-shaped) columns at the northern end, and a horizontal northern aisle consisting of the two double columns with the addition of another column between them (the eastern aisle is wider than the western by 1 m). Four columns are placed on limestone pedestals and bases, all but one well-carved, and two columns are placed on basalt parts and other building debris. Two rows of benches that might have seated about 180 people were found along the northern, western, and eastern inner walls. The upper benches were decorated with simple molding, the lower benches were plastered; two ‘Tuscan’ capitals, one belonging to a double column, were incorporated into the basalt benches. Remains of limestone carved benches found scattered around the structure indicate an earlier public building. The many tiles and large nails found in the hall debris suggest that the synagogue hall had a tiled roof. Two phases of floors were discovered in the building. In the first phase a beautiful mosaic pavement, unfortunately heavily damaged already in antiquity, ornamented the building, Parts of the mosaic were incorporated into the later floor, in the nave and the eastern aisle. No plaster floor was uncovered, which indicates that the mosaic survived until the end of the building’s life. About 30 fragments (c. 6%) of the mosaic survived in some areas, including figural scenes, four Aramaic dedicatory inscriptions, and floral and geometric designs (Leibner and Miller 2010). The mosaic consisted of a large carpet in the nave, while the aisle carpets were divided into twelve panels placed between the columns and the benches facing the nave. In the center of the nave, a few fragments



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

65

Figure III‑3. Hamam synagogue plan.

of two concentric circles remain, perhaps part of a zodiac design. Four panels (nos. 4, 10, 11, 12) on the western aisle were decorated with biblical episodes, of which three panels survived in part: (1) craftsmen building a monumental structure; (2) a scene of combat between a group of soldiers and a giant; (3) a chariot led by horses and soldiers drowning in the sea. The mosaic pavement is dated to the late 3rd or early 4th century CE (Leibner and Miller 2010). An Aramaic dedicatory inscription in the right-hand lower corner of the battle scene that has survived (Fig. VIII-11) mentions “The sons of Simon who dedicated this panel from their own [means]” (Liebner and Miller 2010:249). Changes and renovations were made to the building during the 4th century CE: the mosaic pavement in some areas of the northern and western aisles was replaced or else a plastered floor was added. In the later phase, a stone aedicula (bema) was constructed on the mosaic pavement, west of the main entrance on the inner Jerusalem-oriented southern wall. Its frame was built of two levels of ashlar stones with a carved cornice, and the inner part consisted of fieldstones and earth, on which a wooden platform was probably placed (Fig. III-3). The basalt synagogue and the mosaic pavement belong to the late Roman period, the end of the 3rd or the beginning of the 4th century CE. The mosaic pavement may have been destroyed around the mid-4th century, perhaps by the earthquake of 363 CE. Changes and renovations, carried out in two phases, were conducted during the 4th century The rubble and the collapsed position of many architectural fragments found above floor level, the pottery of the latest phase, which is typical of the 4th to early 5th centuries CE, and some coins, indicate that the synagogue’s final phase was destroyed by an earthquake in the late 4th or early 5th century CE (perhaps the earthquake of 419 CE); the later changes in the building suggest the dwindling of the local congregation (Leibner 2010:230–236). Architectural limestone fragments in second use—ornamented parts, limestone carved benches, Doric capitals, cornices, colored plaster and stucco fragments similar to examples from the Herodian

66

chapter three

early Roman period—indicate that the Wadi Hamam basalt synagogue structure made use of elements from an earlier monumental limestone structure (a synagogue?) which apparently had existed near the site (Leibner 2010:235). 2.6 Huqoq Huqoq is an ancient village in the lower Galilee about 3 miles west of Capernaum. In the excavations conducted at the site in 2012, parts of the synagogue were discovered: a wall, pottery, coins and roof tile fragments, and remains of a high-quality mosaic pavement. The evidence indicates that the synagogue was built in the late 4th century CE and probably “was a monumental building with a pitched, tiled roof” (Magness 2013; Britt 2013). The surviving but badly damaged mosaic pavement consists of only three sections inside the excavation square (Fig. III-4): a decorated border along the inside of the synagogue wall, consisting of a white band with a black border and a three-strand guilloche pattern. The two other sections contain figural depictions: The northwest corner of the square (on the right) of the mosaic shows three medallions: The central medallion which includes an inscription is flanked by two grey medallions each enclosing a female face (Fig. XIII-13; but see Britt 2013, who interprets the medallions as gray nimbi surrounding their heads): the intact female face on the right is rendered with wavy red hair and a white earring in her left ear. The small damaged fragmented female head on the left has her hair pulled up in a top-knot tied with a black band and she wears a tiara with three green glass stones in its center. Floral motifs in red surround all the medallions. Britt (2013) maintains that the figures might be either personifications of seasons or, preferably, donors’ portraits, as indicated by their location flanking the inscription. However, until now no donors’ portraits have been found on any synagogue mosaics, though they appear on church mosaics (Hachlili 2009:238–239, Pl. XI.3). The Hebrew dedication inscription flanked by two medallions enclosing women’s heads consists of six white lines within a black medallion (Fig. XIII-13), and it seems to refer to rewards for those

Figure III‑4. Huqoq synagogue mosaic pavement.



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

67

who perform good deeds (Amit 2013): The six-line Hebrew inscription is damaged and all that has survived is: [‫וברוכי]ן[כל בני העיר?] שהן[מתח[זקי]ן בכל מצות כן יהא ]עמלכן ואמ [ן ס]ל [ה ]ש]ל [ום‬ And blessed [are all of the people of the town?] who adhere to all commandments. So may be your labor and Ame[n Se]la[h] P]eace.

The third mosaic section, at the southwest corner of the square (on the left corner), is an upsidedown scene (Fig. VIII-13). It renders a midsection of a partly preserved large figure wearing a blue tunic decorated with a geometric designed orbiculum with a bronze tessera at the center, a thick decorated belt with a dark gray rope with a red tassel suspended from it, and a red cloak. Next to the figure two partly preserved pairs of foxes have their tails tied around a torch and their faces and bodies away from each other. The scene is identified as a Samson episode, depicting the narrative of his tying pairs of foxes to torches by their tails and releasing them to burn the crops in the Philistines’ fields (Jud. 15:1–5). Britt (2013) compares the Huqoq mosaic to 5th–6th century Antioch mosaics, and suggests that “the stylistic qualities that characterize the mosaic at Huqoq are common attributes of fifth and sixth century figural mosaics in the Near East.” 2.7 Kafr Misr The synagogue in Kafr Misr in the east Lower Galilee has three successive phases (Fig. III-37), from the 3rd to the early 7th c. CE (Onn 1994). Phase I is a rectangular building with two entrances, in the north and east, and the central assembly hall area is divided by two rows of eight column bases in front of the benches. The construction of Kafr Misr Phase I probably took place in the early 3rd century and this phase lasted until the early 4th century. It may have been destroyed by the earthquake in 306 CE (see above). Phase II synagogue retained the walls and general plan of the earlier building. The principal changes were the mosaic floor and the niche (Fig. III-5). At the south wall, a niche—a large structure of stones blocks—was built to serve as a Torah shrine. It stands on a platform with steps leading to it; in front, a bema of two steps was built, with sockets for the parochet support, and double columns framing the first step. The niche, flanked by double pillars, is similar to the relief at Beth She‘arim (Fig. IV-35), Catacomb 4, Room VII (Mazar 1973:175–180, Pl. 34). The hall had seven round columns found on top of the Phase I square bases. The eighth column reused the base and pedestal of Phase I and, together with the find of a single Ionic capital, it ­probably indicates the use of the Ionic order. A mosaic floor replaced the plaster floor of Phase I in the early part of the 4th century; only the northern part is preserved, partly integrated with the later mosaic of Phase III. A fragment of a decorated basalt frieze might indicate an ornate façade. Phase II is dated to the period from the early 4th century to the first half of the 5th century CE. In Phase III the structure was enlarged by the addition of an apse built of limestone and mortar on the southern side of the building, that also incorporates elements of the Phase II niche (Onn 1994:121). The central area of the hall was paved with a new mosaic. This phase began its life in the mid-5th c. CE and lasted until the 7th, when a dwelling was built on it. In the hall’s nave the surviving fragments of the mosaic pavement show a rectangle divided into three panels, framed by a border (Onn 1994:121–126, plan 3, Figs. 8–11). The mosaic’s northern and central panels contain geometric patterns, which, together with the corridor mosaic, probably date to the second half of the 5th century CE. The section of the mosaic adjacent to the bema contains Jewish symbols, fragments of an inscription, and a floral motif. The design includes an eight-part

68

chapter three

Figure III‑5. Kfar Misr plan.



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

69

circle in the center flanked by seven- and five-branched menoroth, and a shofar surrounded by lotus flowers, leaves, and geometric motifs. In the southwestern corner of the mosaic a fragment of a three-line Hebrew inscription was found, of which only three words survived: ‫ יצחק ויעקב‬,‫אברהם‬ (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). The craftsmanship of this panel is inferior and there are many repairs. The lower part contains rows of spaced rosebuds alternating with a bichrome triple filet framed by a band. This mosaic dates to the 6th–7th centuries CE. The dating by Onn is the result of the comparisons he chose. The corridor mosaic contains simple geometric patterns. 2.8 Korazim The synagogue of Korazim (Yeivin 2000) is a monumental basalt structure (Figs. III-6, IV-13). An elevated entrance platform with about eight wide steps leads to the synagogue façade, which has three molded, undecorated portals on the Jerusalem-oriented south wall. Yeivin (1985:Fig. 2; 2000:54–56, Figs. 135, 136, Pl. 26:2–5, plan 14) maintains that four fragments decorated with menoroth and a wreath are parts of two lintels which ornamented the interior side portals. However, May and Stark (2002:242, 246, Pls. 23–24, nos. 97–100) are right in their proposal that these four decorated fragments, rendering an unidentical symmetry design of two menoroth flanking a wreath, are part of a single lintel decorating the exterior of the western portal. The hall (14.5 × 20.0 m) was divided into a nave and three aisles by three rows of columns; each of the rows had four columns, making twelve altogether. The columns are on pedestals (of which seven survived in situ while the other three were found scattered in the building), which stood on stylobates. Nine diagonal Ionic capitals, similar except for two, were found (Yeivin 2000:18*–19*, Pl. 12:1–9). The outer eastern wall and the southern façade wall were decorated with pilasters. Stone benches lined three of the inner walls, all except the south one. The hall was paved with basalt slabs which partly survived. The inner south wall had two aediculae flanking the central entrance and a bema (Yeivin 2000:27*). The synagogue had an elaborated frieze ornamentation. Based on the architectural evidence, coins and pottery, Yeivin (2000:12*–14*, 29*–31*, 106) puts the terminus post quem for the synagogue construction at the beginning of the 4th century CE, and maintains that it continued in use, with repairs and various changes, until the end of the 6th century. Magness (2007:12*–17*) dates the synagogue construction to the late 5th century CE or later, based on numismatic and ceramic evidence. 2.9 Meroth The excavations at the synagogue at Meroth uncovered four stages in the history of the building (Ilan & Damati 1987; 1989:58; Ilan 1989; 1992). Synagogue IA (400–450 CE) was constructed from chalk stones as a basilica, with a courtyard flanking the southern and eastern walls; a portico was built along the entire façade and a storeroom to the west (Fig. III-3:7 left). The entire complex was 30 m long and 20 m wide, and was roofed with plaster and ceramic tiles. Three entrances were found on the southern wall. The hall (17.90 × 11.40 m) was divided into a nave and two aisles by two rows of columns set on pedestals (each row was different in size) (Fig. III-7). The floor was plastered and the walls were decorated with colored fresco. Two aedicula platforms flanked the interior Jerusalem-oriented southern wall to either side of the main portal, between it and the side portals. Benches were built along the west and east walls, and another short bench along the north-west corner. The building may have had a gallery/balcony (Ilan 1989:22), though Damati (2000:42, Fig. 29) reconstructs stage IA of the synagogue with only a single floor and no portico.

70

chapter three

Figure III‑6. Korazim synagogue plan.

In Synagogue IB (450–500 CE), the plastered floor was replaced by a mosaic pavement (probably at the beginning of this stage) of which only a small part survived, depicting David with the weapons of Goliath (Fig. VIII-15). Several changes were made during this stage. An entryway was opened in the north-west corner of the synagogue, with stairs leading from the street, built on the corner bench and on the remains of the mosaic floor. In addition, in the northern part of the west aisle, a sort of platform/gallery, raised about 60 cm. and accessing the storeroom, was built, above the stairs and the western bench (Damati 2000:34–39, Figs. 21–25). Damati (2000:42) dates Synagogue I and all its phases from the end of the 4th to the mid-6th centuries CE. Synagogue II (500–620) retained the general plan of the synagogue, with alterations: the building’s exterior walls were replaced with hard limestone; in the interior, the two aedicula platforms were raised and extended further into the hall, and the floor was paved with large hewn flagstones



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

71

laid over the mosaic. The portals’ thresholds were raised to accommodate the new floor, as were the benches and gallery platform (Figs. III-3:7 left; III-7). Beneath the flagstones many coins were discovered, 177 of which were identified and dated to the 4th–late 5th centuries. Damati (2000:54) maintains that as the changes were made only on the pavement and entrances, the building retained its one-floor plan. Based on the coins, Damati (2000:42) dates Synagogue II from the second half of the 6th c. to its destruction in the mid-8th c. CE. Synagogue III (620–1200) shows structural changes and a different plan, after major damage generated perhaps by the earthquake of 749; the northern wall was moved inward; the façade with its three entryways was moved to the northern wall opposite the aediculae (Fig. III-3:7 right); the eastern part of the portico was converted into a classroom. A gallery above the western aisle and outside stairs were built (Damati 2000:104–105, Fig. 71). Alterations were made in the courtyards. In the storeroom on the west in a locus beneath the floor, the synagogue cash box was found, with 485 gold and bronze coins inside. A bronze amulet was found in the fill between the stones underneath the threshold of the eastern entrance. Damati (2000:70–71) maintains that Synagogue III became a large public center. Since it was rebuild and renovated after the earthquake of 749, Synagogue III dates from the mid-8th century to its final destruction at the beginning of the 13th century CE. A beth midrash with a mosaic pavement (Fig. III-1:7 right) was constructed in the south-western corner of the courtyard. The execution of the stone carving on the architectural elements at Meroth is inferior to the high quality of masonry typical of the earlier Galilean synagogues but is nonetheless inspired by it (Tzafrir 1995:159–161).

Figure III‑7. Meroth synagogue hall, looking north-west.

72

chapter three

Two important inscription citing biblical verses were found at the beth midrash of Meroth (Ilan 1989:33, Fig. 18): (1) The engraved Hebrew inscription on the entrance lintel says ‫ברוך אתה בבואך וברוך אתה בצאתך‬ “Blessed shall you be in your comings and blessed shall you be in your goings” (Deut. 28:6) (Fig. XI-9). A high relief of a pair of eagles flanking a wreath ending with a Hercules knot and ivy leaves (Ilan 1989:32, Figs. 16–17) decorated the lintel. (2) On the mosaic of this beth midrash (Fig. VIII-17), the verse ‫“ זאב וטלה ירעו כאחד‬The wolf and the lamb shall graze together” (Isaiah 65:25) is placed above the depictions of the animals. 2.10 Nabratein The final report of the excavation at the Nabratein synagogue (Meyers and Meyers 2009) concludes that three synagogues were constructed one above the other: Synagogue 1 (Period II, ca. 135–250 CE), Synagogue 2 with two phases (Period III, 2a–ca. 250–306 CE; 2b–ca. 306–363 CE) and Synagogue 3 (Period IV, ca. 564–700 CE). There was a gap in occupation from ca. 363 to 564. Synagogue 1 (Period II, ca. 135–250 CE) is a broad-house whose main entrance, in the Jerusalemoriented southern façade, is off-center (Meyers and Meyers 2009:30, 34, 67–69, 397, Fig. 7) (Fig. III-1:5 right) (see description above). Synagogue 2a and b: Synagogue 2a (11.2 × 13.85 m) was enlarged to the north to form a basilica with six columns in two rows (Meyers and Meyers 2009:31, 44–47, 69–77, 398–99; Figs. 9, 12, 13, 18, 19). It had a front portico with four columns added to the southern exterior, and the southern façade entrance was now in the center of the wall, flanked with a pair of recessed panels simulating doors, perhaps to imitate doorways, as the excavators suggested. Another entrance was opened in the eastern wall (Fig. III-1:5 center). The pair of platforms was retained on the interior of the southern façade flanking the entrance: the western one supported a Torah shrine with a decorated lintel, which dates to the 3rd century CE (and might have served already in Synagogue 1), and the east one possibly served as a platform for the Torah reader’s table. Two rows of benches lined the western and eastern walls. The roof tiles were discovered buried in plastered pits in the southwest corner. Synagogue 2a was badly damaged, apparently partly collapsed by the earthquake of 306 CE. The lintel in the main southern entryway, which bears an inscription added in the Byzantine period, was constructed for Synagogue 2a, as were the doorjambs and other architectural parts that were later abandoned, following the earthquake of 363 CE. The structure was repaired and immediately rebuilt as Synagogue 2b, based on the numismatic and pottery data, which shows no gap between the two stages. It is the same building, but without the stone platforms for the Torah shrine, which might have been made of wood (Fig. III-1:5 center). Based on the numismatic and ceramic finds, the end of this synagogue phase came in 363 CE, after the earthquake, and not as a result of the Gallus Revolt; the drought of 362/3 CE may also have contributed to the abandonment of the site. Synagogue 2 existed at the same time as the small structure at Gush Halav, the large basilica at Meiron, and the broadhouse at H. Shema, each of which is different in plan (Fig. III-1:4, 6, 8), indicating that there was no dominant tradition of synagogue buildings at that period. Synagogue 3 was constructed in about 500 CE, following an approximately 150 year gap. The structure in this phase was elongated on the north (16.9 × 11.6 m), with eight columns in two rows of four columns each; the portico, the main entrance and the benches were retained (Meyers and Meyers 2009:31–2, 63–71, 399–401, Figs. 15, 16). The doorjambs and the lintel from Synagogue 2a were reused on the southern entrance, and the lintel was inscribed with a dedicatory inscription



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

73

dated to 564 CE. An entrance was added on the north (Fig. III-1:5 right). The two aedicula platforms were buried beneath a raised plastered floor. An incised black-ware bowl with a depiction of a Torah shrine and hanging lamps can be dated to the 6th–7th c. and may imply that a Torah shrine made of wood was used. The rededication of Synagogue 3 in 564 CE, based on the inscription added on the lintel (Avigad 1960) and the coins and pottery, all support the date of the late 6th century CE for the synagogue; coins sealed by the floor give a date of no later than 700 CE for the end of this building. Synagogue 3 was the only one that survived in the region (H. Shema and Meiron were abandoned and Gush Halav was destroyed in 551 CE). Magness (2010, table 1), after reviewing and analyzing the floor levels, pottery and coins, proposes different results and dates for the Nabratein synagogue. She maintains that there was only one building, with two phases, which in plan and dimensions match the excavators’ Synagogue 3: Phase 1 of the building was constructed around the second half of the 4th century CE (and repaired in 564?), or constructed in 564 CE, and destroyed by fire (with the floor level at an approximate elevation of 680.4–680.5 m). Phase 2 had an upper floor that was laid ca. 660–690 CE (the floor level was at ca. 680.9–681.0 m). The synagogue continued to be in use through the 8th century CE, “providing important evidence for the use of the synagogue and the survival of a Jewish community for over a century and a half after the Muslim conquest.” 2.11 Horvat Shemʿa The Horvat Shemʿa synagogue had two phases: Synagogue 1 was destroyed by the earthquake of 306 CE and Synagogue 2, which was a restoration of Synagogue 1, was destroyed with the village in the earthquake of 419 CE (Meyers, Kraabel and Strange 1976; Strange 2001). Both phases of the synagogue had the same plan and orientation, consisting of a hall with a main entrance on the north wall. Eight columns, four on each side, divided the hall into a nave and flanking aisles; benches were built along the walls; a high gallery was constructed on the west side with two entrances, on the north and west and with a room decorated with frescos underneath. There was a monumental stairway on the west, under which was a hewn room used as a genizah. A bema was added in Synagogue 2 (Figs. III-1:6, IV-25). Loffreda (1981) and Netzer (1996:453–54) maintain that the Horvat Shemʿa synagogue consisted of a single period (the excavators’ second phase) with substages and alterations. Netzer contends that some of the architectural items, including the lintel and doorjambs of the main north portal, were spolia taken from other earlier buildings on the site or other sites. 2.12 The Tiberias Group Three synagogues in the east Lower Galilee were discovered, one in Tiberias and two at Hammath Tiberias (Fig. III-8). 2.12.1 Tiberias, North Synagogue In the center of the old city of Tiberias, a square building (20 × 20 m) was discovered, with its main entrance on the north wall. The hall is divided by two rows of columns, two bases of which were found in situ, forming a nave flanked by two aisles; remains of an aedicula were discovered on the interior of the south Jerusalem-oriented wall (Fig. III-8c) (Hirshfeld 1993, IV:1468–1470). In the hall’s west aisle, fragments of mosaic pavement were revealed, including a Greek dedicatory inscription inside a wreath flanked by the Jewish symbols of a lulav and an ethrog, one on either side (Fig. VI-36). Various items were found in the synagogue, among them a decorated chancel screen. The synagogue

74

chapter three

a

b

c

Figure III‑8. Synagogue plans: a. Hammath Tiberias B; b. Hammath Tiberias A; c. Tiberias.

was erected in the 6th c. and later underwent changes and reconstructions, including the replacement of the mosaic by a stone pavement. 2.12.2 Hammath Tiberias Synagogue A Hammath Tiberias synagogue A consisted of a basilical structure (12 × 12 m) divided by two rows of columns into a nave and two aisles (Slouschz 1921). Three entrances were constructed on the north, and a platform surrounded by four small columns was found on the south part of the nave, serving as an aedicula (Fig. III-8b). Slouschz (1921) dated it to the Early Roman period. Vincent (1922) on stylistic criteria, suggested two levels and dated it to the 4th–5th c. Dothan dated it to the 4th century. Oren, who in 1971 excavated the northwest part of the synagogue, contends that the synagogue was constructed in the 3rd century, with an entrance on the south (?) and a floor paved with basalt flagstones. The main lifetime of the building was in the 4th–5th centuries, when the entrance was on the north and the floor was paved with a mosaic. Alterations in the early Islamic period consisted of new entrances on the west and blockage of the entrances on the north. In addition, the floors were paved with marble slabs—spolia from other buildings. Ceramic and numismatic finds indicate the building was used until the 10th–11th c. CE. Next to the entrance, a fragment of a marble chancel screen decorated with a menorah was discovered. Stacey (2002:259) contends that this synagogue was only built in the 10th or 11th century, reusing architectural elements from the earlier synagogue B. 2.12.3 Hammath Tiberias B (South) The Hammath Tiberias B synagogue, about 500 m south of Hammath Tiberias A, consisted of four building strata: IIb, IIa, Ib, Ia. Synagogue IIb, the earliest synagogue, consisted of a main rectangular hall and two rooms. The southern room was probably the passage to the hall; the northern room was possibly a stairwell ascending to the clerestory or the roof. There was a small niche (about 1.20 m deep) in the extended northeastern corner (Dothan 1983:20–26, plan C). Three rows of columns on stylobates divided the hall into four uneven aisles (Fig. III-9a). The interior walls were plastered; mosaic pavements decorated the floors, which were destroyed by the rebuilding of Stratum IIa. Dothan dates this early synagogue to the first half of the 3rd century CE. Synagogue IIa (Severus) was quite similar in plan to Synagogue IIb, consisting of a hall divided into four uneven aisles and a group of four communicating rooms on the southeast. The triple entrances of synagogue IIa were built on the north (Dothan 1983:27–33, 52 Plans D, E), as indicated also by the Greek inscription, placed between the two lions of the bottom panel. Elaborate mosaic pavements ornamented Synagogue IIa. Room 35 (on the south), had a higher floor level and stairs, and a continuation of the nave that was probably the chamber housing the Torah shrine (Fig. III-9b). In



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

IIb

IIa

Figure III‑9. Hammath Tiberias B synagogue plans: a. Stratum IIb; b. Stratum IIa.

75

76

chapter three

the western part (L 52) of this room, a sunken structure was revealed containing some ritual items, which probably served as a genizah. Synagogue IIa is dated by Dothan to the late 3rd and first quarter of the 4th centuries CE. Weiss (1992:322–4, Figs. 4–5) maintains that synagogues IIb and IIa were in fact one synagogue that went through several changes. He also suggests that the entrance to synagogues IIb and IIa was on the east wall, and that the aisle served as a sort of narthex or entrance hall leading to the main hall and its two aisles. The unusual third east aisle suggests this, as does the location of the two dedicatory inscriptions, one in Aramaic and one in Greek (inscriptions 1, 2 in Panel 13) in east aisle 56, and the Greek inscription 3 from the farthermost east aisle 57, arranged to be read by those entering from the east (Dothan 1983:Pl. 21:1, 2, 3). On the east side no building was found, and perhaps it served only as a square. Weiss also compares it with the ʿEn Gedi synagogue, with three entrances on the east leading to a narthex. Stylistic analysis of the mosaic pavement indicates that the renovations were conducted in the 4th century CE. Synagogues Ib and Ia (Dothan 2000), the two later levels, were apsidal, longhouse buildings. The façade of Synagogue Ib had three entrances on the north wall, and the main hall was divided by three rows of columns into a nave and two aisles, with an apse on the south Jerusalem-oriented wall (Fig. III-10). Three entrances on the west led to a stone-paved courtyard with an unusual small apse on the south wall (locus 47, plans B1, B2, and C). Stacey (2002:253, Fig. 1) maintains the existence of an apsidal intermediate synagogue on the east side of the building (ca. 12.0 × 12–15 m), between those of IIa and Ib, on the basis of stratigraphic evidence: in his opinion the small apse was probably a central feature of an earlier structure, which predated the Ib building and was later integrated into it. Stacey further suggests that Synagogue Ib was larger than IIa and the proposed intermediate synagogue, that the east wall of this synagogue was removed, and that perhaps Synagogue IIa was abandoned for a time. The dating he proposes for this intermediate synagogue is the later part of the 6th century, while synagogue Ib was perhaps built in the 7th century following an earthquake in 633 or 659, and was possibly destroyed by the earthquake of 749. Dothan (2000:93) dates the construction of synagogue Ib before 423, soon after the destruction of synagogue IIa in the earthquake of 419, and claims that it was damaged in the first half of the 7th century CE. Milson (2004) suggests the far-fetched possibility that Hammath Tiberias B Stratum Ib was most probably a church, based on the small apse and a water cistern added in the western courtyard, both of which are typical features of churches and baptisteries. Synagogue Ia is a renovation of the older building, with few alterations except for a new mosaic floor paving the nave and aisles. The apse in the courtyard was removed and the courtyard was built over, but it is possible that these were later structures; the repaired structure Ia continued until the mid-8th century CE (Dothan 2000 and plan E1). Stacey dates this synagogue from ca. 750 until ca. 900 CE. 2.13 Sepphoris At Sepphoris (in west Lower Galilee) three synagogues are known but only one has been excavated and published. The other two are known only from some discovered items: one, partly excavated but with its plan unknown, had a mosaic floor with an Aramaic inscription and a Greek inscription carved on a lintel; some colored mosaics probably came from the floor of another synagogue, all dated to the 5th century CE (Weiss 2005:2–4). The excavated Sepphoris synagogue hall is an oblong structure (16 × 6.4 m), with a single entrance on the southwestern wall leading to a small narthex; the wall was almost entirely dismantled and robbed (Weiss and Netzer 2005:7–53). The hall is divided by a single row of 5 columns into a nave



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

Ib

Ia

Figure III‑10. Hammath Tiberias B synagogue plans: Ib, Ia.

77

78

chapter three

and a narrow east aisle. At the northeast end an aedicula (5.0 × 2.4 m) was built. The floor was completely covered by a mosaic pavement, and seven panels, some subdivided, decorate the nave. The panels mostly illustrate biblical scenes: The upper band consists of a wreath with an Greek inscription flanked by two lions, each grasping a bull’s head. Band 2 shows the Torah shrine and ark flanked by menoroth and ritual objects. Band 3 contains the Consecration of Aaron to the Service of the Tabernacle and the Daily Offerings, and Band 4 the Showbread Table and the Basket of First Fruits. Band 5, in the center of the mosaic, illustrates the zodiac. Band 6 is decorated with the Binding of Isaac (the ʿAqedah), and Band 7 perhaps shows the Visit of the Angels to Abraham and Sarah. The dating of the Sepphoris synagogue construction is determined by the finds sealed by the only floor, and by the stylistic features of the mosaic floor. It seems that the synagogue was built no

Figure III‑11. Sepphoris synagogue plan.



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

79

later than the first or second decade of the 5th century CE. Its destruction is dated to the end of the Byzantine period—mid-7th century or later; the building was completely destroyed in the Umayyad period. It was abandoned and stood in ruin for a long time (Weiss and Netzer 2005:38–39); Netzer contends that the destruction was a result of an earthquake, while Weiss maintains that the building was intentionally dismantled and the stones removed. 3. Qasrin Qasrin is one of the six excavated Golan synagogues—Dabiyye, Deir ʿAziz, ʿEn Nashut, Kanaf, and Umm el-Qanatir (Fig. III-33) that will be described below. The following report is a summary of the finds of the Qasrin synagogue excavations directed by Rachel Hachlili, Ann Killebrew and Zvi U. Maoz, and conducted in three seasons in 1982–19842 (Maoz 1985, 1993; Maoz and Killebrew 1988:11– 15; Urman 1995b:463–481) (also incorporated are some of the plans and details researched by the previous excavators).3 Qasrin (map reference 2161/2661), located in the central Golan, has the best preserved synagogue in the Golan, with a completely preserved entrance portal. The synagogue is on a low hill surrounded by a village, the residential area of which is to the east of the synagogue (Figs. III-12, 13). The village itself was excavated by Ann Killebrew (Killebrew and Fine 1991; Killebrew 1993). A small spring is located at the northeast part of the site together with two underground springs. A circular staircase leads to the spring. To the south of the water system, a wall was constructed. Part of the structure was hewn from the bedrock and there is an opening going to the south. Some loculi tombs were found north of the spring. The location of the Qasrin synagogue, in a topographically low spot along the western fringes of the Late Roman—Early Islamic settlement, is unusual. One possible reason may be that more desirable locations, i.e. in the center of the settlement, on topographically higher ground to the east, or near a water source, were already inhabited. This theory is supported by excavations in the village east of the synagogue, where domestic structures from the first half of the fourth century, with earlier inundations in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, have been uncovered. A second suggestion is that this low location may have protected the synagogue roof from strong winds. The basalt synagogue structure is almost rectangular, with a north-south orientation. The bestpreserved phase of the structure now visible is Synagogue IIB (Stratum IVA, IVB). The foundations of the walls (except the north wall) of Synagogue I were used for the rebuilding of Synagogue II (Figs. III-13, 14). The synagogue walls are built of smoothly-dressed ashlar basalt blocks. The interior walls were coated with lime plaster and whitewashed, some decorated with red painted stripes. The Qasrin synagogue went through three main architectural phases:4 Synagogue I (Stratum V), Synagogue IIa (Stratum IVa, Floor no. 2), Synagogue IIb (Stratum IVb, Floor no. 3); following a gap in 2 Renewed excavations of the Qasrin synagogue by Hachlili, Killebrew and Maoz were conducted in 1982–1984 (permits K-3/1982, A-1223/1983, A-1293/1984) (Maoz 1985b, Maoz and Killebrew 1988, 1993). Participants in the 1982–1984 excavations were: D. Ariel, M. Avisar, N. Ahipaz, G. Dasal, J. Lipton, A. Kranz, M. Yanai, S. Lavi, E. Hagagi, B. Hermansen, G. Simson, T. Shruder, Archeometric tests were conducted by D. Adan. No final report on the Qasrin synagogue has yet been published. 3 Qasrin was visited by Schumacher in 1884 and 1913. The synagogue was first reported in the 1967 survey by S. Gutman (Kochavi 1972:270). Excavations of the northern part of the hall, with probes under the floor, were conducted in 1971 by D. Urman (permit K-2/1971); M. Ben-Ari and S. Bar-Lev excavated parts of the hall in 1975–6 (permits K-4/1975–1977). Only short reports were published of these excavations, in HA 34–5, 1970:4; 39, 1971:8; 41–2, 1972:2; 56, 1976:2–3. In 1978 a stratigraphic probe under the floor was conducted by S. Bar-Lev and Z. Maoz (Maoz, HA 78, 1982:60–1). A summary of former surveys and excavations was published by Urman (1995b:463–481). 4 Remains of an earlier structure, perhaps a domestic building, were discovered under Synagogue I.

80

chapter three

Figure III‑12. Qasrin synagogue and village.

occupation, the site was reoccupied in a fourth phase during the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries CE, when it was a mosque (but see Urman 1995b:466–7 who proposes the structure was a church). Five surfaces were discerned: Floors 0–3 were associated with the synagogue, while the last thick ­plaster of Floor no. 4 served as the surface for the mosque. The Qasrin synagogue dates from the Late Roman/ Early Byzantine period through the Ummayid period.5 3.1 Synagogue I (A) The earliest synagogue at Qasrin was probably an almost square structure (15.2 × 15.3 m), with its main portal on the northern wall. An earlier northern wall (W50) was found in the excavation under the floor of Synagogue II, parallel to the later wall (W1). The central entrance might have been located in the dismantled northern wall. A side entrance in the southeastern corner of the synagogue led to an annex room. The hall was divided into a nave and two aisles by two rows of three columns each, with two engaged pillars on the north side. Two rows of stepped ashlar benches were built along all the walls. Remains of an earlier aedicule, built against the inside south Jerusalem-oriented wall, were found below the larger Torah shrine of the later Synagogue II. The original floor (no. 1) of Synagogue I, which covered most of the hall, consisted of a hard white plaster incised with shallow grooves (resembling stone slabs), laid on a surface of beaten earth. This 5 The final plans published here (all 1:50) are the result of our 1982–84 excavations combined with 1975–76 plans: ‫ט‬-xxx1/2, ‫ט‬-xxx-2, ‫ט‬-xxx-2/2, ‫ט‬-xxx-4, drawn during the excavation of M. Ben-Ari, by M. Feist, Y. Vatkin and b. Tobin.



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

81

C

A B

Figure III‑13. Qasrin synagogue and village plan.

plaster floor was found adjacent to the northern wall (W50); some parts of the same floor were discovered bordering the upper part of the southwestern corner of the benches (Figs. III-15, 17). A small annex—an adjoining east room (3.65 × 2.55 m)—which later was incorporated into Synagogue II, was entered from the synagogue through an 0.85 m wide doorway near the southeast corner of the hall. It was paved with the same grooved plaster and whitewashed floor (no. 1) (Fig. III-15). In probes under the plaster floor, a thin lime and plaster surface was discovered, which was termed a “working floor” (floor no. 0); in two probes a large number of pottery fragments, mostly bowls and cooking pots, were found on this surface, perhaps debris from the construction of the floor. The grooved plaster floor was laid on a leveling fill and a solid make-up layer. In the 1975–1977 excavations, long basalt beams were found in its destruction debris, and this room may have been roofed over by stone beams, as were some of the village houses, and as was also typical of Hauranite architecture. Though most of the architectural parts were dismantled and removed in order to construct the later synagogue, several fragments which might have belonged to Synagogue I were reused in later phases and also in other later buildings in the village (see Table III-1, Figs. III-24, 25; Urman 1984; 1995:464; Maoz and Killebrew 1988:5–7). These included the capital of a diagonal fluted column decorated with a double meander pattern (AF 33b, Fig. III-27), a cornice fragment with four Aramaic letters ‫ דמבר‬dmbr (AF 143, Urman 1972, 1984; 1995:477, Inscription 4, Fig. III-32a), and a relief with a five-armed menorah and a peacock (AF 139, Fig. III-16) (found in the survey, Urman 1970:4; Hachlili 1995:nos. 4, 48).

82

chapter three

Figure III‑14. Qasrin excavation plan.



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

83

Figure III‑15. Plan of Synagogue I.

The date of Synagogue I is in dispute: Urman (1984:532; 1995b:466) maintains that the first stage of the Qasrin synagogue was constructed between the first half of the 3rd and the mid 4th centuries CE; Maoz-Killebrew (1988:5, and n. 2; Maoz 1993:1223) date Synagogue I to the late 4th–early 5th centuries CE. Based on one coin from 218–219, found between floors 0 and 1, and pottery of the 3rd–4th centuries, it seems that Synagogue I was in use during the 3rd and 4th centuries. 3.2 Synagogue II (B) (Stratum IVa, b) The second synagogue, II, built of smoothed basalt ashlar stones on its outer face, was an uneven rectangular structure with walls of irregular dimensions (north 15.45 m, south 14.80 m, west 17.40 m, east 17.25 m). The inner face of the walls was constructed of blocks and field stones with small stones and dirt as bonding matrix, plastered over and decorated with painted red stripes. The façade of the synagogue is on the north wall, with a single intact entrance located in the center (still stands to the height of 3.40 m) (Fig. III-18). The main ornamented portal was completely preserved. The synagogue’s single main entrance portal (H. 3.40, W. 1.43 m), built in the center of the north wall (W1), completely survived (Fig. III-18). The portal consisted of doorjambs constructed to either side of two uneven parts placed on Attic pilaster bases (the east base is higher than the west

84

chapter three

Figure III‑16. Relief with a five-armed menorah and a peacock.

one and the west doorjamb part above the base is larger than the same part on the east). The lintel with decorated relief is placed on top of the doorjambs. The portal is decorated on its frame—doorway jambs and lintel—with a flat architrave, a convex frieze, and a cornice. The ornamented lintel (see below) was probably surmounted by a relieving arch, as indicated by a molded voussoir-stone found nearby (Fig. IV-9a; Hachlili 1995:193, Fig. 1), a double arched window on the front, and sima cornices along the sloping roof. Above the entrance there was probably an opening with an iron grill; this is indicated by several small rectangular mortices found on top of the lintel stone. The door and window frames on the inside were also built of ashlar stones. A stone fragment decorated with a carved serpent (?) (no. 117, Fig. III-26a) might indicate a gable. Another entrance (1.40 m wide), in the western wall of the synagogue (which was closed during the Mamluk period), is indicated by a break in the benches at this point, an inner threshold stone with two holes, grooves for a door (no. 83) in situ under the west wall, and the continuation of the plaster floor through the benches up to the inner threshold.6 Parts of the doorjambs were found also (nos. 79–82). A rectangular lintel decorated with a rosette in the center, lozenges, and triangles (no. 85, Fig. III-19) (Kochavi 1972:270; Hachlili 1995:207, Fig. 50), that was found in the room west of the synagogue, might have originally belonged to this western entrance. The exterior threshold and jamb stones, which were parts of the western entrance frame, were found in secondary use in a Mamluk structure attached to the western wall of the synagogue. 6 This entrance was discovered during our 1982–84 excavation, Urman (1995:n. 206) declared that no indication for an entrance on the west was found during his excavation.



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

85

Figure III‑17. Synagogue I and II—schematic plan with floors.

The hall of the synagogue was divided into a nave (6.10 m wide) and two aisles—the western aisle (3.55 m) wider than the eastern (3.45 m)—by two rows of four columns and two square engaged columns appended to the southern wall, next to the Torah shrine. Four of the Attic column bases in the southern half of the hall, as well as the bases for the additional three columns in the north, were found in situ (Fig. III-20). The small east annex room of Synagogue I, with its doorway near the southeast corner of the hall, was still in use in Synagogue II. A lintel in two fragments, decorated with a wreath in its center and ribbons on either side that continue as intertwining vines, with leaves and clusters of grapes emerging from a pair of amphorae on both ends (Fig. V-8), might have originally belonged to the small annex entrance (Hachlili 1987:23–4; 1995:207, no. 51).

86

chapter three

Figure III‑18. Qasrin main entrance portal.

Seven of the column capitals, some column shaft drums, and other architectural fragments were discovered in the destruction debris of the synagogue or were reused in the walls of the Stratum II structure (or in the mosque?). The column capitals are of the ‘Golan Type’, an unusual variant of the Ionic capital that is characteristic of the Golan (see Fig. IV-20a; Hachlili 1995:189, 210, no. 65). About eight Doric capitals found in the synagogue debris or in second use (nos. 18–20, 32, 41–42, 102, 134) may have belonged to the upper story. Several blocks belonging to window frames (Fig. IV-9b, c), some decorated with semi-attached columns with simple bases and Ionic capitals, were uncovered in the destruction debris of the building. It is possible that these windows were located in the upper clerestory walls raised over the nave. The finding of long basalt beams in the 1975–1977 excavations debris suggests that the hall was roofed over by stone beams, as was typical of the adjoining houses in the village and other structures in the area. Ceramic roof tiles, of which a large number were found in the destruction debris, probably covered the synagogue roof. Corbel stones, some with cyma profile, found in the synagogue and in second use, served to support the weight of the upper story or roof (see Table III-1). Originally there were most likely two levels of benches along the walls; most of the stepped benches (40–50 cm. deep and 25 cm. high) found on the east and west walls are probably from Synagogue I, and were incorporated and reused in Synagogue II. The lower step has survived almost completely, interrupted only by the entrances and the Torah shrine platform, while the upper step was often robbed; the new benches installed in the northern part of the hall ucted after its extension were distinguished by the inferior quality of their stone (Figs. III-20, 22).



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

87

Figure III‑19. Decorated lintel of western portal.

The aedicula (3.15 × 1.20 m) was built against the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall, spanning the entire width of the nave, and had steps leading up to it. Its northern face met the base of the two southernmost columns. The aedicula consisted of two ashlar basalt stone steps; however it is highly probable that originally there was a third step. On the east and west sides only one step remains, but the two other steps probably continued around the corners. Two threshold stones (measuring 70 cm. in width), found on the lower step of the aedicula platform to either side, provided access to it from the east and west portals (Figs. III-21, 22). This platform served as the base for a wooden Ark of the Scrolls. On the inner part behind the platform, close to the wall, a long open space was uncovered that might have served as a genizah or for storage (Figs. III-21, IV-39). The original floor of Synagogue II (in Stratum IVa) was a mosaic pavement (Floor no. 2), of which only some remains survived. The mosaic floor consists of layers of plastermixed with mosaic pieces, upon which the mosaic floor was laid. About 180 coins were found in the fill between the northern bench and wall, evidently placed there during repairs to the benches. The 64 identified coins are dated to the 5th century CE, which indicates changes and repairs (at least in the northern part) made sometime during that time. Synagogue IIb (Stratum IVb), the last phase of the synagogue, is defined by additions and changes. It is possible that some sort of emergency remodeling phase occurred during the late 6th–early

88

chapter three

Figure III‑20. Synagogue hall, looking north.

7th centuries CE, based partly on the find of a hoard of 82 coins, found sealed under the eastern column and the Torah shrine (discovered by Ben-Ari and S. Bar Lev; Ariel 1996). The solid plaster Floor 3, which covered the entire hall, belongs to this phase. A clerestory for the nave of Synagogue II is suggested, as has also been proposed for the reconstruction of the upper floors of the Korazim (Yeivin 2000:23*, 58–61, plan 12), Gush Halav, and H. Shemʿa (Netzer 1996:452, 454, Figs. 3–5) synagogues, rather than an open gallery. It is based on the evidence of the original destruction level, and especially the in situ location of many of the architectural fragments, lying as they fell, and oriented to the northeast as shown on the plan (Fig. III-23). The collapsed roof tiles and other architectural parts found lying in the south of the synagogue, roughly oriented in the same direction, suggest that Synagogue IIb was probably destroyed by the earthquake of 749 CE. The latest phase of the building, which might have been a mosque, used mainly the northern part of the synagogue hall (13th–14th centuries CE, building C, Stratum II; Maoz 1993:1222). Urman (1995b:466) disagrees, as no artifacts were found to support this assumption, and suggests that the building was perhaps used by Christians. The western wall was partially reconstructed and rooms were added to the west. The mosque was closed to the south by a wall (W24, W25) constructed at this time, reusing many architectural fragments of the synagogue. A michrab (niche) was constructed in the southern wall. (The center of the southern wall had been removed during the restoration of the synagogue.) A square ‘pillar’ was constructed near the western bench, towards the north. The floor was covered with a thin layer of plaster, meeting the walls and benches and covering the earlier floors.



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

Figure III‑21. Qasrin synagogue hall, east room and Torah shrine, plan and section.

89

90

chapter three

Figure III‑22. Qasrin Synagogue II, looking southwest, after excavations.

The village excavated by Ann Killebrew consisted of three main building (A-C) and was attached to the synagogoue (see Fig. III-13, Killebrew in Maoz and Killebrew 1988:11–15, and Killebrew 1993). Five dedicatory inscriptions, four in Aramaic and one in Hebrew, were discovered on stones in second use at the Qasrin synagogue and in parts of Syrian buildings in the area (Urman 1995b:467, 469–478). 3.3 Description of Architectural Elements Architectural items were uncovered in large numbers in the southern part of the synagogue (Figs. III-24, 25, Table III-1). Architectural elements fallen from above and found resting on top of the eastern benches include column shafts, fragments of a window frame, a T-shaped ashlar block with an attached semi-column on a simple base, and a capital with a spiral row; other items were found incorporated into walls and the north platform. Most architectural fragments found in the destruction debris of the southern side of the synagogue were located in the east aisle and in the nave. Few were found in the west aisle. This points to the possibility (also observed for different reasons) that the southern section of the synagogue wall was rebuilt some time after the final destruction of the synagogue. This may explain the absence of architectural fragments in the southwestern section. In the excavations carried out in spring, 1982, our first goal was to draw up a complete inventory and description of all the architectural fragments visible inside and outside the synagogue, or in



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

91

Figure III‑23. Qasrin Building III (C), Mosque, the last phase, plan.

secondary use at the site.7 This was essential for several reasons; (1) for a better understanding of the unpreserved superstructure of the Qasrin synagogue; (2) in order to clarify the various phases and chronology of the synagogue, and (3) to place this synagogue, architecturally speaking, in the general setting of ancient synagogues in the Land of Israel. The following is a complete inventory of architectural fragments found in the field during the spring of 1982. Included are the registration number, dimensions and short descriptions. 7 The architectural members and fragments scattered and found in the synagogue hall and the surrounding area during the 1982 excavation were cataloged by Rachel Hachlili and Ann E. Killebrew; the numbers of the architectural fragments in Fig. III-24 relate to this catalogue. The plan (Fig. III-24) is incorporated with plan ‫ט‬-XX-3/2, of the 1975–76 excavations, drawn by M. Feist, Y. Vitkin and B. Tubin.

92

chapter three

Figure III‑24. Architectural members found in the Qasrin synagogue site.



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

93

Figure III‑25. South part of Qasrin synagogue with architectural items, looking southeast. Table III-1. Catalogue of Qasrin architectural items (Figs. III-24, 25). AF no.    1

   2

Item Window fragment, with attached semi‑Ionic capital. Broken. Plaster remains Column capital

   3

Triangular two-sided ­corbel stone

   4

Triangular corbel stone with cyma profile Window frame. Remains of plaster Window fragment, attached semi‑column base. Remains of plaster

   5    6

   7    8

Corbel stone with cyma profile (broken in half) Ashlar block

   9

Broken stone with profile of cyma

10

Window frame with 3 holes on the side, 6 cm. from edge of face. Remains of plaster Window frame

11

Provenance

Dimensions in cm.

Figures

On the southeast bench near the W4 east pillaster

H. 31, L. 48 D. 23,5, W. 47 Top of cap W. 0.39

Fig. IV-9b

Capital of southernmost east column East aisle of synagogue, next to east bench

H. 41, D. 38 Top L. 0.63, W. 0.55,5 H. 27, L. 115, W. 50 Corbel projection .32, 0.34 Under side 0.50 × 0.52,5 L. 115, W. 55 Corbel Proj. 0.34 L. 95, W. 29, Dp. 31 Proj. 0.8 × 0.18,5 H. 62, L. 105, Dp. 31 (not including attached column) Col. D. 0.22,5. Base under side. L. 0.38,5 Proj. 0.16 H. 18, L. 76, Dp. 45 Proj. 0.16.5 L. 38, W. 32. Dp. 75, ­broken. Proj. 16.5 L. 45

Fig. IV-20a

East aisle of synagogue, next to east bench On east bench On east bench

On east bench, under no. 6 On east bench, under no. 6 Above eastern wall (W3) of synagogue hall. Removed to Kazrin Museum East aisle, close to eastern L. 105, W. 35, Dp. 38 bench. Hole-5 × 2.5. Distance between holes 0.14 or 14? East aisle, close to eastern L. 90, W. 27, Dp. 30 bench Proj. 14 × .11

Fig. III-26b

Fig. IV-9b

94

chapter three

Table III-1 (cont.) AF no. 12 13

14

15 16 17

Item Column shaft. Rough dressing (probably not part of synagogue) Ashlar stone with round shallow hole on face Remains of plaster on face and on short left side Window frame (?) with 3 holes on the side, 8 cm. from edge of ashlar surface. Remains of plaster with red colour. On top— three well smoothed holes Corbel stone with cyma profile Corbel stone with cyma profile

18

Corbel stone with cyma profile Doric column capital

19

Doric column capital

20

Column capital, broken on edge Attic column base with square hole in column side Window fragment with attached semi column base. Remains of plaster Window fragment with attached semi column base. Remains of plaster Attic column base, profile broken on two sides

21 22 23 24

25

Column shaft

26

Ionic ‘Golan’ capital (half‑broken; the other half probably no. 57) Ionic ‘Golan’ capital

27

Provenance

Dimensions in cm.

Figures

East aisle, close to eastern H. 70, D. 30 bench East aisle, close to east bench

L. 95. W. 31, Dp. 31 Dia. of hole 12 smoothed Dp. of hole-1

On eastern bench in hall

L. 140, W. 35, Dp. 30 Holes-3.5 × 1.7, Dep. 2 Distance between holes-14

Southern part of hall

H. 22, L. 128. Dp. 40 Corbell proj. 16 Reused in wall of mosque, H. 23, L. 135, Dp. 49 5th course from the Corbel proj. 16 bottom Bottom course of mosque H. 22, L. 88, Dp. 50 wall Corbel Proj. 18 Close to the end of H. 35, D. 39, Top -50 50 mosque W24 on the N side Close to no. 18 H. 50, column Dia. 34, Top. 46 × 47 Next to nos. 18, 19 H. 47, Dia. 32, Top 47 × 46

Fig. III-28 Fig. III-28 Fig. III-28

Outside the hall, south on H. 50, Dia. 32, the west long room Hole 12.5 × 11

Fig. III-28

Incorporated into north face of mosque W24

H. 69, L. 79

Fig. IV-9c

Incorporated into north face of mosque W24

H. 54, L. 80, Dia. 23.5 Base underside L. 40, Proj. 16 H. 75, Dia. 60, Underside80 × 80, H. of molding 45

Mistakenly restored as north‑eastern column in hall of synagogue. Was originally a base for an outside portico Placed on top of column base no. 24 Northern part of hall (later Mosque hall) In southwest of hall, restored as west side second southernmost capital on column shaft 64

H. 56, Dia. 59 H. 40, L. 78, W. 33 (broken) H. 57, Dia. 57 H. of mold 40, top-80 × 79



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

95

Table III-1 (cont.) AF no. 28 29 30 31 32 33

34 35

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Item

Provenance

Ionic ‘Golan’ capital, edges West side southernmost broken at top capital, restored on top of column shafts 65 and 66 Ionic ‘Golan’ capital, East side southernmost Profile broken on two capital, restored placed on sides column shafts 67, 68, 69 Ionic ‘Golan’ capital Restored as second southeastern capital, placed on column shafts 70, 71, 72 Arched architrave stone, Next to synagogue two faccia connect with entrance, near western ovolo corner of north bench Doric capital, edges On east part of northern broken bench of hall near the entrance a. Capital of diagonal Incorporated in west part fluted column with of northern bench of hall ­meander decoration near the entrance (IAA 85–1509) b. Attic column base with spiral fluted shaft Attic column base Reconstructed base of north‑western column in synagogue hall Attic column base On west, northern side of hall, incorporated later into southwestern wall of mosque Attic column base, broken In northern east part of hall. Restored column base in synagogue Attic column base, broken In northern west part of hall Restored column base in synagogue Attic column base broken Restored column base in synagogue Attic column base broken Restored column base in synagogue Column shaft, broken Restored on base no. 34

Dimensions in cm.

Figures

H. 83, Dia. 57, top 70 × 70 H. of mold 42 H. 54, H. 75, Dia. 56, Underside 80 × 80 H. 60, Dia. 56; H. of mold 51, top 69 × 70 H. 45, L. 44

Fig. IV-9a

H. 39, W. 49 × 49 Dia. 33

Fig. III-28

H. 36, Dia. 34. Underside 50 × 43, H. of mold. 16.5

Fig. III-27a Fig. IV-20b

H. 34, L. 41, W. 52

Fig. III-27b

H. 52, W. 79, Dia. 58, Underside 78 × 80 H. of mold. 34 H. 55, Dia. 59, Underside. 78 × 80, H. of molding 32

Fig. III-28

H. 44, Dia. 56, Underside 79, H. of mold. 32 H. 47, Dia. 57, Underside 77 × 77. H. of molding 32

H. 41, Dia. 56, Underside 82 × 81. H. of mold. 29 H. 50, Dia. 58, Underside 77 × 78 H. of mold. 32 H. 62, Dia. 56 preserved part Doric column capital, Incorporated into mosque H. 52, Dia. 37, top 48 × 48 shaft broken W25 Column capital (Doric, Southwest part of hall, H. 57, Dia. 39, top 61 one side broken near west bench H. of mold. 23.5 Column shaft Incorporated into platDia. 57 form pavement outside northern main entrance Corbel stone with cyma On top of southern part of H. 20, L. 52, Dp. 53, profile west bench Proj. 16 Double column of an Reused between the two H. 182, W. 53, Dp. 38 aedicula with Ionic capital southernmost columns of the west row

Fig. III-28

Fig. III-28 Fig. III-28

Fig. III-29 Fig. IV-51b

96

chapter three

Table III-1 (cont.) AF no. 46 47 48 49 50 51

Item Corbel stone, flat cyma profile. Plaster on both long sides Corbel stone Column shaft on base, broken, rough dressing Jamb stone, (?)rough dressing Stone fragment with molding Corbel stone with cyma profile, broken

52

Corbel stone with cyma profile

53

Stone fragment, astragal

54 55 56 57 58–62 63 64–72

Provenance West of no. 45

H. 23, L. 39, Dp. 117, Proj. 34

Next to no. 46 Fallen behind aedicula base Fallen behind aedicula

L. 147, W. 27, Dp. 37 L. 90, D. 29 Base H. 16 broken H. 65, L. 75, W. 18

Fallen behind aedicula, under no. 48 Next to no. 45, incorporated into southern W4 of synagogue hall Incorporated into southern W4 of synagogue hall

H. 28, L. 66 Dp. 64

Found on surface outside synagogue. Taken to Katzrin museum Triangular corbel stone, On top of platform broken outside northern main entrance Large stone with profile Incorporated into plat(pilaster profile, possibly a form pavement outside capital) northern main entrance Large stone with holes Incorporated into platform pavement outside northern main entrance Ionic ‘Golan’ column Found on platform, capital restored on one of the hall columns Column shafts Incorporated into platform pavement outside northern main entrance Fragment of column base, On top of platform pavebroken ment. Taken to museum. Column shafts fragments In center of southern part of synagogue hall, restored on columns

73

Prismatic stone fragment

74 75 76

Gutter Corbel stone with cyma profile Column Shaft

77

Attic column base

Dimensions in cm.

Incorporated into platform pavement outside northern main entrance Near platform On east bench close to W28 Outside synagogue, to the west Outside northwest corner of synagogue, next to W1a

H. 20, L. 36, Dp. 53 H. 15, L. 59, Dp. 36 broken H. 27, L. 31 H. 23, L. 39, Dp. 83, Proj. 26 H. 40 L. 85 W. 57 base 70.5 × 51 H. 45, L. 72, W. 73 H. 57, Dia. 57, top-80 × 79 58- D. 57; 60-L. 64, W. 37, broken; 61-L. 176, Dia. 50; 62-L. 140, Dia. 50 H. 25, L. 38, W. 16 67-H. 114, Dia. 54; 68H. 72, Dia. 53; 69- H. 160, Dia. 57; 70-H. 135, Dia. 58; 71-H. 136, Dia. 56; 72-H. 159, Dia. 56.5

H. 24, W. 30 L. 52, W. 22, Dp. 41, ­projection 17 H. 59, Dia. 44 H. 74, Dia. 60, H of mold. 35; Underside 75 × 75

Figures



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

97

Table III-1 (cont.) AF no. 78

79 80 81 82

83 84 85

Item

Provenance

Dimensions in cm.

Attached semi‑column base Door jamb Door jamb Door jamb Trapezoid-shaped door jamb Threshold (broken) two holes, grooves for door, west entrance Stone with five-branched menorah Decorated lintel with rosette in lozenge

West to northwest corner of synagogue Upper jamb (fallen) Lower jamb Upper jamb Lower door jamb

H. 49, W. 74, Dp. 41, base projection 16 H. 81, W. 70, Dp. 27 H. 69, W. 53, Dp. 67 H. 80, W. 74, Dp. 24 H. 76, W. 43, Dp. 68

Under corner of W27 and L. 170, W. 20 (upper step) W25 Dp. 29, opening W. 140 Integrated into west W27 H. 16, L. 27, W. 58 Outside synagogue to the H. 47, L. 140, W. 35. 2 axe west in northwest room holes Dia. 8; Bolt hole 7.5 × 5.0 N entrance, base of? east Dp. 56 jamb N entrance, second lowest H. 36, W. 35, Dp. 33 east jamb N entrance, top east jamb H. 47, W. 45, Dp. 16 N entrance, top west jamb H. 39, W. 36, Dp. 56 N entrance, base west Dp. 61 jamb N entrance, second lowest H. 32, W. 43, Dp. 60 east jamb H. 62, W. 56, hole in jamb face-Dia 8

86

Door jamb

87

Door jamb

88 89 90

Door jamb Door jamb Door jamb

91

Door jamb

92

93

Door jamb with incised tree of life on face of stone, facing south; broken Stone with two holes

94

Arch stone with a hole

95

Corbel with cyma profile

96

Ashlar stone with rectangular? hollow on facade

97

Column on square plint, broken, roughly dressed Column shaft Column shaft Stone with hollowed square

Next to east bench Next to east bench

Column shaft Doric capital with square depression (for beam?), rough dressing

Field A, not from synagogue

98 99 100 101 102

Figures

On platform pavement outside northern main entrance Next to northeast part of aedicula Field A, stone heap, outside synagogue to the west Field A

H. 26 L. 106, W. 35, Dp. 33 H. 36, L. 35, Dp. 72, hole Dia. 6 H. 21, L. 104, Dp. 45 Corbel projection 13 H. 26, L. 58, Dp. 32 Rectangle-13 × 10, 0.7 deep H. 43, column Dia 35, broken; base-45, broken H. 59, Dia. 39 H. 54, Dia. 32 L. 54, W. 34, Dp. 37 Square-9.5 × 9, 0.5 cm. deep H. 32, D. 34 H. 35, column shaft Dia 38 Base 52 × 43, square 16 × 15

Fig. III-19 Fig. III-18 Fig. III-18 Fig. III-18 Fig. III-18 Fig. III-18 Fig. III-18 Fig. III-31a

98

chapter three

Table III-1 (cont.) AF no. 103

Item

Provenance

110

Threshold with four depressions for door and bolts, broken Gutter Gutter Gutter Ionic ‘Golan’ capital, broken Threshold fragment, with 1 hole, broken Threshold with two holes, broken Corbel with cyma profile

111

Triangular corbel, broken

Field A

112

Stone with three grooves (window frame)

Field A

113

Column shaft with two projections on shaft broken, rough dressing Column shaft with projection Corbel with cyma profile

Field A, not from synagogue

104 105 106 107 108 109

114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127

Corbel with cyma profile, broken Triangular ashlar, gable part with serpent? relief, hole in base Column shaft on round plint, broken Attached semi‑column (shaft only), face plastered Column shaft Corbel stone

Dimensions in cm.

Field A

L. 108, W. 46, Dp. 31, Step-23; holes Dia. 11, 7, 7

Field A Field A Field A Field A

H. 16, L. 58, W. 31 H. 22, L. 52, W. 34 H. 25, L. 27, W. 37 H. 46, W. 27, broken

Field A

H. 32, L. 42, Dp. 30, step20, hole-7 H. 14, L. 42, Dp. 40, step-22 hole Dia-7 H. 20 W. 39, Dp. 37, projection 14 H. 22, L. 38, Dp. 39, broken H. 27, L. 67, Dp. 38 Distance between holes-11 H. 94, Dia. 36

Field A Field A

Field A

H. 57, Dia. 38

Field A

H. 20, L. 54, Dp. 44 projection 14 H. 22, L. 41, Dp. 44 projection-25 H. 42, L. 48, W. 36, hole Dia-9

Field A Next to east bench Field A

H. 61, shaft Dia. 42, plint Dia. 48 Field A H. 29, L. 78, W. 31, column projection-12 Field A H. 56, Dia. 36 Field B H. 17 L. 39 Dp. 39, projection-32 Triangular two‑sided Bottom course of mosque H. 24, L. 110, W. 54.5, corbel W24, east side, south face projection-31 Corbel with cyma profile Field B H. 19.5, L. 39, Dp. 69, projection-24 Corbel with cyma profile Field B H. 25, L. 49 Dp. 64, projection- 32 Corbel with cyma profile Field B H. 18.5, L. 54, Dp. 55, projection-20 Triangular corbel stone Field B H. 17, L. 41, Dp. 80, projection-28 Lintel with socket and two Field B, not from H. 32 L. 77 broken, Dp. 32 grooves (for double door), synagogue broken, roughly worked

Figures

Fig. III-26a



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

99

Table III-1 (cont.) AF no. 128 129 130 131 132

Item Threshold with one groove, broken Ashlar stone with game of shallow holes Column shaft

Provenance Field B, not from synagogue Field B

H. 25, L. 44 broken, Dp. 35 H. 29, L. 64, W. 41

Field B, not from synagogue Field B Field B

H. 156, Dia. 40

133 134

Column shaft Lintel with two sockets and three holes for grill, outer face ashlar, broken Window part, plaster Doric capital

Field B Field B

135

Corbel with cyma profile

Field B

136

Doric capital

Field B

137 138 139

Column shaft Column shaft Doorjamb with ­menorah and peacock (IAA 85–1501) Stone with 5-armed ­menorah and showbread (IAA 85–1517) Stone with 5-armed ­menorah without a base An aedicula keystone (IAA no. 85–1508) Decorated architrave with Inscription 4 Ashlar basalt stones with Aramaic inscriptions: a. IAA no. 85–1515; b. IAA no. 85–1515

140 141 142 143 144

145 146

Basalt stone with ‘tree of life’ incision Lintel in two fragments with vine design: a. left-no. 85–1523, b. right-no. 85–1503

Dimensions in cm.

Figures

Field B Field B Near synagogue

H. 128, Dia. 40 H. 34, L. 73, Dp. 42 Distance between holes 17, 15, opening-60 H. 33.5, L. 51, Dp. 27 H. 50, D. 42, top of capital 51 × 51 H. 18, L. 44, Dp. 56, Projection 16 H. 68, Dia. 33, top of capital 42 × 38 H. 76, Dia. 33 H. 40, Dia. 33 H. 57, L. 45, W. 72

Fig. III-16

In second use

H. 50, L. 59, W. 27

Fig. III-30b

Incorporated in W27

H. 16, L. 58, W. 27

Fig. III-30a

In second use

L. 75, W. 42

Fig. IV-51a

In the village in wall of a later building, in 1977 a. in the niche wall of the later building in the north part of the synagogue; b. in the village in the wall of a later building found in 1977 In second use

H. 25, L. 27, 23, W. 20

Fig. III-32a

a. H. 33, L. 102, W. 25; b. H. 34, L. 38, W. 24

Fig. III-32b, c

H. 61, L. 119, W. 56

Fig. III-31b

a. H. 32, L. 70, W. 30 b. H. 30, L. 60, W. 18

Fig. V-8

Abbreviations: H = height; L = length; W = width; Dia = diameter

100

chapter three

Four columns were restored in 1982–1984 from architectural fragments in the southern part of the synagogue hall (Figs. III-20, 22); all eight columns were restored later.8 Restored columns in synagogue hall (nos. in the Catalogue above) Column no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Pedestal/base

Shaft

Ionic capital

34 24 35 77 36 37 38 39

61 98–99, 101 113–114 118, 120 62–64 70–72 65–66 67–69

26 + 57 107 27 30 28 29

3.4 Architectural Ornamentation The architectural ornamentation associated with the Qasrin synagogue provides a good example of the Golan synagogue art executed in the local basalt stone. Although at this time it is difficult to determine a Golanite style, some distinctive features can be defined. The ornate entrance-frame and lintel of the main portal in the façade of this synagogue is one example. The architectural fragments, described here in detail, include the decorated façade and portal, lintels, capitals, window frames, and various basalt stones and slabs. Some of the items have remains of plaster, which indicates that they may have been whitewashed. All numbers of architectural fragments relate to the numbers in the catalogue (Table III-1) and their location in the plan (Fig. III-24). The entrance portal frame consists of a molded lintel placed on molded doorposts, constructed from four ashlar basalt stones, two on each side, ending in carved Attic bases (Fig. III-18). The ornamented portal frame is carved in a convex frieze decorated by a frame of egg-and-dart motif carved on the lintel, and continues on the doorpost parts and bases. The lintel has an added design on its face. This ornate façade is characteristic of Golan synagogues, among them ʿAssaliyye and Horvat Kanaf (Fig. V-22b, c), and differs from the entrance-frames of Galilean synagogues, whose doorposts are made of molded monoliths and richly-decorated lintels, as at Barʿam, Capernaum, Meiron, and others (Figs. V-1a, b; V-2) (Hachlili 1988:200–206, Figs. 36–44, Pls. 39–41; 1989:1, Pls. I-VI; 1995:190). The ornate portals of the Golan synagogues, though similar to Syrian examples, retain their own original and local style. An arch was constructed above the lintel, attested to by holes for the grill in the lintel’s upper part, and by an arch architrave stone (AF 31, Fig. IV-9a) found in the vicinity of the synagogue’s main entrance. The stone is molded with two faciae and a cornice with an ovolo profile, decorated with an egg-and-dart design. A fragment of a triangular ashlar basalt stone was found, decorated with a carved tail or a serpent, and with a hole in its base (AF 117, Fig. III-26a). It is difficult to determine the motif due to its fragmentary nature. It probably was part of the synagogue façade entrance gable. 8 Further restoration of the synagogue and village was conducted by the IAA in later years (see Shefer Y. 1997. The Ancient Synagogue of Qasrin Survey and Conservation Plan. IAA, Jerusalem (Hebrew)).



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

a

101

a

b

Figure III‑26. a. Triangular ashlar basalt stone, a gable fragment?; b. Two-sided corbel stone.

3.4.1 Corbel Stones Corbel stones (nos. 3, 7, 15-17, 44, 46, 51, 52, 75, 95, 110, 115, 116, 121–126; see Fig. III-26b-AF 3) were found in large numbers, and therefore it seems probable that there was a cyma corbel running continuously around the wall, where the semi-columns were placed with the same intercolumnation as the main columns. 3.4.2 Lintels (1) The lintel of the main entrance at Qasrin is carved with ornamentation on a rectangular central part (Figs. III-18, V-9a). The design is heraldic, executed in several planes. The central motif is a wreath, half carved on the upper, shallower part of the lintel and cutting into the ornamental frame. It is flanked by promegranates and amphorae. The wreath is depicted in high relief, the pomegranates are carved on the lowest plane, and the two amphorae are placed in squares carved out of the lintel in shallow relief (Hachlili 1995:193, no. 1). This lintel is similar to other Golan lintels such as at ʿAssaliyye and el-Tayibe (Fig. V-9b, c).

102

chapter three

(2) A lintel (no. 85, Fig. III-19) found outside the synagogue west wall probably belonged to the entrance on that side (Hachlili 1995:207, no. 50). This lintel is carved on one plane only. The design consists of a geomentric pattern, including a central lozenge with a triangle on either side. The central lozenge is filled by a six-petalled rosette. Inside each flanking triangle is a carved circle. A similar lintel, with a wheel-shaped motif flanked by two circles in its center, was found at Ulam (Ilan 1987:72). (3) A lintel, two fragments of which were found (AF 146, Fig. V-8), might have belonged originally to the small east annex entrance; both fragments are carved with a wreath in the center, and the ribbons on either side continue as identical intertwining vines with leaves and clusters of grapes, terminating in amphorae at both sides (Hachlili 1987:23, no. 2; 1995:207, no. 51). Two types of lintels with vine branches are characteristic of Golan and Galilean synagogal art (belonging to type VII, Hachlili 1988:212–216): one type is decorated with an amphora in the center from which a vine comes out, spreading to both sides (Hachlili 1988:214, Fig. 52f, g, h from Nabratein, Capernaum, Ahmediyye). The other type (to which our examples belong) has a wreath carved in the center with the vine branches issuing out of the Hercules knot of the wreath, sometimes terminating in, or incorporating amphorae. Examples are found on lintels from Bathra (Urman 1985:Fig. 42). Several interesting similarities can be noted in a comparison of these Golan lintels with the Galilean types. Many of the Galilean lintels are molded in two parts: the torus-like upper part is decorated with a frieze of floral or geometric design, while the lower part is either undecorated or ornamented with a central heraldic design—frequently a wreath flanked by nikae or eagles—such as the lintels of the Barʿam side entrances (Fig. IV-7) and of Nabratein (Fig. XIV-3a). The other type includes the lintels of the Barʿam main entrances and ed-Dikke (Fig. IX-29a). The Golan lintels have similar heraldic designs but they are executed on the lintel face in several planes, as seen in the main entrance lintel of Qasrin. Some main entrance façades of Golan synagogues have a continuous egg-and-dart design carved on the lintel and on both door-jambs, framing the facade. 3.4.3 Capitals The Qasrin synagogue hall capitals are of a type peculiar to the Golan—a variation of Ionic capitals (Fig. IV-20a). Eight columns divided the synagogue B hall, and seven of their capitals were found in and around the synagogue (nos. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 57, 107). These ‘Golan’ Ionic capitals consisted of a high echinus decorated with a large egg in the center, flanked by two smaller eggs. Short cauliculi are carved one above the other, close to each of the small eggs. The side scroll of the volutes is carved with a geometric design. The capital decoration is terminated around its end by a line of astragal (Hachlili 1988:216–218; 1995:189, 210, no. 65). Each of the capital’s measurements is approximately the same. Similar capitals were found in other Golan sites such as ʿAssaliyye, Rafid and Yahudiyye (see p. 147). A capital of a diagonal fluted column (Fig. III-27a, IV-20b) was found, decorated with an encircling double meander band in which a human face, a bird, and a vase are depicted (IAA no. 85–1509; Hachlili 1987:27, no. 4; 1995:189, 205, no. 48). The column capital has spiral fluted shafts in the Doric style. A similar Attic column base with spiral fluted shaft was found incoporated into the north-west bench of the Qasrin synagogue (see nos. 33a, b, Fig. III-27). It might have belonged to the same column. The column base and capital might have originally belonged to Synagogue I (A) (see above). The double meander filled with various patterns was quite a popular and long-lived decorative design throughout the Golan, Galilee, Hauran, and south Syria. Several Doric capitals were found in the synagogue hall (nos. 2, 18, 19, 20, 32, 41, 42), with various shapes of molding and different dimensions (Fig. III-28a); others (nos. 102, 134, 136) were found



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

103

Figure III‑27. Capital and base of a diagonal fluted column (no. 33a, b).

outside the synagogue hall. These capitals, identified also as pseudo-Doric (Toscan), are common in other synagogues in the Golan and Galilee and in pagan structures in Syria and Lebanon. It is not clear if these capitals of freestanding columns were part of the second story or that they were spolia or brought to the synagogue in later periods. The same problem was addressed by Kohl and ­Watzinger (1916:122, Pls. 244–245) in connection with the Doric capitals found at the ed-Dikke synagogue. Similar capitals were also found at Umm el-Qanatir (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:131, Pl. 265) and in the Galilean synagogues of Arbel and Barʿam (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Pls. 127, 178). Attic column bases were found inside and outside the synagogue (nos. 21, 24, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 77; Fig. III-28). They are similar in size and some of them were used for the reconstraction of the hall columns.

104

chapter three

AF 18

AF  19

AF  20

AF 20

AF 21

AF 32

AF 41

AF 42

AF 34

AF 37

Figure III‑28. Doric capitals, Attic column bases.

A semi-attached double column, with its upper part carved out as a stylized lonic capital (AF 45, Fig. IV-51b), was found lying in secondary use between the two southernmost columns on the western row (Fig. III-29). This double column was probably part of the Torah shrine facade built on the platform base, an aedicula which was constructed against the inner face of the southern synagogue wall (Hachlili 1988:178; 1995:210, no. 63). Similar architectural fragments, also probably part of the Torah shrine façade, were found in other synagogues (Hachlili 1987:184–187), including a richly-decorated basalt column from Korazim



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

105

Figure III‑29. Semi-attached double column in situ in the synagogue hall.

(Fig. IV-50) and a small basalt double-column capital with an eagle relief from Umm el-Qanatir (Figs. IV-38, IX-18), now exhibited in the Golan Antiquity museum at Kazrin. An aedicula keystone was found, decorated with a ‘Syrian gable’ designed of a band of astragal. A round medallion is depicted in the gable’s center, flanked by two disks (AF 142 [IAA 85–1508] Fig. IV-51a) (Hachlili 1987:no. 18, p. 43; 1995:208, no. 58). It is possible that it was part of the Torah shrine of Qasrin Synagogue I (A). Similar architectural fragments were found in the Golan and Galilee, sometimes with small carved eagles or lions. Such aediculae fragments were found in the Golan in Ghadriyye. Two fragments discovered at ed-Dikke (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:abb 228-234) were reconstructed as window lintels) and other fragments were found at er-Rafid (Hachlili 1995:nos. 59–62). In the Galilee, a beautiful lintel of an aedicula was found during the excavation of the synagogue of Nabratein (Fig. IV-49). Although some of these fragments were considered windows by certain scholars, it seems reasonable to assume that the keystone (length 75 cm. with an addition of at least two other flanking stones of at least the same length, now missing) belongs to an aedicula which decorated the Torah shrine of Synagogue I (A) at Qasrin. Several carved stones, each with a five-armed menorah, were found inside or outside the synagogue hall and probably belonged either to it or to other buildings in the Qasrin village. These include: A door-jamb block decorated with a relief of a five-armed baseless menorah and a peacock pecking at grapes next to it, with a curved line carved above this design (AF 139 [IAA 85–1501] Fig. III-16), was found near the synagogue, in secondary use. The peacock is carved in an unusual posture, standing on its tail, with connected legs turning to the side (Urman 1970:4; Hachlili 1987:30, no. 6; 1995:193, no. 4).

106

chapter three

A basalt stone with a shallowly carved five-armed menorah, was found incorporated into W27, the southern interior wall of the mosque (no. 141, Fig. III-30a). The stone was damaged and therefore the menorah lost its lowest left-hand branch. It might have belonged to Qasrin Synagogue I (Hachlili 1995:193, no. 6). A five-armed tripod-based menorah with a showbread table next to it was found incised on a basalt slab (no. 140, IAA 85–1517, Fig. III-30b) (Hachlili 1987:32, no. 9; 1995:193, no. 5). A similar depiction of a seven-armed menorah next to a showbread table and an altar is found on a stucco fragment from the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem (Fig. VI-7). The Jerusalem carving is dated to the first century BCE and has a much more elaborate design. It is interesting to note that the examples from the Qasrin synagogue depict five-armed menoroth. The Golan is especially rich in menoroth, usually with less or more than seven branches. A right-hand stone door-jamb (no. 92, Fig. III-31a) was found in the building adjacent to the western wall of the synagogue, probably in secondary use. On its face is an incision of a stylized plant, likely indicating a ‘Tree of Life’. The plant is depicted with a straight stem and five branches arranged one above the other; its base is a rounded tripod, or maybe a stylized rock from which the plant grows. This incised door-jamb might have decorated the side of an entrance. An ashlar stone, decorated on its face with a shallow incision of a stylized plant, a ‘Tree of Life’, was found (no. 145, Fig. III-31b). The plant branches, on both reliefs, are arranged one above the other and they have tripod bases. These stones might have decorated both sides of an entrance. This motif, which has a long history in ancient art and is found on both Jewish and Christian architectural fragments, appears to have part of the decoration repertoire of both religions (Ameisenowa 1938–9; Hachlili 1995:188). It should also be noted that the Golan examples are all incised simply, usually shallowly, and are not carved as are many of the other architectural fragments. Fragments of windows include a fragment with a semi-Ionic capital and a base of a semi-column (nos. 1, 6, 14, 22, 23; Fig. IV-9b, c), both found on the east bench of the synagogue hall (Figs. III-20); by the position of the fallen fragments it is clear that these attached semi-columns were parts of windows decorating the interior wall, perhaps only the east wall. Similar windows were discovered in other Galilean and Golan synagogues (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 52, 53, 96, 97, 98, 129, 130, 158, 247, 248, 250, 270, 271) and in churches in the north of Syria (Baccache 1979:Figs. 422, 425, 505).

Figure III‑30. Five-branched menorah decorating: a. basalt stone; b. basalt slab.



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

107

Figure III‑31. Door-jamb (no. 92) and stone (no. 145) with ‘Tree of Life’.

A decorated architrave with an inscription (no. 143, Fig. III-32a) has a band of eggs and darts. The inscription has only four surviving letters ‫( דמבר‬DMBR), read in Aramaic as ‘that is from the outside’ perhaps a dedication by an unknown contributor of the building’s outside columns (Urman 1984:540–541, Inscription 12; 1995:477–478, Fig. 5). Two basalt ashlar stones with Aramaic inscriptions, identical in height and in the shape of the letters incised between two lines, are probably part of the above mentioned dedication incision. They read: a. ]‫[“ עוזי עבד הדן רבוע[ה‬U]zi made (donated) this square/accommodation”; b. ‫דיהב]ון‬ ‫“ מנינ‬. . . two (or twenty) minahs” (Fig. III-32c, no. 144b). The inscription probably commemorated someone named Uzi who donated a synagogue court or entrance; it may also have meant “who gave or donated their share/s”. The stones may have served as an architrave (Urman 1984:533–536; 1995: 467, 469–473, Figs. 1, 2; Naveh 1978:no. 110; Hachlili 1987:no. 17). This survey clarifies several architectural features of the synagogues at ancient Qasrin: (1) It is clear from the architectural fragments that the façade of the synagogue included a decorated relieving arch above the main entrance of the synagogue (see fragment no. 31, Fig. IV-9a). (2) The western side entrance probably included a decorated lintel (no. 85, Fig. III-51). (3) A small double column (no. 45, Figs. III-29, IV-51b) probably belonged originally to the aedicula built on the southern Jerusalemoriented wall (Hachlili 1988:184, Fig. VIII-19; 1995:no. 63). (4) A doorjamb fragment, with an incised Tree of life (no. 92, Fig. III-31a) belonged perhaps to the western entrance of the hall. (5) Several fragments of windows with attached semi-column capitals were found (nos. 1, 6, 22, 119), probably belonging to the windows of the clerestory. One of them (no. 6, Fig. IV-9b) was found fallen on the eastern bench (Fig. III-20). It is interesting that all the window parts were found on the eastern side of the synagogue hall, suggesting that perhaps there were windows only on this side. (6) It seems that the synagogue included a type of column with a spiral fluted shaft (no. 33, Fig. III-27) which fits a capital containing a meander design. These columns may have belonged to Synagogue I. (7) A door jamb (no. 139, Fig. III-16) with a five-branched menorah and a peacock might have belonged to the same stage. The architectural decoration of Qasrin was executed on lintels, columns, capitals, door-jambs, and other items, as in other Golan synagogue art, and shared the same motifs, which were influenced by Hauran and Syrian decorated architecture (Hachlili 1988:229–230; 1995:190–191). It consisted of

108

chapter three

a

c

b

Figure III‑32. Inscriptions: a. on the architrave (no. 143); b. ashlar stones with Aramaic inscriptions (no. 144).

traditional and popular designs and motifs, such as the seven-branched menorah, vine branches and amphorae or wreaths, as well as geometric designs such as the double meander. These architectural reliefs are dated to two periods of the synagogue buildings: some, such as the capital with double meander carving, the double column, and the aedicula key-stone, probably belong to Synagogue I dating to the early or mid-third to fourth centuries CE, while other fragments belong to Synagogue II, dating to the early sixth to mid-eighth centuries. The Qasrin synagogue is exceptional in its general plan and some important architectural details. The single ornate portal at Qasrin is on the north wall, opposite the large aedicula built on the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall. The aedicula is unique in its dimensions and in the existence of two thresholds constructed on the east and west that lead to it. The dating of the Qasrin synagogue is problematic and the difficulty revolves around its two main building phases and its three associated floors. Urman (1984:532; 1995b:466), based on stratigraphy, pottery and coins, divided the Qasrin synagogue into three stages but did not publish a scientific report: Stage 1 consisted of the hall with two rows of basalt benches and the floor, and was in use from the first half of the 3rd to the mid-4th centuries CE. Stage 2 was dated ca. the second half of the 4th–6th centuries CE; the platform of the Torah shrine was constructed in the center of the southern wall and mosaic floor 2 was laid on top of the earlier plaster floor. Stage 3, with plaster floor 3 laid above the mosaic one, included a hoard of 82 coins (dating to 598–603), discovered near the northeast corner of the Torah shrine; the synagogue was destroyed by an earthquake in the 8th century CE.



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

109

The northern part of the hall was rebuilt in the 13th–14th centuries CE (Fig. III-23); it included a wall containing a small niche facing south, its stones taken from the ruins of the southern part, including the architrave bearing the Aramaic inscription (no. 143). Another rectangular niche was opened in the inner side of the western wall; on a stone at the bottom of the niche was an incision of a five-armed menorah. Urman (1995b:466–7) disagrees with Maoz’s contention that it served as a mosque, as no artifacts to support a mosque were discovered. He maintains it is difficult to ascertain the identity of the people who used the northern part, and suggests perhaps Christians used it in the 12th century, based on ceramics found at the site which are typical for that period and Crusader sites; he also maintains a cross was carved in the wreath on the portal lintel (no indication of it can be seen). According to Urman (1995b:466–467, note 210, Pl. 41b) the platform outside the northern main entrance served as a base for the sheik’s tomb which was dismantled during the excavation; the platform for this tomb used building stones and architectural fragments, among them a Ionic capital incised with a three-branched menorah, and a five-branched menorah on a window lintel. Urman contests Maoz and Killebrew’s (1988:5) suggestion that this platform outside the mosque was used for synagogue prayer in the summer. The dating of the Qasrin synagogue by Maoz and Killebrew (1988:5, and note 2–4) is different: Synagogue I (A, Stratum V, floor 1) was constructed in the late 4th or the 5th centuries CE, based on the pottery assemblage which is comparable to pottery at Meiron Stratum IV. Also 2nd and 3rd century CE pottery was found beneath the floor of Synagogue I (A), perhaps belonging to an earlier settlement on the site. Synagogue IIa (B, Stratum IVA, floor #2-mosaic) is dated to the 6th–7th centuries CE. Synagogue IIb (B, Stratum IVB, floor #3-plaster) is dated to the early 7th–mid 8th centuries CE. The resettlement of the village (Stratum III) occurred in the mid-8th century CE. The mosque was built in the 13th–15th c. CE. Maoz (1995, II:11–12) dates the Qasrin construction to the days of Anastasius I (498–518), based on the coins found below the northern bench. He maintains that the synagogue of Qasrin, together with the ʿAssaliyye, Qusibiyye, and Yehudiyye synagogue buildings, was constructed at the beginning of the 6th c. CE and belongs to the final architectural style in the Golan.9 It seems most probable that the earliest synagogue should be dated to the first half of the fourth century CE and possibly as early as the late third century, based on the ceramic and numismatic evidence along with an analysis of several architectural fragments found at the Qasrin synagogue. The latest ceramic evidence from below the original plaster floor of the synagogue spans the 2nd through 4th centuries CE, in some cases continuing into the early 5th century Most pottery types can be dated to the late 3rd to 4th centuries CE. Only one coin, dated 218/219 CE, was recovered from the fill below Synagogue I floor (Maoz and Killebrew 1988:18, note 2). Ceramic evidence from the village of Qasrin sheds further light on the dating of the ceramic assemblage below the earliest synagogue floor. Large quantities of Middle and Late Roman (2nd to 4th centuries CE) pottery, identical to types found under the earliest floor of the synagogue, were recovered from below the floors of the earliest excavated houses at the site (Killebrew 1993:1223). Several coins dating to the Late Roman period were found in association with these fills. It seems that the construction of Synagogue I should be dated to approximately the same time as the earliest excavated houses in the Qasrin

9 Ariel (1996:71) notes that Maoz (1993:1221) and Urman (1995:466) presume that two coins were “deliberately buried when Floor 3 was laid, providing a reasonable terminus post quem date for Stratum IVB of the synagogue. However, the overall numismatic evidence does not support such an assumption . . . The numismatic evidence suggests that Floor 3 may have been disturbed at this spot . . . and the hoard would postdate the repairs identified as Stratum IVB. It also suggests that the most probable historical setting for the deposition of the hoard was the Persian conquest in Syria and Palestine between 611 and 614.”

110

chapter three

village (i.e. late 3rd to mid-4th centuries CE), due to the similar ceramic and numismatic evidence found under their floors. It is difficult to securely date the architectural elements on the archaeological evidence, since the majority were not found in situ. Three of these architectural elements should be included in our discussion of the dating of the earliest synagogue: A column capital, resting on a diagonally fluted column, was decorated with a double meander band in which a vase, bird, and human face were placed between each meander (no. 33b, Figs. III-27a, IV-20b). Comparable motifs from other synagogues and public buildings in the Galilee, Golan, and Hauran date to the second through fourth centuries CE, but are rare in the Byzantine period. Another architectural fragment, probably an aedicula keystone (no. 142, Fig. IV-51a), may have originally belonged to Synagogue I. This element is similar to other aedicula lintels, such as one from the Nabratein synagogue (IIA) dated to 250–306 CE (Meyers et al. 1981:36–39; 1982:40–43). A semi-attached double column, probably originally from the aedicula (no. 45, Fig. IV-51b), was found in secondary use on the floor between two columns of Synagogue II. It may also have belonged to the aedicula of Synagogue I. Rabbinic sources corroborate the evidence for a settlement at Qasrin during this period. From these sources it seems that Jewish settlement in the Golan was established already in the second century CE, corresponding with the Jewish recovery in the Galilee at that time (S. Safrai 1982a:176–177). The settlements in the Golan were securely established by the end of the second or the beginning of the third centuries due to the large estates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi received as a tenant from the Roman authorities. By the mid-fourth century, according to the rabbinic sources, that the Golan was considered an established area of Jewish settlement because of these estates. Qasrin Synagogue II and its two associated floors (nos. 2 and 3) was a reconstructed and expanded version of the original Synagogue, I. Its construction has been dated to the early sixth century CE, based on numerous coins found behind the stone benches along the northern wall, belonging to the extension of the synagogue to the north. Synagogue II underwent remodelling in the early seventh century, with the removal of the mosaic floor (Floor no. 2) and its replacement with a thick plaster floor (Floor no. 3). This last renovation of Synagogue II has been dated by a coin hoard found underneath Floor 3 to the early seventh century CE (see above). Based mainly on the evidence from the village excavations, the synagogue went out of use in the mid-eighth century, perhaps in part due to the well-documented earthquake of 746/47. Recent excavations conducted at the Qasrin site (Zingboym 2009) found remains of two buildings, one with a plaster floor. The pottery vessels discovered beneath the floor belonged to Kefar Hananya Ware (3rd–4th centuries CE), and some glass fragments are dated to the same time. Zingboym suggests that the buildings were constructed in the Late Roman period (latter part of the 3rd century CE) and possibly stood until the end of the 4th–beginning of the 5th centuries CE. Based on his finds, he maintains that the Qasrin settlement covered an extensive area in the 4th century CE. 4. Golan Synagogues Surveys and excavations in the Golan were conducted during the later 19th century by Oliphant (1885, 1886) and Schumacher (1886, 1888), who discovered the synagogues of ed-Dikke, Kanaf, and Umm el-Qanatir. They also found some architectural fragments in second use which might have belonged originally to synagogues, among them a lintel fragment (Hachlili 1995:no. and Fig. 52) discovered by Schumacher (1888:211, Fig. 102) in Quneitra. In 1905, Kohl and Watzinger surveyed the synagogues of ed-Dikke and Umm el-Qanatir. Sukenik (1935) did some further research at these sites.



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

111

After the Six Day War in 1967, additional surveys conducted in the Golan recorded twenty-seven identified synagogues in the region (Kochavi 1972; Ilan 1976, 1987, 1991:61–113 lists 34 sites; Z. Safrai 1978:46–48; Maoz 1988:116); Urman (1972, 1995:389–606) acknowledged 65 sites in the Golan: 12 sites in the upper Golan, 36 in the lower Golan, and 17 in the Susita area. Only six synagogues—Dabiyye, Deir ʿAziz, ʿEn Nashut, Horvat Kanaf, Qasrin, and Umm elQanatir—are excavated, as are three houses (A–C) at the village of Qasrin, surrounding the synagogue (Killebrew excavations 1982–1989). Architectural elements were found in second use from some of the surveyed sites: ʿAssaliyye, Ahmadiyye, Batra, Bet Lavi (Wakhshara), Dabura, ed-Dikke, el Ahseniyeh, el-Khashe, el-Taybe, erRafid, Ghadriyye, Huseiniyye, Jaraba, Khawkha, Qusbiyye, Salabe, Yahudiyye, Zawitan, Zumaimira (Maoz 1981, 1995; Ilan 1991:61–113; Urman 1995; Ben David 2005:213). In several of the sites a framework of an edifice was noticed, enabling the surveyors to publish a plan (Maoz 1995:Pls. 42, 46, 121, 123): ʿAssaliyye (entrance on south), Salabe (entrance on west), Zawitan and Zumeimira (entrance off-center on west). The six excavated synagogues—Dabiyye, Deir ʿAziz, ʿEn Nashut, Kanaf, Qasrin (see above), Umm elQanatir (Fig. III-33)—will be described and the characteristic features will be assessed and analyzed. 4.1 Dabiyye The synagogue at Dabiyye was found outside the center of the village. The synagogue is a rectangular basalt structure (13.35 × 15.10 m) with the main portal on the southern wall (and slightly off-center to the east). Two of the ashlar masonry courses of the doorjambs remained standing. There was also a side entrance on the west wall (Maʿoz 1991). Two rows of columns (of which only two central stylobates survived), probably four in each row, divided the hall, creating a nave and two aisles (Fig. III-33b); it was paved with partly preserved basalt ashlar flagstones. Maʿoz (1991:57) suggests that the Torah shrine at Dabiyye, probably constructed entirely from wood, was located to the west of the main portal on the south wall, because of the off-center portal position. A similar situation exists in other Golan synagogues, such as ʿEn Nashut and Umm el-Qanatir, where aediculae were found on the wall interior beside the south entrance, and at Beth Lavi and Zumeimrah. Maʿoz contends that two rows of stepped benches may be restored along two or three walls. The walls were decorated with engaged semi-columns and some relief. The synagogue was a simple, sparsely decorated (moldings and capitals), single- story structure, with no pediment and probably a flat roof; the reason for this plain structure was perhaps economic, or the building may not have been completed. No numismatic or ceramic finds could be attributed with certainty to the synagogue occupation phase. The construction date for the single synagogue phase is in the late 5th or early 6th century CE based on architectural, numismatic, and ceramic evidence (Ariel 1991; Killebrew 1991). 4.2 Deir ʿAziz The Deir ʿAziz synagogue is located on the western slopes of the Golan. The synagogue consists of a hall (11.0 × 17.6), oriented east-west; the original entrance was on the narrow east wall, with two different styles of construction in the early and later synagogues. Two entrances were found on the west wall. Eight columns standing on pedestals that survived in situ, four in each row, divided the hall into a nave and two aisles (Fig. III-33e). The capitals, found in debris and in second use, are each differently engraved in the ‘Dorian- Byzantine’ style (Ben David and Maʿoz 2004; Maʿoz, U.Z. and Ben David 2003, 2006; Ben David 2007c). The columns averaged a

112

chapter three

Figure III‑33. Golan synagogues plans: a. Umm el-Qanatir; b. Dabiyye; c. ʿEn Nashut; d. Qasrin; e. Deir ʿAziz; f. Kanaf; g. Ed Dikke.



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

113

height of about 3.70 m. Three rows of benches remained along all walls except for part of the south wall (between the Torah shrine and the southeast corner). The synagogue floor consisted of basalt boards, some of which survived. The north wall survived to the height of 6.00 m. Remains in this wall, as well as nine stairs, show the structure had a second story, which the excavators suggest was a women’s gallery. Ceramic tiles and white plaster survived from the roof. In the second phase, the east façade was rebuilt in a different style. A half round apse/niche was built on the west part of the southern wall, extending out of the wall about 1.25 m. The apse or niche served as a Torah shrine, and a bema was erected in front of the apse, made from some benches in the south; its floor was of 5 cm. solid plaster; in the floor of the west side of the niche a small impression (25 cm. in diameter) of a column was found, which perhaps served as a base for a menorah. Three stepped benches were built along all walls of the hall, with a recess for feet constructed in the middle part of the upper bench. On the basis of coins found beneath the pavement and architectural fragments, the later synagogue structure is dated to the second quarter of the 6th century CE or earlier, in the beginning of the reign of Justinian (527–565 CE) (Ben David and Maʿoz 2004:62; Ben David 2007c:48–49). An earlier synagogue apparently existed on the site, based on the remains of architectural fragments, ceramic tiles, colored plaster, and a Greek inscription dated to the second half of the 4th century CE (Ben David 2007b:52–53; 2007c:48–49). Several architectural decorations—one relief with a bull and another of a lioness with a suckling cub, as well as a Greek inscription, were found in second use. The dedicatory inscription, engraved on a small arch fragment, mentions a donor named ‘Azizo,’ a stonecutter, and perhaps it has some connection with the site’s name. On one of the arch stones the number 290 was inscribed, and Di Segni interprets it as the number of years that had elapsed since the destruction of the Temple, which would put it at about 359/360 CE (Ben David 2007c:48, photo on p. 51). In the western side of the hall, where no flagstones survived, a probe was conducted and more than 500 bronze coins dating to the 4th–6th centuries CE and two Justinian I tremisses were found. A hoard of gold coins was found in the file in the interstices of the southern wall, in a disturbed area (Ahipaz 2007). Both synagogues at Deir ʿAziz are from the Byzantine period. The earlier synagogue was built in the mid-4thcentury CE; a hundred years later this was demolished and a new structure was erected, using some of the earlier architectural members. It is possible that a building already existed in the Roman period (Ben David 2007:49). The excavators compare the Deir ʿAziz synagogue to the synagogues in south Judea, with a main entrance on the east wall and a Torah shrine as a niche. The Deir ʿAziz synagogue had six phases of construction and rebuilding: Phases 1–2 served as a synagogue in the 6th–7th centuries CE; in Phase 3 parts of the building, especially the columns, were destroyed by an earthquake in 749; Phase 4 shows the rebuilding of the structure in the end of the 8th or beginning of the 9th centuries CE and it still served then as a synagogue, according to Ben David, while Maʿoz suggests that the structure was turned into a church or monastery in the 8th century CE (Maʿoz and Ben David 2006:27). The last two phases (5 and 6) continued in use, with various building changes, until the first half of the 20th century. 4.3 ʿEn Nashut At the synagogue of ʿEn Nashut a trial excavation was carried out by M. Ben-Ari in 1971, and a salvage excavation in 1978 by Maʿoz (1993:412–14; 1995:73–104, reconstructions Figs. 64, 76). The synagogue is built at the edge of the site, constructed on its outer faces using ashlar stones, with roughly cut stones on the inner faces. The walls, columns, and benches were plastered white. The structure consisted of a hall, an area in front of the south entrance, the base of a staircase along the eastern and northern walls, and an annex in the southeast (Fig. III-33c). The main entrance on the southern

114

chapter three

Jerusalem-oriented wall was destroyed, but a section of the inside plaster floor and fragments of the lintel and doorjambs were found nearby, indicating that the entrance was built off-center, slightly to the west. The hall is rectangular (12.65 × 11.4 m) with two rows of three columns each (stylobates and one pedestal, base and part of the column were found) that divided the hall into a nave and two aisles. The columns had diagonal Ionic capitals surmounted by an architrave and frieze and the second floor had columns with Corinthian capitals. On the inner south Jerusalem-oriented wall to the east of the main entrance, an impression of an aedicula (1.6 × 1.4 m) in the floor plaster and a stone from the lowest of probably three steps leading to it were found. The aedicula was decorated with a sculpture of lions and reliefs. It seems that the erection of the aedicula was the cause of the off-center southern entrance location. Three basalt benches are built along all the walls, two molded with depressions for feet. Near the northeastern column, next to the bench, several ornamented items were found, including an architrave with an Aramaic dedicatory inscription by ‘Abun son of Yose.’ Maoz maintains that this was probably the honored seat (opposite the aedicula) of the donor. The floor was of white plaster above layers of small basalt pebbled mixed with mortar. Based on some small Doric capitals found, a small covered portico might have stood in front of the synagogue. A solid square platform of ashlar stones was built in the south, possibly serving as a base for steps leading from the village to the forecourt. An side annex room, built onto the southeastern corner of the hall with an entrance located on the eastern wall, opened directly into the forecourt to the south through another entrance. Changes and repairs in Stratum IIA: In the hall, a column was added to the western row and the base of the aedicula was enlarged. In the forecourt, a wall was built to the south creating a kind of narthex, with a new floor made of stones and architectural members in second use; a plastered stone bench was built on the base of the south platform. In the annex room, the south entrance was sealed and turned into a cupboard; a plastered floor was added and the wall was replastered. A large number of architectural decorated elements were found in the ʿEn Nashut synagogue, which helped reconstruct the structure (Maoz 1995:88–104). The synagogue at ʿEn Nashut was constructed in Stratum IIB in the mid-5th century CE, based on 191 coins (115 identified) found under the paving in front of the main entrance, possibly buried there during the construction. The various repairs to the synagogue were carried out in Stratum IIA after the earthquake, ca. 551 CE, and the synagogue and village were abandoned at the end of the 6th century or the beginning of the 7th CE. 4.4 H. Kanaf The excavations of the synagogue at Kanaf were conducted in four short seasons, in 1978–1980 and in 1985, by Maoz (1993:847–849, 1995:Pl. 95). The synagogue, whose inner structure was almost completely destroyed,. was a trapezoid with an east-west orientation (Fig. III-33f). The synagogue was apparently constructed at the beginning of the 6th century CE (Stratum IIIA). In the latter part of the century (perhaps after an earthquake), a platform was built in front of it on the west. However, no finds contemporary with the synagogue exist; the finds and coins were found in foundation fills and precede the synagogue’s construction. 4.5 Umm el-Qanatir The Umm el-Qanatir synagogue structure (constructed on an earlier public building) has a hall (13.80 × 18.80 m) with two floors and a gabled roof with ceramic tiles (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:125–134,



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

115

Figs. 256–257; Maoz 1993:543; 1995:113–129; Ben David, H.I. Gonen and J. Dray 2006). A portico was built outside the main south entrance, with a stone floor and four columns with different capitals (Fig. III-35). The walls are built of basalt stones plastered in a bright color inside and out. The entrance on the south façade wall is off-center, to accommodate the Torah shrine aedicula on the inner western part of the entrance. Entrances removed from the center appear also at ʿEn Nashut and Zumeimra. Two other entrances, one on the west, is surmounted with a decorated arch, the other is in the center of the east wall (Fig. III-33a). Two rows of five columns each divide the hall, creating a nave and two aisles. Along the walls are benches; the floor consists of basalt boards with a octagon within a circle in the center (Fig. III-35). The aedicula on the west side of the south, Jerusalem-oriented wall next to the entrance, which probably served as a Torah shrine, survived almost intact (Figs. III-34, IV-38). The aedicula (reconstructed by the excavators, Ben David, H., I. Gonen and J. Dray 2006:115) consisted of a square basalt structure with a façade built of two double columns, both decorated with geometric and plant designs, such as a conch, a rosette, and a menorah accompanied by the ritual objects; the aedicula columns were surmounted by a Syrian gable, and a narrow staircase in the center of its wide base led up to the aedicula (Fig. IV-51). The decorations on the two double columns were similar but not identical. The aedicula columns were surmounted by a double capital, carved with an eagle, on of which was found in second use during the Golan survey (Fig. IX-18). The aedicule platform contained a small space inside with an entrance from the west, and might have been used as a genizah. The Umm el-Qanatir synagogue had, in front of its south façade, a stone- paved entrance square, ending with a line of four different columns and capitals, and a staircase (Fig. III-35). Some reconstructions were conducted in the Byzantine period. In one of them an underground space (10 cm.

Figure III‑34. Umm el-Qanatir. General view, interior, looking south.

116

chapter three

Figure III‑35. Umm el-Qanatir. General view, interior, looking north.

and 1.20 m high) was constructed on the north-west side of the hall, probably another genizah. After the synagogue’s destruction, four rooms were built on its north part, making secondary use of its architectural parts. The synagogue was abandoned, possibly after the earthquake of 749 CE. The dating of the Umm el-Qanatir synagogue is disputed: Kohl and Watzinger date it to the 5th century CE (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:133–134), Avi-Yonah (1950:57), Huttenmeister and Reeg (1977:465–468) to the 3rd c, CE, while Maoz (1993:543) dates it to the second half of the 5th century CE, based on the artistic style. The current excavators, H. Ben David, I. Gonen, and J. Dray (2006) date the synagogue to the Byzantine period (4th to 7th centuries CE) with no exact date. Several sites were surveyed but not excavated, such as ed-Dikke. Nonetheless, some data was assembled, which facilitates the establishment of the characteristic architectural features of the Golan synagogues. 4.6 Ed-Dikke The Ed-Dikke synagogue is oriented east-west. Its façade is on the west wall, and it has three entrances, the central one larger than the side ones. The lintels of all these portals are ornamented (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:112–124; Maoz 1993:541, 1995:12–36; 2007). Two pilasters surmounted by diagonal Ionic capitals are built on the inner western wall between the entrances. Some architectural parts probably belonged to the window in the upper part of the façade, which was topped by a decorated Syrian gable. The Ed-Dikke synagogue hall (10.8 × 13.8) was divided by two rows of three or four columns each, resting on pedestals and topped by Corinthian capitals. Benches in two rows were constructed along three walls (Fig. III-33g). Above the aisles were probably galleries with columns and Doric capitals.



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

117

The windows on the upper story were ornamented with Corinthian half-columns. The ground floor was paved with basalt slabs. The dating of ed-Dikke is based on the stylistic décor elements: Foerster dated the synagogue to the 3rd century CE; Maoz (2007) argues that three artistic elements should be considered for the dating of the synagogue: (1) a ‘relieving arch’ above the main entrance, which appears in Byzantine structures; (2) a double-arched window, only a very small part of which was found (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Fig. 249) on the second story façade, known from 5th–6th century CE churches in North Syria; (3) a four-cornered capital decorated with a spread-winged eagle. Based on these artistic elements, Maoz dates the ed-Dikke synagogue to the mid-5th century (460 CE). 5. South Judea Synagogues The four South Judean synagogues—at Eshtemoʿa, H. Susiya, H. ʿAnim and H. Maʿon—are considered as a group with common features. 5.1 Eshtemoʿa The synagogue was first excavated by Mayer and Reifenberg (1939–40), and more recently by Yeivin (2004). The synagogue hall (17 × 27 m with exedra; 11 × 21 without) built on a east-west axis, has an exedra (nartex) in front of the façade on the eastern wall, with three wide steps; on the top step, two pillars at the two ends were discovered along with columns between them (Figs. III-36a, IV-15). Alongside the south wall of the exedra a stone bench with armrests was built. A rock-cut water ­cistern was found at the foot of the southern pillar. The façade of the synagogue (the east wall of the

c a

b

d

Figure III‑36. South Judea synagogues: a. Eshtemoʿa; b. H. Susiya; c. H. ʿAnim; d. H. Maʿon.

118

chapter three

exedra) has three openings leading to the large hall, with the central entrance wider than the side ones. The three portals are flanked by molded frames (Yeivin 2004:plan 3, Figs. 10–13). The roof of the prayer hall was borne by the thick walls rather than by columns, which were not found. The hall’s inner Jerusalem-oriented north wall has three niches, the central one larger than those on the sides, and a bema was built in front of them (Yeivin 2004:*71, plan 4, Figs. 18–21). The main niche has two steps ascending from the floor of the hall, and a Hebrew inscription on its western corner (Fig. IV-41). Mayer and Reifenberg (Yeivin 2004:*71, 156 confirms) proposed that the Ark of the Scrolls was placed in the main niche, while menoroth (such as the marble menorah found in the hall) were set in the side niches. Remains of a mosaic floor were preserved in the hall, together with various repairs (Yeivin 2004: Figs. 9, 16). A Hebrew dedicatory inscription was found on the remains of a mosaic at the foot of the southern column base (Yeivin 2004:Fig. 6). Benches were built along the southern wall and part of the northern one. Yeivin (2004:*96, 157) maintains that the synagogue of Eshtemoʿa was erected at the end of the 3rd or early 4th centuries CE, or perhaps even earlier, in the 2nd century, and continued in use until the 7th–8th centuries CE. Yeivin further contends that the building was constructed in a single phase, contradicting Mayer and Reifenberg’s (1939–40) suggestion of two phases (Yeivin (2004:*93*). Very few repairs are found in the second phase, and these include the addition of the niche on the bema and some alterations on the floor. Changes and alterations were made in the building when it was no longer a synagogue but a mosque. At that time a semicircular mihrab was set in the south of the hall in the center of the benches (Mayer and Reifenberg dated the mosque to the Umayyad period). 5.2 H. Susiya The H. Susiya synagogue building has a large courtyard on the east, with columns on three sides creating porticos, and is paved with large stone slabs. Five steps lead to the narthex of the synagogue and from there to the three entrances on the eastern wall. The structure had two parts: a main twostoried hall and a long narrow wing on the south. Stairs at the south end of this wing led to the upper story of the wing (Gutman et al. 1981; Z. Yeivin 1989, 1993). The hall (9 × 16 m) was not divided by columns, but the northern wall was much thicker than the others. Along the northern Jerusalemoriented wall three niches were apparently built; in front of them was a large bema and a smaller bema to its east (Figs. III-36b, IV-14, IV-46–47). Three rows of benches were built along the southern and western walls and along the western part of the northern wall of the hall. The hall and narthex were paved with mosaics. Most of the hall was paved with a three-panel design which underwent many changes; originally it had a zodiac in one panel and the biblical scene of Daniel in the Lion’s Den in another. In front of the secondary bema, the mosaic depicted the Torah shrine with the ark, flanked by two menoroth which were, in turn, flanked by rams on both sides (Figs. IV-46–47). A tiled roof (many tiles were found on the site) rested upon the walls. Four dedicatory inscriptions in Hebrew and Aramaic were found: one in the hall in front of the main entrance, two in the narthex, and a fourth in the corner of the corridor/portico of the southern part of the courtyard. Rosenfeld (2005) contends that a school may have been conducted in the south corridor of the Susiya synagogue, based on the Hebrew inscription found there. The Susiya synagogue was erected at the end of the 3rd or early 4th centuries CE and lasted, with many changes, till the 8th or 9th century CE (Yeivin 1989, 1993); Amit (1995:155–6; 2003:180, xxiv, xxxvi–xxxvii) dates the construction of the Susiya synagogue to the late 4th or early 5th century CE and claims it lived on until the 8th. Baruch (2005) maintains that the Jewish settlement at Susiya and the synagogue began in the mid-4th century CE and lived on until the 6th or 7th century. Only in the 8th century CE was the site abandoned.



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

119

5.3 H. ʿAnim The ʿAnim synagogue rectangular hall (14.5 × 8.5) had a south-north orientation. On the eastern long wall, two entrances are preserved with their lintels. An aedicula stood along the entire northern Jerusalem-oriented wall, serving as a Torah shrine with an ark in the center. A stone bench was erected along the inner western wall (Figs. III-36c). The floor was constructed of stone slabs, and some indications of an earlier mosaic floor were found. No columns were found in the hall, thus the tile roof was apparently constructed on a wooden frame. A portico (narthex), built on the east in front of the entrances, was paved with geometric color mosaics and a dedicatory inscription. A row of pillars separated the portico from the courtyard and contained a plaza paved with stone, a well, and attached rooms on the north and south ends. The ʿAnim synagogue is dated to the 4th to 7th centuries CE. 5.4 H. Maʿon ( Judea) The H. Maʿon and H. ʿAnim synagogues were excavated in 1988–1989 (Ilan 1990; Amit and Ilan 1991; Amit 1995, 2003). The Maʿon synagogue was a long building (15.5 × 10.5) with a north-south orientation; the structure had three entrances on the long eastern wall. Stage I. A rectangular niche protruded from the northern, Jerusalem-oriented wall. Two stepped benches survived along the western, southern, and part of the eastern interior walls of the hall. No columns divided the structure, which means the ceiling had wood frames and a gable with tiles on them (some found) (Figs. III-36d). The hall had walls painted in color and a mosaic floor which was almost completely destroyed, and it had some large stone blocks at the same level. The evidence provided by the coins, pottery, and glass findings indicates the building was constructed in the second half of the 4th century or the early 5th century CE. An underground miqveh was found under the southwest corner of the synagogue hall, where a large natural rock was integrated into the benches. Stage II. Various changes were made in the plan of stage II. Two entrances were built on the southern wall: the main entrance was opposite the square niche built on the north, Jerusalem-oriented wall, while the side entrance led to the east aisle. Thus the hall was reduced by 3.5 m and its southern part served as a vestibule. The hall was divided by square pillars, surmounted by arches which held the roof (Fig. III-36d). The mosaic floor was damaged and was renovated with a paving of square stones. This structure was renovated during the late 5th or early 6th centuries CE and the building continued in use until the 7th century. 5.5 Characteristic Features of South Judean Synagogues Several features might group the southern Judean synagogues into a stylistic and chronological group (Fig. III-36): The H. Maʿon and H. ʿAnim synagogues were long structures with a north-south orientation, in contrast with the Eshtemoʿa and Susiya buildings, which were broad structures. Three synagogue entrances were located on the east wall (though at Maʿon II two entrances were on the southern wall). The Torah shrine in these synagogue was a niche built on the northern, Jerusalemoriented wall. The synagogue halls at Eshtemoʿa, Susiya, and Maʿon I were not divided by columns. A barrel-vault ceiling has been proposed for the synagogues of Eshtemoʿa, Susiya and H. Rimon by ­Govrin (1993), who maintains they are representative of a unique architectural type. Mosaic ­pavements decorate the floors, and at Eshtemoʿa and Susiya, benches are built along the walls. There is architectural decoration, especially on lintels. Only Aramaic and Hebrew inscriptions, no Greek ones, appear on the mosaics and screens found in these synagogues. At Eshtemoʿa and Susiya, a mosque with a mihrab on the southern wall was built after the synagogues were abandoned.

120

chapter three

Amit (1993, 1995, 2003) maintains that the south Judean synagogues are a separate typological group with original architectural plans, which do not follow any prototype and are not a result of stylistic influences. Amit (2003: xxix–xxxvi, 168–180) argues that the Judean halakhic tradition was the reason for the choice of architectural design. It was purposely created as the feasible solution to halakhic obligations which were exclusive to Judea; two topics especially serve as the base for his argument: (1) the direction of prayer determines the orientation of the building and (2) the entrances, which are located on the east wall, possibly suggesting the congregation’s observance of the halakhah in Tos.4, 22 citing the openings of synagogues on the east in Daroma. Levine (1993) is critical of Amit’s assumptions, noting that the entrances on the east were more likely regional and based on historic facts rather than halakhic concerns, as the Rabbis did not all agree on the orientation during prayer. The development and chronology of the southern Judean synagogues of Maʿon and ʿAnim began in the 4th century CE, continued in the 5th, and probably did not last long; in the 6th and 7th centuries CE this south Judean rectangular type building was replaced by the basilica type, though at Susiya, Eshtemoʿa, and ʿAnim the plan was preserved in spite of changes and renovations. The Susiya synagogue was erected in the late 4th or early 5th century CE and lived on until the 8th century (Amit 1995:155–6; 2003:180, xxiv, xxxvi–xxxvii). The important focal point in all four south Judean synagogues is the Torah shrine on the north, Jerusalem-oriented wall; the orientation of the entrances on the east was a secondary consideration, except at Maʿon II where an additional entrance was erected in the center of the southern wall, opposite the niche. The reason for the location of the entrances could have been the topographical position of each synagogue. Perhaps the idea was for the Torah shrine to not be immediately visible from the entrance, as in the Galilee and Golan synagogues, where the Torah shrine was actually beside the entrance and the visitor had to turn around after entering in order to see it. 6. Other Synagogues: ʿEn Gedi, Caesarea, Sumaqa, Maʿon-Nirim 6.1 ʿEn Gedi The synagogue at ʿEn Gedi consisted of three phases (Barag 2006, Fig. 31): Synagogue I (Stratum IIIB)—A trapeze-shaped building with entrances on the northern wall, was a modest hall. A mosaic with a rectangle design (8 × 3 m) divided into three squares (Figs. III-2, III-37) covered the floor; only two of the decorated frames survived; the third was destroyed by the platform of Synagogue II; a swastika in black was depicted in the center of the southern square. Synagogue I is dated to the end of the 2nd–early 3rd centuries CE. Synagogue II (Stratum IIIA)—Major changes were made. The building was divided by columns into a nave and southern and eastern aisles, with three entrances on the western wall. The central entrance on the northern wall was now blocked and became a rectangular niche (1.10 × 0.35 m); near the northeastern corner a stepped seat was constructed—a kind of ‘Seat of Moses’. Three stepped benches were built along the southern wall. The mosaic pavement, with repairs, continued to be used in this phase (Fig. III-37). An exedra with three columns was built on the west. The changes in this phase probably occurred between the mid-3rd and early 4th centuries and the synagogue was in use until the mid-5th century CE. Synagogue III (Stratum II)—This synagogue was rebuilt in the mid-5th century CE (measuring ca. 12.5 × 13.5 m on the eastern side, 16 m on the western side). Changes included replacing the niche by a rectangular wooden structure (3.25 m wide) which was constructed protruding 1.5 m into the nave, with an apse which served as the location of the Ark. The interior of the wooden structure held a storage space, a genizah. In front of the wooden structure, a rectangular bema surrounded by chancel screens was constructed. The ‘Seat of Moses’ served this synagogue also (Fig. III-37). The



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

121

Figure III‑37. ʿEn Gedi synagogue plans (Phases 1–3).

western exedra became the western aisle and a long corridor was built with two entrances, on the north and south. Two additional rooms were built on the northern and southern sides. Stairs for the second-floor gallery were found near the northwestern corner. A new geometric mosaic covered the Synagogue III floor with emblems of birds and peacocks (Figs. IV-43, V-40). In the western aisle a mosaic containing five Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions was uncovered. The synagogue was destroyed at the end of the 6th or beginning of the 7th century CE. 6.2 Caesarea The recently published comprehensive final report by the Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima, which examines all the available information, tried to depict a clear picture of the Caesarea site (Govaars, Spiro and White 2009:125–140, Table 5, Figs. 126–132). Their general conclusions: The structure in Stratum I-III was a square building (9 × 9 m) with a cistern/pool structure, and, in the absence of any additional data, it was dated to the 4th century CE (Avi-Yonah 1993:278 proposed that the structure might be a house-synagogue). The structure of Stratum IV was apparently a large hall oriented east-west, but the only evidence for this is the Ioulis inscription on the pavement. The structure of Stratums IV and V, on an east-west axis and with additional rooms to the south, contradicts Avi-Yonah’s proposal (1960c:47–48, 1993:278) of a north-south axis apsidal building with its entrance on the north; it was here that the Isaiah inscription pavement and the Marouthas plaque were found. This building is dated to the 5th–6th centuries CE.

122

chapter three

Thus, based on the dating of the inscriptions, the reconstructed plan of the mosaic pavements and their relative positions, and on the color coding of the 1962 Dunayevsky site plan, it is possible to conclude that the site held at least four structures: first the structure of Stratum I-III, second, Stratum IV, third, Stratum V, and fourth, a new Stratum VI or a later phase of Stratum V. Spiro and White date the Ioulis inscription mosaic (Str. IV) to the late 4th–5th centuries CE, the mosaic and the Beryllos inscriptions on the west side of the site (Str. V) to the mid-5th to 6th centuries CE and the Isaiah inscription and the Marouthas plaque on the east side (Str. VI) to the mid-6th and possibly even the 7th century CE. The artifacts from the excavations: the Beryllos and Isaiah inscriptions, the capitals with carved menoroth, the marble plaques with menoroth, the plaque with the 24 priestly courses inscription, the fragments of a chancel screen (Fig. XI-6) (though not all were found in the area of the excavation) all imply that this was “an identifiable Jewish living/working area. However, there is no evidence for the identification of the site as a synagogue, no entrance, no architectural elements or decoration, no Torah shrine, no benches, were securely found . . . an unambiguous plan of a synagogue is not discernible.” Nevertheless, it is possible to interpret the Stratum V structure, which probably included an interior colonnade with four columns but without an apse—based on the capitals with menoroth and the Beryllos inscription with its reference to a archisynagogue—as a monumental rebuilding of the edifice of Stratum IV—a synagogue of the late 5th or early 6th century CE. 6.3 Sumaqa The Sumaqa synagogue was built on a wide terrace on the southern slope of the site (Dar 1999:17–33; Turnheim 1999). A portal lintel, depicting a pair of animals (lions?) flanking a vase, was discovered (SWP I:319; Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Fig. 276). The synagogue went through many changes, with three major phases (Fig. III-38): Phase I. The synagogue had triple portals on the eastern façade wall; the central entrance was larger than the two flanking ones. The hall originally was a basilica (14.80 × 19.40 m) divided by two rows of columns into a nave and two aisles; the columns were not found in situ. The floor was constructed of coarse chalk and a layer of plaster. The walls might have been coated with light plaster. The narthex was possibly added at a later stage and enlarged the building to 14.80 × 23.80 (Fig. III-38). The building had a tile roof. The structure of this phase is dated to the first or second half of the 3rd century CE, and it was destroyed intentionally during the 4th century or the beginning of the 5th. Phase II. The building was reconstructed with a different plan, consisting of minor changes to the façade and narthex; the walls were much thicker, the dimensions of the synagogue were reduced. Changes in the interior of the hall included a lateral wall with six grooved columns; the paving of sections of the hall with stone slabs; the transformation of the western section into a courtyard with small rooms. Perhaps in this phase only part of the building was utilized as a synagogue, while the other parts were residential and were later abandoned. And perhaps it was not used as a synagogue at all at this time. Phase II is dated between the 5th and 7th centuries CE, based on a small collection of coins buried in front of the building. Phase III. The synagogue structure was converted into living quarters in medieval times (the Mamluk period)—during the 12th to 15th centuries. The absence of the characteristic synagogue features, such as a Torah shrine, benches and Jewish symbols, raise doubt regarding the identification of the Sumaqa structure as a synagogue (Turnheim 1999:245). The architectural decoration at Sumaqa, with its comparisons to findings at Beth Sheʿarim,



recently excavated and newly published synagogues

a

b

Figure III‑38. Sumaqa: a. plan; b. reconstruction.

123

124

chapter three

is dated by Turnheim (1999:248) to the end of the 2nd–mid-3rd centuries, CE, which may also be the date of the main stage of the synagogue. Perhaps this building was never finished (Dar and Mintzker 1989:18). 6.4 Maʿon (Nirim) The synagogue was originally excavated and reported by Levi (1960), Rahmani (1960) and Avi-Yonah (1960b). The rescue excavation by Yogev (1987) on the western side of the synagogue revealed a plan that included a hall identical in size (10.20 × 5.40 m) to the mosaic pavement (Fig. V-37) and surrounded by a temenos, as evidenced by a wall on the west. The synagogue had two levels: the earlier level had a mosaic, found in fragments beneath the later decorated mosaic, and a bema which might have served as an aedicula and which was later integrated into the protruding apse (Fig. IV-44:7). The structure was constructed of brick walls without stone foundations. Yogev (1987) dates the erection of the Maʿon (Nirim) synagogue to the second half of the 5th century CE and no later than the beginning of the 6th; the new mosaic and the apse were probably made in the mid-6th century and the synagogue was in use until the mid-7th century. 7. Concluding Remarks The description of the synagogues proves that there were different plans, though it is possible to distinguish groups with similar features within given geographical areas: Galilee, Golan, and south Judea (Figs. III-1, 33, 36). A fourth group of synagogues is notable for its characteristic architectural form, consisting of a basilical plan with an apse (Fig. IV-44). Characteristic of all the synagogues are the Torah shrine (in the forms of aedicula, niche, or apse) and the benches, which prove the function of the buildings as assembly, prayer, and study edifices. In conclusion, synagogues in the Land of Israel were constructed continuously throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods. Synagogue building seems to have been most prolific during two periods: the mid- or late-3rd and early 4th centuries CE, when most of the Galilean synagogues were erected; and the 6th century, when many of the characteristic Byzantine synagogues were built. Consequently, each synagogue should be examined separately to determine its date, through analysis of the data revealed by its excavation, and by its artistic style and historical context.

CHAPTER FOUR

SYNAGOGUE ARCHITECTURE AND ORNAMENTATION The synagogue building’s function as an assembly place for religious and social activities of the local congregation determined its architectural plan. The most commonly found structure contained a large hall divided by supporting columns into a nave and aisles, with benches on the interior walls. Opinions vary considerably as to the evolution of synagogue architecture. Several attempts have been made to categorize and clarify the different types and divergent styles of the synagogues scattered throughout many regions (Hachlili 1988:141–167, 194–199). Avi-Yonah (1961a; 1973:32–33) proposed three types of synagogue plans based on chronology: (1) the earliest—the Galilean and Golan type, dating from the second to the third centuries CE, with an ornamental façade and a portable wooden construction serving as the Torah Shrine; (2) the transitional type, from the fourth and fifth centuries CE, sometimes called ‘broadhouse’. In this type three new principles appear: a fixed Torah Shrine in the Jerusalem-oriented wall; changes in the style of ornamentation—from relief to increased use of mosaic pavements; (3) the latest type, dated to the fifth to eighth centuries CE, with a basilical plan and mosaic pavements. Meyers (1980:97–108) attempts a different classification of synagogue development that is based on the construction plan: (1) the earliest, the basilica, is the so-called ‘Galilean type’; (2) the transitional broadhouse type; and (3) the latest, apsidal in shape. A third classification of synagogue architectural development is based on regional divisions (Meyers et al. 1976:99; Kloner 1981:15–18, Map 2). These assumptions concerning typology and chronology have been challenged by excavations of synagogues in the last decades and can no longer serve as guides for the clarification of synagogue architectural development. The regional theory remains useful, and shows that synagogues in a particular region share characteristic features, irrespective of chronological distinctions. The different architectural styles uncovered verify that no universal or uniform synagogue plan existed. 1. Characteristic Features of Synagogue Architecture It is possible to establish a set of essential characteristics of synagogue architecture, regardless of geographical location. Typological divergences are usually due to the financial means of the congregation, the social standing of the donors, and to the local construction traditions and practices of the masons and artists involved. The majority of synagogue plans are oblong and have longitudinal axes. The outer plan of the synagogue structure contains a façade, often with a ‘Syrian gable’, single or triple portals, an arched window above the main portal, windows, and sometimes a portico. The internal plan generally consists of two rows of stone columns which divide the main hall lengthwise into a central nave and two side aisles, sometimes with an added horizontal aisle. There are other common features, the most prominent being the Torah Shrine, the benches constructed along the interior walls and an upper story—a gallery or clerestory. 1.1 The Façade The façade of Galilean and Golan synagogues was frequently constructed of ashlar stones, and had three portals or a single entrance often with an arched window. Generally, it was divided into a

126

chapter four

lower and upper story by a cornice, with windows on the upper level. A gable, often a Syrian gable, surmounted the whole façade or part of it. The best preserved synagogue façade is found at Barʿam (Fig. IV–7a). A triple rhythm is articulated on such façades, even if there is only a single entrance and side windows (Fig. IV–3; see the reconstructions of Meiron, Barʿam, and Nabratein, in Meyers and Meyers 2009:Fig. 20). The detailed and rich ornamentation of the façade has parallels in the Hauran and Syria. The synagogue façade is analyzed through its various components: the ornate façade with triple or single portals, a central arched window and the Syrian gable. 1.1.1 The Syrian Gable Surmounting the synagogue façade is the Syrian gable consisting of a pediment with its base curved into an arch—an Oriental variation of the classical pediment (Avi-Yonah 1944:146–147; Brown 1942:389, 391, 399; Hachlili 1988:161–163). Sufficient architectural fragments have survived from Galilean and Golan synagogues to enable the reconstruction of a Syrian gable on the façade. A Syrian gable based on ornate sculptured fragments is reconstructed on the upper part of the façade at Korazim (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 89, 107, 191). Recent excavations and restoration work verify this reconstruction (Yeivin 2000:Figs. 81—the gable parts, plans 10–12).

Figure IV-1. Syrian gable parts, Korazim.



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

a

127

b

Figure IV-2. Syrian gable, full façade reconstructions: a. Barʿam (drawing, Kohl and Watzinger); b. Capernaum (Orfali).

a

b

c

Figure IV-3. Façade reconstructions: a. Baram; b. Meiron; c. Nabratein.

Kohl and Watzinger (1916:Figs. 285–287) suggested that the Syrian gable was constructed along the complete width of the synagogue’s façade (comparable to the Syrian basilica at Shabba, el-Musmiye, and the Tychaion Is Sanamen). They reconstruct several gables on the evidence of sculptured fragment remains: The Barʿam synagogue is reconstructed with one Syrian gable on the portico—the arch surmounting the two central columns—and another one, also on the façade of the building (Fig. IV-2a) (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 186, 191). At Capernaum (Fig. IV-2b), Kohl and Watzinger (1916:Pl. I, Fig. 35), as well as Orfali (1922:Pl. IV), postulate theoretically that there was a Syrian gable on the façade, based on the evidence of fragments such as a corner of the gable. Based on the finding of gable parts. full Syrian gables have also been reconstructed for the Golan synagogues of ed-Dikke and Umm el-Qanatir (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 251, 272), and for Kanaf, ʿEn Nashut, and Zumaimira (Maoz 1995:Pls. 14, 98, 46, 76). There may also have been a Syrian gable over the façade at Qasrin. For Meiron and Nabratein, the excavators suggested reconstructions of full gables, not the Syrian version (Meyers and Meyers 2009:Fig. 20) (Fig. IV-3a, c). But Netzer (1996:452– 454, Figs. 2, 3) maintains that the Gush Halav synagogue had a small gable above the nave.

128

a

chapter four

b

Figure IV-4. Façade reconstructions of Gush Halav: a. by the excavators; b. by E. Netzer.

Figure IV-5. Korazim, two options for the reconstruction of the upper story with Syrian gable.

Z. Yeivin (2000:24*–25*, plans 11, 12), however, suggests two options for the Korazim façade reconstruction: one with a full Syrian gable and one, which he prefers, with a smaller such gable, reconstructed above the second floor and the main entrance (Fig. IV-5). Nevertheless, some of the Galilean and Golan synagogues may have had smaller narrow Syrian gables built on part of the façade, like the one suggeted for Korazim (Fig. IV-5). Reconstructed gables along the façade’s width are proposed for the synagogues at Beth Sheʿarim (S. Yeivin 1942:13, Fig. c), Beth Alpha (Sukenik 1932:Fig. 19), and Susiya (Gutman et al. 1981:124). Comparable Syrian gables were constructed on Nabatean and Roman structures in Syria dating from the first century BCE until the third century CE. Examples include the façade of the temple of Dushara at Si (Butler 1907:Figs. 332, 335), the west façade of the temple of Bel, the eastern façade of the Heliopolis temple, the façade of the adyton in the Bacchus temple of Baalbek, and the round temple of Baalbek (Wiegand 1921:Pls. 4, 27; 1923:Pls. 14 and 62). Similar gables appear on many Syrian Christian churches; for instance, the Kalata church in North Syria has a narrow Syrian gable (Baccache 1979:Figs. 14, 48, 100, 184, 201, 217, 255, 285, 300, 323, 338, 376, 402; 1980:255–260, 450, 463).



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

129

a

b

Figure IV-6. Reconstructed façades: a. Beth Sheʿarim; b. Susiya. Table IV-1 (a). Synagogues architecture.* Site

Date CE

Dimensions in m

Orientation Courtyard Towards Jerusalem Facade

Arbel I II ʿAmudim H. G Barʿam Capernaum Gush Halav I A II Hamam, Wadi.

4th 6th–mid-8th

250–362 362–551 Late 3rd–late 4th or early 5th

20.35 × 18.5 18.2 × 18.6 14.1 × 22.5 15.2 × 20.0 18.5 × 24.2 10.6 × 13.7 10.6 × 13.7 17.2 × 14.7

+ + + + +

Torah Shrine + +? + + +

Walls Lime- Basalt Stone stone Concrete

+ + +

+ + + + + + + +

+

130

chapter four

Table IV-1 (a) (cont.) Site

Date CE

Dimensions in m

Orientation Courtyard Towards Jerusalem Facade

L Huqoq Kafr Misr I II I III Korazim Meiron L Meroth Ia Ib II E III Nabratein I IIa E IIb III Shemʿa H. I II Shura H. ʿAssaliyye G Dabiyye Deir ʿAziz I II O Ed-Dikke L ʿEn Nashut Kanaf H. A Qasrin I II III N Umm el Qanatir Tiberias Hammath Tiberias A Hammath Tiberias  B IIb Hammath Tiberias  B IIa Hammath Tiberias  B Ib Hammath Tiberias  B Ia Hammath Gader III Beth Sheʿarim I II Sepphoris Huseifa Japhiʿa Sumaqa H. I II Beth Alpha Beth Sheʾan A Beth Sheʾan small B Maʿoz Hayim I II III Rehov I II III

Torah Shrine

Walls Lime- Basalt Stone stone Concrete

Late 4th–5th Early 3rd 4th–early 5th 5th–7th 4th–6th 280–360 400–450 450–500 500–620 620–1200 135–250 250–306 306–363 564–700 284–306 306–419 5th–7th 5th–6th 5th 4th 6th–mid-8th 5th 5th 5th 4th–5th 6th 7th–8th 5th–6th 6th–8th 4th–5th 230–306

10.4 × 13.8 11.3 × 12.5 13.3 × 16.4 15.3 × 15.2 15.0 × 17.2 15.0 × 17.2 13.8 × 18.8 20.0 × 20.0 12.0 × 12.0 13 × 15.0

306–419

13.0 × 15.0

+

+

423–mid-7th

24.0 × 31.0

+

+

mid-7th–mid-8th

24.0 × 31.0

+

+

5th–6th 3rd 4th 5th–7th Early 6th 5th Early 3rd–4th 5th–7th 6th 5th–7th 6th End 3rd–4th 5th 6th–7th Early 4th Late 4th–5th 6th–7th

13.0 × 13.9 15.0 × 35.0 15.0 × 35.0 16.0 × 6.4 10.1 × ? 15.0 × 19.0

13.65 × 17.5 20.0 × 14.5 13.6 × 27.4 17.0 × 18.7 17.0 × 18.7 17.0 × 18.7 17.8 × 19.3 11.2 × 9.4 11.2 × 13.8 11.2 × 13.8 11.2 × 16.8 18.0 × 9.0 18.0 × 9.0 14.5 × 17.0 16.0 × 18.0 13.35 × 15.1 11.0 × 17.6

14.80 × 19.4 10.8 × 12.4 17.0 × 14.2 7.0 × 7.0 12.5 × 14.0 12.0 × 14.5 12.0 × 14.5 17.0 × 19.0 17.0 × 19.0 17.0 × 19.0

+ + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + +

+

+ + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + +? +? +

+

+

+

+ + + + + +

+ +

+ +

+ + + + + + + + +

+ + +

+ + + + + + + + + + +

+

+

+ + + +

+ + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

131

Table IV-1 (a) (cont.) Site

Date CE

Dimensions in m

Orientation Courtyard Towards Jerusalem Facade

Caesarea I–III IV V VI Eshtemoʿa I

S O II U T ʿAnim H. H Maʿon H. (Judea) I II J Rimmon H. I II U III D E Susiya I II A III ʿEn Gedi I II III Naʿaran Jericho Maʿon (Nirim) I II Gaza Gerasa

4th Late 4th–5th Mid-5th–6th Late 6th–7th 2nd–3rd or end 3rd–early 4th 4th–7th 4th–7th Late 4th or early 5th 5th–7th Mid-3rd 4th–6th 6th–7th 4th–5th 6th–7th 7th–9th 2nd–early 3rd Mid-3th–mid-5th Mid 5th–7th 6th Late 6th–7th Mid 5th–6th Mid 6th–7th 6th–7th 5th–6th

Torah Shrine

Walls Lime- Basalt Stone stone Concrete

9.0 × 9.0

+

21.0 × 11.0

+

14.5 × 8.5 15.5 × 10.5 12.5 × 10.5

+ + + + +

9.50 × 13.5 15.0 × 19.0 10 × 15.5/13.5 12.5 × 16/13.5

+ + + +

+ + + +

+ + + + +

15.0 × 22.0 10.0 × 13.0 17.20 × 21.0 17.20 × 21.0 26.0 × 30.0 14.0 × 28.0

+ +

+ + +

+

+

+ + + + + +

+

+

* The sites in these Tables are arranged from the north to the south of the country.

Table IV-1 (b). Synagogues architecture. Site

Exterior Entrances Ornate Portico Triple Single Wall Arched Syrian Side Window Outside façade pilaster window gable entrance stairs

G A L I L E

Arbel I II ʿAmudim Barʿam Capernaum Gush Halav I II Hamam Wadi Huqoq Kafr Misr I II III Korazim Meiron Meroth I II III

+ + +

+ +

+ + +

+ + + + + +

+ + + +

+ + + + +N

+E +E

+S

+

+ + +

+

+ + + + +

+

+

+N

+ +

+

+

+ + + + +

+ +

+

+ +

+

132

chapter four

Table IV-1 (b) (cont.) Site

Exterior Entrances Ornate Portico Triple Single Wall Arched Syrian Side Window Outside façade pilaster window gable entrance stairs

E Nabratein I IIa IIb III Shemʿa H. I II Shura H. ʿAssaliyye G Dabiyye Deir ʿAziz I II O Ed-Dikke L ʿEn Nashut Kanaf H. A Qasrin I (A) II (B) III (B) N Umm el Qanatir Tiberias Hammath Tiberias A Hammath Tiberias B IIb Hammath Tiberias B IIa Hammath Tiberias B Ib Hammath Tiberias B Ia Hammath Gader III Beth Sheʿarim I II Sepphoris Huseifa Japhiʿa Sumaqa H. Beth Alpha Beth Sheʾan A Beth Sheʾan small B Maoz Hayim I II III Rehov I II III Caesarea S Eshtemoʿa O ʿAnim H. U Maʿon H. (Judea) I II T H Rimmon H. I II III J U Susiya I II D E A

+ + + +

+ +

+ +

+ + +

+ +

+W

+

+ +

+ + +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ + +

+

+ + +

+ + + + +

+ +E

+ +

+

+N +N +S + + +E +E + +N +N +N +N + +N + +?

2E

+

+ + + + + +

+ +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +

+SW +

+ +E 2E 2E

E? 2E 2E 2S

+ + +

+ +

? +

+

+

+

+ + + +

+ +

+ + +



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

133

Table IV-1 (b) (cont.) Site

Exterior Entrances Ornate Portico Triple Single Wall Arched Syrian Side Window Outside façade pilaster window gable entrance stairs

ʿEn Gedi I II III Naʿaran Jericho Maʿon (Nirim) Gaza Gerasa

+ + +

+N +W +W + + +

+ + + +

+

1.1.2 The Triple Portals The façade with its triple entrances, usually one of the short sides of the structure, is a characteristic feature of the ancient synagogue, particularly in the Galilee; the central portal is usually larger than the two flanking ones. This style is deduced from the remains of entrance thresholds, lintels, and doorposts preserved in many of the synagogues, such as the well-preserved façade at Barʿam and many other sites, such as Capernaum, Korazim, Meiron, Meroth, H. ʿAmudim, Ed-Dikke (Figs. IV-2–7), Beth Alpha, Hammath Tiberias, Maʿon (Nirim), Eshtemoʿa, Susiya, Rimmon, and Naʿaran. The triple entrances in many cases lead directly into the hall’s nave and aisles. The main differences between the triple façades of the various synagogues are their orientation and ornamentation. The façades of the Galilean and Golan synagogues are richly ornamented in contrast to the plain façades of the others. In most Galilean and Golan synagogues the location of both the façade and the Torah Shrine is on the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall (Figs. IV-28, IV-36:1–4, 6–8). In other well-preserved synagogues, particularly those of the fifth and sixth centuries CE, the façade is usually on the wall facing the Torah Shrine, and this is also true of the synagogue of Qasrin in the Golan. Apparently, it was the location of the Torah Shrine, usually built on the Jerusalem-oriented wall, that determined the orientation of the façade. In Galilean and Golan synagogues, the Torah Shrine was built on the interior wall of the façade, so that visitors entering the building had to turn around after entering in order to see it. Perhaps the idea was to not see the Torah Shrine immediately upon entering. In other synagogues, such as those with a niche or an apse as at Beth Alpha, H. Shemʾa, Hammath Tiberias, Maʿon-Judea II, Rehov, and H. Rimmon (Figs. IV-40, 44), the entrance is on the wall across from the Torah Shrine wall. The south Judea synagogues of ʿAnim, Eshtemoʿa, Susiya, and Maʿon have triple entrances on the eastern side wall (Fig. III-36), while at ʿEn-Gedi the entrances are on the western side wall and do not face the niches (Fig. III-37). In all four south Judean synagogues and in ʿEn Gedi, the Torah Shrine was erected on the north (Jerusalem-oriented) wall; at Maʿon-Judea II the additional entrance was erected in the center of the south wall opposite the niche. In the synagogues of Arbel, Hamath Gader, Maʿoz Hayim, and Sumaqa the entrances are also on the east wall. It seems that the triple-entranced façade not only had a structural function, it had intrinsic significance. One possible reason for this preference and its establishment as a characteristic feature of the synagogue was its recollection of the triple Nicanor Gate, the main entrance into the Second Temple of Jerusalem (Hachlili 1988:25, 156, Fig. I-6).1 1 Goodenough (1953:183, 265; 1965:41, 84) suggests it is a symbolic front, directed towards Jerusalem, “toward the shekina in all three of its symbolic manifestations.”

134

chapter four

a

b

Figure IV-7. Synagogue façades: a. Barʿam; b. Meiron.

The similarity between Syrian architecture, particularly pagan temples, and synagogues that some scholars (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:147–173; Goodenough 1953:183) have suggested is more a general impression than an actual fact. The Kedesh temple in Upper Galilee has triple portals on its façade: a large central entrance flanked by two much smaller entrances (Fisher et al. 1984:149, Pl. 26:1, 2). A few of the Syrian pagan temples have triple portals: for example, the temple of Suweda in the Hauran and the Tychaion is-Sanamen (Butler 1903:Pl. 118; 1907, V:Fig. 292) have wider and higher central doorways with two much smaller side entrances. Note also that above each side entrance is a niche. The difference in size between the central and side entryways in the façades of most synagogues is less noticeable than in the pagan temples. Other temples have only one main entrance, sometimes with flanking niches, as, for example, the temples of Atil, Habran, and Braka (Butler 1903:Figs. 121, 123; 1907, VII:Pl. 29). A further reason for a general impression of similarity between the triple portals façade of the synagogue (especially the Galilean examples) and that of the Syrian pagan temple is the similar rich ornamentation.



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

135

1.1.3 Single Portals Several Galilean synagogue façades have only a single portal. Gush-Halav, Nabratein, and Wadi Hamam (Leibner 2010a:Figs. 5, 6) have only one entrance, on the Jerusalem-oriented south wall. Hurvat Shemʿa has a main portal set into the northern wall (Figs. III-31:5, 6, 11, IV-4, 30:1, 38:1, 4, 5). Most of the Golan synagogues have only a single entrance (Table IV-1). Four synagogues— Dabiyye, ʿEn Neshut, Umm el-Qanatir, and ʿAssalieh (Figs. III-33, IV-36:6–9) have their façade and single entrance on the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall, with the portal placed off-center, possibly to accommodate the Torah Shrine on the inner side of that wall (Maoz 1995:189–90, Pls. 42, 57, 121). This appears to be a local feature or practice. At Deir Aziz the main entrance is off-center but on the east (Figs. III-33e, IV-44:1); however, the apse/niche for the Torah Shrine was built on the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall, indicating that off-center entrances on façades do not necessarily suggest the existence of a Torah Shrine on the same wall as the entrance. At Qasrin the façade with its single main entrance is on the northern wall, while the Torah Shrine is constructed on the inner side of the opposite south Jerusalem-oriented wall (Fig. IV-8). Other synagogues in the Golan have their façade and entrances on the west: Batra, ed-Dikke, Kanaf, Salabe, and Yahudiyye. Arbel has a single main entrance on the east; the off-center synagogue entrance at Jericho is on the northeast opposite the apse (Fig. IV-44:1); the Maʿoz Hayim synagogue has one entrance in Phase I and probably two entrances in Phases II and III (Fig. IV-44:2). Some of these entrances may have been flanked by windows or niches, in a manner similar to the Syrian pagan temples, in this way preserving the triple rhythm of the façade (see the reconstruction of Nabratein, Fig. IV-3c) (Younger 2009:83–84, Fig. 19, chart 3).

Figure IV-8. Qasrin, single entrance.

136

chapter four

In the Sepphoris synagogue (Fig. IV-36:14), the southern, main entrance into the hall was accessed through a side entrance into a vestibule or narthex (Weiss and Netzer 2005:40–41, Figs. 50, 51). A similar narthex is found in the second stage of the Maʿon (Judea) synagogue (Amit and Ilan 1990:115– 120). The synagogues of ʿAnim and Maʿon (Judea) have two entrances (Fig. III-36c, d). Side entrances found in many synagogues enabled access to the hall from other directions, created less congestion, and provided entry into other rooms. Several Galilean synagogues have an hexastylos portico façade (six columns) or four columns, in front of the triple entrance (see Qazion, Suppl.) These include Barʿam and Meiron (Figs. IV-2a, 3b, 7). At Meroth the excavators reconstructed a six-column portico in stages I and II (Fig. IV-23b) (Ilan 1989:21, Fig. 7). At the Susiya synagogue an hexastylos portico façade is also reconstructed (Fig. IV-6b). Umm el-Qanatir in the Golan has a small portico of four columns in front of the entrance (Figs. III-33a, III-35, IV-36:8) (Ben David et al. 2006:113 plan, 2007:56), not two columns as reconstructed by Kohl and Watzinger (1916:Fig. 272); at ʿEn Nashut there may have been an ashlar stone portico (Maoz 1995:86, 88, 185). 1.1.4 Courtyards The only clearly identifiable courtyard found in a synagogue is the side courtyard at Capernaum (Fig. IV-28:2). The courtyard had three entryways on the northern and eastern walls and two on the southern wall. It was divided by three rows of columns, set on pedestals and stylobates, which may have created a central unroofed court. Other synagogues might have had some kind of a square in front of their main entrances, for instance at Korazim, and possibly Qasrin. 1.1.5 Arched Windows Some of the Galilean and Golan synagogues have a large, semicircular window on the façade above the central portal lintel, surmounted by a richly ornamented and sculptured relieving arch, and probably with a metal grille filling the space. This arched window, which would have provided an important source of light for the synagogue interior, was an innovative feature of synagogue architecture and has seldom been found in other buildings.2 Several of the Galilean synagogues retain fragments of this arch, and at Barʿam it is still in place (Figs. IV-7a, V-2a). Fragments were found at Capernaum (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Pl. I, Fig. 25), and at Korazim, where a molded voussoir found at the site may have belonged to the window arch (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 82, 84, 104; Yeivin 2000:26*, Pl. 4:14, plans 11, 12). An arched window is proposed also for H. ʿAmmudim, Gush Halav (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Fig. 205), and Meroth Stage II (Ilan 1989:Fig. 7). Golan synagogues with fragments of such molded relieving arches include Qasrin, where a fragment of a decorated arch was found and holes for a grille were preserved in the upper part of the lintel; the decorated stone arch is molded with two faciae and a cornice with an ovolo profile, decorated with an egg-and-dart design (Fig. IV-9a). Similar arch fragments with different ornamentation were found at ed-Dikke (Schumacher 1988:Fig. 122; Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Fig. 224, 251) and Umm el-Qanatir (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Fig. 260). Fragments found at ʿAssalieh, ʿEn Nashut, and Zumaimira indicate that these synagogues also had such an arched window on the façade (Maoz 1995:Pls. 43:4, 46, 69:1–3, 76).

2 But see for instance, the facade of the fifth-century CE Syrian church of Qalat Kalota (Baccache 1979:Fig. 217).



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

a

b

c

Figure IV-9. Qasrin: a. decorated arch fragment; b–c. window fragments.

137

138

chapter four

1.1.6 Windows At several Galilean and Golan synagogues stone fragments were found, indicating the presence of windows on the façade. Each window was probably structured from several stone slabs (Fig. IV-9b, c). The façade of the Barʿam synagogue shows in situ windows (Fig. IV-7a). Kohl and Watzinger (1916:228–229, 233–234, Figs. 8, 22) reconstruct elaborately decorated windows in the façades of synagogues, using as evidence fragments which may have belonged to them. Window parts were found and reconstructed at Capernaum as a window with a pair of columns on each side, surmounted by a Syrian gable decorated with a conch (Fig. IV-10). At Korazim, two windows, one above the other, are reconstructed under the façade’s gable (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Fig. 200; Yeivin 2000:Plans 11–12). At Gush Halav the simple undecorated façade is reconstructed with three windows for which a window seals were found (Fig. IV-4) (Belkin 1990:113, Fig. 46). At Nabratein, several window lintels were found and reconstructed as large windows flanking the single entrance (Younger 2009:83–84, Fig. 19, chart 3) (Fig. IV-3c). Several remains of windows were found in the Golan synagogues: at Qasrin, window parts were found, including a capital decorated with a spiral row (Fig. IV-9b, c). At Umm el-Qanatir the façade is reconstructed with a pair of windows flanking the single entrance, and another central window on the upper story (Kohl Watzinger 1916:Fig. 262, 272). At ed-Dikke, windows are reconstructed on the façade above the side entrances, as is a central ornamented window with a gable that is decorated with a conch flanked by an eagle and a dolphin on the upper story (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 228–9, 230–235, 249, 251). Similar windows on the façade are reconstructed at ʿEn Nashut and Kanaf in the Golan (Maoz 1995:Pls. 76, 98:3). Other fragments found at Qasrin, of stone slabs with bases, columns, and capitals that created the window frames, were part of the side walls of the upper gallery or the clerestory.

Figure IV-10. Capernaum window fragments.



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

139

Figure IV-11. Projecting pilasters on the façade and the west wall of the hall, Capernaum.

Projecting pilasters on the external faces of walls are found only at Capernaum and Korazim. At Capernaum two projecting pilasters flank the main entrance on the façade, and there are also two corner pilasters and several others on the outer walls of the hall and courtyard (Fig. IV-11) (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 5, 74; Orfali 1933:Pls. IV, VIII, IX). At Korazim, four projecting pilasters with diagonal Ionian capitals decorate the southern façade, and six pilasters, the eastern walls (Fig. IV-23a) (Yeivin 2000:17*, Figs. 86–92, Pls. 8–9, plan 10). At ed-Dikke, two corner pilasters are reconstructed (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Fig. 251). 1.2 Interior Architecture The interior architectural plan of most synagogues consisted of a large hall divided into a nave and aisles by supporting columns that stood on pedestals and often on a stylobate as well, with benches along the walls. Several Galilean synagogues also had a row of breadthwise columns, some with the corner type (heart-shaped); the number of columns differs in each synagogue. At the synagogues of Capernaum (Fig. IV-12), Gush Halav, Korazim, Nabratein II, III, and Umm el-Qanatir the columns stood on a stylobate built of ashlar stones. A pair of corner (heart-shaped) columns is found at the Galilean synagogues of Arbel, Barʿam, Capernaum (a pair also in the courtyard corners), H. ʿAmudim, Meiron, and Wadi Hamam (Fig. IV-28:2, 36:2–4). A third vertical aisle is a phenomenon of Galilean synagogues that is found also at the Second Temple synagogue at Gamla (Fig. II-1e). The Korazim hall is divided by twelve columns on pedestals and on a stylobate (Fig. IV-13b). Four columns are built on the eastern and western walls, and four (a horizontal row) on the northern wall. Seven column pedestals were found in situ, three within the structure, and two are missing. The distances between the columns is uneven (Yeivin 2000:10*–11*, plan 5, Fig. 45).

140

chapter four

Figure IV-12. Capernaum: a. hall interior; b. façade.



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

Figure IV-13. Façade and hall of synagogue, Korazim.

141

142

chapter four

Figure IV-14. Interior of synagogue, Susiya.

Two rows of columns divide the hall into a nave and two aisles at some synagogues of the Golan and Beth Sheʾan areas, as well as those in the south. Some of the hall columns support a second story—a gallery, clerestory—or a raised roof, for instance at Gush Halav and Korazim (Figs. IV-4, 5). The south Judea synagogues of Eshtemoʿa, Susiya, ʿAnim, and Maʿon I have no columns and thus no aisles (Figs. IV-14, 15). Columns resting on pedestals with Attic bases are common in many of the Galilee synagogues but are rare in Golan synagogues (Figs. IV-12, 13); the Golan columns are usually without pedestals and some, as at Kanaf and Umm el-Qanatir, have no bases. Some decorated pedestals, mainly with Jewish symbols such as the menorah, are found at ʿEn Nashut (Fig. IV-16) (Hachlili 1995:no. 8). 1.2.1 Capitals The capitals of the synagogue hall columns are elaborately decorated. Three main orders are prevalent in synagogue architecture: Corinthian capitals, usually massive, are the most common (Fig. IV-17); Ionic capitals, including simple Ionic, elaborately ornamented diagonal Ionic (Figs. IV-18–19), and the ‘Golan’ Ionic (Fig. IV-20a); and Doric-Roman capitals. These different orders are used to support different forms of architraves. 1.2.1.1 Corinthian Capitals The most studied Corinthian capitals are those of the synagogue of Capernaum (Fig. IV-17), which are found in the synagogue interior and in the courtyard, surmounting pilasters, doorjambs, and perhaps the upper-story columns. Twelve capitals and two corner capitals survived. Despite their uniform design and workmanship, they are classified by Fisher (1984, 1990:69–73) into four groups, based on differences in the cauliculi pattern and other elements. He dates the Corinthian capitals of the Capernaum synagogue between the middle and the end of the 3rd century CE. Bloadhorn (1989:51–52,



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

Figure IV-15. Interior of synagogue and façade, Eshtemoʿa.

143

144

chapter four

Figure IV-16. Decorated pedestals, ʿEn Nashut.

Figure IV-17. Corinthian capitals, Capernaum.



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

145

a

b

Figure IV-18. Ionic capitals: a. H. ʿAmmudim; b. diagonal Ionian capitals, Korazim.

Figs. 1, 2), however, distinguishes only two groups of Corinthian capitals at the synagogue hall of Capernaum: Group K (Bloadhorn 1989:Fig. 1), that shares elements with capitals in Ashqelon and Samaria-Sebaste; and Group S, that differs in small details and is influenced by capitals from south Syrian temples (Bloadhorn 1989:Fig. 2). He dates them to the second half of the 3rd century and connects them to the basalt foundations of an early 3rd century structure. He further maintains that after the 363 CE earthquake, some architectural elements were reused in the building reconstructed in the late 4th century. The four capitals (Bloadhorn 1989:Figs. 3–6; including the capital decorated with a menorah) found in the side courtyard complex are dated by Bloadhorn to the 5th century construction at the site.

146

chapter four

Corinthian capitals decorating the upper series of Korazim columns included one heart-shaped and four Corinthian capitals, molded only on the front (Yeivin 2000:20*, Figs. 51, 52, Pl. 20:1–5). Some features of the Corinthian capitals from Korazim, ed-Dikke (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Fig. 242– 243), and Khawkha (Ilan 1991:88, Fig. 1; Maoz 1995:Figs. 28:1–2; Amir 2007:37, n. 19) are similar to Corinthian capitals dated by Fisher to the end of the 3rd or early 4th centuries. 1.2.1.2 Ionic Capitals Simple Ionic capitals are found at H. ʿAmmudim and Gush Halav (Fig. IV-18) (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 149–154, 215). Simple Doric-Roman capitals are found in the Barʿam, Capernaum, Meiron, and ed-Dikke synagogues (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:115, Figs. 225, 227). 1.2.1.3 Diagonal Ionic Capitals The diagonal Ionian capital abacus has four projecting ends with four volutes beneath them; the echinus is hemispherical with an annulet between it and the column. The diagonal Ionian capitals are decorated with branches on their volutes and are not identical. Such capitals, partly carved, are

Figure IV-19. Decorated diagonal Ionic capital, ʿEn Nashut.



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

147

found at Korazim in the lower series of columns (nine out of twelve have survived, seven are similar) (Fig. IV-18b). The capitals’ bases were fitted to the column or were part of it (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:44, Fig. 80; Yeivin 2000:18*–19*, 89–92, Figs. 94, 95, Pls. 12:1–9). A similar type of diagonal Ionic capital is found in the Golan synagogues of ed-Dikke (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Fig. 225) and Khawkha (Ilan 1991:88, Fig. 1; Maoz 1995:Fig. 28:1, 2). The unique highly ornate capital from ʿEn Nashut is an example of the transformation of the classical form by local artists (Fig. IV-19). This capital is decorated on all four sides in the stripes between the volutes: on side A, a shofar and a lulav flank a menorah; on side B, a seven-branched menorah with a rectangular base and an altar flank a central egg; side C has a carving of a jar and a plant; and on side D, two heraldic birds flank another central egg (Hachlili 1995:no. and Fig. 7). A special double diagonal Ionic capital is the one decorating the Umm-el Qanatir Torah Shrine (Fig. IX-18). Comparable diagonal Ionic capitals were found in south Syria, for instance at the Philippeion of Shahba, dated to 245–249 CE (Dentzer-Feydy 1989:473, Fig. 159b; 1990:171–175, group 6). The dating of the diagonal Ionic capital can thus range from the mid-third century CE on, although it seems more plausible to date Korazim and the Golan variations to the fourth century (also Amir 2007:32, 36). 1.2.1.4 Golan-Type Capitals The Golan-type capital is a unique Golan variation of the Ionic classical capital and its proportions are different: large volutes separated by ornamented strips consisting of a high echinus decorated with an outsized central egg, smaller flanking eggs and caulicli; the astragal band is much lower, near the end of the capital around the base (Hachlili 1995:189, Fig. 65). This type of capital is characteristic of the Qasrin (Fig. IV-20a) and ʿAssalieh synagogues, and similar capitals were also found at ­Yahudiyye and Rafid (Schumacher 1890:Figs. 6–7; Sukenik 1935:Fig. 34). Golan-type basalt capitals in the Hauran were researched by Dentzer-Feydy (1990a:168ff, Figs. 35–36, 53–54), who contends that the capitals of group 5 are dated to the second half of the 3rd century and those of group 7 to the 4th to 6th centuries. Another type of Golan capital, decorated with a double meander band, was found at ed-Dikke, Qasrin, and Yahudiyye (Hachlili 1995:nos. and Figs. 48, 49). The Qasrin capital of a diagonal fluted column (found in secondary use) is decorated with an encircling double meander band in which a human face, a bird, and a vase are depicted. The column capital has spiral flutes of the Doric style (Fig. IV-20b). A spiral fluted column base (Fig. III-27b) was found in secondary use inside the Qasrin synagogue and might have belonged to the same column. The Qasrin capital surmounted a column (found reused) with carvings of spiral flutes; a comparable column was discovered in Korazim (Yeivin 1985:Pl. 54, 1). A Corinthian engaged pilaster capital, found in secondary use at Yahudiyye (Hachlili 1995:no. and Fig. 49), is decorated with an encircling double meander band and several geometric patterns that fill the meander. Above the band, guttae, acanthus leaves, and volutes are carved. Other examples of double meander patterns occur on a column shaft found at the ed-Dikke synagogue, which is decorated with a double meander (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:121, Fig. 240; Ilan 1987:104, now in ʿEn Gev) and on an arch stone at Korazim (Yeivin 2000:Fig. 114). A capital decorated with a meander band is found already in the Second Temple period synagogue of Gamla (Fig. II-12b), hence this type of decorated capital seem to be an characteristic feature of early Golan art. Unusual capitals are found in several synagogues: The so-called ‘basket’ capital was discovered surmounting two columns of the Umm el-Qanatir synagogue portico. Based on comparable Byzantine examples, these capitals date to the sixth century CE (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:128, Figs. 256–257; Avi-Yonah 1981:94–5, Fig. 6).

148

chapter four

a

b

Figure IV-20. Qasrin: a. Golan-type capital; b. Decorated capital.

Other types were also found, such as the Composite capitals found at Capernaum, and the convex Wulst capitals at Korazim (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Fig. 102). A significant feature of the capitals in synagogue architecture is the use of decorative motifs usually drawn from Jewish symbols and emblems, such as the menorah, which is often flanked by ritual objects (Figs. IV-17, 19), as encountered on Corinthian capitals at Capernaum and on capitals at Beth Guvrin, Caesarea (Fig. VI-24), Hammath Tiberias B (north), and Gerasa (Bloedhorn 1989:Fig. 6 dated to 5th c; Avi-Yonah 1951:30, Pl. XVI; 1960:45–6, Pl. X, 1, n. 22). Other emblems, such as a wreath and a lulav, occur on Capernaum capitals (Orfali 1922:Figs. 19–21). Corinthian capitals with figural decoration were also found: carved lion heads at Japhiʿa (Sukenik 1951:15, Pl. X) and Beth Sheʾarim; bull heads at Beth Sheʾarim and at Hammath Tiberias B synagogue, Stratum IIa, where a bull head in relief replaces the middle calyx (Dothan 1982:33, Pl. 9:2, Fig. 3:H); and the Umm el Qanatir aedicula capital with an eagle (Fig. IX-18).



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

a

b

149

c

Figure IV-21. Double corner column: a. Capernaum; b. Meiron.

1.2.1.5 Double (Heart-Shaped) Corner Column The double (heart-shaped) corner column (Fig. IV-21) is another exceptional feature of synagogue architecture, found at the rear corner of the row of columnation and the transverse row. These columns are found in many of the Galilean synagogues: Arbel, Barʿam, H. ʿAmmudim, Capernaum, Meiron and Wadi Hamam. At Gush Halav the use and location of the double columns are not clear; three suggestions for their location are presented in Period II–IV: either as the terminal columns on the floor or gallery level or as having been brought to the site in the early Arab period and not having been a part of the original building. A third possibility is suggested by Kohl and Watzinger, who placed them in the corner columns of the back (horizontal) row, which would have created a mezzanine level, and this is the preferred interpretation (Belkin 1990:104–112, Figs. 37–42). The use of the double columns appears to be a continuation of similar corner columns in buildings of the Second Temple period (Gamla synagogue, Migdal I, Fig. II-1e). At Korazim, parts of a capital and drum of a double column, belonging to the upper series columns, were found (Yeivin 2000:*20, Fig. 49, 52, Pl. 19:2, 20:1). Another feature peculiar to synagogue architecture is the unusual colonettes flanking the windows, found in Galilean and Golan synagogues. These colonettes, fluted and surmounted by small Corinthian capitals, are found at Arbel, Capernaum, and ed-Dikke (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 8, 133, 232, 262). Remains of capitals found in synagogues prove that though the Jews used Roman, and later Byzantine, decorated capitals, local artists were also working in an original style, as witnessed by the added motifs and the special decoration of some of the Ionic and Corinthian capitals. This is evident in all aspects of synagogue architectural decoration. 1.2.2 Benches The majority of the synagogue buildings contain two to three rows of benches lining the inner walls; some of the benches are molded and many of them plastered. The benches were built after the

150

chapter four

interior was constructed, as an addition. The stone benches are one of the features that are already present in the Second Temple structures, such as Masada, Herodium, and Gamla, and continue through the later periods. The main hall of the Second Temple period Gamla synagogue ­contains five rows of stone benches along all four walls. Strange (2001:111–112) holds that those reading the Torah “sat at the highest rank of the benches . . . on the fifth bench at the northeastern end of the building.” Possibly the translator and the attendant also sat there, and Strange maintains that this suggests a stratified society in terms of rank. The construction of the benches is described by the excavators of the Capernaum synagogue (Loffreda 1972:25–26): The inner walls of the hall were plastered before the erection of the side benches, which were built against the plaster. The stone pavement of the hall and the mortar underlying it were laid before the construction of the benches, which partly overlap the stone pavement. At the Gush Halav synagogue two rows of stone benches are found along the western wall flanking the west interior doorway, and part of a bench has survived on the northwest corner. The benches protrude 40–45 cm. from the inner walls and 40 cm. above the floor level, and may have been plastered; the excavators maintain the benches did not exist in the Period I synagogue, and possibly only in Period III, when the southwest segment was constructed (Meyers et al. 1990:77–8, Figs. 14–16, 18, 22, photo 36). At Nabratein Synagogue 1, two rows of benches were built along all the walls except for the south façade. In Synagogues 2a and b, and Synagogue 3, benches were built along the eastern and western walls, with some parts repaired (Meyers and Meyers 2009:30, 31, Figs. 7, 9, 15). At Korazim, remains of two ashlar basalt benches lining the northeastern and eastern walls were uncovered. The upper bench is molded in a similar form to that of the architrave; along the western wall another bench, this one of roughly dressed fieldstones, was found. At some stage the benches and the paving were plastered (Yeivin 2000:11–12*, Figs. 20, 21, 55, Pl. 13, 5). At the Wadi Hamam synagogue two rows of benches were found along the northern, western and eastern inner walls (providing space for possibly 180 people). The upper benches were engraved and the lower ones plastered; two Doric capitals, one of a heart-shaped corner column, were incorporated into the basalt benches. Remains of carved limestone benches were found scattered around the structure, which might indicate the existence of an earlier public building near the site (Leibner 2010).

Figure IV-22. Details of benches, Capernaum.



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

151

At Qasrin Synagogue I, two levels of stepped ashlar benches were most likely built along the walls. Some parts of the grooved plaster floor (no. 1) were discovered bordering the upper part of the southwestern corner of the benches. Most of the stepped benches (40–50 cm. deep and 25 cm. high) from Qasrin Synagogue I were incorporated and reused later in Synagogue II (Fig. III-52). The lower step has survived, interrupted only by the entrances and the Torah Shrine platform, while the upper step was robed; in the northern part of the hall new benches were constructed after its extension, and they were clearly distinctive in their inferior quality of stone. At Deir Aziz, three stepped benches were built along all walls of the hall and a recess for feet was constructed in the middle part of the upper bench. In the Golan synagogue of ʿEn Nashut, benches were found in three levels along three walls; at Umm el-Qanatir, benches were built along two walls and the wall of the entrance. At ed-Dikke and ʿEn Nashut, some benches are molded with grooves for the legs (Fig. III-33c, g). At Eshtemoʿa (Fig. IV-15a), remains of wide aslar stone benches (some in two rows) were found along the northern wall, between the bema and the eastern wall, and along the southern wall (Yeivin 2004:156, plan 2, Fig. 17). It is important to note that in several synagogues (Deir Aziz, ed-Dikke, ʿEn Nashut, Korazim, Qasrin, and Wadi Hamam), the upper benches received special attention by molding and carving to provide a recess for feet. In many cases the benches were plastered. The construction of stone benches in almost all the synagogues attests to the fact that the synagogue was first and foremost an assembly structure, in which various functions beside prayer and reading the Torah were conducted. The benches indicate a tendency for sitting during the activities performed in the synagogue and they were apparently an essential part of the synagogue plan. The benches are, in fact, one of the more important differences between synagogues, temples, and churches and they are found only in the synagogues, not in temples or churches in the area. There are no benches in Hellenistic and Roman temples, but they do appear in some Nabatean temple courtyards and in some Graeco-Roman structures, such as the bouleuteria, basilica and hypostyle, in which benches are usually arranged in the center of the hall. This indicates a difference in concept and in the approach to the function of the edifice. Benches provide evidence of community assemblies already in the Second Temple period synagogues as well as in large burial places; this can be seen in the upper gallery and benched courtyard of the Goliath Tomb at Jericho, which served as a ‘mourning enclosure’ (Hachlili 1988:91–92; 2007:248; Netzer 1999:45, 49–50), and later at Catacombs 14 and 20 at Beth Sheʿarim. Avigad (1976:58–62, 111–115, 124) even suggests that it was used as a ‘house of assembly’. 1.3 The Gallery The existence of upper-story galleries is indicated by columns along the length of the hall, which could have supported such galleries. The U-shaped form of the upper story was dictated by the rows of columns, found on all sides of the hall except for the wall containing the entrances; the galley was constructed as an open gallery above the nave, and would have left the center of the main hall unobstructed. Finds of architectural fragments, as well as smaller columns and capitals which probably formed the colonnade of such a gallery, further corroborate this assumption (Hachlili 1988:194–196). The upper story at Korazim was built with engaged half-columns on bases and with capitals, including a Corinthian corner column capital (Figs. IV-5, 23a). Based on the architectural fragments, it could have been either a gallery or a clerestory; the preferred reconstruction is as a clerestory (Yeivin 2000:20*, 23*–25*, plans 10–13, Pls. 19:1–5, 20:1–5, Fig. 52). At Gush Halav (Fig. IV-4, 24), the second story was reconstructed as a clerestory (Meyers et al. 1979:41; Netzer 1996:452, Figs. 2, 3).

152

chapter four

a

b

Figure IV-23. Synagogue reconstructions: a. Korazim; b. Meroth.

Another type of gallery was built on the two long side walls of the hall. Such galleries have been reconstructed at the ed-Dikke, Umm el Qanatir (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 251, 272), ʿEn Neshut, and Kanef synagogues in the Golan (Maoz 1995:Pls. 64, 76, 98, 3), and are suggested also at other synagogues, among them Beth Alpha (Sukenik 1934:16–19). In several synagogues the gallery may have been built on only part of the main hall: a second story, for example, was built on the west wall at H. Shemʿa (Fig. IV-25). A railing or screen probably separated the gallery from the main room of the synagogue (Meyers 1976:56–58, Fig. 3.10). At Susiya a second story rested upon the southern wing (Fig. III-36b). Moreover, at some sites staircases leading to an upper floor, usually situated outside the main hall, confirm this feature. At Capernaum remains of such stairs were found at the northwest rear corner (Fig. III-1:2) (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Pl. II). At Barʿam the restored plan indicates a staircase (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Pl. XII; but see Seager 1975:note 36). A staircase is also found at Gush Halav, located at the northwestern end (Fig. IV-24). At H. Shemʿa the stairs lead to an upper floor (Fig. IV-25) (Meyers 1976:56–58). ʿEn Neshut and Kanaf also possessed staircases, probably leading to the second floor (Maoz 1995:87, 140). Hammath Tiberias B synagogue level IIa had a staircase on the north leading to a second story or perhaps a roof (Dothan 1981:65; 1983:plan F). At Susiya the steps at the southern end of the narthex led to a second story (Gutman et al. 1981:124). At the Maʿon (Nirim) synagogue the aisles and southern part of the nave were paved with limestone slabs, indicating that an additional story was built above this part of the hall.



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

Figure IV-24. Gush Halav reconstruction.

153

154

chapter four

Figure IV-25. H. Shemʿa interior and reconstruction of stage 2.

Further evidence of the existence of galleries is the remains of smaller columns and capitals, which probably formed colonnades; such artifacts have been found at most Galilee and Golan synagogues: Arbel, Barʿam, Capernaum, H. Shemʿa, Nabratein, Korazim, and Golan: ʿAssalieh ed-Dikke, ʿEn Neshut, Qasrin and at Umm el-Qanatir. Interesting evidence is found in an Aramaic inscription on an architrave fragment from Dabura (Golan), which reads: “Elazar the son of (Ra)bbah made the columns above the arches and beams” (Urman 1972:17, 19; Naveh 1978:no. 7). The inscription apparently refers either to columns of an upper story or to a gallery. The arrangement of columns on three sides of the hall occurs in the Galilean synagogues of Arbel, Barʿam, H. ʿAmmudim, Capernaum, Meiron, Meroth, and at Umm el-Qanatir in the Golan. Some of these galleries were constructed with freestanding columns. In the synagogues of Gush Halav, H. Shemʿa, H. Sumaqa, Korazim, and Qasrin, the second story appears to have been structured as a clerestory. The accepted theory is that the gallery served as the women’s section, implying that segregation existed between men and women in the synagogue (Sukenik 1934:48; Avi-Yonah 1961:164; Goodenough I, 1953:182). In regard to Hammath Tiberias B, Dothan (1981:65; 1983:24, plan C) asserts that the eastern aisle of the early synagogue (at level IIb) may have been intended for female worshippers, with a temporary partition being placed between the columns. Mattila (1996:282–83) concludes that “Not only did the vast majority of women in the ancient synagogue not sit in a seat of honor—the vast majority, if not all, probably sat separately from the men.” Segregated seating was characteristic of other Greco-Roman cultures as well. Shmuel Safrai (1963; 1976:939) objects to this view, stating that he finds no indication of segregation in Talmudic literature, and maintaining that women probably gathered along the walls or sat on



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

155

the back benches; furthermore, he states that as there is no reason to allocate them to the balcony, the gallery must have served other purposes (see also Brooten 1982:123–138). In the Galilean synagogues, the all-around gallery allowed the onlookers to view the central hall, and what was most important, the southern, Jerusalem-oriented wall with its aedicula (see Figs. IV-28, 36:1–4). At H. Shemʿa, the west side of the upper story offered a view of the aedicula on the southern wall (Fig. IV-25). At Susiya, the upper story was located opposite the Torah Shrine (Fig. III36b). It is quite certain that from the upper gallery floor one would have had an unhindered view of the main hall, and especially of the Torah Shrine. The second story gallery must have served two functions—as a separate area, and as a place for observing and following rites, ceremonies, and other forms of worship, without being observed. It seems that the gallery played an integral role in the synagogue ritual, which was centered around the Torah Shrine and bema. The gallery enabled the worshippers to follow and observe the ceremony conducted below, suggesting that it was built with this purpose in mind. However, the question still remains as to who would have needed such a segregated observation post. 2. Characteristic Features of Galilean and Golan Synagogues 2.1 Galilean Synagogues Some aspects, elements, and observations relating to the characteristic features of Galilean synagogues are summarized in this section. The Galilee synagogues are usually in the form of a rectangular basilica built of ashlar limestones; a few synagogues, for instance those at Hamam, Kfar Misr, Korazim and H. Shura, are built of basalt. The synagogue façade has a columned portico at H. ʿAmudim, Barʿam, Meiron, Meroth stages a and b, and Nabratein. The façade wall has two stories at ʿAmudim, Arbel, Barʿam, Capernaum, Gush Halav, Meiron, and Meroth stages a and b (Figs. IV-2–6, 23–25). A Syrian gable on top of the façade is found at Barʿam, Capernaum, Korazim, and Meroth (Figs. IV-2–5). Capernaum and Korazim have half pillars on the outer walls of the first story. Triple portals on the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall, the center one larger than the side ones, appear at ʿAmudim, Barʿam, Capernaum, Korazim, Meiron and Meroth; Arbel, Gush Halav, Hamam, Nabratein, and Shemʿa have single entrances. The exterior façade of almost all synagogue portal lintels, cornices, and gables has architectural decorations, as do the windows above the side portals and second floor at ʿAmudim (?), Arbel, Barʿam, Capernaum, Gush Halav, and Meiron. The synagogue hall is divided, by two or three rows of columns set on pedestals and stylobate, into a central nave and two/three aisles at ʿAmudim, Arbel, Barʿam, Capernaum, Gush Halav, Hamam, Kafr Misr, Korazim, Meiron, Meroth, and Nabratein. Double corner columns (heart-shaped), indicating three aisles, are found at ʿAmudim, Arbel synagogue II, Barʿam, Capernaum, Gush Halav, Hamam, and Meiron; Korazim has three aisles but with regular columns in the corners. The column capitals are usually Toscan or Roman-Doric. However, at Capernaum the columns are Corinthian, and at Korazim there are diagonal Ionian capitals. The Torah Shrine in most of the Galilean synagogues is formed by one or two platforms (usually an aedicula) added to the interior of the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall between the façade entrances: at Capernaum, Korazim, Meroth, and Nabratein there are two aediculae; Gush Halav, Hamam, Kfar Misr 1, Meiron, Sepphoris, and H. Shemʿa each have one. At Kfar Misr a niche was built in Phase 2 and an apse in Phase 3, while at Arbel 2 an apse was built. Stone benches were built along two or three walls, after placement of the pavement, at Arbel, Capernaum, Hamam, Kfar Misr, Korazim, and Meroth.

156

chapter four

Interior ornamentation consisted of a frieze at Capernaum and Korazim, decorated capitals, and decorated Torah Shrine architectural elements. The floor is usually of flagstones, for instance at Arbel, Barʿam, Capernaum, Gush Halav, Korazim, Meiron, Meroth, and Nabratein. Mosaic pavements are rare and are found only at ʿAmmudim, Hamam, Kfar Misr, and Meroth. Few inscriptions have been found, and then only in Aramaic and/or Hebrew, except for one Greek dedicatory inscription on a column in Capernaum. None of the Upper Galilee synagogues are decorated by mosaic pavements nor do they have any Greek inscriptions, which suggests regional differences (Meyers and Meyers 2009:396–397). The increased use of imported wares and coinage from Tyre and other Phoenician cities indicates that “the settlements of Upper Galilee were not isolated from the larger cultural world. Moreover, the synagogues at each site, despite all their local features having to do with Jewish religious practices, are nonetheless examples of structures built in the classical style and according to measurement standards.” The excavators further conclude that the differences in size might designate that while Meiron and Gush Halav by their size might have been more than rural villages, Nabratein and H. Shemʾa are probably similar in size. A chronological sequence in the architectural style of the Galilean synagogues is claimed by Groh (1995:69): Basilical Galilean synagogues appear in the mid-3rd c. CE (Nabratein, Gush Halav, and H. Shemʿa). These are assembly centers and antedate the Christian basilica by over half a century. The focus on Jerusalem is first encountered in the 2nd c. CE synagogue at Nabratein. The Galileantype synagogue (Meiron) first appears at the end of the 3rd c. CE, and continues through the late 4th and 5th c. (Capernaum, Meroth). The broadhouse type appears in the 2nd c. CE at Nabratein, continues in the mid-3rd c. at H. Shemʿa, and in the 4th c. at H. Shemʿa and Hammath Tiberias. Mosaic floors appear in the synagogues of H. Amudim, Hammath Tiberias, and Hamam, at the turn of the 4th century CE. Tsafrir (1995:79–81) maintains that Galilean synagogues as designated structures did not exist prior to the 3rd c. CE. Earlier than that, for about 150–200 years, prayer was conducted in houses, which served as a sort of domus ecclesiae. Thus, the Galilean synagogues of the 3rd c. CE were a new Jewish invention. The Christian basilica influenced the design of the synagogues in the 5th–6th c. CE, and particularly with regard to the emphasis on the interior rather than the exterior. 2.2 Spolia in Galilean Synagogue A furious debate is presently raging regarding the evidence of spolia in the Galilean synagogue architecture (for spolia in Late Antique see Elsner 2000 and Hansen 2003). Some synagogues have structural elements whose parts seem ill-fitted. For instance, at Gush Halav and Meroth the two rows of columns display fundamental differences between the pedestals and bases; at Meroth the west row columns are different in style from those in the east row, which are lower and seem to be of an earlier date (Fisher 1987:169–170). At H. Shemʿa the excavators noted dissimilarities in the form and workmanship of different column capitals and other elements. At the Hamam synagogue some earlier architectural elements, such as limestone benches and Tuscan capitals (see above), are incorporated into the basalt structure. Scholars claim the use of spolia in synagogue buildings on the basis of differences and variations in architectural elements. However, if this is the case, why did the builders not collect remains from one building rather than from many different ones? Magness (2001b:88–9) supports the idea of spolia being used, based on the “variations observed in many monumental buildings of Byzantine Palestine”. Aviam (2004, 2007:39–40) suggests that several architectural parts at the synagogue of Barʿam, such as the triple portal, are built of spolia (see above).



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

157

The debate indicates that Magness (2001b), Netzer, Maoz (1996:424), and Aviam (2004, 2007) maintain that many of the Galilean synagogues (Barʿam, Capernaum, Gush Halav, and H. Shemʿa) were constructed in the 4th to 6th c. CE with spolia, rather than having been built earlier. However, there is no evidence of the earlier buildings from which the architectural elements are supposed to have been taken. No large public buildings from which architectural elements could have been retrieved were found on or near the sites of these Galilean synagogues. If the builders used spolia they must have taken them from structures that existed already in the 2nd–3rd cent. CE. The Capernaum limestone synagogue is found in a basalt region, which means that the spolia must have been brought from afar. Why did the builders not take spolia from a nearby basalt building? Aviam (2004:168, 2007:40) explains the use of spolia by the laws of the Byzantine emperors forbidding the Jews to build new synagogues, but allowing them to renew or restore older buildings. Yet this explanation does not help the redating of the construction of the Galilean synagogues (Magness 2001a, b, 2007) as these were new synagogues constructed with old material. Strange (2001:75) is right in his observation “that architectural members tend not to ‘travel’ very far at any given site. It takes more effort to find cut stones and move them than it does to use those found at the construction site.” It seems much more reasonable that the synagogues underwent repairs, rebuilding and recycling, and reconstructions (as observed by Maoz 1996, Foerster 2007), as the archeological evidence points to phases within the construction of the same synagogue. 2.3 Characteristic Features of Golan Synagogues The Golan synagogues are located in particular sections of the town or village: near a spring (Qasrin), at the center or the edge of the village (ʿEn Nashut), or on a hill. The Golan synagogues are constructed of smoothed and joined basalt ashlar masonry, often plastered inside and out. The structures are rectangular buildings, containing a long hall, divided by two rows of three to five columns each into a nave and two aisles. Some have galleries and tiled gabled roofs; at Qasrin, there may have been a celerstory (see Table IV-1 and descriptions of the Golan synagogues in Chapter III). Two distinctive groups of architectural plans exist: (1) a group in which the façade, entrance, and Torah Shrine (aedicula) are on the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall (Fig. III-33a–c); and (2) a group in which the the façade, entrance and Torah Shrine (aedicula) are each on a different wall (Fig. III33d–g). Characteristic of the Golan synagogues is an ornate façade consisting of doorposts constructed from several stones, which sometimes has an ornamented frame carved on both the lintel and the doorposts. Such façades are found at Qasrin, Horvat Kanaf, and ʿAssaliyye, while at Umm el-Qanatir and Zumaimira the surviving parts of the doorposts are undecorated. The façade consists of two stories of an upper and lower wall, divided by cyma cornices and topped by a Syrian gable. This characterizes both the Golan and the Galilee synagogues (as reconstructed based on fragments of gables found at the sites). The axes of the Golan synagogues vary: a west façade and a main single entrance at Kanaf, as well as at the surveyed synagogues of Batra, Salabeh, Zawitan, and Zumeimira; a façade on the south at ʿEn Nashut and Dabiyye and the surveyed synagogues of ʿAssaliyye, Beth Lavi, and Taiybeh; at ed-Dikkeh the west façade has three entrances on an east-west axis. Deir ʿAziz also has an east-west axis but the main single entrance is on the narrow east wall, a unique feature. The synagogue at Umm el-Qanatir (Fig. III-57a) displays a small portico of four columns in front of the entrance, and there may be an ashlar stone portico at ʿEn Nashut (Maoz 1995:86, 88, 185).

158

chapter four

The upper part of the façade of most of these synagogues consisted of a decorated full Syrian gable with an arch ornamented with a conch; sometimes animals were depicted on the gable sides. The Syrian gable is suggested by the finding of gable parts at ed-Dikkeh, ʿEn Nashut, and Umm el-Qanatir. At Qasrin, it is possible that the structure had a raised clerestory, so that the façade had a smaller Syrian gable. The roof was usually made of clay tiles, often covering a wooden structure. A single main entrance on the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall façade is constructed at Dabiyye, ʿEn Nashut, Umm el-Qanatir, and Beth Lavi; the portals of these synagogues are located slightly offcenter, and, based on the ʿEn Nashut excavation, this may have been to accommodate the Torah Shrine that was built inside near the entrance. The façade and entrances of some synagogues are on the west: Batra, ed-Dikke, Kanaf, Salabe, Yahudiyye; at Zawitan and Zumeimira the western entrance is off-center. At Qasrin, the façade and main single entrance are on the northern wall, while the Torah Shrine is constructed on the opposite south Jerusalem-oriented inner wall. At Deir Aziz the main entrance is off-center on the east wall but the apse/niche for the Torah Shrine was built on the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall. In other words, off-center entrances on facades do not necessarily indicate the existence of a Torah Shrine on that same inner wall. Ed-Dikkeh is the only synagogue with three entrances on the west wall. Its façade and portals are similar to those of many Galilean synagogues with façades on the southern wall. A molded relieving arch, built above the decorated lintel and based on arch stones, is found at the excavations of edDikkeh, ʿEn Nashut, Qasrin, Umm el-Qanatir, and Zumeimra; a double-arched window on the façade is found at Qasrin; at Ed-Dikke, a window with two columns surmounted by a lintel decorated with a Syrian gable is reconstructed (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 233–234). An annex room is found at Qasrin, Dabiyye, and ʿEn Nashut. A Torah Shrine was found on the inner, south, Jerusalem-oriented wall, beside the off-center main entrance, at the excavated Golan synagogues of ʿEn Nashut and Umm el-Qanatir and perhaps also at Dabiyye. At Qasrin, however, the Torah Shrine is on the south Jerusalem-oriented wall while the façade and main portal is on the north wall. At Deir ʿAziz synagogue I, the Torah Shrine was built on the south Jerusalem-oriented wall, whereas at Deir ʿAziz synagogue II, a Torah Shrine niche (similar to the niches at Eshtemoʿa and Susiya) was built, and a bema was erected from some benches on the southern wall. At ed-Dikke, the façade and three entrances are on the west but it is possible that there was originally a Torah Shrine on the almost completely destroyed south wall. Benches arranged in two or three rows were found along the walls: at ʿEn Nashut, benches are built in three levels along three walls; at Umm el-Qanatir, benches are constructed along the southern wall flanking the entrance, the east wall, and part of the west wall; at Deir ʿAziz and ed-Dikke there are benches along the walls. Some of the benches at ed-Dikke and ʿEn Nashut are molded, with a indentation for the legs (Maoz 1995:85). The columns dividing the synagogue hall at ʿEn Nashut are built on pedestals. Four-sided Ionic capitals are found on the lower story, while on the upper story the capitals are Corinthian. The ­ed-Dikke synagogue hall has two rows of four columns on pedestals, with Corinthian capitals on the lower story and Doric ones on the upper. Deir ʿAziz and Kanaf have columns with Doric capitals on both stories (Maoz 1995:Pls. 106:1–10; 113:2–5); each of the capitals at Deir ʿAziz is engraved differently but in the ‘Dorian-Byzantine’ style. At Umm el-Qanatir the columns, without pedestals, were found with ‘Impost’ capitals on the lower story, and Doric capitals on the upper one (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 265, 267, 268). At Qasrin, columns of the lower story had capitals of the Ionic Galilean type (Fig. IV-20a), while the upper story had Doric capitals. Many of the columns in Golan synagogues at Qasrin, Umm el-Qanatir, ed-Dikke, and Kanaf have no pedestals. But at ʿEn Nashut and Rafid, some elaborately decorated pedestals were found (Fig. IV-16). Maoz (1995:223) considers the pedestals as a chronological feature of the 5th c. CE. Pedestals are common in many of the Galilee



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

159

synagogues but are rare in Golan synagogues. The Golan synagogue floors are usually made of hard white plaster and only sometimes of stone. Only at Qasrin were mosaic pavement remains found. The grouping and dating of the Golan synagogues is in debate. Excavators and scholars propose different dates, based on stylistic features and finds such as coins and pottery. Maʿoz (1993:539; 1995, II:7–12) maintains that there were three generations—three stylistic groups/‘schools’ of Golan synagogue architecture—dated to 450–520 CE: • The ʿEn Nashut—Korazim group includes the synagogues at Korazim, H. Shura, H. Tuba, located west of the Jordan, and six synagogues in the Golan (around the Bethsaida valley): ʿEn Nashut, ed-Dikkeh, el-Ahsenniyeh, Rafid, Kh. Khawakha, Jarabe. This style is characterized by its ornate façade, the outer wall with pilasters, its decorative faunal and floral themes, relief sculpture such as animals carved on architectural elements, and the columns in the hall which were set on pedestals and had Doric or Ionic capitals on the lower story and Corinthian ones on the upper story. This is the earliest group and, based on the excavations at ʿEn Nashut, it is dated to the mid 5th century CE. The excavated synagogue at ʿEn Nashut was constructed later, towards the end of the third quarter of the 5th c., after 450 CE. Umm el Qanatir, the southernmost synagogue of this group, was erected toward the end of the 5th century. Maʿoz (2007) dates the Ed-Dikke synagogue to ca. 460 CE, based on comparable architectural details of the façade. A group which includes the excavated Dabiyye and the surveyed Batra, Beth Lavi, Zawitan, and Zumaimira synagogues, is assigned a somewhat later date, in the second half of the 5th c. CE. The features of this group are simpler, less decorated, and they have single entrances; the windows are not decorated with conch or pediment geisons, and Ionic or Doric capitals are used in the interior. • The Kanaf group includes the excavated synagogues at Kanaf, Deir ʿAziz, and the surveyed elTayibe. Their simple style focuses on the outer façade around the entrance and lacks ornate decoration; the columns in the hall have Doric capitals or schematic Ionic ones, and no pedestals. Kanaf and Deir ʿAziz are similar in plan, with the façade toward the west and a single decorated portal. In the hall are four columns in two rows, and both stories have Doric capitals. Based on the excavations at Kanaf, the date of this group is the first quarter of the 6th century CE. • The Qasrin group is the latest in date and includes the excavated synagogue of Qasrin, and the surveyed ones of ʿAsaliyye, Qusibiyye, and Yehudiyye. The architectural style features ornate facades; the columns of the hall are surmounted by the unique Golan Ionic capitals. The decoration of this group originated in western Palestine. Based on the excavations at Qasrin, the date of this group is the beginning of the 6th c. CE. Maoz (1993:545) contends that the earliest Golan synagogues were constructed in the second half of the 5th c. CE and some were added in the 6th. ʿEn-Nashut, Kanaf, and Qasrin were damaged by an earthquake in the 6th c CE. and repaired in the 6th and 7th centuries. Others were abandoned at that time. Qasrin might have existed until the mid-8th CE. Urman (1995b:611–617) criticizes Maoz’s Golan groups/‘schools’ and their dating, especially as most of them have not been excavated. Urman (1984:532, 1995b:466) distinguished three stages in the Qasrin synagogue—in the 3rd–4th c., 4th–6th c., and 6th–8th c. CE. He disagrees with the conclusion of Maoz and Levine that the Golan synagogues date to the 5th to 7th c. CE, seeing a continuity of Jewish settlements in the Golan, based on the Ionic capitals and benches found at Gamla and other later Golan sites. Ben David (2005, 2007a, 2007b:53–58) reconstructed a three-type settlement pattern, based on his ceramic survey of 45 sites in the central Golan. The analysis of the ceramic finds and especially

160

chapter four

of two major ceramic groups, found at nine surveyed sites with synagogue remains (ʿEn Nashut, ʿAssaliyye, Dabiya, Deir ʿAziz, ed-Dikke, Kanaf, Qasrin, Umm al-Qanatir, and the Gamla Second Temple synagogue), leads Ben David (2005:194, 2007a:26–27) to support Maʿoz’s dating of four Golan synagogues (Dabiyye, ʿEn Nashut, Kanaf, and Qasrin) to the Byzantine period. Noting that the Golan monumental synagogues were erected no earlier than the mid-4th century CE, Ben David (2005:3*) states that no architectural members typical of synagogue remains were found in about 15 settlements that existed during the Middle/Late Roman period and disappeared before 350 CE, while at 25 sites existing after 350 CE, synagogue remains were found. Thus he (2007b:57) proposes that it is possible that small structures which do not stand out might have served as synagogues, and this might explain their absence in the archaeological data of the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE. Amir (2007:32–36, Table p. 50), in her analysis of the décor style of the Golan synagogues, dates the structures of el-Ahsenniyeh, Khawkha, Gadariyye, and Ed-Dikke to the 4th c. CE, based on the similar motifs of architectural decorations. She also dates Korazim to the first half of the 4th century, based on the coins and the Ionic diagonal capitals. Amir (2007:37–40, Table p. 50) dates ʿEn Nashut to the mid-5th c. by its coins (Ariel 1987), and particularly because of the extensive use of animals and menorah motifs in the décor. The 5th c. style at ʿEn Nashut is uniform: flat and low reliefs, with the ornamentation incised, not in relief as at Korazim. Geometrization of the motifs and forms and the division of the composition into two parts, are characteristic of ʿEn Nashut but not of Korazim; the Korazim 4th c. friezes contain acanthus medallions, conches,and gables, none of which appear at ʿEn Nashut. For Amir, these differences of detail distinguish the décor style of the 4th century from that of the 5th. Amir also dates Qasrin synagogue I (A) to the mid-5th century. Qasrin Synagogue II (B), Kanaf, ʿAsaliyye, Batra, Dabiyye, Deir ʿAziz, and Yahudiyye are ascribed by Amir to the first half of the 6th c. CE, based on their architectural decoration which uses isolated formal motifs and incised motifs which appear on high reliefs. However, Amir, who disputes May and Stark’s proposal that the Korazim décor was produced by artists of different workshops who operated in diverse periods, does as they do in ascribing the various décor styles of the Golan synagogue to different periods rather than to the work of diverse artists. The difference in the standard of execution is attributable to the skill of the artist. The division of Golan synagogues into chronological groups according to architectural decoration style, as suggested by Maoz, is difficult to accept. Maoz’s group typology is far from accurate, as it is based on only three actually excavated synagogues, while the others he mentions are unexcavated sites and the survey supplies only meager data. The Korazim synagogue should be grouped among the Golan synagogues. However, Maoz, who grouped it with ʿEn Nashut, did not discuss the rich ornamentation which renders Korazim the most ornamented synagogue of the Galilean synagogues, and in fact it does not compare in general or in detail with ʿEn Nashut, leaving no reason to group them together. Korazim needs to be considered on its own in this respect. The style and execution of Golan architecture and art belong to a long tradition in the area, but not one uniform enough or of high enough craftsmanship to establish a relative stylistic chronology (Hachlili 1995:189–190; see also Turnheim 1987:172–177). Furthermore, the Golan architectural items were frequently found in secondary use; only six synagogues have been excavated, and even in those many of the fragments were found reused. The appearance of different artistic styles in the same building makes dating by style impossible. The ceramic and numismatic evidence proves that Golan synagogues were built and flourished during the fourth to early seventh centuries CE. The majority of decorated architectural members in the Golan were found reused, and some of the architectural fragments might be earlier than others. This can be discerned by comparison with dated material.



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

161

The dating of each synagogue should be determined by all the finds, and first and foremost the numismatic and ceramic data. The architectural decoration could then be dated accordingly. 2.4 Architecture and Art: A Comparison of Galilean and Golan Synagogues Many architectural and ornamentation features differentiate the Galilean and Golan synagogues from the other synagogues in the Land of Israel. Consequently, it would be useful to consider them separately as a group, and also to compare them with the other synagogues (Hachlili 1988:229–231). The façades of the earliest synagogues, with Type A portals, Type 2 lintels, an arch above the central entrance, and a Syrian gable, are dated to the third century CE and are all Galilean. They include Arbel, Barʿam, Meiron, Gush Halav I, and Nabratein II (Fig. V-2). Later synagogues are generally similar, with Type A portals in their façades, but some also have Type B portals, and lintel Types 1 and 2 in their central entryway (Capernaum and H. ʿAmmudim, Fig. V-3). The Golan synagogues have impressive façades but with only a single portal, Type C, and lintel Type 4 (Figs. V-4, V-9). The exception is ed-Dikke, which has triple portals, and lintel type 3. Galilean and Golan synagogues share some common architectural features: • The most important common feature in these groups is the location of the Torah Shrine, which is built adjacent to and on the inside of the main entrance (Figs. IV-28, 36:1–9). The aedicula location is associated with the orientation of the façade, and in the Galilee and several Golan synagogues, this was on the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall. As orientation towards Jerusalem was obligatory for the Torah Shrine, and as the façade of the Galilean synagogues was Jerusalem-oriented, it follows that the Torah Shrine and the façade had to be on the same wall. However, there are exceptions to this rule: at Qasrin in the Golan, the Torah Shrine was built on the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall, even though the entrance façade was constructed on the opposite, northern wall. The synagogue of Arbel in the Galilee probably underwent a later change in the structure: the niche for the Ark was rebuilt on the Jerusalem-oriented wall and the entrance was then moved to the wall opposite it. • Ornate façades appear on both Galilean and Golan synagogues but are different in important elements. Galilean portals are Type A and B while those of the Golan are usually a single portal, Type C (see above). Differences between the Golan and Galilee synagogues are found in some structural details: • Most of the Galilean synagogues are built of ashlar limestone, whereas the Golan synagogues, as well as the Galilean synagogues of Korazim, H. Shura, Kafr Misr and Hamam, are built of basalt. • The outer walls at Capernaum and Korazim are built of ashlar stones divided by flat pilasters supporting a cornice. • Ornamented monumental façades with triple portals are more common in the Galilee (Figs. IV-2– 7), whereas a single-portal façade is more common in the Golan (Fig. IV-8). • In most of the Galilean synagogues the hall has a transverse row of columns, which adds another widthwise aisle. This row of columns frequently has heart-shaped corner columns, as at Capernaum, Barʿam, ʿAmmudim, Meiron, Arbel, and Hamam. This feature is absent from the Golan synagogues. • The columns in most of the Galilean synagogues were built on stylobates and stood on pedestals. In the Golan, pedestals were found at several synagogues—at ʿEn Neshut, Qasrin, and ed-Dikke.

162

chapter four

2.4.1 Origin of the Synagogue Building Plan and Its Sources of Inspiration Scholars intensely debate the origins of the synagogue structure, especially of the Galilean type. Opinions differ concerning the origin of the synagogue building plan and its sources of inspiration: some suggest that the prototype is to be found in secular Hellenistic basilicas and Roman triclinia (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:176–178). Hauran-Syrian temple façades partly influenced the exterior of the synagogue, though most of the latter lacked the pronaos or the pripteral columns, resulting in a much less imposing structure. Perhaps the Jewish community wanted to avoid identification of the synagogue façade with that of pagan temples. It is quite possible that the synagogue builders were inspired by the Hauran-Syria temple structure but did not copy it. Another view of the origins is advocated by Avigad (1967:96–97) who maintains that the the Second Temple period synagogue plan, such that at Masada, is the prototype for the Galilean synagogues and is itself a development of the Hellenistic basilica. Netzer (1980:113) pinpoints the prototype in the Herodian triclinium in the Jericho palaces, because of the similarity of plan and architectural conception. Both the synagogue and the triclinium served as assembly halls, he argues, and in both, the exterior is the focal architectural orientation. However, these arguments seem quite doubtful. Firstly, the orientation of the triclinium is indeed outside, but the focal point in Galilean synagogues—the Torah Shrine—is inside; secondly, the function of each is completely different: the Herodian triclinium is secular in purpose, whereas the synagogue is used for civic and religious assemblies, ceremonies, and rituals. Foerster (1981:47–48) prefers the Nabatean temple courts as a source for the prototype. However, these courts were built without a roof and had none of the architectural features of a structured hall. Tsafrir (1981:42–3) contends that no immediate source for the synagogue structure is discernible, but it is reasonable to assume that the inspiration for many of the ornamentations and designs came from the surrounding pagan world. Tsafrir (1985:80–81) further argues there is no architectural connection, as the third-century Galilean synagogues are a new creation. Maoz (1995:16–18, 331–339; 2003:47–62) maintains that the galleried basilica (first noted in Alexandria) was the origin and the architectural model for the Roman Galilean synagogue and the Byzantine synagogues in the Golan. Netzer (2004:22–3, Fig. 12) argues that the Second Temple period synagogue type influenced the later synagogues, and was used as a ‘platform’ for their development. The basic characteristics of the Second Temple structures include a basilical rectangular hall, two to four column rows, and benches. The later synagogues added the ornamented façade, a Jerusalem orientation, and the Torah Shrine. However, these suggestions are overly concerned with architectural affinities of columnation and bench arrangement, while at the same time ignoring the most significant feature of the synagogue, which is completely lacking in the prototypes: the Torah Shrine an internal feature and the focal point of the building, intentionally built on the Jerusalem-oriented wall. This innovation originated after the destruction of the Temple and dictated the planning and orientation of the synagogue structure. Most likely, synagogue structures were a synthesis and accumulation of a variety of plans and architectural features, themselves influenced by traditional customs and contemporary vogues, together with the Jewish congregation’s social and religious needs. The rich ornamentation of the façade, walls, floors, and other areas of the synagogue was influenced by contemporary architectural styles in secular and religious buildings in the Land of Israel and in Syria. The result was a house of worship functionally planned and lavishly decorated by the Jewish congregation for itself. While utilizing previously-constituted tenets within their own tradition, the Jews also adapted various elements of architecture and art from their neighbours. In this way, they succeeded in creating aesthetic and monumental structures in harmony with the spirit of Judaism in the Land of Israel.



