The Jewish Community at Dura-Europos:

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 community’s 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 study of this historical people.

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 city’s 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

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
complex culture. Indeed, evidence suggests that the citizens of Europos mixed freely together. Many Greek

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

eastern deities (sometimes fused together).vi

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 city’s 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 city’s growing cultural milieu.xi Despite this, however, Hellenistic culture and

the Greek language continued to dominate Europos.xii

We know that by the 1st century B.C.E., if not earlier, the religious mosaic of Europos included Jews

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.

3
because coins dating to the Hasmonean period have been discovered at the site by archaeologists.xiii (The claim

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 city’s era of Parthian occupation.

xiii
White, 93.
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
 The Parthians held the city for 300 years until it fell again, this time in 165 C.E. to the Romans, who used it

as a frontier military post.xxi It was after the advent of Roman rule, rather than during the earlier Parthian period,

that the city’s 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 city’s 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 city’s 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

xxi
Kilpatrick, 215; Moon, 587. Rome’s 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.

5
the 4th century B.C.E., virtually disappeared.xxviii Indigenous Semitic peoples continued to form the majority of the

city’s population, but they had names based on roots which differed from earlier ones, implying a more general shift

in the city’s 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

Dura’s 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

xxviii
Welles, 262, 267-268.
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 Dura’s populace, but it did act as “a physical reminder of the institutional
separateness of the army.”
xxxiii
Pollard, 214-215, 226, 259; Welles, 259.

6
administration, or possibly even replaced.xxxiv That is to say, the Hellenistic components of the city’s urban structure

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 city’s 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

prospects of social mobility greatly curtailed, as were military/civilian relations.xxxvii

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 empire’s center at Rome kept them apart from the city’s

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 Dura’s 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 city’s population, instead drew an even sharper line between the

xxxiv
Pollard, 214-215.
xxxv
Pollard, 217-218.
xxxvi
Gates, 167; Goranson, 24.
xxxvii
C. Bradford Welles goes even further when he states that during the period of Rome’s 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
civilian and military. The worship of Mithras had little relation to other local religious traditions and excluded the

majority of the city’s population, while at the same time binding the military even more tightly together as a single,

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 Dura’s 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 Dura’s civilian residents, to ward off the coming assault.xlvi What happened to Dura’s citizens after

the Sasanian victory is a mystery, though they may possibly have been sold as slaves.xlvii

So where does Dura’s 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,

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
though the number of Jews to whom this actually applied must have been very small. As mentioned above, most of

Dura’s population during the Parthian period lived on low incomes, and this probably extended to most of the

Jewish 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 building’s 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

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.

9
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

names of donors and synagogue officials, covered the interior ceiling of the assembly room.lviii Five years following

its physical expansion, the synagogue’s 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 synagogue’s main entrance, would not have changed its public façade

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 city’s overall standard of living

declined in these years, and though there is little evidence that Dura’s 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 community’s religious space. The disturbance that this sort of major construction would have

lvii
Gates, 173; Kelley, 57; Hopkins, 140; White, 74, 77, 96-97.
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
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

may have been their private homes for communal use.lxv Such a relatively grand project implies, then, that during

Roman occupation, Dura’s 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 city’s western

wall, but this fact is not as significant as Andrew Seager has claimed it to be.lxvii In his comparison of Dura’s

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 let’s 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

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
exclusion of a particular sub-population from civic functions. There is also no indication that Dura’s 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

synagogue appears to have been located in a very popular commercial and social sector of the city, Dura’s

residentially based synagogue exhibits greater signs of communal activity. By Seager’s 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. Dura’s 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 Seager’s assertions, Dura’s Jewish community was a

thriving one, located in the very thick of the small city’s 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

city’s 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

lxxii
Seager, 151-152.
lxxiii
Kraabel (1998), 100; Seager, 151-152.
lxxiv
Matheson, 24; Perkins, 29-30; Welles, 259.

12
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

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

community’s 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 Dura’s community of Jews

lay with the design of the building itself.

Synagogues of the Diaspora tended to employ local architectural and artistic styles in their construction and

lxxv
White, 94.
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

13
decoration, suggesting that there was no canonical synagogue design during this period.lxxxiv Some early scholars

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 Dura’s synagogue in a private home was not

unusual, neither was its structure or decoration unique for the city.lxxxviii In other words, the building’s architecture,

as well as its painted interior, reflected other religious structures within the city’s 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 Dura’s 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

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.
lxxxv
Kraabel (1981), 81; White, 93.
lxxxvi
Levine, 148; White, 62.
lxxxvii
Jensen, 180; Kraabel (1981), 81.
lxxxviii
Nor was Dura’s 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 Dura’s 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.

14
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 cult’s history, mythical and actual, are commonly found in temples

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 Dura’s 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 cult’s 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

city’s 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

xcii
Gates, 168, 181.
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
seemed to contravene a cult’s 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

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,

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.

16
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

for supremacy.

Jacob Neusner believes that the designer of the synagogue’s 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 Dura’s dynamic religious atmosphere.cix

This becomes obvious when we consider the ideas that dominate the synagogue’s 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 designer’s 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

cvii
Hachlili, 405; Hopkins, 146; White, 97.
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.

17
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

only as a celebration of the Jewish people and their god, but also as a conscious piece of propaganda necessary for

any religion to survive at Dura.

The synagogue was not merely a repository for the confluence of Mesopotamian architectural and artistic

ideals which defined the city’s 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

cxv
Goranson, 29.
cxvi
Moon, 587.
cxvii
Moon, 589, 591.
cxviii
Ibid..
cxix
Moon, 590, 608-609.
cxx
Moon, 590.

18
circulation at the time.cxxi The artists had used typical Roman conventions, the meanings of which would have been

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 Pharaoh’s 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 Greece’s early Classical period).cxxv Even the smallest decorative ornament was borrowed

from Graeco-Roman sources: marble patterns, theater masks, and animals.cxxvi

If we look more closely at the frescoes, however, we notice that the synagogue’s 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

cxxi
Moon, 594-595. This motif was also found in the temple to Hadad at Dura.
cxxii
Ibid.
cxxiii
Moon, 592.
cxxiv
Moon, 592-593.
cxxv
Moon, 592, 595, 597.
cxxvi
Kelley, 59; Moon, 603.
cxxvii
Moon, 598.

19
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

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 Ark’s 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 Moon’s 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. Pharaoh’s 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 synagogue’s 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 Dura’s 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

cxxviii
Moon, 601-603.
cxxix
Moon, 603.
cxxx
Ibid.
cxxxi
Moon, 596-597.
cxxxii
Moon, 602-603.
cxxxiii
Bickerman, 135; Neusner, 91.

20
David with the Orphic mysteries, for example.cxxxiv Goodenough’s 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

eschatological theology. Jonathan A. Goldstein has developed quite an elegant and enticing theory that the Dura

synagogue’s 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 synagogue’s 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

cxxxiv
Neusner, 85-86, 88, 91.
cxxxv
Goldstein, passim; Weitzmann and Kessler, 180-181. Paul V. M. Flesher has criticized Goldstein’s 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.

21
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

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

their implications in a meaningful way.cxlviii

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

Rome’s period of occupation of the area. Jews and Christians were themselves embroiled in a scriptural and

historical debate centered on God’s protection of his chosen people and the restoration of Israel through a messiah

cxli
Gates, 174; Goranson, 24-25.
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.

22
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

ones.cl In 240 C.E., five years before the synagogue’s 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 synagogue’s

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., Dura’s 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

cxlix
Weitzmann and Kessler, 178-180.
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, Jacob’s 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,” “God’s gifts in the past,” “prophecy of restoration,” and
the “new covenant.”
clvi
Jensen, 179; Kelley, 60.

23
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

likely, Dura’s 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 city’s 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 synagogue’s 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 city’s 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:

clvii
Kelley, 60.
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.

24
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

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 synagogue’s 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

civilian with a propensity for belief in this spiritual taboo.clxvi

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.

clxiii
Kelley, 61, 67.
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.

Gates, Marie-Henriette. “Dura-Europos: A Fortress of Syro-Mesopotamian Art.” Biblical

Archaeologist 47 (September 1984): 166-181.

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.

Neusner, Jacob. “Judaism at Dura-Europos.” History of Religions 4, 1 (Summer 1964): 81-102.

Perkins, Ann. The Art of Dura-Europos. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973.

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.

________. Dura-Europos and Its Art. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1938.

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 God’s 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