Talk:Moses (Michelangelo)

St. Jerome
please fix the St Jerome link it only contains Jerome and not St. Jerome 190.152.52.204 (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Horns
Do you have anything on the reason Michelangelo put horns on Moses?
 * Yes, an entire section. 217.132.52.23 (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew
I removed this from the main article:

(Sorry but I have to interject) Some believe that קרנ or (QRN) does represent the Hebrew word/image/concept of "horn" in this passage. With this interpretation, Moses' hornyness at this point of the story is simply a symbol of his connection with the divine. QRN, it should be noted, is a three radical root that means "horn" in every other occurrence in the Hebrew Bible.

There are Hebrew words that mean "rays" and "rays of light". The author does not use these words in this passage, he chooses to use the word "horn".

Horns, throughout the Bible are often used symbolically to denote power or divinity.

Horns were a common symbol denoting power and divinity both when Exodus was written and when Jerome was translating. In other words, being "horned" to their eyes and ears would have seemed as normal as "enlightened" seems to us. Remember having real rays of light shooting from your face is as odd an image as sprouting real horns.

Indeed the author was probably trying to communicate Moses' state as something greater than "enlightened". To him, Moses was Horny

As far as this statue, we can't be sure what Michelangelo was thinking when he made this piece of art. Did the "horns" still glorify Moses in the eyes of his contemporaries? Some say yes and some say no. At this point of history, the Christian Communities were beginning to use "horns" as both a symbol of the Devil and a symbol of the "devil Jew". Unfortunately, this is the image that stuck which has caused some, like the original author of this piece, to invent "Jerome's mistake" to explain away the unsettling image of the Horned Moses.

(Please write me if you have any questions or disagreements with my take, but I warn you - I wrote my Masters thesis on this subject, and while I have spared the Wikipedia audience the length of it, I won't hesitate to use it on ya!) jaycakes@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.237.102 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 11 August 2006

Now, could anyone help this poor bloke? —♦♦ SʘʘTHING  (Я)  11:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The root QRN occurs three times in Exodus 34 (the story of Moses's descent), and many more times in the rest of the old testament. It's used to mean value (ירם קרן משיחו), horn (קרן השמן), and posterity (נגדעה קרן מואב; להרים קרן). It's not unusual for the same root to have different meanings depending on context and pronunciation. Citations from linguistic papers won't hurt. I'll see what I can find. 217.132.52.23 (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, considering G-D's commandment to multiply-and-fill-the-land, being 'horny' is not necessarily.."bad"; Second, regarding the ideocy of Satanism and the flocking of the down-right pentagram : it may be appropriate to repeat the the GRAND HONOR ov Sir A.E Waite, not word for word, but that he has ideated in the likes of me, that there is nothing out side of the Good LORD. And in this -light-, only ignorance may be considered foreign upon the land. And the phaenomen of horns are not indicative of any mis-or indeed-wrong doing, but more simply an issue of perspective. Don't OCD yourself over this, Moses has been, and shall remain in his spectre a fair servant of HE who made Time. --188.120.138.62 (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)+

Freud as neurologist
The article appears to be protected and as such can't be changed by me, but Freud is listed as a "neurologist." Wouldn't psycho-analyst be the appropriate link here? I don't think that Freud has much in common with the current concept of a neurologist (as opposed to an analyst or even a psychiatrist), and whatever the historical case may have been, I think that the distinction in our times is clear enough that calling him a neurologist could be confusing. 88.75.57.18 (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There was no "misinterpretation" ever
"it depicts the Biblical figure Moses with horns on his head, based on a description in the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible used at that time."

Occult theological religious nonsense.

"Horns" of "Moses" meant horns of Seth.


 * If you have a reliable source, as per WP:RS, please provide it. Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes if you understand "Egyptian" Mystery school... then you'll understand why Osiris is Seth (

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/manetho_hyksos.htm

Michelangelo knew his stuff, so do I - regards to the "horns" of "Moses"(this term derives indirectly from Egyptian term for "Mes" or "Mses")...


 * Again, if you have reliable sources showing that Michelangelo intended to represent something about Seth, please bring them. You are of course entitled to believe whatever you wish, but if you want to introduce content to Wikipedia it must be supported by reliable sources as per WP:RS. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Again if you would have any logic then you would already know that I gave you the "reliable" source in my post. You don't need to be a brilliant "scholar" to figure out what I was talking about. In fact i revealed you the "secret"(served on a platter) and an antique source which is rather ignored than accepted. (Flavius quoting Manetho).

