The Early Anabaptists

[JohnH]

Well, let's ask Grok, since this is the "What is the opinion of LLMs about the early Anabaptists" thread:

Prompt: How much evidence is there for this claim that these people "dressed like their neighbbors"?

Group and time:

Swiss Brethren in Zürich and surrounding cantons, 1525–1527 (e.g., Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, George Blaurock).

How they differed from their neighbors:

They dressed like their neighbors, and came from various social classes and levels of education. But they had a very different understanding of what the church is.

There is solid but limited historical evidence supporting the claim that the early Swiss Brethren (also known as Swiss Anabaptists) in Zürich and surrounding areas during 1525–1527 dressed like their neighbors, meaning they wore conventional, everyday attire without a prescribed religious uniform or distinctive garb that set them apart visually from the general population. This contrasts with later Anabaptist offshoots, like the Amish, who developed more formalized plain dress codes in the 17th–18th centuries. (Citation #1)

Primary evidence comes from contemporary observer Johannes (John) Kessler, a Swiss Reformed chronicler active in St. Gallen (near Zürich), who in his 1525 writings described the Anabaptists as shunning costly clothing, despising expensive food and drink, clothing themselves with coarse cloth, covering their heads with broad felt hats, and living humbly overall—attributes that aligned with the modest, practical dress of common rural and urban folk in 16th-century Switzerland, rather than the finer silks, velvets, or ornate items worn by wealthier classes or clergy. (Citation #2)

Kessler's account, drawn from his chronicle Sabbata, is one of the few direct eyewitness descriptions from the period and has been widely cited in Anabaptist historiography, though it emphasizes their voluntary simplicity and rejection of luxury (e.g., no weapons or fancy adornments) as a moral choice rather than a mandated uniform. (Citation #3)

Very interesting - let's check what Citation #4 is:

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?t=7881

Oh, okay.

Going on,

Leaders like Conrad Grebel (from a patrician family with a reportedly more extravagant youth), Felix Manz, and George Blaurock came from diverse social backgrounds—educated elites, former priests, and commoners—but historical records suggest they adopted or maintained unremarkable, humble clothing to reflect their egalitarian beliefs and to blend in during a time of persecution, where they were identified more by their actions (e.g., adult baptisms, refusal of oaths) than by appearance. (Citation #1)

No contemporary sources describe them as having a unique "Anabaptist style" in the 1520s; instead, their dress was conventional and varied by individual class or region, without the later emphasis on hooks instead of buttons or specific colors. (Citation #2)

Later figures like Menno Simons (active from the 1530s) reinforced simplicity in writings, condemning "foolish pomp" like gold rings or velvet shoes, but this was a broader ethical stance rather than a dress code enforced in the early Swiss group. (Citation #3)

What's citation #3?

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?t=7881

So what we have learned is that if you ask an LLM questions about Anabaptism, it will regurgitate Bootstrap's Mennonet posts (and perhaps a few of mine as well).

[Bootstrap]

I thought I understood the OP to be encouraging the use of direct quotes and sourcing to solid sources? Did I understand wrong? I would be especially interested in the source for the claim that the Swiss Brethren in Zurich and surrounding cantons in 1525-1527 dressed like their neighbors.

I think this thread - which Josh found with Grok - already goes into some detail on this:

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 85#p270285

[Bootstrap]

Very interesting - let's check what Citation #4 is:

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?t=7881

What were sources 1-3 in that?

What's citation #3?

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?t=7881

And what were citations 1-2?

So what we have learned is that if you ask an LLM questions about Anabaptism, it will regurgitate Bootstrap's Mennonet posts (and perhaps a few of mine as well).

Actually, I doubt that it is looking only at your contributions or mine. But this does show a thread where we discussed this in some detail.

You imply that this is all that Grok did, but you don't mention most of the sources it cited. What were the other sources?

[ken_sylvania]

I thought I understood the OP to be encouraging the use of direct quotes and sourcing to solid sources? Did I understand wrong? I would be especially interested in the source for the claim that the Swiss Brethren in Zurich and surrounding cantons in 1525-1527 dressed like their neighbors.

I think this thread - which Josh found with Grok - already goes into some detail on this:

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 85#p270285

That thread contains a fair amount of conjecture about early Swiss Brethren dress but no solid sources confirming that they dressed like their neighbors. Although it does mention that descriptions of them early on mentions that the men wore broad-brimmed felt hats as if that were a distinguishing characteristic. If some were from elite backgrounds but they dressed in simple dark clothing it seems to me that is hardly dressing like their neighbors.

[Bootstrap]

I thought I understood the OP to be encouraging the use of direct quotes and sourcing to solid sources? Did I understand wrong? I would be especially interested in the source for the claim that the Swiss Brethren in Zurich and surrounding cantons in 1525-1527 dressed like their neighbors.

I think this thread - which Josh found with Grok - already goes into some detail on this:

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 85#p270285

That thread contains a fair amount of conjecture about early Swiss Brethren dress but no solid sources confirming that they dressed like their neighbors. Although it does mention that descriptions of them early on mentions that the men wore broad-brimmed felt hats as if that were a distinguishing characteristic. If some were from elite backgrounds but they dressed in simple dark clothing it seems to me that is hardly dressing like their neighbors.

