The Bema in the East Syriac Church In Light of New Archaeological Evidence†
Marica
Cassis
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
html2TEI.xsl
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2002
Vol. 5, No. 2
For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full
copyright.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv5n2cassis
Marica CASSIS
The Bema in the East Syriac Church In Light of New Archaeological Evidence†
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol5/HV5N2Cassis.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2002
vol 5
issue 2
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is an electronic journal dedicated to the study
of the Syriac tradition, published semi-annually (in January and July) by Beth
Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. Published since 1998, Hugoye seeks to offer the
best scholarship available in the field of Syriac studies.
Syriac Studies
Syriac Architecture
Bema
File created by XSLT transformation of original HTML encoded article.
The bema, a raised platform located in the
centre of the nave, was an important architectural and
liturgical feature in the early East and West Syriac churches.
However, there are many unanswered questions concerning the
correlation between the archaeological remains and the
liturgical importance of this structure, particularly in the
East Syriac milieu. While the bema was considered integral to
the early liturgy of the East Syriac church, little
archaeological material independently confirms its importance.
This paper will deal primarily with the East Syriac bema, and
the discrepancies which exist between the written and
architectural evidence.
[1] Until
relatively recently the field of Syriac Christianity was marked
by a notable dearth of archaeological information. One of the
more unfortunate results of this lack of material was a
tendency on the part of earlier scholars to assign the majority
of early Syriac structures to broad categories, taking little
note of regional architectural variation or its significance.
While great strides have been made over the last fifty years in
further defining the various regional traditions in
architecture and liturgical furnishings within the West Syriac
Church, less work has been instigated in the field of East
Syriac Christianity. However, more archaeological evidence has
begun to surface in the last twenty years and we must now
reconsider the old material in terms of the new. Part of this
task must include not only a reexamination of the architecture,
but also its relation to the many written sources for the East
Syriac liturgy. Only through such a discussion can we separate
the physical structures from the ideal liturgy and understand
how the two interact with one another.
[2] This
paper serves solely as a preliminary examination of the problem
and therefore concentrates on only one aspect of the East
Syriac church - the bema. This liturgical and architectural
structure is found not only in the East Syriac tradition, but
also within the contexts of West Syriac and Byzantine churches
and many early synagogues. In short, it is a raised platform
located in the nave (although the exact position varies),
predominantly associated with the liturgy and used for
readings, sermons and blessings. While its position,
significance and composition vary geographically, it retains
extremely significant symbolism in the East Syriac
liturgy.
The best discussions of sources as they relate to
the bema are found in Robert F. Taft, “Some Notes on the
Bema in the East and West Syrian Traditions”
(OCP 34 [1968]), 326-359; idem., “On the Use of
the Bema in the East-Syrian Liturgy” (ECR 3
[1970]), 30-39 (Both republished with comments in Liturgy
in Byzantium and Beyond, Collected Studies Series CS493
[Aldershot: Variorum, 1995]); Pauline Donceel-Voûte,
Les pavements des églises de Syrie et du Liban.
Décor, archéologie, et liturgie, 2 Bde
(Louvain-la-Neuve: Département
d’archéologie et d’historie de l’art,
Collège Érasme, 1988), 511-523; and Pauly
Maniyattu, Heaven on Earth (Rome: Mar Thoma Yogam,
1995), 164-172. See also J. Dauvillier,
“L’Ambon ou Bêmâ dans les textes de
l’église Chaldéenne et de
l’église Syrienne au Moyen Age”
(CAr 6 [1952]), 11-31.
Although the usage and symbolism of this
structure is clearly expressed in many East Syriac sources, the
interpretation of this material in relation to new
archaeological finds leads us into some difficulty.
The term East Syriac in this paper refers to the
Christian community living in the Sassanian Empire which is
often given the misnomer "Nestorian". This is too limited a
term, however, and does not take into account the regional
variation or independent development of this community. Primary
sources for the bema include the fifth century Synodicon
Orientale as well as the ninth century Thomas of Marga.
