William Albrect, whenever John Chrysostom supports a Catholic teaching (e.g., the perpetual virginity of Mary), claims that Chrysostom knows more Greek than any modern scholar and that he should be privileged.
He is not unique. Ronald Tacelli appealed
to Chrysostom in a similar manner with respect to the meaning of
"until" (εως ου) in Matt 1:25. As Eric Svendsen, in Where
Have All the Critics Gone? Reflections on the Roman Catholic Response to the
Phrase Heos Hou in Matthew 1:25 wrote in response to such:
Amazingly enough,
Tacelli continues by removing himself even further from the New Testament era
and appealing to a writing of Chrysostom, a fourth-century father:
But regardless of how
well or poorly these men know Greek, St. John Chrysostom, one of the greatest
early Church Fathers, surely knew the Greek language immensely well (he wrote
and spoke it fluently) and was sensitive to its every nuance. Let's look at
what he had to say on the subject of Mary's perpetual virginity and the meaning
of heos hou. In his sermons on St. Matthew's Gospel (cf. Patrologia Graeca,
7.58), St. John Chrysostom quotes Matthew 1:25 and then asks, "But why . .
. did [St. Matthew] use the word 'until'?" Note well here: In quoting the
verse, Chrysostom had used heos hou; but in asking the question, the word he
uses for "until" is heos all by itself - as if he were unaware of a
difference in meaning between these two expressions. . . . It's clear that for
St. John Chrysostom, heos has exactly the same meaning as heos hou. . . . If an
unbridgeable linguistic chasm separated these two expressions, how could it be
that the greatest master of the Greek language in all Christendom was unaware
of it? The plain answer is that there was no such chasm.
Such an observation
will doubtless hold emotional appeal to those who are a priori committed
to the authority of Chrysostom; but for purposes of New Testament Greek
grammar, Chrysostom’s writings are completely irrelevant. How many grammarians
today turn to Chrysostom (or indeed to any fourth-century
writing) to establish usage for the New Testament era? Did Chrysostom know
about semantic obsolescence? Did he examine every occurrence of this phrase in
the literature of the first century and surrounding centuries? Of course not.
And to claim, as Tacelli does, that Chrysostom was “sensitive to [the Greek
language’s] every nuance” is so outlandish as to be laughable.
Was Chrysostom aware of Granville Sharp’s rule regarding the article governing
two nouns in regimen? Was he familiar with Colwell’s rule regarding definite
predicate nouns? How about McGaughy’s rule regarding einai connecting
two substantives? Or how about Goetchius’ qualifications of McGaughy’s rule?
What about Porter’s aspectual theory? Or the Moeller/Kramer rule regarding
consecutive accusative substantives? Or Reed’s qualifications of
Moeller/Kramer? If Chrysostom was familiar with “every nuance” of Greek, where
is the evidence of this?
At the end of the day
it is a fairly easy task to demonstrate that Tacelli’s appeal to Chrysostom is
for purely emotional and sentimental effect. Would Tacelli maintain the
“greatness” of Chrysostom’s Greek savvy in his understanding of John 2:4, in
which Jesus addresses his mother: “And Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, what do I
have to do with you? My hour has not yet come’"? Chrysostom comments on
this verse: “And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying,
‘Woman, what have I to do with you?’ instructing her for the future not to do
the like” (Homilies on John, 21). Modern Roman Catholic apologists
(Tacelli included) reject the notion that Jesus is rebuking his mother in this
passage. They deny that the phrase “What to me and to you, Woman?” (ti emoi
kai soi, gynai) is a rebuke. And yet Chrysostom, who, according to Tacelli,
“surely knew the Greek language immensely well . . . and was sensitive to its
every nuance,” interprets this phrase as a rebuke! What will Tacelli do with
that? After all, “the greatest master of the Greek language in all Christendom”
(again, Tacelli’s own words) seems to be unaware that this phrase should be
interpreted in some other way than a rebuke.
Similarly with John
19, which records Jesus’ words to his disciple, "’Here is your mother.’
From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.” Modern Roman Catholic
apologists read these words in a way that suggests the disciple (representing
the church) is being entrusted to the care of Mary (who, we are told, becomes
“mother of the church”). Yet, oddly enough, Chrysostom, a man whom Tacelli has
touted “the greatest master of the Greek language in all Christendom” who would
naturally be “sensitive to every nuance” of the Greek,” reads this passage in
the opposite sense (a decidedly Evangelical way of reading it): “When He
Himself was now departing, He committed her to the disciple to take care of.
For since it was likely that, being His mother, she would grieve, and require
protection, He with reason entrusted her to the beloved” (Homily 85.3).
Yet another example
of Chrysostom’s Greek prowess is his view of Matt 12:46-50, which reads as
follows:
While Jesus was still
talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak
to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside,
wanting to speak to you." He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and
who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are
my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is
my brother and sister and mother."
Chrysostom
comments on this passage:
And therefore He
answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, “Who is My mother, and who
are My brethren?” (Matt. xii. 48), because they did not yet think
rightly of Him; and [Mary], because she had borne Him, claimed, according
to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she
ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He
answered as He did on that occasion. For consider what a thing it was, that
when all the people high and low were standing round Him, when the multitude
was intent on hearing Him, and His doctrine had begun to be set forth, she
should come into the midst and take Him away from the work of exhortation,
and converse with Him apart, and not even endure to come within, but draw Him
outside merely to herself. This is why He said, “Who is My mother and My
brethren?” (Homily on John 21, 2). . . . But today we learn in
addition another thing, that even to have borne Christ in the womb, and to have
brought forth that marvelous birth, has no profit, if there be not virtue. . .
. But He said, ‘who is my mother, and who are my brethren?’ And this He said,
not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him, .
. . but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless
she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had
attempted to do was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the
people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as
yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable
approach (Homily on Matthew, 44).
No Roman Catholic
apologist today (Tacelli included) would dare make such statements about the
mother of Jesus—yet, this is the exegesis of “the greatest master of the Greek
language in all Christendom”! Can we now expect Tacelli to subordinate his
views to “One of the greatest early Church Fathers [who] surely knew the Greek
language immensely well ([since] he wrote and spoke it fluently), and [who] was
sensitive to its every nuance”? Not likely. That, in itself, should be
sufficient evidence for anyone wholly to reject Tacelli’s emotional appeal to
Chrysostom.
I will make a deal with Albrecht et al: I
will accept the perpetual virginity of Mary if you admit that, as Chrysostom
knew more Greek than modern scholars and is a great witness to the “truths” of
the faith, is also correct in believing Mary was guilty of personal sin.
Of course, Albrecht is not an honest actor. On this, see:
Errol Amey, "A Case for Subordinationism in Modern Apologetics" Part II