Anatomia di Dio | con Gian Matteo Corrias

Good morning dear friends, as you can see I am here with my friend Professor Corrias Matteo. This time we are very close, we are sitting here twenty centimeters from each other because we want to talk to you about a book, not about our books - although please don't forget them - very attached to our books, you will see, because it is a book that we discovered Francesca Stavrakopoulou, a theology graduate from the University of Oxford, professor of theology at the University of Exeter and who, with extreme courage belonging to the academic world, writes things that at times I would have had some difficulty writing Me too. What do you say Matteo?

Yes, if there is an adjective that can well qualify the work of this scholar, it is courageous, that is, it is a truly surprisingly audacious work due to the level of explicitness through which - but here I would say this straight away - the scholar exploits the biblical source and a whole series of extra- biblical sources that she uses very skilfully to support her argument. I was really struck by this freedom with which an academic dedicates herself to an investigation which then actually translates into a decidedly substantial study because we are really talking about a book that exceeds 400 pages, is very well documented and which is a real treatise on anatomy. We could say that the "vile corpus" or rather the corpus that is analyzed is the body of Yahweh.

This is the great - how to say - the great news also on the panorama of biblical studies. I would almost like to define him as a sort of Bignami of anatomy and physiology because she dissects Yahweh's body in every part, and the precise and anatomical, surgical I would say, way in which she does it is truly impressive. And she also does so in relation to aspects that she deals with with an explicit and very pleasant shamelessness.

Yes it is shameless, precisely all the parts of Yahweh's body, even those that one would tend to keep hidden especially in reference to a divinity and this divinity in particular. But we'll get there, but we'll get there, you'll tell us about it. And it is a truly interesting book because with a very pleasant surprise, at least I read it in parallel with my books and then with Matthew's books, because it talks about the physicality of Yahweh, the physicality of Yahweh's body in every single detail, even in those more unexpected, even those that one wouldn't really think of finding in a book, much less in a book by a theologian who, I must say, is also very critical of theology .

Yes, there are some very explicit passages. However, in this regard I would like to point out that for about twenty years now the official theology of the Catholic Church has also oriented itself in a way that cannot fail to be striking towards a study that is much freer from the classic structure that we will define as properly theological. For example, I am reminded of a study that I recently read by a theologian and biblical theologian from Burundi Celestin Simbanduku who studied and obtained his doctorate in Rome at the Urbaniana University and for the types of the Urbaniana Theological Faculty - which is a pontifical - published an essay in French with a very, very interesting title: "Yhwh, les Dieux et les anges".

Yahweh, the gods and the angels. Here the situation of polytheism concretely attested and evidently attested by the biblical text is acquired almost as a fact. Of the "malakim" and the other "elohim" this scholar gives the same interpretation that you have been giving for more than ten years now .

So in a certain sense you can say that these scholars preceded you, that's it. Very interesting is - let's say - the "peripherality" in quotation marks of these scholars because then this book in particular leads the discussion towards the elaboration of possible strategies for the incursion of the Christian message and Christian theology into contexts such as the tribal ones of Burundi. But beyond this I must say that the quality of the philological method applied to the biblical text by this and other theologians remains surprising.

However, the freedom with which this scholar Francesca Stavrakopoulou dedicates herself to a reconnaissance of Yahweh's body as it emerges from the dictates of the biblical text it remains a notable historical fact, that is, it attests to this freedom achieved by the world of studies in relation to what has been one of the greatest minefields of our culture. Of course, freedom into which I dived "pretending". Instead, she doesn't pretend that, being a theologian, she doesn't pretend that but she tells us a whole series of aspects of Yahweh's body that are present in the Bible.

And I'm not saying it, she says it expressly. He says: everything that is gleaned is not gleaned from Levantine myths, from stories, from allegories, from metaphors, but is gleaned directly from the Bible, from the literal reading of the Bible. And what struck me is when you say that when you were a student you asked your teachers questions and found the answers frustrating because you didn't find them responsive to what was written in the Bible.

