2. Steinmetz, David C., Reformers in the Wings: From Geiler von Kaysersberg to Theodore Beza, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Ulrich, Bubenheimer, “Bodenstein von Karlstadt, Andreas,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, ed. Hillerbrand, Hans J. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 1:180Google Scholar; cf. Consonantia theologiae et iurisprudentiae: Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt als Theologe und jurist zwischen Scholastik und Reformation, Jus Ecclesiasticum, no. 24 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1977); and “Scandalum et ius divinum: Theologische und rechtstheologische Probleme der ersten reformatorischen Innovationen in Wittenberg 1521/22,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 90 [Kanonistische Abteilung 59] (1973): 263–342Google Scholar. Karlstadt has recently received more scholarly attention; cf. the Festgabe of 1980 (Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 1480–1541: Festschrift der Stadt Karlstadt zum Jubiläumsjahr 1980, ed. Wolfgang, Merklein, [Karlstadt: Arbeitsgruppe Bodenstein, 1980])Google Scholar; Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541). Ein Theologe der frühen Reformation. Beiträge ernes Arbeitsgesprächs vom 24.–25. November 1995 in Wittenberg, ed, Sigrid, Looß and Markus, Matthias. Themata, Leucoreana (Lutherstadt Wittenberg: Drei Kastanien Verlag, 1998)Google Scholar; Bill, McNiel, “Andreas von Karlstadt as a Humanist Theologian,” in Radical Reformation Studies: Essays Presented to James M. Stayer, ed. Packull, Werner O. and Dipple, Geoffrey L. (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999), 106–19Google Scholar; Querdenker der Reformation: Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt und seine Wirkung, ed. Ulrich, Bubenheimer and Stefan, Oehmig (Würzburg: Religion & Kultur Verlag, 2001); and a panel devoted to Karlstadt at Sixteenth Century Studies Conference in Cleveland, Ohio, November 2–5, 2000.Google Scholar

4. Gordon, Rupp, Patterns of Reformation (London: Epworth, 1969), 141. Rupp says a full consideration, in English, of the eucharistic controversy, and especially of Karlstadt's role, is badly needed.Google Scholar

5. Ralf, Ponader, “‘Caro nichil prodest. Joan.vi. Das fleisch ist nicht nutz / sonder der geist.’ Karlstadts Abendmahlsverständnis in der Auseinandersetzung mit Martin Luther 1521–1524,” Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, ed, Sigrid, Looß and Markus, Matthias, 223–45Google Scholar, which is based upon his “Die Abendmahlslehre des Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt in den Jahren 1521–24” (diss. theol., Greifswald, 1994).Google Scholar

6. Stayer, James M., “Saxon Radicalism and Swiss Anabaptism: The Return of the Repressed,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 67 (1993): 29Google Scholar. Others before Stayer had also attempted to point out Karlstadt's significance; cf. Hermann, Barge, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Brandstetter, 1905)Google Scholar; Sider, Ronald J., Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt: The Development of his Thought 1517–1525. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought, no. 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1974)Google Scholar; Ulrich, Bubenheimer, Consonantia theologiae et iurisprudentiaeGoogle Scholar; Pater, Calvin Augustine, Karlstadt as the Father of the Baptist Movements: The Emergence of Lay Protestantism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Alejandro, Zorzin, Karlstadt als Flugschriftenautor (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990)Google Scholar. Sigrid Looß reviews recent research in “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541) in der modernen Forschung,” Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, ed, Sigrid, Looß and Markus, Matthias, 9–23.Google Scholar

7. Ulrich, Bubenheimer, “Karlstadt, Andreas Rudolff Bodenstein von (1486–1541),” Theologische Realenzyklopädie (Berlin: Walter deGruyter, 1988), 17:649.Google Scholar

8. Robert, Scribner, “Oral Culture and the Diffusion of Reformation Ideas,” History of European Ideas 5 (1984): 238 (italics are Scribner's)Google Scholar. Oberman, Heiko A., “Preaching and the Word in the Reformation,” Theology Today 18 (1961): 16–29, shows that both the Middle Ages and the Reformation emphasized preaching, but that what was new was a changed understanding of the function of the sermon and its relation to the sacraments.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Nicole, Kuropka, “Melanchthon between Renaissance and Reformation: From Exegesis to Political Action,” in Melanchthon in Europe: His Work and Influence beyond Wittenberg, ed. Karin, Maag (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1999), 161–72Google Scholar; Wengert, Timothy J., “Philip Melanchthon's 1522 Annotations on Romans and the Lutheran Origins of Rhetorical Criticism,” Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: Essays Presented to David C. Steinmetz in Honor of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Muller, R. A. and Thompson, J. L. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmanns, 1996), 118–40Google Scholar. Rhetorical criticism has a long history, but its modern American resurgence is said to stem from Wichelns, Herbert A., “The Literary Criticism of Oratory,” Studies in Rhetoric and Public Speaking in Honor of James A. Winans, ed. Drummond, A. M. (New York: Century, 1925)Google Scholar, reprinted in Methods of Rhetorical Criticism: A Twentieth-Century Perspective, 2nd ed., rev., ed. Brock, Bernard L. and Scott, Robert L. (Detroit, Mich.: Wayne State University Press, 1980), 40–73Google Scholar. See the story of the recent trend in applying rhetorical criticism in biblical studies in Watson, Duane F. and Alan, Hauser, eds., Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1994).Google Scholar

