Saturday, March 1, 2014

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment