Content provided in partnership with

The oldest original synagogue building in the Diaspora: the Delos synagogue reconsidered

Hesperia, Fall, 2004 by Monika Trumper

<< Page 1 Continued from page 46. Previous | Next

(58.) In contrast to White (1987, p. 148), I have not observed that the "benches in the southwest corner of A (at point S) neatly abut the partition wall," which is suggested by White's schematic reconstructed plan (p. 157, fig. 2). See the actual situation in Bruneau 1970, pls. B, C, and Fig. 2 here.

(59.) This marble throne has been compared to the throne of the priest in the Theater of Dionysos Eleutherios in Athens; the date of the latter has been much discussed, but an attribution to the first century B.C. seems most likely. The simpler Delian version was dated accordingly; see Risom 1913; Delos XVIII, pp. 7-9, fig. 5, pl. 49; Richter 1966, pp. 31-32, figs. 150-153; Bruneau 1970, pp. 481, 492; Hachlili 1998, pp. 80-81.

Most Popular Articles in Reference: The importance of understanding organizational culture; Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students; What factors attract foreign direct investment?; Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...; How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques; More »

According to Deonna (Delos XVIII, p. 9), the Delians "ont assurement pris au theatre ce beau fauteuil"; the caption in Richter 1966, fig. 153, reads as follows: "Marble throne in the theatre of Delos." I am much indebted to JeanCharles Moretti, who is preparing the publication of the Delian theater and has kindly given me his opinion; he too is convinced that this throne belonged to the theater because, among other reasons, it is a simplified copy of the aforementioned throne in the Athenian theater.

Some scholars are of the opinion that the throne was made expressly for Jewish use in GD 80 (see Hachlili 1998, pp. 37-38, 80, with further literature). Others, e.g., Bruneau (1970, pp. 480-493) and White (1987), do not discuss the question of "spoil or not." Binder (1999, p. 301 with n. 132) points out that "it cannot be determined with any degree of certainty if the throne and the benches also belonged to the earlier stage. If so, then they would have been arranged in a different fashion within the unsectioned room A/B." But later he identifies the palmette on the back of the throne as typical "artistic embellishment" that would suggest a Jewish (Samaritan) influence (Binder 1999, p. 306), and favors a non-Jewish ownership of the first building (pp. 314-316).

60. E.g., the east walls of B and A(?), the north wall of B, and even the south wall of A, because the valves of the doors opened against the jambs (probably because of the enormous thickness of these walls). The small column drum inscribed with ID 2328 (see n. 122, below) was found at the bottom of the west wall of B, however, where no benches are preserved; see Plassart 1914, p. 526; Bruneau 1970, p. 484.

(61.) Contra White (1987, p. 147, n. 62, fig. 2), who states "that there is evidence of other construction integral to the building, esp. in the areas to the north and west. Thus, note the bonded corner at Q and the wall extension (unbonded) at P."

(62.) According to Bruneau (1970, pl. B), these walls are bonded. The north wall of C, the east wall of the neighbor to the north, and a third wall, leading from the north end of the latter to the west, must have been visible quite early because they appear on plans from 1907/1908 onward (Delos XXXIX, document VI; Vallois 1953, pl. I; Bruneau 1970, pl. A; Papageorgiou-Venetas 1981, p. 105, fig. 85; GD, plan III). Today only the north wall of C and a small part of the east wall of the northern neighbor are clearly visible, but neither their relationship nor the extension of the north wall of C to the east can be reconstructed with certainty because these walls are not fully excavated. The fact that the easternmost 3.70-m stretch of the preserved north wall of C is remarkably thicker (0.90 m) than the remaining portion to the west (0.60 m; Fig. 2 here and Bruneau 1970, pl. B) suggests that this wall did not continue much farther east, because the reinforcement of walls is a typical feature of outer corners or heads of walls. Nothing similar can be observed for the south wall of C. There is, however, no evidence of an outer corner or clear terminus for either the north or the south wall of C (Fig. 24, and see Fig. 28, below).

The oldest original synagogue building in the Diaspora: the Delos synagogue reconsidered

Hesperia, Fall, 2004 by Monika Trumper

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Business

Most Popular Articles in Reference

Most Popular Publications in Reference