Exposition and Method in Calvin
In the spring of 1985 an article was released in WTJ entitled “Brevitas et facilitas: Toward an Understanding of Calvin’s Hermeneutic. “ That article tried to answer some questions which are very important for Calvin studies. In 1974, Professor Nauta said that the theme and sources (s) of Calvin’s theology “gründlich angefasst und durchgearbeitet werden sollte.”1 Eight years later, Professor W. H. Neuser said that the great task in international Calvin research was to make a satisfactory presentation of Calvin’s theology. He cited Josef Bohatec’s discovery of a “theology of the diagonal” and F. L. Battles’ analysis of a “Theory of Limits” as good beginnings. The aforementioned article and the present presentation hope to add in some small measure to that discussion.2
The investigation in the first article surrounded Calvin’s method of exposition; we noted that Calvin compared his method with that of Melanchthon and Bucer. Both of those commentators’ styles are to be rejected. Melanchthon’s loci communes method is to be discarded because extended theological discussion was relegated to the Institutes.3 Bucer’s verbosity was rejected as well.4 Interestingly, neither Luther nor Bullinger is mentioned by Calvin in this context.
WTJ 49:1 (Spring 1987) p. 154
We then attempted to answer the question of Calvin’s methodological source for exposition. Was one major source the patristic author John Chrysostom? In many ways, yes.5 Here the article is primarily dependent upon the excellent dissertation done at Pittsburgh in 1974 by John Walchenbach and the work of Ganoczy and Mueller.6 Was another major source rhetoric? All scholars acknowledge that Calvin’s training as a rhetorician and humanist never left him.7
So far, a new thesis has not been presented. That brevitas et facilitas or perspicua brevitas is a good summary of Calvin’s exegetical methodology is hardly disputed; Battles, Kraus, Higman, Steinmetz, Girardin, Ganoczy/Scheld, and Parker among others have written recently about it.
The intent of this article is to briefly analyze Calvin’s relationship to humanism, his theological method, and his theory of knowledge to help determine the underlying structure of Calvin’s exegetical method.
Much has been written on the great subject of the relationship of Calvin to the humanism of his day. Lines of continuity have been carefully drawn by such scholars as Charles Partee, Andre Hugo, Quirinus Breen, T. H. L. Parker, and others. However, there has not been much attention given to the possible discontinuity between Calvin the biblical scholar and Calvin the trained rhetorician. Attention to that discontinuity, while not denying nor minimizing the continuity, may produce new fruits in Calvin study.
In his monumental work, Bude und Calvin, Bohatec carefully draws some of those lines of discontinuity. He reminds us, and rightly so, that for Calvin there was nothing inherently wrong with the methods of the Renaissance/humanistic scholars. Anyone who has studied
WTJ 49:1 (Spring 1987) p. 155
Calvin’s commentaries will readily agree that his implementation of text critical research was very important, and in many ways quite in line with Renaissance methods.8
In “God Was Accommodating Himself to Human Capacity,” Professor Battles noted some of those lines of discontinuity as well. He stated that after Calvin’s “conversion, all of Calvin’s classical learning was transmuted. In a sense, he exchanged for human rhetoric a divine rhetoric. He saw the task of the theologian no longer as speculative, primarily philosophical, but rather as pastoral, pedagogical and making large if guarded use of the rhetorical discipline.”9
In the introduction to the Institutes, Calvin critiques a number of Renaissance scholars. He began his great systematic theology with criticism of those to whom he was in many ways greatly indebted. Without mentioning them by name, they include at least Bude, Sadolet, Clichtoveus, and Cochleus.10 A few years later, in his reply to Sadolet, Calvin responds that his intent in critiquing these great scholars was not to contend against humanism itself, rather, he is fighting against their antagonism to the Reformation. When humanism can be of service to the church, it is freely embraced, but when in its method or results it battles against God’s people, then it must be heartily rejected.11
The discontinuity in Calvin, that he does not follow classical rhetorical methodology exclusively, must be both understood and rightfully acknowledged.12
WTJ 49:1 (Spring 1987) p. 156
