Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Portrait of a People
Mary Stephanos
Something extraordinary emerged from the sands of Syria in 1932, an ancient synagogue unlike any other
that had yet been discovered. Its walls were filled with bright frescoes of Biblical scenes, which have thrilled and
puzzled art historians and religious scholars ever since. What sort of Jewish community would decorate its place of
worship in this manner? And what can this decoration tell us about the communitys theological doctrine, its self-
conception, and its relations with the non-Jewish population of the wider city of Dura-Europos? These are questions
which have been debated since excavations first began. It seems overly presumptuous to expect that the material
evidence this group left behind should give us its members full story. Indeed, it does not, to such degree that
scholars have reached completely conflicting conclusions based on the same physical remains! But our concern is
not with these controversies just yet. First, we must try to rebuild on paper, from the nearly 70 years of scholarship
that has been published on this site, the flesh and blood community which lived and worshiped and died at Dura-
Europos. Only then will we be able to approach a coherent evaluation of the validity of the issues which surround
The city of Europos was founded on the Euphrates River in Syria at the end of the 4th century B.C.E. (c. 312
B.C.E.) by the Seleucids, a Macedonian family of Hellenistic rulers, as just one of probably many trading centers
and garrison towns on the major commercial and communication route connecting India and the Mediterranean. i Its
function was like that of any other Seleucid frontier town: to ensure the entrenchment of Hellenic power in the
region and to act as a vehicle for the dissemination of Hellenistic culture among its inhabitants. ii Europos
population under the Seleucids consisted of two major groups: wealthy land-owning Greek colonists who were to
maintain the citys security and act as representatives of the Hellenistic way of life, and indigenous Semitic peoples
of Mesopotamia.iii Additionally, small sectors of the population were consistently in flux, with a stream of
merchants, soldiers and other officials, as well as civilians, all using the city as a stop in their travels. iv Because of
its geography and the very nature of its inhabitants, then, Europos enjoyed a polyglot, urban, and religiously
complex culture. Indeed, evidence suggests that the citizens of Europos mixed freely together. Many Greek
i
Gates, 166; Matheson, 1, 3; Moon, 589; Pollard, 212; Rostovtzeff (1932), 92-94.
ii
Matheson, 1.
iii
Pollard, 216; Rostovtzeff (1932), 94.
iv
Kraabel (1981), 86; Matheson, 7; Moon, 589; Rostovtzeff (1932), 94.
2
colonists, for example, married or employed their non-Greek neighbors, and in some families one could find not
only Greek names, but also Persian and local Semitic ones, as well.v Furthermore, because Semitic religions were
tolerated under Seleucid rule, the spiritual life of the city was marked early on by the worship of both Greek and
Although Europos was small in size, its location made control of the city essential for any nation which
wished to establish a firm presence in Syria. As a result, its history was marked by periodic and dramatic shifts in
leadership. By the late 2nd century B.C.E., Europos had been taken from the Seleucids by the Parthian Persians, who
governed the city during its most prosperous period.vii Its greatest temples were built during the Parthian era, as
were a considerable number of private homes, suggesting that Europos was growing both in popularity and in
population.viii Trade taxes were instituted for the first time; however, the wealth these taxes brought in was limited
to a small number of residents, mainly Parthian officials and aristocratic Greek landowners and merchants. ix Much
of the citys indigenous Mesopotamian population, which worked as independent artisans or were employed by the
wealthier citizens of Europos, continued to live on a very low income.x The city, as the seat of the local Parthian
governor, acted as a minor political center, while relations with neighboring Palmyra developed, and the Semitic and
Persian elements expanded within the citys growing cultural milieu.xi Despite this, however, Hellenistic culture and
We know that by the 1st century B.C.E., if not earlier, the religious mosaic of Europos included Jews
because coins dating to the Hasmonean period have been discovered at the site by archaeologists. xiii (The claim
v
Matheson, 7; Rostovtzeff (1932), 206-207.
vi
Matheson, 7.
vii
Kilpatrick, 215; Matheson, 15.
viii
Matheson, 15; Rostovtzeff (1932), 104-105; Welles. 253.
ix
Matheson, 35; Rostovtzeff (1932), 104-105, 197-198.
x
Matheson, 35; Rostovtzeff (1932), 197-198.
xi
Jensen, 179; Matheson, 15; Welles, 253.
xii
Rostovtzeff (1932), 104; Welles, 253.
xiii
White, 93.
3
made that Judaism came to the city only when the Romans did is incorrect. xiv) Jewish communities began to form
throughout the Diaspora at the beginning of the Hellenistic period when localized social groups, such as funerary
societies and trade guilds, became increasingly popular.xv Though there is no architectural evidence of a defined
Jewish community in Europos at this time, A. T. Kraabel has suggested that the Jews of our city were most likely in
the process of forming their own small religiously based group in imitation of the secular societies and guilds which
were simultaneously coming together around them.xvi Jews were often hired as mercenary soldiers during the
Hellenistic period and may have even served as local government administrators, though admittedly, there is little
evidence from Seleucid-controlled Syria to substantiate this.xvii Some Jewish individuals may have even been
granted citizenship rights, as Josephus tells us occurred at Antioch, but again, there is no evidence for this at
Dura.xviii Since Europos was located on the route which connected Babylon and Palestine, it is probable that during
the Hellenistic period the growing Jewish community of the city was periodically augmented by the regular and
documented movement of spiritual leaders between the two large centers of Judaism.xix In Ptolemaic Syria, some of
the Jewish population was brought into the area as slaves.xx This may have been the case in Seleucid-controlled
Dura, as well. The effects of the Maccabean revolt of the mid-2nd century B.C.E. on the Jewish community at Dura,
and its consequent antipathy between Jews and non-Jews in Syria, is unclear. Because the city fell under the
religiously tolerant Parthian Persians during the years of turmoil, the Jews of our city may not have taken part in the
uprising. However, we should maintain the possibility that Dura was split with religious and ethnic hatred for at
least some period of time early in the citys era of Parthian occupation.
The Parthians held the city for 300 years until it fell again, this time in 165 C.E. to the Romans, who used it
xiv
Gates, 167-168; Matheson, 31.
xv
Kraabel (1987), 52-53.
xvi
Kraabel (1987), 54.
xvii
Barclay, 244-245.
xviii
Ibid.
xix
Kelley, 57; White, 93; Wischnitzer, 5.
xx
Barclay, 244.
