Day 39 — Book 1, Chapter 8, §3

For two days we have been arguing about prose. Yesterday ended on the palate — Those who feel their works insipid must be absolutely devoid of taste. Today, first sentence, Calvin puts the literary argument down and walks away from it:

As this subject has been treated at large by others, it will be sufficient here merely to touch on its leading points.

⚠️ Read that carefully, because it does not say what most students think it says. treated **at large** = treated at length, in full. It is not "at large" the fugitive. And the sentence is not humility — it is triage. Calvin is telling you the shape of the rest of the chapter: from here on you get headings, not treatises. §3 antiquity. §4 the honesty of Moses. §5 the miracles. Onward. He is clearing his desk.

Then S2 names the new weapon: great weight is due to the **antiquity** of Scripture. And here is where you must be careful, because there is a bad argument lying right next to Calvin's good one, and they look identical from a distance.

   ✗  THE BAD ARGUMENT (not Calvin's):
        Scripture is the oldest book  →  therefore it is true.
        (Age is not a truth-maker. Error is also ancient. Calvin himself
         spent all of I.5.12 on how OLD the world's idolatry is.)

   ✓  CALVIN'S ARGUMENT (two prongs, both narrow):
        (a) NO rival religious monument is older than Moses (S3)
            →  so if there is borrowing, it cannot run FROM them TO him.
                The direction of derivation is fixed.
        (b) And Moses claims NO NOVELTY anyway (S4–S6)
            →  he does not introduce a new Deity; he leads Israel BACK
                to a covenant already made with Abraham.

★ Feel the elegance of that. Prong (a) closes the door from outside; prong (b) shows Moses was never trying to walk through it. And then S7 nails it shut with a piece of forensic reasoning that is genuinely first-rate: you cannot successfully invent a nation's past in front of the nation. Had he referred to matters of which they had never heard, he never could have succeeded. The Exodus had to be a fact of **familiar and universal notoriety** — ⚠️ notoriety = well-known-ness, not scandal — because Moses is preaching it to the people who were there.

Yesterday the criterion was affectation — the forger betrays himself by style. Today the criterion is witnesses — the forger betrays himself by audience. ★ Same instinct, moved from the page to the crowd. Calvin has one forensic mind and he uses it twice.

Today's 3 Big Points — write them down now:

1. The concessive Whatever + N + S + may + V — plus a double negative that means "every single one." S3: **Whatever** fables Greek writers **may** retail concerning the Egyptian Theology, **no** monument of any religion exists **which is not** long posterior to the age of Moses. ⚠️ That may is concessive ("아무리 ~하더라도"), not permission and not probability. ⚠️ And no X exists which is not Y = every X is Y — the same double-negative-equals-universal machine as yesterday's S7 (not one will be found who does not rise). Two days, two specimens. He likes this device.
2. Two have + p.p.s in one sentence, pointing at two different worlds. S7: **Had he referred** to matters ..., he **never could have succeeded** = the if-deleted counterfactual — an unreal past, a thing that did not happen. Then, in the same sentence: their deliverance ... **must have been** a fact of familiar and universal notoriety = the epistemic must — an inference about what actually was the case. ⚠️ Identical morphology, opposite modality. If you flatten them together the whole argument dissolves.
3. Two ways of asserting without asserting. S6: For **what else does he do than** lead them back to the covenant...? — a rhetorical question, and do ... **than** + bare infinitive (no to). It is the strongest claim in the section and it is dressed as a question. And S9: it is obvious **how far** the Holy Scriptures must in point of antiquity surpass all other writings — ⚠️ an embedded degree clause, not a question: no inversion, no question mark. You met exactly this on Day 37 (**How peculiarly** this property belongs to Scripture **appears** from this, that...). Same author, same trick, two sections apart.

Nine sentences. Short ones, mostly. But S5, S7 and S9 will each take a while. Let's go.