10. Arand, Charles P., “Melanchthon's Rhetorical Argument for Sola Fide in the Apology,” Lutheran Quarterly 14 (2000): 281–308Google Scholar; Schneider, John R., Philip Melanchthon's Rhetorical Construal of Biblical Authority: Oratio Sacra (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1990)Google Scholar; McNally, J. R., “Melanchthon's Earliest Rhetoric,” in Rhetoric: A Tradition in Transition, ed. Fisher, Walter R. (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1974), 33–48. For more on Karlstadt's use of prolepsis, specifically in a specific section of an argument devoted to this (confutatio), see my “‘In the Christian City of Wittenberg’: Karlstadt's Tract on Images and Begging,” forthcoming in Sixteenth Century Journal.Google Scholar

11. Boring, M. Eugene, “Rhetoric, Righteousness, and the Sermon on the Mount,” 54Google Scholar, O'Day, Gail R. and Long, Thomas G., eds., Listening to the Word (Nashville, Term.: Abingdon, 1993), 53–75.Google Scholar

12. Leroux, Neil R., “Luther's Am Neujahrstage: Style as Argument.” Rhetorica 12 (1994): 1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “The Rhetor's Perceived Situation: Luther's Invocavit Sermons,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 28 (Winter 1998): 49–80Google Scholar. Rhetorical studies of Reformation preaching owes a huge debt to Birgit, Stolt, Studien zu Luthers Freiheitstraktat mit besonderer Rücksicht auf das Verhätnis der lateinischen und der deutschen Fassung zu einander und die Stilmittel der Rhetorik (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1969)Google Scholar; “Docere, delectare, und movere bei Luther: Analysiert anhand der ‘Predigt, daß man Kinder zur Schulen halten solle,‘” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 44 (1970): 433–74Google Scholar, now included in her Wortkampf: Frühneuhochdeutsche Beispiele zur rhetorischen Praxis (Frankfurt: Athenaeum, 1974), 31–77. Professor Stolt uses the theories and prescriptions of the classical rhetorical handbooks to analyze Luther's sermons.Google Scholar

13. Jeanne, Fahnestock, Rhetorical Figures in Science (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), xii.Google Scholar

14. Peter, Matheson, The Rhetoric of the Reformation (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998), 19Google Scholar. Matheson is quoting Leroux, Neil R., Style in Rhetorical Criticism: The Case of Martin Luther's Vernacular Sermons (Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois, 1990)Google Scholar; cf. Birgit, Stolt, “Review of Peter Matheson, The Rhetoric of the Reformation,” Lutheran Quarterly 13 (1999): 353–57.Google Scholar

15. Philip, Melanchthon, “Praise of Eloquence (1523),” Orations on Philosophy and Education, ed. Sachiko, Kusukawa, trans. Christine F. Salazar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 64.Google Scholar

16. Andrea, Grün-Oesterreich and Oesterrich, Peter L., “Dialectica docet, rhetorica movet: Luthers Reformation der Rhetorik,” Rhetorica movet: Studies in Historical and Modern Rhetoric in Honour of Heinrich F. Plett. Symbola et emblemata, no. 9, ed. Oesterreich, Peter L. and Sloane, Thomas O. (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 25–41Google Scholar; cf. Peter, Matheson, The Rhetoric of the Reformation, 111–31Google Scholar; Brecht, Martin U., Doctor Luther's Bulla and Reformation: A Look at Luther the Writer. Gross Memorial Lecture 1990 (Valparaiso, Ind.: Valparaiso University Press, 1991)Google Scholar, a shorter version of his Luther als Schriftsteller: Zeugnisse seines dichterischen Gestaltens (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1990).Google Scholar

17. Maria, Grossmann, Humanism in Wittenberg 1485–1517 (Nieuwkoop: B. deGraaf, 1975), 85.Google Scholar

18. Bill, McNiel, “Andreas von Karlstadt as a Humanist Theologian,” outlines the contours of Karlstadt's early scholasticism and humanism. For a discussion of humanist influences in Erfurt during Karlstadt's time there (1499–1503)Google Scholar, see Helmar, Junghans, “Der Einfluß des Humanismus auf Luthers Entwicklung bis 1518,” Lutherjahrbuch 37 (1970): 63–78Google Scholar; Martin, Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation, 1483–1521, trans. Schaaf, James L. (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1993), 23–43Google Scholar; cf. Quirinius, Breen, “Some Aspects of Humanistic Rhetoric and the Reformation,” Nederlands Archiv voor Kerkgeschiedenis 43 (1960): 1–14.Google Scholar

19. Rüger, Hans Peter, “Karlstadt als Hebraist an der Universität zu Wittenberg,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 75 (1984): 297–308.Google Scholar

20. The Essential Karlstadt: Fifteen Tracts, ed. and trans. Furcha, Edward J. (Waterloo, Ontario: Herald, 1995), 124.Google Scholar

21. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar: Böhlau, 1883–1997), 1:155Google Scholar (series hereafter abbrev. WA), quoted in Overfield, James H., Humanism and Scholasticism in Late Medieval Germany (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984), 301Google Scholar. Lang (ca. 1487–1548), along with Nikolaus Marschalk (d. 1525), Maternus Pistoris (d. 1534), and Heinrich Aquilonipolensis (d. 1520), were humanists who spent rime at Erfurt during Karlstadt's studies there; see Helmar, Junghans, “Der Einfluß des Humanismus,” 66.Google Scholar

22. Maria, Grossmann, Humanism in Wittenberg, 72ff.Google Scholar, quoted by Brann, Noel L., “Humanism in Germany,” Humanism Beyond Italy, ed. Albert, Rabil Jr., Renaissance Humanism: Foundations, Forms, and Legacy (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), 2:131.Google Scholar

23. The other lecturer (Dozent) was Heinrich Stackmann (d. 1532). For background on Rhagius, see Gustav, Bauch, “Johannes Rhagius Aesticampianus in Krakau, seine erste Reise nach Italien und sein Aufenthalt in Mainz,” Archiv für Litteraturgeschichte 12 (1884): 321–70Google Scholar; and “Die Vertreibung des Johannes Rhagius Aesticampianus aus Leipzig: Nach actenmässigen Quellen,” Archiv für Litteraturgeschichte 13 (1885): 1–33.Google Scholar

24. Spitz, Lewis W., The Religious Renaissance of the German Humanists (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963), 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. Overfield, James H., Humanism and Scholasticism, 235–46Google Scholar; Ulrich, Bubenheimer, Thomas Muntzer: Herkunft und Bildung. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought, no. 46 (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 156–63Google Scholar; cf. “Luther-Karlstadt-Müntzer: Soziale Herkunft und humanistische Bildung, Ausgewählte Aspekte vergleichender Biographie,” Amtsblatt der Evangelisch/Lutherisch Kirche in Thüiringen 40.8 (April 25, 1987): 60–68Google Scholar; “Thomas Müntzers Wittenberger Studienzeit,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 99 (1988): 184–89.Google Scholar

26. Philip, Melanchthon, “De corrigendis adolescentiae studiis,” in Opera quae supersunt omnia, XI. Corpus Reformatorum, ed. Charles, Bretschneider, (Halus Saxonum: C. A. Schwetschke, 1963), 17–40.Google Scholar

27. Ibid., 407f., quoted in Overfield, 302.

28. Marc van der, Poel, “The Latin Dedamatio in Renaissance Humanism,” Sixteenth Century Journal 20 (1989): 474.Google Scholar

29. Wengert, Timothy J., “Philip Melanchthon's 1522 Annotations on Romans,” 140.Google Scholar

30. Ulrich, Bubenheimer, “Karlstadt, Andreas Rudolff Bodenstein von [1486–1541],” Theologische Realenzyklopädie, 17:649.Google Scholar

31. Classen, C. Joachim, “St. Paul's Epistles and Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric,” Rhetorica 10 (1992): 322CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For discussion of the influence of Cicero on Melanchthon and other sixteenth-century humanists (many of which turned away from Catholicism), see Classen, 's “Cicero Orator Inter Germanos Redivivus,” Humanistica Lovaniensia 37 (1988): 79–114Google Scholar; “Cicero Orator Inter Germanos Redivivus, II,” Humanistica Lovaniensia 39 (1990): 157–76.Google Scholar

32. Richard, Weaver, “Language Is Sermonic” (1963), The Rhetorical Tradition, ed. Patricia, Bizzell and Bruce, Herzberg, 2nd ed. (Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2001), 1359f.Google Scholar

33. Augustine, St., “On Christian Doctrine,” trans. Thérèse Sullivan, The Rhetorical Tradition, ed. Patricia, Bizzell and Bruce, Herzberg, 2nd ed. (Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2001), 458Google Scholar. For a penetrating analysis of Book Four, see Schaeffer, John D., “The Dialectic of Orality and Literacy: The Case of Book 4 of Augustine's De doctrina Christiana,” Publications of the Modern Language Association 111 (1996): 1133–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. Ibid., 460.

35. Philip, Melanchthon, Orations on Philosophy and Education, 66.Google Scholar

36. Preus, James Samuel, Carlstadt's “Ordinaciones” and Luther's “Liberty”: A Study of the Wittenberg Movement 1521–1522. Harvard Theological Studies, no. 26 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974), 3.Google Scholar

37. Besides his doctorate in theology, Karlstadt had doctorates in civil law and canon law, which he earned in Rome while on sabbatical from Wittenberg. On Karlstadt's legalistic side, see Bubenheimer, , Consonantia Theologiae et Iurisprudentiae.Google Scholar

38. Bubenheimer, , “Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, 1:178, says Karlstadt was appointed archdeacon of All Saints in 1511 and that it was that position that also conferred a professorship in theology in the university.Google Scholar

39. Ibid; cf. Sider, Ronald J., Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt: The Development of his Thought 1517–1525 (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 17–20.Google Scholar

40. Schwiebert, E. G., Luther and His Times (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1950), 524.Google Scholar

41. Bubenheimer, , “Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, 1:178.Google Scholar

42. Pater, Calvin Augustine, Karlstadt as the Father of the Baptist Movements: The Emergence of Lay Protestantism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984), 15–24.Google Scholar

