"Jesus was Short and Unattractive." says Vatican Backed Publication

[dalovindj]

Looks like the Catholic Church is ready to dispel some myths (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=79&art_id=qw1035379260994B264&set_id=1). Perhaps they have finally realized that fighting ignorance is better than promoting it. Among the new revelations:Jesus Christ was born neither on December 25 nor in a manger with an ox and an ass for warmth. Furthermore, he was short and - according to modern aesthetics - not very nice to look at.

Jesus lived into his forties, around 10 years longer than the Bible suggests, and his father Joseph is more likely to have been an affluent and well-respected architect than a humble carpenter.

The 10 commandments were neither dictated to Moses by God, the book says, nor were they ever engraved on stone tablets.I think they probably left a few out. Some things having to do with magic people and mythological gods being works of fiction. Baby steps, I guess.

DaLovin' Dj

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Hmmm...It also says that David did not kill Goliath. I would like to know what their sources were. It's one thing to say we shouldn't take the Bible too literally, it's another to make positive assertions (i.e. "Jesus lived into his forties).

I'm definitely intrigued. I'd like to learn some more about this.

[ouisey]

"Paul did not fall off his horse on the way to Damascus"? How the hell can they prove that?

[dangermom]

So where are the sources for some of this information? The article says nothing about how they figured it out.

Jesus not born on December 25--check. No big surprise there, most people know that.

Jesus probably short (by modern-day standards, anyway) and not particularly handsome--check. Most people back then would fit that description--and Isaiah prophesies it to boot.

Where do the other ones come from? What extra writings do we have about Jesus' birth that contradict the manger part? I think most people know that the traditional creche scene is fiction; it's just a convenient and pretty way to depict it. But what sources say that Joseph was an architect, or that Jesus was 40 at death (and so what?)? What makes them more reliable? And why would any of that be a big shock to faithful people?

I'm gonna need some more concrete citations here.

[Captain Amazing]

The "Joseph as archetect" part comes from Crossen, I think. He argues that the term "carpenter" in a first century Roman contextshouldn't be understood as a modern carpenter would be, but instead, as a kind of craftsman.

As for the "David didn't kill Goliath" part, the story of Goliath is mentioned twice in the bible. In Samuel, the "David kills Goliath" story is told. In the book of Chronicles, though, there's a reference to "Elhanan son of Jair", who, the text said, "killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod. "

Traditionally, to clear up the contradiction, people have added "the brother of" to the passage, to make Elhanan kill the brother of Goliath, instead of Goliath himself. A lot of scholars now, though, say that the "David killing Goliath" story in Samuel is more a case of the book wanting to make David do great things, so the writer credited the death of Goliath to him.

[Revtim]

He may not have gorgeous, but man! What great abs.

[tomndebb]

From the link:Based on their study of original sacred texts, Elisabetta Broli and Roberto Beretta's book carries a preface by Gianfranco Ravasi, a member of the Vatican's cultural committee, So this is not an official "Vatican" position. Some things they probably got right, some wrong, but this hardly counts as some great "change" from Rome.

[Liberal]

DJ

First of all, I can't find anything about the alleged book anywhere, except on two or three nutcase sites, and they all have plagiarized each other word for word. Interestingly, one of them warns: "Independent Online is a wholly owned subsidiary of Independent News & Media. Reliance on the information this site contains is at your own risk." :D

Second, I think you (and the other kooks) have misunderstood what's going on with that sort of thing. It's nothing new. People are always pointing out things like the fact that there weren't three wise men. The number is never mentioned. If the book does exist, it is likely dispelling myths perpetrated about the Bible, not in it.

And third, I just want to acknowledge that you at least gave a cite this time. A good baby step for you.

[dorkusmalorkusmafia]

LOL, that explains a lot about why Jesus died a virgin. Ugly Indeed!

[Liberal]

You poor child. Dorkusmalorkusmafia? Does it hurt when you think?

[ResIpsaLoquitor]

A note to the wise--

You need to be careful when something is cited as "coming from the Vatican." There's a number of committees and sub-committees within the Vatican which, while they may speak with some delegated authority, don't necessarily have the final word on things.

I notice the article specifically mentions that this came from the Vatican's cultural committee, which furthers my suspicion that these statement's aren't meant to be theologically binding.

[Duck Duck Goose]

What Lib said--I can't find anything other than the press release, no info on what their sources were.
The Eleven Commandments, written by two journalists for the Avvenire bishops' daily paper...

Based on their study of original sacred texts, Elisabetta Broli and Roberto Beretta's book carries a preface by Gianfranco Ravasi, a member of the Vatican's cultural committee...The Avvenire is an Italian Catholic newspaper.
http://www.ciao-italy.com/categories/newspapers.htm
This is a list of the most important newspapers in Italy. When reading these publications it is important to keep in mind who or what group owns the paper, which can often account for a certain bias. You have been warned (!)

Avvenire
The newspaper was born from a fusion between two Catholic dailies, "L'Italia" from Milan and "L'Avvenire d'Italia" in Bologna. In 1989 a group of bishops and Catholic industrialists joined to create a dialog between the ecclesiastical and business worlds. The paper is published in Milan.
http://www.avvenire.it/

I doubt if the book is as "fringe" as it might sound at first, but I'd still like to know where they got the "Joseph was an architect" and "Jesus died at age 40" things.

Luke 3:23 says (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LUKE+3:23&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on):
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. FWIW, I put "how old was jesus" into Google, and up came a guy named Irenaeus. Anybody wanna go read it, see if it makes sense?
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a38.htm

And there's other stuff on the web--apparently the "3 1/2 years" length of Jesus' ministry is not as carved in stone as my Sunday School teacher materials would have me believe. :D

But anyway, what difference does it make if Jesus lived to be 40 or 50? It's not like there was some prophecy that would fail to be fulfilled if he lived longer.

[Liberal]

I still can't find anyone who sells the alleged book.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by Captain Amazing
The "Joseph as archetect" part comes from Crossen, I think. He argues that the term "carpenter" in a first century Roman contextshouldn't be understood as a modern carpenter would be, but instead, as a kind of craftsman.
Correct in that a true carpenter would not be bad off. However, my understanding (and it could very well be wrong) is that when the Bible says "carpenter" a more correct translation is "handyman." Which puts Joe back in the gutter.

[Duck Duck Goose]

It's possible it's not an amazon.com "book" as such, but more of a "pamphlet", if it was written specifically for this newspaper.

Oh, and, the "Jesus was ugly" thing is not new--I was told it in Sunday School myself.

From Isaiah 53, (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ISA+53&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) the "Messiah" chapter:

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

[dalovindj]

Anyone speak Italian (http://www.avvenire.it/)? The cites refer to a paper published by bishops:The newspaper was born from a fusion between two Catholic dailies, "L'Italia" from Milan and "L'Avvenire d'Italia" in Bologna. In 1989 a group of bishops and Catholic industrialists joined to create a dialog between the ecclesiastical and business worlds. The paper is published in Milan. This is the source of the article and the commisioners of the book as I understand. Anyone know of this publication's (Avvenire) reputation? Anyone fluent in Itallian care to find and read the original article on that website? Perhaps it indicates where one could find this book or a list of sources. I definately don't speak any foreign languages so I can't do it. The articles did refer to the book as being Vatican backed. If it isn't I'm sure it won't take long for the vatican to complain. Maybe someone should send an e-mail. I would love to know the sources for myself.

And, Lib, I could cite that there is a god named Zeus who throws thunder bolts, but that would be as useless as when you cite the Bible, for all it would prove. Everything I have stated I have shown cites for. I never once stated that what they said was true, only that it had been said. I never said they had to be right, only that they were making an effort to dispell percieved false myths. It seems they are. It has been stated that they are backed by the Vatican. If you want to attack their efforts knock yourself out, but don't imply that I take this to be incapable of being wrong or even well supported. I don't. I'll hold back judgement on the credibility until I've read the book, although you seem to have already passed judgement and have resorted to insulting people in GD (kooks indeed - only one of us believes in magic).

DaLovin' Dj

[Liberal]

Ah, my bad, DJ. I had you confused with someone who understood that assertions made in Great Debates require solid support either by reliable citation or logic.

I see that you were just witnessing

-----

Duck

Thanks for putting out the straight dope on this. Looks like there's nothing to see here.

[dalovindj]

Nope. What assertions did I make that were not supported?

DaLovin' Dj

[Liberal]

Well, which is it?

A. "...but don't imply that I take this to be incapable of being wrong or even well supported. I don't."

or

B. "Nope. What assertions did I make that were not supported?"

[dalovindj]

The difference is that I said " 'Jesus was short and unattractive' says Vatican backed publication" which is supported by many websites. The correctness of the authors conclusions is up for debate (that is why I put it here) and we will need to read the book and see their sources to make an educated decision. So these two statements by me are not contradictory. I'll grant that the authors may very well be incorrect. The only assertion that I made was that such a book was reportedly made and supported by the Vatican.

You like the smoke and mirrors, huh? False accusations and such? Read what I say and you may get alot further and waste alot less time. There are quite a few reports in many different languages that would seem to indicate that such a book has been published in Italy. The paper mentioned exists. The member of the Vatican exists. The validity of the books assumptions are up for debate, and I never said that those assumptions were correct. As usual you make foolish assumptions, throw some insults, and add a couple of condescending statements. Always a pleasure.