And that's what I've been saying for a long time. In short, God is not present in the Bible, in the sense that much of what is elaborated is actually elaborated at a desk. Because when you read the Bible you find something much more and you explain this much more in a clear way, as we were saying before in an almost shameless way.

From my position as an outsider I would almost be afraid to use certain terminology regarding the body of Yahweh. Yes, for the sake of precision, I would also say this: this scholar is particularly explicit, bordering on shamelessness, but here, let's say, it is very clear that she never leaves a cultural anthropological framework. What in my opinion emerges quite clearly is that by presenting the subject of your study you offer it to the reader as what characterized the mentality of the man of the time, okay?

So to the point that, I quote from the conclusion of this essay, you write about Yahweh precisely, and describe him as a God who reflects the best and worst of us, a God made in our image and likeness. This is the classic paradigm, let's say rationalizing, which is typical of cultural anthropology. Certain.

But it doesn't matter. The fact is that all those aspects that you present by dusting off, so to speak, the letter of the biblical text were precisely those passages of scripture on which the exegesis had been exercised, the biblical exegesis which had then produced, so to speak, the theological foundation also of all Christian discourse. Of course, and precisely in the attempt to explain its incomprehensibility if one absolutely wanted to see a spiritual God, that is, in the sense that there would be almost incurable contradictions if one wanted to see the spiritual God doing certain things, behaving in a certain way.

Then we will read something also funny, actually, which you report verbatim from the Ugaritic texts, from the biblical texts. For me it was a great, very pleasant surprise to read this book, so much so that I picked it up twice just to make sure I understood correctly that it was a theologian who had written it, in short. So let's get a little more into the heart of this scholar's speech.

Here, regarding this process of spiritualization you obviously take it into account and also present it as that filter which up to this moment, precisely, has prevented the readers of the text, of the biblical text, from proceeding in the direction of a clear understanding of what this book tells about Yahweh. And the spiritualization of the biblical text, we know, has very distant origins, because the origin is the, so to speak, post-exilic period. We are in the 6th century.

At that point the destruction of the two kingdoms leaves, let's say, little margin for a literal interpretation of Yahweh's promises and the meaning of the pact with the people of Israel. So, at that point, understandably, either the entire previous history of the people of Israel is thrown away or a culturally significant way is found to save everything. And the path that was identified was precisely this.

Among other things, the period you mention is the period in which the spiritualization of, for example, Yahweh's promises begins, because in fact Yahweh's promises were not being concretely realized and then, obviously, the thinkers, the exegetes, the rabbis, the teachers felt the need to, in in a certain way, to transpose these promises into a time to come, into a future time, into a time that will be. Since in the time that is, in the time that was, the promises were not being fulfilled. A second fundamental phase of this process of spiritualization of the Bible is that interpretative translation which was carried out in the third century BC.

C. of the Bible itself, in the context of the Jewish community of Alexandria in Egypt - of course - the famous Bible of the Septuagint. Here, the Bible of the Septuagint is a key passage for understanding the history of Christianity, the origin of Christianity as an organized doctrine and as theology in the strict sense.

That is, it would not be possible to understand the biblical anchoring of Christian doctrine if this essential passage were not taken into account. Because that translation, precisely as I was saying, is not a simple translation but an interpretation in a spiritualizing key. And there could be many examples, this could also be a very interesting topic to develop.

It's no coincidence that the Jews don't like it. It is no coincidence that the Jews hate it, a disaster for humanity. Exactly, because between the concreteness of Semitic thought and Hellenistic thought, because it was then translated into this, they are essentially irreconcilable.

Irreconcilable. But I find it even more curious that the Western Christian Church, the Catholic Church, has completely abandoned the Text of the Septuagint, which had been translated by St. Jerome into Latin, to rejoin it, with an operation impossible from the very philological as well as theological, to the Masoretic Bible.

Yes. This creates a number of problems that are starting to become apparent. Exact.

You yourself often cited the case of the German Episcopal Conference which modified the traditional text of the famous " Isaiah's prophecy of the virgin who will conceive and give birth to a son" because when one goes back to the Masoretic text and wants to translate it correctly there is no 'It's none of that. Exactly and therefore in effect this return to the Masoretic text makes the understanding of the biblical text even more problematic and above all it makes the understanding of the biblical text even more problematic in the light of theological elaborations which in fact at times, as I have already repeated several times, seem to be made as if the Bible, as if the Masoretic text did not exist. Exactly.

That is, as if to say, the text is there but in the meantime I tell you that the truth is here and then I try to adapt the truth to the text instead of doing the opposite procedure, that is, let's see what this text says and see what if can get it. Here, Francesca Stavrakopoulou takes into account this process of spiritualization of the Bible which, as we have said, has very ancient roots when she offers a reflection that I find very precious on an aspect on which we too have already focused. That is, to what extent the Bible can be used as a historical source.

Yes. We know that there are two extreme positions and between these two a myriad of options. That is, "the Bible cannot be considered a reliable historical source in the slightest" or "the Bible is a historical source like all other documents".

There are those who even say that the Bible is a historical source that never makes mistakes. Who never makes mistakes. Because it is inspired by God.

Exactly. And with this we are truly the extremes. Here we say that both these positions, as we understand, are unsustainable.

Francesca Stavrakopoulou makes two very useful observations in my opinion, she already offers them in the first chapter, which allow us to orient ourselves correctly within this question. Then, taking into account this evident and well-known process of spiritualization, the Bible must be taken into consideration and used as a historical source but with some caution. We must know that we need to proceed beyond this, let's call it that, spiritualistic blanket that has been applied and superimposed on the original Bible.

And this is a first fundamental aspect of one's own method. Then there is a second notable aspect: Stavrakopoulou draws attention to the fact that the perspective from which the biblical author, let's call him that, tells and proposes the facts is a very partial perspective because it is a Judeocentric perspective. The example that she gives, and which you had already presented in the previous video dedicated to this book, is quite interesting: it is the case of Omri.

Yes. Omri, ruler of Israel, who in the Bible is presented almost as a minor ruler, a completely marginal figure. Well, if we go and see what is said about Omri in the Stele of Mesha, for example, we discover that this was by no means a secondary figure in the historical panorama of the Ancient Levant, but was a great king of Israel.

Exact. So this is a very tangible example. He made many achievements.

Exactly, a very tangible example of the fact that the Bible presents its history, that is, the history seen from the point of view of the kingdom of Judah in a period which, among other things in the current phase, is after the end of the 6th century when, as we know, the kingdom of Judah was conquered. So, net of these cautions, however, Stavrakopoulou, and she herself bears witness to this, the Bible must be used as a historical source. Exactly and it is no coincidence that you make a statement that in my opinion supports the fact that it is a historical source when you say that the Bible is an incomplete text.

Because it is a typical characteristic of historical texts to be incomplete. Incomplete. Because obviously they are written, as we know, by those who win.

Certain. And whoever wins, obviously, writes what they want, writes what they want people to know. And referring to Omri is obviously incomplete why?

Because Omri did not do what pleased Yahweh. Certain. And so clearly they had to mention him because he was there but in reality they didn't have to give him importance because he was a king who, in short, didn't follow the rules.

And so in my opinion this supports even more the fact that it is a historical source because either you don't invent it, so to speak, or if you do invent it, you invent it in such a way as to give it a figure that is appreciable, that is acceptable to everyone. And instead the fact that you cite him because he exists but you try to reduce his structure, his figure because in short it doesn't suit you, because he is a king who did not respect Yahweh's rules gives the idea of ​​how, precisely, the Bible is essentially a historical text. Because like all historical texts it is obviously not historical in every detail.

But let's not forget that this text talks about Yahweh. Yes. The focus, that's the beauty of it.

I remember when I saw the title I said: Anatomy of God, Anatomy of God. Well, who knows. I never thought he actually meant "Anatomy of God".

Now, this is what basically surprised me. Yes, I had seen it in English and then you told me that it had already been translated into Italian and therefore. .

