The Historical Reliability of the Book of Acts in the Age of Wikipedia

 

 Introduction

I have lived during the transition from a world in which detailed historical information was typically bulk housed in my local library to now being available with the press of a thumb on a small plastic gizmo. The time saving benefits are immeasurable: having instant access to the time my local pizza parlor closes, the tedious details of my favorite movie, or the entire biography of an eighteenth-century playwright. Wikipedia, “the free encyclopedia,” or, “Wiki,” tends to be the source instantly occurring in basic web-searches. Its anonymously written entries (sometimes by multiple authors!) have seeped deep into the zeitgeist of popular culture, baldly accepted as being as reliable as the dusty set of encyclopedias whose entries were written by specialized scholars.

True, Wiki is helpful with common knowledge facts. The acquisition of immediate information though should be tethered with the modern proverb, “just because it’s on the Internet, does not mean it’s true!”  For an explicit example of the folly of immediate gratification of instant cyber-knowledge, I set Google with the search criteria of the broad category, discrepancies in the Book of Acts. Out of the returned search results of about nine million hits, in the top three were links to Wikipedia and its overtly secular sister, “rationalwiki.”

This paper will examine Google hit #2, Wikipedia’s “Passages of disputed historical accuracy” found in their entry, “Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles.” It will be demonstrated that the entirety of the Wiki entry is fraught with a biased worldview which evaluates the details of history with a skewed skeptical lens. It will be shown that their title words, “historical reliability” means in essence, historical unreliability. Wikipedia is soaked in the underlying assumption that the only thing one can know with certainty about the Book of Acts is that one cannot know anything with certainty. Wiki stands in direct antithesis to Luke’s overt goal of providing historical and theological certainty of the early church (Acts 1:1-4).

 II.  Inherent Article Bias

Before delving into the actual disputed Acts passages presented by Wiki, it is necessary to have a careful look at the overall entry that sets the stage they appear on. Whoever wrote the article clearly falls in the scholarly tradition of skepticism coming to fruition in the 19^th-century German Tübingen school.[1]  

The article opens mentioning that Acts does contain some accurate historical details. It immediately adds the qualifier that Acts is not accurate in its depiction of Paul, “both factually and theologically.” Only two paragraphs in, Wiki informs its readers that the “Paul” presented by Luke is not “generally prefer[ed]” by “scholars,” substantiated only by a source simply saying, “When it comes to the ‘life of Paul,’ the modern scholarly consensus is that Paul’s letters are to be given priority over Acts in any historical reconstruction.”[2] This amounts to the philosophical determiner of history being a simple headcount rather than any sort of detailed analysis. The false crescendo of this underlying presupposition comes later when Wiki ironically says, “By 2017 consensus had emerged among scholars that the letters of Paul are more reliable for information about Paul than Acts,” but substantiates this with merely, “citation needed.”

 On the one hand, the Wiki entry gives the traditional view that Luke was a contemporary “follower of Paul,” but then with the other says, “However, most scholars understand Luke–Acts to be in the tradition of Greek historiography.” This statement is offered as a contrast with Luke’s assertion that his historiography was written to provide “certainty” (Luke 1:4).  This seemingly innocuous comparison is substantiated and fleshed out only in an endnote to a New Testament scholar who holds that while Luke was personally associated with Paul, his work as a historian is riddled with error.[3] Thus, “the tradition of Greek historiography” is a tradition of trivial correct historical facts mixed with misinformation and personal agendas.   

Regarding the sources Luke may have used to compile Acts, Wiki provides nothing definite. Wiki highlights an author’s comment that Luke’s use of previous historical sources was a “seriously distorted” series of “stringed together” stories by the time it reached him.[4] This assertion presents a true sense of irony: Wiki has, in a few paragraphs, strung together a number of poorly substantiated biased facts, and this one in particular lacks any documentation!

 Wiki also sets the stage with a brief discussion on the textual traditions of the Book of Acts.  While they conclude that the shorter Alexandrian text tradition of Acts is preferred, their underlying point presents dissonance by questioning whether Luke’s writings can be trusted in their current form. Of the Book of Acts Wiki says, “the differences between the surviving manuscripts are more substantial than most.” What is left out is the fact that the existence of a substantial manuscript tradition does not speak against the reliability of a source, but rather is that tool which allows the original to be substantiated by a comparison of the existing manuscripts.        
            In a seeming attempt to balance out their overt skepticism, Wiki does present a section dedicated to historically accurate details found in Acts. These examples though are followed by a series of disclaimers set in the form of scholarly opinion: Acts does get some basic things historically correct but is still not to be completely trusted. Scholars cited suggest using “caution”: be skeptical of the history of the early church. That skepticism includes taking seriously the ‘hallucination theory” of Christ’s post-resurrection appearances, that Acts may have been written early but Luke did not know Paul, etc. This negativity is mixed with scholars positive to the veracity of some of the tedious details of Acts and its early composition. The entire section amounts to a cacophony of opinion rather than any sort of meaningful presentation of the accuracy of the Book of Acts.  

 III. Passages of Disputed Historical Accuracy

 In comparison to the nine passages Wiki deems historically accurate, six examples are offered. While the offering of three more positive proofs for the historicity of Acts may seem generous, the differences in presentation is striking. Wiki’s historically accurate passages are put forth as simple one sentence snippets with little or no documentation. Of the six negative examples, each is given a full paragraph explanation with plenteous documentation. The positive passages are given one overall hyperlink in the table of contents while each disputed passage has its own so readers can immediately be brought to the content. Let us review each disputed passage.

A.    Acts 2:41 and 4:4 – Peter’s Addresses

The first example involves alleged discrepancies with statistics and venue amplification. Acts 2:41 says Peter’s sermon at Pentecost resulted in three thousand conversions and Acts 4:4 records an additional five thousand.  According to Wiki, these extraordinary numbers are impossible because Jerusalem only had a population of 25-30,000 people.

In response, the extraordinary need not be deemed impossible from a presuppositional Biblical worldview. Logically, if the overall population was as is claimed, this does not necessarily render Luke’s conversion tally inaccurate. It coincides with Luke’s emphasis that the effectual work of the Holy Spirit was being poured out, miraculously.

Wiki’s numbers though need not be confidently assumed.  First, to determine the population of first-century Jerusalem involves, at the very least, estimating from ancient primary sources. Josephus records 6,000 Pharisees living in Jerusalem in the mid first century[5] and that 1,100,000 Jews died during the 70 A.D. siege of Jerusalem with 97,000 taken captive.[6]   Tacitus numbers the population at the time of Rome’s invasion as 600,000.[7]  While these numbers differ, Josephus and Tacitus are at least unified in having a population well over 25-30,000.  Second, Wiki is offering statistical certainty without any meaningful examination. Their statistic of 25-30,000 has its genesis in outdated nineteenth century scholarship.  For instance, an 1847 book, Ancient Topography of Jerusalem by James Ferguson went after the veracity of the numbers provided by Tacitus and Josephus. He arrives contrarily at an estimate of 23,000 – 37,000, saying, “which I do not think it at all probable that Jerusalem could have contained as a permanent population.”[8]  His determination has been debated, but not in any way favorable to his small numeric conclusion. Modern studies in archaeology are producing numbers much higher: 50,000, 80,000, 100,000, 200,000.[9]  

Wike also disputes the method which produced the large number of converts recorded by Luke. Wiki says (via Grant), “Peter could not have addressed three thousand hearers without a microphone.”[10] First, there is no physical reason why a person could not stand in front of three thousand and address them. Second, Luke does not specify the exact spot of the sermon or what natural sound surroundings could have been utilized. Third, Wiki ignores that the feat of speaking to large crowds previous to contemporary electronic amplification certainly did occur: Charles Spurgeon once spoke to an audience upward of 20,000 without modern sound equipment. Fourth, Luke says that it was not simply one sermon at one time: “And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them” (Acts 2:40).

B.     Acts 5:33-39: Theudas

Whereas the accuracy of Josephus was left out of the previous example by Wiki, this one relies on his description of the Jewish rebels Judas and Theudas. The purported discrepancy is that Luke made a chronological error when presenting Gamaliel’s account of Theudas followed by Judas. Even though put in the same order, Josephus ultimately presents their chronology reversed: Judas’ revolt occurred around 6 A.D., Theudas between 44 – 47 A.D. The discrepancy further insists the later revolted after the date of Gamaliel’s speech recorded by Luke.  

Wiki says the discrepancy rests on the assumption that Luke and Josephus were referring to the same Theudas. A plausible answer is to first assume Luke and Josephus are referring to the same Judas “who rose up in the days of the census” (Acts 5:37) during the census of Quirinius (Ant. 20,5,2), but to not assume the same Theudas is being mentioned. In this alternate scenario, neither Luke nor Josephus has committed an historical error. Luke’s Theudas, according to Gamaliel, “claim[ed] to be somebody” (Acts 5:36). Josephus says Theudas was a magician claiming to be a prophet (Ant. 29,5,1). Theudas was a common name at the time and is representative of similar names, used interchangeably: Theodotus, Theodosius, Theodorus.[11] Luke’s Theudas was previous to Judas and that documented by Josephus’s was after.

C.     Acts 10:1 Roman Troops in Caesarea

This discrepancy asserts no Roman troops (an Italian regiment or “cohort”) were stationed in Caesarea during the reign of Herod Agrippa (41-44), therefore Luke is in error in his description of the Roman Centurion Cornelius, “a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort.” Wiki bases the discrepancy on a “lack of inscriptional and literary evidence” and insinuates that Luke either made it up or “projected” Roman troops back to an earlier time.  

Surprisingly, Wiki offers a solution. They highlight that Acts 9:32-11 may be out of chronological order (taking place after Herod’s death), therefore only calling into question Luke’s accuracy in the sequence of events. For those who trust Luke, this amounts to a non-solution solution: Luke may be accurate on the one hand, but inaccurate on the other.  

Wiki concludes by noting a few historians “see no difficulty here” but hide any hint of their considerations in footnotes: Cornelius may have lived in Caesarea away from his troops and there is a record of “troops of Caesarea and Sebaste” between A.D. 41-44 (the later solution taken from F.F. Bruce). In essence, Wiki appears to realize there is not an actual discrepancy; rather there is an ambiguity in the historical presence of Roman troops in Caesarea during the time period in question.  Consulting Bruce, Wiki left out that “the soldiers making up an auxiliary unit were usually provincials, not Roman citizens… awarded Roman citizenship when their period of service had expired.”[12] There is therefore no legitimate basis for doubting Luke’s account.

D.    Acts 15: The Council of Jerusalem

Wiki presents the old conundrum that the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 is the same event of Galatians 2. Fleshed out in footnotes, if the two chapters from different Biblical books are referring to the same thing, there is “the presence of discrepancies between these two accounts,” “open contradiction,” and “There is a very strong case against the historicity of Luke's account of the Apostolic Council.” The only aspect Wiki will allow is there actually was a Jerusalem Council but to grant its historical existence only with “caution.”

There are two plausible solutions. Some attempt to harmonize Acts 15 with Galatians 2. For instance, Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown sees Acts 15 as “a simplified and less acrimonious report.”[13] F.F. Bruce takes four pages in his commentary on Acts to smooth over the accounts.[14]. The New Bible Commentary avoids mentioning the discrepancies between the chapters and simply exegetes both together (as do a number of conservative sources).[15] This method moves closest to special pleading. The more plausible solutions is to not assume Acts 15 and Galatians 2 are documenting the same event. Rather, Galatians 2 should be harmonized with Acts 11:29-30. Robert Cara says this harmonization explains Paul’s refusal to circumcise Titus (Ga1. 2:3) and his circumcision of Timothy, the latter being circumcised after the declarations of the Council meeting of Acts 15.[16] This solution places the writing of Galatians in AD 48 and the Acts 15 council a year later.

E.     Acts 15:16-18: James’ Speech

This discrepancy challenges the quotation of Amos 9:11-12 by James during the Jerusalem Council. The text James cited is from the Greek Septuagint. James “presumably spoke Aramaic” so, posits Wikipedia, it would be unlikely for him to have cited the text in this linguistic form.

This criticism is a discrepancy based on assumptions rather than solid historical facts or external evidence of an actual discrepancy. First, Wikipedia refutes itself by mentioning the obvious: “Although Aramaic was a major language of the Ancient Near East, by Jesus's day Greek had been the lingua franca of the area for 300 years.” There is no reason why James be limited to one language and one Bible translation. Second, Wiki assumes Lukean deceit before considering theological implications:  James could have had a theological motivation for using the Greek text for its emphasis on “all the Gentiles” rather than the Hebrew, “all the nations.”

