The title of this book is taken from the 1593 work of the Lutheran, Aegidius Hunnius, which accuses Calvin of ‘judaising’ in his interpretation of the messianic psalms. Sujin Pak examines this charge in a wide-ranging study, focusing on eight messianic psalms which are referred to Christ in the New Testament: Psalms 2, 8, 16, 22, 45, 72, 110, 188. The book is less exclusively on Calvin than the title suggests, with chapters on medieval exegesis, Luther, Bucer and the debate between Hunnius and Pareus, as well as on Calvin himself. Yet Calvin lies at the heart in that the whole book is assessing his place in the history of exegesis, which it does in a very competent and readable way.
The final chapter sets out the late sixteenth-century debate between Hunnius and the Reformed theologian David Pareus. Hunnius attacked Calvin for his departure from established tradition by failing to interpret a number of Old Testament passages (including our eight psalms) christologically. More seriously, he charges Calvin with rejecting and criticising the christological interpretation of these passages found in the New Testament. Pareus defends Calvin's exegesis by a variety of means. He argues that Calvin allows more space for a christological interpretation than Hunnius allows and also that the exegetical tradition is more diverse than Hunnius allows, with Calvin's position being taken by some of the fathers and even by some Lutherans. Most interesting, though, Pareus points to Calvin's more christological interpretation of these same passages in his New Testament commentaries. The Reformer's strong emphasis on authorial intention leads him to interpret the same passages differently when they are being cited by a New Testament author.
The first four chapters set this debate in context. The first expounds four medieval and late-medieval commentaries on the Psalms, those of the Glossa Ordinaria, Nicholas of Lyra, Denis the Carthusian and Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples. They each see these psalms as primarily and literally referring to the events of Christ's incarnation, suffering, death, resurrection, ascension and kingdom. Furthermore, they each in different ways refer these psalms to the church.
The next two chapters expound Luther and Bucer. Luther continues in the tradition of medieval exegesis, viewing these psalms as primarily and literally referring to the events of Christ's incarnation, suffering, death, resurrection, ascension and kingdom. He also applies them to the church and to the individual believer. More originally, he sees them as teaching justification by faith alone. The Jews are identified as the enemies of Christ and the church and Roman Catholics are seen to be guilty of similar errors. Bucer also sees these psalms as referring literally to Christ, but he also introduces the element of typology. Unlike Luther, he engages fully with the Jewish exegesis of the psalms, defending a Christian interpretation against it. Bucer's approach is transitional between Luther's and Calvin's.
Calvin placed a strong emphasis upon authorial intent, on the duty of the faithful interpreter to open up the mind of the prophet. This strongly historical approach leads him to see these psalms as referring primarily to David, this being their simple and natural sense. He is aware of the Jewish critique of traditional Christian exegesis and seeks to avoid this in his own exegesis. Because he does not see these psalms as primarily christological, unlike Luther he does not treat the Jews as enemies of Christ.
In the Conclusion the author points to some wider implications of her study. She suggests that the role of biblical exegesis in the development of Protestant confessional identities should be further explored. She argues that while Calvin remains ‘precritical’, his emphasis on a historical interpretation focused on authorial intention foreshadows methods which were to be developed later.
Unfortunately this book suffers from the same defect as the other volumes in this series – the use of endnotes rather than footnotes. For those interested in a causal read this is possibly a minimal advantage; for those interested in engaging with the book in a scholarly way it is a constant irritant. Why do publishers suppose that their readers prefer to have to keep the book open in two places at the same time?
