Full Text

[RRR 13.1 (2011) 33–62] RRR (print) ISSN 1462-2459doi:10.1558/rrr.v13i1.33 RRR (online) ISSN 1743-1727

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2012, Unit S3, Kelham House, 3 Lancaster Street, Sheffield S3 8AF

Why Not Now? Karlstadt’s Whether We Should Proceed Slowly and Avoid Offending the Weak in Matters that

Concern God’s Will (1524)1

Neil R. Leroux

University of Minnesota

[email protected]

Abstract

Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt’s Whether We Should Proceed Slowly [Ob man gemach faren soll] in 1524 was no best seller, and the work is of-ten overlooked today. However, its author was a prolific publisher, espe-cially of German tracts, in the early sixteenth century. His influence upon other so-called radical reformers remains yet to be measured adequately. Despite the fact that Gemach was written shortly before Karlstadt’s expul-sion from Electoral Saxony, its thesis resonated strongly with other writers who were disenchanted with the trajectory of reforms in Wittenberg after 1522. A careful analysis of Karlstadt’s argumentation reveals a rigorous reliance upon Old Testament texts, and it represents the development of a position that holds the Christian congregation responsible for imple-menting reforms in worship that are mandated in God’s commands. As Karlstadt’s response to Luther’s Invocavit Sermons (preached in March 1522 and published outside Wittenberg in 1523), Gemach shows what Gordon Rupp called Karlstadt’s ‘best polemical writing.’

Keywords Karlstadt, argumentation, offence, the weak, Scripture

Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541) wrote Whether We Should Proceed Slowly [gemach] and Avoid Offending the Weak in Matters that Concern God’s Will ometime during his stay in Orlamünde (early summer 1523–Sep-

1. Ob man gemach || faren / und des ergernüssen || der schwachen verschonen || soll / in sachen so || gottis wil= || llen an= || gehn. || Andres Carolstadt. || M.D.XXIIII. Modern critical edition in Erich Hertzsch, ed., Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften aus den Jahren 1523–25, Teil I, Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts, 325 (Halle [Saale]: Max Niemeyer, 1956), 73–97. Complete English translations in

mailto:[email protected]

34 J Neil R. Leroux

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2012

tember 1524),2 but it was not published until November 1524 in Basel. Per-haps not surprisingly, this is not one of Karlstadt’s best-known works, and it has to some extent been lost in the shuffle of his eucharistic tracts.3 In fact, this pamphlet presents a bit of an enigma in Karlstadt research. Gordon Rupp calls Gemach ‘perhaps [Karlstadt’s] best polemical writing’, and then gives it two paragraphs of comment, adding that it ‘repays careful study’.4 Compared to the rel ative silence from most commentators, Rupp’s treatment is effusive, for while mentioned and seldom expounded carefully in the steadily growing recent Karlstadt scholarship,5 Gemach is nonetheless occasionally selected for

Edward J. Furcha, ed. and trans., The Essential Carlstadt: Fifteen Tracts by Andreas Bodenstein (Carlstadt) from Karlstadt, Classics of the Reformation, VIII (Waterloo, Ontario; Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1995), 247–268, and Michael G. Baylor, Radi-cal Reformation, ed. and trans., The Radical Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1991), 49–73. A nearly complete translation is Ronald J. Sider, ed. and trans., Karlstadt’s Battle with Luther: Documents in a Liberal-Radical Debate (Philadel-phia: Fortress Press, 1978), 49–71, with omissions. An edition in modern German is found in Heinhold Fast, ed., Der linke Flügel der Reformation: Glaubensseugnisse der Täufer, Spiritualisten, Schwärmer und Antitrinitarier, Klassiker des Protestantismus, 4 (Bremen: Carl Schüneman, 1962), 249–269, with omissions. A two-page compiled excerpt of the Sider text, Documents (50, 52, 61–62, 64–65, 70) is printed as text-reading ‘5.4’ in Carter Lindberg, The European Reformations Sourcebook (Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2000), 86–87.

2. E. Freys and H. Barge, ‘Verzeichnis der gedruckten Schriften des Andreas Boden-E. Freys and H. Barge, ‘Verzeichnis der gedruckten Schriften des Andreas Boden-stein von Karlstadt’, Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 21 (1904): 153–179, 209–243, 305–331 (repr. Nieuwkoop: de Graaf, 1965), #138 [hereafter abbreviated as Freys / Barge, Ver zeichnis, and cited with entry number (#)]. This indicates that Gemach was printed in mid-November by Thomas Wolff. See also there Hermann Barge, ‘Zur Chronologie und Drucklegung der Abendmahlstraktate Karlstadts’, 327 [323–331]. Volkmar Joestel, Ost thüringen und Karlstadt: soziale Bewegung und Reformation im mittleren Saaletal am Vorabend des Bauernkrieges (1522–1524) (Berlin: Schelzky und Jeep, 1996), 84, indicates that the dating of the writings of the fall of 1524 printed in Basel and Strassburg is ‘controversial and still not sufficiently clarified.’

3. See ‘Appendix, The Publication of Karlstadt’s Eucharistic Pamphlets, 1524–1525’, in Amy Nelson Burnett, Karlstadt and the Origins of the Eucharistic Controversy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 143–147.

4. Gordon Rupp, Patterns of Reformation (London: Epworth, 1969), 138–139. 5. Exceptions are Ronald J. Sider, ‘Karlstadt’s Orlamünde Theology: A Theology of

Regen eration’, Mennonite Quarterly Review [= MQR] 45 (1971): 361–367 [191–218; 352–376]; Ulrich Bubenheimer, ‘“Scandalum et ius divinum”: Theologische und rechtstheologische Probleme der ersten reformatorischen Innovationen in Witten-berg 1521/22’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 90 [Kanonistische Abteilung 59] (1973): 322–326 [263–342]; Ronald J. Sider, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt: The Development of His Thought 1517–1525, Studies in Medieval and Ref-ormation Traditons, XI (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 197–201. Hans-Jürgen Goertz, ‘Karl-

Why Not Now? J 35


modern editions or translations to repre sent Karlstadt and the beginnings of the Radical Reformation.6 Moreover, for one who produced about nine-

stadt, Müntzer and the Reformation of the Commoners, 1521–1525’, in A Compan-ion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism, 1521–1700, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, VI, ed. John D. Roth and James M. Stayer (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 1–44, offers incisive observations (p. 8) on Gemach. Erich Hertzsch, Karlstadt und seine Be-deutung für das Luthertum (Gotha: Leopold Klotz Verlag, 1932), 53–54, 66–67, in-cludes several quotes from Gemach. Two fine recent studies omit mention of Gemach: Wolfgang Simon, ‘Karlstadt neben Luther: Ihre theologische Differenz im Kontext der “Wittenberger Unruhen” 1521/22’, in Frömmigkeit – Theologie – Frömmigkeit-stheologie: Contributions to European Church History. Festschrift für Berndt Hamm zum 60. Geburtstag, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions, 124, ed. Gudrun Litz, Heidrun Munzert, and Roland Liebenberg (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 317–334; Richard A. Beinert, ‘Another Look at Luther’s Battle with Karlstadt’, Concordia Theological Quarterly 73 (2009): 155–170. Among more recent monographs, Ulrich Bubenhe-imer, Consonantia Theologiae et Iurisprudentiae: Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt als Theologe und Jurist zwischen Scholastik und Reformation, Jus Ecclesiasticum, XXIV (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1977), passes over the Orlamünde period, while Calvin A. Pater, Karlstadt as the Father of the Baptist Movements: The Emergence of Lay Prot-estantism (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1984), offers several brief quotes and observations from Gemach. Volkmar Joestel, Andreas Bodenstein gennant Karlstadt: Schwärmer und Aufrürher? (Wittenberg: Drei Kastanien Verlag, 2000), as part of the publisher’s ‘Biographien zur Reformation’ series, is necessarily brief (72 pages). An exciting recent development in Karlstadt research for Anglophones is Amy Nelson Burnett, trans. and ed., The Eucharistic Pamphlets of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, Early Modern Studies, 6 (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2011). Mo-Mo-dern Karlstadt research began with Hermann Barge, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 2 vols (Leipzig: Friedrich Brandstetter, 1905), responded to by Karl Müller, Luther und Karlstadt: Stücke aus ihrem gegenseitigen Verhältnis (Tübingen: Mohr, 1907). On Gemach, see Barge, vol. 2, 178–85.

6. Among the ‘Schwärmer’ included in Der linke Flügel by Fast, Gemach is the chosen representative treatise for Karlstadt. In the Radical Reformation by Baylor, Gemach is Karlstadt’s sole treatise (only Müntzer had two entries); in addition, under ‘Karlstadt’, the ‘Letter from the Community of Orlamünde to the People of Allstedt’ (33–35) is presented. Gemach is included in the selections of Karlstadt’s writings in Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt, and Sider, Documents. Yet to be fully investigated, however, is a more nuanced account of Karlstadt’s literary influence upon Conrad Grebel and the Swiss Brethren. Rupp, Patterns, rightly cites the ‘forceful influence [of Gemach] in the German and Swiss cities’ (152). Of particular significance for our interest in Karlstadt’s Gemach is, to start with, Grebel’s famous letters of 5th September, 1524, to Müntzer (nos 63–64 in Leland Harder, ed., The Sources of Swiss Anabaptism: The Grebel Letters and Related Documents (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1985)), in which Grebel repeatedly complains about the ‘false forbearance [schonen]’ of Luther. We know from Letter 62 (to his brother-in-law, Vadian, September 3, 1524) that Grebel had already written, or intended to write, to Karlstadt; this letter to Karlstadt is, however, not extant. In consulting J.C. Wenger, trans., Conrad Grebel’s Programmatic

36 J Neil R. Leroux


ty published writings, which were printed in about 213 editions, one who ‘among evangelical authors during the years 1518–1525 … published the largest number of works in German; and, after Luther’s, [whose] works had the second-largest number of editions’, the fact that Karlstadt is more familiar through the comments of his Lutheran opponents than via his own writings is doubly frustrating.7 When Gemach is quoted, what is usually provided is this blunt conclusion (schluss): ‘that where Christians rule, they should not have regard for any temporal authority. Rather, freely and on their own, they

Letters of 1524 (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1970), we find not only the two 5th September letters above translated but also presented in parallel, with German text and English translation on verso and recto pages respectively, and enumerated con-secutively, totalling 345 lines. Wenger also prints facsimile pages for the manuscript lines. He renders the three instances of schonen (and variants) as ‘sparing’ (lines 37, 46, 129). Grebel’s mention to Müntzer that a messenger has carried letters to Karl-stadt is at line 254.

