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.
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
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.).
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)
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.
My wild-assed-educated-guess at the “Jesus died at age 40” thing:[ul][li]Somewhere along the line, it became established that Jesus died in A.D. 33. (It says so in a Twila Paris song and everything.)[/li][li]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.).[/li][li]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.[/li]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.[/ul]
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.
:eek:
Sounds like a very strange horror movie.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is from the catalogue of the Rome Reborn: The Vatican Library & Renaissance Culture exhibition held at the Library of Congress in 1993.
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.
Yes.
Um … are there any plans to have these documents scanned in, and the scanned images made available over the Web?
I doubt it. Do many libraries make their collections available by scanning the lot and putting it on the web?
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.
Here’s the website to the Secret Archives, btw.
http://www.vatican.va/library_archives/vat_secret_archives/index.htm
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?
No, any anti-Semitism is all in your head. 
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”.
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…”