. Well, the first chapter is already very interesting because it offers, as she herself says, an identity card of this divinity starting from the name. We have already focused on the discussion that Stavrakopoulou makes on what must have been the original name of this divinity, the so-called trigram which is found attested in numerous extra-biblical sources.

And we talked about it because we also find it in Sardinia "yahu". This is in all probability, the author also agrees, the original name of this divinity. The form of the tetragrammaton, which is perhaps the one most attested to in the Bible, includes, in addition to the root of the name of the divinity, also this "eh" which should be a determinate, therefore it is not part.

. . Exactly: "just him" .

Here, this should be the translation. But Stavrakopoulou makes a much broader point, that is, she manages, in a particularly vivid way, to place Yahweh in the context of a much broader Levantine pantheon. Let's see what you say more specifically and we will see that some of the information you offer, at least for the course we are pursuing, is particularly useful.

So in the meantime Stavrakopoulou is very clear on the fact that Yahweh belongs to the category of the Elohim, therefore of the many divinities. We continue to use this terminology even though we know It's very well that the term divinity has received a very profound re-semantization in the West, but we continue to use it for convenience, essentially. Therefore it belongs to the category of divinities, therefore the Elohim, and using in particular documents of Ugaritic origin, Stavrakopoulou identifies Stavrakopoulou as one of the seventy sons of a major divinity who in Ugarit was defined as El, which is a term that we also find in the Bible .

Certain. It is generally translated loosely as a synonym for Elohim, so El and Elohim should be synonymous. Unless we want to understand Elohim as the plural of El, but here in short, the matter.

. . There would be something to discuss.

One of the seventy sons of El and his companion Atirat, who in the Bible or in the South Semitic texts, is known by the name of Asherah. We had already seen this information, to tell the truth, several years ago thanks to another great scholar, Giovanni Semerano, who cited Eusebius of Caesarea, and in turn Eusebius recovered information offered by Philo of Byblos, who spoke precisely of El as the major divinity, father of other divinities and Yahweh was identified by Philo of Byblos as one of El's sons. The interesting thing, however, is this: in addition to the fact that even the Stavrakopoulou correctly identifies the origin of Yahweh in the south, therefore in the land of Edom, in Idumea - in Teman - in Teman, he tells us that he was part of the group of Shadday gods.

This term has had an almost surprising, I would say almost inexplicable from a philological point of view, development in biblical theology because Shadday, as you have explained to us many times, is generally translated as "omnipotent". But Shadday itself refers to the desert. Exact.

So these Shadday gods would be nothing else in this Levantine context and above all through some sources that are very explicit from this point of view and which the author cites, they would be a group of dissident deities with respect to El. Yahweh could have been, in all probability , the leader of this group. Yes.

In particular, we could cite a document that Stavrakopoulou presents, a document that I must say I did not know, an inscription that comes from the temple of Deir Alla, which is located in present-day Jordan, in which inscription speaks precisely of this group of divinities, the Shadday gods, who had allied themselves against El to produce, so to speak, a real organized rebellion against his father. Indeed, then Yahweh and the other Shadday gods would have managed to oust El from the supreme throne of this Levantine pantheon even managing to marry his wife which, as we know, in the ancient conception was, let's say, almost served to seal and sanction the acquisition of the status, of the new status. And therefore for Yahweh an extraordinary success.

Extraordinary. Having become Asherah's husband , Yahweh would have actually realized his project of hegemonic political rise, so to speak, and this is a truly very interesting aspect. Yes and then among other things it is officially recognized as such in the texts, in the ostraka that were found in the Ugaritic civilization where to those who went from Lebanon let's say in the south they said " Yahweh and his Asherah protect you on your journey".

In fact, we find Yahweh and his Asherah paired together in numerous documents. I quote again the work of Celestin Simbanduku, that biblical theologian I mentioned before, here he introduces a very interesting concept which is that of depersonalization. That is, he claims that in the transition between the Bible in its original facies and the Bible in its spiritualized version, a process of depersonalization of all the other divinities that were not Yahweh would have been consciously, intentionally carried out, which divinities would have been transformed into attributes or functions or objects, as the case may be, connected to Yahweh.