The style of writing in the commentaries has been designated brevitas et facilitas; we briefly analyzed it in the previously mentioned article. It would be helpful to quickly survey a few passages selected from Calvin’s commentaries which exemplify brevitas et facilitas and to examine his reason for employing this style. The following quotations come from his commentary on John:
It would be superfluous here to enter into subtle discussion…for he did not intend to occupy us with such cunning.13
To treat the subject with more length, would not be consistent with the brevity at which I aim.14
Therefore let us be satisfied with the genuine and simple sense.15
That brevitas et facilitas may be understood as an attempt to communicate the message of the biblical author in as concise, clear, and accurate a manner as possible is scarcely if at all disputed, and the brief quotations just cited help to further demonstrate that thesis. What has not been well developed and is essential for the argument of this article, is the contention concisely presented in the previous article that Calvin was convinced that his style, as much as was humanly possible, reflected the Bible’s own method of exposition. In his important article “John Calvin and the Rhetorical Tradition,” published in 1957, Professor Breen speaks, although not directly, to this theory. Granting that in fact Breen is not addressing the biblical commentator but primarily the theologian, he says that
the style of the Bible attracted him more than any other. To my knowledge he does not say he imitates it; perhaps his piety would not have permitted him even to consider it seriously. However, he praises the manner of the Bible above all others. He speaks of its concern with ‘dignity of subject matter rather than charming language (verborum gratia)’…Calvin’s
WTJ 49:1 (Spring 1987) p. 157
thrust is to body forth this majesty, so far as it can be done without the inspiration under which he believed the Bible writers had written.16
In a more recent article William Bousma, “Calvin and the Renaissance Crisis of Knowing,” investigates Calvin’s theory of knowledge and his conclusions fit very well into the present thesis. Reminding ourselves that we are attempting to demonstrate that Calvin’s method of biblical exposition was a conscious attempt to conform “neutral” method to a “biblical” method on the basis of his relationship to humanism, his theological method, and his theory of knowledge, Bousma’s remarks are especially helpful for analysis of the latter idea. After analyzing Calvin’s commentary at John 18:38, he says:
Calvin seems, from these passages, to be well along with a transition from a philosophical to a biblical or rhetorical conception of knowledge and the manner of its communication. This movement is particularly clear in his insistence that the Scriptures are not philosophical and could not have been philosophical, given the nature of their original audience.17
Permit once again a few brief quotations from Calvin’s commentaries which reinforce the notion that brevitas et facilitas itself was, in Calvin’s opinion, at least as close to the Bible’s own method of exposition as Calvin was able to come.
We know [that Moses I spoke everywhere in a dull style, to suit the capacity of the people, and that he purposely abstained from acute disputations that might hint of the schools and of deeper scholarship.18
… But the Prophet joined together two verbs, not for the sake of ornamentation as rhetoricians do, as for the purpose of expressing the vehemence of his care and anxiety.19
WTJ 49:1 (Spring 1987) p. 158
…we are to accept this in apostolic writings. For it is from others that eloquence is to be taken: her spiritual wisdom is to be sought in a humble style which is often contemptible.20
…these are faults in his [Paul’s] language, but in no way do they detract from the majesty of that heavenly wisdom which is delivered to us by the apostle. Rather, the singular providence of God has passed on to us these profound mysteries in a humble style, so that our faith might not depend on the power of human eloquence, but solely on the efficacy of the Spirit.21
Paul’s sentence is here defective…The true meaning is in no way obscure.22
I make this point to prevent anyone from looking here for ornate language, or taking offence at this bluntness of speech. His writings were not intended to form the tongue but the heart.23
[Commenting on “Not with the wisdom of words,” he says later that Paul might] by rough and common speech bring to nothing the wisdom of the world…. further, as men were turned aside to neatness and elegance of expression, to acute speculations and to an empty show of what appears to men as sublime doctrine, the efficacy of the Spirit vanished.
