¹ See the two collections of studies edited by Gutmann, Joseph, The Synagogue: Studies in Origins, Archaeology, and Architecture (New York: Ktav, 1975)Google Scholar; Ancient Synagogues: The State of Research (BJS 22; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981)Google Scholar. A new collection edited by Levine, Lee I., The Synagogue in Late Antiquity (JTS Centennial; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987)Google Scholar, appeared too late to be used in this study.

² The most common theories of synagogue origins are summarized by Gutmann, “The Origin of the Synagogue: The Current State of Research,” in The Synagogue, 72–76.

³ Ibid., 76 and n. 20.

⁴ Gutmann himself leans toward the view of Zeitlin, as refined in the recent work of Ellis Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution (Nashville: Abingdon, 1978)Google Scholar. Thus, following Rivkin: “The synagogue, a unique Pharisaic institution, must have arisen… as a secular meeting house, where discussions of and readings from the Torah and Prophets took place” (Gutmann, “Origin of the Synagogue,” 75).

⁵ Gutmann, “Synagogue Origins: Theories and Facts,” in Ancient Synagogues, 3, esp. n. 14, contra the view of Martin Hengel, “Proseuchē und Synagōgē: Jüdische Gemeinde, Gotteshaus und Gottesdienst in der Diaspora und in Palästina,” reprinted in The Synagogue, 27 – 54.

⁶ E. M. Meyers, “Synagogue, Architecture,” IDBSupp, 842–44. A. R. Seager, “Ancient Synagogue Architecture: An Overview,” in Ancient Synagogues, 39–48. For the traditional classifications cf. Avi-Yonah, Michael, “Ancient Synagogues,” Ariel 32 (1973), 29–43Google Scholar, reprinted in The Synagogue, 95–109; Shanks, H., Judaism in Stone, The Archaeology of Ancient Synagogues (New York: Harper & Row, 1979) 48–53.Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. Seager, “Synagogue Architecture,” 40; Avi-Yonah, “Ancient Synagogues,” 38; Foerster, G., “Notes on Recent Excavations at Capernaum,” IEJ 21 (1971)207–11Google Scholar; Loffreda, S., “The Late Chronology of the Synagogue of Capernaum,” IEJ 23 (1973) 37–42.Google Scholar

⁸ Marilyn Joyce Chiat, “First Century Synagogue Architecture: Methodological Problems,” in Ancient Synagogues, 49 – 60; Handbook of Synagogue Architecture (BJS 29; Chico: Scholars Press, 1982).Google Scholar

⁹ Eg., E. M. Meyers, “Ancient Gush Halav (Giscala), Palestinian Synagogues and the Eastern Diaspora,” in Ancient Synagogues, 61 –77. Cf. Meyers, E. M. and Strange, J. F., Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity (Nashville: Abingdon, 1978) 142–52Google Scholar, with bibliography of recent excavations in the Galilee. Most recently see Meyers, E. M. and Kraabel, A. T., “Archaeology, Iconography, and Nonliterary Remains,” in Kraft, R. A. and Nickelsburg, G. W. E., eds., Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) 175–210.Google Scholar

¹⁰ A. T. Kraabel, “The Diaspora Synagogue: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence since Sukenik,” ANRW II. 19.1. 500–501; idem, “The Social Systems of Six Diaspora Synagogues,” in Ancient Synagogues, 89; idem, “The Roman Diaspora: Six Questionable Assumptions,” in Vermes, G. and Neusner, J., eds., Essays in Honor of Yigael Yadin, JSS 33 (1982) 445– 64Google Scholar; idem, “Impact of the Discovery of the Sardis Synagogue,” in Hanfmann, G. M. A., ed., Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983) 178–90Google Scholar. I would hasten to add that no artificial distinction should be made between “Hellenistic” and “Palestinian” Judaism, as there is ample evidence (literary, linguistic, and archaeological) that the Jewish population of Eretz Israel, even in early Rabbinic times, was thoroughly familiar with things Greek and Roman. Cf. Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 31–47, 62–91; Hengel, Martin, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (trans. Bowden, J.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974)Google Scholar passim. Rather, the key difference to recognize for Jews in the Graeco- Roman Diaspora is their minority social standing, or their own sense of “alien” status.

