An Interpretation of the Sepphoris Synagogue Mosaics
By
Megan E. Hynek
A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of a Bachelor of Arts with honors in the
Department of Archaeology
2014
___________________
Advisor: Jodi Magness
___________________
David Lambert
Table of Contents
List of Figures……….…iii
Abstract………...iv
Acknowledgements ……….…v
Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION……….………..1
i. The Study of Mosaics
ii. The Discovery of Jewish Art iii. The Town of Sepphoris iv. The Sepphoris Synagogue
v. The Sepphoris Synagogue Mosaics
2. A SURVEY OF BIBLICAL RABBINIC INTERPRETATIONS…..…...12 i. Background
ii. Usefulness and Weaknesses to Using Rabbinic Literature iii. Scholarly Interpretations Based on Rabbinic Literature
3. BAND VI– ‘AQEDAH………..…19
i. Roman Stylistic Features ii. ‘Aqedah in Jewish Art
4. BAND V – THE HELIOS, ZODIAC CYCLE AND THE FOUR
SEASONS……….….24 i. Unusual Features
ii. Understanding Helios and the Zodiac Cycle iii. Ritual Calendar
5. BAND IV – DAILY OFFERING, SHOWBREAD TABLE, FIRST FRUITS…….……….29
i. Daily Sacrifice ii. Showbread Table iii. First Fruits
6. BAND III – AARON, TABERNCALE……….34
i. Exodus 29 ii. The Water Basin iii. The Sacrificial Altar
7. BAND II - MENOROT, TEMPLE…….………...38
i. Menorah and Jewish Symbols ii. Temple Façade
8. BAND I – LIONS & WREATHS………..42
i. Interpretation
9. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS………...45
i. Repetitive Motifs ii. Importance of Numbers iii. Potential Priestly Influence
REFERNCES CITED ………...48
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Synagogue site plan with roads and surrounding buildings marked….………..…7
Figure 1.2 Sepphoris Mosaic carpet, in total……….……....9
Figure 3.1 Band 7 of the Sepphoris Synagogue Mosaic………..19
Figure 3.2 Band 6 of the Sepphoris Synagogue Mosaic………...21
Figure 3.3 Band 6 Youth Hand Gesture Figure 4.1 Band 5 of the Sepphoris Synagogue Mosaic ………26
Figure 5.1 Band 4 of the Sepphoris Synagogue Mosaic……….31
Figure 6.1 Band 3 of the Sepphoris Synagogue Mosaic……….36
Figure 7.1 Band 2 of the Sepphoris Synagogue Mosaic……….40
Figure 8.1 Band 1 of the Sepphoris Synagogue Mosaic……….43
ABSTRACT
Although evidence now has proven otherwise, ancient synagogues were originally
believed by archaeologists to lack art and imagery (Goldman 1965). This belief was based upon
a passage in the Hebrew Bible which states that “no graven images” or “manners of likeness [to
God]” may be created. Rabbinic literature also contains no mention of imagery in synagogues
(Goldman 1965). Archaeologists believed that a “Jewish” art form did not exist (Olin 2000;
Kampen 2006; Fine 2010). Modern archaeological excavations have proven this notion false, as
a wide variety of images and motifs are depicted in ancient synagogues. Common images
include pagan symbols such as Helios, Temple cultic objects, and biblical scenes (Levine 2000).
The purpose of this research is to examine the iconography of the mosaics in the main
hall of the Byzantine (fifth century) synagogue at Sepphoris (Weiss 2005: XIII). Special
attention is paid to common motifs of Palestinian synagogues, the role of Rabbinic literature, and
other potential influences on the floor’s design. After examining possible explanations of the
images, the main conclusion is that the mosaic was commissioned by a diverse, wealthy
community. Several of the motifs suggest that there is potential for borrowing and exchanging of
ideas from neighboring synagogues. Some of the depictions may have been influenced by
priestly traditions, though the nature of that relationship, if it exists at all, would need further
explanation. I did not find conclusive evidence for a single theme that runs through and ties all
the images together.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis has been a long process, and it could not have been completed if not for the unending and generous support of a number of people. First and foremost, my adviser Jodi Magness for her continued support throughout the entire process. I also thank Jennifer Gates-Foster and David Lambert for being my defense readers and offering their expertise; Evyatar Marienberg for his guidance and advice on Rabbinic literature; Eric Meyers for assisting me with additional
background on the city of Sepphoris; Karen Britt for her early support of the project and for her help finding initial sources and potential research directions; Vin Steponaitis for his advice on formatting and structuring the final thesis; Meg Kassabaum for offering words of encouragement and advice; my family for at least pretending to listen to all of my frustrations; and, for my friends, Erica Villis, Eric Medlin, Mallory Melton, Stephanie Milam, Noelle Welles, Adrina Alderman, and many others for continued support and good humor throughout the whole process. Without all of these people, this project could have never been accomplished.
Bless you all.
Chapter 1
Introduction
The Study of Mosaics
The study of mosaics has been approached in various ways and by different people over
the last one hundred years. One approach has been to do a formal analysis of mosaic trends,
which means that the mosaics are examined from a technical artistic standpoint (Britt 2003: 61).
This is useful when examining broad regions or a mosaic workshop’s sphere of influence. This
approach was employed by Kitzinger, Levi, and Lavin (Britt 2003: 61). A second approach
focuses less on the artistic techniques and their regional trends in favor of focusing on the
depictions themselves and what they were meant to portray. According to Grabar, the mosaics’
depictions should be approached with the understanding that their meaning is entirely symbolic
(Grabar 1981: xlix). In his opinion, mosaic figures were never meant to be purely decorative
(Grabar 1981: xlix). A third approach analyzes the relationship of patron and artistic creation
(Dunababin 1978; Dunababin 1999). For Dunababin, to have meaningful study of a mosaic
pavement, the examiner must first look at the patronage relationship. Knowing the patron’s
background informs the scholar about the mosaic’s symbolic meaning and vice versa, the floor’s
depictions inform us about the person(s) who commissioned them. This relationship is
complicated by examining the relationship of patron to artist to artistic creation (Dunababin
1999). A fourth approached, examines the big pictures of the mosaic carpet rather than focusing
on specific panels and details (Balty 1995: 133). This approach is used by Balty, who examines
symbolism and iconography. Balty cautioned against examining the mosaic panels independently
of one another. (Balty 1995: 41). For Balty, the images’ function in the overall scheme of the
pavement was more important than what the panels represented alone (Balty 1995: 41). She also
emphasized the importance of looking at mosaics in their given context (Balty 1995: 48). An
image that was placed in a civic building could have a very different meaning than the same
depiction in a domestic space. The final approach takes the opposite stance. Instead of looking
primarily at big picture and context, the focus is on individual panels and the artistic choices
within them (Levine and Weiss 2000: 15). By examining each element of the panel separately,
the modern scholar can understand that image in relation to liturgy, texts, and other examples of
art found in similar settings (Levine and Weiss 2000: 15). There is potential for this approach
being problematic, as well, because it is easy to overanalyze. However it is the most inclusive
method when an interpreting a mosaic carpet (Levine and Weiss 2000: 15).
Common Mosaic Construction Methods
The use of mosaics as an art form was widespread during the Byzantine period
(Bowerstock 2006: 117). This makes it possible to make some general statements concerning
how they were made and who was responsible for their creation.
First, the tesserae of most mosaics in Palestine were made of limestone because of the
abundance of limestone in the Levant (Britt 2003: 13). To date, two limestone workshops have
been identified in Palestine: Beth She’an and Masada (Ovadiah 1987: 149). The most common
colors in mosaics were red, black, and white (Britt 2003: 138). These colors were often used at
the expense of more lifelike choices. The more colors that were introduced to the design, the
more expensive the carpet became (Ovadiah 1987: 149). Less frequently used were green and
blue because these colors were made of pieces of glass or marble and, in some cases, terracotta
(Ovadiah 1987: 149). The incorporation of less common materials raised the cost of the floor.
If mosaics were laid when the structure was constructed initially, the production of the
floor followed a predictable pattern. All mosaic floors were made of three layers: at the bottom
were broken stones, followed by a rough lime or ash plaster, and, finally, a fine cement in which
the tesserae were laid (Ovadiah 1987: 149). Typically in Palestine there was an additional layer
compacted soil which was placed first, directly onto the bedrock (Britt 2003: 139). Usually the
mosaicist would outline a prepared design into the wet plaster before laying the pieces. Next, the
background tesserae, usually white, would be set and then finally the colored tesserae would be
added (Britt 2003: 139).
Despite the wide usage of mosaics in public and private, religious and secular settings, a
single large workshop has yet to have been identified in Palestine (Ovadiah 1987: 182).
However, there is evidence of regional workshops and even small, family businesses (Ovadiah
1987: 182; Britt 2003: 408). The Beth Alpha and Beth She’an mosaics include dedicatory
inscriptions that mentions the mosaicists responsible for the floor (Britt 2003: 408). However,
this situation is unique. Most mosaicists worked anonymously, so it is impossible to know if they
were local, regional, or even foreign craftsmen (Ovadiah 1987:179). The artistic differences in
mosaics are often the result of regional preferences, workshops’ preference of composition or
motif and the skill and idiosyncrasies of the individual craftsmen (Hachlili 2009: 272). The
craftsman’s role in the creation of the mosaic was to “combine, to vary, and to embellish these
[standard repertory] of schemata,” to create unique mosaics (Dunababin 1999: 301-302). Also,
while it is not unreasonable to suppose that Jewish artists worked primarily for Jews, there is
evidence that they served Christians and pagan patrons, as well (Hachlili 2009: 272). Churches,
synagogues, and temples are stylistically similar throughout Galilee and Syria (Hachlili 2009:
272). The Babylonian Talmud mentions Jewish craftsmen who worked for Jews as well as
Christians (BT Sanhedrin 29a; see Hachlili 2009: 272-273). An example of this was found at
Beth She’an. There is evidence to support that four of the mosaic pavements could be attributed
to the same artist(s) and/or workshop (Hachlili 2009: 254). One of the mosaics was the floor for
a small synagogue which was a part of a large “mansion” complex, and the other three mosaics
were found in the Christian Monastery of the Lady Mary (Hachlili 2009: 254).
The Discovery of Jewish Art
The discovery of Jewish art was a surprise to archaeologists (Goldman 1961: 295). This
is because of the Biblical injunction prohibiting the depiction of figured images. Both Exodus
20:4 and Deuteronomy 5:8 state, “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of
anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.” And again in Leviticus
26:1, “Do not make idols or set up a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone
in your land to bow down before it. I am the Lord your God.” Scholars assumed that because of
these commandments, ancient Jews did not take part in the popular artistic trends around them
(Goldman 1961: 295).
Recent discoveries indicate that this assumption is incorrect. First are the archaeological
finds. For example, the discovery of the Beth Alpha synagogue in 1928, the Hammath Tiberias
synagogue in 1961, and the Sepphoris synagogue in 1993 which were all found to have mosaics
pavements decorating their interiors (Sukenik 1932: 9; Dothan 1983: 6; Weiss 2005: XIII).
Subtle hints in the Talmud suggest that the Rabbis had a greater familiarity with art than
previously supposed. For example, the Babylonian Talmud’s Tractate Abdoah Zarah iii (Strange
Worship: Idolatry) states that a depiction of a human figure would be permissible in a synagogue
if it did not become an object of worship (Goldman 1961: 295; Landsberger 1946: 150). In the
Jerusalem Talmud’s Tractate Abodah Zarah XI there is a passage stating that during the days of
Rabbi Yohanan (279 CE), paintings begin to appear on the walls of synagogue and the Rabbis
did not prohibit them (Goldman 1961:295). Finally, it appears that sometime after the end of the
Second Temple period, attitudes towards art became more lenient (Weiss 2013: 130). Perhaps
the perceived threat of idolatry relaxed, and the Jewish people’s fondness for their neighbors’
Hellenistic culture could be more openly expressed (Urbach 1959; Meyers 2007: 24). According
to Levine, it was the Jewish urban aristocracy who were at the forefront of the shift (Levine
2005: 9-26). These observations forced archaeologists to reevaluate their assumptions regarding
the non-existence of ancient Jewish art.
The Town of Sepphoris
Sepphoris was an urban center in Lower Galilee (Levine 2003: 115). It was built on a hill
about fifty kilometers west of Tiberias during the Hellenistic period and was greatly expanded
eastward during the second century CE (Weiss 2005: 1). At that time, a major urban planning
project resulted in a grid of roads including a cardo and decumanus. At same time, major
building projects were put into place including public spaces such as a basilica, bath house,
theatre, synagogues, and private neighborhoods (Weiss 2005: 1; Davies and Katz 2006: 186). As
the city expanded, so did the artistic projects. Over fifty different mosaic pavements have been
found in the town in all types of buildings (Weiss 2005: 1; Ovadiah 1987: 161). The town was
occupied by a diverse population of pagans, Jews, and Christians. It was that coexistence,
perhaps, that may account for the relative peace in the town (Bowerstock 2006: 115). One factor
that may have united the people was the shared Hellenistic traditions (Bowerstock 2006: 115).
The city was continuously occupied until the beginning of the Islamic period around the seven
century CE (Weiss 2005: 1).
Jewish Presence
Sepphoris attracted a large number of rabbis prior the Byzantine and is mentioned
frequently in Rabbinic texts (Miller 1984: 147, 12). Rabbinic literature indicate that Sepphoris
had at least eighteen synagogues at the time of Rabbi Judah’s death and a well-established
Jewish population (Weiss 2005: 2). However, most of these synagogues have yet to been located
(Weiss 2005: 2). There are also indicators of a remnant priestly class at Sepphoris (Schwartz
2009: 175). Meyers and Chancey have suggested that members of the Sanhedrin lived at
Sepphoris (Meyers and Chancey 2012: 238). Following the Bar Kokhba Revolt, the Patriarch
resided in Sepphoris until moving to Tiberias in the third and fourth centuries AD (Bowerstock
2006: 116).
The Sepphoris Synagogue
In 1993, excavations brought to light the remains of an ancient synagogue at Sepphoris in
the "Lower City," just north of the public area (Weiss 2005: 3). In the immediate vicinity of the
synagogue are a large number of residential structures (Weiss 2005: 9). The synagogue is located
at the north end of a terrace which was constructed during the Roman period of expansion in the
early second century CE (Weiss 2005: 8, 1). Alongside the synagogue, thirty meters of road have
been uncovered connecting the neighborhood with the public area of Sepphoris. The street is six
and half meters in width, about the same size as the cardo, but it is made of packed earth and is
from an earlier period (Weiss 2005: 10).
The main entrance to the synagogue is not on the main road but opens onto an alley on
the western side of the synagogue. The road runs directly alongside the synagogue, possibly due
to lack of space (Weiss 2005: 10). The synagogue is perpendicular to the street (Weiss 2005: 10).
Figure 1.1: Synagogue site plan with roads and surrounding buildings marked (Weiss 2005: 9)
Architecture
The synagogue was a narrow, rectangular building that included a narthex (porch), a
main hall, and a bema, which is a raised platform on which the ark that held the Torah scroll(s)
stood (Weiss 2005: 11). The synagogue’s exterior dimensions are 20.8 x 7.7m (Weiss 2005: 11).
The narthex is small, measuring 6.1 x 2.70- 3.0m, and provided access to the main hall through
a single doorway which could be entered by making a ninety-degree turn to the left (Weiss 2005:
11). Five columns along the long axis divided the room into two unequal spaces (Weiss 2005:
18). Opposite the entrance to the main hall, was the bema whose remains are at the foundation
level only (Weiss 2005: 25). The majority of the materials used to construct the synagogue are in
secondary use (Weiss 2005: 23).
Unique Characteristics
The asymmetrical design of the Sepphoris synagogue is atypical for the Byzantine period
(Weiss 2005: 49). This may be another indication of the diversity of synagogues in Byzantine
Palestine, although the builders may have wished to have a normal design but were forced to
accommodate to the limited space within the town (Weiss 2005: 49). The other unusual feature
of the Sepphoris synagogue is its orientation. Most ancient synagogue have the bema on the wall
facing Jerusalem (Weiss 2005: 43). However, the bema at Sepphoris is by the north wall. Bemas
abutting the north wall are also found in the synagogues at Yafia, Huseifa, and Horvat Sumaqa.
It is possible that at Sepphoris, the orientation is a product of the surrounding buildings and roads
(Weiss 2005: 43).
Date and Dating
The dedicatory inscriptions in the mosaic carpet do not provide any dates that would give
a clue to the building’s construction (Weiss 2005: 38). However, a formal analysis suggests that
the mosaic was laid in the early fifth century CE (Weiss 2005: 39). This date is corroborated by
coins and pottery discovered in the fill under the floor (Weiss 2005: 39).
It is likely that the synagogue went out of use
during the seventh century (Weis 2005: 39). There is a
record of an earthquake that occurred either in 631 or
632 CE, although there is no evidence that this destroyed
the building.
The Sepphoris Synagogue Mosaic Descriptions
The mosaics at Sepphoris are divided into seven
horizontal bands (or registers) of unequal heights that
extend the length of the nave, four of which are further
subdivided into two or three smaller panels (Weiss 2005:
60). In total, the mosaic carpet contains fourteen panels
within the seven bands (Weiss 2005: 61). In addition,
there are forty-six inscriptions in the mosaic carpet,
including thirteen Greek dedicatory inscriptions in the
central nave; one Aramaic dedicatory inscription in the
central nave; ten Aramaic dedicatory inscription in the
aisle; and twenty-two Hebrew captions in the central
nave (Weiss 2005: 199).
Band seven, located closest to the synagogue
entrance, is the least well-preserved, with the top of a
Figure 1.2: The Sepphoris Mosaic Carpet (Weiss 2005: 57)
woman’s head visible (Weiss 2005: 153). Band six is divided into two scenes, both biblical. On
the left are two youths and a donkey, but all that remains in the right panel is the head of a tied
up ram (Weiss 2005: 141-143). The largest band is five, which features a circular zodiac with
the four seasons in the corners depicted as women. In the center of the zodiac is Helios depicted
as the sun (Weiss 2005: 104). Band four is divided into three panels, all of which seem to depict
the Israelite exodus from Egypt (Weiss 2005: 82). The three panels, read from right to left depict
the focal moments of Exodus 29, the consecration of Aaron as high priest, including the
purification ceremony and the sacrifice of the bull (Weiss 2005: 82). Band three depicts
tabernacle objects including a lamb, oil amphora, flour, and two trumpets, all of which are
labeled in Hebrew (Weiss 2005: 77). Band two is divided into three scenes and includes two
menorahs and the façade of the Temple. Underneath the façade are objects that are unique to the
Temple, including a shofar, lulav, and ethrog (Weiss 2005: 65). The final band, located closest to
the bema, is divided into three panels. The outer two contain lions, and the inner panel contains a
wreath (Weiss 2005:61).
Mosaic Bedding
The bedding of the mosaics was not uniform (Weiss 2005: 29). The western part
contained a 50-60 cm of reddish brown fill dirt, followed by a 3 cm layer of plaster, on top of
which was 1 cm of fine plaster, and above that 1 cm of fine mortar into which the tesserae were
laid (Weiss 2005: 29). The eastern bedding was not as uniform. The brown-red soil was mixed
with field stones, next there was a 10-15 cm layer as ash mixed with reddish-brown soil with
gravel, and after which was a 3 cm layer of plaster containing a high percentage of lime, with the
tesserae as before were set into fine plaster (Weiss 2005: 29).
Thesis Questions
The two questions considered in this thesis center on the iconography of the mosaics.
First, I will explore the arrangement of the scenes. I will focus on whether they seem to have
been arranged purposely or arbitrarily. To do this I will examine the mosaic carpet as a whole
program. Second, I want explore the iconography of the mosaics, by focusing on some of the
better preserved scenes and analyzing their content. The goal will be draw conclusions about
some of the decisions that influenced the building’s layout, the images chosen, and how those
images were depicted.
Chapter 2
A Survey of Biblical and Rabbinic Interpretations
Background
Biblical and Rabbinic texts provide crucial background for five of the seven mosaic
bands in the Sepphoris mosaic, including bands two, three, four, six, and seven. All of the images
depicted in the bands are mentioned in these texts.
Rabbinic literature comprises of a series of texts including the Mishnah, Jerusalem
Talmud (Yerushalmi), Babylonian Talmud (Bavli), and early Midrash (Cohen 2007; Goldenberg
1984; Stern 2004). These texts were written primarily between the first and sixth centuries CE,
and although there is debate about their purpose and intended audience, they are, fundamentally,
a series legal rulings governing Jewish life (Kraemer 2013: 314). There are many complicating
factors when considering Rabbinic literature in relation to images in mosaics; however, for
reasons that will be detailed, it would be a mistake to forego its use of them altogether.
Benefits
Rabbinic literature is useful for understanding the manner in which many of the images
in the mosaic were depicted. This is exemplified in two registers at Sepphoris. The first example
is the menorot of band two. The two menorot are depicted in accordance with the specifications
partially given by Biblical texts and partially given by Rabbinic texts (Weiss 2005: 226). Exodus
25:31-40 describes a lampstand of “pure gold” whose “six branches are to extend from the sides
of the lampstand – three on one side and three on the other.” However, the Exodus passage does
describe the lampstand’s base (Hachlili 2001: 189). Instead, the Babylonian Talmud provides
this information. In BT Menahot 28b, while describing the menorah’s size, the feet are
referenced in the plural. At Sepphoris the menorot are depicted in having three base feet. Also,
Rabbinic literature clarifies the form of the first fruits basket depicted in band four. In this
instance, the Mishnah provides the background information in Bikkurim 3:2-9 (Weiss 2005:
226). The passage describes in detail the basket in which the fruit must be carried and which fruit
to bring. The fruits that were to be brought to the Temple during Shavuot included wheat, grapes,
olive oil, and figs. A wicker basket was to be utilized if the presenters of the fruit were below a
certain income level. The stylization of the first fruits basket in the Sepphoris mosaic was
described by Weiss as having a stylized wicker pattern (Weiss 2005: 226).
