Werner Packull's 1974 dissertation1 stirred up Anabaptist studies by challenging the predominant paradigm of interpretation concerning the influences on the origin of the Anabaptist movement. Anabaptism had long been considered to an extension of the Protestant Reformation that took Reformation ideals to an extent further than the Protestants themselves would have gone. This is indicated in some of the names given to the movement such as the "left-wing of the Reformation"2 and the "radical reformation."3
Packull suggested that the South German-Austrian Anabaptist, as represented primarily by Hans Denck and Hans Hut, were not a radicalization of Protestantism. He argued that that division of Anabaptism found its starting point not in the Reformation but in the late Medieval mystical traditions. If this is the case, then the South German-Austrian Anabaptists would not have their origins in the Reformation but they rather originated from a movement that predated the Reformation.4
This point has been well taken and scholars have generally proceeded in recognizing Packull's contribution to understanding this segment of Anabaptist origins. While Packull's case is ultimately quite convincing to the point that scholarship generally no longer ignores the influence of Medieval mysticism on the movement, this realization does not entirely answer the question of the interpretation of origin. Does the fact of mysticism's influence on at least this segment of Anabaptism, whether partially or pervasively formative necessitate a reinterpretation of origins that places these and perhaps other Anabaptists outside of the Reformation seed so that they would no longer be considered a radicalization of the Protestant Reformation but rather an emendation of an earlier tradition, namely mysticism?
The question hinges on whether or not mysticism is a valid part of the Reformation milieu. Abraham Friesen suggested that Martin Luther had been under the influence of the German mystical tradition (Meister Eckhart, Jan Tauler and the Theologia Deutsch–some of the same works tagged by Packull as influential on the South German-Austrian Anabaptists).5 Friesen further contends that, while Luther later abandoned the mystical tradition since he could not reconcile many of its tenets with his emerging biblical theology, others following Luther, particularly Müntzer and Karlstadt, maintained the mystical sources as informative to their theologies.
If Friesen's contention is accurate, then the mystical tradition would have a legitimate position as a part of the Reformation context. If, then, there were those who took on that portion of the Reformation context further than Luther and the other Reformers were willing, then they would remain heirs to the Reformation and not simply a late manifestation of the mystical tradition for that tradition was received as mediated by Luther. Therefore, the likes of Müntzer and Karlstadt would be radical reformers indeed but this leaves much to be proven about those not so closely associated with Luther. It must further be investigated whether Denck, Hut and the other South German-Austrian Anabaptists followed the mystical tradition directly from its Medieval source or through the mediation of Luther and his followers.
This question may fold another wrinkle into the complicated issue of interpreting the influences on the Anabaptists and on their origin(s) but it does seem to be a fruitful field for further research as it may lead to a greater appreciation for context out of which the Anabaptists came and whether they were a radicalization of the Reformation or a group of different origins altogether.
1 "Mysticism and the Early South German-Austrian Anabaptist Movement," Ph.D. Thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, 1974. This was soon after revised and published as Mysticism and the Early South German-Austrian Anabaptist Movement, 1525-1531, Studies in Anabaptist and Mennonite History, no. 19 (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1977). Much of the thrust of Packull's thesis had been previewed in his section of James M. Stayer, Werner O. Packull and Klaus Deppermann, “From Monogenesis to Polygenesis: The Historical Discussion of Anabaptist Origins,” MQR 49, no. 2 (Apr. 1975): 83-121.
2 Roland H. Bainton, “The Left Wing of the Reformation,” The Journal of Religion 21, no. 2 (Apr. 1941): 124-134.
3 George Huntston Williams' magisterial volume on the movement–The Radical Reformation 3rd ed. (Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1992).–has been highly influential, not only in propagating the title of "radical" as applied to the Anabaptists but also in framing many other conceptions such as the division of the movement into its Anabaptist (Biblicist), Spiritualist and Rationalist branches. Stayer, Packull and Deppermann in their above noted work preferred to segregate the movement geographically rather than by hermeneutical and epistemological starting points.
4 This does not rule out that these Anabaptists were not in anyway influenced by Reformation ideas or did not react against both Catholicism and Protestantism as though their movement existed in a vacuum isolated from the general Central European climate.
5 "The Early Writings of the Reformers and Anabaptist Origins," Lecture presented at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, February 17, 2009. Accessible on the Southwestern page on iTunes.