Of course, what cannot be easily determined is precisely what Grebel and his fol-lowers had heard or read by early September 1524 about ‘schonen der schwachen’ [spar-ing the weak]. Müntzer had also complained about Luther’s careful treatment of the weak. In a letter of 29th March 1522, to Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560), Müntzer lamented: ‘Our most beloved Martin acts ignorantly because he does not want to offend the little ones [parvulos]’; see Peter Matheson (trans. and ed.), The Collected Writings of Thomas Müntzer (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988; paperback edn, 1994), 47 (no. 31); Günther Franz (ed.), Thomas Müntzer, Schriften und Briefe: Kritische Gesam-tausgabe (Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte, XXXIII; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1968), 381, lines 20–21. Moreover, Grebel’s knowledge (in early September 1524) of Müntzer’s writings seems to be very limited. However, according to Harder’s notes on letter 65 (Grebel to Vadian, 14th October 1524), at this date Grebel and his group now have been visited by Karlstadt’s brother-in-law, Gerhard Westerburg, who has brought with him eight of Karlstadt’s recent works, in search of a publisher, including Gemach. By now (October 1524), Grebel and his group have learned about the meeting between Karlstadt and Luther at the Black Bear Inn in Jena on August 22; see Harder, Sources, 295. For some scant atten-tion to this connection between Karlstadt and Grebel, cf. Harold S. Bender, Conrad Grebel (c. 1498–1526): The Founder of the Swiss Brethren Sometimes Called Anabaptists (Goshen, IN: Mennonite Historical Society & Goshen College, 1950); Harder, Sourc-es; Leonhard von Muralt and Walter Schmid, eds., Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz, vol. 1: Zürich (Zürich: S. Hirzel Verlag, 1952), and Heinold Fast, ‘The Dependence of the First Anabaptists on Luther, Erasmus, and Zwingli’, MQR 30 (1956): 104–119; he concludes that the Swiss probably learned of Reformation activi-ties in Wittenberg from reading Karlstadt’s ‘booklet against the “sparing (schonen) of the weak”’, meaning, of course, Gemach; see Fast ‘Dependence’, 109, n. 28.

7. Ulrich Bubenheimer, ‘Bodenstein von Karlstadt, Andreas’, in Hans J. Hillerbrand, ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, 4 vols (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), vol. 4, 180. It does not help, of course, that there is still no comprehen-sive critical edition of Karlstadt’s writings and correspondence.

Why Not Now? J 37


should strike and overthrow what is contrary to God, without preaching be-forehand’.8 In other words, we have a remark that is clear and useful in dis-tinguishing Karlstadt’s position on ‘what is contrary to God’ (namely, images9 and the mass10) from Luther’s, but I argue that we also have something more in Gemach. This treatise’s sig nificance to contemporary scholars is that it pro-vides a glimpse into the practical world of Karlstadt as leader of a Christian congregation (the Orlamünde gemeinde) trying to find its ecclesiology in the Word of God. We find arguments in Gemach that Karlstadt has argued be-fore and will again.11 In addition, what should be of further interest is how Boden stein12 tries to demonstrate his conclusion. For a careful examination of Gemach can be a useful exercise in intellectual history, revealing important differences Karlstadt had with Luther and the Wittenberg reformers; at the same time we see some compatibil ity of the exiled theologian with his Saxon rivals.13 In addition, from a close reading of not only what Karlstadt chose to

8. Volkmar Joestel, ‘“dass wir Christi Fußstapfen nachfolgen und leiden, wie er”: Andreas Bodenstein aus Karlstadt: Leben und Lebensbrüche (1486–1541)’, in Peter Freybe, ed., Wittenberger Lebensläufe im Umbruch der Reformation (Wittenberg: Drei Kastan-ien Verlag, 2005), 42 [28–51]. The Gemach quote is from Schriften, 96.12–15.

9. Karlstadt’s position on images in early 1522 was spelled out in Von Abtuhung der Bilder (January, 1522); Freys / Barge, Verzeichnis, #88. See the modern edition of Hans Lietzmann in Kleine Texte für theologische und philologische Vorlesungen und Übungen, 74 (Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Weber Verlag, 1911) [hereafter abbreviated: Lietzmann, Kleine Texte].

10. The topic of the Mass is less frequently singled out in Gemach; it is much more the topic focused in in the eucharistic pamphlets.

11. In the analysis of the Gemach text I will provide references to some of the impor-tant arguments that occur in other Karlstadt writings, particularly the ‘first group’ of eucharistic pamphlets (1521–1525), as translated in Burnett, Eucharistic Pamphlets, referring to them by short title: Adoration (1521), Priesthood (1523), Exegesis (1524), Masses (1524), Prove (1524). These dealt with ‘the timing and extent of practical re-forms, not only with changes to the mass liturgy but also with the removal of images from churches.’ Burnett, Karlstadt and the Origins, 56.

12. Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 4th ed., s.v. ‘Karlstadt (eigentlich: Boden-stein)’, by Hans-Peter Hasse; Theologische Realenzyklopädie, s.v. ‘Karlstadt, Andreas Rudolff Bodenstein von (1486–1541)’, by Ulrich Bubenheimer; Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, s.v. ‘Bodenstein von Karlstadt, Andreas’, by Ulrich Bubenheimer.

13. Scott Hendrix, ‘Radical Agenda, Reformation Agenda: The Coherence of the Refor-mation’, in Radikalität und Dissent im 16. Jahrhundert / Radicalism and Dissent in the Sixteenth Century, Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung, 27, ed. Hans-Jürgen Goertz and James M. Stayer ( Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2002), 43–60. On p. 51 Hen-( Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2002), 43–60. On p. 51 Hen-On p. 51 Hen-drix cites Karlstadt’s project at Orlamünde as an example of the same agenda that all dissenters started with and which they shared with Luther. Burnett, Karlstadt and the

38 J Neil R. Leroux


argue (and why—what rhetoricians call the canon of in ventio), as well as the manner in which he presented these arguments (the rhetorical can ons of dis-positio and elocutio), we will discern more accurately what Karlstadt thought of his audience and opponents, and how his literary mind operated.14 So in what follows I present some of the chief features of the argumentation employed in this piece dedicated to Bartel Bach, city clerk of Joachimsthal,15 where we know Karlstadt had established friendships that go back to 1520, when he was working out his views on the canon.16 For Karlstadt’s theme of

Origins, argues: ‘Eucharistic theology per se was not an issue of contention between Luther and Karlstadt, for through April 1522 they agreed in their understanding of the Last Supper’ (32, my emphasis).

14. Demonstrating Karlstadt’s training in the trivial arts (grammar, dialectic, rhetoric) is not easy, yet no one quibbles over the scholastics’ love for the art of disputation. Addi-tionally, scholars are recently beginning to recognize more richly Karlstadt’s acumen with language use; see Bill McNiel, ‘Andreas von Karlstadt as a humanist theologian’, in Werner O. Packull and Geoffrey L. Dipple, eds., Radical Reformation Studies: Es-says presented to James M. Stayer (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999), 106–119; William Wal-lace McNiel, ‘Andreas von Karlstadt and Thomas Müntzer: Relatives in Theology and Reformation’, PhD. Dissertation (Queens University, Kingston, ON, 1999); Neil Leroux, ‘Karlstadt’s Christag Predig: Prophetic Rhetoric in an “Evangelical” Mass’, Church History 72 (1), (2003): 102–37.

15. Located on the Thüringian side of the Ore Mountains (Erzegebirge), Joachimsthal was founded in 1516. According to C. Brown, by 1520 the free, royal mining town had quickly grown to 5,000, peaking in 1533 at over 18,000: ‘Over the course of the 1520s, the town was exposed to nearly every form of Christianity that Germany had to offer; followers of Luther, Erasmus, Karlstadt, Müntzer, Hubmaier, and the Pope all rubbed elbows with one another within the narrow confines of the Thal.’ See Christopher Boyd Brown, Singing the Gospel: Lutheran Hymns and the Success of the Reformation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), 26–27.

16. According to Martin Brecht, ‘Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, Martin Luther und der Kanon der Heiligen Schrift’, in Querdenker der Reformation: Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt und seine frühe Wirkung, ed. Ulrich Bubenheimer and Stefan Oehmig (Würzburg: Religion & Kultur Verlag, 2001), 135 [135–150], Karlstadt was the first reformer to write about the topic of the biblical canon, producing two such writings in 1520. 18th August is the date of the Vorrede of De canonicis scripturis libellus (Freys / Barge, Verzeichnis #34, and reprinted in Karl August Credner, Zur Geschichte des Can-ons [Halle, 1847], 316–412), and on 4th November brought out Welche bucher Bib-lisch seint (Freys / Barge, Verzeichnis, #46). In the latter work, Karlstadt had accepted the canonicity of the Epistle of James. Brecht adds: ‘The writing [De canonicis scrip-turis] is dedicated to the Joachimsthal preacher, Wolfgang Kuch, whom Bodenstein had visited at the beginning of 1520. In addition to Kuch, some highly placed people are greeted, whom Bodenstein had blessed. In Joachimsthal, Bodenstein was met with an interest in the Scriptures, and this prompted him to draw up the document on the canon. Therein he attempted to assess the authority, meaning and direction of the bib-

Why Not Now? J 39


the ‘sanctification of the justified’ was already forming then, and in Gemach we find repeated emphasis on the ‘consciences of the justified’, revealing (in this polemical tract) important theological commitments.17 Moreover, we have known that Karlstadt had visited Joachimsthal several times in 1522, and from Hans-Peter Hasse’s discovery in the Zwickauer Ratsschulbibliothek, we have the sermon Karlstadt preached there on 29th September (Michaelstag [St Michael’s Day]). In that sermon, Karlstadt’s next to last topic: offence [scandalum; ergernusz], surely aroused keen interest. And since the congrega-tion at Orlamünde was known to have proceeded with reforms involving im-age removal, surely officials in Joachimsthal would want to hear more about handling this issue.18

In the salutatio19 Karlstadt greets Bach warmly, wishing him the ‘knowl-edge of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord’. This mention of knowledge20 is noteworthy, since it foreshadows what Karlstadt argues in the exordium, namely that he must set his reader straight on the proper source of wisdom and truth. Thus a twofold purpose is at work: first, to persuade a friend and other readers like him;21 and secondly to declare or assert for all to learn, what

lical writings.’ (135). Hans-Peter Hasse, ‘Karlstadts Predigt am 29. September 1522 in Joachimsthal’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte (= ARG) 81 (1990): 107 [97–119], says Karlstadt’s dedicatory preface to De canonicis included greeting to eleven Bürgers and that he ultimately dedicated eight different writings to Bürgers from Joachimsthal. Wolfgang Kuch had enrolled at Wittenberg University in October 1520. According to Fast, Der linke Flügel, 251, three of Karlstadt’s dedicated [to Joachimsthalers] writings were printed in 1520. These dedicated writings are also discussed briefly under the topic of ‘Die Abendmahlstraktate 1524’ by Ralf Ponader, “‘Caro nichil prodest. Joan. vi. Das fleisch ist nicht nutz / sonder der geist”: Karlstadts Abendmahlverständnis in der Auseinandersetzung mit Martin Luther 1521–1524’, in Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541): Ein Theologe der frühen Reformation, ed. Sigrid Looß and Mar-kus Matthias (Lutherstadt Wittenberg: Hans Lufft, 1998), 226–227 [223–245].

