Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22
Journal for
the Study of
Judaism
brill.com/jsj
The “Elephant Mosaic” Panel from the Huqoq
Synagogue: Ehud Ben Gera in Jewish-Galilean
Traditions
Avraham Yoskovich
University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
Yoskov@gmail.com
Abstract
The so-called Elephant Mosaic panel from the Huqoq synagogue floor has sparked
intense scholarly debate regarding its interpretation. This article proposes a biblical episode as its topic: the killing of the Moabite king Eglon by Ehud ben Gera
(Judges 3). Reading the panels as a unified composition, the biblical-midrashic interpretation offered here combines biblical elements with their rabbinic interpretations.
The importance of the latter inheres in their reflection of the Galilean milieu contemporary with the Huqoq community. The suggested interpretation also shares common
motifs with another source, Megillat Antiochus, thus raising the question of whether,
as interpreted here, the Byzantine artistic elements shed light on how the Huqoq community portrayed biblical themes and transmitted later traditions, especially those
connected to divine deliverance.
Keywords
Elephant mosaic – late antique synagogues – Byzantine Jewish art – rabbinic sages –
Galilean Jewish communities – pictorial and written traditions – Megillat Antiochus
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/15700631-bja10032
2
Figure 1
Yoskovich
Elephant mosaic panel from the Huqoq Synagogue
Reproduction permission by Jodi Magness
Photo: Jim Haberman
Introduction1
Since its discovery in the 2013/14 season at Huqoq, the “elephant mosaic”
panel (see Fig. 1). has sparked a number of interpretations.2 Initially mainly
1 I wish to thank everyone who challenged and helped refine my thinking, including attendees
on the few occasions when I lectured on this mosaic; in particular: Adi Erlich, Avigail ManekinBamberger, Dena Ordan, Hanan Mazeh, Ivri Bunis, Michael Shenkar, Oded Lauv, and Zeev
(Zabo) Erlich.
2 The expedition by the University of North Carolina, which started in June 2011, is being
conducted in cooperation with the IAA and funded by Brigham Young University, Trinity
University (Texas), University of Oklahoma, and University of Toronto. On the mosaic floor,
see Magness et al., “Huqoq—2015”; Magness et al., “Huqoq and Synagogue Mosaics.” Based on
the fill below the mosaic, the excavators adduce no proof for the existence of the synagogue
before the fifth century CE. See Magness et al., “Huqoq—2013”; Britt and Boustan, Elephant
Mosaic Panel, 23. With the publication of the interim report, no reservations were expressed
regarding the proposal put forth in the earlier report: see Magness et al., “Huqoq: Interim
Report.” Earlier Asher Ovadiah and Rosario Pierri published their controversial suggestion
Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22
“ Elephant Mosaic ” Panel from the Huqoq Synagogue
3
Alexandrian and Maccabean/Hasmonean in nature, more recently, one biblical
and one late Roman/early rabbinic period interpretation have been proposed.3
The proposal put forth here considers contemporary setting and local traditions as tools to argue that, like the other more recently uncovered mosaics,
this is a biblical scene; and, furthermore, that this scene reflects knowledge
of contemporary Galilean traditions. This biblical-midrashic approach has the
ability to elucidate elements that remain puzzling in the other explanations
offered to date.4
If the other proposals are grounded in written sources that precede the dating of the archeological finds by several centuries, the rabbinic sources consulted here belong to the same timeframe as the Huqoq community, whose
artistic output we are trying to interpret, and also originate in the same geographic setting. Notwithstanding the ongoing debate regarding the role and
influence of the rabbis on Jewish society, I think that affinities between archeological findings from the Roman-Byzantine period and the contemporary
Jewish sources have been exemplified, along with their limitations.5 In any
event, I would argue that salient content from the contemporary literature
cannot be disregarded.6
3
4
5
6
(see at present: “Mosaic Panel with Warlike Scenes”); they and Gittleman (“Judging Samson”)
supported the Maccabean interpretation. Meir Ben Shahar delivered a talk on the mosaic
at the December 2017 AJS conference (“Mosaics and Warriors: War and Redemption in Late
Antique Palestinian Synagogues”). See below for references to other recent suggestions. More
images are available in the above-mentioned articles and reports by the excavators.
All in a recent issue of Journal of Roman Archaeology: see Dunbabin, “Interpretations of
Elephant Mosaic”; Balty, “Mosaïque à l’éléphant”; Talgam, “Illustration of Third Book”;
Gordon and Weiss, “Samuel and Saul”; Erlich, “Patriarch and Emperor.”
A similar approach to another Galilean synagogue mosaic was applied by Leibner (“Illustrated
Midrash”) to the episode of Egyptian soldiers in the Red Sea, an episode shared with Huqoq’s
synagogue pavement. Interestingly, Britt and Boustan related to Leibner’s interpretation in
their recent publication (Magness et al., “Huqoq: Interim Report,” 105-6) and confirm, in an
appropriately cautious manner, that “these and other correspondences between visual and
textual evidence” can contribute to an understanding of “the relationship between rabbinic
literature and late antique synagogues.” See further below.
Fine, “Liturgical Interpretation,” 402; Weiss, “Rabbinic Literature”; Hezser, “Correlating
Sources,” esp. 14-19; Levine, “Synagogue Art and Rabbis.” For an example of the interpretation of a mosaic synagogue floor from Sepphoris in line with a midrash, see Weiss, “Biblical
Stories,” 262-65.
For a detailed discussion of the availability of the earlier sources in fifth-century Jewish society, see Talgam, “Illustration of Third Book,” 8 (First Maccabees), 10-11 (Third Maccabees).
Methodologically Ben Shahar’s proposal (“Mosaics and Warriors”) takes a tack similar to the
one suggested here. Recently, Gordon and Weiss (“Samuel and Saul”) presented the same
methodological argument; see below.
Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22
4
Yoskovich
The various proposals, including my own, are circumscribed by their sole
reliance on the elephant mosaic. Ultimately, every proposal must be examined
in a broader perspective, as Talgam has noted.7 Now that a more comprehensive description of the mosaic floor and its architectural context is available,
support for a biblical interpretation comes from the identification of other
scenes found in the synagogue to date: strikingly, these include stories of biblical salvation such as the drowning of the Egyptians in the Red Sea, Noah’s
ark, Jonah in the whale, and especially of heroic figures such as Samson.8
Until recently, such scenes have not been known from Galilean synagogues.9
Recently, Gordon and Weiss argued for a biblical interpretation of the panel,
based on the greater recognizability of such scenes by Jewish villagers:
The Hebrew Bible, in other words, is by far the likeliest source for the
Elephant panel. The Bible is the source of every other episodic scene
exposed thus far in the synagogue, like every other episodic scene uncovered in any other late-antique synagogue. Biblical possibilities should
be exhausted before turning to extra-Biblical episodes, and especially to
ones that would have been unknown to all but the exceptionally wellversed in works of Jewish history.10
Although in agreement with their underlying assumptions, I take issue with
their identification of the scene.
Its “Greek” elements—clothing, military array, and elephants—underpin
the interpretations of the mosaic as a postbiblical episode reflected in the
literature related to the Maccabees. However, given the known presence of
anachronistic elements in Byzantine mosaics in general and strikingly so in
our mosaic, these “Greek” features do not suffice, on their own, to support such
interpretations. However, in the case of the elephants, this not a contemporary
image of the artist projected directly on the past; rather the artist used ancient
elements to depict even more ancient scenes.11 There is good reason to believe
7 Talgam, “Illustration of Third Book”; and as noted by Weiss, “Biblical Stories,” 251.
8Other recent finds were two figures carrying grapes with a Hebrew inscription from Num
13, alongside the zodiac with Helios in his chariot and the seasons personified, as well as a
human figure leaning over a column with a hammer and chisel and other buildings, that
were identified as the Tower of Babel scene (Magness et al., “Huqoq: Interim Report,” 10611, 115-17 (Fig. 48).