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

163

3. The Torah Shrine The different functions of the Torah Shrine and the Ark of the Scrolls in relation to the architectural elements and artistic representations of the synagogue are the subject of scholarly interpretation and discussion. The following discussion will try to clarify and define this subject. After the destruction of the Temple, the Late Antique synagogue operated as a combination congregational assembly hall and center of worship, with emphasis on the reading of the Torah and prayer as obligatory activities. In the absence of a national religious and cultic center, the synagogue became that center, albeit at the local level—the symbol of the community’s uniqueness. The synagogues contained a distinctive feature, the Torah Shrine, a predetermined, permanent focal point, placed on the Jerusalem-oriented wall. This innovation originated after the destruction of the Temple and dictated the planning and orientation of the synagogue structure. The archaeological evidence proves that only now, with the direction of prayer towards Jerusalem, did this orientation become important. The congregation inside the hall prayed facing the Torah Shrine, and, therefore, Jerusalem (Hachlili 1988:231–2; 2000). The emphasis on the Torah Shrine and the Jerusalem orientation symbolized the sanctity of the place and acted as a reminder of the Temple. Reading the Torah has been the most important duty in the synagogue from ancient times until the present day and has always been a major factor in Jewish life. Consequently, it became a major constituent of the Jewish spirit and a symbol of Jewish survival and preservation throughout the ages. It is quite apparent, therefore, that the most prominent architectural feature of ancient synagogues was the Torah Shrine, the architectural structure which contained the Ark of the Scrolls. In synagogues in Galilee and the Golan, the Torah Shrine was located on the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall, while in Judea and the south of the Land of Israel it was on the northern Jerusalem-oriented wall. 3.1 The Torah Shrine Structure In most synagogue excavations in the Land of Israel and in the Diaspora, an important fact has emerged: that nearly every excavated synagogue yields fragments, traces, or the actual site of the Torah Shrine, even those dated as early as the end of the second century CE.3 The Torah shrine structure in ancient synagogues, both in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora, took one of three forms: aedicula, niche, or apse (Hachlili 1988:166–187; 2000:147–157).4 The expression ‘Torah Shrine’ denotes the architectural stone structure on the Jerusalem-oriented wall which housed the Ark of the Scrolls. Each of these categories had its own structural form, but all served as repositories for the Ark of the Scrolls:

3 This contrasts with the now unacceptable premise of some scholars (Sukenik 1934:52–53; Goodenough 1953, I:210; II:91; Avi-Yonah 1961:172; Avigad 1960:30) that in early Galilean synagogues there was no permanent structure for the Ark of the Scrolls. The scrolls were placed in a portable, wheeled chest that was moved into place whenever neces­sary; only later, in the fourth century, was a fixed repository built. 4 Some exceptions do exist: Land of Israel synagogues whose architecture lacks any trace of a permanent place for the Torah Shrine include ʿAssaliyye, ed-Dikke, Huseifa, Kanaf, and Yaphiʿa. But most of these structures are either unexcavated or were destroyed to such an extent that it is impossible to locate the site of the Torah Shrine (Hachlili 1988:166–187). For the Torah Shrine in Diaspora synagogues (see Hachlili 1998:67–79).

164

chapter four

(a) a raised platform as a base for the aedicula, made of stone or wood on which the wooden Ark of the Scrolls was placed; it should be noted that some excavators relate to this platform as a bema; (b) a niche built into the interior wall, probably to hold a wooden Ark of the Scrolls; (c) an apse built on the interior wall to hold the Ark of the Scrolls and sometimes the menoroth. All three categories served as repositories for the Ark, though each had its own structural form. Some exceptions—synagogues without any traces of a permanent place for the Torah Shrine in the building architecture—do exist, but most of these are either unexcavated or destroyed to such an extent that it is impossible to locate the site of the Torah Shrine. (d) a bema. In some synagogues, a bema—a raised stone platform—is built in front of a niche or apse. This structure does not house the Ark, and was probably employed in other functions, for instance, as a table for the reading of the Torah (see below); (e) the Ark of the Scrolls was the actual ark or chest (usually wooden) which contained the Torah scrolls and stood in a repository—either aedicula, niche, or apse. The Torah Shrine structure can be reconstructed from sites and architectural members found in synagogue ex­cavations. Artistic renditions on stone reliefs or mosaic pavements, wall paintings, tombstones, lamps, and gold glasses augment what is known from the excavations. Examples of Torah Shrine depictions appear on mosaics and reliefs from synagogues in the Land of Israel, while in the Diaspora, depictions are restricted to funerary art and lamps that usually portray only the Ark of the Scrolls.

Figure IV-26. A schematic illustration of the Torah Shrine with the Ark of Scrolls.



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

165

Table IV-2 (a). Synagogues architecture. Interior Torah Shrine

Benches

Floor

Aedicula Pair of Niche Apse Bema Shrine Lining Lining Lining Plaster Stone Basalt Mosaic aediculae fragment 2 3 4 slabs slabs

G A L I L E E

G O L A N

Arbel I II ʿAmudim Barʿam Capernaum Gush Halav I II Hamam Wadi Huqoq Kafr Misr I II III Korazim Meiron Meroth Ia Ib II III Nabratein I IIa IIb III Shemʿa H. I II Shura H. ʿAssaliyye Dabiyye Deir ʿAziz I II Ed-Dikke ʿEn Nashut Kanaf H. Qasrin I(A) II(B) III(B) Umm el Qanatir Tiberias Hammath Tiberias A (north) Hammath Tiberias B (south) IIb Hammath Tiberias B (south) IIa Hammath Tiberias B (south) Ib Hammath Tiberias B (south) Ia Hammath Gader III

+

+ + +

+

+

+

+

+ +

+

+ + +

+ +

+

+

+ +

+ +

+

+ +

+

+ + + +

+

+ + +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ + + +

+ +

+

+ +

+? +

+

+

+

+ + ?

+ +phase 1 +

+phase 2 +

+

+

+ +

+ +

+ + + +

+ +

+

+ +

+ + + +

+ + +

+ +

+

+

+ +

+ + +

+

+

+

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

166

chapter four

Table IV-2 (a) (cont.) Interior Torah Shrine

Benches

Floor

Aedicula Pair of Niche Apse Bema Shrine Lining Lining Lining Plaster Stone Basalt Mosaic aediculae fragment 2 3 4 slabs slabs

J U D E A

Beth Sheʿarim I II Sepphoris Huseifa Japhiʿa Sumaqa H. Beth Alpha Beth Sheʾan A Beth Sheʾan small B Maoz Hayim I II III Rehov I II III Caesarea Eshtemoʿa ʿAnim H Maʿon (Judea) I II Susiya I II III Rimmon H. I II III Naʿaran Jericho Maʿon (Nirim)   I, II Gaza Gerasa

+

+

+ + +

+ +

+3

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+1

+3 +

+ + + + + + + +

+

+

+

+

+ +

+ + +

+ + + + + + +

+ +

+ + +

+

+ +

+

+ + + + +

+ + +

+ + + +

+ +



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

167

Table IV-2 (b). Synagogues architecture. Site

Interior Columns Rows 2

G A L I L E E

G O L A N

Arbel I II ʿAmudim Barʿam Capernaum Gush Halav I II Hamam, Wadi Huqoq Kafr Misr I II III Korazim Meiron Meroth I II III Nabratein I IIa IIb III Shemʿa H. I II Shura H. ʿAssaliyye Dabiyye Deir ʿAziz I II Ed-Dikke ʿEn Nashut Kanaf H. Qasrin I (A) II (B) III (B) Umm el Qanatir Tiberias Hammath Tiberias A (north) Hammath Tiberias B (south) IIb Hammath Tiberias B (south) IIa Hammath Tiberias B (south) Ib Hammath Tiberias B (south) Ia Hammath Gader I II III Beth Sheʿarim I II

3 + + + + +

Columns Order Doric Ionic Corinthian + +

+

+

+

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ +

+ + +

+ +

Gallery Corner Pedestal Gallery column

+ + + +

+ + + + +

+

+

+

+ + + +

+ + + + +

+ +

Doric Ionic Corinthian

+ +

+

+ +

+

+ + + + +

+

+ +

+

+ + + + +

+

+ + + +

+

+ + + + +

+ + + + + +

+ + +

+ + +

Columns Order

+

+

+

+

+ +

+

+

+

168

chapter four

Table IV-2 (b) (cont.) Site

Interior Columns Rows 2

S O U T H J U D E A

Sepphoris Huseifa Japhiʿa Sumaqa H. Beth Alpha Beth Sheʾan A Beth Sheʾan small B Maoz Hayim I II III Rehov I II III Caesarea Eshtemoʿa ʿAnim H Maʿon (Judea) I II Susiya I II Rimmon H. I II III ʿEn Gedi I II III Naʿaran Jericho Maʿon (Nirim) Gaza Gerasa

3

Columns Order Doric Ionic Corinthian

Gallery Corner Pedestal Gallery column

+ + + + + +

Columns Order Doric Ionic Corinthian

+ +

+ + + + + + +

+

+

+ + +

+ + + + + +

+ + +

+4

3.2 Types of Torah Shrines 3.2.1 Aedicula The aedicula included a base—a platform of stones (sometimes incorrectly called a bema), and has been reconstructed from remains found in synagogues. Over this stone base stood the actual aedicula structure, which usually consisted of a stone façade with two to four small columns surmounted by a decorated lintel (Fig. IV-26). This structure was usually built as an interior addition to the already existing Jerusalem-oriented wall. Access was generally by steps from the front or, in some cases, from the sides (see Qasrin, Fig. IV-39). Aediculae have been found in several locations within the synagogues: (a) two aediculae flanking the interior main entrance on a Jerusalem-oriented façade wall; (b) a single aedicula on the interior of a Jerusalem-oriented façade wall, between the main and side entrances; (c) adjacent to the single entrance (Fig. IV-27); (d) on the inside of a Jerusalem-oriented wall opposite the main entrance wall (Hachlili 1988:169–179, Table 2; 2000:147–149).



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

a

b

c

Figure IV-27. Schematic illustrations of aedicula locations.

169

170

chapter four

3.2.1.1 Two Aediculae Flanking the Main Entrance Two aediculae flanking the main entrance and built on the interior of a Jerusalem-oriented southern façade wall are found at four Galilean synagogues: Capernaum, Korazim, Meroth stages I and II, and Nabratein Synagogues 1, 2a, and 2b (Fig. IV-28), and in stage 4 of the synagogue Sardis in the Diaspora (Hachlili 1998:70–71, Fig. II-30). At Nabratein 1 (dated to ca.135–ca.250) the earliest aediculae used as a Torah Shrine were found: two stone platforms flanking the main entrance, attached to the interior of the southern Jerusalemoriented wall; the western one was slightly larger. Both protrude 3.0 m. from the inner south wall (Fig. IV-28:1). The excavators propose that the SE platform functioned possibly for the display of the scroll when in use or for the seat of honor, while the SW platform was for storage of the scrolls. The aediculae in Synagogue 2 date to the late Roman period (250–306 CE) and present two phases: in Synagogue 2a, the platform levels were raised, and to this aedicula belongs a decorated carved stone arcuated lintel. The lintel depicts two rampant lions shown in heraldic position, facing each other on two sides of the gable (Fig. IV-48); it was found upside down in the western bema and was probably above the Torah Shrine of Synagogue 2a. In Synagogue 2b (306–363 CE), the platforms were rebuilt and the damaged stone lintel was removed from its place and incorporated into one of the renovated platforms (Meyers et al. 1981:39; 1982:43; Meyers and Meyers 2009:74–77, Figs. 12, 18, 23, 25, see also Fig. 25 for the unlikely interpretation of this aedicula rendered in the drawing by the National Geographic Society; Meyers 2010:444–45). In the reconstruction by the excavators, the Torah Shrine at Nabratein Synagogue 2 was built on the western platform with steps leading to it, while a menorah was placed on the eastern platform (Fig. IV-29; Meyers and Meyers 2009:69, Fig. 18). It should be noted that in Synagogue 3 of the late Byzantine phase (6th century) no aediculae were found.

1 2

3

4

Figure IV-28. Galilean synagogues with two aediculae flanking the main entrance: 1. Nabratein Synagogues 1, 2a, b; 2. Capernaum; 3. Korazim; 4. Meroth stages I and II.



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

171

Figure IV-29. Reconstructions of the pair of aediculae, Nabratein Synagogue 2.

At Capernaum the white limestone synagogue contains bases of two aediculae—‘Platforms’ M and N—discovered flanking the inner side of the main entrance and attached to the interior of the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall (Fig. IV-30). They are constructed of a layer of strong lime mortar, laid over gravel which rests upon a 0.25 cm. thickness of basalt flagstones (Corbo 1975:118–121, Fig. 18, photos 52, 55; Strange 1977:70). It is possible that some fragments at Capernaum (such as those illustrated by Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 21, 22, 70, 71) may have been parts of such aediculae. At Korazim, two aediculae were discovered abutting the inner Jerusalem-oriented south façade and flanking the main entrance; several stones of the base on the west were recovered (Fig. IV-31): one aedicula is considered a Torah Shrine, the other a platform (bema, iztaba) in which stood the ‘Seat of Moses’. The aedicula/Torah Shrine was a platform projecting from the wall, in which a niche, approached by a broad step, was cut and which might, according to Yeivin, have served for the kohen during the priestly blessing. The niche had a decorated pilaster with a deeply carved triple step pattern (Yeivin 1982:10; 1985:272–273, Figs. 1, 2, 8; 2000:27*, 29*, 54, 62–3, plan 14, Figs. 116, 119, 120, 121, 124–127, 130, Pls. 23:5, 24:1–3; 25:1–3, 26:1). Yeivin proposes in his reconstruction that several decorated items were possibly part of the ornamentation of the niche: a keystone of the niche’s arch is adorned with an aedicula in antis flanked by olive branches; the top of the Torah Shrine had a lintel decorated with a Syrian gable, a conch, and three rosettes in the gable corners; two animal statues, one of them a lioness, and the other an unidentified animal (found in the 1960s), flanked the niche’s lintel. May and Stark (2000:223, 226–28, Pl. 12a, b) disagree with Yeivin, suggesting a different reconstruction: a freestanding stone Torah Shrine construction, whose ornamented façade included a pair of decorated pilasters on the sides (of which only one, no. 52, was found), a gable decorated with a conch surmounting the pilasters (no. 44), the one Yeivin maintains decorated the second aedicula/ iztaba with the ‘Seat of Moses’, and two fragments of a bird eating grapes on the two ends of the

172

chapter four

Figure IV-30. Reconstruction of inner wall with two aediculae, Capernaum.

gable (nos. 45, 46) (Fig. IV-32a). They also claim a different location for the Torah Shrine. Based on two steps preserved in the central nave (Yeivin 2000:17–18, Figs. 26–28, Locus 730), they propose that it stood independently in the central nave, with the decorated façade facing north towards the audience. The second aedicula had several steps leading to the platform (bema, iztaba); it had a gabled roof decorated with a conch, a wreath, and probably a pair of lions in recesses on the sides. Two column base fragments might have decorated the platform (Fig. IV-32b). The basalt ‘Seat of Moses’ found at the excavation in the 1920s (Fig. IV-67) is reconstructed as located on the platform. Yeivin (1985:274–275; 2000:29*, plan 14, following Epstein) suggests that the seat is associated with the eastern iztaba—and was used for reading the Torah. May and Stark (2002:228, 242, Pl. 22) on the other hand, reconstructed an elaborate decorated symmetrically-designed complex for the ‘Seat of Moses’ and interpret the word ‘stoa’ in the inscription as alluding to the entire row of benches, suggesting that the ‘Seat of Moses’ complex stood in the center of the row of benches along the northern wall, on the axis of the Torah Shrine (Fig. IV-32b). They compare this with the location of the Delos seat, which was found in situ flanked by marble benches. As Naveh (1989:306) remarks, it is unlikely that a donation for a whole row of benches would have been inscribed on a single seat, but he agrees that the word ‘stoa’ should be considered iztaba. May and Stark’s suggestions for both Korazim aediculae are unfeasible: (1) Yeivin (2000:12–13, 27*, Figs. 14, Locus 700, plan 14) reconstructed the two architectural constructions abutting the southern wall on stone foundations, which he found in the interior southern wall between the main and side portals; this seems to be a reasonable proposition as it is comparable to the similar pair of aediculae



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

173

Figure IV-31. Korazim, reconstruction of aediculae (Yeivin 2000:plan 14).

in some other synagogues. (2) According to Yeivin (2000:plan 3) the steps (in Locus 730, the basis for the May and Stark reconstruction) are recorded close to the southernmost column (L), almost closing the access from the main portal to the hall. (3) No other such freestanding Torah Shrine in the central nave is known. (4) The symmetrical design they suggest for the aediculae is not accurate; only one architectural member of its kind—one pilaster—was found, and it is possible that the design of the façade was asymmetrical, as in other examples of Jewish art. It seems that Yeivin’s reconstruction of the pair of aediculae built on the inner southern Jerusalemoriented wall between the main and side portals is the right one. Based on the archeological and architectural finds, it appears to be the best of the proposed resolutions. At Meroth, stages I and II of the synagogue, remains of two aedicula platforms were discovered, attached to the interior of the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall on either side of the main entrance and between the two side portals, facing the prayer hall. The western aedicula is unusually well preserved and the find consists of three to four courses of stone standing to a height of approximately 1.30 m. The northwest and southwest corners of the aedicula have two antae with bases carved out of the stone (Fig. IV-33). A later aedicula was built on top of the western platform in stage II. Only

174

chapter four

a

b

Figure IV-32. Korazim: a. aedicula; b. ‘Seat of Moses’ complex reconstruction (May and Stark reconstruction 2002:Pls. 12, 22).



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

175

a

b

Figure IV-33. Meroth: a. larger aedicula; b. reconstruction of the hall with two aediculae.

Figure IV-34. Kochav HaYarden lintel.

176

chapter four

Figure IV-35. Beth Sheʿarim carving, Catacomb 4, hall A.

the base of the eastern platform survived (Ilan and Damati 1985:64–65; Ilan 1989:22, 28, Figs. 14–15; Damati 2000:47–50, Figs. 35–37, 39). Several remains of stone items, such as three spiral corner pillars and a stone fragment with a menorah design, could have belonged to these aediculae. In synagogue stage III, the façade with the three entrances was moved to the northern wall and the portals on the southern wall were sealed, but the pair of aediculae remained on the southern Jerusalemoriented wall, now facing the entrances (Fig. IV-33). The excavators suggest that the western aedicula platform at Meroth served as a base for the Torah Shrine, while the eastern platform might have been used for the reading of the Torah.



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

177

At Sardis two platforms (shrines NS and SS) were discovered at the Diaspora synagogue of Sardis stage 4, flanking the central portal on the eastern end of the synagogue hall (Seager 1972:426, 434; 1975:89, Fig. 13; Krabbel and Seager 1983:170). Depictions of double aediculae on a lintel from Kochav HaYarden (Ben Dov 1973) and on carvings from Beth Sheʿarim support the archaeological evidence that there were in fact synagogues which had two aediculae flanking the main entrance (Figs. IV-34, 35). 3.2.1.2 Single Aediculae Single aediculae, situated on the interior of the Jerusalem-oriented south façade between the main and side entrances or beside a single entrance, survived in several Galilean and Golan synagogues (Fig. IV-36).

2

1

6

10

7

11

4

3

8

12

5

9

13

14

Figure IV-36. Plans of synagogues with a single aedicula: 1. Gush Halav; 2. Meiron; 3. ʿAmmudim; 4. Hamam; 5. H. Shemʿa; 6. Dabiyye; 7. ʿEn Nashut; 8. Umm el-Qanatir; 9. Qasrin; 10. Maʿoz Hayim I; 11. Rehov; 12. H. Rimon; 13. Horvat ʿAnim; 14. Sepphoris.

178

chapter four

At Horvat ʿAmudim several stones forming a square were discovered in the center of the southern section inside the entrance, possibly indicating an aedicula platform (Fig. IV-36:3) (Levine 1981:79). It is possible that at Arbel synagogue phase I, an aedicula existed on the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall (Ilan and Izdarechet 1989:114). At Wadi Hamam there was a stone platform (bema) west of the main entrance on the inner Jerusalem-oriented southern wall, while changes and renovations were made to the building during the 4th c. CE: the structure was constructed directly on the mosaic pavement (Fig. IV-36:4); the platform frame was built of two levels of ashlar stones with a carved cornice, whose inner part consisted of stones and earth, on which a wooden board was probably placed (Liebner 2010:39). At Gush Halav, a large rectangular stone structure built in Synagogue Period I (dated to the Late Roman period) extends two meters beyond the inner south Jerusalem-oriented wall, west of the main entrance. A depression (ca. 0.50 m × 0.75 m) was scooped out of the structure. At Gush Halav Periods II–IV the bema of Period I was replaced by a smaller structure built onto the earlier base (1.46 m × 1.17 m × 0.30 m) during the mid-4th to 5th centuries CE (Fig. IV-37; Meyers, Meyers and Strange 1990:Fig. 19). Small architectural fragments found among debris were probably parts of an aedicula (Meyers et al. 1979:Fig. 7; 1981:76, Photo on 77; Meyers, Meyers and Strange 1990:78–82, Figs. 14, 15, 16, 18, 19a, b). Netzer (1996:451) maintains that only a few changes in the original aedicula platform at Gush Halav were made in the later Synagogue, which was constructed as a single architectural unit in the beginning of the 4th c. CE. Magness (2001a:10; 2001b:83, n. 7) argues that only one bema was built at Gush Halav, consisting of the ashlar frame (Period I) with a fieldstone fill (Period II). At other Galilean synagogues aediculae are only deduced: At Meiron an aedicula platform is assumed and reconstructed on the inner southern wall between the main and western entrances (Fig. IV-36:2) (Meyers 1992:941). The existence of an aedicula in unexcavated Galilean synagogues such as Barʿam is theoretically possible, when we consider that the southernmost columns were erected far enough away from the entrance to allow room for an aedicula abutting onto the inner southern façade (Fig. III-1:3). Remains drawn by Kohl and Watzinger (1916:Pl. XII) seem to support this conjecture. Aviam (2001:159, 165; 2007:35–6) argues for a fourth row of columns on the south at the Barʿam hall, but the only evidence for that is a pedestal discovered in Area A, which does not seem to be very convincing; more likely it might have been the stone base for an aedicula. Several of the Golan synagogues have one aedicula, beside the entrance on the inner south Jerusalem-oriented wall: At Dabiyye, the Torah Shrine was possibly located to the west of the main offcenter portal on the Jerusalem-oriented south wall (Fig. IV-36:6); it was probably constructed entirely from wood which did not survive (Maoz 1991:57). At ʿEn Nashut remains of an aedicula (1.6 × 1.4 m), consisting of a platform and several stairs, were found on the inner Jerusalem-oriented south wall to the east of the off-center main portal (Maoz 1981b:110, 112; 1993:414; 1995:82–3, 101–103, Pls. 57, 64). The location of the aedicula probablyexplains the off-center southern entrance (Fig. IV-36:7). The aedicula was decorated with lions, both sculptured and in relief. A fragment of a relief of a lioness was found. A stone orthostat found near ʿEn Samsam (Fig. IX-3) is suggested to have come from the ʿEn Nashut synagogue, and to have been used there as a base for the aedicula. At Umm el-Qanatir the aedicula survived almost completely, on the Jerusalem-oriented southern wall to the west of the off-center main portal (Fig. IV-38); it was possibly about 5m high (Fig. IV-36:8). This aedicula, as reconstructed by Yeshu Dray (Fig. IV-51a; Ben David, Gonen and Dray 2006:115–116), consisted of a square basalt structure approached by a narrow staircase in its center. The façade is built of two double columns decorated with geometric and plant designs, such as a conch, a rosette,



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

179

a

b

Figure IV-37. Gush Halav Torah Shrine suggested reconstruction, looking southwest: a. earlier aedicula; b. later aedicula.

and a menorah accompanied by the four ritual objects; the decorations on the two double columns are unidentical (Fig. IV-51b). The columns were surmounted by double capitals carved with an eagle relief. One such capital was found in secondary use in the 1968 Golan survey (Fig. IX-18). On top of the aedicula was a Syrian gable. The aedicula platform contained a small interior space with an entrance from the west which possibly served as a genizah. At these Golan synagogues, the single entrance was probably moved off-center to accommodate the Torah Shrine (Maoz 1995:82–3; 236–7; Ben David et al. 2006:112, 115–116). At the ed-Dikke synagogue the central section of the south wall is completely destroyed (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Pl. XVI). Possibly, an aedicula was situated there. If so, the structure would not have been on the façade wall, which in this Golan synagogue is the western wall.

180

chapter four

Figure IV-38. Umm el-Qanatir, the aedicula, looking southwest.

Aediculae on the Jerusalem-oriented wall sometimes face the main entrance (Fig. IV-36:5, 9–12). Bases for aediculae were found in synagogues all over the country: • At H. Shemʿa in the upper Galilee, a base for an aedicula is found at synagogues I and II (Meyers et al. 1976:49, 72–73, Figs. 3.9, 3.11; Meyers 1981:74). There are also fragments of columns and capitals adorned with acanthus leaves, which Meyers suggests belonged to the stone aedicula of phase I, while for phase II he proposes a wooden aedicula on the stone base (Fig. IV-36:5). Netzer (1996:454) contends that the stone platform at Khirbet Shemʿa was added only in a later stage (the excavators’ phase II) to the southern Jerusalem oriented-wall of the single structure erected at the end of the 3rd or beginning of the 4th century CE. • At Qasrin an aedicula on a raised platform is built adjacent to the interior of the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall, with steps leading up to it. This platform, spanning the entire width of the nave and built opposite the main entrance, was formed as a large stone and wood structure (measuring 5.35 m wide and 2.0 m deep) and served as the base for a wooden Ark of the Scrolls (Fig. IV-39). Two stone thresholds (measuring 70 cm. in width), found on the lower step of the aedicula platform on both sides, provided access to this platform from the east and west portals. These two entrances to the platform may have been used for the treatment of a pair of menoroth which apparently flanked the wooden Ark of the Scrolls. A long narrow space paved with stones at the same level as the hall was found behind the platform. This space evidently served as a geniza, or was used for storage. Similar spaces were found in the synagogues of Hammath Tiberias B, Beth Alpha, ʿEn Gedi, and Maʿon.



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

181

a

b

Figure IV-39. Qasrin, the aedicula.

The Qasrin aedicula is quite unusual as it is larger and quite exceptional with its two side portals for access; possibly the wooden Ark of the Scrolls was constructed only on the central part of the platform and was flanked by two menoroth also placed on the platform; consequently the menoroth could have been cared for and tended from both sides and not from the front. Two architectural items found at Qasrin possibly belonged to the aedicula (see below): a basalt stone molded as a double semi-attached column with a stylized Ionic capital and simple base and an aedicula keystone (Fig. IV-50) (Hachlili 1987:43, no. 18; 1995:208, 210, nos. 58, 63). At Maʿoz Hayim I (A) a stone platform was found protruding into the main hall in the center of the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall (at the end of the third-fourth centuries) (Fig. IV-36:10). It was perhaps enclosed by a marble screen (Tzaferis 1982:217–218, Figs. 2–3). At Rehov remains were found in phases II and III and possibly phase I as well. In phase II (end of the 4th and through the 5th centuries CE), a large stone base (9.0 m × 3.0 m) the width of the nave was constructed onto the south Jerusalem-oriented wall opposite the main entrance (Fig. IV-36:11). The base was flanked by stairs on both sides, so that the approach to the aedicula was from either side, as at Qasrin. Several small limestone columns, bases and capitals, and a fragment of a limestone sculptured block ornamented with a lion were found in secondary use incorporated into the

182

chapter four

base of phase II (Fig. X-13). They probably belonged to a phase I aedicula (4th century CE) (Vitto 1980:215–216; 1981a:93; 1981b:165, Pl. 24:1). In phase III (6th–7th c CE) the base was enlarged, the side stairs were blocked, and two wing stairs were built in front. A low wall was also added parallel to the façade, probably to hold the chancel-screen found there. It is significant that the aediculae of Qasrin and Rehov are both larger than usual and both synagogue entrances are situated on the opposite wall. At Kafr Misr a stone platform for an aedicula was found in Synagogue Phase I (3rd to end of 4th centuries), built on the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall and destroyed by the apse of phase III (Fig. III-5) (Onn terms it a bema [1994:117, Fig. 4:(2)]). At Hammath Gader phase II (probably 4th century), a plastered and painted stone base was found under the apse of phase III on the Jerusalem-oriented wall, facing the entrance (Foerster 1983:11–12). At H. Rimmon III several stones of a rectangular base (5.0 m × 1.70 m) (Fig. IV-36:12) survived on the north, Jerusalem-oriented wall (dated to the sixth to seventh centuries) (Kloner 1980:227; 1984:69). At Horvat ʿAnim synagogue an aedicula was uncovered on the northern Jerusalem-oriented wall in its two phases, with a bema in front of it (Figs. III-36c, IV-36:13) (Ilan 1990:48–49; Amit 1995:136, Fig. 5, Pl. 6b). At Sepphoris an elevated platform (5.0 × 2.4 m), was built at the western end of the synagogue hall, possibly with a staircase in front of it, and this was probably in use until the early 7th century (Fig. IV-36:14). The direction is unusual, as the platform was not built on the Jerusalem-oriented wall (Weiss and Netzer 1996:12–13; 2005:25–6, 30, 41–42, Figs. 31–32). In two synagogues, ʿEn Gedi III and Susiya, there may have been an aedicula, which was probably replaced later by the niche as a repository for the ark (Gutman et al. 1981:125; Barag et al. 1981:117). 3.2.2 Niches The niche is a stone structure, built usually on the Jerusalem-oriented wall and extending into the hall. Niches could be decorated, as the façade and interior of the Dura-Europos niche show. From the size of the niches it seems reasonable to infer that they served as repositories for the Ark of the Scrolls. Two forms of niches—semicircular and rectangular—have been discovered (Hachlili 1988:179–180; 1998:71–73; 2000:149–150). 3.2.2.1 Semicircular Niches The semicircular niche was constructed as an addition to the internal wall, protruding from it into the main hall and approached by steps. The façade consisted of columns surmounted by a semicircular arch decorated with a conch (Fig. IV-40:1–3). In most cases, only the lower part of the niche remains. Some niches had a relief façade with flanking pillars and a conch decorating the arch, closely resembling the aediculae façades. These niches appear at several synagogues: • Arbel II—A niche in phase II protrudes from the wall at a higher level than the hall floor, with a bema in front of it (Fig. IV-40:1). This is the only example of a Galilean-type synagogue with a niche (Avigad 1967:98–100, Fig. 5; Ilan and Isdarechet 1988:113–117; 1991:117). • Kafr Misr—In synagogue phase II (early 4th to mid-5th centuries CE), a rectangular stone pavement, probably a niche, was found, for which the central part of the southern wall was thickened; the niche was flanked by a pair of columns on each side, which were preserved on the eastern side of the steps (Fig. III-5); two sockets for the veil were found on the first step. The niche was later replaced by the apse of phase III (Onn 1994:120, 132, Fig. 4:(6)).



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

2

1

4

7

183

3

6

5

8

9

Figure IV-40. Plans of synagogues with niches: 1. Arbel; 2. Susiya; 3. Eshtemoʿa; 4. Beth Sheʾan B; 5. ʿEn Gedi; 6. Beth Sheʿarim; 7. Hammath Tiberias B; 8. Hammath Tiberias A; 9. H. Maʿon (Judea).

• Eshtemoʿa—Three semicircular niches were built on the north, Jerusalem-oriented wall, above the floor, and approached by steps. The central niche is larger than the two flanking ones (Yeivin 2004:70*, plan 4). A later niche was added in front of the earlier ones and possibly replaced them (Fig. IV-41); below the western corner of the niche, an engraved inscription was found on one of the stones (Yeivin 1981:121; 2004:69–73*, 157; Figs. 18–21, plan 4). • Susiya—Three niches are assumed to have existed in the center of the north, Jerusalem-oriented wall, similar to those at Eshtemoa. The central niche was larger than the pair of flanking ones; an ostentatious and unique bema in front of it, constructed with steps in its center, led to the central niche. The niches complex was covered by a gabled construction and framed by chancel screens (Fig. IV-42). The wider niche apparently held the Ark and the smaller flanking niches both contained menoroth (Yeivin 1989:93–95, Figs. 2, 3, 5; 1993; the reconstruction of the niches, bema, and screens is exhibited in the Israel Museum). A secondary bema was built east of the main one (for the description of the bema see below).

184

chapter four

Figure IV-41. Eshtemoʿa—niches and bema.

Figure IV-42. Susiya—niches and bema.

In the Diaspora, the Dura-Europos synagogue niche is an remarkable example of a painted niche dating to the mid-third century (Fig. VIII-3). The niche at Dura is completely preserved, and was in use during both stages of the synagogue. The painted decorations of the inner part of the niche-Torah Shrine (belonging to the first stage) consist of a geometric colored design; the top of the niche ends in a plas­ter conch and its façade has a pair of flanking columns, set on pedestals standing on the third step and supporting an arch with an extended painted face. The painting on the arch contains a sanctuary in the center, flanked by a menorah, ethrog, and lulav on the left and the narrative scene of the Sacrifice of Isaac on the right.



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

185

3.2.2.2 Rectangular Niches A number of rectangular niches have survived (Fig. IV-40:4–9), some created as a result of blocking an entrance. Although no proof has been found, this might indicate that in an earlier stage a different Torah Shrine (aedicula?) was employed. Several synagogues show this kind of niche: • Beth Sheʾan B—In the small synagogue, part of the Beth Leontis complex, a niche is assumed to have been built in the center of the relatively thick southern Jerusalem-oriented wall (Fig. IV-40:4). • Beth Shearim II—The central entrance of the earlier synagogue building was walled up and a niche was added inside (Fig. IV-40:6) (Mazar 1973:18; Avi-Yonah 1961a:17). • Hammath Tiberias A (the north synagogue)—An enclosed area with four small columns created a rectangular niche on the Jerusalem-oriented southern wall (Fig. IV-40:8). It was probably surrounded by a chancel screen, several columns and screens of which were found, some decorated with menoroth, plants, and fruit designs (Slouschz 1921; Ilan 1991:139). • Hammath Tiberias B—A small rectangular raised room (L. 35) may have been a niche that served as a repository for the Ark of the Scrolls (Fig. IV-40:7) (Dothan 1983:30–32, 51; Avi-Yonah 1973:41 calls it a square apse). A square mosaic panel was found beside the conjectured steps leading to the room. Dothan (1983:51, plan E:11, Pls. 19:4, 25–26) suggests that an identical panel was placed symmetrically on the other side of the steps; both apparently marked the locations of the menoroth or the columns flanking the entrance to the Torah Shrine. A depression found in the floor in the western part of the room was probably used for a genizah. • H. Maʿon (Judea)—A square niche was built (at the end of the 4th or early 5th centuries) (Fig. IV-40:9) on the Jerusalem-oriented north wall (Ilan and Amit 1991:118–119; Amit 1995:133, Fig. 4). • H. Rimmon I—A rectangular niche was found on the northern, Jerusalem-oriented wall, plastered with red bands (Kloner 1984:67). • ʿEn Gedi, synagogue II (str. IIIA)—This synagogue’s northern Jerusalem-oriented wall had an entrance, which was later blocked by a brick wall, creating a rectangular niche (Fig. IV-40:5) (1.10 m wide × 0.35 m deep); this structure was plastered and decorated with a wide green band and possibly contained a wooden Ark of the Scrolls (Barag 2006:17*). • ʿEn Gedi synagogue III—In place of the square niche of phase II on the northern Jerusalemoriented wall, a rectangular base of dressed stones (3.2 m wide), protruding ca. 1.5 m into the nave (which the excavators interpret as a wooden structure), was erected; in the center was a semicircular niche which possibly served as a space for the Ark of the Scrolls; a storage space found between

Figure IV-43. ʿEn Gedi—niche and structure.

186

chapter four

the structure’s wall and the northern wall was used for storage and as a genizah. In front of the structure, a rectangular space (3.30 × 2 m) enclosing a mosaic panel was built. At the four corners of this structure are small sockets which apparently held the posts of a wooden(?) chancel screen that surrounded it (Barag et al. 1981:117–118; Barag 2006:18*, Fig. 36). The structure with the mosaic could not have been a bema (a raised platform); most likely it was an enclosed space that served as a place for reading the Torah or for other functions. 3.2.3 Apses The apse as a repository for the Ark of the Scrolls in the Land of Israel first appeared in the late fifth or early sixth century CE. Usually it was a semicircular structure extending outside the main hall, along the entire width of the nave, and approached by steps. It was as an integral part of the synagogue and was constructed at the same time as the building itself. Its façade probably consisted of columns and an arcuated lintel decorated with a conch; sometimes it had a decorated mosaic floor (Hachlili 1988:180–182, Figs. IX-22, 23; 2000:150–151; Foerster 1995:91). Most of the apses are constructed on the Jerusalem-oriented wall (Fig. IV-44). Some scholars contend that the apse’s structure evolved from that of the niche (Sukenik 1935:165; Galling 1956:176; Meyers et al. 1981b:241; Hachlili 1988:180). However the main reason for the development of the apse seems to have been the necessity for a larger, more permanent place which could contain the Ark of the Scrolls as well as other ceremonial objects needed in the ceremonial practices. The apse is the dominant feature of most-sixth century CE synagogues in the Beth Sheʾan Valley and in the southern part of the Land of Israel (Fig. IV-44). Up to now, only one Galilean (Kafr Misr in Lower Galilee east) and one Golan (Deir ʿAziz) synagogue have been found to contain apses. • Deir ʿAziz (in the Golan)—A semicircular apse or niche (3.0 m) was built on the west part of the southern, Jerusalem-oriented wall, extending out about 1.25 m (Fig. IV-44:1); the floor, of 5 cm. thick solid plaster, has a small (25 cm. diameter) impression of a column, perhaps a base for the menorah. In front of the apse is a bema (Maʿoz and Ben David 2006:29). • Kafr Misr (in Lower Galilee east)—Phase III (mid-5th to early 7th centuries CE) of the synagogue had a limestone and mortar apse (interior diameter 2.80 m) on the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall, replacing the phase II niche and with its floor superposed over the floor of the earlier niche (Fig. IV-44:8). The apse was built in the center within a square structure and was flanked by two rooms. Only the eastern room is preserved, and it is separated from the hall by an entrance in its southern wall (Onn 1994:121, 133, plan 1, Fig. 4:7, 8). • Hammath-Gader III—On the southern wall of the hall, remains of an apse (4.50 m × 2.10 m) were found, with steps leading up to it. Originally, it had been partitioned off by a screen (Sukenik 1935:122, Fig. 10, Pl. VIIIa). The apse floor was lower than the highest step, and was paved with plain mosaics (Fig. IV-44:3). • Hammath Tiberias B, Stratum Ib-Ia (late Byzantine-Umayyad periods, 7th–8th c. CE)—In the latest synagogue, an apse was built within the external south Jerusalem-oriented wall (the width of the nave), with three steps leading up from the southern end of the nave (Fig. III-10) (Dothan 2000:Plans B1, C, E1). A small apse was probably a central feature of an earlier structure on the east side of the building, which later became a courtyard. It predated the Ib building and was later integrated into that building (Stacy 2002:253–255, Fig. 1). • Beth-Alpha—The apse was constructed in the center of the southern, Jerusalem-oriented wall of the synagogue hall. Three narrow steps led to the floor of the apse, which was 0.75 cm. above the pavement of the hall (Figs. IV-44:4, IV-45). Two rounded cavities found on the surface of the lower level of the platform probably held the columns which bore the curtain (parochet) (Sukenik 1932:13).



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

1

3

2

4

7

6

5

187

8

9

10

11

Figure IV-44. Plans of synagogues with apses: 1. Deir ʿAziz; 2. Maʿoz Hayim II, III; 3. Hammath Gader; 4. Beth Alpha; 5. Jericho; 6. Gaza; 7. Maʿon (Nirim); 8. Kafr Misr III; 9. Gerasa; 10. Beth Sheʾan A; 11. Naʿaran.

188

chapter four

Figure IV-45. Beth Alpha—apse area reconstruction.

• Beth Sheʾan A—The apse was constructed 0.50 cm. above the floor level of the hall on the southern wall of the synagogue (Fig. IV-44:10). Set into the floor was a large fragment of plaster, which may point to a wooden Ark having stood there. The apse probably had two levels (Zori 1967:149–152). • Maʿoz Hayim II, III (B, C)—The apse replaced the earlier aedicula of phase I and was added during the later two phases (in the fifth century CE). An apse protruding about 3 m was built on the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall (Fig. IV-44:2); it probably had a higher floor level than that of the main hall and may have been enclosed by a chancel screen (found in fragmentary condition). During phase III (C) a bema was located in front of the apse and a sunken area was added in the rear part (Tzaferis 1982:218, 220, 222, Figs. 5, 6, 7, Pls. 30A, 31A). • Maʿon (Nirim)—A semicircular apse (width 3.20 m, depth 1.8 m) constructed of limestone ashlar, on the northern Jerusalem-oriented wall on the axis of the building, probably belonged to the last phase of the synagogue (Fig. IV-44:7). A small cavity in the pavement of the apse probably indicates the site where the Ark stood (Levi 1960:6–7; Yogev 1987:212, 214, Figs. 1, 6). A platform was built on the northeast wall facing the three entrances (Yogev 1987:212–214). • Jericho—At the southwest end of the nave two steps led to the semi-oval apse, the walls of which were not bonded into those of the synagogue (Fig. IV-44:5) (Baramki 1938:75). • Naʿaran—The southern part of the structure was destroyed, but it probably included an apse (Fig. IV-44:11) (Sukenik 1932:53; Vincent 1961). • Gaza—An apse (ca. 3.0 m in diameter) is conjectured to have existed at the southwestern end of the building (Fig. IV-44:6) (Ovadiah 1981:128). • Gerasa—A square protruding apse was found on the eastern, Jerusalem-oriented wall (Fig. IV-44:9). Sukenik (1932:53) maintains that the form is not that of an apse, but of a small square chamber projecting from the wall. The apses at the two synagogues of Hammat-Gader and Maʿoz Hayyim II, III, built in the fifth century CE, replaced the earlier aediculae; the apse at Kafr Misr synagogue phase III replaced the niche of phase II. It should be noted that the apse found at Sardis served a different purpose, not for housing the Ark but as a seat for the prominent members of the congregation (Hachlili 2000:150–151).



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

189

3.2.4 Bema A bema is a raised stone podium or platform. Two kinds of bemoth were found in the synagogues, those which stood in front of a niche, and those in front of an apse (Hachlili 1988:182–183; 2000:151– 152). The bema did not house the Ark, but was probably employed in other functions such as the reading of the Torah. 3.2.4.1 Bema in Front of a Niche • Eshtemoʿa—A protruding rectangular structure is built in front of the three niches on the northern, Jerusalem-oriented wall (Fig. IV-41). It has a semicircular niche in its center (Mayer & Reifenberg 1939–1940:314). Yeivin (1981:121; 2004:71*, 156, plans 1–2, 4, Figs. 18, 19) proposes that this is a bema. Barag (1976 I:327) assumes that this niche replaced an previous one. Another, secondary, bema was probably built along the western section of the northern wall. • Susiya—Two unique bemoth were found on the northern Jerusalem-oriented wall of this synagogue. The main bema, in front of the three niches, underwent various changes: In synagogue Phase III, a platform/bema (5.90 × 1.70 m) was constructed as a protruding section of the north wall (Figs. IV-46, 47). It consisted of three benches with rounded western and eastern edges; at the center of the bema, five steps ascended to the central niche, which held the Ark of the Scrolls. Remains of about ten depressions, channels, and niches within parts of the bema suggest that it was surrounded or bordered by chancel posts and ornamented screens of which many remains were discovered, some with dedicatory inscriptions. (The reconstruction of the niches, bema, and screens is exhibited in the Israel Museum.)

a

b

Figure IV-46. Susiya hall: a. looking west, main bema and secondary bema on the right; b. plan.

190

chapter four

a

b

Figure IV-47. Susiya hall: a. with main bema and secondary bema, looking north; b. secondary bema, looking north.

A small secondary bema was built to the east of the main bema, in front of it a mosaic decorated with the Ark and menoroth (Fig. IV-47b); the bema has a rectangular shape, resembling a cube with carved stone columns, of which one survived, perhaps indicating that a canopy was constructed above the bema (Gutman et al. 1981:124–125; Yeivin 1989:93–95, Figs. 2–4, 5). Yeivin’s reconstruction of the Susiya Torah Shrine area—the three niches and bemas (Fig. IV-42)—is based on the remains found in the synagogue hall, including various architectural items such as arch fragments, marble screens, posts, and slabs. • Horvat ʿAnim—A bema was built in front of the aedicula on the northern Jerusalem-oriented wall in both its phases (Fig. III-36c). On the evidence of items found in the area of the aedicula, the bema was reconstructed with steps in the center, two columns carrying a beam along the width of the hall, and a chancel screen on the façade; two polycandelons hung from the beam (Amit 1995:136, Fig. 5, Pl. 6b; 2003:194, Figs. 5.10, 5.24). 3.2.4.2 Bema in Front of an Apse • Deir ʿAziz (in the Golan)—A bema is indicated in front of the apse (Maʿoz and Ben David 2006:29). • Hammath Gader—A bema (4.55 m long and 1.20 m wide) was found in the center in front of the apse. It is the same length as the apse and two steps lead up to its center; a chancel screen was found, as well as posts, which probably stood on either side of the steps (Avi-Yonah 1976 II:471; Sukenik 1935:32; but see Foerster 1983:11–12).



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

191

• Maʿoz Hayim III—A bema (2.0 × 6.0 m) was built in front of the apse in the latest, third phase (Fig. IV-44:2). It protruded into the nave and was paved with stone slabs laid on an earlier mosaic. A chancel screen surrounded the area of the bema (Tzaferis 1982:222–223). • Beth Alpha—A small bema (1.55 m long, 0.90 m wide, 0.45 m high) is built in front of the apse and has a step leading up to it (Sukenik 1932:13, Pl. V1, 2; Fig. 47). • Maʿon (Nirim)—An ashlar bema platform (75 × 60 m, height—26 cm.) is built in front of the apse (B in the plan; suggested by the excavator as a base for the Ark of the Scrolls). A sunken area, the width of the nave, existed in front of the bema. Four post-holes are visible in the mosaic floor, and may have held the posts for a veil (parochet) (Levi 1960:7, C–F in plan). • Gerasa—Traces of a panel projecting into the nave indicate that a bema may have stood in front of the apse (Sukenik 1935:166). • ʿEn Gedi III—In place of the phase II square niche on the northern Jerusalem-oriented wall, a rectangular base of dressed stones (3.25 m wide), which the excavator interprets as a wooden structure, was erected, protruding ca. 1.5 m into the nave. In the center of the structure was a semicircular niche which possibly served as a space for the Ark of the Scrolls. A space found between the structure’s wall and the northern wall was used for storage and as a genizah. In front of the structure, a rectangular space (3.30 × 2 m) which enclosed a mosaic panel was built (Fig. IV-43). At the four corners of this structure are small sockets, which apparently held the posts of a chancel screen (possibly of wood) which surrounded it (Barag et al. 1981:117–118; Barag 2006:18*, Fig. 36). The structure with the mosaic is an enclosed space which could have served as a space for reading the Torah and for other functions. The function of the raised platform (bema) in front of an apse or niche in the synagogue building is in debate. It is suggested that: (a) some of these bemoth served as footholds for ascending to the niche or apse; (b) the bema could have been a platform for prayer, for reading the Torah, and for reciting the lessons of the week (Sukenik 1934:57), for example, at the synagogues of Beth Alpha, Maʿoz-Hayyim III, and Hammat Gader; (c) it may have been used as a support for holding other ritual objects, particularly the menoroth. This could be the explanation for the bema in the synagogues of ʿEn Gedi and Susiya, where the niche itself is too small to hold more than the Ark. The traces of secondary bemas which survived at the ʿEn Gedi and Susiya synagogues suggest a space enclosed by chancel screens, or that they possibly had canopies erected over them. There is an essential distinction between the bema and the stone platform base for the aedicula (though many scholars and excavators use the term bema for all these structures). The aedicula, niche, and apse provided space for the Ark of the Scrolls (usually of wood). The bema, built in front of the niche or apse, served for reading the Torah and various rites or social functions. The location of the Torah reading in the synagogue has perplexed many researchers (Safrai 1989:74–77; Levine 1991:57–59). Scholars suggest the Torah was read on a raised podium, probably made of wood, in the center of the synagogue (Avi-Yonah 1961:172). The excavators contend that one of the two Nabratein synagogue aediculae served for the Torah readings (Meyers and Meyers 1981:36; Meyers et al. 1981b:242; Meyers and Meyers 2009:74–77). In the Diaspora, at the Dura-Europos (Kraeling 1979:256) and Sardis (Seager 1972:426 and note 8) synagogues, a small structure, probably a bema, was found in the center of the hall. No such central platform have been found to date in synagogues in the Land of Israel (Safrai 1989:74–77), yet in several cases, such as the depressions in the floor in Nabratein (Meyers et al. 1982:40) there was a designated space in the center of the hall. At Hammath Gader II an opus sectile carpet in the center of the hall (Foerster 1983) might have been used for a table At Maʿon (Judea), a stone plate was found in the center of the hall; perhaps a wooden table was set up on it for reading the Torah (Amit 2003:190).

192

chapter four

3.2.5 Genizah In several synagogues, an unusual feature has been observed in the Torah Shrine area. Spaces or depressions (cavities) behind the Torah Shrine have been found in the bases of aediculae, niches, or apses, evidently indicating the presence of a geniza. This space served as a community chest for fragments of scrolls, or as a cabinet for storage of various objects. In the Galilean synagogue of Gush Halav I, a rectangular depression (0.50 m × 0.75 m) was found in the early base, close to the southern wall (Meyers et al. 1979:42); a similar one was found at Nabratein (Meyers et al. 1981a:242). At Qasrin, the southern rear part of the Torah Shrine may have served as a geniza. A small interior space, with an entrance from the west, in the aedicula platform at Umm el-Qanatir may have served as a genizah. Another underground space constructed in a later period at the Umm el-Qanatir synagogue, in the northern part of the west aisle, could have been another genizah (Ben David et al. 2006:117). At Hammath Tiberias, a sunken pit was found in the western part of the Torah Shrine (Dothan 1983:31). The synagogue of Beth Alpha had a cavity in the platform which contained coins and served as a genizah (Sukenik 1935:75). At the Maʿoz Hayim synagogue, a sunken area was discovered at the back of the apse floor (Tzaferis 1982:222). At MaʿonNirim, a small pit was discovered in the mosaic pavement, and presumably served as a community chest (Levi 1960:7). A storage space found between the structure’s wall and the northern wall was used for storage and as a geniza in the synagogue of ʿEn Gedi II (Barag 2006:18*). The genizot of some of these synagogues yielded coins, suggesting that they served as the community’s hiding place for its treasure, in addition to being a depository for discarded scrolls. 3.3 The Form of the Torah Shrine The form of the Torah Shrine can be conjectured from architectural fragments that were actual parts of its façade and were found in excavations of synagogues, and by reference to artistic renditions on stone and mosaics (Hachlili 1976:43; 1988:183–187; 2000:153). The architectural members and the artistic renditions portray a uniform Torah Shrine façade, usually consisting of two to four columns on a base, which carry an arcuated lintel that is sometimes surmounted by a Syrian gable decorated with the conch motif (Fig. IV-1). Frequently a flight of steps leads up to the Torah Shrine. The wooden Ark of the Scrolls placed and depicted inside these shrines takes various forms. 3.3.1 Architectural Features of the Torah Shrine The best-preserved examples of architectural fragments presumed to be from the Torah Shrine consist of stone lintels, columns, and reliefs. In the synagogues of the Galilee and the Golan, several Torah Shrine fragments were found. Lintels, possibly belonging to aediculae, have been discovered at various sites in the Land of Israel: The Nabratein lions lintel (Fig. IV-48) was probably in use over an aedicula on the western platform of Synagogue 2a (and perhaps already in Synagogue 1); it was found buried upside-down in the rebuilt bema of Synagogue 2b along with other fragments of the Torah Shrine, after the building had been damaged in an earthquake (Meyers et al. 1981a, 1982; Younger 2009:84, 88–92, photo 26, Fig. 27). The lintel was a rectangular block (originally bottom L ca.136, top L ca. 126; H 58; Th 50); perhaps initially it was created for a window. The lintel is decorated with a triangular pediment in raised relief that encloses a half dome carved as a deep conch (Dia. 21, Depth 15), thus forming a Syrian gable outlined by curved taenia (Fig. IV-48). The gable was decorated with an egg-and-dart motif and a multi-petaled rosette in its apex. A pair of six-petaled rosettes decorated the lower part of the gable but only the one on the left survived. Two rampant lions carved in high relief in the spandrels



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

193

Figure IV-48. Decorated lintel of aedicula, Nabratein.

above the gable appear in heraldic position, one on each side of the gable, facing each other. Their paws rest on the cornice, their tails are raised. A hole is pierced vertically over the conch, probably for a hanging lamp. Several decorated basalt architectural members found at the Korazim synagogue are considered to be parts of the two aediculae flanking the main entrance (Fig. IV-31). As Yeivin (2000:27*, 62–63, plan 14) reconstructed them, one was a structure for the Torah Shrine and the other was a bema (iztaba) for the reading of the Torah. The Korazim aedicula/Torah Shrine projected from the wall, in which a niche was cut. It had decorated pilasters, one of which was found: an elaborately ornamented double pilaster carved from a single basalt stone with a base of double torus (Fig. IV-49). The pillar was decorated with a deeply carved triple step pattern (zig-zag carpet pattern) covering the front and the exposed side of the pilaster, while the opposite side was plain, and the back of the block was left almost untouched. The double capital is decorated with two rows of acanthus leaves (Yeivin 1985:270, 274; 2000:52–53, Fig. 123; Turenheim 1987; May 2000:152, 157–159, no. 68, Pl. 24:4).

194

chapter four

Figure IV-49. Decorated aedicula pilaster, Korazim.

Yeivin proposes that several decorated items were possibly part of the ornamentation of the Korazim niche: a keystone of the niche arch was adorned with an aedicula in antis flanked by olive branches. The Torah Shrine was ornamented with a lintel decorated with a Syrian gable, with a conch and three rosettes at the gable corners. Another conch adorned the whole complex (no. 58, Fig. IV-31). May (2000:123) suggests, contrary to Yeivin, that conch no. 57, not no. 58, decorated this aedicula; two animal statues, one a lioness, flanked the niche, as shown in the reconstruction (Yeivin 2000:25*, Figs. 119, 121, 124, 126, 127, Pls. 23:5, 24:1–4, 25:2, 3; May 2000:nos. 57, 58, 66.1, 66.2, 67). May and Stark (2000:223, 226–8, Pl. 12a, b) maintain that the architectural parts of the Korazim Torah Shrine (Fig. IV-32a) included the decorated pilaster (no. 52) on one side of the aedicula, and a similar one, which was not found, on the other; a gabled conch surmounted the pilasters (no. 44, the one that according to Yeivin decorated the aedicula with the ‘Seat of Moses’) and two extensions of the conch’s décor (nos. 45, 46). The second Korazim aedicula (bema, iztaba) had several steps leading to the platform; it had a gabled roof decorated with a conch, a wreath, and probably a pair of lions in recesses in the sides. Two column base fragments might have decorated the platform. The basalt stone seat—the ‘cathedra of Moses’—found at the excavation in the 1920s is reconstructed standing on this platform (Yeivin 1982:10; 1985:272–273, Figs. 1, 2, 8; 2000:27*, 54, 62–3, plan 14, Figs. 116, 119, 120, 121–127, 130, Pls. 23:5, 24:1–3, 25:1–3, 26:1, 124:1–4; May 2000:117–118, nos. 66–71).



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

195

a

b

Figure IV-50. Qasrin: a. small keystone; b. double column of aedicula.

Noteworthy are the number of basalt architectural members found in Golan synagogues, which possibly ornamented Torah Shrines (Hachlili 1995:208–210, nos. 58–63; now displayed in the Golan Antiquities Museum at Kazrin). A small keystone from Qasrin (Fig. IV-50a) was found in secondary use in the later north platform; it was decorated with a Syrian gable of astragal design that had a round medallion depicted in its center and two flanking discs, and originally formed part of the Torah Shrine (Hachlili 1987:43, no. 18; 1988:184–187; 1995:188–9, 208, 210, nos. 58, 63). It is possible that this keystone was part of the Torah Shrine of Qasrin synagogue A. The Qasrin molded double semi-attached basalt column, that was decorated with a stylized Ionic capital and simple base (Fig. IV-50b) and measured 1.82 m in length, was found lying on its back, incorporated into a secondary wall constructed between the two furthest southwestern columns of the synagogue. This Qasrin double column probably originally belonged to the Torah Shrine (Hachlili 1995:210, no. 63). Similar reliefs were found in ed-Dikke and Rafid (Hachlili 1995:209, nos. 60–62). Some scholars considered these fragments to be windows. Related architectural fragments were found in the Golan and Galilee, sometimes with small carved eagles or lions. In the Golan, such aedicula fragments were found at Ghadriyye (Hachlili 1987:43, no. 19), two fragments at ed-Dikke (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:abb 228–234, reconstructed as window lintels),

196

chapter four

and at er-Rafid (Sukenik 1935:92–3, Pl. XXIII). In the Galilee, a decorated aedicula lintel was found at Hirbet Tuba (Ilan 1987:16). Fragments of basalt reliefs of lions and lionesses from the Golan may also belong to Torah Shrines (Hachlili 1995:202–203, nos. 32–42; 59–64). An unusual basalt orthostat found in secondary use at ʿEn Samsam originally belonged to the synagogue at ʿEn Nashut (Maoz 1981:111–112) and might have been used as a decorated base of the aedicula. The stone is carved as a three-dimensional lion in frontal position, with a head, forelegs, and stylized mane (Fig. IX-3). One side is engraved with an heraldic design of two eagles flanking a scene of a man holding his hands up, with a lion to his left and a lioness and her cub to his right (Hachlili 1988:173, 322–323, Pl. 88; 1995:no. and Fig. 37). This scene was interpreted by Ilan (1969:185–186) as Daniel in the Lions’ Den. The orthostate was probably used as the base of the aedicula and supported the wooden side wall of the Ark of the Scrolls (Hachlili 1988:Fig. VIII-24b). Another carved relief from ʿEn Nashut portrayes a stylized bird pecking at a cluster of grapes. On a protruding part on the right, a fifteen-petaled rosette is engraved (Fig. IX-35a) (Hachlili 1995:no. and Fig. 35). This relief might have served as a decorated lintel for the Torah Shrine at ʿEn Nashut (Maoz 1995:239–240). At Umm el-Qanatir, several architectural parts belonging to the Torah Shrine were found in the recent excavation (Ben David et al. 2006:114–116). The excavators reconstruct a 5 m high aedicula, whose façade has a gabled lintel above two richly decorated basalt columns/pillars (Fig. IV-51b, reconstructed by Yeshua Dray); these are ornamented on two sides (Fig. IV-51a): one side has a row of conches and rosette designs, and a menorah flanked by four Jewish ritual objects; a second row on the same side is decorated with round and diagonal carvings and with a deeply carved triple-step pattern that recalls the decoration of the Korazim pillar (Fig. IV-49). The other side of the column is decorated with bunches of grapes issuing out of a jar. The basalt double-column capital with an eagle relief, which was found in the 1968 survey (Fig. IX-18), is reconstructed on top of one of these columns (Fig. IV-51b; Ben David et al. 2006:115). A relief from Zumimra (Fig. IX-6), depicting a column and a lion, may have belonged to an aedicula (Hachlili 1995:210, no. 64). In the Caesarea synagogue, remains of several small stone columns may have belonged to a stone structure (perhaps an aedicula). Several architectural fragments found at Meroth synagogue, including a gable fragment, a small capital, a column, and some carved stones, probably belonged to the two aediculae found flanking the entrance (Ilan and Damati 1988:65). At Rehov, several small limestone columns, bases, and capitals, and a fragment of a limestone-sculptured block ornamented with a lion (Fig. IX-11b), were found in secondary use, probably part of a phase I aedicula of the fourth century CE (Vitto 1981b:165, Pl. 24, 1). Fragments of columns and capitals adorned with acanthus leaves belonged to the stone aedicula of H. Shemʿa phase I, although for phase II a wooden aedicula on the stone base is proposed (Meyers et al. 1976:49, Figs. 3.9, 3.11). Three-dimensional sculptures of lions and eagles may also have been used for the ornamentation of Torah Shrines, as for example, the lions found at Barʿam, Capernaum and Korazim; These animals appear in the ornamentation of mosaic pavements, such as that of Beth Alpha (Fig. V-42). Some relief fragments were described as windows by certain scholars. Kohl and Watzinger (1916:116, Fig. 231, 251) suggested a central window on the upper, second part of the façade of the ed-Dikke synagogue; two lintel parts from ed-Dikke show a gable flanked by an eagle, and a Syrian gable decorated with a conch flanked by a bird. These have been identified as window fragments and may have been aedicula fragments (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:116, Figs. 228–230; Hachlili 1995:209, nos. 61, 62). At Rafid, the Syrian gable decorated with a conch is flanked by lions; a similar fragment of a Syrian gable flanked by an eagle was found in secondary use at Ghadariyye and perhaps belonged originally



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

a

197

b

c

Figure IV-51. Umm el-Qanatir: a. two decorated aedicula columns; b. preliminary reconstruction of the aedicula (by Yeshua Dray).

198

chapter four

to the synagogue of ʿEn Nashut (Hachlili 1995:nos. and Figs. 59–62; Maoz 1995:Pl. 67:1). It seems reasonable to assume that many of the discussed fragments were aedicula parts, probably from lintels of Torah Shrines. This assumption is based on the similarities with the renditions of Torah Shrines on mosaic pavements and the images of aediculae portrayed on lintels from various synagogues. 3.3.2 Artistic Renditions of the Torah Shrine The façade of the Torah Shrine is depicted on architectural members, reliefs, mosaic pavements, and more (Hachlili 1988:268–272, Figs. VIII-26, 27; 2000:154–155; 2001:239–242). At the Korazim synagogue, several carved renditions of the Torah Shrine façade were found (Yeivin 2000:27*, 52–53, Figs. 98, 124, Pls. 14:3, 24:3; May 2000:117–118, nos. 29, 67, Figs. 2:1, 2): on a projection of the inner frieze are two pairs of columns, supporting a double arch flanked by two branches. Another projecting part of the inner frieze at Korazim shows a small aedicula with a Syrian gable decorated with a conch (Fig. IV-52a) (Yeivin 2000:45, Figs. 98; May 2000:118–119, no. 29, Pl. 14:3:1–5, Fig. 2:2; May and Stark 2002:230; May suggests that the capitals of this aedicula are rams’ heads). A lintel fragment from Kokhav HaYarden is engraved with two empty aediculae or Torah Shrines flanking a menorah, their arches decorated with conches (Figs. IV-34, IV-52b). These renditions of a double aedicula, together with the carving on a tomb from Beth Sheʿarim (Fig. IV-35), support the archaeological evidence that some synagogues had two aediculae flanking the main entrance (Hachlili 1988:175, Fig. VIII-26). The simple façade of an undecorated Torah Shrine, consisting of two columns surmounted by an arcuated lintel and flanked by two menoroth, is shown on a lintel from ʿAsaliyye (Fig. IV-52c). An unusual depiction of a façade, incised on a fragment of a black ceramic bowl from a house in Nabratein, shows a gabled roof surmounted on a pair of fluted columns with a veil, and a chain (polycandelon) suspended in the center (Meyers and Meyers 1982:182 and Fig. 3). Another design, on a 4th c. fragment of a discus clay lamp from Sepphoris, has an arched top decorated with a conch and a spiral fluted column (Nagy et al. 1996:no. 116). An unusual limestone decorated lintel from Raqit, that originally adorned one of the synagogue’s portals, consists of five surviving panels out of perhaps seven (Fig. V-10). Gershet (2004:179–181, 185, Figs. 1–3, 6, 8) contends that Panels III and V, engraved with a semicircular niche decorated with a conch, depict the Torah Shrine housing the Ark and a small part of the veil or the scrolls.

Figure IV-52. Façade of Torah Shrine on architectural parts: a. Korazim; b. Kokhav HaYarden; c. Asaliyye.



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

199

4. The Ark of the Scrolls The Ark of the Scrolls, located inside the Torah Shrine, was a chest or ark, commonly of wood, that contained shelves to hold the Torah scrolls. In the Land of Israel. this Ark is usually depicted as a chest with closed double doors surmounted by a gable decorated with a conch. However, in the Diaspora, theArk is shown as an open chest containing scrolls placed on shelves (Hachlili 1988:272– 278; 1998:366–370; 2000:157–159). The location of the Ark and its form can be deduced from remains found in synagogues of the Land of Israel, its depiction on mosaic pavements such as Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, and Susiya (Figs. IV-53, VI-1, 2), and various other objects, and from inscriptions which mention it. Synagogue excavations and historical research have greatly augmented the evidence, and now it may reasonably be inferred that such arks stood inside the architectural structure of the Torah shrine. 4.1 Inscriptions Inscriptions indicate that the Aramaic term ‫ בית ארונה‬beth arona and the Greek term κειβωτος kibotos both referred to the Ark of the Scrolls. A basalt stone in secondary use in the mosque at Naveh (Hauran, Syria) bears an inscription probably mentioning ‫ בית ארונה‬beth arona ‘the repository of the Ark’ (Naveh 1978:no. 37, 1989:307);5 the Aramaic graffito on the façade of the niche at the Dura Europos synagogue mentions the ‫ בית ארונה‬beth arona, repository of the Ark, in reference to the niche which housed the Ark. An inscription from the first stage of the later Ostia synagogue, mentioning κειβωτος kibotos, was found on a marble slab in the vestibule hall. The first line of the inscription is in Latin and the other four lines are in Greek (Floriani Squarciapino 1963:20; 1970:184–185; Noy 1993:22–26; no. 13, Pl. VI). Kibotos is the same as the term ‫ תיבה‬tevah in the Mishna (Ta‌ʾanit 1.1; 2.1; Meg. 3.1; 4.21) and presumably denotes a chest (Sukenik 1934:52–53; Wendel 1950:20–24; Goodenough 1954, IV:115–120; for the terms tevah and aron in rabbinic literature see Z. Safrai 1989:71–73). An inscription carved on a marble plaque found in the Sardis synagogue hall refers to the nomophylakion ‘the place that protects the law’, a reference to the Torah Shrine or the Ark of the Scrolls (Kraabel 1983:189, Fig. 275; Fine 1994:Fig. 3.13, cat. 21). The inscription from the Side synagogue (in Pamphylia) mentioning σιµµα (sima) may refer to a Torah shrine or an Ark (Floriani Squarciapino 1962b:306; Noy 1993:24). 4.2 Traces of the Ark of the Scrolls The surviving evidence pointing to the existence of wooden chests in synagogues is meager, as wood is seldom preserved owing to climatological conditions. Traces of a wooden ark would consist mainly of iron or bronze nails and bone inlays or plaster impressions which may have decorated such an Ark. In the Maʿon (Nirim) synagogue metal and bone inlays were found, which Rahmani (1960:14–15, Fig. 8, Pls. 3–7) contends were decorative parts of the ark; he considers one thin inlay “as part of an ornament sewn onto the wrapping of the scroll.” Excavated sections of the earlier ʿEn Gedi synagogue show traces of a wooden ark (see above; Barag et al. 1981:118–119). In the Beth Sheʾan synagogue A, seventy nails (45 iron ones) were found in the main hall close to the apse, as well as a plaster fragment in the middle of the apse, close to the back wall (Zori 1967:164). These finds suggest a wooden Ark of the Scrolls. 5 An inscription from the Horvat ʿAmudim synagogue refers to “Yoezer the hazan and Simeon his brother made this Ark (?) of the Lord of Heaven” (Naveh 1978:no. 20); later (1989:307), Naveh agreed with Avigad 1960:62–63, who reads “Gate of the Lord” instead of “Ark”, and notes that perhaps Huttenmeister 1978 is right and the reading should be “place of the Lord” meaning the synagogue).

200

chapter four 4.3 The Ark of the Scrolls in Jewish Art

In the Land of Israel, the Ark of the Scrolls is depicted either separately or inside the Torah Shrine façade, usually as a chest with its doors closed; sometimes there is also a symbolic conch, representing the absent Torah Shrine within which the Ark stood (Hachlili 1980:59–60; 1988:272–278, 280–285; 2000:158–159). The form of the Arkis portrayed in three general types: (a) free-standing chest with a closed double ornamented door, based on two to four legs, surmounted by a gable or arched top that is sometimes decorated with a conch; such arks are portrayed on the mosaic floors at Beth Alpha, Naʿaran, and Jericho (Figs. IV-53, 54); the highly stylized Jericho depiction has an arched top decorated with a conch.

a

b

c

Figure IV-53. Ark depicted on mosaics: a. Beth Alpha; b. Beth Sheʾan A; c. Jericho.



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

a

b

d

201

c

e

Figure IV-54. Free-standing Ark on mosaics and on items: a. Beth Alpha; b. Naʿaran; c. Jericho; d. Capernaum; e. Naʿana.

a

b

c

Figure IV-55. Mosaic depictions of the Torah Shrine façade with an ark inside: a. Hammath Tiberias; b. Sepphoris; c. Susiya.

Similar arks with arched top, but more stylized appear on lintel reliefs from Capernaum, on the Naʿana bronze plate, on the Beth Sheʿarim relief (Figs. IV-35, IV-54d, e), and on a limestone mirror frame from Shikmona. These arks were probably produced specifically for use in a niche or apse, as they would have fit in a round-topped structure. (b) The Ark depicted inside the Torah Shrine façade on mosaic pavements and reliefs has a boxlike form with a double decorated door, and lacks both top and legs. The ornamented double doors show several designs: one consists of three sections, the upper and lower of which are rectangular while the central is square, and all have inner panels. This door design appears on mosaic pavements at Hammath Tiberias, Sepphoris, and Susiya, and on reliefs from Pekiʾin and Beth Sheʿarim (Figs. IV-55, 56). (c) The ark is depicted in some cases inside a Torah Shrine in a highly stylized geometric form. This is found on the Kefar Yasif stone tomb door and on a clay lamp (Hachlili 1988:Fig. VIII.30, Pl.33).

202

chapter four

a

b

c

d

e f

Figure IV-56. Illustrations of arks depicted inside the Torah Shrine façade: on mosaic pavements— a. Hammath Tiberias; b. Sepphoris; c. Susiya; on reliefs—d. Beth Sheʿarim; e. Pekiʾin; f. Susiya screen.

There are depictions that do not conform to the above three types. The Beth Sheʾan A mosaic panel shows the Torah Shrine façade as a gable surmounted on a pair of columns enclosing two other columns, with an arched lintel decorated with a conch and a parochet (veil), possibly covering an invisible Ark (Fig. IV-53b) (Zori 1967:152, 164); similar veils, that partly cover the ark, are depicted on the Hammath Tiberias mosaic, on two representations of the Ark at the Samaritan synagogue mosaic at H. Samara, and on the mosaic of the Samaritan synagogue at el-Hirbe (Magen 1993:Figs. 12–14, 20–22, 24) (see discussion of the curtain below). Another unusual depiction of an ark, this time on wheels and in the shape of a temple, is carved on a wall frieze part found in the Capernaum synagogue (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:34, Fig. 68). It was used by some scholars to suggest that this type of served in the synagogue before a permanent location was established for it inside the building. Samaritan synagogues have a similar design. Two mosaics at H. Samara depict sanctuary designs: one between the benches of the hall, the other in mid-section. The design portrays a sanctuary with a façade of four columns and a Syrian gable decorated with a conch. The double doors are covered by a curtain tied to one of the columns. A similar sanctuary design with the curtain is found on the mosaic of el-Hirbeh (Fig. IV-58); an Ark with double door and a conch decorating the top appears on a stone relief found in the apse of the H. Samara synagogue as well as on a stone relief from Pahma (Magen 1992:71–72; 1993b and Figs. 12–14, 20–22, 24, 33).



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

Figure IV-57. Carved Ark on wheels, frieze part, Capernaum.

203

204

chapter four

a

b

c

Figure IV-58. Sanctuary designs on mosaics of Samaritan synagogues.

The sanctuary portrayed on the mosaics of the Samaritan synagogue floors (and on the Dura Europos synagogue wall paintings (Fig. VIII-3); Hachlili 1998:360–363) can be interpreted as describing the Temple and its vessels. However, Magen (1992:72) suggests that this is a rendition of the Tabernacle vessels. The sanctuary design in these Samaritan synagogues, though probably copied from Jewish art, might have symbolized the Samaritan sanctuary on Mount Gerizim (see also discussion by Grossberg 1993 and Amit 1993). In the Diaspora, the Ark of the Scrolls is carved or painted as a free-standing, open chest, roofed by a gabled or round top, without legs; the open doors of the Ark reveal shelves, on each of which two or three circular, oval, or square scrolls are set. These arks appear painted on catacomb walls and carved on tombstones; they have also been found on gold glasses in the Jewish catacombs in Rome, on lamps found in Ostia, and on a Sardis stone slab (Hachlili 1998:366–370, Figs. VII-46–48; 2000:159, Figs. 15–17). The general similarity in the depiction of arks in Diaspora catacomb art, with only slight variations, supports the existence of a single Diaspora prototype, consisting of an open-doored ark with scrolls lying on shelves. The design of an ark with arched roof, open doors, and scrolls is treated more elaborately on gold glasses than on catacomb tombstones, which are usually simple, incised renditions. The ark on the gold glasses was very likely a more detailed version of the catacomb image, which included scrolls, lions, and birds. It is quite possible that both Jewish and pagan art shared a similar prototype for depicting scroll chests and arks. The Diaspora Ark is usually depicted alone, with no indication of an enclosure within which it stood. In the Land of Israel, however, the Ark of the Scrolls and the Torah shrine are more often shown together. The interesting differentiation—between the portrayal of the Ark of the Scrolls with closed doors in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora examples with open doors revealing scrolls lying on shelves— presents several questions: Is it due to different traditions and customs involving the Torah-reading ceremony? Is it a result of the different geographical origins? Is it because in the Land of Israel the arks are mostly depicted in synagogal art, whereas in the Diaspora they are portrayed in funerary art? The last of these possibilities may explain the difference. In the Land of Israel the Ark is often depicted on synagogue mosaic pavements. To prevent representations of Torah scrolls being trodden on, the closed-door type had to be used. In the Diaspora, on the other hand, where the Ark usually appears in funerary art and not on floors, this precaution was unnecessary. Depictions in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora vary in another aspect too. The location of the wooden Ark of the Scrolls inside the Torah Shrine in all its forms (aedicula, niche, and apse) in the synagogues of Late Antiquity is confirmed by the representations of the Ark in Jewish art. In some of these depictions, the Ark of the Scrolls is a rendition of the location and actual design of the Ark in synagogue architecture. Nevertheless, the Ark, found also in funerary art and on lamps, had profound symbolic connotations, being an integral part of the focal point of Jewish worship—the Torah—and symbolizing also the place of the Scriptures in the destroyed Temple.



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

205

Figure IV-59. Ark illustrations in Jewish catacombs, Rome.

The Ark of the Scrolls and the Ark of the Covenant are two entirely separate entities, and no continuity of form or symbolism exists between the two (Hachlili 1988:279; 1998:372–3).6 The Ark of the Covenant was a chest containing the Tablets of the Law (I Kings 8, 9; II Chronicles 5, 10). It stood in Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem and disappeared in the time of King Manasseh (Haran 1959:31–32). Furthermore, it was not meant to be used or even viewed by the congregation (Haran 1978:246). As it never reappeared, no Ark of the Covenant ever stood in the Second Temple (Avi-Yonah 1968:330). The design of the Ark of the Covenant is known solely from the biblical literary description and the depiction of the Ark of the Covenant in the wall paintings of the third-century Dura Europos synagogue (Hachlili 2000:159–160, Fig. 19). The Ark of the Scrolls, on the other hand, was an item of synagogue furniture housing the Torah scrolls, which were regularly taken out and read in the presence of the congregation. It seems reasonable to infer, moreover, that the form of the Ark of the Scrolls actually used in the synagogue was similar to the many depictions that are found in Jewish art. 5. Orientation of the Synagogue The orientation of the synagogue has been much debated but generally it has been accepted that the synagogue was intended to face Jerusalem (Hachlili 1988:199, 232–3). It appears that the construction of most of the synagogues in the Land of Israel took into consideration local topography;

6 But see Goodenough 1954:IV, 115–116, 130; Meyers et al. 1981:241–242, who maintain that the synagogue ark became the successor to the Ark of the Covenant both in form and symbol. See also Gutmann 1971:28–29, who suggests that “the ark described for the Tabernacle in Exodus was in all likelihood an ark which must actually have stood in the Second Temple.”

206

chapter four

their orientation, however, was determined by the Jerusalem-oriented Torah Shrine structure. Consequently, the differences in synagogue building orientation depended on local traditions or vogues regarding the location of the Torah Shrine. For example, Galilean synagogues have both their façade and their Torah shrine on the Jerusalem-oriented wall which for them was the south one; the same is true of the Golan synagogues at Dabiyye, ʿEn Nashut, and Umm el-Qanatir (Figs. III-31, III-57a–c), whereas the Jerusalem-oriented wall of the Judean broadhouse synagogues of Eshtemoʿa and Susiya faced north and their entrances were on the east wall (Fig. III-60a, b). Most of the sixth-century CE synagogue buildings have their apses on the Jerusalem-oriented wall. The Beth Alpha synagogue, for instance, has its apse on the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall and its entrances on the opposite wall (Fig. IV-44:4), whereas the southern synagogues of Maʿon-Nirim and Gaza have their apses on the northern Jerusalem-oriented wall and their entrances on the opposite wall (Fig. IV-44:6, 7). The Jericho apse (Fig. IV-44:5) is built on the western Jerusalem-oriented wall and has entrances facing it. Exceptions to this rule are the Sepphoris aedicula (Fig. IV-36:14) and the Beth Sheʾan A apse (Fig. IV-44:10), where the Torah Shrines were constructed on the west. Scholars propose that more than one tradition existed with regard to the orientation of synagogue structures (Avi-Yonah 1973:42; Seager 1981:41). However, it seems most likely that synagogue orientation was determined by the position of the Torah Shrine structure (see above). The congregation inside the hall prayed facing the Torah Shrine, and, therefore, Jerusalem (Hachlili 1976:52). The T. Meg. IV, 2 states: How did the elders sit with their faces toward the people and their back toward the qodes and when the chest is set down, it has to stand with its front toward the people and its back toward the qodes. . . .

Local topographical and environmental conditions were also factors in determining the orientation of these buildings. Several items associated with the Torah Shrine should be presented and discussed, including: (a) the conch as symbol of the Torah Shrine; (b) the curtain (veil) which fully or partly covered the Torah Shrine or the Ark of the Scrolls façade; (c) the chancel screens found in many of the later synagogues; and (d) the ‘Seat of Moses’ (the Cathedra de Moshe) found in two synagogues—Korazim and Hammath Tiberias A—and which possibly had a significant standing in the synagogue. 6. The Conch as Symbol of the Torah Shrine The conch motif occupied an important place in the art of the Near East; in Egypt it was already popular during the first millennium BC, in the form of an actual shell which appears to have been worn as an amulet (Petrie 1914:Pl. 14:111, 112, 114). Large Tridacna shells thought to be of Assyrian origin have been found at many sites, covered with incised floral and animal motifs in a Phoenician style (Boardman 1964:91, Fig. 18; Akurgal 1966:150, Pl. 36). The conch often appears in Graeco-Roman art from the fifth century BCE until late Roman times, portrayed naturalistically, and it is associated with the myth of Aphrodite, who emerged from a shell (Bratschova 1938:8–14; Goodenough 1958, VIII:95–105). In the Ancient Near East, the conch motif usually appears in the form of a stylized scallop with rays extending from the hinge at the base, following its eastern version (Hachlili 1980; 1988:280–285). Here also the conch was widely utilized as an architectural decoration element during Late Antiquity, when it was common in Nabataean, Syrian, and Phoenician architecture, usually decorating the semicircular space at the top of temple niches occupied by the statue of a deity (Bratschkova 1938:nos. 102–124, 127–132, 134–135, 139–147, 149; Hachlili 1980:57, note 19).



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

207

From the second century CE onwards, a decorative and non-symbolic naturalistic representation of the conch appears in the semi-domes of niches. Its first appearances in architecture are almost certainly due to its suitability for filling a semicircular space and with time it became integral to the niche decoration. As it became conceptually associated with the actual niche and its inhabitant, the statue of the deity, it acquired religious connotations. It thus became a specifically religious motif associated with the sacred niche. The conch motif employed in Jewish art and architecture resembled pagan versions. A more stylized version of the conch became a motif in pagan and Christian funerary art. The conch in synagogue and funerary art can be classified into three groups, according to significance and context: (1) The conch in this group of representations is stylized and occurs in several of the Galilean and Golan synagogue reliefs as an architectural element decorating the semicircular space of a Syrian gable, usually the upper part of an aedicula, a niche, or sometimes a window. Several stone conches found at Korazim and Capernaum were rendered by the excavators as part of the Torah Shrine façade ornamentation (Fig. IV-60); other similar conches are depicted as window parts (Figs. IV-10, V-20) (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:36, Figs. 9, 21, 71–73).  Four basalt conches, two small and two large, were found at the Korazim synagogue. Yeivin (2000:27*, plan 14, Figs. 119, 120) suggests that the two small conches were part of the Torah Shrine complex on the inner Jerusalem-oriented wall (Fig. IV-60); one lintel with a conch adorned the aedicula, the west part of the Torah Shrine, while the other conch, decorating a gabled stone and possibly flanked by two sculpted lions, was placed above the bema/iztaba (Fig. IV-31). The

a

b

Figure IV-60. Two small conches decorating the Torah Shrine, Korazim.

208

chapter four

two large conches are considered to be parts of windows (V-20a) (Yeivin 2000:44–45, 48, Figs. 98, 102; May 2000:118–119, 55–58, Pls. 23:1–5, Fig. 2:2–4). At Nabratein synagogue the decorated lintel with its Syrian gable is engraved in raised relief enclosing a half-dome carved with a deep conch motif (Fig. IV-48). The lintel was probably in use over an aedicula on the western platform of the inner Jerusalem-oriented wall, perhaps already in Nabratein Synagogues 1 and 2a (mid-2nd–3rd centuries CE); originally it might have been created for a window. The lintel was found buried in the rebuilt bema upside-down along with other fragment of the Torah Shrine, apparently when the building was damaged in an earthquake (Meyers et al. 1981a, 1982; Younger 2009:84, 88–92, photo 26, Fig. 27). Several Golan synagogues exhibit a similar conch motif: On several stones at ed-Dikke synagogue the conch ornaments the Syrian gable (Hachlili 1995:nos. 60–61); though Kohl and Watzinger (1916:115–116, Figs. 228, 229, 231) reconstructed these fragments as the lintel of the upper second floor window on the synagogue façade. The conch motif decorates the Syrian gable at Rafid, carved on several fragments which show also a pair of lions flanking the gable. These may have belonged originally to a synagogue and could have served as an aedicula lintel (Hachlili 1995:no. 62, which Sukenik (1935:Pl. 23a–c) interpreted as window parts). (2) This group consists of depictions of the conch as a motif which appear in Jewish art in Late Antiquity, and is found on reliefs and mosaic pavements. The earliest example of a conch design in a synagogue comes from the mid-3rd century CE Dura Europos synagogue, where it appears painted naturalistically as a shell inside the semi-dome of the niche (Fig. VIII-3). On the Beth Alpha synagogue mosaic pavement, the conch appears in a stylized version inside the gable of the Ark (Fig. IV-53a); on the Jericho synagogue mosaic, in the central panel of the pavement, a geometric pattern surrounds a stylized Ark surmounted by a conch (Fig. IV-53c). In some cases, the conch decorates an unoccupied aedicula/ Torah Shrine façade. At Korazim, a projecting part of the basalt inner frieze (Fig. IV-52a) shows a small unoccupied Torah Shrine façade with a Syrian gable decorated with a conch (Yeivin 2000:45, Figs. 98; May 2000:118–119, no. 29, Pl. 14:3:1–5, Fig. 2:2, May suggests that the capitals of this aedicula are heads of rams). A lintel from Kokhav Hayarden is engraved with two unoccupied Torah Shrine façades with their arches decorated with conchs, flanking a menorah (Fig. IV-34). At Capernaum a conch decorates the arch of the carved Ark on wheels (Fig. IV-57). An unusual decorated lintel from Raqit consists of five surviving panels out of perhaps seven. Panels III and V are engraved with a Syrian gable decorated with a conch, a symbolic depiction of the Torah Shrine (Fig. V-10) (Gershet 2004:181, 185, Figs. 1–3, 6, 8). The examples in this group suggest that the conch had by now become an integral part of the Torah Shrine and Ark. Whenever the conch is shown with the only and without the Torah Shrine, as in the last examples, it can be assumed that it itself was seen as a symbolic portrayal of the Torah Shrine (aedicula, niche or apse). If so, it would explain the occasional appearance of the conch above the menorah, as on a stone fragment from Capernaum (Fig. VI-12), which apparently here symbolizes the niche in which the menorah stood. (3) The conch motif appears as a stylized motif together with other ornamental geometric or floral motifs. At Capernaum a conch motif flanked by wreaths is carved within a wreath on the arch key stone (Fig. IV-61a) and decorates some windows. The conch motif appears within a medallion of acanthus leaves or within a wreath, in parts of the inner frieze of the Korazim synagogue (Fig. IV-61b–c) (Yeivin 2000:50–51, Figs. 117–120; May 2000:nos. 27, 29, Pl. 14a:1, 3).



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

209

b

a

c

Figure IV-61. Conch motif: a. on an arch key stone, Capernaum; b–c. decorated frieze items, Korazim.

At the Umm el-Qanatir synagogue, the stylized conch motif decorates the front side of two columns of the aedicula façade together with other patterns; the conch appears on the aedicula, twice on its west column and three times on its east column (Fig. IV-51a) (Ben David et al. 2006:114–116). On a side stone of the main entrance at the Golan synagogue of Kanaf, the conch appears as the central motif within a round meander design (Fig. V-22c). The conch appears as one of several motifs decorating a stone relief from Barʿam (Fig. IX-41). In Jewish funerary art, the conch motif first appears in the first century on an ossuary bearing an incised design of a conch over a central fluted column. A conch also decorates the upper part of the central entrance of a first-century tomb in Jerusalem. Later examples come from the Beth Sheʿarim cemetery, where conches decorate aediculae on two sarcophagi. The conch appears on sarchophagi from Beth Sheʿarim flanked by dolphins; occasionally the conch is found as a sole motif (Hachlili 1988:Figs. IX-26–28, X-20). These representations of the conch motif most probably had no special significance and served purely ornamental puposes (but see Goodenough 1958, VIII:95). In summary, in Jewish synagogal and funerary art the conch appears initially as a decorative and non-symbolic motif, in answer to the need for an architectural element to fill the semi-domes of architectural parts, especially aediculae and niches, and also as a motif ornamenting lintels and other elements. However, from being a mere decorative motif, it apparently evolved into a symbol of the actual Torah shrine, acquiring a sacredness of its own. When represented together with depictions of the Torah Shrine, Ark or menorah, it was regarded as a symbol of the actual aedicula, niche, or apse. The sacred connotation of the niche or aedicula, for Jews and non-Jews alike, later attached itself to the conch as the traditional niche decoration to such an extent that Jews seem to have regarded it as a religious symbolic motif representing the sacred Torah Shrine which held the Ark of the Scrolls. 7. Elements Associated with the Torah Shrine Elements associated with the Torah Shrine are the curtain (Parochet), the chancel screen, and the genizah. The Seat of Moses, which is part of the interior decoration of a few synagogues, has some connection to the Torah Shrine.

210

chapter four 7.1 The Curtain/Veil (Parochet)

The biblical description of the Tabernacle and of Solomon’s Temple includes a detailed account of the making and function of a curtain: “. . . so that the curtain shall serve you as a partition between the Holy and the Holy of Holies” (Ex. 26:33; II Chron. 3:14). The Bible also reports that the curtain was removed to cover the Ark of the Covenant when the Tent was travelling (Num. 4:6). Illustrations of arks covered by a veil appear on the Dura Europos wall paintings on Wing Panel III, and on panels WB2, WB4 (Hachlili 1998:370–372; 2000:160). The existence of the veil is known from remains found in synagogue excavations and through artistic depictions on synagogue mosaic pavements showing the curtain (parochet) hanging down in front and screening the façade of the Ark or the Torah Shrine. (1) Several sites have yielded evidence of curtains. At Beth Alpha, two round holes were cut into the lower level of the platform steps, probably for columns that held a curtain (Sukenik 1932:13; 1934:56–57). At Beth Sheʾan synagogue A, fragments of an iron chain and rings were discovered close to the apse, presumably belonging to the veil, which is also depicted on the mosaic floor (Fig. IV-53b) (Zori 1967:163, Pls. 32:6, 33:5, 34:8, 10, 11; but see Rosenthal-Heginbottom [2009:160] who contends that these items could have belonged to the chains of hanging lamps). At Kafr Misr in Phase II, in front of the Torah Shrine structure, two steps were set in the center of the floor. On the lower step are two round sockets, 0.70 cm. apart, which probably held the support for a curtain that might have separated the Ark from the hall (Onn 1994:120, Fig. 7). At ʿEn Gedi, traces of posts and metal ornaments, possibly from the parochet, were found in front of the niche. The Maʿon-Nirim synagogue yielded four postholes for the curtain, visible in the mosaic floor, and bronze veil rings (Levi 1960:7, C–F in plan; Rahmani 1960:16). At Susiya, in a corner adjacent to the eastern bema, a stone column is preserved. Gutman et al. (1981:125–6) propose that this was part of a canopy which hung above the bema. Similar postholes, presumably for curtains, were also found in the Diaspora synagogues of Dura Europos (Kraeling 1956:257–259) and Sardis (Seager 1975:109, note 40). (2) Depictions of curtains are found on synagogue mosaic pavements. At Hammath Tiberias B (Fig. IV-55a) the curtain is bound and hangs in front of the Ark. In the Beth Sheʾan A mosaic three veils are portrayed: one is suspended between two columns and blocks from view what seems to be the Ark; the second veil is depicted on both sides of the inner shrine; and the third is pictured above the gable (Fig. IV-53b). The Beth Alpha panel of Jewish symbols is bordered on both sides with a hanging curtain which may have covered the whole apse (Fig. V-42). Three examples of curtains hanging in front of the portals of buildings are depicted on mosaic pavements at two Samaritan synagogues, el-Khirbe and Khirbet Samara (Fig. IV-58) (Magen 1993:231, 241, Figs. 12, 13, 14a, 20–22, 24). The floor mosaic of the 4th century CE Samaritan synagogue at Hirbet Samara shows two examples: one, found between the benches of the hall, depicts a curtain hanging on a rod, wrapped around the inner left column and hung on a rail by four hooks and covering the double door of a sanctuary façade; the curtain partly covers a closed double door with a lock and rings. The other, smaller depiction, found in the center of the east carpet mosaic, is quite similar. On the mosaic floor of the Samaritan synagogue at el-Hirbeh, dating to the 4th century CE, three designs are rendered: on the left, a depiction of a sanctuary, with a decorated curtain wrapped on a column hanging from the architrave by four hooks on a rail; in the center, the showbread table topped with various objects; and on the right, a sevenbranched menorah flanked by two trumpets, an incense shovel, a shofar (and probably remains of a lulav and ethrog).



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

211

The design on panel WB2 (‘The Consecration of the Tabernacle and Its Priests’) of the Dura Europos synagogue wall paintings, dated to the 3rd century CE, depicts a sanctury with a gable, acroteria, and Corinthian columns. A hanging curtain partly covers the central door of the façade. Kraeling (1956:130) interprets this as “the screen of the gate of the court” mentioned in Exodus (see also Amit 2000:232; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2009:165). It is interpreted by most scholars as the Ark of the Covenant and Solomon’s Temple respectively. It seems that the Dura Europos synagogue wall paintings, together with the mosaics on the Samaritan synagogue floors, can be interpreted as describing the Temple façade. Magen, however, suggests (1992:72) that the Samaritan synagogue images render the tabernacle and its vessels or the Ark of the Scrolls (Magen 1993:213, 215; 2008:135, 159, 173). Amit (2000:234) maintains that the Dura Europos depiction, the two Samaritan synagogue mosaics illustrations, and the Hammath Tiberias synagogue mosaic renditions, illustrate the Ark of the Covenant. However, while the Dura paintings symbolize the Jerusalem Temple, the sanctuary design in the Samaritan synagogues was probably copied from or influenced by Jewish art, and might have symbolized the façade of the Samaritan temple on Mount Grizim (Magen 1993a:213, 215; 2008:135, 159, 173; Hachlili 2000:156–7). In the Diaspora, a hanging curtain covers the entire scene in the wall painting in Arcosolium IV in the Villa Torlonia catacomb in Rome; another curtain pulled aside at the corners above an open Ark flanked by lions is rendered on a gold glass from a catacomb in Rome (now in the Israel Museum). A different depiction shows a curtain, pulled aside within the Ark after the doors were opened, which might have been used to cover the scrolls placed on the shelves (Hachlili 1998:293–296, nos. 1, 4, Figs. VI-18, 21, Pls. VI-15, VI-21; see also Landesberger 1945–6:356–363). From the above account it can be seen that the curtain reflects the actual furnishing of the synagogue and appears in three different contexts: first, covering the Ark as illustrated at the Hammath Tiberias synagogue mosaic, or blocking it from view as in the Beth Sheʾan A synagogue mosaic; second, screening the Torah Shrine (aedicula, niche, or apse) as depicted in the Beth Sheʾan A mosaic; and third, framing a complete complex consisting of apse and menoroth, as seems to be rendered in the Beth Alpha mosaic. However, scholars propose other explanations for the appearance of the curtain: Goodenough (1954, IV:135, 139) associates the curtain with the tabernacle curtain and the Holy of Holies, claiming “that the real presence, or shekinah, though hidden from all common gaze, was there”. Rosenthal-Heginbottom (2009:161, 169) argues that “the mosaics neither reflect the actual furnishings . . . the curtains are a conceptual ingredient of an iconographic scheme . . .” Yet the remains found at several synagogues, which indicate the presence of a curtain in the Torah Shrine area and the illustrations of such curtains on several synagogue mosaics, on the Dura Europos wall paintings, and on the Samaritan synagogue mosaics, suggest that the curtain was a Torah Shrine fixture that hid the Ark from view or screened the Shrine from the prayer hall, and was probably drawn aside only when the Ark was in use. 7.2 Chancel Screens Chancel screens serving as dividers have been found in several synagogues (Hachlili 1988:187–191). The Temple’s inner and outer courts were separated by a screen ‫ סורג‬soreg—a stone balustrade with intervals of stone panels bearing inscriptions, warning Gentiles against entering the inner court (Jos, Ant 15. 417, War 5. 193–4; 6. 124–5; M. Middoth 2.3). The soreg, with its design of posts and screens, probably inspired the later chancel screen, even though the latter served somewhat different function.

212

chapter four

The screens found in synagogues were formed from several components (Fig. IV-62): posts surmounted by capitals, with a vertical groove on either side and a marble slab which was inserted into the grooves of the posts. The chancel screen was decorated, sometimes on both sides, and occasionally inscriptions were added, probably because of the screen’s prominent position (Sukenik 1935:67). Complete chancel screens, as well as fragments, have been found in synagogue excavations. Most screens were found in synagogues around Tiberias, the Beth Sheʾan area, and in the south. No screens, however, have been found to date in the Galilean and Golan synagogues. In several synagogues, screen slabs and posts have been found in the area of the apse or aedicula: in Hammath Tiberias A and B, several fragments of screens and posts were found (Sukenik 1935:60, Pls. XIII, XIV). A chancel post was found in Hammath Tiberias A (Fig. IV-62a) (Slouschz 1921:6, 24, Pl. III). In the apse area of the synagogue of Hammath Gader, fragments of a chancel screen were found (Fig. IV-62b; Sukenik 1935:32, 58–60, Pl. XVIIB); a marble screen and two posts were discovered in the Rehov III synagogue (Fig. IV-62c) (Vitto 1980:215–216). A wall with four potholes for screen posts and several fragments of marble screens was found in the Beth Sheʾan A synagogue (Zori 1967:154, 157, Pls. 27:5, 31:4, 32:1); fragments of a marble screen were found in the Maʿoz Hayim III synagogue in secondary use, in the apse of Synagogue B with remains of a menorah (?) and an inscription (Tzaferis 1982:223, 242, Pl. 36C, D). At the Gaza synagogue fragments of several decorated chancel screens were found (Fig. IV-65). Many marble fragments of plain or decorated posts (thirteen chancel posts) and chancel screens from installations around the bema were found in the Susiya synagogue, among them one has a carving of a menorah with two lamps suspended from it (Fig. VI-63a); the other is engraved with a Torah Shrine containing an Ark (Fig. IV-63b); some others are incised with Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions (Yeivin 1974; 1989:94–5, Figs. 6–9; Ilan 1991:312, 1; 317, 1; not all are yet published). Several of the screens found are the only surviving indication of a synagogue’s presence, as for instance the screens from Ashdod and Ashqelon (Fig. VI-26). At Beth Sheʿarim, Avi-Yonah (1961a:173– 4) suggests that a reading platform was surrounded by a chancel screen. At Beth Sheʾan A, in the nave close to the apse, there was a small limestone wall with a step next to it. Four potholes found in the top of the wall were apparently used to install chancel posts and screens (Zori 1967:154, 157, Pls. 27:5, 31:4, 32:1). At the ʿEn Gedi synagogue, small sockets were found at the four corners of the bema (Fig. IV-43) and are considered by the excavators to have held the posts of a wooden chancel screen (Barag et al. 1981:117; Barag 2006:18*). The chancel screen slabs are decorated in carved, stylized ornamentation, using openwork, latticework, and drill technique (Figs. IV-64, 65); sometimes, however, they are merely incised. Most of the screens are decorated with a frame which encloses carvings of various motifs: The menorah is the most popular motif and is shown alone or flanked by ritual objects. In some instances, it is enclosed by a stylized wreath with flowing ribbons which sprout into leaves. This design is found at Hammath Gader, Ashdod, Gadara, Rehov and Susiya (Fig. IV-63). A menorah flanked by ritual objects is depicted on screens from Gaza and Ashqelon (Fig. VI-26). A menorah flanked by birds is depicted on a screen (Fig. IV-64) found during excavations in the town of Tiberias and may have come from a synagogue (Foerster 1974:196, now displayed in the Hecht Museum). Screens decorated in relief, with plant and floral designs such as leaves forming medallions filled with grape bunches, leaves, pomegranates, and geometric designs are found at Hammath Tiberias A (Branham 1992:Fig. 20), at Gaza (worked in drill technique, Fig. IV-65), and at Susiya (Yeivin 1974:Pls. 49A, B, G, I; 43A, C, Pl. 44E).



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

213

Figure IV-62. Chancel screen parts: a. Hammath Tiberias A screen post; decorated screens; b. Hammath Gader; c. Rehov.

Two other screens from Susiya are decorated with incised patterns—one with a palm tree flanked by a pair of eagles, the other with a pomegranate tree flanked by animals (Fig. IV-66) (Yeivin 1989:94, Figs. 8, 9). Figurative motifs such as stylized birds flank the menorah of the Tiberias sceen (Fig. IV-64). A unique rendering on a screen from Susiya depicts the Hand of God giving a scroll to a destroyed figure (Moses?) (Foerster 1989:1819, Fig. 11–12). Many screens bear votive inscriptions incised on the slabs and posts, usually commemorating the donors (Sukenik 1935:67; Yeivin 1974:201; 1989:Figs. 6, 7). Similar screens, also dated to the sixth century CE, have been found in Christian churches, but depicting crosses in place of the menorah. The screens may have come from the same workshop, or were modelled on the same general patterns, as attested by the similarity between the synagogue screens from Ashdod and Hammath Gader and the church screens from Beth Sheʾan (Avi-Yonah 1981:Pl. 16:4, 5; Hachlili 1997:95–96, Fig. 4).

214

chapter four

a

b

Figure IV-63. Chancel screens with: a. menorah; b. with a Torah Shrine, Susiya.



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

Figure IV-64. Tiberias ornamented screen.

Figure IV-65. Gaza decorated screens.

215

216

chapter four

Figure IV-66. Susiya decorated screens.

7.2.1 The Function of the Screen in Synagogues Scholars are divided on this question and on the screen’s relation to the liturgy: Goodenough (1953, I:267) maintains that the barriers in synagogues influenced the use of screens in churches. Tzafrir (1987:152) claims that though the screen derived from the church, it had a different use in the synagogue. Foerster (1989) sees the function of the screen as merely decorative. Branham (1992:378–380) reckons that the chancel screen in antiquity was an architectural symbol of a building’s sanctity in Jewish, pagan, and Christian structures. “At one level it signaled to the outsider that a realm of forbidden and sacred space lay ahead; at another it indicated to the worshipper that here marked the beginning of sacred space, demanding ritual purification and, in some cases, hierarchical standing.” She(?) also (1992:393) argues that chancel screens in synagogues “marked off a physical realm in the synagogue most closely associated with sacrality of the Temple . . . the late antique synagogue evoked Temple sacrality within its walls through the use of Temple imagery and differentiation of space.” She further contends that the chancel screen was actually an architectural fence built around the Torah. The provenance of screens found in synagogue excavations is usually the area of the Torah Shrine, and it seems the screen’s purpose was to enhance that element’s importance and prominence (see also Chiat 1980:20; Branham 1992:380). Furthermore, the screen was an appropriate place for donors’ commemorations, and became a more convenient site for inscriptions than the previously-utilized mosaic floor. The absence of chancel screens in Galilean and Golan synagogues should be noted: most of these synagogues also lack apses. A clear difference existed between the use of the chancel screen in synagogue and church. In the church, it served as a border between the clergy on one side of the screen and the congregation on the other, cordoning off the main hall from the bema, where only the clergy were allowed to enter. Thus, in the church it evidently functioned as an indicator of hierarchic separation. Although possibly imitating a church prototype, the chancel screen in the sixth century CE synagogue served a different function: as a token partition between the Torah Shrine and the synagogue hall. However, it may have, like other items in synagogue rituals and decoration, have served to commemorate the soreg in the Jerusalem Temple. Schwartz (2001:273) contends that “the chancel screen served to demarcate zones of special sanctity, culminating in the niche containing the Torah scrolls . . . The religiosity of the synagogue was very much like that of the church.” A notable example of the function of the chancel screen in synagogues appears in the Susiya synagogue, where a bema and chancel screen are proposed (Fig. IV-42) (Yeivin 1989:94–5, Figs. 6–9; see reconstruction at the Israel Museum). The Susiya Torah Shrine in the third phase had a central bema in the front, in the form of a raised platform with a staircase at its center (from marble finds



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

217

it is possible to reconstruct that the original width was 143 cm. and the height of the chancel screen was about 90 cm.). The bema was bordered by six or eight decorated screens placed between ten posts. This layout created two closed spaces flanking the central narrow staircase, in front of three niches: the central one contained the Torah Shrine, which was flanked by two menoroth placed in the side niches. Some inscriptions are engraved on the screens. The three niches were framed by marble arches with engraved dedicatory inscriptions. 7.3 The Seat of Moses Among the furnishings of the synagogue was a stone seat mentioned in ancient literature as Cathedra d’Moshe = ‘The Seat (Chair) of Moses’. Two types of seats were found in synagogue excavations (Hachlili 1988:193–4; 2008:37*–40*): (1) movable stone chairs and (2) built-in seats abutted to the Jerusalem-oriented wall next to the Torah Shrine. (1) Movable stone chairs were discovered in two synagogues in the Land of Israel—Korazim and Hammath Tiberias A, and one in the Diaspora, at the Delos synagogue. They were designated Cathedra d’Moshe, ‘Seat of Moses’ (Sukenik 1929; 1934:57–61; Renov 1955; Rahmani 1990; Mack 1994; Levine 2000:323, 327; Hachlili 1988:193–194; 1998:79–81). The Korazim ‘Seat of Moses’ (h-58, l-74, w-57 cm.), carved from one block of basalt stone, was discovered by Ory in 1926 within the synagogue, “about 3 m north of the south-eastern corner, near the plastered wall” (Ory 1926a:7). The front of the seat was divided into three bands in which an Aramaic inscription was carved (Rahmani 1990:195–6, n. 24, Pls. 19–21A, B; Yeivin 2000: 54, 27*, 29*; May 2000:no. 71, Fig. 131, Pl. 26:1). The straight back of the seat is decorated with a carved four-petaled rosette within a circle, and on its front is a carved four-line Aramaic dedicatory inscription (Fig. IV-67). The chair has two decorated hand rails: remains of an eagle with spread wings and claws on the right hand-rail, and a less preserved representation of a lion’s mane on the left hand-rail. May (2000:152, 156, no. 71) maintains that both hand-rails rendered eagles. The chair’s rear is crudely carved, indicating that it stood attached to a wall. May and Stark (2002:242–243, Pls. 21–22) ascribed the carving of the chair and other carved basalt fragments to one artisan, Master G; from these basalt items they reconstructed the location of the ‘Seat of Moses’ in the synagogue hall in an elaborate symmetrical designed complex (Fig. IV-32b), decorated with stone carved aediculae flanked by palm branches (no. 94, only one was discovered) placed on top of the imagined pillars and parts of a gable rendered with a lion (only one such fragment, no. 93, was found), at its ends. This reconstruction seems unlikely as the symmetry is entirely unproven, and no such complex is known elsewhere. The four-line Aramaic engraved dedicatory inscription on the Cathedra of Moses from Korazim blesses the memory of “Judan son of Ishmael who made this ‫ סטוה‬stoa and stairs” (Fig. XI-8). The term stoa is explained in various ways: Hüttenmeister (1977:280) and Rahmani (1990:195) explain the term as referring to the chair itself and the stairs leading up to it. Yeivin (1985:274– 275; 2000:29*, plan 14, following Epstein; also Naveh 1989:306) is probably correct in suggesting that the seat is associated with the Korazim eastern iztaba—the raised platform constructed on the inner southern Jerusalem-oriented wall that was used for reading the Torah (Fig. IV-31).7 The chair’s date is in dispute: some attribute it to the mid or late 3rd century CE, others to the 5th

7 It is worthy of note that Ory (1926:7) proposed that ‘Judan son of Ishmael’ was the architect who built the synagogue.

218

chapter four

Figure IV-67. Carved basalt Seat of Moses, Korazim.

century CE (Sukenik 1929; Rahmani 1990:195–6, Pls. 19–21A; Yeivin 2000:54, 22–23*, Fig. 130, Pl. 26, 1, no. 71; May 2000:152, 156, no. 71). A comparable basalt chair was uncovered in Suweida in Syria; its hand-rails are formed as two crouching lions, now broken, one holding a ram between his paws and the other a goat (Dunand 1934:16, Pl. 7, no. 5; Rahmani 1990:196, Pl. 21c). Another basalt fragment found in Raha consists of a seated figure flanked by two lions (Dunand 1934:81, Pl. 34, no. 169; see also a small stone chair with sphinxes as side supports [Seyrig 1959:48–52, Pl. 10:3, 5]). The stone chair of Korazim with its animal hand-rails could be compared to the biblical description of the elaborate throne of Solomon (I Kings 10:18–20; Chronicles 9, 17–19), that is described as a great ivory throne overlaid with pure gold, with two flanking lions as side-supports and a dais of six steps with twelve standing lions, one at each end of each step.8 The throne of King Solomon is depicted on the wall paintings (Panel WA2) of the mid-third century CE Dura Europos synagogue. A similar throne, also found there, on which Ahasuerus is seated, is painted on panel WC2 (Kraeling 1979:89–90, 158, Pls. 65, 28; Hachlili 1998:166–168, Fig. III-45). Similar renditions of thrones flanked by lions appear in paintings and sculptures from other second and third century CE buildings at Dura Europos and Palmyra (Hachlili 1998:167–8). Hence, it is possible that the stone chair of Korazim reflected the notion of an ancient throne. The limestone chair found in the synagogue of Hammath Tiberias A has survived only as a drawing (Fig. IV-68); the available data includes the measurements (height of back—94 cm.; height of support—40 cm.; width of seat—60 cm.; height of seat—55 cm.). The chair has a straight back, no hand rails, and three holes in a row on the seating surface (Slouschz 1921:30, 38, Fig. 15; Vincent 1922:117, Fig. 6; Sukenik 1929; 1934:61, Fig. 19). Although the original location of the chair is not clear, Rahmani (1990:193–4) proposes that it probably stood with its back to the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall, parallel to the Torah Shrine, to the left of a large niche on its eastern side. The chair possibly dates to the 4th century CE. A marble chair and footstool were found in situ, flanked by a row of marble benches, along the northern half of the west wall of the Delos synagogue in room A, dated to the 1st century 8 According to LXX to 1 Kings 10:19 the back of Solomon’s throne was decorated with the head of a calf; possibly reading ‘egel’ (calf ) instead of the MT ‘agol’ (round) (Dimant & Strugnell 1990:no. 14).



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

219

Figure IV-68. Hammath Tiberias, a limestone chair.

BCE (Goodenough 1958, III:Fig. 876; Bruneau 1970:492; Hachlili 1998:80–81, Fig. II-35). White (1987:148) maintains that the benches and the precisely centered throne belong to the period of the renovation of Room A. Goodenough (1953, II:71, note 9) compares the Delos synagogue chair with thrones found in Greek theaters at Athens and Tegea, and maintains it was a copy of a pagan throne, produced for Jewish use. Bruneau (1970:492) similarly compares the chair with the throne of Dionysus’s priest found in the theater at Athens, dated to the first century BCE. Hengel (1974:note 160; 1975:37) suggests that the Delos chair was reserved for the leader of the service while those at Korazim and Hammath Tiberias served the teachers. Rahmani (1990:203) maintains that the Delos arrangement “matches to a degree the description given of the seating customary in a contemporary Jewish court of law; the president sat in the center and the elders at his sides.” The Delos chair was a prominent seat intended as a place for one of the synagogue dignitar­ies, like the theater chairs. (2) The other form of prominent seats found in synagogues is those built as part of the structure, abutted to the Jerusalem-oriented wall next to the Torah Shrine (Hachlili 1998:81). At the ʿEn Gedi synagogue, a two-stepped plaster-covered seat was constructed next to the niche at the northeastern corner (Fig. IV-43, on the right) (Barag 2006:17*). At Dura-Europos a plastercovered bench is built on the west wall, abutting the north side of the niche and forming a raised seat with five steps. Kraeling (1979:17, 260, Pls. V, XXV) maintains it served as a Seat of the Elders, and that Samuel the Elder, the builder of the synagogue, sat on this raised seat beside the Torah Shrine, whereas Rostovtzeff (1938:106) considered the seat to be reserved for the Cohen. Different functions are suggested for these chairs and opinions vary as to their use. Some scholars (Sukenik 1934:58–59; Kraeling 1956:17; Avi-Yonah 1961a:167) consider it the ‘seat of the

220

chapter four elders’, while Z. Yeivin believes that it stood in an aedicula or niche (Fig. IV-31) (1985:274–275, Fig 8). Other scholars desig­nate the synagogue chair as a “symbol of Jewish legal authority conferred upon teach­ers of Jewish law” (Renov 1955:262; but see Rahmani 1990:200 and note 40). Safrai (1977:96; but see Rahmani 1990:200–201) maintains the chair served “the sage who taught Torah to the congregation.” Mack (1994:10) contends the ‘Seat of Moses’ was a special seat of the hakham/preacher. Yeivin (1985:274–275, Fig. 8; 2000:62, 105, 27*, 29*–30, plan 14) suggests that the Cathedra d’Moshe in the synagogue of Korazim was used by the reader of the Torah as a stand for the scrolls during worship, and that it was placed in the second aedicula. Rah­mani (1990:202 210, 212 and notes 26, 50) refutes this suggestion because the platform was too small to accommodate the stone chair together with the person reading the Torah. Rahmani further argues, following Roth (1949:102–105), that those chairs known as Cathedra d’Moshe were used as receptacles to hold the Torah scroll during certain services, serving as an ‘empty throne’. A different location for the ‘Seat of Moses’ is suggested by May and Stark (2002:242)—the center of the row of benches along the northern wall, comparable to the location of the Delos seat; they interpret the word stoa in the Korazim chair inscription as alluding to the entire row of benches. The much simpler raised seats at the ʿEn-Gedi and Dura Europos synagogues seem more suitable to serve as a ‘Seat of the Elders’. Thus, the movable, quite elaborate stone chairs of Korazim and Hammath Tiberias A could be designated Cathedra d’Moshe and might have also served some symbolic rite.9 Branham (1992:386) claims that the Seat of Moses implies hieratic structure as well as elders’ benches (such as those found at the ʿEn Gedi, Dura, and Sardis synagogues), thus indicating a distinction between members of the synagogue.

The location of the ‘Seat of Moses’ at Korazim should be considered in relation to its function. If it was used for reading the Torah, as Yeivin argues, or only for holding the Torah scroll, as Rahmani suggests, the placement of the seat in the second aedicula is acceptable. If, however, the the chair was meant for an elder, a preacher, or any other community figure, than it might have been located among the row of benches, as May and Stark had proposed. 8. Conclusions The synagogues of the Land of Israel were not built according to any stereotyped plan, nor were they designed according to an authoritative law. The important basic architectural imperative was the provision of space for the assembly of people, for a community, for a congregation. From the beginning the fundamental synagogue plan took the form of a hall divided by columns into nave and aisles. The main traits were almost universal, but the builders of each synagogue felt free to improvise some of the structural features, resulting in a variety of synagogue designs difficult to classify. An exception to this diversity is the northern groups of Galilean and Golan synagogues, which show considerable consistency in their structure. Synagogue building plans can be generally classified in two distinct categories: (1) The longitudinal stone structure that is columnated, has benches, and is characterized by a richly decorated stone façade (distinctive to the Galilean and Golan synagogues). (2) The “basilical” type of building that has an axial court and narthex in front of the prayer hall, obviating the need for a decorated façade.

9 Some pagan chairs, such as the Suweida chair that represented the seat of a goddess, were used as a symbol or attribute of the deity (Rahmani 1990:196, note 26).



synagogue architecture and ornamentation

221

These buildings are usually constructed of concrete, and are located in the other areas of the Land of Israel. Several features encountered in most of the excavated and surveyed synagogues point to originality and individuality in their plans; among them are the highly ornamented façade exteriors that characterize the Galilean and Golan synagogues. Various methods of ornamentation of the façade, the interior, and the floors exist: the triple portal, the Torah Shrine, the second story gallery. Differences in plans among contemporary synagogues were usually due to regional and local traditions and local priorities as well as fashion, and changes in synagogue designs were probably the result of changes in theological concepts. Whereas Galilean synagogues indicate a preference for entrances and Torah Shrines both on the same, Jerusalem-oriented wall, in other localities the Torah Shrine is on the Jerusalem-oriented wall, with the entrance on another. An important stage in the evolution of the Torah Shrine location is the development of the apse during the later fifth and sixth centuries CE. The Galilean and Golan façades and portals, and other technical architectural details, were influenced by the Hauranic-Roman style only in a very general way. The Roman-Syrian temples were entirely different, in both plan and content. Their triple portals differ from those in the façades of the Galilee synagogues: the central entrance of the former is usually much higher than the side doors, and the ornamentation and molding profiles of the lintels and doorjambs are entirely different. Pagan temples, considered the god’s abode, were small structures serving only those few priests who participated in the rites, and usually contained an idol of the god in the adyton (Hachlili 1971:29–57; 1988:229). The synagogue, on the other hand, consisted of a large building which had to serve all of the participating congregation within its walls. The Torah Shrine was the major architectural feature of the synagogue. From its inception, following the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, the Torah Shrine became a permanent fixture in the synagogue building and was usually built on the Jerusalem-oriented wall of the synagogue. An important example of the development of synagogue architecture is manifested in the Nabratein synagogue (Meyers 1982:40–42; Meyers and Meyers 2009:27, chart 2): Synagogue I, dated to the second—third centuries (135–250 CE), is a small broadhouse, with benches built along the east, west, and north walls. Twin stone bases of aediculae flank the entrance on the south wall (Fig. III29). Thus, in the mid-third century, a building with a longitudinal axis and divided into nave and aisles was established, and set the tone for synagogue building plans from then on. Nabratein I also establishes the fact that already by the second and third centuries CE a permanent Torah Shrine, in the form of an aedicula, was being built on the Jerusalem-oriented wall beside the central entrance. This is characteristic of the Galilean synagogues from this time forward. Nabratein synagogue I, which already included a pair of aediculae by the mid-second century CE, corroborates this conclusion. The preponderance of aediculae found in excavated Galilean and Golan synagogues indicates that in these regions the aedicula was the characteristic structure for containing the Ark. The Jews tended to use a spacious hall to serve the congregation for reading the Torah and for prayer, but added specific features, including the Torah Shrine, benches, and a second story gallery, to suit their particular needs. Synagogue plans differed according to fashion and local building practices, the congregation’s needs and financial resources, and the social standing of the donors. Differences in plan occurred, however, when certain structural features had to be adapted to liturgical requirements, for example to the changing form of the Torah Shrine (aedicula, niche and apse) or to the development of the monumental façade in Galilean and Golan synagogues (Hachlili 1988:199). Tsafrir (1995:81) maintains that the Christian basilica had an important influence on synagogue design in the 5th–6th centuries CE—in plan, architectural decoration, and enrichment of the interior (see

222

chapter four

also Milson 2007). Yet, a definite originality of design can be distinguished in the characteristic triple façade of the building and in the ornamentation, which is infused with Jewish motifs and symbols. Some architectural elements are common to both Second Temple period religious and secular structures and to the later synagogues. These include the columnation of the hall, the benches, the corner double columns of the Herodian triclinia and of the Gamla synagogue, and some ornamental motifs. As for the galleried basilica, some of its architectural details, such as elements of the façade and the two-storied interior, have affinities with synagogue structures; but in contrast to the synagogue, the secular civil basilica had four rows of columns and the interior was oriented towards the center of the structure with its high roof. Moreover, marked differences do exist between the Second Temple structures and the galleried basilicas on the one hand, and the later synagogues on the other. During the Second Temple period, the main ritual practices were conducted in the Temple in Jerusalem, and the synagogue structure was merely an assembly hall with stone benches and columns. Such synagogue structures may have had a focal point but this has not been decisively demonstrated. The later synagogue structures, in comparison, operated as congregational assembly halls and, more importantly, as places for reading the Torah. They contained a predetermined, permanent structure—the Torah Shrine— on the Jerusalem-oriented wall. These buildings also served as centers for the ritual practices, now concentrated exclusively in the synagogue. The significance of the Torah Shrine derived from its symbolism of sanctity and its commemoration of the Temple. The fundamental difference between the Second Temple period assembly hall and galleried basilica and the later synagogue lies in the orientation which, in the latter, was based on the location of the Torah Shrine. Even the benches, which in the earlier structures had been constructed along all four walls, were oriented in the later structure to face the Torah Shrine.

CHAPTER five

SYNAGOGUE ART, SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT Following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (70 CE), the strict rabbinical attitudes regarding Jewish art began to give way to greater tolerance. The art of the Second Temple period is purely uniconic; no figurative designs are depicted, probably due to the prohibition of the second of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:4–5; Deuteronomy 5:8–9). Archaeological evidence also confirms that during the Second Temple period representations of animate beings were avoided (Hachlili 1988:65–83, 103–119; 1998:237–8). A major, conceptual change occurred in Jewish art in Late Antiquity, at the end of the 2nd century CE, and particularly during the 3rd and 4th centuries CE. Representational art began to flourish and figurative art played an extensive and essential part. This development is all the more surprising in light of the previous attitude to animate art. The changes, reflected in Talmudic literature, were the result of political, economic, and social circumstances. The Jews of this period no longer feared idolatry. The leading rabbis emphasized the latter part of the Commandment, “You shall not bow down to them or serve them”, and tended to enforce the prohibition only where the danger of idolatry was present. During the Late Antique period the Jews developed their own figurative and imagery art, acquired customs and decorative elements from the surrounding cultures, and also adopted pagan motifs— figures, birds, and animals—in synagogue and funerary art. The Jewish figurative repertoire includes animal and human motifs, biblical narrative scenes, and a few mythological designs and other themes, used in the decoration of mosaic pavements. Similar themes appear in Jewish poetry. The Jewish attitude to art was basically decorative, to add beauty and ornamentation to their buildings (Hachlili 2009:17–22). Jewish religious leaders were probably permitting iconic depictions by the 2nd or 3rd century CE. Representational decoration and the sources testify to a policy of religious pragmatism and avoidance of the formulation of binding teachings. Scholars have considered the relationship between the second of the Ten Commandments and its visual application in Judaism (Urbach 1959:204; Gutmann 1971b; 1984a:1328–1330; Avi-Yonah 1973:133; Avigad 1976:280–284; Kraeling 1979:343–345). Blidstein (1973:19–24) surveys Tannaitic teachings regarding plastic art and maintains that “the rabbis were quite aware of the difference between an image that was worshipped and one that served a decorative function alone.” Rabbinical evidence suggests that figurative art was tolerated if it did not encourage cultic worship. Furthermore, no Jewish law forbids the depiction of religious subjects. On the contrary, they were allowed. The floor of the synagogue became an important location for elaborate mosaic decorations between the 4th and 7th centuries CE. Often a mosaic pavement was planned as one framed unit, divided geometrically into panels. The symbolic and iconographic themes on early synagogue mosaic pavements of the 4th–5th centuries contrasted with contemporary uniconic Christian mosaic art, and were a means of emphasizing the difference between the Jewish and Christian notions of mosaic pavement ornamentation. The theory accepted by most scholars is that pagan motifs used in Jewish representational art lost their original, symbolic, idolatrous significance and evolved into purely ornamental motifs (Avigad 1976:282, 285; Avi-Yonah 1973:126). Certain pagan mythological and symbolic motifs were acquired

224

chapter five

by the Jews through Jewish legends and Midrashic literature; however, the vast majority of the appropriated pagan motifs were simply a means of decoration that added beauty and embellishment to a structure. 1. Architectural Ornamentation The Galilean and Golan synagogues, as well as a few others, are extensively adorned with ornate exterior façades, in addition to impressive ornamentation and other architectural decorations within the prayer hall itself. Further artistic embellishments include pavements decorated with mosaics, which became the major adornment of the synagogue hall during the fourth to seventh centuries CE, though some synagogues had stone slab floors while others used plaster to floor the halls. Mosaic pavements depicting figurative images came into vogue during the fourth century CE. Extensively adorned and richly ornamented exterior façades characterize Galilean and Golan synagogues and some others as well, suggesting that the synagogue was meant to impress and to attract attention. The architectural ornamentation consists of relief work on lintels, gables and arches, architraves, friezes, capitals, and pedestals. The synagogue of Capernaum, for example, which is built and decorated in white limestone, must have been impressively conspicuous among the black basalt buildings surrounding it. The interior is usually kept quite plain, except at Capernaum and Korazin where a rich inner frieze decorates the hall’s upper story. The northern group of Galilean and Golan synagogues exhibit considerable uniformity in their limestone and basalt construction, architectural plan, and, primarily, in their richly ornamented portals and façades, which differ from those of synagogues in other parts of the Land of Israel. 1.1 Ornate Façade of Galilean and Golan Synagogues Three distinct lintel and doorjamb ornamentation types exist in the entrance-frames of these synagogue facades: Types A and B are characteristic of Galilean synagogues whereas Type C typifies the Golan synagogues and Korazim (Hachlili 1988:200–206; 1989:1). Type A consists of ornate portals with a molded stone lintel usually decorated on the face, the upper part forming a torus-like decorated frieze. The lintel was supported by two undecorated, molded, monolithic doorposts (Figs. V-1a, 2). This type is found at: the Arbel synagogue main entrance on

a

b

c

Figure V-1. Synagogue façade entrance-frames, Types A, B, C.



synagogue art, significance and impact

225

the east; the main entrance of Barʿam lower small north synagogue; the triple façade portals of the Barʿam upper large synagogue (Fig. IV-7a); all three portals at Meiron (Fig. IV-7b); Capernaum in the main south façade portal, the central (east) portal on the courtyard’s south façade, and the side portals of the courtyard’s eastern and northern walls (Fig. V-14); the single entrances at Gush Halav and Nabratein (Figs. IV-3c, 4) (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 20, 83, 115, 166, 184, 186, 208, 274, Pl. I; Arbel—Ilan 1991:116, Fig. 3). The synagogues of Capernaum, Korazim and Barʿam had consols flanking the central lintel; at the Tayibe synagogue in the Golan similar consols were discovered (Maoz 1995:Pl. 116:1, 2).

a

b

c

Figure V-2. Ornate portals Type A: a. Barʿam; b. Meiron; c. Arbel.

226

chapter five

Type B ornate entrances have a molded stone lintel, decorated on its face and sometimes with a torus-like frieze; these lintels are supported by two doorposts carved as pilasters or columns and crowned with Doric or decorated Corinthian capitals. This type is found at: Capernaum on two side portals of the south façade, on the entrance of the eastern wall of the hall leading to the courtyard, and on the central portals of both the eastern and northern walls of the courtyard (Fig. V-1b); H. ʿAmudim on the main entrance (Fig. V-3); and on the H. Summaqa side entrances (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 11, 274, Pl. I; Dar 1984:phot. on pp. 73, 75). Type C ornate entrances are specific to the basalt portals of the Golan synagogues (Fig. V-1c). These richly carved single entrances consist of a molded lintel with doorposts constructed of several ashlar basalt stones, ending with or without carved Attic bases. The portal façade is carved in a convex frieze, decorated by a frame of egg-and-dart motif carved on the lintel and continuing on both the doorposts. The lintel has an added design on its face (Hachlili 1988:200–205, type C; 1989:1–2; 1995:183–4). This type is found at Qasrin (Figs. III-18, V-4b), ʿAssalieh, and H. Kanaf (Fig. V-22), probably also at ʿEn Nashut (Maoz 1995:147, Pls. 68, 3, 4; 69:5, 102–3 reconstruction) and Umm el-Qanatir (Fig. IV-3b) (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Fig. 255; Ben David, H., I. Gonen, and J. Dray 2006:photos on pp. 113, 116). The fragmentary remains of the entrances at Dabiyye, Deir Aziz, H. Kanaf, Savitan, Taiyibe, and Zumimra are undecorated (Maoz 1991:plan 2, Figs. 5, 7–9; 1; Maoz and Ben David 2006:27–28). The only Galilean synagogue with this type of entrance-frame is Korazim (Fig. V-4a), but there the lintels and the basalt molded doorjambs constructed of several ashlar basalt stones bear no ornamentation (Yeivin 2000:Fig. 31 and back cover). The Eshtemoʿa façade in the south of the Land of Israel also seems to have similar doorposts, constructed of several molded ashlar stones (Yeivin 2005:66*–68*, Figs. 10–12). A marked difference exists between entrance-frame types A and B and type C: first, the doorposts of types A and B are monolithic while those of type C are composed of several ashlar stones; and second, the decoration of the portal is concentrated on the lintel in types A and B, whereas type C has a frame-like ornamentation carved on both lintel and doorposts, with an added design on the lintel face (Hachlili 1988:200–206).

Figure V-3. Ornate portal Type B: H. ʿAmudim.



synagogue art, significance and impact

a

b

Figure V-4. Ornate portals Type C: a. Korazim main portal; b. Qasrin.

227

228

chapter five

The decorated entrance-frames of Galilean and Golan synagogues are frequently compared to the portals of contemporary Syrian pagan temples and churches. The practice of carved ornamentation in north and south Syria flourished from the first century BCE at least until the seventh century CE and included decoration of houses, temple gates, and churches. Developed by local artists, and thus difficult to classify and date, the style takes into consideration the hard basalt stone in which it is worked and exhibits peculiarities which are the trademarks of individual artists (Butler 1903:37 ff., 316 ff.). Most of the Syrian pagan temples have richly ornamented portal frames with a floral ornament on the lintel and doorposts. Syrian-Roman portal frames carry an overall design pattern which is usually continued on the doorjambs, like that of the Golan synagogue entrance frames. However, no figurative elements are depicted on the lintel (see the soffit of the lintel at the Baʿalbek temple, Wiegand 1923:Fig. 38, Pls. 67–8). A mix of classical and oriental designs are carved on the moldings. Portal frames with all-over carved ornamentation are already found in the first and second centuries in the Syrian Hauran and in Nabatean temples (Butler 1916:ill. 330–332; 328; 339–41; 1919:ill. 371, 376–7). In Roman temples, such as the Tychaion is-Sanamen and others (Butler 1915:ill. 288, 292, 317, Pl. XIX, XXVII), similar portal frames are encountered, for instance, at the Palmyran temples of Baʿal Shamin and Bel (Wiegand 1932:Pls. 49, 67, 72, 79), and at the Baalbek temples of Dionysius and Bacchus (Wiegand 1921, I:Pls. 28, 29, 85; 1923, II:Pls. 8, 25, 67, 68). Christian churches continue the tradition of this carved ornamentation, but in a less elaborate form (Butler 1903:133, 136, 144, 146, 191–2, 196, 203, 239, 332, 360, 407). Fourth century CE North Syrian churches are ornamented with similar floral and geometric overall patterns, usually extending to the doorposts (Baccache 1980:Pls. 166–167, 177–178, 208, 233, 242, 280–283); some have a cross in the centre of the lintel decoration (Baccache 1979:Fig. 342). Syrian-Roman portal frames carry an over-all pattern design, usually continued on the doorjambs, which is very similar to the Golan synagogue entrance frames. Though the general appearance of the ornate portals is similar, synagogue ornamentation deviates from the common Syrian-Hauranian architectural style in the richness and variety of its patterns and designs. The thematic variety of design and the style of carving in synagogue architectural decoration indicate an independent development, albeit influenced by neighbouring art. These peculiarities and distinctions stand out even more when figurative elements and Jewish symbols in synagogue ornamentation are interpreted by local artists. 1.2 Ornamented Lintels Several different types of lintels are associated with the three types of ornate entrance-frames. Most Galilean lintels are molded in two parts, consisting of a wide lower part which is itself divided into three fasciae alternating with irregular caveti and a narrower upper part decorated with a convex frieze. Some lintels are assumed to have decorated the inner part of the lateral entrances, such as those ornamented with menoroth at Korazim and Eshtemoʿa (Yeivin 2000:26*, Figs. 131–136, Pl. 26:2–5; 2004:77*-8*, Figs. 29:1, 2). The lintels are divided into four different types by their decoration. Three are found mostly in Galilean synagogue façades, while type 4 is characteristic of the Golan façade portals (Hachlili 1988:206–216): Type 1 lintels are divided into three metopes by a guilloche frame and lines, and decorated with a central object, such as a wreath, flanked by floral, geometric, or animal designs. A fragmentary lintel of this type was found at Qazion, dating to the end of the 2nd century CE (Fig. III-19). Lintels of this type in Galilean synagogues are supported by two doorposts carved as pilasters and crowned with Doric or Corinthian capitals (Fig. V-5). They are found at: Capernaum on the eastern entrance from the hall to the courtyard and on two side entrances (see below); H. ʿAmudim on two side entrances,



synagogue art, significance and impact

229

each displaying what seems to be a lion in the centre flanked by rosettes (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 10, 11, 13, 139–141); at Japhiʿa where a wreath on the lintel is flanked by two eagles. To this type might also belong lintels from unidentified structures such as the one at Safsaf with a scroll frame, within which is a wreath flanked by two bull’s heads, and a lintel fragment from Fahma (Hachlili 1988:212, Type VI, Fig. 51).1

a

b

c

d

Figure V-5. Lintels Type 1: a. Qazion; b. ʿAmudim; c. Capernaum; d. Japhiʿa. 1 Recently a comparable lintel in two fragments was discovered at Tiberias, in the Courtyard of the Jews; it probably originated from a large public building (synagogue?) of the Roman or Byzantine periods. One was found incorporated in the western doorjamb of the gate, the other upside down in the soil fill at the front of the gate. The lintel is adorned on one part with a relief of panels, depicting a wreath and acanthus leaves set within a guilloche frame, while the center part of the original lintel is decorated with a wreath of Hercules (Stepansky 2009:Figs. 4, 5).

230

chapter five

Kohl and Watzinger (1916:160–161) compare these lintels to wood and stone coffins and wooden screens that, in their opinion, were built around the synagogue gallery. Avi-Yonah (1950:64) notes that the tripartite arrangement of the lintels is comparable to the decoration on ossuaries. This lintel type is specific to Qazion (see Supplement), and the synagogues of ʿAmudim, Capernaum, and Japhiʿa, and is not found in other buildings in the Levant.2 Type 2 lintels are divided into two sub types: Type 2a, molded with three fasciae and without decoration on the main section. The sole ornamentation consists of a laural leaf frieze on the toruslike upper part. This type of decoration is found on the lintels of Arbel, the Barʿam side entrances (Figs. V-2; V-6a), and the Gush Halav lintel which has a decorated soffit depicting an eagle flanked by garlands (Figs. IX-14, V-6c). The Nabratein lintel is decorated in its center with a carving of a menorah inside a wreath but without flanking objects, and a Hebrew inscription incised in the third fasci that has been dated later, to the mid-6th c. (Fig. V-6b); the Barʿam, Gush Halav, and Nabratein lintel profiles are very similar to one another and are dated to the Late Roman period—late 3rd c. (Avigad 1960:51, 54; Meyers and Meyers 1990:89, Fig. 25, photo 40; 2009:93–95, Fig. 26, photo 31). The basalt lintels of the central and side portals at ed-Dikke in the Golan are also similar, with a design of laurel leaf or scales decorating the convex frieze (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 220, 221).

a

b

c

Figure V-6. Lintels Type 2a: a. Barʿam side lintel; b. Nabratein; c. Gush Halav.

2 See Foerster (1972:103–105), who dates this type of lintels to the second century based on the Qazion inscription.



synagogue art, significance and impact

231

The H. Shemʿa lintel and the H. Summaqa central portal lintel probably belong to this type. The Korazim and Meiron lintels have no decoration at all (Hachlili 1988:206, Type I, Figs. VIII-39, 43–44, 50f, X-21a, Pls. 21, 22, 39a, 40b, 108). Type 2b includes lintels molded in two parts, with the main part decorated with a central heraldic design, usually a wreath flanked by victories or eagles holding it, and the torus-like upper part decorated with a convex frieze of floral or geometric motifs. The lintel is surrounded by a cyma-molded geison (Fig. V-7). This type is encountered on the Barʿam central entrance lintel and the smaller Barʿam synagogue lintel, where the wreath is flanked by victories. The lintel of the Beth Midrash entrance at Meroth is decorated with a wreath flanked by a pair of partly destroyed eagles (Fig. V-7c). Similar basalt lintel fragments come from the ed-Dikke synagogue and the Safed basalt lintel (perhaps from H. Tuba, Ilan 1991:31, Fig. 2); two others, at Dabbura in the Golan, are carved with wreaths flanked by harrier eagles but lack the decorated upper frieze (Hachlili 1988:210–212, Type II and V, Figs. VIII-45–46, Pls. 40a, b; 1995:185, Figs. 32–34). A similar harrier eagle, flanking a wreath with a Hercules knot, is depicted on a lintel fragment found at the southwest Church of Hippos-Sussita (Segal et al. 2005:16, Fig. 49). The central fragment of the lintel from ʿEn Nashut portrays a flower within a wreath (Hachlili 1995:207, no. 54).

a

b

c

Figure V-7. Lintels Type 2b: a. Barʿam upper synagogue central lintel; b. Barʿam lower synagogue central lintel; c. Beth Midrash, Meroth.

232

chapter five

There are a number of similar lintels in which the lower wider part is decorated by a tripartite design consisting of a central motif flanked by two other motifs with moulding on the undecorated upper frame fasciae, including those of the façade and two of the side court walls at Capernaum (Fig. V-12; see below). The H. ʿAmudim central entrance lintel depicts an amphora flanked by two lions with their feet on a bull’s head (Fig. V-3); similarly, the Naveh and Japhiʿa lintels have a menorah flanked by two rosettes. The Qasrin west side door lintel is decorated with a geometric design consisting of a central lozenge flanked by two triangles (Fig. III-51) (Kochavi 1972:270; Hachlili 1995:207, no. 50). An interesting lintel from Kohav-Hayarden shows a menorah flanked by two aediculae (Fig. IV-34) (Hachlili 1988:210, Type V, Figs. VIII-12, 27, 49–50). The northern side entrance lintel at H. Summaqa renders a pair of lions flanking a vase (Fig. IX-7b) (Dar 1989:Figs. 9, 14). It is notable that Yeivin reconstructs lintels with menorah designs decorating the internal side portals of the Korazim and Eshtemoʿa synagogue façades. He also reconstructs four fragments forming two lintels from Korazim, one depicting a menorah flanked by wreaths, and the other with two menoroth flanking a floral motif (Yeivin 1985:Fig. 2; 2000:54–56, no. 72.1–4, Figs. 131–136, Pl. 26:2–5, plan 14). May and Stark (2002:245–246, nos. 97–100, Pls. 23–24), however, argue that the fragments of the menoroth lintels are jointed, thus forming one lintel “that should be restored as an exterior lintel at the western entrance.” Two lintels with a menorah design from Eshtemoʿa (Fig. VI-32a, d) are reconstructed by Yeivin (2004:77*–79*, Fig. 29:1, 2) as ornamenting the inner part of the side entrances of the synagogue façade. Type 3 lintels are decorated with antithetic designs: a central wreath or vase with vine branches issuing from it, sometimes terminating in amphorae. A lintel in two fragments found at Qasrin (Fig. V-8) is carved with a wreath in the centre and ribbons on either side, continuing as identical intertwining vines with leaves and clusters of grapes and terminating in amphorae at both ends (Hachlili 1995:207, no. 51).

Figure V-8. Lintel Type 3, Qasrin.



synagogue art, significance and impact

233

Fragments of probably similar lintels were found at Capernaum and Korazim. Several of the Golan basalt lintels at Ahmedieh and Batra are decorated with a similar design; a side portal lintel at edDikke shows engraved vine branches (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Fig. 220); on a lintel of the side entrance at Hurvat Kanaf, birds are depicted pecking at grapes; on two lintels from Naveh the vine branches terminate with two menoroth (Hachlili 1988:210, Type VII, Fig. VIII-52). Kohl and Watzinger (1916:198–9), followed by Goodenough (1964, VII:67–9), maintain that the antithetic design of the lintels was influenced by funerary art but appears also quite often in Hellenistic–Roman architectural ornamentation. Type 4 lintels, found in some of the Golan synagogues, contain various carved heraldic designs on their flat surface; on their upper parts they are decorated by convex friezes with an egg-and-dart all-over pattern frame which continues on both doorposts and, at Qasrin, ʿAsaliyye, and Tayibe also continues on the doorposts. At Qasrin, the main entrance lintel is carved with a wreath in the centre, flanked by pomegranates and amphorae. At ʿAssaliyye the lintel is carved with a Torah Shrine flanked by a menorah on either side. At Tayibe the lintel bears a wreath flanked by two elaborately carved rosettes in medallions, that terminate in two branches (Fig. V-9). At H. Kanaf the lintel is carved with a frieze of vine branches as well as elaborate designs of acanthus leaves and palmettes (Hachlili 1988:212–13, Type VIII, Figs. VIII-53a–c, Pl. 39b; 1995:Figs. 1, 2).

a

b

c

Figure V-9. Lintels Type 4: a. Qasrin; b. Tayibe; c. Yahudiyye.

234

chapter five

Noteworthy is the Golan basalt lintel decoration carved on several planes: on the Qasrin synagogue main entrance lintel (Fig. V-9a), the wreath is depicted in high relief; the two flanking amphorae are in a square carved out of the lintel in shallow relief; and the pomegranates are depicted on the lowest plane (Hachlili 1995:183–84, no. 1). Two-plane relief is encountered on the Tayibe (Fig. V-9b) and Yahudiyye lintels (Fig. V-9c) (Hachlili 1995:183–84, nos. 2, 3). On the ʿAsaliyye lintel, the aedicula and the two dots on two of the menoroth branches are in high relief, while the flanking menoroth are incised in shallow relief (Fig. V-22b; Hachlili 1995:183–84, no. 18). An unusually ornate lintel was found at Raqit (Fig. V-10) probably decorating one of the two portals leading to the synagogue (Gershet 2004; Dar 2004:Fig. 145). The lintel consists of five carved panels: panel I is ornamented with a twelve-armed menorah whose central five arms and upper central stem are damaged (Gershet 2004:180, Fig. 4). The menorah has an arched tripod base flanked by a five petaled rosette on one side and some geometrical objects on the other; panel II is carved with a six-petaled rosette; panels III and V are similar, each engraved with a semicircular niche decorated with a conch; panel IV is carved with a ten branched pattern of either a seven-armed menorah or a plant within a semicircular niche. Gershet (2004:185) contends that panels III and V depict the Torah Shrine housing the Ark and a small part of the veil or the scrolls. The lintel originally might have been ornamented with a symmetrical but not identical composition of seven panels (Gershet 2004:182, Fig. 9). This unique ornamentation is compared by Gershet to the rendition on the stone door from Kafr Yasif, which includes

Figure V-10. Decorated lintel, Raqit.



synagogue art, significance and impact

235

similar motifs (Hachlili 2001:318, Cat. no. IS9.2, Pl. II-46). Possibly this lintel, with its unusual depictions of quite familiar motifs, belonged to a Samaritan synagogue rather than a Jewish one. The richness and diversity of lintel types is conspicuous in the Jewish art that developed in the Land of Israel during the Roman and Byzantine periods. Their ornamentation exhibits elements characteristic of contemporary Jewish art, that is, antithetic heraldic designs, floral and geometric subjects, and animate or inanimate themes including Jewish symbols such as the menorah. Most of the lintels exhibit a preference for carving, using the optic treatment, one of the principles of Oriental art. 2. The Art of Capernaum and Korazim Two Galilean synagogues, Capernaum and Korazim, are distinguished by their outer and inner décor and merit a detailed discussion. 2.1 Capernaum The Capernaum synagogue was built of Galilean limestone (as was the octagonal church on the site) in contrast to the local basalt stone of the houses on the site, and the limestone material must have been transported from some other location(s). The synagogue contained: a decorated façade with a Syrian gable ornamented with a frieze (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 26–31); parts of an ornamented window (reconstructed) on the façade under the Syrian gable (Fig. V-11) (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:14, Figs. 8, 21–22, 71, Pl. 1); twelve richly ornamented lintels on all portals of the façade, the courtyard, and an inner entrance (which Orfali 1922 divided into four types); a frieze decorating the inner hall walls (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 55–65, 68); Corinthian capitals on top of the hall and courtyard columns; various decorated items, probably from the aediculae (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 23, 70–73). Twelve portals of the hall and courtyard at Capernaum were reconstructed. They included three sets of triple portals in which the central entrance was larger than the side ones—one set on the south façade hall and one each on the eastern and northern walls of the courtyard, as well as two other portals found on the south façade of the courtyard, of which the eastern one was larger. There was yet another entrance on the east wall of the hall, which led to the courtyard (Orfali 1922:Pls. VIII, IX--Kohl and Watzinger [1916:Pl. I] reconstructed only one entrance on the southern wall of the courtyard and three on the northern wall of the courtyard, with none on the eastern wall). Generally the larger central portals in the hall and courtyard had larger lintels, and the opening space measured about 175 cm., while the space of the side portals of the south façade was about 140 cm., and of the courtyard portals about 125 cm. 2.1.1 Ornamented Lintels Twelve ornamented lintels found in and around the Capernaum synagogue were reconstructed by Orfali as fitting the portals (Orfali 1922:Figs. 63–70, 95, 103–112). Orfali suggested that in their style and execution the lintels show four types of mouldings: Type I (Orfali 1922:Figs. 63–70, Pl. IV); Type II (Orfali 1922:Figs. 95, 106–7). Type III (Orfali 1922:57–61, Figs. 104–5, 109, Pls. VIII); Type IV (Orfali 1922:Figs. 108, 111–12, Pls. VIII, IX). Three portals on the south façade provide the entrance to the synagogue hall and three recovered lintels decorate these entrances (Fig. V-12a): The main portal’s lintel consists of an upper part of geometric and floral designs in a torus-like decorated frieze, with a damaged carved central design

236

chapter five

Figure V-11. Reconstruction of the south façade of the hall and courtyard, Capernaum.

of an eagle. The lintel rests on two molded fascia doorposts. Two consoles, each ornamented with a palm tree, are reconstructed on the sides of this lintel (Fig. V-21) (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:12, Figs. 17, 18, 20; Orfali 1922:Fig. 70). The upper part of each of the façade’s two side portal lintels has a narrow floral pattern, and an antithetic design completely covers the lower wider part. Both lintel faces are divided by six palm trees, with depictions of now almost destroyed animals (lions, eagles, centaurs, and griffons) walking towards the centre; on the western lintel the center vase remains. Each lintel is supported by two doorposts carved as pilasters and crowned with capitals (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:12, Figs. 15, 16; Orfali 1922:Figs. 63–70). All three lintels belong to Orfali’s Type I. These Capernaum lintels are unusual. The Capernaum courtyard portals had eight lintels, two on the south façade and three on each of the eastern and northern walls (Fig. V-13) (Orfali 1922:Figs. 110–112). The east portal on the south façade of the courtyard is reconstructed with an unusual lintel ornamented with a Torah Shrine façade consisting of a double-door structure with its own decorated lintel and gable, flanked by a branch and disc on one side and a rosette on the other (Fig. V-12b). Of the west portal on the south façade, only a fragment of the lintel survived. These lintels belong to Orfali’s Type 2b. The central portal lintel on the eastern wall of the courtyard is ornamented with three metopes/ panels divided by vine scrolls; the metopes, originally decorated, are completely damaged. The north entrance lintel was decorated with a vase in the centre of its lower part; the vase, which survived, was probably flanked by animals that are now damaged (Orfali 1922:61, Figs. 108, 111, 112). The lintel on the south entrance was only molded, with a central frame (Fig. V-14a). On the northern wall of the courtyard, the central portal lintel is ornamented with three metopes/ panels divided by guilloche frames. The central metope has a wreath, the side ones have floral



synagogue art, significance and impact

237

a

b

Figure V-12. Lintels: a. three portals of the hall façade; b. courtyard south portal.

Figure V-13. Reconstruction of the Capernaum synagogue with east and north courtyard portals.

designs. The lintels of the east and west entrances are decorated only on their lower face—the west lintel with a double meander and the east one with a conch flanked by two wreaths, each encircling a rosette (Fig. V-14b). These lintels rest on two fasciae molded doorposts (Orfali 1922:61, Figs. 104, 105, 109). All three lintels belong to Orfali’s Type III. The most interesting lintels group at Capernaum consists of those ornamented with a design divided into three metopes/panels by a guilloche frame and lines, or by vine scrolls. The metopes are decorated with a central object, such as a wreath in the central metope, flanked by floral designs in the side ones (similar lintels appear in other synagogues—see Type I above, Fig. V-5). Two such lintels ornamented the portal of the east wall of the hall, leading to the courtyard (Fig. V-14c) and a third decorated the central entrance on the northern wall of the courtyard. Yet another, similar, decorated lintel, on the central portal of the eastern wall of the courtyard, has three metopes divided

238

chapter five

a

b

c

Figure V-14. Lintels of: a. eastern courtyard portals; b. northern courtyard portals; c. portal between the hall and courtyard.

by a vine scroll pattern. The metopes’ designs are completely destroyed and might have been decorated with animals later damaged by iconoclasts. Each lintel is supported by two doorposts carved as pilasters and crowned with decorated capitals (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:9, Figs. 10–13; Orfali 1922: Figs. 95, 106, 107). These lintels belong to Orfali’s Type II. The triple portal composition and the lintel types indicate that stylistically different designs were used for the central doors in the façades of the hall and the courtyard walls, and the eastern and northern courtyard walls (Fig. V-12). Each central door lintel was stylistically individual. The flanking doors, on the other hand, were quite similar to one another. The details of the triple portals composition were carefully arranged: Most important were the south façade triple portals, whose central entrance had a decorated lintel resting on two fasciae molded doorposts, while the smaller side portals had decorated lintels supported by two doorposts carved as pilasters and crowned with capitals (Fig. V-12). The two other triple portals of the courtyard were similar in composition. Their central doors had a decorated lintel of the same type, resting on two doorposts carved as pilasters and crowned with decorated capitals (Fig. V-14); their side portals had decorated lintels of the same type, supported by two fasciae molded doorposts. The larger, east portal of the courtyard’s south façade is similar to the hall façade entrances, and its ornamented lintel rests on two fasciae molded doorposts similiar to those of the façade’s main portal. Only a small fragment of the lintel of the other south courtyard portal survived. It is interesting to compare the Capernaum lintels to the three similar southern façade portals at H. ʿAmudim, The central ʿAmudim lintel is decorated with a pair of lions flanking a vase (Fig. V-3), while the side portal lintels are ornamented with similar metopos/panels (Fig. V-5b, Type 1).



synagogue art, significance and impact

239

2.1.2 The Capernaum Friezes The Capernaum friezes decorating the façade and the interior of the hall are divided into four different sets: (1) Carved frieze parts, now damaged, ornamented with acanthus medallions inhabited with animals, are restored on the Syrian gable façade (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:16–18, Figs. 26–31; Orfali 1922:46–48, Figs. 76–83). (2) Frieze parts consisting of acanthus medallions inhabited with geometric and fruits patterns are restored on the interior walls of the galleries (Fig. V-16) (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:29–33, Figs. 55–64; Orfali 1922:Figs. 38–51); Maoz (1999:141–2) does not accept this reconstruction and restores this frieze “over the upper order of gallery columns”; Kohl and Watzinger (1916:27, Fig. 50; Orfali 1922:30, Fig. 33) reconstructed it as an architrave-cornice. (3) Undecorated plain frieze and cornice slabs were placed on the columns of the hall (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:25, Figs. 47–48; Orfali 1922:27, Figs. 25–26); comparable frieze parts were found in other synagogues, for instance, Korazim (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 99–100, 178). (4) Remains of a single block of frieze ornamented with acanthus medallions inhabited with animals and an ark with wheels (Fig. IV-57) was found; no specific place has been suggested for this slab (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:35, Figs. 68–69; Orfali 1922:27, Fig. 52). The décor of the Capernaum structures seems to be the work of different artists, each of whom apparently decorated different architectural parts of the building (as shown for Korazim by May and Stark 2002). The elements and parts of the Capernaum synagogue décor were found within the building site, all executed in the same white limestone, proving decisively that all the Capernaum architectural elements belong to the same building, despite the stylistic differences. 2.2 Korazim The basalt architectural décor of Korazim is distinguished by two major decorative themes, according to May and Stark (2002:208–209): (1) only here do the basalt reliefs of the interior ornamentation

a

b

Figure V-15. Frieze parts on the Syrian gable façade, Capernaum.

240

chapter five

Figure V-16. Frieze parts of the interior walls of the hall galleries, Capernaum.

display three-dimensional figurative images representing narrative scenes such as hunting, vintage, and mythological figures; (2) horror vacui—an oriental feature—is expressed in the density of decorative motifs and on the carpet designs. At Korazim the lintels and doorpost were molded but not decorated. However, the Korazim décor included frieze ornamentation on both the exterior and interior of the synagogue. The Korazim entablature consisted of frieze parts which were separate architectural members from the matching decorative cornices. Three sets of different executed parts ornamented the external southern façade and a frieze adorned the inner hall. The southern façade was possibly decorated by two series of external friezes: (1) a decorated lower series that “probably accentuated the line of transition between the two stories of the synagogue on the eastern and southern walls, and perhaps on the southern wall as well”; the frieze was decorated with floral patterns and had a matching cornice (Yeivin 2000:16*, frieze—Pls. 5:1–4, Figs. 73–74; cornice—Pl. 5:5–8, Figs. 75–76).



synagogue art, significance and impact

241

Figure V-17. Parts of exterior frieze decorating the southern façade, Korazim.

(2) an upper frieze series (Fig. IV-1), that consisted of a gable frieze apex with an eagle carved in its center; fragments of the sides of the gabled frieze are decorated with animals (damaged), probably lions, facing the center, and two cornerstones of the gabled frieze are decorated with circular vegetal patterns (Yeivin 2000:16*–17*, frieze—Pls. 6:1–5, Figs. 77–81; cornice—Pl. 7:1–10, Figs. 77–85). May on the other hand contends that there were two decorated Syrian gables, one on the southern façade and another on the northern (May 2000:140–141, southern façade—Figs. 73–74, 78, 79, Pls. 5:1–3, 6:2–5; northern façade—Pl. 5:4 and four other fragments). The inner frieze decorated all four walls of the hall. Twenty-three relief fragments of the inner frieze were found on the site, among them two corner fragments and seven fragments with unique projections, which probably “were situated above the column capitals of the lower series, emphasizing the relationship between the columns and the entablature.” The inner frieze reliefs were ornamented with geometric and floral designs and included a number of other motifs, such as hunting and vintage scenes, an animal suckling her young, and mythological creatures; the projections featured heads, a Torah Shrine, and Zeus and Ganymedes (Figs. V-18, 19). Some compositions within medallions on the Korazim inner frieze are unique in their illustration of whole scenes (Yeivin 2000:19*–20*, inner frieze—Pls. 14–16, Figs. 97–107; inner cornice—Pls. 17–18, Figs. 108–110; May 2000:51*–53*). May (2000:52*–53*, Figs. 1:1, 9, 12, 16) contends that the designs had by that time lost their original implication and were used by the artists in an effort to expand their repertoire of motifs. Another possibility is that that the artists were not Jewish, and utilized their customary selection without regard for the community wishes. The iconographic sources of the Korazim frieze designs have oriental features and traditions, such as the horror vacui which occurs on all the reliefs. May (2000:51*–54*, 111–162) perceives a strong south Syrian influence in the composition, motifs, iconography, and origin of basalt engraving, though the Korazim ornamentations are a provincial variation. Additionally, some features in the Korazim reliefs show a ‘disintegration’ of the classical architectural orders. Two decorated Syrian gables existed at Korazim on the southern and northern façades, according to May (2000:140–142). Each of these façades was carved by a different artist, with the elements of the southern main façade being formed by Master A and those of the northern façade, different in style, by Masters B and C (May and Stark 2002:226, south façade—Pls. 2–5. north façade—Pl. 8). May and Stark (2002), in their comprehensive and detailed analysis of the Korazim synagogue architectural décor, claim that eight different masters belonging to two workshops, as well as two

242

chapter five

a

b

c

Figure V-18. Parts of inner frieze and cornice of the hall, Korazim.

additional artists, are responsible for the basalt relief ornamentation (on the Korazim workshops, see Chapter X). There are similarities in the themes and basalt carving execution between Korazim and the Golan synagogue art; similar reliefs have been found at ʿEn Nashut, Kh. Khavakha, and on a lintel from Dabbura (Turnheim 1987:182–183; Hachlili 1995:207, no. 55; May 2000:53*). However, the Korazim reliefs are executed more skillfully than the Golan items. May and Stark maintain that the reliefs of the Golan synagogues at ed-Dikke and Kh. Khavakha were carved by masters E and F of Workshop II. However, as the Golan reliefs were not found in situ, their presumed dating to the 5th c. (Maoz 1995:Pls. 5, 26) is not convincing. May (2000:53*) and later May and Stark (2002:247), contend that they are able to formulate a ‘stratigraphic’ sequence for the decoration: due to the similarities between the Korazim and Capernaum décor, they accept the date of the second half of the 3rd c. for the Capernaum architectural decoration (as suggested by Bloedhorn 1989:52) and date Workshop I slightly later (?). Workshop II has to be somewhat later as the carvings were executed at the actual location. Based on stylistic criteria, May and Stark (2002:248) suggest a 5th c. date for the engraving of the masters of Workshop II. The production of Masters G and H was added later but is difficult to date. However, May and Stark, in their relative dating of the décor at Capernaum and Korazim, completely ignore stratigraphic, ceramic, and numismatic data. The issue is presently the subject of critical debate. Amir (2007:32–36) maintains that the Korazim décor style indicates the existence of two stylistic groups, and agrees with May and Stark that several artists (or hands) are responsible for the ornamentation of that synagogue; however, she objects to their proposal that the workshops and artists functioned in different periods. The originality of the Korazim artists lies in their complete freedom to decorate architectural members with various motifs and combinations of them, such as the acanthus scrolls, the wreath, etc. This eclecticism and variety in motifs characterizes the Korazim synagogue, which Amir dates to the beginning of the Byzantine period—the first half of the 4th c.—based on the synagogue’s artistic style and on the diagonal Ionian capitals (which have comparable dated



synagogue art, significance and impact

243

examples in south Syria). Amir contends that the Korazim décor style is later than the Capernaum ornamentations, which she assigns (like some other scholars) to the second half of the 3rd c. CE. 2.3 The Capernaum and Korazim Architectural Ornamentation Styles A comparison between the design and style of the sculpture ornamentation at Capernaum and Korazim provides a clear insight into the origins and elements of Jewish art in the Galilee during Late Antiquity and demonstrates the differences in architectural styles (Hachlili 1988:218–220). The white softer limestone of Capernaum lends itself to more intricate sculptural art than does the hard black basalt of Korazim. In Capernaum the style of carving is a combination of Hellenistic and Oriental elements, and is executed usually in frontal relief on shallow planes; sometimes the connection between architectural elements and their decoration seems arbitrary. The façade triple portal lintels at Korazim (and Meiron) are molded but not decorated, unlike the elaborately ornamented lintels of the hall and courtyard at Capernaum (Figs. IV-2b, 7b). The entablature supported by the columns at Korazim consists of architrave, frieze, and cornice; at Capernaum the cornice and frieze are carved together as one unit. The architrave at Capernaum is reconstructed as having been placed directly on the Corinthian capitals (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Pls. IV, V); the Korazim architrave has a simple profile (Yevin 2000:19*, Fig. 96, Pl. 13:1–4). The frieze provides an excellent example of the contrasting styles in the two synagogues. At Capernaum, it is a completely interwoven carving of scrolls of stylistic acanthus leaves, creating circles of various floral and geometric patterns. Emblems are portrayed inside the circles (Fig. V-16, 19a). Also remarkable is the frieze slab with a wheeled ark (Fig. IV-57), depicted in a three-dimensional perspective style reminiscent of the Hellenistic manner. The Korazim frieze is sharply defined and deeply carved, the forms developing out of each other and leaving no empty spaces (horror vacui). It is intertwined within the entablature and is an integral part of the stone block. A most common frieze pattern found at Korazim is the round frame of acanthus leaves which turn in a circular movement and are carved more naturalistically than those at Capernaum (Fig. V-19b). Inside these frames a variety of motifs are carved: a few vintage and hunting scenes, rosettes, conches, wreaths, round objects, a human head (Fig. V-18a) but also images from Greek mythology (May 2000:111–130, Figs. 1–9). Only at Korazim are some parts of the frieze carved on a protruding block—for example, the carved aedicula which is stylized in deep and skilful relief (Fig. V-19b).

a

b

Figure V-19. Comparable friezes: a. Capernaum; b. Korazim.

244

chapter five

Some similarities between the carving design of the two synagogues are noted: large conches from Capernaum and Korazim are quite similar in general, though each is decorated with different design elements (Fig. V-20). May (2000) notes other similarities: the fronts of animals (lions?) within medallions of plants and branches decorating the gable frieze at Korazim (May 2000:116, nos. 7, 8, Fig. 1:14, 15; Yeivin 2000: Figs. 78, 81, Pl. 6:2, 3) are similar to the composition on the Capernaum reliefs (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Pls. 29, 31; Orfali 1922:27, Figs. 77–80). The conches as patterns within medallions (Figs. IV-60, 61) on the inner frieze (May 2000:117–118, nos. 27, 29, 48; Yeivin 2000:Figs. 98, 98a, 102, Pl. 14:1, 3, 16:8) are similar to conches at Capernaum engraved on the central stone of the façade’s arch (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:15, Fig. 25). Some similar plant motifs appear at Korazim and Capernaum (May 2000:124–125, Fig. 5:3, 5; Kohl and Watzinger 1916:4, Fig. 22). Several patterns of palmettes decorating friezes, cornices, and the antemion at Korazim (May 2000:119, Fig. 3:1–11) are similar to the palmette examples at Capernaum (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:18, Fig. 32, 35, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61). May (2000:53*) maintains that the Korazim frieze size and the medallion shapes, even in the same row, are not always even or uniform. She further contends that “the classical order of the Korazim décor when compared to Capernaum is completely disintegrated.” A lintel of the Capernaum courtyard (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Fig. 76) has designs which are typical of the decoration at Korazim; nonetheless, though the dating of the Capernaum ornamentation is still in debate, she maintains that the Korazim décor may be later. Noteworthy too are the Jewish symbols which appear to be completely unrelated to the design of the Corinthian capitals at Capernaum (Fig. IV-17). The best example of the style of carving at Capernaum is that of the two consuls (Fig. V-21), one on each side of the lintel of the central façade portal, which lack stylistic affinity: the palm trees on the front of the consuls are deeply carved with details, whereas the side volutes are depicted in shallower relief (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Fig. 20). At Korazim only a fragment of one consul was found (Yeivin 2000:Fig. 113, Pl. 20:7, no. 61; May and Stark 2002:Pl. 25, no. 102 only). By contrast, the Korazim basalt sculptural decoration, more oriental in character, is monumental, powerful, and impressive. The frieze, carved with various motifs, is integrated artistically into the

a

b

Figure V-20. Conches: a. Korazim; b. Capernaum.



synagogue art, significance and impact

245

Figure V-21. Two consuls of the main façade entrance, Capernaum.

entablature. A skilful harmony exists between the various Korazim sculptures, both in style and in perspective. The artists must have been highly skilled in the technique of basalt relief and the result is sculpture of a high quality, as seen in, for instance, the three-dimensional sculpture of the lion (Fig. IX-1b). An exception to this high standard is the frieze of the vintagers treading grapes (Fig. IX-30), depicted surrounded by interwoven vine branches, and executed in a more naive manner. All in all, the Korazim reliefs display a sense of order and correct proportion in terms of spatial organization. Turnheim (1987:155–158) contends that the ornamentation at Capernaum and Korazim displays marked differences in artistic style, details, and execution. The character is eclectic and uneven, suggesting there was no artistic supervision and no specific direction, or that the work was done in stages. She proposes that the Capernaum courtyard lintels were a later addition to the earlier hall façade lintels. Her main conclusion is that the architectural decoration in these synagogues was created by several artists using different models. An interesting fact is that at some later period almost all the animated figures in the Capernaum and Korazim architectural ornamentation may have been intentionally damaged or completely destroyed, probably by iconoclasts (see below). Fisher (1987:173–4) maintains that two aspects feature in the majority of Galilean synagogues: (a) A provincial character, expressed in: (1) the general plan and design; (2) the ornate entrance; (3) the pilasters and monolithic bases; (4) the general ornamentation, including different classical

246

chapter five

orders in the lower and upper floors of the same building. This later provincial aspect of the architectural art exists alongside the principles of classical Hellenistic-Roman art. (b) A truly local style of art which is characteristic in its complete decomposition of the classical design, that is, the loss of the relation between the character and design of an ornamented element and its architectural location: the styling of details overpowers the general concept. Important differences between the Capernaum décor and the churches in north Syria are pointed out by Amir (2007:46) (Magness [2001a] used them for her dating of the synagogue to the 5th–6th c.): motifs such as the lions, eagles, garlands, and flying Nikes that appear in Galilean synagogue décor are seldom employed in the ornamentation of the north Syrian churches. In general, the crafting style and classical motifs utilized in the décor of the Capernaum and Korazim synagogues is similar to the Late Roman style rather than that of the Byzantine period. 3. Golan Art Golan synagogues seem to share certain features. Golan sculpture is executed in the indigenous, hard, basalt stone, and the style is original and elaborate. Much figuratively carved stone masonry is found in the Golan, and most can probably be attributed to local synagogues, for instance the carved basalt lions (Figs. IX-2–6, 12) and eagles (Figs. IX-15–21); ornamental details and ornate modifications enhance architraves, capitals, and pedestals, and some are decorated with Jewish symbols (Hachlili 1995). The majority of the reliefs and sculptures were found during surveys; a small number were discovered during excavations, such as the fragments from the ʿEn Nashut, Kanaf, and Qasrin synagogues. Other fragments, although found in secondary use, are considered to have come from destroyed or as yet unexcavated synagogue structures. A number of architectural fragments bearing Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek inscriptions, have also been uncovered (most were published by Urman 1972, 1984). Most of these finds are now either exhibited or stored in the Golan Antiquity Museum in Kazrin. The reliefs and sculpture provide considerable information on the motifs, style, and characteristic features of Jewish art in the Golan. In many respects this art is distinctive and peculiar to the region. A most notable aspect of Golan art is the exclusive use of the local basalt stone in the buildings, in sharp contrast to the limestone used in much of the Galilee and other parts of Israel (Hachlili 1988:200–206, 229–231; 1995:183, 190–191). This regionalism is to be expected, and is given literary expression in the Mishnah. Rich ornamentation is found in the Golan, both on the exterior, particularly framing moldings, and in the interior, on capitals, windows, and sometimes architraves and friezes. The aedicula was also richly ornamented. This decoration treatment may have been inspired by local traditions with affinities to similar practices in Galilean synagogues as well as in pagan and Christian buildings in the Hauran and Syria. It should be noted that synagogues elsewhere in the Land of Israel and churches there and in southern Syria rarely have ornamented façades (Turnheim 1987:182; Hachlili 1988:231). Peculiar to the Golan region is the ornate façade of the single entrance. Its carved and molded lintel rests on two doorposts constructed of several basalt ashlar blocks, with or without Attic carved bases, which sometimes had an ornamented frame carved on both lintel and doorposts (Figs. V-1c, V-4b, V-22). Several Golan synagogues, such as Qasrin, Horvat Kanaf, and ʿAssaliyye, have these ornate facades, while at Zumaimira and Umm el-Qanatir the surviving parts of the doorposts are constructed from several undecorated stones (Ma⁠ʾoz 1995:Pls. 46, 99, 102).



synagogue art, significance and impact

a

b

247

c

Figure V-22. Golan synagogues façades: a. Qasrin; b. ʿAsaliyye; c. H. Kanaf.

The lintels of these ornate entrances are often carved with heraldic antithetic compositions in the Golan and Galilean synagogues (Figs. V-9, V- 12). They usually contain a central wreath flanked by eagles, Nike figures, amphoras, pomegranates, and flowers (Hachlili 1995:183–4, 193, nos. 1–3). The most frequently depicted Jewish symbol on surviving Golan architectural fragments is the menorah, and sometimes pairs of menoroth. Most of these fragments come from synagogues (a few might have come from private houses). The menorah is found on lintels, basalt stone slabs, a column capital, and a pilaster (Hachlili 1995:nos. and Figs. 4–24). About half of the Golan menoroth have either more or less than seven arms. The large number of depictions of menoroth with other than seven arms is peculiar to the Golan (Fig. VI-25). In other parts of the country most of the renditions are of seven-armed menoroth (Hachlili 1995:184, nos. 4–7, 10, 11, 13, 17; 2001:201–202). The menoroth are rendered in shallow as well as deep carvings, or simply incised; some of the menorah incisions are so crudely executed as to be hardly comparable to the finely carved menoroth on some of the other reliefs. These might indicate that they were engraved by members of the community after the slabs were already part of the building. The frequent use of animal motifs in Jewish Golan art should be noted. Other carved designs portrayed include floral (vine scroll, wreath) and geometric (rosette, double meander) motifs (Figs. IV-20, V-8), all of them traditional Jewish motifs (Hachlili 1988:316–320). There are several shallow incisions of the ‘Tree of Life’ (Fig. III-31); Golan decorated Torah Shrine parts (Figs. IV-38, 50, 51, 52c) resemble those found in Galilean synagogues with their aediculae and patterns of ornamentation (Hachlili 1988:167–179, 184–187). The main Golan synagogue ornamentation—the carvings enriching the molded surfaces—was on the exterior, especially the ornate façade frame mouldings. The interior was decorated also, with carvings on capitals, windows, and sometimes friezes and architraves. The aedicula structure’s façade was also enhanced by ornamentation. These elaborately decorated façades can probably be traced to local traditions with affinities to similar architectural ornamentation in Galilean synagogues and neighboring Hauran and north Syrian pagan and Christian buildings. However, synagogues in other parts of the country seldom have decorated façades, and the churches in the north of the Land of Israel and south Syria do not have them at all. The affinity between the basalt decorative art of the Golan synagogues and that of the Galilean synagogue of Korazim and fragments from H. Shura, both also built of basalt stone, should be noted. The eagle carved on the apex of the Korazim gable (Fig. IX-20) is similar to Golan eagle fragments (Fig. IX-15). The frieze decorations at Korazim, ed-Dikke, and Khawkha share motifs and execution styles (Fig. X-12). Diagonal Ionic capitals similar to those found in the Golan are known at Korazim.

248

chapter five

A capital from ʿEn Nashut (Fig. IV-19) is unique in its elaborate decoration. Fluted columns were found at Qasrin and Korazim. The Golan and Galilean synagogues have similar subject matter: the menorah, animals, heraldic compositions flanking wreaths, and similar architectural fragments of ornamented aediculae. Connections with Christian art are indicated by their shared use of basalt stone and some of the same ornamental motifs, as well as their style, execution, and composition. Associations with pagan and Christian art of the Hauran, where basalt is used, are seen in the similar motifs, compositions, and styles. Golan art is a local popular art with distinctive features, design, and technical style, all marked by the knowledge and ability required for carving the basalt stone, and containing a selective repertoire of motifs and various elements, some borrowed from the synagogues of Galilee, others from neighbouring Syria, Hauran, and Ledja (Hachlili 1988:229–231, 317, 402). It is an example of local “oriental” art suggested by the various motifs, styles, and heraldic and symmetrical compositions (Hachlili 1988:366–368). It represents its subject using a schematic outline and characteristic details. The emphasis is on selected features, with uneven proportioning of details (i.e. an eye in a face or size of the head). The strength of the bodies of humans and animals is emphasized by the stylized details, proportions, and limb postures typical of “oriental” art. The Golan art changed the classical balance by reducing some parts and exaggerating others, and by adding patterns or motifs to an original design. It is defined by the breakdown of the classical design and ornaments as the motifs and their details take over the general composition. The Golan regional style shows distinct features but the scope is not homogeneous as is that of the Galilee. The main characteristics of Golan art: (1) The selection of moldings and ornaments is limited and consists mainly of Hellenistic- Roman and oriental elements, and displays only a few, classical motifs. (2) Golan art has a distinct connection with Hauran art in terms of motifs and the basalt-influenced technical aspects. (3) Animal reliefs and geometric emblems attached on various parts of the structure add an oriental non-classical quality to the decoration. Some of the Golan architectural parts are creative and original images while the work of others is inferior, schematic, and plain, indicating that “the low quality of the ornaments is not because of the work in basalt” (Turnheim 1987:182–4). Turnheim further notes that the architectural décor of the Golan can be classified as popular art of a local-unique style. The composition and style of the motifs, such as the postures and stylized patterning of animals and the heraldic composition of many of the carved designs, seem to indicate a common source, perhaps a pattern book. Some motifs and designs continue the tradition of Jewish art of the Second Temple period while others resemble patterns found in Galilean synagogues or in contemporary Christian and Syrian art. Worth noting is the engraving with high relief in several planes of the lintels of Qasrin, Taiybe and Yahudiyye (Fig. V-9), which added detail to the ornamentation. 3.1 Composition and Style of Architectural Ornamentation The style of synagogue reliefs and sculpture is visible in the richness of ornament, and in the tendency to stylization in the detailed patterned motifs and designs. Stylistic features of the architectural decoration reveal the square, heavy, plastic perception of oriental art. The artists show a highly skilled technique in the execution of stone and basalt reliefs (Avi-Yonah 1960b:33–36; Hachlili 1988:364–365). The composition of lintel reliefs is different from that of friezes. Lintels are generally ornamented in antithetic compositions, where a central object is flanked by two symmetrical motifs (for instance Barʿam, ʿAmudim, Dabura, Japhia, Qasrin, Figs. V-7, V-9), or, if the central object is a vase or wreath,



synagogue art, significance and impact

249

there are vine branches issuing from it (Fig. V-8). Friezes, on the other hand, are executed in an overall design divided into several sections, each design consisting of a central motif framed in an acanthus leaf (see Korazim, Capernaum, Figs. V-18, 19). Unusual compositions are found in the Capernaum frieze, with two eagles and a sea-goat figure (Fig. IX-38), and in the Korazim vintage scene (Fig. IX-30). Frontality, an important element in synagogue sculpture, is a recognized attribute of Oriental art. Humans and animals face the spectator (see Korazim, H. ʿAmudim, Rehov, Figs. IX-5b, 7a, 11). The proportions of most of the figures, with the head either exaggerated or under-sized, are a reminder of the Oriental style. For instance, in the Korazim reliefs the men in the vintage scene and the armed men have over-sized heads (Fig. IX-30), while in the ʿEn Nashut relief the heads of the figures and lions are under-sized (Fig. IX-3). Organic and natural forms are stylized to the point where they become abstract patterns. This can be seen in the acanthus leaves of the Korazim medallions (Fig. V-18) and in the laurel leaf pattern on some lintels at Barʿam, Gush Halav, and Nabratein (Fig. V-6). The framed patterns of the leaves of the vintage scene at Korazim (Fig. IX-30) are stylized into geometric forms. A tendency to a heavy technique of execution combined with flat relief and shallow incisions is another stylistic feature. Alternating and sharply defined light and dark areas are produced in the deep carving, especially in basalt sculpture, as for example at Korazim (Fig. V-17), and on the Umm el-Qanatir aedicula capital (Fig. IX-18). Amir (2007:48–50) describes the stylistic-artistic development in the décor of Galilee and Golan synagogues by tracing the stylistic and chronological development of a few lion and eagle motifs. She contends that both motifs appear in synagogues in the Galilee earlier (in the 3rd–4th c. CE) while in the Golan synagogues they appear later (in the 5th–6th c.). Lions: The pair of lions carved on the Nabratein aedicula lintel found in secondary use are dated to the 3rd c.; the Korazim three-dimensional lion is dated to the first half of the 4th c.; the ʿEn Samsam relief is dated by its style to the mid-5th c.; the lion on the relief from H. Kanaf is dated to the 6th c. Eagles: The eagles engraved on the Beth Sheʿarim mausoleum arch are dated to the end of the 2nd–3rd c.; those on the Gush Halav lintel sofit date to the 3rd c.; the eagles carved on the Korazim and Jarba reliefs are dated to the mid 4th c.; the style of the eagles crafted on the ʿEn Nashut relief date it to the mid-5th c.; the eagle on the Umm el-Qanatir double capital as well as other items found at the site should be dated to the last quarter of the 5th or first half of the 6th c. 4. Wall and Floor Decoration 4.1 Frescos Only in a few synagogues have wall decorations survived. A Hebrew inscription found on the portico mosaic floor of the courtyard at the Susiya synagogue gives a list of donors who, among other things, “plastered its walls with lime . . .” (Gutman et al. 1981:128). This indicates that plastering of the walls was probably a common practice which was financially supported by donors from among the Jewish congregation. The excavations of the Rehov synagogue reveal fragments of painted plaster which presumably decorated the internal walls. These plaster fragments were covered with polychrome paintings (mainly geometric and floral designs in red). An interesting painting portrays a tree-like menorah and several aediculae with columns and other details. The Rehov synagogue also has plastered and painted columns on which several Aramaic inscriptions were written (containing dedications as

250

chapter five

well as Halachic and other religious texts) surrounded by wreaths of vine branches (Vitto 1980:215; 1981a:92–93; 1981b:166, Pl. 24:3; 1983:Pl. I). Remains of decorative plaster were also found in several Galilean synagogues and some in the Golan, whose basalt walls were covered in white plaster. At Korazim the bedrock at the northwest corner, which was incorporated into the building, was covered with plaster decorated with red pottery sherds and imprinted with a herringbone pattern, in Byzantine style. Other white-plastered synagogues in the Galilee and Golan include H. Shema’s Fresco Room (Meyers et al. 1976:76 ff.), ʿAssalieh, Qasrin, and ʿEn Neshut, where one piece of plaster bears an inscription (Maoz 1980:17, 18; 1981:108). Similar decorative plaster is found at Huseifa, Maʿoz Hayim (Tzaferis 1982:219), Hammath Tiberias (Dothan 1982:22), and Beth Alpha (Sukenik 1932:12, 14). At H. Rimmon, colored plaster probably covered the walls of the early synagogue (Kloner 1984:67; 1989:44). This manner of ornamentation developed into a very fine and rich art. The Diaspora synagogue at Dura Europos in Syria, with its extraordinary frescos (Kraeling 1956; Gutman 1973; Goodenough 1964, vols. IX-XI), is the culmination of this development. Even though very few frescoed walls have survived, it seems that they were part of the interior decoration of synagogues and should be taken into consideration as one of the ornamental features of synagogue art. 4.2 Floor Decoration Decorated floors are an integral and important feature of synagogue architecture. Three types of paving were used: (a) stone slabs; (b) plaster; and (c) mosaic pavements, usually on a bed of small stones (Hachlili 1988:221–223). Differences in the floor design are due to periodical changes in the synagogal architecture. In some instances, as at Qasrin, an early mosaic pavement would be replaced by a plaster floor; at Meroth the mosaic floor was replaced by a flagstone pavement; at Maʿoz Hayim the opposite occurred and the stone slab floor of Synagogue I was replaced by mosaic pavements in Synagogues II and III; at H. Rimmon a decorated stone slab pavement in Synagogue II replaced the plastered floor of Synagogue I. 4.2.1 Stone Slab Floors Most of the Galilean synagogue floors are composed of stone slabs, with the exception of H. ʿAmudim, Meroth I, and H. Shema, which have mosaic pavements, and Nabratein I which has a plastered floor. In the Golan, Dabiyye, ed-Dikke, and Umm el-Qanatir have basalt slab floors. Beth Sheʿarim and Maʿoz Hayim I have flagstone floors. Some synagogues possess unusual stone floors. At Hammath Gader II the floor is composed of opus sectile on a foundation of basalt blocks (Foerster 1983). The Maʿon-Nirim nave is paved with mosaic, whereas its surrounding area is paved with stone slabs which survived in the eastern section (Levi 1960:9). The stone slab floor at Umm el-Qanatir, which survived almost in its entirety, has an unusual design—an octagonal pattern enclosed in a circle—in the centre of the nave (Fig. III-59). A unique floor decoration was discovered in the hall of the last phase of the H. Rimmon III synagogue (6th–7th c. CE), paved with limestone slabs resembling tiles on a foundation of packed stones. In the center, five such ‘tiles’ are decorated with carved rosettes, arranged in a square with one rosette in the middle. To the north of these decorated tiles, a sevenbranched menorah is incised (Kloner 1984:69; 1989:46). 4.2.2 Plaster Floors Plastered floors were the rarest form of pavement (see Table 2). Only one Galilean synagogue, Nabratein I, has one. Noteworthy, in the Golan, is the Qasrin early pavement, consisting of a plaster floor inscribed with a stone slab pattern. The latest floor level is covered with smooth plaster on a



synagogue art, significance and impact

251

foundation of stone and mosaic fragments which are remains from level II (see pp. 80-81, Chapter III). The ʿEn Nashut synagogue is also paved with plaster (Maoz 1981:105, 108). The early H. Rimmon synagogue has a compressed plaster floor laid on a foundation of small stones (Kloner 1980:227; 1984:67). Local tradition and fashions were also strong in the matter of floor paving. Most of the Galilean and Golan synagogues preferred the stone slab floors in all periods, while from the fourth century CE onwards, mosaic floors prevailed in most of the other synagogues in the Land of Israel. 5. Mosaic Pavements Art Mosaic floors were the principal ornament of many synagogues, mainly in those lacking architectural embellishment. Between the fourth and eighth centuries CE, synagogue exteriors were commonly left unornamented, with the decorations concentrated mainly in the interiors. The Talmud relates that “In the days of R. Abun [4th century] they began to depict designs on mosaics and he did not hinder them” (JT, Abodah Zarah 42b). These mosaic pavements depict figured representations and are very richly ornamented with patterns and colors. However, mosaic floors of earlier periods have been found in excavations, indicating that such floors adorned synagogues as early as the 3th or 4th centuries CE, and this in areas previously thought to be lacking this type of ornamentation, that is, in the Galilee and the Golan (see H. ʿAmudim, Huqoq, Meroth, Wadi Hammam, and Qasrin, see below). Up to now, scholars have assumed that the change in mosaic pavement decoration took place in the third or fourth centuries CE, together with other changes in principles of synagogue construction, such as those connected with the Torah Shrine and the entrances (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:145; Goodenough 1953:239; Avi-Yonah 1961a:173). Consequently, new material will have to be taken into consideration in any future conceptual revisions concerning this subject. In some synagogues, earlier mosaics were discovered under the elaborately decorated pavements. At the Hammath Tiberias level IIb synagogue, dated to the third century CE, fragments of a mosaic pavement made of a few geometric designs were found at the southern end of the nave; only a carpet border with a guilloche motif and another design survived. Other mosaics covered the southern room and the cistern (Dothan 1983:22, 24, Pls. 6:2, 7:4, 26, plan C, L. 46). A mosaic floor with some geometric designs including a meander/ swastika as its central pattern was found at ʿEn Gedi synagogue underneath the later bird-decorated floor (Fig. III-2) and probably dates to the third century CE (Barag et al. 1981:118–119; 2006:17*, Fig. 32). Remains of early mosaic floors of white tesserae were found in the Susiya synagogue hall, under a panelled and figurative polychrome pavement (Gutman et al. 1981:126). At the Maʿon-Nirim synagogue, remains of a band of white tesserae were found 0.5 cm. below the later, upper mosaic floor (Levi 1960:9). Two fragments of an older mosaic laid under the later mosaic were found at Beth Alpha: One shows a design of a snake’s head and the other, what was probably a shofar (Sukenik 1951:26, Pl. XI). At Eshtemoʿa, a mosaic pavement with floral and geometric patterns and an Aramaic inscription covered the hall and narthex floors (Yeivin 2004:156, Figs. 6, 8–9). 5.1 Mosaics in Galilean and Golan Synagogues Only a few mosaic floors were found in Galilee: a fragment of a mosaic pavement at Meroth and other mosaic pavements in the Lower Galilee, both east and west: • A mosaic floor dated to the fifth century CE, probably the original floor of the synagogue (Ilan and Damati 1985), was found at Meroth. The design of the mosaic is especially interesting, showing a figure surrounded by weapons, with an inscription “Yodan son of Shimon Mani.” It probably represents David with the weapons he took from Goliath (Fig. VIII-14).

252

chapter five

• At H. ʿAmudim remains of a mosaic floor with an Aramaic inscription and its foundation were found, at the northwest corner of the nave (Levine 1981:79–80). The excavator concludes that the mosaic floor is the original floor of the building, dating to around the end of the third century CE. Thus, this would be one of the earliest synagogues with a mosaic floor. • At Wadi Hammam (in the east lower Galilee) two phases of mosaic pavements were discovered in the building. In the first phase the ornamented mosaic pavement had been heavily damaged in antiquity; parts of it were incorporated into the later floor. No plaster floor was uncovered in the nave and the eastern aisle, indicating that the mosaic survived until the end of the building’s life (Fig. III-3). About 30 fragments (ca. 6%) of the mosaic survived in some areas, including figural scenes, four Aramaic dedicatory inscriptions, and floral and geometric designs (Leibner and Miller 2010). The mosaic, dated to the late 3rd or early 4th c. CE, consisted of a large carpet in the nave, almost completely destroyed, while the aisle carpets were divided into twelve panels placed between the columns and the benches facing the nave. In the center of the nave a few fragments of two concentric circles remained, which might have been a zodiac design. Four panels (nos. 4, 10, 11, 12) on the western aisle were decorated with biblical episodes. Parts of three panels survived (Figs. VIII-10–12), depicting: (1) craftsmen building a monumental structure (the Temple); (2) a combat scene between a group of soldiers and a giant (Samson); (3) a chariot lead by horses and soldiers drowning in the sea (the Egyptians chasing the Children of Israel; see Chapter VIII). • At the recently excavated Huqoq synagogue in the east lower Galilee (dated to ca. 4th–5th centuries CE), a narrative episode of Samson decorates the interior of the building (Magness 2012). The mosaic scene shows Samson placing torches between the tails of foxes in order to burn his enemies’ crops (Judges 15:4, 5). That image is a reference to Samson exacting revenge on the Philistines by sending out flame-laden foxes to burn their lands. • The surviving fragments of the mosaic pavement at Kafr Misr synagogue, in the nave of the hall, show a rectangle divided into three panels and framed by a border (Fig. V-23). The side aisles contain two straight bands. Most of the mosaic includes geometric patterns in the northern and central panels and the corridor, and it probably dates to the second half of the 5th century (Onn 1994:121–126, plan 3, Figs. 8–11). The mosaic fragments of the northern panel of the hall of the Phase II synagogue, dated to the 4th c. CE, are of high technical quality. The geometric fragments of the central and southern panels of the synagogue hall in Phase III are dated, on the basis of comparisons, to the second half of the 5th c. CE.  Near the bema, the mosaic contains Jewish symbols, fragments of an inscription, and floral motifs. The craftsmanship of this panel is inferior and has many repairs. The design includes an eight-sector circle in the center, flanked by a seven-armed menorah on the left and a five-armed menorah with a shofar on the right, surrounded by a few lotus flowers, leaves, and geometric motifs. In the southwestern corner of this mosaic is a fragment of a three-line Hebrew inscription of which only the three names of the ancestors survived: ‫ יצחק ויעקב‬,‫ אברהם‬Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The lower part of the nave mosaic contains rows of spaced rosebuds alternating with a bichrome triple filet framed by a band. The corridor mosaic contains simple geometric patterns (Onn 1994:plan 4, Fig. 12). The mosaics at the bema and corridor of the phase III synagogue date to the 6th–7th centuries CE. At Qasrin, remains of a mosaic pavement in several colours, dated to the fifth-century second phase of the synagogue, were probably used as a partial fill for the later plaster floor. In conclusion, mosaics were used to cover synagogue floors as early as the third century CE, and the early ones consisted of geometric designs (ʿEn Gedi I, Hammath Tiberias IIb) and sometimes an inscription (H. ʿAmudim). Thus, contrary to accepted scholarly opinion, the mosaic floor became part of synagogue ornamentation with the inception of that institution.



synagogue art, significance and impact

Figure V-23. Kafr Misr mosaic pavement.

253

254

chapter five 5.2 Mosaic Floor Composition and Style

The synagogue floor becomes an important location for elaborate decorations, each floor being planned as one framed unit often divided geometrically into panels or medallions. Figurative, richly ornamented floors developed during the fourth century CE and reached their apogee in the Byzantine period. A marked evolution of style occurred in synagogue mosaics during this period, with principles of depth and perspective being ignored (Avi-Yonah 1975:41; Hachlili 1988:347–364). That surface of the synagogue floor which is exploited for adornments is termed the field. This field is divided into smaller areas which correspond to the different structural entities, such as the nave and aisle. The aisle may have been paved with one complete carpet, which is usually one particular geometric design unit, as, for instance, in the eastern aisle at Hammath Tiberias, or with various carpets, as, for instance, at Beth Alpha. The most important and outstanding designs appear on the nave carpets, and these seem to be clearly and intentionally separated from the aisles by elaborately decorated borders, as seen in the synagogue mosaics of Hammath Tiberias B, Beth Alpha, Naʿaran, and Sepphoris (Figs. V-24, 26, 30, 31). 5.2.1 Aisles and Intercolumnar Mosaics In several synagogue mosaic pavements with figurative panels in the nave, the aisles and intercolumnar panels are decorated with geometric designs. Synagogue aisles whose panels have geometric designs include: ʿEn Gedi, Hammath Gader, Hammath Tiberias, Beth Alpha—the eastern aisle, Jericho, and Rehov, where there are geometric compositions in the western and eastern aisles and a carpet east of the aedicula decorated with square geometric motifs. Sepporis Only Aramaic inscriptions decorate the western aisle in the synagogue of ʿEn Gedi and the narthex at Rehov. Intercolumnar panels are common in synagogue mosaics consisting of panels with geometric designs. These are found at Jericho, possibly Hammath Gader, Hammath Tiberias, Beth Alpha— eastern intercolumnar panels, Naʿaran, and Sepphoris. The eastern and western aisles and the intercolumnar panels between the nave and the aisles at Hammath Tiberias B, Stratum IIa, show various geometric designs (Dothan 1983:50–52, Pls. 18–20, 35:1–2, 4, plan E:4–20). In the western aisle only one panel with continuous four-petal rosettes survived, as did parts of three intercolumnar panels; the two eastern aisles and the panels in the intercolumniations survived quite well (Fig. V-24). The geometric designs consist of intertwining strands, a ‘rainbow style’ pattern, diamonds, interlaced circles, and scale patterns. The single aisle carpet at Sepphoris is formed of intersecting circles with spindles, chevrons, and squares (Fig. V-25). Between the circles, square plaques containing Aramaic dedicatory inscriptions were positioned. The narthex and intercolumnar panels contained various geometric patterns (Weiss 2005:161–165). The main three-panel hall mosaic at Beth Alpha is enclosed within a wide decorated border with various designs (Fig. V-26) (Sukenik 1932:42–3, Pls. 20–24): Along the south part of the border a continuous line of inhabited squares shows a palm tree, a hen with chickens, and a bird; beneath them, in the two trapezoids, a fish and a cluster of grapes are depicted. The squares on the west border contain a bunch of grapes, baskets of fruit, a vessel, and some geometric motifs. The eastern border is composed of inhabited scrolls formed by two intertwined vine branches; the southern part and part of the mosaic was concealed by the bema and a bench built over it. The scrolls contained a fruit basket, a fox eating grapes, a pheasant, a figure holding a bird, a destroyed animal, a hare, an unidentified animal, and a bird. The border on the north, close to the main entrance, includes an inscription in Aramaic and Greek flanked by an ox and a lion, partly concealed by two benches built on it later.



synagogue art, significance and impact

Figure V-24. Geometric designs decorating aisles, Hammath Tiberias B, Stratum IIa.

Figure V-25. Geometric patterns decorating the single aisle carpet, Sepphoris.

255

256

chapter five

Figure V-26. Beth Alpha Synagogue mosaic pavement.

The two side aisles and the intercolumnar panels were also decorated with geometric designed mosaic carpets. An earlier mosaic, of which only a snake and part of a guilloche design survived, was discovered beneath the zodiac of the later mosaic (Sukenik 1951b:26, Pl. XI). Similar geometric compositions of aisles and intercolumnar panels are fairly common on church mosaics: Herodium—the northern and central churches (Netzer et al. 1993:222–228, Pl. XVI:A), H. Berachot (Tsafrir and Hirschfeld 1993:209–213), and Beth Loya (Patrich and Tsafrir 1993:266–271). 5.3 The Decorative Schemes of the Nave Carpets There are three distinctive schemes of mosaic nave carpet design: 5.3.1 Scheme A Carpets This scheme, found on several synagogue pavements, consists of symbolic and narrative panels in a recurring design and theme which is repeated in different synagogues (Hachlili 1988:347, 352–354, Scheme A; 2009:17–22; 220–222). The field of these carpets is usually divided lengthwise into three (or seven at Sepphoris) rectangular carpets (panels or bands), each thematically distinct and appropriate to its position in the construction. The panels are usually divided into (a) a Jewish symbols panel, closest to the Torah Shrine; (b) a central panel decorated with a zodiac scheme; and (c) an outer panel, sometimes with a biblical scene (or other designs). This scheme appears on mosaic pavements at the synagogues of Beth Alpha, Beth Sheʾan A, Hammath Tiberias B—Stratum IIa, Naʿaran, Sepphoris, and Susiya (Fig. V-27–31);3 three mosaic panels with different designs adorn the nave of 3 At Susiya the floor of the hall was divided into three panels (Figs. IV-46, 47) (Gutman et al. 1981:126), of which the western part, almost completely destroyed, had three scenes, one of them Daniel in the Lions’ Den; the center panel was originally a zodiac design and the eastern panel contained a geometric carpet.



synagogue art, significance and impact

Figure V-27. Scheme A: tripartite nave mosaic pavement.

Figure V-28. Tripartite nave mosaic pavement, Hammath Tiberias B, Stratum IIa.

257

258

chapter five

Figure V-29. Tripartite nave mosaic pavement, Beth Alpha.



synagogue art, significance and impact

259

Hammath Gader; and Huseifa and probably Japhiʿa have only two panels each (Figs. V-32, 34). The third panel at Hammath Tiberias B depicts heraldic lions guarding an inscription, whereas in Naʿaran and Susiya the third panel shows a geometric carpet (Figs. IV-46, 47, V- 31). The Sepphoris synagogue nave mosaic is divided into seven panels (Fig. V-30) subdivided into smaller panels (Weiss 2005:55–161). The first, close to the Torah Shrine area, includes an inscription enclosed in a wreath flanked by two lions holding bulls’ heads in their claws. The second panel

Figure V-30. Nave mosaic pavement, Sepphoris.

260

chapter five

contains the Jewish symbols design. The third and fourth show biblical scenes of the consecration of the Tabernacle, its vessels and the Daily Offerings; the fifth panel contains the zodiac; the sixth renders the Binding of Isaac, and the seventh perhaps the angels’ visit to Abraham and Sarah. At Naʿaran, the biblical scene of Daniel in the Lions’ Den is situated at the lower part of the Jewish symbols panel. The central panel shows the zodiac design and large third panel, a geometric carpet (Fig. V-31). The Hammath Gader synagogue pavement is divided into three panels, consisting of two geometric carpets and a third panel, in front of the apse, showing two heraldic lions flanking an inscription enclosed by a wreath (Fig. V-32).

Figure V-31. Naʿaran mosaic pavement.



synagogue art, significance and impact

261

Figure V-32. Hammath Gader mosaic pavement.

At Beth Sheʾan A, the upper panel showed the Ark of the Scrolls and other Jewish symbols, the central panel may have originally been a zodiac design, and the third was a geometric designed carpet (Fig. V-33). The two panels of the Huseifa synagogue nave consist of one with the zodiac design and the other with a vine scroll design that includes birds and peacocks (Fig. V-34). Incorporated into the wide and ornate border in front of the main entrance is a heraldic panel of Jewish symbols, consisting of a pair of menoroth flanking an inscription inside a wreath. Interesting drawings survived from the Huseifa excavation (in 1933), at which time details of the mosaic were noted. The Susiya pavement, which is only partly preserved, is slightly different. The floor of the hall was divided into three panels the western part of which, almost completely destroyed, had three scenes, one of which was Daniel in the Lions’ Den; the central panel was originally a zodiac design and the eastern panel contained a geometric carpet; an additional panel, depicting Jewish symbols, was located in front of the Torah Shrine (Figs. IV-46–48).

262

chapter five

Figure V-33. Beth Sheʾan A synagogue plan with tripartite nave mosaic pavement.

