¹ White, L. Michael, “Synagogue and Society in Imperial Ostia: Archaeological and Epi-graphic Evidence,” HTR 90 (1997) 23–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar , reprinted in Donfried, Karl P. and Richardson, Peter, eds., Judaism and Christianity in First Century Rome (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998) 30–68.Google Scholar In this version White makes minor textual changes and rearranges the footnotes, which do not affect his conclusions. However, White also changes the terminology of building techniques in a way that I believe leads to confusion. The term opus latericium was replaced by opus listatum (Judaism and Christianity, 41, 47, 49), although opus listatum is a synonym for opus vittatum, not for opus latericium (see, for example, Heres, Theodora Leonore, Paries: A Proposal for a Dating System of Late-Antique Masonry Structures in Rome and Ostia [Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1982] 12).Google Scholar This change results in confusion, where opus vittatum and opus listatum are referred to as two different techniques (Judaism and Christianity, 47). White also alters his definition of opus vittatum masonry: in the HTR article he made a distinction between types a and b, but in the Judaism and Christianity version he calls it only opus vittatum (Judaism and Christianity, 43, 47, 49). The same simplification is made regarding opus reticulatum mixtum a, which is changed to opus reticulatum (43). These last changes are not significant, however, since White's plans (figs. 3 and 4) make these distinctions clear. Furthermore, in the later version White confuses the different techniques of opus vittatum mixtum and opus vittatum simplex, taking these to be one single type under the inconsistent name of opus vittatum mixtum simplex (Judaism and Christianity, 41). Additional minor changes include the deletion of the information that the northernmost door between area A and G was “a secondary insertion into the opus reticulatum wall” (Judaism and Christianity, 43; HTR, 31). For these reasons, I recommend that the reader study the article published in HTR instead of the version in Judaism and Christianity. White's analysis of the archaeological remains at Ostia has also been published in idem, The Social Origins of Christian Architecture, vol. 2: Texts and Monuments for the Christian Domus Ecclesiae in its Environment (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1997) 379-97. A short description is to be found in the first volume of this work: idem, The Social Origins of Christian Architecture, vol. 1: Building Gods House in the Roman World: Architectural Adaptation among Pagans, Jews and Christians (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1990) 69-71, 79.

² At the end of his study, White includes observations regarding some inscriptions from , Puteoli (“Synagogue and Society,” 49–50).Google Scholar Unfortunately, White does not discuss the important Plotius Fortunatus inscription, although he does once (“Synagogue and Society,” 38, n. 41) mention the article by Maria Floriani Squarciapino in which this inscription is published for the first time (Squarciapino, Maria Floriani, “Plotius Fortunatus archisynagogus,” La Rassegna mensile di Israel 36 [1970])Google Scholar . It seems that White believes the inscription belongs to Portus, though this belief is not supported by the evidence; it is clearly to be referred to Ostia, where it was found (“Plotius Fortunatus,” 187-88). The early date of the inscription (1st to 2nd century CE) makes it all the more interesting for students of the synagogue building. For date and description, see Noy, David, Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe, vol. 1: Italy (excluding the City of Rome), Spain, and Gaul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) no. 14 (plate VII)Google Scholar.

³ Floriani Squarciapino's writings on the synagogue and related issues include the following titles: Squarciapino, Maria Floriani, “La sinagoga di Ostia,” Bollettino d'arte (1961) 326–37Google Scholar ; eadem, “La sinagoga recentemente scoperta ad Ostia,” Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia 3.34 (1961–1962) 119-32; eadem, “Die Synagoge von Ostia antica,” Raggi: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte und Archäologie 4 (1962) 1–8Google Scholar ; eadem, “La sinagoga di Ostia: Seconda campagna di scavo,” Atti di VI Congresso internazionale di archeologia cristiana, 1962 (Rome: Pontifical Press, 1965) 299–315Google Scholar ; eadem, “Die Synagoge von Ostia nach der Zweiten Ausgrabungskampagne,” Raggi: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte und Archäologie 5 (1963) 13–17Google Scholar ; eadem, “The Synagogue at Ostia,” Archaeology 16 (1963) 194–203Google Scholar ; eadem, “The Most Ancient Synagogue Known from Monumental Remains,” Illustrated London News, Sept. 28 (1963) 468–71Google Scholar ; eadem, “Ebrei a Roma e ad Ostia,” Studi Romani 11 (1963) 129–41Google Scholar ; eadem, La sinagoga di Ostia (Rome: Editzione della Communità, 1964)Google Scholar ; eadem, “Plotius Fortunatus archisynagogus,” 183–91.Google Scholar

It should be noted that Floriani Squarciapino's 1964 study, La sinagoga di Ostia, is not, as White states (“Synagogue and Society,” 28, n. 16), a second publication of the “Sinagoga di Ostia: Seconda campagna” article. Instead, it is an independent publication written at the invitation of Fausto Pitigliani, president of the Jewish community of Rome, to serve as a pamphlet for visitors interested in Jewish history in Rome. This pamphlet does not contain new information apart from a couple of photographs. In addition, “The Synagogue at Ostia” is not just a summary of the “Sinagoga di Ostia: Seconda campagna” article (“Synagogue and Society,” 28, n. 16), but contains new information as it was written following the completion of the second season excavations while “Sinagoga di Ostia: Seconda campagna” was not. White is correct in his observation, however, that in general “The Synagogue at Ostia” is weak in detail and documentation.

⁴ For a list of authors who have taken part in the discussion on the synagogue, see , White, “Synagogue and Society,” 27–28, n. 16.Google Scholar To these may be added Brilliant, Richard, “Jewish Art and Culture in Ancient Italy,” in Mann, Vivian B., ed., Gardens and Ghettos (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989) 74–77Google Scholar ; Chevallier, R., Ostie antique: ville et port (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1986)Google Scholar ; Fine, Steven and Pergola, Miriam Delia, “The Synagogue of Ostia and its Torah Shrine,” in Westenholz, Joan Goodnick, ed., The Jewish Presence in Ancient Rome (Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum, 1994) 42–57Google Scholar ; Guarducci, Margherita, Epigrafia Greca III. Epigrafi di Carattere privato (Rome: Istituto poligrafico dello stato, 1974) 15–17Google Scholar ; Hachlili, Rachel, Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Diaspora (Leiden: Brill, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Krinsky, Carol Herselle, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985) 360–62Google Scholar ; Noy, David, Jewish Inscriptions, 1. 22-30, 32–35Google Scholar (apart from the analysis of the inscriptions, Noy has included a discussion of the synagogue and its history); Pavolini, Carlo, La vita quotidiana a Ostia (Rome: Laterza, 1986) 163–64Google Scholar ; Rabello, Alfredo Mordechai, “Ostia,” Encyclopedia Judaica 12 (1971) 1506–1509Google Scholar ; Zappa, Giulia Garofalo, “Nuovi bolli laterizi di Ostia,” in Terza Miscellanea Greca e Romana (Rome: Istituto Italiano, 1971) 283–85Google Scholar ; Zevi, Fausto, “La sinagoga di Ostia,” Rassegna mensile di Israel 38 (1972) 131–45Google Scholar ; Zovatto, Paolo Lino, “Le antiche synagoghe di Aquileia e di Ostia,” Memorie storicheforogiuliesi 44 (1960-1961) 53–63.Google Scholar Unfortunately, with few exceptions these authors do not present a comprehensive analysis of the synagogue building, nor do they discuss the social situation of the Jews at Ostia or relate the evidence to other Diaspora synagogues.

A dissertation on ancient synagogues, including an analysis of the synagogue at Ostia, is scheduled to be published by Scholars Press in 1999: Binder, Donald D., “Into the Temple Courts: The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Methodist University, 1997) 257–67.Google Scholar See his website at “Book Excerpts” (http://www.smu.edu./~dbinder/book.html). Binder is critical of White's reconstruction of the synagogue's first phase, but focuses his discussion on White's interpretation of the Mindius Faustus inscription.

