Talk:Jan de Bakker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heretical[edit]

"Heretical" merely refers to the fact that the Sacramentarian views were not in agreement with those of the dominant Catholic religion, and that its followers exposed themselves to persecution. It is in no way meant to express an opinion about those views. JdH 16:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is is meant to do, and what it does, are two different things. Jacob Haller 17:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitions of "heresy" according to Webster's:
1 a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards
"adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma" is exactly what Sacramentarians did. JdH 21:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which church? The description privileges the teachings of one church over the teachings of any other churches, see WP:NPOV. Jacob Haller 22:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into that discussion: This article is not about some dogmatic dispute between different churches, instead it is supposed to provide a historical accurate account of happened to Pistorius. This is merely a semantic issue: I am aware of the fact that in some languages (including my own native language) the word "heretic" is a slur, cussword even. However, that is not so in English; the word "heretic" merely expresses the fact that a certain opinion differs from the majority view. The word "heretic" is used in quite innocent situations, such as in scientific disputes. JdH 14:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In many circles "heretic" is hardly as innocuous as you or the dictionary might suggest. Other words are available. A.J.A. 05:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be convicted and executed for one's religious beliefs is not particularly innocuous either. The problem with synonyms such as "dissident" is that is fails to convey the adversarial circumstances of that place and time. JdH 13:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the dispute. Heretic means "ketters" in Dutch and both terms were then used as a slur and meant deviation from the doctrines of the Catholic Church. I guess this will be clear to most readers who are interested in the subject. Andries 00:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the US there is a drive to sanitize the language of words that can even remotely considered to be a slur aimed at certain minorities. Using the "N-word" can get you in serious trouble; the words "salesman" and "spokesman" have to be avoided as well: you have to use salesperson and spokesperson instead, and on and on it goes. JdH 13:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


(RFC Response) The word heretical is not seen as a slur or cussword in the United States (according to my view as a professional American writer). The common meaning is "contrary to the dominant, majority view." However, I cannot say what its common meaning is in other English-speaking countries. Further, if those who speak English as a second-language see it as a slur, then it inserts a POV into the article, which is unacceptable for a Wiki article. How about just saying the following in the third paragraph?

"Jan started to spread views contrary to the Catholic Church's canon at that time, and in May..."

Good luck. Renee --Renee 19:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dictionary (Oxford Advanced English) gave one example of the word heresy i.e. that a person is guilty of heresy. This indicates that it does have a negative meaning or connotation in Engish language. Andries 19:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, in the United States, the most common use of the word "heresy" is to denounce something as false, hence my bias concern, and the second most common is to describe something as unconventional. Jacob Haller 19:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you, but so what? if reputable secondary sources have labelled Bakker as heretical (ketters in Dutch) then this article should follow that. Andries 19:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that render WP:NPOV completely meaningless? Jacob Haller 19:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think, because WP:NPOV means following what reputable sources have stated. However it can and probably should be made clear that in this context heresy merely means deviation from the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Andries 20:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(RFC Response #2) I note that the article has two online sources that discuss Bakker. (The Fontaine source appears not to be online in full.) Both use the word heresy in describing why he was killed. With that visible agreement, we should use the word heresy (or heretical), but to make the meaning clear to the reader, the reference to the Roman Catholic church should appear the first time heretical is used, not a few sentences later in the paragraph. GRBerry 20:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original source is actually the witness account by Gnapheüs.[1] Gnapheüs shared a prison cell with Pistorius, and witnessed the execution from his prison cell. The account was written in Latin, but unfortunately I could only find a Dutch translation on the web. In his account Gnapheüs makes extensive use of the word "ketter", the Dutch word for heretic. JdH 22:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Haemstedius, Adrianus (1671). Historie der martelaren. Amsterdam: Weduwe van J.J. Schipper, op de Keysers-gracht. pp. Geschiedenis van de getrouwe martelaar van Jezus Christus, Johannes Pistorius, van Woerden door Willem Gnapheüs.

