In this work, based on his 2016 doctoral dissertation, Nathan Witkamp takes up the question of the relationship between Theodore of Mopsuestia and Narsai of Nisibis regarding their initiation rites and mystagogies. Witkamp's introduction begins by showing how scholars such as Thomas Finn, Leonel Mitchell, and Bryan Spinks have noted similarities between these two authors and assumed a strong dependence of Narsai upon Theodore (5). Witkamp challenges this assumption and proposes that a close comparison of the rites and the mystagogical explanation of the rites will demonstrate significant differences between these authors, as well as the likelihood that Narsai drew upon sources other than Theodore in articulating rites that he inherited from his east Syrian community rather than directly from Theodore's writings.
The body of the text is broken down into three parts containing two or three chapters each. Part 1 contains a detailed chapter on terminology that carefully dissects the language of each author. The chapter addresses the problem of liturgical synecdoche in which parts of the rite stand in for the whole and vice versa. Witkamp strays a bit here from his stated purpose of exploring connections between Theodore and Narsai in order to challenge a common tripartite division of Christian initiation into pre-baptismal, baptismal, and post-baptismal rites. He shows instead that Theodore and Narsai both spoke about the rites in terms of what happened before the mysteries and what happened in the mysteries. The second chapter in part 1 breaks down the structure of the rites as described by each author and compares them. Witkamp offers helpful charts of each as well as a combined chart that highlights similarities and differences between the two authors (85, 93, 95). This comparison shows elements absent in Narsai that were present in Theodore, that is Apotaxis/Syntaxis and anointing of the body. Witkamp concludes: “Most probably, then, Narsai's liturgical homilies reflect an actual rite of a particular East Syrian community in the fifth century” (93–94), a point Witkamp asserts as an “assumption” in the introduction (6). Moreover, Witkamp concludes that Narsai likely presents a more archaic rite than the rite of Theodore.
The final two parts of the work follow this bipartite structure with part 2 analyzing the pre-baptismal rites and part 3 analyzing the mysteries themselves. Part 2 contains a chapter on examination, sponsor, and enrollment, a chapter on deliverance from sin and the devil, and a chapter on apotaxis and syntaxis. Part 3 contains a chapter on signing on the forehead and another on baptism. Each of these chapters analyzes a rite following the same pattern. Witkamp first offers a description of the rite and an explanation of its meaning according to Theodore and then the description and meaning according to Narsai. He then contextualizes the rituals, sometimes at considerable length, by discussing other possible influences that would have been available to Narsai. For example, the contextualization of the signing on the forehead (chapter 6) runs thirty-five pages and discusses ten authors/works likely known to Narsai. Comparison of Theodore and Narsai follows and the chapters each end with a conclusion, generally focused on emphasizing both the similarities and differences between Theodore and Narsai as well as sources offering a better explanation for ideas in Narsai than does Theodore. The scope of this review does not allow a detailed assessment of each of these discussions. Readers interested in specific rites or in all of these chapters will find much of interest and value. Witkamp offers an invariably careful reading of his two main sources. He recognized the illusive nature of firm proofs and rightly qualifies many of his conclusions as the most likely explanation given the limited evidence available to modern scholars. In the end, Witkamp makes a sound cumulative argument that the assumption of a strong dependence of Narsai upon Theodore is based on superficial similarities and that scholars should abandon this position.
Witkamp has accomplished the task he set himself. Scholars, even those who may quibble with the strength of certain conclusions here and there, will no longer be able to claim a facile dependence of Narsai upon Theodore. This work offers a valuable, carefully argued, and convincing corrective to these assumptions within the field of liturgical studies. The focus on that correction, however, tends to limit the scope of the work in some important ways. Witkamp returns repeatedly to discussions of an “exclusive dependence” (30) of Narsai upon Theodore or to arguing against the idea that Narsai was “a naïve copyist” (128). This preoccupation comes at the cost of offering a fuller discussion of the rich intertextuality between relevant sources and interactions between religious and intellectual communities during a vibrant period of formation for Christian traditions in the Syriac milieu. Each work used in Witkamp's contextualization of Theodore and Narsai presents the tip of an iceberg that obscures as much as it reveals. Witkamp's considerable achievement gives the reader tantalizing clues about these social and intellectual contexts. Liturgists, theologians, and cultural historians of Christianity would do well to pursue these lines of thought further. Witkamp has also made the unfortunate choice to employ masculine references throughout his discussion, such as the statement that baptism is “the central ritual by which man really receives deliverance” (140, italics added). Masculine pronouns appear in similar contexts throughout the work. The only significant deviations from this practice occur during the discussion of problems brought about by female nudity during baptism (296–297n16, 355–356). While this practice does not challenge the conclusions of the work, it misses an opportunity to recognize the inclusive nature of the social practices described in the sources.
