"The presence of anti-Pauline texts in [Matthew's] Gospel, point inevitably towards the conclusion that the evangelist himself [sic: really Jesus] was anti-Pauline." D.C. Sim [2002:780]

Relevant

A Joomla! Template for the Rest of Us

 

Search

Questions?

Please enter your questions, and we will get back to you as soon as possible. As an anti-spam measure, we ask that you re-type the code you see in the box below, prior to clicking "Send Message"






Recommendations

Only Jesus (great song by Big Daddy)

What Did Jesus Say? (2012) - 7 topics 

None above affiliated with me

JesusWordsOnS-cropsmall
JesusWordsSalv-crop2
DidCalvinMurderServetusM

Did Calvin Say He Exterminated Servetus?

Calvin is said to have said "I have exterminated Servetus the Spaniard" -- a partial quote. Some dispute this is true, and imply it was a forgery. 

Because of this, someone wrote me that the quote should not be included in Rives' Did Calvin Murder Servetus? 

First, we must observe that the extermination quote does belong to the official writings of Calvin and was not truly proven as spurious by Bonnett although the case was presented by him that it was a forgery as explained in http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2017/08/calvin-i-have-exterminated-michael.html

As that blog study shows, Voltaire quoted the original French, which had the word  “exterminate.” When translated into English by Bonnet from this letter -- the person claiming it was a Forgery ---  he based it upon the letter preserved from the official writings of Calvin. Thus, that editor familiar with Calvin accepted the letter as true, and Bonnet rendered the key word in English as “smother” instead of as "exterminate."
Many unaware that Calvin wrote in French ignore this, and make the claim of spuriousness relying on an English translation changing “exterminate” in French into Bonnet’s translation in English as "smother.”
Regardless, whether smother or  exterminate, it shows the callousness and consciousness by Calvin of his intent to kill Servetus. The validity of Bonnet’s claim of forgery depends entirely upon whether Poet -- the person addressed -- only became a grand chamberlain 20 years later which in turn depends upon a single remark of Aubenas, or the validity of transcribing the letter’s true date. That hardly proves the case.
So you have the official writings of Calvin including this letter -- a time when handwriting was the only means of producing a personal letter --  versus a stray remark about a date when Poet became grand chamberlain as a proof it is a forgery. Calvin defenders have a weak argument. They need proof of three things: Aubenas was right which should be easy to do from public records, and that the original editor did not have the original handwriting of Calvin in his possession at some point to validate this letter as authentically Calvin's, and, if Aubenas' was correct, that the date on the letter was clear and not transcribed incorrectly.