Review of Balthasar Hubmaier and the Clarity of Scripture: A Critical Reformation Issue, Graeme Ross Chatfield

Chatfield, Graeme R. Balthasar Hubmaier and the Clarity of Scripture: A Critical Reformation Issue. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2013.[1]

     Seeing a need for an exhaustive account of Anabaptist hermeneutical method, Graeme Chatfield contributes with an account Balthasar Hübmaier’s interpretation of Scripture. Only the third chapter is updated from the original dissertation out of which this came. That chapter is worth the price of the book itself. In it, Chatfield gives an extensive review of the scholarship on Hübmaier that I would recommend as a brief handbook to Hübmaier studies for both the beginning student and seasoned reader alike. He identifies the different confessional attitudes from which researchers come and places their interpretations within the streams of broader Radical Reformation studies along with the currents within Hübmaier studies itself. This is especially helpful following the surge of interest in Hübmaier over the last quarter century and more so in the last decade.

     The bulk of the book is a work-by-work investigation that treats every source by the same formula. Chatfield begins with an introductory section for each work detailing matters of provenance, then an analysis that reviews the work on its own terms. The third area treating each work gets to Chatfield’s primary subject matter, looking at how Hübmaier uses Scripture in the work. Here the author relies largely on statistical data, counting references to biblical passages, both cited and implicit, to determine Hübmaier’s preferences for certain passages in relation to different debates, certain books as more important to the development of Hübmaier’s thought and even weighing Hübmaier’s balance between the two testaments and the Apocrypha. Here Chatfield sometimes places Hübmaier’s use of certain verses against contemporaries, notably Zwingli and Erasmus, but he pays less attention to the historical interpretations predating the Reformation era that may have shaped Hübmaier’s usage. Chatfield then distills this information into a summary section that reviews how the information analyzed impacts our understanding of Hübmaier’s hermeneutical method. Of that method Chatfield has derived five different time periods through Hübmaier’s biography that each have certain hermeneutical emphases.

     While the third chapter is up-to-date, thus overtaking my previous favorite guide to Hübmaier research, an extended preface to Pipkin’s Scholar, Pastor Martyr, those updates do not reach into the rest of the chapters, even where little details could easily been tweaked and re-footnoted. However, I could not identify any points at which these details would have affected Chatfield’s conclusions in any significant way. Nonetheless, one must remember that this then is veritably a twenty-year-old book despite the publication date.[2] The biggest relevant advancements have been in our understanding of Hübmaier’s interaction with the patristic literature, which might have little bearing on Hübmaier’s use of Scripture but may carry more import onto his hermeneutic.

     The conclusions about Hübmaier’s hermeneutics are generally not surprising. Hübmaier’s consistent application sola fide, insistence on the clarity of Scripture to all without necessitating a knowledge of the biblical languages, and preference for the New Testament, though not as strong as the Swiss Brethren’s in all subjects, are primary. The most notable exception is Chatfield’s conclusion that Hübmaier had early on held toward a congregational hermeneutic whereby the authority of interpreting Scripture rested in the whole congregation, laity included, and the pastor or trained scholar served merely as an informed but not pontifical guide. Chatfield sees in Hübmaier a turn toward a more authoritarian hermeneutic, granting the pastors the scepter of interpretation to which the congregation must submit. This turn aligns closely with Hübmaier’s arrival in Nikolsburg at which time his writing was less concerned with polemics against Zwingli and more with instruction the Nikolsburg church. Chatfield’s description of this shift toward a more “magisterial” type of understanding implies that it coincided with the authority Hübmaier had there, as exercised in the controversy with Hut. This ignores that even though Hübmaier was a city reformer as had Zwingli in Zurich, Hübmaier had already been the city reformer in Waldshut; yet Waldshut is where Hübmaier articulated his congregational hermeneutic.[3] It seems more likely that the shift is an artifact of the different audience to which Hübmaier wrote. Hübmaier’s early work was mostly directed toward other reformers, who took the more authoritarian view of pastors and scholars as interpreters of Scripture. To them Hübmaier needed to assert that the congregation is not to be left out while at the same time diminishing the role of the “authorized” interpreters for those who would over exalt it. Meanwhile, when Hübmaier would write primarily to the congregations later in his life, he would need to remind the congregations, assuming that they were competent to make judgments concerning Scripture, that the pastors still served as important advisors. So, to those who would demand authorized interpreters only Hübmaier needed to stress the interpretive competence of the laity and to those who were the empowered congregations Hübmaier needed to stress the value of a learned pastor.

     That aside, this book serves as a handy companion to reading Hübmaier’s writing; Chatfield’s work-by-work organization facilitates that quite nicely. Admittedly, I took a chance on this book. I was cautious about Pickwick but I thought I would enjoy the bringing out a book that has not gotten much attention. It should serve me well as a reference as I unavoidably encounter Hübmaier’s writings in the future.

---

[1]Published by James Clarke in England.

[2]The dissertation was completed in 1992.

[3]Granted, Waldshut was still in Zurich’s shadow as a regional center across the Rhine and Nikolsburg would have afforded Hübmaier greater autonomy from more influential reformers.

Review of Neither Mystic nor Muentzerite: The Conversational Theology of Hans Denck, by Ralf Schowalter.

Schowalter, Ralf. “Neither Mystic nor Muentzerite: The Conversational Theology of Hans Denck.” Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2012.

I had earlier written on Schowalter’s research on Denck as it had been presented as a conference paper last January.[1] I had made the assumption, correctly it turns out, that it was a preview of his dissertation, to which I was looking forward to reading. Summarily, my response was that I wanted to go along with him but wasn’t entirely convinced. After reading the dissertation, I’m a bit shifted on my view

To review the work essentially seeks to correct a tradition of scholarship that had placed the origins of Denck’s thought in the Mystical and Müntzerite traditions. Werner Packull rises to the top of the list of Scholars with whom Schowalter most frequently interacts. Packull had importantly placed Denck within the mystical camp.[2] In doing so, Denck would serve the polygenesis model that would distinguish his South German origins from the Swiss counterparts.

Along with denying Packull’s claim for a mystical, vis-a-vis non-Swiss Brethren, foundation for Denck’s thought, Schowalter also rejected Packull’s severance of the tie of baptism of Denck by Hübmaier (58). Schowalter handles this quite critically, pointing out, more sympathetically in the footnotes than in the body, while there is no direct evidence that that baptism took place, there also is no evidence it didn’t.[3] Schowalter sought the circumstantial evidence to point to the time of Denck’s contact with Hübmaier as the time of change from humanist schoolteacher to Anabaptist evangelist.[4]

I will here take the time to note that Schowalter does not entirely disagree with Packull. On the matter of Denck’s putative universalism, a topic on which I have done some research, Schowalter sides with Packull in the assessment that Denck indeed taught the doctrine. For Denck, the salvation of all was concluded from his insistence that all things work out for the glory of God (250).

Schowalter’s work at attempting to cut ties from Denck with a supposedly Mystical and Müntzerite background was covered in the previous article, so I will not detail it here. What I will say is that I believe he is correct in his conclusion. The question this then leaves is to what Denck was indebted for theological enrichment. It is at this point that Schowalter turned to the schema of conversational theology as developed by Malcolm Yarnell. I had initial misgivings about anachronistically transposing a twenty-first century theological construct onto a sixteenth-century theologian, but there is a key difference, it seems. Whereas the mystical and Müntzerite traditions regard the content of theology, conversational theology regards more of a methodology. To simplify, conversational theology describes the process by which one does not do theology in isolation but rather instead has conversation partners, both internally and externally to one’s own situation, by which one develops theological content. By investigating Denck’s theological conversation, Schowalter comes to the conclusion that Denck’s primary conversation partners were not the mystics or Müntzer but rather Reformation contemporaries, none more primary than Anabaptists from the Swiss influence.