F.      Acts 21:38: The sicarii and the Egyptian

This discrepancy insists that Luke made an error when he quoted the Roman Tribune asking Paul if he was “the Egyptian” rebel who led Assassins into the wilderness. The error arises because Luke miscited Josephus who described two different groups and different events: The Assassins (the sicarii) and also an Egyptian rebel who led followers to the Mount of Olives. Luke carelessly morphed these two together.

First, this discrepancy assumes that Luke via the Roman Tribune was citing historical fact, but it could be just as easily assumed that Luke was recording what the Roman Tribune said, however erroneous it was. Paul does not answer the question directly, but rather simply affirms who he is... perhaps because the question was factually ridiculous. Second, if Luke and Josephus are referring to the same “Egyptian,” the discrepancy rests on Josephus documenting thirty thousand while Luke documents four thousand. But “The tendency of Josephus to exaggerate especially in regard to numbers is well noted by scholars.” [17]  Could it not be Josephus in error rather than Luke?  The editors of The Works of Josephus point out,  

Accordingly Josephus, Antiq. 20.8.6, agrees well with St. Luke; for as he there says nothing of so great a number as 30,000, so he says that the number slain by Felix, when he subdued them, was no more than 400, and 200 taken prisoners. These smaller numbers much better agree to 4000 than to the 30,000.[18]

 

IV. Conclusion

As has been demonstrated, there are plausible solutions to each discrepancy put forth by Wikipedia. For Acts 2:41 and 4:4, the numeric discrepancies are solved via more recent historical inquiries. It is within the realm of possibility that large groups of people did hear what was preached, without modern-day equipment.  For Acts 5:33-39, the discrepancy rests on using Josephus to interpret Luke (whereas in the previous discrepancy, his history was avoided because it would have substantiated Luke). The solution comes by treating both Luke and Josephus as being accurate though not necessarily referring to the same Theudas. Acts 10:1 is resolved by demonstrating Wiki did not actually prove a certain discrepancy. Simply because there is not yet “inscriptional and literary evidence” does not mean that an Italian Regiment was not in Caesarea. There is no negative evidence suggesting Luke was in error, like an extra-biblical inscription saying, “there were no Roman troops in Caesarea A.D. 41-44.”  

Acts 15 is resolved by harmonizing it with Acts 11:29-30 rather than Galatians 2.  Acts 15:16-18 is the weakest of Wiki’s discrepancies, arguing ridiculously that James only spoke Aramaic and could not have cited the Greek Septuagint. The discrepancy amounts to conjecture rather than a meaningful presentation of proof. Finally, Acts 21:38 once again rests solely on choosing the accuracy of Josephus over Luke (while the editors of Josephus grant his “30’000” terrorists was an exaggeration).

We now live in a different era of information dissemination. One hundred years ago, the tedium involving possible discrepancies in the book of Acts was often confined to books, journals, and newspapers. Now, almost anyone has direct access to information to plug into their worldview, however erroneous it may be. It might seem ridiculous to take the effort to refute a source that has no bonafide credibility or responsibility. Wiki’s authors are anonymous and the content of the entries are subject to change at a whim.  But this is now where the battles for the soul are often being fought. Christians must never underestimate how the enemy works. The enemy no longer needs to wait for a book of antibiblical sentiment to be published. He can do immediate damage, on a much broader scale, in a matter of moments, by the push of a button on a smart phone. Being able to defend the faith “in the arena” now means entering the cyber-arena, being ready to demonstrate flawed history and underlying biases in popular culture, particularly those found in the most popular Google hits on any given subject.  

Endnotes

1. Van Ommeren, Nicolas M. “Was Luke an Accurate Historian?” Bibliotheca Sacra, 148. 1991, 60.

2. Hornik, Heidi J.; Parsons, Mikeal C., The Acts of the Apostles through the centuries (New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2017), 10.

3. Robert Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 145. “Luke evidently regarded himself as a historian, but many questions can be raised in regard to the reliability of his history.”

4. Richard Heard, An Introduction to the New Testament (London: A and C, Black, 1950), 138. “But it remains doubtful whether Luke had yet formed his plan of writing Acts when he was in contact with [Silas and Paul], and in his narrative in the early part of Acts he seems to be stringing together, as best he may, a number of different stories and narratives, some of which appear, by the time they reached him, to have been seriously distorted in the telling.”

5. Josephus, F., The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Philadelphia: J. Grigg, 1825), 9.

6. Josephus, F., The Works of Josephus: With a Life Written By Himself, Volume 4 (New York: A.C. Armstrong & Son, 1889), 169.

7. Ibid.

8. James Ferguson, An Essay on the Ancient Topography of Jerusalem (London: John Weale, 1847), 52


9. See the extensive comparative lists found in Richard Bauckham, The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995), 241-242.

10. Grant, 145.

11. A.T. Robertson, “Points of Chronology in Luke’s Writings,” The Methodist Quarterly Review 70 (January, 1921), 147.

12. F.F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 202.

[13] Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1996), 306.

[14] F.F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964), 298-302.

[15] Guthrie, D. (ed.). The New Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1970), 991.

[16] Michael J. Kruger (ed.), A Biblical – Theological Introduction to the New Testament (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 154.

[17] Janeway, B. “Is the Acts of the Apostles Historically Reliable? Part 2 of 2,” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal Volume 5, 5(2), 72.

[18] Josephus, F. The Works of Flavius Josephus (London: George Virtue, 1841), 972.

---

Luther's Antisemitism: "We are at fault in not slaying them!"

