10 September 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
In the fall of 1524 the Strassburg reformer Wolfgang Capito published a typically irenic work entitled Was man halten und antworten soil von der Spaitung zwischen Martin Luther und Andres Caroistadt, in which he showed, at least to his own satisfaction, that the disagreement between Martin Luther and Andreas Carlstadt, the two former colleagues on the Wittenberg faculty, was peripheral and of no significance. Luther himself begged to differ, called Carlstadt “incarnatus diabolus” and remarked with characteristic flair, “ibi non homo sed spiritus Satanae ornat se sua sapientia.” Historically Luther's assessment, rather than Capito's, has set the precedent. In the first decade of this century Hermann Barge sought to raise and answer Capito's question once more Barge published an impressive two-volume biography of Carlstadt with the express intent of modifying the traditionally negative view of his hero. At the same time he offered a broad reinterpretation of the early Reformation. Barge chided scholarship for its preoccupation with the leading Reformation figures and demanded that greater attention be paid to the sentiment of the common people. According to Barge, a ground swell of popular enthusiasm for ecclesiastical change came to the fore at Wittenberg during Luther's stay in the Wartburg, exerting its influence upon the theologians, notably Carlstadt, who became the main spokesman for this new perspective and helped in the attempt at actual transformation at Wittenberg, making some incisive theological and ecclesiastical contributions. Elector Frederick, perturbed by the mandate of the Reichsregiment of January 20, 1522, intervened and crushed this budding “lay puritanism.” Luther had originally sided with those who demanded definite ecclesiastical change, but switched his orientation under the Elector's influence and returned to Wittenberg as a determined proponent of conservative reform. The scholarly opposition to Barge was virtually unanimous and his volumes, while adding substantial information, particularly for the time after 1523, made no positive contribution to Reformation scholarship.
1. Capito, Wolfgang, Wag man halten und antwurtten soll von der spaltung zwischen Martin Luther und Andres Caroistadt (Strassburg, 1524).Google Scholar Reprinted in Walch, J. G., Martin Luthers Sämmtliche Sohriften, XX, 445 ff.Google Scholar
2. WA TE 1, 31; WA 34. 2, 364.
3. Barge, Hermann, Andreas Bodenstein von Kartstadt. 2 Bde. (Leipzig, 1905).Google Scholar
4. A summary of the debate by Walther Köhler is found in the Göttinger Gelehrte Anzeigen 174 (1912), 505 ff.Google Scholar, and Wolf, Gustav, Queflenkunde der Deutsehen Reormatfonsgeschichte (Gotha, 1915), II, 2, 88.Google ScholarSeveral writings of Carlstadt are available in modern editions: Von abtuhung der bder (Bonn, 1911)Google Scholar; the commentary on Augustine's De Spriritu et Litera (see note 8); Karlstadts Shriften aus den Jahren 1523–25. Ausgew. von Erich Hertzsch. 2 Bde. (Halle, 1956).Google Scholar
5. Rupp, Gordon, “Andrew Karlstadt and Reformation Puritanism,” Journal of Theological Studies, 10 (1959).Google Scholar A detailed and valuable treatment of Carlstadt is found in Williams, George H., The Radical Reformation (Philadelphia, 1962).Google Scholar
6. A convenient and definitive listing of Carlstadt's writings is found in Freys, E. and Barge, H., “Verzeiehnis der gedruekten Schriften des Andreas Bodenstein v. Karlstadt,” Zentralblatt für Bib liothekswesen, 21 (1904), 153 ff.Google Scholar
7. See Waither Köhler, op. cit., 509.
8. WA TR 6, 6874.
9. Wolf, Ernst, Staupits und Luther (Leipzig, 1939), p. 13;Google Scholar See also Kähler, Ernst, Karlstadt und Augustin, Der Koninentar des Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt zu Augustins Schrift De Spiritu et Litera (Halle, 1952), p. 4*.Google Scholar
10. Ernst Kähler, op. cit., p. 5. “Cognovi enim me in seholasticis mule sententiis deceptum, Asinum ad molam, Cecum ad lapidem et perperam hallucinatum fuisse.”
