Emma Loosley. The Architecture and Literature of the Bema in Fourth- to Sixth- Century Syrian Churches. Patrimoine Syriaque 2. Kaslik: Parole de l’Orient, 2003. Pp. 294.
Marica
Cassis
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
html2TEI.xsl
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2005
Vol. 8, 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/hv8n2prcassis
Marica Cassis
Emma Loosley. The Architecture and Literature of the Bema in Fourth- to Sixth- Century Syrian Churches. Patrimoine Syriaque 2. Kaslik: Parole de l’Orient, 2003. Pp. 294.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol8/HV8N2PRCassis.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute,
vol 8
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
Architecture
Bema
File created by XSLT transformation of original HTML encoded article.
[1] Although
northern Syria holds the remains of hundreds of churches from
the fourth through seventh centuries, the approximately
forty-five churches containing a bema—the large
horseshoe-shaped platform in the centre of the nave –
have historically been the most studied structures. The
architectural evidence for the bema was presented
initially by Georges Tchalenko.
Georges Tchalenko, Églises Syriennes
à Bêma, (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul
Geuthner, 1990). This work is based on his survey work during
the 1950s.
Since then, there have been
several books and articles which use the architectural evidence
to illuminate the literary evidence.
The most recent work is Erich Renhart, Das
Syrische Bema: Liturgisch-archäologische
Untersuchungen (Graz: Grazer Theologische Studien, 1995).
Emma Loosley should be
commended for bringing together the architectural and literary
evidence in her attempt to prove that these churches are
located in discernible clusters which may reflect a particular
school of thought at Antioch. In The Architecture and
Liturgy of the Bema in Fourth- to Sixth-Century Syrian
Churches, Loosley illustrates the importance of looking at
both the literary accounts and the physical remains of the
entire corpus of churches when making observations about the
architecture and liturgy of the West Syrian church.
[2] In her
introduction, Loosley sets out the two major aims to her study:
to provide an updated account of the bema churches
through photographs taken during her own fieldwork and to try
to establish these churches within the architectural corpus and
liturgical tradition of the churches of Syria (pp. 21-22). She
then gives a brief account of the development of early
Christian architecture (pp. 22-26) and introduces the region
where the majority of these churches are found, the Limestone
Massif in north-western Syria (pp. 26-28). The reader is
subsequently introduced to the problems associated with
studying the bema churches, including the issue of how
the term bema should be defined when it is used in the
written sources (pp. 20-30). For example, depending on the
origin of the source, the term can refer to a large platform in
the nave or the raised sanctuary area or can be used as a
synonym for the ambo. Loosley also briefly discusses
the use of the bema in other religious traditions,
since its origins almost certainly lie outside of Christianity
(pp. 30-32). Finally, she identifies the major problem in
defining and explaining the bema. Although there are
several extant examples of the bema, its purpose is
unclear in the few West Syrian liturgical sources we possess (p
35).
[3] The
introduction identifies a number of the major problems in
studying the bema churches. These are issues that
Loosley goes on to discuss in the remainder of the book, and
include such things as scholarly reliance on East Syrian
sources to explain West Syrian liturgy. However, the one area
that is left unfinished in the introduction (and in the rest of
the book) is the discussion Loosley begins on the origins of
early Christian architecture and the development which
eventually led to the bema churches (pp. 22-26). The
evolution of church architecture in Syria from the third
century house church at Dura Europos to the massive structures
of the fourth and fifth centuries, including those with
bemata, is not clearly presented here. I could not
help feeling that this short section on the origins of
Christian architecture could have been expanded into a short
chapter which would have provided a better context for the
discussion of the bemata.
[4] The
first chapter of the book is the strongest, and Loosley
presents a number of new archaeological ideas which should
restart the discussion about this particular corpus. She
presents the archaeological evidence for the bema,
both in Syria and elsewhere, and discusses the archaeological
evidence for the origins of the bema within the
synagogue architectural tradition (pp. 44-47). Loosley also
reestablishes several of the facts that we know about these
churches, including the absence of the bema from
monastic churches and the fact that only one bema
church is known per settlement. (pp. 43-44). In doing so, she
addresses the two major theories concerning the construction
and use of these particular churches: the assertion that all of
the bema churches were associated with martyria (pp.
49-57)
This theory comes out of an assessment of
Tchalenko’s work. See particularly page 52 in Loosley.
and Castellana’s hypothesis that the bema
was the result of the social or political influence of wealthy
members of the community (pp.57-64).
P. Castellana, “Note sul bema della
Siria settentrionale.” (Studia Orientalia
Christiana, Collectanea 25 [1992]), 90-100.
[5] In both
cases, her analysis is absolutely correct. She first dismisses
the idea that the bema was only connected to churches
which had an important relic or holy site affiliated with them.
She points out that while the majority of the bema
churches were connected to sites with martyria, the cult of
saints was prevalent throughout Syria and consequently it is
not really possible to connect only bema churches with
martyria or relics (p. 55). For example, many important
pilgrimage sites were found without a bema, particularly those
connected to Stylites (p. 56). Rather, she offers the
possibility that the bema provided a way to display or
use a relic during services. Since the bema stood in the same
place as the pillar of the Stylite in some of the major
pilgrimage churches (such as at Qalʿat
Semʿan), Loosley suggests that the altar
that is sometimes found on the bema might be linked to
the display or veneration of the relic during the liturgy (pp.
49-50). This is an extremely interesting idea that deserves
further consideration, since it has been difficult to explain
the use of the altar on the bema given the presence of an altar
in the sanctuary.
[6] The
second part of her discussion centers on Castellana’s
idea that these bema churches can be connected with a
prominent member of the community through their proximity to an
important tomb or nearby villa. (pp. 57-60). According to
Loosley, these “are elements that Castellana relates to
civil rather than ecclesiastical power” (p. 57),
suggesting that the bema churches were the result of a wealthy
or powerful patron. Loosley quite rightly points out that we
know far more about the actual architects of these churches
than we do about the patrons, citing the extremely important
example of Markianos Kyris, the man responsible for building a
large number of these structures. (pp. 60-64). Following this
reasoning, she turns away from the concept of a secular patron,
and considers the questions of who would have built these
churches and why. Her observation that Markianos Kyris
was also a member of a religious community (since he was buried
in a monastery) (p. 61) leads into her discussion of the
possibility that the bema churches reflect a
particular set of religious teachings coming from Antioch.
These churches were built in clusters over the period of three
centuries, each group probably reflecting the earlier one. She
is further able to identify these churches as a unique corpus
by distinguishing these bemata from the mosaic
bemata found further to the west, (pp. 68-70) and the
bema of the East Syrian church in Mesopotamia.
[7] In her
second chapter, the author turns to the sources that mention
the bema. Loosley returns to the discussion started in
the introduction concerning the proper translation of the term,
and discusses its presence in Jewish and Manichean sources (pp.
86-88). She then turns to the Syriac sources, where she
restricts herself to liturgical commentaries and explanations.
As well, she restricts herself to unambiguous references to the
bema as the large platform in the nave (p. 89). She
brings to the forefront the issue of the lack of sources in
either the West or East Syrian traditions. Her discussion
starts with the earliest sources, including the Didascalia
Apostolorum, and concludes with the ninth century East
Syrian Expositio Officiorum Ecclesiae.
[8] Earlier
studies of the liturgy of the bema for both the West and East
Syrian traditions have relied heavily on interpretation of the
East Syrian texts, a methodology which does not account for the
important differences between these groups. Loosley stresses
this point, and it is an important one (pp. 100-102). While her
discussion of the later sources is clear, I found her
discussion of the earliest sources problematic precisely
because it was not clear. In her discussion of the Syriac
version of the Didascalia Apostolorum, for example,
she talks first about a church layout which places a platform
at the east end of the church, a liturgical arrangement known
from Dura Europos (p. 90). She then discusses another passage
from the same source that clearly uses the word bema,
and indicates that the reference “specifically refers to
the bema in the centre of the nave.” (p. 90).
While the Syriac does use the word bema, the text does
not clearly indicate its placement within the church.
Arthur Vööbus, The Didascalia
Apostolorum In Syriac, Chapters 1-X. CSCO 176, (Louvain:
Secrétariat du Corpus SCO, 1979), 38.
Loosley’s interpretation may be correct, but a clearer
and more complete discussion of the Syriac would have been
helpful. This is a problem throughout the section on the
earliest sources.
[9] Chapter
3 moves a step further, and tries to illustrate how the
bema was used in the West Syrian liturgy through a
combination of the textual and archaeological sources. Loosley
also compares the East and West Syrian traditions in terms of
the liturgical organization of the bema and the
symbolism associated with it. Again, she is quite rightly
cautious of using the East Syrian sources to assess the West
Syrian archaeological material. Based on her own archaeological
evidence and the literary analysis, and Renhart’s
categorization of the sources concerning the bema, she
concludes that “the bema is always a peripheral
element in West Syrian texts rather than at the centre of the
rite.” (p. 128) The fact that the bema did not
always play a central role could perhaps have been better
connected to Loosley’s theory about the liturgical
connections of the bema churches with a single school
of thought emanating from Antioch. If her theory is
correct, this could explain why there are few references to the
bema in the West Syrian texts, and why it does not
retain the mystical dimension that it does in the East Syrian
texts.
[10] The
final chapter is dedicated to summing up the answers that can
be given—and stating those that still remain. Loosley
illustrates the importance of associating written and
archaeological sources, and provides an update on the situation
of these very important monuments. She provides a list of work
that still needs to be done on these churches. Loosley quite
rightly calls for a comparison of East and West Syrian
architectural styles—and I believe this could be expanded
to a work much like hers for the bema (p. 148-149).
Further, Loosley has initiated discussion on an even bigger
problem: much more work needs to be done on all of the churches
of northern Syria, not just those containing
bemata.
[11] The
remainder of the book is dedicated to three appendices and a
catalogue of photos from the bema churches. The
appendices provide the sources of our information on all of
these churches; the dates; and the obvious clusters that
Loosley has identified (pp. 155-163). The photos provide a
photo essay on both preservation and decay and are an extremely
important document of what we are losing in this region
archaeologically (pp. 167-283). However, she has not included
either a map of the region or any church plans, which often
makes it difficult to visualize the churches and liturgical
arrangements she is discussing.
[12]
Overall, The Architecture and Liturgy of the Bema in
Fourth- to Sixth- Century Syrian Churches is a valuable
addition to the debate concerning the bema churches of
northern Syria. Loosley’s architectural assessment is
extremely important, and her clear divisions between West and
East, and even among the West Syrian community should help to
restart the debate about uniformity in the early Christian
world. The need to look at both architectural and literary
evidence is also highlighted by this work._______
Notes