Marta Quatrale
Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Philosophie, Department Member
- Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion, Philosophy Of Language, Idealismo Italiano, Historiography, Aesthetics, Benedetto Croce, Idealismo, and 155 moreGerman Idealism, Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Metaphor, Augustine of Hippo, Lutheranism, Martin Luther, Lutheran Theology, Lutheran Confessional Theology, Early Modern Lutheran history, Schwaermer, Karlstadt, Anabaptist Studies, Anabaptist Theology, Anabaptists, Reformation History, Reformation Studies, Reformed theology, Paracelsus (Philippus Theophrastus Aureolus von Hohenheim), Paracelsus, Ulrich von Hutten, History of Astrology, Astrology, Philipp Melanchthon, Renaissance magic and astrology, Philipp Melanchthon and Astrology, Melanchthon, Johannes Lichtenberger, Job Fincel, History of Wonder, Miracles, Wonder, Agrippa of Nettesheim, Count Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Pico Mirandola Astrologia qabbalah conclusiones cabala, Garin Rinascimento Patristica Pico Mirandola Dignitas Hominis, Inquisition, Athanasius Kircher, Heresy and Orthodoxy, Heresy and Inquisition, Heresy, Medieval heresy, Roman Inquisition, Witchhunts and Inquisition, Machiavellism, Machiavellianism, Machiavelli, Niccolò Machiavelli, Marcion of Sinope, Marcion, Marcionism, Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Mattia Flacio, Mattia Vlacić /Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Flacius, Waldensians, Reformation, Melanchton, Demonology, Demonolatry and Satanism, Demonologia, Medieval Demonology, Zwingli, the theology of Ulrich Zwingli, Ulrich Zwingli, Calvinism, Calvin, Calvinism, Reformed Tradition, Barocco, Theory of History, Rhetorical Criticism, Microhistory, Morphology (Languages And Linguistics), Caravaggio, Christian Iconography, Witchcraft (Magic), Carlo Ginzburg, Political Theology, History of Christianity, Violence, Iconography, Counterreformation, Controriforma cattolica, Storia Della Riforma E Della Controriforma, Arte Della Controriforma, Controriforma, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Karl Barth, Theology of Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, Jansenism, Pascal, Mythical and Monstrous, Monstrosity, The Monstrous and Otherness, Monsters and Monster Theory, Monsters, Ghosts, Haunting, Mythology, Mitologia, Myth, Mitología, teología, historia de las religiones, Greek mythology, Myth, Folk Studies, Legends, Greek Myth, Mythos and Logos, Christology After Chalcedon, Reception of Chalcedon, Chalcedon, Council of Chalcedon, Christology, Ecclesiology & Christology, Logos Christology, Kenotic Christology, Spirit Christology, Reformed Christology, Hegel's Christology, Early High Christology, Trinitarian Christology, Pauline Christology, Communicatio Idiomatum, Apocalypticism, Eschatology and Apocalypticism, Biblical Exegesis, Joachim of Fiore, Michel de Certeau, Antichrist, Inquisizione e censura in età moderna, Early Modern Era, Early Modern History, Renaissance History, History of the Reformation, Gioacchino Da Fiore, Theological exegesis, History of Exegesis, Medieval Prophecy, Prophecy and Apocalypticism, Prophecy, Apocalyptic Eschatology, Book of Revelation, Biblical Medieval Exegesis, Medieval Church History, Medieval Theology, Cistercians, Medieval Studies, Church History, Papacy (Medieval Church History), Critical Edition (Medieval History), Franciscan Studies, Malebranche, Jan Hus, Mistr Jan Hus, Hussitism, Hussite revolution (Bohemia), Hussites, Hussite Theology, Hussite Movement, Hussite, and Hussite Warsedit
- Postdoc Researcher and Visiting Professor (History of Philosophy), Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Philosophie... morePostdoc Researcher and Visiting Professor (History of Philosophy), Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Philosophie.
Experienced translator and copywriter.
Areas of expertise: History of Ancient and Late Ancient Philosophy; History of Christianity; History and Reception of Augustinism; History of Early Modern Philosophy (focus on German, Swiss and Italian XVI Century); History of the Reformation in German- and Italian-speaking areas.edit
This paper aims at sketching some preliminary results of my current postdoc research project. In the attempt to put my (until now relatively unexplored) approach to the test, before devoting time to a broader research project, I am... more
This paper aims at sketching some preliminary results of my current postdoc research project. In the attempt to put my (until now relatively unexplored) approach to the test, before devoting time to a broader research project, I am engaging with a marginal case study regarding the controversial topic of the support (mainly in the form of Nicodemism, of course) of some Evangelical tendencies in Italy: the one of Michelangelo Buonarroti. The borderline character of this case study is provided by the heterogeneity of Michelangelo’s background, as well as by the heterogeneity of the medial support we have to rely on. The idea behind my attempt is not, as has been the case in research on the topic so far, sketching some likely not properly (or, on the contrary, very much) Catholic elements in his artistic output, but rather investigating it, together with his (limited) literary output and his private correspondence, to get one possible access among others to
the sources of the so-called Ecclesia viterbiensis as birthplace of one of the most well-known Italian Evangelical treatises, the Beneficio di Cristo. The final aim would be sketching some (ideally objective and philologically provable) guidelines to dispel any doubts concerning the (in the eyes of some researches still controversial) reception of unmistakably Evangelical sources in the production of the period.
the sources of the so-called Ecclesia viterbiensis as birthplace of one of the most well-known Italian Evangelical treatises, the Beneficio di Cristo. The final aim would be sketching some (ideally objective and philologically provable) guidelines to dispel any doubts concerning the (in the eyes of some researches still controversial) reception of unmistakably Evangelical sources in the production of the period.
Research Interests:
The various attempts to combine an Aristotelic and/or Late Ancient (i.e., mainly Stoic or Epicurean) Moral Philosophy with the voluntaristic approach of the Christian Soteriology caused some of the most interesting ‚short-circuits‘ of... more
The various attempts to combine an Aristotelic and/or Late Ancient (i.e., mainly Stoic or Epicurean) Moral Philosophy with the voluntaristic approach of the Christian Soteriology caused some of the most interesting ‚short-circuits‘ of the Early Modern Age, especially in the case of Theologians with a strong humanistic approach. On the one hand, one cannot subtract oneself from noticing more than just some inconsistencies; on the other, the attempt to build a relatively cogent theological system despite these inconsistencies — if not even on their basis — gave rise to a speculative spontaneousness which went lost through the decades.
Can we interpret a strong Monergistic approach as the highest expression of Manicheism? Can we disempower good works and still defend the human self-determination and Free Will against the depiction of a Stoic Fate? The Praeceptor Germaniae by excellence, Philip Melanchthon, did all of this, continuously. Although his production was not devoid of an authentic polemical spirit against his opponents, some theological contradictions in his standpoint might be explained consistently assuming a Gnoseological, rather than a Theological background behind his Ethical statements. What if the Wellbeing in Melanchthon’s production is a matter of how we think and act, and not of what we believe, although the subject of our faith remains the precondition of our thoughts and actions?
Can we interpret a strong Monergistic approach as the highest expression of Manicheism? Can we disempower good works and still defend the human self-determination and Free Will against the depiction of a Stoic Fate? The Praeceptor Germaniae by excellence, Philip Melanchthon, did all of this, continuously. Although his production was not devoid of an authentic polemical spirit against his opponents, some theological contradictions in his standpoint might be explained consistently assuming a Gnoseological, rather than a Theological background behind his Ethical statements. What if the Wellbeing in Melanchthon’s production is a matter of how we think and act, and not of what we believe, although the subject of our faith remains the precondition of our thoughts and actions?
Research Interests:
The issues emerged with the relative broad series of events regarding the challenging Soteriological, Christological and Trinitarian standpoint of Andreas Osiander, collectively known as „Osiandrischer Streit“, caused an unexpected... more
The issues emerged with the relative broad series of events regarding the challenging Soteriological, Christological and Trinitarian standpoint of Andreas Osiander, collectively known as „Osiandrischer Streit“, caused an unexpected side-effect regarding the trustworthiness of one of the hitherto most well-known and respected Lutherans of the first generation, the Tübinger Johannes Brenz. The fact that Brenz was not willing to condemn Osiander as harshly as the other Lutherans would have wished cast a shadow on his own theological integrity. The most blatant case was the Colloquy of Worms (1557), but also some countermeasures taken on behalf of Christoph of Württemberg shall be mentioned. But was Brenz’ position really jeopardising the tightness of the Lutheran doctrine of the Justification and the Christology, and therefore of the doctrine of the Trinity too? And could the Antritrinitarians in Tübingen take advantage of it, somehow? This paper aims at sketching the terms of this issue.
Research Interests:
The identification of the Bohemian Preacher Jan Hus as a forerunner of the German Reformation left a heavy legacy in its wake. For the first time, it was suggested to Martin Luther privately in 1518 by the Roman-Catholic Theologian... more
The identification of the Bohemian Preacher Jan Hus as a forerunner of the German Reformation left a heavy legacy in its wake. For the first time, it was suggested to Martin Luther privately in 1518 by the Roman-Catholic Theologian Johannes Eck in his so-called Obelisci, then, in 1519, publicly during the Leipzig Debate, during which it became a leitmotiv in the depiction of the newborn (and not yet institutionalised) Lutheran Church on both sides.
As the several editions of Jan Hus’ letters from Constance — firstly in Luther’s entourage, then among the radical Lutheran wing, with the so-called Historia et monumenta (Nurnberg, 1558), edited by Matthias Flacius Illyricus with the aid of some Bohemian scholars as well as of the Bohemian Brethren — testify, the Conciliaristic attitude (or rather an allegedly harsh Anticurialism) and the consequential rejection of the Papal primacy remained the main features of this supposed spiritual filiation, based on the leitmotiv of the fight against the Antichrist, whose features had been partially inherited by Hus from his mentor Jan Milíč of Kroměříž.
However, in the context of the controversies regarding the Lutheran Church, Hus’ ethically oriented, rather practical perspective, based on a strong Augustinian ecclesiological background, was depicted as a strong Anticurialism instead. This stress on the Reformation as eminent result of Jan Hus’ theological approach seems namely to undermine the main characters of his own theological legacy: the concerns of a Preacher for the spiritual health and Salvation, together with the metaphysical background assumptions behind the role of the truth and the personal adherence to it.
The aim of the present paper is to investigate this shift in Hus' theological reception with respect to the Lutheranism as it was: the result of a process, which — despite some apparent similarities — was based more on a certain storytelling, than on a spotless spiritual continuity.
As the several editions of Jan Hus’ letters from Constance — firstly in Luther’s entourage, then among the radical Lutheran wing, with the so-called Historia et monumenta (Nurnberg, 1558), edited by Matthias Flacius Illyricus with the aid of some Bohemian scholars as well as of the Bohemian Brethren — testify, the Conciliaristic attitude (or rather an allegedly harsh Anticurialism) and the consequential rejection of the Papal primacy remained the main features of this supposed spiritual filiation, based on the leitmotiv of the fight against the Antichrist, whose features had been partially inherited by Hus from his mentor Jan Milíč of Kroměříž.
However, in the context of the controversies regarding the Lutheran Church, Hus’ ethically oriented, rather practical perspective, based on a strong Augustinian ecclesiological background, was depicted as a strong Anticurialism instead. This stress on the Reformation as eminent result of Jan Hus’ theological approach seems namely to undermine the main characters of his own theological legacy: the concerns of a Preacher for the spiritual health and Salvation, together with the metaphysical background assumptions behind the role of the truth and the personal adherence to it.
The aim of the present paper is to investigate this shift in Hus' theological reception with respect to the Lutheranism as it was: the result of a process, which — despite some apparent similarities — was based more on a certain storytelling, than on a spotless spiritual continuity.
Research Interests:
The Virtual Conference 2022 of the Renaissance Society of America will take place between November, 30th and December, 3rd 2022. The only accepted language for papers is English, presentations should not exceed 20 minutes, to allow time... more
The Virtual Conference 2022 of the Renaissance Society of America will take place between November, 30th and December, 3rd 2022. The only accepted language for papers is English, presentations should not exceed 20 minutes,
to allow time for questions and discussion. In order to submit the Panel Translation, diffusion and popularization strategies as theological dissemination tool, I will need up to three (preferably two) Presentations. Submissions are very much welcome until May 15th, 2022.
to allow time for questions and discussion. In order to submit the Panel Translation, diffusion and popularization strategies as theological dissemination tool, I will need up to three (preferably two) Presentations. Submissions are very much welcome until May 15th, 2022.