¹¹ Kraabel, “Social Systems,” 87; idem, “The Diaspora Synagogue,” 500. Priene, Stobi, and Dura-Europos have been clearly demonstrated to be renovated from private homes in multiple stages of architectural adaptation. The Delos building also seems to be domestic in form, but that is partly what we intend to analyze below. The Ostia synagogue has been claimed to be specially constructed as a Jewish edifice, but it appears doubtful and needs further analysis. In any case, the building went through several stages of renovation. Thus, of the known Jewish edifices from the Diaspora, only the monumental basilical building discovered at Sardis in 1962 was originally a public building. Even so, it can be demonstrated that the Jews of Sardis lived there for a number of years before coming into possession of this municipal property (in the late second century CE). Since Josephus (Ant. 14.235 – 36) preserves a letter from the first century BCE which upholds the right of the Sardis Jews to maintain a “place” (topos), it is likely that they had already established an earlier “synagogue,” perhaps in more private domestic surroundings. Cf. Kraabel, “Impact of the Discovery,” 179.

¹² Bruneau, Philippe and Ducat, Jean, Guide de Délos (Paris: École Française d'Athènes, 1965)Google Scholar 15–25. Despite its small size and temperamental navigation (even to this day), Delos's importance in the Aegean world is evidenced in the fact that when the ancient trade center at Corinth (which was also famous for its archaic Apollo sanctuary) was destroyed by the Romans in 146 BCE, the Corinthian shipping interests largely moved to Delos.

¹³ Bruneau, Philippe, Recherches sur les cultes de Délos (Paris: Bocard, 1970)Google Scholar 458–93, 622–30. In many cases oriental gods were given Greek identities, as in the case of the Tyrian merchants who worshiped their ancestral god as Herakles-Melkart or those from Berytus who worshiped a form of Canaanite Baal as Poseidon. Cf. the similar case of Tyrian merchants at Puteoli, the port city near Naples, who called their ancestral Baal Helios Saraptenos. Cf. Nock, A. D., Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo (Oxford: Clarendon, 1933) 66.Google Scholar

¹⁴ 1 Mace 15:16–23, which incorporates a letter attributed to the Roman Lucius Calpurnius Piso, consul for the year 140–39 BCE. Josephus (Ant. 14.213–14) preserves edicts pertaining to the rights of Jews on Delos (along with several other Jewish communities) during the time of Julius Caesar. See below, nn. 58–60 and p. 151.

¹⁵ In addition to a number of special studies published by the École Française and in the Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, the major excavation reports have been published under the series Exploration Archéologique de Délos (beginning in 1909), hereafter cited as EAD. All references to topography use the standard numbering system employed in the official Guide de Délos, hereafter GD.

¹⁶ His archaeological survey, “La synagogue juive de Délos,” was published in Mélanges Holleaux, recueil de mémoirs concernant l'antiquité grecque (Paris: Picard, 1913)Google Scholar 201–15, and reprinted in RB 11 (1914)523–34.

¹⁷ Sukenik, E. L., Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece (London: Oxford University Press, 1934) 38.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Mazur, Belle D., Studies of Jewry in Ancient Greece (Athens: Hestia, 1935)Google Scholar 1. 15–24. Sukenik, “The Present State of Ancient Synagogue Studies,” Bulletin of the Lewis M. Rabinowitz Fund 1 (1949)21–23.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Michael Avi-Yonah, “Synagogue-Architecture,” EncJud, 15. 595–96; Wischnitzer, Rachel, The Architecture of the European Synagogue (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1964) 67.Google Scholar

²⁰ Goodenough, E. R., Jewish Symbols of the Graeco-Roman Period (New York: Pantheon, 1965)Google Scholar 2. 71 – 75 (quotation p. 74).

