Before Egypt and Rome there was Syria
by: Dcn. Meharee Zemelak Werqu
Some 200+ years before St. Benedict of Nursia was born, before St. Anthony of Egypt was popularized by St. Athanasius the Great, before the veteran Roman soldier St. Pachomius gathered brothers around him and wrote the Pachomian Rule, there were the Ihdaye, the Bnay and Bnat Qyama of the church in the Syriac speaking world. Who were these people?
The Bnay Qyama and the Bnat Qyama primarily were people who were part and parcel of the local Syriac speaking church. They were not hermits living in the desert or cenobites living in communities away from the hubub of city life. They are part of the local church. They live under the governance of the bishop. They could serve a good support for a bishop to execute his duties in several ways. Although some of them could be active and renowned ministers in the church (eg. like Ephrem and probably Aphrahat too), their main concern doesn't appear to be ministry as such. Instead, their main purpose in choosing the life of celibacy and one-ness ܐܚܕܝܐ is articulated as being with the ܐܚܕܝܐ (The Only Begotten one አንድዬ!) whose Parousia is immanent as indicated by the ongoing signs of the End. It is described as a journey of imitating ‘the Exalted one in Glory’ by putting away impurity, cleansing the heart from iniquity, clearing away the thistle from one’s seed through perseverance in prayer and works of mercy towards every human being in humility. It is a way of life to remove ‘anger from ourselves with all violence and wickedness.’ Anything that comes against this endeavor is considered a hindrance including the desire to have conjugal life, procreation and the pursuit of security through wealth. Their existential exhortation would be like “Yo! The goal of life is to be holy like Jesus. Don’t waste yo’ time with the nonsense of sin!”
Did I forget to tell you the meaning of their name?
ܒܢܐܝ ܩܝܡܐ Bnay Qyama
(Yeah, I can type in Syriac, although I am as fast as a pizza-delivering snail.)
In Syriac Bnay means children. So they are the children of Qyama. What does Qyama mean? I don’t know. I mean, no one can tell you with 100% certainty what the word exactly meant for them. (Afterall who exactly knows what anybody means when using words. One can only guess, right? The people who study this kind of thing call it ‘meaning negotiation.’) ንግባእኬ: ኀበ: ጥንተ: ነገር; Nevertheless, we for sure know that the word Qyama comes from the common Semitic root qwm ቅውም, that gives birth to all the words that have to do with standing, rising, being established firmly, etc. Hence, from this root we get the words for the Resurrection of Jesus the messiah, the resurrection of the inevitable Second coming, or the word for establishing a covenant. Therefore, the phrase Bnay Qyama can at least mean two things: the Children of the Resurrection and the Children of the Covenant. Which one were they? You might ask.
Considering the writings of St. Ephrem the Syrian and St. Aphrahat the Persian Sage we can firmly say both. Here you might again ask, which resurrection are they referring to, Jesus’ or ours? The answer is again BOTH. And, yes, you got it! They are also referring to the covenant between God and every Christian that gets established at the re-creation of baptism.
There choice of celibacy, however, was frowned upon by some part of the society that holds marriage and perpetuating progeny in high regard, for example Aphrahat mentions a brother who was challenged by a Jew for not fulfilling the holy blessing/command of 'פּרו ורבו' (ብዝኁ ወተባዝኁ). Instead of being fruitful and multiplying they are considered as preferring to be 'barren' and hence 'cursed'. Aphrahat’s response shows how much most of humanity has produced thorns and thistles in its sinfulness, and that blessing was not a blessing to sinful humanity except to those who were holy.
They corrupted the blessed state of marriage and were condemned, and the blessing was extinguished by the wicked.... What help was the blessing to the ten generations before the flood? What benefit was it to the Sodomites where their lives were ended by the fire and sulfur and the blessing was extinguished by the sins of the wicked? … What benefit or advantage was there in the blessing of the procreation for the unclean peoples that Joshua destroyed?
For Aphrahat, it is better not to procreate or to be procreated at all than to exist in sinful existence that inevitably will be concluded in utter destruction. It is only the seed of the pure ones that counts.
Nevertheless, Aphrahat remarks that they are not choosing this lifestyle because they disdain marriage. He writes, “Far be it from us to find any fault with marriage which God has given for the world.” But it is because, Aphrahat argues, ‘virginity is excellent’ in the struggle to grow in purity and humility into the likeness of the ‘Exalted one in glory.’
It is likely that at the time Aphrahat was writing, i.e. the first half of the 4th century, these people were well established and known in the Syriac speaking church. Perhaps they are even seen by the majority of the church as the standard of holiness and eschatological signs. However, there doesn’t seem to be an organizational structure except the already existing hierarchy of the church. This might have led some to seek group support through living together with others who are also Bnay Qyama. This in turn could have brought some scandal to the church. Although Aphrahat doesn’t appear to criticize a Bar Qiyama and Bat Qiyama leaving their celibate way of life to start marriage, he strongly opposes the idea of two opposite sex celibates cohabiting in the same house for the sake of supporting one another.
Another point you might find interesting is, in his demonstrations Aphrahat strongly associates the woman with sin and fallenness. You might get mad at him for being so unfair to women! But, wait until you finish and look at the whole picture. He interestingly firmly depicts the whole community of Bnay Qyama as a virgin woman who waits for the bridegroom to come to take her to the inner chamber. Haha! You might say, it is not about denigrating the woman next door, per se, but rather seeing the whole of humanity as a woman that has betrayed her husband: God. Hence, the fallen woman becomes the symbol of the fallen humanity, while the glorified woman becomes the cosmic symbol of the redeemed humanity as it is supposed to be. See you later!
A. Lehto, The Demonstrations of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage. Piscataway, 2010. 169-198, 397-406.