Untitled

96
already by the 3rd century, as indicated by the
Dura Europos synagogue paintings. By this time,
therefore, these stories must have become traditional,
popular folk legends, which were then rendered
in art. The narrative scenes were probably
based on artistic forerunners, albeit sketches only,
but allowing much artistic freedom. Furthermore,
the fact that the biblical scenes were narrated
within a contemporary iconographic repertoire
indicates that this repertoire had traditional,
inherited, graphic origins and was not based on
the written word. These scenes are not illustrations
for a written text (Hachlili 1998: 195-197;
see also Wharton 1994: 4-21; 1995: 42,45, who
discusses the priority given to the literary text by
most scholars) but are themselves illustrations of
highly developed, stylized folk stories.
The choice of the themes was eclectic, which
is proved also by the paintings of the west wall
of the Dura Europos synagogue (Hachlili 1998:
123-127; 132-33). The artists of these iconographic
sources, following their own initiative,
were free to select and shape the models they used
as they were familiar with other current depictions.
The scene was intended to symbolize rather
than accurately describe its written source according
to the established tradition.
The general biblical themes portrayed on the
mosaic pavements, as well as in the Dura Europos
wall paintings, with their many interpretations
do not create a comprehensive general theme or
programmatic outline. The scenes and episodes
portray prominant figures in Jewish tradition and
history (Aaron, Abraham, David , Daniel, Isaac,
Noah ) as well as important biblical episodes with
additions of legends and themes which could be
construed as symbolizing traditional, historical
events, divine intervention, the covenant between
God and his chosen people, and his protection of
some and his punishment of others.
The assumption that the scenes on the paintings
and mosaics do not illustrate a text is proved
by the inscriptions found next to certain biblical
episodes. Most of the Hebrew inscriptions accompanying
the scenes are intended as identification.
They consist of the names of figures and objects,
occasionally scenes, and a short citation which
clearly explains and interprets the illustrations
beside it. These inscriptions without doubt are
secondary to the illustrations, explaining and
clarifying them. The Hebrew inscriptions on the
Binding of Isaac at Beth "Alpha, the identification
chapter four
of the various vessels in the Consecration of the
Service of the Tabernacle and Daily Offering at
Sepphoris, the names in Hebrew of Aaron, Abraham,
David, Daniel, Isaac, and Noah’s sons—all
explain the scenes. The inscriptions are not exact
biblical quotations. The text glosses the images,
but the images do not illustrate the biblical text.
Had the source of any painting been the biblical
text, there would surely have been consensus
about its identification. The fact that there is
frequently disagreement among scholars about
which biblical text is quoted for any specific scene
proves that the immediate source was not the
biblical text itself but a readily available visual
repertoire. Had more attention been paid to the
pictorial identification of the images, rather than
to a preoccupation with text identification (see
also Wharton 1994: 9, 14), this fact would have
been self-evident.
In conclusion, the Jewish communities wanted
to decorate their major religious and social structures
with didactic, narrative illustrations expressing
their legacy, their religious and national
tradition, and their shared experiences evoking
memories of past glory. This desire elucidates the
visual dominance and explains the images’ function.
The communities used folk tales based on
biblical stories with legendary additions, which
found artistic expression in painted narrative
scenes; the wall paintings of the 3rd-century CE
Dura synagogue are the earliest evidence of this.
Subsequently, this folk art was to evolve and
develop in the Byzantine period in the synagogue
mosaic pavements. The narrative scenes were
considered historical events yet they were also
treated as parables and had some symbolic implications.
Biblical scenes were considered appropriate
subject matter for the synagogue pavements,
although they were trodden on even when the
pavements contained the Hand of God and the
Temple ritual objects. This was intentional, to
emphasize the notion that if these depictions were
stepped on, they could not then be considered
sacred, and no danger of worshipping graven
images could arise.
These depictions seem to indicate that a visual
source, not the biblical text, was the guide to the
paintings. The biblical folk themes depicted on
synagogue mosaic pavements and in the Dura-
Europos synagogue paintings attest to the importance
the Jewish community attached to their visual
as well as their written inherited tradition.