A unique plan, though with panels organized completely differently, is the mosaic pavement at Wadi Hamam (Fig. III-3). The mosaic pavement, dated to the late 3rd or early 4th c. CE, consisted of a large carpet in the nave, while the three aisles carpets were divided into twelve panels placed between the columns and the benches facing the nave (Leibner and Miller 2010). In the center of the nave a few fragments of two concentric circles remained, possibly a zodiac design. Four panels (nos. 4, 10, 11, 12) on the western aisle were decorated with biblical episodes, of which only three panels survived, but only partly: (1) craftsmen building a monumental structure; (2) a combat between a group of soldiers and a giant; and (3) a chariot lead by horses and soldiers drowning in the sea (Figs. VIII-10–12). The mosaic pavement possibly might have had three (or more) panels with the



synagogue art, significance and impact

263

Figure V-34. Huseifa synagogue mosaic pavement.

zodiac panel in the center but in this synagogue, thematic narrative panels decorated the three aisles as well. A radical change in attitude towards figurative art during the 6th century CE is the cause of the redesigning and restoration of the pavements at Beth Sheʾan A and Susiya. Zodiac and biblical panels were replaced by geometric designs inserted into the original panels. Scheme A compositions with their division into three or more panels are quite common on synagogue pavements, but hardly appear on church floors (Hachlili 2009:221). This Jewish iconographic scheme A, with its tripartite panel design, stimulates various queries as to the meaning and significance of each individual panel and of the composition as a whole. Scholars have offered several interpretations: Roussin (1997:93) states that when “the overall composition of the synagogue pavements are analyzed in terms of the structure of the Sefer HaRazim, the symbolism becomes clear. The lowest level represents the earthly realm, the Helios-in-zodiac panel in the center represents the celestial sphere, and in the highest sphere is the Torah Shrine panel, symbolic of the seventh firmament, where according to the Sefer HaRazim, Yahoweh resides.” Berliner (1994:213–215) maintains that the tripartite panel design has a permanent formulation that includes three topics: the Temple, the wheel of the zodiac, and salvation—all three regarded as part of the Creation pattern. Sed Rajna (2000:49) claims that the design probably reflects a visual transcription of a philosophical theory of the tripartite division of the universe into the metaphysical (the Torah ark), the cosmic (the zodiac), and the terrestrial (the Binding of Isaac) realms. Kühnel (2000:41, 43) maintains that in the Beth Alpha mosaic, “each of the components of the composition emphasizes

264

chapter five

a

d

b

a c

e

Figure V-35. Huseifa: Mosaic details drawn at the excavation (in 1933): a. the zodiac season; b. the Aramaic inscription; c. the Hebrew inscription; d. the left menorah; e. the vine scroll design.

a complementary aspect of the same idea: the upper part insists on the continuity of cult as a warrant of fulfillment; the zodiac wheel dwells upon the eternity of natural phenomena by God, and the Binding of Isaac is a historical message.” The structured design of seven panels at Sepphoris is interpreted by Weiss and Netzer (1996:38–39; Weiss 2005:239–249, Fig. 5) as containing a programmatic layout. The lions flanking an inscription represent verification and validation; the architectural façade and other symbols associated with the Tabernacle and Temple represent the future redemption; the zodiac expresses God’s centrality in creation, in his promise, and in redemption; the Angels’ visit to Abraham and Sarah and the Binding of Isaac symbolize the promise. Weiss (2005:243) believes that the Sepphoris mosaic expresses, using visual means, redemption motifs and the longing for the re-establishment of the Temple cult, a concept which is also verbally articulated in prayer, midrash, and piyyut. Furthermore, he (2005:255) contends that the entire iconographic composition at Sepphoris conveys a religious and social message and reflects the main issues at the core of the contemporary Judaeo-Christian controversy. Some scholars assert the influence of priestly circles on the ornamentation of the synagogue, especially



synagogue art, significance and impact

265

in generating and inspiring the renditions of the Tabernacle and Temple (Rutgers 1999; Yahalom 2000:90–91; Levine 2003:121–127; but see Weiss [2005:247–249] for a rejection of the proposal of priestly influence). Though these scholars try to elucidate the tripartite design through deeply contemplated inspirations and a programmatic layout, it seems more reasonable to assume that the popularity of this scheme derives from the desire of the Jewish community to incorporate into their synagogue decoration a balanced and harmonious design containing iconography and symbolic patterns; this way they could integrate and organize various themes in balanced relations. It enabled them to group together different themes including the special panels of inscriptions and heraldic lions (as at Hammath Tiberias B, Hammath Gader, and Sepphoris). It demonstrated the Jewish character of the synagogue as a place where the community gathered for cultic and liturgical objectives. This general scheme, with its tripartite panels, each with its own motifs rendered on synagogue pavements, with considerable gaps in dates and geographical areas, was presumably chosen from the repertoire of existing pattern books containing uniquely Jewish subjects. 5.3.2 Scheme B Carpets The inhabited scrolls composition, a development characteristic of sixth century CE mosaic floors, is an overall pattern effecting an abstract, unified carpet design (Avi-Yonah 1981d:377–382; Kitzinger 1963:347–348; 1965:24; Dauphin 1976; 1978; 1980; 1987; 1994; Hachlili 2009:111–147) and is found at Gaza, Maʿon, and Beth Sheʾan B (Figs. V-36–38). The composition covers the entire floor, and the design consists of vine branches issuing from an amphora and forming circular medallions within which beasts, birds, and various objects are portrayed. The design is divided into vertical columns of medallions. The central axial column usually contains objects, and the side columns to either side usually contain birds and animals facing the axial column in an antithetic pattern (see below). At Maʿon, peacocks flank the amphora, while at Gaza they flank the inscription. The amphora at the Beth Sheʾan B synagogue is flanked by goats. Because it was very much in vogue on contemporary church floors, the synagogue design has Jewish symbols added to the medallion pattern. In this way the synagogue floor could be differentiated from the neighboring church floors. The southernmost aisle of the Gaza-Maiumas synagogue, dated to 507/8 by an inscription, consists of an inhabited vine scroll carpet with three columns, and at least eleven rows of medallions in the surviving section (Fig. V-36). The design is composed of alternating rows of animals and birds; in some cases, including in the central column, we find animal chase scenes (Avi-Yonah 1966; 1975a:377–378; Ovadiah 1969; Hachlili 2009:112). No symbols have survived at Gaza but they may not have been considered necessary, as the design covered an aisle carpet, not that of the central nave. The nave of the Maʿon-Nirim synagogue in the south-west Negev is decorated with an inhabited vine scroll mosaic, dated to c. 538 (Avi-Yonah 1960); it consists of five columns and eleven rows and its left side is largely destroyed (Fig. V-37). The vine-trellis issues from an amphora flanked by a pair of peacocks in the centre of the first row. The axial column displays objects such as baskets, bowls, a bird of prey, and a bird cage. Two lions flank a menorah in the upper part of the design. The small synagogue mosaic pavement of Beth Sheʾan (B) (attached to the House of Leontis) is a variation of the inhabited scroll composition (Bahat 1981). It has a wide, ornate border and a central panel consisting of nine medallions, three columns, and three rows (Fig. V-38). The vine-trellis issues from an amphora in the centre of the first row, flanked by a pair of rams or goats. A menorah occupies the central medallion, which is flanked by an ethrog and a suspended lamp or incense burner,

266

chapter five

Figure V-36. Scheme B carpet, Gaza synagogue.

and the word ‫( שלום‬shalom) is inscribed above the menorah (Fig. VI-28b). A peacock, en face, fills the upper part of the central medallion. The above-described three synagogue pavements belong to the three main groups of inhabited scroll patterns found in mosaic pavements in synagogues and churches in the Land of Israel: Gaza to Group I, Maʿon-Nirim to Group II, and the Beth Sheʾan B small synagogue to Group III (Hachlili 2009:111–147). Different basic compositional schemes exist: division into two parts, vertical and horizontal (group I); a central axial row with antithetical design (group II); a central focus (group III). Yet regardless of the composition, all these floors consist of a square or rectangle subdivided into squares within which the medallions and motifs were executed, producing an even, overall stylized carpet. Characteristic of the inhabited vine scroll pattern found in synagogue and church pavements of groups I–III are (Hachlili 1987; 2009:145): a pattern of an overall and aesthetically pleasing composition; a formalized geometric motif of vine branches dividing the floor into circular medallions; a rhythmic, symmetrical setting arranged horizontally in antithetic groups on either side of a central axial column; stylization of fauna and flora; proportions according to the size of the medallions, hence no difference in the size of animals or birds; and horror vacui. Another trait, occurring ­exclusively in



synagogue art, significance and impact

267

Figure V-37. The inhabited scroll mosaic, Maʿon-Nirim synagogue.

synagogue pavements, is the presence of Jewish symbols placed in a central position, found on the Maʿon and Beth Sheʾan synagogue pavements. On the inhabited scroll pavements some motifs occur frequently, such as the bird-in-a-cage (Fig. IX-36), a bird of prey, and baskets; but there are also less common animals, for instance, a lioness with her cub (Fig. IX-13), an elephant, and a giraffe (Fig. IX-26). These motifs are not exclusive to the inhabited scroll mosaics; some occur in other types of mosaic floors, earlier and contemporary in date. Avi-Yonah, citing some of the above characteristics (1960b:31; 1975a), designated a group of eight inhabited scroll mosaic pavements in synagogues and churches in the Land of Israel as the ‘Gaza School’, mainly based on their similarity in composition and patterns. From these similarities he concluded that during the 6th century, a ‘Gaza School’ flourished and was responsible for the execution of these mosaics. This view is no longer accepted; stylistic differences can be observed between the compositions; the divergence in chronology, execution, and artistic style of the mosaics indicates that these pavements were not all created at the same workshop. Moreover, it is incorrect to base a school or workshop on the design of the border and field composition, or on the contents of the mosaic. It is erroneous to assert that one school created a single uniform design. Rather, the elements and composition of the mosaics were a matter of personal selection from a similar source, perhaps pattern books, by the donors or sometimes by the artists (Dauphin 1976a:130; 1978a:408–410; Dunbabin 1978:23; Hachlili 1987:55–57; 2009:143–147; Talgam 1998:80; Waliszewski 2001:242–243). Dauphin

268

chapter five

Figure V-38. The inhabited scroll mosaic, Beth Sheʾan B small synagogue.



synagogue art, significance and impact

269

(1987:189) rightly observes that the different compositions—the position of the single vase in the centre (groups I–IV) or the four corner vases depicted as the point of departure for the scrolls (group V)— do not constitute a chronological criterion; the geographical distribution, however, is significant when defining workshops. These designs would hardly indicate a school with far-reaching changes in style. Different artists must have executed these pavements, following some common designs. Most of the motifs used in these mosaics are not limited to the inhabited scroll pavements, but also occur on other types of overall geometrically-patterned pavements. The appearance of the motifs in these contexts implies that the designs and motifs are simply decorative. The inhabited scrolls appear frequently on mosaic pavements in Palestine, Arabia, Syria, and Phoenicia, mostly during the 6th century (Balty 1995:118–121). Their appearance at this time can be attributed to the development of this style from geometric-organic floors and the spread of these fashions in Palestine and Arabia (Kitzinger 1977:89). Most comparable mosaic pavements date to the same period, although on some Jordanian pavements the style continued to be used until the 8th century. The artist’s object, in Avi Yonah’s words (1936:17), was “to give a surface agreeably coloured and patterned . . . as [this] would help him to subordinate his subjects to the optical unity of the pavement.” The earliest of these compositions is the one portrayed on the Gaza-Maiumas synagogue, which has an absolute date of 507/8. Although the inhabited scroll composition appears in both Jewish and Christian art, each group imbued it with a different meaning, corresponding to the significance and form of the architectural building, the community needs, and the faith and time it was designed for. The appearance of the inhabited scroll pattern in both synagogue and church contexts might imply that its designs and motifs are simply decorative and that mosaicists possibly worked for Christian and Jewish patrons alike. The significance of each motif is difficult to determine, although it may be postulated that certain combinations of motifs which recur in synagogues or churches may have been preferred by one of the two communities. The same may apply regarding the animals, especially the rare ones such as the elephant, the bear, and the buffalo, which occur on the Maʿon, Gaza, and Beth Sheʾan B synagogue floors. 5.3.3 Scheme C Carpets Scheme C consists of an overall geometric carpet design covering the entire nave and sometimes includes an emblem as the central focus This pattern is found on the pavements of the ʿEn Gedi and Jericho synagogues (Figs. V-39). The ʿEn Gedi hall was decorated with a geometric carpet of intersecting circles. In its centre was a square emblem with a circle containing four birds, geometric and plant patterns, and pairs of peacocks holding grapes (Fig. V-40). A similar geometric design, but with a single bird, is depicted on the bema floor at ʿEn Gedi; in addition three menoroth are portrayed on the mosaic between the main carpet and the bema, and a single bird is rendered in the south part of the nave near the benches (Barag 2006:18*, Figs. 35–38). At Jericho the geometric overall carpet decorating the nave includes two emblems depicting Jewish symbols (Fig. V-41): in a circle close to the center a seven-branched menorah flanked by a shofar and lulav is rendered, with a written Hebrew blessing ‫‘ שלום על ישראל‬Peace to Israel’—below it; another emblem depicts a stylized Ark of the Scrolls (Figs. VI-27a, XI-2a). The centrality of the emblems is clearly emphasized by the even and harmonious geometric carpet surrounding them. Carpet panels with geometric patterns, of which only few remains survived, probably decorated the nave mosaic of the synagogue of Maʿoz Hayyim (Tzaferis 1982:223–227). The three schemes of nave mosaic designs have chronological significance: Scheme A is the most common and popular design on synagogue floors, beginning in the fourth century CE synagogue of

270

chapter five

Figure V-39. Scheme C design.

Figure V-40. ʿEn Gedi hall mosaic pavement.



synagogue art, significance and impact

Figure V-41. Jericho nave mosaic pavement.

271

272

chapter five

Hammath Tiberias and continuing through the fifth and sixth centuries CE; Scheme B is common in the sixth century CE, and appears also on church floors; Scheme C is the preferred design during the latter part of the sixth century CE, probably after figurative art was forbidden on synagogue floors. These three mosaic design schemes avoid free composition and also portray several typical characteristics of Oriental art: first, representations are depicted by the conceptual method, not in the visual illusionistic Graeco-Roman manner; second, they make use of the principle of horror vacui (Avi-Yonah 1960a:20–21; 1975b:41). Compositions include figurative art as well as iconic and mythological themes, which are depicted in sections that are rhythmically and antithetically united. The most remarkable element of the synagogue pavement field is its division into three: for example, Scheme A carpets are divided into three panels (Fig. V-27–33). The panels themselves consist of three elements: a central design with antithetical designs flanking it. Inscription panels are divided into the inscription and antithetical objects or animals that flank it (Fig. IX-10). Sometimes the panel is divided into three events of a narrative, for example Isaac’s Sacrifice at Beth Alpha (Fig. VIII-1). The zodiac panel is divided into three constituents: a square enclosing an outer and inner circle (Figs. VII-3–8). The Noah’s Ark panel at Gerasa is divided into three horizontal rows of animals (Fig. VIII-8). Scheme B mosaics are also divided into three parts: a central column flanked by antithetical columns (Figs. V-36–38). This tripartite division indicates a preference for symmetry and heraldic patterns, all traditional Oriental elements (Avi-Yonah 1948:128; 1950:77). A totally organized and systematic composition results in a harmonious, rhythmic and aesthetic design. 5.4 Iconographically-Decorated Functional Mosaic Floors Mosaic floor decorations include symbolic and iconographic elements, a paradoxical fact which needs emphasizing. Even biblical scenes which contain a representation of the Hand of God, as in the Binding of Isaac at Beth Alpha (Fig. VIII-1b), were considered fit subjects for a floor which was continually being trodden upon. Torah Shrines, menoroth, and other ritual objects were also regarded as suitable for the pavements of Hammath Tiberias B, Beth Alpha, Naʿaran, Sepphoris, and Susiya. Inscriptions depicted on mosaic floors were also allowed to be stepped upon. The word was much more respected than the image, as proved by the iconoclastic treatment given to some pavements, such as the one at Naʿaran, and especially the zodiac design, where the figures were damaged but the inscriptions were left untouched (Figs. V-31, VII-8). Inscriptions were an integral part of the synagogue floor and probably replaced figurative art, as indicated by the inscription at ʿEn Gedi (Fig. VII-2), where a list of zodiac signs followed by the twelve months replaced the earlier representational zodiacs seen in other synagogues. The first part of the ʿEn Gedi inscription (Fig. XI-4) names the thirteen ancestors of the world (taken from I Chron. 1:1–4). On the second part of the inscription, following the list of the twelve zodiac signs and twelve months, the three patriarchs are depicted. Amazingly this representation did not prevent the Jewish community of ʿEn Gedi from treading upon this floor. The inscription at the Rehov synagogue (Fig. XI-3) is noteworthy, not only because it is the longest synagogue mosaic inscription found up to now, but also because of its being devoted to matters of Halakha mentioned also in the Jerusalem Talmud. Both this and the ʿEn Gedi inscriptions are dated as late as the seventh century CE. Their prominent place on the synagogue pavements was the result of the change in the sixth century, when figurative art was once again forbidden and was replaced by geometric and floral composition. Why did Jews intentionally include biblical scenes and religious symbols in the subject matter used to adorn synagogue mosaic floors? Avi-Yonah (1960b:32) maintains that Jews of the Talmudic period were “notoriously insensitive to images, whether symbolic or Biblical.” However, it seems more likely that this reflects the Jewish avoidance of the worship of images of idolatry, mentioned at the end of the second of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:5; Deut. 5:1–9): “You shall not bow down



synagogue art, significance and impact

273

to them or serve them.” Stepping on an image must have removed its sacrosanct quality. In this way the Jews struggled against idolatry, acting on the principle that as long as the “graven image” would be widely represented on synagogue mosaic floors and trodden upon, the pernicious influence of idolatry could be neutralized. 6. Unidentical Symmetrical Composition A distinctive feature of Jewish synagogal art is the antithetic symmetrical composition, expressed in almost all the figurative and decorative designs and which is a basic element of Oriental art (Hachlili 1988:376–378; 1989:65–67). However, here it is represented in an unconventional manner: (a) in an asymmetrical design using a different flanking motif on each side, or (b) in an unidentical symmetry though using the same motif: (a) The first group includes heraldic designs carved on synagogue lintels, such as those from Capernaum (Figs. V-5c, 12b, 14) depicting a central motif such as a wreath, conch, or ark, flanked by two dissimilar floral motifs of different sizes or even designs. The most outstanding example of this feature is found in the entrance panel of the Beth Alpha mosaic pavement, where the inscription is flanked by a lion on one side and by a bull on the other (Fig. IX-10d). (b) Frequently, antithetic designs are symmetrical, although aesthetic symmetry may be realised even when objects or animals are clearly and even intentionally represented dissimilarly. This characteristic is usually found on synagogue mosaic pavements beginning in the third and fourth centuries CE, and increases in popularity in later periods. Some synagogue lintels present this style, such as the Gush Halav lintel suffit where an eagle is flanked by two unidentical garlands (Fig. IX-14). The relief from ʿEn Nashut (Fig. IX-3) portrays a figure flanked by a lion and a lioness, differing from each other in sex, size, and tail position. The eagles flanking the scene at each end are also unidentical. Some of the Golan lintels depict a pair of unidentical harrier eagles (Fig. IX-17).  A remarkable example is the Umm el Qanatir pair of decorated columns of the Torah Shrine. Although both front sides have the same patterns—alternating conches and rosettes carved in a row, their arrangement and numbers differ notably (Fig. IV-51). The menoroth flanked by ritual objects engraved on their upper part also differ considerably (Fig. VI-21). The unidentical symmetry is apparent also on the fluted part of the columns and is significant also on the columns other sides decorated with the carved vine scroll pattern (Fig. IV-51).  Impressive examples of this trend are found in the representations on synagogue mosaic pavements: Several panels depict a Torah Shrine flanked by menoroth and ritual objects in a unidentically symmetrical composition which contains varied flanking objects. For example, the Beth Alpha Torah Shrine panel is unidentical in almost all its heraldic elements (Fig. V-42): the menoroth flanking the Ark have different bases as do the lamps on the bar; the four ritual objects are each depicted differently; the two lions are similar but have different tails; and each bird is rendered differently. The Hammath Tiberias B upper panel shows a symmetrical rendition (Figs. VI-1a, 2a), but even here the two shofaroth and incense shovels are dissimilar in their details. The Sepphoris symbols panel (Figs. VI-1b, VI-2b) shows the flanking menoroth and the ritual objects more or less in the same way, but details are different. The menoroth in the Susiya pavement (Figs. V-43) differ completely from each other, particularly in their branches and bases.

274

chapter five

Figure V-42. Torah Shrine panel, Beth Alpha.

Figure V-43. Torah Shrine panel, Susiya.



synagogue art, significance and impact

275

Each of the shofaroth and incense shovels depicted on the synagogue pavement of Beth Sheʾan A is different (Fig. VI-3b). The entrance panel at Huseifa (Fig. V-34) shows two menoroth, each depicted in a completely different manner (Fig. VI-20c): one has pottery lamps, the other has glass; the branches are also rendered dissimilarly. The lulav and ethrog flanking the wreath with the inscription on the Tiberias mosaic pavement differ slightly (Fig. VI-36). In the central circle of the Beth Alpha zodiac panel (Fig. V-44) the horses, two on each side of the sun god, are rendered symmetrically, but are portrayed differently, particularly in their head decoration. Some details differ on the horses in the central circle of the Sepphoris zodiac, and the chariot’s right wheel is larger than the left one (Fig. VII-23b). On several synagogue mosaic pavements animals flank inscriptions, as do menoroth and the Ark. These animals are usually similar, although differences in details can be distinguished. The Hammath Tiberias B pavement shows a panel with lions facing each other across the inscription (Fig. IX-10a). These lions differ in facial details such as their ears. The Sepphoris lions panel (Fig. IX-10b), although damaged, has unidentical bulls’ heads. The Beth Sheʾan B small synagogue has a vase flanked by birds (Fig. IX-33a) which differ in some details. The Naʿaran biblical scene of Daniel flanked by lions depicts the lions symmetrically, but each with a different tail position (Fig. VIII15a): the left lion has an upturned tail, whereas the right lion has his tail between his hind legs. The entrance panel at Naʿaran depicts two unidentical (repaired) stags facing each other (Fig. IX-25c). The ʿEn Gedi central emblem shows birds placed symmetrically, but with differences in size and stance (Fig. IX-34). Inhabited scroll pavements sometimes contain antithetic designs with unidentical details. At Gaza some of the medallions are inhabited by similar heraldic animals (Fig. V-36, rows 5, 7,

Figure V-44. Central circle of the zodiac panel, Beth Alpha.

276

chapter five

and 9); even these, however, show differences: the leopards in row 9 have unidentical tails and in row 3, different animals flank a dog, a lioness and her cub on one side, and a tigress on the other. On the upper part of the Maʿon synagogue pavement, the lions flanking the menorah differ in their manes and heads (Fig. VI-43). The two elephants in row 8 are each rendered differently, particularly their trunks (Fig. IX-27a). The use of the tail to emphasize the unidentical nature of these designs is very common (Fig. IX-26). Rarely, one finds such heraldic symmetry with unidentical elements on pagan reliefs in Nabatean temples and tombs (Glueck 1965:Pls. 12, 38a, b, 54a, b, 167a, b, c, 177), and sometimes on mosaic pavements in churches, such as those at Shellal and the town of Nebo (Saller and Bagatti 1949:Pls. 14:1, 20:1–4, 21:1, 28:1, 3, 30:1, 34:3, 37:3, 39:2, etc.(. The antithetic symmetrical design was an integral part of Jewish funerary art as well. The depiction of unidentical objects or animals within the heraldic design must have been intentional, as it would have been just as easy to portray completely identical designs. Furthermore, it need not be related to unskillful artistic treatment, as some designs do use symmetrical patterns. Unidentical symmetry was a specifically Jewish stylistic trait. One may conjecture that it was associated with a desire to avoid competition with a perfection only God could achieve. On the other hand, this trend may have been due to the character of Jewish popular art, and to the artists’ standards of composition and their cultural environment. 7. Iconoclasm The systematic destruction of images of living creatures, whether human or animal, found in the decorative repertoire is known as iconoclasm—the iconophobic and iconoclasmic crisis occurred in some synagogues and churches. The damaged figures included isolated animals and birds in geometric and other compositions. The figures were completely or partially destroyed in a methodical manner. The damaged items included heads and faces of animals and humans, and sometimes the complete image. Most of the damage was to carved lintels and chancel screens and several mosaic pavements. Occasionally some figures were left intact, and in others the outline is still evident (Hachlili 2009:209–217). Faces and heads were disfigured or otherwise damaged on the carved reliefs at Korazim, on some Golan reliefs, and on chancel screens at Susiya. Mosaic pavements, disfigured and properly repaired, but usually with different, neutral motifs, seldom with a variation of the original motif, are found at Susiya (Fig. V-47) and on the entrance panel at Naʿaran (Fig. IX-25c). The pavements were almost completely transformed by changes in many of the motifs and details, although the general outline of the design was preserved. In most cases some of the original patterns and scheme can still be discerned. Several of the disfigured pavements appear to have been replaced immediately. The iconoclastic work was precise. The outline was sometimes still visible, even though on all mosaics the tesserae were removed and replaced by different representations (Schick 1995:194–195). The damaged area was either filled haphazardly with larger tesserae, or the same polychrome tesserae were re-used, providing further support for the conjecture that destruction and repair were concurrent. 7.1 Iconoclasm in Synagogues 7.1.1 Iconoclasm on Carved Stone Reliefs Figurative reliefs, friezes, sculptures, and chancel screens all suffered damage of various sorts. So, too, did architectural parts, lintels, and friezes, as for example at the Galilean synagogues of Barʿam and Capernaum (Schick 1995:202–204, Table 13).



synagogue art, significance and impact

277

Barʿam—At both the main and small (northern) synagogues of Barʿam the lintels of the central south façade main entrances were originally decorated with a wreath (still intact) flanked by a pair of eagles or Nikea which are disfigured (Fig. V-7a, b); at the small (northern) synagogue, the Hebrew inscription was not touched (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 90, 94). The main lintel and the lintels of the side portals of the main Barʿam synagogue, whose floral designs were not damaged are still in situ indicating that the iconoclasm was executed by the congregation, possibly while the synagogue was still in use (Fig. IV-7a). Capernaum—All lintels with figures of animals are clearly damaged (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 12, 15–18, 34, 36; Orfali 1922:Figs. 63–65, 67–8, 70, 109, 112) whereas the lintels with floral and geometric patterns were unharmed (Figs. V-12, 14). The frieze parts of the south façade gable were disfigured (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 26–31) while those of the inner walls, which were ornamented with floral and geometric designs, were left intact (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 55–64) (Figs. V-15, 16). Only a cornice part decorated with eagles and a sea horse on an inner wall were not damaged (Fig. IX-38). The iconoclasm at Capernaum was executed distinctively on the exterior, where almost all the damage to the lintels and the gable reliefs was carefully carried out, indicating that it was probably done by Jews. Korazim—It seems quite clear that iconoclasm was practiced at the Korazim synagogue, as all figures and animals were disfigured, either completely or partially (except a face in a medallion which survived complete), while geometric and floral designs were unharmed (Fig. IX-30). The main architectural parts affected were the exterior frieze of the southern façade gable and parts of the inner frieze. The eagle and the animals of the exterior frieze of the southern façade gable were damaged (Fig. IV-1). Other disfigured parts were animals and figures in medallions of the inner frieze: figure heads in vintage scenes (Fig. IX-30) and the animal handles of the ‘Seat of Moses’ (Fig. IV-67) (Yeivin 2000:Figs. 77, 81, 103–106, 125, 126, 130, 137, Pls. 6, 1–3; 14, 5; 15, 3–7; 25, 1–3; 26, 1; May 2000:51*–54*). A stone lintel at the Beth Midrash entrance lintel at Meroth suffered iconoclastic injury (Fig. XI-9). The lintel was decorated with a pair of eagles flanking a simple wreath with a Hercules knot and ending with ivy leafs. The heads and parts of the eagles’ bodies are disfigured whereas the wreath and the accompanying Hebrew inscription below the design are intact (Ilan 1989:32, Figs. 16–17; Ilan and Damati 1987:76). Again the mutilation was limited to the figures, leaving the other parts of the pattern and the inscription whole. Next to the original entrance on the south façade in the first phase of the Meroth synagogue, five stone voussoir parts of the arch were discovered; each stone had probably been decorated with one of the zodiac signs (Fig. V-45) and all were damaged (Ilan and Damati 1987:47). At Tiberias a screen engraved with a menorah is flanked by defaced stylized birds (Fig. IV-64). Some lion and eagle parts found in the Golan are damaged or missing parts (Maoz 1995:Pls. 37:3, 44:3, 108:2; Hachlili 1995:nos. 26–27, 38, 64); however it is not clear if they were damaged as a result of iconoclasm or of reuse. In some synagogues, lions’ heads are missing: at Kanaf a relief head and hindquarters; at ʿEn Nashut, a reclining lioness’s head and hindquarters (Fig. IX-2); at Zumimra the head of a lion depicted next to a column on a relief is damaged (Fig. IX-6); and on the Jaraba and Qusibiyye reliefs, eagles’ heads and body and wing parts are damaged (Fig. IX-15). It is interesting to note that at Susiya, iconoclasm is visible not only in the mosaic panels (see below) but also on two chancel screens with defaced animals: a damaged pair of birds (eagles) flanking a palm tree and a defaced pair of lions flanking a pomegranate tree (Fig. IV-66). In most of these examples, the images were carefully removed. It is not clear when the damage was done since many of these architectural fragments were discovered on the floors inside and outside the synagogue buildings; others were found in secondary use.

278

chapter five

Figure V-45. Disfigured zodiac stone reliefs, Meroth.

7.1.2 Iconoclasm on Mosaic Pavements Several synagogue mosaic pavements suffered from iconoclasm, probably in the mid- or late 6th century. The mosaic at the Susiya synagogue shows signs of damage and repair all over it (Gutman et al. 1981, Fig. on p. 123; Yeivin 1989:95, Figs. 1, 16; Fine 2000:190; Hachlili 2009:210). The mosaic panel in front of the secondary bema shows the Torah Shrine flanked by a pair of menoroth and a pair of deer (Fig. V-46a); only the deer on the right was destroyed, with just a small part of the animal’s body crudely repaired with different cubes. The nave mosaic was divided into three panels (Fig. IV-46): the large eastern panel, with a geometric design of squares, lozenges, and octagons originally containing birds, was damaged and crudely repaired. The central panel is where the zodiac images were originally, but only a small section of two zodiac signs and a wing of a season survived at the south end (Fig. V-46b). The panel was covered over and replaced by a geometric design with a large rosette in its center. The Susiya western panel apparently originally showed Daniel in the Lions’ Den. Of this, only remains of a human hand, lions’ bodies and the inscription ‫[ [דני] אל‬Dani]el survived (Fig. V-46c). The nave mosaic was framed with a meander pattern alternating with metopes filled with birds, fruit, and flora motifs; the birds were damaged and crudely repaired. At the Naʿaran synagogue all the mosaic images of humans and animals suffered extensive damage (Vincent 1961; Benoit 1961; Schick 1995:203–4; Fine 2000:189 with some errors in the described damage; Hachlili 2009:210). In the upper panel of the nave, the biblical scene of Daniel in the Lions’ Den was almost completely destroyed; only Daniel’s arms and the rear parts of the lions survived (Fig. VIII-17a). In the Naʿaran central zodiac panel, the seasons and the signs were carefully and methodically removed (Figs. VII-8, 13). Only the outlines of most of the signs survived. Three were eradicated entirely, but all the identifying Hebrew inscriptions were left untouched (Fig. V-47). In the third panel, with its geometric design of circles and hexagons containing animals and a variety of other items, all the animals were damaged while the fruits and other inanimate objects were unharmed (Fig. V-48). The Naʿaran mosaic was not repaired. However, a small panel rendering a pair of gazelles at the entrance of the Naʿaran synagogue was spoiled and later carefully repaired, with cubes of different sizes copying and replacing the damaged parts of the two animals (Fig. IX-25c).



synagogue art, significance and impact

279

a

b

c

Figure V-46. Iconoclasm on the Susiya mosaic pavement: a. Torah Shrine panel; b. the central panel with remains of the zodiac; c. fragment at the western panel with remains of Daniel in the Lions’ Den.

The lack of repair to the nave mosaic implies that the damage was possibly done at a later phase, when the mosaic could no longer be used in its damaged form though the excavation yielded insufficient data to verify this suggestion. Naʿaran was probably the last synagogue mosaic to use animated themes whose details were later disfigured. The Susiya mosaic, in contrast to the Naʿaran pavement, was repaired at the time of, or a little later after its iconoclastic destruction. This enabled the community to continue to use the Susiya synagogue floor in later periods. Amit (1994) proposes that the iconoclasm at Susiya was executed by Jews at the end of the Byzantine period. Some scholars view the damage to several parts of the mosaics of the Meroth synagogue as deliberate. One instance, on the mosaic floor, is the figure of David with Goliath’s weapons (Ilan 1989:24–26).

280

chapter five

a

b

c

d

e

f

Figure V-47. Disfigured zodiac signs, Naʿaran synagogue: a. Taurus; b. Cancer; c. Lion; d. Virgo; e. Libra; f. Pisces.

Figure V-48. Damaged geometric panel, Naʿaran.



synagogue art, significance and impact

281

His eyes were taken out (Fig. VIII-15), perhaps intentionally (Fine 2000:189). However, at a later stage (late 5th or early 6th century) the floor of hewn flagstones that had been laid over the mosaic was lifted to expose the mosaic. The eyes could have been damaged then, or even much later. Another mosaic pavement found in a side room (suggested as a beth midrash) of the Meroth synagogue (stage III, first half of the 7th century: Ilan 1989:31–33, Figs. 17, 18; Talgam 1987:153) was mostly destroyed, but a lamb’s head and barely a wolf’s head flanking a large vase accompanied by the Hebrew inscription of Isaiah 65:25 are still visible (Fig. VIII-17a). That the heads survived might indicate that the iconoclasts did not do their work thoroughly or that the mosaic simply deteriorated with time. The original animated mosaic at the Susiya synagogue was covered over and replaced by geometric designs, into which small sections of the original pavement were integrated. The local Jewish community undoubtedly executed this change. By contrast, the painstaking disfigurement and lack of repairs at Naʿaran seems to suggest that the local Jewish community probably carried out the iconoclastic damage at a later phase, thus preventing further use of the mosaic. More iconoclastic damage is detected on figurative reliefs and sculpture from Galilean and Golan synagogues than on mosaic pavements. This might indicate that Jews were less concerned about the animated mosaic pavements that were trodden on, and were more apprehensive about the architectural decorated elements, which were literally looked up to. It is notable that synagogues constructed or renovated at the end of the Byzantine period, such as ʿEn Gedi, Jericho, Maʿoz Hayim III and Rehov, contain uniconic mosaics. These floors depict geometric carpets which cover the entire nave and include Jewish emblems. At Jericho emblems of two groups of Jewish symbols are added to the geometric carpet (Fig. V-31). A geometric emblem with birds is depicted in the centre and on the niche floor of the ʿEn Gedi square carpets (Fig. V-41), together with three menoroth close to the main carpet and in front of the niche. The emblems are emphasized by the even and harmonious geometric carpet surrounding them, giving the design a central focus. It seems that this was the preferred design during the latter part of the sixth or seven century CE, indicating a renewed avoidance of figurative art on synagogue floors. Iconoclasm was limited to specific areas—it affected only some synagogues but was prevalent in churches in Paleastina and Arabia. The question is: where, by whom, why, and when did it occur? Various responses have been suggested: Scholars usually maintain that the damage to synagogues was done by Jews, as observed at Barʿam, Capernaum, and Meroth, and not by later occupants. Amit (1994) proposes that damage to the exterior of the synagogues (lintels etc.) was the work of newcomers who destroyed the building because they were disturbed by the figures, making it impossible to answer the questions posed above. The damage to the interior ornamentation, however, was probably executed by Jews while the synagogue was still in use. But this interpretation is difficult to accept. Why would a Jewish congregation damage only the interior icons and leave the exterior ones intact? Wouldn’t an iconoclastic movement have damaged figures wherever they were found? Ognibene (1998:384) argues, “the phenomenon . . . generally defined as ‘iconoclasm’ . . . perhaps should be more correctly considered as a manifestation of ‘iconophobic intolerance’.” Mosaics in which some parts or images were spared and the elements to be disfigured were carefully chosen may imply that the iconoclasts were local Jews or Christians, who revered some singular element of a sacred space. Damaged floors left unrepaired could mean that the building was not in use at the time of the disfigurement, or that the destruction was the work of later occupants, perhaps Muslims, in the late Umayyad period or later (Piccirillo 1993:42; Schick 1995:197, 209–210). Schick (1995:205) presumes that “deliberate damage of images is very much a phenomenon of Christian churches.” Yet almost all the damaged floors of the churches and of the Susiya synagogue were repaired— some carefully, with geometric and plant designs. This indicates that many of the communities continued to function and use their structures. The iconoclasm on mosaic pavements of synagogues and churches shows different tendencies, possibly indicating that the damage was done in different

282

chapter five

periods because of changes of attitude to figurative art in a local community or by members of the clergy. The intense debate regarding the motivation for iconoclasm has raised diverse assumptions (AviYonah (1961:185–6; Avigad 1972; Amit 1994; Schick 1995:196, 209, 210, 223, Tables 10 and 11; Piccirillo 1993:41–2; Stern 1996:416–18; Dunbabin 1999:204; Levine 2000:340–343; Bowersock 2006:85–111) and all have some validity: (1) The local Jewish and Christian communities (usually rural) in some areas objected to the animated motifs on the architectural elements and on the mosaic pavements and carried out the disfigurement. (2) The destruction, and particularly its lack of repair, was the work of later Muslim rulers under the Abbasid caliphs; this was a planned action performed simultaneously throughout the region. (3) The damage was the result of an extreme Muslim edict, namely to eradicate all human and animal images, pronounced by Caliph Yasid II in 721 (or 723, the date proposed by Bowersock 2006:105). (4) The disfigurement and damage in the synagogues was executed in the Islamic period when the sites had been abandoned and destroyed. Avi-Yonah (1961:185) contends there were two periods of iconoclastic destruction of Jewish synagogues, one in the first half of the 4th c. (after the artistic liberalism of the 3rd c.) and a second in the 6th or 7th c. that was the work of Jewish iconoclasts, perhaps “due to the interference by the Muslim rulers”. Because in the process of methodical defacement and destruction of images, the Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions on sculptured areas and mosaic pavements in the synagogues were left intact, the destructive behavior is usually explained as the work of Jewish iconoclasts, and was contemporary with a thematic change to floral and geometric patterns (as on the ʿEn Gedi and Jericho synagogue pavements) and to inscriptions (at ʿEn Gedi and Rehov). It may have taken place even before the iconoclastic actions in Christianity and Islam (Avi-Yonah 1960:34–35; Hachlili 1988:398; Ilan 1989:31; Schick 1995:202–204; Fine 2000:190; Bowersock 2006:98–9; Hachlili 2009:217). Some scholars (AviYonah 1961:42; Kitzinger 1954:130, note 204; Barber 1997:1022, note 11, 1034–1036) suggest that the strictness of the Jews of the late 6th or early 7th centuries might have been caused by the polemic with Christians over images. But Schick (1995:182) argues that figures decorated later synagogue mosaics such as those of Beth Alpha and the mid-7th century beth midrash at Meroth. However, the Beth Alpha pavement is dated to the early or mid-6th century, probably before the restrictions were imposed, and the Meroth mosaic decorates a side room whose ornamentation might have enjoyed greater leniency. The few examples of iconoclasm found on synagogue pavements seem more likely to be the result of a particular community’s decision to ban images. The Jews regarded the synagogue floor as a place to walk and tread on; the decoration, albeit with meaning and importance, was not sacred and the local community tolerated even the hand of God that was depicted on the Beth Alpha pavement. They might even have purposely rendered the biblical scenes on the pavement to intensify the feeling that the ornamentation was not sacred and should not be worshiped. 8. Concluding Remarks An important difference between the various synagogues’ decoration is the northern group’s emphasis on the exterior, that is, the façade, with its rich ornamentation which must have highlighted the synagogue building and made it conspicuous. The synagogues in other part of the country are sparingly decorated on the exterior; in them the emphasis is on the interior, where the hall is decorated with mosaic pavements. Avi-Yonah (1961a:180) maintains that this sparse exterior decoration reflects the impoverished state of the Jewish community during the Byzantine period. However, it seems more likely that the reason for this remarkable contrast in ornamentation styles is that the



synagogue art, significance and impact

283

elaborately decorated façade with triple or single portals was a local northern (Galilean and Golan) tradition; similarly decorated façades are customary in Syrian architecture throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods. Synagogue buildings in other areas of the Land of Israel often had a frontal axial courtyard; examples include Beth Alpha, Beth Sheʾan, Maʿoz Hayim, Rehov, Susiya, Naʿaran, Gerasa, and Hammath Gader (Figs. IV-45, 50). From some time in the fifth century CE onward the synagogue also had a narthex, which made a decorated façade unnecessary. These façades were not visible from outside, whereas the Galilean and Golan synagogues façades were, as they lacked frontal courtyards, although some, such as Capernaum, had side courtyards. Jewish art, as it is manifested in synagogue sculpture of the Galilee and Golan, shows a connection with the prevailing Hellenistic art. Schwartz (2001:250) maintains that “the variety of synagogue decoration—no identical pavements etc—argues against the supposition that the art constituted a kind of iconographic code . . . but of a loosely constituted and unstable symbolic language.” Rosenthal-Heginbottom (2009:161, 169) argues that the themes depicted on the synagogue mosaic panels “neither reflect the actual furnishings . . . nor do they originate from the same pattern books, but were individual creations of local workshops and mosaicists . . . they are a visual expression of a spiritual concept . . . an iconographic scheme including ritual objects, imaginary landscape scenes, biblical scenes and the zodiac with the four seasons and Helios on his chariot. The mosaics floors are a visual image intended to convey a spiritual message related to the temple and its cult.” The Jewish art style does include characteristic Oriental elements as well as Syrian-Hauran influences; at the same time it displays some novelty and inventiveness in design which grants it individuality. This can be seen clearly in the architectural features that developed in synagogue construction. For example, the general façade features—especially the triple (or single) portal on the southern, Jerusalem-oriented wall, the ornamented lintels, the carved arch above the central portal—are all characteristics specific to Galilean and Golan synagogues. Careful analysis and consideration leads us to conclude that the style of the Galilean and Golan synagogue façades and portals as well as technical architectural details were influenced by the Hauranic-Roman style only in a general way. The Roman-Syrian temples were entirely different both in plan and content. Their triple portals differ from those of the Galilee synagogues: the central entrance of the former is usually much higher than the side doors and the ornamentation and moulding profiles of the lintels and doorjambs are entirely different. Pagan temples, considered the god’s abode, were small structures serving only a few priests who participated in the rites, and usually contained an idol of the god in the adyton. The synagogue, on the other hand, consisted of a large building which had to serve the entire participating congregation within its walls. In Late Antiquity symbolic, figurative, and narrative art were an extensive and essential part of Jewish art. At the end of the 2nd century CE and particularly during the 3rd, a major conceptual change occurred when representational art began to flourish. The Jews developed their own figurative and imagery art during this period, acquired decorative elements and customs from the surrounding cultures, and used pagan motifs, figures, birds, and animals in synagogue and funerary art. The development of Jewish figurative art is all the more surprising in light of the previous attitude to animate art. The art of the Second Temple period is purely aniconic. Figurative art and symbolic motifs and themes were avoided. The motifs used were mostly geometric, floral, and architectural, although occasionally significant emblems were used, such as the menorah. The aniconic Jewish art was a defense against the Hellenistic assault on their religion and culture at a time when the Hellenistic rulers were attempting to force Jews into idolatry. Jews kept the Biblical prohibition of no ‘sculptured image’ (Ex. 20:4; Deut. 5:8), as well as many stricter laws. Archaeological evidence

284

chapter five

confirms that during the Second Temple period, representations of animate beings were avoided (Hachlili 1988:65–83; 103–119; 1998:237–8; 2009:17–22). Furthermore, the Hellenistic culture was only able to influence the material values in the Second Temple period such as the ornamental motifs and the language; it could not turn the Jews into Hellenized thinkers and philosophers. Following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (70 CE), stern rabbinical attitudes began to give way to greater tolerance. Such changes, reflected in Talmudic literature, were the result of political, economic, and social circumstances. The Jews of this period no longer feared idolatry. The leading rabbis emphasized the latter part of the commandment, “You shall not bow down to them,” and tended to enforce the prohibition only where the danger of idolatry was present. By the 2nd or 3rd century CE, Jewish religious leaders apparently permitted iconic, representational decoration, and the sources testify to a policy of religious pragmatism and avoidance of the formulation of binding teachings. Rabbinical evidence suggests that figurative art was tolerated if it did not encourage cultic worship. A further reason for the lenient attitude to figurative art was that no Jewish law forbids the depiction of religious subjects. The opposite was true. The real threat to Judaism’s survival from this time on was from Christianity, which developed out of Judaism and had religious and cultural affinities with it. This challenge to Judaism’s independence was even stronger from the fourth century CE on, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. At this time especially the Jews needed to assert their own identity, and turned therefore to symbolism. They chose specific symbols which the Jewish communities as well as individuals felt could express their national faith, and could represent religious ideas with which they could identify. The Jews’ attitude to art was basically decorative, to add beauty and ornamentation to their buildings. The Jewish figurative repertoire includes themes such as biblical narrative scenes, motifs of animals and humans, and a few mythological designs and other pagan motifs, especially in the decoration of mosaic pavements. Similar themes appear in Jewish poetry. The significance of the symbolic and iconographic themes on early mosaic pavements of the 4th–5th centuries CE contrasted with contemporary aniconic Christian mosaic art, and was one means of emphasizing the difference between the Jewish and Christian notion of mosaic pavement ornamentation. Between the 4th and 7th centuries the floor of the synagogue became an important location for elaborate mosaic decorations. Often, the mosaic pavement was planned as one framed unit, divided geometrically into panels. The theory accepted by most scholars is that pagan motifs used in Jewish representational art lost their original, symbolic, idolatrous significance and evolved into purely ornamental motifs, whose sole purpose was to add beauty and embellishment to a structure. Noteworthy are certain pagan mythological and symbolic motifs which were adopted by the Jews through the influence of Jewish legends and Midrashic literature.

CHAPTER six

Jewish Symbols In Late Antiquity Jews depicted symbolic motifs and iconography in their synagogal and funerary art, in a wide variety of contexts and localities and on many different types of objects. The Jews selected these motifs from a basic repertoire of symbols that expanded with time. This contrasted with the situation in the Second Temple period, when the Jews in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora refrained from using either figurative art or symbolic motifs and themes. Motifs in that period were mostly geometric, floral, and architectural; seldom were symbols such as the menorah and the showbread table used. Jews strictly obeyed the Biblical prohibition of “a sculptured image” (Exodus 20:4; Deuteronomy 5:8) as a defense against attempts by Hellenistic rulers to assault the Jewish religion and culture and force Jews into idolatry. With the rise of Christianity, and especially after it became the official religion of the Roman Empire, Judaism felt under threat again, this time from a religion which had developed out of Judaism and which still had religious and cultural affinities to it. The menorah, the showbread table, the ark, the ritual objects, and the conch are uniquely Jewish symbols, expressing profound and significant values of the religion. They were used frequently throughout late antiquity by Jews in the Land of Israel and in the Diaspora. Derived from the accouterments of the Temple rites, this limited repertoire holds a prominent place in the vocabulary of Jewish art. Three sacred vessels stood in the sanctuary of the Second Temple period—the menorah, the Showbread table, and the incense altar. A fourth, the sacrificial altar, stood in the Temple courtyard. These same sacred vessels had been present in the First Temple as well, together with the Ark of the Tabernacle which stood in the Holy of Holies. Now it was no longer enough to refrain from making graven images. What was needed was a different approach that allowed the use of specific religious symbols as a means of expressing Jewish identity. These symbols, the menorah, the Ark, and the ritual objects, were chosen because the whole Jewish community, as well as individuals, could express through them their religious and national aspirations. Because of their profound and uniquely Jewish significance, these symbols were used frequently throughout Late Antiquity by Jews in the Land of Israel and in the Diaspora, holding a prominent place in the vocabulary of Jewish art. These chosen Jewish religious symbols derived from the Temple rites and ceremonies, which is why the repertoire was so limited.1 After the destruction of the Temple, the late antique synagogues operated as a combination of congregational assembly hall and prayer space. Torah reading was emphasized and prayer became obligatory. With the lack of a religious and cultic centre, the synagogue became the focus, the symbol of the community’s uniqueness. These synagogues contained a distinctive feature, a predetermined, permanently-built focal point. This was the Torah Shrine, an architectural structure which contained the Ark of the Scrolls and was

1 But see Goodenough’s (1953–1964) thesis, expressed in his monumental and extensive work assembled into thirteen volumes, where he attributes symbolic meaning to all motifs, whether architectural, floral, geometric, or animal, all of which were given new values associated with a mystic, eschatological belief in immortality and the hope for resurrection. The Jews who followed this new mysticism excluded themselves from normative Judaism, forming a movement of Hellenized Jews who practiced a mystic anti-rabbinical Judaism. Goodenough’s conclusions, however, have not been accepted; in fact his thesis has met with outright rejection (Avi-Yonah 1956; Kraeling 1956:340–346; Urbach 1959; Avigad 1976:283–286).

286

chapter six

set in the Jerusalem-oriented wall. Archaeological evidence proves that only after the destruction of the Temple did the orientation to Jerusalem become important. In fact, the synagogue orientation was most likely determined by the position of the Torah Shrine structure. The congregation inside the hall prayed facing the Torah Shrine, hence facing Jerusalem (Hachlili 1976:52; 1988:231–232; 2000:146). This emphasis placed on the Torah Shrine and the Jerusalem orientation symbolized the sanctity of the place and acted as a reminder of the Temple. Reading the Torah has been the most important duty in the synagogue from ancient times until the present day, and a major factor in the life of the Jews. It has become a symbol of survival and preservation for Judaism throughout the ages, and is a major constituent of the Jewish spirit. Clearly, the most prominent architectural feature of ancient synagogues was the Jerusalem-oriented Torah Shrine.2 1. The Jewish Symbols Panel The most prominent panel on several synagogue mosaic floors is that portraying Jewish symbolic ritual objects. This panel comprises a symbolic, antithetic design; that is, it displays similar but nonidentical objects arranged symmetrically: a Torah Shrine or Ark flanked by a pair of menoroth, each menorah in turn flanked by four ritual objects (sometimes only two)—the lulav, ethrog, shofar, and incense shovel—in exactly the same formation on each side (Hachlili 2001:59; 2009:23–26). This panel is situated in front of the Torah Shrine, which probably contained these same objects of the synagogue cult. The synagogues of Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris and Susiya (Figs. VI-1, 2), which contain actual aediculae and niches, depict on the Jewish symbol mosaic panel a pair of menoroth flanking the Torah Shrine with the Ark of the Scrolls within (Figs. IV-54, VI-1); whereas at the Beth Alpha and Naʿaran synagogues, which have apses, the mosaic symbols panel shows the pair of menoroth flanking only the Ark of the Scrolls, without any enclosure (Figs. VI-3, 4). The mosaic pavement of Hammath Tiberias B (Dothan 1983:33–39, Pl. 27) shows in its upper panel the structure of the Torah Shrine, consisting of a façade of two columns, each standing on a pedestal supporting a pediment decorated with a conch (Figs. VI-1a, 2a). Three steps between the columns lead up to it. This structure of the Torah Shrine contains the Ark of the Scrolls, depicted as double carved doors partly hidden by the veil (parochet). The menoroth flanking the Torah Shrine portrayed in the synagogue mosaic floor panel at Hammath Tiberias B (Fig. VI-19a) have an elaborated tripod base consisting of a concave plate terminating in animal legs (Hachlili 2001:135, Fig. III-10c). The menorah arms are particularly ornate, being composed of a sequence of alternating pomegranates and cups (Hachlili 2001:149, IS3.1, ornamentation b). They are strikingly similar to those of the stone menorah found at Hammath Tiberias A (Fig. VI-16) and to other examples such as the menorah depicted in the Samaritan synagogue mosaic floor at el-Hirbeh (Fig. VI-45). This has similar arms, as does the menorah carved on the ʾEshtemoʿa lintel (Fig. VI-32d) (Hachlili 2001:Fig. VII-1, Pl. II-3, IS2.1, IS3.20, IS4.2). The glass containers are depicted on the arms without a crossbar, and the flames in the light fittings face the central arm and the Torah Shrine/Ark that they flank. At Sepphoris, a similar Torah Shrine design, partly destroyed, is depicted in the central panel of the second band (Weiss & Netzer 1996:18–19; Weiss 2005:65–77). The panel is divided into three 2 In synagogues in Galilee and Golan the Torah Shrine was located on the south wall, while in Judea and the south of the Land of Israel it was on the north wall. In the synagogues of Syria, Apamea, and Dura-Europos it was on the south or south-west wall of the synagogue; in the western Diaspora the Torah Shrine was usually on the east wall. Exceptions are the Sepphoris synagogue, which has an aedicula in the western end of the hall, and the Hammam-Lif synagogue, which has a niche in the western wall that may have served a different purpose.



jewish symbols

a

b

c

Figure VI-1. Jewish symbols mosaic panel: a. Hammath Tiberias B; b. Sepphoris; c. Susiya.

287

288

chapter six

parts: the central one renders the Torah Shrine portrayed as a façade of six columns, each placed on a pedestal and all six placed on a stylobate (Figs. VI-1b, 2b). The columns, with stylized Ionic capitals, support a Syrian gable decorated in its centre with a conch, and with acroteria at the corners. Steps may have been rendered between the columns. Within this façade, two doors decorated with square panels, three on each side, lending a three-dimensional illusion simulating wooden doors, represent the Ark. An incense shovel is depicted below the Torah Shrine—an unusual and unique position. Each of the two flanking panels depicts a menorah with arms decorated with an elaborate capital-andflower design and a tripod base with stylized animal feet (Hachlili 2001:148, 161, IS3.7). The Sepphoris menoroth (Fig. VI-19b) have a horizontal crossbar with round glass containers serving as light fittings; the illuminating flames of the right menorah lean towards the centre, towards the Torah Shrine; the left menorah is depicted identically, with the flames tending outwards, away from the centre. Each menorah is flanked by ritual objects, the one on the left by a lulav bound together with the other three species and the ethrog, all placed in a bowl, while the one on the right is flanked by a shofar and tongs. At Susiya the mosaic panel, placed before the secondary bema, shows the Torah Shrine as a wide façade with four columns, each resting on a pedestal (Gutman et al. 1981). The two central columns support a Syrian gable decorated with a conch (Figs. VI-1c, IV-2c). Between these columns are two partly destroyed doors representing the Ark decorated with square panels, three on each side; they are quite similar to the Sepphoris rendition. However, the pair of menoroth flanking the Torah Shrine on the Susiya pavement differs entirely (Fig. VI-20a), particularly in their arms and bases. The menorah on the left has a base and arms decorated with globular balls, whereas the right one has its base and arms decorated with simple lines. Both have a crossbar holding glasses as light fittings. The menoroth seem to be flanked by only two ritual objects, the shofar and the lulav. A pair of stags and plants flank the Torah Shrine and menoroth panel; the mosaic shows repairs following what was either accidental or intentional damage (Fig. IV-48). A different design, but still similar, appears on the mosaic pavement of the Beth Sheʾan A synagogue (Zori 1967:152, Pl. 29, 5), showing a structure with a double façade (Fig. VI-3b). The outer façade, closer to the viewer, consists of two columns with stylized Ionic capitals, each resting on a pedestal and supporting a gable. The inner façade has two similar columns supporting an arch decorated with a conch. A parochet is shown hanging on a rod between the columns. No ark is depicted, which is one reason that some scholars argue that this synagogue was a Samaritan building (AviYonah 1973:42; Pummer 1999:131–132). A veil covers the Torah Shrine and a pair of menoroth flank the ark, each accompanied by only two ritual objects, a shofar and an incense shovel. A different concept guided the artistic rendition of the mosaic panels of the Beth Alpha and Naʿaran synagogue floors: The design of the mosaic panel in the Beth Alpha synagogue shows the Ark of the Scrolls as a chest with a carved and decorated double door, standing on three legs (Figs. VI-3a, 4a). The Torah Shrine is indicated symbolically by the conch depicted inside the ark’s gable (for the symbolic representation of the conch see Hachlili 1980). A lamp is suspended from the centre of the ark’s gable and is part of the repertoire of ritual items symbolizing its use in the synagogue. The ark is flanked by an nonidentical pair of menoroth with unusual tripod bases, with round arms decorated by a stylized form of the capital-and-flower pattern, and glasses and flames on the crossbar (Fig. VI-20b). The menoroth themselves are each flanked by the four ritual utensils, with the addition of a pair of lions, a pair of birds placed on the edges of the two acroteria, and a pair of plants. A veil (parochet) is portrayed at both ends of the panel, apparently representing the veil that covered the area of the Torah Shrine and separated it from the synagogue hall.



jewish symbols

289

a

b

c

Figure VI-2. Jewish symbols on a mosaic panel: a. Hammath Tiberias B; b. Sepphoris; c. Susiya (drawing).

The Naʿaran synagogue mosaic panel in the main hall pavement has a different design. Here the Ark of the Scrolls, now partly destroyed, is shown as a chest with double doors standing on two legs, with a gabled top decorated with a conch (Fig. VI-4b). The ark is flanked by a pair of menoroth of unique style and decoration: the round arms are adorned by alternating square patterns and the central stem is adorned with a series of round discs; notable are the stepped bases of the menoroth and the glass containers on a specially stylized ornate crossbar (Hachlili 2001:135, 161, Fig. III-10d). Instead of the usual accompanying ritual objects, two lamps hang from each menorah. The style of each mosaic pavement, however, is completely different, as each synagogue’s artist added to and changed the basic pattern. Beth Alpha has the most elaborate additional images, its menoroth, animals, and objects being symmetrical but not identical in composition. The same design as that found on the Jewish mosaic panels is also portrayed on other objects, for instance, on four

290

chapter six

a

b

Figure VI-3. Jewish symbols on mosaic panels: a. Beth Alpha; b. Beth Sheʾan B.

drawings at Beth Shearim and on a limestone plaque and a basalt lintel from ʿAssaliyye, where a Torah Shrine is rendered flanked by two menoroth but without additional ritual objects (Fig. V-22b). On a lintel from Kochav HaYarden and on a limestone plate, the design is different and shows a menorah flanked by two Torah Shrines (Figs. IV-34). This design also occurs in the Diaspora, in catacomb drawings and on gold glasses.



jewish symbols

291

Figure VI-4. Jewish symbols on mosaic panels: a. Beth Alpha; b. Naʿaran.

Synagogue mosaics which showed these objects had a twofold function: to show the actual use as well as to suggest the symbolic connotations. As these objects had been previously connected to the Temple, they probably expressed a longing for the Temple rites and ceremonies which the depiction of the objects on the synagogue floor might have gratified to some degree. The antithetic symmetrical composition of the Torah Shrine panels is a distinctive feature of Jewish art, occurring in many figurative and decorative subjects; it is also one of the basic features of art in the Near East. Jewish art has a propensity to portray two similar but unidentical objects in pairs, namely to produce the non-identical symmetry effect. This holds for the depiction of pairs of menoroth too (Hachlili 1988:253–254, 376–378; 1998:419–420; 2001:191–194). An important issue is the symmetry that appears in mosaic pavement panels, such as a pair of menoroth flanking the Torah Shrine or the Ark of the Scrolls. It might, in fact, have had special significance (Hachlili 1988:367; 2001:198–200). The simple answer lies in the tendency to symmetrical composition in Jewish art, as influenced by Levantine oriental art. The occurrence of two menoroth, however, may have reflected the actual function of the menorah in the synagogue. Such portrayals very often reflected the actual use of objects, illustrating the internal arrangement of the synagogue with the ark in a central position, flanked by menoroth. The menoroth may also have been placed together with the ark in the niche or apse of the synagogue, as, for example, at the ʾEshtemoʿa synagogue, where the three built niches probably held an ark and two menoroth (Hachlili 1988:255, Fig. VIII-5; 2001:Fig. IV-3). These portrayals of pairs of menoroth may indicate that some time during the 3rd and 4th centuries a change occurred in the synagogue ritual, requiring the use of two menoroth functioning simultaneously. In the mosaic floor depictions, other contemporary innovations included zodiac representations and additional ritual utensils. The spread of Christianity, and its inherent challenge to the established Jewish religion, may have been the cause of the increasing ceremonial content in synagogue ritual and art (Hachlili 2001:199–200).

292

chapter six 2. The Menorah—Light, Cult, and Symbol

The menorah has an important place in Judaism as a light-giving and cult vessel, serving both in the Jerusalem Temple and in synagogues in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora. During the Second ­Temple period the menorah and the showbread table were signs of the priestly duties and offices. Only after the destruction of the Temple did the menorah image change from a limited official emblem into a well-recognized Jewish symbol. During the biblical period, candelabra. including the menorah, were one form of cult vessel, used for illumination in ancient temples where many appear in illustrations of rituals. They were habitually associated with light or fire, as indicated by their frequent discovery in temples and by their renditions on reliefs and seals, sometimes in the presence of worshippers. Some of these candelabra are similar to the conjectured menorah of the First Temple (Hachlili & Merhav 1985:257, Fig. 1; Hachlili 2001:Figs. I-1–4). The menorah is described in detail in Ex. 25:31–40 and 37:17–24 as one of the ritual vessels of the Tabernacle. The menorah was possibly one of the holy vessels from the Tabernacle that was brought up to Jerusalem by the priests and Levites (I Kgs. 8:4) and placed in Solomon’s Temple. Ten gold menoroth are reported to have been made for the Temple, possibly to light the hall (for the history of the ­menorah see Sperber 1965; Hachlili 2001:7–9). Ancient literary texts—I Macc. 1:21 and Josephus Ant. 12.250—record the removal of the holy vessels, including “the golden altar and the candelabrum with all its furnishings,” and when the Maccabeans recaptured the Temple they kindled the lights on a makeshift lampstand. The restoration of the temple service was celebrated for eight days as the Festival of Lights—Hanukkah (Ant. 12.319.325–326; see also I Macc. 4:49–57; II Macc. 10:6). A tradition in the Babylonian Talmud (BT Menahot 28b; cf. BT Rosh Hashanah 24b; Avodah Zarah 43a; Megillat Ta‘anit, 9) states in connection with the Hasmonean period that the menorah had seven iron rods, and they covered them with wood. This is the first mention of a seven-branched menorah. The menorah was in use in Herod’s Temple until its destruction in 70 CE. After the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, its vessels were taken to Rome as spoils and displayed in Titus’s triumphal procession (War 5.216–17, 7.148–49) as depicted on the Arch of Titus (Fig. VI-10, see below). Vespasian placed the menorah and other spoils in a newly erected special Peace Temple (War 7.148–50). The fate of the Temple menorah after that is not clear. The sixth-century CE Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea relates some unverifiable sources and traditions, and records that the ‘treasures of the Jews’ were taken to Carthage by the Vandals in 455 CE after their sack of Rome, and then carried in Belisarius’s triumphal procession in Constantinople in 534 CE (History of the Wars 4, 6–9). He further relates that the emperor Justinian sent the sacred vessels to Jerusalem following a warning by a Jew that ill luck would strike their holder. It supposedly fell into the hands of Persians or Arabs in the seventh century. Medieval sources mention the presence of the menorah in Constantinople (Lewy 1945:124; Strauss 1959:7–8; Sperber 1965:154–55). The fullest description of the menorah, in Ex. 25:31–40 and 37:17–24, portrays it with a central shaft and “six branches shall issue from its sides”.3 This account provides the material, weight, and 3 The Hebrew word for the menorah arms is ‫ קנה‬kaneh “reed.” In the Greek Septuagint it is called καλαµισκοι, “hollow pipe” and not branch. Technically, it would have been appropriate for the arms of such a candelabra to be hollow to prevent the object becoming too heavy (Hachlili and Merhav 1985:262, Figs. 7–8). The word “arm,” therefore, should only be used in its connotation of “division” and not in its meaning of “limb” (of a tree). This mistranslating of the Hebrew word kaneh as branch has influenced many scholars’ research; usually the mistake lies in their comparing the form of the menorah to a



jewish symbols

293

form of the menorah and its accompanying vessels. The menorah was made of pure gold, the only Tabernacle article termed ‘pure’ (Ex. 31:8, 39:37), indicating its sacred status and possible symbolic meaning. The menorah description reveals its weight while its dimensions are unspecified. A deeper examination of the description of the menorah in Ex. 25:31–40 and 37:17–24 reveals that it comprises two elements: the first is a lampstand, which is called a ‘menorah’ in the opening verse; and the second, a more elaborate menorah that stood originally in the Tabernacle and to which six arms were added in the Second Temple period. These passages in fact describe the earliest cultic menorah as a relatively simple candelabrum that underwent a transformation to the elaborate sevenarmed type that was common during the Second Temple period (Hachlili 2001:9–16). The opening verse (Ex. 25:31) describes the early cultic menorah, traditionally the Tabernacle lampstand, as a single central stand with a thickened lower part and a concave flaring base, supporting a bowl or lamp with a floral capital decoration on the upper shaft under the bowl. This version, which does not mention the arms, is called a ‘menorah’ (Haran 1961:277–78; C.L. Meyers 1976:182–184; 1979:53; Yarden 1991:39–43; Hachlili and Merhav 1985:257 n. 7; Hachlili 2001:11–2). The description and the reconstruction show that the Tabernacle menorah was not seven-armed, despite the conventional view inspired by the text of Exodus. The description there contains both earlier and later layers, and proves that the earlier component, called the ‘menorah’, was a lampstand, a utensil common throughout the ancient Near East (Fig. VI-5). Furthermore, besides the description of the seven-armed menorah in Exodus, also recorded is the ‫—נר תמיד‬the ‘continually burning lamp’ (Ex. 27:20; Lev. 24:2; Num. 8:4), without mention of seven arms or lamps. This ‘menorah’, which was the Tabernacle ‘lampstand’ (Ex. 25:31), was the basis for the more elaborate menorah to which six arms were added. The seven arms are not mentioned in Num. 8:4 or I Samuel 3:3, or in connection with Solomon’s Temple; nor are they found on contemporary stands and candelabra (Fig. VI-5). This absence reinforces the assumption that the early cultic menorah was simply a lampstand. This portrayed lampstand shape was common in the ancient Near East for candelabra, cult stands, incense stands, and thymiateria made of pottery, bronze, iron, and stone, and was used in cult and ritual. Scholars tend to explain the function of these candelabra as being for lighting. It is reasonable to assume that the candelabra are those shown with a lamp or depicting a flame emerging from the top (Hachlili and Merhav 1985:257, Fig. 1; Hachlili 2001:12–16, Figs I-1–4, Pls. I-1, 2). Ten menoroth are included in the account of Solomon’s Temple (I Kgs 7:49; II Chron 4:7, 20–21, 13:11), which seemingly also had ten decorated ‘lampstands’. These verses give no reason to assume that these menoroth had seven arms; they appear to have been stands with a single lamp, which were common at that time. Nor do they seem to have been connected with the cult, but presumably served to illuminate a large hall. The biblical report describes the menoroth in the plural only, as well as their lamps and flowers, and their function of lighting. It does not mention arms at all. If arms had been part of these menoroth, they probably would have been noted in the text (C.L. Meyers 1979:48, 56; Hachlili 2001:16–18). Josephus does not describe the golden menoroth in Solomon’s Temple with arms or lamps either. Thus, the biblical description of the menoroth in Solomon’s Temple and the comparable examples strengthen the assumption that the early First Temple cultic menorah, like the Tabernacle menorah, was simply a lampstand.

plant or tree. The menorah, therefore, should more correctly be termed “seven-armed.” However, because of the common usage of the term “seven-branched,” both terms are used.

294

chapter six

b

d a

c

Figure VI-5. Stands and candelabra.

Zechariah’s (Zech. 4:2–3) visionary lampstand is the first indication of a more elaborate menorah with seven lamps, although it is not described as having arms (Hachlili 2001:18–22, Figs. I-5, I-6). After the Babylonian exile, the Temple was re-established and the holy vessels were brought back to Jerusalem (Ezra 1:7–11). However, no details are given concerning the vessels. The menorah is mentioned again in the second century BCE (Ben Sira 26:17 and I Macc. 1:21; I Macc 4:49–52), without details of its shape or form. The Tabernacle menorah used for cultic and illumination purposes was undoubtedly among the sacred vessels that the priests and Levites transferred to Solomon’s Temple together with the Tent of Meeting (I Kgs. 8:4). The cultic menorah may have been the only one that was lit in the ritual and may have been flanked by the ten ‘lampstands’ (Ant. 8.89–90; BT Menahot 98b; JT Sheqalim 6, 40, 50b; Baraita de-Melekhet ha-Mishkan 10). 2.1 The Menorah of the Second Temple Period The reconstruction of the Second Temple menorah is based upon the biblical text in Exodus 25:31–40 and 37:17–24 and on Josephus War 7.148–9, Ant. 3.144–146 and comparable archaeological ­material



jewish symbols

295

from the Land of Israel and the neighbouring lands (Hachlili and Merhav 1985:261–63, Figs. 7–8; Hachlili 2001:22–34, Figs. I-7, 8). The menorah was constructed of three elements: (a) the basic unit, the base and the central shaft (‫( ;)ירך וקנה‬b) six arms ‫ קנים‬curving upward from the central shaft; (c) the floral decoration: (‫)גביעים‬ floral capitals, each consisting of a )‫ (כפתר‬capital or knob, crowned with a (‫ (פרח‬flower. The basic unit (base and central shaft) had to sustain the weight of the arms and the elaborate decoration; the flaring base was meant to stabilize the structure. This is also implied in Ex. 25:31: “Its base and its shaft, its cups, calyxes, and petals shall be of one piece (‫)מקשה‬.” Together with the six arms, they formed a single unit. The weight indicated for the menorah and its accessories, ‘a talent of pure gold’ (i.e., 30 kg.), supports the assumption that the central unit had thick walls or a solid base. Affixing the ‘issuing arms’ (‫ ;הקנים היצאים ממנה‬Ex. 25:32) to the shaft, as the Bible relates, conveys that the six arms were not attached to the surface of the main unit, but issued from within it, namely from six points along the central shaft. The Hebrew term ‫( קנה‬reed) indicates that the arms were shaped as hollow tubes. The curving arms were presumably not made of a single piece but of standardsize units fitted together and equally spaced. This is also mentioned in literary sources such as Josephus (Ant. 3.144–146) and rabbinical literature (BT Beitza 22a), where the menorah is also described as a ‘menorah of units’. The menorah’s floral elements, apart from their purely decorative function, may have served to protect and conceal the structural seams of the hollow arm units (Fig. VI-6). Accordingly, the reconstruction places a ‘floral capital’ at each of the two weak spots, the joints along the arm: the third ‘floral capital’ was placed on the top to reinforce and thicken the apex and to serve as a base for the lamp; the second and third were constructed at the joints of the units. The three additional torus-like capitals of the central shaft, mentioned in the description, also served to brace the points where the arms emerged from either side (Hachlili 2001:Figs. I-7, 8). 2.2 The Menorah on Second Temple Period Artifacts No representations of the menorah appear until the second half of the first century BCE. The first dated depiction of the seven-armed menorah appears on the poorly executed and rare bronze coins

Figure VI-6. Reconstructions of the Second Temple menorah.

296

chapter six

of the last Hasmonean king, Mattathias Antigonus (40–37 BCE). The motifs on these coins consist of the menorah on the reverse and the showbread table on the obverse (Kindler 1966; Meshorer 1982:I, 93–94; 1997:54–56; Hachlili 2001:41–2, Fig. II-1, Pl. II-1). Several incised depictions of Herodian menoroth dated to the end of the first century BCE have been discovered (Hachlili 2001:IS1.2–9, Figs. II-2–5, L1.1–6): one is a plaster fragment with the graffito of a seven-armed menorah, found in the fill of a palatial building in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem (Avigad 1970; 1983:147–49, Fig. 154). This menorah is schematically incised on the left, with traces of two designs—the temple altar on the upper part and the showbread table below (Fig. VI-7). The menorah has a triangular conical base, a short stem, and tall round branches topped with light fittings, and it is decorated with an alternating astragal pattern of ovoids and pairs of lines. It seems that this menorah graffito was incised as a symbolic design by someone who may have seen the ritual menorah in the Temple. Several menoroth are lightly incised on a wall in Jason‘s Tomb in Jerusalem (Fig. VI-8a). Two of them have square bases (Hachlili 2001:41–43, Figs. II-1, 4). Some menoroth with more or less than seven arms are rendered on Second Temple ossuaries (Fig. VI-8b) and somewhat later on clay lamps. Two menoroth were painted on a cistern of a refuge cave at Nahal Michmas (Fig. VI-8c). Another menorah is engraved on a small stone sun dial from the Temple Mount excavations in Jerusalem (Fig. VI-8d). On one of the short side panels (façade, north) of the stone found at Second Temple synagogue in Migdal, the central design is a seven-armed menorah with a triangular base set atop a pedestal. Was the stone perhaps on a bema or a pillar? Each arm of the menorah is decorated with several knobs and its triangular foot is placed on a square base decorated with a lozenge; it is possible that the artist who carved the menorah may have actually seen the menorah in the temple.

Figure VI-7. Menorah graffito on a Jerusalem house wall.



jewish symbols

297

a

b

c

d

Figure VI-8. Second Temple menoroth: a. incised on a wall in Jason’s Tomb in Jerusalem; b. incised on ossuaries; c. painted on Nahal Michmas cave; d. engraved on a stone sun-dial, Jerusalem.

Figure VI-9. Migdal menorah on stone base.

The Migdal menorah is the only one found in a Second Temple period synagogue. This menorah is flanked by two vessels/ amphorae which, in turn, are flanked by three columns carrying an arch (Fig. VI-9). This menorah is similar to the menorah on the Antigonus coin. The most famous of the early depictions is the Temple menorah carved on the Arch of Titus in Rome (Figs. VI-10, 11). The relief shows the menorah, the showbread table, and trumpets being carried through the streets of Rome in a triumphal procession celebrating the Temple’s destruction and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE (Josephus War VII, 5, 5). The portrayal of the menorah on the Arch of Titus (Fig. VI-10) is presumably faithful to the original, except for the base which is a hexagonal or octagonal ferculum (a crate possibly made by the Romans) into which the flaring base was inserted to facilitate carrying (Hachlili 2001:46–50, Fig. II-7).

298

chapter six

Figure VI-10. The Arch of Titus relief, Rome.

The Second Temple period menoroth described above are similar in form and have several common features: a flaring solid conical base, seven curving upward-reaching arms of uniform height, and a thickening at the end of the arms to hold oil containers, apparently small bowls or lamps. From the provenance and shape of all these examples, it seems plausible that they represent the menorah that stood in the Second Temple. The graffito menorah from the Jewish Quarter, Jerusalem (Fig. VI-7) is the first to have decorated arms as well as light fittings, which appear to be lit. All of the above examples are probably depictions of the menorah that stood in the Second Temple (for a detailed discussion, see Hachlili-Merhav 1985; Hachlili 2001:41–50). All later representations of the menorah seem to be based on these early examples, the only change being in the base of the menorah, which is turned into a tripod. Sperber (1965:135) and Haran (1968:14–17) maintain that the Tabernacle menorah had seven arms, as did the ten menoroth in Solomon’s Temple. Carol L. Meyers (1976:18–20; 1979) maintains that the Second Temple menorah bore a closer resemblance to the Tabernacle menorah than to the menoroth in Solomon’s Temple. The Bible states that all the Tabernacle cult vessels of the Tent of Meeting were transferred to Solomon’s Temple at its inauguration (I Kgs. 8:4); it follows that a cultic (Tabernacle) menorah stood there, in addition to the other ten menoroth that Solomon made expressly for the Temple lighting (I Kgs. 7:48–49). The biblical description, however, omitting any mention of seven arms, precisely matches the lampstand type. Other scholars argue that the biblical description is an attempt to glorify the past and to elaborate the temple cult; that neither a Tabernacle and nor a Temple menorah existed before the first exile in the 6th c. BCE, and its description is a reflection of the Second Temple period (Haran 1962:5, 1972:1359; Gutmann 1969:290; 1971:5). Only toward the end of the Second Temple period do we have clear evidence, from both the literary sources and archaeology, of the menorah form that stood in the Temple. Hence, the seven-armed menorah appears to have originated in the time span between the Return to Zion and the Hasmonean period; it was possibly a new menorah created by Judas the Maccabean for the renovated Temple. If so, the description of the Tabernacle menorah in Exodus is a ­retrojection



jewish symbols

Figure VI-11. Drawing of the menorah on the Arch of Titus, Rome.

299

300

chapter six

of the Second Temple type which combines elements of the actual Tabernacle menorah with the version that evolved following the Return to Zion. Only after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE did the seven-armed menorah representations become common features of synagogue and burial art, both in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora. And only then did the seven-armed menorah acquire its status as the national symbol of Judaism. It survives in that capacity to this day as the symbol of the State of Israel. The biblical sources relate that, being one of the holy vessels in the Tabernacle, the menorah was located in the centre of the tent opposite the Showbread table. The menorah stood in front of the parochet (veil) to the south and across from the Table; between them stood the incense altar, in the middle of the sanctuary (Ex. 26:35; 40:24–25). Josephus (Ant. 3.144–146) describes the location in the Tabernacle as follows: “Facing the table, near the south wall, stood a candelabrum of cast gold, hollow, and of the weight of a hundred minae” (Hachlili 2001:171–172). This specific menorah was possibly among the holy vessels brought up by the priests and Levites from the Tabernacle to Solomon’s Temple (I Kings 8:4). It functioned there as the cultic menorah; it was the only one to be lit in the rituals and might have been flanked by the ten lighting ‘menorah-stands’. But the Bible gives no indication of the exact location of the cultic menorah in Solomon’s Temple. Josephus (Ant. 8.90) comments that in Solomon’s Temple “. . . and [he] placed one table, with loaves laid on it, on the north side of the Temple over against the lampstand, for this he set on the south side, while the golden altar stood between them.” On the three yearly feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles the custom was to take the holy vessels (the menorah and showbread table) out to the Temple court, so that the pilgrims could approach them and gaze on them (Safrai 1965:179–180; 1976:891). Another custom was that of “drawing back the curtain (Parochet) at the entrance to the sanctuary gates.” This could explain the incised menorah and table on the wall of a private house in Jerusalem (Fig. VI-7): someone had seen the vessels and incised them from memory. These customs were not particularly connected to the pilgrimage itself but were intended more to show the people the splendor of the sanctuary and its vessels. The Bible relates in detail the function of the menorah in the rituals of the Tabernacle and of Solomon’s Temple (Hachlili 2001:176–178). In the Tabernacle the priest Aaron was charged with the duty of tending the menorah. Tradition relates that the menorah was kept lit only at night: “Aaron and his sons shall set them up in the Tent of Meeting, outside the curtain which is over [the Ark of] the Pact. [to burn] from evening to morning before the Lord” (Ex. 27:20–21, 30:7–8; Lev. 24:1–4; Num. 8:1–4). In the Temple, the menorah was lit by the priests as an important ceremonial element of the daily ritual, evening and morning, in order to fix the time and order of the other Temple functions (Ex. 25:37, 30:8; II Chron. 13:11). At each lighting the menorah was cleaned, the wicks were trimmed, and fresh oil was added. The menorah lamps were apparently lit at dusk by the high priest and burned through the night. At times the menorah was lit to mark important events, such as the celebration of the dedication of the Tabernacle (Num. 8:1–4). After Judas Maccabeus purified the Temple in c. 168 BCE following his victory, he lit the lamps of the menorah (I Macc. 4:49). The rite of tending the menorah lamps in the Second Temple, recorded in M Tamid 3.9, describes the menorah in the Temple as being so large that the priest had to stand on a three-step stone to reach the lamps in order to trim and light them. Busink (1980:1160, Fig. 250, Pl. XXIV; also Yarden 1991:58, ill. 11) has suggested that this was a large stone structure, part of which served as a plinth for elevating the menorah. In summary, the menorah in the Temple served to fix the time and order of the other Temple functions and to mark important events (Ex. 25:37, 30.8; Num. 8:1–4). The ten decorated lampstands in Solomon’s Temple (I Kgs. 7:49; II Chron. 4:7, 13:11), on the other hand, served merely for illumination of the large hall, not for cultic purposes.



jewish symbols

301

2.3 The Menorah in the Synagogue The menorah occupied a prominent position in each synagogue and was part of the synagogue ritual, as can be deduced from the finds of excavations and art depictions in synagogues: (a) the stonecarved menoroth discovered in several synagogues; (b) the synagogue architectural feature—two aediculae or three niches—one of which probably held a menorah, as suggested by portrayals of menoroth inside an aedicula; (c) the synagogue mosaic pavement panels containing the depiction of a pair of menoroth flanking the Torah shrine or the Ark of the Scrolls; (d) the presence of the conch above the menorah; (e) the evidence of inscriptions and literary sources (Hachlili 2001:179–186). (a) Carved stone and marble menoroth have been found in the synagogues of Eshtemoʿa, Hammath Tiberias A, Horvat Qoshet, Susiya, Maʿon (Judea), and Meroth in the Land of Israel. In the Diaspora there is the marble ‘Socrates’ menorah at Sardis (Hachlili 2001:IS2.1–6, D2.1, Figs. II-9– 14). The forms and dimensions of the menoroth are quite similar. The arms are carved in high relief with a decorated background design carved in low relief. On top of the arms a crossbar is carved, sometimes, as with the Hammath Tiberias menorah, implying that they were actually used for lightning. (b) The marble menoroth were probably located in the the aedicula, or in an additional niche or the apse, usually flanking the Ark of the Scrolls. The two aediculae found in some synagogues (for example, in the synagogues of Capernaum, Korazim, Meroth, Nabratein, and Sardis (Hachlili 1976:43; 1988:197, 253)) probably each served a different function. One aedicula housed the Ark and the other may have held the menorah. However, some scholars suggest that the second aedicula served as a raised platform for the delivery of the priestly benediction (Meyers et al. 1981b:238, 242, at Nabratein), or that it was used as a platform for reading the Torah, and contained a Seat of Moses (Yeivin 1985:285, Figs. 2, 8, at Korazim). The central of the three niches at Eshtemoʿa might have held the Ark of the Scrolls, while the two flanking niches could have been used for the menoroth (Hachlili 1988:255). At Susiya the menoroth were possibly placed in a niche on the bema, next to the niche which housed the ark of the scrolls, much like the depiction in the mosaic pavement at the site (Figs. VI-1c, 2c) (Yeivin 1989:95, Pl. LII, Fig. 5). The apse, which was usually quite large, could have contained the ark of the scrolls and the two flanking menoroth, as at the Beth Alpha synagogue (Fig. IV-45). (c) The actual location of the menorah in the synagogue can be inferred from a number of prominent panels containing Jewish ritual symbols, that portray a pair of menoroth flanking the Torah shrine or the ark of the scrolls, accompanied by the ritual objects. Such depictions are found on the upper panel of the mosaic floors of the Beth Alpha, Beth Sheʾan A, Hammath Tiberias B, Naʿaran, Sepphoris, and Susyia synagogues (Figs. VI-1–4). This panel is situated in front of the synagogue niche or apse, which most scholars interpret as representing the location of these same ritual objects at the synagogue (Avigad 1962:70; Goodenough 1965:80; Yeivin 1985:272; Hachlili 1988:361). (d) An illustration of a menorah inside an aedicula is found engraved on a Beth She‘arim tomb wall (Fig. IV-35) (Hachlili 2001:184–5, IS11.23, Fig. IV-8). (e) The location of the menorah can also be established from the occasional appearance of the conch above it, as on a stone fragment from Capernaum (Fig. VI-12).  The conch seems to have become more than a mere decorative motif, acquiring a sanctity of its own. When represented together with renditions of the Torah Shrine, Ark, or menorah, it was regarded as a symbol of the aedicula, niche, or apse itself (Hachlili 1980:59–60; 1988:284). Thus, the conch above the menorah would explain the actual place where the menorah stood, inside the synagogue aedicula or niche, or beside the Ark in an apse (see below).

302

chapter six

Figure VI-12. Stone with menorah and conch relief, Capernaum.

(f) Inscriptions indicate that one or two menoroth served in the synagogue ceremony. An inscription found at Sardis includes a reference to the donation of a menorah (IN 63.49; Seager 1983:176, inscription no. 66), and an inscription from Side in Pamphylia mentions the refinishing of two seven-armed menoroth (Lifshitz 1967:37, no. 36). Another source, JT Megillah 3,2a, implies that a menorah was donated and thus served in the synagogue (Brand 1953:311; Krauss 1929, II, A:72, n. 1). The Sardis menorah with the inscription of the name ‘Socrates’, if it is the name of the donor, further bears out this statement. 2.4 Free-Standing, Three-Dimensional Menoroth Several free-standing, three-dimensional, functional menoroth have been found in synagogue excavations in various parts of Israel and the Diaspora. All of these surviving menoroth are made of stone, except for a small one of bronze, probably because the value of the materials that would have been used to manufacture ceremonial articles, such as gold, silver, or bronze, would have rendered them liable to plunder. Furthermore, it is unlikely that they would have survived had they been made of wood. About a dozen fragments of a marble carved menorah dated to the 5th–6th c. were discovered at the miqveh of the Maʿon (Judea) synagogue (Amit 1990; 2003:143–160, xxvi–xxviii; Amit & Ilan 1990:123–5; Hachlili 2001:54, IS2.4, Fig. II-11, Pl. II-5). The base, stem, and foot are missing. The menorah consists of seven arms carved in the shape of alternating globular balls and rings, with pairs of lions flanking the three connecting points of the central stem and the arms (Fig. VI-13). The reconstructed menorah measures about 90 cm. in height and its weight is 100 kg. Fragments of another three-dimensional marble menorah were discovered in debris at the Eshtemoʿa synagogue (Yeivin 1985:272, Pl. 54, 4; 2004:81*–83*, Fig. 33; Hachlili 2001:55, IS2.5). These fragments include a central stem with flanking lions, of which only a part of the face, one leg and the body of the left lion, and a leg of the right lion remain; these parts are similar to the fragments of the menorah from Maʿon. The similarity between the two menoroth could indicate that they were created by the same artist/s (Amit 2003:xxvii). The preserved fragments of a three-dimensional sculptured menorah (about ten separate items) were found in the Susiya synagogue (Yeivin 1989:94, Figs. 12, 13; Hachlili 2001:52–54, IS2.3, Fig. II-10). They consist of two fragments of the arms, two parts of the light fittings, part of the base, an inscribed part of the horizontal bar, several fragments of the marble decoration, and a two-line Hebrew inscription (Fig. VI-14). The estimated height of the menorah was about 65 cm. and its width about 60 cm.



jewish symbols

303

Figure VI-13. Marble menorah, Maʿon (Judea).

Several fragments of marble showing a menorah carved in relief were discovered at Horvat Qoshet, dated to the 5th–6th centuries (Foerster 1974; Hachlili 2001:51–2, IS2.2, Fig. II-9, Pl. II-4). Based on form and style, Foerster considered these fragments to be part of a chancel screen. The preserved parts consist of five fragments of the arms and one part of the base (Fig. VI-15). The menorah arms are carved in high relief in an astragal pattern, with alternating bead and reel. The menorah has a decorated background carved in low relief, consisting of an acanthus scroll inhabited with plants and birds. It possibly had an openwork frame. The reconstructed menorah measures about 60 cm. in height and 75 cm. in width. A stone menorah was found at the synagogue of Hammath Tiberias A, possibly dating to the 4th– 5th c. (Fig. VI-16; Hachlili 1988:Pl. 54a, b; 2001:51, IS2.1, Fig. II-8, Pl. II-3). The base, stem, and foot are missing. Seven sockets along the top of the stone menorah would most probably have held glass containers. The menorah has seven arms, each of which is carved in low relief and is decorated in a sequence of alternating pomegranates and cups. In the debris of the Meroth synagogue, a limestone fragment of a menorah‘s main stem was discovered (Ilan & Damati 1987:50; Hachlili 2001:55, IS2.6). It is decorated with lines, and two parts of the arms are preserved. This might have been a free-standing menorah. A similar marble arm fragment of a three-dimensional menorah was found at Khirbet ed-Duheisha (Amit 2008). A cast-bronze menorah dated to the 5th century CE was discovered at the synagogue of ʿEn Gedi (Barag 1985–6:46; 2006:24, Fig. 41; Hachlili 2001:55, IS2.7, Pl. II-6) (Fig. VI-17). It consists of seven arms made of connected globular balls; the stem and foot are missing. Barag maintains that this menorah was a decoration for the Ark of the Scrolls and was not used for lighting. Free standing seven-armed menoroth known to have been used in Diaspora synagogues are rare, and to date the main example is the unique, large, marble ‘Socrates’ menorah (Fig. VI-18), which has survived in a damaged state, found in the main hall of the Sardis synagogue in Turkey (Mitten 1964:36–38, Fig. 20; Hanfmann & Ramage 1978:151, no. 226, Figs. 391–393; Hachlili 2001:56, D2.1, Fig. II-12, Pl. II-7). The menorah is made of white marble, with a height of 0.565 m. and a width (when intact) of over 1.0 m. The menorah arms are decorated with an incised lozenge pattern. The stone is cut out between the arms and an acanthus scroll appears between the lower arms. On top of the

304

chapter six

Figure VI-14. Marble menorah, Susiya.



jewish symbols

Figure VI-15. Marble menorah, Horvat Qoshet.

Figure VI-16. Stone menorah, Hammath Tiberias A.

305

306

chapter six

Figure VI-17. Cast-bronze menorah, ʿEn Gedi.

Figure VI-18. Sardis marble ‘Socrates’ menorah.



jewish symbols

307

arms a cross-bar is carved, incised on the right with the name “Socrates” (the donor or sculptor); at its left end it is decorated with a four-petaled rosette. The arms seem to protrude through the bar, but it may be that glass containers were meant to be represented. Three fragments of another 5th or early 6th c. CE marble menorah were found in Sardis (smaller than the ‘Socrates’ menorah) (Rautman 2010). One fragment was from the upper part of the main vertical arm, a second possibly from the second arm, and a third from the base. Rautman contends that the origin of the Sardis marble menoroth was in a workshop in Tasos in Asia Minor, and that possibly the menoroth from Susiya and Khirbet ed-Duheisha were also produced there and imported to Eretz Israel. The Hammath Tiberias B, Eshtemoʿa, Maʿon (Judea) and Sardis stone and marble examples indicate that these were free-standing menoroth functioning in the synagogue for cultic purposes in the tradition of the Temple, namely for lighting the lamps during ceremonies. These menoroth were probably located in the Torah Shrine area of the synagogue. 2.5 Depictions of the Menorah and Its Function in the Synagogues The menorah is depicted in synagogue architecture on reliefs, capitals, lintels, chancel screens, mosaic floors and objects such as clay and bronze lamps. Many menoroth are rendered prominently on these architectural elements; several pairs of menoroth flanking the Ark are portrayed on ­synagogue mosaic pavements and reliefs. In many examples, the menorah is flanked by ritual objects, most frequently by the lulav, ethrog, shofar, and incense shovel or, in the Diaspora, a vase. Most of the menoroth on mosaic pavements are depicted with elaborately ornamented arms and bases. Most important and impressive is a panel which appears on several synagogue mosaic floors depicting in symmetrical composition a pair of menoroth, one on either side of the Torah Shrine or Ark and, each flanked by ritual objects (Figs. VI-1–4). Such panels are found in the mosaics of Beth Alpha, Beth Sheʾan A, Hammath Tiberias, Huseifa, Naʿaran, Sepphoris, and Susiya (Hachlili 2001:59–62, 191–200, IS3.1–7, Pls. II-8–12). The similarity in the composition of these panels, which are quite unusual and have been found in various sites separated by distance and time, indicates the possible use of a codified pattern book (Hachlili 1988:391–394; 2001:260–61). The menoroth on these mosaics are rendered with tripod bases, seven arms, and beautiful glass containers with flames emanating from the crossbar (Figs. VI-19, 20). At Sepphoris, the pair of menoroth on either side of the Torah Shrine are flanked on the left by a lulav bound together with the other three species and the ethrog, all placed in a bowl, while on the right a shofar and possibly tongs are depicted. A single incense shovel is rendered under the Torah Shrine (Fig. VI-19b). The Naʿaran panel shows two lamps hanging from a pair of menoroth instead of the usual ritual objects, and has unusual stepped bases (Fig. VI-4b). The menoroth at the Beth Sheʾan A synagogue are flanked by only two objects, a shofar and an incense shovel (Fig. VI-3b). The pairs of menoroth from Beth Alpha, Huseifa, and Susiya (IS3.2, 3, 5), are rendered in unidentical symmetry (Hachlili 1988:377; 2001:191–200). The two menoroth in the pair differ in their bases, arms, and light fittings (Fig. VI-20). The pair of menoroth flanking the Ark in the Susiya pavement (Fig. VI-20a), differ especially in their arms and bases. Almost all the heraldic elements of the Beth Alpha Torah shrine panel are unidentical (Fig. VI-3a, 20b): the two menoroth, the four ritual objects, the two lions, and the birds are each rendered in two different ways. At Huseifa, the entrance panel (Fig. VI-20c) shows two menoroth, each portrayed in a different manner. The arms are ornamented differently on each menorah—the left one has lamps as light fittings while the right one has glass as light fittings. A recent notable find is that of carved menoroth accompanied by ritual objects, decorating the top of two double columns of the aedicula façade of Umm el-Qanatir (Ben David, H., I. Gonen and

308

chapter six

a

b

Figure VI-19. Pairs of menoroth on mosaic pavements: a. Hammath Tiberias B; b. Sepphoris.

J. Dray 2006:114–116). The menoroth are seven-armed and have tripod bases (Fig. VI-21). The left menorah, on the east column, is flanked by an incense shovel on one side and a lulav and ethrog on the other; the right menorah, on the west column, is flanked by a lulav and ethrog on one side and a shofar and incense shovel on the other. Other motifs decorating the columns consist of geometric and plant designs, such as a conch and a rosette (Fig. IV-52); the decorations on the two double columns are unidentical. Paired and single menoroth are also depicted on some lintels (Fig. VI-22) (Hachlili 2001:63–66; Figs. II-15, 16). On the lintel from ʿAssaliyye, two menoroth flank an aedicula; the two Naveh lintels render the menoroth flanking a wreath. The menoroth on the Korazim lintel flank a wreath (May and Stark 2002:Pl. 24). On the Kochav Hayarden lintel it is the menorah that is flanked, in this case



jewish symbols

a

b

c

Figure VI-20. Unidentical menoroth: a. Susiya; b. Beth Alpha; c. Huseifa.

309

310

chapter six

a b

Figure VI-21. Umm el-Qanatir carved menoroth: a. on east aedicula column; b. on west aedicula column.

by two Torah shrines (Fig. IV-34). A single menorah is carved on the lintel of the H. Shemʿa main entrance. On a number of Golan lintels—from Ahmadiyyeh, ʿEn Nashut, Dabiyyeh, and Ghadriyyeh—the pairs of menoroth are rendered in unidentical fashion: a seven-armed, tripod-based menorah is carved on the right, and a seven-armed menorah without a base on the left. Such unidentical representation is peculiar to the Golan and was probably deliberate. In the Diaspora, similar examples of unidentical pairs of menoroth have been found (Hachlili 2001:195–198). The symmetrical synagogue mosaic pavement panel (and other objects) rendering a pair of menoroth flanking the Torah shrine or the ark of the scrolls, might have had special significance. A simple answer is to be found in the tendency for symmetrical composition in Jewish art, as influenced by Levantine oriental art.4 The occurrence of two menoroth may indicate that two menoroth served some function in the synagogue. Such portrayals, in fact, very often reflect the actual use of objects; they illustrate the internal arrangement of the synagogue, with the ark in a central position, flanked by menoroth (see above). Perhaps at some time during the third and fourth centuries CE a change in the synagogue ritual occurred, requiring the simultaneous use of two menoroth. The Side inscription (Lifshitz 1967:37, no. 36) which mentions the donation of two menoroth to the synagogue, supports 4 Wilkinson (1977–8:20) argues it should be interpreted symbolically: one menorah represented the synagogue menorah, while the other represented the menorah in the Tabernacle or Temple.



jewish symbols

311

a

b

c

d

Figure VI-22. Lintels with menoroth: a. ʿAssaliyye; b. Korazim; c. H. Shemʿa; d. Japhiʿa.

this conjecture. This change in the mosaic floor depictions, showing paired menoroth, includes other innovations such as zodiac representations and additional ritual utensils. The expansion of Christianity, and its inherent challenge to the established Jewish religion, may have been the cause of the increasing ceremonial content in synagogue ritual and art. The two menoroth could also have signified the two weeks that the twenty-four priestly courses had to serve in the Temple (twice a year, one week at a time) (Hachlili 1988:225–6). Inscriptions of the priestly courses on marble slab fragments were found in the Ashqelon, Kissufim, and Caesarea synagogues, dated to the third and fourth centuries CE, and presumably fixed to the synagogue wall (Avi-Yonah 1964:46–49, Fig. 1; Hachlili 1988:253–5). Such inscriptions were also found on a plaster fragment in the synagogue of Rehov (Vitto 1982:366–7; see also the ʾAhmediyye inscription, Naveh 1978:146–147). The inscribed list of the priestly courses (as reconstructed by Avi-Yonah 1964:46–49, Fig. 1) corresponds to that in I Chron. 24:7–19. It is compiled of twenty-four courses, each line including the number of the course, its name and appellation, and the village or town it inhabited after the destruction of the Second Temple. In this way the Jewish communities preserved the memory and tradition of the courses’ service in the Temple, in the hope that as soon as the Temple was rebuilt the priests would come up to Jerusalem from their various places and serve again in the Temple. The finds and sources support the use of one or two menoroth in the synagogue. The pair of menoroth depicted flanking the ark of the scrolls in many synagogue mosaic pavements indicates that the synagogue actually contained a pair of menoroth that were located inside or beside the Torah shrine (Goodenough 1954, IV:75; Avigad 1976; Hachlili 1988:254–5). The finding of two ­aediculae

312

chapter six

in several of the synagogues and of three niches, which apparently housed the Ark in the centre niche flanked by a pair of menoroth, at Eshtemoʿa and Susiya, reinforces this conclusion regarding the location of the menoroth. The use of a menorah in the synagogue ritual is also proved by the free-standing stone menoroth found in the Hammath Tiberias A, Eshtemoʿa, Susiya (Figs. VI-13–16), and other synagogues. Synagogue interiors presenting the ark flanked by a pair of menoroth appear in reconstructions of synagogues such as Beth Alpha (Fig. IV-45), Capernaum (Kohl Watzinger 1916: Pl. 4), and Hammath Tiberias B (Dothan 1983:38, plan F). Some scholars argue for a symbolic elucidation of the rendered menoroth. Foerster (1988:198– 200) maintains that the mosaic panel with the Torah Shrine and menoroth at Susiya symbolizes the Jerusalem Temple façade. Barag (1998:67) maintains that the menorah depictions represented the Temple menorah and were not used in the synagogues. Another possibility is that one of the pair of menoroth was used in the synagogue, while the other, although functioning in the ritual, was meant to recall or commemorate the Tabernacle or Temple menorah (Wilkinson 1977–8:20). The most plausible explanation is that the illustrations represent the actual ritual function of the menorah in the synagogue, as well as symbolizing the Temple and its vessels (see also Weiss and Netzer 1966:36; Amit 2003:164–5). From ancient times the menorah served a cultic purpose and provided light. It was used in the daily ritual, first in the Temple and later in the synagogue. Each day a lamp was lit; on the seventh day, the Sabbath, all seven were kindled. The seven arms of the menorah represented the seven days of the week and the menorah functioned as a daily and weekly ritual calendar. The artistic renditions of the menorah on mosaic pavements indicated its role in the synagogue, showing the menorah light fittings lit. The ritual function of the synagogue menorah was similar to and reminiscent of its function in the Temple rituals: the kindling set the time and order of the other functions of the Temple or synagogue; the menorah was probably lit to mark important and ceremonial events as well. 2.6 The Menorah as a Symbol The seven-armed menorah, one of the Temple vessels, is the most important and most frequently appearing Jewish symbol, commonly used to identify synagogues or Jewish tombs. Often the ­menorah is flanked by other ritual objects: the lulav, ethrog, shofar, incense shovel and sometimes a flask. Today it is the emblem of the modern state of Israel. The first known and dated depiction of a menorah is on bronze coins of the last Hasmonean king, Mattathius Antigonos (40–37 BCE) (Fig. VI-23). The motifs on these coins show the menorah on the reverse and the showbread table on the obverse (Hachlili 2001:IS1.1, Pl. II-1). The legends on the coins appear both in Hebrew and Greek; Mattathias Antigonus is refered to as “High Priest” in Hebrew on the obverse, and “King” in Greek on the reverse (Meshorer 1982, I:93–94; 1997:54–56). The menorah is stylized, with seven arms and a flaring base (but see Sperber [1965:143] who suggests that the base supported three small legs). The showbread table is a rectangular and four-legged; the two groups of loaves set on the tabletop are shown on only two specimens of this coin, indicating that this is in fact the showbread table. These are the only Jewish coins with these symbols of the Temple vessels; they might have been issued during the siege of Jerusalem in 37 BCE (Meshorer 1997:56). As all these coins were of the one perutah denomination, they did not have much economic value. Nevertheless, they were a highly important propaganda weapon. The struggle in 37 BCE between Herod and Antigonus, the last Hasmonean king, determined the future of the Jewish kingdom. Antigonus, as king and high priest, was supported by the priestly families and others opposed to Herod. To emphasize his priestly heritage and legitimate lineage, Antigonus depicted sacred Temple vessels on the coins he minted; this in contrast to contemporary coins minted by Herod, which depicted Roman ceremonial objects (Meshorer 1982, I:84, 94; II:19–22). The



jewish symbols

313

images of the menorah on one side and the showbread table on the other on Antigonus’s coins were intended therefore to emphasize his being a Jewish king and High Priest. However, by using them to underscore his legitimacy, he was indicating the precariousness of his political position at the time. Many architectural features of the synagogues bear symbolic renditions of the menorah. For instance, Corinthian-type capitals (dated to the fifth century CE), each decorated with a seven-armed menorah on its central boss, were found at Capernaum, Caesarea, Hammath Tiberias A (Fig. VI-24) Beth Guvrin, and Gerasa (Hachlili 2001:68–9, IS6.1–6, 14, Pls. II-30–32). The diagonal Ionic capital from ʿEn Nashut in the Golan (IS6.11, Pl. II-33) features two menoroth on two of its sides (Fig. IV-19): on one side is a nine-armed menorah flanked by two shofaroth and on the other, a seven-armed menorah and an altar flanking an ‘egg’. The basalt capital from Khirbet Shura has four menoroth carved one on each side, with ‘eggs’ between them. Column drums and bases also bear depictions of menoroth: they include one column drum each from Gaza and Gevat, and a marble column base from Ashqelon, which depicts a menorah flanked by a shofar and a lulav. Menoroth on columns and on pedestals were discovered in the Golan, among them the pedestal from ʿEn Nashut, which renders a carved menorah flanked by two flowers (Fig. IV-16). The menorah from Fiq appears with an Aramaic inscription ‫‘ אנה יהודה חזאנה‬I, Yehudah the Hazan’ (Hachlili 2001:IS7.1, 2, 3, 4, Pls. II-34, 35).

Figure VI-23. Coins of Mattathias Antigonus, with menorah on one side and showbread table on the other.

b a

c

d

Figure VI-24. Menoroth on capitals: a. Caesarea; b. Hammath Tiberias A; c. Capernaum; d. Column base, Ashqelon.

314

chapter six

An unusual rendition is found on a fragment from Capernaum, where a five-armed menorah is surmounted by a carved conch (Fig. VI-9). We may infer from this depiction that the conch represents the niche in which the menorah stood (Hachlili 1988:284; Hachlili 2001:IS8, 5, Pl. II-36). Some of these architectural fragments, mainly those from the Golan, depict five-armed and ninearmed menoroth (Fig. VI-25) (Hachlili 1995:184–5, 193–198, Figs. 4–10, 15–17, 19–21; 2001:69–72, IS8.1–6, 8–10, 12–13, 15). The menorah is the most popular symbol on chancel screen slabs, usually flanked by ritual objects and encircled by a stylized wreath with flowing ribbons that sprout into leaves. This design is found on sixth-century screens from Ashdod, Hammath Gader, Rehov, and Gadara (Figs. IV-74–77). A menorah flanked by fish is depicted on a screen from Tiberias (Fig. IV-64); a screen from the Susiya synagogue has two carved lamps suspended from the menorah (Fig. IV-63a). The menorah designs on the screens from Hammath Gader and Rehov are alike, and the back of each screen bears an engraved floral motif of four lilies forming a quatrefoil. The menorah also appears on two chancel screen posts from Hammath Tiberias A synagogue (Hachlili 2001:66–68, IS5.1–5, 8, 9; Figs. II-17, V-10, Pls. II-26–29). Both sides of the chancel screen from Ashqelon are decorated with a menorah and ritual objects as well as floral designs (Fig. VI-26). The menorah’s important symbolic role is revealed also on mosaic pavements. The emblem on the Jericho pavement depicts a stylized menorah flanked by some of the ritual objects—the shofar, and lulav—under the Hebrew inscription ‫‘ שלום על ישראל‬Shalom (peace) on Israel’ (Fig. VI-27a).

a

b

c

Figure VI-25. Menoroth on Golan architectural items: a. ʿEn Nashut capital; b-c. Qasrin.



jewish symbols

315

Figure VI-26. Menoroth on two sides of Ashqelon chancel screen.

On several mosaic pavements, a menorah implies that the building is a Jewish edifice: In the Huldah miqveh mosaic, the menorah, flanked by an inscription and the four ritual objects, is enclosed within a square frame (Fig. VI-27b); at Gerasa the menorah is flanked by the ritual objects and an inscription (Fig. VI-27c); at Maʿoz Hayyim a menorah flanked by a shofar is rendered within a rectangular medallion in the mosaic frame (Fig. VI-28a); at Tel Menorah a menorah flanked by only a shofar survived on a part of the pavement (Fig. VI-28b) (Hachlili 2001:59–62, IS3.8–12, 17, Pls. II-13–19). The menoroth depicted on inhabited scroll mosaic pavements also have symbolic meaning (Hachlili 2009:116, 125, 144–146, Pls. VI.2, XI.1a, b, Figs. VI-5, VI-10): In the upper panel of the Maʿon (Nirim) inhabited scroll mosaic, the last three rows have a unique design of a large menorah in the two central medallions (Fig. VI-29a), flanked by a pair of lions in the outside row and two palm trees in the row below; this design is located in a prominent position in front of the Torah Shrine (Fig. V-37). Avi-Yonah (1960b:32) maintains that the contents of the upper panel at Maʿon served to lead one up spiritually towards the Torah Shrine in the apse; the vine branch pattern was merely a pleasing design.

316

chapter six

a

b

c

Figure VI-27. Single menorah on mosaic pavements: a. Jericho; b. Hulda; c. Gerasa.

a

b

Figure VI-28. Menorah and shofar on mosaic pavements: a. Maʿoz Hayyim; b. Tel Menorah.



jewish symbols

317

b

a

Figure VI-29. Menoroth depicted on mosaics with inhabited scrolls design: a. Maʿon (Nirim); b. Beth Sheʾan small synagogue B.

At the Beth Sheʾan small synagogue (B) a variation of the inhabited scroll composition has an ornate menorah occupying the central medallion, flanked by an ethrog and a suspended lamp or incense burner. The word ‫( שלום‬shalom) is inscribed above (Fig. V-38, VI-29b). The special significance of the menorah, the lions, and the Hebrew inscription in the mosaics at Maʿon-Nirim and the Beth Sheʾan B small synagogue is indicated by their central position in the general composition (Figs. V-37, 38, VI-29). A single elaborately ornamented menorah is found on the Naʿaran narthex pavement. Two simple stylized menoroth are depicted on the mosaic of the synagogue at Kafr Misr (Fig. V-23): a fragmentary seven-armed menorah and a five-armed menorah with a tripod base flanked by a lulav. Three stylized menoroth at ʿEn Gedi are portrayed between the two mosaic carpets of the main hall (Fig. V-40) (Hachlili 2001:IS3.18, IS3.14, Pl. II-20a, IS3.13, IS3.10, Pl. II-14). 2.6.1 Menorah with More or Less than Seven Arms Decorative menoroth sometimes have more or less than seven arms. Specimens of three-, five-, nineand eleven-armed menoroth have been found in the Land of Israel, in the Diaspora, and engraved on clay lamps (Hachlili 2001:131, Table III-1). Most of those found in the Land of Israel have five arms; some are depicted on mosaic pavements or are carved and inscribed on stone reliefs. The Golan (Fig. VI-25) has more examples of this sort of menorah than any other part of the country (Hachlili 1995:184, nos. 4–7, 10, 11, 13 and 17). Scholars have suggested that the varied number of branches on these examples may relate to the prohibition in the Babylonian Talmud sources against the use of menoroth with seven branches:

318

chapter six

“A man may not make . . . a house after the design of the temple, or a porch after the design of the temple porch, a courtyard after the design of the temple court, a table after the design of the table in the temple, or a candelabrum after the design of its candelabrum, but he may make one with five or six or eight lamps, but with seven he should not make, even of other metals” (BT. Menachot 28b; ʿAbodah Zarah 43a; Rosh Hashanah 24a, b). Nonetheless, it should be noted that this prohibition does not appear in the Jerusalem Talmud. Moreover, the Temple and its ritual objects, including the seven-armed menorah, were depicted in ancient Jewish art despite the Babylonian Talmud’s prohibition against imitating them; most of the menoroth found and represented in synagogue and burial contexts have seven arms, except for some, mainly in the Golan; this might be indicative of a regional variety (Hachlili 1995:184; 2001:200–202). Still, this injunction may have influenced some of the artists or clients to depict a menorah with more or less than seven arms (Ilan 1980:119; Sussman 1982:20; 1985:52–53). Scholars tried to explain the prohibition in various ways: it prevented use of the menorah on a daily basis (Goodenough 1954, IV:71, n. 4); the injunction was intended for cultic objects and not artistic depictions (Meyers 1979:48); the prohibition applied only to areas under Babylonian jurisdiction (Gutmann 1971:37–38). It has also been suggested (Z. Safrai 1986:9) that the halacha might have been intended to prevent the continuation of the use of this Temple ritual object in the synagogue. Another proposition (Dothan 1983:38) is that beginning in the 4th century this injunction was removed. However, if the prohibition was implemented, all the menoroth should have had more or less than seven branches. It seems much more plausible that it represents a regional Golan style. The other examples generally depict the menorah in less prominent places and might be the result of mistakes and less than perfect workmanship. 2.7 The Form of the Menorah The menorah usually appears as a seven-armed candelabrum with a light on top of each arm and the seventh light placed on the centre shaft. From surviving depictions, three main components of the menorah can be identified: the base, the arms which are reproduced in many variations, and the light fittings on the top of the arms (Hachlili 2001:121–169, Table III-1). The early Second Temple menoroth have arms which curve upwards, and solid conical bases. The Jewish Quarter menorah is the first to have decorated arms and to be equipped with light fittings, which appear to be lit (Fig. VI-7). These are probably depictions of the menorah that stood in the Second Temple. Later representations of the menorah seem to be based on this one, the only changes being in the base, which is shown as a tripod, and in the light fittings, which are represented as glass cups. (a) The base (Fig. VI-30). The biblical text does not describe the base of the menorah. Examples which have survived from antiquity provide us with a number of styles (Hachlili 2001:131–141, Figs. III-10–12). According to their representation and location in the panel, the depictions of the menoroth on synagogue mosaic pavements, and especially their bases, seem to reflect the actual menoroth used in the synagogues. Their shape and form were probably influenced by the candelabra of the Hellenistic-Roman period. The base of the Second Temple period menorah has a conical shape (Figs. VI-6–11). The majority of menoroth portrayed in Late Antiquity examples have a tripod base consisting of three more or less similar straight or rounded legs, connected by a horizontal bar (Fig. VI-30). There are many variations on this form, among them some decorated with lines and dots, or made with round balls.



jewish symbols

319

The menorah on the Hammath Tiberias mosaic has a base consisting of a concave plate borne by three animal legs (Fig. VI-19a), as do the ivory plaque from Beth Sheʾan and the Dura Europos wall painting. A realistic portrayal of three animal legs is to be seen in the Maʿon-Nirim mosaic floor (Fig. VI-29a) while the very stylized menoroth in the Jericho, Gerasa, and Beth Sheʾan A and B synagogues (Figs. VI-27, 29b) have more stylized animal feet. The menoroth of the Beth Alpha mosaic are particularly interesting because of the artist’s unusual portrayal of the tripod bases (Fig. VI-20b). The popularity of the tripod menorah base and its prevalence on synagogue mosaic pavements as well as on synagogue architectural elements and in funerary contexts may indicate the way in which the Jews followed the Babylonian Talmud’s injunction against imitation of the Temple menorah. (b) The arms. The shape of the menorah arms is decreed by the description in Exodus 25:33–36. Each arm must consist of three almond-shaped cups, each surmounted by a capital and a flower (Hachlili 2001:147–157, Figs. III-20–23). Many depictions of menoroth from the period of the Second Temple and later appear to conform to the description in Exodus (Fig. VI-31). The most frequent style of arms found in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora is round and upward-curving, and sometimes ornamented. The straight style of arms and the right-angled style are encountered less, with few examples in the Land of Israel. The ornamentation styles of the arms are capital-and-flower (bud-and-flower), alternating pomegranates and cups, round balls, alternating squares and round parts or rhombuses, and leaves. There are also simple linear, crude, schematic depictions.

Figure VI-30. Forms of menorah bases.

Figure VI-31. Forms of menorah arms.

320

chapter six

Many menorah arms are round and decorated with an alternating design of capital-andflower, which is also the usual ornamentation of the central stem. An elaboration of the capitaland-flower design is depicted on the arms of the pair of flanking menoroth on the Sepphoris synagogue mosaic (Fig. VI-19b). A sequence of alternating pomegranates and cups is portrayed on the Hammath Tiberias A stone menorah and on the pair of menoroth on the Hammath Tiberias B synagogue mosaic floor (Figs. VI-16, VI-19a). Various styles of menorah arms are carved on lintels (Figs. VI-22, 32). The menoroth flanking the Ark on the mosaic floors at Beth Alpha and Naʿaran, and the ones at Huseifa flanking a wreath and inscription (Figs. VI-3, 20c), also have stylized arms in the form of capitals and flowers. A more stylized example of a tree arm is worked into the mosaic floor of the Beth Sheʾan synagogue B (Fig. VI-29b). The arms of the menorah depicted on the mosaic floor of the Maʿon-Nirim synagogue are formed by connected globular balls and their ornamentation is similar to that of the arms of a stylized bronze menorah at ʿEn-Gedi (Figs. VI-17, VI-29a). Schematic and highly stylized seven-armed menoroth commonly appear in relief sculpture, on capitals, on screens, and on tombstones. They also appear on the synagogue mosaic floors at Jericho and En-Gedi (Fig. VI-27a). (c) The light fittings. Light fittings appear frequently on top of the menorah arms. Occasionally they were bronze or clay lamps and at other times took the form of glass containers (Fig. VI-33). They were mounted either on the ends of the arms or on the horizontal crossbar connecting the arms across the top (Hachlili 2001:157–163, Figs. III-27–29). Most of the depictions of light fittings show lit lamps or glasses (Fig. VI-33). Mosaic floor depictions of the glass containers are elaborately realistic, allowing one to see the wick inside them and leaving no doubt that they are of glass, and usually a flame rises out of them. Such ­containers are seen on the menoroth in the mosaics floors at Sepphoris, Hammath Tiberias B, Susiya, Beth

a

c

b

d

Figure VI-32. Menoroth on lintels, Eshtemoʿa.



jewish symbols

321

Figure VI-33. Light fittings on menoroth.

Shean A, and Maʿon-Nirim (Fig. VI-19, 20, 29a). There were probably glass containers in the seven depressions along the top of the stone menorah from Hammath Tiberias A (Fig. VI-16). The typology of the menorah is based on the three parts of the menorah form: base, branches, and light fittings. The changes in each and all of these indicate the evolution of the menorah form. However, they do not always indicate the passage of time. Four types of menorah are distinguished, arranged chronologically in terms of development (Hachlili 2001:163–169): • Type I, the earliest, represents (with some exceptions) the Second Temple menoroth in the Land of Israel (first century BCE to first century CE) (Figs. VI-6–11) (Negev 1967:194, 206, called it the ‘classic type’). This menorah’s form is characterized by semi-circular branches and a conical base. A later variation of this early type is a Dura Europos synagogue painted menorah (Hachlili 2001:Fig. II-20a–c). This is the earliest of the Diaspora menoroth and it shows straight arms growing out of the central stem and topped with lighted lamps. Its base is unique, consisting of a conical base mounted on three small legs, which marks the Dura Europos menorah as a forerunner of the three-legged base. Two other Dura Europos menoroth (possibly painted about six years later) have tripod bases. The Dura Europos menoroth seem to be a connecting link between type I and the later types. The exceptional type of bases in the Second Temple period are the square-box shape scratched on the wall of Jason’s Tomb in Jerusalem and a unique form incised on the sundial (Fig. VI-8a). The menorah portrayed on the triumphal Arch of Titus in Rome has a unique base with a decorated upper part and an unusual hexagonal or octagonal lower part, divided into panels decorated with carved monsters and animals. The base appears to stand inside a box ( ferculum) made by a Roman craftsman for carrying the menorah (Fig. VI-11). • Type II consists of menoroth with stylized tripod bases, schematically incised or carved round, right-angled, or straight arms ending in a straight line, usually unornamented and sometimes surmounted with lamps. Almost all the inscribed or carved menoroth discovered at the Beth She‘arim cemetery belong to this type (Hachlili 2001:Figs. II-24–25). Clay lamps dated to the third and fourth centuries CE show the same features and also belong to Type II. • Type III, which first appears around the third or fourth centuries CE, consists of menoroth with tripod base, sometimes elaborated with animal legs and a concave plate, mostly stylized round arms, but also right-angled or straight ornamented branches usually ending in a straight line, with lamps or glass containers and sometimes flanked by ritual objects. This type of menorah is depicted on the fourth-century Hammath Tiberias B synagogue mosaic pavement (Fig. VI-19a); other mosaic floors and reliefs also belong to this type although they might date to a later period; sometimes the base is shown with a convex plate on three animal legs (Hachlili 2001:IS3.2, 7–9, 11, 12, 8.1, 22, 18.4, Fig. III-10). Menoroth on the two lead coffins of Beth She‘arim are of this type. Some menoroth depicted on wall paintings and tombstones in the Diaspora have a base with animal legs, and lamps as light fittings (Hachlili 2001:D6.8, 7.1, 3, 10, 8.54, 62, 95, 11.5).

322

chapter six

• Type IV menoroth, dated to the fourth to seventh centuries CE, have a tripod base and stylized ornamented round, right-angled, or straight arms, usually ending in a straight line and a crossbar holding glass containers or sometimes lamps. This type is the largest and most common group of menoroth, appearing on mosaic pavements, architectural elements, and various other objects. The horizontal crossbar, appearing for the first time, connected the arms and served as a base for the light fittings. Its function was probably to hold the glass containers for oil, as indicated by the top of the free-standing stone menorah from Hammath Tiberias A (Fig. IV-16); glass containers were probably placed inside the seven depressions. Still, the crossbar should not serve as a chronological indication. It simply attests to the functions associated with the form of the menorah that stood in the synagogue. In conclusion, from its inception the menorah form was a seven-armed candelabrum with a flaring conical base; this changed quite soon into the most frequently used tripod base, although from time to time bases of other shapes, square or triangular, appeared. This general menorah form was the basis for the hundreds of examples which artists and sometimes ordinary people elaborated on, adding details and ornamentation to the original shape. Seldom do identical menorah forms appear: even the two in a pair of flanking menoroth are frequently depicted completely differently. Nevertheless, two basic menorah patterns or designs seem to have existed, sometimes with accompanying ritual objects. In the Land of Israel, the first pattern rendered a pair of menoroth flanking the Torah Shrine housing the Ark of the Scrolls, or only the Ark, usually accompanied by ritual objects. The second pattern was that of the menorah flanked by ritual objects, sometimes all four (lulav, ethrog, shofar, and incense shovel) and sometimes fewer. In the Diaspora, the first pattern is somewhat similar but is depicted only rarely, on a few tombstones and gold glasses from the catacombs of Rome; the second portrays the menorah flanked by the shofar, lulav, and ethrog but without the incense shovel, and with a vase added to the other three regular ritual utensils. It is reasonable to conclude that different designs were used in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora, albeit based on the same basic patterns. It should be noted that inscriptions from Sardis (Seager 1983:171, 176, no. 6) and Side (Lifshitz 1967:37, no. 36) indicate that menoroth were placed in the synagogue and used there (contra to Barag 1985–6:46, who states, without proving it, that “It seems that seven-armed candelsticks were not used in the 3rd–7th centuries either in synagogues or in private houses”). 2.8 The Significance and Symbolism of the Menorah The significance and interpretation of the menorah is disputed (Hachlili 2001:204–209, 275–280). Ancient sources—Josephus, Philo, and rabbinic literature—maintain that the menorah was a religious sign, the symbol of God himself, by virtue of its lights (Goodenough 1950–51:461–491; Smith 1958:500–508). Josephus (War 5.217) contended that the menorah had cosmic significance, with the seven lamps representing the seven planets, and thus it was an astral symbol. Philo (Mos. 2 102, 105) argued that the menorah symbolized heaven, meaning specifically the planetary system, the central light being the sun. The Midrash too connected the menorah and God’s light. Scholars argue various interpretations: Ginzberg (1954, III:161) equated the menorah with God leading Israel as a pillar of fire, and the light with the Shekhinah. The menorah of Zachariah is described as a symbol of Israel, and the bowl as God. Smith (1958:504–9, 512) contends that the menorah replaced the olive tree, which in legend symbolized or was in fact the original Tree of Life. Goodenough (1954, IV:77f, 82, 92) maintains that the menorah was a reflection of the heavenly menorah indicating the light of the Law, so it was a symbol of Judaism. Wirgin (1962:142; 1964:104)



jewish symbols

323

argues that the menorah with the tripod base is a kind of tree-menorah. The olive tree, a symbol of enduring life evolved, when blended with the menorah, “into a Jewish symbol of eternal life after death.” The menorah was intended to symbolize the afterlife, “a continuation of life in the beyond.” Some scholars suggest that the menorah was a messianic symbol. Roth (1955:152–155) argued that the menorah with the shofar and lulav represents “all three Messianic symbols or symbols of redemption . . . emphasising the daily expectation of the Deliverance of Israel” (see also C.L. Meyers 1976; Barag 1985–6:46). Yarden (1971:42–53) interprets the symbolism of the menorah with three images: in the early periods the Tree of Life symbolism was pronounced; in later interpretations the cosmic character of the menorah appeared; and finally the messianic imagery was added, with the menorah symbolizing Israel’s freedom (the Temple and Jerusalem). The image of the menorah is connected to light, which dominates Jewish symbolism as the ‘Lamp of God’, the divine light which, in the synagogue, represented the light of the Torah. In the Bible the menorah is labelled ‘light’, ‘the lamp of God’ (I Sam. 3.3). Some scholars argue that the menorah symbolizes Light, Knowledge, and Eternity (Avigad 1976:268). The menorah was the most significant mark of Judaism; it identified places of worship and burial tombs as Jewish (Beyer and Lietzmann 1930:16–18; Galling 1923:25–29; Rahmani 1994:52; Levine 2000:147–151). Where the menorah first became a symbol is the subject of debate. What is clear is that it was certainly the most important and dominant symbol in Jewish art, both in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora. It has also been suggested that the menorah was used as a symbol of revolt against Rome (Appelbaum 1957:155, 158). Some scholars (Avigad 1976:268–269) suggest that as a symbol of the Jewish people it originated in the Diaspora, where it was more common. Even the menoroth appearing in the Beth She‘arim necropolis are associated with Diaspora Jews buried there. Indeed, the menorah may have been first adopted as a Jewish symbol in the Diaspora, where Jews felt the need to stress their Jewish identity, a need that the Jews in the Land of Israel, living in their own country, might not have felt as strongly. In both the Diaspora and the Land of Israel, the menorah also came to symbolize Judaism when it became necessary to distinguish synagogues and Jewish tombs and catacombs from Christian or pagan structures. Following the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (70 CE), the menorah assumed the profound significance of the Temple. It became a prevalent symbol of the Jewish people and Judaism during the third and fourth centuries CE, and was also used to differentiate them from the Christians, whose symbol was the cross (Hachlili 1988:255–256; 1997:95, 109). The menorah has been found rendered in synagogues, public buildings, and homes throughout the Land of Israel, leaving no doubt as to which are Jewish structures. In the Maʿon-Nirim synagogue mosaic, for example, the prominently displayed menorah sets the synagogue apart from the nearby Shellal church mosaic to which it is quite similar (Hachlili 1987:48, Fig. 2; 1997:97, Pl. 13). The menorah is not only an identifying symbol; when depicted in mosaic floors, it also shows the synagogue array by its proximity to the Torah shrine area, and denotes the latter’s function in the synagogue. The menorah has several symbolic meanings in the Second Temple period and in the synagogal and funerary art of Late Antiquity: • The first-century BCE Mattathius Antigonus coins depict the earliest seven-armed menorah as a symbol of religious and political significance. During the Second Temple period, the menorah might have been a priestly mark rather than a comprehensive Jewish symbol. • The group of free-standing menoroth discovered at several synagogue sites actually served in the synagogue rites, possibly also representing and symbolizing ceremonies of lighting and kindling conducted earlier in the Temple.

324

chapter six

• The menorah located in the synagogue beside the Torah shrine and the Ark of the Scrolls represents the ritual significance and the connection to the Temple. In the synagogue the menorah might have symbolized the light of the Torah, which would explain its depiction close to the Ark of the Scrolls or within the Torah Shrine. • The menorah serves to identify a structure. Examples are menorah representations on synagogue architectural elements, lintels, capitals, and on synagogue mosaic pavements. The addition of a menorah to the common design identified the edifice, the house, or the tomb as Jewish. The menorah labeled a site as a place where Jews worshipped or lived. • The menorah was one of various decorating motifs. • The menorah illustrated on the various objects and architecture of the synagogue (lintels, reliefs, capitals, chancel screens, and mosaic pavements) represented the menorah that served in the synagogue. Some scholars (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:191; Goodenough 1950–51:456; 1954, IV:74) maintain that the menoroth represented in late antiquity were primarily associated with the synagogue (or household) menorah, and that the reference to the Temple menorah was secondary. Still, the synagogue menorah originated as the connection with and the continuation of the function of the Temple menorah and the symbolism assigned to it. The representation of the menorah in the synagogue was thus twofold: it symbolized the Temple menorah and its ritual function that was in a way continued in the synagogue, and it signified Judaism, indicating that the structure was a Jewish edifice. • The menorah offers an interesting example of the way an image sign develops into a symbol. It was probably a professional sign of the priests during the Second Temple period, an indication of their duty and office, that also signified the sacred Temple vessel, along with the Table. Only after the destruction of the Temple did the menorah image change from a specific official and limited emblem into a symbol of general but profound connotation, thus becoming the principal Jewish symbol. In conclusion, the menorah was an integral part of the Temple ritual and was the most important of the Temple vessels. In the synagogue it probably had a similar role. Its later representation served to remind the Jews of their previous glory as well as their pride in the Temple, and it embodied the longing and hope for the renewal of the Temple services and worship. Its unique and impressive design made it an excellent choice to symbolize the meaning of Judaism: instantly recognizable, the menorah symbol would be immediately associated with the Jews. The menorah’s being a source and symbol of light explains its predominance as a Jewish symbol. The purposes that the menorah served were many: a link with ancient rites and worship, a symbol of the Jewish faith, and a visual emblem ever recognizable. Thus a national symbol was created, which satisfied the Jews’ need for self-identity while living among Christians and pagans. The menorah has remained the Jewish symbol par excellence. This ancient symbol of Judaism was rightly chosen to express and represent the continuity and creation of the old-new state of Israel. The emblem of the State of Israel has this symbolic meaning: in depicting the menorah on the Arch of Titus, it expresses the menorah’s return from Rome to the Land of Israel, the end of the Exile, and the close connection between the people’s history and their land. The olive branches express the peaceful aims of the State, and to these two symbols is added the name of the new state, Israel. 3. The Ritual Objects Accompanying the Menorah The ritual utensils—the shofar, lulav, ethrog, and incense shovel or vase—separately or together, are commonly depicted accompanying the menorah in synagogue and funerary art. Cult utensils such as the Torah shrine, the ark of the scrolls, and the showbread table are also rendered with the menorah.



jewish symbols

325

In some instances another object, a hanging lamp, is shown adjacent to the menorah on synagogue pavements. A unique Diaspora addition to the ritual objects is the Torah scrolls. Lions and birds are at times integrated into the scene around the menorah (Hachlili 1988:267–268; 1998:347–355; 2001:211–249, Table V-1). The lulav, ethrog, shofar, and vase are associated with the Feast of Tabernacles (Succoth). During the Second Temple period this festival came to be regarded as the most important of the three annual pilgrimages celebrated in the Jerusalem Temple (Zechariah 14:16–18). In fact, it was referred to simply as ‘the Feast’ and was also known as asif, meaning ‘final harvest of the year’ (Josephus Ant. 8.100). The most common groupings of the ritual objects are (Fig. VI-34): lulav, ethrog, shofar, and incense shovel; lulav, ethrog, and shofar; lulav and shofar; lulav and ethrog (Hachlili 2001:Table V-2). 3.1 The Lulav The lulav is presented in various forms, often appearing together with the ethrog (Fig. VI-35a). Its depictions on mosaic pavements are usually realistic, but at times it appears as a palm branch or a

a

c

b

d

Figure VI-34. Ritual objects flanking the menorah on synagogue mosaics: a. Hammath Tiberias B (4 objects); b. Maʿon-Nirim (3 objects); c. Beth Sheʾan A; d. Jericho (2 objects).

326

chapter six

Figure VI-35. a. Lulav and ethrog; b. lulav, rendered on synagogues.



jewish symbols

327

stylized incised branch. On some mosaics, especially the Hammath Tiberias B and Sepphoris examples, the lulav is rendered as a bundle that includes its two branches of myrtle (hadas) and willow (arava) as well (Fig. VI-35b) (Hachlili 1988:264–266; 1998:349–351; 2001:IS3.1–3, 7, 8, 10, 11; Fig. II-15b). The first appearance of the lulav as a single motif is on coins of the First Jewish War (69 CE; Meshorer 1982, II:117–120), although some coins of Herod the Great depict a palm branch. On the Bar Kokhba War coins (early second century CE) the palm branch reappears and also decorates contemporary lamps (Sussman 1982:21). The motif of a lulav flanking a menorah, with or without other ritual objects, appears from the third century CE onwards in Jewish synagogue and funerary art. The first dated example of a combined motif showing a lulav and ethrog flanking the menorah is painted on the arcuated entablature of the Torah shrine niche in the Dura Europos synagogue. On representations in the Land of Israel, the lulav is often tied to the ethrog, whereas in the Diaspora the lulav and the ethrog seldom appear together. On a mosaic floor of the Tiberias synagogue, a pair consisting of a lulav and ethrog is depicted flanking an inscription (Fig. VI-36). In the Land of Israel the lulav is the second most frequently depicted ritual object. Usually it is paired with the shofar and the ethrog, with the two flanking the menorah. 3.2 The Ethrog: Citron The ethrog is often designed as a circular or ovoid object with a small stem (Fig. VI-37). It is commonly depicted in ancient Jewish art together with the lulav or even bound to it; these are two of the bundle of four species used in the celebration of Tabernacles (Succoth). Depictions in the Land of Israel often render the ethrog with the lulav and the shofar, all flanking the menorah. At Sepphoris, unidentical ethrogim are set close to the lulav bundle. The ethrog is depicted realistically on the Huseifa, Maʿon, Beth Sheʾan B, and Hulda mosaics (Hachlili 2001:Table V-1, IS3.5, 8, 9, 10).

Figure VI-36. Lulav and ethrog flanking an inscription, Tiberias mosaic.

328

chapter six

Figure VI-37. Ethrog rendered on objects.

3.3 The Shofar: A Ram’s Horn The shofar played a ceremonial and ritual function in the Temple together with a pair of trumpets, and was especially associated with Rosh HaShanah (the New Year) and Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement). The shofar is portrayed in the form of a ram’s horn, open and wide at one end, narrowing to a knob-like protuberance at the other end (Fig. VI-38). as a rule the shofar is realistically rendered, although occasionally it is shown in stylized form. It first appears in synagogue and funerary art in the second and third centuries CE. In the Land of Israel it is the emblem that most frequently flanks the menorah, and on mosaic pavements it is commonly shown paired with the incense shovel (Hachlili 2001:IS3.1, 2, 6–8). The most realistic depictions of the shofar are found on mosaic pavements. On the Hammath Tiberias B and Sepphoris mosaics it has lines representing some type of decoration; similar shofars are observed on the Maʿon-Nirim and Beth Sheʾan A synagogue mosaics. The Beth Alpha shofaroth are represented in a stylized manner. On the Beth Midrash mosaic at Meroth the carpet is depicted with shofaroth and fruit, each enclosed within a lozenge (Fig. VI-39). 3.4 The Incense Shovel The incense shovel, one of the accessories of the menorah, was used by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. With it the ash was removed and the lamps of the menorah in the Temple were cleaned (Ex. 25:38). The incense shovel is portrayed as a rectangular fire pan with a handle (Fig. VI-40). Four Roman bronze incense shovels were found in the Bar Kokhba caves and are dated to the first and second centuries CE (Yadin 1963:48–53). The incense shovel is commonly paired with the shofar; it is the rarest of all four ritual objects and appears mostly on synagogue mosaic pavements and on some synagogue architectural elements (Hachlili 2001:IS3.1, 5, 6, 7, 6.1, L2.18, 19, Table V-1). On the Sepphoris synagogue mosaic floor the incense shovel is placed in an unusual position, beneath the Torah shrine (Fig. VI-1b, 2b). Note that the incense shovel is only represented in the Land of Israel, being replaced in the Diaspora by a vase. Scholars differ as to the meaning of this emblem. Some suggested, wrongly, that it was a lectern (Sukenik 1933:225 and Fig. on 223), or that the shovel had eschatological implications, or that it was a snuff shovel used in the synagogue (Narkiss 1935). Jewish artists used the incense shovel as part of the symbolic repertoire of the three festivals in the month of Tishri: Rosh HaShanah (New Year), Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), and Succoth (Tabernacles); and as a reminder of the incense shovel that was an accessory utensil of the Temple menorah. In conclusion, the ritual objects flank the menorah in a variety of assemblages and arrangements; rarely is the menorah flanked by symbols such as a hanging lamp, scrolls, lions, birds, or the showbread. The appearance of the lulav and ethrog on coins of the fourth year of the Jewish War (69 CE) and on the Bar Kokhba War coins (132–135 CE) is interpreted by Meshorer (1982, II:141) as



jewish symbols

Figure VI-38. Shofaroth accompanying menoroth.

Figure VI-39. Shofaroth on the Beth Midrash mosaic, Meroth.

329

330

chapter six

Figure VI-40. Incense shovel rendered on objects in synagogues.

“­representing the desire to rebuild the Temple, also as a reaction against Roman laws concerning the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles”. Most depictions of these motifs in the Land of Israel are found on synagogue mosaic pavements and objects, as well as on many small articles such as pendants and lamps; in funerary art they are fewer. The complete assemblage of four ritual objects flanking the menorah appears often on synagogue mosaic pavements in the Land of Israel. On artifacts one finds two or sometimes three of the emblems. Groups of three of the emblems flanking the menorah mostly occur on small objects: glass bottles, seals, lamps, and medallions. Most common is a pair consisting of the shofar and the incense shovel (Beth Sheʾan A), or a pair consisting of a shofar and lulav arranged (Jericho) to flank the menorah, one on each side (Fig. VI-34c–d). The majority of these pairs are depicted on capitals, lintels, and screens, seals, and lamps (Hachlili 2001:226–7, Table V-2). 4. Other Accompanying Ritual Objects 4.1 The Hanging (Suspended) Lamp The hanging or suspended chandelier/lamp, another ritual utensil employed in the synagogue ceremony, is rendered on synagogue mosaic pavements, on objects, and in funerary art in the Land of Israel. The Hebrew word nivreshet means a hanging lamp, not a menorah. The Mishna M Yoma 3,10, reports: “Helene [Queen of Adiabene] set a golden nivreshet over the door of the sanctuary” (Hachlili 1988:268–272; 2001:227–229). Two forms of the hanging lamp are found: a single glass lamp (kos) in the form of a cup with a high or pointed base, hanging from a single or triple chain (also Zevulun and Olenik 1978:80, no. 211); or a polycandelon, known as the kelilah, a bronze ring with openings for lamps (or open bowls of glass or clay), suspended by chains. Several lamps in the glass (kos) form are depicted hanging from a menorah (Fig. VI-41): on the upper panel of the Naʿaran synagogue mosaic pavement, in the central medallion of the small synagogue mosaic at Beth Sheʾan B, and on a screen relief from the Susiya synagogue. Lamps hanging from a bar are rendered on lintels from Hurvat Kishor and Dana. Two similar lamps are carved on



jewish symbols

331

Figure VI-41. Menoroth with hanging lamps: a. Beth Sheʾan B small synagogue mosaic; b. Naʿaran mosaic; c. Kefar Yasif; d. H. Kishor lintel; e. Susiya chancel screen.

either side of a menorah on the Kefar Yasif tomb door. The glass-shaped (kos) hanging lamp, is also found suspended from the Torah Shrine, on the synagogue mosaic pavements of Beth Alpha and Beth Sheʾan A (Fig. IV-53a, b). Several chains, polycandelons, and pottery or glass lamps have been found in synagogue excavations, for instance, at the Beth Sheʾan A, Gush Halav, Jericho, Maʿon, Rehov, and Horvat Rimmon synagogues. An interesting glass oil-lamp, suspended by three chains from a brass plate in the shape of a seven-branched menorah (Fig. VI-42a), was discovered among debris in the northwest part of the 4th c. CE Wadi Hamam synagogue (Leibner 2010:230, Fig. 9). A bronze polycandelon, consisting of three chains and a round flat disk with six circular holes for holding glass lamps, was found outside the Sepphoris synagogue (Fig. VI-42b) (Weiss 2005:302, Figs. 1–3). A polycandelon with an inscription was found at Kefar Hananiyah (Fig. VI-42c). Three metal chains for holding either a glass oil lamp or a polycandelon were found in the Sumaqa synagogue, together with some glass fragments (Dar 1999:29, Fig. 17). The Byzantine ceramic bowl at Nabratein depicts a polycandelon with a chain hanging from the inner gable and holding a ring which probably held glass lamps (Meyers and Meyers 1982:182 and Fig. 3; 2009:144–149). A carved stone lintel of the Torah shrine found at the Nabratein synagogue shows a vertical slit in the molding above the conch (Fig. IV-49). Meyers et al. (1981b:239; Younger 2009:84) propose that from this slit a lamp hung in front of the ark doors. These suspended lamps, whether single or of the polycandelon (kelilah) type, are seen as synagogue fixtures that illuminated the synagogues of Late Antiquity and as part of the repertoire of ritual objects depicted in connection with either the menorah or the ark. The portrayal of hanging lamps in representational art suggests an additional meaning to scholars: Goodenough (1954:130) says about the hanging lamp that it was “the perpetual light (Ner HaTamid) burned before the Torah shrine, as

332

chapter six

a

b

c

Figure VI-42. Polycandelons, chains, and glasses: a. Hamam; b. Sepphoris; c. Kefar Hananiya.



jewish symbols

333

a memory of the function of the same light before the Ark.” Meyers et al. (1982:182) suggest that the hanging kelilah “represents the prototype of the hanging Eternal Light in Jewish synagogues.” However, as hanging lamps are shown suspended from menoroth and not only from Torah Shrines, the identification of these lamps with the Eternal Light of the Tabernacle is doubtful. Tongs and shovels are described as being used by the priests in the Tabernacle and the Temple for the daily task of removing the ash from the menorah and trimming its wicks (Lev. 24:1–4). Tongs are represented next to the shofar flanking the right menorah on the second panel of the Sepphoris synagogue mosaic pavement (Figs. VI-1b, 2b) (Weiss and Netzer 1996:19). A similar object flanks the menorah at the Samaritan synagogue at el-Hirbeh (Magen 1992:70–72). Torah scrolls are a Diaspora addition to the ritual objects. They frequently appear in catacomb funerary art and seldom in synagogue art, but see the recently found screen from the Andriake synagogue (below and Fig. VI-47c). They are shown flanking the menorah or ark, or placed on the shelves of an open-doored ark (Fig. IV-59). Single scrolls are also found among the ritual objects depicted in catacombs (Shiloh 1968; Hachlili 1998:354–357; 2001:229–230). Amit (1999:54) maintains that these scrolls may eventually have evolved into a decorative motif, as seen on the free-standing menoroth from Susiya and Horvat Qoshet (Figs. VI-13,15). Even closer to these depictions is the free-standing menorah from Sardis (Fig. VI-18). Still, there may be no connection between these motifs. In the repertoire of Jewish art, lions sometimes appear in pairs together with the Jewish symbols of the Torah shrine and the menorah. Lions adorn the arms of the free-standing menoroth of Maʿon (Judea) (Fig. VI-13) and ʾEshtemoʿa. Lions in a symmetrical antithetic composition flank a Torah Shrine and menoroth in the Beth Alpha mosaic pavement. They also flank a menorah on the Maʿon (Nirim) mosaic floor (Fig. VI-43) and a lion is rendered beside two menoroth on the ʿEn Nashut lintel (Fig. VI-44) (Hachlili 2001:IS2.4, 6, 3.2, 3.8, 4.22, Fig. II-11, Pls. II-5, II-8, II-17, II-24). Similar depictions of the symmetrical heraldic motif of flanking lions are found on gold glasses from catacombs in Rome (Hachlili 1998:294–297). The motif of pairs of lions flanking objects has a long history in oriental art. The juxtaposition of lions and Jewish symbols is distinctive in that it suggests a certain contextual significance beyond the decorative function. Lion flanking a Torah shrine, as well as examples of three-dimensional sculptures of lions, have survived from the Galilean ­synagogues of

Figure VI-43. Menorah flanked by lions on the Maʿon (Nirim) mosaic floor.

334

chapter six

Figure VI-44. A lion and two menoroth on the ʿEn Nashut lintel.

Korazim, Capernaum, and Bar‘am (Figs. IX-1–5) (Hachlili 1988:321–328; 1995:186–7, 202–204). These lions were probably part of the aedicula side walls, chosen as guardian figures, recalling the depiction of the Torah Shrine on the Beth Alpha mosaic pavement, where lions flank the ark. These finds indicate that the lions were persistently selected because of their capacity, as motifs of power or images of vigil, to adorn both synagogal and funerary art. The lions flanking the menorah and the Torah Ark, as well as the lions flanking inscriptions at Hammath Tiberias, Hammath Gader, and Beth Alpha, are probably associated with the tradition of the biblical lion of Judah, signifying power and vigilance and representing guardianship and protection. Otherwise, few animals and birds are depicted accompanying the menorah on mosaic pavements and architectural elements. Birds appear perched on the ark’s sides on the Beth Alpha synagogue mosaic pavement and flanking the menorah on the Sarona chancel screen and on mirror plaques, on a Jerusalem relief, on Diaspora plaques, tombstones, and on gold glasses. The birds were part of symbolic Jewish scenes portraying menoroth and Torah shrines (Hachlili 2001:233, Pls. II-8, II-21, II-65–66). A pair of stags flank the Torah shrine and menoroth on the mosaic panel in front of the secondary bema at the Susiya synagogue; Two fishes flank the menorah on a chancel screen from Tiberias (Figs. IV-48, 64). 4.2 The Showbread Table The showbread table appears together with the menorah on a few Second Temple period artifacts (Hachlili 2001:233–239, Fig. V-13, Pl. II-38). The golden shewbread table was one of the three most important Tabernacle and Temple vessels placed inside the sanctuary; it is described in Exodus 25:23–30 with elaboration in Leviticus 24:5–6 and Numbers 4:7. The different biblical designations and attributes assigned to the table are noteworthy: ‘Presence table’, ‘pure table’, ‘the table of the bread of display’ (II Chron. 29:18). Also the bread has various names: ‘the bread of Presence’, ‘the continuing bread’, and ‘setting-forth bread’ or ‘rows of bread’ (I Chron. 9:32; I Chron 23:29; see also Yarden 1991:72, notes 7, 9). A description of the table appears also in Josephus in Antiquities 3.139–141, which mentions that the table is ‘like those at Delphi’, namely a table similar to the then fashionable mensae delphicae,



jewish symbols

335

a three-legged round table (Yarden 1991:74–75). But this does not match the biblical description in Ex. 25, which gives the measurements of a rectangular table. The importance assigned to the showbread table is evident, as it appears, together with the menorah, on several finds of the Second Temple period (Hachlili and Merhav 1985:264; Hachlili 1988:238, 251; 1998:345–346; 2001:233–239). The table forms consist of two types that differ in shape and dating. The earliest appearance of the rectangular four-legged showbread table is on the bronze coins of Mattathias Antigonus (40–37 BCE), on the obverse side, together with the menorah on the reverse (Kindler 1966; Meshorer 1982, I:93–94; 1997:54–56). Another rectangular showbread table is incised on a plastered wall of a house in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem (first century CE), together with the menorah and an altar (Fig. VI-7). The showbread table carved on the Arch of Titus in Rome is carried in a procession by four pairs of bearers (Fig. VI-10), which suggests that the table was very heavy. Two trumpets are rendered crossed on the table. The table is mounted on a low rectangular ferculum (Pfanner 1983:53, 72, n. 194, Figs. 34–35; Yarden 1991:79–100, Figs. 74–79, 84–85). After the Second Temple period, the showbread table hardly ever appears. Few examples of round tables in two forms are found in synagogal art: a gold, round showbread table with molded legs is painted in front of the menorah and the Tabernacle in panel WB1 of the mid-third-century Dura Europos synagogue wall paintings (Hachlili 1998:345–346; 2001:D1.3, Pl. II-38). It recalls three-legged stone tables discovered in Second Temple period Jerusalem (Avigad 1983:168–170, Figs. 188, 189). An interesting design which combines three Jewish symbols: the sanctuary/ark, the showbread table, and the menorah (Magen 1993b:71) is found on the mosaic panel of the fourth-century Samaritan synagogue at el-Hirbeh (Fig. VI-45). A round, three-legged showbread table is depicted on the central panel of the mosaic floor of the fifth-century synagogue at Sepphoris (Fig. VI-46a). It is covered by a cloth decorated with four circles in its corners. Twelve round loaves (some destroyed) are placed on the table (Weiss and Netzer 1996:24–25). A variation of the tripod type is a showbread table rendered at el-Hirbeh. The table is a round X-crossed tripod type with eight loaves and vessels set on it in two rows (Fig. VI-46b). Another showbread table and menorah are crudely rendered on a lintel from the Qasrin synagogue (Fig. III-30b) (Hachlili 1995:184, 195 no. 5, Fig. 5). A simple two-legged table with two piles on it was found on a Samaritan clay lamp (Sussman 1986–7:139, Fig. 19). The showbread table and the menorah were the two most important vessels in the Tabernacle and later in the Temple (see Talgam [2000:104] and Weiss [2005:99] for different suggestions). They are depicted together on items from the Second Temple period, and from later dates at the Dura Europos, Qasrin, and Samaritan el-Hirbeh synagogues. The sole exception is the Sepphoris mosaic, where the round table appears alone; however, its close proximity to the biblical scene of the Consecration of Aaron might indicate that it renders a Tabernacle vessel. This is comparable to the showbread table painted on Dura Europos panel WB1 in the same biblical scene. The showbread table had no function in the synagogue. Together with the menorah, it was intended to represent the sanctity of the Temple though, unlike the menorah, the table appears only in a few examples and did not develop into a symbol. 4.3 Menoroth Discovered Recently in Israel and the Diaspora (1) Six architectural fragments with seven-armed menoroth were discovered at the Umm el-Qanatir synagogue (Ben David et al. 2006:116). (1–2) Two menoroth, one a relief on the west column of the aedicula, the other on the east column flanked by the ritual objects (Fig. VI-21); (3) a relief with a menorah flanked by a pair of shofaroth (Fig. VI-47a); (4) a pilaster with a carved menorah, ­possibly from the western façade wall of the second story (Fig. VI-47b); (5–6) two fragments of

336

chapter six

Figure VI-45. Panel of symbols at the el-Hirbeh Samaritan synagogue.

carved ­menoroth, one found in the western collapsed part of the synagogue, the second found east of the synagogue (Fig. VI-47c–d). (2) A seven-armed menorah engraved on an ashlar stone (5 × 5 cm.) was found in the collapsed debris of a public building, perhaps a synagogue, at Yatta (Magen and Baruch 2002:118, *95). (3) A fragment of a menorah was discovered on a mosaic panel in the north end of the hall at the Hammath Tiberias Stratum Ia synagogue (Dothan 2000:Fig. 6, Pl. 23). This menorah probably had seven arms and a tripod base.



jewish symbols

a

b

Figure VI-46. Showbread table on mosaic pavements: a. Sepphoris; b. el-Hirbeh Samaritan synagogue.

a

b

c

d

Figure VI-47a–d. Four menoroth from Umm el-Qanatir.

337

338

chapter six

(4) A seven-armed menorah on a fragmented limestone relief was discovered in debris at Hurvat Dasha in the Jordan Valley, possibly removed from another site (Peleg 2006). The stone (w 24 cm. h 41 cm. d 21 cm.) may have belonged to a lintel from a synagogue at Pazael. The menorah has seven arms and a tripod base. A plant design decorates the space between the main arm and the two innermost ones. On the right, the lower part of a shofar is rendered. Two Hebrew letters—‫ס‬ ‫ ע‬are inscribed on the central leg of the tripod base. (5) A partly damaged seven-armed menorah is depicted inside a rectangular panel in the centre of the mosaic pavement at Saranda (Albania) (Netzer and Foerster 2005:48–49, photos on p. 45 and back cover). The menorah has a tripod base and simple decoration on the arms, and the light fittings are lamps. It is flanked by a lulav on the left and an ethrog on the right, with another, larger ethrog to the far right. (6) A marble chancel screen was found at the Andriake (a port about 5 km. from Mira, the capital of Likia, south Turkey) synagogue, dated to the 3rd or, more likely, the 5th century CE (Cevik and Eshel 2010:42). The screen shows a seven-armed menorah with scrolls on both sides under the arms and a two-legged base. It is flanked by a lulav and ethrog on the left and a shofar on the right; at the upper left side of the screen frame, beside a Greek dedicatory inscription, another very small seven-armed menorah with a tripod base is engraved, flanked by a shofar on the right and a lulav and ethrog on the left. This item is comparable to other menoroth and ritual objects on chancel screens found at Sardis and Priene (also in Asia Minor), which have only three ritual objects flanking the menorah (Hachlili 2001:78–79, Figs. II-22c, f, Pls. II-43). Similar scrolls on three-dimensional menoroth appear in the Land of Israel at Susiya and H. Koshet. 5. Conclusions The ritual objects—the shofar, lulav, ethrog, and incense shovel or vase—frequently accompany the menorah in ancient Jewish art; they appear first in the Diaspora, from the third century CE, on the arched lintel of the Dura Europos niche and in the Jewish catacombs in Rome. In the Land of Israel they appear in the 3rd–4th century CE Beth She‘arim cemetery on two marble slabs and on lead sarcophagi (Avigad 1976:268–273, Figs. 130:2, 4, 5). Avigad maintains that these motifs were probably imported from the Diaspora, and furnish added proof for his theory that they were generally used by the Diaspora Jews, who felt the need to emphasize their identity. Jews in the Land of Israel may have used these symbols less at the time, probably because they felt less need to differentiate themselves from the non-Jewish population. Schwartz (2001:272) maintains that in the 5th and 6th c. CE, “the period was characterized by a process of Judaization . . . The Jews once again began to construct their symbolic world around the Torah, the (memory of the) temple and related items, and they began once again to think of themselves as constituting Israel.” From the fourth century CE on, the use of the ritual objects flanking the menorah is common on all kinds of objects and on synagogue mosaic pavements. The ritual objects flanking the menorah are relatively rare on tombs in the Land of Israel. Their representation, which in funerary art probably indicates Jewish identification, gains profound significance when depicted in synagogue art. There it alludes to the Temple implements used during the feasts of the seventh month (New Year, Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles), and to the use of these objects in the same rituals in contemporary synagogues. Many other symbols and images were taken from the contemporary Hellenistic-Roman world; forms were borrowed but were divested of their original meaning. Even if the form of the pagan motif was appropriated, it would be wrong to assume that its symbolic value was also transferred. On the contrary, symbols have certain value within particular contexts and lose their significance when transplanted into another cultural context.

CHAPTER SEVEN

The Jewish Calendar represented in the Zodiac design The calendar plays a significant role in the determination of the annual life cycle of the Jewish people—the agricultural schedule, the festivals, the months, and the weeks. This importance is expressed in the zodiac design depicted on various synagogue mosaic pavements and some stone carvings. 1. The Calendar The Jewish calendar is lunisolar, based on twelve lunar months of twenty-nine or thirty days each. A lunar month is added seven times (about once every two to three years) in every nineteen-year cycle to synchronize this calendar with the slightly longer solar year. During the Second Temple period the Judean calendar was a lunar calendar “derived from the Babylonian lunar calendar based on sighting of the new moon,” which also served other Near East countries as the official calendar (Wiesenberg 1971; Segal 1982:197–208 and bibliography; S. Stern 2001; 2010:243). The lunisolar year is best described in Gen. 1:14: “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate day from night; they shall serve as signs for the set times—the days and the years.” The importance of the calendar in the economy and ruling is expressed in 1 Kings 4:7: “Solomon had twelve prefects governing all, who provided food for the king and his household; each had to provide food for one month in the year.” Natural forces and the agricultural seasons determined the division of the year: Two seasons were observed in ancient Israel: summer and winter, which corresponded to the agricultural activities of ploughing and harvest (Gen. 45:6). The two main and most ancient festivals, Passover and Succoth, occur on the spring and autumn equinoxes and begin on the night of the full moon. Traditionally, each Jewish lunar month starts with the “new moon”—the day on which the first visible crescent of the moon is observed. Each visible crescent arises about 29 or 30 days after the preceding one. Each new lunar crescent had to be sighted and confirmed by witnesses. The importance of the new moon as the first day of the month is emphasized in Num. 10:10 and Num. 28:11 “And on . . . your . . . new moons you shall sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and your sacrifices . . .” The month is divided into weeks, each weekly cycle consisting of seven days based on the Genesis story of creation (Gen. 1, 2:1–3). Every day is named for its order in the week and the seventh day is called Sabbath ‫( שבת‬the day to cease from working). The days commence at sunset. In contrast to the Jewish mainstream calendar of 354 days, the Qumran solar year contained exactly 364 days (fifty-two weeks) and was subdivided into four quarters of three months each (thirteen weeks or 91 days). Each of the first two months of a tequfah—a quarter—numbered thirty days. One additional day with a special cultic significance was added to the last month of the quarter, that is the third, sixth, ninth and twelfth months of the year, and thus numbers thirty-one days. A mnemonic calendrical composition (6Q17i. 1–2) records this basic structure. The Qumran community’s solar calendar was a substantial and striking indication of the separation between it and the other Jewish communities during the Second Temple period; the rejection of the lunar calendar was the core of the intense controversy and division between mainstream Judaism and the convenanters (Talmon 2000:108–117). S. Stern (2010:249–50) draws a different conclusion: that the Qumran’s 364-day calendar “should be regarded as just one of many peculiarities

340

chapter seven

of the Qumran literature and perhaps community. But it does not appear, in Qumran sources, as a polemic issue, nor does it appear to have played a particular role in forging the Qumran community’s sectarian identity.” The calendar content, form, structure, and especially the names of the seasons and the months appear in the literary sources: the Bible, Josephus’s writings, and in later Mishnaic and Talmudic literature as well as in the form of archaeological finds such as inscriptions and mosaic pavement designs. The Hebrew calendar referred to in the Bible identifies different names of the months of the year. 1.1 The Gezer Calendar The earliest archaeological source for the Hebrew calendar is the Gezer calendar, inscribed on a small limestone plaque (7.2 × 11.1 cm.) that was found in the excavations at the ancient city of Gezer. It presents an annual agricultural schedule based on the solar year, listing the months in chronological order according to their agricultural activities, the seasons and the harvest periods, beginning with the autumn equinox. The Gezer Calendar is either an Israelite or Canaanite seven-line inscription in Paleo-Hebrew script, dated ca. 10th century BCE1 (Cassuto M.D. 1954; Macalister 1912, II:24–28; Albright 1943; Talmon 1963; Ahituv 1992:149–52; Young 1992; Yardeni 1997:15–17; Sivan 1998). The Paleo-Hebrew inscription in seven lines reads: ‫ ירחו אספ ירחו ז‬1 ‫ רע ירחו לקש‬2 ‫ ירח עצד פשת‬3 ‫ ירח קצר שערמ‬4 ‫ ירח קצר וכל‬5 ‫ ירחו זמר‬6 ‫ ירח קצ‬7 ‫ אביה‬8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Two months of harvest Two months of sowing, planting Two months of late sowing or plants beginning to sprout ([Amos 7:1) A month of flax picking A month of barley harvest A month of harvest and festival Two months of grape harvesting (vine pruning or harvest) A month of summer fruit

—Tishri and Marheshvan; —Kislev and Tevet. —Shevat and Adar. —Nisan —Iyar —Sivan —Tammuz and Av. —Elul.

A personal name Aby[ jah] written vertically on the lower left margin, possibly the owner or the author.

1 The calendar was discovered in Gezer by R.A.S. Macalister in 1908. The Gezer Calendar is displayed in the Museum of the Ancient Orient in Istanbul.



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

341

Figure VII-1. The Gezer calendar.

Each line of the calendar’s inscription begins with the word ‫ ירח‬yrh (“month”) or ‫ ירחו‬yrhw (“two months”) which precedes the description of each month. It seems all twelve months are accounted for in the agricultural activities. The character and function of the calendar is not exactly clear, and different interpretations have been proposed: (1) The Gezer calendar was an annual cycle of agricultural activities that appears to begin with the month of Tishri. (2) The calendar was an official calendar mentioning the important tasks and seasons of the months. (3) The Gezer calendar was designated for the collection of taxes from farmers. (4) The calendar was a writing exercise of a schoolboy based on the fact that the script is rather crude. (5) The content of the inscription was a popular folk song, recording the months of the year according to the agricultural seasons (Macalister 1912:24–28; Cassuto 1954 and bibliography there; Talmon 1963; Ahituv 1992:149–52; Emerson 1999). The major changes in the Hebrew/Jewish calendar, which altered the form of the seasons and adopted Babylonian names for the months of the year, were those made after the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile. 1.1.1 The Months The names of the months changed during the history of the Hebrew/Jewish calendar. In biblical texts relating to the pre-exilic period four names of months are preserved: ‫ אביב‬Aviv—the first month of the year, literally means “spring”, originally probably meaning “the ripening of grain, barley and wheat” (Ex. 13:4, 23:15, 34:18; Deut. 16:1); Yerah ‫ זיו‬Ziv—the second month, literally means “light, radiance, splendor” (I Kings 6:1, 37); Yerah ‫ איתנים‬Ethanim—the seventh month, literally means in

342

chapter seven

plural “strong”, perhaps referring to strong rains (I Kings 8:2); and Yerah Bul ‫—בול‬the eighth month (I Kings 6:38). The three months Ziv, Ethanim, and Bul are mentioned in connection to the building of the Temple by King Solomon and are probably Canaanite designations. It is interesting to note that in these citations both the name yerah (which appears also in the Gezer inscription) and the actual name of the month are used. The names of the months changed in the period of the return from the Babylonian exile (6th c. BCE) and occur primarily in the post-exilic books. The returnees are alleged to have brought back the new names (JT, Rosh Hashana 1:56d) which refer to Nisan (the first month of the spring) as the first month of the year; only six other months names are mentioned (Zec. 1:7, 2:1; Est. 2:16, 3:7, 13, 8:9, 12, 9:1, 15, 17, 19, 21; Neh. 1:1, 2:1) (see Table VII-1). The Jewish calendar from then on used the Babylonian month names and continued during Late Antiquity to allude to Nisan as the month which begins the year. In the Dead Sea scrolls, the months are identified by ordinal numbers rather than by name, in keeping with the ancient Israelite, biblical tradition; neither the Canaanite appellations (such as Aviv, yerah, Ziv) nor the Babylonian month names are found, except in one magical text, the fragmentary Zodiology and Brontology (4Q318, Alexander 2000:504). The Babylonian month name Shevat is mentioned once in a small fragment of Historical Work (4Q333) (Talmon 2000:109). The month names in the Books of the Maccabees are occasionally indicated by ordinal numbers though the Babylonian month names also occur in the names of the months Nisan and Iyar (2 Enoch 24:7, 9). 1.1.2 The Seasons One of the most important elements of the calendar is the seasons. After the Babylonian exile the division of the Jewish year into four seasons was the accepted form. The ‫ תקופות‬tekufot—the four seasons in Rabbinical literature—Nisan, Tamuz, Tishri, and Tevet (M. San. 12:2–13:1:Tos. San. 2:2; JT San. a, b) mark the turning of the sun, the beginning of each season, and include the equinoxes and solstices (Segal 1982:207; Wiesenberg 1971:46–48; Di Segni 2005:212–213). This division was apparently influenced by the Babylonian and Greek cultures. The four tekufot and their corresponding zodiac signs are (see Table VII-1): ‫ תקופת ניסן‬Tekufat Nisan—Spring (vernal) equinox, the beginning of spring. ‘‫( ’עת הזרע‬seed-time), day and night are equal; the sun enters Aries. ‫ תקופת תמוז‬Tekufat Tammuz—Summer solstice,; the summer season.  ‘‫( ’עת הקציר‬harvest-time), the longest day in the year; the sun enters Cancer. ‫ תקופת תשרי‬Tekufat Tishri—Autumn equinox, autumn season, ‘‫( ’עת הבציר‬vintage-time), the day again equals the night, the sun enters Libra. ‫ תקופת טבת‬Tekufat Tevet—Winter solstice, the beginning of winter.  ‘‫( ’עת החורף‬stripping-time), the longest night of the year, the sun enters Capricornus. The Dead Sea Scrolls, in the Rule of the Community (1QSx.7), recorded the four annual seasons as corresponding to four main agricultural seasons: ‫ זרע ודשא‬,‫ קיץ‬,‫ קציר‬which are ‘The season of reaping to [that of] of summer [fruits]; the season of sowing to the season of [cutting] green fodder’ (Talmon 2000:109). This wording repeats the description of the agricultural seasons in the Gezer Calendar and in Amos 7:1–4, 8:1–2 (a similar though longer description appears in 1 Enoch 82:16–19). It is possible that the start of each of these quarters was indicated by special prayers and marked by festivals. According to Talmudic sources, more changes in the Jewish calendar were made in the 4th c. CE. The publication or the limited regulations of the Jewish calendar was effected by the patriarch



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

343

Hillel II in 358/9 CE and presented mainly a change from a calendar based on the sighting of the moon and the seasons to a calculated and fixed calendar (S. Stern 2001:139–140, 164–172). It is possible that the mosaic pavement of Hammath Tiberias B, which depicts the primary elements of the calendar, is related to this innovation (Sternberg 1972:72–103; Levine 2003c:110–115). 1.1.3 New Year, the Start of the Year In the ancient (biblical) Israelite tradition, the Jewish year began in the spring and the first month was named ‫‘ חדש האביב‬the month of the spring’ (Ex. 13:4, 23:15, 34:18; Deut. 16:1). The months were indicated by ordinal numbers, so that the ‘First month’ was the first spring month (Ex. 40:2, 17; Lev. 23:5; Num. 28:16). Exodus 12:2 states: “This month shall mark for you the beginning of the months; it shall be the first of the months of the year for you.” Other months are referred to as the Second, Fifth, Seventh and Ninth (see Table VII-1). Almost all the festival dates in the Torah relate to the calendar which begins in the spring. However, the 10th c. BCE Gezer calendar begins in the fall. Other sources, such as Josephus and the Mishna, state some interesting facts on the first month of the year: Josephus Antiquities 1.81 states: Moses . . . appointed Nisan (Xanthikos = the Macedonian month) . . . as the first month for the festivals . . . the commencement of the year for everything relating to divine worship, but for selling and buying and other ordinary affairs he preserved the ancient order [i.e. the year beginning with Tishrei]. (Josephus, Antiquities 1.81, Loeb Classical Library, 1930)

The Mishna Rosh Hashanah 1.1 is based on a tradition citing Nisan as the new year but identified three other new-year dates: The 1st of Nisan is the new year for kings and feasts; the 1st of Elul is the new year for the tithe of cattle . . . the 1st of Tishri is the new year for years, of the years of release and jubilee years, for the planting and for vegetables; and the 1st of Shevat is the new year for trees- so the school of Shammai; and the school of Hillel say: On the 15th thereof.

That Nisan, the spring month, begins the year is further proved by the late 6th-century ʿEn Gedi synagogue western aisle mosaic inscription (Fig. XI-4). The second panel lists the Hebrew names of the zodiac signs, followed by their corresponding months in the same order (Fig. VII-2), beginning with Nisan and its corresponding zodiac sign Taleh/Ram/Aries (Mazar 1970; Barag et al. 1981). The ʿEn Gedi inscription also proves that even in the late 6th century the Jewish year started with Nisan (and its zodiac sign Taleh), the first month of the spring. The zodiac depiction at Beth Alpha indicates as much by adding the letter vav (‘and’) to both Deli (Aquarius) and Dagim (Pisces), thereby designating them the last signs of the zodiac (Fig. VII-7); this in fact attests that the next zodiac sign, Taleh (Aries) for the month of Nisan, is the beginning of the year . The tradition is preserved in later literature, such as in Ha-Kalir’s poems, where the names of months are parallel to the zodiac signs (Avi-Yonah 1964:55; Mirsky 1971). Pagan and Christian New Years: The Macedonian solar calendar was first introduced in the Near East with the victory of Alexander the Great. It was basically the Babylonian calendar, in which the Macedonian names of the months replaced the Babylonian ones. The year began on the first of Dios (October). In some of the sites, such as Antioch, the year began with Hyperberetarios (Tishri, September–October) and in other cities, it began with Gorpiaios (August–September), in the autumn (see Table VII-1). The Macedonian months are used frequently by Josephus in correspondence to the Hebrew months (Ant. I.81, Shalit 1978:notes 55–57). The difference between the Jewish and Christian calendar representations was quite striking in design and concept. On church mosaics the calendar order was different. The distinction between

344

chapter seven

Figure VII-2. ʿEn Gedi inscription.

synagogue and church was perceived in the order of the months and their effect on the calendar, namely when the year begins. The Jewish year began in the spring, while the Christian year began either in January or in the autumn. The Christian calendar appears on mosaic pavements in churches at Gerasa and in a funerary chapel and a monastery at Beth Sheʾan (Hachlili 2009:191–193). These two mosaic pavements from Beth Sheʾan prove that in the 6th century the Christians used the Julian calendar (Hachlili 2009:191–193): On the narthex of the mid-6th funerary chapel of the El-Hammam Beth Sheʾan mosaic pavement, the main panel shows representations of the twelve months depicted in two rows of six, each row divided into two separate groups (Fig. VII-32b) (Avi‑Yonah 1936:22–26, Pl. xv). The left part of the mosaic depicting the first six months is badly damaged. January appears as the first month; the figure is almost completely destroyed, but part of the inscription survived. In the Beth Sheʾan Monastery of Lady Mary, the personifications of the labors of the months with their Latin names appear in the outer circle in the center of the carpet in Hall A (Fig. VII-32a). The inner circle contains the personifications of the sun and the moon as female busts bearing torches (Fitzgerald 1939:6, Pls. vi–viii). It can be assumed from the similarity with the El-Hammam mosaic pavement that here also, the New Year was in January. The Latin names of the months of the Julian calendar are found only in Byzantine mosaics in northern Palestine; in southern Palestine, the Negev, and Gerasa (Jordan) the inscribed names of the months remain Macedonian through the Byzantine period and later (Avi-Yonah 1936:22–25, note 2, p. 25). The Jewish calendar is represented on synagogue mosaic pavements of Late Antiquity as a zodiac design comprised of a single identical scheme consisting of three sections: the four seasons signify the year, the months are represented by the zodiac signs, and the sun god with its background of a half moon and stars symbolizes day and night. The Jews seem to have preferred to represent the calendar with the combined symbolism of the seasons, the zodiac signs, and the sun god in one single composition embodying an annual liturgical calendar (Hachlili 1977; 1988:394‑395; 2002; 2009:54–6), while the church pavements show that Christians chose for their calendar the human labor of each month with the seasons in separate designs. Both, however, followed the traditions and general repertoire of the Graeco-Roman calendars. The Hebrew/Jewish calendar went through several major changes: in the biblical period the agricultural calendar illustrated the varied activities of the seasons and months. In the Second Temple period, the Jewish calendar altered under the influence of the Babylonian lunar calendar, resulting in



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

345

a change of the month names to the Babylonian names, which are still in use today. The last transformation was generated in the 4th c. CE, when a fixed and calculated calendar was published. 2. The Zodiac in Jewish Art The zodiac originated in Babylonia and evolved slowly between 1300 BCE and 500 BCE. The Greek scheme of 12 zodiac constellations and sign names are in fact translated or modified Babylonian names, proving that it was adapted from the Babylonian scheme circa 500 BCE. During the 5th century BCE the constellation zodiac developed into 12 equal divisions of 30 degree signs. This was the basis of the theoretical division of the year into 12 months of 30 days each (van der Waerden 1952–3:225–228; Thompson 2010). The pictorial signs of the zodiac are known from renditions on seals from Seleucid Uruk and they probably already presented their astrological aspects. Several signs, such as Sagittarius, Capricornus, and Aquarius, which appear on the round zodiac of Dendra (a mix of the Greek zodiac and the Babylonian original), are similar to those depicted on Babylonian boundary stones (van der Waerden 1952–3:226–227, Figs. 4–9). In the 2nd century BCE, the Greek astronomer Hipparchus of Rhodes was the first to reclassify the boundaries of the 12 signs. He placed the beginning of the (Greek) sign of Aries at the vernal equinox, which was the starting point for the zodiacal division of 12 equal signs. The zodiac in Jewish sources: The only biblical reference to the zodiac is in II Kings 23:5: ‫המקטרים‬ ‫“ לבעל לשמש ולירח ולמזלות ולכל צבא השמים‬and those made offerings to Baal, to the sun and moon and constellations—all (Mazalot) the host of heaven”. The meaning of the word Mazalot could be the planets or groups of stars which belong to the zodiac. ‫ מזלות‬Mazalot apparently was synonymous with ‫ כוכבים‬stars. The Septuagint translates this word as μαζουρωθ (also Job 38:32 “Can you lead out Mazzaroth [apparently a constellation] in its season, conduct the Bear with her sons”); the Vulgata uses “duodecum signa” = the twelve (zodiac) signs (Plesner and Licht 1962:45). Isa. 13:10 describes the destruction in heaven as follows: “The stars and constellations of heaven shall not give off their light; The sun shall be dark when it rises, and the moon shall diffuse no glow.” Interesting descriptions of the sun, moon, stars, and zodiac signs are cited in the Books of Enoch. The image of the sun riding the chariot is described in 1 Enoch 72:4–5, 75:4 (the Ethiopic version) and 2 Enoch, 1 Enoch 72:4–5 (R.H. Charles, 1917): 4. And first there goes forth the great luminary, named the Sun, and his circumference is like the circumference of the heaven, and he is quite filled with illuminating and heating fire. 5. The chariot on which he ascends, the wind drives, and the sun goes down from the heaven and returns.

2 Enoch, Chapter 30 (Slavonic, English translation by W.R. Morfill 1896, Oxford, Clarendon Press, The book of the Secrets of Enoch): 5. and I placed the sun to give light to the day, and the moon and stars to give light to the night; the sun that he should go according to each sign of the zodiac; and the course of the moon through the twelve signs of the zodiac.

An appropriate description in 2 Enoch (Slavonic, Hebrew)2 illustrates quite accurately the design of the zodiac as it is depicted on the synagogue mosaic pavements:

2 Enoch 2 was probably originally written in Hebrew (see the Hebrew names of the months Enoch 2 24:7, 9—Iyar, Nisan) in Jerusalem? Translated into Greek in Egypt; it was preserved in a Slavonic church translation of the Greek. The translation used is by Sokolov 1899 (Kahana 1960:103–4).

346

chapter seven ‫המזלות; ושנים עשר עגולי מזלות לסב את הירח‬-‫עגול‬-‫והשמש יהי הולך בכל‬ (Enoch II:11:51; Kahana 1959:119) “The sun is moving through the entire zodiac wheel; and the twelve signs of the zodiac shall encircle the moon” (my translation). It is important to note that the phrases in the Bible and Enoch refer to the sun, moon, stars, and zodiac signs, and these are the the essential elements of the zodiac design in Jewish art.

The study of astrology is forbidden in the Bible as proved by Deuteronomy 4:19: “And when you look up to the sky and behold the sun and the moon and the stars, the whole heavenly host, you must not be lured into bowing down to them or serving them . . .”; Isaiah 47:13 “You are helpless, despite all your art. Let them stand up and help you now, the scanners of heaven, the star-gazers who announce, month by month, whatever will come upon you.” The Dead Sea Scrolls mention the zodiac signs in some works on the horoscope (4Q183, 4Q186, 4Q318, 4Q561; Albani 2000:370–371; Alexander 2000:504). Some scholars suggest that the appearance of the zodiac derives from priestly literature and early mystical themes. Philo (On the Life of Moses II 24:123–124) suggested that the twelve stones on the breastplate of the high priest Aharon and their division into four sections actually represented the four seasons and the twelve signs of the zodiac. 2.1 The Zodiac Panel Design in Synagogues Zodiac panels have been found in six 4th to 6th century CE synagogues on mosaic floors with typical tripartite scheme compositions. The zodiac is the central panel in the scheme of these mosaics, all of which share a similar zodiac cycle design, with some exceptions at Sepphoris (Hachlili 1977; 1988:301–309; 2002; 2009:35–56). The zodiac panel is designed as a square frame containing two concentric circles. The central circle is depicted with an image of the sun god riding his chariot drawn by four horses. The outer, larger circle is divided into twelve radial units, each containing one of the signs and bearing its Hebrew name. In the corners of the square frame, busts of the four seasons are portrayed symbolically. These are named in Hebrew, after the month with which the season begins. Each synagogue mosaic zodiac design evinces differences in the depiction and the execution of the figures. These underline the development of a distinctive scheme and model. The composition of each mosaic is harmonious and balanced, each section having a significant and integral place in the design (Figs. VII-3–4; Tables VII-1–3). At Sepphoris, the most recently discovered (Figs. VII-5, V-30, VII-3b), this panel is found on the fifth of the seven bands of the 5th century nave hall mosaic floor (Weiss & Netzer 1996:14–15; Weiss 2005:104–141). The Severus synagogue of Hammath Tiberias B is the earliest with mosaic pavements, dating to the 4th century (Dothan 1983:39–49). The zodiac is the central panel of the tripartite nave design (Figs. V-28, VII-3a, VII-6). The zodiac at the Beth Alpha synagogue is the central panel of the tripartite nave design (Figs. V-29, VII-3d, VII-7) which, according to the Aramaic inscription, dates from the time of Justin I (518– 527 CE, the preferred date) or Justin II (565–578) (see Sukenik 1932:57–58). In the late 6th-century Naʿaran synagogue the zodiac (Figs. V-31, VII-3e, VII-8) is the central panel of the tripartite nave design (Vincent 1919; 1921; 1961). At the Huseifa synagogue (Figs. V-34, VII-3c, VII-9) the zodiac is rendered on the upper panel of the nave mosaic dating to the late 5th-century (Avi-Yonah 1934). The 6th century Susiya synagogue (Gutman et al. 1981:126) did contain at one time a mosaic floor with a central zodiac panel which was later changed into a geometric pattern (Fig. IV-47, VII-10). The only surviving part is a corner of the zodiac showing a wing, possibly of one of the seasons.



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

347

b

a

c

d

e

Figure VII-3. Illustrations of the zodiac panel: a. Hammath Tiberias B; b. Sepphoris; c. Huseifa; d. Beth Alpha; e. Naʿaran.

348

chapter seven

a

b

c

d

e

Figure VII-4. Schematic illustrations of the zodiac panel: a. Hammath Tiberias B; b. Sepphoris; c. Huseifa; d. Beth Alpha; e. Naʿaran.



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

Figure VII-5. The Sepphoris zodiac.

349

350

chapter seven

Figure VII-6. Hammath Tiberias B zodiac.



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

Figure VII-7. Beth Alpha zodiac.

351

352

chapter seven

Figure VII-8. Naʿaran zodiac.

A possible zodiac design might have decorated the center of the nave of the Khirbet Wadi Hammam synagogue; however, little of it survived (Leibner and Miller 2010:239–240). The characteristic design of these mosaics was expressed differently on the western aisle mosaic pavement of the ʿEn Gedi synagogue, dating to the late 6th century. It shows a Hebrew inscription, the second panel of which displays the names of the signs of the zodiac, followed by the names of the corresponding Jewish months (Fig. VII-2). Some damaged engraved zodiac signs on stone have been discovered: at the Meroth synagogue, badly damaged signs of the zodiac were found on five slabs of an arch originally placed above the lintel of the main entrance (Fig. V-46); each slab probably showed one of the signs (Ilan and Damati 1987:47). A stone relief fragment from the Barʿam synagogue (Fig. IX-41) was considered by Sukenik (1932:57) to depict some of the zodiac signs, but this view has since been refuted, and rightly so, by Amiran (1954:181). On marble slabs at Beth Sheʿarim, incisions of a ram, a lion, a water-bearer, and fish are considered by the excavator to be signs of the zodiac (Maisler 1941:12) The zodiac signs correspond to the seasons at Hammath Tiberias B and Sepphoris, while at Huseifa, Beth Alpha, and Naʿaran they do not (Pls. III-1–3a, Figs. III-3, 4, Table III-1). The zodiac circles



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

353

Figure VII-9. Remains of the zodiac, Huseifa.

at Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, and Beth Alpha are counter-clockwise, whereas at Naʿaran and Huseifa they run clockwise. At Hammath Tiberias B, Huseifa, and Sepphoris the zodiac figures are directed inwards, with their heads towards the central circle, while at Beth Alpha and Naʿaran they are directed outwards with their feet toward the central circle (see Figs. VII-3, 5–8, Tables VII-2, 3). The general form and content of the recently published Sepphoris mosaic shows a zodiac similar to the other synagogue zodiacs, yet with some noteworthy different iconographic details and featural variations (Hachlili 2002:226–7; 2009:47–48). The Sepphoris zodiac is located differently in the nave composition. The long narrow hall of the Sepphoris synagogue is paved with a mosaic carpet divided into seven horizontal bands (Fig. V-30). Unlike most zodiacs, which are positioned in the central panel, here the zodiac is placed in the fifth and broadest band of the mosaic (Weiss & Netzer 1996:14; Weiss 2005:104). The central zodiac circle at Sepphoris (Fig. VII-5) renders the sun (not the sun god) suspended in the centre; its ten rays radiate light, the central one being joined to the chariot (Weiss & Netzer 1996:26; Weiss 2005:104–110). Each sign is accompanied by its Hebrew name, but here the Hebrew

354

chapter seven

Figure VII-10. Remains of the zodiac, Susiya.

name of the month is added. The names of the zodiac signs are more randomly located, below or beside the figure and not above as in the other pavements. 2.2 The Four Seasons: The Outer Square Frame The square outer frame of the zodiac scheme contains the four seasons, placed diagonally in the four spandrels (Figs. VII-3–10, Tables VII-1, VII-3). Each season is represented by a bust of a woman wearing jewellery and is equipped with attributes and objects representing the activities of the season (Sukenik 1932:39; Goodenough 1953, I:249; Hachlili 1977:70–71; 2002:225–226; 2009:44–47, 184–191; Dothan 1983:43–45; Weiss & Netzer 1996:27–28; Weiss 2005:123–139). The seasons, except at Huseifa, are accompanied by the Hebrew name of the first month, which stands for the appropriate season (Tekufah in Hebrew): Tekufat Nisan = Spring, Tekufat Tammuz = Summer, Tekufat Tishri = Autumn, Tekufat Tevet = Winter, referring to the turning of the sun at both the solstices and the equinoxes (Di Segni 2005:212–214). Only at Sepphoris are the four seasons accompanied by the names of the first month of each season in Hebrew as well as by the inscribed Greek term τροπαί tropai. The four seasons’ representations in each zodiac are similar in their facial features, eyes, some of their jewellery, and their dress. Only their particular attributes and inscription identify them. At Sepphoris the four seasons are depicted in the same manner with the heads turning left. Spring and Autumn have the same hairstyle, with the hair combed to the sides and clasped at the top with a clip, and they are adorned with a small earring (Figs. VII-5, X-19). The Tevet season (Winter) is wearing a cloak that covers her head, while Summer, albeit with the same facial features, wears a round hat with a button on the top. The assemblage of attributes at Sepphoris, which is richer than that found in the other mosaics, is portrayed alongside the seasons’ heads. None of the four hold objects in their hands. At Hammath Tiberias B, the four seasons are alike. Their oval-shaped heads are crowned by wreaths, with different plants characterizing each season (Figs. VII-6, X-14). Their large open eyes



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

355

Table VII-1. The seasons. Seasons Seasons on zodiac design

Seasons in Greek at Sepphoris

Turning of the Sun

Sun enters Agricultural zodiac signs seasons

Dead Sea Scrolls: Rule of the Community (1QSx.7)

Spring

Μεθ[ο]πωρινή τροπή

Vernal equinox

Aries

Seasons of reaping ‫קציר‬

Tekufat Nisan ‫תקופת ניסן‬

Summer Tekufat Tammuz Χ[ε]ιμερινή τροπή ‫תקופת תמוז‬

Summer Solstice Cancer

Autumn Tekufat Tishrei ‫תקופת תשרי‬

[Έα]ρινή τροπή Autumn equinox Libra

Winter

Θερινή τροπή

Tekufat Tevet ‫תקופת טבת‬

Winter Solstice

Capricorn

Seeding-time ‫עת הזרע‬

Attributes illustrated on the synagogue mosaics

Plate of fruit; shepherd’s crook Harvest-time Summer Sickle; fruit ‫עת הקציר‬ [fruits] ‫קיץ‬ Sheaf of wheat or corn Vintage-time Season of Pomegranate; ‫עת הבציר‬ sowing ‫זרע‬ grapes; Ears of corn; crook? Shofar? Stripping-time [cutting] green Amphora, ‫עת החורף‬ fodder ‫דשא‬ branch

gaze towards the upper left. Each season wears a sleeveless tunic, fastened at the shoulders by a clasp; each is adorned by a necklace, earrings, and bracelets. Each holds in its right hand an appropriate object, with another object to the left. The exception is the partly damaged season of Tevet, which, like its Sepphoris counterpart, wears a mantle (pallium) draped over its head and is adorned with earrings. The postures of the Sepphoris and Hammath Tiberias B figures, with their left-turned faces and seasonal attributes, are quite similar. The four Beth Alpha seasons are winged female busts rendered in a stylized and schematic fashion en face, with identical features and hairstyles, and they are richly jewelled with necklaces and earrings (Figs. VII-7, X-21); only their accompanying attributes identify them. Wortzman (2008) suggests that the two lines ending with two circles rendered down the front chest of the winter image and the sign of Virgo indicate the breasts. This same pattern appears on the breast of the fully-dressed servant in the Binding of Isaac image (Fig. XIII-4). Wortzman contends that this figure could be interpreted as Sarah, who was present at the scene according to the Midrash, rather than as a servant. It seems more likely that this pattern was some kind of an addition to the necklace, though it is strange to see it on the servants’ breast. At Naʿaran, the seasons (Figs. VII-8, 13) show similarity in their general shape and dress, despite their badly damaged state: the figures are associated with the appropriate attribute, each appears to be holding a wand in its right hand, and an inverted bird appears at its left. The following descriptions of the seasons emphasize the similarities and differences in the separate mosaic figures and their attributes: • Tekufat Nisan—Spring (Figs. VII-11, 12). The Nisan figure at Sepphoris has wavy hair gathered with a clip, a wreath beneath the hair, an earring in her left ear, and wears a sleeveless tunic; a sickle, a flower basket and lilies are on the right, a bowl with flowers and a rose branch are on the left (quite similar to Hammath Tiberias B). The Hammath Tiberias B figure is crowned with a wreath of two large flowers and holds a bowl of fruit in her right hand, with a rose placed next to her on the left. The Beth Alpha winged Spring figure is adorned with a chain and an emerald necklace with three triangular pendants around her neck, and has long bead earrings ending with a drop. Spring at Beth Alpha and Naʿaran shows similar attributes: the Beth Alpha winged figure has a shepherd’s crook (pedum) and a bird. At Naʿaran the figure is not winged, but it does hold a shepherd’s crook, with a sheaf of corn and an upside-down bird placed on either side of the image (Fig. VII-13a). The

356

chapter seven

Figure VII-11. Illustrated table of the seasons on the mosaic pavements at Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, Huseifa, Beth Alpha, and Naʿaran.

figures at Hammath Tiberias B and Beth Alpha are adorned with necklaces, bracelets, and earrings. It seems that the symbol of Spring in these zodiac mosaic designs is the plate of fruit or the shepherd’s crook. Similar symbols for spring appear in representations of the seasons in Roman art (Hachlili 2009:46). • Tekufat Tammuz—Summer (Fig. VII-11, 12). Summer in the Sepphoris mosaic is a figure dressed in a tunic that exposes her right breast. She wears a dome-shaped cap with a button on top over her braided hair that is gathered in a bun; a sickle and some other tool are on the left, a sheaf of corn and some fruits on the right. The Sepphoris Summer shares features with the figure of Summer on the church mosaic from Petra (B8): there too, her right breast is bare, she wears a similar hat, and she holds the same objects—a sickle and a sheaf of wheat (Waliszewski 2001:255–256, 319). Summer at the mosaic of Hammath Tiberias B is a jewelled female bust crowned with olive branches, holding a sheaf of corn in her left hand and a sickle in her right. The Beth Alpha Summer is a winged and jewelled female bust, with fruits and field produce in front of and beside her. The Naʿaran figure is completely destroyed. The Hammath Tiberias B and Sepphoris Summers are illustrated with the same attributes, the sickle and sheaf of wheat, while the Beth Alpha Summer attribute is fruit. Similar seasonal attributes appear on other mosaics in the region (Hachlili 2009:47). • Tekufat Tishri—Autumn (Figs. VII-11, 12). The figure at Sepphoris is similar to Nisan (Spring) in her dress, her wavy hair combed to the sides gathered with a clip, and the small earring on her left ear. Two pomegranates, a fig, and a round fruit are beside the figure on the right; only a vine branch has survived on the left. The Hammath Tiberias B mosaic portrays a jewelled figure holding a cluster of grapes and crowned with pomegranates and an olive branch. At Beth Alpha the winged figure is jewelled and crowned, and surrounded by pomegranates, a cluster of grapes, figs, apples, a palm



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

357

Figure VII-12. Illustrated table of the seasons on the mosaic pavements at Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, Huseifa, and Beth Alpha.

tree, and a bird. The Naʿaran figure, whose face is damaged, holds a shofar and crook in her right hand and has a bird at her side. At Huseifa, only Autumn remains (Figs. VII-9); the other seasons were apparently destroyed. She wears a necklace and a crown and is accompanied by pomegranates, ears of corn, and a sickle (perhaps a shofar) or palm leaf on the left and a long object on the right. Avi-Yonah (1934:126) suggested that this ‘was meant for a shade (?) or wings (?), and Weiss (2005:137) supposes it is a plowshare similar to the one depicted beside Winter at Sepphoris. The pomegranate recurs in all personifications of Autumn except that at Naʿaran (Fig. VII-13b). The same attributes of pomegranates and a cluster of grapes carried by the figure in her shawl are found together with Autumn in other mosaics in the region (Hachlili 2009:47). • Tekufat Tevet—Winter (Figs. VII-11, 12). The Sepphoris winter is a figure fully draped in a gray cloak that covers her body and head; she has a sickle, a tree with a fallen branch, and a ploughshare on the right, and a double-bladed axe on the left. The figure of Winter at Hammath Tiberias B is draped, with a scarf over her head, and she has an amphora with water flowing from it at her left. The jewelled figure at Beth Alpha is accompanied only by a branch with two leaves and a cylindrical object; her wings are much darker than those of the other seasons. The Naʿaran figure is almost completely destroyed. She holds a wand in her right hand and an upside-down bird is to her left. Similar representations of Winter appear in other mosaics in the area (Hachlili 2009:47).

358

chapter seven

Figure VII-13. Remains of the seasons, Naʿaran: a. Spring; b. Autumn.

The symbols and representations of the figures of the seasons in the Hammath Tiberias B and Sepphoris zodiacs are similar to those on Roman and Byzantine floors, whereas those on the mosaic floors at Beth Alpha and Naʿaran have unique attributes and representations, underlining a distinctive Jewish style. Only the Beth Alpha seasons are winged. The representations of the seasons have specific attributes which can be compared to those found in the pagan world on mosaic pavements of the 2nd—6th centuries CE (Hanfmann 1951, I:192–196). Many of these seasons are winged busts and they are usually crowned. Though their attributes are similar, they are not exactly identical with those of the Jewish seasons. The personifications of the seasons draw directly on models and patterns from the classical Graeco-Roman repertoire. In all the mosaics they are alike in manner, style, and details of face and eyes, but they differ in dress, jewellery, and attributes, to mark each different season. The seasons on the pagan and church pavements are either isolated or part of a group within a larger design. Only those on synagogue pavements are an integral part of the entire zodiac design. The seasons rendered on synagogue and church mosaics in all probability represented the year’s cycle—the renewal of nature and the agriculture cycle—presented with their typical attributes and the iconography of agricultural activities (Hanfmann 1951, I:227–280; Maguire 1987:27; Merrony 1998:469).3 2.3 The Signs of the Zodiac: The Outer Circle The outer circle is apportioned into twelve radial units, one for every zodiac sign; each sign is followed by its name in Hebrew and matches precisely one of the twelve months of the Jewish year; only at Sepphoris is the Hebrew name of the month added to each sign (Tables VII-2, VII-3). The zodiac signs vary widely in style from synagogue to synagogue. At Huseifa only fragments of five signs were found and no inscriptions, and at Naʿaran little survived as most of the signs had been 3 But see Roussin’s assertion (1985:114) that the use of the seasons on these mosaics was ‘primarily decorative’.

‫יסן‬ ָ ִ‫נ‬ Nisan

‫אייר‬/‫ִאיָּ ר‬ Iyar

‫ִסיוָ ן‬ Sivan ‫ַּתּמּוז‬ Tammuz ‫ָאב‬ Av ‫ֱאלּול‬ Elul

‫טלה‬ Aries Lamb

‫שור‬ Taurus Bull

‫תאומים‬ Gemini Twins

‫סרטן‬ Cancer Crab

‫אריה‬ Leo Lion

‫בתולה‬ Virgo Virgin

2

3

4

5

6

Post-exile Hebrew months

1

No. Zodiac signs

Ululu

Abu

Duʾuzu

Simanu

Ayaru

Nisanu

Original Babylonian months

Est. 8:9

Neh. 2:1, Est. 3:7

‫ירח קצ‬ summer fruit picking or drying of figs

‫ירחו זמר‬ vine pruning or vintage

‫ירח קצר וכל‬ wheat harvest

‫ירח קצר שערמ‬ barley harvest

‫ירח עצד פשת‬ flax picking harvest Aviv ‫ אביב‬Spring (Ex. 13:4, 23:15, 34:18; Deut. 15:1) Ziv ‫ירח זיו‬ (I Kings 6:1, 6:37)

Fifth month (II Kng. 25:8; Jer. 52:12)

First month (Gen. 8:13; Ex. 12:2, 40:2, 17; Lev. 23:5–6; Num. 28:16) Second month (Gen. 7:11, 8:14; I Sam. 20:27, 34; I Kng. 6:1; I Chr. 26:4)

Post-exile Gezer Calendar Biblical pre-exile month names Hebrew months cited in Bible

Table VII-2. The Hebrew Calendar: Zodiac signs and the names of the months.

Γορπιαίος Gorpiaios

Λώιος Loios

Πάναμος Panamos

Δαίσιος Daisios

Αρτεμίσιος or Αρταμίτιος Artemisios

Ξανδικός or Ξανθικός Xanthikos

Macedonian months

August– September

July–August

June–July

May–June

April–May

March–April

Julian months

the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design 359

Adaru

Shabatu

Tebetu

Kislimu

Arakhsamna

Tashritu

Original Babylonian months

‫רע ירחו לקש‬ grain sowing

‫ירחו אספ ירחו ז‬ fruit picking

Gezer Calendar

‫רע ירחו לקש‬ Est. 3:7, 13, 8:12, late sowing 9:1, 15, 17, 19, 21

Zec. 1:7

Est. 2:16

Zec. 7:1, Neh. 1:1

Post-exile Hebrew months cited in Bible

Bul ‫ירח בול‬ (I Kings 6:38)

Ethanim ‫ירח איתנים‬ (I Kings 8:2)

Ninth month (Ezra 10:9) Tenth month (Gen. 8:5)

Seventh month (Gen. 8:4; Lev. 16:29, 23:24, 26, 29:7; Num. 29:1; Ezra 3:1; Neh. 7:73; II Chr. 5:3)

Biblical pre-exile month names

Julian months

Δύστρος Dystros

Απελλαίος Apellaios Αυδυναίος Audunaios Περίτιος Peritios

Δίος Dios

February– March

November– December December– January January– February

October– November

Υπερβερεταίος September– Hyperberetarios October

Macedonian months

* In leap years, Adar has 30 days. In non-leap years, Adar has 29 days. The extra month is called ‫ אדר א׳‬Adar Alef (first Adar) and is added before ‫ אדר‬Adar, which then becomes ‫ אדר ב׳‬Adar Bet (second Adar).

12

11

10

9

‫עקרב‬ Scorpio Scorpion

8

‫ׁשרי‬ ִ ‫ִּת‬ Tishri

Post-exile Hebrew months

‫חשון‬/‫ַמ ְר ֶח ְׁשוָ ן‬ Marheshvan/ heshvan ‫קשת‬ ‫ִּכ ְס ֵלו‬ Sagittarius Archer Kislev ‫גדי‬ ‫ֵט ֵבת‬ Capricorn Goat Tevet ‫דלי‬ ‫ְׁש ָבט‬ Aquarius Shevat Water-bearer ‫דגים‬ ‫ֲא ָדר‬ Pisces Fish *Adar

‫מאזנים‬ ‫מוזנים‬ Libra Scales

Zodiac signs

7

No.

Table VII-2 (cont.)

360 chapter seven



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

361

damaged by iconoclasts. In all the zodiacs the animals are drawn in profile, facing forwards (Figs. VII5–10). The human figures for the signs have the same face and body features and similar hairstyles. At Sepphoris the zodiac signs (of which only four are well-preserved) are each accompanied by a star at the top and by uniform figures of either draped or almost naked young men, all barefoot except one. Some of these youths—Aquarius, Libra, Sagittarius, and Pisces (Fig. X-20)—are an integral part of the sign and are rendered in an active posture, holding the same objects as in other synagogue zodiacs. The other youths are depicted simply standing in front of the signs of Aries, Taurus, and Leo or standing next to Cancer and Scorpio. Weiss (2005:122) maintains that in addition to being part of the zodiac sign, the youths personify the months. A star accompanies each zodiac sign at the top on the right or left (Weiss [2005:122] contends that the stars serve as an astral symbol). A similar appearance of a star rendered next to each of the four surviving zodiac signs from Palmyra is noted in the 1st-century CE stone ceiling relief there (Fig. VII-25; Gundel 1992:no. 45; Hachlili 2009:50, Fig. III-12). It is possible that the stars depicted on the Sepphoris signs express the association with the masalot (the planets/zodiac signs) which seems to be expressed in II Kings 23:5. The human and animal figures of the Hammath Tiberias B B floor are in motion; the male figures have similar features and are naked (Fig. VII-6). At Huseifa, what remains of the figure of Sagittarius shows that he too was apparently naked (Avi-Yonah 1934:125). At Beth Alpha, Naʿaran, and Sepphoris, on the other hand, the figures are clothed and almost motionless. 2.4 The Zodiac Signs Aries (Lamb, ‫)טלה‬. At Sepphoris the sign shows the lamb and the remains of a youth standing in front of the animal. At Hammath Tiberias B and Sepphoris the lamb is shown in profile, running, while At Beth Alpha and Naʿaran the ram is standing. The last letter of the sign’s Hebrew name at Beth Alpha is aleph instead of he. At Huseifa the two hind legs of the lamb survived (Figs. VII-14, 15, Table VII-3). Taurus (Bull, ‫)שור‬. At Sepphoris only the forelegs of the running bull survived, with the remains of a youth holding a staff standing in front. At Hammath Tiberias B the bull in profile is rendered running left; At Beth Alpha the bull is shown in profile standing (Figs. VII-14, 15). Gemini (Twins, ‫)תאומים‬. At Sepphoris, the remains of two naked youths are shown, one on the right holding a lyre and the other on the left holding a club. At Hammath Tiberias B only one naked youth remains intact; at Beth Alpha two embracing youths with a connected body are depicted (Figs. VII-14, 15). At Huseifa and Naʿaran the sign is destroyed. Cancer (Crab, ‫)סרטן‬. At Sepphoris the crab turns to the right and is accompanied by a youth dressed in a tunic and black shoes. Only the end of the crab’s claws have survived at Hammath Tiberias B. At Beth Alpha and Naʿaran the crab is shown frontally, as if walking forward (Figs. VII-16, 17), a posture that some scholars consider significant (Sonne 1953–4:10). At Huseifa the sign is completely destroyed. Leo (Lion, ‫)אריה‬. At Sepphoris little has survived—only the tail of the lion and the legs of a youth next to it. At Hammath Tiberias B the lion is leaping forward, at Beth Alpha it is walking, and at Naʿaran, sitting. In all three examples the lion’s tail is turned up (Figs. VII-16, 17). At Huseifa and Naʿaran the sign is destroyed. Virgo (Virgin, ‫)בתולה‬. Virgo at Hammath Tiberias B is shown robed as a Greek Kore, with a covered head and a torch in her hand. At Beth Alpha there is a unique Virgo figure, seated on a throne depicted by an arched top and round side handle. She wears a decorated garment and red shoes and is ornamented with long earings, a necklace, and bracelets on both arms. The throne and the shoes indicate royal rank (Sukenik 1932:37). At Naʿaran the Virgo, which is damaged, stands holding

362

chapter seven

Figure VII-14. Illustrated table of three zodiac signs—Aries, Taurus, and Gemini—on mosaic pavements at Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, Huseifa, Beth Alpha, and Naʿaran.

a plant. At Sepphoris only two ears of wheat and part of a star have survived (Figs. VII-16, 17). At Huseifa the sign is destroyed. Libra (Scales, ‫)מוזנים—מאזנים‬. At Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, and Naʿaran the Hebrew name of the sign, Moznayim, is inscribed with a vav )‫ (מוזנים‬instead of an alef (‫ (מאזנים‬as it appears at Beth Alpha. In all the synagogue mosaics, the sign of Libra is shown as a human figure holding a pair of scales. At Sepphoris the youth wears a cloak, while at Hammath Tiberias B the figure is naked and also has a sceptre. In the Beth Alpha mosaic, Libra holds the scales very awkwardly, standing on one leg; the artist omitted the second leg to allow enough room for the scales. The remains of Libra at Naʿaran show a figure standing and holding the scales in his right hand (Figs. VII-18, 19). At Huseifa and Naʿaran the sign is destroyed (for comparisons in Roman art see Hachlili 2009:42). Scorpio (Scorpion, ‫)עקרב‬. At Sepphoris and Hammath Tiberias B Scorpio is moving forwards to the right, but at Sepphoris with the addition of a cloak-wrapped youth walking behind. At Beth Alpha, the scorpion is moving to the left. The partly destroyed scorpion at Naʿaran is depicted frontally, standing on its tail (Figs. VII-18, 19). At Huseifa the sign is destroyed. Sagittarius (Archer, ‫)קשת‬. At Sepphoris, Sagittarius appears as a leaping centaur archer similar to pagan representations which usually show a centaur, a half human-half animal figure, shooting with an arrow from a bow (Hachlili 2009:42–43). At Huseifa, the surviving figure of the archer is portrayed naked, “turning right and shooting with his right arm raised” (Avi-Yonah 1934:125). At Beth Alpha the archer is shown in human form, holding a bow and arrow in his left hand (Figs. VII-18, 19). The Jewish communities at the two sites of Beth Alpha and Huseifa might have been reluctant to depict Sagittarius in its pagan form as a centaur, and preferred a human archer, which would have been adequate to symbolize the Hebrew name of the sign ‫ קשת‬Qashat = archer; or else the mosaicist might have made the sign as a human archer because he took the meaning of qashat literally. At Naʿaran the sign is destroyed.



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

363

Figure VII-15. Illustrated table of three zodiac signs—Aries, Taurus, and Gemini—on mosaic pavements at Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, and Beth Alpha.

364

chapter seven

Figure VII-16. Illustrated table of three zodiac signs—Cancer, Leo, and Virgo—on mosaic pavements at ­Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, Huseifa, Beth Alpha, and Naʿaran.

Capricorn (Goat, ‫)גדי‬. At Sepphoris a kneeling youth holding a kid’s hindquarters has survived, while in the Huseifa mosaic only the raised horns of Capricorn remain. At Hammath Tiberias B, Capricorn is depicted as a horned goat with a fish’s tail, which is the common pagan form in Roman art (Hachlili 2009:43). The sign is depicted as a partially destroyed kid at Beth Alpha (Figs. VII-20, 21). At Naʿaran the sign is destroyed. Aquarius (Water-bearer, ‫)דלי‬. Each zodiac mosaic depicts this sign differently. At Sepphoris all that has survived is some flowing water at the lower edge. At Hammath Tiberias B a naked figure pours water from an amphora, following most of the common depictions of Aquarius in Roman art (Hachlili 2009:43). The Huseifa Aquarius—better preserved than the other signs of the mosaic—is represented by a large amphora with water pouring out of it. The Beth Alpha sign is unique in that Aquarius is shown as a figure drawing water from a well with a bucket, which is an illustration of the Hebrew word ‫ דלי‬deli. This is a literal depiction of ‫ דלי‬deli (Aquarius) as a container of water and its carrier, like the amphora and water at Huseifa and the drawing of water at Beth Alpha (Figs. VII-20, 21). Comparable depictions of water being drawn from a well occur in 13th- and 14th-century Jewish from Germany and on a 17th-century illuminated Jewish Sefer Evronot (Fig. VII-37) (see below; Fishof 2001:139, Fig. 19, Figs. on pp. 134, 138). At Naʿaran the sign is destroyed. At Hammath Tiberias B the Hebrew word ‫ דלי‬deli is depicted in mirror writing, for which different interpretations were given: the mosaicist may not have known Hebrew (Dothan 1983:53) or it might have had some magical effect, adding power to the text (Naveh 1989:303). Talgam (2010:71)



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

365

Figure VII-17. Illustrated table of three zodiac signs—Cancer, Leo, and Virgo—on mosaic pavements at ­Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, and Beth Alpha.

