Luther and the Ethiopian Deacon

The following English translation of two letters from 1534 should be of special interest to scholars of Luther and World Christianity because there are few documents that record dialogues between Protestant reformers and Christians from beyond Europe. Lawrence Anglin has provided an annotated translation of Philip Melanchthon's May 31, 1534, letter to Pauli and Martin Luther's July 4, 1534, letter of recommendation regarding Michael, an Ethiopian Deacon. The first letter was addressed to a specific person, Benedict Pauli, a judge and law professor; the second letter, drafted by Melanchthon and signed by Martin Luther, was for any followers of Luther who received the letter. These letters indicate that Luther and Melanchthon interacted with Christians from at least Africa, making these letters cross-cultural and intercontinental documents. Although this preface will not explore Luther's engagement with Ethiopian Christianity in his writings, his inclusion of Ethiopian and Eastern Christianity within his narrative arc of church history is definitely a backdrop to these letters.

The significance of these letters has attracted the attention of a small cadre of scholars: Martin Brecht, Tom G.A. Hardt, and George Posfay. Brecht merges the two letters in his brief interpretation, implicitly arguing that these letters refer to the same person, once called an Arab and once an Ethiopian. The best reasons to assume that the letters concern the same person is that both of them refer to a non-European Eastern Orthodox Christian, and the Trinity is one of the topics. Perhaps Melanchthon was not sophisticated enough to distinguish between Arabs and Ethiopians, given that the Latin terms referred to much broader classes of people than the English terms and that early-modern European concepts of geography were vague at best. Two such visitors within a month would seem unlikely.

There are multiple reasons, however, to argue that these letters refer to two different people. The focus of Melanchthon's letter is an unnamed Arab Christian, whereas the focus of Luther's letter was an Ethiopian cleric named as "Mr. Michael, an Ethiopian deacon." The conversation with the Arab Christian produced hardly any knowledge, whereas the theological conversation with the Ethiopian Christian was much more informative. In addition to citing the name of the Ethiopian cleric, other vivid recollections of Luther's and Melanchthon's informative theological conversations with Michael the Deacon are recorded in the Table Talk entries below.

Another signal that these could be letters about two different people is that the tone of Melanchthon's May 31, 1534, letter to Pauli is critical, unflattering, and condescending towards the Arab Christian, whereas the tone of Luther's July 4, 1534, letter is affirming, complimentary, and commendatory towards the Ethiopian Christian. The Arab Christian is presented as unlearned while the Ethiopian Christian is presented as theologically educated. Along with the person in Melanchthon's May letter being an unnamed Arab, Melanchthon stated he had "seen many similar Arabs"; he was familiar with Arabs traveling in Germany. With Melanchthon's interest in Arab writing on astrology, Arabs seemingly were a distinct people for him and not easily confused with Ethiopians, Turks, or a generic non-European; these Arab Christians might be from the Arab Christian community of Cyprus, which was part of the Venetian Republic in 1534.

Further, Melanchthon and Luther communicated with this Arab Christian through an interpreter with Italian being the selected language, although the Arab Christian possessed a very limited facility in spoken Italian. They could hardly communicate on other important matters as stated in the other letter. This Arab Christian only communicated with Luther about the Trinity and apparently no other theological topic; in the limited discussion on the Trinity, a comparison was made about the position of the Eastern Church relative to the Western Church without any concluding theological judgments. Since according to Melanchthon they were "not able to converse satisfactorily," they did not cover other theological articles nor arrive at any theological agreements because in Melanchthon's words he himself was unable "sufficiently [to] judge what he [the Arab] possesses regarding . . . doctrine." In sum, Melanchthon believe this Arab Christian...