User talk:TheTiredUndergrad19

Thomas Müntzer article


Thanks for your thought-provoking contribution to the Thomas Müntzer article. Spurred on by it, I revisited Abraham Friesen’s article, as well as consulting TM’s own letters and writings, and a couple of recent critical articles - amongst the latter, Bräuer/Vogler’s 2016 biography “Thomas Müntzer: Neu Ordnung machen in der Welt”. After some cool deliberation, can I suggest we make some amendments here, as I have a couple of concerns? A proper discussion, however, may bring us to some agreement, and we can then deploy some revised wording.

You are quite right to point out that Müntzer (TM) and Luther (ML) came to recognise their differences. But I would suggest that recognising them “at an earlier point” is a little misleading - they were already eyeing each other askance as early as 1520, when TM was active in Zwickau. What is, however, quite remarkable is that although TM made three or more attempts to contact ML between 1520 and 1523, ML never appears to have made a single attempt to reply. This in itself is suggestive. It was only in the summer of 1524 that ML really paid attention to TM – and not in a good way.

It was not simply a shared admiration of Tauler that both united and then separated the two men – the whole question of church reform, quite aside from theology, looms very large, and it was as much on this as on other, theological matters that their ways parted. Although both men – and also many of the other reformers – admired the mystics Tauler and Seuse, it is noticeable (as Friesen points out) that TM never actually mentions Tauler at all – we know of his reading of the mystics only from third-parties.

Friesen suggests (as you do) that ML came to Tauler after he himself had developed his reforming theology; whereas TM nourished his nascent theology with Tauler, while he was still developing it. It is an interesting theory - but must remain speculative, as we simply have no evidence. On a minor point, could you clarify your reference to “Theologia Grammatica”? I can find no reference to this being a work or edition by ML. Is this perhaps a typo for “Theologia Germanica”?

Finally, given that this Wikipedia article is actually about Müntzer, and not Luther, it is unfortunate that more than half of your paragraph discusses Luther…

I expect we will want to argue about this, which is good and proper! Can we do so? As a first suggestion, though, could I propose:

1. that we shift the paragraph down to the section which already exists in the article, entitled “Differences with Luther” - I think it would sit better there than in a purely biographical section, as now.

2. that we  re-word the second part of your paragraph, to make it shorter (i.e. less about Luther) 3. that we link the matter of a mutual interest in Tauler with the wider disintegration of ML/TM’s relationship – such as it was.

Thanks MurdoMondane (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)



As per suggestion above a couple of weeks ago, and since I've not heard back from you, I've shortened your contribution on Luther & Tauler, and moved it down into the section which deals specifically with Müntzer's relationship with Luther. Please let me know if this causes you problems? MurdoMondane (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)