[B-Greek] substantia(ousia) in Luke 15:13??
Edgar Foster
edgarfoster2003 at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 2 17:55:46 EDT 2005
Dear Octavio,
Since I've been studying Tertullian and other
pre-Nicenes for the last few years, I'd like to
comment briefly on some of the questions you ask.
(1) Aristotle makes a distinction between PRIMA
SUBSTANTIA and SECUNDA SUBSTANTIA. Think of the former
as an individual substance (i.e. dog, cat, gold, lamb)
and the latter as a reference to an essential
classification of being (i.e. essences). However, as
Joshua Hoffman and Gary S. Rosenkrantz point out in
_The Divine Attributes_ (Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing, 2002), pages 23-24, it is probably more
accurate to think of Aristotle's developed theory of
SUBSTANTIA as a delineation of forms (PRIMA
SUBSTANTIA) and individual things.
(2) Tertullian's use of SUBSTANTIA in Adversus Praxean
is fraught with many difficulties. Harnack proposed
juristic definitions for SUBSTANTIA and PERSONA that
have pretty much been rejected by modern scholars. One
of the best studies I consulted for my M.Th. thesis
was George Stead's "Divine Substance in Tertullian,"
JTS N.S. 14 (1963): 44-66. Another writer who
addresses Tertullian's use of SUBSTANTIA is Eric
Osborn. See _Tertullian: First Great Theologian of the
West. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. In
my thesis, I argued (based on Tertullian's _De Anima
32_) that the apologist utilizes SUBSTANTIA vis-a-vis
the Godhead to mean "a concrete particular." That is
to say, Tertullian is primarily conscripting the Stoic
notion of SUBSTANTIA, as opposed to the Aristotelian
concept of PRIMA or SECUNDA SUBSTANTIA. Stuart G. Hall
writes that Tertullian uses "substance" (in the
context of Adversus Praxean) to mean "a being." See
_Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church_ (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992).
(3) Consulting BDAG and LSJ will help you understand
what is going on in Lk 15:13.
Best wishes,
Edgar Foster
--- Octavio Rodriguez <octaviors at gmail.com> wrote:
> In luke 15:13 , it is clear that "ousia" means
> "possessions ". However if i
> apply the meaning Aristotle uses , it would means
> substance.
> My question is , why does it word has differents
> meanings ?.
> If i apply the philosophical meaning , the text
> would be read : "....his
> substance...".
> The question is important to know , how can i
> understand the latin term
> "substantia" used for Tertulian in Adversus Praxeam.
> I don´t know , if Tertulian used the Biblical
> meaning or the philosophical
> meaning of ousia.
> Best Regards
> Octavio Rodriguez Salmon
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list