In their article, "Martin Luther and antisemitism," Wikipedia currently links to my old article, Martin Luther's Attitude Toward the Jews.  While I appreciate their nod to my paper, there is a quote used that I would like to explore and demonstrate misuse, Luther's antisemitic comment, "we are at fault in not slaying them." Wikipedia currently states,

On the Jews and Their Lies
In 1543 Luther published On the Jews and Their Lies in which he says that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[14] They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine."[15] The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..."[16] He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[17] afforded no legal protection,[18] and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[19] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them".[20] Luther claims that Jewish history was "assailed by much heresy", and that Christ swept away the Jewish heresy and goes on to do so, "as it still does daily before our eyes." He stigmatizes Jewish Prayer as being "blasphemous" (sic) and a lie, and vilifies Jews in general as being spiritually "blind" and "surely possessed by all devils." Luther has a special spiritual problem with Jewish circumcision.[21][22] The full context in which Martin Luther advocated that Jews be slain in On the Jews and Their Lies is as follows in Luther's own words: 

There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses - namely, that God has struck [the Jews] with 'madness and blindness and confusion of mind' [Deuteronomy 28:28]. So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them.[23]

Notice "We are at fault in not slaying them" is quoted twice in this excerpt. In the first occurrence, Wikipedia states Luther "seems" to advocate murdering the Jews. In the second occurrence, Wikipedia prefaces the quote stating, "Martin Luther advocated that Jews be slain." The first occurrence dates back to the original 2008 Wikipedia entry where the quote appears at the beginning of their synopsis, stating, "He also seemed to sanction their murder, writing 'We are at fault in not slaying them.'" Over time the article was expanded. This comment and quote changed to, "He also seems to advocate their murder, writing '[w]e are at fault in not slaying them.'" This was later moved into a new subsection covering Luther's book, On The Jews and Their Lies.  The second occurrence was added in September 2016 in the same subsection. It appears someone was attempting to provide "the full context" of the quote "in which Martin Luther advocated that Jews be slain."

There were too many hands in the Wikipedia cookie jar: note the incoherence which happens when multiple people edit an entry.  Did Luther "seem" to sanction exterminating Jewish people or did he actually actively "advocate" the Jews be slain? Whoever added the alleged "full context" does not appear to have proofed the entry for internal consistency.

While Luther's comment is atrocious and can be classified as antisemitic, I will argue this comment, placed in context, is not actively advocating the murder of Jews. Lest there be any misunderstanding: I am not arguing that Luther's comment, "we are at fault in not slaying them" is not blatantly antisemitic or that Luther should be excused for the comment. Rather, what I think is happening with the quote is that it's being used to make Luther worse than he was: yes, he's guilty of harsh rhetoric against the Jews, yes he's guilty of advocating societal cruelty on the Jews, but he is not guilty of calling for their extermination in this quote.

Documentation
For the first use of the quote, Wikipedia cites, "Luther, Martin. On the Jews and Their Lies, cited in Michael, Robert. 'Luther, Luther Scholars, and the Jews,' Encounter 46 (Autumn 1985) No. 4:343–344." The first part of the reference refers to Luther's treatise, though no page location is given. The second part of the reference is to an article by historian Robert Michael, who specialized in the study of antisemitism. Michael states,

For his Luther quotes, Michael provides a footnote referring to LW 47, 242, 265, 167. Page 242 refers to  "archthieves. . . who should rightly be hanged on the gallows seven times higher than other thieves." Page 265 refers to the bulk of the quote provided, save the last line, "We are at fault for not slaying them," which is supposed to be on page 167; Michael though made error, the quote is found on page 267.

The second reference provided by Wikipedia is "Luther, Martin. On the Jews and Their Lies, translated by Martin H. Bertram, in Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 47:267." The reference is accurate. There are two minor additions to the quote as presented by Wikipedia: "them" has been replaced with [the Jews], and the reference, "[Deuteronomy 28:28]" is not found on page 267 at this location in this English text.

Context

Now behold what a fine, thick, fat lie they pronounce when they say that they are held captive by us. Jerusalem was destroyed over fourteen hundred years ago, and at that time we Christians were harassed and persecuted by the Jews throughout the world for about three hundred years, as we said earlier. We might well complain that during that time they held us Christians captive and killed us, which is the plain truth. Furthermore, we do not know to the present day which devil brought them into our country. We surely did not bring them from Jerusalem.

In addition, no one is holding them here now. The country and the roads are open for them to proceed to their land whenever they wish. If they did so, we would be glad to present gifts to them on the occasion; it would be good riddance. For they are a heavy burden, a plague, a pestilence, a sheer misfortune for our country. Proof for this is found in the fact that they have often been expelled forcibly from a country, far from being held captive in it. Thus they were banished from France (which they call Tsorfath, from Obadiah), which was an especially fine nest. Very recently they were banished by our dear Emperor Charles from Spain, the very best nest of all (which they called Sefarad, also on the basis of Obadiah). This year they were expelled from the entire Bohemian crownland, where they had one of the best nests, in Prague. Likewise, during my lifetime they have been driven from Regensburg, Magdeburg, and other places.

If you cannot tolerate a person in a country or home, does that constitute holding him in captivity? In fact, they hold us Christians captive in our own country. They let us work in the sweat of our brow to earn money and property while they sit behind the stove, idle away the time, fart, and roast pears. They stuff themselves, guzzle, and live in luxury and ease from our hard-earned goods. With their accursed usury they hold us and our property captive. Moreover, they mock and deride us because we work and let them play the role of lazy squires at our expense and in our land. Thus they are our masters and we are their servants, with our property, our sweat, and our labor. And by way of reward and thanks they curse our Lord and us! Should the devil not laugh and dance if he can enjoy such a fine paradise at the expense of us Christians? He devours what is ours through his saints, the Jews, and repays us by insulting us, in addition to mocking and cursing both God and man.

They could not have enjoyed such good times in Jerusalem under David and Solomon with their own possessions as they now do with ours, which they daily steal and rob. And yet they wail that we have taken them captive. Indeed, we have captured them and hold them in captivity just as I hold captive my gallstone, my bloody tumor, and all the other ailments and misfortunes which I have to nurse and take care of with money and goods and all that I have. Alas, I wish that they were in Jerusalem with the Jews and whomever else they would like to have there.

Since it has now been established that we do not hold them captive, how does it happen that we deserve the enmity of such noble and great saints? We do not call their women whores as they do Mary, Jesus’ mother. We do not call them children of whores as they do our Lord Jesus. We do not say that they were conceived at the time of cleansing and were thus born as idiots, as they say of our Lord. We do not say that their women are haria, as they do with regard to our dear Mary. We do not curse them but wish them well, physically and spiritually. We lodge them, we let them eat and drink with us. We do not kidnap their children and pierce them through; we do not poison their wells; we do not thirst for their blood. How, then, do we incur such terrible anger, envy, and hatred on the part of such great and holy children of God?

