Day 40 — Book 1, Chapter 8, §4

Yesterday Calvin fixed the chronology: nothing older exists, and Moses claimed no novelty anyway. He ended on a hedge (it is, moreover, **probable**) and a conclusion (it is obvious how far the Holy Scriptures must in point of antiquity surpass all other writings).

Today he does something better, and you should see the shape of it before you read a word.

Yesterday's forensic move was about the audience: you cannot invent a nation's past in front of the nation (Day 39, S7). Today's forensic move is about the author: look at what this witness says against himself.

   THE QUESTION A JUDGE ASKS OF ANY WITNESS:
        cui bono?  —  who profits by this testimony?

   Day 39 (S7)  attacked the OPPORTUNITY to lie
                 →  the eyewitnesses were sitting in front of him
   Day 40 (S4–S11)  attacks the MOTIVE to lie
                 →  every one of his three exhibits COSTS him something

★ And watch the three exhibits, because they are not a list — they are a tightening circle:

   EXHIBIT A  (S5–S9)   his ANCESTOR   — Levi, branded with eternal infamy
   EXHIBIT B  (S10)     his SIBLINGS   — Aaron and Miriam, caught murmuring
   EXHIBIT C  (S11)     his SONS       — passed over for the High Priesthood

Great-grandfather → brother and sister → children. Each step nearer the bone. A forger writes himself a genealogy; Moses writes himself a liability. ★ That is composition, not enumeration, and it is the sort of thing you only notice if you refuse to skim.

⚠️ But before all that, S1–S3 have to clear the Egyptians off the table, and Calvin does it by a trick you must be able to name: he refuses to refute them — and that refusal is the refutation. Then S4 states the thesis of the whole section in one sentence, and the thesis is theological, not literary: **God has provided**, in the most effectual manner, against both dangers. Underline God has provided. The honesty of Moses is not, for Calvin, a happy accident of character. It is providence arranging the evidence.

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

1. Object-fronting with a gap — twice — plus two anticipatory its that mean different things. S2: But their **garrulity**, which even some profane authors have held up to derision, **it** cannot be necessary for me **to refute** ∅. S8: This **stigma** he certainly **might have passed** in silence ∅. ⚠️ In S2 that it is not the fronted object coming back — it is the anticipatory subject of to refute. In S12 (**place it beyond dispute, that** he was in truth a messenger) the it is an anticipatory object, and the that-clause fills it. Same two letters, three different jobs. Learn to ask which hole does this it belong to.
2. Purpose clauses that share their machinery — and the save trap. S4: in order that the malignant **might have** no ground for suspicion, and the ungodly ‹might have› no handle for cavil. S8: not only **that he might** spare his own ancestor, but also ‹that he might› **save** both himself and his whole family. ⚠️ That bare save in S8 is a verb gapped under might — and you met save as the preposition meaning except only four days ago (Day 36, S16: none ... **save** those to whom it is given). Four days, two different words spelled identically. This is exactly how examiners eat students.
3. Four questions, none of them asking for information — and S5 is a booby trap. how does he ennoble his own tribe? (S5) · How can any suspicion attach to him ...? (S9) · shall we say that ... or that ...? (S10) · why does he not bestow the office of High Priest on his sons ...? (S11). ⚠️ S5 looks like it expects an answer of the form "by doing X." It doesn't. It is antiphrasis — the expected answer is the reverse of the verb, and S6 delivers it in twelve words: He **stigmatises** it with eternal infamy. If you read S5 as a genuine question you will get the whole exhibit backwards.

Twelve sentences. S2, S4, S5, S8 and S9 will take real time. Let's go.