The implications of this on polygenetic historiography are clear, although it does not appear to be Schowalter’s purpose to tackle the broader interpretational paradigm of Anabaptist origins. These implications are not lost on Schowalter, however, claiming, “. . . the origins of the South German Anabaptist movement cannot be seen in complete isolation from the Swiss, even Zurich, Anabaptists” (57). Similarly, using the language from the polygenesis article, “‘. . . a single successio Anabaptistica, which certainly ran through Zurich’ can no longer be dismissed as ‘an unexamined assumption which simply does not bear rigorous examination’” (242). While Schowalter concludes correctly, it is important to note that the softening of the polygenesis model has long been taking place with the authors of the model at the helm themselves. As Gerald Mast observed recently, “Polygenesis historians themselves acknowledged that they had perhaps overstated the autonomy of various regional Anabaptist movements.”[5] Almost a decade before Yarnell’s publication including conversational theology, Hans-Jürgen Goertz anticipated the method regarding Grebel’s letters to Müntzer. His conclusion is indicative of much of the interaction between different Anabaptist groups in explanation of their continuity and discontinuity, writing that the letters were “. . . a conversation, not a settlement of accounts, a conversation that does not confront one side with the other’s programme and practically hoist it on him, but instead engages the other, takes up his problems, proposes solutions and with him seeks clarity in the adverse, desolate situation of the individual’s task of reform.”[6]

---

[1]http://wederdooper.blogspot.com/2012/01/saving-denck.html.

[2]Mysticism and the Early South German-Austrian Anabaptist Movement, Studies in Anabaptist and Mennonite History, no. 19 (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1977). Although this works comes after the publication of the polygenesis paper, the dissertation from which this monograph was republished was completed before, along with Packull’s severing of the tie of baptism between Hübmaier and Denck (see below). Also, James Stayer, co-author of the polygenesis paper, was Packull’s doktorvater, so the ideas were already well in play.

[3]Packull wrote in very qualified terms, saying that what had been treated as a “closed question is still an unresolved issue,” and that the polygenetic ramifications were “possibilities” and a “more plausible hypothesis.” “Denck’s Alleged Baptism by Hubmaier: Its Significance for the Origin of South German-Austrian Anabaptism,” MQR 47, no. 4 (Oct. 1973): 338.

[4]I would personally hold back a little to make clear that even if Hübmaier’s were not the hands on the ladle poured over Denck’s head, Denck’s change seems to have happened within Hübmaier’s sphere of influence if even there was a physical baptism, which is most likely. The presence of Hübmaier as a “conversation partner” must be taken seriously and with near certainty if not through indirect means.

[5]Gerald Bieseker-Mast, “The Persistence of Anabaptism as Vision,” MQR 81, no. 1 (Jan. 2007): 36.

[6]“‘A Common Future Conversation’: A Revisionist Interpretation of the September 1524 Grebel Letters to Thomas Muntzer,” In Radical Reformation Studies: Essays Presented to James M. Stayer, eds. Werner O. Packull and Geoffer Luke Dipple, ch. 5, St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History (Aldershot, England and Brookfield, Vermont: Ashgate, 1999), 87.

Review of Reformers, Radicals, Revolutionaries: Anabaptism in the Context of the Reformation Conflict, by Abraham Friesen

Friesen, Abraham. Reformers, Radicals, Revolutionaries: Anabaptism in the Context of the Reformation Conflict. Elkhart, Indiana: Institute of Mennonite Studies, 2012.

It has been quite some time since my last post, mainly because I have been focusing on a project that I can hopefully announce soon. A side effect of working on that project is that it has cut down on the time I have had for reading. So, I’ve been trying to work some reading in lately. This is my latest read in addition to finally going back to finishing Furcha’s translations of some Karlstadt pamphlets.

Friesen’s offering here stems from a series of lectures given at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in early 2009. It is through those lectures that I first encountered the content of the book, which contains additional material. I had gained a lot of direction from those lectures early in my studies on Anabaptism. Most importantly among those lectures’ influence was the concern for the parable of the wheat and the tares of Matthew 13, the Augustinian interpretation of which Friesen refers to as a “common theme” to the book (2). My interest in the parable culminated in investigating not only the reinterpretation of the field as the church, which Christ had instead interpreted as the world, but also in looking for a textual justification for Augustine having applied the same verb, exradico, to both the wheat and the tares. That debate aside, through Friesen’s influence on this matter, I became keenly aware that, in the same way that historical theology is a prior act to developing systematic theologies, the history of biblical interpretation should serve as a prior act to historical theology. So, just as historical theology and the development of doctrine are relatively new fields of study within Christian history, only over the last 150 years or so, I see the history of biblical interpretation as a necessary discipline.

One other area of influence that colored my early studies on Anabaptism was Friesen’s occasional turn to continuing the Reformation conflict into today. Friesen’s Mennonite parity is clear as he from time to time inserts himself into the Reformation conflict as though he were a contemporary opponent to the sixteenth-century Reformers. I can’t even say yet that I have completely shaken the tendency engage the study as though the centuries old debates were raging anew.

Friesen brings into the work his decades of research with his central contention of the Erasmian influence being determinative for the formation of Anabaptism being a rope woven throughout. The first chapter, the lengthiest, narrates Luther’s early affinity for and later disavowal of Erasmus on account of the latter’s neglect of using the Augustinian law/gospel dichotomy in interpreting Romans (38). Since Erasmus did not publish on the Matthean account of the Great Commission and the apostolic practice of baptism as recorded in Acts until after this split, Luther ignored the humanists teachings on the matter. In Friesen’s judgment, the Anabaptists were the ones who picked up faithfully on Erasmus baptismal studies where Luther had left off.

This continuity between the earliest leanings of the reformers and the program of the Anabaptists comes back in Friesen’s third chapter regarding the relation between the early writings of the Reformers and the origins of Anabaptism. Friesen begins that section by noting the Simple Confession of 1585, in which the author asserts that they would happily abide by the teachings of the state-sponsored reformers if only by those reformer’s earliest writings (115). If the reformers had moderated themselves on the issues that the Anabaptists saw as central to a thorough reformation, the question must be asked of what sparked the moderating efforts of the reformers.

The answer to that question forms the bulk of the other parts of the books. The second chapter deals with the tension between the universality and the purity of the church. The Anabaptists wanted to continue the effort to purify the church, which would mean excluding the unregenerate members of society from Christian fellowship. The reformers on the other hand had chosen universality in accordance to Augustine’s interpretation of the parable of the wheat and the tares, which Augustine took to mean that the unregenerate should be tolerated within the church until the last times.

            At those last time was to be a separation, but how that was to come about was questioned in the sixteenth century. Whereas many scholars viewed some of the revolutionary excesses of many Radicals such as Thomas Müntzer and the Anabaptists at Münster as the natural byproduct of apocalypticism that viewed itself as living at the end of days, Friesen argued that apocalypticism was shared not only by the revolutionaries and the pacifist Anabaptists (whom other have argued would have taken the revolutionary course if given the opportunity) but also by Luther himself (187). While Luther and Müntzer agreed on the Augustinian interpretation of the parable and that the end of days was at hand, the difference was that Luther interpreted the reaping of the tares as occurring without human hands. The Anabaptists, however, rejected the interpretation that tares are to be tolerated within the church (188). Rather, they were to be tolerated in the world, thus abnegating temporal revolution.

            Friesen also overviews his future work as another reason for the moderation of the reformers. The Nuremberg edict of 1523 set as imperial law Prince Frederick’s policy of reform that paced Luther’s and other Wittenberg faculty’s innovations (139ff.). True doctrine could be preached but any actual alterations to ecclesial structure and ordinance would have to wait until a general council of the church would decide the matter. The Anabaptists, then, were in Friesen’s contention not content to wait for the true gospel to be manifested in the church order but rather insisted that changes be made immediately. I look forward to the publication of this research in its entirety.

            This leads to Friesen’s final topic, Mennonite distinctives, which Friesen accepts as an “unhappy choice” of terminology (196) since it extracts those distinctives from the core of the Anabaptist understanding of the faith and sets them at the periphery. Friesen ubiquitously agrees that the Anabaptists were consistent with the reformers on the major points of doctrine, as evidenced by Schleitheim not forwarding them as points of contention (208). Nevertheless, those articles did not merely outline preferences of adiaphora but rather pronounced the very nature of the true, pure church.