For the former source, see J.B. Chabot, Synodicon
Orientale (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1902), 28, 267-8;
for the latter see E.A.W. Budge, The Book of
Governors, 2 vols. (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner,
& Co., 1893), vol. 1, 306; vol 2; 543. See also Taft, "Some
Notes," 332-333.
While
early East Syriac writing expresses an ideal liturgy involving
the bema, it has now become increasingly difficult to correlate
the written evidence with the archaeological remains.
[3] A
framework for this discussion has already been established by
Robert Taft, who initiated the consideration of the bema in the
Syriac tradition.
Ibid., 326-359.
His comparison of both the written liturgical
sources and the available archaeological data provides clear
evidence for the separation of the two Syriac traditions. Taft
also offers a strong analysis of the different architectural
groupings within the geographically diverse West Syriac Church.
In recent years much more work has been done on this latter
group of churches, particularly by Pauline Donceel-Voûte.
Her work is not only essential for understanding the liturgy of
these structures in terms of the archaeology (and vice-versa),
but also for illuminating the diversity which exists among the
extant West Syriac churches.
Donceel-Voûte, Les pavements, 521.
More recently Erich Renhart has
devoted an entire monograph to the bema, particularly as it
relates to the West Syriac churches.
Erich Renhart, Das Syrische Bema, Grazer
Theologische Studien 20 (Graz: Grazer Theologische Studien,
1995). His article concerning the bema, “Encore une fois:
le bema des églises de la Syrie du nord”
(PdO 20 [1995]), 85-94 was recently brought to my
attention, although I have not yet been able to consult it.
Renhart and Donceel-Voûte discuss East Syriac sources
extensively, but are geographically concerned with Byzantine
Syria and Northern Mesopotamia.
Some work has also been
started on the East Syriac corpus of churches, primarily by
Yasuyoshi Okada.
See: Yasuyoshi Okada, “Ain Sha’ia and
the Early Gulf Churches: An Architectural Analogy”
(al-Rafidan 13 [1992]), 87-93 and “Early
Christian Architecture in the Iraqi South-Western Desert”
(al-Rafidan 12 [1991]), 71-83. Okada has
recognized the regional similarities of the churches in
southern Iraq and the Persian-Arabian Gulf.
However, considerable work remains to be done on
the East Syriac architectural corpus, which has expanded
extensively over the last few years. The majority of these
"new" churches are located in the formerly Sassanian-held lands
of southern Iraq and in the Persian-Arabian Gulf. The
architecture represented in these structures needs now to be
reconsidered in relation to the liturgy. Thus, this paper is in
no way an attempt to draw final conclusions, but is an initial
discussion of the potential directions for future exploration
in the field of East Syriac Christianity.
[4] In order
to understand the framework Taft set out, we must look briefly
at the appearance and significance of the bema in West Syriac
church architecture.
Taft, “Some Notes,” 337ff.
Previous to Taft's work, many assumptions
were made about the uniform nature of the West Syriac
tradition, based solely on the geographical area in which these
churches are found. J.M. Fiey's "Syro-Jacobite" plan
illustrates an example of the idealized layout of these
churches in which the bema, often apsidal, is found in the
centre of the nave [Figure 1].
J.M. Fiey, Mossoul Chrétienne
(Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1959), Plate III. This plan is
based on both written and archaeological sources. Fiey did,
however, note the variations which occurred in the
architectural reality in both the East and West Syriac churches
of Mossul. Ibid., 75, 98. Donceel-Voûte, Les
pavements, 513-514 illustrates some of the variations
which occur within this corpus of churches.
However, in reviewing the
architectural evidence Taft was able to delineate four
geographical categories within each of which he found
variations in the placement and use of the bema. He divided the
churches into four categories: north and northwest Syria; the
region around southern Syria; the area around Osrhoene,
including the Tur-Abdin; and Takrit. Of these, the bema occurs
in the centre of the nave only in some of the churches of the
first region (northern Syria) and in Takrit.
Taft, “Some Notes,” 349-350.
The churches located
in the other two areas are more disposed towards a liturgical
arrangement in which the bema was placed in the area in front
of the sanctuary, often merging with the sanctuary as sacred
space. This shift, which Taft links to the evolution of the
sanctuary, also has implications for understanding the use and
symbolism of the bema within the context of the West Syriac
liturgy.