I'm not sure how much if this involves the Inquisition and how much involves the secular government, but however it works out, we could say that they arrested him for/convicted him of/executed him for heresy. Jacob Haller 22:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Gnapheüs' report there is a detailed account of the interrogation by the Inquisitors (= Church officials), and Pistorius' response; it is written as if it were a transcript of the actual proceedings and takes up most of Gnapheüs' report. But the Inquisitors were not executioners. The civil authorities were responsible for the excution, which was in the presence of Governor Margaret of Habsburg, the aunt of Charles V. Ultimately Charles V himself was responsible: he issued the excutive order to persecute the heretics, and appointed the chief Inquisitor as well. The local authorities actually objected to the persecution; that's why Pistorius was moved to the Hague, and placed under the custody of the Court of Holland JdH 23:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Jan started to spread views considered heretical by the Catholic Church..."? --Renee 00:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, but the problem is that that statement is not quite accurate. In that period there were different views within the Catholic Church, and groups such as the Brethern of the Common Life and the Sacramentarians tried to reform the Catholic church from within; they did not break with the church. Gnapheüs mentions that the Bishop of Utrecht was actually sympathetic towards the Sacramentarians. Another issue is that the Inquisition in the Low Countries was not approved by the Pope; perhaps it should not even be called "Inquisition". Charles V did not trust church officials; he thought that they were not severe enough, and appointed his own Inquisitor. On the other hand, I have a hard time to believe that Charles V acted on his own (he was only 22 years old when that executive order was issued); he must have been influenced by clergy close to him, but I don't know the details. What brought about Jan's downfall was the fact that the Bishop in Utrecht passed away, and was replaced by a hardliner. The other issue was the introduction of indulgences. Jan thought that that was a scam, and went ahead and absolved the faithful at the home of the woman he was living with, and by doing that he infuriated the local parish priest.
Ultimately the best solution is to describe those circumstances in much more detail; make clear what it was what brought about the conflict. I would love to do that, but I am not quite comfortable with the subject, and I would have to spent a lot of time to read up to it; time I don't have right now. Part of the problem is also that different sources give different stories, and I am clueless which story to believe. JdH 14:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see it's quite an involved and complex history. It brings up an interesting issue for Wiki editors, with verifiable history coming from so many angles and perspectives, how deep do you go? Good luck! Renee Renee 14:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(RfC) In this particular case, the word "heresy" seems only to have been applied at the trial and in the sentencing. Maybe it would be possible to just refer to "his beliefs" up until the mention of the trial, and say there that he was found guilty of heresy and condemned to death? I do get the impression that in this case, the word "heresy" is used primarily in a legalistic manner, and that in that case I might reserve it for using only in a legal context. John Carter 18:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gnapheüs' brings up the word "heresy" ("ketterij" in Dutch) well before the actual trial begins. The word first comes up after Gnapheüs discusses that Pistorius is reluctantly ordained as priest, because that is what his father wants him to do. He has to reject the teachings of Luther, which he does. But then it goes on to say that Pistorius tells everybody that he didn't want to be a priest. At that point the Canons in Utrecht have him arrested by the warden of the Castle in Woerden. But his accusers can no longer accuse him of heresy because they are afraid of the town's people, and the warden has to set him free.
I have a hard time understanding this paragraph: it isn't clear to me what the so-called "heresy" is. The way Gnapheüs tells the story you get the impression that the problem is that Pistorius rejects the priesthood; that doesn't make sense to me; I have the feeling that there is some underlying problem that is not mentioned explicitely. Perhaps it was that Pistorius didn't want to celebrate Mass because he rejects the doctrine of the Real Presence?
In Gnapheüs' account it is Pistorius himself who brings up the Latin word "Haereticum" during the trial: The Apostle Paul also says: "Reject an heretick person after the first and second admonition" In Latin this is: "Haereticum hominem post unam & alteram admonitionem devita." The word "reject" is in Latin "devita."
This quote is from the the Bible, Titus 3:10.[2] There is a long discussion between Pistorius and the Inquisitors about that word "Haereticum". According to the Inquisitors a person who rejects the Canon Law of the Catholic Church is an heretic; Pistorius on the other hand only recognizes the authority of the Scriptures; he rejects the authority of the Catholic Church in this matter. btw, there is also a dispute about the Latin word "devita"; the translations have "reject", but according to the inquisitors is stands for "take him away from life". So, yes, according to the inquisitors "Haereticum" has to do with breaking the law of the Catholic Church, but other people reject that view, including Pistorius himself. JdH 20:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. ^ Blue Letter Bible. "Dictionary and Word Search for hairetikos (Strong's 141)". Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2007. 4 Aug 2007.

