The Central Synagogue of Nazareth Illit and its architectural dialogue with Nazareth's Basilica of the Annunciation

The study situates the Central Synagogue of Nazareth Illit within the context of Israeli state policy in the Galilee and Nazareth’s international Christian pilgrimage status. Following the 1954 commission for a modern Basilica of the Annunciation, Israeli authorities were eager to establish a Jewish monument that could assert Jewish presence in the region. A synagogue design process began in 1957 and the two projects advanced in parallel, with both completed in the late 1960s by the same contractor. The article frames an implicit architectural dialogue between the two buildings across three parallel moments: early eclectic design proposals (Barluzzi and Ben Uri), Brutalist realizations (Muzio and Zolotov), and the integration of religious artworks. The key research questions are: What were the respective aims behind establishing each monument? To what extent did religious competition in the Nazareth region shape the synagogue’s identity as a national architectural landmark?

• Religious competition and visual culture: David Morgan’s concept of religious visual culture emphasizes rivalry, appropriation, and the transfer of symbols across traditions. Throughout history, synagogues and churches have demonstrated both similarity and differentiation, often absorbing local styles and conditions. Jewish mobility and the role of non-Jewish builders historically contributed to synagogues reflecting their surroundings. Despite spatial parallels, liturgical differences (e.g., church altar as single focal point vs. synagogue’s Torah Ark and bimah) shape architectural organization.
• Modern church architecture: Key trends include the adoption of new materials and technologies (notably reinforced concrete, e.g., Perret’s Notre Dame du Raincy), the search for new forms beyond strict rationalism (e.g., Gaudí’s Sagrada Familia), and post–Vatican II emphasis on congregational participation and universalism, which encouraged embracing contemporary art and architecture.
• Israeli synagogue architecture after 1948: A surge of synagogue construction accompanied new town development. Designers faced the challenge of forging an Israeli synagogue identity without a fixed historical exterior typology. Local architects experimented with international modern styles (eclecticism, high modernism, Brutalism). Meir Ben-Uri argued against imitating diasporic styles in Israel, yet Jewish–Christian competition in Nazareth contributed to stylistic choices.
• Brutalism in Israel: Adopted to express material authenticity, locality, and nation-building sentiments, Brutalism used exposed concrete and simple materials, reflecting postwar architectural ethics and Israeli cultural aspirations.

Comparative architectural-historical analysis of two case studies (the Basilica of the Annunciation and the Central Synagogue of Nazareth Illit). The study examines archives, early design proposals, realized architecture, and integrated artworks, and compares them chronologically to reveal motivations, ideologies, and interreligious dynamics. The approach is interdisciplinary, drawing on history and theory of architecture, anthropology, Israel studies, and art history to contextualize design decisions and cultural meanings within mid-20th-century Israel.