Research Interests:
How much can I beware my body, in order not to lose my soul? Is the attempt to beware my body a sign that I have already lost my soul? Finally, are there reliable signs that I am among the elected? And on the base of which metaphysical... more
How much can I beware my body, in order not to lose my soul? Is the attempt to beware my body a sign that I have already lost my soul? Finally, are there reliable signs that I am among the elected? And on the base of which metaphysical background? The process which lead to the condemnation and the execution of the Bohemian Preacher Jan Hus (and, after some months, of his fellow Jerome of Prague) in the context of the Council of Constance (1414–1415) provides us a privileged insight on the issues which might emerge while analysing such topic. Even more, if we consider that the lack of official acts regarding his condemnation forces us to follow the very subjective path of the reconstruction of the events through the eyes of Hus himself, as well as of some of his closest fellows.Two elements seem to be particularly clear: on the one hand, Hus’ absolute inability to understand the political background behind the reasons of the three great actors of the council (d’Ailly, Gerson, Zabarella), on the other hand, the role of Hus’ implicit metaphysical assumption in the logical consequences which allowed his condemnation — although he never stated, actually, the thesis he was condemned for. Having recently curated an edition of Jan Hus’ letters, I would take the opportunity offered by the conceptual pair body/soul as main topic of the RefoRC Conference of this year to present the issues in Hus’ ecclesiology, in his very much questioned adherence to Wyclif’s standpoint and his ‘radical’ realism, as well as in his idea of a congregatio praedestinatorum and the role of the adherence to the ’truth’ as sign of the divine election as framework to his repeated refusal to abjure in order to preserve his soul. “Leve est loqui et illud exponere, sed grave implere“, as he stated to his patron, the Baron Jan of Chlum: that is easier said than done. Nonetheless, done.
Research Interests:
Besides the application of traditional patterns, one of the most relevant aspects in the Lutheran Heilsgeschichte was the Humanistic claim to get back to sources and therefore to retrieve Ancient philosophical sources. Nonetheless,... more
Besides the application of traditional patterns, one of the most relevant aspects in the Lutheran Heilsgeschichte was the Humanistic claim to get back to sources and therefore to retrieve Ancient philosophical sources. Nonetheless, essential changes in the context — as the ones between the Late Antiquity on the one hand, and the Early Modern Age on the other — implied essential changes in the reception of the content. Melanchthon’s way of presenting the heritage of the Late Antiquity provides a good example of such an issue: despite the noteworthy use of Late Ancient ethical considerations and of some related prognostic tools, he rejected their “epicurean” attitude, whose materialism he interpreted as a lack of “scientific” background. But which kind of background replaced, in Melanchthon’s view, the Late ancient Materialism? And is it still capable of consistently justifying both the ethical and eschatological implication it developed in his Early Modern re-use?
Research Interests: Early Modern History, Melanchthon, Lutheranism, Stoicism, Free Will, and 11 moreFree Will and Moral Responsibility, Martin Luther, Stoicism (Philosophy), Lutheran Theology, Necessity, Philipp Melanchthon, Free will and determinism debate, Epicureanism and Stoicism, History of Philosophy, Mattia Vlacić /Matthias Flacius Illyricus, and Matthias Flacius Illyricus
The topic of the accomodatio to the different stages of weakness of the believers represented under the keyword „Schonung der Schwachen“ an important issue in the constitution of a Lutheran Orthodoxy. Martin Luther supported explicitly... more
The topic of the accomodatio to the different stages of weakness of the believers represented under the keyword „Schonung der Schwachen“ an important issue in the constitution of a Lutheran Orthodoxy. Martin Luther supported explicitly the accommodating attitude of the young humanist Philipp Melanchthon against the radical spiritualism of Andreas Bodenstein of Karlstadt (1521-1522), in his purpose of maintaining the Church traditions, as long as they don’t contradict the Word. This aim — clearly echoing Erasmus’ conception of the adiaphora — was repeated by Melanchthon, in accordance with Luther, during the negotiations with the so-called Zwinglian party in the Marburger Colloquy (1529). Such relatively accommodating theological framework changed drastically after Luther’s death and the Lutheran defeat in the Schmalkaldic War (1547), with the implementation of the so-called Leipzig Interim (1548), a temporary settlement in which Melanchthon was involved as author. This time explicitly, the keyword adiaphora represented once again the basis for a given compromise with the counterpart —read by the most radical Lutheran wing as an anti-christical sign, re-activating some apocalyptical pattern used by Luther himself — against the Rome in the very first years of the Reformation. „Nihil est adiaphoron in casu confessionis et scandali“ — with this harsh statement, a leitmotif for almost 30 years, the radical wing rejected the idea of inclusive reforms of the Church, to underline the identification of the true doctrine with Luther’s doctrine alone. Depriving the confession of faith of its traditional theological-political role of making compromises legal and implementing them, they tasked it for the very first time with confessing a professedly ‚true‘ doctrine. Aim of the present paper is to trace back some patterns in the Lutheran conception of this Erasmian legacy, between willingness to compromise and apocalyptical patterns.
Research Interests:
An often misunderstood element in Luther’s Theology was the combination of its anti-scholastical, practical aim (“vera theologia est practica”) with its highly theoretical outcome. A reason for it might be found it the increasing role of... more
An often misunderstood element in Luther’s Theology was the combination of its anti-scholastical, practical aim (“vera theologia est practica”) with its highly theoretical outcome. A reason for it might be found it the increasing role of such outcome, which at a given point seemed to have turned into a proper pillar of his own Theology. An example of this (at least apparent) contradiction is provided by the Christological background of the anti-roman doctrine of the Justification as fröhlicher Wechsel/admirabile commercium, which, due to its particular interpretation of the Doctrine of the so-called communicatio idiomatum, lead to the consistent, and nonetheless rejected formulation of a Doctrine of the Theopaschy. Aim of this paper is to sketch such consistent background, its development in the controversies of the second half of the 16th Century, as well as the attempt to save this peculiar element beside the Christological controversies, deriving it no longer from the Christological Doctrine of communicatio idiomatum, but rather from the one of so-called status exinanitionis et exaltationis, keeping a look on its originally practical aim.
Research Interests:
Should the intuition play a role in discovering new research patterns? Or should we give up the possibility to think out of the box to reduce the risk? Over 40 years ago, the Italian historian Carlo Ginzburg, in its well-known essay... more
Should the intuition play a role in discovering new research patterns? Or should we give up the possibility to think out of the box to reduce the risk? Over 40 years ago, the Italian historian Carlo Ginzburg, in its well-known essay Clues: Roots of an Evidential Paradigm, presenting its application of the evidential paradigm to the archival sources, summarised the "unpleasant dilemma on the humane sciences" as follows: "either assume a lax scientific system in order to attain noteworthy results, or assume a meticulous, scientific one to achieve results of scant significance". A conference investigating the complexity of the Early Modern period as an era of multifaceted transfers related to the concept of Long Reformation seems to be the best occasion to present some methodological issues of the historical investigation. Can we decentralise and 'pluralise' our perspective? Can we switch from 'high' to 'low', from theological to popular point of view, to gain a new glance towards over-researched topics? To go back to Ginzburg, can we make a science — or, at least, a narration — of the individual, 'micro-historical' case? Is namely the one from the singular to the plural a viable route?
Aim of this paper is presenting some hypothesis in fieri regarding a Hussite influence in some German popular narrations in the 16th and early 17th Century originating from the tragical events of the Hussite Wars (15th Century). How could battles and sieges turn even into fairy tales? Did the establishment of the Lutheranism as proper confession play a role in this respect? Can we start from the Hussite traditions which are still alive nowadays in Germany, and use the intuition, or the evidential paradigma, to sketch at least a pattern to apply to the archival sources? Playing with this hypothesis as leitmotif, this paper aims to investigate the possibility of turning some of the common methodologies upside-down.
Aim of this paper is presenting some hypothesis in fieri regarding a Hussite influence in some German popular narrations in the 16th and early 17th Century originating from the tragical events of the Hussite Wars (15th Century). How could battles and sieges turn even into fairy tales? Did the establishment of the Lutheranism as proper confession play a role in this respect? Can we start from the Hussite traditions which are still alive nowadays in Germany, and use the intuition, or the evidential paradigma, to sketch at least a pattern to apply to the archival sources? Playing with this hypothesis as leitmotif, this paper aims to investigate the possibility of turning some of the common methodologies upside-down.
Research Interests:
According to the anti-Scholasticism the first stages of the Reformation and Erasmus’ beneficia Christi, in the first Edition of his Loci Communes (1521), Melanchthon refused to develop a proper Christology, relying only on its... more
According to the anti-Scholasticism the first stages of the Reformation and Erasmus’ beneficia Christi, in the first Edition of his Loci Communes (1521), Melanchthon refused to develop a proper Christology, relying only on its soteriological effects. The scenario changed nonetheless soon so drastically that — against the spreading Antitrinitarian movements — he had to develop the christological and trinitarian speculations he tried to avoid. In this context, decrees and Fathers became the main weapon to ensure the conformity of his position. But also a certain unspoken criticism towards a given direction of the Lutheranism is clearly recognisable in Melanchthon’s statements. Through Irenaeus’ formula “requiescente verbo” Melanchthon prepared the ground for an alternative to the communicatio idiomatum of his opposers, in order to contrast the Theopaschy implied in it. Aim of the present paper is to provide a reconstruction of Melanchthon’s offensive, highlighting the legitimating role of the Fathers’ quotations in his attack.
Research Interests:
In the winter of 1548, a year before her death, in the small port of Mont-de-Marsan in Aquitaine, Marguerite de Navarre (1494-1549) composed a morality play for the festivity of the Mardi Gras. This mystical masquerade presents in quick... more
In the winter of 1548, a year before her death, in the small port of Mont-de-Marsan in Aquitaine, Marguerite de Navarre (1494-1549) composed a morality play for the festivity of the Mardi Gras. This mystical masquerade presents in quick succession four ladies: a worldly woman, a superstitious woman and a wise one discuss the true way of life and the relationship between body and soul. The plays ends with the enchanting and misunderstood apparition of a shepherdess, who enters stage singing popular love songs and declaiming an enraptured love for the Bridegroom.
This mature composition of the queen of Navarre, always close to the more effervescent religious circles, represents a privileged point of view on an author who has proved to be difficult to label into narrow-minded religious categorization. The interplay between the four ladies allows Marguerite to show the slow unveiling of errors and the construction of more accurate definitions of the true faith. This paper proposes an in-depth analysis of the theological positions described in the comedy, often intended only as a defense against Calvin’s accusation of libertinism, directed against the French court. In particular, the paper will investigate the influence of Erasmus’ Origenian ecstatic love as a possible key of the representation.
This mature composition of the queen of Navarre, always close to the more effervescent religious circles, represents a privileged point of view on an author who has proved to be difficult to label into narrow-minded religious categorization. The interplay between the four ladies allows Marguerite to show the slow unveiling of errors and the construction of more accurate definitions of the true faith. This paper proposes an in-depth analysis of the theological positions described in the comedy, often intended only as a defense against Calvin’s accusation of libertinism, directed against the French court. In particular, the paper will investigate the influence of Erasmus’ Origenian ecstatic love as a possible key of the representation.
Research Interests:
Villa Vigoni, Centro Italo-Tedesco per l'Eccellenza Europea / Deutsch-Italienisches Zentrum für Europäische Exzellenz. Deutsch-Italienische Zusammenarbeit in den Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften 2019: "Im Labor der Moderne. Die Schweiz... more
Villa Vigoni, Centro Italo-Tedesco per l'Eccellenza Europea / Deutsch-Italienisches Zentrum für Europäische Exzellenz.
Deutsch-Italienische Zusammenarbeit in den Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften 2019: "Im Labor der Moderne.
Die Schweiz im Zeitalter der Reformation: Theologie, Ontologie und Psychologie zwischen Deutschland und Italien"
Deutsch-Italienische Zusammenarbeit in den Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften 2019: "Im Labor der Moderne.
Die Schweiz im Zeitalter der Reformation: Theologie, Ontologie und Psychologie zwischen Deutschland und Italien"
Research Interests: Luther, Melanchthon, Bullinger, Zwingli, Calvinism, and 12 moreLutheranism, Martin Luther, Lutheran Theology, Philipp Melanchthon, John Oecolampadius, Lutheran Confessional Theology, Schweiz, Heinrich Bullinger, Lutheran History and Theology, Early Modern Lutheran history, Matthias Flacius Illyricus, and Calvinismo
Although — as far as we know — Luther did not receive any reply from the counterpart in the early stage of his theological production, Erasmus seems nonetheless to have played a significant role in the clarification of Luther’s own... more
Although — as far as we know — Luther did not receive any reply from the counterpart in the early stage of his theological production, Erasmus seems nonetheless to have played a significant role in the clarification of Luther’s own position. While working on his Römerbriefvorlesung, Luther read and used Erasmus’ Annotationes to the New Testament no later than from May 1516, and developed his own position also in contrast with the one stated by Erasmus, highlighting the role of Augustin’s Antipelagian works instead of Jerome’s ones as the only right interpretation of the Pauline epistles.
Even before the proper spreading of the Reformation in 1517, as quite unknown Augustinian monk, in a letter dated October 19th, 1516, Luther asked his friend Spalatin to report to Erasmus his criticism in regard of his theological standpoint. Arguing against Erasmus’ understanding of the concept of “iustitia”, “iustificatio”, “opus” and original sin — and against his statement that in Rm 5 there is no question about this topics —, Luther presents a short summary of his latter explicit criticism in De servo arbitrio, explicitely picking on Erasmus’ dependance on Jerome in the interpretation of the concept of “lex” as mediation thorough the concrete form of hierarchy and rites, and ending up with the warm suggestion to read properly Augustin’s Antipelagian works to gain an overall view of Paul’s and Augustin’s real standpoints. Taking into account the Römerbriefvorlesung, the Heidelberger Disputation, the Galaterbriefvorlesung and a series of minor Disputationes of the period, this paper aims to trace back a path in Luther’s implicite connection with Erasmus’ viewpoint in the period before the explicit debate in 1525, in the attempt to highlight how much Luther’s own theological perspective assumes his final form within and due to the polemical context in which it grows.