²¹ Reported in BCH 87 (1963) 873– 74Google Scholar; Bruneau, Les cultes de Délos, 480 – 93 with plates and figures.

²² Ibid., 491.

²³ See Kraabel, “Social Systems,” cited above, n. 10

²⁴ All measurements used in this study are based on the field plan and descriptions of Bruneau (Les cultes de Délos, pl. B), as rechecked and supplemented by the author's field analysis.

²⁵ The four inscriptions are:

²⁶ Gen 14:20 (LXX); Philo In Flacc. 46; Ad Gaium 278; Josephus Ant. 16.163; CIJ 1537. See Kraabel, A. T., ”Hypsistos and the Synagogue at Sardis,” GRBS 10 (1969) 81–86Google Scholar. On the term applied to Zeus, Sabazius, etc., esp. in Asia Minor see Nock, A. D., “The Guild of Zeus Hypsistos,” HTR 29 (1936) 39–54Google Scholar. The term will be discussued further below, nn. 51 – 52.

²⁷ ID 2532 (= CIJ 724); see Deissmann, A., Light from the Ancient East (4th ed.; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1927Google Scholar; reprinted Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978) 413 – 24. Both are funerary stelai from Rheneia, the burial island of Delos, and seem to incorporate LXX language with the use of the term Hypsistos for God in such a way to indicate Jewish background. The text reads:Ἐπικαλο⋯μαι κα⋯ ⋯ξι⋯ τ⋯ν θε⋯ν τ⋯ν ὕψιστον, τ⋯ν κύριον τ⋯ν πνευμάτων κα⋯ πάσης σαρκός, ⋯π⋯ τοὺς δόλωι φονεύ- σαντας ἢ φαρμακεύσαντας τ⋯ν τα- λαίπωρον ἅωρον Ἡράκλεαν ⋯χχέαν- τας αὐτ⋯ς τ⋯ ⋯ναίτιον αἶμα ⋯δί- κως, ἵνα οὕτως γένηται τοῖς φονεύ- σασιν αὐτ⋯ν ἢ φαρμακεύσασιν κα⋯ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτ⋯ν, κύριε ⋯ πάντα ⋯- φορ⋯ν κα⋯ οἱ ἄγγελοι θεο⋯, ᾧ π⋯σα ψυ- χ⋯ ⋯ν τ⋯ σήμερον ⋯μέραι ταπεινο⋯ται μεθ᾽ ἱκετείας, ἵνα ⋯γδικήσης τ⋯ αἶμα τ⋯ ⋯- ναίτιον ζητήσεις κα⋯ τ⋯ν ταχίστην.

²⁸ Discovered in House IIA of the insula (GD no. 79) immediately adjacent to the stadion (see fig. 1, at locus II), ID 2329 (CIJ 726):Ἀγαθοκλ⋯ς κα⋯ Λυσίμα- χος ⋯π⋯ προσευχ⋯ι

²⁹ See Hengel, “Proseuchē und Synagōgē,” 162–80; cf. Bruneau, Les cultes de Délos, 488, following Robert, L., “Inscriptions grecques de Side,” Revue de Philologie 84 (1958) 44.Google Scholar Mazur, however, had wanted to read the term προσευχῇ in this context as a votive, with no explicit Jewish connotations. Thus, see below, n. 40.

³⁰ Shanks, Judaism in Stone, 43.

³¹ Ibid., 44 and 178 n. 13.

³² Kraabel, “The Diaspora Synagogue,” 491 – 92.

³³ Bruneau, P., “‘Les Israelites de Délos’ et la juiverie délienne,” BCH 106 (1982) 465–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar. (Bruneau responds directly to recent criticism on pp. 490 and 494.) Cf. Kraabel, “New Evidence of the Samaritan Diaspora has been found on Delos, “BAR 10:2 (March 1984) 44–46.Google Scholar

³⁴ So Kraabel, A. T., “Synagoga Caeca: Systematic Distortion in Gentile Interpretations of Evidence for Judaism in the Early Christian Period,” in Neusner, J. and Frerichs, E., eds., “To See Ourselves as Others See Us”: Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity (SPSH; Chico: Scholars Press, 1985) 219–46Google Scholar, esp. 220–24.

³⁵ The texts as printed by Bruneau (with photographs) and retaining Bruneau's numbering. For the wording of honorifics see Danker, F. W., Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clarion, 1982)Google Scholar 467–78. It should be noted, however, that Danker concentrates on public benefactions and honors. In the private sphere (such as patronage of private clubs, etc.) the conventions are similar, but there are some peculiarities. There is much evidence from this private benefaction sphere that needs to be evaluated.

³⁶ Bruneau seems to think (“Israelites,” 481) they were Samaritans with hellenized names, but there is no certainty (so Kraabel in “New Evidence,” 45). Rather, the theophoric Sarapion seems more likely Egyptian and “pagan.”

³⁷ “Israelites,” 483–84.

³⁸ Ibid., 488.

³⁹ Ibid., 474. Bruneau gives the following translation: “[Les] Israelites [de Délos] qui versent contribution au sacré et saint Garizim ont honoré Menippos, fils d'Artemidoros, d'Heraclée, luimême ainsi que ses descendants, pour avoir établi et dédié à ses frais, en ex-voto, (à Dieu) le [ ] et le [ et l'ont couronné] d'une couronne d'or et [ ].

⁴⁰ Use of προσευχῇ (in dative) with ⋯πί suggests either the indirect object of the dedication or the intended use of the thing dedicated. For the former cf. the wording of a sacral manumission dated 41 CE, CIJ 690: ⋯νέθηκεν ⋯ν τ⋯ι προσευχ⋯ι κατ᾽ εὐχήν (“dedicated to the proseuchē in accordance with a vow”). For the latter cf. the donor inscription of Tiberius Polycharmus from the Stobi synagogue dated third century CE, CIJ 694: εὐχῇς ἓνεκεν τοὺς μεν οἴκους ⋯γίῳ τόπῳ (“on account of a vow (gave) his houses for a “holy place”). In both cases the double use of an ex-voto formula would seem unlikely. A reading of “for” or “in prayers” might more typically be rendered using the genitive with ⋯πί οτ ⋯ν—see 1 Thess 1:2. For the combination of all these terms in a clearly Jewish usage (relating to a building designated proseuchē) from Egypt, see CIJ 1443 and 1444 (dated 181 – 145 BCE), in which the ex-voto formula has been replaced by the pro salute formula (ὑπ⋯ρ βασιλέως). Our text, however, is an honorific building inscription and need not have any form of ex-voto formula, as in the case of the Phocaea inscription below, n. 43. In inscription 2, then, ⋯π⋯ προσευχῇ το⋯ θε(ο⋯) serves as functional parallel to the phrase εὐεργεσίας ἓνεκεν τ⋯ς ε⋯ς ⋯αυτούς in inscription 1 (line 6)

⁴¹ Bruneau, “Israelites,” 474, noting that the term is used regularly on Delos of diverse objects, including τέμενος, ⋯γορά, ναός.

⁴² CIJ 766. Cf. Schürer, Emil, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes (4th ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1908)Google Scholar 3. 21, and Kraabel, A. T., “Judaism in Western Asia Minor” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1968) 72–73.Google Scholar

⁴³ IGRR IV, 1327 (= CIJ 738): Τάτιον Στράτωνος το⋯ Ἐνπέδωνος τ⋯ν οἶκον κα⋯ τ⋯ν περίβολον το⋯ ὑπαίθρου κατασκευάσασα ⋯κ τ⋯[ν ἰδ]ίων ⋯χαρίσατο τ[οῖς Ἰο]υδαίοις. Ἡ συναγωγ⋯ ⋯[τείμη]σεν τ⋯ν Ἰουδαίων Τάτιον Σ[τράτ]ωνος το⋯ Ἐνπέδωνος χρυσῷ στεφάνῳ κα⋯ προε̈δρίᾳ

For discussion of this text and the Julia Severa inscription from Akmona, esp. in regard to the role of women in the synagogue, see Brooten, Bernadette, Women Leaders in the Synagogue (BJS 28; Chico: Scholars Press, 1982)Google Scholar. Also on προε̈δρία see below, n. 81.

