1. O
DIVERSITY O
IN O
THE O
ANCIENT O
SYNAGOGUE O
OF O
ROMAN O
BYZANTINE O
PALESTINE O
HISTORICAL O
IMPLICATIONS O
Lee O
I. O
Levine O
(The O
Hebrew O
University O
of O
Jerusalem) O
Synagogue O
remains O
from O
Roman O
Byzantine O
Palestine O
far O
exceed O
those O
from O
the O
early O
Roman O
period. O
Of O
the O
more O
than O
one O
hundred O
sites O
with O
such O
remains O
almost O
90 O
percent O
date O
to O
Late O
Antiquity O
and O
display O
a O
remarkable O
diversity O
relating O
to O
almost O
every O
facet O
of O
the O
institution. O
Some O
structures O
were O
monumental O
and O
imposing O
(e.g. O
Capernaum) O
while B-LOC
others O
were O
modest O
and O
unassuming O
(e.g. O
Khirbet O
Shema‘); B-LOC
some I-LOC
had O
a O
basilical O
plan O
with O
the O
focus O
on O
the O
short O
wall O
at O
one O
end O
of O
the O
hall O
(e.g. O
Meiron) O
while B-LOC
others O
having O
a O
broadhouse O
plan O
were O
more O
compact O
with O
the O
focus O
on O
the O
long O
wall O
(e.g. O
Susiya); O
some O
faced B-LOC
Jerusalem O
as O
evidenced O
by O
their O
façades O
and O
main O
entrances O
(the O
Galilean O
type) O
and O
others O
were O
oriented O
in O
this O
direction O
via O
their O
apses O
niches O
or O
podiums O
with O
their O
main O
entrances O
located O
at O
the O
opposite O
end O
of O
the O
hall O
(e.g. O
Bet O
Alpha); O
some O
were O
very B-LOC
ornate O
(e.g. O
Hammat O
Tiberias) O
while O
others B-LOC
were I-LOC
far O
more O
modestly O
decorated O
(e.g. O
Jericho). O
No O
matter O
how O
close B-LOC
to O
one O
another O
geographically O
or O
chronologically O
no O
two O
synagogues O
were O
identical O
in O
their O
plan O
size O
or O
decoration. O
1.0. O
The O
Once O
Regnant O
Architectural O
Theory O
This O
recognition O
of O
widespread O
diversity O
among O
synagogues O
is O
at O
odds O
with O
the O
once O
widely O
accepted O
theory O
regarding O
the O
© O
Lee O
I. O
Levine O
CC O
BY O
4.0 O
https O
//doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0219.01 O
4 O
Diversity O
and O
Rabbinization O
development O
of O
the O
Palestinian O
synagogue O
in O
Late O
Antiquity. O
For O
generations O
archaeologists O
had O
accepted O
as O
axiomatic O
a O
twofold O
and O
later O
threefold O
typological O
classification O
of O
synagogue O
buildings O
based O
upon O
chronological O
and O
architectural O
considerations O
the O
Galilean O
type O
synagogue O
(e.g. O
Chorazim O
and O
Capernaum) O
was O
generally O
dated B-LOC
to O
the B-LOC
late I-LOC
second O
or O
early O
third O
centuries; O
the O
transitional O
broadhouse O
type O
(e.g. O
Eshtemoa O
and O
Khirbet O
Shema‘) O
to O
the O
late B-LOC
third I-LOC
and O
fourth B-LOC
centuries; I-LOC
and O
the O
later O
basilical O
type O
(e.g. O
Bet O
Alpha) O
to O
the O
fifth O
and O
sixth O
centuries O
(Fig. B-LOC
1). O
However O
a O
plethora O
of O
archaeological O
discoveries O
since O
the O
last O
third O
of O
the O
twentieth O
century O
has O
seriously O
undermined O
this O
neat O
division O
that O
coupled O
typology O
with O
chronology. O
First O
and O
foremost O
the O
findings O
of O
the O
Franciscan O
excavations O
at O
Capernaum O
redated O
what O
had O
been O
considered O
the B-LOC
classic I-LOC
‘early’ O
synagogue O
from O
the O
second–third O
centuries O
to O
the O
late O
fourth O
or O
fifth O
century. O
Soon O
thereafter O
excavation O
results O
from O
the O
synagogues O
at O
Khirbet O
Shema‘ O
and O
nearby O
Meiron O
dated O
both O
of B-LOC
these I-LOC
structures I-LOC
to O
the B-LOC
latter I-LOC
half O
of O
the O
third O
century O
even O
though O
each O
typifies O
a O
very O
different O
architectural O
style O
according O
to O
the O
regnant O
theory O
(Fig. O
2). O
Nahman O
Avigad’s O
decipherment O
of O
the O
previously O
enigmatic O
Nevoraya O
(or O
Nabratein) O
synagogue O
inscriptions O
indicates B-LOC
clearly B-LOC
that O
the O
building O
was O
constructed O
in O
the O
sixth O
century O
(564 O
CE) O
while O
the O
evidence O
from O
the O
Meiron O
synagogue O
attests O
to O
a O
late O
third O
or O
early B-LOC
fourth O
century O
date. O
Throughout O
the O
1970s O
and O
1980s O
other O
‘Galilean’ O
type O
synagogues O
(Horvat O
Ammudim O
Gush O
Halav O
and O
Chorazim) O
were O
similarly B-LOC
dated I-LOC
to B-LOC
the I-LOC
late I-LOC
third O
or B-LOC
early I-LOC
fourth O
century. O
Finally O
excavations O
conducted O
in O
the O
Golan O
date O
all O
the O
local O
synagogues O
(now O
numbering O
around O
thirty O
Gamla O
excepted) O
to O
the O
fifth O
and O
sixth O
centuries.1 O
1 B-LOC
Zvi I-LOC
U. O
Ma‘oz O
‘Golan’ O
in O
The O
New O
Encyclopedia O
of O
Archaeological O
Excavations O
in O
the O
Holy O
Land O
ed. O
by O
Ephraim O
Stern O
4 O
vols. O
(Jerusalem O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society; O
Carta O
1993) O
II O
539–45; O
Zvi O
U. O
Ma‘oz O
‘The O
Art O
and O
Architecture O
of O
the O
Synagogues O
of O
the O
Golan’ O
in O
Ancient O
Synagogues O
Revealed O
ed. O
by O
Lee O
I. O
Levine O
(Jerusalem O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society O
Fig. O
1 O
Three O
stage O
chronological O
development O
of O
Palestinian O
synagogues O
Top O
Capernaum. O
Lee O
I. O
Levine O
ed. O
Ancient O
Synagogues O
Revealed O
13. O
Courtesy O
of O
the O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society. O
© O
All O
rights O
reserved. O
Middle O
Eshtemoa. O
Lee O
I. O
Levine O
ed. O
Ancient O
Synagogues O
Revealed O
120. O
Courtesy O
of O
the O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society. O
© O
All O
rights O
reserved. O
Bottom O
Bet O
Alpha. O
Eleazar O
Lipa O
Sukenik O
The O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
of O
Beth O
Alpha O
(Jerusalem O
Hebrew O
University O
1931). O
Courtesy O
of O
the O
Institute O
of O
Archaeology O
The O
Hebrew O
University O
of O
Jerusalem. O
© O
All O
rights O
reserved. O
6 O
Diversity O
and O
Rabbinization O
Fig. O
2 O
Plans O
of O
two O
neighbouring O
third O
century O
synagogues O
Meiron O
(top); O
Khirbet O
Shema‘ O
(bottom). O
Courtesy O
of O
Eric O
Meyers. O
© O
All O
rights O
reserved. O
1981) B-LOC
98–115; O
Roni B-LOC
Amir I-LOC
‘Style I-LOC
as O
a O
Chronological O
Indicator O
On O
the O
Relative O
Dating O
of O
the O
Golan O
Synagogues’ O
in O
Jews O
in O
Byzantium O
ed. O
by O
Robert O
Bonfil O
(Leiden O
Brill O
2012) O
339–71; O
Dafna O
Meir O
and O
Eran O
Meir O
Ancient O
Synagogues O
of O
the O
Golan O
(Jerusalem O
Yad O
Izhak O
Ben O
Zvi O
2015) O
27–29 O
(Hebrew). O
1. O
Diversity O
in O
the O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
of O
Roman O
Byzantine O
Palestine O
7 O
Thus O
the O
earlier O
linear O
approach O
linking O
each O
type O
of O
building O
to O
a O
specific O
historical O
period O
can O
clearly O
be O
put O
to O
rest. O
Diversity O
in O
synagogue O
architecture O
indeed O
reigned O
throughout O
this O
era O
as O
it O
did O
in O
other O
aspects O
of O
synagogue O
life. O
The O
social O
implications O
of O
this O
phenomenon O
will O
be O
addressed O
below.2 O
2.0. O
Orientation O
Synagogues O
constructed O
throughout O
Late O
Antiquity O
were O
oriented O
almost O
universally O
toward O
Jerusalem. O
The O
relatively O
few O
entrances O
oriented O
eastward O
seem O
to O
preserve O
an O
early O
tradition O
(t. O
Meg. O
3.22 O
ed. O
Lieberman O
360) O
derived O
from O
the O
memory O
of O
the O
Jerusalem O
Temple’s O
entrance O
gates. O
Presumably O
based O
on O
several O
scriptural O
references O
(1 O
Kgs O
8.29–30; O
Isa. O
56.7; O
Dan. O
6.11) O
such O
an O
orientation O
was O
widely O
followed O
in O
Jewish O
communities O
while O
Galilean O
synagogues O
in O
Roman O
Byzantine O
Palestine O
faced O
south O
those O
in O
the O
southern O
part O
of O
the O
country O
faced O
north O
and O
those O
in O
the O
southern O
Judaean O
foothills O
(the O
Shephelah) O
faced O
northeast. O
There O
are O
also O
some O
interesting O
and O
enigmatic O
deviations O
from O
this O
norm; O
for O
example O
all O
the O
Late O
Roman O
Byzantine O
synagogues O
in O
the O
Golan O
faced O
either O
south O
or O
west O
but O
none O
(except O
Gamla) O
was O
oriented O
to O
the O
southwest O
i.e. O
directly O
toward O
Jerusalem. O
A O
number O
of O
synagogues O
such O
as O
the O
Horvat O
Sumaqa O
building O
on O
the O
Carmel O
range O
which O
was O
built O
along O
a O
largely O
east O
west O
axis O
may O
have O
exhibited O
a O
somewhat O
‘deviant‘ B-LOC
orientation O
although O
one O
might O
claim O
that O
it O
may O
have O
been O
intended O
to O
face O
southeast O
toward O
Jerusalem. O
The O
Lower O
Galilean O
synagogue O
of O
Japhia O
also O
lies O
on O
an O
east O
west O
axis O
and O
its O
excavators O
assume O
that O
it O
was O
probably O
oriented O
to O
the O
east. O
Moreover O
the O
Sepphoris B-LOC
and O
Bet O
Shean O
synagogues O
the O
latter O
located O
just O
north O
of O
the O
Byzantine O
city O
wall O
(Fig. O
3) O
had O
a O
northwesterly O
2 B-LOC
Lee I-LOC
I. I-LOC
Levine O
The B-LOC
Ancient I-LOC
Synagogue O
The O
First O
Thousand O
Years O
2nd O
ed. O
(New O
Haven O
CT O
Yale O
University O
Press O
2005) O
319–24; O
idem O
Visual O
Judaism O
in O
Late O
Antiquity O
Historical O
Contexts O
of O
Jewish O
Art O
(New O
Haven O
CT O
Yale O
University O
Press O
2012) O
394–402. O
8 O
Diversity O
and O
Rabbinization O
Fig. O
3 O
Two O
synagogues O
facing O
northwest O
away O
from O
Jerusalem O
Left O
Bet O
Shean O
A. O
Nehemiah O
Zori O
‘The O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
at O
Beth O
Shean’ O
Eretz O
Israel O
8 O
(1967) O
149–67 O
(155). O
Courtesy O
of O
the O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society. O
© B-LOC
All I-LOC
rights I-LOC
reserved. O
Right O
Sepphoris. O
Courtesy O
of O
Zeev O
Weiss. O
Drawing O
by O
Rachel O
Laureys. O
© O
All O
rights O
reserved. O
orientation O
decidedly O
away O
from O
Jerusalem. O
Even O
if O
one O
were O
to O
assume O
that O
the O
Bet O
Shean O
building O
was O
Samaritan O
(as O
has O
been O
suggested O
by O
some) O
we O
would O
encounter O
the O
same O
problem O
for O
Samaritans O
built O
their O
synagogues O
oriented O
toward B-LOC
Mount I-LOC
Gerizim O
which O
would O
have O
dictated O
a O
southern O
orientation. O
At O
present O
we O
have O
no O
way O
of O
determining O
why O
these O
particular O
synagogues O
faced O
northwest. O
Such O
an O
explanation O
in O
fact O
may O
not O
have O
been O
based O
on O
halakhic O
or O
ideological O
considerations O
but O
rather O
on O
much O
more O
mundane O
ones O
such O
as O
ignorance O
(however O
unlikely) O
indifference O
convenience O
(topographical O
or O
otherwise) O
or O
the O
need O
to O
conform O
to O
an O
as O
yet O
unidentified O
local O
factor. O
Nevertheless O
despite O
these O
instances O
of O
diversity O
the O
overwhelming O
majority O
of O
synagogues O
discovered O
in O
Roman O
Byzantine O
Palestine O
display O
the O
accepted O
practice O
of O
orientation O
toward O
Jerusalem. O
1. O
Diversity O
in O
the O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
of O
Roman O
Byzantine O
Palestine O
9 O
Such O
an O
orientation O
is O
clearly O
an O
expression O
of O
Jewish O
particularism. O
The O
façades O
of O
sacred O
buildings O
in O
antiquity O
be O
they O
pagan O
temples O
or O
Christian O
churches O
regularly O
faced O
east O
toward O
the O
rising O
sun O
as O
did O
the O
Desert O
Tabernacle O
and O
the O
two O
Jerusalem O
Temples. O
In O
the O
Second O
Temple O
period O
however O
such O
obvious O
parallels O
with O
pagan O
worship O
became O
problematic O
and O
a O
ceremony O
was O
reportedly O
introduced O
on O
the O
festival O
of O
Sukkot O
to O
underscore O
the O
difference O
between O
pagan O
and O
Jewish O
orientation; O
as O
a O
result O
it O
is O
claimed O
that O
Jews O
demonstratively O
abandoned O
this O
practice O
and O
faced O
west O
inside O
the O
Temple O
precincts O
(m. O
Suk. O
5.4). O
Diversity O
is O
clearly O
evident O
in O
many O
other O
architectural O
components O
of O
the O
Roman O
Byzantine O
synagogue O
including O
atriums O
water O
installations O
entrances O
columns O
benches O
partitions O
balconies O
bimot O
tables O
platforms O
special O
seats O
as O
well O
as O
the O
Torah O
shrine O
eternal O
light O
and O
menorah. O
3.0. O
Art O
3.1. O
The O
Local O
Factor O
Diversity O
is O
likewise O
a O
distinct O
feature O
of O
ancient O
synagogue O
art. O
For O
instance O
despite O
geographical O
and O
chronological O
propinquity O
Capernaum O
is O
worlds O
apart O
from O
Hammat O
Tiberias O
as O
Rehov O
is O
from O
Bet O
Alpha O
and O
as O
Jericho O
is O
from O
Naʿaran. O
The O
cluster O
of O
five O
synagogue O
buildings O
that O
functioned O
simultaneously O
in O
sixth O
century O
Bet B-LOC
Shean O
and O
its O
environs O
is B-LOC
a I-LOC
striking I-LOC
case O
in B-LOC
point O
as O
they B-LOC
differ I-LOC
from O
each B-LOC
other I-LOC
in O
the O
languages B-LOC
used O
building O
plans O
and O
architecture. O
These O
include O
Bet O
Shean O
A O
just O
north O
of O
the O
city O
wall B-LOC
Bet I-LOC
Shean O
B O
near O
the O
southwestern O
city O
gate O
Bet O
Alpha O
to O
the O
west O
Maʿoz O
Hayyim O
to O
the O
east O
and O
Rehov O
to O
the O
south. O
The O
artistic O
representations O
in O
these O
synagogues B-LOC
are O
about O
as O
disparate O
as O
one O
could B-LOC
imagine I-LOC
ranging O
from O
the O
strictly O
conservative O
to O
the O
markedly O
liberal. B-LOC
At I-LOC
the O
former O
end O
of O
the B-LOC
spectrum O
stands O
the O
Rehov O
building O
with O
its O
geometric O
mosaics. O
However O
the O
mosaic O
floor O
in O
the O
prayer O
room O
of O
the O
Bet O
Shean O
B O
synagogue O
features O
inhabited O
scrolls O
and O
10 O
Diversity O
and O
Rabbinization O
figural O
representations O
of O
animals O
alongside O
an O
elaborate O
floral O
motif. O
The O
mosaic O
floor O
in O
a O
large O
adjacent O
room O
containing O
panels O
with O
scenes O
from O
Homer’s O
Odyssey O
is O
most O
unusual O
depicting O
the O
partially O
clad O
god O
of O
the O
Nile O
together O
with O
Nilotic O
motifs O
(a O
series O
of O
animals O
and O
fish) O
and O
a O
symbolic O
representation O
of O
Alexandria O
with O
its O
customary O
Nilometer. O
No O
less O
extensive O
artistic O
representations O
were O
found O
in O
the O
Bet O
Alpha O
synagogue O
which O
incorporates O
Jewish O
and O
pagan O
motifs O
that O
are O
expressed O
through O
Jewish O
symbols O
the O
zodiac O
signs O
and O
the O
Aqedah O
scene. O
Although O
the O
same O
artisans O
Marianos O
and O
his O
son O
Hanina O
laid O
the B-LOC
mosaic I-LOC
floors O
in O
both O
the O
Bet O
Alpha O
and O
Bet O
Shean O
A O
synagogues O
the O
style O
and O
content O
at O
each O
site O
are O
strikingly O
different. O
This O
is O
a O
clear O
example O
of O
two O
neighbouring O
communities O
choosing O
contrasting O
floor O
designs O
(possibly O
from O
pattern O
books B-LOC
or O
oral B-LOC
reports I-LOC
then O
in O
circulation) O
(Fig. O
4). O
Clearly O
then O
the O
floors O
of O
these O
Bet O
Shean O
synagogues O
ranging O
from O
strictly O
aniconic O
patterns O
to O
elaborate O
representations O
of O
Jewish O
and O
non O
Jewish O
figural O
motifs O
allow O
us O
to O
safely O
posit O
that O
the O
local O
context O
of O
the O
synagogue O
in O
Late O
Antiquity O
is B-LOC
the I-LOC
key O
to O
understanding O
this O
diversity O
in O
Jewish O
art. O
However O
while O
this O
factor O
is O
the O
most O
crucial O
component O
several O
additional O
considerations O
had O
an O
impact O
on O
the O
choices O
made O
by O
the O
local O
communities. O
3.2. O
The O
Regional O
Factor O
3.2.1. O
The O
Galilee O
While O
diversity O
is O
well O
attested O
in O
all O
regions O
of O
Palestine O
Galilean O
regionalism O
is O
particularly O
evident O
when O
distinguishing O
between O
characteristics O
of O
the O
Upper O
and O
Lower O
Galilee. O
The O
Upper O
Galilee O
is O
more O
mountainous O
has O
more O
rainfall O
and O
poorer O
roads O
and O
is O
therefore O
dotted O
with O
villages O
and O
small O
towns O
but O
no O
cities. O
As O
a O
result O
the O
synagogues O
in O
this O
region O
with O
but O
a O
few O
exceptions O
adopted O
a O
culturally O
more O
conservative O
and O
insular O
bent O
expressed O
by O
a O
more O
limited O
use O
of O
Greek O
fewer O
figural O
representations O
and O
only O
a O
smattering O
of O
Jewish O
symbols. O
The O
Upper O
Galilee O
produced O
many O
of O
the O
so O
called O
Galilean O
type O
synagogues O
Fig. O
4 O
Mosaic O
floors O
from O
three O
sixth O
century O
synagogues O
in O
the O
Bet O
Shean O
area. O
Top O
halakhic O
inscription O
from O
Rehov. O
Lee O
I. O
Levine O
Ancient O