Well, Asherah's case is very interesting. Emblematic. Because as we know Asherah is normally interpreted as the sacrificial pole connected to the figure of Yahweh.

Exact. This is why in the specific case of the discussion we are bringing next on Nuragic religiosity, is this discussion on the ability that Yahweh implemented to climb the pantheon by overthrowing his father particularly useful? Because a question that we have actually asked ourselves is that of justifying Yahweh's presence so far outside his pertinent orbit, that is, the direct relationship with Israel.

What are you doing in Sardinia? What is it doing in Sardinia where, I would like to reiterate, numerous inscriptions directly attest to its presence. And the cult.

And the cult. Here, this information offered to us by the scholar Francesca Stavrakopoulou is particularly useful from this point of view, absolutely. In the sense of grasping the difference between Israel which was a people of priests, that is therefore a special people, a people who therefore had to be dedicated exclusively to Yahweh, who therefore had to deal with Yahweh's interests in an absolutely exclusive way, however Yahweh expanded, let's say so.

Having ousted El he was evidently also expanding his sphere of influence so perhaps we should also begin to examine him from this point of view. No longer the exclusive god of a single, let's call it a tribe, a family, but a god who, having ousted the chief of the gods El, was expanding his sphere of influence. We also found it, you mentioned it, in the Hellenistic mystery cults and therefore we need to review this story that was told to us.

The author also cites a whole series of correspondences between the Bible and Ugaritic texts or in any case Levantine texts outside the Bible which are extremely tasty and which are perhaps worth reading. Yes. Just to close this discussion on Asherah which is particularly interesting.

Certain. The cult was probably not a joint cult of the two divinities together also because, we know very well from the biblical text, Yahweh was really very jealous and he was also jealous of Asherah, the queen of heaven as she is called. Absolutely exclusive.

Here, however, it seems to understand, from these documents that we are citing for example we will remember the inscription of the temple of Ammon in Soleb and then all these Ugaritic ostraka to which you were referring, Asherah almost performed a mediator function with respect to Yahweh. Yes. That is, we have many testimonies, for example the author cites a very interesting inscription which is the inscription of Khirbet el-Qom in the West Bank where it is very clear that Asherah is called into question as a mediator.

A very similar figure of mediator, however, comes to mind, to that which the Virgin Mary occupies in the context of Christianity. Immediately. Asherah was involved precisely in the context of the Yahwist cult, precisely Mediterranean, as a mediator.

Yahweh was not at all happy with this practice either and we have very clear testimonies of this in the Bible. For example, here, in the book of Jeremiah - I made a note - in the seventh chapter and the fourteenth chapter Yahweh calls in a very harsh and very explicit way to a cult that is truly monolatric and therefore not even the idea of ​​mediation was tolerated. And this should make us think given the importance that the cult of saints has acquired in Christianity.

Exactly, in fact you know the female figure is the maternal figure. Therefore a maternal figure is a figure who appears to be closer to men and therefore it is easier to refer to her to try to have, so to speak, what one would like to have from God but to whom it seems more distant to refer. In the sense that it is more difficult to find it.

Instead, the maternal figure seems to be closer to men, but this was absolutely not okay with Yahweh because he absolutely wanted to be exclusive. Yes. As I read this book, a few topics came to mind.

Some are truly comical. Like for example, you were talking about El before, and when he talks about El. .

. We have talked about the shakar several times. Of course not.

So of these alcoholic substances that pleased the deities, and at a certain point the author says that Yahweh consumed at least twice a day a roast lamb or goat, bird stew, breads and cakes, seasonal fruit and cereals, mixed flour with oil and several jugs of wine and beer and says that the monthly holidays either weekly or annual they were special occasions that provided Yahweh with as many opportunities to binge; it is also written that an annual celebration meant to commemorate the building of the Temple in Jerusalem saw Yahweh and his fellow mortals gorging themselves for two weeks. Now, this is a truly unthinkable thing, written by a theologian, because in short, seeing a spiritual, transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent God who loved to gorge himself, this is so incredible that it is actually disputed. It is contested by those who say that in reality they quote Isaiah and say that Yahweh maintains: "I am satisfied with the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fat calves, the blood of bulls and lambs and goats I do not like.