4. Some perhaps may choose to credit the Egyptians in carrying back their antiquity to a period of six thousand years before the world was created. But their garrulity, which even some profane authors have held up to derision, it cannot be necessary for me to refute. Josephus, however, in his work against Appion, produces important passages from very ancient writers, implying that the doctrine delivered in the law was celebrated among all nations from the remotest ages, though it was neither read nor accurately known. And then, in order that the malignant might have no ground for suspicion, and the ungodly no handle for cavil, God has provided, in the most effectual manner, against both dangers. When Moses relates the words which Jacob, under Divine inspiration, uttered concerning his posterity almost three hundred years before, how does he ennoble his own tribe? He stigmatises it with eternal infamy in the person of Levi. “Simon and Levi,” says he, “are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly mine honour be not thou united,” (Gen. 49:5, 6). This stigma he certainly might have passed in silence, not only that he might spare his own ancestor, but also save both himself and his whole family from a portion of the disgrace. How can any suspicion attach to him, who, by voluntarily proclaiming that the first founder of his family was declared detestable by a Divine oracle, neither consults for his own private interest, nor declines to incur obloquy among his tribe, who must have been offended by his statement of the fact? Again, when he relates the wicked murmuring of his brother Aaron, and his sister Miriam (Numb. 12:1), shall we say that he spoke his own natural feelings, or that he obeyed the command of the Holy Spirit? Moreover, when invested with supreme authority, why does he not bestow the office of High Priest on his sons, instead of consigning them to the lowest place? I only touch on a few points out of many; but the Law itself contains throughout numerous proofs, which fully vindicate the credibility of Moses, and place it beyond dispute, that he was in truth a messenger sent forth from God. ✅ Text note (transcription). Four pieces of print-furniture were removed from the middle of this section and nothing else was touched. (1) Between And then, and in order that our Beveridge file carries the page number 82 plus the two-line running header CHAPTER 8. — THE CREDIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE SUFFICIENTLY PROVED IN SO / FAR…; that page-break sits inside S4 and has been closed up. (2) The marginal number 77 stands at the end of the line ... how does he ennoble his own tribe? He stig-; removed. (3) The word broken across that page-break, stig- / matises, has been rejoined as stigmatises. (4) The curly quotation marks “ ” inside the Genesis citation are the file's own and are reproduced as printed. ⚠️ Two readings left exactly as Beveridge prints them. **Appion** — Beveridge's spelling of Apion of Alexandria, the target of Josephus's Contra Apionem. And **“Simon and Levi”** — the KJV of Gen. 49:5 reads “Simeon and Levi.” Whether Simon is Beveridge's, his printer's, or our scan's, it is what stands in the source, so it stands above. Quote it as printed; know that the patriarch is Simeon. Twelve sentences, verbatim. ℹ️ On the count. We number 12 sentences of Calvin. A machine that splits on full stops will report 13, because the Genesis citation (S7) contains two sentences of Genesis inside one sentence of Calvin — “Simon and Levi,” **says he**, “are brethren; ... in their habitations. O my soul, ... be not thou united,” (Gen. 49:5, 6). One reporting clause, one citation, one sentence. S7 stays S7.

  ── PART A: CLEARING THE EGYPTIANS OFF THE TABLE (S1–S3) ──
[THE RIVAL CLAIM] S1  SOME perhaps MAY CHOOSE TO CREDIT the Egyptians
                      in CARRYING BACK their antiquity to a period of
                      SIX THOUSAND YEARS  *before the world was created*
                                  ↑ credit (v.) = 믿다 (신용 ✗)
                                  ↑ ⚠️ 자기모순이 claim 안에 이미 있다:
                                    세계 창조 *이전*의 연대 = 시간 없는 시간

[⚠️ PRAETERITIO]  S2  BUT [ their GARRULITY ,
                          (which even some profane authors
                           have HELD UP TO DERISION,) ]
                      ← IT cannot be necessary for me TO REFUTE ∅
                                  ↑ 목적어 전치 + 빈자리(∅)
                                  ↑ it = to refute 의 가주어 (전치 목적어 ✗)
                                  ↑ 반박을 거부함으로써 반박한다

[THE WITNESS]     S3  JOSEPHUS, however, (in his work against Appion,)
                      PRODUCES important passages from very ancient writers,
                      IMPLYING [ that the doctrine (delivered in the law)
                        WAS CELEBRATED among all nations
                        from the remotest ages,
                        ( THOUGH it was NEITHER READ NOR ACCURATELY KNOWN ) ]
                                  ↑ 적대·이교 증인 전략(=Cicero·Suetonius 계보)
                                  ↑ though 절이 주장을 스스로 축소 = 신뢰 상승