Synagogues O
Revealed O
147. O
Courtesy O
of O
the O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society. O
© O
All O
rights O
reserved. O
Bottom O
left O
Nilotic O
themes O
from O
Bet O
Shean O
B. O
Nehemiah O
Zori O
‘The O
House B-LOC
of O
Kyrios O
Leontis O
at O
Beth O
Shean’ O
Israel O
Exploration O
Journal O
16 O
(1966) O
123–34. O
Courtesy O
of O
the O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society. O
© O
All O
rights O
reserved. O
Bottom O
right O
zodiac O
from O
Bet O
Alpha. O
Nahman O
Avigad O
‘Beth B-LOC
Alpha’ I-LOC
in O
The O
New O
Encyclopedia O
of O
Archaeological O
Excavations O
in O
the O
Holy O
Land O
ed. O
by O
Ephraim O
Stern O
4 O
vols. O
(Jerusalem O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society; O
Carta O
1993) O
I O
190–92. O
Courtesy O
of O
the O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society. O
© B-LOC
All O
rights O
reserved. O
12 O
Diversity O
and O
Rabbinization O
which O
are O
characterized O
by O
monumental O
entranceways O
oriented O
toward O
Jerusalem O
large O
hewn O
stones O
flagstone O
floors O
stone O
benches O
along O
two O
or O
three O
sides O
of O
the O
main O
hall O
several O
rows O
of O
large O
columns O
and O
stone O
carvings O
appearing O
primarily O
on O
the O
buildings’ O
exterior O
(door O
and O
window O
areas O
capitals O
lintels O
doorposts O
friezes O
pilasters O
gables O
and O
arches) O
and O
to O
a O
lesser O
extent O
on O
their O
interior O
(Fig. O
5). O
However O
for O
all O
the O
similarities O
between O
these O
synagogues O
they O
also O
displayed O
many O
differences. O
Gideon O
Foerster O
has O
summed O
up O
his O
study O
of O
the O
Galilean O
type O
buildings O
as O
follows O
“Studying O
the O
art O
and O
architecture O
of O
the O
Galilean O
synagogues O
leads O
one O
to O
conclude O
that O
these O
synagogues O
are O
a O
local O
original O
and O
eclectic O
Jewish O
creation.”3 O
In O
contrast O
the O
Jewish O
communities O
in O
the O
Lower O
Galilee O
present O
a O
very O
different O
cultural O
panorama. O
Flanked O
by O
the O
two O
urban O
centres O
Sepphoris O
on O
the O
west O
and O
Tiberias O
on O
the O
east O
the O
region’s O
more O
navigable O
terrain O
contained O
better O
roads O
and O
consequently O
allowed O
for O
closer O
ties O
with O
the O
neighbouring O
non O
Jewish O
cities O
and O
regions. O
Thus O
the O
prominence O
of O
Greek O
across O
the O
Lower O
Galilee—from O
the O
synagogues O
in O
Tiberias O
(where O
ten B-LOC
of I-LOC
the O
eleven O
dedicatory O
inscriptions O
are O
in O
Greek) O
and O
Sepphoris O
(where O
thirteen O
of O
twenty O
four O
inscriptions O
are O
in O
Greek) O
and O
further O
west O
to O
the O
Bet O
Sheʿarim O
necropolis O
(where O
over O
80 O
percent O
of O
approximately O
three O
hundred O
inscriptions O
are O
in O
Greek)—reflects O
a O
cosmopolitan O
dimension O
very O
different O
from O
the O
more O
provincial O
Upper B-LOC
Galilee O
(Fig. O
6). O
Rare O
is O
the O
site O
that O
does O
not O
have O
some O
sort O
of O
artistic O
representation O
be O
it O
the O
zodiac O
a O
cluster O
of O
Jewish O
symbols O
(Tiberias O
and O
Sepphoris) O
biblical O
scenes O
(Sepphoris O
Khirbet O
Wadi O
Hamam O
and O
Huqoq) O
or O
what O
might O
be O
animal O
representations O
of O
the O
tribes O
of O
Israel O
(Japhia). O
Thus O
the O
varied O
topographical O
geographical O
and O
climatic O
elements O
in O
the O
Upper O
and O
Lower O
Galilee O
created O
dramatically O
different B-LOC
demographic O
cultural O
and O
artistic O
milieux. B-LOC
3 B-LOC
Gideon I-LOC
Foerster I-LOC
‘The O
Art B-LOC
and I-LOC
Architecture O
of O
the O
Synagogue O
in O
Its O
Late O
Roman O
Setting’ O
in O
The O
Synagogue O
in O
Late O
Antiquity O
ed. O
by O
Lee O
I. O
Levine O
(Philadelphia O
American O
Schools O
of O
Oriental O
Research O
1987) O
139–46 O
(144). O
1. O
Diversity O
in O
the O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
of O
Roman O
Byzantine O
Palestine O
13 O
Fig. O
5 O
The O
Capernaum O
synagogue. O
Top O
Façade O
reconstruction. O
Heinrich O
Kohl O
and O
Carl O
Watzinger O
Antike O
Synagogen O
in O
Galilaea O
(Leipzig O
Heinrichs O
1916). O
Public O
Domain. O
Bottom O
aerial O
view. O
Courtesy O
of O
the O
Institute O
of O
Archaeology O
The O
Hebrew O
University O
of O
Jerusalem. O
© O
All O
rights O
reserved. O
Fig. O
6 O
Eight O
Greek O
dedicatory O
inscriptions O
on O
the O
mosaic O
floor O
of O
the O
Hammat O
Tiberias O
synagogue. O
Moshe O
Dothan O
Hammath O
Tiberias O
(Jerusalem O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society O
1983) O
plates O
10/11. O
Courtesy O
of O
the O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society. O
© O
All O
rights O
reserved. O
14 O
Diversity O
and O
Rabbinization O
Fig. O
7 O
Menorah O
carved O
on O
a O
decorated O
capital O
from O
the O
ʿEn O
Neshut O
synagogue. O
Zvi O
U. O
Ma‘oz O
‘‘En B-LOC
Neshut’ I-LOC
in O
The O
New O
Encyclopedia O
of O
Archaeological O
Excavations O
in O
the O
Holy O
Land O
ed. O
by O
Ephraim O
Stern O
4 O
vols. O
(Jerusalem O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society; O
Carta O
1993) O
II O
412–14. O
Courtesy O
of O
the O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society. O
© O
All O
rights O
reserved. O
3.2.2. O
The O
Golan O
About O
thirty O
known B-LOC
Golan I-LOC
type O
synagogues O
from O
Late O
Antiquity O
are O
in O
many O
respects O
similar O
to O
the O
Galilean O
type O
buildings O
as O
both O
utilized O
much O
the O
same O
architectural O
features O
and O
building O
techniques. O
Nevertheless O
the O
differences O
between O
them O
are O
not O
inconsequential.4 O
The O
Golan O
type O
buildings O
were O
constructed O
of O
local O
basalt O
(unlike O
the O
limestone O
used O
in O
a O
number O
of O
Galilean O
type O
synagogues) O
and O
all—with O
the O
exception O
of O
e O
Dikke—had O
a O
single O
entrance O
oriented O
in O
different O
directions. O
In O
contrast O
to O
the O
Galilean O
type O
building O
in O
which O
its O
usual O
three O
entrances O
almost O
invariably O
faced O
south O
the O
interior O
of O
the O
Golan O
type O
synagogues O
was O
oriented O
either O
to O
the O
south O
or O
west O
as O
noted O
above. O
Column O
pedestals O
and O
heart O
shaped O
corner O
columns O
ubiquitous B-LOC
in O
the O
Galilee O
are O
absent O
from O
the O
Golan. O
The O
artistic O
differences O
4 O
Ma‘oz O
‘Art O
and O
Architecture O
of O
the O
Synagogues O
of O
the O
Golan’ O
98–115; O
Meir O
and O
Meir O
Ancient O
Synagogues; O
Amir O
‘Style O
as O
a O
Chronological O
Indicator’ O
339–71. O
1. O
Diversity O
in O
the O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
of O
Roman O
Byzantine O
Palestine O
15 O
between O
the O
synagogues O
of O
the O
Upper O
Galilee O
(Capernaum O
and O
Chorazim O
aside) O
and O
the O
Golan O
are O
also O
quite O
blatant O
the O
latter O
displaying O
a O
wider O
range O
of O
figural O
art O
including O
animal O
human O
and O
mythological O
representations. O
Moreover O
the O
widespread O
use O
of O
religious O
symbols O
in O
the O
Golan O
first O
and O
foremost O
the O
menorah O
(often O
accompanied O
by O
the O
shofar O
lulav O
ethrog O
and O
incense O
shovel) O
stands B-LOC
in O
striking B-LOC
contrast O
to O
their O
limited O
appearance O
in O
the O
Upper O
Galilee O
(Fig. O
7). O
3.2.3. O
The O
Southern O
Judaean O
Foothills O
Four O
synagogues O
discovered O
in O
the O
twentieth O
century—Eshtemoa O
Susiya O
Maʿon O
and O
Anim—can O
be O
characterized O
as O
a O
distinct O
architectural O
group O
on O
the O
basis O
of O
their O
entrances O
facing O
east O
the O
absence O
of O
columns O
and O
the O
presence O
of O
a O
bima O
niche O
or O
combination O
thereof. O
Despite O
this O
unusual O
commonality O
these O
buildings O
also O
exhibit O
a O
large O
degree O
of O
diversity—two O
are O
broadhouse O
type O
buildings O
(Eshtemoa O
and B-LOC
Susiya) O
and O
two B-LOC
are O
basilica O
type O
structures O
(Anim O
and O
Maʿon). O
Interestingly O
while O
this O
eastward O
orientation O
was O
scrupulously O
followed O
in O
the O
southern O
Judaean O
foothills O
it O
was O
generally O
ignored O
elsewhere O
in O
Palestine.5 O
The O
relative O
prominence O
of O
priests O
in O
the O
southern O
Judaean O
synagogues O
is O
likewise O
noteworthy. O
Priests O
are O
