28. szám: Kizökkent idő. Szerkesztette: Ladányi-Turóczy Csilla és Peremiczky Szilvia


The first modern media event
Mészáros Márton

According to the popular account, on 31st of October in 1517, an Augustinian monk, Martin Luther posted his Ninety-five Theses onto the gate of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. The text was handwritten and in Latin, however, as Luther himself writes, it spread to all corners of German language territory in two weeks. This period is incredibly short, given the advancement level of communication frameworks at the time. The first modern media event – as Robert Kolb names it
[1] – fulfilled its function, moreover, its impact greatly exceeded the original intentions of its author: the events subsequent to The Ninety-Five Thesis affected, and continue to affect, theology, economics and politics to an extent beyond expression – and this holds true even if the “first modern media event" – in the above described form – may easily turn out to have never materialised. The text that Luther titled as the Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences begins with the following introduction – or rather a petition – in Latin; peculiarly, the petition has no addressees, the circle of individuals concerned by the debate is left undefined; yet, it is discussed what communication tools (the medial framework) are expected to be utilised for debate (in written and verbal form):

“Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter. In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen."[2]

The historical background of the events (the wide-spread demand to limit the papal power, and the general will to return to an idealised tradition of a pristine, early church etc) and the immediate causes (the selling of indulgences to finance the building of the Papal Basilica of Saint Peter, and abuses related to it) are well known, however, the actual events of October 31st, 1517, the day, which is considered to be the symbolic beginning of the Protestant Reformation, are rather controversial. While the predominant part of specialised literature on theology and history available in Hungarian does not question whether the theses were actually posted by Luther[3], numerous German and Anglo-Saxon historians – typically by referring to Erwin Iserloh, the author of the much contested Luthers Thesenanschlag Tatsache oder Legende? [4]– not only challenge the written accounts of the event but go as far as to question the occurrence of the event itself. According to the canonised account (for instance, in the classical description by Endre Masznyik) Luther was notified about the selling of indulgences in autumn 1517 by his followers. Unable to persuade the bishop (Wittenberg belonged under the authority of Hieronymus Schulz, Bishop of Brandenburg) to discontinue the sale of indulgences, Luther started to preach against it from the pulpit. Seeking to reach an even wider public, he then posted his theses – as was customary in universities at the time –, and had them printed out. Nevertheless, he kept all the printed copies, and informed Hieronymus, Bishop of Brandenburg, and Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz about his actions.[5] Practically speaking, the writing reveals a complex media campaign, that Luther employed all the channels he could access in order to convey his message: he preaches, writes letters, posts placards, and prints.

Despite of one of the most confusing claims in the story i.e. that Luther has his thesis printed out but does not distribute it, and even due to this claim, Luther appears as an exceptionally media aware person. He is certainly conscious of the power of printed media – after all he makes an effort to have his statement in print –, however, in undisclosed reasons (perhaps as in preparation for a further stage of the campaign), he chooses not to enjoy its benefit. Undoubtedly, it is the posting of the placard that is the most spectacular, revolutionary and best communicable element of his campaign. Heinrich Boehmer describes it in the following way: “no-one foresaw at the time in Wittenberg what Luther had felt when on 31 October, 1517, the day before All Saints, shortly before noon, he and his famulus Johannes Schneider, known as Agricola, walked out of their dark chambers, and headed to the castle church some fifteen minutes away, and pinned the poster including his 95 theses onto the north gate."[6]

The suspenseful expression, “non-one foresaw" (niemand ahnte) and the detailed minute-by-minute description of the circumstances of the event are meant to highlight its significance. Similarly to the many paintings and engravings that depict the moment of posting, the writing too emphasises the heroic, revolutionary nature of the act. The majority of the images portray Luther with a hammer in his hand, often also standing on the stairway of the church. Many researchers reject the possibility that the theses were nailed to a church door due to the symbolic, sacral connotations of the act, however, it is not necessary to attribute a sacral additional meaning to the act: the castle church was situated on a busy square, and as was customary in the period, church doors were often used to make announcements. Consequently, the act of posting the placard on the church door can be interpreted as a practical deed at least to the same extent as a symbolical one.) On many of the portrayals, Luther is surrounded by a large crowd of people: the Latin language call for a scholarly dispute is pinned up in front of the curious eyes of burghers, soldiers, clerics, but also children and elderly women.

