A Sattler Reading Guide

One of the disadvantages of being outside of an academic institution for the time being is not having a guide to comb through the literature on a particular subject. In the case of my recent reading of the comments made on Snyder’s biography, it is important to read certain items in a certain order. Sometimes this is chronological so that the student can see the development of the scholarship, but at other times this is best done thematically, moving from the broader subject to finer details and with an emphasis on dealing with the primary sources sooner rather than later.

So, if anyone has a care to read up on Michael Sattler fairly extensively, I submit an annotated bibliography that should serve as a guide. The first list goes from general introduction to primary sources to the development of later biography, with contingent issues. I advise reading those item in the order they are presented. The second list contains work of lesser immediate value and works outside of English. This bibliography is almost exhaustive, but there are likely other little biographies, essay sections, book chapters or even whole works of which I may be unaware. I will update this post as I find them. I also left out the many republications of Schleitheim because it is everywhere. Seriously.

Haas, Martin. “Michael Sattler: On the Way to Anabaptist Separation.” In Profiles of Radical Reformers, ed. Hans-Jürgen Görtz 132-143. Kitchener, Ontario: Herald, 1982.

Bossert, Gustav, Jr., Harold Stauffer Bender and C. Arnold Snyder. “Sattler, Michael (d. 1527).” Mennonite Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, ed. Cornelius John Dyck. Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1989.

        These two items will provide enough of a biography to provide a framework for placing the writings into context.

Williams, George H. and Angel M. Mergal, eds. “The Trial and Martyrdom of Michael Sattler.” In Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers, 136-144. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957.

Bossert, Gustav, Jr. “Michael Sattler’s Trial and Martyrdom in 1527.” MQR 25, no. 3 (July 1951): 201-218.

Snyder, C. Arnold. “Rottenberg Revisited: New Evidence Concerning the Trial of Michael Sattler.” MQR 54, no. 3    (Jul. 1980): 208-228.

        The trial of Sattler is prominent in the early Anabaptist narrative. It will introduce the primary source documents to follow.

Sattler, Michael. “Early Anabaptist Tract on Hermeneutics.” Ed. J. C Wenger. MQR 42, no. 1 (Jan. 1968): 26-44.

Yoder, John Howard. The Legacy of Michael Sattler. Classics of the Radical Reformation, Vol. 1. Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1973.

        Yoder mixes primary texts with biographical annotations. That biography acted as a foil to Snyder’s later work.

Snyder, C. Arnold. “Life of Michael Sattler Reconsidered.” MQR 52, no. 4 (Oct. 1978): 328-332.

Snyder, C. Arnold. “Revolution and the Swiss Brethren: The Case of Michael Sattler.” Church History 50, no. 3 (Sum. 1981): 276-287.

        Snyder would become the most prolific author on Sattler. These works set the way for his challenge to Yoder’s interpretation. The latter distilled the arguments from his dissertation of the same year.

Snyder, C. Arnold. The Life and Thought of Michael Sattler. Studies in Anabaptist and Mennonite History, no. 27. Scottsdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1984.

        Snyder’s biography essentially attempts to demonstrate the influence of Sattler’s Benedictine past on his later Anabaptist theology, especially as revealed in Schleitheim.

Martin, Dennis D. “Monks, Mendicants and Anabaptists: Michael Sattler and the Benedictines Reconsidered.” MQR 60, no. 2 (Apr. 1986): 139-164.

Arnold, C. Arnold. “Michael Sattler, Benedictine: Dennis Martin’s Objections Reconsidered.” MQR 61, no. 3 (July 1987): 262-279.

Fast, Heinhold. “Michael Sattler’s Baptism: Some Comments.” MQR 30, no. 3 (July, 1986): 364-373.

Snyder, C. Arnold. “Michael Sattler’s Baptism: Some Comments in Reply to Heinhold Fast.” MQR 62, no. 4 (Oct. 1988): 496-506.

        Two challenges came from Snyder’s biography. Fast rejected the extent of a  connection that Sattler had that may have localized Sattler’s Anabaptist identity. Martin saw many of Snyder’s claims as too circumstantial. Snyder responded to both in defense of his original claims.