Even before the proper spreading of the Reformation in 1517, as quite unknown Augustinian monk, in a letter dated October 19th, 1516, Luther asked his friend Spalatin to report to Erasmus his criticism in regard of his theological standpoint. Arguing against Erasmus’ understanding of the concept of “iustitia”, “iustificatio”, “opus” and original sin — and against his statement that in Rm 5 there is no question about this topics —, Luther presents a short summary of his latter explicit criticism in De servo arbitrio, explicitely picking on Erasmus’ dependance on Jerome in the interpretation of the concept of “lex” as mediation thorough the concrete form of hierarchy and rites, and ending up with the warm suggestion to read properly Augustin’s Antipelagian works to gain an overall view of Paul’s and Augustin’s real standpoints. Taking into account the Römerbriefvorlesung, the Heidelberger Disputation, the Galaterbriefvorlesung and a series of minor Disputationes of the period, this paper aims to trace back a path in Luther’s implicite connection with Erasmus’ viewpoint in the period before the explicit debate in 1525, in the attempt to highlight how much Luther’s own theological perspective assumes his final form within and due to the polemical context in which it grows.
Research Interests:
Human will/works Nova obedientia est necessaria, quae est in renato vita, spiritus, lux, intueri et cognoscere Deum, et laetitita acquiescens in deo, invocans, subiicens nos deo, accensa audito Evangelio per verbum et spiritum. Iam cum... more
Human will/works Nova obedientia est necessaria, quae est in renato vita, spiritus, lux, intueri et cognoscere Deum, et laetitita acquiescens in deo, invocans, subiicens nos deo, accensa audito Evangelio per verbum et spiritum. Iam cum dicitur: nova obedientia est necessaria ad salutem, papistae intelligunt bona opera esse meritum salutis. Haec propositio falsa est; ideo illum modum loquendi mitto. Et tamen dici usitatum est: nova obedientia est necessaria, non ut meritum, sed necessitate causae formalis; ut, cum dico, paries albedine necessario est albus. Paulus renatus vivens nova vita vivit hac ipsa novitate formaliter. Necessarium autem significat: coactione extortum; sic non est accipiendum in angelis, Maria, bona opera sunt necessaria, id est, coactione extorta; haec est agrestis expositio;-ordinatum immutabili ordine; sic dicitur in angelis; Maria, bona opera sunt necessaria, videlicet ordinata immutabili ordine divino, quo creatura subiecta est creatori. Sic Christus et Paulus nominant debitum, i.e. non coactione extortum, sed ordinatum ordine immutabili, quem ordinem intelligens Gabriel, volens obtemperat. Et sic hoc ipsum est debitum, videlicet ordinatum, ut volens obtemperet, ut ego volens debeo solvere pro frumento. Sed nihil volo rixari. Isebius textuit hinc suam ἀνομίαν, proponens: das Muß ist versalzen; item, manet reliquiae carnis in nobis, hae coercendae sunt. De hac parte singularis disputatio est. Discrimen doctrinae Osiandri, adversariorium doctorum et nostrae Ecclesiae in articulo de Iustificatione. Osiander re ipsa congruit com doctoribus papistis, qui dicunt, hominem esse iustum novitate, id est, illa oboedientia, quam efficit spiritus sanctus in hominibus dilectioen et omnibus virtutibus. Hi de effectu Dei in nobis loquuntur. Hoc vult interim. Sed Osiander causam nominat, dicit, hominem esse iustum Deo in nobis habitante; et habitare Deum in nobiis, est: est agentem et moventem ad salutares actiones. At nostrae Ecclesiae concedunt, oportere in nobis esse novitatem, et deum esse causam illius novitatis, et habitare in sanctis, et sic fieri inhabitationem: filius dat verbum consolationis, in quo verbo cernitur voluntas aeterni patris, et simul dat spiritum sanctum in corda, laetificantem corda, et accentem dilectionem et invocabionem et alsia virtutes. Sed propter hanc noviitatem non habet homo remissionem peccatorum et reconciliationem, sed prius accipienda est remissio et resconciliatio quae sunt iustificatio propter mediiatorem Deum et hominem fide. Hac fide intuente mediatorem accedimus ad deum, sumus iusti, i.e. accepti, non propter nostram novitatem; sed imputatur nobis iustitia propter mediatorem. Haec est consolatio necessaria, et sich prophetae accedunt ad Deum: salvum me fac propter misericordiam; Moises invocans coram te non est innocens. (CR 8, Nr. 5520, 1553, Sententia D. Praeceptoris Philippi Melanchtho. de propositione: utrum bona opera sint necessaria ad salutem. etc.) […] Etilche wollen diese Rede nicht dulden: gute Werke sind nötig; oder also: man muß gute Werke thun; wollen diese zwey Wörter necessitas und debitum nicht haben, und stund der Hofprediger derselbigen Zeit, und spielet mit dem Wort muß: das Muß ist versalzen; verstund necessarius und debitum für erzwungen durch Furcht der Strafe, extortum coactione, und redete hoh Wort, wie gute Werke ohne Gesetz kämen. So doch necessarium und debitum nicht erstlich heiset extortum coactione,
In the multifaceted debate leading to the establishment of the Formula concordiae, a huge topic within the theologians was that of the ‘conformity’ in the reception of the doctrine of the two fathers of the Reformation. My aim here is to... more
In the multifaceted debate leading to the establishment of the Formula concordiae, a huge topic within the theologians was that of the ‘conformity’ in the reception of the doctrine of the two fathers of the Reformation. My aim here is to sketch two lutheran reactions to the so-called Consensus Dresdensis, in the attempt to highlight an always more ‘codified’ approach to a typical polemical argument: the one of the theologians of Jena, representing the very last contribution of the Duchy of Saxony in the dispute over the Wittenberg Christology, and a similar standpoint stated by the Stuttgart preacher Lucas Osiander. The Jenaer contribution, significantly entitled Fallstricke, written by Wigand, Heshusen and Kirchner, focuses on the lack of clarity of the text: general descriptions, mention of ‘reformed’ theological standpoints which had been already criticised on Calvinist side, ‘Zwinglian’ glosses to the Nicaenum presented as primary sources in an “Exemplar in der Bibliotheca zu Basel”, the assumption of the Wittenberger Katechismus as direct consequence of Luther´s Kleiner Katechismus, excerpts of the Confessio Augustana and its Apology quoted only in Melanchthon´s ambiguous revision, ... This should be intended as a political strategy, falsifying both the lutheran and the reformed standpoint. And to the Wittenberger statement that “Lutherus [...]/ sol einem in ein Büchlein geschrieben haben/ [...] das von der allenthalbenheit/ [...] nicht sol disputirt werden” Osiander replies for the very first time with philological, objective arguments, simply asking all scholars of his time to examine whether the style is more likely to be attributed to Melanchthon or Luther. The necessity of a certain loyalty to Luther’s ‘clear’ doctrine as opposed to the unreliable variety within Melanchthon’s standpoint over time, shaping a very clear confessional identity, seems so to achieve a proper ‘scholarly’ form, beside the unavoidable theological-political arguments.
Research Interests:
Within the context of a confessional use of Historiography, the Lutheran apocalyptic Self- identification has been originally and programmatically oriented against the Roman Church. Following the Konkordienformel, the importance of the... more
Within the context of a confessional use of Historiography, the Lutheran apocalyptic Self- identification has been originally and programmatically oriented against the Roman Church. Following the Konkordienformel, the importance of the Reformation as historical event is to be identified in the revelation of the hidden pattern of the Revelation as a whole, through the event of the Revelation of the Antichrist, so becoming an occasion for the formalisation of Luther’s peculiar interpretation of the christological doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum.
Such “generally protestant” historical awareness, or rather: such formerly historical pattern trasformed in a central theologumenon in the proper sense of the term – the fact that everything concerning the Pope, and later, more radically, everything concerning each possible kind of political theology, lies on fictive, so invalid premises – allows the development of a new Self-legitimation within the Reformation itself: the so-called Hergotts Kanzlei in Magdeburg.
Due to the Reformation as historical event, such eschatological fight starting from Christ to the present times has now landed to its (apocalyptically) final stage. In this sense – thanks to its historical defeat, and due to the recognition of the real Faith as christologically mortifying bond – the legitimation of Lutheranism as historical event of revelation is made possible.
My aim here is to shortly sketch such process to its development of this kind of clearly recognisable gnesiolutheran production, and to trace back its christological implications, in order to clarify the apocalyptic connotation of the construction of the concept of “(Gnesio)lutheran Identity”, as controversial element first and foremost in the negative sense of the rejection of any possible theological-political claim, and as systematisation of Luther’s very peculiar connection between christology and soteriology as well.
Such “generally protestant” historical awareness, or rather: such formerly historical pattern trasformed in a central theologumenon in the proper sense of the term – the fact that everything concerning the Pope, and later, more radically, everything concerning each possible kind of political theology, lies on fictive, so invalid premises – allows the development of a new Self-legitimation within the Reformation itself: the so-called Hergotts Kanzlei in Magdeburg.
Due to the Reformation as historical event, such eschatological fight starting from Christ to the present times has now landed to its (apocalyptically) final stage. In this sense – thanks to its historical defeat, and due to the recognition of the real Faith as christologically mortifying bond – the legitimation of Lutheranism as historical event of revelation is made possible.
My aim here is to shortly sketch such process to its development of this kind of clearly recognisable gnesiolutheran production, and to trace back its christological implications, in order to clarify the apocalyptic connotation of the construction of the concept of “(Gnesio)lutheran Identity”, as controversial element first and foremost in the negative sense of the rejection of any possible theological-political claim, and as systematisation of Luther’s very peculiar connection between christology and soteriology as well.
Research Interests: Early Modern History, Apocalypticism, Luther, Lutheranism, Eschatology and Apocalypticism, and 10 moreMartin Luther, Lutheran Theology, Antichrist, Martin luther and the Reformation, Lutheran Confessional Theology, Lutheran History and Theology, Early Modern Lutheran history, Mattia Vlacić /Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Matthias Flacius Illyricus, and Gnesio Lutheran
[Ideo sperandum est eum abbreviaturum tempus. Some remarks on (pseudo)science and apocalyptical claims in Luther’s ambiguous position concerning the computation od the End of the Time] A form of erudition in the 16th Century concerns the... more
[Ideo sperandum est eum abbreviaturum tempus. Some remarks on (pseudo)science and apocalyptical claims in Luther’s ambiguous position concerning the computation od the End of the Time]
A form of erudition in the 16th Century concerns the various attempts to compute the End of the Time, with particular emphasis on astrological topics. Well known in Luther’s entourage is Melanchthon’s interest in such field. Luther’s polemic against such kind of superstition (“pseudoscience”, cf. WATi 2, Nr. 2413a; WATi 2, Nr. 2730a) provides on the one hand a confessional basis for a (Gnesio)lutheran form of Demonology, on the other hand legitimates a proper Lutheran apocalyptical, or rather kenotical hermeneutical key for the outward appearance as a whole. But in Luther’s own apocalyptical outline, some theologically relevant contraddictions (cf. WATi 2 Nr. 2439; WATi 2, Nr. 1335 and 2441; WA 44,377,11) lead to different interpretations of his position concerning ‘Signs’.
Through the guideline of some Luther’s ‘informal’ ipsissima verba concerning such topic in the so- called Tischreden — WATi 1, Nr. 17; WATi 2, Nr. 3520; WATi 3, Nr. 3332; WATi 1, Nr. 1026; WATi 1, Nr. 678; WATi 5, Nr. 5573; WA 42, 34b, 5-17; WA 10 I. 2, 108, 1-18; WATi 1, Nr. 678; 5, Nr. 5989; WABr 2,367,14f.; 6,381,9ff.; WATi 1, Nr. 855; WATi 5, Nr. 6251; WATi 5, Nr. 5734 —, my aim here is to shortly sketch such contraddiction, in the attempt to trace back its theological roots, and so to identify some recurring patterns in a broader sense, affecting not only Luther’s own theological position, but rather the debate between Gnesiolutheran and Philippist in subsequent years. The background hypothesis is that in Luther’s polemic against Astrology as “pseudoscience” a huge role is played by a kind of pseudo-scientifical, anti-aristotelical argumentation, whose (implicit) roots are to trace back in Luther’s peculiar way to understand the christological Doctrine of the so-called communicatio idiomatum and the Divine Presence as its unavoidable counterpart.
This kind of ‘Presence’ allowing an over-interpretation of the Signs of the End of the Time as the only proper Divine Signs in the sense of a ‘hermeneutical circle’ between reality (‘real Signs’ as fulfillment of the prophecy) and authoritative sources (as Signs to be fulfilled within the reality itself),
leads to a rejection of the possibility of a ‘readable’ appearance beside the Divine Signs, being such Sings unavoidably apocalyptical Signs. Such implicit petitio principii in Luther’s production, deeply linked to the christological-eschatological core of his theology as a whole, becomes a peculiar form of identification of the Gnesiolutheran group, grounding the pride of a self-legitimation as apocalyptical figure, therefore – due to the impossibility of a theological-political legitimation of such apocalyptical claim, intending each theological-political kind of institution as antichristical products – to be identified as the only proper ‘Lutheran’ group.
