John Calvin did practice a form of textual criticism

John Calvin did practice a form of textual criticism, though it wasn't the systematic discipline we'd call "textual criticism" today (comparing manuscript variants to establish a critical text). It was something more like a critical, source-oriented method of interpretation. 

1. He treated no single version as final authority

The article is explicit that Calvin's approach wasn't "original languages versus Latin" as a simple binary. He:

• Worked directly from Hebrew and Greek
• Knew the Vulgate well but was willing to improve on it where he thought it was weak or obscure
• Also used other Latin versions
• Revised the French Olivétan Bible rather than treating any existing translation as untouchable

This willingness to judge and correct existing versions against the source text is itself a critical posture — he wasn't simply receiving tradition, he was evaluating it.

2. His classroom/commentary method was textually disciplined

Calvin had a specific procedure: the passage was read in Hebrew or Greek, translated into Latin, and only then expounded. This sequence matters — exposition came after establishing the text itself, not before. That's the humanist ideal names directly: recovering what the author actually wrote and meant, rather than starting from inherited paraphrase or allegory.

3. He weighed grammar, syntax, context, and history

Calvin constantly weighing grammar, syntax, context, and history, and treating other ancient and contemporary authorities as aids rather than final judges over Scripture. His method was "text-first, but not text-isolated" — meaning he brought in external scholarship and philology, but the text itself governed the conclusions, not the reverse.

4. He judged versions by closeness to the source

His overall stance as: he preferred original languages for interpretation, valued translation for the church's sake, and judged all versions by their closeness to the source text. That's a critical standard, not a devotional or purely traditional one — it treats fidelity to the earliest recoverable text as the measuring stick.

5. Restraint as part of the critical method

Interestingly, his omission of Revelation (and 2–3 John) to the same critical instinct rather than a separate issue. It argues Calvin preferred no commentary to a speculative one — that where the text's controls (grammatical, historical) were harder to secure, he declined to comment rather than force a reading. This is an evidence of the same discipline, applied as restraint rather than production.

Calvin was not merely "text-driven" but "source-driven and pastorally selective" — wanting Scripture in its best available textual form, but only commenting where he believed the text could be handled with solid, responsible exegesis.