Books on Anabaptist History and Theology

[Judas Maccabeus]

For a treatment on the State church vs pure church discussion, I suggest the book by Leonard Verduin (also the translator for the Menno Simons book version that is direct from Dutch to English), The Anatomy of a Hybrid. I don't agree with all he wrote there, especially in the first chapters, but it can be very thought provoking reading, and I think it offers some serious implications for Christians involved in secular politics. This book has been discussed here a bit. (I made extensive notes as I read through it, but haven't typed it all up yet.)

If anyone is interested in Verduin's work but also wants something more specific to Anabaptist history, his book The Reformers and Their Stepchildren covers a lot of the same ground as Anatomy of a Hybrid but spends the bulk of its text observing the relationship between the magisterial and radical reformers of the 16th century.

I read stepchildren before hybrid and I was a bit disappointed at the amount of material covered twice across both books. For context, I believe stepchildren is a published collection of what were originally a series of lectures, probably conceived as a practical and specific educational application of his work in hybrid.

What I'm trying to say is, it might be a bit redundant to read both. If you want to read something that covers a bit more of church history, try hybrid. If you want something that zeroes in on the Reformation (and contains a lot more specific stories/examples from sources in the 16th century), read stepchildren.

For someone interested in History, Verduin's "Stepchildren" is foundational in disproving polyorigin theory of Anabaptism.

[Neto]

For a treatment on the State church vs pure church discussion, I suggest the book by Leonard Verduin (also the translator for the Menno Simons book version that is direct from Dutch to English), The Anatomy of a Hybrid. I don't agree with all he wrote there, especially in the first chapters, but it can be very thought provoking reading, and I think it offers some serious implications for Christians involved in secular politics. This book has been discussed here a bit. (I made extensive notes as I read through it, but haven't typed it all up yet.)

If anyone is interested in Verduin's work but also wants something more specific to Anabaptist history, his book The Reformers and Their Stepchildren covers a lot of the same ground as Anatomy of a Hybrid but spends the bulk of its text observing the relationship between the magisterial and radical reformers of the 16th century.

I read stepchildren before hybrid and I was a bit disappointed at the amount of material covered twice across both books. For context, I believe stepchildren is a published collection of what were originally a series of lectures, probably conceived as a practical and specific educational application of his work in hybrid.

What I'm trying to say is, it might be a bit redundant to read both. If you want to read something that covers a bit more of church history, try hybrid. If you want something that zeroes in on the Reformation (and contains a lot more specific stories/examples from sources in the 16th century), read stepchildren.

For someone interested in History, Verduin's "Stepchildren" is foundational in disproving polyorigin theory of Anabaptism.

"Polyorigin" is not a familiar term to me, and google eyes couldn't help me out. Could you put that into different words for me?

[Judas Maccabeus]

If anyone is interested in Verduin's work but also wants something more specific to Anabaptist history, his book The Reformers and Their Stepchildren covers a lot of the same ground as Anatomy of a Hybrid but spends the bulk of its text observing the relationship between the magisterial and radical reformers of the 16th century.

I read stepchildren before hybrid and I was a bit disappointed at the amount of material covered twice across both books. For context, I believe stepchildren is a published collection of what were originally a series of lectures, probably conceived as a practical and specific educational application of his work in hybrid.

What I'm trying to say is, it might be a bit redundant to read both. If you want to read something that covers a bit more of church history, try hybrid. If you want something that zeroes in on the Reformation (and contains a lot more specific stories/examples from sources in the 16th century), read stepchildren.

For someone interested in History, Verduin's "Stepchildren" is foundational in disproving polyorigin theory of Anabaptism.

"Polyorigin" is not a familiar term to me, and google eyes couldn't help me out. Could you put that into different words for me?

The theory that Anabaptism had many origins, and is in fact ancient, tracing perhaps to the apostles. Books like Brodbent's "The Pilgrim Church" and Kennedy's "Torch of the Testimony" give this theory. It is more recent.

