FOREWORD

The Bible has been the most revered book of the Jews for more than three thousand years and
of Christians for two thousand years and the addition of the New Testament.
Considered as revealed, that is to say dictated by divine inspiration, it has at its
dictated the moral and human laws. To this day, for example, the
presidents of the United States of America take an oath on the Bible when they
take up their duties.
This exceptional status did not suspend the attention of those who were reading the
text of a vigilant eye. The critical reading of the two Testaments began
early enough. Thus in thee 12th century, the Jewish doctor Isaac Ibn Yashoush, attached to the
Muslim court of Granada (other times!), had noted an anachronism.
contrary to tradition. This one, indeed, maintained that Moses had been
the author of Genesis; or, the list of Edomite kings enumerated in this Book
(XXXVI) could not have been established by him, given that these kings
had reigned long after his death. In the following century, Rabbi Abraham
Ibn Ezra contented himself with nicknaming Yashoush, "Isaac the Blunderer."
But these scratches at the authority of the Bible remained minor and their
echoes confined to the circles of scholars, if only for the sake of a range
restricted. Indeed, until the invention of printing, it was almost
impossible to go through all the biblical texts in one time
relatively restricted, a few days or weeks, as was the case at
from the 16the century.
One will undoubtedly surprise more than one contemporary believer by recalling that
the Bible was listed in the Index of books whose reading was forbidden to
catholics, index established by the Inquisition, which became the Holy Office, then the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was not abolished until 1966.
Two successive reasons motivated this ban. The first one, at
Thee 12th century was marked by distrust towards translations, where the Inquisition, which did not
recognized that the Bible in Latin sensed infiltrations of heresies.
the second reason, which became apparent at the time of the Reformation, was that a free
reading the Bible allowed for critical comparisons between its
teachings and traditions of the Church; the leaders of the Reformation
they considered, in fact, that these traditions did not correspond to the
teachings of the New Testament, which consummated the break with
Rome.
The critical reading of sacred texts1however continued. When the
the progress of science called into question the first of the five Books of
Pentateuch, the Genesis, especially concerning the emergence of life
on Earth and the evolution of species, the prohibitions had become
ineffective: the printing press had spread too many copies of the Bible in
the world.
A current of thought then formed, both in the world of the Churches
reformed and in Catholicism, arguing that the Bible could only
guide the faith of humans, and not teach the history of the universe and of
world. The reaction was almost simultaneous among Protestants and the
Catholics, the first supporting that the Bible should be considered
as literally true. Thus was born creationism, according to which the
the world was indeed created in six days, and which persists to this day in
certain resistant groups. One of the symbolic dates of this movement
was the famous Scopes trial of 1925 in the United States, where the justice condemned
a university professor for having taught the evolution of species and
thus contradicts the Bible. The reaction of the Catholic Church was not
different: in 1893, in the encyclical Providentissimus Deus, Pope Leo
XIII condemns the freedom of interpretation advocated by the critics, while
encouraging, by the way, scientific studies.
The traditionalists' point of view was: 'Everything that is contained in the
The Bible is a religion and has been revealed by God, while that of the critics
was: "The Bible contains only the religion revealed by God." The progress
History, archaeology, and biblical studies soon made the
two incompatible positions.
*

As biblical scholars know, who engage in it, critical work remains

unfinished and a third viewpoint is required: the Old and the New
Testaments have been written over the centuries by men who had
interpreted stories according to traditions, that is to say according to habits of
thought and local influences.
 These fully human works are actually the written versions of
independent currents, leading to blatant contradictions, in addition
the improbabilities placed under the seal of divinity, of which the main ones
are presented on these pages. It is therefore presumptuous and even erroneous to
consider them as founders of a revealed moral Law. How, in
Indeed, reconciling such opposing prescriptions as these: "The sons
will not be put to death for the sins of their fathers" (Deut., XXIV, 16) and
I am Yahweh, who punishes the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the
third and to the fourth generation” (Ex., XX, 5 and XXXIV, 7)?
How could God have contradicted Himself so radically on one point?
so serious?
e and in the 20th, the
In the second half of the 19th century e work of biblical scholars

in the context of what is called the Documentary Hypothesis established the

causes of these contradictions: the first five Books of the Bible had been
written by writers belonging to four main currents and
different, distant by several centuries. They were the Elohists, thus
named because they referred to God as Elohim, the Yahwists,
who referred to him as Yahweh, the priests, who wrote
in the belief of the absolute primacy of the clergy in the history of Israel, and
the Deuteronomists, almost exclusive authors of the fifth Book of
Pentateuch (until the 7th ecentury BCE, it was composed of
only four Books: it was a Tetrateuch2.
These writers did not always align their texts with those that existed.
already and often limited themselves to adding their versions to the previous ones. Hence
considerable differences often found in the same Book, like the two
versions of the creation of Eve in the same Genesis. Some, at times,
paid with boldness; it was thus that in 622, during the restoration of the Temple
under the reign of Josiah, the high priest Hilkiah discovered the fifth
Free, the Deuteronomy, in the foundations of the monument. The shock was so strong.
that the work was interrupted. How could one have overlooked
for centuries a Book that was hastily attributed to the very pen
of Moses? Since then, this Book has been included in the Pentateuch. It is suspected,
not without reason, that it had actually been written by priests of the Temple in
the framework of the religious reform undertaken by Josiah.
No harmonization of the five Books was ever carried out; and the
contradictions remained. Contrary to what one would assume, some
have even been aggravated by additions in modern times. In their
versions of ancient texts, some translators have indeed introduced some
explanations of their own, thus believing to dispel obscurities or fill in
gaps, whereas, more cautiously or more modestly, the priests of
centuries before our era were limited to recording them in collections
separated from comments or midrashim.
The contradictions in question affect not only the Old Testament: they
they abound also in the New, for other reasons. Some are
minors, others major, such as those concerning revenge
divine or on the life of Jesus.
The purpose of these pages is not to answer doctrinal questions.
they pose, it is limited to the presentation of contradictions and ambiguities that
has sometimes generated centuries-old conflicts. Such a presentation appeared to us
necessary for all good faith minds.

___________________
1. Cf. note 1, p. 305 on the differences between the contents of the Bibles according to different religions and denominations.
2.See note 2, pp. 305-307.
 FIRST PART
The Old Testament
 I. THE GENESIS

Eve would have been created as Adam's 'helper'.

At what moment, in biblical symbolism, was the woman created?

It is impossible to find the answer to this question in the texts that
Yet it narrates its creation. For it exists in the first Book of the Bible.
two successive and contradictory versions of this.
In verse 27 of Ierchapter of the Book of Genesis, it is said, indeed:
Elohim created man in His image, in the image of Elohim He created him. Male and
female, he created them." The narrative can obviously be only symbolic,
even for the most resolutely fundamentalist believers, since it
implies that the first humans were created at an adult age,
indeterminate, defying the universal laws of growth of a living being. And
they did not have a navel, since they had not had an umbilical cord.
But after having said earlier that man and woman had been created
together, Genesis contradicts itself radically, and in a way that no
casuistry cannot refute. In verse 7 of IIechapter, indeed, God creates
The solitary man completes his work, thus bringing forth the Garden of Eden.
He creates the animals and the birds, waits for Adam to name them, then,
judging that 'it is not good for man to be alone', he decides: 'I
I will provide him with help against him." "A help," that is indeed the term used;
one might as well say a servant. In verse 21, he puts the "clay" to sleep, takes away from him.
a coast and creates this "aid," named Eve.
In the first chapter, man and woman are created together, in
the following, they are separately and Eve, "the mother of all humans"
only appears after an indeterminate period, and with a utilitarian intention.
Is Eve still created in the image of God?
It therefore appears that, in this version, a secondary status has been imposed on
the woman. Examples abound in the stories of the patriarchal society that
describe the Books of the Old Testament, and this status is always inferior.
One of the most striking examples is that of the man's mistress.
that the Benjaminites wanted to rape near Gibeah and who threw this at them
woman in pasture. She was raped all night. When he found her motionless on
the threshold of the house, at dawn the next day, "he cut it into twelve
pieces that he sent throughout all the land of Israel" (Judges, XIX, 16-30).
An incident revealing the little consideration men have for women.
and confirmed by divine prescriptions on the 'value' of humans (40).
The inferior status of women in the eyes of the authors of the Old Testament
The testament will be confirmed by several later texts, such as this passage from
Leviticus: 'If a woman has conceived and given birth to a male child,
she will be unclean for seven days [...], but if she has conceived a daughter, then she will be
"impure fourteen days" (Lev., XII, 2 and 5).
Formerly attributed to Moses, the Pentateuch has thus anchored in the religions of
Free the inferior nature of woman, and this in defiance of the "natural law"
These religions have prevailed for millennia.

2. Was Eve the wife or the sister of Adam?

For a contemporary reader, the story of Adam and Eve contains a

disturbing aspect: no divine word, no sacrament consecrates their
union, while it is they who hold the future of divine creation.
the only care that God takes of them is to clothe them with 'tunics of skin'
(III, 21). Their transition to sexual activity is devoid of any meaning.
superior; it is purely primal.
Another obscure, if not contentious, point: even if we do not involve the
genetics, it is evident that Eve was born from the flesh of Adam and is therefore
closer to a twin sister than to a chosen partner. Beyond the
psychoanalysis, her union with Adam is consanguineous, and the suspicion of
incest reappears.
e 11th century, an original effort to
It is useful to remember here that, around the
resolving the doubts about the union of Adam and Eve gave birth to a
Kabbalistic work, the Alphabet of Ben-Sirah, in which it is stated that
primitive humans were both male and female, that is to say androgynous, theme
already proposed by Plato. God separated them, gave them distinct identities and
gave them equality. However, the first woman would not have been Eve,
but Lilith. Adam wanted to take precedence over her. Invested with equality,
Lilith refused him. In front of Adam's stubbornness, she implored God and was able to
to flee from Eden. We find this myth in the description by Isaiah of the
catastrophe caused in Israel by the anger of Yahweh, when the cats
wild ones will mate with hyenas: 'The satyr will call the satyr, there
still will Lilith lurk, she will find rest..." (Is., XXXIV, 14). Despite
Adam's supplications, she never returned. It would then be that God
would have created Eve.
This variant, in our opinion, reflects much more the perplexity caused by the
character of Eve in the story of Genesis that the beliefs of
biblical writers.

3. Who created the Serpent?

In the first two chapters of Genesis, it is said that Yahweh

Elohim fully created the world, the earth, and all things upon it.
including animal species; it follows that he also created the serpent, instrument
origin of Evil and embodiment of temptation. This animal then becomes
the enemy of the Creator, who burdens him with sanctions: 'You shall crawl on your belly'
and you will eat dust..." (III, 14-15). And the enmity between the woman and
the serpent was meant to be eternal: 'The woman will crush the head of the serpent'
assure the Genesis. But had he not created it himself and was he not
Satisfied? At least that's what the verse indicates: 'Yahweh saw what he had
created, and it was very good" (Gen., I, 31).
Thus, from the beginning of the Old Testament, the question appears with
which theologians will debate endlessly: what is the authority of God
on evil? It will appear many times in the Bible.
Bizarrely, this symbol of Evil returns to the stage during the Exodus.
Yahweh commands Moses to make a bronze serpent whose sight will heal.
the Hebrews attacked by snakes during the crossing of the desert (Num., XXI, 4-9).
And the idol of this serpent will even be portrayed in the Temple of Jerusalem. Then
Jesus will invoke him... (135)

Was the Serpent telling the truth then?

Another overlooked contradiction arises regarding the snake. This one

had certainly lied when he assured Eve that she and Adam would not die
not if they ate the forbidden fruit, but he had told the truth when he
had announced that, if she and Adam ate from that fruit: 'You will be
like gods who know good and evil." Indeed, despite its
anger and the fact that he will drive the first couple out of the earthly Paradise, God
confirm the words of the reptile: 'Yahweh Elohim says: now the man
has become like one of us, to know good and evil" (III, 22);
So, these partly enigmatic words (who is Yahweh referring to when he
say "we", the plural of majesty not existing in the Old Testament and
Yahweh always saying "I" carries a philosophical significance.
considerable: why does the Creator lament that man and woman
know good and evil? Is it not he who will consecrate later the
distinction of good and evil by dictating the Decalogue to Moses?
And what was his goal when he crowned Creation with the advent
of the human species? Did he intend to keep it in ignorance?
This is one of the major contradictions of the Bible.

At what age were Adam and Eve born?

Even considering the fact that the story is symbolic, it raises the
reader from three thousand years ago just like today, a question
inevitable: the first two humans being born adults, against all the
natural laws known since always, what were their ages then? And
Given that they had been created in the image of the Creator, did this age reflect it?
the one of the Creator? But then, given that this one is eternal, how
could he have frozen at an age such as 20 or 30 years old that is attributed
instinctively at the first couple when he got up from his first sleep?
So many questions to which the symbolic nature of the narrative offers none.
element of response. Because symbols do not exclude logic.

What is the gender of Yahweh?

Genesis establishes an ambiguity that also seems eternal about this

It is said three times that Yahweh created man and woman at
his image: in I, 26 and 27, then in V, 2. 'Male and female he created them', which
formally implies that it is made up of the masculine-feminine duality
(this point, however, is contradicted, as mentioned above, by the fact that, in the
second account of Creation, he created Eve long after Adam). However, from
In II, 7, he is always referred to as a masculine entity.
This ambiguity is certainly not resolved by the names of the deity.
according to biblical currents: for the Yahwist current, He is designated as
Yahweh, but for the Elohist current, He is referred to as Elohim,
problematic appellation, Elohim being a plural – that of Eloha, the Most-
Skin, singular which is used only very exceptionally in the Bible and
which does not involve any notion of gender.
The Bible raises the question of the gender of God, but does not allow for it to be addressed.
answer.

The forbidden fruit was supposed to be deadly: yet Adam lived for 930 years.
answer

"On the day you eat from it, you will surely die," thus God threatens Adam.
by forbidding him to consume the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge (II,
17). But the threat seems to change afterwards: "All your life you will [of the
"you will draw food from the earth with difficulty" (III, 17), which is in contradiction
with the immediate death penalty. In chapter III, there is no longer talk
of no curse and Adam died 'at nine hundred thirty years' (III, 5),
thirty less than his descendant Noah, record holder of biblical longevity. He
It is notorious that the numbers in the Bible have a cabalistic significance.1,
but Adam's evidently advanced age demonstrates that divine punishment has not
has not been accomplished.
It is obviously difficult to reconcile the three verses.

8. Where does Cain's wife come from? And how did humanity originate?
perpetuated?

When Cain flees after murdering Abel, "he settles in the

land of Nod, east of Eden" (IV, 16) and he took a wife there (IV, 17). But who
it was therefore this one, since Adam and Eve were the first humans and that he
it is not mentioned that they had daughters (the only other child besides Abel
and Cain was Seth, born when Adam was one hundred thirty years old). Was there therefore
of women and men elsewhere?
The deduction comes down to this dilemma: either Adam and Eve were not
the first humans, or Cain married a sister who would have left her
parents for an unknown reason and incest would be at the origin of the race
humane.
The absence of known female descendants from the first couple has held
the attention of ancient Hebrew clergies. In the Targum, translation of
the Old Testament in Aramaic that prevailed after the return from Exile, and which
contained variations of the original text, it is said that Eve bore first
place Abel and "his [twin] sister" (who is not named). Another
explanation had been put forward by the Targoum: the existence of another race
of pre-Adamic humans. But it posed too many problems, implying that
we are not only descended from Adam and Eve and contradicting
the title of 'mother of all humans' that is bestowed upon her by the
Genesis.
Nevertheless, for the fundamentalists, this concession to common sense does not
did not solve the problem of the perpetuation of the human species and
neither did it eliminate the suspicion of incest. The mention was dropped,
and the contradiction remains to this day.

9. Despite the divine curse, Cain prospered and Yahweh even

protégé

Repeated infinitely over the centuries, the story of Cain and fratricide
Abel's commission is one of the best known and commented upon in the Old Testament.
Testament. However, it remains one of the most enigmatic. The text is
Cain, jealous of the favor that Yahweh showed to his brother, became
quarreled with him and killed him.
A crucial first question arises: why did Yahweh despise
the offerings he had made to her? There is not the slightest explanation for it.
It is simply said: 'Cain made an offering of the fruits of the earth', but
Yahweh did not pay attention to Cain and his offering. He preferred
the offering of Abel, "the firstborn of his flock and their fat" (IV, 3-
5). Why? Because they were more expensive goods? But the merit of
Does the offering reside in the intention or in its value? Nothing
It does not indicate that Cain made a discounted offering. He was a farmer.
and Abel, a shepherd. Each offers what he has. Furthermore, Yahweh himself
justify later the offering of Cain: 'You will bring to the house of
Yahweh, your God, the first fruits of the first fruits of the earth
XXIII, 19).
Never is Yahweh's preference for Abel explained or justified.
The fact remains that the true reason for the dispute is Yahweh's attitude towards
regarding Cain, who is then admonished by the God who has despised his
lords: "Why rebel against yourself?" (IV, 6)
Second question: how does Yahweh, in his omniscience, not know
What is the reason for Cain's reaction?
 Reduced to a mere news item, the story would thus lose all exemplary value,
only later does she become even more enigmatic, to the point of
lose all moral meaning. Indeed, when Cain flees and that
Yahweh calls to him, he exclaims: "Anyone who finds me wandering will...
Yahweh replied to him: "Whoever kills Cain will be exposed to a
sevenfold vengeance. And he put a mark on Cain that would warn off blows
(IV, 15). We are left astonished: God thus protects the murderer. And the
protection is effective, for Cain takes a wife, builds a city, Enoch, and
divine protection extends to his son Lamech tenfold: "If Cain is avenged
to the seventh, Lamek will be seventy-seven times," proclaims Lamek (IV, 24). The
The famous 'mark of Cain' is therefore not a shameful stigma, as one
it has sometimes claimed, on the contrary, it is a protective seal.
Third essential question: why did Yahweh, who could have warned the
Does the murder of the innocent then protect the murderer and his descendants?
No one has ever found an explanation for divine favor. It is not the
less strangeness of the biblical text, which pushes it to the fringes of the absurd to
force of contradictions.

10. Cain escaped the condemnation to wandering

In IV, 12, indeed, Yahweh said to him: 'You will wander on the earth.' But one
then Cain built Enoch and settled there (IV, 17). The curse
would it have been ineffective?

11. How long did the Flood last?

"The waters decreased at the end of one hundred and fifty days," says Genesis.
But two verses later (VIII, 5), it is said that 'the waters
fell for ten months. If the months had their current duration, that
would be exactly double; otherwise, it would take months of
fifteen days, unknown in history at any time. The calculation is
even more difficult to do in light of the second part of verse 5:
The first day of the tenth month, the mountains appeared.
But it is true that this passage was written by authors belonging to
three different streams, Elohist, Yahwist, and Priestly. Undoubtedly
did they not have the same sources and neither of them allowed themselves to
harmonize the narrative.
 12. Did Yahweh not know where Abraham was born?

In XI, 31, it is said that Terah, Abraham's father, and his family left Ur.
from the Chaldeans to settle in Harran. It was there that Yahweh ordered to
Abraham: "Leave your country, your birthplace, your father's house,
father for the country that I will show you" (XII, 1). The injunction then appears
incomprehensible, given that Abraham, born in Ur, had already left this
He has been living with his father for a long time.

The Tower of Babel or the confusion about confusion

In X, 2-5, it is said that the children and grandchildren of Japheth, one of the
three sons of Noah born after the Flood, separated and each went to
his country, "each with their own language, family by family, nation by
nation." However, chapter XI recounts that, once, the peoples of the earth did not
spoke only one language and everyone understood everyone;
but upon arriving in the land of Shinar, men decided to build there
a tower that would rise to the sky, and which was called the Tower of Babel. For the
in diverting, the Lord created confusion among them, so that they did not
they compressed each other more.
How could it be that the whole world spoke only one language,
since it is said in X, 2-5, that right after the Flood, when the survivors...
were settled on the earth, each nation spoke its own language?
In addition to this glaring contradiction, one may also wonder
if the Lord really believed that the Tower of Babel would reach the sky.

14. Anachronism and contradiction about the city of Bethel

It would be quite demanding to expect rigor from the authors of the Pentateuch.
in terms of history and geography, but it is allowed to be astonished that,
reading in reading, they have not corrected themselves.
Thus, in XII, 8, Abraham pitches his tent to the east of the city of Bethel.
XVIII, 19, we see, however, his grandson, arriving many years later.
in a city that "was previously called Louz", erected a stele and
name the city Bethel. How can the grandson give a city the
name she already carried since her grandfather's time? Moreover,
the name Bethel, which breaks down in Hebrew to beth El, "house of the
Lord" is not specifically Hebrew, El being a Canaanite god.
ancient. But as if to add to the confusion, in XXXI, 13, the angel of
The Lord declares to Jacob: 'I am the El of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar.'
This would mean that the city of Bethel already bore the name of the Lord.
when Abraham pitches his tent; it could therefore not be confused with
Louz, since the Genesis itself specifies that this city is located 'between Bethel
and Ai" (XII, 8). Modern archaeology has indeed confirmed that Bethel was
well a center of the worship of El: in 1934, excavations uncovered on this site
the remains of two important temples dating from the mid-IIIemillennium.
Jacob could not have baptized this city. Nevertheless, the writer of the
Genesis insists on its confusion: it will repeat that 'Luz is Bethel'
(XXXV, 6).

15. Who is the anachronistic Melchizedek?

It is a secondary episode of the Exodus that has taken place over the centuries.
considerable importance; it is that of the encounter of Abraham (which
is still called Abrâm) with Melchizedek. The subject of interpretations
philological and theological discussions that are at least advanced, this one has taken some
unexpected symbolic proportions, some of which even present it
like the precursor of Jesus. The works on the Bible are countless.
who devote long pages to him and, as a unique honor, his statue stands
in the central portal of the Cathedral of Chartres, bearing with the left hand
what seems to be… the Holy Grail!
The episode unfolds as follows: while making his way to his camp, Abrâm
found mixed up in one of those tribal quarrels that punctuate history of
the ancient Orient. Four "kings," from which one can reasonably deduce that
they are tribal chiefs, emirs, those from Shinar, from Elam, and Eliasar
the Goïm wage war against five others, those of Sodom, of Gomorrah,
of Admah, of Zeboiim and of Bela. Abram learns that the kings of Sodom and of
Gomorrah took, in their flight, his nephew Lot, his family and his
herds. He mounts an expedition of three hundred eighteen men and the
delivers. Then a tenth king appears to congratulate him: "Melchizedek,
king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, he being the priest of El Elyon, the God.
supreme. He blessed him and said: "Abram is blessed by Elion, the creator of the heavens and
the earth. And blessed is El Eliôn, who has bound your oppressors in your hands.
He [Abram] gives him the tithe of everything" (XIV, 18-20).
It is customary in every age to congratulate the victors and that in these
patriarchal times, we bless them in the name of its deities. The episode does not
therefore presents nothing exceptional. Surely Melchizedek was annoyed by the
agitations of the nine little kings of the region and was he happy that someone them
had administered a flight. However, the character can be found in the
Psalms (110): He is the one "whose scepter will shine with power from
Sion”, the one who is “a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”
A few speculations and centuries later, it enters the New
Testament: the Epistle to the Hebrews designates it as the archetype of the "king-
"priest"; it is the Messiah (213). In short, it would be Jesus who, about fifteen
centuries earlier, would have gone to congratulate and bless Abram.
This rather adventurous speculation has continued to develop.
up to the present day, in an obviously mystical setting. One of the motifs in
does this king not appear again in the Old Testament. According to this
reasoning, it would therefore constitute a major symbol, but one could
to create a dictionary of all the character names that are not mentioned
only once in the Old Testament.
A part of the argumentation is based on the name and the function of
Melchizedek. Three interpretations are offered of the name: 'My king is righteous',
"My god is Sèdèq" and "My god Mélek is just." None of the three do not
imposes itself on others.
What is this country of Shalem of which Melchizedek is king? Shalem means
"peace" in Hebrew, but it is also part of the archaic name of
Jerusalem, Uru-Shalem, 'founded by Shalem', as confirmed by
e 14th century BC. If he is king
Egyptian documents from El Amarna, dating back to the
from Jerusalem, he can only be a Jebusite, from the people to whom David, five or
Six centuries later, he will take the city. Why would he go congratulate a Hebrew?
unknown? And if he has foresight, his feelings towards Abrâm do not
should not be warm. It is one of the two anachronisms of
the mystical interpretation of the character.
It is specified that he is 'the servant of El Eliôn', that is to say, priest of the Most High
High, the 'author of the heavens and the earth'. El, which means 'first', it is
to say "God" in the Phoenician and Canaanite religions, is also
"creator of creatures" in the mythology of Ugarit. To make it the archetype.
the priest-king of Yahweh would constitute another anachronism, that one
shining: the priestly institution has not yet been established and Melchizedek
cannot be, in the time of Abraham, a great priest of Yahweh.
Are they comforted by the Psalms, the Epistle to the Hebrews and some others?
modern philological considerations, the theories about Melchizedek
appear to be unfounded, to say the least.

16. Were the first Israelites polytheists?

When Jacob fled from his father-in-law Laban the Aramean, his wife
Rachel steals her father's idols: they are idols of various sizes.
since the small animals, which can have a human size.
"Why did you steal my gods?" asks Laban to Jacob when he
find later. The question may surprise, since Laban descends from
Nahor, brother of Abraham, who knew only one God and who would therefore be
supposed to respect the law of his clan. But Moses has not yet prohibited the worship
idols.
However, long after Moses, at the end of the First period of Israel and
before the establishment of the monarchy, there is again a question of the seraphim
in the Book of Judges (XVII, 1; XVIII, 31). We see the mother of
the Ephraimite Micah had a sanctuary built adorned with an idol, of a
ephodet2 deteraphimd melted silver; glaring paradox: she dedicates them to
Yahweh! However, these objects play a central role in the last two.
chapters of the Book of Judges; the Danites (members of the tribe of Dan) are
they take them and install them in their own sanctuary in Laïsh. And the son of
Micah, who is a priest, finds nothing to criticize. The idol, however, reveals the
practice of a foreign cult and violates the formal prohibition of
Yahweh told Moses and the people to make idols of molten metal.
Desteraphim are found in the house of Saul, the first king of Israel.
would have reigned between 1030 and 1010 BC). To save David, of whom she is
In love, due to the anger of her father Saul, Michal places idols in the bed of
David, who claims to be sick (I Sam., XIX, 12). Believing he can seize David,
who has already fled, Saul only seizes these idols.
The mystery therefore remains about the practice of the steraphim. And it is not without...
surprise that we learn that Yahweh himself partially dedicates
the use, since he orders Moses to put "on the Breastplate of Judgment
the source of the treasures" (Ex., XXVIII, 30). Obviously, the idols are
proscribed, since they represent other gods than Yahweh. One understands
so that the Prophets condemned the general use of teraphim.
But the use of the plural name Elohim to designate the divinity is certainly
not likely to solve the problem.
 17. The strange eunuchs of Genesis

In the story of Joseph, the son of Jacob whom his brothers sold to some
merchants, it is said that "Potiphar, eunuch of Pharaoh" bought him from them
lasts (XXXIX, 1). However, the pharaohs did not have eunuchs. But,
Outrageous size, it is said further on that Potiphar had a wife.
(XXXIX, 7). Apparently, the authors of this text were not very
informed about these issues.

___________________
1. See note 12, p. 312.
2.Before the Exile, it was a divinatory object, but later it became an element of the priests' attire.
 II. THE EXODUS

18. The Israelites were never more numerous than the Egyptians in the
Nile Valley

Such is the thesis set forth in the twenty-two verses of the first
chapter of Exodus, alleging that the descendants of Joseph filled the whole
country four generations after the death of the latter, and that the Egyptians
"lived in the haunting of the children of Israel" (I, 12). The number of
male descendants of Joseph aged over 22 years are even mentioned, with
some differences: "nearly six hundred thousand foot soldiers, just the
men, not counting their families," the writer states at the beginning of the Book.
(Ex., XII, 37); and further: "603 550" (Ex., XX VIII, 26). If one calculates
that each man had with him a wife and three children, plus two.
parents, the total number would be around 4.5 million. However, it is totally
impossible that the Jewish population could have reached this number from the
seventy descendants attributed to Joseph (Ex., I, 5 and Deut., X, 22), well
that the Acts (VII, 14) state they were seventy-five.
The time is obviously indeterminate, but it is situated just before
Moses, that is to say between the Second Intermediate Period and the beginning of
e 16the and 13th centuries BC. At that time and
New Empire, that is to say the
Until the Roman conquest, Egypt had a vigilant administration.
relayed by the governors of provinces, and it does not exist in the texts
Egyptians left no trace of any kind regarding the danger of overpopulation that the
Israelites would have imposed on the valley of the Nile. On the contrary, from the
EighteeneDynasty, it was Palestine that was conquered by Egypt.
The demographic data from the time is obviously random,
but the population of the Nile Valley at that time is generally estimated
around one million inhabitants.
Moreover, the situation described by the authors of this chapter is
incompatible with the mentioned demographic threat, since it is said that
The Egyptians were intent on making life difficult for the Israelites (I, 14). If
they would have been so numerous, they would not have allowed themselves to be imposed upon
described mistreatment.
The obvious intention of this exaltation of the fertility of the Israelites is to
serve as a prologue to the story of Moses. But its result is to weaken the
historical credibility of the Pentateuch.

19. The Egyptian princesses did not speak Hebrew.

To greet each other, Egyptian princesses used to say Iouyet nonchalom;

Indeed, they did not speak Hebrew. That is the reason why
the story of the discovery of the cradle of Moses on the Nile is clearly
invented.
First of all, it is identical to that of Sargon (this refers to the general
e
founder of the Assyrian Empire in the 8th century B.C., and not of the king
homonym of Babylon who reigned around 2700 BC). Sargon
claimed, in fact, to descend from his illustrious namesake and recounted that one
had tried to get rid of him by abandoning his floating cradle,
also coated with bitumen, on the Euphrates.
According to the account of the Exodus, a woman from the tribe of Levi (II, 1-2) would have
abandoned his son on the Nile in a box made of reeds coated with pitch in order to
subtract from the massacres of Israeli children organized by the Egyptians.
The names of the parents are specified further on: Amrân and his aunt Yokeved
(VI, 20), a detail that will later be the subject of an implicit condemnation of
Moses (24, 47 and 49). An Egyptian princess is said to have found the
box and adopted the child as a son. The narrative of the Exodus therefore aims to establish
the exclusively Israelite ancestry of Moses; he does not say how he did
Yokeved to save Aaron, brother of Moses, from the massacres. Myriam, she,
is given as the elder sister, who found herself at the place where the princess
Egyptian discovered the box and suggested going to recruit a wet nurse "among
the Hebrew women" (Ex., II, 4 and 7-8).
Secondly, the rational explanation of the name Moses does not
may be retained: "She called him Moses, saying: it is because I drew him out of the
waters" (Ex., II, 10). This "explanation" is based on the resemblance between
the name Mosché, Moses in Hebrew, and the Hebrew verb machâh, 'to find'. The
the first person of the past of this verb is 'machê', but this nuance is
any superfluous way, the Egyptian princesses not speaking Hebrew,
as mentioned. In fact, the name of this famous character is a name
Egyptian, Moses, which means "child of"; the name would therefore be
incomplete, as it lacks that of the father (as in Ramessou, 'son
from Ra), and it indicates that, although born of unknown parents, Moses was
of Egyptian origin. This explains the assertion that 'Moses was
a very great figure in Egypt" (Ex., XI, 3). We will see below the
elements that reinforce his Egyptian identity.
The invention of the rush box entrusted to the waters of the Nile thus appears
like the disguise of the story of an abandoned child. It resembles
so closely to that of Sargon that the similarities cannot be coincidental;
it encourages one to think that this version of the story of Moses was shaped by
e 8th century BC.
that of Sargon and which dates at the earliest to the

20. Contradictions between the biblical narrative and history: these are the
Egyptians who drove out the Hebrews

The fabulous story of the Book of Exodus is etched in everyone's memory.

like the saga of an oppressed people who, with the help of their God, were able to
finally take flight and go to conquer the promised land.
Historical facts reconstructed in the modern era, thanks to documents
ancients found, invite to reconsider it.
First, the duration of the Exodus was very different. According to the biblical account, the
the departure from Egypt would have been decided within a few days or
a few weeks, at the end of the conflict between Moses and the Pharaoh, mediated by
Yahweh. Historical documents indicate that, in fact, captive Hebrews
in Egypt fled to Palestine for almost a century,
approximately since the end of the 14thecentury BC
Venus from Palestine to pasture their herds during the drought
was spreading beyond Sinai, either for trade or to find a
jobs, they often settled. They primarily established themselves in the delta
oriental, then irrigated by several branches of the Nile. They eventually ended up by
constitute a disadvantaged community, whose status was close to
e
slavery. In the early 13th century BC, Pharaoh Seti Ierbuilt
a chain of strongholds along the coast north of Sinai, to which refers the
Book of Exodus, calling it "the way of the Philistines" (Ex., XIII, 17). This
the coastal military route was the only one by which traffic could take place between
Egypt and Palestine, in one direction as in the other; the strongholds
they controlled both the incoming and the outgoing - the papyrus Anastasi III
it was said that entry or exit was only allowed with the presentation of a permit.
Thus, the Apirous – it is the ancient name from which the word 'Hebrews' derives.
- tired of the Egyptian yoke, could no longer flee, except to attempt their
chance through the deserts to the east, which was much longer and riskier. Such
is the reason why Yahweh provides them through Moses a counsel
strategic consisting of making the Egyptian army believe that they had left
through the desert, leading him onto a false trail (Ex., XIV, 1-3).
e
In the 13th century BC, the famous pharaoh Ramses (1279-1212) decided to
to have a new capital built, Pi-Ramses, in the eastern delta. He
decided to exploit the labor of the Hebrews, under conditions for the
less constraining. The Book of Exodus seems to refer to this (Ex., I,
11), although the names of the new cities he mentions, Pithom and Ramses,
may be somewhat different. The fact is in any case attested by the papyrus of
Leyde 348, directive from a senior official that orders: "Distribute some
wheat rations to the soldiers and the Apirous who carry stones to the great
Ramses' pylon.
Many Hebrews still wanted to flee, and at least two of them
and parvinrent: they were slaves of the royal house of Ramses II, like
e 13th century BC.
we learn from the papyrus Anastasi V, which dates back to the end of the
C. They managed to cross the border posts, then they engaged in the
Sinai desert. The military command sent archers to their
pursuit. We do not know what became of those fugitives, but we know that some
incidents of this kind seem to have multiplied up to 1200 BC. For
As such, no Egyptian document mentions a massive exodus of the Apiru.
if the escape of two of them had been enough to motivate a pursuit order, we
designs the mass of documents that would have been caused by the leak of several
hundreds or thousands of them.
Then a decisive event occurred.
e
In the second decade of the 12th century BC, a faction of Egyptians
rebels against the power of Pharaoh Setnakht. She bought with money,
gold and copper, "the possessions of Egypt", the support of the Apiru -
also referred to as 'Asians' - to overturn power.
Setnakht thwarted the plot and drove the Apirous out of the land. The episode, recounted
on the Elephantine stele, before the first cataract of the Nile, was not published
in 19721It was undoubtedly then that one of the Egyptian rebel leaders took
the command of their forced exodus. How can one not think of Moses?
 Presented as a voluntary act by the authors of the eponymous Book,
The Exodus was therefore an expulsion.

21. The Egyptians were not simple-minded.

Verse III, 22 suggests it: 'A woman will ask her neighbor'
and to the one who inhabits her house with silver vases, gold vases and
clothes; you will put them on your sons and on your daughters. You will strip
the Egyptian. " Besides being an incitement to dishonesty
inconceivable on the part of the deity (the Hebrew term used, sha’al, means
"to appropriate" and not "to demand"), this supposed injunction of Yahweh
Before the Exodus, Moses does not hold water. The Egyptians did not possess
gold and silver vases as if they were ordinary dishes and,
Moreover, they were not simple-minded. For what reason, if they were
had they had, would they have entrusted them to people they were supposed to mistreat?
This accommodation of the aforementioned episode, where the Egyptian rebels
buying the support of the Hebrews is one of the clumsiest fabrications
from the Book of Exodus.

22. Confusions and implausibilities about the beginning of the Exodus

It is written (Ex., XIV, 9-10) that, following the instructions of Yahweh (Ex.,
XIV, 1-2), Moses would have led the Hebrews to Pi-hahiroth, 'Where-the-paths-
"starting", and would have made them camp there. It was at this place that the army
Egyptians would have joined them and the Hebrews would then have shouted
clamors: "What, are there no tombs in Egypt that you have ...
brought here to die in the desert!" Whereupon Yahweh would have ordered to
Moses stretched out his rod to part the waters and allow the Hebrews to pass.
safely cross the Sea of Reeds – that was the name of the gulf of
Suez, upper part of the Red Sea.
These details only reveal that the writer of the account was unaware of the
Geography of Egypt. Moses would not have needed to raise any stick, because
Pi-hahiroth was located in the middle of the dry land and there were no waters at
to separate in order to cross them nor to drown the Egyptian soldiers. The Hebrews are
were found on the edge of the Shour desert. Then, the Egyptian soldiers did not
were not pursuing the Hebrews: they probably wanted to make sure that they were not
they did not go back on their steps.
If there has indeed been a crossing of the waters, immortalized by legend, it...
took place much further south. The complaints of the Hebrews were
probably motivated by the regret of leaving fertile lands due to
of an Egyptian sedition in which they had had the imprudence to involve themselves,
because they were now forced to face an adventure that did not speak to them
nothing good. Unable, in fact, to venture onto the road of the Philistines, they
knew they would be forced to face the desert.
It is probably in this direction that they would have been.
engaged the Egyptian army.

23. The passage of the Reed Sea: no need for a stick

miraculous

You, raise your staff, stretch out your hand over the sea and split it, so that the
Israelites may walk dry-shod through the midst of the sea (Ex., XIV, 15-
16): thus Yahweh commands Moses to perform one of the wonders
the most memorable of all mythologies.
We will not address here the question of the route taken by the Hebrews,
which has generated abundant literature and to which no hypothesis has
provided a response that reaches a consensus. We will limit ourselves to considering the
made the Hebrews cross the Reed Sea under conditions
that they believed to be miraculous, as the account indicates, otherwise this
description would have no reason to exist.
In fact, this crossing was nothing exceptional. Long before the
the excavation of the Isthmus of Suez, there were two fords that shortened "from
more than two leagues2They are described under
the pen of Du Bois Aymé in the monumental Description of Egypt
published under the direction of Vivant-Denon upon the return of the Expedition
from Egypt. Dr. Maurice Bucaille also cites a note from Father Coroyer,
from the Biblical School of Jerusalem, mentioning a ford at the height of Suez
that the pilgrims used to cross to reach Mecca, and "another ford more
dangerous, at the southern tip of the Amers lakes, where the traces lead to
old tracks.
Why was this last ford more dangerous? Because of the tides.
One of the most illustrious successors of Moses, Napoleon Bonaparte, nearly,
according to Du Bois Aymé, to drown there in 1799. Also famous, Ferdinand de
Lesseps, who dug the Suez Canal, reported in a note to the Academy
of the sciences, on June 22, 1874, that twenty years earlier, he had been a witness
of a storm where the tide had reached one meter thirty to one meter four
twenty
It must therefore be assumed that these fords were only passable at low tide and
that, transmitted from generation to generation, the oral tales of those who
had crossed and had attended the tides had been swollen to
of fabulous proportions. Perhaps some Egyptian military had there-
they left life; these accidents turned into massive drownings
Egyptian gods and inspired the writer according to whom "Yahweh overturned the
Egyptians in the middle of the sea" (Ex., XIV, 27).

24. A revealing slip about the birth of Moses

When Moses rejects the mission entrusted to him by Yahweh, that of going to announce
to the people to whom his God has appeared, and that Yahweh is angry against
he said to him: "Isn’t your brother, Aaron the Levite, here?" (IV, 14). But,
Moses, supposed to be Aaron's brother, is just as much a Levite as he is, that is to say
belonging to the tribe of Levi. But the phrasing used here indicates that only
Aaron would be a Levite... so Moses and he are not related.
Another singularity of the Old Testament reinforces this deduction:
when, in Leviticus, two of Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, are
struck down by Yahweh for a sacrifice that he did not require and that Moses
call their cousins to keep them away from the Sanctuary, the writer states that this
are "Mishaël and Eltsafan, sons of Ourriel, uncle of Aaron," as if Ourriel
was not also the uncle of Moses (Lev., X, 1-4).
This supports the thesis that Moses is not of the same
ascendance than Aaron. Incidentally, it should be noted another thesis, according to
that Moses would not have spoken Hebrew, suggested by the fact that he declares himself
himself "heavy of mouth and heavy of tongue" (IV, 10).
It is necessary to observe, in support of this thesis, the almost complete silence of
Pentateuch concerning the sons of Moses, which can only be explained by the fact
That, according to general opinion, they were not of Hebrew descent.
In any case, the phrase of Yahweh is anachronistic, since the twelve
tribes did not yet exist and that the priestly privilege of the Levites
had not yet been established. There could only still be clans
among the emigrants and Aaron was no more qualified than Moses for their
to announce that Yahweh had appeared to their leader.
 25. Why did Yahweh first try to kill Moses?

This puzzling episode is summarized in a two-line verse: 'It was'

During a night halt, Yahweh came to meet Moses and
wanted to kill him" (IV, 24). It takes place during Moses' return to Egypt, on
the command of Yahweh; Moses did not disobey and the anger of Yahweh did not
doesn't explain itself.
One can certainly consider that this episode is symbolic and repeats that of
the story of Jacob known as Wrestling with the Angel (actually with
Yahweh), up to and including the fact that it occurs during the night: it
describes the testing of the men to whom Yahweh is about to entrust
of great responsibilities. But here, it is incomprehensible, because the divinity
did not even attempt to put Moses to the test; furthermore, the fact that the
Yahweh's intent to murder should obviously be thwarted.
perplexed, for it indicates that the latter is not all-powerful. It is one of
these divine character storms, numerous in the Old Testament.
It is undoubtedly to mitigate the dark and brutal nature of the episode
a midrash3anciently he modified it thus: it was not Yahweh who attempted to
kill Moses, but a giant serpent that threatened to swallow him. Tsippora,
Moses' wife averted danger by circumcising her son with a...
sharp stone.
The symbolism of this brutal action escapes understanding.
In fact, if Moses had conformed to the customs of the Israelites, he would have already done.
circumcise his son according to Yahweh's command to Abraham: "All
"A male child among you shall be circumcised" (Gen., XVII, 9-10), prescription
renewed (Lev., XII, 3). And if he was Egyptian, as his name suggests,
Moses would also have circumcised his son, as it was a practice in
vigor in Egypt since the earliest antiquity.
Moreover, it was not the mother who should make this decision, but the father.
And one may wonder which son it was, for five verses earlier, he
it is said that "Moses took his wife and his sons, he made them get on a donkey and
"returned to Egypt" (IV, 20). Were the others circumcised?

26. The God of justice threatens to sacrifice innocent children

When Yahweh decides to let the Israelites leave Egypt, he orders

this to Moses: 'You shall say to Pharaoh, thus says Yahweh, Israel is my son
and even my firstborn. And I tell you, let my son go, so that he can
serve me, and if you refuse to let him go, beware: I will kill your son,
even your firstborn.
Yahweh thus threatens to sacrifice innocent children because the
Pharaoh will not have obeyed him. And he takes action: "Like Pharaoh
was stubbornly refusing to let us go [says Moses], Yahweh caused all to perish
firstborns in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of men and
the firstborn of the cattle" (Ex., XIII, 15). There is a cruel denial of justice there,
whereas Yahweh is often defined as the seat of justice. And he
It is all the more shocking that the firstborn Egyptians are his creatures.
like the others and that they committed no wrong.
The threat is, in any case, in contradiction with the divine statement of
Deuteronomy: "The Lord your God [...] is impartial" (Deut., X, 17).
However, this same type of collective punishment for the faults of a
man is found many times in the Old Testament, for example
when the prophet Elijah tells King Joram that the Lord 'will strike
heavily your people, your children, your women" because of his faults
(2 Chronicles, 21:14).
But it also happens that, without warning or explanation, Yahweh
decides to make children perish. Such is the case of the son of Judah and Tamar:
Juda took a wife for his firstborn Er; her name was Tamar. But
And the firstborn of Judah displeased Yahweh, who struck him dead.
6-7). It is ignored for what reason Er "displeased" Yahweh.