            Friesen’s scholarship, typified here, is characteristically independent. He is firmly sourced in the primary literature and often gives the impression of not being too concerned with what else is going on in Anabaptist research. This is not to say that he is unaware of or unconcerned with it but that the various streams of Anabaptist research do not direct his research. He is asking different questions. He has his own interpretive paradigm, central to which is the Erasmian influence. He takes his own approach to the primary sources that feels no need to encamp itself with any of the established interpretive schema. While everyone else has been doing great spade work in the valley, Friesen has been building his own mountain. They may not be on that mountain but they will certainly fall under its shadow.

What to Do with Balthasar Hübmaier: or, A Review Essay of A Central European Synthesis of Radical and Magisterial Reform: The Sacramental Theology of Balthasar Hubmaier, by Kirk R. MacGregor.

MacGregor, Kirk R. A Central European Synthesis of Radical and Magisterial Reform: The Sacramental Theology of Balthasar Hubmaier. New York: University Press of America, 2006.

This publication of Kirk MacGregor’s dissertation is an ironic piece. After a renewal of Hübmaier studies following John Howard Yoder and H. Wayne Pipkin’s translation of Hübmaier’s works,[1] MacGregor presents perhaps the most comprehensively biographical work since Torsten Bergsten.[2] Yet at the same time he did not rely on the Yoder and Pipkin translation, instead working independently from Hübmaier’s sources in order to include pre-Anabaptist works not included in Yoder and Pipkin. While MacGregor did not attain to write a biography, the schema in which he presents Hübmaier’s sacramental theology yields some challenges to the traditional understanding of Hübmaier’s thought and life and of the origin of Anabaptism.

The most important of MacGregor’s claims are the identification of Hübmaier as a sacramentalist rather than a sacramentarian, the relative independence of Hübmaier’s reforming efforts with a starting point in Luther rather than Zwingli, an understanding of Hübmaier as primarily Lutheran instead of Anabaptist, and the prior date of Hübmaier’s practice of believers’ baptism before the institution of the practice by the Grebel circle. The sacramental, and thus not typically-Anabaptist sacramentarian, thought of Hübmaier is Macgregor’s central focus. I will not address it at length here since review of that matter is beyond my prowess. The “grace-conveying” (25) sense of the sacraments and the attendant matters of Hübmaier’s literary dependence on Bernard of Clairvaux,[3] ex opere operato, purgatory, and baptismal regeneration are argued for with varying degrees of persuasion, but I will primarily focus on two conclusions–dating the first modern-era believers’ baptisms to Hübmaier’s Waldshut in 1523, two years before the act by the Grebel circle in Zürich, and the placement of Hübmaier closer to Lutheran reform that to radical Zwinglian reform.

MacGregor concluded, “Balthasar Hubmaier, not at all representative of the Anabaptist movement or even any sect therein, was actually the initiator of sixteenth-century believers’ baptism, which is shown to have transpired at Waldshut by January 1523 and probably sometime in 1521” (108). Macgregor reviewed the well-known practice of infant dedication to replace infant baptism (105). Relying on the Eighteen Theses concerning the Christian Life from before 1525,[4] Macgregor quotes Hübmaier’s thesis concerning the accountability to the congregation on account of each believer being “baptized for himself” (106). Macgregor then quotes an explanatory remark containing the maxim Hübmaier used commonly in later writings, that infant baptism is no baptism.[5] This remark would take a suggestion of believer’s baptism–since if infant baptism were considered to be true then the thesis would still hold–to a more definite indication that Hübmaier saw believers’ baptism as the correct option.

One must not forget, however, that this statement is found in a disputation thesis, which outlines ideas for discussion, and not a description of actual practice, such as Hübmaier’s later A Form of Christian Baptism. At most this statement records Hübmaier’s desire to institute believers’ baptism but not necessarily the institution of its actual practice. Writing on the same desire among the Grebel circle, Kenneth Ronald Davis wrote, “To reject infant baptism did not make one an Anabaptist [read “rebaptizer”], not in 1524.”[6] Just because the rejection of infant baptism did not necessarily yield the practice of rebaptism among the Zürich radicals 1524 does not mean that this could not have been the case for Hübmaier in 1523–the central difference was that Hübmaier was the official reformer of his town while the soon-to-be Anabaptists had no official authority in theirs.

For Hübmaier the desire for believers’ baptism would have had greater sway toward the actual practice than for the radical Zwinglians, but even official reformers did not always get their way. MacGregor himself referenced Calvin’s belief that the Eucharist should be practiced weekly but the civil government prevented the practice (202). Nevertheless, MacGregor noted that Hübmaier’s reforms were not opposed while in Regensburg before returning solely to Waldshut (110). Perhaps then the reason Hübmaier received “no known complaint” for desisting from infant baptism and implementing believers’ baptism was not because the council had taken his side on the issue, as MacGregor concluded, but rather because he had not taken the definitive action of putting his controversial ecclesiology into practice.

Hübmaier had rejected the invitation to accept believers’ baptism alongside visiting Anabaptists in February of 1525 (121). In MacGregor’s reconstruction Hübmaier’s rejection was due to his Bernardian disposition that equated his ordination with a second baptism. Not until the notably anti-clerical Wilhelm Reublin met with Hübmaier a few months later did Hübmaier reject his own clerical ordination and that of his fellow priests to accept baptism, thus rejecting the equivocation with ordination (122). MacGregor was attempting to explain why Hübmaier waited to have himself and his fellow priests baptized whereas the traditional historiography has them as the first baptized among the denizens of Waldshut. Within the framework of the traditional narrative this delay might be explained by the controversial nature of believers’ baptism. It may have taken Hübmaier a second exposure by Reublin to convince him since Reublin was a more energetic character, among the first to cease baptizing infant among the dissenters in the villages south of Zürich. Hübmaier’s delay in accepting baptism would thus not be a result of a reinterpretation of his Bernardian disposition that ordination served the role of baptism but rather that he had been convinced to take the final step of breaking with the pace-setting of the magisterium in reforming ecclesiastical practices.

MacGregor’s narrative fits the available sources but had Hübmaier been the first among the reformers to institute believers’ baptism the records would likely indicate the normally vocal opposition. The traditional historiography on this point seems more fitting while MacGregor’s relies on uncomfortable conjecture upon the available evidence.

The other conclusion with which I will contend is that Hübmaier was more aligned with Luther’s reforming efforts than with those of the Anabaptists or even of Zwingli. MacGregor’s analysis of Hübmaier’s early theological inspiration from Luther stands on solid ground. Then Hübmaier apparently broke from Luther over the issues of the freedom of the will and infant baptism in1523 (110ff.). Yet with the arrival of the Zürich Anabaptists, MacGregor contends that Hübmaier did not align himself with their cause but rather continued to see himself as part of Luther’s program, even if he took a different track within Lutheran Evangelicalism.

Two quotations MacGregor offered from after the 1523 split are to illustrate Hübmaier’s continued identification with Luther, but these quotations do not necessarily confirm MacGregor’s claim. The first is from the Nikolsburg work, On Fraternal Admonition. MacGregor quotes it, “we all want to be Christians and good Lutherans” (35). MacGregor then provides the original German, “wir all wöllen Christen vnd gůtt Euangelisch.” Granted that there was a large overlap in the usage of “Evangelical” and “Lutheran,” especially from Catholics, this does not mean that Hübmaier had in mind to equate the two terms and more likely used the broader term as inclusive of not only Luther’s reforms but also Zwingli’s and his own.

Moreover, if the equivocation of “Euangelisch” and “Lutheran” held, the broader context of the quote does not support that the Nikolsburg community under Hübmaier’s pastorate had identified themselves with Luther’s reforms. The broader passage reads, “For we all want to be Christians and good Protestants [Euangelisch] by taking wives and eating meat, no longer sacrificing, no more fasting, no more praying, yet apart from this one sees nothing but tippling, gluttony, blaspheming, [etc.].”[7] Shortly afterward, Hübmaier wrote that to be a “good evangelical” was to know how to use Scripture as a cover for licentiousness.[8] Hübmaier’s point was not to identify himself with Luther’s reforms but rather to point to the moral poverty of the Evangelical teaching of freedom in the gospel that reigned where fraternal admonition was not practiced, as it had been absent in Luther’s reformation. Hübmaier was condemning Evangelical reforms as gladly accepting the moral changes that were convenient but not subjecting itself to the higher moral calling of the Scriptures when that calling proved inconvenient.

