Repository index

This study presents the doctrinal environment of the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum, including its lost Tomus, mentioned by the synodal epistle of 382, in light of which the Creed’s theology ought to be explained. Despite some lacunae, modern scholarship established links between the West (Rome), the Antiochene council of 379 and the ecumenical council of 381. The Fathers’ attempts to find new methods of expressing a pneumatology based on the threefold ὁμοούσια demonstrate that the consubstantiality was meant to be extended to the Spirit. The Early Church regarded the Nicene Creed as being “the faith” (ἡ πίστις) or “the symbol” (τὸ σύμβολον). The other three formulae (of 381, 433 and 451) were definitions or explanations (ὅροι) of, yet by no means additions to “the ancient faith of the 318 holy Fathers”.

The purpose of this study is twofold. First, it sets the historical context in which Aphrahat wrote his Demonstrations and deals with the interesting relationship between his writings, ‘against the Jews’ and the Sassanian persecution of Christians. It also treats his refutation of the Jewish charges. Secondly, it addresses his ‘unique’ view of christology which is not in line with the Nicene decision concerning one aspect yet at the same time it is congruent with it. The paper also tries to point out that his view on christology was ‘unique’ but not exceptional in the Early Church.