The first major publication on the synagogue is a forthcoming study by Olof Brandt, Jerker Blomqvist, and Birger Olsson, eds., The Synagogue of Ancient Ostia and the Jews of Rome: Inter-disciplinary Studies, due in 1999. This book, a result of a project on the ancient synagogue at the University of Lund, Sweden, includes the following articles (in order of appearance): Olof Brandt, “The Quarter Surrounding the Synagogue at Ostia”; Anders Runesson, “The Synagogue at Ancient Ostia: The Building and its History From the First to the Fifth Century”; Magnus Zetterholm, “A Struggle Among Brothers: An Interpretation of the Relations Between Jews and Christians in Ostia”; Anders Runesson, “Water and Worship: Ostia and the Ritual Bath in the Diaspora Synagogue”; Irene von Görtz-Wrisberg, “A Sabbath Service at Ostia: What Do We Know About the Ancient Synagogal Service?”; Karin M. Hedner, “The Jewish Communities of Ancient Rome”; Sten Hidal, “Perniciosa ceteris gens: The Jews as the Roman Authors Saw Them”; Georg Walser, “The Greek of the Jews in Ancient Rome”; Per Å. Bengtsson, “Semitic Inscriptions in Rome.”

⁵ Squarciapino, Floriani, “La sinagoga di Ostia,” 326.Google Scholar Compare eadem, “La sinagoga di Ostia: Seconda campagna di scavo,” 299, n. 1.Google Scholar The same criticism is also put forward by , White, “Synagogue and Society,” 28, n. 16Google Scholar.

⁶ Zevi in 1970 stated that a final report would appear in a forthcoming volume of Scavi di Ostia (“La sinagoga di Ostia,” 137, n. 17). In 1995, Fine and Delia Pergola reported that Floriani Squarciapino was working on her final report (“Torah shrine,” 43). I received the same information in 1998.

⁷ The supposed ritual bath just inside the main entrance to the right is one feature still undocumented (fig. 1, area B₁). The bath is no longer visible for inspection, and no photograph showing it in its entirety has been published. Neither its measurements (it has only been described as “shallow”) nor an analysis of its history have been presented. Nevertheless, it is strange that White does not mention its existence in his studies or include it in his plan restoration of the synagogue. (The bath is not included in my own reconstruction of the earliest phase of the synagogue [fig. 2] because I believe it was constructed in a later phase.) I have elsewhere tried to give as close a description as possible of the bath and to present an analysis of its history, relating it to other evidence of ritual baths in the Diaspora (see n. 4 above, Runesson, “The Synagogue at Ancient Ostia,” section 3.1 and 3.2, and idem, “Water and Worship”).

⁸ See Kraabel, Alf Thomas, “The Diaspora Synagogue: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence since Sukenik,” ANRW 2 (1979) 477–510Google Scholar , reprinted in Urman, Dan and Flesher, Paul V. M., eds., Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 1. 95–126, 118Google Scholar.

⁹ , White, “Synagogue and Society,” 36.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Ibid., 36.

¹¹ Ibid., 37.

¹² Ibid., 36.

¹³ Ibid.

¹⁴ Runesson, “The Synagogue at Ancient Ostia,” section 3.

¹⁵ , White, “Synagogue and Society,” 31.Google Scholar

¹⁶ , White, Social Origins, 1. 62–64.Google Scholar

¹⁷ , White, “Synagogue and Society,” 33–35.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ibid., 36.

¹⁹ Ibid., 33.

²⁰ Ibid.

²¹ Ibid.

²² Note that no report from the excavations of this edifice has been published.

²³ , White, “Synagogue and Society,” 33.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid., 33.

²⁵ FIoriani Squarciapino, “The Synagogue at Ostia,” 201. See also the photograph on p. 202.

²⁶ , White, Social Origins, 2. 387.Google Scholar

²⁷ , White, “Synagogue and Society,” 34.Google Scholar

²⁸ Ibid., 35, n. 34.

²⁹ Ibid., 35.

³⁰ Pavolini, Carlo, “Ostia (Roma): Saggi Lungo la via severiana,” Notizie degli Scavi di Antichita (Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei) 8.35 (1981) 115–143, 142.Google Scholar

³¹ White suggests that “the main door in B₂ … seems to have been widened” (“Synagogue and Society,” 32). While White is correct that the triportal entry was a product of the second major renovation (the doors from the east into B₁ and B₃ were created at that time), no evidence exists of a widening of the main door during any of the renovations of the building.

³² , White, “Synagogue and Society,” 33, n. 28Google Scholar (referring to n. 27); the same reference is made in idem, Social Origins 2. 386, n. 158.

³³ Squarciapino, Floriani, “Seconda campagna,” 314–15.Google Scholar

³⁴ Squarciapino, Floriani, “The Synagogue at Ancient Ostia,” Archaeology (1963) 200.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ibid., 304.

³⁶ Ibid., 306.

³⁷ Ibid., 304, fig. 3.

³⁸ , White, “Synagogue and Society,” 33.Google Scholar

³⁹ Squarciapino, Floriani, “Seconda campagna,” 313Google Scholar , photograph on p. 314; eadem, “The Synagogue at Ostia,” 201, 203Google Scholar , photograph on p. 202.

⁴⁰ Squarciapino, Floriani, “The Synagogue at Ostia,” 201, 203.Google Scholar

⁴¹ , Zevi, “La sinagoga di Ostia,” 140.Google Scholar

⁴² Compare, for example, Squarciapino, Floriani, “La sinagoga di Ostia,” 327–28.Google Scholar

⁴³ , Zevi, “La sinagoga di Ostia,” 142.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ , White, “Synagogue and Society,” 36.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ibid., 32.

⁴⁶ Ibid., 33.

⁴⁷ Ibid., 35.

⁴⁸ For second campaign, see Squarciapino, Floriani, “Seconda campagna,” 314–15Google Scholar ; for White's reference, , White, “Synagogue and Society,” 32, n. 27Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Squarciapino, Compare Floriani, “Seconda campagna,” 313.Google Scholar The fact that the excavations were not completed at this time is clearly stated in the introduction to the article, 299.

⁵⁰ Squarciapino, Floriani, “The Synagogue at Ostia,” 203Google Scholar ; eadem, “Zweite Ausgrabungskampagne,” 16Google Scholar ; eadem, “The Most Ancient Synagogue,” 469Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Two floors seem clear from Squarciapino's, Floriani article “Zweite Ausgrabungskampagne,” 16Google Scholar , which states that the first-century floor was underneath the opus sectile floor.

⁵² Compare the relation between the floor and the remains of the benches in the first phase of area G (Squarciapino, Floriani, “Secundo campagna,” 311).Google Scholar

⁵³ Squarciapino, Floriani, “La sinagoga di Ostia,” 328.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See , Kraabel, “The Diaspora Synagogue,” 498Google Scholar ; idem, “The Excavated Synagogues of Late Antiquity from Asia Minor to Italy,” Internationaler Byzantinistenkongress 16.2 (2vols.; Vienna: 1982) 2. 227-36, 228; Meyers, Eric M. and Kraabel, A. Thomas, “Archaeology, Iconography, and Non-Literary Written Remains,” in Kraft, Robert A. and Nickelsburg, George W. E., eds., Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 175–210, 187Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ It seems as if White is not keeping the different phases of the building in mind all the time. In his “Synagogue and Society,” he says that the oven of area G speaks in favor of the private insula theory (35). However, the oven was not constructed until the beginning of the fourth century when this room was converted to other uses than those of the first and second phases.

⁵⁶ Compare Squarciapino, Floriani, “The most Ancient Synagogue,” 470.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See Hermansen, Gustav, Ostia: Aspects of Roman City Life (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 1981) 63, fig. 12.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See section 5.3. Compare the section on the guilds at Ostia in Meiggs, Russell, Roman Ostia (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1971) 311–36.Google Scholar Not all guilds were connected with trade: “Among the old-established guilds at Rome some were connected with public religion. Such religious guilds were not uncommon in imperial Ostia. Though serving a different purpose they closely resembled the trade guilds in organization, and offered similar social attractions in addition to their religious functions. They had their own guild houses, and a similar hierarchy of officers and patrons” (332).

⁵⁹ See also my “Water and Worship.”

⁶⁰ Noy, Compare, Jewish Inscriptions, 1, no. 14.Google Scholar

⁶¹ , White, “Synagogue and Society,” 36.Google Scholar

⁶² See Brandt, “The Quarter Surrounding the Synagogue at Ostia,” above, n. 4.