Snyder, C. Arnold. “The Influence of the Schleitheim Articles on the Anabaptist Movement.” MQR 63, no. 4 (Oct. 1989): 323-344.

        While not directly about Sattler, this article attempts to show that the Benedictine influence on Sattler was mediated to the rest of Anabaptism via Schleitheim.

Here are the rest of the works on Sattler that I have in my bibliography:

Augsburger, Myron S. “Michael Sattler (d 1527): Theologian of the Swiss Brethren Movement.” Th.D. diss., Richmond, Virginia, Union Theological Seminary, 1965.

_________. “Michael Sattler (d 1527): Theologian of the Swiss Brethren Movement.” MQR 40, no. 3 (July 1966): 238-239

        Simply a report on the findings of Augsburger’s dissertation.

Baecher, Claude. L'Affair Sattler. Editions Sator-Mennonites, 1990.

Depperman, Klaus. "Michael Sattler: Radikaler Reformator, Pazifest, Märtyrer." Mennonitisches Geschichtesblätter 47/48 (1990/1991): 8-23.

Estep, William Roscoe, Jr., “A Superlative Witness.” In The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism, 3^rd ed., 57-75. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996.

Haas, Martin. “Michael Sattler: Auf dem Weg in die Täuferische Absonderung.” In Radikale Reformatoren, 115-124. Munich: Beck, 1978.

        The German original from which the previously mention Haas item was translated.

Köhler, Walther ed. Brüderliche Vereinigung etzlicher Kinder Gottessieben Artikel betreffend, Item ein Sendbrief Michael Sattlers an eine Gemeine Gottes samt seinem Martyrium. In “Flugschriften aus den ersten Jahren der Reformation.” Leipzig, 1909.

Moore, John Allen. Anabaptist Portraits. Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1984.

        There is a chapter in here on Sattler, but the book is not in my possession; so, I don’t know what the page numbers are.

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

Seguy, Jean. “Sattler et Loyola: Ou Deux Formes de Radicalisme Religieux au XVI° Siécle.” In The Origins and Characteristics of Anabaptism, ed. Marc Leinhard, 105-125. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1977.

Snyder, C. Arnold. “The Life and Though of Michael Sattler, Anabaptist.” Ph.D. diss., McMaster University, 1981.

        The dissertation that was later revised and published as The Life and Thought of Michael Sattler.

Spitta, Friedrich. “Michael Sattler als Dichter.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 35 (1914): 393-402.

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

Veesenmeyer, Gustav. “Von Michael Sattler.” Staudlin und Vater’s Kirchenhistorische Archiv (1826): 476.

On Snyder and Sattler, Again.

When reviewing C. Arnold Snyder’s biography of Michael Sattler,[1] I wrote, “It [Snyder’s argument to setup the relationship of Sattler’s Benedictine past to is later Anabaptism] is like a three-legged stool in that taking out one leg will tip over the stool but it is also unlike a three-legged stool in that there are far more than three legs.”[2] In that review I also summarized the subsequent debate with Heinhold Fast regarding baptism. Now I wish to similarly summarize, although more briefly, the debate with Dennis D. Martin, whose objections were much broader.

Martin’s article, “Monks, Mendicants and Anabaptists,”[3] in general agrees with my assessment given above, comes from Martin’s background of scholarship in Medieval Monasticism. Looking at the categories of sola scriptura, “Practical Christocentrism” (i.e. discipleship), soteriology, and sectarianism, Martin repeatedly gives the cases that although Sattler could have gotten some of those ideas from the sources to which Snyder ascribed in his reconstruction of the evidential silence, those themes had other possible origins of influence on Sattler. For instance, Sattler’s biblicism need not have been learned in the Scriptorium of St. Peter’s in the Black Forest since it could have also been picked up from the Protestants. Martin then concludes to say that Snyder’s arguments are streams of plausibilities that added together have the statistical effect of being implausible.[4] At best, if Snyder did not successfully demonstrate the direct influence of Sattler’s monasticism on his Anabaptism, then, Martin concluded, the best Snyder could show is the parallels between the two theologies, which would be a parallel that had already been accepted as a foregone conclusion.[5]