43. Pater, , “Review of Ulrich Bubenheimer, Consonantia Theologiae et lurisprudentiae,” Catholic Historical Review 67 (1981): 125Google Scholar. The phrase “in the Christian city of Wittenberg” appears on the title page of Karlstadt's pamphlet Von Abtuhung der Bylder, dated January 27, 1522. See Furcha, Edward J., ed., The Essential Carlstadt, 101–28Google Scholar, whose English translation is based upon the text in Andreas Karlstadt: Von Abtuhung der Bilder und Das Keyn Bedtler unther den Christen seyn sollen, ed. Hans, Lietzmann (Bonn: Weber, 1911).Google Scholar

44. Bubenheimer, , “Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, 1:179.Google Scholar

45. LW 36:127–230 (“The Misuse of the Mass” [1521]) in Luther's Works: American Edition, gen. eds., Jaroslav, Pelikan and Lehman, Helmut T. (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia; Philadelphia, Penn.: Fortress, 1955–1986), abbrev. LW; WA 8:482–563.Google Scholar

46. Thesis 51Google Scholar, Hermann, Barge, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 1:486Google Scholar, cited by Sider, , Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 154.Google Scholar

47. Sider, , Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 154f.Google Scholar

48. Martin, Brecht, Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining the Reformation, 1521–1532, trans. Schaaf, James L. (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1990), 26Google Scholar; Sider, , Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 144. In his August 1, 1521 letter to Melanchthon, Luther says “Christ does not absolutely require ‘both kinds’” and that Karlstadt had not proven that those who partake of “one kind” only have sinned (LW 48:279f.).Google Scholar

49. Sider, , Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 145.Google Scholar

50. F-B, #76–79, referring to Freys, E. and Barge, H., “Verzeichnis der gedruckten Schriften des Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 21 (1904): 153–79; 209–43; 305–31 [reprint: Nieuwkoop: B. deGraaf, 1965].Google Scholar

51. “An Weihnachten 1521 feiert er die erste öffentliche evangelische Messe” (Ulrich, Bubenheimer, “Karlstadt, Andreas Rudolff Bodenstein von [1486–1541],” Theologische Realenzyklopädie, 17:651)Google Scholar. On Michaelmas (September 29) Melanchthon and students had taken communion in both kinds, without reference to sacrifice, speaking in German. Although there is uncertainty whether the celebration occurred in a private residence (Brecht, , Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining, 26)Google Scholar or in the city church (Heinrich, Böhmer, Road to Reformation: Martin Luther to the Year 1521, trans. Doberstein, John W. and Tappert, Theodore G. [Philadelphia, Perm.: Muhlenberg, 1946], 155), it is generally agreed that the ceremony was not open to the public.Google Scholar

52. Die Wittenberger Bewegung 1521 und 1522: Die Vorgänge in und um Wittenberg während Luthers Wartburgaufenthalt, 2nd ed., ed. Nikolaus, Muller (Leipzig: M. Heinsius, 1911), #57, henceforth abbreviated WB, by entry number (#).Google Scholar

53. Ponader, , “‘Caro nichil prodest,’” 224Google Scholar; Brecht, , Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining, 34Google Scholar. There is agreement that this service was public and controversial, but some confusion exists as to where the service was held: (1) Many scholars agree that the service occurred at the Schloßkirche, where Karlstadt had originally scheduled it: Carter, Lindberg, The European Reformations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), 103Google Scholar; Ulrich Bubenheimer, “Andreas Rudolff Bodenstein von Karlstadt: Sein Leben, seine Herkunft und sein inner Entwicklung,” Merklein, 33; Brecht, , Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining, 34Google Scholar; and Hellmut Sasse, “Karlstadt as Prediger in der Stadtkirche zu Wittenberg,” Merklein, 65, to list a few. Moreover, Sider, , Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 159, n. 56Google Scholar, claims that Hermann, Barge, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (Leipzig: Brandstetter, 1905), 1:358Google Scholar, n. 103 has proven that the historic occasion occurred at the Schloßkirche; Preus, 29f. agrees with Sider. (2) Leopold von, Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany, trans. Sarah Austin, ed. Johnson, Robert A. (London: Routledge, 1905), 252Google Scholar, says it took place at the Stadtkirche, as does Ingrid, Schulze, Die Stadtkirche zu Wittenberg (Berlin: Union-Verlag, 1966), 20Google Scholar, and Thomas, von der Heyde, in Neue Zeitung, a Dresden newspaper account (WB, #72, #170)Google Scholar. Luther was much more concerned about what took place at the latter—his own pulpit—than at the former—the University chapel, where Karlstadt shared preaching assignments. In their 1524 face–off at the Black Bear Inn at Jena, (“What Dr. Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt Talked Over with Dr. Martin Luther at Jena, and How They Have Decided to Write against Each Other, 1524”), Karlstadt's Battle with Luther: Documents in a Liberal-Radical Debate, ed. Sider, Ronald J. (Philadelphia, Penn.: Fortress, 1978), 36–49Google Scholar, Luther confronts Karlstadt directly over the matter of his lack of jurisdiction at the Stadtkirche. There Karlstadt admits that he preached at the Stadtkirche, but argues that his right to preach per se is his right because of the archdeaconate. Further, he claims that the same people attend both churches. On 44, n. 18, Sider argues that Karlstadt's preaching and communion service on Dec. 25, 1521, was with the full cooperation of parish priest Simon Heims, according to WB, #63. Martin, Brecht, “Luther und die Wittenberger Reformation während der Wartburgzeit,” Martin Luther: Leben, Werk, Wirkung, ed. Günter, Vogler, Siegfried, Hoyer, and Adolf, Laube (Berlin: Akademie, 1986), 79Google Scholar says the Christmas service occurred at the castle church and that Karlstadt then held another service on New Year's day at the city church. For a review of the issues, see Sasse, ; Olaf, Kuhr, “The Zwickau Prophets, The Wittenberg Disturbances, and Polemical Historiography,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 70 (1996): 203–14Google Scholar. For a brief discussion of the geographic location of the mass, the purpose and organization of the sermon text, see Leroux, Neil R., Luther's Rhetoric: Strategies and Style from the Invocavit Sermons (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Academic Press, 2002), 227.Google Scholar

54. Harry, Loewen, Luther and the Radicals (Waterloo, Ontario: W. Laurier University, 1974), 33.Google Scholar

55. Hans-Jürgen, Goertz, Pfaffenhaß und groß Geschrei: Die reformatorischen Bewegungen in Deutschland 1517–1529 (Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck, 1987), 96.Google Scholar

56. Karlstadt, Andreas Rudolph, “Karlstadt's Dialogue on the Lord's Supper,” ed. and trans. Carter, Lindberg, Mennonite Quarterly Review 53 (1979): 35–77.Google Scholar

57. Most secondary sources devote a page or two; cf. Hermann, Barge, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Friedrich Brandstetter, 1905), 1:359–61Google Scholar; Sider, , Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt 159–60; Preus, 29.Google Scholar

58. Gordon, Rupp, Patterns of Reformation, 99Google Scholar. The only English translation is Sider, Karlstadt's Battle, 7–15, hereafter abbreviated in the text as Sider. Sider translates approximately 60%—Articles 1, 6–24. He omits identifying Article 24, showing it as a second paragraph of Article 23.1 have translated the remaining approximately 40%, consisting of portions of Article 1, all of Articles 2–5, portions of Articles 23, and all of Article 25. See Leroux, , Luther's Rhetoric, 227Google Scholar. Scholarly discussion on this sermon is found in Crerar, Douglas, The Coherence of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt's Early Evangelical Doctrine of the Lord's Supper: 1521–1525 (Ph. D. diss, Hartford Seminary Foundation, 1973), 129–36.Google Scholar

59. On November 1 Karlstadt published “Regarding the Worship and Homage of the Signs of the New Testament” [Von anbettung vnd ererbietung der tzeychen des newen Testaments] (F-B #68–70), English translation in Furcha, The Essential Carlstadt, 40–50.

60. Predig, Andresen Boden. von Carolstatt tzu Wittenberg, Von emphahung des hei ligen Sacraments. Wittenberg. (Wittenberg: Nicolaus Schirlentz, 1522, 25. Dezember 1521), hereafter abbreviated in the text as: Predig. The text I examined is F-B, #76 (Sider used F-B, #78). Articles vary in length, the vast majority (four-fifths) having 4–20 lines; four articles (i, ii, v, xvii) have 27–65 lines, and article xxii has 125 lines. Original article numbers are in Roman; hereafter I shall use Arabic numbers to identify articles. Of course, in oral delivery the article designations have no meaning but are only a function of the print medium.Google Scholar

61. A chapter of more than 60 prelates and canons cared for the collegiate church (Preus, 6).

62. Preus, 28ff., and Brecht, , Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining, 34. Karlstadt indicates the pressure in his Preface: “Because you [are], yearning from goodness, since stirred to receive the holy sacrament and inclined to participate in a ‘evangelical’ mass, I will offer a brief admonition, a model, and show how you should receive such sacrament or should observe the mass, thereupon the ‘evangelical’ mass from afar, as I have come to discover and learn it. Then your fervent desire and intemperate demand for this mass compels and drives me, you being diligent and earnest, to oblige” (Predig, A^v).Google Scholar

63. LW 51:70–100; WA 10^III:l–64. Fourteen of the seventeen provisions of the Ordnung pertained to poor relief and were not challenged by Luther. We now have new manuscript evidence, discovered by Ulrich Bubenheimer, of what Luther might have said in one of those sermons. A manuscript found at Wolfenbüttel HAB reveals that Luther took particular issue with Karlstadt's notion of “grasping” the cup. Professor Bubenheimer, reported his findings in “Unbekannte Luthertexte: Analecta aus der Erforschung der Handschrift im gedruckten Buch,” Lutherjahrbuch 57 (1990): 220–41Google Scholar; cf. his earlier brief note in “Luthers Stellung zum Aufruhr in Wittenberg 1520–1522 und die frühreformatorischen Wurzeln der landesherrlichen Kirchenregiments,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 102 [Kanonistische Abteilung 71] (1985): 203–06. See our “The Wolfenbüttel Manuscript: New Light on Luther's Invocavit Sermons,” for a rhetorical analysis and critical edition-translation of the text, which Professor Bubenheimer and I are preparing.Google Scholar