There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses—namely, that God has struck them with “madness and blindness and confusion of mind.” So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite all their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property. In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property (as they daily pray and hope). Now tell me whether they do not have every reason to be the enemies of us accursed Goyim, to curse us and to strive for our final, complete, and eternal ruin! (LW 47: 265-267)

Conclusion
Luther in context is bombastically arguing against the oppression of the Jews, saying rather that the Jews are oppressing the Germans! He presents the ludicrous argument that it is they that are benefiting off German land, at the expense of the Germans.  He further takes as true the the rumors that the Jews were killing German children and poisoning wells. "We are at fault in not slaying them" is part of a ridiculous rhetorical argument in which Luther accepts the negative Jewish stereotypes of his day, then he attempts to present the case that despite these Jewish crimes, the Germans were gracious and kind to the Jews. The argument is absurd.

Recall Wikipedia claimed to be giving, "the full context."Notice that the quote continues after the point where Wikipedia stops. Luther is not saying that the Germans should go out and kill the Jews. He's saying that if all the negative things are true about the Jews are true (as he previously stated, like killing children, poisoning wells, etc.), the Germans were at moral fault for allowing them to live. Rather, Germany has allowed them "to live freely in our midst despite all their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property. In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property..." This is a rhetorical descriptive argument. It is not a prescription to go out and kill Jews. 

Luther goes on to say a few pages later... not to "harm their persons": 

And you, my dear gentlemen and friends who are pastors and preachers, I wish to remind very faithfully of your official duty, so that you too may warn your parishioners concerning their eternal harm, as you know how to do—namely, that they be on their guard against the Jews and avoid them so far as possible. They should not curse them or harm their persons, however. For the Jews have cursed and harmed themselves more than enough by cursing the Man Jesus of Nazareth, Mary’s son, which they unfortunately have been doing for over fourteen hundred years. Let the government deal with them in this respect, as I have suggested. But whether the government acts or not, let everyone at least be guided by his own conscience and form for himself a definition or image of a Jew. (LW 47:274)

While Luther may be acquitted here from advocating murder, he is not vindicated for his antisemitism by the context of The Jews and Their Lies. He did make sinful comments against the Jews, some of which did advocate violence and oppression. For instance, he was so against Judaism by this point that he advocated that "they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country" (LW 47:286).  Some scholars have argued there were theological reasons why he made such harsh comments against the Jews,  but I've found none of them to be so compelling as to exonerate him from the charge of antisemitism. Advocating cruelty to human beings, particularly basing it on unfounded rumors, is truly a dark spot on Luther's career. On the other hand, making Luther worse than he was by saying in the quote explored above that he wanted the Jews slain... this is presenting a contextual error. What the quote shows in its "full context" is that Luther presented an argument based on accepting unsubstantiated and slanderous rumors about the Jews.   

Luther: Tetzel Sold an Indulgence to a Man who Then Robbed Him?

I came across this tidbit over on the Catholic Answers Forum:

Wikipedia tells a story about a man who asked Tetzel if he could buy an indulgence for a future sin. He did so, and then “used” that indulgence to rob Tetzel dumb, deaf and blind. 

This little story presents a good opportunity to delve into Wikipedia: your source for everything one needs to know, even if it's wrong or perhaps just hearsay. Wiki attributes this story to... none other than... Martin Luther. They say it's "Luther's Impression" of  Johann Tetzel.  Here's what's currently posted on Wikipedia:

According to Luther, after Tetzel had received a substantial amount of money at Leipzig, a nobleman asked him if it were possible to receive a letter of indulgence for a future sin. Tetzel quickly answered in the affirmative, insisting that the payment had to be made at once. The nobleman did so and received thereupon letter and seal from Tetzel. When Tetzel left Leipzig the nobleman attacked him along the way, gave him a thorough beating, and sent him back empty-handed to Leipzig with the comment that it was the future sin which he had in mind. Duke George at first was quite furious about the incident, but when he heard the whole story, he let it go without punishing the nobleman.

This story serves as an example why Wikipedia should not be used as a primary reference. This is not a report "according to Luther" nor is it "Luther's impression" of Tetzel.  While Luther did make a number of comments about his adversary, this account is not Luther's. Further, the story is just that: a purported story of something that may have happened to Tetzel.

Documentation From Wikipedia and Plagiarism
At least at the time of the composing of this blog entry, Wikipedia gives no documentation. Wikipedia articles are composed by "volunteers" that "do not need to have any formal training." It's no wonder therefore that Wiki content appears and disappears as per the whims of these volunteers. Kudos to Wikipedia though for providing transparency as to how these covert Wiki articles are edited. In this instance, the paragraph under scrutiny was added November 26, 2015 to an already existing entry on Tetzel.  For this added story, the Wiki volunteer cited "Johann Tetzel" Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Edition" (without a volume or page number) as proof of the story's validity. This reference though is bogus (here is the page from the Encyclopedia). Three minutes later on the same day, Wiki then provided this reference:

Description of Incident Involving Tetzel, by Luther http://randy_horton.myteachersite.org/teacher/files/documents/ref%20primary%20sources%20-%20tetzel%20&%20indulgences.pdf Description of Incident Involving Tetzel, by Luther

This hyper-link was eventually edited down to, "Description of Incident Involving Tetzel, by Luther." On March 18, 2017, someone then added a PDF link page 745 of this this book to verify the story. This was fallacious as well: there is no page 745 in the book being cited. Even though a similar story is recounted on page 445,  on May 21, 2017 this PDF book link was removed, along with the original documentation-link "Description of Incident Involving Tetzel, by Luther." That's how the entry stands now: no documentation.

Wiki's original documentation, "Description of Incident Involving Tetzel, by Luther" was to a PDF link entitled, The Reformation, Primary Sources apparently put together by someone named "Randy Horton." The website hosting this PDF is My Teacher Site. Randy Horton  appears to be a teacher at UME Preparatory Academy (a K-12 school), using the "My Teacher" site to put up documents for young students. His Tetzel link has been up since at least Sept. 2015.  Horton provides the documentation, "Luthers Schriften, herausg. von Walch. XV, 446" (we'll look at  that reference later on). I suspect that Mr. Horton did not read Walch XV and then produce this English paragraph. The way a few of his quotes are laid out are very similar to this older web-page which says the English version of this Tetzel story is from Hans. J. Hillerbrand (ed.), The Reformation in its own Words (London, 1964). The story / quote can be found on pages 44-45, worded (with the same documentation) exactly as Mr. Horton's "My Teacher" web-page. The translation used by Wiki / Horton is Hillerbrand's. Horton can be excused; he's not looking to sell his material, he's a grade school teacher, probably using the material in a lecture. On the other hand, what irks me is that there are authors that have taken Hillerbrand's translation without crediting him for it while trying to sell their materials:

Michael Grzonka, Luther and His Times. This author obviously utilized Hillerbrand's translation, but tried to rewrite it to make it appear to be his own words. Certain phrases are exactly the same as Hillerbrand's, for instance, "...nobleman attacked him along the way...," "...gave him a thorough beating, and sent him back...".

