Anabaptist and Contemporary Baptists Conference Audio

So, Southwestern has done us all a favor and posted the conference audio, which can be found here:
SWBTS Anabaptist Conference Audio
So, with this up, I won't need to provide any more summaries like the one I posted on Italian Anabaptism. However, I may in the next few days post some interactions with a few sessions more along the lines of the "Saving Denck" post.

Two notes:
Some of the speakers are given the title "Dr." on that link, although a few of the speakers are presently finishing up their dissertations. This might be an insignificant misnomer since they will presumably finish and Dr. Misseau had already earned a doctorate in another field.
Normally, I wouldn't care enough to note something like that except that it points toward what I hope does not become a weakness as this conference becomes, as planned, an annual event. Several of the speakers presented either their recent or upcoming dissertations (in the cases of McDill and Woodbridge, I had their dissertations open on my laptop and watched them trace through a summary of that material). This in no way detracts from the value of their work but does give rise to a concern that if the conference has in this first year nearly exhausted recent and current doctoral students' work within Baptist circles, then this does not bode well for a sustainability for an annual conference. SWBTS will have to rely on more than summaries if they hope to sustain the conference unless a large wave of Anabaptist scholars come through Baptist Academia in the coming years. This would actually be quite desirable. On the other hand, since this summary material is now largely covered, this would open the door to presentations of fresh material to be presented, especially as the conference (hopefully) gains traction. SWBTS being my alma mater, I would like to see this succeed, but at the same time I recognize that not every year can be approached in the same manner.

Saving Denck

For the benefit of those who attended the conference but are not entirely familiar with the body of scholarship on the subject, I have attempted to provide the literature to which the speaker has referred in order to direct the reader to otherwise unrecognized work.

“Saving Denck” - Rolf Schowalter, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

            This is a presentation that I had anticipated because of my own interest in Hans Denck as a figure in which few traditions can find comfort. Both historical Anabaptists and contemporary Baptists disparaged Denck’s doctrine of Scripture, which Denck taught was subservient to and not identified with the Word of God, and his teaching of universalism. That Denck taught the latter doctrine has been challenged in the second half of the twentieth century, but these challenges are as of yet cursory and unconvincing.[1] However, I believe it is possible that Denck did not teach universalism but rather annihilationism or even the possibility of post-mortem conversion. In neither case could it be said that his doctrine of hell was orthodox. Nonetheless, I was mistaken in my assumption that Schowalter would be trying to “save” Denck from the accusation of teaching doctrines that had endeared him to nineteenth- and twentieth-century liberal theologians. Rather, the plight from which Denck needed deliverance turns out to have been the lack of clarity of the origins of Denck’s thought.

Schowalter began his presentation with an overview of the biography of Denck and a perfunctory reminder to value primary sources over secondary literature. Neither of these needs recounting here. The argument of the presentation began detailing the historical debate over the placement of Denck within the broader Radical Reformation movement. In the early stages of modern Anabaptist scholarship, theologians such as Harold Stauffer Bender viewed Anabaptism as legitimate heirs of the Reformation but were unwilling to admit Denck into the Anabaptist camp, primarily because of the teachings mentioned above. They viewed Denck more as a member of the Spiritualist movement. Jan J. Kiwiet, however, assigned Denck a more normative status, stating that Denck was neither a mystic nor a liberal but rather truly a partner with the Anabaptists.

This is contrasted by the scholarship of scholars like James Mentzer Stayer, Werner O. Packull, Klaus Deppermann and Hans-Jürgen Goetz. The first three of these, Schowalter claimed, attributed the source of Denck’s thought to Thomas Müntzer.[2] Packull in particular ascribed to Denck the theological tradition of late medieval mysticism[3] In doing so, this set of scholars reaffirmed the conclusion of Karl Holl from before the revival of Anabaptist scholarship, which was that the entire Radical Reformation was derived from the branch of Müntzer and Andreas Karlstadt.[4] Unfortunately, Schowalter’s presentation of this material on this point is at best confused.[5] Inaccuracies aside, Packull’s determination that late medieval mysticism was the wellspring of Denck’s thought remains–a determination that Schowalter reported had not yet been challenged. Such a challenge is Schowalter’s current project.

His method was to test the characteristics of Denck’s theology against the characteristics of self-professed mystics of the medieval tradition. Indicative of this tradition would be Bonaventure, Tauler and the Theologia Deutsch.[6] Schowalter outlined ten characteristics of Bonaventure and six between Tauler and the Theologia Deutsch. At this point the presentation was mostly cursory since it is, I believe, a preview of his dissertation work, which would of course deal with the matter more in depth. As such, a complete interaction is beyond what can be undertaken at present, but there are some serious questions that Schowalter will have to answer in order to present a convincing case. Is it appropriate to use Bonaventure, a French/Italian mystic, as a representative of the strain of mysticism with which Denck would have been familiar? Schowalter is quite bold in taking on the dissimilarity of Tauler and the Theologia Deutsch to Denck since these are the primary markers that Packull had chosen as indicative of medieval mysticism. Schowalter’s analysis will have to be immaculate and I look forward to reading this if indeed it is his dissertation. Also, how possible is it to deny that the Theologia Deutsch was formative for Denck if Denck is the author of the appendix to one of its editions?[7] Even if Denck were aligned with the mysticism of the Theologia Deutsch, does this fact discount Schowalter’s direction toward grounding Denck in the Reformation rather mysticism since Luther himself had early on drawn inspiration from that work? Would Denck thus be merely retaining a facet of the Reformation’s inception that Luther had later abandoned?

Schowalter finished this portion by approvingly quoting Kenneth Davis to say that Denck could be in no way considered a spiritualist or heir of mysticism.[8] Again, Schowalter, at least as this presentation conveyed, may not have captured the complete nuance of the cited work. One reason for this is that Davis’ discussion of the intellectual origins of Anabaptism predates Packull’s; so, Davis would not have had the full weight of Packull’s contention in mind when denying what Packull would later conclude–that Denck drank heavily from the well of medieval mysticism. More importantly is that Davis’ rejection of Spiritualism or mysticism as progenitors of Denck’s thought was not made in a vacuum but rather was a part of Davis’ own project of nominating yet another predecessor to the role of intellectual catalyst for Denck and indeed for the whole Anabaptist movement–asceticism.

Schowalter concluded by turning to identifying a possible interpretive key to Denck’s thought, namely “Conversational Theology,” a concept derived a believers’ church account of doctrinal development that drew from the theological formulation of the later Anabaptist, Pilgram Marpeck.[9] This conversational theology was described of being composed of four dimensions: conversation and judgment within the local church, conversation and recommendation within one’s own tradition, conversation and proselytism with those outside, and conversation as adoration. Schowalter, in the brief time afforded him, could only give short evidences in defense of each Denck’s conformity to each of the for points. This brevity unfortunately gave the impression of proof-texting and the chosen text did seem a bit forced into the mold of the dimension they putatively supported. In addition to the danger of anachronism in applying conversational theology to Denck, it also seems unhelpful to use the schematic to help identify the tradition to which Denck belongs. The second dimension describes conversation with one’s tradition, but the identity of Denck’s tradition is exactly what is in question.

            Schowalter has brought up an array of interesting and challenging ideas concerning Denck’s theological inheritance. However, much work needs to be done beyond what was presented today. I’ll keep an eye out on ProQuest for his dissertation when he is done and I’ll try to remember to post an update to whether he in that fuller forum made a more convincing case. As thus far presented today, however, it has not yet met my satisfaction.

---

[1]Alvin J. Beachy, The Concept of Grace in the Radical Reformation, Bibliotheca Humanistica & Reformatorica vol. 17 (Nieuw-koop, Netherlands: B. de Graaf, 1976), 17, 48.; Jan J. Kiwiet, “The Life of Hans Denck,” MQR 31 (1957): 242-243.; William Klassen, “Was Hans Denck a Universalist?” MQR 39 (1965): 152-154.; Morwennaa Ludlow “Why Was Hans Denck Thought to Be a Universalist?” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 55, no. 2 (Apr. 2004): 257-274. This last article, though longer, does little more than repeat the earlier arguments to greater length.

[2]“From Monogenesis to Polygenesis: The Historical Discussion of Anabaptist Origins,” MQR 49, no. 2 (Apr. 1975): 83-121. Schowalter’s citation of this, as will be shown, was mistaken.

[3]Mysticism and the Early South German-Austrian Anabaptist Movement, Studies in Anabaptist and Mennonite History, no. 19 (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1977) ch. 2.

[4]“Luther und die Schwärmer,” in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte I: Luther (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1932), 420-467.

[5]The polygenesis thesis was actually directed against Holl’s conclusion; not in agreement with. Holl had indeed claimed that Anabaptism of both the South German and Swiss varieties had their foundation in Müntzer but the polygenesis thesis argued specifically against one origin for both movement and that both varieties, and additionally the Dutch variety, had unique, distinct origins. To give Schowalter the benefit of a doubt, he may have meant to convey instead that the polygenesis thesis agreed with Holl insofar as South German Anabaptism was derived from Müntzer. If this was Schowalter’s intent, then it still demonstrates a muddled understanding of the monogenesis/polygenesis debate since the origin of South German Anabaptist in Müntzer was not Holl’s conclusion but rather only the starting assumption to conclude that Swiss Anabaptism also had been derived from Müntzer as opposed to Holl’s foil Ernst Troeltsch, who had argued (Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen [Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1912.]) that both movements were based on the Swiss variety.

[6]Reprints of this wok abound, but the copy in my library is Susanna Winkworth, transl., The Theologia Germanica of Martin Luther (Mineola, New York: Dover, 2004).

[7]Some Propositions, in The Spiritual Legacy of Hans Denck: Interpretation and Translation of Key Texts, trans. and ed. Clarence Baumann, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions, no. 47 (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1991), 260-267.; „Etliche Hauptreden“, Anhang zur „Theologia Deutsch“ 1528, in Hans Denck Schriften: 2. Teil - Religiöse Schriften, ed. Walter Fellmann, Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer Vol. 6.2 (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1956), 111-113. According to Baumann, the authorship of this appendix is not entirely certain and it may be useful to Schowalter’s claims if he can show this to not be genuinely a work of Denck.

[8]Most likely, Schowalter was referencing Anabaptism and Asceticism: A Study in Intellectual Origins, Studies in Anabaptist and Mennonite History, no. 16 (Kitchener, Ontario: Herald, 1974).

[9]Malcom B. Yarnell, III, The Formation of Christian Doctrine (Nashville, Tennessee: Boadman & Holman, 2007).

Italian Anabaptism: Was there Ever Such a Thing?

“Italian Anabaptism: Was there Ever Such a Thing?”[1] - Maël L. D. S. Disseau, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Disseau’s project began as a second look at the research and conclusions of Henry A. Dewind in order to reevaluate the question of the presence of Anabaptism in Italy.[2] DeWind had concluded that Anabaptism did not have a presence in Italy but rather the group of radicals had been given that name for polemical reasons. The trademark beliefs of the Anabaptists, as seen in their Swiss and South German manifestations, were absent from the Italian group, who instead had tendencies toward what would later be identified as anti-Trinitarianism (or “rationalism” in Williams’ parlance). Since this group denied the virgin birth, the existence of hell, plenary resurrection, etc.,[3] they ought to be recategorized.

Disseau challenged this conclusion to say that the movement had originally been of the same cloth as the normative Anabaptists across the Alps. However, later developments from without the movement turned very visibly toward anti-Trinitarian teaching. Essentially, the Italian Anabaptist movement had been theologically hijacked by an outside force. Those who remained closer to the central teachings of Anabaptism either reintegrated with the local church or fled.

One failure in understanding the movement has resulted from the lack of study of the movement outside of the Italian language. This means that for the majority of those who study the Radical Reformation, primarily English and German speaking scholars, views of the Italian movement come mediated only through limited channels of research such as DeWind’s, thus limiting vital critical treatment of the nature of the movement. Because of this lack of familiarity among Anglophone scholarship, Disseau began with an overview of the movement’s origins.

The center of Anabaptist activity in Italy was Venice, which had become a veritable Strasbourg of religious liberty on the peninsula. The Venetians were lenient on these matters so as to not impede the economic benefit of trade with “heterodox” merchants. As a result, the Anabaptists in Venice generally came from three backgrounds. There were first those who came in the late 1520s and after as refugees from both the Catholic and Protestant persecutions and those who came into contact with the ethos of appeal directly to Scripture for the foundation of Christian belief. The second group was that of merchants who had been doing business in Venice. The third strain that Disseau indentified was of those who were of a distinctively rebellious spirit dominant in Venice at the time.

Tiziano, whom Disseau had used as representative for the majority view of the Italian radicals, presumably had come from French-speaking Switzerland and seems to have come into contact with Anabaptist after having fled to Grisons. After having arrived in Italy, he was referred to as having taught an “ancient” doctrine, referring to Anabaptist teaching.[4] Numerous sources mention that his teaching was German in origin. Evidence of the content of his teaching indicates that his thought developed beyond the Lutheranism that precipitated his move to Geneva. He taught several distinctively Anabaptist doctrines, including that the sword was appropriately wielded by Gentiles but not by Christians, iconoclasm and anti-paedobaptism. However (if I heard Disseau correctly), he denied free will. Also, the anti-Trinitarianism that would later be attributed to the movement, known as the “new” teaching in distinction to the “ancient” teaching, was absent from Tiziano’s teachings.

In 1550, the Venetians held a synod during which the new, anti-Trinitarian teachings were discussed. Representing these teachings was a recently arrived figure, Pietro Manelfi. Although these new teachings were decidedly not aligned with the Anabaptist teaching that had up to this point characterized the group, Manelfi prevailed. Those who retained the “ancient” doctrine were asked to leave the group. Many fled while others, finding the alternative of joining with the anti-Trinitarians unpalatable, returned to the Catholic Church. After this moment the Venetian officials persecuted the group on account of its new teachings, which were beyond what the venetians were willing to formerly tolerate. When they referred to this group, they continued to refer to them according to the old label, “Anabaptist,” despite the move away from Anabaptist teaching. This then explains the information for which DeWind had tried to account by concluding that the pejorative “Anabaptist” was only applied for polemical expediency. The group had originally been Anabaptist and kept the label despite the change in theological distinctives.

As a separate thesis within this narrative Disseau offered an explanation for why Manelfi infiltrated the group. He proposed that Manelfi was not a genuine member of the group but rather an agent of Rome. Rome had been displeased with Venice’s leniency toward those outside of the Catholic Church.[5] The plan that Manelfi executed was to join the group and radicalize its teachings beyond that which was tolerable to the Venetians. In doing so the reputation of all dissenters would be of latent seditiousness and threat to the stability of the society. Thus convincing the Venetians that dissenters from Catholicism were a threat, the Venetians would then take the actions against them that Rome desired despite that anti-Trinitarian was a minority opinion within the Anabaptist movement.

As a side note, Disseau briefly described the peculiarly Venetians execution method of the Anabaptists. The Venetians avoided public executions that would be a disturbance by executing them quietly. The offender would be placed on a plank between two boats that would then sail out. After reaching a certain distance the boats would begin to diverge, dropping the offender into the water.

---

[1]The order of the presentation of this material has been slightly rearranged in order that the thesis may be clear in this format.

[2]“‘Anabaptism’ in Italy,” Church History 21, no. 1 (Mar. 1952): 20-38. The term “Anabaptist” is left in quotation marks to reflect the DeWind’s conclusion that the group called “Anabaptist” in Italy did not truly fit the mold of what is generally referred to by that name.

[3]As evidenced by the testimony of Pietro Manelfi in the Venetian Synod of 1550, held by that movement. Disseau provided a translation of this testimony and some other documents in a handout.

[4]This was not a positive affirmation of the restorationist program of the Anabaptists that sought to restore the teaching and practice of the ancient church. Nor was it a reference to the older teaching of the Catholic teaching as opposed to the newer teaching of the Reformation. Rather, it was a localized term set against the “new” teaching among the Italian movement, namely the anti-Trinitarian and rationalist doctrines. This difference will be made clearer below.

[5]Apparently, laws against rebaptism were in effect in Venice in the same way that the Swiss had appealed to ancient laws against rebaptism in order to persecute the Anabaptists. However, the Venetians were unwilling to enforce these laws for the reason given above. This information was not part of the presentation but was given in conversation afterward.

The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists

Starting today, Southwestern Seminary will host a conference on the sixteenth-century Anabaptists with a view toward the movement they anticipated (or they may say founded), the Baptists. As with the Sixteenth Century Studies Conference I will be posting synopses of many of the sessions. It also occurs to me that I left a few sessions out from that conference. So, I will post the rest of those at some point also.

The sessions will be as follows:
Macolm Yarnell, III - "'For What They Were Concerned with Was not Luther's but rather God's Word': Anabaptist Theological Method."
Mael Disseau - "Italian Anabaptism: Was There Ever such a Thing." in lieu of:
     Heinrich Klassen - "Michael Sattler and the First Anabaptist Confession of Faith."
Emir Caner - "Sufficientia Scripturae: Balthasar Hubmaier's Greatest Contribution to Believers."
Paul L. Gritz - "Hubmaier: Anabaptist Theologian of Proclamation." in lieu of:
     Jason Graffignino - "The Lighthouse of the Reformation Nikolsburg and Hubmaier's Anabaptist Catechism."
Mike Wilkinson - "The Theology of Leonard Schiemer."
Ral Schowalter - "Saving Denck." This ought to be fun
Abraham Friesen - "The Impact of Erasmus and Luther on the Anabaptists."
Rick Warren - "The Radical Reformers and the Great Commission."
Simon Goncharenko - "Wounds that Heal: The Importance of Church Discipline within Balthasar Hubmaier's Theology." in lieu of:
     Michael Wayne McDill - "Balthasar Hubmaier and Free Will."
Russell Woodbridge - "Westerburg on Purgatory and Other Topics."
Leighton Paige Patterson - "The Legacy of Anabaptism."

A bit Hubmaier heavy for certain and even though I disagree with the school's general interpretation of the movement, we at least are united on the focus of appropriating that tradition for the benefit of today's church.

I'll also go ahead and repeat my blanket disclaimer that the auditory nature of this event may result in some inaccuracies, but I have to faithfully portray what was said and will indicate any points of uncertainty. I apologize in advance for any inaccuracies and open myself to correction and the provision of sources.

Zwingli’s Early Anabaptist Convictions: History or Mythology?

“Zwingli’s Early Anabaptist Convictions: History or Mythology?” - Brian Brewer, Truett Theological Seminary

Dr. Brewer’s paper addressed a concern that, though well known in Anabaptist research circles, remains to be ignored generally in broader historical circles. The traditional historiography has been that Zwingli’s position remained constant and he was a cooler head offering the Reformed position against the radicals who would eventually break from the civic reform. Brewer’s thesis was that historians have failed to research further into Zwingli’s nascent baptismal theology. In the same vein, they ignore Anabaptist accounts of Zwingli’s perspective.

            The Hutterite Chronicle gives an account from the Anabaptist perspective that reveals that the radicals of the Grebel circle felt as though they had been mislead by their former teacher. Their perception was that Zwingli agreed with them early on in their position against paedobaptism. However, Zwingli did not pursue the course of reforming the church in regards to that sacrament but yielded to the social concern of not fomenting civil unrest.

            The question must be raised of whether the Hutterite Chronicle accurately portrays Zwingli’s early baptismal theology. Other sources must be called into consideration. There were two Tuesday meetings held with the Grebel circle concerning the question of Baptism the December before the January 1525 rebaptisms in the house of Felix Mantz. Clearly by this time Zwingli and the radicals had parted ways.

            Earlier, Mantz had demanded that written arguments be made so that there would be no confusion over the positions held by each party. The usual perception of this fact was that Mantz was calling up for a debate but other testimony from Mantz suggests a different motivation. Mantz said that he “knew full well” that Zwingli believed that baptism should be an ordinance reserved only for those who could confess faith. At another place, he says, “I am sure” that Zwingli shared their understanding but he could not figure out why Zwingli would not openly express that shared understanding. That being the case, it would then seem that Mantz called upon Zwingli to commit his ideas to paper not so that they may serve as a source of debate but rather so that they could have a record in writing that Zwingli had actually rejected paedobaptism, even if he was reticent to admit it.

            In the case of Hübmaier, as is well known, there is the account of a conversation during which he and Zwingli discussed baptism. Hübmaier pointed toward specific, such as  the exact place, date and who else was there as testimony that he was not incorrectly remembering that Zwingli had doubted paedobaptism. Though these testimonies certainly indicate that Zwingli had doubted infant baptism, it must be assented that these come from the pens of those whose own position would benefit from the claim. Can we find evidence of that same doubt in Zwingli’s nascent baptismal theology?

            In an early sermon, Zwingli indicated that parents in Zürich had already begun to withhold their children from baptism. To them he gave in that sermon the assurance that without baptism they need not fear that their children be damned. Also, Zwingli’s January 1523 67 Theses ended with a final thesis indicating other issues that were intended to become part of the later development of his reform program. Included in this were the tithe and the issue of baptism, on which he called anyone curious to come speak to him privately. This indicates that a reform of baptism was an issue he intended to address as the reformation progressed and also that he was not yet ready to make his still tenuous stance publicly known. The change on the issue of baptism did not come until later and he would then state, “I myself was deceived,” but he claimed to have not been as dogmatic as those who would later institute credobaptism.

            What then was the cause for Zwingli to abandon the inklings of anti-paedobaptism in favor of a staunch paedobaptism position? Brewer suggested that soon after the Spring of 1523, during which the last sign of anti-paedobaptism is evident by the conversation with Hübmaier, came an outbreak of iconoclasm. The iconoclastic controversy had a significant effect, which was that Zwingli was forced to reconsider the pace of the reforms he was instituting. The same effect motivated the town council, who would in response call for slower reforms. The radical’s break with Zwingli, in contrast with the traditional historiography, was not because he wouldn’t change his baptismal position but precisely because he did.

Brewer’s provided an excellent narrative for understanding the events and the evidence for Zwingli’s positions at various points of time. He is successful in defending the thesis that the break between Zwingli and the Grebel group was not because the latter could not convince to Zwingli to come to their position but rather because Zwingli had given in to the exigencies of the situation and to the council’s demands by having gone back on the trajectory on which his earlier theology ran.

Some questions remain, however. The first is that Brewer assigned the iconoclastic controversy the role of catalyst in shifting Zwingli’s baptismal theology back in line with the received tradition. Is that event the event that sparked Zwingli’s change? That event was only the first significant event between the Spring of 1523 and the Autumn of 1524 that could have been such a catalyst. Two possibilities remain. In that period of almost a year and a half, there could have been other events that could have redirected Zwingli’s theology. Also, the span of time is long enough to credit the change to further theological reflection not guided by any identifiable event.

Second, if the outbreak of iconoclasm and the resulting desire for slower reforms a sufficient explanation for the change in Zwingli’s position. According to Brewer’s narrative, that controversy led to the call for slower reforms but the break with the Grebel circle was not over the speed by which reforms would be instituted but rather the content of those reforms. The Grebel circle was not merely impatient in waiting for Zwingli to change baptismal practice but they recognized that Zwingli opposed any change of baptismal practice at any pace. So, while Brewer’s presentation answers the question of why Zwingli would have reconsidered the timing of baptismal reform, it did not answer why he changed his position altogether.

Erasmus and Bucer on the Radical Reformation

“Erasmus and Bucer on the Radical Reformation.” - Laurel Carrington, St. Olaf College

Carrington’s paper essentially compares the differences between Erasmus’ and Bucer’s attitudes toward the radicals. Erasmus had expressed disappointment with the variance in the handling of heretics by those who followed him. Though Bucer and the general attitude of the Strassbourg reformation that was more lenient toward heretics, Erasmus was unwilling to deny the tradition of executing heretics.

The radicals were fissiparous and thus unsettling to society. So, capital punishment seemed appropriate to Erasmus. Bucer, in contrast, recognized that the radicals were in heresy but they did not commit any grievous sins warranting civil punishment. Further, they, like the mainstream reformers, sought Scripture as the source of their theology. While the radicals may have been mistaken in their reading of Scripture, they were open to being rebuked by Scripture and were not obstinate against it.

Erasmus did not find any scriptural prohibition of executing heretics. However, though he refused to be as lenient as Bucer by preferring exile to execution, Erasmus conceded that rulers must not be too hasty in handing down verdicts resulting in the sentence of execution. Regardless, the right of the radicals were limited for having separating themselves from the church. They, along with any other heretics, did not have the Spirit, whose home is among the unity and concord of the church. Having thus defined the radicals to be outside of the Christian society, Erasmus did not seem to have strongly insisted that they were fully worthy of preservation.

New Perspectives in Bucer’s Attitudes towards the Radicals

Disclaimer: Any inaccuracies in the following report are due to the nature of presenting papers. Below is represents with the greatest attempt for accuracy but there is not text available for review. Points of uncertainty in the author’s ideas will be evident in how I represent them.

“New Perspectives in Bucer’s Attitudes towards the Radicals.” - Stephen Buckwalter, Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaft

            Stephen Buckwalter’s presentation began with an overview of editorial concerns of involved with the new critical edition of Bucer’s works. In regards to Bucer’s polemic against the Anabaptists, He addressed matters of layout with the works against Pilgram Marpeck, the Marburg Anabaptists and Bernhard Rothmann. The original publication against Marpeck’s Confession was laid out by having two columns. The layout placed Marpeck’s points, to which Bucer added numbers, next Bucer’s replies to each point. The previous critical edition to the new laid the whole exchange in one column, Marpeck’s articles being followed by Bucer’s reply. The trouble with this was that it at times made it difficult to tell who was author at any single point. The new edition sought to revert back to the original two-columned layout in order to preserve coherency.

            The polemic against the Marburg Anabaptists differed in that it was not an imaginary dialogue in the traditional way that the polemic against Marpeck had been. Rather, it was a reflection of actual dialogues that had taken place. This was also a point-by-point response, but the origin of this as a true dialogue required a one-columned format, for the debate had actually occurred in time. The polemic against Rothmann was not point-by-point, so the question did not arise.

Following the discussion of these editorial concerns, Buckwalter investigated similarities and differences between Bucer and the radicals, primarily Marpeck. Both had a high view of a singular covenant, Marpeck using the term bundt Thirty-three times in his confession and Bucer replying with twenty-two instances. For Marpeck, the bundt was of a good conscience toward God while Bucer’s emphasis was on the unity of the covenant through both Testaments as the covenant with Abraham.

The central theological departure that they made form each other was on the intersection of civic and ecclesial life. Bucer insisted on the external structure of the church as an institution with civil support. Marpeck, on the other hand, viewed the church as an invisible reality. The church was not merely a civic community’s religious life but further a gathering of those committed to discipleship.