The Mishnah, edited at the end of the second century CE by Rabbi Judah the Patriarch,
became the foundation for later Rabbinic legal discussion (Meyers and Chancey 2012: 231;
Kraemer 2013: 299). Portions of the Mishnah seem to be independent of the Torah. In other
words, the Mishnah is not always a direct commentary on Torah law (Kraemer 2013: 299). Since
the Mishnah, and subsequently the Talmuds, provide details that were not always included in the
Torah, it becomes necessary to include them in addition to the Torah in a discussion about
potential meanings of synagogue mosaics (Kraemer 2013: 300).
Finally, the Mishnah was codified around the time Jewish liturgy developed, so there is
the potential that they influenced one another (Meyers and Chancey 2012: 229). Fine suggests
that synagogue liturgy should be considered when interpreting mosaics because it seems likely
that the design was chosen to enhance the worship service (Fine 1999). Levine expresses some
reservations about this connection, suggesting that the Jewish communities were not unified
enough at this time to come to a consensus on liturgy, especially (Levine 2012: 329).
Weaknesses
Despite the usefulness of studying Biblical and Rabbinic texts, they are inherently limited
and must be used with caution. First, they are not contemporary with the Sepphoris synagogue’s
construction. The Mishnah was completed at the end of the second century CE (Danby 1933:
xiii). The Talmuds were written a couple of centuries later (Goldenberg 1984: 136). The
Talmuds would have been too new to have had widespread influence (Weiss 2005: 227).
While the mosaics contain elements mentioned in Rabbinic texts, there is no evidence
that the images were derived from these texts. Furthermore, some elements resemble their
literary counterparts well and some only partially (Weiss 2005: 226). This is evident, for
example, in band four, where the showbread table is depicted as round, whereas Biblical and
Rabbinic texts emphasize its rectangular shape (Weiss 2005: 95; see Exodus 25:23-30; Exodus
37: 10-16; Jos. Ant 3.139-143, Menahot 11,5; and Baraita d’Melekhet Hamishkan 8). There is
no description of a round showbread table in the Rabbinic and Biblical texts (Weiss 2005: 95).
Although the images in the mosaics sometimes appear to match the descriptions provided
by these texts, there is not indisputable evidence that the congregation or mosaicists were
inspired by Rabbinic literature. This connection is entirely speculative (Levine 2000: 578).
Furthermore, the Mishnah and Talmud were likely not written for a wide audience. (Kraemer
2013: 299). A reading of Rabbinic texts favors this conclusion. First, Rabbinic literature is not
written in Torah Hebrew but a dialect of Hebrew that would have been specifically taught in
Rabbinic schools (Kraemer 2013: 308). This literature assumes a certain level of familiarity with
the cases provided and the laws discussed (Schwartz 2009: 124). Rabbinic texts often make
references to the sayings of sages and to legal cases without elaborating on details (Kraemer
2013: 309). Although Rabbinic texts do discuss regulations that were relevant to present day
life, there are large portions dedicated to festivals and offerings that could have only taken place
before the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed (Kraemer 2013: 310). There is no clear distinction in
the texts between what is to be memorialized and what is still relevant. There are no references to
messianic hopes or other indicators of a restored future (Kraemer 2014: 310). These factors call
into question the purpose of the Rabbinic literature and who had access to it, which makes it
difficult to associate it with synagogue mosaics.
Scholarly Interpretations Based on Rabbinic Literature
Weiss
Weiss emphasizes the usefulness of Rabbinic literature for understanding the images in
the Sepphoris synagogue mosaics (Weiss 2005:226) He notes that the images of the daily
sacrifice are comparable to descriptions in Rabbinic literature, despite deviations such as the
depiction of the showbread table (Weiss 2005:226). He finds it highly improbable that the
imagery used in the mosaic developed independently of these texts (Weiss 2005: 226).
Weiss believes that the images in the mosaics may have been chosen to illustrate sermons
(Weiss 2005: 228). Visually presenting some of the sermon topics in the mosaic floor
accomplishes two purposes. First, it is a constant reminder of familiar stories, and second, the
images illustrate the sermons (Weiss 2005: 228).
Finally, Weiss finds that using the Talmuds, is beneficial because it adds a second layer
of meaning (Weiss 2005: 228). The community clearly wished to express their faith through
symbols (Weis 2005: 228). The artist or mosaicist used these images “enrich familiar concepts...
[with] intelligible vocabulary,” in the same way that rabbis conducted through services through
translation of the scripture, targum, and liturgical poetry (piyutim) (Weiss 2005: 227). Whether
the artist designed the floor based upon is own knowledge from sermons, readings, or instruction
from another source cannot be determined (Weiss 2005: 228).
Weiss concludes that Rabbinic literature reinforces and strengthens interpretations
reached through other means (Weiss 2005: 228).
Levine
Levine is hesitant to use Rabbinic literature to interpret mosaics (Levine 2000: 578). His
primary concern regards motifs unquestioningly associated with literary descriptions (Levine
2000: 578). He finds that attaching a single definition to a symbol is insufficient. (Levine 2000:
578). Each symbol could have multiple meanings even in the same synagogue. Therefore, it
would be very challenging to assign an image a singular meaning because of a Rabbinic
interpretation of that item (Levine 2012: 578).
Levine’s believes that archaeological and literary evidence is not complete enough to
linking the two together. He expresses concern that much of the rabbinic literature was written in
Babylon, where there are no ancient synagogues, whereas Palestine has yielded many more
archaeological remains but less Rabbinic literature (Levine 2012: 404). Rabbinic literature is
mostly from the first through fourth centuries CE but there is no that it had any influence on
synagogues from the fourth through seventh centuries AD (Levine 2012: 405).
Levine concludes Rabbinic literature can be useful, but any connection with synagogue
mosaics is speculative (Levine 2000: 578).
Fine
Fine believes that synagogue mosaics were used in connection with the liturgy. With the
loss of the Temple a few centuries earlier, the synagogue replaced it as a place of teaching and
gathering for the Jewish people (Fine 1999: 229). Synagogue mosaics reflect this development.
The menorot in mosaics are placed where lamp stands for the bema would stand (Fine 1999:
231). Fine believes that visually aligning the depictions in the mosaic with their literal
counterparts suggests a conceptual tie between literary sources and liturgical practice: “The only
distinctly Jewish contexts that can be identified in the Sepphoris mosaics are the Torah shrine
panel and the images of the vessels from the temple cult…without them the synagogue floor
might be mistaken for a church” (Fine 1999: 231). He notes that the panels depicting first fruits
and showbread table correspond with the description in Numbers 28:4, which are found in a
church settings as well (Fine 1999: 231). He states that the placement of the band featuring
Aaron and the Tabernacle adjacent to the cultic images was meant to parallel the images with
literary ties (Fine 1999: 231).
Finally, Fine concludes that despite the level of artistic craftsmanship and the diverse use
of images that the floor was, after all, just a floor. There may have been some deeper meaning
attached to the choices of images, but it is unlikely they were examined with much greater
thought than this (Fine 1999: 237).
Hachlili
Hachlili focuses her attention on band six of the Sepphoris synagogue mosaics, which is
located near the entrance to the main hall. The Biblical scene depicted derives from Genesis
22:1-22 in which Abraham is instructed by God to sacrifice his only son, Isaac. Abraham is
obedient and goes to the spot shown to him by God; however, when the moment comes for him
to perform the sacrifice, God stops Abraham’s hand and provides a ram for sacrifice instead
(Genesis 22:13). The story demonstrates Abraham’s devotion to God and God’s promise to
protect his people when that devotion is shown. It is the covenant that became essential to
Judaism. The scene is known as the ‘Aqedah (Hachlili 2009: 57).
