210 CHAPTER SEVEN
One of the most serious problems with the old chronolog ywas a piece of
information long known but easil ydismissed because of its uniqueness. A
dedicator yinscription carved on the meticulousl yclassicizing lintel of the
supposedl yearl ys ynagogue at Nabratein unambiguousl ydates the construc-
tion—not restoration—of the synagogue to the 494th year after the Destruc-
tion, that is, c. 562.^31 This fact, as Naveh long ago observed, should have
caused archaeologists more unease than it apparentl ydid.^32 Recently, in an-
other blow to the old typology all the more serious for having been delivered
by an Israeli archaeologist, concerning synagogues regarded as “early” (mid-
late third century) by their American excavators, it has been argued that the
synagogues of Gischala and Horvat Shema were actually built in the fourth
century.^33
There is no question, though, that the major blow to the earl ydating of the
Galilean type synagogue was the discovery of thousands of low-denomination
bronze coins of the fourth and earl yfifth centuries beneath the floor of the
synagogue of Capernaum—a flagship example of the type. In fact, such depos-
its (which must be distinguished from treasur yhoards) are commonl yfound
in the excavation of ancient synagogues; whatever their purpose may have
been, the ywere certainl yintentional.^34 In most such cases, archaeologists
have not hesitated to draw the obvious conclusion: the synagogue was con-
structed after the date of the latest coin in the deposit. But deepl yingrained
conservatism and loyalty to Avi-Yonah as chief representative of the new tradi-
tion of Israeli archaeolog y(combined perhaps with a mild suspicion of the
Franciscan excavators—a suspicion in fact justified b ythe questionable qualit y
scholars who retain the old typology, “early” has become subtly later in the past few decades;
one no longer reads about second-centur ys ynagogues. It should also be noted that consensus is
beginning to dissolve even among Israeli scholars: see below for E. Netzer’s recent redating of
several Galilean-type synagogues to the fourth century. R. Hachlili, a prominent follower of Avi-
Yonah in most respects, has now discarded his chronolog yof the s ynagogues in favor of an ap-
proach based on regionalism; see her contribution to S. Fine,Sacred Realm: The Emergence of
the Synagogue in the Ancient World(New York: Oxford Universit yPress, 1996), pp. 98–111. But
the majorit yof Avi-Yonah’s students in Israel remain faithful, for reasons that seem to me to have
more to do with the sociolog yof the Jewish studies establishment there than with an ything else.
(^31) It seems to me likel ythat the inhabitants of Nabratein would have used an erroneous chro-
nolog ylike that of the Seder Olam Rabbah, rather than the more accurate tradition preserved b y
the Christian chronographers, to date the destruction of the Second Temple. For discussion of
Nabratein, see Levine,Ancient Synagogue, pp. 298–99.
(^32) On Mosaic, p. 31, for the inscription; p. 4, for discussion of dating. Naveh rather preco-
ciousl yregarded the old t ypolog yas discredited alread yin this book.
(^33) See E. Netzer, “The Synagogues in Gischala and Khirbet Shema: A New Look”,EI 25
(1996): 450–54. I have recentl yheard it argued b ythe American archaeologist Jod yMagness that
these synagogues were built in the sixth century.
(^34) See, e.g., Z. Ilan, “The Synagogue and Bet Midrash of Meroth,” in R. Hachlili, ed.,Ancient
Synagogues in Israel, Third through Seventh Centuries CE, BAR International Series 499 (Oxford:
Tempus Reparatum, 1989), pp. 21–41, esp. p. 27