What do you think?
Rate this book
Erasmus, the Anabaptists, and the Great Commission
Many scholars have pointed to the influence of Erasmus on the early Swiss Anabaptists and Menno Simons. Yet the truth of this contention has never been firmly established. This volume uses new research data and argumentation to build a more convincing case for the early Anabaptist movement's dependence on Erasmus's thought.Abraham Friesen first surveys the various ways Anabaptist history has been interpreted. He then discusses the state of scholarship regarding the relationship of Erasmus to the Anabaptists and suggests a new approach to the question. In the main body of the text, Friesen traces the intellectual origins of both Swiss Anabaptism and Menno Simons to the writings of Erasmus -- especially to Erasmus's unique interpretation of Christ's Great Commission as presented in his famous paraphrases of Matthew and Acts -- and shows the impact that this interpretation ultimately had on the form and content of Anabaptist thought.
- GenresHistoryNonfictionChurch
196 pages, Hardcover
First published March 1, 1998
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
June 28, 2026
As a Mennonite with a soft spot for great thinkers, I've had a somewhat unhappy experience trying to locate a great thinker for my tradition. There's John Howard Yoder, of course. As my "read" column on good reads indicates, I've read a lot of his work and not without benefit. But then there are reasons to not be too enthusiastic about Yoder. I've also thought of Stanley Hauerwas as "our" great thinker, but then he is a Methodist. I've read Balthasar Hubmaier - the intellectual among the first Anabaptists - but he concerned himself largely with polemics for believer's baptism. And as I learned from this book, Hubmaier's arguments were derivative of Erasmus, and perhaps not as well-argued as the originals. So, not exactly at the level of a Calvin or a Luther. Is it possible that "our" great thinker was Erasmus, who argued for many of the central beliefs of the Anabaptists before there were Anabaptists?
The headline from this book is that the first Anabaptists were influenced by Erasmus' understanding of the New Testament, and, lacking his philosophical sophistication, tried to put into practice what he considered to be an inaccessible platonic ideal of discipleship.
More specifically, Friesen presents evidence that the Swiss Brethren and Menno Simons' ideas about believer's baptism can be traced back to Erasmus - specifically his annotations on the New Testament, the introduction to the 1523 edition of his Greek New Testament, and paraphrases of Matthew and Acts. The central idea is that the great commission of Matthew 28 - and to a lesser extent Mark 16 - illustrated by the examples of baptism in Acts - together imply that converts were to be taught the basics of Christian belief before baptism and then to be instructed in a life of discipleship. Friesen shows that the Swiss brethren, Menno Simmons and early Hutterites all talk about baptism according to this pattern, while major reformers like Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, as well as those associated with quasi-Anabaptists Thomas Munster and Melchior Hoffman, do not.
Most of the book is devoted to making this historical argument, but there is also an Anabaptist apologetic sub-theme, which I appreciate. It's nice to have a reason to think of Hoffman's violent adherents in Munster, not to mention the violence of Thomas Munster, as a step removed from the true Anabaptists: the Swiss Brethren and Mennonite martyrs. Along these same lines, one learns in these pages the inadequacy of Lutheran, Zwinglian, and Catholic responses to the early Anabaptists. Friesen turns the genetic fallacy often aimed at Anabaptists around on these critics of Anabaptism, arguing that in rejecting believer's baptism, they were compromising their reading of scripture in order to not disrupt Christian civilization. Requiring sincere belief and a life of discipleship for baptism would undermine ecclesial and secular power, which treated the baptism of infants as induction into European Christendom.
All in all, an interesting read. And, as a result of it, a few volumes by Erasmus may find themselves in my "read" column in the coming years.
The headline from this book is that the first Anabaptists were influenced by Erasmus' understanding of the New Testament, and, lacking his philosophical sophistication, tried to put into practice what he considered to be an inaccessible platonic ideal of discipleship.