Paul demonstrates here not only what sort of persons Christ’s disciples ought to be, and what path of learning they ought to pursue, but also what is the method of teaching in Christ’s school…The cross of Christ (he says) would have been made empty, if my preaching had been adorned with eloquence and show. [Most importantly Calvin adds that Paul] does not mean [logodaidalia], which is mere empty talk, but true eloquence, which consists in skillful contrivance of subjects, ingenious arrangement, and
WTJ 49:1 (Spring 1987) p. 159
elegance of expression. He declares that he had nothing of this: rather, that it was neither suitable to his preaching nor useful.24
But as Peter mentions here but briefly the fall of angels, and as he has not enumerated the time and the manner and other circumstances, we must agree to soberly speak on the subject. Most men are curious and make no end of inquiries on these things. But since God has only sparingly touched on these in scripture, and as it were by the way, he thus reminds us that we ought to be satisfied with this small knowledge.25
A basic presupposition of the author’s analysis, and one which could certainly be contended, is that “method” itself was not a neutral science for Calvin. By “neutral” it is not meant to imply that there were not great discussions of theological and rhetorical method during this time period. It is clear that there were followers of different rhetorical schools, i.e. the Ciceronians and the non-Ciceronians.26 But it is one of this article’s theses that “method” in regard to biblical interpretation is directly related to theological method, according to Calvin. The case in point is Calvin’s introductory letter to the Institutes. The beginner in theology will not have to wade
WTJ 49:1 (Spring 1987) p. 160
through long discussions in the commentaries because that theological work has already been done in the Institutes. The Institutes provide the theological primer.27
Many questions have been asked and answered concerning the sources and models for the Institutes. Although an interesting subject, an extensive study would go beyond the bounds of this article.
Yet was there anything unique about Calvin’s theological method? Certainly it was different from Lutheranism and Anabaptism, although nearly every statement which could be made on that subject could be disputed. Whatever our perceptions, Calvin stated that he was convinced that what he was doing in the Institutes was worth doing. It is at this point that it would be good to turn our attention to Professor Battles’ last article, “Calculus Fidei.”
In 1978 at the International Congress for Calvin Research in Amsterdam, Dr. Battles’ idea that Calvin’s theological method was a true via media was presented. All fundamental notions of Calvin’s thought were defined in a field of tension—a middle between false extremes.28 He then presented tremendous documentation for his thesis from the Institutes. However, we must omit an extensive analysis of his thesis.29
Professor Bousma, in “Calvin and the Renaissance Crisis of Knowing,” without mentioning him directly, may have also hinted at Battles’ conception of the “calculus fidei” as a way of understanding Calvin’s theory of knowledge. Bousma noted that Calvin recognized the paradoxes at the heart of the gospel; and that Calvin in fact used the term “paradox” to describe them. Calvin accepted paradox, according to Bousma; in actuality faith itself is defined in terms of the tensions between faith and nonfaith.
WTJ 49:1 (Spring 1987) p. 161
What this article is proposing to do is to take the foundation of Battles’ thesis, which was written in analysis of the Institutes exclusively, and apply that theory to Calvin’s commentary writing. But before that is done, note should also be taken of the work of Professor Francis Higman concerning Calvin’s French language style. He says that “One of his [Calvin’s] most characteristic forms of speech is the antithesis, a standard figure of rhetoric.”30 This was an important literary style because of “the strongly antithetical nature of his thought.”31 While primarily studying Calvin’s French language style, Higman has lent further support to the antithetical structure of Calvin’s thinking from yet another corner.
To further substantiate the “calculus fidei” or “via media” approach and underline the importance of “paradox” or “antithesis” as mentioned by Bousma, Higman, and Dowey,32 note some pertinent passages from the commentaries:
And thus it is sure, for all the mysteries of God are paradoxes to the flesh;…We are here reminded, that if we desire to become capable of understanding them, we must especially labour to become freed from our own reason.33
And surely in general nothing is more absurd in the view of human reason than to hear that God has become mortal.34
WTJ 49:1 (Spring 1987) p. 162
Turning once again to the introductions to the Romans and Psalms” commentaries we begin building Calvin’s thesis for how biblical exposition should occur. Calvin recounted there that two of his Reformation colleagues were not on the right track when they wrote commentaries. The loci methodology was not perfect, and his good friend Bucer receives a rather scathing review in the introduction to the Psalms commentary.
It appears to the author that Calvin, in his desire to train good churchmen and pastors, felt that his method, and his method alone, was the proper one for such training. Was Calvin’s reasoning merely arrogance? Although that may be a possibility, it seems rather unlikely.
Why was Calvin’s method of exposition the only legitimate one?35 Because only his technique avoided the extremes which were present in the other sixteenth century commentators. While not following Dr. Battles’ formal lines of argumentation exactly, we will adopt his conception of the via media approach.
Calvin’s antipathy toward allegorical exegesis has already been well explicated in a number of articles. It is perhaps for his implementation of allegorical exegesis that Luther is not even mentioned by Calvin in the Romans introduction, although Luther’s implementation of allegory is a subject of debate. That exegetical abuse may be seen as one extreme. It is at the far left on the model. Two citations will demonstrate his attitude:
I know of the plausible nature of allegories, but when we reverently weigh the teachings of the Holy Spirit, those speculations which at first sight pleased us exceedingly, vanish from our view. But I am not captivated by such enticements myself…We ought never to fetch from a distance a subtle explanation, for the true sense will…flow naturally from a passage when it is weighed with deliberation.36
WTJ 49:1 (Spring 1987) p. 163
At Gal 4:22 he says:
Scripture, they say, is fertile and thus bears multiple meanings. I acknowledge that Scripture is the most rich and exhaustible fount of all wisdom: but I deny that its fertility consists in the various meanings which anyone may fasten to it at his pleasure. Therefore let us know that the true meaning of Scripture is the genuine and simple one [germanus et simplex], and let us embrace and hold it tightly. Let us not merely neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those fictitous expositions which lead us away from the literal sense.37
WTJ 49:1 (Spring 1987) p. 164
The other exegetical extreme may be labelled “humanistic” exegesis. It is found at the far right of the model. Time and again, as demonstrated in a number of passages from the commentaries which were read, Calvin castigates those who rely upon human invention to adorn the pure teaching of the word of God. As Battles says at one point, “The constructs, too, of the human mind can be as much the objects of idolatry as can physical representations of Deity.”38
Between the two poles of allegorical and humanistic exegesis, both of which could be classified as “false” or basically false exegesis, stands “true” and more true exegesis. The loci method is defective in that it fails to examine all of Scripture. As allegory denies the unity of meaning so loci denies unity of meaning to a lesser extent. “Verbose” exegesis, although coming under the category of “true,” and represented by Bucer among others, nevertheless totters at times rather closely to the “humanistic” mistake and is always in danger of become “false” exegesis. Brevitas as a method on the other hand asserts the unity of meaning in the Scriptures which was important for Calvin to affirm, makes the meaning understandable to the people, gives full glory to the Lord and is useful to the church.39
In Calvin’s attempt to produce the simple and clear meaning for the purpose of edifying the church, he will certainly implement rhetorical devices and point out where the Scriptures are using them. The purpose of such usage seems still to underline his basic theme of clear brevity. What must be added to the research which was published earlier is the further evidence given from the commentaries that Calvin was implementing or even imitating, as Professor Breen hinted, the rhetorical style of the Bible as he wrote his commentaries. This would help to substantiate the basic thesis of that previous article.
WTJ 49:1 (Spring 1987) p. 165
Also, the improvement or clarification that should be made upon the previous research is the methodological framework for understanding Calvin’s exegesis. The theme of exegetical tensions, first worked out by Battles in relationship to the Institutes and later elaborated by Bousma especially concerning Calvin’s notion of faith, can be modified to apply to expository method as well.