3. As this subject has been treated at large by others, it will be sufficient here merely to touch on its leading points. In addition to the qualities already mentioned, great weight is due to the antiquity of Scripture (Euseb. Prepar. Evang. lib. 2 c. 1). Whatever fables Greek writers may retail concerning the Egyptian Theology, no monument of any religion exists which is not long posterior to the age of Moses. But Moses does not introduce a new Deity. He only sets forth that doctrine concerning the eternal God which the Israelites had received by tradition from their fathers, by whom it had been transmitted, as it were, from hand to hand, during a long series of ages. For what else does he do than lead them back to the covenant which had been made with Abraham? Had he referred to matters of which they had never heard, he never could have succeeded; but their deliverance from the bondage in which they were held must have been a fact of familiar and universal notoriety, the very mention of which must have immediately aroused the attention of all. It is, moreover, probable, that they were intimately acquainted with the whole period of four hundred years. Now, if Moses (who is so much earlier than all other writers) traces the tradition of his doctrine from so remote a period, it is obvious how far the Holy Scriptures must in point of antiquity surpass all other writings. ✅ Text note (transcription). A clean section, for once. The paragraph runs unbroken in our Beveridge file with no hyphenated line-breaks to close, no marginal page number falling inside it (the 82 sits in §4), and no footnote markers. The parenthetical source reference (Euseb. Prepar. Evang. lib. 2 c. 1) is printed inline in the text and is reproduced above exactly as it stands. Nine sentences, verbatim.

  ── PART A: CHANGING WEAPONS (S1–S2) ──
[THE HAND-OFF]    S1  AS this subject has been TREATED AT LARGE by others,
                      it will be sufficient here MERELY TO TOUCH ON
                      its LEADING POINTS
                                  ↑ AT LARGE = 상세히 (도주 중 ✗)
                                  ↑ at large  ↔  touch on : 정면 대비

[THE NEW HEAD]    S2  IN ADDITION TO the qualities already mentioned,
                      GREAT WEIGHT IS DUE TO  the ANTIQUITY of Scripture
                      (Euseb. Prepar. Evang. lib. 2 c. 1)
                                  ↑ IN ADDITION TO = §1–2 를 폐기하지 않음.
                                    누적 논거(cumulative), 대체 아님.

  ── PART B: PRONG (a) — NOTHING OLDER EXISTS (S3) ──
[⚠️ THE SWEEP]    S3  ( WHATEVER fables Greek writers MAY RETAIL
                        concerning the Egyptian Theology, )
                      NO monument of any religion EXISTS
                        [ WHICH IS NOT long POSTERIOR to the age of Moses ]
                                  ↑ may = 양보의 may (아무리 ~해도)
                                  ↑ no ~ which is not ~ = 전칭긍정
                                    "존재하는 모든 기념물은 모세보다 나중이다"

  ── PART C: PRONG (b) — MOSES CLAIMS NO NOVELTY (S4–S6) ──
[⚠️ THE HINGE]    S4  BUT Moses DOES NOT INTRODUCE A NEW DEITY
                                  ↑ 9문장 중 최단. 그리고 이 절의 축.

[WHAT HE DOES DO] S5  He ONLY SETS FORTH  that doctrine
                        (concerning the eternal God)
                        [ WHICH the Israelites HAD RECEIVED
                          BY TRADITION from their fathers,
                          [ BY WHOM it HAD BEEN TRANSMITTED,
                            (AS IT WERE,) FROM HAND TO HAND,
                            during A LONG SERIES OF AGES ] ]
                                  ↑ 관계절 안에 관계절. 사슬이 곧 논지다.
                                  ↑ 과거완료 2회 = 모세보다 앞선 시간층

[THE PROOF-Q]     S6  FOR  WHAT ELSE DOES HE DO  THAN  LEAD them BACK
                      to the COVENANT (which HAD BEEN MADE with Abraham)?
                                  ↑ 수사의문 = 최강 단언
                                  ↑ do ... than + 원형부정사 (to 없음)

  ── PART D: WHY A FORGERY WAS IMPOSSIBLE (S7–S8) ──
[⚠️ THE FORENSIC] S7  HAD HE REFERRED to matters (of which they had never
                      heard),  he NEVER COULD HAVE SUCCEEDED ;
                      BUT their DELIVERANCE from the bondage
                        MUST HAVE BEEN a fact of FAMILIAR AND UNIVERSAL
                        NOTORIETY,
                        [ the very mention of which MUST HAVE IMMEDIATELY
                          AROUSED the attention of all ]
                                  ↑ 앞: 반사실(일어나지 않은 일)
                                  ↑ 뒤: 추론의 must (실제로 그러했음이 틀림없다)
                                    ⚠️ 같은 모양, 다른 세계.

[THE MEMORY]      S8  It is, MOREOVER, PROBABLE, that they were
                      INTIMATELY ACQUAINTED with the whole period
                      of FOUR HUNDRED YEARS
                                  ↑ probable = 개연적 (확정 아님) — 칼빈이
                                    증거의 등급을 스스로 낮춰 표시한다.

  ── PART E: THE CONCLUSION (S9) ──
[THE INFERENCE]   S9  NOW, IF Moses (who is SO MUCH EARLIER than all other
                      writers) TRACES the tradition of his doctrine
                      FROM SO REMOTE A PERIOD,
                      → IT IS OBVIOUS  [ HOW FAR the Holy Scriptures MUST
                        IN POINT OF ANTIQUITY SURPASS all other writings ]
                                  ↑ how-절 = 의문 아님 (도치 없음·물음표 없음)
                                  ↑ must = 추론. 그리고 "surpass" 로 §1(Day37)
                                    의 마지막 단어를 되받는다.

Examiner's Eye — four traps, and the first two are the ones that decide the section.

⚠️ ① "Calvin argues that the oldest religion is the true one." This is the distractor built for the student who read the heading and stopped. It is not the argument. Calvin makes two narrow claims — (a) nothing older exists to have been the source (S3), and (b) Moses makes no claim to novelty (S4–S6). Neither is "old therefore true." ★ And remember: Calvin has already told you at length (I.5.12) that error is ancient too. He is not entitled to "old = true" and he knows it.

⚠️ ② "Moses invented the God of Israel / brought a new religion to the Hebrews." S4 exists to kill this in seven words: **But Moses does not introduce a new Deity.** Any option that has Moses founding a religion is dead. He is, in Calvin's picture, a restorer — S6, lead them **back**. This matters far beyond today: it is the same shape as I.6.2, where the prophets are **interpreters** of the law, not innovators. Calvin's revelation always runs backwards to an older deposit.

⚠️ ③ The modality of S7. The sentence contains one unreal past (Had he referred ... he never could have succeeded — this did not happen) and one inferential past (must have been a fact of familiar and universal notoriety — this did happen, and we can prove it by reasoning). A distractor saying "Calvin admits Moses may have referred to unfamiliar matters" has read the counterfactual as a real possibility. ⚠️ Counterfactual ≠ concession.

⚠️ ④ The hedge in S8 is deliberate — do not upgrade it. It is, moreover, **probable**, that they were intimately acquainted with the whole period of four hundred years. Calvin marks this one as probable, not certain. An option asserting that Calvin proves Israel's continuous memory of four centuries overreaches his own text. ★ Watch how carefully he grades his evidence: great weight is due (S2) · no monument exists (S3, flat assertion) · never could have succeeded (S7, demonstration) · it is probable (S8, concession of degree) · it is obvious (S9). Five different confidence levels in nine sentences. That is not sloppiness. That is a lawyer.

Formula 1 — Concessive whatever/however + may, and the universal double negative

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  ①  WHATEVER + N + S + MAY + V ,   MAIN CLAUSE                       │
│      = 아무리 / 무엇을 ~하더라도                                       │
│      ⚠️ may = 양보 (허가 ✗ / 추측 ✗)                                   │
│      family:  however + ADJ + S + may + V                            │
│               how ... soever                                          │
│               whatsoever / whosoever                                  │
│                                                                       │
│  ②  NO  X  ...  WHICH IS NOT  Y      =  EVERY X IS Y                 │
│      ⚠️ 반드시 종이에 괄호 치고 뒤집을 것. 머리로 하면 방향이 뒤집힌다.  │
│      family (yesterday):  not one will be found who does not rise     │
│                          = 전원 예외 없이 상승                         │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Transformation drill. Rewrite as one sentence using ① + ②:

(given) Critics tell many stories about the Church's councils. Every one of those councils met after the apostles. → Whatever stories critics may retail concerning the councils, no council of any age exists which is not long posterior to the apostles.

Formula 2 — Two MODAL + HAVE + p.p.s: unreal past vs. inferred past

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  ①  HAD / WERE / SHOULD  + S + ... ,   S + could/would/might have p.p.│
│      = if 삭제 도치 가정법 → 반사실 (일어나지 않은 일)                  │
│      ⚠️ 도치 가능 조동사는 HAD·WERE·SHOULD 셋뿐.                       │
│         `Did he refer ...` ✗ (그건 의문문)                             │
│                                                                       │
│  ②  S + MUST HAVE + p.p.                                              │
│      = 추론의 must → 실제 과거에 대한 확신 ("~였음이 틀림없다")          │
│      ⚠️ 의무의 must 아님. "~해야 했다" 로 옮기면 논증이 무너진다.        │
│                                                                       │
│  분류 규칙:  could/would/might have p.p.  →  대개 반사실                │
│              must have p.p.               →  실제 과거의 추론           │
│  ⚠️ 오늘의 S7 은 세미콜론 하나를 사이에 두고 ①과 ②를 연달아 쓴다.        │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Transformation drill. Write one sentence containing both:

Had Paul appealed to a resurrection no one in Corinth had heard reported, his letter never could have persuaded them; but the appearance to the five hundred must have been a matter of familiar report, the very citation of which must have settled the question for most of his readers.