It is not the contradictions in the representation of the event that are of interest (even the most romanticised written accounts of the event refrain from mentioning a crowd as not only did the majority of the depicted audience not speak Latin, but neither could they read: in the 16th Century Germany a mere five per cent of the population was literate)[7] but rather that the images situate the deed of Luther as the starting point of a spectacular chain of events, something that reaches all layers of society at the moment of its occurrence.

A 19th Century engraving, titled as The Indulgences, Or The Ninety Five Propositions… (Scene In Front Of All Saint’s Church) Wittenberg 31. October, 1517. depicts the moment following the posting.

The Indulgences

Having completed his task, Luther is on the way to leave the location, while the feverish crowd heads towards the displayed text. Luther, holding up his right arm threateningly, reproaches a stately figure, while making with his left arm a wide gesture towards the crowd behind him, clearly suggesting that he is a representative, a mouthpiece of the crowd. The group of people depicted on the right hand side of the engraving appear to become engaged in a heated discussion (probably) about the text: a bearded figure accompanies his words by sharp gestures with his hand; the horsemen in the background pay close attention to the debaters; a young girl is pulling a debater by his coat hem as if signalling that she, too, is interested in the discussion or that she feels that she, too, is affected by the matter. Although the event does not have a uniform effect on all the participants, it compels everyone to express their opinion: for instance, another major character on the picture, a light, elegantly dressed figure on the right side from Luther, stands proudly, arms crossed over chest, and casts a reproving look on the already leaving, yet confident Luther, the hero of the crowd. The feverish scene is not only a depiction of the event but also its revolutionary, immediate effect – the behaviour of the excited crowd is similar to that of music fans on concerts in the present day. Hence, the scene of posting The Theses is presented literally as a media event. Due to its visual effectiveness, its dynamism, the dramatic pounding of the hammer on the church door that accompanies the action, the depiction of the scene in this spirit is present as the key scene in the majority of Luther biographies and plays an important role in films about him. Moreover, it has even become a part of the 21st Century pop culture: the posting scene is portrayed by several “Lego installations." A computer generated art work depicts Luther nailing, onto a church door, his famous words (also of disputed origin) from the Diet of Worms that took place four years after the beginning of the Reformation. Notably, he makes his statement in English: Here I stand, I can do no other. One of the most entertaining cover designs
[8] explicitly depicts Luther as a graffiti artist who sprays onto a wall: Hier spraye ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Doc. M. The design is probably not only consciously based on the above mentioned anachronism but developed further in order to enrich it by a new “paronomastic" anachronism.

In contrast to the authors discussed above, Richard Friedenthal, the author of a comprehensive (and moderately Marxist) monograph on Luther, disputes both the date and the actual occurrence of the event: “Recently the date has been contested, and it has been questioned if he ever nailed his theses to the door at all. Even if he did, it is not known whether the text was handwritten or printed; both forms were customary, and the church door was regularly used by the university to make various announcements. From time to time some theses were also posted onto the door. Luther’s historical manuscript has not been preserved, the first printed copy is lost, if there was one in the first place. The affair however attracted great attention. Many people copied the writing, it was sent all over the place, printed in different locations in a small or a larger, placard format, it was translated to German, studied, debated, and recited or quoted in speech points (“schlagwort") to the illiterate."


While the arguments of Friedenthal, especially those concerning the absence of original sources, may support scepticism towards the issue, further reason for doubt is provided by Eric W. Gritsch, a Lutheran theologian and the author of a highly regarded recent monograph on Luther,  who comes to a similar judgement i.e. that the theses were never posted. He writes the following with the least possible emphasis in a footnote of his Luther biography, Martin - God’s Court Jester: “There is strong evidence to suggest that the theses were not posted onto the door of the castle church,"[10] and refers the reader to the works of Erwin Iserloh.[11] Similarly, Neil Rhodes and Jonathan Sawday declare that “in fact, it is doubtful whether the traditional account of a heroic, proto-revolutionary Martin Luther defiantly pinning his Theses to the church door is in fact true."[12] In many aspects, a related observation by Gerhard Ebeling is remarkably apt: “ (…) amongst Church people as a whole a handful of slogans, no longer understood in their proper sense, such as 'justification by faith alone' or 'the priesthood of all believers', and conventional romantic ideas such as that of the 'hammer-blows on the church door at Wittenberg"[13]


In contrast, the posting of the Theses is claimed to have been “likely"[14] in the accompanying study to Martin Luther, a compilation of documents, edited by E.G. Rupp and Benjamin Drewery, because it was the most common way to advertise university disputations at the time. For the same reason, the authors consider it possible that Luther may have also distributed copies of the Theses to his closest colleagues. On the other hand, Rupp and Drewery also admit that “no public disputation ever took place on them in Wittenberg."[15] A brief and unfavourable mention is made of the study by Iserloh, which contested the view that the Theses were posted, and attention is drawn to the fact that it may be in the theological interest of Iserloh, a Catholic scholar, to undermine the credibility of the event. However, while such bias is naturally present in the background of the debate, Rupp and Drewery are as susceptible as Iserloh or Gritsch, a scholar committed to the catholic-protestant dialogue, the nearing of the two; for example, Rupp has consistently defined the Catholic view of Luther as a caricature, a distorted image. From this point of view, the main question in the debate is to what extent Luther was a revolutionary: was it by a “big boom" or by “idle wandering" that Luther got from reform to Reformation.


Were the Theses actually posted? Despite of Rupp having labelled the debate as simply another futile chapter in a four hundred fifty year long theological battle[16], it is important to point out that there is another aspect beyond that of theology and ecclesiastical history that makes the question worthwhile to ask: namely, that of media history. The posting of the Theses is seen by the majority of its commentators as a widely visible, radical act that foreshadowed the “revolution" it caused – a view that enables the age of Reformation to appear homogenous, coherent, as a sequence of logically successive events. It is primarily due to this act that Luther can be seen as a virtuoso in public relations in his time, convinced in his truth, he vigorously seeks the opportunities to spread his revolutionary message in the least possible time and to the widest possible audience; he proceeds by consciously and intentionally employing all the public forums of his age, and does so in an impressively effective manner.


However, historical inquiries point to several ambiguities in the seemingly straightforward case. It is uncertain, precisely whom Luther intended to address with the Theses, what where his devices, to what extent was the spreading of the Theses dependant of the given infrastructural background, and what is possibly most important: to what extent he was able to control his campaign. If the assessment by Robert Kolb is accepted, namely, that the posting of the Theses was the first modern media event, it is essential to determine if the event occurred at all, or – what poses an equal amount of questions from the point of view of media history – whether it was constructed at a later time. It is thus necessary to examine the details in the arguments of Iserloh and the counter-arguments of Rupp, and additionally, to enumerate the various pieces of evidence that have appeared since the dispute in the 1960’s.


The centrepiece of the argumentation by Iserloh is the letter – also preserved in original – that Luther sent to the Archbishop of Mainz, evidently, on 31st of October 1517, and in which he requests Albrecht to read the enclosed theses, and to repeal his instructions to sellers of indulgences accordingly.  


“So es Ew. Hochwürden gefällig ist, könnt Ihr meine beiliegenden Streitsätze ansehen und daraus ersehen, wie ungewiß die Auffassung des Ablasses ist, obwohl die Ablaßprediger sich einbilden, sie wäre ganz ausgemacht."[17]


The letter was delivered to the counsellor of Albrecht on 17th of November, and only on 13th of December to Albrecht himself. Luther repeatedly mentions the letter in his later correspondence, among many others, for instance, also in a letter sent to Pope Leo X, and one he wrote to Frederick III. Luther specifically mentions two letters in his 1545 recollection of the events, one of which was sent to Albrecht, another to the margrave of Brandenburg:


“Alsbald schrieb ich 2 Briefe, den einen an den Mainzer Erzbischof Albrecht..., den anderen an den sog. Ordinarius loci, nämlich den Brandenburer Bischof Hieronymus, mit der Bitte, das Schamlose Treiben und die lästerlichen Reden der Ablaßprediger zu unterbinden; aber man schenkte dem armseligen Mönch überhaupt keine Beachtung: also mißachtet, gab ich einen Zettel mit Disputationthesen heraus." [18]


The above listed evidence clearly suggests that, if Luther wrote to the Archbishop of Mainz on 31st of October 1517 (the night before the All Saints’ Day)[19], allowed some time for the bishop to reply to his letter, and started to distribute his theses only when it became clear that there was no reply, then the Theses could not have been posted already on October 31st 1517. However, it is not only the date but also numerous other aspects of the classical delineation of the event that Iserloh questions: it is true – he argues – that it was customary to make announcements of university disputations on church doors, yet, posting them was the task of janitors and by no means that of professors. Naturally, it is of key importance to identify the person posting the Theses: if Luther nails the writing onto the church door himself, holding the hammer that strikes the nails, his intention to publish the writing is beyond doubt. The main argument of the Catholic theologian is however that none of the written sources published in the lifetime of Luther make a mention of his posting of the Theses. The author traces the first mention back to Melanchthon who writes the following words in the foreword to the second volume of collected works of Luther: 


“Luther, brennend von Eifer für die rechte Frömmigkeit, gab Ablaßthesen heraus, die im 1. Band dieser Ausgabe gedruckt sind. Diese hat er öffentlich an der Kirche in der Nähe des Wittenberger Schlosses am Vortage des Festes Allerheiligen 1517 angeschlagen."[20]


Iserloh admits the value of Melanchthon’s “testimony", nevertheless adding that Melanchthon who resided in Tübingen in 1517 did not witness the event in person, and must have therefore become accounted by it from hearsay. Similarly convincing is an observation made by Hans Volz who points out that Melanchthon does not make a single reference to the posting of theses until 1546, even though he regularly mentions it in his later writings. What further undermines the credibility of Melanchthon’s words, according to Iserloh, is the fact that his account on the events of 1517 is inaccurate in also other regards. Moreover, the theologian points out that Luther himself claims[21] that is was not his intention to disseminate the Theses to the public. Indeed, in a letter, dating from 5th of March 1518, which Luther addresses to Christoph von Scheurl, he writes the following lines:


“You wonder I did not tell you of them. But I did not wish to have them widely circulated. I only intended submitting them to a few learned men for examination, and if they disapproved of them, to suppress them; or make them known through their publications, in the event of their meeting with their approval. But now they are being spread abroad and translated everywhere, which I never could have credited, so that I regret having given birth to them - not that I am unwilling to proclaim the truth manfully, for there is nothing I more ardently desire, but because this way of instructing the people is of little avail."[22]


The concept of a consciously planned media campaign is substantially undermined by the fact that Luther does not utter a single word about his posting of the Theses; furthermore, he explicitly reveals that it was not his intention to share the writing with a wide readership – on the contrary, the text spread pronouncedly in spite of his intentions. In this context, a grand public posting of the Theses would be unintelligible; to which Iserloh’s obvious conclusion reads as: “Der Thesenanschlag fand nicht statt"[23] (“The Theses were not posted")


One of the most consistent critics of Iserloh, Gordon Rupp nevertheless considers the event authentic in his essay in the Journal of Theological Studies[24]; moreover, he views the timing of the second (extended) edition of Iserloh’s book in 1967 as a means to disturb the celebrations of the 450th anniversary of Reformation. Rupp admits that numerous details of the event are questionable, but thinks that even if Iserloh is able to prove many of the traditional Protestant arguments wrong, he is however unable to prove that the posting did not happen. The key argument of Rupp is a letter that Luther sent to Spalatin, and in which Luther discusses the effect of the Theses and the hearsay according to which he had been willing to take actions against the Archbishop of Mainz. According to Rupp, the letter originates from the week after October 31st. He thus suggests that since the content of the Theses had become commonly known over a very short time, there necessarily had to be a public announcement to make it known. However, the “evidence" is remarkably vague, the circle of individuals among whom the hearsay had spread is not specified in the text: it remains unveiled whether it was but a few of Luther’s colleagues or the wider public of the town of Wittenberg who knew about it. Rupp’s argument is further weakened by the absence of the exact date of the letter: also the Weimar Edition gives early November 1517 merely as a likely timeframe.