9This changed with the recent uncovering of a synagogue mosaic at Wadi Hamam. See
Leibner, “Excavations at Khirbet.”
10 Gordon and Weiss, “Samuel and Saul,” 529.
11 The excavators of the mosaic themselves apply this perception to other sections of the
mosaic. Thus, they identify Pharaoh’s soldiers drowning and being eaten by fish in the
Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22
“ Elephant Mosaic ” Panel from the Huqoq Synagogue
5
that the artists never saw war elephants, and could have been exposed to them
only in “collections” or “catalogues” of ancient artistic models. I propose that
these triumphal battle animals represented antiquity and military power.
I briefly survey some of the drawbacks of the interpretations published to
date. First, they focus on the upper register, providing weaker explanations for
the two lower panels, the middle one in particular. Indeed, with the exception
of Talgam’s proposal, the middle panel remains uncharted territory. Second,
it is doubtful that some of the events proposed as the mosaic’s subject would
receive public commemoration. Third, as depicted, the large figures are not
consistent with the suggested identifications: Alexander the Great or the high
priest. Fourth, the proposed affinity to Hanukkah in general and the hanukkiah in particular, which is based on the nine lamps placed above the arches,
is doubtful.12 Fifth, some of the proposals suggest different identifications for
figures of similar appearance in the upper and middle panels. Finally, we have
no firm evidence for the existence among fifth-century Galilean Jews of the
written traditions on which the proposals rely.
1
Proposed Interpretation: Ehud ben Gera Rescuing the Israelites
from the Moabite King Eglon (Judg 3)
Based on the scholarly consensus regarding the identification of the large figure on the right side of the upper panel as a king—grounded in his wearing of
a diadem and the purple chlamys that marked an emperor13 (especially in the
12
13
mosaic, noting: “Egyptian soldiers, wearing Roman military dress” (Magness et al., “Huqoq
Interim Report,” 105). Britt and Boustan note: “These similarities [e.g., to the outfit of the
white group with other biblical descriptions in late-antique art—AY] ... suggest the possibility that our panel depicts a Biblical subject such as Abraham” (Elephant Mosaic Panel,
42). According to their proposal, artistic anachronism must be attributed to the mosaic,
for the garb of John Hyrcanus and his soldiers is that of the late-antique Roman elite, not
that of the Hellenistic period (Britt and Boustan, 78). Gordon and Weiss (“Samuel and
Saul,” 536) argue clearly and convincingly regarding the obvious anachronisms in synagogue ornaments from the Byzantine period. They maintain that the elephants resemble
an eastern emperor, which would be in harmony with an identification of Eglon the
king of Moab in the mosaic. In Judg 3 Eglon is presented as the ruler of a greater, eastern
kingdom, including Ammon and Amalek. Concerning a possible meaning of this artistic
anachronism, see Fine, “Liturgical Interpretation,” 416.
As far as we know, in literature and in art, Hanukkah is always associated with the lighting
of exactly eight lamps.
On the royal motifs, see Britt and Boustan, Elephant Mosaic Panel, 33, 37.
Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22
6
Yoskovich
Byzantine period)14—I suggest that the scene depicts the encounter between
the Moabite king Eglon and the Benjamite judge Ehud ben Gera, as described
in Judg 3. This interpretation is based, first of all, on the depiction of the hands
of the group garbed in white: they are holding cylindrical objects and some are
portrayed in the act of drawing what appear to be swords from these objects.
Although it seems that they are carrying out this act simultaneously, in actuality each figure is depicted at a different stage of drawing his sword. The large
figure in white does not appear to be holding a similar cylinder; note, however,
the positioning of his left hand, which is touching the other large figure’s abdomen. Although closed as if grasping an object, the hand looks as if it is empty.
I suggest that the portrayal of the figure in white as also gripping an object,
which is most likely a sword embedded in the abdomen of the adjacent figure
with just the hilt remaining in the hero’s hand, mirrors the biblical depiction
of Ehud’s stabbing of Eglon: “The fat closed over the blade and the hilt went in
after the blade—for he did not pull the dagger out of his belly” (Judg 3:22).15
The biblical narrator underscores the invisibility of the stabbing as belonging
to Ehud’s sophisticated manipulation of the situation that delayed discovery of
the deed by the king’s servants (3:24-25), giving Ehud time to flee and to organize the Israelites for battle (3:26). Given the biblical focus on the clean, silent
nature of Ehud’s act, it is not surprising that, as portrayed in the mosaic, the
moment of the stabbing in the mosaic neither depicts blood nor any response
or outcry on the stabbed figure’s part. The late-Roman mosaic, like the biblical narrative, depicts a clean, unrecognized assassination, which makes the
planned surprise a perfect trick.
The hands of the figure in white also allude, in my opinion, to Ehud’s deed.
Scripture states: “Reaching with his left hand, Ehud drew the dagger from his
right side and drove it into [Eglon’s] belly” (3:21). I note the figure in white’s
exceptional use of his left hand, as opposed to all the other figures in white
whose swords are in their right hands. Ehud’s left-handedness is underscored
earlier in the biblical narrative: “and the LORD raised up a champion for them:
the Benjaminite Ehud son of Gera, a left-handed man”16 (3:15), and again in his
14 Cod. Theod. 5.21 (Pharr, 288); Cod. Just. 4.40 (Blume, 990-91). For art-historical studies
on the representation of this Byzantine imperial dress, see, e.g., Parani, Reconstructing
Reality, 12, 63, and plate 9.
15 From this point on, all biblical references to chapter and verse without noting the name
of the book are to Judges. Unless otherwise noted, all translations from the Hebrew Bible
are cited from the NJPS.
16 Fox, Early Prophets, renders the verse more literally and follows other ancient translations: “a man restricted in his right hand.” The Peshitta translates “a man whose right hand
was withered” (‫)ܓܒܪܐ ܕܦܫܝܓܐ ܗܘܬ ܐܝܕܗ ܕܝܡܝܢܐ‬, similar to the Targum Jonathan, “a
Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22
“ Elephant Mosaic ” Panel from the Huqoq Synagogue
7
preparations for the encounter with Eglon: “which he girded on his right side
under his cloak” (3:16) and in the description of the event (3:21).17
Another possibility is that the figure in white is gripping the sword “upside
down,” with the hilt in his hand and the blade behind his back, prior to stabbing the king. This may be attested by the angling of the fingers of the figure’s
left hand. Such an interpretation also explains an enigmatic element in the
scene: the gold circle on the elbow of the king opposite the figure in white. If at
first glance it appears to be a decoration, closer examination reveals its similarity to the hilts of the swords held by the other figures in white.18 If this assumption is correct, the edge of the hilt, which is not visible in the fingers of the left
hand, is then pointed at the king’s abdomen with the blade of the sword turned
backwards. According to this understanding of the left hand’s positioning, it is
then conceivable that the words “two-edged” refer to a double-bladed sword,
namely a sword with a single hilt from which a blade extends on each side.19
By grasping the hilt, the holder of the sword can stab the abdomen of the figure
opposite, while the other blade remains behind his back. In that case, blood or
outcry are not expected in the scene of the upper register.
