Ancient Synagogues in Galilee: Their Religious and Cultural Setting

Ancient Synagogues in Galilee: Their Religious and Cultural SettingAuthor(s): Eric M. MeyersSource: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Spring, 1980), pp. 97-108Published by: The American Schools of Oriental ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3209628 .

Accessed: 30/06/2014 11:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Biblical Archaeologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 148.251.80.252 on Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:48:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3209628?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Introduction The institution of the synagogue is surely one of the most significant of the achievements of ancient Judaic civilization. Not only did the synagogue directly influence the genesis of sacred architecture in both the Christian and Islamic traditions, but more importantly for the Jewish tradition, it provided the logical successor to the Temple in Jeru- salem. For classical Judaism, therefore, the synagogue becomes the vehicle whereby the religion and community of the Jewish people are transported to other parts of Pales- tine and to the Diaspora. There is a genuine sense in which nascent rabbinism or early Pharisaism could well be called "synagogue Judaism."

While we know a great deal about the synagogue buildings of the Talmudic period (after 200 C.E.), there is a marked lack of archeological evidence for synagogue structures in the more formulative stage of classical or synagogue Judaism prior to 200 C.E. Nonethe- less, it is fair to say that despite the presence of such archeological data, the synagogue as a social and religious institution already was developing. As a center of prayer and worship (beth tefillah), as a center of study (beth midrash), and as a center for communal assembly (beth knesset), the synagogue in its inception was not dependent on externals of any kind. Indeed, the meager archeological data of this formative period is in direct contrast to the picture we derive from the literary tradition, especially Josephus and the New Testament. John Wilkinson has recently proposed that there were 365 synagogues in the Jerusalem of the late Second Temple (Wilkinson 1976: 76-77), but these surely are nothing more than "meeting places." It is important to emphasize, therefore, that previous scholarship on ancient synagogues, as well as present scholarship, focuses primarily upon the later post-200 C.E. period with few exceptions. The aim of the present study is to show how earlier researches on the subject of ancient

Ancient Synagogues in Galilee:

Their Religious and

Cultural Setting

Eric M. Meyers

The synagogue, one of the most important institutions of Judaic life, has been an object of scholar/l investi-

gation.for decades. In recent

years, several of these structures from an early' period have been unearthed by archeologists, revealing facts and artifacts that contribute significantly to our knowledge of life and worship among ancient Jews.

Palestinian synagogues created a developmental typology which has led to a somewhat mistaken understanding of various cultural and religious currents in the Talmudic period.

This earlier scholarly tendency may be illustrated best in the writings of the late M. Avi-Yonah, who categorized the variety of synagogue types and proposed the following chronology and typology: 1) the Galilean, or basilical, synagogue is the oldest of all Palestinian synagogues; 2) the broadhouse represents a transitional phase in the development of the synagogue and reflects a time when greater efforts were expended to fix a permanent place for the ark; 3) the apsidal building represents the final stage of development in which the worshipper enters opposite the orienting wall which points to Jerusalem and faces directly the sacred Torah Shrine (Avi-Yonah 1973a: 29-43).

Early and Recent Researches Thirty-five years ago the late Herbert Gordon May undertook to summarize the subject of "Syna- gogues in Palestine" in the pages of this journal (1944: 1). He began his insightful and important article with these words:

Both Christian church and Moham- medan mosque, in their origins, were indebted to the synagogue. Occasion- ally we find that synagogues have been transformed into churches and mosques. At Gerasa in Transjordan a synagogue was rebuilt as a church, and at Eshtemoa, south of Hebron, one was turned into a mosque. The New Testament records the importance of the synagogue in the beginnings of Christianity. Because of these things, and because of the significance of the synagogue in ancient and modern Judaism, there is a natural interest in the earliest synagogue discoveries.

Professor May wrote with a characteristic enthusiasm, but on this occasion he was reflecting the scholarly excitement that greeted the then "recent" discoveries in Palestine

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST / SPRING 1980 97



at Beth Shecarim (Sheikh Abreiq) in western Galilee, Eshtemoca in the Judean desert, el-Hammeh on the Yarmuk, Beth Alpha near Beth-shan, and Jericho in the Jordan Valley, and in the Diaspora at Dura-Europas on the middle Euphrates. To this very day these sites would be features in any list of the most important archeological discoveries of Roman and Byzantine Palestine and Syria. But those were the achievements of another time and another era in scholarship. Since that time the entire archeological enterprise has been transformed, and the study of ancient synagogues as they relate to early Christianity and Talmudic Juda- ism seems to have come of age.

For the first time, there exists today in the scholarly world a compendious list of

all of the archaeological and literary material referring to synagogues, Torah schools and law courts (seats of the Sanhedrin) in Israel from the first century A.D. up until her conquest by Islam in the seventh century A.D.

(Hiittenmeister and Reeg 1977: XXI).

This list has appeared as part of the Tiibinger Atlas project, which embraces the entire ancient Near Eastern world. Prior to this time the most significant original work in this field had been done by the German team of Heinrich Kohl and Carl Watzinger before World War I (Kohl and Watzinger 1916) and conducted on behalf of the Deutsche Orient Gesellschaft. Kohl and Watzinger, who mapped and partially uncovered 11 ancient synagogues, followed in the footsteps of the well-known American explorer Edward Robinson.' the famous French Semitics scholar Ernst Renan, and of course the ubiquitous British explorers and surveyors, C. W. Wilson, C. R. Conder, and H. H. Kitchener.

Jewish archeologists, establishing the Palestine Exploration Society, embarked on their own survey and study of ancient synagogues. The earliest of these was the work at Hammath near Tiberias in 1921. The most important of these projects dealing with synagogues already had been reported and published when May wrote in 1944. The central

Sidon1 %1

-.ENLARGEMENT.... Jea or

j

,I

Sa. ,

A

--"a,"

FAT

*AKKO

Scale: Principal Map 1 ? ,

- -? : : .4

,-

N

I'-,,

-

.fit'

~.

, .

,, --~~.w- , -

,..o!?r .:, llb u .. . , ,.

Bar'am II Sa'sa''0 Gush Halav e * Dabura H. Shema'. * Katzrin

Me iron * * . Dikka H. Ammudim Korazim

Kfar Kanna Arbel a Umm Hussifa ('Isfiya)f 'Tzippori el-Kanatir Kfar Nahum Bet She'arim. ppori Hammat

Gader Sumak e Yafia

Mediterranean Sumak

Hammat T'veriya /0 Bet Alfa * Bet Yerah

Caesarea Bet She 'an Rehov *

Gerash

Na'aran Jericho

She'albim Hulda *

Jerusalem

Ashqelon

Bet Guvrin Gaza En Gedi *

Sussiya Eshtamo'a a

Ma'on (Nirim) Masada

Above: Topographic map of northern Palestine, indicating important sites.

Below: Location map of major synagogue sites in Palestine.

98 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST / SPRING 1980



0 - - - - - - M.?j , M J M

It I

o 5 0 5 0 O 0 0 0 0 IML- a

, M

EN GEDI GERASA GAZA BET ALFA

0 5 1 0 5 10 0500 SI I M M

.L. MM

.

L I M

01 5 IFAHo ,,

51 1

0 5 5 a '

HAMMAT ESHTEMOA KHIRBAT SUSYA JERICHO GADER

Ground plans of major synagogue sites, after Ariel Avi-Yonah.

figure in both the pre- and post- World War II period was Eliezer Lippa Sukenik, whose pioneering work is the cornerstone of all modern study and exploration of ancient synagogues (1934).

The past decade has witnessed an unprecedented flurry of activity in Israel, in the West Bank, and on the Golan Heights. As a result of this new work, a much-needed period of scholarly reevaluation in the field of synagogue studies has evolved. It was only a few years ago, before work commenced at the site of Khirbet Shemac (Teqoca ha- Galilit) under the aegis of the American Schools of Oriental Research (Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976), that a kind of scholarly rigidity reigned in the field. The struggle between Franciscan excavators of Capernaum and various Israeli archeologists over a late chronology2 (Avi-Yonah 1973b: 43-45) hopefully marks the end of an era which understood the evolution of the ancient synagogue as being characterized by a developmental typology such as we have noted above (Avi-Yonah 1973a). Startling new discoveries at Gamla in the Golan, at Tarichaeae (Magdala) on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, and at Herodium and Masada in the Judean wilder- ness have established that the earliest synagogues in ancient Pales- tine existed in the Ist century C.E. The full publication of these discoveries doubtless will be significant for understanding the nature of the development of the synagogue building itself. For the later periods the final publication of the Israeli discoveries at Susiyah, Eshtemoca, En-gedi, Rehov, Beth-shan, and other new sites will further elucidate many other key issues.

The Basilica The major results of earlier archeological investigations produced a view of the origin and development




of the synagogue building which prevailed until only a few years ago. This view maintained that a special type of building or edifice originated in Galilee sometime in the 2nd-3rd centuries C.E. and, hence, was called the "early Galilean" type. This type is characterized by an elaborate triple-portal facade which faced south toward Jerusalem. The floor of such a structure was thought to be paved with simple stone slabs. Its ground plan is basilical, with two rows of columns running north- south and often with a transverse row closing the shorter northern side. Accordingly, space is divided into a central nave and two side aisles. An upper story, or gallery, is usually assumed to have existed along these three rows, though it is a matter of dispute whether or not it was used exclusively for women in the ancient period (Safrai 1969). However, the very existence of a second story is being questioned today. The excavators of Caper- naum, for example, now are convinced that there was no gallery whatever at Capernaum and that a simple shed roof was carried by a total column height-from base to capital-of 5 m.

In addition to the above- mentioned features, there were often stone benches along the sides for worshipers. It might be reasonably conjectured, however, that many worshippers simply sat on the floor, as is the customary practice to this day in a mosque, since there was never sufficient bench space provided to utilize most of the interior space effectively.

In the basilica as in the variant forms of the ancient synagogue, the major architectural concern, if not theological concern, is the wall of orientation which faces Jerusalem. It generally is assumed that this, the most salient and telling feature of the synagogue, is derived from the biblical practice of praying toward Jerusalem (1 Kgs 8:44 parallel 2 Chr 6:34; 1 Kgs 8:48 parallel 2 Chr 6:38; Dan 6:11). This custom achieves a legal force in the rabbinic period when it is translated into law

(U. Ber. 4.8b-c ), but the same principle also seems to have been operative in the Ist-century buildings at Masada and Herodium (Foerster 1973: 224-28).

New discoveries have established that the earliest synagogues in Palestine date to the 1st century C.E.

The principle of sacred orientation may be observed in the basilical structure as in the American excavations at ancient Meiron (Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1978), where the triple facade faces south towards Jerusalem. Most scholars would agree that such an instance corresponds to a time when the ark was not yet a permanent fixture in the synagogue but was a portable structure which was wheeled out into the main sanctuary during worship. The precentor, or reader of scripture, would stand before it and also face Jerusalem. Possible representations of the portable ark may be observed in sculpture at Capernaum and in mosaic elsewhere (Hachlili 1976: 43-53). In our view, the portable ark of the synagogue harks back to Nathan's rebuke of David (2 Sam 7:4ff.), when the prophet argues poig- nantly in theological terms for a movable shrine.

Both the orientation of the basilica and the suggested location of the ark require the so-called "awkward about-face" of the worshiper. That is, if the Jerusalem entrances were both functional and used as the focus of worship, the worshipper would have to turn around immediately after entering the building from the south. The lack of an entry on the northern, or opposite, side necessitates such a turnaround. At Meiron, as well as most other basilical sites, no convincing proof of entrances either on the north, east, or west has yet been found.

All of this presupposes the existence of some kind of Torah shrine (either portable or permanent) on the interior southern (Jerusalem-facing) wall, even though none has been found in situ; the evidence at both Meiron and Capernaum is supportive of such a theory (Strange 1976: 140-41). At Beth Shecarim, a novel arrangement is found in the basilicalike synagogue excavated there: a raised bema, or podium for the reading of the scrolls, is situated in the back wall of the nave opposite the three monu- mental doorways which face toward Jerusalem. The building dates from the second quarter of the 3rd century to the middle of the 4th century (Avigad and Mazar 1976: 233-34). If, however, the Torah shrine might have been portable and was wheeled out during services, then we would not expect to find a trace of it (Kraabel 1974: 438). The excavators at Beth Shecarim, however, noted a significant change toward the last phase of the building's history when a Torah shrine was relocated on the Jerusalem wall. The excavator of the En-gedi synagogue also observed a similar shift (Avi- Yonah 1973a: 341). Both instances tend to suggest a major theological development sometime in the late 3rd or early 4th century C.E. when public reading of scripture in a worship setting reached a high point. Whether or not such a shift can be related to external circumstances affecting the Jewish community, such as the Christianization of the empire or the reading of scripture by sectarians, is a matter which deserves further study.

The origin of the basilica is generally conceded to be in the typical Greco-Roman basilica, possibly mediated to Palestine through builders employed by Herod the Great. Herod was himself one of the most notable patrons of Roman building in the entire eastern Mediterranean world. Still others would suggest that the basilica is mediated through Syro-Roman and Nabatean prototypes. In any case, the synagogue qua basilica is still




Above: Architect's reconstruction of Gush Halav synagogue. Middle: Block plan of Gush Halav synagogue. Below: Isometric reconstruction of Gush Halav synagogue, looking northwest.

innovative in the sense that it has adapted a public structure which emphasizes the exterior and has modified it to suit its own unique religious purposes.

New discoveries now indicate a much higher degree of flexibility in dating all types of synagogues and attest the simultaneous existence of one type alongside another. For example, Capernaum, a basilica, is widely regarded as late, or Byzan- tine, whereas Khirbet Shemac, a broadhouse, is early. It is our contention that the only certain way of dating any ancient building is through scientific excavation and scholarly evaluation of the data which emanate from such excavation. With respect to the general- categories of synagogue buildings, in addition to the divergencies in ground plan and internal furnishing already mentioned, present excavations provide even further anom- alies so that even a concept of a standard basilica cannot be maintained any longer.

The 1977-78 American excavations at the ancient site of Gush Halav (Giscala) just a few kilometers north of Meiron (Meyers 1978: 253- 54) reinforce the opinion already stated that only careful excavation can provide the answers to serious questions of dating and typology. In the jargon of field archeologists, this site provides a classic example of the axiom which states that the answers always lie below. In the case of Kohl and Watzinger, who had excavated at Gush Halav during their survey in the early part of this century, they clearly did not go far enough in their work. Their published plan of Gush Halav indicates that they erroneously took what are now clearly storage areas as the closing, or interior, wall of a very large square basilica (Kohl and Watzinger 1916: pl. 15). Our work at Gush Halav demonstrates the

...

•..

% ii::,:

/. ??cs

ii'--

1 .. O -

Y ) -




Reconstructed synagogue at Gush Halav, looking northwest.

errors in the German typological assumptions and strongly supports the notion that variety exists even within the broadly defined category of "basilical synagogues."

To be sure, the founding of the Gush Halav synagogue can be dated to the 3rd century C.E. But the southern wall, which faces Jerusalem, has only one entrance, namely, the one with the down-facing eagle incised on the underside of its lintel stone. If a gallery for additional seating existed, it would have been on the northern side where the only other certain entrance to the building has been found. What is

"basilical" about this building is its two rows of four columns running north-south. It is rectangular only if we take its newly discovered, interior, load-bearing walls as defining the interior space of the building. Indeed, the interest of this building lies in the fact that these interior walls, on the west, north, and east, demarcate the interior space of the building and internally transform a roughly square structure-originally thought by the Germans to be the synagogue interior-into a rectangular basilica. That is to say, it had a large corridor on the western side, a gallery on the north, and a series of rooms along the eastern side. This is a unique arrangement in this kind of building.

Of major interest also is the

bemna, discovered along the southern wall, which happens to be the only ashlar wall among all the exterior walls. The bema dates to the 4th century, or second phase of the building's use, and is off-center in the building, just to the west of the sole entrance on the Jerusalem- facing south wall. Among the debris, however, were found smaller pieces of architectural fragments that suggest an aedicula, or Torah shrine, in conjunction with this bema, possibly built atop it or perhaps in still another phase. The discovery of the bema represents the first of its kind in the general category of buildings we call basilical except for the anomalous situations already noted at Beth She arim and En-gedi.




161

L~l 13 m5 1?7

I 14 A6 8

Synogogue I I 2 3

1 '

IZ] r~5 #7

3 ?4 #?6 ASl

Left: Two phases of Khirbet Shemac synagogue. Right: Isometric reconstruction of Khirbet Shemac synagogue showing traffic patterns.

Synagogue II

New data are thus bringing new insights. While the material from Gush Halav alters somewhat the older views, it underscores the capacity of an individual religious community for originality within certain boundaries. The overall architectural forms, however im- mersed within the Greco-Roman provincial world they may be, reflect a freedom from rigidity that is refreshing to the student of Roman provincial art.

The Broadhouse The broadhouse synagogue receives its designation because its wall of orientation is one of the longer, or broader, walls as opposed to the shorter end-wall in the basilica. Despite the fact that the oldest known example of this type comes from Dura Europas and dates from the first half of the 3rd century C.E., this type of building in Palestine was traditionally thought to be late (4th century C.E.) and transitional (that is, between the Roman basilical and the Byzantine apsidal synagogue). In general, its appearance seems to coincide with a time when

a fixed receptacle for the Torah had been adopted. Among the known broadhouse synagogues, however, the bema is the most widely attested feature and always is situated on the Jerusalem-orienting wall. The broadhouse represents one resolution of the awkward about-face required by the basilica: the worshiper could enter as easily through the short wall (and face the Torah shrine) as through the long wall opposite the shrine. Or, the broadhouse simply may represent an independent predilection for an architectural type which already had a lengthy history in ancient Palestine.

Both solutions find attestation in the first and only Galilean broadhouse excavated: at Khirbet Shemac, just I km south of ancient Meiron. Conclusive dating of two major phases of the Khirbet Shemac broadhouse synagogue to the 3rd and 4th centuries C.E. once again forces students of ancient synagogues to put aside preconceived developmental notions of stages in their history and study the evidence alone. Khirbet Shema', while clearly a broadhouse with orientation in both

stages on the long south wall, differs from its closest parallels at Susiyah and Eshtemoca in Judea by having internal columnation running east- west, 900 off the wall oriented toward Jerusalem. None of the other broadhouse synagogues excavated to date has supporting columns in the sacred area; rather, they use radically widened walls to support their superstructure.3

It should be underscored that in this discussion the dates arrived at for the phases and salient features of the synagogues at Khirbet Shema', Gush Halav, and Meiron are based upon the chronological data provided by "critical loci" recovered during excavation. In every case these data synchronize well with the chronological data recovered from the rest of the site. They are the result of careful consideration of all ceramic and numismatic materials in conjunction with geological information available about ancient earthquake patterns in Upper Galilee.

The three sites lie in a region of intense earthquake activity, from ancient times until the present. In fact, the Safed-Gush Halav-Meiron




area constitutes a major fault line, in the Safed epicenter (Meyers, Kraabel, and Strange 1976: 37-39). While this reality has created untold damage and suffering through the years, it has in many ways made the archeological task easier. At Khirbet Shemac we were able to conclude that the first synagogue building of the second half of the 3rd century C.E. was destroyed completely in the great earthquake of 306 C.E. The evidence for the destruction of Synagogue I at Kirbet Shemac emerged dramatically in the course of excavations beneath the floor in the east end of the second, or post-306, building; here were recovered fragments of columns, capitals, and bases all shattered so badly that they could be used only as rubble building material or fill.

The destruction date of the second Shemac building can be arrived at with some ease since there is a sharp break in the coin evidence after 408 c.E. Since most 5th-century coins were produced under Arcadius and Honorius early in the century, and hence specimens would not normally be expected, the best explanation for such a radical break in the coin profile is a sudden abandonment of the site. This is further corroborated by the tumbled and badly shattered debris of Synagogue II. Dating by the closest "strong earthquake" after 408 C.E., it is possible to conclude that the occupation of the entire site-com- paring all the data from the entire town-came to an abrupt end in the earthquake of 419 C.E. Scientists of the Geologic Survey of Israel, who have just concluded a long-range study of the Upper Galilee region, have studied the pictures of the destroyed in situ remains of Synagogue II and were able to confirm the direction of the ancient fall, which is determined by the fault lines recently plotted by them. Their study has also corroborated the direction of the Gush Halav collapse and has enabled us to explain the extensive repairs done at Meiron in the first half of the 4th century C.E.

In sectioning, or cutting through, the bemna at Khirbet

Above: Reconstructed synagogue at Khirbet Shemac. Note hema in center of south wall and Study House adjoining, upper right. Below: View of Khirbet Shemac synagogue before reconstruction, looking east. Opposite, above: Architect's reconstruction of Khirbet Shemac synagogue with Study House at right. Opposite, below: Menorah lintel from Khirbet Shema', northern entrance.

Shemac, we were fortunate enough to recover a number of coins which enabled us to conclude that the people at Khirbet Shemac did not wait long to rebuild their sacred sanctuary but attempted to re- establish their lives immediately. Since the rubble-filled bema dates to after 306 and because an earlier bench runs through it and along the southern wall, it may be concluded that there was no bema in the 3rd- century building. Fractured remains of smaller architectural elements, however, suggest that a Torah shrine probably stood on this wall in the first structure.

The origin of the broadhouse, therefore, need not be sought at Dura, in our opinion, but may be viewed as being descended from the

basic Syro-Palestinian broadhouse temple. In the case of Khirbet Shemac, we apparently have a "mixed" type, a kind of merger between the Roman basilica- viewing the building east-west with its two rows of four columns-and the Syro-Palestinian broadhouse- viewing the building along the long southern-orienting wall. In any event, it represents a novel adapta- tion of existing prototypes and gives ample testimony to the ingenuity of the designers.

The Apsidal Synagogue The third general category of synagogue building is the apsidal building, clearly the latest of all types (judging from attested remains and inscriptions) with a basilica-

104 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST , SPRING 1980



10 50 100 I cm.

like interior. The novelty of this synagogue type (which began in the 5th century C.E. and continued until the 8th century) lies in the fact that the apse points in the direction of Jerusalem and constitutes the focus of worship. It represents another resolution to the awkwardness of the basilical arrangements described above by enabling the worshiper to face directly in the sacred direction by entering from the east, or any side opposite the Jerusalem Wall. In this type of structure the apse usually is separated from the rest of the sanctuary by a screen and often serves as the repository for the Torah shrine and possibly for the storage of old scrolls.

In many buildings there is a platform, or bema, within the apse,

suggestive of the place where the reader or precentor stood, along with the cantor (hazzan), transla- tors, and elders. In this regard it is functionally equivalent to the bema at Khirbet Shemac or Gush Halav, though in those places there is only room for the reader of scripture, or hazzan (t. Sukk. 4.6 and parallels). The apsidal building provides the best possible arrangement for explaining the rabbinic mention of the elders sitting with their backs toward Jerusalem, i.e., to the orienting wall (t. Meg. 4.21). According to this same rabbinic source, the only other time when leaders turned their backs to Jerusalem was during the recitation of the priestly blessing by the priests themselves. In the apsidal struc-

ture, perhaps because of Byzantine strictures against the building of new synagogues and even limiting repairs to points of breach, emphasis now is shifted from the exterior to the interior. This shift in emphasis, if indeed such a conclusion is correct, usually is observed in the colorful and richly decorated mosaics which adorn the floors. These mosaics often consist of depictions of biblical episodes but sometimes present borrowed Greek themes as well, such as the signs of the zodiac (Hammath Tiberias, Beth-shan, and others). Often, too, the mosaic directly in front of the apse represents the Torah shrine flanked by the seven-branched candelabra (Beth Alpha). Parade examples of the apsidal synagogue may be found at Maon, Jericho and Gaza, Beth Alpha, Hammath Tiberias (last phase), and Hammath Gader.

In summary, one might charac- terize the state of synagogue studies as being in flux. New material has created a healthy climate of reconsideration and reevaluation. To be sure, many of the old theories have foundered, but that is how those who put them forward would have had it. While there is no longer any typological approach to this subject, the old types still persist. Today, however, they persist in startling new variety. Ultimately when all the new data are published, we will know far more about the ancient synagogue than ever before.

Architectural Diversity: Does it indicate a kind of religious pluralism? One of the most interesting derivative aspects of ancient synagogue study is the implication the multiplicity of types has for the study of Judaism in the late antique period. We have suggested elsewhere that a systematic survey of synagogue sites indicates a kind of clus- tering by region (Meyers 1976b: 99). The Upper Galilee seems to be rather conservative in representational art and almost totally lacking in the richly decorated and highly colored mosaics such as are found in Lower Galilee and especially in




Perspective and cutaway section of Khirbet Shemac synagogue looking southwest: Study Hall is at right.

the Jordan Valley. The relatively meager nature of the art remains attested in Upper Galilee suggests a kind of conservatism rather than a limited repertoire of symbols. The list of decorative elements is brief, with eagles and menorahs predomi- nating. The occasional appearance of well-executed geometric designs and other elements of architectural relief suggests a very real awareness of Roman provincial art. There is apparently no strong desire in the extreme north to break with con- temporary architectural standards, though, in general, the level of execution is not always of the highest standard. That is to say, the architectural detail provides the feeling that one is a bit removed from the mainstream of imperial Roman art forms. Yet the quality of execution of certain individual features, such as the eagle lintel at Gush Halav, is very high and reflects the availability of qualified artisans in the area.

If a certain conservatism is at work in the mountains of northern Galilee, with similar material culture attested in the Golan, then one is forced to ponder seriously the impli- cations of a rich Jewish representational art in the neighboring Jordan Rift region. One inference to be made is that the sponsors of such art felt few constraints in placing Helios and the signs of the zodiac in the heart of their worship area (Hachlili 1977: 62). While it is quite possible that some of the scenes represent a kind of syncretism with Greco-Roman culture and religion, the minimalist position suggests a simple borrowing of motifs and use within a completely Jewish context. There is no doubt that Greek is far better represented in these areas, and it therefore follows that such Hellenized Jews would be the first to commission works of art that reflected the more cosmopolitan tastes of the day. The evidence from

the catacombs at Beth Shecarim (Avigad and Mazar 1975: 234-47) proves conclusively that much of the rabbinic leadership of the Talmudic period was deeply Hellenized and that it saw no basic conflict between Greek language and culture and Jewish learning. A growing flirtation with mysticism and astrology, well documented in the rabbinic literature, also may account for this kind of flexibility. It is no longer necessary to explain any Judeo- Hellenic hybrid by recourse to a kind of illicit mysticism not sanctioned by the rabbinic authori- ties, as the late E. R. Goodenough suggested (1953: 3-32). The mere presence of the Hammath mosaics in such a center of Jewish learning as Tiberias itself suggests that locales of Jewish learning were no less Hellenized than Husaifa or Naaran.

In addition to the conservative tendency in representational art which characterizes the Upper Gali- lee, the extreme northern highlands may be distinguished from Lower Galilee in other ways as well. A statistical survey of known inscrip- tional remains suggests a prevailing attachment to Hebrew and Aramaic. though Greek also is known (Meyers 1976a: 97). It is the more Hellenized southern Galilee which attests to the widespread use of Greek. Also, there exists in Upper Galilee and the Golan a unique ceramic repertoire that is absent from Judea and only present in part in Lower Galilee. Despite the conservative nature of Upper Galilee, however, the presence of imported fine wares and an unusually high incidence of coins from the port city of Tyre attests to a highly developed trade network

and rather sophisticated material culture. It is quite clear that many of these differences may be the result of the rugged topography of the Meiron mountain range which separates the two Galilees, but it also is clear that those who settled the Upper Galilee did so with the express purpose of seeking refuge from the vast Roman administrative control network which was so effective in Lower Galilee and in the south (Avi-Yonah 1977: 133-35).

So there is great diversity and discontinuity of sorts between the two Galilees and between north and south. There is also, as we have indicated, great diversity in synagogue types even within a single region, as we have noted at Khirbet Shemac, Meiron, and Gush Halav. To our mind, such diversity within a region reflects man's perennial need to differentiate himself from his closest neighbor. It need not indicate much more than this, however.

In the case of Gush Halav, situated deep in the wadi below the upper city where remnants of another ancient synagogue have been found, there is the additional possibility that one segment of the community might have been Jewish- Christian. Indeed, one of the published tombs from the acropolis area has been identified recently as Jewish-Christian (Saunders 1977). The Italian Franciscans have maintained for many years that Gush Halav was an ancient Jewish- Christian stronghold in Galilee. They also contend that a multireligious community existed at Capernaum where the Christian House of Peter stands alongside the great synagogue. They further argue the

106 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST SPRING 1980



presence of a Jewish-Christian community, a view called into serious question by others (Strange 1977: 67-68). The mere existence, however, of the kind of data described here suggested that the rationale for self-differentiation and even for site location may be rooted in a genuine religious pluralism. Until such time as the subject of Jewish-Christianity in ancient Pales- tine achieves a kind of scholarly control and consensus, however, it seems that few people would be prepared to understand such diversity of material culture in religious terms.

Loosening the fetters of a rigid typological understanding of the synagogue thus can open up new ways of understanding the Judaism of Roman and Byzantine Palestine. Considering blocks of material in terms of regions enables us to understand the rich diversity which must now be associated with a rabbinic Judaism usually thought of as "normative" or monochromatic. In addition to shedding light on the matter of pluralism, a study of the material culture of Galilee indicates a level of culture that points to a peak of material culture in the late Roman and Byzantine periods.

It is at this time, ca. 400 C.E., that the Palestinian Talmud was completed. In the west the Babylo- nian Talmud always has been held in higher esteem, for Palestinian Jewry was thought to be in eclipse at this time. But in light of the high level of material culture from the Byzantine era, it becomes very difficult to conceive of the Palestine of this period as having declined in any sense.

It is possible, however, that tensions in the 4th century contributed to some population movement. Indeed, a recent site survey of the Galilee-Golan region suggests a slightly earlier peak for Lower Galilee, 3rd-4th centuries C.E., and a slightly later peak for parts of Upper Galilee and the Golan, 4th- 5th centuries C.E.. pointing to a general shift northwest onto the volcanic highlands of southern Syria

as pressures from the Roman imperium seem to mount (Meyers, Strange, and Groh 1978). It is quite probable that such a shift in population can be related to new methods of taxation in kind as runaway inflation ate away at the pocketbooks of the Roman governors.

The synagogues indicate a high level of culture and a rich religious diversity.

One of the real puzzles yet to be resolved in the quest to understand the transition between the Roman and Byzantine periods in Palestine is the role of the revolt against Gallus Caesar in 351 C.E. All of the 15 or so localities affected by this major disruption are located in Lower Galilee. There is no evidence whatever that the Upper Galilean highlands were affected by this outburst of political fervor. There had been massive attempts on the part of Rome to urbanize this part of Palestine. The revolt in the reign of Gallus Caesar suggests that such a policy had gone just a bit too far. Upper Galilee, which like the Golan was not administered in such a fashion, did not join in. It is quite possible that Hellenistic inroads were so great in Lower Galilee at the time of Gallus that they no longer were acceptable, and Jews, when faced with the right opportunity, again sought access to redemptive media4 in their attempt to achieve political sovereignty. Upper Galilee's conservatism and location in the hinterland could have made joining this abortive venture quite unneces- sary, because Upper Galilee had constituted a sort of refuge area since the days of Bar Kochba.

While the relative calm in the Eastern Empire was broken briefly by the Gallus Revolt, a measure of prosperity reigned in Palestine until the accession of Emperor Justinian

in 527 C.E., when Jews were repressed and ultimately persecuted. Such prosperity is evidenced in the extent of synagogue- and church-building despite reported hostilities between Jews and Christians in the patristic literature (Wilkinson 1977: 179-81). The intense building activity and relative prosperity may be understood also as a result of the new status-Holy Land-which Palestine achieved as new wealth and masses of pilgrims poured into the country from a newly Christianized Empire.

Though one tends to think of Palestinian Jewry as being in decline after Constantine, new archeological data force us to rethink this question. For reasons still unknown, the Palestinian version of the Talmud, compiled around 400 C.E., does not signify the end of Jewish creativity in the Holy Land, but rather indicates a high point in both the material as well as literary culture of the Jewish people.

The Byzantine period similarly marks a high point in the history of Christianity as it also witnesses an unprecedented program of church building in the Holy Land. In our view, this building activity cannot be due entirely to imperial efforts during and following the reign of Constantine. Rather, it testifies also to the tenacity of the Jewish- Christian church in Palestine.

In short, the history of Roman- Byzantine Palestine is yet to be written. It is clear that this will occur only when literary historians and archeologists join hands in such an endeavor which will undoubtedly shed further light on both church and synagogue.

Notes

This article was written in August 1977. 1American involvement in Palestinian studies

begins with Robinson, who was one of the founding members of Union Theological Semi- nary. His first visit to the Holy Land resulted in his pioneering work, Biblical Researches in Palestine (1841). Trained as a biblical scholar, Robinson's explorations on horseback led him to




identify and locate many of the premier sites in Palestine. His greatest contributions to arche- ology are perhaps his studies in the newly developing field of historical geography. For a summary of his career, see Wright (1970: 3-8).

2Around 1973 there was a flurry of excitement in Israel as the Italian Franciscans announced to the world that the synagogue site at Capernaum, mentioned in the New Testament, dated to the 4th-5th centuries C.E. of the Byzantine era. Excavated by Fathers V. Corbo and S. Loffreda, the late dating upset many of the older theories regarding the development of the so-called Galilean/early or basilical synagogue. James F. Strange, while subjecting their publications to critical review, has basically accepted the late dating (1977: 70), though raising many other substantive issues.

'We have refrained from speaking in detail about the recent excavations at Eshtemoca by Z. Yeivin and at Susiyah by S. Gutman, Z. Yeivin, and E. Netzer because only the most preliminary reports are yet available in Qadmoniot 5 (1972), no. 2, an issue devoted entirely to ancient synagogues. Also included in this special issue are reports on En-gedi by D. Barag, Y. Porat, and E. Netzer and on Beth-shan by D. Bahat. The Israel Exploration Society, however, is publishing an updated, English language version of this issue which also will include updated remarks on Khirbet Shemac by the author. The publication has been in press since 1977.

4The extent of destruction of Jewish villages and towns in the times of Gallus is sufficient to justify speculation that the revolt of the Jews at this time was a millennial uprising of sorts with messianic underpinnings.

Bibliography

Avigad, N., and Mazar, B. 1975 Beth Shecarim. Pp. 229-47 in vol. I of

Encyclopedia of Archaeological Ex- cavations in the Holy Land. Jeru- salem: Masada.

Avi-Yonah, M. 1973a Ancient Synagogues. Ariel 32: 29-43

(Hebrew). 1973b Editor's Note. Israel Exploration

Journal 23: 43-45. 1977 The Holi' Land. Grand Rapids:

Baker Book House. Foerster, G.

1971 Les Synagogues de Galil&e. Bible et Terre Sainte 130: 8-15.

1973 The Synagogues at Masada and Herodium. Eretz Israel 11: 224-28 (Hebrew).

Goodenough, E. R. 1953-69 Jewish Symbols ofthe Greco-Roman

Period. New York: Bollingen. Groh, D. E.

1977 Galilee and the Eastern Roman Empire in Late Antiquity. Explor 3: 78-93.

Hachlili, R. 1976 The Niche and the Ark in Ancient

Synagogues. Bulletin ofthe American Schools of Oriental Research 223: 43-53.

1977 The Zodiac in Ancient Jewish Art: Representation and Significance. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 228: 61-77.

Htittenmeister, F., and Reeg, G. 1977 Die antiken Siynagogen in Israel.

Beihefte zum Ttibinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients No. 12/1. Wies- baden: Reichert.

Kohl, H., and Watzinger, C. 1916 Antike Srnagogen in Galilaea. Leip-

zig: Wissenshaftliche Veriffentlich- ung der deutschen Orient-Gesell- schaft.

Kraabel, A. T. 1974 Ancient Synagogues. Pp. 436-39 in

supplemental vol. 16 of New Catholic Encyclopedia.

Loffreda, S. 1973 The Late Chronology of the Syna-

gogue of Capernaum. Israel Explora- tion Journal 23: 37-42.

May, H. G. 1944 Synagogues in Palestine. The Biblical

Archaeologist 7: 1-20. Meyers, E. M.

1976a Synagogue Architecture. Pp. 842-44 in The Interpreter's Dictionariy ofthe Bible. Supplementary Volume, ed. K. Crim. Nashville: Abingdon.

1976b Galilean Regionalism as a Factor in Historical Reconstruction. Bulletin

of the American Schools of Oriental Research 221: 93-101.

1977 Gush Halav 1977, Notes and News. Israel Exploration Journal 27: 253-54.

Meyers, E. M.; Kraabel, A. T.; and Strange, J. F. 1976 Ancient Synagogue Excavations at

Khirhet Shemac, Upper Galilee, Israel 1970-1972. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Re- search 42. Durham: Duke University.

Meyers, E. M., and Strange, J. F. 1977 Survey in Galilee: 1976. Explor 3:

7-18.

Meyers, E. M.; Strange, J. F.; and Groh, D. E. 1978 The Meiron Excavation Project:

Archeological Survey in Galilee and Golan, 1976. Bulletin of the Amer- ican Schools of Oriental Research 230: 1-24.

Meyers, E. M.; Strange, J. F.; and Meyers, C. L. 1978 Second Preliminary Report on the

Excavations at Ancient Meiron. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 43: 73-103.

Naveh, J. 1978 On Stone and Mosaic: The Aramaic

and Hebrew Inscriptions from An- cient Synagogues. Jerusalem: Maca- riv (Hebrew).

Safrai, S. 1963 Was there a Woman's Gallery in the

Synagogue? Tarbiz 32: 329-38 (He- brew).

Sailer, S. J. 1972 Second Revised Catalogue of the

Ancient Synagogues of the Holi' Land. Jerusalem: Franciscan.

Saunders, E. W. 1977 Christian Synagogues and Jewish

Christianity in Galilee. Explor 3: 70-78.

Strange, J. F. 1976 Capernaum. Pp. 140-41 in The Inter-

preter's Dictionary of the Bible. Supplementary Volume, ed. K. Crim. Nashville: Abingdon.

1977 Review Article: The Capernaum and Herodian Publications. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 226: 65-73.

Sukenik, E. L. 1934 Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and

Greece. London: Oxford University. Wilkinson, J.

1976 Christian Pilgrims in Jerusalem during the Byzantine Period. Palestine Exploration

Quarterly 108: 75-101.

1977 Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Cru- sades. Warminster, England: Aris and Phillips.

Wright, G. E. 1970 The Phenomenon of American Ar-

chaeology in Palestine. Pp. 3-40 in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth

Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck, ed. J. A. Sanders. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.




Documents

Ancient Synagogues in Galilee: Their Religious and Cultural Setting