The Christology of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage
An Excursus On the 17Th Demonstration
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4851589 |
|---|---|
| Authors | William L Petersen (1215 Sparks Building The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA USA 16802), William Petersen (0009-0007-6946-9404, Pennsylvania State University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1992 |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 241-256 |
| Publication date | 1992-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Vigiliae Christianae (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0042-6032 • E-ISSN: 1570-0720 |
| Publisher | Walter de Gruyter GmbH (PUBLISHER • DE) |
| DOI | 10.1163/157007292x00106 |
| OpenAlex | W1974206645 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
Aphrahat' (* c. 270 t c. 345) is indisputably one of the giants of early Christianity. His twenty-three Demonstrations define classical Syriac,2 and are the most significant literary monument of Syrian Christianity before Ephrem. The alert reader of literature about Aphrahat is struck by a paradox in many descriptions of his theology, especially his Christology. Three examples will illustrate the point. The first sentence of the Vorwort of Ortiz de Urbina's 1933 dissertation asserts that Aphrahat's writings sind fur die Dogmengeschichte wertvoll; sie bieten unicum fur die Geschichte der christlichen Lehre.3 This is because Aphrahat is unabhangig von Nizaa und...[der] Entwicklung der griechisch-romischen Christologie.4 Aphrahat was and remained ein reiner Semit.5 In der ganzen christlichen Fruhzeit...ist uns...kein anderer christlicher Schriftsteller rein semitischer Kultur bekannt ausser Afrahat.6 After such a beginning, one might presume that Ortiz de Urbina would contrast this ausserordentlich wertvoll Semitic theology with the Nicene and post-Nicene theology of the Hellenistic Great Church. Instead, however, his study, titled Die Gottheit Christi bei Afrahat, quickly acquires a defensive tone; one hundred and forty pages later it climaxes with this italicized sentence: Also war Christus nach Afrahat eigentlich Gott.7 Three questions are raised by Ortiz de Urbina's conclusion. First, why italicize and make the capstone of one's argument what is today simply orthodox Christian theology-unless there is some question about it? Second, if Ortiz de Urbina's conclusion is correct, then does it not mitigate the uniqueness he claims for Aphrahat? Third, how can Ortiz de Urbina use such patently Nicene language to summarize Aphrahat's theology, which he himself has characterized as being so distinctly Semitic, an unicum, untouched by the Hellenistic world and Nicaea
Art · Christianity · Christology · Humanities · Literature · Theology · Archaeology and Historical Studies · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Historical and Linguistic Studies · Philosophy
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,5 |
| Citation span | 2020 - 2021 (2) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |