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.

7 Comments

  1. Anthony F. Buzzard
    July 17, 2011 @ 2:48 pm

    Dale,

    Could we say that there is this important point to be made about 1Cor 8 and Ps 110. It is extraordinary the scholars have so consistently ignored the all important meaning of adoni/kurios mou when discussing how God is to be quantified.

    It is obvious that YHWH is never referred to as “my lord” [adoni]. YHWH cannot be addressed with personal possesive pronouns. On the other hand, adoni is “my lord” and therefore by definition not “my YHWH”. “My lord” is the proper protocol title for the royal Messiah.

    Bauckham and others constantly turn a blind eye to this elementary fact to adoni/kurious mou. My point is confirmed by the evident fact that Jesus is called Messiah 600 times in the NT. In fact, it is on that believe that he is the Messiah, “Son of the Living God”, that the NT is founded. It is only when 110.1 is looked at with proper attention to the meaning of the words for “lord” that we wil lresolve the present tensions on how to quantify God.

  2. Dale
    July 17, 2011 @ 9:14 am

    Sir Anthony, thanks for stopping by!

    Yes, this is a crucial issue. In 1 Cor. 8, Paul says for us Christians there is but one God and one Lord. Readers like Bauckham know that it is impossible to tow the line that there’s no quantifying here, but only simple predication. (i.e. calling the Father “one-God” and calling Jesus “one-Lord”. No, it’s counting. But he concludes that surely something is a God if and only if it is a Lord, and vice-versa. Perhaps part of the idea here is that Paul has mentioned gods and lords in expounding his previous comment about many “so-called gods.”

    But your point is that kurios needn’t be a title for YHWH – a point which is obvious from its varied usage in the NT; sometimes it seems to mean no more than “Sir” or “Master.” But it is all the more obvious in Ps 110:1, when translated into Greek. They used kurios for both the divine name, as well as for this adoni who gets exalted – originally the king, in messianic application, Jesus. And this was for them a central text, as you point out; I think you’re right – this is part of the reason why “Lord” came to be the common way to refer to the exalted Jesus in the NT.

    I think more needs to be said about “God” and “Lord” in 1 Cor. If memory serves, Bauckham ignores something pointed out by many other commenters, namely that there was a common pagan distinction, none too clear perhaps, between “gods” and “lords.”

  3. Anthony F. Buzzard
    July 16, 2011 @ 1:16 pm

    Thanks for the interesting article about Waterland and Clarke.

    Condensing the information in 1 Cor. 8:4-6 we have “For us there is no God but the one God the Father.” That is a unitaritan statement echoed by 1300 references to God as the Father in the NT.

    Verse 6 of course says that Jesus is the one Lord MESSIAH and he is referred to as the Messiah some 600 times in the NT. The Lord Messiah was born (Lk 2.11) and nobody could imagine that God would be born. The distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Messiah is indelibly imprinted on the minds of NT Christians by Psalm 110:1, where the one Lord Yahweh addressed in an oracle the one Lord Messiah (adoni, my lord) which in all 195 occurrences never refers to Deity.

  4. trinities - DANIEL WATERLAND ON “THE FATHER IS THE ONLY GOD” TEXTS – PART 2 (DALE)
    July 16, 2011 @ 8:40 am

    […] Last time I said that I thought Waterland was a social-trinitarian-mysterian. But I’m not so sure about the “social” part! He’s very unclear on whether the “Persons” are selves. They’re different somethings, in any case. But in this series, I’m sticking to an exegetical issue. […]

  5. Dale
    July 15, 2011 @ 1:39 pm

    Stay tuned – more quotes coming, from his other works. I was going to move to deal with the text, but W. has a lot to say, and it is pretty hard to parse, so I’m going to post again on him next.

  6. Dale
    July 15, 2011 @ 8:29 am

    Hi Sam – it is full except for parts I’ve cut out with the usual … usage. I don’t have it in front of me, but I assume I cut that because it was either repetitive, or was talking not about the passage but rather about Clarke. The italics are his, but the bolding is mine.

  7. Sam Shamoun
    July 14, 2011 @ 10:12 pm

    Tuggy, is this the full, unedited quote? I would like to use this in a paper I am writing on this subject and want to make sure that I don’t leave anything out. Thanks.