Talk:Nicolaus Zinzendorf

Untitled
This article is extremely biased and needs to be heavily revised to become neutral. I don't know how to put a flag up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.213.6 (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

-- I agree. It reads like a pamphlet of propaganda Tsuchan (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia article or a hagiography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.35.76 (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Zinzendorf was called "Ludwig" or "Brother Ludwig" never "Nicolas"70.243.159.78 (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Pastor R

I completed the genealogy of the Baron von Gersdorff, Zinzendorf's maternal great grandparents from the Zinzendorf Family Tree edited by Dr. Gerhard Meyer, an auxilliary volume to the complete edition of Zinzendorf's works published in Hildesheim in the 1960's. I did not know how to foot note it. I also changed "of" to "von" in each of the names, the noble predicate "von" is part of the name and should not be translated.Headman13 (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Pastor R.

Sexual Theology
My apologies for originally deleting the "Sexual Theology" section. I believe that the section is under serious need for review, as it contains a great deal of interpretation and no relevant citation. Not sure how best to organize this, so hopefully it comes out clearly.

The entire section makes one enormous assumption: that Zinzendorf believed there was a connection between Christ's wounds and human sexuality. The author states this assumption from the start ("His ‘obsession’[5] with Christ's wounds was linked [to] the eroticism of his language...") without any credible support. The language Zinzendorf (supposedly) used when describing Christ's wounds is typical Christian theology. Theology which (generally) has no sexual meaning. The author drastically misinterprets these teachings.

In the second paragraph (after the entirely out-of-context block quote) the author mentions "Some modern writers..." but doesn't even give names- much less specific references. The idea of sexual intercourse as "a transcendent act and an important religious symbol" is Biblical, Christian theology- nothing unique to Zinzendorf. And, yet again, the author assumes Jesus' "blood and wounds" are connected with sexuality in some way.

The third paragraph doesn't contain a single citation giving it validity. And in any case, it doesn't seem to fit into a section about Zinzendorf's sexual theology at all. It briefly mentions his son's (supposed) sexual theology, but adds nothing to the discussion of Zinzendorf's own theology.