The other predominant theory is that Anabaptism if of Zurich Origin. While these ideas were out there, it never came together until Zurich. Bender's "Anabaptist Vision" is a work that supports this theory. I am inclined to believe Monoorigin.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

For a treatment on the State church vs pure church discussion, I suggest the book by Leonard Verduin (also the translator for the Menno Simons book version that is direct from Dutch to English), The Anatomy of a Hybrid. I don't agree with all he wrote there, especially in the first chapters, but it can be very thought provoking reading, and I think it offers some serious implications for Christians involved in secular politics. This book has been discussed here a bit. (I made extensive notes as I read through it, but haven't typed it all up yet.)

If anyone is interested in Verduin's work but also wants something more specific to Anabaptist history, his book The Reformers and Their Stepchildren covers a lot of the same ground as Anatomy of a Hybrid but spends the bulk of its text observing the relationship between the magisterial and radical reformers of the 16th century.

I read stepchildren before hybrid and I was a bit disappointed at the amount of material covered twice across both books. For context, I believe stepchildren is a published collection of what were originally a series of lectures, probably conceived as a practical and specific educational application of his work in hybrid.

What I'm trying to say is, it might be a bit redundant to read both. If you want to read something that covers a bit more of church history, try hybrid. If you want something that zeroes in on the Reformation (and contains a lot more specific stories/examples from sources in the 16th century), read stepchildren.

Thanks. I hadn't heard of the Stepchildren book.

Are there certain sections you would suggest for those who have already read Anatomy of a Hybrid? Do the chapter titles give a hint as to which parts are especially pertinent to 'anabaptism'?

EDIT: Thought I might find a review that gives the chapter titles, and found a PDF version!

https://www.standardbearer.org/wp-conte ... ildren.pdf

The stepchildren book uses the "hybrid" idea that he developed in hybrid so the beginning of the book spends a good deal of time reiterating that premise. And then it keeps coming up again as a sort of "QED" refrain constantly. I found stepchildren to be a more interesting book because it contains a lot more original sources and references to writings and events from the 16th century that were fascinating.
I got tired of stepchildren because he repeats himself a lot. Each chapter is supposed to be focusing on a specific "insult" the reformers had for thebanabaptists, but, while each is a bit distinct, somehow they all relate back to the Donatists, at least in Verduin's view. So instead of hearing about a variety of different disagreements they had, we get a bunch of chapters where it all just harkens back to references to the earliest church disagreements and the earliest accusations of heresy.
But after reading hybrid I realize he repeats himself a lot there too, so my suggestion is still to read stepchildren rather than hybrid because it has more historical examples.

[Judas Maccabeus]

If anyone is interested in Verduin's work but also wants something more specific to Anabaptist history, his book The Reformers and Their Stepchildren covers a lot of the same ground as Anatomy of a Hybrid but spends the bulk of its text observing the relationship between the magisterial and radical reformers of the 16th century.

I read stepchildren before hybrid and I was a bit disappointed at the amount of material covered twice across both books. For context, I believe stepchildren is a published collection of what were originally a series of lectures, probably conceived as a practical and specific educational application of his work in hybrid.

What I'm trying to say is, it might be a bit redundant to read both. If you want to read something that covers a bit more of church history, try hybrid. If you want something that zeroes in on the Reformation (and contains a lot more specific stories/examples from sources in the 16th century), read stepchildren.

Thanks. I hadn't heard of the Stepchildren book.

Are there certain sections you would suggest for those who have already read Anatomy of a Hybrid? Do the chapter titles give a hint as to which parts are especially pertinent to 'anabaptism'?

EDIT: Thought I might find a review that gives the chapter titles, and found a PDF version!

https://www.standardbearer.org/wp-conte ... ildren.pdf

The stepchildren book uses the "hybrid" idea that he developed in hybrid so the beginning of the book spends a good deal of time reiterating that premise. And then it keeps coming up again as a sort of "QED" refrain constantly. I found stepchildren to be a more interesting book because it contains a lot more original sources and references to writings and events from the 16th century that were fascinating.
I got tired of stepchildren because he repeats himself a lot. Each chapter is supposed to be focusing on a specific "insult" the reformers had for thebanabaptists, but, while each is a bit distinct, somehow they all relate back to the Donatists, at least in Verduin's view. So instead of hearing about a variety of different disagreements they had, we get a bunch of chapters where it all just harkens back to references to the earliest church disagreements and the earliest accusations of heresy.
But after reading hybrid I realize he repeats himself a lot there too, so my suggestion is still to read stepchildren rather than hybrid because it has more historical examples.