17. Goertz, ‘Karlstadt, Müntzer and the Reformation’, 6, 8, 12.18. Hasse, ‘Karlstadts Predigt am 29. September 1522 in Joachimsthal’, 109; Karlstadt’s

sermon text at 116.17–117.1 (‘Nunc de scandalo….’; in Stephan Roth’s macronic transcription); Joestel, Ostthüringen und Karlstadt, 87. Karlstadt had concluded this topic by arguing that those who do not progress in the Christian life should be expelled from the Church: ‘Christus dedit suis hic ein leip(lich) straffe et glad(ium) domit wir mochten straffe(n) seduc(entes) a Christiana vita, sed videndum est vt beszerte sich. etc. vt(ique) exclus(sio) ex(tra) ecclesiam et si noluerit etc. ulla pestilens dingk venit in hunc mundum qual f(a)l(s)a doctrina.’ Hasse, ‘Karlstadt’s Predigt’, 117.10–14.

19. Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 74.1–9; Fast, Der linke Flügel, 251; Furcha, The Es-sential Carlstadt, 248; Sider, Documents, 50; Baylor, Radical Reformation, 49.

20. Fast, Der linke Flügel, renders ‘kunst’ as ‘Erkenntnis’.21. Ulrich Bubenheimer, ‘Andreas Bodenstein genannt Karlstadt (1486–1541)’, Frankische

40 J Neil R. Leroux


Karlstadt’s position regarding reforms is, and how it differs from Luther’s at Wittenberg. In his Exordium22 Karlstadt incorporates the epistolary narratio (brief stating of the problem) with an extended introduction that lays the groundwork for his first major argument (Section 1). Karlstadt’s argument to Bach is that he should not be surprised that his desire to proceed slowly with reforms is erroneous, for the ‘chief scribes and the entire population erred in the past and were capable of error’. Thus in this section Karlstadt injects a familiar dichotomy that has informed his argumentation for the last couple of years.23 He offers a dissociative argument24 that drives a wedge between (A) worldly opinion, and (B) authoritative truth. Included in the former (A) are: all learned persons, princes, and the whole crowd;25 the great mass;26 everyone;27 the wis dom of the wise;28 whether learned or ignorant.29 These are all capable of error and stum bling;30 ignorance or error;31 all adding up to naught and folly;32 genuine harlotry and spiritual adultery;33 harlotry and whorishness;34

Lebensbilder 14 (1991): 54 [47–64], reminds us that Karlstadt’s dedicatee in Von Abtuhung der Bilder is Count Wolfgang von Schlick of Joachimsthal. In 1521/22, at the high point of his literary production, Karlstadt had a following in Joachimsthal and Annaberg.

22. Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 74–75; Fast, Der linke Flügel, 251–254; Furcha, The Essen-tial Carlstadt, 248–249; Sider, Documents, 50–52; Baylor, Radical Reformation, 49–52.

23. As found in ‘The Meaning of the Term Gelassen and Where in Holy Scripture It is Found’ (April, 1523), Freys / Barge, Verzeichnis, #104–105; Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt, 133–168. In the Michaelstag sermon of 1522 Karlstadt had argued that ‘The greatest, ugliest offence is false doctrine [dz groste greulichd(ste) ergernusz etc. est mala falsche doctrina Christus].’ Cf. Hasse, ‘Karlstadts Predigt’, 117.1.

24. Chaim Perelman, The Realm of Rhetoric, trans. William J. Kluback, introduction by Carroll C. Arnold (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982), 126–137; see Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969), 411–459.

25. Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 74.25, 29; see also 76.5.26. Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 74.22.27. Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 74.27.28. Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 74.28.29. Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 75.12.30. Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 74.29.31. Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 74.26.32. Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 75.11.33. Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 75.35.34. Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 75.4.

Why Not Now? J 41


despite how it all seems good to us.35 Comprising the latter (B) are: God’s word;36 God’s commandments,37 God’s true sayings,38 God’s judgments,39 God’s true foundations;40 divine righteousness and truth;41 pure truth alone.42 These all, in contrast to the former, are enduring, a ‘foundation and rock’ upon which one can stand. One is therefore bound to Scripture so that no one can be guided by the whims of his heart.43 Karlstadt supports these arguments with numerous scriptural references in the margins (six from the Old Testament, three from the New).44 His argumentation invokes God, who has: stipulat-ed; clearly shown;45 said; calls; for bade; ordered. God has done so specifically through the biblical writers Moses and Paul.

That all scholars (gelarter), including ordained priests and bishops,46 can err is an acceptable conclusion for readers to draw, given that Karlstadt has already argued that, should even apostles, Paul, or angels fall away or teach otherwise, the truth of Scripture and the one who clings to it will remain unconcerned, without vacillation. This particular line of argument, called ar-gumentum a fortiori (‘from strength’), or qal wachomer, rea sons from stronger to weaker; once a more difficult premise is sufficiently established, it is easier

35. ‘gut duncket’; Sider, Documents, 51.36. Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 74.23; 75.5, 34; 76.6.37. ‘gebot’; Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 75.29.38. ‘waren reden’; Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 76.7.39. ‘urteilen’; Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 76.10.40. ‘warhafftige gründe’; Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 75.25.41. ‘götlicher gerechtigkeit und warheit’; Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 76.14.42. ‘Die blosse warheit aber / alein’; Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 75.17.43. Karlstadt argued the importance of truth (over custom) in November 1521 in his

Forms (Von beiden gestaldten der heylige Messze…); see Burnett, Eucharistic Pamphlets, 50. He championed the value of God’s Word (over a priest’s words) in his Christmas Day Sermon of 1521 (Predig); see Burnett, Eucharistic Pamphlets, 88. In his Priest-hood (Von dem Priesterthum und opffer Christi [December 1523], Burnett, Eucharistic Pamphlets, 89), Karlstadt lauded the ‘knowledge of God’s merciful will’, ‘knowledge of Christ’, and ‘divine knowledge’. Similar arguments are found in his Dialogue (Oc-tober 1524); see Burnett, Eucharistic Pamphlets, 163–165.

44. Two from the Prophets (Jeremiah 23; Isaiah 2), four from the Pentateuch (Leviticud 4; Deuteroniomy 12; Numbers 15 [twice]); two from the Gospels (Luke 15; Mat-thew. 16), one from Paul (Galatians 1).

45. The sentence actually begins with Da durch (‘by this [God’s stipulation in Leviticus 4]’) in first position, indicating Karlstadt’s emphasis on the text’s transparent authority.

46. So Sider, Documents, 52, n. 2.

42 J Neil R. Leroux


for readers to accept a less difficult one.47 Karlstadt explicitly uses this line of argument (‘how much more’; meaning ‘even more likely’) frequently in this tract.48 Here he uses it only implicitly.49 In my analysis that follows, I organize my remarks under the five head ings Karlstadt uses in the Gemach printing.

‘In whatever one does, one should also not look to others’50

Karlstadt argues that knowledge prompts action, that action is strongly implied in knowl edge, so that in behaviour also we must look only to God. He begins accordingly, ‘As I have just now shown through scriptural proofs, no one should look to another or wait for others to follow one’s lead in knowledge of the truth [Jn 5:39–41]. This applies to one’s deeds.’51 Moreover, when we consider how he closes this section, what Karlstadt believes he has now proven, is: ‘So you

47. Put another way, although the second premise of an a fortiori argument derives its acceptance from comparison to the first—therein being found easier for the reader to believe—the arguer (writer) has more at stake in the second premise, for it is the one needing to be accepted. The first premise is simply selected for use ahead of the second. On ‘a fortiori’, see Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 299, 343–344, 354, 478; on ‘qal wachomer’, see Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Pe-riod (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 68–69. Reading RSV, ‘how much more’ and ‘much more’ are used argumentatively in Deut. 31:27; 1 Sam. 21:5; 23:3; 2 Sam. 4:11; 16:11; Job 4:19; Prov. 11:31; 15:11; 19:7; 21:27; Ezek. 14:21; Mt. 6:30; 7:11; 10:25; 12:12; Luke 11:13; 12:24; 12:28; Rom. 5:9–10, 15, 17; 11:12, 24; 1 Cor. 6:3; 2 Cor. 3:11; Phil. 2:12; Heb. 8:6; 9:14; 12:9.

48. Earlier in 1524 Karlstadt used it to make precise arguments about Sabbath obliga-tions. See ‘Regarding the Sabbath and Statutory Holy Days’, Freys / Barge, Verzeichnis, #115–118; Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt, 317–338 [330–332]. He also uses ‘how much more’ arguments in ‘Recipients’ (Von den Empfahern / Zeychen / und zusag des heyligenn Sacraments fleysch und bluts Christi [1521]) and ‘Prove’ (Ob man mit heyliger schrifft erweysen müge…[1524]); see Burnett, Eucharistic Pamphlets, 24 and 118.

49. I find Jesus to be employing implicit qal wachomer (argumentum a fortiori) in Mark 2:1–12; Mt. 9:1–8; Luke 5:17–26, when he allows his listeners to draw the logical inference that it is easier to say: ‘your sins are forgiven you’ than to say: ‘Arise, take up your bed and walk’. Therefore, when he then performs the latter miracle (the more difficult), the scribes can reason that Jesus is thus also able to perform the former miracle, forgiving sins (the less difficult). The point of view of the audience (scribes) is the crucial one.

50. ‘Jm thun sol man auch nit vff andere sehen;’ Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 6–80 [76.20–21]; Fast, Der linke Flügel, 254–259; Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt, 250–253; Sider, Documents, 52–56; Baylor, Radical Reformation, 52–56.

51. ‘Nu wie ich itzt / durch schrifftlich gezeügnus beweiset hab / dz sich keener nach den andern sol umbsehen oder warten biss die anderen hernach volgen / in erkantnus der warheit. Also auch ist es mit dem thun.’ Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 6.22–25; translation in Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt, 250.

Why Not Now? J 43


have a candid justification for my view that we here (at Orlamünde)52 were not obliged to refrain either in teaching or activity from carrying out God’s com-mands until our neighbors and the guzzlers at Wittenberg followed.’53

Karlstadt here attempts to demonstrate that if one is to look only to God for knowledge, then one ought also consider God alone for one’s behaviour, for the entire tract must cover these two aspects: authority behind our knowl-edge and authority for our actions. If we say the Scriptures alone are the sole legitimate source of knowledge, then we ought also to find in them our sole justification for action. It would thus follow that taking one’s justification to act from the status of others (their knowledge and/or behav ior) violates our principle of the sufficiency of Scripture for both knowledge and action. In these early sections Karlstadt steps back and forth between connecting knowledge and action, and separating divine wisdom-authority from human wisdom-authority.54

52. Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt (253) does not translate ‘alhie’. Sider, Documents, 56, n. 5, says Karlstadt undoubtedly wrote from Orlamünde. Baylor, Radical Reforma-tion, 56, as well as in the Exordium, 49, places ‘Orlamünde’ in the text, in brackets.