A form of erudition in the 16th Century concerns the various attempts to compute the End of the Time, with particular emphasis on astrological topics. Well known in Luther’s entourage is Melanchthon’s interest in such field. Luther’s polemic against such kind of superstition (“pseudoscience”, cf. WATi 2, Nr. 2413a; WATi 2, Nr. 2730a) provides on the one hand a confessional basis for a (Gnesio)lutheran form of Demonology, on the other hand legitimates a proper Lutheran apocalyptical, or rather kenotical hermeneutical key for the outward appearance as a whole. But in Luther’s own apocalyptical outline, some theologically relevant contraddictions (cf. WATi 2 Nr. 2439; WATi 2, Nr. 1335 and 2441; WA 44,377,11) lead to different interpretations of his position concerning ‘Signs’.
Through the guideline of some Luther’s ‘informal’ ipsissima verba concerning such topic in the so- called Tischreden — WATi 1, Nr. 17; WATi 2, Nr. 3520; WATi 3, Nr. 3332; WATi 1, Nr. 1026; WATi 1, Nr. 678; WATi 5, Nr. 5573; WA 42, 34b, 5-17; WA 10 I. 2, 108, 1-18; WATi 1, Nr. 678; 5, Nr. 5989; WABr 2,367,14f.; 6,381,9ff.; WATi 1, Nr. 855; WATi 5, Nr. 6251; WATi 5, Nr. 5734 —, my aim here is to shortly sketch such contraddiction, in the attempt to trace back its theological roots, and so to identify some recurring patterns in a broader sense, affecting not only Luther’s own theological position, but rather the debate between Gnesiolutheran and Philippist in subsequent years. The background hypothesis is that in Luther’s polemic against Astrology as “pseudoscience” a huge role is played by a kind of pseudo-scientifical, anti-aristotelical argumentation, whose (implicit) roots are to trace back in Luther’s peculiar way to understand the christological Doctrine of the so-called communicatio idiomatum and the Divine Presence as its unavoidable counterpart.
This kind of ‘Presence’ allowing an over-interpretation of the Signs of the End of the Time as the only proper Divine Signs in the sense of a ‘hermeneutical circle’ between reality (‘real Signs’ as fulfillment of the prophecy) and authoritative sources (as Signs to be fulfilled within the reality itself),
leads to a rejection of the possibility of a ‘readable’ appearance beside the Divine Signs, being such Sings unavoidably apocalyptical Signs. Such implicit petitio principii in Luther’s production, deeply linked to the christological-eschatological core of his theology as a whole, becomes a peculiar form of identification of the Gnesiolutheran group, grounding the pride of a self-legitimation as apocalyptical figure, therefore – due to the impossibility of a theological-political legitimation of such apocalyptical claim, intending each theological-political kind of institution as antichristical products – to be identified as the only proper ‘Lutheran’ group.
Research Interests:
Im Rahmen einer konfessionellen Funktionalisierung der Historiographie wird die lutherische Identitätsstiftung bzw. ihre apokalyptische Selbstsituierung zuerst und programmatisch als antikatholische Abgrenzung geprägt. Die entscheidende... more
Im Rahmen einer konfessionellen Funktionalisierung der Historiographie wird die lutherische Identitätsstiftung bzw. ihre apokalyptische Selbstsituierung zuerst und programmatisch als antikatholische Abgrenzung geprägt. Die entscheidende Relevanz der Reformationszeit – so die Konkordienformel – besteht nämlich darin, dass soweit das lutherische apokalyptische Deutungsmuster von einer eschatologischen Nuancierung im Sinne des sola gratia geprägt wird, erfolgt mithin solcher Geschichtsdeutung ihre Legitimierung als Offenbarungsereignis des Antichrists und des Revelationsschemas schlechthin.
Dieses gemeinprotestantische Geschichtsbewusstsein, das daraus als zentrales und systematisierendes Theologumenon erwächst – die Tat, dass der Papst und seine Ansprüche auf fiktiven und daher illegitimen Grundlagen beruhen – schafft aber die Voraussetzungen für eine neue, innerreformatorische, von Ort – und Druckereien! – abhängige Selbstdeutung im Rahmen der sogenannten Magdeburger „Hergotts Kanzlei”.
Diese in dem Kampf gegen den Antichristen sofort erkennbare Herstellung einer historischen Linie von Christus bis zur Gegenwart ist genau was nochmals erlaubt, die Geschichte polemisch und trotzdem systematisch als eschatologische, zwischen vera und falsa ecclesia, d.h. zwischen „richtigem“ und „falschem“ Verständnis äußerlicher Ordnung polarisierte Heilsgeschichte darzustellen. Damit – kraft seiner historischen Niederlage und mittels der Anerkennung des Glauben als demütiger christusförmiger Kraft – erfolgt eine Legitimierung des Luthertums als historisches Offenbarungsereignis.
Meine Absicht ist also aufgrund solches Legitimierungsprozesses und der entsprechenden geographisch und chronologisch identifizierbaren Publizistik, die Bearbeitung und Erklärung des Begriffes von „lutherischer Identität“ selbst kurz darzustellen, in dem Versuch es zu erklären, inwiewiet er vom Antichriststheologumenon nicht nur aus polemischen, sondern vielmehr aus rein theologischen Gründen abhängig sei.
Dieses gemeinprotestantische Geschichtsbewusstsein, das daraus als zentrales und systematisierendes Theologumenon erwächst – die Tat, dass der Papst und seine Ansprüche auf fiktiven und daher illegitimen Grundlagen beruhen – schafft aber die Voraussetzungen für eine neue, innerreformatorische, von Ort – und Druckereien! – abhängige Selbstdeutung im Rahmen der sogenannten Magdeburger „Hergotts Kanzlei”.
Diese in dem Kampf gegen den Antichristen sofort erkennbare Herstellung einer historischen Linie von Christus bis zur Gegenwart ist genau was nochmals erlaubt, die Geschichte polemisch und trotzdem systematisch als eschatologische, zwischen vera und falsa ecclesia, d.h. zwischen „richtigem“ und „falschem“ Verständnis äußerlicher Ordnung polarisierte Heilsgeschichte darzustellen. Damit – kraft seiner historischen Niederlage und mittels der Anerkennung des Glauben als demütiger christusförmiger Kraft – erfolgt eine Legitimierung des Luthertums als historisches Offenbarungsereignis.
Meine Absicht ist also aufgrund solches Legitimierungsprozesses und der entsprechenden geographisch und chronologisch identifizierbaren Publizistik, die Bearbeitung und Erklärung des Begriffes von „lutherischer Identität“ selbst kurz darzustellen, in dem Versuch es zu erklären, inwiewiet er vom Antichriststheologumenon nicht nur aus polemischen, sondern vielmehr aus rein theologischen Gründen abhängig sei.
Research Interests:
Die Gegenreaktion Vergerios auf Moronessas Il Modello di Martino Lutero. Ein Beispiel für programmatische Wiederverwendung italienischer antilutherischer Quellen [Vergerio’s counter-reaction to Moronessa’s Il modello di Martino Lutero. A case of programmatic re-use of Italian anti-Lutheran sources]more
Im Versuch der gnesiolutherischen Heroisierung Luthers zu erläutern, bzw. einer Definition des gnesiolutherischen Lutherbilds zu erreichen, wird in diesem Vortrag Vergerios Beispiel programmatischer Wiederverwendung einiger Auszüge des... more
Im Versuch der gnesiolutherischen Heroisierung Luthers zu erläutern, bzw. einer Definition des gnesiolutherischen Lutherbilds zu erreichen, wird in diesem Vortrag Vergerios Beispiel programmatischer Wiederverwendung einiger Auszüge des katholischen, antilutherischen Werks Moronessas Il Modello di Martino Lutero kurz dargestellt. Hierdurch wurde nämlich der Cölestiner Mönch in den Verfasser eines sogar als Typus Martini Lutheri veröffentlichten Angriffs auf das Papsttum von Vergerio verwandelt, und damit wurde eine weitere, satirische Verbreitung dieses Textes sowohl in Italien als auch in Deutschland ermöglicht, der in dieser Weise als Moronessas ursprünglichem Zweck zuwiderlaufende direkte Quelle zur Verfügung den Gnesiolutheranern in ihrer Auseinandersetzung mit dem Papsttum stand.
***
In the attempt to clarify Luther’s gnesiolutheran heroisation, or rather to define the gnesiolutheran Lutherbild, my aim here is to present shortly Vergerio’s case of re-use and over-interpretation of some excerpts of Moronessa’s catholic, anti-lutheran work Il Modello di Martino Lutero. In this way, the Celestine monk has been turned by Vergerio into the author of a sharp attack against the Papacy, even published as Typus Martini Lutheri. Allowing a broader circulation in satirical terms of such text both in Italy and in Germany, it has been transformed, against Moronessa’s original purpose, in a direct source for the gnesiolutheran polemic against the Papacy itself.
***
In the attempt to clarify Luther’s gnesiolutheran heroisation, or rather to define the gnesiolutheran Lutherbild, my aim here is to present shortly Vergerio’s case of re-use and over-interpretation of some excerpts of Moronessa’s catholic, anti-lutheran work Il Modello di Martino Lutero. In this way, the Celestine monk has been turned by Vergerio into the author of a sharp attack against the Papacy, even published as Typus Martini Lutheri. Allowing a broader circulation in satirical terms of such text both in Italy and in Germany, it has been transformed, against Moronessa’s original purpose, in a direct source for the gnesiolutheran polemic against the Papacy itself.
Research Interests:
The process of heroisation and accentuation of Luther’s own words became particularly evident after his death. Already in the context of the Smalcald War, the print of his theoretically crucial works under Melanchthon’s leadership... more
The process of heroisation and accentuation of Luther’s own words became particularly evident after his death. Already in the context of the Smalcald War, the print of his theoretically crucial works under Melanchthon’s leadership represented a crucial weapon for the Evangelical party to stimulate an Imperial political action against the „Roman Antichrist“, in the attempt at fending off an interpretation of the words of the Reformer in the sense of a submissive ideology as well.
In the following controversies arising from the Augsburger Interim, the pattern of Luther’s theological-political argumentations represented a privileged medium within the Evangelical party itself to legitimate the own position, interpreting Luther’s words and constructing different declinations of a heroising „Lutherbild“ in this respect.
My aim here is to sketch one of such interpretations, namely the counterreaction of the „Magdeburger“ Interim-opponent Nikolaus von Amsdorf to the apologetical re-use by the Leipziger Superintendent and Professor Johannes Pfeffinger in respect of the Leipziger Landtagsvorlage (or Interim) and the Adiaphoristischer Streit of a text written by Luther in the context of the Augsburg Imperial Diet -- but actually become known in a contemporary printed version, diverging from the handwritten one. Against such “falsification” of Luther’s ipsissima verba Amsdorf wrote two texts (Das Doctor Martinus kein Adiaphorist gewesen ist; Etliche Sprüche aus Doctoris Lutheri schiffen). His polemical reply, programmatically presented as a “demonstration”, and dealing with the question about Luther’s authority in the dispute, or rather about Luther’s significant statements in this respect, shows in a supposedly objective way how Pfeffinger’s legitimation of such practices cannot be ascribed to Luther’s genuine position, and in this sense presents some meaningfull remarks pertaining Luther’s so-called Großer Galaterbriefkommentar.
In the following controversies arising from the Augsburger Interim, the pattern of Luther’s theological-political argumentations represented a privileged medium within the Evangelical party itself to legitimate the own position, interpreting Luther’s words and constructing different declinations of a heroising „Lutherbild“ in this respect.
My aim here is to sketch one of such interpretations, namely the counterreaction of the „Magdeburger“ Interim-opponent Nikolaus von Amsdorf to the apologetical re-use by the Leipziger Superintendent and Professor Johannes Pfeffinger in respect of the Leipziger Landtagsvorlage (or Interim) and the Adiaphoristischer Streit of a text written by Luther in the context of the Augsburg Imperial Diet -- but actually become known in a contemporary printed version, diverging from the handwritten one. Against such “falsification” of Luther’s ipsissima verba Amsdorf wrote two texts (Das Doctor Martinus kein Adiaphorist gewesen ist; Etliche Sprüche aus Doctoris Lutheri schiffen). His polemical reply, programmatically presented as a “demonstration”, and dealing with the question about Luther’s authority in the dispute, or rather about Luther’s significant statements in this respect, shows in a supposedly objective way how Pfeffinger’s legitimation of such practices cannot be ascribed to Luther’s genuine position, and in this sense presents some meaningfull remarks pertaining Luther’s so-called Großer Galaterbriefkommentar.
Research Interests:
Als Gelegenheit einer kurzen Darstellung und Zusammenfassung einiger Ergebnisse meines ersten Promotionsjahres möchte ich ein Beispiel der Verknüpfung propagandistischer und rein theologischer Elemente im Rahmen des Umkreises Luthers im... more
Als Gelegenheit einer kurzen Darstellung und Zusammenfassung einiger Ergebnisse meines ersten Promotionsjahres möchte ich ein Beispiel der Verknüpfung propagandistischer und rein theologischer Elemente im Rahmen des Umkreises Luthers im ersten Jahren seiner „reformatorischen Wendung” skizzieren, sodass solches in sich untrennbares Zusammenwirken, in dem die antipapistische Stellungsnahme Luthers besteht, irgendwie sichtbar gemacht wird.
Gemäß der Selbstdeutung Luthers und danach der Vorrede zur Konkordienformel wird die historische Selbstsituierung, bzw. Selbstlegitimierung der Reformation als ein durch die Wiederbringung oder Wiederoffenbarung des Evangeliums abgeschlossenes Offenbarungsereignis des Revelationsschemas institutionalisiert. Die systematische theologische Voraussetzung und polemische Kontrapuntierung zugleich dieses Revelationsschemas handelt sich genau darum, die Institution des Papsttums als Antichrist aus theologischen Gründen polemisch identifizieren zu dürfen.
In diesem Zusammenhang möchte ich es kurz erläutern, inwiefern die sogenannte Antichristsbotschaft ein echtes Theologumenon im Rahmen der Selbstlegitimierung und die Stiftung einer eigenen lutherischen Identität darstellt (Kaufmann, 2012) – und das sogar soweit, dass solche theologische Stellungsnahme den (gnesio)lutherischen Standpunkt in der Auseinandersetzung mit den sogenannten Philippisten irgendwie prägt.
Durch den roten Faden zwei kurz nach der Heidelbeger Disputation und kurz vor der Identifizierung des Papsttums mit dem Antichristen geschriebener propagandistischer Texte (Wolfgang Capito, Vorrede zur ersten Luthersammelausgabe, 1518; Lazarus Spengler, Schützred, 1519) möchte ich hier vor diesem Hintergrund einen möglichen Aufschluss darüber geben, inwiefern die Verbindung der Polarisierung zwischen theologia gloriae und theologia crucis, bzw. die Rechtfertigungslehre sola gratia laut der augustinischen antipelagianischen Exegese vom Röm:1,17 in DeSp.Litt. (WA 54,186, vgl. Hohenberger, 1996) und der Antichristsbotschaft ein hermeneutisches, apokalyptisch geprägtes Unikum innerhalb des lutherischen und danach gnesiolutherischen Umfelds bildet (Leppin, 1999).
Solche besondere hermeneutische Bewegung, die zwischen apokalypischer Deutung der Geschichte und theologischen Prämissen einen Teufelkreis bildet, in dem die Elemente gegenseitig systematisch beeinflussen, stellt tatsächlich die Voraussetzungen gnesiolutherischer hypertheologischer, antihumanistischer Stellungsnahme, deren „apokalyptischen Potential“ als Polarisierung und Antithese zwischen Christ und einem als Widerchristen beschriebenen Antichristen (zu dieser
Terminologie vgl. die Schmalkaldischen Artikel, BSLK 430,14f.) präzisiert wird -- und bei dem wird die Offenbarung selbst als systematische Darstellung der sogenannten „Wahrzeychen“ (Matthias Flacius Illyricus) bestimmt.
Gemäß der Selbstdeutung Luthers und danach der Vorrede zur Konkordienformel wird die historische Selbstsituierung, bzw. Selbstlegitimierung der Reformation als ein durch die Wiederbringung oder Wiederoffenbarung des Evangeliums abgeschlossenes Offenbarungsereignis des Revelationsschemas institutionalisiert. Die systematische theologische Voraussetzung und polemische Kontrapuntierung zugleich dieses Revelationsschemas handelt sich genau darum, die Institution des Papsttums als Antichrist aus theologischen Gründen polemisch identifizieren zu dürfen.
In diesem Zusammenhang möchte ich es kurz erläutern, inwiefern die sogenannte Antichristsbotschaft ein echtes Theologumenon im Rahmen der Selbstlegitimierung und die Stiftung einer eigenen lutherischen Identität darstellt (Kaufmann, 2012) – und das sogar soweit, dass solche theologische Stellungsnahme den (gnesio)lutherischen Standpunkt in der Auseinandersetzung mit den sogenannten Philippisten irgendwie prägt.
Durch den roten Faden zwei kurz nach der Heidelbeger Disputation und kurz vor der Identifizierung des Papsttums mit dem Antichristen geschriebener propagandistischer Texte (Wolfgang Capito, Vorrede zur ersten Luthersammelausgabe, 1518; Lazarus Spengler, Schützred, 1519) möchte ich hier vor diesem Hintergrund einen möglichen Aufschluss darüber geben, inwiefern die Verbindung der Polarisierung zwischen theologia gloriae und theologia crucis, bzw. die Rechtfertigungslehre sola gratia laut der augustinischen antipelagianischen Exegese vom Röm:1,17 in DeSp.Litt. (WA 54,186, vgl. Hohenberger, 1996) und der Antichristsbotschaft ein hermeneutisches, apokalyptisch geprägtes Unikum innerhalb des lutherischen und danach gnesiolutherischen Umfelds bildet (Leppin, 1999).
Solche besondere hermeneutische Bewegung, die zwischen apokalypischer Deutung der Geschichte und theologischen Prämissen einen Teufelkreis bildet, in dem die Elemente gegenseitig systematisch beeinflussen, stellt tatsächlich die Voraussetzungen gnesiolutherischer hypertheologischer, antihumanistischer Stellungsnahme, deren „apokalyptischen Potential“ als Polarisierung und Antithese zwischen Christ und einem als Widerchristen beschriebenen Antichristen (zu dieser
Terminologie vgl. die Schmalkaldischen Artikel, BSLK 430,14f.) präzisiert wird -- und bei dem wird die Offenbarung selbst als systematische Darstellung der sogenannten „Wahrzeychen“ (Matthias Flacius Illyricus) bestimmt.
Research Interests:
Meine Präsentation fokussiert sich auf Goltwurms Rezeption verschiedener Erzählstoffe und ihren dogmatisch gegebenen Wahrheitsgehalt, bzw. auf die Vorlage eines die Übertragung des Schemas des Geschichtskalenders auf den (evangelischen)... more
Meine Präsentation fokussiert sich auf Goltwurms Rezeption verschiedener Erzählstoffe und ihren dogmatisch gegebenen Wahrheitsgehalt, bzw. auf die Vorlage eines die Übertragung des Schemas des Geschichtskalenders auf den (evangelischen) Märtyrer gründenden geschichtlichen Wirksamwerdens des Teufels.
***
"Devil’s Wonders. Narrative Material and Miracles as Sources fort he theologically grounded Charachter of the Martyr in Kaspar Goltwurm’s Geschichtskalender"
My paper focuses on Goltwurm’s reception of various forms of Narrative material as well as on their dogmatically established veritative content, intended as a presentation of the process of becoming-effective of the work of the Devil in History, itself grounding the relocation of the pattern of the so-called Geschichtskalender to the character of the (Evangelical) Martyr.
***
"Devil’s Wonders. Narrative Material and Miracles as Sources fort he theologically grounded Charachter of the Martyr in Kaspar Goltwurm’s Geschichtskalender"
My paper focuses on Goltwurm’s reception of various forms of Narrative material as well as on their dogmatically established veritative content, intended as a presentation of the process of becoming-effective of the work of the Devil in History, itself grounding the relocation of the pattern of the so-called Geschichtskalender to the character of the (Evangelical) Martyr.
Research Interests:
Through the tread of two brief pieces of writing to be ascribed to Luther’s entourage in the period immediately before the explicit identification of the papacy as institution with the Antichrist — Wolfgang Capito, Vorrede zur ersten... more
Through the tread of two brief pieces of writing to be ascribed to Luther’s entourage in the period immediately before the explicit identification of the papacy as institution with the Antichrist — Wolfgang Capito, Vorrede zur ersten Luthersammelausgabe, 1518; Lazarus Spengler, Schützred, 1519 —, my purpose is to undertake a reconstruction of the process of polemic (self-)legitimation and construction of Identity in heroical terms pertaining Martin Luther (Kaufmann, 2012) in its deep interconnection with the topic of the so-called Antichristsbotschaft. In fact, as long as itself can be described as the result of a hermeneutical process whose key is to be traced back in the underlying christological (eucharistical-pneumatological) structure his whole theology, it, far from being a mere polemical argument against the papacy, represents properly a theologumenon spreading some light to his own positions in the debate within the reformed party in the subsequent years (cf. Otto, 1898).
Research Interests: Reformation History, Reformation Studies, Lutheranism, Reformation Theology, History of the Reformation, and 8 moreReformation and Post-Reformation, Martin Luther, Lutheran Theology, Antichrist, Martin luther and the Reformation, Lutheran Confessional Theology, Lutheran History and Theology, and Early Modern Lutheran history
As long as the Reformation understands itself as a differentiation from the existent, through an Offenbarungsereignis pertaining the Revelationsschema itself, as a new revelation of the Gospel (Leppin, 1999), such historical... more
As long as the Reformation understands itself as a differentiation from the existent, through an Offenbarungsereignis pertaining the Revelationsschema itself, as a new revelation of the Gospel (Leppin, 1999), such historical over-interpreting process seems to be a prominent aspect in the (self-)interpretation of the Reformation as a whole.
My background hypothesis, as developing in my Doctoral research, is that, being the Eucharist the Christian way to think the Incarnation, in a strongly theologically-connoted context, the Sacramental Doctrine might be read as a possible hermeneutical key to deal with the outward appearance, and so to understand the differences within the historiographical production related to the same context — in my research, the Lutheran entourage in Wittenberg.
Assuming History, in this perspective, as a chronologically linear and closed process (Pohlig, 2013), typified by a (pseudo-)typological/Eucharistical pattern, referring to such “prophetical” semantics implies the necessity both to define this movement in dialectical terms, and to clarify to what extent the construction of a Confessional Identity is determined by it.
My aim here is to sketch some elements pertaining such movement, in the attempt to highlight the unicum in which Luther’s position consists. I shall do this through the thread of some Lutheran arguments against Astrology and Divination (WA1, 404-405; 23, 1, ff.; 24, 44; 42, 33, ff; 44, 377; WABr 2, 367; 6, 381; WATi 1, 17; 678; 855; 1026; 2, 1335; 2102; 2439; 2441; 2730; 3, 3332; 3520; 4, 5113; 5, 5573; 734; 5989; 6251, see Zambelli, 1986), intended as a form of Simony-Pelagianism regarding his own entourage, in the attempt to trace back a (theoretical) pattern through the following guidelines: (1) The identification of the Antichrist with the institution of the papacy provides the key to understand the current age as the apocalyptical age in which the his/its hidden Identity is explicitly revealed; (2) Being the End of the World intended in eschatological terms, such end, from a temporal (historical) point of view, seems to be indifferently extensible; (3) Through the Antichristsbotschaft, the previous theoretical background — deriving from a process of hypostatisation pf the pauline-augustinian Doctrine of Justification in two opposite ways to relate to God: theologia gloriae=auctoritas/theologia crucis=veritas — is systematised; (4) The criterion to brand something as pelagian-autoritative-antichristical-schwärmerisch is its non- christological (non-kenotical) way to relate to the outward appearance.
In short, here I hope to mirror and clarify to what extent a correct interpretation of the outward appearance in kenotical terms is the leitmotiv by which Luther’s position and the related criticism is built: caro prodest, as long as God revealed Himself pro nobis through it.
My background hypothesis, as developing in my Doctoral research, is that, being the Eucharist the Christian way to think the Incarnation, in a strongly theologically-connoted context, the Sacramental Doctrine might be read as a possible hermeneutical key to deal with the outward appearance, and so to understand the differences within the historiographical production related to the same context — in my research, the Lutheran entourage in Wittenberg.
Assuming History, in this perspective, as a chronologically linear and closed process (Pohlig, 2013), typified by a (pseudo-)typological/Eucharistical pattern, referring to such “prophetical” semantics implies the necessity both to define this movement in dialectical terms, and to clarify to what extent the construction of a Confessional Identity is determined by it.
My aim here is to sketch some elements pertaining such movement, in the attempt to highlight the unicum in which Luther’s position consists. I shall do this through the thread of some Lutheran arguments against Astrology and Divination (WA1, 404-405; 23, 1, ff.; 24, 44; 42, 33, ff; 44, 377; WABr 2, 367; 6, 381; WATi 1, 17; 678; 855; 1026; 2, 1335; 2102; 2439; 2441; 2730; 3, 3332; 3520; 4, 5113; 5, 5573; 734; 5989; 6251, see Zambelli, 1986), intended as a form of Simony-Pelagianism regarding his own entourage, in the attempt to trace back a (theoretical) pattern through the following guidelines: (1) The identification of the Antichrist with the institution of the papacy provides the key to understand the current age as the apocalyptical age in which the his/its hidden Identity is explicitly revealed; (2) Being the End of the World intended in eschatological terms, such end, from a temporal (historical) point of view, seems to be indifferently extensible; (3) Through the Antichristsbotschaft, the previous theoretical background — deriving from a process of hypostatisation pf the pauline-augustinian Doctrine of Justification in two opposite ways to relate to God: theologia gloriae=auctoritas/theologia crucis=veritas — is systematised; (4) The criterion to brand something as pelagian-autoritative-antichristical-schwärmerisch is its non- christological (non-kenotical) way to relate to the outward appearance.
In short, here I hope to mirror and clarify to what extent a correct interpretation of the outward appearance in kenotical terms is the leitmotiv by which Luther’s position and the related criticism is built: caro prodest, as long as God revealed Himself pro nobis through it.
