Predicate Nominatives in the prologue where subject and complement are articular

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
Here is your comment:
Post in thread 'Predicate Nominatives in the prologue where subject and complement are articular'
https://forums.carm.org/threads/pre...-and-complement-are-articular.1378/post-90505

Earlier you said one of the reasons you participated here was to help defend the orthodox Trinitarian view, or words to that effect.

Now it appears you appeal to Calvin as one who defended the orthodox view without demonstrating it from the languages. We should trust him because he knows the languages.

I see how someone who portrays themselves as widely read in the languages could admire Calvin and this approach.

It strikes me as authoritarian, "trust me, I am widely read." I would expect this from the RCC before the reformation.

Calvin benefited from those who challenged the church and studied the languages making their own translations. Wycliffe, Tyndale and others risked their lives to do this.

It's ironic that Servetus lost his life at the hands of the reformers.

What benefit are these discussions? I am not here to proselytize or convince others to join me in any way. I am here to advance my understanding of the languages in my own little niche. I am here also for entertainment. It's an avocation.

I have been given incentive to crack open old dusty tomes and have advanced my understanding of newer books on linguistics.

I have honed my arguments and yes, I am encouraged that they are solid.

Having someone say that it's wrong because they say so does not change this.
Not so much to defend orthodox Trinitarianism, as to be annoying about Greek. My main point in citing Calvin was to show how these discussions normally took place prior to the more grammaticalized arguments beginning (but not restricted to) the middle of the 19th century. BTW, Calvin's dates are 1509-1564. He was trained in the humanist classical tradition (think Renaissance more than Reformation), and then later applied his skills to biblical interpretation and theology. His first treatise was not even theologically related, but a commentary on Seneca's De Clementia. He was only reluctantly pulled into the second generation reformers.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Well, at least you acknowledge that I am correct.
Not so much to defend orthodox Trinitarianism, as to be annoying about Greek. My main point in citing Calvin was to show how these discussions normally took place prior to the more grammaticalized arguments beginning (but not restricted to) the middle of the 19th century. BTW, Calvin's dates are 1509-1564. He was trained in the humanist classical tradition (think Renaissance more than Reformation), and then later applied his skills to biblical interpretation and theology. His first treatise was not even theologically related, but a commentary on Seneca's De Clementia. He was only reluctantly pulled into the second generation reformers.

Was Calvin annoying about Greek?
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Not so much to defend orthodox Trinitarianism, as to be annoying about Greek. My main point in citing Calvin was to show how these discussions normally took place prior to the more grammaticalized arguments beginning (but not restricted to) the middle of the 19th century. BTW, Calvin's dates are 1509-1564. He was trained in the humanist classical tradition (think Renaissance more than Reformation), and then later applied his skills to biblical interpretation and theology. His first treatise was not even theologically related, but a commentary on Seneca's De Clementia. He was only reluctantly pulled into the second generation reformers.
It's not surprising that so little was said about the meaning of words and phrases by people who knew the language well.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Perhaps I should clarify. Some of your views may be grammatically defensible. Many of the "grammatical" arguments you use to defend your views are not.

I don't grade my arguments on whether or not you agree they are grammatically defensible, but it's good to see you acknowledge some of them.

I evaluate them against other grammatical arguments, not appeals to authority or tradition. It's easy to pick apart an argument without defending an alternative view.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I don't grade my arguments on whether or not you agree they are grammatically defensible,
I evaluate them against other grammatical arguments, not appeals to authority or tradition. It's easy to pick apart an argument without defending an alternative view.
Then you must've confused the grammatical arguments people have made for "appeals to authority or tradition."

My experience is that it is as easy to defend a correct interpretation as it is to "pick apart" a bad argument.
but it's good to see you acknowledge some of them.
It's a hedge. You might've made a good argument that I missed, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member

John Milton

Well-known member

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Calvin was not annoying about Greek, but I tend to annoy those who claim to know it well, concentrate on a few passages from the NT, and them make extensive claims based on questionable grammatical claims.

Good think I don't claim to know it well, or I might be annoyed by that.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
It's not surprising that so little was said about the meaning of words and phrases by people who knew the language well.

The "Orthodox" Church (Catholic Church is still at it) had a tendency to destroy and/or censor evidence which it didn't like. In this light, it shouldn't surprise anyone that so little was apparently said about the grammar at John 1:1 , it only reinforces the fact that so little supported the Trinitarian hermeneutic. Interesting that the grammar which somehow escaped the purges tend to denounce the Trintarian POV (think Origen).
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
The "Orthodox" Church (Catholic Church is still at it) had a tendency to destroy and/or censor evidence which it didn't like. In this light, it shouldn't surprise anyone that so little was apparently said about the grammar at John 1:1 , it only reinforces the fact that so little supported the Trinitarian hermeneutic. Interesting that the grammar which somehow escaped the purges tend to denounce the Trintarian POV (think Origen).

This kindled my interest in how the ECF explained John 1:1.

Here is one:


Irenaeus: Against Heresies Book I

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.ix.html

Having first of all distinguished these three — God, the Beginning, and the Word — he again unites them, that he may exhibit the production of each of them, that is, of the Son and of the Word, and may at the same time show their union with one another, and with the Father. For ‘the beginning’ is in the Father, and of the Father, while ‘the Word’ is in the beginning, and of the beginning. Very properly, then, did he say, ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ for He was in the Son; ‘and the Word was with God,’ for He was the beginning; ‘and the Word was God,’ of course, for that which is begotten of God is God.”

Of course a Trinitarian rendered this into English...
 
Top