One characteristic of the ‘Aqedah that is present in the Sepphoris mosaic is the removal
of shoes by Abraham and Isaac (Hachlili 2009: 57). At Sepphoris, this is evident in the bottom
left corner of band six in the right panel. There are two pair of shoes upside down, seemingly
discarded (Weiss 2005: 57). Although the removal of shoes is not mentioned in Genesis 22:1-22,
there are two instances in the Hebrew Bible where this was required by God because of the
person’s presence on “sacred ground” (Hachlili 2009: 59). The first of these instances is the story
of Moses and the burning bush in Exodus 3:5. The second is the story of Joshua marching on the
walls of Jericho. Prior to Joshua’s march around Jericho the “commander of the Lord’s army”
commanded Joshua to remove his shoes (Joshua 5:15) (Hachlili 2009: 59). The artistic choice to
discard shoes may have some basis in these stories (Hachlili 2009: 59).
These are some of the broader interpretations of mosaics at Sepphoris through literary
sources. Some scholars reject usage and others use with caution. For the remainder of this thesis,
the bands will be analyzed individually.
Chapter 3
Band 6 and 7 – ‘Aqedah
Due to the poor state of preservation of band seven, only the depiction of the ‘Aqedah in
band six will be examined. Weiss hypothesized that band seven, closest to the narthex, is a
depiction of the visit of the Angels to Abraham and Sarah based on the remains of what appears
to be a doorframe and a portion of a forehead (Weiss 2005: 157)..
Figure 3.1: The Remains of Band 7 in situ (Weiss 2005: 154)
In the following discussion of band six, emphasis will be placed on some of the design
choices and significance of this motif in Jewish art. The ‘Aqedah represents early sacrifice as a
representation of devotion to God and, more importantly, God’s promise to his people that in
exchange for their faith and sacrifices, he will always be present among them (Genesis 22:13).
Band six ix divided into two panels of equal size, each is 1.81 x 1.52 m (Weiss
2005: 141). The left panel is almost entirely intact; however, the right panel is obliterated with
the exception of a stylized tree with a ram’s head tied to it. Both panels have long, Greek
dedicatory inscriptions which run across the top. Also, both panels are outlined by a plain filet
with black dentils.
The left panel depicts two youths standing with a donkey (Weiss 2005: 141). The figures
are depicted simply in two dimensional form (Weiss 2005: 169). The youths and donkey are set
against a scene of curved lines in the bottom left corner that resemble a pile of stones (Weiss
2005: 141). The “stones” depicted are beige in color and are set against a white background. The
youths are dressed in long tunics. Each tunic has parallel vertical lines that extend the length of
the garment. The left youth’s tunic is depicted having two circular medallions at the bottom. The
youth on the right is depicted gesturing with his right hand. His fist is depicted as closed except
for two fingers that he is holding up. This youth is also depicted having a spear in his left hand.
The donkey that is depicted with the youths is illustrated wearing a color saddlebag which is
made of a pattern of tesserae which are red, yellow, and gray.
The right panel depicts a stylized tree with a few green leaves (Weiss 2005: 144). A
ram’s head is depicted as being tied to this tree. The ram is depicted in yellow tesserae and its
eyes, ears, and mouth are outlined in black tesserae (Weiss 2005: 144).
Figure 3.2: Band 6: The top image is in situ, and the bottom image is restored. (Weiss 2005: 142)
Roman Stylistic Features
The influence of Roman styles is evident in the depiction of the ‘Aqedah (Weiss 2005:
150). For example, the youths are dressed in long tunics, which may indicate status (Ovadiah
1987:178). In addition, their tunics have thick, vertical stripes running down the front (Wilson
1938: 60-65). The width of these stripes, which are referred to as “clavi,” indicated one’s status
in the Roman world. At the bottom of the left youth’s tunic are circular medallions or orbiculi
which are typical of Egypto-Roman tunics (Stauffer 1995: 26-28).
Another Roman feature is the hand gesture made by the youth on the right of the panel
(Weiss 2005: 150).
Figure 3.3: The gesture of the right youth in band six may indicate the influence of Roman artistic styles (Weiss 2005: 21).
The gesture is described by Weiss as, “his right arm is raised and extended forward, while the
closed fist of that hand is turned toward the center of the scene. The adjacent index and middle
fingers point upward while the others are tucked into the first,” (Weiss 2005: 143). The gesture
is frequently found in depictions of Roman emperors (Brilliant 1963: 67, 148-150, 165-170).
The gesture is common in Roman art as a signal that two characters are conversing or arguing
(L’Orange 1982: 171 -197). This is the earliest it has been found in Jewish art (Weiss 2005:
150). In Christian art, this gesture symbolizes blessing and success (Smith and Cheethan: 2010:
198). It has been suggested by Smith and Cheethan that since it represents success, the gesture
implies that the youths who were waiting for Abraham’s return knew that Abraham would not
need to follow through with the sacrifice. They suggest that this in conjunction with a later
midrash, “Just as Abraham knew that Isaac was alive, so too, they [the youths] knew that Isaac
was alive since they believed what Abraham had told them and they knew it was not a deception
(Midrash Aggadah, Vayera 18; Weiss 2005: 151).
‘Aqedah in Jewish Art
The ‘Aqedah is depicted infrequently in Jewish art. The earliest depiction was discovered
in the synagogue at Dura Europos, (third century CE), and it is also found in the mosaic floor of
the Beth Alpha synagogue (Kraeling 1956: 56 – 58; Sukenik 1932: 40-42). Although there are
stylistic differences between the three, which may reflect different artists’ interpretations, the
basic features are the same. In all three, all of the characters are featured (Weiss 2005: 144). In
all three, the two youths are standing frontally, and the donkey is in profile. One youth holds the
reins of the donkey, and a ram appears tied to a tree (Weiss 2005: 144). At Sepphoris and Beth
Alpha, the boys are depicted in the same type of tunic with circular medallions along the bottom
hem, and in both depictions, the youths wear black shoes (Hachlili 2009: 59). Neither Biblical
nor Rabbinic texts describe the clothing of the youths. Besides stylistic choices, the biggest
difference at Sepphoris from these other examples is its division into two panels as opposed to
one continuous scene. This may have been a design choice based upon the overall scheme of the
mosaic pavement (Weiss 2005: 150).
Chapter 4:
Band 5 – The Helios, Zodiac Cycle and the Four Seasons
The Helios, zodiac cycle, and four seasons are located in band five which is the largest
band (3.15 m x 3.15 m) and also the central band. The band is laid out as two concentric circles
within the square band (Weiss 2005. 104). In the centermost circle is a depiction of Helios.
Helios is shown as a stylized sun who is riding in a chariot drawn by four horses. There are two
circular medallions at the bottom right and left sides of the circle and a moon to the top, right of
the chariot. Written around the inner circle is a Greek dedicatory inscription. The outer circle
depicts the twelve zodiac signs progressing counterclockwise. Each of the zodiac signs is
depicted as a human figure, a mythical figure, or is too damaged to read. Each of the zodiac signs
is accompanied by the name of the Hebrew month that corresponds with that zodiac sign. Beside
each zodiac sign is depicted an eight-pointed star (Weiss 2005: 104). In the outer four corners of
the square are female depictions of the four seasons accompanied by depictions of agricultural
symbols. Each season is captioned in Hebrew and Greek. The seasons are aligned so that they
share a border with their corresponding month.