mentioned O
in B-LOC
dedicatory I-LOC
inscriptions B-LOC
at O
both O
Eshtemoa O
and O
Susiya; O
while O
these B-LOC
numbers B-LOC
are O
not O
large O
they O
become O
more O
significant O
in O
light O
of O
the O
fact O
that O
priests O
are O
noted O
in O
inscriptions O
from O
only O
two O
other O
synagogues O
elsewhere O
in O
Palestine. O
The O
prominence O
of O
the O
menorah O
in O
these O
synagogues O
is O
also O
notable. O
Three O
of O
the O
four O
southern O
Judaean O
synagogue O
buildings O
(Eshtemoa O
Susiya O
and O
Maʿon) O
had O
three B-LOC
dimensional O
menorot O
each O
made O
of O
marble O
imported O
from O
Asia O
Minor O
while O
those O
in O
Eshtemoa O
and O
Maʿon O
reached O
the O
height O
of O
a O
human O
being O
and O
may O
have O
been O
used O
inter O
alia O
for O
illuminating O
the O
sanctuary O
(Fig. O
8). O
Three O
dimensional O
menorot O
5 O
Steven O
H. O
Werlin O
Ancient O
Synagogues O
of O
Southern O
Palestine O
300–800 O
C.E. O
Living O
on B-LOC
the I-LOC
Edge O
(Leiden B-LOC
Brill B-LOC
2015) O
135–221. O
16 O
Diversity O
and O
Rabbinization O
were O
found O
at O
only O
four O
other O
sites O
throughout O
Palestine—Horvat B-LOC
Rimmon B-LOC
En O
Gedi O
Hammat O
Tiberias O
and O
possibly O
a O
fragment O
of O
one O
at O
Merot.6 O
Fig. O
8 O
Reconstruction O
of O
a O
marble O
menorah O
from O
the O
Ma‘on O
synagogue. O
N. O
Slouschz O
‘Concerning O
the O
Excavations O
and/or O
the O
Synagogue O
at O
Hamat– O
Tiberias’ O
Journal O
of O
the O
Jewish O
Palestine O
Exploration O
Society O
1 O
(1921) O
5–36 O
(32). O
Courtesy O
of O
the O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society. O
© O
All O
rights O
reserved. O
The B-LOC
above I-LOC
features O
distinguishing O
the B-LOC
communities O
of O
southern O
Judaea O
may O
indicate B-LOC
that O
the O
Jews O
there O
being O
quite O
distant O
from O
the O
centres O
of O
contemporary O
Jewish O
settlement O
in O
the O
north O
clung O
to O
local O
traditions O
revealing O
a O
priestly O
orientation O
associated O
with O
the O
memory O
of O
the O
Jerusalem O
Temple. O
The O
synagogues O
south O
of O
the O
Upper O
Galilee O
and O
Golan O
tended O
to O
be O
quite O
ornate O
owing O
primarily O
to O
the O
ubiquitous O
use O
of O
mosaic O
floors O
throughout O
the O
Galilee O
and O
Bet O
Shean O
areas O
the O
Jordan O
Valley O
the O
coastal O
region O
and O
even O
parts O
of O
Judaea. O
The O
earliest O
traces O
of O
mosaic O
floors O
in O
a O
synagogue O
from O
relatively O
simple O
geometric O
patterns O
to O
more O
sophisticated O
motifs O
and O
figural O
scenes O
date O
to O
late O
antiquity O
but O
figural O
representations O
6 O
Ibid. O
291–319. O
1. O
Diversity O
in O
the O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
of O
Roman O
Byzantine O
Palestine O
17 O
became O
widespread O
only B-LOC
from I-LOC
the O
fourth O
century O
on. O
The O
archaeological O
finds O
reflect O
this O
development O
and O
neatly O
dovetail O
with O
one O
rabbinic O
tradition O
“In O
the O
days O
of O
Rabbi O
Abun O
[fourth O
century] O
they O
began O
depicting O
[figural O
images] O
on O
mosaic O
floors O
and O
he O
did O
not O
object” O
(y. O
Avod. O
Zar. O
3.3 O
42d O
together O
with O
the O
Genizah O
fragment O
of O
this O
tradition O
published O
by O
Jacob O
N. O
Epstein O
‘Yerushalmi O
Fragments’ O
Tarbiz O
3 O
[1932] O
15–26 O
[p. O
20] O
[Hebrew]). O
Fig. O
9 O
Part O
of O
the O
mosaic O
floor O
in O
the O
Jericho O
synagogue. O
Photo O
by O
Gilead O
Peli. O
© O
All O
rights O
reserved. O
Beginning O
with O
the O
late O
fourth O
century O
synagogue O
at O
Hammat O
Tiberias O
most O
mosaic O
floors O
were O
divided O
into O
a O
unique O
three O
panel O
arrangement O
although O
some O
synagogues O
featured O
an O
overall O
carpet O
with O
no O
internal O
division. O
The O
mosaic O
floor O
at O
Jericho O
for O
example O
depicts O
geometric O
and O
floral O
designs O
as O
well O
as O
a O
stylized O
Torah O
chest O
in O
the O
centre B-LOC
(Fig. O
9) O
while O
the O
En O
Gedi O
mosaic O
displays O
four O
birds O
in O
its O
centre O
surrounded O
by O
a O
carpet O
of O
geometric O
designs. O
The B-LOC
floors I-LOC
of O
three O
synagogues—Gaza O
nearby O
Maʿon O
(Judaea) O
and O
Bet O
Shean O
B—are O
decorated O
with O
carpets O
featuring O
inhabited O
scroll O
patterns O
and O
vine O
tendrils O
issuing O
from O
18 O
Diversity O
and O
Rabbinization O
Fig. O
10 O
The O
Aqedah O
(Binding O
of O
Isaac) O
scene O
in O
the O
Bet O
Alpha O
synagogue. O
Eleazar O
Lipa O
Sukenik O
The O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
of B-LOC
Beth O
Alpha O
(Jerusalem O
Hebrew O
University O
1931). O
Courtesy O
of O
the O
Institute O
of O
Archaeology O
The O
Hebrew O
University O
of O
Jerusalem. O
© O
All O
rights B-LOC
reserved. O
Fig. O
11 B-LOC
Figure I-LOC
of O
David O
from O
the O
Gaza O
synagogue. O
Courtesy O
of O
the O
Institute O
of O
Archaeology O
The O
Hebrew O
University O
of O
Jerusalem. O
© O
All O
rights O
reserved. O
1. O
Diversity O
in O
the O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
of O
Roman O
Byzantine B-LOC
Palestine O
19 O
Fig. O
12 O
Figure O
of O
Samson O
from O
the O
Huqoq O
synagogue. O
Courtesy O
of O
Jodi O
Magness. O
Photograph O
by O
Jim O
Haberman. O
© O
All O
rights O
reserved. O
an O
amphora O
creating O
a O
series O
of O
medallions. O
The O
latter O
contained O
inter O
alia O
baskets O
of O
bread O
and O
fruit O
cornucopiae O
grape O
clusters O
flowers O
animals O
and O
birds O
as O
well O
as O
a O
row O
in O
the O
centre O
of O
the O
mosaic O
depicting O
a O
variety O
of O
bowls O
vases O
baskets O
with O
fruit O
and O
cages O
with O
birds.7 O
The O
depiction O
of O
biblical O
scenes O
on O
the O
mosaic O
floors B-LOC
of O
Palestinian O
synagogues O
is O
quite O
striking. O
Although O
these O
are O
less O
common O
than O
the O
clusters O
of O
Jewish O
symbols O
they O
appear O
nonetheless O
in O
disparate O
regions O
of O
the O
country O
and O
include O
the O
Aqedah O
(Bet O
Alpha O
Sepphoris; O
Fig. O
10) O
David O
(Gaza O
and O
probably O
Merot; O
Fig. O
11) O
Daniel O
(Susiya O
Naʿaran O
and O
perhaps O
En O
Semsem O
in O
the O
Golan) O
the O
crossing O
of O
the O
Red O
Sea O
(Khirbet O
Wadi O
Hamam O
Huqoq) O
Aaron O
and O
the O
Tabernacle O
Temple O
appurtenances O
and O
offerings O
(Sepphoris) O
Samson O
(Khirbet O
Wadi O
Hamam O
Huqoq; O
Fig. O
12) O
and O
possibly O
symbols O
of O
the O
tribes O
(Japhia).8 O
7 O
Rachel O
Hachlili O
Ancient O
Mosaic O
Pavements O
Themes O
Issues O
and O
Trends— O
Selected O
Studies O
(Leiden O
Brill O
2009) O
111–47. O
8 O
Levine O
Visual O
Judaism O
348–54; O
and B-LOC
below. O
20 O
Diversity O
and B-LOC
Rabbinization O
4.0. O
Languages O
The B-LOC
use O
of O
Hebrew O
Greek O
and O
Aramaic O
in O
a O
variety O
of B-LOC
combinations I-LOC
is I-LOC
revealing B-LOC
with O
regard O
to O
the O
cultural O
orientation O
of O
a O
given O
community. O
Inscriptions B-LOC
were O
written B-LOC
in I-LOC
the I-LOC
languages I-LOC
spoken O
by O
the O
Jews O
in O
a O
given O
area; O
Greek O
and O
Aramaic O
generally O
predominated O
in O
Palestine O
while O
Hebrew O
was O
a O
less O
significant O
component O
that O
seems O
to O
have O
occupied O
a O
central O
role O
at O
several O
sites O
in O
the O
Upper O
Galilee O
and O
southern O
Judaea. O
Broadly O
speaking O
Hebrew O
and O
Aramaic O
were O
used O
in O
areas O
having O
a O
dense O
Jewish O
population O
particularly O
in O
the O
rural O
areas O
of O
Palestine O
while O
Greek O
was O
more O
dominant O
on O
the O
coast O
and O
in O
the O
big O
cities. O
Synagogue O
inscriptions O
are O
invariably O
short O
usually O
no O
more O
than O
ten O
to O
twenty O
words. O
While O
some O
five O
hundred O
inscriptions O
indeed O
relate O
to O
the O
ancient O
synagogue O
and O
its O
officials O
some O
60 O
percent O
of O
them O
come O
from O
the O
Diaspora. O
Inscriptions O
served O
several O
purposes. O
At O
times O
they O
were O
used O
as O
legends O
(tituli) O
for O
identifying O
specific O
artistic O
depictions O
such O
as O
those O
in O
Hebrew O
that O
invariably O
accompany O
the O
representations O
of O
the O
zodiac O
signs O
and O
seasons O
(e.g. O
Hammat O
Tiberias O
Bet O
Alpha O
Sepphoris O
and O
Naʿaran) O
or O
biblical O
figures O
and O
scenes. O