366

chapter seven

Figure VII-18. Illustrated table of three zodiac signs—Libra, Scorpio, and Sagittarius—on the mosaic ­pavements at Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, Huseifa, Beth Alpha, and Naʿaran.

suggests an unlikely interpretation: that the reversed writing signified the change in the regulations of the calendar and that the Hammath Tiberias B mosaicist was clarifying that the zodiac depiction represented a solar-lunar calendar. Pisces (Fish, ‫)דגים‬. At Sepphoris a cloaked youth holds two suspended fish. The Hebrew sign name is misspelled, ‫ דגגים‬Dgagim instead of ‫ דגים‬Dagim. At Hammath Tiberias B and Beth Alpha the sign is rendered similarly, as a pair of fish shown head to tail. A fragment of a triangular tail and a small fin are all that have survived from the Huseifa sign. At Naʿaran only the outline of a pair of suspended fish appears (Fig. VII-20). 2.5 The Sun God, Moon and Stars: The Central (Inner) Circle The circular central motif in each of the synagogue zodiacs is the sun god in frontal position (en face), a crown on his head and a nimbus with rays emanating from it; he is riding his quadriga (a chariot with two wheels in front) drawn by four horses, two on either side (Figs. VII-22, 23, Table VII-3). The central circle of the Sepphoris zodiac is different. The sun is shown with ten rays of light, suspended in the centre; its central ray is attached to the chariot (Weiss & Netzer 1996:26; Weiss 2005:104–110). The chariot is rendered in frontal position with two wheels harnessed to four galloping horses. There are wavy blue lines on the lower part, between the horses’ legs. A moon and a star are shown to the right of the sun, with the moon rendered as a full circle with its crescent highlighted (Fig. VII-22a).



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

367

Figure VII-19. Illustrated table of three zodiac signs—Libra, Scorpio, and Sagittarius—on mosaic pavements at Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, and Beth Alpha.

368

chapter seven

Figure VII-20. Illustrated table of three zodiac signs—Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces—on the mosaic pavements at Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, Huseifa, Beth Alpha, and Naʿaran.

The representation at Hammath Tiberias B shows the central figure driving the solar chariot (Fig. VII-22b): a young man with a crown and a halo with seven rays emanating from it looks up towards his raised right hand, while in his left hand he holds a globe and whip. Very little remains of the chariot, and only tips of hooves have survived in the lower part. A star on the right and the crescent moon on the left are rendered flanking the central figure in the upper background. The Hammath Tiberias B sun god has all the attributes of Sol invictus (as suggested by Dothan 1983:39–43; see also Levine 2003:103–108). Comparable depictions appear on various pagan examples (Hachlili 2002:221; 2009:37–40). At Beth-Alpha and Naʿaran (Figs. VII-22c–d, 23c–d) the sun god is represented only by his bust and rayed crown, the chariot by its front nonproportional two wheels, and the horses by their heads and legs. At Huseifa the inner circle did not survive. The background of all these inner circle representations should be noted: it shows a crescent moon and one or more stars. At Sepphoris, a moon and a star are shown to the right of the sun, with the moon rendered as a full circle with a highlighted crescent. A crescent moon to the left and star to the right of the whip are rendered in the Hammath Tiberias B zodiac. At Beth Alpha the background is dark, with a crescent moon in the right corner and dispersed stars. At Naʿaran, the celestial bodies are on the figure’s cape, with the crescent moon near his thumb. This scheme is used for similar figures in Roman art and is often connected to solar iconography (Dunbabin 1982:84–85), but none of the Roman figures include the background of the crescent moon and stars that is depicted in the Jewish design.4 4 Foerster 1985:388, n. 100, records examples on two gems and a copper tablet, but none on mosaic pavements.



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

369

Figure VII-21. Illustrated table of three zodiac signs—Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces—on mosaic pavements at Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, and Beth Alpha.

370

chapter seven

a

b

c

d

Figure VII-22. The sun god design: a. Sepphoris, the sun; b. Hammath Tiberias B; c. Beth Alpha; d. Naʿaran.

The sun god in the synagogue zodiacs eventually developed into a stylized, more abstract and restrained design, though the earliest depiction at Hammath Tiberias B is similar to renditions in Roman art. The Hammath Tiberias B sun god is natural and full-featured, like a picture placed in the center of a frame, with specific details related to Sol Invictus. The Sepphoris inner circle is unique in that it renders the sun instead of the sun god. The sun god of Beth Alpha, however, is integrated totally and is harmonious with the rest of the design. The zodiac depicted at Hammath Tiberias B and Sepphoris is influenced by similar pagan designs as is evidenced in signs such as Virgo, Sagittarius, and Aquarius. The Hammath Tiberias B design might have been carried out by an artist from Antioch. The Beth Alpha zodiac is very different; not only was it created by two Jewish artists but it was also guided by the Hebrew names of the signs and seasons, with no pagan influences. These zodiac panel mosaics indicate the development of a distinctive Jewish design, although the synagogues differ from one another in their depiction and execution of the figures. The exceptional and unmistakable conception of the figures in the three parts of the design, the seasons in the corners of the square, the zodiac signs in the outer circle, and the sun god (or sun) in the central circle—all point to their meaning and significance for the Jewish worshippers.



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

a

b

d c

Figure VII-23. The sun god: a. Hammath Tiberias B; b. Sepphoris; c. Beth Alpha; d. Naʿaran.

371

372

chapter seven Table VII-3. Comparative chart of the zodiac panels in the synagogues.

Mosaics Date CE Inner circle Signs of the Zodiac Outer circle

The Seasons

Zodiac parts

Sun god in chariot Sun in chariot Aries, Ram Taurus, Bull Gemini, Twins Cancer, Crab Leo, Lion Virgo, Virgin Libra, Scales Scorpio, Scorpion Sagittarius, Archer Capricorn, Goat Aquarius, Water-Bearer Pisces, Fish Youth Star Name of sign, Hebrew Name of Month, Hebrew Spring, Nisan Summer, Tammuz Autumn, Tishrei Winter, Tevet Name of seasons, Hebrew Name of seasons, Greek

Zodiac clockwise Zodiac counterclockwise Figures outwards Figures inwards Seasons and signs correspond Seasons and signs do not correspond

Hammath Tiberias B

Sepphoris

Huseifa

Beth Alpha

Naʿaran

4th c. -x

5th–6th c.

Late 5th

x -x

6th c. x

6th c. -x

x

x

-x -x

-x -x -x -x

x x x x x x x x -x x x

-x

x

x

x x x x x

-x

x x -x x x x -x x x x x

-x -x x x x x -x x x x x x

x x x -x x

x x x x x x

x

x

x x

x x

x

x

x x

x

-x -x -x -x -x

-x -x x x

x

x

x

x

x = entirely preserved; -x = partly preserved

The recurrence of the zodiac design in a number of synagogue mosaics indicates its relevance to religious thought and calls for analysis of its place and importance in synagogue art (Hachlili 2002: 227–8). The zodiac forms on the synagogue mosaics are alike and were probably based on a common prototype. The seasons and signs did not follow the same model; they have little in common except for the obvious meaning of each season or sign. The Jewish designs evince differences in the depiction and execution of the figures in each part, underlining the development of a distinctive design (Figs. VII-3–8, Table VII-3).



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

373

The basic form of the Jewish zodiac design and the Roman examples that preceded it is the same: a square with two concentric circles within it. Hanfmann (1951:246–247) termed this an “abstract” type, saying that it “expresses the annual course of the sun by placing a circle of zodiacal signs or the months (or both) around the central figure of the sun and distributing the seasons in the four corners of the panel”. A main stylistic feature of the zodiac mosaics is their frontality, part of the Roman and Byzantine heritage. In all the zodiacs the animals are depicted in profile, facing forward. The human figures have no individuality: at Sepphoris most of the figures are active and are draped, although some are almost naked. At Hammath Tiberias B the figures are shown in movement and the surviving males are portrayed nude. At Huseifa the remains indicate that the figure of Sagittarius was also naked (Avi-Yonah 1934:125). The figures at Beth Alpha and Naʿaran are shown as static portraits and are clothed. Hebrew names are rendered above the zodiac signs, except at Sepphoris where the names appear below the sign or beside it, with the addition of the name of the month in Greek. At Huseifa there were no names or, at least, none have remained. There is a development in the stylistic execution of the Jewish zodiac from the naturalistic ideal style of the earliest Hammath Tiberias B and Sepphoris synagogues to the reserved stylization at Beth Alpha and Naʿaran during the 4th to 6th centuries (Hachlili 1977:74, 76). Outstanding stylistically is the Beth Alpha zodiac which defies placement in any artistic category of the period. Two changes mark the transition in Jewish zodiac design. The first is from the natural-voluminous to the ornamental-linear style. The second is from the imitation of nature to stylization, with emphasis on the outline of the design. At Sepphoris the figures are simple; they lack details and sometimes the proportions are inaccurate and two-dimensional (Fig. VII-5) (Weiss 2005:169–170). At Hammath Tiberias B (Fig. VII-6) the Hellenistic influence is clear; the figures and their movements are natural and the faces are full-featured and expressive. A three-dimensional appearance is created through the artist’s use of shadowing. In the linear style, at Beth Alpha, the figures are en face and twodimensional and their limbs have a doll-like appearance (Fig. VII-7). The legs are directed to the side, not oriented frontally with the upper trunk of the body. There is no indication of age or sex, women differ from men by their jewelry, and color is used only to emphasize the different parts of the body. The artist used only the essential lines to portray the figures; the human face is expressed by one continuous line outlining the eyebrows and nose, a square for the mouth, and simple circles for the eyes. Generally, the style is standardized, disproportionate, and lacking in concern for anatomical accuracy. Each synagogue employed its own mosaic artists, who utilized the same general form of the zodiac and filled in the details according to their particular style. The uniqueness and meanings of the Jewish design, especially the representations of the various figures, clarify their origin and inspiration. 2.6 Comparable Zodiac Designs Such designs exist on ceilings and mosaic floors of Roman villas, each with its unique design in terms of form, content, and harmony (Table III-2). Often, different figures are to be found in the various parts of the design. The contents of the central circle differ frequently. Several examples have representations of the months rather than of the zodiacal signs. In some cases the balance differs, with one section dominating the others (Hachlili 2002:229–232; 2009:49–53). The number of zodiac and calendar representations on pagan mosaic floors proves the increasing attraction of the cyclic movement of time (Lehman 1945:5, 8–9). The basic form was usually, but not always, the same: two concentric circles within a square. What changed was the composition of the various parts and the balance among them. A central circle

374

chapter seven

Figure VII-24. Stone ceiling with zodiac, Palmyra.

Figure VII-25. Part of a stone ceiling with zodiac, Palmyra.



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

375

Figure VII-26. ‘House of the Calendar’ triclinium mosaic, Antioch.

containing the planets in a geometric design underwent a transition to a center with the sun god. A continuous running zodiac in the outer circle was transformed gradually into one divided into radial units with a zodiac sign in each. The purely esthetic design of sirens or fishes in the corners of the square was replaced by the functional, but still esthetic, design of the seasons. In the zodiac designs of Roman art we can trace three stages of development of the radial zodiac composition, illustrated by two stone ceiling relief decorations from 1st-century CE Palmyra (Figs. VII-24, 25): the Münster mosaic floor, and the Antioch mosaic floor (Fig. VII-26). The development of the scheme originated on the ceiling and was later projected onto the mosaic floor (Lehman 1945:5). Eventually the total design developed from those of Palmyra and Münster, where the central circle section predominated (Figs. VII-24, 26–27, Table VII-4), to the more harmoniously balanced design of the 2nd-century mosaic floor from the triclinium in the ‘House of the Calendar’ at Antioch (Fig. VII-26). The central circle has become smaller, the outer circle larger (Webster 1938:26, 119, Pl. 2:2; Levi 1941:251, 281, Fig. 3; 1947:36–38; Stern 1953:224–227, 256–258, 296, Pl. XLII, 2; Campbell 1988:60–62, Fig. 24–25, Pls. 183–185; Hachlili 2009:51). The Antioch mosaic pavement depicts the representations of the months rather than the zodiac signs. The outer circle is divided into radial units containing the figures of the months, while the corners contain representations of the seasons, of which only Spring and Winter partially survived. The inner circle did not survive. The Jewish zodiac mosaic design seems to be a continuation of this general development: thus the earliest Hammath Tiberias B panel seems related to the Antioch school and has its origins in Roman art. Each part of the design (central circle, outer circle, corners of the square) has comparable representations in the art of the preceding Roman period. The most striking resemblances to the Jewish zodiac are found on three contemporary RomanByzantine mosaic pavements in Greece (Fig. VII-27–31, Table VII-4): A Roman villa at Odos Triakosion in Sparta (Catling 1983–84:27; Touchais 1984:763, Fig. 48; Gundel 1992:no. 85) displays a 4th-century dining room mosaic in the familiar zodiac design of a square with two circles (Fig. VII27). The inner circle contains busts of the youthful Selene and Helios, with no attributes; the outer circle contains the twelve signs of the zodiac, with the four winds in the corners of the square. No inscriptions accompany the details of the design.

376

chapter seven

Figure VII-27. Zodiac on mosaic, Sparta.

a

b

c

Figure VII-28. Zodiac design on Tallaras Baths mosaic, Astypalaea: a. the zodiac; b. Summer season; c. personification of a month.



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

Figure VII-29. General design with zodiac on villa mosaic, Thessaloniki.

377

378

chapter seven

Figure VII-30. Zodiac design on a villa mosaic, Thessaloniki.

The only extant similar composition on synagogue mosaics is found on a 5th-century pavement in the main hall of the Tallaras Baths on the island of Astypalaea (Pelecanidis and Atzaka 1988:46–7, Pls. 4, 5; Jacoby 2001; Assimakopoulou-Atzaka 2003/2010:94, Fig. 109). In the center of a geometric carpet is a zodiac design of two circles within a square (Fig. VII-28). The central circle contains a bust of Helios crowned with rays. He holds a globe in his left hand, and his right hand is raised in a blessing gesture; the twelve signs of the zodiac are in the outer circle. The corners of the square contain the four seasons rendered as busts of women with their typical attributes. Summer, for instance, holds a sickle in her right hand and an ear of grain in her left, and they correspond to the signs (Fig. VII-28b). Within the geometric carpet are twelve squares holding the twelve personifications of the months arranged in four groups, three in a row, facing the center (Fig. VII-28c). Here too, no inscriptions accompany the details of the design and Helios’s chariot is missing. Another interesting mosaic pavement shows a zodiac design surrounded by octagons containing personifications of the twelve months and the four winds. This mosaic was found in the triclinium of a partially excavated urban villa dated to the first half of the 5th c. CE at Aiolou St. Thessaloniki (Marki 1998, 2000; Assimakopoulou-Atzaka 2003/2010:150–151, Fig. 163).5 The mosaic shows a design of two concentric circles within a square, in the center of a geometric carpet (Figs. VII-29, 30). The central circle is completely destroyed and the excavator proposes it contained a personification of the sun. The outer circle contains zodiac signs in a continuous line in an anti-clockwise direction; the only surviving signs are the fish-Pisces, the ram-Aries and the bull-Taurus (Fig. VII-30). Each corner of the square contains a vase flanked by a pair of birds. The zodiac design was surrounded originally by an outside scheme arranged with twelve octagons that enclosed circles, each of which contained the personification of a particular month, and another four corner octagons 5 My thanks to Anastasia Pliota, a postgraduate PhD student in the University of Athens, and to Prof. AssimakopoulouAtzaka at the Byzantine Research Center in Thessaloniki, for presenting me with the data, bibliography, and photos.



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

a

379

b

c

Figure VII-31. Three months: April, May, June, and the South Wind on the villa mosaic, Thessaloniki.

containing the personifications of the four winds (Fig. VII-29). Only five octagons survived, and they enclosed four months and one wind: April, May, and very little of June in a row with the South Wind (on the right), with July next to it. All are depicted with their inscribed names (Fig. VII-31). The iconography and design of this building’s mosaics are unique in Thessaloniki. The excavator notes that the rendition of the months is uneven and suggests that they were executed by different hands. He believes that the building belonged to a high-ranking official, perhaps the eparch himself, as it appears to be the largest building of its kind excavated in the city so far. according to Marki (1998:141) the design symbolizes Christ’s (the sun) protection of the house owner throughout the year. The mosaic pavement on the main panel of the narthex of the mid-6th CE Christian funerary chapel at El-Hammam depicts the twelve months laid out in two rows of six The months consist of active, full-length standing figures, each with its Latin name and number of days inscribed in Greek (Fig. VII-32b). The left part of the mosaic with the first six months, though badly damaged, shows that the first month is January (Avi‑Yonah 1936:22–26, Pl. xv). The mosaic floor of Hall A of the 6th-century Monastery of the Lady Mary at Beth-Sheʾan shows a central composition consisting of two concentric circles, the outer divided into twelve units (Fig. VII-32a, Table VII-4). Within each unit is a single figure in frontal pose and in full activity; at its feet is the name of the relevant Julian calendar month and the number of its days in Greek letters. The inner circle contains personifications of the Sun and Moon as female busts bearing torches (Fitzgerald 1939:6–7, Pls. vi–viii). It can be assumed from the similarity with the El-Hammam mosaic pavement that here also, the new year was in January.

380

chapter seven

a

b

Figure VII-32. Calendar mosaics at Beth-Sheʾan: a. Monastery of the Lady Mary; b. funerary chapel at El-Hammam.



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

381

Table VII-4. Comparison chart of zodiac and calendar designs Site

Date CE Radial Design Inner circle Outer circle

Palmyra I Palmyra II Antioch Syria Syria Syria Stone ceiling Temple of Bell 1st cent.

Stone ceiling 1st cent.

+

Mosaic Mosaic floor floor House triclinum 2nd cent 3rd cent.

+

+

7 planets Dionysus? ? Zodiac signs

Corners Sirens? of the Eagles? square

Zodiac signs Wind

Münster Sparta Germany Greece

Labors of the Months Four Seasons

+ Helios in chariot Zodiac signs

Mosaic floor Villa

Astypalaea Greece

Mosaic floor Mosaic floor Mosaic floor Baths

4th cent. 5th cent. + Helios, Selene Zodiac signs

Fishes, Four dolphins Winds flanking vase

Thessaloniki Beth Sheʾan Greece Monastry Israel

Villa triclinum 5th cent.

+ Helios

+ ?

Monastery 6th cent. + Helios, Selene

Labors of the Zodiac signs Zodiac signs Months Four Seasons Kantharos flanked by birds

___

The Roman seasons–zodiac signs (or labors of the months at Antioch and Beth Sheʾan) and sun god model design show similarities as well as differences with the Jewish synagogue mosaic pavements (Table VII-4). The compared examples are similar in design, consisting of two concentric circles within a square. However, the balance of the zodiac composition in the Roman examples usually varies, with one section dominating the others. This imbalance is found in, for instance, the inner circle at Palmyra and Münster, which is larger than the outer circle, and the Greek examples at Astypalaea, Sparta, Thessaloniki, and Antioch (Syria) where the outer circle is larger. In some Roman designs the figures of the months are accompanied by their names whereas the zodiac signs are not (on the personifications of the seasons and the months, see Hachlili 2009:184–197). Zodiacs and calendars appear in Roman art, but each has its own use; they are not integrated into one design. The zodiac has a cosmic and astronomical meaning, as evidenced in the following illustrations: the god holding the zodiacal wheel or circled by it (Levi 1944:287–314; Glueck 1952:5; 1965: Pls. 46, 48); the zodiac wheel circling the seven plants (Palmyra and Bir-Chana), and the zodiac circling the sun god (Münster, Tivoli, Sparta and Astypalaea (Table VII-4)). In the Greek mosaics, both the mosaic pavements at Astypalaea (depicting the zodiac signs and the four seasons) and the partly destroyed mosaic at Thessaloniki (depicting the zodiac signs) render a unique combination: the zodiac design is enclosed by busts personifying the twelve months and, at Thessaloniki, by the four winds at the corners as well (Figs. VII-28–31). The mosaic of the Roman villa at Odos Triakosion in Sparta displays the four winds at the four corners of the zodiac square (Fig. VII-27). Comparative motifs of the four seasons, four winds, and twelve months, all rendered as busts accompanied by their inscribed Greek names, appear in a different design of two rows of medallions that decorate the two side aisles of the church of Qabr Hiram (Donceel-Voute 1988:412–413, Figs. 402, 404). The illustrated activities associated with the months encompass principal religious and civil events of the year and represent a civil and agricultural calendar (Levi 1941:276). Examples include the 2nd and 3rd-century Roman calendars in the mosaics of Antioch, Carthage, and the 6th-century Christian mosaic floors of the Beth-Sheʾan monastery and the El-Hammam tomb chamber (Figs. VII-26, 32;

382

chapter seven

Table VII-4). In Roman calendars, the iconography for any specific month differs from calendar to calendar. In the Roman and Christian calendars the personification of each month is a single figure, “but a figure always depicted in full activity and never as a symbol” (Levi 1941:288). The two Christian examples, from pavements at El Hammam and the Monastery of Lady Mary at Beth‑Sheʾan (Fig. VII-32a, b), are different in their basic form but similar in the general depiction of the personified Labors of the Months. The Latin names of the months and the number of days written in Greek letters are identical. The emphasis in these personifications is on the figures’ rural occupations. The attributes for each month are different in the mosaics. These Christian pavements at Beth‑Sheʾan represent civil and agricultural calendars, probably following earlier Roman calendar designs. It should be noted that except for the Beth Sheʾan monastery, all the comparable mosaic pavements decorate civic or domestic buildings, while the Jewish zodiac designs ornament synagogues. In the Jewish zodiacs/calendars, conversely, the zodiacal signs symbolize the equivalent Hebrew months, as they do also in Jewish thought, art, and literature. The form of the design is two balanced concentric circles within a square; the three parts are identical in size. The major distinction is that only the Jewish zodiacs follow one particular scheme. The reason for the use of zodiacal signs and not representations of the labors associated with the months is probably that the Jewish community preferred abstract symbols to direct representations of human activity. This underlines the Jewish zodiac’s religious nature and liturgical purpose. Therefore the Jewish calendar, which integrates the zodiacal wheel with its twelve signs which represent the Hebrew months, the sun and the moon representing day and night, and the four seasons, is an independent variety in form, design, and meaning. 2.7 The Zodiac in Later Jewish Art (13th–19th c.) The zodiac/calendar continued to be used for the decoration of various Jewish art objects throughout later periods. These included Mahzorim (Hebrew prayer books) from the 13th–14th c., as illustrations for the prayers for rain and some piyytim and copies of Sefer Evronot (A Book of Intercalations), produced in Germany, of which several illustrated parchment manuscripts from the 17th and 18th centuries are extant. In the latter, the zodiac illustrates the contents of the book, which deal with the calendar, the zodiac signs, the seasons, the new moon, and the calculation of leap years. In other Jewish art objects, such as printed books, Scrolls of Esther, silver and pewter plates, amulets, wooden synagogue ceilings, the zodiac was probably used as an ornamental motif. In Italian Ketubboth (marriage contracts), Mazal Tov (good luck) and Besiman Tov (in an auspicious hour) is commonly written in Aramaic or Hebrew and the contract is often decorated with the twelve signs of the zodiac; sometimes the symbols of the twelve tribes and/or the labors of the months appear as an alternative (Fishof 2001:53–95, Figs. 4, 5, 19–21, 23, 26–27, 29, 31–33, 36–41, 43, 46, 49–54; A. Cohen 2001; Idel 2001). An interesting page from the Oppenheim Mahzor (illuminated parchment manuscript, Germany, 1342, Bodelian Library, Oxford, Ms. Opp.161; Fishof 2001:Fig. 19) shows a design with three concentric circles, similar to the ancient synagogue mosaic pavements. The central circle has a geometric design with the outer circle divided into twelve radial units of different sizes, one for every zodiac sign; the signs are followed by their names in Hebrew written in the very narrow circle between them. It is interesting that the Capricorn sign is missing and was replaced by a crescent moon and a black star which is signed in Hebrew ‫ כוכב‬kokhav (star). The depicted signs are quite unique but probably represent contemporary fashion.



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

383

Another interesting zodiac design appears in one of the Sefer Evronot manuscripts (dated to the late 17th c., Hebrew Union College Library, Cincinnati, Ms.906; Fishof 2001:73, Fig. 39). The design here consists of three concentric circles encircled by the illustrated zodiac signs (Fig. VII-33): the outer circle depicts the Hebrew names of the signs, the inner circle depicts the Hebrew names of the planets, and there is a colored rosette in the small central inner circle. The signs of Libra and Sagittarius include a figure holding a scale and a bow respectively, while Aquarius is displayed as a well with a hanging bucket. The title page from yet another copy of Sefer Evronot (written and illustrated in Germany, 1619, the National and University Library, Jerusalem), shows the zodiac signs in ten squares, five on each side of the page, with two rectangular signs at the top and bottom of the page. Each sign is accompanied by its Hebrew name. The animals in the signs are depicted realistically, a scale represents Libra, Sagittarius is a figure using a bow and arrow, and Aquarius is a figure pouring water from a big vessel. A zodiac design in an 18th century Seder Shemirat Shabbat—a booklet of Sabbath prayers (illustrated parchment manuscript from Moravia (?), 18th century, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, 180/11) shows a rectangle enclosing two concentric circles (Fig. VII-34) (Fishof 2001:72, Fig. 36), somewhat similar in design to the ancient synagogues mosaic form (Fig. VII-4). The inner circle displays the blessing of the moon by a group of figures and the outer circle depicts the twelve signs, each in a small circle beginning at the top and moving counter-clockwise. In the four spandrels are identical four-winged figures.

Figure VII-33. Zodiac design, Sefer Evronot, Germany, late 17th c.

384

chapter seven

Libra, Sagittarius, and Aquarius are rendered in some later examples of Jewish zodiacs as inanimate objects on broadsheet with the Blessing of the Moon from Poland, 1850 (Fig. VII-35) (Fishof 2001:Fig. 19). Two depictions in 13th century German mahzorim show the combined signs of Capricorn and Aquarius. Libra is often symbolically represented by the scales alone as it is rendered on the broadsheet with the Blessing of the Moon, Poland, 1850 (Fig. VII-35a) (Fishof 2001:Figs. 20, 27, 43). Two examples are noteworthy for their additions: the scales on the Sefer Evronot (from Halberstadt Germany, 1716, show the Hebrew word ‫‘ זכאי‬innocent,’ on the left scale and the word ‫‘ חייב‬guilty’ on the right scale (Fishof 2001:121). The scales in a German mahzor (ca. 1290, Sächische Landsbiblothek Dresden, Ms.46a) represent the notion of weighing souls: on the left an angel tries to raise the scale on which a man is seated, while on the right a satanic figure is pulling the scale downwards (Fishof 2001:122–123, Fig. 1). Sagittarius is depicted in several ways: the original pagan centaur with bow and arrow appears in several illuminated manuscripts from the 15th century (Fishof 2001:131, Figs. 23, 25); a more common depiction is that of a human archer (Fig. VII-33), a hunter, or a figure with a bird’s head— a more literal representation of ‫ קשת‬qashat (the archer) (see also the sign in Figs. VII-18, 19). Sometimes the illustration consists simply of a bow and arrow representing the Hebrew ‫) קשת‬qeshet) (Fig. VII-35b).

Figure VII-34. Zodiac design, Seder Shemirat Shabbat, Moravia (?), 18th c.



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

385

a

b

c

Figure VII-35. Broadsheet with the Blessing of the Moon, Poland, 1850: Libra, Sagittarius, and Aquarius.

Aquarius in many of these later Jewish examples is portrayed as a pail being drawn out of a well (Fig. VII-33), similar to the Beth Alpha mosaic depiction (Fig. VII-21) but more realistic; on the broadsheet with the Blessing of the Moon, Poland, 1850 (Fig. VII-35c), Aquarius is rendered as a pail hanging at the well with a pitcher placed next to it. Elaborate designs of Aquarius, showing a woman drawing water from a well with a bucket, appear in two examples of the Sefer Evronot, from Frankfurt-am-Main, 1624 and from Halberstadt, Germany, 1716 (the Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem, nos. 8 2380 and 8 3247) (Fishof 2001:134–135, 138–139). The later Jewish illustrations indicate selective continuity in the details of the zodiac designs, both in form and content. However, no examples exist similar to the ancient synagogues mosaics, in which all three components of the design are illustrated. In the later works, the sun and moon and the seasons are missing, and the similarity is articulated in the rendition of the zodiac signs, especially Libra, Sagittarius, and Aquarius, which sometimes follow the traditional portrayal of the sign and sometimes illustrate graphically the Hebrew name of the sign, or depict it in the fashion of the period.

386

chapter seven 3. Meaning and Significance

It is surprising to find the zodiac design depicted on synagogue mosaic pavements in view of its pagan origin, and all the more so as the mosaics, lying inside the main entrances, would have been immediately visible to anyone entering the synagogue. This widespread use of a ‘pagan’ motif over several centuries invites many questions as to its meaning and function in the synagogue. These questions are still being debated. Scholars have offered various explanations: some explain these mosaics as symbolic, others interpret the zodiac panels as having astrological meanings; others yet view the zodiac panel as a representation of the Jewish calendar (Hachlili 1977:72–76; 2002:232– 237; 2009:55–6). The symbolic approach is articulated by a number of scholars: Goodenough (1953, I:3–6; 1958, VIII:168, 171, 214–215) maintains that “Helios and the chariot symbolized the divine charioteer of Hellenistic Judaism, God himself.” He held that despite pagan influences it would be wrong to conclude from the zodiac mosaics that the Jewish community had an interest in astrology. Avigad (1976:283) suggested that “the figure in the chariot was the sun, itself a component of the cycle of cosmic forces depicted in the zodiac.” Foerster (1985:383, 388; 1987:231–232) contends that the zodiac represents the Divine and heavenly order of the universe, the regularity in the courses of sun and moon. Furthermore, the significance of the zodiac as a personification of the universe or cosmos is described by Jewish sources. The zodiac is an illustration, a key to the piyyutim (liturgical poems) of Eretz Israel; it is a substitute for the prayers, or functions as some kind of alternative prayer book (Yahalom 1986:313–322; Kühnel 2000:36; Ness 1995:131). Naveh (1989:303; 1992:156) maintains that the zodiac design and inscription is evidence of the penetration of the belief in magical powers into the synagogue; he also assumes that the Jews saw Helios as an angel rather than a god. Berliner (1995:179) proposes that the scientific map of the northern sky was used by the Jews in the decorative pattern of the zodiac circle. Weiss and Netzer (1996:35) argue that “the zodiac symbolized the blessing implicit in the divine order of the universe. This order is expressed in the seasons, zodiac signs, the months and the celestial bodies, which are all responsible for the cyclical patterns of nature, for growth and for harvest.” Weiss (2005:231–23; 2007:25*5; 2009b:369–377) maintains the zodiac panel illustrates the centrality of God in the Creation and argues that the motif of the zodiac “allegorically symbolizes the power and ability of God as the Cosmocrator, the sole ruler of the universe and of creation.” Engelrad (2000:42–48) contends that the synagogue mosaics filled a didactic function: the zodiac on these mosaic pavements served as a visual reminder to the Jewish worshippers of the eternal covenant made by God with the Davidic dynasty and the priests. It expressed the longing for the revival of Israel and the restoration of the Temple. Schwartz (2000:175–6) suggests that the zodiac cycle at Sepphoris “may have been meant to facilitate as a horoscopic aid.” Magness (2005:49–50) proposes “that Helios and the zodiac cycle symbolized sacred time and sacred space.” Friedman (2005:62) contends that “the zodiac panel thus offers an eschatological and messianic meaning . . . The general theme alludes to the End of Days, the rebuilding of the Temple, world peace, and the fulfilment of God’s promise to his people and their salvation . . .” Talgam (2010:73–75) maintains that the zodiac, the sun, and the seasons on these synagogue pavements indicate their conversion into a symbolic cosmic temple. The Christian church acquired the same symbolism, though expressing it in other ways. The astrological interpretation indicates a widespread belief of the Jews of that time in the zodiac signs (Sukenik 1934:64–67; Renov 1954:189–201; Goldman 1966:59–60; Sonne 1953:9–11; Lifshitz 1974:102–3; S. Stern 1996:400–403). Ness (1990) concludes that “the synagogue zodiacs are astrological, the zodiacs symbolize God, His care for His universe, and especially for His people, the Jews.” Other scholars dispute this assumption: Wilkinson (1977–78:22–24), in his interpretation of the Beth



the jewish calendar represented in the zodiac design

387

Alpha mosaic pavement, argued that it was unlikely the zodiac design was placed there for astrological purposes; rather it was connected with Platonic cosmology. Charlesworth (1977:195) claims that by the 4th century there is archaeological evidence of Jewish interest in zodiac images, but this must not be equated with astrological beliefs. The most plausible interpretation for the combination seasons—zodiac signs—sun god design is that the Jewish zodiac mosaic functioned as a calendar (Hanfmann 1951:194; Avi-Yonah [1964:56–57] suggested this in connection with the list of the priestly courses). In the zodiac design at Hammath Tiberias B, scholars found links with Hillel II’s publication of the rules for determining the Hebrew calendar in the 4th century CE (Dothan 1967:134; 1983:47–49; Sternberg 1972:72–87; Levine 2003c:110–114). Fine (2005:199–205) maintains there is a connection between the zodiac design and the Jewish calendar. Talgam (2000:101, 104; 2012:449–452) agrees with the interpretation of the zodiac as a calendar but also with the suggestion that the zodiac symbolizes the connection with the ceremony of declaring the new moon. She (2010:67–73; 2012:446–451) suggests also that the two early zodiac pavements of Hammath Tiberias B and Sepphoris are an illustration for the spring equinox, as they begin with the month of Nisan, the sign of Taleh (Aries). She further contends that the timing of the zodiac’s appearance on the synagogue pavement was intended as a challenge to the Christian establishment’s effort to undermine the credibility of the Hebrew calendar.6 Levine (2012:333–336) assumes that the 4th c. Hammath Tiberias B pavement was the origin for the zodiac motif and proposes that it represents “a profound example of Jewish resilience under Byzantine Christianity” The portrayal of the zodiac-calendar had three required sections: (a) the four seasons, representing the year; (b) the twelve signs of the zodiac, representing the months; (c) the sun god, symbolizing the day, the night being denoted by the background of the moon and stars. According to the Jewish calendar the twelve months correspond exactly to the stations and signs of the zodiac (see Table). The earliest listing of all the Jewish calendar months (whose names are Babylonian in origin) in succession appears in Megillath Taʿanith (probably 1st–2nd century CE). Jewish tradition has many references to the zodiac signs as monthly representations. The tradition is preserved in later literature, such as in Ha-Kalir’s poems, where the names of the months parallel the zodiac signs (Avi-Yonah 1964:55; Mirsky 1971). Explicit evidence of this correlation and additional support for this interpretation are provided by the Sepphoris synagogue mosaic, which displays the names of the months in addition to the names of the zodiac signs. Moreover, in the zodiac depiction at Beth Alpha, both Deli (Aquarius) and Dagim (Pisces) have the letter vav (‘and’) added, thereby designating them the last signs of the zodiac. This in fact attests that the next zodiac sign, Taleh (Aries), representing the month of Nisan, is the beginning of the year. The late 6th-century ʿEn Gedi synagogue mosaic inscription indicates the same (Fig. VII-2). It contains the names of the zodiac signs followed by their corresponding months, proving that the Jewish year started with Nisan (and its zodiac sign Taleh-Aries), the first month of the spring. The ʿEn Gedi written inscription must have replaced the illustrated zodiac mosaic during this later period.

6 The most improbable interpretations are argued by two scholars: Roussin (1997:93; 2001:55) holds an implausible suggestion that “Helios on synagogue pavements represents a minor deity to whom some members of the congregation might have addressed prayers—not to the image itself, but to the deity it represents” and that the “Helios-in-zodiac panel in the center represents the celestial sphere”. Wadeson (2008, following Wischnitzer 1971:90) interprets the zodiac central circle and the signs according to the rather dubious notion that it represents Elijah and the 12 tribes. The description of Elijah (Kings II 2:11) has only the chariot in common with the central circle of the zodiac (but without the fire), and there is no other evidence. Furthermore, why would one use the names of the months to represent the tribes?

388

chapter seven

In the Roman world, zodiac signs had cosmic and astronomical significance. In Christian art, as in Roman, the calendar was sometimes represented by the Labors of the Months (Table VII-4). Jewish art used the same form of the radial design and outer spandrels and rendered the similar three components of the zodiac circle, modifying it to convey the Jewish conception of the annual calendar. It was transformed into a Jewish calendar by marking the signs and seasons with their Hebrew names. At Sepphoris the Hebrew names of the months were added, and at Beth Alpha the signs were given some unique interpretations. To safeguard the religious nature of the calendar, Jewish art preferred an abstract and symbolic zodiac, rather than the naturalistic representation of human activity depicted in the Roman and Christian examples. The radial composition evidently conveys a visual, figured calendar by placing a circle of zodiac signs, representing the months, around the central figure of the sun god accompanied by the moon and stars, embodying day and night, and allocating the seasons in the four corners of the panel. The whole scheme conveys and illustrates the year. The Jewish zodiac-calendar panel design on these synagogue mosaic pavements, widely separated in space and time, is identical in form, composition, content, and balance, suggesting the existence of a prototype for the general design. The fact that they are only found in Jewish synagogal art attests to the existence of sketch books. Differences in style and execution may be put down to the variability of the individual artist’s skill and style (Hachlili 1988:391, 394; 2002:236; 2009:55). The Jewish zodiac-calendar is unique in its balanced and harmonious conflation of the three parts. The basic design of the Jewish calendar was probably drawn from the Antioch school. The likeness to Roman mosaic calendars rendered with the Labors of the Months is perceived in the circular form and in the addition of the inscribed names of the months and seasons. The design had its roots in the art of the preceding period and the two major schemes that comprise the Jewish calendar: the astronomical zodiac and the agricultural calendar. The Jewish model unified these two into a distinctive design containing the seasons, zodiac signs, and sun god and signifying a liturgical calendar. When the synagogue replaced the Temple, the annual ritual acts, performed previously by the priests, came to be represented symbolically in synagogue art. The calendar became the frame of the annual rites, now enacted by the community. Thus, it was guaranteed a central location in synagogue mosaic floors. The fact that the zodiac mosaic was used more than once makes it obvious that the Jewish community was not interested merely in a purely decorative design for its floors. There must have been something unique about this particular design that caused the community to wish to adopt it. Probably it regarded the zodiac as a suitable vehicle for expressing conceptual needs. The Jewish community assigned great importance to a design that expressed significant concepts and had more than a merely decorative function. The integrated representation of these three symbolic elements successfully united design and significance in Jewish art, achieving decorativeness as well as symbolic vitality. Thus the fundamentally pagan zodiac cycle came to serve the Jewish community as a popular, symbolic, figured calendar, and was employed as a significant framework for the annual synagogue rituals.

CHAPTER eight

ILLUSTRATED BIBLICAL TALES The development of Jewish figurative art and archaeology in Late Antiquity is all the more surprising in the light of the previous attitude towards such art. The art of the late Second Temple period (1st century BCE–1st century CE) had been purely aniconic, probably due to the prohibition of the second of the Ten Commandments: You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image, or any likeness of what is in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them. . . . (Exodus 20:4–5; see also Deuteronomy 5:8–9)

Following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (70 CE), rabbinical attitudes began to be more tolerant, and the rabbis emphasized the latter part of the commandment: “You shall not bow down to them or serve them . . .” (Blidstein 1973; Kraeling 1979:343–345). These changes, reflected in Talmudic literature, were the result of political, economic, and social circumstances. The leading rabbis tended to enforce the prohibition only where there was actual danger of idolatry; the evidence suggests that figurative art was tolerated if it did not encourage cultic worship. It seems that by the second or third centuries, the fear of idolatry had decreased and the sources testify to a policy of religious pragmatism and avoidance of the formulation of binding teachings (Urbach 1959:204). Furthermore, no Jewish law prohibited the depiction of religious subjects. The archaeological data from the Land of Israel and the Diaspora in Late Antiquity (3rd to 8th centuries CE), demonstrates the extensive use of figurative motifs on wall paintings, architectural ornamentation, mosaic pavements, and other art works and objects in synagogue structures (Hachlili 1988:285–316, 321–346; 1998:237–262; 1999:59–60). Since no sanctity was ascribed to a painting, there was no reason to prevent the depiction of representations on wall paintings such as those at Dura-Europos (Hachlili 1998:135–155, 178–182, 193–197) and on mosaic pavements in the Land of Israel (see Chapter V). Certain pagan mythological and symbolic motifs were acquired by the Jews through the influence of Jewish legends and Midrashic literature. Most scholars, however, accept the theory that the vast majority of the pagan motifs used in Jewish representational art became void of their original symbolic and idolatrous significance, and evolved into purely ornamental motifs (Avi-Yonah 1973:126; Avigad 1976:282, 285), their purpose being to add beauty to the structures. Furthermore, the very fact that the mosaic pavements were meant to be trodden upon would have ensured that no sanctity could be attached to them, not even when biblical scenes were depicted. These were not considered prohibited “graven images”. 1. Biblical Narrative Scenes A relatively limited selection of illustrated biblical themes provided an important element in the Jewish figurative repertoire, and these were recurrently represented on synagogue mosaic pavements and on other media. The themes included: the Binding of Isaac (ʿAqedah) on the Beth Alpha and Sepphoris mosaics and in the Dura Europos wall paintings; David/Orpheus on the Gaza synagogue mosaic pavement and in the Dura Europos wall paintings; David with Goliath’s weapons on the

390

chapter eight

Meroth synagogue mosaic; Daniel in the Lion’s Den on the Naʿaran and Susiya synagogue mosaics; Noah’s Ark on the mosaic at the Gerasa synagogue, and a comparable one at Misis-Mopsuestia in Cilicia; the End of Days scene on the mosaic pavement of the Beth Midrash at Meroth; the Twelve Tribes of Israel at Japhiʿa. On the Sepphoris synagogue pavement three additional illustrations are rendered: the Consecration of Aaron to the Service of the Tabernacle and the Daily Offerings, the Showbread Table and the Basket of First Fruits, and possibly the Visit of the Three Angels to Abraham and Sarah (Hachlili 1988:285–300; 1998:239–262; 2009:57–96). Three biblical narrative scenes—the Construction of the Temple, the Exodus, and Samson—recently discovered on a mosaic floor at the synagogue of Hurvat Wadi Hamam (East Lower Galilee), probably dated to the late 3rd or early 4th centuries (Liebner and Miller 2010), expanding the repertoire of biblical themes depicted on mosaic pavements in the Land of Israel Another Samson scene was found recently in a synagogue mosaic pavement at Huqoq in the Lower Galilee. The episode shows Samson sending pairs of foxes with their tails tied to a burning torch to the Philistines’ fields. These Samson episodes have never before been found in the Jewish art of the Land of Israel and are comparable to the damaged Samson scenes at Misis-Mopsuestia in Cilicia; the Hamam Exodus episode has a similar illustration in the Dura Europos wall paintings. Only the Hamam Temple Construction scene has no parallel in synagogue art. Some of these narratives depict either continuous episodes or individual events of biblical history and occurrences of divine intervention, in a symbolic traditional way. In the cases of the Binding of Isaac and Noah and the Flood, it seems the mosaic portrayals focus on the end of the tale. 1.1 The Binding of Isaac (the Aqedah) The Binding of Isaac (the Aqedah) described in Gen. 22:1–13, 19 is one of the most important stories of Judaism. An event with deep religious implications and holding a central place in the traditions of Judaism and Christianity,1 it later came to symbolize the covenant between God and the Jewish people, denoting God’s mercy and kindness to Israel. This narrative theme is portrayed on the wall painting of the Dura Europos synagogue (mid-3rd century CE) where it appears on the arch above the Torah Shrine niche; it also features prominently on the mosaic pavement panels of the 5th century CE synagogue at Sepphoris (Figs. VIII-1a, 2a) and the 6th century one at Beth Alpha (Figs. VIII-1, 2). At Sepphoris, this scene is depicted on two connected panels of band 6 (Fig. V-30) (Weiss and Netzer 1996:30–31; Weiss 2005:141–153); the surviving parts are similar in content and composition to the Beth Alpha mosaic pavement rendition. The scene, apparently illustrating the latter part of the biblical version, should be read from right to left (as Hebrew is read) (Hachlili 1988:288–292; Hachlili 2009:57–64, Pl. IV.1a, Fig. IV-1a). The Sepphoris right panel is almost completely destroyed and the remains of the left part show the ram’s head, with one of its horns tied by a rope to a tree branch next to it. Two overturned pairs of shoes, one pair smaller than the other, have survived below it. In the center of the panel a small trace, possibly of a knife blade, is preserved. The excavators reconstruct Abraham and Isaac in the center, with Abraham holding a knife (Weiss 2005:Fig. 89). The unusual rendering of the shoes does not appear in the biblical account, but probably depicts the tradition of removing one’s shoes and remaining barefoot when in a sacred space, as described in the biblical story of Moses and the Burning Bush at Mount Horeb (Ex. 3:5) and in the story of Joshua at Jericho (Josh. 5:15) (Weiss and Netzer 1996:31; Yahalom 2000:84–5; Weiss 2005:151–2). Such renditions of removed shoes placed beside

1 The Aqedah is recited annually On the New Year festival (Rosh Hashanah), as it is also in the daily morning prayers. In Christianity the story prefigures the crucifixion; Gen. 22 is traditionally recited on Easter (Gutmann 1984:116–7).



illustrated biblical tales

391

the feet of the figure of Moses appear on the Dura Europos wall paintings on Wing Panels I and II (Kraeling 1979:228, 234–5; Hachlili 1998:111–113, Fig. III-11, Pl. III-6). The lads, on the left panel at Sepphoris are rendered on a curved rock-like line, perhaps representing the mountain. Both are portrayed en-face, dressed in short ornamented tunics, a belt, and wearing black shoes; the tunic of the lad on the left is decorated with two geometric designed orbiculi. The lad on the right holds a spear in his left hand and gestures with two fingers of his right raised hand, while the youth on the left sits under a schematically rendered tree. They hold the ass’s reins; the ass, depicted in front of the lad on the right, carries a decorated packsaddle on his back and is turning left. The Beth Alpha mosaic panel, preserved in its entirety, comprises a narrative composition divided into three episodes, apparently illustrating the latter part of the biblical account (Figs. VIII-1b, 2b); like the Hebrew language (and like the Sepphoris depiction), it unfolds from right to left (Yeivin 1946:21–22), as shown also by the drawing of the ass with its end missing; however, Sukenik (1932:40) describes the scene from left to right, even though then it does not follow the exact narration of the biblical story. The three narrative episodes are: (1) On the right, Abraham lifts Isaac off the burning altar (Gen. 22:10–11); (2) in the center is the Hand of God, representing the angel, and the substitute ram which is tied by its horn to a tree (Gen. 22:12–13), and this section constitutes the dramatic climax of the story; (3) on the left are the two youths with the ass (Gen. 22:19). On the right side of the panel, a large bearded Abraham is depicted holding Isaac with one hand while in the other he carries a long knife. Isaac is rendered as a child, with bound hands in an unusual attitude. He is not bound to the altar but is suspended in the air and seems to be held by Abraham. The altar is at the far right with flames leaping upwards. Abraham is clearly the chief figure, exceeding all the others in height and size; this device emphasizes his prominence in the story. The center scene portrays the most dramatic part of the story, the Hand of God, which appears from above, emerging out of a cloud emitting rays. Under the Hand a one-horned ram is tied to a two-branched tree in an unusual posture, suspended in the air, which differs from the biblical description of “a ram caught in a thicket by its horns” (Gen. 22:13). Sukenik (1932:40) maintains that the reason for the position of the ram is simply lack of space, whereas Yeivin (1946:22) suggests that the ram is rendered on the basis of naturalistic observation; furthermore, it is a continuation of a Mesopotamian prototype (for further discussion of the ram’s position, see Bergman 1982 and Beitner 1999). Two young men next to a saddled donkey (cut off by the frame) are portrayed on the left part. One of the youths stands behind the donkey, only his upper body showing, while the other stands beside it, gripping a whip in his left hand and holding the reins in his right. A row of stylized palm trees is rendered above the scene. The empty space between the images is filled in with plants, due to the horror vacui element characteristic of this art. Names and Hebrew biblical verses are inscribed in the scene: the names ‫( אברהם‬Abraham) and ‫( יצחק‬Isaac) appear above the figures. In the center, under the Hand of God, parts of the verses accompany the figure of the ram: ‫“ אל תשלח‬Do not raise your hand . . .” and ‫“ והנה אייל‬. . . his eye fell upon a ram . . .” The drama of the central episode is highlighted by the Hand of God, as well as by the inscriptions and the exceptional posture of the ram. The depiction of the scene is stylized and naive. The figures are rendered in a frontal posture, whereas the animals are in profile. Only the narrative connects the fragmentary scene into a whole. The Beth Alpha mosaic is an example of local popular art. The iconographical depictions of the Binding of Isaac at Sepphoris and Beth Alpha show various similarities (Fig. VIII-1, 2). The arrangement and composition of the panels is almost identical; the scene is divided into three parts of the biblical story. The actual binding, portraying Abraham, Isaac,

392

chapter eight

a

b

Figure VIII‑1. Binding of Isaac (The Aqedah) on mosaic panels: a. Sepphoris; b. Beth Alpha.



illustrated biblical tales

393

a

b

Figure VIII‑2. Binding of Isaac on mosaic panels: a. Sepphoris; b. Beth Alpha.

and the altar, appears only at Beth Alpha. Undoubtedly, though, it was originally also rendered on the destroyed right side of the Sepphoris right panel. In both pavements the center is occupied by the ram episode, the ram being tied to a tree by one of its horns, not caught in a thicket as recorded in Gen. 22:13. The differences are that at Beth Alpha the scene includes the Hand of God above the ram and at Sepphoris the unusual rendering of the shoes is added. In both pavements the lads with the ass occupy about half of the scene—at Sepphoris the entire left panel and at Beth Alpha, the left side of the left panel. The ass in both depictions bears a saddle, while turning in one to the left and in the other to the right. In both cases the lads have similar attire: the youth on the left at Sepphoris has a pair of orbiculi decorating the lower part of his tunic, similar to those on the tunic of the one on the right at Beth Alpha. In both, one lad is portrayed behind the ass. The two figures of the lads are rendered distinctively in the composition, which might indicate their essential role in the biblical story, even though they are mentioned only as ‫( נעריו‬his [Abraham’s] youths) (Gen. 22:19). Scholars propose that the two young men are Ishmael, Abraham’s son, and Eliezer, the loyal servant, and that they are engaged in a confrontation on the question of Abraham’s heir, should Isaac be sacrificed (Yahalom 2000; H. Kessler 2000:66; Weiss 2005:144 and n. 447). Accordingly, Ishmael at

394

chapter eight

Sepphoris raises his right hand as if delivering a speech and holds the spear in his left hand, whereas Eliezer swings the rope tied to the ass. E. Kessler (2000:80) offers the unlikely suggestion that the figures represent Abraham instructing his servant. Wortzman (2008) suggests that the fully dressed figure at Beth Alpha could be interpreted as Sarah, who was present at the scene according to the Midrash, rather than a servant; the two lines ending with two circles which appear on the chest indicate the breasts on this figure, as do those rendered on the chest of the zodiac signs of Virgo and Winter (Tekufat Tevet) at Beth Alpha. Nevertheless, it seems more likely that this pattern was some kind of an addition to the necklace, though it is strange to see it on the servant’s breast (see Chapter XIII). At Beth Alpha, however, the depictions were accompanied by the figures’ names and other explanatory inscriptions (this may have also been the case at Sepphoris, where the scene is unfortunately damaged, since other scenes there do have names and biblical verses), so if these youths were identified as suggested, their names would certainly have been added. The similarities in iconographical depictions, the almost identical composition of the panels of the Binding of Isaac at Sepphoris and Beth Alpha might designate that the two mosaic pavements had a similar source, even if the stylistic designs and the artists’ performances are completely different. The portrayal of the Binding of Isaac in the wall paintings at Dura Europos is the earliest Jewish art depiction of this theme (Fig. VIII-3). It was painted on the right of the arcuated panel above the niche on the west wall of the synagogue, and has been dated to about 244–5 CE, in the first stage of the later building (Kraeling 1979:54–65; Hachlili 1988:288–292; 1998:100, 239–246; 2009:57–64, Pl. IV.1a; Fig. IV-1a).2 The Dura Europos scene is depicted in a narrative manner, yet it is symbolic in character, showing the highlight of the story—the moment of rescue and salvation. It is distinctive in several details: The composition is vertical and narrow; Abraham and the figure in the tent are viewed from the rear, their faces unseen, while the Hand of God and the ram are shown in profile; the rendition of the draped Isaac lying on the altar is unique, as is the added tent and its figure. The Hand of God appears above the altar, and on the right stands the tall figure of Abraham clad in a white himation, a chiton, and boots, holding a white knife in his right hand. To the left of Abraham is a large white altar on which lies the small figure of Isaac. A ram and tree are visible at the bottom of the scene. In the upper right corner, the artist has added a conical tent within which stands a small figure. Scholarly attention and concern has been devoted to the identity of the figure in the tent and to the way the figures are depicted from the rear. The figure in the tent has been identified variously as Abraham, Isaac freed from his bonds, one of Abraham’s servants, Ishmael, or Sarah (Hachlili 1998:239). The most plausible suggestion is apparently that of Goodenough (1964, IX:72–74, Fig. 71), who proposes that the figure is Sarah and compares the Dura Europos scene with the Binding of Isaac in the el -Bagawat painting, where Sarah’s name is inscribed above the figure’s head (Hachlili 2009:Fig. IV-5). Three elements diverge from the biblical story (Genesis 22:9): one is the Hand of God which, on the Beth Alpha mosaic and in the painted scene at Dura Europos, is portrayed instead of the angel of God (Hachlili 1999); the second is the ram standing beside or tied to a tree, and not “caught in the thicket by its horns”, which appears in all three depictions. Kraeling (1979:57) and Gutmann (1984a:1321; 1984b:117–118) maintain that these variations grew out of rabbinical exegesis stressing God’s intervention in human affairs; and the third is the two overturned pairs of shoes, rendered in the left lower corner of the right panel at Sepphoris (Fig. VIII-1a, 2a). 2 Two lamps from a private collection depict the Binding of Isaac. One is on the discus of an imperial Roman discus lamp (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1996), but there is no conclusive proof that this lamp is Jewish. On the nozzle of a Samaritan oil lamp, the Binding of Isaac is represented not as a narrative scene but by various objects connected to the story (Sussman 1998).



illustrated biblical tales

395

Figure VIII‑3. Binding of Isaac, Dura Europos synagogue wall painting.

The renderings of the Binding of Isaac on the Sepphoris and Beth Alpha synagogue mosaic pavements differ in some ways from that on the wall paintings at Dura Europos (Figs. VIII-1–3). In particular, the Dura composition is vertical while those of Sepphoris and Beth Alpha are horizontal. Similarities between Dura and Beth Alpha include the Hand of God, the architectural form of the altar, and the wood on the altar arrayed as a triangle; differences exist in the portrayal of Abraham and Isaac and their setting in the scene. The Binding of Isaac became a popular theme in early Christian art as well, on catacombs paintings, sarcophagi, and gold glasses dating to the 4th century CE. Portrayals of the scene are generally similar, in a style that is partly realistic and partly symbolic. They show a dramatic rendering of Abraham, the largest figure in the composition, holding a knife in his right hand, with Isaac frequently kneeling; the ram is on the left, the altar is often depicted, and the Hand of God is shown in a corner of the design (Hachlili 2009:Figs. IV-3–5).3

3 See discussions and catalogue in A.M. Smith 1922, and in Speyart van Woerden 1961, who listed 195 examples in the Roman-Byzantine period.

396

chapter eight

The youths depicted at Sepphoris and Beth Alpha have a prominent position in the design, unlike in the Christian depictions where they appear only rarely. In the catacomb of Via Latina, cubiculum C, only one lad and the ass are portrayed (Hachlili 2009:Pl. IV-2c). A painting in the 5th-century Basilica di S. Paolo fuori le mura depicts Abraham, together with Isaac carrying the wood on the right and the two youths with the ass on the left, leaving a structure. One of the youths waves his hand in a rhetorical gesture of argument.4 Two paintings of the Binding of Isaac were discovered at the Via Latina catacomb dating to the 4th century (Hachlili 2009:Pl. IV-2b, c), one in cubiculum C, the other in cubiculum L (Fig. VIII-21a, b) (Ferrua 1960; 1991:87, 153–165, Figs. 68, 113; Hachlili 1998:242; 2009:61, Pls. IV-2b, c).5 The depictions of the Binding of Isaac on the synagogue mosaic pavements are narrative and render the full story, while the Binding in early Christian art, as depicted on catacomb walls and sarcophagi, is rendered in a partly realistic, partly symbolic style. The most typical scenes show a dramatic-symbolic rendering of Abraham with the knife, Isaac, the Hand of God, and the altar. This is due apparently in part to different sources and in part to the limited space available. A mosaic panel has more space than sarcophagi, lamps, and so forth. Church mosaic pavements showing sheep and rams in front of or tied to trees are suggested by several scholars as representing an abbreviated form of the Binding of Isaac (Figs. VIII-4). Such representations are rendered on the lower mosaic of the late 5th c. church at Massuh (Piccirillo 1993:254, Fig. 447); on the upper mosaic of the baptistery chapel in the mid-6th century Cathedral at Madaba (Piccirillo 1993:118, Fig. 117); in a central medallion on the raised presbyterium of the chapel of the Twal family, Madaba (Piccirillo 1993:139, Figs. 138, 140); and in the presbytery of the Church of St. George at Mukhayyat (Saller and Bagatti 1949:67, 107, 236–237, Pls. 23, 1, 39, 1; Piccirillo 1998:322, Fig. 122). Maguire (1987:71) interprets this as “a prefiguration of the divine sacrifice.” Bagatti (1984:296–7, Figs. 31–32; Piccirillo 1989:339; Talgam 2000:94, 102–3) infers that these images of tied animals form an abbreviated and symbolic version of the Binding of Isaac. Though rams and sheep, especially flanking pairs, are common, this interpretation is an appealing proposition (Hachlili 2009:62–64). Jewish and Christian depictions of the Binding of Isaac appear to be based on two different conventions. The lack of sanctity inherent in the approach of the Jews of Beth Alpha and Sepphoris, where the mosaic pavement was intended to be trodden on, would have been unacceptable to the Christian believers. For Judaism, the Binding of Isaac is a symbol of life and of belief in God’s help as well as confirmation of God’s covenant with Israel, whereas in early Christian art it is a pre-figuration of the life and crucifixion of Jesus and is related symbolically to death and salvation. Because of this contrasting attitude, the Jews felt the appropriate place to portray the scene was the synagogue, while the early Christians preferred to show it in their funerary art—in catacomb paintings, on sarcophagi, pyxis, and gold glasses; when they used it on mosaic floors they did so only in a symbolic abbreviated form.

4 A similar gesture appears on mosaics and illuminated manuscripts. Yahalom (2000:87, Fig. 48) maintains that the Binding of Isaac in the Christian catacombs in Rome and the synagogue mosaic at Sepphoris were based on a similar model. On the 10th–12th-century so-called miniature of Christian topography of Constantine of Antioch (formerly attributed to Cosmas Indicopleustes; Vatican. Biblioteca Apostolica, Cod. 699, fol. 59r), possibly copied from a 6th–7th-century Syrian model, the figures are labelled and identified by their Greek inscriptions. H.L. Kessler (2000:66–7, Fig. 38) maintains that the Sepphoris mosaic shared a model with these manuscripts. 5 Speyart van Woerden (1961:222–224, 243–245) contends that the Binding of Isaac in the 4th-century wall paintings of the catacombs in Rome did not have a fixed composition, while the 93 sarcophagi do have a set composition and an identical iconography. In it Abraham, wearing a tunic and holding a sword, stands behind a kneeling Isaac. A ram, the Hand of God, and an altar are also shown.



illustrated biblical tales

b

a

c

397

d

Figure VIII‑4. Rams/Sheep in front or tied to trees on church mosaics: a. upper mosaic of the baptistery chapel, Cathedral, Madaba; b. Presbyterium, chapel of the Twal family, Madaba; c. Presbytery, Church of St. George, Khirbat al-Mukhayyat; d. Church of Massuh.

1.2 The Hand of God The Hand of God framed by a cloud is an important element of the Binding of Isaac as depicted on the Dura Europos wall painting and the Beth Alpha mosaic pavement. In both Jewish and Christian art this symbol usually occurs in narrative biblical episodes in which God plays a distinctive interventive role. The Hand of God originates in the ancient pagan art of the Near East, where it is part of a formula of symbols of deities and appears as an isolated symbol in several forms (Hachlili 1999), often in the form of a hand with an open palm. Three Hand of God formulas appear in ancient Near Eastern, Jewish, and Early Christian art: (1) In Jewish art, the Hand of God is depicted as part of biblical scenes in several forms. It appears

398

chapter eight

Figure VIII‑5. Khirbet el-Kôm graffito inscription with Hand of God.

in the Dura Europos synagogue wall paintings, on the Beth Alpha synagogue mosaic pavement, and on a Susiya screen. (2) In Early Christian art, the Hand of God is rendered in certain biblical scenes, almost exclusively in those of the Sacrifice of Isaac, of Moses on Mount Sinai, and Moses Receiving the Law; only seldom does the Hand of God appear in a scene depicting Christ. These representations appear on wall paintings and catacomb sarcophagi, ivory boxes, and plaques, as well as on wall mosaics. (3) In ancient Near Eastern pagan art, the Hand of God appears as an isolated symbol. The earliest example in ancient art (in the Land of Israel) is an illustration of the Hand of God as a carefully carved right hand with an open palm, located below a graffito inscription (Fig. VIII-5). It was found in one of a group of Iron Age tombs dated to the 8th–7th centuries BCE that were discovered at the village of Khirbet el-Kôm west of Hebron, on the east pillar between chambers 1 and 2 of Tomb II (Dever 1970:159–169, Pl. VI:B). The spread-open right palm, deeply carved, is prominent and is the most significant part of the graffito. The hand was probably carved purposely, and symbolizes the Hand of God (= Yahweh) mentioned in line 2 of this inscription: “Blessed be Uriahu by Yahweh.” The open right hand seems to be part of the original carving, as it does not eliminate any part of the inscription and might have been an early a prototype of an outstretched hand representing divine blessing. The Hand of God in pagan art, whether in the form of a hand with an open palm, a pair of raised hands, or a hand holding a thunderbolt, was frequently the right hand, probably because this was considered the ‘hand of honor’, in contrast to the left hand, which was used for acts regarded as unclean. The Hand of God in these examples is symbolic in form and concept and is frequently interpreted as a symbol of power, protection, or blessing (Wallis-Budge 1961:467–469). In Jewish art the Hand of God image appears from the mid-3rd century CE onwards on several wall paintings scenes at the Dura Europos synagogue, on the Beth Alpha synagogue mosaic floor, and on a Susiya marble chancel screen. The Hand of God is portrayed in the scene of the Binding of Isaac (Genesis 22:1–19) on the third panel of the mid-sixth century CE Beth Alpha synagogue mosaic floor. In the center of the narrative, above the ram tied to the thicket, the Hand of God, its palm spread, is represented in a cloud, from which rays of light are issuing (Figs. VIII-1b, 2b). The Hand of God image is portrayed in the Binding of Isaac at the right of the arcuated panel of the niche in the Dura Europos synagogue (Figs. VIII-3, 6), belonging to the first stage of the later



illustrated biblical tales

399

Figure VIII‑6. Hand of God image in various biblical episodes, Dura Europos wall paintings.

building (mid-3rd century CE) (Hachlili 1998:100). The Hand of God appears surrounded by a kind of cloud seen above the small figure of Isaac, which lies atop a large altar. A possible depiction of a Hand of God is rendered on the upper part of a marble chancel screen fragment from the Horvat Susiya synagogue. Here the Hand holds a scroll, and although nothing else has survived, it is interpreted as the scene of Moses receiving the Law (Foerster 1989:1819, Figs. 12–14). Four other scenes in which the Hand of God is rendered as an open palm are painted in the second stage of the later building at the Dura Europos synagogue (Fig. VIII-6): (1) A Hand of God is shown above the figure to the left in the scene of Moses at the Burning Bush (Exodus 3), on Wing Panel I, Register A (Kraeling 1979:228; Hachlili 1998:111–112). (2) A pair of red Hands of God stretching out of the cloud, depicted as an open-palmed left hand above the figure of Moses and an open-palmed right hand above the group crossing the sea, appear on panel WA3 in the composition depicting three scenes of the Exodus (Exodus 9:22–26; 12–14) (Kraeling 1979:74–86; Hachlili 1998:114–116). (3) The Hand of God is rendered stretching towards a reclining man holding a child, as a symbol of life-giving power, on the Dura south wall (SC1–SC4), in a scene generally identified as Elijah reviving the son of the widow of Zarephath (I Kings 17:17–24), and is part of the Elijah cycle (Kraeling 1979:143–150; Weitzmann & Kessler 1990:108; Hachlili 1998:119). Five illustrations of the Hand of God—one grasping the hair of the head of a figure, the others outstretched—are portrayed on the longest panel (NC1) of the Dura synagogue paintings. The panel depicts Eze­kiel and his prophecy of the Dry Bones (Ezekiel 37:1–14; 21–24) (Kraeling 1979:178–202; Sukenik 1947:128ff; Hachlili 1998:123–127) in several painted episodes, all presumably based on the biblical account in Ezekiel 37:1–28 and on rabbinical literature. The six figures are assumed to be the prophet Ezekiel. The depictions of the Hand of God in the Dura scenes usually have the right palm opening outwards, with fingers spread (Fig. VIII-6). Exceptions include: two cases where the back of the hand appears; one rendition of a closed hand; two instances showing the left hand with palm outwards; one instance in which the Hand of God is portrayed grasping the hair of Ezekiel, on the far left. The form of the Hand of God depicted in the Binding of Isaac differs from all the others by the addition of a cloud, portrayed as a two-lined border (Fig. VIII-6). The concept of God represented by a hand in Jewish art possibly developed from the biblical metaphors ‫“ היד החזקה והזרוע הנטויה‬the mighty hand and the outstretched arm” (Deu­t. 7:19), which are conventional formulae. Elsewhere Job says he was touched by the hand of God ‫כי יד אלוה נגעה בי‬ “For the hand of God has struck me” ( Job 19:21) and Daniel also describes how “then a hand touched me” ‫( והנה יד נגעה בי‬Daniel 10:10).

400

chapter eight

The Dura Europos representations of Exodus and Ezekiel follow the wording of the biblical Hebrew text mentioning the Hand of God. In the Exodus story it is written, ‫ושלחתי את ידי והכיתי את מצרים‬ “So I will stretch out my hand and smite Egypt” (Exodus 3:20); and ‫כי ביד חזקה הוצאך ה' ממצרים‬ “how the Lord freed you from it [Egypt] with a mighty hand” (Exodus 13:3, 9, 14, 16). Following the drowning of the Egyptians, the Bible concludes: ‫וירא ישראל את היד הגדלה אשר עשה ה' במצרים‬ “. . . Israel saw the wondrous power [lit. large hand] which the Lord had wielded against the Egyptians” (Exodus 14:31). It should be noted that a Midrash (Exodus Rabbah XXII, 2; Kraeling 1979:83, n. 251) mentions two hands of God in relation to the Exodus story: one saved Israel from the sea and one overthrew the Egyptians, although both were interpreted as right hands. In Ezekiel’s vision (Ezekiel 8:1, 3), the image clearly indicates the intervention of God: “He stretched out the form of a hand, and took me by the hair of my head” ‫ותפל עלי שם יד אדני ה'; וישלח תבנית‬ ‫יד ויקחני בציצת ראשי‬. The biblical text of Elijah reviving the widow’s son mentions only God, not his hand (I Kings 17:22), although in another scene “the Hand of the God had come upon Elijah” ‫ויד ה' היתה אל אליהו‬ (I Kings 18:46). Thus, in the Bible this image is used both metaphorically and literally. The Dura paintings of the Exodus narrative as well as the Ezekiel cycle (and possibly in the depiction of Elijah and the widow as well) follow the biblical text and relate the intervention of the Hand of God. In the episodes of the Binding of Isaac, however, the Hand of God represents the angel: “Then an angel of the Lord called to him from heaven . . .” ‫( ויקרא אליו מלאך ה' מן השמים‬Genesis 22:11); and similarly in the depiction of Moses and the Burning Bush: “An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a blazing fire out of a bush” ‫( וירא מלאך ה' אליו בלבת אש מתוך הסנה‬Exodus 3:2). As already mentioned, in Early Christian art the Hand of God image appears from the 4th century CE onwards, being depicted on wall paintings, sarcophagi, lamps, and glass dishes from the Christian catacombs in Rome, as well as in the later Ravenna wall mosaic and ivory objects (Hachlili 1999:66– 68, Figs. 14–16). This image is generally restricted to certain scenes: the Sacrifice of Isaac, Moses and the Burning Bush, Moses receiving the Law, one episode of Moses being stoned, and one scene of the Sacrifice of Abel and Melchisidech; in several later examples the Hand is shown above the cross or above the image of Christ. The Hand of God appears in several forms in Early Christian art: A right or left hand with open palm outward; a right back hand; the hand with two fingers together separated from the other three fingers; a forearm and hand, and a hand holding a scroll. The usual convention in Christian art shows the Hand of God above the scene, in a sort of cloud. The Hand of God, in all its manifestations, symbolizes God in the act of rescuing or blessing. Although this image had appeared earlier periodically in the ancient Near East, it seems that only in the mid-3rd century CE, on the Dura Europos synagogue paintings—the Sacrifice of Isaac, the Exodus, Moses at the Burning Bush, Elijah reviving the son of the widow of Zarpehath (Hachlili 1999: Figs. 8–13)—was the Hand of God established as an artistic convention in Jewish art. In significant episodes of Jewish history, it represented God’s intervention and the commemoration of special events, while in the Elijah scene at Dura Europos, it may have represented a life-giving power as well as the intervention by the Angel of God (Weitzmann and Kessler 1990:108). It seems reasonable, then, to assume that this Hand of God formula influenced the somewhat later artistic convention that characterized Early Christian biblical scenes in paintings, reliefs, and mosaic ornamentations. The size of the hand in the Jewish episodes (Figs. VIII-1b, 2b, 6) is usually conspicuous, being slightly or even much larger proportionally than the other figures in the scene, perhaps to stress the difference between God and humans. The Dura Europos paintings show the hand depicted without



illustrated biblical tales

401

any addition, on the border of the panels; only in the Sacrifice of Isaac at Dura and in the Beth Alpha mosaic does a kind of cloud appear. In the Christian examples the hand generally appears in a small or large cloud. The difference between the Jewish and Christian artistic formulations of the Hand of God may indicate the presence of two different sources, one serving Jewish art and the other used in Christian art; alternatively, the meanings may have been dissimilar, serving different purposes. In all these depictions, the Hand of God is a symbol of his intervention in significant events—it is a gesture of rescue, bestowal of life, and blessing (Hachlili 1999:66–68, Figs. 14–16). The examples of the Binding of Isaac on the Sepphoris and Beth Alpha synagogue mosaic pavement panels are unique.6 They probably had a similar or identical source although each of them was done by completely different artists. The inscriptions accompanying the depictions at Beth Alpha, though verifying the relation with the biblical source, contain only the names of the two main figures and two short quotes, each of only two words, which merely explain the illustrations (see below similar verses in other panels with biblical scenes at Sepphoris). These mosaic panels focus on portraying a narrative tale or legend and the inscriptions were added for clarification and perhaps as reminders. The panels are not in any way an illustrated text. The illustrated scenes understandably focus on the most important component of the story—the intended sacrifice and its fortunate outcome—portrayed at the right and in the center. The episode in the center, of the ram’s horn tied to the tree and the Hand of God symbolizing the angel, is the highlight of the story, defining its purpose and conclusion by expressing the moment of rescue. At Beth Alpha, Abraham’s removal of Isaac from the altar is indicated by the fire already burning on it,7 and by the Hand of God and the substitute ram. At Dura Europos, the rendition of Isaac bound and placed on the altar follows the biblical story more closely. Interestingly, the episode of the two waiting youths with a saddled ass but no wood is quite prominent on the mosaic pavements of Sepphoris and Beth Alpha; in fact, it signifies the beginning and the end of the Aqedah account (Hachlili 1988:291; 1998:242–243; 2009:64). The two youths are mentioned at the start: “So early next morning, Abraham saddled his ass and took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac” (Gen. 22:3), and again at the conclusion of the story, designating Abraham (apparently without Isaac) returning to his lads after the action has ended: “Abraham then returned to his servants, and they departed together for Beer-sheba . . .” (Gen. 22, 19). The appearance of the scene on the mosaic pavements of both Sepphoris and Beth Alpha on the left side of the panel brings the entire narrative full circle. It represents the opening and the closing of the tale. 1.3 The Visit of the Angels to Abraham and Sarah The depiction of this scene, found in the last of the Sepphoris synagogue nave bands, Band 7, the one closest to the main entrance, is almost completely destroyed (Fig. VIII-7). To the right, remains of the edge and the lower part of garments of two figures have survived. On the left, only remains of a frame enclosing traces of a figure with a draped head and robe are seen (Weiss and Netzer 1996:32–3; Weiss 2005:153–161, Figs. 94–95). The excavators see the Sepphoris scene as showing Sarah standing at the tent entrance on the left, while the remains of the garment next to the tent may belong to Abraham and the other garment

6 But see Gutmann (1984:120–122). Comparing the mosaic with three terracotta tiles and a 9th-century miniature, he contends that the Beth Alpha Binding Scene follows “an established early Christian type.” 7 But see Sukenik (1932:41), who maintains that Abraham carries Isaac on his way to placing him on the altar.

402

chapter eight

Figure VIII‑7. The Men’s (Angels’) visit to Abraham and Sarah, Sepphoris nave mosaic, Band 7.

and the destroyed part of the panel might have presented the three visitors reclining around a low table. This interpretation is based on comparison with the scene portrayed on the left part of the 6th-century wall mosaic at the presbyterium of the Church of San Vitale in Ravenna; it shows the men (angels) visiting Abraham and Sarah to tell them of the coming of Isaac’s birth (Gen. 18:1–15); the right part depicts the Binding of Isaac (Weiss 2005:157–160, Figs. 98, 100). The excavators further suggest (Weiss and Netzer 1996:34; Weiss 2005:228–231) that the grouping of the two scenes at Sepphoris together creates an inclusive iconographic unit. The two Sepphoris bands, viewed from the entrance towards the Torah Shrine, are arranged chronologically: the visitors’ announcement of Isaac’s impending birth in Band 7 and the Binding of Isaac in Band 6. Possibly the two scenes could be interpreted differently. They might be telling one continuous story, relating the Binding of Isaac in Band 6 followed on Band 7 by the figure of Sarah standing at the tent entrance to welcome the returning Abraham, Isaac, and the youths (Gen. 22:19). Such a scene, depicting the return of Abraham to the waiting servants, is part of the three scenes following the Sacrifice of Isaac in the 6th-century Vienna Genesis (Weitzmann 1957:87, Fig. 8). This is feasible, especially considering that the Sepphoris nave mosaic begins at the bema area rendered with the inscription flanked by lions in Band 1and moves towards the entrance; since the Binding of Isaac appears in Band 6, Band 7 probably portrays a later, rather than an earlier, story (Hachlili 2009:88). 1.4 Noah’s Ark The story of Noah and the flood is told in Genesis chapters 6–8. Only the latter part of this story (Gen. 8:10–20; and see also the Noah’s Ark legends collected by Ginzberg 1947, I:165–167) is presented in



illustrated biblical tales

403

mosaic pavements. Two depictions have been found: one on the floor of the Gerasa synaogogue and one on the pavement of Misis-Mopsuestia (Cilicia, Turkey) (Hachlili 1988:292–94; 2009:63–72). The earlier of the two renditions is in the east vestibule of the early 5th-century mosaic panel pavement at Gerasa synagogue (Figs. VIII-8, 9). The synagogue and its mosaics were found under a church apse built over the synagogue structure in 530–531 CE (Sukenik [1932:55–56], suggesting a date between the mid-4th century and 530 CE (Kraeling 1938:323; Piccirillo 1993:290, Figs. 546–551). The surviving part of the mosaic framed central panel shows a narrative scene consisting of three rows of realistically rendered animals, striding from left to right: the top row shows the birds, the middle row the mammals, and the bottom row the reptiles (Sukenik 1932:55, note 4). In the south (left) corner of the panel appears a perched dove holding an olive branch, conveying the news of the receding flood (Fig. VIII-8). Under the branch two partly preserved human heads with the inscribed names of Noah’s sons Shem and Japhet are portrayed; originally Noah’s family was probably depicted leaving the ark or sacrificing after they came out (Genesis 8:11, 14–19). The Gerasa scene commemorates the moment when the animals leave Noah’s Ark, as Noah and his family celebrate the event. The panel is bordered by a frieze rendering beasts chasing their victims, with flowers and plants filling the space. In the center of the east border frieze is an inscription placed upside-down in relation to the entrance of the vestibule. This partly destroyed Greek inscription contains the greeting ‘Holy place. Amen. Sela. Peace to the Synagogue’ (Fig. XI-11). It encircles a menorah together with the four ritual objects: the lulav and ethrog on one side and the shofar and incense shovel on the other (Hachlili 2001:58–61). The difference between the scene of the animals leaving Noah’s Ark and the chase scene frieze around the border is interpreted in various ways. According to the narrative in the Midrash, the two scenes depict the situation before and after the flood (Sukenik 1932:56). The main scene renders the pure animals while the border depicts the tainted ones (Kraeling 1938:320–321). However this is not completely accurate. The animals leaving the ark are tame while those in the border are wild beasts, which were not taken into the ark (Goodenough 1953, I:259–260; 1968, XII:133). Yet the border scene may quite simply be decorative; a similar pursuit scene is found in the Beth Sheʾan small synagogue, where the animals are shown in an inhabited scrolls design. A comparable scene of Noah’s Ark surrounded by various animals is illustrated on the mosaic pavement found in a building at Misis-Mopsuhestia, a Cilician city on the road from Tarsus to Antioch, south of the Taurus Mountains (Asia Minor). This building is considered by some scholars to be a synagogue (Budde 1969:67–76, Figs. 143–157; Kitzinger 1973:138–141, Fig. B; Avi-Yonah 1981c:188; Hachlili 1998:256–7, Figs. IV-6, V-12), and probably dates to the late 5th cen­tury CE. The remains of the building consist mainly of parts of the mo­saic pavements and a few remnants of walls (Budde 1969:31–37). The mosaic floor is divided into a wide nave, one south and two north aisles, and depicts on one aisle episodes from the biblical story of Samson (Kitzinger 1973; Hachlili 1998:209–216, see below). Budde (1960 and 1969) maintains that it was a martyrium church, but the structure was probably a synagogue, as suggested by Avi-Yonah (1981:186–190). It resembles synagogues in the Land of Israel such as Hammath Tiberias B, which also has a nave flanked by two aisles on one side and a single aisle on the other (Kitzinger 1973:136; Hachlili 1998:51–52, 209–216, 249–256). At Misis-Mopsuhestia two renditions of Noah and the ark are portrayed on the western panel of the nave’s mosaic pavement. The earlier panel is in the lower half of the nave. A relaid mosaic lies in the western, later, part of the nave, probably close to the entrance (Budde 1969:54, Pl. 50). It shows a much simpler depiction of Noah’s story, crudely rendered. In the scene of Noah’s Ark on the early nave mosaic at Misis-Mopsuhestia, the ark is surrounded by animals (Fig. VIII-9a). The decorated ark is in the center of the square panel forming the focal

404

chapter eight

a

b

c

Figure VIII‑8. Noah’s Ark on the Gerasa synagogue vestibule mosaic pavement: a. the dove and the heads of Shem and Japhet; b. part of the rows of animals; c. the full animal rows.



illustrated biblical tales

405

point of the scene. It is a three-dimensional chest standing on four legs, and is open with its lid folded back. A dove is visible inside the ark and the tail end of another dove protrudes from the side opening (Budde 1969:38–43, 109, Figs. 26–49; Hachlili 1998:249–254). The ark is decorated with three colored rectangles, similarly to the standard decorations of Torah Arks on the mosaic pavements at Hammath Tiberias, Susiya, Beth Alpha, and other places (Figs. IV-53–56) (Hachlili 1976:40–50; 1988:272–278, Figs. IX-21, 22, Pls. 102–105; 2000:154–5, Figs. 11:4, 5, 12:1–4; but see also Buschhausen’s suggestion 1972:65). The Greek inscription KIBWTOC NWEP on the inner open lid of the ark means ‘The ark of Noah the r[edeemer]’ or ‘The r[edeemed] ark of Noah’ (Budde 1969:41–42; Avi-Yonah 1981b:186; but see Buschhausen 1972:67–68). The word KIBWTOC means box or chest and is the word used in the Septuagint for Noah’s Ark as well as for the Ark of the Covenant. Two wide rows of animals surround the ark, only a single example of each animal species appears (Fig. VIII-9a). The inner row consists of birds and the outer row of mammals. Some of the birds are depicted in flight and others stand on a simple base line (Budde 1969:Figs. 27, 28, 34, 36, 38, 39, 42). The mammals, standing on a thicker line which may indicate landscape, are arranged so that the savage beasts are at the corners, one of which is damaged (Budde 1969:Figs. 26, 27, 29, 32) and the domesticated animals along the sides (Budde 1969:Figs. 30, 35, 40–42; Avi-Yonah 1981:186). In this row one bird, a crane, is depicted among the mammals. Noah and his family are missing from the scene, although they do appear in the later Misis mosaic. The style of the pavement emphasizes the ark, which is three-dimensional but lacks perspective or shadow, though there is some influence of a Hellenistic illusionary description. The other Noah’s Ark scene, on the repaired later part of the Misis mosaic, is viewed from the opposite direction to the older mosaic (Budde 1969:54–55, Figs. 50, 55, 113–114). This mosaic has two parts (Fig. VIII-9b). One shows a large figure holding a vessel in its left hand. An animal (panther), a bird, and an upside-down birdcage are between this figure and a much smaller figure on the left. A red box-like object appears under the first figure. The other part of the mosaic shows three animals, one open-mouthed without ears. Budde contends that they include a lion, a panther, and a third animal looking back on the right which has an elephant’s trunk. A bird is placed above this animal, and remains of a building are beside it. Budde suggests that this scene shows Noah and his two sons Shem and Japhet offering thanks after their rescue. He compares the primitive, crude, rustic style of the Misis mosaic to the Beth Alpha mosaic style. Neither is of high artistic standard and both were executed by local artists. The date of the early mosaic pavement is disputed. Budde (1960:116, 123) first suggested the end of the 4th or early 5th century CE, the period of Theodore, Mopsuhestia’s famous bishop (392–428), but in his later book (Budde 1969:34) he dates the mosaics to the third quarter of the 4th century, mainly on grounds of stylistic comparison with the Antioch mosaics (as does Kitzinger 1973:138, note 20). Avi-Yonah (1981c:189) likens the mosaics stylistically to the mosaics of the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem. Buschhausen (1972:59, 61–63) suggests a later date, in 6th-century Justinian times, also on the basis of stylistic comparisons. Most scholars, however, prefer a date in the second half of the 5th century CE (Lavin 1963:273, note 424; Grabar 1966:10, 15; Dunbabin 1978:223). The Noah’s Ark scene in the mosaic pavements of both Gerasa and Misis depicts the moment of the animals’ emergence from the ark (because the dove is already portrayed in the scene), thereby probably suggesting the symbolic meaning of the event, which is that God has promised not to destroy the world again (Genesis 8:18; 9:9–11). However, the two interpretations of the Noah story on the mosaic pavements differ in their emphasis. At Gerasa the animals appear in pairs and Noah and his family are present. At Misis, in the earlier mosaic the animals are shown singly, Noah’s family is not even depicted, and the ark is placed at the center of the scene, whereas at Gerasa it is entirely missing. However, at Gerasa and at Misis alike the main narrative topic is the animals.

406

chapter eight

a

b

Figure VIII‑9. Noah’s Ark at Misis-Mopsuhestia: a. the nave mosaic; b. the later pavement.

The depictions of Noah’s Ark in early Christian illustrations on catacombs wall paintings and sarcophagi differ iconographically from the mosaics described above. An abbreviated scene usually shows Noah in a box-like ark—a square box, sometimes with four small feet—sending off the dove, which appears in flight, and no depiction of the animals is found (Fig. VIII-21c) (Hachlili 2009:69–72, Fig. IV-10). Noah in the orans pose, emerging from a chest-like ark and dispatching the dove, appears on a sixth-century mosaic floor from the south transept of the east church at Apollonia in Cyrenaica (Alföldi-Rosenbaum and Ward-Perkins 1980:61, 88, Fig. 3, Pl. 37, 1).



illustrated biblical tales

407

The Early Christian depiction of the box-like ark with Noah is thus symbolic as opposed to the Jewish one which is strictly narrative. The interpretation is also different in Christianity, where it symbolizes death and resurrection, the ark being vox Arche ‘the Christian church’. This is also Budde’s interpretation (1969:55) for the Misis depiction. The central position of the ark in Misis symbolizes, in his opinion, the Christian Church bringing salvation to the world, just as Noah’s ark saved the animals. Another example of the Noah legend is found on bronze coins from the Phrygian town of Apamea (Asia Minor, Turkey), struck under Septimus Severus (193–211), Macrinus (217–219), and Philip the Arabian (244–249). The reverse of these coins portrays two figures, interpreted as Noah and his wife, moving leftwards next to a chest-like ark, their right hands raised in an orans gesture (Hachlili 1998:255–256, Fig. V-11; 2009:71, Fig. IV-11). A raven perches on the ark and a dove flies above, carrying an olive branch. The ark bears an inscription in Greek. The scene represents both the flood and their rescue. Illuminated manuscripts show different representations of the biblical story. Eleven illuminated scenes of the Flood story were depicted on eight pages in the Cotton Genesis (British Museum, Cod. Cotton O B, IV., fols. 10–12), probably the oldest extant illuminated manuscript, dated to the 5th–6th century, which has 330 miniatures accompanying the Genesis text (Weitzmann 1971a:45–48, scenes b, e, h, j, Figs. 23–26). The miniatures illustrate several parts of the Noah narrative. Two miniatures in the Vienna Genesis 6th-century CE illuminated manuscript (Vienna National Bibliothek, Cod. Theo. Gr. 31) show part of the Noah narrative: one illustrates the ark during the flood, the other shows Noah and his family leading the animals in pairs out of the ark (Weitzmann 1971b:207–208). In the Gerasa and Misis mosaic pavements the story is depicted in a narrative-illustrative form and the emphasis is on the marching animals. Yet, in Early Christian art on catacombs and sarcophagi, the Noah scene usually carries a symbolic rendering of the ark (as a box), with Noah inside sending off the dove, and no depiction of the animals is found (Hachlili 2009:71–2, Fig. IV-10). 1.5 Three Biblical Narrative Scenes at Wadi Hamam: The Temple Construction, Samson in a Battle Scene, and the Exodus Three biblical scenes are rendered on a mosaic floor recently discovered at Hurvat Wadi Hamam (in eastern Lower Galilee, above Arbel, two km west of the Sea of Galilee, probably dated to the late 3rd or early 4th century CE (Leibner and Miller 2010). The Hamam mosaic floor had two parts, one in the nave and another in the aisles (Fig. III-3); the nave mosaic consisted of a design arranged in square and rectangular panels enclosing about 12 medallions. In the center of the nave, two concentric circles separated by radial lines might possibly have been a zodiac design. The northern, eastern, and western aisles originally had a unique design of twelve (or ten) panels, each of which occupied the space between a pair of columns, and each panel apparently illustrated a biblical narrative. Three panels have partly survived in the eastern and western aisles (Figs. VIII-10–12): (1) The Temple—a construction scene—craftsmen building a monumental structure (Panel 4); (2) Samson—a battle scene—a combat between a group of soldiers and a giant (Panel 11); (3) The Exodus—a maritime scene—a chariot led by horses and soldiers drowning in the sea (Panel 12). 1.6 The Temple Construction Scene The Hamam mosaic pavement of Panel 4 on the east aisle of the synagogue shows a huge freestanding polygonal stone structure which seems to be the center of the scene (Leibner and Miller 2010:241–249). The monumental structure, which appears to be built of large stones, is rendered with a golden cornice or a balcony surrounding it; its form recalls a hexagonal or octagonal tower.

408

chapter eight

Figure VIII‑10. Temple construction, Hamam mosaic.

The tower is flanked by 13 craftsmen, working and holding various tools of their trade. Some of these figures appear on a scaffold consisting of two platforms connected by a ladder, depicted on the left of the tower (Fig. VIII-10). Two porters, with a bar on their shoulders with a basket hanging from it, are striding up a ramp which probably reaches the top of the building. There is a figure with a saw carving wood, another with a hammer, a third figure is sitting on a three-legged stool carving a wooden stalk, a fourth is sawing a block. Two figures are preparing cement; another porter carries a load on his shoulder. On the other side of the structure, a stonecutter is holding a hammer to chisel a large stone. The figures are dressed in striped short tunics with a wide belt or a loincloth and seem to be barefooted. A similar mosaic scene is depicted on the topographical border of the Megalopsychia Hunt in the Yakto Complex, Antioch (450–469 CE) (Levi 1947, I:328; II:LXXXb, c); it shows a structure with a portico of five columns and an entrance in the upper part of the building; in front of the structure, to the left, a porter carrying a huge roll on his shoulder is passing. The suggested interpretation of the lively Hamam building scene proposed by Leibner and Miller (2010:246–249) as depicting the construction of Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem (I Kings 5:31–32, 6) is based on an examination of several construction tales in the Bible. However, because a temple façade with columns is missing, it could also describe the building of Noah’s ark (Genesis 6–8) or the Tabernacle in the desert (Ex. 25–26). Another possibility, since the scene renders a construction process, is that it could represent the building of the Tower of Babylon (Genesis 11:1–9), but this episode reflects a negative concept. Still, it is the only story in which the Bible mentions the people/ builders, and the surviving part of the building represents a tower rather than a temple. However, the biblical narrative stresses the use of clay bricks in the construction of the Tower of Babylon (see also Ginzberg 1947, I:179), while our mosaic design seemingly renders craftsmen and stonecutters erecting a stone building. The construction of Noah’s ark or of the Tabernacle in the desert is not likely the subject, considering the monumental structure and the materials used by the builders, which does



illustrated biblical tales

409

Figure VIII‑11. Samson in a battle scene, Hamam mosaic.

not correspond to those two biblical narratives. Although Leibner and Miller do propose all these alternatives, their most likely choice, in light of the monumental nature of the structure and the process of the erection, which includes craftsmen, stonecutters, porters, and builders, is that the scene shows the construction of Solomon’s Temple. Such a scene might indicate either the hope for the rebuilding of the Temple or, though less likely, an effort to consolidate the high rank of the priests. 1.7 A Battle Scene—Samson and the Philistines Panel 11 of the Hamam synagogue west aisle mosaic pavement depicts a combat between a giant and a group of armed warriors (Leibner and Miller (2010:249–257); the giant, who survived only from the waist down, is wearing a short decorated tunic with two geometric designed orbiculi and shoes. Three warriors are rendered wearing short decorated tunics and dark shoes, holding elliptical shields, and the one on the right is carrying a sword. Blood is pouring from their heads (Fig. VIII-11); below them are fallen weapons: a shield, a sword, and a spear. The giant figure’s large hand is grasping two of the three warriors by their hair; between the giant’s spread legs are two more fallen warriors, with blood pouring from their heads. A horseman on the right seems to flee. An Aramaic dedicatory inscription in the right hand lower corner that has survived mentions “The sons of Simon who dedicated this panel from their own [means]” (Liebner and Miller 2010:249). Leibner and Miller (2010:256–57) dismiss the idea that it is Goliath and David (it is not a scene of one vs. one and the giant is the winner). They suggest that the scene renders Samson slaying the Philistines with the jaw-bone of a donkey (Judges 15:15–17). They compare it with a wall painting from the Christian Via Latina catacomb in Rome (Room F, the middle arcosolium (Budde 1969:70,

410

chapter eight

Figure VIII‑12. Exodus scene, Hamam mosaic.

Pl.196)). However, the two scenes are very different. Other similar scenes from Christian-Byzantian 9th c. manuscripts suggest a possible common origin to the excavators. Several points should be noted in this scene: The three standing figures (of the Philistines) in the portrayal apparently represent an audience such as usually appears as a group, similar to depictions on some of the scenes of the Dura Europos wall paintings (see panels WB4, WC4; Hachlili 1998:Figs. III-13–14, 24). A comparable scene of Samson on a destroyed pavement at Misis-Mophostia (5th–6th c. CE) also depicts a giant wearing a similar short decorated tunic with two orbiculi (see scenes VIII and IX, XI, Budde 1969:Pls. 16, 146, 152, 154–156; Hachlili 1998:259, Fig. V-12). This scene (Misis scene IV) is interpreted by Budde and Kitzinger as Samson and the Lehi episode (Hachlili 1998:257, Fig. V-12; see below). 1.8 Exodus—The Maritime Scene On the first mosaic panel of the west aisle (Panel 12) above which a later aedicule was constructed, the surviving center of the scene depicts a chariot led by three horses with what looks like a wave in front. One horse is kneeling/collapsing, two of the chariot’s wheels are bent and disconnected from the axles, and the chariot, too, is near collapse (Leibner and Miller 2010:257–259). Behind the chariot an armed figure is lying on the bottom of the sea and a large fish is swimming above (Fig. VIII-12). A city shown on the beach, in the lower left, is rendered with a monumental gabled temple (suggested by the excavators perhaps the Baʿal Zafon). The excavators interpret this scene as Pharaoh’s army being swept into the Red Sea and drowning (Ex. 14:24–28), as is written: “He locked the wheels of their chariots so that they moved forward with difficulty . . .” (Ex. 14:25), and: “Pharaoh’s chariots and his army He has cast into the sea” (Ex. 15:4). The Hamam mosaic is dated to the Late Roman period (the 3rd–4th c. CE), based on composition and style as well as the size of the tesserae, which are typical of comparable mosaics of the same period. The arrangement of the panels at Hamam is characteristic of synagogue mosaic pavements scheme A (Hachlili 1988:332–334; see also Chapter V), especially at Sepphoris, which has seven panels in the nave, four of them with biblical narrative tales. The plan at Hamam is unusual in that these panels decorated the west and east aisles. Because the nave pavement was almost completely destroyed, it is impossible to know what was depicted there. It is difficult to know if there was any thematic connection between the scenes, and there may have been a common theme of recovery or rescue narratives. Comparable to these scenes are similar episodes on the Dura Europos wall painting panels and the Crossing of the Red Sea on the wall mosaics of S. Maria Maggiore and the Catacomb Via Latina, Rome (Grabar 1968:ills. 137, 242).



illustrated biblical tales

Figure VIII‑13a. Samson and pairs of foxes tied to torches by their tails, Huqoq mosaic.

Figure VIII-13b. Samson carrying the gate of Gaza on his shoulders, Huqoq mosaic.

411

412

chapter eight

The Hamam mosaic floor is unique in its choice of themes and is one of the few Galilean synagogues with mosaic floors (the others being Horvat ʿAmudim, Meroth, and Huqoq). If the dating of the Hamam pavement is correct, it is the earliest known synagogue mosaic pavement. 1.9 Samson Placing Torches between the Tails of Foxes, Huqoq Samson also appears in the synagogue mosaic pavement at Huqoq (an ancient Jewish village located in the Lower Galilee, approximately three miles west of Capernaum and Migdal [Magdala]), dating to the Late Roman period (ca. 4th–5th centuries CE). The Huqoq synagogue was recently excavated (Magness 2012, 2013a). Britt (2013) compares the Huqoq mosaic to 5th–6th c. Antioch mosaics and suggests a date in that time span. The mosaic section at the southwest corner of the excavated square (on the left corner) is an upside-down scene made of tiny colored stone cubes of the highest quality (Fig. VIII-13a). It renders a midsection of a partly preserved large figure wearing a blue tunic decorated with a geometric designed orbiculum with a bronze tessera at the center, a thick decorated belt with a dark gray rope that has a red tassel suspended from it, and a red cloak. The two geometric designed orbiculi are quite common on many other figures’ tunics (see for instance Samson at Hamam, David at Meroth, but also on ordinary figures such as the lad on the left on the Sepphoris Binding of Isaac scene (Figs. VIII-1a, 11, 14)). The Huqoq figure and decorated tunic is similar to the depicted damaged giant figure of Samson wearing a similar short decorated tunic with two orbiculi, at Misis-Mophostia (see scenes VIII and IX, XI; Budde 1969:Pls. 155–156; Hachlili 1998:259, Fig. V-12). Next to the figure are two partly preserved pairs of foxes with their tails tied around a torch, their faces and bodies facing away from each other. The scene is identified as the Samson episode in which he ties pairs of foxes to torches by their tails and sets them free to burn the crops in the Philistines’ fields (Jud. 15:4–5): Samson went and caught three hundred foxes. He took torches and, turning [the foxes] tail to tail, he placed a torch between each pair of tails. He lit the torches and turned [the foxes] loose among the standing grain of the Philistines, setting fire to stacked grain, standing grain, vineyards, [and] olive trees.

A comparable scene of a pair of foxes bound by their tails (with heads missing) is depicted on the destroyed pavement of the Samson cycle at Misis-Mophostia (see scene III, Budde 1969:Pl. 147; Hachlili 1998:257, Fig. V-12). The Samson cycle scenes were unknown until recently in the biblical repertoire of Jewish synagogue art in the Land of Israel; it is interesting that both known episodes are rendered in synagogues in the eastern part of the Lower Galilee. Magness (2013a:66) suggests that these two communities might have considered Samson a local hero, as his origins were in the tribe of Dan, which settled in the north after being expelled from Judea. The small parts that survived of the mosaic pavement of Huqoq, though technically of high quality (see the noted small size of the tesserae, Britt 2013), show an artistic style inferior to the work of the Hamam artist/s. Though the torch and its fire are quite realistically executed, the foxes are stylized and not naturalistically fashioned (looking more like rats). It is quite apparent that the illustrated figure of Samson as a giant is distinctive in the tales depicted on the Hamam, Huqoq, and Misis mosaics, though in the Bible he is not described as a giant, only as a hero; but in some Jewish legends, Samson is described as strong and superhuman (Ginzberg 1947, Vol. IV:47–9, notes 114–15). It should be noted that several scenes at the Dura Europos wall paintings show some of the main figures—Aharon, Ezekiel, Moses, Samuel—as much larger figures than the others in the same scene (Hachlili 1998:Pls. III-9, 10, 11, 15, 19–20). This reflects the tendency in some narrative arts in antiquity to illustrate enlarged figures in keeping with their importance in the tale or the scene.



illustrated biblical tales

413

It is interesting to note that the two scenes describing Samson’s exploits—the burning of fields by the foxes and the killing of the Philistines with the jawbone of an ass—are humoristic and unique stories relating the actions of a powerful and fierce hero who operates on his own without any help from others, though clearly inspired and supported by God (Judges 13:2–5, 25). At Huqoq, “another mosaic was found recently that shows Samson carrying the gate of Gaza on his shoulders” (Judges 16:3). Adjacent to Samson are riders with horses, apparently representing Philistines (Fig. VIII-13b). Another part of a mosaic discovered in the synagogue’s east aisle preserves a scene that includes several male figures and an elephant. Below that is an arcade, with the arches framing young men arranged around a seated elderly man holding a scroll. The strip below shows a bull pierced by spears, with blood gushing from his wounds, and a dying or dead soldier holding a shield (Magness 2013b). Comparable narrative episodes describing Samson’s exploits are found in the Samson cycle on the furthest north aisle of the mosaic floor at Misis-Mopsuhestia which is depicted in a run-on narrative manner with no divisions between episodes, and has survived in poor condition. Nine or eleven distinct episodes are narrated according to the biblical sequence of Samson’s deeds, although Budde (1969:67–77, Pls. 144–157, Fig. IV-6E) numbers the scenes I–VIII from left to right; each scene is followed by the appropriate Greek passage from the Septuagint (Judges 14–16); the relevant inscription appears along the top of the scene, except for scene VI which has the inscription at the bottom (on the inscriptions see Stichel 1978), so that a scene is identified from both its inscription and the actual depiction. Two of the Misis-Mopsuhestia scenes can be compared to the Hamam and Huqoq Samson episodes: The third episode (III) shows Samson sending the foxes to burn the Philistine fields (Judges 15:4–5). Two foxes are shown bound by their tails. The fourth (IV) episode shows remains of a head with eyes closed and a woman dressed in black mourning; there is no inscription. Budde asserts it is the slaying of the Philistines (Judges 15:8). Kitzinger maintains that this scene depicts the episode at Lehi when Samson killed the Philistines with the jawbone of an ass (Judges 15:15). Budde (1969:70, Pl. 196) compares this scene with the Lehi scene depicted in the Via Latina catacomb. But Avi-Yonah (1981c) suggests this scene tells the story of the burning of Samson’s wife and father by the Philistines (Judges 15:6). In Christian art, Samson scenes are known at various sites and in different media from the fourth to the eleventh centuries (Hachlili 1998:259–262, Fig. V-12). In the Via Latina catacomb, three scenes of the exploits of Samson are painted, dated to the fourth century CE. The first shows Samson fighting the lion and the lion’s carcass with the swarm of bees coming out of its mouth (cubiculum L, Ferrua 1960:Fig. 59; 1991:Fig. 114; Kötzsche-Breitenbruch 1976:89–91, Fig. 23a, who discusses the paintings by a comparison to Misis; H. Stern 1970b:96, n. 24). A second scene shows Samson sending the foxes into the Philistine fields (cubiculum B, left wall arcosolium arch, Ferrua 1960:Fig. 31; 1991:Fig. 61; Kötzsche-Breitenbruch 1976:91–92, Fig. 24a). This scene also seems similar to the one depicted at Misis (scene III), although the mosaic is very damaged. The third scene shows Samson killing the Philistines with an ass’s jawbone (cubiculum F, Ferrua 1960:Fig. 33, 1; 1991:Fig. 70; Kötzsche-Breitenbruch 1976:92–93, Fig. 25a). At the Via Latina the episode has survived completely, whereas only a fragment (IV) survives at Misis. The Misis Samson cycle, although very badly damaged, nonetheless records several important details of composition and form that distinguish it from comparable episodes. Samson is shown as a giant. The few figures that have survived are dressed in Byzantine rather than Hellenistic attire and show local characteristics, with some individualized facial expressions (Avi-Yonah 1981c:190); they are depicted in a three-quarter posture and exhibit a tendency to the monumental (Budde 1969: Figs. 155, 157). The sequence follows the biblical order, whereas comparable material portrays chosen

414

chapter eight

single scenes. Furthermore, the Misis Samson cycle indicates that cycles illustrating biblical stories existed in antiquity. Weitzmann (1960:57–58, Fig. 26) and Dunbabin (1978:231) think the composition and form of the Samson cycle scenes are modeled on mythological stories. Samson killing the lion, for example, is adapted from the story of Herakles fighting the lion. Kitzinger (1973:141–144) raises various issues relating to the Samson cycle at Misis, though without discussing them, such as: whether it brings new light to bear on the history of biblical iconography; whether the cycle has any bearing on the Jewish iconography of ancient synagogues; whether the Samson cycle is the antecedent for Christian Old Testament iconography; what affinities it has with other known portrayals of the Samson cycle; and whether it has a connection with Byzantine Octateuch manuscripts originating in Antioch. Kitzinger’s opinion is that the Samson cycle is “one of the few remnants of biblical picture cycles from the Greek East . . . alongside the Dura paintings, the el Bagawat necropolis and the Cotton and Vienna Genesis manuscripts.” These important issues must go unanswered at the moment, till a time when more material of the period is available. Kitzinger maintains that the Misis Samson cycle follows a model similar to that which guided the producers of the later, tenth century, Joshua roll in the Vatican Library, for the following reasons: both have background scenery; the episodes are depicted in distinctly separated units; and biblical texts accompany each episode. Kitzinger concludes that such a roll may have existed already in the fourth to fifth centuries CE, and that the Joshua roll was probably based on such a model. The location and length of the Septuagint inscriptions suggest that the mosaic cycle was inspired by the roll format. Avi-Yonah (1981c:190) suggests that the origin for the Samson cycle may have been “graphic depictions devised to instruct non-Jews . . . by the Hellenized Jewish community of Alexandria.” The Misis Samson cycle is the only example of illustrations closely following the biblical text that inspired it. Kitzinger is probably correct when he suggests that a model of some kind, perhaps a biblical pattern book with illustrations of the texts, was used. This contrasts with the Dura paintings, which are not accompanied by biblical inscriptions and hence do not illustrate a biblical text (Hachlili 1998:182–197). 2. Prominent and Notable Figures Two biblical figures, King David and Daniel, are not rendered in a narrative sequence, but are treated as individuals or in significant episodes of their life. These personages will be discussed in detail below. This group of illustrated biblical tales includes notable figures such as King David, David with Goliath’s weapons and Daniel. 2.1 King David A fragmentary representation of King David was discovered on the synagogue mosaic pavement at the Gaza-Maiumas seashore, on a section of the western end of the central nave. The southernmost side aisle of the synagogue is decorated with an inhabited scroll design, including a Greek inscription that dates its pavements to 508–509 CE (Avi-Yonah 1966:221–223; Ovadiah 1969; Barash 1980; Hachlili 2009:72–74). The figure of King David as a musician, in frontal posture and identified by the inscribed name ‫ דויד‬David in Hebrew, is rendered in the familiar iconographic form of Orpheus (Fig. VIII-14). He appears crowned with a diadem, a nimbus around his head and wearing royal costume: a Byzantine emperor’s robes and chlamys. David sits on an elaborate decorated cubic box-like throne. His left hand holds a cithara from behind while his right hand strums the instrument with a plectrum; the cithara is placed to his left, on a cushion on the throne. The animals listening to the music are at the



illustrated biblical tales

415

king’s left. Only a lioness, the head and neck of a giraffe, and an elephant’s trunk or a serpent have survived (Hachlili 1988:297–8, Pls. 66–67; Jesnick 1997:no. 73b). David’s sitting posture and the way he plays the musical instrument recalls many of the Orpheus mosaics.8 The biblical verse describes David as the royal psalmist and a magical musician, with extraordinary qualities attributed to his musical instrument: Whenever the [evil] spirit of God came upon Saul, David would take the lyre )‫ )הכנור‬and play it; Saul would find relief and feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him. (1 Samuel 16:23)

Only a few of the attending animals have survived in the Gaza mosaic scene: a lioness bows her head, and the bending stance of the lioness captivated by the musician is a dramatic representation that seldom appears in Orpheus depictions. This lioness is quite similar to the one with the suckling cub portrayed on a medallion in the inhabited scrolls mosaic pavement on the Gaza synagogue southernmost aisle (Fig. X-26). The giraffe’s surviving head and neck, next to the lioness, is similar to the giraffe rendered on a medallion in the inhabited scrolls pavement of the southernmost aisle (Hachlili 2009:Pls. XII-6a, b, 7a). The giraffe was considered a tame and peaceful animal in Late Antiquity. A giraffe is highly unusual in connection with King David, and to date has been found only once in an Orpheus scene (the 2nd-century Orpheus mosaic at Santa Marinella I in Italy: Jesnick 1997:78, Cat. no. 3). Perhaps it is an additional symbol of redemption associated with Orpheus (Barash 1980:19, and note 68). A serpent, or an elephant of which only the trunk has survived, is rendered below the lioness. Some characteristics of the Orpheus iconography in Roman mosaic pavements are similar to the figure of David in the Gaza scene (Jesnick 1997:8–19, 68–90, 124–147, catalogue; Figs. 23a–g list more than 91 examples). Orpheus is usually portrayed in the center in a typical posture, seated on a rock or a box-like seat, sometimes in a landscape surrounded by animals; he is dressed either in long Thracian or Greek robes, a short Phrygian tunic, or a chiton and wears a Phrygian cap. He plays an instrument, typically the lyre or cithara, holding it with his left hand and strumming it with his right, no matter which direction, right or left he is facing. Several unusual details in the representation of the David mosaic pavement at Gaza deserve comment: David’s head is adorned, distinctively, with a halo or nimbus. His headgear consists of a diadem/crown instead of Orpheus’s Phrygian cap. The decorated cubic throne is different from the usual rock or other natural object that Orpheus sits on. The animals associated with David are unlike those that accompany Orpheus: the lioness is rendered in an unusual stance as if wholly engrossed in the music; the giraffe is a rare representation not found usually on Orpheus-type scenes. The crown and the throne, as well as the two imperial emblems, convey to the figure of David in Gaza a regal character, contrary to the usual depiction of Orpheus, particularly his playing before the beasts. A scene similar to the David of Gaza is the image of Adam in Paradise surrounded by animals (Fig. X-25) depicted on the mosaic pavement of the North Church (The ‘Michaelion’) nave of Haouarte (dated to 486/7 or 501/2: Donceel Voûte 1988:104, 112–114, 480, 487, Fig. 71, Pl. h.-t.5). Only the upper part of this mosaic has survived. The scene shows Adam giving names to the animals in Paradise (Gen. 2:19–20). The Gaza David is similar to the figure of Adam in dress, throne, choice of animals, namely the lion and the snake, and in the fact that the name is inscribed above the scene (Fig. X-25b). The Adam scene recalls similar Orpheus depictions, especially the snake curled around trees. The later of the proposed dates for the Haouarte mosaic is also quite close to the date inscribed on the Gaza mosaic.

8 Jesnick 1997:183–189, however, does not consider the Gaza figure as Orpheus.

416

chapter eight

Figure VIII‑14. King David, Gaza synagogue mosaic pavement.



illustrated biblical tales

417

The details present the iconography of David on the Gaza mosaic as a unique work of art. The David of Gaza is a combination of two different styles and two different iconographic themes: the royal David on the one hand, and Orpheus charming the beasts on the other. The unusual nature of the Gaza scene suggests it was the artist’s own invention (Barash 1980). The artist who produced the King David figure on the Gaza synagogue mosaic evidently intended to evoke at the same time a familiar type of Orpheus image, portraying both as musicians; both were divine singers/players with the power to charm animals and tame fierce powers (Barash 1980:3, 15–17; Jesnick 1997:43). The two images both had semi-divine status, bearing a promise of redemption and eternal life. David, in addition, also would have aroused Messianic hopes. An earlier representation of King David as Orpheus appears in the wall paintings of the Dura Europos synagogue on the upper part of the lower central panel (reredos) (Kraeling 1979:224–5; Hachlili 1998:110, 247–249, Figs. III-9, V-7, Pl. III-4). The figure is seated on a throne in the upper left corner, wearing a royal costume consisting of an ornamented long-sleeved tunic, trousers, white boots, a Phrygian cap, and a chlamys over his left shoulder. He holds a lyre in his left hand, which he strums with his right; vestiges of the throne can be seen beside his right shoulder. The figure seems to be playing to a lion (preserved from the first stage), a possible eagle, a monkey (?), and a bird and is similar to depictions of Orpheus. Most scholars agree that this depiction proves that by the mid-3rd century the Orpheus figure had been adopted for portraying David (Kraeling 1979:223–225; Goodenough 1964, IX:89–90; Finney 1977–78:14; Hanfmann 1980:87). Stern (1958:3–4) suggests that the figure and its companions, the eagle and the lion, represent Orpheus announcing the coming of the Messiah. Flesher (1995:351–354, 366, Fig. 21 using computer analysis) argues that the musician figure in the Dura Europos reredos is not David as Orpheus but a composite figure. The King David as Orpheus theme evidently belongs to the existing iconographic affinities of the biblical image of David (1 Samuel 16:23) as royal musician, poet, psalmist, and charmer of humans and animals with music, which were combined with a mythological pagan Orpheus figure endowed with similar attributes (Hachlili 1988:298; 2009:76). Gaza was an ancient Hellenistic town with a Hellenistic-Byzantine tradition; this may have influenced the Jewish community to choose for their synagogue pavement a biblical figure but to present it in its original pagan mythological image. Two other mosaic pavements portraying Orpheus have been discovered in Israel: the Late Roman mosaic in the triclinium of a private house at Sepphoris and the Byzantine mosaic of Orpheus in a Christian funerary chapel in Jerusalem (Talgam and Weiss 2004:8–10; Jesnick 1997:16, no. 73, Fig. 117 and bibliography there; Hachlili 2009:76–78, Fig. IV-14, Pls. IV-4, 5). 2.2 David with Goliath’s Weapons The mosaic floor fragment found in the Galilean synagogue of Meroth, at the northern edge of the eastern aisle, is dated by the excavators to the 5th century CE (Ilan and Damati 1984–85; 1985; 1987:53–58; Talgam 1987:149–152; Ilan 1989:24–26; Hachlili 2009:78–9, Pl. IV-6; Fig. IV-15). It depicts the figure of a young man, probably crowned, wearing a short white tunic with a red cloak over his left shoulder, fastened by a fibula (Fig. VIII-15). The figure’s eyes seem to have been destroyed, perhaps purposely. A symbolic emblem in the form of disc-shaped designs, depicted on the garb of the figure’s right arm and on his hip, is similar to those which appear frequently on garments of soldiers and high-ranking individuals in Byzantine mosaics (Ilan and Damati 1985:52, Fig. 3). Weapons surround the figure: a helmet on the right, an oval shield on which he leans, and a long sword in its sheath with a sling attached above his head. On the corner of the mosaic along the frame (on the left side) beside the weapons is an inscription: ‫“ יודן בר שמעון מני‬Yudan Son of Shimeon Mani,” which

418

chapter eight

may be the artist’s signature, the name of the figure itself (Ilan and Damati 1985:54–55), or perhaps the name of a donor (Naveh 1989:305). The most likely interpretation is that the Meroth figure represents David surrounded by the weapons taken from Goliath after his victory (as suggested by the late Prof. Yadin and followed by the excavators Ilan and Damati 1985:55 and note 12; Talgam 1987:149–151). This assumption is primarily based on the fact that depictions on synagogue mosaic pavements show biblical or mythological personalities; local and/or real personages have not yet been found portrayed on any synagogue mosaic. David removing Goliath’s armor is recorded in Jewish legends (Ginzberg 1947, IV:88) and his defeat of the giant could possibly express the hope of redemption and victory over the enemies of Israel (Naveh 1989:305). Talgam (1987:151) argues that the space next to the figure is too small to accommodate a lyre and suggests the possibility of a palm branch held by the figure to symbolize victory, in a fashion similar to other Hellenistic-Roman depictions. However, the posture of the figure at Meroth recalls that of King David as depicted in the Gaza-Maiumas mosaic (Fig. VIII-14), including the set of the right hand and a small part of the left hand that survived. This figure’s sitting posture suggests that he was playing a lyre or cithara, which the figure might have been clasping (Fig. VIII-15) (see my additional reconstruction, Hachlili 2009:Pl. IV-6). The figure at Meroth portrays David in an image that combines the customary Orpheus posture—seated and holding a cithara—with the captured weapons surrounding him that signify his victory over his enemy. 2.3 Daniel in the Lions’ Den The theme of Daniel in the Lions’ Den (Daniel 6:15–24) is a fairly popular theme in Jewish, and even more, in early Christian art (Fig. VIII-21d). Daniel, like Orpheus, exercised magical powers by which he charmed the lions (Mathews 1993:77–78). The scene appears on the mosaic pavements of the Naʿaran and Susiya synagogues (Fig. VIII-16a, b). The illustrations are apparently based on the biblical narrative in Daniel (Hachlili 2009:79–83, Fig. IV-16, Pl. X-2c). The scene is depicted on the lower part of the Torah Shrine panel in the hall mosaic pavement of the 6th-century Naʿaran synagogue (Hachlili 1988:294–295, Fig. VIII-34). Daniel is poorly preserved in this damaged scene; only his arms remain, in an orans posture. He is flanked by a damaged pair of lions, of which only the rump of each survived, rendered schematically and in unidentical styles (Fig. VIII-16a). Above Daniel’s left arm is the identifying Hebrew inscription ‫“ דניא[ל] שלום‬Daniel shalom” and next to Daniel and the lion’s legs are some donors’ inscriptions (Naveh 1978:nos. 61–64). On the mosaic pavement of the Susiya synagogue, in the westernmost panel, a similar theme may have been portrayed (Gutman et al. 1981:126). The scene is almost completely destroyed (probably by iconoclasts during the 6th century CE), and only a fragment of an animal upper part and tail and the end of the word ‫[ [דני]אל‬Dani]el is preserved (Fig. VIII-16b). At ʿEn Samsam a stone orthostat was found, probably originating in the ʿEn Nashut synagogue in the Golan, and it may have been the base of the side-wall of an aedicula (Figs. VIII-16c, IX-3). The stone is carved with a scene depicting a figure flanked by a lion on one side and a lioness suckling her cub on the other (Ilan 1969:185; Maʿoz 1981:112; 1995:265–269; Hachlili 1988:321–322, Fig. IX24b, Pl. 88; 1995:185–187, 203, no. 37). The central figure on the side of the stone is shown en-face, holding up his hands. The right hand holds the lion’s head; the lion and lioness, with small heads and stylized manes, stride in profile. The scene might be Daniel in the Lions’ Den, though the addition of the lioness and her cub gives the biblical scene a local naïve interpretation. Two additional portrayals of this scene have been found in Israel, in a Byzantine Christian context (Hachlili 2009:Fig. IV-17): a wall painting in a tomb near Lohamei Haghettaot, dated to the late 4th or



illustrated biblical tales

419

a

Figure VIII‑15. David with Goliath’s weapons, Meroth synagogue mosaic.

early 5th century CE (Foerster 1986) and a scene, possibly illustrating Daniel in the lions’ den, carved and incised on the western wall in the northern cave at Tel Lavnin, Judean Shephelah, dating to the 5th–6th centuries CE (Zissu 1999). Daniel in the Lions’ Den is a popular theme in Early Christian art, appearing on wall paintings of catacombs and on sarcophagi in Rome (Fig. VIII-21d). In these scenes Daniel is usually depicted in orans pose, flanked by a pair of lions; frequently he is naked (Grabar 1968:paintings—ill. 1, 2, 26, 29; Tronzo 1986:Fig. 95; Ferrua 1991:Fig. 139). Scholars relate the theme of Daniel in the Lions’ Den to a death cult and assume that the scene symbolizes a person who is saved because of his beliefs. Sukenik (1938:179) contends that the Daniel scene depicted with no border between it and the upper part of the Torah Shrine design indicates that the lions in the scene served as guardians of the ark. Goodenough (1953, II:129) maintains that

420

chapter eight

a

b

c

Figure VIII‑16. Daniel in the lions’ den: a. part of mosaic pavement; Naʿaran synagogue; b. survived mosaic fragment, Susiya; c. part of the stone relief, ʿEn Nashut.

the Daniel scene at Naʿaran symbolizes the victory over death, as the word shalom illustrates. Grabar (1968:8) contends that figures such as Daniel, Noah, and others in Christian funerary art are “allegories of the soul of the pious believer and of Christ as the shepherd.” An unlikely interpretation is presented by Berliner-Landau (1994), who connects this scene to the seven-day creation pattern, based on Jewish sources such as Piyyutim and Midrashim; she suggests that the rescue of Daniel occurred on the fifth day of the creation, the day the animals were created. This theme, in contrast to the other Biblical scenes found on synagogue pavements, is depicted symbolically and not in the narrative style used elsewhere. The representation of a figure flanked by lions might have been enough to suggest the theme of Daniel to observers. 3. Symbolization of Historical Events and Divine Intervention This group of biblical illustrations includes a scene representing the End of Days depicted on the mosaic floor of the Beth Midrash at Meroth; fragments of the Twelve Tribes mosaic at Japhiʿa; and the Consecration of Aaron to the Service of the Tabernacle and the Daily Offerings, the Showbread Table, and the Basket of First Fruits portrayed on Bands 3 and 4 of the Sepphoris mosaic pavement. The scenes render the essence of the events and their symbolic meaning.



illustrated biblical tales

421

3.1 The End of Days The hall floor of the Beth Midrash at the Meroth synagogue was covered by a mosaic pavement in the early 7th century; about half of it survived (Ilan and Damati 1984–85; 1985; 1987:77–80; Talgam 1987:149–152; Ilan 1989:33–34). The pavement consisted of three panels to the south (and possibly another three to the north). The central panel shows a scene facing west, with an amphora flanked by the remains of a lamb to the right and a wolf to the left. The accompanying biblical Hebrew verse is ‫“ זאב וטלה ירעו כאחד‬The wolf and the lamb shall graze together” (Isaiah 65:25) )Fig. VIII-17); this and the similar verse in Isaiah 11:6, “the wolf shall dwell with the lamb,” are part of the messianic vision. It is interesting that the inscribed verse on the Meroth mosaic is the lesser known of the two. Isaiah’s vision of the End of Days is portrayed as perfect peace throughout nature, portrayed in the form of two animals, considered natural enemies, who dwell peacefully together. Perhaps the illustration here is meant as a prayer for peace (Naveh 1989:305).

Figure VIII‑17. The vision of the End of Days, Meroth, Beth Midrash mosaic.

422

chapter eight

A similar depiction possibly symbolizing the End of Days is found on the mosaic pavement of the room north of the Church of the Acropolis at Maʿin (Jordan), dated to 719–20 (De Vaux 1938:227, Fig. 2; Piccirillo 1993:201, Figs. 301–302, 312). The original scene probably rendered a lion and a zebu flanking a tree, of which only a tail, two paws, a hoof, a hump, a bush, and the points of two horns have survived. Above, at the border of the panel, in Greek, is the biblical verse καί λέων ώς βοϋς φάγ[ονται άχυρα, “And the lion shall eat straw like the ox” (Isaiah 11:7; 65:25). The original figures were damaged and covered later by a bush, an amphora, and vine scrolls. Piccirillo contends that the scene signifies “the messianic reign of peace as foretold by Isaiah and thought to have been realized by Christ.” Four more Christian mosaic pavements with similar illustrations of the Peaceful Kingdom, depicting pairs of ordinarily hostile animals and identified by excerpts from Isaiah 11:6–8, were discovered in Turkey in the churches at Karlik, Korykos, in the Necropolis Church at Anemurium in Cilicia, and at the Mariana Church in Corsica (Russell 1987:70–74; cat. no. 14; Donceel Voûte 1988:487–488; Campbell 1995:125–128, Figs. 1–8; Hachlili 2009:88–90, Pl. IV-8). In all the examples the accompanying Isaiah text is not cited accurately but is freely arranged so as to fit the depictions. The text has a distinct explanatory purpose, so the appropriate clause is placed above each particular pair. Dunbabin (1978:230–31) suggests that the rows of animals rendered in the scene of Noah’s Ark on the Misis mosaic also follow a favorite theme in Christian churches, of bands of animals moving peacefully. They, too, are interpreted as the Animal Paradise, the peaceful assembly of animals described by Isaiah. Talgam (2000:107–109) indicates similarities between the Christian portrayals of the End of Days and certain synagogue mosaic designs, such as the depiction of rams at Susiya and the offering of sacrifices in the Jerusalem Temple at Sepphoris, that will be discussed below. By the mid-6th or early 7th century, narrative figural scenes were probably no longer viable for either Jews or Christians and were replaced by a more conceptual rendition. This is implied by the presentation of a common pattern of flanking or confronting animals on the mosaics, but now they are accompanied by biblical verses which reinforce their symbolic meaning. This group of mosaics shows episodes in which pairs of animals that are acknowledged enemies are peacefully portrayed; they are depicted facing each other, accompanied by the inscribed verses of Isaiah 11:6 or Isaiah 65:25; the scene apparently illustrates biblical verses relating and emphasizing peace on earth. This is an unusual rendition, expressing a conceptual perception of a messianic vision of peace rather than a biblical story. 3.2 The Twelve Tribes At the Japhiʿa synagogue the mostly destroyed nave pavement was probably divided into panels, of which only the westernmost has survived. It shows a square panel containing a large circle, within which another, smaller circle is inscribed. In the space between the two circles are twelve small interlacing circles, only two of which have survived (Sukenik 1951:6–24, Fig. 5, Pls. VIII, IXa; Hachlili 1988:295–297; 2009:35–36). The badly damaged circle depicts the head of a horned animal with two feet facing left. Above its head only three Hebrew letters have survived: ‫[אפ] רים‬. Presumably this is the name Ephraim, one of the twelve tribes, whose symbol is a wild ox. The central circle contains a bull facing right and probably represents the tribe of Manasseh (Fig. VIII-18). Sukenik (1951:18, followed by Foerster 1967:218–224) maintains that the circles contain the symbols of the twelve tribes of Israel, based on a passage in Midrash Rabba (Numbers 82) which says, regarding the two surviving circles, “. . . On the flag of Ephraim was embroidered a bull (or ox) . . . On the flag of the tribe of Manasseh was embroidered a wild ox.” However, a discrepancy exists here,

Figure VIII‑18. Japhiʿa mosaic fragment.

illustrated biblical tales 423

424

chapter eight

as the sign of Ephraim in the mosaic is the wild ox, and the sign of Manasseh is the bull (Sukenik 1951:20–23; but see Goodenough 1953, I:217–218; 1964, VIII:168, who suggests that this mosaic portrays a zodiac). The Japhiʿa circle design, however, is different from the Jewish zodiac scheme. It is unique and has not been found in any other symbolic or iconographic portrayal in ancient Jewish art. Moreover, though its theme probably displays the twelve tribes, it derives from the rabbinical literature, not the Bible. Another possible illustration of this subject might be panel WB1 of the Dura Europos wall painting, which shows a scene of Moses and the twelve tribes at the wilderness encampment (Kraeling 1979:118–125; Hachlili 1998:116, Pl. III-10). It is interesting to note the connection between the twelve tribes and the Breastplate of Judgment (a priestly garment) made with twelve precious stones: “Set in it mounted stones, in four rows of stones” (Ex. 28:17), three in each row, “The stones shall correspond [in number] to the names of the sons of Israel: twelve, corresponding to their names. They shall be engraved like seals, each with its name for the twelve tribes” (Ex. 28:21). Josephus (Ant. 3. 7. 5; 3.165–170; 3. 8. 9; 3.215–218) also describes the significance and function of the Breastplate. The Midrash Numbers Rabba (a homiletic and midrashic rabbinical commentary on the Bible written between the 3rd and 10th c. CE; M. Buber dates it not before the 12th c.; it was possibly compiled and copied in the 13th c.) for Numbers 2:2 describes/illustrates the flag color, precious stone, and emblem of each of the twelve tribes (see Table VIII-1). The Hebrew names of the precious stones are identical with those in the Exodus description of the Breastplate and the precious stones listed in Numbers Rabba as part of the tribal emblems. Remarkably, aside from the Japhia mosaic, almost no graphic portrayal of these tribes appears in ancient art, but there are some examples of the illustrations of the twelve tribes in later art (see below). Later examples (from the 18th–19th c.) show the emblem designs or the names of the twelve tribes, sometimes with the addition of the zodiac signs. An amulet (Germany, 19th c.) shows various designs including a zodiac wheel; the frame is decorated with twelve medallions (six on each side) within which are the Hebrew names of the Israelite tribes, the zodiac signs, and their names (Fishof 2001:Fig. on p. 20). Another amulet (Germany, 18th c.) is decorated with twelve square medallions encircling the zodiac signs; above each sign are its name, the Hebrew month, and the appropriate Israelite tribe (Fishof 2001:Fig. 52). An 18th c. Scroll of Esther is ornamented with the zodiac signs on the upper frame and the tribal emblems on the lower, each within a medallion with its Hebrew name (Fishof 2001:Fig. 40). On an 18th c. Ketubbah the tribes appear in alternation with other designs Table VIII-1. The emblems of the twelve tribes of Israel according to Numbers Rabba 82. Tribe

Emblem

Precious Stone

Flag Color

Biblical Source

Reuben Shimeon Levi Judah Issachar Zebulun Dan Gad Naphtali Asher Joseph Ephraim Menasseh Benjamin

mandrakes Schechem urim & tumim lion sun & moon ship serpent camp hind olive tree Egypt bull or ox wild ox wolf

ruby topaz smargad carbuncle sapphir emerald jacinth agate amathyst beryl onyx

red green white/black/red like heavens black white like sapphir black/white red precious stone jet black

Gen. 30:14

jasper

12 colours

I Chr. 12:32 Gen. 49:13 Gen. 49:13 Gen. 49:19 Gen. 49:21 Gen. 49:20 Deut. 33:13–16 Deut. 33:17 Deut. 33:17 Gen. 49:27



illustrated biblical tales

425

(Fishof 2001:Figs. 49–50); the emblems ornamenting these two latter items fit the description of Numbers Rabba. 3.3 The Consecration of the Tabernacle, its Vessels, Aaron, and the Daily Offerings Band 3 and the left panel of band 4 of the nave mosaic at Sepphoris are interpreted by Weiss and Netzer (1996:20–24; Weiss 2005:77–104) as ‘The Consecration of Aaron to the Service of the Tabernacle and the Daily Offering’. They are an illustration of Ex. 29:39–40 and Num. 28:4–5. Some of the images are accompanied by explanatory inscriptions in Hebrew. The two right panels of band 4 contain the Showbread Table and the baskets of First Fruits (Figs. VIII-19, 20a). Band 3 at Sepphoris shows a partially destroyed water basin placed on a base shaped like an Ionic column, with two projecting animal heads that survived only on the left side. A stream of water flows from their mouths into a bowl. A large altar appears to the left of the basin, with horns on the gable corners and its side is destroyed (for reconstructions see Weiss 2005:Fig. 32). Left of the altar are remnants of the figure of the High Priest Aaron, of whom only his name ‫‘ אהרן‬Aaron’ and a few fragments of his garment have survived. Of Aaron’s probably ornamented tunic, only a single bell survives at the hem (Ex. 28:34). At the left side of band 3 a bull and a lamb walk to the right, beneath the inscription ‫‘ את הכבש אחד‬the one lamb’ (Ex. 29:39). The left panel of band 4 continues the foregoing scene: it portrays another lamb with the inscription, ‫‘ ואת הכבש השני‬and the other lamb’; at the lower left two trumpets are identified by the Hebrew inscription ‫‘ חצוצרות‬trumpets’. A black two-handled jar has the Hebrew inscription ‫‘ שמן‬oil’; below it is a square container with a checker-patterned triangular heap identified by the Hebrew inscription ‫‘ סלת‬fine flour.’

Figure VIII‑19. The Consecration of Aaron to the Service of the Tabernacle and the Daily Sacrifice, bands 3 and 4, Sepphoris synagogue mosaic.

426

chapter eight

a

b

Figure VIII‑20. The Consecration of Aaron to the Service of the Tabernacle and the Daily Sacrifice: a. Bands 3 and 4, Sepphoris mosaic drawing; b. Panel WB2, Dura Europos wall painting.



illustrated biblical tales

427

These depictions on the left panels of bands 3 and 4 illustrate the daily sacrifice based on the biblical description of the Consecration of the Tabernacle in Ex. 29:39–40 and Num. 28:4–5. Only the names and labels necessary to explain the depiction were taken from this biblical text; all the daily offerings—the bull, two lambs, flour, and oil—are mentioned; only the wine is missing, while the two trumpets are not cited in the biblical description.9 A similar depiction is portrayed on panel WB2 of the Dura Europos Synagogue wall painting (Fig. VIII-20b) and is interpreted as the Consecration of the Tabernacle and Its Priest (Exodus 29; Numbers 7). The Dura scene has some additional details, such as the two figures blowing of the trumpets (Num. 10:1–3) and perhaps the burning of the red heifer (Num. 19) (Kraeling 1979:123–131; Weiss and Netzer 1996:23; Hachlili 1998:117–18, Fig. III-12, Pl. III-11; 2009:85). The central panel of Band 4 at Sepphoris contains the Showbread Table (Weiss and Netzer 1996:24–25; Weiss 2005:95–101)—a round, three-legged table (which is unlike the biblical description of a four-legged table in Ex. 25:23–30; 37:10–16) covered by a cloth (described in Num. 4:7) decorated with four circles in its corners and fringes on its edges (Fig. VIII-19, 20a). Twelve round loaves (some destroyed) on the table are arranged in three rows, a deviation from the biblical record: “and bake twelve cakes . . . place them upon the pure table . . . in two rows, six to a row” (Lev. 24:6) This portrayal shows three loaves in the top and bottom rows and six in the middle. At either end of the table top are two vessels with long handles; they correspond to the description of censers holding frankincense, that were used in the Tabernacle and the Temple as cited in the Tosefta (Menahot 11:15) (Weiss and Netzer 1996:24). The covering cloth of the Sepphoris Showbread Table is unique, as it appears alone in a panel. The depiction of the loaves of bread, the addition of the two censers, and the close proximity of the Showbread Table to the biblical scene of the Consecration of the Tabernacle, indicate that this vessel was used in the Tabernacle and the Temple.10 The Band 4 right-hand panel of the Sepphoris mosaic shows a basket of First Fruits. The basket is made of four bands of plaited wicker and contains fruits and perhaps a loaf of bread. The basket is ornamented at each end by two hanging birds. A pair of cymbals linked by a chain is rendered below the basket. This probably illustrates the presentation of the First Fruits as described in Deut. 26; the same basket of fruits, and especially the hanging birds, are noted in the later tradition of the Mishna and Talmud (Weiss and Netzer 1996:24–25; Weiss 2000:24, 26; 2005:101–104). Sed Rajna (2000:50) contends that both Bands 3 and 4 of the Sepphoris mosaic and the Dura Europos wall painting on Panel WB2 derive from the same model, as they contain similar elements. Weiss and Netzer (1996:23; Weiss 2005:82–83) maintain that the Sepphoris scene on Bands 3 and 4 is a narrative one based on Ex. 29, with three main foci: the purification ceremony of Aaron and his sons, the offering of the bull, and the daily sacrifice of two lambs; the two bands are purposely linked and thus complement one another. The Sepphoris depiction seems to combine various images which jointly represent the main duties and ceremonies performed in the Tabernacle and the Temple. Bands 3 and 4 are depicted beneath 9 Weiss and Netzer (1996:22; Weiss 2000:25, 93) record an interpretation of Num. 10:10 in the Midrash (Sifrei Zuta, Behaʿalotekha 10:10) which links the blowing of the two trumpets to the daily sacrifice and possibly reflects the practice in the Second Temple period. 10 Talgam (2000:104) suggests that a round shape was chosen for the Showbread Table in the central panel of band 4 at the Sepphoris synagogue “to distinguish it from the altar that stood on the of the Christian church and that is also depicted on wall-mosaics from the Byzantine period (such as the mosaic of Abel and Melchizedek at San Vitale, Ravenna) . . . For the same reason, wine was omitted from the components of the daily offering at Sepphoris, probably because of “the significance attributed to it as one of the components of the Eucharist in the Christian Mass.” Weiss (2005:99) refutes this suggestion, maintaining that the depiction was meant “to symbolize the table rather than precisely describe its actual appearance in the Tabernacle or Temple.”

428

chapter eight

band 2 which shows the Torah Shrine with flanking menoroth. All three are linked through their shared intention to commemorate the cult and rites of the Tabernacle, and more especially the Temple. 3.4 The Style and Composition of the Biblical Illustrated Tales These depictions were adapted to the shape of the panel, which was divided into three sections, in rhythmic groupings of two figures each, such as in the sacrifice of Isaac at Beth Alpha (Fig. VIII-1a) and an antithetical design of Daniel flanked by two lions at Naʿaran (Fig. VIII-16a). The Gaza David is also divided compositionally into three: David sits on one side with the animals on the other and the lyre in the center (Fig. VIII-14). The Noah’s Ark panel at Gerasa (Fig. VIII-8) is divided horizontally into three rows of different types of animals (Hachlili 1988:362–4). This particular panel composition with its three parts is similar in its spatial concept to the Jewish symbols panel, suggesting that the most prevalent composition on synagogue pavements is a rhythmic, antithetical design that emphasizes its central point by using flanking symmetrical objects or figures. Stylistically, these scenes show a development from more or less realistic and lifelike modeling of images to a very schematic imitation. A chronological progression can be observed through an analysis of the rendition of the animals. For example, the Noah’s Ark mosaic of Gerasa, the most realistic representation, is also possibly the earliest. The animals are depicted within a geometric composition enclosed by a frame of beasts among plants, arranged in a frieze. By comparison, the David composition at Gaza is in a schematic and stylized, probably in accordance with a contemporary pattern. The animals, however, still exhibit individual expressions: the lion, for instance, is rendered with a bowed head and submissive stance. David shows Byzantine influence in his en-face posture and his style of dress. The Beth Alpha mosaic portrays the figures in a local and naïve style, making classification difficult. 4. Origin, Interpretation, and Significance of the Biblical Themes The origin and sources of the biblical scenes are discussed and deliberated by scholars (Hachlili 1988:299–300; 1998:182–197; 2009:94–94). Biblical episodes depicted in Jewish art on synagogue mosaic pavements and in the Dura Europos synagogue wall paintings, as well as Old Testament scenes presented in Christian art on catacomb paintings and church wall mosaics, may be shown fully narrated or condensed and abbreviated, as in the case of the Binding of Isaac and Noah’s Ark. Although presented in a narrative manner, the illustrations are symbolic and abstract. The selected narrative scenes on synagogue mosaic pavements do not follow the biblical text chronologically, but are chosen to illustrate particular Bible tales. The scenes usually follow the biblical narrative; however, some include and incorporate non-biblical embellishments from Aggadah, Targum, and Midrash in the iconographic details; some such examples occur in the Dura Europos wall paintings and in several biblical episodes on the Sepphoris mosaics (Kraeling 1979:57, 140–141, 352–353; Gutmann 1983a:92–100; Yahalom 2000; Weiss 2000). The Midrash materials were already known and used in the mid-3rd century CE, and represent the “living popular heritage of which the written word was the essential core, but which could and did undergo the elaboration of all folk narrative in the best sense of the word” (Kraeling 1979:140–141). The artists who designed the biblical scenes performed within an existing tradition, possibly the symbolic decorative tradition which appears in the Dura Europos synagogue wall paintings and the synagogue mosaic pavements of Late Antiquity. Kraeling (1979:361–363) claims that this symbolic tradition appears throughout many periods and in many places, and that its origins go back to the beginning of the Hasmonean period (2nd century BCE) or even earlier. The question has been raised



illustrated biblical tales

429

as to the source the artists consulted. Illuminated manuscripts and cartoons, copybooks, or pattern books are the most common answer. Some scholars propose certain monumental works as another source (Hachlili 1998:185–190). Scholars maintain that the biblical episodes originating in illuminated biblical manuscripts were first created by Alexandrian Jews in imitation of the rolls of classical antiquity—Greek, Roman, or other illustrated cycles. The hypothesis is that the Hellenized Jews of Alexandria tried to make Judaism attractive to gentiles by transforming the biblical stories into epic poems, illustrating them in a cycle similar to Greek mythological scenes (Roth 1953:29, 32, 40, 44; Sukenik 1947:165–166; Kraeling 1979:361–363; Weitzmann 1957:60, 89–90; 1971:227–231, 309–315; Goodenough 1964, X:12; Gutmann 1971:227–234; 1971b; Avi-Yonah 1973:128; Weitzmann and Kessler 1990:5–9). Weitzmann (Weitzmann and Kessler 1990:143–147) considers that although no such illustrated manuscripts remain, such an illustrated Septuagint could well have served as a primary source that would have been available to Jews and Christians alike. He concludes that in the mid-3rd century CE narrative art was fully developed, and that the Dura Europos wall paintings prove the existence of Old Testament representations rooted in illustrated manuscripts. Moreover, Weitzmann asserts that the illustrated manuscripts used by the Dura Europos wall painters came from the library of Antioch, the nearest metropolitan city. The thesis that illuminated manuscripts were the source for biblical scenes seems highly doubtful for several reasons (Hachlili 2009:92–95): (1) The Hebrew Bible, including the writing itself, is considered sacred; hence it has never been illustrated. It is highly unlikely that the Bible would have been illuminated by or for Jews at this time. (2) The Dead Sea scrolls, ranging in time from the 2nd century BCE to the 2nd century CE, do not contain even a single illustration. (3) No ancient illuminated manuscripts actually existed before the 5th century CE (Christian) or the 9th century CE (Jewish) (Gutmann 1983a:100–104; 1984a:1333). (4) If biblical illustrated manuscripts had actually existed, and had been a source for biblical themes, uniformity of iconography, style and design would have been characteristic of later Jewish art. However, in fact each biblical scene portrayed is fundamentally different. (5) The iconography of each episode reflects a local style, not the Hellenistic style that would have been indicated had the source been Alexandrine or Antiochian illustrated manuscripts. (6) The rulings of the Sages forbade the production of illuminated manuscripts of the Bible (also Kraeling 1979:396). (7) It would have been very complicated to use an actual manuscript as a source for wall paintings, and would have required a large library. (8) The decoration in registers and panels is in contrast to the style of illustrated manuscripts. All the examples scholars give of the relationship between known manuscripts and pictorial narrations are from much later periods. (9) An essential difference exists between the painted scenes on illuminated manuscripts, which were first and foremost illustrations for the purpose of clarifying and embellishing the biblical text, whereas the Dura Europos paintings and mosaic pavements just illustrate tales; the text, if it exists, is explanatory, giving the names of the figures and a short and not always accurate biblical citation. Monumental pictorial works are considered by some scholars to be the source of the biblical narratives. Such works would have included, for example, wall paintings or mosaics in pagan temples and domestic decorated buildings, monumental compositions with roots in Rome of the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries; perhaps, also, synagogues in Mesopotamia or Syria might have provided the model for the paintings at Dura Europos11 (Kraeling 1979:240–250, 392; Tronzo 1986:30–31).

11 Wharton (1995:49) maintains that the Dura Europos synagogue elders chose the themes and instructed a local workshop to produce the designs.

430

chapter eight

Pattern books, copybooks, and cartoons have also been suggested as the source for the biblical themes (Mesnil 1939:149; Moon 1992:599, 610, 612). The pictorial formulae, repetitive iconography, and stylistic details that the artists used indicate that pattern books are the most likely source. The artists possibly had sets of iconographic conventions which they used in their portrayals, as well as extensive cycles of biblical episodes which they could copy, abbreviate, or even improvise according to their needs. Themes and schemes, composition and styles, were probably inherited and developed from prototypes. Similar episodes and conventions are common in pagan art based on pictorial iconographic formulae, such as differences in scale and size signifying the relative importance of particular figures. The ancient artistic technique of frontality is prevalent in the mosaic episodes and the Dura paintings. Conventional postures are occasionally comparable to those in pagan art. Objects are painted in the iconographic style of contemporary cult vessels and items. The pagan scenes are set in horizontal panels, comparable to the renditions on Near Eastern reliefs. Roman historical reliefs from the 2nd and early 3rd centuries could also have been an inspiration for the narrative scenes. Avi-Yonah (1973:127–129) maintains that the style featuring frontality, isocephaly, and hierarchic perspective which characterizes the mosaic biblical scenes and the Dura paintings, is a 3rd-century style representative of Alexandria, and that the basic elements of the Dura paintings are Hellenistic, not oriental, in character, with evident Parthian influence. He believes that Goodenough was right, albeit for the wrong reason, in suggesting that the place of origin of Jewish figurative art was Alexandria; this was also the center of the Jewish Philonic mysticism that may have inspired the paintings. The Hellenized Jews of Alexandria wished to make Judaism respectable and attractive to the gentiles by giving the religion a Greek form. Kraeling (1979:368–370, 379–380, 383) argues that the art of the Dura artists could be called in some respects ‘copy-book art’. In fact, he proposes that three sources were responsible for the biblical scenes: other monumental buildings provided a source from which to copy; some kind of book existed as a source for both Jews and Christians; and the artists used some kind of ‘copy-book’. Rousin (1985:194) claims that it is the process of conflation and selection of the images from a common source or sources, rather than any distinction between Christian and Jewish iconography, that accounts for the variations in the depictions of the biblical story. Nevertheless, the Binding of Isaac at Sepphoris and Beth Alpha and the Noah scene on the Gerasa and Misis pavements differ significantly from the same two scenes in the Christian depictions, which are almost all very much alike. The mosaic scenes and the Dura Europos synagogue painted panels represent a long established artistic tradition, itself probably combining diverse traditions, with new elements added to create a mixture of east and west (Gutmann 1984a:1332). Some of the mosaic scenes and the Dura Europos paintings are reminiscent of Graeco-Roman art, yet the iconography attests to local influence, where, apart from the addition of specific Jewish symbols, many of the formulae, schemes, postures, costumes, and objects are similar to art also found in other local structures and art modes. Examples are the Binding of Isaac depicted on the mosaic pavements of Sepphoris and Beth Alpha synagogues that show a similar formula, although the Beth Alpha mosaic is an example of local, popular art. David in Gaza portrayed as Orpheus exhibits Hellenistic and Byzantine influences in its composition and iconography; whereas the iconography of Daniel in the lion’s den at Naʿaran resembles the same scene as rendered in Christian art. The outsized figures, such as Abraham (at Beth Alpha) and Samson (at Hamam, Huqoq, and Misis) as well as the Dura Europos figures of Moses and Ezekiel, reflect a tendency in ancient art to emphasize important personages by making them larger. The existence of a conventional iconographic repertoire, as well as the composition and style, indicate that the artists had readily available sources for the episodes. Pattern books containing illustrations of biblical tales and themes as well as Jewish symbols and motifs were most likely consulted



illustrated biblical tales

431

by the community leaders, the donors, and the artists, who would naturally have chosen their subject matter from them. The biblical subjects of the synagogue pavement mosaics indicate that specific books and events are illustrated. They do not seem to have one general theme, nor do they appear to have been chosen at random. The biblical narrative scenes on synagogue mosaics are generally based on the story text, with the addition of other literary sources (Hachlili 2009:94–96). The essential part of the story refers to the intervention by God, the rescue itself, or the hope of rescue. The rendition of the Binding of Isaac and Noah’s Ark show the ending of the tale. The three episodes depicted on the Hamam synagogue mosaics and the events on the Huqoq mosaic illustrate the biblical tales in some detail. The Sepphoris depictions of the Consecration of Aaron to the Service of the Tabernacle and the Daily Offering, the Showbread Table, and the Basket of First Fruits, the depictions of Daniel in the Lions’ Den, and David-Orpheus, are symbolic images of the biblical tales; or, as in the End of Days, an image created to illustrate a biblical citation. The biblical illustrated tales are rendered in a concentrated or symbolic way due to the limited space on mosaics, wall paintings, and other media. Each tale appears independently and serves as a memento of a known legend. The text in these episodes merely provides an explanation for the picture, giving the names of the persons and objects and sometimes quoting part of the appropriate biblical verse. By contrast, illuminated manuscripts have the deliberate intention of illustrating a text. Their purpose is to illuminate, track, and explain the written biblical text. The biblical scenes were depicted in simple narratives, although some of the scenes as a whole may have had symbolic meanings. Some scholars perceive a possible link between the artistic depictions of the biblical stories, which were meant to illustrate Midrashim and piyyutim, and the prayers recited in the synagogue (Shinan 1996; Fine 1997:124–125; 1999; 2004). Several of these subjects were part of the prayers, such as ‘Remember’ and ‘He that answers . . .’ (Sukenik 1932:56 and note 4). They were associated with prayers offered in times of drought (Avi-Yonah 1975:53); they accompanied sermons and worship and were meant to be a reminder of and reference to traditional historical events. The interpretation and significance of the biblical scenes are controversial. Scholars debate them and come up with different opinions. Weiss and Netzer (1996:34–39; Weiss 2005:225–256, 240) contend that the Sepphoris mosaic has a single whole programmatic theme with significant foci: the ‘Aqedah and the angels’ visit to Abraham and Sarah signify the Promise. The façade and the Tabernacle and Temple representations symbolize the Redemption, whereas the zodiac expresses the centrality of God in Creation. Fine (1999:227–237) rejects Weiss and Netzer’s overall interpretation and proposes similar sources: “Scripture and liturgy were the unifying glue of the composition.” Levine (2000:575–578) does not accept Weiss and Netzer’s assumption owing to “the limitations of the literary and archaeological evidence at hand.” The repertoire and iconography used in the narrative illustrations of the mosaics and the Dura Europos paintings attest to a rich reservoir of materials—scenes, compositions, and patterns—based on accepted contemporary conventions. These iconographic conventions show local affinities and demonstrate a close artistic source for the illustrative, visual style. The biblical illustrated tales found so far each mosaic has its own style, form, and artistic depiction and each scene can be traced back to a distinct influence or source. Yet some similarity does exist between the arrangement of interconnecting panels and the subject matter found at Beth Alpha, Naʿaran, and Sepphoris, suggesting mutual interaction or social affinities. A certain evolution in attitude discernible in the biblical scenes may help determine their development from highly detailed narrative stories to concise symbolic depictions (Hachlili 1988:300). For instance, David of Gaza is shown as a biblical monarch—but in the Hellenistic pose used for the mythological figure of Orpheus; so is the Christian figure of Jesus the Shepherd. At Meroth, David is

432

chapter eight

depicted as a prominent figure—a Byzantine warrior. Daniel, at Naʿaran, rendered in the orans posture, is a concise depiction and probably symbolic, similar to Early Christian art depictions. Noah’s Ark at Gerasa is executed in a narrative mode, highlighted by many details. This style suggests an earlier date for Gerasa than for Beth Alpha, where there is already a tendency towards the symbolic in the narrative of the Binding of Isaac. The biblical scenes and episodes portray prominent figures in Jewish tradition and history (Aaron, Abraham, David, Daniel, Isaac, Noah, and Samson) as well as important biblical episodes, with additions taken from legends and themes symbolizing historical events, divine intervention, the covenant between God and his chosen people, and his protection of some and punishment of others. It is interesting to note that some of the biblical scenes, such as the Binding of Isaac and Noah’s Ark, illustrate the end of the tale, evidently in an attempt to intensify the moment of rescue, which occurs at the conclusion. Rather than illustrating a written text, these scenes reflect highly developed, stylized folk tales, they reproduce later tales rather than the original written words (Hachlili 1998:195–197; see also Wharton 1994:4–21; 1995:42, 45, who discusses the priority given to the literary text by most scholars). The assumption that the scenes on the paintings and mosaics do not illustrate a text is proved by the inscriptions found next to certain biblical episodes. Most of the Hebrew inscriptions accompanying the scenes are secondary to the illustrations. They consist of the names of figures and objects, occasionally scenes, and a short citation which clearly explains and interprets the illustrations it accompanies. The Hebrew inscriptions on the Binding of Isaac at Beth Alpha, the identification of the various vessels and short citations in the Consecration of the Service of the Tabernacle and Daily Offering at Sepphoris, the names in Hebrew of Aaron, Abraham, David, Daniel, Isaac, and Noah’s sons—all explain the scenes. The inscriptions are not exact biblical quotations. The text glosses the images, but the images do not illustrate the biblical text. Had the source of any illustration been the biblical text, there would surely have been consensus about its identification. We may therefore assume that the immediate source was not the biblical text itself but a readily available visual or literary repertoire. Artistic renditions of biblical texts are seldom depicted on church mosaic pavements, but they do appear in funerary art on catacomb paintings and on various objects (Hachlili 2009:226–228). However, three themes appear on some church floors: One such theme—the story of Jonah—is found on the Mahat al-Urdi church mosaic floor at Beth Guvrin; it is shown in two different octagons, one in the north aisle and the other in the south aisle (Hachlili 2009:Fig. IV-24). The first octagon shows Jonah in the jaws of the fish; the second portrays him lying under the gourd. In both aisles the Jonah depictions fill the third octagon of each aisle carpet. These scenes are fairly central, but not as prominent as the space occupied by the biblical scenes on synagogue pavements. A Jonah scene is found also on the mosaic pavement of the North African church of Aquileia (Grabar 1967:Pl. 19; Engerman, 1986:85‑87). Another unique biblical tale, depicting Adam in the Garden of Eden surrounded by animals (Fig. X-25b), was found on the mosaic pavement of the nave of the north church (The ‘Michaelion’) of Haouarte (Donceel Voûte 1988:104, 112–114, 480, 487, Fig. 71, Pl. h.-t.5). The scene shows Adam giving names to the animals (Gen. 2:19–20). A sixth-century mosaic floor from the south transept of the east church at Apollonia in Cyrenaica renders Noah in the orans pose emerging from a chest-like ark and dispatching the dove (Alföldi-Rosenbaum and Ward-Perkins 1980:61, 88, Fig. 3, Pl. 37, 1). The Early Christian depiction of the box-like ark with Noah in this position is symbolic (Fig. VIII21c). The interpretation too is different in Christianity, where it symbolizes death and resurrection, the ark being vox Arche, “the Christian church.” This is also the interpretation of Budde (1969:55) for



illustrated biblical tales

433

a

b

d c

Figure VIII‑21. Biblical episodes on Christian catacomb paintings at Via Latina, Rome: a. Binding of Isaac, Room L; b. Binding of Isaac, Cubiculum C; c. Noah, Cubiculum O; d. Daniel, Cubiculum O.

434

chapter eight

the Misis depiction. The central position of the ark in Misis symbolizes, in his opinion, the Christian Church bringing salvation to the world, just as Noah’s Ark saved the animals. The biblical themes in Jewish and Early Christian art are quite different from one another in attitude, design, and meaning (Hachlili 1988:373‑374; 2009:226–228; see also Talgam’s discussion [2012:418–432] of the biblical text as a religious text in Jewish and Christian art in Byzantium). The illustrations in synagogues are part of the synagogue art and pavements program; in Early Christian art (with the exceptions stated above) they are usually rendered on catacomb walls and sarcophagi in Rome, being considered subjects more suited to funerary art. In the Jewish portrayal the association is with the belief in God’s rescue of his chosen people; in Christian art the connection is with personal salvation, death and the after‑life (Grabar 1968:25–26). The biblical scenes in synagogues were a reminder of the biblical stories; in Christian art it was the symbolic meaning of these scenes that was of primary interest. The biblical illustrated tales in the synagogue are narrative-descriptive in form, including details and inscriptions with names and explanatory verses; in Christian art the form of the scenes is concise and summarized, often allegorical and symbolic. The source for these themes in both religions is probably not common figurative art but literature, namely the biblical text. Early Christian catacomb art uses biblical scenes in an abbreviated and summarized manner. Grabar (1968:25, 94–95) describes them as image-signs. From the beginning there was a tendency to symbolism, which would have disguised the true meaning of the stories by means of allegory and proverbs. Likewise, the Old Testament was also used as a pre-figuration of the New Testament. Christian art frequently made use of biblical figures whose stories emphasize the promise of individual salvation, such as Jonah, Moses, Daniel, Noah, and Isaac. In conclusion, the biblical folk themes depicted on synagogue mosaic pavements and in the DuraEuropos synagogue paintings attest to the importance the Jewish community attached to their visual as well as their written inherited tradition. The Jewish communities wanted to decorate their major religious and social structures with didactic, narrative illustrations expressing their religious and national tradition, their legacy and their shared experiences, evoking memories of past glory. The communities used folk tales based on biblical stories with additions taken from the world of legend, which found artistic expression in painted narrative scenes; the wall paintings of the 3rd-century CE Dura Europus synagogue are the earliest evidence of this. Subsequently, this folk art would evolve and develop in synagogue mosaic pavements of the Byzantine period. The narrative scenes were considered historical events, yet they were also treated as parables and had symbolic implications. These depictions seem to indicate that an external visual source, not the biblical text itself, was the guide for the paintings. Biblical tales were considered appropriate subject matter for the synagogue pavements, although they were trodden on even when the pavements contained the Hand of God and the Temple ritual objects. This was intentional, to emphasize the notion that if these depictions were stepped on, they could not then be considered sacred, and no danger of worshipping graven images could arise.

CHAPTER nine

Motifs IN Jewish Synagogue Art Synagogue art motifs appear on architectural elements such as lintels, friezes, and mosaic floors, as well as on funerary art. Explicit tendencies betray themselves in the persistent selection by the Jews of Late Antiquity of heraldic and antithetic symmetrical designs. The popular and common motifs in Jewish synagogue art indicate a constant preference for particular themes in the ornamentation (Hachlili 1988:335–346). The motifs consist either of a single image or object or of a combination of several antithetic or heraldic elements and include: (1) fauna—animal motifs: the lion, bull, eagle, and others; (2) human figures; (3) mythological motifs; (4) genre motifs; (5) flora—plant ornaments; (6) geometric motifs. Several sources are posited for the motifs used in Jewish art: • Tradition and the continuation of popular motifs descended from Jewish art of the Second Temple period, mainly geometric and plant motifs. • Decorative patterns and motifs taken from contemporary arts )Graeco-Roman, Syrian, and Nabatean) but devoid of their symbolic context and significance. • The persistent selection by the Jews of Late Antiquity of heraldic and antithetic symmetrical designs. • Pattern books, reflected in the stylized postures and representations of animals, plants, and other designs. At the same time, some of the motifs were probably directly copied from nature. 1. Fauna—Animal Motifs Animal motifs appear frequently in Jewish art—on wall paintings, sculpture, reliefs, and mosaics, where they are usually depicted in a prominent position, frequently flanking the Torah shrine, the Ark of the Scrolls, and inscriptions (Hachlili 1988:320–346). The most common animal motifs are the exalted creatures—the human, lion, bull, and eagle, which appear in early Near Eastern art as well as in Jewish and Christian art. In pagan arts they possess religious symbolism as astral, zodiac, and solar symbols, but in both Jewish and Christian art they are deprived of this aspect and acquire different connotations. Human and animal figures as hybrid creatures appear in early Near Eastern art in various forms; especially significant are the animals rendered on ivories and sculpture, where they are found also as the side-supports of chairs or thrones. This tradition, slightly altered, continued later in the form of a king or deity’s throne flanked by the regal animals, the lion and the eagle being especially popular. The biblical Cherubim possibly belong to this tradition and are identified with similar hybrid creatures (Hachlili 2008:25*, 34*–40*). The four exalted creatures—the human, the lion, the calf/ox, and the eagle—are first described as a tetramorphic creature in the portrayal of the throne-chariot (Merkabah), a throne in motion (with no mention of the ark) in Ezekiel’s vision (Ez. 1:5–12, 10:20–21), where each has four faces and four wings; the four faces include a human one, a lion on the right, an ox on the left, and an eagle; two of the spread wings touch one another and two cover the bodies. They have legs and “. . . the feet of each were like a single calf ’s hoof ” (Ez. 1:7). In the later description (Ez. 10) they are described as

436

chapter nine

Cherubim, and the face of the ox is omitted and replaced by the face of the Cherub (Ez. 10:14). In Ezekiel’s vision of the Temple model (Ez. 41:18–20, 25), images of the Cherubim appear on the walls and doors, each pair flanking a palm tree, and each Cherub has two faces: one of a human and the other one of a lion. The Chariot—Merkabah vision also appears on a scroll fragment found at Qumran (4Q385 6 [earlier 4]) designated Pseudo (or Second)—Ezekiel (Dimant & Strugnell 1990; Dimant 2000). The text of this fragment is dependent on and close to the version in Ezekiel chapter 1, as preserved by the Massoretic Text. Scholars interpret the choice of these creatures by their symbolic traditional characteristics. The prominent animal images in Jewish art, although sometimes transferred from pagan art, lost their pagan meaning and acquired new values through the influence of biblical and midrashic literature (Hachlili 1988:346; but see Yuval-Hacham [2007:76–80], who maintains that the eagle which ornamented synagogues “is a symbolic representation of the power and might of the God of Israel”). The following commentary may explain part of the reason for the prominence of these four particular motifs and their continued use in Jewish art: In the Babylonian Talmud, Hagiga 13b, we find: ‫ ואדם מתגאה עליהן והקדוש ברוך הוא מתגאה‬,‫ מלך שבעופות נשר‬,‫ מלך שבבהמות שור‬,‫מלך שבחיות ארי‬″ .)‫ב‬″‫ ע‬,‫ג‬″‫ חגיגה י‬,‫ (בבלי‬″‫על כולן ועל כל העולם כולו‬ For a Master said: The king of the wild animals is the lion; the king of the cattle is the ox; the king of the birds is the eagle; and man is exalted over them; and the Holy One, blessed be He, is exalted over all of then, and over the whole world. (BT Hagiga 13b, Complete Soncino English Translation of the Babylonian Talmud)

A similar account is given in Midrash Rabbah, Exodus 23:13: The Four most exalted of all living creatures is man; of birds, the eagle; of cattle, the ox; and of wild beasts, the lion. All of these received royalty and had greatness bestowed upon them, and they set under the chariot of God. This is the meaning of ‘For he is highly exalted’.

The lion, bull, and eagle, which are the most frequent animal motifs encountered in Jewish art, appear in flanking positions, juxtaposition, or confrontation (when in an antithetic motif ) and take many shapes. These creatures possess religious symbolism; they are most often rendered separately. There are only a few examples in Jewish art that portray them in flanking, juxtaposition or confronting episodes. 1.1 Lions and Lionesses Lions and lionesses are a common theme in ancient art, including Jewish art,where their most common depiction is connected with the Torah shrine (Hachlili 1988:321–328; 1995:186–7; 2008a:25*, 34*–40*). Lions in sculptures, reliefs, and mosaics are rendered in several standard types of ornamentation: (1) in the round as part of the Torah shrine ornamentation; (2) in symmetrical antithetic composition flanking the Torah shrine, a menorah, a vase, a tree, a bull’s head, or a human figure; (3) in pairs flanking inscriptions; (4) as single decorative motifs; (5) in hunting scenes. 1.1.1 In the Round as Part of the Torah Shrine Ornamentation Lions in three-dimensional or free-standing sculpture or in relief, possibly as part of the Torah shrine ornamentation, are found in Galilean and Golan synagogues.



motifs in jewish synagogue art

437

a

b

c

Figure IX-1. Lions: a. Stone lion head, Barʿam; b. Basalt lion, Korazim.

Lions, both in the round and in relief, were found in Galilean synagogues. Three fragments of lions, one of them a lioness, were discovered at Korazim (Fig. IX-1b): a seated lion with a schematic mane, whose head is broken; a fragment of the rear body of a lion; and a broken part of a lioness’s body. Yeivin (2000:22*, 27*, 53, 62–3, plan 14, Figs. 125–127, Pl. 25:1, 2, 3) suggests that they flanked the niche of the Torah shrine. As for the second aedicula platform (bema, iztaba), he proposed that it had a gabled roof decorated with a conch and a wreath, and probably a pair of sculpted lions in recesses on the sides, one of which was recovered. Similar fragments of a lion in the round are found in Capernaum; a head was found at the Barʿam synagogue (Fig. IX-1a) (Hachlili 1988:Figs. X-8-11). Sukenik (1949:21, Fig. 5) proposes that the Capernaum lions may have flanked the entrance of the synagogue or the Torah shrine, as depicted in the Beth Alpha mosaic floors. Maoz (1995:47–49, 143, Pl. 108:2) suggests that these lion reliefs were positioned on the façade close to the portal. Lions and lionesses engraved in high relief, which might have had three-dimensional heads, have been found at several Golan synagogues. A lion in high relief from Kanaf (Fig. IX-2a), found in secondary use, is shown striding, one foreleg raised, the stylized mane covering its neck, front, and foreleg. The body, forelegs, and hind legs are preserved. The head and hindquarters are missing (H—38; L—83; W—37; IAA no.85–1500; Hachlili 1995:Fig. 38). A similar lion, but in a reclining position, was found at Beth-Lavi (Maoz 1995:Pl. 31). A reclining lioness with teats is engraved in profile on a basalt relief from ʿEn Nashut (Fig. IX-2b); her stylized mane covers the neck and front part of the body, her hind legs are bent under the body with the tail curled on them. The head and forelegs are missing (H—50; L—80; W—40; IAA no. 87–6802;

438

chapter nine

a

b

Figure IX-2. Golan basalt reliefs: a. Striding lion, Kanaf; b. Lioness, ʿEn Nashut.

Maoz 1981:110; 1995:Pl. 71:1; Hachlili 1988:327, Pl. 90; 1995:Fig. 39). Similar in pose and execution to the ʿEn Nashut lion is a three-dimensional fragment of a reclining lion from Hafar, carved in profile; only the upper part and two legs survived and its mane is stylized (H—48; L—36; W—28; Hachlili 1995:Fig. 40). A lioness suckling her cub is carved on a relief found at Qusibiyye, in secondary use. The lioness adopts a schematic striding pose, in profile but with head en-face. One foreleg is raised and the hind legs are in a standing position. A stylized mane of parallel curving lines covers the neck and front part of the body. The cub is carved like a miniature lioness, upside down and suckling. The cub pose recalls the composition on the ʿEn Nashut orthostat (H—37; L—65; W—50; Hachlili 1995:no. and Fig. 41). A fragment of a relief of a standing lion was found at Umm el-Qanatir; the only surviving parts are the front of the body and the forelegs (H—52; L—75; W—26; Hachlili 1988:324, Fig. X-8; 1995: no. and Fig. 42). The fragment probably comes from a sculpture that served as a guard next to the structure of the Torah shrine. Kohl and Watzinger (1916:127–129, Figs. 259) reconstructed the lion relief as flanking the upper window on the façade of the synagogue. These lion reliefs depicted as guarding figures were probably part of the aedicula decoration, as seen on the Beth Alpha mosaic pavement, where lions flank the ark.



motifs in jewish synagogue art

439

Figure IX-3. Stone orthostat relief, ʿEn Nashut.

A different and unique lion on a stone orthostat (Fig. IX-3), was found at ʿEn Samsam, but probably stood originally in the ʿEn Nashut synagogue in the Golan. This three-dimensional lion is carved in frontal position, with a head, forelegs, and a neck and body covered by a stylized mane. One side of the orthostat is engraved with an heraldic design of two eagles flanking a scene of a man holding his hands up, flanked by a lion to the left and a lioness and her cub to his right. The two rather square eagles are represented with their heads turned to the centre, their wings outspread, and their feathers stylized; the eagle on the left is eating grapes (Hachlili 1988:173, 321–322, Fig. IX-24b, Pl. 88; 1995:203, no. 37; 2009:80–81, Fig. IV-17a). The lion and lioness stride in profile; both have stylized manes of parallel lines and very small heads. The lion’s tail is carved close to the hind leg, the lioness’s tail is curved up above its rear. A cub is carved upside-down under the lioness. The human figure is shown frontally with hands raised, and its right hand holds the lion’s head. Traces of red paint remain. The orthostat might have been used as a base for the Torah shrine (see Hachlili 1988:275, 277–8, Fig. IX-24b). The scene on the side of the orthostat was interpreted by Ilan (1969:185) as Daniel in the Lions’ Den, although the depiction of a lioness and her cub in this narrative is unique. Lions connected to the Torah shrine scene appear on several reliefs on aedicula lintels: a pair of rampant lions in the spandrels flanking a pediment ornamented with a rosette and a conch are carved on the aedicula lintel of the Galilean synagogue of Nabratein (Fig. IV-49); the lion on the right rises on its hind legs, roaring and lashing its tail; of the left lion, only the head and mane was preserved (Meyers et al. 1981a:238–39; Meyers and Meyers 2009; Younger 2009:84, 88–92, Fig. 27, photo 26). A damaged relief of a lioness was found at Nabratein (Fig. IX-4); its body, a rear leg, and the tail survived, and the body is covered with round discs (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:105, Fig. 201; Younger 2009:87, photo 29, who dates it to the 3rd to 4th c. CE); it probably is a lintel fragment with a design comparable to the H. ʿAmudim main portal lintel (Fig. IX-7a). A lion assaulting an animal with a bird looking on decorates an unusual column base (Fig. IX-5a) found at the Umm el-Qanatir synagogue in secondary use. The column was found hidden under the stairs of the southern entrance portico and probably belonged to an earlier period of the building (Ben David et al. 2006:116–117). A schematic lion is carved on a gable corner found at Korazim. The lion’s head is rendered en face and the body in profile (Fig. IX-5b). May and Stark (2002:242, Pl. 21:no. 93, Pl. 22) place it above the column of their reconstructed ‘Seat of Moses’ complex (Fig. IV-32b). Lions are carved on an aedicula lintel from Rafid, flanking the carved Syrian gable. The composition resembles the Nabratein lintel; on the left is a leaping lion and another lion is engraved beside the gable top on the right (Sukenik 1935:Pl. XXIIIa; Hachlili 1995:no. and Fig. 62). A lion at Zumimra is depicted beside a pillar which might have been part of an aedicula. The lion is rendered lying down on the column, although the column is depicted in a vertical position

440

chapter nine

Figure IX-4. Damaged relief of a lioness, Nabratein.

Figure IX-5. Lions: a. Column base decorated with a hunting lion and a bird, Umm el-Qanatir; b. Lion on a gable, Korazim.



motifs in jewish synagogue art

441

Figure IX-6. Lion depicted beside a pillar, Zumimra.

(Fig. IX-6). The relief is probably part of a Torah shrine (Maoz 1981:104; 1995:Pl. 44:3; Hachlili 1988:184; 1995:no. and Fig. 64). 1.1.2 Flanking in Symmetrical Antithetic Composition A symmetrical heraldic motif of lions flanking objects, such as a menorah vase, tree, bull’s head, or human figure, is a frequent occurrence in Jewish synagogal and funerary art. Lions flanking a vase or trees are carved on lintels from H. ʿAmmudim (Fig. IX-7a), Capernaum, and H. Sumaqa (Fig. IX-7b) as well as on the mosaic floor of the Beth Sheʾan small synagogue B (Fig. X-5). A carved lion beside two seven-branched menoroth appears on a lintel from ʿEn Nashut (Fig. VI-44) (Hachlili 1995:no. and Fig. 9). A symmetrical repetition of representations of lions in an antithetic composition, flanking various objects and figures, is also common on mosaic floors. A pair of lions flank the ark at Beth Alpha in unidentical symmetry; see the similarity to the depiction of the zodiac lion on the right (Fig. VI-4a, IX-8b). Similar depictions are found on gold glasses from catacombs in Rome. Lions flank a menorah at Maʿon-Nirim (Fig. VI-43, IX-8c). Lions flank a human figure in the Daniel scene at Naʿaran, and probably also at Susiya (Fig. VIII-15a, b); a lion and a lioness suckling her cub flank a human figure on the side of the stone orthostat from ʿEn Nashut (Fig. IX-3—and description above). A pair of lions flank an inscription at Hammath Tiberias B (Fig. IX-8a). Similar compositions appear on some of the Beth Sheʿarim sarcophagi. A representation of a lion decorating a Torah shrine can be seen in a carving on a catacomb wall at Beth Sheʿarim (Fig. IV-35). These depictions of flanking lions probably signify guardians. 1.1.3 Flanking Inscriptions in Pairs A pair of lions, each clutching a bull’s head and flanking the remains of a Greek inscription in a wreath (Fig. IX-9a) is rendered on the first band of the Sepphoris synagogue nave mosaic pavement (Weiss and Netzer 1966:16–17; Weiss 2005:61–65). A similar rendition of a pair of lions clutching bulls’ heads appears on a carved stone from Tiberias (Fig. IX-9b) (Hachlili 2009:199, Fig. IX-2). Pairs of lions flank inscriptions on the mosaic pavements at the entrance to the synagogue of Hammath Tiberias B, the upper panel of Hammath Gader, and Band 1 at Sepphoris. On the Beth Alpha entrance panel, a lion and a bull flank the inscription (Fig. IX-10).

442

chapter nine

a

b

Figure IX-7. Lions flanking vase on lintels: a. H. ʿAmmudim; b. Sumaqa.

a

b

c

Figure IX-8. Lions on mosaic pavements: a. Hammath Tiberias; b. Beth Alpha; c. Maʿon-Nirim.



motifs in jewish synagogue art

443

a

b

Figure IX-9. Flanking lions placing their paws on bull heads: a. Sepphoris mosaic; b. Tiberias stone.

1.1.4 Single Decorative Motifs The lion is also encountered as a single motif decorating friezes, lintels, reliefs, and mosaic pavements. Mutilated front bodies of lions in half profile with heads en face were found at Korazim, carved on the gable frieze (Fig. V-15a); a lioness was found on an inner frieze fragment (May 2000:116, 141, nos. 7, 8, 39, Fig. 78, 81, Pl. 6:2, 3, 15:6, Fig. 1:13–15). An almost identical composition is found on a Capernaum relief (Fig. V-15b) (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Pls. 29, 31; Orfali 1922:Figs. 77, 80, Pl. 47; May 2000:116). A Corinthian capital with a carved lion’s head probably belonged to the Japhia synagogue (Sukenik 1951:15, Pl. X). A seated lion is carved on a relief from Umm el-Qanatir. A lion’s head (probably a mask) set inside a wreath is carved on a lintel from H. Tuba (now in Safed). A lion emerging from a leaf and acanthus pattern is carved on a lintel from Rehov (Fig. IX-11). On mosaic pavements, some biblical scenes and zodiacs depict lions and lionesses. A lioness listens to King David’s music in the Gaza mosaic pavement (Fig. VIII-13). Lions appear on the zodiac panel representing the Leo sign in Beth Alpha, Hammath Tiberias, Naʿaran, and Sepphoris (Figs. VII-16, 17). 1.1.5 Hunting Scenes Hunting scenes on inner frieze fragments were found at Korazim (Yeivin 2000:no. 36, Fig. 103, Pl. 15:3; May 2000:111, Fig. 1:1), among them a lioness being attacked by a centaur and a lion or lioness attacking a bull (now broken) on inner frieze fragments (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Fig. 99c; May 2000:112–3, Fig. 1:3). Lions in hunting scenes appear in the Gerasa mosaic (Fig. VIII-8). The popularity of the lioness in Jewish art should be noted and the preferrred motifs include a lioness suckling her cub, a scene encountered on carved basalt stones at Korazim within a part of the

444

chapter nine

a

b

c

d

Figure IX-10. Lions flanking inscriptions on mosaic pavements: a. Hammath Tiberias; b. Sepphoris; c. Hammath Gader; d. Beth Alpha.



motifs in jewish synagogue art

a

445

b

Figure IX-11. Lions’ heads: a. H. Tuba; b. Rehov.

a

b

c

Figure IX-12. Lioness feeding her cub: a. ʿEn Nashut; b. Qusibiyye; c. Korazim.

inner frieze (Fig. IX-12c) (Yeivin 2000:no. 39, Fig. 106, Pl. 15:6; May 2000:116, Fig. 1:13). Noteworthy also are the lioness depictions peculiar to Golan sculpture (Fig. IX-12a, b) described above (Hachlili 1995:203, no. and Fig. 41). A number of scenes on mosaic pavements portray a lioness with cubs suckling or running alongside her. A lioness suckles her cub in a medallion on the Gaza inhabited vine scroll (Fig. IX-13a). On the inhabited vine scrolls pavement at Maʿon-Nirim, a leopardess is rendered in a medallion whereas her cub is near her but outside the medallion (Fig. IX-13b) (Hachlili 2009:166–168). A hunting lioness is included on the Gerasa mosaic border (Fig. VIII-8), which indicates that they were chosen as decorative motifs.

446

chapter nine

a

b

Figure IX-13. Lioness and her cub on mosaic pavements: a. Gaza; b. Leopardess and her cub, Maʿon–Nirim.

The lions are shown with bodies in profile and heads en-face, although on most of the examples the heads are missing. The lions are leaping, striding with one foreleg raised, or lying down with bent legs. Lions are portrayed in both stylized and realistic manners (Avi-Yonah 1981a:53–54). Stylization is achieved in two ways: (1) The adoption of a selected pose, in this case the most common oriental pose, that is, body in profile with head and face turned toward the spectator (examples come from H. ʿAmmudim and Qusibiyye (Figs. IX-7a, 12b)). Many lions are depicted in the Assyrian convention, which has the left and right limbs moving simultaneously (see the lions at H. ʿAmmudim, Hammath Gader, Beth Alpha, Beth Sheʿarim (Figs. IX-7, 10)). (2) The showing of the details of the lion’s body covered by a pattern. The stylization of the lions and lionesses is seen in the rendering of the mane in a pattern of parallel carved lines (Figs. IX-1–7). The carved mane is depicted schematically, in a pattern of curls in regular groups of rows or tresses )Barʿam, Korazim, ʿEn Nashut (Figs. IX-1, 3)), and seems to be a local Galilean and Golan characteristic (May 2000:112). The lion on a limestone relief (perhaps a lintel) from the Nabratein synagogue has a circle-patterned mane covering the whole body (Fig. IX-4). The style of the ʿEn Nashut carving (Fig. IX-3) is unusual: the lion and lioness have proportionally very small heads, large bodies and paws, long tails, and manes portrayed by several carved lines. The lion, engraved from the front and side, has small eyes and ears and a symmetrical, schematic mane. The ferocity of the lions is sometimes emphasized in their pose and stylized depiction. To demonstrate their ferocity the lions on the Nabratein aedicula lintel (Fig. IV-49) are represented rampant, with the right lion rising on its hind legs, roaring, its tail lashing. The ʿEn Nashut lion torso (Fig. IX-3), seen from the front, has its mouth open and its tongue protruding, Most of the lions are depicted with their tails upcurved. Exceptions are lions with their tails held down: the left-hand lion in Daniel in the Lions’ Den in the Naʿaran mosaic (Fig. VIII-15a), the lefthand lion on the ʿEn Nashut orthostat (Fig. IX-3), and the lioness on the ʿEn Nashut relief (Fig. IX-2b). It is interesting to note that the lionesses are usually rendered with exactly the same stylized mane as the lions (Figs. IX-1–13). May (2000:112) is probably right in stating that the mane defines the species (lion), while the teats mark the gender. The lion is the symbol of Judah, the guardian and protector (Avi-Yonah (1960a:23; 1960b:30 note 19)); this may explain the lions flanking the Torah Ark in Beth Alpha and the menorah at Maʿon-Nirim (Figs. VI-3a, 43). Possibly the lions flanking inscriptions at Hammath Tiberias, Sepphoris, Hammath



motifs in jewish synagogue art

447

Gader, and Beth Alpha (Fig. IX-10) also represent protectors. Goodenough (1958, VII:29–37, 78–86) proposes that the lion represents a protector and indicates “the ferocious but saving power of the God of the Torah.” Lions flanking Jewish symbols may have had a significance beyond a merely decorative function, thus attaching the attributes of guardian and protector to the lions known already from ancient Near Eastern art. These finds seem to indicate that the lions were consistently selected to adorn synagogues in their capacity as power motifs or images of vigil; some hint of the tradition of the lion symbolizing Judah, probably plays a part in these representations. 1.2 The Eagle The eagle is a well known motif in ancient art, including Jewish art, and is found decorating different artifacts: lintels, windows, Torah shrines, and various examples of funerary art. Two types of eagles are found in synagogue art, one with spread wings, the other with wings joined to the body. Eagles in sculpture and mosaics are rendered in several standard types of ornamentation: (1) in the centre of synagogue lintels; (2) in pairs, in heraldic antithetic composition flanking the Torah shrine or a wreath; (3) carved on capitals; (4) carved on top of gables; (5) as an ornamental motif. 1.2.1 The Centre of Synagogue Lintels Almost all the eagles on reliefs are found in Galilean and Golan synagogues: An eagle with spread wings and garlands is seen on the lintel soffit of Gush Halav (Fig. IX-14) (Meyers et al. 1990:84, Figs. 25, photo 40); comparable, but damaged, eagles are carved on the lintel of the northern doorway and on the soffit of the central lintel of the Roman temple at Kedesh in the Galilee (Ficher et al. 1984:Pls. 29:1, 37:1, 2). An eagle with wings joined to the body, positioned as the central figure, is carved on the Capernaum lintel (Orfalli 1922:Fig. 54); today it has been nearly obliterated (Fig. V-12a center). On synagogue lintels in the Golan, eagles appear in several forms. Single figures carved on lintels were found at Dabura and Jaraba (Kochavi 1972:263; Hachlili 1995:nos. and Figs. 29, 30). Eagles from Qusibiyye and Jaraba engraved on relief fragments, are shown frontally. Their heads and part of their legs are missing; their bodies are round and the joined wings are totally covered with stylized overlapping feathers (Fig. IX-15a, b) (Hachlili 1987:37, no. 13; 1995:nos. 26, 27). A similar eagle appears on a relief at Umm el-Qanatir (Figs. IX-18, 19b) (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:127, Fig. 258, found in secondary use, Kochavi 1972:283). Two more eagles found at Qusibiyye are mentioned by Ilan (1987:106–7; 1991:108, Fig. 2). Two eagles carved on lintels were found at Ahmadiyye by Schumacher (1888:72, Figs. 8, 9; now lost). 1.2.2 Flanking in Heraldic Antithetic Composition Pairs Several lintels depict eagles in antithetic composition, flanking a wreath or a disc: On a lintel from the Meroth synagogue Beth Midrash, a high relief of two damaged headless eagles flanking a wreath with a Hercules knot and ending with an ivy leaf was found, face down and broken in two (Fig. V-7c). Beneath the decoration was a Hebrew inscription “Blessed shall you be you be in your comings; blessed shall you be in your goings” (Deut. 28:6) (Ilan and Damati 1987:75–7; Ilan 1989:32–3, Figs. 16, 17). A basalt lintel found in a private house in Hirbet Tuba (now at Safed) is carved with two harrier eagles holding snakes in their beaks, flanking a wreath that frames a lion’s head (Fig. IX-16a). Avigad (1954:18–19) maintains that this lintel was taken from a Galilean synagogue. However, it might have originally belonged to a Golan synagogue, as it is carved in basalt; moreover, the carving of the lintel

448

chapter nine

Figure IX-14. An eagle depicted on a lintel soffit, Gush Halav.

façade fits the Golan type of entrance lintels and the heraldic composition of the harrier eagles is similar to the Golan examples from Dabura (Fig. IX-17a–b) (Hachlili 1995:Figs. 32–33). A lintel from Japhia has a pair of eagles holding small discs in their beaks and flanking a wreath, each of them separate within a metope (Fig. V-5d). A lintel fragment from Dabura (found in secondary use) depicts a richly carved, stylized eagle with spread wings (one is missing) and head facing left. Its beak holds a wreath; its legs are close together. The neck, body, wing, and legs are covered with stylized feathers (Fig. IX-16b). Two fish are carved next to and below the wing. An Aramaic inscription carved above the wing reads: “Made the gate” (H–60, L–108. Kochavi 1972:265; Urman 1972:20–21, Pl. 6, A; Hachlili 1988:332, Fig. X-20b; 1995:no. and Fig. 28). Two harrier eagles in heraldic composition, holding snakes in their beaks and flanking a wreath, are depicted on two Dabura lintels. On one lintel in secondary use, two harrier eagles are carved at both ends flanking a wreath; each eagle holds a snake in its beak and the snakes interwine into a stylized wreath with a hercules knot, its top terminating with the snakes’ heads (Fig. IX-17a). Inside the wreath and beside it is the inscription “Eliezer ha-Qappar/this is the school/of the Rabbi.” Both eagles are depicted with their heads turning towards the centre, their bodies round, wings spread upside down and feathers highly stylized in a criss-cross pattern (H–43, L–168, W–26. no. 87–6276; Kochavi 1972:265; Urman 1972:16–23; Hachlili 1988:206–7, Fig. VIII-46b; 1995:no. and Fig. 32). The other Dabura lintel (now lost) renders two harrier eagles with heads turned aside, holding snakes in their beaks. The eagles’ spread wings flank a stylized round wreath with a four-petaled rosette (Fig. IX-17b). This composition and execution recalls the other Dabura lintel (Maoz 1981:110; Hachlili 1988:206–7, Fig. VIII-46c; 1995:no. and Fig. 33). Two crudely engraved harrier eagles flank a round disc on a lintel from Kafr Harib (Fig. IX-17c) (Hachlili 1995:no. and Fig. 34).



motifs in jewish synagogue art

a

b

Figure IX-15. Eagles on Golan reliefs: a. Qusibiyye; b. Jaraba.

449

450

chapter nine

a

b

Figure IX-16. a. A pair of harrier eagles flanking a wreath, H. Tuba; b. Stylized eagle with spread wings, Dabura.

a

b

c

Figure IX-17. Pairs of harrier eagles: a–b. Dabura; c. Kafr Harib.



motifs in jewish synagogue art

451

Figure IX-18. Eagle on capital, Umm el-Qanatir.

1.2.3 Carved on Capitals Eagles are part of the Torah shrine ornamentation. A stylized eagle is carved on a double-column capital from Umm el-Qanatir (Kochavi 1972:283; Hachlili 1988:184, Pl. 23; 1995:no. and Fig. 31); the eagle is engraved with its head to the right and wings spread, and the body and wing feathers are stylized (Fig. IX-18). The double-column capital probably belonged to an aedicula (Fig. IV-38) (Hachlili 1988:184, Fig. IX-24c; see the reconstructed aedicula by Ben David et al. 2006:115). The ʿEn Nashut lion orthostat has two eagles, one on each end, flanking a heraldic scene of a human figure and lions (Fig. IX-3, 19a). The eagles in both these reliefs are stylistically similar and may have been carved by the same workshop, although the capital from Umm el-Qanatir is of better quality. At Hirbet Tuba, a gable flanked by a pair of head-damaged eagles with spread wings decorates an aedicula or perhaps a window lintel; the gable is decorated with two amphorae at its base with wine scrolls stemming out of them (Ilan 1991:32, Fig. 2). A basalt window (or an aedicula) fragment from the ed-Dikke synagogue has a small eagle carved on the side. Aedicula lintels decorated with Syrian gables flanked by eagles were found also at Ghadariyye and Rafid (Hachlili 1995:nos. and Figs. 58–61). An eagle is depicted on the façade of a console fragment from Khawkha (Ilan 1987:93). A large eagle depicted on a relief probably belonged to Dabura (Ilan 1991:79, Fig. 2). 1.2.4 Carved on Top of Gables Single, large, attached three-dimensional eagles decorate the gable apex facades of synagogues. At Korazim, fragments of an eagle body with spread wings and tail have survived, with the eagle depicted on the apex of the exterior gable frieze of the south façade (probably flanked by two lions on the sides of the gable frieze fragments) (Fig. IX-20) (Yeivin 2000:16*, Fig. 77, 81, Pl. 6:1; May 2000:116, Fig. 1:17). Two eagles are probably carved on the mutilated key stone of the arch at Capernaum (Goodenough 1953, III:Fig. 465). Other eagles were found at Umm el-Qanatir (Schumacher 1888:Fig. 134; Kohl and Watzinger 1916:127, Fig. 258, reused; see also Kochavi 1972:283) and on fragments of an arch at ʿEn Nashut (Maoz 1980:23; 1995:Fig. 69, 4). The eagle with long short-feathered wings depicted on top of the gable fronts is characteristic also in Syria (Dentzer-Feydy 1992:Figs. 4, 25, 26). 1.2.5 Ornamental Motif The eagle is encountered as a single motif decorating various architectural parts and mosaic pavements. Single eagles with wings outstretched carved in shallow relief are depicted on basalt lintels found at Dabura and Hafar (Fig. IX-21). Their heads turn to the left and their bodies are disproportionate.

452

chapter nine

a

b

Figure IX-19. Eagles: a. ʿEn Nashut orthostat; b. Umm el-Qanatir capital.

Figure IX-20. Eagle on gable apex, Korazim.

A pair of eagles facing each other holding a garland is carved on a cornice at Capernaum (Fig. IX-38). A carved eagle decorates one of the west door jambs of the southwest entrance at H. Shemʿa (Fig. IX-22) (Meyers et al. 1976). At Nabratein synagogue the sculpted stone heads of a bird (a falcon or eagle) and a sheep were found (Young 2009:92, photos 27, 28); they probably decorated elements of the early portico, protruding from relief bodies, perhaps column capitals or lintels. At Korazim on a part of the inner frieze there is an eagle with joined wings holding a human figure; the relief is broken and parts are missing (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Pl. 99f; Yeivin 2000:no. 27, Fig. 107, Pl. 14:1; May 2000:116, Fig. 1:16). May maintains the composition has comparisons and identifies it with the abduction of Ganymede by Zeus. On the Maʿon-Nirim inhabited scroll mosaic pavement, the eagle is depicted within a medallion. Here it is rendered in frontal pose, its head turned towards the left, wings spread and legs apart. A ring with a bulla hangs around its neck. Similar eagles are depicted on another synagogue mosaic at Japhia (Fig. IX-23a, b) and on pavements at El Maqerqesh, Beth Guvrin, Jerusalem, and Petra (Hachlili 2009:141, Pl. VI.14). The majority of the eagles depicted in Jewish art are rendered according to oriental stylization (Avi-Yonah 1981a:56–59). Inveterately, they are carved with bodies turned towards the spectator, their heads turned aside, their wings spread or joined to the body, and their legs apart. The body, wings, and upper part of the legs are patterned by either cross-hatching or carved dots so that the body features become a geometric pattern. Only the two H. Tuba (Safed) eagles are depicted more naturalistically (Fig. IX-16a). The wings of the two eagles on the ʿEn Nashut orthostat and on the Umm el-Qanatir double column (Fig. IX-19) are almost square in shape and emerge from the eagle’s neck (Hachlili 1995:nos. 31, 37). The eagles on the Dabura and Hafar lintels (Fig. IX-21) have their heads turned to the left, wings spread, and their short necks, bodies, and legs are covered with stylized feathers. The eagles are out of proportion with their small bodies and short legs. Pairs of harrier eagles (short-toed) flanking a wreath or a disc are engraved on two Dabura and Kafr Harib lintels (Fig. IX-17). Those found on the two Dabura lintels each hold a snake in its beak,



motifs in jewish synagogue art

a

b

Figure IX-21. A single carved eagle: a. Dabura; b. Hafar.

Figure IX-22. Eagle, H. Shemʿa.

453

454

chapter nine

a

b

Figure IX-23. Eagles on mosaic pavements: a. Maʿon-Nirim; b. Japhia.

their heads turn toward the center or aside, their bodies are round, and their wings spread, with feathers highly stylized in a criss-cross pattern. The Dabura lintel eagle has its wings spread upside down. A similar harrier-eagle beside a wreath with a Hercules knot is depicted on a lintel fragment found at the Hippos-Sussita South-West Church; the eagle is holding the end of the wreath ribbon, which is shaped like an elaborate vine branch. The excavators (Segal et al. 2005:16, Fig. 49) note that the lintel might have originated in a synagogue that had existed under the church, or that it was transferred from a synagogue that once stood nearby. The Golan eagles are carved in a characteristic stylized uniform fashion which seems to represent a common design used also in a few Galilee and several Syrian examples. They are depicted with circular body in frontal position, the head in profile turning aside; sometimes the beak holds a grape bunch and the wings are spread close to the body (only on the Dabura lintel (Fig. IX-16b) are the wings spread further from the body). The body and upper wings are engraved in a stylized overlapping rounded feather pattern; the lower part of the wings is carved with parallel lines. The neck is rendered with horizontal, vertical, or slanting parallel lines. The eagle’s legs are depicted with an upside down V-shaped pattern. The carving of the eagles on the Dabura lintels (Fig. IX-17a, b) is crudely executed and both the body and the wings are incised in a cross-hatching pattern. The eagles engraved on the ʿEn Nashut orthostat (Fig. IX-3) are square and schematic, as is the rest of the composition, and their legs are covered with parallel lines. The Dabura capital is similar. The harrier-eagle is peculiar to Golan art (Fig. IX-17). The Golan eagles are comparable to basalt carvings in Syria, in the Ledja (Butler 1919, part 7, ill. 355), and in the Hauran (Dunand 1934:Pls. IV-19, XII-35, 37, 38, XXIX-125; Bolelli 1986:318–320, Figs. 364–367). It is interesting to note that in Nabatean art, the carved eagles are rendered more naturally (Glueck 1965:144, 471–4, 479, 489, Pls. 10a, b, 34a, 138, 140–143). The eagle is a familiar oriental religious motif in ancient art, being a well-known astral and solar symbol depicted on many pagan monuments. In pagan tombs the eagle has symbolic connotations— it is responsible for carrying the soul of the deceased to heaven. Goodenough (1958, VIII:121–142) maintains that the eagle is a symbol of immortality. Yuval-Hacham (2007:80) does not prove her proclamation that the eagle which decorates synagogues of the Roman and Byzantine period “is a symbolic representation of the power and might of the God of Israel.”



motifs in jewish synagogue art

455

a

b

Figure IX-24. Bull: a. Beth Sheʾan B small synagogue; b. Beth Alpha.

In synagogues the eagle motif decorated different artifacts—lintels, windows, and Torah shrines, and various examples have been found in the Beth Sheʿarim funerary art (Avigad 1976:142; Avi-Yonah 1981a:65). However, in Jewish art it was deprived of its religious symbolism and became a purely decorative motif. 1.3 The Bull/Ox In pagan art the bull is a lunar symbol, and in Syrian and Nabatean art it is associated with Hadad or Jupiter Heliopolitanus (Avi-Yonah 1981:65; note the symbolic association of the bull illuminating the hope of immortality, Goodenough VII, 1958:1–28). In Jewish synagogue and funerary art it is devoid of such symbolism, most probably being a decorative motif in a pattern book (Hachlili 1988:328–329). A bull and a lion are flanking the Greek and Aramaic inscription at the Beth Alpha synagogue entrance (Fig. IX-10d, 24b). Taurus—the bull as a zodiac sign—appears in the zodiac depicted on the synagogue mosaic pavements of Hammath Tiberias, Beth Alpha and, in severely damaged form, at Sepphoris and Naʿaran (Figs. VII-14, 15). A bull is rendered within a medallion on the left in the last row of the Beth Sheʾan B small synagogue inhabited scroll mosaic pavement (Fig. IX-24a). Bulls’ heads grasped by a pair of lions are shown at the Sepphoris synagogue mosaic on Band 1 and on a stone relief from Tiberias (Fig. IX-9). A bull’s head motif appears in the center between the volutes in the upper part (instead of the central calyx) of two Corinthian capitals found at Hammath Tiberias Stratum II synagogue (Dothan 1983:33, Fig. 3:H, Pl. 9:2, no. 11). A bull’s head in the center of a wreath appears on a lintel from Qusibiyye together with a bird placed on the string of the wreath, which is tied with a Hercules knot (Ilan 1991:108:Fig. 1), similar to the wreath with a lion’s head on the lintel from H. Tuba (Fig. IX-16a). The above animals, which figure prominently in Jewish art, lost their pagan meaning and acquired new values under the influence of biblical and midrashic literature.

456

chapter nine 1.4 Horned Animals

Horned animals flanking objects such as vases and trees constitute another popular motif on both synagogue and church mosaic pavements. The Beth Sheʾan B synagogue inhabited scroll pavement depicts goats (one badly damaged) flanking an amphora (Fig. IX-25a). Sheep flank the Torah shrine panel on the Susiya mosaic pavement (Fig. V-46a); only the one on the right survived fully (Fig. IX-25b). The flower behind the sheep resembles the flowers behind the stags at Naʿaran where a repaired mosaic panel at the entrance of the nave mosaic pavement depicts two unidentical stags facing each other among flowers (Fig. IX-25c). Deer also appear in the animal chase frame friezes at the Beth Sheʾan B small synagogue (Fig. V-38). 1.5 Animal Chase Theme Animal friezes with chase scenes are rare in Jewish art, and scenes of humans hunting animals are not found. In Roman and Byzantine art (see Lavin 1963), however, hunting and chase scenes are popular. Avi-Yonah (1942:111) maintains that Assyrian friezes influenced this motif of Roman art. Animal chase scenes usually depict two animals, one chasing the other. This type of motif, which appears in both religious and secular structures, uses several recurring themes: wild beasts chasing domesticated animals and wild beasts assaulting their prey (Hachlili 2009:135–136, Table VII-2, Pls. VII-5–6, 8). Animal chases are common in inhabited scroll medallions where each animal is depicted in a separate medallion. Three animal chase scenes appear in the medallions of the inhabited scroll mosaics at the Gaza synagogue pavement, including the only depictions of a pair of animals attacking their prey found so far in a synagogue mosaic: a tigress chases a donkey in row three. a pair of dogs chase a deer in row seven, and two leopards chase a horse in row nine (Fig. IX-26). Although each of the animals is rendered in a separate medallion, the scenes are lively, naturalistic, and full of movement. Scenes of beasts chasing animals also appear on the animal frieze borders of the Beth Sheʾan B small synagogue and the Gerasa synagogue mosaic pavements. At the Beth Sheʾan B small synagogue, the narrow mosaic border shows (Fig. V-38) a bear catching the rear legs of a fleeing deer, a dog chasing a hare, and a tiger jumping on an animal (destroyed); in all three cases the hunting beast grasps its victim by the legs. The animals are portrayed in vine medallions issuing out of four amphorae placed in the four corners of the border. An animal frieze depicting beasts chasing smaller animals survived on the outer border of the vestibule mosaic of the Gerasa synagogue (Fig. VIII-8): a bear pursues a wild ass, a lioness pursues a wild ass, a cheetah chases a ‘cloven-hoofed animal’, a lion chases a bubale, and a leopard pursues a ‘cloven-hoofed animal’ (Biebel 1938:319–320; Piccirillo 1993:290, Fig. 547). A hunting and chasing scene is depicted on a damaged fragment of the inner frieze at Korazim (May 2000:111–113, Fig. 1, 103, Pl. 15:3). Interestingly, exotic animals such as elephants, giraffes, and zebras seldom appear on mosaic floors in antiquity; they do appear, though, in synagogues decorated with the inhabited scroll design on their pavements: elephants are rendered in a heraldic posture in the mosaic at Maʿon-Nirim and an elephant appears in the border at Beth Sheʾan B (Fig. IX-27); a pair of giraffes flank a zebra in the medallions of row six of the Gaza mosaic pavement (Fig. IX-26b). 2. The Human Figure Human figures were portrayed in a stylized manner: each part of the body was considered as a discrete element, body proportions were disregarded, and each limb was rendered separately.



motifs in jewish synagogue art

a

b

c

Figure IX-25. Horned animals on mosaic pavements: a. Beth Sheʾan B; b. Susiya; c. Naʿaran entrance.

a

b

Figure IX-26. Animal chase scenes, Gaza mosaic.

457

458

chapter nine

a

b

Figure IX-27. Elephants: a. Maʿon; b. Beth Sheʾan B.