53. ‘Also habet ir redliche entschüldigung / das wir alhie / wider mit der leer nach mit der that stil zuhalten schuldig gewest / gottes gebotten zu volbrengen / biss unsere nachburn / unnd die schlemmer zu Wittenberg nachfolgten.’ Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 80.24–27; translation in Sider, Documents, 56. Not only Karlstadt but oth-ers (Thomas Müntzer and Valentin Ickelsamer) had echoed this reproach about heavy drinking by Luther and followers. Ickelsamer provided details: ‘He complained to other students that Luther sat in a pretty room and merrily drank beer “with other doctors and lords” while many urgent matters were neglected’; Valentin Ickelsamer, ‘Clag etlicher Bruder: An alle Christen von der grossen Ungerechtickeyt und Tiran-nei, so Endressen Bodensteyn von Carolstat yetzo von Luther zu Wittenbergk ges-chicht (1525)’, in Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke, 118 (1893), 43 [41–55], ed. Ludwig Endres, cited by Roy L. Vice, ‘Valentin Ickelsamer’s Odyssey from Rebellion to Quietism’, MQR 69 (1995): 77 [75–92]. Luther scholars are familiar with Luther’s own boast in the Invocavit Sermons that the Word did the work, while all he did was drink Wittenberg beer with his ‘Philip [Melanchthon] and [Nikolaus] Amsdorf ’; see Luther’s Works: American Edition [ =LW], 55 vols, ed. H. Lehman and J. Pelikan (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; St. Louis: Concordia, 1955–1986), vol. 51:77; Hans-Ulrich Delius (ed.), Martin Luther: Studienausgabe [= LStA] (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1982), vol. 2:537.6–9; D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Ausgabe [= WA], 67 vols, ed. J.K.F. Knaake et al. (Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1883–2009), vol. 10(3):18.10–16

54. Karlstadt’s argument begins by derivings important connection between ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’ from God’s authority in Scripture. However, his argument also claims to be showing that we are not to follow others in our actions; this latter effort is not so easily proven in the texts he cites. For chapters 4–5 of Deuteronomy explicitly command obedience to God’s teaching, but only imply that one must disregard all

44 J Neil R. Leroux


The issue in Gemach is far more significant than whether one policy over another is more prudent. Karlstadt characterises the ‘go-slow’ position as unbalanced, insubordi nate disobedience against God: It is God who shall punish those who stay away when he gave them orders. Obedience to God’s commands must be carried out regardless of ex tenuating circumstances or putative excuses. In pursuing his argument, Karlstadt consid ers the crucial topic of brotherly love, including the significant, God-ordained human re-lationship of marriage, a covenant into which Karlstadt himself had entered in January 1522.

God will punish them all together when he summons those who failed to appear even though they adduce golden excuses and trot out the best reasons of brotherly love. For there should always be a great and special love between married people. Nevertheless, Christ says that he who excused himself be-cause of his wife [Luke 14:20]55 was unworthy of his meal. Each person (who understands correctly) should act correctly without timidity and without gaz-ing about.56

One small, potential concession (for the marriage bond) is dwarfed by the fusil lade of textual support, most of it from the Gospels, that Karlstadt then launches. He con cisely dismisses brotherly love as evil and harmful (arg und schädlich), and soon he will argue at length in Section 4 that brotherly love is a devilish cover-up. Clearly, then, doing nothing, waiting, looking to others for example are all unacceptable behaviours, whatever the reasons given. Nothing short of complete ‘fulfilling’ of God’s commands will do. Karlstadt makes the obedience mandate strongly present with a personal pledge. In it he responds

others in deciding how to act. At this point, Karlstadt may simply expect his readers to accept his claim about disregarding the weak, based on arguments in his Exordium. In citing Deuteronomy 4–5, Karlstadt has used a text that carefully establishes the significant process of God teaching, so that his people hear and learn, and then obey. Readers of the English translations in Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt (250) and Sider, Documents (50) can, however, be misled when they read Karlstadt to be saying God is commanding us in these texts to be teaching his commands; that, in fact, comes later, in Deuteronomy 6, not used by Karlstadt. The agent who teaches (lehren) in Deuter-onomy 4–5 is God (4.1, 5). In Deut. 5:31 God tells Moses that he must teach (lehren) the commandments. In Deut. 6:1–4 he instructs fathers to teach their children.

55. Karlstadt did not enter the Luke 14 reference in the margin. 56. ‘Got wirt sie all sampt straff en so er fordert die auss bliben / ob sie gleich guldene ent-‘Got wirt sie all sampt straffen so er fordert die auss bliben / ob sie gleich guldene ent-

schüldung furwenden / unnd die beste ursachen brüderlichen lieb fürweltzen. Denn es solt je ein grosse und sunderliche lieb sein zwischen eeleüten / dannest spricht Christus / das der seines malhs unwirdig was / der sich mit seinem weib entschuldiget etc. Es sol ein iglicher recht thun / (der recht versteet) one schew und one umbsehen.’ Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 78.8–14; trans. Sider, Documents, 54.

Why Not Now? J 45


to opposing viewpoints from Luther in the Invocavit Sermons,57 as well as the subsequent censorship of his publications58 and expulsion from Electoral Saxony: ‘Accord ingly, they will not be able to tie a blindfold or curtain in front of my eyes to stop me from doing something that God wants, or to do something God forbids, even if they should preach and write for a thousand years about offences and brotherly love’.59 Karl stadt finds his contemporaries who advocate going slow (gemach) to be worse than Lot’s wife or those whom Christ condemned for looking back. Throughout this section, and reversing his pattern in the Exordium (eighty lines), here in 167 lines Karlstadt has used fewer texts from the Old Testament (five) than from the New (fourteen).60 In the follow ing section Karlstadt returns squarely to the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly Deuteron omy, for biblical evidence.

‘Every congregation, be it small or large, must see for itself and do what is right and good without waiting for anyone’61

This section appears at first glance to be a digression, interrupting the direct flow from Section 1 (on doing what one knows to be right, based only on God’s commands) to Sec tion 3 (on the importance of action following directly and surely from knowledge.) Yet closer scrutiny of the section heading itself reveals that this is no digression at all. Here Karlstadt explores the nature of the concept of covenant (bund) and its operations: laws and statutes, ordinances, customs and practices, rights. Karlstadt establishes the jurisdic tions unto which the covenant was given: the separate communities (gemeinen) and the household (hauss). It is these last

57. LW 51:70–100; LStA 2:530–558; WA 10 (3):1–64. For more on Karlstadt’s theme of ‘biblischen Rechts’ (ius biblicum), see Bubenheimer, Consonantia, 230–235.

58. Censorship was ordered on 27th April, 1522; Barge, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt vol. II, 562; Hans-Peter Hasse, ‘Bücherzensur an der Universität Wittenberg im 16. Jahrhundert’, in 700 Jahre Wittenberg: Stadt – Universität – Reformation, ed. Stefan Oehmig (Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1995), 190 [187–212].

59. ‘Dem nach werden sie mir dz schurtztüchlin oder fürhang nit für mein augen binden / das ich etwas lass / dz got haben wil / oder etwas thu / das gott verbeüt / ob sie mir tausent iar von ergernüssen und brüderlicher lieb predigten und schreiben.’ Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 78.31–35; Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt, 251–252.

60. Old Testament (Deut. 4:2; 5:1; Lev. 5:17; Ps. 50; Gen. 19:26); New Testament (John 5:39–41; Luke 12:47; 2 Cor. 6:14–16; Luke 14:20; John 14:21; Mt. 12:30; Luke 9:62; Luke 17; John 21:19–22; Acts 9–10; Mt. 10:5; John 4:27; Acts 21:20–23; Epistle to the Galatians).

61. ‘Ein ieglich gemain / sie sey klein oder groß / sol für sich sehen / das sie recht vnd wol thu / vnd auff niemants warten.’ Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 80–82 [80.28–30]; Fast, Der linke Flügel, 259–262; Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt, 253–255; Sider, Doc-uments, 56–58; Baylor, Radical Reformation, 56–58.

46 J Neil R. Leroux


two entities and terms that Karlstadt considers to have the most relevant au-thority and responsibility under God’s covenant. His trajectory re mains at the level of God and community, as mediated by Moses (later by Paul), and as implemented by Levites or housefathers. God holds accountable the sloth-ful and neglect ful, who do not use their ears and eyes for understanding, nor their bodies for righteous living. In citing texts from Deut. 29, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, respectively,62 Karlstadt asserts that God’s consistent message is simple: the covenant people are to do what God teaches them. Moreover, God’s peo-ple were to be content with his teaching and his works; neither were they to add to or take away from his teaching.63 So firmly bound (hefftiglich bande) were the people to the covenant (bund) that they were not permitted either to teach or to do (anders leren noch anders thun) other than what they had heard. Because of this bond (bandes) Moses called the law a covenant (bund). Citing Deuteron omy 26, 27, 28, and quoting Moses at Deut 6:7, Karlstadt argues, in an implied argu mentum a fortiori, that not only did the covenant apply to all who heard Moses, but also for generations to come [dein kinder und kind-skinder], not for a single day but all days of one’s life.64

‘Action must immediately and always65 follow understanding’66

In occupying himself so intimately with what contemporary educators might call the ‘learning processes’ by which God produces understanding in his people, Karlstadt seems to imperil his position later on in the tract. For, in rebutting anticipated opposing argu ments (= prolepsis) Karlstadt downplays the necessity of understanding everything about God’s commands before we obey them. Then Karlstadt offers an extended prolepsis, which engages not a trivial but rather a most crucial objection, one his reader (Bach et al.) would

62. Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt, 254, cites Deut. 13:1 at Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 81.11, which has Karlstadt citing Deut. 12. The verse about adding and taking away from the law is Deut. 12:32 in Vulgate and English versions. However, in the Ger-man Bible it is in Deut. 13:1. Fast, Der linke Flügel, cites Deut. 12:29.

63. The theme of neither adding to nor taking away from Scripture is one Karlstadt argues, citing Deuteronomy 4 and 12, in Exegesis (Auszlegung dieser wort Christi) [1524]; see Burnett, Eucharistic Pamphlets, 145.

64. ‘Nicht einen tag / sondern alle tag / dein leben lang.’ Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 82.3.65. ‘bald und allzeit’, Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 82.30f.; trans. Sider, Documents.

Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt (255) reverses Karlstadt’s doublet; Sider, Documents (59) preserves it.

66. ‘Die that sol dem verstand bald vnd allzeit folgen.’ Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 82–87 [82.30–31]); Fast, Der linke Flügel [omitted]; Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt, 255–260; Sider, Documents, 59–64; Baylor, Radical Reformation, 58–64.

