The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

I'm actually nitpicking about this quote, rather than anything you yourself said.

Calvin is definitely not the founder of grammatico-historical exegesis. Rashi and Ibn Ezra, the preeminent medieval Jewish commentators, were using the same method 500 years earlier, and the reformers actually relied on them quite a bit. It's a little known fact that Luther had a Latin translation of Rashi beside him for reference as he translated the Old Testament. These Jewish commentators themselves were heavily influence by the approach of Arabic philosophers to the classics (since the Middle East was in a period of renaissance when we were in the dark ages).

And, though it was not in vogue later, Theodore of Mopsuestia was already doing the same thing in the fifth century...

And around and before first century, the Alexandrian philological school was already working on understanding the classical philosophers and Homer and such on grammatical and historical principles of reading (and that's probably where the Arabs got it from). If you really want to stretch it, there might be some evidence that Assyrians also tried to read ancient texts in this way, but it's a stretch.

So Calvin wasn't the founder. He was just the first Christian to make it popular in a while. He got if from the Jews anyway, and they got it from somewhere else.

_________________
http://biblerants.blogspot.com

Your amplification on the point is appreciated. To call him the "founder" is misleading, I agree. I, too, was aware of the previous work of others. I suppose one might compare it to Columbus' discovery of America. Obviously he didn't "discover" America .

But in light of the heavy emphasis on the allegorical method used at that time (RCC), it might be fairly said that Calvin was instrumental in bringing the "literal" method to light for a substantial portion of Christendom. Obviously there were, even during his time, other contributors as Columbus was accompanied himself by other men. The quote simply was a convenient tool for acknowledgment.

Hopefully that won't detract from the credit I sought to give Calvin and the point that he did advocate the grammatico-historical method.

True, and that is very much to his credit (and also Erasmus').

_________________
http://biblerants.blogspot.com

Yes Alex, that was a very good explanation of Eph. 1:4. I've always looked at the "us" and "we" in that verse as specific entities like "He was chosen before the creation of the world" in 1 Pet 1:20 (KJV) speaks of a specific entity. Can you, (anyone) shed some light on Jesus' response to the disciples question about why he spoke in parables in Matt. 13? ("It is given unto you, but to them it is not", and "Lest at any time they.... should be converted, and I should heal them"). I know there's an explanation since God is no respecter of persons.

The issue between John Calvin and Michael Servetus in my mind does not discredit Calvin or his theology. Calvin was between a rock and a hard place in regards to Servetus and his heresy which was known by Catholics and Protestants. If Calvin released Servetus his heresy would spread and Calvin would appear in Catholic eyes to be soft on heresy. He did what he did with the permission of the leaders of Geneva. In addition, it appears Servetus may have been looking for a fight because at first he was exiled from Geneva but came back despite the ban placed on him.

I think that all this incident proves is that the Medieval Ages and the age of the Reformation were brutal times. In addition, the way they handled heresy back then was to banish (exile), imprison, fine or execute the person or persons guilty of heresy. However, today, being more civil, at least in most Western countries, heresy is simply dealt within the Church both Protestant and Catholic and usually it is simply excommunication (Catholic) or books and articles being written refuting heresy.

Beside Calvin, Melanchthon, Luther's student and colleague, sanctioned the execution of Servetus. Source: Philip Schaff, "History of the Christian Church," vol. 7, p. 62. In addition to Melancthon, Beza was also on Calvin's side. Source: Schaff, vol. 7, p. 65. I agree with the statement that Schaff makes in that these men need to be judged or examined in regards to the 16th century not the 19th century. I believe that holds true for us today.

Oops! My apologies for veering off topic. I'm sure my question belongs elsewhere. Must learn to think before I type.