On the other hand, even if the posting of the Theses took place in the above described manner, opinions on its revolutionary nature differ. For instance, Rhodes and Sawday argue that Luther posted the Theses in order to invite his fellow scholars to participate in a verbal disputation, a forum in full accord with the expectations at the time. This procedure was diplomatic and cautious even under the given circumstances, and in all respect lacked the revolutionary aspect: “Yet deciding to nail a placard to a church door when the printing presses were readily available would now be seen as a fairly conservative form of public address: the potential readership was tiny, the orbit of public debate thus created was severely circumscribed."[25]


While the preceding discussion has revolved primarily around the study of written sources, in the knowledge of the media practices specific to the age, the study of alternative sources may be of great value, a good example of which is the numismatic research conducted by Thurman L. Smith[26] who also examines whether the Theses were actually posted. The numismatic perspective in many aspects “represents a visual primary source which can supplement written documentation."[27] Due to the relatively high number of impressions produced and the mostly affordable pricing, medals[28] are likely to be the most widely spread “sculptural" artworks. For instance, in his definition of numismatic art, Káplár László implies that it is system for registering, a popular, accessible medium for all layers of society, and one which came to existence due to the demand to “memorialise different events and individuals on them, and through them, in order to preserve memories and spread news to others."[29]


Even though the oldest remaining coins originate from the 7th Century BC, the golden age arrived in the Roman Empire, and was revived in the 16th Century. According to Smith, more than one thousand different numismatic items from the early modern era can be seen as related to Luther; the medals and coins – used as a popular and widely distributed propaganda device – were designed to depict important events in Luther’s life and the Reformation era. Smith comes to an essentially similar conclusion to that of Iserloh, namely, there is no reference to the posting of the Theses on the coins and medals struck in Luther’s lifetime (neither in writing, nor as an illustration), and it is only in 1717, on the 200th anniversary of Reformation that the first items are designed by artists who took the posting of the Theses for a fact. Rather than the lack of “contemporary" depictions of the event, the primary revelation of the study is the lack of these images on the coins and medals struck on the occasion of the 1617 centennial celebrations.[30] It is important to point out that the relatively complicated working process and the durability of the material definitely imply permanence, thus only events that were real, resistant to time, widely accepted as authentic were commemorated on coins. Accordingly, the illustrations on the anniversary coins may therefore also stand in causal relationship with the spreading acceptance of the event; hence, it is possible to trace the process by which the event becomes common knowledge to an ever wider public: while only three coins out of the total of one hundred and eighty struck in 1717 depict the act of posting, by 1817, and especially 1917, a significant percentage of coins portrays Luther posting the Theses. Naturally, the numismatic study does not resolve the issue, it does however demonstrate the variety of popular channels that were involved, and the amount of time it took for the event to become common knowledge.


The deadlocked dispute (there was no convincing, direct evidence that the Theses were posted, and no evidence that they definitely were not posted) was revived in 2007 when – according to German press reports – the director of the Luther Museum in Wittenberg, Martin Treu, while in the library of Jena University, found a Latin language handwritten note by Luther’s secretary, George Rörer, written in the end of a year 1540 edition of New Testament, a Luther translation. In Treu’s opinion, it is likely that Rörer made the note in Luther’s lifetime. The three lines in Latin translate to: “ In year 1517, on the night before the All Saints’ Day, Doctor Martin Luther revealed his theses on indulgences on church doors in Wittenberg." Since the note is still examined, and before the exact date is determined, it is only possible to suggest that there may have been people who know about the posting of the Theses before Melanchthon wrote about it. (It should also be taken into account that even according to the most recent evidence, the earliest mention of posting could have happened 23 years after the event.)


In order to summarise the argument, and based on the credible pieces of evidence, the following is a reconstruction of the event: at first, Luther reveals his theses to the Archbishop of Mainz in a private letter in Latin. It is possible that he sends further letters to other superiors of his, by which the handwritten copies of his work may have started to spread, and may have been posted onto the door of the castle church. The Theses were translated to German at latest in winter 1517 and were thereafter also printed.[31] Luther’s role in the course of events is contested (it cannot be fully excluded that Luther’s typographer, Johann Grunenberg who – in the humorous words of Rupp – was used as a proto-Xerox duplicator by Luther – may have made a few prints, however there is no information to confirm it). It is very likely that the Ninety-Five Theses were published in a form of a placard, since the earliest preserved copy of the Theses is also in this format, it is however unknown who posted it, where and when did it take place.