Figure 4.1: Band Five at Sepphoris (Weiss 2005: 105)
Unusual Features
The Helios and zodiac cycle is one of the most perplexing motifs found in ancient
synagogues in Palestine. Other than the cluster of Jewish symbols such as menorot, no image is
repeated more often in synagogues (Levine 2012: 321). The following synagogues are decorated
with Helios-zodiac cycles: Hammath Tiberias, Beth Alpha, Huseifa, Na’aran, and Susiya
(Dothan 2000; Sukenik 1932; Avi-Yonah and Makhouly 1933; Netzer 1983; Gutman, Yeivin,
and Netzer 1981). ‘Ein Gedi has includes a zodiac but in the form of a written list as opposed to
a visual one (Hadas 1985). The zodiac is perplexing because it is a pagan motif, and is not found
in ancient synagogues outside of Palestine or in any Christian churches (Ovadiah 1987: 156, 159;
Levine 2012: 235, 328). Helios and the zodiac cycles are always placed in the center of the
synagogue, and it is often the largest panel in the mosaic carpet (Levine 2012: 321). Generally,
each of the zodiac symbols is captioned in Hebrew (Levine 2012: 264).
Understanding Helios and the Zodiac Cycle
Scholars have employed a wide variety of texts to interpret the Helios and zodiac cycles
in ancient synagogues, including Josephus, the Hebrew Bible, Rabbinic sources, astrology,
writings by Church fathers such as Epiphanius of Salamis, piyyutim, and mystical literature
(Levine 2012: 328). There has also been a range of opinions on whether a specific group within
Judaism pushed for the inclusion of the zodiac, including the Patriarchs, priestly families,
mystics, the local communities, or some combination of these (Levine 2012: 329). Further
discussion has centered on whether the zodiac should be understood as a piece of a larger story
or if was meant to stand alone in the mosaic carpet. In Levine’s opinion, one of the greatest
problems is scholars insistence on assigning one universal meaning to the zodiac when its
meaning likely varied from community to community and even within individual communities
(Levine 2012: 328).
Zodiac as Ritual Calendar
The three clearest and best preserved remains of Helios and the zodiac cycle are in the
mosaic floors at Hammath Tiberias, Sepphoris, and Beth Alpha (Dothan 1983; Weiss 2005;
Sukenik 1932). At Hammath Tiberias and Sepphoris, the months and seasons are depicted
progressing chronologically counterclockwise, aligned with one another (Levine 2012: 282).
However at Beth Alpha, the seasons are corresponding zodiac sign are misaligned by ninety
degrees (Levine 2012: 264). There is no satisfactory explanation for this deviation. It may be that
the design for the personification of winter, which included a set of scrolls, would have been best
viewed in that particular corner without regard for the adjoining months (Wischnitzer 1955:
144). More puzzling is that this same discrepancy is found both in the Na’aran mosaic and,
according to Avi-Yonah, at the synagogue at Isfiya (Wischnitzer 1955:144; Avi-Yonah 1933:
127).
Regardless, one of the most intriguing aspects of the zodiac at Sepphoris are the Hebrew
inscriptions that accompany the months aligned with the season which are also labeled in both
Greek and Hebrew (Levine 2005: 57). The emphasis here seems to be placed on keeping time in
relation to the seasons (Wischnitzer 1955: 144). At the Na’aran synagogue zodiac, the seasons
were not only accompanied by agricultural representations of their respective season, but the
personification of autumn was accompanied by a shofar (Goodenough 1953: fig. 644). At
Sepphoris, the season were depicted primarily with agricultural objects. Agriculture was tied
with ritual festival pilgrimages while the Temple stood (Levine 2012: 340). The objects of band
two are also closely tied with these pilgrimages. The shofar was blown during Rosh Hashanah,
incense was burned at Yom Kippur, and the lulav and ethrog was closely tied with Sukkot
(Levine 2012: 340). All this reinforces the centrality of the calendar to Jewish traditions (Levine
2012: 253).
The Helios and the zodiac cycle consist of two concentric circles containing the zodiac
symbols a depiction of Helios in all of its representations in synagogues (Levine 2012: 323).
Hammath Tiberias is the earliest depiction of this motif in an ancient synagogue (Levine 2012:
251). Given the consistent design throughout Palestine with some stylistic variation, it appears
that the importance of the zodiac cycle and seasons did not reside in its details but rather in the
larger picture (Levine 2012: 257).
Chapter 5:
Band 4 – Daily Offering, Showbread Table, First Fruit
Band four contains three panels of equal size containing distinctly Jewish items (Weiss
2005: 94). The far left panels depicts elements of the daily sacrifice as well as one of the only
Aramaic inscriptions located in the central mosaic (Weiss 2005: 199). This panel has four items
depicted in it in two rows. On the top row depicts a lamb and a jar of oil, each of which are
captioned in Hebrew. The bottom of the panel depicts two trumpets and full container of flour
which are also both labeled in Hebrew. The center panel depicts the showbread table and
incense. The showbread table is depicted as a round table covered in fabric with four stylized
medallions on the front and fringe across the bottom. On top of the table are twelve stylized
loaves of bread depicted with yellow tesserae. Above the showbread table are two incense
burners. The far right panel contains the basket of first fruits (Weiss 2005: 95). The final panel in
the band is identified by Weiss as a first fruits basket. The basket has crisscrossed patterns
resembling wicker (Weiss 2005: 102). Two concentric circles appear to be cymbals beneath the
basket are linked by a chain link design. Inside the basket are depicted several pieces of fruit
including a bunch of grapes and a couple of olives. Three lines of a Greek dedicatory inscriptions
are written at the top of the panel
Figure 5.1: Band 4: The top image is in situ, and the bottom image is restored. (Weiss 2005: 102)
Daily Sacrifice
Weiss concluded that the daily sacrifice is a continuation of band two because the daily
sacrifice was consecration of Aaron in Exodus 29 (Weiss 2005: 91). Although the items are
distinctly Israelite, this is their first appearance in Jewish art (Weiss 2005: 91). It is certain that
these items are a part of the daily sacrifice because of the lambs, oil, flour, and horns. This band
is also next to the depiction of the Tabernacle (Weiss 2005: 91). The daily sacrifice might also be
depicted at the ancient synagogue at Horvat Susiya. (Gutman, Yeivin, and Netzer 1983:
125-126). The lambs depicted at Susiya are very similar to the lambs at Sepphoris, however, because
they are not paired with the other items of the daily sacrifice and instead are depicted on either
side of an architectural façade. The lambs at Horvat Susiya look very similar to the lambs in the
mosaics at Sepphoris synagogue. The similarity could be because both represent the daily
sacrifice, but the lambs’ resemblance could be a result of schematic norms for representing
lambs in mosaics (Weiss 2005: 91).
The purpose of the daily sacrifice was to ensure the continued presence of God, “Now
this is what you shall offer upon the altar: two yearling lambs each day, regularly. You shall
offer the one lamb in the morning; and you shall offer the other lamb at twilight…a regular burnt
offering throughout the generations, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting before the Lord. For
there I will meet you and speak with you…that I am might abide among them,” (Exodus 29:
38-46; see Weiss 2005: 82).
The trumpets depicted in the panel are often featured alongside the showbread table
(Weiss 2005: 92). The Arch of Titus in Rome and Bar Kokha coins each have two trumpets that
are straight and gradually widen into a conical shape (Yarden 1991: 101-106). These of
trumpets’ design resemble the description in Numbers 10:1-10. However, the design at Sepphoris
is referenced in tannaitic traditions where the trumpets were “equal in appearance, stature, and
ornamentation.” (Sifre Numbers, B’Ha’alotekha 72; see Weiss 2005: 92).