4
as a frontier military post.xxi It was after the advent of Roman rule, rather than during the earlier Parthian period,
that the citys name was changed from the Macedonian moniker, Europos, back to the original, Dura, an Assyrian
term for fort (Dura-Europos is a modern construction).xxii Dura remained an undistinguished outpost of the empire
for about 50 years until it was made into a colony in 211 C.E. during the Severan dynasty of Roman rulers.xxiii
Although the status of colony did mark a special relationship between the city and the emperor who granted the
change and symbolized the citys adoption of a Roman constitution, by the 3rd century C.E. it did not confer any
special benefits unless the emperor also granted the city Italian rights. xxiv We do know that Septimius Severus
awarded such privileges, which included Roman citizenship for all free residents and exemption from taxes, to some
cities in Syria.xxv It is doubtful, however, that Dura was one of these cities since its Roman forces did act as an
imperial tax collection force.xxvi Romanization, including the development of a Latin-based educational system and
the construction of civic institutions, was not a factor in cities such as Dura since Greek urban structures which had
already been established during the Hellenistic period were traditionally kept in place by Roman officials. xxvii
It is essential that we understand Durene society during the Roman occupation since it was during these
years that the citys Jewish community blossomed. Based on the names which have survived in extant local
administrative records from this period, we see that a social change followed the installation of imperial forces. The
wealthy Greek land-owning class of citizens, which had lived and prospered at Dura since its Hellenistic founding in
the 4th century B.C.E., virtually disappeared.xxviii Indigenous Semitic peoples continued to form the majority of the
xxi
Kilpatrick, 215; Moon, 587. Romes successful assumption of control of Europos in 165 actually followed three
earlier failed attempts. In 55 B.C.E., Crassus, Julius Caesar, and Pompey attacked Parthia but were defeated at the
Battle of Carrhae in 53. Twenty years later, Marc Antony attempted an invasion but quickly called it off. Trajan
tried again in 113 C.E., leaving soldiers in the city, who were recalled only 4 years later by Hadrian. (Matheson, 17)
xxii
Matheson, 3; Rostovtzeff (1932), 93.
xxiii
Kilpatrick, 215; Moon, 587.
xxiv
Garnsey and Saller, 27. . . . colonia became an honorific title conferred by special grant, linking a city in its title
with an emperor but carrying no substantive privileges.
xxv
Garnsey and Saller, 27-28.
xxvi
Pollard, 214,215, 223-224.
xxvii
Garnsey and Saller, 27, 32, 189; Kilpatrick, 215; Moon, 587.
xxviii
Welles, 262, 267-268.
5
citys population, but they had names based on roots which differed from earlier ones, implying a more general shift
in the citys society toward new elements, peoples of Mesopotamian and Persian origins, for example. xxix In other
words, it seems that the Roman presence drove whole groups from Dura, while at the same time attracting new ones
from different social backgrounds, as determined by the relative popularity or rarity of certain styles of names.
Consequently, under the Romans, Dura consisted of two distinct groups: Roman legions (made up of local Syrian
units as well as a few forces from other parts of the empire), and a large Mesopotamian/Persian/Semitic citizenry.xxx
But, as Nigel Pollard has suggested, these two groups for the most part moved in distinct spheres which only
occasionally overlapped.xxxi
Duras military forces were physically separated from the rest of the population in the newly walled-off
northwest quarter of the city, although some individual soldiers were also billeted in private homes. xxxii Interaction
with the civilian populace was limited to maintaining external security, civic policing, collecting taxes, and
overseeing judicial procedures all activities which may have increased internal tension within the city because they
displaced former local practices and civic traditions.xxxiii Dura had been incorporated into a monolithic Roman
Empire in which each city was administered in much the same fashion as the next, with little room for innovation or
for the expression of local character. We already know that Hellenistic civic structures were kept in place in cities
like Dura, but the extent to which they were actually effective during the Roman period is unclear. In our city, the
presence of Roman judicial and police forces, as well as tax collectors, may signify that their Greek counterparts,
already existing for over 500 years, had been superceded by an overarching official and military-based local
administration, or possibly even replaced.xxxiv That is to say, the Hellenistic components of the citys urban structure
xxix
Welles, 267-268.
xxx
Matheson, 24; Pollard, 216-217. According to Pollard (212), the total population of Dura was between 10,000 and
20,000, with the military forces numbering about 1000.
xxxi
Pollard, 212.
xxxii
Perkins, 29-30; Pollard, 212-215, 258-259. According to him the wall was not a real barrier to interaction
between the groups that made up Duras populace, but it did act as a physical reminder of the institutional
separateness of the army.
xxxiii
Pollard, 214-215, 226, 259; Welles, 259.
xxxiv
Pollard, 214-215.
6
may have been relegated to dealing with only the most minute affairs of daily life as Roman forces asserted primary
control. If so, this would have had a profound impact, not only on the daily functioning of the city, but also on the
ability of citizens to become a part of and move ahead in the urban structure and the society which depended upon it.
Though Greek continued as the common language of the citys residents (including the Roman soldiers, one should
point out), Latin was the official language of the Roman military, and learning Latin was an absolute necessity for
entrance into the imperial civic structure.xxxv As mentioned above, however, the standard Roman educational system
was probably not established at Dura, where the civilian population was fluent in Greek, Aramaic, and Persian not
Latin.xxxvi As a result, governmental and political participation must have been severely limited in the city, and the
Indeed, despite the fact that the Roman forces utilized at Dura were mainly of Syrian background, the close
cultural and political relationship of these soldiers to the empires center at Rome kept them apart from the citys
Syrian civilian populace.xxxviii As members of an institution, soldiers thought of themselves in military terms, no
matter their background, and fostered military-based relationships rather than connections with the indigenous
population.xxxix Religious practices further exacerbated these differences. Though the god Mithras (the major object
of Roman military worship) was a deity with established eastern origins, for example, there is no evidence that he
was worshiped at Dura until the Romans arrived, signifying that Duras cult of Mithras had been established and
was primarily practiced by the Roman military.xl In other words, this deity, who could have acted as a binding
spiritual force for the eastern segments of the citys population, instead drew an even sharper line between the
civilian and military. The worship of Mithras had little relation to other local religious traditions and excluded the
majority of the citys population, while at the same time binding the military even more tightly together as a single,
xxxv
Pollard, 217-218.
xxxvi
Gates, 167; Goranson, 24.
xxxvii
C. Bradford Welles goes even further when he states that during the period of Romes occupation of Dura,
conditions were unfavorable to the maintenance of civic government (260-261).
xxxviii
Pollard, 211.
xxxix
Pollard, 216-217.
xl
Pollard, 222.
7
and seemingly exclusive, unit.xli
Under Roman rule, most of the city was preoccupied with providing services (including housing and
supplies) to its resident forces, who were themselves concerned primarily with fortifying the city to withstand an
assault from neighboring Persians.xlii Dura developed into a base of operations against Parthia and later Sasania,
with its soldiers sallying forth to engage in skirmishes with the Persians along the Euphrates River.xliii Its status as a
caravan city decreased as a result since many merchants avoided the area surrounding Dura altogether in favor of
more peaceful environs for conducting business.xliv Because the level of commercial activity dropped considerably
under the Romans, there was a general decrease in the standard of living for Duras population.xlv In the end, the
Roman effort to preserve this city, located on the very fringes of its eastern empire, proved futile. Dura was
ultimately destroyed by the Sasanian Persians in 256 C.E., despite a desperate attempt by the Roman military, as
well as many of Duras civilian residents, to ward off the coming assault.xlvi What happened to Duras citizens after
the Sasanian victory is a mystery, though they may possibly have been sold as slaves.xlvii
So where does Duras Jewish community fit under Roman rule? During the Hellenistic period, as
mentioned earlier, the Jews may have lived in the city as mercenary soldiers, as local merchants, artisans, and
administrators, and as slaves. There is no reason to believe that this did not continue through the period of the
Parthians and into the Roman era.xlviii Any Jews who had been fortunate enough to enjoy citizenship during Seleucid
rule (e.g., settled mercenaries and officials) may possibly have been awarded Roman citizenship rights, as well,
though the number of Jews to whom this actually applied must have been very small. As mentioned above, most of
Duras population during the Parthian period lived on low incomes, and this probably extended to most of the Jewish
xli
Pollard, 221, 223.
xlii
Gutmann (1975), 213; Welles, 258-259.
xliii
Rostovtzeff (1932), 110, 114.
xliv
Ibid.
xlv
Kilpatrick, 215; Kraabel, 80; Matheson, 18, 35.
xlvi
Gates, 166; Kilpatrick, 215.
xlvii
Matheson, 38.
xlviii
Gutmann (1975), 213; White, 93.