Please refrain from adding biased language to the article. A.J.A. 18:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this long discussion thread, I honestly don't think the word "heretical" is biased, and it is how the reliable sources of the historical record refer to Bakker. Having said that, I did as some of the other editors suggested and made it clear that only the Roman Catholic Church of that time considered Bakker's views heretical. Then, in the sentence about the wife, you need to have an object regarding "recanting her views" (recanting what views?). I left out the word heretical for AJA's sake and just said "views similar to her husband's..." I hope these are reasonable compromises. Renee --Renee 19:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand what the objection is. Saying his views were considered heretical by the Catholic church is historical fact. Saying his views were heretical looks like bias (and frankly the more vehemently such phrasing is defended the more biased it looks). I don't object to your version. A.J.A. 02:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand. Glad this version works for you. --Renee 02:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native English speaker responding to the RFC. Heretic means, first, literally, someone who opposes the view of religious tradition or religious power structure; second, as a less precise connotation, someone who opposes the dominant view of a political or sociological power structure or group, whether or not religion is involved; third, a still more vague, less precise and less extreme form, a heretic is someone who opposes conventional wisdom or common practice. Jan de Bakker was clearly a heretic in the literal first sense of the word. Heretic is not necessarily a pejorative word. If the tradition or power structure is corrupt, then being a heretic could be a good thing.

As an example of the first meaning, Martin Luther was heretical regarding the Catholic teaching of his time, which Protestants would say was a good thing. An example of the second meaning: the Founding Fathers of the U.S. were heretics as regards the politics of colonial power structure of the British empire. MLK was heretical towards laws that institutionalized racial prejudice. In the third type of meaning, Stevie Wonder was heretical towards the idea that a musician needed a full band to record an album, and Richard Branson's intuitive, freewheeling leadership style of an eclectic business empire is heretical towards the typical MBA perspective of using quantitative analysis to define business objectives.

There's no question in my mind that it's totally appropriate to say that Jan de Bakker was executed as a heretic by the Inquisition. VisitorTalk 08:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell[edit]