11. Ibid., pp. 37* ff
12. WA Br I, 38. The theses are reprinted in Ernst Kähler, op. cit., pp. 8* ff.
13. Thesis 60, for example, expressed Carlstadt 's emphatic approval of the church father: “Corruit hoc, quod Augustinus contra hereticos loquitur excemive, Contra Modernos.”
14. Ernst Kähler, op. cit., p. 18*, theses 37, 39, 40; p. 32*; p. 71. Kähler diminishes the christological import of Carlstadt's position; see p. 40*.
15. Dc spiritu et Utera, 19, 34.
16. As quoted in Ernst Kähler, op. cit., p. 38. For pertinent Luther references see Hamel, A., Der junge Luther und Augustin (Gütersloh, 1935), II, 32, 50.Google Scholar
17. Ernst Kähler, op. cit., pp. 40, 66.
18. WA 2, 451 ff. See Bornkamm, Karin, Luthers Ausiegungen des Galaterbriefs von 1519 und 1531. Em Yergieich (Berlin, 1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar A. Hamel, op. cit., II, 40 and passim; Lohse, Bernhard, “Die Bedeutung Augustins für den jungon Luther,” Kerygma und Dogma, 11 (1965).Google Scholar
19. Karin Bornkamm, op. cit., p. 40.
20. For a different comparison see Kähler, E., “Karlstadts Protest gegen die theologischQ Wissensehaft,” 450-Jahre Martin Luther Universitdt (Halle-Wittenberg, 1952).Google Scholar
21. See here theses 33, 41, and 8–12 as quoted in Barge, op. cit., pp. 302 ff. For other Luther references see Aithaus, Paul, Die Theologie Martin Luthers (Gütersloh, 1962), p. 233.Google Scholar Note, for example, WA 46, 662, “aber hie ist nun das Gesetz köstlieh und gut. und gefällt mir.”
22. Seitz, Otto, Der authentisehe Text der Leipziger Disputation (Berlin, 1903), p. 24.Google Scholar
23. WA Br 2, 372.
24. Muller, Karl, Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther (Tübingen, 1910), P. 96.Google Scholar
25. For Melanehthon's attitude see, for example, CR 1, 445, or Müller, Nikolaus, Die Wittenberger. Bewegung (Leipzig, 1911), p. 34.Google Scholar
26. See, for example, theses 67–69 and 87 of a series debated on October 17, 1521, printed in Barge, op. cit., I, 487 f.
27. WA 8, 411 ff; WA 8, 438; WA Br 2, 446.
28. As quoted in Nikolaus Muumlller, op. cit., p. 183.
29. Barge, Hermaun, Frühprotestantisches Gemeindechristentum in Wittenberg (Leipzig, 1909), p. 112 f.Google Scholar, stressed the crucial role of the City Council and he is undoubtedly correct at this point. See Waither Köhler, op. cit., p. 534.
30. The extant portions of the tract are printed in Hermann Barge, op. cit., II, 562 ff.
31. Nikolaus Müller, op. cit., p. 47.
32. Ob man gemach faren und des ergernüssen der schwachen verschonen soll ([Basel], 1524).Google Scholar
33. WA 18, 67.
34. Ob man geinach faren, C 3.
35. Müller, Karl, Luther und Karlstadt (Tübingen, 1907), p. 135.Google Scholar
36. Hertzsch, Erich, Karlstadt und seine Bedeutung für das Luthertum (Gotha, 1932), p. 16.Google Scholar
37. Defensio adversus D. Joannis Eckii (Wittenberg, 1518).Google Scholar
38. For a characteristic statement in the text see B ij, “Ich muss… mich selber gelassen.”
39. Was gesagt ist: sich gelassen (1523), E i.
40. Ibid., F iij and B iv.
41. Ibid., A iv.
42. Von manigfeitigkeit des eynfettigen, eynigen wilien gottes (Strassburg, 1523), C iijGoogle Scholar; see the discussion in Erich Hertzsch,op. cit., pp. 42 ff.
43. Von den zweyen höchsfen gebotten der Zieb Gottes und des nechsten (Strassburg, 1524), b 3.Google Scholar
44. WA 18, 63.
45. Was gesagt ist, F iii, B iii.
46. Erich Hertzsch, op. cit., p. 42, stressed the importance of the imitatio motif in Carlstadt.
47. Foerstemann, C. E., ed., Liber decanorum facuit. Theol. acad. Viteb. (Leipzig, 1838), p. 28.Google Scholar
48. Hermann Barge, op. cit., II, 95 ff.; Erich Hertzsch, op. cit., pp. 59 ff.
49. For a reference see Herinann Barge, op. cit., II, 170.
50. Anzeyg etticher hauptartickela (Rothenburg, 1525), A ij.Google Scholar
51. Von dem Neuen und Alten Testament (Rothenburg 1525), E i.Google Scholar
52. Ob man mit heyliger schrifft erweisen möge (Basel, 1524) F iij.Google Scholar
53. Auslegung dieser Wort Christi (Base, 1524), d iiij.Google Scholar
54. Von dem Neuen und Alten, B iij, B i (for the significance of the Johannine passage, see Carlstadt's, Erklarung des x Capiteis Cor. 1, A iij)Google Scholar
55. As quoted in Hermann Barge, op. cit., II, 585.
56. Dialogus oder ein gesprechbüchlein, B i.
57. Alber, Erasmus, Wider die verfluchte Lehre der Carlstadter, q ij,Google Scholar “muss dem Herni die Nase geblut… haben,” as quoted in Hermann Barge, op. cit., II, 170.
58. Ob man mit heyliger schrifft, C iij.
59. Ibid., A ilij.
60. Locher, Gottfried W., “The Change in the Understanding of Zwingli in Recent Research,” Churih History, 34 (1965).Google Scholar The English translation of this German article omits the very crucial “not” of the quoted sentence.
61. For a moderate acknowledgment of Carlstadt, see Köhler, Waither, Zwingli uad Luther. Ihr Btreit über das Abendmahl. (Leipzig, 1924).Google Scholar Zwingli's discussion of Oarlstadt is found in CR 90, 323 ff. and 608 ff.
62. WA 18, 101.
63. Von dem Sabbat und gebotten feyertagen (Jena, 1524), D iij.Google Scholar
64. WA Br 2, 30.
65. See, for example, his Entschuldigung D. Andres Carlstadts des falschen namens der Auffrur (Wittenberg, 1525)Google Scholar, as printed in WA 18, 465.
66. For an illustration see Carlstadt's, protest in his Ursachen das And. Caroistat eir zeyt still geschwigea (Jena, 1523),Google Scholar A 3; see also Kähler, Ernst, “Karlstadts Protest gegen die theologisehe Wissensehaft,” p. 311.Google Scholar
67. See the similar comment by Erich Hertzsch, op. cit., p. 24.
68. As quoted in Jäger, C. F., Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt (Stuttgart, 1856), p. 87.Google Scholar
69. Antwort And. Bodenst. v. Carolstadt … geweyht wasser belangend (Wittenberg, 1520), A i.Google Scholar
70. Weiche bucher biblisch seint (Wittenberg, 1520), B iiij.Google Scholar
71. Hillerbrand, Hans J., “The Origin of 16th Century Anabaptism: Another Look,” Archiv f. Reformationsgeschichte, 53 (1962), 152 ff.Google Scholar Concretely, George H. Williams, op. cit., passim, has suggested a dependence of Meichior Hofmann upon Carlstadt.
72. See Hermann Barge, op. cit., II, 563.
73. Hans J. Hillerbrand, op. cit., p. 163.
74. Ursachen das And. Carostat, C iij; see also ibid., C ii, “Gehorsam ist besser daun opffer und es ist stets besser man thu des Gott haben wil und bekenne die gebresten des werekes deun des man des gebreehens halben gottis gebot naehlass”; Ibid., C iij, “Denn Ohristus hat seyne jünger reyn gemaeht durch seyn wordt, was solt denn dem wort Gottis felen, des die reiniget, die es in Götlicher fureht handeln”
75. WA 18, 136.
76. Dialogus oder gesprechbüchlein, C i.
77. Von abtuhung der byider (Wittenberg, 1522), B iij.Google Scholar
78. Rupp, Gordon, “Word and Spirit in the First Years of the Reformation,” Arehiv f. Refonnationsgeschichte, 49 (1958).Google Scholar
