2 comments

1. Richard A. Muller uses the word “influence” when writing historical theology, and so I think we can use it too. For we all know how Muller makes a great “impact” in the field. [fixed the typos]

   Reply ↓

   • Yes, but Muller is also aware of the challenges in accounting for relationships in intellectual history. Influence is necessarily vague. Another cause for reluctance, I think, is the etymology:

     late Middle English: from Old French, or from medieval Latin influentia ‘inflow’, from Latin influere, from in- ‘into’ + fluere ‘to flow’. The word originally had the general sense ‘an influx, flowing matter’, also specifically (in astrology) ‘the flowing in of ethereal fluid (affecting human destiny)’. The sense ‘imperceptible or indirect action exerted to cause changes’ was established in Scholastic Latin by the 13th century, but not recorded in English until the late 16th century. Oxford Dictionary of English, s.v., “influence.”

     I doubt that many people intend that sense now this particular aspect of the argument against it doesn’t move/influence me but out of deference I’m trying to broaden my vocabulary.

     Reply ↓

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.