Formula 3 — Asserting without asserting: the exceptive rhetorical question, and the embedded how-clause

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  ①  WHAT ELSE DOES + S + DO  THAN  + BARE INFINITIVE  ?               │
│      = S 가 하는 일이란 ~하는 것뿐이다   (수사의문 = 강한 단언)          │
│      ⚠️ than = except (비교 ✗) · 부정사에 to 없음                       │
│      family:  do nothing but + 원형 / cannot but + 원형                │
│               what is X but Y?                                        │
│                                                                       │
│  ②  IT IS OBVIOUS / IT APPEARS  +  HOW (FAR) + S + V ...              │
│      = 의문문이 아니다. 도치 없음. 물음표 없음.                          │
│      ⚠️ 내포절에서는 어순이 S + V 로 고정.                              │
│         how far the Scriptures must surpass   ✓                       │
│         how far must the Scriptures surpass   ✗ (직접의문)             │
│      cf. Day 37 S11:  How peculiarly this property belongs to         │
│                       Scripture APPEARS from this, that ...           │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Transformation drill. Convert the flat statements into ① and ②:

(flat) The prophet is merely repeating the law. It is clear that his authority depends entirely on Moses. → For what else does the prophet do than repeat the law? And it is obvious how completely his authority must in point of origin depend on Moses.

Where we are in the architecture — say it out loud, because people forget it within a week. Chapter 8 is the indicia chapter: rational marks of credibility. It sits under Chapter 7, and Calvin bolted it down in the first sentence of §1 (Day 37): In vain were the authority of Scripture fortified by argument ... **if unaccompanied by** an assurance higher and stronger than human Judgment can give. So everything today — antiquity, Moses, the four hundred years — is an adminiculum, a vine-prop. ⚠️ Props do not hold up buildings. They hold up plants that are already rooted. Anyone who quotes §3 as Calvin's foundation for scriptural authority has skipped two chapters.

The argument from antiquity is not Calvin's invention, and he tells you so. The marginal citation is Eusebius of Caesarea, Praeparatio Evangelica (c. AD 313) — the great apologetic encyclopaedia whose whole strategy is: Greek wisdom is late, derivative, and internally incoherent; the Hebrew tradition is earlier. Book 2 chapter 1, cited here, belongs to Eusebius' survey of Egyptian and Phoenician theogonies — which is precisely S3's target. (The sustained Moses-is-older-than-everybody demonstration is chiefly PE book 10; the marginal references in Beveridge are editorial pointers, not always page-precise. Don't over-invest in the exact chapter.) Behind Eusebius stand Josephus, Contra Apionem — whom Calvin will name in his very next section — Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian, and Clement of Alexandria, Stromata I, who ran the same chronological comparison; and after them Augustine, De Civitate Dei XVIII, which does the Moses/Greek-antiquity synchronism at length. ★ Calvin is standing in a queue twelve centuries deep, and he knows it — which is exactly why S1 says treated at large by others. S1 is a footnote in the form of a sentence.

What is genuinely Calvin's, and better than the tradition: the pivot at S4. The patristic argument was mostly chronological one-upmanship — ours is older, therefore yours is borrowed. Calvin lets that stand as prong (a) and then adds something sharper. Moses is not competing for the prize of "oldest founder," because Moses is not a founder. He only sets forth that doctrine ... which the Israelites had received by tradition from their fathers. The claim shifts from primacy to non-novelty — and non-novelty is a much harder thing to fake, because it can be checked by the audience. That is why S7 follows immediately. ★ Prong (a) is Eusebius. Prong (b) plus S7 is Calvin.

The forensic instinct, third day running. Day 37: bad prose cannot be a marketing strategy, therefore its power is not rhetorical. Day 38: the counterfeit betrays itself by affectation. Day 39: the forger cannot invent a public past in front of the public. ★ These are all the same mind, and it is a lawyer's mind — Calvin took a law degree at Orléans and Bourges before he took anything else, and it shows on every page of this chapter. Read Chapter 8 as a brief, not as a meditation, and it suddenly reads easily.