DaLovin' Dj

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I don't think dalo made any false assertions, Lib, all he did was refer us to the story and post the link. I didn't get the impression that he was trying to assert the book's conclusions as fact, but only informing us that there WAS a book. The story, as written, does seem to imply that the book has the Vatican's imprimatur. I think this made the story thread-worthy. Give the guy a break, dude.

[tomndebb]

The member of the Vatican exists. Not exactly. The person probably exists, but the organization to which they belong is about the equivalent of the National Endowment for the Arts. The director of the NEA is not authorized to issue policy statements for the State Department and a "member of the Vatican's cultural committee" does not speak for the church on matters of faith and morals.

That said, it is a lot of hoopla over nothing. Among the new revelations: The RCC has not pushed the "literalness" of most of the things cited in years. Christmas? You can find detailed explanations of how the RCC chose the date to coincide with the Saturnalia in any reputable Catholic history. Jonah? Parable. Joshua and Jericho? Cultural myth-making by the people who displaced the original inhabitants. And so on. . . There is not a single "new" revelation in the bunch, so this assertion (which you clearly made) is in error.

It is only a very small number of people who are going to be "shocked" by any of this. (Some of it will be disputed, but it is not shocking.)
OTOH, considering how few Christians actually worry about this stuff, I am always fascinated by the (equally small number of) atheists who run around trying to find all these discrepancies and then trumpeting that they have somehow "disproved" Christianity.
I say: Ship 'em all to an island and let them dispute over minutiae until they all turn blue.

[Huerta88]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
I don't think dalo made any false assertions, Lib, all he did was refer us to the story and post the link. I didn't get the impression that he was trying to assert the book's conclusions as fact, but only informing us that there WAS a book. The story, as written, does seem to imply that the book has the Vatican's imprimatur. I think this made the story thread-worthy. Give the guy a break, dude.

If it had anyone's actual "Imprimatur," it would say so -- that's a pretty specific endorsement, following a pretty specific process:

http://www.cin.org/mateo/mat93008.html

If it were a Papal Letter/Pastoral Letter/Papal Bull, or a proclamation ex cathedra, I think we'd know it too.

Given that the RCC seems to have so many official ways of making authoritative statements and endorsements of varying degrees of importance, I think a negative inference can be drawn from the fact that none of these modes of doctrinal expression appears to have been employed, and that at most, a Vatican functionary agreed to (got bamboozled into) affixing his name and title to wankerish speculation along the lines of a newspaper gossip column -- not surprising, considering the apparent source of the suppositious book/pamphlet

[Huerta88]

Stand by for the sequel:

--Jesus wasn't a Jew!
--Jesus married Mary Magdalene!
--Jesus was gay!
--Jesus was a Roman spy!
--Jesus was lefthanded!
--Jesus made a mean barbecue sauce!
--Jesus would have lost a fight with Aquaman!
--We Italian journalists have proof!

The alarming part is about half of the above have already been asserted as fact by people with way too much time on their hands.

[Duck Duck Goose]

Jesus Heals BBQ Apron (http://www.cafeshops.com/cp/prod.aspx?p=praiseshop.2671440).

I love the Internet. :D

[Shodan]

For this I fought the hamsters for twenty minutes?

What Duck Duck Goose says about the prophecies of Isaiah. Nothing more is known about Jesus' appearence (although Jim Bishop speculated that He must have looked like His mother).

At any rate, I am not ready to get a refund from the last time I saw "The Greatest Story Ever Told" because Max von Syndow is too pretty to be my Savior. At least, not based on what some Italian journalists claim.

Regards,
Shodan

[RexDart]

Originally posted by tomndebb
That said, it is a lot of hoopla over nothing. The RCC has not pushed the "literalness" of most of the things cited in years. Christmas? You can find detailed explanations of how the RCC chose the date to coincide with the Saturnalia in any reputable Catholic history. Jonah? Parable. Joshua and Jericho? Cultural myth-making by the people who displaced the original inhabitants. And so on. . . .

Just wondering, but is there a site out there that explains which ones are considered by the RCC to be a "historical" account, which ones are "parables", and which ones are "myths"? To my athiest eye, they may all be myths, and certainly any of them that include supernatural events would be myths or parables. Some of them simply scream out that they're apocryphal (in the non-technical sense of the word, not meaning necessarily the deuterocanonical works) even within a supernatural framework. And the stuff that purports to recount events to which there were no witnesses seems easy enough to discount.

In other words, what sort of assertions in a work like this would have drawn the ire of the Vatican, rather than its endorsement?

[Johanna]

When I was a kid, I read a Life of Christ written by a WWI-era Italian author, in which he said that Jesus was short. For some reason I let this factoid influence me when in college I wrote a weird tale (http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/jomomojojomomojo/myhomepage/conjunction.html). When I brought NYA-HA, "god of the unexpected," into the story, I introduced him as "A little guy...."