⁶³ See , Zevi, “La Sinagoga di Ostia,” 135Google Scholar ; , Meiggs, Roman Ostia, 587Google Scholar ; , Kraabel, “Diaspora Synagogues,” 499Google Scholar ; Rutgers, Leonard, “Diaspora Synagogues: Synagogue Archaeology in the Greco-Roman World,” in Fine, Steven, ed., Sacred Realm: The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996) 67–95, 70Google Scholar ; , Fine and Pergola, Delia, “Torah Shrine,” 43Google Scholar ; , Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, 1. 22Google Scholar ; , Chevallier, Ostie antique: ville et port, 252Google Scholar ; , Zappa, “Nuovi bolli,” 283–85Google Scholar ; , Pavolini, “Via Severiana,” 141Google Scholar ; Hempel, Heinz-Ludwig, “Synagogenfunde in Ostia Antica,” ZAW 74 (1962) 72–73Google Scholar , 72; Shanks, Hershel, Judaism in Stone (New York: Harper and Row, 1979) 162Google Scholar ; Pohl, Ingrid, Ostia: Roms hamnstad (Göteborg: P. Aström, 1983) 24Google Scholar ; Harsberg, Erling, Ostia: Roms Havneby (2d ed.; Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 1979) 144Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ For the excavator's opinion, see “La sinagoga di Ostia,” 327Google Scholar ; eadem, “The synagogue at Ostia,” 196Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ , White, “Synagogue and Society,” 28–29.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Ibid., 56, fig. 3.

⁶⁷ Ibid., 29. In n. 19 White states, “the secondary literature often dates the synagogue naively as ‘from the first century,’ thereby leaving a faulty impression.” In the same note he states that the edifice is “most likely from the time of Trajan or even Hadrian.”

⁶⁸ These three phases are the result of the major renovations of the building. However, a fourth phase is also possible if the period following the erecting of the aedicula in the middle of the fourth century is defined as an independent phase. Because this new installation does not affect the overall plan of the building in the way that the other renovations do, perhaps it is better to place it as a subphase to phase 3 (which began with the renovation in the early fourth century) and call it phase 3b. See my “The Synagogue at Ancient Ostia,” section 3.1.

⁶⁹ For a description of the relevant masonry techniques, see , White, “Synagogue and Society,” 57, fig. 4.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ , Meiggs, Ostia, 539.Google Scholar

⁷¹ White follows Boersma in using the term mixtum a; see “Synagogue and Society,” 57, fig. 4.Google Scholar

⁷² , Heres, Paries, 29 and n. 40, p. 38.Google Scholar She refers to the then-forthcoming study by Boersma, Johannes S. (Amoenissima Civitas [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985]) for supportGoogle Scholar.

⁷³ Squarciapino, Floriani, “Ebrei a Roma e ad Ostia,” 139–40.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ , White, “Synagogue and Society,” 28.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Ibid., 29, n. 19.

⁷⁶ , Zappa, “Nuovi bolli,” 285.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Ibid. The bricks were not found in their place, but on the fourth-century floor.

⁷⁸ Ibid.

⁷⁹ , Zevi, “La sinagoga di Ostia,” 140.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ , Pavolini, “Via Severiana,” 141.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Ibid., 141, n. 15. It is difficult to see why White does not mention Pavolini's dating or refer to the studies cited by Pavolini; they are not even included in his bibliography. Pavolini has retained this dating of the synagogue in his later writings (see La vita quotidiana a Ostia, 163, in which he states that it is positive that a first building phase goes back to the middle of the first century).

⁸² See , Meiggs, Ostia, 64–67Google Scholar ; and , Pavolini, “Via Severiana,” 142Google Scholar.

⁸³ , Pavolini, “Via Severiana,” 142.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Ibid.

⁸⁵ , Meiggs, “Ostia,” 658.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Ibid.

⁸⁷ Floriani Squarciapino, “Plotius Fortunatus.” See also , Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, 1. no. 14.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ , Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, 1. no. 14.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ See my “The Synagogue at Ancient Ostia,” section 5.2.1.

⁹⁰ Pavolini, Corapare, La vita quotidiana a Ostia, 163.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Binder (“Into the Temple Courts,” 236-52) is of the opinion that the Delos building could have been originally constructed as a synagogue. This article is not the place to discuss the Delos synagogue, but I will return to the question in a forthcoming study.

⁹² , White, “Synagogue and Society,” 38–53.Google Scholar

⁹³ The main inscriptions are, apart from the Plotius Fortunatus inscription, the Mindius Faustus and the Gaius Julius Justus inscriptions (, Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, 1. nos. 13 and 18).Google Scholar See also the Marcus Aurelius Pylades inscription (, Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, 1. no. 15).Google Scholar In an article from 1992 (“Iscrizioni da Ostia e Porto,” La cultura ebraica nell'editoria italiana [1955-1990]. Repertorio bibligrafico [Rome: Istituto poligrafico e zecca dello stato, 1992] 185–87)Google Scholar , Maria Letizia Lazzarini mentions some unpublished Jewish inscriptions from Ostia, one of which is said to have been found in the floor of the synagogue's vestibule (i.e., the same place where the Mindius Faustus inscription was found). Both sides of this marble plaque carry an inscription, one in Latin and the other in Greek. The Greek one mentions a λραμματενß. Because Lazzarini provides no details nor the date of the inscription (or the other inscriptions), the final report from the excavations must be awaited before these inscriptions are included in a discussion of epigraphic material.

⁹⁴ White, Compare, “Synagogue and Society,” 52.Google Scholar Floriani Squarciapino has come to the same conclusion; see, for example, “Ebrei a Roma e ad Ostia” and “Plotius Fortunatus archisynagogus.”

⁹⁵ See, for example, “Synagogue and Society,” 52.

⁹⁶ This inscription was reused, and the name Mindius Faustus was inscribed in the third century. The name of the original donor from the second century was erased and is therefore unknown.

⁹⁷ In one of the walls created during this renovation, a coin was found from Maxentius' reign. This coin provides a terminus post quern for the second major renovation of 306 CE. The use of opus vittatum in this renovation also dates when the changes to the building were made.

⁹⁸ Squarciapino, Compare Floriani, “Hebrei a Roma e ad Ostia,” 140.Google Scholar Floriani Squarciapino conjectures from inscriptions found at Portus that two Jewish communities at Ostia could have existed: one in the city of Ostia and one at the harbors (the harbors belonged to Ostia until the time of Constantine).

⁹⁹ See my “The Synagogue at Ancient Ostia,” section 5.2.1.

¹⁰⁰ Compare Brandt, “The Quarter Surrounding the Synagogue at Ostia.” Among other things, Brandt calls attention to the remains of what is likely to be the Basilica of Constantine, which was discovered in 1996 by the German Institute during geophysical prospections.

¹⁰¹ Zetterholm, “A Struggle Among Brothers.”

¹⁰² , Harsberg, Ostia: Roms Havneby, 150.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Zevi, Compare, “La sinagoga di Ostia,” 138, 144.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ , Zevi, “La sinagoga di Ostia,” 144.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ For a detailed analysis of the building's architectural development and a discussion about its location and orientation as well as its dating and identification as a synagogue during all its phases, I refer to my forthcoming “The Synagogue at Ancient Ostia.”

¹⁰⁶ Compare Kraabel, “The Diaspora Synagogue.” Kraabel is of the opinion that the building was a synagogue from the beginning (498), but nevertheless expresses some doubts regarding its original layout: “But would a first century synagogue contain something so ‘temple-like’ as that four-column entrance? Perhaps, but a simpler design would be more likely” (499).

¹⁰⁷ For a description of the guilds of Ostia see, for example, , Hermansen, Ostia: Aspects of Roman City Life, 55–123.Google Scholar Concerning monumentality as one of the characteristics revealing a building as a seat of a guild, see p. 74.

¹⁰⁸ See, for example, the descriptions of the great synagogue of Alexandria in t. Sukk. 4.6 (b. Sukk. 51b; cf. Philo Leg. Gaj. 134). Likewise, the synagogue of Tiberias is reported by Josephus to have been an imposing structure (Vit. 54, 277).