Graffagnino,
Jason J. “The Shaping of the Two Earliest Anabaptist Catechisms.” Ph.D. diss.
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2008.
Jason
Graffagnino’s dissertation concerns the factors behind the development of the
first two Anabaptist catechisms, by Balthasar Hübmaier and Leonhard Schiemer.
His primary thesis was that the pluralistic and tolerant milieu of Moravia was
fertile soil for Anabaptist catechesis (1). The established culture of variety
of sects enabled the presence of yet another sect, Anabaptism. Also, the
attendant Moravian tolerance yielded an atmosphere in which Anabaptist were not
compelled to breath out controversy and polemic but rather to focus on
entrenching their distinctive faith in future generations, the product of which
was these catechisms (2).[1]
A
chapter devoted to the Catholic tradition of catechesis led to the influence of
Erasmus. Graffagnino essentially agreed with the school of thought that assigns
to Erasmus a significant influence on Anabaptist theology. The two important
milestones that Graffagnino addressed were the stress on piety (28ff.) and the
call for renewed catechetical instruction, resulting in his own attempt at
constructing one (37ff.).
Much
space was spent on the development of the Unitas Fratrum out of the context from which it arose—namely
the aftermath of Hussite dissent (ch. 3). Graffagnino set up signposts along
the way of their development that would later serve as markers for connecting
Hübmaier to this Moravian and Bohemian past. The narrative largely leads to an
overview of the Kinderfragen,
a Unitas Fratrum
catechism that would be representative of their method and be the referent
against which Hübmaier’s and Schiemer’s catechism would be compared.
Graffagnino’s narrative of the group’s development progresses well from it’s
15th century beginnings, but when it reaches the Reformation period, precisely
the period of interest, the narrative is much briefer. More attention to the
synchronic state of Moravian dissent in the 1520’s would have been helpful.
Graffagnino’s
argument for Unitas Fratrum catechisms’’
influence on Hübmaier’s Lehrtafel was shaped largely as a response to Jarold Knox
Zeman’s contention that textual analysis did not merit a textual dependence of
Hübmaier on the Unitas Fratrum (162ff.).[2]
Zeman granted that there were several textual parallels between the Lehrtafel and the Kinderfragen, but this only reflected a polemic directed toward
a common opponent, Roman Catholicism (165).
Graffagnino showed that there were two parallels
that were unusual and thus might point toward dependence. The two catechisms
were the only two that addressed Mary as pointing others to Jesus at Cana
rather than only addressing her in her normal role as an object of adoration as
the mother of Christ (165). Graffagnino also mentioned the use of the
beatitudes in both. Both used the beatitudes in a similar context and this is
particularly notable since Hübmaier never addressed the subject in full
elsewhere in his corpus (165).
Also, Zeman may have not been complete in his
analysis by limiting that analysis to textual evidence, both in word and
concept. Graffagnino also observed both the catechetical practice and the
personal contacts of Hübmaier as ways of providing a more complete picture.
Prior to Hübmaier’s work in Moravia he did not include catechesis in the order
of baptism. Once in Nikolsburg, however, he did include it in the same way that
the Unitas Fratrum had (168).
Contacts that Hübmaier had could also have been a
mark of influence. Martin Göschl, whom Graffagnino numbered among the
Utraquists (144n), was a native Moravian and would thus have been
well-acquainted with the catechetical practice of the Unitas Fratrum. It was Göschl
who had commissioned Hübmaier to compose a catechism of his own (168). Also,
Jan Ziesing, a former member of the Unitas Fratrum was counted
among Hübmaier’s associates (170).
Graffagnino convincingly argued for the reliance of
Hübmaier’s Lehrtafel on catechesis endemic to Moravian dissent. His discussion
of Schiemer’s catechism, Von der Prob des Geistes, was not as robust. That discussion was more broadly about Schiemer’s
theology, what it drew from Hübmaier and what remained in the legacies of
Marpeck and the Hutterites. Graffagnino pointed in the direction that the
Hutterites may have cast their catechetical system, even their comprehensive
educational system, in the model of Schiemer’s own catechism (198). Since the
development of Schiemer’s catechism, not its legacy, is the matter at hand,
Graffagnino did not treat the subject fully (211), although the contentious
claim might provide an interesting beginning point for further research against
other possibilities behind the development of Hutterite catechesis.
After a review of Schiemer’s earlier thoughts on
nominal Christianity, a concern for both Erasmus and Moravian dissenters,
Graffagnino approached Prob des Geistes from two directions. Graffagnino first surveyed
the major themes of the work, most prominently that of love as the mark of true
Christianity (187ff.). He secondly reviewed the apparent reliance of Schiemer’s
baptismal theology on Hübmaier (190ff.) While the discussion was brief, Graffagnino
nonetheless highlighted the consistency of Schiemer’s catechism with the
earlier catechisms mentioned earlier. Most importantly, Graffagnino provided
the full text to Prob des Geistes in German (appendix 3) and in English (appendix
4), both transcribed and translated by Mitchell L. Hammond.[3]
Graffagnino respected the value that each author
ascribed to Scripture. However, he also recognized that the authors were a
product of their environment, concluding that the “multi-dimensional religious
landscape of Moravia in the 1520s provided a climate in which a dissenting view
such as Anabaptism could thrive” (205). That climate “allowed for both the
composition of catechisms and necessitated the need for such documents in order
to differentiate Anabaptism from other dissenting opinions” (Ibid). This was
direct to Hübmaier, through whom it was mediated to Schiemer, then Marpeck and
then ultimately to the Hutterites.
[1]Mark Dixon
recently made the argument that Zwingli and Hübmaier’s polemics continued into
their liturgies of the Lord’s Supper. “The Baptismal Forms of Huldrych Zwingli
and Balthasar Hubmaier in Nikolsburg (1525-1527): Liturgy as Rhetoric.” Paper
Presented to the Sixteenth Century Studies Conference, Cincinnati, Ohio, 25-28
October 2012. It would be worth evaluating whether the same is true for
Reformation catechesis.
[2]Zeman’s
arguments being found in The Anabaptists
and the Czech Brethren in Moravia, 1526-1628 (The Hague: Mouton, 1969).
[3]A footnote
explains that these appendices make no pretense of being a critical text or
translation but are rather included for the sake of reference. From an initial
reading, the text that was used, a copy from the city archive of Bratislava,
seems to have lost its textual integrity. There are several questions for which
the answers are blank. Also, some answers are not given in a way that can be
universalized among all catechumens. To the question of when the catechumen
became a Christian, the answer was “On the Monday after Catherine’s [feast
day], A. D. 1527,” which is believed to be the date of Schiemer’s conversion
(180n). The simplest resolution is that the catechumen would have understood
that his or her own conversion was to be substituted for the date given. Before
further analysis, a critical edition would be warranted from the Bratislava
copy and a copy found at a Montana brüderhof by Robert Friedmann (“The Oldest
Known Hutterite Codex of 1566: A Chapter in Anabaptist Intellectual History,” MQR
33, no. 2 (Apr. 1959): 96-107.) Both are microfilmed in Goshen.