  ── PART B: THE THESIS (S4) ──
[⚠️ THE HINGE]    S4  AND THEN, ( IN ORDER THAT the malignant MIGHT HAVE
                        no ground for suspicion,
                        AND the ungodly ‹MIGHT HAVE› no handle for cavil, )
                      GOD HAS PROVIDED, (in the most effectual manner,)
                        AGAINST BOTH DANGERS
                                  ↑ 주어는 Moses 가 아니라 GOD
                                  ↑ 목적절 2개, 두 번째는 동사 gapping
                                  ↑ handle = ansa (붙잡을 손잡이) 직역

  ── PART C: EXHIBIT A — HIS ANCESTOR (S5–S9) ──
[⚠️ TRAP-Q]       S5  [ WHEN Moses RELATES the words
                        [ WHICH Jacob, (under Divine inspiration,) UTTERED
                          concerning his posterity
                          almost three hundred years before, ] ]
                      → HOW DOES HE ENNOBLE his own tribe?
                                  ↑ 반어 수사의문. 기대 답 = 정반대.
                                  ↑ "어떻게 높이는가" ✗ → "높이기는커녕"

[THE ANSWER]      S6  He STIGMATISES it with ETERNAL INFAMY
                      in the person of LEVI
                                  ↑ 12단어. 짧아지면 그게 판결이다.

[THE EXHIBIT]     S7  “Simon and Levi ... are brethren; instruments of
                      cruelty are in their habitations ...”  (Gen. 49:5,6)

[⚠️ THE COST]     S8  [ THIS STIGMA ] he certainly MIGHT HAVE PASSED
                        in silence ∅ ,
                        ( NOT ONLY THAT he might SPARE his own ancestor,
                          BUT ALSO ‹that he might› SAVE both himself
                          and his whole family from a portion of the
                          disgrace )
                                  ↑ 목적어 전치 (두 번째)
                                  ↑ might have p.p. = 할 수 있었으나 안 했다
                                  ↑ ⚠️ save = 동사(생략 복원), 전치사 ✗

[THE VERDICT-Q]   S9  HOW CAN any suspicion ATTACH TO HIM,
                        [ WHO, (by voluntarily proclaiming
                            [ that the first founder of his family
                              was declared detestable by a Divine oracle ],)
                          NEITHER CONSULTS FOR his own private interest,
                          NOR DECLINES TO INCUR obloquy among his tribe,
                          [ WHO must have been offended by his statement
                            of the fact ] ]?
                                  ↑ consult for = ~의 유익을 도모하다
                                  ↑ nor declines to incur = 기꺼이 감수한다
                                  ↑ ⚠️ 두 번째 who = his tribe (him ✗)

  ── PART D: EXHIBITS B AND C (S10–S11) ──
[HIS SIBLINGS]    S10 AGAIN, [ when he relates the wicked MURMURING
                        of his brother AARON and his sister MIRIAM
                        (Numb. 12:1), ]
                      SHALL WE SAY  that he spoke his own natural feelings,
                      OR           that he obeyed the command of the H. S.?
                                  ↑ 선택의문 = 답이 정해진 의문
[HIS SONS]        S11 MOREOVER, ( when ‹he was› INVESTED with supreme
                        authority, )
                      WHY DOES HE NOT BESTOW the office of High Priest
                        ON his sons,
                      INSTEAD OF CONSIGNING them to the lowest place?

  ── PART E: THE VERDICT (S12) ──
[SCOPE + RULING]  S12 I ONLY TOUCH ON a few points OUT OF MANY ;
                      BUT the LAW ITSELF contains THROUGHOUT
                        numerous proofs,
                      [ WHICH fully VINDICATE the credibility of Moses,
                        AND PLACE **IT** BEYOND DISPUTE,
                          **THAT** he was IN TRUTH a messenger
                          sent forth from God ]
                                  ↑ it = 가목적어, that절이 진짜 목적어
                                  ↑ 근거는 세 사례가 아니라 THE LAW ITSELF

Examiner's Eye — four traps, and the first one decides the section.

⚠️ ① S5 read as a straight question. how does he ennoble his own tribe? The distractor writes: "Calvin points out that Moses honoured his own tribe by recording Jacob's prophecy." Dead wrong, and dead attractive. The question is antiphrastic — Calvin asks it in order to answer it with its opposite in S6: He **stigmatises** it with eternal **infamy**. ★ Rule for reading Calvin: when a rhetorical question is followed by a very short declarative, the declarative is the answer and it usually reverses the question.

⚠️ ② Who is the subject of S4? God has provided ... against both dangers. Not Moses. Not the Law. God. The distractor turns this into a compliment to Moses' character ("Moses took care to avoid giving offence"). Calvin's claim is stronger and stranger: the self-damaging material in the Pentateuch is evidence God arranged in advance, in order that the malignant might have no ground for suspicion. ★ This is providence operating on the evidentiary level — the same instinct as I.8.1's not without an admirable arrangement of Providence about the plain style. Twice in one chapter Calvin says: even the awkward features of Scripture were placed there on purpose.

⚠️ ③ The attachment of the second who in S9. ... nor declines to incur obloquy among **his tribe**, **who** must have been offended by his statement of the fact? That who attaches to his tribe, not to Moses. Read it as Moses and the sentence says Moses was offended by his own statement — nonsense, but a nonsense a hurried student will accept because the first who in the sentence did refer to Moses. ⚠️ Two whos, two heights.

⚠️ ④ What exactly does S12 claim, and on what basis? the **Law itself** contains **throughout** numerous proofs, which fully vindicate the credibility of Moses, and place it beyond dispute, that he was in truth a messenger sent forth from God. Two things to hold. (a) The strong verdict rests on the cumulative witness of the whole Law — Calvin explicitly says I only touch on a few points out of many. A distractor claiming that the three examples by themselves establish Moses' divine commission over-reads him. (b) Note the confidence curve again, as on Day 39: it cannot be necessary for me to refute (S2, dismissal) → implying (S3, soft) → has provided in the most effectual manner (S4, strong) → beyond dispute (S12, maximal). ★ He grades his evidence. So should you.

Formula 1 — Fronting, and the three jobs of it

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  ① OBJECT FRONTING  (OSV) — find the GAP                            │
│                                                                      │
│     [ OBJECT ] , S ... V ∅                                          │
│     S8:  [This stigma] he certainly might have passed in silence ∅. │
│     BASE: He might have passed [this stigma] in silence.            │
│                                                                      │
│  ② ANTICIPATORY `IT` — subject or object, decided by the FRAME      │
│                                                                      │
│     S2:   IT cannot be necessary for me TO REFUTE ∅                 │
│           → `it` = anticipatory SUBJECT of the infinitive           │
│           ⚠️ NOT the fronted object resumed. The object slot is     │
│              EMPTY; its filler is at the head of the sentence.      │
│                                                                      │
│     S12:  place IT beyond dispute, THAT he was a messenger          │
│           → `it` = anticipatory OBJECT; the that-clause fills it    │
│                                                                      │
│  DIAGNOSTIC:  (a) Is there a verb missing an object? → gap.         │
│               (b) Is `it` followed later by an infinitive or        │
│                   a that-clause?  → anticipatory, not referential.  │
│               (c) Neither?  → ordinary pronoun (S6: stigmatises IT) │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

변형 연습: This objection Calvin might have answered at length; but it cannot be necessary for a reader of §2 to refute ∅ what even his opponents laugh at, and the section itself places it beyond dispute, that the argument was never meant to stand alone.

Formula 2 — Purpose clauses that share their verb (gapping) + the save trap

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  in order that  A  MIGHT V ... ,  and  B  ‹MIGHT V›  ...            │
│  S4: in order that the malignant might have no ground for suspicion,│
│      and the ungodly ‹might have› no handle for cavil               │
│                                                                      │
│  not only THAT S MIGHT V₁ ... ,  but also ‹that S might› V₂ ...     │
│  S8: not only that he might spare his own ancestor,                 │
│      but also ‹that he might› SAVE both himself and his family      │
│                                                                      │
│  ⚠️ THE GAP TAKES A BARE INFINITIVE.                                │
│      ✓ but also save        ✗ but also saving   ✗ but also to save  │
│                                                                      │
│  ⚠️⚠️ `SAVE` HOMOGRAPH ALERT                                        │
│      VERB (gapped under a modal):  "that he might SAVE his family"  │
│      PREP (= except), Day 36 S16:  "none SAVE those to whom ..."    │
│      TEST: does a modal upstairs want a bare infinitive? → VERB.    │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

변형 연습: God delayed the promise, not only that the patriarchs might learn to wait, but also ‹that they might› leave to their children a faith tried by time — in order that the weak might have no ground for despair, and the proud no handle for boasting.

Formula 3 — The interrogative that is not a question (four kinds, all in §4)

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  ⓐ ANTIPHRASTIC   how does he ENNOBLE his own tribe?        (S5)    │
│                   → expected answer = THE OPPOSITE of the verb      │
│                   → confirmed by the next short flat sentence (S6)  │
│                                                                      │
│  ⓑ NEGATIVE-ASSERTIVE   How CAN any suspicion attach to him?  (S9)  │
│                   → = No suspicion can attach to him.               │
│                                                                      │
│  ⓒ DELIBERATIVE `shall`  SHALL WE SAY A, or B ?              (S10)  │
│                   → `shall` = are we to / should we  (미래 ✗)       │
│                   → the disjunction is RIGGED; option A is closed   │
│                     by a loaded word earlier in the sentence        │
│                     (`the WICKED murmuring of his BROTHER`)         │
│                                                                      │
│  ⓓ RHETORICAL WHY-NOT   WHY DOES HE NOT bestow ... ?         (S11)  │
│                   → = there was no self-interested reason; he       │
│                     simply did not.                                 │
│                                                                      │
│  ⚠️ READING RULE: a Calvin question followed by a SHORT FLAT        │
│     DECLARATIVE is being answered, and usually reversed.            │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

변형 연습: When Paul recounts his own former violence against the Church, how does he commend himself? He calls himself the chief of sinners. Shall we say that he spoke from wounded pride, or that he obeyed the Spirit who searches the heart?

① Josephus, Contra Apionem, and why Calvin reaches for it. Written c. AD 94–97, in two books, against the Alexandrian grammarian Apion (Beveridge: Appion), Josephus's Against Apion is the ancient world's most systematic defence of Jewish antiquity. Its method is precisely the one Calvin describes: it does not argue from Scripture; it assembles pagan witnesses — Manetho the Egyptian priest, Berossus the Babylonian, Menander of Ephesus, Hecataeus, Choerilus, Clearchus of Soli reporting a conversation of Aristotle's — and lets non-Jewish sources testify to Jewish age and reputation. ★ Note the exact fit with Chapter 8's self-imposed rule (in so far as **natural reason** admits): Calvin needs an argument that does not presuppose Scripture's authority, and Josephus hands him one that is fifteen centuries old.

② The Egyptian numbers. Herodotus (2.142–143) reports 341 generations of priests, 11,340 years; Diodorus Siculus (1.23–26) reports spans of eighteen to twenty-three thousand years; Manetho's dynastic lists, surviving only in quotation, sprawl similarly. Augustine had already mocked such reckonings (De Civitate Dei XII.10–11; XVIII.40, on the Egyptians' "hundred thousand years"), which is very likely part of what Calvin means by even some **profane** authors have held up to derision — though he also had the classical satirists to hand. ⚠️ Calvin's own chronology (a world a few thousand years old, an Exodus about 300 years after Jacob's blessing, a 400-year sojourn) is sixteenth-century furniture. Separate the argument-form from the data. We set this discipline yesterday over the dating of monuments; today it applies to the numbers in S1 and S5.

③ The real content of §4: the argument from self-damaging testimony. This has three names, and you should own all three because they come from three different professions.

   LAW (Anglo-American evidence):
       "declaration against interest" — a statement so contrary to the
       speaker's own interest that a reasonable person would not make it
       unless it were true.  (An exception to the hearsay rule.)

   ROMAN-CANON PROCEDURE:
       confessio contra se — a confession against oneself carries
       heightened weight.  Calvin studied this at Orléans and Bourges.

   MODERN HISTORICAL CRITICISM:
       "the criterion of embarrassment" — material that embarrasses
       the community preserving it is unlikely to be invented by it.
       (J. P. Meier, *A Marginal Jew*, on Gospel criticism.)

