Leipzig disputation

The first pictorial representation of Luther as a monk with a doctoral hat , his hand raised in a speech gesture. The figure is only recognizable by the accidentally mirror-inverted inscription Doctor Martinus Lutter Augustiner Wittenb. and the Luther rose identifiable. Detail from the title page of the sermon that Luther delivered during the disputation: A sermon preached tzu Leipßgk . ( Wolfgang Stöckel , Leipzig 1519)

The Leipzig disputation was an academic discussion between the Ingolstadt theology professor Johannes Eck as the challenger and the Wittenberg theology professors Andreas Bodenstein (called Karlstadt) and Martin Luther as defenders. It took place from June 27 to July 15, 1519 in the Pleißenburg in Leipzig . Duke Georg von Sachsen had successfully campaigned for the University of Leipzig to organize the disputation .

Originally, in May 1518, Karlstadt Eck had asked for a disputation on human free will and the grace of God. He had heard of Eck's criticism of Luther's 95 theses and wanted to publicly defend the common Wittenberg theology. With Lucas Cranach , he designed what was probably the first Reformation leaflet.

With his theses in preparation for the disputation, Eck referred so clearly to Luther instead of Karlstadt that he responded in writing and in the spring of 1519 sought to participate in the Leipzig disputation. At the same time, Eck moved the issues of church and papacy to the center of the discussion with Luther. The disputation of Karlstadt and Eck on human free will took place as planned in Leipzig, but received less attention than the disputation on papal primacy , the justification of which was denied by divine right by Luther and defended by Eck.

The distribution of roles in a disputation was asymmetrical. As an opponent, Eck had the opportunity to dictate the course of the discussion. He used this to confront Luther with the fact that similar statements about the papacy had been condemned as heretical by the Council of Constance in the case of Jan Hus . Luther declared that the council was wrong, that some of Hus's sentences were Christian and Protestant. In doing so, Luther relativized not only the authority of the Pope, but also the authority of councils. With these statements he had effectively broken away from the understanding of the church of his time. As a respondent, Luther was able to get Eck into difficulties with his arguments from church history. But he gained little influence on the course of the talks.

The Ingolstadt native was celebrated as the winner of the disputation after the event in Leipzig. Luther also admitted that Eck had won. However, the effect that Eck had expected did not materialize: having expressed sympathy for a heretic did not harm Luther. The academic verdict on the disputation failed to materialize, but the formation of public opinion took off and was in Luther's favor. Luther began to interpret Jan Hus as his forerunner.

Leipzig disputation in context

The Leipzig disputation in the summer of 1519 took place in a time window that closed again at the beginning of 1520: After the death of Emperor Maximilian (January 12, 1519), Luther's sovereign Friedrich the Wise, as a member of the electoral college, played an important role in the upcoming emperor election. Friedrich protected his Wittenberg professor when he came into conflict with the Roman Curia due to his 95 theses . In doing so, he followed a pattern that can also be observed in other contemporary conflicts: secular authorities tried to control the ecclesiastical jurisdiction on their territory. The curia was primarily interested in Friedrich acting in their favor in the election of the emperor. In order not to snub him, she put Luther's heresy trial on hold. This enabled Luther and his group to spread their reform ideas unhindered for a year. The Imperial Election Day took place in Frankfurt parallel to the Leipzig disputation . The election of the Habsburg Karl took place on June 28, 1519; on July 3rd he signed the electoral surrender drafted by Frederick the Wise .

Since the beginning of the century, circles of educated people had emerged in the larger cities and in some royal courts, who shared an enthusiasm for science and literature from antiquity. They advocated reforms, e.g. B. a modernization of university operations. "It is understandable that one saw here in Luther's attacks against scholasticism and indulgences related efforts and welcomed an ally in the Wittenberg professor." These new friends initially overlooked that Luther himself was not deeply influenced by humanism . For the time being, Luther found an interested public to turn to, while the official church offices and parts of the theological community reacted with incomprehension and rejection. Their insistence on the status quo and the heresy process initiated against him meant that Luther developed his own understanding of the church ( ecclesiology ) - as a community of believers and not as a sanctuary. “He stepped further and further out of the previous church system.” These are developments that shaped the history of the Reformation in the period from 1517 to 1520 and at the event of the Leipzig disputation can be viewed like in a magnifying glass.

Journalistic forerunner

Medal, inscription: Portrait of the theologian, protonotary and inquisitor Johann Eck (1529), Staatliche Münzsammlung München

Before the conflict began, Johannes Eck and Martin Luther were in a friendly exchange of letters. The Nuremberg diplomat and humanist Christoph Scheurl introduced the two to each other. The friendship that they both referred to was not, however, a personal relationship, but a contact common among humanists. In contrast to the competitive mentality of scholastic theologians, Scheurl's circle of friends and similar networks cultivated a harmonious exchange by sending one's own and other works to each other for reading and keeping in touch by letter. Johannes Eck sent his Vienna disputation theses to Martin Luther, and Luther had Eck convey his disputation theses against scholastic theology and against indulgences . Eck wrote to Scheurl that he would walk ten miles to take part in the disputation to which Luther had invited with his 95 theses. He loves this form of academic discussion. In a letter to the Viennese humanist Johannes Cuspinian , Eck assessed the 95 theses as follows: “I do not deny the very large abuses regarding indulgences. In this I praise Luther. But what he claims about the sacrament of penance , I definitely deny. "

"Skewers" and "Asterisks"

During a visit by the Eichstatt prince-bishop Gabriel von Eyb , the chancellor of the University of Ingolstadt , Eck was critical of Luther's theses. The bishop requested a written draft of this criticism. Eck then wrote notes (adnotationes) on eighteen of Luther's 95 theses, which were intended for the personal use of the bishop. The Augsburg canon Bernhard Adelmann sent this text to Luther in a roundabout way in March 1518. Following on from a remark by Eck, Luther titled this polemical text Obelisci (“ Spießchen ”, Latin obeliscus , Latinized from ancient Greek ὀβελίσκος obelískos , German “small skewer” ). Ancient literary studies used the obeliscus as a symbol for spurious text passages to be eradicated. In the Middle Ages, heretical sentences were marked in this way. Given its private character, it is not easy to understand how Eck's remarks relate exactly to Luther's 95 theses . Looking at the later debate, it is interesting that Eck accused Luther (probably with a view to Theses 48 and 57) of lacking awe of the Pope. According to the Protestant church historian Volker Leppin , Luther at this time adopted an attitude of obedience to the Pope and at the same time regarded him as a fallible person; but with that he remained within the framework of what was then justifiable. Eck also noted that Luther's understanding of the Church spread "Bohemian poison". Eck's suspicion that Luther was close to the Bohemian theologian Jan Hus , who was burned as a heretic in Konstanz , runs as a leitmotif through the following argument until the topic was publicly discussed at the speech duel between Eck and Luther in Leipzig.

In 1518 Luther wrote a counter- writ with the title Asterisci (" little star ") referring to the obelisci . The more valuable text was marked with these text-critical characters. Luther Eck sent the Asterisci via Wenzeslaus Linck on May 19. In the accompanying letter, Luther showed himself hurt over Eck's sharp tone. Scheurl attempted a reconciliation between Eck and Luther in June. Neither the Obelisci nor the Asterisci were intended for printing; the first printing of the two interlaced texts was later edited in an edition of Luther's Latin works.

Karlstadt's call for a disputation

Title page of Eck's defense against Karlstadt (1518)

In the meantime Karlstadt, dean of the theological faculty at Wittenberg University , had read the Obelisci . On May 9, 1518, he published 406 theses (380 plus 26 added for printing) without Luther's knowledge, of which theses 103 to 213 were directed against Eck. He wanted to defend the good reputation of the university. These so-called “defending conclusions” (Apologeticae conclusions) also represent Karlstadt's personal theological assessment of the position . The Bible was his highest authority. He represented the inability of the human will to do good and the passivity of man towards the grace of God. He wanted to publicly debate these theses in several events in the summer of 1518. It is noteworthy that it was a printed work that kicked off the Leipzig disputation: For the planned disputation series, Karlstadt could have published his Apologeticae conclusions in the usual way as a "note" (poster print), Eck in Ingolstadt probably would not have noticed anything. Instead, he opted for a dragonfly print from the Rhau-Grunenberg publishing house , thereby reaching a larger readership.

Eck replied to Luther by letter at the end of May, still ignorant of Karlstadt's publication: he referred to the previous friendship, the Obelisci had become known to the Wittenbergers through an indiscretion, and he was not interested in a dispute. Luther, too, wrote to Eck again, de-escalating, but Karlstadt's disputation project had now gained momentum through the hundreds of copies of the Apologeticae conclusions - Eck had to react. He did so with his defense, which appeared in print on August 14, 1518. It was titled “Defense Against the Bitter Attacks of Dr. Andreas Bodenstein from Karlstadt “ (Defensio contra amarulentas D. Andreae Bodenstein Carolstatini invectiones) . On the title page, he suggested to Karlstadt that the disputed questions should be decided by the Apostolic See and the universities of Rome, Paris or Cologne. As the date for the disputation, he suggested April 3, 1519, the place should determine Karlstadt. At the Reichstag in Augsburg in October 1518, Luther and Eck met and agreed on the terms of the disputation. Luther acted as a negotiator for Karlstadt. The Wittenbergers suggested Leipzig or Erfurt, and Eck chose Leipzig.

Eck now turned to the University of Leipzig via Duke Georg von Sachsen to get their approval for the disputation. But the Leipzig theologians were initially reluctant. The subject is delicate and should be negotiated at a provincial synod or before papal commissioners. Bishop Adolf von Merseburg also advocated this with the duke. However, it was a personal concern of the sovereign to allow the disputation to take place. Georg von Sachsen wanted to increase the reputation of his state university by organizing this academic dispute.

Karlstadt's leaflet

In preparation for the Leipzig disputation, Karlstadt, in collaboration with Lucas Cranach the Elder, developed a large-format leaflet (landscape format, 29.9 × 40.7 cm) with the title "Wagen". It appeared in March 1519 and spread rapidly. In two image zones above one sees an eight-horse man driven by Paul and Augustine , who is on the way with a layman to the gate of heaven, where he is expected by Christ. In the lower area of ​​the picture, a horse-seven is on the way with a scholastic theologian in the opposite direction to the jaws of hell . The woodcut was probably combined with explanatory text fields in a second printing process. There is both a Latin and a German version of what is probably the oldest Reformation leaflet. The upper carriage illustrates the theological program for which Karlstadt stood at the beginning of 1519, the lower carriage satirically depicts the opposite position. In the tradition of mysticism, Karlstadt recommended a Christian life that was characterized by following the cross , repentance and serenity .

The "chariot" had a provocative effect, especially the juxtaposition of the layman going to heaven as the true Christian and the scholastic going to hell. According to the attached text, the layman renounces his own will and lets God work while freedom of will is proclaimed on the chariot of hell: “Our will makes good work substantz”. Eck, who was referring to the representation, complained twice by letter to Friedrich the Wise . In Leipzig, a theology professor tore up a copy of the leaflet in the pulpit. Leipzig students who confessed to having amused themselves at the confession were imposed severe penalties.

Eck's theses and Luther's counter theses

Eck's 12 theses with Luther's counter theses from February 1519 (Disputatio d. Ioannis Eccii, et p. Martini Luther in studio Lipsensi futura) , Leipzig: Martin Landsberg, 1519. Copy of the Leipzig City History Museum , sign .: IF 149a

As a textual basis for the disputation with Karlstadt, Eck published twelve theses on December 29, 1518. In doing so, however, he took up topics from Luther's 95 theses. This was particularly evident in the final thesis, which referred to Luther's commentary on his 95 theses (the resolutions ). Eck formulated against Luther: “It is wrong to assert that the Roman Church before the times of [Pope] New Year's Eve … did not have suzerainty; rather, we have the one who holds the chair of St. Peter held and possessed his faith, always recognized as the successor of Peter and general representative of Christ. ”With this, the subject of papal primacy was placed on the agenda of the Leipzig disputation.

Luther, who was not supposed to be a participant in the disputation at the time, responded with 12 counter-theses, which he wrote in an open letter to Karlstadt on 4/5 February 1519 attached. They were printed on February 7th. In the "Defense and response of Johannes Eck against accusations of the Augustinian Martin Luther" (Disputatio et excusatio Joannis Eccii adversus criminationes F. Martini Lutter ordinis Eremitarum) printed on March 14, 1519 Eck expanded his theses. The final thesis on the question of the superiority of the Roman church thus became Eck's thirteenth thesis. Luther formulated 13 counter-theses under the title “Disputation and reply to the accusations of Johannes Eck” (Disputatio et excusatio adversus criminationes Joannis Eccii) . With the final thesis on papal primacy, Luther went beyond his previous statements on the subject: “That the Roman Church stands above all others is proven [only with weak arguments] from the ice-cold decrees of the Roman popes in the last 400 years, against which the The proven history of the first 1100 years, the text of the Holy Scriptures and the resolution of the Nicene Council , the holiest of all, are in place. ”Luther derived from the council resolutions of Nicaea that the bishops of Rome and Alexandria were equal.

While Luther was still left in the dark by Eck and Duke Georg whether he was allowed to take part in the disputation at all, the conflict between Eck and Luther came to a head through their subsequent correspondence with the Pope's authority. Karlstadt took a very different position from Luther on this issue. In his theses against Eck, which he published in April 1519, he emphasized that he was "an admirer of the Pope and an obedient member of the Church". But not only Karlstadt, but also other Wittenberg colleagues and the Nuremberg Scheurl found Luther's final thesis problematic. Such an unprotected statement would undoubtedly attack Eck. In order to prepare for this, Luther conducted in-depth studies of canon law and church history. Their result is the treatise published on June 6, 1519 with the title "Luther's declaration of his 13th thesis on the power of the Pope" (Resolutio Lutheriana super propositione sua decima tertia de potestate papae) . "This writing has the advantage over the disputation that Luther was able to develop his conception of the papacy far more systematically than was possible in the disputation," says Bernhard Lohse . Luther valued the councils of the old church, together with the church fathers, as they were relatively close to the New Testament in terms of time and content. On the other hand, he assessed the younger church tradition and its councils critically. In the correspondence with Hieronymus Dungersheim , which took place after the Leipzig disputation, Luther revealed which church historical sources were available to him: the Corpus Iuris Canonici , the church history of Eusebius and that of Cassiodor , the papal chronicle of Bartolomeo Platina , the writings of the church fathers (especially Augustine and Cyprian ), and finally the Greek canons of the Council of Nicaea. The resolution was a kind of literary substitute for participating in the disputation if Luther were not to be admitted. That is why Luther argued in this book strictly according to academic standards. According to the Protestant church historian Thomas Kaufmann , the fact that he apologized in the foreword for the difficult readability shows that he was expecting an audience that disputations were not familiar with. Even here, Luther strived to bring the discussion to a public outside the academic framework; this should be repeated in the course of the disputation and in its aftermath.

Public staging

Preliminary skirmish

Duke Georg of Saxony ( Lucas Cranach the Elder , 1524, Veste Coburg Collection )

The Protestant church historian Christopher Spehr characterizes the Leipzig disputation as a “theological congress of national importance with a publicly staged supporting program.” Immediately before the event began, Bishop Adolf von Merseburg issued a ban on the disputation, which was posted on a church door. George of Saxony had the messenger arrested, the ban mandate returned to the bishop, and took precautions to prevent any disturbances.

While nothing certain is known about the interest of the Leipzig population in Eck, Karlstadt or Luther, a large number of foreign visitors came. According to Mosellanus , many abbots, counts and knights of the Golden Fleece had come to witness the disputation, as well as numerous scholars and ignoramuses. Hieronymus Emser was present as the duke's chaplain, and the abbot von Lehnin had been sent by the Brandenburg bishop. Among the observers were Johann Lang from Erfurt, Thomas Müntzer , the Electoral Saxon councilor Hans von der Planitz , the Mansfeld councilor Johann Rühel and a Bohemian organ maker named Jakubek. Eck claimed several times that there were a number of " heretics " in the audience who had traveled from Prague .

Johannes Eck arrived in Leipzig on June 22, 1519, accompanied by a servant. The Leipzig local tradition that Eck lived with Mayor Benedikt Beringershain's house in Petersstrasse / corner of Thomasgäßchen is unoccupied.

On June 24th, the Wittenberg delegation entered the city through the Grimmasche Tor: Karlstadt was sitting in the front car, and he was carrying numerous books. In the second carriage, Luther and Melanchthon sat together with the future Duke Barnim IX. von Pomerania-Stettin, at that time Honorary Rector of the Wittenberg University. Nikolaus von Amsdorf and Johann Agricola had joined the delegation as colleagues. Around 200 students from Wittenberg, some of whom were armed with spears and halberds , walked alongside the car as an escort of honor. This student escort was a gesture of solidarity; it shows that at that time there was a great closeness between the Wittenberg student body and the relatively young professors Luther and Karlstadt. After his stay in the Wartburg in 1521/22, Luther was unable to continue in his later years as a professor.

During the three-week debate, the reformers lived with the printer Melchior Lotter in his house on Hainstrasse . Some of the students who traveled with them rioted in the city and made fun of harassing Eck. They rioted loudly in front of his quarters at night and tried to disrupt him during the disputation by picking up their swords. The Dresden court theologian Emser organized an escort of young masters from Leipzig University for Eck. City council servants accompanied Eck when he was out in Leipzig, so assaults were expected. The rivalry between the traditional University of Leipzig and the young Wittenberg University also played a role in this banter.

Organizational framework

The duke was present in person at times; He had entrusted his councilor Caesar Pflugk and his chancellor Johann Kochel with the organization and management of the event . These two also acted as referees during the disputation. Since the University of Leipzig could not provide a large hall, the disputation took place in the court room of the Pleißenburg . The room was decorated with tapestries . Two catheters had been set up for the opponents . The audience chose their seats near the chair of their preferred disputant, while the representatives of Leipzig University sat on Eck's side. 76 armed Leipzig citizens secured the event.

June 26th was devoted to discussing organizational issues between Eck and Karlstadt. The agreements between Eck and Luther were only made the following day - because Luther was officially a companion of Karlstadt, but not a disputant, until the beginning of the event. The winner of the disputation between Karlstadt and Eck was to be determined by the theological faculty of the University of Erfurt, while in the disputation between Eck and Luther, the theological faculties of the universities of Erfurt and Paris were to determine jointly, but with the exception of the members of the Dominican and Augustinian orders . Luther considered theologians and canon lawyers to be partial on the primacy question. He suggested that the arbitration should be transferred to the entire universities. Scholars from other faculties could also assess the matter. George of Saxony, who had to decide about it, rejected Luther's proposal.

Eck would have liked to have argued freely in the "Italian" way. As a trained disputation speaker, he could have scored points with his quick-wittedness. Karlstadt did not agree to it for good reason. Four notaries recorded all the speeches dictated to them by the disputants. As a result, the entertainment value decreased compared to the "Italian" disputation, on the other hand the audience was able to follow the argument more closely at the leisurely pace. As it turned out, some listeners also took notes. The plan to make the files of the disputation accessible only to the arbitral tribunal was rendered irrelevant by these unofficial transcripts.

program

The disputation began on June 27 with a ceremony. After Simon Pistoris the Elder had welcomed the entire auditorium on behalf of Leipzig University, they went to the church service together in the St. Thomas Church . The St. Thomas Choir performed a twelve-part mass composed by Georg Rhau for the occasion . The festival procession to Pleißenburg followed. This program point made an analogy between the disputation and a tournament .

The opening speech in the court room was given by Petrus Mosellanus , who as a humanistic Irishman called for a fair style of disputation. Thereupon all those present knelt and the Thomaner sang, accompanied by the town whistles , “Come, Holy Spirit”.

There were three interviews and seventeen disputation days:

• June 27th and 28th, June 30th to July 3rd: corner against Karlstadt;
• July 4th to 9th and July 11th to 13th: Eck against Luther;
• July 14th and 15th: corner against Karlstadt.

There was no disputation on June 29th, Peter and Paul’s Day. Barnim von Pomerania had requested Luther's sermon in the castle church. Due to overcrowding in the church, Luther preached in the disputation room. Coincidentally, Mt 16 : 13-19  LUT was the gospel of the day. This gave Luther the opportunity to present his position in sermon form; this sermon was later published in revised form. Eck then gave counter sermons in several Leipzig churches.

The duration of the event was dictated by the fact that Elector Joachim von Brandenburg was then a guest at Duke Georg von Sachsen, so the Pleißenburg should be used for other purposes. Similar to the opening, there was also a ceremony at the end of the disputation: a solemn Te Deum and a speech. "Luther probably no longer took part in it, since he had left to meet Staupitz."

While the Wittenberg delegation left the city immediately after the end of the event, Eck was celebrated as the winner for nine days in Leipzig. The fact that the Ingolstadt man knew how to enjoy the amenities offered to him and praised them in letters later provided the material for the satire Eccius dedolatus and Luther's denigration of Ecks as “Dr. Sau ”or the“ Pig from Ingolstadt ”.

Rules and strategies

A disputation followed fixed rules and was different from a discussion today. The reader of the Leipzig disputation protocols is confronted with the fact that the opponents disputed up to fifteen arguments simultaneously. "The actual subject of the dispute seems to be drowned out in a multitude of confusing secondary questions, chains of evidence and refutations, while disputes about procedural rules and decorum are being carried out." Before the disputation began, the participants in the so-called protestatio affirmed with an oath, everything that was practically in the heat of the moment what is said of them and what might offend against the teaching of the Church is only discussed as "disputative", but not asserted as "assertive".

Luther had been designated as the respondent through the previously determined distribution of roles . As such, he made the first move and threw his thesis in the ring (in Luther's case it was the 13th thesis from the previously printed series of theses). Then it was Eck's turn. In the role of the opponent , he had the first word and presented his opposition thesis. Luther, as the respondent, was only allowed to answer Eck's explanations; he had no opportunity to develop his own argumentation or to refer back to his original thesis. On the positive side, the respondent enjoyed the freedom to experiment. He did not need to bring any evidence for his own thesis; it was enough if he invalidated and destroyed everything that the opponent offered against him in terms of arguments - even if only for formal reasons.

Eck's opposition thesis and the evidence cited by Eck for it "form the matter out of which ... the Leipzig disputation unfolded into an increasingly complex structure of arguments, secondary arguments, conclusions, reasons and evidence." Both speakers sometimes let their supporters agree with the "Ammunition of new arguments" provide and criticized the same practice on the other side.

Luther's strategy was to lure Eck into a discussion about the Greek Church. Because the Eastern Church had not recognized the papal primacy. If the popes were unable to assert their claim to sovereignty in the Byzantine Empire for centuries, then it did not seem to be timeless and absolute. If Eck dealt with Luther's interspersed remarks on this topic, Luther could indirectly put his topics on the agenda of the disputation.

Positions of dispute

Image of the participants

Martin Luther as an Augustinian hermit (Lucas Cranach the Elder, 1520, Museum of Fine Arts, Houston ).

The audience compared the appearance of the disputants. There are several descriptions. Mosellanus, for example, wrote that Luther was of medium height and gaunt, polite and friendly, but a sharp polemicist. Karlstadt is small in stature, has a dark complexion, an indistinct voice and is irascible. Eck, on the other hand, is remarkably tall and strong, a good speaker with an excellent memory. He confused his opponents by the sheer amount of quotations and arguments quoted, which often did not belong to the topic.

Corner against Karlstadt

Eck and Karlstadt disputed about free will and its relationship both to divine grace and to good works. Here, between Karlstadt and Eck, central themes came up for Luther, and Karlstadt stood up for the defense of Wittenberg theology. The dean of Wittenberg lacked the oratorical talent; he cited laboriously from the books he had brought with him. Eck successfully applied for this to be forbidden to his opponent. So he could use his advantage in free disputing. In terms of argumentation, Eck was in the more difficult position, because he represented the cooperation of human will with divine grace, whereby the appearance of Pelagianism had to be avoided. However, Karlstadt did not succeed in exploiting the weaknesses of Eck's argumentation.

In detail:

• Eck was of the opinion that human free will is capable of cooperating with God's grace. However, he did not maintain this position and at times also maintained that free will depends on grace. Karlstadt did not succeed in getting Eck.
• The next round clearly went to Eck: Karlstadt failed to distinguish between primary and secondary causes of good behavior.
• In the concluding discussion, Karlstadt was able to put Eck into distress with the subject of grace as a prerequisite for good behavior. In order not to appear as a Pelagian heretic, Eck gave in. In doing so, however, he confused Karlstadt with fine differentiations in the doctrine of grace, so that Karlstadt could not ultimately use his stronger position.

Karlstadt made a somewhat deranged impression during the disputation. On arrival in Leipzig he had an accident with his touring car, fell and injured himself in the process; this apparently affected him. Nevertheless, according to the Protestant church historian Martin Brecht , Karlstadt's appearance was not a disaster, and Eck was not a clear winner. Eck himself had signaled to Karlstadt in the course of the talks that one could agree on the disputed questions. Although he initiated the disputation and had a higher position at the university than Luther, Karlstadt had to learn that Luther was in the public eye and that Eck, too, was evidently aiming to measure himself against Luther.

Eck against Luther

The exchange of blows between Eck and Luther is considered the highlight of the Leipzig disputation. In view of the complicated conduct of the conversation, the themes that Eck and Luther repeatedly took up are often presented by church historians not in chronological order but rather according to factual aspects. The Protestant church historian Kurt-Victor Selge sees the following topics:

• How do the Bible and the writings of the most important theologians of the first Christian centuries ( church fathers ) relate to one another? How is the Bible to be interpreted?
• What is the tradition of the Church Fathers on the question of papal suzerainty (primacy)?
• What is the authority of the Pope and the Council?
• What is the authoritative tradition in church history, which traditions are illegitimate?
• Are there politically rational aspects of the church constitution?

The Protestant church historian Anselm Schubert points out that the “top sentences” of both speakers were also elements of the respective strategy with which one wanted to steer the opponent in a certain direction. In addition, the set of rules forced all arguments of the other side to be processed in the manner of a mandatory program. He therefore sees the most interesting aspect of this speech duel in terms of the history of the Reformation not in the exchange of arguments, but in an escalation that occurred on the planned final day: As a respondent, Luther had the advantage that the last word should belong to him. Eck resorted to the usual but illegal means of denying the opponent the final word: he talked continuously for three hours. It was evening over this, and in the end Luther only had to politely regret that he did not have the time for an answer. If that had been the end of the disputation, Eck would have been the winner according to the rules, since Luther would no longer have refuted Eck's last arguments according to the protocol. The Electoral Saxon Council von der Planitz then appealed to the Duke, and the disputation was extended by two days. The next morning Luther presented his refutations on Eck's last arguments. But he not only kept his closing remarks, but addressed the audience in a few sentences in German. He declared that he did not challenge the sovereignty of the Roman church and the obedience due to it, only its derivation from divine law. According to Schubert, this brief speech was the highlight of the event. Luther turned to the public instead of the adversary and the organizing faculty. He switched from Latin to German, making it obvious that he was leaving the academic framework. That the public should form an opinion and judge the arguments was completely new. This blatant violation of rules by Luther had a strong response.

Biblical justification of the papal office

From July 4th, the primacy was discussed. It was Eck who dictated the course of the discussion to Luther. His opposition thesis, the material for the whole of the following primacy discussion, was: "The sole rule and supremacy in the church is established out of divine right and through Christ, which is why the text of the Holy Scriptures and the general understanding of history do not contradict them."

Eck's argument was based on the following understanding of the church:

• Christ is the head of the heavenly, victorious Church (ecclesia triumphans) ;
• the Pope is the head of the earthly, fighting Church (ecclesia militans) .

In several conversations, Eck headed towards the question of who had the highest authority in the Church: the Pope, the Council or who else? He was willing to take most of his arguments from the Bible and the writings of the Church Fathers . With this he came to meet Luther. The scholasticism was in this discussion is of secondary importance. Eck was able to use the New Testament to argue for his position that the successor of Peter was the monarch of the church based on divine law. In the Gospels, Simon Peter has a special place among the disciples. Luther relied on the authority of Paul to relativize the biblical passages quoted by Eck : Christ is the head of the church. Eck basically read the Bible with the interpretations of the church fathers, while Luther was prepared to use the Bible alone to argue against the church fathers. The Catholic church historian Heribert Smolinsky sums up: "The question of the primacy appeared as a problem of the interpretation of Scripture, as the different interpretations of Mt 16:18  LUT and Joh 21:17  LUT by Luther and Eck showed." Volker Leppin points out, that Eck and Luther shared a common basis, both affirmed the authority of the Bible and the church fathers. Luther, however, tends to perceive the contrast between the Bible and church teaching (difference model), while Eck tries to reconcile both (harmony model).

Rank of the Popes in the first Christian centuries

Luther had prepared himself especially for the discussion about the papacy in the course of church history. He represented an honorary priority of the Bishop of Rome, but the independence of the Eastern churches is a historical fact. The ecclesiological reality of the Eastern Churches stands against the claim to primacy of the Roman Church. Here Luther used his church history studies that he had done before the disputation. His standard was the practice of the ancient church :

1. The Alexandrian and Roman city churches were each responsible for the surrounding areas.
2. The Bishop of Jerusalem had an honorary primacy over the entire Church. Luther declared, according to Leif Grane , "that all conversations about the origin do not lead us to Rome, but to Jerusalem, to the mother of all churches (matrix omnium ecclesiarum) ".
3. The Greek bishops were not confirmed by Rome.

Eck admitted the latter for the Old Church, but said that the Pope had sovereignty over all priests. The argument with the Greek Church does not provide anything for the topic, because the Orthodox have fallen away from the Roman Church as schismatics and heretics . For Eck they were thus outside Christianity, while for Luther the ecclesiastical character of the Eastern Church naturally persisted even after the schism .

According to the Catholic church historian Franz Xaver Bishop , Eck had "a difficult time" against Luther's appeal to the undivided church of the first millennium . Whether Eck was clear, however, must remain open. In any case, Eck shifted the discussion to recent church history. He used the associations that resonate with the word schism to lead over from the Greek Church to the Bohemian Church .

Condemnation of Hus at the Council of Constance

Execution of Jan Hus at the Council of Constance (Spiezer Chronik, 1485)

Eck justified his view of the papal office with the bull Unam sanctam (1302), in which the need for salvation of the papal primacy was taught in a pointed form. He stressed that John Wyclif and Jan Hus had been convicted of heretics because of their criticism of this bull. On the morning of July 5th, Eck Luther presented a few sentences by Hus that had condemned the Council of Constance in 1415, including this one: "Peter is and was not the head of the holy Catholic Church." Luther explained that not all of them were then condemned sentences of Hus are heretical. Some of them are even entirely Christian and Protestant. (Duke Georg was so indignant that he jumped up, cursing.)

Schubert thinks that Luther recognized from the course of the discussion so far that Eck did not address the topic of the Greek Church that was thrown as bait. Instead, Eck provoked with the heretic issue and waited for Luther to make a mistake. In this situation, Luther carried out a risky tactical maneuver and linked Eck's Hussite accusation with his own argument from the Greek Church: Hus was condemned for saying that it was not necessary to believe that the Roman Church was higher than the other churches. The saints of the Greek Church would not have believed that either. In order to be able to bring this argument according to the current rules of the game, Luther had to confirm a sentence by Hus that had been declared heretical (“certum”). With that he left the security area that had been marked out with the protestatio at the beginning.

The possibility of errors in councils

Eck, who had worked towards such a statement by his opponent, was clearer about the consequences than Luther himself. Like an inexperienced cook, Luther mixed what should never be mixed together: holiness and heresy. While Luther wanted to discuss the content of the condemned sentences, the mere fact that the council had declared them heretical was enough for Eck. Eck now appeared as a defender of the Council of Constance. Luther actually wanted to hold on to the authority of council decisions, but was compelled by Eck's skillful argumentation to admit that they could be mistaken. Thomas Kaufmann assesses this critical phase of the disputation as follows: “With the affirmation of any condemned article, Eck eo ipso found the facts of heresy; that Luther thought he could find Christian statements among the 'damnable errors' of Hussens, he interpreted logically compelling as a questioning of the authority of the councils. According to Eck, this formal criteriology was sufficient to prove Luther's heresy. "

From now on the disputation had become personally dangerous for Luther. It was no longer covered by the protestatio and had to defend against the accusation of heretics in any case, because it could have consequences beyond the academic event. This defensive strategy determined Luther's further arguments on the subject of councils. Luther was able to quote Panormitanus, a recognized authority, that councils are capable of error . However, according to Franz Xaver Bischof, Luther was already moving in a borderline area here: "To claim that a certain council was factually wrong and not just hypothetically claiming that a council could be wrong was a novelty ..." No longer by Panormitanus Luther's formulation that the council was a "creature of the word" (creatura verbi) , that is, a historically grown institution that was subordinate and subordinate to the authority of the Holy Scriptures, was covered. Luther then specified, however, that neither a whole council nor the church as a whole had erred on questions of faith. For Eck, on the other hand, it was unthinkable that a lawful council could err in even just one individual decision. Everything that a lawfully assembled council had established is quite certain, since the Holy Spirit was present at it.

In retrospect, Luther later described Eck as the “winner” of the Leipzig disputation, because the latter had forced him to draw conclusions from his previous statements, which he had not yet wanted to draw.

Authority of the bible

The further course of the disputation between Eck and Luther did not have the same intensity. From July 8th, purgatory was discussed, on July 11th indulgences were on the agenda, and the last two days were about repentance. In discussing purgatory, Luther first distinguished between canonical biblical books and apocrypha ; The purgatory was justified with reference to 2 Makk 12.45  LUT . Luther took the view here that not all biblical sentences are equally important, but that their meaning should be weighted from the center of the scriptures . He refused to justify teaching articles from the Apocrypha. Eck replied that the Maccabees did not belong to the Hebrew canon, but the church had included them in its canon. Luther held against it that the church could not give any book more authority than this one by itself possesses.

Judgment of the Universities of Erfurt and Paris

According to the agreement, the theologians and canonists of the Universities of Erfurt and Paris should have jointly declared one of the disputants the winner after examining the files. In October Luther heard rumors that the Erfurters would choose Eck. He announced that he would defend himself against his conviction in German and Latin. So Luther tried, according to Brecht, by intimidation to prevent an academic judgment. On December 29, 1519, however, the Erfurt theologians announced that they would not be able to give a judgment for formal reasons. According to Brecht, Luther's supporter Johann Lang had campaigned for this vote in Erfurt. This also meant that the publication ban on the texts of the disputation was no longer applicable, and Lang made sure that they were printed in Erfurt.

Both Johannes Eck and Georg von Sachsen continued to try to get a verdict from the Paris University without the Erfurters. On October 4, the files with the official application were sent to the Sorbonne. A commission met there in December; each of the 24 members was to receive a copy of the files , and Duke Georg was to bear the printing costs. Paris did not give a verdict on the Leipzig disputation, but Luther's writings were condemned in April 1521.

Public opinion formation

Polemical leaflet from the time of Luther's heretic trial. In the middle Pope Leo X as an antichrist. Luther's opponents wear animal masks, including Emser as Bock and Eck as “Dr. Sow"

After the disputation, an opinion-forming process began that turned out to be in Luther's favor and earned him sympathy, especially among humanists. It is true that there was a ban on publishing the official minutes before the decision of the Universities of Erfurt and Paris. But this was "effectively undermined by other, as authentic-looking progress documentation." In effect, according to Kaufmann, the event of the disputation was downright degraded by the journalism that took place before and after.

Soon after the Leipzig disputation, the disputants spoke up with their own publications. A literary feud developed between Karlstadt and Eck, which turned into an exchange of insults and was factually without interest. Luther published "declarations" (resolutions) on his Leipzig theses, Eck responded on September 2, 1519 with a "cleansing" (Expurgatio ... adversus criminationes F. Martini Lutter) , in which he assured that concern for the church motivates him. Luther responded with an open letter dated November 7, 1519. In it he declared Eck a hypocrite, not least because he had been convicted in the disputation with Karlstadt to represent the Pelagian heresy and now continued to adhere to it.

There were reports and statements of varying quality from the Leipzig audience. The physician Heinrich Stromer and the lawyer Simon Pistoris , who were close to Luther, said that Luther emerged victorious from the disputation. Petrus Mosellanus thought the disputation had failed. The Leipzig faculty gave Eck a very good certificate, and Johannes Cellarius and Johannes Rubius also praised Eck's performance. Rubius, a student who moved from Wittenberg to Leipzig, wrote his script in poor Latin (another in German followed, also with severe flaws) and prompted Johannes Eisermann from Wittenberg to give a satirical answer under the pseudonym Nemo ; Cellarius reacted angrily (as Nullus ) and mentioned that the University of Leipzig was trying to remove Rubius' writings, which were perceived as embarrassing, from circulation.

Melanchthon wrote an impartial report (Epistola de Lipsica Disputatione) , which he sent to Johannes Oekolampad in Augsburg and which soon appeared in print. He criticized Eck's style of disputation and praised Luther's education and eloquence. The work concluded with a declaration of love for Luther's “true and pure Christian spirit”. Eck published a reply in which he disqualified Melanchthon as a theologically incompetent “grammarian”. This reproach did not apply to Melanchthon and worked more in favor of Melanchthon and thus also of Luther.

The Leipzig professor Hieronymus Dungersheim , who began an exchange of letters with Luther in October 1519, took an unusual route in the heated climate . He tried to convince Luther through factual arguments that the Council of Nicaea had already recognized the Roman primacy. In doing so, he relied on a text from the Pseudoisidoric Decretals , a collection of canonical forgeries from the early Middle Ages. Luther replied negatively that he knew where it was written. He showed little interest in the exchange with Dungersheim and ended the correspondence in the summer of 1520 in a harsh form.

The Dresden court theologian Hieronymus Emser wrote a report on the events in Leipzig for Johannes Zack, administrator of the Archdiocese of Prague and Probst von Leitmeritz . It was a kind of expert opinion, since the recipient must have a special interest in Luther's position on the conflicts in Bohemia. He made it clear that Luther did not identify with the Hussites, but only demanded friendly conversations with them. Luther could have reacted objectively to this relatively moderate vote. But he covered Emser, which he dubbed “Capricorn” or “Bock” because of his coat of arms, with violent polemics. Eck also entered into this literary feud on Emser's side.

In 1519, the Nuremberg council clerk Lazarus Spengler , in response to the Leipzig disputation, wrote a vernacular defense of Luther (Schutzred and Christian answer ains merciful lover, godly truth of the sharks) , which, according to Thomas Kaufmann, was particularly effective because of its anonymity: The author claims a place Beyond the scholarly dispute, he expressed concern on issues that concern all Christians. The anonymus represents, as it were, public opinion. Spengler was not among the audience in Leipzig. As a humanist and theological autodidact, however, he had studied all of Luther's publications. The "protective speech" describes the Bible, God's word, as a norm of Christian life accessible to everyone, and it is Luther who asserts it against the human words of his opponents.

With the anonymous satire "Der enteckte Eck" ( Eccius dedolatus ) Eck was ridiculed in humanist circles. In addition to Eck himself and fictional people, Rubius from Leipzig also appeared as Eck's devoted friend. The work, behind which Willibald Pirckheimer is believed to be the main author, first circulated as a manuscript in the Network of Sodalities before it was printed in the early summer of 1520.

aftermath

Melanchthon

After the Leipzig disputation, Melanchthon saw the need to grasp the authority of the Bible ( Sola scriptura ) more clearly - since the authority of the Pope and councils had been relativized. On September 9, 1519 he submitted the following bachelor thesis for discussion: "It is not necessary for a Catholic to believe others beyond the things that are testified to him by Scripture". Melanchthon was ahead of Luther and pulled him with him. Luther only formulated corresponding theses in 1520 in his program publication On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church .

Luther

Donation of the Last Supper as an allegory of the Reformation: Luther and Hus distribute hosts and wine to members of the Saxon royal family (Master of Saxony, around 1551/75, Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nürnberg )

In retrospect, Luther Eck's maneuver, with which he had urged him to declare his sympathy for the Hussites, turned into a journalistic success for his cause. Because the Wittenbergers dealt offensively with Eck's heresy accusation. They relied on, according to Thomas Kaufmann , “that the image of the Hussites outside of school theology was by no means as negative as heresiologists such as Tetzel or Eck had assumed.” The political backing of the court of Electoral Saxony was particularly important. He stood up to the allegations that Luther represented the Hussite heresy, demonstratively uninterested.

On the fringes of the Leipzig event there was a conversation between Luther and the Bohemian organ builder Jakubek. Luther had stated that he would like to get to know Hus by reading his own writings. Wenzel von Roždalowsky, provost at the Kaiser-Karl-Kolleg in Prague, was informed by Jakubek and immediately sent Luther a copy of Hus' main work About the Church ( De ecclesia ) . Jan Poduška, priest at the Tyn Church in Prague , wrote to Luther that there were many in Bohemia who prayed for him. At the end of 1519 and the beginning of 1520, Luther identified with Hus. He told Spalatin : "We are all ignorant Hussites". Similarities existed in the conception of the church and the question of the lay chalice . But at the beginning of 1520 Luther felt a particular bond with the martyr Hus. In October 1520 he made his sympathies for Hus publicly known; In the book Von den neue Eckische Bullen und Lügen , he declared that not some, but all of Jan Hus's sentences, which had been condemned in Constance, were Christian and true. He hoped that God would also honor him, Luther, to be martyred for these articles. As the Reformation progressed, Hus was increasingly stylized as Luther's predecessor, including by Luther himself. Eck had constructed the historical line of continuity from Hus to Luther in the run-up to the Leipzig disputation and then at the height of this event. But Luther made it his own and expanded it further. This construction of continuity became "an integral and essential part of the historical-historical-theological self-interpretation of Lutheran Protestantism ," said Kaufmann. Bohemian brothers and Utraquists preserved their Hussite tradition under Luther's influence.

As he immersed himself in church history, Luther began to raise concerns that the Pope was the antichrist . That this figure prophesied in the Bible was at the head of Christianity could only mean that the end of the world was near. In the Leipzig disputation, this topic explicitly played no role. But it increasingly preoccupied Luther. The reformer developed an apocalyptic view of history .

Corner

Shortly after the disputation ended, Eck wrote to Luther's sovereign Friedrich the Wise . He informed him from his point of view about Luther's teaching and combined this with an appeal to take political action against him. Karlstadt and Luther had to comment on these allegations. They accused Eck of deceit and declared that it was only about differences of opinion on issues of indulgence, purgatory and papacy; only in repentance is there a real difference between Eck and them. Eck saw it differently. With his letter of November 8, 1519, he made it clear that he had evidence of heresies. A provincial synod should examine Luther's teaching. At this point in time, Eck sought Luther's condemnation at the regional level.

In the fall of 1519 Eck also wrote to Pope Leo X. He informed him that he had won the Leipzig disputation and made suggestions on how to proceed against Luther's Hussite heresy. He himself wished to work as an inquisitor in Thuringia, Meißen and the Mark Brandenburg. Eck wrote three books on the primacy of Peter (De primatu Petri) to refute Luther, which he dedicated to Leo X and took with him on his trip to Rome in the spring of 1520. He arrived there on March 25th and was received in an honorable audience. The Catholic church historian Erwin Iserloh characterized the work De primatu Petri as follows: “In his exegesis he hits the literal sense of the texts in a much more factual way than Luther ... [But:] He accumulates the evidence without weighting it and thus deprives himself of the journalistic Effect."

The heresy proceedings against Luther entered a new stage in 1520; after the election of the emperor, one no longer had to take the Saxon elector into consideration. But so far people in Rome have been poorly informed about Luther's views. Eck was able to convey a comprehensive picture of his positions. Thereupon a commission met to formulate a bull threatening excommunication. It included the cardinals Pietro Accolti and Thomas Cajetan , the theology professor Johannes Hispanus and Eck himself. On May 2, Eck informed the Pope about the status of the deliberations. The Bull Exsurge Domine was published on July 24th by posting on St. Peter's Church and the papal chancellery on Campo de 'Fiori . Eck took on the task of making the bull known as papal nuncio in the Saxon dioceses, Electoral Saxony and Upper Germany.

Zwingli

The Swiss reformer Huldrych Zwingli saw the Leipzig disputation (and not the posting of the theses) as the beginning of the Reformation. He thus stands for a large number of theologians with a humanistic stamp who turned to Luther after this event. For these contemporaries it was fascinating that Luther relativized the authority of both the papacy and the councils and that the Bible was the only authority.

Research history

Text of the disputation

The Latin text of the entire disputation was edited by Valentin Ernst Löscher in 1729 ( Complete Reformation Acta and Documenta , Volume 3). Löscher stated that he had used a print of the official protocol from 1519 and a private postscript; but he rarely made use of this manuscript. The disputation between Luther and Eck is included in several editions of Luther's works, but all of these editions (including WA 2, 254–383) go back to the same sources that Löscher had.

There are said to have been over 30 listeners' transcripts. One that Löscher had as a manuscript can be found in the library of the Geschwister-Scholl-Gymnasium Freiberg . Another private transcript that Otto Clemen edited in 1930 is in the Nuremberg City Library . The text that Löscher and others took to be the official protocol was printed in 1519 in the office of Matthes Maler zu Erfurt. Johannes Lang was the editor - but the notarial minutes were not used as the basis for the text, but rather a listener's transcript.

The official protocol manuscripts are lost. Several copies of a print by Jodocus Badius (January 1520) from the Paris office that were based on the official protocol have survived. The Paris University initiated this pressure in order to be able to pass its judgment in the speech duel between Eck and Luther. Therefore, the disputation between Eck and Karlstadt is not included. The Bibliothèque nationale in Paris owns two copies of this very rare print , two the British Library and one the Pitts Theological Library in Atlanta . One copy is in the library of the Predigerseminar Wittenberg. There Otto Seitz came across this text, which he published in 1903.

The 59th volume of the Weimar edition contains a text-critical edition of the unauthorized protocol printed in December 1519 under the title Disputatio inter Ioannem Eccium et Martinum Lutherum. It was in this version that the text of the disputation achieved the most prominence among contemporaries.

Historical reception

“Eck, as he boasted and Luther also admitted, left the square as the winner of the disputation, while the Wittenberg professor and his entourage made the media public - and the historical reception! - dominated. ”( Franz Xaver Bischof ) Despite its importance for the evangelical self-image, the topic was treated relatively little; Johann Karl Seidemann submitted the only monograph as early as 1843. Kurt-Victor Selge worked out the historical background of the disputation (1973 and 1975), which was received, for example, by Martin Brecht in his Luther biography (1983).

In the following, three classifications of the disputation within the history of the Reformation are presented, which can be considered classic due to their wide awareness.

Leopold von Ranke, 1850s

Leopold von Ranke's German History in the Age of the Reformation (Volume 1: 1839) marked the beginning of modern Reformation historiography . The work was widely received in the 19th century because of its appealing literary design. Ranke values ​​very strongly: As a scholar, Eck benefited from his extensive training, his intelligence and his memory. But all of this only serves him "to attract attention, to get further, to create an enjoyable and happy life." With this he forms the opposite of the serious, profound seeker of truth, Luther. According to Ranke, the speech duel between the two German “peasant sons” is a turning point in history because they stand for two alternative worldviews. "The future state of the church and the state largely depended on the outcome of their struggle, the successes of one in attack and the other in resistance." After Leipzig, Luther no longer recognized the authority of the Roman church in questions of faith. Luther had taken valuable new resources with him from this disputation, namely knowledge of the Greek and Bohemian churches: "All spirits and forces gather around him, who have ever made war on the papacy."

Johannes Janssen, around 1870

The very material history of the German people since the end of the Middle Ages by Johannes Janssen came as the work of a Catholic historian against the background of the Kulturkampf to the opposite assessment of characters: Eck is a "conservative nature" in a positive sense and at the same time open to new scientific developments , “A man of very unusual talent and a rare freshness and agility of the spirit.” Luther, on the other hand, considered his cause to be God's, “all his assertions appeared to him as established truths, from which he could never give up.” Janssen found Luther's point of view by the Pope and the Church in the resolution that Luther published in preparation for the disputation. The Leipzig disputation brought nothing new to Luther's development. Accordingly, Janssen treated this event relatively succinctly and repeatedly referred to Seidemann's monograph for the details. Janssen pointed out that the disputation was carried out despite the prohibition of the church authorities and against the resistance of the Leipzig University, at the instigation of George of Saxony: the secular authority had intervened in church matters.

Karl Heussi formulated in his Compendium of Church History , a standard work written from a confessional Lutheran perspective: the Leipzig disputation had "pushed Luther a good bit forward on the trodden path". So it was not a historic turning point. The criticism of indulgences has expanded into a fundamental contradiction against the papal church. For some time, Luther's movement and humanism almost merged thanks to the sympathies that Wittenberg won after the disputation. Heussi refers here to the modern Wittenberg university operations and Philipp Melanchthon's effectiveness at the university and as a colleague of Luther. Thus, in the first half of the 20th century, a scientific consensus was established regarding the importance of the disputation for Luther.

In contrast, the 20th century brought a better understanding of the theologian Johannes Eck, initiated by Joseph Greving's book Johann Eck als Junge Scholar (Münster 1906). Erwin Iserloh wrote a standard work in 1981, the title of which characterizes Eck as a scholastic, humanist, controversial theologian . If von Ranke were right, the preoccupation with Eck as a theologian would not be fruitful, since he only recognized a kind of virtuosity in him. This is seen differently today. It is noteworthy that Catholic and Protestant church historians at the Luther and Eck conference , which took place in Munich in March 2017, highlighted the similarities between the two protagonists. Both were professors, preachers, polemicists, Bible translators, reformers - and anti-Judaistic in their thinking. The comparative perspective shows "how both of them served a seemingly common theological role profile of their time," said Franz Xaver Bischof and Harry Oelke in the foreword of the conference proceedings they published.

Artistic reception

Leipzig Disputation, colored woodcut from 1557 ( Ludwig Rabus , Histories of the Holy Chosen Witnesses of God )

Leipzig disputation, etching by Gustav König from the cycle on Luther's life

The Leipzig disputation was included several times in picture cycles on Luther's life or the history of the Reformation. Gustav König's depiction of the Leipzig disputation from the cycle of his very popular etchings on Luther's life from 1846 to 1851 was of outstanding quality . Because König had carried out historical studies, so that his rendering of the topic was on a par with Luther research at the time. In the 1860s, the Leipzig disputation was twice on the subject of large-format history paintings. Both Julius Huebner and Carl Friedrich Lessing cited König's etching. The conflict with König is particularly evident in the figure of Melanchthon. König places the Wittenberg professor of Greek on a chair next to Luther's chair. Melanchthon seems introverted and passive, because König seemed appropriate in view of Melanchthon's youth - it is hardly historically accurate.

The audience of Huebner and Lessing expected a Luther who looked as they knew him from the Cranach pictures from his later years: a broad face, a plump figure who was identified with positive values ​​such as security, steadfastness, authority. The historical Luther of 1519, on the other hand, was gaunt, as Mosellanus wrote and as he can be seen in Cranach's portrait from 1520. For the artists the question arose how far they wanted to strive for historical correctness or to meet the expectations of the audience.

Julius Huebner

Martin Luther's disputation with Johannes Eck, collotype of the painting by Julius Hübner that was destroyed in 1945

The oil painting "Martin Luther's disputation with Johannes Eck" by Julius Hübner was created between 1863 and 1866. It measured 328 × 617 cm, was in the Neue Meister gallery (Dresden) and was lost in the war. However, the color sketch for the painting (48.3 × 87.5 cm, 1864), which is in the Weimar Art Collection, has been preserved. Eck (left) and Luther (right) stand opposite each other at their chairs, next to each is a notary who takes notes. Before Luther, the Wittenberg theologians Karlstadt and Melanchthon can be recognized. A fool crouches at Eck's feet . In the middle of the picture, Duke Georg of Saxony is enthroned, next to him the young Barnim of Pomerania. While the latter seems interested but relaxed, the body language of Georg von Sachsen expresses a lot of excitement. His gaze is directed towards Luther. The latter has stretched out his right hand in a defensive gesture towards Eck, who attacks him with arguments, and looks as if entranced at the sky. Overall, Huebner tried very hard to achieve realism, losing himself in the details, but he deviated from this principle when portraying Luther. It shows the idealized reformer in a monumental pose. Although Luther wears his black religious robe , he turns his head just so that the monk's tonsure cannot be seen.

Carl Friedrich Lessing

In 1867 Carl Friedrich Lessing created the oil painting “Disputation between Luther and Eck on the Pleißenburg in Leipzig” (308 × 438 cm), which is in the Staatliche Kunsthalle Karlsruhe . The fact that both history paintings were created almost at the same time invited comparisons, whereby Lessing's work was judged more favorably. The basic structure of the picture is the same: Luther (left) and Eck (right) standing opposite each other at their catheters, the seated duke in the center of the picture. But Luther is not on the defensive, he is clearly going on the attack with Lessing. The left hand rests on the open Bible, the right arm is raised in an elegant gesture (similar to Gustav König's depiction of the scene) with the palm of the hand open upwards, with Luther leaning a little forward at the same time. Eck seems to shrink back, startled. The fact that Luther is on the left and the corner on the right underscores who is represented here actively acting. The reading direction supports the message of the picture. Apparently Lessing based the scene that Leopold von Ranke had highlighted as the central moment of the Leipzig disputation: “The unshakable Luther never wavered. He dared to say that among the articles by Johann Huss ... there are some basic Christian and Protestant ones. There was general astonishment. Duke Georg, who was present, put his hands on his sides; Shaking his head, he called out his curse: 'It's addictive.' ”Lessing portrayed the Duke as he jumped up, his hands already resting on his sides. Lessing's Luther wears a doctoral hat. He's not necessarily gaunt, but youthful, which irritated the audience. Compared to Hübner, Lessing reduced the number of people portrayed, dispensed with unnecessary details and brought the opponents closer together. The result is a less theatrical, natural-looking scene. Nonetheless, Lessing takes sides, he shows "the victory of the Protestant principle over the Catholic, of the free spirit over backwardness and doctrinal persistence".

Rudolf Siemering

Eck and Luther at the Eisleben monument

The Luther memorial created by Rudolf Siemering on the market square in Eisleben was unveiled in 1883 as part of the celebrations for Luther's 400th birthday. Four relief plates on the granite base of the bronze figure of Luther represent the allegory of the victory of good over evil, Luther as a Bible translator, Luther with his family and Luther's confrontation with Eck at the Leipzig disputation. In the popular journal Gartenlaube , this relief plate was made like this on the occasion of the unveiling of the monument explains: “Here the wordy defender of medieval ideas, nourished by sophistic wisdom; there the granular Augustinian who was strengthened by God's Word. These two profiles - Luther and Eck - embody two fundamentally different world and life views, as they are also expressed in Eck's decretals and in Luther's Bible. "

Place of remembrance in Leipzig

On the occasion of the Reformation anniversary in 2017, a place of remembrance for the Leipzig disputation was opened to the public on May 11, 2017 . The Leipzig artist Harald Alff designed the memorial installation on behalf of the city's cultural office. Two similar medallions made of stainless steel with the portraits and biographies of Luther and Eck are included in the installation, as well as an explanatory text. The place of remembrance is at the New Town Hall as the successor to the Pleißenburg.

Façade figures on the Burgplatz-Passage house

Façade figures at the Burgplatz Passage

The Petersbogen extension at Burgplatz-Passage on Leipzig Burgplatz ( Christoph Kohl Urban Planner Architects CKSA, Berlin), inaugurated on June 20, 2019, refers to the Leipzig disputation with six man-high facade figures made of Cotta sandstone. The idea for these figures comes from Christoph Kohl. You can see: Johannes Eck, Georg von Sachsen, Martin Luther (lower row from left), Petrus Mosellanus, Johannes Calvin and Johann Langius Lembergius (upper row from left). With the figure of the reformer Calvin, who had no direct reference to the Leipzig disputation, a wish of the Swiss owners was met.

literature

• Franz Xaver Bishop : Pope and General Council: The argumentation Ecks. In: Franz Xaver Bischof, Harry Oelke (eds.): Luther and Eck: Opponents of the Reformation History in Comparison. Allitera, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-86906-937-1 , pp. 91-106.
• Martin Brecht : Martin Luther. Volume 1: His Path to the Reformation 1483–1521. 2nd edition, Calwer Verlag, Stuttgart 1983, ISBN 3-7668-0678-5 .
• Leif Grane : Martinus noster. Luther in the German Reform movement 1518–1521 (= publications of the Institute for European History. Volume 55). Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 1994, ISBN 3-8053-1652-6 , pp. 81-114.
• Henrike Holsing: Luther - God's man and national hero: his image in German history painting of the 19th century (dissertation). Cologne 2004 ( PDF ).
• Erwin Iserloh : Johannes Eck (1486–1543): Scholastic, humanist, controversial theologian (= Catholic life and church reform in the age of religious schism. Volume 41). Aschendorff, Münster 1981, ISBN 3-402-03340-2 .
• Johannes Janssen: History of the German People: Since the End of the Middle Ages , Volume 2, Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau 1876.
• Thomas Kaufmann : The beginning of the Reformation. Studies on the contextuality of theology, journalism and staging of Luther and the Reformation movement. 2nd, revised and corrected edition. Mohr, Tübingen 2018, ISBN 3-16-156327-1 .
• Thomas Kaufmann: The middle of the Reformation: A study of book printing and journalism in the German-speaking area, their actors and their strategies, forms of presentation and expression. Mohr, Tübingen 2019, ISBN 978-3-16-156606-6 .
• Armin Kohnle: The Leipzig disputation and its significance for the Reformation. In: Markus Hein, Armin Kohnle (Hrsg.): The Leipzig Disputation 1519: 1st Leipzig working discussion on the Reformation. Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Leipzig 2011, ISBN 3-374-02793-8 , pp. 9–24.
• Volker Leppin : Luther and Eck - Endless Disputes? In: Jürgen Bärsch , Konstantin Maier (ed.): Johannes Eck (1486–1543). Scholastic - humanist - controversial theologian (= Eichstätter Studies. Volume 20). Pustet, Regensburg 2014, ISBN 978-3-7917-2538-3 , pp. 131-160.
• Bernhard Lohse : Luther's theology in its historical development and in its systematic context. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1995, ISBN 3-525-52197-9 ( digitized version ).
• Leopold von Ranke: German history in the age of the Reformation . Volume 1, Leipzig 1839 ( digitized version ).
• Anselm Schubert : Libertas Disputandi: Luther and the Leipzig Disputation as an academic debate. In: Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 105 (2008), pp. 411–442.
• Anselm Schubert: The word as a weapon in Luther. In: Franz Xaver Bischof, Harry Oelke (eds.): Luther and Eck: Opponents of the Reformation History in Comparison. Allitera, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-86906-937-1 , pp. 251-264.
• Johann Karl Seidemann : The Leipzig disputation in 1519. Historically presented from previously unused sources and explained by means of documents . Dresden and Leipzig 1843.
• Otto Seitz: The authentic text of the Leipzig disputation between Luther and Eck , Berlin 1903 ( digitized ).
• Kurt-Victor Selge : The way to the Leipzig disputation. In: Bernd Moeller , Gerhard Ruhbach (Hrsg.): Remaining in the change of church history. Mohr, Tübingen 1973, ISBN 3-16-135332-3 , pp. 168-210.
• Kurt-Victor Selge: The Leipzig disputation between Luther and Eck. In: Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 86 (1975), pp. 26–40.
• Christopher Spehr : Luther and the Council: On the development of a central theme in the Reformation period (= contributions to historical theology. Volume 153). Mohr, Tübingen 2010, ISBN 978-3-16-150474-7 .
• Christopher Spehr: Pope and General Council: The Argumentation of Luther. In: Franz Xaver Bischof, Harry Oelke (eds.): Luther and Eck: Opponents of the Reformation History in Comparison. Allitera, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-86906-937-1 , pp. 75–90.
• Christian Winter: The minutes of the Leipzig disputation. In: Markus Hein, Armin Kohnle (Hrsg.): The Leipzig Disputation 1519: 1st Leipzig working discussion on the Reformation. Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Leipzig 2011, ISBN 978-3-374-02793-4 , pp. 35–44.

Web links

Commons : Leipzig Disputation  - Collection of Images

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Birgit-Ulrike Münch, Andreas Tacke: Art . In: Helga Schnabel-Schüle (Ed.): Reformation: Historisch- Kulturwissenschaftliches Handbuch , JBMetzler Verlag, Stuttgart 2017, ISBN 978-3-476-02593-7 , pp. 346–353, here p. 346.
2. ↑ Bodenstein followed a custom among academics and named himself after his place of origin. The same also applies to Eck, who was actually called Mayer and came from Egg an der Günz . The common names of the two in the specialist literature are used in the article.
3. ↑ Irene Dingel : Reformation: Centers - Actors - Events. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2016, ISBN 978-3-7887-3032-1 , p. 173.
4. ↑ Irene Dingel: Reformation: Centers - Actors - Events. Göttingen 2016, p. 176.
5. ↑ ^{a b} Bernd Moeller : History of Christianity in Fundamentals , 5th verb. and exp. Edition, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1992, ISBN 3-525-03280-3 , p. 231.
6. ↑ Erwin Iserloh: Johannes Eck , Münster 1981, p. 22 f.
7. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 160.
8. ^ Anselm Schubert: The word as a weapon in Luther , Munich 2017, p. 252.
9. ↑ Thomas Kaufmann: The middle of the Reformation . Tübingen 2019, p. 487.
10. ↑ Peter Fabisch, Erwin Iserloh (ed.): Documents on the Causa Lutheri (1517–1521): The Prierias' report and other writings against Luther's theses on the indulgences (1517–1518) (Corpus Catholicorum) Aschendorff, Münster 1988, ISBN 978-3- 402-03455-2 , p. 376.
11. ^ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 205.
12. ↑ Erwin Iserloh: Johannes Eck , Münster 1981, p. 23.
13. ↑ Erwin Iserloh: Johannes Eck , Münster 1981, p. 24.
14. ^ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 285.
15. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 206.
16. ↑ Thesis 48: "One must teach Christians: As the Pope needs it more, so he would prefer a pious prayer for himself when granting indulgences rather than willingly paid money." Thesis 57: "It is evident that there are no temporal treasures (suppl . which are distributed at the indulgence), because many of the preachers do not distribute them so easily, but only collect them. ”(Martin Luther: Disputation to clarify the power of indulgences. In: Latin-German study edition , Volume 2: Christ belief and justification . Ed . by Johannes Schilling. Evangelische Verlagsanstalt Leipzig, Leipzig 2006, pp. 1–15, here pp. 9 and 11.)
17. ↑ Volker Leppin: The genesis of the Reformation writing principle. Observations on Luther's argument with Johannes Eck up to the Leipzig disputation. In: Transformations. Studies on the processes of change in theology and piety between the late Middle Ages and the Reformation (= Late Middle Ages, Humanism, Reformation . Volume 86), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2015, ISBN 978-3-16-152820-0 , pp. 355–398, here p. 358 f.
18. ↑ Thomas Kaufmann: The beginning of the Reformation , Tübingen 2018, p. 37.
19. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 206.
20. ↑ Asterisci Lutheri adversus obeliscos Eckii ( WA 1,281-314).
21. ↑ ^{a b} Bernhard Lohse: Luther's theology in its historical development and in its systematic context , Göttingen 1995, p. 135.
22. ↑ Thomas Kaufmann: The middle of the Reformation . Tübingen 2019, p. 488.
23. ↑ Thomas Kaufmann: The middle of the Reformation . Tübingen 2019, p. 489.
24. ↑ Armin Kohnle: The Leipzig Disputation and its significance for the Reformation , Berlin 2011, p. 13.
25. ^ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, pp. 285–287.
26. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 287 f.
27. ↑ Armin Kohnle: The Leipzig disputation and its significance for the Reformation , Leipzig 2011, p. 13 f.
28. ^ Reformatory leaflet: Heavenly chariot and hell chariot of Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt from 1519 or Andreas Karlstadt's cart from 1519. In: Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek. Retrieved May 26, 2019 . 
29. ↑ Birgit-Ulrike Münch, Andreas Tacke: Art . In: Helga Schnabel-Schüle (Ed.): Reformation: Historisch- Kulturwissenschaftliches Handbuch , JBMetzler Verlag, Stuttgart 2017, ISBN 978-3-476-02593-7 , pp. 346–353, here p. 348. Modern designations of the woodcut are: Sky Chariot and Hell Chariot or: Andreas Bodenstein's cart .
30. ↑ Hans-Peter Hasse: Karlstadt and Tauler: Investigations on the theology of the cross (= sources and research on the history of the Reformation . Volume 58), Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, Gütersloh 1993, ISBN 3-579-01684-9 , p. 101.
31. ^ Harry Oelke: The formation of denominations in the 16th century in the mirror of illustrated leaflets (= works on church history . Volume 57), Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1992, ISBN 3-11-012912-4 , pp. 223-225.
32. ↑ Erwin Iserloh: Johannes Eck , Münster 1981, p. 30.
33. ^ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 288.
34. ↑ Christopher Spehr: Luther and the Council , Göttingen 2010, p. 122.
35. ^ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, pp. 285–287.
36. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 289 f.
37. ^ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 291.
38. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, pp. 291-294. See WA 2, pp. 183-240.
39. ↑ Bernhard Lohse: Luther's theology in its historical development and in its systematic context , Göttingen 1995, p. 136.
40. ↑ Christopher Spehr: Luther and the Council , Göttingen 2010, p. 160 f.
41. ↑ Christopher Spehr: Luther and the Council , Göttingen 2010, p. 130 f.
42. ↑ Thomas Kaufmann: The middle of the Reformation . Tübingen 2019, p. 503.
43. ↑ Christopher Spehr: Luther and the Council , Göttingen 2010, p. 140.
44. ↑ ^{a b} Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 296.
45. ↑ Thomas Kaufmann: The middle of the Reformation . Tübingen 2019, p. 486.
46. ^ Ulrich Bubenheimer: Thomas Münzer. Origin and education , Brill, Leiden 1989, ISBN 90-04-08850-4 , p. 149 f. Müntzer referred to the event in his highly caused protective speech . But he could have learned the details given here second hand.
47. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 295.
48. ↑ Thomas Kaufmann: The Beginning of the Reformation , Tübingen 2018, p. 45.
49. ↑ Armin Kohnle: The Leipzig Disputation and its significance for the Reformation , Berlin 2011, p. 9.
50. ^ Thomas Kaufmann: The beginning of the Reformation , Tübingen 2018, p. 189. Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 296.
51. ↑ ^{a b c} Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 297 f.
52. ↑ Marian Füssel: duels of the spirit. The disputation as a key practice of a learned culture of debate in the confessional age . In: Henning P. Jürgens, Thomas Weller (ed.): Culture of dispute and the public in the confessional age . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2013, ISBN 978-3-525-10120-9 , pp. 159–178, here p. 169. Christopher Spehr: Luther and the Council , Göttingen 2010, p. 140 f.
53. ^ Franz Xaver Bischof: Pope and General Council: Die Argumentation Ecks , Munich 2017, p. 94.
54. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, pp. 302-304.
55. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 295 f.
56. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 298.
57. ^ Anselm Schubert: Libertas Disputandi , 2008, p. 412.
58. ^ Anselm Schubert: Libertas Disputandi , 2008, p. 416.
59. ↑ Irene Dingel: From the disputation to conversation . In: Lutherjahrbuch 85 (2018), pp. 61–84, here pp. 70 f.
60. ↑ ^{a b} Anselm Schubert: Libertas Disputandi , 2008, p. 428.
61. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 301.
62. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, pp. 298-300.
63. ↑ Leif Grane: Martinus noster , Mainz 1994, p. 82.
64. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 301 f.
65. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 302.
66. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, pp. 296, 302.
67. ↑ Kurt-Victor Selge: The Leipzig Disputation between Luther and Eck , 1975, p. 30.
68. ^ Anselm Schubert: Libertas Disputandi , 2008, pp. 436-438.
69. ↑ Anselm Schubert: Libertas Disputandi , 2008, p. 427 f.
70. ^ Leif Grane: Martinus noster , Mainz 1994, p. 87.
71. ↑ Volker Leppin: Luther and Eck - Endless Disputes? Regensburg 2014, p. 146 f.
72. ^ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 307.
73. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 304, 307. Volker Leppin: The genesis of the Reformation writing principle. Observations on Luther's argument with Johannes Eck up to the Leipzig disputation . In: Transformations . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2015, pp. 355–398, here p. 392 f.
74. ↑ Heribert Smolinsky: Scripture and teaching post. Setting the course in the Roman Catholic Church of the 16th century . In: Wolfhart Pannenberg et al. (Ed.): Binding certificate . Volume 3: Understanding and Use of Scripture . Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau 1998, ISBN 3-451-26673-3 , pp. 204–220, here p. 210.
75. ↑ Volker Leppin: Luther and Eck - Endless Disputes? Regensburg 2014, p. 147.
76. ↑ Christopher Spehr: Luther and the Council , Göttingen 2010, pp. 135 f., 145 f. Franz Xaver Bischof: Pope and General Council: The Ecks Argumentation , Munich 2017, p. 96.
77. ^ Leif Grane: Martinus noster , Mainz 1994, p. 105.
78. ↑ Christopher Spehr: Luther and the Council , Göttingen 2010, p. 145.
79. ↑ Volker Leppin: The genesis of the Reformation writing principle. Observations on Luther's argument with Johannes Eck up to the Leipzig disputation. In: Transformationen , Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2015, pp. 355–398, here p. 380.
80. ^ Franz Xaver Bischof: Pope and General Council: Die Argumentation Ecks , Munich 2017, p. 96.
81. ^ Leif Grane: Martinus noster , Mainz 1994, p. 107.
82. ↑ Bernhard Lohse: Luther's theology in its historical development and in its systematic context , Göttingen 1995, p. 139. Christopher Spehr: Luther und das Konzil , Göttingen 2010, p. 147.
83. ↑ ^{a b} Volker Leppin: Luther and Eck - Disputes without End? Regensburg 2014, p. 148.
84. ↑ WA 59; 466.1048-1059.
85. ↑ Anselm Schubert: Libertas Disputandi , 2008, p. 433 f.
86. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, pp. 302–307.
87. ↑ Thomas Kaufmann: The beginning of the Reformation , Tübingen 2018, p. 39 f.
88. ^ Anselm Schubert: Libertas Disputandi , 2008, p. 435.
89. ↑ WA 59; 479.1465-480.1467.
90. ^ Franz Xaver Bischof: Pope and General Council: Die Argumentation Ecks , Munich 2017, p. 98.
91. ↑ Christopher Spehr: Luther and the Council , Göttingen 2010, p. 161.
92. ↑ ^{a b} Bernhard Lohse: Luther's theology in its historical development and in its systematic context , Göttingen 1995, p. 141.
93. ↑ Christopher Spehr: Luther and the Council , Göttingen 2010, p. 154. Erwin Iserloh: Johannes Eck , Münster 1981, p. 43.
94. ↑ WA 59; 490.1788-491.1798.
95. ↑ Volker Leppin: Luther and Eck - Endless Disputes? Regensburg 2014, p. 149 f.
96. ^ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 307.
97. ↑ Bernhard Lohse: The decision of the Lutheran Reformation on the scope of the Old Testament canon . In: Wolfhart Pannenberg et al. (Ed.): Binding certificate . Volume 1: Canon - Scripture - Tradition . Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau 1992, ISBN 3-451-22868-8 , pp. 169-194, here p. 179.
98. ↑ ^{a b} Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 321 f.
99. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 322.
100. ↑ Thomas Kaufmann: The middle of the Reformation . Tübingen 2019, p. 511.
101. ↑ Thomas Kaufmann: The middle of the Reformation . Tübingen 2019, p. 487.
102. ^ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, pp. 309-311.
103. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 308.
104. ↑ Hannes Fricke: Nobody will read what I write here: about nobody in literature , Wallstein Verlag, Göttingen 1998, ISBN 3-89244-281-9 , pp. 96-100.
105. ^ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 309.
106. ↑ Christopher Spehr: Luther and the Council , Göttingen 2010, p. 131.
107. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 315.
108. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, pp. 317-319.
109. ↑ Thomas Kaufmann: The beginning of the Reformation , Tübingen 2018, p. 366.
110. ↑ Berndt Hamm: Lazarus Spengler (1479–1534) (= Late Middle Ages and Reformation. New series. Volume 25). Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2011, p. 178 f.
111. ^ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 320.
112. ↑ Thomas Kaufmann: The beginning of the Reformation , Tübingen 2018, p. 367.
113. ↑ Volker Leppin: Luther and Eck - Endless Disputes? Regensburg 2014, p. 152.
114. ↑ Dispensing of the Lord's Supper as an allegory of the Reformation. In: Object database. Germanisches Nationalmuseum, accessed on March 26, 2019 . 
115. ↑ Thomas Kaufmann: The beginning of the Reformation , Tübingen 2018, p. 43.
116. ↑ Thomas Kaufmann: The beginning of the Reformation , Tübingen 2018, p. 45 f.
117. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 316
118. ↑ Thomas Kaufmann: The beginning of the Reformation , Tübingen 2018, pp. 50–53.
119. ^ Thomas Kaufmann: The beginning of the Reformation , Tübingen 2018, p. 65.
120. ^ Winfried Eberhard: Confession formation and estates in Bohemia 1478-1530. Oldenbourg, Munich 1981, ISBN 3-486-49531-3 , p. 26 ( limited preview in the Google book search).
121. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, pp. 291-294
122. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, p. 311 f.
123. ↑ Erwin Iserloh: Johannes Eck , Münster 1981, p. 48.
124. ↑ Martin Brecht: Martin Luther , Volume 1, Stuttgart 1983, pp. 372–378.
125. ↑ Bernd Moeller: Zwingli's Disputations: Studies on the founding of churches in the cities of the early Reformation . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edition Göttingen 2011, ISBN 978-3-525-55018-2 , p. 42 f.
126. ↑ Christian Winter: The Protocols of the Leipzig Disputation , Leipzig 2011, p. 36. Otto Clemen: A simultaneous report on the Leipzig Disputation in 1519 . In: New archive for Saxon history and antiquity 51 (1930), pp. 44–57.
127. ^ Christian Winter: The Protocols of the Leipzig Disputation , Leipzig 2011, pp. 38–40.
128. ↑ Christian Winter: The Protocols of the Leipzig Disputation , Leipzig 2011, pp. 41–43.
129. ↑ WA 59, 433-605.
130. ^ Franz Xaver Bischof: Pope and General Council: Die Argumentation Ecks , Munich 2017, p. 99.
131. ^ Leopold von Ranke: German History in the Age of the Reformation , Volume 1, Berlin 1839, p. 400.
132. ^ Leopold von Ranke: German History in the Age of the Reformation , Volume 1, Berlin 1839, p. 404.
133. ^ Leopold von Ranke: German History in the Age of the Reformation , Volume 1, Berlin 1839, p. 410.
134. ↑ Johannes Janssen: History of the German People: Since the End of the Middle Ages , Volume 1/1. 2nd edition. Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau 1876. p. 108.
135. ↑ Johannes Janssen: History of the German People: Since the End of the Middle Ages , Volume 2, Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau 1876. P. 78.
136. ^ ^{A b} Johannes Janssen: History of the German People: Since the End of the Middle Ages , Volume 2, Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau 1883. P. 84.
137. ^ ^{A b} Karl Heussi: Compendium of Church History. 18th edition (unchanged reprint of the 12th edition from 1960), Tübingen 1991, ISBN 3-16-145842-7 , § 75.4.pq. Heussi's compendium dates back to 1907 and was last thoroughly revised for the tenth edition (1949); thereafter only small improvements and literature additions took place.
138. ^ Franz Xaver Bischof, Harry Oelke (ed.): Luther and Eck: Opponents of the Reformation History in Comparison . Allitera, Munich 2017. p. 8.
139. ↑ Henrike Holsing: Luther - Gottesmann und Nationalheld , Cologne 2004, pp. 279, 295.
140. ^ ^{A b} Isabel Skokan: Germania and Italia: national myths and heroic figures in 19th century paintings (dissertation, Freiburg 2007), Berlin 2009, p. 195.
141. ↑ Henrike Holsing: Luther - Gottesmann und Nationalheld , Cologne 2004, p. 412 f.
142. ↑ Henrike Holsing: Luther - Gottesmann und Nationalheld , Cologne 2004, p. 412.
143. ↑ Henrike Holsing: Luther - Gottesmann und Nationalheld , Cologne 2004, p. 415 f.
144. ^ Leopold von Ranke: German History in the Age of the Reformation , Volume 1, Berlin 1839, p. 407.
145. ^ Doreen Zerbe: Pictures of the Leipzig disputation. Illustration and interpretation . In: Markus Hein, Armin Kohnle (Hrsg.): The Leipzig Disputation 1519: 1st Leipzig working discussion on the Reformation. Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Leipzig 2011, ISBN 3-374-02793-8 , pp. 143–158, here p. 148.
146. ↑ Henrike Holsing: Luther - Gottesmann und Nationalheld , Cologne 2004, p. 425.
147. ^ Siemering's Luther Memorial in Eisleben. In: The Gazebo. 1883, Retrieved March 19, 2019 . 
148. ↑ The place of remembrance of the Leipzig disputation in 1519 is revealed. In: City of Leipzig. May 8, 2017. Retrieved March 17, 2019 . 
149. ↑ Leipzig disputation / memorial installation. In: Harald Alff. Retrieved March 26, 2019 . 
150. ↑ Individual images of the facade figures
151. ↑ The riddle about the six facade figures from Burgplatz Leipzig has been solved. In: Christoph Kohl Urban Planner Architects. June 20, 2019, accessed July 22, 2019 . 
152. ↑ Jens Rometsch: How Calvin came to Burgplatz . In: Leipziger Volkszeitung, April 20, 2019.

This article was added to the list of excellent articles in this version on June 1, 2019 .