Ibid., 350. Donceel-Voûte,
Les pavements, 520-521 also draws attention to the
fact that there were certainly variations between how the East
and West Syriac communities used the bema.
Fig 1. "Syro-Jacobite" plan. J.M. Fiey.
Mossoul Chrétienne, (Beirut: Imprimerie
Catholique, 1959), Plate III.
[5] The
variation in the location of the bema is mirrored in the
written sources, which, according to Taft, are difficult to
interpret.
Taft, “Some Notes,” 351ff.
Certainly the predominant sense is that the
bema, while important as a platform for readings in the
churches where it does occur, is less important for the overall
symbolism of the West Syriac liturgy than for that of the
East—something which is often reflected in a
correspondingly smaller platform. Taft says: "Unfortunately the
liturgical commentators of the Jacobite tradition have not
provided us with the same wealth of detailed liturgical
information as their Nestorian brethren. The ancient documents
of the Antiochene tradition, both Greek and Syriac, place the
altar, throne and synthronon in the east end of the
church."
Ibid., 351. This arrangement would give to
the bema the same significance as the ambo in the Byzantine
rite.
This arrangement of liturgical furnishings
takes away from the importance of the bema. As well, the actual
physical bema is described as being in a variety of locations,
including both the centre of the nave as well as in front of
the sanctuary. The variation and the silence of some of the
sources suggest that less spiritual significance is given to
the bema in the Western tradition than in the Eastern one.
However, in West Syriac sources from the East, the description
of the bema suggests an importance which is generally applied
only to the East Syriac tradition.
Taft cites Yahya ibn Garir, for example.
Ibid., 354-355. Taft relates this to their geographical
relation to the so-called “Nestorians” of the
Sassanian Empire.
[6] Taken
together, the literary and archaeological evidence suggest the
following points. There was regional variation in the West
Syriac size, shape and positioning of the bema. Generally the
bema merged with the area in front of the sanctuary, and this
location took on the symbolic significance of Jerusalem and
Divine Instruction which we shall see in the East Syriac
tradition.
Maniyattu, Heaven on Earth, 164ff.
Its appearance in North Syria is indicative of
a regional variation, and its retention in the eastern region
of Takrit, as is confirmed in a recent discussion by Amir
Harrak, may be connected to its proximity to the East Syriac
Church.
Amir Harrak, “Recent Archaeological
Excavations in Takrit and the Discovery of Syriac
Inscriptions” (Journal of the CSSS, 1[2001]),
15-16. See also Taft, “Some Notes,” 354-355.
Overall, this indicates regional variation
involving the bema in the architecture and liturgy of the West
Syriac Church.
[7] As the
analysis of the West Syriac Church has been developed in light
of more recent archaeological material, this will not be my
main purpose in this paper.
For the West Syriac tradition, see
particularly Donceel-Voûte, Les pavements and
Renhart, Das Syrische Bema.
Rather, I would like to draw
attention to the fact that the same regional diversity must now
be considered for the churches of the Eastern tradition. To
begin with, let us start with a statement by Taft which, in
light of recent discoveries, has become problematic: "The
archaeological evidence is... quite slim, but not negative. And
the liturgical evidence for the existence and precise
liturgical use of the bema in the Nestorian tradition is strong
enough to be conclusive."
Taft, “Some Notes,” 331.
At the time of the initial
publication of Taft's article, the architectural evidence came
only from the sites of Hira
The dates for these churches are somewhat
approximate. Mound XI is dated to the sixth century and Mound V
is dated to the seventh century in the original archaeological
reports. For discussion of this site see Okada, “Ain
Sha’ia,” 87-93 and “Early Christian
Architecture,” 71-83. For the original excavation
reports see D. Talbot Rice, “The Oxford Excavations at
Hira” (Ars Islamica 1 [1934]), 51-73 and
“The Oxford Excavations at Hira, 1931”
(Antiquity 6 [1932]), 276-291.
and Ctesiphon.
The Upper Church at Ctesiphon dates to
approximately the beginning of the seventh century. For
discussion of these churches see the above articles by Y.
Okada, as well as Oscar Reuther, “The German Excavations
at Ctesiphon” (Antiquity 3 [1929]),
434-451, and “Sasanian Architecture” in A
Survey of Persian Art, ed. Arthur Upham Pope. Volume II,
Reprint. (London: Oxford University Press, 1967). It should
also be stressed that the church was not completely excavated.
Further evidence
of a bema at the site of Sulaimaniya in northwest Iraq, dating
from the sixth century, was included when Taft's article was
republished.
This is a provisional date. Taft,
“Additional Notes and Comments” in Liturgy in
Byzantium and Beyond (Aldershot: Variorum Reprints, 1995):
3-4.
Thus, from among these three sites, only two
(Hira and Sulaimaniya) exhibit evidence of this liturgical
structure. Until recently, the absence of a bema at Ctesiphon
suggested that it was the exception rather than the rule -
particularly in light of roughly contemporary sources such as
the Synodicon Orientale. The idealized liturgical
arrangement, based primarily on sources, can be seen in Fiey's
"Chaldean-Nestorian" plan [Figure 2].
Fiey, Mossoul Chrétienne,
Plate II.
Fig 2. "Chaldean-Nestorian" plan. J.M. Fiey.
Mossoul Chrétienne, (Beirut: Imprimerie
Catholique, 1959), Plate II.
[8] The
corresponding Syriac written evidence places the bema in the
centre of the nave and assigns it a heavy symbolic
presence.
Maniyattu, Heaven on Earth, 164ff;
Donceel-Voûte, Les pavements, 511ff.
While the original written reference to a bema
in southern Mesopotamia is a rather practical indication of its
use in the early fifth century Synodicon Orientale,
the spiritual implications can be seen in later
sources.
This discussion of the sources is based on
Taft’s work in “Some Notes,” 331-332.
Further, both the architectural and written
evidence explain the physical and thus spiritual connection
between the sanctuary and the bema. Taft says: “Before
the sanctuary doors, a platform, the qestromã,
extended out into the nave. From the center of this platform,
before the central door, a narrow pathway, the
bet-šqaqona, extended down the center of the
nave to connect the qestromã to the
bema.”
Taft, “Some Notes,” 333.
The exact arrangement of the liturgical
furnishings is of extreme importance to the implementation of
the service. According to Pauly Maniyattu, the use of the
structure only for the “...Sacred Scripture shows concern
for the sacredness of this liturgical space.”
Maniyattu, Heaven on Earth,
168.
He parallels this with George of Arbela’s description of
the bema as Jerusalem, with the altar on it being
representative of Golgotha.
Ibid., 169-170.
The entire liturgical arrangement
of the structure thus mirrors the instruction of God, through
the actions of Christ.
[9] While
the combination of the early architectural material and
liturgical information indicates the importance of the bema in
the liturgical tradition of the East Syriac Church, the
archaeological material discovered in the last twenty years has
become a somewhat problematic addition to this question.
Several more East Syriac churches have come to light from both
the Iraqi mainland and the islands in the Persian-Arabian Gulf,
and none of these structures provides any evidence for a bema.
Yet the majority of these churches can be called East Syriac
through their remaining decorative elements, some minor
inscriptional evidence and the known existence of this
community within the Sassanian Empire.
For a discussion of this community see S.P.
Brock, “Christians in the Sasanian Empire: A Case of
Divided Loyalties” in Religion and National
Identity, ed. Stuart Mews (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1982),
1-19 and Michael G. Morony, “Religious Communities in
Late Sasanian and Early Muslim Iraq” (JESHO 17
[1974]), 113-135.
[10] As
mentioned above, these churches come from a variety of
locations, most of which are extremely isolated. One of the
most recently discovered churches derives from an eighth
century monastic site in the southern Iraqi desert called Ain
Sha’ia. When it was excavated there was no evidence of a
bema.
These structures were published by Yasuyoshi
Okada, “Ain Sha’ia,” 87-93 and “Early
Christian Architecture,” 71-83.
The same situation is to be found at two more
Sassanian era sites in the southern part of Iraq, Qusayr and
Rahaliya.
These are mid-late Sassanian in date. For
both sites see Barbara Finster and Jurgen
Schmidt,“Sasanidische und Fruhislamische Ruinen im
Iraq” (Baghdader Mitteilungen 8 [1976]), 26-43.
See also Okada, “Early Christian Architecture,” 76,
77. There are two churches at Qusayr, neither of which have the
remains of a bema.
Another monastic site is located on the
Iranian island of Kharg, and probably dates after the sixth
century.
Roman Ghirshman, The Island of
Kharg (Tehran: Iranian Oil Operating Companies, 1964),
17-20. The original publication of this church dates the
structure to the sixth century. However, based on a number of
factors, this seems far too early a date and it was probably
built 100-200 years later. Okada, “Ain
Sh’aia,” 93.
This church also contains no bema. This is
particularly notable because other ecclesiastical furnishings
are visible in this church.
Ghirshman, The Island of Kharg, 19.
The remains of the altar-site are clear, as is a large chest
reliquary. The fact that these have survived suggests that the
bema was not simply lost through time.
Two further island churches
exhibiting no evidence of a bema are located at the island site
of Failaka in Kuwait,
Circa mid-seventh century. See Derek Kennet,
“Excavations at the Site of Al-Qusur, Failaka,
Kuwait” (PSAS 21 [1991]), 97-111; Vincent
Bernard and Jean-Francois Salles, “Discovery of a
Christian Church at al-Qusur, Failaka, (Kuwait)”
(PSAS 21 [1991]), 7-21; and Vincent Bernard, Oliver
Callot and Jean-Francois Salles, “L’Église
d’al-Qousour Failaka, État de Koweit”
(AAE 2 [1991]), 145-181.
and on the Abu Dhabi island of Sir Bani
Yas.
Sixth to seventh century. G.R.D.
King and Peter Hellyer, “A Pre-Islamic Christian Site on
Sir Bani Yas” (Tribulus 4 [1994]), 5-7; G.R.D.
King, D. Dunlop, J. Elders, S. Garfi, A. Stephenson, C.
Tonghini, “A Report on the Abu Dhabi Islands
Archaeological Survey (1993-4)” (PSAS 25
[1995]): 63-74; Peter Hellyer, Filling in the Blanks.
(Dubai: Motivate Publishing, 1998), 42-49. Based on these
reports, there appears to be no evidence for a bema.
[11]
Archaeologically, the absence of the bema in one or two of
these structures could, of course, be explained in practical
ways. It has been plausibly suggested by several scholars
that these structures may have been made of wood. However this
seems unlikely within the geographical context of such
locations as the southern Iraqi desert. As well, extensive
excavations of some of these structures—most notably at
Failaka—have turned up fine plaster floors which do not
exhibit any indication of either portable or permanent
liturgical furnishings in the nave.
The archaeological reports from Failaka talk
at length about the plaster floors of the church: Bernard and
Salles, “Discovery,” 11 and Bernard, Callot, and
Salles, “L’Église,” 150.
While excavation is still
ongoing at some of these sites, enough work has been done to
suggest that the bema was not a common architectural form in
the southern part of Mesopotamia and the Persian-Arabian Gulf.
This conclusion is particularly confirmed in structures like
Kharg and Failaka where we have further ecclesiastical
remains.
For example, large chests and floor markings
were found in both of these churches.
[12]
Because the written evidence indicates the significance of the
bema in the liturgy of the East Syriac Church, it cannot be
disregarded as an important part of the service. However, we
must briefly explore the possible explanations for the absence
of this structure in the region around and south of Hira.
There are a number of possibilities and it seems likely that
they all impact on the final analysis. To begin with,
Taft’s assertion that the bema in the early Christian
tradition moved from west to east must hold some validity
here;
Taft, “Some Notes,” 358-9.
nevertheless, its arrival in Mesopotamia is
obscure. Further, two important questions remain unanswered:
from how far and when did the bema enter the region? The
presence of the bema in the West Syriac churches of the region
around Antioch, which theologically had early connections to
what became the Church of the East, may very well provide the
initial link for the passage of this liturgical element to some
of the eastern Christian churches. As well, the usage of a
bimah, or reader’s platform, in some of the
synagogues in the region of Anatolia and Syria may provide the
context for the initial adoption of this architectural
aspect.