In retrospect, I'm not sure what that has to do with it at all. Sorry if it seems blasphemous, I didn't mean it that way and I was even a Christian at the time. It just seemed appropriate for a visitor from the supernatural plane to be short.

[tomndebb]

is there a site out there that explains which ones are considered by the RCC to be a "historical" account, which ones are "parables", and which ones are "myths"? Probably not. For most, you'd have to find various scholarly works that address each individually--and you would find different interpretations and understandings even among them. The point is that the RCC does not have lists divided into columns of "facts" and "stories." Some "stories" are going to be held as "fact," (e.g., the basic stories of the crucifixion and resurrection without quibbling over the details in different authors), but there is no "standard list."

[happyheathen]

I say: Ship 'em all to an island and let them dispute over minutiae until they all turn blue.


Tom~?

Is that really you saying those words?

He who has spent so many hours quibbling over Christian/RCC minutiae?

Are you OK?

Any recent blows to the head?

Have you eaten any rye with a strange mold?

[tomndebb]

Surely, HH, even you can distinguish between my attempts to identify and clarify and explain doctrines and their origins and people who will get into impassioned debates over whether or not two short passages contradict each other and whether that contradiction (if it exists) invalidates an entire work?

Or, perhaps you cannot.

[Liberal]

Shodan wrote:

For this I fought the hamsters for twenty minutes?That almost merited five laughies.

:D :D :D :D

[Apos]

Even if people are making these claims, I know of no new hsitorical evidence to support them. I mean, stuff like this would require a ridiculous amount of new evidence discovered yesterday that I just mysteriously never heard about (except the "short" thing)

---Isaiah prophesies it to boot.---

Bull. It's pretty questionable as to whether Isaiah's prophecies are about Jesus, especially seeing that the fulfillment of them happens long prior to Jesus.

[Bricker]

For what it's worth Gianfranco Ravasi could not possibly give an [i]imprimatur[/b], as he's not a bishop.

He's a prefect of the St. Ambrose Library in Milan and a member of the Papal commission on the cultural assets of the church.

Not, in other words, a source for official Vatican pronouncements.

- Rick

[dalovindj]

I'm thinking that if there really is any new evidence, it's in the form of texts the Vatican has been keeping under wraps. I'm really curious about the overall connection between the Vatican and that newspaper. It is a source that is quoted often all over the net. It appears to be published by Bishops.

I imagine there are different branches of politics in the church. I could imagine progressives trying to shed light on some of this stuff, but I could also imagine there would be parts of the Vatican that would fight against it. Anyone have any insight into the resources or politics of these bishops? Could a bishop allow journalists access to documents that the public typically does not get to see?

I'm thinking of starting an e-mail campaign to track down this book. I guess I should e-mail the paper, the web sites that reported on it, the vatican maybe, and I can't really think of who else would be good to cc. Any ideas?

DaLovin' Dj

[Huerta88]

Originally posted by dalovindj
I'm thinking that if there really is any new evidence, it's in the form of texts the Vatican has been keeping under wraps. I'm really curious about the overall connection between the Vatican and that newspaper. It is a source that is quoted often all over the net. It appears to be published by Bishops.

I imagine there are different branches of politics in the church. I could imagine progressives trying to shed light on some of this stuff, but I could also imagine there would be parts of the Vatican that would fight against it. Anyone have any insight into the resources or politics of these bishops? Could a bishop allow journalists access to documents that the public typically does not get to see?
Ah yes. The secret Vatican texts. Shelved right next to their world's largest porn collection and millions of dollars worth of gold [which the conspiracy theorists never seem to realize is probably -- to the extent it exists -- mostly in the form of chalices and gold leaf, and not gold coins through which the Pope cavorts like Scrooge McDuck].

Why would "progressives" (or for that matter reactionaries) care about how tall Jesus was?

Why would these progressive bishops choose to convey the devastating information about Short Jesus through obscure Italian journalists (pardon the redundancy) whose book nobody can find even on Amazon, where you can find everything (including probably the BBQ'ing with Jesus apron)?

I would very much like to know how about the grounding in Greek/Latin/Hebrew/Aramaic that Signor Beretta and Signora Broli brought to their scrutiny of the "original sacred texts." No doubt, as in the English speaking world, these journalists are fluently multilingual.

They're so good they've even debunked biblical myths that, um, aren't biblical -- including their stunning revelation that "if Eve ate a fruit in the Garden of Eden, it was an orange or a fig, not an apple." I don't recall any apples being mentioned in Genesis, though I do recall the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And if someone can explain to me whether the "Jonas" whose career they know so much about is any kin to Jonah, I'd be better able to evaluate that "debunking."

Anyone remember the Jesus Project? It produced a presumptuous color-coded Bible in which "leading scholars" modestly indicated which words of Jesus he really spoke, which he probably spoke, and which he didn't speak. Maybe the Italians had access to some of those tape recordings/videos too.

[UDS]

Originally posted by dalovindj
I'm thinking of starting an e-mail campaign to track down this book. I guess I should e-mail the paper, the web sites that reported on it, the vatican maybe, and I can't really think of who else would be good to cc. Any ideas?
Save yourself the trouble, and order it from this site: http://www.liberonweb.com/asp/libro.asp?ISBN=883846491X Yours for just €10.97 if you order before the end of November.

It doesn’t appear to be published by the newspaper, but by Piemme, an Italian publishing house which specialises in children’s, educational and religious books. I’ve no idea if there’s any link between Piemme and l’Avvenire.

My guess is that this is a fairly lightweight book which contains nothing new. (What do you expect for €10.97? Scholarship?) It will certainly not be based on new evidence. No “new evidence” is required to show, for instance, that Christ is no more likely to have been born on 25 December than on any other day of the year.

Most probably this book simply makes the point that many popular beliefs are not supported by scripture at all, or that a reading of scripture in the light of modern scholarship does not support them. My guess is that it’s a fairly modest book, and that the media coverage has trivialised it by presenting as “fact” new readings of the scriptural evidence which are not consistent with the popular tradition.

I very much doubt, for instance, that the book states baldly that David did not slay Goliath, but rather that a version of events in which David did not slay Goliath is, on the whole, more consistent with the scriptural and other evidence than one in which he did. Similarly with Saint Paul and the horse. Nothing ground-breaking there, really, and certainly no need for sinister conspiracy theories involving power struggles in the Vatican.

[Duck Duck Goose]

Anyone remember the Jesus Project? It produced a presumptuous color-coded Bible in which "leading scholars" modestly indicated which words of Jesus he really spoke, which he probably spoke, and which he didn't speak. It's the "Jesus Seminar", not "Project".

http://www.disciple-heritage.org/fivegospel.htm
The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus.AUTHORS: Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the "Jesus Seminar."

New York, Polebridge Press (Macmillan Publishing Co.), 1993; 553 pages with introductory material, a new translation of the four gospels, plus the Gospel of Thomas. Contains drawings, a dictionary of terms, and notes on the five gospels. Also contains a roster of "Jesus Seminar" members.

This new translation of the Gospels (with the addition of Thomas) is the result of six years work by "The Jesus Seminar." This is a group of liberal critical scholars who assume that the Bible cannot be taken at face value. As is clear from the subtitle the Jesus Seminar scholars are trying to find "the authentic words of Jesus." They do not believe that the biblical words purported to be spoken by Jesus were necessarily His own words. In fact, they attribute only about 20% of the Gospel material to Jesus Himself. They believe the other 80% did not really come from His lips, but is material added by the Gospel writers to reflect the developing faith of the early church.

< snip >

Their "Bible" contains four colors in the text. Red print means Jesus really said this... Pink print means Jesus probably said something like this. Gray print means Jesus did not say this, but the ideas are close to His. Black print means Jesus did not say this; it was added later by the church.

[tomndebb]

And if someone can explain to me whether the "Jonas" whose career they know so much about is any kin to Jonah Well, since Jonas is the variant of Jonah that was used in the Latin Vulgate (the version/translation of the bible that was officially endorsed by the RCC for somewhat over 1,000 years) and since that variant was carried over into most Catholic translations up until the late 20th century, Jonas and Jonah are pretty much the same guy.

Since none of us have yet found the actual work (which may be published only in Italian), it is also very possible that the book, itself, makes no claim to be "debunking" any beliefs. For all we know, it is simply a recitation of all the already facts-vs-legends concepts that RexDart was asking about. (Although, given the nature of the publishing industry, a sensational "Look what we've found" approach is more likely.)

[Huerta88]

Thanks for the correction, DDG.

Inclusion of the Gospel Of Thomas I had not known about. That one, if I remember correctly, was great fun: It had Jesus killing his playmates, among other things.

By the way, unless the Italians uncovered some studio portraits of Jesus, I'm trying to figure out what the basis of their characterization of his appearance/attractiveness could be other than a logical inference that he had Semitic features. Anyone else vaguely troubled by their apparent equating of Semitic="unattractive?"

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Huert,
You're confusing the Gospel of thomas with the INFANCY gospel of Thomas. They're two different books. The Infancy Gospel has the story about the killer baby Jesus. the Gospel of Thomas is a much earlier sayings gospel (circa 70-150 CE). It contains no stories, narratives or miracles, only a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus.