Showbread Table
The table appears to depict the showbread table that appeared in either the Tabernacle or
Temple (Weiss 2005: 95). The first known depiction of the showbread table on a coin of
Mattathias Antigonus (Meshorer 1982). Although the table on the coin is too small to make
many observations about what it looked like, it is evident that it is rectangular and has two sets of
loaves in two even piles on top of it (Meshorer 1982: 97).
The first time a showbread table is depicted as round is in the Dura Europos synagogue
(Kraeling 1956: 119). The table at Dura is yellow with curved feet and appears before the
Tabernacle (Kraeling 1956: 119). The round showbread table is also seen in a mosaic in a fourth
century Samaritan synagogue at el-Khirbe where it is shown in front of the Tabernacle (Magen
1993: 198-200). Although the depictions are not identical with Sepphoris, they appear to come
from the same artistic tradition.
First Fruits
The first fruits were brought to the temple between Shavu’ot and Sukkot (M Bikkurim 1,
10). They were brought to Jerusalem as a part of a celebration and procession accompanied by
flute music (M Bikkurim 3, 3-4; Weiss 2005: 102). Although not explicitly mentioned in the
Mishnah, the cymbals may have also been used in the procession, and as a stylistic choice they
were used in the panel instead of the traditional flute (Weiss 2005: 103).
It has become popular in scholarship to identify any basket of fruit in Jewish art as the
first fruits basket, but at Sepphoris the depiction can clearly be associated with first fruits (Weiss
2005: 103). The certainty of the basket’s identity is based upon its placement next to the daily
sacrifice panel as well as the showbread table. The details of the basket, are very clearly
depicted, making identification of it more certain.
All three of the images in the band seem to relate back to the Temple and Tabernacle;
although, neither had immediate bearing on the lives of the people of Sepphoris’.
Chapter 6:
Band 3 – Aaron and the Tabernacle
This is the only band depicted in the mosaic that is not found in any other mosaic to date
and is one of three bands not subdivided into panels (Weiss 2005: 77). At the far right of the
panel is a water basin. There are two fountain heads depicted on the left side with stylized water
lines pouring into a bowl. The fountainheads appear to resemble some kind of animal (Weiss
2005: 78). The water basin is depicted as standing on a single column upon a pedestal. A
majority of this portion of the band is missing, so it is not possible to get a sense of scale from
the water basin. To its left is a cut stone altar that is higher than the water basin. Horns project
outwards from the corners of the altar. To its left are a bull and ram. The bull in the foreground is
muscular and detailed, and the ram in the background is less anatomically detailed and is
smaller. Next to a Hebrew caption that reads “Aaron,” the hem and perhaps the shoulder of an
individual, presumably Aaron, is visible (Weiss 2005: 79).
Figure 6.1: Band 3: The top image is in situ and the bottom is restored. (Weiss 2005: 78)
Exodus 29: 1-46
When read from right to left, band three seems to depict, the consecration of Aaron as
high priest with a dedicatory inscription in Greek at the top. The story of the consecration is told
in Exodus 29. Three major indicators support this indication. First, the partial figure on the far
left of the band is captioned “Aaron” in Hebrew (Weiss 2005: 82). Second, read from right to
left, the images make up the three focal points of Exodus 29. In Exodus 29:4 Aaron and his sons
are washed with water to be purified before consecrating the Tabernacle. Exodus 29:10-14
describes Aaron being dressed in priestly clothing and leading a bull to be sacrificed. The
depiction in band three illustrates a figure in long clothing – the outline of a garment can be from
the curve of an arm to the length of a leg – with a stone altar and a bull (Weiss 2005: 79).
Third, similar representations in Jewish and Christian art in better states of preservation
confirm this identification. One of the clearest depiction of the Tabernacle is in the synagogue at
Dura Europos from the mid-third century CE (Kraeling 1956: 125-131). A figure in a long robe,
who is labeled “Aaron,” stands beside a stone building and is accompanied by bull and lamb
(Weiss 2005: 83).
The Water Basin
The Biblical specifications for the water basin are in Exodus 30:17- 21. “Make a basin of
copper and a stand of copper for it, for washing” (Weiss 2005: 85). The wavy lines extending
from either spout are common in Roman and Byzantine art for depicting flowing water (Netzer
and Weiss 1994: 50). The same artistic technique for water was used in the Nile Festival House
at Sepphoris (Netzer and Weiss 1994: 50).
Elements of the basin prescribed by Exodus 30 are depicted by the Sepphoris mosaic
(Weiss 2005: 86). The basin also strongly resembles water-installations from the
Roman-Byzantine tradition (Weiss 2005: 86). Semicircular stone basic have been found throughout the
Roman world, including depictions in paintings and reliefs (Kraus 1975: 209; Bianchi-Bandinelli
1970: fig. 290). The animal heads on the basin at Sepphoris are also not unique (Weiss 2005:
87). Animal heads, human faces, and mythological creatures were popular choices for fountain
heads (Neuerburg 1986: 111- 114; Tsafrir and Forester 1994: 105).
The Sacrificial Altar
The altar in the center of the panel does not resemble the Biblical description. In Exodus
27:1-2, the Tabernacle is described as built of acacia wood, whereas the altar at Sepphoris clearly
is of smooth, cut stone. Furthermore, there is a Biblical injunction which states, “And if you
make for me an altar of stones, do not build it of hewn stone; for by wielding your tool upon
them, you have profaned them, Exodus 20:22. There is no evidence that artist intended to
contradict this statement. Instead, he might have been using the artistic techniques available to
him (Weiss 2005: 88). However, in other ancient depictions of the Tabernacle, it is not made of
cut stone and the design is very different (Piccirillo and Alliata 1998: 345 – 346). At Dura
Europos synagogue, the illustration of the altar is square and stands on a four-legged pedestal
(Kraeling 1956: 128). The altar depicted at Ashburnham Pentateuch (sixth century CE) depicts
Moses reading the covenants before an altar that is built of different sized stones and stands on a
stepped pedestal (Weiss 2005: 88; Gebhardt 1883: XVIII).
Chapter 7:
Band 2 –Menorot and the Temple
This band is the next closest to the narthex. It is the only band that been repaired in
antiquity using broken ceramic sherds (Weiss 2005: 65).
Each of the outer two bands contain menorot, a shofar, tongs, a lulav, and an ethrog
(Weiss 2005: 66). The menorah in each panel is by far the largest object depicted and is
illustrated using yellow tesserae. Each menorah is made of a single stem extending from a
three-footed base with three branches extending from either side. The flames of the lamps burning on
top of the menorah are shown as blowing to the left. The other items the lulav, ethrog, myrtle and
willow branch make up the four species. A curved shofar with three rings appears to the right of
the menorah. In between the menorah and shofar are a pair of tongs (Weiss 2005: 70). All of
these items are Jewish symbols (Weiss 2005: 68).
The center panel depicts an architectural façade. The remains of a slanted roof supported
by three columns are visible (Weiss 2005: 66). The columns are to the right of a set of the doors,
and presumably there would have been three more columns in the part of the panel that has not
survived. Below the architectural façade is an incense shovel (Weiss 2005: 66). The incense
shovel is rectangular with a handle on its right side.
