Review of The Shaping of the Two Earliest Anabaptist Catechisms, by Jason J. Graffagnino

       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.

SCSC 2012, Cincinnati

     It's the time of year again for the Sixteenth century Studies Conference, this year being held in Cincinnati. I won't be able to make it but I think I can convince Cory Davis, a school fellow and presenter, to guest blog for me some of his notes. Here I will list the papers being presented that are relevant to our studies for the sake of giving our reader some familiarity with the areas of research that are on the minds of researchers currently.

"False Martyrs, Seditious Thieves: Anabaptism and Circumcellions."
     Jesse Hoover, Baylor University

"Jews and Hutterites in Sixteenth-Century Moravia: The Case of Pisker Löw."
     Adam Darlage, Texas Lutheran University

"'They, Like Nicodemus, had sought the Lord at night': Clandestine Worship and the Night in Menno Simons and in Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism."
     Craig Koslofsky, University of Illinois

"Philipp Melanchthon between Doctrina and Tolerentia, c. 1520-1541."
     Otfried Czaika, Kungliga Biblioteket-The National Library of Sweden

"Erasmus and Mennos - A Plea for Peace."
     Berit Jany, The Ohio State University

"The Community of Saints in Martin Luther's and Menno Simons' Ecclesiology."
     Susan Moudry, Baylor University

"The Place of the Apocrypha in the Writings of Menno Simons in Relation to other Protestant Reformers."
     Bryan Maine, Baylor University

"Sparks of Reason: Some Vernacular Roots of Radical Thought."
     Ruben Buys, Utrecht University/UCLA

"The Baptismal Forms of Huldrych Zwingli in Zurich and Balthasar Hubmaier in Nikolsburg (1525-1527): Liturgy as Rhetoric."
     Mark Dixon, Princeton Theological Seminary

"Moravian Anabaptism: Balthasar Hubmaier and the Czech Brethren."
     Jason Graffagnino, Truett-McConnell College

"Hubmaier and Luther on the Use of the Sword."
     Inseo Song, Princeton Theological Seminary

"An Odd Couple: Hans Denck and Thomas Muentzer."
     Geoffrey Dipple, Augustana College

"'The word that is in the heart one should not ignore': Hans Denck and the Sources of Sebastian Franck's Spiritualism."
     Patrick Hayden-Roy, Nebraska Wesleyan University

"Revisiting Karlstadt's Orlamünde: Steps toward a Distinct Ecclesiology."
     Cory Davis, University of Arizona

     So, that's what we can expect to be of use to us and I'll get on Cory's case to convert his written notes into intelligible blog posts. I'll make sure I get a write-up of his paper up since I've got a copy. I'll wait until he's done, though.

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.

What was going on down in Nicolsburg?

As a beginning student of Anabaptism (an maybe I still really am and don’t realize how far I’ve yet to go) I always got confused over one of many things. What was going on down in Nicolsburg? As a student at a Baptist institution I was of course exposed to Balthasar Hübmaier with abnormal weight. What I remember thinking then of that important time in Hübmaier’s career was that he went down there, there was a controversy, Hübmaier is martyred, something else happened, add salt, shake well and out popped Hutterites. I knew it started with Hübmaier and ended with Hutterites but the road between the two was unclear. Something drastic must have happened in the innards of the Moravian mechanism that took a magisterial, sword-bearing input yet produced a separatist, pacifist, communitarian output.

So, with bravado unbecoming of my inexperience, I have decided to make a chart illustrating the path from Nicolsburg to Jacob Hutter. At about Hutter’s arrival, things get fissiparous and the Austerlitz group is splintered, with one group following Hutter and adopting his name as their own. Your screen, dear reader, is probably not big enough to contain such a chart; so, I will take you up to the arrival of Hutter and at least one piece of the puzzle should be clearer (or so I hope).

Here’s a narrative to accompany the chart. After Hübmaier’s recantation in Zürich, he left for Moravia via Augsburg, arriving in Nicolsburg in July 1526. Hübmaier began a magisterial Anabaptist reformation along the lines of that of Waldshut, befriending the local lords, the Liechtensteins. He had great success, performing a great number of baptisms subject to possible exaggeration. The advancement of his reformation among the indigenous population was augmented by the arrival of refugees.

There were tension between the locals and the refugees. The refugees, led by Jacob Wiedemann, were not supported by a magisterial reformation and preferred to exist as a separatist congregation. Accordingly, they began to hold their own meetings and as a matter of survival began to advocate mutual aid. This mutual aid was not yet developed into the more communalistic communitarianism for which the later Hutterites would be known.

Hübmaier was reforming a city. Wiedemann was with the refugees dissenting. And then there’s Hut. What had been an internal difference erupted into tract warfare. Hans Hut sided with Wiedemann and the refugees and began a campaign against Hübmaier. Hübmaier matched volleys by his writings against Hut. What began as a debate over separatism and the corollary of participation in the magistracy was turned to the issue of pacifism.[1] Although Hut left town for Vienna in June 1527 and soon thereafter martyred and in July Hübmaier was given up to the Hapsburg authorities, in whose hands he was martyred, the two parties were now irreconcilable. The positions they held on the question of pacifism became their identifying mark; Hübmaier’s congregation became known as the Schwertler (sword-bearers) and the dissenting group that remained under Wiedemann’s leadership became known as the Stäblers (staff-bearers).

The Schwertler were dissipated by persecutions in 1535 and have not been of much interest to scholars. The Stäbler were forced from Nicolsburg during the Spring of 1528 by the Lords who favored the magisterial reformation that had been Hübmaier’s legacy. They ended up in Austerlitz where their practice of mutual aid was radicalized into communalism. This group was enlarged by even more refugees, among whom differences of ideas were imported—differences that would lead to later fractionalization. One of the immigrants was Hutter, who would go on to lead one of these groups that would become known as the Hutterites.

If four paragraphs isn’t concise enough a narrative, let me try again. Hübmaier founded an Anabaptist church in Nicolsburg. Some of the church members wanted to be pacifists. The pacifists were kicked out of town and went to Austerlitz and formed a communitarian church. Many groups came out of that group, including the Hutterites.

So, I hope that clears up some of that little knot in Anabaptist history. I hope that it helps at least one person understand more clearly what was going on down there in Nicolsburg. At least the way my mind works, having things in chart format helps me understand it.

---

[1]Hut was known for his apocalypticism, which was ardent enough to earn him the rebuke of Denck at the Martyrs’ synod of August 1527. Hut there agreed to place his apocalypticism at the periphery of his preaching. Such apocalypticism is often associated among the radicals with violence, for it was taught by some that the end of days was to be accompanied by the wrathful execution of God’s judgment of the unbelievers by the faithful church of God.  On the contrary, Hut’s end times fervency was pacifistic. He predicted that that judgment would come at the hands of the godless Turks on behalf of the faithful remnant.

Anabaptist New Testament Biblicism and the Shift of Expectations toward Radicalization

One of my current reads is Werner Packull’s Hutterite Beginnings: Communitarian Experiments during the Reformation.[1] I had read the publication of his dissertation, Mysticism and the Early South German-Austrian Anabaptist Movement, 1525-1531[2] and I am refreshed to once again read his writing, which to me is solid history that is very readable–a narrative that is fastened to historical details and is sympathetic from an outside perspective without feeling the need to be apologetic in Anabaptism’s defense. In a section titled, “The Forgotten Factor: The Availability of the Vernacular Scriptures,”[3] Packull composed a mini essay on the historical circumstances that contributed to the New Testament orientation of Swiss Anabaptist Biblicism.

In that section Packull reviewed the dates of printings of the Scriptures in the vernacular that would have been available to the book distributor Andreas Castelberger and the network of friends involved in the Bible study from which Anabaptism would spring. Luther’s New Testament was completed in 1522 and was widely available. Versions tailored to the Swiss dialects became available in the following years. The Old Testament began to be available in the vernacular shortly thereafter, with a first installment coming out of Basel at the end of 1523. While the Old Testament existed in the vernacular, it was several years before it was completely translated and the translations that were available were not as widely available.

In light of the certain New Testament preference of the New Testament over the Old,[4] Packull concluded that it was possible “that the New Testament orientation of Early Swiss Anabaptism was influenced by particular historical circumstances that included the limited availability of the vernacular Scriptures.”[5] Since the Anabaptists could be loosely characterized as a bottom-up hermeneutic community reflecting the practical concerns of the congregation rather than a top-down hermeneutic authority structure under the leadership of the learned for whom the availability of the vernacular Scriptures would have less consequence, despite that there were several learned leaders among the first Anabaptists, “Swiss Anabaptist vernacular biblicism, it can be argued [as Packull had just done], took shape before a wholistic reading of both testaments was an option for a hermeneutic community that had rejected the tutelage of the learned.”[6]

The Anabaptists had a different reform polity in mind than Zwingli and the incipient cause of limited availability of vernacular Scriptures lent the Anabaptists to appeal primarily to the New Testament. This dialogically led to further differences of reform polity as the paradigm of New Testament oriented Biblicism hardened in continued Anabaptist polemics. The turning point was the issue of baptism, which reflected both the difference over reform polity and hermeneutics. The Anabaptists appealed to the New Testament on the issue while Zwingli read the Old Testament rite of circumcision at an equal level with the New Testament, justifying this move by claiming that the New Testament church instituted baptism before writing the books and letters collected in the New Testament. Packull recognized that it was not insignificant that the correlation of the breaking point of baptism and Zwingli beginning to preach the Old Testament in the Münster.[7]

Packull’s awareness of the influence of this factor on the hermeneutics of the Anabaptists prevents interpreting their New Testament orientation as a “deliberately held principled position”[8] developed in the crucible of insular theological reflection. There is one further question that comes to my mind from Packull’s research. Is the New Testament orientation of the Anabaptists in accordance to the above-mentioned factors developed in distinction to an inherent Reformation hermeneutic that held both Testaments as equal or was that orientation developed as the logical conclusion of an early Reformation preference for the New Testament that set about those factors?

It was no accident that the New Testament was the first to be translated and printed. Luther’s translation was an effort to proliferate the gospel that Luther had grounded in the New Testament, especially in passages like Mark 1:15 and explicated in his lectures on Romans. Zwingli’s demonstrated the same preference for the New Testament by preaching from the New Testament long before systematically approaching the Old. Packull contended that Zwingli’s regard for the Old Testament was always present but was obscured by the New Testaments bases for his preaching. Packull wrote, “Zwingli’s own initial preoccupation masked potential differences.”[9] The exact status of the importance of the Old Testament in Zwingli’s hermeneutics has not been given (to my knowledge) treatment but would be a worthwhile avenue of future research. However, if his change from his initial doubts of infant baptism is any indication,[10] then it seems that Zwingli possibly held to a Anabaptistic New Testament orientation and only later did he elevate the Old Testament for the purposes of combating the Anabaptists.

If a preference for the New Testament was the initial Reformation standard, then it would not be the case that the availability of the vernacular Scriptures caused Anabaptists to prefer the New Testament, although the strength of Packull’s research would confirm that that factor certainly reinforced the preference. It would then have been Zwingli, needing a polemical advantage, who turned to the Old Testament, which would have been available to him without translation. What then may be the case, as is fitting with my broader interpretation of the Reformation, is that it was not the Anabaptists radicalized their Biblicism beyond that of the reformers but rather that the reformers moderated on their previous positions, on which the Anabaptists remained consistent. Though a complete paradigm shift from the reformers/radical reformers paradigm to one of reformers (Anabaptists)/moderating reformers (Luther, Zwingli, et al.) may be more seismic than warranted, a push in that direction will move interpreters of the Reformation away from the default assumption that differences between the two parties were always a result of radicalization.

A more complex dynamic is at play. At times the radicals indeed took the reforms of the moderates beyond the positions the moderates consistently maintained. At other times the radicals were the ones who consistently maintained the initial positions on reform on which the moderates had drawn back. The continuity of ideas did not necessarily rest on the continuity of persons. What may more often be revealed to be the case was that the later split came on issues on which there was no firm position. For example, neither party retained Zwingli’s initial hesitance on infant baptism. The radicals went beyond it by practicing believer’s baptism while the reformers withdrew. Luther’s early consideration of an ecclesiola was radicalized into the separated church of Anabaptism while Luther set the idea aside for later institution (which never occurred). Historians of the Radical Reformation should be served well in gaining a new interpretive tool by being free of assuming all differences between the two camps resulted from the radicals going beyond positions that the moderates consistently maintained.

The same operating principle may be at play in the topic at hand, namely that the differing hermeneutics after the split over baptism were not necessarily indicative of one side standing firm and the other either radicalizing or moderating. The New Testament preference was observed by all but as the debates over reforms continued, Zwingli and his learned coterie lessened the distinction between the Testaments by elevating the Old to support their moderate reforms while the Anabaptists expanded on that preference almost to the exclusion of the Old Testament since they did not have it readily available to them. Their preference of the New Testament was so great that they were subject to the taunts of the moderates, who charged that they were reviving the error of Marcion.[11]

---

[1](Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995).

[2](Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1977).

[3]Hutterite Beginnings, 27-29.

[4]In an endnote, Packull quoted John Howard Yoder’s claim that the preeminence of the New Testament among the Anabaptists is so certain that it is taken for granted. Packull called this an understatement (Packull, Hutterite Beginnings, 329). Importantly, Jonathan R. Seilig concluded that the Anabaptists treated the Apocrypha as equal to the rest of the canon (“Solae [Quae?] Scripturae: Anabaptists and the Apocrypha,” MQR 80, no. 1 [Jan. 2006]: 5-34). While these claims are not cotenable, Packull is only speaking of the emerging movement of the mid- to late 1520s while Seilig wrote of Anabaptism up until the mid-1600s. Before the first century of Anabaptism was completed the historical circumstance of extremely limited availability of the vernacular Old Testament had passed.

[5]Packull, Hutterite Beginnings, 28.

[6]Ibid., 32.

[7]Soon after arriving in Zürich in 1519, Zwingli had begun preaching from the Gospel of Matthew with the mandate to preach the complete text, genealogies and all—a project that would consume the first half of the 1520s (Bruce Gordon, The Swiss Reformation (New York: Manchester University Press, 2002), 51).

[8]Packull, Hutterite Beginnings, 28.

[9]Ibid., 29.

[10]Many sources attest to this change, but the most in depth that I have come across is that of Brian Brewer, “Zwingli’s Early Anabaptist Convictions: History or Mythology?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Sixteenth Century Studies Conference, Ft. Worth, Texas, October 2011.

[11]Packull, Hutterite Beginnings, 28.