History of architecture classes are dominated by churches. Starting in the Byzantine period, monumental churches began to appear, most often in the guise of a Roman public building, the basilica. However, basilicas were not the first churches, and L. Michael White explains how churches evolved from the house-churches (domus ecclesiae) mentioned in the New Testament to specially-built monumental churches. He examines archaeological evidence of early churches as well as the general built environment of early Christianity. White notes similar typologies in Judaism (especially in the Diaspora) and Mithraism, two religions that coexisted with early Christianity.
Although the text ignores evidence of early, purposely-built synagogues in Israel*, it does a good job of showing how each religion made use of houses as gathering spaces. Small changes were made to these houses accommodate worship. As congregations grew larger and wealthier, houses were renovated more thoroughly and sometimes combined with neighboring units, to yield an in-between stage of larger spaces more specifically equipped for prayers. White dubs these aula acclesiae. Finally, specially-built churches (or synagogues or Mithraea) were constructed as homes for the congregations.
I write in my introduction to ArchitecTorah that the architecture described in rabbinic literature reflects the built environment in which it was written. This is evident in the above quote from the Mishnah, which neatly matches the three stages described by White. The mishnah mentions three types of "houses" used from foreign worship:
The first is a house that has had minimal renovations. The trappings of foreign worship have been brought in, but no real changes have taken place to the architecture. Such a house can be exorcised simply by removing the superficial signs of worship.
The second is a house that has been renovated for foreign worship. The mishnah mentions two specific types of renovations and one general term, all of which connote physical changes to the existing building. Such a building can still be redeemed, but only by reversing the changes.
Finally the mishnah mentions a third house, one built specially for foreign worship. Such a building cannot have the taint of foreign worship expunged from it.
The examples that White cites and plans he reproduces in his book make it clear that these examples reflect three very real stages of temple development, which can be seen in numerous different communities. This pattern is also entirely logical, and in new Jewish communities we find a similar pattern. Growing up, my local synagogue was Young Israel of Southfield, which began its existence first as a roving minyan that met in houses and then in a school that was adapted for prayer, before constructing a monumental building as a permanent home. Such a pattern remains typical of many new communities. (This topic is also addressed in a book I previously reviewed, Building Faith.)
*With regard to the development of synagogues, Lee Levine addresses this issue in his The Ancient Synagogue (p.182-187). He notes that while there are ruins of Second Temple era synagogues, little remains from the first two centuries after the destruction of the Temple. In surmising why this is so, he rejects outright the possibility that synagogues at this stage were limited to domestic settings: "It would contradict everything we know about Palestinian synagogues." Instead, Levine thinks it likely that synagogues from this era were destroyed to make way for later structures, and that at this stage in Israel, synagogues were already being constructed as monumental structures.
Comments
Post a Comment