While the conclusive evidence is still to be discovered (if ever), the ongoing dispute over the Theses serves useful insights to those interested in the media aspect of the event. The mere fact that the participants of the dispute tend to deduct their historical or theological interpretations from questioning or proving an event that is quite clearly of a medial nature, further confirms the often noted observation that the history of the reformation is very closely connected to that of communication frameworks. However conspicuous it may be, it is necessary to highlight that the participants of the dispute (whether consciously or not) draw great attention to the much repeated observation of McLuhan, according to which it is not the “content" of a message but its vehicle that matters, that is, the medium itself is the message.


It is worthwhile to refer back to the previously already quoted passage from the letter to Scheurl: “But now they are being spread abroad and translated everywhere, which I never could have credited, so that I regret having given birth to them - not that I am unwilling to proclaim the truth manfully, for there is nothing I more ardently desire, but because this way of instructing the people is of little avail."[32] Luther refers to the circulation of printed copies of his writing, the spreading of which he regrets to be unable to control. While Rhodes and Sawday consider it possible that words of the cited passage is barely a figure of speech (it became a routine among Renaissance writers to blame print houses in public for damaging authorial intentions), they also point to a more radical and efficacious prospect for interpretation: “(…) Luther's anxiety must be one of the earliest examples of blaming the medium for the message."[33]


Anyhow, Luther was likely to sense that the Theses spread independently of him at this stage, materialising in place of his authorial intentions was the logic of the widely accessible and reader orientated print media: oddly, this may provide a new perspective also to the interpretation of the posting story. Inasmuch as Iserloh’s judgement is correct (which it is likely to be) and Luther did not intend the Theses to be propagated among the greater public, it needs to be made explicit, that the course of the events was changed only because Luther did not calculate with the inherent logic of the evolving, new type of publicity – it is perhaps not too hurried a suggestion to point out that the onset of this new publicity can be brought into connection with the increasing popularity of printing. Subsequently, it is possible to interpret the story of posting as a later attempt to correct and conceal what was basically a mistake in communication strategy: namely, the spectacular event shows Luther’s intentions as definite.  From this perspective, it is not the non-materialised event itself but its exceptionally effective communication campaign that can be defined as a media event. The PR or media campaign, the first signs of which were found by Luther’s secretary, Georg Rörer, but which was brought to success by Melanchthon and further perfected and detailed in the course of “re-construction" by Reformation historians, exercises a decisive influence on the self-explanation of Reformation until the present day. The content, message of the media event is in itself a – probably never happened, fictitious – media event.

[1] Robert KOLB, Luther’s funktion in an age of confessionalization = Donald K. McKIM, The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003, 211. 

[2] Martin LUTHER, Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, Works of Martin Luther Vol. 1,  Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915. 29-38. (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/274/274.txt)

[3] See also: Owen CHADWICK, A reformáció, Bp., Osiris, 2003, 39-40.

[4] Erwin ISERLOH, Luthers Thesenanschlag Tatsache oder Legende, Wiesbaden, Franz Steiner Verlag Gmbh, 1962. In English (extended edition): Erwin ISERLOH, The Theses Were Not Posted,  Toronto, Saunders of Toronto, 1966.

[5] See also: D. LUTHER Márton művei I, MASZNYIK Endre, Budapest-Pozsony, Luther-Társaság, 1904-1917, 15-16.

[6] Heinrich BOEHMER, Der junge Luther, Stuttgart, 1951, 156.

[7] R.W. SCRIBNER, The German Reformation, Macmillan, without year, 19.

[8] Manfred WOLF, Thesen und andere Anschläge: Anekdoten-Essays-Episoden um Martin Luther, Leipzig,  Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2005.

[9] Richard FRIEDENTHAL, Luther élete és kora, Bp., Gondolat, 1983, 155.

[10] Eric W. GRITSCH, Isten udvari bolondja, Bp., Luther, 2006, 42.

