Saturday, July 31, 2021

On the Common Roman Catholic "Puffing Up" of John Chrysostom's Greek Prowess

 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" (A Response to William Albrecht and Sam Shamoun) and

Errol Amey, "A Case for Subordinationism in Modern Apologetics" Part II