Why Not Now? J 47


raise. The point herein contains two opposing theological positions, thus pro-viding a reader’s dilemma: The first position, which I call continual obedience, is a summary of Karlstadt’s own line of argument: that being God’s servant, as grounded in Scripture, means one should act, work, love, and speak ac-cording to divine law continually, per petually or67 ‘at all times’—the latter being an expression Karlstadt utters not only in his heading to this section but five times in six lines.68 The authoritative voice cites Christ (Jn 13.35), with additional texts cited from Old Testament (Ps. 34:2; Prov. 17:17) and Apocrypha (Tobit 4:20).69 The second position Karlstadt brings, which I call episodic obedience, seems directly to oppose the first, for it recalls selected Old Testament texts that teach the contingent nature of some of God’s com-mands. The text in Eccl. 3:170 holds that everything has its season (seine zeit). Karlstadt elaborates:

In other words, nothing can go on forever; for a while it happens; then it stands still. So also God has set up certain commandments to be kept for a time, but not all our life or every day, as the Hebrew text and you would have it. Among these are the Sabbath on the seventh day, the seventh week, the seventh year, the fiftieth year—all of which are based on the number seven [Gen. 20:9; Deut. 16:1–3]—the paschal feast for a certain time of the year; the festival of booths for a certain time, and the like [Lev. 25:1–23]. These had to happen for a specific time, but they were not to last forever.71

67. Karlstadt’s precise doublet is ‘alle zeit oder ewer leben lang.’ Thus Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt (257) rendering the doublet conjunction ‘and’ is mistaken.

68. Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 84.26–31.69. This is the only text from the Apocrypha that Karlstadt cites in this tract. Karlstadt

considered the apocryphal books and the Church Fathers, who ranked slightly below them, as ‘unarmoured soldiers’; see McNiel, ‘Karlstadt and Müntzer’, 35. In De ca-nonicis scripturis libellus, Karlstadt lists Tobit among those apocryphal books that are non-canonical but still hagiographi; see H.H. Howarth, ‘The Origin and Authority of the Biblical Canon according to the Continental Reformers: 1 Luther and Karlstadt’, Journal of Theological Studies 8 (1907): 321–365 [334].

70. Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt, 257, n. 13), Sider, Documents (61), and Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften (103, endnotes for 84) all acknowledge that Karlstadt’s marginal citation of ‘Eccle. 9.’ is erroneous.

71. ‘dz ist. Es mag kein geschefft ewiglich geschehene / ein zeit geschichts / ein zeit liget es still. Auch hat gott etlich gebott also gestellet / das wir die selben auff etliche zeit halten müssen / und nit unser leben lang oder alle tag / als hebreisch inhelt / unnd du haben wilt. Als nemlich den Sabbat am sibenden tag / sibende wochen / sibend iar / funfzigest iar / welches auch auss der sibenden zal her kam. Das fest passah ein zeit im iar / das fest der laubber hütten und der gleichen / ein zeit / die nur auff ein zeit geschehen musten / unnd nicht alle tag.’ Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 84.34–85.3;

48 J Neil R. Leroux


So the apparent antinomy is now in place: (A) Karlstadt’s position—obey commandments at all times throughout your life; continual obedience; no stag-nation [versus] (B) opposing position—obey commandments only for a time but not all our life or every day; episodic obedience; for a while, then stand still.

Following the objection, Karlstadt lays out his response, which seems to embrace both positions. Episodic obedience most certainly does not mean hesitation but rather alert sensitivity to the needs of one’s neighbor, as per-ceived by one under the continual obligation of God’s commandment (gottes gesetz) of love. Now he can proceed to diagnose a contemporary condition that meets his criteria: the presence of images or masses. To wit, provided that first, these are found in places ‘where we are in control’, or secondly, among those who confess God, the idols or masses must be dealt with as God commanded, given that, thirdly, they are God-blaspheming and Christ-blaspheming. Karlstadt concludes that dealing with idols or masses means removal (abthuung) must be done daily throughout our lives. Moreover, re-trieving his jurisdictional principle from the previous section, the removal action ought to occur at the local level of the congregation, for each congre-gation in its own city is obligated to keep them [images, masses] away from its own [Deuteronomy 14 and 15].72

Offence73 and Love of Neighbour are a Devilish Cloak for All Kinds of Evil74

This section being the penultimate one in the treatise, Karlstadt here turns up the rhetorical heat to advance more damning charges against the opposing position, not only attempting to show it erroneous but also evil. He will man-age to shift the notion of offence (ergernüss) from passive to active significa-tion, for the more sinister he paints the particular sins of permitting images,

trans. Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt, 257.72. Sider, Documents, translates ‘die ire zu enthalten’ as ‘to restrain the error’. Sider, Docu-

ments (62), Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt (258), and Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften (103, endnotes for 85) are puzzled at Karlstadt’s marginal citation of Deuteronomy 14 and 15, while Baylor, Radical Reformation (61) cites them without comment.

73. ‘Ergernus vnd liebe des nechsten ist ein teüfelischer mantell aller boßheyt.’ Hertsch, Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 88.1–2. Heading from Sider, Documents, 64. Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt (260) reads ‘Giving Offence’ in both section heading and first sentence, which is unjustified strictly by ‘Ergernus’ alone here, whereas on the title page (73) ‘ergernüssen der schwachen verschonen’ is rightly rendered ‘avoid offending the weak’. As it happens, however, Furcha’s reading is faithful to the sense of Karlstadt’s argument.

74. Hertzsch, Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 98–91; Fast, Der linke Flügel, 262–266; Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt, 260–263; Sider, Documents, 64–68; Baylor, Radical Reformation, 64–68.

Why Not Now? J 49


the greater the damage done. In Von Abtuhung der Bilder (1522) Karlstadt had gone to great lengths to show offence rendered unto God when one makes, venerates, or tolerates images. Here his emphasis is much more on the need for decisive, not hesitant, action against images. He may presume readers already know images are wrong; now they need to know that they must proceed swiftly against them. In 1522 Karlstadt still held out hope that rulers would take action against images; now he wants congregational leaders to wait no longer. The first step, however, is to ensure that readers appreciate the full depth of the evil of images; that evil, it must be remembered, has to fit within the framework of purported good intended for the weak, which the ‘go-slow’ strategy allegedly invokes.

In the first step of the argument Karlstadt transforms his prior use of the more innocuous term ‘images’, swapping it for the more malevolent ‘idols’. He labels ‘our images [unser bildnus]’ repeatedly as idols (götzen). As it hap-pens, Karlstadt only twice uses the term images (bildnus, bilder) in this section of 160 lines; he uses idols (götzen) or [false] gods (göttern) twenty times. This usage contrasts with his earlier practice of seldom using any of these terms (only seven times in 550 lines). Moreover, this prevalence of ‘idols’ terminol-ogy in the first step (twenty lines) cannot be relegated to scriptural language from the Pentateuch, for Karlstadt offers no textual references at all. Rather, he weaves this terminology into an exposition of the contemporary scene of decadence. Thus, Karlstadt has not only recast images into idols, but he has begun to turn the concepts of brotherly love and offence on their heads.

Still, the most potent weapon is Karlstadt’s analogy (gleichnuss)75 of the young child playing with a sharp knife. Since this analogy responds so di-rectly to an analogy offered earlier by Luther (an enemy ties a rope around a brother’s neck) in Eine treue Vormahnung (1522),76 here is Karlstadt’s analogy in full:

Now I ask whether, if I should see that a little innocent child holds a sharp pointed knife in his hand and wants to keep it, I would show him brotherly love if I would allow him to keep the dreadful knife as he desires with the result that he would wound or kill himself, or when I would break his will and take the knife? You must always say that if you take from the child what

75. Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt, 260 renders ‘gleichnuss’ as ‘parable’; Sider, Documents, 65 reads ‘comparison’. I take Karlstadt here not to be referring to what Isaiah says, for he seems to be uttering expository declaration, not telling a story. Rather, I take Karlstadt to be using Isaiah to recall a theme that his analogy will exemplify.

76. LW 45: 57–74; WA 8: 676–687.

50 J Neil R. Leroux


brings injury to him, you do a fatherly or brotherly Christian deed.77

Karlstadt has used matching doublets—(A) a destructive, foolish (schedlich / nerrisch) thing [= idols] corresponds to (B) a sharp, pointed (spitzig, scharpff) knife in the hands of (C) a little innocent (klein unmündig) child—to enact the situation he has argued: whether innocent child or foolish schwachen, neither is aware of the grave danger; nor is either seemingly able to wrest himself from it. Karlstadt’s child can cry over being rescued, yet the reaction is irrelevant, for the danger has been averted, and only by prompt emergency action. Contrastingly, Luther depicts the situation with the schwachen much differently, for his analogy (gleychniss) casts the victim as an adult capable of responding to the means of rescue. Luther does see the schwachen as victims (‘If an enemy had tied a rope around your brother’s neck, endangering his life’), but in his account a fool (narr) who rushes in and slashes away with a knife could either stab or strangle his brother, doing more damage ‘than either rope or enemy’.78 Karlstadt’s scene, however, poses risk to the child only through inaction, so that the obviously Christian deed is for the adult parent79 to rush to rescue the imperiled child.

Not only does inaction pose danger to the weak, it constitutes a distor-tion of Scripture. God’s Word, from Christ and Moses, has been nullified by anyone who would add his own words against God; these expressions for ‘adding’ (setzen, zusatz) to the Word are sprinkled nine times throughout the remainder of the treatise, compared to just twice prior.80 When one main-tains that going easy (gemach) and being lenient toward the weak (schone der schwachen) are God’s will, he makes of Christ and Moses a ‘falschen Christen unnd propheten.’ ‘Christ says it would be better for you to cut off, tear out, and cast from you, than to be cast into the fire of hell along with those offen-sive things [Mt. 18:8]’.81 Karlstadt confronts Luther’s ‘go-slow’ position, not

77. ‘Demnach frag ich / wenn ich sehe / das ein dkein unmündig kindelin ein spitzig scharpff messer in seiner handt hett / und wölt es gern behalten / ob ich jm denn brüderliche lieb beweiset / wenn ich jm das schedlich messer und seinen willen liess / damitt sichs verwundet oder ertödt / oder denn / wenn ich jm seinen willen breche / und das messer näm? Du must ie sagen / wenn du dem kind nimbst / das im schaden brengt / so thustu ein väterlich oder brüderlich Christelich werck.’ Hertzsch, Karl-stadts Schriften, 88.33—89.2; trans. Sider, Documents, 65.

78. LW 45: 73; WA 8: 686.4–8.79. On ‘parental’, see n. 91 (below).80. ‘zusatz’: cf. Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 87.35; 92.17, 30, 35; 93.25, 27; 95.11;

‘setzen’: 89.31, 34; 95.10; ‘not add to or subtract from [nicht darzu nach dar von thun]’: 87.39.

