In the ancient land of Samaria, the citizens of the land established synagogues to further God's word among them. These places of teaching and prayer, however, had many similarities with the Greek open-air theaters of the time period. Because of the structural similarities, I have been wondering what other similarities that may exist.
Greek theaters were built open-air, almost stadium-like. The stage was a simple semi-circle at the bottom where the chorus danced and sang. The seats ascended from the stage in a semi-circle and could accommodate a large audience, sometimes up to 14,000 at one time. Though at first there were no backdrops, in 456 BC, playwrights began incorporating scenic walls into the stage directions, adding to the drama of the play. The Greek used theaters to both convey a message and to promote cultural unity.
Much like the Greek, the Samaritans used their synagogues to create unity and to spread messages. In these synagogues, preachers passed on scriptural principles and commandments. Though they had the first few books of the Old Testament as scripture, there were few, if any, written copies, so their knowledge was mainly passed orally. In order to spread their culture and beliefs, they had to spread the reach of their oral tradition. They did this by building many synagogues across the land. The synagogues were built much the same as Greek theaters. These large open-air structures, though rectangular rather than semi-circular, had rows upon rows of wooden benches for the congregation. On the floor, instead of actors, there was a large, colorful, geometric mosaic that in the center proclaims in Greek: "This is the temple". The backdrop was not man-made, but was the natural landscape, Mount Gerizim.
This structuring of the Samaritan synagogue is significant. Mount Gerizim was believed by the Samaritans to be a temple site. This actually reminded me a lot of General Conference. For Conference, we gather in an extremely large rectangular hall which faces the temple to hear the words of our religious leaders and prophets. In the Samaritan synagogue, the open building would have allowed the temple site to be the backdrop for the preacher or instructor. The place is nearly as meaningful as the words themselves; the sacredness of the setting can lend to or detract from the spirituality of the meeting. The temple site in the background of the sermonizer would have helped to keep the audience focused on the divine and the sublime. The mosaic serves much as the flowers at General Conference and the backdrops of the Greek theater. It provided a bit of color and beauty to the synagogue, making it separate and "better" than daily dwellings without being distracting. This would draw members to the synagogue and create in them a desire to be at the building, and keep them there longer. In this way, the structure reinforces the religion it houses. The longer you are in a place, the more likely it is to influence you. The oral tradition relies on other aspects to help perpetuate itself and its teachings.
I loved how you related it to general conference. And how you mentioned that backdrops can either help or hinder an oral performance. It's true that when I'm in a lecture, if there's something more interesting than the professor, I tend to look at that. The temple as a backdrop, however, would drive some people to listen more. It would be a reminder that God's word was being spoken.The same type of thing goes on in LDS chapels too. Most are not overly ornate, but simple with maybe a few pictures inside. It doesn't really distract.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you mentioned the background of the Samaritan Synagogues and general conference. I never knew of those connections. Emily, I think you bring up a good point by mentioning that our chapels are not ornate, but I think it contrasts (somewhat) to LDS temples, where the settings can make a big difference.
ReplyDeleteKimberly, I loved that you related oral traditions to other aspects too, but I'd love to hear more about specific tie ins.
Obviously we've agreed that the setting plays a role in the passing on of oral knowledge of different types, especially oral entertainment. But what about strictly scholastic learning? If you are listening to someone speak because you need to know what they do, what is really important to communicate the message most effectively?
ReplyDelete