conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

a fun quote

Here is something that says succinctly what I have said in 3000 words.

Calvin does not use the Fathers in the way a midieval commentator used his ancient authorities...Calvin treats the Fathers as partners in conversation rather than authorities in the midieval sense of the term.

Leave it to David Steinmetz to be smarter than I.

Last night I was watching West Wing. Susie loaned me the DVD's for the second season. In one episode, Charlie is asked if he is smart. He responds "I got some game." Grammar and slang aside, this is a great statement. Calvin got game. So too does Steinmetz. I read this book, ponder my incomplete thesis and think that perhaps I enjoy the game, but am only a season ticket holder. Ah well. It is also possible that I have been at the hospital for twelve hours and have four more to go. That could have something to do with it.

If you are interested in more of my Calvin musings for the evening, please read on.

The disagreement that Calvin expresses, though constant, is often in reference to small, almost inconsequential interpretive points. Often in Walchenbach's work, an exploration of Calvin's Pauline exegesis, grammatical articles are argued, not theological broadstrokes. Yes, Calvin disagrees with Chrysostom's understanding of freewill approving instead of Augustine's approach. This is true. Otherwise, the partnership is a strong one. Calvin, I believe, through his humanist interpretive lense finds compatriots in exegesis...especially with Chrysostom.

In much of Calvin's work, he relies upon memory when reflecting upon Chrysostom's work. This is both in the moments of agreement and disagreement. Calvin's humanism and personality (lawyer, lover of rhetoric, despiser of Papists) get in the way.

1536 - Calvin seemed not to utilize the early interpreters in his own work.

1539-46 - There is increasing use of the patristic interpreters. This is seen more in the exegetical works than in the Institutes. Reading the Institutes alone paints a very incomplete portrait of Calvin and his understanding of his peers and the Fathers.

1556 - Chrysostom is cited once in the Institutes...and mistakenly at that. Only three other Fathers are mentioned at all...including Augustine.

1559 - Calvin employs the Fathers a great deal in the institutes..again, often in disagreement over fine points. Calvin uses those disagreements to demonstrate and clarify his own position. Think of it this way: "You Papists all know that Chrysostom said X about free will. Okay. Let me tell you where he was wrong, how he misunderstands Paul, and thus express to you even more clearly where I stand and how that is different from your position." Calvin was seldom this polite, but I think it gets the idea across.

How Calvin uses the Pathers matters. How he stands in opposition to them matters...because it demonstrates where he is in clear agreement with them. It is a rhetorical tool. He was a humanist and bent on convincing people of his postion and in the process lead them to salvation and right faith. He was not concerned with agreeing with Chrysostom on all counts. He was interested in how he and Chrysostom were both interested in what Paul said and how that leads us all to salvation. To be in convertsation, even disagreement, strengthened Calvin's position. It actually demonstrates his Orthodoxy.

Welcome to paradox.

When I pour over the liturgy, you will get a better picture of what I mean. By 1564, Calvin is steeped in the Fathers. He spend more and more time in his commentaries quoting Chrysostom...though from memory again. By the time he gets to 1 Corinthians and the institution narrative, he speaks almost only of Chrysostom. So when he includes the narrative in the liturgy, he virtually repeats his understanding of Chrysostom's understanding ammending it further by his own. He stands upon Chrysostom.

Posted by tripp at May 9, 2005 08:06 PM