81. ‘Christus spricht / es ist dir besser / du hawest abe / reissest auss / und werffest von

Why Not Now? J 51


by abandoning Mosaic texts but by searching them meticulously. Thus far in doing so, Karlstadt has bolstered the opposing position from within Exodus 23. Now in the final section we shall see how he topples this position, which perhaps has troubled Karlstadt’s reader in Joachimsthal.82

Answer83

As Karlstadt continues his exegetical argument in the Antwort, he amasses additional textual evidence, in order to compile an unassailable case. He at-tempts to demonstrate that: (1) additional evidence from Deut. 7 corrobo-rates previous findings; (2) specific details of the expulsion orders God gave the Israelites84 infer that immediate, rapid action is precisely what He was dictating; (3) exact timing of the carrying out of the orders is provided; (4) God’s purposes in issuing such orders are explicitly offered.85 Karlstadt then presents his conclusion, stipulating through reminder of the jurisdictional grounds for acting aggressively upon that which one knows to be right. He offers: first, the circumstances that must obtain—where Christians rule; sec-ondly, on what basis they are to act—freely on their own, not considering

dir / dann das du mit den ergerlichen dingen werdest in das hellisch fewr geworf-fen.’ Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 89.38–90.8; trans. Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt, 261–262. In the Michaelstag sermon of 1522 the text is Mt. 18:1–10, although Karl-stadt did not refer to that text in the section on offence.

82. Still mysterious are Karlstadt’s remarks (Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 90.35–39) where he seems to be responding to an opponent who advocated using God’s order-ing of the Jews not to eliminate their enemies hastily, as authoritative for the contem-porary images question. Nothing in his ‘Invocavit Sermons’ or ‘On Receiving Both Kinds’ indicates that Luther ever took such a position. What Karlstadt says in our quote above (‘Letter to the Princes of Saxony’, n. 126) points away from Luther being the advocate of the position Karlstadt challenges here.

83. Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 92–97; Fast, Der linke Flügel, 266–268; Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt, 263–268; Sider, Documents, 68–71; Baylor, Radical Reformation, 68–73.

84. In Masses (Wider die alte und newe Papistische Messen [1524], see Burnett, Eucharistic Pamphlets, 114), Karlstadt argues: ‘God long ago recognized our carelessness and destroyed it through his prohibitions when he said to the Jews, “When you enter the land of the Gentiles and see their lovely and harsh worship with which they serve their gods, you should not do as they do”, Deuteronomy 12 [:29–31]. That is to say, “You should not be moved to worship me in any other way than I have commanded by either the appearance or the harshness of divine worship or anything else” … or at anything other than God’s ordinance.’

85. In both Deut. 7:2 and Exod. 23:33 Moses includes explanatory clauses (‘lest they …’) that God offers for his purposes behind the expulsion orders.

52 J Neil R. Leroux


government; thirdly, the generally-defined infractions they must oppose—what is contrary to God; fourthly, the exception they cannot permit—‘even without preaching’.86

That which God forbids and which makes one sin against him and which destroys the neighbor, one should take away immediately, the sooner the bet-ter. For thereby one serves God and does good to the neighbor, even though he grumbles and scolds because of it. And one brings him to consider what is best for him. To that end, may God help us. Amen.87

It is evident (and has been since section 2) that Karlstadt has shifted some-what from his position of early 1522 (Von Abtuhung der Bilder), which called upon secular authorities to implement the Wittenberg Ordnung of 24th Jan-uary.88 What has not changed, however, is the notion that offences do not inhere in internal, psychological reactions of people but rather are principally seen as external harm and danger lurking about, capable of destruction.89

86. Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 96.12–15. This ‘conclusion’ is one of the most com-monly quoted lines from Gemach found in recent studies of Karlstadt; see Joestel, “‘dass wir Christi Fußstapfen’”, 42.

87. ‘Das got verbotten / unnd gegen im sündigen macht unnd den nechsten verderbt / sol man bald hinnemen / wie ehe wie besser / dann damit dienet man got / und thut dem nechsten gut / ob er gleich drumb murret und schnurret / und brengt jnen zu trachten nach seinem besten / dazu helff uns gott. Amen.’ Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schrif-ten, 96.29–97.3; trans. Sider, Documents, 70–71.

88. Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt, 118; Lietzmann, Kleine Texte (20.33–21.5). 89. Convinced that images and the mass violated God’s standards, as clearly shown from

Scripture, Karlstadt judged that he had little alternative but to take action, regardless of whom that action offended. In the words of Bubenheimer, ‘For Karlstadt there exists an “ offence in faith” if something is objectively in conflict with divine Law. This state of things “offends”, in that it stands in the way of real faith, even though the erring believer may be unaware of this.’ Cf. Bubenheimer, ‘“Scandalum et ius divinum”’ (287), quoted in Sergiusz Michalski, The Reformation and the Visual Arts: The Protestant Image Question in Western and Eastern Europe (London: Routledge, 1993), 47. A fuller statement of Bubenheimer’s is found in Consonantia, 245: ‘Für Karlstadt liegt ein “Ärgernis im Glauben” vor, wenn etwas (hier: das Vorhandensein religiöser Bilder) objektiv im Widerspruch zur Schrift als dem göttlichen Gesetz steht. Ein solcher Tatbestand “ärgert”, d. h. hindert am richtigen Glauben, ohne daß es dem verführten Gläubigen bewußt ist. Daher ist das Beibehalten der Bilder Ärgernis. Für Luther liegt ein Ärgernis vor, wenn jemand subjektiv an etwas (hier: an der Beseiti-gung der Bilder) Anstoß nimmt, das er im Glauben nicht bejahen kann und das ihm daher Anstoß sein könnte, gegen das Gewissen zu handeln. Der Tatbestand (Bilder-beseitigung), der Anstoß erregt, kann dabei objektiv gut sein, aber der Glaube ist zu schwach, um seine Zustimmung zu geben. Daher erregt das Abtun der Bilder Ärgernis’ (emphasis Bubenheimer’s). A particularly compelling summary of Karlstadt’s stance here, with specific reference to Gemach, is Alejandro Zorzin, ‘Andreas Bodenstein von

Why Not Now? J 53


Thus, as he considers those provisions of the Law for which God had a timeless, yet not obvious, principle in mind, Karlstadt grants that people whom he will then go on to call ignorant (unverstendigen)—the truly weak (schwachen)—are susceptible to misunderstanding of God’s figurative sayings (those that bind not according to letter but according to meaning) and there-fore offence. Karlstadt concedes that preaching and teaching are necessary to head off this offence taking; however, it must be done—as he has said above—either simultaneous with or prior to the action taken. The preaching must, according to Karlstadt, be based in expounding God’s law (gesetz gottes), as Christ, Stephen, Peter, and Paul had done, in the tradition of the prophets before them. Thus, Karlstadt has trumped Luther’s ‘preach, don’t force’ policy of the Invocavit sermons, arguing for a ‘force, yet keep preaching’ strategy.

Conclusion

Ronald Sider held that up to March 1522 Karlstadt and Luther ‘were in fundamental theological agreement’ and that Karlstadt believed deeply in forensic justification, despite the fact that he ‘employed the words “justifica-tion” and “gospel” less than Luther.’ His thesis was that Karlstadt’s differences then with Luther were strategic, not theological.90 However, Sider and later scholars suggest that during the Orlamünde period Karlstadt was forming a ‘theology of regeneration and sanctification’.91 Hans-Jürgen Goertz re cently

Karlstadt’, in The Reformation Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Early Modern Period, ed. Carter Lindberg (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), 331–332 [327–337]. Zorzin notes especially Bubenheimer’s ‘“Scandalum”.’

90. Ronald J. Sider, ‘Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt: Between Liberal and Radical’, in Profiles of Radical Reformers: Biographical Sketches from Thomas Müntzer to Paracel sus, ed. Hans-Jürgen Goertz and Walter Klaassen (Kitchener, ON: Herald Press, 1982), 47 [45–53], the position he maintained in Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1974). James S. Preus, Carlstadt’s ‘Ordinaciones’ and Luther’s ‘Liberty’, Harvard Theological Studies, 26 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974), argues a similar posi-tion. In a review of Preus, Carter C. Lindberg challenged this position; see MQR 52 (1978): 273–275.

91. Sider, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 212–214. Citing Sider, Documents (212), Volkmar Joestel has developed several studies that continue to contribute to a richer understanding of Karlstadt’s theology in his Orlamünde period, work building from his Ostthüringen und Karlstadt: Joestel, ‘Neue Erkenntnisse zu Jenaer Karlstadtschrift-en 1524’, in Looß and Matthias, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 121–142, examin-ing three writings not found in Hertzsch, Schriften; Joestel, ‘Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadts Schrift Von dem Sabbat und gebotenen Feiertagen im Spiegel der sozialen Bewegung in Ostthüringen (1522–1524)’, in Bubenheimer and Oehmig, Querdenker der Reformation, 211–227.

54 J Neil R. Leroux


concluded that ‘All the well-intended efforts to minimize the differences between Karlstadt and Luther—locating them not in theology but in their strategies … fail to rec ognize the importance of the tensions that emerged from the very beginning of the Wit tenberg discussions about Reformation theology.’92 Seldom, though, in explicating the ‘Orlamünde theology’ do scholars quote from Gemach.93 What I have found is that Karlsta dt does not structure Gemach around issues of effectiveness (the pertinent meas ure of a policy) as one plausibly could infer from the title. Rather, his argumentation foregrounds the authority of Mosaic Law,94 ratified and carried out by Christ and the Apos tles. He is defending policy by carefully arguing his theology, but what kind of theology do we find?

It is clear from Gemach that Karlstadt has not very often here (in 1524) used the terms ‘justification’ or ‘gospel’, nor has he employed the word ‘Christian’; he has used ‘faith’ or ‘faithful’ only once each.95 In Gemach we see that Karlstadt’s rationale for acting speedily to remove images and other un-godly practices from worship has shifted to concern for the weak, especially as seen in the child-playing-with-sharp-knife analogy.96 Instead of a Christian

92. Goertz, ‘Karlstadt, Müntzer and the Reformation of the Commoners’, 19.93. Sider, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (237) does quote Gemach (84.11–19) about

how ‘laziness in the performance of works of love toward the neighbor is a certain sign that one lacks a fervent remembrance of God’s words’.

94. At Wittenberg University, Karlstadt had lectured on Augustine’s De spiritu et littera (1517–1519), the Epistle of James (1520), Genesis (1521), Deuteronomy (1521–1522), Jeremiah (1522), and Zechariah (1523); see Bubenheimer, “‘Scandalum et ius divinum’”, 276, n. 52. In Gemach, Karlstadt cites Deuteronomy more than any other biblical book. Volker Gummelt, ‘Bugenhagens Handschrift von Karlstadts Jer-emiavorlesung aus dem Jahre 1522’, ARG 86 (1995): 59 [56–66], shows Karlstadt, commenting on Jer. 1.16b, finding the theme for the abolition of images because of the weak: ‘Libaverunt sacri ficaverunt. Sic imagines sunt abolendae propter infirmos qui se illis incurvant’ (62).

95. Interestingly, however, Karlstadt more than once delineates what he calls ‘divine right eousness and truth [götlicher gerechtigkeit und warheit]’ (76.14) and ‘God’s true right eousness and his just truth [gottes warhafftige gerechtigkeit unnd gerechte warheitt]’ (86.5). Could Karlstadt have had Eph. 4.24 in mind (‘true righteousness and holiness [iustitia et sanctitate veritatis]’), which reading Luther rendered ‘wahrer Gerechtigkeit und Heiligkeit’ in his 1522 Septembertestament?

96. David M. Whitford, ‘Luther’s Political Encounters’, in The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther, ed. Donald K. McKim (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 179–191, cites Karlstadt’s analogy of the child playing with the knife: ‘As a parent would rush to save from harm a child wielding a knife, so too must a pastor rush to save his flock from error’ (183). Whitford is commenting on the Wittenberg disturbances of 1521–1522, yet (citing Gemach) he sees this analogy as indicative of

Why Not Now? J 55


community being sidetracked by the prospect that some might be offended at image removal, Karlstadt wants to direct attention back to divine law and the damage that spiritual adultery from the presence of idols will do to those we call weak.97 He asserts that, in spite of their taking offence now, they will thank us later.98 In responding to the topic of brotherly love, Karlstadt’s stance toward the weak is ‘fatherly (väterlich).’

Karlstadt endeavors to explicate a sort of ‘theology of learning’, whereby he strives to show how the Word operates on hearers, establishing knowledge, which then translates into action. Citing Deuteronomy 29, he declares that, ‘A person who is clearly mindful of divine teaching must not stagnate, nor be idle or slothful, since God’s words bind him and drive him to action.’99 Relying heavily on argumentum a fortiori, Karlstadt argues from the strength

Karlstadt’s ‘anthro pology of regeneration’.97. In Adoration (Von anbettung und ererbietung der tzeychen des newen Testaments [1521],

see Burnett, Eucharistic Pamphlets, 45), Karlstadt argues: ‘Why do we care if some are offended by the word of God? Many people took offence at Christ’s words that he and his disciples confessed. Christ is the cornerstone of all unbelievers, and they take offence at him and are wounded, as it says in 1 Peter 2 [:6–8].’ Michael G. Baylor, ‘Karlstadts poli tische Haltung im Aufbruch der Reformation’, Mennonitische Geschichtsblätter 62 (2005): 14 [9–20], argues that Karlstadt’s position in both Wit-tenberg (1521–1522) and Or lamünde (1523–1524) is not overtly iconoclastic but instead is ambiguous (zweideutig). He argues this not only on the basis of Karlstadt’s remarks in Von Abtuhung der Bilder and Gemach but also on his actions, particularly when secular authority called him to account for them.

98. ‘Whenever the image of God is distorted or damaged, people’s souls and the church or the community are imperiled, since they are not corresponding to the divine will as re vealed in the Holy Scriptures. Those who make images to venerate or worship, violate the Decalogue’s prohibition of graven images and show that their souls are cleaving to the creaturely instead of submitting to the divine will’; Goertz, ‘Karlstadt, Müntzer and the Reformation of the Commoners’, 17. I deem what might be called a ‘parental’ stance from Karlstadt’s analogy of the child with a sharp knife—his ‘they will thank us later’; and his ‘Furthermore, it is wanton for a human being to give reasons for divine statutes when there is no divine foundation for them. It is sufficient simply to say, God wills it’; cf. Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt, 264; Hertzsch, Karl-stadts Schriften, 93.11–13. Thus, parents may consider themselves to be protecting their children, hoping their children will be grateful later, and often choosing not to reveal to those children the ‘reasons’ for their instructions.

99. ‘Wer göttlicher leer recht und wol gedencket / der kan nit still stehen / nach müssig oder treg sein / wenn jnen gottes reden zur tadt verpinden und treiben.’ Cf. Hert-zsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 84.19–21; trans. Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt, 256. Sider, An dreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (237), quotes from this very passage in explicat-ing Karl stadt’s notion of faith as the fifth (on ‘faith’) of seven constituents of the Orlamünde theology (212–303).

56 J Neil R. Leroux


of God’s ‘forever’ commands for expulsion of idols from Canaan to the more obvious need—hence, to continued obedience to instructions in the present, without regard to secular or ecclesiastical so-called ‘authorities’; Mosaic Law establishes sufficient authority in the congregation or even household. Karl-stadt’s defense of obedience to the letter of scriptural command and the spirit of certain ‘figurative sayings’ frequently engages anticipated objections, to-gether with his refutation.100 Given that all attempts to look elsewhere than Scriptural Truth for grounding understanding are blasphemy, additions to Scripture that are supposedly helpful for comprehension are unacceptable.

Yet it seems from this attempt to persuade his reader Bach, as well as oth-ers at Joachimsthal and beyond, that Karlstadt still respected the power of the Word proclaimed in writing, even though he maintains that insistence on preaching as a necessary prerequisite to action is misguided and a harm-ful roadblock in the path of obedient discipleship.101 His own proclamation, however, affords diminished significance to apostolic (particularly Pauline) doctrine, save for finding selected actions to comport with divine law. Sadly, if Karlstadt ever did write his promised sequel102 to Gemach, we would love

100. Karlstadt used prolepsis in earlier writings, as I argued in Leroux, Church History 72(1), (2003): 102–137, and Leroux, Sixteenth Century Journal 34(1), (2003): 73–105. Worth investigating carefully would be Karlstadt’s Predig oder homilien uber den propheten Malachiam (Wittenberg, 1522), Freys/Barge, Verzeichnis, #93–94, since in Malachi the biblical author employs a question-answer strategy for introducing objections and then refuting them. In the anonymous medieval tract that Lu ther adored (and edited in 1516 and 1518), the Theologia Germanica, the author (com-monly referred to as ‘The Frankfurter’) employs prolepsis at the end of chapter 1, varying the precise function of it through altered use of prolepsis in chapters 3, 4, 8. See The Theologia Germanica of Martin Luther, trans., intro., Bengt Hoffman; preface, Bengt Hägglund (New York: Paulist Press, 1980), 61, 62–64, 68–69. One of these strategies—using rhetorical questions (‘Was ist das?’), not for the purpose of enter-taining objections but for permitting further exposition through paraphrase—Luther later employed in his catechisms; see Timothy J. Wengert, ‘The Rhetorical Key to the Lutheran Confessions for Faith and Life in Today’s Church’, Seminary Ridge Review 4(2), (2002): 49–52 [45–61].

101. Interestingly, however, Karlstadt initially argues delicately to his friend Bach. Wheth-er this literary tone is due to their friendship, or because correcting the Joachimsthal-ers would be a strategic gain, or due to his sensing that Bach may yet be won over to the truth, proceeding carefully with Bach is what Karlstadt does. In the entire tract Karlstadt refers to Bach in endearing direct address (lieber bruder) only four times; three of those four times are in the Exordium; cf. Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 74.10; 75.10; 76.9; 92.16.

102. Hertzsch, Karlstadts Schriften, 97.4–8.

Why Not Now? J 57


to have it with us today.103 Further investigation into Karlstadt’s hermeneutic and ecclesiology remains a desideratum.

Bibliography

Primary sources

Der linke Flügel der Reformation: Glaubensseugnisse der Täufer, Spiritualisten, Schwärm-er und Antitrinitarier. Edited by H. Fast. Klassiker des Protestantismus, 4. Bremen: Carl Schüneman, 1962.

Grebel, Conrad. Conrad Grebel’s Programmatic Letters of 1524. Translated by J.C. Wenger. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1970.

———. The Sources of Swiss Anabaptism: The Grebel Letters and Related Documents. Edited by L. Harder. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1985.

Karlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein von. Karlstadts Schriften aus den Jahren 1523–25, Teil I. Edited by E. Hertzsch. Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts, 325. Halle [Saale]: Max Niemeyer, 1956.

———. Andreas Karlstadt: Von Abtuhung der Bilder und Das Keyn Bedtler unther den Christen seyn sollen. Edited by H. Lietzmann. Kleine Texte für theologische und philologische Vorlesungen und Übungen, 74. Bonn: A. Marcus and E. Weber Verlag, 1911.

———. Karlstadt’s Battle with Luther: Documents in a Liberal-Radical Debate. Edited and translated by R.J. Sider. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1978.

———. The Radical Reformation. Edited and translated by M.G. Baylor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

103. Hans-Peter Hasse, ‘Tauler und Augustin als Quelle Karlstadts: am Beispiel von Karl-stadts Marginalien zu Taulers Predigt zum Johannistag über Lk 1:5–23’, in Looß and Matthias, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 258 [247–282], argues that Karlstadt’s position on the images question cannot be sufficiently under stood without account-ing for the influence of Tauler, whose sermons he had studied in tensively in 1517–1519; see Hasse, Karlstadt und Tauler (35) who often credits Ulrich Bubenheimer for assistance with Karlstadt’s dependence on Tauler; see Bubenheimer, ‘Karlstadt ließt Tauler: Sein reformatorischer Weg im Spiegel seines Taulerbandes in der Bib-liothek des Predigerseminars Wittenberg. Vortrag im Predigerseminar Wittenberg, 1987 (type script). I have independently found some evidence of mystical influence regarding im ages in Theologia Germanica, chapter 8: ‘If the soul is to gaze or look into eternity, it must become chastened and empty of images [Bilden] and detached from all created things and, above all, from the claims of self ’ (68). Bengt Hoffman used Luther’s 1518 edition (Wittenberg: J. Grünenberg). The Frankfurter’s notion here, while not citing Tauler (as he does in chapter 15), is very close to Karlstadt’s ‘daß die Seele des Menschen frei sein muß von Bildern’ in Von Abtuhung der Bilder, which, according to Hasse, is a theme found in Tauler’s Taulerband.

58 J Neil R. Leroux


———. The Essential Carlstadt: Fifteen Tracts by Andreas Bodenstein (Carlstadt) from Karlstadt. Edited and translated by E.J. Furcha. Classics of the Reformation, 8. Waterloo, ON: Herald Press, 1995.

———. The Eucharistic Pamphlets of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt. Translated and edited by Amy Nelson Burnett. Early Modern Studies, 6; Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2011.

Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Ausgabe. Edited by J.K.K. Knaake et al., 120 vols. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1883–2009.

———. Luther’s Works: American Edition. Edited by H. Lehman and J. Pelikan, 55 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress Press; St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1955–1986.

———. Martin Luther: Studienausgabe. Edited by H.-U. Delius, 6 vols. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1982.

———. The Theologia Germanica of Martin Luther. Translated with inroduction by Bengt Hoffman, preface by Bengt Hägglund. New York: Paulist Press, 1980.

Müntzer, Thomas. Thomas Müntzer, Schriften und Briefe: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Edited by G. Franz. Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte, 33. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1968.

———. The Collected Writings of Thomas Müntzer. Translated and edited by Peter Matheson. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988; paperback ed., 1994.

Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz, vol. 1: Zürich. Edited by L. von Muralt and Walter Schmid. Zürich: S. Hirzel Verlag, 1952.