[dalovindj]

Ah yes. The secret Vatican texts. Shelved right next to their world's largest porn collection and millions of dollars worth of gold.Easy. I didn't mention anything about porn. It is well documented that the Vatican has around 150,000 manuscripts in their library and that they allow only 2,000 scholars a year to view them. I would imagine the research they did was in this library. The more I think about it the more I suspect the book probably involves no intentionally concealed documents, but rather new insights into documents that thousands could have looked at. Other than research in this library I can't see where they would draw their data from.

As far as the Vatican concealing documents, I find it easy to imagine they do such things. They have a history of censorship and keeping a whole meme-complex (any religion qualifies) going requires propagnda. What your target audience hears can be as impotant as what they don't hear, so I don't place the Vatican above such practices, especially given their history. They have withheld information before, such as with Fatima (even though that has now been revealed). They have shown they release information as they see fit to help the religion, rather than truth and openness being the policy.

Gotta run.

DaLovin' Dj

[Huerta88]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Huert,
You're confusing the Gospel of thomas with the INFANCY gospel of Thomas. They're two different books. The Infancy Gospel has the story about the killer baby Jesus. the Gospel of Thomas is a much earlier sayings gospel (circa 70-150 CE). It contains no stories, narratives or miracles, only a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus.

You are of course right, and thanks for the refresher course (I'm assuming the Jesus Seminar dealt with the gnostic G.O.T. and not the infancy one (though the latter would have been quite amusing)). Wasn't the gnostic G.O.T. part of what they found at Nag Hammadi?

DA: Sorry about the porn dig. As has been pointed out, all the article said regarding source materials was that they had studied the "original sacred texts" -- no claim as to whether those were known ones or "newly discovered" (and I've noted my problems with the translation issues this would entail, etc.).

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Huert, you are correct, sir. the Gospel of Thomas was part of the Nag Hammadi discovery and is largely considered to be of gnostic origin (although this is not conclusive). You are also correct that it was considered by the the JS because of its early pedigree. (contemporary with Mark)

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by dalovindj
I would imagine the research they did was in this library. The more I think about it the more I suspect the book probably involves no intentionally concealed documents, but rather new insights into documents that thousands could have looked at. Other than research in this library I can't see where they would draw their data from.


Or it's not new research at all, but just a collection of "sensational" material from other, already published sources. For example, the "carpenter meant something different" theory can be found in Crossan ("The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranian Jewish Peasant", if you're interested). So, it's possible that this isn't really new research at all.

[tracer]

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
I'd still like to know where they got the "Joseph was an architect" and "Jesus died at age 40" things.
My wild-assed-educated-guess at the "Jesus died at age 40" thing: Somewhere along the line, it became established that Jesus died in A.D. 33. (It says so in a Twila Paris song and everything.)
If the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are to be taken as true, Jesus could not have been born any later than 4 B.C. (Matthew attributes the Slaughter of the Innocents to King Herod the Great, and King Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.), and would probably have been born in 6 B.C. (Luke mentions a wide-scale Roman census, and there was a large Roman census taken in 6 B.C.).
If Jesus was born in 6 B.C. and died in 33 A.D., he would have been 37 or 38 years old when he died.
Oh, and let's tack an extra year of "slop factor" onto each end of that birth-death track for good measure. Total: 40 years.

[c_carol]

re: Joseph's financial status:

Luke 2:21-24 -- When 8-day-old Jesus is presented in the Temple, Joseph and Mary offer a sacrifice of two pigeons or doves. Leviticus 12 describes the required sacrifice as a year-old lamb and one pigeon, but adds "If she [the mother] cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons." (Lev. 12:8, NIV) Conclusion: At least at the time Jesus was born, Joseph was not exactly wealthy.

[Rossarian]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
The Infancy Gospel has the story about the killer baby Jesus.

:eek:

Sounds like a very strange horror movie.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Yeah the Jesus in the Infancy gospel is like Damien. He keeps killing other kids at the drop of a hat. He kills one kid just for bumping into him. Check it out. it's good halloween reading.

http://www.earlygospels.net/translations/infancythomastranslation.html

So who do you think is scarier Infancy gospel Jesus or that little girl from THE RING?

[UDS]

Originally posted by dalovindj
. . . It is well documented that the Vatican has around 150,000 manuscripts in their library and that they allow only 2,000 scholars a year to view them. I would imagine the research they did was in this library. The more I think about it the more I suspect the book probably involves no intentionally concealed documents, but rather new insights into documents that thousands could have looked at. Other than research in this library I can't see where they would draw their data from . . .
Notwithstanding the claims in the blurb, I doubt if the authors did very much research on original texts and, if they did, I see no reason to assume that the texts concerned were in the Vatican library (and, if they were, I would expect the blurb to trumpet the fact). And I also doubt if the insights into texts are new.

The authors are journalists, not academics, and my guess is that this book is a popular presentation of material which is not new among theologians and biblical scholars. Over the last few years we’ve seen in Europe an explosion of books in which authors who are, basically, intelligent non-experts present other peoples’ scientific, historic or scholarly research in an accessible way – I’ve read such books on human genetics, cryptography, the trial of Galileo and the development of timepieces, to name a few. I suspect this book is part of that phenomenon.

I’ve had a look at the publisher’s website, which is here: http://www.edizpiemme.it As well as this book, their other new titles for October 2002 include “The Sherpas of Everest” and “The Secrets of the Mummies”. I’ve read none of these books and my Italian is very limited (very, very limited, in fact), but my overall impression from the blurbs on the website is not of weighty, academic, solidly-researched, peer-reviewed tomes.

There’s no sense in which this book enjoys any kind of official endorsement of the Catholic Church, or pretends to. On the other hand, there’s nothing in the book, as described, which creates any difficulties or problems for Catholic theology or belief.

[Jabba]

Originally posted by tracer
My wild-assed-educated-guess at the "Jesus died at age 40" thing:
Somewhere along the line, it became established that Jesus died in A.D. 33. (It says so in a Twila Paris song and everything.)

If the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are to be taken as true, Jesus could not have been born any later than 4 B.C. (Matthew attributes the Slaughter of the Innocents to King Herod the Great, and King Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.), and would probably have been born in 6 B.C. (Luke mentions a wide-scale Roman census, and there was a large Roman census taken in 6 B.C.).

If Jesus was born in 6 B.C. and died in 33 A.D., he would have been 37 or 38 years old when he died.

Oh, and let's tack an extra year of "slop factor" onto each end of that birth-death track for good measure. Total: 40 years.Close, but not quite. The point about Jesus being born no earlier than 4BC is correct but 6BC is a confusion. Luke puts the birth during the governorship of Cyrenius/Quirinius, i.e. AD6, but Luke is hopelessly wrong on the Nativity.

The second point is then Jesus' death. This, according to the theory, was Friday 30th March AD36: the reason for the remarkable precision being that it was the third Passover during Jesus' ministry. If we know that it was AD36 we can determine the date.

So where does the year come from? According to Luke and Mark, Jesus' ministry began after the arrest of John the Baptist, which happened because the latter had criticised the marriage of Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Judaea, to his sister-in-law Herodias. Antipas' brother Philip died in 33/4. Antipas went to Rome ( probably to plead for Philip's land) and, on the way, met Herodias. When he returned he expelled his current wife, daughter of King Aretas, who launched a retaliatory attack. So: Philip dies in 33/4; after that Antipas marries Herodias; then John the Baptist is arrested; then Jesus begins his ministry. John mentions three passovers, which are then dated to AD 34, 35 and 36 and Jesus is crucified in AD 36, which was the last year of the governorship of Pontius Pilate.

There is also some evidence within John's Gospel ( 8:57): Jesus has claimed to have seen Abraham and receives the reply "Thou art not yet fifty years old and hast thou seen Abraham?" What was the significance of this reply? Two possibilities readily occur. One is that the age of fifty had some special significance for seeing Abraham. Thus one might say to a delusional "You claim to be the President of the USA but you're not yet thirty-five." No such significance is known. The other is that the person you are addressing is aged between forty and fifty.

None of this is new, however. It has been known for at least twenty years.

[Liberal]

Your fifty year old thing is a bifurcation. It might mean that the person is aged between twenty-five and fifty. Or between thirty and fifty. Or just plain younger than fifty.

[Jabba]

Why? If fifty is not an especially important age, and if the person you are addressing is, say, thirty-two, why not say "You are not yet forty"? This would be a stronger statement.

[APB]

Originally posted by dalovindj
It is well documented that the Vatican has around 150,000 manuscripts in their library and that they allow only 2,000 scholars a year to view them.

This is from the catalogue of the Rome Reborn: The Vatican Library & Renaissance Culture exhibition held at the Library of Congress in 1993.


Access is, of course, limited; the library is after all a research library. Nevertheless, some 3,000 cards are issued or renewed to readers each year, and are almost evenly divided between Italian and non-Italian nationalities. On any given day during the autumn and winter, the number of readers runs on average just over 100. In spring and summer it rises to 170 or 180 and, nearing stretching point, on occasion to 200.

http://eserver.org/art/history-of-vatican-library.txt

These figures are pretty much what one would expect for a library of that type. The only restriction they place on admission is that readers must be a 'scholar', but again it is perfectly normal for major libraries to have that rule. It would be shocking if they didn't.

It also important to realise that, although the Vatican has world-class collections of early Christian manuscripts, those are documents which have not been handed down in continuous papal possession. They have been acquired over the centuries in much the same way as the collections of other major libraries. Why therefore should the Vatican have been lucky enough to get all the really embarassing stuff?