The real issue seems to me to be about methodology. Martin lamented, “[T]he North American thesis format emphasizes interpretation at the expense of diligent archival work.”[6] While Snyder’s biography attempted to reconstruct the silence of the evidence, Martin seems to have preferred not to conjecture too far into that silence. Snyder was himself aware of the difference of methodology, saying, “[N]o historian of the sixteenth century can avoid working with less than coercive evidence.”[7] Snyder is certainly correct to say this since even when evidence is available, the accuracy of that evidence is often in question, especially considering that much evidence from the period is stained with the polemical dyes of the debates in which they were composed. The matter then does not appear to be of whether it is appropriate to use non-coercive evidence but rather of how non-coercive may evidence be as a basis for interpretation.

Snyder did not help himself in his case by saying that he had a “strong suspicion” for one fact and a “lurking (and probably unprovable) suspicion of another.[8] He at the same point conceded the incompleteness of his archival searches but stated that further enquiry at a time of “requisite leisure and access” might provide valuable insight.[9] This is precisely the sort of methodology to which Martin objected at the outset. It is one thing to offer possible explanations for gaps in the evidence but it is quite another to build an entire framework of biographical interpretation on the assumption that one or the other of those explanations is true.

Snyder did tackle the objection that other sources may have influenced Sattler besides Benedictine monasticism. While he admits the possibility of other sources, he complained that Martin himself offered no constructive counter-thesis. Most tellingly, Snyder wrote, “[T]he burden of proof is on Martin to present either the historical or literary evidence leading to his counter hypothesis in the Sattler case.”[10] Again, the difference in methodology determines the way that each scholar is judging the others’ arguments. Snyder accused Martin of not offering a better counter thesis while Martin had no intention of offering such but only to show that Snyder’s interpretation was not necessarily warranted. Martin seems to have been happy with merely bringing archival sources to light and stating little more than the evidence suggested while Snyder insisted that an interpretation must be set forth; and if not then his must be accepted until a better interpretation is found.

Snyder’s interpretive framework does remain as the most viable working hypothesis on the source of those aspects of Sattler’s thinking, but Martin has shown that there is a great possibility for that working hypothesis to be undone. Snyder’s paradigm has extensive explanatory power if not concrete historical evidence. It could one day be substantiated beyond the circumstantial if new evidence arose but it remains equally susceptible to having the legs kicked out from under it by those same evidences that as of yet sit in historical silence.

---

[1]The Life and Thought of Michael Sattler, Studies in Anabaptist and Mennonite History, no. 27 (Scottsdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1984).

[2]http://wederdooper.blogspot.com/b/post-preview?token=AqezSjkBAAA.RXB9G-cXkE62_pe8CtiJNA.gR_Vazl021bEAfaWQiy0NA&postId=7745240353806073617&type=POST. According to the Google stat tracker, only six of my dear readers have read this. Go read it. Now. You’re not actually down here in the footnotes, are you?

[3]“Monks, Mendicants and Anabaptists: Michael Sattler and the Benedictines Reconsidered,” MQR 60, no. 2 (Apr. 1986): 139-164.

[4]Ibid., 162.

[5]Ibid.

[6]Ibid., 140n. It is worth noting that Martin’s dissertation was completed at a North American university, the University of Waterloo.

[7]“Michael Sattler, Benedictine: Dennis Martin's Objections Reconsidered,” MQR 61, no. 3 (July 1987): 263.

[8]Ibid., 269.

[9]Ibid.

[10]Ibid., 276.

Life Spans of Anabaptists baptized between 1525-1530: A Generous Approach

I had a free afternoon and thought I would conduct a rather unscientific collection of data to hopefully begin to answer this question asked in an earlier post. Was the average lifespan of an Anabaptist after baptism really eighteen months? As I wondered then, the fact never seems to have a solid citation. It only floats around as an anecdote assumed true, from what I have thus seen. So, I decided on a method to begin to assess the plausibility of the claim in order to judge whether it would be worth the while to investigate the question further.

