The oldest original synagogue building in the Diaspora: the Delos synagogue reconsidered
Hesperia, Fall, 2004 by Monika Trumper
(159.) Gruen 2002, pp. 118, 131.
(160.) Although the lodging of guests seems rather unlikely, because the rooms of the south complex resemble much more those of service than those of proper or even luxurious living.
(161.) For the synagogue in Ostia, its identification as a synagogue, construction history, function, and equipment, see Runesson 1999, 2001b, and 2002 (with convincing refutation of White's theories as set out in White 1997b and 1999).
- 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 »
(162.) For the comparison with buildings for the meetings of associations, see Runesson 1999; 2001b, pp. 90-91. Common features consisted of spaces for cultic/religious activities and for common meals, but large or monumental meeting places with separate rooms for the veneration of gods and dining or meetings usually included a peristyle-courtyard; in addition, many were provided with tabernae, which could be profitably let (Bollmann 1998, pp. 58-103). By far, the majority of known meeting places in Ostia consisted of a single more or less monumentally designed room (Saalbauten) that was often equipped with an apse, niche, or podium for a cult statue, and that was used indiscriminately to fulfill the various needs of the community, such as cultic activities, meetings, banquets, and so on (Bollmann 1998, pp. 103-122).
(163.) Voluntary associations and synagogues (as communities) have been compared and contrasted by several scholars, most compellingly and extensively only recently, by Richardson (1996) and Runesson (2001a). For a critical approach, see Levine 2000, pp. 118-123; 2001, pp. 27-28; he stresses the differences between these communities and the specific Jewish character of synagogues. See also Gruen 2002, pp. 121-123; Robinson 2002.
(164.) Gruen 2002, pp. 122-123.
(165.) See, e.g., Bruneau 1970, pp. 487-488; 1982, pp. 491-495; Levine 2000, pp. 118-123, 285; 2001, p. 29.
(166.) See, e.g., Bruneau 1970, pp. 489-490; White 1987, p. 148; Hachlili 1998, pp. 79-81; Binder 1999, pp. 301, 306, 316; Levine 2000, pp. 120, 325-327.
(167.) The Delian inventories mention several thrones, referring to examples in different sanctuaries, but archaeological evidence is rather scarce. The throne in GD 80 is certainly the most prominent example (see Delos XVIII, pp. 5-12).
(168.) White (1987, p. 148) cites this niche only as evidence for his construction history. The identification as a Torah niche is not in Binder 1999, but only on his Web site (www.pohick.org/ sts/delos.html), which provides a detailed photograph of the niche with a descriptive caption. Bruneau (1970, pl. C) illustrates the niche, but on p. 489 he states expressly that a niche for the sacred books is missing above the throne. This niche is similarly not cited in special publications on Torah shrines; see, e.g., Hachlili 2000.
(169.) See above, n. 57. Comparable Torah niches in early synagogues are much larger. The one at Gamala, according to drawings (e.g., Binder 1999, p. 165, fig. 3), was ca. 1.20 x 1.20 m and at floor level; cf. the strange niche in the supposed synagogue in Jericho that was 1.55 x 1.20 m and took the form of an elevated compartment at the level of the benches (Netzer 1999, p. 213). The niche in GD 80 certainly could not have been closed like the many Torah shrines represented, for example, in mosaic pavements, artifacts, and funerary art.