This article has been targeted by people who out of some misguided sense of polital correctness want to extirpate the word "heresy".
I have invested considerable time and effort in this article, but there is no point to continue the project when people keep corrupting it. Clearly, an article that is about a criminal trial cannot go without clearly mentioning what it is what the accused is charged with, convicted for, and ultimately executed. What about someone who is charged with burglary? How can you write an unbiased article about that when you are not allowed to use the word "burglary"?
All the sources, and in particular Gnapheüs' account use the word "heresy" freely to describe what Jan de Bakker is accused of. In the 16th century that was considered a crime, and could result in the death penalty. And let there be no mistake: Gnapheüs is highly biased in favor of Jan de Bakker, was a close friend of him, and yet he uses the word "heresy" freely.
My latest additions, which I put in in an attempt to deal with the comments above, have left this article with an anti-Catholic bias. I meant to correct that by describing how the Inquisitors went to great length to convince Jan de Bakker that he would be better off if he recanted his heresies. The chief Inquisitor even visited him in the prison to plead with him, and they brought in his father as well in a last attempt to have him change his mind. But Jan de Bakker stubbornly refused.
An other issue that remains unclear is the political background, the fact that in 1522 Charles V issued the executive order that started the religious persecution in the Low Countries, ultimately leading to the Dutch Revolt of 1568.
It is not going to happen, I can't afford to invest time and effort to fight the vandalism that has been going on here. Since the major sources (Gnapheüs' account and Nico Plomp's book) are in Dutch I doubt whether it will ever get finished.
Farewell and good luck with all of you, JdH 13:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JdH,
It's clear you're very knowledgeable on this topic so I hope you stay. Do you object to the change I put in (I put the word heretical back in)? The editor who wanted to delete this word said he could live with this version so I don't think it will be changed anymore.
You add a lot of value to the article and your editing is appreciated.
Renee --Renee 13:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that our recent edits have put in an anti-Catholic bias in the article which I feel is inappropriate; in fact this bias is far worse than any possible bias the word "heresy" could have. It is also inaccurate. First of all, I don't know what the "heretic views" are; all Gnapheüs says is that Jan started to spread the Gospel. What is meant with "Gospel" he doesn't say, but I suspect it may have to do with the Sacramentarian views as I have now outlined in the first paragraph, but I don't know that for a fact. But many people within the Catholic church agreed with much of those views; you may want to have a look at the article on Abuses of Indulgences to see what the position of the Catholic Church was about Indulgences.
Gnapheüs mentions that it were the Canons in Utrecht who accused Jan de Bakker of heresy. But the Canons did not have any jurisdiction in Woerden, because Woerden was part of the County of Holland, not of the Bishopric of Utrecht. Ultimately Jan de Bakker was arrested by the Steward of the Castle, who answered to Charles V in his quality as Count of Holland. So it was really Charles V and his handpicked Inquisitor who were responsible, and not the Canons of Utrecht.
So why was he really arrested? My guess is (but that is merely a guess) is that it had little to do with "heresy" of Catholic doctrine after all, but that it had everything to do with power and money. And indulgences have everything to do with money, so a preacher who goes around telling everybody that indulgences are a fraud, and that they shouldn't waste their money on that is a threat for state security. A troublemaker (=heretic) who had to be silenced. Cynical 21rst century view I guess JdH 01:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dear JdH, I'm glad to see you back! I'm so confused. I thought you wanted the word heretical in the article and were upset when AJA took it out. But from what you've written above, you're saying that you don't want the word heretical in it (linked to the Catholic Church anyways)? Was Bakker convicted and killed under the title of heresy? I'm just an Rfc outside editor trying to contribute to a neutral and balanced and verifiable article.
I totally understand your points above, that by reasonable modern standards Bakker was not doing anything truly heretical. He was trying to fight abuses in the church at that time. Doesn't the line I put in about "considered heretical by the Roman Catholic Church at that time" address that? Perhaps it would help to add a line saying something like "Later, Bakker was seen as a reformer..."
At the top of this talk page, there's a box saying this article is one of a class about saints. Was Bakker canonized? Then you could say something like, "Later, the Roman Catholic Church reversed its views on Bakker and XXX."
Again, your knowledge is greatly valued and I can tell from your posts that you really know this topic. It is frustrating sometimes (okay, frequently) to work on Wiki because it's a consensus model, but I've found that there are enough committed editors to really make sure that articles ultimately end up in good shape.
Best wishes, Renee --Renee 01:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be straightforward about this:Jacob Haller and A.J.A. have vandalized this article, and as a result it has now an anti-Catholic bias. I don't want to have anything to do with it until they stop vandalizing it. I appreciate your best efforts, but I have come to the conclusion that I am wasting my time. JdH 07:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're being a prima donna. A.J.A. 18:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bakker[edit]

I always though that "Bakker" comes from the profession "bakker" (baker in English.) Andries 00:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I always thought, until I read Nico Plomp's book. Plomp researched Woerden's archives, and found the connection with the brickworks. According to the archives Jan's father was tenant of Woerden's brickworks: the town had its own brickworks for building and maintaining the city walls. In Dutch somebody who manufactures bricks is called a "steen bakker", or "brick baker". btw: Woerden has always been a hub for brick manufacturing, still is. There are large deposits of clay along the Old Rhine river that provide the raw material for brick manufacturing. JdH 13:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you provide an wikipedia:reference just after thi sentence for this assertion that is implausible for semi-knowledgeable people, like myself. Implausible statements without clear references tend to get removed by semi-knowledgeable contributors in the course of time. You can add an inline reference by adding the following after the sentence in question. <ref>{{cite book | last = Plomp | first = Nico | authorlink = | coauthors = | title =Woerden 600 jaar stad | publisher = Stichting Stichts-Hollandse Bijdragen etc. | date =1972 | location = Woerden | page= 10? | url = | doi = | id = ISSN 0929-9718 }} </ref>
Andries 20:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psalm 31[edit]

There are a number of details which appear to be present in Dutch Wikipedia which are not represented here. This would be one. Varlaam (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jan de Bakker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jan_de_Bakker&oldid=1205837259"