THE SYNAGOGUE: ORIGINS AND DIFFUSION 225city’s Greeks (Life 67)? Was Josephus, committed as he was to what we might
call religious pluralism, embarrassed by and thus silent about their destruc-
tion?^30 Thesynagogue,finally,playedaroleinthecity’spubliclifeduringthe
revolt, but had it done so earlier?
This last consideration inescapably evokes the alleged archaeological syna-
goguesoffirst-century Palestine,atMasada,Herodium, Gamala,Jericho,and
Qiryat Sefer, the first two said to have been built by the rebels who occupied
the fortresses, the third located ina fortified royal town whose largely military
population may have rebelled against Rome and Agrippa II in 66.^31 (The
fourth is part of a Hasmonean-Herodian palace complex, and the fifth is lo-
cated in a settlement of unknown character; the identification of these re-
mains as synagogues is even more problematic than that of the remains at
Masada et al.) The identification of these structures rests on circular reason-
ing: each contains a large assembly hall, and each was located at a site whose
occupants were presumably Jewish—what could they be but synagogues?^32
However, though the reasoning is circular, the conclusion is not necessarily
false.
If the conclusion is true, then the structures have some important implica-
tions.First,synagoguesalreadypossessedtheirmostdistinctivefeature,shared
to the best of my knowledge only by Mithraea and to a limited extent
churches:thecongregationassembledinalargeroomthathadnocompletely
separate space for a clergy, in contrast to Near Eastern and many classical
temples (including the temple of Jerusalem), in which the people assembled
in a courtyard while the priests officiated within. At Gamala, benches were
built into the walls, which presumably left the floor free for ritual activity,
which was thus entirely surrounded by the observing congregation. This in
turn implies that there was an officiant, as in later synagogues.^33 The location
of the synagogues, if that is what they are, may imply some connection (but
what?) between the mand the interests and activities of the Jewish rebels of
66.^34 Alternatively, it may imply a connection between the synagogue and a
sense of autonomy or self-enclosure, for in first-century Palestine, synagogues
were apparently found mainly in cities and fortresses (or only in cities, if the
archaeological structures are not in fact synagogues).
(^30) On Josephus’s pluralism, seeJosephus, pp. 175–200.
(^31) On Gamala, see S. Cohen,Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and His Development
as a Historian(Leiden: Brill, 1979), pp. 160–69; on these synagogues, see Grabbe, “Synagogues
in Pre-70 Palestine”; and Levine, “Second Temple Synagogue.” The structures at Jericho and
Qiryat Sefer are partially published inQadmoniot1999.
(^32) Levine,Ancient Synagogue, pp. 51–69, expresses doubt only about Jericho.
(^33) See L. Levine, ed.,Ancient Synagogues Revealed(Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society,
1981), pp. 19–41.
(^34) Perhaps rebel groups had a heightened sense of fellowship: Bar-Kokhba’s men addressed
each otheras “brother”; seeY. Yadin, “ExpeditionD,”IEJ11(1961): 47; B. Lifshitz,“The Greek
Docu ments fro mNahal Seeli mand Nahal Mish mar,”IEJ11 (1961): 60–61; perhaps Benoit,
Milik, and De Vaux,Les Grottes de Murabba’at, no. 45.