At another place Macgregor also quotes Hübmaier as continuing to freely use the “‘Lutheran’ moniker” (114). “detractors accuse me publicly to be the most evil of all Lutheran Archheretics, . . .” The weight of the labels applied to Hübmaier by his opponents deserve scrutiny, particularly when Hübmaier immediately describes those detractors as never having heard him or attempted to instruct him.[9] Shortly after, Hübmaier described in veiled terms his frustration with Zwingli who did attempt to instruct him. Hübmaier seemed to have had his Catholic and not his Reformed opponents in mind as the “detractors.”

Nevertheless, even if MacGregor went too far in severing Hübmaier’s association with the Anabaptists, he follows a trend to place Hübmaier’s theological foundations in Luther’s, not Zwingli’s, reforms.[10] On the other side of this is MacGregor’s conclusion that Hübmaierwas not an Anabaptist. MacGregor attempted this primarily by reassigning the content of what it meant to be an Anabaptist in the sixteenth century, writing, “it seems that Anabaptism should be formally defined as that set of Radicals, or rebaptizers, who regarded baptism and the Lord’s Supper as ordinances rather than sacraments” (8). One cannot but have the impression that MacGregor adds Sacramentarianism to his definition for the sole reason of excluding Hübmaier. This is certainly in odd move in that, while the strong connection between sacramentarianism and Anabaptism has been made before,[11] this definition does not fall into any of the main streams of defining the essence of Anabaptism with which I am familiar–discipleship (Bender), ecclesiology (Littell), two kingdom theology (Friedmann), the free church (Bainton) or any of the others, most of which fall on the spectrum of discipleship, reformation of life or moral improvement.

MacGregor correctly realized that Hübmaier could only be considered an Anabaptist with significant qualification. This is the case in the common reference to Hübmaier as a “magisterial Anabaptist.”[12] After MacGregor’s work, then, Hübmaier must be understood as a magisterial, sacramental, non-pacifist Anabaptist. For MacGregor this was too great a difference for Hübmaier to be considered a true Anabaptist. Thus MacGregor prefers to place Hübmaier within the Lutheran camp, but this assignment cannot come without its own qualifications. If a Lutheran, Hübmaier would only exist so as a baptizing, free will, banishing Lutheran. But how much more helpful is it to categorize Hübmaier as a non-typical Lutheran rather than a non-typical Anabaptist? We may just as well throw our hands in the air declaring, “Sui generis!”

This may be the end value of MacGregor’s work. While some of his conclusions may be overdrawn, namely that he was more Lutheran than Anabaptist and that the first believers’ baptisms were practiced under his charge, Hübmaier may be a far more independent reformer than previously realized.[13] Understood as the leader of the Anabaptists,[14] a disciple of Zwingli, a Catholic Anabaptist,[15] and now a radical Lutheran, MacGregor prompts us to view Hübmaier in a new light, that he may have been a reformer of exceptional originality in synthesizing not only radical and magisterial reforms but also the thinking of Bernard, Nominalism and a great many other streams of thought into a unique reform program. This justifies a remark made in 1536 by the Catholic polemicist, Michael Hillebrant, that those breaking off from the church were Lutherans, Zwinglians, Anabaptists and “Balthasarianer” (164n).

---

[1]Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, Classics of the Radical Reformation, no. 5 (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1989).

[2]Balthasar Hubmaier: Seine Stellung zu Reformation and Täufertum (Kassel: Oncken, 1961).

[3]I might at this point take issue with the term “literary dependence” in preference for “ideological preference,” since literary dependence would seem to put more focus on phraseology, vocabulary and the like. MacGregor points more toward dependence, whether mediated or immediate, in details such as shared exegesis of certain Scriptures and similar use of explanatory metaphors. However, since we today only have access to their ideas through their literary output, the terms mean nearly the same thing.

[4]Pipkin and Yoder date the document to March 1524 based on the extant publication history and the presumed date of the disputation the Theses were to cover, Theologian of Anabaptism, 30-31. MacGregor gave the date as January 1523 but did not cite his justification for this date. Regardless, the later date would still place Hübmaier’s putative practice of believers’ baptism before the practice by the Grebel circle.

[5]Pipkin and Yoder’s translation does not reveal this explanatory remark. Until I get a copy of the Bergsten source book, I will be doubtful, considering some of MacGregor’s other spurious use of quotations, as to the place of this remark.

[6]Anabaptism and Asceticism: A Study in Intellectual Origins, Studies in Anabaptist and Mennonite History, no. 16 (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald 1974), 81.

[7]Theologian of Anabaptism, 375-376.

[8]Ibid., 376.

[9]Ibid., 308.

[10]Brewer seemingly concurs, having written on Hübmaier’s sacramental theology as having been born out of an appropriation of Luther’s thinking, despite having taken Luther’s thinking in a direction Luther himself would never dare. Brian Christian Brewer, “Radicalizing Luther: How Balthasar Hubmaier (Mis)Read the ‘Father of the Reformation,’“ MQR 84, no. 1 (Jan. 2010): 95-115.

[11]See Leonard Verduin, “Guido de Bres and the Anabaptists,” MQR 35, no. 4 (Oct. 1961): 256n. “Sacramentarians and Anabaptists (Sacramentschwärmer und Wiedertäuffer) are closely related types. It is impossible to say where the one begins and the other ends.”

[12]This appellation has been around since the early eighties at least but I have not been able to track down its origin.

[13]Thus appears to be the conclusion regarding soteriology in Chang Kyu Kim, “Balthasar Hubmaier’s Doctrine of Salvation in Dynamic and Relational Perspective,” Ph.D. diss., University of Bristol, 2009.

[14]Henry Clay Vedder, Balthasar Hubmaier: Leader of the Anabaptists (New York: Knickerbocker, 1905).

[15]James William McClendon Jr., “Balthasar Hubmaier: Catholic Anabaptist,” MQR 65, no. 1 (Jan. 1991): 20-33.

Mennonitisches Geschichtsblätter Gesamtindex für forschung des Täufertum im 16. Jahrhundert

Here is a complete register of articles on sixteenth-century and early-seventeenth century Anabaptism for the Mennonitisches Geschichtsblätter [MGB]. Some of the articles go beyond this time span, mostly due to my uncertainty as to the time period covered within. I don't have a copy of this series on hand beyond the table of contents available up to 2011 through the Mennonitischer Geschichtsverein's website. I found it more profitable to be more inclusive than not.

This may be the last of my bibliographical posts here. I will be moving all of this over to a new site in progress, the Radical Reformation Bibliography Project.

Baring, D. Georg. “Die ‘Theologia Deutsch’ und die Mennoniten.” MGB 23 (1966): 61-73.

Baylor, Michael G. “Karlstadts politische Haltung im Aufbruch der Reformation.” MGB 62 (2005): 9-20.

Bick, Martina. “‘Gelobet sei Gott, liebe Hausfrau und Schwester in dem Herrn’: Genderaspekte im Liedgut der frühen Täuferbewegung.”

Blanke, D. Fritz. “Eine Täufersammlung in Zollikon 1525.” MGB 7 (1950): 56-60.

_________. “Täufertum und Alkoholismus.” MGB 8 (1951): 25-27.

_________. “Die Vorstufen des Täufertums in Zürich.” MGB 10 (1953): 2-12.

_________. “H. S. Bender als Biograph Grebels.” MGB 14 (1957): 40-43.

_________. “Neues zur Theologie des Täufertums.” MGB 16 (1959): 15-18.

_________. “Zwingli mit Ambrosius Blarer im Gespräch.” MGB 23 (1966): 24-28.

Blough, Neal. “Pilgram Marpeck und die Schweizer Brüder um 1540.” MGB 47/48 (1990/1991):  162-164.

Bornhäuhser, Christoph. “Die Gemeinde als Versammlung der Gottesfürchtigen bei Menno Simons.” MGB 26 (1970): 19-36.

Bossert, Gustav, Jr. “Michael Sattler.” MGB 14 (1957): 8-26.