27. Who wrote the Commandments, God or Moses? Texts

contradictory

During the second summons of Moses on the mountain, God said to him
I will give you the Tables of the Torah and the precepts that I have written.
"so that you instruct [the people]" (XXIV, 12). These Tables are the
Decalogue, and the precepts, the Book of the Covenant. Now, it turns out that Moses
had already written them: "Moses wrote all the words of Yahweh" (XXIV, 4);
It is confirmed further: "Yahweh said to Moses: 'Write these down'
"words" (XXXIV, 27). Nevertheless, Yahweh gives them back to him at the end of their
forty days of conversation: he "gave Moses the two Tablets of
"Testimony, the tables written by the finger of Elohim" (XXXI, 18). In order to
to avoid any further confusion, the authors specify: "Moses
[…] descended the mountain, the two Tablets of the Testimony in hand;
the Tables written on both sides. The Tables were the work of Elohim and
"the writing was that of Elohim, engraved on it" (XXXII, 15-16).
It is impossible to know whether it was Yahweh or Moses who wrote the first.
version of the Tables.
It is also impossible to know who wrote the second version. When he saw, in
descendant from the mountain, while the people were celebrating the Golden Calf, Moses, in
his anger shattered the Tablets. During a new encounter on Sinai,
Yahweh then commanded him: "Cut two stone tablets like the ones
first. I will write on these Tables the words that were on the first ones.
Tables that you have shattered" (XXXIV, 1). But again, the contradiction
reappears: "After forty days and forty nights more4, Moses
"written on the Tablets the Ten Words of the Covenant" (XXXIV, 28), which is
in formal contradiction with Deut., IV, 14, where Moses himself declares that
The two stone tablets were written by Yahweh.
None of the Books of the Pentateuch takes precedence over the other, it must be taken into account
conclude that the answer will remain unknown.

28. Were the Commandments ten or eleven?

History indicates that the Commandments given or dictated by Yahweh

The laws given to Moses on the mountain were actually an adaptation of the Code.
of Hammurabi, the Assyrian monarch. This set of religious laws and
The civil organization that dated back to 2000 BC was only discovered in Susa in 1902.
Until then, it was believed that this was the first expression of the moral code by
the Creator. Religious instruction has taught for centuries that these
The commandments were ten, hence the name Decalogue. This notion is
inaccurate. Indeed, in the first version given in the Book of
the Exodus (Ex., XX, 11-18), there are eleven:
You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make any carved images, anything that resembles what is in the heavens above or on the
land, here below or in the waters, beneath the earth.
You shall not bow down to these gods nor serve them, for I, Yahweh, your God, I
I am a jealous god who punishes the sin of the fathers on the children, the grandchildren, and the great-grandchildren.
children for those who hate me, but have mercy on thousands for those who love and respect me
my commandments.
You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain, for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
who mispronounces his name.
5. You shall remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor [...] but the
the seventh day is a sabbath for Yahweh your God [...]
6. Honor your father and your mother so that your days may be prolonged on the land that Yahweh your God gives you.
God.
You shall not kill.
8. You shall not commit adultery.
9. You shall not steal.
10. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
11. You shall not covet your neighbor's house, […] neither the wife, nor his servant, nor his ox, nor
your donkey, nothing that belongs to your neighbor.

It is only in the version of Deuteronomy (Deut., V, 1-22) that they are

ten, the author of this Book having condensed into one the second and the
third, in the obvious presumption that any representation of a
celestial or terrestrial creature would be dictated by a religious intention, therefore by
idolatry - archaeology has shown that it was false. In Islam,
the prohibition of representing a creature has survived as such,
independently, not to ban idolatry but in order not to pretend
rival with the Creator.
In the other two Abrahamic religions, one can always debate the
Question: Were the Commandments ten or eleven?

29. A Christian Commandment is not included in the Tables of the Law.

It is the sixth, 'Luxurious point will be neither of flesh nor of consent'

in the versions of the Church. However, it does not exist in the version of Exodus
(XX, 1-18) nor in that of Deuteronomy (V, 1-22), where the sixth
The commandment is to honor your father and mother. Nowhere is it mentioned
of luxury in the original texts. Adultery is specifically forbidden in
the eighth commandment, and the act of coveting someone else's wife is
including with the coveting of the goods of one's neighbor, including his ox and
your donkey. The prohibition of 'lust' is an invention of the Church.

Thirty days without eating and drinking?

Divine powers are infinite, but the editor's assertion leaves

Moses remained there with Yahweh for forty days and forty nights.
nights. He neither ate nor drank" (XXXIV, 28). Such a fast, especially without
a drop of water is physiologically impossible, and it is inconceivable.
Moreover, it is not useful. Once again, it must be recalled that the figures mentioned
in the Old Testament have a cabalistic value5.
 One cannot conceive the symbolism of change any further.
dermatological incident that befell Moses at the end of this trial: 'Moses did not know
not that the skin of his face was glowing because he had spoken with him
[Yahweh] » (XXXIV, 29). Radiation that would have been so intense that it would have
was forced to wear a veil. But such a phenomenon did not happen to Jacob,
No later in Ezekiel, and it is all the more bewildering that Moses is not
Indeed, one is not supposed to have seen the face of Yahweh. Could it not rather have been...?
from congestion due to insolation, transformed into radiation by
the imagination of the witnesses?

31. Are decoration, sewing, and jewelry making within the scope of expertise?
the Divinity?

It is perilous to look at the past with a contemporary gaze, but it is

also difficult to suppress one's perplexity at the reading of the one hundred thirty-six
verses dedicated to divine prescriptions on the luxurious details of
decorations and clothing necessarily associated with the rites that will be celebrated
in honor of Yahweh, prescriptions much longer and more numerous than
those of the Book of the Covenant, and whose dictation took many days and
Nights to Moses. Biblical studies indicate that these texts are of origin
priestly, and it is evident that the Israelite clergy intended to express this way
its importance and the preeminence of its rites in the eyes of the community.
One might have assumed that a scruple would temper the meticulous care that
the writers of these verses brought to their descriptions: at the moment when
the Creator was leading his people to the Promised Land, he was surely
other worries than those.
Was it really in the competence of the Divinity to specify that the
the collection of necessary goods for construction should include 'some
sheep skins dyed red and acacia wood" (XXV, 5)? Let
furniture would include an acacia wood table 'two cubits long,
a cubit wide and a cubit and a half high," which would be
"plated with pure gold" and surrounded "by a pure gold band" (XXV, 23-24)?
In decisive circumstances of Israel's history, is it conceivable that
the Almighty is concerned with the design of the golden chandelier that He commands, with
three almond-shaped chalices, with the bud and the flower that will be fixed
on one of the branches, 'three almond-shaped chalices with bud and flower at
another branch and so for all six branches?
 Does the whim of the sacerdotal editors justify them claiming the right
to violate one of the Commandments that have just been conveyed to the people,
and which is written in the same book: 'You shall not make for yourself an idol or a likeness'
of what is in the sky above, nor of what is in the waters and on the
land" (XX, 4). Indeed, they attribute to the Lord the following command: "You
you shall make two cherubim of gold and you shall attach them at the ends of the
propitiatory. You will place a cherub at one end and the other at the opposite end. The
cherubs will spread their wings upwards", etc. (XXV, 18-20). How
Could the artist have shaped cherubs, since he did not know what they looked like?
What did these celestial creatures look like? In any case, these instructions
contradicted the second commandment.
And the Lord would have even specified: 'The Sanctuary will be made of ten
twisted linen yarns, in blue, purple, and crimson. They will be adorned
of artistically worked cherubs" (XXVI, 1).
But the prescriptions pile up, with the same obsessive concern for
detail, even in points that are of no interest to faith or the
You shall make two gold rings and you shall put them on the two
shoulder straps of the ephod [corslet reserved for the pontiff] with the help of a blue cord,
so that the breastplate is above the belt of the ephod that it
does not move on the ephod" (XXVIII, 26). There is even the length of the
underwear for the sons of Aaron that is not specified: 'You shall make for them underwear of
linen to cover their nakedness; they will go from the loins to the thighs
42). However, the sons of Moses are not mentioned.
Almost the entirety of the rest of the Book of Exodus, that is about one hundred four
twenty-eight verses are devoted to descriptions of provisions
architectural and sumptuous features of the Sanctuary, with the same luxury of details,
such as 'four columns and their four bronze bases, the hooks in
silver, the silver plating of the capitals and the silver rods
(XXXVIII, 19), accompanied by a dizzying accounting. One learns there that
About 600 kilos of gold and 2,025 kilos of silver would have been devoted to this.
works. Where then would the Israelites have found in the desert
equal quantities of gold and silver?
The meticulous ritual specifications extend into the texts due
in the priestly narrative in the Book of Numbers. Yahweh, of whom we eventually
to wonder why he does not communicate his instructions directly to
Aaron, instead of having them passed on by Moses, declares thus: 'Tell to
Aaron: when you turn on the lamps, it's in front of the candelabrum that the
seven lamps shall illuminate" (Nb., VIII, 1-2).
And one wonders about the doctrinal or spiritual authority conferred upon these
descriptions.

32. Yahweh admits and regulates slavery

The laws concerning slaves, which appear in the Code of the Alliance...
following the Altar Law, constitute one of the greatest contradictions
radicals of the Old Testament with the morals of the three religions of the Book.
They indeed prove that Yahweh would have accepted slavery as permissible,
for he legislates on the subject: "When you acquire a Hebrew slave, his
service will last six years, in the seventh year he will leave free, without paying anything
(XXI, 2). The principle is already disconcerting: Yahweh would consider it normal
that a Hebrew may have another Hebrew or a foreigner as a slave in his service.
If he came alone, he will leave alone, and if he had come married, his wife will leave.
he will go with him. If his master marries him and his wife bears him sons or daughters
girls, the woman and her children will remain the property of the master and he will leave
only one
"scandalous": even if the slave is free, his wife and children are not
are not. This is the most immoral clause of the Old Testament. Now,
she is not the only one.
If someone sells his daughter as a servant, she shall not go away like
the slaves are leaving. If it displeases its master who had intended it for himself, he will
"will have to be bought back" (XXI, 7-8).
Human beings are thus treated as objects. Should we remind that
these texts attributed to divine dictation have been obsolete since the 19th ecentury and
do they infringe on the Declaration of Human Rights? Today, it is
many countries on the planet where it would be dangerous to read the
commandments of Yahweh.

33. Did Moses or did he not see the face of Yahweh?

When, in a text from Exodus, he asks him: 'Show me then Your...'

glory," Yahweh replies to him: "You will not be able to see My face, for it is
impossible for man to see me and live." And he insists: "You will see me by-
behind, but you will not see My face" (XXXIII, 18-23).
No one can see Yahweh? That is not the case. Jacob, on the other hand, has
declared: "I have seen God face to face and my life has been spared" (Gen., XXXII,
31) ; he even named the place Peniel, "Face of God", in honor of this
vision. This singularity is compounded by two contradictions. The first is that
Yahweh Himself later declares to Aaron and Miriam, brother and sister of
Moses who speaks ill of him: "I speak to him face to face, in visions and
not in enigmas" (Nb., XII, 8, but it is true that this text is Elohistic and not
sacerdotal). The second is that Deuteronomy says: "He did not appear
In Israel, the prophet like Moses, whom Yahweh met face to face
(XXXIV, 10).
Who to believe? We will limit ourselves to observing that the priestly texts
tends to diminish the role and character of Moses and to give precedence
to the high priest Aaron, his presumed brother.
But the contradictions remain for a Book supposed to
to have authority.

34. What is the true disposition of Yahweh towards the foreigner?

At his first meeting with Moses, he declares: "You shall not oppress
not the stranger, for you know what the condition of the stranger is, since you have
foreign summer in Egypt" (XXIII, 9), command already pronounced in XXII, 20
and renewed in Lev., XIX, 33-34. However, during the meeting where the Tables
Of Law are engraved again, He declares to him: "Behold, I am sending away to-
in front of you the Ammonite, the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivvite and the
Jebusite.” And he commanded him: “You shall demolish their altars, you shall break...
"their statues, you will destroy their sacred poles" (XXXIV, 11 and 13). The
contradiction between the first prescription and the announcement of victories
Hebrews is glaring: what are the announced abuses if not some
oppressions, to say the least? Yahweh himself agrees: "For
terrible what do I do for you" (XXXIV, 10). The persecutions and
the massacres he inflicts abroad contradict his own prescriptions.

35. History and archaeology indicate that the Hebrews could not,
in Palestine, to free itself from Egyptian control.

Like the other four books of the Pentateuch, Exodus gives the
the sentiment that in leaving Egypt the Hebrews were completely freeing themselves and
definitely of his power. The divine discourses, including the one that is cited here
above, reinforce this impression; aided by Yahweh, the Hebrews will,
thanks to their bravery, to seize the promised land.
 This feeling persisted until the discovery of the El Amarna documents.
e
In the 20th century. The promised land, at the time of the Exodus, was under domination.
Egyptian, that is to say that of Ramses II and then of Merneptah. The territories
Ashkelon, Gezer, Kharou, and Yenoam were vassals of Egypt.
If they had been attacked by the Hebrews, they would have called for help.
the Egyptian garrisons.
Moreover, the settlement of the Hebrews in Canaan was not linear,
as the Pentateuch would have us believe. Thus, Genesis describes at length
the conquest of Shechem before the Exodus (Gen., XXXIV, 1-24), episode
mysteriously omitted by Joshua. Similarly, Numbers indicates that a
the first wave of Hebrews also arrived in Canaan before the Exodus, in
passing through Edom and Moab (Numbers 33:41-49).
The Pentateuch only touches upon an important fact: significant
Hebrew communities had remained in Palestine. The Genesis
(XXXVIII) suggests that Judah would not have gone down to Egypt, but
It is Deuteronomy that is the most explicit in this regard: "The Lord said to me...
Say: "You have followed the contours of this mountain enough. Turn around."
to the north. Give this order to the people: you will cross the border of
your brothers, the children of Esau, who dwell in Seir, do not attack them" (Deut.,
II, 2-5) and: "The Lord said: 'Do not attack Moab [...] for I will not give you
nothing to possess in his country. It is to the children of Lot that I have given Ar in
"property" (Deut., II, 9).
It follows that the list of the Twelve tribes, those who have remained in
Palestine and that of the newcomers is random.

___________________
1. Abraham Malamat, 'Let my people go and go...', cf. bibl.
2. Cf. Maurice Bucaille, Moses and Pharaoh, cf. bibl.
3.Comments that priests added for the benefit of their listeners to explain passages of difficult interpretation,
enigmatic or contradictory of the scrolls.
4.See note 12, p. 312.
5. See note 12, p. 312.
 III. THE LEVITICUS

Does Yahweh only dwell in the north?

It is a total of two hundred ninety-nine verses, which is eleven.

first chapters, which Leviticus dedicates almost entirely to the
detailed description of the rites, and particularly of the sacrifices, of which the
the regulations are dictated to Moses by Yahweh. Given that they are written
by the priestly tradition, one cannot be surprised, for these texts
confirm the absolute precedence claimed by the priests, as in
the verses on the organization and decoration of the sanctuaries in Exodus. To
with the exception of verses XIII, 39-44 and XXVI, 39-46, the entirety of Leviticus
is of priestly obedience.
A contemporary reader may be surprised by the attention that Yahweh
granted to certain details pertaining to butchery, such as the one that is
prescribed for a large livestock sacrifice: "The two kidneys will be removed and the
fat that is on them, the lobe of the liver which is itself on the kidneys
(Lev., III, 4). But he will be even more surprised by the following prescription:
for a sacrifice of small livestock, sheep or goat, the priest "will slaughter it at
"side of the altar, to the north, before Yahweh" (I, 11). Does this imply that
Does Yahweh the Universal reside only in the north?

37. Who is Azazel? Yahweh's regard for the Spirit of Evil

This mysterious entity poses one of the greatest enigmas of

Pentateuch, and even of the three religions of the Book, appears after death
unexpected and unsettling concerning the two sons of Aaron, who were themselves priests. They
had offered burning incense to Yahweh on a 'strange fire', not
prescribed, what was a sin, and they had then been devoured by the flames.
They were not punished for their intentions, but for the
strict negligence of the ritual, which eloquently reflects the belonging of the
priestly writer. Yahweh then orders Moses to
communicate his instructions to his brother Aaron; he will take two goats
to the community, for the sacrifice of the redemption of the sin committed by the
Aaron will draw lots for the two goats, one for Yahweh, the other
for Azazel" (XVI, 8). Two verses later, it is said: "The goat that the
the goat destined for Azazel will be placed alive before Yahweh, in order to proceed on
he has an atonement and to send it to Azazel in the wilderness" (XVI, 10).
The meaning is obvious: it is Yahweh himself who offers the goat to
Azazel. A truly extraordinary homage, for one only offers a sacrifice to
an equal or a superior.
The rite holds a solemn importance, as Yahweh describes it to Moses.
in a precise manner: 'Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat. He '
he shall confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, all their transgressions,
all their sins. He will place them on the head of the goat and send it into the wilderness,
under the leadership of a man who will be ready" (XVI, 21). It is the ritual
of the Expiation, and the goat will enter the fields under the name of Goat
emissary.
This is the first time the name Azazel appears in the texts.
Hebrew. So what is this entity that, at the order of Yahweh himself,
has the right to a sacrifice of equal importance to the one it prescribes for him-
same?
Some Talmudists deciphered the spirit of the desert and the Talmud (Yoma)
67b) he sees a rocky cliff from the top of which the goat was thrown.
to die of thirst in the desert. Enigmatic rite, never mentioned
previously; no mention had been made of the site of this cliff either.
Others argue that the law of Azazel belongs to those that the mind cannot
understand (houqqîm). Verse 26, however, excludes that Azazel is a
place: "The one who has led the goat to Azazel shall wash his clothes and
He will wash his body in the water, then return to the camp.
For the Kabbalists, the name Azazel would be the combination of Ouza and Azaël.
two fallen angels descended to earth in the time of Tubal-Cain and who settled there
would be corrupted. The explanation is weakened by the fact that Azael, name which
means "God has made," remained in use long after crossing the desert,
since one of David's nephews, brother of Joab, was carrying him (I Chr., II, 16).
For Talmudists, it would be in any case an evil spirit, if not the Angel of
Death. Theology does not fall within the scope of these pages, but it seems
for doubtful that Yahweh would offer a sacrifice to fallen angels, notion
which only appears late in the Old Testament. It can only be about
of a rival power; it would be the Spirit of Evil, thus the Devil, who would do it here
its entry into the Bible, if one disregards the Serpent of Eden.
It would emerge once again that, at the Creation, Yahweh has
also created Evil. This point will be revisited concerning the Book of Job. It
but the episode that follows sheds little light on the minds.

38. The suspicions about the birth of Moses and the contradiction with his
savior of the people status

Leviticus subtly raises a surprising question. Indeed,

the savior and founder of the nation and one of the heroes of Israel is condemned
by one of Yahweh's prohibitions: "You shall not uncover the nakedness of
brother of your father. You shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt.
(XVIII, 15). As we have seen, Moses is the son of Amram and his aunt,
Yocheved (Ex., VI, 20). It follows that Aaron and Miriam the Prophetess
would also be illegitimate. And the ban is reinforced by a
subsequent repetition: "If a man sleeps with his aunt, it is the nakedness of
his uncle that he discovers. They will bear the weight of their guilt, and it is without
children that they will die" (XX, 20). However, it turns out that Amran and
Yokeved indeed had children.
Is it because of their birth that neither Moses, nor Aaron, nor Miriam
Who will access the promised land? We can only ask the question: it does not
does not have a response in the Pentateuch. Obviously, there remains the other
motive, mentioned above: Moses would not be of Hebrew origin. But the
The Pentateuch does not mention it either. The contradiction with its status
mythical would be provocative; it exists nonetheless.

39. Which country does Yahweh curse in the desert?

In the words he speaks to Moses, which constitute the essence of

Leviticus, Yahweh declares: "The land has become unclean: I have punished its iniquity and the
the country vomits its inhabitants." The Israelites are then in the desert; of what
Which country is it speaking?

40. What are 'uncircumcised' fruits?

In the instructions and prescriptions that Yahweh dictates to Moses, we find

this one: "When you have entered the land and have planted all
the fruit trees, you will hold the fruits for the uncircumcised. There will be three
answers for you as uncircumcised and they will not be consumed" (XIX, 23).
The fact that they remain 'uncircumcised' for three years is enigmatic,
just like the fact that they must be eaten 'in the fifth year' for it to
the yield of trees increases (XIX, 25). Well learned is the one who knows
identify the peel of a fruit. As for the value of this prescription in
agriculture, it is worthless.

41. A human being would have a financial value, and a woman would be worth
half as much as a man

In the detailed moral and civil code that constitutes Leviticus, a reader
contemporary can only be struck by the fact that a human being would have a
financial "value", and that of a woman is constantly lower than
the one of a man. In His prescriptions, Yahweh tells Moses: "When he
[a son of Israel] makes a vow before Yahweh and that this vow requires your
estimation of people, your estimate for a man aged twenty to sixty
the amount will be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the Sanctuary. If
It is a woman, your estimate will be thirty shekels
a woman is therefore worth half of a man; but this estimation changes according to
the age: for a child from one month to 5 years old, it is five shekels for a
boy and three for a girl, and from 60 years old, she is fifteen shekels
for a man and ten for a woman (XXVII, 6-7).
It is noted that these estimates are equal to or less than those of a
a little less than a bushel of barley seed, which is worth fifty
shekels (XXVII, 16). A male child would therefore be worth ten times less than a
barley bushel?
e
It would be surprising for these lines to be read publicly in the 21st century.
in the vast majority of countries on the planet, without provoking protests.
What could be the general meaning of these estimates, aside from the status
Eve's secondary role according to Genesis, why is a woman worth it?
constantly less than a man? The question would be of secondary interest,
except that it is a foundational book of morals and civil codes. If they
followed the commandments of the Pentateuch, the men of those times
heroes behaved like barbarians with the airheaded girls. Indeed, he
It is written in Deuteronomy: "If there is no proof of a girl's virginity
is not found, we will take her to the door of her father's house and the
"the men of his city will stone her to death." Furthermore, the terms used
this condemnation is disproportionate: 'She has committed an outrage
in Israel engaging in prostitution in her father's house: you are
"rid yourselves of this infamy" (Deut., XXII, 21). Prostitution is a
paid commerce: the case of a girl in love or suffering from a
accidental tearing of the hymen is not considered.
 IV. THE BOOK OF NUMBERS

42. In what way are population censuses illegal?

In Sinai, Yahweh commands Moses to conduct a census of

children of Israel "according to their families, their paternal houses and the count
of all the males, per head" (Num., I, 2). But when, angry at Israel, he
David is incited to sin and ordered to do so (II Sam., XXIV, 1), David
he will solemnly repent: "I myself have sinned" (II Sam., XXIX, 17)
and the destruction of Jerusalem will be narrowly avoided. Indeed, it would be Satan
who would have inspired David with the idea of the census (I Chr., XXI, 1 and 7). But in
Why would the idea of a census be diabolical? A question whose
The repercussions are broader than one might suspect and will be addressed in
about the Book of Job.
However, the symbolism of the censuses is not explained and
that the episode remains incomprehensible. Similarly, we do not know why, in a
first, Yahweh forbids the census of the tribe of Levi (I, 49),
then decides later to have it done (III, 15-16).

43. Repeated calculation errors

The number of Israelites recorded is, according to Leviticus, 635,550; but if

If we take the data indicated tribe by tribe, we obtain 596,550. The
the difference cannot be due to the omission of the number of Levites, because if
When we add these to the total, we get 651,823. The errors and
Numerous arithmetic contradictions exist in the Old Testament.
to be all listed here. This one, for example, is difficult to explain.
according to gematria. Perhaps they were due to errors by scribes. In
in this case, it should be assumed that many copyists were affected by a
contagious distraction.
However, it is impossible to overlook the mathematical impossibility
to execute a command of Yahweh concerning the Levites. It is said that these
the latest counted eight thousand five hundred members. Moreover, according to the
carefully enumerated measures in Exodus and Leviticus, we know
that the surface area of the Meeting Tent was about 40 square meters
(50 in total, if we account for the space occupied by the Sanctuary and the
furniture). It is therefore strictly impossible to accommodate the Levites there as
the request of Yahweh: 'The Levites will come to serve in the Tent of'
the Meeting (VIII, 15).
The errors, uncertainties, and topographical contradictions and
Chronological accounts are also numerous. Thus, in the Exodus, it is said
that the children of Israel lived in Egypt for four hundred thirty years (Ex., XII,
40). However, the previous data can only leave one perplexed. In
Ex., VII, 18-20, it is said that Kohath, the grandson of Jacob who accompanied him
In Egypt, lived one hundred and thirty-three years, that his son Amran lived one hundred and thirty-
seven years and that Moses, his son, was eighty years old when the
Israelites left Egypt; the calculation is simple: even if Amram was born
the day of the death of his father Kohath, and Moses the day of the death of Amram, the
total would be three hundred and eighty years; as such a eventuality is
consequently, it can be concluded that the presence of the Israelites in Egypt did not exceed
not three hundred twenty or three hundred thirty years.
In the Book of Numbers, it is said that 'the people departed from Haceroht and
camp in the desert of Paran" (XII, 16), while, two chapters
Previously, he was already in this desert (X, 12). And if one tries to establish
the route of the Exodus according to the indications of the Pentateuch, one faces some
difficultly soluble uncertainties. Thus, it is said that the Israelites
They ascended and surveyed the land, starting from the desert of Sîn.
up to Rehov, at the approach of Hamath" (XIII, 21). Now, there are two Rehov,
one to the east of Acre, the other near the Jordan, about thirty
kilometers south of the Sea of Galilee. That the Israelites passed through
one way or another, one fact is clear: the scouts would have carried out in
forty days a journey as long as the crossing of Sinai, which would have
lasted forty years.

44. No trace of the race of giants that Yahweh would have has been found.
created

One of the most puzzling concepts of the Old Testament is

surely on the notion of giants who would have occupied the territories of Canaan. The
the first mention of it is made in Numbers; the scouts sent by
Moses came back very pessimistic: "All those we saw there are...
tall men. We also saw giants among them.
giants, the sons of Anak. We felt like grasshoppers, and it is true
also the effect that we had on them" (Nb., XIII, 32-33).
It would be a singularity perhaps due to the exaggeration of the scouts,
was only Deuteronomy taking up the theme, first speaking of the Emim,
"nation of great stature, like the Anakim" (Deut., II, 11), then it
insists on the oversized size of these people: the sarcophagus of Og, king of
Bashan, last of the Rephaim, another breed of giants, " which we see at
Rabbah of the Ammonites, nine cubits long and four cubits wide, in cubits
of men" (Deut., III, 11). The value of the cubit has not changed since the
ancient Egyptians: about fifty centimeters; nine cubits, it is therefore
four and a half meters, and this alarming data is not mitigated by the
width of the sarcophagus, two meters. Has anyone ever believed that it existed
humans four and a half meters tall?
The surprise is renewed in the first Book of Samuel, in the description
of the famous Goliath, whose "height was six cubits and a span" (I Sam.,
XVII, 4). The span is the distance from the tip of the thumb to that of the little finger.
finger of a hand with spread fingers, it represents about twenty
centimeters. Goliath would have measured three meters twenty. At the height of his
legend.
And there, two questions arise, one of religious history and the other
scientific. Did Yahweh originally create a race of giants? How
Doesn't the question cross the minds of the writers? What has become of these
giants? Why would the human race have degenerated since Adam? And,
given that the descriptions of giants can be found in many others
mythologies, Greek and Nordic among others, did these giants really exist?
It is science that provides the answer to the first question. If it had
existed in the IIea millennium before our era, a similar race would have been found.
countless remnants, since we have even found those of the Man of
Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon. That's not the case. It existed at all the
times of individuals of a height above and below average,
but these were exceptions and no individual measuring has ever been seen
three meters. Nothing allows us to give credit to the scouts' account according to
which they would have found in Canaan people of this stature. Perhaps they have
I saw one or two tall men, and, my imagination taking hold of me, they...
will have swollen their memories.
It remains singular that texts that some fundamentalists assert
that have been revealed contain such fables. These have
Moreover, spread into the modern era. Nevertheless, it remains that this
are pre-Hollywood implausibilities.

45. What is Yahweh's true objective regarding the Earth

promise? Contradictions and anger

A contemporary reader would have a hard time discerning it in the Book.

of Numbers, for the Almighty witnesses there shifts in mood
disconcerting. One hardly finds the determination that one would be entitled to.
to expect from the Master of the Universe, but one more often sees anger
characteristics.
Some of the scouts sent to Canaan return horrified, because
they saw the giants described above. Others admit that the country is
"very cheerful", but that the cities are large and fortified; this means that it
We will have to deliver battles whose outcome will be uncertain, and, hungry and exhausted at
after its desert crossing, the people refuse and want to return to
Egypt. Yahweh then enters into a furious anger, decides that this people
is "bad" (XIV, 27) and murmurs against Him, while he is reluctant to go
to be slaughtered by giants and organized warriors. He tormented them with
threats and curses: "Your corpses will fall in this desert... Your
sons will be shepherds in this desert for forty years. They will bear the weight
from your prostitutions to the disappearance of your corpses in the desert
other amenities (XIV, 32-33). Incidentally, there was no sight of prostitution,
but it's a detail.
The scouts, except for Joshua and Caleb, are ravaged by a plague.
unknown, while they had only reported what they had seen or believed
see. Then, when the Israelites, frightened by the effects of divine wrath
gather their courage and resolve to attack anyway, it is Moses
who tries to divert them: "What do you want then? You are breaking
the order of Yahweh" (XIV, 41). Yet, this time, they only comply with it
they go on the attack and "the Amalekites and the Canaanites" them
cut into pieces (XIV, 45).
The first wave of invaders is decimated and, on the orders of Yahweh,
the Israelites are taking the road back to Egypt. But at Mount Horeb,
Yahweh changed his mind: this time he gives the order to turn back and
to go north.
It is hard to discern the divine intentions in the logic of this narrative.

46. Two hundred and fifty men struck down for a ritual error: a
negation of divine gentleness

After an interpolation of forty-one verses of ritual injunctions,

which are repetitions of prescriptions already formulated, two Levites,
Abiram and Dathan rebel against Moses, accusing him of wanting to them.
regent. At the command of Yahweh, the earth opens beneath their feet and the
swallowed it, because they did not understand that Moses is his instrument. We
starts to think that the punishment may be disproportionate and does not reflect
the divine gentleness. Then 'a fire sent by Yahweh consumed the two
one hundred and fifty men who presented incense" (XVI, 35), because they
had not proceeded in the prescribed manner, another disproportionate punishment
if there ever was one and who, there, would represent Yahweh as a God of terror and
vengeance, decidedly very particular about ritual formalities, even
when we pay tribute to him. Undoubtedly this text reflects the influence of the
priestly current. The episode nonetheless occupies the thirty-five verses of
Chapter XVI.
While the terrified and afflicted people cry out to Moses: 'We are perishing,
we are dying, we are all dying!" (XVII, 27), are followed by new
Yahweh's prescriptions on the hierarchy of priests, sacrifices, and rituals.
which are the subject of the following fifty-two verses, several of which are
almost complete repetitions of previous verses (for example, verse
XIX, 20 repeats verbatim verse XIX, 13).
Only then does he resume the march toward Canaan. But the perplexity
dwell: why have the Israelites been allowed to be massacred by the Amalekites and
the Canaanites once they had been convinced by the injunctions
divines ?
Various other incentives for the massacre attributed to the Creator appear at
reader as incompatible with the supremely benevolent image that
propose the rest of the Old Testament. Thus, in XXV, 4, it is written:
Yahweh said to Moses: “Take all the leaders of the people [of Israel]. Impale-
the face of the sun for Yahweh." This would therefore be sacrifices.
humans, and of the most sinister kind.
Further on, it is said that 'Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, is...
lifted from the center of the community, seized a spear, followed the Israelite into
the alcove and there, pierced them both, the Israelite and the woman in full
belly. The plague that struck the Israelites was stopped" (XXV, 7-9). This
An Israelite had brought a Midianite woman to weep at the entrance of the Tent.
of the Encounter. Phineas' gesture is a fanatical murder, but he
would have pleased Yahweh, to the point that he suspended the plague he had sent to his
people? Yes, he confirms it in the following verses: 'Phinehas turned away
my wrath of the Israelites.
This God is entirely in contradiction with the one from the New
Testament.

47. Why are Moses and Aaron forbidden to enter Canaan?

The continuous reading of the Book of Exodus and that of Numbers reveals a
notable repetition, that of the episode of the Rock Striking, but in
such different versions that they become contradictory. This
Reprise evidently carries great importance in the eyes of the authors of
the time, for the episode precedes the prohibition for Moses and Aaron to enter
in the promised land, one of the most resounding divine decisions of
The history of the Israelites (23 and 37). Here are the two versions.
Exodus, XVII, 2-7:
2. The people quarreled with Moses. They said: "Give us water, that we may drink!" Moses said to them
He replied: 'Why are you quarrelling with me? Why are you testing Yahweh?'
The people became thirsty and murmured against Moses; they said to Moses: 'Why have you made us leave'
Egypt? To make us die of thirst, us, our sons, and our livestock?
4. Moses cried out to Yahweh: "What am I to do with these people? A little more and they will stone me."
they will stone!
5. Yahweh answered Moses: "Go before the people, take some of the elders of Israel and
Take in hand the rod with which you struck the river and move forward.
6. I stand before you here, on the rock of Horeb. You will strike the rock, and water will come out of it.
The water and the people will drink." Moses did what Yahweh had told him in the presence of the elders of Israel.
7. He called the place Massa and Meribah, because of the quarreling of the children.
from Israel and because they had provoked Yahweh by asking: 'Is Yahweh among us or not?'
us?

Numbers, XX, 2-12 :

2. The community lacked water. They rebelled against Moses and Aaron.
3. She took it out on Moses and said to him, 'Why have we not perished with the death of our brothers before...
Yahweh?
 4. Why did you lead the people of Yahweh into the desert to die there with their cattle?
5. Why did you bring us from Egypt to lead us into these hostile places? These are not
lands for sowing, fig trees, vines, pomegranate. [Moreover] one does not find water there.
6. Moses and Aaron confronted the assembly at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting and fell prostrate.
The glory of Yahweh appeared to them.
7. Yahweh said to Moses:
8. "Take your staff and assemble the community, you and your brother Aaron. You will speak to the rock.
In front of them, water will spring forth. You will give drink to the community and its livestock.
9. Moses took his staff as Yahweh had commanded him.
10. He and Aaron assembled the community before the rock. Moses said to them, 'Listen now,
rebels! Shall we bring water out of this rock for you?
11. Moses raised his hand and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out abundantly.
The people and their cattle drank.
12. Yahweh said to Moses and Aaron: 'Since you did not have faith in Me to sanctify Me to the.
eyes of the children of Israel, you will not lead this people into the land that I have given them.

In addition to the strangeness of the repetition of the narrative, there are discrepancies.
following (attributable to the fact that the version of Exodus is due to the current
the Elohist and that of the Numbers in the priestly current) :
In the version of the Exodus, the people argue with Moses, in that one
of Numbers, with Moses and Aaron;
In the version of the Exodus, Yahweh commands Moses to strike.
rock with his staff, in that of Numbers, he orders Moses and Aaron
to speak to the rock;
In the version of Exodus, Moses does what Yahweh has commanded him and the
The Striking of the Rock is a happy episode, but in that of Numbers,
Moses strikes the rock twice and the episode ends with the heaviest
sanction that could strike both Moses and Aaron: they will not enter into
Promised land;
The reason given is stated by Yahweh: they would not have
I went to him; yet no point in either account indicates that one or
the other of the two brothers committed such a fault, quite the opposite. Some
commentators have put forward the following hypothesis to explain their
banishment: Moses struck the rock instead of speaking to it; but none
the formal index neither confirms nor denies it, it is a trivial matter and moreover, the
the sanction should have only affected Moses and not Aaron.

The exclusion, which is solely the result of the priestly text, therefore remains
incomprehensible. It is also virtual, as the borders of the 'country
"promises" are vague, if not unknown, and are not limited to Canaan.
 V. THE DEUTERONOMY

48. The locations where Moses addressed the people are unknown.

Certainly, none of the Books of the Pentateuch or the Old Testament can
it should not be considered as a historical or archaeological reference,
but we have the right to be surprised that, with the exception of Hacéroth, a name borne by
two localities, one on the western shore of the Gulf of Aqaba, the other in
Samarie, none of the places mentioned in the first verse of Deuteronomy, and where
Moses spoke to the Israelites, could not be identified: Souf, Paran, Tofel,
Lavan, Hazeroth and Di-Zahav.
The margins of error or uncertainty in the historical field, caused
through contradictions, ultimately render the ... insignificant as well.
apparent clarifications of the text. Thus, in I, 44, it is said that they were the
Amorites who had defeated the first wave of Israelite invaders,
whereas Nb., XIV, 45 says that they were the Amalekites and the Canaanites.
Imprecisions and contradictions indicate that these scrolls were written at a
an era when the events recounted belonged to a past now
mythical, intended for listeners returning from Exile, and no doubt by some
writers who had vague notions of geography themselves
of Israel.
It is worth mentioning incidentally that the requirements of ancient audiences
in terms of historical and geographical accuracy cannot be compared
to those of recent times, where reference works
allow for quick checks. Those of modern readers who are
informed of the testamentary hypothesis1have rightly deduced that the
Deuteronomist writers all belonged to the post-exilic period, the
others, just as rightly, that these texts could not carry the authority of
true testimonies, in the historical sense of the word.

49. Contrary to what the Book says, Moses did indeed break the exclusion.
of Yahweh

This is indicated in verse XXXIII, 40 of Numbers: "Moses gave

Gilead to Machir, son of Manasseh, and he lived there." This attribution was made
during the sharing of the territories to be conquered decided by Moses on behalf of
Yahweh (XXXIII, 33-42), territories that correspond roughly to the
plateaus of the former Transjordan. He has therefore settled well in the Land.
promise, which is not limited to Canaan, a territory whose borders of
The times are imprecise, but it only represents a part of the bank.
left of the Jordan, approximately from Beer-Sheba to Joppa.
The fact is clear: Moses would have indeed inhabited a conquered territory of the Earth.
promise, contrary to the prohibition mentioned in a priestly text of
Names. Was the prohibition temporary? That is what it would suggest.
also to think of a verse in the recap that Moses makes of the
recent events in front of the Israelites: "He even got angry with me at
because of you and said: you will not go there either" (Deut., I, 37).
However, Moses later reminds that Yahweh told him: "Go up to the...
the peaks of Pisgah that are here […] and look, for you will not cross the Jordan
that here" (Deut., III, 27).
Was the promised land, therefore, for Yahweh, only beyond the
Jourdain, on the left bank? It is not what the division of the lands indicates.
data to the Israelite tribes, for beyond Gilead, Reuben and Gad saw themselves
assign territories on the right bank of the river.
Moses died indeed on Mount Nebo, at the command of Yahweh (Deut.,
XXXII, 50), and on the right bank of the Jordan. But uncertainty remains.
as well as on whether he entered the promised land or not and on the reasons
from the prohibition that had been communicated to him to do so.

50. Had the Hivvites disappeared or not at the time of the conquest?
from the promised land?

In the same summary of the conquest, in II, 23, Moses declares that
The Hivites, who inhabited the territories extending to Gaza, have been
annihilated by 'the Kaftorites, who settled in their place.' However, in
maintain passages from Exodus (III, 8 and 17, XIII, 5, XXIII, 23, XXXIII, 2 and
XXXIV, 2 and 11), Yahweh mentions the Hivites as existing.
always; in Ex., XXIII, 28, he even declares: 'I will send hornets'
before you, and they will drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite.
The contradiction is obvious.

51. New geographical confusions

Still in his summary account, Moses says that he gave to the

Rubénites and Gadites "the Araba, whose border was the Jordan, since
Kinnéreth to the Sea of the Araba, the Sea of Salt, which extends at the foot of the
slopes of Pisgah, to the east" (III, 17). The geography of the region,
reconstructed by archaeology and history, shows that there did not exist a
but two Arabas, the valley located in the mountains of Bethel, to the north,
and the desert of the same name, south of the Dead Sea. However, none has the Jordan.
as a border. However, the same mistake is repeated in IV, 49.
Hadn't the scouts done their job?

52. To whom did Yahweh speak on Mount Sinai, Moses or the

Israelites?

According to Ex., XIX, 17-25, Yahweh only appeared to Moses and did not
addressed only to him. But according to Deut., IV, 12-13, he addressed the Israelites:
You have heard His voice, but you have not seen any image. [...] He will you
has revealed His Covenant, which He has commanded you to put into practice.
the clearly contradictory nature of these two versions can be explained by the
ideological preferences of the movements that presided over the drafting of the
Pentateuch, the Elohist current that wrote verses 17 to 19 of the text of
the Exodus, and the Yahwistic current the verses 20 to 25, where Yahweh addresses well.
to Moses, while the Deuteronomic current, which presides over almost the entirety
the Deuteronomy tends to present divine revelations as having been
made to all the people of Israel through the intercession of Moses - and not to
a privileged hero.

53. Formal contradiction on the faults of the fathers

Deuteronomy has hardly taken a clearer stance on divine justice.

than the four previous Books.
In V, 9, indeed, the words of Yahweh are: "I am a jealous Elohim,"
who punishes the crime of the fathers on the sons, up to the third or fourth
generation for those who hate me." They thus repeat verbatim the
Commandments of the Book of Exodus. But in the same Book, in XXIV,
16, Moses declares: "Fathers shall not be put to death on account of
Their sons and the sons will not be put to death on behalf of their fathers;
each will die for his own sin.
Does Moses contradict Yahweh? In that case, he raises one of the
major contradictions of the Pentateuch. But if it is the punitive version that
is repeated most often in the Old Testament (Ex., XX, 5 and XXIV, 7 ;
Is., XIV, 21), the contradiction remains nonetheless.
However, it calls into question the notions of freedom and redemption. It therefore testifies
that the writers of the Old Testament disagreed on these concepts
fundamentals and that they were inspired not by a divine revelation, but by
their human convictions.

54. Divinity cannot condemn to cannibalism

One of the great surprises that reading the Pentateuch can reserve is
the detailed scope of the texts devoted to Yahweh's sanctions against those
who turn away from Him: thirty-one verses in Leviticus (XXVI, 15-
46), repeated and expanded in Deuteronomy, fifty-four verses
These sanctions include one of the most severe punishments
the most abominable that one can conceive, cannibalism. "You will eat the
you will eat the flesh of your sons and you will eat the flesh of your daughters," threatens Yahweh
in Leviticus (XXVI, 29). Deuteronomy adds: 'The most man
and the most tender […] will look at his brother with a bad eye, the woman he
to link and those of the sons who will remain to her, so as not to give one of them the
flesh of his sons that he will eat without leaving anything behind
punishment goes against the image of a God of goodness and mercy who is
yet stemming from the Pentateuch itself.
However, the prophet Jeremiah in turn puts in the mouth of Yahweh
the following threats, taken from Deuteronomy and including the sanction of
cannibalism: "I will make this city [Jerusalem] a scene of horror and
with disgust, so that every passerby will be horrified and grimace
with contempt at the sight of his wounds. I will force men to eat the flesh of
their sons and their daughters; they will devour each other's flesh in
the trials to which their enemies and murderers will have reduced them
(XIX, 9).
Several other passages from the Old Testament also mention this
practice; thus it is read in II Kings, VI, 28-29: 'So we boiled'
my son and we ate it. And when I tell him the next day: "Give me-
"We your son, that we may eat him," she had hidden it." And in Zach., XI, 9:
What must die, let it die, what must be destroyed, let it be destroyed.
destroy and that the survivors devour each other.

55. Contradiction on Revenge

In Lev., XIX, 18, the Lord commands: "You shall not take vengeance on the sons of
your people and you will not harbor resentment against them." The verse
Deuteronomy 32:35, 'Vengeance is mine'
that the repeated invocation of the Psalms, O Lord, you God of vengeance
(Ps., LXXXIV, 1), are therefore in contradiction with the commandment of
Leviticus.

Is Yahweh just one of the gods of the world?

The question may seem inconceivable as tradition has deeply rooted in the
faithful to the principle of monotheism of the Bible. It does derive however
directly from verses XXXII, 8-10, undoubtedly the most disturbing of
the Old Testament, and is found in this collection sometimes called "Poem
of Moses:
8. When the Most High divided the lands of the peoples, when He distinguished the men, He set
the borders of the peoples according to the number of the children of Yahweh.
But the portion of Yahweh was His people.
10. He found it in the lands of the desert, in the cries of solitude.

The deductions we can make are as follows:

There was a division of the world organized by the Most High;
Yahweh has children;
In this sharing, a lot has fallen to Yahweh: the people of Israel;
– therefore Yahweh is not the Most High since he has received a portion,
and Yahweh is himself a son of the Most High;
– in any case, Yahweh is not the master of the universe.
In this context, the plural of the sacred name Elohim takes on a new meaning.
In verse 15, indeed, there is an exceptional designation in
the Old Testament, never used in the previous four Books, and
which is found only two other times in Deuteronomy – also
in the Poem of Moses - and four in the Book of Job: Eloha, singular
of God. It is in the reproaches of Moses: "Jacob ate and has
sated. […] He abandoned the Eloha who created him." Accusation repeated as such
In verse 18. It means that it is the one God Eloha who created man,
not the Elohim.
This is a whole new theogony that is outlined here, in contradiction
absolute with the four previous books. Who is Eloha? The Most High? Or
Is Yahweh good, that one must distinguish from Him?
This passage does not illuminate the reading of the previous four books, nor of
others. The only light he sheds on the birth of monotheism is the
confirmation of the antiquity of the two main currents that contributed
in the writing of the Pentateuch: the one who referred to the deity in the plural
Elohim is the one who designated her by the name of Yahweh.

___________________
1. See note 2, pp. 305-307.
 VI. THE BOOK OF JOSHUA

The Book of Joshua, successor of Moses, whose name means 'Yahweh'

savior » and who will become « Jesus » for Christians, is the story of the
first part of the conquest of the promised land. Its main interest
resides in its version of the conquests of the territories of the Canaanites, even if
it is amplified to the dimensions of the myth, like the most episodes
known: the siege of Jericho and the battle of Gibeon. The recap
incantatory aspects of the prescriptions of Moses, which occupies an important place there,
tends to indicate that the faith of the first occupants of the promised land wavered
often, hence the frequent reminder of this principle: "You will not be victorious
that if you remain faithful to the God of Moses.

Neither Lebanon nor the Euphrates were conquered by Joshua

The observations on the Pentateuch will undoubtedly have alerted the reader to
the peculiarities of the geographical concepts attributed to Yahweh by the authors,
notably on the location of the Promised Land, sometimes referred to by the
only the name of Canaan, whereas it only represents the western part
of the territories that will be occupied by the Twelve tribes. However, the same ones can be found.
approximations and errors in the Book of Joshua, which constitutes the account of
conquests of the Israelites under the leadership of the successor of Moses. Indeed,
From the beginning, the Lord said that he gave them, as he promised to Moses,
"from the desert and Lebanon to the great river, the river Euphrates, and all the land
Hittite up to the Great Sea [the Mediterranean], all of this will be your land.
3-4).
The maps of Joshua's conquests were established by historians and
archaeology. They have never included Lebanon, nor the territories of the Hittites.
who, at the time, occupied the Caucasus, Armenia, the northeast of Turkey
current and Syria. Or the authors attributed to Yahweh remarks
extravagants, or the words of this God have not proven true.
 However, there is the same emphasis in the Book of Joshua on
the occupation of the left bank of the Jordan, which seems to represent the peak
of the great project to conquer the promised land. In fact, ten tribes have
shared the territories of the left bank, Dan, Asher, Naphtali, Zebulun,
Issachar, Manasseh, Ephraim, Benjamin, Judah, and Simeon, in an unequal manner –
By obtaining a small territory to the north and a larger one on the coast,
around Joppa. But as we noted above (48 and 49), the
Jordan was not at all the border of the Promised Land and even less of
Canaan, six tribes having settled north of the Sea of Galilee and on the shore
right: Asher, Naphtali, Dan, Manasseh (who occupied territories on the
two banks), Gad and Ruben.
It should also be noted that history refutes the assertion of the Book of
Joshua according to which Moses had given to only 'two and a half tribes'
territories "beyond the Jordan" (XIV, 2): these are ten tribes, mentioned more
high, who shared these territories. The 'half-tribe' in question is either
Manasseh, who had territories on both sides of the river, namely Dan, already
cited. It would also be necessary to know when the tribes would have
constituted.
The contradiction between the writings and the facts is therefore established.

58. If the Earth had stopped during the siege of Gibea, the world would have taken
end

The military conquests of Joshua are historically validated and were

remarkable. Hence, no doubt, the profusion of miracles of which the or the
writers of his book filled them. However, they did not match.
to what Joshua proclaimed: "I have brought you into the land of the Amorites which
they lived east of the Jordan; they fought against you, but I delivered them.
in your hands; you have taken possession of their land and I have destroyed them
for you" (XXIV, 8-9). The Amorites, that is to say the Canaanites, were
far from being exterminated: they fiercely resisted the invaders
Israelites and remained in their fortified cities.
It is clear that, contrary to the claims of a minority of
Fundamentalists, biblical narratives must be read from a perspective
symbolic and mythological, but it remains true that they can still
to lead the believers astray instead of guiding them, as a Book should
saint, towards the truth. Such was the case for centuries with the famous account of
the seat of Gibeon, where Joshua supposedly commanded the sun and the moon to stand still and
where they would have obeyed 'for almost an entire day' (X, 14). We
believed at the time that the sun revolved around the Earth and it was not known
obviously nothing of the laws of gravitation. If the sun had indeed
turned around the Earth and had stopped, it would have crashed into it, just like
that the moon - which, it orbits well around the Earth.
But the faith in the story of Joshua endured for centuries. It was
e
even the reason why, in the 17th century, the Inquisition refused to believe
to the theories of Galileo (mathematically verified by Kepler) and forced him to
recuse himself, because he contradicted the biblical account. He was rehabilitated by
the Church than in 1992.
It goes without saying that, even orbiting around the sun as it does,
the stop of the terrestrial revolution would have been catastrophic: not only the
Earth would have crashed into the sun, but still the entire balance of the system
solar would have been destroyed; it would have been the apocalypse.
However, this is not the only case in the Old Testament where...
characters endowed with superhuman powers command the rotation of the sun.
In II Kings, XX, 11, for example, the prophet Isaiah makes the shadow go back.
extends over the stairs of the palace of Ezekiah, meaning that it causes a regression
the sun, to prove to this king that the Lord spoke true in promising him
that he would be cured before three days.
From the very first lines of Genesis, the scientific concepts conveyed
by the Bible are confounding. Thus from this passage from Genesis (I, 6-7):
God said: "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters and let it separate the...
waters from the waters," and it was so. God made the firmament which separated the
waters that are under the firmament with the waters that are above the
firmament. » That is to say, the Earth would be an underwater planet.
 VII. THE BOOK OF JUDGES

The Book of Judges, the last of what is commonly referred to as the first
the period of Israel covers about two centuries, from the settlement in Canaan around
a period located at 1200 BC, that is to say at the beginning of the Iron Age,
the establishment of the first monarchy, around 1040 BC. The term "judges",
traditionally kept in French, corresponds more to 'chefs' or
"moral authorities" in Hebrew; they were men of character called
by Yahweh (II, 18) and who, in times of crisis and when the Israelites
were seduced by local religions, brought them back into
the right path.

Is iron stronger than Yahweh?

It is one of the surprising passages of the Book of Judges: "The Lord

was with Judah. And He drove out the inhabitants of the mountains, but He could not
"to drive out the inhabitants of the valleys, because they had iron carts" (I,
This verse alludes to the fact that the Canaanites had already developed
the iron technology, with which they rimmed the wheels of their carts, which
made them faster, while the Israelites were only equipped with
of primitive weapons. The deduction remains that Yahweh was put in
failure by iron.
It is one of, at least, the divine deficiencies to which metallurgy...
I don't care about that. In any case, the text is definitely outdated.

60. Polygamy was common among biblical heroes.

The text of Exodus on the union of a man and a woman does not use the
term of 'marriage', but it is unambiguous. The writer writes: 'Thus
Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they
two will become one flesh" (Ex., II, 24). The text says: his wife and
not his women. The principle of monogamy is established.
 One must, however, assume, when reading the Bible, that the first of
The books of the Pentateuch did not hold authority. We learn that "Gideon
had seventy children of his descendants, because he had several
women. He had a concubine who lived in Shechem, and she also bore him
a child, whom he named Abimelech" (VIII, 30). Gideon, hero of victory
against the Midianites and servant of Yahweh, would not even have broken the
eighth Commandment, which forbids adultery, since the concubines
were admitted in custom. It is, in fact, evident that this
The command does not forbid polygamy.
It is one of the major contradictions between the Old and the New
Testament which, for its part, tacitly prohibits polygamy. The only text of the Old
Testimony that can be invoked as a tolerance in this respect is the
instruction of Yahweh to Moses that when the Israelites will be
settled in the Promised Land and that they will choose a king, 'he must not
acquire several wives and go astray in this way" (Deut., XVII, 17).
The injunction, it is true, is imprecise and contradicted by Deuteronomy.
even, which details the course of action to be followed for a man
who has two wives (XX, 15-17).
The tradition of polygamy was well established: 'Rehoboam loved
Maachah, the daughter of Abraham, more than all his wives and concubines
He followed in this the examples of Jacob and Esau: 'Jacob '
"He took his children and his wives and put them on camels" (Gen., XXXI,
17). And further: "Esau took his wives, his children, and his daughters" (Gen.,
Abijah, king of Judah who defeated the Israelites, "married fourteen
women and begot twenty-one sons and sixteen daughters" (II Chr., XIII, 21).
The kings of Israel apparently did not heed the divine injunction: to
crowned hair, David had two wives (I Sam., XXX, 18). Later, six
are mentioned: Ahinom, Abigail, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah (III, 2-5). It
would later have much more. His son did better: "He [Solomon]
had seven hundred women, princesses, and three hundred concubines
Kings, XI, 13). The Chronicles will mention a thousand concubines.
Once again, no text having precedence over another, it is
impossible to untangle this contradiction, and the Mormons have therefore
prevalence of the existence of polygamy in the Old Testament for the
practicing in the modern era.

61. Abraham's trial was supposed to have put an end to human sacrifice.
However, the practice continued.

The first mention of human sacrifice in the Old Testament resides

in the story of Abraham and the sacrifice of his only son Isaac, warned
by the angel of the Lord (Gen., XXII, 1-18). The morality of it is announced from the
First verse: "The time came when God tested Abraham."
It was indeed a test aimed at verifying Abraham's devotion and
God did not intend to allow sacrifice, practiced in others.
religions; he therefore replaced Isaac with a ram. Cruel as it may be,
this story represents a tacit prohibition of this type of offering.
However, it was not included in the Ten Commandments, nor in
the commandments of Yahweh to Moses, except according to Deuteronomy. Indeed, the
fifth Book written: 'You will not find among you people who throw their
son or their daughter to fire" (Deut., XVIII, 10).
The divine will seems to have been violated, centuries later,
when Jephthah, one of the judges mentioned above, a military hero whose name
means 'God saves', made the vow to sacrifice the first of his own who
would cross the threshold of his house if Yahweh granted him victory against
the Ammonites (Jug., XI, 30). This victory would have been, it must be noted, that
from Yahweh himself and it would have constituted a satisfaction in itself; it was
won by Jephthah. Now, when he returned home, the first person he saw
Crossing the threshold of her house was her daughter, a virgin. She asked her for a
a two-month delay and was sacrificed by the hand of her father (Judges, XI, 40).
Yahweh showed no displeasure; he even granted Jephthah another
victory, against the Ephraimites, that one.
Treasures of casuistry have been devoted to finding an explanation
acceptable of this human sacrifice, the practice of which was reproached to the faithful
of other gods; the story remains. It indeed sparks discussions
thorny on the translation of verse XXII, 28 of Exodus: 'You shall give me'
the firstborn of your sons”, followed by the injunction: “You shall do the same for your
beef and your small livestock." Now, the firstborns of the beef and the small livestock, here
equaled with small humans, were in fact sacrificed. Was it necessary to
to understand that Yahweh commanded the sacrifice of the firstborn of his faithful?
Once again, and as in his threats to the Pharaoh, the Creator
would have cared very little about the children. However, he contradicts himself at
this subject. He declares thus, referring to what he has done to the rebellious Israelites: “I
I let them degrade themselves by their own offerings to the idols, I made them
to sacrifice their firstborns in order to fill them with horror. Thus they
they would learn that I am the Lord" (Ezekiel, XX, 26). Discourse that fills
obviously of revulsion, although he is supposed to condemn these sacrifices.
Yet, this type of sacrifice horrified the Hebrews. Thus, when they
besieged the king of Moab and that he, in despair, sacrificed his
eldest son and successor on the ramparts of his city, they were so much
dismayed that they broke camp (2 Kings, 3, 27). It is also in a tone of
reprobation that II Kings reports that "the Sepharvites burned their children"
in offerings to Adrammelech and Anammelech, their gods (XVII, 31).
In contradiction to the principles of the Old Testament, the sacrifice of
Jephtah's daughter thus retains her enigmatic and odious character.

62. The practice of oracles had survived the divine prohibition.

According to Deuteronomy, Yahweh had commanded Moses: 'One shall not find
not at your place […] people who consult the oracles, who practice the
divination or magic" (XVIII, 10). Now, after the scandalous incident of
the man whom the Benjaminites wanted to rape, near Gibeah, and who them
throws the concubine to the slaughter (XIX, 16-30), one sees the tribes of Israel, without
the Benjaminites, go to Bethel to consult 'an oracle of Yahweh' (XX, 18).
How could such an oracle exist, since Yahweh himself ...
had prohibited it?

63. Always extravagant figures

Even if none of the Books of the Old Testament is evident

considered as a history book, even in the broadest sense, the precision
arithmetic to which its authors endeavored to reflect a sense of
reality rather shaky. We thus see, in the fights between the Israelites and
the lost tribe of Benjamin, twenty-six thousand men of this tribe armed with
glaives and seven hundred left-handed, supposed to be virtuosos of the sling (they
they hit their targets by a hair's breadth!), to kill in a single day
twenty-two thousand Israelites. Although demoralized, they resumed the
fights the next day: they lost eighteen thousand more men. The
on the third day, they lost thirty men and killed exactly twenty-five
one thousand Benjaminite. From these, only one thousand six were supposed to remain.
cents. Error, as another five thousand fell, then two thousand.
Arithmetically, they had lost thirty-two thousand one hundred men then.
that they were only twenty-six thousand. But the writer emphasizes that they
had lost twenty-five thousand men and, additional precision all
also inaccurate, reports that there were only... six hundred left (XX, 36-48).
The tribe of Benjamin being one of the Twelve tribes of Israel, the victors.
worried: they couldn't just let her disappear.
therefore organized a plan that would allow the six hundred defeated to
reconstituting their population by capturing girls from Shiloh.
Incidentally, one cannot help but be surprised that in three days, some
armed men with swords and slings have decimated on both sides
forty thousand thirty Israelites and thirty-two thousand one hundred Benjamites, a total of
a total of seventy-two thousand one hundred thirty victims, more than three times that of
the battle of the Somme (twenty-two thousand eight hundred) during the Great
War, where the weapons were much more formidable.
Such implausibilities do not argue for the reliability of the accounts.
that they embellish.
 VIII. BOOKS OF SAMUEL (I, II)

64. Were the Amalekites not creatures of Yahweh? Is he

Is it conceivable that Yahweh orders the killing of children in the womb?

These two crucial questions for morality are among those that oppose
most clearly the Old and New Testament. They emerge in the
lecture, in I Sam., the following words, attributed to the Lord by the
prophet Samuel, who first defines him as "Lord"
of armies" (the name reappears in I Kings, XVIII, 15 and XIX, 10, in the
mouth of the prophet Elijah). These words are addressed to Saul, the first king
from Israel: "I am determined to punish the Amalekites for what they have done to
Israel, for the way they attacked them on the way to Egypt. Go
Now, funds on the Amalekites and destroy them and confiscate their goods.
Spare no one; kill them all, men and women, children and infants.
within, herds, camels and donkeys" (I Sam., XV, 2-4). Incidentally,
the order to kill camels and donkeys, which is an act of pure cruelty, is in
blatant contradiction with the commandment of Exodus: 'When you
You will find the ox or the donkey of your enemy wandering, bring them back to him.
(Ex., XXIII, 4).
Firstly, it is the notion of 'Lord of Hosts' that is being addressed here.
in question. It prevailed until the 20th e century, and we saw priests from all

the religions, especially Catholics and Protestants, bless tanks and

canons. And some clergies have taken advantage of it to make people believe - on both sides of the
same front! – that God would approve the killing of human beings. But
the treasures of exegesis and casuistry expended until Thomas Aquinas
to define what would be a 'just war' did not succeed in blurring the
absolute contradiction between the prohibition of killing, "You shall not kill," and
the incitement to murder.
There is therefore reason to suspect that the statements attributed to Yahweh are merely
the reflections of the vengeful fantasies of the editors. How can one not be amazed?
Furthermore, regarding the extraordinary abundance of the speeches of the divinity in these
heroic times?
Secondly, the words attributed to Yahweh raise the question again
of divine justice, already mentioned in relation to the threats made by Moses
in Pharaoh. How could the Creator of humanity wish for and, worse,
ordering the destruction of its creatures, infants in the womb?
What could have been the faults of newborns? Of animals? And
Whatever the faults of the elders, did he not know forgiveness?
Had he not established specific rites, oh how much, for the redemption of sins?
And how could the Amalekites have known that they were transgressing against him?
wills by persecuting the Israelites upon their departure from Egypt?
The Amalekites, like other peoples of the earth, were they not the
descendants of Noah, and had Yahweh not extended his Covenant with them,
just as 'with all the birds and the cattle and the wild animals of the
land" (Gen., IX, 8-10)? Had it not, long before the Ten Commandments,
proscribes the murder of a human being in formal terms: "He who does
to spill a man's blood, his blood will flow, for in the image of Yahweh,
Yahweh created man" (Gen., IX, 6)? Yahweh was therefore contradicting Himself.
formally.
And how did the writers of the Old Testament not grasp
by defining their God as the defender of a single people, they
excluded the other peoples of his reign?
However, Yahweh decides to deprive Saul of his kingship because he
did not follow his orders to the letter, having spared King Agag and the herds
of the Amalekites, contrary to what had been signified to him (I Sam., V, 10-
11). The contemporary reader cannot help but wonder about the usefulness of
to massacre even donkeys and camels, and even the herds of
Amalekites.
Once again, the implausibility of this divine ferocity compels to
to suspect these stories, implausible and disgraceful, of being nothing but the
fantasies of writers wanting to excite the passions of their listeners.
Here arises a question that is undoubtedly secondary but which, once again,
indicates that the writers were not well informed about what they
they talked about, or that they had not read the entirety of the scrolls that they
completed. According to I Sam., indeed (XV, 7-9), "Saul completely destroyed the
Amalekites, passing them by the sword." Further on, however, one sees the
Amalekites raid the Negev (I Sam., XXX, 1) and David attacks them.
again, only four hundred young men among them succeeded in
to escape on camels (I Sam., XXX, 16-17).
Had the Amalekites been decimated, yes or no?

Does Yahweh command evil spirits?

The great question of the Spirit of Evil, which appeared in Genesis with the
the creation of the Serpent, then in Leviticus with the sacrifice to Azazel, emerges
in several passages of the Old Testament, evoking each time the
the question of Yahweh's power over this evil spirit. One of these passages is
the one where, although having decided to strip Saul of his kingship and having
forgave his fault, Yahweh "sends him from time to time an evil spirit
who takes hold of him" (XVI, 14). For what purpose? This resentful behavior,
excessively human, is unsettling. The servants of Saul
noticing his fits of possession and suggesting that he have this spirit exorcised.
by a harp player; it will be David, to whom, by the way, Yahweh will send
also an evil spirit (II Sam., XXIX, 1).
This notion persists in many passages of the Old Testament. One finds it
thus found in Ezekiel, where Yahweh announces to Gog, prince of Rosh:
"An idea will enter your head and you will scheme evil" (Ezekiel, XXXVIII, 10).
Strange solicitude: if Yahweh really wanted the destruction of Gog, he did not
would not have warned him about the trap.
It turns out that evil spirits, meaning those of Evil, would be
under the orders of Yahweh. The contradiction is obvious. It cannot be the same
God to whom Jesus taught to pray to keep away Evil (Mt., VI, 13), which
means that this God cannot be identified with Evil. But it is in the Book of
Job that this fundamental contradiction between the biblical texts will appear.
the most clearly.
Was she not born in the minds of those who took on the privilege of
to transmit the divine word?

66. Can Yahweh's regrets be reconciled with His omniscience and

his omnipotence?

The notion of "regrets" of the supreme power of the universe is

obviously blasphemous for a believer of any era, contemporary
it is antique; yet it is specifically mentioned in several
Books of the Old Testament and, to begin with, in the Book examined here.
Indeed, it is written: 'Yahweh repented of having made Saul king of Israel.'
But the repentances of Yahweh have already been mentioned in the
Genesis: "Yahweh repented of having created man on the earth, and this made him
blessed in his heart" (VI, 6). We had already seen it in Exodus: "Yahweh
he repented of the evil he was doing to his people" (Ex., XXXII, 14).
Regrets or repentance, whatever term the translator chooses, these
passages constitute one of the major contradictions of the Old
Testament, for they are contrary to the notion of omniscience and omnipotence.
attributed to Yahweh: they mean that he does not know everything, does not know
the future and can be wrong. The writers have attributed feelings to it
humans; they have created God in their image.
As a culmination of audacity, they accuse him of a mistake, if not of a fault: that one
of having created humanity. How can one not suspect them of blasphemy?

The relationship between David and Jonathan: a dark question

Upon learning of the death of Saul and Jonathan, David sings a lament.
moving. After celebrating "Saul and Jonathan, beloved and charming," he
exclaims: 'I am in distress for you, my brother Jonathan, so exquisite for
Hi. Your love was more wonderful to me than the love of women" (II Sam., I,
26, trans. Chouraqui). Proposals that many translations are careful to spare
the sensitivities of prudish readers have been softened by replacing "love" with
friendship. The previous description of Prince Jonathan's feelings for
David leaves little doubt:
When he had finished speaking to Saul,
Jonathan's being is connected to David's being.
Jonathan loves him like his own being. [...]
Jonathan makes a pact with David,
in his last love for him like his very being.
Jonathan takes off the coat he is wearing.
and gives it to David with his uniform,
and even his sword, and even his bow, and even his belt.
(I Samuel, 18, 1-4, trans. Chouraqui)

This is the description of a crush, and Jonathan's love for

David will push him to fall out with his father Saul when he is
became jealous of David and will plan to have him killed. It is also the only
mention of homosexuality among heroes of the Old Testament, for it is
other references regarding only the pagans, concerning the 'prostitutes'
'sacred' (Deut., XXIII, 18 and I Kings XV, 12).
However, it will only be from his illicit affair with Bathsheba that the
heavenly powers will hold David to account. And the translators, they,
will strive to lessen the fervor of the Hebrew terms used by the authors of the two
Books of Samuel.

68. The children assigned to Michal, proof that the same books were
written by different... and careless writers.

Among the evidence that the authors of the Books of the Bible were
different – and did not read each other – that of the children of
Michal, the daughter of King Saul, is one of the clearest. Thus, it is read in II Samuel,
VI, 23, that Michal had no children: 'Mikhal, the daughter of Shaoul, had no children.
no children until the day of his death." In the same book, in XXI, 8, one
said that she had five: "the five sons of Mikhal, the daughter of Shaoul, that she
had given birth to Adriel the son of Arzilai from Mehola.
Even more revealing is the fact that this blunder was pointed out by biblical scholars.
vigilants, has been "corrected" in some Bibles, such as The Bible of
Jerusalem in bold letters, the New English Bible and1a few others, where
The five children are assigned to Merab, a sister of Michal.
faithful, mentioned above, is that of André Chouraqui. This "correction" is
passing comments: it is in itself an admission.

69. Is God capricious? The implausibilities of the imaginary

divine vengeance

The representation of Divinity to which all believers rally is

that of supreme goodness and justice, the refuge and strength to which one
refers to the Psalmist (Ps., XLVI, 1). Several Books of the Old Testament
however contain enigmatic passages, if not incomprehensible,
for they portray divinity as irritable and prone to mood swings
quasi pathological. Thus, in the case where David brings back the Ark of the Covenant
on a cart pulled by oxen; arriving on uneven ground, the oxen
tripped, and Uzzah, son of Jesse, and thus nephew of David, rushes to
stabilize the Ark. "The Lord was displeased with him and struck him down for this
rash act. Uzzah died there, near the Ark of God" (II Sam., VI,
6-7). It is nowhere stated that Uzzah acted with ill intent, at
contrary; his death is therefore the result of Yahweh's mood swing, which
is outraged that a common man dares to touch the Ark. The episode inspires
Moreover, the fright to David, who then wonders how he will be able to
transport the Ark to Jerusalem.
He struck down the people of Beth-Shemesh because they had looked.
in the Ark of the Lord, he struck the people, seventy men on
fifty thousand men. The people mourns" (I Sam., VI, 19). Kill
seventy men because they looked at the Ark of the Covenant do not present
hardly a positive image of the Lord in the eyes of a contemporary believer,
and it is doubtful that it was otherwise in past centuries. A
unprecedented sanction, compared to the massacre of two hundred
fifty men who had not presented the incense according to the exact rite
46), represents the Lord in a way that does not correspond at all to that
divine feeling in the religions of the Book.
The most spectacular of divine outbursts is the one described at the
end of II Sam.: in his anger against David, who had ordered a
census, 'the Lord sent a pestilence upon Israel, which lasted from
morning until dinner time, and from Dan to Beersheba, seventy thousand
people perished. The angel then extended his arm towards Jerusalem to destroy it,
But the Lord regretted the devastation. 'Enough! Lower your hand!'
How can one not note that seventy thousand victims for a
David's shortcomings, ultimately venial, are a sanction.
disproportionate? How can one not think that divine vengeance is one?
injustice, because these seventy thousand victims have committed none
fault? How can one not be surprised by the timidity ascribed to the Lord, who
ordered nameless ravages, without grasping their scale, then once
that they have been committed, orders his exterminating angel to stop?
It would emerge that a man's life would weigh little in the eyes of God, this
which is in contradiction with the vast majority of the two Testaments. But
It mainly appears that, seized by his imagination, the writer of II Sam. has
write there a blasphemous text, impossible to teach to anyone who respects
the notion of a just and clairvoyant God.
This episode is however not the only one in II Sam. whose morality is
incomprehensible. Previously, a famine had lasted for three years in
Israel (II Sam., XXIV, 15), and when David had asked for the explanation from
Lord, this one had replied that it was the price of blood for the
The Gibeonites that Saul had massacred, although he had promised to spare them;
this price therefore fell on his family. Now, evidently, Saül's family
was not the only one to suffer the consequences of this king's failure to keep his word,
since the whole people were suffering from it. The lack of magnanimity of the Lord
In this matter is surprising. Could he not be satisfied with punishing Saul?
This narrative suffers from another major contradiction. It specifies, in fact, that
the Gibeonites, inhabitants of the city of Gibeon, were not Israelites,
but "remnants of a population of Amorites that the Israelites had
"sworn to spare" (XXI, 2). This is not at all what is said in Judges, XIX,
17, who cites 'Guibea, whose inhabitants were Benjaminites.' One of the
two writers do not know what they are talking about and, in any case, that of II Sam.
tries to obscure the fratricidal war that opposed the tribes of Israel to that of
Benjamin. The mysterious solicitude of Yahweh and the Israelites towards
the Guibéonites, also known as Benjaminites, is explained: they belonged to
one of the tribes of Israel, and that was why the other tribes wanted to
to save despite their rebellion. This does not prevent the editor from
Judges described them as "outright rascals"; as we have seen, they were
those very ones who wanted to sodomize a lost traveler. And this editor
Use even to define the term 'belial', which will then be reserved for the
Devil! (Jug., XIX, 22).
But the rest is even more surprising. To get rid of the cause
from divine wrath, David has seven male descendants of Saul executed by having them
leaping from the top of a cliff. "After which, the Lord was willing to accept
the prayers in favor of the country" (II Sam., XXI, 14). It was therefore a sacrifice
human that David had offered him, and not an execution. This raises a
new the question of these sacrifices and the contradictions that abound at his
subject in the Old Testament (61).

70. Contradiction and mystery surrounding the death of Saul

The same Books of Samuel provide three contradictory versions of the

death of the first king of Israel.
In I Sam., XXXI, 4, it is written: 'The battle [against the Philistines] was
bitter for Saul and archers found him wounded in the belly by the archers
[enemies]. He then says to his weapon bearer: "Draw your sword and finish me off,
so that these uncircumcised brutes do not come to taunt me and turn me into
derision." But the weapon bearer did not dare and refused; whereupon Saul took his
clean sword and let himself fall on it." He would have therefore committed suicide, followed by
this by the bearer of arms.
 In II Sam., I, 5-16, David learns from the mouth of an Amalekite that it is
the latter who, at Saul's request, gave him the final blow, because he
was 'seized by the chills of death'. On what David kills the Amalekite
bearer of bad news.
But in II Sam., XXI, 12, it is written that David went to retrieve the remains of
Saul and his son Jonathan, whom the Philistines had exposed in the square.
Bethshean public; we deduce that it was the Philistines who killed
Saul and his son.
Did Saul commit suicide, did he receive the coup de grâce from an Amalekite, or did he
was killed by the Philistines? Mystery.

71. What is the meaning of the story of David?

Brutal, made up of a succession of wars and tragic episodes or

not very enlightening, as recounted by II Sam., it takes on an almost
Shakespearean. The writer(s) wanted to portray a character.
heroic in its truth, without omitting its shortcomings, and while showing that
it was the Lord's will that raised him to the pedestal of a great king to
the good of Israel. It's the first frankly epic text, therefore literary, of
the Old Testament, as the Song of
David, long of fifty-eight verses.
The two episodes of Bathsheba and Absalom, however, weigh heavily on it.
weight that counterbalances the hagiographic character. The first reveals
at David's a surprising cynicism in his lust: seeing one evening, from
on her terrace, a beautiful woman is bathing, Bathsheba, wife of one of his
officers, Uriah the Hittite, he sends for her and lies with her. Then he
gets rid of the husband by sending him to be killed at the front. The Lord, in
his wrath makes him say through the prophet Nathan that he will take from him his
women and make them possess in public, and that the child of Bathsheba is
big will die (another sacrifice of the innocent). However, Bathsheba
becomes David's favorite wife and will give him other children, including
Solomon. The divine sanction only affected the first. Immorality
David's real estate in this matter is obscured.
The second episode is scarcely more enlightening. Third son of David,
Absalon - who bears his name poorly, 'God is peace' - beautiful 'from the soles of
feet at the top of his head", first has his brother Amnon assassinated because
that he seduced their sister Tamar, then he fled. David reconciles.
still with him, but Absalom, decidedly incurable, retires to Hebron
and proclaims himself king. In a second spectacular betrayal, he declares war on his
his own father and, having entered Jerusalem, he violates his father's concubines in plain sight and
to all (II Sam. XVI, 22). Then his troops set off in pursuit of
David. They are crushed and, during Absalom's flight on a mule,
comes the famous episode of the capture of his hair in the branches
from an oak tree. It is there that Joab, David's nephew and general, kills him.
The two wild episodes take place in a web of quarrels, intrigues,
betrayals, vendettas, double crosses, assassinations, and seditions that deny
vividly the assertion of the Book of Judges that
the advent of the monarchy would have established order (Judges 21:25).
David's record hardly appears to be edifying.

Does cruelty please the Lord?

The massacres of biblical heroes are hardly inferior to those of

most despised modern historical figures. We thus see David
execute the defeated Moabites according to a method that is at least questionable:
he has them lie on the ground and executes two thirds of them; then he
execute twenty-two thousand infantry of Hadadezer, king of Zobah; then again
he gains a great reputation by the massacre of eighteen thousand Edomites
from the valley of Salt […] and the Lord granted him victory wherever he
went" (II Sam. VIII, 1-14). At least forty thousand victims among some
peoples who had sworn allegiance to him, not counting the Moabites, would have
thus were sanctioned by the divine favor enjoyed by David. Whatever
such are the ordinary exaggerations of writers concerning numbers
of victims, the savagery of the atrocities is striking.
It should be noted here that some translations exacerbate the revenge of
David in a way that does not conform to the text. Thus, The New English
He hamstrung all the chariot-horses, except a hundred which
he retained. » This means: 'He cut the hocks of all the horses of
chariots, except for a hundred that he kept." And one would wonder about the symbolism.
of this cruelty towards animals, was the original text: 'It paralyzes'
all the carting, he only leaves a hundred carts," which is quite different.
Putting tanks out of service is not slaughtering horses.
But attentive readers with faithful translations are already
familiar with the licenses often taken by some, according to their inclinations
ideological.

___________________
1. Cf. bibli.
 IX. BOOKS OF KINGS (I, II)

These two works are essentially a list of the kings that

occurred in the two kingdoms created by the schism of 911 B.C.
Samaria until its disappearance in 722 BC, and in Judah until
the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. Their general historical value
is not disputed, but their interpretation of the facts and the roles assigned to
prophets, notably Elijah and Elisha, according to what seems to be traditions
popular ones seem to owe everything to the editors.
It should be recalled that these books were written upon returning from Exile, thus at a
era when popular sentiment towards kings is imbued
bitterness: they are held responsible for the disaster of the destruction of
Jerusalem and the recurring motif is that they are not
remained faithful to the God of Israel and that they practiced idolatry. The formula
"He did what was guilty" returns as is for almost all the kings.
It is in these interpretations that the most contradictions appear.
significant, such as those concerning the punishment of the father's faults.

73. Of elastic or prodigious dimensions and figures

The Books of Kings do not escape the contradictions between them and with
the other Books of the Bible mentioned in the texts analyzed above. Thus,
in the description of the magnificent Temple that King Solomon had built,
a large circular pool ten cubits in diameter and five
depth is mentioned, with a mathematical error: the circumference
is given as being thirty cubits, whereas it is thirty and
one and a half cubits. The capacity, on the other hand, is given as
two thousand baths of water; the exact volume of a 'bath of water' is unknown
the time, but the writers also seem to have ignored it, as the
Second Book of Chronicles (IV, 5) estimates the capacity of the same basin.
at three thousand baths of water.
 Likewise, in II Kings, VIII, 26, King Ahaziah is mentioned as having
twenty-two years when he ascended to the throne, as II Chron., XXII, 2 states
that he was forty-two. He was, in any case, an enigmatic king, for his
father was forty years old when he died (II Chr., XXI, 20) and that he
succeeded; he would therefore have been two years older than his father...
Such contradictions are sometimes found a few verses from
In I Kings, XVI, 23, for example, he writes: 'In the thirty-first...'
In the year of Asa, king of Judah, Omri began to reign over Israel and he reigned.
twelve years. » But in I Kings, XVI, 28-29, it is written: « Omri rested with his
fathers […] and Ahab reigned in his place. In the thirty-eighth year of Asa, king of
Judah, Ahab the son of Omri began to reign over Israel." If Omri reigned from
the thirty-first to the thirty-eighth year of Asa, it is seven years and not
not twelve.
A contemporary reader will undoubtedly be no less perplexed by
the statement of the numbers of animals sacrificed by Solomon 'before the
Lord, that is at the Temple: twenty-two thousand oxen and one hundred twenty
a thousand sheep (I Kings, VIII, 62-63). The sacrifices lasted a week, it
It is true, but the pace is nonetheless astounding: it would therefore have been necessary to kill.
and to sacrifice five oxen and twenty-four sheep per minute for twelve
hours in a row every day… Stronger than the slaughterhouses of Chicago!
The reader's perplexity is put to another test upon reading the
the munificence of Solomon, who had "two hundred golden shields made"
beaten, in the making of each of which entered six hundred shekels of gold
(I Kings, X, 16). The conversion to metric units indicates this: one shekel
210 grains, each equivalent to 0.05 grams, its weight in the system
the metric is therefore 12.39 grams; 600 shekels representing 7.434 kilos
for each shield, it was therefore nearly one and a half tons of gold that was used to
the only production of these shields, whose interest could only be
sumptuary, the resistance of gold to shocks being well below that of
bronze or iron.
And, reading that Solomon "had fourteen hundred chariots and twelve thousand
"horses" (X, 26), the suspicion will arise that the writer may have let himself
carried away by his imagination.
Geographic accuracy is hardly spared either. Thus, it is written
In Kings, IX, 26 that "King Solomon built a fleet of ships at
Ezion-geber, near Eloth, on the shore of the Reed Sea.
Reeds was at the time the name of the Red Sea; now, Ezion-geber was
located at the bottom of the Gulf of Aqaba, as confirmed by the proximity of Eilat,
but about 150 kilometers from the Red Sea. This information is not
not one.
Furthermore, it is also said that the Lord commanded Elijah the Tishbite:
Go hide in the ravine of Kerith, east of the Jordan
Or, Kerith is west of the Jordan.

74. Does the Lord use double standards in His sanctions?

His fame and reputation, in addition to seven hundred women and three hundred
concubines eventually eroded the legendary wisdom of Solomon; he committed
so the supreme fault: he raised altars to other gods, Ashtoreth, goddess
of the Sidonians, Milcom, the "infamous" god of the Ammonites, Chemosh, a god not
less "infamous" from Moab, Moloch, another "infamous" god of the Ammonites
(in another summary of the same Book, in XI, 33, Moloch is
mysteriously omitted). The Lord appears and rebukes him, then
he warns him that he will tear his kingdom away from him and give it to his servant Jeroboam,
but in memory of David and to preserve Jerusalem, he will grant a
only tribe to his son Rehoboam. However, this punishment is postponed after the
death of Solomon, that is to say that he will retain his power until the
term of his life. It is an illustration of the law according to which the sons will pay
the sins of the fathers. But has it not been invalidated by Deuteronomy?
Now, this report does not correspond at all to the other divine sanctions.
When he judged Saul guilty of a relatively minor fault, that of
not having completely exterminated the Amalekites, humans and animals (I
Sam., V, 10-11), the Lord immediately deprived him of his kingship. And he
even prolonged its punishment with a plague that ravaged Israel for three years
(II Sam., XXIV, 15). Then when David committed the shameful act of
to take another man's wife, Bathsheba, and to send the husband to his death,
the Lord condemned the innocent child of adultery to death. Better: by the
Afterward, he showed great complacency towards David; indeed, when
Bathsheba conceived another child, "because the Lord loved David, He gave him
was said by the prophet Nathan that in honor of the Lord, the child should
called Jedidiah', 'beloved of the Lord' (II Sam., XII, 25). It should be in
deduce that the Lord represented by the writers of the Book of Kings
practiced not two, but three weights and three measures.
But when Solomon commits the gravest fault, turning away from his
God, this one postpones the punishment to a later time and, once again, it's a son.
who is not responsible for it is condemned to endure it. Until his last day,
Salomon, he will not suffer at all from his betrayal.
It is nevertheless the same pattern that, at least according to the writers, the
divine justice would have followed in another episode: when Ahab, king of Israel,
asks Naboth to give him the vineyard near his palace. Naboth refuses
and Jezebel, Ahab's wife, has the stubborn one murdered. It is a murder
crapulous. The Lord then condemns the couple to the worst torments: the
the kingdom will be dismantled and Jezebel will be eaten by dogs. But Ahab will
repent and the Lord declares: "I will not overwhelm his kingdom with disasters
during her life, but during that of her son" (I Kings, XXI, 19). But what
Is it the son's fault? And what then is the purpose of repentance? This is a contradiction.
Furthermore, with the decree of Deuteronomy: 'The sons shall not pay for the faults
of fathers," yet specifically mentioned in the same books
(II Sam., XIV, 6-7)
The writers, once again, were having a misconception or else
personal of divine vengeance.

75. An absurd episode

In the book of Kings, there is a disconcerting, if not scandalous, story...

of a "member of a company of prophets, under the orders of the Lord", who
ordered a man to hit him, but the man refused. 'Since you do not have
Do not disobey the Lord, said the prophet, when you distance yourself from me, a lion
"He will attack you." When the man left, a lion indeed attacked him" (XX, 35-
36). The fate of this man is unjustified: was it disobeying the Lord then
What about refusing to hit a stranger who asked him outright? And this
Did the prophet identify himself with the Lord?
We learn in the same passage that being a prophet was a profession,
since there were companies, and one also discovers their
arrogance: they believed they were endowed with the power of life and death over their
similar. And one begins to think that some undoubtedly deserved the
fulminating invectives with which Isaiah and Jeremiah overwhelm them (91). Let's move on to
the implausibility of lions wandering on the country roads - the lion,
the elephant and the hippopotamus had disappeared from Palestine at that time
history; the lion had become a mythical animal, symbol of royalty, and
the hippopotamus had been mythified into Behemoth.
 Yet, the arrogance of this unnamed prophet continues until his
interview with the king of Israel, Ahab, to whom he declares that he deserves to die,
because the king of Aram escaped from the armies of Israel (XX, 41-43). Was it
So the fault of this king or that of his soldiers?
Would one conceive that in modern times such an episode would be included in a
Book intended to edify believers?
Equally strange is another episode that takes place near the deathbed of the
prophet Elisha: the king of Israel, Joash, is at his bedside, in tears. The
the prophet orders him to take his bow and shoot arrows through the window
towards the east, what Joash is doing. Elisha then predicts to him that he will triumph.
the kingdom of Aram. Then he orders him to take his arrows: "Strike the
Hit the ground with them.
gets angry: "You should have hit the ground five or six times! There, you
You will have only three victories against Aram.
It would still have been necessary to know. But through countless tales of accomplished wonders
By the prophets, the first and second Books of Samuel end with
resemble in certain passages to fantastical tales, reflecting much more
the unbridled ambitions of the prophets and the only idea they have of the
divinity rather than divine wisdom.
 X. BOOKS OF CHRONICLES (I, II)

By almost common agreement, biblical scholars consider that these two

Books are the work of a single man, close to the priestly circles and
e century before our era.
perhaps himself a Levite, who lived at the end of the 4th
The hypothesis that it was perhaps Ezra, the author of the two Books which, thus
that we indicate in the notes, are not found in the Bibles
Catholics are still under study. A nickname has been given to this author, 'the
Chronicle ». The benefit of the revelation is therefore not granted to him. His
The apparent objective is to list things that have not been said in the
previous books, but in fact, it quickly becomes clear that his intention is to
"smooth out" the tumultuous and pessimistic accounts of the Books of Kings and
to demonstrate the long but irresistible triumph of Yahweh over religions
rivals. It is actually an apologetic work. Thus Saint Jerome proposed it.
calling it "Chronicles of the Entire Divine History." Perhaps it was
a bit ambitious.

Five children do not make six

One cannot help but be struck by the trend of the writer of

Chronicles, certainly shared with those of other Books, in negligence
arithmetic. Thus, in I Chronicles, III, 19-20, he writes: "The sons [beneien Hebrew]
Zerubbabel: Meshulam, Hananiah, and Shelomit, their sister; Hashuba,
Ohel, Berekhyah, Hassadyah, Ioushab Hessed; five1. » How seven
Boys and a girl can make five? Curiously, there are Bibles that
we have, as seen above, 'corrected' the mistake. The New English Bible,
for example, add to the names of the first three the words 'There were five'
others", there were five others: now, this is not in the text.
Venial error, no doubt. But in I Chron., III, 22, retracing the descent
from Salomon, this writer reoffends: "The sons of Shemaiah: Hatoush, Igal,
Bariah, Neryah, Shaphat: six. » The count indicates, however, that they are
five. To 'repair' the error, the New English Bible ranges the wires of
Shemaiah with their father in the children of Shecaniah, which makes the word
"six" can be maintained. However, this does not correspond at all to the original text.
The children of Shecaniah: Shemaiah. The children of
Shemaiah: Hatoush, Igal, Bariah, Neryah, Shaphat: six. » This makes a
difference.
And this writer makes a similar mistake in I Chr., XXV, 3: "For
Iedoutoun, the children of Iedoutoun: Guedalyahou, Séri, Ieshayahou,
Hashabyahou, Matityahou: the six under the hand of their father. They are not
only five. It was harder to hide; the New English Bible
so add a name, Shimei.
This writer or the Chronicler himself adds a contradiction.
supplementary with the other Books in his account of the battle of David
with Hadadezer: he writes (I Chr., XVIII, 4) that David captured seven thousand
cavalry, whereas II Sam. says: one thousand seven hundred (VIII, 4).

77. An invented assertion: Bethlehem was not founded by a

descendant of Solomon

If he had wanted to enrich history with forgotten or neglected data, our

The chronicler certainly did not sufficiently verify his sources. Thus, in I Chr.,
IV, 4, he cites a descendant of Solomon: 'Ephratha, the founder of
"Bethlehem." The phrase is indeed strange, "here are the children of Hur,"
while there is only one. This is a completely false statement:
Bethlehem, the "house of bread" (or "house of Laham", deity
Canaanite), was known since at least the 14th century e BCE,
that is to say well before Solomon and even more so his descendants; a
the manuscript of El Amarna testifies2She is mentioned in Genesis (XXXV,
like the city where Rachel, Jacob's second wife, was buried, but
even there, she is cited incorrectly: "She was buried in Bethlehem,"
that is to say, Ephrata." The author of Genesis was also not inclined
on the accuracy, because Bethlehem is southwest of Jerusalem and Ephrath at
north, halfway to Bethel. We will see later that there is another
Bethlehem, in Lower Galilee This confusion is actually going
compromise the veracity of the account of the birth of Jesus.
One fact is certain: Bethlehem and Ephrata already existed and the Chronicler has everything
undoubtedly invented this story. He actually took an excessive risk there:
Ephrata is a woman's name, that of Caleb's wife, founder of a
important clan of the tribe of Judah, not a boy's name.

78. An inaccurate version of the history of a right of primogeniture

In the long - and somewhat chaotic - genealogies that

constitute the essence of the first ten chapters of the first book of
Chronicles states regarding Ruben, the firstborn son of Jacob, that he was deposed from
his right of primogeniture for "defiling his father's bed", which,
incidentally, led to an incomprehensible muddle, because the law
the primogeniture was then conferred to the sons of his eighth brother Joseph - according to the
custom, they should have been conferred on his younger son Simeon; but finally, according to
this arrangement, Joseph's children all found themselves being the eldest, until
that their uncle Judah dispossessed them of the title. But that is another story.
What is at stake here is the freedom that, in order to conform to tradition,
Some contemporary Bibles have taken with the 'profanation of the bed'
paternal » of which Ruben would have been guilty. The New English Bible, by
for example, written like this, in parentheses: "He was, in fact, the firstborn, but
because he had committed incest with a wife of his father..." Now, nothing
such a thing does not appear in the original, and this 'explanation' which is not one
should have just been the subject of a note call.
Jacob had only two wives, Rachel, his favorite, and Leah, the forsaken.
mother of Ruben. He obviously could not have committed incest with
his own mother nor with his father's favorite. The identity of the woman with
the one with whom Ruben had sexual relations is mentioned in Genesis, XXXV, 22:
it is Bilhah, defined by Genesis itself as "slave daughter", fallen from
slavery, however, justified by Leviticus. It should be noted that these slaves
represented the lowest level of women's condition: they were
"service bellies" and not wives, of which they possessed none.
privilege. The terms 'incest' and 'wife' are therefore abusive, if not
erroneous. Moreover, if Jacob had sexual relations with Bilhah, it was because
Rachel, barren and feeling pressured for offspring by her husband, him
a woman has a servant so that she "gives birth on her knees", a phrase that
wanted to say that the children would be legally adopted – which was the case
For Dan and Nephtali. Bilhah had therefore served, in a way, as a mother.
surrogate. It was only after Rachel's death, when Bilhah had fulfilled her
mission, that Ruben slept with her.
 The Chronicler could have specified what the "profanation of the bed" had been.
Jacob and to mitigate the gravity, if only because of the nobility of
character that Ruben witnessed in Joseph's disastrous expedition in
Egypt.

A bias that results in inaccuracies

The bias of the Chronicler in his interpretation of events and his

The presentation of certain characters has been noted by more than one exegete.
Thus, regarding his favor towards Solomon. He reports that when David
he built his palace, he wanted to raise a temple to the Lord to place there
the Ark of the Covenant. But the Lord appeared to the prophet Nathan and the
a charge of a message for David; in substance, it stated that it would not be
not David to build this temple, but one of his heirs whose 'throne will be
established forever" (I Chr., XVII, 14), an unfulfilled prophecy as
many others3The Temple was therefore built by Solomon, but the promise
supposed to have been transmitted by Nathan was not carried out: after the death of
Solomon; the ten tribes of the north rebelled and the monarchy shattered.
By omitting to explain the reasons, the Chronicler produces the opposite effect of
the one he undoubtedly expected: he seems to say that the promise of the Lord
was not held and thus contradicts the other Books of the
Bible.
Indeed, he omits the divine warning given to Solomon: it is only if he
behaves as a king faithful to his God, as David was, that the promise made
to this last will be confirmed (II Sam., VII, 12-16). Solomon did not take into account
of the warning: he became polytheistic and the idols of his thousand wives
Foreigners were erected in the palace and in the country. But the Chronicler did not say anything about it.
nothing.

80. The incomprehensible refusal of the Lord to David of the privilege to build the
Temple

Any reader is entitled to ask the following question:

Why does God forbid David, who brought in the Ark of the Covenant to
Jerusalem, to build the Temple? The answer would apparently be provided.
in a speech by David to his young son Solomon; the Lord of hosts
he would have said: "You have spilled too much blood in my eyes and you have led
of great wars; for this reason you will not build a temple in
the honor of my name" (I Chr., XXII, 8). The hero of Israel, the one who has made
entering the Ark in Jerusalem is therefore rejected.
Isn't it said that it is the Lord who urged David to these
wars and that he "granted him victory wherever he went" (II Sam., VIII, 1-
14) Is it not written that 'David had done everything that was right in the eyes
of the Lord and had not broken any of His commandments all his life,
except in the case of Uriah the Hittite”? Had the Lord not disgraced
Saul because he had not slaughtered all the Amalekites and he had
spared their king and their flocks? And were not his prophets pursuing them?
the other kings of Israel from their threats when they had not exterminated the
enemies, like this unknown prophet who tells Ahab that he deserves to die,
because the king of Aram escaped from the armies of Israel (1 Kings 20:41-43,
67) ?
This fundamental contradiction obscures the divine plan that the
Chronicles nevertheless strive to justify.

81. Who then urged David to order the census, God or Satan?

One of the major contradictions of the Old Testament, that which raises the
the question of identities and the relations between God and Satan, and which has constituted the
fundamental dilemma of Christian theology, appears in several
Books, especially in the two books of Chronicles. It is raised up.
a first time by the mention of the enigmatic Azazel (37 and 42) and of
more formally through the initiative of a census of the Israelites, already
mentioned above (65).
The Chronicler writes thus in I Chr., XXI, 1: "Satan, rising up against Israel,
"Push David to order: 'Go, count Israel and Judah.'" However, it is written in
II Sam., XXIX, 1: "The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel and he
David incited against them and had him say: go, number Israel and Judah.
did two push David to order the census, God or Satan? One cannot
to conceive a more important question, as it leads to another one: is Satan -
the enemy or the servant of God? It will assert itself even more
radiant in the Book of Job.

Did the kingdom of David have five million inhabitants?

Apparently swept away by the intoxication of numbers, the author of the Chronicles
advance that, when Joab went to count the population of the country at the order of
David reported to him that "those who were able to bear arms
there were one million one hundred thousand in Israel and four hundred seventy thousand in
Juda » (XXI, 5). This represents one million five hundred seventy thousand.
young men of military age, almost three times the army of a country
contemporary as militarized as North Korea. Based on a
hypothesis of two young people per family and at least seven people per
In short, the general population of the kingdom of David would have exceeded five.
millions. We are unaware of the military recruitment standards of the time, and
the demographic data is nonexistent or random. But when one
take as a reference the fact that Jerusalem, the largest city in the country,
e third century BC.
numbered about one hundred twenty thousand souls under Alexander, in the
C., according to the geographer Hecatæus of Abdera, the figures that he would have reported
Joab is excessive.
Equally extravagant are those mentioned in I Chronicles, XXVII, 1-15 regarding the army.
private to Salomon's personal service: twelve divisions "of twenty-four"
thousand men in each division, or two hundred eighty-eight thousand
men! And each division served only one month a year. Half of the
total strength of the French army in 1988 (five hundred sixty thousand
men) at the service of one man. Such figures do not put
only the gullibility to the test, they would call into question the common sense of
Salomon.
The luxury of precision that adorns many texts of the Old
Testament paradoxically compromise their veracity, due to their
differences from one Book to another and sometimes within the same Book. One reads thus in
II Chr., XXXVI, 9 that Jehoiachin was eight years old when he ascended to the throne
Jerusalem and he reigned for three months and ten days, while in II Kings, XIV, 8, he
He said that he was eighteen years old and that he reigned for only three months. Similar
details certainly do not carry the importance of major contradictions, but they
undermine the character of absolute truth too often attributed to these texts and
confirming that they were written by often poorly informed writers,
negligent or inventive.
The accusation of inventiveness may come as a surprise; however, it is clearly evident.
in the report on the duties of the temple servants (I Chr., 9-31), who were
distributed by drawing lots. It is learned that the twenty-five prizes were awarded to
twenty-five candidates who, along with their brothers and their sons, made up all,
as if by chance, groups of twelve men exactly. Whatever
which statistician will agree that it is impossible, and that it is
also impossible to find in such a small population group
that of Jerusalem at the time of twelve family groups consisting of
exactly the same number of men.
However, the fabulous and obvious exaggerations are piling up in
the Chronicles, undermining the credit attributed to them by tradition. When one
"Salomon hired seventy thousand dockworkers, eighty thousand
stone masons and three thousand six hundred foremen, or one hundred fifty-
three thousand six hundred men for the construction of the Temple (II Chr., 2), we
it is said that the workers of the time were poor workers, or
although the administrators of Solomon were poor organizers, or
Well, although the Chronicler is purely and simply fabricating. These are
workforce that was presumed necessary for the construction of the pyramid of
Khufu. And where would we have accommodated this army? How would we have fed them? And
this during the twenty years that the construction of the Temple would have taken (2 Chronicles,
VIII, 1) ?
The rest of the descriptions is consistent, with an extravagance of gold that
surpasses all historically possible extraction possibilities of this
metal at the time, culminating in the doors leading to the sanctuary and those that
led to the Holy of Holies, made of solid gold (II Chr., IV, 22).

83. Contrary to what Solomon says, the Lord was not addressing
directly to David

Yahweh spoke to David through the prophet Nathan (I Chr.,

XVII, 1-27). However, in II Chr., VI, 4, Solomon publicly declares that
The Lord spoke directly to David.

___________________
1. Cf. translation by André Chouraqui, op. cit.
2. André Girard, Dictionary of the Bible, cf. bibl.
3. See note 3, p. 307.
 XI. THE BOOKS OF EZRA AND NEHEMIAH

These two books formed only one in the Jewish tradition, but at
In the Christian era, they were separated and the Book of Ezra was renamed.
Second Esdras, to which was added a Greek apocryphon named for the
circumstance "First Esdras," now absent from the Hebrew Bible and
the current Christian Bible. The Book of Nehemiah is often included under
the designation of 'Second Esdras'. For the fate of the Sacred Books is
often eventful.
Some specialists recognize the Chronicler. The eponymous authors.
could, however, be two renowned priests who lived at the end of the
e
Centuries before our era and were charged by the "king of kings", the king of
Perse – but we do not know which one – after Cyrus the Great had, in 538 BC.
C., permitted the return to Israel of Jews deported by Nebuchadnezzar. They
were the organizers of the Community of Return, under conditions
difficult. Their books are largely personal accounts of their
tests.
They are however not free from inaccuracies and contradictions
factual yet nonetheless disconcerting findings noted in the previous books.

84. How many deportees returned from captivity?

After providing the list of tribes returned from exile and enumerating their
members (Ezra, II, 3-64 and Nehemiah, VII, 8-66), both books set the total at
42,360; however, if we count with Ezra, we get 29,818.
individuals and in Nehemiah, 31,089; which creates significant differences
of 12,542 and 11,271 deportees.
The surprise increases because, a few verses earlier, making the
account of the treasures stolen from the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar, patens,
cylinders and goblets of gold and silver and handed over to the priest of Judah by Cyrus
(Koresh), Ezra made a detailed count, cited it, and gave the total:
five thousand four hundred objects (Ezra, I, 9-11). If we redo the calculation,
we find that 1,000 + 29 + 30 + 410 + 1,000 = 2,469.
Such a recurrence of arithmetic errors throughout the Old
The testament can only leave one perplexed.

85. The Praise of Xenophobia

In the Book of Nehemiah, we find the contradiction mentioned above.

34) on the attitude dictated by the Lord towards the foreigner. For
memory, Yahweh had commanded Moses: "You shall not oppress the foreigner,
for you know what the condition of the foreigner is, since you have been a foreigner in
Egypt" (Ex., XXIII, 9), a command already given in Ex., XXII, 20 and
renewed in Lev., XIX, 33-34, but contradicted later, during the interview where
The Tablets of the Law are engraved anew: "Here I am, I expel to-
before you the Ammonite, the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivvite and the
Jebusite." And he commanded him: "You will demolish their altars, you will break
their statues, you will knock down their sacred poles" (XXXIV, 11 and 13).
In the face of contradiction, three times, Nehemiah resolutely takes the
origin of xenophobia: "When the people heard the Law, they separated from Israel"
all those who were of foreign descent” (IX, 2). Then again: “Those
who were of Israelite descent separated from all foreigners
Finally: "I made the Jews who had married swear in the name of God
women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab […]: we will not marry our
daughters to their sons and we will not take any of their daughters in marriage for
"Our sons or for us" (XIII, 25-27).
The initial divine command to Moses had thus been forgotten.
 XII. THE BOOK OF ESTHER

This book is sometimes presented by commentators as a narrative.

authentic autobiographical and thus historical; however, it would not be
no, according to many experts. Even if there are some data there.
verifiable histories, it is a moral novel that is included in the Bible in
reason for his teaching... and although, a remarkable singularity, it does not contain
Not once the name of God. The theme is worthy of a tragedy or a
opera: the Persian king Ahasuerus (one of Xerxes?), who has just repudiated his
rebellious wife Vashthi, seeks a worthy chosen one for him. He distinguishes for his
beauty a young girl whose origin he does not know: she is the ward of
Mordecai, notable of the tribe of Benjamin deported by Nebuchadnezzar to
Babylon; it is Esther. A conflict breaks out between the king's vizier, Haman, and
Mordecai, who refuses to bow down before him. Haman decides to hang.
Mordecai and to exterminate all the Jews present in the empire. During a
feast, Esther reveals her origin to the king and warns him about Haman's plan. The king
is outraged: the Jews will be spared and it is Haman who will be hanged. Esther has
thus able to save his own thanks to the love of Ahasuerus. This heroic character
inspired Racine and became popular; but historically, there is no trace.
of a 'Queen Esther' whose name seems to be Ishtar, Babylonian goddess
of spring and love.
This is clearly a work of literary fiction.

The Book of Esther radically undermines the xenophobia taught by

Nehemiah
The character of the pagan Ahasuerus asserts itself through his generosity and his
kindness towards the Jews. He would even have, implausibility
delirious, left 'to kill seventy-five thousand of those who hated them'.
One can hardly imagine a king allowing his subjects to be massacred.
to please a foreign people.
 But the story is sprinkled with other exaggerations and implausibilities: in
In IX, 12, the Jews massacre five hundred enemies at Susa, and in IX, 15, they ...
one hundred and three hundred others. Strangely, Ahasuerus would have complied with their wish to
to have the ten sons of Haman executed (IX, 14-26), even though they were already
hanging from the gallows (IX, 8-9).
By hammering in too many nails, we risk driving them through.
 XIII. BOOKS OF THE MACCABEES (i, ii)

These two Books, which are not part of the Jewish canon (there is one that exists
third, apocryphal), present an essential historical interest to the
understanding of the history of Judaism: they indeed describe an episode
major conflict with Hellenism since the conquest of Alexander and
the establishment of the Seleucid rulers. The period they cover will
approximately from 175 to 100 BC. They therefore tell a story
religious through political events and their tone is that of
Prophets of the Old Testament: the trials of the Jewish people were caused
through his sins, and his victories, through his faith and divine assistance.
The two Books contradict each other on several historical points, due to
that part of the text is dated according to the Judeo-Babylonian calendar, and
the other according to the Macedonian. The fact that the version that has reached us
is in Greek, whereas the original text, lost, was in Hebrew, does not
certainly did not contribute to harmonizing this story of the struggle of the three sons of
Matthias, the Maccabee brothers, Judas, Jonathan, and Simon.
The text is valuable for two other reasons. The first is its
identity vehemence, which illustrates the history of religious fanaticism, and which
awakens many echoes, more than twenty centuries later. The second is its
carelessness of reality, typical of many authors of the time. It reads
as well as Jews who had adopted paganism 'referred to the foreskins'
enigmatic and in any case complicated operation that no surgeon
contemporary could not envision (I Macc., I, 15). Elsewhere, it is written that Judas
Maccabee succeeded with "a handful of men" in killing "eight hundred".
"men" of the army of the Syrian general Seron (1 Macc., III, 16-25). Then he
filled with the blood of its victims a pond "two stadia wide" (360
meters), kills thirty thousand in battle, then slaughters twenty-five thousand men of
his enemy Timothée (II Macc., XII, 16-26).
Certainly, the main hero of the Book, Judas Maccabeus, deserves it
the epic enthusiasm of the editor: a shrewd war leader, he managed to put
failed the troops of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who had, in 168 BC,
ordered a major sacrilege: the celebration of pagan religious sacrifices
in the Temple. Fanaticism, indeed, was shared in both camps, and
this Seleucid king had decided to forcibly hellenize the populations on
over which he reigned. It was unfortunate for him: in 164, Judas Maccabee regained the
control of Jerusalem and reinstates the exclusive Jewish worship in the Temple.
But the extravagant fabrications hardly serve the author's purpose.
One of the most prodigious episodes is undoubtedly the hero's suicide.
Razis, who plunged a sword into his body, threw himself from the top of a wall,
it rises all dripping with blood and, despite very painful wounds,
"ran through the crowd" and "tore out his entrails and, taking them"
"two hands, he projected them onto the crowd" (II Macc., XIV, 41-46).
The author concludes the second Book: 'It is the art of arranging the narrative that
charms the understanding of those who read the book. It is therefore here that I
I will put an end.
 XIV. THE BOOK OF JOB

This Book that the Christian Bible places at the top of the poetic Works and
sapiential and which the Hebrew Bible classifies among the Writings, distinct from the
Law and the Prophets appears to have been written mostly around
450 BC. The fundamental theme is known: it is that of a faith
heroic, that of a man who, although he has lost all his possessions and all his
children and that he is afflicted with a painful and hideous illness, remains intact
his allegiance to God. The theme can be summed up in the famous verse:
The Lord gave, the Lord has taken away; blessed be His name.
However, it is the Book that, of all the Old Testament, poses the most
clearly the most important theological question, that of the relationships of
God and Satan and, as a last resort, the following question: Is God
infinitely good or infinitely powerful?

Satan is present in heaven

This assertion, which for many contemporary believers who do not have
The Bible, appearing blasphemous and absurd, does appear at the beginning.
from the Book: 'The day came when the members of the heavenly court took their '
places in the presence of the Lord and Satan was among them" (I, 6). Satan has therefore,
like the other angels, access to heaven.
It is undoubtedly the most important contradiction one can have.
found in the Old Testament. It opposes the entire New Testament,
where Satan is the Enemy and cannot manifest in heaven without being cast down
in hell by legions of furious angels. Would he have disguised himself? No, he
is there with the consent of God, for "the Lord asked him where he had
summer: 'Traversing the earth, he said, from one end to the other.'
The appearance of Satan at the heavenly court is already perplexing. But the tone of
the exchange between God and Satan in a sapiential work, that is to say
dispenser of wisdom can only suspend judgment: none
antagonism between God and the one who is named the Adversary. And it is noted
that divine omniscience is challenged: God does not know where Satan has been.
God asks Satan if he has any designs on Job, an incomparable man.
earth, for always fearing God – here named Elohim – and turning away from evil.
To which Satan replies that it is not surprising, for God has filled this
servant of his blessings and material goods. "But touch his possessions
and he will curse you to your face." God then takes up the challenge that Satan throws at him:
Let it be so. Everything he has is in your hands. But do not touch
not in his life." Satan then goes to work: the three-headed monsters
heads, destroy Job's herds and kill his sons; but Job's faith does not
Don't hesitate.
Satan reappears in heaven and the description of the interview between him and God
restate word for word the terms of chapter I. God praises Job again.
Satan throws him a new challenge: "Touch his bones and his flesh and you will see if he
he will not curse you to your face." God takes up the challenge again: "So be it
thus. It is in your hands, but spare his life." Satan then afflicts Job
of abominable ulcers that disfigure him and make him suffer atrociously. But
once again, the believer's faith triumphs and Job does not waver: he
will only allow to lament.
Clearly, the story of Job is a fable and that is the reason for
which the Hebrew Bible cautiously places among the Writings without
doctrinal authority; tradition includes it in the Bible, and the praises of
biblists maintain it on its poetic power. Perhaps, but it is not
here is a personal opinion, would it be appropriate to warn the reader that he
it is a strictly literary work, like the Odyssey or the Epic of
Gilgamesh, and that the authority of the text of wisdom cannot be granted to him: the
God's conversations with Satan face to face and the three wagers involved
the fate of a mortal, like in a gambling house, defies the three religions of the Book.
The Book of Job is imbued with too many elements from Canaanite religions.
to avoid causing distress. Besides the jasmines, one can also find there for the
first time the Leviathan, Phoenician myth (III, 8 and XL, 25) and the Behemoth,
the Beast identified as the Demon (XL, 15) and inspired by the hippopotamus.
*

The Book of Job could be considered an exception in this regard,

except that the idea of a spirit of Evil or temptation has already been mentioned in
several instances in the previous books:
 – in Genesis (XXII, 1), Yahweh himself leads Abraham into
temptation
In Exodus (XVI, 8-10), the mysterious spirit Azazel appears, to whom is
sacrificed the scapegoat and who is never mentioned again in the Old
Testament. It is an entity that, by the order of Yahweh himself, has rights
to a sacrifice of equal importance to that which he prescribes for himself
and 42); he therefore recognizes it as an equal power;
In I Sam. XVI, 14, it is written that, "from time to time, an evil spirit"
the spirit of Yahweh suddenly came upon Saul." Yahweh will also send a
evil spirit upon David (II Sam. XXIX, 1). How can the Lord...
send bad spirits to those he holds accountable for a mistake? The
maleficent possession by the divine spirit is not accepted by any of the religions.
from the Book: it is a formal contradiction.
However, contradictory texts abound:
In his anger against Israel, God leads David into temptation (II Sam.,
XXIV, 1), whereas in I Chr., XXI, 1, it is stated that it was Satan who tempted
David. This raises the question of the role of Satan: is he the enemy or the servant?
of God?
"A spirit presented itself before the Lord and said:"
I will try it.
spirit of deceit in the mouths of all his prophets.” “You will therefore deceive him,
said the Lord, and you will succeed. Go and seduce him.” So you see how the
The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all your prophets, because
that he has decreed a disaster for you." Here we see the Lord encouraging
The Spirit of Deception to mislead Ahab, a king who displeases him.
And this is not there, in the minds of the writers of the Old Testament,
isolated cases, but a common tactic of God. One can find one
additional demonstration at Isaiah, about the princes of Zoan, "of
idiots, and princes of Noph, "fools": "The Lord has infused in them
"a spirit that distorts judgment" (Isaiah, XIX, 13-14). Three times Jeremiah
reproach to the Lord for having lied: "Oh Lord, you have surely deceived these
people and Jerusalem saying: "You will have peace," while the sword is over
our gorges" (IV, 10). "O Lord, [...] you are like a stream to which one
cannot be trusted" (XV, 18). "O Lord, you have deceived me and I have
"was your dupe" (X, 7).
Isaiah openly accuses the Lord of being a liar.
The Lord would thus combine His power with that of evil spirits to
to execute his designs; he would therefore be equal to Satan. This is not the case either
the teaching of the three religions of the Book: there lie contradictions
fundamentals, which no commentators have ever resolved. Unless
the revealed religions do not adhere to the Buddhist and Mazdean principles of
division of the world by the opposing forces of good and evil, these verses
are heretics.
And the solution certainly does not lie in the theme of sharing the world in
which Yahweh would be one of the gods of the world (Deut., XXXII, 8-10, 49).
 XV. THE PROVERBS

This collection of three thousand maxims traditionally attributed to Solomon.

seems to have been composed at very different times and shaped
after the return from Exile, around the middlee of the 5th century BC; as he
contains many borrowings from the texts of neighboring cultures, from
From the Euphrates to the Nile Valley, it represents rather a treasure of wisdom.
popular Eastern of the time. His repeated calls to the veneration of the Lord,
to uprightness, to labor, to domestic virtues and to prudence do not include
no revelations and therefore no contradictions with the rest of the Bible. This
Book only appears here for two singularities.

88. Physical punishment, principle of education

The insistence of Proverbs on this point is evident, as much as

disconcerting: there are six that thus advise parents to give a beating to
children :
He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent.
to correct it » (XIII, 24).
Chasten your son while there is hope, and do not let your heart
spare him because of his tears” (XIX, 18).
The blows that hurt drive away evil; they cleanse the most
profound" (XX, 30).
Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of
"discipline will drive it away" (XX, 15).
Spare not the rod for the child, for if you strike him, he will not die.
You will beat him with the stick and you will deliver his soul from hell.
14).
The rod and the reprimand impart wisdom, but a child left to himself...
even worth the shame to his mother (XXIX, 15).
The danger of such assertions is that inscribed in the Bible, they would take on
the authority of a fundamental principle. We will let modern educators
appreciate the interest of beatings that injure... It should be noted that the
resort to the stick is also recommended for servants: "Words do not
is not enough to discipline the servant, for although he understands them, he does not
don't pay attention
So it was necessary to beat the servant too. After all, it was necessary
to beat all the people subject to authority. Perhaps the idea of wisdom has
evolved. One must congratulate that the thrashing had already been replaced by
precept from Deuteronomy advising to stone stubborn and rebellious children!
(Deut., XXI, 18-21).
However, this would be a Book of wisdom.

Is it permissible or not to consume wine?

Besides the episode of Noah's drunkenness, the consumption of beverages

alcoholic beverages are often mentioned in the Old Testament and in the
Proverbs like in other Books. Impossible to draw a conclusion from them,
because the contradictions are too numerous.
Wine is a mocker, strong drinks are raging.
"Whoever allows themselves to be deceived is not wise," warns Proverbs.
(XX, 1). And again: "Who is in the trial? Who has remorse? To
Who has the quarrels and anxiety? Who is getting hit without knowing why?
Who then has bloodshot eyes? Those who linger over their wine, those
who are always trying some new spiced liquor. Don't gulp the wine, the
red wine and strong, when it sparkles in the glass. In the end, it bites like a
serpent and sting like a viper. Then your eyes see things
strange, your judgment and your word become blurred" (XXIII, 29-33). Yet,
further on, the same author advises: 'Give a strong drink to him who is
near to perish, and wine for the one with a heavy heart. Let him drink and forget.
his poverty, that he no longer remembers his misery
The Psalms also do not allow one to form an opinion. The
The psalmist reproaches the Lord: "You have inflicted many upon your people
sufferings; you have given us wine that makes us stagger" (LX, 3). What does not
does not prevent him from celebrating further "the wine that gladdens a man's heart"
(CIV, 15).
In his diatribes against the priests and the prophets, Isaiah them
accusation of having "the heavy breath of alcohol", of being lost in wine and of
stagger under the influence of strong drinks (Is., XVIII, 17). He will say more, however.
On this mountain, the Lord of Hosts will provide for all the
peoples a rich feast, a feast of wine” (XXV, 6).
It is accepted that one will not seek in the Old Testament a manual.
of hygiene, but even on a subject as basic as consumption
of alcohol, it is often contradictory.
Although many of them are tasty, some Proverbs do not
seem to convey that popular wisdom, like this one: 'It is a'
a calamity for a father than a foolish son, a gargoyle that does not cease to
to let the quarrels of a woman flow" (XIX, 13); or again: "Better to
to live in a desert only with a quarrelsome and melancholy woman
the fear of
Yahweh leads to life; we have lived and covered without fearing misfortune.
(XIX, 23). How many pious people have not experienced adversity! And one
would believe reading an ironic eulogy of media celebrity and favoritism
In the following proverb: 'Reputation outweighs wealth,'
and the favor, on gold and silver.
 XVI. ISAIAH AND JEREMIAH

Placed at the head of the Books of the Prophets, Isaiah, who lived towards the end of
Thee 8th century before our era was already one of the most famous Prophets.
of Israel; time has not dulled his visionary flame in the description of
disasters reserved for the infidels. At the beginning of the Christian era, apostles and
apologists revived his glory, assuring that he would have predicted the birth
of Christ. These last prophecies will be analyzed in the second part,
dedicated to the New Testament, in relation to the apostolic interpretations.
The purpose of these pages is the entirety of his previous prophecies.
Composed in the following century from very diverse elements, including long
dictations to the prophet Baruch, the Book of Jeremiah appears immediately
after that of Isaiah in all editions of the Bible, and this for two reasons
predominant: its wealth of data on the very character of this great
prophet, who played a historical role during the dramatic days of the siege
from Jerusalem (December 589 BC) by Nebuchadnezzar, then his images
often moving about the resistance of Judaism to the powers and the
surrounding religions of the Fertile Crescent. Clearly having not made
the subject of a revision, it has a significant number of gaps and
contradictions raised over the centuries, but known mainly by the
biblists.

90. Isaiah: ten prophecies all historically false

The influence of a prophet in his time and in the subsequent centuries does not
does not care so much about the accuracy of his predictions as about his eloquence and the
height of his views; those of Isaiah stand out to this day. A prophet
is however not a fortune teller, even if he presents himself as the bearer of the
the voice of the Lord, and the announcements of Isaiah some twenty-eight centuries ago do not
have never happened.
In VII, 1-8, it is written: 'In the days of Ahaz, king of Judah, Rezin, the king
d'Aram [Syria], and Pekah, son of Remaliah, king of Israel, came to Jerusalem
to wage war against him, but they could not engage in battle [...]. The
The Lord said to Isaiah: 'Go see Ahaz [...] and tell him: be on your guard, stay
calm, do not be afraid or distressed.” [They have plans to invade
Juda] The Lord has said: 'This will not happen now or ever.'
Now, it is written in II Chr., 5-6: 'The Lord delivered [Ahaz] into the hands of the king.'
d'Aram, and they crushed him [...] and he delivered him into the hands of the king of Israel who
they crushed them in great massacres. For Pekah [...] killed one hundred twenty in Judah
a thousand men in one day." The contradiction is glaring and the prophecy
is false.
The stars of the sky and of its constellation will no longer shine with their
light, the sun will be darkened in its course and the moon will refuse to shine
(XIII, 10). This has never happened, but the prophet continues later:
The sun will no longer be your light by day, and the moon will no longer give you.
his light. […] The sun will no longer set and the moon will no longer withdraw.
These would be the signs of a immobilization of the solar system.
who, if it had occurred, would have excluded that the words of the prophet are to us
upstarts.
The title of city will be withdrawn from Damascus […] and it will be nothing but a heap of
ruins" (XVII, 1). Despite the damage inflicted during the recent
events, Damascus, one of the oldest cities in the world, is still
standing and has never experienced the described disaster.
Five cities in the land of Egypt will speak the language of Canaan, will swear
by the Lord of Hosts" (XIX, 18). To this day, there has been no city
from Egypt where Hebrew was spoken... and even less five.
Thus the king of Assyria will take the Egyptians captive and the
Ethiopian captives, the young and the old, naked and barefoot, with their buttocks
"discoveries to the shame of Egypt" (XX, 4). No king of Assyria has ever
brought neither Egyptians nor Ethiopians captive, and Assyria having disappeared, this
does not risk occurring.
The light of the moon will be like that of the sun and the light of the sun
it will be sevenfold, like the light of seven days" (XXX, 26). This neither
has never happened.
The fishermen will mourn and lament, all those who fish in
the Nile, like all those who cast their nets upon the water" (IX, 8). This disaster
would be consecutive to a drying up of the river; it has never taken place.
The rivers of Edom will turn to tar and its soil will turn into
sulfur. Night and day the land will be thirsty and smoke will rise from it forever.
From generation to generation, it will be regrettable and no one will ever pass by it.
plus, forever and ever" (XXXIV, 8-10). The prophet's vehemence
can certainly be explained by the behavior of this brother enemy country of Israel, which
e the 9th century and whose raiders,
liberates itself from its guardianship around the middle of
protected by the troops of Nebuchadnezzar, even attacked Jerusalem.
But the allegorical exaggeration makes the prediction remain false: the country
Edom, to the south of the Dead Sea and today in Jordan, has been inhabited since
centuries and never turned into a sulfur mine.
The most perplexing prophecies of Isaiah are found at the end of his Book.
The Lord declares there: "I will create new heavens and a new earth,
and the previous things will be forgotten. […] There will no longer be a child who
will die in early age. […] Each boy will live his hundred years before dying,
He who lives less than a hundred will be despised. […] The wolf and the lamb will graze.
together, the lion will eat grass like the bull and the dust will be there.
"snake meat" (LXV, 17, 20 and 25).

91. According to Jeremiah, God rejects the prophets.

In the incalculable mass of curses and vehement threats that, by

the mouth of Jeremiah, the Lord would have rained down on Jerusalem and Judah,
There is a long and harsh denunciation of... prophets!
I have heard what the prophets say, the prophets who proclaim ...
lies in my name and shout: "I had a dream, a dream!" How many of
how long will it take for them to change their refrain, those prophets who
prophesy lies and give life to their own inventions!
These men believe that, through the dreams they tell each other,
they will make my name forgotten as their fathers forgot my name for that one
from Baal! If a prophet has a dream, let him tell his dream; if he has heard my
words, let him say it in truth. What is the relationship between the straw and the grain? [...] I
I am against the prophets, says the Lord, who steal my words from one another.
others for their own use and then say: “These are his words
"veritable." I am against the prophets, says the Lord, who dream of
lies and resell them, misleading my people with wild falsehoods
and irresponsible" (Jer., XXIII, 25-32).
No one else has pushed the invective so far, associating the priests with
prophets in the anathema: 'A bewildering thing, an outrage has appeared'
in this country: the prophets prophesy lies and the priests are
their accomplices, and my people love it to be this way. What will your fate be at
the end of it all?" (Jer., V, 30-31). The contradiction is evident in this
If Jeremiah spoke true, the prophets should have been banished from the Old.
Testament. If he lied, he should have been banned himself. But he did not.
add: 'The priest and the prophet are suspicious; even in my house, I have'
recognized their wickedness
Even more disconcerting are the echoes of this rejection of the prophets that resound
other texts of prophets: "I will make the prophets and the unclean spirits
may be driven out of the country," cries the Lord according to Zechariah (XIII, 2). "The
the prophet is an idiot, the man possessed by the spirit is a fool," he added.
Hosea (IX, 7). "Thus spoke the Lord concerning the prophets who
"leading my people astray," claims Micah (III, 5).
Isaiah himself is even more vehement: "The priest and the prophet have
the heavy breath of alcohol, they are lost by the wine, they stagger under the effect of the
strong drinks; their vision is blurred, they stumble in their judgments
One cannot be more amiable towards colleagues.
Why then do the prophets appear in the Old Testament, if
Is it not by virtue of their foresight?

92. A prediction by Yahweh denied...

Jeremiah is no exception in the field of false prophecies. By

for example, he writes about Jehoiakim, the unworthy son of Josiah, king of Judah:
Thus speaks Yahweh [...] : for him there will be no lamentations. [...] He will be
buried like one buries a donkey! It will be dragged and thrown far from the gates of
Jerusalem!" (Jer., XXII, 18-19). He returns to it later, after Jehoiakim.
succeeded his father: "Thus says Yahweh against Jehoiaquim king of Judah. He
there will no longer be anyone to sit on the throne of David, and his corpse will be
exposed to the heat of the day and the cold of the night" (Jer., XXXVI, 30). This is not
apparently not what happened, because according to the second Book of Kings,
"Jehoiaquim lay down with his fathers," and his son also called
Jehoiachin succeeded him (II Kings, XXIV, 6).

93. ... and Babylon had not disappeared

Three times, Jérémie overwhelms Babylon with his curses: "You

[Babylon] will be desolate forever, said the Lord" (LI, 26). "Nothing will come of it
there will be neither men nor beasts, it will be desolate forever" (LI, 62). And
Thus Babylon will sink, and it will not rise again from the disaster that
I will strike her down" (LI, 64).
Very unfinished prophecy: if it is true that after its conquest by Xerxes, its
walls were torn down and that after Alexander's death a large part
of the population was relocated to Seleucia, in 275 BC, the old city, however,
was still inhabited and, in thee century B.C., people were still making
sacrifices in its temples. It was never deserted as understood.
Jérémie.
He was not immune to his own mistakes.

94. The contradiction between the Lamentations and the Psalms on the goodness of
God

In Lamentations, traditionally attributed to Jeremiah,

one of the clearest contradictions between the two representations that
dominant the Old Testament, that of the vengeful God and that of the good God,
considered by some as pre-Christian. In the Lamentations, in
Indeed, the prophet claims that the Lord 'can punish cruelly, but [that he]'
aura of compassion in the fullness of its love; it does not afflict
voluntarily nor punishes any mortal" (Lam., 32-33). The whole of
the poem is moreover antinomic to other images of the Lord, such as
the one of the "God of vengeance" from the Psalms (LXXXIV, 1), or that of
the announcement of the prophet Elijah to King Joram, stating that the Lord 'will strike
heavily upon your people, your children, your women" (II Chr., XXI, 14).
But if it had to be admitted that Satan was tolerated in heaven, it was difficult to
propose a plausible system of Good and Evil.
 XVII. THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL

Third of the Major Prophets of the Old Testament, Ezekiel shares

with them the vehement anger caused by the fall of the kingdom of Judah and the
capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, after the Babylonian victory
against Pharaoh Necho in 605 B.C.; he exclusively attributes the
disaster of defeat and deportation to the faults of the Jews who have
detached from their God and sanctioned by torrents of curses
divine. It differs from Isaiah and Jeremiah by the ardent hope of redemption and
the mystical intensity, properly visionary, even hallucinatory, which makes of
he the great forerunner of authors of apocalypses.
Gripping by its passionate force, widely celebrated outside the framework
religious, Ezekiel is undoubtedly the one who best reflects the anguish of a
people victim of history. Barely constituted, indeed, the kingdom of David
is threatened not only by its divisions, but even more by the
conquerors from the east, then from the north, eager to seize Egypt and
their riches. Now, Palestine is their mandatory corridor; the ancient
the kingdom of David and Jerusalem will suffer the consequences. After the
Alexander's conquests, twenty-three centuries will pass during which
the unity and past splendor will be nothing but memories. Only religion
remains a guarantor of identity, as the prophets have already proclaimed.
Ezekiel played a major role in the history of Judaism after the Exile; his
vehement calls for a purification of religion have inspired movements
rigorists of the Pharisees and the Essenes and they have ignited hope
messianic of the Nazarenes, among others.
From a modern perspective, Ezekiel poses a problem due to the
description of the specific neurological disorders that he himself describes,
prolonged crises of mutism or stupor, which contribute to its trances.
Their analysis not falling within the scope of these pages, we will limit ourselves to
highlight the specifically hallucinatory nature of the visions he describes in the
beginning of his book that seems to belong to fantastic literature
and not to that which is agreed to be called sapiential. He writes thus: "The
fifth day of the fourth month of the thirtieth year, while I was
among the exiles on the bank of the Kebar River, the heavens were opened and I had
a vision of God. […] I saw a storm coming from the north, a vast cloud
with fiery flashes and a brilliant surrounding light;
the interior was a radiance such that the copper, sparkling at the heart of
flames. In the fire were the appearances of four creatures
living in human forms. Each had four faces and each
four wings; their feet were straight and their hooves split like those
of an ox, shining like bronze discs. Under the wings of each
on each of the four sides were human hands; the four creatures
had faces and wings and their wings were touching. [...] While I
I looked at the living creatures, I saw wheels on the ground, one near
each of the four. [...] The four creatures had the face of a man and
the face of a lion on the right, on the left the face of an ox and the face of an eagle
1-13).
One has the right to doubt the authorities of any organization
religious women would subscribe to the depiction of such monsters in their buildings
of worship. Some contemporary interpretations have suggested that Ezekiel
would have seen... flying saucers. Not being much of a proponent of so-called literature
New Age, it seems inappropriate to comment on these hypotheses. But it is necessary.
wondering if, in addition to the wine and spirits that Isaiah reproaches for the
Consumption to the prophets, they did not use substances.
hallucinogens. In this case, it would be necessary to remove the Book of Ezekiel from a study.
the contradictions and enigmas of the Bible.
For the exegetes, the text of Ezekiel has undergone the same fate as that of
other Books of the Bible; likely written at the end of the 6the century B.C., it
e
has undergone revisions and interpolations until the 3rd century of our era.
We will limit ourselves to pointing out inaccurate prophecies.

95. The Prophet demonstrates that the divine threats against Tyre have been
ineffective

In XXVI, 17, the Lord announces through the pen of Ezekiel the disasters
incommensurables that Nebuchadnezzar would bring down on this Phoenician port,
Today in Lebanon: "He will pass through the sword's edge your daughters in the
champions. [...] He will set up war machines against your walls and with
his axes, he will fell your towers." And "You, city of Tyre, will never be
reconstructed" (XXVI, 14). And we have only cited glimpses of
destruction promises.
Ezekiel himself admits that the divine threats were in vain;
XXIX, 18-20: "Man, said the Lord [to Ezekiel], Nebuchadnezzar king of
Babylon strongly stimulated its army against Tyre, each head lost its
hair and each shoulder was worn to the bone; yet, neither he nor his
The army had nothing from Tyre." It is confounding: the prophet demonstrates that the
The Lord was mistaken. In fact, this is the truth: in the 21st e century, Tyre has
victoriously supported a thirteen-year siege by Nebuchadnezzar. And she is
still standing.
But what is the point of reporting an unfinished divine prophecy, assuming
that it was ever uttered? It is simply contradictory, and even
seditious.

96. Other unfulfilled prophecies

After the failure of the siege of Tyre, according to Ezekiel, the Lord would have decided to
give Egypt in compensation to Nebuchadnezzar. The idea is bold: the
The Lord would therefore have resigned himself to the double failure of the Babylonian and his
clean prophecy. But why would he offer compensation at best
enemy of his people? The Babylonian is not even one of his loyal followers.
It is indeed what is written: 'I give the land of Egypt to the king of
Babylon and he will seize its riches and strip it bare and plunder it; and this
will be the spoils of his army. I gave him the land of Egypt as a reward.
of his labors" (XXIX, 19-20). One would think we are dreaming: the Lord is concerned about the
balance of the Babylonian armies!
In XXX, 1-26, there is a long series of presumed divine announcements.
apocalyptic disasters that will strike Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya
and Lydia - the reason for the heavenly vengeance against this province is unknown
of Asia Minor which hardly played a role in the fate of the Jews. Their
vehemence evokes delirium: "I am against Pharaoh king of Egypt, I
I will break his two arms, the one that is healthy and the one that is broken, I will make him fall.
the sword of his hands. […] I will give strength to the arms of the king of Babylon.
Men will know that I am the Lord, when I draw my sword
in the hands of the king of Babylon. " In short, and besides, one can wonder
on the interest of breaking a broken arm at Pharaoh, the Egyptians will be
deported around the world, "their rivers" will be dried up, the country will be
burned, Ethiopia, Libya, and Lydia will be devastated... One can read the
delusions of a mad tyrant.
History has served justice on these excesses: even after the victory
Assyrian against Pharaoh Necho, Egypt has never been devastated, the
Egyptians were never deported 'around the world', the 'rivers'
Egypt" - there is only the Nile - have never been drained, the country has
continued to thrive, even under the very provisional Babylonian guardianship;
Ethiopia, Libya, and Lydia have never been devastated.
by the Babylonians, too wise to destroy sources
supply.
It is true that the Lord's speeches had been delivered by prophets.

A message that contradicts the notion of redemption and the mission of Christ

When Ezekiel steps into the realm of eschatology, the words

that they deny radically the notions of redemption and
divine pardon, as well as the redemptive mission of Christ in the New
Testament. He writes, in fact: 'When a righteous man is in error, his
righteousness will not save him. […] When a righteous man sins, all his
previous right cannot save his life. It may be that when I say to
The just man who will save his life will presume upon his righteousness and will fall.
in error; thus none of his virtuous deeds will leave a trace, for he
"he will die for the error he has committed" (XXX, 12-13). One wonders
So: is the God of Ezekiel the same one who was hard on David?
having 'spilled too much blood', although he had reformed, and yet
he promises to secure his throne forever? And once again, why the sons
Should those who have done no wrong pay for the sins of their fathers?
These principles would seem to be mitigated by the additional provisions.
concerning the villain who amends and whose "none of the sins will be
"held against him" (XXX, 16). It would follow that the weight of a life of virtue
and the benefits would be annulled by a single fault and that of a life of
crimes would also be by repentance. It is the fatalistic vision that
The teaching of Jesus will focus on reforming.

98. A geographically absurd anathema

It is the one that Ezekiel, always borrowing the voice of the Lord, launches into.
XXXV, 3-5: "O mountainous country of Seir, I am against you: I will stretch out my hand against you."
I will put my hand on you and turn you into a desolate land. I will reduce your cities to ruins.
And you will be devastated; then you will know that I am the Lord.
The region of Seir, between Horeb and Kadesh-Barnea, was once like
today a region of mountains and, like the deserts of Shur and
Paran has always been uninhabited; it has never had any 'cities', all
at most a few Bedouin encampments in the plains. The height of
contradiction: it is there that Mount Horeb or Sinai would rise, of which the
historians have never determined the exact location, but it is the one where
Yahweh would have appeared to Moses. Otherwise, his historical role is null. Without
doubt Did Ezekiel confuse it with another region? But we struggle to
imagine that the Lord casts the anathema on the region where he appeared to
Moses, thus paving the way for the liberation of his people.
Ultimately, we find ourselves compelled to admit that there was some truth.
in the curses of the prophet Jeremiah against... the prophets. Whatever
Their eloquence, their prophecies did not deserve their name.
 XVIII. THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS

These are Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk,
Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. They are referred to as "minor" in
reason for the reduced volume of their Books. The Hebrew Bible classifies them in the
Later prophets. However, some are ancient, such as Hosea,
contemporary of Isaiah.
The essence of their messages consists of a lamentation, often
virulent, even wild, is the infidelity of Israel, the cause of its misfortunes, and
like in Ezekiel, for example, it is associated with promises of
repentance and renewal. Although they are less mentioned than the Greats
prophets, their value lies in the intensity of the faith they proclaim and
in passionate allegiance to the Lord.
As in other prophetic texts, the excess inspires them.
however unfounded claims and unsustainable prophecies.

99. The inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem were not deported by the
Greeks

What are you to me, Tyre and Sidon and all the regions of Philistia?
You have sold the people of Judah and Jerusalem to the Greeks and you
"you have brought far from their borders" (Joel, III, 4-6). These accusations of
Joël would suggest that there would have been massive deportations.
organized by the armies of Alexander, in a great sack of Philistia,
that is to say from the west bank of the Jordan, including the coast. Now, after the conquest
from Palestine by Alexander, the high priest of Jerusalem remained chief of
the Jewish state, assisted by a council of Elders, as reported by Flavius
Josephus in the Jewish Antiquities. The activities of Tyre and Sidon,
like those of all coastal cities, were reduced and the ports
controlled, but it was so that they could not serve as support for the Persians
who would address it.
 The sun cannot set at noon.

... and the Lord certainly cannot announce it, as he is made to do

Amos in his threats to Israel: 'On that day, says the Lord God, I will do'
the sun sets at noon" (Am., VIII, 9). But the image of the solar system
disturbed by the twists and turns of the history of Israel, drawn from the exploits of
Joshua ( 58), endures among the Prophets as demonstrated also
Joël: "In the Valley of Decision, the sun and the moon are darkened and the
stars cease to shine" (Joel, III, 15).
Hardly troubled by geological wonders, Zechariah prophesies that the Day
of the Lord, "living waters will flow from Jerusalem, half flowing toward the
the eastern sea and the half towards the western sea, summer as winter. So
"The Lord will become king over all the earth" (Zech., XIV, 8-9). The "sea
« East » is undoubtedly the Dead Sea, but one hardly sees how these
Fresh waters would flow in two opposite directions.

101. Jeroboam did not perish by the sword.

Jeroboam will perish by the sword and Israel will be deported far from its land.
prophet Amos (Am., VII, 11). Unfulfilled prophecy like so many
Others: II Kings says that Jeroboam lay down with his fathers and the kings.
from Israel, and his son Zechariah reigned in his place. The biblical phrase "
"to sleep with one's fathers" means that the person died a death
ordinary and not on the battlefield (II Kings, XIV, 29).
The Prophets often took their desires for certainties.
 SECOND PART
THE NEW TESTAMENT
 AN ARBITRARY SELECTION OF TEXTS
Frequent revisions

It was not until thee4th century of our era that the Church of Rome began to
fix the content of the Bible according to the Christian canon (or rule), for some
political as much as religious reasons: indeed, since 380, the
Christianity had become the state religion of the Empire, after the prohibition of the
pagan cults, and it was imperative to submit the teaching to the authority
Romaine. It was necessary to determine the books considered true, thus doctrinal, and
exclude others. The task was difficult because Christian ideology was still
in gestation and the dogma of the divinity of Jesus had only been adopted in 325,
at the Council of Nicea, the first of all. After the expulsion of the priest
Arius Alexandrinus, who denied this divinity, the dogma was developed and established in
451 at the Council of Chalcedon, which proclaimed both the full divinity and
the entire humanity of Jesus. Meanwhile, the Arian schism had still
more divided the Christians, already split since the e12th century by a multitude
of theories about Christ.
These details indicate the intense ideological flourishing of the communities
Christians: each proclaimed the primacy of their foundational texts, the
Gospels, because each had its own. Hence the difficulty for Rome.
to choose the texts she deemed permissible.
This difficulty arose primarily from the multiplicity of languages in
which of the texts of the Old Testament recognized locally as
authentic and others testifying to the life of Jesus or attributed to his
Apostles had been written: Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Arabic,
Georgian, Slavic, (in addition to Latin and/or Greek), that the authorities of Rome
did not have mastery over all. Until then, the Church had read the Old Testament
e 3rd and
in the version of the Septuagint, translated into Greek between the e 2nd centuries BC.

C., for the Jews who no longer spoke Hebrew. And she had read the
subsequent texts (which did not yet carry the name of New
Testament) in Greek or Latin versions.
 Around 380, the future saint Jerome was tasked with harmonizing the texts.
traditional and he made a translation from the Greek manuscripts for
to arrive at a new version of the two sets called Vulgate
(abbreviation of Editio vulgata, "in common language"). It opened there, and without
doubt without his knowledge, research that would last for centuries and into our
days.
But the establishment of the canon, that is to say the closed list of books
doctrinal, posed much more complex problems: for the Churches
From Africa and the East, it was not possible to reject texts venerated by
the local populations; some were actually older than those that
the Church of Rome wanted to impose, hence endless quarrels and
often afterwards. From council to council, canonical lists multiplied
so, and the leaders of the local communities, Cyrille of Jerusalem, Gregory
of Nazianzus, Epiphanius of Salamina, Athanasius of Alexandria and many others
each proposed their own.
The trend was to prefer the texts proposed by the
most important communities. Thus, the Gospel of Mark, written in
partly in Rome and partly in Alexandria, that of Matthew, no doubt
also partially written in Alexandria, that of Luke, probably written at
Antioch, three seats of influential communities, imposed themselves.
great similarities - they all seem to derive from a common source
commune, unknown, nicknamed Q, for Which, "source", by the biblical scholars
Germans – argued for their authenticity. The Gospel of John, written at
Ephesus, in Asia Minor, posed more problems, but still was
classified in the canonical texts.
Thus the list of rejected writings grows. They were called apocryphal, a term for
the non-pejorative origin, meant to signify 'secret', but which took on the meaning of
"false", even "impious" and "heretical" in the mouth of Athanasius.
of Alexandria. At the end of the e4th century, Saint John Chrysostom, of whom it is known
propensity for invective, already characterized the Gospel of the Childhood of Christ
of 'invention of a few liars'. Over the centuries, the proponents of the canon
Romans tried to dismiss the Apocrypha as "popular inventions".
briefly, in a folklore without doctrinal value; they were not always followed.
The volume is unknown to the general public: ten texts
Old Testament and thirty-seven New Testament, including twelve Gospels and
four Apocalypses.
e
After numerous efforts following the Gelasian Decree of the 6th century,
the canon of the Catholic Church was finally adopted at the Council of Trent (1535-
Gathered in synod in Antwerp in 1566, the Protestant Churches took
a neighboring position; preserving the traditional Hebrew Bible, they
they admitted, however, that one could read the Apocrypha, while denying them a
doctrinal value. In the 21ste century, however, several Eastern Churches
had not yet stopped their cannon.
*

The importance of this story for the analysis that is the subject of these pages
is the following: some of the presumed Apocrypha, of which some, such as
the Gospel of Thomas was contemporary with the canonical ones, if not
previous ones had influenced the latter.
The canons themselves were not the original texts; written in
Hebrew in their early versions (it was long believed that this had
were in Aramaic), then translated into Greek, and then again into Latin, they often had
I made significant changes, additions, and deletions, as we will see
in the case of Marc. The copyists of the monasteries complied, in
effect, to the directives of their local superiors.
The manipulation had been known for a long time: as early as 178, the philosopher
Romain Celse, known for the attack he was subjected to by the Father of
The Church Origen in Contra Celsus wrote: "The Christians have reworked
the original text of the Gospels three or four times or more, and they have
"altered in order to refute the criticisms." Origen himself admitted it:
Today, the fact is obvious. There is a lot of diversity in the
manuscripts, either due to the negligence of certain scribes, or due to the boldness
perverse of some to correct the text, or still due to those who
add and subtract at their convenience, acting as correctors. " It is
deduced that the Bible should be read allegorically, but his theory was
condemned by the Church.
Modern exegesis has largely confirmed these suspicions by reconstructing
the history of manuscripts and especially through the linguistic analysis of the texts. But
each language has its own logic and a trained eye easily detects a text
Greek who claims to be original, but has actually been translated from Hebrew, or a
Syriac text translated from Greek. Some of the texts, canonical or apocryphal,
were assembled from fragments of other authors and other eras and
translated incorrectly.
This explains the contradictions noted in these pages; they are not
not the effect of a distortion due to the difference between the time when the text was
written and that in which it is read, nor to critical prejudices: the harmonization and
The unification sought by the Churches has not eliminated all of them.
The alterations already noted by Origen have multiplied, sometimes
aggravated, due to erroneous translations.
*

It appears that the New Testament is a collection of documents

written by humans and due to the revisions made during the
centuries, that they are fallible, marred by often monumental errors,
as will be verified later. The contents have varied according to the time,
beliefs and languages; they still vary today due to
translations, and sometimes styles. While exegetes, linguists and
philologists strive to reconstruct the original texts, some
venture into abusive, even extravagant adaptations. In 1995, a
renowned Anglo-American publisher, the Oxford University Press, published a
edition of the New Testament and the Psalms revised according to the new ones
ideological trends; there was an unexpected version of the Our Father there:
Our Father-Mother who art in heaven, hallowed be your name...
head of the 'Bibles' section - in the plural - explained to justify this
modification, that "some Christians were beginning to find burdensome the
reference to masculinity. The term Father-Mother compels the reader to make a
pause and to think. From now on, he will associate God both with the father and
to the mother.
The alteration of two-millennia-old texts was elaborate: the preface of
the same work advanced that "the fact that Jesus is male or female having
no importance in terms of Christology, regardless of whether he is a son
or a girl." In fact, the word "son" was replaced in the text by
"child." And when it came to circumcision in the text, the authors
circumcision is
taken in its spiritual sense and thus applies to girls. "Dangerous license"
and clear evidence of the ravages of 'political correctness'.
But, even in editions that are more respectful of the texts, we have
report of random alterations; we indicate some of them in the
course of these pages.
Many people who think this way possess a copy of the Bible.
in fact, just a Bible in their hands. Their consolation may be to think
that it has been thus since the origins of this book.
 I. THE GOSPELS

102. Doubly contradictory genealogies

One of the great enigmas of the New Testament is the inclusion of two
the genealogies of Jesus that are contradictory in themselves and among themselves and that,
above all, contradict the dogma of its immaterial conception.
The one offered by the first Gospel, that of Matthew (I, 2-16), does not
corresponds in no way with that offered by the Gospel of Luke (III, 24-
38): Matthew traces Jesus' lineage back to Abraham through his father Joseph.
as 'the husband of Mary', which would implicitly confirm that this
last would be the true father of Jesus. Luke traces Jesus's lineage back to Adam through Seth,
third son of the first couple through Noah; now, Noah, himself,
descended from Cain through Lamech, and not from Seth; the genealogy of Luke is therefore
in itself unsustainable. Moreover, the two evangelists do not agree
not even about Joseph's ancestry: Matthew makes him the son of Jacob, son of
from Matthan, while Luke makes him the son of Matthat, son of Levi. Their only
The common point is the intention to inscribe David among the ancestors of Jesus.
However, the two evangelists extensively recount the story of the conception.
immaterial of Jesus; a genealogy of Joseph, even if coherent, would not have
no interest; the only hypothesis that would explain its inclusion would be the
the willingness to justify the title of "Messiah of the Jews", the messiah, is
say the 'Anointed of the Lord', as indicated by the common reference to David
in both texts: the Messiah was to be necessarily a descendant of
David to access the throne of Israel (which Jesus himself will refute as
we will see it further on). They would therefore indicate that at the time of their
writing, the story of Jesus was for the two evangelists the pinnacle
of the Jewish people and not a break.
The contradiction between a physical genealogy and a birth
immaterial was thus obscured; it was difficult to resolve and moreover
e and e5th centuries, the schisms of the Docetists then of
cause in the Church, in the 2nd
Monophysites on the duality of the nature of Christ.
These genealogies also contained traps that the evangelists
clearly had not been anticipated and slipped through the reviews
successive copyists; they would reveal as many contradictions between
them. Matthew's genealogy lists Jechonias in the lineage of Joseph, "after the
deportation to Babylon" (Mt., I, 12). The evangelist, who often refers to
Prophets did not pay attention to this verse from Jeremiah: 'Thus speaks'
Yahweh; write this man [Jeconiah] down as childless, someone who has not
failed in his time, for none of his kind will succeed in sitting on the throne of
David and to dominate Judah" (Jer., XXII, 30). The descendants of Jeconiah,
thus, by divine decision, excluded from the list of those who
can access the throne.
Besides the already mentioned contradiction, the genealogy of Luke contains a
another trap. It includes 'Nathan, son of David' among the ancestors of Joseph.
(Lc, III, 30); it's a blunder, as the first Book of Chronicles states:
King David announced to the whole congregation: 'Solomon, my son, the only one
"that God has chosen" (I Chr., XXIX, 1). Nathan, the eldest, and his descendants
were therefore excluded from the succession to the throne. This is confirmed by another
passage from the same book: "Of all my sons, for the Lord has given me them.
a lot, he chose Solomon to sit on the throne of the Kingdom of
Lord" (I Chr., XXVIII, 5). The descendants of Nathan, including Jesus,
are therefore excluded by divine decision from the accession to the throne of David.
It follows that all the designations of Jesus as 'son of David',
in the other Gospels like that of Luke, such as that of
the blind man of Jericho (Luke, XVIII, 38) are unfounded.

103. Contradictory versions of the Announcement of the Angel

In religious popular culture, widely disseminated by iconography,

The announcement of the angel to Mary would be the same in the four Gospels. Little
readers and followers know that she is however absent from two of them,
those of Marc and Jean, and that in the other two, the versions differ
up to the contradiction.
At Matthieu: 'Mary his mother [of Jesus] was promised to Joseph; before
their marriage, she realized that she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Being a
a man of principle and at the same time wanting to spare him the scandal,
Joseph wanted to discreetly hide the marriage contract. He had resolved to do so.
when an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. 'Joseph, son of David,
said the angel, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. It is by
the Holy Spirit that she conceived this child. She will give birth to a son and
you will give him the name of Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins
(I, 18-21).
In Luke: "The angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee
called Nazareth, with a message for a young girl promised to a man
named Joseph, a descendant of David; the name of the young girl was Mary.
The angel entered and said to her: 'Rejoice, full of grace, the Lord is with you.'
"me." At these words, she was troubled, and she wondered what this meant.
greeting. And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor
before God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and
you will call him by the name of Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most-
High. The Lord God will give him the throne of David, his father. He will reign over
Jacob's house for the ages and his reign will have no end." But
Mary said to the angel: "How will this be since I do not know...
man?” The angel answered him: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the
the power of the Most High will take you under his shadow. That is why the holy being
who will be born will be called Son of God" (I, 26-35).
At Matthew's, the angel appears to Joseph - in a dream - and at Luke's, to Mary.
At Matthew's, the promised son will save the people of Israel from their sins; he
is therefore part of God's plan according to the Old Testament, that of
final redemption of his people. No mention of sins in Luke: the child
expected to inherit the throne of David. In Matthew, it is Mary who notices
that she is pregnant by the Holy Spirit, but it is unknown how she knows.
Luc, she wonders how she can be pregnant without knowing.
of man.
The two narratives are completely dissimilar.
Incidentally, it is not mentioned how the author of the story or Marie knew.
that it was the angel Gabriel and not Michael or Raphael, since it is not stated
nor has he named himself; even the fables call for a minimum of
logic.
The omission of this episode in Mark and John obviously raises a
problem. Did these two evangelists reject it out of skepticism? Or
because they believed it would be their audiences who would reject it?
Jean, in any case, shows great reserve on the origins of Jesus:
We do not know where this man comes from, but it is true that, when the
The Messiah appears, no one knows where he comes from" (Jn, VII, 27).

104. A riddle: the absence of marriage of Jesus' parents

The Gospels are elusive about the marriage of Joseph and Mary.
At Matthew's, Joseph obeys the angel he saw in a dream: "He took him home.
his wife, and he did not know her until the day she gave birth to a son, and he
He called her Jesus" (Mt., I, 24-25). But until then, she was only his fiancée.
However, there is no mention of a previous marriage.
Marc does not talk about marriage either and does not mention Joseph.
incidentally.
Luc, who extends over the marriage of Elizabeth, the mother of Jean the
Baptiste, do not speak any more about that of Joseph and Mary: "Joseph went to
Judea [...] and with him went Mary, who was engaged to him; she was expecting a
child" (Lk, II, 3-6). It was therefore a marriage of convenience, Mary being
always "engaged".
And Jean obviously does not speak about any of this, since he is silent about it.
the childhood of Jesus.
It must be inferred that, not being married to Marie and not being either
Jesus' biological father, Joseph cannot be called 'father of Jesus'.

The prophecy of the angel will be unfulfilled

The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.
Now, Jesus never occupied this throne, to which he had no right anyway.
102).

106. The perplexing Prologue of the Gospel of John: translations well

unfaithful

This Gospel alone begins with a prologue, the ideological content of which
is radically different from that of the other texts of the New Testament; it
and indeed introduces a Platonic vision of the world that contrasts with the
remainder of evangelical literature.
It was written in Greek, and not in Hebrew or Aramaic. The translations of it
are given in plain language, on the model of the Vulgate, include the
ordinary faults of all foreign language transcriptions, but
also infidelities that obscure its meaning. That of the Jerusalem Bible,
for example, write: "In the beginning was the Word / and the Word was
with God / and the Word was God. / He was in the beginning with God.
Everything was made through him; and without him nothing was made.1of all
In the beginning was the Logos [Word] and the Logos was what connects us to the divine.
and the Logos has always been what is divine in us. / This one has found itself
to be of all origins that which connects us to the divine. / Everything was created by his
intermediate and outside of him nothing has been created of what has been created. " The
The word 'the Logos has always been what is divine in us.'
(phonetically, and the Word was with God) was omitted twice. Now,
this double omission excludes the essential idea in the Greek text of the connection
between divinity and humanity.
Another "infidelity" appears in verse 14. The Jerusalem Bible writes:
"And the Word became flesh / and dwelt among us." The Greek text says:
And the Logos became flesh / and he came to dwell within us-
the same ones," which implies a personal involvement in its arrival and not the
made that he stayed among men. Once again, the idea of the
the participation of the divine in the human has been removed.
It cannot be a coincidence.
However, even in the translation according to the Vulgate, the idea expressed by this
the prologue emerges and imposes itself: it is that of a higher world of light,
the pleroma, which we have not been able to access, because we live in darkness
material of the cosmos and know nothing about it. One recognizes the allegory there.
Platonic human beings in the cave, who see only parts of reality.
shadows on the wall of this one. Now, this is the first appearance of this notion.
in the Bible. Its importance lies in that it sheds light on the texts
Evangelicals of a different light not only from the Old Testament,
but also from the Christian tradition; it announces the phrase of Jesus
in VIII, 23 of the same Gospel: "You are from below, I am from above"
high. You are of this world, I am not of this world.
Isn't that a formal contradiction of the dogma of the Incarnation?
measure to the extent of the question that of the inquiries raised by the
Prologue of John. And one understands the reservations of the ecclesiastical authorities.
to include the Gospel of John in the canonical texts, as reminded in
1903 the theologian Alfred Loisy in The Fourth Gospel. For the
community of Christians who read it or listened to its reading since
for centuries, the abstract language of the evangelist only reflected his knowledge,
but when modern exegesis offered its analyses to the public, a large number
Faithful noticed the conflicts between the teachings of the Church and the texts.
In 1908, Pope Pius X excommunicated Loisy, whatever the status of this abbot.
it is true that he had the impudence to write: 'Jesus announced the coming of the
Kingdom. It was the Church that came.

107. Jesus or Emmanuel? The contradiction of Matthew

The author of this Gospel quotes a verse from Isaiah as the fulfillment
from the conception of Jesus: "Behold, the virgin will conceive and bear a son,
and he will be called Emmanuel," in the version according to the Vulgate (Isaiah 7:14).
He does not quote her correctly, as we will see below.
The young woman in question is Achaz's wife and is not mentioned at all.
as a virgin, which would be improbable, since she is married. And in the
The text of the prophet, Emmanuel, son of Ahaz, is a witness of a flood.
catastrophic for the country, which, in a prophecy, would be a bad omen.
In any case, the two names are distinct and have different meanings, and it
It is also not said that Emmanuel was the Messiah.

Isaiah did not write "virgin", but "young woman"

The erroneous translation of the verse from Isaiah propagated by the Vulgate has caused
abundant critical comments and even an unexpected quarrel that arose
continues to this day. Indeed, Hebraists have pointed out that Isaiah has
used the term almah, which means "young woman," and not betoulah, which
specifically means "virgin." However, when the authors of the Old
Testaments want to designate a virgin in the legal sense of the word, they
unanimously employ the word betulah (Lev., XXI, 3, Deut., XXII, 19 and
XXII, 28, Ez., XLIV, 22). The evidence shows that Isaiah was not referring to
not at all to a future miraculous birth. However, to prove
At their point, late scribes replaced one word with another.
When, in 1952, an edition of the Bible in English, the Revised
Standard Version, rectify the error, it was criticized for having... altered the
text! And she was rejected by the fundamentalists. There is hardly, to our
knowledge, of the publication of the Bible in any language that has followed
their example, under penalty of raising loud cries. Tradition takes precedence over
faithfulness to the texts.
Another error noted by Hebraists in the common translation concerns
on time. The text of Isaiah is: 'Behold, the young woman is with a child,'
She gave birth to a son and they named him Emmanuel. The verb harah
is a perfect that designates a completed action, and not a future.
The secret of the conception of Jesus was undoubtedly well kept, for the texts
The Gospels are abundant in references to Jesus as the son of Joseph: 'Isn't it...
Isn't this Jesus, son of Joseph?" (Jn, VI, 42 and Lc, IV, 22), "Isn't he the son
the carpenter?" (Matt., XIII, 55), "When his parents brought Jesus…"
(Lk, II, 27), "His father and mother marveled..." (Lk, II, 33), "His mother
he said: “my son, [...] your father and I have been searching for you, anxious…”” (Luke, II,
48). This contradicts the fact that Joseph and Mary did not
were married (103).
After the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, eighteen
centuries later, in 1854, no faithful could contest the account anymore
attributed to "the Gospels," but mysteriously omitted by two evangelists.
However, Saint Thomas Aquinas did not see the theological necessity of it.

109. The accounts of the miraculous conception closely resemble those of

those of the god Mithras and the prophet Zoroaster

One cannot fail to note the similarity between the history of the
miraculous conception of Jesus and those, also miraculous, of two
eminent figures of Indo-Iranian religion. About fifteen centuries
Before our era, Mithras, the god of light, had been born from the earth near
from a sacred river, where he appeared carrying a torch. In ethe 6th century BC,
the prophet Zoroaster, founder of the Mazdaism religion, had been conceived,
ensures the legend, by a virgin struck by lightning. The religious reform
the company by Zarathustra reduced the importance of Mithras, but this
does not prevent the worship of this god. Mithraism or Mithriacism, which became
independent religion, developed considerably in the East and in the
Mediterranean basin; transformed into the cult of the sun, Sol invictus, it penetrated
the Roman Empire around 60 BC and deeply influenced it.
The similarity deserves to be highlighted for two reasons. The first
is the Mithraic rite of initiatory ablutions (later transformed into
baptism by Christianity), reserved for men, and that was taken up by the
Essenes and they alone. The second is that the resurrection of Mithras was
celebrated on the day of the winter solstice, around December 24, a tradition that
The Church resumed to celebrate the birth of Jesus.
This was not the only one: that of the basins placed at the entrance of the
Mithraic chapels or Mithraea, for the ablutions of the attendants, was one.
e century, ignoring the borrowing,
other. These basins became the holy water fonts and in the
Tertullian, in his critique of paganism, is outraged that the pagans had
caught the Christians all the way to the holy water fonts.
It is incidentally permissible to observe the resemblance between the names of
mothers of gods and fabulous heroes: Adonis was born of Myrrha, Hermes, of
Maia, Buddha, of Maya, Krishna, of Maritala...

110. Two murky tales of the flight to Egypt: it took place after the
death of Herod the Great and there was no "massacre of the innocents"

Matthew recounts (II, 13-20) that Joseph and Mary would have taken Jesus and
I went to Egypt to escape the 'massacre of the innocents' organized by
Herod the Great - an event for which there is no historical record - and
that, "when Herod had ceased to live, the Angel of the Lord" appeared in
He dreamed of Joseph and ordered him to set out again towards Israel. Now, this
Herod, called the Great, died in 4 B.C., which calls into question everything
Gregorian calendar. At that time, Jesus, who would have been about one year old, would be
born in 5 or 6 before himself.
Then, "learning that Archelaus reigned over Judea instead of Herod
his father, he [Joseph] feared to go there; warned in a dream, he withdrew into
the region of Galilee and came to dwell in a city called Nazareth
II, 22-23). With or without a dream, he could not, however, ignore that Galilee
was conferred together with Perea by Emperor Augustus to the
Tetrarch Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, the very one that Jesus
would later qualify as 'fox' (Luke 13:32). Joseph had no less than
reasons to fear one Herod more than the other. It was indeed this Herod who,
according to the New Testament, would execute John the Baptist (another episode
doubtful) and it was still to him that Jesus would be sent by the Sanhedrin to
to be judged (also a dubious episode).
Archelaus had been ethnarch of Judea, Samaria, and since 4 BC.
of Iturée, and the real reason for Joseph's flight to Egypt, if it took place,
seems to have been, in 3 BC, therefore after the death of Herod the Great,
the massacre of around three thousand Jews, mainly Pharisees,
outraged by Archelaus's violations of the Mosaic law.
The flight to Egypt would therefore take place after the death of Herod the Great and not
under her reign. Perhaps it did not take place at all. One element, certainly
minor but striking, it gives one to think; these are the words that he addresses to him
his objectors: "You are not fifty years old and you have seen Abraham!" (John, VIII,
These are rather words addressed to a mature man, close to the
fifty. Jesus would have been born before 10 BC, and in that case
only, he would have been born, in fact, under the reign of Herod the Great2.

Confusions about Nazareth, Nazoreans and Nazarenes: the invention of

Nazareth

Astonishing discrepancies prevail regarding the place where Joseph would have lived.
Mary and where Jesus would have spent his childhood.
According to Matthew, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, in Judea (Mt., II, 1). Then Joseph,
having withdrawn to Galilee, "came to settle in a city called Nazareth, in order to
that the oracle of the prophets might be fulfilled: 'He will be called a Nazarene' (Mt., II,
23). However, there is no oracle of this kind among the Prophets: it is one
references to the Scriptures distorted from their meaning that abound in the
New Testament, as will be seen later, is a fabrication of
the evangelist.
Luke writes that 'the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of'
Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man by the name of
Joseph » (Luke, I, 26).
For Mark, Jesus came from Nazareth (Mk 1:9).
And John neither speaks of Nazareth nor of Bethlehem.
The expression 'came to settle' used by Matthew clearly means that
Joseph, back from Egypt, arrived for the first time in Nazareth, when
that, if we are to believe Luke, Joseph must have known this place and was not acting
to go back there. Wasn't it from there that he went to Bethlehem where he was born
Jesus? We would still need to know where that place was.
The locality, certainly not a city, is unknown from the Old Testament, which
confirm the imaginary nature of Matthew's 'oracle'. Flavius Josephus,
the history of er e centuries of our era and one of the richest sources
the 11th
does not mention anything about ancient Palestine either. One cannot
to be surprised: Lower Galilee, the southern region of Galilee, was then poor in
communication routes and not conducive to the establishment of populations. The
the oldest traces of occupation found by modern archaeology do not
are not earlier than the year 40 BC.3It is the later fame of the place
who created a housing center, today a modern city.
 The site that is now called El Nasira, on the slope of a hill of
Galilee, at the exit of the Jezreel Valley, cannot be however the
Nazareth does not speak Luke (IV, 16-30), because it was located on a mountain:
It was from the top of this that the followers threatened to throw Jesus down when
he would have told them that he would not perform miracles, due to their
incredulity. However, this location, which was called in the Middle Ages the 'Leap of the
Lord is located two kilometers from the current El Nasira.
Even more confusing is the question of the names Nazarene, Nazarene and
Nazarene who sprinkle the Gospels. For example, Mark writes 'Jesus the
Nazarene" (X, 47), in Greek nazarenos, while Luke (XVIII, 37) and
Matthew (XXVI, 71) writes "Jesus the Nazarene", in Greek nazoraios.
Nazarene, the phrase that Pilate had inscribed on the sign of the cross.
How can there be two different words to designate the same notion,
namely 'of Nazareth'? If the name derives from the name of the locality, the
formenasoraios is not plausible.
According to an ancient hypothesis, the word 'nazoraios' would derive from the Aramaic word.
nasorayya, which designated a primitive sect of dissident Christians, known as the
Mandeans or Sabeans, or also 'Christians of John the Baptist', because it
considered him as her prophet and that she performed her ablutions
initiatives in the Jordan. Possibly identifying these with disciples.
of Jesus, the Gospel writers might have confused the two terms, this
which hardly adds to the clarity of their texts.
*

The key to these confusions lies in the announcement – and not an oracle –
from an angel to Samson's mother, who was barren: 'Behold [...] you will conceive and
You are expecting a son. And now, take good care, do not drink either wine or liquid.
fermented and eat nothing impure, for you will conceive and give birth to a son.
The razor shall not pass on his head, for this boy will be a Nazarite of God from birth.
the breast, and it is he who will begin to deliver Israel from the Philistines." (Judges,
XIII, 3-5 and 7). Nazareth has nothing to do with the matter, because Manoah, the father of
Samson lives in Sorea, about twenty kilometers northwest of
Jerusalem. A Nazarene, the Book of Numbers informs us, is a man
dedicated to God, who abstains in particular from wine and vinegar and does not
never cut the hair (Nb., VI, 1-21). This, incidentally, explains the
famous hair of Samson. It is unknown what happened to that of Jesus,
but we have a clue that his relatives did not recognize him
after the disappearance of the tomb (167 and 169)
Jesus, having dedicated himself to God, was therefore called a Nazarene. The authors of
The Gospels apparently had not read Judges or Numbers and made it
the son of an inhabitant of Nazareth. To be brief, they believed that, because
Jesus was called a Nazarene, he came from a place that would be called Nazareth.
Thus this place was invented, as were the references to this town, and in
particularly the phrase from Matthew, "that the oracle may be fulfilled of
prophets: he will be called Nazarene.
What was the town where Jesus spent his childhood?
Cross-checks allowed a researcher, Gys-Devic 4, to conclude that it was
Gamala, Josephus Flavius wrote: "Turned towards the south, it had of this
side for acropolis a very high mountain; below a precipice [...]
dipped into a valley of extreme depth.
at the site where the faithful tried to throw Jesus into the void. It is located on the
eastern shore of the Sea of Tiberias, below Gergesa.

112. Total confusion about the birthplace: there were two Bethlehems

For the Christian tradition, based on the Gospels, Jesus was born in
Bethlehem, where Joseph and Mary stopped, then close to the delivery, to
to be counted. And there would obviously be only one Bethlehem. Thus
explains the misconstrued quotation of Micah by Matthew and the announcement of the
birth to shepherds by an angel in Luke: "Today a child is born to you a
Savior, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David
Now, there are two Bethlehems: one is Bethlehem Ephrath, which tradition
it designates, in fact, as the City of David, and the other, strangely
unknown, Bethlehem in short. The first is located in Judea, at a
fifteen kilometers southwest of Jerusalem, and the second in the Lowland
Galilee, about ten kilometers northwest of the current
Nazareth, in the ancient territory of Zebulun referred to by Isaiah. They are
more than 100 kilometers apart as the crow flies, nearly double by the
routes of the time5.
If Joseph had lived in the supposed Nazareth and had wanted to, as
descendant of David, to be registered in Bethlehem Ephrath, is therefore
about 200 kilometers he should have traveled with Marie nearby
to give birth. To do this, he would obviously have tried to join the coastal road,
much more passable than the mountain paths, and he would therefore have passed
through the other Bethlehem. Nazareth did not exist at the time and the probable village
by Joseph being Gamala (108), on the eastern shore of the Sea of Tiberias,
everything suggests that it is in this last one that the pains of
Marie - never mentioned - forced him to stop. Jesus was born
so well in Bethlehem… but not in the City of David announced by
the Angel. Was Matthew aware of the confusion, or was he unaware of it?
geography of Israel? In the quote from Micah, he mentions - inappropriately -
the Bethlehem of David and, in the oracle of Isaiah - city of passage - he evokes the
land of Zebulun.
But the confusion has persisted to this day. This does not exclude
not only the writers of the Gospels in their current form
seem to have misunderstood the geography of Palestine. Thus, Mark writes
After the multiplication of the loaves, Jesus went up into the boat of his
disciples and "came to the region of Dalmanutha." (Mk, VIII, 10). This
the region is unknown and could not be identified with certainty either by
archaeology: it could be Taricheae, on the western shore.

113. Matthew rewrote the Prophets to his liking.

The reader who would try to find in the text the oracle of Micah cited in
Mt., II, 6 would expose itself to a certain perplexity. The evangelist writes as follows:
And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah,
You are by no means the least of the clans of Judah,
for you will produce a leader
who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.

The text of Micah is as follows:

But you (Bethlehem) Ephrathah,
the least of the clans of Judah,
it is from you that I will be born
the one who is to reign over Israel. (Micah 5:1)

Not only did Matthew reverse the attributes of Bethlehem, but he also
has diverted the meaning of the prophecy, for Micah announces a king of Israel, that
Jesus was neither nor claimed to be as the evangelist could not ignore,
since he told the death of Jesus.
Given the respect inspired by the evangelists, the confusion between the two
Bethlehem endures to this day.
The same perplexity will arise if one compares the original of the oracle of Isaiah.
cited in Mt., IV, 15-16 with Matthew's version:
Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,
Coastal road, Land of Transjordan,
Galilee of the nations!
The people who dwelt in darkness have seen a great light;
Upon those who dwelt in the dark region of death, a light has risen.

The original text of Isaiah is:

As the past has humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, the future will glorify the path of
the sea, beyond the Jordan, the district of the nations. The people who walked in darkness have seen a
Great light, upon the inhabitants of the dark land a light has shone. (Is., IX, 1).

This is also the announcement of the one who will ascend the throne of David; this does not
it will therefore not be Jesus, who said: "My kingdom is not of this world." From
In any case, the land of Zebulun and Naphtali is only that of the two tribes.
of what name. The oracle of Isaiah, cited incorrectly and out of context, is in
contradiction with the miraculous birth of Jesus. It is therefore appropriate not to
do not rely on the quotations of the Prophets by the evangelists.

114. The incredible ignorance attributed to the high priests

Matthew recounts that when Herod learned that magi from the East
inquired about the 'king of the Jews' - which Jesus never was - who had just
to be born, he consulted "the chief priests and the scribes of the people" to find out
where he was born. They would have answered him, quoting Isaiah incorrectly (according to Matthew),
that it was in Bethlehem (II, 1-6). It was truly an insult to the
knowledge of the priests and scribes of the people. They could not from a
common agreement ignore the exact text of Isaiah: it was in Ephrath the other
Bethlehem.
As for the massacre of the innocents ordered by Herod, there is no trace of it.
and it is evidently an invention. Flavius Josephus, who dedicated a
large part of the Jewish Antiquities to the life of Herod the Great, and which
does not seem to have carried it in his heart, for he has listed all his crimes, does not
whisper word of this alleged massacre.

115. Were the Apostles twelve or fourteen? And what were the Sixty-
twelve?

Tradition, based on the indications of the canonical Gospels, establishes it

number twelve. A careful reading suggests that the number 12 was
especially symbolic and that the number of the Apostles varied throughout the three
years of Jesus' ministry.
Matthias lists them (X, 1-4): Andrew, Peter (Simon), John, and James of
Zebedee, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James of Alphaeus,
Thaddeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot.
They are found as they are in Mark (III, 13-19 and II, 14), except that
Matthew is called Levi there and that John and James of Zebedee are
nicknamed 'Sons of Thunder' (according to a mistranslation)6).
At Luc (VI, 12-16), Thaddeus is not mentioned and appears
an ignored apostle of Matthew, Mark, and Luke: Judas of James. Riddle:
An Eastern tradition identified him as Thomas.
It is with some surprise that one notes that with Jean, Bartholomé,
Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot are not mentioned and
however, we find an Apostle who is absent from the other three Gospels:
Nathanael (Jn, I, 43-51 and XXI, 2). Another riddle: another tradition
he also identified Bartholomew to Nathaniel.
If we add up the Apostles mentioned by the four canonical Gospels,
we therefore reach fourteen. We could even reach fifteen if we take into account
Lebbée account, mentioned by some ancient manuscripts and in whom it has been believed or
I wanted to recognize Thaddée, then Nathanaël. But three names for the same
Apostle, as supporters of tradition argue, it may be
doubtful. Many hypotheses have been put forward to avoid such a
conflict with tradition, but none has appeared conclusive.
The Acts of the Apostles simplify nothing; we learn that John
was 'nicknamed Mark' (Ac., XII, 12). No ancient text, Hebrew or
other, gives an example of such interchangeability of names, moreover
contrary to social norms: the name defines the identity, unique by
definition. One is therefore inclined to wonder if, apart from Peter, John, and Judas
Iscariot, the characters in the gospel and apostolic narratives would not be
virtual passes.
Perhaps this point could be clarified if more information were available.
about the enigmatic 'seventy-two' mentioned by Luke. For at the time of his
road to Jerusalem, supporters rallied to Jesus and traveled with him
He. "The Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them ahead of him.
him in every city where he would go himself" (Luke, X, 1). According to which
what criteria does he choose? We don't know. All that Luc says, and he alone, is that
Jesus had delegated his powers to them, for "The seventy-two returned all
joyful, saying: "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name"
name!” » (Lc, X, 17).

116. Misleading details and false claims

The authors of the Gospels sometimes make claims that the

precision would tend to establish the truth, but which, upon examination, prove to be
deceitful. Thus the Gospel of Luke writes: "In the fifteenth year of the reign of
Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of
Galilee, Philip his brother tetrarch of the land of Ituraea and Trachonitis,
Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word
The word of God came to John, son of Zechariah, in the desert" (Luke, III, 1-3).
These political circumstances are said to be those of the year when Jesus
would have been baptized by John the Baptist. Now, as indicated by the Antiquities
Jewish Antiquities by Flavius Josephus (Luke, XV, 4), Lysanias had been put to death at
the instigation of Cleopatra in 34 BC, about sixty years
before the baptism of Jesus. The territory of Abilene had long been
ceased to be a tetrarchy and, additional inaccuracy, Anne and Caiaphas
have never been high priests jointly, which would have been impossible:
Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas, who had been deposed in 15.
Luc's references are therefore fictitious and cannot anchor either the
activities of John the Baptist nor the baptism of Jesus in the timeline. But the
other Gospels are not free from such errors.

117. There was no "baptism" at the time of Jesus, except among the
Essenes

Three of the Gospels, those of Matthew (III, 13-16), Mark (III, 21-22) and
from John (I, 29-34), places the said 'baptism' of Jesus at the beginning of
their texts; this is undoubtedly a reflection of the importance they attach to this
episode. Luc only mentions it incidentally, referring to "Jesus, baptized him
also" (III, 21). The manner in which they speak of it designates baptism as a
determining rite, a sacrament according to Christian theology. As the
the majority of the readers and listeners of these Gospels were then and are
always Christians, they hold it evident that Jesus became
administer this sacrament to call the Holy Spirit upon him. For baptism
having become a sacrament in Christianity, many are led to
to think that Jesus would have been the first baptized.
A similar rite certainly existed in Judaism, as in ...
many other religions to this day (evidenced by the bath of the faithful
Hindus in the Ganges): it is that of the "purification bath". The Bible
it is mentioned only twice (Lev., XI, 36 and Is., XXII, 11), as well as in relation to
the pool of the Temple of Solomon (73), called the Sea, but the Talmud is more
detailed. It is specified that this bath is taken in a watertight basin.
contact with the ground, by hand, and without contact with any utensil. It is prescribed:
to the pagans who convert to Judaism, on the day of their circumcision;
– to anyone made impure, for example by contact with a
corpse
– to a woman after her menstruation and before marriage.
It is said, an important point, that the water dumiqwehne must not be water.
current of one of a torrent.
Jesus being circumcised and Jewish, and also not impure, he had no
reason for requesting the 'purification bath', and even less administered in
running water, far from home, the hands of a character who had none
rank in the Jewish clergy. It could only be as an initiatory rite that he
he asked.
Indeed, the 'purification bath' was also practiced by the sect of
Essenes, these rigorous dissidents who wrote the famous Manuscripts of
the Dead Sea; it was administered to the candidates, even Jews, joining in
their ranks; it was the preliminary rite to their initiation, after which they
wore a seamless white linen robe. So it is indeed the Essene bath
of purification that Jesus requested.
Luc's assertions about John the Baptist's sermons to the "crowds that
came to be baptized" (III, 7) and even more his phrase, "once that
"All the people would have been baptized" (III, 21) cannot correspond to any fact.
history. They even represent a monumental aberration: at no
At that moment, the entire Jewish people would have rushed to purification baths.
in running water; the idea that the Pharisees and the Sadducees would have been
submitted to the 'purification bath' is absurd and even more the idea that they
would have joined the Essenes en masse. Moreover, anyone who joined these
The last ones were exposed to the condemnation of the regular Jewish clergy, and there was
certainly not a crowd either at public baptisms: the baptism of
The Essene novice was administered in a closed place.
*
 The evidence indicates that the writers of the four Gospels referred to
therefore to the Essene rite, whose listeners were entirely unaware of its origin, and
for the reason: the time when the Gospels, freshly written, began to
to be read publicly is situated after the destruction of the Temple in 70 and the
conquest of Palestine by the Romans; the Essene community had
then dispersed. Then the institution of baptism among Christians made it so that,
for almost twenty centuries, the ecclesiastical authorities, the clergy, the
exegetes and the faithful have taken the writings of the Gospels for granted
incontestable.
e
It was not until the 20th century, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Morton 1947, and their long deciphering, that questions arose
on the relationships of Jesus with the Essenes. The scholarly disputes about the
relations between the Essenes and Jesus obscured the debates in the eyes of the
public. Almost half a century had passed since the discovery of these
manuscripts and their communication to specialists. Perhaps they would not be
not known to this day without the scandal triggered by the director of the Biblical
Archaeology Review, Herschel Shanks, in 1990. Fifty manuscripts of the
cave IV was hacked and published, challenging the school officials
Jerusalem Bible. The preliminary studies of the Manuscripts invited
already, indeed, to a fundamental revision of the character and the story of
Jesus; the ecclesiastical authorities appear to have recoiled from it.
Nevertheless, under the illumination of the Essenian manuscripts,
the contradictions and implausibilities of the gospel texts relating to the
the baptism of Jesus appeared in all its rawness. Thus questions
borrowed by John the Evangelist to Jews who would have asked John the
Baptiste: "Why then do you baptize if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah nor the
Prophet?" (I, 25): they do not correspond to any practice of Judaism and
can only have sprouted in the imagination of the writer; the notion of
Christ, the Messiah, did not imply that he practiced baptism at all.
neither was he the only one authorized to administer it, nor was Elijah or any prophet
had never practiced baptism. This other anachronism was glaring:
he hinted that baptism would have existed for all eternity, while the
The purification bath was, until the teaching of Jesus, merely a Jewish rite.
prescribed under certain circumstances and an Essene initiatory rite.
Likewise, the dialogue between Jesus and the Baptist, where Jesus asks this
the last to baptize him is absurd to the point of inconsistency. Indeed, the Baptist
he first recuses himself and declares: "It is I who need to be baptized by you,
"And you come to me!" (John 3:14). The Baptist could not have given the
Christian baptism if he had not received it himself, and in Judaism as
in the Essene rite, he had no authority to impose or refuse the
purification bath. This conversation is clearly an invention.
posteriori, intended to expose the following concept: the baptism of John was
a consecration of repentance, and Jesus had no more to express this
feels that he needed to be purified. As for Jesus' argument, he
It is incomprehensible: 'Leave it for now, because that's how he'
we find it fitting to accomplish all justice.
The meeting between the two men in no way reflects the facts.
yet given by the Gospels. Jesus and John must have known each other,
since they were parents or else cousins; their mothers, Marie and Élisabeth,
being parents (Lc, I, 36). Furthermore, the birth of John had also been
miraculous and announced by the same angel, Gabriel (Lk, I, 11-20). In the
villages of the time, the families belonged to clans whose
members constantly met. Two men born in a way
miraculous could not be ignored. This baptism was therefore a matter of
family.
Still, the description of the Baptist confirms the meaning.
Essene of the baptism of Jesus: "This John had his clothing made of hair"
of camel and a loincloth of skin around his loins; his food was of
"locusts and wild honey" (Mt., III, 4). This will be there, but later,
costume of hermits, as the Essenes were considered to be. Only the
the diet stands out: being by principle of exemplary piety, the
Baptiste would have violated the religious prohibitions that forbade the
insect consumption.
However, it turns out that we do not have historical evidence of
the existence of the Baptist and that he appears to be an ad hoc character created
by the writers of the Gospels to obscure Jesus' belonging to the
Essene community and especially not to make it a character dependent on
this one7.
The vehemence of the remarks attributed to the supposed precursor of Jesus confirms,
she too, the belonging of the Baptist or the model from which he derives to the sect
of the Essenes, declared enemies of the clergy of Jerusalem: "Spawn of
"vipers," he says, for example, to the "crowds" that came to listen to him (Luke 3:7)
and Mt., III, 7). This is the ordinary language of the Essenes regarding the clergy of
Temple, the very one that Jesus would later take up, literally. One struggles
incidentally to believe that the "crowds" accepted being insulted by the
sort and still lent themselves to the so-called "baptism".
The deduction is clear: Jesus, baptized by the Baptist, must have been part of the
Essenian community, at least for a time. The question remains which of the two.
camps that divided this community he belonged to8Thus it is explained in all
the relentless hostility of the clergy of Jerusalem towards him. This is neither
neither a hypothesis nor a speculation that can be attributed to 'certain people'.
authors"; the ablutions administered by the Baptizer specifically describe
an Essene rite.
The canonical evangelists thus provided, perhaps unknowingly, a key
secret to the understanding of Jesus and the reactions he provoked. They invite
thus the contemporary reader has a complete reinterpretation of their narratives and
so from the life of Jesus.
Were they aware of it?
*

The place they gave to the 'baptism' of Jesus and to John the Baptist
witnesses that these writers were at least aware of the importance
of one and the other for Jesus himself. The Essene initiation, in fact, does not
bore no solemn and dramatic character, such as the
The Gospels give it to think. Many people of the time participated in it, such as
that the historian Flavius Josephus, who left the Essenes to join the
Pharisees, which makes his information valuable.
devotes an entire chapter (III) to them, Mark places them at the beginning of his Gospel,
even the same as Luke, who makes Baptiste a cousin of Jesus, and John opens
also his Gospel – in an elliptical manner – about the baptism given to
the 'chosen one of God', which he does not name. Several other references
the Essenes are sprinkled throughout the Gospels, more or less clearly
perceptible to the informed reader.
To understand the implications of Jesus' association with the Essenes, it
It is necessary to recall the following elements. The monastic community
and exclusively masculine Essenes had formed in the middle of the
e
6th century BCE, in reaction against the formalism of the clergy of the
Temple and its political use of the Law. They founded in the desert, at
Qumran, northwest of the Dead Sea, a fortified monastery that welcomed
up to four thousand men and where the rules of life were strict9.
It was at the time of Simon Maccabee, king and high priest of the powerful.
kingdom of Judea, founder of the Hasmonean dynasty. In 135 BC,
after the assassination of the latter, his successors, John Hyrcanus IerAristobulus I
And II, Alexander Janneus and John Hyrcanus II invested themselves with the title of great
priest. They had then alienated the important sect of the Pharisees, supporters
a strict observance of the Law, and by extension that of the Essenes, whose
a mysterious master, called the Master of Justice, had also been executed.
The hostility triggered by the attacks of John Hyrcanus Iheturned against them
in fierce execration when Alexander Jannaeus had crucified, in 88 BC,
eight hundred Pharisees. For the Essenes, the high priest Alexander Jannaeus,
his family and the entire clergy of the Temple became the incarnations of
Satan.
When Antipater, father of Herod the Great, eliminated the dynasty
Hasmonean and imposed itself in Palestine, the grateful Essenes started to
at their service and that of their successors, hence the name Herodians which them
gift given and which is the only one under which they are designated in the New
Testament (no doubt with the intention of associating them in a pejorative way with the
house of the Herods.
The Essenes' provisions towards the clergy of Jerusalem had not
hardly changed at the time of Jesus; they had also hardened against
the Roman occupant, and the Scroll of the Warrior found at Qumran proves
undoubtedly that they were considering a liberation war.

118. Where then would the baptism of Jesus have taken place?

In the Gospel of John, the first mention of John the Baptist and his
the practice of said 'baptism' is: 'It took place in Bethany, beyond the
Jordan, where John was baptizing" (Jn, I, 28). In III, 23, he writes however: "John
also baptized, at Aenon, near Salim, for the waters were abundant there.
Or, Bethany (incorrectly transcribed by some commentators
like Bethabara, whereas it is Bethananya) is certainly not "beyond the
Jourdain, but closer to Jerusalem. As for 'Aenon, near Salim', this
the site could not be identified by the archaeologists; according to some suppositions,
it would be located to the west of the Jordan, but there is hardly any water there
abundant. The context does not help in identifying the place: Jean
said, indeed, that he was in Judea, whereas the supposed site is located in
Lower Galilee.
It appears that the contradiction here is due to ignorance of the place where
Jean administered his 'baptisms'. These details might seem
secondaries, was only, in the case of Baptiste, they would conceal the intention of
hide the true place of Jesus' initiation. The purifying bath does not
could in no way be given in nature, in the manner described by
the Gospels; and if the Baptist presided over that of Jesus, it was in a place
closed, probably Qumran.

119. The "desert" where John preached and where Jesus withdrew was truly little
desertic

"Preaching in the desert" is a common expression, drawn from...

about John the Baptist himself in the Latin version, the voice of one crying in
desert, meaning that no one hears the preacher. However, the Gospel
Matthew writes, with no perceptible irony, that John the Baptist preached "in
the desert of Judea” (III, 2). This desert was definitely populated, for Luke
reports that Baptiste was shouting at the crowds "who came to get themselves
baptize" (Lc, I, 9).
This mythical place would have been located to the west of the Dead Sea,
decisive point, as it is close to the Essene monastery of Qumran.
Further on, Matthew also writes that after his baptism, "Jesus was taken
in the desert by the Spirit, to be tempted by the devil", and that he fasted for forty
days and forty nights. There, the devil first took him to Jerusalem, then to
a high mountain (Mt., III, 1-10). Then, Jesus withdrew to Galilee and
established in Capernaum.
According to Mark, after his baptism, Jesus was driven into the desert by the Spirit,
but this evangelist omits the exchanges of words between Jesus and
Satan and it is written that after the forty days in this desert, Jesus "came into
Galilee and preached the Gospel of God" (Mark 1:12-15).
Luc somewhat modifies these versions, saying that Jesus was 'led by
the Spirit through the desert for forty days, tempted by the devil." Then he
he was hungry and the devil suggested to him to turn the stones into bread and began,
but in vain, his other temptations (Luke, IV, 1-13). Then Jesus went to
Galilee and began his preaching. The allegory remains obscure:
Why would the Spirit have led Jesus to undergo the assaults of Satan?
Jean completely omits the episode of the desert and the machinations of
Satan, who are therefore limited to the Synoptics, but he writes that after his
baptism, 'Jesus resolved to go to Galilee' (John 1:43).
 One will observe that Galilee was hardly a comprehensible choice for
to start a preaching, because she was suffering from discredit among the rest of
Palestine, as John recognizes: "no prophet has come from
"Galilee" (Jn, VII, 52). It is possible that Jesus decided to recruit his
disciples in Galilee, a province much more independent in spirit than the
Judea.
The four evangelists agree on one point: after the
"desert", Jesus went to Galilee. They pose a riddle: what is this then?
desert obviously allegorical, the very one where John preached and where Jesus was
taken for forty days by the Holy Spirit? And what did he learn that determined him?
to undertake his ministry? It seems that a fact or a parable lies there
that the evangelists ignored or did not wish to disclose the meaning. All
First, it must be noted that, in the Bible, the numbers are always
Symbolic: 40 is the multiple of 4, which represents a gestation period.10;
Thus the Flood lasted forty days and forty nights, the Israelites put
forty years to cross the desert and Moses stayed forty days and forty
nights waiting for the divine word. The time spent 'in the desert' refers to
so to a spiritual gestation.
Where could it have taken place for an Essene novice if not at
Qumran monastery, which is indeed in the desert, north of the sea
Death? It appears that the evangelists clearly refuse to make a connection.
between Jesus and the Essenes, so as not to suggest a subjugation of the latter
in their teaching. But it was there that his calling would have affirmed itself.

120. Contradictory teachings about insults

At the beginning of his public ministry, Jesus teaches not to insult his
next: 'Anyone who is angry with their brother will be subject to judgment;'
but if he says to his brother: "Idiot!" he will answer to the Sanhedrin; and if he...
"Renegade!" he will answer in the hell of fire" (Mt., V, 22). Now,
later, following the momentum of Baptiste, he addresses seven curses to the scribes and
to the Pharisees, who all begin with: 'Woe to you, scribes and
Hypocritical Pharisees!" (Mt., XXIII, 13-32). And he continues his invective:
Serpents, offspring of vipers! How will you escape from the
condemnation to hell?" Yet these are blatant insults.
And one can incidentally recognize the Essene vindictiveness towards the
Pharisees.
 121. The implausibility of the recruitment of the Apostles

As described by the evangelists, this recruitment is quite unconvincing.

In Matthew, the first four of the Twelve would have been chosen at
chance. Coming out of the 'desert', having performed no miracle and not enjoying
not yet of his fame, Jesus, "walking by the sea of
Galilee, that is to say the Sea of Tiberias, would have seen two brothers, Simon and
André would have told them, "Come, I will make you fishers of men."
means nothing. Then he would have seen two other brothers, Jacques and Jean
from Zebedee and would have also called them, and these four fishermen would have
all planted there, boats, nets and families – Simon is married and Jesus will heal her
mother-in-law - to follow him. A little later, he would have seen Matthieu, 'sitting at the
"customs office", and would have simply said to him: "Follow me", and Matthew
he would have also followed him without saying a word (Mt., IV, 18-21 and IX, 9). Then we read
that all of a sudden, the disciples were twelve (Mt., X, 1). Disturbing point:
Matthew, if it is indeed the same as the evangelist, describes his own
recruitment as if it were that of another.
It is really abusing the reader's credulity and, above all, a confession of
the ignorance of the actual circumstances in which Jesus chose men
who would accompany him throughout his ministry.
The story is the same in Mark (Mk, I, 16-20 and II, 13-14).
At Luc's, everything begins with the healing of Simon's mother-in-law.
following a miraculous catch, an obvious allegory of the future catch
humane, and the recruitment of Simon – not a word about his brother André – of
James and John of Zebedee. Then comes the instant recruitment of
Matthew. Nothing on the recruitment of others (Luke, IV, 38-39, V, 1-11 and 27-
28).
Jean is a bit more detailed. After the recruitment of Simon and André, the
The day after Jesus' baptism, "around the tenth hour," precision
Unexpectedly, around 4 p.m., Jesus meets Philip and says to him: "Follow-
hi. » Philippe follows him without further inquiring about his mission, then notices
Nathanaël, who introduces himself and is also enlisted (John, I, 35-51). Nothing about the sons.
of Zebedee, which is strange, because if the evangelist is indeed John of Zebedee,
he would have had valuable details to share about his first encounter with Jesus,
since he will then boast of knowing many secrets about his master.
Nothing either about the recruitment of others.
It is agreed that the evangelists are at least elusive.
Clearly, Luc and Marc know nothing about this recruitment; but Matthieu and
Jean?
Two points, however, draw attention. First, in the
In summary, recruitment takes place after coming out of the 'desert', two
remote events in time. At Jean's, it takes place after the
"baptism." Then the hypothesis arises that some disciples were
recruited from the Essenes. Which ones? No document indicates it. But the
common sense cannot accept that the Twelve followed Jesus on a simple
injunction. He was already enjoying a reputation; which, we do not know.

Who then did Jesus heal: the son or the servant of the centurion?

Among the discrepancies of the New Testament, the one that relates to the
The healing of the son or the slave of the centurion is one of the most ambiguous.
Matthew indeed writes this: "As he entered Capernaum, a
the centurion approached him, pleading: "Lord," he said, "my boy lies
in my house, suffering from paralysis and suffering horribly.” He said to him: “I
will go to heal him." "Lord, the centurion replied, I am not worthy that you
Enter under my roof, but just say a word and my boy will be healed.
(Matthew, VIII, 5-8).
Luke writes this, which follows Jesus' entry into Capernaum: 'A centurion'
had, sick and on the verge of dying, a slave who was dear to him. Having
having heard of Jesus, he sent some of the elders of the Jews to him,
to ask him to come save his servant. Upon arriving by Jesus, they
they urgently pleaded: "He is worthy, they said, that you grant him this, he
love, indeed, our nation, and it is he who built the synagogue for us." Jesus
was traveling with them and was already not far from the house, when the centurion
send friends to tell him: 'Lord, do not trouble yourself any further, for I'
does not deserve that you enter under my roof; just as I have not judged myself
worthy of coming to find you. But say a word and let my boy be healed.
And back at home, the envoys found the slave in perfect health.
(Lc, VII, 2-10).
And Jean writes this: "There was a royal official whose son was
sick in Capernaum. Learning that Jesus had arrived from Judea in Galilee,
he came to find him and begged him to come down and heal his son, for he was about to die.
to die. Jesus said to him: 'Unless you see signs and wonders, you will not...'
"Don't believe it!" The royal official said to him: "My lord, come down before that
"Do not die my little child." Jesus said to him: "Go, your son lives" (John 4:46-50).
John refrains, we do not know why, from citing Jesus' reflections on the
faith of the centurion, of whom Jesus marvels nevertheless.
The three accounts differ radically: in that of Matthew and in
the centurion comes in person to find Jesus, in that of Luke,
he delegates elders of the city; but above all, in that of Matthew and of
John, the sick man is the son of the centurion, in that of Luke, it is 'a slave.'
who was dear to him; interestingly, in the same text, the centurion refers to
the slave as "my boy" and not "my servant". One would be tempted to
to question the nature of one's ties with this slave, especially since at the
difference from the Old Testament, Jesus never took a position on
homosexuality, but that is not the issue. The three evangelists
report the same miracle in such different ways that one is
It is concluded that none of them witnessed the events and that their
versions are approximate.
It remains to be seen whether Jesus knew whom he had healed.

123. The Strange Case of Lazare: Discrepancies, Omissions, and Censorship

Several singularities, contradictions, and omissions characterize, for a

attentive reader, the account of the miracle of the resurrection of Lazarus.
First, only John describes this major miracle, one of the three resurrections.
accomplished by Jesus, the other two being those of the daughter of Jairus and of the son
of the widow of Naim. One can therefore be surprised that the other three evangelists
having spared no expense, especially since Jean recounts it with a wealth of details
who would suggest that he (or the author of his Gospel) was a witness.
(Jn, XI, 1-44); this is indeed a surprising discord. This point is analyzed
lower down. His omission places him within contradictions, since the
The synoptic gospels thus seem to reject the miracle.
There was a sick man, writes John (Jn, XI, 3), Lazarus, of Bethany, the village
of Mary and her sister Martha. Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with
perfume and had wiped his feet with her hair; it was her brother Lazarus
who was ill. The two sisters therefore sent word to Jesus: "Lord,"
the one you love is sick." Upon hearing this, Jesus said: "This sickness does not
leads not to death, it is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God
be glorified by her." But Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.
Jesus' comment is obscure: how can an illness be
glorify God or his Son? One can at least deduce from these verses that
Lazarus was a close friend of Jesus, and that he knew him quite well.
disease to judge that it was not dangerous. It was, indeed, linked to the
family, since he already knew Mary (of Magdala), whom he loved like his own.
sister and her brother. We also deduce that he was not in Judea; but
where? It is not stated, but John previously specified that Jesus had
I withdrew "beyond the Jordan" (John 10:40). Nevertheless, he stayed there.
two days before deciding to go to the bedside of the sick; the Apostles
they cried out: Judea was dangerous, "the Jews" threatening to stone them,
them and their master. But Jesus, mysteriously informed that Lazarus is dead,
maintains his decision to go to Bethany. "Then Thomas, called Didymus, said
to the other disciples: 'Let us also go, to die with him [Jesus].'
Another deduction: the journey lasted two days, or, on donkey back, about 25.
kilometers; but within a radius of about thirty kilometers from Bethany, we
is still located in full Judea. John's indications are therefore
approximations, although this author shows a certain knowledge of
the local geography, as observed by biblical scholars.
When Jesus finally arrives in Bethany, Lazarus has been in the tomb for four days.
Days; here is inserted a detailed description of the arrival of Jesus, of his
interview with Marthe, then with Marie, who seems realistic, if only she
It occupies nineteen verses, which is quite long, and one can hardly distinguish its purpose.
Finally, Jesus goes to the tomb, a cave closed by a flat stone and
round, ledopheq, which he orders to roll. New realistic detail, Marie
He exclaimed: "Lord, he already smells, it is the fourth day." But Jesus obtains
winning the case, the stone is rolled away and Jesus commands: 'Lazarus, come forth'
Outside!" "The dead man came out, his feet and hands bound with bandages and his
his face was wrapped in a shroud.
The writer clearly ignores Jewish funeral customs: one did not tie...
not the hands and feet of bandages, Egyptian custom; after having been
washed, the body was wrapped in a shroud, with spices. The "shroud" of
the text is actually the shroud, the cloth that was placed on the face of the deceased, underneath
the shroud, to absorb the death sweats. If his feet had been bound
in bandages, Lazarus simply could not have left his
mortuary layer; it is therefore a fantasy description. The same
ignorance of Jewish funeral customs will reappear regarding
of the burial of Jesus.
Even for those who believe in the supernatural powers of Jesus, the narrative,
Faithful noticed the conflicts between the teachings of the Church and the texts.
In 1908, Pope Pius X excommunicated Loisy, whatever the status of this abbot.
it is true that he had the impudence to write: 'Jesus announced the coming of the
Kingdom. It was the Church that came.

107. Jesus or Emmanuel? The contradiction of Matthew

The author of this Gospel quotes a verse from Isaiah as the fulfillment
from the conception of Jesus: "Behold, the virgin will conceive and bear a son,
and he will be called Emmanuel," in the version according to the Vulgate (Isaiah 7:14).
He does not quote her correctly, as we will see below.
The young woman in question is Achaz's wife and is not mentioned at all.
as a virgin, which would be improbable, since she is married. And in the
The text of the prophet, Emmanuel, son of Ahaz, is a witness of a flood.
catastrophic for the country, which, in a prophecy, would be a bad omen.
In any case, the two names are distinct and have different meanings, and it
It is also not said that Emmanuel was the Messiah.

Isaiah did not write "virgin", but "young woman"

The erroneous translation of the verse from Isaiah propagated by the Vulgate has caused
abundant critical comments and even an unexpected quarrel that arose
continues to this day. Indeed, Hebraists have pointed out that Isaiah has
used the term almah, which means "young woman," and not betoulah, which
specifically means "virgin." However, when the authors of the Old
Testaments want to designate a virgin in the legal sense of the word, they
unanimously employ the word betulah (Lev., XXI, 3, Deut., XXII, 19 and
XXII, 28, Ez., XLIV, 22). The evidence shows that Isaiah was not referring to
not at all to a future miraculous birth. However, to prove
At their point, late scribes replaced one word with another.
When, in 1952, an edition of the Bible in English, the Revised
Standard Version, rectify the error, it was criticized for having... altered the
text! And she was rejected by the fundamentalists. There is hardly, to our
knowledge, of the publication of the Bible in any language that has followed
their example, under penalty of raising loud cries. Tradition takes precedence over
faithfulness to the texts.
Another error noted by Hebraists in the common translation concerns
on time. The text of Isaiah is: 'Behold, the young woman is with a child,'
correspondent of the passage in Jericho. One obviously wonders why.
Jesus did not receive the three women and especially why Mark reports it without
to explain it. This incident echoes the criticisms that Marthe, one of the sisters
to Lazarus, address to Jesus when he finally arrives in Bethany: "If you had been
here, my brother would not have died" (Jn, XI, 21), and that Mary of Magdala
speak a little further.
Surprisingly disapproving remarks: one would think they were hearing a family.
grieving accusing a negligent country doctor of having caused the death
a close one. Jesus was not at Lazare's service and the complaints of
Marthe and Marie only explain themselves if there was already a link between him and
their family. There was indeed a disagreement between the two sisters and Jesus in
about Lazarus's condition, as if Jesus was delaying his intervention because
that he knew the case of Lazarus and believed that there was no reason to
to worry. And one better understands the importance that Jean gives to
the arrival of Jesus in Bethany, to which he dedicates no less than twenty verses
(Jn, XI, 31), describing in detail the comings and goings of Martha and Mary,
which are not very interesting.
Thanks to the recovered text, it became possible to reconstruct
the itinerary of Jesus and the disciples: having crossed the Jordan, they were
passed through Jericho to go to Bethany. But only Jesus, apparently,
went to Lazarus's house.
We will see below that this is what is called an interpretation.
short
*

Where did the recovered text come from?

The story is exemplary. In 1941, Morton Smith, later a professor
of ancient history at Columbia University, in New York, found himself compelled
to stay in Palestine due to World War II. A priest
Greek Orthodox with whom he had befriended invited him to stay at the
monastery of Mar Saba, about twenty kilometers from Jerusalem, to
examine the library. In 1958, the clergy of the monastery renewed
the invitation, for the purpose of cataloging the collection of books and manuscripts of
monastery. Smith then discovered, on the last page of an edition of
e century, a manuscript text
letters of Saint Ignatius to Antioch, dating from the 17th
e
which dated from the 18th century: it was a copy of a letter from Clement
of Alexandria, Father of the Church who lived at the end of the 2nd century eand the beginning of the
 e
Third century, addressed to a certain Theodore. It mentioned a secret Gospel of
Mark, containing passages reserved for certain disciples of Christ,
sometimes referred to as 'Those who have perfected themselves' and sometimes as
Those who have been initiated into the great mysteries
initiates into Gnostic sects, such as Clement himself, probably. And
she cited the passages reproduced above.
Why had these passages been omitted? Clement of Alexandria in
give the explanation to Théodore: he assures him that there is nothing in
the secret gospel that justified the rumors that Theodore had heard and
according to which Jesus and the young man were naked during the initiation. It is necessary
to agree that the deleted lines were at least awkward.
First, the young man was actually a teenager according to the Greek term for it.
text, neaniskos; then, this pseudo-resurrected "loved" Jesus first
regard; finally he presented himself to him naked under a linen robe. In short, the episode
had been censored to put an end to suspicions of homosexuality13.
In fact, the fragments copied by Clement of Alexandria came from a
the version of the Gospel of Mark, which has not reached us.
The Christian world was then unaware of everything about the Essenes, particularly the rite.
of the purification bath that was administered to the naked novices, indeed. The
the essence of the Essene baptism is reinforced by the detail provided in the passage
censored: Lazare, if it was really him, wore not a 'sheet', but a dress of
lin, according to Essene custom, after the baptism and the evening ablutions. And
If the reported episode is authentic, it means that Jesus would have continued
of practicing the Essene rites, particularly that of the evening ablutions,
during his ministry. The historical and theological repercussions in
would be considerable, but they are not within the scope of these pages.
If the censors operated with so much freedom on the Gospel of Mark, one
No one will be surprised that he was nicknamed "the evangelist with short fingers"!
His Gospel is, indeed, the shortest of the four. But it is permissible to
ask what the censors' interventions were on the others
Gospels.
They probably had no great qualms about removing the episode: it did not
had nothing miraculous. Lazarus cried in the tomb before the arrival
of Jesus; he had only rolled the young man whom
had believed dead had come back to life without any intervention from Jesus. Without
doubt also the evangelists Matthew and Luke had, for the same reason,
omit to include this episode. Only the author designated by the name of Jean had it.
developed by transforming it into a miracle of resurrection. To this end, he had
romanced to lend more truth to it, excluding any reference to the rite of
baptism and to some nudity that it was. And he had chosen Lazarus as
miracle, because Martha and Mary of Magdala belonged to the circle of
the family of Jesus and that they had a brother named Lazarus. As for knowing
why Jesus refused to receive them, the mystery will undoubtedly remain
until the discovery of a manuscript that had remained unknown until now.
*

The resurrection of Lazarus had passed for centuries, for the whole
the faithful, as one of the proofs of Jesus' supernatural powers, when
the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. Their study brought to the
exegetes of information that urged to reconsider this miracle, and even
the non-miraculous version stripped of the Gospel of Mark.
There existed among the Essenes a penalty that consisted of imprisonment.
in one of their caves the members who had transgressed their Law. The
the condemned were dressed in a shroud and remained in this prison for a
duration proportional to their fault14The openings in the walls to them
only allowed to breathe, but not to escape. They were considered
as provisionally dead.
It could be from such a prison that Jesus set Lazarus free. Thus, and
only in this way, would it explain the fact that Mary Magdalene and Martha have
attempted to intervene with Jesus on behalf of their brother and that he first
refused to receive them. This would also explain why Lazarus was
still alive when Jesus opened the door of his "tomb". Finally, thus
the missed appointment of Jericho, which was briefly located
distance from Qumran, the site where the Essene community was located, to
northwest of the Dead Sea.
Jean had thus 'clothed' the resurrection of Lazarus in miracle.
All these elements support the thesis of Jesus' belonging to
Essenes, who would have been active throughout his ministry. And one understands
that the Synoptics have eliminated this reference. However, even in
the Gospel of Mark, we will find further on (149) a young man naked under
a simple dress.

124. Jesus' nonchalance towards parents

 ... is not a trait that preachers readily mention. It is, in
effect, disconcerting, and one wonders why the evangelists it
reported. Marc recounts that when he began to preach and that he
attracts crowds, "his family set out to take care of him, for the
people said that he had lost his mind" (Mc, III, 21). Incidentally, this
indicated that Marie's mother had little faith in the angel's prediction
Gabriel who announced to him the birth of the 'Son of the Most High'; but he is
It's true that Marc does not mention this episode. Nevertheless, it would still constitute a
tacit contradiction with the Gospel of Luke, it is only that in this last one
that we find the hardest words of Jesus regarding the family: "If
someone comes to me without hating his father, his mother, his wife, his children, his
brothers, sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple" (Lk,
XIV, 26-27). No translation trick could circumvent the stinging
hardness of these words, and one may wonder why the evangelist did not
censored.
Such remarks would be deemed outrageous today, but in the perspective
er
the century, they are furthermore blasphemous, as they violate, and
with what brutality, in the sixth Commandment: 'Honor your father and mother'
You will honor. » Moreover, they constitute a denial of natural feelings of
sons and daughters towards their parents; they are a challenge to the
family and society. Can the followers of Jesus therefore only be
renegades? And yet, he persisted in this rejection of family: 'Do not call
Do not call anyone your 'Father' on earth, for you have only one, the Heavenly Father.
(Mt., XXIII, 9).
In other times, this consistency in aversion towards parents would have
invites to resort to psychoanalysis. It is not the Jesus of the Church, the one
of redemption and incarnation, which is expressed here, is that of rejection of
earthly existence, the one who says: 'Whoever loves their life loses it, and whoever hates their life
"in this world will keep him alive forever" (Jn, XII, 25).
This hostility towards the family also raises a puzzle.
What was this family that he had never been before?
question and who had apparently not participated in the Flight into Egypt? Because we
discover, ten verses later, that Jesus had brothers: "Then his mother and
his brothers arrived and, remaining outside, they had a message sent to him
"asking him to come out and join them" (Mc, III, 31). Jesus and the Apostles are
in a house crowded with people; he is warned that his mother and his brothers
They are outside and asking to see him. And he exclaims: "Who is my mother?"
"Who are my brothers?" And looking around him at the circle of those who were
He said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. Whoever does the will
"For whoever does the will of God is my brother, my sister, and my mother" (Mark 3:33-35). We are not
more amiable: this implies that his mother and his brothers do not accomplish
the will of God. The episode clearly indicates that family relationships
of Jesus were not the warmest.
Only a mention by Matthew confirms that Jesus indeed had four brothers.
James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, and sisters (Mt. XIII, 55-56). Paul will write
later than he had known none of the Apostles "except for James, the
"brother of the Lord" (Gal., I, 19). And one will learn from the History of Joseph the
carpenter, apocryphal, that the sisters were two, Lydia and Lysia.
Bizarrely, the canonical Gospels ignore this family or
they wrap it in a veil of silence.
It is therefore necessary to consider the hypothesis that the birth of Jesus involved
a singular element, which the apologists attributed a supernatural character to.

125. Where Jesus contradicts Ecclesiastes

Jesus' denunciations against the rich are among his

most well-known teachings. Aside from the parable of the rich man, which is
rejoiced in his possessions and to whom God announced that he would die that night (Lc,
XII, 13-21), all the faithful know the image of the camel and the needle:
How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the
Kingdom of God! Yes, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God!" (Luke, XVIII,

24-25).
However, he found himself in open contradiction with the Ecclesiastes: "Do not
do not curse the rich, even in your room, for a bird from the sky would carry it away
the noise" (Eccl., X, 20). This contempt for wealth and the goods of this world
also joins Gnosticism which permeates many texts
evangelical, canonical as well as apocryphal.

126. The contradiction between the royal entry into Jerusalem and the refusal of the
Kingdom of this World

The Gospels of Mark and Luke describe the care with which Jesus
organizes his entry into Jerusalem: approaching the city, he instructs two
disciples, unnamed, to go look in the village opposite "a donkey that
no one in the world has ever ridden; unfasten it and bring it. And if
Someone asks you: 'Why are you detaching it?', you will say this:
It is because the Lord needs it" (Luke, XIX, 28-34 and Mark, XI, 1-3). This
thus occupies an important place in the ceremony that Jesus has of
obviously in mind. Jesus then climbs onto the donkey and, even before his
Entering the city, he is welcomed in triumph by the crowd, as one can
to judge by the fact that 'people were throwing their coats on the road' (Luke,
Then his disciples sing:
Blessed is he who comes,
The King in the name of the Lord.

And when some Pharisees advise him to silence them, because the announcement of a
he can alert the authorities, he refuses to do so. He therefore subscribes to the idea that it is the
king of Israel who enters Jerusalem. And he thus and voluntarily achieves the
prophecy of Zechariah:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Here comes your king to you,
He is just and victorious.
humble, mounted on a donkey,
on a colt, the offspring of a she-ass. (Zac., IX, 9)

It is therefore with perfect knowledge of the symbols that Jesus organizes his
triumphal entry.
Some commentators have argued that by doing so, he was formalizing the entry of the
Messiah, but the word that his disciples use to acclaim him is "king" and
not 'Messiah', and the choice of the donkey confirms that Jesus is aware of
fulfill the prophecy of Zechariah, who also uses the word 'king' and not
"Messiah".
Jesus thus had political ambitions, and they were thwarted by
the alarm of the Jewish authorities: what would happen to their power if Jesus were
recognized as king?
Pilate, obviously informed of this spectacular entry, even
provocateur, who definitely upset Jerusalem, would thus
asked Jesus: "Are you the king of the Jews?" and would have received only this
enigmatic response: "You say so" (Luke 23:3). In the Gospel of John,
It is however ambiguous: "You say that I am a king" (John, XVIII, 37).
However, this desire to appear publicly as the king of Israel is in
formal contradiction with the response that Jesus gives in the Gospel of John,
but that one only. He would have declared: "My kingdom is not of this
world" (John, XVIII, 36).
The contradiction is glaring. There is another: for what reason, if they
talk about the same Messiah, have Matthew and John omitted from their accounts a
an event as resounding as Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem?
Is it because it raises a conflict between the answer to Pilate attributed to Jesus and
his political ambitions?

127. The impossible episode of the Money Changers

It is after Jesus' resounding entry into Jerusalem that it is situated.

the episode of the merchants in the Temple. Generations of pious exegesis have
presented as a revolt against the association of mercantilism and the
Religion. A closer reading invites a different interpretation.
According to Matthew, Jesus, whose company is unknown, expelled
"all the sellers and buyers who were there: he overturned the tables of the
"exchangers as well as the seats of the dove merchants." But having
healed the blind and the lame, " he was acclaimed despite the high priests
and the scribes" (Mt., XXI, 12-15).
Marc adds a detail: 'He did not let anyone carry an object across'
the Temple" (Mc, XI, 16), but makes no mention of healing
of blind or lame people. Matthew says that Jesus then withdrew to Bethany,
But Marc does not mention the place.
Luke makes only a very brief mention of the episode (Luke, XIX, 45). The
other Synoptics take up the same terms: 'It is written: My house'
it will be a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of
brigands." (Mt., XXI, 12-13 and Mc, XI, 15-17.)
John's account is the most detailed of all; first of all, it is not
only the money changers and the dove merchants are targeted, but
also those of oxen and sheep. Then Jesus took the time to prepare
a whip with the help of ropes. And when the faithful call out to him to
ask what authority he acts like this, he replies: "Destroy this
sanctuary and in three days I will raise it up." Incidentally, Jean "explains"
that "he was speaking to him about the sanctuary of his body" (John 2:13-21). Jesus identified
He the Temple to his body? In any case, this is not how the protesters
they heard it.
Incidentally, the Jews who claimed that the Temple had been built in
"forty-six years" were very poorly informed: Flavius Josephus informs that he
was built in two years.
An event that is situated in history is subject to analysis.
history. Historians have sufficient information about the Temple
to assert that the building and the adjacent structures occupied a neighborhood
from Jerusalem; Flavius Josephus estimates that about twenty thousand people there
worked, divided into twenty-four groups, treasurers, in charge of the worship,
of offerings and supplies, each of whom worked one week on
four. This means that there were six thousand people present at all times.
moment when Jesus took on the merchants.
The trade of the latter was legitimate, since the essential activity
of the Temple was the public and private sacrifice and that the faithful had to purchase
their offerings; the insult of 'thieves' from Jesus (Mt., XXI, 13 and Mc, XI,
17), moreover tempered by Jean, seems quite heavy. In any case, if he
had whipped the merchants and overturned their tables and their chairs, Jesus
was exposing itself to a vigorous response from the officials. He would have been seized and
expelled from the Temple, or worse. Moreover, he took aim at the cult itself,
more serious offense than a public order disturbance, and risked being tried by the
Sanhedrin.
Even if he took these risks, it seems doubtful that he could have done so with impunity.
interrupt the life of the Temple with acts of violence and then withdraw
calmly. We can at most admit that he made statements
contemptuous to the merchants, to whom the evangelists bestowed a
spectacular dimension.

Is it conceivable that Jesus insulted the Jews in the Temple?

Under unspecified circumstances, while he was preaching in the Temple, 'at

"Treasury," specifies Jean (Jn, VIII, 20), Jesus would have said to the Jews: "If God
If it were your father, you would love me. […] Why don’t you recognize
my language? It's that you cannot hear my word. You are
of the Devil, your father, and it is your father's desires that you want
to accomplish. He was a murderer from the beginning" (John, VIII, 43-44).
Is it conceivable that Jesus could have declared to the faithful in the Temple
that they were the sons of the Devil and not of God and that they fulfilled the
devil's desires while they were in the symbolic place where they
perpetuated the Alliance with God? If he dissociated himself from the Jews, his
proposals became a provocation and, especially at the Temple, were liable
of a vigorous response, given the personnel present on site.
Moreover, such statements are in contradiction with the statement
Jesus said: 'Abraham, your father, rejoiced' (John 8:56). The Jews
Are they the children of the Devil or of Abraham?

129. Did Matthew understand the Prophets?

The evangelists extensively quote the Prophets, but it seems that they
they have not always understood the words. Thus Matthew writes: 'In the evening
Come, many demoniacs were presented to him; he cast out the spirits of a
And he [Jesus] healed all the sick, so that the prophecy of Isaiah might be fulfilled.
the prophet: "He took our infirmities and bore our diseases" (VIII,
16-17).
Matthew refers to Isa., LIII, 3-4: "Man of sorrows, acquainted with
suffering, [...] or, it is our sufferings that he bore, and our pains of which
he was burdened, and we considered him punished by God and
humiliated." However, Jesus never suffered from the afflictions he healed.
and he has never been considered punished by God nor despised.

130. Son of man or Son of God? Contradictions and confusions

It is in the Gospel of Matthew (VIII, 20) that Jesus uses for the
first time of the expression "son of man", which ended up taking in
over the centuries a new meaning, entirely opposite to what it
was in its time. In Hebrew and Aramaic beni Adam, "son of Adam", it
designates the human being in the humility of his condition, as demonstrated by
supplement the Old Testament, and particularly Ezekiel (eighty-seven
times from II, 1 to XLVII, 6). In contemporary French, the expression that stems from it
the closest would be "simple mortal". It is confirmed by the
Psalms: "Do not put your trust in princes, nor in the son of
"the man, of whom there is no help to be expected" (Ps., CXLIII, 3), and by the
Book of Job: "How much less is man, that is to say a worm? And the son
of man, who is a worm" (Job 25:6). Neither Jesus nor the evangelists
can ignore it.
The circumstances in which Jesus resorts to it testify incidentally.
a strangely unknown sense of humor to the exegetes. Besieged by the
birds on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, he decides to go to the other shore. A
the scribe asks to follow him and Jesus, clearly exasperated and longing for peace,
he answers: "Foxes have dens and the birds of the sky have nests,
the son of man has nowhere to lay his head.
The unfortunate person I am does not know where to go to be
calmly." Another time, he will say, just as humorously: "One does not
You can't put young skins on old wineskins.
The idea that Jesus could have referred to himself as a mere mortal was
incompatible with the notions that the exegetes had of him, and
the expression 'son of man' was thus invested with a meaning
exalted; it was reserved for Jesus. Anyone nowadays who would appropriate it
would be considered a fanatic for her account, while she is commonly
employed in conversations throughout the East.
This integral distortion of language may have been favored by the episode
next, that of the encounter with the Gadarene 'demoniacs', whose
Jesus, at their own request, sent the spirits into a herd of pigs.
and who insulted him with these words: "What do you want from us, Son of God?"
He who called himself the Son of Man was therefore Son
of God, as the demons had recognized Him. Incidentally, more than one
contemporary commentator was surprised, regarding the episode of the pigs,
that they raised these animals in Israel - "two thousand," specifies Mark (V, 13), this
which represents a very large herd for the time and even more for
Israel.
The expression "Son of Man" appears in the texts of the four
Gospels together with that of "Son of God" and "Son of David" from
in an undifferentiated manner. Thus, when the blind ask for his pity, they
he calls out to him as 'Son of David' (Mt., IX, 27), expression
unjustified as we have seen (102).
*

The identification of the Son of Man with the Son of God is moreover
consumed in the declaration of Jesus that scandalizes the Pharisees: "The
The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath" (Mt., XII, 8). These words override
the fact that the Sabbath was instituted by God, and they contradict his own
words, according to which he did not come to abolish the Law (Mt., V, 17). The Sabbath
was written in the Law. If the Son of Man was lord of the Sabbath, he
would identify with God and at the same time oppose Him. Then, in the history of
the healing of the paralytic, Jesus himself declares: "The Son of Man has
the power on earth to forgive sins" (Mt., IX, 6). A third
At times, in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus reaffirms this glorification of the Son.
of Man, but this time to identify with the Messiah. In his speech
apocalyptic to the Apostles, he declares: "Truly, I say to you, you
You will not finish the tour of the cities of Israel before the Son comes.
"the man" (X, 23), a prophecy that has not been fulfilled. He will finally say,
before his arrest: "Here comes the Son of Man to be delivered into the hands
of fishermen" (Mark, XIV, 41). He thus confirms that it is he of whom he speaks.
The most affirmative of Jesus' statements about the new meaning that he
the expression 'Son of Man' resides, however, in its announcement
to the Apostles after his arrest: "I tell you all: from now on
Now you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of.
Power and coming on the clouds of heaven" (Mt., XXVI, 64).
Thus, the dual meaning of the two definitions is established and legitimized, in
despite the earlier refutations by Jesus himself of his divine nature. And
above all, the fundamental contradiction is never resolved: how the Son
Can man be the Son of God?

131. The most absurd sentence in the New Testament

It is undeniably the following: "I know that the Messiah must come, the one
"who is called Christ," spoken by the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:25).
Two chapters earlier, she is already mentioned in the mouth of Andrew the Apostle,
who declares to his brother Simon: "We have found the Messiah," which means
say Christ", but here, the second part of the sentence is explanatory, to
the obvious intention of Greek readers.
The words 'Messiah' and 'Christ' are strictly synonymous, the former
is derived from the Hebrew machia, in Aramaic, massih, meaning "anointed", and the
second is Greek, Christos, that is to say also 'anointed'; their equivalent
Greco-Latin is messiah. This exemplary tautology is revealing of the
translation problems faced by the writers of the Gospels who did not
did not master the languages in use in Palestine at the time of Jesus,
we will find another piece of evidence further on (153). It questions
the interpretation of the episode where the famous Samaritan, near the well, would have
addressed these words to Jesus and where he would have replied to him: 'I am.'
who is talking to you" (126).
It is also written that there were no witnesses to the scene and this dialogue.
can only be invented. But it evokes other contradictions.

132. The prohibition of Samaria by Jesus is forgotten by him.

When he recruits the Apostles and outlines their mission, Jesus tells them
do not take the path of the pagans and do not enter a city of
Samaritans; rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt.,
X, 5-6). Now, Samaria is precisely one of those lost sheep. Despite
their disputes with Jerusalem and the fact that they had tolerated cults
foreigners (just like Jerusalem under Solomon), the Samaritans continued
to adore Yahweh. And even if, in the time of Jesus, the Jews held the
Samaritans for apostates worse than pagans, the Samaritans had,
before the Exile, is part of the nation of Israel. How was it that Jesus
had adopted the prejudice of the Jewish clergy? However, before the Ascension, he was going, according to the
Acts of the Apostles, to formally contradict: "You will be my witnesses"
in Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth," he declares.
to the Apostles (Acts, VIII, 5 and 14-17).
He went himself with the Apostles to the 'city of Samaria called
Sychar » (Jn, IV, 5), where the conversation near the well takes place.
Samaritaine. It is difficult to deduce that this conversation is enough to change the
dispositions of Jesus towards Samaria. Or did he take some
dispositions without knowing the object well.

133. Jesus' relationships with women and the strange episode of the
Samaritaine

The four Gospels clearly show that Jesus hardly maintained

of prejudices against women. Thus, from his laconic objection to those
who want to stone the "sinner": "Let he among you who has never
let him who is without sin cast the first stone." The constant presence of women around
from him and up to the foot of the cross is proof of this. However, a phrase from
the Gospel of John contradicts this openness. It is precisely in
The episode of the meeting with the Samaritan: "At that, his
disciples, and they were amazed that he spoke to a woman” (Jn, IV, 27). Similar
astonishment does not correspond at all to the portraits of Jesus drawn by the
Evangelists of the Synoptics, he notably contradicts the ties of affection
that he maintained with Mary Magdalene and her sister Martha and poses a
riddle. What unknown trait of Jesus would it refer to? Would Jesus have
condemns the physical relationship with women in a text that does not us
would not have arrived?
And why is John the only one to report this episode?
As it is, the story is a challenge to common sense. Jesus will wait near a
well in Samaria that someone come give him to drink, which is almost
scandalous, because Orthodox Jews do not drink from the same containers
that the Samaritans; since the Northern Kingdom, Samaria, has
freed from the tutelage of Jerusalem, the southern peoples are at odds with
them for theological and political reasons and consider the Samaritans
like renegades. An unknown woman arrives and Jesus asks her for a drink.
She is surprised: how can a Jew ask a Samaritan woman for a drink?
First of all, the question is absurd, because the Samaritans consider themselves as
Jews, even if they have fallen out with the people of Judea. Then how
Would she have known that he was 'Jewish'? He replies that if she knew who he is
who asks him for a drink, it would be she who would ask him for fresh water.
What is this "living water" then? A mystery, except that the water from the well does not...
quenches only temporarily, while the water provided by the traveler satisfies the
thirst forever. But what water can he possibly offer, since he is the one who is thirsty?
And why doesn't he drink it himself? However, she asks him to give her some and he does.
respond: go get your husband. She informs him that she doesn't have one and he tells her
Indeed, she has had five and the one who is at home is not hers.
But why was he asking him when he already knew? Another mystery.
Right out of the blue, the woman tells him that she knows the Messiah is coming,
that one called Christ. Why would she use the Greek synonym? On
Meanwhile, the disciples, who had gone to buy provisions, return and
the conversation is interrupted. The Samaritan goes to proclaim in the city that
Jesus is the Messiah (Jn, IV, 1-30), which is quite bold of him, because the
Samaritans do not recognize either David or the Messiah. In the meantime, Jesus did not
still no water.
A reader with some logic might wonder what could possibly be
the teaching of this nonsensical parable, and it is not certain that
the traditional exegesis would inform him. In any case, he would conclude that the
The Synoptics did well to omit it.
*

This episode is one of the proofs that certain passages of the Gospels are
symbolic texts. First, the place of the encounter between Jesus and the
Samaritaine is a symbol: it is Jacob's Well, in Sychar, one of the places
the most revered in Judaism, including Samaritans. They did not go there.
besides couldn't draw water: for that, they went to the nearby well of
Aïn Askar. The Well of Jacob was a source of the Law.
The Samaritan woman with five husbands is a famous character from that time.
It is Hélène, the former companion of Dosithée, the master of Gnosticism, a
of the two magi who were teaching in Samaria at the time, the other being a disciple of
the latter, Simon the Magician. According to some biblical scholars, Dosithée would have been a
ancient Essene15.
One understands Jesus' interest in this rival. This allows us to decipher their
conversation, although it is doubtful that Hélène, then high priestess of a
gnostic sects, the Hellenes, have ever been to the Well of Jacob to draw from it
water.
J. 'Give me to drink of your water.' (Let me taste your teaching.)
H. "What, you a Jew asking a Samaritan for a drink?"
An Orthodox Jew, are you interested in the schismatics?)
J. 'If you knew who was speaking to you, you would have asked for water.'
alive." (If you knew who I am, you would be the one asking for my
teaching.)
H. "You have no bucket and this well is deep." (You have no power)
and no knowledge, and religion is a profound thing.
J. "Those who drink this water will thirst again, but those who
they will drink the water that I give them will no longer thirst." (Your rhetoric is
It digs and does not satisfy the mind, it is I who hold the secret of things.
The writer of John had the finesse to disguise Jesus' interest in the
activities of the Gnostics in Samaria under the guise of a meeting
fortunate at Jacob's Well, but the listeners of his time would recognize
without pain this Samaritan woman. Undoubtedly, the authors of the Synoptics
Did they consider Jesus's interest in Dosithée and Simon the Magician?
would mislead the faithful.
If Dosithée is ignored by the evangelists, Simon the Magician was not.
forgotten by Luke, who dedicates a long passage to him in the Acts (Acts, VIII, 9-24),
depicting him as a maker of "spells" who attempted to corrupt the
Apostles by offering them money to obtain from them the power to impose
the hands and to call the Holy Spirit upon his clients... but was sent away.
by Pierre. Incident that motivated the creation of the word 'simony' to designate
the trade of spiritual things.
 134. "Why do you call me good? Only God is good": the rejection of his
divine nature and its messianity by Jesus himself

The abundance of designations of Jesus as Son of God in the four

Canonical Gospels are one of the founding elements of Christianity.
has, in tradition and in dogma, contributed to shaping the notion of its
divinity, then of its belonging to the Holy Trinity.
Jesus, however, rejected his divinity himself. Indeed, the Gospel of Luke
A notable asked him: 'Good master, what must I do to obtain
Eternal life as an inheritance?” Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good?
"Only God is good" (Luke, XVIII, 18-19). Mark reports this episode almost
in the same terms (Mc, X, 18).
This is the most formal refutation of the notion of the divinity of Jesus, and it
it is all the more so as it is uttered by him. It attests that Jesus
did not claim the qualities of divinity.
It also represents a major contradiction in the Gospel of
Luc, since he writes in his first chapter: "He [Jesus] will be great,
and he will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of
David his father" (Lk, I, 32).
However, Mark reinforces this denial of divinity through the episode.
following: not without presumption, Jacques and Jean ask Jesus, before
the entry into Jerusalem, "one to sit at your right, the other at your left, in your
glory." He replies to them: "As for sitting at my right or at my left, it is not
does not belong to me to grant it" (Mc, X, 35-40). The same is found again
episode, almost word for word, in Matthew, with one difference: it is the
mother of Jacques and Jean, Marie of Zebedee, whom Jean places at the latest at
the foot of the cross, who makes the request for this honor for his sons (Mt., XX,
20-23). The words of Jesus clearly mean that he does not possess the
divine power to glorify its Apostles in heaven.
Yet he contradicts himself, for at the beginning of his ministry in Jerusalem, he declares:
The Father does not judge anyone; He has given all judgment to the Son.
V, 22). How could he hold the power to judge everything and not that of
glorifying its Apostles? But further on, this statement is followed by the following:
I can do nothing by myself. [...] My judgment is just because
I do not seek my own will, but the will of the one who sent me.
V, 30). Now, the judgment is a voluntary act; if the one who is in charge of it does not
to carry out a higher will, it follows that he does not have
whole judgment
However, he later declares: 'I do not judge anyone; and if it happens to me
to judge, my judgment is according to the truth" (Jn, VIII, 16). What must it be
To hold back? Does he judge or does he not judge?
Jesus also denies the power to know the day of the apocalypse.
that he announces in mysterious terms (commented as follows by Marc: "Let the
reader understands"), when "the abomination of desolation will be set up there
where she should not be": "As for the date of this day, or the time, no one
Neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, knows them, only the Father
XIII, 14-32). But did he not say himself: "I and the Father we are
one » (Jn, X, 30) ? How can he then ignore what the Father knows?
Luc provides two other indications of the large reserve, even of the
denial of Jesus regarding his character and his mission. The
the first one is when he teaches in the Temple and the high priests,
the scribes and the elders ask him, after he has driven the merchants out of
sanctuary: "Tell us by what authority you do this, or who is it that has
given this authority?" He recuses himself: "I do not tell you by what authority
I do this" (Lc, XX, 1-8). The second concerns the notion of Messiah: "He
they say: “How can one say that the Messiah is the son of David? It is
David himself, indeed, who says in the Book of Psalms: 'The Lord has
Say to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies
a stool for your feet' David therefore calls Him Lord: how then
is he his son?” (Luke, 20:41-44).
Jesus therefore refutes the Davidic ancestry that Matthew and Luke
they wanted to establish, or his messianity.
The episode where Jesus would have revealed his identity as the Messiah to the Samaritan woman
seems to have to be rejected for the reasons stated above (126).
A denial of his divinity and a refutation of his messianity in the
the same Gospel constitutes major fractures in its coherence.

What was then the Serpent of Moses?

The Gospels are certainly full of enigmas, but one of the most resistant to
the explanation is certainly the one found in the conversation of Jesus with
Nicodemus (Jn, III, 14): "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so
the Son of Man must be lifted up." Surprising metaphor.
Indeed, it refers to the brass serpent that Yahweh, certainly
forgetful of his own prohibition against shaping effigies of living beings,
would have ordered Moses to make during the crossing of the desert. This
would have been to satisfy the pleas of his people, harassed by
"burning serpents." Moses complied, and it was enough to look at the serpent.
to be healed from the bites of these animals. Perhaps one will see a
prefiguration of the principle of homeopathy, which consists of healing the ailment through the
bad.
It was probably from Egypt that the Hebrews had brought the worship of
serpent, this animal is revered there under the name of Atoum, Lord before the
creation of the earth and sky and universal healer (we find it in our
days in the caduceus of physicians). The idol even stood up in the
Temple.
Nevertheless, the pious king Hezekiah had ordered its destruction.
idol like all the others (II Kings, XVIII, 4), because it would have spoken
against Yahweh and Moses. And its mention by Jesus calls to mind the
serpent which, for a sect of Gnostics of the time, the Ophites, was the
symbol of the powers whose name even the Redeemer had to know,
in order to cross the spaces that would lead him to the sky16.
The surprise then derives from a direct reference to the notion of a cult.
gnostic, that is to say belonging to a movement that the Church was going to reject in
e
IIs century as heretical. Its inclusion in the Gospel of John, of which the
The prologue is tinted with strong gnostic references, leading one to question
its authenticity. For traditional Judaism, indeed, the serpent remained
the guilty animal that had driven the original couple to Sin.

136. An enigmatic and anachronistic quote...

In his invectives against the Pharisees, Jesus calls upon them 'all the
blood of the innocent spread over earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the
the blood of Zachariah, son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary
and the altar" (Mt., XXIII, 35). If he speaks of Zacharias Barouchos (also called
Berekya or Bérekyahou), he commits an astonishing anachronism, for this priest
was assassinated in the Temple in 69, a year before the destruction of the Temple,
as reported by Flavius Josephus, that is, thirty-nine or thirty-six years
after the crucifixion. Neither Jesus nor his listeners can have it
knowledge.
Some exegetes have argued that this Zechariah would be the one mentioned in the
Second Book of Chronicles (II Chr., XXIV, 20-22). Now he was the son of
Yehoida and the name of Barachie.
This blunder is usually attributed to a careless copyist, one more;
she remains enigmatic nonetheless. How can a scribe, however careless,
he took the initiative to modify the words of Jesus, and moreover to do so for
introduce an error? Or might he have invented the words of Jesus? Y
Would there be other cases of similar alterations?

137. ... and an inaccurate quote about marriage

When he goes to preach in Judea and some Pharisees question him: "Is he
"permission to repudiate his wife for any reason?" Jesus said to them
Did you not read that the Creator, from the beginning, made them male and
woman, and he said: thus man will leave his father and mother to
to attach to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?
(Mt. XIX, 3-5). However, it is not the Creator who says this, but the writer of
the Exodus, presumed to be Moses (Ex., II, 24). Does Jesus interpret the Exodus in his
In what way, or is it another transcription error?

138. Sweetness or violence? The contradiction between the speeches of Jesus

In the same Gospel, that of Matthew, Jesus gives speeches

contradictory: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth" (Mt., V, 4).
Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come
"I did not come to bring peace, but a sword," he declares later.
(Mt., X, 34). And later still, he said to Peter, who was trying to defend him during
From the arrest to the Mount of Olives: "Put away your sword, for all those
"those who take the sword perish by the sword" (XXVI, 52). Is it the same
man who advised the Apostles to arm themselves: "Let him who has not
"He who has a sword should sell his clothes and buy one" (Lc, XXII, 36)? Is it the
Even who said: "I tell you not to resist the evil; to the
On the contrary, if someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer them the other one.
play" (Mt., V, 39)?
It is impossible to know whether Jesus preaches gentleness or violence. And these
contradictions raise the fundamental question of the interpretation of many
passages from the Gospels.

139. The appeal to the authority of the Scriptures, denial of freedom

 One of the essential questions raised by reading the Bible,
The one that springs forth, combined from the Old and New Testaments, is the one that bursts forth from

the omnipresent reference to the Scriptures, often quoted in fact

inexact or ad hoc. The term 'Writings' is used vaguely,
designating the Prophets as well as the Pentateuch, although the texts of
firsts hold no doctrinal value and that they have been vilified
by the Prophets themselves, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah. This recourse is also
well practiced by the authors of the texts, here the evangelists, than by the
main characters, such as John the Baptist and Jesus.
Thus, after the healing of the blind man at the pool of Bethesda, he declares:
If you believed Moses, you would believe me also, for he wrote about me.
But if you do not believe in his writings, how would you believe in mine?
words?" (Jn, V, 46-47). He thus presents himself as announced by Moses,
that is to say through the Scriptures.
Similarly, when he is arrested and Peter tries to defend him, he...
he discouraged him and said, "How then would the Scriptures be fulfilled according to
"of which it must be so?" (Mt., XXVI, 54). He does not specify which ones.
and when the evangelist Matthew takes charge, one could not be more vague:
“the Scriptures of the Prophets” (XV, 56). One would search in vain among the
Prophets announce the arrest and crucifixion of a son of David;
but faith or respect for the Bible makes one say that it must be
true, since they say so. The conclusion is that Jesus could have defended himself.
and to avoid crucifixion, but that he would have renounced it so that a
undetermined prophecy. Thus, in Matthew, there are three references to
Writings: XXI, 43, XXIV, 15 and XXVII, 9. Thus, he is the most frugal.
This constant reference to the Prophets is common to the four Gospels.
canonical. In the Gospel of Mark, it is found in the mouth of Jesus.
during his arrest, but in a different context. Here, it is to one of the
the henchmen of the high priest he addresses: "Every day I was with you,
in the Temple, to teach, and you did not stop me. But it is for
that the Scriptures may be fulfilled" (Mk, XIV, 49).
At Luc's, the reference to the Scriptures begins with the preaching of Jesus.
in the hypothetical synagogue of Nazareth where, among all the texts of
the Old Testament, they handed him the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, "and
unfolding the book, he found the passage where it was written: The Spirit of the Lord is
about me, because he has consecrated me by the anointing " (Lk, III, 12-19). Once
Additionally, Luc quotes the text inaccurately; it concerns verses LXI, 1-2 of Isaiah.
who are a proclamation from the prophet himself:
He sent me to bring the good news to the poor,
heal the wounded hearts,
to announce to the captives their liberation
and to the prisoners the release,
proclaim a year of grace from Yahweh...

Luc thus modifies the original text:

The Spirit of the Lord Yahweh is upon me,
for the Lord has anointed me;
to bring good news to the poor,
He sent me to proclaim freedom to the captives
and to the blind the return of sight…

He removed 'healing wounded hearts' and introduced the notion of

the anointing, as well as an announcement to the blind that Isaiah never wrote and that
is undoubtedly a reference to the miracles of Jesus. This is just one example
the liberties that the authors of the New Testament take with
the Scriptures.
The references to the Scriptures resume when Jesus speaks of the Baptist (VII,
27), then when he takes the Apostles to Jerusalem and tells them: 'Here is
that we go up to Jerusalem and that all that has been written will be accomplished by
the Prophets for the Son of Man" (XVIII, 31). The most surprising of
references to the Prophets put in the mouth of Jesus is undoubtedly that
where, after having organized his royal entry into Jerusalem (Luke 21:5), he cites
Isaiah:
Tell the daughter of Zion,
Here comes your King to you,
modest, he mounts a she-ass
and a donkey, the young of a beast of burden.

No ambiguity is possible: the crowd shouts "the king of Israel" (Jn,

XII, 13).
This would be the only time Jesus would have claimed an earthly kingship.
126). But it carries a solemn weight.
After an obscure quote, also attributed to Jesus, "it
It must be fulfilled what has been written: 'He was counted among the
"scélérats" (Lc, XXII, 37), it is one of the disciples of Emmaus who quotes by
twice the Prophets (XXIV, 25-27), and finally Jesus himself who cites to the
once the Prophets, the Psalms and the Scriptures (XXIV, 44-46), introducing
an inaccessible prophecy according to which the Messiah would rise from among the
died on the third day.
The Gospel of John is no exception to this practice of references:
we counted nine (II, 17 and 22, XII, 14 and 16, XVII, 12, XIX, 24,
28, 36 and 37).
Even Satan refers to the Scriptures! When he takes Jesus to the top
to the Temple, in Jerusalem, and he commands him to throw himself into the void, he says to him:
For it is written: He will command his angels concerning you so that they will
"Savior" (Luke, IV, 10).
Reading the canonical Gospels, one might be tempted to believe that it was the
er century.
Prophets of the past who governed the religious life of the Jews in the 1st
Had they not read Jeremiah?
*

It would follow that a crucial episode in the history of humanity would have taken place.
unfolding according to a plan established for all eternity. From this perspective, the
Prophets would have said everything and everything would have been written since always. However, it is a
fatalistic interpretation of destiny that contradicts both Testaments. In
The Ancient, God first urges the Jews to conquer the Promised Land and
the rejection of idolatries, under penalty of catastrophe, then he strives to
bring to unity. In the New Testament, God would have intervened in the
course of History to save humanity which he deems to be drifting. And why
Would Jesus have declared that he came to bring the sword, why would he have
ordered the Apostles to equip themselves with a sword, unless it was for combat,
Why would he have said: 'I came to bring fire to the earth'?
In both Testaments, the idea of free will and of
possibility of mastering one's destiny by fighting against Evil. The notion of
freedom is thus established. The systematic recourse to the Prophets is therefore in
fundamental contradiction with the logic of narratives. Everything happens as
if the Christic revolution was integrated into tradition.
And this raises an exegetical question: the obvious preeminence of
Writings, in fact the Prophets, in the spirit of the evangelists would not have
they are not led to put in the mouth of Jesus references that, for them,
strengthened its legitimacy? We will not surprise many people by
reminding that their testimonies do not have historical value, in the modern sense
Of this word: they were apologetic narratives, written at the earliest half-
century after the reported events and which, moreover, were abundantly
modified before reaching us in the forms we know. In
demonstrating in their own way that the work of Jesus had been announced long ago
by the "Scriptures", they annulled its revolutionary character and
even subversive.
However, the contradiction remains, at the expense of a coherent reading.
of the Gospels.

The nonexistent pun

Almost all French translations of the Gospels include a

unintentional pun; it is located in the passage of Matthew where Jesus says to
Peter: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Mt., XVI,
18). He insists on the exact homophony of the first name and the object, the latter being
become first name; the conversion has not been made in other languages,
this false pun obviously does not exist in the other translations, where
Peter is phonetically distinct from destoneou deStein, for example. Jesus
It is clearly inspired by the phrase from Isaiah: 'Behold, I lay in Zion a '
proven stone.
Although this does not fall within the scope of these pages, it is appropriate to
remind that the first and only name of Pierre until this designation was
Simon and that Pierre is the Greek transcription of the Aramaic Kepha,
that is to say precisely "stone". As long as we are taking liberties with the
translations, it would therefore be more consistent to call Pierre by his first name
first name, Simon, until Jesus nicknamed him that.

The strange parable of the fig tree

On the way to Jerusalem, Jesus, feeling hungry, would have approached a

fig tree and, finding no fruits, would have condemned it to sterility. 'And to
At that moment, the fig tree withered away" (Mt., XXI, 19). First of all, how
Could we have known? Its dryness could only have manifested several
days later. Then, Jesus had condemned him only to sterility and not to the
dead. Finally, the "fault" of this fig tree was not having borne any fruit for
the appetite of Jesus, and the 'punishment' appears dictated by a movement
of omnipotent mood that hardly corresponds to the image of Jesus, in all
not the one that the evangelists want to trace. Especially since Mark,
who takes up this incomprehensible episode (Mc, XI, 12-14), adds a detail
which highlights the absurdity: "It was not the season for figs."
 Meant to illustrate the power of faith, the anecdote rather describes a whim.

142. Contradiction on circumcision

The evangelist John has Jesus say the following,

the teaching he gives in Jerusalem: "Moses gave you the
circumcision – not that it comes from Moses, but from the patriarchs" (Jn, VII,
22). Now, this assertion is in formal contradiction with Genesis: "Here
my covenant that you will keep between me and you and your race after you: everything
male of you will be circumcised. You will be circumcised regarding the flesh of
your foreskin" (Gen., XVII, 10-11). Circumcision comes neither from Moses nor
from the patriarchs, it was ordained by Yahweh and passed on by Abraham.
Is it possible that Jesus ignored it? Or did the writer of John attribute it?
to Jesus statements that nullified the belonging of circumcision to
imperatives of the Alliance? This would correspond to the intention of the Gospel.
to detach the teachings of Jesus from traditional Judaism, even if it means
make him say what he had never said.

143. Who are the 'disciples' who abandoned Jesus?

Among the obscure points of the Gospels, and yet decisive in history.
of Jesus, account must be taken of the defection of many disciples before his departure
from Galilee to Jerusalem, of which the Gospel of John is the only one to speak.
After the sermon in a synagogue in Capernaum, 'many of his
the disciples withdrew and they no longer went with him" (Jn, VI, 66).
This reaction is due to the words of Jesus by which he establishes
the Eucharist. First, he declares: "I am the bread of life" and promises to those
that give him faith in the resurrection at the Last Judgment... which raises a
first protest from his listeners: "Isn't that Jesus, the son of
Joseph, don't we know the father and the mother? How can he say
Now: 'I have descended from heaven'?
He then declares: "The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of
world. " Second reaction from the listeners: " How can that one possibly...
to give his flesh to eat?
Finally, Jesus declares: "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life
eternal […] for my flesh is indeed food and my blood is
really a drink." Third and final reaction: "Who can
Listen to him?" And a large number of disciples, scandalized, abandon him.
 It should be recalled in this regard that one of the main uniquenesses of
the Gospel of John is that it does not mention the institution of the Eucharist at
the Last Supper, but much earlier in the ministry of Jesus, and that it is
also one of the most important differences between the canonical Gospels and
his
The speech that Jean attributes to Jesus during this Last Supper is the longest.
of all (Jn, VI, 32-63); it is also enigmatic due to parables, even
contradictory, because after warning that those who do not eat the
the flesh of the Son of Man will not have life in them, he declares that "the flesh
it is of no use." If it is useless, why eat it? And even educated
through centuries of Christianity, some Christians, even
If they communicate, they would have some difficulty commenting on it.
The question raised by this passage concerns the disciples: is it just about them?
listeners among the people? Undoubtedly, it is assumed, since after this
In this incident, Jesus addresses "the Twelve." Therefore, none of the Apostles has made
defection, or they have turned back. But Jean's vocabulary
reserve surprises: shortly after, he writes that "his brothers" urged Jesus to
go to Judea, so that his disciples could see his works. Who are these
"brothers"? Certainly not those from his family, whom he treated with such
nonchalance and who, in any case, are not among those who follow him; it is necessary to
to deduce that they are supporters. Further on, when Martha and Mary him
send a message to inform him that Lazarus is sick, Jesus says to his
Let's go again to Judea.
The word 'apostle' inevitably leads us to conclude that these are the Twelve. The deduction
is verified by the fact that John writes: "Judas Iscariot, one of the disciples"
(Jn, XII, 4). Then before the Supper, Jesus "began to wash the feet of
disciples » (Jn, XIII, 5). It is proven that John refers to the apostles
"disciples." And at the Last Supper, he does not mention the number of those present.
The question arises therefore: were there apostles who defected after the
preach of Capernaum. But how many and who were they?

144. How could Judas "betray" Jesus? Contradictions and

enigmas

According to Matthew (Mt., XXVI, 14-16), Judas Iscariot went to ...

of 'high priests' – a recurring nonsense – and would have asked them how many
they would pay him to betray Jesus. The amount was "thirty pieces of silver."
Marc, Luc or Jean do not specify the amount. But the essential question, which ...
No one seems to have questioned what it consisted of:
betrayal? To their knowledge, Jesus was not plotting. If he had
Having lived in secrecy, one could have assumed that she would have been revealed.
his hideout, but since his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, on Palm Sunday
Palm Sunday, he was going to make his devotions and preach at the Temple, and crowds were gathering around him.
followed. Jesus himself said to those who arrested him: "While each
I was with you in the Temple that day, you did not lay a hand on
me" (Luke, XXII, 53). The Sanhedrin therefore had no need for Judas to
stop it. And, it should be emphasized, this Council had no power at all
to arrest anyone outside the Temple. A kidnapping without the knowledge of the authorities
Roman would have exposed him to a conflict with Pilate.
And here a new contradiction inserts itself into the very logic of the narrative.
The "high priests" and the Pharisees would have, according to Matthew, differed.
the arrest: "Not in the middle of the party, they said, we need to avoid a
"tumult among the people" (Mt., XXVI, 5). But John, for his part, says
exactly the opposite: as Easter approaches, "the high priests and
the Pharisees had given orders: if anyone knew where he [Jesus] was
was, he had to indicate it, so that it would be seized" (Jn, XI, 57). Which of the two
are you well informed?
Incidentally, it is surprising that the Sadducees, another great Jewish sect
and who dominated the clergy, are never mentioned, while they were featured
in principle among the most vigilant opponents of Jesus, since they do not
did not believe in the resurrection of the bodies.
The people of the Sanhedrin would have arrested him the day before Passover.
they had done it at night, hoping to avoid riots, was only retreating to better
jumping because, on the very morning of his arrest, the Apostles would have taken care
to spread the news. Their calculation was therefore null and void from its origin.
Would they have needed Judas to locate Jesus at night? It is said that
Judas knew that Jesus and his disciples often gathered in the
Cédron Valley, but the Temple police, the very one led by a
certain Saul would not have had any trouble finding him at any hour.
At the end of these improbabilities, the betrayal of Judas is nowhere.
explained in the Gospels, nor its usefulness for the Sanhedrin and even less
his true motive. The evangelists invoke his greed; the argument is
doubtful; this man had faithfully followed Jesus throughout his ministry, he
had held the common purse without any reproach being made to him and he
would have suddenly become greedy?
The only betrayal he could have committed would have been to abandon Jesus.
The gospel accounts of the Last Supper, during which Jesus reportedly said to
Judas: "What you are about to do, do quickly" (John 13:27), incidentally raises the
next question: why Jesus, who knew he was being sought by the authorities of the
Temple, did he choose a house that is adjacent to the residence of Caiaphas?
All the plans of Jerusalem from that time indeed demonstrate it: the palace
the high priest and the Cenacle, as this house is now called,
are less than ten meters apart. It was really like throwing oneself into the jaws
of the wolf.

145. Contradictions on the use that Judas made of the thirty pieces of silver and
on his death

Matthieu recounts that, filled with remorse, Judas went to return this money to the
priests who had given it to him (Mt., XXVII, 3-5), and the priests bought
with a field that was called Hakeldama, Field of Blood. But it is written in
the Acts of the Apostles that it was Judas himself who bought this land, called
of the same name (Act., I, 18).
Matthieu states that thus was fulfilled 'the oracle of the prophet Jeremiah:'
and they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the Precious that they valued
sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as it has been told to me
ordered the Lord." However, one struggles to grasp the correspondence between this citation
and the history of this field, then, this oracle is untraceable in the text of
Jeremiah. In fact, it is drawn – skewed – from an episode of the Book of Zechariah:
It is that of the pastor overwhelmed by the rebellion of his sheep, who abandons them.
and says to the sheep merchants who are watching him: "If this seems good to you,
give me my salary." […] They weighed my salary: thirty shekels
of silver." At the command of Yahweh, the pastor therefore hands them over to the House of
Yahweh to be melted (Zech., XI, 11-13). There is no mention of it anywhere.
neither the potter's field nor betrayal; it's truly a misquotation.
characterized, as is often the case in the New Testament; as
many others, this one aims to certify an enigmatic and doubtful story by
garnishing with the seal of the Scriptures.
Another contradiction, equally flagrant, appears regarding the death of
Judas: according to Matthew (XVII, 5), he hanged himself, but according to the Acts, "that
man fell headfirst and burst in the middle and all his
"Entrails were scattered" (Acts, I, 18). Strange accident, even more
strange for a hanged man.

146. If Jesus knew that Judas was going to betray him, why didn't he
excluded from the Apostles?

Many of Jesus' statements before and during the Passion indicate that he
knew that he would be delivered to his enemies and "betrayed" by Judas Iscariot.
Thus, in Galilee, he announces to the disciples: "The Son of Man is going to be
delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and on the third day, he
"He will be raised" (Mt., XVII, 22-23).
He says it again in Caesarea of Philip: 'The Son of Man must suffer a lot'
to suffer, to be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the scribes, to be killed, and
"after three days, rise again" (Mark, VIII, 31). And, coming down from the
mountain, before entering Jerusalem: "The Son of Man will be delivered to
"hands of men" (Luke 9:44).
On the Mount of Olives, he also declares: "The hour has come: behold that
The Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of sinners." "Jesus, writes John,
knew from the beginning who were those who did not believe and who was
"the one who would deliver him" (Jn, VI, 64).
At the Last Supper, he declares: 'It is necessary that what is written in me be fulfilled.'
this which was written: "He was counted among the wicked" (Lk, XX, 37). And
during this Last Supper, when John asks him who will betray him, Jesus
It is the one to whom I will give the morsel that I am going to dip.
XIII, 26). And he gives it to Judas. There is also an incident inserted there.
incomprehensible: it is after Judas had eaten the bread that 'Satan entered
to him." This means that until then he would have been loyal and this excludes any
hypothesis of a previous visit to the Sanhedrin, where Judas would have offered his
services. The scenario was pre-existing: the bite of bread was the
trigger of the infernal machine. Jesus is mysteriously informed of it;
he then said to Judas: 'Do quickly what you have to do.' These very words
give reason to believe that Jesus would have given Judas the order to betray him.
And the question arises: why did Jesus not remove Judas from him and
of the Apostles? 'To fulfill what was written,' a phrase that recurs
tirelessly throughout the four Gospels.
The deduction would be that Jesus went willingly to the execution. She
is confirmed by his imploration during the Last Supper: "My Father," he said, "if this
"The cup cannot pass without me drinking it, let your will be done!" (Mt.)
XXVI, 42), rephrased by Mark in slightly different terms: "Father, keep away from
"Me this cup!" (Mc, XIV, 36). It shows his intimate conviction.
that he must allow himself to be crucified because that is the divine will.
Beyond the very object of "betrayal," it remains to explain the incredible.
the passivity of the Apostles. Jesus has just indicated to them the traitor, and he is leaving.
Moreover, the table to go fulfill his task, and not a single one gets up.
to prevent him from it; they are all accomplices of the betrayal. It is difficult to
to prevent oneself from thinking that, in certain circles that do not claim
Yet, not of spirituality, the reactions testify to more common sense.
We will only mention the discovery of the Gospel in 2005 for the record.
Judas, whose thesis is that Judas sacrificed himself to take on the role of the traitor,
for the love of Jesus.

147. The Apostles could in no case wield a sword.

It is not necessary to have extensive historical knowledge.

to be surprised that the Apostles carried a sword; it is nevertheless this
what the Gospels advance.
First, during the Last Supper and after his injunction to go buy
swords, the Apostles said to him: "Lord, there are two swords here." He
He replied to them: "That's quite enough" (Luke 22:38). But enough for what?
to do? And how can one not think, incidentally, that just one would have sufficed to
prevent Judas from doing his dirty work?
Then, during the arrest at the Mount of Olives, "one of the companions of
Jesus reached for his sword, drew it, and struck the servant of the high priest.
"priest and took off his ear" (Mt., XXVI, 51). It is not known what to do
understand by "servant", certainly not a domestic worker, but
certainly a person endowed with enough authority to represent
his superior.
One of the assistants drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest.
and he cut off his ear" (Mc, XIV, 47). "Seeing what was about to happen, his
the companions said to him: "Lord, should we strike with the sword?" And one of them
struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear" (Luke, XXII,
49-50). Jean specifies that the one who defended Jesus in this way was Simon Peter and
that the injured servant was named Malchus, probable transcription of
Malachi, and it was indeed the right ear that the latter would have lost.
XVIII, 10).
The episode must have pleased the writers of the Gospels, as it is one of the few
points on which they agree. However, it turns out that he is in
contradiction with historical reality, as the carrying of the sword was strictly
regulated throughout the Roman Empire and prohibited for civilians and populations
under Roman guardianship. It was difficult to imagine, moreover, the Apostles traveling through the
countries with swords in their scabbards at their belts, like
centurions. And Peter's feat was difficult to conceive: if he had sliced
the ear of Malchus with a weapon as heavy as a sword, the dynamics
the gesture would have caused a deep cut to the shoulder.
However, if the possession of swords by the Apostles is true, it
contradicts the peaceful message of Jesus and his phrase: 'He who overcomes by the'
sword perishes by the sword." Furthermore, it would indicate that Jesus and the
Apostles expected a violent conflict with their opponents, which
would once again call into question the gospel narratives, as it them
would rank among the Essenes who were preparing for an armed conflict.
It is permissible to assume that if the episode seduced the editors, it is because it
allowed to express the aversion felt for the high priest himself:
it was a substitution attack. The wound was treacherous, it took away from
injured the ascension to the priesthood. A lost cause: the moment after, Jesus to him
would have restored the ear (Lc, XX, 51).

148. The high priest could not have Jesus arrested outside the Temple.

Contrary to the claims of the evangelists, the high priest could not do
stop Jesus. Matthew speaks of 'Judas [...] and with him a band
numerous army of swords and staffs, sent by the high priests and
the elders of the Temple" (Mt., XXVI, 47). Mark uses almost exactly the
same terms, adding the scribes (Mc, XIV, 43). Luke describes those who
had come against him, "high priests", heads of the Temple guards and
elders (Luke 22:52). And John speaks of Judas leading the cohort and the
detachments sent by "the chief priests and the Pharisees" (Jn, XVIII, 2).
This formulation is itself erroneous, although frequent in the
New Testament, for there was only one high priest.
However, he and the Jewish notables did not have what is called the
"right of the sword", prerogative of the prefect of Judea. Their authority was
restricted to the precincts of the Temple; they could not arrest anyone outside
and even less outside of Jerusalem, such as on the Mount of Olives.
The evidence is provided by the evangelists themselves, since they
report that Jesus had been referred to the Roman authority: the high priest
could not have had the right to arrest without having the right to
judgment and execution of sentence. Jean formally acknowledges it and
therefore contradicts what he himself wrote twenty-nine verses earlier: "The
Jews said to him [Pilate]: "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death."
death" (Jn, XVIII, 31). The entire procedure took place under the authority
of Pilate, whom John, among others, strives to exonerate (Jn, XIX, 12 and XXIII,
13-25) to shift all the responsibility of Jesus' arrest onto 'the
Jews." This is confirmed by the presence of soldiers around the cross (Luke,
XXIII, 36); and there were no Jewish soldiers.
Jesus could only be arrested by Roman soldiers. The scene of
the arrest would therefore be a flawed reconstruction, because it is late, and
characterized anti-Jewish connotations (172), unless there were
collusion between Caiaphas and Pilate to stop the one they considered as
a dangerous troublemaker.

149. The mysterious young naked man of the Mount of Olives.

In the account of the arrest of Jesus, found only in Mark, we see

a perplexing incident, without any apologetic value: when the Apostles
they all had fled, "a young man was following him [Jesus], having only for
any garment that a sheet, and it is seized; but he, letting go of the sheet, flees
totally naked" (Mc, XIV, 51-52). Incongruous incident: what was a young man doing
naked man in a sheet on the Mount of Olives? And who was he? Mark does not say.
but then, why does he include this incident in such a scene
Dramatic as the arrest of Jesus?
For an ordinary reader of the Gospels, this would be one of those
enigmas of which they abound. For those who are familiar with the history of
texts, it reinforces the hypothesis of a revised earlier text. The information
documentary, and the fact that this unknown is referred to by the same term as the
young Lazarus in the episode omitted from the Gospel of Mark, neaniskos,
It would suggest, however, that this is the same character as in the
censored account of the Gospel of Mark (123). He was certainly not dressed
of a sheet, the bedding of the time being not the same as that of the centuries
further, but probably of a linen dress that, once torn, passed
for any piece of fabric and was mistaken for a 'sheet'. Detail
developer: it is a dress similar to the one Jesus wore during his arrest:
The tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top.
23) ; it was the standard clothing among the Essenes, after the ablutions. It was
therefore had a disciple of the Essenes on the Mount of Olives that night, this
mysterious young man who followed Jesus. And why did he follow him?
As it stands, the incident hardly contributes to clarity or coherence.
Canonical gospels; it especially suggests that there is an aspect of
ministry of Jesus that has been concealed and has close ties with the
Essenes.

150. A problematic chronology

According to the Gospels, Jesus was brought before the Sanhedrin on the
Friday, then sent to Pilate (we do not mention here the hypothetical
interview with Herod), condemned and dispatched to Golgotha around half past noon.
This represents a lot of comings and goings for such a short deadline, and such
is undoubtedly the reason why Matthew and Mark write that the session
The Sanhedrin began at night. 'When morning had arrived,' said Matthew,
specifying the time of the end of this session (Mt., XXVII, 1), just like
Mark: 'And immediately when the morning came' (Mark, XV, 1). That's very unlikely: the
the Mosaic law prohibited the Sanhedrin from holding sessions at night, before
6 o'clock and after 3 PM, and in any case, to judge the offenses
major the eve of the Sabbath.
It follows that the Last Supper did not take place on Thursday evening. Jean also avoids
any details on this subject. I have indicated elsewhere17the reasons to think that, if it
following the Essene calendar, Jesus celebrated the Last Supper on Wednesday evening.

151. Pilate's attitude, the washing of hands and other implausibilities

historical

Among the episodes of the Gospels that have marked the Western imagination,
that of Pilate's handwashing is one of the most famous. However, neither
the plausibility of the gesture nor the attitude of this prefect of Judea withstand
the exam.
First, the four evangelists depict him as doubting a
any guilt of the accused. "What harm has he done?" he asks him.
ask Matthew (Mt., XXVII, 23), raising increasingly demanding requirements
virulent accusers, "the Jews" 172). Marc takes the same
question (XV, 14). Luke, after introducing a presentation of Jesus to
Herod, of whom the other evangelists do not say a word, has Pilate repeat this.
he already said a few verses earlier: "I have found in this man
no grounds for conviction for what you are accusing him of. […] I do
"I will therefore release him after having chastised him" (Luke, XXIII, 2-16), which is a
absurdity, for why punish him if he is innocent? Jean, finally, has two said.
repeatedly to Pilate: 'I find no reason for this man'
"condemnation", but paradoxically, he still would have told the Jews:
Take him, you, and crucify him (John, XIX, 4-7). Now, this is another
absurdity, because Roman law cannot delegate power in any case
the execution of a man recognized as innocent: this would be an authorization of
murder. Furthermore, the Sanhedrin has no experience in the matter of
crucifixion, for it is not allowed to practice it. Apparently, this text
addresses an audience that is unaware of Roman law and government
Roman in a province of the Empire, what Judea was.
The charge by the Sanhedrin is that Jesus allegedly declared himself to be the son
of God, which is a blasphemy, not however recognized by Roman law.
But another point may worry the representative of the Roman power: Jesus
would have declared to be the king of the Jews. Even if Jesus did not admit it, this does not
can be perceived by the heirs of Herod the Great, including Herod Agrippa,
as a provocation and a cause of public disturbances. This accusation-
should have inspired Pilate to be more cautious than he is credited with being
Gospels. Indeed, Herod Agrippa had friends in Rome and could have
protest to them: "Your prefect is allowing an impostor to run around who is
claims to be the king of the Jews.
But the four Gospels portray Pilate as a coward.
pusillanimous; he "desired to satisfy the crowd," writes Mark (Mc, XV, 15), he
"was more afraid than ever," writes John (Jn, XIX, 8). This is certainly not the
portrayed as in the traces Flavius Josephus in the Jewish Antiquities (XVIII, 3 and
4): he is a brutal character capable of massacres, and his will to
to save Jesus hardly corresponds to the character. His apparent capitulation
before the Sanhedrin, if it ever existed, could only have been motivated by
a calculation: to avoid riots over a question that does not interest the Empire.
He was not the kind of man to back down from the street.
But it is mainly the theatrical gesture that Matthieu attributes to him that arouses
the incredulity: "Seeing that he was getting nowhere, but rather that it was following
From the tumult, Pilate took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, in
"Saying: 'I am not responsible for this blood; it's up to you!'" (Mt.,
XXVII, 24). He would have fulfilled there a Jewish rite, the very one that is prescribed
by Deuteronomy (XXI, 6) to discharge his responsibility as a judge of a
crime for which he had not found the culprit. Moreover, he does so in
pronouncing the very words of the Old Testament prescribed accordingly
circumstances: "I wash my hands in innocence" (Ps., XXVI, 6) and:
Me and my kingdom, we are forever innocent of blood.
(II Samuel, III, 28)
Attributing the behavior of a Jewish judge to Pilate is far-fetched, so the
do other evangelists not take up this episode, that the odds of the
translations are also dubious18.
This new improbability further compromises the truthfulness of
account of the Gospels.

152. Herod, the scarlet cloak and the crown of thorns: an episode
contradictory and doubtful

Luc reports that Pilate, wishing to rid himself of a case

embarrassing, given the unrest triggered and the number of supporters that
counted Jesus, sent him to Herod, since he was the tetrarch of Galilee,
that Jesus was Galilean and that Herod was just in Jerusalem (Lk, XXIII,
6-11). According to Luke, Herod was "very happy" to see the accused, this
he had been waiting for it for "quite a while." He would have put it on a
"splendid garment" and would have sent him back to Pilate.
But neither Matthew, nor Mark, nor John mention this appearance before
Herod. According to the first, the soldiers would have stripped Jesus and would have...
clothed in a 'scarlet robe' (Mt., XXVII, 28). According to the second, they
would have clothed him in 'purple' (Mark 15:17). John also speaks of a
"purple robe" (Jn, XIX, 2). Do people believe that the potentates of that time
had full wardrobes of such coats? They were
expensive accessories and precious items carefully preserved.
It is singular that three of the four evangelists deemed it unnecessary to
mention an interview as important as that of Jesus and the man
who had ordered the execution of Baptiste. This, and the carnival-like character of
Purple cloak is enough to make the episode suspicious.
And from a strictly historical point of view, it is difficult to understand that Herod had
returned the accused to Pilate after having, in mockery, dressed him in a 'clothing'
splendid". If the prefect had referred the Galilean to his authority, he would not have
I have no more scruples about putting him in prison than for Baptiste.
As for the crown of thorns, it would surely have been just as painful to
to make to wear and one can hardly imagine the Roman soldiers
bleeding hands to make a mocking accessory.

153. The "bandit" Barabbas: a challenge to credulity and the indication of others
riddles

The four Gospels provide almost the same account of a supposed trick.
of Pilate who would have been eager to spare Jesus, but would not have wanted to
provoking the Jews by pardoning him by authority: he would have invoked a custom
Jewish tradition dictates that during a holiday, a prisoner was released and handed over to the
population, and "there was in prison a man named Barabbas, arrested with the
rioters who had committed a murder in the sedition
Pilate would then have given the crowd the choice between Jesus and Barabbas (Mt.,
XXVII, 15-26, Mc, XV, 6-15, Lc, XXIII, 17-25 and Jn, XVIII, 39-40). John
insists on this point: "Barabbas was a brigand" (XVIII, 40). And
the crowd would have chosen Barabbas.
Now, this tale is a challenge to credulity: Barabbas, bar abba, means in
Hebrew 'son of the father', and with us, 'son of my father'. No one would have
never worn nor could wear such a name nor will it ever carry it. It designates to
the evidence Jesus himself, who referred to God as his Father. In his
Commentary on Matthew, Saint Jerome writes furthermore, about
the Gospel according to the Hebrews: "This name Barabbas is understood as
"sons of their master", that is to say Jesus himself19That he does not suppress the
Faulty verses! They demonstrate, in fact, that Barabbas was Jesus.
We are bewildered by the implausibility of this confusion; if it reveals
that none of the Gospel writers spoke Aramaic, otherwise he would not have
never transcribed the name of Barabbas as that of a specific actor of the
tragedy, it also illuminates, and brutally, an underestimated problem in the
veracity of the Gospels: that of the language barrier. In the Palestine of
At the time, the most common language was Aramaic, in which one expressed themselves.
Jesus, Hebrew was also spoken by the population of Judea, and especially by the
clergy. Those who spoke one or other of the Semitic languages, or even
the two, had no communication problems. But they did not speak
Not Latin, the language of the Roman occupiers, who were forced to do
calling on interpreters when they addressed local interlocutors.
It was therefore in Latin that Pilate spoke when he addressed either the clergy
be to the crowd said to be gathered in front of the courthouse. Obviously, the
interpreters were unable to make themselves heard or understood, and the
testimonies on which the first written accounts of the scene were based
distorted by the ignorance of Semitic languages: neither the
neither the Greek speakers nor the Latin speakers realized the enormity of the error they
were creating a character distinct from Jesus who would be called
Barabbas. When they realized it, which is likely, it was certainly
too late: this character had acquired an immutable status in the texts and the
memories.
It should also be noted that this one is never represented in the
gospel accounts; if the two 'thieves' are mentioned, they are never seen, and
for this reason, Jesus and Barabbas side by side.
*

This confusion calls into question the entirety of the episode.

