Dale Tuggy

Dale Tuggy is Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Fredonia, where he teaches courses in analytic theology, philosophy of religion, religious studies, and the history of philosophy.

4 Comments

  1. Miguel de Servet
    August 28, 2015 @ 11:54 am

    Whereas earlier story tellers had used “The Triple Threat” as a plural referring term (a way of picking out the giant, the long-haired man, and the swordsman) later tellers used the phrase as a singular referring term, picking out (so they supposed) a giant with long hair and a sword.

    Even if it sounds a tad heavy, shall we say that the long hair and a sword are attributes of the giant?

    Out of fictional mode, shall we say that the logos and the pneuma are attributes of God?

  2. Matt13weedhacker
    August 10, 2015 @ 6:01 am

    Here’s an interesting historical thought for you.

    Is it more accurate to describe Tertullian’s belief/theory of “tres personae, una substantia” = “three persons, one substance” as a Gk., ( ???????? ) “Tri{3}archy” = rule by three persons?

    Rather than a Gk., ( ???????? ) “Mon{1}archy” = rule by one person?

    As he tried to pass/hock it off in Adversus Praxean?

  3. Matt13weedhacker
    July 18, 2015 @ 7:21 pm

    “Trinity” comes straight from Tertullian’s Ltn., ( trinitas ).

    Ltn., ( trinitas ) is not found anywhere, in any of his genuine, (note “genuine”) Pre-Montantist
    works.

    Should we speak of God in Montantist terms?

    Call God, God’s Son, God’s spirit by a Montantist — inspired — name?

    What, or who was the INSPIRATION behind Montanus?

  4. Matt13weedhacker
    July 18, 2015 @ 3:57 pm

    Is it correct to say Theophilus “coined” Gk., ( ??????? ) or Gk., ( ????? ), or to say that he was the first Christian writer to use it? Qualified with, the first Christian writer to use it in the surviving sources that have, or that have come down to us through the centuries?

    Gk., ( ??????? ) had been around, and in common use for centuries, perhaps millennia, before Theophilus wrote “Ad Autolycus.” Surely your aware of that? No disrespect or hostility intended Dale, I just can’t see how you can say he: “coined” the word.

    See this link for frequency statistics Gk., ( ??????? ) or Gk., ( ????? ) in ancient literature from the Perseus online Greek lexicon:

    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lang=greek&lookup=tria%2Fs

    The word itself Gk., ( ??????? ) transliterated ( triados ), which is in turn the feminine gender form, singular number, genitive case, of Gk., ( ????? ) transliterated ( trias ), which again, in turn, is the neuter gender form of ( ????? ) transliterated ( treis ).

    And Gk., ( ????? ) is used 40 times in the NT.

    All three Gk., ( ??????? ), Gk., ( ????? ), Gk., ( ????? ) simply mean the number “three”. Gk., ( ??????? ) being the genitive case, would, depending on the context, more likely be rendered “of three”.

    There is no “three into oneness,” or “three united into one thing” inherent in the meaning of all three of these Greek words. Plurality-in-unity, is simply not part of the basic etymological concept of Gk., ( ??????? ) or Gk., ( ????? ).

    The word that Tertullian invented, (“coined”), on the other hand, Ltn., ( trinitas ), DOES carry with it, (by virtue of it’s original context), the concept of “three things united into one thing,” (plurality-in-unity), or to put it simply “three-in-one.”

    It’s not until after the middle of the third century, (and more the fourth), that the pro-homoousian partisan’s took it upon themselves to radically re-define, (as they did with many words), the meaning of Gk., ( ??????? ), that it even BEGAN to have anything like the meaning of “three-within-one”.

    I don’t see any real reason to anachronistically read this LATER meaning into this word, in Christian writers who used this word Gk., ( ??????? ) even after Theophilus – like Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and even Origen. In saying that though, one has to take into account that Origen’s works have been mutilated and corrupted, (as you point out in another blog post), both in the Latin and in the Greek. Making it almost impossible to make a real judgement on what he means when he writes Gk., ( ??????? ). In Eusebius, (obsequious Eusebius of Caesarea); who compromises his Arian beliefs to a limited degree, and morph’s his theology, (especially in his later writings toward the end of his life), to a more pro-homoousian usage of Gk., ( ??????? ).