In conclusion, Calvin’s method, brevitas et facilitas, is a conscious attempt to shape his method of exposition in conformity to his understanding of the Scripture’s own style. It is also in conformity with Calvin’s notion of theology or even knowledge itself, that theology is worked out upon the poles of a tension between truth and falsity.
Westminster Theological Seminary
Philadelphia
1 D. Nauta, “Stand der Calvinforschung, “Calvinus Theologus (ed. W. H. Neuser; Neukirchen-Verluyn, Neukirchener Veriag, 1976) 79.
2 “International Calvin Research,” W. H. Neuser, Calvinus Reformator: His Contribution to Theology, Church and Society (ed. B. J. Vander Walt; Potchefstroom: Institute for Reformational Studies, 1982) 4.
3 Cf. the introductory letter to the Institutes, 1539. For an excellent summary of Melanchthon’s hermeneutic especially in relationship to Calvin, cf. Alexandre Ganoczy and Stefan Scheld, Die Hermeneutik Calvins (hereafter, Hermeneutik) (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Veriag GMBH, 1983) 61–69, and the secondary literature cited there.
4 Cf. the same letter. Also consult Ganoczy/Scheld, Hermeneutik, 76-87, for further analysis and secondary literature.
5 Cf. the Latin introduction to a proposed French translation to Chrysostom’s homilies. An English language translation by John H. McIndoe may be found in The Hartford Quarterly 5/2 (1965) 19–26.
6 Alexandre Ganoczy und Klaus Mueller, Calvins handschriftliche Annotationen zu Chrysostomos. Ein Beitrag zur Hermeneutik Calvins. (Weisbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GMBH, 1981).
7 Cf. Benoit Girardin, Rhétorique et théologique, Calvin, Le Commentaire de l’“Epîre aux Romains” (Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1979) 370–87.
8 It is T. H. L. Parker’s opinion that Calvin is clearly distinguished from the medieval commentators by his awareness of textual variants but is not concerned with textual criticism for its own sake as were Erasmus and Bucer. Cf. “Calvin the Exegete,” in Calvinus Ecclesiae Doctor (ed. W. H. Neuser; Kampen: Kok 1978) 38. Steinmetz discusses Calvin and higher-critical method in his article “John Calvin on Isaiah 6, ” Int 36 (1982) 156–70 Cf. also Ganoczy/Scheld, Hermeneutik, 136ff.
9 “God Was Accommodating Himself to Human Capacity,” Int 31 (1977) 20.
10 Cf. the extensive note concerning Calvin’s opponents in the McNeil/Battles edition of the Institutes 15 n. 8
11 Bohatec, Calvin und Bude (Graz: Hermann Boehlaus, 1950) 141.
12 A good case in point is the comment of Ganoczy/Scheld, Hermeneutik, 135: “Wissenschaftliche Bildung und Gelehrsamkeit einerseits und Glaubensüberzeugung andererseits sind demnach bei Calvin in ein Verhaltnis gesetzt, das zwar night gegensätzlich ist, in dem aber doch der Glaube und seine Artikulation prinzipiell Vorrang haben vor der rein philologischen und historischen Kritik.” The author is not at all attempting to deny the overwhelming evidence of Calvin’s continued implementation of “classical rhetorical” forms of speech. Rather the subtle transmutations of that style as well as conscientious breaks from it is the point to be made.
13 “Supervacuum foret hic subtiliter disputare,…Neque enim talibus argutiis nos occupare voluit” (CO. 47.120, on John 5:30).
14 “Longior tractatio brevitati cui studeo non congrueret” (C.O. 47.128, on John 5:46).
