A couple of things have caught my attention about this term recently. Firstly, Heidegger thought that "ousia" lost some of its meaning when translated into Latin. The "restored" reading as "being" seems most agreeable to me, and I've seen it translated this way in a few sources written at some time around Nicaea I. Athanasius' On The Incarnation seems to confirm this, referring to the "being" of the Word, but all I have access to right now is an English translation. I'm not sure if the original is Greek or Coptic, but if Coptic, I'm curious to know if the most accurate translation really is "being" and that this could confirm the intended reading of "ousia."
In any case, does anyone know if "being" causes problems for chalcedonian or post-chalcedonian theology?
Submitted January 09, 2016 at 08:02PM by Unknown











0 comments:
Post a Comment