More specifically, Friesen presents evidence that the Swiss Brethren and Menno Simons' ideas about believer's baptism can be traced back to Erasmus - specifically his annotations on the New Testament, the introduction to the 1523 edition of his Greek New Testament, and paraphrases of Matthew and Acts. The central idea is that the great commission of Matthew 28 - and to a lesser extent Mark 16 - illustrated by the examples of baptism in Acts - together imply that converts were to be taught the basics of Christian belief before baptism and then to be instructed in a life of discipleship. Friesen shows that the Swiss brethren, Menno Simmons and early Hutterites all talk about baptism according to this pattern, while major reformers like Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, as well as those associated with quasi-Anabaptists Thomas Munster and Melchior Hoffman, do not.
Most of the book is devoted to making this historical argument, but there is also an Anabaptist apologetic sub-theme, which I appreciate. It's nice to have a reason to think of Hoffman's violent adherents in Munster, not to mention the violence of Thomas Munster, as a step removed from the true Anabaptists: the Swiss Brethren and Mennonite martyrs. Along these same lines, one learns in these pages the inadequacy of Lutheran, Zwinglian, and Catholic responses to the early Anabaptists. Friesen turns the genetic fallacy often aimed at Anabaptists around on these critics of Anabaptism, arguing that in rejecting believer's baptism, they were compromising their reading of scripture in order to not disrupt Christian civilization. Requiring sincere belief and a life of discipleship for baptism would undermine ecclesial and secular power, which treated the baptism of infants as induction into European Christendom.
All in all, an interesting read. And, as a result of it, a few volumes by Erasmus may find themselves in my "read" column in the coming years.
June 9, 2020
(This review was submitted as a class project.)
Friesen plunges headlong into the fray of opinions regarding the intellectual origins of the Anabaptists, confidently asserting that the greatest influence on this movement came from the Christian humanist Desiderius Erasmus. He challenges the prevailing polygenesis theory, arguing that the breadth of agreement among the main streams of Anabaptists (particularly those originating from the followers of Zwingli at Zurich and those attached to Menno Simons) should force the historian to seek a common intellectual origin. He observes that the various Anabaptist movements tended to emerge in full maturity, as though drawing from a common source. That source, he contends, was Desiderius Erasmus.
Friesen faults Bender for excluding the rational Anabaptists. As a consequence, Bender fails to give due consideration to the possibility of humanist influence. Friesen sets Bender in historiographical context, caught in the middle of the modernist/orthodox division of the contemporary Mennonite church. This, according to Friesen, accounts for Bender’s unwillingness to expound the doctrines of the Anabaptists.
In the early chapters, Friesen demonstrates the reliance of the humanists on Neo-Platonism. This philosophy displaced the prevailing Aristotelianism of the Scholastics. For Erasmus, the ideal form of spiritual truth was found in Christ and the ideal form of the church was found in the Acts of the Apostles. His interpretation of the Scriptures led him to many conclusions about the beliefs and practice of the early churches that conflicted with the practice of the modern church. His views on Baptism, Christian pacifism, Christian discipleship, egalitarianism, the taking of oaths, the lack of emphasis on creeds, and the reform of the church all derived from his study of Scripture. But Neo-Platonism allowed Erasmus to hold these views in tension while preserving the practices of the traditional church. This ideal form merely became a template by which the practices of the church were to be understood.
The Anabaptists, permitting only the authority of Scripture, were exposed (partly through Zwingli) to Erasmus’ more directly Scriptural writings: his editions of the New Testament, his Annotations on the New Testament text, and his paraphrases of Matthew and Acts. From these, the Anabaptists adopted Erasmus’ interpretation of the Great Commission without the context of Erasmus’ Neo-Platonic worldview. Without that philosophical framework, they could not hold the early church in tension with the medieval church; rather, they regarded the early church as a model to which the modern church must conform.
In the closing chapters, Friesen exposes the great gulf between the Erasmian/Anabaptist and the Catholic/Reformed understandings of the Great Commission. He describes the reaction of both Catholics and the magisterial reformers to the Anabaptists movement, and their criticisms of Erasmus. Finally, he gives an account of the political factors that prevented the Reformers from adopting the Erasmian/Anabaptist vision.
Friesen is a skilled writer and tremendous researcher. His book is essential reading for the student of Anabaptist origins. It would also be a great delight to all students of Erasmus and the intellectual history of the Reformation. His discussion of the shifting theological contexts of the church’s discussion of baptism is particularly fascinating.
His research is evident from his 43 pages of footnotes, often just as informative as the text. He admits his own Mennonite loyalties, but his competence as a scholar prevents provincialism. The scope of the book is broad, but he handles himself well throughout. At one instance he clearly steps beyond his expertise, but he gives the reader fair warning that he is about to do so.
A few things still trouble the mind. First, though aggressively committed to his thesis, at times he fails to deliver a fully convincing argument. While his conclusions are often presented as certain, his data often seems more suggestive than conclusive. Second, his devotion to his thesis and his satisfaction with its sufficiency in accounting for Anabaptist intellectual origins leaves the reader suspecting that he may be blinded to any other possible influences. His contention against the prevailing theories of Anabaptist origins is that they do not give sufficient credit to Erasmian influence; but in in fleshing out his own argument, he seems to be making a case that once Erasmus is accepted, no other influences are necessary.
Of more serious concern is his claim that, like Zwingli’s early lectures in Zurich, Erasmus’ paraphrase of Matthew’s Gospel (1522) was followed immediately by a paraphrase of the Acts of the Apostles (1523). He contends that this connection, divergent from the more commonly recognized Luke-Acts connection, resulted from Erasmus’ view of the Acts of the Apostles as a description of how the early churched worked out Christ’s last will and testament. While Friesen’s understanding of Erasmus’ approach to the Great Commission is well founded, Friesen is unaccountable mistaken in his description of Erasmus’ paraphrases. Matthew was published in 1522, but Acts was not published until 1524; in the intervening year, Erasmus published paraphrases on each of the other Gospels (John and Luke in 1523; Mark was completed in 1523, but not published until 1524—still before the publication of Acts). This is readily discovered by anyone willing to consult a list of the published works of Erasmus. Friesen builds a memorable argument on this point, but the facts are against him. Whether he is guilty of special pleading or simply a lapse in scholarship, it is disconcerting. Not a scholar in the field of Renaissance and Reformation studies, this reviewer is at the mercy of the author to deliver an accurate account; this misstep casts an uneasy shadow over the work.
But these doubts must be suspended until further investigation. While Friesen may over-press his case, he has nevertheless presented a well-reasoned argument for the probability of Erasmian influence on the early Anabaptists. It may not be as convincing as the author hoped in taking the reader as far as he wanted to go, but it certainly made a stimulating case for reevaluating the Erasmian connection for those who might be inclined to deny it.
Friesen plunges headlong into the fray of opinions regarding the intellectual origins of the Anabaptists, confidently asserting that the greatest influence on this movement came from the Christian humanist Desiderius Erasmus. He challenges the prevailing polygenesis theory, arguing that the breadth of agreement among the main streams of Anabaptists (particularly those originating from the followers of Zwingli at Zurich and those attached to Menno Simons) should force the historian to seek a common intellectual origin. He observes that the various Anabaptist movements tended to emerge in full maturity, as though drawing from a common source. That source, he contends, was Desiderius Erasmus.
Friesen faults Bender for excluding the rational Anabaptists. As a consequence, Bender fails to give due consideration to the possibility of humanist influence. Friesen sets Bender in historiographical context, caught in the middle of the modernist/orthodox division of the contemporary Mennonite church. This, according to Friesen, accounts for Bender’s unwillingness to expound the doctrines of the Anabaptists.
