The Myth of the Synagogue on Delos

Introduction The identification of a synagogue on Delos has been problematic ever since it was first made in 1913 because while there is some evidence relating to Jews and/or Samaritans on Delos not one single piece of it refers to a synagogue or association house. When we come to look at the material relating to how a building on this tiny Greek island came to be identified as a synagogue, we find a surprisingly large gap between what was originally proposed — and widely accepted — and what has been found. To this day, scholarship continues to build upon the original and quite erroneous identification. The building with which we are here concerned, GD 80, lies on the northeastern shoreline of the Greek island of Delos, in the Bay of Gournia, outside the town walls. It stands in the area just east of the stadium and northeast of the gymnasium (Figure 1 below). Figure 1 – Delos in Context 1 It is important to note that there is nothing in the structure of GD 80 that is specifically Jewish in nature, although I am always mindful of Lee Levine‘s point that Jews and Jewish architecture have always been influenced by local material culture.1 Delos Delos is a small island in the Cyclades, measuring just 5 km north to south and 1.3 km east to west (see Figure 1 above). The mythological birthplace of the gods Apollo and Artemis, it was a major cultic centre, and is mentioned in Homer‘s Odyssey (6.160-169) and in Homeric Hymn 3 to Apollo.2 Delos arrived at its prominent political and economic status by default. According to Thucydides (Peloponnesian Wars, 1.96.2; 6.76.3), the Persian emperor Xerxes had razed the Athenian sanctuaries during raids into mainland Greece. In 478 BCE the Greek city states responded by forming a defensive alliance funded by its member states. To avoid the danger of any one of the city states becoming too powerful, the Athenian-controlled island of Delos was chosen to hold the treasury of what came to be known as the Delian League. Delos became a hub of commercial, military, maritime trading and slaving activity (the main slave markets were at Rhodes, Delos and Crete) whilst continuing to be a major cultic centre.3 Delos became independent from Athens in 314 BCE and, when the Delian League was finally dissolved in the mid-third century BCE, its independence continued, along with its economic boom.4 Lee I. Levine. ―Ancient Synagogues: A Historical Introduction‖, in Ancient Synagogues Revealed, Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem (1982): 6; Lee I. Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity. Conflict or Confluence?, University of Washington Press, Seattle & London (1998): 23; Lee I. Levine. The Ancient Synagogue. The First Thousand Years, Yale University Press: New Haven and London (2000): 581). 2 Michael Crudden. The Homeric Hymns, (Hymn 3 to Apollo) Oxford University Press: 2001, 23-42. 3 Philip de Souza. Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World, Cambridge University Press, UK: 1999, 61. 4 Philip de Souza. Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World, Cambridge University Press, UK: 1999, 61. 1 2 While it was under Roman rule, Athens lobbied the Roman Senate for the return of some of its erstwhile territories. In 166 BCE, the Roman Senate returned Delos to Athenian control and it was made a cleruchy of Athens.5 However, Delians were exiled and their land turned over to the colonists. Even so, people still flocked to Delos from all over the Aegean, many establishing businesses, cults and associations on the island.6 The downside of being a thriving and strategically placed cultic, trade and slaving centre was that Delos was often caught between warring factions vying for control of the Aegean. During the first Mithridatic war (88-84 BCE), Delos was raided by Menophaneses, one of Mithridates Eupator‘s generals. According to Pausanias (Description of Greece, 3.23.2) and Appian (Mithridateios 28), some 20,000 of the island‘s inhabitants were slaughtered during that incursion. There was a further major destruction during the second Mithridatic war (83–81 BCE), and another (led by the pirate Athenodoros) during the third Mithridatic war (74–63 BCE).7 The problem of piracy in the Aegean was so widespread that Cicero complained to the Roman Senate in 66 BCE, saying that the friends, allies and subjects of Rome had been at the mercy of pirates until Pompey finally drove them away. In 69 BCE, Gaius Triarius, Legate to the Roman Consul Lucullus, repaired some of the damage and built a defensive wall round the town centre of Delos.8 5 A colony for military veterans. B.H. McLean. ―The Place of Cult in Voluntary Associations and Christian Churches on Delos‖, in J.S. Kloppenborg and S.G. Wilson (eds.), Voluntary Association in the Graeco-Roman World, London, Routledge, 189. 7 Philip de Souza. Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World, Cambridge University Press, UK: 1999, 162-3; B.H. McLean. ―The Place of Cult in Voluntary Associations and Christian Churches on Delos‖, in J.S. Kloppenborg and S.G. Wilson (eds.), Voluntary Association in the Graeco-Roman World, London, Routledge, 188. 8 Philip de Souza. Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World, Cambridge University Press, UK: 1999, 162-3. 6 3 By the mid-first century BCE, the rise of other trading centres (such as Puteoli and Ostia in Italy), as well as the constant raids and destructions, had taken their toll, and trade routes had altered to accommodate these changes, pushing Delos further outside the commercial loop until eventually it was in such decline that Athens did not even bother sending its epimeletes to the island, and the priest of Apollo on Delos left to live in Athens, only returning for the traditional annual ceremonial sacrifice of twelve animals.9 The decline continued apace and in the second century CE, the philhellenic Emperor Hadrian‘s attempt to revive the old Delian festivals was unsuccessful. By then, according to Pausanias (8.33.2), the island was already very sparsely inhabited.10 The agricultural land in the southern part of Delos continued to be cultivated until the last person left, probably during the fifth century CE.11 History of the Excavations The École française d‘Athènes commenced excavations on Delos in 1873. Between 1904 and 1914, much of the island was excavated. There were further extensive excavations between 1958 and 1975. The École française d‘Athènes continues to run excavations on the island in conjunction with the Cycladic Ephoreia (the governing body for archaeological excavations, museums and conservation in the Cycladic Islands), and it maintains a permanent presence there12. I will refer to all structures on B.H. McLean. ―The Place of Cult in Voluntary Associations and Christian Churches on Delos‖, in J.S. Kloppenborg and S.G. Wilson (eds.), Voluntary Association in the Graeco-Roman World, London, Routledge, 189. 10 B.H. McLean. ―The Place of Cult in Voluntary Associations and Christian Churches on Delos‖, in J.S. Kloppenborg and S.G. Wilson (eds.), Voluntary Association in the Graeco-Roman World, London, Routledge, 189. 11 In conversation with Michelè Brunet in October 2003, discussing the extent of agriculture on Delos until its abandonment. See Brunet, ―Contribution à l'histoire rurale de Délos aux époques classique et hellénistique‖, BCH 114:2 (1990) 669-682, which looks at aspects of the countryside of Delos and its historic cultivation. 12 The École française d‘Athènes maintain a number of houses on the island for the purpose of accommodating their archaeologists during the digging seasons and I am most grateful to their Director of 9 4 the island according to their designations in Bruneau and Ducat‘s seminal guide to the excavations on Delos, the Guide de Délos, and I will refer to all inscriptions found on the island according to their designations in the collections of inscriptions from Delos, the Inscriptions de Délos (ID). Using this format, the building known as the synagogue is GD 80 (see Figure 1 above). The Original Identification of the Synagogue It was André Plassart, of the École française d‘Athènes who, during the excavations of 1912 and 1913, identified GD 80 as a synagogue. His identification relied on six inscriptions. Rather astonishingly, the principal inscription, around which the entire identification was made, was found not in GD 80, but rather some 90 m north of it, in a complex of residential buildings on the east side of the stadium district, and was not associated with GD 80 until some time later. This inscription, ID 2329, contained the donor names Agathokles and Lysimachos and the word proseuche which, Plassart said, referred to a Jewish ‗house of prayer‘ or ‗synagogue‘.13 Plassart‘s other five inscriptions were found scattered around GD 80, and among those was one which contained one of the donor names found in ID 2329 above. Three of the inscriptions contained the epithet Theo Hypsisto (‗god most high‘), and one contained the epithet Hypsisto (‗most high‘). Plassart‘s final inscription retained only two legible words, genomenos eleutheros (‗became free‘).14 Studies, Mde. Michèle Brunet for arranging to open one of their dig houses for me, and to Panayotis Chatzidakis of the 21st Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classic Antiquities, for giving me permission to stay overnight on the island in October of 2003. 13 André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖ in Mélanges Holleaux, recueil de memoirs concernant l’antiquité grecque, Picard: Paris (1913) 201-215; ―La synagogue juive de Délos‖, Revue Biblique: 23 (1914) 523-534. 14 André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖, Revue Biblique: 23 (1914): 528. 5 Figure 2 – GD 80 in Context In an article written in 1913, André Plassart laid out his argument that the use of the epithets Hypsisto (―most high) or Theo Hypsisto (―god most high‖) indicated a tendency towards monotheism and therefore referred to the Jewish deity. However, in the same article, he noted that an inscription had recently been found in Lydia, bearing the epithet Thea Hypsista, probably referring to the great mother goddess of Asia Minor, and that other similar inscriptions had been found in relation to the Thracian-Phrygian deity Dionysos-Sabazios and to the Syrian Zeus of Heliopolis.15 So, despite being aware of the non-Jewish uses of the term Theos Hypsistos, and its application to different divinities, male and female, and despite the fact that the inscription on which he was basing his argument was not found in GD 80 (see Figure 2 above), he proceeded to use it as proof that GD 80 was a synagogue. According to his argument, since the word proseuche signified a later Jewish use and context, he 15 André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖, Revue Biblique: 23 (1914): 529. 6 associated the proseuche and Lysimachos inscriptions with one another. Combining the use of Theos Hypsistos and Hypsistos in the other inscriptions, and looking at the configuration of the furnishings of the building (arguing that it was similar to later synagogues) Plassart declared GD 80 to be a synagogue16. I am going to show that the word proseuche in the context in which André Plassart found it refers to the fulfilment of a prayer or votive offering, not to a building and, indeed, probably not to a Jewish context at all. I will demonstrate that the occurrences of the names Lysimachos and Agathokles are entirely coincidental and that the arguments relating to the form, style, furnishings and artefacts found in GD 80 are irrelevant to its identification as a synagogue. In short, I will demonstrate that there are no compelling reasons to consider GD 80 a synagogue. I will deal with the literary evidence, the epigraphic evidence and, finally, the archaeological evidence in order to do this. The Ancient Sources There is very little literary evidence relating to Jews on Delos and while what does exist is useful in establishing the presence of Jews in the region, it does not allude to the existence of a synagogue or indeed to any specifically Jewish physical structure on Delos. The earliest reference to Jews on Delos is found in the first book of Maccabees and incorporates a letter from Lucius, a Roman consul: Then Numenius and his companions arrived from Rome, with letters to the kings and countries, in which the following was written: ‗Lucius, consul of the Romans, to King Ptolemy, greetings. The envoys of the Jews have come to us as our friends and allies to renew our ancient friendship and alliance. They had been sent by the high priest Simon and 16 André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖, Revue Biblique: 23 (1914): 528-529 7 by the Jewish people and have brought a gold shield weighing one thousand minas. We therefore have decided to write to the kings and countries that they should not seek their harm or make war against them and their cities and their country, or make alliance with those who war against them. And it has seemed good to us to accept the shield from them. Therefore if any scoundrels have fled to you from their country, hand them over to the high priest Simon, so that he may punish them according to their law.