Sacred Souvenirs and Divine Curios—Lutherans, Pilgrimage, Saints and the Holy Land in the Seventeenth Century
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting, rare research on pilgrimag based on artifacts.
The publication helps in the ecumenical rapprochement between Catholics and Lutherans
Author Response
You here receive the revised version of my article. I have revised the text, moderated some of my sentences, added references, added a brief disclaimer in the beginning and supplied some extra information. I have tried to follow especially the long peer review when possible and I hope the result is adequate.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is extremely interesting and very well written. I read it with real pleasure. I do have some comments, though:
1) the introduction, especially tables 1 and 2 (page 2). It seems to me that the reading of the text is quite careless. I would suggest either dropping the table and staying with the reproduction or carefully transcribing and including the information in the analysis.
2) The history of martyrdom could be supplemented with a note on the development of Lutheran historiography in the 17th century. I wonder if it is Lutheran or (general) Protestant issue. Of course, both confessions (as well as the Catholics in the Vitae Sanctorum) developed traditions of martyrology, but I am curious to what extent there was an exchange between these traditions (of the kind we know from its origins in the mid-16th century)
3) A propos, the rise of materiality in the Lutheran piety (description of relics, medals, etc.). We observe similar phenomena in Luther's biographies. Additionally, we see the growing number of pilgrimages to Eisleben and other Lutheran life stations.
See e.g.: Christian Juncker, Gas Guldene und Silberne Ehren-Gedächtniß Des Theuren Gottes-Lehrers D. Martini Lutheri in welchem dessen Leben, Tod, Familie und Reliquien […] umständlich beschrieben […] werden, Schleusingen 1706 [Vita D. Martini Lvtheri et Successuum Euangelicae Reformationis Jvbilaeorum Evangelicorum Historia nummis CXLV, atque iconibus aliquot rarissimis, confirmata et illustrata, Schleusingen 1699]Georgi Henrici Goetzi De Reliquiis Lutheri, diversis in locis asservatis, singularia, Lipsiae 1704
I found very helpful: Stefan Laube, Von der Reliquie zum Relikt. Luthers Habseligkeiten und ihre Musealisierung in der frühen Neuzeit, in: Archäologie der Reformation. Studien zu den Auswirkungen des Konfessionswechsels auf die materielle Kultur (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 104), hg. v. Carola Jäggi/ Jörn Staecker, Berlin (de Gruyter) 2007, 429-466
Author Response
You here receive the revised version of my article. I have revised the text, moderated some of my sentences, added references, added a brief disclaimer in the beginning and supplied some extra information. I have tried to follow especially the long peer review when possible and I hope the result is adequate.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Peer Review of “Sacred Souvenirs and Divine Curios – Lutherans, Pilgrimage Saints and the Holy Land in the Seventeenth Century” in Religions
The author explores an interesting and relatively under-studied topic – early-modern Lutheran tattoos! – in a well-structured article. Unfortunately, I do not read Danish, but the article appears to make sound use of its primary sources and methodology surround the boxes is relatively unique. Before publication, however, the author should first grapple with the issue of who is perceiving what as Lutheran and to what extent this is surprising. For example, the author writes, “This article explores the surprisingly positive attitude towards pilgrimage and saints that developed within mainstream Lutheran faith during the Seventeenth Century” (1). But was it surprising? A positive attitude toward pilgrimage is somewhat surprising, but less so once the author later qualifies that we are not talking about pilgrimage attached to the medieval apparatus of the penance system and indulgences. The positive attitude toward the saints is perhaps not very surprising given the confessional Lutheran position on the value of saints. The author writes “To acknowledge this strand in the theology of the 1600s in some ways runs contrary to what is often stated about the period, the heyday of Lutheran Orthodoxy, and to a certain extent incompatible with what is generally perceived as ‘Lutheran’” (1). But what is often stated? And what is generally perceived as Lutheran?
To better contextualize the Lutheran position on pilgrimages and the saints, the author needs to address Orthodox Lutheran teaching on adiaphora in this period and the confessional position on the saints. The author should also address the fact that the Lutheran teaching on adiaphora meant that church orders and therefore worship and devotional practices varied throughout the Empire and northern kingdoms. Areas that felt a greater threat from Roman Catholicism (often in the southeast) tended to shy away from medieval practices and showed less continuity in their devotion. Areas that found themselves threated by the Reformed or the Radical Reformation emphasized continuity with medieval practices as a marker of confessional Lutheran identity. See especially the work of Bodo Nischan on topics like the controversy over exorcism in baptism between Lutherans and Calvinists. Moreover, in the early Reformation period, the main threat was obviously Roman Catholicism. Hence Lutherans were wary of continuity with medieval practice. By the later Reformation period and seventeenth century Lutherans were often more threatened by Calvinists and therefore more willing to embrace “Catholic” practices.
When it comes to adiaphora, or indifferent matters, Orthodox theologians generally limited the term to discussions of worship, whereas later theologians extended the term to other practices (See Friederich Kalb, Theology of Worship in 17th-Century Lutheranism [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1965], 105). In his Collegium Adiaphoristicum (1663), theologian Balthasar Meisner describes adiaphora as things “which by nature are neither good nor evil, but which a person may use well or ill” (qtd. in Kalb 105, fn. 2). One of these adiaphoristic things was pilgrimages. So pilgrimages were neutral, as long as one did not believe they earned a person merit. As the author notes, they could be devotional aides, as could “relics,” like the stones in the two boxes. The author writes that “Rather than identifying the two Copenhagen boxes as either souvenirs or relics, I would suggest that they were both, but were perhaps just as importantly tools giving access to the interior, spiritual world of the behold or possessor” (7). I think this is right. The stones could occupy a liminal space as sacred souvenirs, but not as relics. Here, the author should note the Roman Catholic theology of relics as sacramentals and their role in the system of indulgences that Lutherans would reject.
Regarding the saints, the author should reference the position of the Augsburg Confession and its Apology in AC XXI:1-2 and Apology XXI [IX]: 4-10, 19-21, 27, 36. Because the Lutheran position was to keep traditions and devotional practices that did not conflict with the Gospel, Lutheran church orders maintained many saints’ days and other festivals. Some locations, like Brandenburg and Magdeburg, retained quite elaborate sanctoral calendars. Typical saints’ days might include St. Sebastian, St. Agnes, the Conversion of St. Paul, St. Gregory of Rome, the Invention of the Holy Cross, the Division of the Holy Apostles, St. Mary Magdalene, St. Anne the Mother of Mary, St. Martha, the Chains of Peter, St. Lawrence, the Assumption of Mary, St. Augustine, the Nativity of Mary, the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, St. Maurice and Companions, St. Michael and All Angels, All Saints’ Day, All Souls’ Day, St. Martin, St. Elizabeth the Widow, St. Cecelia, St. Catherine, St. Nicholas, the Conception of Mary, and Corpus Christi in a few locations, etc. (see Matthew Carver, ed. and trans, Liber Hymnorum: Latin Hymns of the Lutheran Church [Fort Wayne: Emmanuel Press, 2016], xi). The celebration of saints’ days and maintaining images in churches became a mark of Lutheran confessional identity over and against the Calvinists and Lutherans often fought viciously to keep images in churches. Not surprisingly then, Lutherans embraced Baroque art as it developed (see Bridget Heal, A Magnificent Faith: Art and Identity in Lutheran Germany [OUP, 2017]).
On page 9, the author might want to note that Andreas Musculus was a staunch Gnesio-Lutheran and contributor to the Formula of Concord in 1577, making him a significant figure. He was, however, a little outside the mainstream in his promotion of certain medieval devotional practices such as Eucharistic adoration “within the use” of the Lord’s Supper / Mass. Interestingly, Moller was a proto-Pietist mystic. I think this brings us to a major elephant in the room. The author needs to address the different schools of Lutheran theology and how the different and shifting positions fit into the argument about “Catholic” devotional practices. Some figures discussed are Orthodox. Some lean more in a Pietist direction. Granted, earlier authors have definitely created a false hard dichotomy between Orthodoxy and Pietism and there was certainly a lot of overlap, even in figures like Johann Arndt and Johann Gerhard. But the author should at least address the degree to which the shift away from “Orthodoxy” and toward a pietist emphasis on the subjective appropriation of the faith influenced these practices. For example, on page 18, the author writes “…we should probably see their interest in Jerusalem, saints and indeed the materiality of the Church as a sincere wish to approach the affective qualities embedded in the use of devotional tools as stepping stones….” To what extent does this relate, or not, to the development of Pietism? The author writes about “…a trend within Seventeenth-Century Lutheranism which became more and more preoccupied with the emotions and their role in devotion” (18). Later the author writes about “the search for ways to reach a still deeper fervor and understanding of Christ…” (19). Yes, and how do theological developments fit into this shift? Note that the Orthodox saw many of these shifts as what Luther would have referred to as “enthusiasm,” especially the idea that everything the believer needed was already stored within his heart (see author’s page 22).
A few random notes: on page 9 the author most likely means Paul Gerhardt, not Gerhard. Gerhardt was perhaps the greatest hymnist of the Lutheran church, in addition to being a “writer.” On page 18, I think the author is using “sola scriptura” in the Zwinglian and later Radical Reformation sense as opposed to the Magisterial Reformation sense of the term. For Lutherans, traditions that did not contradict or damage the proclamation of the Gospel ought to be maintained for good order and were authoritative to that sense. Although Lutherans also disagreed a great deal on the application of this principle. Regarding Rantzow on pages 18 and 19, I would refer to his beads as prayer beads, not a “rosary,” since a rosary is the prayer sequence and the beads more likely functioned in continuity with late medieval paternoster beads. Prominent Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz was also painted with his prayer beads.
Author Response
You here receive the revised version of my article. I have revised the text, moderated some of my sentences, added references, added a brief disclaimer in the beginning and supplied some extra information. I have tried to follow especially the long peer review when possible and I hope the result is adequate.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