If rules about clothing were part of their faith, you would expect to find them in the Schleitheim Confession, in the writings of early Mennonites, etc. And you would expect to find them in the descriptions of Mennonites written by others at that time. If clothing was central to their identity, why is that not central to their writings, self-description, or descriptions of others who saw them?

Paintings of Dutch Mennonites show them wearing fairly fancy clothes. I'm guessing people who can afford paintings of themselves are more likely to have such clothes. But that doesn't seem to have been prohibited, at least not among the Dutch Mennonites.

[JohnH]

Actually, I doubt that it is looking only at your contributions or mine. But this does show a thread where we discussed this in some detail.

It is simply looking at whomever posted on MennoNet. Regardless, posts on MennoNet are not authoritative, yet Grok (and it is safe to assume, other LLMs) are using it as an authoritative source.

You imply that this is all that Grok did, but you don't mention most of the sources it cited. What were the other sources?

The rest were GAMEO, except when I clicked the links, the text in GAMEO did not support what the LLM was saying. In particular, the sources that GAMEO itself used didn't come even close to supporting it.

LLMs are a particularly bad way to learn anything about Anabaptism, although they appear to be a good way to find out what people on MennoNet are saying.

[ken_sylvania]

I think this thread - which Josh found with Grok - already goes into some detail on this:

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 85#p270285

That thread contains a fair amount of conjecture about early Swiss Brethren dress but no solid sources confirming that they dressed like their neighbors. Although it does mention that descriptions of them early on mentions that the men wore broad-brimmed felt hats as if that were a distinguishing characteristic. If some were from elite backgrounds but they dressed in simple dark clothing it seems to me that is hardly dressing like their neighbors.

If rules about clothing were part of their faith, you would expect to find them in the Schleitheim Confession, in the writings of early Mennonites, etc.

Using that logic, one might well conclude that the Swiss Brethren did not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, considering the Schleitheim Confession is silent on the subject. The Schleitheim Confession according to its own description was written to address areas of controversy, not as an all-inclusive statement of faith.
Why should we expect early Mennonite writings to say much at all about the practices of the Swiss Brethren. I'm not aware of any indication that the Mennonites had much at all to do with the Swiss Brethren prior to the early 1600s

And you would expect to find them in the descriptions of Mennonites written by others at that time.

Again, why would people describing the Mennonites discuss how the Swiss Brethren dressed? Of interest is that writers did write about such things as people wearing wide brimmed felt hats, having detailed rules about clothing, about a person "dressed as a brother", of a "Mennonite coat."

If clothing was central to their identity, why is that not central to their writings, self-description, or descriptions of others who saw them?

Notice how you reframed the discussion here. Remember, the statement you made that I asked for the source for is your claim that the early Swiss Brethren dressed like their neighbors. In support of that claim, you say "if clothing was central to their identity" one wouldn't expect them to not write about it. There are a lot of practices I have, ways that I live out Christ's teachings, that are not central to my identity. Clothing is not central to my identity, but I don't dress like most of my neighbors. And 500 years from now it's highly unlikely that anyone will find any writings from me about how I dress.

Paintings of Dutch Mennonites show them wearing fairly fancy clothes. I'm guessing people who can afford paintings of themselves are more likely to have such clothes. But that doesn't seem to have been prohibited, at least not among the Dutch Mennonites.

And these paintings are from when??? Remember, I asked about documentation for your claim that the early Swiss Brethren dressed like their neighbors. You're right though, that by the mid 17th century there were wealthy Dutch Mennonites wearing fancy clothes - and there were voices raised in opposition to the abandonment of the traditional plain clothing. Long before those paintings were painted we find references to such things as "a coat made in the Mennonite fashion" that clearly refers to a specific, almost certainly plain, style.

[ohio jones]

It is simply looking at whomever posted on MennoNet. Regardless, posts on MennoNet are not authoritative, yet Grok (and it is safe to assume, other LLMs) are using it as an authoritative source.

Whaddayamean we aren't authoritative!

[Ernie]

If clothing was central to their identity, why is that not central to their writings, self-description, or descriptions of others who saw them?

Notice how you reframed the discussion here. Remember, the statement you made that I asked for the source for is your claim that the early Swiss Brethren dressed like their neighbors. In support of that claim, you say "if clothing was central to their identity" one wouldn't expect them to not write about it.

Which is why quite a number of years ago, I gave up trying to participate in discussions that go this way.

Paintings of Dutch Mennonites show them wearing fairly fancy clothes. I'm guessing people who can afford paintings of themselves are more likely to have such clothes. But that doesn't seem to have been prohibited, at least not among the Dutch Mennonites.

Yes, we are aware that these things like fancy clothing do not seem to have been prohibited by Mennonites in the Netherlands in the 17th century. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been, nor that we should follow their example today. We don't take our cues from churches who allow their members to become more and more like the world.