In any case, as others have pointed out, it is extremely unlikely that Broli and Beretta did that sort of research.

Originally posted by Huerta88
Anyone else vaguely troubled by their apparent equating of Semitic="unattractive?"

Yes.

[tracer]

Originally posted by dalovindj
It is well documented that the Vatican has around 150,000 manuscripts in their library and that they allow only 2,000 scholars a year to view them.
Um ... are there any plans to have these documents scanned in, and the scanned images made available over the Web?

[UDS]

I doubt it. Do many libraries make their collections available by scanning the lot and putting it on the web?

[dangermom]

...I'm trying to figure out what the basis of their characterization of his appearance/attractiveness could be other than a logical inference that he had Semitic features. Anyone else vaguely troubled by their apparent equating of Semitic="unattractive?"I didn't read it that way, but as a simple premise that most people back then weren't what we would call pretty. They worked harder, aged faster, didn't have lotion or sunscreen or toothbrushes or Colgate or orthodontists or professional hairstylists....we live much softer than most people in the history of the world and spend a lot more on appearance. No matter what the race, almost anyone who wasn't quite rich back then wouldn't have been what we would think of as good-looking.

[Captain Amazing]

Here's the website to the Secret Archives, btw.

http://www.vatican.va/library_archives/vat_secret_archives/index.htm

[Guinastasia]

As for the Vatican not allowing all the manuscripts to be viewed-could it be possible that it is because some of them are older, frailer, rarer-and far too valuable?

After all, they would have to worry about theft, and just plain handling of these artifacts, would they not?

[Duck Duck Goose]

By the way, unless the Italians uncovered some studio portraits of Jesus, I'm trying to figure out what the basis of their characterization of his appearance/attractiveness could be other than a logical inference that he had Semitic features. Anyone else vaguely troubled by their apparent equating of Semitic="unattractive?"No, any anti-Semitism is all in your head. :D All they're saying is "Jesus was ugly"--you're the one who's adding up "Jesus was Semitic" and "Jesus was ugly" to get "Semitic is ugly". But that's not what they're saying at all. You're reading too much into it.

"Jesus was ugly" is the standard Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53--"The Messiah will be ugly". It doesn't have anything to do with "semitic".
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted. I had this explained to me in Sunday School by saying, "This means that he wasn't good-looking like a movie star, so when people followed him, it wasn't just because he was so good-looking..."

[Guinastasia]

As for the Vatican not allowing all the manuscripts to be viewed-could it be possible that it is because some of them are older, frailer, rarer-and far too valuable?

After all, they would have to worry about theft, and just plain handling of these artifacts, would they not?

[Huerta88]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
As for the Vatican not allowing all the manuscripts to be viewed-could it be possible that it is because some of them are older, frailer, rarer-and far too valuable?

After all, they would have to worry about theft, and just plain handling of these artifacts, would they not?
I hope they're concerned about this. If not, they'll be robbed blind.
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/exlibris/1997/12/msg00154.html
http://www.maineantiquedigest.com/articles/artintel.htm#prisoners

[Liberal]

Jabba wrote:

Why? If fifty is not an especially important age, and if the person you are addressing is, say, thirty-two, why not say "You are not yet forty"? This would be a stronger statement.Well, why not say "You are not yet thirty-three?". It's just the same problem as with any bifurcation.

[APB]

Originally posted by tracer

Um ... are there any plans to have these documents scanned in, and the scanned images made available over the Web?

Originally posted by UDS
I doubt it. Do many libraries make their collections available by scanning the lot and putting it on the web?

No, because it is, as yet, unrealistic to expect such libraries to put more than a tiny proportion of their collection onto the Web. In the case of the books, most of them will also be held by other libraries and there is an argument that, in the first instance, only one copy of each book needs to be digitized. Manuscripts are different, in that each is, by definition, unique, but they also tend to be much more difficult to reproduce. As it is, the Vatican Library does seem to be making a start.

http://portico.bl.uk/gabriel/about_cenl/reports/contents/vatican-01-02.html

[Johanna]

The Vatican collection was microfilmed in case Rome was bombed in World War II, and the microfilm is stored in the library at St. Louis University (my alma mater). I think you have to jump through some hoops to be able to see any of it, though.

[Katisha]

You're a SLU alumnus! Cool! I'm a grad student there... :)

Anyway, I checked the website (http://www.slu.edu/libraries/vfl/) -- it says that the collection is open to the public as long as you show them a valid photo ID, which ought not to count as having to jump through hoops. ;)

[Jack D]

Originally posted by dorkusmalorkusmafia
LOL, that explains a lot about why Jesus died a virgin. Ugly Indeed!

Nothing wrong with dyeing a virgin - long as she likes the colour and can wash it off later.