‘ The consul wrote the same thing to King Demetrius and to Attalus and Ariarathes and Arsaces, and to all the countries, and to Sampsames, and to the Spartans, and to Delos, and to Myndos, and to Sicyon, and to Caria, and to Samos, and to Pamphylia, and to Lycia, and to Halicarnassus, and to Rhodes, and to Phaselis, and to Cos, and to Side, and to Aradus and Gortyna and Cnidus and Cyprus and Cyrene. They also sent a copy of these things to the high priest Simon. (1 Maccabees 15.15-23) Discussion In this passage, the Jews, through the High Priest Simon, have made an offering to the Romans of a valuable shield in return for which the Romans have renewed an old alliance and offered their protection. There is an ongoing debate concerning the chronology of this text, but it is not relevant here17. While this text is useful in that it suggests that the Delians may have had some interaction with Jews, it may be that because we have already assumed that there are Jews on the island, we see the text as confirming their presence there. This has the potential of becoming an entirely circular argument. What the text actually says is that the Romans have renewed their friendship with the Jews, via a delegation sent to Rome by the high priest Simon, as a consequence of which Rome asked its allies to hand over to the Jewish authorities those who harassed the Jews and ‗scoundrels‘ who, having made war against the Jews, fled to the locations listed in the letter. Notably, there is no mention of Jews on Delos, or of any Jewish buildings, houses or associations. The second text is Josephus‘s account of the same event. There are variables in this version in that Josephus identifies the Lucius mentioned in the 1 Maccabees passage as 17 For the essentials of the debate on the chronology, see J.A. Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, Doubleday and Company, Inc, New York, 1976 and John R. Bartlett. 1 Maccabees, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 1998. 8 the praetor Lucius Valerius, and the island of Delos is not mentioned at all. The chronological context of this passage is also disputed.18 Lucius Valerius, son of Lucius the praetor, consulted with the senate on the Ides of December in the Temple of Concord. And at the writing of the decree there were present Lucius Coponius, son of Lucius, of the Colline tribe, and Papirius of the Quirine tribe. Whereas Alexander, son of Jason, Numenius, son of Antiochus, and Alexander, son of Dorotheus, envoys of the Jews and worthy men and allies, have discussed the matter of renewing the relation of goodwill and friendship which they formerly maintained with the Romans, and have brought as a token of the alliance a golden shield worth fifty thousand gold pieces, and have asked that letters be given them to the autonomous cities and kings in order that their country and ports may be secure and suffer no harm, it has been decreed to form a relation of goodwill and friendship with them and to provide them with all the things which they have requested, and to accept the shield which they have brought. (Josephus, AJ, 14.145-148)19 Discussion While the text is very similar to the text of the Maccabees passage, there is no reference whatsoever to Delos or, again, to the presence of Jews on Delos. Again, past and modern scholarship has assumed that this text refers to Jews on Delos because we presuppose that, because of its similarity to the passage at 1 Maccabees 15, it must be so. Again, the text actually only notes the renewal of Roman-Jewish friendship and the request made by a Jewish delegation that Jews not be harassed in the autonomous ports and cities of the Mediterranean. The third text is the most interesting and most substantial. Again, it comes to us via Josephus, in the form of a letter dealing specifically with the Jews of Delos. This text is thought to date to about the middle of the first century BCE. Julius Gaius, Praetor, Consul of the Romans, to the magistrates, council and people of Parium, greeting. The Jews in Delos and some of the neighbouring Jews, some of your envoys also being present, have appealed to me and declared that you are preventing them by statute from observing their national customs and sacred rites. Now it displeases me that 18 John R. Bartlett. 1 Maccabees, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 1998, 93-94. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, The Loeb Classical Library, translated by Ralph Marcus, London and Massachusetts, 1943. 19 9 such statutes should be made against our friends and allies and that they should be forbidden to live in accordance with their customs and to contribute money to common meals and sacred rites, for this they are not forbidden to do even in Rome. For example, Gaius Caesar, our consular praetor, by edict forbade religious societies to assemble in the city, but these people alone he did not forbid to do so or to collect contributions or to hold common meals. Similarly do I forbid other religious societies but permit these people alone to assemble and feast in accordance with their native customs and ordinances. And if you have made any statutes against our friends and allies, you will do well to revoke them because of their worthy deeds on our behalf and their goodwill towards us. (Josephus, AJ 14.213-216)20 According to this text, at some point in the middle of the first century BCE, the Jews of Delos (and other Jews) were being prevented by the magistrates, council and people of Parium from observing their national customs and sacred rites. They were not being allowed to meet for religious purposes, to collect religious tithes or to pay for common meals, or to assemble, even though by religious societies in Rome had been forbidden, except for the Jews who were not forbidden …to do so or to collect contributions or to hold common meals. The letter asked that the religious prohibitions against the Jews of Delos (and other neighbouring Jews) be revoked. Discussion We can hypothesise, based on this letter, that the Jews on Delos (and some of the neighbouring Jews) were for some time not permitted the same privileges as Jews in Rome. Thus, at the time of this letter, the Jews at Rome could assemble, collect contributions and hold common meals, but the Jews on Delos (and some of the neighbouring Jews) could not. This does not suggest that the Jews on Delos were in a position to have had a physically identifiable synagogue or other communal building to use for their traditional practices, given that those practices were forbidden by the magistrates, council and people of Parium. 20 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Books XII-XIV, The Loeb Classical Library, translated by Ralph Marcus, London, William Heinemann Ltd and Harvard University Press, Massachusetts: 1943). 10 It is evident that for at least some unknown time there was a statute of some sort in place forbidding Jews to live in accordance with their native customs, to assemble and to contribute money to communal meals and sacred rites, and it is apposite to note that the prohibition against Jewish practices mentioned in it relates to precisely the period when GD 80 is said to have functioned as a synagogue, that is from the middle of the first century BCE. Despite these problems and despite any corroborating evidence, Plassart used the foregoing passage as support for his identification of GD 80 as a synagogue. He said that the text ‗undertook to repeal the decree‘ by which the Jews had been forbidden from observing their ancient customs and, in particular, from organising communal meals that would have taken place ‗in the vast premises of the synagogue‘.21 This was to be the first in a long line of imaginative interpretations of the available evidence, given that there is not one shred of evidence connecting GD 80 with a reading of the letter about the Delian Jews in Josephus other than Plassart‘s original assumption (based on his association of the inscriptions mentioned above and in more detail below) that it was a synagogue. The foregoing passage in Josephus does not allude to a synagogue or house being used as a synagogue, and then being prevented from being used as a synagogue. Indeed, it only says that Jews on Delos (and other neighbouring Jews) were being prevented from following their traditional practices and that the Romans thought it desirable that this should change, in line with Roman administrative leniency relative to Jews. At best, therefore, we have one direct reference to Jews on Delos (and other neighbouring Jews; either on the island or elsewhere in the region either in the Cyclades 21 André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖, Revue Biblique: 23 (1914): 529. 11 or the Dodecanese, or even Aegina, Crete, Rhodes or Cyprus; and not necessarily on Delos at all), in the first century BCE, suggesting that they were, for some unknown period of time, prevented from following their traditional practices. As this text provides the only clear reference we have to the presence of Jews on the island of Delos, it must be examined in that context. So, what we do have is what appears to be a reliable and plausible reference to the presence of Jews on the island of Delos, albeit one that is wholly dependent on Josephus. What we do not have is a reference to a synagogue or association house or community building of the Jews on Delos. Figure 3 – GD 80 and its Environs The Inscriptions As stated above, Plassart‘s evidence for the identification of GD 80 as a synagogue consisted of six inscriptions. The principal inscription was found in house IIA of GD 79 in the densely packed residential area, some 90 m north of GD 80 (see Figure 3 above). 12 Inscription 1 (ID 2329)  ι ι ει η22 (―Agathokles and Lysimachos for an offering/prayer‖)23 ID 2329 was found in house IIA of GD 79 beside the stadium, about 90 m northwest of GD 80. It has been dated to around the first century BCE and is carved on a plain rectangular marble stele with a cut on the top side containing the remnants of a lead fixing, indicating it held a statue or votive offering, which is not part of any known Jewish custom. The presence of the lead fixing is strong support for the argument that this inscription cannot be a Jewish one. Moreover, as there is no definite article used in the wording of the inscription, the words ει η in this context cannot refer to a building and must be translated as reading ‗for an offering‘ or simply as a ‗prayer‘ (in the sense that a prayer to a deity is always an offering) and not ‗for the synagogue‘ (as Plassart translated it in his 1913 article) and as others have continued to do.24 ID 2329 contained the names Agathokles and Lysimachos and the word proseuche which, Plassart said, referred to a Jewish ‗house of prayer‘ or ‗synagogue‘ (and following Plassart most scholars have agreed with this interpretation).25 On the basis of his presumption that ID 2329 indicated the existence of a synagogue, Plassart identified the two names listed on it as Jewish and, as a direct consequence, the names Agathokles and Lysimachos on Delos have been listed in the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (the 22 Pierre Roussel and Marcel Launey. Inscriptions de Délos. Decrets Postérieurs A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 1497-1524). Dédicaces Postérieures A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 1525-2219), Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, Paris, 1937, 295; André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖ in Mélanges Holleaux, recueil de memoirs concernant l’antiquité grecque, Paris: Picard 1913, 205. 23 My translation. 24 André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖ in Mélanges Holleaux, recueil de memoirs concernant l’antiquité grecque, Paris: Picard 1913, 205. 25 Pierre Roussel and Marcel Launey. Inscriptions de Délos. Decrets Postérieurs A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 1497-1524). Dédicaces Postérieures A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 1525-2219), Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, Paris, 1937, 295; André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖ in Mélanges Holleaux, recueil de memoirs concernant l’antiquité grecque, Paris: Picard 1913, 205. 