Brandsma, J. A. “Warum hat Menno Simons nicht freisisch geschrieben?” MGB 18 (1961): 14-15.

Bräuer, Siegfried. “‘Sind beyde dise Briefe an Münzer abgeschikt worden?’ Zur Überlieferung der Briefe des Grebelkreises an Thomas Müntzer vom 5. September 1524.” MGB 55 (1998): 7-24.

Bräuer, Siegfried, ed. “Die Briefe des Grebelkreises an Thomas Müntzer vom 5. September 1524: Einleitung und Text.” MGB 57 (2000): 147-174.

_________. “Wittenberg und die Prototäufer in Zürich: Erhard Hegenwalds Brief an Konrad Grebel und seinen Kreis vom 1. Januar 1525.” MGB 64 (2007): 79-104.

Buckwalter, Stephen E. “Die Stellung der Straßburger Reformatoren zu den Täufern.” MGB 52 (1995): 52-84.

_________. “‘So hat er mir ouch nit zu verbietten, ein ewib ze nehmen’: Die Täufer und die reformatorische Priesterehe.” MGB 61 (2004): 15-30.

Bührer, Peter. “Wilhelm Reublin: Radikaler Prediger und Täufer.” MGB 65 (2008): 181-232.

Burkart, Rainer W. “Die Taufe beim Konfessionwechsel als ökumenisches Problem.” MGB 66 (2009): 31-48.

Burschel, Peter. “‘Marterlieder’: Eine erfahrungsgeschichtliche Annäherung an die Martyrienkultur der Täufer im 16. Jahrhundert.” MGB 58 (2001): 7-36.

Chudaska, Andrea. “Peter Riedemann: Von einer ‘Bewegung im Übergang’ zu den Hutterern.” MGB 59 (2002): 188-192.

Crous, Ernst. “Wie die Mennoniten in die deutsche Volksgemeinschaft hineinwuchsen.” MGB 4 (1939): 13-24.

_________. “Die Doopsgezinden in den Niederlanden und die Verwandten Gemeinden in Ostfriesland, Münsterland und am Niederrhein.” MGB 10 (1953): 13-32.

_________. “Rembrandt und die Doopsgezinden.” MGB 12 (1955): 2-5.

_________. “Menno Simons’ Todesjahr.” MGB 16 (1959): 2.

_________. “Von Melchior Hofmann zu Menno Simons.” MGB 19 (1962): 2-13.

_________. “Harold S. Bender.” MGB 20 (1963): 2-7.

Dankbaar, W. F. “Martin Mikrons Gespräch mit Menno Simons.” MGB 39 (1982): 7-10.

Deppermann, Klaus. “Die Straßburger Reformatoren und die Krise des oberdeutschen Täufertums im Jahr 1527.” MGB 30 (1973): 24-41.

_________. “Sebastian Franks Straßburger Aufenthalt.” MGB 46 (1989): 145-160.

_________. “Michael Sattler: Radikaler Reformator, Pazifist, Märtyrer.” MGB 47/48 (1990/1991): 8-23.

Dipple, Geoffrey Luke. “Johann Rot-Locher: Ein radikaler Reformator?” MGB 50 (1993): 47-58.

Dittrich, Cristoph. “Katholische Kontroverstheologie im Kampf gegen Reformation und Täufertum.” MGB 47/48 (1990/1991): 71-88.

ten Doornkaat-Koolman, Jacobus. “Die Täufer in Mecklenburg.” MGB 18 (1961): 20-55.

_________. “Die Wismarer Artikel 1554.” MGB 22 (1965): 38-42.

_________. “Noch einmal Geburtsjahr Menno Simons.” MGB 25 (1968): 67-71.

Dyck, Cornelius John. “Angeeignetes Täufertum.” MGB 28 (1971): 5-18.

_________. “Hans de Ries und das Vermächtnis von Menno Simons.” MGB 45 (1988): 7-25.

Eisenblätter, Winfried. “Die katholische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Täufertum.” MGB 22 (1965): 47-53.

Epp, Waldemar.”Zur Kulturgeschichte Danzigs: Aus der Zeit der Reformation und des Dreißegjährigen Krieges.” MGB 40 (1983): 46-58.

Fast, Heinold. “Heinrich Bullinger und die Täufer.” MGB 14 (1957): 48.

_________. “Europäische Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der Täufer- und Mennonitengeschichte 1962-67.” MGB 24 (1967): 19-29.

_________. “Variationen des Kirchenbegriffs bei den Täufern.” MGB 26 (1970): 5-18.

_________. “Die Frage nach der Autorität der Bibel auf dem Frankenthaler Täufergespräch 1571.” MGB 28 (1971): 28-37.

_________. “Die Täuferbewegung im Lichte des Frankenthaler Gespräches, 1571.” MGB 30 (1973): 7-23.

_________. “Die Aushebung einer nächtlichen Täuferversammlung 1574.” MGB 31 (1974): 103-106.

_________. “‘Die Wahrheit wird euch freimachen’. Die Anfänge der Täuferbewegung in Zürich.” MGB 32 (1975): 7-35.

_________. “Die Reformation aus der Sicht Luzifers: Bilanz in Straßburg 1529.“ MGB 41 (1984): 7-29.

_________. “Wie sind die oberdeutschen Täufer ‘Mennoniten’ geworden?” MGB 43/44 (1986/1987): 62-79.

_________. “Die Mennoniten und die Gründung von Neuestadtgödens.” MGB 52 (1995): 85-100.

_________. “Zur Überlieferung des Leser-Amtes bei den oberdeutschen Täufern.” MGB 54 (1997): 61-68.

_________. “Zum Verbleib des Täufers Jörg Maler nach dem 18. April 1559.” MGB 54 (1997): 153-154.

_________. “Wer taufte Grebel?” MGB 55 (1998): 73-84.

Fellman, R. Walter. “Fünf alte Wormser Täuferdrucke.” MGB 2 (1937): 25-31.

_________. “Das Täufertum im Urteil zweier Gegenwartsdichter.” MGB 4 (1939): 40-41.

_________. “Drei Schweizer Schriftsteller.” MGB 8 (1951): 28-31.

_________. “Pfälzisch-hessisches Mennonitentum im Spiegel zweier Schauspiele.” MGB 10 (1953): 62-64.

_________. “Sprichwörter aus Hans Dencks Micha-Kommentar.” MGB 13 (1956): 53-54.

_________. “Ein neuer Handschriftenfund.” MGB 14 (1957): 44-47.

_________. “Martin Bucer und Hans Denck.” MGB 23 (1966): 29-35.

_________. “Die Wormser Propheten von 1527.” MGB 24 (1967): 81-89.

Frell, Jörg. “Die Autobiographie des Täufers und Schwenkfelders Jörg Frell, 1574.” MGB 39 (1982): 50-65.

Friedmann, Robert. “Zur Wirtschaftgeschichte der Hutterischen Brüder.” MGB 23 (1966): 5-11.

Froese, Wolfgang. “‘. . . ein würdiges und bleibendes Denkmal zu setzen.’ Eine Diskussion in den Mennonitischen Blättern über die Feier des Menno-Simons-Gedenkjahres 1861.” MGB 53 (1996): 62-81.

Geiser, Samuel. “Die Lieder der Täufer.” MGB 10 (1953): 36-40.

_________. “Aus dem neuendeckten Berner ‘Kunstbuch.’” MGB 15 (1958): 13-19.

Geiser, Samuel and Johannes P. Classen. “Ein Lied des Märtyrers Oswald Glait.” MGB 17 (1960): 10-13.

Gerber, Ulrich J. “Ein verlassener Zeuge täuferischer Vergangenheit: Die älteste Kapelle der Jura-Täufer.” MGB 43/44 (1986/1987): 126-131.

Gerner, Gottfried. “Folgerungen aus dem täuferischen Gebrauch der Heiligen Schrift.” MGB 31 (1974): 25-43.

Gish, Arthur G. “Eine Theologie für die Revolution.” MGB 29 (1972): 18-34.

Goertz, Adelbert. “Frühe Taufschriften in Frankfurt.” MGB 15 (1958): 48.