Moreover O
שלום( O
the O
Jericho O
synagogue O
inscription O
contains O
a O
biblical O
phrase O
Ps. O
125.5) O
and O
the O
Merot O
synagogue O
inscription O
quotes—על O
ישראל O
a O
complete O
verse O
(Deut. O
28.6). O
Inscriptions O
may O
also O
have O
been O
instrumental O
in O
fostering O
memories O
of O
the O
past O
and O
hopes O
for O
the O
future. O
This O
is O
particularly O
true O
of O
the O
lists O
of O
the O
twenty O
four O
priestly O
courses O
that O
have O
been O
found O
in O
both O
Palestine O
and B-LOC
the I-LOC
Diaspora. I-LOC
Their B-LOC
presence B-LOC
seems O
to B-LOC
have I-LOC
been O
intended O
to O
maintain O
and O
bolster O
national O
religious O
memories B-LOC
and O
aspirations.9 O
One O
inscription O
from O
En O
Gedi O
lists O
in O
its O
opening O
paragraph O
the O
Fathers O
of O
the O
World O
according O
to O
1 O
Chron. O
1 O
the O
names O
of O
the O
zodiac O
signs O
the O
months O
of O
the O
year O
the O
three O
biblical O
patriarchs O
the O
three O
friends O
of O
Daniel O
and O
three O
donors O
to O
the O
synagogue. O
The O
main O
section O
of O
the O
inscription O
instructs O
the O
members O
of O
the O
community O
on O
how O
to O
relate O
to O
each O
other O
as O
well O
9 O
Levine O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
239 O
520–21. O
1. O
Diversity O
in O
the O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
of O
Roman O
Byzantine O
Palestine O
21 O
Fig. O
13 O
Inscription O
on O
a O
mosaic O
floor O
in O
the O
En O
Gedi O
synagogue. O
Lee O
I. O
Levine O
Ancient O
Synagogues O
Revealed O
141. O
Courtesy O
of O
the O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society. O
© O
All O
rights O
reserved. O
as O
to O
the O
outside O
world O
particularly O
with O
regard O
to O
the O
“secret O
of O
the O
community O
” O
warning O
them O
of O
the O
dire O
consequences O
of O
not O
acting O
according O
to O
its O
guidelines O
(Fig. O
13).10 O
10 O
Lee O
I. O
Levine O
‘The O
Inscription O
in O
the O
‘En O
Gedi O
Synagogue’ O
in O
Ancient O
Synagogues O
Revealed O
ed. O
by O
Lee O
I. O
Levine O
(Jerusalem O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society O
1981) O
140–45; O
see O
also O
Jodi B-LOC
Magness O
‘The O
En O
Gedi O
Synagogue O
Inscription O
Reconsidered’ O
in O
Eretz O
Israel O
31 O
(2015) O
123*–31*. O
A O
line O
by O
line O
translation O
of O
the O
inscription O
reads O
as O
follows O
(1) O
Adam O
Seth O
Enosh O
Kenan O
Mahalalel O
Jared O
(2) O
Enoch O
Methuselah O
Lamech O
Noah O
Shem O
Ham O
and O
Japheth O
(3) O
Aries O
Taurus O
Gemini O
Cancer O
Leo O
Virgo O
(4) O
Libra O
Scorpio O
Sagittarius O
Capricorn O
Aquarius O
and O
Pisces. O
(5) O
Nisan O
Iyar O
Sivan O
Tammuz O
Av O
Elul O
(6) O
Tishrei O
Marheshvan O
Kislev O
Tevet O
22 O
Diversity O
and O
Rabbinization O
Most O
synagogue O
inscriptions O
are O
dedicatory O
in O
nature; O
a O
benefactor O
would O
commemorate O
his O
or O
her O
gift O
to O
the O
synagogue O
thereby O
gaining O
prestige O
and O
fulfilling O
a O
religious O
vow O
to O
serve O
the O
common O
good.11 O
Occasionally O
the O
names O
of O
the O
artisans O
such O
as O
Marianos O
Hanina O
and O
Yosi O
Halevi O
are O
recorded O
in O
inscriptions; O
the O
first O
two O
as O
noted O
above O
laid O
the O
mosaic O
floors O
of O
the O
synagogues O
at O
Bet O
Alpha O
and O
Bet O
Shean O
while O
the O
third O
“made O
the O
lintel” O
in O
the O
synagogues O
at O
Alma O
and O
Barʿam O
in O
the O
Upper O
Galilee.12 O
Inscriptions O
mentioning O
the O
date O
of O
a O
building’s O
construction O
or O
renovation O
are O
historically O
invaluable O
though O
unfortunately O
rare. O
The O
various O
dates O
invoked O
might O
include O
the O
reign O
of O
an O
emperor O
(Bet O
Alpha) O
a O
municipal O
era O
(Gaza O
Ashkelon) O
the O
creation O
of O
the O
world O
(Susiya O
Bet O
Alpha) O
sabbatical O
years O
(Susiya) O
or O
the O
Shevat O
(7) O
and O
Adar. O
Abraham O
Isaac O
and O
Jacob. O
Peace. O
(8) O
Hananiah O
Mishael O
and O
Azariah. O
Peace O
unto O
Israel. O
(9) B-LOC
May I-LOC
they O
be B-LOC
remembered I-LOC
for O
good O
Yose O
and O
Ezron O
and O
Hiziqiyu O
the O
sons O
of O
Hilfi. B-LOC
(10) O
He B-LOC
who O
causes O
dissension O
within O
the O
community O
or O
(11) O
speaks O
slanderously O
about O
his O
friend O
to O
the O
gentiles O
or O
steals O
(12) O
something O
from O
his O
friend O
or O
reveals O
the O
secret O
of O
the O
community O
(13) O
to O
the O
gentiles—He O
whose O
eyes O
observe O
the B-LOC
entire O
world O
(14) O
and O
who B-LOC
sees B-LOC
hidden I-LOC
things O
will O
turn O
His O
face O
against B-LOC
that B-LOC
(15) I-LOC
fellow O
and O
his O
offspring O
and B-LOC
will O
uproot O
them O
from O
under O
the O
heavens. O
(16) O
And O
all O
the O
people O
said O
“Amen O
Amen O
Selah.” O
(17) O
Rabbi O
Yose O
the O
son O
of O
Hilfi O
Hiziqiyu O
the O
son O
of O
Hilfi O
may O
they O
be O
remembered O
for O
good O
(18) O
for O
they O
did O
a O
great O
deal O
in O
the O
name O
of O
the O
Merciful O
Peace. O
11 O
Tessa O
Rajak O
‘Jews O
as O
Benefactors’ O
in O
Studies O
on O
the O
Jewish O
Diaspora O
in O
the O
Hellenistic O
and O
Roman O
Periods O
ed. O
by O
Benjamin O
Isaac O
and O
Aharon O
Oppenheimer O
(Teʿuda O
12; O
Tel O
Aviv O
Ramot O
Publishing O
1996) O
17–38. O
12 O
Joseph O
Naveh O
On O
Stone O
and O
Mosaic O
The O
Aramaic O
and O
Hebrew O
Inscriptions O
from O
Ancient O
Synagogues O
(Jerusalem O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society; O
Carta O
1978) O
nos. O
1 O
3 O
and O
4 O
(Hebrew); O
Leah O
Roth O
Gerson O
The O
Greek O
Inscriptions O
from O
the O
Synagogues O
in O
Eretz O
Israel O
(Jerusalem O
Yad O
Izhak O
Ben O
Zvi O
1987) O
nos. O
4 O
and O
5 O
(Bet O
Alpha O
and O
Bet O
Shean) O
(Hebrew); O
Joseph O
Naveh O
‘Ancient O
Synagogue O
Inscriptions’ O
in O
Ancient O
Synagogues O
Revealed O
ed. O
by O
Lee O
I. O
Levine O
(Jerusalem O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society O
1981) O
133–39 O
(137) O
(Alma O
and O
Barʿam). O
1. O
Diversity O
in O
the O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
of O
Roman O
Byzantine O
Palestine O
23 O
Jerusalem O
Temple’s O
destruction O
(Nabratein). O
The O
unique O
halakhic O
inscription O
from O
Rehov O
south O
of O
Bet O
Shean O
features O
laws O
relating O
to O
the O
sabbatical O
year O
listing O
the O
areas O
in O
Palestine O
to O
be O
included O
in O
its O
observance O
and O
the O
fruits O
and O
vegetables O
prohibited O
to O
Jews O
during O
that O
year.13 O
Another O
inscription O
from B-LOC
the I-LOC
synagogue O
in B-LOC
Jericho O
acknowledges O
donations O
by O
its O
congregants O
in O
poetic O
language O
reminiscent O
of O
later O
Jewish O
prayers O
that O
offer O
a O
blessing O
to O
an O
entire O
congregation.14 O
5.0. O
The O
Liturgical O
Evidence O
The B-LOC
liturgy O
adopted O
by O
a O
given O
synagogue O
was O
likewise O
a O
local O
decision. O
The O
implementation O
of O
the O
Palestinian O
triennial B-LOC
Torah O
reading O
cycle O
for O
example O
varied O
from B-LOC
one O
locale O
to O
the O
next; O
sources O
from O
Late O
Antiquity O
indicate O
that O
these O
readings O
might O
have O
been O
divided O
into O
141 O
154 O
155 O
167 O
and O
possibly O
175 O
portions O
over O
a O
three O
to O
three O
and O
a O
half O
year O
cycle.15 O
The O
Babylonian O
Torah O
reading O
practice O
concluded O
in B-LOC
just I-LOC
one O
year O
is O
evidenced O
in O
Palestine O
as O
well. O
This O
diversity O
is O
noted O
in O
the O
Differences O
in O
Customs O
a O
composition O
that O
compares O
religious O
practices O
in O
Palestine O
and O
Babylonia O
of O
Late O
Antiquity O
and O
perhaps O
the O
Geonic O
period.16 O
13 O
Jacob O
Sussmann O
‘The O
Inscription O
in O
the O
Synagogue O
at O
Rehob’ O
in O
Ancient O
Synagogues O
Revealed O
ed. O
by O
Lee O
I. O
Levine O
(Jerusalem O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society O
1981) O
146–53. O
14 O
Naveh O
‘Ancient O
Synagogue O
Inscriptions’ O
138–39; O
Gideon O
Foerster O
‘Synagogue O
Inscriptions O
and O
Their O
Relation O
to O
Liturgical O
Versions’ O
Cathedra O
19 O
(1981) O
12–40 O
(23–26) O
(Hebrew). O
15 O
Levine O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
536. O
16 O
For O
example O
“The O
people O
of O
the O
East O
celebrate O
Simhat O
Torah O
every O
year O
and O
the O
people O
of O
Eretz O
Israel O
every O
three O
and O
a O
half O
years” O
(and O
sixteenth O
century O
Rabbi O
Shlomo O
Luria O
the O
Maharshal O
adds O
“And O
on O
the O
day O
[the O
holiday] O
is O
completed O
the O
portion O
[of O
the O
Torah] O
read O
in O
one O
area O
[of O
Palestine] O
is O
not O
read O
in O
another”); O
see O
Differences O
in O
Customs O
between O
the O
People O
of O
the O
East O
and O
the O
People O
of O
Eretz O
Israel O
ed. O
by O
Mordechai O
Margalioth O
(Jerusalem O
Mass O
1938) O
88 O
no. O
48 O
lines O
125–26 O
and O
notes O
there O
as O
well O
as O
172–73 O
(Hebrew). O
24 O
Diversity O
and O
Rabbinization O
The O
readings O
from O
the O
Prophets O
(haftarot) O
that O
accompanied O
the O
Torah O
recitation O
also O
varied O
from O
place O
to O
place O
some O
synagogues O
requiring O
twenty O
one O
verses O
to O
be O
read O
(three O
for O
each O
of O
the O
seven O
portions O
read O
from O
the O
Torah; O
b. O
Meg. O
23a). O
The O
Talmud O
Yerushalmi O
explains O
that O
in O
places O
where O
the O
Targum O
was O
also O
recited O
only O
three O
verses O
of O
the O
Prophets O
were O
to O
be O
read; O
otherwise O
twenty O
one O
verses O
were O
required O
(y. O
Meg. O
4.3 O
75a). O
Tractate O
Soferim O
(13.15 O
ed. O
Higger O
250–51) O
mentions O
at O
least O
four O
different O
practices O
in O
this O
regard O
When O
are O
these O
rules O
[i.e. O
reading O
twenty O
one O
verses] O
applicable O
When O
there O
is O
no O
translation O
[targum] O
or O
homily. O
But O
if O
there O
is O
a O
translator O
or O
a O
preacher O
then O
the O
maftir O
[one O
who O
reads O
the O
haftarah] O
reads O
three O
five O
or O
seven O
verses O
in O
the O
Prophets O
and O
this O
is O
sufficient.” O
Moreover O
given O
its O
lesser O
sanctity O
the O
haftarah O
recitation O
was O
a O
much O
more O
flexible O
component O
than O
the O
Torah O
reading; O
verses O
on O
assorted O
subjects O
could O
be O
drawn O
from O
different O
sections O
of O
a O
book O
or O
even O
from O
several O
different O
books O
of O
the O
Bible O
(m. O
Meg. O
4.4; O
b. O
Meg. O
24a). O
Here O
too O
the O
local O
congregation O
(or O
its O
representatives) O
decided O
on O
their O
preferred O
liturgical O
practice. O
The O
same O
probably O
held O
true O
for O
other O
components O
of O
the O
liturgy. O
Although O
the O
evidence O
for O
Late O
Antiquity O
is O
negligible O
synagogue O
prayer O
was O
most O
likely O
in O
a O
fluid O
state; O
there O
is O
no O
way O
of O
determining O
the O
parameters O
of O
fixed O
prayer O
at O
this O
time O
since O
the O
earliest O
prayer O
book O
(siddur) O
dates O
from O
the O
ninth O
or O
tenth O
century. O
Piyyut O
(liturgical O
poetry) O
also O
seems O
to O
have O
made O
its O
first O
appearance O
in O
the O
synagogue O
of O
Late O
Antiquity O
yet O
we O
have O
no O
idea O
how O
many O
congregations O
might O
have O
incorporated O
these O
poetic O
recitations O
into O
their O
service O
how O
they O
were O
chosen O
or O
how O
frequently O
they O
were O
recited. O
The O
sophisticated O
Hebrew O
often O
employed O
in O
piyyut O
may O
well O
have O
been O
a O
deterrent O
to O
congregations O
comprising O
primarily O
Aramaic O
or O
Greek O
speakers. O
6.0. O
Communal O
Infrastructure O
In O
attempting O
to O
understand O
the O
synagogue O
of O
Late O
Antiquity O
it O
is O
of O
paramount O
importance O
to O
clarify O
who O
made O
the O
decisions O
regarding O
its O
operation. O
As O
noted O
the O
literary O
epigraphic O
and O
1. O
Diversity O
in O
the O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
of O
Roman O
Byzantine O
Palestine O
25 O
artistic O
evidence O
points O
to O
the O
local O
community O
as O
the O
ultimate O
arbitrator O
of O
the O
synagogue’s O
physical O
and O
programmatic O
aspects; O
there O
is O
no O
evidence O
of O
any O
other O
institution O
group O
or O
office O
that O
might O
have O
been O
so O
authorized. O
Since O
diversity O
among O
synagogues O
was O
ubiquitous O
it O
was O
the O
local O
community’s O
prerogative O
to O
decide O
what O
kind O
of O
building O
would O
be O
erected O
and O
where O
and O
how O
it O
would O
be O
decorated O
maintained O
and O
administered.17 O
The O
synagogue O
functioned O
as O
the O
local O
Jewish O
communal O
institution O
par O
excellence. O
It O
served O
a O
range O
of O
purposes O
that O
might O
include O
meeting O
place O
educational O
social O
and O
charity O
oriented O
activities O
communal O
meals O
a O
local O
court O
and O
a O
place O
for O
lodging. O
The O
tendency O
of O
some O
(many O
) O
second O
century O
Jews O
to O
refer O
to O
the O
synagogue O
as O
a O
bet O
ʿam O
(‘house O
of O
[the] O
people’)— O
to O
the O
chagrin O
of O
certain O
rabbis O
(b. O
Shabb. O
32a)—clearly O
indicates O
the O
importance O
of O
this O
dimension O
of O
the O
institution. O
Indeed O
the O
synagogue O
belonged O
to O
the O
community O
and O
the O
Mishnah O
(m. O
Ned. O
5.5) O
clearly O
associates O
the O
synagogue O
and O
some O
of O
its O
features O
with O
a O
communal O
context O
“And O
what O
things O
belong O
to O
the O
(entire) O
town O
itself O
For O
example O
the O
plaza O
the O
bath O
the O
synagogue O
the O
Torah O
chest O
and O
[holy] O
books”. O
Synagogue O
officials O
were O
thus O
beholden O
to O
their O
respective O
communities O
and O
not O
to O
any O
single O
outside O
authority. O
Local O
loyalties O
often O
ran O
high O
particularly O
in O
matters O
relating O
to O
the O
synagogue O
building O
or O
its O
functionaries O
and O
such O
issues O
might O
have O
become O
a O
source O
of O
rivalry O
among O
neighbouring O
communities O
“[Regarding] O
a O
small O
town O
in O
Israel O
they O
[the O
townspeople] O
built O
for O
themselves O
a O
synagogue O
and O
academy O
and O
hired O
a O
sage O
and O
instructors O
for O
their O
children. O
When O
a O
nearby O
town O
saw O
[this] O
it O
[also] O
built O
a O
synagogue O
and O
academy O
and O
likewise O
hired O
teachers O
for O
their O
children” O
(Seder O
Eliyahu O
Rabbah O
11 O
ed. O
Friedmann O
54–55). O
However O
there O
were O
also O
some O
synagogues O
such O
as O
the O
first O
century O
Theodotos O
synagogue O
in O
Jerusalem O
that O
operated O
under O
the O
patronage O
of O
a O
wealthy O
family. O
Indeed O
a O
number O
of O
synagogues O
in O
Late O
Antiquity O
were O
led O
by O
a O
coterie O
of O
wealthy O
17 O
Levine O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
381–411. O
26 O
Diversity O
and O
Rabbinization O
and O
acculturated O
members O
who O
shouldered O
the O
major O
financial O
burden O
of O
their O
synagogues O
as O
was O
the O
case O
at O
Hammat O
Tiberias.18 O
The O
local O
community O
was O
responsible O
for O
the O
synagogue’s O
maintenance O
including O
salaries O
that O
were O
at O
times O
covered O
by O
wealthy O
laymen O
or O
officials O
such O
as O
the O
archisynagogue O
presbyter O
or O
archon. O
Prayer O
leaders O
Torah O
readers O
liturgical O
poets O
and O
preachers O
may O
have O
received O
remuneration O
for O
their O
services O
but O
of O
this O
we O
cannot O
be O
certain. O
Other B-LOC
functionaries— I-LOC
the I-LOC
teacher I-LOC
(sofer) O
hazzan O
shamash O
and O
meturgeman—received O
compensation O
however O
minimal.19 O
Thus O
local O
communities O
exercised O
control O
over O
the O
hiring O
and O
firing O
of O
their O
synagogue O
functionaries O
and O
in O
one O
instance O
the O
synagogue O
community O
of O
Tarbanat O
(in O
the O
Jezreel O
Valley) O
dismissed O
one O
Rabbi O
Simeon O
who O
was O
unwilling O
to O
comply O
with B-LOC
its I-LOC
request. I-LOC
The O
villagers O
appealed O
to O
him O
[The O
villagers O
said O
] O
“Pause O
between O
your O
words O
[when O
either O
reading O
the O
Torah O
or O
rendering O
the O
Targum] O
so O
that O
we O
may O
relate O
this O
to O
our O
children.” O
He O
[Rabbi O
Simeon] O
went O
and O
asked O
[the O
advice O
of] O
Rabbi O
Hanina O
who O
said O
to O
him O
“Even O
if O
they O
[threaten O
to—L. O
L.] O
cut O
off O
your O
head O
do O
not O
listen O
to O
them.” O
And O
he O
[Rabbi O
Simeon] O
did O
not O
take O
heed O
[of O
the O
congregants’ O
request] O
and O
they O
dismissed O
him O
from O
his O
position O
as O
sofer. O
(y. O
Meg. O
4.5 O
75b) O
A O
community’s O
search O
for O
competent O