My method was this: I went onto the Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online,[1] and searched the names of a variety of Anabaptists who were baptized between the years 1525-1530. Since we are looking for an average in months, I did not consider the actual day of baptism or death but on the month. I compiled two lists: one where GAMEO had the month information available and another for those Anabaptists for whom GAMEO had only had a year or other less precise date. When it came to rounding, I tended toward rounding in advantage of a shorter lifespan. This is bad math, yes, but I am not trying to find the actual figure. I am only trying to assess the plausibility of the given figure. So, if I can skew the results toward that figure and still cannot support it, then my purpose has been served even though I had biased the test against myself.

Here are the life spans of those whom I looked up for whom the months of baptism and death were available (sorry that I don't have my columns in nice clean lines).

                                    Baptism                  Death                     Months as Anabaptist

George Blaurock                     1/25                        9/29                        56

Conrad Grebel                         1/25                        7/26                       18

Balthasar Hubmaier                 4/25                        3/28                        35

Hans Hut                                 5/26                        12/27                      19

Michael Kürschner                   6/28                        6/29                        24

Felix Manz                               1/25                        1/27                        24

Michael Sattler                         1/25                        5/27                        16

Leonhard Schiemer                  4/27                        1/28                         9

Ambrosius Spittlemayr             7/27                        2/28                         7

             The average among these guys is 23 months, five months more than the anecdotal life span. This at first gives some plausibility to the 18 month reference and from such a small sample size (9), I don’t have enough information to say this with great certainty, even if the result is 28% greater than the 18 month claim. So, I came up with another list with those whose months aren’t listed. These are the numbers I had to skew against me and they may help us if the results turn the average significantly one way or the other.

Hans Amon                               before 29            42                     156

Gabriel Ascherham                    before 28            45                     204

Wolfgang Branhuber                  before 27            29                     24

Johannes Brötli                         1/25                    28                     36

Johannes Bünderlin                   26                       after 32             72

Andreas Castelberger                1/25                    after 3/28           36

Hans Denck                               before 6/25        11/27                 30

Andreas Fischer                         28                      40                     144

Oswald Glait                              before 3/26        10/46                  247

Jakob Hutter                              29                       2/36                  63

Jakob Kautz                               26                      32                     72

Hans Nadler                               27                      after 2/29           24

Philip Plener                               early 27              after 35              96

Wilhelm Reublin                         1/25                    after 59              408

Peter Riedemann                        before 29            12/56                 324

Hans Schlaffer                           26                        2/28                  18

Wolfgang Uliman                        4/25                     28                     36

Jacob Wiedemann                     27                        35 or 36             96

George Zaunrig                          before 28              31 or 38            36

The average I got for these guys is roughly 111 months, which is more than nine years. Combined with the first list, that average comes down to about seven years. The result of this is to say that for those very first Anabaptist, baptized within the first five years of the movement’s inception, the average lifespan was nowhere near the purported eighteen months unless I happened across a whole lot of outliers or there is a big group that got chopped down very shortly after their baptism. It may have been that the eighteen months was originally a limited figure, perhaps only describing Dutch Anabaptists in the 1530s, for example, and then later erroneously applied to all Anabaptists.

This in no way is meant to minimize the persecution that the Anabaptists faced. It was very real. Even if they were not killed in so short amount of time, the exiles, being taken away from the families and homelands they loved, their status as social outcasts and lives of instability and uncertainty were true persecutions. I plan on giving a short notice on the opposite effects that this persecution had on the movement’s vigor in a future post called “Seed and Sickle.” Though I do not mean to downplay the severity of the Anabaptist plight, I do nonetheless hope to prevent it from being mythologized.

And for those who might denounce my unscientific method here, I plead that this rough work is sufficient for testing the plausibility of the questioned claimed. Should this method have produced a result under three years, then further, more precise, study would be warranted. Besides, if I were writing for a seminar or journal, I would hold up the higher standard from the outset of this little study. Luckily, as a blog, I don’t have to always restrict myself to that standard, although I usually do.

---

[1]http://www.gameo.org.