15 “Ergo genuino et simplici sensu contenti simus” (C.0. 47.257, on John 11:9)
16 Q. Breen, “John Calvin and the Rhetorical Tradition,” CH 26 (1957) 6.
17 Bousma, “Calvin and the Renaissance Crisis of Knowing,” Calvin Theological Journal 36 (1982) 207.
18 “… sed quum sciamus ubique crassa Minerua ad captum vulgi loquutum esse, & consulto abstinuisse a disputationibus acutis, quae scholam & interiores literas saperent” (Mosis Libri V. cum Johannis Caluini commentariis [Geneva: Stephanus, 15631, on Gen 6:14).
19 “Sed propheta non tam ornatus causa, ut solent rhetors, duo verba simul coniunxit, quam ut vehementiam curae suae et anxietatis exprimeret” (CO. 38.201, on Jer 14:21).
20 “…quo in scriptis Apostolicis contenti sumus. Ex aliis enim discenda est eloquentia: hic sub contemptibili verborum humilitate, spiritualis sapientia quaerenda est” (Iohannis Calvini Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos [ed. T. H. L. Parker; Leiden: Brill, 1981] 42, on Rom 2:8).
21 “…quae sunt quidem orationis vitia, sed quibus nihil maiestati decedit caelestis Sapientiae quae nobis per Apostolum traditur. Quin potius singulari Dei providentia factum est ut sub contemptibili verborum humilitate, altissima haec mysteria nobis traderentur: ut non humanae eloquentiae potential sed sola Spiritus efficacia niteretur nostra fides” (Parker [ed.], Ad Romanos, 113, on Rom 5:15). Notice the same terminology implemented in the examples from Rom 2:8 and Rom 5:15: “…sub contemptibili verborum humilitate…”
22 “Oratio Pauli hic est defective,…Verum sensus non obscure patet” (Parker [ed.] Ad Romanos, 167, on Rom 8:12).
23 “Quod ideo admoneo, nequis dicendi ornatum hic requirat, aut offendatur ista dicendi ruditate. Pectus enim, non linguam ut formarent, haec scripta sunt” (Parker [ed.] Ad Romanos, 248, on Rom 11:12).
24 The fuller text reads: “… ideo per concessionem dicit, se non creature esse rhetorem, qui verborum splendors se venditet, sed ministrum spiritus, qui rudi et plebeio sermone mundi sapientiam in ordinem cogat…. Deinde quod converses ad verborum nitorem et elegantiam, ad acutas speculationes, ad inanem sublimioris doctrinae speciem hominum animis, spiritus energia evanescebat:…Verum non hic tantum quales esse Christi discipulos, et quam discendi viam tenere conveniat, sed etiam quae sit docendi ratio in schola Christi, tradit Paulus ... Exinanita, inquit, fuisset crux Christi si eloquentia et splendors ornata fuisset mea praedicatio…. Sermonis sapientiam vocat, non [logodaidalia], quae nihil est quam inanis loquacitas: inventions, dispositions ingeniosa, et elegantia sermonis. Hanc sibi defuisse testatur, quin etiam suae praedicationi neque aptam, neque utilem fuisse” (C.O. 49.319f., on I Cor 1:17).
25 “Caeterum quia de lapsu angelorum breviter hic meminit Pettus: tempus vero et modum, aliasque circumstantias non enumerat: sobrie in hac parte philosophari convenit. Sunt curiosi plerique homines qui nuilum de his rebus sciscitandi finem faciunt: atqui quum Deus parce duntaxat et quasi obiter eas attigerit in scripture, hoc ipso nos admonuit ut modica ista notitia simus contenti” (C.O. 55.462, on 2 Pet 2:4).
26 Cf. E. David Willis, “Rhetoric and Responsibility in Calvin’s Theology,” in The Context of Contemporary Theology (ed. McKelwayu and Willis; Atlanta: John Knox, 1974).
27 Cf. Ganoczy/Scheld, Hermeneutik, 122f.
28 F. L. Battles, “Calculus Fidei, “ Calvinus Ecclesiae Doctor, 85.
29 Battles’ published article is a compendium of his much larger work developing the “calculus fidei” idea. Unfortunately it is still not published. Note should be made here that Battles’ idea has not received universal recognition. Professor Dowey in a very impressive article, “The Structure of Calvin’s Theological Thought as Influenced by the Two-fold Knowledge of God, in Calvinus Ecclesiae Genevensis Custos (ed. Wilhelm Neuser; Bern: Peter Lang, 1984) says, “I wish to suggest that even if Battles’ detailed observations and diagrams of the polemic elements of Calvin’s theology are precisely correct, they do not demonstrate that his theological thought is fundamentally structured by his polemic turned into an ‘antithetical’ principle” (p. 148).
30 Francis M. Higman, ed., Three French Treatises of John Calvin (London: Athlone Press, 1970) 30. In his note to this sentence, Higman says, “We have already noted the strong contrasts inherent in Calvin’s thought (total sovereignty of God, total depravity of man), of which an antithetical style is a natural expression.”
31 Ibid., 35.
32 Professor Dowey would not use the term “calculus fidei” and he disagrees with Parker over the priority of a duplex cognitio (knowledge of God and ourselves) or a duplex cognitio Domini. Whether Dowey, rather than Parker or Battles, is correct in his analysis of the structure of Calvin’s thought is not the issue to be determined in this article. What is important for this article is the relative agreement between these three great Calvin scholars (and a host of others) concerning the importance and presence of the “dialectical” or “antithetical” structure of Calvin’s thought.
33 “Atque ita sane est, quum omnia Dei mysteria carni sint paradoxa…Quo admonemur, [si] velimus eorum fieri capaces, [dandam in primis esse operam ut] proprio sensu vacui…”. (Parker [ed.], Ad Romanos, 59, on Rom 3:5).
34 “Et sane alioqui humanae rationi absurdius nihil est quam audire Deum mortalem,…” (C.O. 49.326, on I Cor 1:21).
35 At this point of our analysis, that Calvin’s method is unique is a given. Genoczy/Scheld, in discussing Calvin’s comments concerning his Protestant colleagues, assert that in contrast to them he is attempting “dabei eine völlig neue Schreibweise anzuwenden.” Later, they call his method “ revolutionary (Hermeneutik, 123f.).
36 The full quotation reads: “Ego relinquo etiam hic allegoriam, sicuti in toto versu. Scio allegories esse plausibiles, sed ubi reverenter expendimus quae spiritus sanctus docet, evanescunt illae speculationes, quae primo intuitu nobis valde placebant. Ego autem non capior illis illecebris, et velim etiam hoc omnibus esse persuasum, nihil esse melius, quam sobrie tractare scripturam, neque accesere procul subtiles sensus, qui sponte, quamadmodum iam dixi, effluunt ubi res ipsa melius expenditur” (C.O. 41.199, on Dan 10:5–6).
37 “Scriptura, inquiunt, foecunda est idoque multiplices sensus parit. Ego scripturam uberrimum et inexhaustum omnis sapientiae fontem esse fatteor: sed eius foecunditatem in variis sensibus nego consistere, quos quisque sua libidine affingat. Sciamus ergo eum esse verum scripturae sensum, qui germanus est ac simplex: qumque amplectamur et mordicus teneamus. Fictitias expositiones, quae a literati sensu abducunt, non modo negligamus tanquam dubias, sed fortier repudiemus tanquam exitiales corruptelas” (C.O. 50.237).
38 “Calculus Fidei,” 91. Ganoczy/Scheld briefly develop this theory as well. Reminding us that during the time of the Renaissance commentators attempted to attain immortality through their writings and wrote subtly and with brilliance, they note that “Calvin wendet sich von dieser Art Literarischen Schaffens ab” (Hermeneutik, 121).
39 Bousma (“Calvin and tile Renaissance Crisis of Knowing,” 205) said, “Indeed utility came close to being Calvin’s only sure criterion of truth.” Ganoczy/ Scheld emphasize the importance of brevitas, and see “Effektivität” as one of the primary motives for Calvin’s implementation (Hermeneutik, 121).