personnel O
was O
not O
uncommon. O
Around O
the O
turn O
of O
the O
third O
century O
the O
residents O
of O
Simonias O
(in O
the O
Galilee) O
solicited B-LOC
the O
help O
of O
Rabbi O
Judah O
I O
in O
finding O
someone O
who O
could O
preach O
judge O
serve O
as O
a O
hazzan O
and O
teach O
children O
and O
“fulfill O
all O
our O
needs” O
(y. O
Yevam. O
12.6 O
13a; O
Gen. O
Rab. O
81.2 O
ed. O
Theodor O
and O
Albeck O
969–72). O
He O
recommended O
one O
Levi O
bar O
Sisi O
who O
was O
interviewed O
for O
the O
position O
but O
apparently O
made O
an O
unfavorable O
first O
impression. O
A O
similar O
request O
was O
made O
of O
Rabbi O
Simeon O
ben O
Laqish O
in O
the O
mid O
third O
century O
when O
visiting O
Bostra O
in O
Transjordan O
(y. O
Shev. O
6.1 O
36d; O
Deut. O
Rab. O
Vaʾethanan O
ed. O
Lieberman O
60). O
18 O
Ibid. O
57–59; O
Levine O
Visual O
Judaism O
244–51. O
19 O
Levine O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
435–46. O
1. O
Diversity O
in O
the O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
of O
Roman O
Byzantine O
Palestine O
27 O
The O
construction O
or O
repair O
of O
a O
synagogue O
building B-LOC
was O
also O
a O
communal O
responsibility O
and O
a O
binding O
obligation O
“Members O
of O
a O
town O
[can] O
force O
one O
another O
to O
build O
a O
synagogue O
for O
themselves O
and O
to O
purchase O
a O
Torah O
scroll O
and O
[books O
of O
the] O
Prophets” O
(t. O
B. O
Metzia O
11.23 O
ed. O
Zuckermandel O
125). O
Several O
epigraphic O
sources O
from O
Byzantine O
Palestine O
highlight O
the O
centrality O
of O
the O
synagogue’s O
communal O
dimension. O
Note O
for O
example O
the O
following O
inscription O
from O
Jericho O
May O
they O
be O
remembered O
for O
good. O
May B-LOC
their O
memory O
be O
for O
good O
the O
entire O
holy O
congregation O
the O
old O
and O
the O
young O
whom O
the O
King O
of O
the O
Universe O
has O
helped O
for O
they O
have O
contributed O
to O
and O
made O
this O
mosaic. O
May O
He O
who O
knows O
their O
names O
[as O
well O
as] O
their O
children O
and O
members O
of O
their O
households O
write O
them O
in O
the O
Book O
of O
Life O
together O
with O
all O
the O
righteous. O
All O
the O
people O
of O
Israel O
are O
brethren. O
Peace. O
Amen.20 O
Synagogue O
inscriptions O
at O
times O
focus O
on O
matters O
of O
prime O
concern O
to O
the O
entire O
congregation. O
The O
monumental O
inscription O
at O
the O
entrance O
to O
the O
Rehov O
synagogue’s O
main O
hall O
reflects O
this O
community’s O
halakhic O
orientation O
21 O
while O
an O
Aramaic O
inscription O
located O
in O
the O
western O
aisle O
of O
the O
En O
Gedi O
synagogue O
addresses O
a O
number O
of O
important B-LOC
local O
concerns O
He O
who O
causes O
dissension O
within O
the O
community O
or O
speaks O
slanderously O
about O
his O
friend O
to O
the O
gentiles O
or O
steals O
something O
from O
his O
friend O
or O
reveals O
the O
secret O
of O
the O
community O
to O
the O
gentiles—He O
whose O
eyes O
observe O
the O
entire O
world O
and O
who O
sees O
hidden O
things O
will O
turn O
His O
face O
against O
this O
fellow O
and O
his O
offspring O
and O
will O
uproot O
them O
from O
under O
the O
heavens. O
And O
all O
the O
people O
said O
“Amen O
Amen O
Selah.”22 O
Communal O
responsibility O
might O
also O
extend O
to O
the O
synagogue’s O
liturgical O
components O
as O
is O
vividly O
borne O
out O
by O
an O
account O
regarding O
a O
Caesarean O
synagogue B-LOC
whose O
members O
decided O
to O
20 O
Ibid. O
238 O
386; O
see O
also O
above O
n. O
14. O
21 O
Fanny O
Vitto O
‘Rehob’ O
in O
Ephraim O
Stern O
New O
Encyclopedia O
of O
Archaeological O
Excavations O
IV O
1272–74. O
22 O
Levine O
‘Inscription O
in O
the O
‘En O
Gedi O
Synagogue’ O
140–45; O
Levine O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
386–87. O
28 O
Diversity O
and O
Rabbinization O
recite O
a O
central O
prayer O
of O
the O
Jewish O
liturgy O
the O
Shema O
in O
Greek O
and O
not O
in O
Hebrew. O
Clearly O
the O
use O
of O
Greek O
met O
local O
needs O
but O
what O
makes O
this O
account O
especially O
fascinating O
and O
the O
reason O
it O
appears O
in O
a O
rabbinic O
source O
at O
all O
is O
the O
fact O
that O
two O
sages O
reacted O
to O
this O
phenomenon O
in O
totally O
different O
ways—one O
condemning O
this O
practice O
the O
other O
supporting O
it O
Rabbi O
Levi O
bar O
Hiyta O
came O
to O
Caesarea. O
He O
heard O
voices O
reciting O
the O
Shema O
in O
Greek O
[and] O
wished O
to B-LOC
stop I-LOC
them. O
Rabbi O
Yosi O
heard O
[of O
this] O
and O
became O
angry O
[at O
Rabbi O
Levi’s O
reaction]. O
He O
said O
“Thus O
I O
would O
say O
‘Whoever O
does O
not O
know O
how O
to O
read O
it O
[the O
Shema] O
in O
Hebrew O
should O
not O
recite O
it O
at O
all O
Rather O
he O
can O
fulfill O
the O
commandment O
in O
any O
language O
he O
knows’” O
(y. O
Sotah O
7.1 O
21b). O
It O
is O
therefore O
clear O
that O
the O
opinions O
of O
these O
two O
sages O
(or O
any O
others O
for O
that O
matter) O
were O
never O
solicited O
by O
the O
congregation O
beforehand O
and O
once O
expressed O
probably O
played O
no O
role O
whatsoever O
in O
the O
synagogue’s O
policy. O
Besides O
the O
specific O
case O
of O
the O
Shema O
there O
can O
be O
little O
question O
that O
synagogues O
such O
as O
this O
one—which O
would O
include O
virtually O
all O
Roman O
Diaspora O
congregations O
and O
not O
a O
few O
in O
Palestine—did O
in O
fact O
render O
their B-LOC
sermons I-LOC
expound O
the O
Scriptures O
and O
pray O
in O
Greek.23 O
7.0. O
Epilogue O
Archaeological O
finds O
(architecture O
art O
and O
epigraphy) O
have O
alerted O
us O
to O
the O
resilience O
and O
remarkable O
self O
confidence O
of O
Jewish O
communities O
in O
antiquity. O
The O
very O
existence O
of O
so O
many O
synagogues O
in O
Palestine O
and O
the O
Diaspora—often O
in O
prominent O
locations O
of O
monumental O
size O
and O
exhibiting O
cultural O
vibrancy—refutes O
the O
once O
normative O
claim O
that O
this O
was O
a O
period O
23 O
Hellenism O
in O
the O
Land O
of O
Israel O
ed. O
by O
John O
J. O
Collins O
and O
Gregory O
E. O
Sterling O
(Notre O
Dame O
IN O
University O
of O
Notre O
Dame O
2001); O
Pieter O
W. O
van O
der O
Horst O
Jews O
and O
Christians O
in O
Their O
Graeco O
Roman O
Context O
Selected O
Essays O
on O
Early O
Judaism O
Samaritanism O
Hellenism O
and O
Christianity O
(Tübingen O
Mohr O
Siebeck O
2006) O
41–50; O
Lee O
I. O
Levine O
Judaism O
and O
Hellenism O
in O
Antiquity O
Conflict O
or O
Confluence O
(Seattle O
University O
of O
Washington O
Press O
1998) O
160–67. O
1. O
Diversity O
in O
the O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
of O
Roman O
Byzantine O
Palestine O
29 O
Fig. O
14 O
Zodiac O
motif O
and O
figure O
of O
Helios O
on O
the O
mosaic O
floor O
of O
the O
fourth O
century O
Hammat O
Tiberias O
synagogue. O
Moshe O
Dothan O
Hammath O
Tiberias O
(Jerusalem O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society O
1983) O
plates O
10/11. O
Courtesy O
of O
the O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society. O
© O
All O
rights O
reserved. O
characterized O
only O
(or O
primarily) O
by O
persecution O
discrimination O
and O
suffering. O
The O
apparent O
economic O
social O
and O
political O
stability O
of O
these O
communities O
well O
into O
the O
Byzantine O
era O
has O
revealed O
a O
far O
more O
complex O
reality O
than O
heretofore O
imagined O
and O
along O
with O
it O
a O
far O
greater O
range O
of O
identities O
fashioned O
by O
Jews O
throughout O
the O
empire O
(Fig. O
14). O
When O
viewed O
in O
this O
perspective O
Late O
Antiquity O
thus O
emerges O
as O
an O
era O
in O
which O
Jews O
were O
actively O
engaged O
in O
a O
diverse O
and O
multifaceted O
range O
of O
cultural O
and O
religious O
realms O
often O
in O
tandem O
with O
the O
surrounding O
culture. O
If O
the O
term O
‘Late O
Antiquity’ O
points O
to O
processes O
of O
renewal O
vitality O
and O
creativity B-LOC
in I-LOC
30 O
Diversity O
and O
Rabbinization O
Byzantine O
Christian B-LOC
society O
as O
suggested O
by O
Peter O
Brown O
24 O
then O
it O
is O
indeed O
not O
difficult O
to O
identify O
similar O
phenomena O
within O
the O
contemporaneous O
Jewish O
sphere O
as O
well.25 O