I detest, I reject your solemn feasts and I do not like your sacred gatherings. " So here it would appear that Yahweh is at odds with himself. The author actually provides an extremely rational and extremely convincing explanation.

He says: however, if we look at these sayings in their historical context, we understand that the divine rejection of the sacrifices was not motivated by a total opposition to the food offerings but was instead a sharp criticism of the wealthy citizens whose grandiose and wasteful sacrifices had become empty manifestations of food egocentrism, from the exploitation of the poorest groups. So in reality Yahweh did not despise these holidays but in reality wanted them at least combined with charitable activity towards those most in need. And then he said that, although all the sacrificial food was offered to the gods, that is, the Elohim, the latter ate only their portion.

And here I am reminded of the omentum that you mention in your books, that is, that part of the entrails that was reserved for the gods, and the food given to the flames was transformed into smoke and aroma and these were consumed by the gods through inhalation . Exactly what I've been saying, what I've been writing since 2010. So in reality there are several confirmations here about what the Bible says, let's say this.

Then it's true, it's not true. . .

Let's not argue: the Bible says this, we cannot deny it. And this theologian reconfirms it. I don't know if you want to add anything else but then there is a very tasty story of El, the leader of the gods, who invites all his children to gorge themselves, to get drunk and then he is so - let's say it - stunned by the wine that he staggers out and, as he goes to his home, he is supported by two minor deities.

Now, it is difficult to think of inventing something like this when referring to the leader of the gods. How can you expect there to be respect, that there is fear towards a quote-unquote "drunkard" or in any case someone who loved to get drunk quietly? We read before how many times Yahweh, in short, loved to binge and get drunk.

I must say that this type of lexicon particularly struck me because binge eating is not a neutral verb. No. It's not eating.

Shortly before the passage you were reading she says: "These oracles dating back to around the 8th century BC would later fuel the unpleasant Christian history of rhetoric against rituals. In short, she is not a writer who raises many problems, in short, even to reveal her intolerance towards what she doesn't. .

. Of what she doesn't like and in short it is very clear that a divinity like Yahweh is particularly unpleasant to the sensitivity of this theologian. This is what I would feel To say it.

That's it: it's hard to digest. The point is that the method you use shields these acquisitions because all these stories are not stories that you hypothesize but take directly from the sources which are all regularly highlighted. Exactly.

Listen, I would like to close with the most unthinkable discussion of all: Yahweh's genitals. Yes, we left this part to the end, which, among other things, is the author's develops with a fair amount of breadth. Yes, yes.

Well, I was already quite amazed by the speech you make on the nose, for example about Yahweh. Yahweh had a long nose and lingers, devotes a large portion of the speech to This. But when it comes to this individual's genitals, I honestly winced at practically every paragraph.

Because the discussion is very, very interesting. So where do you get references in the Bible to the shape and above all, it must be said, to the size of Yahweh's genitals? Let's talk openly because she talks about it openly.

Yes, then we will perhaps read some passages. . .

So if they censor us, they must censor you too. Yes. There are basically two semantic areas of reference: one is linked to a Hebrew term which is "abbir" which, among other things, we have already conducted lexicographic research on shortly before starting this conversation.

"Abbir" is normally translated as "mighty". Powerful. But what is the power of "abbir"?

This is what Stavrakopoulou says. The power of the "abbir" is the power of the bull. Exact.

That is, the genital power mentioned in the dictionary. Cited in the dictionary. So much so that in Isaiah we found a place where it absolutely does not mean powerful but serves to indicate this animal.

Exact. This animal whose, let's say, pre-eminent biological and physiological characteristic is precisely its vitality, its power and also its sexual potency. This association of divinity, not just Yahweh to tell the truth, she also talks a lot about Yahweh's father, El who is associated with the bull.