Andreas Malessa, The Unreformed Martin Luther: A Serious (and Not So Serious) Look at the Man Behind the Myths, p. 27-28.

Eric Metaxas, Martin Luther: The Man Who Rediscovered God and Changed the World, p. 106. Not only does this author provide no documentation, he erroneously attributes this story to "a contemporary of Luther's named Myconius."

We'll see below that this story is not something Luther stated. Rather, it was a story recounted in an early version of Luther's works, and whoever at Wikipedia cut-and-pasted it simply assumed Luther said it. Their history of editing demonstrates something I've seen often in their articles: they make assertions, and then try to document those assertions. This is a backwards methodology demonstrating poor research skills.

Other English Sources
Leaving the land of Wikipedia for a moment, this Tetzel story has circulated for a long time. Various published versions of it are available. In Luther and His Times, the story is presented with some extra details sifted from Walch 15 mixed in with some sentences plagiarized from Hillerbrand:

Another version (a much older English version) can be found in Jean Henri Merle d'Aubigné's History of the Great Reformation, vol. 1:

A Saxon gentleman had heard Tetzel at Leipsic, and was much shocked by his impostures. He went to the monk, and inquired if he was authorised to pardon sins in intention, or such as the applicant intended to commit? "Assuredly," answered Tetzel; "I have full power from the Pope to do so." Well," returned the gentleman, "I want to take some slight revenge on one of my enemies, without attempting his life. I will pay you ten crowns, if you will give me a letter of indulgence that shall bear me harmless." Tetzel made some scruples; they struck their bargain for thirty crowns. Shortly after, the monk set out from Leipsic. The gentleman, attended by his servants, laid wait for him in a wood between Juterboch and Treblin, — fell upon him, gave him a beating, and carried off the rich chest of indulgence money the inquisitor had with him. Tetzel clamoured against this act of violence, and brought an action before the judges. But the gentleman showed the letter signed by Tetzel himself, which exempted him beforehand from all responsibility. Duke George, who had at first been much irritated at this action, upon seeing this writing, ordered that the accused should be acquitted. [Albinus Meissn. Chronik. L.W. (W.) xv. 446, (and) c. Hechitus in Vita Tezelli].

And finally, John Dowling's History of Romanism appears to have utilized d'Aubigné:

On another occasion a gentleman of Saxony had heard Tetzel at Leipsic, and was much shocked by his impostures. He went to the monk, and inquired if he was authorized to pardon sins in intention, or such as the applicant intended to commit ?" Assuredly," answered Tetzel; "I have full power from the Pope to do so."— "Well," returned the gentleman, "I want to take some slight revenge on one of my enemies, without attempting his life. I will pay you ten crowns, if you will give me a letter of indulgence that shall bear me harmless." Tetzel made some scruples; they struck their bargain for thirty crowns. Shortly after, the monk set out from Leipsic. The gentleman, attended by his servants, laid wait for him in a wood between Jaterboch and Treblin,—fell upon him, gave him a beating, and carried off the rich chest of indulgence money the inquisitor had with him. Tetzel clamored against this act of violence, and brought an action before the judges. But the gentlemen showed the letter signed by Tetzel himself, which exempted him beforehand from all responsibility. Duke George who had at first been much irritated at this action, upon seeing this writing, ordered that the accused should be acquitted.

Documentation
Mentioned above a number of times as the source has been the Walch edition of Luther's Works, 15:446. This volume contains more than just Luther's writings. It also includes early historical documents from the early Reformation period. The story in question is not a writing or saying of Luther's. It an historical account about Tetzel from these other historical sources. Here's the text from Walch, 15:446-

The Walch text here says that there are different versions of this story available, and included above are two of those versions. Walch also provides references to a number of historians mentioning this incident. The first  account (#96) is the version mentioned above by Jean Henri Merle d'Aubigné (Albinus Meissn. Chronik.). This refers to Petrus Albinus, Chronicles of Meissen [information on Albinus can be found here]. Meissnische Land-Chronika can be found here, and here is page 342 cited by Walch].  "Löscher's Ref-Acta, Vol. I, p.405" refers to Valentin Ernst Löscher's Vollständige Reformations-Acta und Documenta, oder umständliche Vorstellung des Evangelischen Reformations-Wercks, p.405. "Tentzels Hit. Bericht, Bd. I, S. 111" refers to Wilhelm Ernst Tentzel's Historischer Bericht vom Anfang und ersten Fortgang der Reformation Lutheri, p. 111.

The second account (#97) is the work of  Georgius Arnoldus (Georg Arnoldus), from his Vita Mauritii Electoris Saxoniae (Life of Maurice, Elector of Saxony) [Information on Arnoldus can be found here. Information on Maurice can be found here]. The Life of Maurice was also include in Mencken, Scripores Rerum Germanicarum tom II, p. 1151 (mentioned by Walch above). Also being cited by Walsh is Commentarius historicus et apologeticus de Lutheranismo, Volume 1 By Veit Ludwig von Seckendorf, p. 26.


Conclusion
All of this Wiki-produced-tedium should lead the honest inquirer to one simple conclusion: Wikipedia is not to be trusted as any sort of primary source. Simply take a look at the way the stories are presented above. The German versions are fairly straight forward. Some of the English versions above appear to be fleshing out the story for dramatic effect. As far as I can tell, the story functions more as hearsay than an actual historical happening. Sure, the account is within the realm of probability, but Albinus wrote his version in 1580, Arnoldus did his in 1569. Neither one was present to hear Tetzel preach on indulgences.

One thing is certain: Luther did not write this story. Wikipedia (or anyone else crediting it to him) never bothered to actually look it up in Walch 15. Those folks selling books using Hillerbrand's translation without crediting him, be they Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Atheists, etc... well, shame on them. For years I've caught Rome's defenders doing the same sort of thing: giving an English quote they've taken from a secondary source, and then attempting to pass themselves off as honest and meaningful by citing a German text. It doesn't prove anything except that actual research was not done.

