From Erasmus to Calvin: exploring the roots of Reformed hermeneutics.(Desiderius Erasmus and John Calvin)(Critical essay)

 
  Calvin's debt to the church reformers who preceded him both inside 
  and outside the reform movements of the sixteenth century has not 
  been sufficiently understood or appreciated. The humanistic methods 
  of interpreting and teaching classical texts--including Scripture-as 
  developed by Erasmus of Rotterdam decisively shaped Calvin's biblical 
  hermeneutic. 

On the occasion of the 500th anniversary of the birth of John Calvin, at least one thing is agreed upon by his most ardent admirers and his most vociferous critics: as a second generation reformer of the church, Calvin developed his own ideas about the gospel in conversation with earlier voices of reform, especially the voices of well known first generation spokesmen for reform like Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Luther, Phillip Melanchthon, and Martin Bucer. What has not been acknowledged by many who call themselves Calvinists, however, is that Calvin--especially in his primary ministry of interpreting and preaching the Scriptures--inherited a rich and varied stream of academic and ecclesiastical traditions from less well-known first generation reformers. These traditions came together in the creative and disciplined mind of John Calvin and developed over some three decades of his preaching and teaching in Geneva and Strasbourg. Promulgated by his followers, Calvin's ideas shaped a Weltanschauung, a theological way of looking at the world, which developed into the Reformed tradition and has had a profound impact on the history of Christianity around the world.

The exegetical methods, philosophical concepts, and theological doctrines Calvin inherited--some of them going back centuries to church leaders like Augustine, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Thomas Aquinas, others emanating from more recent figures such as Nicholas of Lyra, Gabriel Biel, Desiderius Erasmus, and Martin Luther--creatively synthesized characteristics of both scholasticism and humanism. Unfortunately, the terms "humanism" and "scholasticism" have become vague and confusing concepts at the hands of Calvin's interpreters, both sympathetic and otherwise. In this article, I will argue that Calvin's debt to the church reformers who preceded him both inside and outside the reform movements of the sixteenth century has not been sufficiently understood or appreciated. Moreover, the humanistic methods of interpreting and teaching classical texts--including Scripture--as developed by Erasmus of Rotterdam and his followers (1) decisively shaped Calvin's biblical hermeneutic.

CALVIN THE RETICENT HUMANIST SCHOLAR

One of the reasons we do not fully understand the traditions Calvin inherited is partially attributable to his reluctance to disclose details about the development of his own faith and sense of vocation. In his "Reply to Sadoleto " Calvin wrote, "I am unwilling to speak of myself, but since you do not permit me to be altogether silent, I will say what I can consistent with modesty." (2) He went on to say," ... it would not have been difficult for me to reach the summit of my wishes, viz., the enjoyment of literary ease with something of a free and honorable station." (3) This is Calvin the humanist scholar speaking, the author of a critical edition and commentary on the Roman philosopher Seneca's De dementia (1532). Such a life had been modeled by Erasmus of Rotterdam, the peripatetic humanistic scholar who had never completed his intended edition of this treatise by Seneca. Calvin explicitly refers to Erasmus in his edition of Seneca's De dementia, and as William Bouwsma observes, Calvin "displayed a kind of sophomoric satisfaction at having discovered in Seneca 'things which have escaped the notice of even Erasmus'. ..." (4) Erasmus left Basel for Freiburg in 1529 when the reformist movement led by his junior colleague Johannes Oecolampadius triumphed. He returned in 1535, the same year in which Calvin sojourned briefly in Basel and wrote the first edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Although Calvin repeatedly refers to the writings of Erasmus and no doubt made use of his critical edition of the Greek NT, there is no evidence that they ever met. Rather than personal contact, Calvin can be linked with Erasmus only through the indirect influence of those humanistic scholars turned first generation reformers whose writings Calvin studied. And although there is much about Erasmus that Calvin found objectionable, particularly his arrogance, his lack of piety, and his steadfast refusal to espouse openly the cause of reform of the church, few would deny that the methods of humanistic scholarship and teaching associated with Erasmus characterize the preaching and teaching of Calvin.

In the preface to his Commentary on the Psalms, the typically self-effacing Calvin opened the door just a little to permit a glimpse into his own sense of vocation. He relates that although at an early age his father had destined him for theological studies and the priesthood, his father later encouraged him to pursue the study of law in order to prepare for a more lucrative profession as a jurist. Calvin said that he dutifully acquiesced to his father's wishes until "God, by the secret leading of his providence, turned my course another way." (5) According to Calvin's account, this new direction constituted a conversio subita, often understood as a sudden conversion. Instead of fulfilling his intent to enjoy the quiet life of a scholar, Calvin felt called by God to use his training as a humanistic interpreter of classical texts for the reform of the church. Many scholars have puzzled over the nature and cause of this so-called conversion.

Alexandre Ganoczy has suggested that the Latin phrase conversio subita is more adequately understood as "a conversion 'suffered' (subie in French) by Calvin and not an instantaneous conversion." (6) Ganoczy also helpfully points out that Calvin's description subordinates the idea of conversion to a theologically based concept of vocation. Heiko Oberman uses phrases such as "the unexpected intersection of his [Calvin's] designs with God's providence" and "beyond all expectation" to explain what Calvin meant. (7) And William Bouwsma points out in his biography of the Genevan reformer that "Calvin attached little or no significance to 'conversion' as a precise event in his many discussions of the Christian life and the way of salvation." (8)