13 LGPN) as Jewish.26 This has created an entirely circular argument for anyone looking for external corroborating evidence concerning these names. In addition, there other contemporary instances of the name Agathokles from Delos that are not identified as Jewish, including one from the Agora of the Competalists (ID 1760);27 one from the Portico of Antigone (ID 1965);28 one from a list of donors and subscribers found in and belonging to Sarapeion C (ID 2618);29 one from an Ephebium list (ID 2598);30 one on a decree of the Athenian cleruchy in honour of the musician Amphikles (ID 1497)31; and one on a white marble stele found in the Sanctuary of the Syrians (ID 2263).32 Despite these other instances of the name Agathokles on Delos being contemporary with ID 2329, they are not listed as Jewish in the ID or the LGPN. Inscription 2 (ID 2328) ι υε ευ ω ιω η33 (―Lysimachos for himself [to] God Most High [for a] votive/thank-offering‖)34 26 P.M. Fraser and E. Matthews (eds.). Lexicon of Greek Personal Names: Volume I: The Aegean Islands, Clarendon Press, New York, Oxford University Press, 1987. 27 Pierre Roussel and Marcel Launey. Inscriptions de Délos. Decrets Postérieurs A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 1497-1524). Dédicaces Postérieures A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 1525-2219), Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, Paris: 1937(a): 119. 28 Pierre Roussel and Marcel Launey. Inscriptions de Délos. Decrets Postérieurs A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 1497-1524). Dédicaces Postérieures A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 1525-2219), Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, Paris: 1937(a): 188. 29 Pierre Roussel and Marcel Launey. Inscriptions de Délos. Dédicaces Postérieures A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 2220-2528). Textes Divers, Listes et Catalogues, Fragments Divers Postérieurs A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 2529-2879), Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, Paris: 1937(b): 395. 30 Pierre Roussel and Marcel Launey. Inscriptions de Délos. Dédicaces Postérieures A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 2220-2528). Textes Divers, Listes et Catalogues, Fragments Divers Postérieurs A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 2529-2879), Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, Paris: 1937(b): 374. 31 Pierre Roussel and Marcel Launey. Inscriptions de Délos. Decrets Postérieurs A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 1497-1524). Dédicaces Postérieures A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 1525-2219), Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, Paris: 1937(a): 1. 32 Pierre Roussel and Marcel Launey. Inscriptions de Délos. Dédicaces Postérieures A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 2220-2528). Textes Divers, Listes et Catalogues, Fragments Divers Postérieurs A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 2529-2879), Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, Paris: 1937(b): 78. 33 Pierre Roussel & Marcel Launey. Inscriptions de Délos. Dédicaces Postérieures A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 2220-2528). Textes Divers, Listes et Catalogues, Fragments Divers Postérieurs A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 2529-2879), Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, Paris: 1937(b): 295; André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖ in Mélanges Holleaux, recueil de memoirs concernant l’antiquité grecque, Paris, Picard (1913): 205, n.2; André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖, Revue Biblique: 23 (1914): 527, n.2. 34 My translation. 14 ID 2328 is carved on a small piece of white marble. It was found lying at the foot of a wall in GD 80. This inscription is also dated to the first century BCE. It was the use of the name Lysimachos in this inscription that caused Plassart to associate IDs 2329 and 2328 together, resulting in the identification of GD 80 as a synagogue. Again, the identification of the name Lysimachos as Jewish in the LGPN was made solely on the basis of Plassart‘s original identification and, again, there are other contemporary inscriptions from Delos containing the name Lysimachos that are not identified as Jewish. The name appears on ID 1764,35 relating to the Association of Competalists and again on ID 2616,36 a list of donors and subscribers to Sarapeion C. The fact that the names Lysimachos and Agathokles both appear in lists of donors and subscribers to Sarapeion C is interesting, and it is well worth mentioning here that the internal configuration of GD 80 (our supposed synagogue), GD 91 (Sarapeion A) and GD 100 (Sarapeion C) is very similar – with benches placed around the internal walls (I will return to this point in the discussion of the archaeological evidence below). What these commonalities and similarities mean is, of course, open to interpretation, but it is clear at least that the names Lysimachos and Agathokles themselves are no indicator of Jewishness on Delos and that the existence of benches around walls does not, in and of itself, imply conversion to synagogue use. 35 Pierre Roussel and Marcel Launey. Inscriptions de Délos. Decrets Postérieurs A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 1497-1524). Dédicaces Postérieures A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 1525-2219), Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, Paris: 1937(a): 122. 36 Pierre Roussel and Marcel Launey. Inscriptions de Délos. Dédicaces Postérieures A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 2220-2528). Textes Divers, Listes et Catalogues, Fragments Divers Postérieurs A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 2529-2879), Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, Paris: 1937(b): 389. 15 Inscription 3 (ID 2330) ι ω ι ι ι υ υυ η υη37 (―Laodike to God Most High for healing him of his infirmities, an offering‖)38 ID 2330 is carved on a rectangular base of white marble. It was found in GD 80, and has been dated to around 108/107 BCE. It is an inscription in the style of a Greek votive rather than a Jewish dedication. The name Laodike is identified in the LPGN as possibly being Jewish, but this is again only on the basis of Plassart‘s identification. There is one other instance of the name Laodike from Delos, ID 2628,39 among a list of donor and subscriber names on a marble plaque, which was discovered in the Theatre of the Syrian Sanctuary. However, only Plassart‘s Laodike inscription is identified as Jewish. Inscription 4 (ID 2331) α ι ω ι υη40 (―Zozas of Paros to the God Most High, an offering‖)41 37 Pierre Roussel and Marcel Launey. Inscriptions de Délos. Dédicaces Postérieures A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 2220-2528). Textes Divers, Listes et Catalogues, Fragments Divers Postérieurs A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 2529-2879), Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, Paris: 1937(b): 296; André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖ in Mélanges Holleaux, recueil de memoirs concernant l’antiquité grecque, Paris, Picard (1913): 205, n.3; André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖, Revue Biblique: 23 (1914): 527. 38 My translation. 39 Pierre Roussel and Marcel Launey. Inscriptions de Délos. Dédicaces Postérieures A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 2220-2528). Textes Divers, Listes et Catalogues, Fragments Divers Postérieurs A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 2529-2879), Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, Paris: 1937(b): 401-2. 40 Pierre Roussel and Marcel Launey. Inscriptions de Délos. Dédicaces Postérieures A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 2220-2528). Textes Divers, Listes et Catalogues, Fragments Divers Postérieurs A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 2529-2879), Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, Paris: 1937(b): 296; André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖ in Mélanges Holleaux, recueil de memoirs concernant l’antiquité grecque, Paris, Picard (1913): 205, n.4; André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖, Revue Biblique: 23 (1914): 527. 41 My translation. 16 ID 2331 was found on a bench in the west of room A in GD 80. It is carved on a small base of white marble, in the shape of a horned altar, which Plassart described as ‗slightly pyramid-shaped‘. It is dated to the first century BCE, and the name Zozas is identified in the LGPN as possibly belonging to a manumitted slave, but not specifically identified as a Jewish name. The style of this base and that of ID 2328 is very similar, and there are many of examples of this type of inscribed base all over Delos itself (and indeed all over the ancient Near East). There was no other instance of the name Zozas in the ID. However, I did come across instances of the name Zozas in the context of the first rebellion against Rome. I found the name in Josephus (BJ 4.235; 5.249; 6.92; 6.148; and 6.380), and all the references are to the same person: one James, son of Sosas, an Idumaean general who mustered forces to march on Jerusalem in support of the Zealot faction. This could be support for a Jewish identification of ID 2331, although it is not an association Plassart or any other following scholar made and, of course, it could be entirely coincidental and/or unrelated. Inscription 5 (ID 2332) ιω υ ι42 (―[The] Most High [from] Markia‖)43 ID 2332 was found on a bench in the west of room A in GD 80. It is carved on a small, white marble base and dates to the first century BCE. The name Markia is again 42 Pierre Roussel and Marcel Launey. Inscriptions de Délos. Dédicaces Postérieures A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 2220-2528). Textes Divers, Listes et Catalogues, Fragments Divers Postérieurs A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 2529-2879), Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, Paris: 1937(b): 296; André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖ in Mélanges Holleaux, recueil de memoirs concernant l’antiquité grecque, Paris, Picard (1913): 206, n.5; André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖, Revue Biblique: 23 (1914): 528. 43 My translation. 17 identified as Jewish in the LGPN on the basis of Plassart‘s identification. It is the only instance of this name on an inscription from Delos that I was able to find. Inscription 6 (ID 2333) ο ευ44 (―… became free‖)45 ID 2333 is carved on a small rectangular base of white marble and was found in GD 80. The marble is very badly damaged and only those two words can be made out. Given the position of Delos as one of the main Aegean centres of the slave trade, it is hardly surprising to find that there are inscriptions relating to the freeing of slaves found there. Furthermore, there were other inscription bases found in GD 80 which neither Plassart nor subsequent scholars have chosen to mention, and whose texts are illegible.46 It is evident, thus, that other than its proximity to the other four inscription bases found in GD 80 (and the one found some 90 m away in the stadium district) and discussed by Plassart, there is nothing Jewish about this ID 2333 and it is merely Plassart‘s association of the bases that has linked it with the others. It becomes clear, when looked at in the light of all of the foregoing, that the inscriptions used by Plassart to identify GD 80 as a synagogue are unrelated. They, like many of the other pieces of marble on the island have ended up together in building GD 80 where 44 Pierre Roussel and Marcel Launey. Inscriptions de Délos. Dédicaces Postérieures A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 2220-2528). Textes Divers, Listes et Catalogues, Fragments Divers Postérieurs A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 2529-2879), Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, Paris: 1937(b): 296; André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖ in Mélanges Holleaux, recueil de memoirs concernant l’antiquité grecque, Paris, Picard (1913): 206, n.6; André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖, Revue Biblique: 23 (1914): 528, n.6. 45 My translation. 46 Specifically, two small inscription bases whose texts are illegible. See Waldemar Déonna, Le Mobilier délien, Délos, Paris: De Boccard (1938) Pl. CXII, photographs 969 and 970. (pages unnumbered) 18 there is a lime kiln (for melting down marble to make lime), and I will return to this point below in the discussion of the archaeological remains. However, there are two further inscriptions which are very interesting indeed: The Samaritan Inscriptions In 1979, two inscriptions were found by Philippe Fraisse of the École française d‘Athènes. These two inscriptions are the only specifically ‗Jewish‘ pieces of material found on the island. They were both found in an unexcavated area just beneath current ground level, where they had fallen from the exterior wall onto which they had been fixed, near the shoreline about 100 m north of GD 80. Both are written in Greek, and both are dedicated by the ‗Israelites who offer to Holy Argarizein‘ (presumably Mount Gerizim in Samaria). These two inscriptions do provide evidence of Samaritans on the island, but it is also possible that the dedications were made by Samaritan visitors and traders to the island on behalf of their religious communities at home. It is likely that if there were a Samaritan (or Jewish) community on Delos that it came there in the same way as the other multinational migrants, to benefit from the free trade status of Delos and to deal in merchandise and slaves from around the Mediterranean region. Unfortunately, other than these two inscriptions, there is no literary, archaeological or epigraphic evidence to tell us anything about Samaritans on Delos. Of course, it is possible to theorise, based on the inscriptions and on the passage in Josephus (AJ 14.213-216) above, that the references to the Jews on Delos could relate to Samaritans and that the building from which the two inscriptions came could have been a Samaritan synagogue. 19 Samaritan Inscription 1 ι ε η ι ι αο ι ιο ι υ ω α ι  ω υι ε η ι ευ47 (―The Israelites on Delos who make first-fruit offerings to Holy Argarizim crown with a golden crown Sarapion son of Jason of Knossos for his benefactions on their behalf‖)48 This inscription has been dated to somewhere between 150 and 50 BCE.49 There is substantial damage to the upper area of the stele, but it does not affect the text.50 The inscription honours Sarapion (son of Jason of Knossos) for his benefactions on behalf of the ‗Israelites on Delos‘ but does not offer any details as to the presence of a permanent community of Samaritans on the island, and it is not clear whether the Sarapion honoured in the text is a Samaritan, Jew or pagan. It does, however, identify the dedicators as ‗the Israelites on Delos‘, which certainly indicates a community of Israelites on the island, be it a temporary, seasonal or permanent one. Samaritan Inscription 2 ι ι αο ι ιο ι ει c. ε ω  υο ι υ ο υυ α ι αε ε ε ιι ει η υ [υ] [- - - - - - - - - - - - - -]   [- - - - - ι εα] ω [α -]ω ι [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]  - -  - -51 (―[The] Israelites who make first-fruit offerings to holy Argarizim honour Menippos, son of Artemidoros of Heraclea, himself as well as his descendants to have established Philippe Bruneau, ―Les Israélites de Délos et la juiverie délienne‖, in Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique, 106 (1982): 469. 48 My translation based on Philippe Bruneau, ―Les Israélites de Délos et la juiverie délienne‖, in Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique, 106 (1982): 469. 49 Philippe Bruneau. ―Les Israélites de Délos et la juiverie délienne‖, in Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique, 106 (1982), 469-474. 50 Philippe Bruneau. ―Les Israélites de Délos et la juiverie délienne‖, in Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique, 106 (1982), 474. 51 Philippe Bruneau. ―Les Israélites de Délos et la juiverie délienne‖, in Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique, 106 (1982), 471-474. 47 20 and dedicated its expenses, for an offering/prayer [to God], [- - - - - - -] and [- - - - -] and crowned it with a golden crown and [- - - ]‖)52 The second Samaritan inscription is tentatively dated to between 250-175 BCE and is carved onto a white marble stele.53 There is a great deal of damage to the bottom portion of the text, with the second half of the text entirely missing. This inscription refers to a donation of some unknown thing or act. It is unfortunate that this second inscription, whose damaged portion probably contained the details of the donation, has not survived intact, and thus, unfortunately, the two Samaritan inscriptions do not clear up the mystery for us. It is to be hoped that the bottom fragment of the second inscription might at some point be found and the text fully reconstructed so that we might at least know what was offered. The second inscription is similar to the first and honours Menippos (son of Artemidoros of Heraclea) for his benefactions in establishing something somewhere on Delos (perhaps the place where the stele fell to the ground and was ultimately found), and again offers no clues as to the presence of a permanent community of Samaritans on the island. Again, it is not clear whether the Menippos of the text is a Samaritan or pagan himself. It is the ‗Israelites‘ who honour Menippos, but unlike the first Samaritan inscription, the text of the second does not include the phrase ‗the Israelites of Delos‘. The text of the second inscription has been interpreted on the basis that it must be worded like the first. However, it is inscribed on a reused marble stele with an earlier text blocked out, and whoever inscribed the new text over the old did not include the My translation based on Philippe Bruneau. ―Les Israélites de Délos et la juiverie délienne‖, in Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique, 106 (1982), 471-474. 53 Philippe Bruneau. ―Les Israélites de Délos et la juiverie délienne‖, in Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique, 106 (1982): 469-474. 52 21 words on Delos. Nevertheless, Philippe Bruneau of the École française d‘Athènes reconstructed it as though it did, and subsequent scholarship has followed this.54 It is possible that this dedication, like the first, might relate to a non-resident donor or group of Samaritans, or to a group who did not have the same legal status on Delos as those who dedicated the first stele, and its wording and styling is very like that of the first Samaritan inscription. To add further confusion to the translation and interpretation of the two Samaritan inscriptions, Plassart‘s initial translation of the phrase ει η (from ID 2329) as ‗for the synagogue‘, has led to a number of scholars translating the same phrase in the second Samaritan inscription in that way, leading them to think that the building from which the Samaritan inscription came was a synagogue. Moreover, Bruneau translated ει η in the second Samaritan inscription as ‗in ex-voto‘ (for a vow/offering), whereas in relation to ID 2329 he accepted Plassart‘s reading of it as ‗for the synagogue‘.55 In any event, the two Samaritan inscriptions provide at least some indication that the texts referring to the Jews on Delos in Josephus and Maccabees might relate to Samaritans. The dating of the inscriptions is broad (c. 250 – 50 BCE) and it could be that offerings were sent to Mount Gerizim while the temple still stood there; or that offerings continued to be made and sent to Samaria after the destruction of the temple. Or, indeed, it could be that the offerings, in whatever form they took, were made on Philippe Bruneau. ―Les Israélites de Délos et la juiverie délienne‖, in Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique, 106 (1982): 474. 55 L.M. White. ―The Delos Synagogue Revisited: Recent Fieldwork in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora‖, Harvard Theological Review, 1987(80): 142. 54 22 Delos only, perhaps in the form of votives and dedications by either Samaritan visitors to the island or by Israelites who lived on the island. In the light of the discovery of two Samaritan inscriptions, it has been suggested that there were communities of both Jews and Samaritans on Delos, and that the letter recorded in Josephus refers to both, and it is possible that this is so.56 However, while the reference in Josephus (AJ 14.213-216) to the ‗Jews in Delos and some of the neighbouring Jews‘ does indicate that there was more than one Jewish community, in the area, it is possible that these ‗neighbouring Jews‘ may have been on other islands, either in the Cyclades or the Dodecanese or indeed other larger islands in the region, such as Crete, Rhodes or Cyprus. Since we know of the Jewish population on Delos only from Josephus, and of the Samaritans only from the two Samaritan inscriptions, it is difficult to see how this conundrum can be resolved without substantial excavations of the area immediately east of the stadium. At any rate, the names associated with the Samaritan inscriptions - Jason of Knossos and Menippos, son of Artemidoros of Heraclea - are not specifically identifiable as Jewish or Samaritan names. Theos Hypsistos / Hypsistos Writing in 1914, Plassart outlined his belief that the use of the epithets Hypsisto or Theo Hypsisto (in the inscriptions found in GD 80) indicated ‗a tendency towards monotheism‘, and Jewish monotheism in particular.57 However, the inscriptions that refer to Hypsistos may also refer to the Greek deity Zeus Hypsistos, whose cult (a healing cult, and a more likely association given the physical form of the inscription bases) also used these epithets to describe their chief deity. The sanctuary of the cult of L.M. White. ―The Delos Synagogue Revisited: Recent Fieldwork in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora‖, Harvard Theological Review, 1987(80): 153. 57 André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖, Revue Biblique: 23 (1914): 529. 56 23 Zeus Hypsistos is located on Mt. Cynthus, less than 500 m southwest of GD 80 (see Figure 2 above). Plassart only identified the names from the group of inscriptions he considered to be related (see above) as being Jewish without looking at other occurrences of those names on Delos. Additionally, as I have already stated, he noted an occurrence of the term Thea Hypsista, which he acknowledged as referring to a Near Eastern female deity, possibly the Great Goddess of Asia Minor.58 Taking this together with the recurrences of the names contained in the inscriptions, Plassart‘s argument is considerably and correctly diminished. Furthermore, the names on the two Samaritan inscriptions may or may not be Jewish and could be the names of non-Jewish Cretan donors. If, at some future point, it were possible to relate the two names (Menippos and Jason) from Crete to a Jewish family there, it would be a significant advance in the scholarship on the subject. Writing in 1935, Belle Mazur noted that the style of the inscribed bases was inconsistent with Jewish practice, in particular the proseuche and the Lysimachos inscriptions which had lead fixings in place for votive offerings or statues.59 She made the first connection with the Greek cult of Zeus Hypsistos, in whose sanctuary on the Athenian Pnyx were found similar inscribed bases, and to the cult of Theos Hypsistos from Asia Minor. Mazur was the first to note that Plassart‘s translation of the phrase ει η as meaning ‗for the synagogue‘ was incorrect because the definite article is absent from the inscription. She correctly translated it, as I also do, as ‗for a prayer/votive‘.60 There is no other way to translate the phrase, and to attempt to do so is to manipulate the evidence to fit a preconceived idea of what it is ‗supposed‘ to mean. André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖, Revue Biblique: 23 (1914): 529. Belle D. Mazur, Studies on Jewry in Greece, Athens, Printing Office ―Hestia‖ (1935): 21-22. 60 Belle D. Mazur, Studies on Jewry in Greece, Athens, Printing Office ―Hestia‖ (1935): 21-22. 58 59 24 A Illustrative Digression – The Cult of the Hypsistarians There is another cult that used the epithets Hypsistos and Theos Hypsistos: the Hypsistarians who, while they recognised other gods, considered theirs as being above all. Part of their ritual is described in an inscription carved on one of the blocks of the Hellenistic inner face of the city wall of Oenoanda in northern Lycia.61 Born of itself, untaught, without a mother, unshakeable, not contained in a name, known by many names, dwelling in fire, this is god. We, his angels, are a small part of god. To you who ask this question about god, what his essential nature is, he has pronounced that Aether is god who sees all, on whom you should gaze and pray at dawn, looking towards the sunrise.62 According to descriptions of their practices, the Hypsistarians stood in the open air facing east, looking up to heaven and offering their prayers. Lamps and fire were an essential part of their cult, which was associated with heaven and the sun, and, by the dedication of light, it was thought possible to establish a link with the deity.63 GD 80, our putative synagogue, is oriented eastwards, is unroofed, and 40 lamps were found in it by Plassart‘s excavation team. While it is impossible (and, indeed, would be absurdly foolish) to attribute the use of the final phase of GD 80 to the Hypsistarians, there is nothing to suggest that the lamps could not have been used in a ritual such as that described in the Oenoanda Oracle. There is certainly no known Jewish ritual with Stephen Mitchell, ―The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews and Christians‖, in Polymnia Athanassiadi and Michael Frede (eds.). Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, Oxford University Press (1999): 193-4. I am most grateful to the Emeritus Professor of Greek, John Dillon of the School of Classics at Trinity College in Dublin for pointing out this interesting parallel, during a conversation in Athens. 62 Stephen Mitchell, ―The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews and Christians‖, in Polymnia Athanassiadi and Michael Frede (eds.). Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, Oxford University Press (1999): 193-4. 63 Stephen Mitchell, ―The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews and Christians‖, in Polymnia Athanassiadi and Michael Frede (eds.). Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, Oxford University Press (1999): 91-2. 61 25 which to compare this and, to add further to this idea, even as late as the fourth century CE, Hypsistarians were sometimes mistaken for Jews.64 In any event, I have offered the Hypsistarians up for consideration only to illustrate how tenuous and tendentious the identification of GD 80 as a Jewish and/or Samaritan synagogue is. THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE GD 80 (The Building Identified as the Synagogue) GD 80 lies on the northeastern shoreline of Delos in the Bay of Gournia, outside the defensive town walls. It stands in the area just east of the stadium and northeast of the gymnasium (Figures 2 and 3 above). When Plassart excavated GD 80 in 1912, he found a large rectangular room measuring 16.90 m (north to south) by 14.40 m (west to east). The floor of this room had a coarse flaked marble/gravel-like covering, and there was some plaster left on the base of some of the walls, as well as some rooftiles scattered around the floor. The building directly abuts the shoreline which has advanced over time and has consumed its eastern side (see Figure 4 below). Stephen Mitchell, ―The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews and Christians‖, in Polymnia Athanassiadi and Michael Frede (eds.). Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, Oxford University Press (1999): 93-94. 64 26 Figure 4 – GD 80 Dividing the main rectangular space (Rooms A and B) into two almost equal parts is an east-west wall with three doorways, with room A in the north and room B in the south. This wall was erected some unknown time after the north, west and south walls (it is not bonded into them, and is therefore a later addition), and is made up of gneiss (the local stone), rubble, and worked marble from abandoned or destroyed buildings including pieces of capitals, marble inscription bases, triglyphs and thresholds.65 There was also a further space, room D, along the south of the building, parallel with rooms A and B, which was divided into smaller chambers and which may have contained a stairwell. Running beneath part of rooms B and D is the cistern around which the building was constructed.66 According to Plassart and based on his assumptions about Inscriptions ID 2329 and ID 2328 and on the letter preserved in Josephus, rooms A and B served as the assembly 65 66 André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖, Revue Biblique: 23 (1914): 523-534. André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖, Revue Biblique: 23 (1914): 523-534. 27 halls of a synagogue. There are some white marble benches in place in this area dating to the period he argued GD 80 that was in use as a synagogue (from around the middle of the first century BCE). There are also benches running along the south and west inner walls of room B, and some more benches running along the south, west and north walls of area C (the corridor between the main rectangular space and the peristyle courtyard to the east).67 In the centre of the west wall of room A is a white marble throne (see Figure 5 below). This was found in situ with the marble benches on either side, along the inside west wall of the area A.68 Figure 5 – Benches and the Marble Throne The marble throne in GD 80 is very similar to the first century BCE throne for the priest of Dionysos in the theatre in Athens, or the stone thrones in the Ampherion at Oropos, and to others all over the Graeco-Roman world. In a world of limited resources, the reuse of objects was a common way to reduce the cost of furnishing any given space, and the throne may well come from the theatre on Delos, on the west side of the island. Likewise, the benches in GD 80 are made up of various reused architectural pieces which are similar to those still left in the nearby gymnasium, from whence they may 67 68 André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖, Revue Biblique: 23 (1914): 523-534. André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖, Revue Biblique: 23 (1914): 526. 28 have been removed after its destruction and abandonment around 74-63 BCE.69 Of course, this does not prove that GD 80 was not used as a synagogue, but it is also striking that the internal furnishing of other buildings on the island have a similar layout, including the use of similarly reused benches in Sarapeion A near the theatre district on Delos (see Figure 6 below). Thus, the internal configuration of GD 80 cannot in itself be evidence that it was used as a synagogue. Figure 6 – GD 91 Sarapeion A When I visited Delos, I was unable to identify Sarapeion C, and so can only illustrate the benches in Sarapeion A. However, in terms of the Sarapeia, there is also the connection between the names from the inscriptions found in and near GD 80 and the donor names on the Sarapeion C list of subscribers (and the associations of Hermaists and the Poseidonists). The list was found in, and specifically refers to, that structure. In 69 Around 200m distant from GD 80. The Ephebium is where the education of ephebes took place under the supervision of the Gymnasiarch. The construction of the benches there is very similar to the construction of the benches in GD 80, and the throne would probably have been used by the Gymnasiarch who instructed the ephebes. The throne could, alternatively, have come from the theatre as it is identical to other theatre ‗VIP‘ chairs. 29 fact, more than one hundred and seventy dedicatory and votive offerings and inscriptions relating Isis, Sarapis and Anubis were found in Sarapeion C alone.70 There are other buildings on the island with this sort of benching still apparent, such as in the Heraion; the Italian Agora; in the semi-circular exedra of the Sanctuary of Apollo; the Ephebium and in the orchestra of the theatre, as well as others dotted around the island.71 It is possible to date — approximately — the second phase GD 80 by reference to the material used in the rebuilt areas of the internal walls, and especially to the marble taken from the nearby gymnasium. A second century BCE inscribed base (ID 1928) of the Gymnasiarch Poses was used in rebuilding one of the walls of GD 80, after the destruction or removal of the statue which it carried. Another gymnasium inscription base (ID 1923b) relating to ephebes under the rule of the Gymnasiarch Diotimos Theodosion (126/125 BCE) was also found in another rebuilt wall. Other inscriptions from the gymnasium ended up being reused in the Palaestra of the Lake on the western side of the island. As the gymnasium was plundered during the pirate raids of the Mithridatic wars, it is only from this time (74 – 63 BCE) that GD 80 could have been adapted for the sort of use that required the seating arrangement found there.72 On the eastern side of the building is area C, the remains of the corridor and step or stylobate leading out into what was originally a peristyle courtyard. The peristyle would have measured approximately 18 x 18 m, but has now been destroyed by the sea almost up to the line of the stylobate (Figure 7 below). In October 2003, I saw that the 70 Philippe Bruneau and Jean Ducat. Guide de Délos, Second Edition, Paris: 1966, (third edition 1983): 227. 71 Waldemar Déonna, Le Mobilier délien, Délos, Paris: De Boccard (1938) Pl. CXII, photographs 64, 67, 68, 69 (pages unnumbered). 72 André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖, Revue Biblique: 23 (1914): 532. 30 northern and southern walls of the existing structure extend to almost the same point of collapse into the sea, some 1.5 m beyond the stylobate, and rooftiles were found along the inside of these perimeter walls indicating that they were at least partially covered. Figure 7 – From the Stylobate down to the Sea The seaward side of area C retains a section of a stylobate running parallel just over 6 m from the easternmost wall. The visible section is made of blocks of white marble resting on a gneiss foundation. This line stops approximately 5 m from the north and south walls of area C. Just one metre in front of the stylobate is a sharp drop-off to the beach (marked in the photograph by the clumps of sea grass), and the rest of the courtyard and whatever was on the other side of it has been consumed by the encroaching sea. Plassart and other scholars (most notably, Mazur 1935; Bruneau 1970; White 1987, 1990; Binder 1999 and Trümper 2004) interpreted the physical layout of the Hellenistic house in several ways, none of which has much bearing on its identification as a synagogue, other than the fact that in the final phase of the structure it had benches arranged around the walls of the two main areas and that the final phase is oriented 31 towards the east. However, as I mentioned above, this seating arrangement is something of an archaeological red herring given the configuration of Sarapeion A (Figure 6) and other buildings on the island. In the final ruined phase of GD 80, Rooms A and B are bisected by a east-west wall with three doorways (see Figure 4 above). This wall was erected some unknown time after the north, west and south walls, as it is not bonded to them. When it was excavated in 1912/13 its three doorways were found walled up. This east-west wall is made up of local gneiss, rubble, and reused material from other buildings, including pieces of capitals, marble inscription bases and thresholds. There are also three doorways on the east side of the structure, providing access to areas A and B from the peristyle courtyard along the shoreline. On Delos, it was normal for some of the larger Hellenistic houses to have two courtyards; one courtyard was often deeper and sometimes taller than the other, in order to enhance the entrance to a reception room73. GD 80 is similar in size and layout to a number of other houses on Delos. Having looked at some of the houses on the island, it is my view that GD 80 is comparable with the House of the Hermes (GD 89) near the theatre, which had at least three storeys, accessed from various external and internal stairways (see Figures 8 and 9 below). 73 John Boardman, Jasper Griffin and Oswyn Murray, Greece and the Hellenistic World, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York (1988) 388. 32 Figure 8 – GD 89 / The House of the Hermes The floor plan of GD 89 (House of the Hermes) is very similar to the floor plan of GD 80, as well as to the floor plans of the House of the Dauphins (GD 111) and the House of the Poseidonists (GD 57), as can be seen in the comparison of floor plans below (Figure 9). Figure 9 – Floor Plans of GDs 80, 89, 111, 57 33 As can be seen in the floor plans, each of these houses had a peristyle courtyard around which was arranged the habitation areas of the house. Moreover, each building comprised two to three storeys, and each had a second, smaller domestic courtyard. However, there is nothing in the layout of GD 80 which can in any way be ascribed to its having been used a synagogue. Its final usage, in a ruined state, included benches around the space which originally had been the domestic courtyard. Other than lamps, antefixes, roof-tiles and inscription blocks, there was nothing found in GD 80 that would enable it to be absolutely identified as belonging to a particular group, religious or otherwise, although the number of lamps found in the structure is quite curious in itself, and I have referred to it above in the section on the Hypsistarians. Specifically, there was no artefact, structure or inscription found within GD 80 which was of a Jewish nature. As I have already discussed above, and as described by Mazur in 1935, a number of the inscription or statue bases found in GD 80 are in the form of Greek and Near Eastern 34 ‗horned‘ altars, including two of the bases cited as Jewish (Inscription 2 (ID 2328) and Inscription 4 (ID 2331) by Plassart in 1912/1913. The Cistern Uniquely on the island, GD 80 appears to have been constructed over a rock-fault which was extended into a cistern by means of vaulting. This cistern lies beneath the main east-west wall between rooms B and D (see Figure 4 above). For those who built the house this rock fault must have represented a convenient location, since it meant the degree of excavation necessary to provide the house with its water supply was considerably reduced. Philippe Bruneau, of the École française d‘Athènes, is the only person, following Plassart, who has excavated on the site of GD 80 and in 1962 he excavated and cleaned out the well/cistern which André Plassart had left untouched. Unfortunately, the list of finds from the cistern is not complete but included a piece of bluish marble; a fragment of a bluish marble bowl; three antefixes of beige/pink clay decorated with palmettes; some fragments of a vase with a ringed wall; three fragments of blown glass (Plassart had also found numerous fragments of small glass vases in GD 80, but not in the cistern). In the cistern, Bruneau recovered the only one of the 41 lamps not found during the original excavations of GD 80 (see Figure 10 below). Figure 10 – the Lamp from the Cistern 35 Only the area immediately underneath the arch of the cistern was accessible when it was in use and although the floor is now quite opened out, this is only because of Bruneau‘s 1962 excavations. The floor in this area originally came right up to the wall, leaving only the space immediately beneath the arch open into this room.74 Even with the excavated opening, access from room B is both difficult and precarious as the opening lies under and extends only a metre from the arch. There is a sharp and sheer drop from the floor level to the bottom of the cistern. There are no steps built into the cistern, and there is insufficient space in the opening in rooms B or D (on the other side of the wall) for access via a ladder for the purposes of bathing. The cistern is deep, the bottom of the fault lies at 4 m in places, and is by no means a level surface, running some 6.08 m in length, under a vaulted roof, and was probably constructed before the rest of the building was finished.75 The arch over the opening to the cistern serves not only as access for the drawing of water, but also bears weight for the wall that divides rooms B and D, so that the floor does not collapse into the cistern. It has been suggested that the cistern in GD 80 could have been used as a mikveh.76 When I visited the site, this was one of the first things that I checked. The arch above the cistern provides limited access to the cistern from both B and D and the highest point of the arch is just 32cm off the original floor level (see Figure 11 below)! The top of the cistern arch clearly does not rise above the top of the benches. Philippe Bruneau. Recherches Sur Les Cultes de Délos a L’Époque Hellénistique et a L’Époque Impériale, Éditions E. De Boccard, Paris, 1970: 481. 75 Philippe Bruneau. Recherches Sur Les Cultes de Délos a L’Époque Hellénistique et a L’Époque Impériale, Éditions E. De Boccard, Paris, 1970: 481. 76 Donald Binder. Into the Temple Courts. The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period, Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series 169, Atlanta: Georgia, 1999: 306. 74 36 Figure 11 – the Cistern from Room B (looking south) to Mount Cynthus Binder also says that Bruneau suggests that a wooden ladder or stairs may have been used to enter the cistern for ritual ablutions‘77, but what Bruneau actually said was that [if it was a mikveh], ―que [the cistern] fait défaut tout dispositif d‘évacuation d‘eaux usées‖, (‗the cistern is lacking any mechanism to deal with the disposal of waste water‘).78 Furthermore, while there may be water in the well/cistern from the water table, there is no direct means for rainwater to flow into the cistern, and it would undoubtedly have presented a most unsatisfactory manner in which to bathe, ritually or otherwise. As Bruneau noted, emptying this cistern would have been impossible, especially as it is partly fed from the aquifer. Most importantly, on an island devoid of a surface supply of water, bathing would have rendered the cistern useless for the collection of water for domestic purposes. This, in turn, would suggest that the building ought to have had a separate domestic water supply if it had a mikveh. It does not. 77 Donald Binder. Into the Temple Courts. The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period, Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series 169, Atlanta: Georgia, 1999: 306. 78 Philippe Bruneau. Recherches Sur Les Cultes de Délos a L’Époque Hellénistique et a L’Époque Impériale, Éditions E. De Boccard, Paris, 1970: 481. 37 Donald Binder also cites Bruneau as having said that the cistern in GD 80 was unusual in that it allowed for human access.79 He is incorrect on three counts: the first is that there is no room for human access into the cistern in GD 80, as is clear from the photograph above. The second is that many of the cisterns on Delos are constructed to incorporate stone stairways specifically designed for human access.80 The third is that Binder did not understand what Bruneau said, which was that according to Plassart, it is possible to take water from room B via an opening in the wall framed by a marble arch, leaving just enough space to draw water. Moreover, Bruneau went on to say that if this is possible now, it is only because part of the floor is missing, and that he was not able to accomplish the task himself [my emphasis].81 In any case, access is somewhat better from room D, and it is likely that it was properly accessed from there when the cistern was in use. Even there, there access to the cistern was limited. The Lime Kiln In room A of GD 80 there is a substantial lime kiln measuring some 2 m in diameter (Figure 12 below). Produced by melting down marble and limestone, lime was a valuable commodity in the ancient world. In agriculture, it was used as a fertiliser and to improve drainage. Lime was also used in construction. Mortar for laying masonry was made by mixing lime with sand. Concrete was made by mixing the lime with crushed or natural stone. Plaster was covered with a similar mix to mortar. Lime white is a mixture of the lime and water and was used for whitening walls, the traditional ‗whitewash‘, and lime plaster was used to waterproof cisterns. 79 Donald Binder. Into the Temple Courts. The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period, Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series 169, Atlanta: Georgia, 1999: 306. 80 The cistern of GD 79 (the building where ID 2329 was found), for example, has a stone staircase leading down into that cistern. 81 Philippe Bruneau. Recherches Sur Les Cultes de Délos a L’Époque Hellénistique et a L’Époque Impériale, Éditions E. De Boccard, Paris, 1970: 482. 38 The town centre of Delos, as it became further and further removed from the commercial and strategic centres of the Mediterranean, lay abandoned and in ruins. The marble lying around the island remained one of its final assets. The lime kiln in GD 80 was likely put in place in the post-abandonment phase of the site as the burning or melting down of marble for lime generally only occurred when the Mediterranean marble trade was tapering off, that is, from about the third century CE, and possibly as late as the fourth century CE, and there was agriculture and viticulture on the southern part of the island up until the beginning of the fifth century CE when the island was finally abandoned, so some of that obsolete marble would have been burned down to make lime to use for this purpose.82 Figure 12 – The Lime Kiln in Room A (looking west) When Plassart found the marble inscription bases in rooms A and B of GD 80, he stated (without explaining his reasoning) that they were not associated with the kiln.83 Given that a number of large marble column barrels (see Figure 9 above) and inscription bases were also found in GD 80 probably waiting to be sawn into smaller pieces before being Michèle Brunet. ―Contribution à l‘histoire rurale de Délos aux époques Classique et hellénistique‖, in Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 114:2 (1990) 669-682. 83 André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖, Revue Biblique: 23 (1914): 526. 82 39 burned down, and given also the variety of the inscription bases found in GD 80, including two small marble inscription bases with no visible text or with wholly eroded text, which were found by Plassart in the same area as IDs 2330, 2331 and 2332 discussed earlier - it is logical to expect that the marble found in this building was destined for the kiln.84 LITERATURE REVIEW André Plassart (1913, 1914) André Plassart, of the École française d‘Athènes identified GD 80 as a synagogue during excavations of 1912 and 1913. He identified the structure as a Hellenistic house with a formal portico entranceway on its eastern extremity. He found six inscriptions, the principal one of which was found some 90 m away from GD 80, the other five inscriptions were found within GD 80, which combined with the internal configuration of GD 80 caused him to interpret it as a synagogue.85 Discussion Plassart interpreted the main structure as a Hellenistic house with a portico. Plassart‘s identification of the inscriptions as Jewish is incorrect, as I have shown above (see section on inscriptions). Not only was his translation of ID 2331 incorrect, but he ignored occurrences of the same names (as those from his ‗Jewish‘ inscriptions) found elsewhere on the island. In relation to the archaeological evidence, he ignored other buildings on the island with the same internal configuration, such as the Sarapeia (see Figure 6 above). 84 Waldemar Déonna, Le Mobilier délien, Délos, Paris: De Boccard (1938) Pl. CXII, photos 969-970 (loose pages unnumbered). 85 André Plassart. ―La Synagogue juive de Délos‖ in Mélanges Holleaux, recueil de memoirs concernant l’antiquité grecque, Picard: Paris (1913) 201-215; ―La synagogue juive de Délos‖, Revue Biblique: 23 (1914) 523-534. 40 Belle D. Mazur (1935) Mazur interpreted the main structure as a Hellenistic house with a peristyle courtyard, rather than a portico (as Plassart had suggested). Both options are equally possible. Mazur‘s reconstruction of it was based on parallels of size and layout with other houses on the island.86 Belle Mazur‘s was the first and only dissenting voice on the subject of the so-called synagogue on Delos, and, while her interpretation of the physical structure of the building was very similar to that of Plassart and others, her interpretation of the inscriptions and statue bases found in the building was not. She argued that their form (votive bases with lead fixings for decorative attachments) was not consistent with a Jewish context, that Plassart‘s inscriptions were therefore not Jewish and that GD 80 was not a synagogue, but some sort of establishment belonging to the Greek cult of Theos Hypsistos, whose sanctuary was on the summit of Mount Cynthus just 500 m south of GD 80.87 Mazur also retranslated the text of the principal inscription (ID 2329), and pointed out that there is no definite article used in the wording of the inscription, and that the words ει η in this context cannot refer to a building and must be translated as reading ‗for an offering‘ or simply as a ‗prayer‘.88 Discussion I find Mazur‘s arguments in terms of the form of the inscription bases and the inscriptions themselves to be convincing. Her translations are accurate and careful. In terms of her discussion of GD 80 itself, as to whether it had a portico or peristyle 86 Belle D. Mazur. Studies on Jewry in Greece, Athens, Printing Office Hestia: 1935: 17-18. Belle D. Mazur. Studies on Jewry in Greece, Athens, Printing Office Hestia: 1935: 21. 88 Belle D. Mazur. Studies on Jewry in Greece, Athens, Printing Office Hestia: 1935: 21. 87 41 courtyard, etc, this is entirely irrelevant. How GD 80 was adapted for use in its final phase was unrelated to its original purpose. Eleazar Lipa Sukenik (1934) Sukenik initially accepted André Plassart‘s interpretation of GD 80. However, once he had read Mazur‘s 1935 analysis of the evidence, he changed his mind. Writing in 1949, he said ‗the case of the so-called ―Synagogue‖ at Delos shows how misleading incomplete research can be‘, and went on to conclude, based on Mazur‘s argument, that the word η could only mean ‗prayer‘ and not ‗synagogue‘ because of the absence of the definite article in the inscription; that the deity referred to as ‗hypsistos‘, was the Greek god Zeus; and that the form of the inscribed bases was pagan and not Jewish.89 Philippe Bruneau (1970, 1982) Bruneau was the only other archaeologist to have excavated at GD 80 other than André Plassart. Bruneau accepted Plassart‘s synagogue identification and dismissed Mazur‘s rebuttal of Plassart‘s work, along with Sukenik‘s later acknowledgement of the correctness of her rebuttal.90 He insisted that the inscriptions showed that GD 80 was a sanctuary of the Jewish God Most High, Theos Hypsistos, since the name Zeus Hypsistos does not appear on the inscriptions and since the cult of Zeus Hypsistos had its own sanctuary on Mount Cynthus.91 Eleazar Lipa Sukenik, ―The Present State of Ancient Synagogue Studies‖, in Bulletin of the Lewis M. Rabinowitz Fund (1949) 1: 8-23. 