Here I will draw it down to you:

"According to the ancient mythology, Avaris was Typho's [10] city. But when these men had entered it, and found it suitable for a revolt, they chose a ruler from among the priests of Heliopolis, whose name was Osarsiph [9]. They swore an oath that they would obey him in all things. The first laws he gave them were that they should not worship the Egyptian gods, nor should they abstain from any of the sacred animals that the Egyptians held in the highest esteem, but could kill them, and that they should not ally themselves to any but those that were of their conspiracy. "

[10] Typho: Set [9] Moses: It was also reported that the priest, who ordained their polity and their laws, was by birth of Heliopolis, and his name Osarsiph, from Osyris, who was the god of Heliopolis; but that when he was gone over to these people, his name was changed, and he was called Moses."

Here should i add that OSARSIPH was only a GREEK (Flavius) transliteration of EGYPTIAN TITULAR NAME (just like "Moses"). The correct Egyptian (Coptic) term was ASARSEB or AusarGeb or AsaruDjeb. Where Asar = Osiris and Geb his "step father". This Geb became later Christian figure (term) played later important role in "Jesus's family" (JoSeph).

Horns of Moses means Horns of Seth (Typho). Osiris was a brother of Seth (and consequently part of his Duat). Moses (which was not his real name) was a Hykso priest of Osiris who wanted to collect all Egyptian deities under 1 "roof" (and forbade old Egyptian customs, tradition, gods) called "mono god" (Osiris). Egypt was at the time of Hyksos in chaos and several Egyptian pharaohs were at war against each other. Several were even joining Hyksos from Kush in a war against Egyptians themselves. Pharaoh (the heretic) Akhenaton revived Moses's reforms and proclaimed himself as an "image of god Aton". He also wrote the legendary Hymn to Aton, which later became part of Biblical "Psalm 104". Hymn to Adonai (Aton). Seth is Osiris's brother or Osiris's spirit itself. If we have monotheism (collection, fusion of different Egyptian gods into 1 deity) then is the question about Seth as Osiris not even important any more.


 * Thanks for writing here, but you don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works.  If you want there to be content in the article, stating that Michelangelo was intentionally representing Moses as Seth via the horns, then you need to bring a reliable source (as defined by Wikipedia here WP:RS), that actually says that.  As it stands, you are presenting original research (see WP:OR) which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Flavius quoting Manetho is a SOURCE of information about the real Moses and is not even mentioned anywhere...Do you really think that the writers of Bible did not have any clues about Egyptian customs, religion (Osiris)? And consequently about "Moses"? (and his "Horns")?


 * Wow that was a big flurry. None of the sources you cite says anything about what Michelangelo intended when he carved Moses.Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"Horns" section
This is really misplaced. I was certain Wikipedia would have a Horns of Moses article. The topic has nothing to do with Michelangelo, it's an iconographic tradition emerging in the high medieval period. So I would suggest a section split, creating a dedicated page on the topic. --dab (𒁳) 20:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is about this statue; the horns were an oft-commented aspect of this statue. So it belongs here.  I agree that Horns of Moses would be an interesting article. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is certainly much-commented upon in the context of this statue, and of course the feature has to be mentioned inasmuch as it pertains to this particular statue. I am just saying the discussion of Jerome and the motif's historical origin is not within the scope of this page. The obvious solution will of course be to use a wikilink to Horn of Moses in the context of the discussion of this statue once we do have such a dedicated article :) --dab (𒁳) 08:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No objection at all to having that article and just using its lead here. i betcha that could be de-orphaned in no time, even besides this article. Jytdog (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"Five braccia"?
One Giorgio Vasari is quoted as saying "Michelangelo finished the Moses in marble, a statue of five braccia, unequaled by any modern or ancient work." The word "braccia", while meaning "arm" in Italian, has no meaning in English, and when I tried to look for other uses of "braccia" in a sculptural context I found absolutely nothing. Can we please get a translation for this word? It's clear that the quote itself is translated but that word is untouched, and it clearly isn't referring to Moses' "arms" because he obviously only has two. So what exactly is meant by "five braccia"? Information that readers cannot possibly understand shouldn't be included in Wikipedia articles, and this qualifies since there is absolutely no information on the internet regarding the use of the word "braccia" in English in the context of sculpture art. 1.157.95.133 (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It was a standard measurement of length, like English "foot". We must have some content to link to. I think it was the length of a forearm. "Bracchio" the singular I imagine. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Singular "braccio"=arm; plural "braccia" = arms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.62.178.67 (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Braccio in fact, & the exact length varied by city! In Rome: 1 braccio = 30.732 in. - so a full "arm", a bit less than a "yard". See Italian units of measurement - I've added a link.  Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Michelangelo's Moses (Rome).jpg

Split off the horns
To return to the suggestion above in 2016, this has the longest account on wp of the Horns of Moses, longer than at Moses etc. I suppose it is the most famous example, but it currently overbalances the article, and rather obscures that this was for a long time a normal feature of European iconography. I suggest it is split off to an article on the general feature, with a summary left behind here. I suspect the possible anti-semitic overtones are somewhat over-played. The literature on anti-semitism in medieval art tends to lack the wider context, in my experience. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * So long as there's enough to understand here that this is under debate; I suspect it is here because it is frequently raised by people. As to which perspective is right; that's a massive question, that I couldn't begin to answer, but generally the impression I have from other historical reading in this period, is that medieval antisemitism has been downplayed or ignored as an embarassing and unpleasant matter that is hard to understand and best forgotten; at least until the postwar period, when opinions about its importance for assessment underwent a dramatic shift. However, this reevaluation is ongoing and hasn't fully played out. Regarding art historians, there are now a few that are working on iconography and imagery of the period, from the perspective of understanding medieval antisemitic art; so they should understand the wider context, as they are not "just" historians. Debra Strickland springs to mind; she has also written on the Horns of Moses and sees it very similarly to Bertmann. See Anglo-Jewish studies for a flavour of the historiographical process. Jim Killock (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I actioned that; the text on both pages will need some editing. Jim Killock (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * PS: @Johnbod The image you have chosen from the Nuremburg Chronicles for Horns of Moses may have some antisemitic readings: beards, hooked noses; Moses himself is a bit grim; and the pointed hats may be a contemporary central European indication of Jewry rather than an historic depiction of Israelites. (Red-yellow colouring was a frequent choice for antisemitic depictions but this is a colouring, and God appears in the same, so probably not to be counted.) A quick check on the Chronicle shows that Nuremburg expelled Jews a few years before its printing, and the book itself contains images of Jews being burnt, and images of the supposed ritual murder of Simon of Trent; the Ritualmord-Legende image is included on that page. No information however about the apparently well-known antisemitic content in the book has made its way onto the Nuremberg Chronicle page; a pattern that is tiresomely frequent on Wikipedia, I'm sorry to say; generously this would be due to older sources omitting this information due to distate or embarrasment. An example of scholarship avoiding the question would be Hereford Mappa Mundi, where some very overtly antisemitic images have simply been noted and then not discussed until 2022 (oh, here is a devil being worshipped by some Jews and defecating on an altar. Nevermind, move on). Less generously, WP editors may also find the material difficult and easier to omit, ddespite discussion being present in common sources and even public discourse. Over the years, I've found this issue on a good number of articles, ranging through Henry III of England, Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester, Second Barons' War, more recently, Lateran IV, Cloisters Cross, Robert Grosseteste, Thomas de Cantilupe, Richard Swinefield, Eleanor of Provence, Eleanor of Castile; even Edward I of England as a FA had some quite serious omissions. Coverage on those pages is now mostly OK; but I've had to edit the material into the pages, frequently there was a brief mention added by a random reader of a Jewish newspaper, or else nothing. It's quite disturbing. Jim Killock (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wrong page, surely? The colouring may well be a good deal later. Everybody is in contemporary or iconographic dress, so yes, Jewish hats are to be expected, though in fact I can't really see any here. Beards are antisemitic? Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Usually Jewish hats wouldn't be expected if the depiction is of Israelites; AIUI depictions of non-contemporary Israelites from slightly earlier tend to avoid implication of associations with contemporary Jews. But I am guessing, more on the fact of other depictions being clearly so inclined; Moses is drawn quite strangely; my point is simply that the reinterpretations going on are sat on 200 years of academia looking the other way. WP has to follow the sources, but there's a question mark over their accuracy where they rely on that legacy, and a need to ensure more recent work is looked at. On a personal level I'm concerned by how little of this work has reached WP where it is usually very well known, quite settled, and yet absent. Jim Killock (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Interpretations section copyvio
This translation of Freud is surely still in copyright as the translator died in 1967. A new translation at this length could be done and be submitted as cc-by-sa but this quotation from an in-copyright translation would be unlikely to qualify as fair use / fair dealing; it should either be retranslated or cut back. Jim Killock (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)