Goertz, Hans-Jürgen. “Die Taufe im Täufertum.” MGB 26 (1970): 37-47.

_________. “Ketzer, Aufrührer und Märtyrer. Der Zweite Speyerer Reichstag und die Täufer.” MGB 36 (1979): 7-26.

_________. “Der fremde Menno Simons: Antiklerikale Argumentation im Werk eines melchioritischen Täufers.” MGB 42 (1985): 24-42.

_________. “Täufergeschichtliche Aspekte zur Taufe.” MGB 66 (2009): 7-30.

_________. “Das konfessionelle Erbe in neuer Gestalt: Die Frage nach dem mennonitischen Selbstverständnis heute.” MGB 43/44 (1986/1987): 157-170.

_________. “Zwischen Zwietracht und Eintracht: Zur Zweideutigkeit täuferischer und mennonitischer Bekenntnisse.” MGB 43/44 (1986/1987): 16-46.

_________. “Aufständische Bauern und Täufer in der Schweiz.” MGB 46 (1989): 90-112.

_________. “‘Wie gantz vorwyrrett, bodenloß ding das geystlich weßen ist.’: Klerikaler Antiklerikalismus in der Reformationszeit.” MGB 49 (1992): 7-20.

_________. “Die Täuferaktenkommission vor neuen Aufgaben.” MGB 56 (1999): 202.

_________. “Bet- und Gotteshäuser.” MGB 56 (1999): 207-208.

_________. “Die Zukunft mennonitischer Geschichtsschreibung.” MGB 56 (1999): 208.

_________. “‘Ein gmein künftig gsprech’: Eine revisionistische Deutung der Grebelbriefe an Thomas Müntzer vom September 1524.” MGB 57 (2000): 31-50.

_________. “Zwischen Biblizismus und Spiritualismus: Die Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift im Täufertum.” MGB 60 (2003): 7-22.

_________. “Zwischen Historie und Theologie – oder: Muß die revisionistische Täuferforschung schon ersetzt werden? Ein werkbiographisches Gespräch mit Hans-Jürgen Goertz.” MGB 63 (2006): 9-26.

_________. “Thomas Müntzer in der bildenden Kunst.” MGB 64 (2007): 169.

_________. “Ein Wiedertäufer-Zyklus in Münster.” MGB 65 (2008): 325-326.

_________. “Täufergeschichtliche Aspekte zur Taufe.” MGB 66 (2009): 7-30.

Goertz, Hans-Jurgen, Barbara Talkenberger and Gabriele Wohlauf. “Neue Forschungen zum  deutschen Bauernkrieg.” MGB 33 (1976): 24-64.

_________. “Neue Forschungen zum deutschen Bauernkrieg (Zweiter Teil).” MGB 34 (1977): 35-64.

Goeters, Johann Friedrich Gerhard. “Ludwig Hätzers Lieder.” MGB 16 (1959): 3-14.

Gregory, Brad S. “Weisen die Todesvorbereitungen von Täufermärtyrern geschlechtsspezifische Merkmale auf?” MGB 54 (1997): 52-60.

Günther, Gerhard. “Müntzer und die Täufer: Zur Frage: Hat Müntzer die Glaubenstaufe praktiziert?” MGB 47/48 (1990/1991): 38-48.

Hanimann, Thomas. “Eine Täufersiedlung am Zürichsee.” MGB 45 (1988): 44-53.

Hege, Christian. “Eine Neue Menno-Biographie.” MGB 1 (1936): 16-19.

_________. “Ein kurpfälzisches Bücherverbot.” MGB 1 (1936): 24-26.

_________. “Geschichtsforschung der westpreußischen Mennoniten.” MGB 1 (1936): 30-31.

_________. “Neuere Urteile der Historiker.” MGB 2 (1937): 5-9.

_________. “Zwinglis Elenchus.” MGB 2 (1937): 18-24.

_________. “Das älteste Schriftum der Taufgesinnten.” MGB 3 (1938): 1-10.

_________. “Noch eine Marbeck-Schrift entdeckt.” MGB 3 (1938): 13-15.

_________. “Das Täufertum in Österreich.” MGB 4 (1939): 1-5.

Hege, Lydie. “Mythos und Wirklichkeit – täuferische und mennonitische Frauen 1525-1900.” MGB 64 (2007): 322-325.

Hein, Gerhard. “Leupold Scharnschlager.” MGB 4 (1939): 6-12.

_________. “Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer.” MGB 10 (1953): 54-61.

_________. “Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in Straßburg.” MGB 19 (1962): 14-23.

_________. “Eine neuentdeckte Streitschrift gegen die Täufer aus dem Jahre 1614.” MGB 29 (1972): 65-74.

Hennig, M. A. “Askese und Ausschweifung: Zum Verständnis der Vielweiberei im Täuferreich zu Münster 1534/35.” MGB 40 (1983): 25-46.

Hill, Katherine. “Blut, Taufe und Identität: Beobachtungen zur Entwicklung des Täufertums in Thüringen, ca. 1520-1550.” MGB 67 (2010): 51-68.

Horst, Irvin Buckwalter. “Neuer Mensch—Neue Gemeinschaft: Eine Schrift des frühen Menno Simons.” MGB 53 (1996): 34-43.

Hui, Matthis.  “Vom Bauernaufstand zur Täuferbewegung: Entwicklung in der ländlichen Reformation am Beispiel des zürcherischen Grüninger Amtes.”  MGB 46 (1989): 113-144.

Hutter, Jakob. “Jakob Hutters Märtyrertod.” MGB 43/44 (1986/1987): 12-15.

Isaak, Helmut. “Das Weltverständnis Menno Simons.” MGB 31 (1974): 44-60.

Jecker, Hanspeter. “Die Hinrichtung einer Täuferin in Rheinfelden – die letzte im frühneuzeitlichen Europa?” MGB 54 (1997): 76-88.

Kaiser, Jürgen. “Das neue Zeichen der Erwählten: Zur Entstehung des täuferischen Sabbatismus.” MGB 52 (1995): 40-51.

Kauenhoven, Kurt. “Die Erschließung der ‘Kartei ostdeutscher Menno-Sippen von W. Zimmermann.’” MGB 24 (1967): 90-93.

Kiwiet, Jan J. “Die Theologia Deutsch und ihre Bedeutung während der Zeit der Reformation.” MGB 15 (1958): 29-35.

Klassen, Peter James. “Ein sicherer Hafen in unruhigen Zeiten: Zur frühen Geschichte der westpreußischen Mennoniten.” MGB 62 (2005): 115-132.

Klaassen, Walter. “Die Taufe im Schweizer Täufertum.” MGB 46 (1989): 75-89.

Klötzer, Ralf. “Das Königreich der Täufer: Eine Ausstellung in Münster.” MGB 57 (2000): 224-226.

_________. “Die Verhöre der Täuferführer von Münster vom 25. Juli 1535 auf Haus Dülmen: Zwei Versionen im Vergleich.” MGB 59 (2002): 175-182.

Knottnerus, Otto Samuel. “Täufer unter Söldern und Freibeutern: Repräsentanten frühmoderner Mobilität.” MGB 59 (2002): 113-146.

Kobelt-Groch, Marion. “Warum verließ Petronella ihren Ehemann?” MGB 43/44 (1986/1987): 47-61.

_________. “Frauen in Ketten: ‘Von widertauferischen Weibern, wie gegen selbigen zu handeln.” MGB 47/48 (1990/1991): 49-70.

_________. “Frauen gegen Geistliche: Weiblicher Antiklerikalismus in der Reformationszeit.” MGB 49 (1992): 32-55.

_________. “‘Von zweyen bosen Nachbauren’: Jörg Wickram und die Täufer.” MGB 50 (1993): 59-67.

_________. “‘Höre mein Sohn, die Unterweisung deiner Mutter....’ Vom Umgang mit Kindern im Täufertum.” MGB 56 (1999): 18-34.

_________. “‘Dissent’ im 16. Jahrhundert.” MGB 56 (1999): 204-205.

_________. “In Münster sind die Täufer los. Jürgen Kehrers Roman Wilsberg und die Wiedertäufer.” MGB 63 (2006): 147-152.

_________. “Geldgierig, gewalttätig und verlogen: Zum Image der Täuferin in Thomas Bircks Ehespiegel (1598).” MGB 64 (2007): 105-116.

Köhler, Walter. “Das Täufertum in Calvins Institutio.” MGB 2 (1937): 1-4.

_________. “Der Verfasser des ‘Libellus confutationis’ in Zwinglis “In catabaptistarum strophas elenchus’ (Konrad Grebel).’” MGB 3 (1938): 11-12.

_________. “Die Verantwortung im Täufertum des 16. Jahrhundert.” MGB 5 (1940): 10-19.

_________. “Zwingli antwortet einem Täufer.” MGB 19 (1962): 23-26.

Koop, Karl. “Täuferisch-mennonitische Bekenntnisse: ein umstrittenes Vermächtnis.” MGB 60 (2003): 23-42.

Krahn, Cornelius. “Menno Simons in Deutschland.” MGB 1 (1936): 13-15.

_________. “Mennonitische Frömmigkeit.” MGB 8 (1951): 46.

_________. “Neue Beurteilung von Menno Simons’ Lehre und Leben.” MGB 19 (1962): 27-36.

_________. “Die Niederländischen Täufer und Münster.” MGB 24 (1967): 30-46.

Krajewski, Ekkehard. “Freikirche end Staat.” MGB 16 (1959): 27-29.

Kruse, Jens-Martin. “Karlstadt als Wittenberger Theologe: Überlegungen zu einer pluralen Darstellungsweise der frühen Reformation.” MGB 57 (2000): 7-30.

Lichdi, Elfriede. “Die Täufer in Heilbronn.” MGB 35 (1978): 7-61.

Lichdi, Dieter Götz. “Pietistische Einflüsse bei Täufern/Mennoniten im 17./18. Jahrhundert.” MGB 45 (1988): 26-43.

Loewen, Harry. “Grimmelshausens Wiedertäufer und der Utopie-Gedanke im ‘Simplicissimus.” MGB 39 (1982): 11-23.

Lohse, Bernhard. “Zu Thomas Müntzers früher Kirchenkritik.” MGB 46 (1989): 23-29.

Looß, Sigrid. “Karlstadt und der Bann: Stationen in Thüringen Zürich und Altstätten zwischen 1522 und 1532.” MGB 56 (1999): 7-17.

_________. “Kryptoradikalität in der Frühen Neuzeit – ein Tagungsbericht.” MGB 64 (2007): 162-164.

Loserth, Johann. “Reichsgesetze gegen die ‘Wiedertäufer.’” MGB 1 (1936): 27-29.

_________. “Nikolsburg.” MGB 3 (1937): 16-21.

Mattern, Marlies. “Leben im Abseits: Frauen und Männer im Täufertum (1525-1550).” MGB 54 (1997): 207-210.

Meihuizen, H. W. “Gab es einen Consensus Mennonites vor der Taufe von 1525?” MGB 24 (1967): 72-81.

_________. “Taufbräuche.” MGB 33 (1976): 7-12.

Meinhold, P. “Der Weg des Opfers. Zum 400. Todestag von Menno Simons.” MGB 17 (1960): 39-39.

Möncke, Gisela. “Friedrich Huber, ein pseudonymer Verfasser zweier Straßburger Täuferdrucke.” MGB 60 (2003): 80-88.

Mühleisen, Hans-Otto. “Michael Sattler (ca. 1490-1527): Leben aus den Quellen – Treue zu sich selbst.” MGB 61 (2004): 31-48.

Mühlpfordt, Günter. “Westöstliche Ketzerbegegnungen in Südmähren.” MGB 23 (1966): 36-40.

Neff, Christian. “Menno Simons.” MGB 1 (1936): 9-12.

Oyer, John Stanley. “Die Täufer und die Confessio Augustana.” MGB 37 (1980): 7-23.

Packull, Werner O. “Thomas Müntzer und das Hutsche Täufertum.” MGB 46 (1989): 30-42.

_________. “Zwietracht in der ‘Gemeinde Gottes’: Die hutterischen Spaltungen von 1531 und 1533.” MGB 51 (1994): 7-23.

_________. “Menno Simons und die Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift.” MGB 53 (1996): 44-61.

Palme, Rudolf. “Täuferbewegung in Tirol.” MGB 43/44 (1986/1987): 47-61.

Park, Elke. “‘Bei uns sein alle ding gemain, das sey unser christlich leben’: Täuferische Bewegungen in Tirol 1527-1534.” MGB 59 (2002): 13-44.

Penner, Horst. “Inventur der neuen Forschung.” MGB 15 (1958): 36.

_________. “Christian Entfelder: Ein Mährischer Täuferprediger.” MGB 23 (1966): 19-23.

_________. “Niederländische Täufer formen als Baumeister, Bildhauer und Maler mit an Danzigs unverwechselbarem Geschichte.” MGB 26 (1969): 12-26.

Pletscher, Werner. “Wo entstand das Bekenntnis von 1527?” MGB 5 (1940): 20-21.

Postma, Johan S. “Luther und die Reformation in täuferischer Sicht.” MGB 16 (1959): 32-35.

Prieur, Alexander. “Das täuferisch-mennonitische Gemeindeverständnis.” MGB 17 (1960): 7-9.

Quiring, Horst. “Die Anthropologie Pilgram Marbecks.” MGB 2 (1937): 10-17.

_________. “Aus den ersten Jahrzehnten der Mennoniten in Westpreuß.” MGB 2 (1937): 32-35.

_________. “Mennoniten und Wiedertäufer in deutschen Literatur.” MGB 7 (1950): 67-74.

_________. “Das Schleitheimer Täuferbekenntnis.” MGB 14 (1957): 34-39.

Quiring-Unruh, Liesel. “Neues Licht auf das Geburtsjahr von Menno Simons.” MGB 24 (1967): 54-71.

_________. “Bücherverbot im 16. Jahrhundert.” MGB 32 (1975): 36-56.

Räisänen, Päivi. “Visitation al Verhör und Verhandlung: Vom Prozeß des Täufer-Werdens im Wurttemberg des späten 16. und frühen 17. Jahrhunderts.” MGB 66 (2009): 85-98.

Rauert, Matthias H. “Die ‘Brüder-Schreiber’ in Mähren: Zur kollektiven Historiographie der hutterischen Täufer.” MGB 56 (1999): 103-138.

Rischar, Klaus. “Der Missionar Eucharius Binder und Sein Mitarbeiter Joachim März: Das Leben und Sterben Fränkischer Täufer im 16. Jahrhundert.” MGB 25 (1968): 18-26.

_________. “Johannes Eck in seinem Kampf gegen die Täufer auf dem Reichstag zu Augsburg 1530.” MGB 26 (1969): 44-54.

_________. “Die Täufer im Verständnis der protestantischen Religionsparteien auf dem Reichstag zu Augsburg 1530.” MGB 29 (1972): 48-64.

Risler, Walther. “Täufer im bergischen Amt Blankenburg/Sieg.” MGB 16 (1959): 19-26.

Roth, John D. “Pietismus und Täufertum – ein schwieriges Verhältnis.” MGB 57 (2000): 71-94.

Rothkegel, Martin. “Hutterische Handschriften in Hamburg.” MGB 54 (1997): 116-152.

_________. “Die älteste hutterische Schulordnung: Ein Ordnungszettel von 1558.” MGB 55 (1998): 85-106.

_________. “Täufer, Spiritualist, Antitrinitarier – und Nikodemit: Jakob Kautz als Schulmeister in Mähren. Anhang: Glaubensartikel des Jakob Kauts, Iglau, 1536.” MGB 57 (2000): 51-88.

_________. “Täufer und ehemalige Täufer in Znaim: Leonhard Freisleben, Wilhelm Reublin und die ‘Schweizer’ Gemeinde des Tischlers Balthasar.” MGB 57 (2000): 37-70.

_________. “Die Nikolsburger Reformation, 1526-1535: Von Humanismus zum Sabbatarismus.” MGB 59 (2002): 181-186.

_________. “Himmlische Weisheit, astrale Determination und chiliastische Hoffnung bei den schlesisch-mährischen Gabrielitern. Eine unbekannte Täuferhandschrift von 1548 in Wiener Privatbesitz.” MGB 59 (2002): 43-62.