90 Philippe Bruneau. Recherches Sur Les Cultes de Délos a L’Époque Hellénistique et a L’Époque Impériale, Éditions E. De Boccard, Paris, 1970; Philippe Bruneau. ―Les Israélites de Délos et la juiverie délienne‖, in Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique, 106 (1982): 465-504. 91 Philippe Bruneau. Recherches Sur Les Cultes de Délos a L’Époque Hellénistique et a L’Époque Impériale, Éditions E. De Boccard, Paris, 1970: 486-487. However, one of the inscriptions (ID 2332) contains has the epithet hypsistos and not theos hypsistos. 89 42 Bruneau also rejected Mazur‘s argument concerning the format and style of the inscribed bases, saying that the Hellenised Jews of the diaspora assimilated certain pagan customs which over time became established in their religion. Peculiarly, even though he agreed with Mazur‘s translation of the phrase ει η as ‗for a prayer/offering‘, he accepted Plassart‘s reading of it as ‗for the synagogue‘ and insisted that η remains ‗an essentially Jewish term‘, concluding that GD 80 was a synagogue of an exceptional type, and that the endurance of the Jewish cult on Delos even after the destructions of 88 and 69 BCE confirms the references in the literary sources.92 Discussion The ancient sources, however, as I have shown above, do not refer to any structure at all, let alone to a synagogue. At the very best, they confirm the presence of Jews on Delos (and other neighbouring Jews), and indicate that the Jews on Delos were for some time unable to follow their customary religious practices. Moreover, the fact that there is a large lime kiln in GD 80, together with many pieces of marble, suggests that much of the material in this locus was being melted down to make lime. Moveable objects, such as the inscription bases, could easily have been taken from other areas to GD 80 for this purpose. The presence of the theos hypsistos inscriptions in GD 80 does not mean that they belonged in this building. L. Michael White (1987, 1990) White concluded that because there is some external evidence of a Jewish community on Delos, GD 80 would have fitted their needs and that in all likelihood it was a Philippe Bruneau. Recherches Sur Les Cultes de Délos a L’Époque Hellénistique et a L’Époque Impériale, Éditions E. De Boccard, Paris, 1970: 485-488. 92 43 Samaritan synagogue that was founded.93 I have no argument with this. Like many other buildings on the island, GD 80 could have been a synagogue. It is only that there is no evidence that it was a synagogue, be it Jewish or Samaritan. A. Thomas Kraabel (1992) Kraabel came to the conclusion that GD 80 was a synagogue on the basis of the earlier debate (rejecting Mazur‘s critique and Sukenik‘s support of it), and relying on Bruneau‘s presentation of the material. His main argument for the identification of GD 80 as a synagogue rests on the epigraphical references to Theos Hypsistos in the inscriptions found by André Plassart which, he says, ‗do not offer an obviously pagan use of the term at a time when references to one or other pagan deity as Hypsistos are not uncommon‘94. As I have shown above, the inscriptions are out of context and unrelated. Whilst Kraabel acknowledged the ambiguity of the proseuche inscription, he concluded it was nonetheless Jewish. He did not remark on the form or style of the inscribed bases, nor did he note or refer to the cuttings for lead fixings.95 Hudson McLean (1996) McLean took the two Samaritan inscriptions as proof that GD 80 was a synagogue, but a Samaritan one. In McLean‘s interpretation of the physical structure (adopted from White‘s), he noted that there was no provision in GD 80 for cultic rites, that there was L.M. White. ―The Delos Synagogue Revisited: Recent Fieldwork in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora‖, Harvard Theological Review, 1987 (80) 133-160; L.M. White. Building God’s House in the Roman World. Architectural Adaptation among Pagans, Jews, and Christians, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London: 1990: 138. 94 J. Andrew Overman and Robert S. MacLennan (eds.), Diaspora Jews and Judaism: Essays in Honor of, and in dialogue with, A. Thomas Kraabel, Atlanta, Georgia, Scholars Press (1992): 491, 493. 95 J. Andrew Overman and Robert S. MacLennan (eds.), Diaspora Jews and Judaism: Essays in Honor of, and in dialogue with, A. Thomas Kraabel, Atlanta, Georgia, Scholars Press (1992): 493. 93 44 no altar or shrine and that therefore the congregation ‗related to a remote external cult, namely the Samaritan cult practiced at Mount Gerizim‘.96 Peter Richardson (1996) Richardson interpreted GD 80 as a ‗remodelled house adapted to the needs of the worshipping community‘. He accepted that Plassart and all those who followed on from his work were correct and that GD 80 was a synagogue.97 Donald Binder (1999) Binder made what is probably one of the most ambitious of all the interpretations of the building. Based only on the letter preserved in Josephus (AJ 14.213-216) and on Plassart‘s and later, Bruneau‘s interpretation of the material he found, he described GD 80 as ‗a synagogue with an ancillary banquet hall used to hold feasts on sacred days‘ and argued that the dividing wall between Rooms A and B presented ‗the first serious architectural evidence suggesting the division of the sexes within the synagogue‘.98 He deemed that access to the cistern from rooms B and D was part of the proof for this claim, on the basis that it was possible that the cistern might have functioned as a mikveh.99. In general, Binder‘s argument is that there were two possible patterns of occupation of GD 80. In the first scenario, GD 80 was originally a cultic hall of a pagan association in the second century BCE. During the Mithridatic war of 88 BCE and/or the pirate raids of B. Hudson McLean. ―The Place of Cult in Voluntary Associations and Christian Churches on Delos‖, in John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson (eds). Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, Routledge, London and New York (1996): 195. 97 Peter Richardson, ―Early Synagogues as Collegia in the Diaspora and Palestine‖, in John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson (eds). Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, Routledge, London and New York (1996): 97. 98 Donald, D. Binder. Into the Temple Courts. The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period, Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series 169, Atlanta: Georgia (1999) 299. 99 Donald, D. Binder. Into the Temple Courts. The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period, Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series 169, Atlanta: Georgia (1999) 306, n. 153. 96 45 69 BCE, the building was severely damaged and eventually abandoned by the association to whom it belonged. Then the building was ―transformed into a synagogue‖, and remained as such until the second century CE.100 In his second scenario, the building was originally constructed as a synagogue, damaged in the first century BCE and afterwards modified with a dividing wall constructed, perhaps as a result of the earlier damage101. Discussion Both of Binder‘s occupation scenarios are irrelevant to the identification, since the identification was made on the basis of the inscriptions (the principal one of which was not found in GD 80 at all), and the benches around the Rooms A and B. His suggestion regarding the use of the cistern as a mikveh is both physically and domestically unlikely.102 Moreover, he has misunderstood – in quite a basic way – Philippe Bruneau‘s descriptions of the structure he excavated. Since he relies wholly on Bruneau‘s description as the basis for his understanding of the cistern, this proves an insurmountable problem for his interpretation. Given the limited physical access to the cistern, I find it utterly incomprehensible that he could have suggested, even tentatively, it was possible to use it as a mikveh. Lee I. Levine (2000) Levine accepted Bruneau‘s conclusion that GD 80 was a synagogue, and referred to the 1970s as the point at which a scholarly consensus was arrived at (Levine 2000: 100; 100 Donald, D. Binder. Into the Temple Courts. The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period, Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series 169, Atlanta: Georgia (1999) 314. 101 Donald, D. Binder. Into the Temple Courts. The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period, Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series 169, Atlanta: Georgia (1999) 314. 102 Donald, D. Binder. Into the Temple Courts. The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period, Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series 169, Atlanta: Georgia (1999) 316-317. 46 apparently on the basis of Philippe Bruneau‘s publication of the site). Levine described IDs 2328, 2330, 2331, 2331 as having been inscribed on ‗column bases‘, which is incorrect. These inscriptions are actually on carved stelae, some in the shape of horned altars, some rectangles with lead fixings. Levine further mentioned ID 2329 (the proseuche inscription), noting that it could have been used in a pagan context but that, combined with the other ancillary evidence and the discovery in 1979 of the two Samaritan stelae by Philippe Fraisse of the École française d‘Athènes added up to sufficient evidence to identify GD 80 as the earliest synagogue thus far found.103 Discussion As I have shown, the Samaritan inscriptions found by Fraisse and the inscriptions found by Plassart are unrelated and, while the Samaritan inscriptions are unquestionably evidence of some sort of Samaritan community on Delos, Plassart‘s inscriptions are probably not Jewish. Levine asked whether there were two separate synagogues (one Jewish, one Samaritan) or one synagogue serving both communities.104 He went on to conclude that the location of the Delian Jewish community was in a ‗relatively isolated part of the island‘. In fact, GD 80, the proseuche inscription and the two Samaritan inscriptions were found in densely populated areas, each not more than 100 m or so from the others, abutting a heavily occupied residential area on the east side of the stadium. This area has not been fully excavated yet, but it is evident from Bruneau‘s plans, my own observations in October 2003 and by cursory examination of satellite views of the site from the Google 103 Lee I. Levine. The Ancient Synagogue. The First Thousand Years, Yale University Press: New Haven and London, 2000: 100-101. 104 Lee I. Levine. The Ancient Synagogue. The First Thousand Years, Yale University Press: New Haven and London, 2000: 103. 47 Earth website, that there are sub-surface and above-surface walls all over the area, so that there is practically no unused ground in that quarter. There was simply no room in the town and town-adjacent areas of this small island for isolation of any sort. Monika Trümper (2004) According to Trümper, the ―synagogue on Delos is the earliest known to date, either in the Diaspora or in Palestine‖ and that in the last thirty years a consensus has emerged that the building was an assembly hall for Jews or Samaritans. Trümper argues that the building was a purpose-built synagogue from the time of its initial construction in the period before 88 BC105. Trümper discusses the inscribed stelae as found within the building. Four of them, she says, include vows to ω ιω, a ―God Most High‖. Although the identity of theos hypsistos and the nature of the cult are debatable, she says that it is generally agreed that this epithet was certainly, though not exclusively, used by Diaspora Jews (and also Samaritans) to refer to their god. These inscriptions are regarded as primary evidence for the identification of GD 80 as a synagogue106. Even though the two earliest votives are dated to the first century BCE, they cannot testify to with certainty to such an early Jewish or Samaritan use of the building because they, like the other three, are small and movable and might easily have been transported from one building to another. Therefore, the possibility that the two oldest votives were set up in another building and were transferred to GD 80 only in the last (fifth) phase of its use cannot be ruled out107. Monika Trümper. ―The Oldest Original Synagogue Building in the Diaspora. The Delos Synagogue Reconsidered‖, in Hesperia 73 (2004) 513-514. 106 Monika Trümper. ―The Oldest Original Synagogue Building in the Diaspora. The Delos Synagogue Reconsidered‖, in Hesperia 73 (2004) 569-570. 107 Monika Trümper. ―The Oldest Original Synagogue Building in the Diaspora. The Delos Synagogue Reconsidered‖, in Hesperia 73 (2004) 570. 