Bibliography O
Amir O
Roni O
‘Style O
as O
a O
Chronological O
Indicator O
On O
the O
Relative O
Dating O
of O
the O
Golan O
Synagogues’ O
in O
Jews O
in O
Byzantium O
Dialectics O
of O
Minority O
and O
Majority O
Cultures O
ed. O
by O
Robert O
Bonfil O
Oded O
Irshai O
Guy O
G. O
Stroumsa O
and O
Rina O
Talgam O
(Leiden O
Brill O
2012) O
339–71 O
http O
//dx.doi.org/10.1163/ O
ej.9789004203556.i O
1010.42. O
Avigad O
Nahman O
‘Beth O
Alpha’ O
in O
The O
New O
Encyclopedia O
of O
Archaeological O
Excavations O
in O
the O
Holy O
Land O
ed. O
by O
Ephraim O
Stern O
4 O
vols. O
(Jerusalem O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society; O
Carta O
1993) O
I O
190–92. O
Brown O
Peter O
R.L. O
The O
World O
of O
Late O
Antiquity O
AD O
150–750 O
(London O
Thames O
& O
Hudson O
1971). O
Brown O
Peter O
R.L. O
et O
al. O
‘The O
World O
of O
Late O
Antiquity O
Revisited’ O
Symbolae O
Osloenses O
72 O
(1997) O
5–90. O
Collins O
John O
J. O
and O
Gregory O
E. O
Sterling O
eds. O
Hellenism O
in O
the O
Land O
of O
Israel O
(Notre O
Dame O
IN O
University O
of O
Notre O
Dame O
Press O
2001). O
Dothan O
Moshe O
Hammath O
Tiberias O
(Jerusalem O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society O
1983). O
Epstein O
Jacob O
N. O
‘Yerushalmi O
Fragments’ O
Tarbiz O
3 O
(1932) O
237–48. O
Foerster O
Gideon O
‘Synagogue O
Inscriptions O
and O
Their O
Relation O
to O
Liturgical O
Versions’ O
Cathedra O
19 O
(1981) O
12–40. O
[Hebrew] O
——— O
‘The O
Art O
and O
Architecture O
of O
the O
Synagogue O
in O
Its O
Late O
Roman O
Setting’ O
in O
The O
Synagogue O
in O
Late O
Antiquity O
ed. O
by O
Lee O
I. O
Levine O
(Philadelphia O
American O
Schools O
of O
Oriental O
Research O
1987) O
139–46. O
Friedmann O
Meir O
ed. O
Seder O
Eliyahu O
Rabbah O
and O
Seder O
Eliyahu O
Zuta O
(Warsaw O
Achiasaf O
1904). O
24 O
See O
Peter O
R.L. O
Brown O
The O
World O
of O
Late O
Antiquity O
AD O
150–750 O
(London O
Thames O
& O
Hudson O
1971) O
and O
a O
retrospective O
on O
this O
work O
some O
twenty O
six O
years O
later O
Peter O
R.L. O
Brown O
et O
al. O
‘The O
World O
of O
Late O
Antiquity O
Revisited’ O
Symbolae O
Osloenses O
72 O
(1997) O
5–90. O
25 O
See O
Levine O
Visual O
Judaism O
468–75; O
idem O
‘Palaestina O
Secunda O
The O
Setting O
for O
Jewish O
Resilience O
and O
Creativity O
in B-LOC
Late I-LOC
Antiquity’ O
in O
Strength O
to O
Strength O
Essays O
in O
Honor O
of O
Shaye O
J. O
D. O
Cohen O
ed. O
by O
Michael O
L. O
Satlow O
(Providence O
RI O
Brown O
University O
2018) O
511–35. O
1. O
Diversity O
in O
the O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
of O
Roman O
Byzantine O
Palestine O
31 O
Hachlili O
Rachel O
Ancient O
Mosaic O
Pavements O
Themes O
Issues O
and O
Trends O
Selected O
Studies O
(Leiden O
Brill O
2009) O
http O
//dx.doi.org/10.1163/ O
ej.9789004167544.i O
420. O
Higger O
Michael O
ed. O
Tractate O
Soferim O
(New O
York O
Debe O
Rabbanan O
1937). O
Horst O
Pieter O
Willem O
van O
der O
Jews O
and O
Christians O
in O
Their O
Graeco O
Roman O
Context O
Selected O
Essays O
on O
Early O
Judaism O
Samaritanism O
Hellenism O
and O
Christianity O
(Tübingen O
Mohr O
Siebeck O
2006). O
Kohl O
Heinrich O
and O
Watzinger O
Carl O
Antike O
Synagogen O
in O
Galilaea O
(Leipzig O
J.C. O
Hinrichs’sche O
Buchhandlung O
1916). O
Levine O
Lee O
I. O
‘The O
Inscription O
in O
the O
‘En O
Gedi O
Synagogue’ O
in O
Ancient O
Synagogues O
Revealed O
ed. O
by O
Lee O
I. O
Levine O
(Jerusalem O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society O
1981) O
140–45. O
——— O
Judaism O
and O
Hellenism O
in O
Antiquity O
Conflict O
or O
Confluence O
(Seattle O
University O
of O
Washington O
Press O
1998). O
——— O
The O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
The O
First O
Thousand O
Years O
2nd O
ed. O
(New O
Haven O
CT O
Yale O
University O
Press O
2005). O
——— O
Visual O
Judaism O
in O
Late O
Antiquity O
Historical O
Contexts O
of O
Jewish O
Art O
(New O
Haven O
CT O
Yale O
University O
Press O
2012). O
——— O
‘Palaestina O
Secunda O
The O
Setting O
for O
Jewish O
Resilience O
and O
Creativity O
in O
Late O
Antiquity’ O
in O
Strength O
to O
Strength O
Essays O
in O
Honor O
of O
Shaye O
J. O
D. O
Cohen O
ed. O
by O
Michael O
L. O
Satlow O
(Providence O
RI O
Brown O
University O
2018) O
511–35. O
Lieberman O
Saul O
ed. O
The O
Tosefta O
5 O
vols. O
(New O
York O
Jewish O
Theological O
Seminary O
1955–1988). O
[Hebrew] O
——— O
Midrash O
Debarim O
Rabbah O
(Jerusalem O
Wahrmann O
Books O
1974). O
[Hebrew] O
Magness O
Jodi O
‘The O
En O
Gedi O
Synagogue O
Inscription O
Reconsidered’ O
Eretz O
Israel O
31 O
(2015) O
123*–31*. O
Ma‘oz O
Zvi O
U. O
‘The O
Art O
and O
Architecture O
of O
the O
Synagogues O
of O
the O
Golan’ O
in O
Ancient O
Synagogues O
Revealed O
ed. O
by O
Lee O
I. O
Levine O
(Jerusalem O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society O
1981) O
98–115. O
——— O
‘‘En O
Neshut’ O
in O
The O
New O
Encyclopedia O
of O
Archaeological O
Excavations O
in O
the O
Holy O
Land O
ed. O
by O
Ephraim O
Stern O
4 O
vols. O
(Jerusalem O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society; O
Carta O
1993) O
II O
412–14. O
——— O
‘Golan’ O
in O
The O
New O
Encyclopedia O
of O
Archaeological O
Excavations O
in O
the O
Holy O
Land O
ed. O
by O
Ephraim O
Stern O
4 O
vols. O
(Jerusalem O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society; O
Carta O
1993) O
II O
539–45. O
Margalioth O
Mordechai O
ed. O
Differences O
in O
Customs O
between O
the O
People O
of O
the O
East O
and O
the O
People O
of O
Eretz O
Israel O
(Jerusalem O
Mass O
1938). O
[Hebrew] O
32 O
Diversity O
and O
Rabbinization O
Meir O
Dafna O
and O
Eran O
Meir O
Ancient O
Synagogues O
of O
the O
Golan O
(Jerusalem O
Yad O
Naveh O
Joseph O
On O
Stone O
and O
Mosaic O
The O
Aramaic O
and O
Hebrew O
Inscriptions O
from O
Ancient O
Synagogues O
(Jerusalem O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society; O
Carta O
1978). O
[Hebrew] O
——— O
‘Ancient O
Synagogue O
Inscriptions’ O
in O
Ancient O
Synagogues O
Revealed O
ed. O
by O
Lee O
I. O
Levine O
(Jerusalem O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society O
1981) O
133–39. O
Rajak O
Tessa O
‘Jews O
as O
Benefactors’ O
in O
Studies O
on O
the O
Jewish O
Diaspora O
in O
the O
Hellenistic O
and O
Roman O
Periods O
ed. O
by O
Benjamin O
Isaac O
and O
Aharon O
Oppenheimer O
(Teʿuda O
12; O
Tel O
Aviv O
Ramot O
Publishing O
1996) O
17–38. O
Roth O
Gerson O
Leah O
The O
Greek O
Inscriptions O
from O
the O
Synagogues O
in O
Eretz O
Israel O
(Jerusalem O
Yad O
Izhak O
Ben O
Zvi O
1987). O
[Hebrew] O
Slouschz O
N. O
‘Concerning O
the O
Excavations O
and/or O
the O
Synagogue O
at O
Hamat– O
Tiberias’ O
Journal O
of O
the O
Jewish O
Palestine O
Exploration O
Society O
1 O
(1921) O
5–36. O
Sukenik O
Eleazar O
Lipa O
The O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
of O
Beth O
Alpha O
An O
Account O
of O
the O
Excavations O
Conducted O
on O
Behalf O
of O
the O
Hebrew O
University O
Jerusalem O
(Jerusalem O
The O
Hebrew O
University O
Press O
1931). O
Sussmann O
Jacob O
‘The O
Inscription O
in O
the O
Synagogue O
at O
Rehob’ O
in O
Ancient O
Synagogues O
Revealed O
ed. O
by O
Lee O
I. O
Levine O
(Jerusalem O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society O
1981) O
146–53. O
Theodor O
J. O
and O
Ch. O
Albeck O
Midrash O
Bereshit O
Rabba O
Critical O
Edition O
with O
Notes O
and O
Commentary O
3 O
vols. O
(Jerusalem O
Wahrmann O
Books O
1965). O
[Hebrew] O
Vitto O
Fanny O
‘Rehob’ O
in O
The O
New O
Encyclopedia O
of O
Archaeological O
Excavations O
in O
the O
Holy O
Land O
ed. O
by O
Ephraim O
Stern O
4 O
vols. O
(Jerusalem O
Israel O
Exploration O
Society; O
Carta O
1993) O
IV O
1272–74. O
Werlin O
Steven O
H. O
Ancient O
Synagogues O
of O
Southern O
Palestine O
300–800 O
C.E. O
Living O
on O
the O
Edge O
(Leiden O
Brill O
2015) O
http O
//dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004298408. O
Zori O
Nehemiah O
‘The O
House O
of O
Kyrios O
Leontis O
at O
Beth O
Shean’ O
Israel O
Exploration O
Journal O
16 O
(1966) O
123–34. O
——— O
‘The O
Ancient O
Synagogue O
at O
Beth O
Shean’ O
Eretz O
Israel O
8 O
(1967) O
149–67. O
Zuckermandel O
Moses O
Samuel O
ed. O
Tosephta O
(Trier O
1882). O
[Hebrew] O
Izhak O
Ben O
Zvi O
2015). O
[Hebrew] O