Someone may well ask, why should I be trusted for the content just presented? To this I say "kudos to you." Go and do your own research.

Wikipedia's "John Calvin's views on Mary" (Part 3) Perpetual Virginity

I've been intrigued by the alleged "Mariology" of the Reformers for years because of the argumentation of Roman Catholic apologists. I recently came across Wikipedia's John Calvin's views on Mary entry. I didn't get far into the entry before I came across a few facts that appeared odd. I'm going to work through the entry, time allowing. Previous entries are as follows:

Wikipedia's "John Calvin's views on Mary" (Part 1)

Wikipedia's "John Calvin's views on Mary" (Part 2)

My guess is that this is someone's term paper, and they decided to post it on Wikipedia. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but in this instance it serves as reminder to be careful with the information found on Wikipedia. Rather than being an informative source of knowledge on Calvin, the entry serves as a reminder to check facts.

Here's another odd fact from the Wiki entry:

In the Genevan Catechism, Calvin writes of Mary that she gave birth to Jesus through the Holy Spirit without the participation of any man, and hence he held her to be a virgin during her pregnancy and rejects the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin, citing flexibility in the terms used.[4] Likewise, he argues that in Matthew 1:25 ("[Joseph] knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth her firstborn son") the term "firstborn" and the conjunction "till" certainly contradict the doctrine of perpetual virginity.[5]

Footnotes
[4] Calvin. "Commentary on Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3". Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 2. Retrieved 2009-01-07. "The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned."
[5] Calvin. "Commentary on Matthew 1:25". Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 1. Retrieved 2009-01-07. "Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation."

The Genevan Catechism appears to say something different than Mary "gave birth to Jesus through the Holy Spirit without the participation of any man, and hence he held her to be a virgin during her pregnancy and rejects the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin, citing flexibility in the terms used." I utilized a 1538 version. Perhaps the author of the Wiki article had a later revision?

The Catechism states:

He was born of the Virgin Mary that he might be recognized as the true son of Abraham and David, who had been promised in the Law and the Prophets; as the true man, like us in all things, save only sin, who having been tried by all our infirmities learned to bear with them. Yet that same one was conceived in the Virgin's womb by the wonderful and ineffable (to us) power of the Holy Spirit, that he might not be fouled by any physical corruption, but might be born sanctified with the highest purity.

The Catechism mentions the work of the Holy Spirit, but it doesn't explicitly say "without the participation of any man" nor does it explicitly say "he held her to be a virgin during her pregnancy." Certainly these statements are not contradictory to that expressed in the Catechism. It appears though whoever wrote this entry had some of Calvin's other comments in mind. This is best shown that in the Catechism, Calvin does not comment on his rejection of "the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin, citing flexibility in the terms used." Rather, the Wiki entry seems to be getting this from that cited in footnote #4, which is Calvin's comment on Matthew 13:55.

The notion that Calvin rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary "citing flexibility in the terms used" isn't quite correct. If one compares Calvin's comments on Matthew 13:55 with those on Matthew 1:25, Calvin's position is that the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards to Mary. Calvin calls it “folly” at one point, when describing those who wish to make a text say more than it does. Those who would make a necessary inference where the Gospel writer has only made a possible inference engage in folly (according to Calvin). In other words, he doesn't conclude if she was a perpetual virgin or not.

Similarly, the Wiki article states, "Likewise, he argues that in Matthew 1:25 ('[Joseph] knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth her firstborn son') the term 'firstborn' and the conjunction 'till' certainly contradict the doctrine of perpetual virginity," citing Calvin's comment on Matthew 1:25. Calvin's comment, "It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time" could be construed to deny the perpetual virginity of Mary, but, he clarifies his comment by saying that the Scriptures don't give us information as to what happened afterward. I certainly would enjoy a clear statement from Calvin rejecting perpetual virginity, but Calvin's comment here certainly isn't it.

What's also odd about the Wiki entry is that earlier it states, "Calvin shows a decidedly positive view of Mary, and he did not hold to a number of the Protestant views on her that became common after the Reformation." One would think that the author of this Wiki entry would have argued that Calvin held to the perpetual virginity of Mary (as many Roman Catholics do, citing the same evidence). The entry then presents some interesting comments from Calvin:

At the same time, Calvin argues that the claims that Mary took a vow of perpetual virginity in Luke 1:34 ("How shall this be, since I know not a man?") is "unfounded and altogether absurd," and moreover he says that, had she taken such a vow, "[s]he would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage...."[6] Although Algermissen suggests that Calvin believed that Mary in this verse looked into the future and recognized, that in light of this special grace, any contact with a man would be excluded for her,[7] this interpretation takes an objection Calvin is refuting in his commentary and makes it his own position.[8]

 Footnotes
 6) Calvin. "Commentary on Luke 1:34". Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke 1. Retrieved 2009-01-07. "The conjecture which some have drawn from these words ['How shall this be, since I know not a man?'], that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews."

7)Algermissen 6418) Calvin. "Commentary on Luke 1:34". Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke 1. Retrieved 2009-01-07. "We must reply, however, to another objection, that the virgin refers to the future, and so declares that she will have no intercourse with a man."

 Here again with these comments, one would be strongly tempted to say Calvin denied the perpetual virginity of Mary. One could probably read between the lines and conclude this. However, Calvin still doesn't come right out and say it. In fact, if one reads the context of that cited in footnote #8, it becomes apparent that the subject of perpetual virginity isn't to be considered, one way or the other, in Luke 1:34:

We must reply, however, to another objection, that the virgin refers to the future, and so declares that she will have no intercourse with a man. The probable and simple explanation is, that the greatness or rather majesty of the subject made so powerful an impression on the virgin, that all her senses were bound and locked up in astonishment. When she is informed that the Son of God will be born, she imagines something unusual, and for that reason leaves conjugal intercourse out of view. Hence she breaks out in amazement, How shall this be? And so God graciously forgives her, and replies kindly and gently by the angel, because, in a devout and serious manner, and with admiration of a divine work, she had inquired how that would be, which, she was convinced, went beyond the common and ordinary course of nature. In a word, this question was not so contrary to faith, because it arose rather from admiration than from distrust.   

One thing is quite certain from Calvin's comments on Mary and perpetual virginity. Those Roman apologists that think Calvin held to the perpetual virginity of Mary haven't read these comments from Calvin closely.  One typical argument is the appeal to authority: that certain Calvin scholars say Calvin believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. Certainly the opinions of scholars are helpful, but this appears to me to be the same sort of situation that occurred when Rome's defenders try to argue Luther had a lifelong commitment to the immaculate conception. The evidence that the scholars use must be evaluated.  