Reception, briefly and honestly. The mass-witness form of S7 recurs independently — Judah Halevi's Kuzari (12th c.) argues from the national revelation at Sinai in almost the same shape, and 18th-century English apologetics rediscovered it. In the Reformed confessions, the whole indicia apparatus gets crystallised at Westminster Confession 1.5 (the heavenliness of the matter ... the consent of all the parts ... the many other incomparable excellencies) — with the decisive **yet notwithstanding** clause that reproduces Day 37's S1. Bavinck and Turretin (Institutio I.iv–vi) formalise the two-storey structure: indicia below, testimonium above.

⚠️ Four guardrails — and today needs them more than most days.

① The chronology has not survived; the argument-form largely has. Calvin writes before Champollion (hieroglyphs, 1822), before Assyriology, before anything like modern Egyptian chronology. no monument of any religion exists which is not long posterior to the age of Moses is, as a historical claim about the ancient Near East, no longer defensible. Say so plainly. What survives is S4–S7: a founder who disclaims novelty, appealing publicly to events his audience is presumed to have lived. Learn to hold a thinker's reasoning apart from his data. It is the only way to read anyone older than yourself.

② "Oldest = truest" is not the argument, and attributing it to Calvin is a misreading. He has already documented at length how ancient idolatry is (I.5.12: the Egyptians and their mystic theology were his own specimen). Antiquity here is doing two narrow jobs: fixing the direction of possible derivation, and supporting the non-novelty claim. Nothing more.

③ The covenant material here is historical, not yet the covenant theology. the covenant which had been made with Abraham is doing chronological work in §3. The theology of the covenant — one covenant, two administrations, the relation of law and gospel — is deliberately reserved for Book 2 (Calvin fenced this off explicitly back in I.6, Day 28). ⚠️ Do not import Book 2 into this sentence; Calvin has not yet earned it here, and he knows it.

④ S8 is probable and must stay probable. Calvin graded his own evidence in five steps across nine sentences. Flattening those grades into uniform confidence is how a careful writer gets turned into a dogmatist by his admirers. ★ The mark of having actually read someone is that you preserve their hedges.

1. Ex. 3:6, 13–15 — the burning bush, and S4 in narrative form. But Moses does not introduce a new Deity (S4). Go to the founding scene and see what God says first: "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." ★ The very first self-identification at the bush is genealogical. And when Moses asks for a name (3:13), the answer is given and then immediately re-anchored: "The LORD God of your fathers ... hath sent me unto you" (3:15). Calvin's S4–S6 is not an inference imposed on the text; it is a summary of how Exodus itself introduces the God of the Exodus. This is the single best proof-text for today's section, and Calvin does not cite it — he assumes you know it.

2. ⚠️ Ex. 6:2–3 — the honest tension, and you should meet it before an opponent hands it to you. "I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty (אֵל שַׁדַּי), but by my name JEHOVAH (יהוה) was I not known to them." Read flatly, that is a new name at the Exodus — which looks like exactly the novelty S4 denies. The Reformed reading (Calvin's own, in the Exodus commentary) takes known as known in efficacy — the covenant name now made good in act, not a newly-introduced deity; and the same verse's "I appeared unto Abraham" keeps the continuity explicit in its own first clause. ★ Note how the objection and its answer sit in one verse. Modern source-critical readings take 6:2–3 quite differently; you should know that too. Do not pretend the tension is not there. Handle it.

3. Deut. 4:32–35 — Moses running S7's argument himself. "Ask now of the days that are past ... Did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live? ... Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know." ★ This is the mass-witness argument in Moses' own mouth, addressed to the generation that is presumed to have been present — precisely Calvin's a fact of familiar and universal notoriety. And Deut. 4:9 supplies the transmission clause of S5: "teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons." Calvin's S5 and S7 are, between them, a compressed paraphrase of Deuteronomy 4.

4. Deut. 32:7 — the hand-to-hand chain of S5, verbatim. "Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee." ⚠️ Look at the structure: memory → generations → father → elders. That is S5's relative chain, in Hebrew parallelism. by tradition from their fathers, by whom it had been transmitted, as it were, from hand to hand, during a long series of ages.