★ Calvin is a trained jurist writing in 1559, and what he is doing in S5–S11 is a witness-credibility examination. Yesterday (Day 39 S7) he attacked the opportunity to lie — you cannot forge a nation's past in front of the nation. Today he attacks the motive to lie — every one of the three exhibits costs the author something. ⚠️ Opportunity and motive: two of the three classic prongs. It is not an accident that they arrive on consecutive days.

④ The three exhibits, and their escalation.

Ancestor → siblings → children. ★ Each exhibit is nearer to him than the last. Read them as a sequence, not a list.

⑤ Where this sits in the architecture — the guardrail we rebuild every day this week. Chapter 8 supplies indicia: marks, tokens, supports. Chapter 7 supplied the testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum. Day 37's opening sentence governs everything you are reading now: **In vain** were the authority of Scripture fortified by argument ... **if unaccompanied by** an assurance higher and stronger than human Judgment can give. ⚠️ So today's forensic brilliance is an adminiculum — a vine-prop. It supports; it does not plant. This two-storey structure becomes the standard Reformed apologetic shape: Turretin, Institutio I.iv–vi; Belgic Confession art. 5; Westminster 1.5 (the heavenliness of the matter ... the consent of all the parts ... and many other incomparable excellencies ... **yet notwithstanding**, our full persuasion and assurance ... is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit); Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics I.

⚠️ Over-reading guards — four, and the third is the one people actually get wrong.

1. This does not prove inspiration by itself. Self-damaging testimony establishes non-fabrication — that Moses was not writing for his own credit. It does not, on its own, establish that God spoke. Calvin knows this, which is why S12 rests the verdict on the **Law itself** ... **throughout** and explicitly labels the three exhibits a few points out of many.
2. Mosaic authorship is Calvin's premise, not his conclusion. Astruc (1753) and Wellhausen (1878) are centuries downstream. ★ But note that the argument-form partially survives transplant: even on a redactional account, material damaging to the tradents' own tribe is hard to explain as invention. The form is more robust than the frame.
3. ⚠️ Do not build a theology of Levi on Gen. 49:5–6. Calvin quotes vv. 5–6 and stops. Verse 7 ends I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel — and that scattering is reversed in function at Exod. 32:26–29 and blessed at Deut. 33:8–11, where the dispersion of Levi becomes the priestly distribution among the tribes. Calvin is using the passage as evidence of an author's honesty, not as a doctrine of the tribe. Lift it out of that use and you will misread both Calvin and Genesis.
4. Do not turn "he wrote against himself" into a universal proof machine. Applied loosely, the criterion of embarrassment will certify anything unflattering in any document. Calvin's version is narrow and controlled: three specified texts, a specified author with specified interests, and a conclusion (credibility) weaker than the one an enthusiast would draw (inerrancy). ★ Match your conclusion to your instrument.

