Why did Calvin call Baruch a prophet?

[Mr. Bultitude]

Calvin, commenting on 1 Corinthians 10:20 ("The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils"), says:

It is certain from the Prophet Baruch, (4:7,) that those things that are sacrificed to idols are sacrificed to devils (Deuteronomy 32:17; Psalm 96:5.) In that passage in the writings of the Prophet, the Greek translation, which was at that time in common use, has δαιμόνια — demons, and this is its common use in Scripture. How much more likely is it then, that Paul borrowed what he says from the Prophet, to express the enormity of the evil, than that, speaking after the manner of the heathen, he extenuated what he was desirous to hold up to utter execration!

Here's his citation from Baruch 4:7:

For you provoked your Maker with sacrifices to demons and not to God.

So, why did Calvin refer to Baruch as a prophet, given that Baruch is never called a prophet in Scripture, and given that the book attributed to him is probably not his own work?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

He applies the same in his Institutes. I think it is just a recognition of the historical view and not implying anything more.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Is it wrong for Calvin to simply refer to the man by his common attribution? I think not.

Scholarship of his day may have treated such a piece of writing as reliable attribution, in the absence of any reasonable alternative. Is Calvin required to be skeptical? I think not.

Is the sense of the word "prophet" necessarily a man of inspiration, meaning "inspired man?" The biblical Baruch was amanuensis to Jeremiah, making him one associated with the prophets. That Baruch was probably considered a faithful preacher, if he simply disseminated the Word of God what came to Jeremiah.

The roles of prophet and preacher are somewhat blurred in Scripture, since the OT prophets knew the Law, and had to compare their revelations to the former (acknowledged) prophets, and speak "according to that Word." 1&2Kings record the existence of a school of sorts for prophets, "the sons of the prophets." Surely, they did not need instruction in "how to make yourself a divine antenna." But rather, chiefly to be educated in the present body of revelation.

NT prophets were required in the church, since the apostles could not be everywhere at once, and the NT was not compiled, completely inscripturated, and deposited with the church for a full generation. Such prophets would almost certainly have been the earliest local preachers, not simply seers or oracles.

Finally, This all assumes Paul quotes Baruch, and not Moses (to which Baruch probably himself alludes), "They sacrificed unto devils, not to God;" Dt.32:17. It is not harmful for Calvin to credit this other writing (which he merely calls by its name) with reiterating an inspired truth.