• Catalytic role of the basilica: The 1954 launch of the basilica project spurred Israeli authorities to promote a Jewish monumental presence via a central synagogue for Nazareth Illit (design process begun 1957). Both projects were executed by Solel Boneh and inaugurated close together (synagogue 1968; basilica 1969).
• Three parallel moments:
  1. Early eclectic proposals: Barluzzi’s 1954 basilica plan and Ben-Uri’s 1957 synagogue plan employed symbolic, eclectic vocabularies not aligned with the modern image desired by the Catholic Church and the State of Israel; both were ultimately set aside.
  2. Brutalist realizations: Muzio’s basilica (1958–1969) and Zolotov’s synagogue (1960–1968) adopted Brutalism and exposed concrete, signaling modernization. The basilica integrates a monumental dome (~55 m) dominating the skyline and an interior-exterior stylistic duality (interior Brutalism, exterior medievalizing stone cladding). The synagogue features an inverted exposed-concrete dome atop a cubic volume, visually separated by a ribbon window and largely sunken into the hill, with simple materials (local reddish stone, exposed concrete, gravel).
  3. Integrated artworks: The basilica combines high art (e.g., Salvatore Fiume’s mosaic) and global folk expressions (international Madonna and Child panels), reinforcing universality. The synagogue integrates modern Israeli artworks (Ruth Zarfati and Moshe Sternschuss’ bronze basin; Zarfati’s abstract concrete relief; stained-glass with menorah motifs), blending traditional Jewish symbols with modernist idioms.
• Archaeology and authenticity: Muzio preserved and displayed in-situ archaeological remains (Grotto and Crusader-era outlines), suspending the upper church on pillars to maintain traces of the ancient village, aligning with contemporaneous conservation ethics.
• Program and scale differences: The basilica (capacity ~2000) operates as a major international pilgrimage site; the synagogue serves local daily worship in a modest hall and accommodates large gatherings on the Days of Awe in the main sanctuary and courtyards, aspiring to be a regional/national icon.
• Deliberate contrast and influence: Zolotov’s inverted dome was intended to distinguish the synagogue from Nazareth’s churches and mosques while nonetheless engaging a shared Brutalist language. Inspirations include Le Corbusier’s Ronchamp chapel (upturned roof, roof-wall separation).
• Competition guidelines and moderation: The synagogue competition stressed a human scale and simplicity rather than height or size to compete with Nazareth’s churches implicitly through architectural quality, not monumentality.
• Reception: Both domes attracted satirical comparisons (basilica dome likened to a bottle’s cork; synagogue inverted dome to a dish), reflecting challenges in reading religious meaning in secular-modern forms.
• National vs universal: Brutalism signaled modernization for both institutions, yet outcomes diverged: the basilica symbolizes the Catholic Church’s universal reach; the synagogue functions primarily as a local-national icon tied to Israeli identity-building and presence in the Galilee.

The findings address the research questions by showing that the basilica’s establishment aimed to assert the Catholic Church’s presence in the modern Holy Land through a monumental, archaeologically grounded complex aligned with Vatican II’s openness and universality. In response, Israeli authorities sought to bolster Jewish presence and identity in a mixed-religious region by commissioning a central synagogue whose design both dialogued with and differentiated itself from the basilica. The synagogue’s Brutalist language, inverted dome, sunken massing, and integration of contemporary Israeli artworks articulated national aspirations, while the basilica’s materials, spatial organization, and global art program broadcast universal Catholic identity and authenticity via conserved relics. The interreligious dialogue materialized through both similarity (Brutalist concrete, monumental formal focus, integrated art) and deliberate difference (inverted vs upright dome; local-national symbolism vs global-universal imagery). Ultimately, disparities in scale, budgets, and institutional power constrained the realization of a sustained interreligious architectural conversation, illustrating how modern religious architecture functioned as a cultural instrument in negotiating identity, dominance, and visibility in the Nazareth region.

The study demonstrates that modern architectural strategies became active agents in a Jewish–Christian struggle for monumental prominence in Nazareth’s multi-religious landscape. By tracing parallel paths in proposals, Brutalist executions, and integrated art, the article shows how the basilica’s initiation catalyzed the synagogue’s conception and shaped its identity as a national landmark. The basilica achieved a global, universalist presence rooted in archaeology and Vatican II-era artistic policies, while the synagogue, though seeking local identity, remained aesthetically grounded in Western European modernist culture even as it projected Israeli national symbolism. Potential future research directions suggested by the study’s scope include fuller examination of Muslim religious architecture’s role in regional dynamics and broader comparative analyses of mid-20th-century religious buildings in Israel as instruments of cultural and political identity formation.

• Scope limited to two primary monuments and their comparative histories and artworks.
• The role of local mosques and Muslim-Christian-Jewish interactions is acknowledged but not explored in depth.
• Significant differences in project scale, budgets, and institutional backing limited direct comparability and the practical realization of interreligious architectural dialogue.
• The broader field of Israeli synagogue architecture in the early statehood period remains under-researched, constraining comprehensive generalization beyond the case studies.