[11] Heinrich BORNKAMM, Thesen und Thesenschlag Luthers: Geschehen und Bedeutung, Berlin, Töpelmann , 1967.

[12] Neil RHODES, Jonathan SAWDAY, The Renaissance Computer, London, Routledge, 2000, 5.

[13] Gerhardt EBELING, Luther: Bevezetés a reformátor gondolkodásába, Magyarországi Luther Szövetség, 1997, 12.

[14]Luther may also have written to his own Ordinary, the Bishop of Brandenburg. It is likely that he had already nailed a copy of the Theses, in placard form, on the door of All Saints Church, in the normal way of University disputations, and he may have given copies to his nearest academic colleagues. The original copies of the Theses have not survived, and we do not know how many were written by hand, or whether a first batch was run off by the University printer." Martin Luther, ed. E.G. RUPP, Benjamin DREWERY, London, Edward Arnold, 1970, 12.

[15] ed. RUPP, DREWERY, 12.

[16] “And surely now, after 450 years, and in the spirit of 'De Ecumenismo', it is high time to turn our attention to dialogue about much more important things." Gordon RUPP, Journal of Theological Studies, XIX (1) 1968, 369.

[17] WA Br 1. 110.

[18] Cited: ISERLOH, 15. WA 54, 180.

[19] Date of the letter: 'Ex Vittenberga 1517. Vigilia omnium’

[20] Cited: ISERLOH, 23.

[21] Eg. in a letter to Pope Leo X  in May 1518. WA 1, 528.

[22] Martin Luther, ed., E. G. RUPP, Benjamin DREWERY, London, Edward Arnold, 1971, 25.  The original text: "Primum, quod miraris, cur non ad vos eas miserim, respondeo, quod non fuit consilium neque votum eas evulgari, sed cum paucis apud et circum nos habitantibus primum super ipsis conferri, ut sic multorum iudicio vel damnatae abolerentur vel probatae ederentur. At nunc longe ultra spem toties excuduntur et transferuntur, ut me poeniteat huius foeturae, non quod veritatem non faveam cognitam fieri vulgo, imo id unice quaerebam, sed quod ille modus non est idoneus, quo vulgus erudiatur." (WA 54, 152.)

[23] ISERLOH, 32.

[24] Gordon RUPP, Journal of Theological Studies XIX (1) 1968, 360-369.

[25] Neil RHODES, Jonathan SAWDAY, The Renaissance Computer, London, Routledge, 2000, 5.

[26] Thurman L. SMITH, Luther and the Iserloh Thesis from a Numismatic Perspective, Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Summer, 1989), 183-201.

[27] SMITH, 184.

[28] KÁPLÁR László, Ismerjük meg a numizmatikát, Bp., Gondolat, 1984, 195.

[29] KÁPLÁR, 195.

[30] “But it must be remembered that the Wittenberg gathering as well as other jubilee celebrations and the large number of numismatic items issued in 1617 do not necessarily mean a public posting of the Theses occurred." Thurman L. SMITH, Luther and the Iserloh Thesis from a Numismatic Perspective, Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Summer, 1989), 187.

[31] Neil RHODES, Jonathan SAWDAY, The Renaissance Computer, London, Routledge, 2000, 5.

[32] Martin Luther, ed. E. G. RUPP, Benjamin DREWERY, London, Edward Arnold, 1971, 25.

[33] Neil RHODES, Jonathan SAWDAY, The Renaissance Computer, London, Routledge, 2000, 5.

28. szám: Kizökkent idő. Szerkesztette: Ladányi-Turóczy Csilla és Peremiczky Szilvia
Év: 2009
Szám: 1
Kommentek: 0

előző év 2009 következő év

28. szám: Kizökkent idő. Szerkesztette: Ladányi-Turóczy Csilla és Peremiczky Szilvia
28. szám: Kizökkent idő. Szerkesztette: Ladányi-Turóczy Csilla és Peremiczky Szilvia

Ha... Ha? (feb. 2-3.->)
2015. 02. 02 17:10
Hankiss professzor
2015. 01. 24 09:12
Jó gyakorlat Bemutató
2015. 01. 21 14:05
Én, ellenem
2015. 01. 20 02:22
Budapest Kupa
2015. 01. 17 08:05