8
sub-population, as well. Each of the three languages spoken by the residents of Dura--Greek, Aramaic, and
Persian--are found in inscriptions from the synagogue, but the majority of the inscriptions are in Aramaic, which
implies that the community itself was based upon a Syrian, possibly indigenous, population with connections to
other Mesopotamian Jewish communities.xlix An increase in the occurrence of Greek and Persian in the written
evidence dating to the period of Roman occupation suggests that the Jewish community was also growing and
adding new cultural elements to its membership.l No Latin inscriptions have been found.li This may mean that
participation by Jews in the Roman imperial administration was minimal, if it happened at all.
The first identifiable synagogue was constructed in a converted private house, which itself dated to the
Parthian period (c. 113 B.C.E.-165 C.E.), only five years after the Romans took possession of Dura.lii It held about
60-65 worshipers and displayed nothing on its exterior to signify it as a place of worship to other residents in the
city.liii The renovation work on the former private home seems to have focused exclusively on the interior of the
building space: a large assembly room was constructed, as well as a Torah niche. liv About 245 C.E., the building was
enlarged for a second time with the addition of surrounding houses to the floor plan so that, once completed, the
renovated building covered the entire width of a Dura city block.lv Two exterior walls had to be destroyed in order
to expand the buildings footprint, and the main entrance was relocated to a more prominent street. lvi The assembly
room was enlarged further to hold more than 120 members (Christopher Pierce Kelley claims it may have been the
single largest public room existing at Dura), and an entry court was added to the front of the building. lvii Two rows
of stone benches were constructed along each wall of the assembly room. Decorated tiles, some inscribed with the
xlix
Goranson, 25; Kilpatrick, 218.
l
Goranson, 25; Kilpatrick, 218; White, 218.
li
Kilpatrick, 218.
lii
Gates, 172; Kelley, 57; Kilpatrick, 216; White, 93.
liii
Gates, 173; Kilpatrick, 216; White, 74, 77.
liv
White, 74, 77.
lv
Gates, 172, 174; Kilpatrick, 216; Perkins, 29; Seager, 162; White, 77, 96-97.
lvi
White, 77.
lvii
Gates, 173; Kelley, 57; Hopkins, 140; White, 74, 77, 96-97.
9
names of donors and synagogue officials, covered the interior ceiling of the assembly room.lviii Five years following
its physical expansion, the synagogues interior walls were richly decorated with the stunning frescoes first
discovered by the modern world in the 1930s.lix Kelley has suggested that the painted scenes were completed at
different stages and by a variety of artists as the community gradually accumulated the financial resources necessary
to continue the job.lx However, there is no evidence that the paintings were done in distinct stages during the course
of renovation and redecoration of the synagogue. lxi Whether or not the exterior was also significantly altered to
reflect the structure as a place of worship to passersby is controversial, but it is difficult to believe that an expansion
of this scale, including the relocation of the synagogues main entrance, would not have changed its public faade
quite obviously.lxii
The renovations of the structure fall into a general pattern of rebuilding and redecorating of public and
private spaces which took place while the Romans occupied Dura.lxiii Though the citys overall standard of living
declined in these years, and though there is little evidence that Duras military forces traded with local merchants on
a large scale, it seems that at least some residents benefitted from commerce with imperial forces. lxiv These
particular residents appear to have included among their numbers the leading member, or members, of the Jewish
community who commanded enough wealth and resources to direct such a complex and expensive design of
expansion for the communitys religious space. The disturbance that this sort of major construction would have
caused to neighboring residences has suggested to L. Michael White that Jews may have owned the houses nearest
the building, as well as those appropriated for synagogue space; possibly they belonged to the leading members of
the community, either officials or patrons of the renovation, who were wealthy enough to be able to donate what
lviii
Hopkins, 141; Matheson, 25.
lix
Kilpatrick, 216.
lx
Kelley, 158.
lxi
Moon, 611.
lxii
Both Seager (150-151) and Kraabel (1998, 100) argue that there were no external changes made during the second
renovation that would signify the structure as a placed used by Jews, while White (93) presses for just the opposite
view.
lxiii
Matheson, 24; Pollard, 223-226.
lxiv
Matheson, 24; Perkins, 30; Pollard, 225-226.
10
may have been their private homes for communal use.lxv Such a relatively grand project implies, then, that during
Roman occupation, Duras Jewish community was increasing in size and wealth, if not social status. lxvi
The synagogue was situated on a quiet street within a residential sector of Dura along the citys western
wall, but this fact is not as significant as Andrew Seager has claimed it to be.lxvii In his comparison of Duras
synagogue with the one at Sardis, he claims that the location of the building at Dura reflected a Jewish community
which was physically and socially isolated from its non-Jewish neighbors because the synagogue stood in a private
area with no direct access to the street.lxviii By contrast, the synagogue at Sardis was located inside part of a
converted Roman public baths complex on a major commercial road, which placed it within the thick of urban
life.lxix However, he neglects the fact that most of the public religious buildings at Dura were erected in residential
areas, most likely from converted private homes.lxx His implication is that the Durene Jews were an insular group
isolated from the larger society of the city and concerned with protecting themselves from any possible ill treatment
they may suffer. But lets look more closely at the two communities for a moment.
The Jews at Sardis were wealthy and well-treated by the Roman authorities, and inscriptions from the
synagogue tell us that many of the patrons of its renovation and redecoration were prominent city officials. lxxi But
we should remember that Roman forces at Dura were concerned primarily with military readiness, and the nature of
the city itself during this period may have precluded real political participation by any resident since the mechanisms
for a traditional Latin-based educational system were never installed. This was not a case of the intentional
exclusion of a particular sub-population from civic functions. There is also no indication that Duras Jews were ill-
treated by the Romans. In fact, quite the opposite seems to suggest itself, as some Jews were obviously engaged in
commercial activities which allowed for the accumulation of considerable resources. Further, though the Sardis
lxv
White, 86-87, 96-97.
lxvi
Gates, 172, 174; Jensen, 181; Kilpatrick, 216; Levine, 172; Seager, 162; White, 77, 96-97.
lxvii
Seager, 150.
lxviii
Seager, 151-152, 155.
lxix
Seager, 151-152.
lxx
Gates, 169: Kraabel, 81.
lxxi
Seager, 154-155.
