This essay uses the method of historiographical criticism to reexamine the frameworks used to research the relationship between apocalypse and violence. Its focus is the presentation of Anabaptist rule at Münster in the mid-1530s. New religions scholars and historians alike often cite this case as evidence of how millenarian prophecy can lead believers to violent actions. The essay demonstrates that this view is based largely on anti-Anabaptist and anti-sectarian propaganda that has its origins in the medieval and early modern eras. Partly because of the popularity of Norman Cohn’s The Pursuit of the Millennium (1957), which translated older polemical interpretations of religious outsiders into a modern scholarly form, hostile assumptions about Anabaptist violence have found their way into academic debates today. The essay shows that the distorting effects of these kinds of assumptions are not limited at all to the case of Anabaptist Münster, but in fact shape unhelpfully the way scholars conceptualize more generally the relationship between dissenting “sects” and established “churches.” “Thinking outside the cages” of polemically derived conceptualizations can form the basis for cross-disciplinary research on believers under siege.

In response to Nova Religio articles by Andreas Pietsch and Sita Steckel, Michael Driedger, and Johannes C. Wolfart calling for a reframing of new religious movements by new religions scholars, agreement is offered that new religions studies will be well served by incorporating insights from scholars of new religious movements and sectarian movements of the late medieval and Reformation eras, as well as by recasting assumptions that associate apocalyptic movements with violence. It is also suggested that a more sophisticated assessment of pluralism in previous centuries and more attention to methodological issues will provide a firmer foundation for current claims of a growing religious diversity in the contemporary world.