206 CHAPTER SEVENthe earl yor middle fourth centur y.^15 Rather surprisingly, the urban synagogues
(unlike the prayer house of first-century Tiberias described by Josephus, Life
277) are invariabl ysmall structures, frequentl ysituated in remote or incon-
spicuous locations. The synagogue complex of Hamat Tiberias measures only
13 b y15 meters, the newl ydiscovered s ynagogue of Sepphoris is 20 b y8
meters, and the main hall of one of the largest, that of Hamat Gader, measures
13 b y13.9 meters—approximatel ythe same size as most rural s ynagogues.^16
No counterpart has yet been discovered in Palestine to the massive, centrally
located synagogue of Sardis.^17
The urban synagogues did differ from the rural ones, though: there seem
often to have been more than one per settlement (two are known from Tiber-
ias, Sepphoris, and Scythopolis), and they occasionally used Greek in inscrip-
tions.^18 Furthermore, urban synagogues were often much more lavishly decor-
ated than rural ones: the ytended to make more use of marble, and several,
most strikingl ythose of Hamat Tiberias, Sepphoris, and Gaza, are decorated
with magnificent figurative mosaic pavements. Nevertheless, the yseem on
the whole contemporaneous with the rural synagogues, and apparently they
did not serve as models for the latter, unlike urban churches, which were
imitated b yarchitects in the Christian countr yside. Though the essential
structure and man yof the motifs of the pavement of the s ynagogue of Hamat
Tiberias were taken up in later synagogues, there is no evidence of direct
imitation. The ideological underpinnings of the urban synagogues, as re-
vealed in the inscriptions, likewise bear comparison with those in the country-
side (see below). There is, in sum, no physical evidence for a city-based hierar-
ch yof s ynagogues in late antique Palestine, a point that will be discussed in
more detail below.
Villages
The transformation of the landscape of rural Palestine in late antiquit ywas if
anything even more striking than that of the cities. The countryside was now
packed with nucleated settlements, ranging in population from several hun-
dred to several thousand inhabitants. If the surface surveys may be trusted
(and though the yare questionable in ever ydetail, the ymaycumulativel ypaint
a plausible picture of the true situation, especiall ysince the ycorrespond so
(^15) See Dothan,Hammath Tiberias, pp. 66–67.
(^16) For a full list of the dimensions of the synagogue remains, see Hachlili,Ancient Jewish Art,
p. 148.
(^17) See A. T. Kraabel, “The Diaspora Synagogue: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence
since Sukenik,”ANRW2.19.1, pp. 483–88.
(^18) Contrast Naveh’s mainl yrural corpus of Aramaic inscriptions and Lifshitz’s mainl yurban
corpus of Greek inscriptions.