Nathan Witkamp, Tradition and
Innovation: Baptismal Rite and Mystagogy in Theodore of Mopsuestia and
Narsai of Nisibis
Jeff W.
Childers
Abilene Christian University
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
James E. Walters
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2021
Volume 24.1
For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full
copyright.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv24n1prchilders
Jeff W. Childers
Nathan Witkamp, Tradition and
Innovation: Baptismal Rite and Mystagogy in Theodore of Mopsuestia and
Narsai of Nisibis
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol24/HV24N1PRChilders.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2021
vol 24
issue 1
pp 339-343
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is an electronic journal dedicated to the study
of the Syriac tradition, published semi-annually (in January and July) by Beth
Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. Published since 1998, Hugoye seeks to offer the
best scholarship available in the field of Syriac studies.
File created by James E. Walters
Nathan Witkamp, Tradition and
Innovation: Baptismal Rite and Mystagogy in Theodore of Mopsuestia and
Narsai of Nisibis, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 149 (Leiden:
Brill, 2018). Pp. xiv + 417; $166.
In this study of late antique eastern baptismal rites and
mysta-gogy, Nathan Witkamp addresses the relationship between Narsai of
Nisibis and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Specifically, Witkamp tests
long-standing presumptions of Narsai’s heavy dependence on Theodore, showing
that whereas Narsai relies on received traditions, he in fact draws on a
broad Antiochene heritage, to which Theodore also belongs, synthesizing the
inherited material into a creative treatment distinctive to him and
reflective of his own East Syriac context.
Theodore’s influence on the East Syriac tradition is
well known. However, influential studies have read Narsai as offer-ing
little more than a nearly wooden adaptation of Theodore’s baptismal
rite—perhaps even to the point that Narsai obscured native aspects of the
East Syriac baptismal rite for the sake of promulgating Theodore’s version.
In this important contribution, Witkamp probes the connections between the
two, attempting to clarify the true nature of Theodore’s influence on
Narsai. The study identifies and explores the distinctive features of
Narsai’s rite and mystagogy, thereby putting the study of Narsai’s
presentation on a more secure footing in its own right and illuminating the
practice and theology of baptism in the late antique East Syriac context.
The introduction lays out the status
quaestionis, surveying scholarship and introducing the two authors
and their relevant works. Witkamp defines the aims of his research,
characterizing his method as “a critical comparative approach,” and
contras-ting it with the typically “harmonizing” approach to be found in
much of the existing scholarship. The value of his approach is that it
allows each source and its respective context to retain greater integrity
than harmonizing approaches do. The latter tend to privilege either a
specific author or a hypothetical, supposedly original rite that tends
actually to be a composite, constructed partly from the sources and partly
from a scholar’s suppositions, shaped according to certain presumptions
regarding the development of early baptismal rites.
Witkamp also analyzes other eastern source material,
particularly where instances of similarity between Narsai and Theodore
occur, seeking to determine whether the similarities may be due to the
influence of the common Antiochene tradition or other sources (e.g., Didascalia Apostolorum, Aphrahat) rather than because
of Narsai’s dependence on Theodore. Yet Witkamp does not employ other
sources reductively, in order to propose a parallel source theory; instead,
their use conveys the complexities of the late antique contexts, reminding
the reader that we have only a very incomplete portrait of the historical
realities and that many of the influences on liturgy and mystagogy were not
literary at all, but oral and performative. Treating each author
independently, and comparing them critically rather than harmonistically
within the larger context of possible influences, gives Witkamp a more
secure vantage point from which to analyze their relationship.
The first main section of the book defines the late
antique authors’ terms and delineates the structures of their rites, while
sections two and three thoroughly explore the rituals before and during
baptism, respectively. Each part focuses on different aspects of the
subject, but the author constantly brings the reader back to his principal
concern: critically comparing and contrasting Narsai and Theodore in order
to detect and characterize their relationship.
The first main section focuses on terminology and
structure. A study of the sources’ baptismal vocabulary raises questions
about the view that the eastern baptismal rite consisted of three
functionally distinct parts: pre-baptismal rituals, baptism, and
post-baptismal rituals. Instead, the rite basically falls into two major
parts: “rituals preceding the mystery/ies” and “rituals of the mystery/ies.”
For both Theodore and Narsai, the post-baptismal rituals are largely
transitional and should not be distinguished functionally from the second
part of the rite. Witkamp provides helpful charts laying out the structures
of the rites, helping the reader visualize the results of his comparative
analysis, namely: the rites of Theodore and Narsai have important
similarities but are also notably different; furthermore, features of
Narsai’s version (especially the absence of post-baptismal rituals) mark it
as more conservative and less developed than Theodore’s. In other words, it
is better to see Narsai’s rite as more primitive developmentally than
Theodore’s, rather than derivative of it.
Having established some key differences between
Theodore’s and Narsai’s rites and anchored the latter firmly in the early
stages of the East Syriac tradition, the remaining two sections of the book
work through the rituals according to their basic division: 1) rituals
functionally prior to baptism and 2) rituals functionally accompanying
baptism. Each chapter describes specific aspects of ritual in the two
authors, discussing their functions and explaining their meanings for each.
The author is attentive to minute details of ritual structure, roles,
postures, gestures, and the like, insisting that these things together help
constitute the meanings of the rituals. A study of the rituals in relation
to other sources allows Witkamp to contextualize them before comparing
Narsai to Theodore and proposing conclusions about the relationship between
them in each case. Where there is insufficient data to draw clear
conclusions, especially about influence, Witkamp is quick to point that out,
exhibiting an intellectual modesty that invites the reader to become
comfortable with uncertainty.
Overall, the analyses of sections two and three confirm
the results of the preceding structural analyses: that both late antique
authors participate in the same eastern tradition but that Narsai’s rite is
not dependent on Theodore’s and is in fact often quite different,
representing an earlier East Syriac tradition instead. Narsai essentially
sticks to the rite he has inherited, which in turn distinguishes the
theological meanings of the rituals from those of Theodore. For instance,
the different positions and functions of the lawsuit or exorcism in each
author construct the baptizand differently just prior to the mystery.
Even if Narsai does not depend on Theodore’s rite, in
his mystagogy Narsai borrows from Theodore’s interpretations of the rite,
sometimes in straightforward ways, but often more creatively and adaptively.
Narsai’s symbolism tends to be richer than Theodore’s, as we might expect
from Ephrem’s heir, but also his theological emphases frequently strike
their own tones. Narsai puts more emphasis on baptism as re-creation than
Theodore; unlike Theodore, he depicts baptism as marriage and God as an
artist painting a new portrait on the waters. For Narsai, the story of the
prodigal son is a baptism narrative. At times, even where their language and
imagery are similar, as when they both draw on the notion of the baptismal
process as a fiery one heated by the Spirit, the meanings can diverge
significantly—Theodore pictures the baptismal font as a fiery potter’s kiln,
whereas for Narsai it is a furnace in which metal is reforged.
The book accomplishes its task, effectively testing the
connections between the two authors and showing that they both draw on a
common tradition, but that each practices somewhat different rites, and that
Narsai is no slavish imitator of the Bishop of Mopsuestia. There can be no
doubt that Narsai knew and used Theodore’s interpretations, but he did not
do so systematically and he often shows himself to be an independent and
creative theologian, at times reflecting the East Syriac heritage that we
find in other sources and at times seeming to convey his own ideas and
emphases. Narsai’s own context and East Syriac heritage provide simpler and
more convincing explanations of his treatment of baptism than do theories of
heavy reliance on Theodore.
The book is based on the author’s doctoral dissertation
and still bears the evidence of its origins as such. The reader will detect
some redundancies, especially in the summary portions. Chapter structures
and section titles can become repetitive, though they also attest to the
careful method the author follows throughout. The author relies fairly
heavily on translations and secondary sources. Some of the introductory
discussions may be too basic for some readers; other readers, however, will
appreciate the introductions to the persons of Narsai and Theodore and to
unfamiliar Syriac sources, finding the discussions of liturgical scholarship
helpfully orienting. In any case, the dissertation vestiges do not detract
at all from the important contribution this book makes to the study of
Theodore and especially of Narsai, and to our knowledge of late antique
eastern baptismal practices and theology. No longer can scholars presume
that Narsai merely relies on Theodore, nor that Narsai is not a worthy
representative of his native East Syriac tradition. Not only must scholars
reckon with Witkamp’s conclusions—the methods of his work should also inform
future comparative liturgical scholarship. Students of liturgy, patristic
scholars, church historians, and scholars of late antiquity will find the
book instructive and helpful.