_________. “Die Nikolsburger Reformation 1526-1535.” MGB 59 (2002): 183-187.

_________. “Randglossen zum Kunstbuch.” MGB 61 (2004): 49-64.

Sattler, Michael. “An die Gemeinde Gottes zu Horb.” MGB 14 (1957): 27-31.

_________. “Abschiedslied Michael Sattlers.” MGB 14 (1957): 32-33.

Schäufele, Wolfgang. “Das missionarische Bewußtsein der Täufer.” MGB 17 (1960): 47-52.

Schlachta, Astrid von. “Hutterische Konfession und Tradition (1578-1619).” MGB 60 (2003): 173-178.

_________. “‘Mit Religions Streitigkeiten wollen wir uns nicht befassen’: Begriffe und Konzepte im herrnhutisch hutterischen Verhältnis.” MGB 62 (2005): 51-76.

_________. “Auf den Spuren der hutterischen Geschichte – Ein kurzer Bericht aus Tirol.” MGB 62 (2005): 199-200.

_________. “Täufertagung in Göttingen.” MGB 63 (2006): 235-238.

_________. “‘Öffentlich’, sichtbar, gefährlich? Die ‘Politische’ Wirkung täuferischer Gemeinden.” MGB 68 (2011): 19-36.

Schmölz-Häberlein, Michaela. “‘Wiedertäufer, die wackere Leute sind’: Täuferische Pächter auf dem baden-dulachischen Kameralgut Hochburg.” MGB 60 (2003): 43-64.

Schowalter, Otto. “Noch einmal: Die Tauffrage.” MGB 10 (1953): 33-35.

Schraepler, Horst W. “Die rechtliche Stellung der Täufer.” MGB 14 (1957): 49-50.

Schubert, Anselm. “Täufertum und Humanismus: Kurze Anmerkungen zu einer langen Forschungsdebatte.” MGB 64 (2007): 7-26.

_________. “Augustin Bader und das frühe Täufertum – eine Selbstanzeige.” MGB 64 (2007): 328-329.

_________. “‘Heiligung des Namens’: Zu den jüdischen Anfängen täuferischer Martyriumstheologie.” MGB 67 (2010): 9-24.

Schumann, Dieter. “Reublins Tätigkeit in Basel.” MGB 25 (1968): 32-34.

Schwanitz, Dietrich. “Eine andere Welt: Kindheitserlebnisse bei den Schweizer Täufern.” MGB 60 (2003): 115-124.

Scribner, Robert W. “Konkrete Utopien: Die Täufer und der vormoderne Kommunismus.” MGB 50 (1993): 7-46.

Seebaß, Gottfried. “Luthers Stellung zur Verfolgung der Täufer und ihre Bedeutung für den deutschen Protestantismus.” MGB 40 (1983): 7-24.

_________. “Thomas Müntzer - eine bleibend Warnung.” MGB 46 (1989): 10-22.

Séguy, Jean. “Geschichte der Mennoniten in Frankreich: Ein kurzer Abriß.” MGB 40 (1983): 84-96.

Simons, Menno. “Menno Simons’ ‘Ausgang.’” MGB 43/44 (1986/1987): 7-11.

Slabaugh, Dennis Lee. “Die Predigt als Waffe: Jakob Andrae gegen die Täufer.” MGB 52 (1995): 24-39.

Spallek, Johannes. “Ein Bildnis von Menno Simons.” MGB 54 (1997): 161-170.

Stayer, James Mentzer. “Die Schweizer Brüder. Versuch einer historichen Definition.” MGB 34 (1977): 7-34.

_________. “Vielweiberei als ‘innerweltliche Askese’. Neue Eheauffasungen in der Reformationszeit.” MGB 37 (1980): 24-41.

_________. “Radikaler Frühzwinglianismus: Balthasar Hubmaier, Fabers ‘Ursach’ und die Programme der Bauern.” MGB 42 (1985): 43-59.

_________. “Noch einmal besichtigt: Anabaptists and the Sword. Von der Radikalität zum Quietismus.” MGB 47/48 (1990/1991): 24-37.

_________. “Über Arnold Snyder, Beyond Polygenesis.” MGB 52 (1995): 151-160.

_________. “Unsichere Geschichte: Der Fall Münster (1534/35): Aktuelle Probleme der Forschung.” MGB 59 (2002): 65-80.

_________. “Neue Untersuchung zur Theologie Bernhard Rothmanns – eine Selbstanzeige.” MGB 64 (2007): 333-334.

_________. “Menno Simons–ein unbequemer Namenspatron.” MGB 68 (2011): 7-18.

Stricker, Hans. “Michael Sattler als Verfasser der Schleitheimer Artikel.” MGB 21 (1964): 15-18.

Thiessen, Victor. “Flugschriften eines Ritters im Kunstbuch des Marpeck-Kreises.” MGB 60 (2003): 65-79.

Todt, Sabine. “Ein Disput über Einheit und Vielfalt der Reformation.” MGB 53 (1996): 111-120.

_________. “Karlstadt-Tagung 1998.” MGB 56 (1999): 202-204.

_________. “‘Vnd das es ist die warheyt blosz’ – Wissensdiskurse in der frühen Reformation: Der Drucker Peter Schöffer und die Täufer in Worms.” MGB 62 (2005): 21-50.

Unruh, Benjamin H. “Zur Vorgeschichte der preußischen Mennonitengruppe.” MGB 11 (1954): 2-6.

Vogler, Günter. “Das Täuferreich zu Münster als Problem der Politik im Reich: Beobachtungen anhand reichständischer Korrespondenzen der Jahre 1534/35.” MGB 42 (1985): 7-23.

_________. “Von Orsoy nach Oberwesel: Die Schwierigen Anfänge des Kampfes gegen die Täufer in Münster im Jahre 1534.” MGB 59 (2002): 81-112.

Vogt, Jean. “Wiedertäufer und ländliche Gemeinden im nördlichen Elsaß und on der Pfalz.” MGB 41 (1984): 34-47.

Wagner, Margarete. “Das ‘Hasenhaus’ in Wien – Schauplatz der Festnahme dreier Täufer?” MGB 54 (1997): 69-75.

Wiebe, Cristoph. “Konrad Grebels Ausführungen über Glaube und Taufe: Ein Versuch nit Thomas Müntzer ins Gespräch zu kommen.” MGB 46 (1989): 43-74.

Windhorst, Christoph. “Wort und Geist: Zur Frage des Spiritualismus bei Balthasar Hubmaier im Vergleich zu Zwingli und Luther.” MGB 31 (1974): 7-24

Wiswedel, Wilhelm. “Hans Schmidt: Ein unbeugsamer Täuferprediger.” MGB 10 (1953): 50-53.

Woelck, Susanne. “Zur verlassen Kirche am Schwarzen Brack: Die Mennoniten in Neustadtgödens.” MGB 47/48 (1990/1991): 89-103.

_________. “Menno Simons in Oldersum und Oldesloe: ‘Häuptlingsreformation.’ und Glaubensflüchtlinge im 16. Jahrhundert.” MGB 53 (1996): 11-33

Wolgast, Eike. “Melanchthon und die Täufer.” MGB 54 (1997): 31-51.

Yoder, John Howard. “Reformation und Mission.” MGB 29 (1972): 5-17.

_________. “Der Kristallisationspunkt des Täufertums.” MGB 29 (1972): 24-47.

Yoder, John Howard & Klaus Deppermann. “Ein Briefwechsel über die Bedeutung des Schleitheimer Bekenntnisses.” MGB 30 (1973): 42-52.

Zell, Katharina. “Straßburg als Beispiel der Barmherzigkeit: Ein offenes Wort zur Duldung der Täufer, 1557.” MGB 41 (1984): 30-33.

Zimmermann, W. “Kartei ostdeutscher Menno-Sippen.” MGB 7 (1950): 2-16.

Zorzin, Alejandro. “Ludwig Hätzer als täuferischer Publizist (1527-1528).” MGB 67 (2010): 25-50.