⁴⁴ As an alternative to Bruneau's reading (“Israelites,” 474) ὅλον κα⋯ τ⋯…

⁴⁵ This heavily damaged bottom portion of the stone (lines 5 – 8 ) would have contained the particulars of Menippos’ bequest, a most unfortunate loss. Thus, for the missing sections we might expect (though we shall surely never know) something like the following for lines 5 – 6: θε(ο⋯) τ⋯ν [οἶκον κα⋯ το⋯ ὑπαίθρου τ⋯ν περίβ]ολον κα⋯ τ⋯[ν τρικλείνον]…, or the like.

⁴⁶ For Crete see CIJ 735.

⁴⁷ As further evidence for this kind of social interaction we may point to a certain Praülos Samareus (whose name may suggest Samaritan extraction) who appears on a list of members of the official Egyptian temple on Delos (Sarapeion C, GD no. 100), ID 2616:11,53. Cf. Roussel, Pierre, Les Cultes égyptiens à Délos (Nancy: Berger-Levrault, 1916)Google Scholar 174. On Ptolemaic control and trade at Delos in the early Hellenistic period see Bruneau and Ducat, GD, 15 – 25.

⁴⁸ Bruneau (“Israelites,” 479) likewise suggests an Egyptian connection for Sarapion. If so, it would help to explain the similarities in both the Samaritan and Jewish inscriptions to the known Jewish proseuchē inscriptions from Ptolemaic Egypt; see CIJ 1443, cited above at n. 40.

⁴⁹ Bruneau, “Israelites,” 479, 486 – 89. Bruneau uses the term “juiverie,” which might too literally be translated “Jewish ghetto.” The idea is too strong, though it is the case in major urban centers of the Diaspora that some Jewish communities, either by virtue of ethnic or professional ties tended to group together. Such is clearly indicated for some but not all of the eleven synagogues at Rome; see Leon, H. J., The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1960)Google Scholar 148–59. Jewish residences also seemed to be grouped around the later synagogue building (itself a renovated house) at Dura-Europos; however, such does not seem to be the case at Sardis.

⁵⁰ Bruneau discusses other parallels in ibid., 477 – 78. For the text of Ps-Eupolemus (with introduction, translation, and annotations) see Carl R. Holladay, Fragments of Hellenistic Jewish Authors, vol. 1: Historians (SBLTTS 20; Chico: Scholars Press, 157 – 87. Concerning the provenance of the author (Egypt or Syria-Palestine, ibid., 161 n. 2) perhaps our evidence suggests another possibility, i.e., Crete and the Aegean in the Ptolemaic period. Notice that the majority reading of the text gives 'Αργαριζίν. However, one MS variant preserves the precise form Αργαριζείν as in the two Delos inscriptions.

⁵¹ Ps-Eupolemus, frg. I, par. 4 – 6 (Holladay, Fragments, 172–73).

⁵² Holladay, Fragments, 183 n. 21.

⁵³ See the photographs in Bruneau, “Israelites,” 472 – 73, and the reconstruction on 471.

⁵⁴ Baslez, Marie Françoise, “Déliens et étrangers domicilés à Délos (166 – 155), ”REG 89 (1976) 343–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁵ Baslez herself notes (ibid., 343 n. 2) that a colony of Athenians established between 165 and 146/5 BCE is designated ⋯ δ⋯μος ⋯ Ἀθηναίων τ⋯ν ⋯ν Δήλῳ κατοι κούντων (ID 1497, 1507).

⁵⁶ Cf. ID 1522, line 4 (Bruneau, Les cultes de Délos, 630–31). The Poseidoniasts of Berytus and the Sarapiasts of Sarapeion A, however, both appealed directly to Rome and Athens for their official status (see ibid., 622 – 23, and Roussel, Cultes égyptiens, 92 – 93). On the form of their building relative to GD no. 80, see below, nn. 77 – 80.

⁵⁷ Bruneau, “Israelites,” 486 – 87.

⁵⁸ Josephus Ant. 14.233.

⁵⁹ Ant. 14.235. See Kraabel, “Impact of the Rediscovery,” 178–80; S. Applebaum, “The Legal Status of Jewish Communities in the Diaspora,” Compendium Rerum ludaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, part 1: The Jewish People in the First Century (ed. Safrai, and Stern, ; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 1.438–45.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ For official Roman intervention in matters on Delos relating to foreign groups see ID 1510 (cf. Roussel, Cultes égyptiens, 92–93). It might be useful here to suggest a preliminary prosopography of Delian Jewish residents (including the Samaritans).

1. (1)

   (1) Associated with GD no. 80:

   Lysimachus, Agathocles (ID 2328, 2329), also connected to House IIA of GD no. 79;

   Laodice (ID 2330), does the name suggest Laodicean origin?

   Marcia (ID 2332);

   Zosas the Parian (ID 2331).

2. (2)

   (2) The Samaritan enclave:

   1. (a)

      (a) Benefactors:

      Menippos, son of Artemidoros, of Herakleion, early 2d century BCE (inscription 2);

      Sarapion, son of Jason, of Knossos, late 2d to early 1 st century BCE (inscription 1);

   2. (b)

      (b) others:

      Praülos Samareus, early 1st century BCE (ID 2661:11,53).

3. (3)

   (3) Funerary inscriptions (from Rheneia), “Jewish” identification based on wording of formulas from LXX; connections uncertain; Heraclea and Marthina, late 2d to early 1st century BCE (Dittenberger, Sylloge, no. 1181; discussed by Deissmann, Light, 413 – 15); NB: texts are parallel curses, as both of the above young women were murdered; cf. CIG II, add. no. 2322 (69,78) for the same names from Rheneia epitaphs.

⁶¹ The restored plan (fig. 2) is based on the field plan of Bruneau, Les cultes de Délos, pl. B, which may be consulted for details of archaeological survey.

⁶² It should be noted that the areas to the north, south, and west of GD no. 80 were never excavated, and that there is evidence of other construction integral to the building, esp. in the areas to the north and west. Thus, note the bonded corner at Q and the wall extension (unbonded) at P.

⁶³ Note the uncharacteristic use of mixed stone and marble spoils, including several large inscribed blocks of white marble reused from the area of the stadion. This section of the wall PT tends to be thicker at points than is typical of the remaining shell inPQUT. See Bruneau, “Israelites,” 492–94, esp. for the importance of these reused stones for dating the construction. See below, n. 76.

⁶⁴ Notice that a wall-spur extending to the north is bonded to wall PQ at P (see above, n. 62).

⁶⁵ Mazur, Studies, 17. Goodenough and Kraabel concur in seeing the basic architecture of the building as domestic, but do not think that a full peristyle ever existed. For the peristyle in Delian domestic architecture, see Chamonard, Joseph, Le Quartier du Théâtre (EAD 8.2; Paris: Bocard, 1924) 245–63.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ “La Synagogue Juive de Délos,” RB 11 (1914) 524–25.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Les cultes de Délos, 483. This observation would also rule out Mazur's contention for a peristyle court.

⁶⁸ Mazur had assumed that these continued some 18 m to the east terminating in a north-south stylobate to form the peristyle. Bruneau, however (Les cultes de Délos, 483), argues that they are likely later constructions, which never had anything to do with the building as a synagogue, and certainly were not part of a peristyle (since MN and KJ were at a lower level and L ^1–2 were higher, abutting the step of the stylobate).

⁶⁹ Cf. Chamonard, Le Quartier du Théâtre, 254–75. Cf. also the construction in the stylobate of the sanctuary in the House of the Poseidoniasts (GD no. 57); see Picard, C., L' établissement des Poseidoniastes de Berytos (EAD 6; Paris: Bocard, 1921) 33–38.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Plassart, “Synagogue de Délos,” 525 (which includes a photograph from the excavations in 1913).

⁷¹ Chamonard, Le Quartier du Théâtre, 245–46 and pl. XXVII. The entablature which carried the roof would have risen just under 1 m above that; cf. Picard, L'établissement, 34 – 35.

⁷² See Bruneau's field plan. Notice that the square stand was flanked by two holes, perhaps for a stand or supports of some sort. This natural rock is within 5 cm of the altimetric level of the north stereobate MN. Square bases with pylons were found in the ruins of GD no. 80, and may suggest the existence of some sort of fence or railing around the portico and/or across the front of the tristoa (i.e., from O to Z, fig. 2).

⁷³ A detailed view of the construction shows it to consist of two low masonry sections (W:ca 1.00 – 1.02m), which extend approximately 3 m into the court. It appears that L ² may be bonded to the masonry of the stereobate (lower courses) of MK, and is an integral construction. The ground level of the court is ca 75 cm below the marble step of MK, and the area (W:2.73m) between L ¹, and L ² shows signs of being built up in such a way as to decline to ground level. I conjecture a stair in three steps (see figs. 2 and 6).

⁷⁴ IG 1087, 1923 (bis), 1928 found in situ in wall PT; ID 1152 found beside wall SR. Bruneau, “Israelites,” 492 – 93 and fig. 11 (with schematic of placements).

⁷⁵ Ibid., 497. On the basis of the same evidence, Plassart had suggested that the synagogue building was not built until after 88 BCE, while Mazur suggested that the house (not a synagogue) was destroyed in 88 and rebuilt sometime after 69 BCE.

⁷⁶ For the physical description see above. It should be noted that almost all the identifiable gymnasion spoils were used in rebuilding PT, while only one is in SR. A further aspect of the renovation of A/B is that the larger proportions of the new partition wall SR suggest that it was meant to carry a high(er?) ceiling. This too may correspond with Bruneau's suggestion of an embellishment (or perhaps a rebuilding after damage?) of the structure either before or after 88 BCE.

⁷⁷ Bruneau, P., et al., L'îlot de la Maison des Comédiens (EAD 27; Paris: Bocard, 1970) 71–79.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Picard, L'établissement, 21 – 26. Notice that in the “little court” before the sanctuary the intercolumniations of the stoa were closed by marble railing. Some sort of railing around the portico is not unlikely for the synagogue edifice as well, since it would have been open to view. In support of this possibility, notice the two holes in the center of the remaining slab of the stylobate. It does not seem likely that they were meant to anchor a column (which typically on Delos uses a different type of stud). Thus, it is possible that they represent a base or closure for a gate of some sort.

⁷⁹ See my forthcoming article, “God Comes to Delos: An Architectural and Social History of Sarapeion A,” which discusses the adaptation of an existing insula of buildings for the construction of a temple to the Egyptian god Sarapis by a private cultic association.

⁸⁰ These terms represent formal designations for professional guilds as well as religious associations in the Greek world. See Poland, Franz, Geschichte der griechische Vereinswesen (Leipzig: Teubner, 1960)Google Scholar. The House of the Poseidoniasts has several inscriptions which carry the formal self-designation of the community as: τ⋯ κοιν⋯ν Βερυτίων Ποσειδονιαστ⋯ν ⋯μπόρων κα⋯ ναυκλήρων κα⋯ ⋯γδοχέων τ⋯ν οἶκον κα⋯ τ⋯ν στο⋯ν κα⋯ τ⋯ χρηστήρια θεοῖς πατρίοις ⋯νέθηκεν (“the community of the Poseidoniasts of Berytos, merchants, shippers, and entrepreneurs, dedicate the edifice, the stoa, and the appurtenances to their ancestral gods”). Cf. Bruneau, Les cultes de Délos, 623–24.

⁸¹ Cf. the Jewish inscription from the theater at Miletus, which calls the Jews by the title or epithet θεοσεβίον (“god-revering”), which is very similar to the kind of collegial title that we find for other groups. Cf. Deissmann, Light, 451 –52. On the use of θεοσεβές see Kraabel, A. T., “The Disappearance of the ‘God-Fearers,’ “Numen 28 (1981) 113–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and most recently an inscription from Aphrodisias as reported by Tannenbaum, Robert F., “Jews and God-Fearers in the Holy City of Aphrodite,” BAR 12:5 (Sept.-Oct., 1986) 54–57Google Scholar. See also Louis H. Feldman, “The Omnipresence of the God-Fearers” in ibid., 58–63, 64–69; and Robert S. MacKinnon and A. T. Kraabel, “The God-Fearers—A Literary and Theological Invention,” in ibid., 46–53, 64.

On proedria as honors for benefactors, see MacMullen, Ramsay, Roman Social Relations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974)Google Scholar 74–80. Typically, the thronos of GD no. 80 has been referred to by the later Rabbinic convention of the “Moses Seat”; however, it is not impossible that what we have here is a Proedrion, either for the major donor (or patron) or for the leader of the group. In many cases the same individual occupies both roles, so see Cl. Tiberius Polycharmus, “father of the synagogue at Stobi” (CIJ 694); Samuel bar Yed'aya, priest, archon, and elder of the Dura-Europos synagogue (CIJ 829); Theodoras, archisynagogos of the synagogue on Aegina (CIJ 722); and Theodotus, archisynagogus and priest of a synagogue at Jerusalem (CIJ 1404). For other cases of synagogues organized (at least from the official or public side) as collegial associations see also CIJ 1441, 1442, 1447 (synagogues with leaders designated as “presidents”), CPJ I, 138 (a burial society which meets in the synagogue), CJP I, 139 (a collegial banquet at the synagogue). Likewise, Harry Leon suggests that some of the eleven different synagogue groupings known from Rome may derive from social organization and polarization by profession (i.e., as a collegium) as opposed to other groups which were drawn together by ethnic or language ties (The Jews of Ancient Rome, 168 – 74).

⁸² Construction of a gateway (πρόναος) for the synagogue at Mantineia, Greece (IG V.2,295 = CIJ 720); cf. CIJ 781, 1441. For a broad collection of inscriptions relating to synagogue donations and decorations, see Lifshitz, Baruch, Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives (Paris: Gabalda, 1967).Google Scholar

⁸³ Josephus Ant. 14.233 (the Jews of Halicarnassus built their proseuchē near the shore).

⁸⁴ Kraabel (“New Evidence,” 45) offers the tantalizing hint that GD no. 80 might have been the Samaritans’ synagogue edifice as described in the two inscriptions; Bruneau had rejected this idea. Given the Samaritan use of the epithet Hypsistos (which we observed in Ps-Eupolemus) and the formal similarities to other collegial organizations on Delos (both the Samaritan group and others), we should not rule out this possibility

⁸⁵ See above, n. 10. Also see Joachim Jeremias’ suggestion regarding the Ophel synagogue inscription of Theodotus (CIJ 1404), which may derive from a pre-70 synagogue in Jerusalem; see Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975)Google Scholar 65–66; see also Deissmann, Light, 493. Jeremias, consulting Talmudic sources, suggests that this synagogue, which makes special provision for guest chambers for pilgrims, was established by and for Diaspora Jews who would have been visiting Jerusalem for the major feasts. Though it has sometimes been equated with the “synagogue of the Libertines” known from Acts 6:9, Jeremias would prefer to call it the “synagogue of the Alexandrians” or “Tarsians.” Nonetheless, it suggests the line of development from the Diaspora experience of communal identity. See Kraabel, “Social Systems,” 81–83; idem, “SynagogaCaeca,”219–21.