In the early chapters, Friesen demonstrates the reliance of the humanists on Neo-Platonism. This philosophy displaced the prevailing Aristotelianism of the Scholastics. For Erasmus, the ideal form of spiritual truth was found in Christ and the ideal form of the church was found in the Acts of the Apostles. His interpretation of the Scriptures led him to many conclusions about the beliefs and practice of the early churches that conflicted with the practice of the modern church. His views on Baptism, Christian pacifism, Christian discipleship, egalitarianism, the taking of oaths, the lack of emphasis on creeds, and the reform of the church all derived from his study of Scripture. But Neo-Platonism allowed Erasmus to hold these views in tension while preserving the practices of the traditional church. This ideal form merely became a template by which the practices of the church were to be understood.
The Anabaptists, permitting only the authority of Scripture, were exposed (partly through Zwingli) to Erasmus’ more directly Scriptural writings: his editions of the New Testament, his Annotations on the New Testament text, and his paraphrases of Matthew and Acts. From these, the Anabaptists adopted Erasmus’ interpretation of the Great Commission without the context of Erasmus’ Neo-Platonic worldview. Without that philosophical framework, they could not hold the early church in tension with the medieval church; rather, they regarded the early church as a model to which the modern church must conform.
In the closing chapters, Friesen exposes the great gulf between the Erasmian/Anabaptist and the Catholic/Reformed understandings of the Great Commission. He describes the reaction of both Catholics and the magisterial reformers to the Anabaptists movement, and their criticisms of Erasmus. Finally, he gives an account of the political factors that prevented the Reformers from adopting the Erasmian/Anabaptist vision.
Friesen is a skilled writer and tremendous researcher. His book is essential reading for the student of Anabaptist origins. It would also be a great delight to all students of Erasmus and the intellectual history of the Reformation. His discussion of the shifting theological contexts of the church’s discussion of baptism is particularly fascinating.
His research is evident from his 43 pages of footnotes, often just as informative as the text. He admits his own Mennonite loyalties, but his competence as a scholar prevents provincialism. The scope of the book is broad, but he handles himself well throughout. At one instance he clearly steps beyond his expertise, but he gives the reader fair warning that he is about to do so.
A few things still trouble the mind. First, though aggressively committed to his thesis, at times he fails to deliver a fully convincing argument. While his conclusions are often presented as certain, his data often seems more suggestive than conclusive. Second, his devotion to his thesis and his satisfaction with its sufficiency in accounting for Anabaptist intellectual origins leaves the reader suspecting that he may be blinded to any other possible influences. His contention against the prevailing theories of Anabaptist origins is that they do not give sufficient credit to Erasmian influence; but in in fleshing out his own argument, he seems to be making a case that once Erasmus is accepted, no other influences are necessary.
Of more serious concern is his claim that, like Zwingli’s early lectures in Zurich, Erasmus’ paraphrase of Matthew’s Gospel (1522) was followed immediately by a paraphrase of the Acts of the Apostles (1523). He contends that this connection, divergent from the more commonly recognized Luke-Acts connection, resulted from Erasmus’ view of the Acts of the Apostles as a description of how the early churched worked out Christ’s last will and testament. While Friesen’s understanding of Erasmus’ approach to the Great Commission is well founded, Friesen is unaccountable mistaken in his description of Erasmus’ paraphrases. Matthew was published in 1522, but Acts was not published until 1524; in the intervening year, Erasmus published paraphrases on each of the other Gospels (John and Luke in 1523; Mark was completed in 1523, but not published until 1524—still before the publication of Acts). This is readily discovered by anyone willing to consult a list of the published works of Erasmus. Friesen builds a memorable argument on this point, but the facts are against him. Whether he is guilty of special pleading or simply a lapse in scholarship, it is disconcerting. Not a scholar in the field of Renaissance and Reformation studies, this reviewer is at the mercy of the author to deliver an accurate account; this misstep casts an uneasy shadow over the work.
But these doubts must be suspended until further investigation. While Friesen may over-press his case, he has nevertheless presented a well-reasoned argument for the probability of Erasmian influence on the early Anabaptists. It may not be as convincing as the author hoped in taking the reader as far as he wanted to go, but it certainly made a stimulating case for reevaluating the Erasmian connection for those who might be inclined to deny it.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews