arts

Article Art and Identity in Late Antique Synagogues of the Roman-Byzantine Diaspora

Noa Yuval-Hacham

Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem 9370610, Israel; [email protected]


Received: 30 October 2019; Accepted: 5 December 2019; Published: 10 December 2019


Abstract: Late antiquity witnessed the increased construction of synagogues in the Jewish diaspora of the Roman-Byzantine world. Although not large in number, these synagogues were impressive and magnificent structures that were certainly conspicuous in the urban landscape, especially when constructed within a central location. This paper focuses on mosaic carpets discovered at these synagogues, to discern their distinguishing features through a comparative perspective. Two focal points are examined: on the one hand, local Roman-Byzantine mosaics in civic and religious buildings, and on the other hand, Jewish mosaics carpets in Palestinian synagogues. This comparison reveals several clear distinctions between the Jewish diasporic mosaic carpets and the other two groups of mosaics, that broaden our understanding of the unique nature of Jewish art in the Roman-Byzantine diaspora in particular, and of Jewish diasporic identity in late antiquity in general.

Keywords: mosaic carpets; Jewish diaspora; late antiquity; figural images; geometric patterns; Palestinian synagogues

The artistic remains from late antique synagogues are rich and fascinating: most were discovered in dozens of Palestinian synagogues, in stone carvings and mosaic carpets. In this article, I will examine a smaller and less explored branch of this art: that of the Diaspora synagogues, built outside of the provinces of Palestine and Arabia, with a focus on the medium of mosaic carpets.1 Uncovered in archaeological excavations, these synagogues comprise an extremely small group of buildings—15 in all (as opposed to about 120 synagogues uncovered in the Land of Israel). Aside from the frescoes of the Dura Europos synagogue that are continually studied,2 the artistic remains from Diaspora synagogues have naturally received less attention than those from Palestinian synagogues. However, it bears noting that the scant number of synagogues in no way reflect the dimensions of the late antique Jewish diaspora in the Roman-Byzantine sphere. Epigraphic evidence and historical sources attest to the existence of hundreds of communities, and afford us a broader, more precise picture.3 Archeological excavations revealed Roman-Byzantine diasporic synagogues from Dura Europos on the Roman Empire’s eastern frontier, to Elche in Spain in the west. They were constructed from the

1 Some scholars classify Gerasa as a Diasporan synagogue; however, I believe there is a clear affinity between the synagogues in the provinces of Palestine and Arabia, including Gerasa and the synagogue at Naveh in the Hauran, Moreover, the mosaic floor at the synagogue of Gerasa (and the church above it) appertains to a regional artistic tradition of mosaic floors in synagogues and churches in the provinces of Palestine and Arabia. See (Talgam 2014, pp. 319–22). Therefore, I have defined ‘Diaspora’ as the area outside of these provinces. Unfortunately, I do not address the Babylonian diaspora in this article as hitherto not a single synagogue has been uncovered in this region. See (Levine 2005, pp. 286–91). 2 For several key studies that include additional references, see (Kraeling 1979; Weitzmann and Kessler 1990; Fine 2005; Hachlili 2010; Levine 2012, pp. 97–118). 3 For collections of Jewish inscriptions from the various regions, see (Noy 1993, 1995; Noy et al. 2004; Ameling 2004). See also (Rutgers 1995; Panayotov 2004). For the map of the Jewish diaspora based on archeological finds and literary evidence, published by Haifa University’s Jewish Diaspora mapping project, see: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid= 1fiMBoXPJrqzEV-5PU0dKMVMbQbk&ll=32.46113771566362%2C27.950343482299445&z=4.

Arts 2019, 8, 164; doi:10.3390/arts8040164 www.mdpi.com/journal/arts Arts 2019, 8, 164 2 of 18

1st century BCE (Delos)4 until the 6th century CE (Hammam Lif), although most were constructed or renovated towards the end of the period, between the 4th and 6th centuries. In many respects, there is a pronounced diversity within this group of buildings: some synagogues—such as Hammam Lif and Kelibia in Tunisia and Elche in Spain—have small prayer halls that contrast with the spacious prayer halls in Ostia in Italy and Sardis in Asia Minor. Some of the synagogues in this group—Apamea in Syria, Sardis and Andriake in Asia Minor and Plovdiv in Bulgaria—were erected in central locations within the city, while others such as Ostia, and Priene in Asia Minor, were built on its periphery.5 Additionally, the group exhibits diverse architectural plans differentiated by the design of the prayer hall, the position of the Torah shrine and the entrances, and the use of water installations.6 Artistically, however, a noticeable similarity inheres between most of the structures, manifested in colorful mosaic carpets installed in the prayer halls and, at times, in adjoining rooms.7 This paper will focus on the mosaic carpets through which I will attempt to characterize Jewish visuality in the Roman-Byzantine diaspora, and its contribution to a better understanding of Jewish diasporic identity. A brief depiction of several mosaic carpets will preface this discussion. In 1934, in the city of Apamea, the Mission Archaeologique Belge revealed an ancient synagogue, built adjacent to the Cardo Maximus, the city’s main street. The synagogue’s prayer hall is built along a north–south axis, and the Jerusalem-oriented southern wall features a square niche for the Torah shrine. The mosaic carpets that adorned the prayer hall were uncovered in their entirety and they extend over an area of 120 sq. m. The mosaics consist of a central mosaic carpet with a north–south orientation, including two panels bounded by a decorative frame, and eight smaller carpets surrounding the central mosaic carpet from north and west.8 The mosaics incorporate 20 dedicatory inscriptions mentioning the names of 20 donors: 13 women and seven men.9 Two inscriptions record the date of the mosaic carpet’s installation: 392 CE.10 The mosaic features diverse geometric and decorative patterns, some of them manifest in a three-dimensional quality typical to contemporary Syrian mosaic art (Figure1). 11 The prayer hall’s southwestern carpet includes a central medallion containing a dedicatory inscription, surrounded by an octagon resting on eight outward facing squares. A small menorah occupies the space between the two southern squares: this is the only religious symbol in the mosaic carpet (Figure2). 12 The synagogue at Apamea serviced the community only very briefly: the building was abandoned as early as 415–420 CE and a church, known as the Atrium Church, was built above it. The well-preserved state of the synagogue’s mosaics attests that the building’s conversion to a church did not entail their destruction. The synagogue floor was apparently covered over and repaved with a new floor.13

4 The Jewish identity of the building is still disputed, see (Matassa 2018, pp. 37–77). 5 However, it seems that at the time of the Ostia synagogue’s construction the area along the seashore was settled and active. See (White 1997, pp. 27–28; Boin 2013, pp. 119–20). 6 See (Kraabel 1979; White 1990, pp. 60–77; Rutgers 1996; Hachlili 1998, pp. 25–76; Levine 2005, pp. 252–83). 7 Mosaic carpets did not adorn the synagogues at Delos, Dura Europos, Priene and Andriake, though only the last two were operational in the Byzantine period, when, under Christian influence, mosaic carpets became a prominent decorative medium in synagogues. The main decorative medium in the synagogues of Priene and Andriake is the sculptural medium, mainly carved marble slabs. See (Burkhardt and Wilson 2013, pp. 177–78; Cevik et al. 2010, pp. 341–44). 8 See (Mayence 1935; 1939, p. 203; Brenk 1991; Hachlili 1998, pp. 32–34; Levine 2005, pp. 258–60). 9 This mosaic evokes women’s special status in the community: the inscriptions mention eight women as independent donors and mentions the others with their husbands. According to the inscriptions, they financed the installation of over half the carpet. On dedicatory inscriptions that reference female donors to antique synagogues, see (Brooten 1982, pp. 157–65). 10 See (Sukenik 1950–1951; Roth-Gerson 2001, pp. 54–83; Noy and Sorek 2003). 11 See (Balty 1991; Dunbabin 1999, pp. 176–86). 12 See (Verhoogen 1964, p. 16). 13 See (Mayence 1935, pp. 200–1; Napoleone-Lemaire and Balty 1969, pp. 13–22). Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19 attests that the building’s conversion to a church did not entail their destruction. The synagogue floor attestsArts 2019 that, 8 the, 164 building’s conversion to a church did not entail their destruction. The synagogue3 of floor 18 13 was apparently covered over and repaved with a new floor.13

FigureFigure 1. Mosaic 1. Mosaic carpet carpet in in the the prayer prayer hall, hall, the the synago synagoguegue atat Apamea,Apamea, Syria, Syria, 392 392 CE. CE. Courtesy Courtesy of theof the CenterCenter for for Jewish Jewish Art, Art, Hebrew Hebrew University University of of Jerusalem.

FigureFigure 2. Mosaic 2. Mosaic carpet carpet in in the the prayer prayer hall hall with with a a meno menorah,rah, the synagoguesynagogue at at Apamea, Apamea, Syria, Syria, 392 392 CE. CE. CourtesyCourtesy of ofthe the Center Center for for Jewish Jewish Ar Art,t, Hebrew Hebrew University of ofJerusalem. Jerusalem.

The synagogue at Bova Marina in southwestern Italy was discovered accidentally during the eighties of the previous century. The excavators identified two phases in the synagogue: the first following its construction in the 4th century, and the second in the wake of a renovation conducted during the 6th century. The synagogue is located within a complex of rooms whose purpose was not necessarily related to the synagogue. The 6 m × 7 m prayer hall is constructed along a north- west/south-east axis and is accessed through two entrances, on the north-west and south-west walls.

13 13 See (Mayence 1935, pp. 200–1; Napoleone-Lemaire and Balty 1969, pp. 13–22).

Arts 2019, 8, 164 4 of 18

The synagogue at Bova Marina in southwestern Italy was discovered accidentally during the eighties of the previous century. The excavators identified two phases in the synagogue: the first following its construction in the 4th century, and the second in the wake of a renovation conducted during the 6th century. The synagogue is located within a complex of rooms whose purpose was not necessarily related to the synagogue. The 6 m 7 m prayer hall is constructed along a × north-west/south-east axis and is accessed through two entrances, on the north-west and south-west walls. Within the complex, only this hall was paved with a mosaic floor; although it has not survived in its entirety, its outline can be fully reconstructed. The mosaic is divided into sixteen 1 m 1 m square × units, bordered by a guilloche pattern. Laurel garlands populate the squares at the center of which are alternating rosettes and Solomon knots. The northwestern row consists only of semi-squares populated by rosettes. An outer frame of laurel leaves surrounds the entire mosaic floor. The second unit from the right, in the third row from the northwestern entrance, is exceptional: a black contourArts 2019 that, 8, x frames FOR PEER a REVIEW 4 of 19 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19 menorah resting on a tripod base replaces the garland; oil lamps top its seven east-facing branches. Within the complex, only this hall was paved with a mosaic floor; although it has not survived in its The menorah is flanked on the right by a shofar and lulav and on the left by a citron (=ethrog).14 As entirety,Within its outline the complex, can be onlyfully thisreconstructed. hall was paved The mosaicwith a mosaicis divided floor; into although sixteen it1 hasm × not 1 m survived square in its the mosaic carpet’s composition lacks a central axis (that would require an odd number of vertical units, entirety,bordered its by outline a guilloche can be pattern. fully reconstructed. Laurel garlands The populate mosaic isthe divided squares into at thesixteen center 1 m of × which 1 m square rows), the menorah is not at its precise center—facing the estimated position of the Torah shrine on the are alternatingunits, bordered rosettes by and a guilloche Solomon pattern. knots. LaurelThe northwestern garlands populate row consists the squares only atof thesemi-squares center of which southeastern wall: rather it tends somewhat southwards. During the synagogue’s first phase, before populatedare alternating by rosettes. rosettes An outer and fram Solomone of laurel knots. leaves The surrounds northwestern the entire row mosaicconsists floor. only The of semi-squaressecond the construction of the apse and bima, the menorah indicated the building’s southeastern orientation.15 unit frompopulated the right, by rosettes.in the third An rowouter from fram thee of nort laurelhwestern leaves entrance,surrounds is the exceptional: entire mosaic a black floor. contour The second During the early 6th century the building was renovated: the prayer hall was expanded towards that framesunit from a menorah the right, resting in the on third a tripod row from base the replaces northwestern the garland; entrance, oil lamps is exceptional: top its seven a black east- contour the southeast and a bima was built in the new space. An apse was added in the southeast wall. A facingthat branches. frames The a menorah menorah resting is flanked on aon tripod the right base by replaces a shofar theand garland; lulav and oil on lamps the left top by its a citronseven east- new decorative mosaic panel, of inferior quality, was installed between the bima and the edge of (=ethrogfacing). 14 As branches. the mosaic The menorahcarpet’s compositionis flanked on lacksthe right a central by a shofar axis and(that lulav would and requireon the left an byodd a citron the old mosaic carpet.16 The synagogue and the entire settlement were abandoned in the wake of number(=ethrog of vertical). 14 As rows), the mosaic the menorah carpet’s is notcomposition at its precise lacks center—facing a central axis the (that estimated would position require ofan odd outbreaks of violence at the turn of the 7th century. Traces of fire found in the prayer hall attest the the Torahnumber shrine of vertical on the rows), southeastern the menorah wall: israth noter at it its tends precise somewhat center—facing southwards. the estimated During position the of synagogue’s fate.17 synagogue’sthe Torah first shrinephase, onbefore the thesoutheastern construction wall: of therath apseer it andtends bima somewhat, the menorah southwards. indicated During the the The excavations at the ancient city of Sardis in southern Asia Minor revealed a synagogue that is building’ssynagogue’s southeastern first phase,orientation. before15 Duringthe construction the early 6thof thecentury apse thande building bima, the was menorah renovated: indicated the the the largest of all ancient synagogues known to this day. The building, located in the southern part of a prayerbuilding’s hall was expanded southeastern towards orientation. the southeast15 During and the a bima early was 6th built century in the th enew building space. wasAn apserenovated: was the Bath-Gymnasium complex, had been converted into a synagogue in the late 3rd or early 4th century.18 addedprayer in the southeasthall was expanded wall. A new towards decorative the southeast mosaic panel, and a of bima inferior was quality,built in wasthe new installed space. between An apse was The synagogue housed a spacious 18 m 54 m prayer hall with an apse at its western end. A forecourt × the bimaadded and in the the edge southeast of the wall. old Amosaic new decorative carpet.16 mosaicThe synagogue panel, of inferiorand the quality, entire settlementwas installed were between with a fountain fed by underground pipes at its center led to the prayer hall from the east (Figure3). 19 abandonedthe bima in the and wake the ofedge outbreaks of the oldof violence mosaic atcarpet. the turn16 The of thesynagogue 7th century. and Traces the entire of fire settlement found in were During the 4th century, the entire prayer hall, as well as the roofed areas of the forecourt was paved the prayerabandoned hall attest in the the wake synagogue’s of outbreaks fate.17 of violence at the turn of the 7th century. Traces of fire found in with mosaic carpets, some of which were repaired or replaced during the 5th and 6th centuries. The Thethe excavationsprayer hall attestat the the ancient synagogue’s city of Sardis fate.17 in southern Asia Minor revealed a synagogue that mosaic carpets feature decorative and geometric patterns that incorporate dedicatory inscriptions. is the largestThe of excavationsall ancient synagogues at the ancient known city ofto Sardisthis day. in southernThe building, Asia locatedMinor revealedin the southern a synagogue part that They contain no religious or ritual symbols, nor figural images, aside from two zoomorphic figures of a Bath-Gymnasiumis the largest of all complex, ancient synagogueshad been converted known to into this aday. synagogue The building, in the located late 3rd in or the early southern 4th part that had been displaced from the apse mosaic in the course of iconoclastic activity (Figure4). 20 century.of 18a TheBath-Gymnasium synagogue housed complex, a spacious had been 18 m converted × 54 m prayer into halla synagogue with an apse in theat its late western 3rd or end. early 4th A forecourtcentury. with18 Thea fountain synagogue fed by housed underground a spacious pipes 18 mat ×its 54 center m prayer led to hall the with prayer an apsehall from at its the western east end. (FigureA 3).forecourt19 During with the a 4th fountain century, fed the by enundergroundtire prayer hall, pipes as at well its centeras the roofedled to the areas prayer of the hall forecourt from the east 14 See (Costamagna 1991, pp. 623–25; 1994, pp. 239–41; Hachlili 1998, pl. VII: 2). (Figure 3).19 During the 4th century, the entire prayer hall, as well as the roofed areas of the forecourt 15 As such, the northwestern entrance was obviously the main entrance. Excavators found an intact amphorawas paved and fragments with mosaic of carpets, some of which were repaired or replaced during the 5th and 6th other amphorae in a room adjoining the prayer hall, indicating its possible use as a storeroom forcenturies. food.was Two Thepaved amphorae mosaic with carpets mosaic feature carpets, decorative some of whichand geometric were repaired patterns or thatreplaced incorporate during dedicatory the 5th and 6th handles stamped with menorahs attest the amphorae’s use by community members. A pitcher containinginscriptions. overcenturies. 3000 They bronze The contain mosaic carpetsno religious feature or decorative ritual symbols, and geometric nor figural patterns images, that incorporateaside from dedicatorytwo coins, dated mostly to the 5th century, was found in another room. See (Colafemmina 2012, pp. 2–3). 16 See (Costamagna 1991, pp. 626–27; 1994, p. 242). zoomorphicinscriptions. figures Theythat had contain been displacedno religious from or the ritual apse mosaicsymbols, in thenor course figural of iconoclasticimages, aside activity from two 17 (See (Costamagna 1991, p. 628; 1994, p. 243). (Figurezoomorphic 4).20 figures that had been displaced from the apse mosaic in the course of iconoclastic activity 18 The excavators identify four architectural phases of the building, the fourth an uncontrovertibly Jewish structure,(Figureand 4).20 the third debatably so. Magness, by contrast, suggested that the synagogue was established as late as the mid-6th century. See (Seager 1972, pp. 433–35; Botermann 1990; Bonz 1993; Magness 2005). ή 19 An inscription that enumerates the city’s public fountains mentions ‘the synagogue’s fountain’: συναγωγῆ [ς κρ ή νη—]. If indeed this is the said fountain, it appears to have serviced not just the Jewish community but rather all the city’s inhabitants.ῆ See (Buckler and Robinson 1932, pp. 37–40). 20 See (Hanfmann 1967, pp. 10–32; Majewski 1967, pp. 32–46; Seager and Kraabel 1983, pp. 168–74; Hachlili 1998, pp. 218–31).

14 See (Costamagna 1991, pp. 623–25; 1994, pp. 239–41; Hachlili 1998, pl. VII: 2). 15 As14 such, See the (Costamagna northwestern 1991, entrance pp. 623–25; was obviously 1994, pp. th239–41;e main Hachlili entrance. 1998, Excavators pl. VII: 2). found an intact amphora and15 fragments As such, theof other northwestern amphorae entrance in a room was obviouslyadjoining ththee mainprayer entrance. hall, indicating Excavators its foundpossible an intactuse as amphora a storeroomand fragmentsfor food. Twoof other amphorae amphorae handles in a roomstamped adjoinin withg menorahsthe prayer attesthall, indicatingthe amphorae’s its possible use byuse as a communitystoreroom members. for food.A pitcher Two contai amphoraening over handles 3000 bronzestamped coins, with dated menorahs mostly attest to the the 5th amphorae’scentury, was use by found incommunity another room. members. See (Colafemmina A pitcher contai 2012,ning pp. over 2–3). 3000 bronze coins, dated mostly to the 5th century, was 16 See (Costamagnafound in another 1991, pp. room. 626–27; See (Colafemmina 1994, p. 242). 2012, pp. 2–3). 17 See16 (Costamagna See (Costamagna 1991, p. 1991, 628; pp.1994, 626–27; p. 243) 1994,. p. 242). 18 The17 excavators See (Costamagna identify 1991,four architp. 628;ectural 1994, p.phases 243). of the building, the fourth an uncontrovertibly Jewish structure,18 The and excavators the third identify debatably four so. archit Magness,ectural by phases contrast, of suggestedthe building, that the the fourth synagogue an uncontrovertibly was established Jewish as late structure,as the mid-6th and thecentury. third Seedebatably (Seager so. 197 Magness,2, pp. 433–35; by co Botermannntrast, suggested 1990; Bonz that the1993; synagogue Magness was2005). established 19 An inscriptionas late as that the enumeratesmid-6th century. the city’s See (Seagerpublic fountains 1972, pp. mentions433–35; Botermann ‘the synagogue’s 1990; Bonz fountain’: 1993; Magness συναγωγῆ 2005). [ς 19κρήνη An—]. inscription If indeed that this enumerates is the said fountain,the city’s publicit appear fountainss to have mentions serviced ‘the not synagogue’s just the Jewish fountain’: community συναγωγῆ but rather[ς κρήνη all the—]. city’s If indeed inhabitants. this is See the (Buckler said fountain, and Robinson it appear 1932,s to havepp. 37–40). serviced not just the Jewish community 20 See (Hanfmannbut rather 1967, all the pp. city’s 10–32; inhabitants. Majewski See 1967, (Buckler pp. 32–46; and Robinson Seager and 1932, Kraabel pp. 37–40). 1983, pp. 168–74; Hachlili 1998,20 pp. See 218–31). (Hanfmann 1967, pp. 10–32; Majewski 1967, pp. 32–46; Seager and Kraabel 1983, pp. 168–74; Hachlili 1998, pp. 218–31).

Arts 2019, 8, 164 5 of 18 Arts 2019,, 8,, xx FORFOR PEERPEER REVIEWREVIEW 5 of 19

Figure 3.3. AA fountainfountain in in the the center center of theof the forecourt, forecourt, the synagoguethethe synagoguesynagogue at Sardis, atat Sardis,Sardis, Asia Minor, AsiaAsia Minor, 4th–5thMinor, 4th–5th4th–5th century. century.Courtesy Courtesy of the Center of the for Center Jewish for Art, Jewish Hebrew Art, UniversityHebrew University of Jerusalem. of Jerusalem.

Figure 4. MosaicMosaic carpets carpets in in the the prayer prayer hall, hall, the the synagogue synagogue at Sardis. Courtesy Courtesy of the Center for Jewish Art, Hebrew UniversityUniversity ofof Jerusalem.Jerusalem.

However, the mosaic carpets do notnot comprisecomprise thethe entireentire synagoguesynagogue ddécor:écor: a range of artistic techniques was utilized to decoratedecorate the variousvarious areasareas ofof thethe building.building. The The synagogue can only be appraised by examination of its art as an entirety:entirety: the the lower lower part of the prayer hall’s walls were decorated withwith polychromepolychromeopus opus sectile sectilethat thatthat included includedincluded engraved engravedengraved pieces piecespieces of of marbleof marblemarble and andand marble marblemarble pieces piecespieces cut 21 cutin various in various patterns, patterns, among among them them several several zoomorphic zoomorphic depictions. depictions.A21 pair A A pairpair of marble ofof marblemarble sculptures—each sculptures—sculptures— eachengraved engraved with awith pair a of pair back-to-back of back-to-back lion—as lion—as well as awell marble as a table marble with table an eagle with engraved an eagle uponengraved each

21 See (Majewski 1967, pp. 41–50, figs. 59–60, 71; Seager and Kraabel 1983, pp. 262–66).

2121 See See (Majewski(Majewski 1967,1967, pp.pp. 41–50,41–50, figs.figs. 59–60,59–60, 71; Seager and Kraabel 1983, pp. 262–66).

Arts 2019, 8, 164 6 of 18 leg was utilized in secondary use within the prayer hall.22 Two aedicula on masonry platforms flanking the mainArts 2019 entrance, 8, x FOR toPEER the REVIEW prayer hall in its eastern wall, as well as numerous depictions of6 religiousof 19 23 symbols,upon most each notablyleg was theutilized menorah, in secondary reflect theuse building’s within the functionprayer hall. as a22 JewishTwo aedicula house on of prayer.masonry The artisticplatforms remains flanking of the Sardis the main synagogue entrance present to the prayer therefore hall a in complex its eastern picture wall, whose as well significance as numerous will be addresseddepictions in the of continuum.religious symbols, The synagoguemost notably was the menorah, abandoned reflect in the the wakebuilding’s of the function Sassanid as a conquestJewish of the cityhouse in 616.of prayer.24 23 The artistic remains of the Sardis synagogue present therefore a complex picture Thewhose ancient significance synagogue will be addressed in the Albanian in the continuum. city of Saranda The synagogue will complete was abandoned this brief in the survey. wake The synagogueof the Sassanid is located conquest in a complex of the city of in rooms616.24 in which excavators identified five phases of activity during theThe Late ancient Roman-Byzantine synagogue in period.the Albanian Phases city 3–4 of correlate Saranda withwill thecomplete synagogue’s this brief activity survey. during The the synagogue is located in a complex of rooms in which excavators identified five phases of activity 5th–6th centuries and perhaps even earlier. A north–south oriented hall decorated with a rectangular during the Late Roman-Byzantine period. Phases 3–4 correlate with the synagogue’s activity during mosaic floor that includes various geometric patterns presumably appertains to the synagogue’s first the 5th–6th centuries and perhaps even earlier. A north–south oriented hall decorated with a phaserectangular (Phase 3 ofmosaic the site).floor that The includes carpet’s various central ge panelometric contains patterns a menorah,presumably a appertainsshofar and to an theethrog , promptingsynagogue’s excavators first phase to name (Phase it the 3 of ‘Menorah the site). Th Hall’e carpet’s (Figure central5). An panel additional contains mosaic a menorah, floor, a adjacent shofar to this carpetand an inethrog the, east,prompting portrays excavators an amphora to name from it the which ‘Menorah protrudes Hall’ (Figure a bush 5). with An additional foliage and mosaic possibly a figurefloor, of adjacent an animal to this as well.carpet25 inIn the its east, second portrays phase, an theamphora synagogue from which functioned protrudes in ana bush east-oriented with basilicafoliage structure, and possibly with a figure mosaic of carpetan animal adorning as well.25 the In nave.its second Three phase, architectural the synagogue facades—or functioned perhaps in aediculaean —arrangedeast-oriented vertically,basilica structure, one atop with the othera mosa areic depictedcarpet adorning in the mosaic.the nave. The Three eastern architectural one attached to thefacades—orbima is best perhaps preserved: aediculae a pair—arranged of birds vertically, is discernible one atop adorning the other both are sides depicted of the in gable. the mosaic. Additional The eastern one attached to the bima is best preserved: a pair of birds is discernible adorning both images in the carpet include an amphora surrounded by zoomorphic figures, trees encircled by animal sides of the gable. Additional images in the carpet include an amphora surrounded by zoomorphic pairs and interlaced medallions inhabited by birds and flowers.26 figures, trees encircled by animal pairs and interlaced medallions inhabited by birds and flowers.26

Figure 5. Jewish symbols in the mosaic carpet of the ‘Menorah Hall’, the synagogue at Saranda, Albania,

5–6th century. Courtesy of the Center for Jewish Art, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 22 See (Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, pp. 63–65, figs. 92–101 [lions], pp. 148–49, figs. 379–82 [table of eagles]). For a discussion regarding the significance of these spolia objects in the prayer hall, see (Levine 2012, pp. 304–6). 22 See23 (Hanfmann See (Hanfmann and Ramage and Ramage 1978, pp. 1978, 63–65, pp. figs. 151–52, 92–101 figs. [lions], 391–93; pp. Seager 148–49, and figs. Kraabel 379–82 1983, [table pp. of eagles]).170–71). For a discussion regarding24 See the(Seager significance 1972, p. of435). these spolia objects in the prayer hall, see (Levine 2012, pp. 304–6). 23 See25 (Hanfmann Additional and mosaic Ramage fragments 1978, pp. that 151–52, are identified figs. 391–93; with Seager this phase and Kraabel are mostly 1983 ,geometric pp. 170–71). and decorative. See 24 See (Seager(Netzer 1972 and, p. Foerster 435). 2005, pp. 47–49). 25 Additional mosaic fragments that are identified with this phase are mostly geometric and decorative. See 26 See (ibid., pp. 49–53). (Netzer and Foerster 2005, pp. 47–49). 26 See (ibid., pp. 49–53). Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19

Arts 2019, 8,Figure 164 5. Jewish symbols in the mosaic carpet of the ‘Menorah Hall’, the synagogue at Saranda,7 of 18 Albania, 5–6th century. Courtesy of the Center for Jewish Art, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

This brief overview suffices suffices to demonstrate the prominence of geometric and decorative patterns in the mosaicmosaic carpets and, conversely, thethe proportionallyproportionally smallsmall amountamount of figuralfigural images.images. Of all the mosaics in Diaspora synagogues, zoomorphic images are most prevalent at Saranda; they appear also in the mosaic carpets at Hamman Lif and Kelibia in Tunisia. Conversely, thethe decorativedecorative plans of the mosaic carpets at Apamea, Aegina, Plovdiv, Stobi, Bova Marina and Ostia are completely aniconic. Moreover, anthropomorphicanthropomorphic images have never been discovered in any of the Diasporan synagogue 27 mosaics—certainly not images aaffiliatedffiliated withwith thethe paganpagan world.world.27 An additional phenomenonphenomenon that that warrants warrants consideration consideration is is the the presence presence of of religious religious symbols—the symbols— lulav ethrog shofar 28 menorah,the menorah, lulav, , ethrogand and shofar, in, in the the mosaic mosaic carpets. carpets.28 These These symbols—especially symbols—especially the menorah, occur inin mostmost of of the the carpets, carpets, although although with with varying varying degrees degrees of prominence of prominence and conspicuity. and conspicuity. At Plovdiv At a monumental menorah appears on a 3.8 m 3 m panel, flanked by the four species (Figure6). 29 At Plovdiv a monumental menorah appears on× a 3.8 m × 3 m panel, flanked by the four species (Figure Saranda6).29 At Saranda and Bova and Marina Bova the Marina menorahs the menorahs (and the symbols(and the flanking symbols them) flanking are conspicuousthem) are conspicuous because of theirbecause central of their position central in position the carpet in andthe theircarpet occurrence and their inoccurrence an independent in an independent unit, whereas unit, at Apameawhereas andat Apamea at Hammam and at Lif Hammam the menorahs Lif the merge menorahs with the merge carpet’s with decorative the carpet’s scheme decorative and are scheme thus much and lessare 30 prominent.thus much lessRecently, prominent. Robyn30 Recently, Walsh arguedRobyn thatWalsh the argued mosaic that at thethe Elchemosaic synagogue at the Elche incorporated synagogue aincorporated small menorah a small depiction, menorah thus depiction, dispelling somethus dispelling scholars’ doubts some regardingscholars’ doubts the structure’s regarding Jewish the 31 identitystructure’s (Figure Jewish7). identity (Figure 7).31

Figure 6. A huge menorah, flanked flanked by the four species, in the mosaic carpet of the prayer hall, the synagogue atat Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria, Bulgaria, 4th 4th century. century. Courtesy Courtesy of the of Regional the Regional Archaeological Archaeological Museum, Museum, Plovdiv. Plovdiv. This said, Ostia and Sardis demonstrate that the absence of religious symbols from the mosaics doesThis not ensuresaid, Ostia their and absence Sardis from demonstrate the entire that dé corthe ofabsence the building: of religious an engraving symbols from of the the menorah, mosaics togetherdoes not withensure a shofar theirand absence the four from species, the entire adorns déco twor of supporting the building: corbels an engraving on the façade of the of the menorah, apsidal aedicula at Ostia.32 At Sardis, numerous menorah depictions, in engravings, reliefs and sculpture, were

27 Anthropomorphic images are completely absent from Diasporan Jewish art of the Byzantine period, yet manifest extensively in the frescoes at Dura Europos from the mid-3rd century. An exception is a small 27 Anthropomorphicengraving depicting images the are biblical completely story absent of fromDaniel Diasporan in the lion’s Jewish den art of discovered the Byzantine at period, the Sardis yet manifest synagogue; extensively see in the frescoes at Dura Europos from the mid-3rd century. An exception is a small engraving depicting the biblical story of Danielbelow, in note the lion’s 53. den discovered at the Sardis synagogue; see below, note 53. 28 Hachlili Hachlili argues argues that that the the menorah menorah appears appears frequently frequently alongside alongside the lulav andthe lulavethrog andin Diasporan ethrog in synagogues Diasporan and synagogues much less oftenand alongsidemuch less the oftenshofar alongside. See (Hachlili the 1998shofar, p.. See 354; (Hachlili 2018, pp. 1998, 133–35). p. 354; 2018, pp. 133–35). 29 29 See See ( Panayotov(Panayotov 2004 2004,, pp. pp. 41–45). 41–45). 30 See (Fantar 2009, p. 1085, fig. 2). 30 See (Fantar 2009, p. 1085, fig. 2). 31 See (Walsh 2016, pp. 96–99). 31 32 See See ( Hachlili(Walsh 1998 2016,, pl. pp. II: 96–99). 9–10).

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19 Arts 2019, 8, 164 8 of 18 together with a shofar and the four species, adorns two supporting corbels on the façade of the apsidal aedicula at Ostia.32 At Sardis, numerous menorah depictions, in engravings, reliefs and sculpture, 33 werefound found throughout throughout the synagogue the synagogue and inand proximity in proximity to it. to Similarly,it.33 Similarly, at Dura at Dura Europos, Europos, Andriake Andriake and andPriene—synagogues Priene—synagogues that lackthat mosaic lack mosaic carpets—menorahs carpets—menorahs appear inappear frescoes, in reliefsfrescoes, and engravings.reliefs and engravings.Seemingly, notSeemingly, one community not one refrained community from refrained depicting from the menorah—usuallydepicting the menorah—usually with accompanying with accompanyingreligious symbols—in religious the symbols—in space of the the synagogue. space of the synagogue.

Figure 7. AA small small menorah menorah integrated integrated in in the the geometric geometric pa patternstterns of of the the mosaic mosaic floor, floor, the synagogue at Elche, Spain, 4th century. Photograph courtesy of Robyn Faith Walsh.

Two phenomena thus characterize the iconography of mosaic carpets (and (and largely, largely, all the visual art) ofof DiasporaDiaspora synagogues: synagogues: limited limited portrayal portrayal of figural of figural images images and the and presence the presence of religious of religious symbols. symbols.In order to In assess order theto assess significance the significance of these phenomena, of these phenomena, I will seek I will to discern seek to the discern relationship the relationship between betweenthis group this of mosaicsgroup of and mosaics two additional and two groups: additional the localgroups: Late the Roman local and Late Byzantine Roman and mosaic Byzantine carpets, mosaicin religious carpets, and in civic religious buildings, and civic adjacent buildings, in time adjacent and place in time to the and synagogues, place to the and synagogues, the contemporary and the contemporarymosaic carpets mosaic in Palestinian carpets synagogues.in Palestinian synagogues. According to a widespread opinion, the mosaic carpets carpets of of Diaspora Diaspora synagogues synagogues share, share, above above all, all, an artistic language with local mosaic art. 34 Indeed,Indeed, this this affinity affinity between the Jewish and local mosaic carpets, expressed as stylistic resemblances and id identicalentical geometric patterns is clearly discernible at several sites. Thus, Thus, for for example, example, at at Apamea, Apamea, geom geometricetric designs designs in in the late 4th century synagogue mosaic also decoratedecorate mosaicmosaic carpets carpets at at a a spacious spacious villa villa dated dated to to the the second second half half of theof the 4th 4th century. century.35 At35 Atthe the villa, villa, the the geometric geometric patterns patterns frame frame large large panels panels that that display display sophisticated sophisticated figural figural depictions; depictions; the thesynagogue synagogue artist, artist, however, however, omitted omitted the figural the figural panels pa andnels filled and thefilled entire the areaentire with area geometric with geometric designs. designs.Furthermore, Furthermore, the geometric the geometric pattern in pattern the synagogue’s in the synagogue’s southern mosaicsouthern carpet mosaic (Figure carpet1) appears (Figure in1) appearsseveral contemporary in several contemporary Antiochian mosaics—attestingAntiochian mosaics—attesting the mobility the of decorative mobility of patterns, decorative transcending patterns, transcendingreligious boundaries religious in boundaries Byzantine Syria.in Byzantine36 At Stobi, Syria. the36 At excavators Stobi, the pointed excavators to a clearpointed resemblance to a clear between the 4th and 5th century synagogue mosaics and local mosaics: one in a private home named ‘the casino’, and the other in the second phase of the old Episcopal Basilica, dated to the early 5th 32 See (Hachlili 1998, pl. II: 9–10). 33 Most of the artistic works were found in the prayer hall, and several in the forecourt and in the stores near the synagogue. Recently, Marcus Rautman published a marble slab engraved with a menorah flanked by a 33 Most of the artistic works were found in the prayer hall, and several in the forecourt and in the stores near the synagogue. Recently,lulav and Marcus an ethrog Rautman that was published uncovered a marble at slabthe city’s engraved center with (f aield menorah 55). See flanked (Burkhardt by a lulav 2014,and p. an 198;ethrog Rautmanthat was uncovered2015). at the city’s center (field 55). See (Burkhardt 2014, p. 198; Rautman 2015). 34 See See ( Hachlili(Hachlili 1998 1998,, p. 236).p. 236). 35 35 SeeSee ( Balty(Balty 1995 1995,, pp. pp. 177–90, 177–90, pl. XVIII: pl. XVIII: 1–2). This1–2). is This the plate’s is the number. plate's number. In Levi 1947 In (below),Levi 1947 vol (below), I is text, and vol vol. I is IItext, is plates. and 36 See in the 4th century mosaic carpet from the Yakto Complex in Daphne, near Antioch (Levi 1947, vol. I, pp. 280–81; vol. II, pl.vol. 111: II is a), plates. as well as in the 5th century mosaic from the ‘House of Ge and Season’ in Daphne, where a protome of a female 36 personification See in the 4th populatescentury mosaic the central carpet medallion from the (ibid., Yakto vol. Complex I, pp. 346–47; in Daphne, vol. II, pl. near 82: a).Antioch Of the ties(Levi between 1947, vol. the JewishI, pp. communities280–81; vol. of II, Antioch pl. 111: and a), Apameaas well as we in can the learn 5th fromcentury two mosaic dedicatory from inscriptions the ‘House from of the Ge synagogue and Season’ that in mention Daphne, the donationwhere a ofprotome ‘Ilasios (son)of a female of Isakios, personification archisynagogos populates of the Antiochians’. the central See: medallion (Roth-Gerson (ibid., 2001 vol., pp. I, 54,pp. 57). 346–47; vol. II,

Arts 2019, 8, 164 9 of 18 century. They suggest that the Jewish and Christian communities engaged the same workshops to install the mosaic carpets.37 In Sardis, civic structures of the Bath-Gymnasium complex (which included the synagogue) were paved during the 4th and 5th centuries with geometric mosaic carpets, similar in style and design to those that were installed in the synagogue during the same period.38 The affinity of the synagogue mosaics to local mosaic art is not at all surprising: it is only natural that the Jewish community designed its house of prayer in conformance to aesthetic conventions that were current in the near environment and engaged local workshops to this end. Joint Jewish, Christian and pagan patronage of the same workshops, with customization of the works, such as sarcophagi decorations, gold glasses, chancel screens and mosaic carpets, to each group’s specific requirements, is a well known phenomenon in late antique art.39 Nevertheless, the absence, in a religious structure, of identity markers of the religious group that functioned within the building runs counter to expectation. As such, the two phenomena discussed above—the restriction of figural images and the presence of religious symbols—indeed articulate the worldview of the Jewish communities and are in dissonance with local mosaic art. Regarding religious symbols—these were generally harmonized within the existing geometric patterns, with no need for customization. Thus, for example, in the synagogue at Kelibia: the rectangular mosaic in the prayer hall is divided vertically and horizontally into 11 square, identically sized units (one of the corner units is missing). Various elements: amphorae, flowers, Solomon knots and a square decorate the corners of the units. Three of the 11 units contain depictions of menorahs, one in each corner.40 The attitude towards figural art is a different matter: in this case, the Jewish mosaic carpets represent a position that diverged from that of their non-Jewish environment. Late Roman and Early Byzantine mosaics, from east to west, abounded in figural images including zoomorphic and anthropomorphic figures as well as representations of deities and Christian saints. This distinction manifests clearly at those sites where figural mosaic carpets are close in time and location to synagogue mosaics. Thus, for example, a villa in Apamea, located near the synagogue, houses a 4th century mosaic carpet depicting the Greek philosopher Socrates and six of his disciples seated in a semi-circle.41 Thus also at Ostia, where figural mosaics dated to the 4th century adorned the caldarium and the frigidarium in the Baths of Musiciolus, built very close to the synagogue, on the northern side of the Severiana road. The mosaic carpet in the caldarium features a decorative border that creates square and rectangular panels. Five of the panels are occupied by male busts: four are athletes while the fifth—Pascentius—is depicted as a cloaked and bearded older man.42 This example, among others,43 demonstrates that the cautious approach towards figural images manifested in Jewish mosaics did not harmonize with the local mosaic art and, in this context, might have expressed a tendency to differentiation. While, for the most part, Jewish symbols integrated smoothly into the common geometric patterns, the tendency to minimize and avoid figural images differentiated between synagogue mosaics and local mosaic art. Thus, synagogue artists conceived elaborate geometric-decorative schemes to fill entire carpets, and these became a hallmark of Jewish diasporic mosaic art.44

37 See (Kolarik 2014, pp. 118–19). 38 See (Yegül 1986, pp. 53, 243, 268, 272, 281). 39 See (Engemann 1968–1969; Rutgers 1995, pp. 67–73; 1998, pp. 76–82; Hachlili 1998, pp. 445–49). 40 See (Fantar 2009, figs. 5–6, 9, 11). 41 See (Drbal 2009). 42 Boin suggests that he is an umpire or a trainer, see (Boin 2013, pp. 61–62). 43 The same phenomenon appears in frescoes in Stobi: geometric mosaic carpets decorated the Episcopal Basilica—built during the first half of the 4th century, and considered the earliest church in Macedonia, The remains of the fresco found in the Church and in the nearby baptistery reveal figural depictions that adorned the walls as early as the 4th century. By contrast, remains of the fresco and stucco from the walls of the city’s synagogue are devoid of figural motifs. See (Dimitrova et al. 2012). 44 It is noteworthy that geometric aniconic carpets also adorned Roman and Byzantine structures during the 4th and 5th centuries: in Jewish society, however, they became the default due to reservations concerning figural art. Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19

Artsdifferentiated2019, 8, 164 between synagogue mosaics and local mosaic art. Thus, synagogue artists conceived10 of 18 elaborate geometric-decorative schemes to fill entire carpets, and these became a hallmark of Jewish diasporic mosaic art.44 The secondsecond referencereference group group is contemporaryis contemporary mosaic mosaic carpets carpets from Palestinianfrom Palestinian synagogues. synagogues. Nearly Nearly25 mosaic 25 carpetsmosaic havecarpets hitherto have beenhitherto revealed been inrevealed the Land in ofthe Israel Land and of onlyIsrael a handfuland only are a handful designed are as designedgeometric-decorative as geometric-decorative carpets devoid carpets of zoomorphic devoid of and zoomorphic anthropomorphic and anthropomorphic figures, resembling figures, those resemblingfound in Diasporan those found synagogues. in Diasporan These synagogues. carpets are These dated carpets mostly are todated the mostly early Muslim to the early period, Muslim and 45 period,therefore, and evince therefore, the stylistic evince influencethe stylistic of in Muslimfluence anti-figural of Muslim anti-figural conceptions. conceptions.Conversely,45 Conversely, most of the mostmosaic of carpetsthe mosaic installed carpets in Palestinianinstalled in synagoguesPalestinian synagogues (including Gerasa (including in Jordan) Gerasa combine in Jordan) a variety combine of 46 afigural variety images of figural in their images decorative in their scheme. decorativeThese scheme. include46 These animals include that animals inhabit that rows inhabit of medallions, rows of 47 medallions,such as in the such nave as in at the the nave Ma’on at the Nirim Ma’on synagogue Nirim synagogue (Figure8) (Figure and in the8) and southern in the southern aisle at Gaza, aisle at Gaza,and others47 and that others appear that alongsideappear alongside dedicatory dedicatory inscriptions inscriptions and religious and religious symbols symbols at Hammat at Hammat Tiberias, 48 Tiberias,Sepphoris Sepphoris and Beit Alpha.and Beit Alpha.48

Figure 8. Rows of medallions inhabited by animal figures and a menorah in the mosaic floor of the prayer hall, the synagogue at Ma’on Nirim, 6th century. Courtesy of the Israel Exploration Society.

44 ItAdditionally, is noteworthy anthropomorphicthat geometric aniconic and evencarpets pagan also adorned figures appear,Roman and especially Byzantine in thestructures depictions during of thethe zodiac4th thatand 5th adorned centuries: seven in Jewish Palestinian society, synagogues, however, they including became the the default recently due excavatedto reservations synagogue concerning at Huqoq.figural Female art. figures generally represent the seasons of the year that adorn the four corners of the 45depiction; This is the at Huqoqcase with and Hammath Susiya Ti theberias figures stage (not Ia, see necessarily (Dothan 1983, female) pp. 37, are 93; winged. Talgam49 2014,The p. zodiac 406), Jericho, signs see (Baramki 1938; Werlin 2015, pp. 72–84), and the late mosaic carpet in the center of the prayer hall in Susiya, see (Werlin 2015, pp. 152–54). The third stage of the mosaic carpet in Ma’oz Hayyim is aniconic as well, although it is dated prior to the Moslem conquest, see (Tzaferis 1982, pp. 223–27). Limited use of animal 45 Thisfigures is the is evident case with in Hammathtwo additional Tiberias mosaic stage carpets, Ia, see (Dothan in the synagogues1983, pp. 37, of 93;Ein Talgam Gedi and 2014 Hammath, p. 406), Gader. Jericho, See see (Baramki 1938; Werlin 2015, pp. 72–84), and the late mosaic carpet in the center of the prayer hall in Susiya, see (Werlin 2015, pp.(Barag 152–54). et al. The 1981, third p. stage119; Sukenik of the mosaic 1935, carpet pp. 35–38). in Ma’oz Hayyim is aniconic as well, although it is dated prior to the 46 Moslem Out of conquest,26 mosaic see carpets, (Tzaferis 16 1982 includ, pp.e 223–27). images, Limited four are use aniconic of animal figuresand two is evidentpresent in very two additionalfew images mosaic (Ein carpets, Gedi inand the synagoguesHammath ofGader). Ein Gedi Another and Hammath four Gader.mosaics See were (Barag un etcovered al. 1981, p.in 119; a Sukenikpartial 1935state, pp.that 35–38). precludes their 46 Out of 26 mosaic carpets, 16 include images, four are aniconic and two present very few images (Ein Gedi and Hammath Gader).evaluation. Another four mosaics were uncovered in a partial state that precludes their evaluation. 47 See See ( Avi-Yonah(Avi-Yonah 1960 1960,, pp. pp. 25–35 25–35 [Maon [Maon Nirim]; Nirim]; Ovadia Ovadia 1981, p. 1981, 131 [Gaza]). p. 131 [Gaza]). 48 See See ( Dothan(Dothan 1983 1983,, pl. pl. 34 34 [Hammath [Hammath Tiberias]; Tiberias]; Weiss Weiss 2005, p.2005 62,, fig.p. 62, 4 [Sepphoris];fig. 4 [Sepphoris Sukenik]; Sukenik1932, pls. 1932, viii, xxii,pls. xxviiviii, [Beitxxii, Alpha]). xxvii [Beit Alpha]). 49 In Huqoq only the season of Autumn has survived, and for the first time, the season is depicted as a male figure. See (Magness et al. 2018, p. 100, fig. 37 [Huqoq]; Ilan 1991, p. 315 [Susiya]). Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19

Figure 8. Rows of medallions inhabited by animal figures and a menorah in the mosaic floor of the prayer hall, the synagogue at Ma’on Nirim, 6th century. Courtesy of the Israel Exploration Society.

Additionally, anthropomorphic and even pagan figures appear, especially in the depictions of Artsthe 2019zodiac, 8, 164 that adorned seven Palestinian synagogues, including the recently excavated synagogue11 of 18 at Huqoq. Female figures generally represent the seasons of the year that adorn the four corners of the depiction; at Huqoq and Susiya the figures (not necessarily female) are winged.49 The zodiac signsof Libra, of Libra, Sagittarius, Sagittarius, Aquarius, Aquarius, Gemini Gemini and Virgo and are Virgo portrayed are portrayed anthropomorphically. anthropomorphically. The artists The at 50 artistsSepphoris at Sepphoris and at Huqoq and evenat Huqoq went soeven far went as to pairso far each as zodiacalto pair each image zodiacal with a youth.image withAdorning a youth. the50 Adorninginner circle the of theinner zodiac circle is theof the figure zodiac of Sol is Invictus,the figure the of Roman Sol Invictus, sun god, the driving Roman a quadriga—asun god, driving chariot a quadriga—adrawn by four chariot horses. drawn Additional by four pagan horses. images Additional occur in pagan the zodiac images sign occur of Sagittarius, in the zodiac depicted sign as of a 51 Sagittarius,centaur in Sepphoris, depicted as aand centaur in the in sign Sepphoris, of Capricorn51 andat in Hammath the sign of Tiberias Capricorn and at at Hammath Huqoq where Tiberias the 52 andgoat at is Huqoq portrayed where as Capricorn—the the goat is portrayed mythological as Capricorn—the sea goat (Figure mythological9). sea goat (Figure 9).52

Figure 9. TheThe sign of Capricorn inin thethe zodiaczodiac panel, panel, the the mosaic mosaic carpet carpet of of the the prayer prayer hall, hall, the the synagogue synagogue at atHammath Hammath Tiberias, Tiberias, 4th century.4th century. Courtesy Courtesy of the Centerof the Center for Jewish for Art,Jewish Hebrew Art, UniversityHebrew University of Jerusalem. of Jerusalem. Similarly, figural images are integrated in depictions of biblical scenes, such as the Binding of Isaac (SepphorisSimilarly, and Beitfigural Alpha), images Daniel are inintegrated the Lion’s in Den depictions (Susiya andof biblical Na’aran), scenes, and the such Tower as the of BabelBinding (Wadi of IsaacHammam (Sepphoris and Huqoq), and Beit that Alpha), are sometimes Daniel in intertwined the Lion’s Den with (Susiya midrashic and interpretations. Na’aran), and the It is Tower true that of Babelthe synagogue (Wadi Hammam most replete and withHuqoq), depictions that are of sometimes biblical scenes intertwined was actually with discoveredmidrashic interpretations. in the Diaspora, Itin is Dura true Europos.that the synagogue However, most the elaborate replete with iconographic depictions program of biblical at scenes this synagogue was actually is unknown discovered in inany the other Diaspora, ancient in synagogue—in Dura Europos. the However, Diaspora the or elaborate in the Land iconographic of Israel—and program therefore at this Dura synagogue Europos isshould unknown be viewed in any in other this ancient context synagogue—in as a unique and the singular Diaspora case or amongst in the Land all ancient of Israel—and synagogues. therefore53 DuraVisual Europos depictions should ofbe biblical viewed scenes in this incorporated context as intoa unique the synagogue and singular décor case convey amongst a double all message: ancient synagogues.the first, directed53 inwards, at the Jewish community that interpreted these stories as ancient models of faithVisual and deliverance depictions from of biblical oppressors. scenes The incorpor second isated directed into the outward, synagogue at non-Jewish décor convey groups a that double also message:draw on biblicalthe first, traditions directed asinwards, a cornerstone at the Jewish of their community faith, i.e.,the that Christian interpreted community. these stories It is as generally ancient argued that these works of art were intended not only to bolster the faith of synagogue worshippers but also to sustain a dialogue with and polemic against Christian biblical exegesis54—a shared and 49 In Huqoq only the season of Autumn has survived, and for the first time, the season is depicted as a male polemicalfigure. See aspect (Magness thatis et absental. 2018, from p. 100, the fig. mosaic 37 [Huqoq]; carpets Ilan of 1991, the p. Diasporan 315 [Susiya]). synagogues. Apparently, 50the predominantSee (Weiss 2005, trend p. 105, that fig.informed 46). the design of these mosaic carpets avoided conversation with 51the non-JewishSee (ibid., p. 119, environment, fig. 61). both pagan—by refraining from motifs associated with paganism, and 52Christian—by See (Dothan refraining1983, pl. 33: from6 [Hammath depicting Tiberias]; biblical Magness themes, et al. whose 2018, p. exegesis 107, fig. was41 [Huqoq]). a source of polemic 53between On Dura the Europos two religions. see above, note 2. Several years ago, another depiction of a biblical scene from a Diasporan synagogue, that of Sardis, was published. On three fragments of a gray marble slab is an engraving of a figure confronting four lions. The depiction was identified as Daniel in the lions’ den—a familiar biblical motif in Palestinians’ synagogue décor. That said, it should be noted that the marble fragments were found 50 See (Weiss 2005, p. 105, fig. 46). in a corner of the peristyle forecourt, together with artifacts dating to the early 7th century, and their context 51 See (ibid., p. 119, fig. 61). 52 Seein the (Dothan space 1983 of ,the pl. 33:synagogue 6 [Hammath is not Tiberias]; very clear. Magness See et(Rautman al. 2018, p. 2010). 107, fig. 41 [Huqoq]). 53 On Dura Europos see above, note 2. Several years ago, another depiction of a biblical scene from a Diasporan synagogue, that of Sardis, was published. On three fragments of a gray marble slab is an engraving of a figure confronting four lions. The depiction was identified as Daniel in the lions’ den—a familiar biblical motif in Palestinians’ synagogue décor. That said, it should be noted that the marble fragments were found in a corner of the peristyle forecourt, together with artifacts dating to the early 7th century, and their context in the space of the synagogue is not very clear. See (Rautman 2010). 54 See for example (Kessler 2000; Talgam 2014, pp. 257–332; Weiss 2016). Arts 2019, 8, 164 12 of 18

The mosaic carpets that adorned Late Roman and Byzantine diasporic synagogues therefore constitute a cohesive group defined by distinct and autonomous characteristics. The main iconographic characteristic distinguishing them from their non-Jewish environment on the one hand, and from Palestinian synagogal art on the other hand, is the strict attitude towards figural art. This attitude manifests in the absence of human and pagan figures, as well as biblical themes at all the sites, and in the avoidance of any figural images at many sites. When zoomorphic images do appear in the mosaics, they generally serve to enrich the carpet’s decorative effect and possess no symbolic or religious significance. These unique characteristics paint a portrait of an independent group with a distinctive identity that resonates in its visual art. What is the significance of these aesthetic preferences? The synagogue was the Jewish community’s principal and most essential public building. Its art was not merely decorative: it expressed the community’s beliefs, identity, and at times, its contention with opposing religous ideologies. Mosaic carpets embellished with sophisticated symbolic and narrative schemes such as those at Beit Alpha, Sepphoris and Na’aran, surely reflect the community’s spiritual world even if modern scholars’ understanding of them is often disputed and uncertain. However, what can we deduce from geometric patterns, botanical motifs and a handful of religious symbols? In what way are they informative of the community’s world and life experience? The religious symbols are certainly a key to this interpretation. Their presence in most of the mosaic carpets and in the entire artistic complex of the synagogues bespeaks their central role in establishing the buildings’ religious identity.55 The standing of these symbols within the synagogue’s decorative scheme varies from site to site: however, one must bear in mind that the structures and their décor have been discrepantly preserved. Moreover, we may assume that the manner in which Jewish identity was defined in the space of the synagogue was influenced by the specific sitz im leben of each community and by the relationship that it maintained with its non-Jewish neighbors. Apparently then, the religious symbols, and the menorah in particular, functioned foremostly to define and shape the differential identity of the minority group operating in the space, vis-à-vis its surroundings. This does not negate their religious or liturgical functions, although these were of secondary importance.56 Seemingly, with regard to this matter, it is worth reconsidering the artistic findings from Palestinian synagogues that abounded in religious symbols, in various compositions. The most intricate composition appears in a panel with a central Torah shrine flanked by two menorahs, each in turn flanked by the four species, a shofar and an incense shovel (Figure 10).57 This panel, replete with Temple motifs encircling the Torah shrine (or perhaps the Holy Ark58) is often interpreted as a visual expression of the rabbinic conception that regards the synagogue as a ‘lesser sanctuary’ (miqdash me’at).59 Although this composition has never been discovered in Diasporan synagogues, its occurrence in tombstone ornamentations, frescoes and gold-glass remains at the Roman catacombs casts doubt on the randomness of this absence.60

55 See (Hachlili 1998, pp. 316–29; Fantar 2009, pp. 1091–94; Panayotov 2004, pp. 42–45; Burkhardt 2014, pp. 197–99; Walsh 2016, pp. 113–20). 56 Several marble plaques from various sites in Asia Minor that portray two spirals under the branches of a menorah - on either side of the central branch allude to the liturgical context. Fine and Rutgers propose that these images represent the synagogue scrolls, while their incorporation in the depiction of the menorah creates a strong affinity between the menorah of the Temple and the Torah scrolls of the synagogue, and is a visual expression of the conception of the synagogue as a ‘lesser sanctuary’. See (Fine and Rutgers 1996, pp. 12–17; Cevik et al. 2010, pp. 341–43). 57 This panel appears in Hammath Tiberias, Sephorris, Beit Alpha, Na’aran, and the Samaritan synagogue at Beit She’an. In Susiya two gazelles flank the menorahs. 58 For the affinity between the Ark of the Covenant and the Torah Shrine in rabbinic literature and late antique Jewish art, see (Fraade 2019). 59 B. Megillah 29a. 60 Noga-Banai discerns the historical background of this composition’s simultaneous appearance in the synagogue of Hammath Tiberias and in the Jewish Roman catacombs, during the second half of the 4th century. See (Noga-Banai 2008). If Talgam is correct in her assumption that during the 5th–6th century this panel’s context related to a Jewish-Christian polemic, then its absence from the Diasporan synagogues is quite clear, similar to the argument above in relation to the biblical depictions. See (Talgam 2014, pp. 266–68, 303–14). Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19

This panel, replete with Temple motifs encircling the Torah shrine (or perhaps the Holy Ark58) is often interpreted as a visual expression of the rabbinic conception that regards the synagogue as a ‘lesser sanctuary’ (miqdash me’at). 59 Although this composition has never been discovered in ArtsDiasporan2019, 8, 164 synagogues, its occurrence in tombstone ornamentations, frescoes and gold-glass remains13 of 18 at the Roman catacombs casts doubt on the randomness of this absence.60

Figure 10. PanelPanel with with ritual ritual motifs motifs in in the the mosaic mosaic carpet carpet of of the the prayer prayer hall, hall, the the synagogue synagogue at at Beit Beit Alpha, Alpha, 6th century. Courtesy of the Center for JewishJewish Art,Art, HebrewHebrew UniversityUniversity ofof Jerusalem.Jerusalem.

That said, visual expressions of the view of the synagogue as a ‘lesser sanctuary’ are also discernible at Diasporan synagogues. This is particularly conspicuous in the architectural emphasis on the storage space of thethe TorahTorah scrollsscrolls withinwithin thethe prayerprayer hall:hall: thethe apse,apse, thethe bimabima oror thethe aediculeaedicule..6161 Nevertheless, thethe menorahmenorah and and its its attendant attendant ritual ritual symbols symbols portrayed portrayed in thein the mosaic mosaic carpets carpets should should not benot viewed be viewed as appertaining as appertaining to this to concept.this concept. More More plausibly, plausibly, they functionthey function primarily primarily as a marker as a marker of the structures’of the structures’ Jewish Jewish identity—an identity—an identity identity in crucial in needcrucial of need amplification, of amplification, faced with faced the with overall the rise overall and solidificationrise and solidification of Christianity of Christ and,ianity specifically, and, specifically, with the increasing with the harassment increasing of harassment the synagogues of the by Christiansynagogues elements by Christia fromn theelements late 4th from century the late onwards. 4th century62 onwards.62 Presumably, the prominenceprominence of geometricgeometric and decorativedecorative patterns in the mosaic carpets of the Diasporan synagogues articulates a trend of integration within the local and regional decorative language andand is antithetical toto the trend articulated byby the religious symbols.symbols. The use of these these patterns patterns yields a neutral work work of of art art that that could could complement complement any any religious religious or or civic civic building. building. This This trend trend can can be beinterpreted interpreted as asthe the communities’ communities’ basic basic desire desire to to live live in in peace peace and and harmony harmony with with their non-Jewish neighbors as well as their willingness to absorb those norms and values that do not contradict their Jewish faith.faith.6363 Moreover,Moreover, various various evidence evidence from from this this period peri depictod depict a group a group called ‘God-fearers’,called ‘God-fearers’, namely, non-Jews approaching Judaism who were involved as such in the synagogue and its activities. Possibly, this58 For attachment, the affinity which between resulted the Ark at of times the Covenant in conversion, and the influenced Torah Shrine the in desire rabbinic to createliterature a space and late of neutralantique characterJewishthat art, see would (Fraade put 2019). all types of visitors at ease.64 59 B.Hitherto, Megillah 29a. I have attempted to discern the significance of the decorative elements occurring in 60 the mosaicNoga-Banai carpets. discerns A comprehensivethe historical background analysis, however,of this composition’s must consider simultaneous not only appearance what the mosaic in the synagogue of Hammath Tiberias and in the Jewish Roman catacombs, during the second half of the 4th carpets contain but also what is missing. The lack of anthropomorphic images and the dearth of century. See (Noga-Banai 2008). If Talgam is correct in her assumption that during the 5th–6th century this panel’s context related to a Jewish-Christian polemic, then its absence from the Diasporan synagogues is quite clear, similar to the argument above in relation to the biblical depictions. See (Talgam 2014, pp. 266– 61 See68, (Kraabel303–14). 1979 ; Rutgers 1996, pp. 84–89; Fine 1997, pp. 137–57). 62 61 See See below, (Kraabel note 1979; 66. pp. 502–3; Rutgers 1996, pp. 84–89; Fine 1997, pp. 137–57). 63 Various attestations indicate that members of the Jewish community held offices in the municipal administration. At Sardis, 62 See below, note 66. nine community members held the title βoυλευτης´ , member of the city council, and three others held offices in the imperial 63 provincial Various administration,attestations indicate see (Kroll that 2001 members, p. 10). A of funerary the Jewish inscription community from arcosolium held offices D7 in Venosa in the mentions municipal two peopleadministration. holding the At offi Sardis,ce of Maiores nine civitatiscommunitythat is generallymembers understood held the title as civic βουλευτής leaders, see, member (Noy 1993 of, p.the 119). city Severus council, of Minorca’sand threeLetter others on the held Conversion offices of in the th Jewse imperialalso elicits provincial this conclusion. administration He depicts, a see reality (Kroll whereby 2001, Jews p. 10). held A key funerary political and social posts in the city of Magona, at the eastern end of the island of Minorca, at the beginning of the 5th century. See (Bradburyinscription 1996 from, pp. arcosolium 25–43). D7 in Venosa mentions two people holding the office of Maiores civitatis that is 64 Mostgenerally famous understood of this evidence as civic is the leaders, dedicatory see inscription (Noy 1993, of p. Aphrodisias 119). Severus from of Asia Minorca’s Minor, dated Letter to theon the 4th Conversion or 5th century of thatthe includesJews also the elicits names this of 54conclusion. God fearers He (in depicts addition a toreality 68 Jews whereby and three Jews gentiles), held somekey political of whom and members social of posts the city in council, who donated to the Jewish community. The sermons of John Chrystosom against members of his community whom he accused of Judaizing attest to the appeal of Judaism to Christians during the late 4th century in Antioch. Similar warnings appear in the writings of Origen, Ephrem the Syrian and others. The literature on this issue is very extensive; the following are some key studies that include additional bibliography. See (Sheppard 1979; Wilken 1983, pp. 66–94; Feldman 1993, pp. 383–415; Rutgers 1998, pp. 219–24; Chaniotis 2002, pp. 226–32; Levine 2005, pp. 292–99; Rajak 2006, pp. 63–65; Fredriksen 2016). Arts 2019, 8, 164 14 of 18 zoomorphic images distinguish these works from the local Roman-Byzantine mosaics on the one hand, and from Jewish mosaics from the Land of Israel on the other. This iconographic phenomenon expresses a separatist mentality and estrangement from influences viewed as foreign to the Jewish world. These influences might appear in pagan form, like several images in Palestinian synagogues’ zodiac depictions, but they might also manifest in a biblical form, that—while seemingly loyal to Jewish tradition, also embraces an anti-Christian polemic. As opposed to their Palestinian counterparts, Diasporan communities were seemingly less interested in intensifying the anti-pagan and anti-Christian polemical dimension in their synagogues. This reflects two different and even contradictory factors: first, the interest in Judaism on the part of local pagans and Christians that was expressed, inter alia, through visits to the synagogue—a prevailing phenomenon until the late 4th century. Second and conversely, the mounting hostility towards Jewish communities among Christian authorities and worshippers, from the second half of the 4th century. This hostility gave rise to the sporadic destruction and abandonment of synagogues, their renovation as churches and—in extreme cases—forced conversions of Jews.65 Archaeological evidence of these events is discernable at the sites of four synagogues—Apamea, Stobi, Alece and Saranda—that were abandoned by the Jewish community and converted into churches. Literary sources, however, significantly expand this picture.66 Clearly, visual hints of polemic were inopportune in this harsh environment, for which neutral decorative schemes represented a suitably discreet choice. Thus, the neutral design of mosaic carpets in Byzantine diasporic synagogues might correlate directly with heightened tensions and hostility between Jews and Christians and the resultant harassment of Jewish communities in some areas; this is in contradiction to the Land of Israel where such abovementioned acts of violence were unknown.67 Furthermore, it bears noting that at least half of the communities overwhelmingly chose to avoid figural images, including animal figures. Some scholars attribute this to a strict implementation of the second commandment68 or to an expression of conservatism;69 however, in our view, it appertains to the social-cultural context outlined above. Figural representations were a characteristic of the Roman-Byzantine visual art and therefore their eschewal created an element of differentiation and emphasized the unique religious-cultural framework of the Jewish community. To sum up, the mosaic carpets in late antique Diaspora synagogues embrace two cultural trends which seem to contradict each other: a trend of integration within the visual language of the local mosaic art, and on the other hand, a trend that emphasizes a distinct Jewish identity within the surrounding culture. The first trend manifests in the extensive use of decorative geometric carpets, and the second, in the incorporation of religious symbols within the decorative schemes and in the avoidance of figural images. This ambivalent attitude is at once the seeming result and the reflection

65 Rutgers proposes a cause and effect connection between the two phenomena: the stable and secure status of the Jewish communities throughout the Roman Empire during the first centuries CE, and the prominence of the synagogues in the municipal fabric, provoked hostility towards them. This hostility was explicit both in the legal realm – in the laws of Theodosius directed against the synagogues—and in the practical realm, in their physical destruction and their conversion into churches. See (Rutgers 1998, pp. 119–21; Linder 1987, pp. 73–74). 66 Literary sources shed light on synagogues that were destroyed by Christians, such as those at Rome, Edessa, Callinicum on the Euphrates, Rabat Moab (Areopolis) and Alexandria, as well as synagogues that were converted into churches at Magona (Minorca), Ravenna and Dertona (Italy), Tipasa (Algeria) and Antioch. See (Parkes 1961, pp. 166–68, 187, 204–7, 212–14, 236–38, 244, 263–64; Hunt 1982; Noy and Sorek 2003, pp. 20–22). At the same time, there were strong communities that managed to persist and even thrive, as therenovations conducted at the synagogues of Sardis and Ostia during the 5th and 6th centuries attest. 67 The closest sites that were damaged are in Transjordan: Gerasa, where in 530/1, a church was built atop the synagogue of the 4th and 5th centuries and the synagogue, and Rabat Moab that, according to historical sources, was destroyed by the monk Barsauma at the beginning of the 5th century. See (Dvorjetski 2005; Nau 1927, pp. 186–91; Kiperwasser and Ruzer 2013, p. 49). 68 As maintained by Noy and Sorek regarding the mosaic at Apamea, see (Noy and Sorek 2003, p. 13), as well as by Villey regarding the North African synagogues of Kelibia and Hammam Lif, and their avoidance of human images, in contrast with contemporary church mosaics. See (Fantar 2009; Villey forthcoming). 69 See (Levine 2005, pp. 307–8). Arts 2019, 8, 164 15 of 18 of the complexity of Jewish communal life in the Diaspora, one that manifests in other areas of life as well. Rutgers discerned a similar phenomenon concerning the epigraphic evidence from Jewish tombstones in Rome: on the one hand, he observed the use of Koine Greek and vulgar Latin that characterize non-Jewish inscriptions from the same period. Furthermore, most of the names in these inscriptions are Greek or Latin names that were prevalent among the surrounding society. On the other hand, Jews were buried separately from gentiles, Jewish symbols marked their burial sites and the inscriptions utilized terminology that was unique to the Jewish community, including, inter alia, references to the deceased’s official function within the community. Trends of integration and differentiation thus intertwined. The mosaic carpets of the Diasporan synagogues—although vague and uninspired at first glance, in comparison to their counterparts in Palestinian synagogues—demonstrate, through their simplicity, complexity and thoughtful deliberation as to how the Jewish community should meet the challenges of Diasporan reality during a period of political and religious instability that demanded extra caution. Although unalike by many parameters, the Jewish communities faced similar challenges during the early Byzantine period onwards, which led them to implement comparable decisions regarding synagogue décor in general and mosaic carpets in particular.

Funding: This research received no external funding. Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

Abbreviation

BASOR The Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

References

Ameling, Walter. 2004. Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis, II: Kleinasien. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Avi-Yonah, Michael. 1960. The Mosaic Pavement of Ma’on (Nirim). Louis M. Rabinowitz Fund Bulletin 3: 25–35. Balty, Janine. 1995. Une nouvelle mosaïque du IVe siècle dans l’édifice dit “au triclinos” à Apamée. In Mosaïques Antiques du Proche-Orient: Chronologie, Iconographie, Interpretation. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, pp. 177–90. Barag, Dan, Yosef Porat, and Ehud Netzer. 1981. The Synagogue at En-Gedi. In Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Edited by Lee Israel Levine. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, pp. 116–19. Baramki, Dimitri. 1938. An Early Byzantine Synagogue near Tell Es-Sultan. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 6: 73–77. Boin, Douglas. 2013. Ostia in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Balty, Janine. 1991. La mosaïque romaine et byzantine en Syrie du Nord. Revue du Monde Musulman et de la Méditerranée 62: 27–39. [CrossRef] Burkhardt, Nadin. 2014. Uncomparable Buildings? The Synagogues in Priene and Sardis. Journal of Ancient Judaism 5: 167–203. [CrossRef] Bonz, Marianne Palmer. 1993. Differing Approaches to Religious Benefaction: The Late Third-Century Acquisition of the Sardis Synagogue. Harvard Theological Review 86: 139–52. [CrossRef] Botermann, Helga. 1990. Die Synagoge von Sardes: Eine Synagoge aus dem 4. Jahrhundert? Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 81: 103–21. [CrossRef] Bradbury, Scott, ed. 1996. Severus of Minorca: Letter on the Conversion of the Jews. Oxford: Clarendon. Brenk, Beat. 1991. Die Umwandlung der Synagoge von Apamea in eine Kirche. TESSERAE.Festschrift für Joseph Engemann. Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum. Ergänzungsband 18: 1–25. Brooten, Bernadette. 1982. Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues. Chico: Scholars Press. Buckler, William Hepburn, and David Moore Robinson. 1932. Sardis VII: I, Greek and Latin Inscriptions. Leyden: American Society for the Excavation of Sardis. Burkhardt, Nadin, and Mark Wilson. 2013. The late antique Synagogue in Priene: Its History, Architecture, and Context. Gephyra 10: 166–96. Arts 2019, 8, 164 16 of 18