1. Gen. 49:5–6 — S7, quoted in full. Hebrew: instruments of cruelty are in their **habitations** renders מְכֵרֹתֵיהֶם mekhērōtēyhem, one of the most disputed words in the Pentateuch (swords? plans? dwellings?); and come not thou into their **secret** is סוֹד sōd = a confidential council, not a hidden fact. ⚠️ Beveridge prints “Simon and Levi”; KJV “Simeon and Levi.” — How Calvin uses it: as an exhibit, not a text to expound. He wants the disgrace on the record and moves on.
2. Gen. 34 — the unstated background to S7. Simeon and Levi's massacre of the Shechemites after Dinah's violation is the crime Jacob's oracle is judging. How Calvin uses it: he assumes you know it. The oracle is unintelligible otherwise.
3. Gen. 49:7 — the verse S7 stops one short of. I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel. How Calvin uses it: by omission. See over-reading guard ③.
4. Exod. 2:1–2 — the identification that makes S5–S9 bite: Moses is a Levite. Without it, his own tribe / his own ancestor / the first founder of his family are just words.
5. Num. 12:1 — S10, cited explicitly. "And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married." Verse 2 gives the real grievance: "Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses?" — a challenge to his unique prophetic standing. How Calvin uses it: the author records the attack on his own authority, which no self-promoter does.
6. Num. 12:3 — "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth." ⚠️ Not cited by Calvin, and it is the classic objection to Mosaic authorship (who writes that about himself?). ★ Worth holding beside §4, because Calvin's argument runs the other way: self-blame is evidence, self-praise would be the opposite. An honest reader keeps both data points.
7. Exod. 28:1; Num. 3:10; 1 Chr. 23:14–17 — S11. The priesthood to Aaron ... and his sons; and "Moses the man of God, his sons were named of the tribe of Levi" — i.e., counted among ordinary Levites. This is the documentary basis of consigning them to the lowest place.
8. Exod. 3:10–15 — behind S12's a messenger **sent forth** from God. **וְאֶשְׁלָחֲךָ** wə-ʾešlāḥăkhā, "and I will send thee." How Calvin uses it: the whole verdict of §4 is about a commission, and a messenger's only credential is the sending.
9. Mal. 2:7 — he is the **messenger** (מַלְאָךְ / LXX ἄγγελος) of the LORD of hosts — the vocabulary of S12 is ordinary Hebrew for an envoy, not an angelology.
10. 1 Cor. 10:10 — neither **murmur** ye, as some of them also murmured (γογγύζω), the NT's summary judgment on the episodes of S10; and note both the Latin murmurare and the Greek γογγύζω are imitative words.
11. 2 Cor. 4:2; 1 Thess. 2:3–5 — Paul running Calvin's argument in his own defence: not walking in craftiness ... nor a cloke of covetousness. How Calvin uses it: he doesn't, here. But it is the same evidentiary instinct, and it shows the argument is not a sixteenth-century invention.
12. John 5:45–47; Luke 16:29–31 — Christ resting his own case on Moses' writings, which is why establishing the credibility of Moses (S12) is worth a section at all.

① 어법 — 밑줄 넷 중 어법상 틀린 것은?

This stigma he certainly ⓐ might have passed in silence, not only that he ⓑ might spare his own ancestor, but also ⓒ saving both himself and his whole family from a portion of the disgrace, in order that the malignant ⓓ might have no ground for suspicion.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: ⓒ

출제 의도. The coordination is not only **that he might** spare ..., but also ‹that he might› ___ .... The second purpose clause gaps the modal, and a gapped modal takes a bare infinitive — so the slot must be **save**, exactly as Beveridge prints it. saving is a participle and cannot be governed by the elided might. ⚠️ The trap is that saving reads smoothly as a loose adjunct, and a student who has not restored the gap will hear nothing wrong. ★ And the second trap is the one you avoided by doing the work: once you write save, it looks like the preposition save (= except) you met on Day 36 — and a nervous student "corrects" the right answer back into the wrong one. Restore the gap; then trust it. (ⓐ might have + p.p. = unrealized past, correct. ⓑ correct. ⓓ correct, and it is the model the gap in ⓒ copies.)

② 내용일치 — 다음 중 §4의 내용과 일치하는 것은?

① Calvin refutes the Egyptian chronology at length, showing that its dates are inconsistent with the biblical account of creation. ② Calvin cites Josephus as showing that the doctrine of the law was widely read and accurately understood among the nations of antiquity. ③ Calvin argues that Moses honoured his own tribe by preserving Jacob's prophecy concerning Levi. ④ Calvin argues that Moses' willingness to record material damaging to his ancestor, his siblings, and his sons removes any ground for suspecting him of self-interest.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: ④

출제 의도 — 오답 넷의 제작 원리를 각각 보라. - ①은 S2의 정면 반대. Calvin explicitly declines to refute: it cannot be necessary for me to refute. This is praeteritio, and the distractor is built for the student who saw the Egyptians mentioned and assumed a refutation followed. ⚠️ Mentioning ≠ arguing. - ②는 범위 초과(scope-overreach) — 오늘의 최고 인기 오답. S3 says the doctrine was celebrated among all nations, though it was neither read nor accurately known. The concessive clause is the whole point, and ② deletes it. ★ When Calvin attaches a though-clause to his own claim, that clause is load-bearing. - ③은 방향 뒤집기(direction-flip) + S5의 반어 함정. how does he **ennoble** his own tribe? is antiphrastic; S6 answers He **stigmatises** it with eternal infamy. A student who read S5 as a straight question picks ③ and never notices. - ④는 S8–S11 + S9의 핵심을 정확히 진술한다 — neither consults for his own private interest, nor declines to incur obloquy. ⚠️ Note that ④ is carefully worded to say removes any ground for **suspecting him of self-interest** — which is what S9 claims — rather than "proves he was inspired," which would over-read S12.

