Books in Foreign Languages At Rizzoli Bookstore we have always carried a wide selection of Italian titles and now we are proud to announce that we have added an extensive collection of French and Spanish books to our foreign language offerings. You will also find a great variety of study guides and dual language titles if you need to refresh your language skills. And, if ever there is a specific title you are looking for, we are happy to place special orders in the store or by telephone at or BOOKS. In a conversation with famous scholar Marco Vannini, Corrado Augias deeply investigates the myth of Mary, one of the most complex figures in the history of religion. Italo Calvino.
|Published (Last):||17 April 2017|
|PDF File Size:||17.87 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.66 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In the wake of Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" cyclone there have appeared, as always happens in these cases, new studies of the figure of Jesus of Nazareth whose intention is to reveal Jesus' true face which until now has been distorted by ecclesiastical orthodoxy.
Even those who with their words distance themselves from such an undertaking show themselves to be influenced by it in many respects.
There are differences, as is natural, between the authors, the first being a journalist and the second a historian. But I do not wish to fall into the same error as this "investigation," which is to take account always and only the differences between the evangelists, and never their convergences.
It is this error more than any other which I think compromises this "investigation. It can be summed up thus: There existed at the beginning not one but many Christianities. One of these versions of Christianity won out over the others; it established, according to its own point of view, the canon of Scripture and imposed itself as orthodoxy, marginalizing the other versions as heresies and striking them from the record.
However, thanks to the new discoveries of texts and a rigorous application of the historical method, today we are able to re-establish the truth and finally present Jesus of Nazareth as what he really was and as he intended to be, that is, as something completely different from that which the various Christian churches have up to now pretended he was.
No one questions the right of people to approach the figure of Christ historically, prescinding from the faith of the Church. Believing and non-believing historical criticism has been doing this with the most sophisticated instruments for at least three centuries now.
The question is whether this current investigation of Jesus really gathers — though it be in a popular form accessible to the general public — the fruit of the work of these three centuries, or whether it operates from the beginning on the basis of a radical internal agenda and ends with a merely partial reconstruction. I believe that, unfortunately, it is the latter that is the case. The thread that they have chosen is one which runs through Reimarus, Voltaire, Renan, Brandon and Hengel, and which today is taken up by literary critics and "humanities professors" such as Harold Bloom and Elaine Pagels.
What is completely absent is the contribution of the great Protestant and Catholic biblical exegesis developed after the war, in response to the theses of Rudolf Bultmann, which is much more positive about the possibility of reaching the Jesus of history through the Gospels.
To give one example, in Raymond Brown — "the most distinguished of American New Testament scholars, with few competitors worldwide," according to the New York Times — published a work of pages on the accounts of the passion and death of Jesus. It has been defined by specialists in the field as "the benchmark by which any future study of the Passion narratives will be measured," but in such a work there is no trace in the chapter dedicated to the motives behind Christ's death sentence, nor does it figure in the final bibliography which lists various English titles.
To the selective use of studies there corresponds an equally selective use of sources. The Gospel narratives are later adaptations when they falsify our authors' thesis, but they are taken to be historical when they are in agreement with it.
Even the resurrection of Lazarus, although John's Gospel is the only one to attest to it, is taken into consideration if it can serve to corroborate the thesis of the political motivation of Jesus' arrest p. But let us deal more directly with the book's basic thesis. Here we touch on the discovery of new texts that are supposed to modify the historical understanding of the origins of Christianity.
Essentially these are certain apocryphal gospels found in Egypt in the middle of the last century, above all the Nag Hammadi codices. A subtle operation is performed here: The date of the composition of the canonical Gospels is pushed forward as far as possible while the date of the composition of the apocryphal texts is pushed back as far as possible so that the latter can be regarded as valid alternative sources to the former.
But here we run up against a wall that cannot be easily gotten over: No canonical Gospel not even that of John according to modern criticism can be dated any later than A. The most daring suggest, by conjecture, dates of composition around the beginning of the third century or the middle of the second century. All the apocrypha draw from or assume the canonical Gospels; none of the canonical Gospels draw from or assume the apocrypha.
To take an example very much in vogue today, of the sayings of Christ in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, 79 have parallels in the Synoptics, 11 are variants of synoptic parables.
Only three parables are not attested to elsewhere. Augias, in the line of Elaine Pagels, thinks he can overcome this chronological gap between the Synoptics and the Gospel of Thomas and the way that he tries to do this tells us something about the "historical rigor" with which these modern "investigations of Jesus" are conducted.
According to the author, in the Gospel of John we witness a clear attempt to discredit the apostle Thomas, a true persecution in his regard, comparable to that against Judas. The proof: The insistence on Thomas' incredulity! Explanation: The author of the fourth Gospel wants to discredit the doctrines that already in his time were circulating under the name of the apostle Thomas and that come together later in the gospel that bears Thomas' name! Thus we overcome the chronological gap.
But what is forgotten is that John the Evangelist puts on Thomas' lips the most moving of declarations of love for Jesus: "Let us go and die with him" John and the most solemn profession of faith in Jesus: "My Lord and my God! Many exegetes say that this profession constitutes the crowning moment of John's entire Gospel. If Thomas is persecuted in the canonical Gospels, what should we say of poor Peter and all that they say about him! Perhaps Peter too was maligned so as to discredit a future apocryphal gospel that would bear his name.
But the important point is not even about the dates, but about the content of the apocryphal gospels. They say the exact opposite of that for which their authority is invoked. Our two authors advance a thesis according to which Jesus completely identifies with Judaism and did not intend to bring about any innovations in its regard.
But all the apocryphal gospels profess, some more some less, a violent rupture with the Old Testament, making Jesus the revealer of a different and superior God. The revaluation of Judas in the gospel that goes by his name unfolds in conformity with this logic: With his betrayal, Judas helps Jesus to free himself from the last vestige of God the creator — the body! In this vision the heroes of the Old Testament become the villains and the villains, like Cain, become the heroes.
Jesus is presented in the book as a man who was elevated to the status of God only by the Church that came after him. The apocryphal gospels, on the contrary, present a Jesus who is true God but not true man; he has only taken on the appearance of a body Docetism.
For them, that which causes problems is not the divinity of Christ but his humanity. Are our authors disposed to follow the apocryphal gospels on this point? We could make an even longer list of the equivocations in the usage of the apocryphal gospels. Dan Brown uses them to support the idea of a Jesus who exalts the feminine, who does not have problems with sex, and who marries Mary Magdalene.
And to prove this Brown has recourse to the Gospel of Thomas, where it is said that if a woman wants to save herself she must cease being a woman and become a man! The fact is that the apocryphal gospels, especially those that are Gnostic in origin, were not written with the intention of narrating historical facts and sayings of Jesus but as means for conveying a certain vision of God, of themselves and the world of an esoteric and Gnostic nature.
Taking these texts as a basis for reconstructing the history of Jesus is like taking "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" as a basis not for understanding the thought of Friedrich Nietzsche but as one for understanding the thought of Zarathustra himself.
For this reason, in the past although almost all the apocryphal texts were known, at least from ample citations in other works, no one ever thought of using them as sources for historical information about Jesus.
Only our era of mass media, always exasperatedly searching for the commercial scoop, is doing this. There are other historical sources for Jesus besides the canonical Gospels and it is strange that these are practically left out of this "investigation. His testimony is discussed only in regard to the resurrection and, naturally, only to be discredited. And yet what is there that is essential in the faith and in the "dogmas" of Christianity which is not found attested to in substance if not in form in Paul, that is, before it had time to absorb alien elements?
Is it possible, for example, to claim that the contrast between Jesus and the Pharisees with their legalistic mentality is non-historical and is a fruit of the later concern not to alarm the Roman authorities when Paul himself acknowledges having been a Pharisee and says that he doggedly persecuted Christians because of this? I come now to the main thing which our authors share. Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian; he had no intention of founding a new religion; he understood himself to be sent only to the Jews and not to the pagans; "Jesus is much closer to the religious Jews of today than to Christian priests"; Christianity was "born only in the second half of the second century.
How can the last claim be reconciled with the report from Acts , according to which, no more than seven years after Christ's death, around 37 A. Pliny the Younger hardly a suspicious source!
Around the same time, Ignatius of Antioch at least five times speaks of Christianity as distinct from Judaism. He writes: "It was not Christianity that believed in Judaism, but Judaism that believed in Christianity" Letter to the Magnesians, 10, 3. In Ignatius, that is, at the beginning of the second century, we find that not only the names "Christian" and "Christianity" are attested to, but also the content of these names: faith in the complete humanity and divinity of Christ, the hierarchical structure of the Church bishops, priests, and deacons , and even a first clear hint of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, "called to preside in charity.
