Why would the Vatican lie about having a huge frickin' menorah? They don't need it, for chrissakes

[sophiaserpentia]

Israel's chief rabbis, who will meet the pope Friday, said they hope to get permission to search Vatican storerooms for artifacts such as the huge golden menorah that stood in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago.

... When the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70 A.D., they took huge amounts of booty home. Legend has it that religious articles from the Temple, including the menorah, were among them. The Arch of Titus in Rome depicts victorious Roman legions marching off with the seven-branch menorah in hand. Amar said the Vatican official denied the menorah was there. "My heart tells me this is not the truth, but that it is some kind of camouflage," Amar said. An aide to the rabbi said the Vatican was not likely to permit a search.

...Some Orthodox Jews believe the restoration of the menorah and other holy vessels to Jerusalem would be the first step in rebuilding the Temple, whose site is now occupied by the Al Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest shrine of Islam.

from Israeli Rabbis Hope to Search Vatican

Comments

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

Why wouldn't they lie about it? It's worth a lot of money, and if they do have it and it was publicized, they would look really bad. They have enough bad PR as it is right now.
Not that I know whether or not they actually have it, of course.

[canonfire.livejournal.com]

I actually think they don't have it. 70AD to 325AD is plenty of time to get rid of/destroy something like that.

heh

[delascabezas.livejournal.com]

while they probably don't have the menorah anymore, it was probably melted down into something else, and records of that meltdown exist somewhere.
and, because anything with the papl seal on it is sacred, and, therefore, cannot be destroyed...
i'm sure you can see why they don't want people snooping around.

Re: heh

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

If *that* happens to be the case, then yeah, I can definitely see why they would resist snooping.

I wonder if the Catholic Church could be held liable for stuff committed by the Roman Empire pre-Constantine?

[kerrizor.livejournal.com]

Some thoughts..

1 - maybe it was melted down BEFORE the creation of the Church?

2 - maybe it was hacked apart by soldiers?

3 - maybe the image on the arch is symbolic, not literal?

Re: heh

[lucretius.livejournal.com]

It would take a /very/ good lawyer, I think.

[lassiter.livejournal.com]

The idiots are still hoping to ignite World War III, I see.

[lucretius.livejournal.com]

This kind of rebuilding plan seems like an unwise thing to me--but I tend to think that temple Judaism was on the whole a less sensible and interesting religion than Judaism-on-the-road turned out to be, where the temple became something inside. A giant step backwards.

And catering to some threads of apocalyptic thought that I just don't think bode well for the area or the world just now.

[doorinward.livejournal.com]

The first word that pops into my head: DAFT.

Re: heh

[whitetara.livejournal.com]

I wonder what the statute of limitations would be for "larceny by conquest..."

Re: heh

[revxaos.livejournal.com]

Depends on if the Conquerer is still in power...

[chrysippvs.livejournal.com]

Titus melted that bad-boy down just like everything else...