CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

THE JEWISH IMAGE OF GOD IN LATE ANTIQUITY*

The significance of the depiction of the sun god as the central figure
of the zodiac mosaics found in many Palestinian synagogues of late
antiquity has been long debated. The most artistically sophisticated
of these depictions, that found in the Hammat Tiberias mosaic, vari-
ously dated between the beginning and the end of the fourth century
CE,1 was only one example of a common motif which appears also
in a less impressive form at Naaran and in near-caricature in the
sixth-century synagogue at Beth Alpha, while the synagogue mosaic
at Sepphoris simply illustrated the shining sun.2 Both inscriptions and
the distinctively Jewish iconography of the other mosaic floors in
the synagogues demonstrate that the buildings in question served a
religious purpose for Jews.3 So what, in the mind of the artist ( Jew
or gentile) or the commissioning patron or patrons or community,
was the function of the apparently pagan image situated so as to
confront Jews at their feet as they worshipped?
Over the years various suggestions have been made. An early
hypothesis that the synagogue decoration reflected the taste of non-
Jewish, perhaps imperial, patrons has come to seem less attractive

* I am grateful for comments on this paper from Jas’ Elsner and the editors of
this volume, and to participants in seminars on this subject in Oxford, London and
Southampton as well as in New York.
1
M. Dothan, Hammat Tiberias: Early Synagogues and the Hellenistic and Roman Remains
( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983). On the date, see M. Goodman, “The
Roman State and the Jewish Patriarch in the Third Century,” in Galilee in Late
Antiquity (ed. L.I. Levine; Jerusalem and New York: Jewish Theological Seminary,
1992), 130, n. 11, and J. Magness, “Archaeological Testimonies: Helios and the
Zodiac Cycle in Ancient Palestinian Synagogues,” in Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power
of the Past (Albright Centennial Volume) (ed. W.G. Dever and S. Gitin; Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 363–89.
2
Z. Weiss and E. Netzer, Promise and Redemption: A Synagogue Mosaic from Sepphoris
( Jerusalem: The Israel Museum, 1996).
3
For the inscriptions from Hammat Tiberias, see Dothan, Hammat Tiberias, 52–62;
on the common Jewish symbols (lulavim, shofar, etc.) found in the other mosaics,
see E.R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Graeco-Roman Period (13 vols.; New York:
Pantheon Books, 1953–1968).
206 chapter seventeen

as the wide extent of the phenomenon has come to be realized.4

Nor does the ascription of such motifs to deviant, non-rabbinic Jews
carry much weight since the discovery that the Hammat Tiberias
mosaic was dedicated by, among others, a member of the household
of the patriarch.5 Claims that the zodiacs were primarily intended
as calendrical reminders of the passing months are possible in the
general sense that they may celebrate the order inherent in God’s
universe,6 but as strict calendars their use is questionable in the
light of the inaccuracies of the Beth Alpha mosaicist, who failed to
correlate the signs correctly with the seasons;7 but in any case, the
hypothesis fails to explain the depiction of the sun god in human
form, presumably a deliberate choice at Hammat Tiberias, Naaran
and Beth Alpha since the Sepphoris mosaicist took a different path
and showed the sun as a shining orb.8 The assertion by Morton
Smith that the sun god depicted “a great angel, important for the
liturgy,”9 based on the image of Helios as a celestial figure in the
mystical treatise Sefer Harazim, has the merit of connecting the visual
to the literary remains from late antiquity but raises the difficult
question, so far unanswered, of the reason why Jews might depict
this angel as so central a figure in their iconography.
My suggestion in this paper is that all previous discussions of these
mosaics have shied away unnecessarily from the interpretation that the
divine figure depicted in the center of a Jewish place of worship may
have been intended to represent the God of the Jews. In the context

4
See the discussion in E.L. Sukenik, Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece
(London: Milford, 1934), 62–63.
5
For this argument, see Goodenough, Jewish Symbols; on the inscription by Severus,
see Dothan, Hammat Tiberias, 57–60. The view that the mosaic is “non-rabbinic”
is also proposed by L.I. Levine, The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity
( Jerusalem and New York: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and Jewish Theological Seminary,
1989), 178–81.
6
Calendrical argument in Dothan, Hammat Tiberias, 49; S. Fine, This Holy Place:
On the Sanctity of the Synagogue during the Graeco-Roman Period (Christianity and Judaism
in Antiquity Series 11; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997), 124,
200–1 (with extensive bibliography). For the more general interpretation and wide
discussion, see G. Foerster, “Representations of the Zodiac in Ancient Synagogues,”
ErIsr 18 (1985): 380–91; idem, “The Zodiac in the Ancient Synagogue and its Place
in Jewish Thought and Literature,” ErIsr 19 (1987): 225–34 (both in Hebrew).
7
Cf. G. Stemberger, “Die Bedeutung des Tierkreises auf Mosaikböden spätantiker
Synagogen,” Kairos 17 (1975): 23–56.
8
Weiss and Netzer, Promise and Redemption, 35–36.
9
M. Smith, “Helios in Palestine,” ErIsr 16 (1982): 199*–214*, esp. p. 210*.