5. Gen. 15:13; Ex. 12:40–41; Acts 7:6; Gal. 3:17 — the four hundred years of S8. Gen. 15:13 gives Abraham the number in advance: "thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs ... four hundred years." Ex. 12:40 gives 430; Acts 7:6 follows the 400; Gal. 3:17 the 430. ★ Calvin's S8 claim — that Israel was intimately acquainted with the whole period — depends on the number being announced beforehand to Abraham and remembered forward, which is why the tradition-chain of S5 and the 400 years of S8 are the same argument told twice. ⚠️ And he calls it probable, not certain. Keep the hedge.

6. Gen. 12:1–3; 15:18; 17:7 — the covenant of S6. lead them back to the covenant which had been made with Abraham. Note Gen. 17:7, "an everlasting covenant" (בְּרִית עוֹלָם) — the olam is doing exactly the work Calvin needs: the covenant is not a Mosaic institution but a standing one that Moses invokes. And Gen. 15:18's idiom is cut a covenant (karath berith), over the divided animals — the knife that Beveridge's made politely hides.

7. Acts 7:22 vs. Rom. 1:22–23 — the Egyptian question of S3, from both sides. The opponent's card is Acts 7:22: "And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." Stephen concedes the education. ★ But Calvin's diagnosis of what Egyptian religion was is already on record at I.5.12 (the Egyptians as his specimen of mystic theology), and the frame is Rom. 1:22–23, "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts" — a sentence that reads like a description of an Egyptian temple wall. Moses was trained in it; Calvin's claim is that he did not derive from it. Education is not derivation, and S3's chronology is meant to keep the two apart.

8. How Calvin uses Scripture today — the meta-observation. ⚠️ Notice that §3 quotes not one verse. In a chapter about the credibility of Scripture, arguing before natural reason, Calvin argues about the Bible from history, and holds the Bible's own testimony in reserve. ★ That is not a lapse of piety — it is the discipline of the chapter title: in so far as natural reason admits. He is playing on the board he announced. Compare §§5–6, where the miracles come in and the citations return in a flood. A theologian who can keep his best material out of his hand until the right section is a theologian who has actually thought about the order of an argument.

① 어법 — 밑줄 넷 중 틀린 것 하나를 고르시오.

Whatever fables the poets ⓐmay retail concerning the older gods, no record of any nation exists ⓑwhich is not long posterior to that age; and ⓒdid the lawgiver refer to matters of which the people had never heard, he never could have succeeded; but their deliverance ⓓmust have been a fact of universal notoriety.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: ⓒ

해설(출제 의도). 오늘 Formula 2①의 정면 출제다. if 삭제 도치 가정법에 쓸 수 있는 조동사는 had·were·should 셋뿐이다. did로는 도치 조건절을 만들 수 없고 — did the lawgiver refer는 의문문이 되어 버린다. 원문 S7 그대로 **Had** the lawgiver referred로 고쳐야 주절의 never could have succeeded(반사실 귀결)와 짝이 맞는다. 나머지는 모두 오늘 문장 그대로: ⓐ 양보의 may(Formula 1①), ⓑ no X ... which is not Y 이중부정(Formula 1②), ⓓ 추론의 must have p.p.(Formula 2②). ⚠️ 함정 설계: ⓓ를 고르는 학생이 매년 나온다. must have been을 「~했어야 했다」(의무)로 읽고 문맥에 안 맞는다고 판단하는 경우다. must have p.p. 는 의무가 아니라 추론이다.

② 내용일치 — §3의 내용과 일치하는 것은?

ⓐ Calvin argues that because Scripture is the oldest surviving book, its doctrine must be true. ⓑ Calvin concedes that certain Egyptian religious monuments are contemporary with, or older than, Moses, but denies that this matters. ⓒ Calvin holds that Moses founded Israel's religion, and that its later antiquity derives from his authority. ⓓ Calvin holds that Moses introduced no new God but recalled Israel to a covenant already made with Abraham, and that a public appeal to unknown events could not have succeeded.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: ⓓ

해설(출제 의도). ⓓ는 S4(does not introduce a new Deity) + S6(lead them back to the covenant which had been made with Abraham) + S7(Had he referred ... he never could have succeeded)의 정확한 합성이다. ⚠️ ⓐ = 범위 초과. 「가장 오래됨 → 참」은 칼빈의 논증이 아니다. 그는 (a) 더 오래된 것이 존재하지 않는다(S3, 차용 방향 고정)와 (b) 모세가 새로움을 주장하지 않는다(S4–S6)만 말한다. 게다가 칼빈 자신이 I.5.12에서 우상숭배의 유구함을 길게 다뤘다 — 그는 「오래됨=참」을 쓸 수 없는 사람이다. ⚠️ ⓑ = 방향 뒤집기. S3의 이중부정을 잘못 푼 것. no monument ... which is not long posterior = 존재하는 모든 기념물이 모세보다 훨씬 나중이다. 동시대·그 이전의 것이 있다고 인정한 적이 없다. ⚠️ ⓒ = S4 정면 위반. But Moses does not introduce a new Deity. 모세는 창시자가 아니라 복원자(S6 lead them **back**)다.