11
synagogue appears to have been located in a very popular commercial and social sector of the city, Duras
residentially based synagogue exhibits greater signs of communal activity. By Seagers own accounting, the Dura
synagogue had, besides its largest room for worship, many other subsidiary spaces attached to it, the likes of which
have not been discovered at Sardis.lxxii These included rooms for Jewish officials and visitors, public dining halls
and a kitchen, as well as what may have been spaces used for education; in other words, it was obviously a vibrant
and active center of Jewish life at Dura.lxxiii Neither is there an indication that the social prominence which the
former bath and gymnasium complex at Sardis once enjoyed was still evident after part of the space was given to the
Jewish community. Possibly the building had been abandoned by that point, and the Jews worshiped in an area of
the city just as ostensibly inconsequential as their brothers at Dura. But even to consider the neighborhood of the
synagogue at Dura as inconsequential is a mistake, because it certainly was not at all. When we look at a plan of the
city as it was in the Roman period, it is clear that though the building lay on the fringes of Dura-Europos, it was
actually located in a fairly active sector. Directly across the street was the Temple of Adonis, and the Temple of the
Dura Tyche was situated in the next block. Three blocks to the southeast of the synagogue was the Temple of Zeus
Kyrios. Duras public baths were only a short walk away, and the main gate, site of much military and trading
activity, was also nearby. In fact, the military took over a private residence on the same block as the synagogue in
order to house soldiers.lxxiv It is clear, then, that despite Seagers assertions, Duras Jewish community was a thriving
one, located in the very thick of the small citys civic and religious life.
At this point it seems that there should be ample evidence to allow for more than just a sketch of the Jewish
community in our city, but it has been very difficult for scholars dealing with Dura-Europos to put a face on the
citys Jews. Graffiti and inscriptions dating to the first phase of the synagogue emphasize the indigenous Syrian or
Mesopotamian character of the community before the mid-3rd century C.E. Aramaic names, with Syrian and other
local inflections, dominate, suggesting that the assumption made earlier about the nature of the Jews at Dura is
correct.lxxv Had any of the most prominent Jews also been Roman citizens they would have had Aurelius, or later
lxxii
Seager, 151-152.
lxxiii
Kraabel (1998), 100; Seager, 151-152.
lxxiv
Matheson, 24; Perkins, 29-30; Welles, 259.
lxxv
White, 94.
12
Septimius, as part of their names, but no such names have ever been associated with the synagogue. lxxvi Inscriptions
in both Aramaic and Greek honoring the sponsors of the second renovation have been found in the building. lxxvii One
example gives credit to a community member named Uzzi for the newly painted Torah shrine. lxxviii The same
inscription also names Joseph, who apparently had a hand in the redecoration of the synagogue, as well. lxxix The
grand patron behind the complex renovation and redecoration at Dura seems to have been a man called Samuel.
Two ceiling tiles with Aramaic inscriptions refer to him as priest and as archon, and they celebrate his role as the
builder of the synagogue.lxxx It is probable that this Samuel, along with being the ostensible spiritual leader of the
community, also owned the building itself and, together with a group of community leaders, designed, funded, and
implemented its expansion and redecoration in 245 B.C.E.lxxxi Another Aramaic inscription refers to the communitys
treasurer, Abram, and other ceiling tiles bear Greek references to additional leaders of the community.lxxxii The
position and function of women in the community is unknown, though it seems clear that they did not worship
separately from the men.lxxxiii Despite the facts we can surmise from the written material found in the synagogue, the
evidence is so limited that our best chances for learning more about Duras community of Jews lay with the design
Synagogues of the Diaspora tended to employ local architectural and artistic styles in their construction and
decoration, suggesting that there was no canonical synagogue design during this period. lxxxiv Some early scholars
lxxvi
Rostovtzeff (1932), 206.
lxxvii
White, 95.
lxxviii
Hachlili, 406.
lxxix
Ibid..
lxxx
Hachlili, 405; White, 77, 97.
lxxxi
Jensen, 181; White, 77, 97.
lxxxii
Hachlili, 405-406.
lxxxiii
Levine, 175-176; Seager, 156-157
lxxxiv
Levine, 142, 148. But, according to White, 95, the plan and outfitting of the assembly hall suggest that some
formal notions of synagogue worship were beginning to emerge, though they were by no means normative. He
made this statement with respect mainly to the Torah shrine at Dura, an aspect of the synagogue to be addressed later
in this paper.
13
maintained that the construction of a synagogue within a former private residence was unique to Dura, but we now
know this is not the case. Jews throughout the Diaspora probably met initially in their own homes, which were then
later converted for more general religious use once their communities had raised enough money to fund
construction.lxxxv In fact, five extant Diaspora synagogues (including Priene) were constructed from converted
homes.lxxxvi At Dura, the temples of Bel, Adonis, and Zeus Theos were once all private residences, and other eastern
religions exhibited this tendency, as well.lxxxvii Just as the origin of Duras synagogue in a private home was not
unusual, neither was its structure or decoration unique for the city.lxxxviii In other words, the buildings architecture,
as well as its painted interior, reflected other religious structures within the citys walls, attesting to a kind of artistic
syncretism unique to the city--the Dura style, as it were. lxxxix The synagogue, the Mithraeum, and the Christian
church all resembled one another physically, while Duras Temple of the Palmyrene Gods and Temple of Zeus
Theos, plus other religious buildings at Dura (including the Mithraeum and church), were each decorated with
painted schemes similar to those found in the synagogue (i.e., frescoes organized in triple registers). xc Common
local motifs even made it into the details of the paintings. A reclining Elijah resembles local relief sculpture, for
example, and the hand of God motif has been found in presumably pagan homes in the city.xci All of these
buildings, collectively, fit within a larger Mesopotamian artistic and architectural tradition, which fervently
maintained the ideal that art should always serve a religious function. xcii Public religious buildings covered with
scenes illustrating the most important events in a cults history, mythical and actual, are commonly found in temples
lxxxv
Kraabel (1981), 81; White, 93.
lxxxvi
Levine, 148; White, 62.
lxxxvii
Jensen, 180; Kraabel (1981), 81.
lxxxviii
Nor was Duras architecture unique in the Diaspora. According to Seager, the synagogues at Ostia and Sardis
have shown that the unorthodoxy which Dura exhibits is not so rare (150). Though Levine claims that the
physical structure of Duras synagogue was provocative and in many ways unique (149).
lxxxix
Levine, 172; Seager, 151.
xc
Gates, 169-170, 172, 176; Matheson, 26.
xci
Moon, 608.
xcii
Gates, 168, 181.
14
throughout Syria.xciii In fact, of the Mesopotamian temples which have been discovered thus far, each has been
decorated in much the same manner as Duras synagogue and the other temples in the city.xciv
This syncretism even extended to the Torah niche in our synagogue. It was located in the western wall of
the building (west being the direction in which Jerusalem lay with respect to the city). xcv While such a shrine or
niche was common to Jewish assembly rooms, it is only at Dura where we actually get a glimpse of its possible
eastern origins. Mesopotamian cults had developed the tradition of erecting, within the religious space, a portrait or
statue of the deity inside a painted representation of its temple.xcvi From the evidence provided by many extant
Mesopotamian religious structures, we know that the cult niches prevalent at Dura may have evolved from this
attempt to depict an idealized model of the temple and the cults holiest image inside the prayer space. xcvii For most
of the religions at Dura, the holiest image was the deity itself, but for the Jews, who prohibited the figural
representation of their god, the shelf that would have normally held a statue or other symbol, instead held the Torah
scrolls. That the Torah was of utmost importance to the Jews at Dura is confirmed by the painted figures depicted
on either side of the niche praying and reading from written scripture. xcviii Such niches and their placement seem to
have been the norm at Dura. During their construction, each of the other religious structures standing along the
citys western wall also had cult niches built into their respective western walls, suggesting that it was the
convention for newly established cults to conform to a program of religious expression specific to Dura. xcix
But conforming to the overarching local normative mode of expression sometimes produced results which
seemed to contravene a cults own tradition of self-expression. The Mithraeum, for instance, which represented the
very popular Roman military cult of Mithras and which was normally built underground in a cave-like structure, was
xciii
Bickerman, 136.
xciv
Gates, 166, 169-170.
xcv
Gates, 172-173.
xcvi
Gates, 171.
xcvii
Gates, 170-171; Seager, 166.
xcviii
Goldstein, 119; Gutmann, 222-3; Kraabel, 87.
xcix
Gates, 172-173.
15
erected above ground just like every other religious building at Dura-Europos.c By a similar token, some early
scholars found the frescoes in the synagogue at Dura shocking because they believed that this community, in its
ambition to create a competitive place of worship within the city, had blatantly disregarded the biblical command
and the prohibition found in rabbinic texts which forbid the use of certain figures in the decoration of synagogues. ci
So why did our community pursue the type of religious decoration it did? First, we should realize that the Talmud of
the 3rd and 4th centuries C.E. did allow for some figural representation on the walls and floors of sacred spaces and
that evidence of such decoration has been found both in Palestine and in other Diaspora synagogues. cii Furthermore,
passages in the Bible can be interpreted as allowing the illustration of figures if there is no intention to worship
them.ciii
The 3rd century C.E. witnessed a tremendous explosion of religious activity. Persian religions such as
Zoroastrianism and Manichaeanism were growing, and Mithraism was expanding, as well.civ Because of its location
on a major eastern trade route and at a crossroads between civilizations, Dura-Europos had a wide array of religious
communities, representing nearly every major cult in the area. Worshipers of the Syrian gods Aphlad, Atargatis, and
Hadad existed alongside those of Bel Shamin, a deity with origins in Palmyra. cv Mithraism, Christianity, and major
Hellenistic religions were also prominent in the city during the period of Roman rule.cvi Each sought not only to add
new members to their numbers, but also to avoid losing the ones they did have to other cults within the city. The
Jews were no exception. At least one Aramaic inscription from the synagogue refers to a prominent proselyte,
which means that the community was not exclusive.cvii Rather, it was an attractive religious option open to
participation by interested non-Jewish residents of the city. In other words, each religion was challenging the others
c
Gates, 176-177.
ci
Levine, 159.
cii
Goldstein (1990), 100; Levine, 159, 171.
ciii
Goldstein (1995), 154. Exodus 20:5 and Deuteronomy 5:9.
civ
Neusner, 100-101.
cv
Gates, 167-168.
cvi
Ibid.
cvii
Hachlili, 405; Hopkins, 146; White, 97.
16
for supremacy.
Jacob Neusner believes that the designer of the synagogues paintings (Samuel?) responded to these
developments by creating a grand scheme of renovation and redecoration clearly meant to champion the Jewish faith
and to assert the superiority of Judaism over every other cult of superstition.cviii Indeed, artistic expression seems to
have been the means of competition between cults in Duras dynamic religious atmosphere. cix
This becomes obvious when we consider the ideas that dominate the synagogues frescoes. They emphasize the
covenant between the Jews and their god, and the Jews status as the chosen people of a god who protects them
against the non-believers.cx The designers intention was to reaffirm for Jewish worshipers the supreme importance
of this historic covenant with their god by illustrating the relationship of the righteous believers with their chosen
deity.cxi In order to ensure that people remained faithful to that covenant, the paintings portrayed quite clearly the
protection that the Jewish god awarded his pious believers, as well as the violent punishment he would mete out to
anyone who desecrated him.cxii The figures displayed on the walls were some of the most prominent from the
Pentateuch--Abraham, Moses, Samuel, David, and Elijah--and the scenes focused on the history of the Ark, the
exodus from Egypt, the defeat of pagan rivals, and other stories, as well as such an everlasting symbol of the Jewish
faith as the Temple in Jerusalem.cxiii One scene explicitly depicts the destruction of pagan idols, two of which
resemble statues of the gods Adonis and Bel found withing the city.cxiv Images of victorious deities were common in
other temples at Dura, and in the synagogue the Jews are depicted as overcoming the oppressive Egyptians, as well
as the pagan idol worshipers around them.cxv The entire scheme, stressing loyalty and punishment, must be seen not
cviii
Hopkins, 142-143; Neusner, 101.
cix
Bickerman, 145.
cx
Weitzmann and Kessler, 180-181.
cxi
Bickerman, 136; Gates 173, 175-176.
cxii
Moon, 600.
cxiii
Kelley, 58; Narkiss, 185. Joseph Gutmann (1975) also claims that many of the scenes contain non-biblical
homiletical embellishments, called aggadoth, or folk tales (213).
cxiv
Goldstein, 142.
cxv
Goranson, 29.
17
only as a celebration of the Jewish people and their god, but also as a conscious piece of propaganda necessary for
The synagogue was not merely a repository for the confluence of Mesopotamian architectural and artistic
ideals which defined the citys superficial style of religious expression, however. Characteristics of the paintings
have suggested to researchers that, not only was this particular Jewish community highly literate in the local modes
of expression as outlined above, it was also quite familiar with imperial Roman motifs, as well. The Romans had
been at Dura in an official capacity at least 80 years before the second renovation and redecoration of the
synagogue, but both Hellenistic and Roman culture had been aggressively active in the area much longer. It is no
surprise, then, that there are also heavy Roman artistic and narrative influences in our frescoes. cxvi This is even more
understandable when one considers the prominence of Roman public art throughout the empire during this period,
even at an outpost like Dura, and the fact that Jewish artistic expression did not have a living figural tradition from
which the artists could draw inspiration.cxvii The synagogue artists based their work on popular and widespread
Roman techniques of representation which would have been easily understood by a body of people at home in an
eastern part of the world overrun for centuries with Hellenistic and Roman cultural practices. cxviii They clearly took
their inspirations from circulating Roman issue coins, Roman monuments and sculpture erected in the area, as well
as Roman painting itself.cxix In the Exodus scene in the synagogue at Dura, for example, Moses is shown leading the
Israelites out of Egypt by marching through a Roman triumphal arch, an example of which had been erected at Dura
by the emperor Trajan around 116 C.E.cxx Also, the scene of Esther and Mordecai at the Court of King Ahasuerus
depicts a typical Roman triumphal procession that the Jews would have seen on the coins of Septimius Severus in
circulation at the time.cxxi The artists had used typical Roman conventions, the meanings of which would have been
cxvi
Moon, 587.
cxvii
Moon, 589, 591.
cxviii
Ibid..
cxix
Moon, 590, 608-609.
cxx
Moon, 590.
cxxi
Moon, 594-595. This motif was also found in the temple to Hadad at Dura.
18
easily understood by anyone living in an urban city such as Dura, to illustrate an historic Jewish victory.cxxii
Likewise, in the scene of Moses and the burning bush, the Jewish hero is shown standing in the exact pose used in
Roman heroic statuary to symbolize virtue.cxxiii He is also wearing a white toga with a purple stripe, a Roman mark
of importance and power, and standing barefoot, a typical Roman indication that he is standing on sacred ground. cxxiv
There were other Graeco-Roman influences, as well. The depiction of Pharaohs daughter in the river, for example,
may have been inspired by local representations of Aphrodite, and Moses himself took on the attributes of the Greek
hero Herakles in the Exodus scene, carrying not a staff but a club (canonical iconography for Heracles that had been
firmly established during Greeces early Classical period).cxxv Even the smallest decorative ornament was borrowed
If we look more closely at the frescoes, however, we notice that the synagogues artists, though they could
read the nuances fluently, did not use Roman motifs to celebrate pagan ideology. Instead it is quite clear that they
used these paintings to reject it. For example, the triumphal arch featured in the exodus scene mentioned above
appears at first glance to symbolize for the community the Israelites eventual success after leaving Egypt. But the
artist may have placed it in the painting as a combined symbol of the oppression that the Jews had suffered under the
Egyptians and now under the Romans.cxxvii There are even greater clues which have led modern scholars to believe
that the Jewish community at Dura opposed Roman imperial culture (in their paintings, at least) and may have had a
peculiarly interesting view of the Severan emperors. The Closed Temple scene had always been thought to have
been a depiction of the temple in Jerusalem. Warren G. Moon points out, though, that the entrance to this temple is
decorated with, among other things, a possible Mithras bull, a statue of Mars, and three naked figures. cxxviii Mithras
was, of course, the deity worshiped heavily by Roman military forces, and Mars was the Roman god of war. Why
cxxii
Ibid.
cxxiii
Moon, 592.
cxxiv
Moon, 592-593.
cxxv
Moon, 592, 595, 597.
cxxvi
Kelley, 59; Moon, 603.
cxxvii
Moon, 598.
cxxviii
Moon, 601-603.
19
would the synagogue artists associate these symbols with their most sacred spot? For Moon, the answer is perfectly
obvious: the building was not a representation of the Jewish temple at all, but of a pagan one. The scene
immediately to the right illustrates the Arks destruction of pagan idols at the Temple of Dagon, causing Moon to
theorize that the Closed Temple was in fact meant to represent that building. cxxix But as with the possible double
meaning of the triumphal arch in the exodus scene, this one too, with its Roman elements decorating the doors of the
temple, may have also signified the inevitable divine destruction of Roman idols.cxxx The nudity of the male figures
bolsters Moons claim even further. Throughout the paintings, the artists differentiate between Jews and non-Jews
quite clearly by using nudity to signify to the congregation that a figure is not Jewish. Pharaohs daughter, for
example, rises out of the river naked, and the Egyptians portrayed in the exodus scene are also shown naked. cxxxi The
three male figures which decorate the doors of the temple were not only not Jewish, but based on similarities of pose
and attributes evident in coins and public statuary, may have represented the emperor Septimius Severus and his two
sons.cxxxii
For Erwin Goodenough, the adoption of pagan motifs in the synagogues frescoes signified a mystical
approach to Judaism known primarily from the writings of the Alexandrian Jew, Philo, and at odds with the rabbinic
and Talmudic tradition of Palestine. According to him, the Durene Jews adopted pagan artistic motifs intentionally
in their depictions of biblical scenes, not merely because they were a part of Duras overarching local artistic canon,
but also because the pagan ideology behind these motifs was highly significant to the type of Judaism practiced in
the city.cxxxiii These included the divinity or semi-divinity of biblical heroes, such as Moses, and the association of
David with the Orphic mysteries, for example.cxxxiv Goodenoughs method and ultimate conclusions about the
practice of a sort of mystical Judaism at Dura have been debated by numerous scholars; however, he may have been
correct, at least in some respects: the paintings in the synagogue at Dura do seem to reflect a distinctive
cxxix
Moon, 603.
cxxx
Ibid.
cxxxi
Moon, 596-597.
cxxxii
Moon, 602-603.
cxxxiii
Bickerman, 135; Neusner, 91.
cxxxiv
Neusner, 85-86, 88, 91.
20
eschatological theology. Jonathan A. Goldstein has developed quite an elegant and enticing theory that the Dura
synagogues paintings reflected the idea that the Diaspora would ultimately result in the saving of the Jewish
populations at the hand of a messiah descended from David.cxxxv This is not so far-fetched since we have already
seen that the community was concerned with the messianic claims of the emerging Christian population nearby. By
asserting their own brand of messianic theology, the Jews of Dura sought to solidify the legitimacy of their own
beliefs. Goldstein points out that the paintings emphasize not only exilic figures, such as Esther and Ezekiel. cxxxvi
They also represent other themes such as resurrection, the restoration of the temple, and David as a messiah
figure.cxxxvii By the 1st century C.E., there was a popular Jewish belief in a coming war between foreign powers
which would ultimately liberate the Jews permanently from domination.cxxxviii Goldstein reads this belief in the
paintings which he feels promised a glorious future in the Holy Land for all Jews once all prophecies were
fulfilled.cxxxix By the time of the synagogues redecoration, programmatic painting had fully developed; this meant
the use of scenes from ancient texts in new allegorical contexts.cxl So we should not assume, then, that modern
scholars who read analogies into material evidence from the Roman period are grasping at straws.
But is it realistic to expect that the leaders of the Jewish community at Dura imparted this ideology, if it
existed at all, to those who attended services? Though elements within them may have conveyed ideological
underpinnings, the main thrust of the scenes as a whole was to serve a narrative function--they told stories. cxli The
paintings decorating the assembly room of the synagogue at Dura were probably used, in fact, to educate a largely
cxxxv
Goldstein, passim; Weitzmann and Kessler, 180-181. Paul V. M. Flesher has criticized Goldsteins approach by
claiming he only found messianic beliefs reflected in the paintings because they were what he was looking for.
Goldstein does make some leaps of faith with his ideas, but the majority of his theory is soundly based and should
be seriously considered.
cxxxvi
Goldstein, passim; Moon, 605.
cxxxvii
Goldstein, passim.
cxxxviii
Goldstein, 111.
cxxxix
Goldstein, 112.
cxl
Kraabel, 86.
cxli
Gates, 174; Goranson, 24-25.