Figure 7.1: Band 2 (Weiss 2005: 66)
Menorot and Jewish Symbols
The menorah is like the Christian cross because it is a symbol of identity (Levine 2012:
437). With the rise of Christianity, reaffirming Jewish identify may have been more important
than ever. The menorah is often depicted in synagogues where a cross is often found in a
churches (Levine 2012: 347). The menorah depicted with the ritual objects in synagogues were
rendered entirely from differently from one another (Hachlili 2001: 261). The menorah was
most importantly a Temple vessel, and it represented the sanctity of the Temple (Hachlili 2001:
276). Following the Bar Kokhba Revolt, few representations of the menorah were made, and
they were mostly made in funerary contexts. The Rabbinic literature explains the scarcity of
menorot (BT.Menahot 28 b; Aboda Zara 43 a; Rosh Hashana 24 a, b; see Hachlili 2001: 276). In
these passages rabbis prohibit the building of a house in the images of the Temple, fashioning a
seven-branched in the image of the Temple menorah, and making table in the Temple table’s
image (BT.Menahot 28 b; Aboda Zara 43 a; Rosh Hashana 24 a, b; see Hachlili 2001: 276).
These also explain the diversity in menorah depictions once the image becomes common in the
third century CE (Hachlili 2001: 277).
The menorah, the shofar, incense, lulav, and ethrog were used in the temple (Levine
2012: 340). Tongs were used to clean the menorah according to Exodus 25:38 and Exodus 37:23
(Levine 2012: 270). The incense shovel was also an accessory to the menorah (Hachlili 2012:
328). The shofar was sounded by the priests, usually on Rosh Hashana or Yom Kippur (Levine
2012: 270; Hachlili 2013: 328). Sepphoris synagogue and Hammath Tiberias synagogue are the
most realistically depicted (Hachlili 2013: 328).
Temple Facade
The architecture depicted in the central panel of band two most likely represents the
Temple, although few elements call into question this identification (Weiss 2005). In other
synagogues in which a structure with two menorot on either side is depicted, that structure is a
Torah Shrine (Weiss 2012: 340). Some scholars suppose that stood on either side of the Torah
ark to provide light (Fine 1999: 231). The cases where the Torah Ark has been identified are
Beth She’arim, Beth Alpha, and Hammath Tiberias (Levine 2012: 34). Two synagogues, other
than Sepphoris, have been identified as having possible depictions of Temple facades: Dura
Europos and Beth She’an (Levine 2012: 34). Unfortunately, there are not any defining
characteristics for either identification (Hachlili 2013).
Chapter 8:
Band 1 –Lions and Wreaths
The final band to be discussed here is located closest to the bema on the northwest side of
the synagogue. Band one is missing about a half of its stones on the side closest to the bema.
These stones were probably robbed at the same time that the bema stones were taken (Weiss
2005: 61). Although the top half of the stones are missing, it most likely that there were two
more dedicatory inscriptions at the top, similar to other bands in the mosaic (Weiss 2005: 62).
The band is divided into three panels (Weiss 2005: 62). The outer two are equal size, and
the center panel is narrower. The outer two panels depict stylized lions facing towards the center
of the mosaic. Each lion has it forward paw raised and in is depicted the head of a bull. The left
panel has two lets of wavy lines on which the lion is standing. The right panel only has a single
line, and it does not appear to be touching the ground (Weiss 2005: 62). The center panel
contains a small portion of what Weiss has concluded to be a wreath (Weiss 2005: 62). On the
right are depicted stylized leaves that appear to have formed a circle when complete. At the
center of the wreath is the remains of a Greek dedicatory inscription.
Figure 8.1: Band 1: The image on top is in situ, and the bottom is restored. (Weiss 2005: 62)
Lions are depicted in at least nine different ancient synagogues mosaic floors in
Palestine: Beth Alpha, Capernum, Chorazin, Kefar Baram, Hammath Tiberias, Susiya, Na’aran,
En Samsam, and Sepphoris (Ovadiah 2002: 484; Wischnitzer 1955: 139; Levine 2012: 229;
Dothan 2000). Lions also appear at Beth She’arim which is a cemetery where the lions are
carved on a sarcophagus. They will be discussed further in this section due to their stylistic
similarity to the lions of Sepphoris synagogue. The depictions of lions vary in their placement in
the synagogue, the quality of the design, and their intended purpose. In the cases of Susiya,
Na’aran, and En Samsam, the lions appear as a part of the story of Daniel and the lions from the
Book of Daniel 6: 1-28. Yet, the lions at Beth Alpha are included in the band featuring Jewish
symbols like menorot and shofar (Avi-Yonah 1975: 188). The lions at Sepphoris clutch a bull as
do the lions at Bet She’arim (Weiss 2005: 65). At Beth Alpha and Sepphoris the lions are placed
closest to the bema, whereas at Hammath Tiberias they are at the entrance by the dedicatory
inscriptions (Dothan 2000). Lions have been persistently used to adorn synagogue and funerary
art (Hachlili 2013: 334). Their placement alongside Temple / Torah Art motifs, for example at
the Beth Alpha synagogue and the placement alongside or adjacent to menorot, for example at
the Sepphoris synagogue and Ma’on synagogue indicate that the motif was used because of its
capacity to represent power or vigilance (Hachlili 2013: 333). Few animals appear alongside or
adjacent to the menorot in synagogue mosaics (Hachlili 2013: 334). It is possible that they are
associated with the traditional lion of Judah which represents guardianship and protection
(Hachlili 2013: 334).
Wreath are a common Roman motif found in Jewish contexts in reliefs and mosaics
(Weiss 2005: 64; Turnheim 1990: 162-170). Frequently the band is placed prominently in the
synagogue, either at the entrance or at the bema. One of the best parallels to the wreath at
Sepphoris is the wreath at Huseifa (Avi-Yonah and Makhouly 1933: 122; Weiss 2005: 64).
Although the design the Huseifa is more stylized and features an Aramaic inscription, the
geometric design was the same. It also featured an inscription on the inside of the wreath’s ring
(Avi-Yonah and Makhouly1933: 122).
Furthermore, the organization of the panels, having the lions on either side of the wreath,
is a tradition that originated in the Near East (Avi-Yonah 1981: 48). These synagogues included
Hammath Tiberias, Hammath Gader, Ma’on, Beth Alpha (Dothan 2000: 49; Sukenik 1935: 35;
Weiss 2005: 64). However, Sepphoris is the only case where the wreath is divided from the lions
by different panels (Weiss 2005: 64).
Chapter 9:
Discussion and Conclusions
In the previous chapters, evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the Sepphoris
mosaics are anything but simple. There are a variety of artistic, literary, and symbol factors that
determined the end product. The importance of this discussion will be look at the broader trends
in the mosaic pavement and potential influences for the variety of depictions found here.
Repetitive Themes
There is of rivalry (Levine 2012: 389). Seder Eliyahu commented on this in Rabbah11,
“[Regarding] a small town in Israel built for themselves a synagogue and academy…when a
nearby town saw [this], it also built a synagogue and academy (Levine 2012: 389). There is no
evidence that anyone other than community members were responsible for designing their
mosaic floors (Levine 2000: 365). The individuals named in mosaic, are often officials of the
synagogue within the community (Levine 2012: 24). So, as far as can be surmised, the motifs
were chosen by the community.
Looking at the Sepphoris design, one is struck by how much it resembles it
contemporaries with a few important differences. First, the Sepphoris pavement is the only one
found divided into seven bands and fourteen panels (Weiss 2005). Usually, mosaics are divided
into three registers including Beth Alpha, Na’aran, Hammath Gader, Beth Shean, Hammath
Tiberias, and Jericho, to name a few (Sukenik 1932; Netzer 1983; Sukenik 1935; Zori 1967;
Dothan 1983; Netzer 2004). Despite these difference, there are similarities with Sepphoris. With
some exceptions, in the tripartite scheme, there are three repeated categories of scenes used: a
Biblical scene, a Helios-zodiac cycle or another large central panel, and a Torah Shrine or
