Repository index

The thesis highlights the complex role of the masses in the New Testament. The synoptic tradition, namely Matthew, Mark, and Luke, depict the masses differently. Matthew is more sympathetic, while Luke maintains distance, portraying Jesus as a friend to the poor and oppressed. The analysis of three Greek words, all translated as 'masses' in English: 'πολλοί', 'λαός', and 'ὄχλος', is particularly important. 'πολλοί' is a general term for any large group, not just people. Luke uses it most frequently, while Matthew does not use it at all, indicating that for Matthew, people mean more than just numbers. 'λαός' in the Septuagint usually refers to the nation of Israel. Matthew, with a Hebrew mindset, uses 'λαός' in this sense, and does not equate it with 'ὄχλος', which means an anonymous crowd. The author points out that Matthew carefully chose his words, and this difference is especially important in Matthew 27,25, where the people take responsibility for Jesus' blood.

In his 1583 ritual entitled Agendarius, which was innovative in many respects in comparison to its Hungarian predecessors, Bishop Miklós Telegdi of Pécs, the administrator of the diocese of Esztergom, added sample-like sermons to the rituals of the administration of the sacraments accompanying the great turning points of life (viz. baptism, confirmation, wedding etc.). He was presumably guided chiefly by pastoral considerations. For the second edition of 1596 (published after Telegdi’s death), the editors added a second funeral sermon, clearly intended for a more educated, urban audience – judging from the scholarly Latin quotations and the general tone. A comparison of the structure and content of the two speeches provides useful conclusions as to what the ecclesiastical authorities of the time considered advisable to preach at the time of death to mourners lacking basic schooling and what to the more learned audience.

My study approaches Unitarian sermon literature from the perspective of church discipline. There are several reasons for this: 1) Historical records of reception are scarce because in the early modern age, only a handful of Unitarian sermons could be published. 2) it was uncommon among Unitarian preachers to use theoretical works (ars concionandi/praedicandi) until the end of the 17th century, they learned instead by observing the written and oral practices of their colleagues. 3) Because of the medium of the manuscript, most early modern Unitarian sermons did not survive beyond the 17th–18th century. Therefore, in our exploration of the rules and ideals of sermon literature as well as the attitudes of followers, preachers, and schoolmasters to the genre, we are forced to rely on inferences based on the norms, especially the offences recorded in (ecclesiastical) court protocols.