man who was crippled in his right hand” (‫יַמינָ א‬
ִ ‫ברא גְ ִמיד ִב ֵידיה ְד‬
ָ ֻ‫)ג‬. The LXX renders “a
man who used both hands alike” (ἀμφοτεροδέξιον) and late Jewish interpreters understood
the phrase “restricted in his right hand” as “left-handed” (see b. Šabb. 103a; Rashi ad loc.,
Radak ad loc.) The expression ‫ אטר יד ימינו‬appears once more in the Bible, in Judges, in
the context of the episode of the concubine at Gibeah (20:16), again with reference to the
tribe of Benjamin, in the description of the Benjaminite warriors: “of all this force—700
picked men—were left-handed [‫]אטר יד ימינו‬. Every one of them could sling a stone at
a hair and not miss.” Evidently, this unusual expression refers to a defining tribal attribute possessed by Benjamin’s elite warriors. In both cases, this emphasis attests to the
importance of this defining attribute for the biblical narrator. It appears that the early
midrash cited below attributes similar importance to Ehud ben Gera’s tribal attribution
to Benjamin.
17 On the symbolic importance of this detail, see Polak, Biblical Narrative, 140.
18 See the detailed discussion of the possibility that this is a coin being offered as tribute
in Britt and Boustan, Elephant Mosaic Panel, 32-33. Based on the size of the item and its
position, Balty (“Mosaïque à l’éléphant”), and Dunbabin (“Interpretations of Elephant
Mosaic,” 508 n. 5) criticize that interpretation and perhaps support its identification as a
sword. The interpretations of Gordon and Weiss, “Samuel and Saul,” and Erlich, “Patriarch
and Emperor,” are similarly problematic.
19 This appears to be how the ancient translations understood this phrase. LXX: δίστομον
̈
(two-edged); Targum Jonathan: ‫( תרין פומין‬two edges); Peshitta: ‫ܦܘܡܘܗܝ܂‬
‫( ܕܬ̈ܪܝܢ‬of two
edges). This description of the sword is consistent with the many terms related to the
body in this story. See Polak, Biblical Narrative, 335. On ‫פיות‬, see also Amit, Judges, 182
n. 16. It is not possible, however, to determine precisely whether the ancients understood
this phrase as a double-edged or double-bladed sword.
Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22
8
Yoskovich
I interpret the upward pointing forefinger of the hero in white’s right hand
(and of the two figures to his left) as representing the ruse employed by Ehud
to achieve a sole audience with Eglon. Ehud says: “‘Your Majesty, I have a secret
message for you.’ [Eglon] thereupon commanded, ‘Silence!’ So all those in
attendance left his presence; and when Ehud approached him, he was sitting
alone in his cool upper chamber. Ehud said, ‘I have a message for you from
God’; whereupon he rose from his seat” (3:19-20).20 Although the hero’s pointing forefinger may represent this biblical literary moment, it may also reflect a
Palestinian midrashic tradition, as suggested below.
This element helps understand Ehud’s presentation as an elderly, whitebearded man, as opposed to the younger figure of Eglon. One can argue that
this elderly appearance—usually reserved for sages and philosophers—is not
consistent with “heroic” representations in late antique art, which would be
more fitting for Ehud. However, as I claim below, it fits his image as a prophet
as found in the middle register and matches the general view presented by this
Galilean tradition that he was not a silent, heroic savior but a prophetic messenger, who reveals the divine message to the Moabite king.
To my understanding, the upper register also contains an allusion to the episode recounted in Judg 3. A prominent element of the scene is the ox, whose
horn is being held in the right hand of the important military figure. I propose
that this ox is the tribute offered by Ehud to the Moabite king, in line with his
“cover story” (3:15, 17-18), which would explain the presence of a calf in the
scene, and why it is being held by the militarily garbed heroic figure.21 But it
may constitute another, more subtle hint to Judg 3. I argue that, for the artist,
the ox-calf—egel—being held by the heroic figure represents a name-midrash
for the Moabite king Eglon; as others have noted, a name-midrash for Eglon
already resonates in the original narrative.22 For that reason, although ostensibly a sophisticated allusion, it is in essence an almost simplistic word play
mocking the name of a biblical mighty king which could be understood by
any Galilean Jew who saw the mosaic. This suggested explanation for the link
between the ox-calf and the Moabite king can serve as a “label” for this figure.23
20 The words “he rose from his seat” match the standing position of the king in the panel.
21 See also Amit, Judges, 184 n. 20.
22 See Amit, 183-84; Grossman, Text and Subtext, 65 (and additional bibliography there,
328 n. 127).
23 Cf. Britt and Boustan, Elephant Mosaic Panel, 65-66. For another proposal, see Gordon
and Weiss, “Samuel and Saul,” 530. The findings in question are an ox’s horn that crowns
the ruler’s head, which is not identical to the holding of an ox by its horns in the mosaic.
However, I note that Britt and Boustan’s well-stated, detailed explanation sheds light on
the midrash (suggested by Ben Shahar as explaining the background to the ox scene in the
Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22
“ Elephant Mosaic ” Panel from the Huqoq Synagogue
9
Another possible manifestation of ancient Jewish tradition is the LXX
translation and tradition of the word ‫בריא‬, used to describe the Moabite king
(3:16). LXX translates καὶ Eγλωμ ἀνὴρ ἀστεῖος σφόδρα (Eglom was a very handsome man). According to this rendering, this word does not refer to his girth
(as understood by the Jewish commentators, certainly in relationship to 3:29:
‫)שמן‬,24 but rather refers to his manner of dress. This translation is eminently
suited to the appearance of the king in the upper register of the mosaic: dressed
in royal armor and not portrayed as obese.
In what remains of the bottom register, it appears that the organized, wellequipped army depicted in the top register has suffered defeat, as evidenced
by the toppled figures and their disarray. Such a portrayal is consistent with the
conclusion of the war between the Israelites and the Moabites, which, according to Judg 3, ends with the Moabites’ resounding defeat: “On that occasion
they slew about 10,000 Moabites; they were all robust and brave men, yet not
one of them escaped” (3:29).25 We can discern here the partially ravaged rear
of the animal, a long tail, part of the body, one ear (or one-and-a-half ears), one
closed eye, and a small portion of the nose. It resembles the ox from the upper
register and has been struck by three arrows. It may symbolize the dead king
Eglon and the offering which was, according to biblical narrative, only a ruse to
gain proximity to the Moabite king.
We now come to the most baffling part of the mosaic: the architectural
feature depicted in the middle register—the arcade—and the erect pose of
the figures standing there, for which no convincing explanations have been
offered, neither by those who read the registers as a whole nor those who treat
them as separate.26 Here a different representation of the hierarchical ranking
of the figures in the upper register has been preserved. If in the upper register
the size of the figure and the appearance of its face (bearded, white) mark its
importance as compared to the young, small figures, the middle register uses
an additional marker: in it, the large figure is seated on a throne in the center
of the scene and the other figures are standing beside him. What does this
mosaic) which states that the Greek kings said: “Write on the horn of an ox that you have
no portion in the God of Israel” (Gen. Rab. 2:4).
24 See, e.g., Grossman, Text and Subtext, 65, 328.
25 As noted, the supposition that the scene describes an encounter between Alexander the
Great and the high priest is not consonant with the tradition to which it ostensibly relates.
In this tradition Alexander is not defeated but rather abuses the Cutheans [Samaritans]
(who are not depicted in the mosaic) at the Jews’ request.