21
illiterate community, something that was typical of the period in general. cxlii The paintings could have been used as
reminders or visual cues during recitation of the Torah.cxliii Synagogues in the Diaspora played more of a central role
in daily life than in Palestine, so it is not difficult to accept the idea that the paintings were used as teaching tools,
probably in a regular program of introduction and reinforcement of the scriptural tradition.cxliv Major figures, like
Moses and Esther, are labeled in the paintings, and the Exodus scene has a longer inscription which describes the
action (Moses after he had gone out from Egypt and cleft the sea).cxlv There is also the hint that a broader thematic
scheme was created to present to the community the easily understood contrasts between good and evil behaviors
and the glory or consequences of each.cxlvi To the left of the Torah niche, the scenes are concerned overwhelmingly
with the acts of the righteous in maintaining the covenant with the Jewish god, while to the right the action takes
place largely in a pagan context.cxlvii Using local artistic themes from both the Hellenistic and Roman traditions
ensured that illiterate members of the religious community could visualize these contrasts clearly and understand
It is clear that our community was very concerned about maintaining its own spiritual and cultural identity
at Dura, which was threatened by more than the general expansion of religious practice in Mesopotamia during
Romes period of occupation of the area. Jews and Christians were themselves embroiled in a scriptural and
historical debate centered on Gods protection of his chosen people and the restoration of Israel through a messiah
descended from David.cxlix Jews were faced with growing Christian communities whose members claimed that Jesus
was the messiah and that the Jews covenant with their god was no longer valid, i.e, Christians were the new chosen
cxlii
Moon, 588, 590; Neusner, 85.
cxliii
Moon, 609.
cxliv
Kraabel, 82-83.
cxlv
Bickerman, 139; Moon, 599.
cxlvi
Moon, 604.
cxlvii
Moon, 598.
cxlviii
Kraabel, 83.
cxlix
Weitzmann and Kessler, 178-180.
22
ones.cl In 240 C.E., five years before the synagogues second and elaborate redecoration, another private home at
Dura was renovated into a public religious space, this time for Christian worshipers. cli Its exterior architecture was
unassuming because of a fear of persecution by Roman authorities, but the interior walls of the main meeting space
were decorated with painted scenes from the New Testament, as well as some Old Testament motifs such as David
and Goliath, and Adam and Eve.clii These paintings stress the ideology of Jesus as the messiah and savior of his
people while at the same time rejecting the symbols of Judaism, such as the Temple. cliii The Christian building also
featured a typical Dura cult niche which would have held a copy of the New Testament. cliv Most scholars seem to
assume that the synagogue was redecorated before the Christian building, but it seems fairly clear from the evidence
that the opposite is true. That the Jews at Dura were aware of and active in this direct threat to the legitimacy of
their own religion is evident in the painted scenes which they chose to decorate the walls of the synagogues
assembly room.clv In fact, it is no coincidence that the Jews at Dura resisted decorating their place of worship in the
style popular at Dura until just this moment in history when Christians began to assert themselves.
Ultimately, however, the Jewish community at Dura was only able to enjoy its refurbished meeting place
and renewed identity for about a decade. In mid-late 256 C.E., Duras residents (Roman soldiers and civilians alike)
prepared the city for an imminent assault by Sasanian Persians.clvi In order to fortify the western wall, they filled
with dirt the buildings which ran the length of Wall Street; these included the Mithraeum and the Christian
structure, as well as our synagogue.clvii We can only guess at how this arduous process was completed, but most
cl
Weitzmann and Kessler, 173.
cli
Matheson, 28, 30; Perkins, 29.
clii
Jensen, 182; Matheson, 28, 30; Weitzmann and Kessler, 84.
cliii
Goranson, 26; Matheson, 28, 30.
cliv
Hopkins, 116.
clv
Weitzmann and Kessler, 172-173, 178-179. In particular, the scenes of the sacrifice of Isaac, Jacobs blessings,
and the prophecies that the Messiah was to be a scion of the house of David. And the four wing panels above
and on either side of the Torah shrine signify: salvation, Gods gifts in the past, prophecy of restoration, and
the new covenant.
clvi
Jensen, 179; Kelley, 60.
clvii
Kelley, 60.
23
likely, Duras populace formed a series of bucket brigades to move the dirt into each building as quickly and easily
as possible. If such a system was implemented, the Roman forces would have installed soldiers at every stage to
oversee progress of the work fortifying the citys walls. Unfortunately, the laborious process was futile and the
Sasanians successfully conquered Dura. But fortunately for archaeologists and historians, the Persians did not
occupy the city permanently after the Romans were defeated so that the structures, particularly those along the
western wall, were greatly preserved for centuries under ever-increasing layers of earth. When the dirt which
covered the synagogues painted walls was first removed in the 1930s, archaeologists immediately noticed that
many of the figures had been defaced, particularly their eyes had been gouged out. Carl Kraeling, the archaeologist
who reported on the site at the time, believed that the defacement had occurred during the citys preparations for
attack, and it seems to be true that this defacement was completed just at the beginning of the fortification of the
western edge of the city.clviii Most of the eye gouging was done on the lowest register of frescoes, though there is
also some evidence of destructive activity in the second register, as well.clix Christopher Pierce Kelley has theorized
that the defacement of figures inside the synagogue may have been done by one Roman officer installed in the
building as the last stage in the bucket brigade set up to fill the building with dirt.clx He bases his conclusion on a
pattern of evidence which suggests no other explanation. First, he noticed that the majority of figures affected were
wearing eastern-style clothes.clxi This is especially evident in two adjoining scenes which both feature Ezekiel. In
one, an Ezekiel wearing Hellenistic clothes has been spared, but three depictions of Ezekiel in eastern dress within
close proximity have all had their eyes gouged.clxii But it was not eastern dress alone which motivated this soldier:
animals in oriental garb in the first register of frescoes were spared, and other temples at Dura had similar
illustrations of people in eastern dress which were not defaced.clxiii Kelley noticed that the synagogue was the only
clviii
Kelley, 58, 61. Goodenough later surmised, probably incorrectly, that the defacement had occurred earlier at the
hands of fellow Jews who disapproved of the figural scenes on the walls of the synagogue.
clix
Kelley, 61.
clx
Ibid.
clxi
Kelley, 65.
clxii
Kelley, 65.
clxiii
Kelley, 61, 67.
24
place in Dura where eastern dress coincided with Persian inscriptions and concluded that the Roman had assumed
that the Jews of Dura were Sasanian sympathizers.clxiv However, there is a more likely explanation for the
defacement of the paintings given the randomness of the occurrence. One of the decorated ceiling tiles put in place
during the synagogues second renovation was painted with an eye which may have symbolized a superstitious
belief in the evil eye. clxv The eye gouging may have been done by a Roman soldier, or more likely, a general
Thus, the eye gouging incident may not reflect on the Jewish community and its relations with the larger
community at all. The Jews of Dura-Europos were a people steeped in the veritable melting pot of cultures which
defined the Mediterranean world in the 3rd century C.E. The local Mesopotamian styles of religious art and
architecture were utilized to their fullest extent in the synagogue, and the diffuse culture of the imperial powers of
the Hellenistic and Roman empires was also clearly an influence on its decorative scheme. They moved
comfortably in a complex society defined by the cultural and religious explosion of the period, and they had a good
command of the visual and cultural vocabulary of the day. Yet the community also persisted in maintaining its
distinct identity in an atmosphere focused on militarism and commerce and highly charged with religious
competitiveness. Their artwork championed the superiority of Judaism and the righteousness of its believers and
may have symbolized the belief in a coming messiah. No matter the controversies and debates; they continue to be
an active group whose synagogue has survived as a testament to the lives of an ancient people.
clxiv
Kelley, 65, 67.
clxv
Hopkins, 141.
clxvi
Hopkins, 142.
25
SOURCES
Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE - 117 CE). Los
Angeles: University of California Press, 1996.
Bickerman, Elias J. Symbolism in the Dura Synagogue: A Review Article. The Harvard Theological Review 58,
1 (January 1965): 127-151.
Brilliant, Richard. Painting at Dura-Europos and Roman Art. In The Dura-Europos Synagogue: A Re-Evaluation
(1932-1972), ed. Joseph Gutmann, 23-30. Religion and the Arts. Missoula: Printing Department,
University of Montana, 1973.
Flesher, Paul V. M. Rereading the Reredos: David, Orpheus, and Messianism in the Dura Europos Synagogue. In
Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery, eds. Dan Urman and Paul V. M.
Flesher, 346-366. Studia Post-Biblica, Vol. 47, ed. David S. Katz. Boston: Brill, 1998.
Garnsey, Peter, and Richard Saller. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture. Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1987.
Goldstein, Jonathan A. The Judaism of the Synagogues (Focusing on the Synagogue of Dura-Europos). In
Judaism in Late Antiquity. Part Two: Historical Syntheses, ed. Jacob Neusner, 109-157. Handbook of
Oriental Studies: The Near and Middle East. New York: E. J. Brill, 1995.
Goodenough, Erwin R. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. Vols. 9-11. New York: Bollingen Foundation,
1964.
Goranson, Stephen. The Battle Over the Holy Day at Dura-Europos. Bible Review XII, 4 (August 1996): 23-33.
Gutmann, Joseph. Programmatic Painting in the Dura Synagogue. In The Synagogue: Studies in Origins,
Archaeology and Architecture, comp. Joseph Gutmann, 210-232. The Library of Biblical Studies, ed.
Harry M. Orlinsky. New York: Ktav Publishing House, Inc., 1975.
________. The Illustrated Midrash in the Dura Synagogue Paintings: A New Dimension for the Study of Judaism.
American Academy for Jewish Research Proceedings L (1983): 91-104.
________. The Dura Europos Synagogue Paintings: The State of Research. In The Synagogue in Late Antiquity,
ed. Lee I. Levine, 61-72. Philadelphia: The American Schools of Oriental Research, 1987.
Hachlili, Rachel. Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Diaspora. Boston: Koninklijke Brill, 1998.
Hopkins, Clark. The Discovery of Dura-Europos, ed. Bernard Goldman. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979.
Jensen, Robin M. The Dura Europos synagogue, early-Christian art, and religious life in Dura Europos. In Jews,
Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction during the Greco-Roman
Period, ed. Steven Fine, 174-189. Baltimore Studies in the History of Judaism, eds. Joseph Baumgarten, et
al. London: Routledge, 1999.
Kelley, Christopher Pierce. Who Did the Iconoclasm in the Dura Synagogue? Bulletin of the American Schools
of Oriental Research 295 (August 1994): 57-72.
26
Kilpatrick, George D. Dura-Europos: The Parchment and the Papyri. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 5, 3
(Autumn 1964): 215-225.
Kraabel, Alf Thomas. Social Systems of Six Diaspora Synagogues. In Ancient Synagogues: The State of
Research, ed. Joseph Gutmann, 79-91. Brown Judaic Studies, No. 22. Ann Arbor: Brown University,
1981.
________. The Roman Diaspora: Six Questionable Assumptions. Journal of Jewish Studies Vol. XXXIII, Nos. 1-
2 (Spring-Autumn 1982): 445-464.
________. Unity and Diversity among Diaspora Synagogues. In The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee I.
Levine, 49-60. Philadelphia: The American Schools of Oriental Research, 1987.
________. The Diaspora Synagogue: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence since Sukenik. In Ancient
Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery, eds. Dan Urman and Paul V. M. Flesher,
95-126. Studia Post-Biblica, Vol. 47, ed. David S. Katz. Boston: Brill, 1998.
Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue. Chap. in Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence?
The Samuel and Althea Stroum Lectures in Jewish Studies. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998.
Matheson, Susan B. Dura-Europos: The Ancient City and the Yale Collection. New Haven: Yale University Art
Gallery, 1982.
Moon, Warren G. Nudity and Narrative: Observations on the Frescoes from the Dura Synagogue. Journal of the
American Academy of Religion LX, 4 (Winter 1992): 587-658.
Narkiss, Bezalel. Pagan, Christian, and Jewish Elements in the Art of Ancient Synagogues. In The Synagogue in
Late Antiquity, ed. Lee I. Levine, 183-188. Philadelphia: The American Schools of Oriental Research,
1987.
Pollard, Nigel. The Roman army as total institution in the Near East? Dura-Europos as a case study. In The
Roman Army in the East, ed. David L. Kennedy, 211-227. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary
Series Number 18, eds. P. Foss and J. H. Humphrey. Ann Arbor: Cushing-Malloy Inc., 1996.
Rostovtzeff, M. Palmyra and Dura and The Ruins of Dura. Chaps. in Caravan Cities, 91-119, 153-219.
Translated by D. and T. Talbot Rice. Oxford: 1932; reprint, New York: AMS Press, Inc., 1971.
Seager, Andrew. The Architecture of the Dura and Sardis Synagogues. In The Synagogue: Studies in Origins,
Archaeology and Architecture, comp. Joseph Gutmann, 149-193. The Library of Biblical Studies, ed.
Harry M. Orlinsky. New York: Ktav Publishing House, Inc., 1975.
Teicher, J. L. Ancient Eucharistic Prayers in Hebrew (Dura-Europos Parchment D. Pg. 25). The Jewish
Quarterly Review LIV, 2 (October 1963): 99-109.
Weitzmann, Kurt, and Herbert L. Kessler. The Frescoes of the Dura Synagogue and Christian Art. Dumbarton
Oaks Studies, XXVIII. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1990.
Welles, C. Bradford. The Population of Roman Dura. In Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in
Honor of Allan Chester Johnson, eds. P. R. Coleman-Norton, et al., 251-274. Princeton: Princeton
27
University Press, 1957.
White, L. Michael. Synagogues in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora: Jewish Adaptation and Accommodation. Chap.
in Building Gods House in the Roman World: Architectural Adaptation among Pagans, Jews, and
Christians. The ASOR Library of Biblical and Near Eastern Archaeology. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1990.
Wischnitzer, Rachel. The Messianic Theme in the Paintings of the Dura Synagogue. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1948.
28
NOTES
26