Secondary sources

Barge, H. ‘Zur Chronologie und Drucklegung der Abendmahlstraktate Karlstadts.’ Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 21 (1904): 323–331.

———. Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt. 2 vols. Leipzig: Friedrich Brandstetter, 1905.

Baylor, M.G. ‘Karlstadts politische Haltung im Aufbruch der Reformation.’ Men-nonitische Geschichtsblätter 62 (2005): 9–20.

Beinert, R.A. ‘Another Look at Luther’s Battle with Karlstadt.’ Concordia Theological Quarterly 73 (2009): 155–170.

Bender, H.S. Conrad Grebel (c. 1498–1526): The Founder of the Swiss Brethren Some-times Called Anabaptists. Goshen, IN: Mennonite Historical Society & Go-Goshen, IN: Mennonite Historical Society & Go-shen College, 1950.

Brecht, M. ‘Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, Martin Luther und der Kanon der Heiligen Schrift.’ In Ulrich Bubenheimer and Stefan Oehmig, eds, Quer-denker der Reformation: Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt und seine frühe Wirkung, 135–150. Würzburg: Religion & Kultur Verlag, 2001.

Why Not Now? J 59


Brown, C.B. Singing the Gospel: Lutheran Hymns and the Success of the Reformation Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.

Bubenheimer, U. “‘Scandalum et ius divinum”: Theologische und rechtstheolo-gische Probleme der ersten reformatorischen Innovationen in Wittenberg 1521/22.’ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 90 [Kanonis-tische Abteilung 59] (1973): 263–342.

———. Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt: The Development of His Thought 1517–1525 Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought, 11; Leiden: Brill, 1974.

———. Consonantia Theologiae et Iurisprudentiae: Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt als Theologe und Jurist zwischen Scholastik und Reformation. Jus Ecclesiasti-cum, 24. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1977.

———. ‘Karlstadt ließt Tauler: Sein reformatorischer Weg im Spiegel seines Taul-erbandes in der Bibliothek des Predigerseminars Wittenberg.’ Unpublished lecture in the Predigerseminar Wittenberg, 1987. [Typescript]

———. ‘Andreas Bodenstein genannt Karlstadt (1486–1541).’ Frankische Lebens-bilder 14 (1991): 47–64.

———. ‘Bodenstein von Karlstadt, Andreas.’ In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Ref-ormation, vol. 1, edited by Hans J. Hillerbrand, 178–180. New York: Ox-ford University Press, 1996.

———. ‘Karlstadt, Andreas Rudolff Bodenstein von (1486–1541).’ Theologische Re-alenzyklopädie. Edited by G. Müller, G. Krause et al., 36 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1976–2004.

Burnett, Amy Nelson. Karlstadt and the Origins of the Eucharistic Controversy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199753994.001.0001

Credner, K.A. Zur Geschichte des Canons. Halle: Waisenhauses, 1847.Fast, H. ‘The Dependence of the First Anabaptists on Luther, Erasmus, and Zwingli.’

Mennonite Quarterly Review 30 (1956): 104–119. Freys, E. and H. Barge, ‘Verzeichnis der gedruckten Schriften des Andreas Boden-

stein von Karlstadt.’ Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 21 (1904): 153–179, 209–243, 305–331. Reprint, Nieuwkoop: de Graaf, 1965.

Goertz, H.-J. ‘Karlstadt, Müntzer and the Reformation of the Commoners, 1521–1525.’ in A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism, 1521–1700, edited by John D. Roth and James M. Stayer, 1–44. Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, 6. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Gummelt, V. ‘Bugenhagens Handschrift von Karlstadts Jeremiavorlesung aus dem Jahre 1522.’ Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 86 (1995): 56–66.

Hasse, H.-P. ‘Karlstadt (eigentlich: Bodenstein).’ Die Religion in Geschichte und Ge-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199753994.001.0001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199753994.001.0001

60 J Neil R. Leroux


genwart: Handwörterbuch für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft. Edited by H.D. Betz, 8 vols. 4th ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck: 1998–2007.

———.‘Karlstadts Predigt am 29. September 1522 in Joachimsthal.’ Archiv für Ref-ormationsgeschichte 81 (1990), 97–119.

———. Karlstadt und Tauler: Untersuchungen des Kreuzestheologie. Quellen und For-schungen zur Reformationsgeschichte, 58. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1993.

———. ‘Bücherzensur an der Universität Wittenberg im 16. Jahrhundert.’ In 700 Jahre Wittenberg: Stadt – Universität – Reformation, edited by Stefan Oeh-mig, 187–212. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1995.

———. ‘Tauler und Augustin als Quelle Karlstadts: am Beispiel von Karlstadts Mar- ‘Tauler und Augustin als Quelle Karlstadts: am Beispiel von Karlstadts Mar-ginalien zu Taulers Predigt zum Johannistag über Lk 1, 5–23.’ In Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541): Ein Theologe der frühen Reformation, edited by Sigrid Looß and Markus Matthias, 247–282. Lutherstadt Wit-Lutherstadt Wit-tenberg: Hans Lufft, 1998.

Hendrix, S. ‘Radical Agenda, Reformation Agenda: The Coherence of the Reforma-tion.’ In Radikalität und Dissent im 16. Jahrhundert / Radicalism and Dis-sent in the Sixteenth Century, edited by Hans-Jürgen Goertz and James M. Stayer, 43–60. Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung, 27. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2002,

Hertzsch, E. Karlstadt und seine Bedeutung für das Luthertum. Gotha: Leopold Klotz Verlag, 1932,

Howarth, H.H. ‘The Origin and Authority of the Biblical Canon according to the Continental Reformers: 1: Luther and Karlstadt.’ Journal of Theological Stu-dies 8 (1907): 321–365.

Ickelsamer, V. ‘Clag etlicher Bruder: An alle Christen von der grossen Ungerechtick-eyt und Tirannei, so Endressen Bodensteyn von Carolstat yetzo von Luther zu Wittenbergk geschicht (1525).’ Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke 118 (1893): 41–55.

Joestel, V. Ostthüringen und Karlstadt: soziale Bewegung und Reformation im mittleren Saaletal am Vorabend des Bauernkrieges (1522–1524). Berlin: Schelzky und Jeep, 1996.

———. ‘Neue Erkenntnisse zu Jenaer Karlstadtschriften 1524.’ In Sigrid Looß and Markus Matthias, eds, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541): Ein Theologe der frühen Reformation, 121–42. Lutherstadt Wittenberg: Hans Lufft, 1998.

———. Andreas Bodenstein gennant Karlstadt: Schwärmer und Aufrürher? Witten-berg: Drei Kastanien Verlag, 2000.

———. ‘Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadts Schrift Von dem Sabbat und gebotenen Feiertagen im Spiegel der sozialen Bewegung in Ostthüringen (1522–1524).’ In Querdenker der Reformation: Andreas Bodenstein Bodenstein von Karlstadt

Why Not Now? J 61


und seine frühe Wirkung, edited by Ulrich Bubenheimer and Stefan Oehmig, 211–227. Würzburg: Religion & Kultur Verlag, 2001.

———. ‘“dass wir Christi Fußstapfen nachfolgen und leiden, wie er.” Andreas Bodenstein aus Karlstadt: Leben und Lebensbrüche (1486–1541).’ In Wit-tenberger Lebensläufe im Umbruch der Reformation, edited by Peter Freybe, 28–51. Wittenberg: Drei Kastanien Verlag, 2005.

Lindberg, C. Review of J.S. Preus, Carlstadt’s ‘Ordinaciones’ and Luther’s ‘Liberty’. Mennonnite Quartery Review 52 (1978): 273–275.

———. The European Reformations Sourcebook. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2000.Longenecker, R.N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-

mans, 1975.McNiel, B. ‘Andreas von Karlstadt as a humanist theologian.’ In Radical Reformation

Studies: Essays presented to James M. Stayer, edited by Werner O. Packull and Geoffrey L. Dipple, 106–119. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999.

———. ‘Andreas von Karlstadt and Thomas Müntzer: Relatives in Theology and Reformation.’ Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, 1999.

Michalski, S. The Reformation and the Visual Arts: The Protestant Image Question in Western and Eastern Europe. London: Routledge, 1993.

Müller, K. Luther und Karlstadt: Stücke aus ihrem gegenseitigen Verhältnis. Tübingen: Mohr, 1907.

Pater, C.A. Karlstadt as the Father of the Baptist Movements: The Emergence of Lay Protestantism. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1984.

Perelman, Ch. The Realm of Rhetoric. Translated by William J. Kluback, introduction by Carroll C. Arnold. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982.

——— and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Translated by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver; Notre Dame, IN: Uni-versity of Notre Dame Press, 1969.

Ponader, R. “‘Caro nichil prodest. Joan. vi. Das fleisch ist nicht nutz / sonder der geist.” Karlstadts Abendmahlverständnis in der Auseinandersetzung mit Martin Luther 1521–1524.’ In Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541): Ein Theologe der frühen Reformation, edited by Sigrid Looß and Mar-kus Matthias, 223–245. Lutherstadt Wittenberg: Hans Lufft, 1998.

Preus, J.S. Carlstadt’s ‘Ordinaciones’ and Luther’s ‘Liberty’ . Harvard Theological Stud-ies, 26. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974.

Rupp, G. Patterns of Reformation, London: Epworth, 1969.Sider, R.J. ‘Karlstadt’s Orlamünde Theology: A Theology of Regeneration.’ Menno-

nite Quarterly Review 45 (1971): 191–218, 352–376.

62 J Neil R. Leroux


———. ‘Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt: Between Liberal and Radical.’ In Profiles of Radical Reformers: Biographical Sketches from Thomas Müntzer to Paracel-sus, edited by Hans-Jürgen Goertz and Walter Klaassen, 45–53. Kitchener, ON: Herald Press, 1982.

Simon, W. ‘Karlstadt neben Luther: Ihre theologische Differenz im Kontext der “Wittenberger Unruhen” 1521/22.’ In Gudrun Litz, Heidrun Munzert, and Roland Liebenberg, eds, Frömmigkeit – Theologie – Frömmigkeitstheologie: Contributions to European Church History. Festschrift für Berndt Hamm zum 60. Geburtstag, 317–334. Studies in the History of Christian Traditions, 124. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Vice, R.L. ‘Valentin Ickelsamer’s Odyssey from Rebellion to Quietism.’ Mennonite Quarterly Review 69 (1995): 75–92.

Wengert, T.J. ‘The Rhetorical Key to the Lutheran Confessions for Faith and Life in Today’s Church.’ Seminary Ridge Review 4.2 (2002), 45–61.

Whitford, D.M. ‘Luther’s Political Encounters.’ In The Cambridge Compan-ion to Martin Luther, edited by Donald K. McKim, 179–191. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521816483.011

Zorzin, A. ‘Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt.’ In The Reformation Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Early Modern Period, edited by Carter Lind-berg, 327–337. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521816483.011

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521816483.011

Full Text

Documents

Transcript of Full Text