The interface of early Syriac Christianity with rabbinic Judaism has in recent years received increased scholarly attention. Lizorkin's comparison of Aphrahat's Demonstrations (composed between 336/7 and 345 in Sasanid Persia) and the Babylonian Talmud continues this welcome broader trend in scholarship. Close connections between Aphrahat's treatises and rabbinic literature have long been noted and have been the subject of scholarly articles and monographs,Footnote ¹ but Lizorkin's study moves beyond the earlier focus on biblical exegesis to themes of Christian and Jewish praxis, and herein perhaps lies the book's main contribution.

Lizorkin begins his monograph, a revision of his Stellenbosch PhD thesis, with a rather perfunctory and sometimes vague introduction. He briefly discusses the Demonstrations and situates Jews and Christians in the Sasanian empire, but presupposes the reader's familiarity with the Babylonian Talmud. He describes Aphrahat as a ‘chief monk’ (p. 4) and situates him hypothetically at the monastery of Mar Mattai (p. 3), while at the same time noting that western-style monasticism had not yet developed in Persia. He affirms that Aphrahat's ‘main audience was Christian’ (p. 7), but observes ‘layers of intent’ in the Demonstrations. Lizorkin posits that Aphrahat addressed ‘Jesus-believing Jews who doubted the Messiahship of Jesus, while also presenting an argument to Gentile Christians that the following of Jesus constitutes the true faith of Ancient Israel’ (p. 8).

The main body of the book is comprised of five thematic chapters, comparing and contrasting Aphrahat's statements on circumcision, prayer, dietary laws, Passover and fasting with views articulated in the Babylonian Talmud. This choice of topics is not explained, but may arise from the fact that Aphrahat dedicates an entire treatise to each of these themes. Each chapter has exactly the same structure: The author begins with some general remarks on how the subject was understood within the Jewish, Christian and Zoroastrian traditions. Zoroastrianism, however, is never taken up in the later comparison and could just as well have been omitted, for it is well known (and noted by Lizorkin on p. 17) that Aphrahat does not polemicise against Zoroastrianism. The second part of each chapter, somewhat confusingly always entitled ‘Aphrahat's Demonstrations’, first summarises the content of the relevant treatise, then presents a detailed overview in outline form and, finally, under the subheading ‘Circumcision [or whichever topic is being discussed] according to Aphrahat’ sums up relevant statements elsewhere in Aphrahat's corpus. This cumbersome structure results in tedious repetitions. A synthetic presentation of Aphrahat's views would have better served the purpose. The third section of each chapter then moves to the comparison with the Babylonian Talmud, and it, too, always follows the the same rigid structure: ‘Agreement’, ‘Disagreement by omission’, ‘Aphrahat’, ‘Babylonian Talmud’ and ‘Disagreement by confrontation’.

Only in the book's final pages does it become apparent that Lizorkin's goal is to challenge the work of J. Neusner, who had concluded that Aphrahat and the rabbis ‘never had any contact or any kind of communication’ (p. 163). Lizorkin wants to present a more nuanced picture of the relation between Aphrahat and the rabbis by taking into consideration

Lizorkin's textual analysis aims to show that Aphrahat indeed had contact with Jews, and more precisely with para-rabbinic Jews. A brief (and not entirely complete) index of names concludes the book.

An overview of the chapter on prayer will exemplify Lizorkin's method and results. He begins by stressing the importance that recitation of fixed prayer acquired within Judaism, especially after the destruction of the Temple. The two pages dedicated to ‘Prayer in Christianity’ only make rather general statements and largely continue the discussion of Jewish practice. Lizorkin then presents the content of Demonstrations 4 ‘On prayer’ in detail, noting inter alia Aphrahat's emphasis on purity of heart, his frequent recourse to Old Testament examples of prayer, and his unusual exegesis of Matthew xviii.20 (‘where two or three are gathered in my name’). The section ‘Prayer according to Aphrahat’ then highlights important references elsewhere in the Demonstrations, notably the role of the angel Gabriel as intermediary (Demonstrations 3.14). Comparison with the Babylonian Talmud yields an impressive list of parallels (for example, the notion that prayer replaces Temple sacrifice). Under the category ‘disagreement by omission’ Lizorkin notes that the Babylonian Talmud, although it generally emphasises the role of ministering angels, does not specifically regard Gabriel as a mediator of prayer. Moreover, the Talmud does not follow Aphrahat in regarding purity of heart as a form of prayer but remains largely focused on the ritual aspect. As to ‘disagreement by confrontation’, Lizorkin's most interesting result is that Aphrahat somewhat surprisingly argues at length that God does, indeed, hear individual prayer. This apology, Lizorkin asserts, indicates that there must have been discussion of this matter within the Christian community and that Aphrahat here intends to address converts from Judaism who may have defended the rabbinic understanding of prayer as necessarily a communal ritual (as expressed, for instance, in bBerachoth 6a) (p. 77). The chapter on prayer thus serves well Lizorkin's goal to establish the intertextuality between Aphrahat and para-rabbinic Judaism and to affirm that there was ‘a Babylonian conversation between Para-Rabbinic Jews and Aphrahat's community’ (p. 79).

Lizorkin's study unfortunately contains a substantial amount of errors and infelicities and ought to have been more carefully edited and proofread. Nevertheless, it does bring out some important parallels and disagreements in how Aphrahat and the Babylonian Talmud approach religious ritual.