Wikipedia's "John Calvin's views on Mary" (Part 2)

This is an installment of  "Be Careful What You Find on Wikipedia."

I've been intrigued by the alleged "Mariology" of the Reformers for years because of the argumentation of Roman Catholic apologists. While searching around the other day, I came across Wikipedia's John Calvin's views on Mary entry. I didn't get far into the entry before I came across facts that appeared odd. I'm going to work through the entry, time allowing.

Here's another odd fact:

Regarding Marian relics, Calvin commented in an ironical way that since the Roman Catholics believed in the Assumption of Mary, at least nobody can claim to have Marian relics, otherwise there would be so many Marian bones in circulation, that a huge new cemetery could be filled with them.[3][3]Algermissen 1988, 641
Konrad Algermissen, John Calvin, in Marienlexikon, Regensburg, 1988 (quoted as Algermissen 1988)

Go ahead and try to search out the author "Algermissen" and the referenced work "Marienlexikon." It's not an easy find. The reference appears to be to a six-volume  Marian encyclopedia by Remigius Bäumer in which Algermissen provided an entry on Calvin. The "1988" refers to the first volume.

While I wasn't able to get a copy of this source, the Calvin quote cited by Wiki appears to be from Calvin's treatise on Relics:

The Blessed Virgin.—The belief that the body of the Virgin was not interred on earth, but was taken to heaven, has deprived them of all pretext for manufacturing any relics of her remains, which otherwise might have been sufficiently abundant to fill a whole churchyard; yet in order to have at least something belonging to her, they sought to indemnify themselves for the absence of other relics with the possession of her hair and her milk. The hair is shown in several churches at Rome, and at Salvatierra in Spain, at Maçon, St Flour, Cluny, Nevers, and in many other towns. With regard to the milk, there is not perhaps a town, a convent, or nunnery, where it is not shown in large or small quantities. Indeed, had the Virgin been a wet-nurse her whole life, or a dairy, she could not have produced more than is shown as hers in various parts. How they obtained all this milk they do not say, and it is superfluous here to remark that there is no foundation in the Gospels for these foolish and blasphemous extravagances.

If this is  the quote the Wiki article has in mind, the citation they use is a very loose paraphrase of what Calvin actually wrote.

Wikipedia's "John Calvin's views on Mary" (Part 1)

This is an installment of  "Be Careful What You Find on Wikipedia."

I've been intrigued by the alleged "Mariology" of the Reformers for years because of the argumentation of Roman Catholic apologists. While searching around the other day, I came across Wikipedia's John Calvin's views on Mary entry. I didn't get far into the entry before I came across a few facts that appeared odd. I'm going to work through the entry, time allowing.

One of the first oddities of this entry is that it states early on, "Calvin shows a decidedly positive view of Mary, and he did not hold to a number of the Protestant views on her that became common after the Reformation." It shortly thereafter states, "The criticism of Calvin on the Catholic Church in general and in regard to Mary in particular, is severe." The entry then states:

To Calvin, Mary is an idol in the Roman Church, and she diminishes the centrality and importance of Jesus. Hence, his Genevan Catechism not only outlawed Marian veneration, it also punished related behavior, such as carrying a rosary, observing a saints day, or possessing holy relics.[2]

Certainly this type of punishment is consistent with the reforms put forth in Geneva in the 16th Century.  However, note what the Wiki article asserts: Calvin's Genevan Catechism outlawed and punished Marian devotion. Now that's interesting, isn't it? A catechism that outlaws Marian devotion and sets forth punishment.

The [2] in the Wiki entry refers to Will Durant's volume on the Reformation, p. 469. Here's what Durant states:

"To restore the religious basis of an effective morality, Farel issued a Confession of Faith and Discipline, and Calvin a popular Catechism,  which the Great Council approved (Novembver 1536). Citizens persistently transgressing the moral code were to be excommunicated and exiled. In July 1537, the Council ordered all citizens to go to the church of St. Peter and swear allegiance to Farel's Confession. Any manifestation of Catholicism- such as carrying a rosary, cherishing a sacred relic, or observing a saint's day as holy- was subject to punishment." 

Now I appreciate that the Wiki entry provided a reference, but if you compare what their entry says to what Durant says, it's two different things. The 1536 Confession of Faith can be found here. It doesn't have anything even remotely similar to what the Wiki article asserts. The closest you'll get to Wiki's assertions are the following:

XIX. Excommunication Because there are always some who hold God and his Word in contempt, who take account of neither injunction, exhortation nor remonstrance, thus requiring greater chastisement, we hold the discipline of excommunication to be a thing holy and salutary among the faithful, since truly it was instituted by our Lord with good reason. This is in order that the wicked would not by their damnable conduct corrupt the good and dishonor our Lord, and that though proud they may turn to penitence. Therefore we believe that it is expedient according to the ordinance of God that all manifest idolaters, blasphemers, murderers, thieves, lewd persons, false witnesses, sedition-mongers, quarrellers, those guilty of defamation or assault, drukards, dissolute livers, when they have been duly admonished and if they do not make amendment, be separated from the communion of the faithful until their repentance is known.

XXI. Magistrates  We hold the supremacy and dominion of kings and princes as also of other magistrates and officers, to be a holy thing and a good ordinance of God. And since in performing their office they serve God and follow a Christian vocation, whether in defending the afflicted and innocent, or in correcting and punishing the malice of the perverse, we on our part also ought to accord them honour and reverence, to render respect and subservience, to execute their commands, to bear the charges they impose on us, so far as we are able without offence to God. In sum, we ought to regard them as vicars and lieutenants of God, whom one cannot resist without resisting God himself; and their office as a sacred commission from God which has been given them so that they may rule and govern us. Hence we hold that all Christians are bound to pray God for the prosperity of the superiors and lords of the country where they live, to obey the statutes and ordinances which do not contravene the commandments of God, to promote the welfare, peace and public good, endeavouring to sustain the honour of those over them and the peace of the people, without contriving or attempting anything to inspire trouble or dissension. On the other hand we declare that all those who conduct themselves unfaithfully towards their superiors, and have not a right concern for the public good of the country where they live, demonstrate thereby their infidelity towards God.