One of many extant examples is found at
Sardis. See A. Seager, “The Synagogue at Sardis” in
Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Lee I. Levine, ed.
(Detroit: Wayne State University Press: 1982), 178-184. A
convincing argument for the Jewish origins of the bema can be
found in G. Rouwhorst, “Jewish Liturgical Traditions in
Early Syriac Christianity” (Vigiliae Christianae
51 [1997]), 72-93. I am not convinced that the bema had to come
to the Syrian and Mesopotamian population from a Christian
context. In Syria and northern Mesopotamia, it could very
plausibly have come from the Jewish architectural tradition.
[13]
While this may serve as a connection where the bema does occur,
it does not help with the problem of where it does not.
To begin with, these early East Syriac sites in Southern
Mesopotamia and the Persian-Arabian Gulf are now widely
considered to take their architectural elements not from the
Byzantine tradition, but from the Mesopotamian corpus
generally, and the Partho-Sassanian milieu
specifically.
In this regard, I strongly agree with Y.
Okada’s assessment that the impetus for these church
types must be local and contemporary. See particularly,
“Early Christian Architecture,” 80-81. This idea
was expressed earlier by Reuther, “Sasanian
Architecture,” 564-565.
A variety of architectural elements, including
the lateral entrances, the straight-backed sanctuary and the
mud-brick construction, are rooted firmly in these
Partho-Sassanian traditions.
Ibid.
Beyond this, the separation of
the Sassanian Christian community from the Byzantine Empire
meant that it had to turn inwards to find unique architectural
techniques to express its own liturgy. The fact that we
have no literary evidence for the enactment of the liturgy in
this specific region in the early period may be evidence for
this, but it is difficult to argue ex nihilo.
[14] A
further aspect to be considered is the separation of the Jewish
and Christian communities in this region. While several
architectural and even liturgical elements of the Byzantine
church had their origins in earlier or contemporary synagogue
architecture (elements which are also found in the West Syriac
Church), the Babylonian church did not adopt structures in a
similar way. The relations between the Jewish and Christian
communities under the Parthian and Sassanian Empires were less
than cordial. While the Christians received some converts from
within this community, they were not as numerous as they were
in other regions.
W. Stewart McCullough, A Short History
of Syriac Christianity to the Rise of Islam, (Chico:
Scholars Press, 1982), 96ff.
Further, the Jewish and Christian
populations increasingly became very distinct communities,
which contributed to the isolation of the groups from one
another.
Morony, “Religious Communities,”
115-116.
While this in itself would have reduced
converts between the religions, it would also have restricted
architectural borrowings. While there is no comparative
evidence for synagogues and churches in the region, it would
seem that overall the Christians of this tradition turned
almost entirely to secular Sassanian architecture for their own
structures.
Ibid., 117-118. Morony provides a
fascinating image of the Christian hierarchy imitating the
Sassanian political structure – which may also have
provided the impetus for architectural borrowing (or
vice-versa).
[15]
There remains the question of date and its relation to the
usage of the bema. Taft indicates that the last East Syriac
commentary we have is dated to the ninth century, but that in
the sixteenth century the ceremony of the adoration of the bema
appears again in the East Syriac liturgy. He suggests that the
bema fell into disuse under the Mongols in the fourteenth
century.
Taft, “Some Notes,” 337.
However, as seen above, in the region around
and south of Hira the bema does not seem to have been in
use at all. The fact that the slightly later East Syriac
churches discussed above were still using the same early
Mesopotamian architectural types - still without a bema –
strongly suggests that the initial local tradition in southern
Mesopotamia did not include this structure, and consequently
that the liturgy was performed in a different way spatially to
accommodate this absence.
[16] In
practical terms, we must also consider the usage of the East
Syriac churches. The majority of the churches in Babylonia and
the Persian-Arabian Gulf were associated with monastic
complexes and, excepting the three large structures at Hira and
Ctesiphon, were actually quite small. In the West Syriac
tradition, both liturgically and geographically, no example of
a monastic church has been found which contains the remains of
a bema.
Ibid., 350.
The size and usage of monastic churches surely
dictated the format of the architecture. Much the same argument
can be made for the small and isolated churches in Babylonia
and the Persian-Arabian Gulf. Recently two monastic churches in
Iraq—one at Sulaimaniya and one at Takrit—have been
excavated, both of which possess the remains of a bema.
The first one is East Syriac and is
discussed in Taft, “Additional Notes and Comments,”
3. The second one is West Syriac and is discussed in Harrak,
“Recent Archaeological Excavations,” 15-16.
This
suggests that the bema was an architectural feature found more
commonly in the regions north and west of Hira, and towards
Antioch.
[17]
Several secondary sources indicate that in the later churches
of Mesopotamia the bema essentially merged with the
qestromã, or area in front of the
sanctuary.
Taft, “Some Notes,” 337. Taft
also indicates that this is true in modern Chaldean churches.
Also see, Fiey, Mossoul Chrétienne, 78.
There, the significance of the bema retained
its importance within the liturgy. While the eventual
disappearance of this structure in the region is a matter of
some debate, perhaps we should be looking more toward regional
architectural differences for our explanation. While some of
the more accessible churches north and west of Hira have this
structure, none of the isolated ones to the south and east of
this region seem to indicate any disposition towards it at all.
Architecturally, the piers of all of the churches in the region
around and south of Hira make it difficult to assume that a
large square structure would have been placed in the center of
the nave, so completely dividing it. Further, the absence of
such a structure at Ctesiphon, the home of the Catholicos,
serves to indicate that there was indeed an independent
regional architectural style in Babylonia and the
Persian-Arabian Gulf which remained unique, even in the face of
increased influence from the Byzantine world.
When the controversy of Nestorius hit
Byzantium, many of his followers went into honoured exile in
the Eastern regions—where they encountered a vibrant and
highly independent church. See S. A. Harvey,
“Nestorianism”, “Nestorius” in
Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Everett Ferguson,
ed. (New York: Garland Publishing, 1990). See also Amir Harrak,
“Early Eastern Christianity and Monasticism in
Mesopotamia” (Bulletin of the Canadian Society of
Mesopotamian Studies, 18[1989]), 11-23.
[18] The
absence of the East Syriac bema in terms of its relation to
both the liturgy and its sister structure in the West Syriac
tradition is notable. What we do see is the development of an
aspect of liturgical furnishing based in the local
architectural corpus. Its absence suggests a new location for
its inherent symbolism, one more connected with the layout of
the local architectural traditions on which the rest of the
structure depends. Further, the eventual disappearance of the
bema from the East Syriac liturgical sources, and indeed
structures, may have its roots in the absence of this structure
in the early churches of southern Mesopotamia. Overall,
however, this suggests that we must now attempt to define
further regional differences in the East Syriac Church, both in
regard to the architecture and in regard to the written
liturgy.
[19] I
would like to thank Professor Amir Harrak for his constant
encouragement and advice. I would also like to express my
gratitude to the publisher Dar el-Machreq for allowing me to
reproduce the images from J.M. Fiey’s Mossoul
Chrétienne.
_______
Notes
† This article is based on the paper "The Bema
in the West and East Syriac Churches" given as part of the
Syriac panel at the two hundred and eleventh meeting of the
American Oriental Society in Toronto, Canada, in March, 2001.
_______
Bibliography
Bernard, V.; Salles, J.
“Discovery of a Christian Church at al-Qusur, Failaka,
(Kuwait).” PSAS 21
(1991), 7-22.
Bernard, V.; Callot, O.; and Salles,
J.F. “L’Église d’al-Qousour Failaka,
État de Koweit.” AAE 2.(1991),
145-181.
Brock, S.P. “Christians in the
Sasanian Empire: A Case of Divided Loyalties” in
Religion and National Identity, ed. Stuart
Mews. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1982.
Budge, E.A.W. The Book of
Governors. 2 volumes. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner,
& Co., 1893.
Chabot, J.B. Synodicon
Orientale. Paris: Imprimerie Nation5le, 1902.