Cevik, Nevzat, Ozgu Comezoglu, Hüseyin Sami Öztürk, and Inci Turkoglu. 2010. Unique Discovery in Lycia: The Ancient Synagogue at Andriake, Port of Myra. Adalya 13: 335–66. Chaniotis, Angelos. 2002. The Jews of Aphrodisias: New Evidence and Old Problems. Scripta Classica Israelica 21: 209–42. Colafemmina, Cesare. 2012. The Jews in Calabria, a Documentary History of the Jews in Italy 33. Brill: The Goren-Goldstein Diaspora Research Centre, Tel Aviv University, Leiden. Costamagna, Liliana. 1991. La sinagoga di Bova Marina nel quadro degli insediamenti tardoantichi della costa Ionica meridionale della Calabria. Mélanges de l’école française de Rome 103: 611–30. [CrossRef] Costamagna, Liliana. 1994. La sinagoga di Bova Marina. In Architettura Judaica in Italia: Ebraisimo, sito, Memoriadei Loughi. Edited by R. La Franca. Palermo: Flaccovio Editore, pp. 239–45. Dimitrova, Elizabeta, Silvana Blaževska, and Miško Tutkovski. 2012. Early Christian Wall Paintings from the Episcopal Basilica in Stobi. Stobi: National Institution Stobi. Dothan, Moshe. 1983. Hammath Tiberias—Early Synagogues and the Hellenistic and Roman Remains (Final Excavation Report: I). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Drbal, Vlastimil. 2009. Socrates in late antique Art and Philosophy: The Mosaic of Apamea. Series Byzantina 7: 19–29. Dunbabin, Katherine M. D. 1999. Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Dvorjetski, Estee. 2005. The Synagogue-Church at Gerasa in Jordan. A Contribution to the Study of Ancient Synagogues. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 121: 140–67. Engemann, Josef. 1968–1969. Bemerkungen zu römischen Gläsern mit Goldfoliendekor. Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 11/12: 7–25. Fantar, Mounir. 2009. Sur la découverte d’un espace cultuel juif à Clipea (Tunisie). Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153: 1083–101. [CrossRef] Feldman, Louis Harry. 1993. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Fine, Steven. 1997. This Holy Place: On the Sanctity of the Synagogue during the Greco-Roman Period. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Fine, Steven. 2005. Liturgy and the Art of the Dura Europos Synagogue. In Liturgy in the Life of the Synagogue: Studies in the History of Jewish Prayer. Edited by R. Langer and S. Fine. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, pp. 41–71. Fine, Steven, and Leonard Rutgers. 1996. New Light on Judaism in Asia Minor during late antiquity: Two Recently Identified Inscribed Menorahs. Jewish Studies Quarterly 3: 1–23. Fraade, Steven, D. 2019. Facing the Holy Ark: In Words and in Images. Near Eastern Archaeology 82: 156–63. [CrossRef] Fredriksen, Paula. 2016. ‘If It Looks like a Duck, and It Quacks like a Duck ... ’ On Not Giving up the Godfearers. In A Most Reliable Witness: Essays in Honor of Ross Shepard Kraemer. Edited by Susan Ashbrook Harvey, Nathaniel DesRosiers, Shira L. Lander, Jacqueline Pastis and Daniel Ullucci. Providence: Brown Judaic Series, pp. 25–34. Hachlili, Rachel. 1998. Ancient Jewish Art and Archeology in the Diaspora. Leiden: Brill. Hachlili, Rachel. 2010. The Dura-Europos Synagogue Wall Paintings: A Question of Origin and Interpretation. In Follow the Wise: Studies in Jewish History and Culture in Honor of Lee I. Levine. Edited by Zeev Weiss, Oded Irshai, Jodi Magness and Seth Schwartz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, pp. 403–20. Hachlili, Rachel. 2018. The Menorah: Evolving into the Most Important Jewish Symbol. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Hanfmann, George M. A. 1967. The Ninth Campaign at Sardis. BASOR 187: 9–32, 50–62. Hanfmann, George Maxim Anossov, and Nancy Hirschland Ramage. 1978. Sculpture from Sardis: The Finds through 1975. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Hunt, Edward D. 1982. St. Stephen in Minorca: An Episode in Jewish—Christian Relations in the Early 5th Century A.D. The Journal of Theological Studies 33: 106–23. [CrossRef] Ilan, Zvi. 1991. Ancient Synagogues in Israel. Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense. (In Hebrew) Kessler, Herbert Leon. 2000. The Sepphoris Mosaic and Christian art. In From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in late Antiquity. Edited by Lee Israel Levine and Zeev Weiss. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology, pp. 64–72. Arts 2019, 8, 164 17 of 18

Kiperwasser, Reuven, and Serge Ruzer. 2013. The Holy Land and Its Inhabitors in Travel Stories of Bar-Sauma. Cathedra 148: 41–70. (In Hebrew). Kolarik, Ruth. 2014. Synagogue Floors from the Balkans Religious and Historical Implications. Niš and Byzantium 12: 115–28. Kraabel, Alf Thomas. 1979. The Diaspora Synagogue: Archeological and Epigraphic Evidence since Sukenik. In Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt, II, 19.1. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, pp. 477–510. Kraeling, Carl Hermann. 1979. The Synagogue: The Excavations at Dura-Europos, Final Report VIII/I. New Haven: Yale University Press, New York: Ktav Pub. House. Kroll, John H. 2001. The Greek Inscriptions of the Sardis Synagogue. Harvard Theological Review 94: 5–55. [CrossRef] Levi, Doro. 1947. Antioch Mosaic Pavements. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Levine, Lee Israel. 2005. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven: Yale University Press. Levine, Lee Israel. 2012. Visual Judaism in late Antiquity. New Haven: Yale University Press. Linder, Amnon. 1987. The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Magness, Jodi. 2005. The Date of the Sardis Synagogue in Light of the Numismatic Evidence. American Journal of Archaeology 109: 443–75. [CrossRef] Magness, Jodi, Shua Kisilevitz, Matthew Grey, Dennis Mizzi, Daniel Schindler, Martin Wells, Karen Britt, Ra’anan Boustan, Shana O’Connell, Emily Hubbard, and et al. 2018. The Huqoq Excavation Project: 2014–17 Interim Report. BASOR 380: 61–131. Majewski, Lawrence J. 1967. Evidence for the Interior Decoration of the Synagogue. BASOR 187: 32–50. Matassa, Lidia D. 2018. Invention of the First-Century Synagogue. Edited by Jason M Silverman and Murray Watson. Atlanta: SBL Press. Mayence, Fernand. 1935. La quatrième campagne de fouilles à Apamée. l’Antiquité Classique 4: 199–204. [CrossRef] Mayence, Fernand. 1939. La VIe campagne de fouilles à Apamée. l’Antiquité Classique 8: 201–11. [CrossRef] Napoleone-Lemaire, Jacqueline, and Jean Charles Balty. 1969. L’église à Atrium de la Grande Colonnade. Bruxelles: Centre Belge de recherches archéologiques à Apamée de Syrie. Nau, François. 1927. Deux épisodes de l‘histoire juive sous Theodose II (423–438) d’après la vie de Barsauma le Syrien. Revue des Études Juives 83: 184–206. Netzer, Ehud, and Gideon Foerster. 2005. The Synagogue at Saranda, Albania. Qadmoniot 129: 45–53. (In Hebrew). Noga-Banai, Galit. 2008. Between the Menorot: New Light on a Fourth Century Jewish Representative Composition. Viator 39: 21–48. [CrossRef] Noy, David. 1993. Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe, I: Italy, Spain and Gaul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Noy, David. 1995. Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe, II: The City of Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Noy, David, and Susan Sorek. 2003. ‘Peace and Mercy upon all your Blessed People’: Jews and Christians at Apamea in late antiquity. Jewish Culture and History 6: 11–24. Noy, David, Alexander Panayotov, and Hanswulf Bloedhorn. 2004. Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis, I: Eastern Europe. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Ovadia, Asher. 1981. The Synagogue at Gaza. In Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Edited by Lee I. Levine. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, pp. 129–31. Panayotov, Alexander. 2004. The Jews in the Balkan Provinces of the Roman Empire: The Evidence from the Territory of Bulgaria. In Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire. Edited by John Martyn Gurney Barclay. London: T & T Clark International, pp. 38–65. Parkes, James. 1961. Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Rajak, Tessa. 2006. The Jewish Diaspora. In Cambridge History of Christianity, I. Edited by Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 53–68. Rautman, Marcus. 2010. Daniel at Sardis. BASOR 358: 47–60. [CrossRef] Rautman, Marcus. 2015. A menorah Plaque from the Center of Sardis. Journal of Roman Archaeology 28: 431–38. [CrossRef] Roth-Gerson, Leah. 2001. The Jews of Syria as Reflected in the Greek Inscriptions. Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History. (In Hebrew) Arts 2019, 8, 164 18 of 18

Rutgers, Leonard Victor. 1995. The Jews in Late Ancient Rome: Evidence of Cultural Interaction in the Roman Diaspora. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Rutgers, Leonard Victor. 1996. Diaspora Synagogues: Synagogue Archeology. In Sacred Realm: The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World. Edited by Steven Fine. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 67–95. Rutgers, Leonard Victor. 1998. The Hidden Heritage of Diaspora Judaism. Leuven: Peeters. Seager, Andrew R. 1972. The Building History of the Sardis Synagogue. American Journal of Archeology 76: 425–35. [CrossRef] Seager, Andrew R., and Alf Thomas Kraabel. 1983. The Synagogue and the Jewish Community. In Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times: Results of the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis 1958–75. Edited by George Maxim Anossov Hanfmann. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 169–78. Sheppard, A. R. R. 1979. Jews, Christians and Heretics in Acmonia and Eumenia. Anatolian Studies 29: 169–80. [CrossRef] Sukenik, Eleazar Lipa. 1932. The Ancient Synagogue of Beth Alpha. Jerusalem: University Press. Sukenik, Eleazar Lipa. 1935. The Ancient Synagogue of El-Hammeh. Jerusalem: R. Mass. Sukenik, Eleazar Lipa. 1950–1951. The Mosaic Inscriptions in the Synagogue at Apamea on the Orontes. The Hebrew Union College Annual 23: 541–51. Talgam, Rina. 2014. Mosaics of Faith: Floors of Pagans, Jews, Samaritans, Christians, and Muslims in the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Tzaferis, Vassilios. 1982. The Ancient Synagogue at Ma’oz Hayyim. Israel Exploration Journal 32: 215–44. Verhoogen, Violette. 1964. Apamée de Syrie aux Musées Royaux d’art et D’histoire. Bruxelles: M. Weissenbruch. Villey, Thomas. Forthcoming. La question de la licéité des images dans le judaïsme ancien à travers l’exemple des pavements en mosaïque de deux synagogues africaines. In Actes de la Table Ronde Image et Droit: Le Droit aux Images, Rome, 2–3 Décembre 2013. forthcoming. Walsh, Robyn Faith. 2016. Reconsidering the Synagogue/Basilica of Elche, Spain. Jewish Studies Quarterly 23: 91–123. [CrossRef] Weiss, Zeev. 2005. The Sepphoris Synagogue. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Weiss, Ze’ev. 2016. Decorating the Sacred Realm: Biblical Depictions in Synagogues and Churches of Ancient Palestine. In Jewish Art in Its Late Antique Context. Edited by U. Leibner and C. Hezser. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 121–68. Weitzmann, Kurt, and Herbert Kessler. 1990. The Frescoes of the Dura Synagogue and Christian Art. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Werlin, Steven. 2015. Southern Palestine, 300–800 C.E.: Living on the Edge. Leiden: Brill. White, L. Michael. 1990. Building God’s House in the Roman World: Architectural Adaptation among Pagans, Jews, and Christians. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. White, L. Michael. 1997. Synagogue and Society in Imperial Ostia: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence. Harvard Theological Review 90: 23–58. [CrossRef] Wilken, Robert Louis. 1983. John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century. Berkeley: University of California Press. Yegül, Fikret K. 1986. The Bath-Gymnasium Complex at Sardis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).