To be sure, I have no problem with these views if a credible source were cited, but to state them in an encyclopedia as fact, common knowledge, or widely accepted scholarly analysis is a grave mistake. It's quite a claim that Zinzendorf and his community equated Jesus's spear-wound with a vagina. I think it warrants credibility from a source higher than the section's author. --Jofwu (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree: the focus on the interpretations of Zinzendorf's "sexual theology" is of recent times. I have read a number of books on Moravian history, and have actually put together a small one on Anna Nitschmann. The intense focus and fascination with his sexual imagery, along with the modern speculations, seem to indicate the mindset of the interpreters more than the mindset of Zinzendorf himself. Our current culture's obsession with all things sexual is not proof that Zinzendorf and the Moravians of the 1700s had the same obsession. I mean, they didn't even allow the men and women to use the same walking paths in some cases! Their moral standards and community bylaws would be called cultish today. Yet some modern interpreters want to sexualize them. One modern author I read claimed that "Zinzendorf's premarital relationship with Anna Nitschmann was an open secret in the community." Hmmm. That author is the only one in the whole world who seemed to know anything about it. Not even one other person in the 10,000 pages of Moravian history that I have read mentioned it (neither was there any footnote of reference given, in an otherwise referenced book). My point is that I am in agreement that the section needs a rewrite. Zinzendorf did use sexual terminology in connection with the wounds, but the use of intimate imagery begins in the Song of Solomon. Zinzendorf's "wounds theology" has a lot of imagery, some of it fanciful to be sure (bees swarming around it, like at a hive, etc. Zinzendorf made a connection with the blood coming out of the wounds to the outpouring of the Spirit. It was like a blood transfusion; His blood giving spiritual life and power to the believer. Thus, the wounds became a source of life.) To make early Moravians into what our society has become is, in my opinion, purely an interpretation based on the modern American mindset raised on Hollywood. Mikeatnip (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs, and the blockquote, were originally added by me, drawing mainly on Schuchard 2006. I later added a supporting citation or two from the (much more respectable) MacCulloch 2010, who, inasmuch as he touches on it, supports the general theme, although he doesn't go into the sexual details nearly as much. When I have a chance I'll try and go back to the book and support specific sentences, but the net result might be that the whole paragraph is supported by only that one source, which I agree is not ideal. (I don't have any large Moravian library to draw on; I just add details when I come across them in my reading.) Widsith (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * it seems more like psychoanalysis, which really isn't encyclopedic. Tinynanorobots (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This discussion seems oddly out of place. It's neither a scholarly theological discussion on the order of transubstantiation nor a credible exposé of some pattern of sexual impropriety. It's like the author wants to be credited with some original thought, but has no reliable body of knowledge to draw the conclusions stated. This is my first introduction to Zinzendorf. It brings the entire page into question. This section should be improved or removed. Respawnd (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been doing my own research into the merit and accuracy of this section. My conclusion is that Zinzendorf was a true innovator, but this particular innovation was not well thought out and very poorly executed. His desire to explain certain subjects in a graphical manner was too easily misinterpreted and even misused. During the years 1743-1750 Zinzendorf obsessed with a new method of describing the wounds of Jesus. This method was extended to regeneration, or being born again. Much like the misinterpretation of the early Christian's practice of celebrating the resurrection by partaking in the breaking of bread and drinking of wine, where the pagan establishment accused them of practicing cannibalism, Zinzendorf's new methods were used against him by his enemies. Zinzendorf himself finally acknowledged that this method was a failure and retracted all published references using this method, even the hymns known as 12th Appendix were removed from the printed hymnal. Anyone that reads the material today would not be offended by it, but it was not the accepted norm in his day. The fact remains that Zinzendorf never recovered from this mistake, but he very publicly took responsibility for causing the distraction and leading many astray because of it. My material came from two primary sources, and Respawnd (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The sexual theology of the Herrnhuters have been investigated in a German doctoral dissertation by Gottfried Beyreuther entitled Sexualtheorie im Pietismus, München, 1963. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The sexual theology of the Herrnhuters have been investigated in a German doctoral dissertation by Gottfried Beyreuther entitled Sexualtheorie im Pietismus, München, 1963. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge Anna Nitschmann article into Nicolaus Ludwig Zinzendorf
With all due respect, Anna Nitschmann has little claim to notability outside her husband's endeavours and the Nitschmann article should be merged with that of Zinzendorf. Quis separabit? 03:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure how much you know of Moravian Brethren history, but Anna Nitschmann was notable as Head Eldress (chosen for that position at the young age of 14 (or thereabouts)) and being involved in missions within the Moravian Brethren. A full biography of her is in the works from the Bethlehem Moravian Historical center. Outside of the Moravian Brethren, she has no "notability," but within she carries a full weight of notability, even apart from her late marriage to Zinzendorf.


 * By the way, it would be easier for other editors to follow your edits if they were done in smaller bites. Your first edit on this article seems to have been a mix of cutting and remixing. It may just be me, but I am still trying to figure out what was cut and what was moved. Seems from your talk page that this is an old habit of yours. :-) If you were not an experienced Wikipedia editor I would probably just revert and ask to go over it again, more slowly. But for now I will trust that nothing significant was removed since I hardly have time to look closely at it at the moment. Cheers! Mikeatnip (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Closed, given the uncontested opposition. Klbrain (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Uncited content
This article had a lot of uncited content - and a 3-year-old more references tag, so I removed the uncited content and the tag here.

I will likely do some work on expanding the article through research.

If someone wants to find sources for the removed content, that would be lovely! (I find it much harder and more tedious to do it by searching for specific sentences.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)