Review of “Menno Simons,” by John Christian Wenger and “Thomas Muentzer,” by Hans Joachim Hillerbrand, in Reformers in Profile, edited by B. A. Gerrish.

Wenger, John Christian. “Menno Simons.” In Reformers in Profile, ed. B. A. Gerrish, 194-212. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967.

Hillerbrand, Hans Joachim. “Thomas Muentzer.” In Reformers in Profile, ed. Bryan Albert Gerrish, 213-229. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967.

These two short biographical profiles come from an edited collection of profiles of reformers and proto-reformers.  Simons and Müntzer are the representatives of radical form in the collection.

Wenger writes as a long-established authority on Anabaptism, particularly on Marpeck but he also served as editor of the critical edition of the English translation of Simons’ works. This profile, along with that of Müntzer, is among the shortest of the profiles.  The brevity of the profile was not entirely economical. Much of the space was given to outlining a background of the Dutch/North German Anabaptist movement. Wenger also spent much space quoting Simons on a number of doctrinal emphases. This section does illustrate Simons’ as generally representative of the doctrine of the radicals.  This does not illustrate, however, the importance of Simons’ ministry, which was more of his role as an organizer rather than as a theological innovator. There is some mention of Simons having acted in that role, but those details are woven in as a  few extra facts from his biography. Wenger’s profile tried to highlight Simons’ significance but the true mark of that significance was not sufficiently portrayed.

Hillerbrand’s treatment of Müntzer achieved more. A scholar of the Reformation more broadly, Hillerbrand sought to give a more balanced interpretation of an historical figure who has often been the subject of niche interpretations. Though recognizing the radical tendencies of Müntzer, Hillerbrand did not take this tendency as an opportunity to caricature Müntzer as an extremist from the beginning. He allowed that Müntzer’s difference with Luther early on may have been more in degree rather than in kind and that the true radicalism of Müntzer came only after the influence of Carlstadt’s radicalism. Hillerbrand was also careful not to take the socio-economic dimension of Müntzer’s thought as central as had the Marxist interpreters but he still found within Müntzer’s thought an assumed equality of all people within a political community–an equality that would be a prerequisite to further democratic development. This assessment seems fair and at the least provides caution for future interpreters of Müntzer to not  be too rigid in interpretational schemes of Müntzer’s thought, for it is more complex than may have been previously anticipated.