Research Interests:
In this paper I aim to sketch a picture of Luther’s constantly auto-altering (Neebe, 1997) ecclesiological doctrine in the period of the Marburger Religionsgespräch (1529), in the attempt to trace back some elements pertaining his... more
In this paper I aim to sketch a picture of Luther’s constantly auto-altering (Neebe, 1997) ecclesiological doctrine in the period of the Marburger Religionsgespräch (1529), in the attempt to trace back some elements pertaining his Sacramental doctrine. My research hypothesis, as developing in my PhD research topic, is that the co-implication between specific representation models (Ecclesiology, as well as Historiography) and the Eucharist as the Christian way to think the Incarnation — which is the “presentification” of the Divine pro nobis through the Verbum, relating to which the Church is defined as “creatura” — might be a privileged place to investigate the topic of the Confessional identity. My purpose is to undertake a reconstruction of Luther’s heated debate with Zwingli, through the common thread of the rare Zwinglian occurrences of the term (ad)mirabile, the Ciceronian translation of the greek term paradoxon (Paradoxa stoicorum; De finibus bonorum et malorum), adopted by Augustine (Lettieri, 2001) and then by Luther as a technical term to confess the human impossibility to understand the divine inscrutability in the permixtio between elected and rejected. Showing a different reception of the common Augustinian background, in Zwingli’s work such term is systematically adopted to underline some supposedly captious features in Luther’s argumentations regarding the real presence of Christ (Verbum) in the Eucharist (De vera et falsa religione commentarius; Vorarbeiten zur Antwort auf Luthers Schrift Sermon wider die Schwarmgeister; Amica Exegesis, id est: expositio eucharistiae negocii ad Martinum Lutherum). Disclosing some Lutheran theological peculiarities concerning the topic of the outward appearance as well as the topic of the “carnality”, such leitmotiv might be useful to mirror and clarify the idea of a carnal Church, which does not differ from the spiritual Church, being nothing but the unavoidably external, real dimension of the spiritual Church itself.
Research Interests:
In spite of the countless criticisms against the concept of Secularisation so far, each attempt in this direction remains parasitical to the Secularisation itself, in as much as it presents itself as a negation of it (Olivetti, 1992).... more
In spite of the countless criticisms against the concept of Secularisation so far, each attempt in this direction remains parasitical to the Secularisation itself, in as much as it presents itself as a negation of it (Olivetti, 1992). Although the autonomy of the Modern Age is not being questioned, to what extent the History of Early Modern Philosophy is as much as philosophically as theologically characterised should be remarked. To underline this perspective, as developing in my PhD research hypothesis, my aim here is to sketch some elements pertaining the co-implication between Historiography as memorial (Eucharistical) practice and personal (Confessional) identity, in such a theologically-oriented context as the Lutheran Wittenberg in 1520-21 was. My purpose is to undertake an analysis of Luther’s historical over-interpretation in Ad librum eximii Magistri Nostri, Magistri Ambrosii Catharini [...] responsio (1521, WA7,705, ff.). In this short pamphlet, Luther, identifying the papacy as Antichrist (see WABr1,270 too) and opposing his own concept of veritas to the antichristical concept of auctoritas, legitimates de jure a condition existing de facto, and, mutually, moving back to a memorial re-activation of some apocalyptical figures through the tread of Dan 8, legitimates his own identity as persona, whose emergence is rooted in such criticising memorial process. Through this leitmotiv I hope to clarify to what extent some underlying (hyper-)theological parameters, far from being a neutral element in analysing the Modern Age and its peculiar representation models, characterise the reception of some broader concepts.
Research Interests:
Giornata di studi con Carlo Ginzburg, Sapienza Università di Roma
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Am Ende des Luther-Jahres lohnt sich noch ein Seitenblick. Die Frage, wie man das Treiben in deutschen Landen dort wahrnahm, wo Luthers Gegenseite verortet wurde - in Rom und Italien.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Als kurze Darstellung einiger Ergebnisse meiner Dissertationsarbeit handelt sich mein Referat von der Polemik Luthers gegen die Astrologie und die Wahrsagung als Form von Aberglaube (und sogar explizit gegen Melanchthon), die von Luther... more
Als kurze Darstellung einiger Ergebnisse meiner Dissertationsarbeit handelt sich mein Referat von der Polemik Luthers gegen die Astrologie und die Wahrsagung als Form von Aberglaube (und sogar explizit gegen Melanchthon), die von Luther systematisch nicht als eschatologische, sondern als apokalyptische Zeichen interpretiert wurden. Der Vorteil besteht darin, dass die ipsissima verba Luthers in dieser Polemik mehrmals (sowohl direkt als auch indirekt) zitiert wurden, und wahrscheinlich bilden sie die Basis sozusagen der gnesiolutherischen Dämonologie und der Darstellung einer systematisch „kenotisch“ (d.h. christusförmig, so wirklich heilsgeschichtlich) konnotierten Luthersage.
Mit den folgenden Stellen habe ich teilweise schon bearbeitet: Endzeitberechnung (Integrierung der Weissangungen in das lutherische Denken im Gefolge Melanchthons): WATi 2 Nr. 2439; vgl. auch WATi 2, Nr. 1335 und 2441; WA 44,377,11; Persönliche Stellungsnahme Luthers gegendie Astrologie: WATi 1, Nr. 17; WATi 2, Nr. 3520; WATi 3, Nr. 3332; Biblisches Verbot aller Sterndeuterei (Jer 10,2, Jes 47,13f., 5. Mose 18,10, vgl. WA 23,11,16f.) und entsprechende theologische Gründe für Luthers Ablehnung der Astrologie: WATi 1, Nr. 1026; WATi 1, Nr. 678; WATi 5, Nr. 5573; WA 42, 34b, 5-17; WA 10 I. 2, 108, 1-18 (dazu Johann Magenbuchs Bericht der Predigte Luthers an Wolfgang Rychard: Hamburg SUB, Codex Rychardi, fol. 290r, vgl. WA, Br. 2, 248); vgl. auch WATi 1, Nr. 678; 5, Nr. 5989; WABr 2,367,14f.; 6,381,9ff.; Methodologische Gegenargumente (pseudowissenschaftliche Methode der Astrologie): WATi 2, Nr. 2413a; WATi 2, Nr. 2730a; WATi 1, Nr. 855; WATi 5, Nr. 6251; WATi 5, Nr. 5734.
Mit Hilfe der Register in WATi 6 habe ich die folgenden Stelle erkannt: Aberglaube, Amulett &c. 1, 374. 2, 2753; — magia 5, 5286; Astrologie 1, 17. 155. 246. 251. 2, 1788. 2102. 2120. 2690. 3, 2892. 2952. 3520. 5, 5228. 5368. 5989k. 6, 6893; — L.s Urteil über Astrologie 1, 589. 678. 855 –858. 1026. 2, 1512. 2413. 3, 3606. 4, 5013. 5113f. 5147. 5, 5538. 5573. 5734. 6249; Teufel — und ein Wahrsager 3, 3618; Wahrsager, von einem W. 3, 3618; — soll man nicht um Rat fragen 3, 3825; — von Wahrsagerinnen 4, 5027.
Mit den folgenden Stellen habe ich teilweise schon bearbeitet: Endzeitberechnung (Integrierung der Weissangungen in das lutherische Denken im Gefolge Melanchthons): WATi 2 Nr. 2439; vgl. auch WATi 2, Nr. 1335 und 2441; WA 44,377,11; Persönliche Stellungsnahme Luthers gegendie Astrologie: WATi 1, Nr. 17; WATi 2, Nr. 3520; WATi 3, Nr. 3332; Biblisches Verbot aller Sterndeuterei (Jer 10,2, Jes 47,13f., 5. Mose 18,10, vgl. WA 23,11,16f.) und entsprechende theologische Gründe für Luthers Ablehnung der Astrologie: WATi 1, Nr. 1026; WATi 1, Nr. 678; WATi 5, Nr. 5573; WA 42, 34b, 5-17; WA 10 I. 2, 108, 1-18 (dazu Johann Magenbuchs Bericht der Predigte Luthers an Wolfgang Rychard: Hamburg SUB, Codex Rychardi, fol. 290r, vgl. WA, Br. 2, 248); vgl. auch WATi 1, Nr. 678; 5, Nr. 5989; WABr 2,367,14f.; 6,381,9ff.; Methodologische Gegenargumente (pseudowissenschaftliche Methode der Astrologie): WATi 2, Nr. 2413a; WATi 2, Nr. 2730a; WATi 1, Nr. 855; WATi 5, Nr. 6251; WATi 5, Nr. 5734.
Mit Hilfe der Register in WATi 6 habe ich die folgenden Stelle erkannt: Aberglaube, Amulett &c. 1, 374. 2, 2753; — magia 5, 5286; Astrologie 1, 17. 155. 246. 251. 2, 1788. 2102. 2120. 2690. 3, 2892. 2952. 3520. 5, 5228. 5368. 5989k. 6, 6893; — L.s Urteil über Astrologie 1, 589. 678. 855 –858. 1026. 2, 1512. 2413. 3, 3606. 4, 5013. 5113f. 5147. 5, 5538. 5573. 5734. 6249; Teufel — und ein Wahrsager 3, 3618; Wahrsager, von einem W. 3, 3618; — soll man nicht um Rat fragen 3, 3825; — von Wahrsagerinnen 4, 5027.
Research Interests: Eschatology and Apocalypticism, History of Astrology, Apocalyptic Eschatology, Eschatology, Renaissance magic and astrology, and 11 moreLutheran Theology, Flacius, Waldensians, Reformation, Early Modern Astrology and Prophecy, Biblical Prophecy, Lutheran Confessional Theology, Early Modern Lutheran history, Mattia Vlacić /Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Mattia Flacio, Flacius, and Gnesio Lutheran
There is still some space available for a forthcoming special issue of JEMC. If you have a half-written paper or an idea that might fit, please contact me (here in DM or preferably by e-mail) to discuss it!
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
It is just a German translation of Erasmus' of Rotterdam Dialogue "Epicureus". I prepared it as text basis for a seminar. Please feel free to use it, according to the CC license BY-NC-SA.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Mercoledì 10 giugno 2015, presso il Dipartimento di Storia Culture Religioni (aula di Paleografia, dalle ore 9.30), si svolgerà una giornata di studi con Carlo Ginzburg . Dopo l’introduzione del prof. Alessandro Saggioro (Sapienza), la... more
Mercoledì 10 giugno 2015, presso il Dipartimento di Storia Culture Religioni (aula di Paleografia, dalle ore 9.30), si svolgerà una giornata di studi con Carlo Ginzburg . Dopo l’introduzione del prof. Alessandro Saggioro (Sapienza), la prima sessione del convegno (“Dipingere la storia alla rovescia”. Un seminario su Occhiacci di Legno. Nove riflessioni sulla distanza) includerà la partecipazione dei proff. Carlo Ginzburg (Ucla), Paolo Bettiolo (Università degli Studi di Padova), Gaetano Lettieri (Sapienza) e Alberto Melloni (Università di Modena-Reggio Emilia). A partire dalle ore 15.00, seguirà un secondo seminario (“La Strega e lo Sciamano”. In margine a Storia Notturna) introdotto da Gaetano Lettieri, con interventi dei proff. Marina Caffiero e Alessandro Catastini (Sapienza) e dei dott.ri Andrea Annese, Francesco Berno, Doriana Licusati, Margherita Mantovani, Cora Presezzi (Sapienza). Concluderà l’evento la replica finale di Carlo Ginzburg
Research Interests:
In the multifaceted debate leading to the establishment of the Formula concordiae, a huge topic within the theologians was that of the ‘conformity’ in the reception of the doctrine of the two fathers of the Reformation. My aim here is to... more
In the multifaceted debate leading to the establishment of the Formula concordiae, a huge topic within the theologians was that of the ‘conformity’ in the reception of the doctrine of the two fathers of the Reformation. My aim here is to sketch two lutheran reactions to the so-called Consensus Dresdensis, in the attempt to highlight an always more ‘codified’ approach to a typical polemical argument: the one of the theologians of Jena, representing the very last contribution of the Duchy of Saxony in the dispute over the Wittenberg Christology, and a similar standpoint stated by the Stuttgart preacher Lucas Osiander. The Jenaer contribution, significantly entitled Fallstricke, written by Wigand, Heshusen and Kirchner, focuses on the lack of clarity of the text: general descriptions, mention of ‘reformed’ theological standpoints which had been already criticised on Calvinist side, ‘Zwinglian’ glosses to the Nicaenum presented as primary sources in an “Exemplar in der Bibliotheca zu Basel”, the assumption of the Wittenberger Katechismus as direct consequence of Luther´s Kleiner Katechismus, excerpts of the Confessio Augustana and its Apology quoted only in Melanchthon´s ambiguous revision, ... This should be intended as a political strategy, falsifying both the lutheran and the reformed standpoint. And to the Wittenberger statement that “Lutherus [...]/ sol einem in ein Büchlein geschrieben haben/ [...] das von der allenthalbenheit/ [...] nicht sol disputirt werden” Osiander replies for the very first time with philological, objective arguments, simply asking all scholars of his time to examine whether the style is more likely to be attributed to Melanchthon or Luther. The necessity of a certain loyalty to Luther’s ‘clear’ doctrine as opposed to the unreliable variety within Melanchthon’s standpoint over time, shaping a very clear confessional identity, seems so to achieve a proper ‘scholarly’ form, beside the unavoidable theological-political arguments. The paper (firstly presented at the RefoRC Conference 2018) provides an anthology of sources both in German and in English translation as appendix. I am aware of some typos in the text, but I have not received any final draft so far (or the copy of the book) so far.
Research Interests:
The process of heroisation and accentuation of Luther’s own words became particularly evident after his death. Already in the context of the Smalcald War, the print of his theoretically crucial works under Melanchthon’s leadership... more
The process of heroisation and accentuation of Luther’s own words became particularly evident after his death. Already in the context of the Smalcald War, the print of his theoretically crucial works under Melanchthon’s leadership represented a crucial weapon for the Evangelical party to stimulate an Imperial political action against the „Roman Antichrist“, in the attempt at fending off an interpretation of the words of the Reformer in the sense of a submissive ideology as well. In the following controversies arising from the Augsburger Interim, the pattern of Luther’s theological-political argumentations represented a privileged medium within the Evangelical party itself to legitimate the own position, interpreting Luther’s words and constructing different declinations of a heroising „Lutherbild“ in this respect. My aim here is to sketch one of such interpretations, namely the counterreaction of the „Magdeburger“ Interim-opponent Nikolaus von Amsdorf to the apologetical re-use by the Leipziger Superintendent and Professor Johannes Pfeffinger in respect of the Leipziger Landtagsvorlage (or Interim) and the Adiaphoristischer Streit of a text written by Luther in the context of the Augsburg Imperial Diet -- but actually become known in a contemporary printed version, diverging from the handwritten one. Against such “falsification” of Luther’s ipsissima verba Amsdorf wrote two texts (Das Doctor Martinus kein Adiaphorist gewesen ist; Etliche Sprüche aus Doctoris Lutheri schiffen). His polemical reply, programmatically presented as a “demonstration”, and dealing with the question about Luther’s authority in the dispute, or rather about Luther’s significant statements in this respect, shows in a supposedly objective way how Pfeffinger’s legitimation of such practices cannot be ascribed to Luther’s genuine position, and in this sense presents some meaningfull remarks pertaining Luther’s so-called Großer Galaterbriefkommentar.
Research Interests: Philosophy, Luther, Lutheranism, Martin Luther, Lutheran Theology, and 10 morePhilipp Melanchthon, Lutheran Confessional Theology, Early Modern Lutheran history, Flacius Illyricus, Mattia Vlacić /Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Adiaphora, Adiaphorist Controversy, Melanchton, and Gnesio Lutheran
Zusammenfassung Die aristotelisch-ptolemäische Prägung der astrologischen Überlegungen Melanchthons stieß auf verschiedene Schwierigkeiten. Die Bewertung der Astrologie als prognostische Komponente der Astronomie war nämlich mit seinem... more
Zusammenfassung Die aristotelisch-ptolemäische Prägung der astrologischen Überlegungen Melanchthons stieß auf verschiedene Schwierigkeiten. Die Bewertung der Astrologie als prognostische Komponente der Astronomie war nämlich mit seinem theologischen Ansatz kaum vereinbar. Die Betrachtung der theologischen Argumente in Melanchthons naturwissenschaftlichen Schriften deutet jedoch auf eine bewusste thematische Verschiebung hin, die eine Folge seiner eigentümlichen Kombination aus Astrologie, theologischer Anthropologie und theologischer Ethik war.
In the multifaceted debate leading to the establishment of the Formula concordiae, a huge topic within the theologians was that of the ‘conformity’ in the reception of the doctrine of the two fathers of the Reformation. My aim here is to... more
In the multifaceted debate leading to the establishment of the Formula concordiae, a huge topic within the theologians was that of the ‘conformity’ in the reception of the doctrine of the two fathers of the Reformation. My aim here is to sketch two lutheran reactions to the so-called Consensus Dresdensis, in the attempt to highlight an always more ‘codified’ approach to a typical polemical argument: the one of the theologians of Jena, representing the very last contribution of the Duchy of Saxony in the dispute over the Wittenberg Christology, and a similar standpoint stated by the Stuttgart preacher Lucas Osiander. The Jenaer contribution, significantly entitled Fallstricke, written by Wigand, Heshusen and Kirchner, focuses on the lack of clarity of the text: general descriptions, mention of ‘reformed’ theological standpoints which had been already criticised on Calvinist side, ‘Zwinglian’ glosses to the Nicaenum presented as primary sources in an “Exemplar in der Bibliotheca zu Basel”, the assumption of the Wittenberger Katechismus as direct consequence of Luther´s Kleiner Katechismus, excerpts of the Confessio Augustana and its Apology quoted only in Melanchthon´s ambiguous revision, ... This should be intended as a political strategy, falsifying both the lutheran and the reformed standpoint. And to the Wittenberger statement that “Lutherus [...]/ sol einem in ein Büchlein geschrieben haben/ [...] das von der allenthalbenheit/ [...] nicht sol disputirt werden” Osiander replies for the very first time with philological, objective arguments, simply asking all scholars of his time to examine whether the style is more likely to be attributed to Melanchthon or Luther. The necessity of a certain loyalty to Luther’s ‘clear’ doctrine as opposed to the unreliable variety within Melanchthon’s standpoint over time, shaping a very clear confessional identity, seems so to achieve a proper ‘scholarly’ form, beside the unavoidable theological-political arguments.
The paper (firstly presented at the RefoRC Conference 2018) provides an anthology of sources both in German and in English translation as appendix. I am aware of some typos in the text, but I have not received any final draft so far (or the copy of the book) so far.
The paper (firstly presented at the RefoRC Conference 2018) provides an anthology of sources both in German and in English translation as appendix. I am aware of some typos in the text, but I have not received any final draft so far (or the copy of the book) so far.
Research Interests:
The paper is a preprint of a book chapter regarding several interpretation of some Erasmian influences on different authors. In this case, the Erasmian influence is displayed in Melanchthon's own christological development, in the attempt... more
The paper is a preprint of a book chapter regarding several interpretation of some Erasmian influences on different authors. In this case, the Erasmian influence is displayed in Melanchthon's own christological development, in the attempt -- which I have been pursuing for years -- to spread some light on Melanchthon's own theological position (and his political strategies), avoiding some quite widespread oversimplifications both in "Lutheran" and "Erasmian" direction. The background assumption is: both influenced his own theological development, but has never been identical to none of them.
Research Interests:
The Aristotelian-Ptolemaic orientation in Melanchthon’s astrological considerations encountered several difficulties. The assessment of astrology as a prognostic component of astronomy was hardly compatible with its theological approach.... more
The Aristotelian-Ptolemaic orientation in Melanchthon’s astrological considerations encountered several difficulties. The assessment of astrology as a prognostic component of astronomy was hardly compatible with its theological approach. Consideration of the theological arguments in Melanchthon’s scientific writings suggests a deliberate thematic shift that was a consequence of his peculiar combination of astrology, theological anthropology, and theological ethics.
IMPORTANT! To avoid issues with the publisher (the paper is sold on De Gruyter website) I uploaded a "preprint" version of the text alone. Please get in touch with me to get a properly formatted copy, which as author I would be glad to provide for free in a completely legal way.
IMPORTANT! To avoid issues with the publisher (the paper is sold on De Gruyter website) I uploaded a "preprint" version of the text alone. Please get in touch with me to get a properly formatted copy, which as author I would be glad to provide for free in a completely legal way.
Research Interests:
In 'Church' at the time of the Reformation - Invisible community, visible parish, confession, building…? (RefoRC 2016), Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017
Research Interests:
Tagungsbände "Kulturelle Wirkungen der Reformation", Leucorea-Studien zur Geschichte der Reformation und der Lutherischen Orthodoxie“ (Hg. Irene Dingel, Armin Kohnle, Udo Sträter)
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In "More than Luther: The Reformation and the Rise of Pluralism in Europe" (RefoRC 2017), Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018 (?)
Research Interests:
Astronomie und Astrologie im Kontext von Religionen Unsere Tagung findet vor dem Annual Meeting der Astronomischen Gesellschaft (18.–22. September 2017) statt, deren Thema lautet The many Scales of the Universe: Galaxies, their Suns,... more
Astronomie und Astrologie im Kontext von Religionen
Unsere Tagung findet vor dem Annual Meeting der Astronomischen Gesellschaft (18.–22. September 2017) statt, deren Thema lautet The many Scales of the Universe: Galaxies, their Suns, and their Planets (http://ag2017.uni-goettingen.de/). Die Tagung des Arbeitskreises Astronomiegeschichte in Göttingen steht 2017 unter dem Thema Astronomie und Astrologie im Kontext von Religionen. Die Betrachtung der Natur, insbesondere der kosmischen Objekte, brachte schon sehr früh die Astronomie und Astrologie hervor. Bereits im Altertum beeinflußten diese Bereiche menschlichen Wissens und Handelns auch die religiösen Überzeugungen der Menschen. Die Religionen – genannt seien Buddhismus, Hinduismus, Taoismus, Parsismus, Judentum, Christentum und Islam – trugen ihrerseits mit ihren Glaubensgrundsätzen zum Fundament der sich entwickelnden Wissenschaften bei. Die enge Verzahnung von Astronomie und Astrologie einerseits mit einer Religion andererseits wurde in der Forschung zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte besonders mit Beispielen aus dem 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert demonstriert. Erinnert sei exemplarisch an die theologische Dimension von Keplers kosmologischer Sicht, die Welt als Kugel zu sehen: „An der Kugeloberfläche offenbart sich in der Abbildung des dreieinigen Gottes ein trinitarischer Symbolismus.“1 Kepler führte diese Symbolik fort auch mit Bezug auf die Sonne als Quelle der Bewegung im Zentrum des Universums, die er als Abbild Gottes und dessen Schöpfung ansah. Sprachlich wurde diese Verzahnung sichtbar, als man im 18. Jahrhundert den Begriff der „Physikotheologie“ prägte. Naturforschung und Gotteserkenntnis gingen damals zusammen. Bezogen auf Europa wurde in der Geschichtsforschung konstatiert, daß sowohl kirchenpolitische Umbrüche mit einer Veränderung des religiösen Glaubens (Reformation und Gegenreformation) als auch einzelne wissenschaftliche (zunächst vornehmlich astronomische) Neuerungen und Entdeckungen (erinnert sei an jene von Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galilei und Marius) die weitere religiöse, soziale und politische Entwicklung maßgebend beeinflußten. Auf dem Kolloquium sollen Fallanalysen vorgestellt werden, die aufzeigen, ob bzw. wie Transferleistungen von religiösen/m Methoden/Wissen in astronomische/s bzw. astrologische/ s Methoden/Wissen und umgekehrt stattfanden. Bezogen auf das Verhältnis von Naturwissenschaft und Christentum mit der Reformation von 1517 wurde bei diesem Problemkreis der Transferleistungen ein Forschungsdesiderat festgestellt.2 1 Bialas, Volker: Johannes Kepler. München 2004, S. 83. 2 Meinel, Christoph: Reformation(en) und Wissenschaft(en). In: Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 26 (2003), S. 81–88, bes. S. 83. Mit der Fokussierung auf Astronomie und Astrologie soll auf dem Kolloquium beigetragen werden, dieses Desiderat zu verringern. Die Astrologie ist hier ausdrücklich mit zu beachten, denn „Religion und Magie und die letztlich auf magischen Vorstellungen beruhende Astrologie in der Praxis“ läßt sich in der voraufklärerischen Zeit „keineswegs deutlich voneinander unterscheiden.“3 Erwünscht sind auch Beiträge, die sich mit den außereuropäischen Religionen und ihren Wechselwirkungen mit Astronomie4 und Astrologie5 beschäftigen. Hier kann z. B. angeknüpft werden an die Arbeiten über islamische Gelehrte und ihr Schrifttum6 sowie zur Wissenschaft in China, wo Taoisten Anteil an der astronomischen Forschung hatten.7 Besonders wertvoll sind die Beiträge, die auf aktuellen Forschungen im Sinne von Fallanalysen beruhen oder die einen fundierten Überblick zu einer übergreifenden Problematik geben. Vorschläge für einen Vortrag sind bis spätestens 30. April 2017 per E-Mail mit einer einseitigen Zusammenfassung (Umfang ca. 3000 Zeichen) an eines der drei Mitglieder des wissenschaftlichen Organisationskomitees (GudrunWolfschmidt, Klaus-Dieter Herbst und Thomas Posch) zu richten. Die Vorträge der Tagung sollen in einem Proceedings-Band publiziert werden. 3 Greyerz, Kaspar von: Religion und Kultur. Europa 1500–1800. Darmstadt 2000, S. 13. 4 Vgl. Selin, Helaine (Hg.): Astronomy across cultures: the History of Non-Western Astronomy. Dordrecht, Boston und London 2000. 5 Stuckrad, Kocku von: Geschichte der Astrologie. Von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. München 2003. 6 Vgl. Sezgin, Fuat: Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums. Bd. 6: Astronomie. Leiden 1978. Bd. 7: Astrologie – Meteorologie und Verwandtes. Leiden 1978. 7 Needham, Joseph: Science and civilisation in China. Cambridge 1959, S. 171.