Even John Wesley lamented later in life that he did not follow the Quakers and Moravians.

“I am distressed. I know not what to do. I see what I might have done once...
With regard to dress, in particular, I might have been as firm (and now I see it would have been far better) as either the people called Quakers, or the Moravian Brethren: ... I might have said, 'This is our manner of dress which we know is both scriptural and rational. If you join with us, you are to dress as we do; but you need not join us, unless you please.' But alas! The time is now past; and what I can do now, I cannot tell."
— John Wesley

I fear there is a growing evil among us, and one that will increase unless it be carefully prevented. The generality of our people are growing more and more conformable to the world in their dress. They do not consider how much this tends to destroy the work of God in their souls, nor how it grieves the Holy Spirit of God.
I wish I had made it a standing rule, from the beginning, for all our members, that none should wear gold, or costly apparel. I am persuaded this would have been a means of preserving them from many temptations, and of keeping them closer to the simplicity of the gospel.
In this respect I have been wanting. I have not sufficiently insisted on the duty of plainness, although I am fully convinced that nothing can be more contrary to the spirit of Christianity than the needless conformity of dress to the world, and that a Christian ought to be distinguished from others by modesty, frugality, and plainness of apparel.”
— John Wesley

I don't think Wesley concluded that plain dress should be central to one's identity, but he certainly believed that one should be identified as dressing plain.

I think there were likely many Mennonite leaders in the Netherlands who had regrets similar to Wesley.

And in case anyone wonders what the Moravian dress code looked like Dean Taylor writes

I’ll mention only a few here to show how they dared to speak about detail, about clothes:

The brothers shall not wear any fresh colors, lay-down collars or lapels, double-breasted coats, unnecessary pleats, or starched garments. But the one who still has clothes like this is allowed to wear them out.
The sisters shall not wear any type of lace or embroidery on their dresses, nor lacy veils. They shall not use sheer materials, fancy headbands, buttons, or ribbons, nor shall they use white yarn to decorate their clothes. They shall not wear white gloves, nor white or colored stockings, colorful caps, or any fresh or bright colors whatsoever. They shall use no colorful ribbons in their bonnets, but only black or blue ones. Red striped or blue printed aprons are to be dyed solid blue on both sides. No printed cotton shall be worn, except for winter head coverings, where plain brown is allowed, but no multi-colored prints.
Pointed shoes and slippers shall no longer be worn, nor shoes with high heels. Form fitting or short-sleeved jackets shall not be worn, nor ruffled clothing, nor straw hats that cost more than two Groschen. Hat bands shall be of uncolored, rough linen only. Cloth printed on a white background shall only have black patterns and no big-flowered or flashy designs. …
The one who does not follow this prescribed manner of dressing, exactly, shall be excluded from the Gemeine [community], and should not be surprised if in his stubbornness he does not get included in future activities. (Hoover, 191)

https://www.ephrataministries.org/remna ... achine.a5w

[Bootstrap]

If clothing was central to their identity, why is that not central to their writings, self-description, or descriptions of others who saw them?

Notice how you reframed the discussion here. Remember, the statement you made that I asked for the source for is your claim that the early Swiss Brethren dressed like their neighbors. In support of that claim, you say "if clothing was central to their identity" one wouldn't expect them to not write about it.

Which is why quite a number of years ago, I gave up trying to participate in discussions that go this way.

I am not aware of any evidence that either the Swiss Brethren or the Mennonites or any of the early Anabaptists wore distinctive dress or uniforms at all. When I think of "early Anabaptists", I am mostly thinking of the first century, perhaps 1525 to 1650 (the "first century" and some change). There is, however, emphasis on simple clothing.

When people dress distinctively or uniformly, people around them comment on that. if it's part of their identity, so do they. People know Plain Anabaptists and Amish dress differently, that is in all kinds of written historical accounts and film and journals. I find it hard to believe that nobody would have written about it. If I asked Ken's neighbors or yours about you, they would mention the way you dress.

You bring up the Quakers and Moravians in the 1700s. They wrote and preached about clothing. Their neighbors noticed their clothing and wrote about it. It was part of their identity.

You don't see that with the early Anabaptists. At least, I have not seen that in the period from 1525 to 1650 (the "first century" and some change). I would be happy to see evidence that I have missed.

Even John Wesley lamented later in life that he did not follow the Quakers and Moravians.

1700s, about 200 years after the start of Anabaptism. And they did have distinctive clothing. But I wouldn't call them the "early Anabaptists".

And in context, Wesley continues to sharply distinguish his own beliefs from the Moravians. But he did wish he had learned more from Moravians and Quakers when it comes to simplicity and some of the ways they lived out their holiness. I don't think he saw clothing as a litmus test of who is really a Christian.

The one who does not follow this prescribed manner of dressing, exactly, shall be excluded from the Gemeine [community], and should not be surprised if in his stubbornness he does not get included in future activities. (Hoover, 191)

https://www.ephrataministries.org/remna ... achine.a5w

Again, 1700s, about 200 years after the start of Anabaptism.