JUDAIZATION 249aware of.^23 Indeed, many treatments of synagogue art are content to describe,
compare, and (often dismissively) discuss the “meaning” of individual motifs,
especially zodiac circles .In view of what I have already written, there is little
reason to discuss the consequences of Weiss’s assumption that the rabbinic
corpus constitutes the best set of texts through which to view the Sepphoris
mosaic—which is not to deny the importance (indeed, in a limited way even
the validity) of Weiss’s work on the pavement .Rather I want to examine a
more fundamental assumption, which he shares with most interpreters of an-
cient Jewish art.
Weiss argues that the pavement conveys a clear, simple message .The panels
nearest the entrance, containing scenes from the book of Genesis, “symbolize
the promise for the future implicit in the story [of the patriarchs].” The central
panel, the zodiac circle, “symbolizes God’s power as sole ruler of the universe
and creation.” As to the remaining panels, which depict a series of little scenes
taken from the account of the consecration of the Tabernacle in Exodus 28
and following, and, closer to the bema, the familiar image of an ark flanked
bymenorotand other ritual objects:
The.. .combination [of images on the panels] represents man’s basic needs—
bread, fruit and meat—and within the context of this structured iconographic
scheme, conveys a clear eschatological message .These elements were selected.. .to express the hope that just as God had filled the world with abundance in
the past, by virtue of the Temple cult, so would He redeem His people in the
future, rebuild the Temple, cause the Shekhina to dwell there, and return prosper-
ity to the world .This eschatological message, which expresses the world view and
religious aspirations of the Jews of the Land of Israel, is a theme that runs through-
out the rich fabric of the entire mosaic .(Weiss,Promise and Redemption,p.38)
Let us leave aside some of the particular problems with this reading—its ro-
manticism (allthe Jews of the Land of Israel?), its inevitability (is it possible
to imagine an identifiably Jewish iconographic scheme that, in a post-Destruc-
tion context, could not be read as suffused with the pathos of loss and therefore
as looking ahead to redemption?) .Let us attend instead to a more basic issue.
What, specifically, is the epistemic status of Weiss’s reading, and of others like
his? What, precisely, is he trying to reconstruct? Is he suggesting that the
intentions of the patrons alone are recoverable, while tacitly admitting that
the reception of the art may have been complex and shifting? Or is he arguing
that the art had a stable meaning, known not only to the patrons but to all
viewers, and somehow transmitted across the generations in which the syna-
gogue was in use?
(^23) See Netzer and Weiss,Promise and Redemption .Other attempts at programmatic reading
include J .Wilkinson, “The Beit Alpha Synagogue Mosaic: Towards an Interpretation,”JJA 5
(1978): 16–28; L .Roussin, “The Beit Leontis Mosaic: An Eschatological Interpretation,”JJA 8