Before the name "Christian" became standard usage, the disciples were conscious of their own identity and expressed it in terms like "the believers in Christ," "those of the way," or "those who invoke the name of the Lord Jesus. But among the claims of the two authors which I have just mentioned there is one that deserves to be taken seriously and considered on its own. He was and remained a Jew. In fact neither does the Church, strictly speaking, consider Christianity a "new" religion.
She considers herself together with Israel — there was a time when it was mistakenly said "in the place of Israel" — the heir of the monotheistic religion of the Old Testament, worshippers of the same God of "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The New Testament is not an absolute beginning, it is the "fulfillment" the fundamental category of the old.
Besides, no religion was started because someone intended to "start" it. Did Moses intend to found the religion of Israel, or Buddha Buddhism? Religions are born and only afterward become aware of themselves among those who have gathered up the teaching of the master and have made it a rule of life. To say that Christ was not a Christian is as evident and as misleading a statement as saying that Hegel was not a Hegelian, nor Buddha a Buddhist.
Nobody can be a follower of himself. But once this clarification is made, can it be said that in the Gospels there is nothing that makes us think that Jesus did have the conviction that he was the bearer of a new message? And what about his antitheses — "You have heard it said that They fill up an entire section of the Gospel of Matthew , that is, the same evangelist whom are authors claim wanted to affirm Christ's pure Jewishness!
Did Jesus intend to establish his community and foresee that his life and teaching would have a continuation? The indisputable fact of the choosing of the Twelve Apostles seems to indicate precisely this. Even if we leave aside the great commission — "Go into all the world, preach the gospel to every creature" — someone could attribute this command, in its formulation, to the post-Easter community , all those parables whose original core contains the idea of an expansion toward the Gentiles can only imply that Jesus had in mind a future for his community.
One thinks of the parables of the murderous vinedressers, the workers in the vineyard, the saying about the last being first, of the many who "will come from the east and west to sit at the feast with Abraham," while the others will be excluded, and countless other sayings.
True, during his life Jesus did not leave the land of Israel, except for an occasional foray into the pagan territories in the North. This is explained by his conviction that he was sent above all to Israel to bring her, once converted, to embrace all the Gentiles, following the universalistic vision proclaimed by the prophets.
It is curious: There is a whole school of modern Jewish thought F. Rosenzweig, H. Schoeps, W. Herberg that holds that Jesus did not come for the Jews but only for the Gentiles; instead, according to Augias and Pesce, he came only for the Jews and not for the Gentiles. Pesce deserves credit for not denying the institution of the Eucharist as a historical fact and for recognizing its importance for the early community.
Here is one of the places where what we said at the beginning of the article about the problem of taking account only of the differences, and not of the convergences, has particular relevance. The three Synoptics and Paul all attest to the fact of the institution and almost with the same words.
But for Augias this counts less than the fact that John's Gospel is silent about the institution and that in reporting it, Matthew and Mark have "This is my blood," while Paul and Luke have "This is the chalice of the new covenant in my blood. Christ's words "Do this in memory of me," pronounced on such an occasion recalls Exodus and discloses his intention to give new content to the paschal "memorial. If to the Eucharist and to Passover we add the incontestable fact of the existence of a Christian baptism immediately after Easter which progressively substituted circumcision, we have, if not a new religion, a new way of living the religion of Israel.
In regard to the canon of the Scriptures, Pesce rightly affirms p. Does he himself not say: "Are they Jews? So am I! Indeed, more than them!
Inchiesta su Maria (VINTAGE)
View Larger Image. Ask Seller a Question. Visit Seller's Storefront. Accettazione delle condizioni generali di vendita Il Cliente, con l'invio telematico della conferma del proprio ordine d'acquisto, accetta incondizionatamente e si obbliga a osservare nei suoi rapporti con Fiodor srl le condizioni generali di vendita di Abebooks e di pagamento trascritte nella sezione apposita, dichiarando di aver preso visione e accettato tutte le indicazioni a lui fornite ai sensi delle norme sopra richiamate. I libri vengono spediti entro le 24 ore dalla data di pagamento. List this Seller's Books.
Inchiesta su Maria. La storia vera della fanciulla che divenne mito