Unsere Tagung findet vor dem Annual Meeting der Astronomischen Gesellschaft (18.–22. September 2017) statt, deren Thema lautet The many Scales of the Universe: Galaxies, their Suns, and their Planets (http://ag2017.uni-goettingen.de/). Die Tagung des Arbeitskreises Astronomiegeschichte in Göttingen steht 2017 unter dem Thema Astronomie und Astrologie im Kontext von Religionen. Die Betrachtung der Natur, insbesondere der kosmischen Objekte, brachte schon sehr früh die Astronomie und Astrologie hervor. Bereits im Altertum beeinflußten diese Bereiche menschlichen Wissens und Handelns auch die religiösen Überzeugungen der Menschen. Die Religionen – genannt seien Buddhismus, Hinduismus, Taoismus, Parsismus, Judentum, Christentum und Islam – trugen ihrerseits mit ihren Glaubensgrundsätzen zum Fundament der sich entwickelnden Wissenschaften bei. Die enge Verzahnung von Astronomie und Astrologie einerseits mit einer Religion andererseits wurde in der Forschung zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte besonders mit Beispielen aus dem 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert demonstriert. Erinnert sei exemplarisch an die theologische Dimension von Keplers kosmologischer Sicht, die Welt als Kugel zu sehen: „An der Kugeloberfläche offenbart sich in der Abbildung des dreieinigen Gottes ein trinitarischer Symbolismus.“1 Kepler führte diese Symbolik fort auch mit Bezug auf die Sonne als Quelle der Bewegung im Zentrum des Universums, die er als Abbild Gottes und dessen Schöpfung ansah. Sprachlich wurde diese Verzahnung sichtbar, als man im 18. Jahrhundert den Begriff der „Physikotheologie“ prägte. Naturforschung und Gotteserkenntnis gingen damals zusammen. Bezogen auf Europa wurde in der Geschichtsforschung konstatiert, daß sowohl kirchenpolitische Umbrüche mit einer Veränderung des religiösen Glaubens (Reformation und Gegenreformation) als auch einzelne wissenschaftliche (zunächst vornehmlich astronomische) Neuerungen und Entdeckungen (erinnert sei an jene von Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galilei und Marius) die weitere religiöse, soziale und politische Entwicklung maßgebend beeinflußten. Auf dem Kolloquium sollen Fallanalysen vorgestellt werden, die aufzeigen, ob bzw. wie Transferleistungen von religiösen/m Methoden/Wissen in astronomische/s bzw. astrologische/ s Methoden/Wissen und umgekehrt stattfanden. Bezogen auf das Verhältnis von Naturwissenschaft und Christentum mit der Reformation von 1517 wurde bei diesem Problemkreis der Transferleistungen ein Forschungsdesiderat festgestellt.2 1 Bialas, Volker: Johannes Kepler. München 2004, S. 83. 2 Meinel, Christoph: Reformation(en) und Wissenschaft(en). In: Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 26 (2003), S. 81–88, bes. S. 83. Mit der Fokussierung auf Astronomie und Astrologie soll auf dem Kolloquium beigetragen werden, dieses Desiderat zu verringern. Die Astrologie ist hier ausdrücklich mit zu beachten, denn „Religion und Magie und die letztlich auf magischen Vorstellungen beruhende Astrologie in der Praxis“ läßt sich in der voraufklärerischen Zeit „keineswegs deutlich voneinander unterscheiden.“3 Erwünscht sind auch Beiträge, die sich mit den außereuropäischen Religionen und ihren Wechselwirkungen mit Astronomie4 und Astrologie5 beschäftigen. Hier kann z. B. angeknüpft werden an die Arbeiten über islamische Gelehrte und ihr Schrifttum6 sowie zur Wissenschaft in China, wo Taoisten Anteil an der astronomischen Forschung hatten.7 Besonders wertvoll sind die Beiträge, die auf aktuellen Forschungen im Sinne von Fallanalysen beruhen oder die einen fundierten Überblick zu einer übergreifenden Problematik geben. Vorschläge für einen Vortrag sind bis spätestens 30. April 2017 per E-Mail mit einer einseitigen Zusammenfassung (Umfang ca. 3000 Zeichen) an eines der drei Mitglieder des wissenschaftlichen Organisationskomitees (GudrunWolfschmidt, Klaus-Dieter Herbst und Thomas Posch) zu richten. Die Vorträge der Tagung sollen in einem Proceedings-Band publiziert werden. 3 Greyerz, Kaspar von: Religion und Kultur. Europa 1500–1800. Darmstadt 2000, S. 13. 4 Vgl. Selin, Helaine (Hg.): Astronomy across cultures: the History of Non-Western Astronomy. Dordrecht, Boston und London 2000. 5 Stuckrad, Kocku von: Geschichte der Astrologie. Von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. München 2003. 6 Vgl. Sezgin, Fuat: Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums. Bd. 6: Astronomie. Leiden 1978. Bd. 7: Astrologie – Meteorologie und Verwandtes. Leiden 1978. 7 Needham, Joseph: Science and civilisation in China. Cambridge 1959, S. 171.
Research Interests:
Sixteenth Century Journal (XLIX/1)
Research Interests:
Sixteenth Century Journal (1/2018)
Research Interests:
CFP EuARe Conference 2023 - "Religion from the Inside", Panel "The Eschaton and the 'Inside': The role of the inner dimension in the eschatological reflections of the Early Modern Age". Paper proposals are very much welcome until January... more
CFP EuARe Conference 2023 - "Religion from the Inside", Panel "The Eschaton and the 'Inside': The role of the inner dimension in the eschatological reflections of the Early Modern Age". Paper proposals are very much welcome until January 29, 2023!
Research Interests:
The Fifth Annual Conference of the European Academy of Religion will take place in Bologna, June 20-23, 2022. FSCIRE (Fondazione per le Scienze Religiose) will be the Host Institution. Due to a very late withdrawal of one of the accepted... more
The Fifth Annual Conference of the European Academy of Religion will take place in Bologna, June 20-23, 2022. FSCIRE (Fondazione per le Scienze Religiose) will be the Host Institution. Due to a very late withdrawal of one of the accepted speakers, there is one spare place in the Panel "Defusing the prophecy. Detecting the religious variety in storytelling behind the Reformation and its 'forerunners'". Further applications are therefore very welcome!
Research Interests:
martedì 15 ottobre 2019
h. 9.30-19.00
Sapienza Università di Roma
h. 9.30-19.00
Sapienza Università di Roma
Research Interests:
During the process of Konfessionalisierung, the foundation of a proper Orthodoxy was an issue not only in intra-Christian, but even in intra-Lutheran terms. The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre made the point of the endemic political... more
During the process of Konfessionalisierung, the foundation of a proper Orthodoxy was an issue not only in intra-Christian, but even in intra-Lutheran terms. The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre made the point of the endemic political instability clear in the Holy Roman Empire too. But even before this event, the Lutherans distanced themselves from any possibile Reformed-like theological statement.
After the Peace of Augsburg and due to the Reformed-friendly theological turn of Theological Faculty of Wittenberg on behalf of Melanchthon’s late positions the Flacian position gained power in the Ernestine Duchy already in 1557.
The Ernestine Duke Johann Friedrich II supported Flacius’ attempt to re-establish the proper Lutheran doctrine — roughly, the doctrine of the Diet of Augsburg — against the “new” theological standpoint spread in the Albertine Duchies. As a consequence of Flacius’ interference in some doctrinal disputations of the time, the first clear result of this new Ernestine Religionspolitik was the publication of the so-called Weimarer Konfutationsbuch. It was proper Confession — and not a Streitschrift — explicitly addressed against Melanchthon’s standpoint and his fellows. This lead to the transformation of a quite uninteresting disputation in a theological-political conflict, culminated in the Synergistischer Streit.
The topic of this controversy has the potential to shed some light, through the leitmotif of the Free Will and the human contribution to the Salvation on the Justification and the Soteriology, but also on the Anthropology and on the related role attributed to the Christological pattern.
Attempt of the paper is so to trace a path from this controversial point back to the origins — on the one hand, Luther’s disputation against Erasmus, on the other hand, Erasmus’ role in Melanchthon’s own theology — in order to highlight how the difference between the two Reformers should not be considered the mere result of a late theological turn.
After the Peace of Augsburg and due to the Reformed-friendly theological turn of Theological Faculty of Wittenberg on behalf of Melanchthon’s late positions the Flacian position gained power in the Ernestine Duchy already in 1557.
The Ernestine Duke Johann Friedrich II supported Flacius’ attempt to re-establish the proper Lutheran doctrine — roughly, the doctrine of the Diet of Augsburg — against the “new” theological standpoint spread in the Albertine Duchies. As a consequence of Flacius’ interference in some doctrinal disputations of the time, the first clear result of this new Ernestine Religionspolitik was the publication of the so-called Weimarer Konfutationsbuch. It was proper Confession — and not a Streitschrift — explicitly addressed against Melanchthon’s standpoint and his fellows. This lead to the transformation of a quite uninteresting disputation in a theological-political conflict, culminated in the Synergistischer Streit.
The topic of this controversy has the potential to shed some light, through the leitmotif of the Free Will and the human contribution to the Salvation on the Justification and the Soteriology, but also on the Anthropology and on the related role attributed to the Christological pattern.
Attempt of the paper is so to trace a path from this controversial point back to the origins — on the one hand, Luther’s disputation against Erasmus, on the other hand, Erasmus’ role in Melanchthon’s own theology — in order to highlight how the difference between the two Reformers should not be considered the mere result of a late theological turn.
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Christianity, Philosophy, Theology, Aristotle, History of Christianity, and 15 morePhilosophical Theology, Erasmus, Reformation History, Reformation Studies, Lutheranism, Dialectic, Martin Luther, Lutheran Theology, Aristoteles, Philipp Melanchthon, History of theology, Christian Studies, Erasmus of Rotterdam, History of Christian Thought, and History of Philosophy
The paper is an attempt to find a consistent theoretical background for Melanchthon's few editions of some works of the Greek Fathers in his first Wittenberg years. The background assumption -- as always, in my attempt to reconstruct... more
The paper is an attempt to find a consistent theoretical background for Melanchthon's few editions of some works of the Greek Fathers in his first Wittenberg years. The background assumption -- as always, in my attempt to reconstruct Melanchthon's activity -- is that the apparent inconsistency in his published works might be mitigated through a broader look at the political context of the period, as well as at his private correspondence. Please get in touch for the text (still unpublished).
Research Interests:
The paper is the draft of an introduction (+ the Italian translation of the letters) for the letters written by Jan Hus in his detention (November 1414-July 1415) in Constance. Please get in touch for the text (still unpublished, to be... more
The paper is the draft of an introduction (+ the Italian translation of the letters) for the letters written by Jan Hus in his detention (November 1414-July 1415) in Constance. Please get in touch for the text (still unpublished, to be published within the year with Marsilio).
Research Interests: Medieval History, Medieval Studies, Reformation History, Reformation Studies, John Wyclif, and 12 moreEcclesiology, Augustine of Hippo, Reformed theology, Augustinus, Jan Hus, St. Augustine, Hussite Theology, Hussite Movement, Hussites, Doctrine of Predestination, Predestination and Free Will, and John Wycliffe
Sowohl auf sprachlogischer als auch auf ontologischer Ebene wies Luthers Entfaltung des christologischen Lehrstückes der Idiomenkommunikation von Beginn an die Gestalt einer wechselseitigen Mitteilung der Eigenschaften zwischen göttlicher... more
Sowohl auf sprachlogischer als auch auf ontologischer Ebene wies Luthers Entfaltung des christologischen Lehrstückes der Idiomenkommunikation von Beginn an die Gestalt einer wechselseitigen Mitteilung der Eigenschaften zwischen göttlicher und menschlicher Natur auf. Solch ein eigenartiger Bezug auf ein relativ traditionelles theologisches Element ließ den Reformator eine Art von Theopaschie postulieren, die kaum vereinbar mit den meisten altkirchlichen Dogmen sowie mit den klassischen philosophischen Axiomen war. Dennoch bildete sie den Kern seiner Theologie.
Dieser Punkt motivierte stark ablehnenden Reaktionen einerseits, strenge Verteidigungen andererseits. Eine wenigstens nominale Kompromisslösung konnten die Fronten erst mit der Konkordienformel (1577) erreichen. In dieser Stiftung einer reichsrechtlich anerkennbaren und theologisch glaubwürdigen Konfession bestand ein notwendiger Schritt zur Entstehung einer reifen lutherischen Kirche und Orthodoxie, aber zu welchem Preis? Offensichtlich waren die Mittel des vororthodoxistischen Luthertums unzureichend, um seine Bedürfnisse in Treue zum Wortlaut Luthers abzudecken. Von allem, was am Ende verloren ging, kann man jedoch den Spuren noch folgen.
Diese Untersuchung zielt genau darauf ab, die Komplexität von den geflochtenen Linien zurückzugeben, die zur Entstehung des anscheinend einfachen Ergebnisses einer Kompromisslösung führten – in der Überzeugung, ihr Echo sei genauso mächtig wie das Echo von dem, was bleiben konnte.
Dieser Punkt motivierte stark ablehnenden Reaktionen einerseits, strenge Verteidigungen andererseits. Eine wenigstens nominale Kompromisslösung konnten die Fronten erst mit der Konkordienformel (1577) erreichen. In dieser Stiftung einer reichsrechtlich anerkennbaren und theologisch glaubwürdigen Konfession bestand ein notwendiger Schritt zur Entstehung einer reifen lutherischen Kirche und Orthodoxie, aber zu welchem Preis? Offensichtlich waren die Mittel des vororthodoxistischen Luthertums unzureichend, um seine Bedürfnisse in Treue zum Wortlaut Luthers abzudecken. Von allem, was am Ende verloren ging, kann man jedoch den Spuren noch folgen.
Diese Untersuchung zielt genau darauf ab, die Komplexität von den geflochtenen Linien zurückzugeben, die zur Entstehung des anscheinend einfachen Ergebnisses einer Kompromisslösung führten – in der Überzeugung, ihr Echo sei genauso mächtig wie das Echo von dem, was bleiben konnte.