26 An exception is Talgam’s understanding (“Illustration of Third Book,” 518-19), which
is close in principle to the one suggested below. Of course, the narrative itself differs
because of other problems in the identification of the story in 3 Macc 6.
Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22
10
Yoskovich
scene convey? Where are these figures standing and what is the message to the
audience?
It is at this juncture that reference to rabbinic sources contemporary with
the Huqoq synagogue mosaic makes a vital contribution to the discussion.27
I suggest that a Palestinian midrashic tradition found in Genesis Rabbah can
elucidate the enigmatic middle register.28 Two fourth-century Palestinian rabbis, both of whom lived in the Galilee, are the participants in this midrashic unit
devoted to the biblical pericope of the killing of Eglon by Ehud. Presumably,
their opinions reflect local traditions.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Gen. Rab. 99:330
,‫ מה זאב הזה חוטף כך חטף אהוד לבו של[עג]לון‬:‫׳בנימן זאב יטרף׳ מדבר בשפטו‬
.‫ בעיליתה דקריתה‬,'‫הדה היא ׳ואהוד בא אליו’ וגו‬
‫׳ויאמר דבר סתר לי אליך׳ אמ' לה מרה דעלמא ניסב הדן חרבא‬
.‫ונתנינה בגו מעיה‬
,‫׳ויצא הפרשדונה׳ פרתיה‬
‫ ששם ישבו‬:‫ אמר ר' ברכיה‬.‫ פלתורה‬29‫ על‬:‫׳ויצא אהוד המסדרונה׳ ר' יודן אמר‬
.‫מלאכי השרת מסודרים‬
1 “Benjamin is a ravenous wolf.” This alludes to the judge (descended
from him). Just like a wolf seizes, so did Ehud seize Eglon’s heart.
2 Thus it (is written), And Ehud came unto him, etc. … (Judg 3:20), to his
cool upper chamber.
27 Dunbabin (“Interpretations of Elephant Mosaic,” 508) correctly stresses the fact that
unknown oral traditions may underlie the artistic composition. I suggest that, in this case,
a link to the contemporary written tradition is not just hypothetical.
28 The text of Genesis Rabbah was composed in Byzantine Palestine, in the fifth or sixth
centuries CE. But the main sages cited date to the third-to-fourth centuries CE (in concurrence with the sages active in the Palestinian Talmud). See, e.g., Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen
Vorträge, 185-87; Albeck, “Introduction,” in Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabba,
3:93-96; Margulies, Wayyikra Rabbah, 3:xxvii, xxxi-xxxiii. At that time the main Jewish
community in Palestine lived in the Galilee (centered in such towns as Tiberias and
Sepphoris), but there were Jews elsewhere, for example, in Caesarea, Judea and the “south”
(namely the coastal plain) as reflected by the geography in the texts from that period
(Margulies, Wayyikra Rabbah, 3:xxvii-xxx), including Genesis Rabbah; see Schwartz,
Jewish Settlement, 15. The language of the text is late Mishnaic Hebrew and Galilean
Aramaic, which was the dialect of the Palestinian Jews throughout the third-to-sixth centuries CE. See Dalman, Jüdisch-Palästinischen Aramäisch, 41; Albeck, “Introduction,” 96;
Kutscher, “Studies in Galilean Aramaic”; Sokoloff, “Hebrew of Berešit Rabba,” 27-30.
29 Other witnesses read ‫ דע‬which means “to come to” in a spatial sense (Sokoloff, Jewish
Palestinian Aramaic, 444b).
30 Text cited according to MS Vatican 30, with abbreviations expanded.
Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22
“ Elephant Mosaic ” Panel from the Huqoq Synagogue
11
3 And he said: “I have a secret errand unto thee,( O king)” (Judg 3:19):
The Master of the World said to him: Take this sword
4 and plunge it into his bowels …
5 And the dirt came out (Judg 3:22): his excrements.
6 Then Ehud went forth into the porch [misderon] (Judg 3:23). R. Judan
said: It means, into the palace. R. Berekiah said: (To the place where)
were sitting
7 the ministering angels in ordered fashion [mesudarim].
The midrash (line 1) draws a link between Jacob’s testament to Benjamin
(Gen 49) and Benjamin’s descendants, in this instance, Ehud ben Gera, the sole
judge from this tribe. By interpreting ‫( יטרף‬tears to pieces) from Jacob’s testament as ‫( חוטף‬seizes), the midrash links this testament to Ehud, who seized
Eglon’s heart, namely, treacherously enticed him. The midrash (lines 6-7) then
goes on to cite the opinions of two fourth-century Galilean rabbis regarding
the interpretation of a hapax in the biblical narrative: ‫המסדרונה‬.31 The first,
Rabbi Judan, understands it as meaning that he went out into32 the palace,
maybe the royal arcade.33 The second, Rabbi Berekiah, interprets the word differently, deriving its meaning from the word ‫סדר‬, namely, a place where the
ministering angels sat in orderly fashion.
I interpret the middle register as incorporating these two homilies, one
dealing with the architectural structure (Judan); the other with the figures
in the structure (Berekiah). The nine figures are seated in an (royal) arcade,
which fits Rabbi Judan’s interpretation. Britt and Boustan’s comparison with
the mosaic of the church from Sant’Apollinare is, from this perspective, striking: this mosaic too has an arcade with nine arches that originally “housed”
nine figures with a dominant, kingly central figure, indicating that the ninearched arcade was a known artistic motif and not necessarily a symbolic
number.34 Moreover, in this church mosaic the word palatium appears above
the arcade. This Latin form of Greek Παλάτιον means “palace” and parallels
the Aramaic word ‫ פלתורא‬used by Rabbi Judan. At the same time, the figures
31 On these sages, see Albeck, Introduction to Talmud, 321, 332.
32 ‫עלל‬. See Sokoloff, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 460.
33 Interestingly, the biblical translations also had in mind a specific location in the palace:
the arcade. In Targum Jonathan ‫ אכסדרא‬and in Syriac ‫“( ܟܣܣܛܪܘܢ‬balcony,” from Greek
ἐξώστρα). In LXX A: προστάδα. See the detailed discussion below.
34 Britt and Boustan, Elephant Mosaic Panel, 40-41, fig. 13; the original figures were probably the Arian king Theodoric and his retinue, who were erased by the Orthodox church.
For another interesting equivalent, see Britt and Boustan, 39 n. 64; and Balty, “Mosaïque
à l’éléphant.”
Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22
12
Yoskovich
in white stand in a row, arrayed around the sitting leader in white, per Rabbi
Berekiah’s interpretation. This Galilean rabbi “inserted” additional figures not
found in the biblical narrative: ministering angels. And indeed, the mosaic
places additional figures alongside the hero. I identify here proximity between
the two Galilean traditions, the visual and the written, in contrast to the plain
biblical narrative.35 Other than the hero, the figures in white exhibit smooth
faces and a childlike appearance. Even if their appearance is not angelic,36 at
the very least it represents companions of lesser rank, a retinue serving the
main hero. Thus, this scene’s meaning is well elucidated by the hermeneutical
tradition for the hapax ‫ מסדרון‬in the tale of Ehud ben Gera and adeptly reflects
the Galilean rabbinic traditions of that day.
We can now suggest a meaning for that scene. The protagonist sits on the
king’s throne as his successor. Judges 3 describes the king getting off his throne
before the stabbing (3:20): “and when Ehud approached him, he was sitting
alone … whereupon he rose from his seat.” The motif of sitting on a chair is
a common symbol for royalty in biblical sources.37 This verse focuses on the
moment of getting off the chair, which represents the end of the king’s reign.