③ 영작 — 오늘의 공식을 적용해 영어로 옮기시오.

「비평가들이 초대 교회에 관해 무슨 이야기를 옮기든, 사도들보다 앞서는 신경(creed)은 하나도 존재하지 않는다. 만일 그 사도가 아무도 들어본 적 없는 사건들을 거론했더라면 그의 편지는 결코 설득할 수 없었을 것이다. 그러나 그 처형은 만인이 익히 아는 사실이었음이 틀림없다. 그리고 그가 하는 일이란 그들을 처음의 전승으로 되돌리는 것 말고 무엇이겠는가?」

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)모범답안:

Whatever tales critics may retail concerning the primitive Church, no creed of any age exists which is not posterior to the apostles. Had that apostle referred to events of which no one had ever heard, his letter never could have persuaded them; but the execution must have been a fact of familiar and universal notoriety. And what else does he do than lead them back to the tradition first delivered?

해설(출제 의도). 네 공식이 전부 들어가야 한다. ① Whatever ... may V 양보 + no X ... which is not Y 이중부정 → 첫 문장. ② Had + S + p.p., S never could have p.p. 반사실 → 둘째 문장 전반. ③ must have p.p. 추론 → 둘째 문장 후반(세미콜론 뒤, S7과 같은 배치). ④ what else does he do **than** + **원형** → 마지막 문장, ⚠️ than to lead 로 쓰면 감점 — 오늘 문형은 to 없는 원형이다. notoriety를 「악명」의 뜻으로 오해해 다른 단어로 바꾸면 그것도 감점.

One-line summary. Calvin puts the literary argument down in one breath — As this subject has been **treated at large** by others, it will be sufficient here **merely to touch on** its leading points (⚠️ at large = at length) — and takes up a new head of proof that does not replace the old ones but stacks on them: **In addition to** the qualities already mentioned, great weight is due to the **antiquity** of Scripture; the first prong sweeps the field with a concession clause and a double negative — **Whatever** fables Greek writers **may retail** concerning the Egyptian Theology, **no** monument of any religion exists **which is not** long **posterior** to the age of Moses (⚠️ = every surviving religious record is later than Moses; ⚠️ retail = pass on second-hand; ⚠️ posterior = later) — which does not prove Moses true but fixes the direction of any possible borrowing; then comes the hinge, seven flat words, **But Moses does not introduce a new Deity**, and the second prong, which is Calvin's own contribution and better than the tradition's: Moses claims no novelty at all — He **only sets forth** that doctrine ... **which** the Israelites **had received** by tradition from their fathers, **by whom** it **had been transmitted**, **as it were**, **from hand to hand**, during a long **series** of ages (★ the relative chain is the transmission it describes, and the two past perfects put the deposit behind Moses), so that **For what else does he do than lead** them **back** to the covenant **which had been made** with Abraham? — ★ intro-duce in S4, lead back in S6, the same ducere with the direction reversed; and then the forensic core, two have + p.p.s in two different worlds — **Had he referred** to matters of which they had never heard, he **never could have succeeded** (unreal past) ; but their deliverance ... **must have been** a fact of **familiar and universal notoriety**, the very mention of which **must have immediately aroused** the attention of all (⚠️ notoriety = well-known-ness, not scandal; ⚠️ must have = inference, not obligation) — i.e. you cannot invent a public past in front of the public; a graded hedge follows, and it is graded on purpose — It is, moreover, **probable**, that they were **intimately acquainted** with the whole period of four hundred years — before the conclusion draws the line back: Now, **if** Moses (who is **so much earlier** than all other writers) **traces** the tradition of his doctrine from **so remote a period**, it is obvious **how far** the Holy Scriptures **must in point of antiquity surpass** all other writings (⚠️ the how-clause is not a question — no inversion, no question mark, exactly as in Day 37's **How peculiarly** this property ... **appears**; ⚠️ and in point of antiquity limits the claim to one axis, the third day running that a limiting phrase carries the sentence).

