%0 Journal Article %1 fairbairn_synod_2013 %A Fairbairn, Donald %D 2013 %J Journal of Theological Studies %K 358 Ankyra Homöusianer Synode %P 111--136 %R 10.1093/jts/flt027 %T The Synod of Ancyra (358) and the Question of the Son’s Creaturehood %V 64 %X The Homoiousian Synod of Ancyra uses two word pairs in its description of the relation between the Father and the Son: father/son and creator/creature. On the basis of the second word pair, Epiphanius of Salamis believed the Ancyran synod was affirming the Son to be a creature and branded the Homoiousians as ‘Semi-Arians’. This article demonstrates on the basis of internal evidence from the Ancyran synodal document and external evidence from Hilary of Poitiers and Athanasius that the synod could not have meant to affirm that the Son was a creature and thus that we need a rereading of the controversial passage in which the document allegedly makes that affirmation. The article then proceeds to an in-depth examination of that passage and a suggested retranslation and reinterpretation. The article concludes that since the Homoiousians did not affirm the Son to be a creature, there is now room for further scholarly exploration of the possibility that their theology was consistent with that of the Homoousians.

@article{fairbairn_synod_2013, abstract = {The Homoiousian Synod of Ancyra uses two word pairs in its description of the relation between the Father and the Son: father/son and creator/creature. On the basis of the second word pair, Epiphanius of Salamis believed the Ancyran synod was affirming the Son to be a creature and branded the Homoiousians as {‘Semi-Arians’.} This article demonstrates on the basis of internal evidence from the Ancyran synodal document and external evidence from Hilary of Poitiers and Athanasius that the synod could not have meant to affirm that the Son was a creature and thus that we need a rereading of the controversial passage in which the document allegedly makes that affirmation. The article then proceeds to an in-depth examination of that passage and a suggested retranslation and reinterpretation. The article concludes that since the Homoiousians did not affirm the Son to be a creature, there is now room for further scholarly exploration of the possibility that their theology was consistent with that of the Homoousians.}, added-at = {2013-04-28T16:48:09.000+0200}, author = {Fairbairn, Donald}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2cde323684b5814243352fdcb8f1119e9/avs}, doi = {10.1093/jts/flt027}, file = {Fairbairn_2013_The Synod of Ancyra (358) and the Question of the Son’s Creaturehood.pdf:/Users/stockhausen/Sync/Bibliographie/storage/32JXAXK7/Fairbairn_2013_The Synod of Ancyra (358) and the Question of the Son’s Creaturehood.pdf:application/pdf}, interhash = {d8c4ea4873ed273b3f8116e18565ce35}, intrahash = {cde323684b5814243352fdcb8f1119e9}, issn = {0022-5185, 1477-4607}, journal = {Journal of Theological Studies}, keywords = {358 Ankyra Homöusianer Synode}, language = {en}, pages = {111--136}, timestamp = {2013-04-28T16:48:11.000+0200}, title = {The Synod of Ancyra (358) and the Question of the Son’s Creaturehood}, volume = 64, year = 2013 }