The later traditions (the mosaic as well as Rabbi Berekiah) continued the focus
on the throne, by depicting Ehud sitting on the Moabite king’s chair as his gesture of victory.
Closer attention must also be paid to the objects held by the figures in
white in the middle register. Each of the smaller figures is holding a (golden?)
cylinder with a rounded end; this is the same object held by these figures in
the upper scene: the scabbard of a sword with two rounded edges (the figure
35 Interestingly, Flavius Josephus has a similar but different tradition about two servants
joining Ehud; see Ant. 5.188 (Josephus, Judean Antiquities, Books 5-7, 45). It proves this
deviation from biblical tradition existed already at the beginning of the millennium.
Gordon and Weiss (“Samuel and Saul,” 532, 538-39) present a similar argument: “These
men are never mentioned in the Biblical story but, as discussed below, they are included
in the mosaic for good reason.” They even suggest the Huqoq artist “may have been basing
his depiction on a lost midrash.” I suggest the “lost midrash” is the one cited here.
36 Iconography of angels as beardless, wingless youths is attested in Byzantine art; examples
include Philoxenia of Abraham on the Catacomba di Via Latina, Rome, fourth century
(Ferrua, Catacomba di via Latina, fig. 24); Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome, ca. 435
(see Spain, “Promised Blessing,” 537); San Vitale, Ravenna, ca. 540; the Tomb of Christ,
lower register, Castello Sforzesco, Milan, fifth century (Peers, Subtle Bodies, figs. 6-7.).
In most cases the angels are wearing tunics ornamented with clavi as in the upper and
middle registers of our mosaic. For additional examples and discussion, see Peers, 23,
37-41, 58.
37 See Gen 41:40; 1 Sam 1:9; 1 Kgs 8:20, among others.
Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22
“ Elephant Mosaic ” Panel from the Huqoq Synagogue
13
closest to the bearded hero at the top left).38 However, the object grasped by
the bearded figure is only partially visible, and the excavators of the mosaic
suggest that he is holding a scroll.39 This suggestion is accepted by Gordon
and Weiss too, who argue that the scroll reflects the divine message, and is a
marker of the figure’s prophetic role.40 If they are correct, the scroll may then
be another representation of the biblical narrative’s “I have a message for you
from God” (3:20) in which Ehud’s falsehood, which was uttered in order to
get close to the king, was accompanied by a scroll purportedly containing the
divine message to Eglon.
Having suggested possible similarity between the Galilean midrash and
the middle register of the elephant mosaic in this Galilean synagogue, I propose that the upper scene reflects another facet of this midrashic tradition.
The rounded lines under the feet of the heroes delineate what appears to be
a hilly outdoor environment. This, however, is not consonant with the biblical
description which places the event entirely inside the king’s palace. A short
passage in the midrashic unit cited above (line 2) explains another difficult
phrase from the Ehud story, which describes where the event took place:
‫ואהוד בא אליו והוא יושב בעלית המקרה‬, “when Ehud approached him, he was sitting alone in his cool upper chamber” (3:20). According to most text witnesses,
the midrash there interprets ‫ בעלית המקרה‬as ‫( בעיליתא קרירתא‬cool chamber);41
namely, the difficult word ‫ מקרה‬is legitimately translated as “cold.”42 But, MS
Vatican (ebr. 30, considered a superior text witness)43 has a subtle, but significant difference: ‫בעליתה דקריתא‬. ‫ קריתא‬is “town, village”;44 therefore the translation would be either the path to the top of the town, or the entrance to the
town, or even on the hills of the countryside. Indeed, the upper scene of the
mosaic depicts the highest point of the locus (‫ )בעליתה‬by drawing a raised hilly
area, outside or next to the entrance to the town. Thus another motif in the
38
It appears that the figure to the left of the bearded hero is either drawing his sword from,
or returning it to, its scabbard.
39 Magness et al., “Huqoq—2013”; Britt and Boustan, Elephant Mosaic Panel, 29, 78.
40 Gordon and Weiss, “Samuel and Saul,” 540-41 and n. 84.
41 Including the Geniza fragment, Cambridge, TS C1, 6, cited in Sokoloff, Geniza Frag­
ments, 194. This is also how it was translated in the targums. Jewish Aramaic targums:
‫ ;באידרון בית קיטא דילייה‬Peshitta: ‫;ܒܥܠܝܬܐ ܒܠܚܘܕܘܗܝ ܕܡܬܩܢܐ‬. LXX: ἐν τῷ ὑπερῴῳ τῷ
θερινῷ (“summer roof-chamber”).
42 Sokoloff, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 579.
43 See Albeck, “Introduction,” 104-17, esp. 107; Kutscher, “Studies in Galilean Aramaic,” 170-71
(§5), 175-76; Sokoloff, “Hebrew of Berešit Rabba,” 29-30.
44 Sokoloff, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, s.v. ‫( קרייה‬505-6). It is perhaps a city, but is smaller
than ‫( מדינה‬large city, province). See Sokoloff, 291.
Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22
14
Yoskovich
“elephant” mosaic can be understood as reflecting a unique homiletic tradition
found only in Genesis Rabbah.
2
Galilean Tradition vs. the Biblical Narrative
The thrust of the midrashic unit differs from that of the biblical story in several respects. Whereas the biblical narrative stresses the elements of trickery,
the autonomy of Ehud’s act,45 and the motifs of secrecy and concealment,46
the midrash departs from the plain meaning of the biblical text, shifting the
emphasis to a publicly performed deed witnessed by others. The midrash
(lines 3-4) details the contents of Ehud’s statement that he has a secret message for the king (3:19): “Thus God commanded me that I take this sword and
drive it into your belly.”47 This perhaps represents an attempt to harmonize two
verses in this pericope, one of which refers to “a message from God,” the other
to “a secret message.”48 If in the biblical narrative “the secret” is a ruse for gaining proximity to the king, the midrash makes it a divine command revealed by
Ehud to the king. The reading (by Britt and Boustan), which suggests that the
bearded figure in the middle panel is holding a scroll in his hands, matches this
interpretive thrust.
Rabbi Berekiah’s homily, discussed earlier in the context of the arcade
(lines 6-7), also represents a departure from the biblical narrative. The biblical
story, to which the elements of timing and surprise are fundamental, describes
the deception that enabled Ehud to slip away and flee to Seir before the murder
was discovered. On the other hand, post-deed, Rabbi Berekiah has ministering
angels sitting in an orderly row, waiting for Ehud. As represented in the mosaic,
this motif embodies the sense of the midrash: it depicts not escape, but noble,
45 Even though the narrative contains a phrase indicating that he was accompanied by a
large retinue: “he dismissed the people who had conveyed the tribute” (3:18). See Garsiel,
“Story of Ehud,” 59 n. 3, 67; cf. Amit, Judges, 183.
46 Amit ( Judges, 171-74) and Garsiel (“Story of Ehud,” 74-76) both determine that the thrust
of the biblical story is to demonstrate “to the reader that the success of any human plan
is connected with and dependent upon guiding factors that are above it” (Amit, Judges,
171). Perhaps the midrash does not contradict this thrust but rather incorporates it into
the heart of human activity (by Ehud, in this case), who, according to this doctrine, did
not have to resort to deception.
47 Theodor renders: “Thus said God to me, take a sword and thrust it into Eglon’s belly.” He
relies on the version in MS Vatican 30: ‫בגו מעיה‬. Sokoloff, “Hebrew of Berešit Rabba,” 194
corrected the translation as follows: ‫“( <ש>אקח החרב הזאת ואשים אותה בתוך מעיך‬that
I take this sword and place it in your belly”).
48 Theodor edition, 1275.
Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22
“ Elephant Mosaic ” Panel from the Huqoq Synagogue
15
kingly repose in a splendid arched structure at the facade of an edifice. It
appears as if Ehud is waiting to receive recognition, to be honored for his deed,
and is perhaps even inheriting the defeated king’s throne in the royal stoa.49
According to this proposal, the two scenes are taking place simultaneously, and
those in the middle panel are observing what is taking place below. Here Ehud
sits on the royal throne, having been crowned in Eglon’s stead, and watches his
compatriots murdering their enemies and saving themselves.50
Another part of the midrashic passage mentioned above also diverges
from the biblical account but fits the mosaic depiction: namely, the variant
‫בעליתה דקריתה‬. In the biblical account the scene takes place inside the chamber ‫( ואהוד בא אליו והוא יושב בחדר עלית המקרה לבדו‬3:20) and in the palace
(3:23-25). In the midrash events take place publicly, at the entrance to the city,
by definition open to public access, not a discreet, closed room.
This brings us to the question of what the lamps hanging above the arched
structure signify, which I suggest is open to either of two interpretations. It
can, on the one hand, be understand as a means of portraying the passage
from outside to inside;51 on the other, it can also be understood in light of the
continuation of the midrashic unit cited above (Gen. Rab. 99:3, 1275-76), as
reflecting the midrash on the verse “In the morning he consumes the foe, and
in the evening he divides the spoil” (Gen 49:27). The midrashic unit in question goes on to sharpen the distinction between the two parts of this verse. It
first describes an initial stage of the struggle against, or victory over, foreign
elements (Saul and the Philistines, Esther and Haman, among others); it then
describes a second stage, taking place “in the evening,” in whose context much
property falls into the hands of the hero from the tribe of Benjamin (Saul and
his sons, Mordecai, the people of Bethel). I propose a similar reading here as
well: in the morning the main event of the stabbing of the king takes place in
daylight and in the public view (upper register); in the evening Ehud sits on the
defeated king’s throne in the palace, accompanied by his retinue (middle and
49 This interpretation is consistent with Britt and Boustan’s understanding of the framing
devices (Elephant Mosaic Panel, 39). I find their proposal (40, 78) that the two lower panels be read together pertinent here. The descriptions of the structure in Judg 3 attest that,
in the biblical context, this is the royal palace. See Garsiel, “Story of Ehud,” 65.
50 Dunbabin (“Interpretations of Elephant Mosaic,” 508) has a similar impression: “the
arcade in the middle register is likely to have been seen by its viewers primarily as serving
to enhance the honorific presentation of the figures framed in it ... [it] echoes a familiar compositional device of ancient—and especially late-antique—art: the victors stand
above the dead bodies of their foes, symbolically trampling them under foot.” Cf. the suggestion by Talgam (“Illustration of Third Book”).
51 See Talgam, 520.
Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22
16
Yoskovich
lower registers).52 This perhaps supports the suggested relationship between
the middle and the bottom registers, which together comprise half of the
entire mosaic. This scene may depict the unfolding of the war as observed by
the figures in white, or their anticipation of the battle in which the foreign
army will be defeated; this is a gesture of triumphal winners and it explains
why they remain seated and waiting inside the building instead of joining
the battle.
3
The Huqoq Mosaic, Genesis Rabbah, and the LXX
As we have seen, the Aramaic targums of Judges largely match the midrashic
interpretation of this pericope as found in Genesis Rabbah. I mentioned, too,
the possible parallelism of the image of the foreign king in the mosaic and
the LXX translation for his attribute ‫ בריא‬in the biblical story. We must add
now the LXX’s rendering of 3:21-22 in its two branches of Judges which is particularly intriguing, especially with respect to the hapax ‫( מסדרון‬and perhaps
also the other hapax in the previous verse, ‫ [ הפרשדנה‬3:22b in the traditional
Jewish numbering]).53 With respect to the word ‫ מסדרון‬these two branches
differ: Alexandrinus (A) reads καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ᾿Αὼδ τὴν προστάδα, namely Ehud
went out into the space in front of a building, or a courtyard54 (perhaps of
the regime’s administrative headquarters), which may signify assumption of
rule, responsibility, and patronage.55 To this Vaticanus (B) adds καὶ ἐξῆλθε τοὺς
διατεταγμένους, which can be translated as “he went out past those who had
been stationed”; there is no doubt that the Greek word derives from “order.”56
Notwithstanding the similarity between the two interpretive traditions of
the word ‫ מסדרון‬found in the midrash and the two translation traditions found
52
Gordon and Weiss (“Samuel and Saul,” 531 and n. 35) also suggest that the lamps represent
nighttime, but identify the night in question differently.
53 From Alfred Rahlfs’s day, scholarship in the field has accepted the existence of two
branches of the LXX of Judges: Alexandrinus (A), together with the traditions of Origen
and Lucian, and Vaticanus (B). According to Philip E. Satterthwaite, who translated Judges
in New English Translation of Septuagint, 195, there is much common ground between the
traditions and they probably derived from a single archetype.
54 LSJ, 697: προστασία IV.
55 LSJ, 697: προστασία II 1 b-c: governorship, management, 2: outward dignity, pomp, show,
etc., III 1: patronage, protection.
56 LSJ, 195: διατάσσω: pf. to get things arranged ... pass. to be appointed to draw up an army,
set in array ... med.: posted in battle order. Interestingly, this verb also appears in Gal
3:19 with reference to angels: διαταγεὶς δι’ ἀγγέλων ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου, namely, the law was
ordained (arranged) by angels.
Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22
“ Elephant Mosaic ” Panel from the Huqoq Synagogue
17
in the LXX, I by no means claim here that the late midrash exists in the LXX;
certainly the context in which the literal translation is incorporated differs
entirely from the midrashic one. The fact that the motifs of the layout of the
courtyard and the arraying of the people after the stabbing of Eglon appear in
two ostensibly unrelated traditions with regard to the story of Ehud ben Gera
shows its currency and strengthens the interpretation of the Huqoq mosaic
proposed here, which identifies these two motifs in its middle register.
To these two elements in the LXX we must add the size of the sword: “a
gomed in length.” The LXX differs here from the Aramaic targums and translates gomed as the short measurement “span.” In this respect as well, the LXX
may match the tradition reflected in the mosaic, in which the sword is not visible in Eglon’s belly.
4
Does the Scene Portray Samuel and Saul at Gilgal?
As noted above, although I am in agreement with the main methodological
points raised by Gordon and Weiss in favor of a biblical interpretation of the
elephant mosaic,57 I disagree with their identification of the mosaic as portraying the biblical episode of Samuel and Saul at Gilgal (1 Sam 15).
First, there is the question of context. This episode, which bears no relationship to victory, success, or salvation, is an initial, sad point in the process
of Saul’s decline. As compared to the other identified episodes in the Huqoq
mosaic floor, the Saul at Gilgal narrative matches neither the overall mosaic
composition nor its themes. The overall composition of the mosaic floor
makes it much more likely that the elephant mosaic is a story of salvation, like
the one found in Judg 3.
Second, we must consider sequence, or the relationship between the registers. Gordon and Weiss maintain that the middle register is “more portrait-like
than episodic” and that “the arcade in the middle register is primarily a decorative framework that underscores the prominence of Samuel.”58 I find a reading
of each register separately less persuasive than an interrelated one. In addition,
this autonomous reading of each panel means that they understand the bull
in the upper register as different from the dead bull in the lower one; moreover, they identify the elephant in the bottom register as a “third elephant,”
57
58
Gordon and Weiss, “Samuel and Saul.”
Gordon and Weiss, 539.
Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22
18
Yoskovich
which seems very unlikely.59 I believe that the biblical-midrashic reading of
the mosaic as representing the story of Ehud and Eglon suggested here, which
treats the three registers as one unified composition, is more reasonable.
In summation I wish to stress three main points. First of all, the interpretation suggested here combines a biblical tradition with later Jewish written traditions, including contemporary sources belonging to the Jewish community
in the lower Galilee. This method’s applicability has been demonstrated on
several occasions, including recently regarding a mosaic from a late antique
synagogue in the lower Galilee which is closely affiliated to the Huqoq synagogue. Second, the three panels of the elephant mosaic should be understood
as different scenes of one consecutive narrative, and not as disconnected fragments composing a new, invented combination. Finally, the elephant mosaic
and the rest of the synagogue floor contain anachronistic motifs such as elephants and Hellenistic soldiers that represent ancient (eastern?) regimes. In
general, the art found in Byzantine Jewish synagogues is characteristically
anachronistic and such an understanding must be applied to this particular
mosaic, as the excavators acknowledge.
5
Instead of a Conclusion
Megillat Antiochus (13-28 [ed. Kadari, 89-93]), whose date and provenance
are obscure,60 recounts the story of the killing of Nicanor by Johanan ben
Mattathias, a story clearly constructed in the mold of the Ehud-Eglon pericope:61
the Jewish leader prepares a hidden sword, attains physical proximity to his
enemy through smooth talk, and a significant victory follows the killing of the
enemy. The tale also corresponds to some of the motifs found in the mosaic:
stabbing, a finger pointing aloft, victory in battle, and a concluding verse that
notes the building of a column62 that he called “Maccabee who kills heroes.”
59 Gordon and Weiss, 536. The same critique applies to Britt and Boustan (Elephant
Mosaic Panel) and Erlich’s (“Patriarch and Emperor”) interpretation, whereas Dunbabin
(“Interpretations of Elephant Mosaic,” 508) agrees it is inevitable to identify the army in
the bottom register with the one in the upper register. See also Magness et al., “Huqoq
Interim Report,” 93.
60 See Kadari, “Aramaic Megillat Antiochus,” 81-82, 203-13; and the review by Kasher,
“Megillat Antiochus,” 208-11 and his conclusions there, 229-30.
61 Kasher (“Historical Background,” 220) notes that the motif of a clever action by an individual which aims to kill the enemy leader is repeated in the Bible (Yael and Sisera) and
in later Jewish literature (Judith).
62 According to the Western recension “column” (‫)הדומע‬. The Yemenite recension reads
‫אתרנמ‬, which usually means “candelabrum,” but it has been proposed (see Wertheimer,
Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22
“ Elephant Mosaic ” Panel from the Huqoq Synagogue
19
Moreover, armored elephants (‫ )פיליא מלובשי שרינא‬are mentioned in the next
battle described in Megillat Antiochus (v. 46). As scholarly opinion is divided
regarding this work’s date, we cannot rely on it to read the mosaic.63 In addition,
the mosaic contains details that make it difficult to create a match between it
and Megillat Antiochus, such as the appearance of additional figures in both
upper scenes who are absent from the written version (a problem resolved by
interpreting the Ehud narrative in light of the midrashic tradition).
At the same time, given the striking affinity between Megillat Antiochus
and Judg 3, we can see how motifs from this story could have, and did, unite
with other heroic episodes, such as the stories of the Maccabees. It exemplifies how a reading of the Judg 3 episode could serve as a foundational event in
the mosaic that becomes a recurring visual paradigm, whereby the Jews triumph over foreign rulers. For the members of late antique society who combined these traditions, whether consciously or unconsciously, the dichotomy
between biblical and nonbiblical stories was hazy.64 Perhaps then the gap
between the alternative interpretations of the mosaic is not as wide as portrayed to date. Although I cannot prove that the commissioners of the mosaic
or the artists were familiar with the Galilean midrashic traditions, as seen from
Megillat Antiochus the story of Ehud ben Gera resonated in Jewish awareness
in the late antique era/Early Middle Ages. Even if only a negligible event in the
main channels of the written tradition, it influenced and shaped Jewish tradition. Thus the Huqoq mosaic and Megillat Antiochus together reveal another
segment of Jewish traditions as these shifted and changed shape throughout
the generations. The amalgamation of biblical narrative, second commonwealth sources, and rabbinic interpretative traditions under one roof may
furnish a glimpse of the Byzantine eastern Galilean Jewish community and
its complex of traditions. Apart from the concrete interpretation proposed for
the archeological finds, the analysis set forth here sparks consideration of the
manner in which traditions crystallized and the different vessels in which they
were transmitted in late antiquity.
Leqet Midrashim, 10) that here it means “pillar” (i.e., Arabic manāra, “minaret”), which is
supported by the accompanying Judeo-Arabic translation ‫( הנאוטסא‬i.e., usṭuwāna, “column”) and hence synonymous to ‫ הדומע‬of the Western recension. I thank my colleague
Itai Kagan for this note.
63 And perhaps the opposite: the suggestions made here may perhaps assist dating of this
tradition from Megillat Antiochus.
64 Fine (“Liturgical Interpretation”) maintains that synagogue art can be burdened with
dubious meaning, mixing past and present for the local community.
Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22
20
Yoskovich
Bibliography
Albeck, Chanoch. “Introduction.” In Midrash Bereshit Rabba: Critical Edition with
Notes and Commentary, ed. J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck. vol. 3. 2nd ed. (Jerusalem:
Wahrmann, 1965) [Hebrew].
Albeck, Chanoch. Introduction to the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1969)
[Hebrew].
Amit, Yairah. The Book of Judges: The Art of Editing, trans. Jonathan Chipman, 2nd ed.
(Leiden: Brill, 1999).
Balty, Janine. “La ‘mosaïque à l’éléphant’ de Huqoq: un document très convoité et
d’interprétation controversée.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 31 (2018), 509-12.
Ben Shahar, Meir. “Mosaics and Warriors: War and Redemption in Late Antique
Palestinian Synagogues.” Paper delivered at the Association for Jewish Studies
Conference, December 2017.
Blume, Fred H., trans., and Bruce W. Frier, ed. The Codex of Justinian: A New Annotated
Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text Based on a Translation (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2016).
Britt, Karen, and Ra‘anan Boustan. The Elephant Mosaic Panel in the Synagogue at
Huqoq: Official Publication and Initial Interpretations (Portsmouth: Journal of
Roman Archaeology, 2017).
Dalman, Gustaf. Grammatik des Jüdisch-Palästinischen Aramäisch, 2nd ed. (Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1905).
Dunbabin, Katherine M.D. “Introduction to a Range of Interpretations of the Elephant
Mosaic Panel at Huqoq.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 31 (2018), 506-8.
Erlich, Adi. “The Patriarch and the Emperor: The Elephant Mosaic Panel in the Huqoq
Synagogue Reconsidered.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 31 (2018), 542-58.
Ferrua, Antonio. Le pitture della nuova catacomba di via Latina (Città del Vaticano:
Pontificio istituto di archeologia cristiana, 1960).
