Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue: The Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses (review)

In this volume Doval weighs the evidence regarding the authorship of the mystagogical catecheses (M) that have been variously attributed to Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem (350-387), to John II (387-417), his successor, or collectively to both of them. Cyril is widely believed to be the author of the eighteen catechetical lectures (C) used in Jerusalem and covering creedal faith. It is M, delivered following C and the initiation rites, which raises questions. These questions spring from discrepant ms. evidence, including some that name John as the sole author.

The first chapter places Cyril in context. The pro-Arian metropolitan Acacius, from whom Cyril received his appointment, tainted the latter's name in the eyes of contemporaries and won him three exiles from his Jerusalem post. Despite this upheaval, Doval finds it reasonable to conclude on the basis of textual evidence that Cyril was "an orthodox, yet non-partisan, independent thinker" (57).

Doval provides an extensive introduction to questions of the tradition, history and dating of the manuscripts. The manuscripts of M are grouped into three families, and John's name appears in only a few versions from two out of the three. Though John's authorship is not refuted on this score, the weight of the evidence tilts toward Cyril. John is given as M's author only where a text of M detached from C bears his name alone or appears jointly with Cyril's.

What, then, can be said for double attribution? Three manuscripts feature both names, and two of these are likely based upon the third. Doval contends that John's name was attached because Cyril's mystagogy had become part of church life and was simply taken up and used by his successor, who subsequently attached his name (or it became attached) to M. Thus, something that looks like joint authorship developed in successive editions. Egeria's travelogue and the Armenian lectionary provide corroborating evidence that M can be dated to late in Cyril's career.

Part 2 of the book includes eight chapters comparing C and M at salient points. Three of the chapters deal with the initiation rites described or alluded to in both works. The aim here is to find sufficient commonality in terminology, style, description of rites, and meanings attached to ritual to argue in favor of Cyril's authorship. Doval contends that the similarity between the two works does not of itself suffice to prove that Cyril wrote M, especially if John composed M and simply did a convincing job of adapting material from C. The interval between the composition of the two works (the first of which belongs to the beginning of Cyril's career, the second to the end) likely contributed to some differences. Some thirty years between them was enough time for significant liturgical ferment to affect ritual performance and catechesis.

Ritual acts described in Doval's study include the epiclesis or divine blessing invoked upon the sacramental elements or upon people. There are five references to a liturgical epiclesis in C and five more in M, the explanations for which Doval finds compatible. Notably, when the blessing of water or myron is mentioned in either text, there is a marked preference for Christological imagery, i.e., Christ rather than the Spirit is the sanctifier. Christological themes pervade C, a fact which lends force to Cyril's authorship of M, where a similar emphasis prevails.

Regarding the anaphora, the point at issue is the absence of Christ's words of institution of the Eucharist in sermon 5 of M, relative to liturgical developments in which the words were increasingly included in eucharistic prayers by the mid-fourth century. Does the anaphora in such form support dating the work during Cyril...