And the three grammar points, once more:

1. Concessive may + the universal double negative. **Whatever** fables Greek writers **may** retail ..., **no** monument ... exists **which is not** long posterior (S3). ⚠️ That may is no matter what — not permission, not probability; siblings are however + adj + S + may + V (Day 38) and how ... soever (Day 30). ⚠️ And no X ... which is not Y = every X is Y — bracket the two negations on paper; this is the second specimen in two days, after yesterday's not one will be found who does not rise.
2. MODAL + HAVE + p.p. — two of them, one semicolon apart, in opposite worlds. **Had he referred** ..., he **never could have succeeded** = if-deleted counterfactual (⚠️ only had / were / should may invert; did he refer is a question) — an unreal past. their deliverance **must have been** a fact of ... notoriety = epistemic must — a certain inference about the real past. ⚠️ Identical shape, opposite modality; sort them by the modal, and never translate must have been as obligation.
3. Two ways to assert without asserting. For **what else does he do than lead** them back ...? (S6) — ⚠️ than = except (not comparative), infinitive is bare, and the question mark makes the claim stronger, not weaker; family: do nothing but + bare inf., what is X but Y? And it is obvious **how far** the Holy Scriptures must ... surpass (S9) — ⚠️ an embedded degree clause: subject-verb order preserved, no question mark. how far the Scriptures must surpass ✓ / how far must the Scriptures surpass ✗.

Homework (10 minutes).

① Structure restoration. Take S5 — the chain — and rebuild it as four flat sentences, losing nothing:

He only sets forth that doctrine concerning the eternal God which the Israelites had received by tradition from their fathers, by whom it had been transmitted, as it were, from hand to hand, during a long series of ages.

Target shape: (i) All he does is present a body of teaching. (ii) That teaching concerns the eternal God. (iii) The Israelites had already received it from their fathers, by way of tradition. (iv) Those fathers had passed it on — hand to hand, so to speak — over many generations. — Then underline the two past perfects and write one line on what would be lost if both became simple pasts. (Answer to check yourself against: the deposit would stop being anterior to Moses, and prong (b) would collapse.)

② Composition. Write four English sentences on the content below, using Formula 1① and ② in the first, Formula 2① and ② in the second and third, and Formula 3① and ② in the fourth:

"Whatever objections modern critics may retail concerning the creeds, no confession of any church exists which is not posterior to the apostolic preaching. Had the apostle appealed to a resurrection of which his hearers had never heard, his preaching never could have taken root in that city; but the empty tomb must have been a matter of familiar and universal notoriety, the very mention of which must have divided every synagogue that heard it. For what else does the creed do than lead the church back to what was delivered at the first? And it is obvious how far, in point of origin, that deposit must precede every later formula." — then check your work against S3 for the two negations, against S7 for the two different have + p.p.s, and against S6/S9 for the bare infinitive after than and the uninverted how-clause.

③ Tomorrow's preview (one line). §4 continues the antiquity argument but changes tactics twice. First Calvin disposes of the rival chronology with open contempt — the Egyptians **carrying back their antiquity to a period of six thousand years before the world was created**, whose **garrulity** (⚠️ = chattering, not a compliment) **it cannot be necessary for me to refute** (⚠️ another refusal to argue, exactly like yesterday's None ... need be told — watch how often Calvin's dismissals are stylistic verdicts rather than refutations, and keep asking whether that is enough). Then he calls Josephus, Contra Apionem — the source S1 was gesturing at — and pivots to something much stronger and much more characteristic: the argument from self-damaging testimony. Moses records his own tribe's **eternal infamy in the person of Levi** (Gen. 49:5–6), his brother's and sister's rebellion (Num. 12:1), and refuses the High Priesthood to his own sons. ★ A forger flatters his own family. ⚠️ Look for the rhetorical question that carries the whole section — **How can any suspicion attach to him, who ... neither consults for his own private interest, nor declines to incur obloquy...?** — and note it is the same construction as today's S6: a question that is really the flattest possible assertion.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 8, §3 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 8, §4 (Day 40) — 고대성 논증 2부: 이집트의 6천 년 주장 기각(garrulity), 요세푸스 『아피온 반박』 호출, 그리고 훨씬 강한 새 논거 — 자기에게 불리한 증언(모세가 자기 지파 레위를 창 49:5-6으로 낙인찍고, 형 아론·누이 미리암의 반역을 기록하며, 제사장직을 제 아들들에게 주지 않는다). 오늘의 S6와 똑같은 수사의문이 그 절의 축이 된다.