Fine, Steven. “A Liturgical Interpretation of Ancient Synagogue Remains in Late Antique
Palestine.” In Continuity and Renewal: Jews and Judaism in Byzantine-Christian
Palestine, ed. Lee I. Levine (Jerusalem: Dinur Center, 2004), 402-19 [Hebrew].
Fox, Everett. The Schocken Bible, vol. 2 The Early Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and
Kings (New York: Schocken, 2014).
Garsiel, Moshe. “The Story of Ehud Son of Gera (Judges 3:12-30).” In Reflections
on the Bible: Selected Studies of the Bible Circle in Memory of Yishai Ron, ed. Ezra
Ha-Menahem, vol. 2 (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1976), 57-77 [Hebrew].
Gittleman, Elena. Judging Samson: The Synagogue Floor Mosaics of Horvat Huqoq and
Khirbet Wadi Hamam, MA Thesis (Washington University in St. Louis, 2015).
Gordon, Benjamin D., and Zeev Weiss. “Samuel and Saul at Gilgal: A New Interpretation
of the Elephant Mosaic Panel in the Huqoq Synagogue.” Journal of Roman
Archaeology 31 (2018), 524-41.
Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22
“ Elephant Mosaic ” Panel from the Huqoq Synagogue
21
Grossman, Jonathan. Text and Subtext: On Exploring Biblical Narrative Design (Tel Aviv:
Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2015) [Hebrew].
Hezser, Catherine. “Correlating Literary, Epigraphic and Archeological Sources.” In
Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine, ed. Catherine Hezser
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 9-27.
Josephus, Flavius. Judean Antiquities, Books 5-7, trans. Christopher T. Begg (Leiden:
Brill, 2005).
Kadari, Menachem Z. “The Aramaic Megillat Antiochus (I).” Bar-Ilan 1 (1963), 81-105;
Bar-Ilan 2 (1964), 203-13 [Hebrew].
Kasher, Aryeh. “The Historical Background of ‘Megillath Antiochus.’” Proceedings of the
American Academy for Jewish Research 48 (1981), 207-30.
Kutscher, Eduard Yechezkel. “Studies in Galilean Aramaic.” In Hebrew and Aramaic
Studies, ed. Ze’ev Ben-Hayyim, Aron Dotan, and Gad Sarfatti (Jerusalem: Magnes,
1977), 169-226 [Hebrew].
Leibner, Uzi. “Excavations at Khirbet Wadi Hamam (Lower Galilee): The Synagogue
and the Settlement with an Appendix by U. Leibner and S. Miller on ‘A Figural
Mosaic.’” Journal of Roman Archaeology 23 (2010), 220-64.
Leibner, Uzi. “An Illustrated Midrash of Mekilta de R. Ishmael, Vayeḥi Beshalaḥ,
1—Rabbis and the Jewish Community Revisited.” In Talmuda De-Eretz Israel:
Archaeology and the Rabbis in Late Antique Palestine, ed. Steven Fine and Aaron
Koller (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), 83-96.
Levine, Lee I. “Synagogue Art and the Rabbis in Late Antiquity.” Journal of Ancient
Judaism 2 (2011), 79-114.
Magness, Jodi, Shua Kisilevitz, Karen Britt, Matthew Grey, and Chad Spigel. “Huqoq
(Lower Galilee) and Its Synagogue Mosaics: Preliminary Report on the Excavations
of 2011-2013.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 27 (2014), 327-55.
Magness, Jodi, Shua Kisilevitz, Matthew Grey, Chad Spigel, Brian Coussens, and
Karen Britt. “Huqoq—2013.” Excavations and Surveys in Israel (Hadashot Arkh
eologiyot) 126 (2014). http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx
?id=12648&mag_id=121.
Magness, Jodi, Shua Kisilevitz, Matthew Grey, Dennis Mizzi, and Karen Britt. “Huqoq—
2015.” Excavations and Surveys in Israel (Hadashot Arkheologiyot) 128 (2016). http://
www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=25060&mag_id=124.
Magness, Jodi, Shua Kisilevitz, Matthew Grey, Dennis Mizzi, Daniel Schindler, Martin
Wells, Karen Britt, et al. “The Huqoq Excavation Project: 2014-2017 Interim Report.”
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 380 (2018), 61-131.
Margulies, Mordecai. Midrash Wayyikra Rabbah. 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1993)
[Hebrew].
Ovadiah, Asher, and Rosario Pierri. “The Mosaic Panel with the Warlike Scenes and
Figurative Arcade in the Ancient Synagogue at Huqoq: Context and Meaning.”
Judaica 73 (2017), 284-98.
Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22
22
Yoskovich
Parani, Maria G. Reconstructing the Reality of Images: Byzantine Material Culture and
Religious Iconography (11th-15th Centuries) (Leiden: Brill, 2003).
Peers, Glenn. Subtle Bodies: Representing Angels in Byzantium (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2001).
Pharr, Clyde, trans. The Theodosian Code and Novels, and the Sirmondian Constitutions:
A Translation with Commentary, Glossary, and Bibliography (Union: Lawbook
Exchange, 2012).
Polak, Frank. Biblical Narrative: Aspects of Art and Design (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute,
1999) [Hebrew].
Satterthwaite, Philip E. A New English Translation of the Septuagint: Judges, ed. Albert
Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).
Electronic Edition: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/.
Schwartz, Joshua. Jewish Settlement in Judea after the Bar-Kochba War until the Arab
Conquest 135 C.E-640 C.E. (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986) [Hebrew].
Sokoloff, Michael. “The Hebrew of Berešit Rabba According to Ms. Vat. Ebr. 30.”
Lešonenu 33 (1969), 27-30 [Hebrew].
Sokoloff, Michael. The Geniza Fragments of Bereshit Rabba: Edited on the Basis of Twelve
Manuscripts and Palimpsests with and Introduction and Notes (Jerusalem: Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1982) [Hebrew].
Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period.
3rd ed. (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 2017).
Spain, Suzanne. “‘The Promised Blessing’: The Iconography of the Mosaics of S. Maria
Maggiore.” The Art Bulletin 61 (1979), 518-40.
Talgam, Rina. “An Illustration of the Third Book of Maccabees in a Late-Antique
Galilean Synagogue?” Journal of Roman Archaeology 31 (2018), 513-23.
Theodor, Julius, and Chanoch Albeck. Midrash Bereshit Rabba: Critical Edition with
Notes and Commentary. 2nd ed. 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1965) [Hebrew].
Weiss, Zeev. “Biblical Stories in Early Jewish Art: Jewish-Christian Polemic or
Intracommunal Dialogue.” In Continuity and Renewal: Jews and Judaism in
Byzantine-Christian Palestine, ed. Lee I. Levine (Jerusalem: Dinur Center, 2004),
245-70 [Hebrew].
Weiss, Zeev. “Is Rabbinic Literature Relevant to Deciphering Archaeological Finds?” In
The Paths of Daniel: Studies in Judaism and Jewish Culture in Honor of Rabbi Professor
Daniel Sperber, ed. Adam S. Ferziger (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2017),
419-35 [Hebrew].
Wertheimer, Shlomo Aharon. Leqet Midrashim (Jerusalem, 1903).
Zunz, Leopold. Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt: Ein Beitrag
zur Alterthumskunde und biblischen Kritik, zur Literatur- und Religionsgeschichte,
2nd ed. (Frankfurt am Main: A. Asher, 1892).
Journal for the Study of Judaism 52 (2021) 1-22