Most of the insults relate to the Donatists, but he is unable to show an actual connection. That is what I find interesting.

His real interest is the development of the "Free Church." At least that is what I got out of it.

[Neto]

If anyone is interested in Verduin's work but also wants something more specific to Anabaptist history, his book The Reformers and Their Stepchildren covers a lot of the same ground as Anatomy of a Hybrid but spends the bulk of its text observing the relationship between the magisterial and radical reformers of the 16th century.

I read stepchildren before hybrid and I was a bit disappointed at the amount of material covered twice across both books. For context, I believe stepchildren is a published collection of what were originally a series of lectures, probably conceived as a practical and specific educational application of his work in hybrid.

What I'm trying to say is, it might be a bit redundant to read both. If you want to read something that covers a bit more of church history, try hybrid. If you want something that zeroes in on the Reformation (and contains a lot more specific stories/examples from sources in the 16th century), read stepchildren.

Thanks. I hadn't heard of the Stepchildren book.

Are there certain sections you would suggest for those who have already read Anatomy of a Hybrid? Do the chapter titles give a hint as to which parts are especially pertinent to 'anabaptism'?

EDIT: Thought I might find a review that gives the chapter titles, and found a PDF version!

https://www.standardbearer.org/wp-conte ... ildren.pdf

The stepchildren book uses the "hybrid" idea that he developed in hybrid so the beginning of the book spends a good deal of time reiterating that premise. And then it keeps coming up again as a sort of "QED" refrain constantly. I found stepchildren to be a more interesting book because it contains a lot more original sources and references to writings and events from the 16th century that were fascinating.
I got tired of stepchildren because he repeats himself a lot. Each chapter is supposed to be focusing on a specific "insult" the reformers had for thebanabaptists, but, while each is a bit distinct, somehow they all relate back to the Donatists, at least in Verduin's view. So instead of hearing about a variety of different disagreements they had, we get a bunch of chapters where it all just harkens back to references to the earliest church disagreements and the earliest accusations of heresy.
But after reading hybrid I realize he repeats himself a lot there too, so my suggestion is still to read stepchildren rather than hybrid because it has more historical examples.

Thank you, but I can't "unread" Hybrids.... I took a long time to read through it, partly because I took notes the whole way through, and partly because I so strongly disagreed with some things he said in the first part of the book, especially about the Old Testament "state" of Israel. So, I'll start reading the other as well, but may not get to it any time soon. (For one thing, I still have not finished typing up my notes on Hybrid. That will serve as a sort of refresher.)

[Neto]

For someone interested in History, Verduin's "Stepchildren" is foundational in disproving polyorigin theory of Anabaptism.

"Polyorigin" is not a familiar term to me, and google eyes couldn't help me out. Could you put that into different words for me?

The theory that Anabaptism had many origins, and is in fact ancient, tracing perhaps to the apostles. Books like Brodbent's "The Pilgrim Church" and Kennedy's "Torch of the Testimony" give this theory. It is more recent.

The other predominant theory is that Anabaptism if of Zurich Origin. While these ideas were out there, it never came together until Zurich. Bender's "Anabaptist Vision" is a work that supports this theory. I am inclined to believe Monoorigin.

I'm not totally sure I understand, so let me put it in my own words: He was saying that 'anabaptism' was a 'coming together' of various older ways of thinking, and you feel that it rather arose like a totally new thing, like a new species of belief. I am probably over stating this, but want to first of all understand the general direction of these two viewpoints. (Incidentally, it was the opinion of some Dutch Mennonites in the mid 1800's that Dutch anabaptism was largely unrelated or unaffected by Swiss anabaptism, that the men who came to plead with Menno to take leadership were actually Waldensian. So if I am understanding your viewpoint, you would reject this idea. I'm not sure about it myself, so will be interested to hear if I'm understanding correctly.)