Dauvillier, J. “L’Ambon
ou Bêmâ dans les textes de l’église
Chaldéenne et de l’église Syrienne au
Moyen Age.” CAr 6 (1952): 11-31.
Donceel-Voûte, Pauline. Les
pavements des églises de Syrie et du Liban.
Décor, archéologie, et liturgie. 2 Bde.
Louvain-la-Neuve:
Département d’archéologie et
d’historie de l’art, Collège Érasme,
1988.
Fiey, J.M. Mossoul
Chrétienne. Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique,
1959.
Finster, B. and Schmidt, J.
“Sasanidische und Fruhislamische Ruinem im
Iraq.” Baghdader Mitteilungen 8 (1976).
Ghirshman, R. The Island of
Kharg. Tehran: Iranian Oil Operating Companies, 1964.
Harrak, Amir. “Recent
Archaeological Excavations in Takrit and the Discovery of
Syriac Inscriptions.” Journal of the CSSS 1
(2001), 11-40.
— “Early Eastern
Christianity and Monasticism in Mesopotamia.”
Bulletin of the Canadian Society of Mesopotamian
Studies 18 (1989), 11-23.
Harvey, S.A.
“Nestorianism”, “Nestorius” in
Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. Everett Ferguson,
ed. New York: Garland Publishing, 1990.
Hellyer, Peter. Filling in the
Blanks. Dubai: Motivate Publishing, 1998.
Kennet, D. “Excavations at the
Site of Al-Qusur, Failaka, Kuwait.” PSAS 21
(1991), 97-111.
King, G.R.D. “A Nestorian
Monastic Settlement on the Island of Sir Bani Yas,
Abu Dhabi: A Preliminary Report.” BSOAS 60
(1997), 221-235.
King, G.R.D.; Dunlop, D.; Elders,
J.; Garfi, S.; Stephenson, A; and Tonghini,C.
“A Report on the Abu Dhabi Islands
Archaeological Survey (1993-4).”
PSAS 25 (1995),
63-74.
King, G.R.D. and Hellyer, P.
“A Pre-Islamic Christian Site on Sir Bani Yas.”
Tribulus 4 (1994), 5-7.
Maniyattu, P. Heaven on
Earth. Rome: Mar Thoma Yogam, 1995.
McCullough, W. S. A Short
History of Syriac Christianity to the Rise of Islam.
Chico: Scholars Press, 1982.
Morony, Michael G. “Religious
Communities in Late Sasanian and Early Muslim
Iraq.” JESHO 17 (1974), 113-135.
Okada, Y. “Ain
Sha’ia and the Early Gulf Churches: An Architectural
Analogy.” al-Rafidan 13 (1992), 87-93.
— “Early Christian
Architecture in the Iraqi South-Western Desert.”
al-Rafidan 12 (1991), 71-83.
Renhart, Erich. Das Syrische
Bema. Grazer Theologische Studien 20. Graz:
Grazer Theologische Studien, 1995.
— “Encore une fois: le
bema des églises de la Syrie du nord” PdO
20 (1995): 85-94.
Reuther, O. “Sasanian
Architecture” in A Survey of Persian Art. A.U.
Pope, ed. Volume 2. Reprint. London: Oxford University
Press, 1964.
— “The German
Excavations at Ctesiphon.” Antiquity 3 (1929),
434-451.
Rouwhorst, G. “Jewish
Liturgical Traditions in Early Syriac Christianity.”
Vigiliae Christianae 51 (1997), 72-93.
Seager, A. “The Synagogue at
Sardis” in Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Lee I.
Levine, ed. Detroit: Wayne State University Press,
1982.
Taft, R. F. Liturgy in Byzantium
and Beyond. Collected Studies Series CS493.
Aldershot: Variorum, 1995.
— “On the Use of the
Bema in the East-Syrian Liturgy.” ECR 3 (1970):
30-39.
— “Some Notes on the
Bema in the East and West Syrian Traditions.”
OCP 34 (1968), 326-359.
Talbot Rice, D. “The Oxford
Excavations at Hira.” Ars Islamica 1 (1934),
51-73.
— “The Oxford
Excavations at Hira, 1931.” Antiquity 6 (1932),
276-291.