Gangrene or Cancer? Sixteenth-Century Medical Texts and the Decay of the Body of the Church in Jean Calvin’s Exegesis of 2 Timothy 2:17
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2 Timothy 2:17, Paul compared the effects of false teachings on the Church to a disease. Rejecting previous translations that identified this disease as cancer, Jean Calvin (1509–64) insisted that it must be gangrene in his 1548 commentary on this epistle, citing and discussing medical texts to justify his translation. This article places his commentary in the context of these medical texts. The causes, courses, and treatments his contemporaries associated with gangrene provide insight into Calvin’s idea of the people likely to spread false teachings and of how they should be treated: because, for him, the experience of gangrene reflected the real effects of false teachings on the Church. This manuscript argues that consulting other areas of sixteenth-century knowledge, such as medicine, was a part of Calvin’s exegetical practice. It also suggests that modern scholars need to take these other areas of knowledge into account when analyzing sixteenth-century biblical commentaries. Dans 2 Timothée 2:17, Paul compara les effets des faux enseignements sur l’Église à une maladie. Ayant rejeté les traductions précédentes qui identifiaient cette maladie comme cancer, Jean Calvin (1509–1564), dans son commentaire de cette épître en 1548, soutint qu’il devait s’agir de la gangrène et il justifia cette traduction en citant et discutant des sources médicales. Cet article situe ce commentaire dans le contexte de ces textes médicaux. Les causes, les symptômes et les traitements associés à la gangrène, portent un discours sur ceux qui, selon Calvin, propageraient les faux enseignements, ainsi que sur la façon dont on doit les traiter. Pour Calvin, en effet, la réalité de de la gangrène reflète, dans l’expérience, les effets des faux enseignements sur l’Église. Cette étude examine de la pratique exégétique de Calvin, qui consulte d’autres domaines de la connaissance, comme la médecine, pour lire les textes. Aussi il propose que les savants modernes doivent prendre en compte ces autres domaines pour analyser les commentaires bibliques du XVIe siècle.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".