64. Karlstadt to the Elector (Jan. 5, 1522), quoted by Sider, , Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 161Google Scholar. An English translation of the letter, which claims to be written on St. Sebastians (Jan. 1) is published in Furcha, , The Essential Carlstadt 129–31. Karlstadt's Theses on Celibacy (Super Coelibatu Monachatu) were published in four editions (F-B #58–62) earlier in the fall of 1521. The wedding, whose invitation the Elector declined, took place on January 19, attended by Melanchthon and Justas Jonas, and privately applauded by Luther; cf. WB, Nr. 62, 135f.; Nr. 65, 145f.Google Scholar

65. Ulrich, Bubenheimer, “Streit um das Bischofsamt in der Wittenberger Reformation 1521/22,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 104 [Kanonistische Abteilung 73] (1987): 200.Google Scholar

66. Walter, Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination (Philadelphia, Penn.: Fortress, 1978), 13Google Scholar; Leroux, , Luther's Rhetoric, 227.Google Scholar

67. James, Darsey, The Prophetic Tradition and Radical Rhetoric in America (New York: New York University Press, 1997), 16.Google Scholar

68. Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse, ed. and trans. Kennedy, George A. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 371. (Rhet. 1.2.3–4 [1356a]). Modern rhetoricians use the term “ethos.”Google Scholar

69. Heschel, Abraham J., The Prophets (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), 1:22, quoted in Darsey, 19.Google Scholar

70. Darsey, 18.

71. The wording of the themes is my own, for Karlstadt does not include them. Hereafter, when quoting from Karlstadt's text, I shall not always use quotation marks around biblical quotes or paraphrases. No such marks are found in the original printing, and no such clear distinction between Karlstadt's and scripture's language is easily made. I use biblical references cited in parentheses to indicate the documentation found in the original; I use brackets to document scriptures not indicated in the original.

72. Sider, 7 indicates that Karlstadt has here quoted Romans 7:7, and he is surely correct about the precise wording Karlstadt uses. However, the context of Romans 3 is consistent with Karlstadt's point, even more than is Romans 7, and Karlstadt may very well have had the Romans 3 context in mind.

73. “No more” is the crescendo cliché of the theme found in Jeremiah 23 and is fully developed in Ezekiel 13 and 34, wherein the wall (13:15), the people following (13:21), and the vanity and divine divinations (13:23) will be “no more.” Therefore, in Karlstadt's language I have italicized similar expressions that itemize the deceptive conditions that precipitated the judgment decision of “no more.”

74. Not counting the opening section's explicit argument on the need for scripture, Karlstadt refers to the “holy scriptures,” the “scriptures,” or “God's word” six times in the space of twenty-five lines in Articles 1–2 (Predig, A2-A2^v). In fact, in adjacent lines (final line of Article 1, first line of Article 2), Karlstadt repeats his formulaic wollen wir in die schrifft sehen.

75. Recall that the final scriptural reference in the previous argument, rooted in Ezekiel, was from Deuteronomy 28, a declaration about blindness of sheep being the punishment to which God assigned those who did not remain His. Karlstadt saw the fulfillment of that passage as the fifty-five verses of warnings and curses about disobedience to the covenant. They had been previously outlined in fourteen previous verses of Deuteronomy 28, as Israel embarked, after the Wilderness Wandering, upon entry into Canaan. He suggests that the punishment is happening not only in Ezekiel but also in Saxony. In returning to the Exodus theme, he considers Israel's early failure in the wilderness (Exodus 17; Numbers 20, 27).

76. Karlstadt did offer his interpretation of how Moses' actions constituted unbelief/lack of faith, and he did so rather innovatively, incorporating Psalm 140 [:6, Vulgate] into the traditional explanation that in striking the rock, Moses failed to give God the credit. But the interpretation is really only a brief conclusion that “Moses and Aaron did not have faith” and that this is evident “when he struck the rock to bring them water from it” (Predig, A3). Either Karlstadt thought his listeners knew how the action constituted unbelief (which is doubtful), or he thought that the seriousness of unbelief was more important than the precise nature of it.

77. Darsey, 19.

78. Darsey, 25.

79. “Ehr sail nit vnglawbig sein/ dan der vnglawb macht vnschicklickeit/ vnwirdickeit/ ein hart hertz vnd erlangt gottis tzorn vnd grymmen” (Predig, A4).

80. Predig, A4. In his remark about the clarity of scripture being like a heavenly mirror Karlstadt himself says nothing at all that would indicate he has 1 Corinthians 13 in mind here, although he has earlier.

81. “Nein got ist gnedig/ gütig/ barmhertzig/ gedultig/ vnnd vergibt boszheiten” (Predig, A4^v).

82. Sider, , Karlstadt's Battle, 6, says the phrase “faith alone” is not used in Karlstadt's sermon. Perhaps he means the Latin phrase.Google Scholar

83. Matt. 26:26ff.(=Mark 14:22 = Luke 22:19f.) or Paul's rendition in 1 Cor. 11:23ff.

84. Lanham, Richard A., A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms, 2nd. ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 87Google Scholar. The website Silva Rhetoricae (The Forest of Rhetoric) 〈http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva〉 is a handy reference for rhetorical figures, providing examples in English and citing sources from representative ancient, Renaissance, and modern rhetorical handbooks. The most exhaustive source is Heinrich, Lausberg, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study, ed. Orton, David E. and Anderson, R. Dean (Leiden: Brill, 1998).Google Scholar

85. Doublets (and triplets) are common for both Karlstadt and Luther; cf. Leroux, Neil R., “Luther's Use of Doublets,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 20 (Summer 2000): 35–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Both Karlstadt and Luther use frequent doubletsüMuntzer, also, according to Ulrich Bubenheimer. See Matheson, 173. It seems as though one term is inadequate, two are better, to capture a thought. It is more commonly used in exhortation than in exposition, especially in narration. See Timothy, Kircher, Luther's Conception of Language (Ph. D. diss., Yale University, 1989), 112ff. Matheson, 173, has noticed this tendency in Karlstadt's On the Removal of Images.Google Scholar

86. Sider, 10 has the John 6 [:47, 54] reference at the end of the two quotations, whereas the F-B, #76 print has it precede the quotations.

87. One of the best discussions of parallelism in scripture is Kugel, James L., The Idea of Biblical Poetry (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1981)Google Scholar. Leroux, Neil R., “Repetition, Progression, and Persuasion in Scripture,” Neotestamentica 29 (1995): 1–25 applies notions of parallel form found also in preaching.Google Scholar

88. Presence is discussed by Perelman, Chaim and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L., The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, trans. Wilkinson, John and Weaver, Purcell (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969), 115–20Google Scholar and throughout; cf. Louise, Karon, “Presence in The New Rhetoric,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 9 (1976): 96–111Google Scholar; John, Murphy, “Presence, Analogy, and Earth in the Balance,” Argumentation and Advocacy 31 (1994): 1–16.Google Scholar

89. Karlstadt only paraphrases the second clause of Galations 3:13 (Christ's being made a curse for believers), rather than including the first clause (Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law). His reasoning could have been that the first clause states what he has already claimed, whereas the second clause states the supporting datum. If so, then verse 13 is an enthymeme (rhetorical syllogism, wherein the audience supplies the missing premise, thus participating in the construction of proof), and Karlstadt has already paraphrased the verse's claim in his own language. His tendency to intermingle scriptural language with his own is ubiquitous in the sermon. In the Rhetoric, Aristotle's preferred form of rational proof was the enthymeme.

90. “Jch musz sich er sein/ das mir kein teuffel/ kein hell/ kein boszheit schaden wirtt.” Sider, 11 includes one conjunction (“and”); it is lacking in my print.

91. “Bread” is, of course, seldom mentioned in this section (four times in Articles 16–21 [approximately ninety lines]). Karlstadt seems committed to—and consistent in—his argument that belief must be in the “words of Christ, that is the two gospels which Christ spoke to his dinner companions.” The first “pledge” is “my body is broken or given,” and the bread is first “the sign of the bread” [Predig, B]); only later does he say “The bread … makes you certain” [Predig, B2]).

92. Note how Karlstadt offers no actual definition of “forgiveness.” He seems to have sanctificarion in view first; forensic justification he takes up later; cf. Carter, Lindberg, “The Conception of the Eucharist According to Erasmus and Karlstadt,” in Les Dissidents du XVI^e siècle entre l'HHusmanisme et le Catholicisme, ed. Marc, Lienhard (Baden-Baden: Editions Valentin Koerner, 1983), 83Google Scholar. On Karlstadt's emphasis on sanctification, see Thompson, Alden Lome, Tertius usus legis in the Theology of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (Ph. D. diss., University of Southern California, 1969), 45.Google Scholar

93. Note how the punctuation slashes (flehet/ vnd bittet/), functioning as breathing marks, indicate that Karlstadt lingered over the verbs.

94. The sow image.

95. , Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L., 411–60, on dissociation.Google Scholar

96. Preus, 29.

97. Karlstadt does not stress that it is a sin to partake of only the bread, something he had earlier written; see Sider, , Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 144. He does not even cite Jesus' command in Matthew 26:28 (“Drink it, all of you”), and he has not really said anything at all explicit about people needing to partake of both cup and bread. He has had opportunities to do so, but has not taken them. He has used the plural pronoun “you” (euch) several times (“für euch” twice in Article 16 [B], twice in Article 17 [B^v]) in indicating that the cup is “for you [all].”Google Scholar

98. Note here that this use of “grasp” employs a different word (fassest) than the previous uses (greuffen).

99. Karlstadt does not draw out all these implications, but they are there. Paul explicitly charges in 1 Corinthians 15:14–15, 19 that, if the resurrection is not true, the results are “vain,” “false,” and “most miserable.”

100. Sider, 13 adds the adverb “eagerly.”

101. Sider, 14, includes “papacy” in brackets after “they”; he also footnotes this sentence, calling attention to the “striking” nature of this identification with the “laity and the common people.” Upon his return from Wartburg, Luther deliberately took up again the monk's cowl and tonsure.

102. Darsey, 21–22.

103. Sider, , Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 176f., where Karlstadt identifies himself as “a new layman” and “Brother Andrew.”Google Scholar

104. On the “common man” see Peter, Blickle, Communal Reformation: The Quest for Salvation in Sixteenth-Century Germany (Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities, 1992)Google Scholar; cf. Baylor, Michael G., “Karlstadt and the Common Man,” paper presented at Sixteenth Century Studies Conference,Cleveland,Ohio,11. 2, 2000, and now in print in Ulrich Bubenheimer and Stefan Oehmig, eds., Querdenker der Reformation.Google Scholar

105. Sider, 14, inserts the word “biblical” in brackets.

106. I use quotation marks around “showing” because Karlstadt is arguing from silence—namely, that no discovery of explicit scriptural sanction of confession equals no authority.

107. Sider, 14, brackets verse 18, but Karlstadt may have had in mind the entire context (note his addition of “etc.” [2c.]) of brotherly accountability, which runs all the way from verse 7 to the end of the chapter (verse 35). Luther often uses “et cetera” to mean he is considering entire contexts, not simply verses (which were not identified anyway); cf. Kenneth, Hagen, “It is all in the et cetera: Luther and the Elliptical Reference,” Luther-Bulletin: Tijdschrift voor interconfessioneel Lutheronderzoek 3 (1994): 57: “The modern use of etc. in English—appropriate mostly for informal writing—is to convey more of the same; where appropriate in scholarship, it is preferably confined to parenthetical references. For Luther, however, following high academic usage of his day, key words actually referenced often appear not before the et cetera but after” (emphasis Hagen's).Google Scholar

108. Predig, B4: “Congregatis vobis et spiritu meo” (1 Cor. 5:4); “Dic ecdesiae. Si non audierit ecclesiam, etc” (Matt. 18:17). Sider, 14, wrongly attributes the Matthew 18 quotation as Matthew 15. The F-B, #76 print lacks any citation at all here, and the next citation of Karlstadt (Matthew 18) is correct, both in Karlstadt's and Sider's translation. Sider probably was inadvertently misdirected by Karlstadt's final citation (Matthew 15), which is there in the print, and it is wrong, for the proper chapter is 16. We can only guess at how Karlstadt cited these texts in oral address.

109. Untranslated section includes an important closing argument that following confession means having the Pope as God and that following God makes us like the apostles, who did not go to confession.

110. A3^v (Article 4); A4^v (Article 14); B (Article 14); B3 (Article 22); B4 (Article 23). A sixth occurrence of begreuffen more properly means “comprehend” in Article 23 [B4].

111. Scott, Hendrix, “Rerooting the Faith: The Reformation as Re-Christianization,” Church History 69 (2000): 566, notes how frequently Luther used the word “Christian” and how he repeatedly called upon his readers and hearers to act in a specifically Christian way. In this sermon, however, Karlstadt uses the word only once, in speaking of the authority of the congregation [hauffen] to loose or bind (Predig, B4; Sider, 14).Google Scholar

112. Darsey, 203.

113. Ibid., 202. “Fire and strength” is Matthew Arnold's phrase.

114. Ibid.

115. Bryant, Donald C., “Rhetoric: Its Functions and Its Scope,” in Philosophy, Rhetoric, and Argumentation, ed. Maurice, Natanson and Henry, Johnstone (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1965), 48.Google Scholar

116. Bill, McNiel, “Andreas von Karlstadt as a Humanist Theologian,” 108.Google Scholar

117. Augustine, St., “On Christian Doctrine,” 464.Google Scholar

118. LW 51:97–100; WA 10^III:58–64.

119. Sider, , Karhtadt's Battle, 6.Google Scholar

120. I owe this observation to Robert Bast.

121. “Carolstatt in der Christliche statt Wittenberg,” is the last line of the title of Von Abtuhung der Bilder und Das Keyn Bedtler unther den Christen seyn sollen (Jan. 27, 1522); cf. Andreas, Karlstadt: Von Abtuhung der Bilder und Das Keyn Bedtler unther den Christen seyn sollen, ed. Hans, Lietzmann (Bonn: Weber, 1911)Google Scholar; cf. Furcha, , The Essential Carlstadt, 101–28.Google Scholar

122. Armin, Krause, Zur Sprache des Reformators Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt: Untersuchungen zum Einfluß von Verstehensund Sprachtraditionen auf die Ausprägung individuellen Sprach- und Schriftverständnisses, Sprachverhalten und die Bedeutung ausgewählter Schlüsselwörter der Refortnationszeit. Stuttgarter Arbeiten zur Germanistik, no. 236 (Stuttgart: Hans-Dieter Heinz Akademischer Verlag, 1990)Google Scholar; Hajo, Diekmannshenke, Die Schlagwörter der Radikalen der Reformationszeit (1520—1536): Spuren utopischen Bewußtseins (Frankfurt am Main, 1994)Google Scholar; “Der Schlagwortgebrauch in Karlstadts frühen Schriften,” Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, ed. Looß, Sigrid and Matthias, Markus, 283–302.Google Scholar

123. An earlier version of this essay was presented at the Sixth Biennial Conference on Public Address, Iowa City, Iowa, September 24–27, 1998. The author thanks the reviewers of Church History for their insightful suggestions.