Here, the Ugaritic stories about El are much more explicit, because there they are really talking about the long member of EL. A member that he, we can say, holds erect in his hand and with this erect member he even convinces two female divinities - exactly - to be with him. So, in short, we have texts which, precisely because of the discussion we were talking about before, are understandably much more explicit than the biblical text.

It is no coincidence that the Egyptian god Amon Min is also licit, who was always represented with his long erect member. Certain. This sexual power and then, in particular, the detail of the dimensions of the genital organ were perceived as a distinctive character of the male divinity.

Indeed, the higher the god , the more this - we understood - corresponded to a reduction in the size of his member. This epithet of Yahweh as Jacob's mighty, "abbir", is indeed very frequent in the scriptures. Another semantic area, so to speak, is that of the bow, the bow and the arrow.

In Semitic sensibility in general the drawn bow and the shooting arrow is a rather open sexual metaphor, let's say. The interesting point overall is that this bull-like characterization of Yahweh, which we find explicitly represented in the context of Sardinian epigraphy and more generally in the context of the Nuragic civilisation, bull-ness is, I would say, the first character of Yahweh. Even in the inscriptions, where it is overshadowed by that term on which we have long reflected "ag" which, so to speak, in its Indo-European etymology refers to the attribute of the sharp horns of the bull.

The taurine protome almost becomes the symbol of the entire animal. And then one wonders: "are they the lunar horns or are they the bull's horns"? Exactly.

Then archeology gives us very notable evidence from this point of view. Archeology and the necessary confirmations with the biblical text because that Yahweh was also represented in bull form and therefore did not only have, so to speak, a bull sexual power, this is very clear in the biblical text. For example in the First Book of Kings in chapter 12 where we read that golden statues of young bulls were housed in Bethel and Danna.

In spite of the order not to represent anything. In the capital of the kingdom of Israel, that is, in the city of Samaria, in the temple of the city of Samaria, the prophet Hosea tells us this in chapter 8, there was a silver simulacrum which depicted a bull. That is, therefore, precisely in spite of this very clear and ever explicit prescription of Yahweh not to make images of either what is in heaven or what is on earth, in these places, and the source here is the Bible, they are not extra-biblical sources, Yahweh himself was iconographically depicted as a bull.

Precisely. According to this network of references that Stavrakopoulou precisely recovers and which then allow her to recover, almost inhopeably I would say, this physical attribute of the divinity which, more than any other, I would say, has been deprived of its body. Yes.

I would say that we shouldn't go beyond this, what do you say? No, better not. Also because I don't know what else you can find beyond this.

It is a surprise for everyone even if in reality, in reality the discussion of corporeity is then taken up again in Christian patristics, it is taken up again by various fathers of the Church. I think of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who, starting from the desire to lick Yahweh's heels - among other things, the feet were another symbol of sex - and starting from Yahweh's feet ended up licking Yahweh's entire body. We are beyond but we are beyond within theology and not within our hypotheses, our fantasies, our free ruminations.

You mention them, explicitly therefore. With the clarification that we mean theology in its etymological sense, a discourse on God, which is not Christian theology as it was developed but is a discourse on God which, like it or not, has its foundation precisely in the letter of the biblical text. If we want to say that the biblical text talks about God, we are talking about the biblical god.

Exact. Exactly as these fathers of the Church did. So I would close here, I would say that we have given a lot of food for thought, I'm sure, absolutely unexpected.

Yes. Certainly surprising for many. Indeed, for the most part because no one would expect to find such a discourse in the text of a university professor of theology, therefore of an academic.

That is, an anatomy of the body of God but an anatomy in the true sense of the term. In the literal sense. And so it is a book worth reading along with ours.

Oh yes, of course. Because obviously we say that they represent a parallel vision that starts from the same text, from the Bible. Because that's what we do.

As far as your books are concerned, they obviously start from the ancient stories of ancient Roman religiosity in which we find the same physicality, the same needs, the same habits, the same requests that we find here and this must naturally make us think why or all they thought the same thing all over the world or maybe the same thing really was all over the world. Exactly. Hi Matteo.

Thanks so much. Hello everyone and see you next time. Thanks Mauro Greetings to everyone.