③ 영작 — 오늘의 공식을 적용해 영작하시오.

문제: 다음을 영어로 옮기되, (a) 목적어를 문두로 전치하고 그 자리를 비워 둘 것, (b) 두 번째 목적절에서 조동사를 생략(gapping)할 것, (c) 반어 수사의문을 하나 포함할 것.

이 반론을 그는 얼마든지 침묵으로 넘길 수 있었다 — 자기 명성을 지키기 위해서일 뿐 아니라, 자기 제자들을 비난에서 구하기 위해서도. 그런데도 그가 그것을 기록했다면, 우리는 그가 자기 이익을 도모했다고 말해야 하겠는가?

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)모범답안:

This objection he certainly might have passed in silence, not only that he might guard his own reputation, but also save his disciples from obloquy. Yet if he has recorded it, shall we say that he consulted for his own interest?

출제 의도. Three machines in three clauses. This objection he ... might have passed in silence ∅ = object fronting with a gap (Formula 1) plus the unrealized past. not only that he might guard ..., but also ‹that he might› **save** = purpose-clause gapping with the bare infinitive (Formula 2) — ⚠️ write saving and you have failed the same trap as problem ①. shall we say that ...? = the deliberative shall (Formula 3ⓒ), and consulted for his own interest reuses S9's idiom correctly (⚠️ not consulted with). ★ Acceptable variants: guard → spare/protect; obloquy → reproach/disgrace; Yet if he has recorded it → Yet since he did record it.

One-line summary. ⚠️ Having refused to argue with Egyptian chatter (S1–S2) and called Josephus's pagan witnesses instead (S3), Calvin states the section's thesis — that God arranged the evidence so that malice would have no ground and impiety no handle (S4) — and then proves it by three self-damaging exhibits that tighten from ancestor (S5–S9) to siblings (S10) to sons (S11), before resting the verdict not on those three but on the cumulative witness of the Law itself: Moses was in truth a messenger sent forth from God (S12).

The three grammar points, re-checked: 1. Fronting + the three its. their garrulity ... **it** cannot be necessary for me to refute ∅ (anticipatory subject) · He stigmatises **it** (ordinary pronoun) · place **it** beyond dispute, **that** ... (anticipatory object). Ask which hole each it belongs to. 2. Purpose-clause gapping + the save homograph. and the ungodly ‹might have› no handle · but also ‹that he might› **save** — bare infinitive, never saving. And save ≠ Day 36's preposition. 3. Four non-questions. Antiphrastic how does he ennoble ...? (answered in reverse by S6) · negative-assertive How can any suspicion attach ...? · deliberative shall we say ... or ...? · rhetorical why does he not bestow ...?

Homework (10 minutes). - 구조 복원 (4 min). Take S9 and write out its skeleton on paper, marking (i) the main clause, (ii) the head of each of the two whos, and (iii) what nor declines to incur obloquy means once the double negative is resolved. Then say in one sentence why must have been offended is not the same modality as S8's might have passed. - 영작 (4 min). Compose one sentence about Paul using Formula 1 (object fronting with a gap) and Formula 2 (purpose-clause gapping with a bare infinitive) together. Suggested material: Gal. 1:13 (my conversation in time past) or 1 Tim. 1:15 (of whom I am chief). - 내일 예습 (2 min). §5 opens The many striking miracles which Moses relates are so many sanctions of the law delivered.... ★ The witness has been examined for honesty; tomorrow his credentials are produced — cloud, forty days, shining face, thunderings, trumpet, Korah, the rock, the manna — and then the same forensic question returns in a new key: how could he possibly impose on the very eye-witnesses of what was done? ⚠️ Watch for so many (= just so many, i.e. that is precisely what they are) and for the return of cavil.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 8, §4 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Chapter 8, §5 (Day 41).