[Josh]

I vaguely recall some sort of group called Dutch Brethren that existed before Anabaptism did in the Netherlands.

[ohio jones]

"Polyorigin" is not a familiar term to me, and google eyes couldn't help me out. Could you put that into different words for me?

The theory that Anabaptism had many origins, and is in fact ancient, tracing perhaps to the apostles. Books like Brodbent's "The Pilgrim Church" and Kennedy's "Torch of the Testimony" give this theory. It is more recent.

The other predominant theory is that Anabaptism if of Zurich Origin. While these ideas were out there, it never came together until Zurich. Bender's "Anabaptist Vision" is a work that supports this theory. I am inclined to believe Monoorigin.

I'm not totally sure I understand, so let me put it in my own words: He was saying that 'anabaptism' was a 'coming together' of various older ways of thinking, and you feel that it rather arose like a totally new thing, like a new species of belief. I am probably over stating this, but want to first of all understand the general direction of these two viewpoints. (Incidentally, it was the opinion of some Dutch Mennonites in the mid 1800's that Dutch anabaptism was largely unrelated or unaffected by Swiss anabaptism, that the men who came to plead with Menno to take leadership were actually Waldensian. So if I am understanding your viewpoint, you would reject this idea. I'm not sure about it myself, so will be interested to hear if I'm understanding correctly.)

The terms Monogenesis and Polygenesis are more commonly used, apparently having their genesis in this article (which I have not read; is there an online source?):
Stayer, James M., Werner O. Packull, and Klaus Deppermann. "From Monogenesis to Polygenesis: The Historical Discussion of Anabaptist Origins." Mennonite Quarterly Review 49 (1975): 83-121.

As I understand it, the theory of polygenesis is that Anabaptism originated independently and nearly simultaneously in multiple places, including but not limited to Zürich, Nürnberg, and Amsterdam.

I vaguely recall some sort of group called Dutch Brethren that existed before Anabaptism did in the Netherlands.

You're probably thinking of the Brethren of the Common Life.

[Judas Maccabeus]

The theory that Anabaptism had many origins, and is in fact ancient, tracing perhaps to the apostles. Books like Brodbent's "The Pilgrim Church" and Kennedy's "Torch of the Testimony" give this theory. It is more recent.

The other predominant theory is that Anabaptism if of Zurich Origin. While these ideas were out there, it never came together until Zurich. Bender's "Anabaptist Vision" is a work that supports this theory. I am inclined to believe Monoorigin.

I'm not totally sure I understand, so let me put it in my own words: He was saying that 'anabaptism' was a 'coming together' of various older ways of thinking, and you feel that it rather arose like a totally new thing, like a new species of belief. I am probably over stating this, but want to first of all understand the general direction of these two viewpoints. (Incidentally, it was the opinion of some Dutch Mennonites in the mid 1800's that Dutch anabaptism was largely unrelated or unaffected by Swiss anabaptism, that the men who came to plead with Menno to take leadership were actually Waldensian. So if I am understanding your viewpoint, you would reject this idea. I'm not sure about it myself, so will be interested to hear if I'm understanding correctly.)

The terms Monogenesis and Polygenesis are more commonly used, apparently having their genesis in this article (which I have not read; is there an online source?):
Stayer, James M., Werner O. Packull, and Klaus Deppermann. "From Monogenesis to Polygenesis: The Historical Discussion of Anabaptist Origins." Mennonite Quarterly Review 49 (1975): 83-121.

As I understand it, the theory of polygenesis is that Anabaptism originated independently and nearly simultaneously in multiple places, including but not limited to Zürich, Nürnberg, and Amsterdam.

I vaguely recall some sort of group called Dutch Brethren that existed before Anabaptism did in the Netherlands.

You're probably thinking of the Brethren of the Common Life.

You have to pay for that article, yes, I am familiar with it. What I am talking about is we have our own version of this that the Baptists have:



In case the image does not appear:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trail ... _Blood.jpg


Broadbent and Kennedy hold this view, but their endpoint is Plymouth Brethren, which some consider Anabaptist.