105 48 She goes on to discuss ―three other Jewish and Samaritan inscriptions‖. One, she says, was discovered in a private house nearby, in the Quartier du stade, and the other two, on two stelae, were found in an unexcavated area some 90 m north of GD 80. She asks whether these inscriptions originally belonged to GD 80, but were displaced in a later period, or were they discovered in their original contexts, thus bearing witness to Jewish or Samaritan ownership of the respective buildings?108. Trümper also says, quite correctly, that the use of the benches and the throne are only datable to the last phase of GD 80, and hypothetical for all previous phases and that this holds true for all other movable furniture found in the building.109. She also discusses the carved palmette decoration on the back of the throne (which cannot be seen, because it was designed for use in a theatre or other public building where it would not have stood against a wall) and says that suggesting it is of a Jewish or Samaritan provenance is to be regarded with extreme caution. These palmettes, which appear on the marble throne, on antefixes, and on a marble lintel (of the third century CE), and rosettes, which decorate an inscribed votive offering, might be among the prominent motifs of later Jewish and Samaritan art, but they were certainly no less prominent in non-Jewish and non-Samaritan pagan art. According to Trümper, it is difficult to know whether the decorated objects were made for Jewish or Samaritan use, whether they were deliberately chosen out of a large stock of spoil material for Jewish or Samaritan reuse, or whether no special meaning could be Monika Trümper. ―The Oldest Original Synagogue Building in the Diaspora. The Delos Synagogue Reconsidered‖, in Hesperia 73 (2004) 571. 109 Monika Trümper. ―The Oldest Original Synagogue Building in the Diaspora. The Delos Synagogue Reconsidered‖, in Hesperia 73 (2004) 572. 108 49 assigned to their presence in this building because of the extensive diffusion of these motifs throughout the ancient world110. Trümper acknowledged that the identification of GD 80 as a synagogue was made primarily on the basis of the inscriptions and furnishings. She cited just three scholars, Bruneau, White and Binder, as being sufficient to explain the history and use of GD 80 ―because no substantially differing views have been presented in the literature.‖111 In a footnote she goes on to qualify this with the statement that the earlier opponents to the ‗synagogue‘ argument (Mazur and Sukenik) ‗can be ignored here‘.112 Discussion Trümper‘s article is largely a discussion of the architectural arrangement of GD 80, as taken from Bruneau‘s (not Plassart‘s) excavation reports, and there is much in it with which I agree. Her discussion of the architecture of the structure, and the limitations of the possibility of making identifications based on decorative embellishments are of particular use. However, ultimately, because of her dismissal of any opposing opinions as irrelevant, Trümper is drawn into a circular argument of her own making whereby she cannot acknowledge the full force of the Mazur‘s argument against the identification of GD 80 as a synagogue. She is hindered in her view by not actually having read Mazur‘s 1935 article.113 Monika Trümper. ―The Oldest Original Synagogue Building in the Diaspora. The Delos Synagogue Reconsidered‖, in Hesperia 73 (2004) 573-574. 111 Monika Trümper. ―The Oldest Original Synagogue Building in the Diaspora. The Delos Synagogue Reconsidered‖, in Hesperia 73 (2004) 569. 112 Monika Trümper. ―The Oldest Original Synagogue Building in the Diaspora. The Delos Synagogue Reconsidered‖, in Hesperia 73 (2004) 569, n.121. 113 Monika Trümper. ―The Oldest Original Synagogue Building in the Diaspora. The Delos Synagogue Reconsidered‖, in Hesperia 73 (2004) 519. Footnote 17, says that she had no access to Mazur‘s ‗book‘. I had no difficulty in obtaining a photocopy of what is actually a short article in 2003 from the École 110 50 Moreover, there are a number of errors in Trümper analysis. She cites, for example, the four inscriptions found in GD 80 that bear the name theos hypsistos. She is incorrect in this detail: only three of the inscriptions bear the epithet theos hypsistos (IDs 2328, 2330 and 2331). One of the inscriptions bears only the epithet hypsistos (ID 2332). She goes on to say that the use of this epithet is still debated, although it is now generally agreed that it was used (although not exclusively) ‗by Diaspora Jews (and also Samaritans) to refer to their god‘.114 This may well be the case from about the middle of the first century CE for the use of the epithet theos hypsistos, but it is by no means certain in the first century BCE or earlier – the period to which Trümper refers. By using later evidence to support earlier data without any corroboration she creates yet another circular and potentially misleading argument. Trümper goes on to make another incorrect statement, saying that there is an ongoing discussion about the three other Jewish and Samaritan inscriptions: ‗One was discovered in a private house nearby, in the Quartier du stade, and the other two, on stelae, were found in an unexcavated area some 90 m north of GD 80‘.115 Here she has confused two separate things. The two Samaritan stelae to which she alludes were discovered in 1979 by Philippe Fraisse of the École française d‘Athènes (see the section above on inscriptions). However, the third inscription to which she refers is the original proseuche inscription that Plassart found back in 1912 (ID 2329), which was indeed found in the stadium district, in Habitation IIA of GD 79 (see section on inscriptions, above) and to which she refers to separately and earlier in her article. Thus, she has introduced more confusion into her argument by accidentally duplicating a piece of française d‘Athènes while I was staying in Athens before travelling south to Delos, as they hold it in their library. 114 Monika Trümper. ―The Oldest Original Synagogue Building in the Diaspora. The Delos Synagogue Reconsidered‖, in Hesperia 73 (2004) 569. 115 Monika Trümper. ―The Oldest Original Synagogue Building in the Diaspora. The Delos Synagogue Reconsidered‖, in Hesperia 73 (2004) 571. 51 evidence and treating it as though its existence supports her argument that it and the Samaritan inscriptions may have originated in GD 80. There are a number of other claims made by Trümper to which I must also refer. One is that a niche in the wall of room A postdates the construction of the wall and is ‗rather crudely made‘ (see Figure 13 below).. Figure 13 – Niche in GD 80 and Other Niches on Delos The GD 80 niche (and the other niches) clearly do not predate the construction of the wall, but are instead an integral part of its construction. Trümper suggests the niche could have been used to contain lamps.116 These niches could indeed have been used, as Trümper suggests, for placing lamps to light building interiors. It is also possible that they were shrines of some sort, as were those recorded by Colin Renfrew during his extensive excavations on Phylakopi.117 Monika Trümper. ―The Oldest Original Synagogue Building in the Diaspora. The Delos Synagogue Reconsidered‖, in Hesperia 73 (2004) 585. 117 Colin Renfrew, The Archaeology of Cult. The Sanctuary at Phylakopi, London : British School of Archaeology at Athens (Thames and Hudson), 1985: 11-12 and plate 12b. 116 52 Trümper also says that the stelae on which the inscriptions were found resemble ‗altar incense burners‘, and were probably used in the ‗synagogue‘ on Delos, a claim, for which, again, there is no evidence whatsoever.118 Trümper cites Anders Runesson here as support for this argument, but Runesson does not offer any support for this specific contention, and indeed his comments on meal and incense offerings relate only to the petition to restore the Jewish Temple at Elephantine some time before its ultimate abandonment, and not to any purported synagogue usage, then or later.119 Conclusions Because we know so very little about early synagogues, it is important to proceed carefully with the available evidence and not to reach into inherently teleological solutions to explain what we do not yet have answers for. The problem with the foregoing and other interpretations of the structure, identification and internal furnishings of GD 80 is that they are predicated on the pre-existing belief, following Plassart, that GD 80 is a synagogue. They are not based on the physical, literary or epigraphic evidence. The argument, for instance, that the Samaritan inscriptions provide additional proof that GD 80 was a synagogue is spurious since it is clear from all the evidence that the initial identification of GD 80 as a synagogue was made on the basis of the tenuous association of two inscriptions by Plassart, and that that initial association is clearly not supported by the evidence. Plassart‘s identification of GD 80 as a synagogue seems to have given rise to an historical distortion in the chronology of the development of synagogues in the diaspora. Indeed, some scholars have dated the ‗Delian synagogue‘ not even to the last phase of the building (when the benches were added), but to its Hellenistic origins in the Monika Trümper. ―The Oldest Original Synagogue Building in the Diaspora. The Delos Synagogue Reconsidered‖, in Hesperia 73 (2004) 585. 119 Anders Runesson. The Origins of the Synagogue. A Socio-Historical Study, Coniectanea Biblica, New Testament Series 37, Almqvist and Wiksell International, Stockholm, Sweden (2001) 437. 118 53 third century BCE, and all on the basis of the first inscription that Plassart discovered 90 m north of GD 80. The question to ask must surely be, if Plassart had not originally associated the inscriptions from GD 79 and GD 80, whether such an identification could ever have been made. The answer to that question is clearly ‗no‘, such an identification of GD 80 as a synagogue on such tenuous material would be deemed implausible. It is safe to say that while there is nothing that would exclude GD 80 from being a synagogue, there is not one piece of evidence that would suggest that it actually was a synagogue. All that can be said with certainty is that there were Jews or Samaritans (or both) on Delos from some time in the first (or possibly second) century BCE, and that they were prevented from following their traditional customs for an unknown period of time during the first century BCE. While it is possible that there was a synagogue (Samaritan or Jewish, or both) on Delos, there is as yet no evidence that it has been found. Because of the restrictions on the traditional practices of some cults and associations, including the Jews, in the first century BCE, it is also possible that if Jews assembled for religious purposes, they did so in private dwellings, not in cultic establishments, in which case they would have remained hidden and unidentifiable. Moreover, the letter preserved in Josephus (AJ 14.213-216) relating to the Jews being forbidden to follow their religious traditions and customs is dated to precisely the time that it is argued GD 80 functioned as a synagogue, that is, to the middle of the first century BCE. 54 As I have already said, the issue of physical evidence is complicated because in this period it is not certain that we should be looking for synagogues since religious structures are bound to be of an ambiguous nature if that worship was forbidden by local law. An obvious example would be that when Christians were being persecuted under Roman rule there were no purpose-built Christian churches or basilicas. Private houses, bath houses, crypts and even catacombs were used as meeting places, and overt architectural statements of identity only emerged when the political climate of religious tolerance made safe for them to develop. All in all, it is impossible to identify GD 80 as a synagogue on the available evidence. It is furthermore impossible to identify any other structure on the island as a synagogue. It is also clear that other than the two Samaritan (Israelite) inscriptions, nothing specifically pertaining to Jews or Samaritans has been found on the island. I have shown that the names Lysimachus and Agathokles are not indicators of ‗Jewishness‘ on the island and appear elsewhere in very specifically non-Jewish contexts on the island. The only names associated with a Jewish or Samaritan context on Delos are those of Jason of Knossos and Artemidoros of Heraclea, both apparently from Crete. And again, we do not know if these were Samaritan benefactors or pagan donors or patrons. I have to conclude, therefore, that the vexed question of the existence of a synagogue on Delos must remain open, and that we must hope for specifically Jewish and/or more Samaritan material to be found to help with any potential identification. 55