Human figures are portrayed on carved reliefs (lintels and friezes). At Korazim on the interior frieze, a head with curled hair is depicted within an acanthus medallion (Fig. IX-28a) (May 2000:114–115, Figs. 1:8; Yeivin 2000:Fig. 107, Pl. 14:1, wrongly identified as a medusa head); three other heads in medallions are portrayed elsewhere on the frieze (May 2000:114–115, Figs. 1:9–11) as well as several scenes involving human figures, such as medallions depicting vintage and wine production (see below, Fig. IX-30) (May 2000:113, Fig. 1:4–7). A relief from Dabura, found in second use, depicts a crudely stylized human figure holding objects in its hands (Fig. IX-28b; Kochavi 1972:266; Hachlili 1995:no. 47). The figure is carved in frontal position; it has a square body, round head, small legs with big feet, and long arms. The man holds a wreath(?) in his left hand and a round-shaped object in his right. Next to the man is a stele-like carving. The Dabura figure resembles the man carved on the ʿEn Nashut orthostat, which depicts a crudely carved figure in the center, flanked by lions and eagles (Fig. IX-3). Its head is disproportionately small, as are the animal heads, and its left hand is disproportionately large. A head is rendered within a double meander band on the capital of a diagonal fluted column from Qasrin synagogue (Fig. IV-20b; Hachlili 1995:no. 48.1). Another motif depicting human figures consists of the Nikae, flying winged Victories flanking a wreath, portrayed on lintels and on a sarcophagus. Two fragments of a lintel were found at ed-Dikke (Fig. IX-29a). On the left side of the lintel, the winged Nike, its dressed lower body bent, holds a wreath. The right side was found by Schumacher (1888:Fig. 29), but is now lost (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:115, Figs. 222 and 223; Hachlili 1988:206–207, Fig. VIII-45b; 1995:no. 45). Another set of winged Nikae is carved on a lintel from Rama (Fig. IX-29b). The Nikae are rendered angularly, with faces depicted schematically and hands holding wreaths. The carved figures exhibit the characteristic conventions of Oriental art: an oversized head, body and face portrayed en face, legs in profile, arms attached unnaturally to the body, and few details depicted. Their wings spread out behind. The reliefs are flat, schematic, and crudely carved. The uniformity of their portrayal on the lintels of Rama and ed-Dikke, and probably on the Barʿam damaged lintel (Fig. V-7a, b) as well as on the Beth Sheʿarim sarcophagus suggests strongly that this motif must have existed in a pattern book. Though identical in form to similar pagan motifs, they are different in meaning. The Nikae/Victories in Jewish art may have been, as Avi-Yonah maintains (1973:127),



motifs in jewish synagogue art

a

b

Figure IX-28. a. Head within an acanthus medallion, Korazim; b. Human figure, Dabura.

a

b

Figure IX-29. Nikae engraved figures: a. ed Dikke; b. Rama.

459

460

chapter nine

representations of the triumph of the faith, evoked by the Triumph of the Emperor as depicted on Roman arches. They may also have been associated with angels or cherubim (Avigad 1976:285). Several human figures are found in mosaic floors in the biblical scenes and zodiac panels. On the zodiac panel, human figures and protomes are used for depicting the seasons, the signs of the zodiac, and the sun god. The four busts of the seasons in Hammath Tiberias B, Beth Alpha, and Sepphoris (Figs. VII-11, 12) have exactly the same face, differing only in clothing, hair style, and attributes. The personification of the seasons is a frequent motif in ancient art. The zodiac signs represented by human figures are Gemini, Virgo, Libra, Sagittarius, and Aquarius (Figs. VII-14–21). The Hammath Tiberias B zodiac is depicted in a Hellenistic-naturalistic style: the bodies are rendered in natural postures, the head turned freely to the side; the faces are expressive, the folds of the dress fall naturally, and the jewellery is representative of the fashion of the period (Fig. X-15). At Sepphoris the figures are also quite naturalistic, but their portrayal is cruder (Fig. X-20): the heads face frontwards while the body is presented in profile. By comparison, the unique Beth Alpha mosaic with its zodiac and biblical scenes renders the figures according to the Oriental perception (Fig. X-22): the bodies are shown in front view, the legs and feet in profile, the face round, the eyes enlarged. The hair is not shown as an intrinsic part of the head which is large in proportion to the body, the arms are shown sideways and attached unnaturally to the bodies, and there is no difference in the portrayals of men, women, or youths. King David in Gaza (Fig. VIII-13) is shown in a conventional depiction of Orpheus stylized as a Byzantine emperor; David in Meroth is shown as a Byzantine warrior (Fig. VIII-14). A human head is depicted on the Japhia mosaic (Fig. IX-23b), where it is used purely as a decorative and stylized motif. In the House of Leontis several figures are depicted: Odysseus, the Sirens, and a personification of the Nile (Fig. IX-39, 40). The human figures are similar to those depicted in room L of the sixth century CE Beth Sheʾan Christian monastery. They have the same face and hair, all look sideways, and all are portrayed in quite naturalistic postures which convey their actions (see Hachlili 2009:254–264, for the Beth Sheʾan artists). It is important to call attention to the phenomenon that the inhabited scrolls or geometric sections in synagogue pavements do not contain any human images, although human figures do appear in other panels on the same pavements, in the contexts of biblical scenes and zodiacs (see Na⁠ʾaran, or the nave floor at Gaza). During the same period, inhabited scrolls on some church pavements in the Beth Sheʾan area and Caesarea as well as in Arabia depict human figures (Hachlili 2009:111–147). 3. Genre Motifs Only a few genre motifs are depicted in synagogue reliefs and pavements. At Korazim several scenes involving human figures appear on parts of the inner frieze (May 2000:113, Fig. 1:4–7): the frieze, though mutilated, clearly shows four medallions depicting vintage and wine production (Fig. IX-30), one filled with a figure with a staff, and three vintage scenes each of which depicts a pair of figures either holding or picking grapes with the third couple from the left treading grapes. Four vintage scenes are depicted on the Korazim inner frieze, carved within four vine scrolls medallions (May 2000:113, Fig. 1:4–7, no. 37, Fig. 104, Pl. 15:4). This is the only scene in Jewish art of figures carrying out vintage actions, whereas they are a regular part of mosaic floors in Christian art, in churches and monasteries (Hachlili 2009:Pl. VII-1–4). Humorous and realistic genre subjects are rendered on the running border of the Beth Alpha mosaic pavement: A figure holding a goose is depicted within a vine scrolls medallion on the left border (Fig. IX-31, 32b). A hen strutting along with her four chicks behind her is rendered in the lozenge medallion in the upper part of the border.



motifs in jewish synagogue art

461

Figure IX-30. Vintage scenes carved on the hall inner frieze, Korazim.

Figure IX-31. Genre subjects rendered on the running border, Beth Alpha.

A hen lays an egg into a water vessel in the center of the eighth row of the Maʿon-Nirim synagogue inhabited scrolls mosaic pavement (Fig. IX-32a). Each of these three motifs is unique and may represent the artists’ own initiative and imaginative contribution to these mosaic floors. These refreshing innovations contrast sharply with the frequently used conventional motifs taken from pattern books. 4. Birds Birds are widespread in ancient art, and Jewish artists commonly used them. In fact they appear to be one of the artists’ favorite motifs (Avigad 1976:144–145, Pls. 2, 3, 33:1, 44:4). By the Second Temple period birds are already being used in Jewish art, for instance in the wall painting of the Goliath Tomb at Jericho (Hachlili 1985). Birds are depicted in heraldic scenes, flanking a menorah, on a chancel screen from Tiberias (Fig. IV-64). On the Torah shrine panel at Beth Alpha, birds flank the Ark (Fig. VI-3a). On three stone plaques (mirror frames) they appear flanking a menorah and two Torah shrines (Hachlili 1988:335– 337, Fig. VIII-50e, x, 25–27, Pls. 36. 89, 102). On the Beth Sheʾan B mosaic floor birds appear in several locations (Fig. IX-33): they flank an inscription and a vase; they are depicted with ribbons around their necks, filling the spaces between the medallions and the inner row of the mosaic border. The outer row is filled with objects: a bird appears in a medallion flanking the menorah; birds fill the lozenges of the lower row of the wide frame. Birds surrounding an inscription are encountered in the House of Leontis, which is part of the small synagogue building (Hachlili 2009:Pl. XII-4b). At the Gaza, Maʿon-Nirim, and Beth Sheʾan B synagogues, birds fill many of the medallions on mosaic pavements with inhabited scroll designs (Figs. V-36–38, Hachlili 2009:112, 116, 125, Figs. VI-1,

462

chapter nine

a

b

Figure IX-32. Genre motifs: a. Ma‌ʾon-Nirim; b. Beth Alpha.

a

b

c

Figure IX-33. Birds on the mosaic pavements of Beth Sheʾan B: a, c. Synagogue, b. House of Leontis.

5, 10). Several birds fill the border medallions of the Beth Alpha mosaic pavements (Fig. IX-31), and a bird fills one square in the border fret pattern of the Maʿoz Hayim mosaic pavement (Fig. VI-28a). On the Noah’s Ark pavement at Gerasa, a row of birds is shown leaving the ark (Fig. VIII-8). The ʿEn Gedi mosaic pavements display groups of birds in pairs on the emblem of the main mosaic, and a single bird in the centre of the small mosaic (Fig. IX-34). Birds are portrayed inside the octagons of a geometric mosaic in the Susiya synagogue (Gutman et al. 1981:12). Birds pecking at grapes are carved on two Golan lintels, one from Kanef and the other from ʿEn Nashut (Fig. IX-35), both found in second use. At ʿEn Nashut, a stylized bird pecks at a cluster of grapes and on a protruding part of the relief, on the right, a fifteen-petaled rosette is engraved. On the lower part of a lintel of the side entrance at Kanaf (Hachlili 1995:Fig. 35, 36) a vine scroll with stylized leaves, clusters of grapes, and two heraldic birds pecking at grapes is carved. A third such depiction of a bird was seen on a now lost Korazim lintel (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Fig. 86). The motif of a bird pecking grapes was popular also in Syrian and Nabatean art (Butler 1916, II:Figs. 326, 327, 330).



motifs in jewish synagogue art

463

Figure IX-34. Birds, ʿEn Gedi mosaic.

a

b

Figure IX-35. Birds pecking grapes: a. ʿEn Nashut; b. Kanaf.

Birds are usually depicted in the Oriental style. Carved birds’ bodies are circular in shape and are shown from the side. Stylization is represented by patterning of body and wings. Symbolic connotations and figurative significance have been conferred on the bird motif by several scholars. Goodenough (1958, VII:24, 41, 42) and Avi-Yonah (1960b:29 note 16) maintain that the bird is associated with the soul of the deceased. However, birds appear in various combinations,

464

chapter nine

both in heraldic fashion and as a single motif on lintels and mosaic floors, filling spaces of lintels and medallions; they are also part of Jewish scenes portraying menoroth and Torah shrines, which would seem to rule out the idea of any symbolic significance. Birds apparently served as decorative motifs, probably taken from pattern books or from a catalogue sketch book used by the artists. 4.1 The Bird-in-Cage The bird-in-cage is one of the most common recurring motifs on the pavements with the inhabited scrolls design, being found at the Gaza and Maʿon-Nirim synagogues (Figs. V-36–37) (and churches of Groups I, II) where it is usually depicted in the central axial column (Hachlili 2009:140–141, Pl. VI-13, Figs. VI-1, 3–9). The cage has various styles and usually appears with a bird inside and the door closed, as at Maʿon-Nirim and Gaza (Fig. IX-36a, b). The bird-in-cage appears on other mosaics beside those on the inhabited vine scrolls compositions, and one such example is found in the centre of a hexagonal medallion in the geometric panel of the Naʿaran synagogue mosaic pavement (Fig. IX-36c). Some scholars argue that the bird-in-cage signifies the human soul imprisoned in its body and yearning for release; others see it as representing the soul of the blessed (or the donors), to be read as a funerary motif (Grabar 1966; Donceel-Voûte 1983; Maguire 1987:65; Hunt 1994:121). Yet this motif also probably reflected some hunting custom, such as the use of a bird in a cage as a decoy (Saller & Bagatti 1949:271; Avi-Yonah 1960:29, n. 16). This interpretation is reinforced by the content of two medallions on the inhabited acanthus border of the Nahariya church pavement; the left medallion shows a hunter with an empty cage behind him, and in the adjoining medallion there is a club aimed at a bird (Dauphin 1978:Pl. 7; Dauphin and Edelstein 1984, volume 35–36:Pl. XXVII). Supporting the idea that the bird-in-cage was used as a decoy, the cages at Gaza and Maʿon-Nirim (and at churches such as Shellal, Jerusalem, and ʿAsida) are placed in the axial central column and are flanked by birds in the same row (Hachlili 2009:Pls. VI-13, 19a). Thus, the frequent use of the bird-in-cage theme in company with birds and several episodes of bird catching indicate that it was part of the bird repertoire or catalogue in the pattern/model books with which the mosaicists worked. 4.2 Peacocks Peacocks appear in various forms, in both Jewish and Christian mosaic pavements: (a) The peacock as a motif frequently appears on mosaic pavements flanking an amphora or acanthus which are depicted in the central medallion placed, at the center base of the design; the amphora was the issuing point for the vine trellis, which made up the rest of the inhabited vine scrolls composition. At the Maʿon-Nirim synagogue, a pair of peacocks of which only one, with two feathers on its head, survived, is rendered walking towards the vase, its long, folded tail extending into the lowest central medallion of the inhabited scroll mosaic pavement (Fig. IX-37a) (Hachlili 2009:139–140); at the Gaza synagogue a peacock protrudes somewhat from the medallion flanking a Greek inscription (Fig. IX-37b). In some cases, the body appears in one medallion and the spread tail in another; there are similar peacocks at Shellal, with a small partridge placed above the tail (Hachlili 2009:Pl. VI-1). This is a recurrent motif in many mosaics and may appear in different parts of the pavement.  The synagogue pavement of Huseifa has, in its lower (unfortunately damaged) panel, a depiction of vine branches with grapes; in its lower corner two peacocks (of which only the heads survived) face each other (Avi-Yonah 1934:Pl. 43, Fig. 1).



motifs in jewish synagogue art

465

b c

a

Figure IX-36. Bird-in-Cage: a. Maʿon-Nirim; b. Gaza; c. Naʿaran.

a

b

c

Figure IX-37. Peacocks on inhabited scrolls pavements: a. Maʿon-Nirim; b. Gaza; c. peacock en face, Beth Sheʾan B small synagogue.

(b) A stylized representation of this motif is the peacock en face with an open tail spread out behind, depicted in the central medallion of the upper row on the mosaic pavement of the Beth Sheʾan B small synagogue, above the menorah medallion (Fig. IX-37c). The en face peacock is often portrayed on inhabited scrolls mosaic pavements at Gerasa, Antioch and Apamea in Syria, and in North Africa. (c) A single peacock is carved on a door-jamb from Qasrin next to a baseless five-branched menorah (Fig. III-16). The peacock’s posture is unusual, and it is presented, in profile, standing on its tail with legs joined together at its side, and pecking at a cluster of grapes. Above the menorah a curved line ending in a spiral is carved. This might be a decorative design or it might represent a snake. The door-jamb was found in second use in the Qasrin village (Hachlili 1995:187, no. and Fig. 4).

466

chapter nine

Though peacocks had some symbolic significance (Goodenough 1958, VIII:52–58), it seems that they were simply utilized as flanking objects, having been taken from a pattern book of heraldic sketches, while the en face peacock was probably used to fill spaces in medallions. 4.3 Fish and Dolphins There are depictions of fish in both synagogue and funerary Jewish art. At Korazim, fish are carved on one of the gable cornice parts and on a fragment of the inner frieze (May 2000:117, Fig. 1:19a, b). Fish are carved on some reliefs from the Golan: at Dabura, one fish is carved on the lintel in profile beside an eagle and another is carved on a stone; two fish are portrayed on a stone from Rafid; and fish tails flank an eagle on a lintel from Ahmadiyye (drawn by Schumacher). Fish are also portrayed as the sign of Pisces in the zodiac mosaics of the Beth Alpha, Hammath Tiberias B, Naʿaran, and Sepphoris synagogues (Figs. VII-20, 21). A fish depicted in the border of the Beth Alpha mosaic pavement (Fig. IX-31) is similar to the fish on the zodiac. Dolphins, a widespread motif in Greek and Roman art, are also popular in Nabatean reliefs and in Jewish art. On the Japhia mosaic floor, a dolphin fills the space between the circles of the tribal symbols (Fig. VIII-17). Heraldic dolphins flanking a wreath are portrayed in similar manner on the narrow side of two sarcophagi—the ‘Menorah’ and ‘Nikae’ sarcophagi. The mosaic floor in front of Beth Sheʿarim catacomb 11 depicts four dolphins filling the corners of a square (Goodenough 1953:Figs. 84–85). Scholars are divided as to the meaning of the fish and dolphin depictions. Goodenough (1956, V:11, 26) maintains that the fish is a sacred or magical symbol. He contends that the dolphin in pagan art suggests the loving concern of the deity with bringing people into a happy life after death. He proposes that the Jews see the dolphin as ‘a symbol of hope for themselves and their loved ones’ and may have called it Leviathan; one explanation, found in a Talmudic reference, is that the dolphin represents fertility. Fish and dolphins symbolize the sea (Avigad 1976:149) and could also have been apotropaic. They are employed as decorative motifs, especially for filling empty spaces, and are probably taken from patterns in sketch books of motifs used in antiquity. 5. Mythological Motifs Mythological scenes, which represented the revival of Classical and Hellenistic traditions and prototypes, are found typically on pavements of mansions; only rarely do they occur in synagogues and churches (Hachlili 2009:229–230). In synagogues, several carved mythological creatures—sea goats, centaurs, and medusa heads—have been found: The centaur is usually represented as a half human-half animal figure. A Capernaum lintel is carved with what are considered to be centaurs, now mutilated (Fig. V-12a). Several centaurs are depicted on the frieze fragments at Korazim (May 2000:111, 115–116, Figs. 1:1, 12; Yeivin 2000:Fig. 105, Pl. 15:7). On a stone fragment from Barʿam (Fig. IX-41) a centaur is depicted on the lower right edge. The sign of Sagittarius on the Sepphoris zodiac is shown as a leaping centaur shooting an arrow from a bow (Fig. VII-19) (Hachlili 2009:42–43). Eros figures, Zeus–Serapis, and the Rape of Ganymede are carved on a part of the inner frieze at Korazim (May 2000:115–116, Figs. 1:8, 9, 16). The head on the Japhia synagogue mosaic is interpreted as a medusa head (Fig. IX-23b). A sea-goat is depicted next to a pair of eagles on a cornice fragment from Capernaum (Fig. IX-38). Orpheus, the mythological singer who charmed wild animals with his playing of the lyre, has parallels in Jewish art. On the Gaza synagogue mosaic, David, in an adoption of the mythological‑pagan figure of Orpheus, is attired and crowned as a Byzantine emperor, seated on a throne and playing



motifs in jewish synagogue art

467

Figure IX-38. Sea-goat next to a pair of eagles, cornice fragment, Capernaum.

the lyre (Fig. VIII-13). Facing him are animals, of which only a lioness, a serpent, and a giraffe have survived. In the Jewish House of Leontis complex at Beth‑Sheʾan, mythological scenes from Homeric poems of the Odyssey appear on the upper panel (Fig. IX-39, 40) (Zori 1966:128–9; Adler 2003:55–68). In a scene of Odysseus and the sirens, Odysseus is bound to the mast of his ship, while below and to the left a naked Nereid rides an ichthyocentaur. The lower scene on the same panel shows Odysseus fighting the monster Scylla, beside a siren playing a flute. Interestingly, it is the only scene from the Homeric poems found on a mosaic pavement in Israel, and appears on the floor of a Jewish house. The lower panel ornamentation consisted of Nilotic scenes (Hachlili 2009:97–109). The Beth Sheʾan room decorated with the Odysseus and Nilotic themes served for secular, perhaps communal, purposes. The purpose of the themes decorating the pavement of this room are a subject of debate: To Avi‑Yonah (1975:54), the scene suggested that Byzantine Jews appreciated Homeric poetry. The pavement ornaments might have been the donor Leontis’s way of describing his voyage from Alexandria, possibly his native city, to Beth‑Sheʾan (Roth‑Gerson 1987:34, 38). Jentel (2000:248) contends that the mosaic is a donation from Leontis (whose name appears on a Greek inscription on the middle panel), a rich merchant, and that the mythological episode represents his own or his ship’s sea voyage to Egypt or to Italy. Adler (2003:125–128) argues that the Odysseus scenes in this house may be associated with water. Another possibility is that these scenes were chosen because they were the most attractive among the designs in a contemporary sketchbook of mosaic designs (Hachlili 1988:301, 393). Various accounts are given for the mythological episodes found on the ornamentation of Jewish and Christian art. Some of the mythological motifs penetrated Jewish imagery through the influence of Midrashic literature (Breslavi 1967:120–129). Goodenough (1958, VIII:115–116; 1968, XII:148) contends that mythological motifs symbolize mystical and eschatological hopes in Judaism, as well as signifying immortality. Piccirillo (1993:23–26) contends that mythological episodes found on Early Byzantine church floors in Arabia can be explained by the Classical Renaissance under Justinian. Merrony (1998:460–465), however, maintains that “there is good reason to suppose that a deeper symbolic meaning underlines these scenes.” When all the possibilities are considered, the most likely explanation is that these mythological images, though borrowed from pagan art, were taken from pattern books as purely decorative patterns devoid of any previous symbolic content that might have attached to them (Hachlili 1988:344; Weiss and Talgam 2002:73–83).

468

chapter nine

Figure IX-39. House of Leontis mosaic, Beth Sheʾan.



motifs in jewish synagogue art

469

Figure IX-40. Odysseus on the upper panel, Nilotic themes on the lower panel, House of Leontis, Beth Sheʾan.

470

chapter nine 6. Flora—Plant Ornaments

Plant motifs were a common element of ancient ornamental art (Avi-Yonah 1948:146–165; 1950:49– 58), including Jewish art. They were used in architectural ornamentation, mosaic pavements, and as funerary decoration. Plant motifs were either adopted from earlier Oriental designs or imitated local flora. Their form and composition were sometimes stylized into abstract or geometric patterns. Floral and vegetation motifs were considered suitable for aniconic expression, for repetitive patterns, and for filling spaces. The repertoire of plant ornaments included independent and recognizable species as well as imaginative compositions and repetitive over-all motifs which sometimes changed into geometric patterns. Plant motifs included vine scrolls, grape bunches, floral scrolls, wreaths, and garlands (Hachlili 1988:317–320; 2009:11–12). 6.1 The Vine Most popular among the plant motifs is the vine which appears in Jewish art as early as the Second Temple period. It is generally stylized; the bunches of grapes and leaves are arranged unnaturally in various geometric forms, sometimes so regularly rendered that the effect is of an abstract pattern (Hachlili 1985:119–123). One type of grape cluster is typical of Jewish art: a central bunch flanked by two smaller bunches. Vine branches, leaves, and grapes are popular motifs found on architectural fragments. This vine motif is even more popular in funerary art and appears in the wall painting in the Goliath family tomb in Jericho (Hachlili 2005:Fig. IV-5), on tomb façades in Jerusalem, and on some sarcophagi and ossuaries (Hachlili 2005:Figs. III-29, 35). The most common motif is the vine scroll, either carved on stone or depicted on mosaics. Examples occur on synagogue lintels such as at Kanef, Korazim, Nabratein, and Qasrin (Fig. V-8). The Kanef entrance frame has a stylized over-all vine scroll pattern (Fig. V-22c). At Umm el-Qanatir vine scrolls issuing from a vase are carved on both columns of the Torah shrine (Fig. IV-38). On mosaic floors the vine scroll is found on the left side border at Beth Alpha; and the inhabited scroll pavements in particular use vine scroll medallions (Figs. V-36–38). Avi-Yonah (1960b:32) maintains that the vine branch pattern served as a carpet design, meant to lead up to the symbols, as at MaʿonNirim. The vine in Jewish art is plainly an ornamental design used to decorate confined spaces or to cover complete floors. Its only symbolic connotation might be its position as one of the “seven species” (Deut. 8:8; Avigad 1976:2; but see Goodenough, 1956, VI1:26ff., who associates the vine with mystic Dionysian cults). 6.2 The Wreath The wreath in antiquity symbolized victory and peace. In Hellenistic funerary paintings and reliefs the wreath was a common motif which signified immortality. The wreath was also one of the most common motifs in Jewish decorative art, used already in the Second Temple period (Hachlili 1985:123–124). In early depictions the wreath, frequently ending with a Hercules knot, is found alone, whereas in later renditions it is usually depicted as a central motif flanked by figures such as Nikae, dolphins, eagles, bull heads, vine scrolls and a menorah, on lintels of various synagogues, among them Barʿam, Capernaum, and Nabratein. Various motifs are also shown inside these wreaths, including the lion head, menorah, conch, geometric designs, and an inscription (Figs. V-7, 9, 18, IX-16a); see, for instance, carved lintels with wreaths flanked by eagles and by Nikae at ed-Dikke and Rama (Fig. IX-29), or by amphorae, pomegranates, and rosettes at Qasrin, Tayibe, and Yahudiyye (Fig. V-9). Several wreathes decorate the inner frieze basalt fragments and the menorah lintel from Korazim. Most



motifs in jewish synagogue art

471

of them end in a Hercules knot, some have human figures inside them, and others have geometric patterns or are empty (Figs. V-18, 19) (May 2000:129–130, Fig. 9, nos. 28–31, 48). 6.3 The Garland The garland is a common decorative pattern in Graeco-Roman art. In Jewish art it is used only sporadically. The upper part of the main façade lintel at Capernaum is carved with a series of garlands (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Fig. 18). On the soffit of the Gush Halav synagogue lintel there is an eagle flanked by garlands (Fig. IX-14). It is also found on several sarcophagi at Beth Sheʿarim (Avigad 1976:Pls. XLI, XLII, XLV, XLVII, XLVIII, LI). 7. Selected Geometric Ornaments 7.1 The Rosette The rosette is the most prominent motif in Jewish art and could be said to exemplify it. Executed with the aid of a compass, the rosette developed from a traditional geometric motif (Avi-Yonah 1950:67–72). Three-, six- or multi–petaled rosettes, interlaced six-petaled rosettes, and polychrome schematic rosettes enclosed in a circle, occur in almost all Jewish art forms. The rosette was very common in Second Temple period art, appearing on mosaics, architectural decoration, stone tables, and one was found on a sundial in Jerusalem (Avigad 1983:Figs. 116, 185). It continued in use in later periods as well. In funerary art, it is the motif which most frequently occurs on ossuaries (Rahmani 1994:39–41; Hachlili 2005:100–102; 2009:8–10). Several carved rosettes have been found on lintels at the H. ʿAmudim synagogue (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 140, 141), Qasrin, and Tayibe (Fig. V-9; Hachlili 1995:nos. and Figs. 2, 50). At Korazim several rosettes are carved on parts of the inner frieze and the gable (May 2000:127–8). Some sarcophagi from Beth Sheʿarim also carry carved rosettes. It was apparently a strictly decorative design, devoid of any symbolism (Avi-Yonah 1981a:97–99). Other geometric motifs include meanders, waves, guilloches, lozenges, and hexagons. They are depicted on mosaics, often as borders. 7.2 Inhabited Double Meander The inhabited double meander motif was popular in carved architectural decorations on lintels, capitals, and architraves in the Galilee and Golan synagogues, as well as in Syrian Roman art. It can be seen in the stone from Barʿam (Fig. IX-41) and on the Naveh lintels. Meander bands are found decorating columns, lintels, and reliefs in Jewish art of the Golan: on the capital and base of a double fluted column (AF 33) from Qasrin (Figs. III-27, IV-20b) (Hachlili 1995:nos. and Figs. 48); as a meander band on one side of the upper part of a pedestal found at Pehorah that was probably originally from ʿEn Nashut (Fig. IV-16; Ilan 1980:118); on an architrave at ed-Dikke (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 235, 236); on lintels from Naveh (Goodenough 1953, vol. III:621, 623; Hachlili 1988:215, Fig. VIII:54); on a door-post stone at Dabbura (Maoz 1981b:109); and in the circular design on the side of the Kanef doorpost (Fig. V-22c). One is carved on a Second Temple period capital from the Gamla synagogue (Fig. II-12). The inhabited double meander is common on border designs of mosaic pavements, such as those at Susiya and Maʿoz Hayim (Figs. IV-48, VI-28a, VII-10). These meander bands are filled with various motifs: geometric, floral, a vase, a face and, in one instance, a seven-branched menorah (on a lintel from Naveh). A meander filled with floral patterns, animals, and humans was found on a relief from the Barʿam synagogue (Fig. IX-41).

472

chapter nine

Figure IX-41. Inhabited double meander motif on stone, Barʿam.

Architraves and reliefs decorated with the double meander are found in the Hauran at the beginning of the second century. For example, the friezes found at Sia carved with a human face and an animal filling the meander (Dunand 1934:Pl. XXVIII-155, 156); the entrance façades at the basilica of Qanawat, the Temples of Mushnnef and Atil (Dentzer-Feydy 1986:287–288, 297, Pls. XIII, XIVb, XVa); the Inkhil palace (Butler 1915, IIA, 5:ill. 282, 286); and the Tychaion of Is-Sanamen (Butler 1915:Pl. XIX). All are dated to the second century (Dentzer-Feydy 1986:287–288, 297). Slightly later examples include the Ataman tomb (Butler 1915:ill. 280) dating to the late second—early third century and the lintel at Mutaiyyeh dating to the third to fourth centuries (Dentzer-Feydy 1986:307–308, Pl. XXIIId). The double meander appears to have been very popular in the second century, continuing sporadically throughout the third and fourth centuries in the Hauran and Syria (Dentzer-Feydy 1986:287–288, 297, 307–308; 1989:470–473). The motifs used in synagogue ornamentation were limited in their variety. Though a pattern book/ copybook was likely the shared source for these motifs, and that mainly for the representations of animals, plants, and other ornamental shapes, it is quite likely that some motifs were directly copied from nature. Heraldic and antithetic symmetrical designs were constantly selected for synagogue ornamentation, often with unidentical symmetry. Literary traditions such as the Midrashim and Agadot, as well as the reuse of popular motifs employed during the Second Temple period, mainly geometric and plant ones, provided a common source of inspiration for later synagogue art. However, certain contemporary Graeco-Roman, Syrian, and Nabatean decorative patterns and motifs were also used, while their symbolic significance was disregarded.

CHAPTER ten

ARTISTS, WORKSHOPS and repertoire Artists and workshops of the ancient world are unfortunately almost always anonymous. The chief means of identification are: the few surviving inscriptions refering to artists or bearing their actual “signatures”; analysis of stylistic and technical idiosyncrasies characteristic of a particular artist or workshop; and the examination of particular motifs and patterns. The artists and artisans did not need permanent workshops, as they travelled from place to place, carrying their portable tools. A workshop probably consisted of painters, carvers, sculptors, and mosaicists, who were all members of a master’s or builder’s team. The basic materials of their trade were to be found at the worksite (Balmelle and Darmon 1986:238–240). The artists needed the help and cooperation of other artisans as well as various prepared items. Temporary workshops were at times assigned by the clients who requested the work; two such temporary workshops were discovered at Caesarea: one in a Roman mansion, for floor mosaicists, and the other for wall mosaicists (opus sectile) in a Byzantine mansion. “In both cases, one of the rooms was allocated as a workshop until the work was done. The opus sectile panels, which were meant to decorate the mansion’s walls, were found on the floor of the Byzantine workshop. The workshop was apparently sealed shortly before the owners abandoned their house ca. 640/1 CE” (Gendelman and Gersht 2010:33*–34*). Stoneworking: Stone carving by masons was a traditional craft in antiquity and was frequently passed from father to son. The blocks were marked by applying modules and templates before carving. Rockwell (1993:152; May and Stark 2002:208) classified three systems of finishing a stone work: (1) The stone relief was prepared in rough before being set in place and the design was then completed in situ. This was the preferred system and was used throughout antiquity; (2) the design was carved after the stone blocks were set in the structure; (3) the carving was done after mounting, though some details were prepared in advance. May and Stark (2002:208) maintain that a master could be identified by the way he used his stonework tools. “A skilled craftsman was adept in adjusting the angle between the tool and the carved surface in a way that allowed him to sculpt. A less professional craftsman would simply hold his tool perpendicularly to the surface.” Mosaic paving: Much technical and artistic skill was required for the laying of the mosaic pavements. Therefore, these works were probably executed by workshops-schools consisting of groups of artisans and artists based in large cities or by travelling groups comprising a single master-artisan accompanied by his assistant/s—his son/s or apprentice/s (Dauphin 1976a:130–131, 141–145; 1978; Balmelle and Darmon 1986:238–240; Hachlili 1988:383–391; Donderer 1989:40–50; Dunbabin 1999:269–278; Atzaka 2011). The tasks in mosaic workshops were probably divided among several experts: the master designer—a pictor who drew figures or complicated geometric designs; a craftsman in charge of the border decoration and of pavements of secondary rooms; and the assistants, apprentices, and general workers who prepared the site, cut the tesserae, and finished and cleaned up the work at the end. Certain parts might have been made in the workshop atelier and taken later to the site and placed within the pavement. The quality of the execution of the pavements was determined by the artists’ professional ability (Hachlili 2009:243–246, 249–251, 254–269, 272–280).

474

chapter ten

A distinction is observed between the mosaicist called musaearius (in Greek μουσιαρίω κεντητή) and the one called tessellarius (ψηφοθέτή). These two terms are generally explained as referring to a wall mosaicist and a floor mosaicist respectively. Yet they could also have distinguished between the designer who drew the pictures and the artisan who produced and added the decorations and background. Perhaps they related to different levels of skill, competence, and expertise, or even separated the creator of superior decorative mosaics from the producer of plain mosaic pavements (Bruneau 1988:33–34; Jesnick 1997:58).1 Balmelle and Darmon (1986:241–243), as well as Dunbabin (1999:275), portray the status of the mosaicists on the basis of the edict of the Emperor Diocletian of 301 CE, which attempted to fix maximum prices for commodities and artisans’ wages. Only a few examples have been found of sinopia—preliminary drawings or incised lines indicating the principal units and composition of the pavement, or of geometric or figured scenes under floor mosaics. Still, these few samples may indicate that preliminary sketches were considerably more common on mosaic pavements than was previously supposed (Dunbabin 1999:284–285). In Israel such preliminary works have been found at several sites (Hachlili 2009:243–244). These include Masada, the mosaic of the House of Dionysos at Sepphoris, Khirbet El-Murassas monastery at Maʿale Edommim, the eastern church mosaic at Herodium, and the Beth Midrash mosaic at Meroth. Talgam (1987:153) maintains that work on the mosaic of Meroth must have been the result of full collaboration between the designer/painter (pictor or ordinator) who drew the sinopia and the tessellare or pavimentare who laid the stones. 1. Artists and Mosaicists Identified by Inscriptions The signatures inscribed on mosaic pavements are generally of one, two, or three artists: a single signature might indicate the head of the workshop or a master craftsman. Two and three signatures conceivably mark a division of labor among artists performing different tasks, or between a director and assistants, although it is difficult to isolate the work of each individual artist when two or three are named in inscriptions. Apparently, artists or mosaicists came from abroad to work, and later trained local artisans. This is indicated by the survival of the local mosaic traditions, in particular by the recurrence of certain themes. Inscriptions accompanying some of the architectural decorative elements and those found on synagogue and church mosaic pavements sometimes identity specific artists and mosaicists by both name and deed, by a prayer dedicated to or commemorating the artists, or sometimes both. The inscription usually states the name of the artist or mosacist/s, often followed by a word meaning ‘made by’ or ‘work of ’. Inscriptions in Hebrew or Aramaic on synagogue architectural decorative elements were found mainly in the Galilee and the Golan: 1. A Hebrew inscription on the main lintel of the small synagogue at Barʿam (Fig. X-1a) begins with a prayer and mentions “. . . Jose, the Levite son of Levi made this lintel . . .” (Naveh 1978:no. 1). 2. The same Jose is mentioned again on an inscribed Hebrew-Aramaic lintel found at the Galilean site of ʿAlma (Fig. X-1b): “Amen Selah, I Jose, son of Levi the Levite, the craftsman who made . . .” (Hestrin 1960:65; Naveh 1978:no. 3). Both inscriptions appear to date to the same period and refer to the same person. 1 On the technique materials, foundations, lay-out, and procedures relating to mosaic pavements, see Dunbabin 1999:279–290.



artists, workshops and repertoire

a

b

Figure X‑1. Aramaic inscriptions on lintels: a. Barʿam; b. ʿAlma.

475

476

chapter ten

3. Another artist, ‘]na from Tiberias’ (the full name is lost), is cited in an Aramaic inscription on a lintel fragment from ʿAlma (Naveh 1978:no. 4). 4. An Aramaic inscription on a stone from the ʿAmudim synagogue reads “Yoezer the Hazan and Simeon his brother made this Gate to the Lord of Heaven” (Avigad 1960:62, 63; Naveh [1978:42, no. 20] reads not ‘Gate’ but rather ‘Ark’). 5. On a basalt architrave found at Dabura (Golan) an otherwise Aramaic inscription mentions the name of the builder in Greek (Fig. X-2): [‘Ρο]ύστίκος έκτ[ισεν] “[Ro]stykos built or founded” (Naveh 1978:no. 7; Roth-Gerson 1987:51–52, no. 11). 6. An Aramaic inscription on a basalt column found near the Gush Halav synagogue (Fig. X-3) mentions “Yosa son of Nahum made that, be blessed” (Naveh 1978:no. 12). 7. On the basalt Seat of Moses found at Korazim, we are informed by an inscription that the artist “Yodan son of Ishmael made a stoa” (Figs. IV-67, XI-8) (Naveh 1978:no. 17; Yeivin 2000:54). 8. “Halfo son of Zavieda son of Yohanan made this column, be blessed” is inscribed in Aramaic on a limestone column found at Capernaum (Naveh 1978:no. 18). 9. An Aramaic inscription on a basalt stone from Qasrin reads (Fig. X-4): “[X son of U]zzi made (or perhaps donated) this accommodation” (Naveh 1978:no. 110; Urman 1995b:467). 10. A Greek inscription on a marble board from Tiberias mentioning ‘Abraham the marble worker’ (Fig. X-5) was carved either to commemorate the craftsman for his work or as a dedicatory inscription (Roth-Gerson 1987:60, no. 40). It should be noted that some of these inscriptions evince confusion between the artists and the donors, since the Hebrew and Aramaic word ‫ עבד‬means either made/executed or donated (Naveh 1987:9–10). Inscriptions in Aramaic and Greek identifying the mosaicist were discovered on a few mosaic pavements: 11. On the Beth Alpha synagogue mosaic a Greek inscription in a tabula ansata, placed near the western entrance, reads: Μνισθούσιν ΰ τεχνίτ[αι] εΰ κάμνοντες τώ έργον του τω Μαριανός καί Άνίνας υ [ί] ός; ‘In honored memory of the artists who made this work well, Marianos and his son Aninas’ (Fig. X-6a). Judging from this inscription, the mosaicists Marianos and his son Hanina were local artisans who created (with special skill) a mosaic in an independent style (Sukenik 1932:47; Avi-Yonah 1981:292, no. 22; Roth-Gerson 1987:29–30; Hachlili 1988:383, Fig. X-7c; Donderer 1989:no. A25, Pl. 18, 1). Sukenik (1934:77) claims that as the inscription is the only one in Greek, it was inserted at the initiative of the mosaicists themselves. 12. The same artisans are mentioned in a Greek inscription discovered on a later mosaic pavement in side room 7 in the Beth Sheʾan synagogue A (Fig. X-6b): Χιροθεσία Μαριανου καί το[ΰ] υίο[ΰ] Άνίνα ‘this work was made by Marianos and his son Anina’ (Zori 1967:159, Pl. 31, 1; Roth-Gerson 1987:33; Hachlili 1988:385; Donderer 1989:no. A24, Pl. 17, 2). 13. The Greek inscription on the mosaic pavement from Tiberias possibly cites an artist ‘Prokolos son of Krispus built or founded’ (Roth-Gerson 1987:no. 15) (the word έκτισεν, which appears also on the Dabura architrave, can be translated in either way). 14. An Aramaic inscription within a panel was discovered on the mosaic of the Beth Sheʾan small synagogue B outside the main pavement border (Bahat 1981:85; Naveh 1978:78–79, no. 47). The inscription, placed under a scene of a vase flanked by a pair of guinea-fowl (Fig. X-7), is rendered



artists, workshops and repertoire

Figure X‑2. Aramaic inscription on basalt architrave, Dabura.

Figure X‑3. Aramaic inscription on a basalt column, near Gush Halav.

477

478

chapter ten

Figure X‑4. Aramaic inscription on a basalt stone, Qasrin.

Figure X‑5. Greek inscription on a marble board, Tiberias.



artists, workshops and repertoire

479

a

b

Figure X‑6. Greek inscription of mosaicists Marianos and his son Aninas: a. Beth Alpha; b. Beth Sheʾan A.

upside-down facing the general nave mosaic, and commemorates the anonymous artist/s who created the mosaic: ‫דכיר לטב אומנה דעבד חדה אבידתה‬ ‘Remembered be for good the artisans who made this work’. These inscriptions make specific use of the Aramaic or Greek term for artists (see below). A comparable inscription to this Beth Sheʾan Aramaic inscription, also commemorating anonymous mosaicists, appears in the mosaic of the nave in St. Stephen’s church at Umm al-Rasas, dated to 785 CE; ‘Lord, remember thy servants the mosacists whose names thou knowest’ (Piccirillo 1989:289; 1993:238, Fig. 384). Dunbabin (1999:273) suggests that in this formula, as in those on donors’ inscriptions, sometimes “the names could be suppressed in aspiration for a heavenly reward.” Two related Aramaic inscriptions on fragments of mosaic pavements (dated to the 4th century CE) perhaps record and commemorate a Jewish family of artists who also ‘made’ mosaic floors. 15. The first, from Kafr Kana, reads (Fig. X-8a): ‫דיכר לטב יוסה בר תנחום בר בוטה ובנוי דעבדון הדה טבלה תהי להון ברכתה אמן‬ ‘Honored be the memory of Yoseh, son of Tanhum, son of Butah, and his sons, who made this pavement; may it be a blessing for them. Amen’. 16. The other is a fragmentary Aramaic inscription from Sepphoris, which reads (Fig. X-8b): ‫ ד] יהב חד‬. . . [ ‫דכיר [לטב] רבי יודן [בר תנ] חום [ב] ר‬ ‘Honored be the memory of Rabbi Yudan the son of Tanhum the son of . . .’ (Avi-Yonah 1981b:nos. 167, 296; Naveh 1978:51–53, nos. 29, 30; Hachlili 1988:384, Fig. XV, 1d, e).

480

chapter ten

Figure X‑7. Aramaic inscription on Beth Sheʾan small synagogue B pavement.

a

b

Figure X‑8. Aramaic inscriptions on synagogue pavements: a. Kafr Kana; b. Sepphoris.

Both these inscriptions mention three generations of a family: Yoseh and Yudan, sons of Tanhum, son of Buta, who ‘made’ mosaic pavements. Avi-Yonah (1981b:375, after Klein) proposes that these inscriptions attest to a family of artists with an inherited craft; but see Naveh (1978:51–52), who suggests that these are dedicatory inscriptions. 17. An Aramaic inscription in one of the aisles of the Gerasa synagogue reads: ‫שלום על כל ישראל אמן אמן סלה פינחס בר ברוך יוסה בר שמואל וי[ו]דן בר חזקיה‬ ‘Peace upon all Israel Amen, Amen Selah. Phinhas son of Baruch, Jose son of Samuel, and Judan son of Heskiah’. Sukenik (1934:77) maintains that this inscription commemorated the Aramaicspeaking mosaicists and not the donors. However, not all the inscriptions are clear on this point.



artists, workshops and repertoire

481

Perhaps it was not customary for artists to identify themselves in connection with their work, as suggested by the small number of artists’ inscriptions. More significant is the absence of craftsmen who signed more than one work or pavement, except for the artisan who carved two lintels at ʿAlma and Barʿam, and the father and son who created the mosaics at Beth Alpha and Beth Sheʾan A. Almost all of the inscriptions found in synagoges mention artists with Jewish names, which implies that Jewish artists were employed in building synagogues and laying mosaic pavements, while Christian artists usually laid mosaic floors in churches. Yet a number of synagogue and church mosaics might have been paved by the same artists, or by a team of mosaicists or a workshop (see below). The craft was apparently transmitted from father to son, as attested by the inscriptions. Two generations of a family, Marianos and his son, together made the mosaic pavement of Beth Alpha, which is unique in style and execution, and the pavement in the large Room 7 of Beth Sheʾan synagogue A. Possibly the same three-generation family is recorded on the Kafr Kana and Sepphoris mosaic inscriptions. It should be noted that all the inscriptions mention male artists, an indication that in antiquity women were not employed as carvers, sculptors, or mosaicists (for various Greek inscriptions of mosaicists, see Atzaka 2011). Several terms for mosaicist or artist were used in the inscriptions, yet it is notable that different words or various terms for the mosaicist or artist are used in synagogues and church inscriptions: The terms used in synagogue inscriptions for artists or craftmen are ‫ אומנה‬omna and ‫ אמן‬oman, in Aramaic (see Inscriptions 2 and 14) and Hebrew respectively, and τεχνίτ[αι] in Greek (Inscription 11). In Talmudic literature the Aramaic term ‫ אומנה‬omna means artisan or skilled builder (M. Berachot II, 4; JT. Hag. II, 1, 77b, line 15). The Greek verb Èργον ‘work of ’ or ‘made by’ appears on several inscriptions in reference to the work of the mosaicist (Donderer 1989:16, 34, 168, nos. A1, A25, A27). The Beth Alpha inscription, which describes clearly the work done by two mosacists/artists, uses this term. Another term, Χιροθεσία ‘handwork’, is inscribed for the same two artists in the side Room 7 in Beth Sheʾan synagogue A (Fig. X-6a, b). The Greek term used at Beth Alpha is τεχνίτ[αι] (‘occupied in skilled labor’ = artists) (Fig. X-6a) (Sukenik 1932:47). Hestrin (1960:66) proposes that these artisans or artists might have been responsible for the mosaic, but also for the building, for two reasons: first, the same term appears in Syria carved on lintels and tomb walls, and is used there for both artisan and builder; second, the only ornaments are inside, on the mosaic floors, which were thus the only places for inscriptions. In sum, the Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek terms can be explained as meaning artisan, craftsman, or/and builder. 1.1 Jewish Artists Jewish names are mentioned on almost all of the inscriptions discussed above, which implies that there were Jewish artists employed in the construction and decoration of synagogue buildings (Hachlili 1988:390). Avi-Yonah (1961b:32) maintains that the builders of the Galilean synagogues had to be Jewish, as it would be unlikely that the Galilean Jews “would entrust the construction of their synagogue to non-Jews”, although the actual execution may have been carried out by local craftsmen, mostly Galileans (who might also have been Jews). According to Avi-Yonah, these builders were trained in a gentile school, because of the conformity of the Galilean synagogues architecture and décor to those of the Graeco-Syrian buildings in the Hauran. Jewish literature of the time, the Mishna and Talmud, mention the existence of Jewish artists and craftsmen who also worked for Christians and pagans, as well as the attitude of Jews towards artists and craftsmen. Among the various crafts the builders are mentioned first and they were highly

482

chapter ten

appreciated (BT. Sanhedrin 29a). Hestrin (1960:66) maintains that the prominent place of the inscription on the ʿAlma lintel was probably related to the high esteem in which the artist was held. In the same mosaic pavement, geometric and floral motifs are frequently rendered in a much higher quality than figurative representations. A long tradition of decorative patterning, that is, floral and geometric motifs, existed among Jewish artists. No such tradition is known for figurative representations, which may account for the qualitative differences in the work. Clearly, Jewish artists created the mosaic pavements of Beth Alpha. The craft of carving and mosaics was an inherited skill, traditionally a family occupation. Two generations, Marianos and his son Haninah, together made the mosaic pavement of Beth Alpha (Inscription no. 11) and also the pavement in Room 7 of Beth Sheʾan synagogue A (Inscription no. 12). The three-generation family of Buta, Tanhum, Yose, and Yudan were mosaicists working in the Galilee. The mosaicist who made the Maʿon-Nirim synagogue pavement was possibly a Greek-speaking Jew from the Diaspora, according to Avi-Yonah (1960b:34) because, though the menorah and the ritual objects are rendered faithfully, the artist displays an ignorance of the Hebrew script. Barash (1980:30–32) proposes that a travelling foreign mosaicist having connections with Egypt and Syria produced the David mosaic at Gaza. From the inscriptions, the style of architectural carving and the mosaic executions, it can be concluded that artists were producing works of art which satisfied the demands of the local clientele. Artists may have been either Jews or non-Jews who worked for a mixed clientele, using pattern books favored by each of the different arts and religions. Similar designs would be used in all cases, but specific symbols for each client would be added to the synagogue or church carvings, mosaic pavements, or chancel screens. It is possible to infer that the same artists or workshops manufactured for the various populations—Jewish, Christian, and pagan. 2. Galilee and Golan Artists and Workshops Analysis of stylistic and technical idiosyncrasies and examination of the motifs and patterns workshops is helpful for identifying specific artists and mosaicists. Signature inscriptions are the most important means of such identification, while stylistic features, theme preference, ornamentation details, and similarity of techniques are also determinants. Workshops may be identified by shared stylistic and technical idiosyncrasies as well as comparable execution of themes or motifs, by either an individual artist or a team of artists, including the master and his son/s or apprentice/s. Dauphin (1987:189) claims that geographical distribution is an important criterion in the defining of workshops. This includes the various designs that distinguish inhabited scrolls, although none of the designs constitute a chronological criterion. The Jewish artist Jose the Levite, son of Levi, executed two similar synagogue lintels in the Galilee—the main lintel of the small synagogue at Barʿam and a lintel at ʿAlma, apparently during the same period. This is attested by the artist’s signature inscriptions (nos. 1 and 2) on the two lintels (Naveh 1978:nos. 1, 3; see above) which are quite similar and clearly indicate that the artist was interested in promoting his work. Belkin (1990:114–115, Fig. 47, Table 3.1; Meyers and Meyers 2009:77) compares the doorjamb profiles from four Galilean synagogues: Barʿam, Gush Halav, Meiron, and Nabratein, noting that the order of the curves is similar despite the big differences in angles and dimensions; he contends that this similar formula possibly indicates “that perhaps the same builders worked at all of these sites, carrying their design formulas with them from village to village.” The architectural décor of some synagogues in the Galilee and the Golan attest that workshops and artists were employed simultaneously by various communities.



artists, workshops and repertoire

483

2.1 The Capernaum Artists and Workshops The ornamentation of the Capernaum hall and courtyard façades indicates that a particular composition plan was apparently prepared for the triple portals design, with emphasis on the stylistic difference between the design style and molding of the central portal lintel and that of the flanking smaller side doorlintels in each instance. The details of the triple portals composition were carefully set up: the most important composition was in the south façade, where the central entrance consists of a decorated lintel resting on two fasciae moulded doorposts, while each of the smaller side portals contains a decorated lintel, supported by two doorposts carved as pilasters and crowned with capitals (Fig. V-12). The two other triple portals of the courtyard are similar in composition: the central door in both the eastern and the northern walls of the courtyard consists of the same type of decorated lintel, with a design divided into three metopes/panels by a guilloche frame and lines or by vine scrolls; the metopes are decorated with an object such as a wreath in the central metope, flanked by floral designs in the side ones. These lintels rest on two doorposts carved as pilasters and crowned with decorated capitals (Fig. V-14). The smaller side portals of these courtyard walls have decorated lintels of the same type, supported by two fasciae moulded doorposts. The larger east portal of the courtyard’s south façade is similar to the hall façade entrances. This specific adornment composition suggests that particular artists (masters) were charged with the ornamentation of the central lintels whereas other hands (apprentices?) did the less important side ones. Yet all could have been employed at the same time for the same building, as proved for the architectural ornamentation of Korazim (see below). There, the whole enterprise is planned and implemented so precisely that it cannot be a result of spolia as some scholars propose. The Capernaum friezes decorate the façade and interior of the hall, and are divided into four sets of different executed frieze parts (see p. 239). The lintels and the frieze ornamentation at Capernaum show a noticeable difference between style and execution: whereas the lintels are usually ornamented with an antithetic arrangement or tripartite design (Figs. V-12, 14), the friezes have a fully interwoven carving with various motifs portrayed inside the medallions (Figs. V-15, 16). Scholars have tried to clarify these differences: Maoz (1999:143) argues that the Capernaum décors “were not created by the same artists, perhaps not in the same decade and not even for the same building.” Amir (2007:44–48) suggests that the Capernaum architectural ornamentation was generated by three groups of artists who differed in their carving styles but may have worked in the same workshop, which should be dated to the second half of the the 3rd c.: one master or one group of artists created the façade lintels; another group crafted the two friezes on the façade and on the walls; and a third group carved the other lintels (those with a three-metope composition) which are similar to lintels decorations found in other synagogues. It seems that different artists worked on the décor of the same structure at Capernaum; in particular they decorated separate architectural parts of the building (as shown for Korazim by May and Stark 2002, see below). Some artist/s carved the exterior of the building, while others engraved the inner frieze parts (Fig. X-9). The comparison of the Capernaum architectural ornamentation with that of the Korazim synagogue, which is dated to the 4th c., confirms an earlier date for the Capernaum décor and suggests that it probably influenced the Korazim artists. The elements and parts of the Capernaum synagogue décor were found within the building and around the site, all executed in the same white limestone, which proves decisively that the Capernaum architectural elements belong to the same building despite differences in the stylistic designs.

484

chapter ten

a

b

Figure X‑9. Capernaum carvings: a. Lintel part of the western portal of the synagogue façade; b. Fragment of the inner frieze/cornice.



artists, workshops and repertoire

485

2.2 The Korazim Workshops and Artists The Korazim synagogue architectural décor was studied and published in a comprehensive analysis by May and Stark (2002), who claim that two workshops with eight different masters and two additional artists are responsible for the ornamentation of the basalt reliefs (Figs. V-17–18): • Workshop I consisted of four artists who crafted the best decorated reliefs graded by skill—a Master (A) and three apprentices (Masters B–D): • Master A created the friezes and cornices of the lower external wall and the southern façade gable (consisting of the apex, side parts, and cornerstones), two large conches and a small conch, and the richly decorated pilaster of the aedicula. May (2000:140–142) suggests two options for the execution of the exterior friezes and cornices of the two decorated Syrian gables on the southern and northern façades: either the south and north façades were carved by two different artists who belonged to the same workshop and worked according to the same plan, or the second artist of the north façade copied the superior work of the Master of the south façade. In the later report May concludes that the elements of the southern main façade were formed by Master A (Fig. IV-1) while the parts of the northern façade, shaped in a different style, were crafted by Masters B and C (May and Stark 2002:226, south façade—Pls. 2–5, north façade— Pl. 8). The carving is highly professional; the décor is ornamental and stylistically traditional. The reliefs were carved concurrently with the construction of the building; some crude preparations were made before their placement, but the final creation was produced in situ (Fig. V-17). Master A created the friezes and cornices of Series I and II (May and Stark 2002:209–212, nos. 1–35, Figs. 1–20, Pls. 1–7, 10:no. 52). • Master B crafted fragments of cornices, including a cornice gable apex, the cornice voussoir of the northern façade, and a small gabled conch (Fig. X-10c); Master B’s work is inferior to that of Master A (May 2000:144–145, nos. 24–26, Pl. 7:10–11; May and Stark 2002:219–223, nos. 53–56, Figs. 24–31, Pls. 8–9). Works produced jointly by Masters A and B includes conches and stones (May and Stark 2002:223–224, nos. 53–56, Figs. 34–36, Pl. 11). The joint work of Masters A and D is found on the decorated pilaster (May and Stark 2002:223–224, no. 52, Pl. 10). • Master C formed a corner stone and three small frieze fragments of the north façade with floral decoration (May and Stark 2002:223, nos. 48–51, Pl. 9:nos. 48–51). • Master D worked alongside Master A on the richly decorated pilaster no. 52 (Fig. IV-50) (May and Stark 2002:223, no. 52, Figs. 32–33, Pl. 10). • Workshop II consisted of two artists (Masters E and F) with equal abilities but different skills, who executed the inner friezes, the decorated parts of the inner cornices, and some other parts. The stonework is inferior to that of Workshop I and the broad range and motifs are executed in an unusual manner. The figurative renditions were the work of Master E (Figs. IV-61a, V-18, 19b, IX-12c, IX-30). Master F worked on an inner frieze with acanthus frames and carpet designs, and a small conch (Fig. X-10d). May and Stark maintain that the artists were non-Jewish and originated in southern Syria (May and Stark 2002:228–231, 236, 240; Masters E—nos. 57–73, Figs. 37–53, Pls. 13–16; Master F—nos. 74–86, Figs. 54–56, Pls. 17–18; joint work—nos. 87–91, Pl. 19). Detailed and meticulous work was invested by May and Stark (2002:Pl. 20) in the reconstruction of the northern, western, and eastern inner frieze decor. • Master G carved the ‘Seat of Moses’ complex (Fig. IV-67), which includes a gable fragment with a lion (Fig. IX-5). Master H carved the menoroth lintel (Fig. VI-22b). These works are inferior to

486

chapter ten

the carvings of the Masters of Workshops I and II (May and Stark 2002:242, 246, nos. 92–100, Pl. 21–24, Pl. 25:nos. 101–104 illustrates unattributed fragments). The ‘Seat of Moses’ is probably a later addition though within the 5th c. CE (May 2000:53*). May and Stark (2002:228), maintain, on the basis of the orientalizing style and horror vacui of the work of the artists of Workshop II, that they originated in southern Syria and were non-Jewish; they further contend that the reliefs were carved after the frieze and cornice were installed. The conches are a good example of the different work executed by the various Korazim artists: the two large conches (Fig. X-10a, c), according to Yeivin (2000:27*, Pl. 23, plan 14), were used to decorate the Korazim upper parts of windows, whereas the smaller conches (Fig. X-10b, d) with gables decorated the aediculae. May and Stark (2002:Pls. 7.35, 9.44, 11.53, 18.82) maintain that three of the conches were formed by Masters A and B, while the fourth was executed by Master F. May and Stark maintain that the reliefs at the Golan synagogues of ed-Dikke and Kh. Khavakha (Fig. X-12) were carved by masters E and F of Workshop II. There are similarities in the basalt carving execution and themes between Korazim and the Golan synagogue art, though the Korazim reliefs are of higher skill and more delicate craftsmanship (Turnheim 1987:182–183; Hachlili 1995:207, no. 55; May 2000:53*). Yet, as the Golan reliefs were not found in situ their presumed dating to the 5th c. CE by Maoz (1995:8–9) is not convincing. May (2000:53*) and May and Stark (2002:247) contend that they are able to formulate a ‘stratigraphic’ sequence for the Korazim architectural decoration: due to the similarities between the Korazim and Capernaum décor they accept the date of the second half of the 3rd c. CE for the Capernaum architectural decorations, as suggested by Bloedhorn (1989:52), and date Workshop I slightly later. Workshop II has to be somewhat later as the carvings were executed in situ. On grounds of stylistic criteria, May and Stark (2002:248) suggest a 5th c. CE date for the engraving of the masters of Workshop II. The productions of Masters G and H are later additions but are difficult to date. Turnhiem (1987:182) suggests that the ornamented friezes of Capernaum, Korazim, and ed-Dikke were probably influenced by the friezes of the Beth Sheʾan theater (the architect may have come from the Hauran). Amir (2007:32–36) maintains that the décor style at Korazim indicates two stylistic groups and agrees with May and Stark that several artists (or hands) are responsible for the ornamentation of that synagogue; however, she objects to their proposal that the workshops and artists worked in different periods. The originality of the Korazim artists is in their complete freedom to decorate architectural members with various motifs and their combined details, such as the acanthus scrolls, the wreath etc. This eclecticism and variety in the form of the chosen motifs typifies the style of the Korazim synagogue, which Amir dates to the beginning of the Byzantine period—the first half of the 4th c. CE, based on the synagogue’s artistic style and on the chronology of the diagonal Ionian capitals (for which there are comparable dated examples in south Syria). However, May and Amir, in their relative dating of the décor, completely ignore the stratigraphy and the findings as well as the current critical debate on the dating of Capernaum and Korazim. The May and Stark account of two workshops at Korazim in essence describes two groups of artists who seem to have specialized in carving different architectural parts of the building: Workshop I concentrating in the decoration of the exterior—the gable, frieze and cornice of the south façade and a few items of the north façade; and Workshop II, involved in the engraving of the interior friezes (Fig. X-11).



artists, workshops and repertoire

a

487

c

b

d

Figure X‑10. Comparison of Korazim conches executed by: a. Master A; b. Master B; c. Jointly by Masters A and B; d. Master F.

a

b

Figure X‑11. Korazim carvings: a. Master A, Workshop I, Southern façade frieze and cornice; b. Master E, Workshop II, inner frieze fragments.

This is an important concept, as it strongly suggests that there were artists who were experts in decorating the exterior and other artists who were in charge of carving the interior. Some of the Torah shrine items were carved by artists of both workshops. Perhaps it is possible to claim a similar concept for the décor of Capernaum: that one group of artists decorated the gable of the south façade and the portal lintels while the other group was responsible for the elaborated interior frieze/ cornice (Fig. X-9).

488

chapter ten 2.3 Golan Artists

The abilities and skills of the local Golan artists and craftsmen differed from those of the artists working in the Galilee or Syria. Sometimes different hands can be seen at work in the same building. Thus, at Qasrin the well-executed carvings of the main entrance lintel and the door-jambs (Fig. V-4b) differ from the slab with the menorah and showbread table which is simply incised (Fig. III-30b). The variety of styles present at ‘En Nashut is even greater, as can be seen in the lintel, the column capital (Fig. IV-19), and the lioness (Fig. IX-2b), each of which is in a different style. The two lintels from Dabura (Figs. IX-17a, b) are executed in different ways though with similar motifs. The connection between the basalt decorative art found in Golan synagogues and the Galilean synagogue of Korazim (and fragments from H. Shura, also built of basalt stone) should be noted. The entrances of the Golan synagogues are similar to those at Korazim: the doorjambs are constructed from several stones (Fig. V-4a) and are not monolithic like the Galilean entrances. The Golan eagle fragments (Fig. IX-15) are similar to the eagle carved on the apex of the Korazim gable (Fig. IX-20). The two eagles carved on both ends of the ‘En Nashut lion orthostat flanking the heraldic scene of a figure and lions, and the eagle engraved on the the capital from Umm el-Qanatir (Fig. IX-18, 19b), are stylistically similar and may have been carved by the same workshop, although the Umm el-Qanatir eagle is of a better quality. Common features of certain decorated elements, such as the acanthus medallions in Korazim, ed-Dikke, and H. Khawkha (Fig. X-12) might indicate that they were produced by the same artist or workshop (Turnhiem 1987:12; Hachlili 1995:191). In light of the above observations, it seems possible that either Korazim was a center for the production of basalt sculptures and for the export of reliefs to other parts of the Golan, or that artists were trained at Korazim and later set up their own workshops. Scholars (Turnheim 1987:182; Amir 2007:37, Table) hold that the characteristic engraving style and motifs in Golan art, which appear at the synagogues of ed-Dikke, el-Ahsenniyeh, er-Rafid, Khawkha, and Ghadriyye, indicate a regional style. Amir concludes that the stylistic resemblance and regional proximity date the Golan synagogues to the 4th c. CE, in contrast to Maoz 1995:8)–9), who dates the Korazim-ʿEn Nashut group to the 5th c. CE.

a

b

c

Figure X‑12. A common design on synagogue friezes: a. Korazim; b. ed-Dikke; c. H. Khawkha.



artists, workshops and repertoire

a

b

c

d

489

Figure X‑13. Chancel screens: a. Hammath Gader synagogue; b. Rehov; c. Beth Sheʾan church of the Monastery of the Lady Mary; d. Massuot Yitzhaq.

Nevertheless, the chronological conclusions regarding stylistic typology reached by scholars such as Tsafrir (1995), May and Stark (2002), and Amir (2007), are erroneous. The style and execution depended primarily on the artists’ skills and, as Seth Schwartz (2001:212) correctly observed, there is no reason to assume that “high quality implies an early date, and crudity a late date. In reality apparent differences in quality tell us more about social and economic differences, or differences in esthetic sensibilities or religious predispositions.” Fisher (1987:173–4) contends that the artistic execution of most elements in the Galilean synagogues was composed according to local artistic taste. It seems sound to assume that those engaged in the construction and ornamentation of many of these synagogues (and temples) were local workshops and artists that expressed their naïve character, which was far from the Classical reality. These buildings are the visible example of the free artistic expression of the local artists, where they composed solutions and interpretations according to their own schemes and ideas. Another medium in which workshops probably worked for clients of different religions is that of the synagogue screens from Ashdod and Hammath Gader on the one hand, and the church screens from Beth Sheʾan and Massuot Yitzhaq on the other (Fig. X-13). These items seem to have come from the same workshop, or perhaps were modelled on the same general patterns (Hachlili 1988:189–190; 1997:95, Fig. 4). 3. Artists, Mosaicists, and Workshops of Mosaic Pavements Similarity in themes, scenes, and designs might be related to fashion, trend, or an inherited preference of the artists or workshop. These similarities notwithstanding, craftsmen and mosaicists may

490

chapter ten

be identified through their consistent use of the same stylistic features and characteristics, as well as by the technical details. Some artists have distinctive technical habits which distinguish their work. Examples of identical themes executed by different artists are the designs of the Torah shrine panels and zodiac scheme on the mosaic pavements of the synagogues at Hammath Tiberias, Beth Alpha, Naʿaran, Sepphoris and Susiya, which are dated to different periods. A number of mosaic pavements created by several artists or workshops are considered and described as especially interesting in style, design details, and content. 3.1 The Hammath Tiberias B Synagogue Artists The synagogue mosaic of the Hammath Tiberias synagogue B (Stratum IIa) central nave is rendered with three panels: (a) the Torah shrine flanked by a pair of menoroth and the four ritual objects; (b) the zodiac design; and (c) an inscription flanked by a pair of lions. The mosaicist/s created a pleasant composition executed skilfully and capably (Figs. V-24, 28). The stylistic features and details indicate a strong influence of 4th-century Hellenistic-Roman art: the figures and their movements are natural and the faces are full-featured and expressive. The four seasons of the zodiac at Hammath Tiberias B are depicted almost identically: they have oval-shaped heads crowned by wreaths, with different plants characterizing each of the seasons. Their faces have large open eyes. Spring and Autumn gaze towards the upper left, while Summer and Winter gaze towards the lower left (Fig. X-14). The seasons wear similar sleeveless tunics, fastened at the shoulders by a clasp; they are adorned by a necklace, earrings, and bracelets; they hold in their right hand an object appropriate to each season, with another object placed at their side. The exception is the partly damaged season of Tevet (Winter), wearing a mantle (pallium), also draped over the head, and adorned with earrings. Similar depictions of the seasons appear on the mosaic pavement of Zliten, North Africa (Hachlili 2009:188, Fig. VIII-5) where, although they are rendered as busts of winged figures, they are crowned by wreaths and hold attributes. Some of the signs of the zodiac are represented by life-like figures. The male figures are similar in their features and are naked, particularly the three uncircumcised nude images (Libra, Aquarius and the surviving left Gemini), which display a pagan Hellenistic character and free artistic illustration (Fig. X-15). The male figures are similar in their features and are naked. This, together with the mirror-like rendering of the Hebrew inscription ‫ דלי‬Deli for the Aquarius sign, suggest that the mosaicist did not know Hebrew but most probably followed a sketch prepared by the designer or a pattern from a model book. The animal figures of the Hammath Tiberias B zodiac mosaic are in motion and quite realistically depicted (Fig. X-16). The lions are depicted quite naturally at the Hammath Tiberias B mosaic and were probably executed by the same artist, although the zodiac lion is represented leaping forward while the two lions flanking the inscription are standing (Fig. X-17). The artists producing the mosaic demonstrate individuality in the composition of the Torah shrine panel and even more so in their treatment of the zodiac figures, which is comparable in style and details to the Constantine mosaics at Antioch (Dothan 1983:48, 68, 70). Two good examples are the Winter season at Hammath Tiberias B and the House of the Calendar at Antioch, both of which are similar in their facial details and the mantle draped over their heads. The assumption that the Hammath Tiberias B artist may have been a gentile, not a Jew, seems well-founded. Perhaps the mosaicist was an artist or an apprentice from Antioch or some other large center. The classical-pagan design and the use of mostly Greek donors’ inscriptions (with the exception of one in Aramaic) indicate the Hellenized outlook and the affluence of the synagogue



artists, workshops and repertoire

Figure X‑14. Hammath Tiberias B seasons.

Figure X‑15. Zodiac signs with human figures, Hammath Tiberias B.

491

492

chapter ten

Figure X‑16. Zodiac signs with animal figures, Hammath Tiberias B.

Figure X‑17. Hammath Tiberias B lions.

community that commissioned the decoration, although it was still within the limits of the liberal approach of the religious leaders in Tiberias. The Hammath Tiberias B synagogue (Stratum IIa) mosaic is dated by the excavator to the last decades of the 3rd or the first quarter of the 4th century CE. It was destroyed in the 5th century, either by official order or by an earthquake (Dothan 1983:52, 67). Dunbabin (1999:189, note 6) proposes a later date for the mosaics of this Stratum, between the late 4th and early 5th centuries CE. This is based on the geometric mosaics with the rainbow-style, looped patterns, and the semis of rosebud ornaments (Fig. V-24), which are more characteristic of the last quarter of the 4th century. Talgam (2000:100) also dates the Hammath Tiberias synagogue mosaic to the second half of the 4th century CE.



artists, workshops and repertoire

493

3.2 The Wadi Hamam Synagogue Mosaicists A synagogue mosaic floor was recently discovered at Khirbet Wadi Hamam (in east Lower Galilee, at the foot of the Arbel Valley) (Fig. III-3); the three aisles of this floor originally had a unique design of twelve (or ten) panels, each occupying the space between a pair of columns; each panel apparently illustrated a narrative biblical theme (Leibner and Miller 2010). The panel illustrations were observed from the nave towards the aisles. Three narrative panels have survived in part (Figs. VIII-10–12): (1) the construction scene—craftsmen building a monumental structure (Panel 4) possibly representing the building of the Temple in Jerusalem; (2) the battle scene—a combat between a group of soldiers and a giant (Panel 11)—which probably renders Samson slaying the Philistines with the jaw-bone of a donkey; (3) the maritime scene—a chariot lead by horses and soldiers drowning in the sea (Panel 12), interpreted as Pharaoh’s army being swept into the Red Sea and drowning (see Chapter VIII). The mosaic probably dates to the late 3rd or beginning of the 4th centuries CE. An unusual portrayal is the figure of Samson as a giant. In the Bible he is not described as a giant, but only as a hero. A comparable depiction of Samson as a giant appears on the Misis-Mophostia pavement (5th–6th c.) where he wears a similar decorated short tunic (Budde 1969:Pls. 16, 146, 152, 154–156). Though the panel arrangement is characteristic of synagogue mosaic pavements found elsewhere (see scheme A, Hachlili 1988:352–354; 2009:18–22), the Hamam example is unusual, with the panels decorating the west and east aisles. Unfortunately the nave pavement was almost completely destroyed, so no information is available. The general effect of the Hamam mosaic is of a two-dimensional flat design. The same colors are used, whereas the size of the tesserae is different. The figures and objects are outlined by dark lines. Leibner and Miller (2010:260) contend that the mosaic pavements were laid on the same bedding, in the same building phase, and at the same time, though with some minor changes in style; this indicated to the excavators that it was apparently the work of a master and his apprentice. However, it seems that each panel was created by a different artist (Fig. X-18). In the construction scene most of the figures are rendered with head and body in profile view and with almost the right proportions, while the figures in the battle scene are depicted with head en face, their eyes looking aside and their body in profile. The body part proportions are incorrect, with unnaturally short arms. The horses in both the battle and maritime scenes are similarly well executed, though the horse in the battle scene has several decorated fittings on its body whereas the two horses in the maritime scene are tied to the chariot and are rendered in motion (Figs. VIII-11, 12). It seems that the artist/s creating the battle and maritime scenes were more skilled than those crafting the construction scene. 3.3 The Sepphoris Synagogue Mosaicists The nave mosaic pavement of the Sepphoris synagogue has three panels depicting the Torah shrine, the zodiac, and the Binding of Isaac, enriched by four more bands with illustrated biblical tales (Fig. V-30). The decoration scheme of this pavement is another example of the model described above, but, once again, executed by a different group of mosaicists. The depiction in these panels differs in some respects from those on the Hammath Tiberias B, Beth Alpha, and Naʿaran synagogue mosaics, but the basic features are much the same. The work of the Sepphoris artists is inferior to that of the highly skilled Hammath Tiberias craftsmen, but they are more innovative and competent than the Beth Alpha mosaicists. The Sepphoris four seasons of the zodiac are depicted in the same manner though the general impression seems to denote different seasons. The seasons’ heads and eyes turn left; Spring and

494

chapter ten

a

b

Figure X‑18. Comparable figures on: a. Panel 4; b. Panel 11, Hamam mosaic.

Autumn have the same hairstyle, with hair combed to the sides and clasped at the top with a clip, and each is adorned with a small earring (Fig. X-19). The Tevet season (Winter) is different, wearing a cloak that covers her head as at Hammath Tiberias, while Summer, albeit with the same facial features, wears a round hat with a button on the top. The assemblage of attributes at Sepphoris, which is richer than in the other mosaics, is portrayed alongside the seasons’ heads; they hold no objects in their hands. The young men on the left panel of the Binding of Isaac (Band 6) at Sepphoris are rendered almost sitting on some sort of mountain. Both are portrayed en face, with curled hair, dressed in short ornamented tunics decorated on the shoulders and the bottom; the fully surviving lad on the left, wearing a belt and black shoes, sits under a schematically rendered tree (Figs. VIII-1a, 2a). The lad on the right holds a spear in his left hand and gestures with two fingers of his raised right hand. Both lads hold the ass’s reins, each with one hand. The ass, depicted in front of the right lad, carries a decorated packsaddle on his back and is turning left. The young men are rendered quite realistically but in a slightly rigid way. The lads’ heads, hair, and expressions are similar to those of the figures rendered on the zodiac signs (Fig. X-20). The Sepphoris zodiac signs are each accompanied by a star at the top and by similar figures of either draped or almost naked, young men, all barefoot except one; their heads and bodies turn to the right. Some of these youths are part of the sign and show an active posture (see the signs Aquarius, Libra, Sagittarius, and Pisces). Others are depicted simply standing next to the sign or in front of the animal (Fig. X-20). Weiss (2005:173) claims that two craftsmen worked simultaneously in laying the Sepphoris mosaics. He bases this opinion on the differences in details of images and coloring and the unidentical depictions of pairs, such as the lions, the menoroth, and other Jewish symbols (Figs. VI-1b, IX-9a). Moreover, the letters in the Aramaic inscriptions of the aisle and main hall are different from those between the columns. Based on these elements, Weiss concludes that a mosaicist and his apprentice laid the pavements of the Sepphoris synagogue. Yet it seems doubtful that the reason would be two different craftsmen working on either side of the flanking images; much more plausible is that the difference is due to the deliberate utilization of unidentical symmetry, a known feature in Jewish art (Hachlili 1989a). More than one artist could have worked on the synagogue pavement but it is



artists, workshops and repertoire

Figure X‑19. The four seasons, Sepphoris.

Figure X‑20. Zodiac signs with human figures, Sepphoris.

495

496

chapter ten

difficult to identify individual effects. Weiss further proposes the existence of a local workshop, which may have been responsible for the production of the mosaic pavements of the two public buildings and a third private structure. Weiss (2005:166–167, 170–173, Figs. 110, 112; 2009:94–97) compares the Sepphoris synagogue mosaics with the pavements of the Sepphoris Nile Festival building. He therefore proposes that although the artists are unknown, the synagogue mosaicists planned the floor and the iconographic sources on the basis of the Nile Festival building. He assumes that even though the Sepphoris mosaics are inferior in execution, they follow the same style by virtue of the resemblance of some details. The surviving examples showing some similarity are those depicting the youths in the Binding of Isaac on the left panel and the hunter, fish, and horses on both pavements.2 The excavators’ dating of the mosaics of the Sepphoris Nile Festival building to the early 5th century should be reconsidered. Possibly it dates to the early 6th century, as attested by the different reading of Inscription 1 by Bowersock (2004, but see Di Segni 2005b) and perhaps on stylistic grounds too. The comparison and the dating discussions should be reviewed. 3.4 The Beth Alpha Synagogue Mosaicists The most interesting and most important mosaic pavement is the one in the nave of the Beth Alpha synagogue which contains the same three panels: (a) the Ark flanked by a pair of menoroth, the four ritual objects, and a pair of lions and birds; (b) the zodiac design; and (c) the biblical illustration of the Binding of Isaac (Figs. V-26, 29). This mosaic has a unique border (Sukenik 1932:42, Figs. 20–24). The two inscriptions at the entrance are flanked by a lion and bull seen upside-down (Fig. IX-10d). The south and west borders are depicted with a line of lozenges containing plants, fruit, and geometric designs (Fig. V-26) and one lozenge with a hen promenading her chicks. The east border is a frieze of intertwined vine branches enclosing birds, animals, and other objects; in the center a bust figure holds a bird (Fig. IX-31, 32b). Noteworthy is the fact that no classical geometric or floral patterns, which generally decorate borders, adorn any parts of the Beth Alpha mosaic. The Beth Alpha mosaic was created by two local Jewish artists, Marianos and his son Aninas. It is perhaps lacking in skilfull artistic competence, but then again it is innovative and inspired. It is interesting that while the artists appear to have had knowledge or access to a source for the creation of a general composition for the pavement of Scheme A (tripartite design) similar to the finds in some of the other synagogues (Fig. V-27), their personal insight and originality colours all parts of the mosaic. The Beth Alpha Jewish symbols panel (Fig. V-42), though in general similar to such panels in other synagogues (Figs. VI-1–4), is different, lively, and ingenious. The design is symmetrical but unidentical menoroth flank the Ark, which is depicted as elaborately ornamented double doors placed on three small decorated legs. The Torah shrine/apse is suggested by the gable and the small stylized conch (Fig. IV-53a). The addition of an unidentical pair of lions and a pair of birds flanking the main items makes for a lively impact on the viewers. The general design of this zodiac is similar to the zodiacs depicted in other synagogues (Fig. VII-3, 4). However, the parts differ in their design and details: The four Beth Alpha seasons are portrayed as winged figures of stylized and schematic female busts rendered en face, and while their features are identical, they are animated by difference in details of hairstyle and their rich jewelery consisting of necklaces and earrings (Fig. X-21); only the attributes rendered around them identify them. 2 Weiss (2005:170) proposes that the figural style of the Sepphoris synagogue mosaic could be related to stylistic trends in Byzantine mosaics such as those at Khirbet el-Murrassas, the Leontis House at Beth Sheʾan, and Tabgha.



artists, workshops and repertoire

497

Figure X‑21. The four seasons, Beth Alpha.

The Beth Alpha figures depicted in the Binding of Isaac (Figs. VIII-1b, 2b) and the zodiac are clothed and standing, presented en face and in two-dimensional form (Fig. X-22). The artists use only the essential lines to portray the figures. The human face is expressed by one continuous line outlining the eyebrows and nose, a square for the mouth, and simple circles for the eyes. The limbs have a doll-like appearance; the legs are directed to the side, not oriented frontally with the upper trunk of the body. There is no indication of age or sex; women are distinguished from men by their jewelry; and color is used only to emphasize the different parts of the body. Some of the Beth Alpha zodiac signs are unusual and express the inventive skill of the artists (Fig. X-22): Gemini is depicted as two joined figures with connected heads, one large body and all their limbs; Virgo is an exceptionally inspiring figure portrayed as a regal woman wearing a decorated dress and red shoes and seated on a throne, which indicates royal rank; Libra is comically rendered as a one-legged figure, apparently due to lack of space. Sagittarius appears as a human figure holding a bow and arrow in a literal depiction of the name of the sign ‫( קשת‬qashat—archer) in Hebrew; Aquarius is outstanding in his appearance as a figure drawing water from a well with a bucket, which describes the Hebrew name of the sign ‫( דלי‬deli—bucket). The animals at Beth Alpha are passive—standing and drawn either in profile or facing forwards (Fig. X-23). The lions, both the pair flanking the ark and the lion sign in the zodiac, are similar, with some minor differences in the details of their bodies and tails. The lion depicted flanking the entrance’s inscription, however, is completely different, and is the only one rendered with a mane (Fig. X-24).

498

chapter ten

Figure X‑22. Zodiac signs with figures, Beth Alpha.

The biblical theme of the Binding of Isaac (Fig. VIII-1b) is also a stimulating narrative scene in which all the figures in the story are portrayed and located according to their place in the story. The relevant short explanatory inscriptions are placed next to the figures and, in a motivated action, the hand of God is portrayed in the center of the episode despite the fact that the floor was meant to be stepped on. The two Beth Alpha craftsmen executed a naïve design in which the human figures and animals are austere drawings. The style is standardized, disproportionate, and lacking in concern for anatomical detail. Dunbabin (1999:192) maintains, “It seems clear that the Beth Alpha mosaicists were in possession of a model which was beyond their power to copy; this implies that there was strong pressure to have a design of this sort on the floor, and that considerable prestige resulted from it.” The Beth Alpha mosaicists apparently followed a scheme similar to that of the Hammath Tiberias pavement, but they lacked the ability to create a similarly skilled design. However, they added an inspirational creative perception and capacity to the otherwise more standard themes.



artists, workshops and repertoire

499

Figure X‑23. Zodiac signs with animals, Beth Alpha.

The two local craftsmen responsible for the mosaic, Marianos and his son Hanina, are commemorated in a Greek inscription which mentions that the work was done with special skill (see above and Fig. X-6a). The other Aramaic inscription at the entrance mentions the emperor Justin (probably Justin I, 518–527 CE) which dates the mosaic (Fig. IX-10d). The craftsmen who inscribed it were either poor at, or ignorant of, the Hebrew script (Sukenik 1932:44, 47). Marianos and his son Hanina, the local Beth Alpha craftsmen, also decorated Room 7 at the Beth Sheʾan synagogue A, according to the inscription found there (see above and Fig. X-6b). It seems most plausible that they worked only in this Room 7 as the other rooms in the Beth Sheʾan synagogue reflect the work of much more skilled artists. However, there are some similar features in the Jewish symbols panel of both mosaics, such as the decorated curtains hanging at Beth Alpha on the side of the panels (Figs. VI-3a, 4a) and at Beth Sheʾan above the Torah shrine gable and on the sides of the inner part (Fig. VI-3b). Both mosaics show a hanging lamp suspended from the tip of the gable and both exhibit horror vacui, with plants and patterns filling the empty spaces of the Jewish symbols panels.3 3 A biblical illustration of Noah and the Ark depicted on a repaired later part of the mosaic pavement at MisisMopsuhestia (Asia Minor) is compared by Budde (1969:54–55, Figs. 50, 55, 113–114) to the Beth Alpha mosaic because of its rustic style. Neither of the two is of a high artistic standard and both are executed by local artists.

500

chapter ten

Figure X‑24. Lions, Beth Alpha.

3.5 The Gaza-Maiumas Mosaicists and Workshop Two mosaic compositions survived at the Gaza-Maiumas synagogue. Of the central nave mosaic only a section of the western end of the pavement survived, depicting a fragmentary representation of King David as a musician, identified by the inscribed name ‫( דויד‬David) in Hebrew (Figs. VIII-13, X-25a). He appears wearing a royal costume, crowned with a diadem and with a nimbus over his head, sitting on a decorated box-like throne and playing the cithara, which is placed to his right on a cushion positioned on the throne. Of his audience of listeners, only a lioness, the head and neck of a giraffe, and an elephant trunk or serpent are preserved. David’s sitting posture and the way he plays the instrument follow the recognized iconographical manner of depicting Orpheus. A similar scene to the David of Gaza is the image of Adam in Paradise surrounded by animals (Fig. X-25b) depicted on the mosaic pavement of the North Church (The ‘Michaëlion’) of Haouarté, Syria (dated to 486/7 or 501/2 CE; Donceel Voûte 1988:104, 112–114, 480, 487, Fig. 71, Pl. h.-t.5). Only the upper part of the nave mosaic has survived. It shows Adam, flanked by two birds and curling snakes, giving names to the animals in Paradise (Gen 2:19–20). An interesting choice of animals surrounds him: on the left are the birds but also the phoenix, while on the right are rendered a lion and a griffon. The image of David of Gaza is similar to the figure of Adam, notably in dress, in the presence of a throne, in the choice of animals—the lion and the snake, and in the name inscribed above the scene (Fig. X-25). The Adam scene recalls depictions of Orpheus, especially the snake curled around trees. The later proposed date (501/2) for the Haouarté mosaic is also quite close to the date (508/9) inscribed on the Gaza mosaic. The two mosaics depict a figure surrounded by animals in a mythological scene that usually evokes the image of Orpheus. However, in these scenes the similarity might indicate some knowledge of the Orpheus portrayals and a common or similar source for both.



artists, workshops and repertoire

a

501

b

Figure X‑25. a. King David, Gaza synagogue; b. Adam on mosaic, North Church (The ‘Michaëlion’), Haouarté.

The inhabited vine scroll design appears in the synagogue’s southernmost mosaic aisle and is dated by a Greek inscription to 507/8 CE (Fig. V-36). The design is composed of three columns and at least eleven rows of medallions, consisting of alternating rows of animals and birds. The central axial column shows no objects except a bird-cage and a commemorative Greek inscription flanked by a pair of peacocks. The arrangement is of three animals in the medallions of each row, connected horizontally, especially the three animal chase scenes (Figs. V-36, IX-26). In the other rows, pairs of the same animals, facing each other in a heraldic composition, flank either a bird or a beast depicted in the centre. The animals in the Gaza mosaic are naturalistically portrayed in lively action and movement. The Gaza style is different from the static and standardized depiction of the animals in the similar inhabited scrolls mosaic at Maon-Nirim (Fig. V-37). Two different artists for these two Gaza synagogue mosaics are posited by Barash (1980:29–33), who maintains that the executions of the pavements differ in subject matter, style, technique, and quality. Barash compares David wearing the crown and robes to the Byzantine emperor, representing the combined musical and royal attributes. He likens the David mosaic to the mosaics in the Great Palace at Constantinople in its arrangement of figure and animals, its colourist effects, and its classical qualities of the Justinian Renaissance that flourished along the coastal regions of Syria and Antioch. Barash concludes that the inhabited scrolls mosaic design, with its several comparable contemporary mosaics, was created by a local workshop. Regarding the David mosaic with its high quality and technique he suggests, though without any evidence, that it was done by a foreign artist, a travelling mosaicist of a superior class who was aware of eastern Mediterranean mosaic trends, possibly with special connections to Egypt and Syria.

502

chapter ten

a b

Figure X‑26. Lioness and giraffe on both mosaics, Gaza: a. David scene; b. inhabited scroll mosaic.

However, it seems more plausible that the two Gaza-Maiumas mosaics, in the nave and in the aisle, were the labor of the same workshop or mosaicists, based on the similar manner and design in the details. For instance, the white background arrangement is repeated in both. On the David mosaic all details of figures and objects are outlined by three white lines of tesserae, and so are the details of the animals in the inhabited scroll pavement. The rendition of the lioness in the side medallion of the inhabited scroll mosaic is similar to the lioness listening to the playing of David. The head of the giraffe, which survived on the David panel, is identical to the giraffe in the side medallion of row 7 of the inhabited scroll mosaic (Fig. X-26).



artists, workshops and repertoire

503

The two Gaza synagogue mosaic pavements, though differing in subject matter, are in fact closely related in style and execution and were evidently created by the same mosaicist/s. These were possibly local artists who worked in the region. The two mosaics of the Gaza-Maiumas synagogue share their style, execution of details, and schematic form with two mosaic pavements in the Diakonikon chapel of the Byzantine Church near Jabaliyah (Gaza region). These pavements, dated by an inscription to 451 CE, appear to have suffered from iconoclasm and show several repairs to faces and bodies (Humbert 1999:216, Pl. XI top; Humbert et al. 2000:123–124). The Gaza-Maiumas synagogue and the Jabaliyah church mosaics reveal several similar features and traits, such as the trees, the Gaza amphora, the rabbits, the tunics worn by some figures, and especially the posture of the lionesses (and tigress). The resemblances provide evidence that these mosaics were composed by the same artist/s or workshop despite the gap in their dating (Hachlili 2009:264–266, Pls. VII-10a, b, XII-6a–e. 7a). Various mosaic pavements indicate that workshops and artists produced works of art for nearby synagogues and churches alike, thus satisfying the demands of both the Jewish and Christian clientele in the area. The various communities employed the artists concurrently, and they in turn probably relied on some common source for the different designs and symbols. Similar designs would be used in both cases, with the addition of specific symbols for each clientele. The mosaicists may have been Jews or Christians, using pattern books favored by each of the different peoples and religions. A comparison of the mosaic pavements of various structures in the Beth Sheʾan (Scythopolis), Negev, and Gaza areas proves that the same workshop or artist was employed simultaneously to create pavements for local synagogues and churches (for a detailed discussion of these workshops see Hachlili 2009:254–273). 3.6 The Beth Sheʿan Workshop Mosaic pavements found in two buildings in Beth Sheʾan (Scythopolis) appear to have been executed by the same mosaicist/s or workshop (Hachlili 1988:390; 2009:254–264). The buildings are: (3.6.1) the House of Leontis, a mansion complex with two pavements: (3.6.1.1) the mosaic of the long room and (3.6.1.2) the mosaic of the small synagogue; (3.6.2) the Christian Monastery of the Lady Mary with three pavements: (3.6.2.1) the mosaic of Hall A, (3.6.2.2) the mosaic of the Chapel Room G, and (3.6.2.3) the mosaic of Room L. 3.6.1 The House of Leontis 3.6.1.1 Mansion Complex The House of Leontis, in the western part of Beth Sheʾan (probably the Jewish quarter of the town) (Hachlili 2009:Fig. XII-4), consisted of three rooms of a mansion. The floor of Room 3, in the northwest part of the building, is decorated with a mosaic pavement divided into three panels (Fig. IX-39). The upper panel shows two scenes from the Odyssey (Fig. IX-40a) and the lower panel is rendered with a Nilotic landscape (Fig. IX-40b). The central panel has a Greek inscription within a medallion, surrounded by birds, and on the right side of the inscription is depicted a (now mutilated) fivebranched menorah (Fig. XI-10); the Greek inscription cites that Kyrios Leontis donated the money for the building of the mansion. Because of the damaged menorah, the building was considered Jewish (Zori 1966:124, 132, Fig. 3). 3.6.1.2 Synagogue Mosaic A later excavation unearthed a small synagogue or a prayer room with a mosaic pavement in the south part of the building (Bahat 1981). The room is decorated with a mosaic pavement displaying

504

chapter ten

an inhabited vine scroll design, consisting of nine medallions surrounded by a narrow inner and a broad outer ornate frame (Fig. V-38). Animals and birds inhabit the medallions, except for the central one, which contains a menorah flanked by an ethrog and a lamp or incense box suspended from the menorah, with the word ‫( שלום‬shalom) written above it (Fig. VI-29b). A narrow inner frame surrounds the central panel; it contains four amphorae at the corners with vine branches issuing from them that enclose animal chase scenes. The broad outer frame surrounding the whole panel is decorated with rhomboid medallions filled with objects and birds. The two mosaic pavements in this complex are considered to be the creation of the same workshop. Adler (2003:90–103) suggests that the structure was possibly a Jewish public complex containing a synagogue, a lodging/inn, and water installations. Yet the building could originally have been a private dwelling that was later presented to the community, though some sections remained private. The complex is known as Beth Leontis or the House of Leontis and Beth Sheʾan small synagogue B. 3.6.2 Christian Monastery of the Lady Mary The Christian Monastery of Lady Mary at Tell Mastaba, outside Beth Sheʾan, consists of a large structure with a main entrance in the south leading into Hall A, which opens onto several rooms (Hachlili 2009:Fig. XII-5). Its inscriptions date it to 567 (Fitzgerald 1939:1, Pl. 2). Most of the rooms are paved with mosaics, but only the pavements of Hall A and rooms G and L are discussed (Fitzgerald 1939: 1, 5–9, 16). The mosaic pavements of the Beth Sheʾan Monastery Hall A and rooms L and G may be compared to the House of Leontis. 3.6.2.1 The Mosaic of Hall A Hall A floor is laid in a scheme of octagons, squares, and rhombs, filled with animals, birds, fish, fruit, and various other objects (Hachlili 2009:Fig. XII-6). A large medallion with two concentric circles fills the central part of the floor. The inner circle contains two upper parts of figures bearing torches, representing the sun and the moon. The outer circle is divided into twelve radial units, with figures signifying the twelve months. Each contains a clad figure carrying various items; at its feet is the Latin name of the month and the number of days in Greek (Fig. VII-32a). 3.6.2.2 The Mosaic of Chapel Room G The mosaic in the chapel Room G shows a field of 80 linked medallions arranged in thirteen rows, each containing the figure of a bird. The birds are arranged in groups of eight in each row, except for the three upper rows, where they appear in groups of four. 3.6.2.3 The Mosaic of Room L The floor of Room L is decorated with an inhabited scroll design consisting of vine-branches issuing from an amphora and forming twelve medallions arranged in three rows of four (Hachlili 2009:Fig. VI-10). Each medallion contains a figure in hunting, vintage, or everyday life scenes. Leaves, grapes, and tendrils decorate the medallions. Some of the medallions contain animals and birds. It seems that based on their compositional and stylistic similarities, these five mosaic pavements— the two at the House of Leontis and the small synagogue B and the three at the Monastery—were executed by mosaicist/s of a single workshop (Hachlili 2009:256–264, Pls. VI-g, h, XII-4b, 5a, b, Figs. VI-10, 13, XII-8–12, Pls. XII-4, 5). The inhabited scroll designs on the two pavements show some similarities in general outline and composition, such as the amphorae and the fact that the spaces between the medallions in both the synagogue and room L are filled with birds and beasts; this is unique to these two inhabited mosaic pavements (Hachlili 2009:258, Figs. VI-2, VI-10, VI-13). Details of the vine branches, grape clusters and leaves, and the execution of the animals are similar; the human figures in the House of Leontis



artists, workshops and repertoire

505

e

a

b

f

c

g d

Figure X‑27. Beth Sheʾan workshop, human figures: a–d. House of Leontis; e–g. Monastery.

506

chapter ten

a

b

c

d

e

f

Figure X‑28. Beth Sheʾan workshop, animals: a–c. Small Synagogue B; d–f. Monastery.

and in Hall A and room L of the Monastery resemble each other in hair and posture . The general execution of animals and birds is alike in all these mosaics, with a broad outline of the body, stripes for details, and the eyes rendered similarly in all the beasts (Figs. X-27, 28). The mosaic figures and objects in these pavements are quite similar: outlined by a dark line on a white background, the figures’ heads are in almost complete frontal view, the body is depicted in a three-quarter view to the right, and large eyes look to one side; almost all figures are represented with curly hair. Two hands of figures are rendered close together, holding an object. The animals are rendered in profile with their heads forward or turning back and anatomical details are schematic. The dark outline color creates flat figures, and few details are apparent. Sometimes the mosaicist used a more naturalistic approach in the features of some animals, as well as in the depiction of movement, especially in the synagogue border mosaic. The tesserae of the faces are smaller than those of the bodies. These Beth Sheʾan mosaics are generally dated to the 6th c. CE. The Monastery was absolutely dated by its two mosaic inscriptions to 567–9 c. CE (Fitzgerald 1939:2). The synagogue mosaic was dated by the excavator to the second half of the 6th century CE, on the basis of the general dating of the inhabited scroll design (Bahat 1981:85). The date of the House of Leontis mosaic was determined by the excavator and other scholars as the mid-5th c. CE, although the house may have continued in use until the 7th century (Zori 1966:124; Lifshitz 1974:82; Roth-Gerson 1987:37–8 based on the ­dedication



artists, workshops and repertoire

507

inscription in the central panel of the House of Leontis; Talgam 1999:82). Avi-Yonah (1981:275) dated the House of Leontis to the 6th century CE; however, none of the above scholars supported their dating with any kind of evidence. The variety of themes depicted on the mosaics—nilotic scenes, mythological episodes, and the inhabited vine scrolls in the synagogue as well as the calendar, vintage, and village life in the Monastery—attest to the artist’s or workshop’s ability to elaborate and execute a variety of themes and motifs. From the style, composition, and execution of the mosaic pavements of the House of Leontis, small synagogue B and the monastery at Beth Sheʾan, it can be concluded that the same mosaicist/s or workshop executed the pavements in both buildings.4 The mosaicists were apparently employed at Beth Sheʾan for the decoration of mosaic pavements of both Jewish and Christian structures, probably during the middle or second half of the 6th century. 3.7 The Maʿon-Nirim and Beʾer Shemʿa Workshop The inhabited vine scrolls design on the pavement at the Maʿon-Nirim synagogue nave (Fig. V-37) is another example of the same design serving both synagogue and church mosaic floors, though each was probably created by different craftsmen. It has quite a number of affinities with the nearby Beʾer-Shemʿa church nave mosaic. The Maʿon-Nirim synagogue mosaic designs of the inhabited vine scrolls pavement are closely symmetrical, although slight differences are noticeable between the few flanking animals that survived, such as the trunks of the elephants (Fig. IX-27a); the palm trees and doves are identical. The animals are illustrated in natural poses, following the Hellenistic prototypes closely; also notable is a certain bucolic humor in scenes such as the hen that has just laid an egg (Fig. IX-32a). The symbolic illustration of the seven-branched menorah (Figs. V-37, VI-29a) and some of the items in the central axial column are depicted by the mosaicist in realistic detail. Two distinctive technical idiosyncrasies which characterize the Maʿon-Nirim artist are the muscular bulge on the shoulder of almost all the animals and beasts and the peculiar trait depicting the eyes of all animals and birds as round circles with a dot in the center (Figs. VI-37, IX-29a). Another stylistic indication is the manner in which the vine scrolls, leaves, and grapes are represented (Hachlili 2009:Pl. XII-5c, d, 8a–f). The artist of the Maʿon-Nirim mosaic, according to Avi-Yonah (1960:34), was either—judging from his ignorance of the Hebrew script and the use of the same design scheme in churches—a gentile; or, judging from the faithful depiction of the Jewish symbols, a Greek-speaking Jew, possibly from the Diaspora, who was employed by a rustic community which concurred in the choice of designs used also in churches, albeit with the addition of the symbolic Jewish representations. The nave mosaic in St. Stephen’s Church at Beʾer-Shemʿa (Khirbet el-Far), dated to the mid-6th century (Gazit and Lender 1993:275–6), contains five columns and eleven rows of inhabited vine scrolls issuing from a vase in the middle of the bottom row, flanked by a pair of lions, each filling up two medallions (Hachlili 2009:117–119, Pl. VI-5). Only three rows are arranged with alternating animals and birds, similar to the Maʿon mosaic. The medallions of the axial central column are partly filled with objects but they also contain the unique addition of human figures. The symmetry is carefully maintained but is not as rigid and heraldic as that of the other group II compositions; although almost all the rows have flanking scenes, some animals are presented in different poses.

4 But see Saller and Bagatti (1949:131–132), who maintain that two different artists produced the Monastery mosaics, one the pavement of the months and the other the vintage mosaic.

508

chapter ten

The general scheme of the inhabited vine scrolls and some stylistic likeness seem to be shared by the pavements at the Maʿon-Nirim synagogue and the Beʾer Shemʿa church. These include their five columns and the central column containing objects; the comparable execution of animal bodies and other details; the quite natural portrayals in realistic poses; the distinctive muscular bulge on the shoulders of some of the animals; the all-important and, in this case, comparable, stylistic renditions of the vine leaves in the two mosaics; the shared border design of interlacing flowers of both nave mosaics; the vertical and horizontal connection, using rings, that characterizes the medallions at both Maʿon and Beʾer-Shemʿa. However, the Beʾer Shemʿa mosaic is less symmetrical and has the addition of human figures in some of the medallions (Hachlili 2009:266–269, Pls. VI-2, 5, XII-5c–d, 8). These considerable similarities suggest that both pavements are the product of the same workshop, though perhaps each craftsman trained there had his own idiosynchratic tendencies and used different themes based on comparable models. The mosaics of synagogues and churches in the Gaza region and the Negev (the southern limes)— at Beʾer Shemʿa, Beʾer Sheva, Gaza, Jabaliah, Kissufim, Maʿon-Nirim, and Shellal—were probably produced in a workshop located in either Gaza or Ashqelon. Since the only named mosaicists in the region are Victor and Cosmas from Ashqelon, cited in a Greek inscription on the Jabaliyah mosaic (Humbert et al. 2000:125), the workshop was likely located in nearby Ashqelon rather than Gaza. Teams from this workshop might have been working on mosaics of these sites during the late 5th–6th centuries CE. Another possibility is that a local trend or fashion, artistic connections, and exchanges of themes and motifs were the source for the similarities in the pavements. The workshops, many in villages and rural communities, might have been established by, and operated from, large centres; some of the mosaicists might have been itinerant craftsmen, carrying their tools with them. Dunbabin (1999:193–194, 197) maintains that the mosaicists who were working in the area from the 5th century on must have come from centres in Syria. The mosaic pavements show differences in execution and design, indicating preference for particular motifs and compositions; some demonstrate local inclinations, regional uniqueness, and the idiosyncrasies of the individual craftsman. Many distinctive details and features are repeated, occasionally sharing the same basic scheme, sometimes even using identical elements. The workshops existed for clientele of all religions. Artists and workshops supplied their products indiscriminately to Jews, Christians, and pagans alike. These workshops produced uniform or conventional designs which would be acceptable to the various ethnic clients. Special decorative designs or religious symbols would be added at the customer’s request. 4. The Repertory Sources and their Sequence The main question in considering the evolution of the repertory utilized in synagogue art and architecture is how these motifs, designs, and schemes were transmitted among artists. The sources that inspired the artists in the circulation of classical models and other motifs are difficult to determine precisely. The source of the similarity in pavement design and content is controversial (Hachlili 2009:273–280). Motifs, designs, patterns, and imagery might have been distributed by several means. The more popular scholarly consensus is that the consistent and frequent use of identical compositions, motifs, and patterns, and the wide range of themes found in sculpture, reliefs, mosaic art, and funerary art, suggest the existence and use in antiquity of some model or pattern books, i.e. collections of compositions, schemes, and designs (Avi-Yonah 1981b:375; 1960a:21; Kitzinger 1965b:7; Dunbabin 1978:23; 1999:302–303; Dauphin 1978a; Roussin 1985:45; Hachlili 1988:391–395; 1998:449–451, 2009:273–280;



artists, workshops and repertoire

509

Trilling 1989:37). No such book, however, has ever been discovered. The widespread use of zoological and botanical motifs that could hardly have been known at first hand from nature also proves that many themes and motifs were codified into pattern books. It can be assumed that pattern books were arranged according to composition and subject matter, and included designs, themes, motifs, and patterns. It is probable that these books were passed on from generation to generation within the same families of artists. If this is so, it may explain the extended time range of some of the themes. Moreover, the uniformity of form and content seen in the art of this period can only be the result of models being taken from sketch books. Further evidence of the existence of such sketch books is that the size of animals or objects is uniform, regardless of actual proportions. The inhabited scroll mosaic pavements, for instance, show birds and animals of similar size enclosed in medallions, suggesting that the artists did not interpret the drawings but simply copied them. The general composition of the floor, the details of the pavement, the individual patterns and motifs, the symbolic objects, and the designs were probably taken from pattern/sketch books according to individual or communal taste. Differences in the style and execution of a similar theme are to be imputed to the individual artist’s skill and style. However, as the individual styles are obviously different, many artists and workshops must have produced architectural décor and mosaics in different parts of the country. Furthermore, the designs, which were often depicted in a stereotyped manner, have been found at various sites widely separated in distance and time. A pattern book source may be ascribed to the comparable Torah shrine panels containing the Ark, or the Torah shrine accompanied by a pair of menoroth and ritual objects, which ornament the mosaic pavements of the synagogues at Beth Alpha, Hammath Tiberias, Naʿaran, Sepphoris, and Susiya (Figs. VI-1, 2). The zodiac is another example of this phenomenon. Its scheme appears in the same formal rendition (Figs. VII-3, 4) on the synagogue mosaic floors at Hammath Tiberias (late 4th century CE), Huseifa and Sepphoris (late 5th century), and Beth Alpha and Naʿaran (6th century). The zodiac design on all these mosaics is identical in its design, yet in each zodiac design there are differences in the depiction of the figures (Figs. X-15, 20, 22). This indicates dependence on some common source, presumably a sketch book, but also underlines the development of a distinctive scheme and model for decoration of synagogues distant in date. The popularity of inhabited scroll compositions in the 6th c. CE (Figs. V-36–38) might also imply the existence of pattern books (Dauphin 1978a:408–410; Hachlili 2009:129–178). The consistent design with its recurrent themes, episodes, and objects, and the uniform size of animals and objects on the different inhabited scroll pavements, with disregard for the actual proportions, is further justification for positing the existence of such sketch books; it suggests that the mosaicists did not interpret the drawings but simply copied them. The widespread use of unfamiliar zoological and botanical subjects also confirms that many themes and motifs were codified into pattern books. Such model books (presumably made of papyrus, parchment, or wooden boards) probably contained designs, motifs, and patterns, and were inherited by the workshops or the artists’ families. This might explain the time range of some of the themes (Dauphin 1978a:408). It is also quite evident that many of the motifs chosen from these model books apparently appealed to the local communities. Piccirillo (1991:129) presumes the existence of handbooks with drawings that were compiled in the imperial centres. Dunbabin (1999:302) also believes that some form of collections of models or patterns existed, which would explain the repetition of motifs. These patterns and models were used by the artists with a great deal of freedom in terms of composition, scale, specific features, traditional scenes, particular figures, and various details, which vary widely from place to place. Numerous repertory elements and designs such as scenes of hunting and

510

chapter ten

vintage, the zodiac design, and some biblical scenes were created by different artists in different periods, indicating that the artist’s apparent task was to take a basic scheme and enhance it, and add his own idiosyncratic and original style and features. It is possible to surmise from an analysis of the existing material that the pattern books were arranged in a schematic form according to several criteria: the general field, the border patterns, catalogues or sketch-books for animals, birds, and human scenes, with particular themes such as biblical episodes, village life, grape harvesting, and hunting designs. The use of such books would have tended to speed the process of preparing and executing the mosaic pavements and could also explain the popularity of the themes. There is, however, a minority opinion which argues against the existence of model or pattern books, and suggests that other considerations in the transmission of the motives should be examined. These researchers maintain that the artists’ sources for the motifs, their technique and the repertoire of designs is based on the circulation of classical models, on examples of depictions in other media, on the artist’s studio tradition and on practices passed down in a family or among groups and teams of workshops. Themes could have been studied during the artist’s training and apprenticeship, with additional subjects and elements accumulated as a result of experience. The artists were evidently capable of memorizing and recalling parts of the repertory. One strong supporter of this approach is Bruneau (1984:241–272), who argues that there was a basic repertory, and that its repeated use was supplemented by fresh and inventive schemes. He argues that the only association that exists between mosaics of the same theme is the subject itself, and that the choices were made by artists of the same background, who might have selected similar depictions and consulted a common origin, such as a textile, an illustrated manuscript, or a mosaic. Of course, even if the same or similar themes were used, there would still have been room for variation and differences. However, his supporting examples are chosen too randomly, his contentions are not too convincing, and he does not look at the question outside the field of mosaics (Dunbabin 1999:302, n. 48; Talgam 2002:12–13). There was no need for pattern books, argue Balmelle and Darmon (1986:246–247 and Bruneau in the discussion p. 249), and the transmission of the iconographic tradition was passed on from master to student orally during the formation of a pictor. The proof lies in the fact that even if the iconography is similar it is not identical. Yet this fact can serve equally well in support of the existence of pattern books: iconography, schemes, and conventions are similar because they are based on a common pattern book, while differences in execution are simply the result of the artist’s talent. However, Kitzinger (in the discussion in Balmelle and Darmon 1986:248) contends that the pictor’s design was used in various media, and elucidates the correspondence of graphic designs which served the pictores in different places. The recurrence of a collection of motifs could be the result of the artists’ training, which included learning the designs and the repertory of the workshop. Visual ideas supplementing the remembered images of the artist, as well as an exchange and circulation of ideas among artists, led to the distribution of themes and motifs. It is possible that the common motifs, themes, designs, and patterns of a particular studio passed down in a family or workshop might have been contained in illustrated notes on various fields of expertise, special interests, traditional elements, and the like. All this information would then probably have been the exclusive property of the artist or mosaicist of that workshop. The creative process of reproducing episodes and patterns from memory and innovation, in which the artist likely mirrored or imitated the bucolic life he witnessed, may also have yielded sketches by the artist for repeated use. The natural world—animals, beasts, birds, and humans—was portrayed with accurate standard characteristics, such as gestures, posture, and typical episodes selected from live activities and



artists, workshops and repertoire

511

movements observed in the surrounding natural environment. Depictions in various media, especially of portable items, were a readily available source for reproduction in mosaic pavements. The artist combined all these with traditional conventions and presented renditions that were similar to one another in many aspects. The taste of the artist and/or the patron might have been influential in determining the choice of the design and theme. 4.1 Jewish Pattern Books It may be assumed that pattern/sketch books existed containing uniquely Jewish subjects. These would have included a variety of topics: Codified files (for mosaic pavements) consisting of compositions showing the basic layouts for entire pavements, designs for complete rooms of various sizes (long, square), and complete floor designs divisible into smaller units (Scheme A). This feature is characteristic of many of the synagogue pavements (Figs. V-27–34). Other such files would have contained compositions for geometric or floral carpets for inhabited scrolls designs (Figs. V-36–38), or for Torah shrine panels, including menoroth and ritual objects (Figs. VI-1–4). Different sketch books could have been compilations of pavement borders, including geometric designs. A pattern book source may be ascribed to special files of mosaic pavement panel compositions with different motifs. The zodiac is another example of this phenomenon. Its scheme appears in the same formal rendition (Figs. VII-3–10). The zodiac design on all these mosaics is identical in design. Yet there are differences in the depiction of the figures in each zodiac (Figs. X-15, 20, 22), which indicates dependence on some common source, presumably a sketch book, but also underlines the development of a distinctive scheme and model for decoration of synagogues distant in date. Another example is the panels of symbols and inscriptions flanked by lions (Figs. IX-10, X-29). Special sketch books of Jewish motifs and symbols were intended for the decoration of synagogue architectural parts, mosaic floors, and other objects. These sketch books probably contained the menorah, ritual objects, the ark, the conch, and the zodiac. Other sketch books, containing biblical narratives, probably included models of biblical cycles, condensed and conflated into scenes which could be depicted in confined spaces (see also Weitzman 1957:89–90). Sometimes a group of Jewish symbols was added to a synagogue pavement which otherwise depicted a fashionable 6th c. design such as the inhabited scrolls (Figs. V-36–38). It may be assumed that certain animals were also included in these sketch books due to their symbolic connotations, such as, for example, eagles and lions rendered either singly or in heraldic fashion (Figs. IX-17, X-29). Mosaic pavement and architectural remains testify to the frequent use of specifically Jewish pattern/sketch books which the community would have consulted when deciding on synagogue ornamentation. Consequently, the artists themselves need not necessarily have been Jewish. It is noteworthy that only one vintage scene is found among all the synagogue ornamentations: the Korazim frieze fragment (Fig. IX-30). A few rural scenes are depicted on synagogue pavements (Figs. IX-31, 32) as well as some other scenes such as animal chases (Figs. IX-26, X-30). Birds pecking grapes are portrayed (Fig. IX-35), as are the bird cage (Figs. IX-36), the peacock with open tail, the peacock rendered en face with spread feathers (Figs. IX-37), the frequently rendered eagle, and the bird of prey (Figs. IX-14–23). All these motifs occur on both synagogue and church pavements. These distinctive motifs may have been contained in a separate sketch book, or may have belonged to an existing file of catalogues for birds and animals, which included heraldic motifs used regularly by Jews for sculpture and mosaic pavements, but also by Christians and pagans. These files possibly included sketches depicting a wreath flanked by different objects or figures such as eagles and Nikae (Fig. IX-16), lions flanking a vase, bull heads, or inscriptions (Fig. IX-7, 9, 10), and the

512

chapter ten

a

b

c

Figure X‑29. Lions flanking symbols and inscription: a. Nabratein aedicula stone lintel; b. Maʿon-Nirim mosaic; c. Hammath Tiberias B mosaic panel.

a

b

Figure X‑30. Animal chase on fragments of synagogue mosaic borders: a. Beth Sheʾan B; b. Gerasa.

panel depicting the Torah shrine flanked by menoroth (Figs. VI-1–4). These were used in synagogue architectural ornamentation and mosaic pavements as well as in funerary art. Many of these heraldic motifs also occur on church mosaic floors. For example, churches in the town of Nebo (Jordan) have mosaics showing animals facing each other with either a vase or plants between them (Piccirillo 1993:Pls. 134, 200, 213, 214, 228, 237, 240, 250). Dauphin (1978:408) proposes that sketch books consisted of one sketch of one particular subject, such as one type of bird or animal, per page. These would have been arranged typologically in separate files, and each workshop or artist would have possessed at least one complete set of files.



artists, workshops and repertoire

513

The best evidence for the existence of such sketch books is the zodiac panel design (Figs. VII-3–10) which occurs on six synagogue mosaic pavements widely separated in space and time. The scheme as well as the content of these mosaics is identical, and is found only in Jewish art. Variations in style and execution may be ascribed to the individual skill and style of the artist. This applies to the Torah shrine panel as well (Figs. VI-1–4). Thus, this uniformity of form and content can only be a result of models taken from sketch books. Further justification for the existence of such sketch books comes from uniformity in size of animals or objects, without any consideration for actual proportionality. This is evidenced in the inhabited scrolls pavements at Gaza, Maon-Nirim, and Beth Sheʾan B, which show similar-sized birds and elephants, all made to fit the medallions, suggesting that the particular artist did not interpret the drawing, but simply copied it (Fig. V-36–38). Many inhabited scroll design pavements in synagogue and churches actually support the existence of pattern books which included this specific design. These pavements differ from one another in many stylistic details, suggesting that various artists executed the same chosen designs. 5. Concluding Remarks The general repertory of the architectural décor and mosaics attests that the same compositions, designs, themes, and imagery persisted throughout the Roman-Byzantine world; the variety was the result of the artists’ and mosaicists’ skill and ability. Classical themes could be portrayed by artists who may have altered the images or the meaning. Designs could be created of typical images with a new combination of details and stylization. The same conventions are observed on many of the mosaics, demonstrating a common source and tradition. The images could be adapted to local taste and choice. The carvings and pavements that display inscriptions by the artist might have designated their involvement beyond the actual making of the design, through the influence they enjoyed, possibly as the driving force behind the choice of the content of the mosaic. Some of the inscriptions accompanying the synagogue and church mosaic pavements and carvings mention the artist by deed and name. A few of the inscriptions mention one artist, which might indicate his position as the master artist, or perhaps the only artist, who created the carving or the pavement; other inscriptions relate to two or three, who could have shared equal rank, or the first mentioned might have been the master and the others, his apprentices or family members. An interesting question concerns the identity of those who actually chose the patterns. Some scholars suggest that the artist chose the details of the composition and motifs after a general order had been given (Dauphin 1978:408–409). On the other hand, it seems more likely that the patron was free to choose whatever he liked from the pattern books and sketch files. The appearance of Jewish symbols and designs in synagogues, and in some of the donors’ inscriptions, attests to the involvement of the donors and the community, and perhaps also of the artists, in choosing the layout, composition, and motifs, with the assistance of the postulated Jewish pattern books. This must have been true also of local workshops, which produced chancel screens depicting Jewish symbols for synagogues and Christian symbols for churches. Another phenomenon is that few of the architectural décors and mosaic pavements can be attributed to the same workshops or artists. Only a small number of carved decorations and mosaics suggest that their producer/s were responsible for additional pavements or carved elements in different buildings. Even when there is such a possibility, it is sometimes evident that one floor was created by the master mosaicist and another probably by a less experienced artist or an apprentice. The same is true in the case of architectural décors, such as the Korazim workshops (see above) and the Khirbet

514

chapter ten

Wadi Hamam mosaic panels. It seems that most of the ornamentation of a structure was executed by local artists and mosaicist/s who were also builders, stonemasons, and masters of other crafts. The spread of similar mosaic works is frequently attributed, albeit with little evidence, to the existence of central workshops that trained local artists, or to itinerant mosaicists (Dunbabin 1999:273). Lavin (1963:244) suggests that a great number of North African schools and workshops, “though perhaps operating from headquarters in the larger centres, were doubtless itinerant.” Such teams of travelling artists may have practised their craft over a wide area, which would account for the similarity in designs and patterns in different localities. The appearance of exotic animals like the giraffe and elephant, led by figures in ethnic attire, might indicate motifs produced by travelling mosaicists who were familiar with them, or reflect actual incidents in which such figures and animals visited the villages during celebrations. The artist could have referred to the themes from his individual repertoire; at times he might have referred to a contemporary fashion or trend for a prime choice; he might have showed the patrons and community leaders a sketchbook from which they could choose desired themes. Occasionally an artist of eminent standing may have been given a free hand to use his own skills and experience. High officials, priests, and communal leaders (who are mentioned on inscriptions) probably oversaw the general plan of the ornamentation. They had to ensure that the content of the mosaics suited the communal approach of the synagogue or church. Hence, no rural or everyday life scenes were depicted on synagogue mosaic pavements and no biblical scenes or saints were rendered on church mosaic pavements. The patrons’ and donors’ role in the planning of the ornamentation process, and how much influence they may have exerted on its subject matter, might be indicated by their inscriptions. Patrons’ inscriptions on mosaics and carvings no doubt indicated that these persons had donated the money for the work, but they could also have been involved in determining the content. This becomes even more plausible when considering that some men of religion are among the individuals named on synagogue pavements. Other benefactors whose inscriptions are found include members of the laity, men and women, individuals, families, and communities. The donors’ involvement in the choice of subject matter might be perceived at the Sepphoris synagogue, on the Greek inscription in the circular frame of the inner circle of the zodiac, and in many of the other panels (Weiss 2005:203–208; Di Segni 2005:209–223), which were most likely specially chosen for their location and content. The patrons at times conveyed their requests and wishes for preferred popular themes and for iconographic ideas they were familiar with, directing the mosaicists as to the extent and form of the pavement designs. The appearance of Jewish symbols and designs in synagogue and funerary art attests to the involvement of the community and the donors in the building and decoration of the religious structures. When choosing the layout, composition, and motifs to be included in the designs, they would most likely have been assisted by Jewish pattern books, and perhaps also by the artists themselves. Whenever the Jewish community wanted to add specific significance to an ornamented floor, they would insert Jewish symbols. These symbols would have been clear indications of the difference between the local Jewish and Christian edifices, and would have emphasized the function of the building. The Jewish community would also have availed itself of designs from general pattern books when, for example, they used the inhabited scroll pattern, which also appears on church pavements, on their synagogue floors. This would have been the case even when they used geometric mosaic pavements devoid of any Jewish content. It is reasonable to infer that although Jewish artists from families with traditions of inherited craftsmanship worked primarily for Jews, they were also employed by Christians and pagans. This may be deduced from the similarities in stylistic features of synagogues, churches, and temples in the



artists, workshops and repertoire

515

Galilee and Syria, and also by synagogue and church architecture and mosaic art, particularly during the sixth century. The most important work of contemporary Jewish literature, the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 29a), mentions the existence of Jewish artists and craftsmen who also worked for Christians and pagans, and also speaks of the attitude of Jews to artists and craftsmen. Among the various crafts, the builders are mentioned first; they as well as the craftsmen, were held in high esteem.

Chapter Eleven

Inscriptions The majority of the inscriptions revealed in synagogues in the Land of israel are in Aramaic (about 140). There are, in addition, a few Hebrew inscriptions and about fifty Greek inscriptions, mostly dedicatory texts (Lifshitz 1967; Naveh 1978; 1981:133–139; 1989; Roth-Gerson 1987; 1987a; Hachlili 1988:225–227; Weiss 2005:199–208, 216–223; Di Segni 2005:209–216). Synagogue inscriptions are found either carved on stone architectural fragments such as lintels, column bases and chancel screens, or worked into mosaic pavements; a few are painted on plaster (at the synagogue of Rehov; Vitto 1981:93). Most of the inscriptions can be classified in one of several groups: dedicatory, literary, unique inscriptions, explanatory inscriptions, and inscriptions citing biblical verses. 1. Dedicatory Inscriptions The majority of the inscriptions found in Late Antique synagogues are dedicatory, and they commemorate the officials, founders and donors of the synagogue. A few inscriptions mention the artists who probably constructed the building or made the mosaic. The architectural and ornamental parts were donated by private donor/s or by the community. These dedicatory inscriptions are mostly set in mosaic floors, but are also found on lintels, at ʿAlma, Barʿam, Kanaf, Nabratein (Naveh 1978:nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 13, 19), doorposts and columns at Ashqelon, Capernam, and Gaza, capitals, and chancel screens, for example at Susiya (Naveh 1978: nos. 80–86), Ashdod, Ashqelon, and Gaza (RothGerson 1987:nos. 1, 3, 22, 23) (Figs. IV-65, V-6b, 7b, c, IX-17a). The common form of the inscription frame was the tabula ansata; other forms were circular and rectangular. The location of the inscriptions was probably not regulated; they are set in various places in synagogues (see below). The inscriptions include the donors’ names, occasionally their title or profession, the kind of donation, and sometimes the sum. Only rarely is the date mentioned (Fig. XI-1). Some of the inscriptions include a blessing on the donors by the community (Roth‑Gerson 1987:158–160). The donors occasionally have titles such as priest, rabbi and archisynagogos, or they may be persons who hold some official position in the community (Naveh 1978:12). Some of the dedications were given not by local people but by donors from other towns or villages (Naveh 1978:no. 4, 21; Roth‑Gerson 1987:163–180). In the Greek inscriptions, the reason for the donation was also sometimes included (Roth‑Gerson 1987:150–151). The dedication generally opens with the Hebrew or Aramaic formula ‫ זכור לטובה‬or ‫‘ דכיר טוב‬to be remembered for good.’ A blessing formula to the donors is at times added, generally the words ‫אמן‬ “Amen” and ‫“ סלה‬Selah”; common also are the words ‫( שלום‬peace) and ‫“ שלום על ישראל‬Peace on Israel” (taken from Psalms 125:5, 128:6) which appear on the Jericho and Huseifa synagogue inscriptions (Fig. IX-2a, b). Some of the Aramaic inscriptions mention donors who ‘made’, that is, ‘paid for’, the mosaics. These include the inscriptions at Beth Alpha, Naʿaran, Hammath Gader; ʿEn Gedi and inscription 4 at Susiya (Naveh 1978:nos. 35, 43, 57, 58, 69, 75; 1989:306–7, no. 6). A strangely written Aramaic inscription is found on the Maʿon-Nirim pavement, probably the work of a mosaicist who did not

518

chapter eleven

a

b

c

d

Figure XI-1. Synagogue inscriptions of donors: a. Gaza; b. Gerasa; c. Maʿon-Nirim; d. Susiya.

a

b

Figure XI-2. Synagogue inscription ‫“ שלום על ישראל‬Peace on Israel”: a. Jericho; b. Huseifa.

know or understand the language. Aramaic Inscription no. 10 at Sepphoris mentions sons of a family ‘who made’ a panel (Weiss 2005:208, Fig. 15). Similar Greek inscriptions were found at Beth Leontis, Beth Sheʾan, Caesarea and Gaza (Roth-Gerson 1987:nos. 7, 21, 27). The inscriptions at Sepphoris, found in the mosaics, refer to families who donated sums of money, or endowed distinctive panels or sections of the mosaic pavements (Weiss 2005:217). Similar inscriptions mentioning donors of parts of the mosaic appear at the Apamea (Syria) and Sardis synagogues (Lifshitz 1967:39–46). Donor names in synagogues are mostly Hebrew and Aramaic names while Greek and Latin names occur mainly on the synagogue’s Greek inscriptions (Fig. XI-1); the inscriptions at Sepphoris are a good example of this practice (Weiss 2005:203–208, Inscriptions 2–10; Di Segni 2005:209–212, Inscriptions 1–6). Very few dedicatory inscriptions have been found in Galilee and Golan synagogues, and these include Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions on lintels at Barʿam, Meroth and Nabratein, as well as inscriptions on columns at Gush Halav and Capernaum, on a stone and mosaic at H. ʿAmudim, and on the Seat of Moses at Korazim (Naveh 1978:nos. 1, 2, 12–13, 17, 18, 20; 1989:305–6). A dedicatory



inscriptions

519

inscription was carved on the 6th c. lintel found at Nabratein synagogue (Fig. XIV-3). The excavators maintain that the lintel originated in Synagogue 2a, was later reused on the southern entrance of Synagogue 3, and was then inscribed with a dedicatory inscription including a date of 564 CE. The inscription is separated into two parts, which flank a menorah within a wreath carved in high relief (Avigad 1960; Meyers and Meyers 2009:31–2, 399–401, Figs. 15, 16). Two dedicatory inscriptions were found at Capernaum, one in Aramaic on a column found in the courtyard and the other in Greek on a column found in the nave (Naveh 1978:no. 18; Roth-Gerson 1987:no. 20). Avi-Yonah (1981b:60) maintains that neither the form of the script nor the names in the text of the Capernaum Greek inscription are Byzantine. The Aramaic inscription is dated to the 4th c. or later (Sukenik 1934:72). Five dedicatory inscriptions, four in Aramaic and one in Hebrew (Fig. III-32), were discovered on stones in second use at the Qasrin synagogue and in parts of Syrian buildings in the area (Urman 1995b:467, 469–478). At Dabura, several inscriptions were discovered, one mentioning a Beth Midrash (Fig. XIV-4). A few inscriptions write of donations from residents who were not local residents. A dedicatory inscription in the Hammath Gader synagogue mosaic pavement mentions several donors from other places—Sepphoris, Kafer ʿAqabiya, Emmaus, Capernaum and the people from Arbel, indicating that some people who came to Hammath Gader for various healing treatments were willing to donate a pavement to the site’s synagogue (Naveh 1978:12, no. 33). A donor from Tiberias donated the lintel at ʿAlma, and a donor from Alexandria is mentioned on an inscription on a lintel from ʿIblin (Naveh 1978:nos. 4, 21). Some inscriptions state the origin of the donors: Nonus from Kisikus (on the Caspian Sea) who donated a marble board found in the House of Leontis at Beth Sheʾan (Roth-Gerson 1987:39, n. 3, no. 8). 1.1 Donors’ Professions and Occupations The donors have titles, such as priest, rabbi and archisynagogos. Some inscriptions mention lords and ladies as well as and community officials (Naveh 1978:12). A number of dedicatory inscriptions mention the occupation and profession of the donors, which might have been part of their identity; others acknowledge the wealth, respect or distinction of the patrons: • Scribe—‫ סופר‬is cited on a mosaic pavement Hebrew inscription found on the south corridor of the courtyard at Susiya (Naveh 1978:no. 75). • Artist—‫ אומן‬appears in several inscriptions. The term is used in the Hebrew-Aramaic inscriptions on a lintel at ʿAlma and in the Aramaic inscription found on the mosaic pavement of the Beth Sheʾan small synagogue (without a name) (Naveh 1978:no. 3, 47). A Greek inscription from Beth Alpha mentions two artists οί τεχνίται, a father and son named Marianos and Hanina (Fig. X-6a). The same artists are mentioned on the Beth Sheʾan A synagogue inscription (Fig. X-6b); it is possible that this Greek term was specific to mosaic artists and that the artists originated at Beth Sheʾan (Roth‑Gerson 1987:no. 4). • Scholar / lawyer—ό όχολαστικός a term that referred not only to an occupation but also to a imperative position in the community, appears in an inscription on a lintel from Sepphoris (Lifshitz 1967:no. 74; Roth‑Gerson 1987:167–168, no. 24). • Cage maker (for birds) and vendor (or perhaps “oven maker”)—ό κλουβας appears as the profession of the donor Leontis, in two inscriptions on the mosaic pavement of the House of Leontis at Beth Sheʾan (Lifshitz 1967:no. 77b; Roth‑Gerson 1987:165, nos. 6, 7). • Marble worker or stonecutter—ό μαρμάριος occurs in an inscription on a small marble slab from Tiberias (Roth‑Gerson 1987:165, no. 14).

520

chapter eleven

• Wood merchants—οί ξυλέμποροι is found in the Gaza aisle mosaic pavement, in reference to two brothers who donated to that project. They were probably wealthy residents of the town (Lifshitz 1967:no. 73a; Roth‑Gerson 1987:166, no. 21). • An honorary title, sir—κύρος and madame—κυρά is found in Greek inscriptions: on a marble screen from Ashkelon, on mosaic inscriptions at Beth Sheʾan in the House of Leontis and the small synagogue, and on a stone slab at Caesarea. On Aramaic inscriptions sir—‫קוריס‬/‫ קירס‬and lady—‫( קירה‬the Greek term is used but in Aramaic transliteration) appear on a Hammath Gader mosaic pavement inscription and on a column from Beth Govrin. On two inscriptions, from the House of Leontis and the small synagogue at Beth Sheʾan, and a third from Caesarea, the Greek title ό κύριος is an appellation refering to God (Naveh 1978:no. 32, 71; Roth‑Gerson 1987:133, 156, 175–6, nos. 3, 6, 7, 9, 25). These titles and appellations of donors who served as community officials and patrons and which refer to their professions and occupations reveal some of the social activities, settings and constituents of synagogue community life. It seems the wealthy upper classes were those who donated various parts of the synagogue building, or a complete building, and they might have been responsible for the choice, taste and preference of the synagogue ornamentation. 2. Literary Texts Two unique literary inscriptions in Hebrew and Aramaic were discovered decorating the narthex of two synagogue pavements, at Rehov and ʿEn Gedi, and are also the longest inscriptions found to date. The Halakha inscription from Rehov decorates the central panel of the narthex (Vitto 1981; Sussmann 1974, 1976, 1981; Naveh 1978:no. 49; Hachlili 2009:234–236). The Rehov Hebrew inscription (with many Aramaic area names and nicknames) is a well-preserved 29-line inscription, unique in size and content. The entire text concerns issues of Halakha, citing passages at length (Fig. XI-3). The text records the tithes and Shmita (seventh year—when the land is left to lie fallow) produce in many of the districts in the Holy Land; it contains a detailed list of fruits and vegetables permitted or forbidden during the Shmita year in specific regions. About 90 cities and towns, and about 30 brands of fruit and vegetables, are listed. The list of regions and fruits appears in the Talmud too. The inscription names the cities surrounding Jewish Galilee from south to east to north to west, and then again to the east: Beth Sheʾan (lines 1–9), Sussita (Hipos), Naveh, and Tyre (lines 9–13); Paneas (lines 18–22), Caesarea (lines 22–26), and Sebaste (Samaria) (lines 26–29). The boundaries of Eretz Israel, an important text in Talmudic literature related to the historical geography of the country, are listed in lines 13–18, in the middle of the inscription. The named regions were pagan and therefore presented a problem for the observance of the Jewish agricultural principles concerning tithes and Seventh-Year produce in the Holy Land. Based on the archaeological finds in the synagogue, the inscription is dated later than the 5th century CE and perhaps as late as the 7th century CE. Sussmann (1981:151) maintains that this unique inscription “achieved several purposes: instruction in the Law, expression of regional ‘patriotism’ as well as ornamentation”. Shinan (1996:150–151) contends that the inscription was particularly important in the region of the non-Jewish city of Beth Sheʾan during the period; the Jews in these regions had to know precisely where and when the agricultural rules were in force. The text is also related to piyyutim from this period. The Rehov inscription is the oldest existing copy of a rabbinic source and is important evidence for rabbinic legal tradition and its influence in late antiquity. The Rehov inscription was apparently copied from a literary text and had various purposes, among them conveying the actual knowledge and memory of traditions and practices.



inscriptions

521

Figure XI-3. The Rehov synagogue inscription.

The ʿEn Gedi inscription, discovered on the mosaic pavement of the synagogue narthex (Fig. XI-4), consists of 18 lines divided into four distinct panels (Mazar 1970; Urbach 1970; Naveh 1978:no. 70; Levine 1981:140‑145; 2000:362; Hachlili 2009:234–235). The first two panels, in Hebrew, have 8 lines. Lines 1–2 contain the names of thirteen ancestors of the world, copied from I Chron. I:1–4; lines 3–4 contain a list of the twelve zodiac signs followed by the names of the twelve months of the year in lines 5–7a; the names of the three patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the ending in the term ‘peace’, appear in line 7b, while the names Hananiah, Mishael, and ʿAzariah, and the blessing ‘peace unto Israel’, appear on line 8. The second part of the inscription, including the other two panels, is a dedicatory caption in Aramaic, which is entirely different in language and content. The beginning and the end of this part are evidently connected: almost the same names of donors and the same Aramaic formula—to be remembered for good—appear in lines 9 and 17–18. The last panel of the inscription is depicted in a different writing, perhaps executed by another hand. The inscription was explicitly meant to be read by the synagogue population, and abided by. The most unusual part of the second section is lines 10–16, which consist of four offences for which the town’s community will be held accountable: causing disagreement, slandering friends to the Gentiles, stealing, and revealing the ‘town’s secret’ to the Gentiles. This is followed by a threeline curse, an ominous warning to those who ignore the last-named proscription and do reveal the town’s secret. The nature of this curse is in great dispute among scholars and is not yet resolved. Mazar (1970) argues that the inscription’s early 7th-century date attests that the town’s secret was the outcome of the Persian-Byzantine political controversy of 614, which divided the community. Lieberman (1971) suggests that the inscription is associated with the secrets of the cultivation and preparation of balsam, the industry of ʿEn Gedi. A. Dothan (1971), dating the inscription to the 6th century, claims that the ‘secret’ draws greatly on biblical expressions and refers to the hiding of the

522

chapter eleven

Figure XI-4. The ʿEn Gedi synagogue inscription.

Torah scrolls. Urbach (1971) maintains it is an oath taken by the townspeople, perhaps inspired by the Essenes. Schwartz (2001:261–2) proposes that the ʿEn Gedi inscription is “a verbal representation of the decorative scheme”. Ben-Yehoshua and Rozen (2009) further develop the idea by describing the cultivation of persimmons—a Judaean balsam plant that may have been nurtured in Jericho and ʿEn Gedi in the Late Iron Age. They argue that the community had a unique system of production and marketing



inscriptions

523

(surviving until the 6th century CE), and that their economic existence depended on keeping secret the production techniques. However, the community secret remains unknown. Notably, these two literary inscriptions were not rendered in the central nave mosaic but in the side narthex. The presentation of the written word on the pavement and its preference over figured designs might have been the decision of the local community, but it could also have been a later addition to these two synagogues, perhaps as late as the 7th century CE. These inscriptions, rendered on large areas of the pavements, had further importance. They were evidently intended to be read, thus expanding the role of the floor decoration. 3. Unique Inscriptions Three exceptional inscriptions are worthy of discussion: the Theodotus inscription from Jerusalem, the Qazion inscription and the List of the twenty-four priestly courses found in several sites. 3.1 Theodotus Inscription One of the most important epigraphic finds is the Greek inscription of Theodotus, engraved on a square limestone slab discovered in excavations in Jerusalem in 1913 by Raimund Weill (1920, I, II: Pl. XXVA). It was found among rubbish in a cistern in the southern end of the eastern ridge of the Ophel (City of David), south of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (the inscribed slab—IAA no. S842, now in the Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem). The inscription (w. 75 cm. h. 41 cm.) holds 10 lines and reads: ΘΕΟ∆ΟΤΟΣ ΟΥΕΤΤΕΝΟΥ ΙΕΡΕΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΡΧΙΣΥΝΑΓΩΓΟΣ ΥΙΟΣ. ΑΡΧΙΣΥΝ[ΑΓΩ]− Γ[Ο]Υ ΥΙΟΝΟΣ ΑΡΧΙΣΥΝ[Α]ΓΩΓΟΥ ΩΚΟ− ∆ΟΜΗΣΕ ΤΗΝ ΣΥΝΑΓΩΓ[Η]Ν ΕΙΣ ΑΝ[ΑΓ]ΝΩ− Σ[Ι]Ν ΝΟΜΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΕΙΣ [∆]Ι∆ΑΧΗΝ ΕΝΤΟΛΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΝ ΞΕΝΩΝΑ ΚΑ[Ι ΤΑ] ∆ΩΜΑΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΑ ΧΡΗ− Σ[Τ]ΗΡΙΑ ΤΩΝ Υ∆ΑΤΩΝ ΕΙΣ ΚΑΤΑΛΥΜΑ ΤΟΙ− Σ [Χ]ΡΗΖΟΥΣΙΝ ΑΠΟ ΤΗΣ ΞΕ[Ν]ΗΣ ΗΝ ΕΘΕΜΕ− Λ[ΙΩ]ΣΑΝ ΟΙ ΠΑΤΕΡΕΣ [Α]ΥΤΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΟΙ ΠΡΕ− Σ[Β]ΥΤΕΡΟΙ ΚΑΙ ΣΙΜΩΝ[Ι]∆ΗΣ Theodotus, son of Vettenus, priest and archisynagogos, son of an archisynagogos, grandson of an archi­ synagogos, who built the synagogue for the reading of the Torah and for teaching of the commandments, and the guest rooms, the chambers and water fittings for the need of strangers, which his fathers founded with the Elders and Simonides. (Translation: Kloppenborg 2006:253)

The area of the find served as a quarry for building the Roman city of Aelia Capitolina. As the area was unoccupied after the destruction of Jerusalem, it is possible that the inscribed stone belonged to an earlier structure, perhaps a miqveh, probably built before the quarry (Reich 1995:291–92). Scholars (Kloppenborg 2006:258–263; Hanson 2002; Binder 2009) maintain that the site of the find is Herodian. Some of the area excavated proves that no building was erected there after 70 CE, and that it was used as a quarry after 135 CE. The city of David, the Ophel, was unoccupied after 135 CE until the 5th century CE, the Byzantine period. Jews had been prohibited from living in Aelia Capitolina after 135 CE, when Jerusalem became the camp for the tenth legion (Legio X Fretensis). Additional hewn stone slabs were found in the cistern with the inscribed Theodotus stone. The location of all these stones indicates that they were deliberately deposited there, perhaps by members of the community who revisited the site after the destruction of Jerusalem and buried these remains of the building, in the hope of reconstructing it in the future.

524

chapter eleven

Figure XI-5. Theodotus inscription.

The Theodotus inscription is significant for its description of a synagogue building that states its functions clearly and in detail, and for its listing of the founders and donors’ high status and leadership—Theodotus, his father and grandfather were priests and archisynagogoi, who together with the elders and Simonides established the synagogue. The described donation essentially consisted of four different structures: the synagogue building, the hostel (guest room), the chambers and the water installations. Many scholars have examined and studied the inscription (Frey 1952:no. 1404; Lifshitz 1967:no. 79; Huttenmeister and Reeg 1977, I:192–195, with detailed bibliography; Roth-Gerson 1987:76–86; Kee 1999; Kloppenborg 2000; 2006; Price 2010). The term ‘synagogue’, which appears in the Theodotus inscription only once, should be interpreted as both a structure and a community. The functions of this synagogue as declared in the inscription are: (a) for the reading of the Torah and (b) for teaching of the commandments. Both are clearly emphasized by the donors. Torah reading on Shabbat, feast days and beginning of the month are also referred to in other sources (Jos. Apion 2.175, M. Megila 4a, B. Megila 27a; Lk. 4:17–20; Acts 13:15, 15:21). However, prayer could also have been exercised in such a synagogue (see McKay 1992; Levine 2004). It is apparent that the inscription emphasizes that the synagogue was also a teaching and learning institute, as epigraphic data from the Diaspora also shows. The inscription further states that the structure (c) included guest rooms, which possibly served pilgrims from Rome and other places as well as the general public. Scholars assume it could have aided the poor, but the synagogue was not to be turned into a hostel, which was not always seen as proper. (d) Water fittings which could have been large basins needed for washing, drinking and purification for the visiting strangers or other people. Various explanations are proposed regarding the builder of the synagogue mentioned in the Theodotus inscription. Some scholars maintain the synagogue was inaugurated by the elders and Simonides, and was eventually built by Theodotus. The elders were probably the Jewish community officials who were associates, donors or the entrepreneurs involved in the construction of



inscriptions

525

i­ nstitutions for their congregation. Though Simonides may have been an important personality in the community or a principal benefactor, the mention of the elders in the inscription is a declaration that the building of the synagogue was a community venture, not a private family one (Roth-Gerson 1987:81–86). Other scholars suggest that the elders and Simonides established the community for which Theodotus built the synagogue, though the position of Simonides in the family or the community is unknown. Theodotus “built the synagogue” while his ancestors “founded” it, which might indicate that “Theodotus built a synagogue after transplanting from abroad a synagogal community which his own forefathers together with other distinguished individuals, originally founded, at least three generations previously” (Price 2010:55). It seems that the family of Theodotus was of high rank, influential, and affluent enough to carry out the building project, and might have had some connection with the Jerusalem upper classes; perhaps it was originally a priestly Roman family (Roth-Gerson 1987:78; Kloppenborg 2000:276–77). The language of the inscription and the hostel for pilgrims suggests to Price (2010:55) that Theodotus and his family came from abroad and settled in Jerusalem. Some scholars claimed that the Roman name Vettenus proves that the origin of the family was in Rome, so that the family built the synagogue for Roman Jews in Jerusalem as well as for Jewish pilgrims from Rome. Clermont-Ganneau (1920:193, 196) proposed that the father or grandfather of Theodotus was a slave manumitted or adopted by a member of the Vettia gens (this suggestion has been followed widely, see Huttenmeister and Reeg I:192–195, bibliography there; Roth-Gerson 1987:78). Others suggested that the Theodotus synagogue is the ‘Synagogues of the Freedmen” (Libretins) in Jerusalem cited in the New Testament (Acts 6:9), but there is not enough evidence for such an identification. Kloppenborg (2006:263–266) rejects this theory and contends that neither Theodotus nor his father Vettenus were freedmen. The dating of the Theodotus inscription is in debate. Most experts maintain that the date should be determined by the Herodian stratigraphy of the site in which the inscription was discovered, and the style of the script, which is similar to the script of Herodian inscriptions that antedate 70 CE. The style of the Theodotus inscription lettering shows similarities with two other Herodian public inscriptions, probably executed by cutters employed in the building of the Temple: one is the Greek Herodian balustrade inscription (Frey 1952:no. 1400; mentioned by Jos. Ant. 15. 417). This inscription and the Theodotus inscription might have been engraved by different cutters. The second comparable Greek inscription is a carved notification of a donation by Rhodian Jews for the pavement of the Temple complex, found in a miqveh in a structure on the Temple mound excavation and dated to 17/18 BCE (Ben Dov 1982:155; Isaac 1983). The Theodotus inscription lettering style is consistent with other 1st c. CE comparable inscriptions in the Levant, indicating an early Imperial Period date within the Herodian period (Kloppenborg 2000:269–274). Thus, the inscription is evidence of a pre-70 CE synagogue in Jerusalem, which was constructed in the late 1st c. BCE or early 1st CE and is generally dated to the Herodian or early Roman periods—the first century CE but before 70 CE (Frey 1952:no. 1404; Schürer et al. 1979:425; Roth-Gerson 1987:76– 86). Millard (2000:110–112) maintains the date of the inscription is the first half of the 1st century CE, based on the styling of the letters in comparison to other dated inscriptions from Egypt and other sites, and on the fact that the donor had only two names, Theodotus and Vettenus, while persons named in documentation dated later in the 1st century CE usually had three names. He states that the name Vettenus was an Etrurian name, perhaps given to him as a freed slave. However, some scholars propose other dates: McKay (1994:242–45; 1998:125–28) in a detailed discussion doubts the reliability of the date assigned by most of the scholars and suggests a 2nd c. CE date. Kee (1990:6–9, 1999), discussing in detail the probable date for the inscription, suggests a later date, in the mid-to-late third century CE, which in his opinion fits well with the ‘historical, linguistic

526

chapter eleven

and archaeological evidence of the development of the synagogue in the first four centuries’ he has surveyed. Kee further maintains that no synagogue building existed before 70 CE, and that in the 1st century CE the term synagogue refers both in the land of Israel and in the Diaspora to an “assembly”, “gathering” or to a “congregation” rather than to a building. Only at the end of the 1st or beginning of the 2nd century CE did a shift occur, at which time the term synagogue began to be applied to both the building and the assembly. The reference to synagogue in the New Testament (Lk. 7:5 and Acts 18:7) is actually reading back later usage to an earlier period. Kee’s arguments are rejected by some scholars: Kloppenborg (2000:276–77; 2006:236, 245, 266– 273) tries to establish the 1st c. date of the Theodotus inscription based on paleography, Second Temple synagogue buildings found in Israel, literary evidence, and references to datable persons. He compares the Theodotus inscription to the inscription from Benghazi (Bernice in Cyrenaica, dated to 55/6 CE) which mentions renovating a synagogue, thus a building. He further argues that the Theodotus inscription proves that by the mid 1st c. the term synagogue meant both a congregation and a building, and thus attests that a synagogue building in Jerusalem was probably constructed in the early 1st c. CE. The date of the 1st c. CE for the Theodotus inscription is also supported by the ornamentation of some of the architectural fragments found with the inscription slab in the cistern, which are similar to items found in the Second Temple period in the Jerusalem Temple Mount excavations and in synagogues of that period. The architectural fragments found at the Jerusalem site (Weill 1920, II: Pl. XXV:B) are comparable to various ornamentations of other Second Temple objects. Examples are the decoration on the Temple Mount architectural examples such as the rosette, and some of the designs on stone tables (Ben Dov 1982:138, 159); the Gamla basalt stone with a rosette; and the geometric patterns on the stone discovered in the Migdal synagogue (Figs. II-12, 13). The pottery found with the stones in the Jerusalem cistern (Weill 1920, II:Pl. XXVI), especially the lamps, is characteristic of the period and is dated to the 1st c. BCE–1st c. CE. According to Kloppenborg (2000:277), the date of the Theodotus inscription is important for two reasons: (1) it proves that the term synagogue was used for buildings in early Roman Palestine as well as in Egypt and Cyrenaica; (2) Theodotus’ grandfather held also the position of archisynagogos, apparently in the 1st c., BCE. Hence, the Theodotus inscription is ‘the earliest datable attestation for the term used in Jewish associations.’ The significance of the Theodotus inscription is perceived in these aspects: (1) the clear and detailed description of the building’s construction and the functions and roles of this synagogue; (2) the information provided about the status of the donor and his family; (3) the location of the find in Jerusalem, which indicates that a synagogue existed while the Temple was still functioning; (4) the date as one of the earliest dedicatory inscriptions discovered in the Land of Israel. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that the description of the facilities of the synagogue (hostel, chambers and water fittings) in the Theodotus inscription relate only to a synagogue in Jerusalem, which had to accommodate for pilgrims visiting the city (at least during the three annual feasts) to participate in the Temple activities. These other facilities of the synagogue were not found and were not characteristic of other Second Temple buildings. 3.2 Qazion Inscription The Qazion Greek inscription (see discussion in Supplement Qazion) is one of the most important inscriptions of the Late Roman period found in Israel. The inscription, carved on a lintel, was initially discovered by Renan (1871) but for most of the 20th century this inscription was ‘lost’, only to be rediscovered by Rachel Hachlili and colleagues during a visit to the site in 1984 (Bar-On and Ilan



inscriptions

527

1989:120; Hachlili 1988:396, Pl. 109). It was found resting (with the inscription facing down) next to the west entrance of the monumental building (Fig. Q-3) (it is now in the garden of the Israeli presidential residence in Jerusalem). The inscription has been discussed and published by many scholars (Renan 1871:774–777; though most of them did not see the original lintel or even a photo, Kohl and Watzinger 1916:209; Klein 1920:81; Frey 1952:no. 972; Huttenmeister and Reeg 1977:361–2 and bibliography there). The inscription was republished by L. Roth-Gerson 1987:125–129 and L. Di Segni 1997, I:318–320, no. 75 A–B after the inscribed lintel was found again. The Greek inscription is incised on the lintel’s face, broken on both sides (Figs. Q-46, 47); originally it was flanked by two wreaths, but only the one on the left survived. The inscription reads: “For the health and well-being of our lord emperors, the Caesars, Lucius Septimius Severus Pius Pertinax Augustus, and Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Publius Septimius Geta, his sons, in accord with the vow of the Jews.” On the left, inside the wreath, is written: “and of Julia Domna Augusta” (the corrected text and translation by P. Harvey 2013). What can be concluded decisively from the Qazion inscription is that Jews resided in Qazion by the late 2nd–early 3rd century CE, and that a building was dedicated to the emperor Septimius Severus and his family, which corroborates other evidence of good relations between the Jews and the Roman authorities. 3.3 The List of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses Hebrew inscriptions on marble slab fragments, commemorating the twenty-four priestly courses, were found in Ashkelon and Kissufim and three marble fragments in the Caesarea synagogue area (Avi-Yonah 1964:46–49, Fig. 1; Ilan 1974; Naveh 1978:nos. 51, 52, 56; Hachlili 2001:199–200). A more detailed Hebrew inscription (listing eleven courses, from the fourth to the fourteen) was discovered on an upside-down pillar in Yemen in a mosque in the village of Beth el-Tazer and it is dated to the 5th or the 7th century CE (Degen 1973; Urbach 1973; Naveh 1978:no. 106). Other fragmentary inscriptions were found at ʾAhmediyye (Naveh 1978:no. 109; Urman 1984:518–519); on a plaster fragment in the synagogue of Rehov (Vitto 1982:366–7); and possibly also on a fragment from Nazareth (Eshel 1991).1 The list of twenty-four priestly courses on the three Caesarea fragments was reconstructed by AviYonah (1964:46–52, Fig. 1, map; Govaara et al.:174 no. 11; Price 2011:66–68):2 each line consists of the number of the course, its name and sometimes an appellation, and the village or town it inhabited after the destruction of the Second Temple. This list corresponds to the twenty-four priestly courses noted in I Chron. 24:7–9. The significance of the list inscribed on the stone tablets is the addition of the names of Galilean sites which were apparently settled at the time. The reconstructed inscription of the Caesarea priestly courses reads (see Fig. XI-6): The first priestly course Jehoiarib ‘Messarbey’ Meiron, The second priestly course Jedʿaiah ‘Amok’ Sepphoris, The third priestly course Harim Mafshetah,

1  Note also the “Baraita of the Priestly Courses” that was reconstructed by Klein (1924:1–29; 1939:162–63; 1946:66–67) based on a brief reference in the Jerusalem Talmud (Taanit 4, 68d) to the two first courses and their connection to Meiron and Sepphoris, and on piyyutim (liturgical poems) which he supposed originated in the Mishnaic period. 2 Avi-Yonah’s (1964:49–51) reconstruction is based on the inscribed stone slabs as well as on the liturgical texts from the Cairo Genizah published by Zulay (1939) and on the “Baraitha of the 24 Courses” which Klein 1939 tried to reconstruct from piyyutim and Talmudic sources which Avi-Yonah doubts ever existed.

528

chapter eleven The fourth priestly course Seʿorim Aithalo, The fifth priestly course Malchijah Bethlehem, The sixth priestly course Mijamin Yodfat, The seventh priestly course Hakkoz Ailbo, The eighth priestly course Abijah Kefar Uziel, The ninth priestly course Jeshua Arbel, The tenth priestly course Shecaniah kabul, The eleventh priestly course Eliashib Kohen Qana, The twelfth priestly course Pashhur Safed, The thirteenth priestly course Huppah Beth Maʿon, The fourteenth priestly course Jeshebeab Shihin, The fifteenth priestly course Bilgah Meʿariya, The sixteenth priestly course Immer Kefar Nimra, The seventeenth priestly course Hezir Mamliah, The eighteenth priestly course Hapizzez (Aphses) Nazareth, The nineteenth priestly course Pethahiah Aklah ʿArab, The twentieth priestly course Jehezekel Migdal Nuniya, Magdala, The twenty-first priestly course Jachin KefarYohana, The twenty-second priestly course Gamul Beth Hovaya, The twenty-third priestly course Delaiah Tzalmon, The twenty-fourth priestly course Maaziah Hamat Ariah.

Figure XI-6. The inscription of the priestly courses at Caesarea, reconstructed.



inscriptions

529

The inscribed lists identify the order of the twenty-four priestly courses and are dated to the thirdfourth centuries CE, were probably composed after the destruction of the Second Temple and the Bar Kokhba War (135 CE) (Avi-Yonah 1964:51–52). It was customary to refer to the names of the priestly courses every week, and this practice apparently continued for a long time, in the Diaspora as well (Avi-Yonah 1964:51–55). Each priestly course, while mourning the Temple’s destruction, also recalled its appointed dates of service, as proclaimed in the inscribed marble tablets presumably fixed in the synagogue wall. By this method the Jewish communities preserved the memory and tradition of the courses’ service in the Temple, in the hope that as soon as the Temple was rebuilt the priests would come up to Jerusalem from their various places and serve there again. Similar lists were incorporated into piyyutim (liturgical poems) during the 5th–6th centuries CE (Fleisher 1968; 1986). Avi-Yonah (1964:52, map on p. 45) maintains that the survivors from among the priestly courses settled in villages and towns in the Galilee (Fig. XI-7), and notes that the fact that no priests settled in Tiberias is remarkable.

Figure XI-7. Map of the Galilean villages where the priestly courses survivors settled (after Avi-Yonah 1964:45).

530

chapter eleven

Urbach (1973:308, 328) argues that the list’s purpose was not only to commemorate the eminence and rank of the priests, but also to recall the worship in the Jerusalem Temple. Kahana (1979:20–26) suggests some changes in Avi-Yonah’s reconstructed list, concluding that the priestly courses settled in twenty-four settlements in the lower and upper Galilee which were quite close to each other, and might have consisted of only priests and their families. The priestly courses list is a disputed historical issue in regard to the transfer of priestly families to the Galilee during the Mishnaic period, and its date is in debate: Trifon (1985, I:91–110; 1989) maintains that the list of the priestly courses belongs to the second part of the 3rd century CE, in concert with the increase in the settlements of priests in the Galilee; she proposes that the list was a sign of Galilean local patriotism, prepared perhaps by local Galilean priests; it also suggests that a large number of priests settled in the Galilee as a result of the immigration of Jews, including priests, from the Diaspora. Z. Safrai (1993:290–92) argues that the list of priestly courses is an historical document of the mid-2nd century CE, which records the Galilean settlements to which the priests migrated from Judea after the Bar Kokhba revolt; the priests and their expanded families were a majority in these settlements; the list was an expression of the hope for the renewal of the priestly functions in the rebuilt temple. Irshai (2004:94) maintains that the list, rather than stating historical evidence, reflects the strengthening of the priestly class’s image at the time. Aviam (2004:18–20, Figs. 1.2, 1.9) notes that the sites recorded on the priestly list, which cover the lower and eastern upper Galilee are similar to the borders recorded by Josephus; they also intersect with the distribution of nineteen Jewish sites with secret hideaways and overlap the distribution of stone vessels and Jewish burial in ossuaries typical to Jewish life of the period. The priestly courses list was associated with places the priests had settled, and according to Miller (2007:385–388) the lists “are a liturgical device for preserving the memory of the mishmarot in the synagogue” and he also “considers the association of the mishmarot with specific locations as a popular development that largely belonged to the folklore and sacred geography of the Galilee in Late Antiquity” and possibly “reflected a profound hope in the future redemption.” He maintains that after the Temple was destroyed, the priestly designation of ‫ כהן‬kohen and ίερείς hiereus was what mattered and not the lineage of the priests, and that no allusions to the connection of the priests to a particular mishmar is found on inscriptions after the Bar Kokhba war. Leibner (2009:404–419) proposes that the list was a combination of the biblical priestly courses list (I Chronicles) with a list of settlements in Galilee. The sites were chosen either from an actual list, or from a historical memory of sites settled by Jews following the Hasmonean conquest of the Galilee, and had symbolic significance. He concludes that the list was already known in the late third century CE and its appearance in the Byzantine period was associated with an extensive interest in the Hasmoneans that existed during this period. In summary, the list was a memorial to an earlier period in which priests—either those who already lived in the Galilee or those who moved there from Judean centers after the revolts as well as others who immigrated from the Diaspora—worshiped in a special structure (such as the Qazion monumental building, see pp. 670–672) that was possibly constructed for the veneration of various customs and rituals that the priests continued to conduct after the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem. The significance of the list of priestly courses lies in its use as an accurate device to count off the weeks of the year: each priestly course served twice a year (two weeks) in the Temple, so that this list serves as a kind of calendar with affinities to the zodiac signs (Avi-Yonah 1964:55). Both the inscribed list and the calendar represented in the zodiac panel are essential features in synagogal decoration, and emphasize the importance of the Jewish calendar as a ritual element in synagogue and community life.



inscriptions

531

3.4 The Inscription on the Chair of Moses An unusual dedicatory Aramaic inscription in four lines is engraved on the basalt ‘Cathedra of Moses’ from the Korazim synagogue (Fig. XI-8). The inscription is a blessing to the memory of ʿJudan bar Ishmael who made this ‫‘ סטוה‬stoa’ and stairs.’3 The term stoa is explained in different ways: Naveh (1978:no. 17) in his earlier discussion maintains it is the Greek term for a row of columns. Other scholars (Hüttenmeister 1977:280; Rahmani 1990:195) explain the term as referring to the actual chair and to the stairs leading up to it. Yeivin (1985:274–275; 2000:29*, plan 14, following Epstein; also Naveh 1989:306) is probably correct in suggesting that the seat is associated with the eastern iztaba—the raised platform constructed on the inner southern Jerusalem-oriented wall at the Korazim synagogue and used for reading the Torah (Fig. IV-31). May and Stark (2002:242) interpret the word stoa as the entire row of benches, suggesting that the ‘Seat of Moses’ stood in the center of the row of benches along the northern wall (Fig. IV-32b), like the location of the seat found in situ flanked by marble benches in the Delos synagogue. However, as Naveh (1989:306) remarks, it is unfeasible that a donation for a whole row of benches should be inscribed on a single seat (see the discussion on the Seat). The inscription is dated to the mid or late 3rd century CE or to the 5th century CE.

Figure XI-8. The Korazim ‘Cathedra of Moses’ inscription.

3 It is worthy of note that Ory (1926b:7) proposed that ‘Judan son of Ishmael’ was the architect who built the synagogue.

532

chapter eleven 4. Explanatory Inscriptions

Inscriptions of names and explanatory texts in Hebrew were inserted in mosaic pavements next to the portrayals of biblical scenes and the zodiac panels at Beth Alpha, Gaza, Hammath Tiberias, Meroth, Naʿaran, Sepphoris and Susiya (Figs. VII-3, 5–8, VIII-1, 2, 13–19). Hebrew inscriptions identify the biblical figures and short sentences explain scenes in the biblical illustrations on the Beth Alpha and Sepphoris pavements. In the biblical episode of the Binding of Isaac (the Aqedah) portrayed on the synagogue mosaic pavement panel at Beth Alpha, the names ‫‘ אברהם‬Abraham’ and ‫‘ יצחק‬Isaac’ appear above the figures. In the centre, under the Hand of God, parts of the relevant Hebrew biblical verse (Gen. 22:12–13) are inscribed: ‫‘ אל תשלח‬Do not raise your hand’ and ‫‘ והנה אייל‬his eye fell upon a ram’ accompany the figure of the ram (Fig. VIII-1b). Some of the images in The Consecration of Aaron to the Service of the Tabernacle and the Daily Offering depicted on band 3 and the left panel of band 4 of the nave mosaic at the Sepphoris synagogue (Weiss 2005:199–202) are accompanied by explanatory inscriptions in Hebrew (Fig. VIII-19): Aaron, the sacrificial animals—a bull and two lambs (rams?), and other objects: only the name of the High Priest ‫‘ אהרן‬Aaron’ in Hebrew and a few fragments of his garment have survived in the off-center of Band 3. In the panel at the left side of band 3 a bull walks to the right, and behind him is a lamb; above them is the inscription ‫‘ את הכבש אחד‬the one lamb’. The left panel of band 4 continues the foregoing scene: it portrays another lamb with the inscription, ‫‘ ואת הכבש השני‬and the other lamb’; a black two-handled jar has the Hebrew inscription ‫‘ שמן‬oil’; below it is a square container shown as a triangular chequer-patterned heap with the Hebrew inscription ‫‘ סלת‬fine flour’. At the lower left, two trumpets are identified by the Hebrew inscription ‫‘ חצוצרות‬trumpets’. Daniel in the Lions’ Den is depicted on the lower part of the Torah shrine panel on the Naʿaran synagogue hall mosaic pavement. The scene is damaged and Daniel himself is poorly preserved; only his arms remain, in an orans posture; he is flanked by a damaged pair of lions; above his left arm is the identifying Hebrew inscription ‫‘ דניא[ל] שלום‬Daniel shalom’ (Fig. VIII-16a). A similar theme of Daniel in the Lions’ Den may have been portrayed on the almost completely destroyed westernmost panel of the mosaic pavement of the Susiya synagogue. Only a fragment of an animal’s upper part and tail, with the end of the word ‫[ [דני]אל‬Dani]el, is preserved (Fig. VIII-16b). A fragmentary representation of King David as a musician is rendered on a section of the western end of the central nave at the Gaza synagogue; he is identified by the inscribed name ‫ דויד‬David in Hebrew (Fig. VIII-14). The mosaic panel in the east vestibule of the early 5th-century Gerasa synagogue renders the latter part of the Noah’s Ark narrative (Gen. 8:10–20). Under the olive branch, two partly preserved human heads with the Greek inscribed names ‘Shem’ and ‘Japhet’ are portrayed (Fig. VIII-8a). The Hebrew names of the twelve zodiac signs appear on the zodiac design; the seasons are identified by the Hebrew name of the first month of each of them. These inscriptions appear on the mosaic pavements of the Beth Alpha, Hammath Tiberias, Naʿaran, and Sepphoris synagogues. At Sepphoris, the names of the months in Hebrew accompany the images of the zodiac signs and the seasons are identified by their names in Hebrew and in Greek (Fig. VII-5). 4.1 Inscriptions Citing Biblical Verses Inscriptions citing biblical verses express the central place of Scripture in ancient synagogues. A Hebrew inscription engraved at the bottom of the lintel of the Beth Midrash at Meroth reads: ‫ברוך‬ ‫‘ אתה בבואך וברוך אתה בצאתך‬Blessed shall you be coming in, Blessed shall you be going out’



inscriptions

533

Figure XI-9. Lintel inscription, Beth Midrash, Meroth.

(Deut. 28:6), a verse which Midrash Tanhuma interprets as relating to the synagogues and study houses. The lintel was decorated by a high relief of a pair of eagles flanking a wreath ending with a Hercules knot and ivy leaves (Fig. XI-9); the heads of the eagles and bodies are damaged, probably as a result of iconoclasm. The style of the inscription suggest that either it was a later addition to the original synagogue lintel or that both the lintel relief and the inscription were made at the same time for the Beth Midrash, but executed by different artists (Ilan 1989:32, Figs. 16–17). On the mosaic of the Beth Midrash at Meroth the verse ‫‘ זאיב וטלה ירעו כאחד‬The wolf and the lamb will graze together’ (Isaiah 65:25) is placed above the depictions of the two animals (Ilan 1989:33); this verse was used perhaps as a prayer to peace (Naveh 1989:305; Shinan 1996:134) (Fig. VIII-17). The Hebrew verse ‫“ שלום על ישראל‬Peace unto Israel” (Psalm 125:5) appears in the medallion of the Jericho synagogue mosaic and in mosaic inscriptions at the Huseifa, Gerasa, and Susiya synagogues (Figs. XI-1b, d, XI-2; Naveh 1978:nos. 68, 38, 50, 70, 75). The ʿEn Gedi narthex inscription begins (lines 1–2) with the list of the thirteen ancestors of the world, taken from I Chron. I:1–4. Two sets of important biblical figures are referred to in lines 7–8: the ancestors Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and than Hananiah, Mishael and ʿAzariah, the three friends of Daniel (Daniel 1:11, 19). The inscription ends with the verse “Peace unto Israel”.

534

chapter eleven 5. Location of Inscriptions in Synagogue Design

Inscriptions play an important and organic part of both architectural elements and floor composition in the synagogue, and are often depicted within or under a wreath or in a tabula ansata. However, their location was probably not regulated; many appear on main entrance lintels, on columns and on chancel screens. On mosaic pavements, the inscriptions are set in various frames. Inscriptions recording donors, benefactors and donations on mosaic floors are usually placed within a tabula anstata, a wreath, or a rectangular panel. Many are positioned above or below the portrayed designs; often these inscriptions show no direct connection between the donor and a particular mosaic panel. However, some inscriptions appear in odd locations, usually in close association with the mosaic ornamentation. Inscriptions on mosaic floors can be divided into several arrangements (Hachlili 2009:237–238): (1) Inscriptions occupy the front section of the entrances to the synagogues of Beth Alpha, Beth Sheʾan A, Jericho, Naʿaran, Rehov and Susiya (Figs. V-26, 31, 33, 41, IX-10). (2) Many inscriptions hold a prominent position at the centre of an antithetic design. An inscription flanked by lions is found in the centre of a panel at Hammath Gader and Tiberias; another, flanked by a lion and a bull, at Beth Alpha; and a third, flanked by menoroth, in Huseifa (Fig. IX10a, c–d). These three panels are found close to the entrance. In the Beth Sheʾan B (small) synagogue three inscriptions are flanked by antithetic birds (Fig. V-38). At Gaza the inhabited scrolls pavement has an inscription flanked by peacocks in the centre medallion of row two (Figs. V-36, XI-1a). These inscriptions have parallels in church mosaic pavements. (3) A number of other positions exist. At Sepphoris, an interesting location was found for a Greek dedicatory inscription, in the circular frame between the inner and outer circle of the zodiac in band 5 (Fig. VII-5) (Di Segni 2005:211–212, no. 6). The Greek inscriptions on the Sepphoris synagogue mosaic are mostly positioned in the bands of the nave on top of the panel or within the panel. Each Aramaic inscription in the aisle and between the columns at Sepphoris is set in an individual panel (Weiss 2005:216–219; Di Segni 2005:209–211). At Maʿon-Nirim the inscription appears above the inhabited scrolls carpet, in front of the apse (Fig. V-37). At Hammath Gader, some inscriptions are depicted on the middle panel’s upper border and two inscriptions are framed as part of the geometric carpet in the third panel (Fig. V-32). The middle panel of the House of Leontis at Beth Sheʾan has an inscription framed by a wreath and surrounded by birds (Fig. XI-10). The two literary inscriptions, one at Rehov and the other at ʿEn Gedi (see above), were placed in the synagogue’s narthex (Fig. XI-3, 4). The inscriptions, although sometimes occupying a central position in the synagogue pavement, do not always follow the general orientation of the synagogue hall. Examples of this situation are the inscriptions in the front panel in the Hammath Tiberias B mosaic (Figs. V-28, IX-10a) and on the Gerasa synagogue narthex pavement (Fig. XI-11). At Na⁠ʾaran several inscriptions in the mosaic upper panel are placed in awkward positions. The dedicatory inscriptions in Aramaic are placed above the ritual objects; they note the patrons’ names and their part in the synagogue work (Naveh 1978:96–102, nos. 61–66). Between the figures of lions in the biblical scene of Daniel in the Lions’ Den, two dedicatory inscriptions in Aramaic are preserved. Beneath them is another lengthy Aramaic dedicatory inscription, blessing the donors but without mentioning their names. An interesting and unusual location for inscriptions appears in two Galilean synagogues: At Meroth an inscription is set in the upper left (western) side of the mosaic section within a ­narrative



inscriptions

535

Figure XI-10. Greek inscription, middle panel, House of Leontis, Beth Sheʾan.

Figure XI-11. Greek inscription in narthex, Gerasa synagogue.

scene. The inscription reads “Yudan son of Shimon Mani” (Fig. VIII-15), who was either the donor or the artist (Ilan 1989:25–26). At Wadi Hamam a dedicatory inscription, set in the lower right (northeastern) side of the mosaic Panel 11 (Fig. VIII-11) and within the Samson battle scene section, mentions that “the sons of Simon made (donated) this panel from their own . . .” (Liebner and Miller 2010:249). It is unusual for inscriptions to be set within the figural design, even in the margin. It seems that the artists or donors of these mosaic floors were determined to add their inscription within the scene, though in Hamam and Meroth, if not in more places, it was placed in a corner or

536

chapter eleven

along the frame. Another inscription in an unusual position appears on the Huqoq mosaic, where it is designed between two female heads (Fig. XIII-13). Many of the inscriptions were rendered on the upper part of the panel in order to leave undisturbed the scene that they topped; this positioning also enabled the artist or donors to change the inscription, if necessary, without damaging the depiction. The aesthetics of the panel might have been a factor too: the scene is much more balanced and effective with the inscriptions at the top of the panel. Another reason could have been the donors’ insistence on having their contribution recorded exactly above the scene they donated. The unusual locations of the inscriptions at Sepphoris must have been due to their inclusion as an integral part of the mosaic panel. 5.1 Inscriptions with Dates Only a few inscriptions have been found in synagogue buildings which provide absolute dates. These include a Greek dedicatory inscription discovered in the mosaic pavements of Gaza, an Aramaic inscription on the Beth Alpha synagogue pavement, a Hebrew inscription on the reused Nabratein lintel, all dating to the 6th c., CE (Figs. X-6, XI-1a), and perhaps an inscription on an arch stone found at the Deir ʿAziz synagogue dating to the mid-4th c., CE (see Chapter XIV, Dating). 6. Epithets and Appellation Epithets and appellations appear on some dedicatory inscriptions found in synagogues. They include various terms for the synagogue and epithets referring to the synagogue congregation as a ‘holy community’ (these are discussed in Chapter I). Interesting epithets and appellations for God are expressed on various synagogue dedicatory inscriptions: • ‫“ מלכיה דעלמה‬King of the Universe,” which is apparently similar to the standard formula for benedictions “praised are You, Lord, King of the Universe” (Shinan 1996:145), is found on the Aramaic dedicatory mosaic inscription at the entrance to the Jericho synagogue (Naveh 1978:no. 69). • ‫“ מלך עלמה יתן ברכתה בעמלה‬the King of the Universe will give his blessing to their work” appears three times on dedicatory inscriptions in the south panel of the Hammath Gader synagogue mosaic pavement: one inside the wreath and two below the lions and wreath both enclosed in frames. The same Aramaic appellation is engraved on two marble chancel screens found at the Susiya synagogue and reconstructed on a carved lintel at ʿAlma (not from a synagogue) (Naveh 1978:9, nos. 4, 33–34, 82–83). • ‫“ תר(ע)א דמרי שומיא‬Lord/Master of heaven” appears on an Aramaic dedicatory inscription (by two brothers) carved on a stone (probably built into a wall) found at H. ʿAmudim. Avigad (1960b:63–4) contends (following a suggestion by Dr. Sonne) that this should be understood “as a synonym for the synagogue as a whole” and it “should be regarded as a commemorative building inscription and not as a reference to a donation of the usual kind.” A similar epithet, ‫מרא שמיא‬, occurs in Daniel 5:23, and ‫ מרה שמיא‬is found in an external scroll to Genesis 22:16, 22. Huttenmeister (1978) argues that the H. ʿAmudim epithet states that the synagogue is the place of the ‘Master of the High Heavens.’ The same epithet is possibly engraved on a damaged marble relief found at Ashkelon (Naveh 1978:42 and nos. 20, 53; 1989:306–307). • ‫“ רחמנה‬Rahmana”, a designation/appellation for God, appears in an Aramaic inscription on a lintel from Kokav Ha-Yarden and at the end of the literary inscription on the mosaic pavement at ʿEn Gedi (Naveh 1978:109, nos. 42, 70).



inscriptions

537

6.1 Concluding Remarks The inscriptions on all media (lintels, columns, mosaic pavements, etc.) were evidently meant to be read and considered as much as the items on which the carving or writing was made (see also Schwartz 2001:283–288). The multiple dedicatory inscriptions sometimes found in a single synagogue indicate that these buildings were constructed and decorated with the assistance of several patrons, as the expense would have been beyond the means of one single person. This may provide a measure of the economic and social situation of the congregation and possibly in many of the communities, no single donor could have funded the entire structure and its contents. The synagogue inscriptions prove that donors wrote their names in the hope of being remembered, especially by their congregation; at the same time they defined their position in the social organization. Synagogue inscriptions seldom mention influential persons or powerful men such as rabbis or the Patriarchs (but see the two Hammath Tiberias inscriptions (Dothan 1983:54–60, Inscriptions nos. 1, 2) (see Chapter I)). The language of the inscriptions in the synagogues is mostly Aramaic and Greek, with Hebrew used for explanatory inscriptions; in the churches it is almost exclusively Greek. The literary and explanatory inscriptions in Hebrew (in biblical narratives and in the zodiac) appear only on synagogue floors, and once on the pavement of the Beth Midrash of Meroth. Greek inscriptions with biblical citations from Isaiah and Psalms appear occasionally on church floors, Prayers and requests are common among church inscriptions and quite rare in synagogues. In comparing synagogue and church inscriptions the differences exceed the similarities. Inscriptions on synagogue mosaic pavements appeared at an earlier date, as early as the 4th century CE (Hammath Tiberias), whereas those on church floors began only in the 5th century CE. 7. Amulets The discovery of amulets in synagogues implies the presence of magic beliefs. They are usually incantations, and particularly personal prayers to be recited by individuals with some urgent problem, in contrast to the communal prayer in the synagogue. Various prayers have been found: for health, to banish spirits and illness, to guard the home and property, to conquer enemies, and to achieve health, wealth, love, status and a good name. The incantations could be written on a variety of items. The amulets found in synagogue were written on metal sheets gold, silver, copper, bronze, lead and on pottery fragments. The sheet “amulets are designed to be folded, rolled into a narrow strip, and inserted into a container, also made metal, which could be worn as a phylactery on the body of the owner, or placed ina private house or a synagogue, possibly by suspension.” A fragment of a magic book in the Cairo Geniza (T-S K 1.162) contains a directive in Aramaic to “bury the amulet under the ark of the synagogue” (Naveh 1989:303; 1992:151–153; Naveh and Shaked 1985:13–14, 24–25). Amulets found in synagogues: (1) Horvat Kanaf (Golan)—two Hebrew amulets on copper sheets dated to the late 6th–early c. CE: one had 18 lines preserved formulated for healing, the second almost preserved intact was written for the protections of Rabbi Elaʿzar son of Es3ther, servant of the God of the heavens, possibly to protect the owner on the road (Naveh and Shaked 1985:24, 46, 50, nos. 2, 3; Naveh 1992:166). (2) Horvat Rimmon—an Aramaic amulet, a love charm, written on unfired pottery five fragments, that would probably have been thrown into the fire while the act of magic was performed; found

538

chapter eleven

in L. 148 in the northeastern corner of the enclosure dated to the 5th–6th c. CE (Naveh and Shaked 1985:87–88, no. 10; Naveh 1992:160–161). (3) Maʿon-Nirim—19 thin bronze sheet amulets, rolled tightly or folded twice into a small square, were found in the apse of the synagogue. Three have been published; one still has a thread indicating it was worn, probably around the neck, perhaps suspended from the wall behind the Ark or from the Ark itself (Levi 1969:7; Rahmani 1960:15–16, Pl. II-1; Naveh and Shaked 1985:90–92, nos. 11–13; Naveh 1992:164). Amulet 11—for curing its owner from headache; Amulet 12—for the protection of a woman and her child; Amulet 13—for Eshter daughter of Tatis to save her from evil spirits. (4) Meroth—a bronze plate amulet (4.8 × 13.8) was found in the fill under the threshold of the eastern entrance in stage III (ca. 7–8th century CE; probably placed there when the entrance was built). The amulet had twenty-six lines of text in Hebrew and Aramaic, containing a prayer by Yosi, son of Zenobia, who was probably the leader of the community and aspired to unchallenged control over the population, including the use of magical powers. The content is personal, but also refers to the fact that the community is affluent. He might have been involved in establishing the changes constructed in the synagogue, as proved by the location of the hidden amulet at the time of the construction of the synagogue (Ilan 1989:29–30; Naveh 1992:146–148, Fig. 97; Naveh and Shaked 1993:46–50). Magic was institutionalized in the synagogues and is found not only on the amulets but also in some hidden scripts, in order to conceal their mystical contents (M Berachot 2, 3). The hidden scripts consisted of letters in reverse order, with the text written from end to beginning (mirror script). Examples include the inscription engraved on the polycandelon at Kefar Hananiah (Fig. VI-42c) where the names of the donors are hidden, and the Hebrew word Deli written in reverse (mirror script) on the Hammath Tiberias synagogue B zodiac, the latter according to Naveh (1989:302–303; 1992:145, 154–5).

Chapter Twelve

Coins and the Synagogue Several issues are to be considered in dealing with the coins recovered in synagogues: (a) Stratigraphy and provenance. Often the coin’s or hoard’s stratigraphic situation is questionable. The affinity between the coins found on the synagogue floor, between the benches, or under the threshold was not always examined or recorded. Frequently, little effort was made to ensure that all the coins were recovered and registered precisely and in detail (Ariel 1987:149). At many sites a large number of coins were recorded from non-stratified areas: for instance, at ʿEn Nashut, 132 of the 177 coins excavated are non-stratified (Ariel 1987:151, Table 1). In some cases, it is difficult to establish if the coins were sealed by a floor, whether they were intentionally scattered, whether they intruded from above, or were deposited in containers.  In reports and other publications, the coins (and pottery) are often listed without recording their exact provenance (see for example Hammath Tiberias, Meroth). But even if the find was carefully recorded, Avi Yonah (1981:60–61) rightly observed (in connection with the Capernaum coins finds) “no sealing in an ancient site was ever ‘hermetic’ in the physical sense.” He also argues “we should avoid basing all the arguments on the finds in such a small area . . . of fivemeter squares of a locus resulting in some hasty conclusions.” (b) Identification of coins (Table XII-1). A large number of late-Roman low-denomination bronze coins are found in synagogues, many of them too corroded or fragmentary to be identified (sometimes between 45–60% remain unidentified). This should be an indicator that it is somehow unreliable to base dates of synagogues on such numismatic evidence.  The data from many synagogues means that quite often more than 60% were unidentified, a most significant percentage, that could affect the quality of the numismatic evidence in each synagogue to a very large extent. “Sometimes the number of unidentified surpasses that of the identifiable coins . . . Most numismatic reports, unfortunately, contain no reference to unidentifiable material. Hence, statistical studies . . . which are meant to calculate the dimensions of coinage and its distribution—are in fact imprecise and even misleading” (Bijovsky 2000–2:208). Table XII-1. Examples of sites with identified coins. Site

Coins Total Identified Unidentified

Capernaum, Trench 12 20,323 Dabiyye ʿEn Nashut Gush Halav



Kanaf H. Korazim Maʿon-Nirim Meroth



789 719 1953 (hoard) 225 339 1658 81 557

1,925 Ca. 10% 314 466 418 20% 199 125 1131 9 177

475 253  26 214 527

540

chapter twelve

(c) Large coin groups. Because many coin groups were found in unsealed locations and in close proximity to each other, they could have been accumulated over a long period of time and than placed under a flagstone or a bench, or in a wall, or some other place, during the lifetime of the synagogue; sometimes coins were added, thrown in, or fell in during reparations or reconstructions of the synagogue. From time to time walls and benches had to be plastered and coins could be lost, placed by mistake or purposely inserted into the place. It is notable that no such coin groups were found under mosaics (see below). (d) Dating. Problematic dating based on coins appears in regard to a number of synagogues. For instance, the Hammah Tiberias Synagogue B IIa date was based on the excavator’s assumption that the 31 small coins “too worn to be accurately identified, probably belong to the late 4th or early 5th c, thus giving a terminus post quem for the end of the synagogue of Stratum IIa” (Dothan 1983:64–5). The coins to consider for dating should be the earliest coins, and the rest should be considered as having accumulated and collected during the life of the synagogue, in the course of repairs, reconstructions and changes. One such example is the Meroth synagogue treasury cache, where a coin of the year 1193 was discovered. Should this coin date the group (the site?) to the 12th century CE? Or is it possible that later coins, especially when there are only one or two of them, were intrusive? The same problem occurs at Korazim where one Islamic and one later coin (among 125 coins) were found in the L. 701 probe between the main and western entrances. Should these coins date the building to this period? 1. Numismatic Evidence: Coins Discovered in Synagogues (See Table XII-3) 1.1 Sites 1.1.1 Arbel A small carved stone cupboard (Kuppa—h 118 cm., d 80 cm., w 100 cm.), with a small door located outside the building, was found adjacent to the east side of the north wall. No coins were found inside the cupboard which is thought to have served as a cash box or a communal charity box, where individuals could donate money anonymously. The coins found scattered at the site mostly dated to the 4th c. CE (Ilan and Izdarechet 1988:108, 120; Ilan 1991:117). 1.1.2 Barʿam 124 bronze coins dated to 307–352 CE were uncovered under the floor and foundations of the large (upper) synagogue (Aviam 2001:161–2; 2007:35, 37, Fig. 3; Syon 2007). In Area A (the inner part of the south wall, between the main and east entrances and the first east pedestal), 14 coins were found, dating to 317–346 CE; in Area B (the inner part of the south wall and the first pedestal), 24 coins, dating to 217–395 CE, were discovered. In Area D (the north-west inner corner of the building), 31 coins, dating to 276–450 CE were found. 1.1.3 Beth Alpha 36 Byzantine coins were found in a hole dug into the apse floor and covered by stone boards (Sukenik 1932:48; Avigad 1992, I:165).



coins and the synagogue

541

1.1.4 Beth Sheʿarim 1200 bronze coins dated to 307–352 CE were found in the burned debris of the synagogue building of period III (Avigad & Mazar 1992:235). 1.1.5 Beth Sheʾan Synagogue A Nine bronze coins, of which only 5 were identified, among them two coins of Justianus II, were uncovered in the apse area (Zori 1967:163, 167). 1.1.6 Caesarea A hoard of 3,700 bronze coins (most of them dating to 307–355 CE) were found ‘in the plastering of a projection which might have contained the Ark’ in Stratum IV, Area A (Avi-Yonah and Negev 1963:147; Avi-Yonah 1992:1378). The context of this hoard and its exact location remain unknown (Govaaras 2009:42, 47, 51, Figs. 50–51 show the coins find in situ). 1.1.7 Capernaum About 25.000 coins were discovered in the hall and court below the Capernaum synagogue’s pavement (Loffreda 1993:294; Arslan 1997): 3,385 coins in the hall, and about 21,000 near the east corner of the courtyard (Table XII-2); almost 60% of these coins are dated to the 4th c. CE. The dating of the white synagogue construction to 450–475 CE is based on the numismatic data. However, the only existing scientific report on the coins, by Arslan (1997), describes those from Trench 12 (see also Spijkermann 1970 who published some of the coins). The coins came mostly from three basic strata in the excavation of the Capernaum synagogue, labelled by the letters A, B, C (from bottom to top). ‘Level A: structures destroyed or partially reused to make place for the construction of the white limestone synagogue. Level B: artificial fill for the podium of the monumental synagogue. Level C: layer of mortar for the setting of the stone pavement and of the side benches’ (Loffreda 1997:223). (a) A collection of 2,920 coins was discovered in Trench 14, in the southern end of the hall’s western aisle, and on the inside of the entrance (are these two separate locations, or is it “the southern end of the hall’s western aisle [which was] on the inside of the entrance”?) in Stratum C (Corbo 1972:212, 231, Figs. 6, 22; Loffreda 1972:15; 1997:226–227; not published. Most of them date to the late 4th early 5th c. CE). (b) A large collection of bronze coins was discovered in Trench 12—the north-east corner of the courtyard (Fig. XII-1), embedded in the mortar layer underlying the stone pavement; the coins were spread out in Stratum C between the upper layer and the slabs of the floor, or between the first and second layers of mortar. Under three large slabs and eight medium-sized ones, near the northeast corner of the courtyard, about 6,000 coins were found; three years later, in the enlargement of Trench 12 in the same stratigraphic context (upon the mortar of level C) another 19 kilograms of coins were collected. Altogether, after cleaning, there were (together with the 6,000 coins found previously) 20,323 pieces (Corbo 1972:231, Fig. 22; Loffreda 1973:41; 1997:223, 227).  Arslan (1997; 2011:148–149, note 4) proposes “that the ensemble (coins of Trench XII (L812)) was an accumulation of a prolonged period of time (starting from the Theodosian era until a little after 476) of small offerings brought to the synagogue and intentionally obliterated under

542

chapter twelve

Figure XII-1. Plan of the Capernaum synagogue.

the pavement.” He further argues that “This means that the coins had been ‘accumulated’ in a different place and then brought there to be included in the sub-foundation of the pavement, where they were divided up and small groups deposited to different places. Similar small groups of coins have, in fact been found in all the trenches.” Another observation of Arslan (2011:151) is that the synagogue coins found in the trenches “were being collected separately in a deposit that was later—in whole or in part—buried under the synagogue floor.”  Arslan notes that “the specimens corresponding to 15% of the total of 3,058 coins (only 1,925 [= 62.95%] of them were legible) have been chosen by random selection. The materials turn out to have been issued from the 2nd–1st centuries BC until a little after 476 CE (the second reign of Zeno). The examination was concentrated on those coins with mint indications (557 = 18.21% of the coins examined) with an attempt to determine the ways and times of flow of supply of the



coins and the synagogue

543

small coins in the area—above all during the 4th and 5th centuries.” It is important to note that according to Arslan (1997:322–24, Table 21), about half (1054 coins—54,75%) of the identified coins are dated to period III (355–395 CE). He (1997:247) concludes that these coins provide a terminus post quem of 491 CE for the construction of the courtyard. Identified coins from Trench 12 (Arslan 1997:322–24, Table 21). Period I (fino al 335, nos. 1–13 II (335–355; nos. 14–80) III (355–395; nos. 81–1133) IV (395–425; nos. 1134–1422) V (425–457; nos. 1423–1752) VI (457–491; nos. 1753–1913)

No. of coins

%

 13  66 1054  288  330  161

0,67% 3,22% 54,75% 14,96% 17,14% 8,36%

(c) 67 bronze coins were found at the foundations of the hall’s side benches and, based on only six identified coins, these side benches are dated to the end of the 4th or beginning of the 5th c. CE (Loffreda 1972:16, 25).  Coins from the benches, which were built after the walls and the pavement were put in place, could have been placed there when the benches were plastered, as they had to be from time to time and might, therefore, articulate, the latest period of construction. Loffreda (1997:228) concludes that level C yielded 23,461 coins, with the greatest concentration in Trenches 12 and 14, while relatively few coins were gathered in the central nave of the hall and in the central part of the eastern courtyard (Trench 23) (see Table XII-2). He argues further that although a large number of coins were found, it is important to note that they were spread throughout a large area, indicating that they had not been hidden in order to be recovered at some future date. (d) Five late 7th c. CE gold coins were found in situ behind the eastern benches, near the doorway leading from the hall to the courtyard, and were apparently hidden when the synagogue was already abandoned. These Byzantine gold coins consisted of 3 solidi of Heraclius, minted between 616–631 CE, as well as 2 solidi and 2 tremissi of Constans II, produced between 641– 668 CE and originated in the Constantinople mint. Thus, the closing of the depository can be dated to 668 CE or the period immediately following (Loffreda 1972:16; 1997:235; Callegher 1997:330–331). Table XII-2. Coins from Capernaum synagogue* (see plan, Fig. XII-1). Location

H A L L

Central nave Central nave Central nave Central nave W aisle south, inside entrance Benches W aisle E aisle, south side NE corner

Trench  1 22 24 25 14 14 21 17  2

Str. C

Str. B Str. A

Total

4

 1  1

71 2,922 67 43 1 86

 3 236

11 1 3 74 3,158

 2  1

 6  3

 3  2

45 5 88

544

chapter twelve

Table XII-2 (cont.) Location C O U R T Y A R D



Trench

Str. C

NW outer courtyard NE corner outer courtyard SE corner outer courtyard Inner courtyard

11 12  4 23

20,323 11

Balcony Total

18

23,461

Str. B Str. A  2

2 20,323 14 9

 3  9

570 828

Total

 6 20

576 24,309

*After Loffreda 1997:230; see also Milson 2007:Table 2:1

1.1.8 Dabiyye At the Dabiyye synagogue, 789 bronze coins, dated from the 3rd to 5th centuries CE, were discovered: 336 coins, most of them dated to the 4th c. (335–408 CE) and one gold coin (of the emperor Gratian 367–375 CE) are a so-called ‘foundation deposit’: they were found in the course of a probe, following the removal of four flagstones (0.70 × 1.50) in the middle of the western aisle of the synagogue floor. Coins were discovered in Loci 124 and 129 (sealed floor synagogue phase II): in L. 124, of 312 coins found, 234 were unidentified; in L. 129, of 24 coins uncovered, 16 are unidentified (Ariel 1991:74, Table 1). Arslan (2011:159) considers this assemblage to be a hoard. The coins, that belong to the pre-synagogue occupation, dated between the second half of the 4th and the first decade of the 5th c. CE, are similar to the majority of coins of the same period (307–408) retrieved at Dabiyye (238), Kanaf (259) and ʿEn Nashut (424). At Dabiyye, no late Roman II—Byzantine (409–497) coins were discovered, though a few were found at Kanaf and ʿEn Nashut. Thus, based on the date of the site’s latest coins (Ariel 1991:78, Tables 3 and 6), the Dabiyye synagogue was constructed in the early 5th c. CE. 1.1.9 Deir ʿAziz (a) 14 solidi, dating to Justinian I (527–565) and minted in Constantinople, were found in a pottery juglet in the dirt fill in the interstices of the repaired southern wall of the synagogue. The juglet was found unsealed and in an unsecured context. The location area of the find was perhaps in the foundation for a portable bema in the synagogue phase II. Ahipaz (2007) interprets the coins found in the juglet as a community emergency hoard, deposited perhaps at a time of crisis and meant for retrieval. (b) More than 1,000 copper coins (dating to the 4th–6th c. CE) and two Justinian I tremisses were found in the western side of the hall, where no flagstones survived (Ahipaz 2007). 1.1.10 ʿEn Gedi (a) Thousands of bronze coins (dating to 492–530 CE) were found with other finds such as a cast bronze menorah and a bronze goblet, in the synagogue niche of Stratum III which was used most likely for storage and as a genizah. (b) A hoard of bronze coins (dating to 491–565), collected in a cloth, was discovered in the courtyard of a house next to the synagogue, inserted in the wall of a house before it was plastered (Barag et al. 1981:117, 119; Barag 2006:19*–20*).



coins and the synagogue

545

(c) 1,247 coins were found in 7 seasons of excavations at the ʿEn Gedi site, most of them highly corroded or unidentifiable bronze coins, a few silver ones, and two gold hoards. Of these, 403 were identifiable, while 450 were not (Bijovsky 2006:41–2*). In the excavations, 215 coins dating to the 4th c. (in contrast to only 10 from the 5th c.) were found, in which “the main mints represented are the usual eastern ones.” The highest concentration is from 383 to 395 CE, which corresponds to other sites in the Land of Israel. “The presence of so few 5th century coins (although the synagogue and village flourished at this time) apparently reflects the general monetary decline that began around 395 CE with the division of the Roman empire into separate eastern and western entities. Bijovsky (2006:42*) considers two other factors: (1) the paucity of official minting in the 5th c. compensated by the use of older, 4th century coins that remained in circulation for longer periods; (2) the common phenomenon of large numbers of unidentifiable numismatic material that frequently surpass the number of identifiable coins . . .—some of which can be attributed to the 5th c. CE with certainty.” (d) Two small gold hoards dated to the 6th c. CE were found (Bijovsky 2006:42–3*; Figs. 77, 92–93). One consisted of 15 Byzantine gold coins found under the threshold of the Gold House: 5 solidi dated to 4th and two solidi from 491–565 CE, indicating “that these were originally two different hoards that were subsequently buried together.” The second hoard had five gold coins—one semissis and 4 tremisses of Anastasius I (491–512)—which were found with two oil lamps. These two gold hoards may have been buried at the same time as the two bronze hoards found during the synagogue excavations. Most 6th century coins are corroded folles that predate 538 CE, indicating the mid-6th c. for the burial of the hoards and the destruction of the site, as suggested by Barag (1993:408). 1.1.11 ʿEn Nashut At the ʿEn Nashut synagogue some 719 coins were found—466 coins (of which 309 are identified) in two seasons of excavations, 224 in a survey, and 149 coins come from two concentrated deposits of the 1971 exploratory excavation (conducted by M. Ben-Ari). Another 29 coins of unclear context are known to have come from ʿEn Nashut. All the coins are bronze except for 3 gold tremisses of Justinian I (527–65) (Ariel 1987:147–148, and n. 2; Ariel and Ahipaz 2010). Two coin deposits were uncovered: (1) “A deposit of 193 coins (115 identified) come from Locus 109, they did not come from a container but rather they were deposited together during the construction of the synagogue, outside the threshold of the main entrance of the synagogue, unsealed but below robbers’ dumps” (Ariel 1987:151, 153 and Table 1). Ariel maintains that most, if not all, of the 224 coins collected in the survey belong to this deposit, or at least come from the same area. (2) A second deposit of 51 coins (of which 34 are identified) come from Locus 133, next to the foundations of a small room west of the synagogue, which belonged to a different Stratum, below and preceding the synagogue building. Ariel continues with the statement that the dates of these two “coin depositions in Loci 109 and 133 present a problem. The latest identified coins from both deposits fall in a period of sparse minting, so they could easily have been deposited as much as fifty years after the latest coin of each group.” The latest coins from L. 109 are dated to 408–423 CE, L 133 coins (425–450 CE), and the coins from the survey in the area of the threshold deposit (474–491 CE): “It is not statistically likely that any possible contamination of the deposits has affected this determination, because of the paucity of coins from Zeno’s time. This date falls within the conjectured date of construction of the synagogue, some time in the 5th century CE.” Ariel contends “that at least the ʿEn Nashut threshold deposit (L 109) was a foundation deposit . . . also helps to date the construction of the synagogue. The numismatic evidence points to a date for the construction of the synagogue perhaps in the mid-5th century CE.” This assemblage is considered by Arslan (2011:159) as a hoard.

546

chapter twelve

Maoz (1993:412) maintains that the 191 coins (of which 115 are identified) found under the paving in front of the main entrance of the ʿEn Nashut synagogue were possibly buried there during its construction, a tradition he claims is also found at other synagogues in the Golan, for instance Dabiyye, Kanaf and Qasrin. 1.1.12 Gush Halav (a) A hoard of 1953 tiny, badly worn and lowest-value coins (minimi) in a broken cooking pot (Fig. XII-2), was found near the doorway in the northern end of the western corridor, belonging to period IV (Byzantine IIA, 460–550 CE), the last phase of the synagogue building; the cooking pot lay uncovered and was found with roof tiles and glass lamps, pieces suggesting a storage function (Hanson 1979:49–55; Raynor 1990:230–245; 1992, I:303; Bijovsky 1998; 2000–2002:205; Meyers, Meyers and Strange 1990:12; Meyers 2001:58).  Meyers (1998) describes the hoard location as ‘essentially a storage area for repair materials and “dead space,” where there was little or no traffic.’ Only 418 coins were cleaned, most of which (about 60%) date between 425 and 498 CE and are 5th century minimi. Raynor (1990:245) maintains “The find spot as well as the low value and great wear of the coins thus indicate that the coin pot was not a true hoard of concealed treasure. The function of the hoard was more likely that of a petty cash box than a concealed treasure. It perhaps served as a depository for charity or operating monies” (also Hanson 1979:54). The excavators contend that the hoard was deposited shortly before the destruction of the synagogue by the earthquake of 551 CE. If this assumption is accepted, it was a depository for charity, possibly as a daily donation, which began to be collected at the end of Period III of the synagogue (363–460 CE, Byzantine I) and continued its accumulation during period IV until the end of the synagogue, which collapsed during the earthquake of 551 CE (Bijovsky 1998:80, 85; 2000–2:198, 205).

Figure XII-2. Gush Halav hoard.



coins and the synagogue

547

(b) In the stratigraphic excavation, 198 bronze coins were identified (out of 225) among them: 77 are bronze coins of the 4th c. CE, 18 of the 5th c., one is a Seleucid silver issue and two are Roman base silver antoniniani. A reduction in the numbers of coins occurs at Gush Halav after 363 CE, though with no gap in occupation (Raynor 1990:230, 234; Bijovsky 2009:385 and Chart 11). 1.1.13 Hamam, Wadi Four coins dated to the 4th c. CE were found in the fill of the bema of the later phase of the synagogue, in the last stage of renovations. A hoard of silver and bronze coins dated to the 2nd c. CE was discovered in a corner of a domestic building in Area B. In an upper residential structure in Area C, a few coins were found in the beaten earth floor (Leibner 2010:224, 226, 232). 1.1.14 Hammath Tiberias B 31 small worn bronze coins dated to the 4th–early 5th century CE were found on the floor of a sunken structure, considered to be the treasury, in the area of the Torah shrine in Stratum IIA (L. 52) (Dothan 1981:68; 1983:31, 65–6, 71–74, Pl. 7:4). In synagogue Ib, a cash box was cut into the floor west of the apse (Dothan 1983:28, 64, 74, plan D; 1992:517). 1.1.15 H. Kanaf At the Kanaf synagogue, 523 coins were found in total. 339 coins (of which only 125 are reliably dated) were uncovered in limited probes dug in the foundation fill (Ariel 1980). The highest concentration of dated coins is from the period between 383–395 CE. After 408 CE the concentration of dated coins drops, the latest coins being those of Anastasius I (491–512). From the numismatic evidence, Kanaf was occupied from the second half of the 4th c CE until the beginning of the 6th c. CE when the synagogue was constructed. However, no coins representing the synagogue occupational period have been found (Ariel 1980:60, 62): “Either the town did not survive long after the completion of the synagogue, or no recently-minted coins were lost at the site after its construction.” 1.1.16 Korazim On the surface of the Korazim synagogue hall, 550 coins were found of which 30% are unidentifiable due to their poor and corroded condition (Kloetzli 1970). 1770 coins were recovered at the excavation of the Korazim synagogue: 1461 coins were found in the hall, at the interior of the synagogue’s south wall close to the thresholds near the entrances, below a missing floor (Ariel 2000:33*–36, Tables 2, 3). Of the total of 1658 examined coins, 1131 coins are identified and 527 coins are not. A great number of coins date to the 4th–5th century CE, 974 coins are of the Late Roman I (307–408 CE), while 300 coins date to the Late Roman II (409–497 CE). Yeivin (1973:157) and Meshorer (1973) suggest that the coins ‘were either deposits of pilgrims or normal losses of coins.’ Two coin hoards were uncovered at Korazim: (a) 311 coins (of which 140 are unidentified) were discovered in a probe cut in the hall, inside the western side entrance under the western missing part of the threshold (Yeivin 2000:9, plan 3, L. 162). The coins here date from 330–341 to 474–491 CE (Ariel 2000:33*—Tables 2, 4; Meshorer [1973] dated them to the 5th c. CE). (b) In a probe inside the southern part of the hall, between the entrances and the two south pedestals (Loci 700, 701, 702, 703) about 1065 coins were recovered: 41 coins (7 unidentified) in L. 700; 125 coins (61 unidentified) in L. 701; 660 coins (254 unidentified) in L. 702; 239 coins

548

chapter twelve

(56 unidentified) in L. 703 (Yeivin 2000:12, 13, plan 3; Ariel 2000:35* and Table 2); 34 coins of the 4th century were discovered in L. 163—a probe inside the eastern side entrance of the south wall missing threshold (Yeivin 2000:10, plan 3; Ariel 2000:Table 4). Ariel maintains that about 1000 coins are disturbed remains of foundation deposits. (c) A hoard of more than 400 coins, of which only 159 (20 unidentified) are now in IAA storage), was found in a room (L. 52) inside structure E, north of the synagogue inside a natural channel covered by stone beams (Yeivin 2000:8–9, Fig. 6). Meshorer dated these coins to c. 340 CE, but eight later coins are intrusive and post-date 341 (455 at the earliest). Perhaps this hoard was a foundation deposit (Ariel 2000:33*–34* Table 1, after Meshorer 1973). Yeivin (1973:157; 2000:30*) proposes that this hoard was deposited c. 340, in the first period of use of the synagogue. Ariel (2000:36*–37*) notes that this assemblage “provides tentative support for the date of construction of the synagogue between 308 and 340 CE . . . The final date of the use (or possible renewed use) of the synagogue is not clear. Unfortunately, the deposits were disturbed, and it is impossible to determine exactly the latest coins originally belonging to them . . . No coins later than 474–491 were identified in these deposits . . . It seems reasonable that the coins found in and around the synagogue point to an occupation spanning the entire Byzantine period.” 1.1.17 Maʿon-Nirim At the Maʿon-Nirim synagogue, 81 coins were recovered, 71 of them “in the debris above the pavement synagogue, between the foundation stones or below the pavement level”; those identified belong to the 4th century CE. Ten coins (nos. 6–9) were found on the synagogue floor: five coins were found in the area of the apse, near the chest; two on the mosaic floor and one between the foundation stones. All belong to 518–538 CE (the time of Justin I and Justinian I). Two more coins of the late 6th century CE were found in other sections of the building (Rahmani 1960:17–18). 1.1.18 Maʿoz Hayim A hoard of about 50 coins, carefully wrapped in a cloth and placed within a broken roof-tile, was found near the apse on the outside of the southern wall of the Maʿoz Hayim synagogue building. Tzaferis (1981:88–89; 1982:244, Pl. 36:E; report of the coins not published) assumes the hoard was hidden during an emergency, close to the time of the final destruction of the building in the early 7th century CE. This was possibly the synagogue’s treasury, as it was cached in a secure place of the building. 1.1.19 Meiron At Meiron 1003 coins were recovered, a large number of Hasmonean coins (108) while the majority of coins (624) are from the 4th c. CE. No coins of the 5th c. and the Byzantine period (6th–7th c. were found, but 64 coins of Late Islamic. After 360 CE coin evidence is noticeably reduced (Raynor and Meshorer 1988:89; Bijovsky 2009:385 and Chart 11). 1.1.20 Meroth (a) A treasury cache was found beneath the floor of a storeroom adjacent to the outer western wall of the synagogue (Fig. XII-2; Ilan and Damati 1987:63, 109–110; Kindler 1987:118–126; 1989:58; Ilan 1989:30; 1995:272–274; Damati 2000:128–130). A cavity, with a stone placed over it, was discovered in the northeastern corner of the room.



coins and the synagogue

549

Figure XII-3. Treasury cache, Meroth.

In a hollow carved in the cavity, mixed with sand and debris, 485 coins were retrieved: 245 of them were gold (Figs. XII-3, 5): 56 solidi (23%), 38 semisses (25.5%) and 150 tremisses (61.5%) and the rest were bronze (225 folles and 13 half-folles). The folles were divided as follows: Anastasius I—46%; Justinus I—18%; Justinianus I—24.5%; Justinus I—11%. The gold coins are from the same periods: Justinianus I—78 coins; Justinus II—48; Tiberius—17 coins; Focas—11 coins; Maurizius 87; Herklius—1.  The hoard spans about 110 years, from the reform of Anastasius I (498–518 CE) until Herklius (608/9). In the western half of the cavity, 8 gold coins were scattered around, probably belonging to the cache, and a small bronze scale was found nearby (Fig. XII-4).  Most of the earlier coins found were folles, whereas in the later period (from Justinus I, the early 5th c. CE) more coins were gold. The majority of the coins, especially the gold ones, at Meroth were from the Constantinople mint, with a few from other mints.  This cache was the synagogue’s treasury, and it was intentionally securely hidden. Most of the coins date to the 6th c CE. However, some other coins were found, the earliest of which is an Alexander Jannaeus bronze (80–76 BCE) and six Late Roman coins (Constantine I to Theodosius I). Kindler (1987:121) suggests it is possible that the early coins were found by the poor of the Meroth community who donated them to the synagogue, where the cashier soon dropped them into the cache. The latest dated coins in the cache are a golden dinar from 783 and a coin of the Ayyubid dynasty, from the reign of El-Ottoman in the year 1193. Thus, “the fund and synagogue were abandoned, the scattered gold coins in the larger cavity, as well as the valuable cache in the smaller niche suggest that residents were trying to remove funds but were forced to flee, either killed or exiled and never managed to collect the treasury” (Ilan 1989:30). Ilan suggests three explanations for the 200 year gap between the latest Byzantine coins and the Muslim coin: (1) The treasury was not used after Heraclius (and?) following the invasion in 614 CE; (2) It is

550

chapter twelve

Figure XII-4. Coins in situ in the Meroth synagogue treasury cache.

Figure XII-5. Meroth gold coins.



coins and the synagogue

551

possible that the construction of the synagogue Stage III was between 610–635 CE; there are no coins because the treasury was in use and the money was withdrawn for daily upkeep of the synagogue; (3) Someone tried to retrieve the coins in a hurry and managed to collect all of the later coins that were on the top.1  Ilan (1989:31) maintains that the Meroth cache money was more than sufficient for the daily upkeep, general needs and improvements made by the congregation: “the actual value of the coins is modestly estimated at 17,874 folles, or 2,235 work days” (Kindler 1987:124). Kindler estimates that a common worker’s salary was about one tremissis (6–10 folles a day) while a loaf of bread was two folles (see below). The cache hoard might also reflect the strong economic base of the community and the willingness to contribute funds to a public coffer; it is also possible that some residents placed private funds in this cache for safekeeping. Kindler (1989:58) holds that “the Meroth treasury was a ‘cash flow’ with incoming and outgoing sums and not a frozen hoard. We may estimate that the community managed rather well with its public funds. We are, however, unable to tell who contributed how much and on what basis, voluntary or obligatory.” (b) From the Meroth synagogue and the village about 800 coins were recovered. A large number of them date to the second part of the 4th to early 6th c. CE. Many of the coins were from Tyre mints. About 557 late Roman and early Byzantine coins (177 identified) were retrieved from beneath the new stone pavement of Stage 2 (500–620 CE). The majority of the coins were discovered on the northern part of the hall under the corner mosaic. Most coins dated to the 4th–mid-5th c. CE; the latest coin dates to the end of the 5th century. Many coins are worn and of little value, and of the old Byzantine standard. They might have been donated by the congregation that with time lost their value and thus were placed under the floor while it was under construction (Ilan 1989:27, 37; Ilan & Damati 1987:60, 62, 127–130; Damati 2000:50–52, for the loci see Fig. 7). 1.1.21 Nabratein 136 bronze coins were retrieved in the synagogue (10 unidentified), including three Byzantine gold coins and a silver Abbasid dirham. The number of coins dated to the Late Roman 4th–5th c. CE (33 coins) is much fewer than the numbers of the other upper Galilean sites. A decrease in coinage after 360 CE is noted at Nabratein which might be related to the abandonment of Nabratein after the 363 CE earthquake (Raynor 1981; Bijovsky 2009:385 and Chart 11). The Nabratein synagogue coins “outnumber the other sites in Byzantine 6th–7th coins . . . which increased beginning in the last quarter of the 6th CE (during the reign of Justin II), following the date of the rededication of the synagogue in 564 . . . also transitional Islamic, Byzantine-Arab coins are present only at Nabratein.” The Nabratein synagogue, which flourished in the 6th c, shows a varied and unique group of special issue Byzantine-Arab coins; the site was abandoned by the end of the 7thc. CE (Bijovsky 2009:374–386, and Chart 11; Meyers and Meyers 2009:402–403). Two gold coins were found: one of Justinian (528 CE) found south of the synagogue near the cornerstone (no. 81); a second gold coin of Phocas (602–610) was found near the threshold of the synagogue’s main entrance on the southern wall (no. 88). Three other coins (nos. 80, 82, and 86) are related apparently to activities of the rebuilding (Meyers and Meyers 2009:94).

1 A comparable case is a later coin of Constantine X (1059–1067 CE) minted in Constantinople, found by Kloetzli in Korazim. This coin might be evidence of a pilgrim’s visit to the site (Ariel 2000:38*).

552

chapter twelve

1.1.22 Qasrin (a) 82 Byzantine folles and half folles coins (+2 coins found later), probably a hoard, was found at the northeast corner of the base of the Torah shrine platform (in May 1978). “At the time, no attempt was made to ensure that all the coins were retrieved nor was the hoard’s stratigraphic relationship with the synagogue’s floor examined . . . perhaps deposited together in a perishable container.” The hoard coins cover the period 548/9 to 607/8 CE (Ariel 1996:69, 71, Table 1). (b) 27 coins were retrieved in the 1971–2, 1974–5 excavation seasons, among them a coin (of Justin II 570–1 CE) which might have belonged to the above hoard (Ariel 1996:69). (c) About 120 bronze coins2 (64 identified), the latest of which are from Anastasius I (498–518), were found during the 1982–4 excavations, scattered in the fill of dirt and small stones below the upper step and behind the lower step of the two-tiered benches along the north wall in synagogue B, a section that was added with the construction of Synagogue B (Maoz and Killebrew 1988:18, notes 2, 5). The terminus post quem for the erection of synagogue B in the early 6th c. was based on these coins. However, it is possible that the coins were scattered among the benches and the wall during repairs and plastering of the benches, which was needed from time to time, and thus does not necessarily indicate a construction date. (d) A single coin dated to 218/19 CE was found between floors 0 and 1, but the suggested date for the earliest synagogue, A, is the late 4th (Maoz and Killebrew 1988:5, note 2). (e) A hoard of 9000 coins, originally placed in some organic material, was discovered in a courtyard of building C, one of the village dwellings. The latest of these coins are dated to the 4th c. (363 CE) (Killebrew 1993:1223). 1.1.23 Rehov (a) A hoard of 27 gold coins (dated to 610–695 CE) was discovered in a clay box in debris, before the excavation. (b) 14 bronze coins, probably collected into an organic purse and dated to 640–670 CE were found west of the Torah shrine, under a wall built on top of the white mosaic (Vito 1981:90). 1.1.24 H. Rimmon (a) In the western hall of the Rimmon synagogue, inside a hole between two stones, 64 bronze coins (dating to the 3rd–beginning of the 5th c. CE) were found. This was a hidden cache to which coins were possibly added from time to time. (b) 160 bronze coins (dating to the 3rd–5th c. CE) were retrieved from the ash fill of the southern part of the “room” (Locus 64); the whole area was intentionally filled, early, with small and large stones; the fill revealed various other finds including jewelry, metal and ivory items. (c) Two hoards (A and B) of gold coins (dating to the 4th–to early 6th c. CE) were found in pottery jars in the upper layer of debris which filled Locus 33, part of a long room adjoining the western wall of the synagogue hall. It seems that Locus 33 served as a dump for the hoards and other items found there (Kloner and Mindel 1981:60–68; Kloner 1989:44–45, Figs. 3, 4). Hoard A, containing 12 coins (3 solidi, 2 semisses, 7 tremisses), was found in a cooking pot. Hoard B contained 35 coins (1 solidi, 9 semisses, 25 tremisses), originally wrapped in cloth and located in a jar. Both hoards were probably buried at the same time. The vessels with the hoards were carefully sealed, closed with stones, buried upside down and covered with earth, and thus intentionally buried. 2 Maoz (1993:1221) mentions 180 coins.



coins and the synagogue

553

Both hoards span the same period: the worn specimens date mainly to the time of Valentinian I (364–375) to Leo I (457–474); the less worn coins were in circulation for a short time in the period between Leo I and Anastasius I (491–518). The hoards were collected during the reign of Anastasius I, at the end of the 5th c. CE or beginning of the 6th century, indicating that the congregation was somewhat wealthy during the early period of the synagogue and until the end of the 5th century. The evidence suggests that coins were buried prior to the last phase of the synagogue (the end of 6th c. CE), perhaps at an intermediate phase. 1.1.25 Sepphoris Five coins were retrieved during a sounding in the bedding of the synagogue floor after the mosaic was removed. More coins, from the 3rd–8th c. CE, were found in debris in the synagogue hall and the lower layer of debris on top of the mosaics had coins and pottery of the end of the Byzantine period. Seven coins, dating to the 2nd–4th c. CE but no later than 400 CE, were found in Phase I together with pottery and glass, in sections in the floor’s bedding after removal of the mosaic. Eight coins, one coin from the 2nd c., the latest dated to the second half of the 4th c., were retrieved in Phase II (Weiss and Netzer 2005:26, 30, 37). 1.1.26 H. Shemʿa At H. Shemʿa 429 coins were recovered including a number of Hasmonean coins (54), the largest coin group (222) is dated to the 4th c. CE with a significant number of coins dated to 351–361 CE; few coins of the 5th c. and the Byzantine period; and a group of 32 coins of Late Islamic (Hanson and Bates 1976:158–62; Bijovsky 2009:385 and Chart 11). 1.1.27 Sumaqa 64 coins (50 identified) were found in the synagogue area: eight coins are dated to the 2nd–3rd c. CE, 40 to the 4th c. CE, 30 to the 5th c., six to the 6th c., one to the 7th c. and a single Crusader coin (Dar 1999:28–29, Fig. 35; Kindler 1999:347). The pottery forms date to 4th–7th c. CE. Table XII-3. Coins found in synagogues.* Synagogue site

Location of find

No. of coins

Metal

Arbel

Surface

140

Barʿam

Under floor, foundations Areas A–D

124

Beth Alpha

Hole in apse floor covered by stone boards

36

Beth Sheʾan A

Apse area, north and south aisles

9

Beth Sheʿarim

In burned debris period III

1200

Caesarea

In the plastering of the synagogue ark projection, Stratum IV

3700

Bronze

Capernaum See Table XII-2

Trench 12

24,309 all together

Bronze

67

Bronze

7 coins: 5 Solidi 2 semissi

Gold

Foundation of the benches Under the eastern benches near doorway to the courtyard

Category notes Scientific published

Bronze

Syon 2007 Genizah cache hoard

Bronze

+

Assemblage foundation deposit Str. C-A

Arslan 1997

Hoard

Callegher 1997

554

chapter twelve

Table XII-3 (cont.) Synagogue site

Location of find

No. of coins

Metal

Category notes Scientific published

Dabiyye

Loci 124, 129, sealed floor phase II, W aisle

336

Bronze 1 gold

Assemblage foundation deposit

Ariel 1991

Deir ʿAziz

In juglet, in fill of interstices of the southern wall

14 Solidi

Gold

Hoard

Ahipaz 2007

Western side of the hall

1,000 bronze 2 tremisses

Bronze, 2 gold

Assemblage

Str. III niche in genizah Outside the synagogue

Thousands? hoard

Bronze Bronze

Cache Hoard

Bijovsky 2006

Hoard

Bijovsky 2006

Foundation deposit

Ariel 1987

ʿEn Gedi

Houses ʿEn Nashut

2 gold hoards 15+5

Gold

Outside main entrance threshold

193 (L 109)

Bronze

Foundation of the room west of synagogue

51 (L 133)

Bronze

Floors Survey of 1971

Ariel and Ahipaz 2010

24 224 Total 719

+ Bronze

Foundation deposit

+

Non-stratified

132

Non-stratified

3 tremisses

Gold

+

29

Bronze

+

1953 198 77+18

Bronze Bronze

Stratigraphic excavation

201

Bronze, 3 silver

Synagogue, fill of bema Domestic building Area B Area C

4 60 13?

Bronze Bronze, silver Bronze Bronze

Hoard

Hammath Tiberias B Sunken structure L. 52 area of the Torah shrine, Stratum IIA

31

Bronze

Cache/treasury

Dothan 1981

Kanaf, H

339

bronze

Foundation deposit

Ariel 1980

Bronze

Foundation deposit

Ariel 2000

Foundation deposit?

+

Unclear context Gush Halav

Hamam, Wadi

Korazim

In a cooking pot, western corridor, period IV

Surface of hall

550

Prayer hall, near entrances: loci 162, 700–703

1461

Building E

152

Maʿon-Nirim

Debris above and below pavement, Apse area, floor

71 8

Maʿoz Hayim

Near the apse outside the building

50

+

‘Money pouch’ Cache for charity Hoard?

Hanson 1979; Raynor 1990; 1992; Bijovsky 1998 +

+

Bronze Bronze

Rahmani 1960 Cache/treasury



coins and the synagogue

555

Table XII-3 (cont.) Synagogue site

No. of coins

Metal

Below stone floor, stage 2

557

Bronze

Foundation deposit

In cavity in storeroom

485

245 gold +Bronze

Cache/coffer

Meiron

1003 624

Bronze

Raynor and Meshorer 1988; Bijovsky 2009

Nabratein

126

Bronze

Raynor 1981; Bijovsky 2009

Northeast corner of the base of the Torah shrine platform

82/4

Bronze

27

Bronze

Behind and below steps of the benches N wall

120

House C, courtyard of village

Meroth

Qasrin

Rehov Rimmon H.

Sepphoris

Location of find

Foundation deposit ? hoard?

9000

Bronze

Hoard

27

Gold

Hoard

Under wall, in organic purse

14

Bronze

Cache

64 160 12 Hoard A 35 Hoard B

Bronze Bronze Gold Gold

Cache Hoard A Hoard B

Purposely inserted under floor of 6th

?

Bronze

Floor bedding Phase I Phase II

5 8

Bronze

429 222

Bronze

64

Bronze

In a hole West hall Ash fill W hall Inside jars in the fill of W hall

Synagogue area

Kindler 1987

Ariel 1996

Assemblage

A clay box on the ground

Shemʿa H. Sumaqa

Category notes Scientific published

Kloner and Mindel 1981:60–68; Kloner 1989 Meshorer 2005

Foundation deposit

Hanson and Bates 1976:158–62; Bijovsky 2009 Kindler 1999

*See also Waner and Safrai 2001a:82–86, Catalogue

1.2 Early Coins in Synagogue Deposits Early coins, especially Alexander Jannaeus coins, appear in synagogue coin deposits. In the Upper Galilee synagogues a significant number of Hasmonean coins, mainly from Jannaeus, are found together with Roman coins of the 4th century CE. Most of these were found at Meiron and H. Shema and only a few at Nabratein. At Gush Halav two coins of Jannaeus and five other early coins were found. At the Capernaum synagogue, in Trench 12, one coin of Jannaeus (no. 3), one of Herod (no. 4) and several other Roman coins were found (Arslan 1997:306, 322, Table 21, Period I). At Sumaqa one Alexander Jannaeus coin was found (Kindler 1999:347). One coin of Alexander Jannaeus and six Late Roman coins (Constantinus I to Theodosius I) were found in the Meroth synagogue treasury/ cache of a Byzantine hoard of 485 coins. Kindler (1986a:315– 316; 1987:120) suggests it is possible that these coins were found by the poor of the Meroth community who donated them to the synagogue where the cashier dropped them into the cache.

556

chapter twelve

At Korazim some Hellenistic and six or seven 2nd century BCE coins were found. Ariel (2000:35*) contends “that these early coins were in the possession of the 5th c. occupants of Korazim and were found by them in the vicinity . . . or it is possible that the coins designate an earlier settlement . . . The coins are of the same modules as the coins originating from hoards or deposits laid in the 5th c in the prayer hall.” Ariel further maintains “that in the 5th c. these coins of Seleucid and Hasmonean kings were acceptable for inclusion in a hoard or deposit . . . It is most likely that those depositing the coins were not aware that they were including coins of ancient ‘pagan’ or ‘autonomus Jewish’ kings.” Evidence of early coins of the Seleucid and Hasmonean kings being used in small quantities as currency in several Galilean synagogues in 5th c collections indicates the presence of those early coins in Jewish possession, possibly as stray finds by the inhabitants, and might indicate that these coins continued to be in circulation because of their similar look and feel, their identical shape and size, to the worn coins of the 4th–first half of the 6th centuries CE currency (Bijowsky 1998:80, note 1; 2009:383, Chart 11; Syon 2004:117–118, Fig. 59). Ariel (2000:35*) contends that it is possible that the early coins found at Korazim indicate an earlier settlement; or it is likely that the coins were owned by the inhabitants, who perhaps found them in the surrounding area. It is also probable that these coins were acceptable for inclusion in a hoard or deposit in the 5th c, or that those depositing the coins were not aware that they were including ancient coins in the assemblage. Similarly, Syon (2004:117–118, Fig. 59) contends that coins of Jannaeus which were found in small quantities as currency in Galilean synagogues of the Late Roman Period were possibly stray finds by the inhabitants, and that they remained in circulation because of their similar look and feel to the Late Roman currency. 1.3 The Currency of the 5th c. CE Scholars debate the reason for the difference in the emission of coinage between the 4th and 5th c. CE. The general views can be summarized as follows: Statistical studies by Safrai (1998; also Gitler and Weisburd 2005) proposed that the 5th c. CE is in fact a “missing century” and that the decline in the emission of coinage indicates a broader economic and demographic decline in Palestine (Safrai 1998). Gitler and Weisburd (2005:548–49, 551–52) contend that this ‘decline’ remains relatively constant through the 6th and 7th c. CE. The 4th c. is unusual in that it was a period of unusually high coinage production (Bijovsky 2000–2:209; Gitler and Weisburd 2005). Coins from the 4th c. CE continued in circulation during the 5th and even the first half of the 6th c. (Bijovsky 2000–2:208; Gitler and Weisburd 2005). The large number of unidentified coins from sites which are not considered in these studies might have affected the theory of a decline. The statistical studies exclude many coins which were corroded and in poor state of preservation, and were therefore unidentifiable. “Thus, no radical conclusion about the decline should be drawn” (Bijovsky 2000–2:207). 2. Value and Purchasing Power of Money The Value of Coins (Kindler 1989:58): Gold coins: 1 solidus = 180 folles 1 semissis (2.35 grs) = 90 folles—about 11 days of work 1 tremissis (1.50 grs) = 60 folles—about 7 days of work



coins and the synagogue

557

Silver coins: Tetradrachma—silver antoniniani—base silver

Bronze coins: folles half-folles minimi

2.1 Purchasing Power of the Money An estimation of the purchasing power of the money by Kindler (1987:124; 1989:58) designates: 1. A worker earned about one solidus a month; 2. A common worker’s daily wages/salary was about 6–10 folles, which was a price of a pound (325 grams) of meat, while a loaf of bread cost two folles (Genesis Rabba, xix, 7; lxx, 13). Kindler’s assessment of the Meroth cache by converting all the gold coins into 17,640 folles and adding the bronze coins, is that “the actual value of the Meroth coins is modestly estimated at 17,874 folles, or 2,235 work days.” The purchasing power of the Gush Halav hoard (the 1953 bronze minimi = about 50 folles) in the mid 6th c. CE is estimated by Bijovsky (1998:84) to be only about 25 loaves of bread. Waner and Safrai (2001b:322–324) maintain there are “two phenomena: a) the abundance of gold coins and b) a slightly shorter shelf life—that might be related and may stem from the same reason. Gold hoards from the Byzantine Period represent the rich or ‘nouveau-riche?’, in a society that has a large percentage of rich people.” The lively commerce generated the exchange of coinage at a high frequency and the hoards represented the increase in the number of rich people. “It therefore seems possible for us to speculate that most of the commerce took place in silver coins, while bronze coins served for secondary trade, with a slower change of hands, and at a slower pace.” Gold hoards have the shortest shelf life, bronze—the longest. Waner and Safrai (2001b:324) conclude that 250 years were the maximum time of a hoard’s existence with the average in synagogue estimated at 94, Still, it seems “that most of the coins in hoards are, in fact, from the last 25 years prior to concealment.” 2.1.1 Mints An important matter of deliberation is the mints that were the source of the coins found in the sites. Kindler (1987:123) contends (on the evidence from the Meroth cache) that the official supply of the currency in the Byzantine period came from Constantinople, while the coins from the other mints became available through commerce and trade, which might be the case also for the coins in the Late Roman period. The coin groups from other sites confirm that assumption. The gold hoard coins from Deir ʿAziz were minted in Constantinople (Ahipaz 2007), as were the majority in the hoard of Gush Halav (Bijowsky 1998:Table 1). At Capernaum, the majority of the hoard and the large group of coins from trenches 12 and 14 were also minted at Constantinople and Antioch (Arslan 1997:Table III). The majority of coins from Korazim were minted at Constantinople and Antioch, and various other mints (Ariel 2000:42*–43*, 46*, Table 1). In the upper Galilee synagogues (Gush Halav, Meiron, Nabratein and H. Shema), the predominance of coins were minted in Phoenicia; the Tyrian currency is clearly apparent (Bijowsky 2009:385). At Nabratein, the Byzantine-Arab transitional coins are a unique group—“the majority is minted in Damascus indicating an eastern focus for trade” (Raynor 1981:20–21). The majority of the Golan coins at H. Kanef, ʿEn Nashut, Dabiyye and Qasrin came from mints at Constantinople and Antioch (Ariel 1980:61; 1987:157; 1991:Table 5; 1996:Table 2). The coins

558

chapter twelve

circulated in the land of Israel, especially those from the 4th c CE were provided by the mints of Antiochia and Alexandria (Kindler 1999:347). The majority of the Meroth hoard coins, especially the gold ones, were from the Constantinople mint and a few from other mints. All 14 solidi from Deir ʿAziz came from the Constantinople mint. At ʿEn Nashut, out of 466 coins only the mints of 240 coins were identified, and here also the largest number of coins came from the Constantinople mint (68 coins) and Antioch (64 coins). Of the 82 folles from Qasrin, 35 came from the Constantinople mint, 19 from Nicomedia and 16 from Antioch. At H. Kanaf only 55 coins came from identified mints—25 from Antioch and 12 from Constantinople. Hence, Kindler (1987:123) concludes that the official supply of currency in the Byzantine period came from Constantinople, while the coins from the other mints became available through commerce. 2.1.2 The Value of Donations Several inscriptions mention a general donation while some declare the exact amount of the monetary donation: Aramaic inscriptions from Hamath Gader mention an extended family who gave five golden dinar, a rabbi who donated a tremisses (a third of a golden dinar); a righteous woman who gave one dinar. Other donations included one tremisses, a Garma (a third of a silver dinar or quarter of a gold dinar) and a half dinar. The Maʿon-Nirim inscription states that three dinars were donated, and the Eshtemoʿa inscription cites one trimisses donated by a priest and his sons (Naveh 1978:nos. 32–35, 57, 74; Kindler 1989:58). 2.1.3 Financing a Synagogue Building The patriarch was probably the supplier of much of the funding for construction of the synagogue, but other funds were needed to cover the expenses. “The inscriptions attest to the variety of systems involved: donations in cash, kind and labor.” Donations in cash used the term ‫‘ יהב‬Yahab’ meaning to give, or ‫ עבד‬ʿavad meaning To buy, purchase (Naveh 1978:9). Z. Safrai (1987) maintains that the methods of financing and sustaining synagogues based on Talmudic sources and the inscriptions data include: (a) various taxes imposed in Jewish towns; (b) donations by individuals; (c) donations by office-holders; (d) Participation of national institutions, such as the patriarchate; (e) Payment for religious services. These payments were made in kind, in cash or in work. Donations in kind are found, for instance, in the Beth Alpha Aramaic inscription stating that the community donated one hundred ‫( סאה‬seʿa) of wheat, which was sold and the cash received covered the expenses of the mosaic (Sukenik 1932:43–46; Naveh 1978:no. 43; Kindler 1989:56). Donations were made for mosaics, chancel screens and furniture. Kindler (1989:59) summarizes his research with the following: “in spite of the fact that the majority of the Jewish population was poor and heavy tax burdens were imposed on them by the gentile authorities, a considerable effort was made by the communities to lead an ordinary life including all the aspects of its Jewish character.” Most inhabitants of the village/city donated smaller sums for parts of the buildings, some in cash; others built parts with their own hands (Naveh 1978:9–12). Contributions came also from outside. For instance, a bench was built by the people of Maʿon for a Tiberias synagogue (Tosefta Megillah iii 4:15). Visitors donated to the synagogues of Gaza, Hammath Gader and Sepphoris. Taxes specifically designated for the building of a synagogue were sometimes imposed. A voluntary tax was perhaps imposed in some cases, as indicated by the inscriptions at Beth Alpha, Casearea, Jericho, and Susiya, where the whole community donated the money for the mosaic, or at Maʿon-Nirim, where a family donated an additional sum of three dinars (Naveh 1978:nos. 43, 57, 69, 83, 84; Roth-Gerson 1987: no. 26). Sometimes only a single person donated the building. The mosaic floor and the plastering of



coins and the synagogue

559

the walls of the Susiya synagogue were donated by Rabbi Issi, according to the Aramaic inscription (Naveh 1978:no. 75). A Greek inscription cites two important officials who donated the mosaic of Caesarea at their own expense (Roth-Gerson 1987:no. 27). The inscriptions provide a broad picture of the various donations that provided the funding for the synagogues. 3. Coin Collections—Categories and Types Various terms are used to describe the recovered coins: hoard, cash box, coffer, “money pouch”, charity box, kuppa, treasury, cache, foundation deposits. Three different circumstances under which coins can provide important data were determined by Avi Yonah (1981b:61): (a) when they are deliberately stored in hoards “to secure them for later recovery. In such cases the latest coin of the hoard can serve as a terminus post quem for the destruction of the building, but certainly not for the terminus ante quem of its construction; (b) when they are deliberately placed under the foundation as an offering, in which case the date of the foundation is well and truly established; (c) when they are lost, having slipped between the stones of the pavement, or between benches and between a bench and a wall; in this case they can only serve as an approximate date for the use of the structure” (see also Ariel 1987:148–9, nn. 4–15; Magness 2001:31). The recovered coins from excavations can be divided into the following categories: 3.1 Hoards The category of hoards includes gold, silver and bronze coins, hidden in containers such as pottery vessels or cloths purposely placed or buried in a special space for future retrieval. Such hoards were found in several synagogues (see above and Table XII-3): at the Capernaum synagogue seven gold coins dating to the 7th c. CE were found in situ behind the eastern benches, apparently hidden when the synagogue was already abandoned. At the Deir ʿAziz synagogue 14 gold solidi, dating to Justinian I (527–565 CE), were found in a pottery juglet in the dirt fill in the interstices of the repaired and disturbed southern wall of the synagogue. At the synagogue of H. Rimmon, two gold coin hoards (Hoard A with 12 gold coins, and Hoard B with 35 gold coins, dating to the mid-4th—early 6th c. CE) placed in jars were found inside the wall between foundation courses. At the Rehov synagogue, a hoard of 27 gold coins dated to the 7th c. CE was discovered in a clay box. In an ʿEn Gedi house, two gold hoards were found inserted in a wall before it was plastered. These hoards, the majority of which consisted of a small number of gold coins, dating to the same Byzantine period could have been either community or individual hoards which were collected and placed in a container. They were hidden in places which are easy to remember or recognize, for instance close to entrances, most likely in the hope of being eventually retrieved. Only the two hoards at H. Rimmon seem to be accumulations of coins that were hidden at a later date. It is possible that the gold hoards at Capernaum and H. Rimmon were hidden by prominent individuals in the community after the synagogue’s destruction; others, mainly the later ones, might have been buried during or at the end of the synagogue’s existence. Almost all the gold hoards are dated to the 7th c., at which time most of the synagogues ceased to exist. Arslan (2011:153) offers an interesting definition of a hoard: “a ‘hoard’ in the normal sense is a group of coins, quickly withdrawn from circulation . . . developed over a short period of time.” Thus he does not consider the coin assemblages at Capernaum Trench XII (L812) as a hoard, contrary to the interpretation of Callegher (2007:55, 57), who did consider it as such. Arslan (2011:159) maintains that the assemblages accumulated over a short time, such as those found at the ʿEn Nashut and Dabiyye synagogues, are hoards.

560

chapter twelve 3.2 Caches, Treasuries, Community Boxes

This category includes groups of gold, silver and bronze coins, hidden, or rather placed, in a special spot. These were possibly accumulations of public cash or treasuries intended for maintenance purposes or as charity donations. To this category belongs a group of 64 bronze coins (dating to the 3rdbeginning of the 5th c. CE) found at the H. Rimmon synagogue inside a hole between two stones in the western hall. It seems to have been used as a hidden cache to which coins were probably added from time to time. At Rehov, west of the Torah shrine under a wall built on top of the white mosaic, 14 bronze coins (dated to 640–670 CE) were found, probably collected into an organic purse. The large collection of gold, silver and bronze coins found in the Meroth synagogue was used as such a cash box and was later left as a hoard. Kindler (1989:58) contends that “the Meroth treasury was a ‘cash flow’ with incoming and outgoing sums and not a frozen hoard.” If so, the Meroth collection is the only working cache/treasury found. An unusual carved stone cupboard (a kuppa) was found at the Arbel synagogue, with a small door located outside the building adjacent to the east side of the north wall; it probably served as a communal charity box into which individuals could donate money in concealment (Ilan 1991:117). This is an example of a physical space for a cash box. A very large number of worthless or low-value bronze coins (dated to the 4th and 5th centuries CE) were found deliberately deposited in hidden places or in or below foundations, such as the 1,953 coins placed in a cooking pot at Gush Halav in the northern corner of the western corridor. Raynor (1990:243–245) proposed, due to the low value and great wear of the assemblage and its provenance on top of the corridor, that it served as a petty cash box or depository for charity or operating monies (but see Magness 2001:32). Ariel (1987:148) describes it as a ‘money pouch’ hoard, which differs from genuine hoards. Bijovsky (1998:80, 83, 85; 2000–2002:197–8) classifies it as a hoard and advocates that the Gush Halav coins were a deposit intended for charity, or a daily donation to the synagogue. If this deposit was intended for charity, its collection began at the end of Period III of the synagogue (363–460 CE, Byzantine I) and continued during period IV and until the building’s collapse in the earthquake of 551 CE. Bijovsky (1998:83) also argues that the Capernaum deposits of the 2920 and 6000 coins (which are included in the general number of 20,323 coins found at Capernaum) are genuine hoards (see Table XII-2, 3). Other ‘hoards’ like that of Caesarea might belong to this category. Waner and Safrai (2001a:77) suggest that the hoards of Beth Alpha, ʿEn Gedi, Gush Halav, Maʿon-Nirim and Rimmon could have been placed in hiding because of the Persian invasion (614 CE). The Gush Halav, Meroth, H. Rimmon and other collections considered to be hoards or cash box present a problem. They were accumulated or collected over a long period of time. Had they been intended for maintenance, operating moneys, or as charity donations, they would have been deposited in easily accessible places. Moreover, it seems unlikely that very large numbers of useless and corroded bronze coins would have been hidden for later retrieval. Furthermore, with the exception of the Meroth cash box, all the abovementioned collections were purposely deposited in concealed places,, though the coins might have been accumulations for charity that were buried in times of trouble or due to local or national danger. 3.3 Coin Assemblages: Large Numbers of Coins Assembled over Long Periods and Placed in Hiding Places or Buried in the Fill or Foundations Low-value corroded and worthless bronze coins were very likely deliberately deposited or stored together in hidden places or below foundations inside the building, possibly during the construction of the synagogue. Coins in large numbers dated to the 4th and 5th c. CE are found scattered or buried



coins and the synagogue

561

below entrance thresholds and floors, between benches and walls, deliberately deposited or buried during the construction or repair of synagogues. These coin assemblages were found at synagogue sites such as Barʿam, Beth Sheʿarim, Capernaum, Dabiyye, ʿEn Nashut, H. Kanaf, Korazim, and Qasrin (see Table XII-3). Explanations for these finds of small and large collections of mostly useless coins vary but many scholars consider them to be foundation deposits (Ariel 1987:148; Maoz and Killebrew 1988:note 5; Maoz 1993:412; Bijovsky 2000–2:197; Loffreda 1997; Arslan 1997). Avi Yonah (1981b:61) describes them as offerings. Magness (2001:31) suggests that they were simply part of the fill brought in during the synagogue construction, and that the builders were probably not even aware of their presence. Another possibility is that the coins were deliberately deposited next to the foundation or under the floors during the construction. However, it is difficult to explain the finds of the huge groups, amounting to 20,323 bronze minimi, in Trench 12 at Capernaum. Avi-Yonah (1981b:61) maintains that two of the Capernaum groups—of 2920 and 6000 coins—are hoards, demonstrating “that the synagogue officials were afraid of attack and ruin, well-founded in 5th c. Palestine. The fact that the caches were never recovered is clear evidence that all those who knew of their location either perished or were driven away. The earliest stray coin mentioned is dated 341 CE, which would give the synagogue barely one century of existence if built then.” Interesting observations are presented for the Capernaum coins by Arslan (1997; 2011:148–149, note 4) who proposes “that the ensemble of the coins from Trench XII (Trench L812) was an accumulation of a prolonged period of time (starting from the Theodosian era until a little after 476) of small offerings brought to the synagogue and intentionally obliterated under the pavement.” He further argues that “This means that the coins had been ‘accumulated’ in a different place and then brought there to be included in the sub-foundation of the pavement, where they were divided up and small groups deposited to different places. Similar small groups of coins have, in fact been found in all the trenches.” Another of Arslan’s observations (2011:151–153) is that the synagogue coins found in the trenches “were being collected separately in a deposit that was later—in whole or in part—buried under the synagogue floor.” He dates “the onset of the accumulation [at Capernaum Trench XII] to the middle of the 4th c. CE, when coins donated by the community started to be set aside. These coins, which probably included some older coins, were still in circulation . . . It is possible, however, that there where higher-denomination coins donated to the synagogue that were immediately selected for other uses . . . A reason for the continuous presence of nummi in the synagogue could be the traditional use of the smallest coins, the symbolic demonetization of which was more easily accepted during ritual services. This means that the faithful would bring a nummus to the synagogue rather than other denominations, even when lower numbers of nummi were in circulation.” These coin groups should not be considered as foundation deposits but as a compilation of coins collected throughout a long period of time, particularly at sites in which the coins were discovered in surveys or disturbed areas. These include the Capernaum collections found in Trenches 12 and 14. Furthermore, even a sealed location such as the Dabiyye deposits of Loci 124 and 129 under four flagstones (Ariel 1991:74, Table 1) could easily have been a hiding place for the coins and the stones could be removed time and again during the synagogue’s existence. The coin assemblages might also have been buried or deposited during repairs, reconstructions or renovations, and thus should be considered as demonstrating the duration of the synagogue existence, not its construction. Moreover, at Dabiyye the number of coins according to loci shows a great variety, dating almost exclusively to the 4th century CE. The ʿEn Nashut deposit recovered outside the threshold of the main entrance of the synagogue, unsealed but below robbers’ dumps, was deposited during the construction of the synagogue, according to the excavators (Ariel 1987:151, 153). However, these collections of

562

chapter twelve

coins might have been deposited during repairs. These coins deposits could not have been hoards. They obviously were not meant to be retrieved later because their recovery from under the floors and foundations would have meant the demolishing of the synagogue structure. It seems that this category of coin assemblages indicates a phenomenon of the local Galilee and Golan Jewish communities, or perhaps a local custom, as such deposits are not found under mosaics and not even under the benches in these synagogues. 3.4 Small Groups of Scattered Coins These were probably lost coins, some slipped between the stones of the pavement, others between benches and between the benches and the walls. Scattered coins under floors and between benches as well as under or close to entrances, were discovered at ʿEn Nashut, Korazim, Meroth, Qasrin. 3.5 Coins Placed in the Torah Shrine Area Possibly Serving as a Geniza Coins located in the area of the Torah shrine were found in synagogues decorated with mosaics. It is significant that no coins were found below mosaic floors, only in special places like the Torah shrine area, in which holes, cavities or sunken structures were dug (see Table XII-3 and report above). In the Beth Alpha apse floor, 36 Byzantine coins were found in a hole covered by stone boards which was dug into the apse. 31 coins dated to the 4th–5th centuries CE were found at Hammath Tiberias synagogue IIA, on the floor of a sunken structure in the area of the Torah shrine. A collection of 3700 bronze coins (most of them dating to 307–355 CE) were found at Caesarea in the area of the ark (?). About 50 coins, carefully wrapped in a cloth and placed within a broken roof-tile, were retrieved near the apse of the Maʿoz Hayim synagogue building, on the outside of the southern wall. Tzaferis (1981:88–89; 1982:244, Pl. 36:E; a report of these coins was not published) maintains this assembly was possibly the synagogue’s treasury, hidden during an emergency close to the time of the final destruction of the building in the early 7th century CE. Thousands of bronze coins (dating to 492–530 CE) have been recovered (with other finds) in the Stratum III niche at the ʿEn Gedi synagogue. This location most likely was used for storage and as a geniza. Five coins were found in the area of the apse at the Maʿon-Nirim synagogue. It is difficult to perceive this small number of coinage assemblages of no particular value as hoards or treasuries, as some scholars advocate. Yet, the careful wrapping of the coins (for instance at Maʿoz Hayim) or their placement within a container, as well as the specially chosen hiding places might designate buried hoards, placed purposely near the Torah shrine. The question arises as to whether it was a custom to place coins in a kind of geniza, or whether it was believed that such a location, within a hidden space, would be more secure or safe. 4. Coins in Context: Discussion and Interpretation Coins are viewed in different contexts: the period of accumulation of the coins; their placement or concealment, or scattering; the various categories of the coin collections; particular customs; and finally, the intention and purpose for which the coins were deposited. (a) It is quite clear that the hoards and some of the caches were deliberately stored and well-hidden in order to be secured for later recovery.  Scholars have tried to elucidate and interpret the finds of hoards and caches (categories I and II): It is suggested that the earlier coins in the Meroth cache had been found by the poor of the community, who donated them to the synagogue where the cashier dropped them into the



coins and the synagogue

563

cache (Kindler 1987:121, 124). The Meroth money was used for the daily upkeep, general needs and improvements made by the congregation, according to Ilan (1989:30–31). Thus, the scattered gold coins in the larger cavity, as well as the valuable cache in the smaller niche, both suggest that residents were trying to remove funds but were forced to flee. Either killed or exiled, the local inhabitants never managed to return and collect the fortune left behind. The Meroth coins were probably hidden caches into which money was deposited or from which it was withdrawn, as needed. Perhaps the caches were public foundations based on some sort of taxes levied by the community.  The coins groups at Capernaum, Gush Halav, Meroth, H. Rimmon, and Rehov found in or adjacent to synagogue thresholds are genuine hoards (Ariel 1987:149). The Gush Halav, Meroth, Rimmon and Capernaum (the deposits in Trench 12 and 14) are genuine hoards, depositories intended for maintenance or as the daily charity donation to the synagogue (Bijovsky 1998:83–84).  The hoards found in the synagogues of Beth Sheʿarim, Caesarea, Gush Halav and Rimmon apparently represented the synagogue community leadership’s funds. It also means that the synagogue served as the location of both the town treasury and the community offices (Z. Safrai 1995:199).  The excavators believe the Gush Halav hoard “was originally a charity-box of the synagogue, and was later relocated to the place of its ultimate deposition. It would not be unexpected that congregants or Jewish and Christian pilgrims to Gush Halav would want to make a donation of some kind to the community it would be quite understandable were they to enter the synagogue on their arrival and fulfil their desire by placing some small change into a charity pot or kuppa.” Meyers (1998) who also quotes Raynor (1990), who “noted the find spot of the hoard demonstrates that the pot’s coins had accumulated over time and were not deposited at once.” (b) Scholars deliberate the reasons for the phenomenon of coins concealed underneath the floor or among benches and walls in some of the synagogue buildings during construction (categories III, IV). Many associate the phenomenon with some sort of offering, blessing, ritual or magical connotations.  The coins are deliberately placed under the foundations as offerings (Avi Yonah [1981b:61] in discussing the Capernaum finds). It is possible the coins were placed there to convey good fortune and blessing to both the structure and the congregation. A saying by the sages “Blessings only reside in things hidden from sight” might have inspired this practice (Ilan 1989:27–28). The coins found beneath synagogue floors were deposited possibly for luck (Waner and Safrai 2001a:73, note 6). Arslan (1997) proposed that the ensemble from Capernaum Trench 12 “was an accumulation of a prolonged period of time (starting from the Theodosian era until a little after 476) of small offerings brought to the Synagogue and intentionally obliterated under the pavement.” The insertion of large numbers of small, valueless, and corroded bronze coins dating to 4th and 5th c. CE, which were deposited by Jews of the 6th century below foundations or inside the synagogue buildings or in hidden places, might indicate that ritual considerations were involved (Magness 2001:27, 33). The coin collections may have been votive offerings or been based on superstition and a desire to ward off the demons who threatened every house (Maoz and Killebrew 1988:18, note 5; Arav 1993; Maoz 1999:146–7).  The custom of depositing groups of low-value coins was perhaps a unique Jewish local popular custom (note that no such coin finds are known from beneath floors or benches of churches in the Land of Israel). (c) A different and also feasible proposition is made by Ilan (1989:28, following Y. Kentman’s suggestion). He proposes, for instance, that the coin ensembles found underneath Meroth’s floor

564

chapter twelve

(and other sites?) evoke the ma⁠ʾaser sheni (second tithe), whose monies were forbidden for use. He notes that ma⁠ʾaser sheni, a requirement of Jewish lawcalls for the eating of approximately 9% of certain crops in Jerusalem. To redeem the value of the crops, coins could be used in Jerusalem to purchase food and drink for consumption there. This custom continued even after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. The symbolic redemption of large amounts of crops with coins of little value was allowed by Jewish law at this time. As a result the coins apparently retained a holy status and could not be used for any purpose and should have been destroyed. Ilan further argues that the large number of coins accumulated may have been collected elsewhere, over a period of many years, and when the Meroth synagogue was built they were brought there. Loffreda (1997:234–5) accepts this interpretation for the coins found in the synagogue of Capernaum and it could possibly provide an explanation for large collections of coins, but not, however, for the hoards, which were usually hidden for later retrieval. Moreover, as Ilan notes, the hoards they included silver and gold coins, which could not be used to redeem ma⁠ʾaser sheni. (d) Various explanations for the large density of coins in the vicinity of synagogues and the large number of small bronze coins hidden under their floors or thresholds are presented by Ariel (1987:147–8) and by Ariel and Ahipaz (2010:139): It should be noted that it is often difficult to establish whether the coins were sealed by a floor, were intrusive or perhaps intentionally scattered; it is quite frequently even harder to distinguish between original deposits and coin collections that are the result of disturbance of later activity. The coin ensembles indicate the communal and commercial activity conducted around the synagogue; however this reason is difficult to accept as most coins were hidden. It might designate the lack in circulation, particularly in the 4th c. CE, of small coins throughout the Eastern empire, which was related to the inflationary economy of the period, which made most of the coins almost valueless. Ariel maintains that the coins found in some Byzantine period synagogues such as Capernaum, Dabiyyeh, Gush Halav, H. Kanef, Korazim, Meroth and Qasrin are foundation deposits, explaining “that many coins appear to have been deliberately deposited individually or in larger number, during the construction of the synagogues.” (e) A slightly different interpretation posits a belief or custom of throwing coins between benches and other parts of the synagogue (preferably close to the entrance) for luck, blessing or magical purposes (see the coins found at the Meroth and Qasrin synagogues).  The coin deposits suggest that in every repair, reconstruction etc., coins were thrown at or deposited in special places or in certain designated areas of the synagogue—close to entrances, between benches, below the floor flagstones placed to mark the permanent territory of the community—the synagogue—in the same way that the nails marked the permanent burial place of the deceased in tombs (Hachlili 2005:512). The assemblage of more than 1500 coins found at Korazim inside the synagogue’s south wall below a missing floor, near the thresholds is, according to Yeivin, either lost coins or deposits by pilgrims. Perhaps the large caches of coins were used as communal funds for charitable purposes. At Arbel there is a carved stone cupboard placed outside the building, with a small door towards the northern part of the east side of the north wall. This supports the idea that individuals could and did donate anonymously. The enormous number of coins from the Capernaum Trench 12 assemblage, near the east corner of the courtyard, enabled Arslan (1997) to research the diffusion of coins from various close by and distant mints (Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Rome, etc.). Arslan proposes that the coin collection from Capernaum Trench 12 accumulated over a long period of time from small offerings brought to the Synagogue and intentionally hidden under the pavement. However, the coins had



coins and the synagogue

565

to have been collected and assembled by the community before the construction of the synagogue. According to the excavators, the coins were found in the mortars beneath the floor, and they could not have been offerings to a non-existent synagogue; also, why would offerings to the synagogue be intentionally buried under the pavement? The coin profile in the four upper Galilee synagogues (Gush Halav, H. Shema, Meiron and Nabratein) was summarized by Bijovsky (2009:385, and Chart 11): a total lack of 5th c. and Byzantine 6th–7th c. coins is noted at H. Shema and Meiron. The Gush Halav hoard shows the highest incidence of isolated 5th c. CE coins. A decrease in coinage after 360 CE is evident at Meiron and Nabratein, possibly related to the abandonment of Nabratein after the earthquake of 363 CE, but not in the others. Byzantine 6th–7th c. coins at Nabratein outnumber such coins in other sites. It is possible that the increase in the number of coins in the last quarter of the 6th c. follows the date of the rebuilding of the synagogue in 564 CE, as proved by the inscribed lintel dedication. It should also be noted that transitional Islamic, Arab-Byzantine coins are found only at Nabratein. The four Upper Galilee synagogues show a predominance of Phoenician and especially Tyrian currency during the Late Roman period (4th–5th c. CE). Several queries and assumptions ensue from the interpretations put forward above: The large number of coins found in the deposits in the foundation of the synagogue buildings means that a collection of old and more current coins were saved specifically assembled by the congregation or its leaders before the synagogue was even built, with the distinct notion that some day they would need the collection to be used as fill for the foundations deposits. The collection and saving of assemblages such as those from Capernaum Trenches 12 and 14, in anticipation of the construction of a synagogue foundation, must have been an enormous project. If as Arslan (1997) maintains, the Capernaum coin assemblages were small offerings brought to the synagogue and intentionally concealed under the pavement, this must have occurred when the synagogue building already existed. The hoards were first concealed in a vessel or cloth and then hidden in places which were easy to remember or recognize, like close to entrances. Perhaps at a later stage the hoards were moved and intentionally buried in a hiding place. Why were good fortune, blessing and ritual treated differently in different synagogues? Why did Capernaum need about 22.000 coins for this purpose in the courtyard and close to 2900 coins for the synagogue hall? Other synagogues, such as Barʿam, Dabiyye, ʿEn Nashut, H. Kanaf, Korazim, and Qasrin (see Table XII-3), sought the same benefits but at the cost of much smaller coin assemblages. Does the different number of coins placed in the foundation deposits indicate the size, status, and affluence of the congregation? Or does it simply indicate the ability of any specific congregation to collect old coins for these rituals and customs? The large quantities of coins buried, spread, or tossed under the pavement, were not for use. So who collected these coins? And from where did they get them? Generally coins were not found on the synagogue pavements, where they would have been swept away during cleanings. They would have been brushed away into holes in the floor or other places, they could have fallen through the stones or the benches, or they might have gotten lost or picked up and placed in the synagogue cash box/treasury. Considering this aspect, it is possible that in many cases the coins found scattered in various locations including foundations, walls, benches and entrances could have been swept or dropped into different places during cleaning activities, or placed there during the repairing or plastering of an area. However, some of the assemblages and collections of coins, and especially the hoards, are usually found in locations deliberately selected in anticipation of their retrieval.

Chapter Thirteen

Women The status of women in Jewish life is an interesting theme that for a long time did not find its proper place in scholarly research. However, in recent decades it has been receiving more attention by various scholars. The woman’s status, in the family, from birth to death, was one of dependence and subordination. Women were dependent on men and were considered inferior to them; a woman’s standing in society was through association with her father, brothers, or sons (Archer 1990:261). Baskin (1999:171) states that “With few exceptions female voices are not heard in Rabbinic literature, and when they are they are mediated through male assumptions about women’s nature and their intellectual, spiritual and social status. Indeed the Rabbinic written tradition believes that male Judaism is Judaism.” The marginality of women in rabbinic Judaism is noted by Ilan (1997:278–9) on the basis of the numbers of women in the Rabbinic corpus: only 52 (non-biblical) women are mentioned by name as compared with about 1000 men. Gruber (1999:154) examines women’s relations to prayer, study and divorce, and in these three areas rabbinic Judaism appears to have dis­empowered women over the course of time. The following discussion will focus on the representations and images of women in Jewish archaeology and art, and in the status of women in the synagogue. 1. Images and Representations of Women Not many depictions of women are found in synagogue art. The majority appear on the zodiac design, and there only the full-sized signs of Virgo at Hammat Tiberias and Beth Alpha are rendered; in addition, an outline of the Virgo at Naʿaran has survived. The other images of women are the four seasons, personified as busts of females in the mosaic pavement zodiac designs portrayed at the synagogues at Beth Alpha, Hammat Tiberias, Sepphoris and Naʿaran (which is badly damaged). The busts of the seasons are usually richly clothed, their hair is styled and embellished, and they are adorned with jewelry. Jewellery is an indicator of socio-economic status and in addition it sometimes holds social, political and religious attributes. It also represents economic value (Grossmark 1994; 2010; Galor 2010). It is not only an adornment for women (M. Shab. 6:1), men and children; it actually expresses boundaries: it defines the boundaries of the body; it marks the separation between two units; and it accentuates the different parts of the body. Head coverings such as crowns, wreaths, and hats, separates the head from the forehead, and face; necklaces, chains, and astrings highlight the border between neck and chest. Earrings enhance the edge of the ear; bracelets, the wrist joint separating arm and hand; ankle bangles—separate the leg from the foot; rings—the finger from the palm; clasps of various sorts mark the edge of a garment. These artificial objects (the jewelry) act as boundary lines to distinguish between the various parts of the body and were logically and purposely created by humans. 1.1 The Zodiac Sign of Virgo At Hammat Tiberias B Virgo (‫ בתולה‬Betulah) is a standing woman, holding in her left hand a flaming torch, and with her right hand held down (Dothan 1983:46). Her black hair, parted in the centre, is held in place by a broad red ribbon; she is wearing a long-sleeved red tunic with vertical black stripes with a white veil (pallium) over it. The veil is adorned with two black bands and edged in black,

568

chapter thirteen

Figure XIII-1. Virgo, Hammath Tiberias B.

Figure XIII-2. Virgo, Naʿaran.

and covers the back of her head and her left side from the shoulder to the hem of the tunic. She is adorned by a bracelet on her right hand and is shod with some kind of red shoes (Fig. XIII-1). At Naʿaran, the mosaic was damaged by iconoclasts. The outline of the damaged Virgo shows a standing figure holding both her hands up; one hand may perhaps be holding a plant. The name of the sign ‫ בתולה‬Betulah completely survived the mutilation (Fig. XIII-2). The Beth Alpha figure of Virgo (‫ בתולה‬Betulah) is a uniquely inspired depiction of an apparently royal feminine personage seated on a throne, which was produced by a father and son team of local artists; inspired figure rendered as a regal woman, seated on a throne which indicates royal rank. This figure is wearing a decorated garment and red shoes (Fig. XIII-3) and she is adorned with long earrings, a necklace, and bracelets on both arms. The throne and the red shoes indicate royal rank (Sukenik 1932:37). The ornate throne is simple, with an arched back and round coloured side handles. Royal figures are often depicted seated on thrones, for instance Queen Esther seated on her elaborate throne in the Purim story, illustrated on panel WC2 of the Dura Europos wall paintings (Hachlili 1998:146–148, Fig. III-32, Pl. III-14b). Note also that personifications of cities like Rome, Gregoria and Madaba are each rendered seated on a throne on the 6th c. mosaic pavement of the Hippolytus Hall at Madaba (Piccirillo 1993:66, Pl. 10).



women

569

Figure XIII-3. Virgo, Beth Alpha.

b

a

c

Figure XIII-4. Beth Alpha female figures with possible breasts: a. Virgo sign; b. Winter (Tevet) in the zodiac panel; c. the second boy (or Sarah) in the Binding of Isaac panel.

Two singular separate lines are drawn down Virgo’s chest, ending in two circles. Sukenik contends that these are two round ornaments suspended on strips, while Wortzman (2008) suggests they indicate the breasts. This same pattern recurs in the winter (Tevet) image and on the breast of the fully-dressed servant in the Binding of Isaac image (Fig. XIII-4). Wortzman thus contends that the servant figure might be Sarah, who was present at the scene according to the Midrash, rather than a servant. It seems more likely that this pattern represented an addition to the necklace or the dress, though it is strange to see it on the servant’s breast. However, it is very clear that the women at Beth

570

chapter thirteen

a

b

c

d

Figure XIII-5. Virgo signs: a. on Calendar 354; b. the Vatican Ptolemy, Vaticanus gr. 1291; c. Sparta zodiac mosaic; d. Münster zodiac mosaic.

Alpha—Virgo and the other three seasons—wear earrings. The servant, whom Wortzman identifies as Sarah, lacks earrings or any other jewelry. The typical ancient depiction of Virgo is as a woman holding a branch of wheat, flowers, a wreath (Fig. XIII-5), or a torch as the Hammath Tiberias Virgo is carrying. The royal Beth Alpha Virgo is an exception. The Beth Alpha artists tended to portray some of the zodiac signs graphically, as illustrative translations of the names of the signs (see Sagittarius, Aquarius, Fig. X-22). Hence, it seems that the local artists Marianos and his son Aninas believed that a virgin should be treated and rendered as a woman of high status, of royal rank, and the result is an elevated portrayal of a woman in their artistic repertoire. 1.2 The Seasons The faces of the four seasons at Hammath Tiberias B are very similar (Fig. XIII-6): they have ovalshaped heads and large open eyes. Spring and Autumn are gazing towards the upper left, while Summer and Winter are gazing towards the lower left. Their heads are crowned by wreaths, with different plants characterizing each of the seasons. The Hammath Tiberias B spring figure wears a necklace and is crowned with a wreath made of two large flowers; she holds a bowl of fruit in her right hand, with a rose placed next to her on the left. Summer wears earrings and a necklace and is crowned with a wreath of olive branches. Autumn is portrayed as a jeweled figure bust with earrings and a necklace and is crowned with an ornate wreath of pomegranates and other fruits, while the winter, also with earrings, has a scarf draped over her head. All the seasons wear the same earrings and similar bead necklaces. The Sepphoris four seasons are depicted in the same manner, with heads turning left (Fig. XIII-7). The Spring (Nisan) figure at Sepphoris has wavy hair gathered with a clip, a wreath beneath the hair,



women

a

571

b

c

d

Figure XIII-6. Hammath Tiberias B seasons: a. Spring (Nisan); b. Summer (Tamuz); c. Autumn (Tishri); d. Winter (Tevet).

a

b

c

d

Figure XIII-7. Sepphoris seasons: a. Spring (Nisan); b. Summer (Tamuz); c. Autumn (Tishri); d. Winter (Tevet).

an earring in her left ear, and she wears a sleeveless tunic. To her right are a sickle, a flower basket and lilies, and on her left, a bowl with flowers and a rose branch (quite similar to Hammath Tiberias). Summer in the Sepphoris mosaic is a figure dressed in a tunic which leaves her right breast bare; she is wearing a dome-shaped cap with a button on top over her braided hair that is gathered in a bun. Autumn is similar to Spring in her dress and wavy hair combed to the sides and gathered with a clip, and in the small earring on her left ear. Winter is a fully-draped figure in a grey cloak that covers her body and head. The Beth Alpha seasons are depicted as winged creatures. They are presented in frontal view. Their features and hairstyle are identical and only their accompanying attributes distinguish them from one another. All are adorned with similar chains and necklaces with three or four triangular hanging pendants around their necks, and long bead earings ending with a drop (Fig. XIII-8). Three of the seasons have similar wings, which have elongated shape with a feather like pattern in the centre. Winter, however, is different, having wings of a completely dark colour. Summer has a large pendant in her hair. Autumn is rendered in more detail than the others, particularly her facial features, and she is adorned with the most ornate jewelry, including a coloured tiara.

572

chapter thirteen

a

c

b

d

Figure XIII-8. Beth Alpha seasons: a. Spring (Nisan); b. Summer (Tamuz); c. Autumn (Tishri); d. Winter (Tevet).

At Huseifa, only the Autumn season has remained (Avi-Yonah 1934:126). She wears a necklace and a crown and is accompanied by pomegranates, ears of corn, and a sickle (perhaps a shofar) or palm leaf on the left and a long object on the right; her eyes look towards the right (Fig. XIII-9). The four Naʿaran seasons (Fig. VII-3) are badly damaged due to iconoclasm, yet the few details that survived show similarity in their general shape and dress. The two surviving figures, Spring and Autumn, are attired in similar dress with coloured bands. Their hands are outstretched, and they each seem to be holding a wand in their right hand, while an inverted bird is portrayed at their left.



women

573

Figure XIII-9. Huseifa, Autumn.

The personifications of the seasons draw directly on models and patterns from the classical GraecoRoman repertoire. In each mosaic the seasons are depicted alike in manner, style, and details of facial features, but they differ in dress, jewelry, and attributes, to mark each different season. The seasons on synagogue pavements are an integral part of the entire zodiac design (Figs. VII-3, 5–9) while the seasons on the pagan and church pavements are either isolated or a group within larger designs (Hachlili 2009:191, Pl. VIII.2). It should be noted that Autumn (Tishri) at Hammath Tiberias and Beth Alpha is the most richly ornamented season, perhaps because it was the most important month in the Jewish year, the seventh month with three significant holidays. All the seasons of any specific mosaic pavement are similar in their details, but there is no similarity whatsoever between any particular season at one site, and that same season on the mosaics at other sites (Figs. VII-3, 5). For instance Spring (Nisan) is depicted completely differently in the pavements of Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, Beth Alpha and Naʿaran. The same is true regarding the signs of the zodiac, for example Virgo (Fig. XIII-1–3). The symbols and representations of the figures of the seasons in the Hammath Tiberias B and Sepphoris zodiacs recall Roman and Byzantine floors, whereas the seasons on the mosaic floors at Beth Alpha and Naʿaran have unique attributes and representations, underlining a distinctive Jewish style. An article by Wortzman 2008 proposes that nudity is part of the portrayal of the female body in the images at the Sepphoris, Beth Alpha, and Dura Europos synagogues though rabbinical sages had prohibited exposure of the body in public. The examples she brings are bare arms and emphasis on the breasts. At Beth Alpha she notes that the image of Virgo is depicted with bare arms; however, it is possible that the depiction of arms, either bare or dressed (see the male nude figures at Hammath Tiberias B [Fig. X-15]), is the same as the rendition used for outline and inner sections of the body

574

chapter thirteen

parts; while at Sepphoris (Fig. X-20) all body parts of the male figures as well as the female seasons (Fig. X-19) are depicted as darker outlines with lighter different colour for the inner section. It seems that it is a characteristic feature of the artist’s quirk rather than a desire to depict bareness In the Beth Alpha Binding of Isaac, although the body parts of Abraham and Isaac are only outlined while the servants arms and legs are depicted in full colour, apparently all the figures are depicted clothed (Fig. VIII-1b). The second exposed part Wortzman mentions are the breasts on Virgo and the seasons at Beth Alpha and one of the servants in the Binding of Isaac, which she thus identifies as Sarah (Fig. XIII-4). However, in the Virgo image it seems clearly part of an elaborate jewelry necklace (see below) and thus the other two depictions are probably also illustrations of jewelry. Wortzman also proposes that the two decorated circles in the area of the chests of all the Beth Alpha seasons—spring, summer, autumn, and winter—indicate breasts (Fig. XIII-8). Yet that is unfeasible: first, their location is on the margin of the shoulders, not on the breast; second, why would the artist design winter with two series of breasts; third, these are obviously some sort of ornamented brooches or clasps (see below). Thus, the evidence that Wortzman presented in support of the Beth Alpha and Sepphoris synagogue mosaic pavements containing images of women with exposed body parts is not proven and her conclusion “that segments of the Jewish society held different views” and that they rendered images “against which the Talmudic sages legislated and deemed licentious” is not valid. 1.3 The Jewelry and Attire of Female Figures Lists of jewelry and attire appear in several Jewish sources, the most important being the list of jewelry in Is. 3:18–23: The list of finery, a declaration of judgment against the women of Jerusalem, mentions the more usual jewelry: “. . . the anklets, the fillets, and the crescents; the eardrops, the bracelets, and the veils; the turbans, the armlets, and the sashes; of the talismans and the amulets; the signet rings and the nose rings; of the festive robes, the mantles and the shawls; the purses, the lace gowns, and the linen vests; and the kerchief and the capes.” The list in JT, Shabbat 6, 8b, is based on the biblical list but the terminology is translated into the common Greek and Aramaic terms of the time. A very basic list appears in the Mishna, Kelim 11,8 which mentions only necklaces, noserings and rings (Grossmark 1994:9–10). Attire, jewelry and headgear are an important part of the depiction of the seasons in synagogues (and in churches and mansions also) and apparently these elements were as significant as the attributes which accompany each season. The attire and jewelry were quite similar within each group of seasons though variations occur. The description of the jewelry adorning the figures on the synagogue mosaics is discussed in part in the excavators’ accounts of the finds at Beth Alpha (Sukenik 1932:37–40), Hammath Tiberias B (Dothan 1983:43–44, 46), Huseifa (Avi-Yonah 1934:126) and Sepphoris (Weiss 2005:123–135). 1.4 Head Ornamentation 1.4.1 Hair The black hair of Virgo at Hammat Tiberias B, parted in the center, is held in place by a broad red ribbon. At Hammath Tiberias B each season has a different hair style: Spring-Nisan’s black hair is parted in the middle and combed low over her forehead with one lock curling above her ear. Her loose wavy locks are fastened behind, falling down the back of her neck and her shoulders. Summer– Tammuz has wavy hair, parted in the middle and covering the back of her neck and her shoulders like Spring’s hair (Fig. XIII-6).



women

a

575

b

Figure XIII-10: a. Cap, Sepphoris; b. Cap, Huseifa.

At Sepphoris, Spring and Autumn have quite similar hair. Spring has wavy hair combed to the sides, tied in a loop and gathered on top, where it is fastened by a clasp. Summer’s hair is braided and gathered in a bun. Autumn has wavy hair combed to the sides, gathered on the top and clasped by a clip while Winter head in completely covered by a cap (Fig. XIII-7). The seasons at Beth Alpha all have similar hair, with the wavy locks that are characteristic of all the human figures rendered on the zodiac there (Fig. XIII-8) and also in the biblical scene of the Binding of Isaac (Fig. VIII-1b). 1.4.2 Cap A large dome-shaped cap with a button on top is worn by Summer in the Sepphoris mosaic (Fig. XIII11a). The season of Summer at Petra has a similar hat (Waliszewski 2001:255–6). The only surviving Autumn, at Huseifa, wears some sort of a cap or crown of alternating stripes on her head (Fig. XIII-11b). 1.4.3 Tiaras or Nets Two seasons at Beth Alpha, Summer and Autumn, seem to be wearing some sort of ornamented net or tiara on top of their heads. Summer’s tiara has a round emerald pendant at its centre while Winter has something added in the lower part of the hair and the colour is also different (Fig. XIII-8). 1.4.4 Wreaths Three of the seasons at Hammath Tiberias B are crowned with a wreath or garland: Spring-Nisan is crowned with a wreath containing two large six-petaled flowers at each end; Summer-Tammuz is crowned with a garland made of a branch with seven leaves and berries. Autumn-Tishrei is crowned with a rich garland consisting of pomegranates, figs and leaves (Fig. XIII-6). A wreath with four roses is placed beneath the hair of Spring-Nisan at Sepphoris (Fig. XIII-7a). Similar wreaths and garlands crown the four winged seasons in the mosaic of Zliten and two winged seasons (Summer and Autumn) on the mosaics of St. Christoph’s church at Qabr Hiram. Spring on the Caesarea mosaic is crowned with a wreath of flowers, wears a sleeveless blue and green

576

chapter thirteen

garment with yellow fibulae attached at both shoulders, and has white earrings. At Petra the curled hair of Spring is crowned with a wreath of flowers fixed by a brown ring (Hachlili 2009:184–191, Fig. VIII-5, 7, Pl. VIII.2). 1.4.5 Earrings Virgo at Beth Alpha wears long string bangles ending with a round pendant (Fig. XIII-3). All four seasons (Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter) at Beth Alpha wear long bead earrings ending with a round coloured bead (Fig. XIII-8). The earrings which adorn both ears of the three seasons of Summer, Autumn and Winter at Hammat Tiberias B (Fig. XIII-6) are made of a round yellow/golden hoop from which is suspended a drop-like pendant (formed from white tesserae) (Grossmark 1994:29). A tiny earring adorns the left ear of both Spring and Autumn at Sepphoris (Fig. XIII-7a, c). 1.5 Neck Ornamentation 1.5.1 Necklaces, Chains, Collars Virgo at Beth Alpha wears an unusual necklace showing a blue triangle with a round red dot and two bangles hanging from it (Fig. XIII-3). A similar but less elaborate necklace is rendered on the second figure of the servant in the design of the Beth Alpha Binding of Isaac and also on the figure of Winter (Fig. XIII-4) (see above, Wortzman’s proposal [2008] that it renders breasts). Collars and an elaborate emerald necklace with three or four triangular hanging pendants adorn the necks of all four seasons at Beth Alpha (Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter) (Fig. XIII-8). The necklaces of Spring and Winter consist of one row of beads with the larger beads at the centre. Multi-coloured necklaces of simple beads threaded on a string, each tessare probably representing a bead, ornament the seasons of Spring, Summer and Autumn at Hammath Tiberias B (Fig. XIII-6) (Grossmark 1994:36, 43). The season at Huseifa bears a green glass necklace (Fig. XIII-9). 1.5.2 Brooches/Pendants Pairs of round elaborately decorated brooches with stone insets fasten both shoulders on all four seasons at Beth Alpha. The Summer-Tammuz pair of clasps is much larger but only depicted as half a clasp (Fig. XIII-8). 1.5.3 Bracelet The bracelet is an arm jewel usually considered to be used by women (Grossmark 1994:46–47). VirgoBetulah at Hammat Tiberias B is a standing woman with a bracelet on her right arm (Fig. XIII-1). Wide multi-coloured bracelets adorn both arms of Virgo at Beth Alpha (Fig. XIII-2). The Spring-Nisan and Autumn-Tishrei seasons at Hammath Tiberias B each wear a bracelet on their wrists (Fig. X-14). 1.5.4 Clasps At Hammat Tiberias B a round white clasp outlined in black is fastened to the left shoulder of a sleeveless green peplos of Spring-Nisan, while Summer-Tammuz’s light-coloured tunic is fastened at the right shoulder by a round yellow-white clasp with a green center. A white and pale blue circular clasp fastens the tunic at each shoulder of the Autumn-Tishrei season (Fig. XIII-6). At Hammat Tiberias B a circular clasp fastens Helios’s purple cloak on his right shoulder (Fig. VII-23a).



women

a

577

b

Figure XIII-11. A cloak (pallium) or veil completely covering the head of Winter (Tevet): a. Hammath Tiberias B; b. Sepphoris.

1.6 Attire 1.6.1 Tunic, Peplos The Virgo-Betulah at Hammat Tiberias B is wearing a long-sleeved red tunic with vertical black stripes. Draped over the tunic is a white veil (pallium) adorned with two black bands and edged in black, which covers the back of her head from the left shoulder to the tunic’s hem (Fig. XIII-1). The Beth Alpha Virgo wears an ornamented garment with circles and lines and with a dotted strip on the lower hem; she is shod with red shoes (Fig. XIII-3). The seasons at Hammath Tiberias B usually wear a peplos and tunic (Fig. XIII-6; Dothan 1983:43– 44). Spring-Nisan “wears a sleeveless green peplos with black edges, fastened at her left shoulder by a round clasp.” Summer-Tammuz wears “a light-coloured with a boat-shaped neckline bordered with black triangles; her tunic is fastened on the right side by a round clasp.” Autumn-Tishrei is “draped with a white tunic and a pale blue circular clasp is fastening the tunic at each shoulder, the outlines and the folds below the neck are indicates in black.” Winter-Tevet is wearing “a black mantle (pallium) covering all but a few strands of hair, but the part overhead is in white and light blue.” Similar colours appear on the drapery covering her breast and shoulders. The Sepphoris Spring-Nisan and Autumn-Tishrei seasons wear sleeveless tunics with deep folds forming semicircular lines. Winter-Tevet at Sepphoris wears a grey cloak (pallium) or veil which completely covers her body and head (Fig. XIII-12b). The Hammath Tiberias B Winter figure is covered with a similar cloak (Fig. XIII-12a). The personification of Winter on the synagogue floors continues a Graeco-Roman tradition of a draped female bust, a veil covering her head, often holding a jug; similar renditions appear on the ElMaqerqesh mosaic, on the mosaic at Deir es-Sleib and on the mosaic in Qabr Hiram church (Hachlili 2009:Figs. VIII-6, 7, Pls. III-11, VIII-2). 1.6.2 Shoes In Beth Alpha the figure of Virgo is shown wearing red shoes, representing royalty (Fig. XIII-3). Other human figures at Beth Alpha wear shoes except for Libra, who wears a boot on his only depicted leg (Fig. X-22). At Sepphoris the youth on the left in the Binding of Isaac is wearing shoes, all the youths accompanying the zodiac signs are rendered barefoot except for the youth next to the sign of Cancer, who wears black shoes (Fig. X-20). The Beth Alpha Virgo and seasons are the most richly jeweled. Hammath Tiberias has ornate wreaths and some jewelry, while at Sepphoris the seasons are adorned with some ornate hairgear but no jewelry except tiny earrings. It is apparent from the rendering of the jewelry on the synagogue mosaics that women wore jewelry, and sometimes quite a lot of it (see the Beth Alpha seasons, Fig. XIII-8). It seems that jewelry wearing was common by Jewish women. Since no Halakhic principles concerning jewelry have been

578

chapter thirteen

found, Jewish religious law apparently did not oppose its use for decoration. The jewelry maker (Jewish or non-Jewish) produced work for all, using the same materials, means of production, and possibly copied the fashion of the time. The jewelry repertoire, design and many of the features were influenced by Roman and Byzantine art. 2. Women’s Status in the Ancient Synagogue An interesting and unique image, together with a Hebrew inscription apparently related to women, was discovered recently in a part of the Huqoq synagogue mosaic (4th–5th c. CE) (Magness and Amit 2012; Magness 2013a; Britt 2013; Amit 2013). On the northwest corner of the square (on the right) the mosaic shows three medallions in a line: in the central medallion a Hebrew inscription is flanked by two female faces each depicted within a full round grey medallion (Fig. XIII-13) (but see Britt [2013] who interprets it as gray nimbi surrounding their heads): the intact female face in the medallion on the right is rendered with wavy red hair and a white earring in her left ear. The small damaged fragmented female head in the left medallion has her hair pulled up in a top-knot in black band and she wears a tiara with three green glass stones in the centre. Floral motifs in red surround all the medallions. Britt (2013) maintains that the figures might be either seasons’ personification or preferably donors’ portraits indicated by their location flanking the inscription. However, until now no donors’ portraits were found on any synagogue mosaics, though they appear on church mosaics (Hachlili 2009:238–239, Pl. XI.3), such as lady donors depicted on two panels of the border mosaic of the 6th c. upper Chapel of the Priest John, at Mount Nebo (Piccirillo 1993:174, Pl. 217). The Hebrew dedicatory inscription consists of six white lines within a black medallion, is flanked by two medallions enclosing women heads (Fig. XIII-13) and seems to refer to rewards for those who perform good deeds (Amit 2013).

Figure XIII-12. Huqoq mosaic, fragment on northwest corner.



women

579

2.1 Women in the Synagogue Women frequently attended the synagogue and were present during worship. According to rabbinic traditions and various literary sources from the 2nd c. CE, their presence in the synagogue was acknowledged and accepted, with no distinctions in seating for males and females (Levine 2000:472–74). The main questions and issues concerning women in the synagogue are (Hachlili 1998:23–24): (1) What was the position of women in Jewish society? was the woman’s place only considered to be domestic? (2) Did women participate in synagogue worship? (3) Where did they take part? Was it in a special section of the building? Separately from men? (4) Did women have functions, tasks, or any official titles indicating that they took part or held office in the management or leadership of the synagogue? The position of women in ancient synagogues is attested by inscriptions, as well as rabbinical and literary sources, that indicate female participation in synagogue services. Brooten (1982:149) claims that female office-holders were considered equal to the male officials. Trebilco (1991:104–126) shows that some Jewish communities in Asia Minor gave an unusually prominent position to women. Rajak and Noy (1993:87) maintain that “the contribution of women, just as that of men, must be envisaged as paternal and perhaps ceremonial rather than religious.” Women appear in numerous Diaspora inscriptions as donors, title-holders, office-holders and benefactors, and may have been wealthy in their own right. Inscriptions were found commemorating women who donated by themselves or with their husbands, or who are commemorated by a donation on their behalf. Many of these inscriptions were discovered in Diaspora synagogues, for example at Delos, Apamea, Hammam-Lif and Sardis (Brooten 1982:141–144; appendix nos. 7–15, 30–34, 39–40, 22, 25–27; Hachlili 1998:84–85). 2.2 Did Women Participate in a Special Section of the Synagogue Building, Separately from Men? Much effort has been invested in the attempt to answer the provocative question of where women prayed in ancient synagogues, and many answers exist. One group of scholars insist on the separation between men and women in the synagogue, others maintain that no separation existed. Women occasionally showed great interest in what went on in the synagogue. They might have prayed in separate rooms, or stood outside, or, for the most part, might not have attended synagogue at all (Goodenough 1953, I:210, 226, 228; II:74; 1964, IX:32). A women’s section was either located in a gallery, or was separated from the men’s section by a lattice or other barrier (Krauss:356–7; Jeremias:374). Mattila (1996:282–83) concludes that “the vast majority of women in the ancient synagogue did not sit in a seat of honor . . . they probably sat separately from the men.” Segregated seating arrangments were characteristic of other Greco-Roman cultures as well. It was customary for women in the synagogue to be part of the assembly but as a separate group, probably seated in galleries, or in the same room with men but beside or behind them and with or without a barrier or a space between the two groups (Horbury 1999:387). It is suggested that women prayed in a side room at the Diaspora synagogues of Aegina, Delos and Ham­mam-Lif. At Delos, for example, a division between rooms A and B and room C has been suggested. But, the precise function of these rooms has not been proven, nor is there any reason to designate them specifically for women (Brooten 1982:137). Women were allowed in the assembly hall

580

chapter thirteen

with the men, but were confined to a separate section. In the later synagogue of Dura Europos the women worshipped with the men, but were assigned to separate benches (Kraeling 1979:16, 23–24, but see Brooten 1982:129). Kraeling suggests that a ‘portable and makeshift’ partition may have separated the men and the women. Other researchers propose that no separation for women existed in the synagogue structure, for a number of reasons: No rabbinical sources indicate a separate section for women. There was no separation of men and women in synagogue worship. This seems to be the only correct conclusion, based on evidence available from archaeology, rabbinical sources and literature. Synagogue galleries were not in use as a separate women’s section (S. Safrai 1963; Brooten 1982:137; 2000:223; Z. Safrai 1989:78–9; Levine 2000:473–4, 477, 489). There is also no hierarchical seating in the synagogue, except perhaps for the synagogue elder, who had a special seat (see the seat at the Dura Europos and ʿEn Gedi synagogues, Fig. IV-43 on the right). Scholars generally suggest that the gallery served as the women’s section, which implies that segregation existed between men and women in the synagogue (Sukenik 1934:48; Avi-Yonah 1961:164; Goodenough I, 1953:182). At Hammath Tiberias B, Dothan (1981:65; 1983:24, plan C) asserts that the eastern aisle of the early synagogue (at level IIb) may have been intended for female worshippers, with a temporary partition being placed between the columns during prayers. Shmuel Safrai (1963; 1976:939), followed by Z. Safrai (1989:78–9), objects to the view that there was a separate section for women, stating that he finds no indication of segregation in Talmudic literature, and maintains that women probably gathered along the walls or sat on the back benches; furthermore, he states that as there is no reason to allocate them to the balcony, the gallery must have served other purposes. That women worshipped together with the men seems to be the only conclusion that can be drawn from the inscriptions and the archaeological and literary evidence. In any case the contrary opinion, that women worshipped in a gallery or in a separate section of the hall, has not been proven (Hachlili 1998:24). 2.3 Women in Office A debate arises regarding the issue of whether women had particular functions or tasks, or held official titles, any of which would indicate that they played a role in the management or leadership of the synagogue. Women participated in the administration of the synagogue and made donations for building and decorating synagogues. They also took part in certain synagogue rituals and in community events (H. Safrai 1992). Women apparently did not play a role in such synagogue rituals and ceremonies as reading the Torah or leading the prayers, and they were not involved in the liturgical aspects (Horbury 1999:375– 383; Levine 2000:478–9, 490). Women bearing titles such as archisynagogos, leader, elder, principal person, mother of the synagogue, priestess, and possibly president are found in Diaspora inscriptions from the 2nd–6th c. CE (Brooten 1982:5–99, 149–151; 2000). Horbury (1999:388–401) contends that women’s teaching activities and authority were restricted to the women’s section of the community, but still, the synagogue played an important part in their life. Horbury argues that “Women office-holders in the synagogues would then have been primarily benefactresses . . . their titles would mean that they supported the synagogue with their wealth.” Other scholars maintain that these titles were mainly honorific. Though they were probably exceptional, these titles suggest that women were functionally parallel to the men who bore such titles (Brooten 2000:223). Based on present knowledge, it seems that in the



women

581

synagogues of the Land of Israel (in contrast to those of the Diaspora), women did not hold titles or office in the synagogue or the community. 2.4 Women Donors The data on women as donors is based entirely on a few inscriptions. In synagogues in the Land of Israel, donations by families including a woman or by a woman alone are limited to gifts for buildings, mosaic panels, chancel screens, columns and so forth. In the Diaspora, on the other hand, quite a number of women donors are recorded on inscriptions (Brooten 1982:157–165; Levine 2000:479–481). Examples of the former include two Hammath Gader Aramaic inscriptions: (1) where an extended family, including the mother, gave five golden dinars; (2) a donation by a Leontis and his wife Kalnik as well as an unnamed virtuous woman who gave one dinar to the synagogue; two examples appear on the mosaic of Naʿaran: (1) Rivka, wife of Pinhas; (2) Halifo, daughter of Rabi Safra (Naveh 1978:nos. 32, 34, 59, 60). On one Aramaic inscription on the mosaic of the Sepphoris synagogue, a woman benefactor appears with her father (Weiss 2005:inscriptions 3). Some female benefactors with Greek names and/or titles are mentioned: Matrona, Ματρώνας (perhaps a title) which appears on inscriptions on columns at Ashqelon and Casearea; another tile, κυρά, indicates respect and honor. The Roman name Domna appears on a chancel screen at Ashqelon and might perhaps be a title meaning ruler or director (Roth-Gerson 1987:24, 187–8, nos. 2, 3, 28). The Aramaic and Greek inscriptions indicate the role of women in the community and the synagogue, they apparently did hold certain positions, and were also able to make donations, either with their families or independently.

Chapter Fourteen

Dating The dating of the synagogues in the Land of Israel is one of the most deliberated topics among scholars. Excavations and their ensuing data such as inscriptions, pottery, coins, architecture, and art, facilitate the determination of synagogues’ dating, as do historical considerations. 1. Synagogues Dated by Inscriptions The most reliable evidence for dating synagogues is provided by inscriptions, which supply accurate dates for the construction or restoration of synagogue buildings. However, few inscriptions with accurate dates have been found in this context: (1) A Greek dedicatory inscription, discovered in the mosaic pavement of the southernmost aisle of the Gaza synagogue within a medallion flanked by a pair of peacocks (Fig. XIV-1), refers to the year 569 of the era of Gaza, that is, 508/9 CE (Avi-Yonah 1966; Roth-Gerson 1987:no. 21). (2) At Beth Alpha there are two inscriptions, one in Aramaic and one in Greek. The Aramaic inscription, near the entrance on the mosaic floor (Fig. XIV-2), mentions the reign of the emperor Justinian, probably Justinian I (518–527 CE) as the period the mosaic was laid down, and includes the donations and a blessing for the donors (Sukenik 1932:43–47; Naveh 1978:72–73). The names of the artists who created this mosaic, Marianos and his son Hanina, appear on the Greek inscription (Fig. X-6a); these are the same artists who, according to a Greek inscription at Beth Sheʾan synagogue A (Fig. X-6b), executed a room there, thus dating that room, if not the entire synagogue, to the same period.

Figure XIV-1. Greek dedicatory inscription, Gaza.

584

chapter fourteen

Figure XIV-2. Aramaic inscription, Beth Alpha.

Figure XIV-3. Hebrew inscription, Nabratein.

(3) The engraved Hebrew inscription on the Nabratein lintel flanks a menorah within a wreath (Fig. XIV-3). The excavators maintain that the lintel originated in Synagogue 2a and was later reused on the southern entrance of Synagogue 3; the lintel was then inscribed with a dedicatory inscription stating that the synagogue was built “494 years after the destruction [of the Temple],” that is, in 564 CE (Avigad 1960a:52–3; Naveh 1978:4–6; Meyers and Meyers 2009:31–2, 63, 399–401, Figs. 15, 16). (4) On one of the arch stones found at the Deir ʿAziz synagogue, the number 290 was inscribed, and Di Segni interprets it as the number of years that had elapsed since the Temple destruction. This would set the synagogue in about 359/360 CE (Ben David 2007b:53).



dating

585

Several other inscriptions have been found which furnish dates by inference: (5) A Greek inscription on fragments of a chancel screen from Ashqelon, dating to 604 CE, is suggested to have come from an as yet undiscovered synagogue (Lifshitz 1967:no. 70; Roth-Gerson 1987:no. 2). (6) The Beth Sheʾan B small synagogue should be dated to about the mid-sixth century CE, as its mosaic pavement was probably executed by the same mosaicists who worked in Room L of the Beth Sheʾan monastery, which is dated by an inscription to 567–569 CE (Fitzgerald 1939:l, 9, 16; see the discussion of the mosaicists from Beth Sheʾan, Hachlili 2009:254–264). (7) At Dabura in the Golan, a Hebrew inscription carved on a lintel (Fig. XIV-4) mentions the head of a school, Rabbi Eliezer ha-Qappar, a famous tannaitic sage who lived at the end of the second to early third centuries CE. This information offers a date for the synagogue or Beth midrash that may have been built there (Urman 1971:406–408; Naveh 1978:no. 6). (8) A damaged mosaic dedicatory inscription in Hebrew, found at the Susiya synagogue next to the main entrance, originally included a date only a part of which survived (Naveh 1978:no. 76). (9) An interesting inscription was found at Qazion (Galilee) (see Figs. S-46, 47). This inscription, carved on a lintel face, commemorates a dedication by Jews of a building in honor of Septimius Severus and his family. It is now dated to 198/9 CE, based on recent research (Harvey 2013). This building is probably not a synagogue. It appears that all the dates found in inscriptions at excavated synagogue are in the sixth century CE. There are two exceptions—the Qazion inscription from the end of the 2nd c. CE and the Deir ʿAziz inscription, likely dated to the 4th century. The coins found in many excavations also provide dates for the construction, reconstruction, and restoration of synagogues (see Chapter XII). In the Galilean synagogues, coins have determined the dates of Gush Halav (Meyers et al. 1979:45; 1981:75, 77) and of Nabratein Synagogue III in the sixth century (Meyers et al. 1982:36). At H. ʿAmudim, coins and pottery date the synagogue to the late third and early fourth centuries CE (Levine 1981:80–81). At Korazim coins of two groups were found (Meshorer 1973): (a) those dated 134–340 CE; and (b) those dated 390-early fifth century, placing the first stage of the Korazim synagogue in the second to fourth centuries, followed by a fifty year gap between 340–390 CE. Korazim is mentioned by Eusebius as being in ruins at the beginning of the fourth century (Yeivin 1973:157) (see Table XIV-2 for dating of each synagogue). The Golan synagogues of ʿEn Neshut, Kanaf, and Qasrin are dated by coins to the fifth or sixth centuries CE (Maoz 1980:24). Some levels of the synagogues at ʿEn Gedi (Barag et al. 1981:119) and Rimmon (Kloner 1984:67–69) are dated by coins.

Figure XIV-4. Hebrew inscription, Dabura.

586

chapter fourteen

Synagogues in the Land of Israel were constructed continuously during the Roman-Byzantine period. Apparently there were two peak periods of synagogue construction: during the mid- or late third and early fourth centuries, when most of the Galilean synagogues were erected; and during the sixth century, when many of the characteristic Byzantine synagogues were built. Consequently, each synagogue requires a separate examination to determine its date, based on archaeological finds, artistic style, and historical context. This is the subject of the following discussion. 2. Dating Galilean Synagogues The most animated debate among scholars concerns the date of the Galilean synagogues, and Capernaum in particular. The controversy surrounding the typology and dating of these synagogues is enlivened by the thorough scientific reports of four Upper Galilee synagogues—Gush Halav, H. Shemʿa Meiron, and Nabratein—published by the team of the Meiron Excavation Project archeologists (Meyers, Kraabel and Strange 1976; Meyers, Strange and Meyers 1981; Meyers, Meyers and Strange 1990; Meyers and Meyers 2009; 2010), and Korazim (Yeivin 2000; May 2000; May and Stark 2002). The challenges regarding the architecture and dating of the Capernaum white synagogue are related to the fact that only a fraction of the excavation report has been scientifically published and many of the essential aspects and facts still await publication. The Galilean synagogues of, H. Shemʿa, Gush Halav, Meiron Nabratein II, and H. ʿAmudim were erected in the late third century CE. Meiron was abandoned in 360 CE and H. Shemʿa was destroyed by an earthquake in 419 CE, whereas Gush Halav thrived until 551 (Meyers 1981:77). Several of the Galilean synagogues, it is asserted, were destroyed by the earthquakes of 306, 363, and 419 (Russel 1980) and were subsequently restored. Chen (1978), who, on the basis of the survey by Kohl and Watzinger (before excavations conducted in recent decades) examined the proportions and metrological properties of some Galilee synagogues, among them Barʿam, Capernaum, ed-Dikke, Korazim, Nabratein, and Umm el-ʿAmed, maintains that the planning module and techniques of these synagogues are designed according to early Byzantine practices and thus none of them could have preceded the reign of Constantine the Great. I prefer to rely on the work of the excavators who were present at the site, constantly checked the development of the finds and evidence, and published the results in such a way that other scholars are able to dig into their reports and interpret the finds in a new way. 2.1 Dating of the Upper Galilee Synagogues Table XIV-1. Building history and dating of Gush Halav, Meiron, Nabratein, and H. Shemʿa synagogues (Meyers, Meyers and Strange 1990:9, Table 1.2b). Date CE

Gush Halav

ca. 135–250 ca. 250–306 Synagogue, phase I ca. 284–306 Period I ca. 306–363 Synagogue, phase II ca. 306–419 Period II ca. 364–460 Synagogue, phase III Period III ca. 460–551 Synagogue, phase IV Period IV ca. 564–700

Meiron

Nabratein

H. Shemʿa

Synagogue 1, Period II Synagogue Synagogue 2a Stratum IV Period III, Phase a Synagogue Phase I, Stratum III Synagogue 2b Period III, Phase b Synagogue Phase I, Stratum III

Period Middle Roman Middle to Late Roman Late Roman Byzantine 1 Byzantine 2a

Synagogue 3 Period IV

Byzantine– Early Arab



dating

587

Table XIV-2. Nabratein. Meyers and Meyers 2009:27, chart 2 Date CE

Magness 2010 Period

Date CE

Synagogue 1 Period II ca. 135–ca. 250 Middle Roman Synagogue 2a Period III, Phase a ca. 250–306 Late Roman Synagogue 2b Period III, Phase b ca. 306–363 Late Roman ca. 360–400 or One synagogue later Phase 1, construction Synagogue 3 Period IV ca. 564–700 Byzantine early 660–700/800 Phase 2 Arab

The excavators propose the following dating for the synagogues at Nabratein (Meyers and Meyers 2009:27–67; 396–401, chart 2; 2010): • Synagogue 1 (Period II) is a broad house (Middle Roman). • Synagogue 2 (Period III) is divided into two phases: • Synagogue 2a was badly damaged and partly collapsed in the earthquake of 306 CE. • Synagogue 2b was repaired and rebuilt at once with no visible gap. Based on the numismatic and pottery data, the end of this phase came in 363 CE after the earthquake, and not as a result of the Gallus Revolt; the drought of 362/3 CE may also have contributed to the abandonment of the site and synagogue for about 150–200 years. The site was resettled in about 500 CE but not the synagogue. • Synagogue 3 (Period IV). The rededication of the synagogue in 564 CE is commemorated in the lintel inscription and the coins and ceramic data support a late 6th c. date for Synagogue 3. The coins sealed by the floor date no later than 700 CE, which indicates the end of this building. Nabratein is distinguished from the other three Upper Galilee synagogues by its use of figural sculpture and its divergent chronology. Nabratein Synagogue 3 flourished by the 6th c. and shows a varied and unique group of special issue Byzantine-Arab coins; the site was abandoned in 700 CE or slightly earlier (Bijovsky 2009:385–6, and Chart 11; Meyers and Meyers 2009:402–403). Magness (2010:Table 1) proposes different dates. On the basis of the floor levels, pottery, and coins, she claims that Nabratein had only one synagogue building, with two phases which in plan and dimensions match the excavators’ Synagogue 3: Phase 1—the building was constructed around the second half of the fourth century CE and repaired in 564, or alternatively it was first constructed in 564 and destroyed by fire; Phase 2—the upper floor was laid ca. 660–690 and the synagogue continued in use through the eighth century. However, Meyers and Meyers (2010:67) assert that Magness’s proposed chronology for Nabratein “does not fit the chronological profile of the site”, arguing that their dating is founded on the ceramic corpus, the numismatic profile, architectural fragments, and other material culture items found at the site, all dating to the Roman era or to the earlier synagogues; the Nabratein inscribed lintel, according to Meyers and Meyers (2010:73) and Avigad (1960), was spolia reused from an earlier structure and the inscription was added in Period IV with the rebuilding of Synagogue 3. They conclude (p. 74) that the evidence shows that Nabratein flourished in the Byzantine period until its abandonment at the beginning of the 8th c. CE.

588

chapter fourteen Table XIV-3. Gush Halav. Meyers, Meyers and Strange 1990:8, Table 1.2a Date CE

Maoz 1996

Magness 2001a, b Milson 2007

Period

Synagogue I Period I ca. 250–306 Middle-Late Roman Early 3rd Synagogue II Period II ca. 306–363 Late Roman

Synagogue III Period III 364–460

Netzer 1996

Byzantine 1

Synagogue IV Period IV ca. 460–551 Byzantine 2a

One synagogue first half 4th–mid 6th One synagogue second half of 5th–late 7th or 8th

The excavators’ division of the Gush Halav synagogue’s history into four phases (Meyers, Meyers and Strange 1990:8, Table 1.2a) (table above), is challenged by Netzer (1996:450–452) who maintains that the excavated synagogue of Gush Halav was erected in Period II (306–363), not Period I (250–306) and was not destroyed in the earthquake of 363 but continued to function until the mid 6th century. Netzer (1996:450–452) contends that the synagogue was erected in the first half of the 4th c. as a singular architectural unit. The only renovations in the structure were the raising of the floors in the western side room by changes in the aedicule platform and a possible repair of the east stylobate. Maoz (1996:424) claims an early 3rd c. CE date for the Gush Halav original structure. He argues that the excavators at Gush Halav and Meiron only dated the reconstruction phase and missed the ashlar synagogue’s original phase, which was destroyed and robbed during the years of the 3rd c. crisis. Magness (2001a:3–18, 37; 2001b:80–85) argues that based on coins and pottery from relevant loci, the original synagogue building at Gush Halav was erected no earlier than the second half of the 5th c. and continued without reconstructions or major destructions, including earthquakes, until it was abandoned in the late 7th or 8th CE. This dating is supported by the dates of the hoard coins. Milson (2007:42–45) claims that the four phases of the Gush Halav synagogue as suggested by the excavators are not clearly attested, nor is the evidence for the earthquake of 306 CE assured; the two plaster layers in the hall, the pottery from below the floor, and the finds from the bedding provide the original phase of the synagogue with a terminus post quem in the late 4th century CE, not the second half of the 3rd. He further argues that the prayer hall was probably constructed in the 5th century, had one main phase, and continued in use until the late 7th or early 8th centuries CE. Strange (2001) presents more evidence for the existence of Synagogue I, in the form of the reused cut members destroyed by an earthquake and found beneath the floor. Meyers (2001:62) defends his Gush Halav dates: “founding was in the late 3rd c., a major renovation in the 4th, and a collapse by earthquake in 551.” The excavators conclude that the H. Shemʿa synagogue had two phases, with some changes in the structure’s architecture (Meyers et al. 1976; Meyers and Meyers and Strange 1990:9, Table 1.2b). In both phases—Synagogues I and II—a fragment of a stone base with columns and capitals was found on the southern Jerusalem-oriented wall. For phase II, the excavators propose a wooden aedicula on the stone base of phase I (Meyers 1976:49, 72–73, Figs. 3.9, 3.11). Netzer (1996:453–455, Figs. 1–5) claims that the synagogue of H. Shemʿa was only one structure, erected at the end of the 3rd century CE or the beginning of the 4th (the excavator’s Phase II) with



dating

589

Table XIV-4. H. Shemʿa. Meyers et al. 1976

Netzer 1996 Date CE

Magness 2010

Period

Synagogue phase I

Stratum III ca. 284–306 Middle to Late One synagogue Roman + sub-stages End of 3rd or early 4th Synagogue phase II Stratum IV ca. 306–419 Late Roman One synagogue Byzantine 1 Late 4th or early 5th abandoned in 8th

sub-stages such as the addition of the bema, and was destroyed by an earthquake. A bench was built along all the walls when the synagogue was erected, while the stone platform for a wooden aedicula was a later addition. He holds that at both H. Shemʿa and Gush Halav, some of the architectural parts were spolia from earlier structures. Magness (1997, 2001b:85–86) argues, based on one (two?) coins, that the H. Shemʿa Synagogue II construction date was no earlier than the late 4th or early 5th c. CE; she suggests that “differences between the two synagogues, such as the addition of the bema . . . may reflect constructional or occupational phases in the lifetime of the Synagogue II structure.” The smashed architectural fragments found incorporated into Synagogue II could have derived from an earlier synagogue, but Magness suggests that they could have come from more than one building and that there is no evidence linking them to the earthquake destruction of 306; according to her, the building might have been abandoned during the 5th c, when there was a decline in occupation. She also remarks that evidence suggests that during the second half of the 5th c, the population included Christians. The synagogue was already abandoned when it collapsed in an 8th c. earthquake. Strange (2001:76–78) remarks rightly that there is a debate as to whether Synagogues I and II should be considered two separate Strata or one Stratum with a rebuild. Further, he describes the fills beneath the floors, which contained Middle and Late Roman pottery and earlier finds but no 4th c. coins, and therefore concludes that the 306 CE earthquake most likely destroyed H. Shemʿa Synagogue I. The pottery and coins found within the later synagogue (II) date it to about 406 CE and the excavators dated its destruction to the earthquake of 419 CE. Magness (2001b:80, n. 4) agrees that the H. Shemʿa and Gush Halav synagogues were destroyed by an earthquake, but proposes a different chronology based on almost the same scant evidence. Magness’s proposals are not convincing: her identification of an ‘occupational phase’ at H. Shemʿa as an earlier phase is only a semantic distinction from what the excavators preferred to recognize as Synagogue I. Also, her proof for a late earthquake at Gush Halav is not more reliable that the excavators’ for earlier ones. 2.2 Other Galilean Synagogues The Arbel synagogue had two phases. Phase I is dated to the 4th c., Phase II to the 6th to mid-8th c. CE. The Barʿam upper synagogue was recently excavated: Aviam (2001:165–166; 2007:37) dates this upper synagogue building, based on the coins and ceramic data, to the 5th–6th centuries CE. The lower Barʿam synagogue is dated to the second half of the 4th century CE (Aviam 2001:168–9; 2004:159–161; 2007:33–4, Fig. 1). The synagogue at Meiron (Stratum IV) is apparently one of the earliest synagogues, having been dated to the 3rd–4th c. CE (ca. 250–365, Middle to Late Roman periods) by the excavators (Table XIV-1;

590

chapter fourteen

Fig. III-31,4). The excavators conjecture an aedicula on the west side of the main entrance (Meyers et al. 1981:12, Fig. 2.5; Meyers, Meyers and Strange 1990:9, Table 1.2b). 2.2.1 Capernaum It is difficult to evaluate the Capernaum building chronology for two main reasons: first, only a small part of the excavated coins and ceramic finds has been published; second, the exact provenance of most of the finds is not provided by the excavation reports published to date (also Magness 2001a:21– 22). Thus the controversy on the date of Capernaum continues unresolved for now. The controversy is generally based on the existence of two main different criteria for the dating of the white limestone synagogue: (1) The ‘traditional dating’, the earlier dates supported by some scholars (Avi-Yonah 1961; 1973b; 1981; Foerster 1971; 1992:315–16 which is still maintained by Tzafrir 1995b:153–156; Maoz 1996; see Milson 2007:47, n. 47) who maintain that the criterion for dating Galilean synagogues should be artistic-historical, and thus assign the construction of the Capernaum white synagogue to the 3rd c. CE; this dating is based on a comparison of the Capernaum architectural style with that of contemporary art and architecture in Syria and Asia Minor. (2) The excavators and other scholars put the date in the late 4th to 5th or even 6th c. on the basis of ceramic and coin data (Loffreda 1979; 1993; 1997; Magness 2001a).  The excavators (Corbo 1975:113–170; 1976; 1982; 1984; 1986; but see Loffreda 1997) maintain that the construction plan consisted of several stages, which included first the synagogue hall and then the entrance balcony platform and courtyard, which they dated on the evidence of the coins in the foundations and fill below the pavement (in three strata A-C) to the second part of the 4th c. The last stage of construction was the paving of the courtyard after 474 CE, the terminus ante quem for the completion of the synagogue building. Thus, according to this thesis the building was constructed over a period of 110 years (Tzafrir 1995b:152). Loffreda concludes (1997:231–2) that the construction of the Capernaum synagogue was in fact a single project completed through successive phases, and that its use as a synagogue was initiated only after all its component parts—the hall, eastern courtyard, side-room on the northwest, and south balcony—had been completed. The excavators provide dates for the construction of different parts of the synagogue. Based on the recent identification of many coins found in all parts of the synagogue building, however, the initial date proposed now for the construction of the hall does not precede the beginning of the 5th century, while the final date of the project is set in the last quarter of the 5th century (Loffreda 1997:233). It may be assumed that a prayer hall already functioned before the construction of the eastern courtyard and the entrance balcony. These conclusions diverge slightly from the excavators’ earlier dating—beginning not earlier than the second half of the 4th c. and completed at the beginning of the 5th (Loffreda 1972:25–26; 1981:52; Corbo 1975:168). Loffreda suggests that the study of the coins and the ceramics might lead to the conclusion that the Table XIV-5. Capernaum. Capernaum White Synagogue Date CE

‘traditional’ by décor style

Excavators

Second part of 3rd–early 4th c.

Second part of 4th–late 5th c.

Taylor 1993 5th c.

Magness 2001a First half of 6th c.

Runesson 2007 5th or 6th c.–abandoned in the 7th c.



dating

591

setting of the stone floor of the hall should be assigned to the final phase of the project. However, the archaeological report of the Capernaum excavation is not yet complete. Only the coins of Trench 12 and some of the ceramic finds have been published. At the excavation of the Capernaum synagogue a ‘basalt stone wall’ and a first-century stone pavement were found in the central nave. Corbo contends that both elements belong to the first-century synagogue, while Loffreda (1993:49; 1997:239) suggests “that the ‘basalt stone wall’ constitutes an intermediate stage between the first-century synagogue and the white synagogue of the late fourth century A.D.” 2.2.1.1 The Phenomenon of the Capernaum Coins and Trench XII Arslan (1997) reports 20,323 coins found sealed under the pavement in a small area of the northeast corner of the Capernaum synagogue courtyard, of which 3,058 specimens, corresponding to 15% of the total, were chosen at random and only the 1,925 legible ones were analyzed. The result shows that “the coins have been issued from II-I centuries B.C., until a little after 476 (the second reign of Zeno. The examination was concentrated on those coins with mint indications (557 = 18.21% of the coins examined) with an attempt to determine the ways and times of flow of supply of the small coins in the area—above-all during the IVth and Vth centuries.” This means they were probably assembled over a long period of time, about 600 years, and apparently constituted a dump. The fact that only about 2/3 of the selected coins (the only group published scientifically) are identified is problematic. The result of the coins from Trench XII should be used only to date the corner of the courtyard, not the synagogue. According to the excavators’ report, the coins from Trench XII were embedded in the mortar layer underlying the stone pavement, spread out in Stratum C between the upper layer and the slabs of the floor, or between the first and second layers of mortar (Corbo 1972:231, Fig. 22; Loffreda 1973:1; 1997:227). It is possible to assume that the flagstones located between the two courtyard entrances became worn with time; they were then removed and the coins were dumped in the corner. The stones were replaced and some of the coins were caught in the mortar used to tighten those stones; within a short time, no difference would have been seen between the old and new stones. Avi-Yonah (1973:44) argues that the statements of the excavators are still relevant: (1) He suggests that the basalt pavement in Trench 2 and the wall in Trench 6 belong not to a private house but to the remains of an earlier public building (a synagogue?). (2) He objects to the term ‘hermetic’ and the explanation that the fill (Stratum B) could have been spread throughout the building and that the layer of mortar (Stratum C) was placed over it and sealed it. (3) There may be other interpretations for the numismatic evidence. Russell (1980:56–57), followed by other scholars, included Capernaum among the sites with unrecognized destruction by the earthquake of 363, but he reached a conclusion opposed to that of the traditionalists, He accepts “the late chronology proposed for the synagogue of Capernaum, but would suggest that its construction occurred after the site suffered damage during the earthquake of 363.” On the basis of the surviving Corinthian capitals at the Capernaum synagogue, Bloedhorn (1989:51– 52) concludes that two groups of capitals (Figs. 1, 2) found in the synagogue date to the second half of the 3rd c. and he connects them to the basalt foundations of an early 3rd c. structure; he also maintains that after the 363 CE earthquake, some architectural and ornamental elements were reused in the newly reconstructed late 4th c. synagogue that was erected on the earlier foundations. The four capitals (Figs. 3–6), including the capital decorated with a menorah found in the side courtyard complex, are dated to the 5th c. CE. The courtyard was added at this time. Fisher (1986) divides the

592

chapter fourteen

Capernaum capitals into four groups and dates the Corinthian capitals there to the last quarter of the 3rd c. CE. Scholars still insist that the decorations at Capernaum belong to the 3rd to early 4th c. CE artistic setting rather than to a later period (Tzafrir 1995:152–157). Tzafrir suggests also that the coins might have created a wrong impression; however, the numismatic data does indicate that 5th century coins were present in the fill of the Capernaum hall as well as in the eastern courtyard and the balcony, all found in clear stratigraphic contexts (Loffreda 1997:237). Tzafrir (1995:161) states that “Since Meroth is agreed to belong to the late 4th or 5th c. it seems that Capernaum is considerably earlier. This conclusion, based on stratigraphic and numismatic evidence, is now supported by comparison with Meroth . . . the formative group of the early type of Galilean synagogues was created and shaped during the 3rd and early 4th c.” The Capernaum synagogue is dated by Amir (2007:45, 48) to the second half of the 3rd c. CE, based on the ornamentation style of the workshop groups, the style of the Corinthian capitals (based on the research of Fisher and Bloedhorn), and the comparison of the architectural ornamentation with that of the 4th c. CE Korazim synagogue. This approach, which confirms an earlier date for the Capernaum décor, suggests its probable influence on the later artists of Korazim. The latest finds from Capernaum date the construction of the synagogue to the end of the fourth— early fifth centuries CE (Corbo 1972; 1975:113–169; Loffreda 1973; 1981; 1993; 1997) on the basis of pottery and coins found in the fill under the pavement. Chen (1990:350–51) verifies the later date of the synagogues at Capernaum and others by metrological and mathematical calculations, but his moduli are not really convincing. Capernaum was a Jewish town in the Roman and early Byzantine periods according to Taylor (1993:292–293, 337–338), who maintains that the economic boom created in part by Christian pilgrims is visible in the limestone synagogue built in the 5th c. “The historical and archeological evidence clearly points to the beginning of the 4th c. CE as the time at which pilgrimage to certain Christian holy sites began and the sites themselves were developed.” Taylor claims that “in the 5th c. CE the combination of material prosperity and threat posed by Christian legislation may have been a prime reason why the Jews of Capernaum built the white synagogue . . . It should not cause skepticism that they embarked on a project to make their synagogue far outshine the Christian structure (at this stage only the little domus ecclesia).” She argues that according to the archeological evidence the Jewish authorities of Capernaum were in charge, as they “permitted the construction of a small Christian pilgrimage site,” and from the new wealth received from the Christian tourists together with contributions by the community, they erected the white limestone synagogue. The dating of the Capernaum synagogue by the excavators is based on numismatic and ceramic data, much of which is still unpublished. Magness (2001a:18–26) dates this synagogue to no earlier than the first half of the 6th c. CE. She maintains that the synagogue architectural style, though resembling 2nd and 3rd c. CE Syrian temples, was used until a much later date. She bases her arguments on a few Byzantine coins out of a collection of 2,920 coins which were disregarded by the excavators. Of the coins from Trench XII, the latest ones (3 altogether) date to Zeno’s second reign (476–491), which brought Arslan (1997:247, nos. 1911–1913) to the conclusion that the synagogue was completed shortly after 476. Magness (2001a:23–26) argues that these coins, as well as some imitation Axumite coins circulated in the late 5th and 6th c. CE, provide a terminus post quem for its construction. She further contends that the pottery found beneath the synagogue, imported wares dating mostly to the 4th–5th c. and some to the early 6th c. CE, is consistent with the coin evidence; hence, she dates the construction of the synagogue, the terminus post quem, to the early 6th c. CE.



dating

593

Runesson (2007:239, 255–57, Table 1) suggests four periods for the Capernaum synagogue: (a) Synagogue I, a basalt synagogue, found beneath the limestone synagogue II nave dated to the 1st c. CE; (b) renovation and expansion of the first basalt synagogue between the 2nd and 4th c. CE (no proof at all is presented for this speculation); (c) Synagogue II, a new synagogue of limestone, was built in the 5th c. CE using the earlier basalt synagogue walls as foundations and spolia collected from 3rd c. Galilean synagogues for its construction; (d) the final addition of the atrium/courtyard to the east. The Capernaum synagogue was abandoned in the 7th c. CE. The excavations at Capernaum prove that two synagogues were built: Synagogue I, the basalt synagogue, in the 1st c. and Synagogue II, the white limestone synagogue, dated to the end of the 4th through the 5th centuries. Despite some features shared with the older Galilean synagogues, the plan and structure of the Capernaum synagogue is nevertheless quite different, with its side courtyard, balcony, many entrances, and elaborate décor; some of these architectural parts originated in the 3rd c. and some may have been in second use in the later structure. 2.2.2 Korazim According to Yeivin (2000:30*–31*), the date of the Korazim synagogue is problematic because parts of the synagogue were erased and the excavations have not produced any chronologically significant finds. The chronological data, based on pottery and coins found in the synagogue loci and Building E, indicate that “the construction of the synagogue was initiated at the beginning of the 4th century CE, for some reason halted, renewed and completed in the second half of the 4th c., not completely in line with the original plan.” The building was repaired several times while it “continued in use until the end of the 6th CE when it was abandoned and never reused again.” The hoard of coins in Building E is proposed by Yeivin (1973:157; 2000:30*) as having been deposited c. 340 CE, in the first period of use of the synagogue. Ariel (2000:36*–37*) notes that this assemblage “provides tentative support for the date of construction of the synagogue between 308 and 340 CE . . . It seems reasonable that the coins found in and around the synagogue point to an occupation spanning the entire Byzantine period.” The Korazim architectural décor is dated by May (2000:53*–54*) on stylistic grounds: the reliefs on the inner frieze and the ‘Seat of Moses’, which are comparable to Golan synagogue décor, are dated to the 5th c. CE, whereas the outer cornices and friezes, which are close in style to the Capernaum decorations, are slightly earlier. May and Stark (2002:247–248) contend they are able to formulate a ‘stratigraphic’ sequence for the decoration: they date Workshop I (carving of the outer décor and the Torah Shrine) slightly later than the second half of the 3rd c. CE, in concert with the date for the Capernaum architectural decoration (Bloedhorn 1989:52); they suggest a 5th c. date for Workshop II (which was responsible for the inner décor) and slightly later for Masters G and H. The Korazim synagogue is dated by Amir (2007:36) to the beginning of the Byzantine period—the first half of the 4th c. CE, based on its artistic style and on the diagonal Ionian capitals chronology, for which there are comparable dated examples in south Syria. Based on the few pottery shards, one bowl, and coin analysis, Magness (2007) dates the construction of the synagogue to the late 5th century CE. Table XIV-6. Korazim. Yeivin 2000 Basalt Synagogue + repairs

Beginning of the 4th–end of 6th c. CE Abandoned

May and Stark 2002 Early 4th c. CE

Amir 2007

Magness 2007

First half of the 4th c. CE

Late 5th c. CE

594

chapter fourteen

2.2.3 Meroth The excavations at the synagogue of Meroth present several stages in the building’s history (Ilan & Damati 1987:186; 1989:58; Ilan 1989:37; 1991:41–43; Damati 2000; Magness 2001a): Table XIV-7. Meroth Ilan and Damati 1987:186 Synagogue IA Synagogue IB Synagogue II Synagogue III

Damati (2000) 400–450 450–500 End of 4th–mid-6th c. (2000:42) 500–620 Second half of 6th–mid-8th c. (2000:54) 620–1200 Mid 8th–beginning of the 13th c. (2000:70–71)

Magness (2001a:27)

Late 5th or 6th c. CE

2.3 Dating of the East Lower Galilee Synagogues 2.3.1 H. ʿAmudim The H. ʿAmudim synagogue is dated to the 3rd to early 4th c. CE, with a mosaic pavement that may have been a later addition (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:74; Levine 1982:10–11). Maoz (1996:423) contends that H. ʿAmudim with the mosaic is a later building above an earlier structure that was almost completely destroyed, probably in the 3rd c. crisis. Leibner (2009) maintains that H. ʿAmudim might have been abandoned for a period during the early Byzantine period and resettled on the southern hill during the middle Byzantine period, in the 5th c. CE; from then on the building was not utilized. The building stones were used for construction in the southern area, and it is not clear if it was by Jews. 2.3.2 Wadi Hamam The Wadi Hamam basalt synagogue with its mosaic pavement is dated to the late Roman period— end of the 3rd or beginning of the 4th century CE; the mosaic pavement might have been destroyed around the mid-4th c., perhaps by the earthquake of 363. Changes and renovations in two phases were conducted during the 4th c. The rubble and collapsed position of many architectural fragments found above floor level, the pottery of the latest phase which is typical of the 4th to early 5th c., and some coins, indicate that the synagogue’s final phase was destroyed by an earthquake around the late 4th or early 5th century CE (perhaps the 419 earthquake?); the later changes in the building represent the fading of the local congregation (Leibner 2010a:230–236). Architectural limestone fragments in second use—ornamented parts, limestone carved benches, capitals, cornices, colored plaster and stucco fragments similar to examples from the Herodian early Roman period—indicate that the basalt synagogue structure at Wadi Hamam made use of elements from an earlier monumental limestone structure probably located near the site. 2.3.3 Huqoq The synagogue was built in the late 4th c. CE (Magness 2013a). Britt (2013) compares the Huqoq mosaic to 5th–6th c. Antioch mosaics and suggests that based on stylistic qualities, the mosaic at Huqoq should be dated to the fifth and sixth centuries CE. The surviving parts of the Huqoq mosaic are so small and damaged that their style is very difficult to compare or date.



dating

595

2.3.4 Kafr Misr The Kafr Misr synagogue has three phases: • Phase I—early 3rd–4th centuries. • Phase II—early 4th–mid-5th c. • Phase III—mid-5th–early 7th c. Phase I of the synagogue was constructed in the early 3rd c. CE and lasted until the early 4th c. (Onn 1994:132–133). Based on the finds, it is likely that Phase I was destroyed as a result of the earthquake in 306 CE. Based on the mosaic pavement and finds, Phase II is dated to the early 4th or the first half of the 5th c. CE. Phase III is distinguished by the construction of an apse and the laying of a new mosaic and is dated to the mid-5th–early 7th c. CE. 2.3.5 Sepphoris The dating of the Sepphoris synagogue construction (terminus post quem) is determined by the finds in debris sealed by the mosaic floor: Phase I—5 coins (2nd–4th c. and no later than 400 CE) were found together with pottery and glass in sections in the floor’s bedding after removal of the mosaic, indicating a date in the early Byzantine period; Phase II—8 coins (the latest dated to the second half of the 4th c.) were found with pottery above the floor (Weiss and Netzer 2005:38–39). “The synagogue was founded in the early Byzantine period. The numismatic evidence from the mosaic’s bedding and the debris beneath it enable a precise dating—the early 5th CE, corroborated by the stylistic analysis of the mosaic floor. These data serve as a terminus post quem but, moreover, it seems that the synagogue was built no later than the first or second decade of the 5th century. The similarity in some features with the Nile Festival building dated to the beginning of the 5th c. reinforces this proposed date for the synagogue.” The destruction of the synagogue is known from debris above the destroyed building’s remains, which included the latest pottery, lamps, and coins from the mid-7th century and later. Thus, the terminus ante quem is the end of the Byzantine period and the building was completely destroyed in the Umayyad period. 3. Dating Golan Synagogues The dating of the settlements and synagogues in the Golan is in disagreement (see Table IV-1): Urman (1985:183–4; 1995:607–617) maintains that the Jewish settlements existed and built synagogues as early as the 2nd or 3rd c. CE, while Maoz (1995, I:340; II:5, 19) contends that the Golan synagogues were constructed during a short period from the mid-5th to early 6th c. CE (450–525 CE). In his survey, Ben David (2000, 2007b:53–58) suggests that Jewish settlements existed in the 2nd and 3rd c. but the synagogues were constructed in the mid-4th c. CE. However, he also argues that in the Roman period (2nd–3rd c.), smaller structures may have been utilized as rural synagogues, in contrast to the later monumental synagogues which were built during the economic prosperity of the Byzantine period. 3.1 Qasrin The first excavators of the Qasrin synagogue described their findings in short provisional reports, if at all. The archive of the IAA has no data on the earliest excavations, in 1971 and 1975–6, except for some basket cards and plans drawn in 1975–6.

596

chapter fourteen

Urman, who excavated Qasrin in 1971 (1984:532; 1995b:466), distinguished three stages of the synagogue based on stratigraphy, pottery, and coins although no scientific report was ever published. He dated these stages as follows: The first stage of the synagogue was built in the first half of the 3rd century and continued through to the mid 4th c. To this stage belongs Floor 1, a layer of plaster grooved to imitate stone slabs. The second stage, from the second half of the 4th to the 6th centuries, had the platform of the Torah Shrine in the center of the southern wall as well as a mosaic floor (Floor 2) that was laid on top of the plaster floor. The third stage is dated to the beginning of the 7th c., based partly on a hoard of 82 coins (598–603) discovered near the northeast corner of the Torah Shrine by M. Ben-Ari and S. Bar-Lev (Ariel 1996). To this stage belongs plaster Floor 3 laid above the mosaic one. The final destruction of the synagogue was in an earthquake in the 8th century CE. In the 12th century, the northern part of the hall was rebuilt and a small niche was constructed facing south with stones taken from the ruins of the southern part. Urman suggests, based on ceramics found on the upper floor, that this latest level was a Christian structure and that a cross was carved in the wreath on the portal lintel. However, there is no indication of such a find. Maoz (see below) claims this structure was a mosque. According to Maoz and Killebrew (1988:5–6, and note 2–4), Qasrin Synagogue A was constructed in the late 4th century CE and is dated through the early 5th, based on the pottery assemblage (comparable to the pottery at Meiron Stratum IV), though a single coin dated to 218/19 CE was found beneath the floor. Pottery of the 2nd and 3rd c. CE was found beneath the floor of synagogue A, perhaps belonging to an earlier settlement on the site. Based on the coins of Anastasius I (498–518) found below the northern bench, Maoz (1995, II:11–12) now proposes that the Qasrin synagogue was constructed at the beginning of the 6th c. CE (together with ʿAssaliyye, Qusibiyye and Yehudiyye), and belongs to the latest architectural style in the Golan. A terminus post quem for the erection of synagogue B—the early 6th c.—is based on about 120 bronze coins; Maoz (1993:1221) mentions 180 coins of which 64 were identified; the latest are nummi from Anastasius I (498–518) that were found during the 1982–4 excavations, scattered in the fill of dirt and small stones below the upper step and behind the lower step of the two-tiered benches along the north wall in synagogue B (Maoz and Killebrew 1988:18, notes 2, 5). Ariel (1996:71) contends that they should probably be dated between 491 and 498 CE. However, it is possible that the Table XIV-8. Qasrin. Maoz-Killebrew (1988:6) Date CE

Urman (1984:532; 1995b:466) Stratum

Synagogue A floor #1 Late 4th–5th c. V Synagogue B floor #2 6th–7th c. floor #3 Resettlement of village Mosque Syrian village

IVA IVB

Mid-8th c.

III

13th–15th centuries Late 19–20th centuries

II I

Date CE Synagogue I

First half of the 3rd century– mid 4th c. Synagogue II floor #2 Second half of 4th–6th c. aedicula Synagogue III floor #3 7th–8th c.

Christian structure

floor #1

12th c.



dating

597

coins were scattered during repairs and so do not necessarily reflect a construction date, only a renovations date. Ariel suggests further that the most probable historical setting for the deposition of the hoard of 82 coins dated 598–603 (found in Urman’s third stage) was the Persian conquest of Syria and Palestine between 611 and 614. It seems that the construction of Synagogue I should be dated to approximately the same time as the earliest excavated houses in the Qasrin village (i.e. late 3rd to mid-4th centuries CE (Killebrew 1993:1223) due to the similar ceramic and numismatic evidence found under their floors. Synagogue II, a reconstructed and expanded version of the original synagogue has been dated to the late 5th— early 6th centuries CE, based on numerous coins found behind the stone benches along the northern wall. The final renovation of Synagogue II is dated to the early seventh century CE by a coin hoard found underneath Floor 3. Based mainly on the evidence from the village excavations, the synagogue went out of use in the mid-eighth century, perhaps due in part to the well-documented earthquake of 746/47. The most recent excavations at the Qasrin site were conducted by Zingboym (2009), who found remains of two buildings along its southwestern fringes. The pottery, glass objects, and coins found at the area date the erection of the buildings to the later part of the third century CE, and they continued to be in use until the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth centuries CE. 3.2 Dabiyye The construction date for the single synagogue phase—the late 5th or early 6th century CE—is based on architectural, coin, and ceramic evidence, though no numismatic or ceramic finds could be attributed with certainty to the synagogue occupation phase (Maoz 1991; Ariel 1991; Killebrew 1991). 3.3 Deir ʿAziz The earlier synagogue at Deir ʿAziz is dated to the second half of the 4th century CE (about 359/360), based on remains such as architectural fragments, ceramic tiles, colored plaster, and a Greek inscription. The later synagogue structure is dated to the second quarter of the 6th century or earlier, in the beginning of the reign of Justinian (527–565 CE), on the evidence of architectural fragments and coins found beneath the pavement (Ben David and Maʿoz 2004:62; Ben David 2007b:52–53; 2007c:48–49). 3.4 ʿEn Nashut The ʿEn Nashut synagogue revealed three strata and four living periods (Maoz 2010:18): I II IIa III

robbery of stones from the synagogue ruin. 5th c. CE, the construction of the synagogue. 6th c. CE, alteration to the synagogue. 4th c. CE, remains of walls antedating the synagogue.

The construction of the ʿEn Nashut synagogue is dated to around 475 CE, based on 191 coins (115 identified) found under the paving in front of the main entrance of the synagogue that were possibly buried there during the construction—a tradition noted also at the Golan synagogues of Dabiyye, Kanaf, and Qasrin (Maoz 1993:412). Ariel (1987:147–148) contends that the ʿEn Nashut numismatic evidence, including the threshold foundation deposit (L 109), points to a construction date around the mid-5th century CE. The building lived on until the late 6th c. CE.

598

chapter fourteen 3.5 Kanaf

Synagogue I at H. Kanaf (Stratum IIIA) was constructed in the Middle Byzantine period (beginning of the 6th c. CE), based on the evidence of ceramics and coins found in the foundation fills. The later Synagogue II (Stratum IIIB) was a reconstruction carried out in the second half of the 6th c., following an earthquake (Maoz 1993:847, 849–50). 3.6 Umm el-Qanatir The synagogue is dated to the Byzantine period (4th–6th c.), with several renovations during the period of its existence (Ben David et al. 2006:112, 117). 4. Dating of Other Synagogues 4.1 Hammath Tiberias A The Hammath Tiberias A synagogue dating is in debate. The proposed dates appear in the table below. Slouschz 1921

Vincent 1922

Oren 1971

Stacey 2002:259

3rd–4th c. CE

4th–5th c. CE

4th–5th c. CE

10th–11th c. CE

The Hammath Tiberias B synagogue is dated by Dothan (1983:64–67) on the basis of architectural evidence, inscriptions, and finds. Stratum IIb was constructed in the first half of the 3rd c. CE, during the early days of the patriarch R. Yehudah Hanasi (230–286) and lasted until the earthquake of 306. The date of synagogue IIa was based on the excavator’s assumption that the 31 small worn coins “probably belong to the late 4th or early 5th c., thus giving a terminus post quem for the end of the synagogue of Stratum IIa.” A later date, the late 4th–early 5th c. CE, is proposed for Hammath Tiberias synagogue IIb by Dunbabin (1999:189) and Talgam (2000:100), based on the geometric designs of the mosaic carpets. The synagogue was perhaps destroyed by the earthquake of 419 or was demolished by the congregation to enable the building of the large complex of Stratum Ib. However, this conclusion is problematic, as the coins could not be identified and came from unsealed locus 52. Table XIV-9. Hammath Tiberias B. Dothan 1983, 2000 Stratum Synagogue IIb Synagogue IIa Severus Intermediate Synagogue Synagogue Ib Synagogue Ia

Stacy 2002

Date 230–306 306–419 423–mid-7th c. Early 7th–mid-8th c.

6th–7th c. Early 7th c.–749 c. 750–c. 900

Magness

Talgam

Late 5th c.

Late 4th c., based on mosaic design

Late 6th c.



dating

599

4.2 Maʿoz Hayyim The existence of three successive synagogues, dating from the 3rd to 7th c. CE, has been confirmed at Maʿoz Hayyim. Synagogue A, the earliest, was constructed at the end of the 3rd or beginning of the 4th c. Synagogue B, which replaced the earlier synagogue, was an enlarged structure with an apse and mosaic pavements and has been dated to the 5th to early 6th c. Synagogue C, which shows signs of a setback with major changes in the structure, served during the 6th and beginning of the 7th c. CE and was then abandoned (Tzaferis 1982:242–244). 4.3 South Judean Synagogues The development and chronology of the south Judean synagogues indicates that the earliest of them is Eshtemoʿa I, possibly dating to the late 2nd or early 3rd c. CE There was a second phase in the 4th c. that lasted until the 7th or 8th c. when a mosque was built in the third phase (Yeivin 2004:96*, 157). The ʿAnim synagogue is dated to the 4th to 7th centuries CE; The Maʿon synagogue had two stages: Stage I is dated to the second half of the 4th century or early 5th c. CE and Stage II to the late 5th or early 6th c., with the building continuing to function until the 7th c. CE. Magen (2008a:254– 55) maintains that the Susiya synagogue as well as those at H. ʿAnim and H. Maʿon were erected in the late 5th or early 6th c. CE, using some of the earlier ashlar stones. The broad structure type of building was replaced by the basilica type, though at Susiya, Eshtemoʿa, and ʿAnim the plan was preserved in spite of changes and renovations. The synagogue of Eshtemoʿa (with the exedra, the three niches and bemas on the northern Jerusalem oriented wall) was built in a single stage in the later Roman period during the 2nd or 3rd c. or 3rd or beginning of 4th c. CE. In the second phase there were some repairs to the floors and the stairs in front of the niches, but these might have been later, when the building was used as a mosque. Yeivin (1992, 1993) dates the construction of the Susiya synagogue at the end of the 3rd or early 4th c. claims that it lasted until the 8th or 9th c. CE. Foerster (1988) dates the Susiya mosaics to the 6th c. CE. Amit (1995:155–6; 2003:180, xxiv, xxxvi–xxxvii) dates the construction of the Susiya synagogue to the late 4th or early 5th c. and claims that the building served until the 8th c. CE. 4.4 ʿEn Gedi The synagogue at ʿEn Gedi consisted of three phases (Barag 2006): • Synagogue I (Stratum IIIB) was constructed at the end of the 2nd or early 3rd c. CE • Synagogue II (Stratum IIIA) dates to the mid-3rd–mid 5rd c. CE • Synagogue III (Stratum II) existed in the mid-5th–early 7th c. CE Table XIV-10. South Judean synagogues. Yeivin 1992, 1993, 2004:96*, 157 Synagogue ʿAnim Eshtemoʿa I II Maʿon I Maʿon II Susiya

Amit 1995, 2003

Magen 2008a

Date CE 2nd to 3rd or 3rd–early 4th c. 4th–5th to 7th–8th c. 3rd–4th to 8th–9th c.

4th to 7th c.

Late 5th–6th

Mid-4th–early 5th c. Late 5th/early 6th to 7th c. Late 4th–early 5th to 8th c.

Late 5th–6th Late 5th–6th

600

chapter fourteen 4.5 Maʿon (Nirim)

The construction of the Maʿon (Nirim) synagogue is dated to the reign of Justinian I before 538 CE, based mainly on the numismatic evidence (Rahmani 1960:18). Yogev (1987) dates the erection of the Maʿon (Nirim) synagogue in the second half of the 5th and no later than the beginning of the 6th c. The new mosaic and the apse probably date to the mid-6th c. and the synagogue was in use until the mid-7th c. CE. 5. Discussion 5.1 Dating of the Galilean Synagogues Until recently scholars generally agreed that the first synagogues in the Land of Israel were constructed at the end of the second century CE and the beginning of the third . . . The assumption was that there was a chronological division of the synagogues into three types: the earliest type was the Galilean synagogues, built starting in the 2nd–3rd centuries CE and on; the second, transitional type consisted of broadhouse synagogues dated to the 4th–5th centuries CE; and the third and latest, Byzantine type, usually dated to the 6th century CE, had a basilica plan with an apse. Recent synagogue excavations and current research strongly challenge the above typology and chronology. The controversy focuses on most of the synagogues of the Galilean type and especially on the synagogue of Capernaum (see above). The certainty regarding the existence of synagogues in the 2nd–3rd c. CE is based on their mention in the Mishna and the Tosefta and on limited archaeological evidence. Perhaps Jewish communities, like the Christian ones of the time, worshiped in private dwellings. “It is more plausible to suppose that the synagogue was still not widespread in the 2nd–3rd c., that it was found, as earlier, only in the largest settlements” (Schwartz 2001:226–27). Scholars suggest three main approaches to the intensely debated topic of the dating, of Galilee synagogues, each yielding different conclusions and solutions (see also Amit 2007a): (1) Dating based on stylistic architectural features, even if the archaeological finds are later as a result of changes in the structure. Thus the early synagogues dated to the 3rd–4th c. are already monumental, as at H. ʿAmudim, Gush Halav, Meiron, Nabratein, H. Shemʿa. (2) Dating based on stratigraphy and finds, which are ascribed to the 5th–6th c. The stylistic architectural features (usually dated to an earlier period) might simply represent the continued use of an earlier style, as at Barʿam, Capernaum, and Gush Halav. (3) Dating based on a compromise that considers the synagogues to have been built in the Byzantine period but incorporating décor items that were spolia. In this approach, another possibility is that the older items were used in the same structure when it was rebuilt. Spolia is discernible at the synagogues of Barʿam, Capernaum, Gush Halav, H. Shemʿa, and others. 5.1.1 Considerations Raised by Each Approach 5.1.1.1 ‘Traditionalist’ Dating The older dating (termed ‘traditionalist’) is based on stylistic features of the architecture and its décor, as compared with contemporary buildings in the area; this is especially relevant in the case of the Capernaum synagogue. The Galilean synagogues characteristic of the late Roman period were dated to the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE (Kohl and Watzinger 1916; Foerster 1992; Tzafrir 1995; Maoz 1996). The excavators (Meyers et al. [1976]; Meyers, Meyers and Strange [1981a] [1990]; Meyers and Meyers [2009]) of the upper Galilee synagogues of Gush Halav, Meiron, Nabratein, and H. Shema



dating

601

corroborated the date, concluding that these synagogues were erected in the 3rd c. based on stratigraphy, architecture, coins, ceramics, historical data, and earthquake dates. Tzafrir (1995a:80) claims the Galilean synagogues are a 3rd century CE Jewish invention and that no 2nd century synagogue structures existed; he further contends that there are no connections between the 3rd century Galilean synagogues and Second Temple period structures; Groh (1995:60), however, agrees with the dating of Meyers et al. (1982) for Nabratein Synagogue I (ca. 135–250 CE), which is the first Galilean broadhouse type building and the first with a pair of aediculae on the Jerusalem-oriented wall. Maʿoz (1996) contends that the dating of the Galilean synagogues should be based on architectural and artistic style, on the historical background, and on archaeological stratigraphical considerations (which he regards as the least trustworthy). He argues that several of the Galilean synagogues were constructed as synagogues, with Barʿam as their prototype. He dates the origin of the synagogues of Barʿam, Gush Halav, H. ʿAmudim (contending that H. ʿAmudim is a later structure, built above the earlier, almost completely destroyed structure, probably in the 3rd c. crisis), Meiron and “parts” of Capernaum to the end of the 2nd or beginning of the 3rd century CE, in the days of the presidency of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who had ties with the Severan dynasty. These synagogues were destroyed during the years of the crisis (235–284); the synagogues of Gush Halav, H. ʿAmudim, and Meiron were rebuilt at a later date, and he assigns the same date for Nabratein and H. Sumaka. He suggests that Capernaum and H. Shemʿa were built in the 3rd and 5th centuries from spolia. Levine (2005:176–177) states that monumental synagogues were constructed from the mid-3rd through the 4th c. CE, with a halt in building during the 5th c. (except for Capernaum and Sepphoris) and a new wave of synagogue building around the early 6th c. He proposes further that “construction of synagogues was an attempt by the Jewish community to demonstrate its vitality and power against the backdrop of the difficult events in the late 3rd c.” Leibner (2009:399–404) opposes the late dating of the Galilean synagogues in the 5th and 6th c. (as suggested by Magness 2001, Schwartz 2001:208–212, see below), stating that the fact that the lower Galilee synagogues of Hamam and Beth Netofa predate the late 4th c. is of particular importance (he dates the initial phase of the building of the Hamam synagogue to the 3rd or early 4th c., based on his excavations). He supports the view of Meyers, Foerster, and Levine “that buildings of this style were first constructed no later than the late 3rd c.” Leibner notes that all Galilee synagogues belonging to the first wave (except for Hammath Tiberias, Korazim, and perhaps Meroth) are dated by excavators to the late 3rd c. CE. His survey data “strengthen the impression that monumental synagogues belong mainly to the period from the end of the 3rd c. onward, and that this trend continued to spread during the Byzantine period, encompassing the vast majority of the villages in the area.” Leibner further contends that his survey and the Lower Golan survey (Ben David 2005:194) provide a more satisfactory explanation. More than 30 sites were abandoned in the 3rd and 4th c. and no monumental structures were found in them. His answer is that “either there were non-monumental buildings for public gatherings (difficult to identify in a survey and even through excavation) or that there was an absence of public buildings altogether at some of the settlements of the period.” The strong Christian presence in the late 4th and 5th c. even in Galilee, and the loss of the Jewish majority, created the need to unite the community around the synagogue institution and inspired the building of monumental synagogues which underlined and intensified Jewish community life. 5.1.1.2 Stratigraphy Dating The second, and later, dating proposition for the Galilean synagogues is based on the stratigraphy and finds at the excavations, and ignores their architectural and artistic styles. At the Capernaum synagogue (Loffreda 1997), coins discovered beneath the floor indicated that the synagogue was

602

chapter fourteen

erected in the last quarter of the 5th century. Analysis of the pottery, coins, and stratigraphic finds at Capernaum, Gush Halav, and Korazim indicated to some scholars a similar later date for these synagogues—in the second half of the 5th century (Magness 2001a, and see rebuttals by Meyers 2001 and Strange 2001, who disagree with this later date; see also the response to both by Magness 2001b). A similar date (5th c.) was concluded by the excavators of the Barʿam synagogue, where many architectural decoration fragments found in second use are considered spolia, Aviam (2004:168) suggests that the Byzantine imperial laws did not permit the Jews to build new synagogues, and, in fact, in 423 CE a law was passed forbidding the rebuilding of synagogues [Codex Theodosianus XVI, 8,27] though the implementation of this law is difficult to prove), but allowing the renovation or restoration of older buildings. Other scholars (Netzer 1996; Magness 2001a; 2007; Schwartz 2001), reanalyzing the excavation reports in concert with historical considerations, date the Galilean synagogues to the 5th century; some even to the 6th. They argue that the disparity is because many of the early architectural members are spolia, taken from earlier structures and reused in these synagogues. Magness (2001a:33–35) argues for a later date for several of the Galilean synagogues based on reexamination of the excavators’ methodology and analysis of the pottery and coins. She suggests that the 5th c. Galilean style copied the earlier Syrian temples. She maintains that though the Galilean synagogues resemble Syrian temples of the 2nd and 3rd c. the style continued in use for many years, as can be seen also in 6th c. CE churches in the region. Magness (2001a:27) holds that the coins provide evidence that the synagogues were built, occupied, or restored during the 4th to early 5th c. CE. Her datings include: Gush Halav (based on ceramic evidence), constructed no earlier than the second half of the 5th c.; Capernaum, constructed no earlier than the first half of the 6th c.; and Meroth, in the late 5th or 6th c. CE. She argues further that the stylistic similarities with Golan synagogues dated to the 5th and 6th c. CE (by Maoz 1990:539) provide added grounds for this later dating and that this dating should not be ruled out strictly on the basis of the architectural and décor style. Magness (2001b:90) claims that in redating the Galilean synagogues she is not denying that synagogues existed in 2nd and 3rd century Palestine (and earlier). What she is saying is that the monumental synagogue structures with a characteristic plan and Jewish ornamentation and iconography developed only later in the 4th c. CE, perhaps in parallel with the increase in church structures, and that they coincided “with the strengthening of the priestly class in later Roman and Byzantine Palestine and may explain the Temple-oriented nature of the synagogue iconography.” Seth Schwartz (2001:205–214) suggests that the urban synagogues did differ from the rural ones: Hammath Tiberias, Sepphoris, and Beth Sheʾan each had more than one synagogue and used Greek in their inscriptions. These urban synagogues were more lavishly decorated, with more use of marble and with magnificent figurative mosaic pavements at Hammath Tiberias B, Sepphoris, and Gaza. But these synagogues were located in secluded or unremarkable areas of the city. They were contemporaneous with the rural ones and did not serve as models. However; rural synagogues such as Beth Alpha, Maʿon-Nirim, Naʿaran, and others have the same features he assigns the urban synagogues. At Tiberias, which was the home of the patriarchs until the second decade of the 4th century CE and continued to serve as the center of the rabbinic movement in Palestine and as a place of literary production up to and after the Muslim conquest, only one synagogue has been discovered so far, in the northern outskirt of the city; he cites Hammath Tiberias B in the southern outskirt and constructed in the early or middle 4th c. CE. as the earliest remains of an urban synagogue. Schwartz further contends that it was only around 500 CE that religious separation became the norm. Until the mid-4th c. the villages were inhabited by a mix of Jews, Christians, and pagans. By the later 5th or early 6th c., almost all villages had “a monumental, purpose-built, stone religious building,” which was either a synagogue or a church but not both. The exception is Capernaum and a few villages which had two synagogues (Barʿam) or two churches. He assumes that in every Jewish



dating

603

settlement there was a synagogue by the late 5th or early 6th c. CE, arguing that in contrast to the opinion of other scholars (Levine 2000:171–72), synagogues were already functioning in the 2nd and 3rd c. CE as a crucial element and the central institution in Jewish village and town communities. Schwartz dismisses all three of Maoz’s (1996) arguments (see above); the resemblance of the synagogues to the Syrian shrines does not mean they were built at the same time. The temples remained in use through the 5th c. and could have been copied, and the Galilean style could have remained in use through the 6th c., as at Meroth and Nabratein. Some Galilean villagers, “when they decided to build synagogues, may have wished them to look appropriately ‘sacred’.” Before the 5th c. the only available models were the shrines built (and still maintained) by the pagan villagers in the neighboring districts; monumental churches, later an important model for synagogue builders, were still rare. Schwartz (2001:212) rightly refutes Tzafrir’s (1989) conclusion, because there is no reason to assume that “high quality implies an early date, and crudity a late date. In reality apparent differences in quality tell us more about social and economic differences, or differences in esthetic sensibilities or religious predispositions.” 5.1.1.3 Spolia Dating The third proposed solution for the dating of Galilean synagogues combines the two already discussed above, with the proposal that the architectural decorations are spolia from earlier Roman period buildings (Netzer 1996; Maoz 1996; Aviam 2001; Magness 2001a) in secondary use in the synagogues of the Byzantine period. Aviam (2001:166–7) contends that the rebuilding of synagogues out of spolia, though difficult to prove, might have derived from the attempt to avoid the law against building new synagogues, legislated by Christian emperors at the end of the 4th century. Foerster (2004, 2007) suggests that the discrepancy in the architecture was due to the building of a new synagogue after completely removing an older structure on the same spot. Maoz (1999) proposes that the Capernaum white synagogue was originally a Roman building/s that was dismantled and rebuilt for the pilgrims who saw it as the synagogue Jesus had visited (see above, also Amit 2007a). Tzafrir (1995a) maintains that synagogues in the 5th–6th c. were reconstructed or built as replicas of earlier forms. However, the proponents of this solution, examples of which are found at Barʿam, Capernaum, Gush Halav, H. Shemʿa, and Nabratein, neither elucidate their claim nor provide any evidence as to the source of these items or the nature and exact location of the structures, and their thesis is barely acceptable; their conclusion is based on the assumption that 3rd c. structures with wellornamented architectural and décor elements existed in the region. Some of these reused items, such as the Nabratein and H. Shema lintels with a menorah motif, would most likely have come from Jewish structures. Hence, there is no reason not to conclude the obvious: that some architectural items were reused, replaced, recycled, and sometimes buried in the different phases of the same synagogue, as proposed by the excavators of Gush Halav, H. Shema, and Nabratein (see also Foerster 2004, 2007). In sum, several early Galilean synagogues are dated to the 2nd–3rd c. CE by the archaeological finds; these include Gush Halav, H. Shema, Meiron, and Nabratein (see Meyers 2013; Meyers and Meyers 2010). Others are dated later by the excavation data and their early architectural style is explained either as continued use of the same style in later periods, or as the architectural items being spolia. 5.2 Dating the Golan Synagogues The dating of the Golan synagogues is also a debated issue and both the excavators and other scholars propose various dates based on the architectural stylistic features and on finds such as coins and pottery (see Table XIV-10).

604

chapter fourteen

Maoz (1993:539; 1995 II:8–12) maintains there are several dated synagogue stylistic groups: (1) The earliest Golan synagogues were constructed in the mid 5th century CE and they are the ʿEn Nashut—Korazim group: three synagogues—Korazim, H. Shura, H. Tuba—west of the Jordan, and six in the Golan (around the Bethsaida valley)—ʿEn Nashut, ed-Dikkeh, el-Ahsenniyeh, er-Rafid, Kh. Khawakha, Jarabe. (2) The second group includes synagogues erected in the second half of the 5th c. CE or towards its end (see Table XIV-10). (3) The third—the Kanaf group—is dated to the beginning of the 6th c. CE and includes Kanaf, Deir ʿAziz, and el-Tayibe. (4) The Qasrin group includes Qasrin, ʿAsaliyye, Qusibiyye, and Yehudiyye, and is dated to the first quarter of the 6th c. CE. Maoz (1993:545) contends that the earliest Golan synagogues were constructed in the second half of the 5th c. and that some were added in the 6th c. ʿEn-Nashut, Kanaf, and Qasrin were damaged by earthquake in the 6th c. and repaired in the 6th and 7th c. along with others abandoned at the same time. Qasrin continued to function, perhaps until the mid-8th c. CE. Maoz’s group typology is far from accurate as it is based on only six excavated synagogues; the others he mentions are unexcavated sites and their survey yielded only meager data. For this reason, Urman (1995:611–617) criticizes Maoz’s description of the Golan synagogues and their dating and he (1984:532; 1995b:466) divides the Qasrin synagogue into three chronological stages: stage I—to the 3rd–4th c., II—to the 4th–6th c., III—to the 6th to 8th c. (see above). In contrast to the conclusions of Maoz and Levine, he maintains that the Golan synagogues date to the 5th to 7th c. CE and that there was continuous Jewish settlement in the Golan from the 3rd c. on, based on architectural features such as the Ionic capitals and the benches found already at Gamla and other later sites. Ben David (2005; 2007a; 2007b:53–58) conducted a ceramic survey of 45 sites in the central Golan (including nine synagogue sites: the Gamla Second Temple period synagogue, ʿAssaliyeh, Dabiyye, Deir ʿAziz, ed-Dikke, ʿEn Nashut, Kanaf, Qasrin, and Umm al-Qanatir). The analysis of the ceramic finds at those nine sites led Ben David (2005:194; 2007a:26–27) to support Maʿoz’s dating of four Golan synagogues (Dabiyye, ʿEn Nashut, Kanaf, and Qasrin) to the Byzantine period, and he notes that the monumental Golan synagogues were not erected before the mid-4th century CE. Ben David (2005:3*) points out that about 15 settlements existed during the Middle/Late Roman period and disappeared before 350 CE, but none left architectural members typical of synagogues, while such finds appeared at 25 sites existing after 350 CE. He proposes, therefore (2007b:57), that small unobtrusive structures might have served as synagogues, which could explain their absence in the archeological data of the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE. Magness (2001a:27) suggests a date for the Golan synagogues of Dabiyye, ʿEn Nashut, Kanaf, and Qasrin in the late 5th or 6th CE. Amir (2007:32–36, 50, Table) proposes a chronological development based on the Golan synagogues’ décor style and common motifs (see Chapter III): (1) The earliest group, dated to the first half of the 4th century, includes the synagogues of Korazim, ed-Dikkeh, el-Ahsenniyeh, er-Rafid, Kh. Khawakha, and Gadariyye. (2) The second group, dated to the mid-5th c., includes ʿEn Nashut and Qasrin Synagogue A. (3) The third group, dated to the first half of the 6th c. CE, includes Qasrin Synagogue B, Kanaf (also based the excavation results), ʿAsaliyye, Batra, Dabiyye, Deir ʿAziz, and Yehudiyye.



dating

605

Table XIV-11. Dating of Golan synagogues. Maoz (1993:539; 1995, II:8–12) Group

Amir (2007:32–36, 50, Table)

Date CE

Synagogues in Groups I–IV

Group Date CE

I. ʿEn Nashut— Mid 5th Korazim

ʿEn Nashut Korazim ed-Dikkeh el-Ahsenniyeh er-Rafid H. Shura, H. Tuba Jarabe Kh. Khawakha

I

First half 4th

II

Mid-5th

II.

Second half Batra, Beth Lavi, of 5th Dabiyye Zawitan, Zumaimira. Umm el-Qanatir

III. Kanaf

Beginning of the 6th

IV. Qasrin

First Qasrin, ʿAsaliyye, quarter 6th Qusibiyye, Yehudiyye

Kanaf, DeirʿAziz el-Tayibe

Synagogues in groups I–III

Magness (2001a:27) Date CE Synagogues

ed-Dikkeh, el-Ahsenniyeh, er-Rafid, Gadariyye Kh. Khawakha, Korazim ʿEn Nashut, Qasrin Synagogue A. 5th–6th Dabiyye, ʿEn Nashut, Kanaf, Qasrin

III

First half 6th ʿAsaliyye, Batra, Dabiyye, Deir ʿAziz, Kanaf Qasrin B Yehudiyye

The style and execution of Golan Jewish art belong to a long tradition in the area, but are not uniform enough or of a high enough quality of craftsmanship to establish a relative stylistic chronology, and dating is difficult (Hachlili 1995:189–190; see also Turnheim 1987:172–177). Furthermore, the Golan objects were frequently found in second use; only six synagogues have been excavated, and even in those many of the fragments were found reused so that some of the architectural fragments might be earlier than others. The appearance of different artistic styles in the same building makes dating by style impossible. The ceramic and numismatic evidence proves that the Golan synagogues were built and flourished during the fourth to early seventh centuries CE. Maoz’s (1995) division of Golan synagogues into chronological groups in relation to their architectural decoration is difficult to accept. He maintains that the first group of synagogues, erected in the fifth century, is defined by the decorated capitals, the choice of motifs, and Jewish symbols; the second group, synagogues built in the beginning of the sixth century, lack rich ornamentation. The dating of each synagogue should be determined by all the finds, and first and foremost their numismatic and ceramic data. The architectural decoration should then be dated accordingly. 5.3 Chronological Development of the Synagogues by Artistic and Stylistic Décor Artistic styles offer dating data as well. The Galilean synagogues are unusual in the unity of their characteristic features—façades, architecture, and décor. This is seen at Barʿam, Gush Halav, H. ʿAmudim, Meiron, and in some parts of the Capernaum synagogue, which probably constituted the original synagogue group, that was built in a short time based on the same prototype, giving the a date in the 2nd to early 3rd c. (c. 190–235 CE) (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:172–3; Foerster 1972:157; Maoz 1996:418).

606

chapter fourteen

Synagogue ornamentation is also taken into consideration for dating purposes. Representational art appears in architectural decoration of the fourth century, thus providing dates for Capernaum, Korazim, and other synagogue figurative sculpture (such as the Nabratein aedicula lintel and the H. ʿAmudim façade lintel). Mosaic pavements are already present in the late third century (at Hammath Tiberias B level I, ʿEn Gedi I, H. ʿAmudim), even though at that time they only display geometric designs, whereas from the fourth century on, mosaic pavements also portray figurative art. The biblical scenes depicted on mosaic floors are dated to the 4th (H. Hamam), 5th (Gerasa, Meroth, and Sepphoris) and 6th centuries (Beth Alpha and Naʿaran). The Torah Shrine, which was main feature of synagogue architecture, changed its form during the various periods. The aedicula was the earliest form of Torah Shrine and persisted until the sixth century in several synagogues. The development of the niche took place in the early fourth century, while the apse was an innovation found in synagogues erected during the sixth century. Therefore synagogues including apses (with the exception of the Golan and Galilee synagogues, where only Arbel and Deir ʿAziz have apses) are dated to the sixth century. (The synagogues with apses at Hammath Gader III and Maʿoz Hayim II may possibly have been built by the late fifth century.) The destruction of the images in the Naʿaran synagogue probably dates to the late sixth century CE, when there was a thematic change from figurative art to the use of inscriptions as well as floral and geometric designs in the mosaic pavements, possibly the result of iconoclasm. The destruction of figurative sculpture at Capernaum is also usually ascribed to Jewish iconoclasts. However, some sculpture and reliefs in the Korazim and other Golan synagogues did survive intact, which suggests another, simpler explanation: that the brittle limestone was less durable than the hard basalt. Ornamentation in the form of carved lintels, friezes, and architraves, is a common feature of architecture in the northern part of the Land of Israel, as well as of Syria. The art is local with Oriental elements predominating; even the classical forms have a local touch, making it difficult to date by style, as local tradition was strong enough to retain a style through several generations of craftsmen and masons. This is proved by the Galilean and Golan synagogues which, despite their similar plans, architectural features, and ornamentation style, are dated to periods ranging from the late third to the sixth centuries CE. One example of this chronological difficulty is lintel type I, characteristic of the Galilean synagogues at Arbel, Barʿam, Meiron, Gush Halav, and Nabratein (Figs. V-2, 6, 7). The similarity in moldings, decoration, and size should indicate a late third-century date for the construction of all these synagogues’ façades. However, these lintels continue to decorate the façades throughout the life of the synagogues—until the fourth century at Meiron and until at least the sixth century at Gush Halav. Thus, the dating of the Nabratein lintel to phase II is arbitrary. The sixth-century inscription was added to the lintel in phase III (as suggested by Avigad 1960). Moreover, by the time Nabratein III was rebuilt, in 564 CE according to the inscription, Gush Halav had already been destroyed (551 CE). The ed-Dikke synagogue side entrance lintel fragment also belongs to type I. This may indicate a fourth-century date for the construction of this synagogue, or even later if an earlier model from the Galilee synagogues was employed in the molding. The Capernaum synagogue ornamentation is dated by scholars to the second half of the 3rd c. CE, based on the style of crafting, on the Corinthian capitals style (Bloedhorn 1989:52), and on the comparison of the architectural ornamentation with that of the Korazim synagogue which is dated to the 4th c.; all this confirms an earlier date for the Capernaum décor, which probably influenced the Korazim artists (Turnheim 1966:128; Amir 2007:45, 48). May (2000:53*) and May and Stark (2002:247) formulate a ‘stratigraphic’ sequence for the Korazim decoration based on the similarities between the Capernaum and Korazim décor; they accept the date of the second half of the 3rd c. CE for the Capernaum architectural decoration (as suggested by Bloedhorn 1989:52) and date Workshop I slightly later. On grounds of style, May and Stark



dating

607

(2002:248) suggest a 5th c. CE date for the engravings of the masters of Workshop II, which were executed in situ. The works of Masters G and H are later additions but are difficult to date. May (2000:53*) observes similarities in themes and basalt carving execution between Korazim and the Golan synagogue art, but the Korazim reliefs are more skillfully and more delicately crafted than similar reliefs from ʿEn Nashut, H. Khavakha, and a lintel from Dabura. May and Stark further maintain that the reliefs of the Golan synagogues at ed-Dikke and H. Khavakha were carved by the masters of Workshop II, yet, as the Golan reliefs were not found in situ, their presumed dating to the 5th c. CE (by Maoz 1995:Pls. 5, 26) is not convincing. In their relative dating of the décor, May and Stark ignore the stratigraphic evidence and the finds at Capernaum and Korazim, which play an important part in the current critical dispute regarding dating. They maintain that the characteristic engraving style and motifs in Golan art, which appear in the synagogues of ed-Dikke, el-Ahsenniyeh, er-Rafid, H. Khawkha, and Ghadriyye indicate a regional style (see also Turnheim 1987:182; Amir 2007:37, Table). Amir concludes that stylistic resemblances and regional proximity date the Golan synagogues to the 4th c., in contrast to Maoz (1995:8–9) who dates the Korazim-ʿEn Nashut group to the 5th c. The style of the Korazim synagogues is visible in the eclecticism and variety of the chosen motifs which Amir (2007:32–36) dates to the beginning of the Byzantine period—the first half of the 4th c.—based on artistic style and on the diagonal Ionian capitals chronology. Amir (2007:48–50) describes the stylistic-artistic development in the décor of Galilee and Golan synagogues by tracing the stylistic and chronological development of the lion and eagle motifs: The pair of lions carved on the Nabratein aedicula lintel found in second use are dated to the 3rd c.; the Korazim threedimensional lion is dated to the first half of the 4th c.; the ʿEn Samsam/ʿEn Nashut relief is dated by its style to the mid-5th c.; while the lion on the relief from H. Kanaf is dated to the 6th c. The eagles engraved on the Beth Sheʿarim mausoleum arch are dated to the end of the 2nd–3rd c; those on the Gush Halav lintel sofit date to the 3rd c.; the eagles carved on the Korazim and Jarba reliefs are dated to the mid 4th c.; the style of the eagles crafted on the ʿEn Nashut relief date it to the mid-5th c.; the eagle on the Umm el-Qanatir double capital, together with other items found at the site, should be dated to the last quarter of the 5th or first half of the 6th c. CE. This described development indicates that the Galilean ornamental style dates to the 3rd and 4th c., while the Golan décor style dates to the 5th and 6th c. CE. Nevertheless, scholarly chronological conclusions based on stylistic typology, such as those of Tzafrir (1995), May (2000), May and Stark (2002), and Amir (2007), are difficult to accept; the style and execution more likely depended primarily on the artists’ skills, on economic and social differences, and on religious tendencies. As Seth Schwartz (2001:212) correctly observed, there is no reason to assume that artistic skills and high workmanship entail an early date, while simple and unrefined work suggests a later one. What is clearly observable is that early buildings that might have been synagogues were usually rebuilt using similar or even the same plans. Reconstructions made use of earlier parts from the same building that were recycled and/or of spolia taken from other structures, as we see at Capernaum and Barʿam, for instance. The practice of recycling rather than using spolia might be considered a phenomenon of Galilean synagogues. In conclusion, the construction of synagogues in the Land of Israel was continuous throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods, though it seems to have been most prolific during two main periods: the late third and early fourth centuries CE when most of the Galilean synagogues were erected, and the sixth century when many of the characteristic Byzantine synagogues were built. Consequently, for dating purposes the historical context, excavation levels and stratigraphy, and the artistic style and finds of each synagogue need to be examined separately.

Chapter Fifteen

Conclusions Jewish art and architecture flourished in two distinctive periods: the Second Temple period and Late Antiquity. Differences between these two periods are significant, and are primarily political and social. During the Second Temple period, the Land of Israel was a Jewish state with its Temple in Jerusalem. The ruling classes, although Hellenized, retained parts of their faith and laws. The art of the period shows connections with the neighbouring Graeco-Roman culture. However, at the same time, Jewish art withstood foreign influences by evolving strictly aniconic features; it was characterized, together with the other arts of the period, by highly skilled indigenous stonework, by the predominant Oriental elements of endless patterns, horror vacui, plasticity of carving, and by symmetrical stylization. The strictly aniconic and non-symbolic art characterizing the Second Temple period is the outcome of Judaism’s struggle against paganism and idolatry. By rigid observance of the prohibition against animate images, the Jews retained their own identity and distinctiveness. This quality of Second Temple period art completely disappears during the period of Late Antiquity, when art and architecture are influenced by political and social changes in the Land of Israel, most particularly the destruction of the Temple, the loss of independence, and the removal of the center of Jewish life to the Galilee. The prevailing architectural structure is now the synagogue, which replaces the Temple as the center of Jewish religious, national, and social life. In addition, the decline of paganism and the rise and expansion of Christianity causes a change in the Jewish attitude towards art: it now expresses its ornamentation and decorative architecture in figurative and symbolic ways. With the destruction of the Temple, a need for a concrete visual image becomes strongly felt. Thus, during this period the Temple implements take on a symbolic significance in synagogue and funerary art. The art of the period of Late Antiquity is an expression of Jewish local communal life, in contrast to the national spirit of the Second Temple period art. A continuity and connection may be traced between the art of the Second Temple period and that of Late Antiquity: The tradition of relief and sculptured architecture continues in Late Antiquity and to some extent follows the decorative style of Second Temple period art. The Second Temple period tradition of floral and geometric motifs, and especially the rosette, its most prominent motif, continues. This may have been due to traditional pattern books which were kept and handed down from generation to generation. Reminders of the Temple, its architecture, ritual, and ceremony, are present in the synagogue art of Late Antiquity. These include the menorah and ritual utensils, as well as the priestly courses list found on stone slabs in several synagogues. Symmetrical stylization, a tripartite division in the architectural ornamentation, and Oriental elements, are all basic features of the art of both periods. Distinguishing features of Jewish art, such as unidentical symmetry, are already present in the art of the Second Temple period but become more prevalent in Late Antiquity. The establishment of the synagogue, with its characteristic architecture and art, is the most important innovation in the Jewish world of Late Antiquity. The synagogue plan was determined by the prominent place assigned to the Torah Shrine on the Jerusalem-oriented wall, which then determined the arrangement of the interior of the synagogue and its orientation. Synagogue ornamentation was the choice of the local community, but surrounding cultural influences did have a strong

610

chapter fifteen

attraction: for instance, the façade decoration of Galilean and Golan synagogues is influenced by the style and execution of the neighbouring Syrian-Hauran architecture. By comparison, the synagogue mosaic pavements express an established local art tradition which depicts the nave ornamentation in a programmed style, using certain iconographical themes for the panels. All these distinctive characteristic features of synagogue architecture and decoration in Late Antiquity helped Judaism to maintain its unique identity in a world of Christian expansion and the decline of paganism. Functional and architectural differences distinguish between the Second Temple period structures and the synagogues of Late Antiquity: The Second Temple period (pre-70 CE) synagogue building was utilized for Torah reading and as study and meeting places for the community. The later synagogue emphasized prayer and ceremonies, and its functions were liturgical and ritualistic. The focal point of the early synagogue was the center of the hall while that of the later synagogue was the Torah shrine built on the Jerusalem- oriented wall. In the early synagogues architectural decoration was simple. The later synagogues are richly ornamented both outside and inside, and the halls are often decorated with mosaic pavements. In the early structures, benches are constructed along all four walls facing the center, whereas in the later structures the benches face the Torah shrine. The Torah Shrine received its place of importance only in the later synagogue buildings, some time after the destruction of the Second Temple, when the synagogue took its place and became the official functioning religious institution. The major architectural feature of the synagogue, the Torah Shrine, was a permanent fixture in the synagogue building from its inception after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (Hachlili 2000: 161–163). Built usually on the Jerusalem-oriented wall, the Torah Shrine took the structural form of an aedicula, niche, or apse. All three types of repositories were constructed of stone, were elevated on bases and approached by steps. The Torah Shrine was the receptacle for the Ark of the Scrolls, which was probably made of wood. Typological differences in the Torah Shrines should be attributed either to local preferences, popular vogues, or historical development. Chronologically, the aedicula was the earliest type of Torah Shrine, having already been in existence in the second century. It was the most popular type in Galilean and Golan synagogues, where it remained the most common form until the sixth century CE, probably owing to the conservatism of the congregations and local traditions. These synagogues underwent few changes in structure, design, or ornamentation during the centuries of use and consequently there was also no real change in the Torah Shrine. Niches as Torah Shrines have been found in synagogues throughout the Land of Israel and the Diaspora, but there may have been local and traditional influences at work as well. The semicircular niche appears already in the third century CE in the Dura Europos synagogue; in the Land of Israel it developed during the fourth century and was preferred in some locations, as is indicated by the two synagogues at Hammath Tiberias and another four, situated in close proximity, in south Judea (Eshtemoʿa, H. Maʿon, Susiya, and H. Rimmon). However, when the niche was created by blocking previously built entrances, its shape was rectangular. Scholars have explained the creation of the niche as a result of changing custom, the shrine having been given a permanent place inside the synagogue. New synagogues constructed in the sixth century CE show a significant architectural change: the addition of an apse as the Torah Shrine enclosure. The apse was a dominant architectural feature and an integral part of the construction of these synagogues; it was also a characteristic feature of churches in the Land of Israel and Syria, although the apses of synagogues and churches bore no resemblance to one another in either style or content. The bema placed in the front of the niche or apse probably served as a convenient position for reading the Torah, as it would have been in



conclusions

611

close proximity to the place where the scrolls were stored. Several renovated synagogues (HammathGader, Kfar Misr, and Maʿoz Hayyim) had their aedicula or niche replaced by an apse in the late fifth-early sixth centuries. The representations of the Torah Shrine and ark in Jewish art (especially on the mosaic pavements of synagogues) had various connotations: they symbolized the actual form and position of the Torah Shrine and the ark in synagogue architecture and at the same time they were spiritual and religious symbols of the Torah and the Scriptures. The public Torah reading was a most important element in the life of the synagogue and its ceremonies. The location of the Torah Shrine on the Jerusalemoriented wall, and its assumed similarity to the Jerusalem Temple façade design, was most probably inspired by the desire to preserve the memory of the Temple. Construction features, such as the general façade and especially the triple portal (in the Galilee) or single portal (in the Golan) entrance on the southern, Jerusalem-oriented wall, the ornamented lintels, and the carved arch above the central portal, are all characteristics specific to these regions. An important difference in decoration between the various regions is noted in the emphasis in the northern synagogue group on the exterior, that is, on the façade with its rich ornamentation, which must have emphasized the synagogue building and made it stand out conspicuously from its surroundings. The other synagogues are sparingly decorated on the exterior; in them, the emphasis is on the interior, where the hall is decorated with mosaic pavements. Avi-Yonah (1961a:180) maintains that this sparse exterior decoration reflects the impoverished state of the Jewish community during the Byzantine period. However, it seems more likely that the reason for this remarkable contrast in ornamentation is that the typical elaborately decorated façade with triple or single portals of the northern—Galilean and Golan—synagogues was due to local traditions; similarly decorated façades were traditional in Syrian architecture throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods. Synagogue buildings in other areas of the Land of Israel usually have a frontal axial courtyard (Beth Alpha, Beth Sheʾan, Maʿoz Hayim, Rehov, Susiya, Naʿaran, Gerasa, Hammath Gader, and Maʿon-Nirim) where, from some time in the fifth century CE, the synagogue also has a narthex which would have made a decorated façade unnecessary. These façades were not viewed from outside. The Galilean and Golan synagogues did not use frontal courtyards, although some, such as Capernaum, have side ones. Jewish synagogue art contains a symbolic vocabulary consisting of the menorah, the ritual objects (the shofar, incense shovel, ethrog, and lulav), the Ark of the Scrolls and the conch. Acquiring their symbolic significance and prominence in the arts only after the destruction of the Temple, they preserve it by expressing a remembrance of the Temple and its ceremonies. Other images were borrowed from Jewish religious life and tradition, such as biblical scenes and the zodiac, which interpreted the yearly calendar in its depiction of the four seasons, the twelve months, and day and night, thus turning it into an elaborate visual and expressive scheme. The ornamentation of synagogue floors was expressed in a scheme of panels firmly related to the iconography portrayed in them. It was an original, organized scheme, which determined each panel’s allotted place and iconographical theme: for example, the Torah Shrine and menoroth motif was depicted on the panel closest to the actual Torah Shrine; while carpets of vine trellis medallions have Jewish symbols inserted in them. Jewish art, as it is manifested in synagogue sculpture of the Galilee and Golan regions, reveals connections with the prevailing Hellenistic art, as well as with that of the Orient, Syria, and the Hauran. However, the Jewish art work displays some novelty and inventiveness in design which grants it an aura of individuality. This can be seen clearly in the architectural features which developed in synagogues. Those motifs and emblems in Jewish art that were borrowed from the pagan world were used either as mere decorations or were provided with Jewish meaning. Their original meanings were

612

chapter fifteen

neutralized. Other motifs and designs had previously absent symbolic meaning attributed to them: the zodiac served as a calendar and lions signified the guarding of the Jewish symbols—the menorah, the Torah Shrine, and the Ark. By contrast, the Christians seldom introduced sacred symbols on their church pavements, as to do so was forbidden in 427 CE by an imperial decree (Theodosian Code I, tit. VIII). Thus, crosses and other symbols appeared on church floors only in a few cases and in unimportant places. Jews carefully selected motifs and iconography of a symbolic character and depicted them in their synagogue and funerary art. The essential Jewish symbols are those unique Jewish objects such as the menorah, the Torah Shrine, the ark, and the ritual utensils. The Jewish zodiac-calendar panel design, found on synagogue mosaic pavements widely separated in space and time, is unique in its balanced and harmonious conflation of the three parts; the examples are identical in form, composition, and content, suggesting the existence of a prototype for the general design. The fact that they are only found in Jewish synagogue art attests to the existence of sketch books. Differences in style and execution may be put down to the variability of the individual artist’s skill and style. The biblical illustrated tales found so far on synagogue mosaic pavements represent a variety of styles and artistic depictions, and each scene is traceable to a distinct influence or source. There appears to be no common denominator. Yet some similarity does exist in the arrangement of interconnecting panels and the subject matter at the synagogues of Beth Alpha, Naʿaran, and Sepphoris, suggesting mutual interaction or social affinities. The biblical scenes and episodes portray several themes: prominent figures in Jewish tradition and history, important biblical episodes with additions of legends, and themes designating historical events, symbolic traditions, and divine intervention, as well as the covenant between God and his chosen people, and His protection of some and punishment of others. It should be noted that the biblical scenes, such as the Binding of Isaac and Noah’s Ark, illustrate the end of the tale, evidently in an attempt to reinforce and intensify the conclusion— the moment of rescue. The choice of biblical themes depicted on mosaic pavements and at Dura Europos was eclectic. The artists were able to follow their own instinct, being free to select and shape the models they used based on their familiarity with other current depictions. The scene was intended to symbolize rather than accurately describe its written source according to the established tradition. The scenes were chosen for their connotative power and their ability to illuminate Jewish traditional stories based on well-known biblical themes, enhanced and elaborated with legendary details. Artistic depictions of folk tales apparently existed already by the 3rd century CE, as indicated by the Dura Europos synagogue wall paintings. By this time, therefore, these stories must have become traditional popular folk legends, which were then rendered in art. The narrative scenes were probably based on artistic forerunners, albeit sketches only, but allowing much artistic freedom. Furthermore, the biblical scenes were narrated in the frame of a contemporary iconographic repertoire, indicating that this repertoire had traditional, inherited, graphic origins and was not based solely on the written word. Mosaic floor decorations include symbolic and iconographic elements, a paradoxical fact which needs emphasizing. Even biblical scenes containing a representation of the Hand of God, such as the Binding of Isaac at Beth Alpha, were considered fit subjects for a floor which was continually being trodden upon. Torah Shrines, menoroth, and other ritual objects were also regarded as suitable for the pavements of Hammath Tiberias B, Beth Alpha, Naʿaran, Sepphoris, and Susiya. Equally important, even the inscriptions depicted on mosaic floors were allowed to be stepped upon. The word was much more respected than the image, as proved by the iconoclastic treatment given to some pavements, such as the zodiac design at Naʿaran, where the figures were damaged and the inscriptions were left untouched.



conclusions

613

Jewish society from the third century on allowed representational art which portrayed figurative and symbolic themes. This liberal attitude lasted only until the second half of the sixth century CE. With increased anti-Jewish legislation, aniconic art was resumed and iconoclastic activity is encountered on the Naʿaran mosaic pavement, where the images are eradicated. The later synagogues of Jericho and ʿEn Gedi portray non-figurative, purely decorative designs. This is in accordance with the contrasting attitudes of Jews and Christians in the Land of Israel to art throughout Late Antiquity. Whenever churches would display aniconic art, the Jews would depict iconography on their synagogue pavements. Subsequently, in the later sixth century, when churches began to display images on their floors, the Jews returned to the prohibition against human and animal images in their art. Why did Jews intentionally include biblical scenes and religious symbols as part of the subject matter used to adorn synagogue mosaic floors? Avi-Yonah (1960b:32) maintains that Jews of the Talmudic period were “notoriously insensitive to images, whether symbolic or biblical.” However, it seems more likely that this reflects the Jewish avoidance of the worship of images of idolatry, specifically mentioned at the end of the second of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:5; Deut. 5:1–9): “You shall not bow down to them or serve them.” Stepping on an image must have removed its sacrosanct quality. In this way the Jews struggled against idolatry, acting on the principle that as long as the ‘graven image’ would be widely represented on synagogue mosaic floors and would be trodden upon, the pernicious influence of idolatry could be neutralized. Where they appeared, inscriptions were an integral part of the synagogue floor, the majority of them dedicatory inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. In a few cases inscriptions replaced figurative art, as for instance at ʿEn Gedi where the inscription included the names of the thirteen ancestors of the world and the three patriarchs, and where a list of zodiac signs followed by the twelve months apparently replaced the earlier representational zodiacs seen in other synagogues. Amazingly, this representation did not prevent the Jewish community of ʿEn Gedi from treading upon this floor. The inscription at the Rehov synagogue is noteworthy, not only because it is the longest synagogue mosaic inscription found up to now, but also because it is devoted to matters of Halakha mentioned also in the Jerusalem Talmud. Both this and the ʿEn Gedi inscription are dated as late as the seventh century CE. Their prominent place on the synagogue pavements was the result of the change in the sixth century, when figurative art was once again forbidden and was replaced by geometric and floral composition. The iconographic repertoire available to the artists consisted of compositional forms, conventions for entire scenes, and formulae for elements and pattern details. Taken together, this repertoire indicates two main sources for the narrative paintings: first, a copybook or pattern book consisting of religious and secular scenes, with examples of schemes, compositions, and models; second, a large and extensive repertoire of biblical scenes from which to choose and which could be used according to the space allotted and the program chosen. The function of this repetition of conventions and the use of stereotypes, designs, and patterns was to elucidate the meaning of the scenes. Moreover, the existence of an illustrated repertoire would have enabled the artists to execute many scenes in relatively little time. Nevertheless, the general biblical themes portrayed on the mosaic pavements and in the Dura Europos wall paintings, and their many interpretations, do not create a comprehensive general theme or programmatic outline. Synagogue art was limited in its choice of ornamental motifs. Quite likely some motifs were directly copied from nature, though a pattern book/copybook was likely the shared source for the animal, plant, and other motifs. The reuse of popular motifs employed during the Second Temple period, mainly geometric and plant ones, as well as literary traditions such as the Midrashim and Agadoth, provided a common source of inspiration for later synagogue art. Certain contemporary

614

chapter fifteen

Graeco-Roman, Syrian, and Nabatean decorative patterns and motifs were also used, in total disregard of their symbolic significance. Heraldic and antithetic symmetrical designs were constantly selected for synagogue ornamentation, often emplying unidentical symmetry. Stylistically, the tendencies displayed in Jewish art can be seen as part of the contemporary regional oriental art style, which was similar to a certain extent to other neighbouring art styles such as Nabatean and Palmyrene. Reliefs and sculpture did not constitute an art form in themselves, and their primary function was solely as architectural decoration. Figurative representation appears in compositions of scenes where the figures bear no relation to each other yet they are sometimes represented side by side. Static groups, lacking any dramatic tension, are rendered. The mythological representations are not depicted in narrative form but rather as a series of separate unconnected renditions. The style of figurative rendition is usually hierarchic and impersonal. This impression is frequently emphasized by the unusually large size of the figures’ eyes. Representations of humans lack any personal features; the posture is static and two-dimensional, and the whole figure is rendered schematically. Remarkable is the similarity between different depictions of the same theme, even when these are clearly not executed by the same hand. Noticeable examples of similar traditional themes used in synagogues are the Torah Shrine façade panels, the zodiac design with all its details, and some of the biblical illustrations. Though the general scheme, composition, and outline of some designs are alike, they were not executed by the same artist or workshop team; the most likely suggestion is that the mosaicists followed a model that was available to them. Another example is the inhabited scroll design rendered on fields and borders, which decorates many of the 6th-century CE mosaic floors of synagogues and churches. The similarity of the general themes and some of the items within the medallions is quite obvious. Details in these designs, though recurring, do not always follow a precise model, and do not share any stylistic affinities. All the above points to the existence of a fashionable trends based on a shared source, possibly in the form of a sketch-book. Traditional themes, in each case rendered in the individual artist’s singular interpretation, are displayed on a number of mosaic pavements. For instance, some of the zodiac signs at Beth Alpha are unusual, especially Virgo wearing her red shoes and sitting on a throne, and Aquarius, depicted as a figure drawing water from a well with a bucket. Another instance of an artist’s particular style is seen in the amusing illustration of the hen laying an egg on the Maʿon -Nirim synagogue pavement. The similarity in iconographic models, genre representations, as well as animal and bird types, intimates a shared basic source. However, this issue remains open, since no clear evidence exists on whether this source comprised a sketch or model book, or whether it derived from particular traditions inherited by either an artist’s family or a workshop or studio, for which the pattern books might have been the underlying guide. Yet any differences in the style and execution of a similar theme should be imputed to the individual artist’s skill, style, and approach. The composition and various elements of the mosaics and carvings were a matter of personal selection, perhaps from pattern books, by either the donors or the artists. The patron might have chosen popular traditional themes and episodes that would display his own activities, or, perhaps, imported imagery, which the artist would then introduce according to the designs and formulae that were requested of him and that accorded with his expertise. Donors were apparently free to choose whatever they liked from the available sources; however, other criteria, such as the space available or the wishes of the community leaders, were probably also taken into consideration in the choosing and designing of the composition. The iconography, schemes, conventions, motifs, and designs, often depicted in a similar stereotypical manner, are found at sites widely separated in distance and time. Such stereotypes evidently cannot be associated with specific compositions or schools, but seem to indicate a particular choice by the artists and donors. The recurring elements and scenes in several carvings and mosaics that



conclusions

615

were rendered similarly or identically attest that those designs were taken from a common source. Designs, motifs, and patterns were apparently shared by artists, with the addition of various changes and innovations in the iconographic repertoire created by local artists. Proof lies in the fact that while the iconography and motifs are similar, they are not identical. Still, this fact can be used equally to prove the existence of pattern books. The artists were creative in adjusting motifs influenced by models in other media, such as sculpture, ivories, silver, and textiles, to contemporary designs. The similarity of style and iconography between the mosaics and other local art might suggest that the artists were local. Artists in different regions utilized the imagery of traditional iconography with variations; however, they also made use of amended and revised features, emphasizing or underlining aspects of the pavement designs at their discretion. Differences in execution are due to the considerable latitude given the artist in his handling of the pattern, as well as to his competence. From comparisons among the mosaic pavements of the various synagogues and their local Christian and pagan counterparts, it can be surmised that artists and workshops were employed simultaneously by various communities that probably relied on some common source for the different designs and symbols. Jewish synagogue art was essentially decorative, though it served both ornamental and iconographic functions. It was an art which consisted of indigenous local tradition, with, at the same time, appropriations from the surrounding Oriental, Graeco-Roman and Christian cultures, and it used specific symbols, motifs, and iconography. The assumption postulated here is that the selection of symbols and subjects for synagogue ornamentation was deliberately limited, being chosen by the Jewish community and by its donors. Certain original aspects of ancient synagogue art which continually occur could be ascribed to the specific needs of the Jewish community, its tradition, and its artists’ innovativeness. The dating of synagogues is in intense debate. The earliest levels of synagogue buildings have been dated to the 2nd and 3rd c. CE, and were rebuilt in later periods. The plans of Galilee and Golan synagogues clearly indicate that no matter when they were constructed, they shared many characteristic features. Continuity was the norm. It is possible that later synagogue were reconstructed with earlier architectural and décor parts. Some of these reused architectural items were spolia obtained from other public structures, perhaps even from pagan temples, as noted at Capernaum, Barʿam, and some other synagogues, while other synagogues recycled their own older parts for use in rebuilding. The practice of recycling—the reuse of architectural items from the same synagogue in different phases rather than spolia from other, unknown buildings—might be explained as a phenomenon typical of Galilean synagogues. Evidently, the final date of many synagogues represents their last living level, and many of these final layers involve the renewal or restoration of the older buildings. Each synagogue should be checked individually for its dating, based on historical context, stratigraphy, architecture, and finds. Synagogues continued to be built in the Land of Israel throughout the entire Roman-Byzantine period. Jewish synagogue architecture and art lacked a figurative tradition and had a separately developed visual sense. Impressively, it succeeded in maintaining its individuality, flourishing in spite of an environment with strong external cultural influences. Its artists and craftsmen responded ably and skillfully to the needs and requirements of their clientele. All the archeological evidence—the architecture, art, dedicatory inscriptions, and coins—attest to the importance of the synagogue. When considered as a whole, all these pieces of evidence confirm the centrality of the synagogue institution in the life of the Jewish communities all through the country and in the Diaspora. Most importantly, the aynagogue and its art and architecture played a powerful role in the preservation of the fundamental beliefs, customs, and traditions of the Jewish people following the destruction of the Second Temple and the loss of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel.

Supplement

Qazion—A Galilean Riddle A monumental complex of structures at Qazion (Kh. Keisûn) in the Upper Galilee and a late 2nd– early 3rd century CE Greek inscription found among its ruins have intrigued scholars for over a century. The inscription, carved on a lintel, consists of a dedication by local Galilean Jews of the monument to the health and well-being of the Roman emperor Septimius Severus and his family. Both the inscription and the structure are unique in their time and have no exact parallels in the Roman world. In the decades since the inscription’s initial discovery, scholarly opinion has been divided between two possible identifications of this monumental building—as either a Jewish synagogue or a Roman temple.1 In an attempt to resolve the debate, we—Rachel Hachlili and Ann E. Killebrew—conducted three short excavation and survey seasons at the site, two in 1992 and one in 1997 (Hachlili and Killebrew 1999; Hachlili 2000). Though we both agree that the Qazion complex, and especially the large monumental building, could not have served as a synagogue, we have reached differing conclusions regarding its purpose and function: either (1) a late second—early third century CE Jewish cultic space and community centre erected by priestly families, after their relocation in the Galilee following the Jewish (and Bar Kokhba) revolts against Rome (Hachlili, see below), or (2) a complex that served as a public gathering place, probably an open-air sanctuary, constructed, at least in part, to honor the Roman imperial family (Killebrew 2013). Presented here are my final report of our field work and my interpretation of these results. The site of Qazion (Kh. Keisûn; map reference 1997–2719, 2000–2722) is located in the eastern Upper Galilee, approximately one km north of the Late Roman—Byzantine Jewish village and synagogue at Meroth and nine km northeast of Safed (Fig. Q-1a, Map 1). Kh. Keisûn apparently preserves the name Qazion,2 a site that appears twice in the rabbinic literature. Passages mention a third-century sage ‫ר' יוחנן דקציון‬. R. Yohanan deQazion (TJ Beiza 5 4, 63b) or ‫ ר' יוחנן דקרציון‬R. Yohanan deQarzion (TJ Berakhot 8 7, 12b), strongly suggesting the presence of a Jewish community at Qazion during the second and third centuries CE. The Qazion site and the inscribed lintel were first discovered by E. Renan (1864:539; 1871:773–76) in 1860, who identified the visible architectural remains as a synagogue. Based on Renier (in Renan 1871:773) and his reading of the Greek inscription, Renan dated the dedication of the public building to 197 CE (but see P.B. Harvey Jr. [2013] for a re-dating of this inscription). Conder and Kitchener (1881:240–41), on their visit in 1877, documented the Kh. Keisûn ruins and proposed that the monumental structure was a Roman temple, “probably of about the same date as the temple at Kedesh.” They published only a schematic plan of the building, on which the inscribed lintel location is indicated as well as four column bases in the main cultic hall, which are not in situ (Fig. Q-2). V. Guérin (1880:447–49), following Renan, identified the building as a synagogue, mentioning the inscription and agreeing with Renan’s dating of the building to 197 CE. During the early 20th century

1  See e.g. Hachlili 1988:396–7 and Bar-Or and Ilan 1989:123–124, see below, for a detailed discussion. 2 Reeg 1989:576; Z. Ilan (Ilan and Damati 1987:42, note 9) suggests that the name Qazion ‫ קציון‬in Hebrew means ‫= קצה‬ “the end” as the site is located at the northern end of Upper Galilee.

618

supplement

a

b Figure Q-1. Maps: a. Map 1, sites in Galilee; b. Map 2, Roman temples in the Hauran, Trachon, and Bashan.



qazion—a galilean riddle

619

Figure Q-2. Conder and Kitchener 1881—schematic plan.

the site was visited by E.W.G. Masterman, who also identified the Qazion monument as a synagogue (1909:122–24). E. Kohl and C. Watzinger (1916:208–12) disagreed, identifying the building as a temple and comparing the site’s ornamented architectural fragments to the nearby Kedesh temple and some other Roman temples in the region. For over a century (after Guérin), no visitor or surveyor at the site was able to locate the inscribed lintel. The ‘lost’ inscribed lintel was rediscovered during a research visit to the site on June 18, 1984 by Rachel Hachlili and colleagues (Hachlili 1988:396–7, Pl. 109; Bar-Or and Ilan 1989:120). It was found resting next to the southwest entrance of the main building, with the inscription facing down (see Fig. Q-3).3 In the summer of 1987, the site was surveyed by A. Bar-Or and Z. Ilan (1989; Ilan 1991:57–59) who concluded that it was a public building with pagan characteristics.4 Three short exploratory excavation seasons, under the direction of Rachel Hachlili and Ann E. Killebrew, were conducted for several weeks in 1992 and 1997 with the goal of clarifying and recording the Qazion structure and its function, and in an attempt to resolve the debate.5 This entailed

3 The lintel was removed by the Department of Antiquities (Reg. no. 1985–612/1) and is now on display in the garden of the Israeli President’s residence in Jerusalem. 4 Grootkerk 2000:108–9, Map no. 8/21. The British Mandate maps (1917–1947) do not indicate a settlement there, only a ruin. E. Mills (1932) does not list the site as a populated or existing settlement. The Ottoman defter (tax register) of 1596/97 does not mention a settlement with that name; nor do W.D. Hütteroth, and K. Abdulfattah (1977), mention Qazion. 5 For the past decades the area of Qazion has been included in the firing range of the Israel Defense Forces, Northern Command. Thus access to the site is very limited. Due to military restrictions, combined with the relatively remote location of the site and logistical difficulties, we were confined to only three short seasons of work. Only after investing an enormous amount of time, effort, and frustration did I finally receive the permits to excavate at Qazion (and that only

620

supplement

Figure Q-3. Discovery of the inscribed lintel on the site, 1984; Rachel Hachlili sitting on the right.

the drafting of plans and sections, a thorough documentation of all architectural elements visible on the surface of the structure and in the pools (Table Q-1, Fig. Q-34), and the investigating of four small excavation probes.6 All these revealed two main periods of occupation at the site: Roman (second and third centuries CE), in which it was apparently a Jewish site, and Mamluk (thirteenth during the holidays). It was just as difficult for me to receive the necessary insurances for the participants in the dig from the University of Haifa. 6 The archaeological survey and excavation directed by Rachel Hachlili and Ann E. Killebrew was conducted on behalf of the Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa. Two seasons were conducted in 1992, one in April and the second in October (Permit G-55/1992), with the assistance of O. Tsuf and the participation of W. Schleicher (surveyor). University of Haifa archaeology students included O. Tsuf and E. Bear (drafting). Y. Ben Ephraim, D. Dani, M. Einav, Z. Horovitz, S. Kopelis, and K. Hagai. The authors directed a third season of excavations in April 1997 (Permit G-58/1997), with the participation of J. Rosenberg (surveyor). University of Haifa archaeology students included A. Angel, V. Epermov, B. Dadawi, A. Danun, R. Hizqiya, N. Lieber, B. Moses, B. Kryspolsky, A. Rotgeister, V. Raz-Romeo (draftsperson) A. Roznikov, and A. Sackheim (numismatist). The initial field plans were prepared by J. Rosenberg. Plans, sections, and drawings of architectural elements were drafted by Natasha Zak. Silvia Krapiwko redrew the plans, photographed and drew the Greek inscription, and prepared the plates for the architectural elements. Pottery drawings are by S. Ad. The site was resurveyed using a total station on July 9, 2011 by Brandon Olson, Jamie Quartermaine, Matthew Howland, and Ann E. Killebrew. The final plans for publication were drawn by Brandon Olson.



qazion—a galilean riddle

621

and fourteenth centuries CE), when, like at nearby Meroth in the Mamluk period, it might have been inhabited by a Muslim group (Ilan and Damati 1987:115–17). The resulting plans and documentation, presented in this final report of the Qazion complex, represent the first detailed description of this site as well as an opportunity to re-evaluate the function of this unique and controversial building complex.7 1. The Qazion Complex: The Monumental Main Cultic Building, the Pools, and the Western Structure The main cultic complex at the Qazion site is located on a low hill. Further to the northwest is another, lower hill with the remains of a small western structure in which a stone altar was found (Fig. Q-4).

Figure Q-4. Qazion complex, general air view (photo Sky View). 7 On a visit to the site in January 2008, to examine and confer on some of the questions concerning the building’s architecture and function, we were accompanied by Arthur Segal, Michael Eisenberg, and Moti Aviam. We visited the site again in January 2011 for some further inspections and measurements, while Sky View photographed the site from the air with a balloon.

622

supplement

Figure Q-5. Plan 1, general plan of the main cultic structure, the pools, and the Western Structure.

To the east and northeast of the main complex, there are ruins of village dwellings, and a few rockhewn loculi tombs are visible at a distance of several hundred m to the southeast. The Qazion main cultic structure, a monumental limestone building, rectangular in plan (ca. 18 × 35 m), is built on a podium oriented along a north-south axis. Two impressive outer portico façades border the structure on the north (W1) and west (W2), each facing a large artificial depression—Pool 1 on the north and Pool 2 on the west. These are the best preserved sections of the Qazion main building; the inner hall is poorly preserved. The Western Structure, a one-room building with a small stone altar, is visible on the northwest edge of the western pool (Figs. Q-4, 5). Only scant remnants of what were likely the eastern wall (W13) and the southern boundary wall (W5) of this structure are visible on the surface (Fig. Q-6). 1.1 The Northern Façade The northern portico façade consists of a podium wall (W1) ca. 15 m long and abuts the southeastern edge of the causeway (W8) (Figs. Q-6, 7). The east part of W1 consists of seven courses of large ashlar stones on the northern face, descending ca. 3.6 m below the podium and forming a retaining wall supporting the north portico of the main cultic structure. W1, which also served as the southern wall of Pool 1, is plastered with a thick whitish waterproof plaster that protected the northern façade wall against water that accumulated in Pool 1 (Fig. Q-8).



qazion—a galilean riddle

623

Figure Q-6. Plan 2, the main cultic structure.

The west part of W1, of which only three courses of large ashlar stones survived, has collapsed to the south into the façade (Figs. Q-7, 9). The upper course of the north façade wall (W1) was constructed of a series of large flat slabs which served as a stylobate for the columns of the northern portico colonnade (Fig. Q-10). Originally the W1 stylobate was surmounted by a row of six free-standing columns—a hexastylos— three on each part of the wall (west and east). Five pedestal bases [AF 1, 2, 4, 6, 7] were found at the site, as well as the broken fragment of what was probably the sixth base [AF 60]. The two groups of three pedestals each are separated by a space of ca. 2 m. This intercolumnium open space is located opposite the central entrance of inner north W4 and divided the portico wall into two sections (Figs. Q-6, 7);8 it apparently afforded a view through the central entrance into the hall. The length of the east part is 6.50 m (Fig. Q-8) and the collapsed west part is the same size (Fig. Q-9).

8 Conder and Kitchener (1881:241) noted “a step or seat between the columns.” Three small holes are noticeable on both AF 2 and AF 6. Two of the holes on both AF 2 and AF 6 are on the same level, the third hole on AF 2 is in the lower part,

624

supplement

Figure Q-7. Air view of the northern portico façade W1 and Pool 1, causeway W8 on the right, W4 in the background. a

b c

Figure Q-8. The east part of the north portico W1 façade: a. looking south; b. looking east; c. Section C-C. while the third on AF 6 is in the upper part of the base (see Fig. Q-14); however it is not clear if there were holes on all sides of the base or only one side; this might perhaps indicate that a metal lattice was used as kind of protection, to avoid falls into the pool. It might also have been a later addition.



qazion—a galilean riddle

Figure Q-9. The collapsed west part of W1.

Figure Q-10. The stylobate of the northern portico colonnade (W1).

625

626

supplement

a

b

Figure Q-11. Three column bases and pedestals (AF 1, AF 6, AF 2) on the eastern part of W1: a. courtesy of Prof. Dr. Joachim Marzahn, Oberkustos. Archive of the DOG, c/o Vorderasiatisches Museum Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; b. Section C-C, reconstruction with three bases.

Surveys of the Qazion site in the late 19th and early 20th centuries show the three column bases and pedestals were st ill in situ on the eastern part of W1 (Fig. Q-11), as noted by Conder and Kitchener (1881:240), Masterman (1909:122), and Kohl and Watzinger (1916:Fig. 305). Today only one column base (AF 6, ca. 1.2 m high) remains on the stylobate (Figs. Q-8, 12). Of the five other pedestals originally situated on the W1 stylobate, two have fallen into Pool 1 (AF 1, AF 2; Figs. Q-12, 13). Pedestal and column AF 1 most likely originated from the eastern end of W1, and marked the northeastern corner of the structure. The two other pedestals and bases, AF 4 (also found in Pool 1, Fig. Q-13) and AF 7 (found inside the main hall), were originally placed in the western part of the portico (Figs. Q-13, 14). An additional



qazion—a galilean riddle

627

broken fragment of a base (AF 60), fallen on top of lintel AF 3 in Pool 1 (Figs. Q-13, 35), might have belonged to the sixth missing pedestal. It should be noted that the bases and pedestals are different in size and shape (see Fig. Q-14 and Table Q-1). Bases AF 1 and AF 6 have a similar profile but the pedestals are different, while AF 2 and AF 6 have similar pedestals but different bases; bases and pedestals AF 4 and AF 7 are different in size and design from the other bases.9 No capitals of any kind for these columns were found in the excavations. In addition, fragments of a molded entablature and cornice (AF 19–24, Fig. Q-34, Table Q-1), which probably belonged to the north façade, were found fallen into Pool 1. No entrance could have existed in the north façade of the Qazion structure portico because of the steep wall and the pool. The north portico (ca. 4.2 m wide), between the northern façade (W1) and the north inner wall (W4), was originally paved by flagstones (Loci 108, 111, 113, 115, 119). However, only a row of rectangular paved stones abutting the north inner wall (W4) remains intact (Figs. Q-15, 16). Most of the pavement stones were apparently removed during later periods. The eastern half of the interior of W1 is preserved up to the level of the stone pavement of the portico between W1 and W4. The west part is destroyed in its upper part. In excavation probe 1, in the east part of the north portico between W1 and W4 (Loci 108, 111, 113, 115 and 119), three 1st–2nd century coins were found (Table 2:nos. 1–3): coin no. 1 (Fig. Q-44), a coin of Tiberias (19/20 CE), suggests an earlier date for the Qazion site (see below). The excavation in the

Figure Q-12. Column base AF 6 remained on the east part of W1; items AF 1, 2, 3, 5 have fallen into Pool 1. 9 Compare the Galilean synagogue of Gush Halav, where no two bases or capitals are alike (Belkin 1990:101, Fig. 35); pedestals and capitals are different at H. Shemʿa (Meyers et al. 1976); at Meroth the bases and pedestals of the west row of columns, which were changed in Synagogue III, are different from those of the east row of columns (Fisher 1989:169–170; Damati 2000:92, Fig. 62). See also Netzer (1996) and Aviam (2004:167), who see this fact evidence of spolia. Note that all the column bases found in the synagogue’s halls are smaller than those in the Qazion north façade.

628

supplement

Figure Q-13. Found fallen into Pool 1: Column pedestal and bases AF 1, AF 2, AF 4; column base AF 60 on top of lintel AF 3; doorjamb AF 5.



qazion—a galilean riddle

629

Figure Q-14. Bases and pedestals on the northern façade from east to west.

portico area uncovered pottery, mostly of the Middle Roman (2nd–early 3rd c. CE) period, consisting of fragments of a number of bowls, cooking pots and storage jar (found in Loci 113, 115, 119) (Fig. Q-39: nos. 1–11, 14–18; see below); some Mamluk pottery was recovered from the cleaning of the surface and upper levels (Fig. Q-42:nos. 2, 7, 10). In conclusion, the north façade of the main cultic structure consisted of a 3.6 m high ashlar retaining wall (W1) associated with Pool 1, surmounted originally by a hexastylos portico façade consisting of a row of six columns (two groups of three columns each) (Figs. Q-11, 14). Hexastylos portico façades are a common feature in Roman temples in the region, as well as in Jewish synagogue buildings. These include the reconstruction of the Kedesh temple portico (second–third century CE; Fisher et al. 1984:154–55, Fig. 3) and Temple Two at Omrit (late first century CE–4th c. CE; Overman and Schowalter 2011:102–103, Fig. 03.24). Roman temples with hexastyle in the Hauran, Syria include (Fig. Q-1b, Map 2): the first century CE peripteral temple at Suweida (Butler 1903:326–334, Fig. 118; Dentzer-Feydy 1986:269–270, Pl. IV; Segal 2008:114–115, Pl. XXXIII) and the peripteral Temple of Helios at Qanawat dated to the second century CE (Butler 1903:354–357; Segal 2008:112–114, Pls. XXIX, XXX) or the first half of the third century CE (Freyberger 2000:147). A few Galilean synagogues (Fig. Q-1a, Map 1) also have hexastylos porticos in front of triple portals (see this book, Chapter IV, p. 136, Figs. IV-2, 3, 7, 23b): Meiron (3rd c. CE), the later Barʿam synagogue (Meyers and Meyers 2009:71, Fig. 20), and Meroth (Synagogue I, levels A, B, dated to the 4th c.; Ilan and Damati 1987:44, Fig. on p. 58); a hexastylos portico is reconstructed at the Susiya synagogue (see this book, Fig. IV-6b). However, all of these hexastylos portico façades are built on the approachable front of the structures and not, as at Qazion, above an inaccessible retaining wall facing a pool. 1.2 The Western Façade The western façade wall (W2), originally measuring ca. 35 m in length, consists of a row of nine large square piers (P1–9) measuring ca. 70 × 70 cm., built at regular intervals of about 2.80 m (Fig. Q-6). Five of these piers (P1–4, P8, P9), each built from several large ashlar stones (Figs. Q-17–18), are still in situ.

630

supplement

a

b

c

Figure Q-15. The north portico: a–b. Paving stones abutting the northern inner W4; c. The central entrance threshold.

Figure Q-16. Drawing of the paving stones and threshold on W4. W4, Section B-B.

These piers were probably originally surmounted by simple psuedo-Doric capitals, of which six were uncovered (AF 12–16 and AF 18); each has slightly different dimensions (Fig. Q-19). Several of the capitals were found in secondary use, incorporated into the western wall during a later period (Figs. Q-17–18). Similar capitals adorned the Roman temple of Kalat Fakra in Lebanon (Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938:43, Fig. 63). It is possible that these piers were surmounted by arches. The northwestern corner pier (P1, 1.00 × 0.70 m), of which four courses survived, stood ca. 2 m high and had a corner capital (AF 12 [1.10 × 1.05 m], Fig. Q-19). The southern pier base (P8) is still in situ, although reused as part of a later side wall (W6) adjacent to the southern part of the inner west wall (W3).



qazion—a galilean riddle

a

b

c

Figure Q-17. Western façade: a–b. looking east; c. Section A-A.

a

b

Figure Q-18. Western façade: a. looking east; b. looking south.

631

632

supplement

Figure Q-19. Plate 2, Doric capitals of the piers.

The southernmost fragment of a pier base (P9) is found next to the crushing basin. Apparently the original west façade consisted of at least nine piers, of which 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 are still in their original place (Fig. Q-17). The wall built between the piers belongs to a later date as do some of the original pier capitals, found in second use incorporated into this later wall (Figs. Q-17–18). It is possible that a flight of steps leading from the structure down to Pool 2 may have originally been situated between piers 4 and 5. However, there was no evidence recovered during the survey to substantiate this suggestion.



qazion—a galilean riddle

633

1.3 The Hall The inner hall of the main cultic structure measures ca. 30 × 15 m and has two sections. The northern part is located on a slightly higher terrace than the southern section, and the two sections may have been separated by three roughly connected wall fragments W14, W15 and W16, suggesting that a wall divided these two spaces architecturally (Fig. Q-6). The southern part is between these walls and W5 (ca. 12 × 15 m) and might have been a courtyard. On the west, the northern hall is defined by either W2, the façade wall on the west, creating a space measuring ca. 17.5 by 20 m or, alternatively, W3 may have continued northward though this is not visible on the surface, creating a space measuring ca. 15 × 20 m (Figs. Q-6, Q-20). W4 borders the hall on the north and runs parallel to the northern portico façade W1. One course of the north inner wall (W4) of the hall is preserved. The eastern end of W4 forms a corner with north-south W13, of whose eastern face several stones are visible. The southern continuation of W13 is not discernible on the surface (Fig. Q-6). The west end of W4 is in alignment with the corner pier (P1) of W2. In the centre of W4 a centrally located entrance connecting the hall and the northern portico is visible, with indications of two side entrances, one on either side of the central opening. The entrance corresponds to the central opening space, the intercolumnium, framed by the two groups of columns in the north façade W1 (Figs. Q-5, 6). The main central entrance consisted of a well-hewn threshold still in situ (AF 58, Figs. Q-15c, 16a, 21). The threshold (AF 58, 2.15 m long × 0.65 m wide) is slightly higher than the portico pavement, with two large square sockets at either end (Figs. Q-15c, 16a, 21). A doorjamb fragment found next to this entrance in secondary use might have belonged to this central entrance (AF 9, Figs. Q-15b, 16b). A lintel decorated with metopes (AF 3, Fig. Q-22a), as well as a decorated doorjamb (AF 5, Fig. Q-22b) found on the slope of Pool 1, may also have belonged originally to this central entrance. Two other doorjamb fragments (AF 10–11, Fig. Q-21) might be part

Figure Q-20. Air view of the main cultic hall.

634

supplement

of the original side entrance. A fragment of a square threshold stone (AF 42, Fig. Q-21) appears in secondary use in this wall and may have originally served as part of the east side entrance of W4. In the west side of W4, another threshold stone was discovered in situ and a fragment of a doorjamb marks the western side entrance of this wall (Fig. Q-23). These finds indicate that the northern inner wall (W4) had a triple doorway façade facing north. The foundations of W3 are well-preserved in the southwestern corner of the structure, which forms the western border of the southern section of the hall. This wall (W3) may have continued northward and served as the western wall of the hall and the building (indicated by dashes on Fig. Q-6). Several stones, aligned in a straight line and designated as W5, appear to have marked the southern boundary of the main cultic structure.

Figure Q-21. Plate 3: Main and side north entrances: doorjambs (AF 10, 11) and thresholds (AF 58, AF 42).



qazion—a galilean riddle

Figure Q-22. Plate 4: Lintel (AF 3) and doorjamb (AF 5) of main north entrance.

Figure Q-23. Remains of threshold stone and doorjamb of the western side entrance of W4.

635

636

supplement

Figure Q-24. The well-preserved stone threshold of the western entrance.

a

b

Figure Q-25 a. Base of the inscribed lintel; b. Threshold of the western entrance.

The in situ threshold (ca. 1.90 × .60 m) in the southwestern most section of W3, close to the corner with W5, is apparently the structure’s main entrance (Figs. Q-6, Q-20 on the far left). The well-preserved stone threshold has square sockets at each end and a small hole in the centre (Figs. Q-24, 25b). The inscribed lintel (AF 57, Figs. Q-46, 47), found in close proximity to the threshold, apparently served as the lintel of this western entrance to the building; the sockets at the threshold and those at the base of the inscribed lintel are similar (Fig. Q-25) (see discussion below). Probe 2 was conducted above and around the western portal threshold (L. 110) and to the east of W3 and the threshold (Loci 104, 105 and 116). It recovered mainly Mamluk period pottery, and an Ottoman period pipe (Fig. Q-42, see below). Only two stones of W7, which is aligned with P6 to the west, are visible; this wall and short wall W6, which is connected to P8 and the western face of W3 (Fig. Q-6), were possibly added at a later



qazion—a galilean riddle

637

date, at the same time that W2 was changed by incorporating into it some of the pier capitals and other architectural items from the earlier building (see Figs. Q-17, 18). It seems that originally a sort of a narrow portico /corridor/ passage (ca. 2 m wide) was created between inner W3 and the western façade (W2), all the way to the causeway. The exact plan and details of this hall are difficult to reconstruct due to the poor state of preservation of the southern and eastern walls, the accumulation of debris and later construction, and the reuse of the building in later periods. Based on this very fragmentary evidence, the combined hall and lower terrace (consisting of walls W4, W5, W13, and W3, assuming the latter continued northward until W4, Figs. Q-6, 20), measured ca. 15 × 30 m. It is also possible that the area to the south of W14, W15, and W16 might have been used as a courtyard or porch (Figs. Q-6, 20). One stone in the southwestern corner of the building, just to the south of the southwestern entrance, was clearly in situ. The engaged half column (AF 26) found in the structure’s southeastern part (Fig. Q-34, plan 3) might indicate that such columns were part of the south or east walls. Several architectural fragments (AF 7–9, 17, 19, 25, 26, 31–38, 42, 43, 45; Table Q-1, Fig. Q-34, plan 3) are scattered around and inside the hall, either a as result of collapse or in secondary use. Excavation probe 3 (Loci 106, 112, 114, 117, 120; Figs. Q-6, 26, 27), inside the building, revealed that the column shaft (AF 32; Fig. Q-34) in the center of the hall was in secondary use, placed on a floor (no. 1) consisting of two levels of stone and plaster (Loci 106 and 112) (Figs. Q-26, 27), which might have been the pavement of a courtyard. The finds discovered resting on floor 1 consist of three coins (Table Q-2:nos. 4, 6, 7, Fig. Q-45), basalt and stone mortars (Fig. Q-43), some iron nails, and pottery shards, mainly from the Mamluk period (Figs. Q-40–42). A lower level of cobble pavement—Floor 2 (L. 120, about 15 cm. under the previous floor) might have belonged to the original building (Fig. Q-26, on the right). Remains of several stones composing an unstable wall (W23) were found on the east part of the excavation probe, probably part of a later wall (Figs. Q-26, 27). During our investigations, no indication of columns inside the hall was found. The unfluted column shafts found inside the building (AF 31–38—Table Q-1, Fig. Q-34, plan 3), also indicated on the plan published by Conder and Kitchener (1881:241) (Fig. Q-2), do not appear to be in situ and were probably placed in their current location at some later period. The shafts may have originally formed part of the columns belonging to the north façade.

a

b

Figure Q-26. Probe 3: a. Floor no. 1, looking east; b. Floor no. 1 and Floor no. 2 on the right, looking north.

638

supplement

Figure Q-27. Probe 3 drawing, looking north.

As no columns belonging to the hall were found, and no roof tiles, except for one recovered from the Qazion main hall it is possible that the structure was either covered by a transverse wooden beam, similar to the reconstruction suggested for the temple of Kedesh and the Roman temples in Syria, or was an open air, unroofed (hypaethral) structure as suggested by Magness (1990:175) for the Kedesh temple’s cella.10 A round stone crushing basin (AF 55, almost 1.90 m in diameter), part of an oil press installation, was found outside the west inner wall (Fig. Q-28a) next to the west inner entrance (Fig. Q-6). Since it almost blocks the main entrance to the hall, it does not seem to be part of the original building. Another similar round crushing basin was found near the Western Structure (Fig. Q-28b). Both crushing basins have an incised groove on the rim parallel to the edge, which allowed the liquid to be collected in the central socket during crushing.11 Several later walls and other indications of later architectural activity are noted at Qazion, mainly in the east and northeast sections of the main cultic structure. W26, which is connected to W1 in the centre of its east edge, is an uneven, irregular wall which partly continues the line of W1 ca. 20 m to the east. A square and several semi-circular architectural features were constructed against the northern face of W26 (Figs. Q-20, 29, see red arrows). This wall is of unknown construction date, but is apparently later than W1, having possibly been built on the original retaining wall along Pool 1 to the east.

10 The Qazion hall could possibly have been roofed with wooden transverse beams as proposed for Roman temples in Syria, whose halls are about 15 m wide (Krencker and Zschietzchman 1938:1–3, 13–19, 40–46, 128–29, 182–91, Pls. 2, 7–8, 20, 56, 58, 59, 74); see also the excavators’ (Fisher et al. 1984:151) proposal of similar wooden roofing for the cella (ca. 17.60 m) at the Kedesh Temple; Freyberger (1990:32) suggests a similar wooden roofing for the cella in the Tyche temple at Is-Sanamen, declaring that “there is not one example of a hypaethral temple in Syria”; see also Segal (2008:117, 122–23), who notes that the roofing of the Roman temples utilized arches, vaults, or domes. No columns or piers were found in the inner space of the temples, except for the Tychaion Is-Sanamen, where wooden beams might have been used for the roof. 11  Some synagogues in Galilee had oil presses in their vicinity (Ilan 1987:171 suggested they provided pure oil for the lighting of the synagogues). The surveys of the Eastern Galilee and the Lower Golan indicate a correlation between synagogue sites and oil presses. Olive oil production might have had a connection to the construction of monumental synagogue buildings (Ben David 2005:15, 208; Leibner 2009:404). At Qazion, the crushing basins might indicate that rituals using oil were conducted at the site.



qazion—a galilean riddle

a

b

Figure Q-28. Crushing basins.

Figure Q-29. W26 with a square and some semi-circular features, looking south.

639

640

supplement

A semi-circular feature without any connecting walls is seen in the southeast of the main cultic structure and two such items are observed in the hall (Figs. Q-5, Q-20b, see red arrows). They seem to have been constructed on the surface and were probably also added in later periods. 1.4 The Pools and Causeway Two large artificial depressions, already mentioned above, most likely pools or reservoirs for water, adjoin the building to the north (Pool 1) and west (Pool 2) (Figs. Q-4, 5). W8 serves as a causeway or walkway between Pools 1 and 2 (Fig. Q-30), possibly leading to the northern portico and the western façade (W2) (Figs. Q-4, 5).

a

b

Figure Q-30. Causeway W8: a. Looking south; b. Looking west.



qazion—a galilean riddle

641

Figure Q-31. Pool 2—northeastern interior corner.

The dimensions of the pools are: Pool 1 (ca. 30 [N-S] by 40 [E-W] m with a depth of ca. 8 m) and Pool 2 (ca. 31 [N-S] by 35 [E-W] m, with a depth of ca. 3 m). In each pool there is a short, low wall— in the northwestern area of Pool 1 (W22) and the southwestern area of Pool 2 (W10), opposite the façade in each pool. Numerous architectural elements were found in both pools. In Pool 1, ­fragments AF 1–5, 22–24, 29, 30, 39, 50, 60 (see Fig. Q-34 and Table Q-1) probably originally formed part of the portico and the inner north wall (W1 and W4). In Pool 2, fragments AF 27, 46–47, 49 probably belonged to W2 (Fig. Q-34 and Table Q-1). Both pools were plastered. Probe 4 (Loci 107, 109) was conducted in the northeastern interior corner of Pool 2, where the causeway (W8) and the western exterior façade (W2) meet (Fig. Q-31). It revealed that the inner face of these walls was covered with plaster, indicating that these 3–8 m deep pools were designed to hold water. Some Middle Roman cooking pots and Mamluk glazed-ware pottery (Figs. Q-39, 42) were found while cleaning this part. Similar pools adjacent to contemporary temples are found in the Hauran and Bashan, South Syria (Fig. Q-1, Map 2). A pool borders the south rear wall of the temple dedicated to Zeus and Athena at Mushennef (171 CE) (Butler 1903:346, 348, Fig. 122; 1906:413; 1915:316, ill. 287, 293; Dentzer-Feydy 1986:Pl. XIVa; Freyberger 2004; Segal 2008:101–102). Freyberger (2004:338) describes an in situ ancient stairway which leads from the outer side of the temenos through a portal to the birka (pool). The temple of Tyche at Is-Sanamain (191 CE) “was surrounded on three sides, the rear, southern wall and the two side walls, by a large rectangular pool enclosed by a two storied colonnade” (Freyberger 1990:31). He also maintains (2004:337–8) that these Hauran basins “originated from stone quarries for building material. After the completion of building construction the cavity in the earth . . . became an artificial basin and was used as a water reservoir.” He contends further that the birka such as the one at Mushennef and the Tychaion at Is-Sanamain “could have had a purely ritual function within a sanctuary,” concluding that any sanctuary in the Hauran that included a birka might have had “some sort of

642

supplement

procession path leading to it”.12 This could enhance the understanding that the Qazion ­causeway was used as a path for a ritual or ceremonial procession (see below). However, the pools in these Roman temples adjoin the rear or side walls of these temples, rather than the façades as in Qazion. Thus far no evidence of a water source, aqueduct, or water installation related to Pools 1 and 2 has been found. It is possible that a combination of rainwater and water carried from the nearby Wadi Dishon could have filled these pools, though this would most likely have occurred only in the winter. However, if the interiors of these pools were plastered as our probe indicated, they might have contained water year round. See also the water reservoir and channel found at nearby Meroth, where it is suggested that either this reservoir was filled with water from the channel or the water was carried by animals from two springs at the Hazor creek (Ilan and Damati 1987:21–2). The pools also had an embellishing effect, evidently reflecting the ornamented façades, and they enhanced the impression of the viewer approaching the site from the north and west sides. The causeway (W8), constructed as a sort of bridge where the north and west pools (1 and 2) meet, was originally ca. 4 m wide (Fig. Q-30). It was built of stone slabs, and plaster is still visible on its south face. The causeway wall connects with W2 (Fig. Q-30) and W1 (Fig. Q-7), and leads from the northwest, between Pools 1 and 2 to where W1 and W2 meet in the northwest corner of the platform. It is possible that visitors to the cultic complex could have reached the main hall from the causeway. From here, one could continue via the paved portico corridor north of the main hall and enter the structure through the triple entrances in W4. The decorated doorjamb found in the western corner of the north pool (AF 5, Figs. Q-13c, 21) may have originally belonged to an entrance situated on the causeway. However, no evidence for a threshold was observed on W8 because of its poorly preserved state. The causeway and the pools probably served as an important space in some ceremonial or ritual activities (see below). 1.5 Entrance to the Qazion Main Building The main entrance into the major cultic structure was through the west portal at the southwestern corner of the building (Figs. Q-6, 20, 24), which was easily accessible from the south and west of the site. The centrality of this main entrance is also corroborated by the Greek inscription on the lintel (AF 57, Figs. Q-46, 47) surmounting this entrance, which declared that the structure was dedicated by the Jews to the emperor and his family. The triple portals—a central entrance flanked by two side entrances—on the inner north wall (W4) enabled entrance or exit to the north portico and from there to the causeway (W8) that bridged Pools 1 and 2. The triple entrance façade may have served some symbolic or ceremonial functions13 (see Steinsapir 2005:89) perhaps as an exit towards the north portico and the northern façade for observing Pool 1, in connection with certain ritual performances and activities. Another route into the building was through the causeway (W8), which led from the northwest corner into the cultic structure. From here, visitors could continue via the paved portico between the north façade (W1) and the north inner wall (W4) that led to the triple entrances in W4 and then enter the main cultic area. Another possibility for the visitor was to walk from the causeway along

12 Two rectangular reservoirs or pools were discovered at the borders of the cult enclosure of Har Senaim, Hermon mountain, which might have had some ritual purposes (Dar 1993:28, Fig. 9). 13 See also the interesting proposal by Aviam (2004:140) that the large central portal of the Kedesh temple, which apparently had a wood or metal grating that made the entrance impassable, “was in reality a very large window, through which the sanctuary, as well as the statue of the deity, could be illuminated by the rising sun.”



qazion—a galilean riddle

643

the passage of the western façade (W2) to the western entrance in W3 (designating W6 and W7 as later additions). 1.6 The Western Structure and Altar The Western Structure, a small one-room structure (L. 121), is situated to the northwest of Pool 2. The southeastern corner of this room is ca. 6.50 m from the edge of Pool 2 (Figs. Q-4, 5). The roughly square-shaped structure, measuring ca. 10 × 10 m is bordered by W18, W19, W20, and W21 (Fig. Q-32). An entrance is visible in the center of the south wall (W21). Only two courses of the structure’s walls survived. Inside the structure an altar (AF 54) was found lying on its side, not in situ. The altar, measuring 1 m high with a square base and top measuring 40 cm., is quite worn but has the familiar design of a base, long die, and cap (AF 54, Fig. Q-33). The groove on the top of the altar generates four simple ‘horns’ at the angles, indicating that it was probably an incense or libation altar. It should be noted that the Qazion altar has no decoration and no inscription. Similar altars, but decorated or with inscriptions, have been found. One is the inscribed and decorated stone altar found near the temple of Kedesh (Cleamont-Ganneau 1903:131–135, Fig. 3, now lost). One side is decorated with a relief of the head of a bearded man covered with a veil surmounted by a radiated disc; Cleamont-Ganneau suggests that “it is a representation of the god to whom the altar was dedicated”; the other side bears a 12-line Greek dedicatory inscription flanked by two palm branches, dated probably to the later part of the 3rd c. CE. Other similar altars were found in south Syria (Butler 1919, IIA:ill. 42; Draeger 1994:Pl. 44, 1–3); a different second-century octagonal altar was

Figure Q-32. The Western Structure.

644

supplement

Figure Q-33. The altar.

discovered at Beth She’an with a dedicatory inscription (Tsafrir 1989). Three limestone altars, one with an engraved image of Helio’s head, were found in a secluded spot at the lower cult enclosure of Har Senaim on Mount Hermon dated to the Roman period (Dar 1993:62, Figs. 13, 14, 25). An altar dedicated to Hadaranes and Hochmaea found in the temple of Niha (Lebanon) is similar in shape to the Qazion altar but has inscriptions and images (Steinsapir 2005:76). Although there is no direct architectural connection between the Western Structure and the main structure, both share cultic features and thus we suggest the two structures are related to the same cultic complex. 2. Architectural Elements and Decoration Architectural elements from the Qazion monumental building lie scattered on the surface of the site, inside and outside the building and in the pools, as well as in secondary use in some of the walls (Fig. Q-34, plan 3). These include column pedestals, bases and parts of shafts, pier bases, a decorated doorjamb, entablature and cornice parts, some Doric capitals integrated into the western façade wall, and decorated and inscribed lintels (see Table Q-1, for dimensions and descriptions). No capitals of the northern façade columns have been found. Ornamentation is concentrated on the façades and doorways. Although very eclectic in nature and including a variety of architectural styles that often do not match, the general design of the structure is well executed, stylish, and refined. This high standard of workmanship was probably the produce of the local craftspeople who designed the structure, who combined various classical features together with local styles to create



qazion—a galilean riddle

Figure Q-34. Plan 3, with the location of architectural fragments.

645

646

supplement

their own unique design. The Qazion type of architectural ornamentation is similar to the style of contemporary Hauran architecture (Butler 1903:341–57; 1915:315–21; Freyberger 1990:34–36; Segal 2004:118–120). The variety and combination of elements featured in the Qazion structure may have served as one of the sources of inspiration for the decorative art of the later Galilean synagogues. Table Q-1. Catalogue of Qazion architectural fragments (see Fig. Q-34). No.

Item

Provenance

AF 1 AF 2 AF 3

Pedestal and base Pedestal and base Decorated lintel fragment

North Pool 1 North Pool 1 North Pool 1

AF 4

Pedestal and base

North Pool 1

AF 5

Decorated doorjamb

North Pool 1

AF 6

Pedestal base and column

In situ on northern façade W1

AF 7

Pedestal and base

AF 8 AF 9

Portal fragment Doorjamb

AF 10 Doorjamb AF 11

Doorjamb

AF 12 Doric corner pier capital, belongs to the northern corner pier on the west façade wall (W2) AF 13 Doric pier capital AF 14 Doric capital AF 15 Doric capital AF 16 Doric capital AF 17 Architrave, cornice, Upper part of arcade AF 18 Doric capital AF 19 Architrave or cornice moulded part AF 20 Architrave or cornice moulded part AF 21 Architrave or cornice moulded part AF 22 Stone fragment AF 23 Cornice AF 24 Cornice AF 25 Cornice AF 26 Base (or capital) of engaged column

Dimensions in cm.

Figures

L. 80, W. 80, H. 75, dia. 72 L. 82, W. 82, H. 87, dia. 65 L. 126, H. 76 (about L. 2.20 originally) H. 76, W. 76, H. 72+ dia. 60+ L. 215, H. 66

Figs. Q-13a, 14 Figs. Q-13a, 14 Figs. Q-13b, 22

L. 88, W. 88, H. 155, dia. 60 Inside hall, main structure L. 80, W. 80, H. 68, dia. 70 Inside hall, main structure L. 48, H. 35 In second use as a doorjamb on L. 50 top, 70 bottom, inner north wall (W4) H. 140 On portico floor, between the north L. 50 top, 70 bottom, façade W1 and inner north wall H. 140 (W4) In second use in the west façade L. 90, H. 100 wall (W2) West Pool 2 L. 107 top, base dia. 98, H. 50

Figs. Q-13a, 14 Figs. Q-13c, 22 Figs. Q-8, 12 Fig. Q-14 Fig. Q-35 Fig. Q-17c Fig. Q-21 Figs. Q-21, 17 Fig. Q-19

Incorporated into the west façade wall (W2) In second use in west façade wall (W2) In second use in west façade wall (W2) In second use in west façade wall (W2) Inside hall of main structure

L. 100 top, base dia. 80, Figs. Q-17, 19 H. 40 L. 100, H. 36, base dia. 76 Figs. Q-17, 19

In second use in west façade wall (W2) Between north W1 and inner north W4 On the portico’s stone pavement next to inner north wall (W4) Inside hall of main structure

L. 100, H. 32, base dia. 83 Figs. Q-17, 19

North Pool 1 North Pool 1 North Pool 1 Outside the hall in the south-east part of the structure Outside the hall in the south-east part of the structure

L. 85, H. 38, base dia. 60

Figs. Q-17, 19

L. 80, H. 40, base dia. 58

Figs. Q-17, 19

L. 75, H. 50

Fig. Q-35

L. 20, H. 48

Fig. Q-35

L. 75, H. 45

Fig. Q-35

L. 52, H. 45

Fig. Q-35

L. 55, H. 40 L. 80, H. 60 L. 60, H. 60 L. 73, H. 30

Fig. Q-38 Fig. Q-38 Fig. Q-38 Fig. Q-36

L. 60, H. 26

Fig. Q-36



qazion—a galilean riddle

647

Table Q-1 (cont.) No.

Item

AF 27 Architrave or cornice AF 28 Cornice AF 29 AF 30 AF 31 AF 32

Stone Column shaft Column shaft Column shaft

AF 33 Column shaft AF 34 Column shaft AF 35 Column shaft AF 36 Column shaft AF 37 Column shaft AF 38 Column shaft AF 39 Column shaft AF 40 Cornice part AF 41 Architrave or cornice AF 42 Threshold part AF 43 Stone fragment AF 44 Stone fragment AF 45 AF 46 AF 47 AF 48 AF 49 AF 50 AF 51 AF 52 AF 53

Pier capital top Small broken part Architrave or cornice Architrave or cornice Stone with round hole Column shaft Column shaft Stone with 11 holes Half-round stone

AF 54 Altar AF 55 A crushing basin, a component of an oil press installation. Broken in half AF 56 A crushing basin, a component of an oil press installation AF 57 Inscribed lintel (IAA 1985– 612/1) AF 58 Threshold AF 59 Threshold AF 60 Fragment of column base

Provenance West Pool 2 On the portico’s stone pavement next to inner north wall (W4) North Pool 1 North Pool 1 Inside hall, standing in second use Inside hall, standing in second use, Probe 2 Inside hall, standing in second use Inside hall, standing in second use Next to inner façade north wall (W1) On eastern hall wall, on the north (W13) On eastern hall wall, on the south (W13) Inside hall standing in second use North Pool 1 On the east part of the portico between the façade wall and the inner north wall (W1 and W4) East of ? the structure In second use in the inner northern wall (W4) In second use at the end of the inner northern wall (W4) In second use on the east end of the north façade (W1) In centre of hall (Benchmark) West Pool 2 West Pool 2 North Pool 1 West Pool 2 North Pool 1 West Pool 2 Next to W4 Adjacent to the inside corner of the causeway (W8) inside the Western Structure Outside the western entrance In the field, on the way to the Western Structure Inside hall next to western entrance In situ, central portal, inner north wall (W4) In situ, western portal North Pool 1, fallen on top of lintel AF 3

Dimensions in cm.

Figures

L. 48, H. 35 L. 45, H. 35

Fig. Q-35 Fig. Q-35

L100, H. 70 L. 2.00 m, dia. 65 L. 25, dia. 63 L. 50, dia. 60

Fig. Q-38 Fig. Q-27

dia. 60 L. 55. dia. 60 L. 1.50 m L. 1.30 m, dia. 50. L. 1.15 m dia. 60 L. 80, dia. 60 L. 35, H. 35

Fig. Q-35

L. 50, H. 48 L. 50, H. 48

Fig. Q-35 Fig. Q-21

L. 60, H. 48

Fig. Q-35

L. 45, H. 55

Fig. Q-35

L. 80, W. 80 L. 15, H. 16 L. 55, H. 42 L. 47, H. 38 L. 86, H. 60 L. 32, dia. 25 L. 110, dia. 60 L. 45, H. 38 L. 65, H. 38

Fig. Q-38 Fig. Q-38 Fig. Q-35 Fig. Q-38 Fig. Q-38 Fig. Q-38

L. 40, W. 40, H. 100; groove on its Upper part 12 deep 190 dia.

Fig. Q-33

190 dia.

Fig. Q-28

L. 125 (broken), W. 60, H. 60 L. 215, H. 70 (broken)

Figs. Q-46, 47

L. 215, H. 65 L. 40, H. 30

Figs. Q-24, 25 Figs. Q-13b, 36

Fig. Q-28

Fig. Q-21

648

supplement

Columns: The column parts consisted of pedestals, bases, and shafts. Pedestals and bases (AF 1, 2, 4, 6. 7 and 60): Originating on the north façade, each of these pedestals comprise a different profile and shape (Figs. Q-13, 14). Some of the pedestals have a wide dado and their Attic base consists of a torus and scotia. Only on one pedestal, AF 6, was part of the column shaft preserved (for comparable pedestals and bases on contemporary temples, see Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938:Pls. 52f, 79b; Kedesh temple, Fisher et al. 1984:Fig. 4; see also comparable pedestals and bases at the Barʿam and Nabratein synagogues, Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 190, 203). The columns consisted of unfluted shafts about 60 cm. in diameter. All of the Qazion column fragments were found in the North Pool 1 or inside the building, and except for column base AF 6, none were found in situ. Most of the unfluted column shaft fragments have similar diameters (e.g. AF 30–39, and 51) which fit the pedestal and bases, except for AF 50, which seems to belong to a much smaller size column. Pier capitals (AF 12–16 and 18): The only capitals found are six undecorated simple Doric capitals of the west portico façade (Fig. Q-19, Plate 2) found incorporated into a later wall (Figs. Q-17, 18), consisting of a straight echinus and a narrow abacus; comparable capitals are found in Syrian temples (Butler 1903:27–8, Figs. 4, 5) and at the Umm el-Qanatir synagogue (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:132, Fig. 267). Architrave and Cornice fragments (AF 17, 19–24, 28, 40–41, 47): These have simple mouldings with one or two fasciae (Fig. Q-35, Plate 5).

Figure Q-35. Plate 5: Architrave and cornice fragments.



qazion—a galilean riddle

649

The architrave fragments (especially AF 17, 19–21, 28) probably belonged to the north portals, as they were found in the northern part of the building; fragments AF 41 and 47, with different molding, might be part of a different architrave. A cornice corner fragment AF 8 (Fig. Q-36) of a portal has some comparable examples at the synagogue of Korazim (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:44, Fig. 82; Yeivin 2000:34, Fig. 67, Table 2:4). Engaged half columns (AF 26) (Fig. Q-36, Plate 6): One was found in the east-south part of the structure, perhaps indicating that engaged columns were part of the east or south walls (for a similar engaged column see Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938:Pl. 79d). Lintels: The inscribed lintel (AF 57) was originally designed with a central inscription flanked by two wreaths, one on each side and each enclosing another inscription (Figs. Q-46, 47). It is a unique composition, as usually such wreaths are placed in the centre of the design (see similar synagogue lintels: Avigad 1960:Pl. XIII-1; Hachlili 1988:Figs. VIII-46, 51d-e, 52a-d, 53a-b; see discussion below). This stone lintel was originally placed on the portal of the western entrance, as proved by the proximity of the lintel, already found close to the entrance in 1881 and in 1984 (Figs. Q-2, 3). Since the lintel is very heavy, it is unlikely that it was transported more than a short distance; the architectural

Figure Q-36. Plate 6: Various architectural items.

650

supplement

a

b

c

Figure Q-37. Lintels with tripartite metope pattern.

similarity between the bottom part of the lintel and the threshold of the western portal (Fig. Q-25) shows their connection. A lintel fragment with a partially preserved tripartite metope pattern (AF 3, Fig. Q-22) was found partly buried in the west side of Pool 1, with its ornamented face to the viewer (Figs. Q-12, 13b); the lintel is divided into three metopes by a dotted guilloche frame and lines decorated with a central object; on the Qazion lintel these inner designs did not survive. Similar lintels with metopes decorated with objects such as a wreath flanked by floral and geometric designs, appear on several synagogue lintels (Fig. Q-37), including those of Capernaum (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:9–10, 73–74; Figs. 10, 11, 13) and those of the two side entrances at H. ʿAmmudim (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:Figs. 139–41). On the Japhiʿa lintel metopes, a wreath is flanked by two eagles (Sukenik 1951:Fig. 2) (see discussion in this book, Chapter V, Fig. V-5). The Qazion metope lintel was compared by Kohl and Watzinger (1916:160–61) to wood and stone coffins as well as to wooden screens that, in their opinion, were built around the synagogue gallery. Avi-Yonah (1950:64) notes the tripartite arrangement of the lintels in comparison to the decoration found on ossuaries. Foerster (1972:103–5, 153) suggests that this lintel type is specific to early synagogues in the Galilee and was executed by the same artist; he dates the type to the second century CE because of the Qazion inscription dating. However, close examination of the lintels found at the synagogues of Capernaum, H.ʿAmmudim, and Japhiʿa, as well as Qazion, show differences in the details of the design and its execution (also Turnheim 1987:156–7). It seems more probable that the artists of each of the buildings used a common pattern, which resulted in a similar ornamented lintel design. Doorjambs: A relatively intact decorated doorjamb (AF 5, Fig. Q-22b), was discovered in the north pool, still partly buried in debris, with its decorated face upward (see Figs. Q-12, 13c). It was ornamented with a series of mouldings consisting of five bands of carving with geometric (bands 2 and 4) and foliate designs with no relation to each other. The first band depicts a stylized design of a vine scroll with trellis and leaves issuing straight upward out of a vase at the bottom, which is one of the reasons for identifying this stone as a doorjamb. Friezes of grapevine branches are a popular and recurrent design pattern and one of the characteristic features of Nabatean and Roman temple



qazion—a galilean riddle

651

ornamentation in the Hauran and Syria (Butler 1915:ill. 335; 1916:ill. 330; Hachlili 1971:130, Pl. 27; Dentzer-Feydy 1986:286–87, Pls. IIIb, VII, XXIIId; 1989:467–72, Figs. 151, 154, 155). Some Galilean synagogues portray similar designs, for instance the lintels of the Barʿam, Capernaum, Nabratein, and Meroth synagogues (see this book, Chapter V, Figs. V-2, 6, 7) (Avi-Yonah 1948:149–151, Pl. 13:1; Hachlili 1988:212–13, 216, lintels Type VIII, Fig. VIII 52f–h; Fisher 1987:172). The richly carved entrance of the Kanaf synagogue (in the Golan) is decorated with a continuous carved frame and its inner band is ornamented with a frieze of vine trellis and grape clusters (see this book: Figs. V-22c, IX35b). The vine scroll pattern issuing from a vase on the Qazion fragment is stylized, confined, and quite unusual. The artist had to fit the design into a limited space. A similar design of a vine scroll issuing from a vase appears on the columns of the newly discovered Torah Shrine aedicula at Umm el-Qanatir (see this book Fig. IV-51; Ben David et al. 2006:116, Figs. on p. 116). The second band on the doorjamb stone has a geometric pattern; the third is a band of acanthus leaves facing left and right alternately. The fourth band is decorated with egg and dart, which is a classic molding design. The fifth is a band of stylized leaves. Though the patterns carved on this fragment are popular and appear on many architectural decorations of Roman temples in south Syria and at Galilean synagogues, the combination of the bands in this Qazion example is unique. Three other molded doorjambs (AF 9–11, Fig. Q-21, Plate 3) were found; AF 9, located next to the door threshold, was originally the west doorjamb of the inner north wall (W4) main entrance (Fig. Q-16); it has some similarity with doorjambs at the Umm al-Qanatir and Korazim synagogues (similar profile at Umm al-Qanatir synagogue, Kohl & Watzinger 1916:Fig. 254; at Korazim, Yeivin 2000:Table 2:2, 3). Various other architectural elements such as cornice parts, molded stones, and other items were found (Fig. Q-38, Plate 7).14 An analysis of the architectural ornamentation of the Qazion structure reveals that the artists used a small number of motifs from the classical repertoire and added some local patterns, creating a stylized individual design executed on a high standard. For instance, the vine trellis and acanthus leaves designs are the main decoration of lintels and doorjambs, and underwent a process of development during the second century CE (Dentzer-Feydy 1986:286–87). The motifs and the designs seem to be ingrained in the art of the region and have affinities with Roman-Syrian art of the end of the second century CE. Butler (1903:38) remarked that “the ornament of the second century is inspired with classical sentiment and is executed in classic style even though in a few cases, it may depart from the classic line in its more minute details.” Butler suggested a linear development for the ornamentation in Syria in the Roman period, based on chronology; towards the end of the Hellenistic period, the ornamentation was losing its Greek character and acquiring local features. However, Dentzer-Feydy (1989:461) argues that rather than a linear development or the existence of one main pattern, the ornamentation reflects the coexistence of all decoration types, both local and imported. The general impression of the Qazion architectural decoration is of eclecticism in details and style. The architectural features of the Qazion building are often compared to the architectural ornamentation of the nearby 2nd–3rd c. CE Kedesh temple, which was associated with the cult of Baalshamin and was part of the Syro-Phoenician region (Fisher et al. 1984:165–9); but see Magness (1990:180) who suggests that “the temple at Kedesh functioned as an oracular sanctuary dedicated to both Baalshamin/ Jupiter and Apollo.” The Kedesh architectural decoration characteristics are rooted in the Hellenistic traditions: “Although the builders and artists at Kedesh remained faithful to the artistic concepts and principals prevailing in the Roman period, they allowed themselves a certain latitude in the choice and execution of the decorative motifs” (Fisher et al. 1984:166). However, the Kedesh temple décor is 14 The wing of an eagle was recorded by Ilan (1987:Fig. 20; 1991:58–59) with no indication of provenance. Not found in the field, unknown, lost?

652

supplement

Figure Q-38. Plate 7: Various architectural fragments.

quite dissimilar to the architectural ornamentation of Qazion. On the architectural level, little is found to compare between the two structures. Kedesh is a characteristic Roman temple with a temenos, a portico, three entrances, and a rectangular cella with an apse intended for a statue of the deity (Fisher et al. 1984:146–151, Figs. 2, 3). This type of adyton temple is repeatedly found in the Hauran and the Syrian-Phoenician region (Freyberger 1990:33–34; Segal 2008:117). The Qazion building lacks all of these characteristics and is unique in its general plan, outline and architectural elements. 3. The Finds The few finds recovered during the excavations (mainly from the probes) include pottery of the Roman and Mamluk periods, a few coins, and some stone and metal items.

3.1 The Pottery The pottery shards (Figs. Q-39–42) were recovered from the limited soundings—the four probes we excavated. The pottery discussed in the report confirms the late 2nd to early 3rd century date for the entire Qazion complex and indicates also that the site was occupied again in the Mamluk and Ottoman periods. 3.1.1 Roman Period Pottery The early Middle Roman pottery was found mainly in Probe 1, around the east part of the north portico, between W1 and W4 (Loci 113, 115 119) and in Probe 4, in the cleaning of the northeast corner of Pool 2 (Locus 109). Two bowls with black slip decoration (1105, 1063/1) from Loci 109 and 119 and another bowl (1114/1), decorated with red slip outside and inside, might all date earlier, to the late 1st c. CE.



qazion—a galilean riddle

1

2

4

653

3

5

6

7

8

9

11

10

15

14

16

13

12

17

18

Figure Q-39. Roman period pottery.

No.

Vessel Type

Reg. no.

Locus

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Cooking pot Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar

1114/2 1105/2 1105/3 1063/2 1101/1 1101/2 1101/3 1081/1 1081/2 1106 1063/2 1093 1093 1105/4 1105/4 1105/4 1101/4 1063/3

119 119 119 113 115 115 115 115 115 119 113 109 109 119 119 119 119 113

654

supplement

3.1.2 Bowls The Qazion deep bowls (Fig. Q-39:1–6) with one or two grooves on the rim are typical of the Galilean region. Most of these are ‘Galilean bowls’ (Kefar Hananya IA) and probably many such vessels were manufactured at the pottery centre of Kefar Hananya (Adan-Bayewitz 1993:148, 207–210). They are dated from the end of the 1st c. to the mid-4th c. CE. Similar bowls are found in Galilean synagogues dated to the Middle Roman period: among them H. Shemʿa (Meyers, Kraabel and Strange 1976:Pl. 7.1– 7.10) and Meiron (Meyers 1981:Pl. 8.23–25). Qazion bowls nos. 1–6 are similar to Nabratein Period II bowls (Meyers and Meyers 2009:133, Pls. D:18–21, F:18, 20, L:11, M:21). The other bowls, nos. 7–8, carinated with everted rims (Fig. Q-39:7–8), are dated to the early 2nd to 4th c. CE by Adan-Bayewitz (1993:120, Pl. 3b:6, 17, 18); similar bowls are found at H. Shemʿa (Meyers, Kraabel and Strange 1976: Pl. 7.10:20–29) and Nabratein (Meyers and Meyers 2009:133, Pls. E:3, M:16–17). The bowl with handles (Fig. Q-39:9) recalls a bowl at Nabratein (Meyers and Meyers 2009:133, Pls. G:13, M:24). 3.1.3 Cooking Pots The Qazion cooking pots (Fig. Q-39:10–13) with thick rim and vertical neck are similar to Kefar Hananya type 4B-C (Adan-Bayewitz 1993:126–130), dated to the 1st to mid 4th c. CE. Diez-Fernandez (1983:156, T10.6b:302) dates a similar cooking pot type in the mid-2nd to end of 3rd c. CE. Similar cooking pots are found at Nabratein Period II (Meyers and Meyers 2009:133, Pls. F:21, L:11, 15–18, M:4, 7, N:2, 7). 3.1.4 Storage Jars Several types of storage jars are found at Qazion. The storage jar with a groove between the neck and shoulder (Fig. Q-39:14) is dated to the 2nd and 3rd c. CE. This jar is similar to Nabratein jars (Meyers and Meyers 2009:133, Pl L:21). Other storage jars, with thick neck and round rim (Fig. Q-39:14–18), are dated to the 1st to 3rd c. CE (Diez-Fernandez 1983:142, T1.10:119); similar jars are found at Meiron (Meyers et al. 1981:Pl. 8:28) and at Nabratein (Meyers and Meyers 2009:133, Pls. E:12, 13, H:17, 22, L:20–21, P:6–7, 9). 3.1.5 The Crusader and Mamluk Periods (12th–15th c. CE) Three main types of vessels of this period are found at Qazion (Figs. Q-40–42): (1) Undecorated handmade vessels, mainly bowls, basins, and jars; (2) Common and imported glazed ware; (3) Wheelmade common ware.15 3.1.5.1 Undecorated Handmade Ware (12th–14th c.) Few vessels of this group—mainly bowls, basins, cooking pots, and jugs of simple shapes—were found at Qazion (Fig. Q-40:1–7) together with glazed ware in Locus 102 (near W10 in pool 2), and in Loci 110 (Probe 2) and 112 (Probe 3). A list of loci appears below. The Qazion bowls (Fig. Q-40:1–3) are similar to undecorated handmade bowls, basins and cooking pots found at Horbat ʿUza (Stern and Tacher 2009:129–130, Fig. 3.19:1–3, 6, and see the discussion of comparable vessels).

15 For an overview of the Mamluk period and pottery in the Upper Galilee, see Frankel et al. 2001:70–71, 117–120, Fig. 3.12. For an extensive discussion of pottery groups of this period and corresponding examples, see the report on the Crusader and Mamluk pottery from Horbat ʿUza (Stern and Tacher 2009:129–175).



qazion—a galilean riddle

655

2

1

3

4

5

6

7

Figure Q-40. Mamluk pottery, undecorated handmade ware (12th–14th c.).

No.

Vessel Type

Reg. no.

Locus

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Bowl Bowl Bowl Cooking Pot Cooking Pot Basin Basin

1097/1 1097/2 1097/3 1097/4 1097/5 1026/1 1026/2

112 112 112 112 112 102 102

656

supplement

3.1.5.2 Glazed Ware The glazed ware vessels were recovered mostly from Probe 2 (Loci 105, 110) and from Floor 1 in Probe 3 (Loci 106, 114). All belong to the later use of the site in the Mamluk period.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

10

12

13

14

Figure Q-41. Glazed ware.



qazion—a galilean riddle

No.

Vessel Type

Reg. no.

Locus

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl

1047/1 1047/2 1075/1 1075/2 1018/1 1018/2 1070/1 1004 1031/1 1031/2 1052 1055 1021 1005

106 106 114 114 100 100 110 105 105 105 108 101 surface

657

Decoration Green glaze interior Green glaze interior and rim, brown detail, red slip line Brown and yellow glaze interior, green glaze exterior green glaze interior and rim Green glaze interior, brown on rim Yellow glaze interior, green exterior Brown glaze interior Yellow and green glaze Yellow glaze interior and rim White glaze interior and exterior Yellow and green glaze, brown detail Brown and green glaze interior Green glaze interior and rim Decorated handmade

The Common and Imported Glazed Ware at Qazion (Fig. Q-41) are mainly bowls with carinated walls, ledge rim, frequently with green, yellow, or brown monochrome glaze. This group of vessels has a wide distribution in Israel and other parts of the region. Most of these glazed bowls are of local origin and are dated to the 13th to 15th c.; many similar examples are found at Horbat ʿUza (for an extensive discussion of these groups of local and imported glazed ware and corresponding examples at Horbat ʿUza, see Stern and Tacher 2009:144–147, Figs. 3.25, 3.26). The hand-decorated bowls (Fig. Q-41:13, 14) are similar to bowls at H. ʿUza (Stern and Tacher 2009:144–147, Fig. 20:3, 4). 3.1.5.3 Jars and Miscellaneous Pottery Vessels The jars and other pottery vessels were found in Probes 2 and 3. The spouted jug, a jar, and one of the pipes, were recovered from Probe 1 (Loci 108, 113, 115). The Qazion wheel-made jars (Fig. Q-42:1–6) be long to the Mamluk period; comparable jars are found in Galilee sites (Frankel et al. 2001:70, Fig. 3.12:11), and at H. ʿUza (Stern and Tacher 2009: Fig. 3.22:3–4). The spouted jug (Fig. Q-42:7) has comparable vessels at H. Uza (Stern and Tacher 2009:Fig. 3.21:8–10). The pipes (Fig. Q-42:10–11) belong to the Ottoman period. Most of the pottery found on the surface and in various cleaning areas was Mamluk—evidence of the last inhabitants of the Qazion site; but some of this pottery was also found in Probes 2 and 3. The soundings revealed a small group of Mamluk pottery, mainly simple undecorated handmade ware (Fig. Q-40), but also some finer common and imported glazed ware (Figs. Q-41). The Middle Roman period pottery was recovered mainly from Probe 1, in the east part of the north portico between W1 and W4, where the early Tiberias coin (Fig. Q-43) was also found; this might indicate that these are the early levels of life on the site. Some hints of remains of the Ottoman period are provided by the pipes (Fig. Q-42:10–11). In summary, the Qazion pottery confirms the Middle Roman period (late 2nd to early 3rd century CE) date of the main cultic building and indicates that the site was occupied also in the Crusader/ Mamluk periods. Other finds include basalt and stone bowls and mortars (Fig. Q-43) and some iron nails and arrows, all probably belonging to a later period.

658

supplement

1

2

3

5

7

4

6

8

9

10

11

Figure Q-42. Miscellaneous pottery.

No.

Vessel Type

Reg. no.

Locus

Decoration

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Jar Jar Jar Jar Jar Jar Spouted jug Spouted jug Tile Pipe Pipe

1058 1063 1075/3 1070/2 1070/3 1075/4 1081 1037 1075/5 1101 1005

106 113 114 110 110 114 115 108 110 115 surface

Wheel-made Wheel-made Wheel-made Wheel-made Wheel-made Wheel-made, red slip all over Wheel-made, green brown glaze



qazion—a galilean riddle

1

2

659

3

Figure Q-43. Stone and basalt bowls and mortars.

No.

Vessel Type

Reg. no.

Locus

1 2a 2b 3

Stone mortar Stone bowl Stone mortar Basalt bowl

1015 1020

Cleaning behind W1 100, cleaning

1032

106, cleaning

3.2 The Coins Twelve coins, most of them badly worn, were found in the excavations. The coins were cleaned and identified with the help of the late Prof. Y. Meshorer (Table Q-2, Figs. Q-44, 45). Table Q-2. The coins (Figs. Q-44, 45). No.

Basket

Locus

Quantity

Weight in grams

Size in mm.

1

1102

115 north portico

1

3.80

15

2

1089

113 north portico

1

5.49

3

1064

113 north portico

1

4.59

4

1065

106 in debris

1

1.09

5 6

1008 1033

Surface 106 on floor 1

1 1

2.74 0.10

7 8 9–11

1039 1051 1083

106 on floor 1 Surface 110 debris outside west entrance

1 1 3

1088

114, 117

1

2.03 2.68 3.80 1.01 0.94 2.40

12

Identification and Notes

Tiberias. Herod Antipas. 19/20 CE. (Meshorer 2001:81–82, Pl. 49: no. 77). 22 Token, worn out. Septimus Severus, with counter mark, probably originated in the Tyre mint. 2nd century CE. (Meshorer 1976:55, 71, Pl XV:157–158). 19 1st–2nd century CE. Worn, broken, corroded. 11 Late Roman, until 3rd century CE. Very worn, broken. 17 Mamluk. Very worn, corroded. 11 Mamluk-European. Very worn, corroded. 20 Mamluk. Very worn, broken. 20 Mamluk. Very worn, broken. 13, 16, 17 Three worn Mamluk coins, badly corroded. 20

Badly corroded.

660

supplement

Figure Q-44. The Tiberias coin.

Figure Q-45. Coins 2–11.

The most important coin found at Qazion is the Tiberias coin (no. 1, Fig. Q-44, Table Q-2), found in debris in the east part of the north portico (L. 115), close to the inner face of the north façade (W1). The Tiberias coin, no. 1, is made of bronze and is fairly well preserved. It was minted in Tiberias and bears the name of Herod Antipas (19/20 CE). Obv.: Reed, date LKΔ (Year 24) in centre, surrounded by Greek inscription HPWΔOY TETPAPXOY (of Herod the Tetrach) and border dots. Rev.: Greek inscription TIBE PIAC (Tiberias), surrounded by a wreath and border dots.

This coin commemorates the founding of the city of Tiberias (19 CE) in the 24th year of the reign of Herod Antipas; its symbols are singular and different from those on Herod Antipas’s other coins (Meshorer 2001:81–82, no. 77; Jensen 2007:297–8; Sigismund 2007:321–4). This is a rare coin and almost all such coins have been found in the Tiberias area; similar coins were found at Gamla [two are of the same denomination and year, and four are of the same year] (Syon 2004:48–9, 112, Fig. 19: TJC types 76–78; Cat. nos. 869–873). Hence, the find of this coin in Qazion is important; it designates that perhaps (a) the site was already inhabited at this time (early 1st c. CE), and (b) possibly by Jews, who probably would have preferred the currency of the Jewish rulers. These assumptions are tentative, as a single coin is really not much to go by. Coins 2–4 (Fig. Q-45), dated to the 1st or 2nd century CE, are badly worn. They were found in the debris of the east part of the north portico and in the center of the building (Probe 1). They are analogous in date to the lintel inscription. The Mamluk coins (nos. 5–12; Fig. Q-45) testify to the later occupation of the site.16

16 Z. Ilan (1987a:36, with no indication of provenance) recorded a recovery of a coin of Theodosius II (408–450) at Qazion.



qazion—a galilean riddle

661

4. The Inscribed Lintel The inscribed lintel was initially discovered in 1860 by Renan (1864:539; 1871:773–76) and then became ‘lost’ for most of the 20th century; no later visitor or surveyor at the site was able to locate it. It was rediscovered during a research visit to the site by Rachel Hachlili and colleagues (Hachlili 1988:396–7, Pl. 109; Bar-On and Ilan 1989:120). In June 1984, I organized a research tour of several Galilean synagogues, and decided to include Qazion among them. During the visit to the site we noticed a large stone resting next to the southwestern corner of the monumental building, with some marks on its top (Fig. Q-46b). Looking at the side of the stone, we spotted the sockets (Fig. Q-25a) marking it as a lintel, decided to turn the stone over (Fig. Q-3), and found the inscription face down. Now it is on display in the garden of the Israeli president’s residence in Jerusalem. This lintel (AF 57, Length 1.25 m; Height 60 cm.; Width 60 cm.) is broken on both sides. A Greek inscription occupies the centre of its face. Originally this inscription was flanked by wreaths enclosing additional inscriptions: the left wreath survived but its left edge is missing (Figs. Q-46a-d, 47); the right wreath was not found. The left wreath17 encloses a short inscription and probably the right one contained an inscription as well (Fig. Q-47b). Thus, the composition of the lintel renders a central inscription flanked by two wreaths, both enclosing inscriptions. This is a rare composition; usually the wreath is depicted in the centre of the lintel (see note 15). Based on the assumption that there were flanking wreaths, the lintel was probably originally ca. 2.00–2.20 m long, the required length for the lintel to span the west entrance, which is 1.90 m long, as is the threshold (Fig. Q-25). Interestingly, dedicatory inscriptions on synagogue portal lintels are usually engraved on the margins of the lintel, while its face is usually decorated with a central wreath (see synagogue lintels with Hebrew or Aramaic inscriptions, Naveh 1978: nos. 1, 6, 13, 15). The same occurs on the lintel of the main doorway of the Tychaion at Is-Sanamen, where a Greek inscription engraved on the lower molding is dedicated to the emperor Commudus in the year 191 CE (Littman 1915:290–92). As noted above, Conder and Kitchener (1881:240), in the 19th century, noted on their plan (Fig. Q-2) that the lintel was found near the west-south part of the building. This was also the location of the lintel when it was rediscovered in 1984 (Fig. Q-3), lending additional support to the above suggestion that it belonged to the western portal. Interpretations regarding the function and date of the Qazion structure focus on the lintel’s Greek inscription. The inscription has been discussed and published by numerous scholars (e.g. Renier and Renan 1871:774–77; Klein 1920:81; Kohl and Watzinger 1916:209; Frey 1952:no. 972; Hüttenmeister and Reeg 1977, I:361–2; Roth-Gerson 1987:125–127; Hachlili 1988:396–7, Pl. 109; Di Segni 1997, I:318–320). As the inscription’s text is complete, its reconstruction flanked by two wreaths, though creating a unique composition, is fully justified.

17 The wreath consists of stylized leaves ending in a ribbon bound in a ‘Hercules knot’, one of the features common to both synagogues and Roman pagan structures (Avi-Yonah 1981:76–77, Fig. 50; Hachlili 1988:206–7, Figs. VIII-44, 45, 46, 52a–e, 53a–b). However, inscriptions rarely appear inside wreaths. A similar case of a wreath at one end of a lintel is found at Khisfin in the Golan, enclosing a Greek inscription. Other parts of the lintel are engraved with two six-petaled rosettes and a vine branch with grapes (Kochavi 1972:283, no. 150). The synagogue lintel at Dabura in the Golan also has an inscription inside the center wreath (see this book, Figs. XIV-3a, XIV-4); however, the Dabura wreath is unique, as it is made of two snakes instead of the usual stylized leaves. Another similar engraving of a wreath enclosing a short Greek inscription (2nd c.) was found on a fragment of a tomb stone outside the city of Gerasa (Welles 1938:no. 225, Pl. CXVIb).

662

supplement

a

b

c

d

Figure Q-46. The inscribed lintel: a. inscription on the façade; b. rear of the lintel; c. left side of the lintel; d. right side of the lintel.

4.1 The Inscription The Greek inscription (1.14 × 0.41 m; height of letters 5–6 cm.) on the lintel is written in six lines, and another short inscription is inside the small left wreath (33 cm. outside; 18 cm. inside, letters—3–4 cm. in height); part of the fifth line of the inscription was damaged when the name of Geta was erased, already in antiquity (Fig. Q-47). The revised translation, analysis, and discussion of the inscription is by Paul B. Harvey Jr. (Harvey 2013): 1. ‘Yπèρ σωτη[ρί]ας τ[ῶν κυρί] 2. ων ἡμῶν αὐτοκρατό[ρων] 3. καισάρων Λ. Σεπτ. Σεου[ήρου] 4. Εὐσεβ. Περτ. Σεβ. καὶ Μ. Αủρ. Ὰ[ντωνε]



qazion—a galilean riddle

663

a

b

Figure Q-47. The Qazion Greek inscription. 5. ῖνου [[καὶ Π. Σεπτ. Γ ]]έτα υίῶν αủ[τοῦ ἐξ] 6. εủχῆς Ίουδαίων. (On the left, inside the wreath:) 7. καὶ Ίουλίας Δόμνης Σεβ[αστής] “For the health and well-being of our lord emperors, the Caesars, Lucius Septimius Severus Pius Pertinax Augustus, and Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Publius Septimius Geta, his sons, in accord with the vow of the Jews.” On the left, inside the wreath: “and of Julia Domna Augusta.”

The inscription opens with a dedication to the health and well-being of the Roman emperor Septimus Severus (who reigned in 193–211 CE) and his two sons, Caracalla (better known by this nickname, though he was born Septimus Bassianus and given the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus in 196 CE) and Septimius Geta. The name of Julia Domna Augusta, the emperor’s wife and the mother of his sons, is inscribed inside the left wreath. Renier/Renan (1871:774–6) stated that on the far right there was originally another wreath enclosing an inscription (the four bands on the right in his drawing also indicate this) which he suggests either contained the name of Caracalla’s wife, καὶ Φουλουιασ Πλαυτιλλασ Σεβ[αστής] “and of Fulvia Plautilla,” which would date the inscription later, to ca. 202 CE (see also n. 16), or contained the words καὶ στρατο πεδων “and the legions, the camps”. However, Di Segni (1997, I:320) and Harvey (2013) suggest that the intimated inscription in the lost right wreath probably presented additional titles of Julia Domna, such as μητρός κάστρων “mother of the camps”. The inscription ends with a dedication, “in accord with a vow of the Jews.” The formula is typical and complete, and most scholars interpret it to refer to the large monumental structure associated with the inscribed lintel. The fact that the name of Geta was chiseled out in the fifth line of the Qazion inscription was already noticed by Renier/Renan (1871:774; but see Roth-Gerson 1987:126 who maintains the stone is simply worn out). After Geta’s murder by Caracalla on 26 December 211, he suffered official damnatio

664

supplement

Figure Q-48. Severan Tondo. Courtesy of Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Antikensammlung. Photograph: Johannes Laurentius.

memoriae, which was declared by the Senate against his memory. Hence, Geta’s name was erased and defaced in inscriptions and monuments all over the Roman Empire and the provinces (see discussion and examples, Harvey 2013). The phenomenon of Geta’s obliterated face is observed in the portrait of the Severan family depicted on the Severan Tondo (Fig. Q-48), a tempera or egg-based painting on a circular wooden panel (30.5 cm. in diameter) dated to ca. 200 CE, which possibly originated in Egypt and is presently on display at the Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (inventory number 31329; Heilmeyer 1988:373; Birley 1988:189, Pl. 16) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severan_Tondo). The tondo renders Septimus Severus on the right, his wife Julia Domna on the left, and their two sons, Caracalla (on the right) and Geta (on the left), in front of them. Geta’s face is wiped out. 4.2 Dating of the Inscription In almost all publications, the Qazion inscription has been dated to 197–198 CE based on the following: Septimus Severus began his reign in 193 CE and the inscription mentions both his sons, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (Caracalla) and Geta, but without the title Augustus, which was awarded to Caracalla only in 198 CE and to Geta only in 208 (Kohl and Watzinger 1916:209; Roth-Gerson 1987:126;



qazion—a galilean riddle

665

Di Segni 1997, I:319). Harvey (2013) suggests a slightly later date, 198–99 CE, for the inscription, connecting it to the visit of Septimius and his family in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt in 197–99 (Birley 1988: 135; Millar 1994:121). However, there is no evidence that the imperial entourage turned up anywhere near Qazion. 4.3 The Qazion Inscription in Context The Qazion inscription expresses a common formula found on similar contemporary Greek inscriptions recovered in the Near East. Such formulae were engraved on temple lintels, architectural items, stones, and altars dedicated by various people and groups, such as imperial officials, military personnel and local citizens (Moralee 2004:4, 48–58, 121–134, lists in his appendix about 177 dedications to the salvation of the emperors and almost all are in Greek). The formula Yπèρ σωτηρίας ‘for the health and well-being of the emperor’, which begins the inscription, is engraved on many inscriptions in the Near East and was apparently an expression of provincial loyalty. It “reveals the role that dedications for the salvation played in the mundane business of everyday life in this region . . . motivated by local concerns, including social, religious and legal obligations” (Moralee 2004:40). The term εủχής at the end of the inscription is among “the most common religious formulas which involve the fulfillment of vows” (Moralee 2004:45). In the Qazion inscription, εủχής Ίουδαίων ‘by a vow of the Jews’ explains the inscription as a vow of dedication by the Jews made to the Roman Emperors. On the Qazion inscription Moralee (2004:47, no. 85 incorrect citation) remarks “Thus, of 174 inscriptions for the salvation of the emperor, only two definitely nonpagan dedications have turned up in the Near East”. Qazion is one of them. Although the Qazion Jewish dedicatory inscription is unique among inscriptions found in Israel,18 similar formulaic inscriptions associated with Jews in the Diaspora have been found in Hellenistic Egypt, Ostia, and Asia Minor; they are also akin to pagan examples. The earliest inscriptions, dating to the 3rd to 1st centuries CE, are from Egypt. These inscriptions use the same opening formula (‘ύπέρ) ‘on behalf of ’ or ‘for’, and are dedicated to the Hellenistic emperors by the Jews; the inscriptions include dedications of proseuche (synagogues) by the Jews to the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt (for example at Arsinoe-Crocodilopolis, Athribis, Shedia, Xenephyris in the 3rd c. BCE) (Frey 1952: nos. 1440–1444; Horbury and Noy 1992:nos. 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 117; Binder 1999:240–241). The dedication of a temple at Leontopolis in Egypt by Onias (the son of Onias the high priest in Jerusalem, who fled to Alexandria) to Ptolemy VI uses a similar formula: “to build a temple to the Most High God in the likeness of that of Jerusalem and with the same dimensions on behalf (‘ύπέρ) of you and your wife and children” (Josephus Ant. 13.67, see also War 1.31–33, and different in War 7.421–23; Horbury and Noy 1992:20). In his thorough discussion of Onias’s temple, Gruen (1997:70) concludes that it was neither an alternative to nor a rival of the Jerusalem Temple, but rather a reinforcement of its status by Diaspora Jews in Egypt.

18 An interesting observation noted by Chancy (2007:90–94) is that inscriptions recording donations to buildings were less common in Galilee. He further comments that “this lack of epigraphic evidence for non-Jewish cultic practices is important support for the argument that Galilee was predominantly Jewish.” He further argues (p. 94) that “ancient Galileans produced few inscriptions because of rejection of this dimension of Romanization. This rejection might well be interpreted as a form of indigenous resistance to the dominant imperial culture—perhaps not overt, deliberate, or conscious resistance, but resistance nonetheless.”

666

supplement

These inscriptions were closely related to inscriptions in pagan temples: “in most instances the dedication is indistinguishable from a pagan equivalent save for the substitution of the term ‘synagogue’ for ‘the shrine’ or ‘the temple,’ and by the name or names of the dedicating party” (Horbury and Noy 1992:20). In the inscriptions, “the opening formula ‘on behalf of ’ (‘ύπέρ), used in both Jewish and pagan inscriptions, avoided assignment of divinity to the rulers while at the same time associating them with the worship taking place inside the sanctuary. A similar principle apparently allowed Jews to offer sacrifices in the Temple at Jerusalem ‘on behalf of ’ to various Hellenistic and Roman rulers” (Binder 1999:241). In the Qazion inscription as well as in the Egyptian inscriptions, the opening formula (‘ύπέρ) publicly honors and serves as a statement of support for the imperial family; the Ptolemaic proseuchaea were dedicated by the Jewish community ‘on behalf of ’ (or ‘in honor of ’) and not ‘to’ the royal family, which implies a way for the Jews to honor the Egyptian king without compromising their religious concerns (Levine 2003:13). The Qazion inscription has also been compared to a 2nd or 3rd century CE dedication with an opening line in Latin followed by a Greek text, found on a Jewish inscription recovered in the Ostia synagogue (Roth-Gerson 1987:125, note 3, photo on p. 128; Noy 1993:22–26; White 1997:38–42; Runesson 2001:85–88). Moralee (2004:47) compares the Qazion inscription with the Latin inscription from the synagogue at Spondilla in Pannonia (Frey 1939:I, no. 677). Both these inscriptions were dedicated by individuals for Jewish purposes. Dedicating a synagogue to royalty was rare, and only a few instances are known, among them a catacomb inscription mentioning a synagogue in Rome named for Augustus Caesar (Roth-Gerson 1987:127, n. 8) and some dedicatory inscriptions from Egypt, Italy, and Mursa in Hungary (Levine 2000:76–77, 276). The Qazion inscription could be compared to inscriptions by collectives that made dedications to the health and well-being of the emperor, such as those found in cities like Apamea, Bosra, Gerasa, and Kanatha, and others by villages, tribes, and agricultural collectives of farmers and gardeners; see especially an inscription from Gerasa (SEG 35:1573), dated to 209–211 CE, on a statue base dedicated to Kyria Artemis, that was found on a hill near the Temple of Artemis. It mentions Septimus Severus, Caracalla, Geta, and Julia Domna, and is dedicated by ‘gardeners from above the ravine’ (Moralee 2004:53–4, no. 77). Moralee (2004:57, 119) has noted that such inscriptions, found in the Roman provinces of the Near East, indicate that “loyalty to the state in epigraphic form was part of the political, social and religious culture of city and village life for more than three centuries.” It is remarkable that Geta’s name was chiseled out of the Qazion inscription (Fig. Q-47) after he was murdered by Caracalla in late 211. This act accords with the defacement of Geta’s name and face (Fig. Q-48) wherever it appeared—in public inscriptions and monuments all over Rome and throughout the Roman provinces. Though it seems quite unusual, the fact is that it happened in even such a remote place as Qazion. The defacement also confirms that the lintel was still in place at that time; someone had to climb up and chisel out the name from a very difficult position. Harvey (2013) assigned the erasing of Geta’s name on the Qazion inscription to 215 CE, to guarantee that his name would not be seen if, by any chance, any member of Caracalla’s imperial entourage on the journey from Antioch to Alexandria should visit the Qazion region. The most important and unique part of the Qazion inscription is the end, in which the dedication is recorded ‘by the vow of the Jews’. The comparable inscriptions discussed above were also dedications for the health and well-being of the emperors, but did not include a vow. They usually mentioned Jews or Jewish individuals dedicating a Jewish structure (a proseuche, or the Jewish temple at Leontopolis in Egypt, or an Ark). This might reinforce the assumption that a dedicated inscription by Jews meant that the structure was used for Jewish purposes (see below). The Qazion inscription is the only Jewish dedication relating to the welfare of the Roman royal family discovered thus far in Israel. It is also one of the few inscriptions found in Israel that mention



qazion—a galilean riddle

667

Roman emperors.19 The Qazion inscription is a dedicatory formulaic inscription expressing the loyalty of these provincial Jews to the Roman imperial family. It is an integral part of the main cultic structure at Qazion and designates that Jews resided in Qazion by the late second—early third centuries CE. 5. Qazion in Context Our investigations reveal that the Qazion monumental structure was built on the western edge of a small settlement, most likely inhabited during the late second century CE. The north-south oriented building and the two large pools opposite the northern and western façades (Figs. Q-4, 5) are unique. These pools may have served several purposes: as reflecting pools for the northern and western façades and/or as water reservoirs, in addition to serving as water sources, a function often associated with cult structures (especially in the Hauran, Freyberer 2004:338–339, and see below). The causeway might have served also as a pathway for a cult-related procession. Originally the north façade (W1) was surmounted by a row of six free-standing columns—a hexastylos, with each part of the wall being surmounted by three columns. The interior plan of the building is not entirely clear, but architectural features visible on the surface suggest that the structure included a hall, perhaps divided into two sections. The entrance was via the main portal at the southernwest corner of the building (W3, Figs. Q-20, 24), and possibly also through the causeway (W8) that led to the triple portals located in the northern wall (W4). Most noteworthy is the lintel bearing the Greek dedicatory inscription described above in detail, which apparently originally adorned this portal (Fig. Q-25). A modest square structure with a small incense altar is located close to the northwestern edge of Pool 2. It should be noted that all visible architectural ornamentations at Qazion are uniconic. The ruins to the east and north of the Qazion monumental building and the loculi tombs are most likely remnants of a Jewish village that was contemporary with the Qazion structure, which existed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE and was reused in later periods. No exact parallels exist for the Qazion main cultic building. This unique structure combines Roman and indigenous traits and elements. Its main feature is the outstanding north and west façades, with their adjacent pools. Comparative analysis of the architecture, ornaments, and finds indicates that the Qazion structure has some allusions to the style of Roman temples in the region. It shares several affinities with the nearby 2nd–3rd century CE temple at Kedesh to the north, but also with the architecture and decoration of the later Galilean synagogues. The land around Qazion was fertile and could have been used for agriculture, as evidenced by the remnants of installations for oil pressing (AF 55, 56, Fig. Q-28) found in the area (see Ilan and Damati 1987:24 who suggest that Meroth inhabitants cultivated the Qazion grounds). It should also be noted that both Qazion and the later Meroth synagogue dated in the 5th–7th centuries were not far from the main Roman road that connected the Galilee with Syria and Egypt (Ilan and Damati 1987:16, 26).20

19 A Latin inscription which mentions Septimius Severus and his family (including Fulvia Plautilla, Caracala’s wife) was found in 1969, during the excavations on the southern side of the Temple Wall in Jerusalem (Eck 2010, CIIP 1, part II, no. 719). This inscription indicates that an unknown governor erected an arch dedicated to Septimius Severus and his family; the inscription suggests that the arch was erected between 202–205 AD. Several inscriptions citing dedications to the Roman emperors are recorded in Israel. However they are either dedications by individuals or only mention the period of the reigning emperor (Di Segni 1997:83–4, nos. 98, 119, 133, 141–2, 194, 197, 199; Moralee 2004:6, Table 1). 20 For a comparison of the Qazion architectural fragments with the Meroth synagogue see also Tsafrir 1995:159–61. It is possible that some of the architectural elements discovered at the synagogue of Meroth, such as pedestals and bases, door jambs, and column shafts, were taken from the Qazion site (Damati 2000:Figs. 31, 53, 62–63).

668

supplement

Within the larger context, the Qazion structure is contemporary with the process of change that occurred throughout the Levant during the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, as a result of the rise of Septimius Severus (193–211 CE) to power and a series of external and civil wars. Severus, who was born in Lepcis Magna in Tripolitania, came from a prominent local family and married Julia Domna of Emesa. During the years 197–198 Severus campaigned in Syria, travelling through Syria and Palestina to Egypt, and then returning to Syria. His contacts with the region were complex (Jones 1971:278–9, 327; Birley 1988:133–35; Millar 1993:118–126). The Qazion dedicatory inscription represents a second-century Jewish community in the Upper Galilee, whose northernmost borders were highly developed and wealthy. The relations between the Jews and the emperor Septimus Severus are familiar to us from historical data. In keeping with his family and cultural background, Severus was sympathetic towards the Jews, as were the Roman authories, and the Qazion lintel inscription reinforces the assumption of this improved environment (Avi Yonah 1970:48–49; Smallwood 1976:513; Levine 1982:94–100; S. Safrai 1982:217; Roth-Gerson 1987:128; Birley 1988:135). A decree by Septimius Severus and Caracalla allowed the Jews to serve as city functionaries and to perform some liturgies (Smallwood 1976:153–4; Linder 1987:103–107; Openheimer 1992:121). The Galilee precinct was named (on the list of Georgius Cyprius) Τετρακμία Tetrakomia (‘the four villages’). It was one of the only precincts that was not an urban territory and had no major city (Avi-Yonah 1962:142).21 After the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–35 CE), the Galilee became the centre of Jewish life, and was mostly inhabited by Jewish rural sites spread over a considerable area (Fig. Q-1a, Map 1). Avi-Yonah (1970:25) maintains that about half of the Jewish population in Palestine at the time, 350,000–400,000 persons, was concentrated in the Galilee. It was the most influential centre in the Jewish political and spiritual life of the period. The economic resources in the Galilee were mainly agriculture, olive trees and related industries, some weaving manufacture and trade, and also pottery and glass production (Avi-Yonah 1962:71, 142–143; 1970:24–29; S. Safrai 1982:172–176; Appelbaum 1987; Aviam 2007:131–2, Map 14; Edwards 2007; Killebrew 2010:192–3). 5.1 Dating of the Qazion Monumental Complex The dating of the Qazion complex to the late 2nd–early 3rd c. CE is based on the very reliable absolute dating of the lintel inscription to 198/9 CE, which means that the main cultic building was constructed around the time of the inscription and was apparently still standing in about 215 CE, possibly the year that Geta’s name was erased from the inscription (Harvey 2013). We can conclude that the Jewish community still occupied the site at that time. Moreover, some of the earlier coins were found in the same areas as the Middle Roman pottery. However, the Jewish community might have already occupied the Qazion site in the 1st c. CE (or even earlier, as indicated by the Tiberias coin dating to 19/20 CE) and then constructed the main cultic complex at a later date, at the end of the 2nd c. CE. Other sites in the Upper Galilee were also established in the Hasmonean period (2nd–1st c. BCE). Most noteworthy was the nearby village of Meroth, which was probably already settled in the late 2nd c. BCE, although the excavated synagogue at the site was constructed only in 400 CE (Ilan and Damati 1987:16, 186). The partial use of the building during the Mamluk period is 21 Frankel et al. (2001:111) mention that a large increase in the number of sites in the Galilee is recorded during the Roman period (170 compared to 106 in the Hellenistic period). They further note (ibid., p. 131) that the pattern of settlements in the Roman period shows a division between the western pagan area and the eastern Jewish part (see also Aviam 2004:20). They list (ibid., pp. 151–2) the evidence for 19 Jewish settlements in Upper Galilee, nine of which are certain (among them Qazion, no. 367). See also their discussion (pp. 141–2) on the terms ‘Galilee’ and ‘Upper Galilee’.



qazion—a galilean riddle

669

proved by some architectural changes and additions in the main structure, as well as the associated coins and pottery which were found together in some loci. In the later period the building might have been abandoned, destroyed, or perhaps purposely dismantled by Jews who resided in the area. 6. Interpretation and Significance of the Qazion Structure The Qazion complex and inscription are invaluable for enhancing our understanding of the development of post-Second Temple period Judaism, Jewish settlement in the Galilee during the Late Roman period, and the architectural development of Galilean synagogues. Based on the available evidence, two schools of thought have dominated the debate regarding the function and identity of this unique public structure: The first school of thought interprets this building as an early synagogue (Renan 1871:776; Guérin 1880:447–449; Schürer 1907, II:520, n. 65; Masterman 1909:122; Avi-Yonah 1962:142; 1970:49; S. Safrai 1982:172 and n. 219; Ilan 1987b:178–9; Roth-Gerson 1987:127–128; and several catalogues of synagogues—Saller 1972:54; Hüttenmeister and Reeg 1977, I:359–362; Chiat 1981:62–3; Ilan 1987a:36, 1991:59). And as Roth-Gerson (1987:127) has pointed out, there is no reason that the Jews could not build a synagogue with a dedication to pagan emperors. The identification of the building as a synagogue was based on the north-south orientation of the building and the erroneously conjectured plan of the hall with two rows of columns (our excavations invalidate this). According to ancient talmudic sources ( J Beiza 5 4, 63b and Berakhot 8 7, 12b), Qazion is included within the borders of Jewish Galilee (Bar-Or and Ilan 1989:124; Aviam 2007:Map 14). The main similarity between Qazion and later synagogues lies in some architectural features and the architectural decoration, such as the lintel with metope patterns and the doorjamb ornamental details (AF 3, AF 5) (Figs. Q-13c, 22), which are comparable to the decorated lintels of other synagogues (Fig. Q-37). A second school of thought proposes that this building is a Roman pagan temple (Conder and Kitchener 1881:240; Kohl and Watzinger 1916:209; Bar-Or and Ilan 1989:125; Ilan 1991:59) and it is sometimes compared to the nearby temple of Kedesh. This identification was based on the appearance of several architectural features which are characteristic of contemporary Roman temples in the Syrian-Phoenician region. We offer two additional interpretations. During the course of our work on this structure, each of us reached different conclusions regarding the function and significance of this unique building. Ann E. Killebrew proposes that the Qazion complex served as a public gathering place—probably an open-air sanctuary—that was constructed, at least in part, to honor the Roman imperial family (Killebrew 2013). Rachel Hachlili suggests that this structure served as a Jewish cultic space that preserved the importance of the Jerusalem priesthood in the centuries after the destruction of the Second Temple and the Jewish and Bar Kokhba revolts. Confirmation of this second assumption requires an examination of the role and social standing of the priests in this period. The seat of the sages and of rabbinic power was the Lower Galilee, especially Tiberias, Sepphoris, and Usha, where the leadership developed and incorporated temple practices into the synagogue liturgy (in the period ca. 140–225 CE; Levine 2000:506–528). Upper Galilee might have been left to the priests’ influence and domination. For some time the general supposition was that after the destruction of the Temple (70 CE), the status and role of the priests diminished and that they no longer wielded any power. Yet the literary and archeological data both indicate that the priests retained their distinct status and that the priestly class held a central position in Galilee Jewish affairs; furthermore, the anti-priesthood

670

supplement

rabbinic polemic could also be seen as confirmation of the persistent influence and role of the priests in Jewish life (Levine 2000:491–93). Flesher (2003:468–86) contends that the priests interpreted and instructed the people “in the Torah’s ethical and legal regulations, and enforced their practice of them” as well as being “in charge of administering the Law”. This is reflected in the Targum’s interpretation of the goals of the priestly caste. It indicates that the priests were in contact with the people and had influence in the synagogues. Irshai (2004:70) maintains that the priests constituted a collective class that received its power from its traditional social position and enjoyed a prominent position of social-spiritual authority in the community. An important aspect of the role and status of the priests after the destruction of the temple is noted in the List of Priestly Courses and in their settlements in the Galilee. The original role of the 24 priestly courses included service in the Temple twice a year, one week at a time (I Chron. 24:7–19; Josephus, Ant. 7.365; Tos. Taʿanit 2.1). Priestly families belonging to courses (mishmarot) are mentioned in Second Temple funerary inscriptions on Jerusalem tombs and ossuaries (Hachlili 2005:213– 15; 299–300), indicating that the affiliation with these mishmarot was important. Scholars suggest that during the period after the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–135 CE) the priestly courses moved from Judea to the Galilee (Kahana 1979:14; Miller 1984:132; Openheimer 1982:76–8, 1991:53– 57; Z. Safrai 1993:287–92). Some scholars suggest an earlier date for this move: Klein (1946:66–67) maintains that the move from Judea to the Galilee took place after 70 CE and Urbach (1974:66–69) suggests that it occurred after 115–117 CE.22 The priests preserved their pedigree and genealogy as well as the original order of their course’s service in the Jerusalem Temple. The affinity and relation between each of the courses and specific Galilean sites is recorded in rabbinical literature and also on inscriptions displaying the list of priestly courses engraved on marble and stone relief fragments that were found in several synagogues, though it is difficult to determine the exact nature of these relations (Openheimer 1982:75–80). Carved Hebrew inscriptions of a partial list of the 24 priestly courses on marble slab fragments were found in the Caesarea synagogue area, in Ashqelon, and in Kissufim (Avi-Yonah 1964:46–49, Fig. 1; Ilan 1974; Naveh 1978:nos. 51, 52, 56; Hachlili 2001:199–200), on a plaster fragment in the synagogue of Rehov (Vitto 1982:366–7), at Nazareth (Eshel 1991), and on an inscription from ­Ahmediyye (Naveh 1978:146–147; Urman 1984:518–519). A more detailed Hebrew inscription (listing eleven courses, the fourth to the fourteenth) was discovered on an upside-down pier in Yemen, in a mosque in the village of Beth el-Tazer (dated to the 5th or 7th century CE; Naveh 1978:no. 106).23 The list in I Chron. 24:7–19, which includes only the name and the number of each course, corresponds to the carved inscriptions described above. However, in the later examples, each line includes the number of the course, its name and appellation, and the name of the Galilean village or town it inhabited (see this book, Fig. XI-7). The list identifying the order of the courses was probably composed in the 2nd century CE, after the destruction of the Second Temple and the Bar Kokhba War. Avi-Yonah (1964:52, map on p. 45) maintains that the surviving members of the priestly courses settled in Galilean villages and towns. Kahana (1979:20–26) suggests some changes in Avi-Yonah’s reconstructed list, concluding that the priestly courses settled in the Lower and Upper Galilee, in a

22 Several sites in the Upper Galilee were already settled by priestly families in the Second Temple period, as noted by Josephus and the Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh Hashana 58 a): Meroth= Μηρώθ (Josephus, War 2.20.6=2. 573–4; 3.3.1) or Άμηρώθ (Josephus, Life 37) which was identified with Meiron (Klein 1939:I, 1:163; Avi-Yonah 1962:71, 142–143), is mentioned among the sites in Upper Galilee, in which Josephus erected walls of protection; but Ilan (1984:141–142; Ilan and Damati 1987:11) might be right in identifying it with the site of Meroth, cited by Josephus as situated at the northern end of the Upper Galilee which would fit the more northern Meroth rather than Meiron. 23 Note also a “Baraita of the Priestly Courses” reconstructed by Klein (1924:1–29; 1939:162–63; 1946:66–67), based on a brief reference in the Jerusalem Talmud (Taanit 4, 68d) to the first two courses and their connection to Meiron and Sepphoris, and on piyyutim (liturgical poems) which he supposed originated in the Mishnaic period.



qazion—a galilean riddle

671

group of twenty-four adjacent settlements which might have designated for priests and their families only. Each priestly course, while mourning the Temple’s destruction, also preserved its appointed dates of service, which were inscribed on the marble/stone tablets presumably fixed in the synagogue wall. In this way the Jewish communities preserved the memory and tradition of this service in the Temple, in the hope that with its restoration the priests would come up to Jerusalem from their various places and renew their service. For a long time, the custom was to refer to the priestly courses weekly, both in the Land of Israel and in the Diaspora (Avi-Yonah 1964:51–55). Similar lists of the 24 priestly courses were incorporated into piyyutim (liturgical poems) during the 5th–6th centuries CE (Fleisher 1968; 1986). The historical question of the transfer of priestly families to the Galilee during the Mishnaic period is in debate. Urbach (1973:308, 328) argues that the list’s purpose was not only and preserve the eminence and rank of the priests, but also to commemorate the worship in the Jerusalem Temple. Trifon (1985, I:91–110; 1989) discusses the presence of priests in the Galilee and maintains that the priestly courses list belongs to the second part of the 3rd century CE, in concert with the increased settlement of priests in the Galilee in this period. She proposes that the list was a sign of Galilean patriotism, prepared by local residents who may have been priests, and that it suggests a large number of priests settled in the Galilee as a result of the immigration of Jews, including priests, from the Diaspora. Z. Safrai (1993:290–92), who disagrees with Trifon on the date, argues that the list of priestly courses is an historical document which records the Galilean settlements to which the priests migrated from Judea after the Bar Kokhba revolt. The priests and their extended families were a majority in these settlements and the list expressed the hope for the restorations of the priestly functions in the rebuilt Temple. Irshai (2004:94) maintains that the list reflects the strengthening of the priestly class’s image at the time rather than being a statement of historical evidence. Aviam (2004:18–20, Figs. 1.2, 1.9) notes that the sites recorded on the priestly list, which cover the Lower Galilee and the eastern Upper Galilee, are similar to the borders recorded by Josephus. They intersect with the distribution of nineteen Jewish sites with secret hideaways and overlap the distribution of stone vessels and Jewish burials in ossuaries typical of contemporary Jewish life. Aviam concludes that ethnically significant boundaries existed in the Galilee: in rural areas there were no mixed communities of Jews and Gentiles, whereas in cities people with diverse beliefs were living side by side. Aviam (2007:130–2, Maps 13, 14) further notes that the settlements and fortifications in the regions existed from the time of Josephus, and that the priestly courses and the area from which the rabbis came “concur with the regions delineated by synagogues, miqvaot etc.” He concludes that archaeological remains indicate “a clear isolation of Jewish villages in the Jewish region from Gentile villages around it.” Miller (2007:385–6) suggests that the priestly courses list was associated with places in which the priests were settled. He also argues that the lists “are a liturgical device for preserving the memory of the mishmarot in the synagogue . . . considers the association of the mishmarot with specific locations as a popular development that largely belonged to folklore and sacred geography of the Galilee in Late Antiquity.” A different outlook is presented by Leibner (2009:404–419), who proposes that the list was known in the late third century CE and that its appearance in the Byzantine period was associated with extensive interest in the Hasmoneans during this period. The inscribed list is a combination of the biblical priestly courses list in I Chronicles and a list of settlements in Galilee. The sites were chosen either from an actual list or on the basis of a historical memory of sites settled by Jews following the Hasmonean conquest of the Galilee, and has symbolic significance. I propose that the Qazion complex—the main cultic building and the Western Structure—is so distinctive that it may have served as a central location of worship for the Galilean priests, their families, and the Jewish communities of the region, functioning as a general communal centre

672

supplement

reinforced with religious, cultic and ceremonial aspects.24 The presence of the priests in the Galilee perhaps fashioned a different concept of Jewish worship during the late 2nd–3rd centuries CE, which included gatherings of the countryside communities of the eastern Upper Galilee at this impressive structure. It was not meant to replace or imitate the Jerusalem Temple, nor did it emulate a Roman temple. It did, however, offer an ambience for the performance and preservation of some of the temple rituals and ceremonies originally carried out by the priests.25 It is possible that the Priestly Courses list was a memorial to an earlier period in which priests—either those who already lived in the Galilee or those who moved there from Judean centers after the revolts and, together with others who immigrated from the Diaspora, worshiped in a special structure (at Qazion) that may have been built for that specific purpose—the practice and preservation of various priestly customs and rituals, such as the burning of incense on the altar found in the Western Structure, after the destruction of the Temple. The existence of such a complex could have supported the dream of a possible future restoration of the priesthood to its former position of control and influence. Moreover, the significance of water in Jewish laws of ritual purity, especially for the priests, facilitates the association of the two pools at Qazion with the idea of a cult implement that played a part in the rituals of the complex. A purification ritual of immersion in water in anticipation of the Sabbath and festivals was instructed in the priestly Halakhah, as noted in related literature. The priests had to wash their body in water before serving and putting on their priestly robes (Ex. 29:4, 40:12; Leviticus 8:6, 16:4, 24, 26). Purification through immersion could only take place in a fresh water source, i.e. rain or spring water that was not placed in a vessel (Hartum 1965; Sawicki 1997:15–16; Amit and Adler 2010:121–125). It is possible that the Qazion pools also played a significant role in the ceremony related to the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth). In the Jerusalem Temple, during the days of the Sukkoth feast, the rite of the Water Libation ‫( ניסוך המים‬Nisuch ha-Mayim) was performed (Loewenstamm 1962:915–6). It consisted of a unique form of offering: each morning during the seven days of Sukkoth, when the daily morning sacrifice was brought in to the Jerusalem Temple, a water libation was poured on the altar of sacrifice in addition to the customary pouring of wine.26 The water for the libation ceremony was drawn from the Pool of Siloam: The priest would lead a procession to the pool, carrying a golden bowl with which he drew the water from it; the water was then brought to the Temple in Jerusalem. This joyous ceremony, celebrating the special event of ‫שמחת‬ ‫ בית השואבה‬Simchat Beit HaShoevah (‘Rejoicing at the Place of the Water-Drawing’) was celebrated in the Second Temple period by a gathering of all the people, with dancing and singing accompanied by the Levites’ music, as described in M Sukkah 4:8; T Sukkah 4:1, 5; BT Sukkah 51b–52a, 53a; JT Sukkah 5, 2, 55b (Licht 1968:1040; Tabory 1995:194–197; Rubenstein 1995:131–45). In the Mishna (Sukkah 5a), we read: “He who has not witnessed the rejoicings at the water-drawing has, throughout the whole of his life, witnessed no real rejoicing.” The Water Libation Ceremony was conducted in order that the rains for the coming year should be blessed (JT Rosh HaShana 16a). Freyberger (2004:337–9) contends that the sanctuaries in the Hauran that included a birka (a pool) (Mushennef

24 Rabbinical sources were inclined to disregard the priests and everything related to them (Levine 1989:172), which might explain the silence of contemporary sources on such activities. 25 The comments by Goodman (1983:87) “In setting up synagogues as houses for public worship Galileans used gentile methods for distinctively Jewish worship . . . It is clear that outside customs were enthusiastically adopted but always adapted to a fiercely persistent native culture”; this observation could as well substantiate the idea of Qazion as a Jewish cultic place. 26 The libation is briefly described in Num 15:7. Rubenstein (1994:431) explains that there was a controversy over the place of the libation: some scholars contend that the libation was poured directly on the altar as the rabbis required, while others suggest that the Sadducees entailed “that the libation should be poured at the base of the altar.”



qazion—a galilean riddle

673

and the temple of Tyche at Is-Sanamein, Fig. Q-1b, Map 2) might have had “some sort of procession path leading to it and held a purely ritual function” (see also Lembke 2004:302–304). In light of this observation, it is possible to assume that a similar procession of priests and Jewish community members would have passed from the Qazion hall—through the three northern portals or the entrance along the western façade—to the causeway, the probable path for the procession which continued on its way to the Western Structure. There some ceremony of water libation could possibly have been performed, related to the altar that originally stood somewhere within the structure. The importance and prominence of the priests in synagogue ritual is observed in the liturgical poetry commemorating the Temple, in the piyyutim, in the priority in the Torah reading ceremony, and in the priestly blessing (Levine 2000:496–500). There is also some evidence cited by Levine (2000:491, note 3; 525) “that certain 2nd century fast-day ceremonies in the Galilee may have been due, inter alia, to the prominent role played by priests in this ritual, as in pre-70 days.” All this might imply the possible practice of some of these rituals and ceremonies in the Qazion complex. These assumptions could also explain the location and design of the Qazion monumental complex. On the one hand, it was constructed not in a central site but on the northern border of the Jewish settlement area in Upper Galilee, within spacious and expansive grounds, and it was well concealed from any adversary. On the other hand, it was an imposing temple-like structure, in particular when being approached from the north and west towards the impressive façades and their reflections in the pools. The pools also support the postulation of the Qazion structure as a cultic space, serving as places of purification prior to participation in sacred rituals and also for the water ceremony of Sukkoth. The uniconic ornamentation of the architectural parts and the undecorated altar also imply a Jewish site rather than a pagan temple. In addition, the Western Structure with the horned altar (of libation or incense) might suggest some ritual conducted at the place. The architectural features of the Qazion structure such as the elaborate façades of the structure and the adjacent pools have affinities with features of Roman temples in the area, as well as distinctive aspects of a temple, though no findings at the site indicate any sort of worship relating to a deity. The unique inscribed dedication to the Severan royal family found on the western entrance lintel might have enhanced the position of the priestly class in its conflict with the sages and the patriarchal authorities, by consolidating the connection with the Emperor and his family. The significance of Qazion is in the dedicatory inscription, authored by Jews, which designates a substantial Jewish community at the site as well as a Galilean cultic space in the second-third century CE or earlier. Hence, I suggest that though dedicated to the Septimus Severus family, the structure was in practice a Jewish cultic space involving various functions, ceremonies, and rites carried out by priests, and that it served as a center for the communities of the region. In this sense, it was the forerunner of the later Galilean synagogues, influencing their building plan concept and some of their architectural ornamentation. Particularly noteworthy is the late second—early third century CE date for the use of the main cultic building, as suggested by the lintel inscription, the coins, and the pottery. This is earlier than the chronology for most of the earliest Galilean synagogue buildings. Sometime later, this unique Qazion cultic complex was replaced by the rural synagogues erected in the Galilean villages during the 3rd–6th centuries CE. These synagogues, built in both urban and rural areas, tended to be part of the village and were frequently constructed in central locations. The imperial cult should be examined in the context of its proposed relation to the Qazion complex. The ruler–cult was the ideology, the single common denomination, the religion of loyalty, that bound together all residents of the Roman Empire (Geiger 2008). The Roman imperial cult

674

supplement

consisted of worship of the emperors, which meant cultic activities and/or religious rituals and activities addressed to the emperors as gods (Harland 1996:319–323). Millar (1973:164) contends that imperial cults were not fundamentally different from other cults, but rather “fully and extensively integrated into the local cults of the provinces, with the consequence that the Emperors were the object of the same cult-acts as the other gods.” Another scholarly view emphasizes a fundamental difference between cults for emperors and those for other gods; this view is not without opponents (Harland 2003:89). Harland (1996:319–323) objects to some scholars who portray these imperial cults frequently “as . . . void of any real religious meaning for the participants.” He finds that the “exclusion of religious significance on a local level for various strata of society is not justified.” He further argues that “the vast majority of the evidence that we do have for local imperial cult activities and rituals shows that the characteristics of and practices connected with worship of the emperors virtually coincide with those connected with worship of more traditional deities. Moreover, the evidence suggests that in practice, within the context of imperial cults, the emperors functioned as gods.” The imperial cult was also expressed in temples constructed in honor of the emperors, both in Rome and in the provinces, during the first three centuries CE. The erection of these temples and the regular worship in them, were a demonstration of the loyalty of the people. A temple was erected for Septimus Severus at Leptis Magna and was associated with the cult of the family. It was dedicated by Caracalla after the death of Severus in 216 CE (Ward Perkins 1993:31–54, Figs. 16–20). Segal (2008:99–120) describes traditional temples dedicated to the gods in the nearby region of the Hauran and Trachon as ‘Vitruvian’ temples: among the eleven noted are the temple of Zeus and Athena at Mushennef (171 CE) with its southern rear wall facing a huge pool, the temple of Tyche at Is-Sanamein (191 CE) with its rear southern wall and two side walls protruding into the nearby pool, the temple of Helios at Qanawat, and the peripteral temple at Suweida (see Fig. Q-1b:Map 2). Most of these are set on ca. 2.00–2.50 m high podiums. Almost all of them were built in the second half of the second century CE, and were typically “located in religious compounds separated from the secular areas of the cities by a wall or a fence.” In the same area, Segal (2001; 2008:120–131) identifies seven so-called Kalybe temples, i.e. temples designated for worship of the emperor, all of them later basalt structures erected in the second half of the third century CE. The Kalybe temples are divided into three distinctive sub-categories, according to their plans and general design: the Kalybe were built “directly facing the most populous and busy piazzas and streets with their open fronts. The cult niches in which the emperors’ statues stood were widely open, clearly visible and easily approachable. Every possible effort was made to highlight those statues by creating the theatre-like scenery, focusing on the central cult niche where the statue of the emperor was placed.” Segal contends that these temples in the Trachon and the Hauran differ in plan and design from temples elsewhere in the Classical world. That they were designed to be “more accessible to the worshippers is already demonstrated in the plans and designs of the temples at both Is-Sanamen and Mismiyeh, which were dedicated to traditional gods.” The Kalybe temples show the same tendency—“a relationship between the temenos and the temple itself which is different from temples elsewhere in the Classical world. In other words, the inner space of the temple, the naos, is not restricted solely to the deity. On the contrary, it is designed as an inviting, conveniently approachable, beautifully decorated and generously lit space to allow the worshippers to gather in the naos in front of the adyton” (Segal 2008:131–2). However, the Qazion structure has nothing in common with either the plans and designs of the traditional Roman temples or with the Kalybe temples. The most important element, the niche or adyton for the god’s or emperor’s idol, was not found. An important issue is the relation of the Jews to the imperial cult: The Jews had special relations with the Roman emperors. Smallwood (1976:513) suggests that “the reign of Septimus Severus saw an apparent advance in civic dignity for wealthy Jews living in the cities and municipalities of the



qazion—a galilean riddle

675

empire. By an enactment of Severus and Caracalla ‘people of Jewish religion’ were permitted to serve on local councils and hold magistracies, but were made liable only for such duties as did not conflict with their religion.” Jones (1971:278) contends “It is interesting to note that Hadrian’s attempt to paganize Galilee ultimately failed. It remained a stronghold of Judaism long after Judaea proper had become Christian.” Jewish exemption from the full obligations of the imperial cult was established after the period of Hadrian’s restrictions on Judaism (Modigliani 1987:142–158). The imperial cult in Galilee is recounted by Bennet (2007:356) before the Jewish revolts. She contends that the Jews, who could not participate in the full functions of the imperial cult, developed some grades of participation which did not include images or sacrifices. She concludes that the imperial cult in Galilee contributed to the politicization of the Jews and “turned the expression of Jewish culture into a strategic expression of distinctiveness opposed to Rome” (see also Geiger 2004 who discusses the imperial cult and worship of the Julio-Claudian emperors and of Hadrian in Roman Palestine by Jewish and pagan inhabitants). Geiger (2008:170, n. 27) maintains that the Jews, who could not bow down to or worship an emperor and sacrifice to him, were able to express their loyalty in other ways, such as blessings for the well-being of the sovereign and presentation of the Tamid sacrifice (the daily morning and evening sacrifice as set out in Exodus 29:38–42) for the emperor’s honor, and this they did from the days of Augustus (see M. Av. Zara 5, 6). Geiger also mentions Babatha (the Jewish woman whose documents were discovered in the Bar Kokhba caves) who could swear Τύχη (‘luck’, ‘fortune’) to the emperor (see Lewis 1989:67, no. 16. line 34, A Document of a Registration of Land, written on Dec 4. 127 CE). Qazion was in no way relevant to the changes that Septimius Severus granted to some cities in the region during his visit with his family in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt in 197–99; he granted rights to Beth Govrin as the town Elethropolis and to Lod as Diospolis; he added the Hauran to Arabia and the Trachon and the Bashan to Syria. He divided Syria into two—Syria and Phoenicia. The northern towns of Acco-Ptolemais, Dor, and Caesarion-Panias now belonged to Phoenicia (Avi-Yonah 1962:71; Jones 1971:278–9). However, there is no evidence that Severus and his entourage passed through the Upper Galilee or anywhere near Qazion (see also Harvey 2013). Qazion is outside any major or even secondary route. It is very difficult to imagine that the Emperor and his entourage would have visited such a remote out-of-the-way place. But such a royal visit might nevertheless have inspired the apparently wealthy Jewish community to build and dedicate such a monumental building in his honor. One thing is definite. The main cultic structure at Qazion was still standing in 215 CE when the name of Geta was erased, and this means that the building was known to be related to the emperor and his family. 7. Concluding Remarks The unusual Qazion complex, with its unique inscription and its unusual context and provenance, raised a number of questions which I have tried to answer through the archaeological investigation, research, and interpretation. The data gathered by the excavation and survey determine and validate the occupation and function of the site and facilitate the identification and historical analysis of the Qazion complex. At the current stage of my knowledge, I feel confident in confirming my proposal that the size and form of the Qazion complex strongly suggest that it served as a Jewish cultic space (open-air?) used by priests and the Jewish community for worship and conducting rituals. It is also reasonable, under the circumstances, to suggest that the Qazion structure’s architecture and ornamentation might well have inspired the slightly later Galilean synagogues. Despite sharing some features with contemporary

676

supplement

Roman pagan temples in the region, the complex, and especially the main cultic structure, has no parallels. The Jewish community of Qazion found its own way to deal with the need for exemption from the full obligations of the imperial cult—to be able to express its loyalty to the Emperor and his family while retaining its own identity and performing its unique religious obligations and acts. The Greek dedicatory inscription found at the site utilized the familiar pagan formula wishing the royal family ‘good health’ and expressing provincial loyalty, but added to it the unusual statement that it was the result of a ‘vow by the Jews’. The Jewish community’s dedication included an affirmation of support and loyalty to Septimus Severus and his family, and to Rome. The inscription allows us to conclude with certainty is that Jews were residing in Qazion by the late second—early third century CE. Furthermore, it corroborates other textual evidence that indicates good relations between the Jews and the Roman authorities. In conclusion, the Qazion cultic complex was not only a structure dedicated by the Jews to the contemporary Roman Emperor and his family; it also served as a regional center for their own cultic requirements, a place where local priests conducted certain rites and ceremonies. The whole multipart edifice—the main cultic structure, the two pools, and the Western Structure with the altar—created a unique and extraordinary monumental complex that has no parallel anywhere in the ancient world. The Qazion complex is significant for the study of architectural development during this period, and especially for the study of the development and origins of the synagogue building. It is also of great interest for its historical and cultural implications regarding the relations between Jews and Romans during Late Antiquity. Qazion Appendix: List of Loci (Fig. Q-6) Locus no. 100 101 102 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121

Square Q11 S11 R5/ S5 R5/ S5 T8 Q11, 12 U11 Q11 R5 S11 T8 U11 T8 U 12 S5 T8 U12 T8 H-I/ 14,15

Provenance NW corner of main building and causeway W8 West part of portico between W1 and W4 W 10 in Pool 2 East of the main western entrance East of the main western entrance Centre of hall Along S part of causeway W8 Along east W13 corner with W4 Pool 2 NE corner West of main western entrance On portico pavement Floor 1, close to BM (what is this BM?) East part of N portico between W1 and W4 Floor 1, close to column shaft AF 32 East part of N portico close to S of W1 West of main western entrance Floor 1, close to BM Around W11 East part of N portico between W1 and W4 Floor 2 Western Structure

Notes Cleaning Cleaning Surface Probe 2 Probe 2 Probe 3 Probe 4 Probe 4 Probe 2 Probe 3 Probe 1 Probe 3 Probe 1 Probe 2 Probe 3 Surface Probe 1 Probe 3



qazion—a galilean riddle

677

Qazion Bibliography Adan-Bayewitz 1993 Common Pottery in Roman Galilee, A Study of Local Trade. Ramat Gan. Amit, D. and Y. Adler. 2010 The Observance of Ritual Purity after 70 CE. A Reevaluation of the Evidence in Light of Recent Archaeological Discoveries. Pp. 121–143, in “Follow the Wise” Studies in Jewish history and Culture in Honor of Lee I. Levine, Eds. Weiss z. O. Irshai, J. Magness and S. Schwartz. Eisebrauns. Winina Lake, Indiana. Aviam, M. 2004 Jew, Pagans and Christians in Galilee: 25 Years of Archaeological Excavations and Surveys: Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods. Rochester: University of Rochester. 2007 Distribution Maps of Archaeological Data from the Galilee: An attempt to Establish Zones Indicative of Ethnicity and Religious Affilation. Pp. 115–132, in Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee. A Region in Transition, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 210. eds. J. Zangenberg, H.W. Attridge, and D.B. Martin. Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck. Avi-Yonah, M. 1948 Oriental Elements in the Art of Palestine in the Roman and Byzantine Periods. QDAP XIII:128–165 (reprinted in Art in Ancient Palestine. Jerusalem 1981:48–85). 1950 Oriental Elements in the Art of Palestine in the Roman and Byzantine Periods. QDAP XIV:49–80 (reprinted in Art in Ancient Palestine. Jerusalem 1981:86–117). 1962 Historical Geography of Palestine From the end of the Babylonian Exile up to the Arab Conquest. Jerusalem (3rd ed. Hebrew). 1964 The Caesarea Inscription of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses. Pp. 46–57 in The Teacher’s Yoke: Studies in Memory of Henry Trantham, eds. E.J. Vardaman and J.L. Garrett, Jr. with J.B. Adair. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press. 1970 In the Days of Rome and Byzantium. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute (Hebrew). 1981 Art in Ancient Palestine. Selected Studies Published in the Years 1930–1976. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Bar-Or, A., and Ilan, Z. 1989 Hurvat Qazion—A Synagogue or Temple. Galilee Researches Conference 4 (13.6.1989). Haifa: University of Haifa: 119–126 (Hebrew). Belkin, L. 1990 The Architectural Reconstruction of the Gush Halav Synagogue. Pp. 99–122 in Excavations at the Ancient Synagogue of Gush Halav. Meiron Excavation Project Reports 5, eds. E.M. Meyers, C. Meyers and J.F. Strange. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Ben David, H., Goren, I., and Drei, J. 2006 Umm el-Qanatir—the First Excavation Season. Qadmoniot 132: 110–20 (Hebrew). Bennett, M. 2007 Roman Imperial Cult in the Galilee: Structures, Functions and dynamics, Pp. 337–356, in Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee. A Region in Transition, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 210. eds. J. Zangenberg, H.W. Attridge, and D.B. Martin. Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck. Binder, D.D. 1999 Into the Temple Courts. The Place of the Synagogue in the Second Temple Period. SBL Dissertation Series 169. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Birley, A.R. 1988 Septimius Severus. The African Emperor. Roman Imperial Biographies. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge. Butler, H.C. 1903 Architecture and Other Arts. Publications of an American Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1899–1900, Part. 2. New York: Century Company. 1906 The Tychaion at es-Sanamen and the Plan of the Early Christian Churches in Syria. RA 8: 413–423. 1915 Ancient Architecture in Syria. Publications of the Princton University Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1904– 1905 and 1909, Division II, Section A, Part 5: Hauran plain and Djebel Hauran. Leyden: Late E.J. Brill. 1916 Ancient Architecture in Syria. Publications of the Princton University Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1904– 1905 and 1909, Division II, Section A, Part 6: Si (Seeia). Leyden: Late E.J. Brill. Chancy, M.A. 2007 The epigraphic habit of Hellenistic and Roman Galilee. Pp. 83–98, in Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee. A Region in Transition, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 210. eds. J. Zangenberg, H.W. Attridge, and D.B. Martin. Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck. Chiat, M.J.S. 1982 Handbook of Synagogue Architecture. Brown Judaic Studies 29. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. CIIP Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae Vol. I: Jerusalem. Eds. Cotton H. M et al. De Gruyter. 2010. Conder, C.R. and Kitchener, H.H. 1881 The Survey of Western Palestine, vol. I.: Galilee. Memoirs of the topography, orography, hydrography. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

678

supplement

Cleamont-Ganneau, C. 1903 Archaeological and Epigraphic Notes on Palestine. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement: 131–135. Damati, E. 2000 The Synagogue at Meroth and its implications on the Chronology of Galilean Synagogues. Unpublished MA Thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Degen, R. 1973 An Inscription of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses from Yemen. Tarbiz 42: 300–3 (Hebrew). Dentzer-Feydy, J. 1986 Décor architectural et développment du Hauran dans l’antiquité (du Ier s. Av. Au VIIes. De notre ère Pp. 261–309 in Hauran I: Recherches archéologique sur la Syrie du Sud a l’époque hellénistic et romaine, 2 ed. J.-M. Dentzer, Vol. 2, Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner. 1989 Le décor architectural en Syrie aux époques hellénistique et romaine, Pp. 457–476 in Archeologie et histoire de la Syrie, eds. Dentzer, J-M and Orthmann, W. Saarbrücken: Saarbrüecker Druckerei und Verlag. Diez-Fernandez, F. 1983 Ceramica comun Romana de la Galilea. Madrid. Di Segni, L. 1997 Dated Greek Inscriptions from Palestine from the Roman and Byzantine periods. Vols. I, II. PhD. Dissertation, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Dräger, O. 1994 Religionem significare: Studien zu reich verzierten römischen Altären und Basen aus Marmor. Mitteilungen des Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut, Roemische Abteilung, Ergaenzungsheft; 33 Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Edwards, D.R. 2007 Identity and Social Location in Roman Galilean Villages, in Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches, ed. D.R. Edwards. Routledge: New York, 357–74. Eshel, H. 1991 A Fragmentary Hebrew Inscription of the Priestly Courses from Nazareth? Tarbiz 61: 159–61 (Hebrew). Fine, S. 1999 Non-Jews in the synagogues of late-antique Palestine: Rabbinic and archaeological evidence. Pp. 224–242, in Jews, Christians, and polytheists in the ancient synagogue: cultural interaction during the Greco-Roman period, ed. Fine S. London and New York: Routledge. 2005 Between Liturgy and Social History: Priestly Power in Late Antique Palestinian Synagogues. Journal of Jewish Studies 56: 1–9. Fisher, M. 1987 Remarks on the Architectural Design. Pp. 168–175 in, Meroth, The Ancient Jewish Village, Ilan, Z., and E. Damati. Tel Aviv: (Hebrew). Fisher, M., A. Ovadiah and I. Roll. 1984 The Roman Temple at Kedesh, Upper Galilee: A Preliminary Study. Tel Aviv 11: 146–172. Flesher, P.V.M. 2001 Prolegomenon to a Theory of Early Synagogue Development. Pp. 121–53 in Judaism in Late Antiquity, Pt. 3. Where We Stand: Issues and Debates in Ancient Judaism. Vol. 4. The Special Problem of the Synagogue. Handbook of Oriental Studies: The Near and Middle East Vol. 55, eds. A.J. Avery-Peck and J. Neusner. Leiden: Brill. 2003 The Literary Legacy of the Priests? The Pentateuchal Targums of Israel in their Social and Linguistic Context. Pp. 467–508 in The Ancient Synagogue: From Its Origins until 200 CE. Papers Presented at an International Conference at Lund University, October 14–17, 2001, eds. B Olsson and M. Zetterholm. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International. Fleisher, E. 1968 Regarding the (Priestly) Courses in Piyyutim. Sinai 62: 142–61 (Hebrew). 1986 Additional Data Concerning the Twenty-four Priestly Orders. Tarbiz 55: 47–60 (Hebrew). Foerster, G. 1972 Galilean Synagogues and their Relation to Hellenistic and Roman Art and Architecture. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew). Frankel, R., Getzov, N., Aviam, M. and Degani, A. 2001 Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey of the Upper Galilee. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 14. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Fraser, P.M. 1972 Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon. Freyberger, K.S. 1990 Research on Roman Temples in Syria: The Tychaion at es-Sanamain. A Preliminary Report. Pp. 29–37 in The Near East in Antiquity, German contributions to the archaeology of Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, 1. Lectures held 1988–summer 1989 under the patronage of H.E. the Minister of Culture and H.E. the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany. ed. Kerner S. Vol. I. Amman: Goethe-Institut, Al Kutba. 2004 The Use of Ponds and Cisterns in the Hauran during the Roman Period, Pp. 337–344 in Men of Dikes and Canals. The Archaeology of Water in the Middle East. International Symposium held at Petra, Wadi Musa (H. K. of Jordan) 15–20 June, 1999. eds. Bienert H-D, and J. Häser. Marie Leidorf GmbH. Rahden/Westf.



qazion—a galilean riddle

679

Frey, J.B. 1936 Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum I: Europe. Roma: Pontificio Instituto di Archeologia Cristiana. 1952 Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum II: Asie, Afrique. Roma: Pontificio Instituto di Archeologia Cristiana. Geiger J. 2004 The Ruler-Cult in Ancient Palestine. Cathedra 111: 5–14 (Hebrew, English abstract p. 189). 2008 The Ruler-Cult as the Ideology of the Roman Empire, in Ancient Gods, Polytheism in Eretz Israel and Neighboring Countries from the Second Millennium BCE to the Islamic Period, (eds.) Kister, M., J. Geiger, N. Naaman, S. Shaked. Jerusalem; 168–177 (Hebrew). Getzov, N. et al. 2009 Horbat ʿUza. The 1991 Excavations. Vol. II: The later periods. IAA Reports, No. 42. Jerusalem. Goodman, M. 1983 State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132–212. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman & Allanheld. Grootkerk, S.E. 2000 Ancient Sites in Galilee. A Toponymic Gazetteer. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill. Gruen, E.S. 1997 The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple. Scripta Classica Israelica 16: 47–70. Guérin, V. 1868–1880 Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine, Troisième. Partie: Galilée, Tome II. Paris, Imprimerie Impériale/Imprimérie Nationale. Hachlili, R. 1971 Sacred Architecture and Decoration in the Hellenistic-Roman East. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew). 1988 Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel. Handbuch der Orientalistik 7. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 2000 The Riddle of Qazion. Et-mol 25: 20–21 (Hebrew). 2001 The Menorah, The Ancient Seven-armed Candelabrum: Origin, Form and Significance. Supplement to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 68. Leiden: Brill. 2005 Jewish Funerary Customs Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period. Brill, Leiden-Boston. Hachlili, R. and Killebrew, A. 1999 Horbat Qazion. Hadashot Arkheologiot 109: 6*–7*. Harland, P.A. 1996 Honours and Worship: Emperors, Imperial Cults and Associations at Ephesus (first to third centuries C.E.) Studies in Religion / Sciences religieuses 25:319–34. Reprinted in http://www.philipharland.com/publications/ articleSR.htm. 2003 Imperial Cults within Local Cultural Life: Associations in Roman Asia, Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 17: 85–107. Reprinted in http://www.philipharland.com/publications/articleAHB.html. Hartum, E.S. 1965 Immersion. Encyclopaedia Biblica vol 3: 363–5. Harvey, Paul B. Jr. 2013 Appendix A: The Greek Inscription from Qazion. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies, I, issue 2. Penn State University Press: 161–168. Heilmeyer, W.-D. 1988 Die ausgestellten Werke. Berlin: Staatliche Museen Preußischer Kulturbesitz. Horbury, W. and D. Noy. 1992 Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt: with an Index of the Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hüttenmeister, F.G. and Reeg, G. 1977 Die antiken Synagogen in Israel, vol. 1. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Nr. 12. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Hütteroth, W.D. and Abdulfattah, K. 1977 Historical Geography of Palestine, Transjordan and Southern Syria in the Late 16th Century, Erlangen. Ilan, Z. 1984 Marous—A Fortified Village of the First Revolt on the Northern Border of Eretz-Israel. Eretz Israel 17 (Brawer Volume): 141–46 (Hebrew). 1987a Synagogues in the Galilee and the Golan. Jerusalem: Ariel 52 (Hebrew). 1987b A Survey of Ancient Synagogues in Galilee. Eretz Israel 19 (Avi-Yonah volume):169–198 (Hebrew). 1991 Ancient Synagogues in Israel. Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense (Hebrew). Ilan, Z. and Damati, E. 1987 Meroth, The Ancient Jewish Village: The Excavations at the Synagogue and Bet-Midrash. Tel Aviv: Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (Hebrew; English abstract pp. 186–90). Irshai, O. 2004 The Priesthood in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity. Pp. 67–106 in Continuity and Renewal: Jews and Judaism in Byzantine-Christian Palestine, ed. L.I. Levine. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi (Hebrew). Jensen, M.H. 2007 Message and Minting: The Coins of Herod Antipas in their Second Temple Context as a Source for Understanding the Religio-Political and Socio-Economic Dynamics of Early First Century Galilee, Pp. 277–314, in Religion,

680

supplement

Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee. A Region in Transition. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 210, eds. Zangenberg J., H.W. Attridge and D. Martin. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kahana, T. 1979 The Priestly Courses and their Geographical Settlements. Tarbiz 48:9–29 (Hebrew). Killebrew, A. 2010 Villages and Countryside, in Hezser, C. (ed.) The Oxford handbook of Jewish Daily Life Roman Palestine. Oxford: 189–209. 2013 Qazion—A Later Second Early Third-Century CE Rural Cultic Complex in the Upper Galilee Dedicated to Septimus Severus and His Family. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies, I, issue 2. Penn State University Press: 113–160. Klein, S. 1939 Sepher ha-Yishuv. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik and Dvir (Hebrew). 1946 The Galilee. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook (Hebrew). Kohl, E. and Watzinger, C. 1916 Antiken Synagogen in Galilaea. Wissenschaftliche Veroeffentlichung der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft; 29. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. Krencker, D. and Zschietzschmann, W. 1938 Römische Tempel in Syrien I–II. Denkmäler antiker Architektur 5. Berlin: de Gruyter. Leibner, U. 2009 Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Galilee. An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Lembke, K. 2004 The Relevance of Water in Religious Worship on Ancient Egypt and the Middle East, Pp. 301–308 in Men of Dikes and Canals. The Archaeology of Water in the Middle East. International Symposium held at Petra, Wadi Musa (H. K. of Jordan) 15–20 June, 1999. eds. Bienert H-D, and J. Häser. Marie Leidorf GmbH. Rahden/Westf. Levine, I.L. 1982 The Period of R. Judah the Prince. Pp. 94–118 in Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest vol. 1, eds. Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Safrai, and M. Stern. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi (Hebrew). 1989 The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity. Revised and expanded from Hebrew. Jerusalem: Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute and Jewish Theological Seminary of America. 1992 The Sages and the Synagogue in Late Antiquity: The Evidence of the Galilee. Pp. 201–22 The Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. L.I. Levine. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America. 2000 The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2003 The First Century CE Synagogues in Historical Perspective. Pp. 1–24 in The Ancient Synagogue: From Its Origins until 200 CE. Papers Presented at an International Conference at Lund University, October 14–17, 2001, eds. B. Olsson and M. Zetterholm. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International. Licht, J.S. 1968 Sukkot, Encyclopaedia Biblica. vol. 5: 1037–1043. Linder, A. 1987 The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Littman, E.D. Magie jr, and D.R. Stuart. 1915 Greek and latin Inscriptions in Syria, section A, Southern Syria, Part 5, Hauran Plain and Djebel Hauran. Leyden: Brill. Loewenstamm, S.E. 1962 Water, Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. 4: 910–917. Magness, J. 1990 Some Observations on the Roman Temple at Kedesh. IEJ 40: 173–181. Masterman, E.W.G. 1909 Studies in Galilee. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Meshorer, Y. 1966 Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period. Tel-Aviv: Am Hassefer (Hebrew). 1976 A Hoard of Coins from Migdal. Atiqot 11: 54–80. 1997 A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kochba. Jerusalem (Hebrew). 2001 A Treasury of Jewish Coins. Nyack, N.J./Jerusalem. Meyers, E.M., A.T. Kraabel and J.F. Strange. 1976 Ancient Synagogue Excavations at Khirbet Shemʿa, Upper Galiliee, 1970–1972. Durham. Meyers, E.M., J.F. Strange and C.L. Meyers. 1981 Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper Galilee, Israel. 1971–1972, 1974–1975. Cambridge MA. Meyers, E.M., Carol L. Meyers and James F. Strange. 1990 Excavations at the Ancient synagogue of Gush Halav. Meiron excavation project; 5 Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Meyers, Eric M. and Carol L. Meyers. 2009 Excavations at Ancient Nabratein: Synagogue and Environs. Meiron Excavation Project Volume VI. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Millar, F. 1973 The Imperial Cult and the Persecutions, in Le culte des souverains dans l’empire Romain. Geneva: 145–175. 1994 The Roman Near East 31 BC–AD 337. 2nd printing. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.



qazion—a galilean riddle

681

Miller, S.S. 1985 Studies in the History and Traditions of Sepphoris. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International. 2007 Priests, Purities, and the Jews of Galilee. Pp. 375–402 in Zangenberg J., H.W. Attridge and D. Martin (eds.), Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee. A Region in Transition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Mills, E. 1932 Census of Palestine 1931: Population of Villages, Towns and Administered Areas. Jerusalem 1932. Momigliano, A. 1987 On Pagans, Jews, and Christians, reprint. Wesleyan University Press. Moralee, J. 2004 “For Salvation’s Sake,” Provincial Loyalty, Personal Religion, and Epigraphic Production in the Roman and Late Antique Near East. New York and London: Routledge. Netzer, E. 1996 The Synagogues of Gush Halav and Khirbet Shemʿa, Eretz Israel 25: 450–455 (Hebrew). Noy, D. 1993 Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe, vol. I: Italy (excluding the city of Rome), Spain and Gaul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Openheimer, A. 1982 Restoration of the Jewish Setelment in the Galilee. Pp. 75–92, in Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conques, eds. Baras, Z.S. Safrai, Y. Tzafrir and M. Stern. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi (Hebrew). 1991 Galilee in the Mishnaic Period. Jerusalem: Shazar Center (Hebrew). 1992 Roman Rule and the Cities of the Galilee in Talmudic Literature, in Levine L.I., The Galilee in Late Antiquity. New York and Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary: 115–125. Petrie, W.M.F. 1906 Hyksos and Israelite Cities. London: School of archaeology in Egypt. Price, Simon R.F. 1984 Rituals and Power. The Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Quartermaine, J., Olson B. R. and Howland M. 2013 Appendix B: Using Photogrammetry and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to Draft Accurate Plans of Qazion, Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies, I, issue 2. Penn State University Press: 169–174. Reeg, G. 1989 Die Ortsnamen Israels nach der rabbinischen Literatur. Wiesbaden: Fr. Ludwig Reichert varlag. Renan, E. 1864–1871 Mission de Phénicie I, II, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, Paris. Richardson, P. and Heuchan, V. 1996 Jewish Voluntary Associations in Egypt and the Roles of Women. Pp. 226–51 in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, eds. J.S. Kloppenborg and S.G. Wilson. London: Routledge. Roth-Gerson, L. 1987 The Greek Inscriptions from the Synagogues in Eretz-Israel. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi (Hebrew). Rubenstein, J. 1994 The Sadducees and the Water Libation. JQR 84: 417–444. 1995 The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic periods. Atlanta: Scholars. Runesson, A. 2001 The synagogue at Ancient Ostia: The Building and its History from the 1st–5th Century, in Olsson B. et al. (eds.) The synagogue of Ancient Ostia and the Jews of Rome, Stockholm: Åström. Safrai, S. 1956 The Ritual in the Second Temple. Pp. 369–391, in Sepher Yerushalayim (The Book of Jerusalem, ed. Avi-Yonah. Jerusalem, Tel Aviv: The Bialik institute and Dvir Publishing House (Hebrew). 1982 The Jewish Settelment in the Galilee and Golan in the 3rd–4th centuries. Pp. 144–179 in Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest, eds. Baras, Z.S. Safrai, Y. Tzafrir and M. Stern. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi (Hebrew). Safrai, Z. 1993 Did the Priestly Courses (Mishmarot) Transfer from Judea to Galilee after the Bar Kokhba Revolt? Tarbiz 62: 287–292 (Hebrew). Saller, S.J. 1972 Second Revised Catalogue of the Ancient Synagogues of the Holy Land. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 6. Jerusalem: Franciscan Print. Sawicki, M. 1997 Spatial Management of Gender and Labor in Greco-Roman Galilee, pp. 7–28 in Archaeology and the galilee. Texts and Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine periods, eds. Edwards, D.R. and C.T. McCllough. South Florida studies in the history of Judaism; No. 143. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (Amsterdam-Leiden, 1923–). Segal, A. 2001 The “Kalybe Structures”—Temples of the Imperial Cult in Hauran and Trachon: An Historical-Architectural Analysis. Assaph Vol. 6:91–118.

682

supplement

2008    Religious architecture in the Roman Near East: Temples of the Basalt Lands (Trachon and Hauran). Pp. 97–132, in: The Variety of Local Religious Graeco-Roman World Life in the Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Ed. Kaizer, T. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 164. Leiden-Boston: Brill. Sigismund, M. 2007 Small Change? Coins and weights as a mirror of Ethnic, Religious and political identity in the First and Second Century CE Tiberias, Pp. 315–336, in Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee. A Region in Transition, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 210. eds. J. Zangenberg, H.W. Attridge, and D.B. Martin. Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck. Smallwood, M. 1976 The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian. Studies in Judaism in late antiquity 20 Leiden: E.J. Brill. Steinsapir, A.I. 2005 Rural Sanctuaries in Roman Syria: The Creation of a Sacred Landscape. Oxford: BAR International Series 1431. Stern, E.J. and A. Tatcher. 2009 Early Islamic, Crusader and Mamluke Periods, in Gezov, N. et al., Horbat ʿUza The 1991 Excavations. Vol. II: The later periods. IAA Reports, No. 42. Jerusalem: 118–175. Sukenik, E.L. 1951 The Ancient Synagogue at Yafa near Nazareth. Bulletin of the Louis. M Rabinowitz Fund for the Exploration of Ancient Synagogues, II. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University: 6–24. Syon, D. 2004 Tyre and Gamla. Phd. Dis. Hebrew University Jerusalem. Tabory, J. 1995 Israeli Festivals during the Mishna and Talmud Periods. Jerusalem: Magness (Hebrew). Trifon, D. 1985 The Jewish Priests from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Rise of Christianity. Ph.D dissertation, Tel Aviv University (Hebrew, unpublished). 1990 Did the Priestly Courses Move from Judea to the Galilee after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Tarbiz 59: 77–93 (Hebrew). Tsafrir, Y. 1989 Further Evidence of the Cult of Zeus Akraios at Beth Sheʾan (Scythopolis). Israel Exploration Journal 39: 76–78. 1995 The synagogue at Capernaum and Meroth and the dating of the Galilean synagoge, Pp. 151–161 in The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research. JRA suppl. no. 14. ed. J.H. Humphrey. Ann Arbor, MI. Turnheim, Y. 1987 Architectural Decoration in Northern Eretz-Israel in the Roman and Byzantine Periods. PhD. Thesis. Tel Aviv University (Hebrew, unpublished). Urbach, E.E. 1973 Mishmarot U’Maamadot. Tarbiz 42: 304–327 (Hebrew). Urman, D. 1984 Jewish inscription from the Mishna and Talmud Period from area of Qasrin in the Golan. Tarbiz 53: 513–545 (Hebrew). Vitto, F. 1982 Décor Mural des Anciennes Synagogues à la Lumière de Nouvelles Découvertes. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 32/5: 361–370. Ward-Perkins, J.B. 1993 The Severan buildings of Lepcis Magna: an architectural survey. Society for Libyan Studies monographs 2. London: The Society for Libyan Studies. White, L.M. 1997 Synagogue and Society in Imperial Ostia: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence. Harvard Theological Review 90/1: 23–58. Illustration Credits The plans, sections and drawings of architectural elements (Figs. 5, 6, 8c, 11b, 14, 16, 17c, 19, 21, 22, 33–36, 38) were drafted by Natasha Zak. Silvia Krapiwko redrew the plans, photographed and drew the Greek inscription and prepared the plates for the architectural elements. Pottery drawings are by S. Ad. The final plans (Figs. 5, 6, 34) for publication were drawn by Brandon Olson. Photographs credits: Fig. Q-1b, Map 2, Courtesy of Prof. A. Segal; Fig. Q-2. after Conder and Kitchener 1881:240; Figs. Q-3a, b, Q-25a, Q-30—Rachel Hachlili, Fig. Q-3c—Jamie Simson; Figs. Q-4, Q-7, Q-10, Q-17a, Q-20, Q-29, Q-32—Sky View, photographs by Doron Gahali; Figs. Q-8a, b, Q-13a, b, Q-18a—Michael Eisenberg; Figs. Q-9, Q-12, Q-13c, Q-15, Q-18b, Q-23, Q-25b, Q-26a, Q-31—Ann E. Killebrew; Fig. Q-11a—Courtesy of Prof. Dr. Joachim Marzahn, Oberkustos. Archive of the DOG, c/o Vorderasiatisches Museum Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Figs. Q-17b, Q-28—Moshe Einav; Fig. Q-24—Brandon Olson; Figs. Q-26b, Q-43—Vered Raz Romeo; Figs. Q-39–42— drawn by S. Ad, plates by Rachel Hachlili; Figs. Q-44, 45—Ranin Noufi, The Zinman institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa; Figs. Q-46, 47—Silvia Krapiwko. Fig. Q-48—The Severan Tondo, Courtesy of Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Antikensammlung. Photograph: Johannes Laurentius. The figures (except the plans and the plates of the architectural fragments) were arranged for publication by Rachel Hachlili with the help of PhotoScape (a free photo editor software).

LIST OF SYNAGOGUE EXCAVATIONS with and without Published Final Scientific Reports Synagogue Site

Date of Excavation

Excavators

Final Scientific Report

1 2

ʿAmudim H. Arbel

1979 1905–1907 1987/8

L.I. Levine Kohl & Watzinger Z. Ilan, A. Izdarechet

3 4

ʿAnim H. Barʿam I

5

Barʿam II

6 7 8

D. Amit H. Kohl & C. Watzinger; M. Aviam H. Kohl & C. Watzinger; M. Aviam E.L. Sukenik N. Zori D. Bahat

9 10

Beth Alpha Beth Sheʾan A Beth Sheʾan B small Beth Leontis Beth Sheʿarim

1987–90 1916 1998 1916 1998 1929 1962 1970–1972 1964 1939

11 12

Caesarea Capernaum

13

Dabiyye

1956, 1962 1905–1907 1921–1926 1968 on 1978–1982

N. Zori B. Mazar Y. and Y. Tepper M. Avi-Yonah H. Kohl & C. Watzinger Orfali V. Corbo, S. Loffreda Z.U. Maʿoz

14 15 16

Deir ʿAziz Ed-Dikke ʿEn Gedi

2000–2001 1905–1907 1970–1971

17

ʿEn Nashut

18

Eshtemoʿa

1971 1978 1934–1936 1969

19 20

Et-Tuwani Gamla

2010 1967 on

21 22

Gaza Gush Halav

1967, 1976 1976–1980

23 24 25

Hamam Wadi Hammath Gader Hammath Tiberias A Hammath Tiberias B Herodium Huqoq

2007–2009 1932 1921

Govaars et al. 2009 Cafarnao I–VIII 1972–1975; 2005–2008 Maʿoz. Ariel, Killebrew 1991 Z.U. Maʿoz & C. Ben David — H. Kohl & C. Watzinger — D. Barag, Y. Porat, — E. Netzer M. Ben-Ari Maoz 2010 Z.U. Maoz L.A. Mayer and Yeivin 2004 A. Reifenberg Z. Yeivin B. Har-Even S. Gutman, Syon 2008, Syon D. Syon and Yavor 2010 A. Ovadiah — E. Meyers et al. Meyers, Meyers Strange 1990 U. Leibner Leibner 2010 E.L. Sukenik — N. Slouschz —

1961–1963

M. Dothan

1962–1967 2011

V. Corbo J. Magness, D. Amit, S. Kisilevitz

26 27 28

— — Amit 2003 — — Sukenik 1934 Zori 1967 — Zori 1966 —

Dothan 1983, 2006 — —

Notes

Summary in a book. Ilan and Izdarechet 1988 (Hebrew)

684

list of synagogue excavations

Table (cont.) Synagogue Site

Date of Excavation

29

Huseifa

1933

30 31

Japhia Jericho Hasmonean

1950 1998

32 33 34

Jericho Kafr Misr Kanaf H.

35

Korazim

36 37

Maʿon (Judea) Maʿon (Nirim)

38 39 40

Maʿoz Hayim Masada Meiron

41

1936 1984 1978–1980, 1985 1905–1907 1926 1980–1984 1987–1988 1957–1958

Excavators N. Makhouly & M. Avi Yonah E.L. Sukenik E. Netzer D.C. Baramki A. Onn Z.U. Maoz H. Kohl & C. Watzinger J. Ory & N. Makhouly Z. Yeivin Z. Ilan & D. Amit S. Levi and L.Y. Rahmani

Meroth

1974–1977 1964–5 1905–1907 1971/2, 1974/5 1981–1983

V. Tzaferis Y. Yadin, E. Netzer H. Kohl & C. Watzinger E. Meyers et al. Z. Ilan & E. Damati

42

Migdal

2009

43

2004

44 45

Modiin Hurvat Umm el-Umdan Naʿaran Nabratein

46

Qasrin

47 48 49 50 51

Qiryat Sefer, H. badd ʿIsa Rehov Rimmon H. Sepphoris Shemʿa H.

D. Avshalom-Gorni, and Arfan Najjar A. Onn and S. Weksler-Bdolah I.H. Vincent H. Kohl & C. Watzinger E. and C. Meyers D. Urman M. Ben-Ari, S. Bar-Lev R. Hachlili, A. Killebrew, Z.U. Maoz Y. Magen et al.

52 53

Shura H. Sumaqa

54

Susiya H.

55 56

Tiberias Umm el-Qanatir

1921 1905 1980–1981 1969, 1971 1975–6 1982–1984 1999 1974–1980 1878–1980 1970–1972 1983 1905 1983–1990 1971–2 1978–1979 1905–1907 2003

F. Vitto A. Kloner Z. Weiss & E. Netzer E. Meyers et al. G. Foerster H. Kohl & C. Watzinger S. Dar S. Gutman, Z. Yeivin, E. Netzer A. Berman H. Kohl & C. Watzinger H. Ben David, I. Gonen, J. Dray

Final Scientific Report

Notes

— — E. Netzer and R. Laureys-Chachy 2004 — Onn 1994 — Yeivin 2000 Amit 2003 Levi, Rahmani, Avi-Yonah 1960 Tzaferis 1982 Netzer 1995, Meyers 1981 —

— — Meyers & Meyers 2009 — — — Magen et al 2004 — — Weiss 2005 Meyers, Kraabel, Strange 1976 — Dar 1999 — — —

Summary in a book Ilan and Damati 1987 (Hebrew)

List of Abbreviations ACR Ancient Churches Revealed. Tsafrir, Y. (ed.). Jerusalem. 1993 AJA American Journal of Archaeology ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang Römischen der Welt ASR Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Levine L.I. (ed.). Jerusalem 1981 BA Biblical Archaeologist BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BCH Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique BJPES Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society (Hebrew) CA Cahiers Archéologiques CAHL Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land New Discoveries. G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni, and E. Alliata (eds.). Jerusalem 1990 DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers EI Eretz Israel HA Hadashot Arkheologiot HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual IEJ Israel Exploration Journal JAC Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JFA Journal of Field Archaeology JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology JRS Journal of Roman Studies JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism JSQ Jewish Studies Quarterly JTS Journal of Theological Studies LMGR La Mosaïque Gréco-Romaine NTS New Testament Studies PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly RAC Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana RB Revue Biblique ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins

Bibliography Adler, G. 2003 Context and Meaning. Tale of Odysseus on the Leontis Mosaic from Bet Shean. MA Thesis. University of Haifa. Adler Y. 2008 The Ancient Synagogue and the ritual Bath: The Archaeological Evidence and its Relevance to an Extinct Rabbinical Enactment Requiring Ablutions after Seminal Emission. Cathedra 128:51–72 (Hebrew, abstract pp. 200–201). Ahipaz N. 2007 A Hoard of Byzantine Solidi from the Deir ʿAziz Synagogue. INR 2:157–165. Ahituv, S. 1992 Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Åkerström-Hougen, G. 1974 The Calendar and Hunting Mosaics of the Villa of the Falconer in Argos (Acta Institutis Atheniensis Regni Sueciae, Series 4, 23). Stockholm. Albright, W.F. 1943 The Gezer Calendar.” BASOR 82:18–24. Albani, M. 2000 Horoscopes. In Schiffman L.H. and J.C. VanderKam (Eds.) Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford, Vol I:370–373. Alexander, P.S. 2000 Magic and Magical Texts. In Schiffman, L.H. and J.C. VanderKam (Eds.) Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford, Vol I:502–504. Allen, D.C. 1963 The Legends of Noah. Urbana. Ameisenowa, Z. 1938–9 The Tree of Life in Jewish Iconography. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes II:326–345. Amir, R. 2007 Style as a Means of Periodization: The Relative Chronology of Synagogues in the Golan. Cathedra 124:29–50 (Hebrew, English abstract p. 212). Amiran, R. 1954 A Fragment of an Ornamental Relief from Kfar Baram. EI 3:178–181 (Hebrew). Amit, D. 1993a The source of the Architecture Plans of the Synagogues in Southern Judea. Cathedra 68:6–35 (Hebrew, English Abstract p. 199). 1993b On Y. Magen “Samaritan Synagogues” Qadmoniot 25 (1992): 66–90. Qadmoniot 101–2:64–5. 1994 Iconoclasm in Ancient Synagogues in Eretz Israel, in proceedings of the 11th World Congress of Jewish Studies, Div.B. The History of the Jewish People. Jerusalem, Vol. I:9–16. 1995 Architectural Plans of Synagogues in the Southern Judean Hills and the ‘Halacha’, in: Urman D. and P.V.M. Flesher (eds.), Ancient Synagogues, Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Vol. 1 (Leiden, New York, Köln): 129–156. 2000 The Curtain would be removed for them” (Yoma 54a) ancient Synagogue Depictions, in Levine L.I. and Weiss Z. (eds.) From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity. Journal Roman Archaeology, Supplement series No. 40. Portsmouth, RI:231–234. 2003 The Synagogue of Hurbat Maʿon and Hurbat ʿAnim and the Jewish Settelments in Southern Hebron Hills. Thesis submitted for the degree Doctor of Philosophy. Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew, English Abstract pp. vi–xxxvii). 2004 Priests and Remembrance of the Temple in the Synagogues of Southern Judea, in Eshel, Y., E. Netzer, D. Amit and D. Cassuto (eds.) And Let Them Make Me A Sanctuary. Synagogues from Ancient Times to the Present Day. Ariel: 43–47 (Hebrew). 2007a Dating Ancient Synagogues. Cathedra 124:6–12 (Hebrew, English Abstract p. 211). 2007b Village Synagogues from the Second Temple Period. Michmanim 20:21–32 (Hebrew, English Abstract pp. 20*–21*). 2008 Menorah Fragment from Khirbet Ed-Duheisha. BASOR 350:15–16. 2013 Mosaic Inscription from a Synagogue at Horvat Huqoq. Permalink: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/ uncategorized/mosaic-inscription-from-a-synagogue-at-horvat-huqoq/. Amit, D. and Y. Adler 2010 The Observance of Ritual Purity after 70 CE. A Reevaluation of the Evidence in Light of Recent Archaeological Discoveries. In Weiss z. O. Irshai, J. Magness and S. Schwartz (eds.) “Follow the Wise” Studies in Jewish history and Culture in Honor of Lee I. Levine. Winona Lake, Indiana: 121–143.

688

bibliography

Amit, D. and Z. Ilan 1991 The Ancient Synagogue at Maʿon, Judah. Qadmoniot 23:115–125 (Hebrew). Amit, D., H. Torgü and P. Gendelman 2008 Horvat Burnat, a Jewish village in the Lod Shephelah during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Qamoniot 136:96–107 (Hebrew). Amit H. (ed.) 2010 Frontier and Desert in Eretz Israel. Conference 4–5, 2009–2010. Ariel D.T. 1980 Coins from the Synagogue at Horvat Kanaf. Preliminary Report. INJ 4:59–62. 1987 Coins from the Synagogue at ʿEn Nashut. IEJ 37:147–157. 1991 Coins from the Synagogue of Dabiyye. Atiqot 20:74–80. 1996 A Hoard of Byzantine Folles from Qazrin. Atiqot 29:69–76. 2000 Coins from the Synagogue at Korazim, in Z. Yeivin, The Synagogue at Korazim. IAA Report 10. Jerusalem: 33*–49*. Ariel D.T. and N. Ahipaz 2010 Coins from Excavations at ʿEn Nashut, in Maoz Z.U. ʿEn Nashut: the Art and Architecture of a Synagogue in the Golan. Qazrin: 138–186. Arslan, E.A. 1997 Il deposito monetale della trincea XII nel cortile della Sinagoga di Cafarnao. LA 47:245–328. 2011 The L812 Trench Deposit inside the Synagogueand the Isolated Finds in Capernaum Israel. A Comparison of the Two Groups. INR 6:147–162. Assimakopoulou-Atzaka, P. 1988 Corpus of the Mosaic Pavements of Greece: Vol 2. Peloponnesos—Central Greece. Byzantine Monuments 7. Thessaloniki (Greek). 1998 Corpus of the Mosaic Pavements of Greece: Vol 3. Byzantine Monuments 9. Thessaloniki (Greek). 2003 Mosaic Pavements. An Approach to the Art of Ancient Mosaic. Six Texts, Thessaloniki (reprinted 2010, in Greek). Atzaka, G. 2011 The Profession of the Mosaicist (4th c. B.C.–8th c. A.D.), Athens (in Greek). Aviam, M. 2001 The Ancient Synagogues at Barʿam, in Avery-Peck A.J. and J. Neusner (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiquity, Pt. 3. Where we Stand: issues and debates in Ancient Judaism. Vol. 4. The Special Problems of the Synagogue. Leiden, Boston, Koln: 155–178. 2004 Jew, Pagans and Christians in Galilee: 25 Years of Archaeological Excavations and Surveys: Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods. Rochester: University of Rochester. 2007 The Ancient Synagogues at Barʿam. Michmanim 20:33–42 (Hebrew, English Abstract pp. *21–*22). 2013 The Decorated Stone from the Synagogue at Migdal, A Holistic interpretation and a Glimpse into the Life of Galilean Jews at the Time of Jesus. Novum Testamentum 55: 205–220. Avigad, N. 1954 Remains of Ancient Jewish Art in the Galilee. EI 7:18–23 (Hebrew). 1960a A Dated Lintel-inscription from the Ancient Synagogue of. Nabratein. Louis M. Rabinowitz Fund Bulletin 3: 49–56. 1960b An Aramaic Inscription from the Synagogue at Umm el-ʾAmed in Galilee. Louis M. Rabinowitz Fund Bulletin 3:62–64. 1962 The Mosaic Pavement of the Beth-Alpha Synagogue and Its Place in the History of Jewish Art. The Beth-Sheʾan Valley. The 17th Archaeological Convention. Jerusalem: 63–70 (Hebrew). 1967 On the Form of Ancient Synagogues in Galilee, in: Hirschberg, H.Z. (ed.) All the Land of Naphtali. Jerusalem: 91–100 (Hebrew). 1976 Beth Sheʾarim, III.: Catacombs 12–23. Jerusalem. 1983 Discovering Jerusalem. Jerusalem. Avi-Yonah, M. 1932 Mosaic Pavements in Palestine, QDAP II:136–181 (reprinted in Art in Ancient Palestine. Jerusalem: 283–382). 1933 Mosaic Pavements in Palestine, QDAP III:26–47, 49–73 (reprinted in Art in Ancient Palestine. Jerusalem 1981:329–375). 1934 A Sixth-Century Synagogue at Isfiya. QDAP 3:118–131. 1935 Mosaic Pavements in Palestine, QDAP IV:187–193 (reprinted in Art in Ancient Palestine. Jerusalem 1981:376–382). 1936 Mosaic Pavement at El-Hammam, Beisan. QDAP V:11–30. 1942 Oriental Elements in the Art of Palestine in the Roman and Byzantine Periods. QDAP X:105–151 (reprinted in Art in Ancient Palestine. Jerusalem 1981:1–47). 1948 Oriental Elements in the Art of Palestine in the Roman and Byzantine Periods. QDAP XIII:128–165 (reprinted in Art in Ancient Palestine. Jerusalem 1981:48–85). 1950 Oriental Elements in the Art of Palestine in the Roman and Byzantine Periods. QDAP XIV:49–80 (reprinted in Art in Ancient Palestine. Jerusalem 1981:86–117). 1954 The Madaba Mosaic Map. Jerusalem.



bibliography

689

1957 Places of Worship in the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Antiquity and Survival 3:262–272. The Hague. 1960a Israeli Mosaics: 15–24. Unesco. 1960b The Mosaic Pavement of Ma⁠ʾon (Nirim). Louis M. Rabinowitz Fund Bulletin 3:25–35. 1960c The Synagogue of Caesarea (Preliminary report). Louis M. Rabinowitz Fund Bulletin 3:44–48. 1961a Synagogue Architecture in the Classical Period. in Roth C. (ed) Jewish Art. Jerusalem: 155–190. 1961b Oriental Art in Roman Palestine. Rome. 1962 Historical Geography of Palestine From the end of the Babylonian Exile up to the Arab Conquest. Jerusalem. 1964 The Caesarea Inscription of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses. in E.J. Vardaman, J.L. Garrett and J.B. Adair (eds.), The Teacher’s Yoke: Studies in Memory of Henry Trantham. Waco, Texas: 46–57. 1965 La Mosaïque Juive dans ses relations avec la mosaïque classique, in La Mosaïque Greco-Romaine I, Paris: 325–331. 1966 An Ancient Synagogue at Gaza. BIES 30:221–223 (Hebrew). 1972 The Haditha Mosaic Pavement. IEJ 22:118–122. 1973 Editor’s Note. IEJ 23 (1973) 43–45. Some Comments on the Capernaum Excavations, ASR: 60–62. 1975a The Gaza School of Mosaicist in the Fifth-Sixth Century CE. EI 12:191–193 (Hebrew). Une École de mosaïque à Gaza au sixième siècle. La mosaïque gréco-romaine II. Paris 1975:377–383 (reprinted in Art in Ancient Palestine. Jerusalem, 1981:389–395). 1975b Ancient Mosaics. London. 1976 Le Symbolisme du Zodiaque dans l’art Judéo-Byzantin, Actes du XIVe Congrès international des etudes Byzantines, Budapest, 1971, III:281–283. Art in Ancient Palestine Jerusalem 1981:396–397. 1981a Art in Ancient Palestine. Selected Studies. Jerusalem: 1–117. 1981b Notes on Recent Excavations at Capernaum. ASR: 60–62. 1981c The Mosaics Of Mopsuestia- Church or Synagogue? ASR: 186–190. 1993 The Caesarea synagogue. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 1. Jerusalem: 278–280. Avshalom-Gorni, D. and Arfan Najjar 2009 http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Israel+beyond+politics/Unique-ancient-synagogue-exposed-at-Sea-of-Galilee-14SEP-2009. 2010 The Stone Decorated with Reliefs from the Second Temple Period Synagogue at Migdal: First Impressions, abstract. In Studies in Archaeology and Ancient Art, Third Conference: Past and Present—Old Theories and New Finds. Jerusalem: 7 (Hebrew). Baccache, E. and Tchalenko, G. 1979–80 Eglises de Village de La Syrie du Nord. Paris. Bahat, D. 1973 A Synagogue Chancel-Screen from Tel Rehob. IEJ 23:181–183. 1981 A Synagogue at Beth-Sheʾan. In Levine, L.I. (ed.) Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Jerusalem: 82–85. Balmelle, C., and Darmon, J-P. 1986 L’artisan-mosaïste dans l’Antiquité tardive, in X. Barral I Altet (ed.), Artistes, Artisans et Production Artistique au Moyen Age. Vol. I. Paris: 235–249. Bar, D. 2002 Was There a 3rd-c. Economic Crisis in Palestine? in J.H. Humphrey (ed.) The Roman and Byzantine Near East, Vol. 3, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 49. Portsmouth, RI:43–54. Barag, D. 1985–6 The Menorah in the Roman and Byzantine Periods: A Messianic Symbol. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society: 44–47. 2006 The Synagogue at Ein Gedi, in Hirschfeld Y (ed.) Ein Gedi “A very large Village of Jews, Catalogue no. 25, Hecht Museum, University of Haifa: 21–26 (Hebrew), English pp. 17*–20*. Barag, D., Y., Porat, E. and Netzer 1972 The Second Season of Excavations in the Synagogue at ʿEn-Gedi. Qadmoniot 18:52–54 (Hebrew). 1981 The Synagogue at ʿEn-Gedi, in Levine, L.I. (ed.) Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Jerusalem: 116–119. Baramki, D.C. and M. Avi-Yonah 1936 An Early Byzantine Synagogue near Tell es Sultan. QDAP 6:73–77. Barash, M. 1980 The David Mosaic of Gaza. Assaph, Studies in Art History I. Tel Aviv University: 1–42. Bar-Or, A., and Ilan, Z. 1989 Hurvat Qasyon—A Synagogue or Temple. Galilee Researches Conference 4 (13.6.1989). Haifa: University of Haifa: 119–126 (Hebrew). Baruch, Y. 2005 H. Susiya—The Chronology of the Site in Light of Recent Excavation. Judea and Samaria Research Studies, Vol. 14. Ariel: 159–166. Baskin J.R. 1999 Women as Other in Rabbinic Literature, in J. Neusner and Avery-Peck A.J. (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiquity, Pt. 3. Where we Stand: issues and debates in Ancient Judaism. Vol. 2. Leiden, Boston, Koln: 177–196. Baumann, P. 1999 Spätantique stifter imm Heiligen Land. Wiesbaden.

690

bibliography

Baumgarten, J.M. 1970 Art in the Synagogue: Some Talmudic Views, Judaism, 19, 196–206; reprinted in J. Gutmann (ed.) 1975, The Synagogue: 79–89. Beitner, A. 1999 ‘A Different Ram’—The Contribution of the Midrash Aggadah to an Understanding of the Portrayal of the Ram in the Mosaic floor at Beit Alfa. In M. Katz and Y. Rosenson (eds.), Pathways Through Aggadah II. Jerusalem: 91–104 (Hebrew). Belkin, L. 1990 Thee Architectural Reconstruction of the Gush Halav Synagogue, in Meyers, E.M., C.L. Meyers with J.F. Strange, Excavations at the Ancient synagogue of Gush Halav. Winona Lake, Indiana: 99–122. Ben David, C. 2005 The Jewish Settlements on the Golan in the Roman and Byzantine Period. Qazrin (Hebrew, English abstract pp. 1*–4*). 2007a A Ceramic survey and the Dating of the Monumental Synagogues in the Golan. Cathedra 124:13–28 (Hebrew, English abstract p. 210). 2007b The Golan Synagogues—New Observations. Michmanim 20:49–60 (Hebrew, English abstract 23*–24*). 2007c Golan Gem, The Ancient Synagogue of Deir ʿAziz. BAR 33, 6:44–51. Ben David, H., I. Gonen and J. Dray 2006 Umm el-Qanatir—the first excavation Season. Qadmoniot 132:110–120 (Hebrew). Ben David, H. and Maʿoz, U.Z. 2004 The synagogue at Deir ʿAziz on the Golan Heights. In Eshel, Y.E. Netzer, D. Amit and D. Cassuto (eds.) And Let Them Make Me A Sanctuary. Synagogues from Ancient Times to the Present Day. Ariel: 57–65 (Hebrew). Ben-Dov, M. 1973 Remains of a Synagogue at Kokav HaYarden and the site of Grofina in Gilead, Eretz Shomron, The 30 Archaeological Convention. September 1972. Jerusalem: 86–98 (Hebrew). Ben-Yehoshua, S, and B. Rozen 2009 The Secret of ʿEn Gedi. Cathedra 132:77–100 (Hebrew, English abstract p. 200). Bergman, M. 1982 The Depiction of the Ram in the ʿAqedah Mosaic at Beit Alpha. Tarbiz 51:306–309 (Hebrew, English summary pp. X–XI). Berliner (Landau), R. 1994 The Interpretation of the Presence of Daniel and the Lions in the Temple Panel of the Ancient Synagogue at Naʿaran. In Z.H. Erlich and Y. Eshel (eds.), Judea and Samaria Research Studies. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting-1993. Kedumim-Ariel: 213–219 (Hebrew, English summary p. XXII). 1995 The Circle of the Zodiac and the Scientific Reasons for Its Use in the Ancient Synagogues in Israel. In Z.H. Erlich and Y. Eshel (eds.), Judea and Samaria Research Studies. Proceedings of the 4rd Annual Meeting-1994. Kedumim-Ariel: 179–188 (Hebrew, English summary p. XVIII). Biebel, F.M. 1938 Mosaics, in C.H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa, City of the Decapolis. New Haven: 297–352. Bijovsky, G. 1998 The Gush Halav Hoard Reconsidered, Atiqot 35:77–106. 2000–2 The Currency of the Fifth Century CE in Palestine—Some Reflections in Light of the Numismatic Evidence. INJ 14:196–210. 2009 Numismatic Report, in E.M. Meyers and C.L. Meyers, Excavations at Ancient Nabratein: Synagogue and Environs. Meiron Excavations Project Vol. 6. Winona Lake, Indiana: 374–395. Binder, D.D. 1999 Into the Temple Courts. The Place of the Synagogue in the Second Temple Period. Atlanta. 2003 The Origins of the Synagogue: An evaluation, in Olsson, B. and M. Zetterholm (eds.). The Ancient Synagogue From Its Origins until 200 CE. Papers Presented at an International Conference at Lund University, October 14–17, 2001:118–131. 2009 Jerusalem. http://www.pohick.org/sts/jerusalem.html. 2011 Second Temple synagogues. Temple-Synagogue Relationships. http://www.pohick.org/sts/faqs.html. Blidstein, G.J. 1973 The Tannaim and Plastic Arts: Problems and Prospects, in B.L. Sherwin (ed.) Perspectives in Jewish Learning, Vol. V. Chicago: 17–24. 1974 Prostration and Mosaics in Talmudic Law. Bulletin of the Institute of Jewish Studies, 2:19–39. Bloedhorn, H. 1989 The Capitals of the Synagogue of Capernaum. Their Chronological and Stylistic Classification with regard to the Development of Capitals in the Decapolis and in Palestine. in Hachlili R. (ed.), Ancient Synagogues in Israel, Third-Seventh Century C.E., BAR International Series 499. Oxford: 49–54. Bolelli, G. 1986 La ronde-bosse de caractere indigene en Syrie du Sud. Hauran I:311–372. Bowersock, G.W. 1990 Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Ann Arbor.



bibliography

691

1998 The Rich Harvest of Near Eastern Mosaics. JRA 11:693–699. 2004 The Mosaic Inscription in the Nile Festival Building at Sepphoris: the House of the Daughter of the Governor Procopius (A.D. 517–18?) and Her Husband Asbolius Patricius. JRA 17:764–766. 2006 Mosaics as History. The Near East from Late Antiquity to Islam. Cambridge, Mass. London. Branham, J.R. 1992 Sacred Space under Erasure in Ancient Synagogues and Early Churches. Art Bulletin 74, 3:375–393. 1995 Vicarious Sacarality: Temple Space in Ancient Synagogues, in: D. Urman and P.V.M. Flesher (eds.), Ancient Synagogues, Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Vol. 2. Leiden, New York, Köln: 319–345. Braslavi, J. 1967 Symbols and Mythological Figures in the Early Synagogues in Galilee. All the Land of Naphtali. Jerusalem: 106–129 (Hebrew). Bratschkova, M. 1938 Die Muschel in der antiken Kunst. Bulletin de l’Institut Archaeologique Bulgare 11:1–131. Britt, K. 2013 The Huqoq Synagogue Mosaics. Permalink: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/uncategorized/the-huqoqsynagogue-mosaics/. Brooten, B.J. 1982 Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue. Inscription Evidence and Background Issues. Brown, D.F. 1942 The Arcuated Lintel and Its symbolic Interpretation. AJA 44:391–398. Bruneau, P. 1970 Recherches sur les cultes de Délos à l’époque hellénistique et à l’époque imperiale (Bibliotque des Écoles Francaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 217). Paris. 1974 Mosaics on Delos. Paris. 1982 Les Israelites de Délos et la juiverie Délienne. BCH 100:465–504. 1984 Les mosaistes antiques avaient-ils des cahiers de modeles? Révue Archéologique 79:241–272. Budde, L. 1960 Die früchristlischen Mosaiken von Misis-Mopsuhestia in Kilikien. Pantheon 18:118–126. 1969 Antike Mosaiken in Kilikien I. Recklinghausen. Buschhausen, H. 1972 Die Deutung des Archemosaiks in der Justinianischen Kirche von Mopsuestia, Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 21:57–72. 1986 Die Marienkirche von Madaba und der Saal des Hippolytos, in Byzantische Mosaiken aus Jordanian. Katalog dem Prähistorischen Staatssammelungen, München. Wien: 139–156. Butler, H.C. 1903 Architecture and Other Arts. Publications of an American Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1899–1900, Part. 2. New York. 1915–1919 Ancient Architecture in Syria Publications of the Princton University Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1904–1905 and 1909, Division II, Section A, Part 5: Hauran plain and Djebel Hauran. Leyden. 1916 Ancient Architecture in Syria. Publications of the Princton University Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1904–1905 and 1909, Division II, Section A, Part 6: Si (Seeia). Leyden. 1923 Nabatean Temple Plans and Plans of Syrian Churches. Studien Zur Kunst Des Ostens. Vienna: 9–18. 1929 Early Churches in Syria. Princeton. Callegher, B. 1997 Un ripostiglio di monete d’oro bizantine dalla Sinagoga di Cafarnao. LA 47:329–338. Campbell, S.D. 1988 The Mosaics of Antioch. Toronto, Ontario. 1995 The Peaceful Kingdom: A Liturgical Interpretation, in R. Ling (ed.), Fifth International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics. JRA Suppl. Series 9. Part 2:125–134. 1998 The Mosaics of Anemurium. Toronto-Ontario. Cassuto, M.D. 1954 The Gezer calendar, Encyclopaedia Biblica II:471–474 (Hebrew). Çevik, N. and H. Eshel 2010 A Byzantine Synagogue at Andriake in Southern Turkey. Qadmoniot 139:41–43 (Hebrew). Charlesworth, J.H. 1977 Jewish Astrology in the Talmud, Pseudepigra, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Early Palestinian Synagogues. Harvard Theological Review 70:183–200. 1987 Jewish Interest in Astrology during the Hellenistic and Roman Period. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II 20/2:926–950. 2006 Jesus Reaserch and Archaeology: A New perspective, in Charlesworth J.H. (ed.) Jesus and Archaeology. Michigan: 11–63. Chehab, M. 1959          Mosaïques du Liban. Musée de Beyrouth XV.

692

bibliography

Chen, D. 1978 The Design of the Ancient Synagogues in Galilee I. Liber Annuus 28:193–202. 1980a The Design of the Ancient Synagogues in Galilee II. Liber Annuus 30:255–258. 1980b The Design of the Ancient Synagogues in Judea: Masada and Herodium. BASOR 239:37–40. 1990 Dating synagogues in Galilee: on the evidence from Meroth and Capernaum. LA 40:349–355. Chiat, M.J. 1979 A Corpus of Synagogue Art and Architecture in Roman and Byzantine Palestine I–IV. Thesis. University Microfilm International. 1981 First-century Synagogue Architecture: Methodological Problems. Ancient Synagogues, the State of Research. ed. J. Gutmann. Ann Arbor. 1982 Handbook of Synagogue Architecture. Brown Judaic Studies 29. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. CIIP Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae Vols. I, II. Jerusalem. Eds. Cotton H.M. et al. De Gruyter. 2010 Chico, California. 2000 Female leadership in the ancient synagogue, in Levine L.I. and Weiss Z. (eds.), From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity. Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplement series No. 40. Portsmouth, RI:215–223. Claussen, C. 2003 Meeting, Community, Synagogue—Different Frameworks of Ancient Jewish Congregations in the Diaspora, in Olsson, B. and M. Zetterholm (eds.). The Ancient Synagogue From Its Origins until 200 CE. Papers Presented at an International Conference at Lund University, October 14–17, 2001:144–167. Clermont-Ganneau, C. 1903 Archaeological and Epigraphic Notes on Palestine. Palestine Exploration Fund Quartely Statement: 131–135. 1920 Découverte à Jérusalem d’une synagogue de l’époque hérodienne. Syria 1:190–197. Cohen, A. 2001 The Celestial Host, the Calendar and Jewish Art, in Fishof, I. Written in the Stars. Art and Symbolism of the Zodiac. Catalogue no. 452, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem: 11–18. Cohen, R. 1980 The Marvelous Mosaics of Kissufim. BAR 6:16–23. Cohen, S.J.D. 1981 Epigraphical Rabbies. JQR 72:1–17. 1984 The Temple and the Synagogue, in Madsen, T.G. (ed.) The Temple in Antiquity (Religious Studies Monograph Series 9). Utah: Brigham Young University: 151–174. 1987 Pagan and Christian Evidence on the Ancient Synagogue, in L.I. Levine, (ed.) The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, New York: 159–181. 1992 The place of the Rabbi in Jewish Society of the Second Century, in L.I. Levine, (ed.) The Galilee in Late Antiquity. New York and Jerusalem. 1999 Were Pharisees and Rabbis the Leader of Communal Prayer and Torah Study in Antiquity? The Evidence of the New Testament, Josephus and Early Church fathers, in Kee H.C. and L.H. Cohick (eds.), Evolution of the Synagogue. Harrisburg: 89–105. Conder, C.R. and Kitchener, H.H. 1881 The Survey of Western Palestine, Vol. I.: Galilee. Memoirs of the topography orography, hydrography. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Corbo, V. 1963 L’Herodion Di Gebal Fureidis. Liber Annuus 13:219–277. 1972 La Sinagoga di Cafarnao dopo gli scavi del 1972. LA 22 (1972) 204–235. 1975 Cafarnao I: Gli Edifici della Città, Jerusalem. 1976 La Citta romana di Magdala. Studia Hierosolymitana 1:365–368. 1982 Resti della sinagoga del primo secolo a Cafarnao, in Bottini G.C. (ed.), Studia Hierosolymitana III. Nell’Ottavo Centenario Francescano (1182–1982), Jerusalem 1982, 313–357. Damati, E. 2000 The Meroth Synagogue and its implication on the Chronology of Galilean Synagogues. MA Thesis. Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Dar, S. 1993 Settlements and Cult Sites on Mount Hermon, Israel. Ituraean culture in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Bar International Series 589. 1996 The Relation between the Dweling Place and the Family in Ancient Israel. EI 25 (Aviram Volume): 151–157. 1999 Sumaqa—A Roman and Byzantine Jewish Village on Mount Carmel, Israel. BAR International Series 815. Oxford. 2004 Raqit, Marinus Estate on the Carmel, Israel. Bar International Series 1300. Dar, S, and Y. Mintzker 1989 The Synagogue of Hurvat Sumaqa, in Hachlili, R (ed.), Ancient Synagogues in Israel, 3rd–7th century CE. Bar International Series 499, Oxford: 17–20. 1995 The Synagogue of Horvat Sumaqa, 1983–1993, in: Urman D. and P.V.M. Flesher (eds.), Ancient Synagogues, Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Vol. 1 (Leiden, New York, Köln): 158–165.



bibliography

693

Dauphin, C.M. 1976a A New Method of Studying Early Byzantine Mosaic Pavement, with Special Reference to the Levant. Levant 8:113–149. 1976b Note on the Method of Laying Early Byzantine Mosaics. Levant 8:155–158. 1978a Byzantine Pattern Books and “Inhabited Scroll” Mosaics. Art History 4:401–423. 1978b Symbolic or Decorative? The Inhabited Scroll as a Means of Studying Some Early Byzantine Mentalities. Byzantion 48:10–34. 1980 Mosaic Pavements as an Index of Prosperity and Fashion. Levant XII:112–134. 1982 Jewish and Christian communities in the Roman and Byzantine Gaulanitis: A Study of Evidence from Archaeological Surveys. PEQ 114:129–142. 1987 The Development of the Inhabited Scroll in Architectural Sculpture and Mosaic Art from Late Imperial Times to the Seventh Century A.D. Levant XIX:183–213. 1997 Carpets of Stone: The Graeco-Roman Legacy in the Levant. Classics Ireland 4:1–32. Degen, R. 1973 An Inscription of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses from Yemen. Tarbiz 42:300–3 (Hebrew). Denzer-Feydy, J. 1986 Decor architectural et developpement du Hauran du I siecle avant J.-C. au VII siecle apres J.-C. In Dentzer, J-M (ed.) Hauran I: Recherches archéologique sur la Syrie du Sud a l’époque hellénistic et romaine, Vol. 2, Paris: 261–310. 1989 Le decor architectural en Syrie aux epoque hellenistique et romaine, in Dentzer, J-M and W. Orthmann (eds.) Archeologie et histoire de la Syrie:457–477. 1990a Les Chapiteaux ioniques de Syrie méridionale. Syria 67:143–181. 1990b Les Chapiteaux corinthiens normaux de Syrie méridionale. Syria 67:633–663. 1992 Les Linteaux á figures divines en Syrie méridionale. Revue Archéologique 1992/1:65–102. Dever, W.G. 1970 Iron Age Epigraphic Material from the Area of Khirbet el-Kom. Hebrew Union College Annual 40–41:139–204. Di Segni, L. 1997 Dated Greek Inscription from from the Roman and Byzantine periods. Vols. I, II. Thesis Submitted for the Degree PhD. to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 2002 Appendix: Greek Inscriptions in the Nile Festival Building, in J.H. Humphrey (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near East, Vol. 3:91–100. 2005a The Greek Inscriptions, in Z. Weiss (ed.), The Sepphoris Synagogue. Deciphering an Ancient Message through Its Archaeological and Socio-Historic Contexts. Jerusalem: 209–216. 2005b The mosaic inscription in the Nile festival Building at Sepphoris. JRA 18:781–784. Donceel-Voûte, P. 1983 La Pierre d’Aigle et l’Aigle au Bijou, in Recueil d’ Hommages à Henry Stern. Paris: 115–121. 1988 Les Pavements des églises byzantines de Syrie et du Liban, décor, archéologie et liturgie (Louvain-La-Neuve). 1995 Syro-Phoenician mosaics of the 6th century, in R. Ling (ed.), Fifth International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics. Ann Arbor, MI. Part 2:88–100. Donderer, M. 1989 Die Mosaizisten der Antike und ihre wirstchaftliche und soziale Stellung. Erlangen. Dothan, A. 1971 The ‘Secret’ in the Synagogue Inscription of ʿEn Gedi. Leshonenu 35:211–217 (Hebrew). Dothan, M. 1981 The Synagogue at Hammath-Tiberias. in L.I. Levine (ed.), Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Jerusalem: 63–69. 1983 Hammath Tiberias, Early Synagogues. Jerusalem. 2000 Hammath Tiberias, The Late Synagogues. B.L. Johnson. (ed.) Jerusalem. Dräger, O. 1994 Religionem significare: Studien zu reich verzierten römischen Altären und Basen aus Marmor. Mitteilungen des Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut, Roemische Abteilung, Ergaenzungsheft; 33 Mainz am Rhein. Dray, Y.I. Gonen and Ben David, H. 2007 The Technical aspects of Umm el-Qanatir excavation. Michmanim 20:61–66 (Hebrew, English abstract 24*). Dunand, M. 1934 Mission Archeologique au Djebel Druze, Le Musee de Soueida. Paris. Dunbabin, K.M. 1978 The Mosaics of Roman North Africa, Studies in Iconography and Patronage, Oxford. 1982 The Victorious Charioteer on Mosaics and Related Monuments. AJA 86:65–89. 1999 Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World. Cambridge. 1999a Mosaics and their Public. LMGR VII, 2:739–745. Dunayevski, I. 1960 Reconstruction (II) Ma⁠ʾon. Louis M. Rabinowitz Fund Bulletin 3:22–23. Dunn, J.D.G. 2006 Did Jesus Attend the Synagogue? in Charlesworth J.H. (ed.), Jesus and Archaeology. Michigan: 206–222.

694

bibliography

Ehrenstein, T. 1923 Das Alte Testament im Bilde. Vienna. Elsner, J. 2000 From the Culture of Spolia to the Cult of Relics: The Arch of Constantine and the Genesis of Late Antique Forms. Papers of the British School at Rome 68:149–184. Emerton, J.A. 1999 How Many Months are Mentioned in the Gezer Calendar? PEQ 131:20–23. Englard, Y. 2000 The Eschatological Significance of the Zodiac Panels in the Mosaic Pavements of Ancient Synagogues in Israel. Cathedra 98:33–48 (Hebrew, English summary p. 174). Eshel, H. 1991 A Fragmentary Hebrew Inscription of the Priestly Courses from Nazareth? Tarbiz 61:159–61 (Hebrew). Ferrua, A. 1960 Le pittura della nuova catacomba di Via Latina (=Monumenti di Antichita Cristiana 8). Vatican City. 1991 The Unknown Catacomb. Florence. Feuchtwang, D. 1915 Der Tierkries im der Tradition und im Synagogenritus, Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 51:241–67. Fiema, T.Z., Kaellopoulos, C., Waliszewski, T. and Schick, R. 2001 The Petra Church. Amman. Fine, S. 1993 Synagogue and Sanctity: The Late Antique Palestinian Synagogues as a “Holy Place”. Thesis for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Hebrew University (Jerusalem). 1996 (ed.) Sacred Realm. The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World. New York. Oxford. 1997 This Holy Place. On the Sanctity of the Synagogue during the Greco-Roman Period. Notre Dame, Ind. 1999a Art and Liturgical Context of the Sepphoris Synagogue Mosaic, in E.M. Meyers (ed.), Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures. Winona Lake: 227–237. 1999b Non-Jews in the synagogues of late-antique Palestine: Rabbinic and archaeological evidence. Pp. 224–242, in Jews, Christians, and polytheists in the ancient synagogue: cultural interaction during the Greco-Roman period, ed. Fine S. London and New York: Routledge. 2000 Iconoclasm and the Art of Late-antique Palestinian Synagogues, in L.I. Levine and Z. Weiss (eds.), From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity. Journal Roman Archaeology, supplement series No. 40. Portsmouth, RI:183–194. 2004 A Liturgical Interpretation of Ancient Synagogue Remains in Late Antique Palestine, in L.I. Levine (ed.), Continuity and Renewal: Jews and Judaism in Byzantine-Christian Palestine. Jerusalem: 402–419 (Hebrew). 2005 Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World: Toward a New Jewish Archaeology. Cambridge University Press. Fink, J. 1955 Noe, der Gerechte in der früchristlichen Kunst. Münster. Finney, P.C. 1977–78 Orpheus-David: A connection in Iconography between Greco-Roman Judaism and Early Christianity? Journal of Jewish Art 3–5:6–15. 1988 Early Christian Architecture: The Beginning (A Review Article) HTR 81, 3:319‑339. Fischer, M. 1984 The Corinthian Capitals of the Capernaum Synagogue—A Late Roman Architectural Feature in Eretz-Israel. EI 17:305–311 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 13*). 1987 Remarks on the Architectural Design, in Ilan, Z. and E. Damati, Meroth, The Ancient Jewish Village. Tel Aviv: 168–175 (Hebrew). 1988 Notes to the architectural decoration, in Ilan, Z. and A. Izdarechet, Arbel- An Ancient Jewish Settlement in the Eastern Lower Galilee. Tel Aviv: 125–138 (Hebrew). Fischer, M., A. Ovadiah and I. Roll 1984 The Roman Temple at Kedesh, Upper Galilee: A Preliminary Study. Tel Aviv 11:146–172. Fishof, I. 2001 Written in the Stars. Art and Symbolism of the Zodiac. Catalogue no. 452, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem. Fitzgerald, G.M. 1939 A Sixth Century Monastery at Beth-Shan. Philadelphia. Flesher P.V.M. 1995a Palestinian Synagogues before 70 C.E.: A Review of the evidence, in D. Urman, D. and P.V.M. Flesher (eds.), Ancient Synagogues, Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Vol. 2. Leiden-New York-Köln: 27–39. 1995b Rereading the reredos: David Orpheus, and Messianism in the Dura Europos Synagogue, in D. Urman, D. and P.V.M. Flesher (eds.), Ancient Synagogues, Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Vol. 2. Leiden-New York-Koln: 346–366. 2001 Prolegomenon to a Theory of Early Synagogue Development. Pp. 121–53 in Judaism in Late Antiquity, Pt. 3. Where We Stand: Issues and Debates in Ancient Judaism. Vol. 4. The Special Problem of the Synagogue. Handbook of Oriental Studies: The Near and Middle East Vol. 55, eds. A.J. Avery-Peck and J. Neusner. Leiden: Brill.



bibliography

695

2003 The Literary Legacy of the Priests? The Pentateuchal Targums of Israel in their Social and Linguistic Context. In The Ancient Synagogue: From Its Origins until 200 CE. Papers Presented at an International Conference at Lund University, October 14–17, 2001, eds. B Olsson and M. Zetterholm. Stockholm: 467–508. Fleisher, E. 1968 Regarding the (Priestly) Courses in Piyyutim. Sinai 62:142–61 (Hebrew). 1986 Additional Data Concerning the Twenty-four Priestly Orders. Tarbiz 55:47–60 (Hebrew). Floriani Squarciapino, M. 1963 The Synagogue at Ostia. Archaeology 16:194–203. Foerster, G. 1966 On the Mosaic of the Japhia Synagogue. Yediot 31:218–24 (Hebrew). 1971 Notes on Recent Excavations at Capernaum (Review Article), IEJ 21 (1971) 207–211. 1972 Galilean Synagogues and their Relation to Hellenistic and Roman Art and Architecture. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew). 1974 Some Menorah Reliefs from the Galilee. IEJ 24:191–196. 1981 Notes on Recent Excavations at Capernaum, in: L.I. Levine, (ed.), Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Jerusalem: 57–59. 1983 Hammath Gader Synagogue. Hadashot Archaeologiot: 11–12 (Hebrew). 1985 Representation of the Zodiac in Ancient Synagogues and their Iconographic sources. Eretz Israel 18 (Avigad Volume): 380–391 (Hebrew, English summary p. 78*). 1987 The Zodiac in Ancient Synagogues and Its Place in Jewish Thought and Literature. Eretz Israel 19 (Avi-Yonah Volume): 225–234 (Hebrew, English summary p. 79*). 1989 Decorated Marble chancel Screens in Sixth Century Synagogues in Palestine and their Relation to Christian Art and Architecture. Actes du XIe Congress International D’Archéologie Chrétienne. Rome: 1809–1819. 1992 The Ancient Synagogues of Galilee, in Levine L.I. (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity. Cambridge, Mass.: 289–319. 1995 Dating Synagogues with a ‘Basilical’ Plan and an Apse, in: D. Urman and P.V.M. Flesher (eds.), Ancient Synagogues, Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Leiden, New York, Köln: Vol. I:87–94. Frankel, R., N. Getzov, M. Aviam, and A. Degani 2001 Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey of the Upper Galilee. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 14. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Fraser, P.M. 1972 Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols. Oxford. Freyberger, K.S. 1990 Research on Roman Temples in Syria: The Tychaion at es-Sanamain. A Preliminary Report, in The Near East in Antiquity, German contributions to the archaeology of Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, 1. Lectures held 1988—summer 1989 under the patronage of H.E. the Minister of Culture and H.E. the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany. ed. Kerner S. Vol. I. Amman: 29–37. Frey, J.B. 1936 Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum I: Europe. Roma. 1952 Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum II: Asie, Afrique. Roma: Pontificio Instituto di Archeologia Cristiana. Friedman, M. 2005 The Meaning of the Zodiac in Synagogues in the Land of Israel during the Byzantine Period. Ars Judaica 1:51–62. Gafni, I. 1981 Reinterment in the Land of Israel: Notes on the Origin and Development of the custom. The Jerusalem Cathedra 1:96–104. 1987 Synagogues in Talmudic Babylonia: Tradition and Reality, in A. Kasher, A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport, Synagogues in Antiquity. Jerusalem: 155–162 (Hebrew; English summary, p. X). Gal, T. 1984 Ancient Synagogues in the Eastern Part of Lower Galilee, in Schiller E. (ed.) Zev Vilnay’s Jubilee Volume. Jerusalem: 263–266. Galor, K. 2010 Jewellery: The Archaeological Evidence, in Hezser, C. (ed.) The Oxford handbook of Jewish Daily Life Roman Palestine. Oxford: 393–402. Galling, K. 1956 Erwagungen zur antiken Synagogue. ZDPV 72:163–178. Gazit, D., and Lender, Y. 1993 The Church of St. Stephen at Horvet Beʾer-Shemʿa, in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed. Jerusalem: 273–276. Geischer, H-J. 1967 Heidnische Parallelen zum Frühchrislichen Bild des Isaak-Opfers. JAC 10:127–144. Gendelman P. and R. Gersht 2010 Crafts and Craftsmen in Roman and Byzantine Caesarea. Michmanim 22:27–48 (Hebrew, English Abstract pp. 33*–34*).

696

bibliography

Gershet R. 2004 The Decorated Lintel from the Synagogue at Raqit, in Dar, S. Raqit, Marinus Estate on the Carmel, Israel. Bar International Series 1300:178–189. Gezer Calendar http://www.archaeowiki.org/Gezer_Calendar. Gibson E.L. 1999 The Jewish Manumission Inscriptions of the Bosphorus Kingdom. Tübingen. Ginzberg, L. 1954 The Legends of the Jews. Vols. I–VI. Philadelphia (Original edition 1919). Gitler, H. and D. Weisburd 2005 Coin finds from villages in Palestine during the Late Roman and Byzantine periods (A.D. 383–696/7) : A quantitive examination of monetary distributions. In Lefort, J. et al. (eds.), Les Villages dans l’Empire byzantin IV–XVe siècle. Paris: 539–552. Glueck, N. 1965 Deities and Dolphins. New York. Goldman, B. 1966 The Sacred Portal. Detroit. Goodenough, E.R. 1953–68 Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, Vols. 1–13. New York. Goodman, M. 1983 State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132–212. Totowa, New Jersey. Govaars, M, M. Spiro and L. Michael White 2009 Field O: The ‘Synagogue’ Site. The Joint expedition to Caesarea Maritima 9. Boston, Mass: American Schools of Oriental Research. Govrin, Y. 1993 A New Proposal for the Architectural Design of Ancient Synagogues in the Southern Hebron Hills. In Judea and Samaria Research Studies, Proceeding of third Annual meeting. Ariel: 197–211. Grabar, A. 1960 Recherches sur les sources juives de l’art Paleo-chretien. Cahiers Archeologiques XI:41–71. 1962 Recherches sur les sources juives de l’art Paleo-chretien. Cahiers Archeologiques XII:115–152. 1964 Recherches sur les sources juives de l’art Paleo-chretien. Cahiers Archeologiques XIV:49–57. 1966 Un Thème de l’iconographie chrétienne: l’oiseau dans la cage. Cahiers Archéologiques XVI:9–16. 1967 The Beginning of Christian Art. New York. 1968 Christian Iconography, A Study of Its Origins. New York. Grabbe, L.L. 1988 Synagogues in Pre-70 Palestine: A Re-assessment. JTS 39:401–410. Griffiths, J.G. 1987 Egypt and the Rise of the Synagogue. JTS 38:1–15. Groh, D.E. 1995 The Stratigraphic Chronology of Galilean Synagogues from the Early Roman Period Through the Early Byzantine Period (ca. 420 CE), in Urman, D. and Flesher P.V.M. (eds.), Ancient Synagogues, Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Vol. 1. Leiden-New York-Koln: 51-69. Grossmark, T. 1994 Jewelry and Jewelry Making in the Land of Israel at the Time of the Mishnah and Talmud. Ph.D thesis. Tel Aviv University (Hebrew). 2010 Jewellery: The Literary evidence, in Hezser, C. (ed.) The Oxford handbook of Jewish Daily Life Roman Palestine. Oxford: 383–391. Gruber, I.M. 1999 The Status of Women in Ancient Judaism, in J. Neusner and Avery-Peck A.J. (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiquity, Pt. 3. Where we Stand: issues and debates in Ancient Judaism. Vol. 2. Leiden, Boston, Koln: 151–176. Gruen, E.S. 1997 The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple. Scripta Classica Israelica 16:47–70. Guérin, V. 1868–1880 Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine, Troisième. Partie: Galilée, Tome II. Paris, Imprimerie Impériale/Imprimérie Nationale. Gundel, H.G. 1972 Zodiakos, in Pauly Realencyclopädie de Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Vol. 10A: 462–499, 597–710. 1992 Zodiakos, Tierkreisbilder im altertum: kosmische Bezüge und Jenseitsvorstellungen im antiken Alltagsleben. Mainz. Gutman, S., et al. 1981 Excavation in the Synagogue at Horvat Susiya, in: L.I. Levine, (ed.) Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Jerusalem: 123–128. Gutmann, J. 1969 A note on the Temple menorah, in Gutmann, J. (ed.), No Graven Image. New York: 36–38. 1971 The History of the Ark. ZAW 83:22–30. 1975 The Origin of the Synagogue, The Current State of Research, in J. Gutmann, (ed.) The Synagogue: Studies in Origins, Archaeology and Architecture. New York: 72–76.



bibliography

697

1981 Synagogue Origins: Theories and Facts, in J. Gutmann, (ed.) Ancient Synagogues—The State of Research. Michigan (Judaics Studies no. 22): 1–6. 1983a The Illustrated Midrash in the Dura Synagogue Paintings: A New Dimension for the Study of Judaism. The American Academy for Jewish Research Proceedings Vol. L:91–104. 1983b The Jewish Sanctuary. Leiden. 1984a Early Synagogue and Jewish Catacomb Art and Its Relation to Christian Art. ANRW 21.1:1313–1342. 1984b The Sacrifice of Isaac: Variations on a Theme in Early Jewish and Christian Art, in D. Ahrens (ed.), Festschrift für Josef Fink. Köln-Wien: 115–122. Habas, L. 2000 The bema and chancel screen in synagogues and their origin, in L.I. Levine and Z. Weiss (eds.), From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity. Journal Roman Archaeology, supplement series No. 40. Portsmouth, RI:111–130. Hachlili, R. 1971 Sacred Architecture and Decoration in the Hellenistic-Roman East. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew). 1976 The Niche and the Ark in Ancient Synagogue. BASOR 223:43–53. 1977 The Zodiac in Ancient Jewish Art: Representation and Significance, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 228:61–77. 1980 The Conch Motif in Ancient Jewish Art. Assaph, studies in Art Histoty I. Tel Aviv: 57–65. 1985 Wall Painting in a Jewish Monumental Tomb at Jericho, PEQ 117:112–127. 1987a Jewish Art in the Golan. Cat. no. 3, The Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum, University of Haifa, Israel. 1987b On the Mosaicists of the School of Gaza. Eretz Israel 19 (Avi-Yonah Volume): 46–58 (Hebrew; English abstract p. 74*). 1988 Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel. Leiden. 1989 (ed.) Ancient Synagogues in Israel. Third-Seventh century CE. BAR International Series 499. Oxford. 1989a The state of Ancient Synagogue Research, in R. Hachlili (ed.) Ancient Synagogues in Israel (B.A.R., International Series 499), Oxford: 1–6. 1989b Unidentical symmetrical composition in Synagogal Art, in R. Hachlili (ed.), Ancient Synagogues in Israel (B.A.R., International Series 499). Oxford: 65–68. 1993 Characteristic features of synagogue architecture in the Land of Israel, in Helzer, M., Segal A., Kaufman D. (eds), Studies in the Archaeology and History of Ancient Israel, in Honour of Moshe Dothan, Haifa University Press, Haifa: 157–194 (Hebrew). 1995 Late Antique Jewish Art from the Golan, in. Humphrey J.H. (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research (JRA suppl. series no. 14). Ann Arbor, MI:183–212. 1996a The Origin of the Synagogue: A Re-assessment, Journal for the Study of Judaism 28,1:34–47. 1996b Synagogues in the Land of Israel: The Art and Architecture of the Late Antique Synagogues”, in S. Fine (ed.), Sacred Realm. The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World. New York-Oxford: 96–129. 1997 Aspects of Similarity and Diversity in the Architecture and Art of Ancient Synagogues and Churches in the Land of Israel”. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina—Vereins 113:92–124. 1998 Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Diaspora. Leiden. 1998a Iconographic elements of Nilotic Scenes on Byzantine Mosaic Pavements in Israel. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 130:106–120. 1999 A Symbol of the Deity: Artistic Rendition of the ‘Hand of God’ in Ancient Jewish and early Christian Art”, in T. Insoll (ed.) Case Studies in Archaeology and World Religion, The Proceeding of the Cambridge Conference. B.A.R. International Series 755, Oxford: 59–70. 2000a Torah Shrine and Ark in Ancient Synagogues: A Re-evaluation. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palëstina-Vereins 116:1–21. 2000b The Riddle of Qazion. Et-mol 25:20–21 (Hebrew). 2001 The Menorah, The Ancient Seven-armed Candelabrum. Origin, Form and Significance. Brill, Leiden-BostonKöln. 2001. 2002 The Zodiac in Ancient Jewish Synagogal Art: A Review, Jewish Studies Quarterly 9:219–258. 2005 Jewish Funerary Customs Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period. Brill, Leiden-Boston. 2007 Funerary Practices in Judaea during the Times of the Herods: The Goliath Family Tomb at Jericho.” In N. Kokkinos (ed.) The World of the Herods, Vol. I, Stuttgart: 247–278. 2008 Cherub, Sphinx and Tetrad in Ancient Art, in Bar, S (ed.) In the Hill-Country, and in the Shephelah, and in the Arabah ( Joshua 12, 8). Jerusalem: 25*–47*. 2009 Ancient Mosaic Pavements: Iconographic Themes, Issues and Trends. Brill, Leiden-Boston. 2010 The Dura Europos Synagogue Wall Paintings—a Question of Origin and Interpretation,” In Weiss Z.J. Magness, Seth Schwartz, and O. Irshai (eds.) “Follow the Wise” (B. Sanhedrin 32b) Studies in Jewish History and Culture in Honor of Lee I. Levine. The Jewish Theological Seminary of America. New York: 401–418. Hachlili, R. and A. Killebrew 1999a Jericho, The Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period. Israel Antiquity Reports no. 7, Jerusalem. 1999b Horbat Qazion HA 109:6*–7*. Hachlili, R. and R. Merhav 1985 The Menorah in First and Second Temple Times in the Light of the Sources and Archaeology,” Eretz Israel 18 (Avigad Volume): pp. 256–267 (Hebrew).

698

bibliography

1999 The Cult Menorah in the First and Second Temple In Light of Archaeology and Sources”, In the Light of the Menorah, Story of a Symbol. Israel Museum Catalogue no. 406, Jerusalem: 43–49. Hanfmann, G.M.A. 1951 Season Sarcophagus in Dumbarton Oaks, Cambridge. 1980 The Continuity of Classical Art: Culture, Myth and Faith, in K. Weitzmann (ed.), Age of Spirituality: A Symposium. New York: 75–99. Hansen, M.F. 2003 The Eloquence of Appropriation: Prolegomena to an Understanding of Spolia in Early Christian Rome. Rome. Hanson, K.C. 2002 The Theodotus Inscription. http://www.kchanson.com/ancdocs/greek/theodotus.html. 2007 The Gezer Calendar. http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/westsem/gezer.html. Hanson, R.S. and M.L. Bates 1976 Numismatics, in Meyers, E.M., A.T. Kraabel and J.F. Strange. Ancient Synagogue Excavations at Khirbet Shemʿa, Upper Galilee, 1970–1972. Durham (AASOR 42). Haran, M. 1959 The Ark and the Cherubim; Their Symbolic Significance in Biblical Ritual. IEJ 9:30–38, 89–94. 1968 Menorah. Encyclopedia Biblica 5. Jerusalem: 14–22 (Hebrew). 1978 Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel. Oxford. Har-Even, B. 2012 H. et-Tawani: A Settelment of the Second Temple Period, the Roman-byzantine periods and the Early Muslem period, in Amit, H (ed.), Frontier and Desert in Eretz Israel (Hebrew). Harvey, Paul B. Jr. 2013 Qazion Inscription. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies, I, issue 2. Penn State University Press (forthcoming). Hengel, M. 1966 Die Synagogeinschrift von Stobi. Zeitschrift fůr die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 57:145–183; reprinted in J. Gutmann, The Synagogue: Studies in Origins, Archaeology and Architecture 1975:110–148. 1974 Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic period. Vols. I, II, Philadelphia. 1975 Proseuche und Synagogue: Jůdische Gemeinde, Gotteshaus und Gottesdienst in der diaspora und in Palästina, reprinted in Gutmann, J. (ed.) The Synagogue: Studies in Origins, Archaeology and Architecture 1975:27–54. Herr, M.D. 1976 The Calendar. In S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century I. Assen: 834–864. Hestrin, R. 1960 A New Aramaic Inscription from Alma. Bulletin Rabinowitz III, Jerusalem: 65–67. Hiram, A. 1962 Die Entwicklung der Antiken Synagogen und Altchrislichen Kirchenbauten im Heiligen Lande. Weiner Jahrbuch fur Kunstgeschichte XIX:7–63. Hirschfeld, Y. 1987 The Eretz Israeli Domestic House in the Roman Byzantine Period. Jerusalem. 1993 Tiberias, New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 4. Jerusalem: 1468–1470. 2004 Excavations at Tiberias, 1989–1994. IAA Report 22. Jerusalem. Hoenig, S.B. 1975 The suppositious temple-synagogue in J. Gutmann, ed. The Synagogue: Studies in Origins, Archaeology and Architecture. New York: 55–71. 1979 The Ancient City-Square: The Forerunner of the Synagogue. ANRW II, 19.1, part 2:448–476. Horbury, W. 1999 Women in the Synagogue, in Horbury, W., W.D. Davies and J. Sturdy (eds.) The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol III, Cambridge: 358–401. Horbury, W. and D. Noy. 1992 Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt: with an Index of the Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica. Cambridge. Horsley R.A. 1999 Synagogues in Galilee and the Gospels, in Kee H.C. and L.H. Cohick (eds.), Evolution of the Synagogue. Problems and Progress. Harrisburg, Penn: 46–69. Humbert J.-B., et al. 2000 Mukheitem à Jabaliyah, un site byzantin, in Humbert J-B., et al. (eds.), Gaza Méditterranée, Histoire et archéologie en Palestine. Paris: 121–126. Hüttenmeister, F. 1978 The Aramaic Inscription from the Synagogue at H. ʿAmmudim. IEJ 28:109–121. 1982 The Holy Ark and the Development of Ancient Synagogues. Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies: 1–7 (Hebrew).



bibliography

699

Hüttenmeister, F. and Reeg, G. 1977 Die Antiken Synagogen in Israel. Vols. I, II. Vol. 1. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Nr. 12. Wiesbaden. Idel, M. 2001 The Zodiac in Jewish Thought, in Fishof, I. Written in the Stars. Art and Symbolism of the Zodiac. Catalogue no. 452, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem: 21–26. Ilan, T. 1997 Mine and Yours are Hers: Retrieving Women’s History from Rabbinic Literature. Leiden. Ilan, Z. 1976 The Golan Land. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). 1980 Jewish Menorot from the Golan. Qadmoniot 51–52; 117–119 (Hebrew). 1984 Marous—A Fortified Village of the First Revolt on the Northern Border of Eretz-Israel. EI 17 (Brawer Volume): 141–46 (Hebrew). 1987a Synagogues in the Galilee and the Golan. Jerusalem: Ariel 52 (Hebrew). 1987b A Survey of Ancient Synagogues in Galilee. Eretz Israel 19 (Avi-Yonah volume): 169–198 (Hebrew). 1989 The Synagogue and Beth Midrash of Meroth, in: R. Hachlili (ed.), Ancient Synagogues in Israel. Third-Seventh century CE. BAR International Series 499. Oxford: 21–41. 1990 Discovering the Ancient Synagogues at Maʿon and Hirbet ʿAnim in the south Hebron Mountain. Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, section II, Vol. 1. Jerusalem: 45–51. 1991 Ancient Synagoguesin Israel. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). 1995 The Synagogue and Beth Midrash at Meroth, in Urman, D. and Flesher P.V.M. (eds.), Ancient Synagogues, Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Vol. 1. Leiden-New York-Koln: 256–287. Ilan, Z. and D. Amit 1991 The Ancient Synagogue at Maʿon, Judah. Qadmoniot 23:115–125 (Hebrew). Ilan, Z. and E. Damati 1987 Meroth, The Ancient Jewish Village. Tel Aviv (Hebrew, English summary pp. 186–190). Ilan, Z. and A. Izdarechet 1988 Arbel- An Ancient Jewish Settlement in the Eastern Lower Galilee. Tel Aviv: 76–148 (Hebrew). 1989 Arbel- An Ancient Town in the Eastern Lower Galilee. Qadmoniot 22:111–117 (Hebrew). Irshai, O. 2004 The Priesthood in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity. In Continuity and Renewal: Jews and Judaism in ByzantineChristian Palestine, ed. L.I. Levine. Jerusalem: 67–106 (Hebrew). Isgar, S. and Poulsen, B. 1997 Patron and Pavements in Late Antiquity. Odense. Israeli, Y. (ed.) 1999 In the Light of the Menorah. Story of a Symbol. The Israel Museum Catalogue no. 425, Jerusalem. Jacoby, R. 1999 The Zodiac wheel from the Greek Island of Astypalaea. Qadmoniot 118:121 (Hebrew). 2001 The Four Seasons in Zodiac Mosaics: The Tallaras Baths in Astypalaea, Greece. IEJ 51:225–230. Jensen, M.H. 2007 Message and Minting: The Coins of Herod Antipas in their Second Temple Context as a Source for Understanding the Religio-Political and Socio-Economic Dynamics of Early First Century Galilee, in Zangenberg J., H.W. Attridge and D. Martin (eds.), Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee. A Region in Transition. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 210:277–314. Jentel, M.-O. 1992 Neilos. Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (LIMC) 6.1:720–726. 2000 Une Scylla méconnue sur une mosaïque de Beth Sheʾan? In P. Linant de Bellefonds (ed.), Mythes et cultes: etudes d’iconographie en l’honneur de Lolly Kahil. Paris: 241–249. Jesnick, I.J. 1994 The Mannerist Depiction in Orpheus mosaics. VI Coloquio Internacional Sobre Mosaiico Antiguo, PalanciaMérida (Octubre 1990). Palancia: 333–342. 1997 The Image of Orpheus in Roman Mosaic. BAR International Series 671. Oxford. Johnson, V.L. 1968 The Primitive Basis of Our Calendar. Archaeology 21:14–21. Kahana, A. 1959 Enoch II, The Outer Books (the Apocrypha), Vol. A. Tel Aviv (Hebrew, translated after Sokolob 1899). Kahana, T. 1979 The Priestly Courses and their Geographical Settlements. Tarbiz 48:9–29 (Hebrew). Kasher, A. 1987 Synagogues in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt as Community Centers, in A. Kasher. A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport (eds.), Synagogues in Antiquity, Jerusalem: 119–132 (Hebrew), English summary, pp. VI–VII.

700

bibliography

Kee, H.C. 1999 Defining the First-Century CE Synagogue: Problems and Progress, in Kee H.C. and L.H. Cohick (eds.), Evolution of the Synagogue. Problems and Progress. Harrisburg, Penn.: 7–26. Kee H. C and L.H. Cohick (eds.) 1999 Evolution of the Synagogue. Problems and Progress. Harrisburg, Penn. Kessler, E. 2000 Art Leading the Story: the Aqedah in Early Synagogue art, in L.I. Levine and Z. Weiss (eds.), From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity. Rhode Island: 73–81. Kessler, H.L. 2000 The Sepphoris Mosaic and Christian Art. In L.I. Levine and Z. Weiss (eds.), From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity. Rhode Island: 65–72. Killebrew, A.E. 1993 Qasrin, The Village, in New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 4. Jerusalem: 1222–1224. 2010 Villages and Countryside, in Hezser, C. (ed.) The Oxford handbook of Jewish Daily Life Roman Palestine. Oxford: 189–209. 2013 Qazion—A 2nd–3rd c. CE Cultic Complex in the Upper Galilee. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies, I, issue 2. Penn State University Press (forthcoming). Killebrew, A.E. and S. Fine 1991 Qatzrin—Reconstructing Village Life, in Talmudic Times. BAR 17/3:44–56. Kindler, A. 1987 The Coins of the Synagogue Treasury, in Ilan, Z. and E. Damati, Meroth, The Ancient Jewish Village. Tel Aviv: 118–126 (Hebrew). 1989 Donations and Taxes in the Society of the Jewish Villages in Eretz Israel during the 3rd to the 6th centuries CE. in Hachlili R (ed.) Ancient Synagogues in Israel. Third-Seventh century CE. BAR International Series 499. Oxford: 55–59. 1999 Summary of Twelve years of Numismatic Finds in the Excavations at Sumaqa (1983–1995), in Dar, S. Sumaqa— A Roman and Byzantine Jewish Villge on Mount Carmel, Israel. BAR International Series 815. Oxford: 347–350. Kitzinger, E. 1954 The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm. DOP 8:83–150. 1965 Israeli Mosaics of the Byzantine Period. New York. 1973 Observations on the Samson Floor at Mopsuestia. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 27:133–144. 1976a Stylistic Development in Pavement Mosaics in the Greek East from Constantine to Justinian, in The Art of Byzantium and the Medieval West. Selected Studies. Bloomington-London: 64–88. 1976b Mosaic Pavement in the Greek East and the Question of a ‘Renaissance’ under Justinian, in W.E. Klienbauer (ed.), The Art of Byzantium and the Medieval West: Selected Studies. Bloomington-London: 49–63. 1977 Byzantine Art in the Making. London. Klein, S. 1939 Sepher ha-Yishuv. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik and Dvir (Hebrew). 1946 The Galilee. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook (Hebrew). Kloner, A. 1980 Hurvat Rimmon, 1979. IEJ 30:226–228. 1984 The Synagogue at Hurvat Rimmon. Qadmoniot 16:65–71 (Hebrew). 1989 The Synagogue at Hurvat Rimmon, in Hachlili, R. (ed.), Ancient Synagogues in Israel, 3rd–7th century CE. Bar International Series 499, Oxford: 43–48. Kloner A. and T. Mindel 1981 Two Byzantine Hoards from the Ancient Synagogue of Horvat Rimmon. INJ 5:60–68. Kloppenborg V.J.S. 2000 Dating Theodotus (CIJ II:1404). JJS 51:243–280. 2006 The Theodotus Synagogue Inscription and the Problem of First-Century Synagogue Building, in Charlesworth, J.H. (ed.), Jesus and Archaeology. Michigan: 236–282. Kochavi, M. ed. 1972 Judaea, Samaria and the Golan; Archaeological survey 1967–1968. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Kohl, H. and C. Watzinger 1916 Antike Synagogen in Galilaea. Wissenschaftliche Veroeffentlichung der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft; 29. Leipzig. Kondoleon, C. 1995 Domestic and Divine. Roman Mosaics in the House of Dionysos. Ithaca and London. Kötzsche-Breitenbruch, L. 1976 Die neue katakombe an der Via Latina in Rom. Untersuchungen zur Ikonographie der alttestamentlichen Wandmalereien. JAC, Ergänzingsband 4. Kraabel, A.T. 1979 The Diaspora Synagogue: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence since Sukenik. ANRW 19.1, part 2, 477–510.



bibliography

701

1983 Impact of the Discovery of the Sadis Synagogue, in: G.M.A. Hanfmann (ed.), Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times: Results of the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis 1958–1975 (Cambridge, Mass), 178–190. Kraeling, C.H. 1938 (ed.) Gerasa, City of the Decapolis. New Haven, Conn. 1979 The Synagogue: The Excavations at Dura Europos, Final Report VIII, part 1 (New Haven—New York. Second edition. Originally published in 1956). Krencker, D. and Zschietzschmann, W. 1938 Römische Tempel in Syrien I–II. Denkmäler antiker Architektur 5. Berlin. Krauss, S. 1922 Synagogale Altertumer. Berlin-Vien. Kühnel B. 2000 The Synagogue Floor Mosaic in Sepphoris: Between Paganism and Christianity, In L.I. Levine L.I. and Z. Weiss (eds.), From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity. Rhode Island: 31–43. Landsberger, F. 1945–6 Old-Time Torah-Curtains. HUCA 19:233–386. Lavin, I. The Hunting Mosaics of Antioch and Their Sources. DOP 17:181–286. Lehman, K. 1945 The Dome of Heaven. Art Bulletin 27:1–17. Leibner, U. 2006 Roman and Byzantine Eastern Galilee, in Lewis A.S. and P. Pellgrini (eds.) Settelment and Demography in the Near East in Late Antiquity. Pisa and Roma: 105–130. 2009 Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Galilee. An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee. Tübingen. 2010a Excavations at Khirbet Wadi Hamam (Lower Galilee): the Synagogue and the Settlement JRA 23:220–237. 2010b Khirbet Wadi Hamam: A Roman Period Village and Synagogue in the Galilee. Qadmoniot 139:30–40 (Hebrew). Leibner, U. and Miller, S. 2010 A figural mosaic in the Synagogue at Khirbet Wadi Hamam. JRA 23:238–264. Leveen, J. 1944 The Hebrew Bible in Art. London. Levi, D. 1941 The Allegories of the Months in Classical Art. Art Bulletin, 22:251–91. 1944 Aion, Hesperia 13:297–314. 1947 Antioch Mosaic Pavements, Vols. I, II. Princeton (original edition 1947). Levi, S. 1960 The Ancient Synagogue at Maʿon (Nirim). Louis M. Rabinowitz Fund Bulletin 3:6–13. Levine, L.I. 1981a The Inscription in the ʿEn-Gedi Synagogue. ASR: 140–145. 1981b Excavations at Hurvat ʿAmmudim, in: L.I. Levine, (ed.), Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Jerusalem: 78–81. 1982 Excavations at the Synagogue of Horvat ʿAmmudim. IEJ 32:1–12. 1989 The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity. Revised and expanded from Hebrew. Jerusalem: Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute and Jewish Theological Seminary of America. 1991 From Community Center to ‘Lesser Sanctuary’: The Furnishings and Interior of the Ancient Synagogue. Kathedra 60:36–84 (Hebrew). 1992 The Sages and the Synagogue in Late Antiquity: The Evidence of the Galilee. Pp. 201–22 The Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. L.I. Levine. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America. 1993 Reconciling Rabbinic Literature and Archaeological Finds. Cathedra 68:36–40 (Hebrew,). 2000a The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years. New Haven, London. 2000b Synagogues in L.H. Shiffman and J.C. VanderKam (eds.) Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford, Vol. 2:905–908. 2003a The First Century CE Synagogues in Historical Perspective, in Olsson, B. and M. Zetterholm (eds.). The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins until 200 CE. Papers Presented at an International Conference at Lund University, October 14–17, 2001:1–24. 2003b The First-Century CE Synagogues: New Theories and their Assessment, in Ben Arieh, Y. and E. Reiner (eds.), Studies in the History of Eretz Israel Presented to Yehuda Ben Porat. Jerusalem: 168–194 (Hebrew). 2003c Contextualizing Jewish Art, the Synagogue at Hammat Tiberias and Sepphoris, in Kalamin, R and S, Schwartz (eds.) Jewish Culture and Society under the Christian Roman Empire. Leiden: 91–131. 2004 The First-Century CE Synagogue: Critical Reassessments and assessments of the Critical, in Douglas E. (ed.) Religion and society in Roman Palestine: old questions, new approaches. New York: 72–102. 2005 The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years. New Haven, London. Second Edition. 2005a Figural Art in Ancient Judaism. Ars Judaica 1:9–26. 2012 Visual Judaism in Late Antiquity. Historical Contexts of Jewish Art. New Haven and London.

702

bibliography

Levine L.I. and Weiss Z. (eds.) 2000 From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity. Journal Roman Archaeology, Supplement series No. 40. Portsmouth, RI. Lewis, J.P. 1968 A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature. Leiden. 1984 Noah and the Flood in Jewish, Christian and Muslim Tradition. BA 47:224–239. Lieberman, S. 1971 A Preliminary Remark to the Inscriptions from the Synagogue of ʿEn Gedi. Tarbiz 40:24–26 (Hebrew). Lifshitz, B. 1967 Donateurs et fondateurs dans les Synagogues Juives (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 7). Paris. Linder, A. 1987 The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Loffreda, S. 1972 The Synagogue of Capharnaum. Archaeological evidence for its late chronology”: LA 22:5–29. 1973 The Late Chronology of the Synagogue of Capernaum”: IEJ 23:37–42. 1979 Potsherds from a sealed level of the Synagogue at Capharnaum. LA 29:215–220. 1981 The Late Chronology of the Synagogue of Capernaum, in L.I. Levine, (ed.), Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Jerusalem: 52–56. 1982 Documentazione preliminare degli oggetti della XIV campagna di scavi a Cafarnao. LA 32:408–426. 1984 Le sinagoghe di Cafarnao”: BOr 26 (1984) 103–114. 1985 Recovering Capernaum. Jerusalem. 1997 Coins from the Synagogue of Capharnaum. LA 47:223–244. Macalister, R.A.S. 1912 Excavation of Gezer 1902–1905 and 1907–1909. 3 vols. London: Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund. Magen, Y. 1992 Samaritan Synagogues. Qadmoniot 25:66–90 (Hebrew). 1993a The Samaritan Synagogue at Khirbet Samara. The Israel Museum Journal XI:59–64. 1993b Samaritan Synagogues, in Erlich, Z.H. and Eshel, Y. (eds.), Judea and Samaria Research Studies. Proceeding of the 2nd Annual Meeting—1992. Kedumim-Ariel: 229–264. 2008a The first phase of the synagogue at Susya—A Roman Military Structure? In Judea and Samaria: researches and discoveries. Judea and Samaria Publications 6:247–256. Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria. 2008b The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan. Judea and Samaria Publications 7. Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria. Magen, Y. Zionit, Y. and Sirkis, E. 1999 Kiryat Sefer—A Jewish Village and Synagogue of the Second Temple Period. Qadmoniot 117:25–32 (Hebrew). 2004 Khirbet Badd ʿIsa—Qiryat Sefer. In Magen, Y. et al. (eds.) The Land of Benjamin. Judea and Samaria Publications 3. Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria: 179–241. Magness, J. 1997 Synagogue Typology and Earthquake Chronology at Khirbet Shemʿa in Israel. JFA 24:211–220. 2001a The question of the Synagogue: The Problem of Typology, in Avery-Peck A.J. and J. Neusner (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiquity, Pt. 3. Where we Stand: issues and debates in Ancient Judaism. Vol. 4. The Special Problems of the Synagogue. Leiden, Boston, Koln: 1–48. 2001b A response to Eric M. Meyers and James F. Strange, in Avery-Peck A.J. and J. Neusner (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiquity, Pt. 3. Where we Stand: issues and debates in Ancient Judaism. Vol. 4. The Special Problems of the Synagogue. Leiden, Boston, Koln: 79–91. 2005 Heaven on Earth: Helios and the zodiac cycle in Ancient Palestinian Synagogues. DOP 59:1–52. 2007 The Date of the Synagogue of Chorazin. Michmanim 20: *7–*18. 2010 The Ancient Synagogue of Nabratein. Review Article. BASOR 358:61–68. 2012 Huqoq—2011 Preliminary Report, Excavations and Surveys in Israel [ejournal] 124. http://www.hadashot-esi .org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=1959&mag_id=119. 2013a Samson in the Synagogue. BAR 39, 1:32–39, 66–67. 2013b http://phys.org/news/2013-06-mosaics-synagogue-excavations-galilee.html. Maguire, H. 1987 Earth and Ocean. The Terrestrial World in Early Byzantine Art. University Park & London. 1993 Christians, Pagans and the Representation of Nature. Riggisberger Berichte 1:131–149. Maisler, B. 1941 The Fourth Campain at Beth Shearim, 1940 (Preliminary Report). Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society, Vol. IX, 1:6–20 (Hebrew). Maʿoz, U.Z. 1981 The Art and Architecture of the Synagogues of the Golan, in: L.I. Levine (ed.), Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Jerusalem: 98–115. 1985 Qasrin, HA 82:2–5. 1988 Ancient Synagogues of the Golan. BA 51:116–128.



bibliography

703

1991 Excavations at the Ancient synagogue of Dabiyye. Atiqot 20:49–65. 1993a Golan, in New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 2. Jerusalem: 536–546. 1993b Qasrin, in New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 4. Jerusalem: 1219–1222. 1995 Ancient Synagogues in the Golan. Art and Architecture. Thesis for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew, English summary Vol. II, pp. 6–19). 1996 When were the Galilean Synagogues First Built. EI 25:416–426 (Hebrew, English Abstract pp. 104*). 1999a The Synagogue at Capernaum: a Radical Solution. In Humphrey, J.H. (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near East, Vol. 2: Some Recent Archaeological Research. Rhode Island: 139–148. 1999b The Synagogue that Never Existed in the Hasmonean Palace at Jericho. Remarks Concerning an Article by Netzer, E., Y. Kalman, and R. Laureys (Qadmoniot 117 1999:17–24). Qadmoniot 118:120–121 (Hebrew). 2003 The Architectural Model of the Galilean Synagogues. Cathedra 107:47–62 (Hebrew, English abstract p. 212). 2007 Chronological Elements in the Art of the Golan Synagogues. Cathedra 124:51–64 (Hebrew, English abstract pp. 211–212). 2010 ʿEn Nashut: the Art and Architecture of a Synagogue in the Golan. Qazrin. Maʿoz, U.Z. and Ben David, C. 2003 Deir ʿAziz 2000–2001. HA 115:11–15, 10*–12*. 2006 New finds in the Golan: A synagogue at Deir ʿAziz. Qadmoniot 131:25–31 (Hebrew). Maʿoz, U.Z. and A.E. Killebrew 1988 Ancient Qasrin Synagogue and Village. BA 51, 1:5–19. Marki, E. 1998 Psiphidoto dapedo me prosopopoiesis minon sti Thessaloniki (=Personifications of the Months in a Mosaic Floor in Thessaloniki), AEMTH 12 (AEMTH= To archaiologiko Ergo sti Macedonia kai Thraki= Archaeological Work in Macedonia and Thrace): 141–150. Masterman, E.W.G. 1909 Studies in Galilee. Chicago. Mathews, T.F. 1993 The Clash of Gods. A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art. Princeton-New Jersey. Mattila, S.L. 1996 Where women sat in Ancient Synagogue. The Archeological Evidence in Context, in Kloppenborg and S.G. Wilson (eds.) Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World. London and New-York: 266–286. May, N.N. 2000 The Décor of the Korazim Synagogue Reliefs, in Yeivin Z. The Synagogue at Korazim. IAA Report 10. Jerusalem 111–162 (Hebrew, English Summary pp. 51*–54*). May, N.N. and S.I. Stark. 2002 Reconstruction of Architactural Décor of the Major Synagogue at Korazim. Atiqot 43:207–252. Mayer, L.A., and A. Reifenberg 1936 The Jewish Buildings of Nawe. BJPES 4:1–8 (Hebrew). 1939–40 The synagogue of Eshtemoʿa—A Preliminary Report. JPOS 19:314–326. Mazar, B. 1970 The Inscription on the Floor of the Synagogue in ʿEn Gedi—A Preliminary Survey. Tarbiz 40:18–23 (Hebrew). 1973 Beth Sheʿarim, I. Jerusalem. Mazur, Belle, D. 1935 Studies on Jewry in Greece, 1. Athens. McKay, H.A. 1992 From Evidence to Edifice: Four Fallacies About the Sabbath, in R.P. Carroll (ed.), Text as Pretext, Essays in Honour of Robert Davidson ( JSOT, Supp. Series 138) Sheffield: 179–199. 1994 Sabbath and Synagogue: the question of Sabbath worship in Ancient Judaism (Religions in the Greco-Roman World, 122) Leiden. 1998 Ancient Synagogues: The continuing dialectic Between Two Major Views. Currents in Research Biblical Studies 6:103–142. Merrony, M.W. 1998 The Reconciliation on Paganism and Christianity in the Early Byzantine Mosaic Pavements of Arabia and Palestine. LA 48:441–482. 2003 The Late Roman Mosaic Pavements of Phoenicia and Northern Palestine: A Stratigraphic Approach. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society, 21:55–64. Meshorer, Y. 1973 Coins from the Excavations at Khorazin, EI 11:158–162 (Hebrew, English Summary pp. 27*–28*). 1976 A Hoard of Coins from Migdal. Atiqot 11:54–80. 1982 Ancient Jewish Coinage, Vols. I, II. New York. 1997 A Treasure of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kochba. Jerusalem (Hebrew). 2001 A Treasury of Jewish Coins. N.J./Jerusalem. 2005 The Coins, in Weiss Z. The Sepphoris Synagogue. Deciphering an Ancient Message through Its Archaeological and Socio-Historic Contexts. Jerusalem: 263–265.

704

bibliography

Meyers, C.L. 1976 The Tabernacle Menorah: A Synthetic Study of a Symbol from the Biblical Cult. Missoula. 1979 Was There a Seven-Branched Lampstand in Solomon’s Temple? BAR 5:47–57. 1992 Lampstand, The Anchor Bible Dictionary 4:141–143. Meyers, E.M. 1998 Postscript to the Gush Halav Hoard, Atiqot 35:107. 2001 The Dating of the Gush Halav Synagogue: A Response to Jodi Magness., in Avery-Peck, A.J. and J. Neusner (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiquity, pt. 3. Where we Stand: Issues and Debates in Ancient Judaism. Vol. 4. The Special Problem of the Synagogue Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 1. The Near and Middle East, Vol. 55. Leiden: 49–70. 2010 The problem of the scarcity of Synagogues from 70 CE to ca. 250 CE; The Case of Synagogue 1 at Nabratein (2nd–3rd century CE). In Weiss Z, O. Irshai, Magness, and S. Schwartz (eds.) “Follow the Wise” Studies in Jewish History and Culture in Honor of Lee I. Levine. Winona Lake, Indiana: 435–448. 2013 Synagogues, Palestine. The [Oxford] Encyclopedia of the Bible and Archaeology (forthcoming). Meyers, E.M. and C.L. Meyers 1981 Finders of a Real Lost Ark. BAR 7:24–39. 2009 Excavations at Ancient Nabratein: Synagogue and Environs. Meiron Excavations Project Vol. 6. Winona Lake, Indiana. 2010 Response to Jodi Magness’s Review of the Final Publication of Nabratein. BASOR 359:67–76. Meyers, E.M., C.L. Meyers, J.F. Strange and R.S. Hanson 1979 Preliminary Report on the 1977–8 Seasons at Gush Halav (el-Jish). BASOR 233, 33–58. Meyers, E.M., A.T. Kraabel and J.F. Strange 1976 Ancient Synagogue Excavations at Khirbet Shemʿa, Upper Galiliee, 1970–1972. Durham. Meyers, E.M., J.F. Strange and C.L. Meyers 1981a Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper Galilee, Israel. 1971–1972, 1974–1975. Cambridge MA. 1981b The Ark of Nabratein- A First Glance. BA 44:237–243. Meyers, E.M., C.L. Meyers with J.F. Strange 1990 Excavations at the Ancient synagogue of Gush Halav. Winona Lake, Indiana. Migdal http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Israel+beyond+politics/Unique-ancient-synagogue-exposed-at-Sea-of-Galilee-14SEP-2009. http://www.lomdim.org.il/728.html. Millar F. 1987 Empire, Community and Culture in the Roman Near East: Greeks, Syrian, Jews and Arabs. JJS 38:143–164. 1992 The Jews of the Graeco-Roman Diaspora between Paganism and Christianity, AD 312–438, in Lieu J., North J. and Rajak T. (eds.) The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire. London and New York: 97–123. 1994 The Roman Near East 31 BC–AD 337. 2nd printing. Cambridge, Mass. Millard, A.R. 2000 Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus. Sheffield. Miller, S.S. 1985 Studies in the History and Traditions of Sepphoris. Ann Arbor, MI. 1998 On the Number of Synagogues in the Cities of Erez Israel. Journal of Jewish Studies 49:51–66. 2007 Priests, Purities, and the Jews of Galilee. In Zangenberg J., H.W. Attridge and D. Martin (eds.), Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee. A Region in Transition. Tübingen: 375–402. Milshtein, F. 2010 A Graphic Reconstruction of the Gamla Synagogue, in Syon, D. and Z. Yavor, Gamla II, The Architecture. The Shmaria Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports, No. 44). Jerusalem: 189–191. Milson, D. 2004 The Stratum IB Building at Hammat Tiberias: Synagogue or Church? PEQ 136:45–56. 2007 Art and Architecture of the Synagogues in Late Antique Palestine in the shadow of the Church. Leiden. Boston. Moe, D.L. 1977 The Cross and the Menorah. Archaeology 30:148–157. Moore, G.F. 1927 Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. Vol. 1, Cambridge, Mass. Moralee, J. 2004 “For Salvation’s Sake,” Provincial Loyalty, Personal Religion, and Epigraphic Production in the Roman and Late Antique Near East. New York and London. Murray, C., Sister 1977 The Christian Orpheus. CA 26:19–27. 1981 Rebirth and Afterlife. A Study of the Transmutation of Some Pagan Imagery in Early Christian Art. BAR International Series 100. Oxford. Naccache, A. and Sodini, J-P. 1989 Le decor architectural en Syrie byzantine, in Dentzer, J.-M. and W. Orthmann (eds.) Archeologie et histoire de la Syrie. Nagy, R.B., C.L. Meyers, E.M. Meyers and Z. Weiss (eds.) 1996 Sepphoris in Galilee, Crosscurrents of Culture. Catalogue of North Carolina Museum of Art.



bibliography

705

Narkiss, M. 1935 The Snuff-Shovel as a Jewish Symbol. JPOS 15:14–28. Naveh, J. 1978 On Stone and Mosaic: The Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Ancient Synagogues. Jerusalem (Hebrew). 1989 The Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Ancient Synagogues. EI 20 (Yadin Volume): 302–310 (Hebrew). 1992 On Sherd and Papyrus. Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from the Second Temple, Mishnaic and Talmudic period. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Naveh, J. and S. Shaked. 1987 Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity. Jerusalem. 1993 Magic Spells and Formulae. Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity. Jerusalem. Negev, A. 1967 The Chronology of the Seven-Branched Menorah. EI 8:193–210 (Hebrew). Ness, L.J. 1990 Astrology and Judaism in Late Antiquity. Doctoral dissertation, accepted by Miami University. http://www.smoe .org/arcana/diss.html. 1995 Astrology and Judaism in Late Antiquity. The Ancient World. Mystery Cults in Late Antiquity, XXVI, 2:126–133. Netzer, E. 1987 Did the Water Installations in Magdala Serve as a Synagogue? In Kasher A, Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport (eds.) Synagogues in Antiquity. Jerusalem: 165–172 (Hebrew). 1991 Masada III, Final Reports. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society. 1996 Review of the Synagogues at Gush Halav and Khirbet Shemʿa, EI 25:450–455 (Hebrew, English summary p. 106*). 1999a A Synagogue from the Hasmonean Period Recently Exposed in the Western Plain of Jericho. IEJ 49:203–221. 1999b Mourning Enclosure of Tomb H (Goliath Tomb), in Hachlili, R. and A. Killebrew. Jericho, The Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period. Israel Antiquity Reports no. 7, Jerusalem: 45–50. 2000 The Synagogue in Jericho—Did it Exist or Not? A Response to U.Z. Maoz Remarks in Qadmoniot 118. Qadmoniot 119:69–70 (in Hebrew). 2003 The Synagogue from the Second Temple Period According to Archaeological Finds and in Light of the Literary Sources. In Bottini, G.C., L. Di Segni, L.D. Chrupcala, (eds.). One Land—Many Culture: Archaeological studies in honour of S. Loffreda OFM. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Collectio maior; 41. Jerusalem: 277–284. 2004 The Synagogues of the Second Temple Period and their Impact on Later Ones, in Eshel, Y.E. Netzer, D. Amit and D. Cassuto (eds.) And Let Them Make Me A Sanctuary. Synagogues from Ancient Times to the Present Day. Ariel: 9–24 (in Hebrew). 2007 A Synagogue in Jericho from the Hasmonean Period. Michmanim 20:11–20 (in Hebrew, English Abstract pp. 19*–20*). Netzer E. and G. Foerster 2005 The Synagogue at Saranda, Albania. Qadmoniot 129:45–53 (Hebrew). Netzer, E., Y. Kalman, and R. Laureys 1999 A Synagogue from the Hasmonean Period Recently Exposed in the Western Plain of Jericho. IEJ 49:203–221. Netzer E. and R. Laureys-Chachy and Y. Kalman 2004 The Synagogue Complex in, The Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, Final Report of the 1973–1987 Excavations, II, Jerusalem: 159–192. Netzer E., and Weiss Z. 1990 The Byzantine Churches of Herodion in Bottini et al. (eds.) Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land, Jerusalem: 165–176. 1992a New Mosaic Art from Sepphoris. BAR 18, 4:36–43. 1992b Byzantine mosaics at Sepphoris: New Finds, Israel Museum Journal 10:75–80. 1994 Sepphoris. Jerusalem (Hebrew). 1995 New Evidence for Late-Roman and Byzantine Sepphoris. In Humphrey J.H. (ed.) The Roman and Byzantine Near East Some Recent Archaeological Research, Ann Arbor, MI: 164–176. Neusner, J. 1975a Notes on Goodenough’s Jewish symbols I–VII in Early Rabbinic Judaism (Leiden): 152–173. 1975b Jewish Use of Pagan Symbols after 70 in Early Rabbinic Judaism (Leiden): 174–187. 1981 The Symbolism of Ancient Judaism: The Evidence of the Synagogues. Ancient Synagogues. The State of Research. J. Gutmann, ed. Noy, D. 1992 A Jewish place of prayer in Roman Egypt. JTS 43:118–122. 1993 Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe, Vol. 1. Cambridge. 1995 Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe, Vol. 2. Cambridge. Ognibene, S. 1998 The Iconophobic Dossier, in Piccirillo, M and Alliata, E. (eds.), Mount Nebo, New Archaeological Excavations 1967–1997. Jerusalem: 372–389. Oliphant, L. 1885 Exploration North-east of Lake Tiberias and in Jaulan. PEFQS: 82–93. 1886 New Discoveries, PEFQS: 73–81.

706

bibliography

Olsson, B. 2003a The Origins of the Synagogue: An Introduction, in Olsson, B. and M. Zetterholm (eds.). The Ancient Synagogue From Its Origins until 200 CE. Papers Presented at an International Conference at Lund University, October 14–17, 2001:27–36. 2003b The Origins of the Synagogue: An Evaluation, in Olsson, B. and M. Zetterholm (eds.). The Ancient Synagogue From Its Origins until 200 CE. Papers Presented at an International Conference at Lund University, October 14–17, 2001:132–138. Olsson, B. and M. Zetterholm (eds.) 2003 The Ancient Synagogue From Its Origins until 200 CE. Papers Presented at an International Conference at Lund University, October 14–17, 2001. Onn, A. 1994 The Ancient Synagogue at Kafr Misr. Atiqot 25:117–134. On, A. and Y. Rafyunu 1993 Jerusalem- Khirbet a-Ras. HA. 100:61. Onn A., S. Weksler-Bdolah and Y. Rapuano 2004 A Synagogue of the Second Temple Period at Hurvat Umm El-ʿUmdan in Modiin, in Eshel, Y.E. Netzer, D. Amit and D. Cassuto (eds.) And Let Them Make Me A Sanctuary. Synagogues from Ancient Times to the Present Day. Ariel: 25–30 (in Hebrew). Onn A. and S. Weksler-Bdolah 2005 Khirbet Um el-ʿUmdan—A Jewish Village with a Synagogue from the Second Temple Period in Modiin. Qadmoniot 130:107–116 (in Hebrew). Oppenheimer, A. 1982 Restoration of the Jewish Setelment in the Galilee., in Baras, Z.S. Safrai, Y. Tzafrir and M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conques, Jerusalem: 75–92 (Hebrew). 1987 Synagogues with a Historic Association in Talmudic Babylonia, in A. Kasher, A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport (eds.), Synagogue in Antiquity. Jerusalem: 147–162 (Hebrew; English summary, p. IX). 1991 Galilee in the Mishnaic Period. Jerusalem (Hebrew). 1992 Roman Rule and the Cities of the Galilee in Talmudic Literature, in Levine L.I., The Galilee in Late Antiquity. New York and Jerusalem: 115–125. Oren, E. 1971 Tiberias. IEJ 21:234–235. Orfali, P.G. 1922 Capharnaüm et Ses Ruines. Paris. Ory, J. 1926a Report on Conservation of the Synagogue of Keraze. Israel Antiquities Authority Archives: British Mandate Record Files: File No. 120, Keraze, Jerusalem General: 1–8. 1926b Note on Conservation of the Synagogue of Keraze. Israel Antiquities Authority Archives: British Mandate Record Files: File No. 120, Jerusalem General: 1–2. 1927 An Inscription Newly Found in the Synagogue of Keraze. PEFQSt: 51–52. Ovadia, A. 1969 Excavations in the Area of the Ancient Synagogue at Gaza (Preliminary Report). IEJ 19:193–198. 1981 The Synagogue at Gaza, in: L.I. Levine (ed.), Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Jerusalem: 129–131. Ovadiah, R. and A. 1987 Mosaic Pavements in Israel. Roma. Overman, J.A. 1992 The God-Fearers: Some Neglected Features, in Overman, J.A., & MacLennan, R.S., (eds.) Diaspora Jews and Judaism; Essays in Honor of, and in Dialogue with, A. Thomas Kraabel. Atlanta. 1999 Jews, Slaves and the Synagogue on the Black Sea: the Bosphorus Manumission Inscriptions and their Significance for Diaspora Judaism. In Kee and Cohick (eds.), Evolution of the Synagogue. Problems and Progress. Harrisburg, Penn: 141–157. Parlasca, K. 1959 Die Romischen Mosaiken in Deutschland, Berlin. Parrish, D. 1984 Season Mosaics of Roman North Africa (Archaeologica, 46). Rome. 1994a Calendar Mosaic from Antioch: a new interpretation of its illustrations of the months. VI coloquio internacional sobre mosaico antiguo. Palencia: 383–389. 1994b Variations in the Iconography of the Winter Season in the Roman Mosaics. La Mosaïque Gréco-Romain IV. Paris: 39–46. Pelecanidis, S and P. Atzaka 1988 Corpus of the Mosaic Pavements of Greece: Vol 1. Greek Islands. Byzantine Monuments 1. Thessaloniki (in Greek). Peleg-Barkat, O. 2010 Architectural Decoration, in Syon, D. and Z. Yavor, Gamla II, The Architecture. The Shmaria Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports, No. 44). Jerusalem: 159–174.



bibliography

707

Piccirillo, M. 1993 The Mosaics of Jordan. Amman and Baltimore. Puech, E. 1986 Une Inscription Syriaque Palestinienne, LA 36:309–316. Plesner M. and J. Licht 1962 Star, Stars and Masalot. Encyclopedia Biblica. Jerusalem, Vol. 4:45–48. Price, J.J. 2010 Synagogue building inscription of Theodotos in Greek, 1 c. BCE–1 c. CE (no. 9), in Cotton H.M. et al. (eds.) Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palastinae. Vol. I: Jerusalem. Part 1:1–704. Berlin: 53–56. 2011 List of the 24 priestly courses in Hebrew, 4–5c. CE (no. 1145), in Ameling W. et al. (eds.) Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palastinae. Vol. II: Caesarea and the Middle Coast: Nos. 1121–2160. Berlin. Price, S.R.F. 1984 Rituals and Power. The Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor Cambridge. Rahmani, L.Y. 1960 The Maʿon Synagogue—The Small Finds and Coins. Louis M. Rabinowitz Fund Bulletin 3: 14–18. 1990 Stone Synagogue Chairs: Their Identification, Use and Significance. IEJ 40:192–214. Rajak T. and Noy D. 1993 Archisynagogoi: Office, Title and Social Status in the Greco-Jewish Synagogue. JRS 83:75–93. Rautman, M. 2010a Two Menorahs from the Synagogue at Sardis. Qadmoniot 139:44–48 (Hebrew). 2010b Daniel at Sardis. BASOR 358:47–60. Raynor, J. 1981 Numismatic Report of Nabratein 1980, in Meyers, Strange and Meyers 1981, BASOR 244:15–21. 1990 Numismatics, in Meyers, E.M., C.L. Meyers with J.F. Strange, Excavations at the Ancient synagogue of Gush Halav. Winona Lake, Indiana: 230–249. Raynor, J. and Y. Meshorer 1988 The coins of ancient Meiron. Meiron excavation project 4. Winona Lake, Indiana. Reich, R. 1995 The Synagogue and the Miqweh in Eretz-Israel in the Second Temple, Mishnaic and Talmudic periods, in Urman, D. and Flesher P.V.M. (eds.), Ancient Synagogues, Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Vol. 1. Leiden-New York-Koln: 289–297. Renan, E. 1864–1871 Mission de Phénicie I, II, Paris. Revel-Neher, E. 1984 L’arche D’alliance dans L’art Juif et Chrétien du Second au Dixième Siècles. Paris. Richardson, P. 1996 Early Synagogues as Collegia in the diaspora and Palestine, in Kloppenborg and S.G. Wilson (eds.) Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World. London and New-York: 90–109. 2003 An Architectural Case for Synagogues as Associations, in Olsson, B. and M. Zetterholm (eds.). The Ancient Synagogue From Its Origins until 200 CE. (Papers Presented at an International Conference at Lund University, October 14–17, 2001):90–117. Richardson P. and Heuchan, V. 1996 Jewish Voluntary Associations in Egypt and the Roles of Women. in J.S. Kloppenborg and S.G. Wilson (eds.). Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, London: 226–51. Rocca, S. 2011 The Purposes and Functions of the Synagogue in Late Second Temple Period Judaea: Evidence from Josephus and Archaeological Investigation, in Pastor, J., P. Stern and M. Mor (eds.) Flavius Josephus, Interpetation and History. Leiden. Boston: 295–313. Rosenfeld, B. 2005 The Inscription of Rabbi Issi Ha-Cohen from the synagogue of Susiya. Judea and Samaria Research Studies, Vol. 14. Ariel: 167–182. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 1996 A Jewish Lamp Depicting the Sacrifice of Isaac. EI 25 (Aviram Volume): 52*–60*. 2009 The Curtain (parochet) in Jewish and Samaritan synagogues. In De Moor, A. and C. Fluck (eds.), Clothing the house. Furnishing textiles of the 1st millennium AD from Egypt and neighbouring countries. Tielt-Belgium: 155–170. Roth, C. 1953 Jewish Antecedents of Christian Art. Journal of the Warburg and Courtland Institute 16:24–44. 1955 Messianic Symbols in Palestinian Archaeology. PEQ 87:151–164. Roth-Gerson 1987 The Greek Inscriptions from Synagogue in Eretz Israel. Jerusalem (Hebrew). 1987a Similarities and Differences in Greek Synagogue Inscriptions of Eretz Israel and the Diaspora, in A. Kasher, A. Oppenheimer, and U. Rappaport (eds.), Synagogues in Antiquity, Jerusalem: (Hebrew, English summary, p. VIII).

708

bibliography

Roussin, L.A. 1981 The Beit Leontis Mosaic: An Eschatological Interpretation. Journal of Jewish Art 8:6–18. 1985 The Iconography of the Figural pavements of Early Byzantine Palestine. Ann Arbor, MI. 1997 The Zodiac in Synagogue Decoration, in Edwards, D.R. and C.T. McCllough (eds.) Archaeology and the Galilee. Texts and Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine periods. South Florida studies in the history of Judaism; No. 143. Atlanta, Georgia. Scholars Press: 83–96. 2001 Helios in the Synagogue: Did some ancient Jews worship the sun god. BAR 27, 2:53–56. Runesson, A. 2001 The Synagogue of Ancient Ostia: The Building and its History from the 1st–5th centuries. In Olsson, B.D. Mitternacht and O. Brandt (eds.) The Synagogue of Ancient Ostia and the Jews of Rome. Interdisciplinary Studies. Stockholm: 29–99. 2003 Persian Imperial Politics, the begging of Public Torah readings, and the origins of the Synagogue, in Olsson, B. and M. Zetterholm (eds.). The Ancient Synagogue From Its Origins until 200 CE. Papers Presented at an International Conference at Lund University, October 14–17, 2001:63–89. 2007 Architecture, Conflict, and Identity Formation: Jews and Christians in Capernaum From the First to the Sixth Century. In Zangenberg, J. et al. (eds.) Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in transition.Tubingen: 231–257. Russell, K.W. 1980 The Earthquake of May 19, A.D. 363: BASOR 238:47–64. Safrai, H. 1992 Women and the Ancient Synagogue, in Grossman, S., & R. Haut (eds.) Daughters of the King, Women and the Synagogue. Philadelphia, Jerusalem. Safrai, S. 1956 The Ritual in the Second Temple. Pp. 369–391, in Sepher Yerushalayim (The Book of Jerusalem, ed. AviYonah. Jerusalem, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). 1963 Was there a Woman’s Gallery in the Synagogue of Antiquity? Tarbiz 22:329–338 (Hebrew). 1965 Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). 1976a The Temple, in Safrai, S. and Stern, M. (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century I, Philadelphia: 865–907. 1976b The Synagogue, in Safrai, S. and Stern, M. (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century I, Philadelphia: 908–950. 1977 The Synagogue and its Worship. Society and Religion in the Second Temple Period (The World History of the Jewish People, First Series, Vol. 8), Jerusalem. 1982a The Jewish Settlement in the Galilee and Golan in the 3rd–4th centuries. in Baras, Z.S. Safrai, Y. Tzafrir and M. Stern (eds.) Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest. Jerusalem: 144–179 (Hebrew). 1982b Eretz Israel and the Jewish Diaspora, in Bras Z., Safrai, S., Tzafrir, Y., Stern, M., (eds.), Eretz Israel from the destruction of the Second Temple Period to the Muslim Conquest. Jerusalem: 458–472 (Hebrew). 1987 The Temple and the Synagogue, in A. Kasher, A. Oppenheimer, and U. Rappaport (eds.), Synagogues in Antiquity, Jerusalem: (Hebrew), English summary, pp. I–II. Safrai, S. and Stern, M. (eds.) 1974–1976 The Jewish People in the First Century I, II (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum I.1). Assen. Safrai, Z. 1978 The Jewish Settelments in the Golan After the Second Temple Destruction. Jerusalem (Field School Keshet Yehonathan; Hebrew). 1987 Financing Synagogue Construction in the Period of the Mishna and Talmud, in A. Kasher, A. Oppenheimer, and U. Rappaport (eds.), Synagogues in Antiquity, Jerusalem: 77–95 (Hebrew, English summary, pp. IV–V). 1989 Dukhan, Aron and Teva: How Was the Ancient Synagogue Furnished? in: R. Hachlili (ed.), Ancient Synagogues in Israel. BAR International Series 499. Oxford: 69–84. 1993 Did the Priestly Courses (Mishmarot) Transfer from Judea to Galilee after the Bar Kokhba Revolt? Tarbiz 62:287–292 (Hebrew). 1995 The Communal Functions of the Synagogue in the Land of Israel in the Rabbinic Period, in Urman, D. and Flesher P.V.M. (eds.), Ancient Synagogues, Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Vol. 1. LeidenNew York-Koln: 181–204. 1998 The missing century. Palestine in the Fifth Century: Growth and Decline. Leuven. Saller, S.J. 1972 Second Revised Catalogue of the Ancient Synagogues of the Holy Land. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 6. Jerusalem. Saller, S.J. and Bagatti, B. 1949 The Town of Nebo. Jerusalem. Schapiro, M. 1960 Israel: Ancient Mosaics. UNESCO. New York.



bibliography

709

Schick, R. 1995 The Christian Communities of Palestine from Byzantine to Islamic Rule: A Historic and Archaeological Study. Princeton. Schumacher, G. 1886 Across the Jordan. London. 1888 The Jaulan. London. Schürer E., Vermes G., and Millar F. 1973 The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol. I. Edinburgh. 1979 The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol. II. Edinburgh. 1986 The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol. III. Edinburgh. 1973 Principal Features of the Jewish Calendar, Appendix III. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC–AD 135), Vol. I. Edinburgh: 587–601. Schwabe M. and Lifshitz B. 1974 Beth Sheʾarim II, Greek Inscriptions. N.J. Schwartz, Seth 2000 On the Program and Reception of the Synagogue Mosaics, in L.I. Levine and Z. Weiss Z. (eds.), From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity. Rhode Island: 165–181. 2001 Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. Princeton and Oxford. Seager, A.R. 1972 The Building History of the Sardis Synagogue. AJA 76:425–435. 1981 Ancient synagogue Architecture: An Overview. In J. Gutmann (ed.) Ancient Synagogues. The State of Research: 39–47. 1983 The Synagogue Building, in Hanfmann, G. (ed.), Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times. Cambridge, Mass.: 168–177. Sed Rajna, G. 2000 A Missing Link: Some Thoughts on the Sepphoris Synagogue Mosaic. In L.I. Levine and Z. Weiss (eds.), From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity. Rhode Island: 45–51. Segal, Y.B. 1982 “Year”. Encyclopaedia Biblica VIII:197–208 (Hebrew). Shinan, A. 1996 Synagogues in the Land of Israel. The Literature of the Ancient and Synagogue Archaeology, in S. Fine (ed.), Sacred Realm. The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World. New York-Oxford: 130–152. Singer, S.F. 2007 Rising Again. Hi-tech Tools reconstruct Umm el-Kanatir. BAR 33, 6:52–60, 86. Sivan, D. 1998 The Gezer Calendar and Northwest Semitic Linguistics. IEJ 48:101–105. Slouschz, N. 1921 Hammath by Tiberias. Journal of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society I:5–37 (Hebrew). Smallwood, M. 1976 The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian. Studies in Judaism in late antiquity; 20. Leiden. Smith, A.M. 1922 The Iconography of the Sacrifice of Isaac in Early Christian Art. AJA 26:159–173. Sonne, I. 1953 The Zodiac Theme in Ancient Synagogues and in Hebrew Printed Books. Studies in Bibliography and Booklore: 3–13. Sperber, D. 1965 The History of the Menorah. JJS 16:135–159. 1978 Roman Palestine, 200–400: The Land Crisis and Change in Agrarian Society as reflected in Rabbinic Sources. Ramat Gan. 1999 Between Jerusalem and Rome: The History of the Base of the Menorah as Depicted on the Arch of Titus, in Israeli Y. (ed.), In the Light of the Menorah, Story of a Symbol. The Israel Museum Catalogue no. 425, Jerusalem: 50–53. Speyart van Woerden, I. 1961 The Iconography of the Sacrifice of Abraham. Vigiliae Christianae XV:214–2. Spiro, M. 1992 Some Byzantine Mosaics from Caesarea, in R.L. Vann (ed.), Caesarea Papers. JRA Suppl. 5. Ann Arbor: 245–259. Spijkermann, A. 1970 Monete della Sinagoga di Cafarnao”: LA 20:106–117. Stacy, D. 2002 The Late Synagogues at Hammath Tiberias and problems of dating the Islamic phases and pottery. Review Article, in J.H. Humphrey (ed.) The Roman and Byzantine Near East, Vol. 3:253–260. Stemberger, G. 1975 Die Bedeutung des Tierkreises auf Mosaikfussböden spätantiker Synagogen.

710

bibliography

Stepansky, Y. 2009 Tiberias, the Courtyard of the Jews. Preliminary Report. Journal HA-ESI 121 http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/ report_detail_eng.asp?id=1182&mag_id=115. St. Clair, A. 1984 The basilewsky pyxis: typology and topography in the exodus tradition. Cahiers Archeologiques 32:15–30. Stern, H. 1953 Le Calandrier de 354: etude sur son texte et ses illustrations, Paris. 1958 The Orpheus in the Synagogue of Dura Europos. The Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 21:1–6. 1962 Quelques problémes d’iconographie Paléochrétiene et juive. CA 12:99–113. 1965 Sur quelques pavements Paléochrétiens du Liban. Cahiers Archéologiques XV:21–37. 1970a Un nouvel Orphée-David dans une mosaïque du VIe siècle. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres: 63–79. 1970b Une mosaique de pavement Romane de Layrac (Lot-et-Garronne). CA 20:81–98. 1974 Orphée dans l’Art Paléochrétien. CA 23:1–16. 1981 Les calendriers romains illustrés. Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 12. 2:431–475. Stern, Sacha 1996 Figurative Art and Halakha in the Mishnaic-Talmudic Period. Zion 61:397–419 (Hebrew). 2001 Calendar and Community: A History of the Jewish Calendar, Second Century BCE–Tenth Century CE. Oxford University Press. 2010 Qumran Calendars and Sectarianism. The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford: 232–253. Sternberg, A.G. 1972 The Zodiac of Tiberias. Tiberias (Hebrew). Stichel, R. 1974 Ausserkanonische Elemente in byzantinischen Illustrationen des Alten Testaments, Römische Quartalschrift 69:159–181. 1978 Die Inschriften des Samson-Mosaiks in Mopsuhestia und ihre Beziehung zum Biblischen Text. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 71:50–61. 1979 Die Namen Noes, seine Bruders under Seiner Frau. Ein Beitragzum Nachleben jüdischer Uberlieferung in derausserkanonischen und gnostichen Literatur und in Denkmälern der Kunst. (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaflen in Göttingen, Phil. Hist. Kl. Göttingen. Strange, J.F. 1999 Ancient Texts, Archaeology as Text, and the Problem of the First-Century Synagogue, in Kee H.C. and L.H. Cohick (eds.), Evolution of the Synagogue Problems and Progress. Harrisburg, Penn.: 27–45. 2001a Synagogue Typology and Khirbet Shema: A Response to Jodi Magness, in A.J. Avery-Peck and J. Neusner (eds.) Judaism in Late Antiquity, pt. 3. Where we Stand: Issues and Debates in Ancient Judaism. Vol. 4. The Special Problem of the Synagogue. Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 1. The Near and Middle East Vol. 55,. Leiden: 71–78. 2001b The Synagogue as a metaphor, in Avery-Peck A.J. and J. Neusner (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiquity, Pt. 3. Where we Stand: issues and debates in Ancient Judaism. Vol. 4. The Special Problems of the Synagogue. Leiden, Boston, Koln: 93–113. 2003 Archaeology and Ancient Synagogues up to about 200 CE, in Olsson, B. and M. Zetterholm (eds.). The Ancient Synagogue From Its Origins until 200 CE. Papers Presented at an International Conference at Lund University, October 14–17, 2001:37–62. Strange, J.F. and Shanks, H. 1983 Synagogue Where Jesus Preached Found at Capernaum. BAR 9, 6:24–31. Sukenik, E.L. 1931 Designs of the Torah Shrine in Ancient Synagogues in Palestine. PEQ: 22–25. 1932 The Ancient Synagogue of Beth ʾAlpha. Jerusalem. 1933 Designs of the Lectern in Ancient Synagogues in Palestine. JPOS 13:221–225. 1934 Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece. London. 1935 The Ancient Synagogue of El-Hammeh. Jerusalem. 1947 The Synagogue of Dura-Europos and its paintings. Jerusalem (Hebrew). 1951a The Ancient Synagogue at Yafa, near Nazareth. Louis M. Rabinowitz Fund Bulletin 2: 6–24. 1951b A New Discovery at Beth Alpha. Louis M. Rabinowitz Fund Bulletin 2:26. Sussman, V. 1998 The Binding of Isaac as Depicted on a Samaritan Lamp. IEJ 48:183–189. Sussmann, J. 1974 A Halakhic Inscription from the Beth Sheʾan Valley. Tarbiz 43:88–158 (Hebrew). 1976 The Inscription in the Synagogue at Rehob. Tarbiz 45:213–257 (Hebrew). 1981 The Inscription in the Synagogue at Rehob. ASR: 146–151. Syon D. 2004 Tyre and Gamla. Phd. Dis. Hebrew University Jerusalem. 2007 The Barʿam Synagogues: Numismatic Appendix. Michmanim 20:43–44 (Hebrew). Syon D. and Z. Yavor 2001 Gamla—Old and New. Qadmoniot 121:8–12 (in Hebrew). 2010 Gamla II, The Architecture. The Shmaria Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports, No. 44). Jerusalem.



bibliography

711

Talgam, R. 1987 Remarks on the Mosaics of the Synagogue and Bet-Midrash, in Ilan Z., and E, Damati, Meroth, Tel Aviv, 1987:149– 153 (Hebrew). 1998 Mosaics in Israel in the Light of Recent Discoveries. Qadmoniot 31,2:74–89 (Hebrew). 2000 Similarity and differences between synagogues and churches mosaics in Palestine during the Byzantine and Umayyad periods. In Levine L.I. and Weiss Z., (eds.) From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity. Rhode Island: 93–120. 2002 Technical Aspects of the Mosaic Craft. Michmanin 16:7–13 (Hebrew, English abstract, p. 39*). 2004 Comments on the Judeo-Christianic Dialogue in the Mosaic Floor of the Sepphoris Synagogue, in Eshel Y. at al (eds.), And Let Them Make me a Sanctuary. Synagogues from Ancient Times to the Present Day. Ariel: 37–86 (Hebrew). 2010 The Zodiac and Helios in the Synagogue: Between Paganism and Christianity. In Weiss Z., J. Magness, Seth Schwartz, and O. Irshai (eds). Studies in Jewish History and Culture in Honor of Lee I. Levine. The Jewish Theological Seminary of America. New York: *63–*80. 2012 Constructing Identity Through Art: Jewish Art as a Minority Culture in Byzantium. In Bonfil, R., O. Irshai, G.G. Stroumsa, R. Talgam (eds.) Jews in Byzantium. Leiden-Boston: 399–454. Talgam, R., and Z. Weiss. 2004‫ ‏‬The mosaics of the House of Dionysos at Sepphoris. Qedem 44. Jerusalem. Talmon, S. 1963 The Gezer Calendar and the Seasonal Cycle of Ancient Canaan. Journal of the American Oriental Society 83:177–87. 2000 Calendars and Mishmarot. In Schiffman L.H. and J.C. VanderKam (Eds.) Encyclopedia. of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford, Vol I:108–117. Taylor, J.E. 1993 Christians and the Holy Places: The myth of Jewish-Christians Origins. Oxford. Tepper, Y. and Y. Tepper 2004 Beth Sheʾarim: The Village and nearby Burials. Tel Aviv-Yagur (Hebrew). Teslini, P. 1958 Aquileia e Grado. Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 34:169–181. Thompson, G.D. 2010 The Origin of the Zodiac. http://members.westnet.com.au/Gary-David-Thompson/page9a.html. Tov, E. 2003 The Text of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Bible Used in the Ancient Synagogues, in Olsson, B. and M. Zetterholm (eds.). The Ancient Synagogue From Its Origins until 200 CE. Papers Presented at an International Conference at Lund University, October 14–17, 2001:237–259. Toynbee, J.M.C. 1973 Animals in Roman Life and Art. London. Toynbee, J.M.C. and J.B. Ward-Perkins 1950 Peopled Scrolls: A Hellenistic Motif in Imperial Art. Papers of the British School at Rome 18:2–43. Trebilco, P.R. 1991 Jewish Communities in Asia Minor. Cambridge. Trendall, A.D. 1957 The Shellal Mosaic. Canberra. Trifon, D. 1985 The Jewish Priests from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Rise of Christianity. Ph.D dissertation, Tel Aviv University (Hebrew, unpublished). 1990 Did the Priestly Courses Move from Judea to the Galilee after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Tarbiz 59:77–93 (Hebrew). Trilling, J. 1985 The Medallion Style. A Study in the Origins of Byzantine Taste. New York and London. Tsafrir, Y. 1981 On the Architectural Origins of the Ancient Galilean Synagogues—A Reconsideration. Cathedra 20:29–46 (Hebrew). 1995a On the Source of the Architectural design of the Ancient Synagogues in the Galilee : A new appraisal, in Urman, D. and Flesher P.V.M. (eds.), Ancient Synagogues, Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Vol. 1. LeidenNew York-Koln: 70–86. Translated from “On the Architectural Origins of the Ancient Galilean Synagogues—A Reconsideration. Cathedra 20 (1981): 29–46 (Hebrew). 1995b The Synagogues at Capernaum and Meroth and the dating of the Galilean synagogues, in Humphrey J.H. (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research (JRA suppl. series no. 14). Ann Arbor, MI:151–161. Turnheim, Y. 1966 Formation and Transformation of the Entablature in Northern Eretz Israel and the Golan in the Roman and Byzantine Periods. ZDPV 112:121–138. 1987 Architectural Decoration in Northern Eretz-Israel in the Roman and Byzantine Periods, Thesis submitted for the degree “Doctor of Philosophy”, Tel-Aviv University (Hebrew, unpublished).

712

bibliography

1987a Some Observations on the Decoration of the Chorazim Pilaster. PEQ 119:152–155. 1999 The Design and the Architectural Ornamentation of the Synagogue at Horvat Sumaqa. In Dar, S. Sumaqa—A Roman and Byzantine Jewish Villge on Mount Carmel, Israel. BAR International Series 815. Oxford: 233–250. Tzaferis, V. 1981 The Synagogue at Maʿoz Hayyim. ASR: 86–89. 1982 The Ancient Synagogue at Maʿoz Hayyim. IEJ 32:215–244. Urbach, E.E. 1959 The Rabbinical Laws of idolatry in the Second and Third Centuries in the Light of Archaeological and Historical Facts. IEJ 9:149–165; 229–245. 1971 The Secret of the ʿEn Gedi Inscription and Its Formula. Tarbiz 40:27–30 (Hebrew). 1973 Mishmarot UʾMaamadot. Tarbiz 42:304–327 (Hebrew). Urman, D. 1970 Golan, HA 34–35:4–5. 1971 Golan, HA 39:8. 1972a Jewish Inscriptions from Dabbura in the Golan, IEJ 22:16–23. 1972b Golan HA 41–42:2. 1976 Encyclopedia Vol. II:460–462. 1984 Jewish Inscriptions from the Period of Mishna and Talmud in the Area of Qasrin in the Golan, Tarbiz 53:513–545 (Hebrew). 1985 The Golan, A Profile of a Region during the Roman and Byzantine Periods. BAR International Series 269. Oxford. 1995a The House of Assembly and the House of Study: Are they One and the Same? in Urman, D. and Flesher P.V.M. (eds.), Ancient Synagogues, Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Vol. 1. Leiden-New York-Koln: 232–255. 1995b Public Structures and Jewish Community in the Golan Hights, in Urman, D. and Flesher P.V.M. (eds.), Ancient Synagogues, Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Vol. 2. Leiden-New York-Koln: 373–618. Urman, D. and Flesher P.V.M. (eds.) 1995 Ancient Synagogues, Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Vol. 1. Leiden-New York-Koln. Van der Waerden, B.I. 1952–3 History of the Zodiac. Archiv für Orientforschung 16:216–30. Verhoogen, V. 1964 Apamée de Syrie aux Musées royaux d’art et d’histoire. Bruxelles. Vincent, R.P.L.H. 1919 Le Sanctuaire Juif de’Ain-Doug, RB 16:532–563. 1920 Le Sanctuaire Juif de’Ain-Doug, RB 30:442–3. 1961 Un Sanctuaire dans La Region de Jericho, La Synagogue de Na⁠ʾaran. RB 68:163–177. Vitto, F. 1980 The Synagogue at Rehov, 1980. IEJ 30:214–217. 1981a The Synagogue at Rehov, in: L.I. Levine (ed.), Ancient Synagogues Revealed Jerusalem: 90–94. 1981b A Byzantine Synagogue in the Beth Sheʾan Valley. Temples and High Places in Biblical Times: 164–167. 1982 Décor Mural des Anciennes Synagogues à la Lumière de Nouvelles Découvertes. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 32/5:361–370. 1995 The Interior Decoration of Palestinian Churches and Synagogues. Byzantinische Forschungen 21:283–300. Waliszewski, T. 2001 Mosaics, in T.Z. Fiema et al. (eds.), The Petra Church. Amman: 219–270. Wallis-Budge E.A. 1961 Amulets and Talismans. New York. Waner M. and Z. Safrai 2001a Hoards and revolts: The chronological Distribution of Coin Hoards in Eretz Israel during the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Cathedra 101:71–90 (Hebrew, English abstract p. 204). 2001b A Catalogue of Coin Hoards and the shelf life of coins in Palestine Hoards during the Roman and Byzantine Periods. LA 51:305–325. Ward Perkins, J.B. 1952 Excavations in the Severan Basilica at Lepcis Magna, 1951. Papers of the British School of Rome 20:111–121. Webster, J.C. 1938 The Labors of the Months in Antique and Mediaeval Art. Princeton. Weill R. 1920 La cité de David: Compte rendu des fouilles exécutées à Jérusalem sur le site de la ville primitive, Campaigne de 1913–14, 2 Vols. Paris. Weisenberg, E.J. 1971 Calendar. Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 5. Jerusalem: 43–51. Weiss, Z. 2000 The Sepphoris Synagogue Mosaic and the Role of Talmud Literature in Its Iconographical Study, in L.I. Levine and Z. Weiss Z. (eds.), From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity. Rhode Island: 19–30.



bibliography

713

2005 The Sepphoris Synagogue. Deciphering an Ancient Message through Its Archaeological and Socio-Historic Contexts. Jerusalem. 2007 The Zodiac in Ancient Synagogue Art. Michmanim 20:67–78 (Hebrew, English abstract p. 25*). 2009a Mosaic Art in Fifth-Century CE Sepphoris: Iconography, Style, and a possible Identification of a Local workshop, in; Di Segni L.Y. Hirschfeld, J. Patrich and R. Talgam (eds.) Man Near A Roman Arch, Studies presented to Prof. Yoram Tsafrir. Jerusalem: 88–99 (Hebrew, English abstract p. 228*). 2009b Between Rome and Byzantium: Pagan Motifs in Synagogue Art and Their Place in the Judaeo-Christian Controversy. In Levine, L.I. and D.R. Schwartz (eds.) Jewish Identities in Antiquity. Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern. Tübingen: 367–390. Weiss, Z. and E. Netzer. 1991 Two Excavation Seasons at Sepphoris. Qadmoniot 95–96:113–121 (Hebrew). 1996 Promise and Redemption, A Synagogue Mosaic from Sepphoris. Israel Museum Catalogue no. 378. Jerusalem. 1997 The Hebrew University Excavations at Sepphoris. Qadmoniot 113:2–21 (Hebrew). Weiss, Z., and R. Talgam. 2002 The Nile Festival Building and its Mosaics: Mythological representation in early Byzantine Sepphoris, in Humphrey J.H. (ed.) The Roman and Byzantine Near East, Vol. 3:55–90. Weitzmann K. 1957 Narration in Early Christendom. AJA 61:83–91. 1971a The Illustration of the Septuagint. Studies in Classical and Byzantine Manuscript Illumination, in J. Gutmann (ed.), No Graven Image. New York: 201–231. 1971b The Question of the Influence of Jewish Pictorial Sources on Old Testament Illustrations, in J. Gutmann (ed.), No Graven Image. New York: 309–328. 1979 (ed.) Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century. New York. Weitzmann, K., and Kessler, H.L. 1990 The Fresco of the Dura Synagogue and Christian Art. Dambarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Wells, C.B. 1938 The Inscription, in C. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa, City of Decapolis. New Haven, Conn. Wendel, C. 1950 Der Thoraschrein im Altertum. Halle. Wharton, A.J. 1994 Good and Bad images from the Synagogue of Dura-Europos: Contexts, subtext, intertexts. Art History 17:1–25. 1995 Refiguring the Post Classical City. Dura Europos, Jerash, Jerusalem and Ravenna. Cambridge. White, L.M. 1987 The Delos Synagogue Revisited. HTR 870:133–160. 1990 Building God’s House in the Roman World. Baltimore and London. 1997 Synagogue and Society in Imperial Ostia: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence. Harvard Theological Review 90/1:23–58. Wilkinson, J. 1977–8 The Beit Alpha Synagogue Mosaic towards an Interpretation. Journal of Jewish Art 3–5:16–28. Wirgin, W. 1961 Two Notes: 1. On the Shape of the Foot of the Menorah. IEJ 7:151–153. 1962 The Menorah as Symbol of Judaism. IEJ 12:140–142. 1964 The Menorah as Symbol of Afterlife. IEJ 14:102–104. Wortzman, H. 2008 Jewish Women in Ancient Synagogues: Archeological Reality vs. Rabbinical Legislation.” Women in Judaism: A Multidisciplinary Journal 5/2. http://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php//wjudaism/article/viewArticle/3537/1595. Yadin, Y. 1966 Masada, Herods Fortress and the Zealots Last Stand. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. 1981 The Synagogue at Masada. ASR: 19–23. Yahalom, J. 1986 The Zodiac Wheel in Eretz-Israeli Piyyut. Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature, Jerusalem: 313–322 (Hebrew). 2000 The Sepphoris Synagogue Mosaic and Its Story. In L.I. Levine and Z. Weis (eds.), From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity. Rhode Island: 83–91. Yarden, L. 1971 The Tree of Light: A Study of the Menorah. London. 1991 The Spoils of Jerusalem on the Arch of Titus. A Re-investigation. Stockholm. Yardeni, A. 1997 The Book of Hebrew Script. Jerusalem. Yavor, Z. 2010 The Synagogue and Miqveh Complex, in Syon D. and Z. Yavor, Gamla II, The Architecture. The Shmaria Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports, No. 44). Jerusalem: 40–61.

714

bibliography

Yeivin, S. 1942 Notes to the Excavation at Beth Sheʾarim. BJPES 9:69–76 (Hebrew). 1946 The Painting of the Sacrifice of Isaac in the Beth Alpha Synagogue. BJPES 2:20–24 (Hebrew). Yeivin, Z. 1981 The Synagogue of Eshtemoa. in: L.I. Levine (ed.), Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Jerusalem: 120–122. 1985 Reconstruction of the Southern Interior Wall of the Khorazin Synagogue. EI 18 (Avigad Volume): 268–276 (Hebrew). 1989 Khirbet Susiya, the Bema and the Synagogue Ornamentation, in R. Hachlili (ed.), Ancient Synagogues in Israel. Third-Seventh century CE. BAR International Series 499, Oxford: 93–98. 1993 H. Susiya—Town of Talmudic Period. A guide. Jerusalem. 2000 The Synagogue at Korazim. IAA Report 10. Jerusalem (Hebrew, English Summary pp. 1*–32*). 2004 The Synagogue at Eshtemʿa in Light of the 1969 Excavations. Atiqot 48:*59–*98 (Hebrew, English abstract pp. 155–158). Yogev, O. 1987 The Synagogue at Maʿon—New Discoveries. EI 19 (Avi-Yonah volume): 208–215 (Hebrew). Young, I. 1992 The Style of the Gezer Calendar and Some ‘Archaic Biblical Hebrew’ Passages. Vetus Testamentum 42:362–75. Yuval-Hacham, N. 2007 ‘Like an Eagle who rouses his Nestlings’: The meaning of the Eagle Motif in Ancient Synagogues in the Golan and Galilee. Cathedra 124:65–80 (Hebrew, Engish abstract p. 211). Zeitlin, D. 1975 The Origin of the Synagogue, in Gutmann, J., (ed.), The Synagogue: Studies in Origins, Archaeology and Architecture. New York: 14–26. Zingboym, O. 2009 Qazrin, Final Report. Had. Arch. 121. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=1156&mag_id=115. Zissu, B. 1999 Daniel in the Lion’s Den (?) at Lanvin, Judean Shephelah. RB 106, 4:563–573. Zissu, B. and A. Ganor 2002 Horvat ʿEthri—The ruins of a Second Temple Period Jewish Village on the Coastal Plain Qadmoniot 123:18–27 (in Hebrew). 2004 The Public Building at Horvat ʿEthri- A Synagogue? From the period between the Jewish war and the Bar Kokhba Revolt, in Eshel, Y., E. Netzer, D. Amit and D. Cassuto (eds.) And Let Them Make Me A Sanctuary. Synagogues from Ancient Times to the Present Day. Ariel: 31–42 (Hebrew). 2010 Horvat ʿEthri in the Judean Plain: a Jewish village from the end of the Jewish Second Temple period and the Bar Kokhba Revolt, in H. Amit (ed.), Frontier and Desert in Eretz Israel. Conference Papers 4–5, 2009–2010:53–72 (Hebrew). Zori, (Tzori) N. 1966 The House of Kyrios Leontis at Beth Sheʾan. IEJ 16:123–134. 1967 The Ancient synagogue at Beth Sheʾan. EI 8:149–167 (Hebrew).

Glossary Aedicula Stone structure housing the Ark. Aisle Side area in a hall separated from a nave by columns. Aniconic art The absence of representations of humans and animals in art. Apse Semi-circular recess in a synagogue or church building. Architrave • The lowest division of the entablature, the main beam that rests upon the abacus on the capital of a column. • Collective name for the parts (lintel, jambs and their moldings) that surround a doorway or window. • Ornamental molding around the exterior of an arch. Ark of the Scrolls Chest housing the Torah scrolls. Bema Raised platform in front of the niche or apse of a synagogue. Basilica Rectangular building with nave and aisles. Chancel screen Screen composed of stone posts and panels used as a partition. Cathedra d’Moshe Ceremonial chair, probably for the head of the community.  Seat of Moses Cella Cult room of a temple. Collegia Organizations or societies functioning as clubs, guilds or funerary groups in the Roman world. Conch A shell motif ornamenting the Torah Shrine. Emblema A panel prepared separately and integrated into the mosaic, sometimes in the centre. Entablature A superstructure carried by columns consisting of architrave, frieze and cornice. Ethrog Citron fruit, a ritual object. Frieze Horizontal carved band, part of the entablature between the architrave and the cornice. Frontality Form of artistic presentation in which human figures in a composition are oriented toward the observer and not related to each other. Genizah Hiding place in the synagogue for its treasure and for discarded scrolls. Halakha Accepted decisions in rabbinical law. Heart-shaped column Double corner column. Horror vacui Ornament filling all available space. Isocephaly Principal observed in ancient art, of representing the heads of all the figures at nearly the same level. Lulav Palm branch, a ritual object. Mahzor Ashkenazi Hebrew prayer book for holidays. Menorah Seven-armed candelabrum. Midrash Rabbinical biblical commentaries using a scriptural interpretation method. Miqveh Ritual bath. Mishna (M) Collection of binding precepts which forms the basis of the Talmud and embodies the contents of the oral law. Compiled by Rabbi Judah Hanasi, probably at Sepphoris, c. 200 CE.

716

glossary

Niche Recess in the inner wall. Parochet Veil covering the Torah shrine or ark. Piyyut Jewish liturgical poetry. Portico Roofed entrance to a building, with colonnades on three sides. Opus Sectile Floors made of coloured stone tiles forming geometric designs. Quadriga A chariot drawn by four horses. Sefer Evronot (Book of A manuscript dealing with the Hebrew calendar written and illustrated in  Intercalations) Germany. Showbread table One of the three ritual objects placed in the Temple sanctuary. Shofar Ram’s horn, a ritual object. Spolia Architectural parts brought from other sites. Tabernacles (Succoth) Feast of the seventh month; the feast of ingathering (Exodus 23:16). Talmud Body of Jewish traditional law consisting of the Mishna and the Gemara. Two editions exist, the Jerusalem Talmud (JT) and the Babylonian Talmud (BT). Targum Aramaic translation and paraphrasing of portions of the bible, committed to writing from about 100 CE onwards. Tessera A cubic stone or glass creating the mosaic base. Torah Shrine An architectural structure either an aedicula, niche or apse, containing the Ark of the Scrolls. Tosefta (T) Collected corpus of traditions and teachings connected with the Mishna.

INDEX Aaron, 300, 390, 420, 425, 427, 431, 432, 532 Abraham, 69, 252, 390, 391, 393, 394, 395, 396, 401, 402, 430, 431, 432, 476, 521, 532, 533, 574 Acanthus, 147, 160, 180, 193, 196, 208, 229, 233, 239, 242, 243, 249, 303, 443, 458, 459, 464, 485, 486, 488, 651 Acco-Ptolemais, 675 Activities, 510, 520, 526, 551, 565, 580, 614, 642, 672, 674 Adam, 415, 432, 500, 501 Aedicula, 56, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 69, 70, 73, 74, 78, 80, 87, 95, 96, 97, 99, 104, 105, 107, 108, 110, 114, 115, 119, 124, 148, 155, 157, 161, 163, 164, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 185, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 211, 212, 220, 221, 234, 243, 246, 247, 249, 254, 286, 301, 307, 308, 310, 335, 418, 437, 438, 439, 446, 451, 485, 512, 588, 589, 590, 596, 606, 607, 610, 611, 651 Aediculae, 55, 56, 69, 71, 105, 111, 155, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 182, 188, 191, 192, 193, 196, 198, 209, 217, 221, 232, 235, 247, 248, 249, 286, 301, 311, 334, 486, 601 Aegina, 19, 579 Aelia Capitolina, 523 Agadot, 472, 613 Agricultural activities, 339, 340, 341, 358 Ahasuerus, 218 Ahmadiyye, 102, 233, 310, 447, 466, 527, 670 Aisle/s, 23, 26, 27, 44, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 78, 80, 85, 90, 93, 94, 111, 114, 115, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 125, 133, 139, 142, 152, 154, 155, 157, 161, 192, 220, 221, 252, 254, 255, 256, 262, 265, 343, 352, 381, 403, 407, 409, 410, 413, 414, 415, 417, 432, 480, 493, 494, 501, 502, 520, 534, 541, 543, 544, 553, 554, 580, 583 Alexander Jannaeus, 549, 555 Alexandria, 45, 162, 414, 429, 430, 467, 519, 558, 564, 665, 666, 681 ‘Alma, 11, 474, 476, 481, 482, 517, 519, 536 Altar/s, 14, 285, 292, 296, 300, 313, 335, 391, 393, 394, 395, 396, 399, 401, 425, 427, 621, 622, 643, 644, 665, 667, 672, 673, 676 Amphora/e, 40, 41, 85, 101, 102, 108, 232, 233, 234, 265, 297, 357, 364, 421, 422, 451, 456, 464, 470, 503, 504 ‘Amudim, H. 19, 57, 133, 136, 139, 146, 149, 154, 155, 161, 178, 199, 226, 228, 229, 230, 232, 238, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 412, 439, 441, 442, 446, 471, 476, 518, 536, 585, 586, 594, 600, 601, 605, 606, 650 Amulet/s, 382, 424, 537, 538, 574 Andriake, 333, 338 Anemurium, 420 Angel/s, 391, 394, 400, 401, 402, 460 Angels’ visit to Abraham and Sarah, 260, 431 Aniconic, 41, 223, 283, 284, 389 ‘Anim, H. 117, 119, 120, 133, 136, 142, 177, 182, 190, 599 Animal/s, 31, 72, 122, 157, 159, 160, 171, 194, 196, 206, 213, 218, 223, 228, 236, 238, 239, 241, 244, 247, 248, 249, 254, 265, 266, 267, 269, 272, 273, 275, 276, 277, 278, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 288, 289, 319, 321, 334, 361, 362, 373, 383, 391, 396, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 414, 415, 417, 418, 420, 421, 422, 425, 428, 434, 435, 436, 439, 455, 456,

457, 458, 466, 471, 472, 490, 492, 494, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 504, 506, 507, 508, 511, 512, 513, 514, 532, 533, 613, 614 Aninas, 476, 479, 496, 570 Annex, 61, 64, 80, 81, 85, 102, 113, 114, 158 Antioch, 67, 343, 370, 375, 381, 388, 396, 403, 405, 408, 412, 414, 429, 465, 490, 501, 557, 564, 594, 666 Antithetic, 232, 233, 235, 236, 247, 248, 265, 266, 273, 275, 276, 286, 291, 333, 435, 436, 441, 447, 472, 483, 534, 614 Apamea, 19, 286, 407, 465, 518, 579, 666 Apollonia, 406, 432 Appellation, 520, 527, 536, 670 Apprentice, 473, 482, 490, 493, 494, 513 April, 359, 379 Apse/s, 67, 76, 113, 121, 122, 124, 133, 135, 155, 158, 163, 164, 182, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 199, 201, 202, 204, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 216, 221, 260, 286, 291, 301, 315, 403, 496, 534, 538, 540, 541, 547, 548, 553, 554, 562, 595, 599, 600, 606, 610, 652 ʿAqedah, 78, 390, 389, 392, 401, 431, 532 Aquarius, 345, 360, 361, 364, 368, 369, 370, 372, 383, 384, 385, 460, 490, 494, 497, 570, 614 Aquileia, 432 Arabia, 269, 281, 460, 467, 675 Aramaic, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 61, 63, 64, 76, 81, 90, 99, 107, 108, 109, 114, 118, 120, 121, 154, 156, 199, 212, 217, 246, 249, 251, 252, 254, 264, 282, 314, 346, 382, 409, 448, 455, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 490, 494, 499, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 531, 534, 536, 537, 538, 558, 559, 574, 581, 583, 584, 613, 661 Arbel, 17, 57, 59, 60, 64, 103, 133, 135, 139, 149, 154, 155, 156, 161, 178, 182, 183, 224, 225, 230, 407, 493, 519, 528, 540, 553, 560, 564, 589, 606 Arch, 40, 59, 84, 100, 107, 113, 115, 117, 126, 127, 136, 137, 147, 157, 158, 161, 171, 182, 184, 190, 194, 198, 208, 209, 244, 249, 277, 283, 288, 297, 352 Arch of Titus, 292, 321, 324 Archer, 362, 384, 497 Archisynagogos/oi, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20, 517, 519, 523, 524, 526, 580 Architectural, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15, 19, 20, 90 Architectural ornamentation, 62, 100, 224, 233, 245, 247, 248 architecture, 45, 46, 49, 51, 62, 107, 125, 134, 136, 142, 148, 149, 156, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 204, 206, 207, 221, 250, 283, 307, 324, 481, 508, 515, 583, 586, 588, 590, 600, 603, 605, 606, 609, 611, 615, 621, 645, 667, 675, 688 Aries, 342, 343, 345, 355, 359, 361, 362, 363, 372, 378, 387 Ark, 27, 45, 62, 78, 87, 118, 119, 121, 161, 163, 164, 180, 181, 182, 183, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 221, 234, 239, 243, 261, 263, 273, 285, 286, 288, 289, 291, 300, 301, 307, 310, 311, 312, 320, 322, 331, 333, 334, 335, 403, 405, 406, 407, 408, 419, 432, 434, 435, 438, 441, 446, 462, 476, 496, 497, 499, 509, 511, 537, 541, 553, 562, 611, 612, 666 Ark of the Scrolls, 6, 16, 47, 87, 118, 163, 164, 180, 181, 182, 185, 186, 189, 191, 192, 196, 199, 200, 204, 205, 206, 209,

718

index

211, 261, 269, 285, 286, 288, 289, 291, 301, 303, 322, 324, 435, 610, 611 Arms, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 298, 307, 312, 319, 320, 321, 322, 333 Art, 301, 323 Artifacts, 88, 109, 122, 154, 295, 334 Artisan, 473, 474, 481 Artist, 160, 241, 269, 289, 296, 302, 319, 362, 370, 373, 388, 394, 412, 417, 418, 473, 474, 476, 479, 481, 482, 483, 485, 488, 490, 493, 494, 501, 503, 507, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 535, 536, 574, 612, 614, 615, 650, 651 Artists, 40, 125, 147, 149, 160, 228, 239, 241, 242, 245, 248, 267, 276, 318, 322, 328, 370, 373, 394, 401, 405, 428, 429, 430, 431, 460, 461, 464, 473, 474, 476, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 493, 496, 497, 499, 501, 503, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 513, 514, 517, 519, 533, 535, 568, 570, 583, 592, 606, 607, 612, 613, 614, 615, 650, 651 Ashdod, 212, 213, 314, 489 Ashlar, 588, 599, 622, 623, 629 Ashqelon, 13, 145, 212, 311, 313, 314, 315, 508, 517, 520, 527, 536, 581, 585, 670 Asia Minor, 307, 338, 403, 407, 579, 590, 665, 687 ‘Asida, 464 Asif, 325 Ass, 391, 393, 394, 396, 401, 413, 456, 494 ‘Assaliyye, 100, 101, 102, 109, 111, 135, 136, 147, 154, 157, 159, 160, 163, 198, 226, 234, 246, 247, 250, 290, 308, 311, 596, 604 Assemblage, 494, 544, 545, 548, 556, 559, 560, 561, 562, 564, 565, 593, 596 Assembly, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 23, 26, 30, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 59, 67, 124, 125, 151, 156, 162, 163, 220, 222, 285 Assyrian, 206, 446, 456 Astrological, 345, 386 Astrology, 346, 386 Astypalaea, 376, 378, 381 Athens, 219, 378 Atil, 134, 472 Attic, 83, 85, 94, 95, 96, 100, 102, 103, 104, 142, 226, 246 Attire, 393, 413, 514, 574 Attribute/s, 67, 217, 220, 249, 285, 334, 355, 356, 357, 358, 368, 375, 378, 382, 417, 447, 460, 490, 494, 496, 501, 567, 571, 573, 574 Autumn, 339, 340, 342, 343, 344, 354, 355, 356, 357, 372, 490, 494, 570, 571, 572, 573, 575, 576, 577 Baalbek, 128, 228 Babylonia, 345 Babylonian exile, 6, 7, 292, 294, 317, 318, 319, 339, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 359, 387 Balsam, 521, 522 Bar Kokhba, 26, 36, 327, 328, 529, 530, 617, 668, 669, 670, 671, 675, 688, 689 Bar‘am, 11, 17, 57, 60, 61, 100, 102, 103, 126, 127, 133, 134, 136, 138, 139, 146, 149, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 161, 178, 196, 209, 225, 230, 231, 248, 249, 276, 277, 281, 334, 352, 437, 446, 458, 466, 470, 471, 474, 475, 481, 482, 517, 518, 540, 553, 561, 565, 586, 589, 600, 601, 602, 603, 605, 606, 607, 615, 629, 648, 651 Barefoot, 361, 390, 408, 494, 577 Basalt, 23, 25, 26, 41, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 74, 79, 81, 83, 86, 87, 99, 100, 101, 104, 106, 107, 108, 111, 113, 114, 115, 117, 145, 147, 150, 155, 156, 157, 161, 171, 172, 178,

181, 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 207, 208, 217, 218, 224, 226, 228, 230, 231, 233, 234, 235, 239, 241, 242, 243, 244, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 290, 313, 437, 438, 443, 447, 451, 454, 470, 476, 477, 478, 485, 486, 488, 526, 531, 591, 593, 594, 606, 607, 637, 657, 659, 674 Base, 310, 318, 319, 321, 322, 323, 330 Bashan, 618, 641, 675 Basilica, 40, 45, 49, 64, 69, 72, 120, 122, 125, 127, 151, 155, 156, 162, 221, 222 Basin, 27, 42, 43, 44 Basket, 254, 265, 267, 355, 408, 427, 571 Batra, 102, 111, 135, 157, 158, 159, 160, 233 Be’er Shem‘a, 507, 508 Be’er Sheva, 508 Bead, 570, 571, 575, 576 Bear, 213, 226, 269, 413, 456 Beast/s, 265, 403, 405, 415, 417, 428, 436, 456, 504, 507, 510 Belt, 391, 408, 412, 494 Bema, 34, 44, 58, 59, 60, 65, 67, 69, 73, 113, 118, 121, 124, 151, 155, 158, 164, 168, 170, 171, 172, 178, 182, 183, 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 207, 208, 210, 212, 216, 252, 254, 269, 278, 288, 296, 301, 334, 402, 437, 544, 547, 554, 589, 610 Ben Sira 26, 17, 294 Bench/s, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51, 54, 56, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 80, 81, 84, 86, 87, 88, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 102, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 124, 125, 139, 149, 150, 151, 155, 156, 158, 159, 162, 172, 189, 202, 210, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 252, 254, 262, 269, 531, 539, 540, 541, 543, 552, 553, 555, 558, 559, 589, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 580, 594, 596, 597, 604, 610 Benefactors, 514, 534, 579, 581 Berenice, 9, 526 Bet Lavi (Wakhshara), 111, 437 Beth Alpha, 12, 17, 128, 133, 152, 180, 186, 187, 188, 191, 192, 196, 200, 201, 206, 208, 210, 211, 250, 251, 254, 256, 258, 263, 272, 273, 274, 275, 282, 283, 286, 288, 289, 290, 291, 301, 307, 309, 312, 319, 320, 328, 331, 333, 334, 343, 346, 347, 348, 351, 352, 355, 356, 357, 358, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 385, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 401, 405, 428, 430, 431, 432, 437, 438, 441, 442, 443, 446, 455, 460, 461, 462, 466, 470, 476, 479, 481, 482, 490, 493, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 509, 517, 519, 532, 534, 536, 540, 553, 558, 560, 562, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 583, 584, 602, 606, 611, 612, 614 Beth el-Tazer, 527, 670 Beth Guvrin, 10, 520, 432, 452, 675 Beth knesset, 7, 10, 16, 20 Beth Lavi, 111, 157, 158, 159 Beth Leontis, 185, 504, 518 Beth midrash, 13, 16, 18, 71, 72, 231, 277, 281, 282, 328, 329, 390, 420, 421, 447, 474, 519, 532, 533, 537 Beth She‘arim, 17, 20, 67, 122, 128, 151, 176, 177, 183, 185, 198, 201, 202, 209, 212, 249, 250, 290, 301, 321, 323, 338, 352, 441, 446, 455, 458, 466, 471, 541, 553, 561, 563, 607 Beth She’an, 11, 142, 183, 185, 187, 188, 199, 200, 202, 206, 210, 211, 212, 213, 256, 283, 288, 319, 330, 344, 381, 382, 403, 441, 455, 456, 457, 458, 460, 461, 467, 469, 486, 489, 496, 499, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 518, 519, 520, 534, 535, 541, 553, 583, 585, 602, 644



index

Beth Sheʾan A, 187, 188, 199, 200, 202, 206, 210, 211, 212, 256, 261, 262, 263, 275, 288, 301, 307, 319, 321, 325, 328, 330, 331, 476, 479, 481, 482, 499, 519, 534, 611 Beth Sheʾan B, 11, 12, 183, 185, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 275, 290, 317, 320, 327, 331, 403, 441, 455, 456, 457, 458, 461, 462, 465, 476, 480, 504, 507, 512, 513, 534, 585 Bethlehem, 405, 528 Betulah, 567, 568, 576, 577 Bible, 54, 210, 295, 298, 300, 323, 340, 346, 400, 408, 412, 422, 424, 428, 429, 493 Biblical, 41, 49, 65, 72, 78, 118, 205, 210, 218, 223, 252, 256, 260, 262, 263, 272, 275, 278, 282, 283, 292, 293, 294, 298, 300, 318, 334, 335, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 389, 390, 391, 393, 394, 397, 399, 400, 401, 403, 407, 408, 410, 412, 413, 414, 415, 417, 418, 420, 422, 424, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 434, 435, 436, 443, 455, 460, 493, 496, 498, 499, 510, 511, 514, 517, 521, 530, 532, 533, 534, 537, 567, 574, 575, 606, 611, 612, 613, 614, 671 Biblical, 272, 283, 285, 359 Biblical episodes, 65, 252, 262 Biblical narrative scenes, 223, 284, 390, 407, 430, 431 Biblical scenes, 398, 401, 431, 434, 460, 612, 613 Biblical themes, 389, 429, 430, 434, 612, 613 Binding of Isaac, 78, 260, 263, 264, 272, 355, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 412, 428, 430, 431, 432, 493, 494, 496, 497, 498, 532, 569, 574, 575, 576, 577, 612 Bird/s, 102, 110, 121, 147, 171, 196, 204, 212, 213, 223, 233, 251, 254, 261, 265, 266, 267, 269, 273, 275, 276, 277, 278, 281, 283, 288, 303, 307, 325, 328, 334, 355, 357, 378, 381, 384, 403, 405, 417, 427, 436, 439, 440, 452, 455, 461, 462, 463, 464, 496, 500, 501, 503, 504, 507, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 519, 534, 572, 614 Bird cage, 265, 405, 464, 465, 501 Blessing, 398, 400, 401, 479, 517, 521, 531, 534, 536, 563, 564, 565, 583 Boot/s, 394, 417, 577 Bosphorus, 8, 9 Bouleuteria, 45, 49, 151 Bowl/s, 293, 298, 331, 425, 570, 571, 593, 652, 654, 659, 672 Bracelets, 355, 356, 361, 490, 567, 568, 574, 576 Branches, 293, 295, 296, 321, 324, 327 Breastplate of Judgment, 424 Bronze, 293, 295, 302, 307, 328, 330, 335, 407, 412, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 543, 544, 545, 547, 549, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 557, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 596, 660 Brooches, 574, 576 Brothers, 520, 536, 567 Bucket, 364, 383, 385, 497, 614 Buffalo, 269 Builders, 408, 481, 482, 514, 515, 561, 603, 651 Bull, 78, 113, 148, 229, 232, 273, 361, 378, 422, 424, 425, 427, 435, 436, 441, 443, 455, 470, 496, 511, 532, 534 Byzantine, 26, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 72, 79, 80, 110, 111, 113, 115, 116, 117, 124, 147, 149, 156, 157, 158, 160, 162, 170, 186, 229, 235, 242, 246, 250, 254, 279, 281, 282, 292, 331, 344, 358, 373, 375, 378, 387, 395, 413, 414, 417, 418, 428, 430, 432, 434, 454, 456, 460, 466, 467, 473, 486, 496, 501, 503, 513, 519, 521, 523, 530, 540, 543, 544, 545, 546, 548, 549, 551, 552, 553, 555, 557, 559, 560, 562, 564, 565, 573, 578, 586, 587, 588, 589, 592, 593, 594, 595, 598, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 607, 611, 615, 617, 671, 677, 679, 684, 688, 690

719

Cache, 540, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 557, 559, 560, 562 Caesarea, 7, 8, 9, 19, 20, 120, 121, 148, 196, 311, 313, 460, 473, 518, 520, 527, 528, 541, 553, 559, 560, 562, 563, 575, 670, 677 Cage, 464, 511 Cairo Geniza, 537 Calendar, 312, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 359, 366, 373, 379, 380, 381, 382, 386, 387, 388, 507, 530, 611, 612 Canaanite, 340, 342 Cancer, 280, 342, 355, 359, 361, 364, 365, 372, 577 Candelabrum, candelabra, 292, 293, 294, 300, 318, 322 Cap, 93, 356, 571, 574, 575, 643 Capernaum, 7, 23, 25, 26, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 52, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 100, 102, 127, 133, 136, 138, 139, 140, 142, 144, 146, 148, 149, 150, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 161, 170, 171, 172, 196, 201, 202, 207, 208, 209, 224, 225, 226, 228, 229, 230, 232, 233, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 249, 273, 276, 277, 281, 283, 301, 302, 312, 313, 314, 334, 412, 437, 441, 443, 447, 451, 452, 466, 467, 470, 471, 476, 483, 484, 486, 487, 517, 518, 519, 539, 541, 542, 543, 553, 555, 557, 559, 560, 561, 563, 564, 565, 586, 590, 591, 592, 593, 600, 601, 602, 603, 605, 606, 607, 611, 615, 650, 651, 690 Capital, 39, 42, 48, 67, 81, 86, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 115, 117, 138, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 179, 181, 193, 195, 196, 247, 248, 249, 288, 295, 313, 314, 319, 320, 338 Capitals, 25, 26, 28, 36, 39, 40, 59, 64, 65, 69, 86, 100, 102, 104, 107, 111, 114, 115, 116, 117, 122, 138, 139, 142, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 159, 179, 180, 181, 196, 198, 208, 212, 224, 236, 238, 241, 242, 246, 247, 288, 295, 307, 313, 320, 324, 330, 452, 455, 471, 483, 486, 517, 588, 591, 592, 593, 594, 604, 605, 606, 607, 627, 630, 632, 637, 644, 648 Capricorn, 342, 345, 355, 360, 364, 368, 369, 372, 382, 384 Caracalla, 663, 664, 666, 668, 674, 675 Carpet, 64, 191, 193, 210, 240, 251, 252, 254, 255, 256, 259, 260, 261, 262, 265, 266, 269, 281, 328, 344, 353, 378 Carthage, 292, 381 Cartoons, 429, 430 Casearea, 581 cash, 540, 546, 547, 551, 558, 559, 560 cash box, 60, 71, 540, 546, 547, 559, 560, 565 catacomb/s, 204, 322, 333, 338, 395, 396, 400, 406, 407, 413, 419, 441 Catalogue, 395, 415, 464 Cathedra d’ Moshe, 206, 217, 220, 531 Causeway, 622, 622, 637, 640, 641, 642, 647, 667, 673, 676 Cavity, 548, 549, 554, 563, 641 Centaur, 236, 362, 384, 443, 466 Ceramic/s, 25, 60, 62, 63, 69, 72, 74, 86, 109, 111, 113, 114, 159, 160, 161, 198, 242, 331, 587, 589, 590, 591, 592, 597, 602, 604, 605 Ceremony/ies, 5, 6, 15, 17, 43, 44, 46, 54, 155, 162, 204, 285, 291, 302, 307, 323, 330, 427, 580, 610, 611, 672, 673, 676 Chain/s, 198, 210, 330, 331, 355, 567, 571, 576 Chair, 217, 218, 219, 220, 435, 531 Chancel screen/s, 73, 74, 121, 122, 183, 185, 186, 188, 190, 191, 206, 209, 211, 212, 216, 276, 277, 307, 303, 314, 315, 338, 398, 399, 461, 482, 513, 517, 534, 536, 558, 581, 585 Chariot, 65, 252, 262, 275, 283, 345, 346, 353, 366, 368, 372, 378, 381, 386, 387, 407, 410, 435, 436, 493 Charity, 540, 546, 554, 559, 560, 563

720

index

Chase, 403, 456, 457, 501, 504, 512 Cherubim, 435, 436, 460 Chest, 163, 199, 204, 205, 394, 405, 406, 407, 432, 548, 567, 569 Children, 567, 665 Chiton, 394, 415 Chlamys, 414, 417 Christ, 62, 63, 379, 398, 400, 420, 422 Christian, 55, 62, 63, 106, 128, 156, 207, 213, 216, 221, 223, 228, 246, 247, 248, 269, 281, 282, 284, 323, 343, 344, 379, 381, 382, 386, 387, 388, 395, 396, 397, 400, 401, 406, 407, 409, 413, 417, 418, 420, 422, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 434, 435, 460, 464, 467, 481, 482, 503, 504, 507, 513, 514, 563, 592, 596, 600, 601, 603, 610, 615 Christian art, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 400, 401, 407, 413, 418, 419, 428, 430, 432, 434, 435, 467 Christianity, 282, 284, 285, 291, 311, 387, 390, 407, 432, 609 Christians, 26, 62, 88, 109, 281, 282, 323, 324, 344, 396, 421, 428, 429, 481, 503, 508, 511, 514, 589, 602, 612, 613 Chronicles, 205 Church, 47, 62, 66, 76, 80, 113, 136, 213, 216, 231, 235, 256, 263, 265, 266, 269, 272, 323, 343, 344, 345, 356, 358, 381, 386, 396, 397, 402, 403, 405, 406, 407, 415, 422, 428, 432, 434, 454, 456, 460, 464, 467, 474, 479, 481, 482, 489, 503, 507, 508, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 534, 537, 573, 575, 577, 578, 602, 612 Churches, 76, 106, 117, 128, 151, 213, 216, 228, 246, 247, 256, 266, 267, 269, 276, 281, 344, 422, 460, 464, 466, 481, 503, 507, 508, 512, 513, 514, 537, 563, 574, 602, 603, 610, 613, 614 Cistern, 17, 45, 76, 118, 121, 251, 296 Cithara, 414, 415, 418, 500 City, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 20 Clasp/s, 355, 490, 567, 574, 575, 576, 577 Classical, 126, 147, 156, 228, 241, 244, 245, 246, 248, 358, 429, 466, 467, 489, 490, 496, 501, 508, 510, 513, 573, 606, 644, 651, 674 Clerestory, 28, 45, 63, 74, 86, 88, 107, 125, 138, 142, 151, 154, 158 Clergy, 48, 216, 282 Clients, 473, 489, 508 Clip, 354, 355, 356, 494, 570, 575 Cloak, 67, 354, 357, 362, 412, 417, 494, 571, 576, 577 Cloth, 427, 544, 548, 552, 562, 565 Cluster of grapes, 85, 102, 196, 232, 254, 356, 357 Codex Theodosianus XVI, 8, 27, 602 Coffer, 551, 554, 559 Cohen, 18, 47, 219 Coin, 407, 539, 540, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 551, 552, 553, 555, 557, 559, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 590, 592, 593, 596, 597, 627, 637, 652, 657, 660, 668 Coinage, 539, 551, 556, 557, 562, 565 Coins, 25, 28, 56, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 71, 73, 87, 88, 108, 109, 110, 113, 114, 119, 122, 159, 160, 192, 295, 312, 313, 323, 327, 328, 335, 407, 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 555, 556, 557, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 583, 585, 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598, 601, 602, 603, 615, 627, 637, 652, 659, 660, 668, 673 Colonnades, 26, 28, 154 Community, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 414, 417, 431, 434, 492, 504, 507, 511, 513, 514, 517, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 530, 536, 538, 544, 549, 551, 555, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 580, 581, 592, 601,

609, 610, 611, 613, 614, 615, 617, 666, 668, 670, 673, 675, 676 Complex, 439, 467, 485, 503, 504, 525, 591, 598, 617, 621, 622, 642, 644, 652, 668, 669, 671, 672, 673, 675, 676 Composition/s, 390, 391, 393, 394, 395, 396, 399, 410, 413, 414, 428, 429, 430, 431, 436, 438, 439, 441, 443, 447, 448, 452, 454, 464, 470, 474, 483, 490, 496, 500, 501, 504, 507, 508, 509, 511, 513, 514, 534, 612, 613, 614 Conch/s, 115, 138, 157, 159, 160, 171, 172, 178, 182, 184, 186, 192, 194, 196, 198, 199, 200, 202, 206, 207, 208, 209, 234, 237, 243, 244, 273, 285, 286, 288, 289, 301, 302, 308, 314, 331, 437, 439, 470, 485, 486, 487, 496, 511, 611 Congregation, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 23, 43, 48, 50, 65, 120, 125, 162, 163, 188, 205, 206, 216, 220, 221, 249, 277, 281, 283, 286, 387, 525, 526, 536, 537, 551, 553, 563, 565, 594, 598 Conical, 296, 321, 322 Consecration of Aaron to the Service of the Tabernacle and the Daily Offering, 78, 260, 335, 390, 420, 425, 427, 431, 532 Constantinople, 292, 501, 543, 544, 549, 551, 557, 564 Container, 425, 532, 537, 545, 552, 559, 562 Copper, 537, 544 Copybook/s, 429, 430, 472, 613 Corinthian, 59, 61, 114, 116, 142, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 155, 158, 159, 211, 226, 228, 235, 243, 244, 313, 443, 455, 591, 592, 606 Cornice, 407, 452, 466, 467, 484, 485, 486, 487, 627, 644, 646, 647, 648, 649, 651 Cotton, 407, 414 Cotton Genesis, 407 Courtyard, 28, 34, 36, 43, 45, 50, 52, 53, 59, 61, 63, 69, 71, 76, 118, 119, 122, 136, 139, 142, 151, 186, 225, 226, 228, 235, 236, 237, 238, 243, 244, 245, 249, 283, 285, 318, 483, 519, 541, 543, 544, 552, 553, 555, 564, 565, 590, 591, 592, 593, 611, 633, 637 Craftsman, 321, 473, 474, 476, 481, 508 Craftsmen, 407, 408, 481, 488, 489, 493, 494, 498, 499, 507, 508, 515, 606, 615 Creation, 431, 689 Creatures, 435, 436, 466, 571 Cross, 323 Crossbar, 301, 307, 322 Crown, 357, 366, 368, 415, 501, 572, 575 Crusader, 553, 654, 657, 689 Crushing basin, 632, 638, 647 Cub, 196, 267, 276, 415, 418, 438, 439, 445, 446 Cubiculum, 396, 413 Cult, 5, 13, 16, 18, 293, 298 Cultic, 293, 294, 298, 300, 389, 617, 621, 622, 623, 629, 633, 634, 638, 640, 642, 644, 657, 665, 667, 668, 669, 671, 672, 673, 674, 675, 676 Cupboard, 540, 560, 564 Currency, 556, 557, 565, 660 Curtain/s, 186, 202, 206, 209, 210, 211, 300 Customs, 530, 562, 565, 615, 672 Cyrenaica, 432, 526, 683 Dabiyye, 79, 111, 112, 135, 157, 158, 159, 160, 177, 178, 206, 226, 250, 310, 539, 544, 546, 554, 557, 559, 561, 565, 597, 604, 605 Dabura, 13, 18, 111, 154, 231, 242, 248, 447, 448, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 458, 466, 471, 476, 477, 488, 519, 585, 607, 661



index

Dagim (Pisces), 343, 387 Daniel, 11, 196, 256, 260, 261, 275, 279, 390, 399, 414, 418, 419, 420, 428, 430, 431, 432, 434, 441, 446, 533 Daniel in the Lion’s Den, 118, 196, 256, 260, 261, 278, 390, 418, 439, 532, 534 Dating, 536, 540, 586, 595, 598, 603, 605, 664, 668 David, 389, 409, 412, 414, 415, 417, 418, 428, 430, 431, 432, 460, 466, 482, 500, 501, 502, 532, 638, 678 David with Goliath’s weapons, 70, 389, 414, 417 Day of Atonement, 328, 338 Dead Sea Scrolls, 37, 342, 346, 355, 428 Décor, 117, 160, 194, 235, 239, 240, 241, 242, 244, 246, 248, 249 Dedicatory, 409, 476, 480, 517, 518, 519, 521, 526, 531, 534, 535, 536, 537, 578, 583, 584, 585, 613, 615, 643, 661, 665, 666, 667, 668, 673, 676 Deer, 278, 456 Deir ‘Aziz, 79, 111, 112, 113, 135, 151, 157, 158, 159, 160, 186, 187, 190, 226, 536, 544, 554, 557, 559, 584, 585, 597, 604, 605, 606 Deity, 435, 466, 642, 652, 673, 674 Deli (Aquarius), 343, 387, 490, 538 Delos, 8, 16, 20, 172, 217, 219, 220, 531, 579 Deposit/s, 542, 544, 545, 547, 548, 553, 554, 555, 556, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 597 Designer, 473, 474, 490 Deuteronomy, 13, 32, 223, 389 Diadem, 414, 415, 500 Diagonal Ionic, 142, 146, 147, 313 Diamonds, 254 Diaspora, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 20, 47, 49, 54, 163, 164, 170, 177, 184, 191, 199, 204, 210, 211, 217, 250, 285, 286, 290, 292, 300, 301, 302, 303, 307, 310, 317, 319, 321, 322, 323, 325, 327, 328, 333, 334, 335, 338, 389, 482, 507, 524, 526, 529, 530, 579, 580, 581, 610, 615, 665, 671, 672 Dinars, 558, 581 Dolphin, 138, 466 Domus ecclesia, 55, 62, 156, 592 Donation, 467, 517, 524, 525, 531, 536, 546, 558, 560, 563, 579, 581 Donkey, 391, 409, 456, 493 Donor, 10, 18, 113, 114, 302, 307, 418, 467, 517, 519, 525, 526, 534, 535, 537 Donors, 10, 13, 18, 19, 66, 125, 213, 216, 221, 249, 267, 418, 431, 464, 476, 479, 480, 490, 513, 514, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 524, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 578, 579, 581, 583, 614, 615 Doorjambs, 64, 72, 73, 83, 84, 111, 114, 142, 221, 226, 228, 283 Doorposts, 59, 100, 133, 157, 224, 226, 228, 233, 236, 237, 238, 246 Dor, 7, 8, 675 Doric, 26, 28, 36, 39, 40, 42, 59, 65, 86, 94, 95, 97, 99, 102, 103, 104, 114, 117, 142, 146, 147, 150, 155, 158, 159, 226, 228 Double column, 64, 104, 105, 107, 108, 110, 149, 195 Double meander, 39, 81, 102, 108, 110, 147, 237, 247, 458, 471, 472 Dove/s, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 432, 507 Draped, 355, 357, 361, 373 Dress, 354, 355, 356, 358, 415, 428, 460, 497, 500, 569, 571, 572, 573 Drowning, 400, 407, 410, 493 Dura Europos, 19, 45, 182, 184, 191, 199, 204, 205, 208, 210, 211, 218, 219, 220, 250, 286, 319, 321, 327, 335, 338, 389,

721 390, 391, 394, 395, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 410, 412, 417, 424, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 434, 568, 573, 580, 610, 612, 613

Eagle, 63, 105, 115, 117, 138, 148, 179, 196, 217, 230, 231, 236, 241, 247, 249, 273, 277, 417, 435, 436, 439, 447, 448, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 466, 471, 488, 511, 607, 651 Eagles, 13, 72, 102, 105, 195, 196, 213, 217, 229, 231, 236, 246, 247, 249, 273, 277, 439, 447, 448, 450, 451, 452, 454, 458, 466, 467, 470, 488, 511, 533, 607, 650 Early Islamic period, 60, 79 Earring/s, 66, 354, 355, 356, 361, 490, 494, 496, 567, 568, 570, 571, 575, 576, 577, 578 Ears of corn, 357, 572 Earthquake, 25, 26, 29, 39, 59, 63, 64, 65, 67, 71, 72, 73, 76, 79, 88, 108, 110, 113, 114, 116, 145, 159, 192, 208, 492, 546, 551, 560, 565, 586, 587, 588, 589, 591, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598, 601, 604 Ecclesiaterion, Ecclesiateria, 45, 49 Ed-Dikke, 102, 103, 105, 110, 111, 112, 116, 117, 127, 133, 135, 136, 138, 139, 146, 147, 149, 151, 152, 154, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 179, 195, 196, 208, 230, 231, 233, 242, 247, 250, 451, 458, 459, 470, 471, 486, 488, 586, 604, 605, 606, 607 Edifice/s, 23, 26, 36, 62, 111, 122, 151, 315, 324, 514, 676 Egg-and-dart, 100, 102, 136, 226 Egypt, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 47, 206, 252, 345, 400, 424, 467, 482, 501, 525, 526, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668, 675, 681, 683, 684, 687 El-Ahsenniyeh, 111, 159, 160, 488, 604, 605, 607 Elder/s, 220, 429, 523, 524, 580 Elements, 394, 427, 430, 435, 452, 474, 483, 485, 488, 489, 494, 508, 509, 510, 513, 534, 574, 591, 594, 603, 606, 609, 612, 613, 614, 620, 641, 644, 646, 651, 652, 667, 690 Elephant, 267, 269, 276, 405, 415, 456, 500, 514 El-Hammam (Beth Sheʾan), 344, 379, 380, 381 el-Hirbeh, 202, 210, 286, 333, 335, 336, 337 Eliezer, 393, 448, 585 Elijah, 399, 400 El-Tayibe, 101, 111, 159 Emblem/s, 41, 121, 148, 248, 269, 275, 281, 292, 312, 314, 324, 328, 330, 415, 417, 424, 425, 462, 611 Emperor/s, 414, 460, 466, 474, 460, 499, 501, 527, 544, 583, 603, 617, 642, 661, 663, 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 673, 674, 675, 676, 678 En face, 266, 355, 366, 373, 391, 418, 428, 438, 439, 443, 446, 458, 465, 466, 493, 494, 496, 497, 511 ‘En Gedi, 10, 12, 17, 18, 19, 56, 58, 76, 120, 121, 133, 180, 182, 183, 185, 191, 192, 199, 210, 212, 219, 220, 251, 252, 254, 269, 270, 272, 275, 281, 282, 303, 306, 320, 343, 344, 352, 387, 462, 463, 517, 520, 521, 522, 533, 534, 536, 544, 545, 554, 559, 560, 562, 580, 585, 599, 606, 613 ‘En Nashut, 79, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 127, 135, 136, 138, 142, 144, 146, 147, 151, 152, 154, 157, 158, 159, 160, 178, 196, 198, 206, 226, 231, 242, 246, 248, 249, 250, 251, 273, 277, 310, 313, 314, 317, 333, 334, 418, 420, 437, 438, 439, 441, 445, 446, 451, 452, 454, 458, 462, 463, 471, 488, 539, 544, 545, 546, 554, 557, 559, 561, 562, 565, 597, 604, 605, 607 End of Days, 390, 420, 421, 422, 431 ‘En Samsam, 178, 196, 249, 418, 439, 607 Entrance, 23, 26, 27, 30, 33, 34, 36, 39, 40, 44, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101, 102, 106, 107, 109, 111, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 125, 128, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138,

722

index

139, 151, 157, 158, 159, 161, 168, 170, 171, 173, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 185, 186, 192, 193, 196, 198, 209, 221, 224, 226, 228, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 245, 246, 254, 261, 273, 275, 276, 277, 278, 283, 300, 307, 310, 352, 401, 402, 403, 408, 437, 439, 441, 448, 452, 455, 456, 457, 462, 470, 472, 476, 483, 488, 496, 497, 499, 504, 519, 527, 534, 536, 538, 541, 543, 545, 546, 547, 548, 551, 554, 561, 564, 583, 584, 585, 590, 597, 606, 611, 619, 623, 627, 630, 633, 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 642, 643, 647, 649, 651, 659, 661, 667, 673, 676 Ephraim, 422, 424, 620 Epigraphic, 7, 15, 20, 23, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 Epithet/s, 18, 20, 536 Equinox, 339, 340, 342, 345, 354, 355, 387 Eretz Israel, 307, 386, 520, 682, 683, 685, 687, 688 Eshtemo‘a, 17, 18, 56, 58, 117, 118, 119, 120, 133, 142, 151, 158, 183, 184, 189, 206, 226, 228, 232, 251, 286, 291, 301, 302, 307, 312, 320, 333, 558, 599, 610 Essenes, 7, 9, 37 Ethrog, 73, 184, 210, 265, 275, 286, 288, 307, 308, 312, 317, 322, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 338, 403, 504, 611 Exedra, 58, 117, 120, 121 Exodus, 205, 211, 223, 389, 390, 400, 407, 410, 424 Eyes, 413, 417, 446, 460, 490, 493, 497, 506, 507, 570, 572, 614 Ezekiel, 399, 400, 412, 430, 435, 436 Ezra, 14 Façade, 34, 40, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 69, 71, 72, 76, 83, 100, 104, 107, 113, 115, 116, 117, 122, 125, 126, 127, 128, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 140, 150, 155, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 168, 170, 171, 173, 176, 177, 178, 179, 182, 184, 186, 190, 192, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 220, 221, 222, 224, 225, 226, 228, 232, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 264, 277, 282, 283, 286, 288, 296, 307, 312, 335, 408, 431, 437, 438, 448, 451, 471, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 606, 610, 611, 622, 623, 627, 629, 632, 633, 634, 636, 637, 638, 640, 641, 642, 644, 646, 647, 648, 660, 662, 667, 673 Façades, 102, 126, 133, 134, 135, 138, 157, 158, 161, 162, 182, 208, 221, 224, 228, 232, 238, 241, 246, 247, 283 Face, 436, 446, 447, 458, 460, 464, 465, 471, 472, 497, 527, 567, 578, 585, 633, 638, 641, 650, 660, 661, 664, 666 Father, 413, 473, 481, 519, 524, 525, 567, 568, 581 Fauna, 266, 435 Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth), 325, 330, 338, 672 Feasts, 6, 17, 43, 47, 300, 338, 343 Feet, 391, 406, 422, 435, 458, 460, 504 Female/s, 66, 154, 344, 355, 356, 379, 496, 567, 579 Ferculum, 297, 321, 335 Festival/s, 292, 328, 339, 342, 343, 672 Fibula, 417, 575 Figurative, 41, 223, 224, 228, 240, 251, 254, 263, 272, 273, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 291, 389, 430, 434, 463, 482, 485, 602, 606, 609, 613, 614, 615 Figures, 66, 223, 240, 245, 247, 249, 272, 276, 277, 281, 282, 283, 334, 346, 353, 355, 356, 358, 361, 368, 370, 372, 373, 375, 379, 381, 382, 383, 391, 393, 394, 396, 399, 400, 401, 407, 408, 410, 412, 413, 414, 420, 422, 427, 428, 429, 430, 432, 434, 435, 438, 441, 447, 456, 458, 459, 460, 466, 470, 473, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 511, 514, 532, 533, 534, 568, 569, 572, 573, 574, 575, 577, 578, 612, 614

First Jewish War, 327 First Temple, 285, 292 First Temple Period, 13 Fish/es, 254, 314, 334, 352, 364, 366, 378, 410, 432, 448, 466, 496, 504 Flask, 312, 338 Flood, 390, 402, 403, 407 Flora, 266, 278, 435, 470 Floral, 41, 64, 67, 102, 159, 206, 208, 212, 228, 231, 232, 235, 236, 237, 240, 241, 243, 247, 249, 251, 252, 272, 273, 277, 282, 283, 285, 293, 295, 314, 470, 471, 482, 483, 485, 496, 511, 578, 606, 609, 613, 650 Flour, 425, 427, 532 Flower/s, 69, 247, 252, 293, 295, 314, 319, 320, 355, 403, 456, 508, 570, 571, 575 Fox/es, 67, 252, 254, 390, 412, 413 Fresco/s, 33, 40, 69, 73, 250 Frieze, 59, 61, 67, 69, 84, 100, 102, 114, 156, 198, 202, 203, 208, 209, 224, 226, 228, 230, 231, 233, 235, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 247, 249, 277, 403, 428, 443, 445, 451, 452, 456, 458, 460, 461, 466, 470, 471, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 496, 511, 593, 651 Frontality, 430 Fruit/s, 185, 254, 278, 328, 340, 355, 356, 359, 427, 496, 504, 520, 570 Funerary, 51, 164, 204, 207, 209, 223, 233, 276, 283, 285, 319, 323, 327, 334, 344, 379, 380, 396, 417, 420, 431, 434, 441, 447, 455, 464, 466, 470, 471, 508, 512, 670 Funerary art, 204, 324, 328, 330, 333, 338, 396, 420, 434, 441, 447, 455, 470, 471, 508, 512, 514, 609, 612 Gable, 61, 84, 98, 100, 101, 105, 115, 119, 126, 127, 138, 155, 157, 161, 170, 171, 196, 198, 199, 200, 202, 208, 210, 211, 217, 235, 236, 241, 244, 247, 277, 288, 331 Gadara, 212, 314 Gadariyye, 160, 604, 605 Galilean, 7, 15, 47, 55, 57, 59, 62, 63, 71, 100, 102, 103, 106, 124, 125, 126, 128, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 149, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 170, 177, 178, 182, 186, 192, 206, 207, 212, 216, 220, 221, 224, 226, 228, 235, 245, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 276, 281, 283, 333, 412, 417, 436, 437, 439, 446, 447, 474, 481, 482, 488, 489, 527, 529, 530, 534, 551, 556, 585, 586, 589, 590, 592, 593, 600, 601, 602, 603, 605, 606, 607, 610, 611, 615, 617, 627, 629, 646, 651, 654, 661, 667, 669, 670, 671, 673, 675, 679, 680, 681, 690 Galilee, 6, 7, 37, 47, 48, 55, 56, 58, 59, 64, 66, 67, 73, 76, 102, 103, 105, 110, 120, 124, 133, 134, 142, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 161, 163, 180, 186, 192, 195, 221, 243, 246, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 283, 286, 390, 407, 447, 454, 471, 474, 482, 488, 515, 518, 520, 529, 530, 555, 557, 562, 565, 585, 586, 587, 600, 601, 606, 607, 609, 611, 615, 617, 618, 638, 650, 654, 657, 665, 667, 668, 669, 670, 671, 672, 673, 675, 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689 Gallery/Galleries, 69, 70, 71, 73, 88, 117, 121, 125, 138, 142, 149, 151, 152, 154, 157, 221, 230, 239, 240, 579, 580, 650 Gallus Revolt, 587 Gamla, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 59, 139, 147, 149, 150, 159, 160, 222, 471, 526, 604, 660, 689 Ganymede, 452, 466 Garland/s, 230, 246, 273, 452, 471, 575 Garment/s, 401, 417, 424, 425, 532, 567, 568, 575, 577



index

Gaza (Maiumas), 13, 187, 188, 206, 212, 215, 265, 266, 267, 269, 275, 313, 389, 411, 413, 414, 415, 417, 418, 428, 430, 443, 445, 446, 456, 457, 460, 461, 464, 465, 466, 482, 500, 501, 502, 503, 508, 513, 517, 518, 520, 532, 534, 536, 558, 583, 602 Gemini, 359, 361, 362, 363, 372, 460, 490, 497 Genizah, 17, 28, 32, 33, 44, 73, 76, 87, 115, 116, 121, 179, 180, 185, 186, 191, 192, 209, 544, 554 Genre, 435, 460, 461, 462 Gentile/s, 481, 490, 507, 521, 558, 671, 672 Geometric, 34, 40, 41, 64, 67, 102, 108, 115, 119, 121, 147, 178, 184, 201, 208, 212, 228, 231, 232, 235, 239, 241, 243, 247, 248, 249, 251, 252, 254, 256, 259, 260, 261, 263, 266, 269, 272, 276, 277, 278, 280, 281, 282, 283, 285, 308, 346, 375, 378, 382, 391, 409, 412, 428, 435, 452, 460, 462, 464, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 482, 492, 496, 511, 514, 526, 534, 598, 606, 609, 613, 650 Gerasa, 12, 13, 148, 187, 188, 191, 272, 283, 313, 315, 316, 319, 344, 390, 403, 404, 405, 407, 428, 430, 432, 443, 445, 456, 462, 465, 480, 512, 518, 532, 533, 534, 535, 606, 611, 661, 666 Germany, 364, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385 Geta, 527, 662, 663, 664, 666, 668, 675 Gezer Calendar, 340, 341, 342, 359 Ghadriyye, 105, 111, 195, 310, 451, 488, 607 Giant, 65, 252, 262, 407, 409, 410, 412, 413, 418, 493 Giraffe/s, 267, 414, 416, 456, 467, 500, 502, 514 Glass/es, 58, 66, 110, 119, 204, 275, 286, 288, 289, 303, 307, 318, 320, 321, 322, 330, 331, 332, 400, 546, 553, 576, 578, 595, 597 Glazed ware, 654, 656, 657 Globe, 368, 378 God, 47, 264, 276, 322, 323, 366, 386, 390, 394, 395, 396, 397, 399, 400, 405, 413, 415, 431, 432, 434, 436, 447, 454, 520, 536, 537, 612 Golan, 13, 55, 79, 86, 94, 95, 96, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 115, 116, 120, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 133, 135, 136, 138, 142, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 154, 155, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 177, 178, 179, 186, 190, 192, 195, 206, 207, 208, 209, 212, 216, 220, 221, 224, 225, 226, 228, 230, 231, 233, 234, 242, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 273, 276, 277, 281, 283, 286, 310, 313, 314, 317, 318, 418, 436, 437, 438, 439, 445, 446, 447, 449, 454, 462, 466, 471, 474, 476, 482, 486, 488, 518, 537, 546, 557, 562, 585, 593, 595, 596, 597, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 610, 611, 615, 638, 651, 661, 683, 688, 690 Gold, 71, 113, 164, 204, 211, 218, 292, 293, 295, 300, 302, 335, 395, 396, 441, 537, 543, 544, 545, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 563, 564 Gold glass/s, 164, 204, 211, 307, 322, 333, 334, 395, 396, 441 Goliath, 389, 409, 418 Goliath Tomb, 45, 50, 51, 52, 53, 151, 461, 470 Graeco-Roman, 151, 206, 344, 358, 435, 472, 577, 615, 688 Graffito, 296, 398 Grape clusters, 504, 651 Grapes, 439, 460, 462, 463, 464, 465, 470, 504, 507, 511, 661 Greco-Roman, 48, 49, 154, 579 Greek, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 46, 48, 55, 61, 73, 74, 76, 78, 113, 120, 156, 199, 219, 243, 246, 254, 292, 312, 338, 342, 345, 354, 355, 361, 372, 373, 379, 381, 382, 396, 403, 405, 407, 413, 414, 415, 422, 429, 430, 441, 455, 464, 466, 467, 474, 476, 478, 479, 481, 482, 490, 499, 501, 503, 504, 507, 508, 514, 517, 518, 519, 520, 523, 525, 526, 527, 531, 532,

723

534, 535, 536, 537, 559, 574, 581, 583, 585, 597, 602, 613, 617, 620, 642, 643, 651, 660, 661, 662, 663, 665, 666, 667, 676, 679, 685, 687, 690 Guilloche, 66, 228, 229, 236, 237, 251, 256, 471, 483, 650 Gush Halav, 57, 60, 63, 64, 72, 73, 88, 127, 135, 136, 138, 139, 142, 146, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 161, 177, 178, 179, 192, 225, 230, 249, 273, 331, 447, 448, 471, 476, 477, 482, 518, 539, 546, 547, 554, 555, 557, 560, 563, 564, 565, 585, 586, 588, 589, 600, 601, 602, 603, 605, 606, 607, 627, 678, 686, 687 H. Burnat, 36, 43 H. Dasha, 338 H. ‘Etri, 23, 36, 37, 42, 43, 44, 45 H. et-Tuwani, 26, 43 H. Kishor, 330, 331 H. Qoshet, 301, 303, 305, 333, 338 H. Samara, 202, 210 H. Shura, 155, 159, 161, 247, 313, 488, 604, 605 H. Tuba, 159, 196, 231, 443, 445, 447, 450, 451, 452, 455, 604, 605 H. ‘Uza, 654, 657, 682, 689 Hadrian, 56, 675 Hafar, 438, 451, 452, 453 Hair, 66, 354, 355, 356, 399, 400, 409, 458, 460, 494, 506, 567, 570, 571, 574, 575, 577, 578 Halakha, 6, 16, 120, 250, 272, 520, 577, 613, 672 Hall, 418, 421, 461, 483, 494, 532, 534, 541, 543, 544, 547, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 556, 560, 565, 579, 580, 588, 590, 592, 596, 610, 611, 617, 622, 623, 627, 633, 634, 637, 638, 640, 642, 646, 647, 667, 669, 673, 676 Hamam, Wadi, 57, 64, 65, 66, 135, 139, 149, 150, 151, 155, 156, 161, 177, 178, 251, 252, 262, 331, 332, 352, 390, 407, 408, 409, 410, 412, 413, 430, 431, 493, 494, 514, 535, 547, 554, 594, 601, 606 Hammam-Lif, 19, 286, 579 Hammath Gader, 10, 11, 18, 19, 133, 182, 186, 188, 187, 190, 191, 212, 213, 250, 254, 259, 260, 261, 265, 283, 314, 334, 441, 444, 446, 447, 489, 517, 519, 520, 534, 536, 558, 581, 606, 611 Hammath Tiberias A, 74, 183, 185, 206, 212, 213, 217, 218, 219, 220, 286, 301, 303, 305, 312, 313, 314, 320, 321, 322, 598 Hammath Tiberias B, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 56, 74, 75, 76, 77, 133, 148, 152, 154, 156, 185, 186, 192, 199, 201, 202, 210, 211, 212, 250, 251, 252, 254, 255, 257, 259, 265, 272, 273, 275, 286, 301, 307, 312, 319, 320, 321, 325, 327, 328, 334, 336, 343, 346, 347, 348, 350, 353, 355, 356, 357, 358, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 373, 375, 387, 403, 405, 441, 442, 443, 444, 446, 455, 460, 466, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 498, 509, 512, 532, 534, 537, 538, 539, 540, 547, 554, 562, 567, 568, 570, 571, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 580, 598, 602, 606, 610, 612 Hand of God, 213, 272, 282, 391, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 434, 498, 532, 612 Hanging lamp, 73, 210, 325, 330, 331, 328, 333 Hanina, 476, 482, 499, 519, 583 Haouarte, 415, 432, 500, 501 Har Senaim, 642, 644 Hare, 254, 456 Harrier eagles, 231, 273, 447, 448, 450, 452 Hasmonean, 15, 23, 27, 28, 29, 34, 43, 44, 292, 296, 298, 312, 428, 530, 548, 553, 555, 556, 668, 671

724

index

Hauran, 40, 102, 107, 110, 126, 134, 147, 162, 199, 228, 246, 247, 248, 283, 454, 472, 481, 486, 610, 611, 618, 629, 641, 645, 651, 652, 667, 672, 674, 675, 678, 679, 681, 685, 688 Hazan, 10, 17, 18, 19 Head, 66, 148, 196, 218, 232, 248, 249, 251, 275, 277, 281, 354, 355, 357, 361, 366, 384, 390, 399, 400, 401, 413, 414, 415, 417, 418, 422, 428, 436, 437, 439, 441, 443, 446, 447, 448, 451, 452, 454, 455, 458, 460, 464, 466, 470, 474, 490, 493, 494, 500, 502, 567, 568, 570, 571, 575, 577, 578, 585, 643 Headgear, 415, 574 Heart-shaped column, 39, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 139, 146, 149, 150, 155, 161 Hebrew, 7, 10, 13, 18, 19, 58, 66, 69, 72, 90, 100, 118, 120, 121, 156, 212, 230, 246, 249, 252, 264, 269, 277, 278, 281, 282, 292, 295, 302, 312, 314, 317, 324, 330, 338, 340, 341, 343, 344, 345, 346, 352, 353, 354, 358, 359, 361, 362, 364, 366, 370, 372, 373, 382, 383, 384, 385, 387, 388, 390, 391, 400, 414, 418, 421, 422, 424, 425, 429, 432, 447, 474, 476, 481, 482, 490, 497, 499, 500, 507, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 527, 532, 533, 536, 537, 538, 578, 584, 585, 613, 617, 661, 670, 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689, 690 Heliopolis, 8, 128 Helios, 263, 283, 375, 378, 381, 386, 387, 576, 629, 644, 674 Hellenistic, 7, 8, 9, 14, 30, 34, 41, 45, 47, 48, 49, 59, 151, 162, 233, 243, 246, 248, 283, 285, 318, 338, 373, 386, 405, 413, 417, 418, 429, 430, 431, 460, 466, 470, 490, 507, 556, 611, 651, 665, 666, 668, 677, 679, 681, 682, 684, 688 Hen, 254, 460, 461, 496, 507, 614 Heraldic, 101, 102, 147, 170, 193, 196, 231, 233, 235, 247, 248, 259, 260, 261, 265, 272, 273, 275, 276, 307, 333, 435, 439, 441, 447, 448, 451, 456, 461, 462, 464, 466, 472, 488, 501, 507, 511, 512, 614 Hercules knot, 72, 102, 231, 277, 447, 454, 455, 470, 533, 661 Herod, 28, 29, 41, 46, 292, 312, 327, 555, 660, 684 Herod Antipas, 659, 660 Herodian, 9, 28, 31, 34, 43, 44, 56, 65, 162, 222, 296, 523, 525, 594 Herodium, 23, 24, 28, 29, 36, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 150, 256, 474 Hexastylos, 136, 623, 629, 667 Hidden, 439, 538, 543, 548, 549, 552, 559, 560, 562, 563, 564, 565 High Priest, 300, 328, 425 Himation, 394 Hippos-Sussita, 231, 454 Hoard/s, 64, 88, 108, 109, 110, 113, 539, 541, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 556, 557, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 565, 588, 593, 596, 597, 686 Horns, 390, 391, 393, 394, 422, 425, 643 Horror vacui, 240, 241, 243, 266, 272, 391, 486, 499, 609 Horse/s, 65, 252, 262, 275, 346, 366, 368, 407, 410, 456, 493, 496 House of Leontis, 265, 460, 461, 462, 467, 468, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 519, 520, 534, 535 Hulda, 315, 327 Human, 102, 110, 147, 243, 248, 276, 278, 284, 373, 394, 403, 417, 435, 436, 439, 441, 451, 452, 456, 458, 459, 460, 464, 466, 471, 472, 491, 495, 497, 498, 504, 505, 507, 508, 510, 532, 575, 577, 613 Hunting, 240, 241, 243, 436, 440, 443, 445, 456, 464, 496, 504, 509, 510

Huqoq, 66, 67, 251, 252, 390, 412, 413, 430, 431, 536, 578, 594 Huseifa, 12, 163, 250, 259, 261, 263, 264, 275, 307, 320, 327, 346, 347, 348, 352, 353, 354, 356, 357, 358, 361, 362, 364, 366, 368, 372, 373, 464, 509, 517, 518, 533, 534, 572, 573, 574, 575, 576 Iconoclasm, 276, 277, 278, 279, 281, 282, 503, 533, 572, 606 Iconoclasts, 238, 245, 281, 282, 361, 418, 568, 606, 612, 613 Iconographic, 211, 223, 241, 263, 264, 272, 283, 284, 353, 391, 394, 402, 414, 417, 424, 428, 430, 431, 496, 500, 514, 610, 611, 612, 614, 615 Iconography, 5, 241, 265, 285, 358, 368, 379, 382, 396, 414, 415, 417, 429, 430, 431, 510, 602, 611, 612, 613, 615 Idolatry, 41, 223, 272, 283, 284, 285, 389, 609, 613 Illuminated manuscripts, 407, 429, 431 Illustrations, 390, 399, 401, 406, 413, 414, 418, 420, 422, 424, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 434, 493, 532, 574, 614 Image/s, 389, 391, 396, 398, 399, 400, 417, 425, 427, 428, 430, 431, 432, 434, 447, 460, 467, 490, 494, 500, 510, 513, 530, 532, 567, 569, 573, 574, 578, 606, 609, 611, 612, 613 Imperial cult, 673, 674, 675, 676, 687 In situ, 26, 34, 41, 44, 58, 69, 73, 84, 85, 88, 105, 110, 111, 122, 138, 139, 172, 218, 242, 277, 473, 485, 486, 531, 541, 543, 550, 559, 607, 617, 626, 630, 633, 634, 636, 637, 641, 643, 648 Incantations, 537 Incense shovel, 210, 286, 288, 307, 308, 312, 322, 324, 325, 328, 330, 338, 403, 611 Inhabited scroll, 265, 266, 267, 269, 315, 403, 414, 415, 452, 455, 456, 460, 461, 464, 465, 470, 482, 501, 502, 504, 506, 509, 511, 513, 514, 534, 614 Inscribed lintel, 527, 617, 619, 636, 661, 663 Inscription, 33, 45, 47, 55, 58, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 72, 73, 74, 76, 78, 107, 109, 113, 114, 118, 119, 121, 122, 154, 156, 172, 183, 199, 212, 217, 220, 230, 249, 250, 251, 252, 254, 259, 260, 261, 264, 265, 272, 273, 275, 277, 278, 281, 302, 310, 311, 314, 315, 317, 320, 327, 331, 338, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 346, 352, 354, 386, 387, 398, 402, 403, 405, 407, 409, 413, 414, 417, 418, 425, 441, 447, 448, 455, 461, 464, 467, 470, 474, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 490, 497, 499, 501, 503, 507, 508, 512, 514, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 538, 558, 559, 578, 581, 583, 584, 585, 587, 597, 606, 613, 617, 619, 620, 642, 643, 649, 650, 660, 661, 662, 663, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670, 673, 675, 676, 690 Inscriptions, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 47, 48, 49, 52, 61, 64, 76, 90, 99, 107, 108, 118, 120, 121, 122, 156, 189, 199, 211, 212, 213, 216, 217, 246, 249, 252, 254, 265, 272, 275, 278, 282, 301, 302, 311, 322, 334, 340, 358, 375, 378, 391, 394, 396, 401, 414, 418, 425, 432, 435, 436, 441, 444, 446, 473, 474, 475, 476, 479, 480, 481, 482, 490, 494, 496, 498, 504, 506, 511, 513, 514, 517, 518, 519, 520, 523, 525, 526, 527, 530, 532, 533, 534, 536, 537, 558, 579, 580, 581, 583, 585, 598, 602, 606, 612, 613, 615, 643, 661, 664, 665, 666, 667, 670 Ionic, 26, 28, 39, 42, 59, 67, 69, 86, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 100, 102, 106, 109, 114, 116, 145, 146, 147, 149, 159, 181, 195, 247, 288, 425, 604 Ionic capitals, 27, 86, 102, 142, 146, 158, 160 Iron, 84, 199, 210, 292, 293



index

Isaac, 5, 390, 391, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 400, 401, 402, 428, 432, 434, 521, 532, 533, 574 Ishmael, 393, 394, 476, 531 Islam, Islamic, 74, 282, 540, 548, 551, 553, 565, 682, 689 Israel, 45, 47, 48, 49, 124, 161, 163, 164, 183, 186, 192, 199, 200, 204, 216, 217, 220, 226, 246, 247, 251, 252, 267, 285, 286, 292, 302, 312, 322, 323, 335, 338, 381, 383, 396, 418, 474, 526, 665, 666 Israel Museum, 189, 211 Italy, 415, 467, 666, 687 Ivory, Ivories, 398, 400, 435, 552, 615 Iztaba, 171, 172, 193, 194, 207, 217, 437, 531 Jabaliyah, 503, 508 Jacob, 431, 521, 533 January, 344, 360, 379 Japhet, 403, 404, 405, 532 Japhiʿa, 148, 229, 230, 232, 248, 259, 311, 390, 420, 422, 424, 443, 448, 452, 454, 460, 466, 650 Jar, 147, 196 Jaraba, 111, 159, 249, 277, 447, 450, 604, 605 Jason’s Tomb, 296, 297, 321 Jawbone, 413 Jericho, 12, 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 135, 151, 162, 187, 188, 200, 201, 206, 208, 254, 269, 271, 281, 282, 290, 314, 316, 319, 320, 325, 330, 331, 390, 461, 470, 517, 518, 522, 533, 534, 536, 558, 613 Jerusalem, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 34, 39, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 64, 69, 72, 73, 76, 80, 87, 100, 106, 108, 114, 118, 119, 125, 133, 135, 155, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162, 163, 168, 170, 171, 173, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 211, 216, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 272, 283, 284, 286, 292, 294, 296, 297, 298, 300, 311, 312, 321, 323, 334, 335, 345, 383, 385, 389, 408, 417, 452, 464, 470, 471, 493, 523, 525, 526, 527, 529, 530, 564, 574, 599, 609, 610, 611, 661, 666, 669 Jerusalem Temple, 5, 14, 211, 325, 422, 665, 670, 671, 672 Jerusalem-oriented wall, 46, 54, 55, 60, 61, 63, 65, 69, 73, 76, 80, 87, 107, 108, 114, 115, 118, 119, 120, 125, 133, 135, 155, 157, 158, 161, 162, 163, 168, 170, 171, 173, 176, 178, 180, 181, 182, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 206, 207, 208, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, 283, 286, 531, 588, 601, 609, 610, 611 Jesus, 7, 9, 26, 62, 396, 431, 603 Jewelry, 354, 358, 373, 460, 496, 497, 552, 567, 570, 571, 573, 574, 577 Jewish, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 26, 28, 34, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 54, 55, 56, 59, 62, 63, 64, 67, 73, 106, 110, 118, 122, 142, 148, 156, 159, 162, 163, 173, 196, 200, 204, 205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 216, 219, 220, 222, 223, 228, 235, 241, 243, 244, 246, 247, 248, 249, 252, 256, 260, 261, 263, 265, 267, 269, 272, 273, 276, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, 290, 291, 292, 296, 298, 301, 310, 311, 312, 315, 318, 323, 324, 327, 328, 333, 334, 335, 338, 339, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 352, 358, 362, 364, 368, 370, 372, 373, 375, 381, 382, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 394, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 407, 412, 414, 417, 418, 420, 424, 428, 429, 430, 432, 434, 436, 441, 443, 447, 452, 455, 456, 458, 460, 461, 464, 466, 467, 470, 471, 479, 481, 482, 485, 486, 494, 496, 499, 503, 504, 507, 511, 513, 514, 520, 524, 525, 526, 529, 530, 556, 558, 562, 563, 564, 567, 573, 574, 577, 579, 592, 595, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 609, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 617, 620, 629, 660, 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 671, 672, 673,

725

675, 676, 677, 680, 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689, 690 Jewish art, 223, 235, 243, 248, 283, 285, 291, 310, 333, 382, 388, 390, 397, 400, 401, 424, 428, 429, 436, 461, 470, 471, 494, 609, 611 Jewish law, 220, 223 Jewish poetry, 223, 284 Jew/s, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 26, 41, 46, 47, 48, 50, 55, 56, 63, 149, 157, 162, 209, 221, 223, 224, 229, 272, 277, 279, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 292, 319, 323, 324, 338, 341, 344, 386, 389, 396, 414, 422, 429, 430, 435, 466, 467, 481, 482, 490, 503, 507, 508, 511, 514, 520, 523, 525, 527, 530, 563, 585, 592, 594, 602, 609, 612, 613, 617, 642, 660, 663, 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 671, 673, 674, 675, 676, 677, 680, 684, 685, 686, 688, 689 Jonah, 432, 434 Josephus, 7, 8, 9, 14, 20, 47, 292, 293, 294, 295, 297, 300, 322, 325, 334, 340, 343, 530, 671 Joshua, 390 Judah, 424, 446, 685 Judaism, 5, 6, 10, 46, 162, 223, 284, 285, 286, 292, 300, 322, 323, 324, 330, 339, 386, 390, 396, 429, 430, 467, 567, 609, 610, 669, 675, 680, 682, 684, 688, 689 Judas Maccabeus, 298, 300 Judea, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 15, 40, 47, 54, 113, 117, 120, 124, 163, 286, 412, 671, 672 Jug, 577, 657, 658 Julia Domna, 527, 663, 664, 666, 668 June, 359, 379 Justin, 346, 499, 548, 551, 552 Justinian, 113, 292, 405, 467, 501, 544, 545, 548, 551, 559, 583, 597, 600 Kafr Harib, 448, 450, 452 Kafr Kana, 479, 480, 481 Kafr Misr, 56, 58, 59, 67, 68, 155, 156, 161, 182, 186, 187, 188, 210, 252, 253, 317, 611 Kafr Yasif, 201, 234, 331 Kalybe, 674, 688 Kanaf, H., 79, 100, 110, 111, 112, 114, 127, 135, 138, 142, 152, 157, 158, 159, 160, 163, 209, 226, 233, 246, 247, 249, 277, 437, 438, 462, 463, 470, 471, 517, 537, 539, 544, 546, 547, 554, 557, 558, 561, 564, 565, 585, 597, 598, 604, 605, 607, 651 Kedesh, 134, 447, 617, 619, 629, 638, 642, 643, 648, 651, 667, 669, 680, 685 Kefar Hananiah, 11, 331, 654 Kelilah, 330, 331 Ketubbah, Ketubboth (marriage contracts), 382, 422 Khawkha, 111, 146, 147, 159, 160, 242, 247, 451, 486, 488, 604, 605, 607 Khirbet ed-Duheisha, 303, 307 Khirbet el-Kôm, 398 King David, 414, 415, 417, 418, 443, 460, 500, 501, 532 King Solomon, 205 Kissufim, 311, 508, 527, 670 Knife, 390, 391, 395, 396 Kochav HaYarden, 175, 177, 198, 208, 232, 290, 308, 536 Kohen, 530 Korazim, 23, 30, 45, 57, 69, 70, 88, 104, 126, 128, 133, 136, 138, 139, 141, 142, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 159, 160, 161, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 193, 194, 196, 198, 206, 207, 208, 209, 217, 218, 219, 220, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 231, 232, 233, 235, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244,

726

index

245, 246, 247, 249, 250, 276, 277, 301, 308, 311, 334, 437, 439, 440, 443, 445, 446, 451, 452, 453, 456, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 466, 470, 471, 476, 483, 485, 486, 487, 488, 511, 513, 518, 531, 539, 540, 547, 551, 554, 556, 557, 561, 562, 564, 565, 585, 586, 592, 593, 601, 602, 604, 605, 606, 607, 649, 651 Kuppa, 540, 559, 560, 563 Labors of the Months, 388 Lad/s, 391, 393, 396, 401, 412, 494 lamb/s, 421, 425, 427, 532, 533 Lamp, 193, 198, 201, 265, 288, 293, 295, 312, 317, 323, 330, 331, 335, 394, 499, 504 Lamps, 28, 56, 164, 204, 212, 273, 275, 289, 293, 294, 296, 298, 300, 307, 314, 317, 318, 320, 321, 322, 327, 328, 330, 331, 338, 394, 396, 400, 526, 545, 546, 595 Lampstand, 292, 293, 294, 298, 300 Land of Israel, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 91, 162, 163, 164, 186, 191, 199, 204, 205, 220, 224, 235, 246, 266, 283, 285, 295, 300, 301, 317, 319, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 327, 328, 330, 338, 389, 390, 398, 403, 412, 526, 545, 563, 581, 583, 586, 600, 606, 607, 609, 610, 611, 613, 615 Late Antiquity, 16, 21, 43, 52, 54, 204, 206, 208, 223, 243, 283, 285, 318, 323, 324, 331, 342, 344, 389, 415, 428, 435, 530, 609, 610, 613, 671, 676, 680, 684, 685, 687 Late Roman, 23, 58, 63, 65, 79, 80, 109, 110, 160, 178, 230, 246, 410, 412, 417, 526, 547, 549, 551, 555, 556, 557, 565, 587, 588, 589, 604, 617, 659, 669 Latin, 199, 344, 379, 382, 504, 518, 666, 667 Law, 5, 8 Lead, 321, 338 Leader/s, 431, 492, 514, 538, 565, 580, 614 Leadership, 524, 563, 579, 580, 669 Leaves, 40, 69, 72, 85, 102, 212, 232, 249, 252, 314, 319, 357, 504 Lectern, 56, 328 legend/s, 389, 401, 402, 407, 412, 418, 432, 612 Lehi, 410, 413 Leo, 359, 361, 364, 365, 372, 443, 553 Leontopolis, 14 Leopardess, 445 Leopards, 276, 456 Leptis Magna, 674 Levant, 525, 668 Levites, 292, 294, 300 Libation, 643, 672, 673 Libra, 280, 342, 355, 359, 361, 362, 366, 367, 372, 383, 384, 385, 460, 490, 494, 497, 577 Light, 292, 300, 307, 312, 322, 323, 324 Light fittings, 286, 288, 296, 298, 302, 307, 312, 318, 320, 321, 322, 338 Lilies, 314, 355 Lintel, 9, 11, 13, 18, 19, 34, 39, 40, 55, 59, 61, 63, 64, 69, 72, 73, 76, 84, 85, 87, 97, 100, 101, 102, 105, 107, 109, 110, 114, 122, 136, 157, 158, 161, 168, 170, 171, 175, 177, 186, 192, 193, 194, 196, 198, 201, 202, 207, 208, 224, 226, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 242, 244, 246, 248, 249, 273, 277, 286, 290, 308, 330, 331, 333, 335, 338, 352, 439, 441, 443, 446, 447, 448, 451, 454, 455, 458, 462, 466, 470, 471, 472, 474, 476, 482, 483, 485, 488, 512, 519, 526, 527, 532, 536, 565, 584, 585, 587, 596, 606, 607, 617, 619, 620, 627, 634, 636, 642, 646, 647, 649, 650, 660, 661, 662, 666, 667, 668, 669, 673

lintels, 40, 61, 69, 100, 101, 102, 105, 107, 110, 116, 119, 120, 133, 138, 155, 161, 192, 195, 198, 209, 221, 224, 226, 228, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 240, 243, 245, 247, 248, 249, 273, 276, 277, 281, 283, 307, 308, 310, 320, 324, 330, 439, 441, 442, 443, 447, 448, 451, 452, 454, 455, 458, 462, 464, 470, 471, 475, 481, 482, 483, 487, 488, 517, 518, 534, 537, 603, 606, 611, 644, 649, 650, 651, 661, 665, 669 Lion, 148, 181, 196, 217, 229, 245, 249, 254, 273, 275, 277, 302, 333, 334, 352, 361, 405, 413, 414, 415, 417, 418, 422, 424, 428, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 443, 446, 447, 451, 455, 456, 470, 485, 488, 490, 496, 497, 500, 534, 607 Lioness, 113, 171, 178, 194, 196, 267, 273, 276, 277, 415, 418, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 443, 445, 446, 456, 467, 488, 500, 502, 503 Lions, 74, 78, 105, 114, 122, 170, 172, 178, 192, 194, 195, 196, 204, 207, 208, 211, 218, 232, 236, 238, 241, 244, 246, 249, 259, 260, 264, 265, 273, 275, 277, 278, 288, 302, 307, 315, 317, 325, 328, 333, 334, 402, 418, 419, 420, 428, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 451, 455, 458, 488, 490, 492, 494, 496, 497, 500, 507, 511, 512, 532, 534, 536, 607, 612 Literary, 7, 10, 15, 20, 431, 432, 517, 520, 523, 526, 534, 536, 537, 579, 580, 602, 613, 669 Liturgy, Liturgical, 6, 18, 21, 47, 48, 54, 221, 265, 344, 382, 386, 388, 527, 529, 530, 580, 610, 670, 671, 673 Lower Galilee, 390, 407, 412, 493 Lozenges, 461, 471, 496 Lulav, 73, 147, 148, 184, 210, 269, 275, 286, 288, 307, 308, 312, 313, 314, 317, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 338, 403, 611 Lyre, 415, 417, 418, 428, 466 Maʿon, H. (Judea), 17, 117, 119, 120, 133, 136, 142, 183, 185, 191, 301, 302, 303, 307, 333, 599, 610 Maʿon-Nirim, 17, 45, 119, 120, 124, 133, 152, 180, 187, 188, 191, 192, 199, 206, 210, 250, 251, 265, 266, 267, 269, 276, 315, 317, 319, 320, 321, 323, 325, 327, 328, 331, 333, 441, 442, 445, 446, 452, 454, 456, 458, 461, 462, 464, 465, 470, 482, 501, 507, 508, 512, 513, 517, 518, 528, 534, 538, 539, 548, 554, 558, 560, 562, 600, 602, 611, 614 Maʿoz Hayim, 133, 135, 177, 181, 188, 190, 192, 212, 250, 269, 281, 283, 315, 316, 462, 471, 548, 554, 562, 598, 599, 606, 611 Ma‌ʾaser sheni (second tithe), 564 Maccabean/s, 15, 292, 342 Macedonian, 343, 344, 359 Madaba, 396, 397, 568 Mahzor/im (Hebrew prayer books), 382, 384 Male/s, 481, 490, 567, 573, 579 Mamluk, 84, 122, 620, 629, 636, 637, 641, 652, 654, 655, 656, 657, 659, 660, 668 Mammals, 403, 405 Man, 399, 436, 439, 458, 643 Manasseh, 205, 422, 424 Mane, 437, 439, 446, 497 Mansions, 466, 574 Mantle (pallium), 355, 490, 574, 577 Marble, 301, 311 Marianos, 476, 479, 481, 482, 496, 499, 519, 570, 583 Masada, 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 150, 162, 474 Masons, 473, 606



index

Massuh, 396, 397 Massuot Yitzhaq, 489 Master, 436, 473, 474, 482, 483, 485, 486, 487, 493, 510, 513, 536 Mattathias Antigonus, 296, 297, 312, 313, 323, 335 Meander, 95, 107, 110, 147, 209, 251, 278, 471 Medallion, 66, 105, 195, 208, 244, 265, 277, 315, 317, 330, 396, 415, 424, 445, 452, 455, 456, 458, 459, 460, 461, 464, 465, 502, 503, 504, 533, 534, 578, 583 Medallions, 66, 160, 212, 233, 239, 241, 244, 249, 253, 265, 266, 275, 277, 315, 330, 381, 407, 424, 456, 458, 460, 461, 464, 466, 470, 483, 488, 501, 504, 507, 508, 509, 513, 578, 611, 614 Medusa, 458, 466 Meiron, 17, 57, 72, 73, 100, 109, 126, 127, 133, 136, 139, 146, 149, 154, 155, 156, 161, 177, 178, 225, 231, 243, 482, 527, 548, 555, 557, 565, 586, 588, 589, 596, 600, 601, 603, 605, 606, 629, 654, 670, 678, 686 Men, 154, 249, 361, 373, 391, 393, 402, 460, 494, 497, 514, 537, 567, 579, 580 Menorah, 11, 13, 18, 40, 41, 49, 74, 81, 84, 97, 99, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 113, 115, 118, 142, 145, 147, 148, 160, 170, 176, 179, 184, 186, 196, 198, 208, 209, 210, 212, 213, 214, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235, 247, 248, 249, 250, 252, 264, 265, 269, 276, 277, 283, 285, 286, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 327, 328, 330, 331, 333, 334, 335, 336, 338, 403, 436, 441, 446, 461, 465, 470, 471, 482, 488, 503, 504, 507, 511, 519, 544, 584, 591, 603, 609, 611, 612 Menoroth, 69, 78, 106, 118, 122, 164, 180, 181, 183, 185, 190, 191, 198, 211, 217, 228, 232, 233, 234, 247, 261, 269, 272, 273, 275, 278, 281, 286, 288, 289, 291, 292, 293, 296, 297, 298, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 329, 333, 334, 335, 337, 338, 428, 441, 464, 485, 490, 494, 496, 509, 511, 512, 534, 611, 612 Meroth, 13, 17, 55, 57, 69, 71, 72, 133, 136, 152, 154, 155, 156, 170, 173, 175, 196, 231, 250, 251, 277, 279, 281, 282, 301, 303, 328, 330, 352, 390, 412, 417, 418, 420, 421, 431, 447, 460, 474, 518, 532, 533, 534, 537, 538, 539, 540, 548, 549, 550, 551, 554, 555, 557, 560, 562, 563, 564, 592, 594, 601, 602, 603, 606, 617, 621, 627, 629, 641, 651, 667, 668, 670, 679, 680, 683, 690 Mesopotamia, 429 Messianic, 323, 417, 421, 422 Metal, 537, 552, 553, 623, 642, 652 Michaelion, 415, 432, 500, 501 Midrash/im, 264, 322, 355, 389, 394, 400, 403, 420, 421, 424, 427, 428, 430, 436, 455, 467, 472, 533, 569, 613, 683 Midrash Rabba (Numbers 82), 422, 436 Midrashic literature, 224, 284 Migdal, 23, 33, 34, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 149, 296, 297, 412, 526, 528 Migdal II, 37, 38 Mihrab, 60, 118, 120 Mint, 542, 543, 545, 549, 551, 557, 558, 564, 591, 659 Miqveh/ot, 17, 27, 28, 34, 36, 39, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 119, 302, 315, 523, 525 Mishmarot, 530, 670, 671 Mishna, 16, 45, 55, 199, 246, 330, 343, 427, 481, 600, 689, 690 Mishnaic, Mishnaic period, 340, 527, 530, 670, 671

727

Misis-Mopsuestia, 390, 403, 405, 406, 407, 410, 411, 412, 413, 422, 430, 434, 493, 499 Models, 508, 509, 510, 511, 513, 573, 602, 603, 612, 613, 614, 615 Modi‘in, 23, 24, 34, 35, 43, 44, 45, 50 Monastery, 113, 344, 460, 474, 489, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 585 Monastery of Lady Mary, 344, 379, 380, 382, 489, 503 Month, 46, 328, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 354, 358, 359, 360, 373, 376, 378, 379, 382, 387 Months, 272, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 352, 358, 359, 361, 373, 375, 378, 379, 381, 382, 386, 387, 388, 504, 507, 521, 532, 611, 613 Moon, 339, 343, 344, 345, 346, 366, 368, 379, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 424, 504 Mosaic, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 33, 40, 52, 54, 56, 58, 59, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 78, 79, 87, 108, 109, 110, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 156, 159, 164, 178, 185, 186, 190, 191, 192, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 204, 208, 210, 211, 216, 223, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 281, 282, 283, 284, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 301, 307, 308, 310, 311, 312, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 343, 344, 345, 346, 352, 353, 355, 356, 357, 358, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 373, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 381, 382, 383, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 420, 421, 422, 424, 425, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 434, 437, 438, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 451, 452, 454, 455, 456, 457, 460, 461, 462, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 470, 471, 473, 474, 476, 479, 480, 481, 482, 490, 492, 493, 496, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 523, 532, 533, 534, 536, 537, 548, 551, 552, 553, 558, 560, 562, 567, 568, 570, 571, 573, 574, 575, 577, 578, 581, 583, 585, 594, 595, 596, 598, 599, 600, 602, 606, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615 Mosaicist, 269, 283, 362, 364, 464, 473, 474, 476, 479, 480, 481, 482, 489, 490, 494, 496, 498, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 513, 514, 517, 585, 614 Mosaics, 66, 67, 76, 118, 119, 120, 164, 186, 192, 200, 201, 202, 204, 211, 224, 251, 252, 254, 256, 267, 269, 272, 276, 279, 281, 282, 283, 291, 307, 317, 320, 325, 327, 328, 343, 344, 346, 352, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 362, 370, 372, 373, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 385, 386, 389, 396, 397, 398, 403, 405, 406, 410, 412, 415, 417, 422, 428, 429, 431, 432, 435, 436, 447, 456, 464, 466, 470, 471, 474, 481, 482, 490, 492, 493, 494, 496, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 517, 518, 540, 553, 558, 562, 573, 574, 575, 577, 578, 594, 599, 614, 615 Moses, 390, 398, 399, 400, 412, 424, 430, 434, 531 Mosque, 58, 60, 80, 86, 88, 94, 95, 98, 106, 109, 118, 120, 199 Mother, 580, 581, 663 Motif, 41, 67, 100, 101, 102, 106, 192, 206, 207, 208, 209, 212, 232, 249, 251, 266, 269, 273, 276, 301, 314, 327, 333, 338, 366, 382, 386, 387, 436, 441, 443, 447, 451, 454, 455, 456, 458, 460, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 470, 471, 472, 603, 609, 611 Motifs, 40, 41, 66, 69, 107, 110, 148, 149, 160, 206, 208, 209, 212, 213, 222, 223, 231, 232, 235, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244,

728

index

246, 247, 248, 249, 252, 254, 264, 265, 266, 267, 269, 273, 276, 278, 282, 283, 284, 285, 296, 308, 312, 324, 330, 333, 334, 338, 381, 389, 430, 435, 436, 443, 445, 447, 458, 460, 461, 462, 464, 466, 467, 470, 471, 472, 473, 482, 483, 485, 486, 488, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 578, 604, 605, 607, 609, 611, 613, 614, 615, 651 Mount Grizim, 211 Mount Moriah, 5 Mount Sinai, 398 Mourning enclosure, 50, 151 Mukhayyat, 396, 397 Münster, 375, 381 Mushennef, 472, 641, 672, 674 Musician, 414, 415, 500, 532 Muslim, 73, 281, 282, 549, 602, 621, 685, 687, 688 Mythological, 223, 240, 241, 272, 284, 389, 414, 417, 418, 429, 431, 466, 467, 500, 507, 614 Naʿana, 201 Naʿaran, 11, 17, 18, 19, 133, 187, 188, 200, 201, 254, 256, 260, 272, 275, 276, 278, 279, 280, 281, 283, 286, 288, 289, 291, 301, 307, 317, 320, 330, 331, 346, 348, 352, 355, 356, 357, 358, 361, 362, 364, 366, 368, 370, 371, 372, 373, 390, 418, 420, 428, 430, 431, 432, 441, 443, 446, 455, 456, 457, 460, 464, 465, 466, 490, 493, 509, 517, 532, 534, 567, 568, 572, 573, 581, 602, 606, 611, 612, 613 Nabataean, Nabatean, 128, 151, 162, 206, 228, 276, 435, 454, 455, 462, 466, 472, 614, 650 Nabratein, 49, 55, 56, 57, 72, 73, 102, 105, 110, 126, 127, 135, 138, 139, 150, 154, 155, 156, 161, 170, 171, 191, 192, 193, 198, 208, 221, 225, 230, 249, 250, 301, 331, 439, 440, 446, 452, 470, 482, 512, 517, 518, 519, 536, 551, 555, 557, 565, 584, 585, 586, 587, 600, 601, 603, 606, 607, 648, 651, 654, 686 Nahal Michmas, 296 Nahariya, 464 Nails, 28, 64, 199, 564, 637, 657 Naked, 361, 362, 364, 373, 419, 467, 490, 494 Narrative, 67, 184, 223, 240, 252, 256, 263, 272, 283, 390, 391, 394, 396, 397, 398, 400, 401, 403, 405, 407, 408, 410, 412, 413, 418, 420, 422, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 434, 439, 493, 498, 532, 534, 612, 613, 614 Narthex, 76, 114, 118, 119, 122, 136, 152, 220, 251, 254, 283, 317, 344, 379, 520, 521, 523, 533, 534, 535, 611 Nave, 25, 26, 44, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 69, 73, 74, 76, 80, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 111, 114, 115, 120, 121, 122, 125, 127, 133, 139, 142, 151, 152, 155, 157, 172, 173, 180, 181, 185, 186, 188, 190, 191, 212, 220, 221, 250, 251, 252, 254, 256, 257, 258, 259, 261, 262, 265, 269, 271, 278, 279, 281, 346, 352, 353, 401, 402, 403, 406, 407, 410, 414, 415, 422, 425, 432, 441, 456, 460, 479, 490, 493, 496, 500, 502, 507, 508, 519, 523, 532, 534, 543, 591, 593, 610 Naveh, 107, 154, 172, 199, 217, 232, 233, 308, 386, 471, 520 Nazareth, 7, 527, 528, 670, 680, 689 Near East, 13, 67, 206, 291, 293, 339, 343, 397, 400, 430, 435, 447, 665, 666, 681, 686, 687, 688, 690 Neck, 415, 437, 439, 448, 452, 454, 500, 538, 567, 574, 577, 654 Necklace/s, 355, 357, 361, 394, 490, 496, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 574, 576 Negev, 503, 508, 541 Nehemiah, 14 New Testament, 7, 8, 9, 20, 47, 50 Niche, 27, 28, 39, 43, 44, 58, 60, 67, 74, 88, 99, 109, 113, 118, 119, 120, 121, 124, 133, 134, 135, 155, 158, 161, 163, 164, 171,

182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 191, 193, 194, 198, 199, 201, 204, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 216, 218, 219, 220, 221, 234, 281, 286, 291, 301, 312, 314, 327, 338, 390, 394, 398, 437, 544, 549, 554, 562, 563, 596, 606, 610 Niches, 58, 118, 133, 134, 135, 158, 182, 183, 184, 185, 189, 190, 192, 206, 207, 209, 217, 286, 291, 301, 312 Nikae, 246, 247, 277, 458, 459, 466, 470, 511 Nile Festival building, 496, 595 Nilotic, 460, 467, 469, 503 Nimbus, 366, 414, 415, 500 Nisan, 340, 342, 343, 345, 354, 355, 356, 359, 372, 387, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577 Noah, 390, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 420, 430, 432, 434, 499 Noah’s Ark, 13, 272, 390, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 422, 428, 431, 432, 434, 462, 532, 612 Numismatic, 63, 69, 72, 74, 109, 111, 160, 161, 242, 539, 541, 545, 547, 587, 591, 592, 595, 597, 600, 605 Odysseus, 460, 467, 469 Offering/s, 405, 422, 427, 541, 559, 561, 563, 564, 565, 672 Office-holders, 558, 579, 580 Oil, 394, 425, 532, 545, 638, 647, 667 Oil press, 638 Old Testament, 414, 428, 429, 434 Olive branch/s, 171, 194, 356, 403, 407, 532 Omrit, 629 Onias, 665, 682 Opus sectile, 191, 250, 473 Orans, 406, 407, 418, 419, 432, 532 Orbiculum, orbiculi, 67, 391, 393, 409, 410, 412 Oriental, 41, 126, 235, 243, 249, 272, 273, 283, 458, 460, 463, 470, 606, 609, 615, 677, 680 Oriental art, 235, 249, 272, 273 Ornamentation, 41, 44, 49, 69, 100, 101, 125, 126, 133, 134, 136, 156, 160, 161, 162, 171, 194, 196, 207, 212, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 228, 230, 234, 235, 239, 240, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 252, 264, 281, 282, 283, 284, 286, 319, 320, 322, 389, 436, 447, 451, 467, 470, 472, 482, 483, 485, 486, 489, 511, 512, 514, 520, 526, 534, 574, 576, 592, 602, 605, 606, 609, 610, 611, 614, 615 Ornamentation, 39, 224, 243 Orpheus, 414, 415, 417, 418, 430, 431, 460, 466, 500 Ossuary/ ossuaries, 41, 209, 296, 297, 470, 471, 530, 650, 670, 671 Ostia, 19, 199, 204, 665, 666, 688, 690 Ottoman, 549, 619, 636, 652, 657 Ox, 254, 422, 424, 435, 436, 455 Pagan/s, 9, 204, 219, 220, 223, 283, 284, 323, 389, 397, 398, 417, 429, 430, 435, 436, 454, 455, 458, 466, 467, 481, 482, 490, 508, 511, 514, 520, 556, 573, 602, 603, 611, 615, 619, 661, 665, 666, 668, 669, 673, 675, 676 Pagan art, 397, 398, 430, 436, 455, 466, 467 Palestine, 15, 281, 526, 556, 561, 597, 602, 665, 668, 675, 677, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684, 685, 686 Pallium, 490, 567, 577 Palm, 40, 41, 213, 217, 236, 244, 254, 277, 315, 325, 327, 356 Palm branch, 325, 327, 418, 572 Palm tree/s, 41, 213, 236, 254, 277, 357, 391, 507 palmette/s, 233, 244 Palmyra, 218, 361, 374, 375, 381 Palmyrene, 431, 614 Paneas, 520



index

Paradise, 415, 422, 500 Parochet, 67, 186, 191, 202, 209, 210, 286, 288, 300 Passover, 300, 339 Patrons, 514, 519, 520, 534, 537 Pattern book/s, 248, 307, 414, 420, 422, 428, 429, 430, 431, 435, 455, 458, 461, 464, 466, 467, 472, 482, 503, 508, 509, 510, 511, 513, 514, 609, 613, 614, 615 Patterns, 431, 435, 466, 467, 470, 471, 472, 473, 482, 489, 492, 496, 499, 508, 509, 510, 513, 514, 526, 573, 609, 613, 614, 615, 651, 669 Peace, 421, 422, 470, 517, 521, 533 Peacock/s, 81, 84, 99, 105, 107, 121, 261, 265, 266, 269, 464, 465, 466, 501, 511, 534, 583 Pedestal/s, 471, 540, 547, 623, 626, 627, 644, 648, 667 Peki’in, 201, 202 Pendant, 571, 575, 576 Peplos, 576, 577 Personification/s, 66, 344, 357, 358, 378, 379, 381, 382, 460, 568, 573, 577, 578 Petra, 356, 452, 575, 681, 685 Pharaoh, 410, 493 Pharisees, 15, 47, 48 Philistines, 67, 252, 390, 409, 410, 412, 413, 493 Philo, 7, 8, 9, 20, 37, 322 Phocaea, 9 Phoenicia, 557, 675 Phoenician, 156, 206, 565, 651, 669 Phrygian, 407, 415 Phrygian cap, 415, 417 Pictor, 473, 474, 510 Pier/s, 629, 630, 632, 633, 637, 644, 646, 647, 648, Pilasters, 36, 59, 69, 116, 139, 142, 159, 161, 171, 193, 194, 226, 228, 236, 238, 245 Pilgrimage/s, 46, 62, 300, 325 Pillar/s, 398, 439, 441, 527, 637, 638, 670 Pisces, 280, 360, 361, 366, 368, 369, 372, 378, 466, 494 Piyyut, piyytim, 264, 382, 386, 420, 431, 520, 527, 529, 670, 671, 673, 681 Plant, 34, 40, 106, 115, 147, 178, 212, 234, 244, 269, 281, 293, 308, 338, 362, 435, 470, 472, 522, 568, 613 Plants, 185, 244, 288, 303, 340, 354, 381, 391, 403, 428, 435, 472, 490, 496, 499, 512, 570 Plaques, 334, 398, 461 Plaster, 31, 34, 40, 60, 61, 64, 65, 67, 69, 79, 80, 81, 84, 88, 93, 94, 99, 100, 108, 109, 110, 113, 114, 122, 150, 151, 159, 184, 186, 188, 199, 219, 224, 249, 250, 252, 296, 311, 517, 527, 588, 594, 596, 597, 622, 637, 641, 642, 670 Plaster floor, 34, 59, 60, 64, 65, 67, 70, 73, 81, 84, 108, 109, 110, 114, 151, 250, 252 Plastered, 28, 29, 34, 36, 44, 56, 58, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 83, 98, 113, 114, 115, 149, 150, 151, 157, 182, 185, 217, 249, 250, 335, 540, 543, 544, 559, 622, 641, 642 Polycandelon/s, 11, 190, 198, 330, 331 Pomegranate/s, 101, 212, 213, 233, 234, 247, 286, 303, 319, 320, 356, 357, 470, 570, 572, 575 Pool/s, 36, 121, 620, 622, 623, 626, 627, 629, 632, 633, 638, 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 646, 647, 648, 650, 652, 654, 667, 672, 673, 674, 676 Porch, 61, 318 Portal, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 69, 73, 79, 80, 83, 84, 86, 87, 100, 108, 109, 111, 122, 125, 133, 135, 136, 155, 156, 158, 159, 161, 173, 177, 178, 225, 226, 227, 228, 231, 233, 235, 236, 237,

729

238, 244, 283, 437, 439, 483, 484, 487, 596, 611, 636, 641, 642, 647, 649, 661, 667 Portals, 69, 71, 87, 100, 116, 118, 125, 126, 135, 155, 158, 161, 172, 173, 180, 181, 198, 210, 221, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230, 232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 277, 283 Porters, 408, 409 Portico, 30, 59, 60, 61, 69, 71, 72, 94, 114, 115, 118, 119, 125, 127, 136, 147, 155, 157, 249, 408, 439, 452, 622, 623, 626, 627, 629, 633, 637, 640, 641, 642, 646, 647, 648, 652, 657, 659, 660, 676 Posts, 34, 40, 186, 189, 190, 191, 210, 211, 212, 213, 217, 314 Posture, 391, 413, 414, 415, 418, 428, 430, 432, 456, 465, 494, 500, 503, 506, 510, 532, 614 Pottery, 23, 28, 33, 56, 58, 65, 66, 69, 72, 73, 81, 83, 108, 109, 110, 119, 159, 250, 275, 293, 331, 526, 537, 539, 544, 552, 553, 559, 583, 585, 587, 588, 589, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 602, 603, 629, 636, 637, 641, 652, 653, 654, 655, 657, 658, 668, 673 Power, 398, 399, 400, 417, 436, 447, 454, 498, 556, 557, 601, 612 Prayer/s, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 23, 25, 37, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 54, 56, 63, 109, 118, 120, 124, 151, 156, 163, 173, 191, 211, 220, 221, 224, 264, 285, 386, 390, 421, 430, 474, 503, 524, 533, 537, 538, 556, 567, 580, 588, 590, 610 Prey, 456, 511 Priest, 14, 219, 424, 517, 519, 523, 532, 558, 665, 672 Priestly, 33, 46, 48, 122, 171, 264, 292, 301, 313, 323, 346, 387, 424, 431, 523, 525, 527, 528, 529, 530, 602, 609, 617, 669, 670, 671, 672, 673 Priestly courses list, 122, 311, 414, 520, 521, 523, 527, 528, 529, 530, 533, 574, 609, 613, 619, 654, 668, 670, 671, 672 Priests, 6, 18, 292, 294, 300, 311, 333, 409, 514, 524, 529, 530, 669, 670, 671, 672, 673, 675, 676 Proseuche, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, 47, 49, 50, 665, 666 Protection, 398, 431, 538, 612 Psalmist, 415, 417 Psalms, 15, 517, 537 Ptolemaic, 8 Purification, 427, 524, 672, 673 Qabr Hiram, 381, 575, 577 Qanawat, 472, 629, 674 Qasrin, 79, 80, 83, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 100, 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 127, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 147, 148, 151, 154, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 168, 177, 180, 181, 192, 195, 226, 227, 232, 233, 234, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 252, 314, 335, 458, 465, 470, 471, 476, 478, 488, 519, 546, 552, 555, 557, 561, 562, 564, 565, 585, 595, 596, 597, 604, 605, 690 Qazion, 55, 136, 228, 229, 230, 523, 526, 527, 530, 585, 617, 619, 621, 622, 626, 627, 629, 638, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 648, 650, 651, 652, 654, 657, 660, 661, 663, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 671, 672, 673, 674, 675, 676, 678, 682, 683, 684 Qiryat Sefer, 23, 24, 34, 36, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49 Qumran, 37, 42, 43, 49, 339 Qusibiyye, 109, 111, 159, 277, 438, 445, 446, 447, 449, 455, 596, 604, 605 Rabbi/s, 18, 47, 63, 223, 284, 389, 517, 519, 537, 558, 580, 671, 672 Rabbinic, 16, 17, 322, 520, 567, 579, 602, 617, 669, 670, 680, 685, 688

730

index

Rabbinical, 20, 45, 223, 284, 285, 295, 389, 394, 399, 422, 573, 579 Rafid, 102, 105, 111, 147, 158, 159, 195, 196, 208, 439, 451, 466, 488, 604, 605, 607 Ram/s, 118, 198, 208, 218, 265, 328, 352, 361, 378, 390, 391, 393, 394, 395, 396, 398, 401, 421, 532 Rama, 458, 459, 470 Raqit, 198, 208, 234 Red Sea, 410, 493 Rehov, 133, 177, 181, 196, 212, 213, 249, 254, 272, 281, 282, 283, 311, 314, 331, 443, 445, 489, 517, 520, 521, 527, 534, 552, 555, 559, 560, 563, 611, 613, 670 Reliefs, 106, 108, 114, 160, 164, 192, 195, 196, 198, 201, 202, 207, 208, 239, 241, 242, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 276, 277, 278, 281, 292, 307, 317, 321, 324, 400, 430, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 443, 447, 449, 451, 458, 460, 466, 470, 471, 472, 485, 486, 488, 508, 593, 606, 607 Religious, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 26, 28, 32, 41, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 54, 62, 125, 156, 162, 163, 207, 209, 222, 223, 250, 264, 272, 284, 285, 311, 322, 323, 372, 381, 382, 388, 389, 390, 434, 435, 436, 454, 455, 456, 489, 492, 508, 514, 558, 567, 578, 579, 602, 603, 607, 609, 610, 611, 613, 665, 666, 672, 674, 676 Repertoire, 41, 106, 223, 241, 248, 265, 276, 284, 285, 288, 328, 331, 333, 344, 358, 389, 412, 430, 431, 432, 464, 470, 473, 508, 509, 510, 513, 514, 570, 573, 578, 612, 613, 615, 651 Representations, 389, 396, 398, 400, 407, 429, 431, 435, 441, 447, 460, 472, 482, 507, 567, 573, 611, 614 Rescue, 394, 400, 401, 405, 407, 410, 419, 430, 431, 432, 612 Revolt against Rome, 23, 51 Ribbon, 454, 567, 574, 661 Rimmon, H., 56, 58, 119, 133, 177, 182, 185, 250, 251, 331, 537, 552, 555, 559, 560, 563, 585, 610 Rings, 508, 567, 574 Rites, 23, 46, 47, 54, 155, 191, 221, 283, 285, 291, 323, 324, 388 Ritual, 30, 36, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 54, 76, 115, 155, 179, 191, 196, 212, 222, 272, 273, 283, 286, 288, 291, 293, 294, 296, 300, 301, 307, 310, 312, 314, 315, 318, 321, 322, 324, 328, 330, 388, 403, 434, 482, 490, 496, 509, 511, 530, 534, 561, 563, 565, 609, 611, 612, 641, 642, 672, 673 Ritual bath/s, 17, 44 Ritual objects, 13, 78, 115, 148, 179, 191, 196, 212, 272, 273, 283, 285, 286, 288, 289, 290, 301, 307, 312, 314, 315, 318, 321, 322, 324, 325, 327, 328, 330, 331, 333, 335, 338, 403, 434, 482, 490, 496, 509, 511, 534, 611, 612 Ritual utensils, 288, 291, 292, 311, 322, 324 Rituals, 530, 565, 580, 638, 672, 673, 674, 675 Role, 393, 397, 514, 523, 580, 581, 615, 665, 669, 670, 672, 673 Roman, 19, 26, 30, 49, 55, 56, 59, 63, 64, 66, 74, 109, 110, 113, 124, 128, 142, 146, 149, 151, 155, 162, 170, 206, 221, 228, 229, 233, 235, 246, 248, 272, 283, 284, 285, 313, 318, 321, 328, 330, 338, 356, 358, 362, 364, 368, 370, 373, 375, 381, 382, 388, 394, 395, 415, 429, 430, 447, 454, 456, 460, 466, 471, 473, 490, 513, 523, 525, 526, 527, 539, 544, 545, 547, 551, 555, 556, 573, 578, 581, 586, 587, 592, 594, 595, 599, 600, 602, 603, 607, 609, 611, 614, 615, 617, 618, 619, 620, 629, 630, 638, 641, 642, 644, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 657, 661, 663, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 672, 673, 674, 675, 676, 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689, 690 Romans, 30, 34, 36, 297

Rome, 23, 47, 50, 55, 56, 204, 205, 211, 292, 297, 298, 299, 321, 322, 323, 324, 333, 335, 338, 396, 400, 409, 410, 419, 429, 434, 441, 524, 525, 564, 568, 617, 666, 674, 675, 676, 677, 687, 688 Roof, 27, 28, 34, 59, 64, 66, 72, 74, 79, 84, 86, 88, 111, 113, 114, 118, 119, 122, 142, 152, 158, 162, 172, 194, 198, 204, 222 Rosette, 34, 39, 40, 41, 84, 97, 102, 115, 178, 192, 196, 217, 234, 236, 237, 247, 250, 278, 307, 308, 383, 439, 448, 462, 471, 526, 609 rosettes, 41, 171, 192, 194, 229, 232, 233, 243, 250, 254, 273, 470, 471, 661 Sabbath, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 17, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 312, 339, 383, 524, 672 Sacrifice, 5, 6, 13 Sacrifice of Isaac, 184, 394 Safed, 231, 443, 447, 452, 528, 617 Sages, 429, 563, 573, 574, 669, 673, 685 Sagittarius, 345, 360, 361, 362, 366, 367, 370, 372, 373, 383, 384, 385, 460, 466, 494, 497, 570 Salabe, 111, 135, 158 Salvation, 394, 396, 407, 434, 665 Samaria-Sebaste, 145, 520 Samaritan, 202, 204, 210, 211, 235, 286, 288, 333, 335, 336, 337 Samson, 67, 252, 390, 403, 407, 409, 410, 412, 413, 414, 430, 432, 493, 535 San Vitale in Ravenna, 402 Sanctity, 5, 6, 16, 18, 20 Sanctuary, 300, 330 Sarah, 260, 264, 355, 394, 401, 402, 569, 574 Sarcophagus, sarcophagi, 395, 396, 398, 400, 406, 407, 419, 434, 441, 458, 466, 470, 471 Sardis, 170, 177, 188, 191, 199, 204, 210, 220, 301, 302, 303, 306, 307, 322, 333, 338, 419, 518, 579 Saranda (Albania), 338 Sarona, 334 Savitan, 226 Scale, 254, 429, 509, 549 Scales, 230, 362, 384 Scarf, 357, 570 Schematic, 428, 437, 438, 439, 446, 454, 458, 471, 496, 503, 506, 510, 617, 619 Scholars, 301, 323, 324, 328, 331 Scholars, Scorpio, 359, 361, 362, 366, 367, 372 Screen/s, 12, 28, 61, 152, 181, 182, 186, 202, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 277, 314, 324, 330, 333, 334, 338 Scriptures, 6, 16 Scroll, 32, 41, 44, 56, 102, 170, 199, 204, 213, 220, 229, 238, 247, 261, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 273, 275, 303, 317, 333, 399, 422 Scrolls, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 56, 163, 164, 170, 192, 198, 199, 204, 205, 211, 216, 220, 234, 236, 237, 242, 243, 254, 261, 269, 317, 328, 338, 342, 382, 509 Sculpture, 307, 435, 436, 438, 445, 447, 488, 508, 511, 587, 606, 611, 614, 615 Sea goat/s, 249, 466, 467 Seals, 292, 330 Season, 264, 278, 342, 345, 346, 354, 358, 372, 490, 494, 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 620 Seasons, 64, 66, 79, 114, 278, 283, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 346, 352, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 370, 372, 373, 375, 378, 381, 382, 385, 386, 387, 388, 460, 490, 491, 493,



index

495, 496, 497, 532, 545, 552, 567, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 578, 611, 617, 619, 620 Seat of Moses, 120, 121, 171, 172, 174, 194, 206, 209, 217, 218, 220, 277, 301, 439, 476, 485, 486, 518, 531, 593 Second Temple, 5, 16, 17, 23, 24, 26, 28, 33, 36, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 150, 162, 205, 222, 248, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 300, 311, 318, 321, 323, 335, 339, 344, 461, 470, 526, 527, 669, 670, 678, 682, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689 Second Temple period, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 18, 23, 24, 26, 33, 36, 41, 43, 45, 46, 54, 55, 150, 162, 205, 222, 223, 248, 283, 284, 285, 292, 293, 297, 298, 321, 323, 325, 335, 339, 344, 389, 461, 470, 526, 609, 610, 613, 669, 670, 672 Seder Shemirat Shabbat, 383, 384 Sefer Evronot (A Book of Intercalations), 364, 382, 383, 384, 385 Selene, 375, 381 Seleucid, 547, 556 Sepphoris, 18, 19, 20, 76, 78, 79, 136, 155, 177, 182, 198, 199, 201, 202, 206, 254, 256, 259, 264, 265, 272, 273, 275, 286, 287, 288, 289, 301, 307, 308, 320, 327, 328, 331, 332, 333, 335, 337, 346, 347, 348, 349, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 401, 402, 410, 412, 417, 420, 422, 425, 427, 428, 430, 431, 432, 441, 443, 444, 446, 455, 460, 466, 474, 479, 481, 490, 493, 494, 495, 496, 509, 514, 518, 519, 527, 532, 534, 536, 553, 555, 558, 567, 570, 571, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 581, 595, 601, 602, 606, 612, 669, 670, 686 Septimius Severus, 407, 527, 585, 617, 659, 663, 666, 667, 668, 673, 674, 675, 676, 678 Septuagint, 405, 413, 414, 429 Serpent, 415, 424, 467, 500 Servant/s, 393, 394, 401, 402, 479, 537, 569, 574, 576 Seven, 292, 293, 294, 296, 298, 300 Severan Tondo, 664 Shalom (peace), 418, 420, 504, 532 Sheaf of corn, 355, 356 Sheaf of wheat, 356 Sheep, 396, 452, 456 Sheep, 397, 456 Shekhinah, 41, 322 Shellal, 276, 323, 464, 508 Shem, 403, 404, 405, 453, 532, 553, 589 Shem‘a, H., 17, 45, 57, 72, 73, 88, 133, 135, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 177, 180, 196, 231, 250, 310, 311, 452, 508, 553, 555, 557, 565, 586, 588, 589, 600, 601, 603, 627, 654, 686, 687 Shield, 409, 417 Shoes, 361, 390, 391, 393, 394, 409, 494, 497, 568, 577, 614 Shofar, shofaroth, 69, 147, 210, 251, 252, 269, 273, 275, 286, 288, 307, 308, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 322, 323, 324, 325, 327, 328, 329, 330, 333, 335, 338, 357, 403, 572, 611 Shovels, 273, 275, 328, 333 Showbread table, 41, 78, 99, 106, 210, 285, 292, 296, 297, 300, 312, 313, 324, 334, 335, 390, 394, 420, 425, 427, 431, 488 Sickle, 355, 356, 357, 378, 571, 572 Side, 199, 302, 310, 322 Sidon, 19 Signatures, 473, 474 Significance, 310, 322, 323, 389, 424, 427, 428, 435, 447, 463, 466, 472, 514, 526, 527, 530, 609, 611, 614, 669, 671, 672, 673, 674

731

Significant, 398, 400, 401, 414, 431, 435, 481, 524, 539, 553, 555, 562, 573, 574, 593, 609, 610, 671, 672, 676 Silver, 537, 545, 547, 551, 554, 557, 558, 559, 560, 564, 615 Simchat Beit HaShoevah, 672 Sinopia, 474 Sketch book/s, 464, 466, 509, 511, 512, 513, 612 Snake/s, 13, 415, 447, 448, 452, 465, 500, 661 Soldiers, 65, 252, 262, 407, 417, 493 Solomon, 210, 211, 218, 292, 293, 294, 339, 342 Solomon’s Temple, 211, 292, 293, 298, 300, 408 Solstice/s, 342, 354 Son, 393, 399, 400, 401, 473, 474, 476, 479, 480, 481, 482, 496, 499, 519, 523, 531, 535, 537, 538, 568, 570, 583, 665 Sons, 403, 405, 409, 424, 427, 432, 479, 480, 518, 527, 535, 558, 567, 663, 664 Soreg, 211, 216 South Judea, 55, 117, 119, 133, 142, 599 South Syria, 102, 147, 228, 243, 247 Sparta, 375, 376, 381 Spear, 391, 394, 409, 494 Spolia, 60, 62, 64, 73, 74, 103, 156, 157, 483, 587, 589, 593, 600, 601, 602, 603, 607, 615, 627 Spring, 37, 42, 43, 79, 157, 339, 341, 342, 343, 344, 354, 355, 356, 358, 359, 372, 375, 387, 490, 493, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577 Square, 321, 322 Stags, 334, 456 Staircase, 79, 113, 115, 152, 178, 182, 216 Star, 344, 345, 346, 361, 362, 366, 368, 382, 387, 388 State of Israel, 300, 324 Steps, 26, 58, 67, 69, 87, 114, 117, 118, 152, 168, 170, 172, 173, 180, 182, 183, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 192, 194, 210, 218, 219, 286 Stoa, 172, 217, 220 Stone, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 49, 56, 59, 61, 62, 65, 71, 72, 74, 76, 80, 81, 84, 86, 87, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 122, 124, 125, 136, 138, 147, 150, 151, 157, 159, 163, 164, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 178, 180, 181, 182, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, 199, 201, 202, 204, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 217, 218, 220, 221, 222, 224, 226, 228, 230, 234, 235, 243, 244, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 276, 277, 278, 286, 293, 296, 297, 300, 301, 302, 303, 307, 312, 317, 320, 321, 322, 331, 335, 336, 338, 339, 352, 361, 374, 375 Stonecutter, 408, 519 Stonemasons, 514 Straight, 318, 319, 321, 322 Stucco, 28, 59, 65, 106, 594 Study, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 19 Style, 395, 396, 405, 410, 417, 418, 420, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 446, 460, 463, 476, 481, 482, 483, 485, 486, 488, 489, 490, 492, 493, 496, 498, 499, 501, 503, 507, 509, 510, 513, 525, 533, 573, 574, 586, 590, 592, 593, 594, 596, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 609, 610, 612, 614, 615, 645, 651, 667 Stylization, 446, 463 Stylized, 41, 104, 106, 181, 195, 196, 200, 201, 206, 207, 208, 209, 212, 213, 243, 248, 249, 266, 269, 277, 288, 289, 312, 314, 317, 319, 320, 321, 322, 327, 328, 355, 370 Stylobate/s, 23, 28, 44, 56, 58, 60, 61, 63, 69, 74, 111, 114, 136, 139, 155, 161, 288, 588, 623, 625, 626 Succoth, 325, 327, 328, 339, 673 Sumaqa, 120, 122, 123, 133, 154, 226, 231, 232, 331, 441, 442, 553, 555, 601

732

index

Summer, 339, 340, 342, 354, 355, 356, 359, 372, 376, 378, 490, 494, 570, 571, 572, 574, 575, 576, 577 Sun, 275, 296, 297, 322, 342, 344, 345, 346, 353, 354, 355, 366, 368, 370, 371, 372, 373, 378, 379, 381, 382, 385, 386, 388, 424, 460, 504, 642 Sun dial, 296, 297, 321, 471 Sun god, 344, 346, 353, 366, 368, 370, 375, 381, 387, 388 Susiya, H., 12, 17, 18, 19, 117, 118, 119, 120, 128, 133, 136, 142, 152, 155, 158, 182, 183, 184, 189, 190, 191, 199, 201, 202, 206, 210, 212, 213, 214, 216, 249, 251, 256, 261, 263, 272, 273, 274, 276, 277, 278, 279, 281, 283, 286, 287, 288, 289, 301, 302, 304, 307, 309, 312, 314, 320, 330, 331, 333, 334, 338, 346, 354, 390, 397, 398, 399, 405, 418, 422, 441, 456, 457, 462, 471, 490, 509, 517, 518, 519, 532, 533, 534, 536, 558, 585, 599, 610, 611, 612 Sussita (Hipos), 520 Suweida, 134, 218, 220, 629, 674 Swastika, 56, 120, 251 Sword, 396, 409, 417 Symbol, 26, 163, 205, 206, 209, 216, 220, 247, 285, 286, 292, 300, 301, 312, 314, 322, 323, 324, 335, 356, 361, 382, 396, 397, 398, 399, 401, 415, 422, 446, 454, 455, 466 Symbolic, 41, 133, 200, 204, 207, 208, 209, 220, 223, 256, 263, 265, 272, 283, 284, 285, 286, 288, 291, 293, 296, 312, 313, 314, 315, 323, 324, 328, 334, 338, 386, 388, 389, 390, 394, 395, 396, 398, 405, 407, 417, 420, 422, 424, 428, 431, 432, 434, 435, 436, 454, 455, 464, 466, 467, 470, 472, 507, 509, 511, 530, 561, 564, 609, 611, 612, 613, 614 Symbolically, 5, 288, 311, 346, 384, 388 Symbolism, 205, 222, 263, 284, 322, 323, 324, 344, 386, 434, 435, 436, 455, 471 Symbols, 5, 16, 23, 41, 67, 73, 122, 142, 148, 210, 222, 228, 235, 244, 246, 252, 256, 260, 261, 264, 265, 267, 269, 272, 273, 281, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, 290, 291, 301, 312, 323, 324, 328, 335, 336, 338, 356, 358, 382, 397, 422, 428, 430, 435, 447, 466, 470, 482, 494, 496, 499, 503, 507, 508, 511, 512, 513, 514, 573, 605, 611, 612, 613, 615, 660 Symmetrical, 40, 173, 217, 234, 248, 266, 273, 276, 289, 291, 307, 310, 333, 428, 435, 436, 441, 446, 472, 496, 507, 508, 609, 614 Synagogal art, 204, 327, 328, 334, 335, 338 Synagogue, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 141, 142, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 170, 171, 173, 177, 178, 179, 182, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 198, 199, 202, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234, 235, 237, 239, 240, 241, 242, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 256, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 288, 289, 291, 296, 297, 300, 301, 302, 303, 307, 310, 311, 312, 314, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 327, 328, 330, 331, 333, 334, 335, 336, 338, 339, 343, 344, 345, 346, 352, 353, 355, 358, 362, 366, 370, 372, 373, 378, 381, 382, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401,

403, 404, 407, 409, 410, 412, 413, 414, 415, 417, 418, 420, 421, 422, 427, 428, 429, 430, 432, 434, 437, 438, 439, 441, 443, 446, 447, 451, 452, 454, 455, 456, 458, 460, 461, 462, 464, 465, 466, 470, 471, 472, 474, 476, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 488, 489, 490, 492, 493, 494, 496, 499, 500, 501, 503, 504, 506, 507, 508, 509, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 567, 573, 574, 577, 578, 579, 580, 581, 583, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 617, 627, 629, 638, 648, 649, 650, 651, 661, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670, 671, 673, 676, 680, 686, 688, 690 Synagogues, 23, 26, 34, 36, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 71, 72, 73, 76, 79, 88, 91, 100, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113, 116, 117, 119, 120, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 142, 146, 147, 149, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 168, 170, 173, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182, 183, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 195, 198, 199, 202, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 216, 217, 219, 220, 221, 222, 224, 225, 226, 228, 230, 233, 235, 237, 239, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 256, 266, 267, 269, 272, 276, 277, 281, 282, 283, 285, 286, 292, 301, 303, 307, 311, 312, 313, 318, 319, 322, 323, 326, 330, 331, 333, 335, 338, 346, 370, 371, 373, 382, 383, 385, 403, 412, 414, 418, 429, 430, 434, 436, 437, 447, 451, 454, 455, 456, 461, 464, 466, 470, 471, 481, 482, 483, 486, 488, 489, 490, 496, 503, 508, 509, 511, 513, 514, 517, 518, 523, 526, 532, 533, 534, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 546, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 567, 573, 574, 579, 580, 581, 583, 585, 586, 587, 589, 590, 592, 593, 595, 597, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 629, 638, 646, 648, 650, 651, 654, 661, 665, 667, 669, 670, 671, 672, 673, 675, 680 Syria, 103, 106, 109, 117, 126, 128, 162, 199, 218, 246, 248, 250, 269, 286, 381, 429, 451, 454, 465, 472, 481, 482, 485, 486, 488, 500, 501, 508, 515, 518, 590, 593, 597, 606, 610, 611, 629, 638, 641, 643, 651, 665, 667, 668, 675, 678, 681, 683, 685, 689 Syrian, 90, 100, 105, 107, 115, 126, 128, 134, 135, 136, 145, 155, 157, 161, 162, 196, 198, 206, 208, 221, 228, 235, 241, 246, 247, 248, 283, 288, 396, 435, 454, 455, 462, 471, 472, 481, 519, 592, 596, 602, 603, 610, 611, 614, 648, 651, 652, 669 Syrian gable, 116, 125, 126, 127, 128, 138, 157, 158, 171, 179, 192, 194, 195, 196, 202, 207, 208, 235, 239, 241, 288, 439, 451, 485 Tabernacle, 204, 205, 210, 211, 260, 264, 285, 292, 293, 294, 298, 300, 311, 312, 333, 334, 335, 390, 408, 420, 425, 427, 428, 431 Tabernacles, 300, 327, 328 Tabula ansata, 34, 40, 476, 517, 534 Tail, 405, 412, 418, 422, 437, 439, 446, 451, 464, 465, 511, 532 Talmud, 45, 251, 272, 317, 318, 319, 427, 481, 515, 520, 527, 613, 670, 689, 690 Talmudic, 6, 13, 14, 154, 223, 272, 284, 340, 342, 389, 466, 481, 520, 527, 558, 574, 580, 613, 669



index

Tammuz, 340, 342, 354, 355, 356, 359, 372, 571, 572, 574, 575, 576, 577 Targum, 11, 428, 670 Tasks, 473, 474, 579, 580 Taurus, 280, 359, 361, 362, 363, 372, 378 Tayibe, 225, 233, 234, 248, 470, 471, 604, 605 Tegea, 219 Tekufat, 339, 342, 354, 355, 356, 357, 394 Tel Menorah, 315 Telesterion, 45 Temple, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 34, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 54, 59, 113, 133, 139, 147, 149, 151, 160, 162, 163, 204, 205, 210, 211, 216, 221, 222, 223, 252, 263, 264, 284, 285, 286, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 300, 307, 311, 312, 313, 318, 319, 323, 324, 328, 330, 333, 334, 338, 342, 381, 386, 388, 389, 390, 407, 408, 410, 422, 427, 428, 429, 431, 434, 435, 436, 447, 471, 472, 493, 523, 525, 526, 529, 530, 564, 584, 601, 602, 604, 609, 610, 611, 615, 617, 619, 629, 630, 638, 641, 642, 643, 648, 650, 651, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 671, 672, 673, 674 Temple Mount, 34, 526 Temple vessels, 312, 324, 334 Temples, 45, 48, 134, 135, 145, 151, 162, 221, 228, 276, 283, 292, 429, 489, 514, 592, 602, 603, 615, 618, 619, 629, 638, 641, 648, 651, 666, 667, 669, 673, 674, 676 Ten Commandments, 389, 613 Tent, 294, 394 Terminus ante quem, 559, 590, 595 Terminus post quem, 540, 543, 552, 559, 588, 592, 595, 596, 598 Tesserae, 251, 276, 410, 412, 473, 493, 502, 506, 576 Tevet, 340, 342, 354, 355, 357, 360, 372, 490, 494, 569, 571, 572, 577 395, 410, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 422, 430, 431, 432, 436, 456, 464, 482, 493, 498, 509, 510, 511, 532, 567, 611, 613, 614 Theme, 390, 394, 395, 410, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 422, 430, 431, 432, 436, 456, 464, 482, 493, 498, 509, 510, 511, 532, 567, 611, 613, 614 Themes, 159, 223, 235, 239, 242, 265, 272, 279, 283, 284, 285, 346, 389, 412, 417, 429, 430, 432, 434, 456, 467, 469, 474, 482, 486, 489, 498, 507, 508, 509, 510, 513, 514, 607, 610, 612, 613, 614 Theodosian Code I, tit. VIII, 612 Theodotus inscription, 7, 9, 12, 19, 20, 41, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 523, 524, 525, 526 Thessaloniki, 377, 378, 379, 381 Threshold, 26, 59, 61, 71, 84, 87, 538, 539, 545, 547, 548, 551, 554, 561, 597, 630, 633, 634, 635, 636, 642, 650, 651, 661 Throne, 218, 219, 220, 361, 414, 415, 417, 435, 466, 497, 500, 568, 614 Thymiateria, 293 Tiara, 66, 571, 575, 578 Tiberias, 8, 9, 10, 11, 47, 49, 73, 74, 180, 183, 212, 213, 215, 229, 275, 277, 287, 289, 307, 308, 313, 314, 327, 334, 372, 441, 461, 476, 492, 519, 529, 558, 602, 627, 657, 659, 660, 668, 669 Tigress, 276, 456, 503 Tiles, 28, 59, 60, 64, 69, 72, 86, 88, 113, 114, 118, 119, 158, 250, 401, 546, 597, 638 Tishri, 328, 340, 341, 342, 343, 354, 356, 359, 571, 572, 573, 575, 576, 577 Titles, 517, 519, 520, 579, 580, 581, 663 Titus, 7, 292, 297, 298, 299, 324, 335

733

Tivoli, 381 Tomb/s, 79, 276, 301, 312, 323, 331, 338 Tombstones, 164, 204, 320, 321, 322, 334 Tongs, 288, 307, 333 Torah, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 28, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 56, 60, 67, 72, 80, 104, 108, 113, 122, 133, 150, 151, 162, 163, 164, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 176, 179, 185, 186, 189, 191, 192, 195, 196, 198, 199, 202, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 216, 217, 220, 221, 222, 234, 247, 272, 273, 285, 286, 288, 291, 301, 323, 331, 338, 343, 524, 531, 580, 611, 670, 673 Torah scrolls, 204, 205, 325, 333 Torah shrine/s, 5, 6, 16, 23, 46, 47, 49, 50, 54, 60, 67, 72, 73, 74, 78, 80, 85, 86, 88, 89, 104, 105, 108, 111, 113, 115, 118, 119, 120, 122, 124, 125, 133, 135, 147, 151, 155, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162, 163, 164, 170, 171, 172, 178, 179, 184, 185, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, 233, 236, 241, 251, 256, 259, 261, 263, 273, 274, 278, 279, 286, 288, 290, 301, 307, 310, 311, 312, 315, 322, 323, 324, 327, 328, 331, 333, 334, 390, 402, 418, 419, 428, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 441, 447, 451, 455, 456, 461, 464, 470, 487, 490, 493, 496, 499, 509, 511, 512, 513, 532, 547, 552, 554, 555, 560, 562, 593, 596, 606, 609, 610, 611, 612, 614, 651 Torch/es, 390, 412, 504, 567, 570 Tosefta, 55, 427, 558, 600 Tower, 407, 408 Trachon, 618, 674, 675, 688 Tradition/s, 292, 311, 334, 390, 417, 427, 428, 430, 432, 434, 435, 447, 466, 472, 474, 482, 510, 513, 514, 520, 529, 546, 567, 577, 579, 597, 605, 606, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615 Trajan, 56 Treasury, 540, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 554, 555, 559, 560, 562, 563, 565, 686 Tree, 390, 391, 393, 394, 401, 422, 424, 436, 441, 494 Tree of Life, 106, 107, 247, 322, 323 Triclinium, triclinia, 28, 29, 30, 36, 43, 162, 222, 375, 378 Tripartite, 230, 232, 257, 262, 263, 265, 272, 346, 483, 496, 609, 650 Triple entrances, 74, 133, 136, 642 Triple portals, 60, 122, 125, 134, 161, 221, 235, 238, 243, 283, 483, 629, 642, 667 Tripod, 307, 310, 317, 318, 319, 321, 322, 323, 335 Trumpets, 210, 297, 328, 335, 339, 425, 427, 532 Tunic/s, 67, 355, 356, 361, 391, 393, 396, 408, 409, 410, 412, 415, 417, 425, 490, 493, 494, 503, 567, 571, 576, 577 Turkey, 338, 403, 407, 422 Twelve Tribes, 390, 420, 422, 424 Tychaion Is-Sanamen, 127, 134, 228, 472, 638, 641, 673, 674 Tyre, 19, 156, 520, 551, 659, 689 Tyrian, 557, 565 Umayyad period, 79, 80, 118, 281, 595 Umm al-Rasas, 479 Umm el-Qanatir, 79, 103, 105, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 127, 135, 136, 138, 139, 142, 147, 148, 151, 154, 157, 158, 177, 178, 180, 192, 196, 197, 206, 209, 226, 246, 249, 250, 273, 307, 310, 335, 337, 438, 440, 443, 447, 451, 452, 470, 488, 598, 604, 605, 607, 648, 651, 678 Unidentical symmetry, 69, 179, 273, 275, 276, 291, 307, 308, 310, 327, 441, 472, 494, 609, 614

734

index

Value, 546, 551, 556, 557, 558, 560, 562, 563, 564, 567 Vase, 102, 110, 122, 147, 232, 236, 238, 248, 269, 275, 281, 307, 322, 324, 325, 328, 338, 378, 381, 436, 441, 442, 461, 464, 470, 471, 476, 507, 511, 512, 650 Veil, 182, 191, 198, 202, 206, 210, 234, 286, 288, 300, 567, 574, 577, 643 Vespasian, 7, 292 Vessel/s, 292, 293, 294, 298, 300, 405, 427, 430, 432, 461, 530, 552, 559, 565, 654, 656, 657, 671, 672 Via Latina, 396, 409, 410, 413 Vienna Genesis, 402, 407, 414 Villa Torlonia catacomb, 211 Village/s, 6, 10, 34, 36, 43, 45, 48, 51, 55, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 73, 79, 80, 81, 86, 90, 99, 100, 105, 109, 110, 111, 114, 157, 311, 398, 412, 465, 482, 507, 508, 510, 514, 517, 527, 529, 545, 551, 552, 555, 558, 596, 597, 601, 602, 603, 617, 622, 666, 667, 668, 670, 673 Vine, 85, 99, 102, 108, 232, 233, 236, 237, 245, 247, 249, 250, 254, 261, 264, 265, 266, 273, 315, 340, 356, 359, 422, 445, 454, 456, 460, 462, 464, 470, 483, 496, 501, 504, 507, 508, 611, 650, 651, 661 Vine branches, 102, 108, 232, 233, 245, 249, 250, 254, 265, 266 Vintage, 240, 241, 243, 245, 249, 277, 342, 359, 458, 460, 504, 507, 510, 511 Virgo, 280, 355, 359, 361, 364, 365, 370, 372, 394, 460, 497, 567, 568, 569, 570, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 614 Visit of the Angels to Abraham and Sarah, 78, 390

Winter, 339, 342, 354, 355, 357, 372, 375, 394, 490, 494, 569, 570, 571, 572, 574, 575, 576, 577 Woman, 10, 354, 385, 413, 497, 538, 558, 567, 568, 570, 576, 579, 581 Women, 66, 113, 154, 373, 378, 460, 481, 497, 514, 567, 569, 574, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 581 Workshop/s, 160, 213, 241, 242, 267, 269, 283, 307, 429, 451, 473, 474, 481, 482, 483, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 496, 490, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 512, 513, 514, 592, 593, 606, 614, 615 Worship, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21 Wreath/s, 13, 19, 69, 72, 73, 78, 85, 101, 102, 109, 148, 172, 194, 208, 212, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 236, 237, 242, 247, 248, 259, 260, 261, 273, 275, 277, 308, 314, 320, 355, 437, 441, 443, 447, 448, 450, 452, 455, 458, 466, 470, 483, 486, 490, 511, 519, 527, 533, 534, 536, 567, 570, 575, 577, 584, 596, 649, 650, 660, 661, 662, 663

Wall painting/s, 34, 54, 164, 204, 205, 210, 211, 218, 249, 321, 335, 389, 390, 391, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 409, 406, 410, 412, 417, 418, 419, 424, 427, 428, 429, 431, 434, 435, 461, 470, 568, 612, 613 Warrior/s, 431, 409, 460 Water, 425, 461, 467, 497, 504, 523, 524, 526, 614, 622, 640, 641, 642, 667, 672, 673 Waves, 396, 471 Weapons, 409, 417, 418 Wild ox, 422, 424 Willow, 327 Wind/s, 79, 345, 375, 378, 379, 381 Window, 60, 61, 84, 86, 90, 93, 94, 98, 99, 100, 105, 107, 109, 116, 117, 125, 126, 136, 137, 138, 158, 192, 195, 196, 207, 208, 235, 438, 451, 642 Wine, 427, 451, 458, 460, 672 Wings, 435, 439, 447, 448, 450, 451, 452, 454, 458, 463, 571

Zawitan, 111, 157, 158, 159, 605 Zealot/s, 30, 31, 33, 34, 43, 45, 50, 51 Zebra, 456 Zebu, 422 Zliten, North Africa, 490 Zodiac, 65, 78, 118, 252, 256, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 272, 275, 277, 278, 279, 280, 283, 291, 311, 339, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 358, 359, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 394, 407, 424, 431, 435, 441, 443, 455, 460, 466, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 509, 510, 511, 513, 514, 521, 530, 532, 534, 537, 538, 567, 569, 570, 573, 575, 577, 611, 612, 613, 614 Zumaimira, 111, 127, 136, 157, 158, 159, 196, 226, 246, 277, 439, 441, 605

Yahudiyye, 102, 109, 111, 135, 147, 158, 159, 160, 233, 234, 248, 470, 596, 604, 605 Yatta, 336 Year, 72, 311, 325, 328, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 358, 379, 381, 387, 388, 520, 521, 530, 540, 549, 573, 583, 585, 660, 661, 668, 670 Yehuda HaNasi, 110, 601 Yom Kippur, 328 Yonah, 403, 428 Youths, 391, 393, 394, 396, 401, 402, 460, 494, 496, 577

INDEX OF SOURCES Hebrew Bible Genesis 2:19–20 1, 2:1–3 1:14 6–8 8:10–20 8:11 8:18; 9:9–11 11:1–9 22:1–19 22:3 22:10–11 22:11 22:12–13 22:13 22:16 22:19 30:14 45:6 49:13 49:19 49:20 49:21 49:27

415, 432, 500 339 339 402, 408 402 14–19, 403 405 408 398 401 391 400 532 393 22, 536 391, 393, 401, 402 424 339 424 424 424 424 424

Exodus 3 3:2 3:5 3:20 9:22–26 12:2 12–14 13:3 13:4 14:24–28 14:25 14:31 15:4 20:4 20:5 23:15 25 25:23–30 25:31 25:31–40 25:33–36 25:38 25:31 25:31–40 25:32 25:37 25:23–30 25–26 26:35 27:20 27:20–21

399 400 390 400 399 343 399 9, 14, 16, 400 343 410 410 400 410 285 272, 613 343 335 334, 427 293 294 319 328 295 292, 293 295 300 427 408 300 293 300

28:17 28:21 28:34 29 29:38–42 29:39–40 29:4; 40:12 30:7–8 30:8 31:8 34:18 37:10–16 37:17–24 39:37 40:2 40:24–25

424 424 425 427 675 425, 427 672 300 300 293 343 427 294 293 17, 343 300

Leviticus 8:6 16:4 23:5 24:1–4 24:2 24:5–6 24:6

672 24, 26, 672 343 300 293 334 427

Numbers 2:2 4:7 7 8:1–4 8:4 10:10 10:1–3 28:4–5 28:11 28:16

424 334, 427 427 300 293 339, 427 427 425, 427 339 343

Deuteronomy 4:19 5:1–9 7:19 5:8 16:1 26 28:6 33:13–16 33:17 28:6

346 272, 613 399 285 343 427 72, 533 424 424 447

Joshua 5:15

390

Judges 13:2–5 14–16 15:4-5

25, 413 413 412, 413

736

index of sources

15:6 15:8 15:15 15:15–17 16:3

413 413 413 409 413

I Samuel 3:3 16:23

293, 323 415, 417

I Kings 4:7 5:31–32; 6 7:48–49 7:49 8:4 17:17–24 17:22 18:46

339 408 298 293, 300 292, 294, 298, 300 399 400 400

II Kings 23:5

345, 361

Isaiah 3:18–23 11:6 13:10 47:13 65:25

574 421, 422 345 346 72, 421, 422, 533

Jeremiah 39:8

13

Ezekiel 8:1 1:5–12; 10:20–21 1:7 10 10:14 10:20–21 41:18–20

3, 400 435 435 435 436 435 25, 436

Amos 7:1–4 8:1–2

Daniel 1:11 5:23 6:15–24 10:10

19, 533 536 418 399

Ezra 1:7–11

294

Nehemiah 1:1 2:1

342 342

I Chronicles 1:1–4 9.32 12:32 23:29 24:7–19

521 334 424 334 311, 670

II Chronicles 4:7 4:7 13:11 29:18

300 20–21, 293 293, 300 334

Second Temple Jewish Writing 1 Enoch 72:4–5 82:16–19

75:4, 345 342

2 Enoch 2:11 24:7 30

51, 346 9, 342 345

I Macc. 1:21 4:49–52 4:49 4:49–57

292, 294 294 300 292

342 342

II Macc. 10:6

292

Zechariah 1:7 2:1 4:2–3 14:16–18

342 342 294 325

Masada Texts Book of Deuteronomy (MasDeut (1043/1–4 [Mas 1c] Book of Ezekiel (MasEzek (1043—2220) [Mas 1 d]

Psalms 74:8 125:5

13 533

Job 19:21 38:32

399 345

Esther 2:16 3:7 8:9 9:1

342 13, 342 12, 342 15, 17, 19, 21, 342

Qumran Texts 1QSx.7 4Q385 6 [earlier 4]) 6Q17i. 1–2 Damascus Document (CD xi.21–xii.1) Historical Work (4Q333) Works on the horoscope (4Q183, 4Q186, 4Q318, 4Q561) Zodiology and Brontology (4Q318)

32 32 342 436 339 37 342 346 342



index of sources

Josephus Against Apion 2.10–12 2.175 2.193

8 7, 47, 50, 524 5

Antiquities I.81 3.139–141 3.144–146 3.144–146 3.165–170 3.215–218 4.201 7.365 8.100 8.89–90 8.90 12.250 12.319, 325–326 12:388 13:64–72 13.67 15 19.6.3, 300–305 19.300, 305 19.300 20:236

343 334 295, 300 294 424 424 5 670 325 294 300 292 292 14 14 665 417 9 7 8 14

Life 134, 294–295 277 277, 279, 280, 290–303 279 280, 290–303 War 1.31–33 1:33; 7:431–432 2.285–290 2.285–289 2.14, 285–289

737

5.193–4 5.216–17 5.217 6.124–5 7.148–50 7.148–9 7.5, 5

211 292 322 211 292 294 297

Philo Mos. 2 On the Life of Moses II 24:123–124 OmnProbLib81 Prob. 81–2

102, 105, 322 346 9 49

New Testament Matthew 12:9 13:54

7 7

Mark 1:21 1:21 3:1 6:2

7 23, 29, 7 7 7

49 8 47 8 8

Luke 4:15 4:16–22 4:17–20 4:33 6:6 7:1 7:5 8:41 13:10

16, 20, 28, 7 7 524 39, 7 7 7 7, 526 7 7

665 14 8 7 9

Acts 3:15 6:9 13:13–16 15:21 18:7

524 49, 525 7 7, 50, 524 526

Rabbinic Literature Mishna (M) Berachot 2 4:4

3, 538 16

Shabbat 6:1

567

Yoma 3, 10

330

Sukkah 4:8 5a

672 672

Rosh Hashanah 1.1

343

Megillah 3 4a, 47

16 524

Sanhedrin 12:2–13:1

342

Avodah Zarah 5, 6

675

Tamid 3.9

300

Middoth 2.3

211

Kelim 11, 8

574

738

index of sources

Tosefta (T) Sukkah 4:1, 5 4, 5

672 7

Taʿanit 2.1

670

Megillah 4:15

558

Menahot 11:15

427

Sanhedrin 2:2

342

Jerusalem Talmud (JT) Berakhot 8, 7, 12b

617, 669

Shabbat 6, 8b

Rosh HaShana 1:56d 16a

342 672

574

Sheqalim 6, 40, 50b

Beiza 5, 4, 63b

617, 669

294

Sukkah 5, 2, 55b

672

Megillah 2a 3, 1, 73d

302 7

Abodah Zarah 42b

251

Babylonian Talmud (BT) Rosh Hashanah 24b

292, 318

Hagiga 13b

436

Sukkah 51b–52a, 53a

672

Ketubot 105a

7

Beitza 22a

295

Sanhedrin 29a

482, 515

Taʿanit 9

292

‘Abodah Zarah 43a

292, 318

Megila 27a, 47 29a

524 46

Menahot 28b 98b

292, 318 294