First, there is no trace outside the New Testament of the
custom of the pardon of a prisoner. It would have been nice to see that the prefect of
Judea released a murderer, and a rioting murderer on top of that, like the
specific Marc, thus an enemy of security in the Empire. He would have been him-
even liable to betrayal. Then, assuming that the tradition of liberation
of a prisoner had existed, Pilate could not, as the representative of
the Empire, to conform to it. His offer: "Jesus or Barabbas?" is therefore
incredible on two counts. The representative of Roman power could not
delegate the decision to the people.
It is through Marc's words that we learn that there had been a riot in
Jerusalem, bloody on top of that. The fact that Jesus is ...
the responsible one is confirmed by the high priest who referred him to Pilate: "It
"raises the people" (Luke, XXIII, 5). In the most recent of these riots, Jesus
Barabbas had caused the death of a man or at least he was accused of it. If he
had participated, the only possible reason is that his supporters had entered
in conflict either with the Temple police or with the Roman forces. He
It thus appears that Jesus led a much less peaceful action than the
The Gospels make it clear, and his statement: 'Do not think that I
you came to bring peace on earth; I did not come to bring peace,
but the sword" takes on a whole new dimension.
Finally, the episode of the confrontation between Pilate and the gathered crowd
in front of the court must be reinterpreted in light of the two pieces of information that
here: this crowd had come to ask, not for the crucifixion of Jesus, but for his
liberation.
We measure the extent of the consequences of identifying Jesus with
Barabbas: it is the entire action of the character that must be reconsidered. This
point raised the embarrassment of traditionalist commentators, and one of them,
Raymond Brown20, imagined the possibility that there were two convicted individuals
named Jesus, one of them being called Jesus Barabbas. This does not resolve the
problem, no one can be called Jesus Barabbas and the name
"son of the father" can only apply to Jesus.

154. The carrying of the entire cross is an invention

Historical data on the crucifixion do not correspond at all to the

gospel accounts of this torment. They indicate that only the beam
the transverse of the cross, known as the patibulum, was carried by the condemned until the
place of execution21There, he was fixed to the pillar and the condemned was hoisted and
tied up, with his feet resting on a support (163). The sentence from John, 'And he
"bearing his cross" (Jn, XIX, 17) is in contradiction with history
as much as the obvious. Indeed, one cannot conceive that Jesus could have lingered
the entirety of the cross from the court to Golgotha without it being
dislocated in the clashes with the roadway. Moreover, the executioners would not have
did not take the risk of letting the cross shatter, in case the condemned one
would have let her down.
Christian iconography, however, has perpetuated this invention despite
its implausibility.
Incredibility already arises when reading that Jesus would have been tasked with the
cross at the exit of the Hasmonean Palace, where the judgment took place: this palace
was not a warehouse for all mounted crosses. At most, one can
suppose that the patibulum of Jesus was brought by a centurion after the
Pilate's decision.
This piece was indeed heavy enough to justify the obligation that the
soldiers escorting Jesus made Simon of Cyrene help the condemned to the
porter, an incident only mentioned by the Synoptics, but not by the Gospel of John
it inexplicably and which has generated an independent myth22The reason in
seems however obvious as much as prosaic: it was to prevent that the
The wooden lintel was damaged during a fall.
But where were the Apostles?

155. A dubious detail: the inscription on the cross

John introduces into the account of the crucifixion a detail that has become famous and
yet none of the Synoptics mention it. It is that of the sign.
who would have been placed on the cross, thus written: "Jesus the Nazarene, the king of
Jews. Jean claims that Pilate wrote it, but he also says that
the sign was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek, and it is unlikely that
Pilate spoke Hebrew, it must undoubtedly be understood that he dictated it. Always was it
that "the high priests of the Jews" – always this mistake, since there were not
a high priest opposed it, and Pilate would have replied to them: 'What
I have written, I have written it" (John, XIX, 17-22).
The reason would be obscure. Could it have been a revenge by Pilate against the
clergy who would have forced him to have Jesus executed? In that case, he would have
deliberately offended all Jews, both opponents and the
partisans of Jesus, who would not have accepted that their king was crucified. But he
would also have offended the tetrarchs Herod Agrippa and Philip. Now,
The representatives of Rome did not take matters lightly.
royalty, and it is more than doubtful that Pilate would have gotten involved.
personally in the judgment of a seditious Jew. If he had imposed this
sign, he would have also ordered for the other two convicted ones, this
of which there is never any mention. It is likewise excluded that after that, Herod
and Pilate became 'two friends', as Luke claims (Luke,
XXIII, 12). It is known from Flavius Josephus that they were abominable.
In light of the invention of 'Barabbas', the detail of the sign seems
if not invented, at least dubious.

156. There were no "thieves" crucified

There were two thieves crucified with him, one on his right, the other on his left.
left" (Mt., XXVII, 38). This detail, popularized by the story of the Good and the
Bad Thief testifies that once again the writer was unaware of the
legal context of Palestine. Neither Roman law, which prevailed in the
countries, nor Jewish law considered theft as an offense punishable by the
capital punishment. If there were crucified people to the left and right of Jesus, they did not
certainly not for thefts, but for murders. We will not know
obviously not what their crimes were, or even if they were two or three
or more, and even less if the cross of Jesus was at the center, like a
stubborn iconography has created the tradition.

157. Contradictions and physical impossibilities for the Good Thief

The Christian tradition took from the Gospel of Luke the tale of the Good
Larron, who reproaches his companion, also crucified, for his words.
Taunts against Jesus: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself"
and us too!" Jesus would then have said to his defender: "Truly, I tell you...
"Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:39-42). This is not
not at all what Matthew (Mt., XXVII, 44) and Mark (Mk, XV,
32), exactly in the same terms: 'Even those who were crucified
they insulted him." As for Jean, he doesn't talk about it at all. Luc is therefore the
only to propose this touching tale, but evidently apocryphal. In the
oral tradition that preceded the first written versions of the Gospels, this
invention was able to evoke the emotion of the audiences.
The story is additionally implausible for physiological reasons,
exposed below (160). Especially if the crosses of the two "thieves" were,
as tradition dictates, set up on either side of that of Jesus, he
It would have taken much more breath than they had to insult Jesus.
and even more to maintain between them, several meters apart, a
exchanges like those reported by Jean. They didn’t even have enough.
to continue breathing.
It is therefore excluded that the other two crucified could even have insulted Jesus.

158. The accounts of the Crucifixion: differences, contradictions, and gaps

These accounts indicate that none of the presumed authors, nor even any of the
the writers of the four Gospels did not witness the crucifixion of Jesus and that the
information they collected half a century later, if not more,
diverged considerably.
Matthew writes that before the crucifixion, "they gave him wine mixed with
field » (Mt., XXVII, 34). A few verses later, while Jesus was in
cross, someone gave him "a sponge soaked in vinegar" (Mt.,
XXVII, 48). According to Mark, they gave him 'wine flavored with myrrh' (Mk,
XV, 23). According to Luke, it would be the soldiers who would have 'offered him some
vinegar" (Lc, XXIII, 36), for he said: "I thirst" (Jn, XIX, 27). John,
he talks about a 'vase filled with vinegar', in which a sponge was soaked
to tender it to Jesus on the cross and which he drank before 'giving up the spirit'
(John, XIX, 28-30).
Minor detail, one would assume. No. Besides, the divergences indicate
Once again, the ignorance of the evangelists, this drink has its importance;
it was wine mixed with myrrh, an astringent substance which, when blended with a
liquid, mitigated thirst. It was supposed to induce lethargy. Some
editors, foreigners and therefore unfamiliar with life in Jerusalem, would have believed
that it was vinegar, because the original Hebrew word, chomets, designates
both vinegar and low-quality wine 23what in French we
called "piquette". As for Matthieu's mistake, it is undoubtedly due to the
made this wine with myrrh was, indeed, a bit bitter. But Jesus, according to John,
but from where the torpor that followed.
This custom of providing drugged wine to the condemned was dictated by the
Proverbs (XXXI, 6) which advise to offer a strong drink to those who go
er century, an association of women from Jerusalem paid for this wine
to die; in the 19th
from their own funds to ease the sufferings of the crucified. For the crucifixion,
it must be emphasized, was a torture introduced by the pagans and perpetuated by
the Romans; the Jewish population condemned it as a pagan horror.
If there ever were words on which agreement should have been perfect,
these were indeed the last words spoken by Jesus. It is not so. Matthew and
Marc quotes the four words in Aramaic, 'Eli, eli, lema sabbactani ?'
but with different spellings, thus different meanings. For the
first (XXVII, 45), it is that which Jesus would have cried out, that is to say "why".
For Marc, it is Eloï, that is to say 'My God', as he translates it himself-
even (XV, 34); this changes the meaning of the traditionally accepted translation
offers24.
This cry raises a doubt: at first, it was perceived in such ways
different from some, as reported in the Gospel of Matthew, believed
that Jesus called the prophet Elijah (Mt., XXVII, 47). Then Mark and
Matthieu disagrees on what they heard. In principle, it would have been the
first verse of Psalm 22, translated by Jesus into Aramaic; but the
Semiticists object that this would be a strange Aramaic, especially for
someone whose language it was. Luke and John abstained from
report these strange words.
After the exchanges between a thief and Jesus, which are very
presumably fictional, for the physiological reasons outlined below
(160), Luc replaces this cry of despair with: "Father, into your hands I
restore my spirit" (XXIII, 46).
For John, Jesus's last words would have been: 'I thirst' (XIX,
28).
One could not be less in agreement. But one cannot be surprised by it.
since, let's remember, the Gospel of Matthew was written in large
part in Alexandria, Mark's in Rome, as they agree to it
most biblical scholars recognize, that of Luke in Antioch and that of John in
Ephesus.

159. Implausibilities and contradictions about the people present at

Golgotha or at the foot of the cross, and the riddle of Jacques and Joset

These people are not unanimously liked. While Matthieu and Marc are more or less
agreed on 'a certain number of women' who had followed Jesus since
Galilee, to the others they seem unknown. Among the women
mentioned, we note Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James the Less
and of Joset, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Mt., XXVII, 55-56). Mark cites the
even more "Salomé, who had followed him and had watched over him when
he was in Galilee, and there were several others who had come with him to
Jerusalem " (Mk, XV, 40-41).
One can only be astonished, there too, by three facts or rather three
presumptions. The first, when one has some knowledge about the
society of the time, is that only women followed Jesus throughout
of his ministry. This is unthinkable in the strictly patriarchal regime of
the era: every woman had the potential to be a wife and mistress of a household;
she would not have had the license to travel the great roads following a
man himself escorted by twelve others or more. The second fact is
that the evangelists only quote women and no men at the foot of the
cross, except for the "disciple whom Jesus loved" in the Gospel of John.
The third, finally, is not to find the mother of Jesus in this.
enumeration: none of the Synoptics mention it.
There is only a partial explanation for the first fact: it is
due to a translation error that was then propagated by the copyists. In
Syriac, for example, a language in which a large number was written
of the first versions of the Gospels, either individual or in a form
collective résumé of the diatessaron, the difference between 'the women of those
who had followed him" and "the women who had followed him" depends only on
the absence or presence of a single letter, ledalath25An absence
accidental of this letter or the lack of familiarity of the translator with the
Syriac produces therefore the version of the evangelists, whose authors have
then adapted the phrase in their own way, thus giving the impression that
Jesus would have been followed by a group of adventurous women.
But we do not have answers to the other two questions, particularly
in the absence of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Only John mentions her, but curiously,
Near the cross where Jesus was attached stood his mother,
with her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas [or Cleophas], and Mary of Magdala
(Jn, XIX, 25). He does not mention the other two, Mary the mother of James.
the Little and Joset, nor Mary the mother of the sons of Zebedee, but he cites himself
also among the witnesses and is named. In this case, where was his
Brother Jacques?
Not only does John contradict Matthew (Mt., XXVII, 55-56), Mark (Mc,
XV, 40) and Luke (Lc, XXIII, 49), who say that the women were observing the
crucifixion from a distance, but his testimony is probably contradicted, because
the access of women to these places of torture was restricted, the crucified being
naked exposures. Such is the reason why the Synoptics say that
the women were standing at a distance, probably at the door of Ephraim. The version
Jean inspired many pious paintings from all eras, but she
is however not plausible.
A question arises obviously: who is Mary the mother of James the
Petit and Joset? These two names pose several additional enigmas.
Indeed, Jacques le Petit is traditionally identified with Jacques
of Alphaeus, distinct from James the son of Zebedee, brother of John and called James the
Major; but the name Joset, which corresponds to that of Joseph, has never
has been mentioned so far. At this point, the brothers of Jesus come to mind.
cited by Matthew (Mt., XIII, 55-56): James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude (of whom he
don't say who the mother is). This Jacques and this Joseph, who are brothers, would be
So also some brothers of Jesus; but then, where are Simon and Jude? The
the question becomes irrelevant if one considers that the Mary who is the mother of James
and Joset cannot be the mother of Jesus, because she would be designated differently. Y
would there then be a third Jacques, distinct from Jacques of Zebedee and from
Jacques of Alphée?
The main question remains: why do Matthew and Mark not mention it?
namely Mary mother of Jesus, since she would have been at the foot of the
cross when Jesus would have entrusted it to the "disciple whom he loved" (John, XIX, 24)?
As many mysteries for which we have not found keys in
the Christian exegesis. And the Apocrypha only confuse them until
make them even thicker26The most plausible hypothesis is that, from
Reshuffling in reshuffling, censors and copyists have lost their bearings.
One point is clear: the strange reserve of the evangelists towards Mary,
mother of Jesus, whom he had already treated with a disconcerting coldness
when she had asked to see him (124). Only Jean makes an exception for it, in
including the unlikely address of Jesus to his mother where he refers to 'the disciple'
that he loved", unnamed and presumed to be Jean, and stating "Woman, here is
to your son," and to the disciple, "Here is your mother" (John, XIX, 24 in The New English
Bible). It is a riddle: Jesus had brothers, so he could not entrust his
mother to a stranger, the presumed Jean of Zebedee. Let's note in passing a
another singularity: he addresses his mother by calling her 'Woman', whereas at
At that time, we called 'Father' to our father and 'Mother' to our mother.
One fact remains: in the four versions, it is the figure of Mary of
Magdala that asserts itself most clearly.
One can measure, from these analyses, the role of iconography in creation
of myths, such as the carrying of the cross or the numerous pietas of the
Renaissance: no passage from the canonical Gospels makes reference to
moment when Christ, having come down from the cross, would have rested on the knees of his
mother; it is an artist's invention. In fact, Mary is not even
mentioned in the episode of the crucifixion.

160. Two Hours in Cross: the Reasons for Incredibility

One cannot expect apologists of the II ecentury – no canonical Gospel

the apocryphal is not earlier - the precision of modern officials, but
for an event as crucial for them as the death of Christ, one would have hoped
a reasonable concordance27.
However, the only point of the crucifixion on which Matthew and Mark agree
is the hour of the presumed death, located at 'the ninth hour', that is to say
Around 3:30 PM, the hours being counted from sunrise.
Jean only gives the hour at which Pontius Pilate would have delivered Jesus to the...
Sanhedrin, the sixth (Jn, XIX, 14), that is to say around twelve thirty. Therefore, it is ...
in contradiction with Luke, who writes that it was precisely at that hour that
Jesus breathed his last (Luke, XXIII, 44). Once again, the Sanhedrin had no resources.
of no authority for the execution of a sentence nor the erection of a cross.
It was therefore not to the Sanhedrin, but to Roman soldiers that Pilate
would have handed over Jesus; the proof is that it was Roman soldiers who
would have whipped this one and who would watch at the foot of the cross; the inaccuracy
Jean is nothing more than an additional reflection of his stubborn anti-Judaism.
172). Moreover, he contradicts himself when he speaks twice of the 'soldiers'
(Jn, XX 23 and 24): there were no Jewish soldiers, just soldiers
Romans, who were not under the orders of the high priest.
The logic of the narrative - presentation of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, then
before Pilate, debates of the latter with the accusers and flogging of the
condemned - would designate the indications of Matthew and Mark as the
more plausible. With this detail: Marc claims that "It was at the third
hour [around 9 o'clock] when they crucified him" (Mk, XV, 25). But it is evident
that Jesus could not have been crucified before being delivered to his torturers
according to the chronology of John. Mark or his scribes must have been negligent about
their chronology.
It is therefore necessary to return to the indications of John: Jesus would have been delivered to
his torturers around 12:30. But the time to lead the condemned to
Golgotha and putting him on the cross can be estimated at nearly an hour; that
would have been more if the same team was also responsible for putting the
two "thieves" on the cross and if Jesus was not the first... but we
We will look further into what is the case with these "thieves." Jesus was therefore not crucified.
as early as around 1:30 PM. And he would have expired two hours later.
It is not plausible.
Although the historical data on the crucifixion torture is
succinct, the authors do not wish to dwell on a torment that
Greeks and Romans, just like the Jews, considered it atrocious (despite the fact
that they practiced it frequently), many ancient authors, such as the
philosopher Seneca talked about it. It was a long torture, and the condemned
and survived for up to a week; they succumbed to dehydration and,
for modern medicine, the acidosis caused by the depletion of blood
in oxygen. Due to the constant expansion caused by the position, the
thoracic muscles became ankylosed and the victims were forced to a
shallow breathing (which, incidentally, once again highlights the little
plausibility of the conversations between Jesus, the witnesses, and the two others
condemned)
 Furthermore, completely naked, the crucified were subjected to both
the sunlight and the bad weather, which further reduced their resistance. Public
and traditional exegetes invoke the risks induced by the wounds of the
clouting: we will see further down that this clouting is itself a fiction
maintained by tradition. This long survival was the reason why one
would finish off the condemned either by crushing their skulls or by breaking their...
tibias. As their feet were attached to a support, once these bones were broken,
all the weight of the body was falling on the arms and crushing the chest
then led to terminal suffocation.
This last torture, say the evangelists, did not happen to Jesus, because
that he would have passed away at the ninth hour. The other two condemned,
they would have been completed because the Jewish authorities did not want
the crucified remained on the cross on the eve of the preparation for Passover;
The point is questionable, the Jews having no jurisdiction over the condemned.
Marc, and he alone, provides a clue about the presumed and premature death of
Jesus: when Joseph of Arimathea went to claim the body of Jesus from the prefect,
Pilate was astonished that he [Jesus] was already dead and, having called the centurion,
asked if he had been dead for a long time" (Mc, XV, 44). This confirms
the reservations expressed above.

161. The centurion's spear thrust to the heart: why Matthew, Mark and
Aren't they talking about Luc?

Biblical scholars who support the death of Jesus on the cross invoke the blow of
a lance that was thrust into the heart by a centurion, to make sure that Jesus
was truly dead. Now, this episode from the Gospel of John, which inspired a
abundant symbolic iconography is reported by none of the
Synoptics. This is one of the most troubling omissions in the
Canonical gospels. Moreover, no evangelical text, including John, does not
mention of a wound to the heart: Jean speaks of the 'side'.
The detail has nevertheless sparked an astonishingly abundant critical literature,
aiming on one hand to verify the accuracy of the spear thrust, and on the other hand to establish
the reasons for his insertion. The truth is indeed questionable, if only
because the Synoptics and certain versions of the Gospel of John
do not include this episode, and due to the unusual insistence that
the author certifies its truthfulness. For some authors, the outpouring of
water and blood correspond too faithfully to the symbolism of this Gospel
attached to the two substances, water and blood. The detail exceeding the scope of these
pages, we will refer the reader to the comprehensive analysis that has been presented
The Gospel According to John XIII-XXI, by Raymond E. Brown28. This
symbolism would well explain the invention and inclusion of the episode.
The following observations are called:
- if modern forensic doctors have observed, in some cases
exceptional, seepage of blood that may occur within minutes
following death, but only in these cases, the corpses do not bleed,
the blood coagulates shortly after the heart has stopped beating; the spouting
immediate described by John, and not the bleeding of water and blood
would indicate that Jesus was not dead;
– like all soldiers since the origins of the war, the centurion
should have known that a dead person does not bleed and he would certainly not have concluded that
the crucified was dead, quite the opposite; he would have had his shins broken;
the body does not contain, under the flank, organs filled with water and the
"Spouting" reported by Jean could only have been liquid.
pleural; the injury is serious, but countless accounts of modern warfare
indicating that it is not fatal;
No term in the description of the Gospel of John designates the heart.
as having been the point where the centurion's spear wounded Jesus; the mentioned point
is the "flank". Let us remember that, in the Ethiopian tradition, in the Acts
from Pilate and in the liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, the spear thrust has been
given on the right side29.
The episode thus contains radical contradictions and the interpretation.
What has been made of it is inventive, if not abusive. If it weren't for its character.
doubtful, one could assume that the centurion who struck with the lance was
the same one to whom Pilate asked if Jesus was really dead and who went
on Golgotha to verify it.

162. There was no solar eclipse in the year 30 or 33.

It was already around the sixth hour when the sun was eclipsing,
Darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour," writes Luke
(Luke 23:44). Matthew and Mark do not use the word 'eclipse', but
they affirm that 'darkness fell over the entire earth until the ninth'
"hour" (Mt., XXVII, 45 and Mc, XV, 33). Matthew embellishes his account however.
an apocalyptic description, where 'the veil of the Sanctuary was torn in
two, the earth trembled, the rocks were split, the tombs opened and
many saints who had fallen asleep were raised to life" (Mt., XXVII, 51-52).
Prodigious and somewhat absurd incident: the saints "came out of the
tombs after his resurrection [that of Jesus] entered the Holy City
and showed themselves to many people." It should therefore be assumed that after
their tombs were opened, the said saints remained there for three days, which
to push the fantastic a little far.
In any case, there were no saints at that time and there were none.
of solar eclipse in 30 or 33, the supposed years of the crucifixion. The
The reference to the saints indicates the late date of this inclusion.
The exalted imagination of a witness transformed an April storm into a
cataclysm.

163. The fiction of the binding of hands and feet

A tradition now rooted in minds represents Jesus fixed to the

nailed cross in the hands and feet superimposed; she established the
model of all the pious crucifixes in the world. Now, it is a
fiction.
It had already been refuted in thee 20th century by anatomists for a reason.

It would have been impossible to subject the tissues of the hand to weight.
of a whole body. They would have quickly torn apart, leading to the fall of the
body and the failure of the sentence. These anatomists then suggested that the thesis
the nailing was only sustainable if the nails had been driven in at
wrists, an explanation we had subscribed to until the discovery of the
The first mentions of nailing were late and were not based on
on no historical document30.
However, the clamping of the feet posed a more difficult problem: to fix
the feet one on top of the other, as shown in traditional iconography, it
would have required long nails and therefore of such a diameter that they
would have shredded the bones and all the tissues of the feet. They would have thus
confirmed the practice, historically attested, of shin breaking - intended to
shorten the lives of the condemned who until now relied on support from the
base of the cross. If the feet were already shattered, the crucified could no longer
relying on it and the breaking of the shins proved to be unnecessary from the outset, the
condemned having already collapsed. As for the separate nailing of the feet, it is
excluded, given the width of the central post. No alternative hypothesis has been proposed.
advancement.
Only the Gospel of John mentions the nails, in the words that it
Thomas said: 'If I do not see the mark of the nails in his hands, if I ...'
do not put my finger in the mark of the nails, […] I will not believe
XX, 25); this, for the reasons mentioned above, reveals the late date.
the text. In fact, this clamping of the ends is a fiction introduced by
the Gospel of Peter, apocryphal, which mentioned for the first time, in the 8the century, the
hand clouting. Shortly after, Justin Martyr, who made great use of this
apocryphal, added the nailing of the feet. John also writes that Jesus was
"attached" to the cross (Jn, XIX, 25), although his testimony is uncertain.
Such a radical revision of tradition could surprise the reader.
It is easily understood, however. Aside from the fact that it is not mentioned in
no ancient text, non-apologetic and prior to the Gospels, the hypothesis
the clamping on the wrists would have been admissible, only if it had required
from the executors of the sentence a surgeon's skill
experienced. Indeed, nails driven into the wrists risked
section the veins and quickly drain the condemned of his blood: he
would have died within the hour following his placing at the "post", which was not
the purpose of the sentence. As for the nailing of the feet, we have seen its impossibility.
Crucifixions were most often carried out collectively, so we
understands that those who ordered them did not wish to be burdened with
similar considerations. The convicts were therefore tied to the post.

164. The provocative and paradoxical behavior of Joseph of Arimathea and

of Nicodemus and an unbelievable burial

These characters, common to the four Gospels (Mt., XXVII, 57-60, Mc,
XV, 42-47, Lc, XXIII, 50-55 and Jn, XIX, 38-41), appear after the
crucifixion to obtain the disposition of the body of Jesus, already possessing the
shroud in which he will be buried and the burial vault. Matthew
defines Joseph of Arimathea as "a rich man [...] who had made himself, he
also, disciple of Jesus." Mark, considered by many exegetes as
the source of Matthew and Luke defines him as 'a notable member of
Council, that is to say of the Sanhedrin, and Luke, as a member of
Advice, a righteous and just man." John presents him as "a disciple of
Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews" (always this assignment of
consider Jews as a foreign people); it is accompanied by
Nicodemus, a Pharisee, who is the subject of a long episode in the Gospel of
Jean. A member of the Council, Nicodemus would have come to visit him.
Jesus and they would have debated eschatology. The length of the episode (Jn, III,
1-21) indicates that Jean gives him importance.
Given the number of supporters that Jesus would have counted, including the
Lazarus and his sisters are not lesser, one cannot fail to be surprised.
that only two volunteers showed up to take charge
the burial of the one who had been their master. It passes that, despised as they
had been, Mary and the brothers of Jesus had disinterested themselves in the fate of
those. But where were the Twelve – reduced to eleven – and the Sixty-
twelve, besides 'the one whom Jesus loved', where was the crowd of disciples then?
what Jesus had done among the people? Surely, many had abandoned him,
as Jean informs us (Jn, VI, 60-66), and it was on the eve of the
sabbat. But should we believe that dozens, even hundreds of people have
forgotten the one they had celebrated as the Son of God and exposed him to
the indignity of the mass grave to respect the Sabbath rest? This
defies credulity. Should we believe that, without these two characters appearing
Out of nowhere, the body of the resurrected Jesus would have emerged from the mass grave?
In the Acts of the Apostles, which are commonly attributed to him, Luke says
however - and contradicts itself in the process - that the inhabitants of
Jerusalem and their magistrates, those who had demanded the death of Jesus,
They took Jesus down from the cross and laid him in the tomb. He did not say which one.
But in the very logic of the narrative, one hardly sees the members.
the Sanhedrin takes care of the funeral rites of the condemned, and this all the more
less than they are required to take a sabbatical rest. This assertion must therefore be
rejected.
We cannot obviously overlook the membership in the Sanhedrin.
of the two volunteers. Their behavior, bold and even provocative,
raises questions. It is evident that even if it is in secret that they
are disciples of Jesus, he will quickly raise the scandal and put them
even in danger. Indeed, if they are members of the Council, they cannot
to fail, given their position, to respect the commandments of the Talmud; however,
to be able to celebrate Passover within Greater Jerusalem, they
must be purified before sunset, which
implies among other conditions that they will not have crossed the threshold of a
pagan house and will not have had contact with a corpse. But according to
Matthew, Mark and Luke, Joseph of Arimathea (Nicodemus is not mentioned)
would have gone to Pilate shortly before evening; he and Nicodemus would then
I had contacts, necessarily repeated, with a presumed corpse. The rites
purifying for a mandatory week, the two men
would be in willful violation of the Talmud.
Unless the corpse wasn't one.
This could not fail to be observed by witnesses and they were risking it.
their position in the Jewish community, the safety of their families and
their friends, even legal proceedings.
*

Assuming some plausibility to these two characters and their role,

assuming also that their fidelity to Jesus was heroic, there is another
points of the gospel narratives that are bound to arouse skepticism:
These are the circumstances of the burial.
First, the descent from the cross. Not a word from any evangelist about this.
delicate operation, which involved detaching the feet, then detaching the
palm of the hand, except letting the body fall to the ground. This required
a small team; the operation actually lasted all night. Luc indicates that
Dawn was beginning to break when the body was laid in the Tomb (Lc,
XXIII, 54).
Then the actual burial. Matthew writes that 'Joseph took the
body, rolled it in a clean shroud and placed it in the new tomb that he
"had been hewn out of the rock" (Mt., XXVII, 59-60). Summary description
as much as the burial. Marc is barely more detailed: "Having bought
a shroud, [Joseph] took Jesus down, wrapped him in the shroud and laid him down
in a tomb that had been hewn from the rock" (Mark 15:46). Luke is not
hardly more verbose: "He [Joseph] took it down, wrapped it in a shroud and
deposited in a tomb carved into the rock, where no one had yet been
placed" (Lc, XXIII, 53). The three words "He descended Jesus" constitute a
defiance in common sense: to detach a crucified person, at least three men,
Two stepstools and equipment were needed, each of the wrists having to ...
to be detached at the same time as the other, while the third man
supported the body.
*

The biblical accounts of the burial therefore do not impose themselves by the
credibility, as it is hard to believe that disciples 'rolled' their master
revered like a bundle to be placed in a vault and gone away:
this defies all likelihood. But having no doubt of any
testimony about this episode, the authors of the Synoptics summarized it as this
that their authors deemed likely.
Only John is or wants to be more detailed: "Nicodemus […] also came,
bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes weighing about one hundred pounds. They took
so the body of Jesus and the linen cloths [in the French translation],
with the spices, according to the burial customs practiced by the Jews. Now, there
had a garden at the place where he had been crucified and, in that garden, a tomb
nine in which no one had yet been placed. Because of the Preparation
of the Jews, as the tomb was nearby, that is where they laid Jesus
(John, XIX, 39-42).
No mention of a shroud. And John contradicts Matthew on another point.
point: Joseph of Arimathea is said to have had a tomb dug expressly; in John,
It is for reasons of proximity that this grave was chosen. Detail
significant, we will see it later.
Not a word either about the other two presumed crucified, nor about the
transfer of the body from Golgotha to the Mount of Olives.
*

But one of the two main reasons why these descriptions do not
can be considered as reflecting the burial of Jesus is
their nature completely foreign to the Jewish burial rites.
First of all, the body had to be washed, and none of the evangelists mentioned it.
speak. Then, the body was not "wrapped" in the shroud, like the
claim Matthew and Mark and Luke, nor "bound with cloths" like
Jean claimed, citing the outrageous figure of around forty kilograms.
of herbs: the body washed, with the face covered with a special cloth, the
soudarion was placed in the shroud and it was then sewn.
Even writing far from Palestine, based on transmitted observations
by third parties, the authors could not so severely overlook the rites
Jewish funerals. Among the Judeo-Christians of Alexandria, Rome, Ephesus,
from Antioch, among the scribes themselves, there were informed people about
the customs of Judaism, which would not have failed to highlight the
implausibilities of the descriptions.
The second reason is a clue provided by the text of John.
 165. Revealing strips

In past centuries, and even today, one could not ask the
readers and listeners of the Gospels to know the languages in which
the original texts were written and thus to identify singularities, some
errors or misunderstandings; but this, nowadays, is possible for linguists.
The language of the text of John is Greek, and if we take up the cited passage again
above, we find, instead of the 'linens' from the French version, for example,
the motothonia, neuter plural of deothonion, a word that designates a small strip of
line intended to serve as a bandage. But, strangely, he does not talk about the
shroud, linen cloth, of Joseph of Arimathea, which is confusing. Would he claim
that Jesus was buried in the Egyptian manner, that is to say wrapped in
bandlets? He cannot ignore that Egyptian funeral customs
involved the disembowelment of the corpse which, in Judaism, is a
profanation. Moreover, the bandages were used by the Egyptians
to tighten the wounds caused by the evisceration and prevent the spices
and other substances used for embalming spread outside;
that was not the case.
In any case, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus would not have been able to,
Night, on Golgotha, wrapping Jesus in bandages, process
meticulous and endless. And this while they were supposed to comply with the
Sabbath rest inside Great Jerusalem.
Aren't these strips the ones used in Jewish rites for
to hold the hands and feet of the corpse together? Would Jean make the mistake again?
committed in the account of the resurrection of Lazarus? No, because there, he used a
another Greek word, keriai, which specifically refers to straps. Someone at
world unable to confuse dressings with straps nor with a
shroud, and the writer having used a specific Greek term, there is an enigma.
Ultimate confirmation: when the tomb is found empty, John reports that
Lesotho is lying on the ground, far from the Sindon (166). And there too, Joseph
Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus would not have taken Jesus to the tomb naked and
bleeding from the flogging and the wound in the chest, hands and feet bound.
What do the use of the word 'motothonia' and the omission of it correspond to?
sindon? The evidence imposes itself: Joseph of Arimathea and
Nicodemus took the material to dress a wounded person to Golgotha; for
Jesus had previously been flogged, let's remember. As for the spices, they
were used at the time as antiseptics for wounds. However, we neither dress nor
disinfects the wounds of a dead person, since they do not bleed. A burial
Rituals being out of the question in the circumstances, this means that the
Two disciples knew that Jesus was alive. The question remains whether the two
men accomplished all this work without any help, which is
unlikely.
Eager to treat the injured, they stopped as soon as they could, in a
probably abandoned tomb, and one understands the correction that Jean
brings to the information of Matthieu, mentioned above regarding the reason for the choice
of what tomb.
Manuscripts may be found and historians and exegetes
they will reconstruct the story of the Gospel of John, decidedly very different from
Synoptic. Perhaps they will then enlighten us about the author's intention.
known as Jean who inserted such disturbing details into his
text; for they indirectly indicate that Jesus was not really
You were considered dead when he was buried. They thus question the resurrection.
Conjectures are not the subject of these pages, at most.
could we assume that this writer was an Arianist, that is to say a supporter
from a movement that did not believe in the divinity of Jesus.
The deduction imposed by the elements presented above is that Jesus
was alive when he was taken down from the cross. Other elements reinforce this.

166. The contradictions and revelations of the empty tomb and the sudarium
rolled up in a corner

The shroud and the discovery of the empty tomb inspired the evangelists.
surprisingly dissimilar and therefore contradictory narratives.
For Matthew, the events that lead from the discovery of the empty tomb
and the reappearance of Jesus at his reunion with the Eleven in Galilee are
summarized in twenty verses (XXVIII, 10-20) told in a supernatural way,
without any concern for realism. Thus, when Mary of Magdala and 'the other
Marie" – we don't know which one, and it cannot be the mother of Jesus who would be
designated with this nonchalance – will visit the tomb, an angel
dazzlingly rolls ledopheqet reveals that the place is empty and that Jesus
the resurrected is already in Galilee.
Marc, a little more detailed, also observes the mode of the supernatural: the
two women are always Mary Magdalene and 'the other Mary', who is
reveals being the mother of Jacques, undoubtedly the Little – Joset is not
mentioned. Contradictions with Matthew: ledopheqest is already rolled and in the
at the tomb, the two women see not an angel, but a young man in a robe
blanche who announces to them, he too, that Jesus is elsewhere and that it will be necessary that
his disciples go to Galilee to see him again. One might be tempted to think that he
It is about the same mysterious young man present at the time of the arrest of
Jesus and who had fled naked into the night (149). The only realistic note: the two
women fled trembling, 'for they were afraid' (Mark, XVI, 8).
Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene – while he was supposed to be in Galilee –
then at the Eleven, then he is "taken up to heaven" (Mk, XVI, 9-20).
Although it also conforms to the supernatural mode, Luke's narrative is more
detailed. The two women are the same, Mary Magdalene and Mary mother
from Jacques, and they also find the ledopheqroulé. But this time, these are
two men and not one, "in dazzling clothes", who announce to them
that "the Living is not among the dead." Unlike the version of
Matthew and Mark do not tell them that Jesus is in Galilee.
The Eleven will be surprised by the meeting of Emmaus. During the
story, we discover a new apostle or disciple, Cleopas, whose identity is unknown.
the name because he had a wife named Marie, present at the foot of
the cross. It would thus be the only Apostle whose wife we would know. The account
from Luc stops at Bethany, where Jesus is taken up to heaven. Why Bethany?
Isn't this the village where Lazarus lives? Strange coincidence (Lk, XXIV,
1-52).
The account of John, finally, is the most detailed of all and it stands out.
clearly from the Synoptics. To begin with, Mary the mother of James has
disappeared: it is Mary Magdalene alone who goes to the tomb, finds the deceased.
rolled and the empty tomb. Neither angel nor anyone in dazzling clothes or not
(it will be for later). She runs to inform Simon-Pierre and "the other disciple,"
"the one whom Jesus loved," therefore John, it is assumed, since he is the author
presumed from the Gospel.
Detail: why is the ledopheq rolled? Indeed, Jesus, immaterial,
traverse the walls, as will be seen in the Gospel of Luke, where it appears
to the Apostles so suddenly that they take him for a ghost (Luke, XXIV,
37).
Faster than Pierre, Jean arrives first, but does not enter the
tomb; as he leans down, he sees the others on the ground. Pierre, meanwhile, enters.
in the tomb and also sees the cloth on the ground "as well as the napkin which
had covered his head [of Jesus], not with theothonia, but wrapped in
"went into a corner" (Jn, XX, 6-7). John's words eliminate any confusion.
possible between the designated linen as a sudarium and the shroud, sindon, which
covers the whole body.
These details are singular. They seem to want to attract attention to the
reader on a revealing detail, all the more so as Luc specifies that when entering
in the tomb, after Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James
they alerted him to the discovery of the empty tomb, Peter, "leaning" did not
Vit que lesothonia; or, Luc, whose sources are distinct from those of John,
has never mentioned these "linens" until now and has only spoken of shrouds. He
therefore contradicts himself and admits the existence of these strips that he does not
This is not the usage.
But no ancient reader noted the importance of these details.
The following deductions are mandatory.
Since Jean makes no mention of the shroud mentioned by the
Synoptic, if we follow its version, this shroud in which Jesus would have been
"rolled" has never existed or has never been used for its ordinary purposes. Everything
at most it will have served to protect the wounded from the night's cold, the soldiers
having shared the clothes of the condemned. Since the two Apostles did not
do not find themselves in the tomb, it is permissible to assume that it will have served to
same use when Jesus was taken far from the tomb, waiting for him
to procure clothing.
This complete omission of the shroud in the funeral rites according to John is
not only in formal contradiction with the Synoptics, it is also the
proof that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus had no intention
to leave Jesus in the tomb. Even if the so-called "cloths", the lectionary,
had been intended to bind the hands and feet, in the hypothesis that Jesus
if he were dead, the shroud would have been mandatory.
The found scroll, rolled up, far from the 'linens', is still a clue.
more revealing: it is hard to conceive that Jesus, rising alone in the tomb, has
took the full to fold it (for upcoming use?). This fabric has been found
rolled up because it has never been used, him neither; doubtless Joseph
Did Joseph of Arimathea place him in a corner of the tomb, having been in more of a hurry?
to do.
Aside from the numerous contradictions, on one hand between the Synoptics themselves
the same and on the other between the Synoptics and John, on the discovery of
empty tomb, it must be acknowledged that it is the Gospel of this one that
provides the most accurate and plausible indications.
 167. The intriguing 'gardener' of the Mount of Olives

After an intervention by two angels sitting on the stone bed where the body
of Jesus was supposed to have rested, and whose theological usefulness is not
evident, Mary Magdalene turns around and "sees Jesus standing there, but
she did not know it was Jesus" (Jn, XX, 14). This is one of the sentences that
most perplexing of the Gospels. How this woman who followed Jesus
for the majority of his public ministry, which lasted about three years,
Could she not recognize him? The perplexity increases when one reads
that she took him "for the gardener," then when she addresses him in
calling him "Lord", which would be an undeserved honor for a gardener.
She even asks him if it was he who took the body of her Lord.
while she could not ignore that it would have been a desecration of
grave, therefore a malevolent act. She only recognizes it when he cuts.
short to his lamentations and calls him by his name, simply saying:
Marie!
One cannot overlook the famous Noli me tangere ('Do not touch me')
of the Gospel of John, whose logic is difficult to discern, "for I am not
not yet ascended to the Father" (Jn, XX, 17). If he had indeed ascended to
the Father, she would no longer be able to touch him, for he would be immaterial. But then,
Why does he allow and even invite the Apostles to touch him?
It should be concluded that it has a particular relationship.
with Marie. The hypothesis that she is his wife is obvious.
Marie only recognized him by his voice. Logically deduced, the voice has not
changed, but the face, yes. But why did she take him for a "gardener"?
At the time, the term is assimilated to that of "market gardener". In this profession, which
is only allowed outside of Jerusalem, one engages in sowing,
of drainage, of smoking; it's a discredited profession, like that one
of the goldsmith (suspected of being dishonest), of the tax collector (tax collector,
thus, spoliateur of the people, already...), of tanner (smelly and dirty), of
bleacher (he touches soiled clothes) or butcher (suspected by
principle of selling meat from sick animals). The "gardener", he,
manure touch. Those who practice these professions are required to shave their
beard, while honorable Jews are allowed to let it grow.31. The
key is found: Jesus shaved. Perhaps he also shortened his hair
denazir. It took no more than that to make him unrecognizable.
The idea is undoubtedly confusing for believers accustomed to the notion that the
resurrected is necessarily identical to itself, especially since an abundant
Iconography has strengthened it over the centuries.
The hypothesis ceases to be one when we read in Luke that the disciples
meeting Jesus on the road to Emmaus do not recognize him either, because
"Their eyes were prevented from recognizing him" (Luke 24:16), explanation
decidedly a bit short. Should it therefore be that people who have all
well known Jesus is suddenly not recognized anymore?
The first reason that comes to mind is that, still being in
Judea, Jesus shaved his beard - at least because he does not want
obviously not to be recognized and arrested again. The following question is:
Why do the Gospels differ so much from each other? And why that one
Does Jean contain the most disturbing indications?
The explanation seems simple: Jesus did not die on the cross, as
other elements were already indicating it.
The Gospels do not provide any chronology of these episodes, but the
likelihood indicates that a certain delay elapsed between the exit of the tomb
and the reappearance of Jesus, the time it took for him to recover from his ordeal.

168. The absence of any mention of Mary, mother of Jesus after the
resurrection

The modern public seems to have resigned itself fairly easily to the total absence.
of Joseph's mention in the life of Jesus. He undoubtedly adjusted to
the hypothesis that this presumed father died of old age. But it is an aspect
confusing Gospels that the stubborn disappearance of any reference to
Mary, mother of Jesus, among the women mentioned after the crucifixion, as much as
the increasingly prominent presence of Mary Magdalene. Three days before
the presumed resurrection, she was at the foot of the cross and Jesus entrusted her to
"disciple whom he loved." From then on, and despite the discovery of the empty tomb,
she disappears from the gospel accounts, without even her son having
I manifested to her to show that he was alive.
As for his brothers, they seem to have evaporated. It is hard not to...
to be surprised.

169. The reappearance of Jesus: a maze of contradictions

In popular Christian culture, the resurrected Jesus is said to have met the
Apostles on the road to Emmaus and would have shared a last meal with them.
before the Ascension.
But this episode is only found in the Gospel of Luke. The events that
the reappearance of Jesus seems to have divided the authors more
Gospels that all the others.
At Matthew's, the Eleven find their master in Galilee, "on the mountain
where Jesus had appointed to meet them" (Mt. XXVIII, 16). The place is not
specified, or Matthieu was unaware. A glance at a map shows that
Upper and Lower Galilee are abundant in mountains and do not invite to
speculation: the appointment had to be precise. Jesus then urged the
To go and make disciples in all nations and assure them that he will be
with them until the end of the world. These are the last words of this Gospel.
Already very different is the end of the story in Mark: Jesus appears
first to two unnamed disciples, who share it with the others,
incredulous, then he shows himself to the Eleven gathered at the table - the place is not
specified - and their reproach is their disbelief. No mention of appointments in
Galilee. After instructing them to proclaim the Gospel in all the
nations, "Jesus […] was taken up to heaven and sat at the right hand of God"
It is unknown where and when the Ascension took place. And
as those who claim to be witnesses do not seem to have been present, it is
to presume that it is an assumption. Such a vision would have inspired them
a less terse narrative. It is more reasonable to think that, Jesus having
disappeared from their sight, they assumed he had ascended to heaven32.
In Jesus' discourse, there is an overlooked passage of the greatest
part of the evangelical teaching, and for good reason: it is the one where "those who
will believe" they will take up snakes and, if they drink "some deadly poison, it
will not harm them" (Mc, XVI, 18). If, in fact, we had to judge faith
of a man by making him handle venomous snakes and drink a
poison, the community of the faithful would be quickly decimated.
Luc's version is considerably more developed, and even
eventful. We see two apostles or disciples, one of whom is named
Cleopas, making his way to Emmaus, which is, the text curiously specifies, "to
sixty stadiums" of Jerusalem. The detail is secondary, but the measurement is
false33and testifies to the author's limited knowledge of Palestine.
Most important question: Are these two men apostles or
disciples? The preceding text talks about apostles and the verse that introduces the
The narrative speaks of "two of them." However, the name Cleopas has never been mentioned.
among the Apostles. The rest of the text muddles the question to such an extent that it
becomes impossible to answer. Indeed, when these two men leave again
to Jerusalem after Jesus revealed himself to them during the evening meal, they there
They find the Eleven gathered; therefore, they are not part of them. They tell their story.
meeting and the Eleven exclaim that the Lord has "appeared to Simon". What
Simon? Simon Peter or someone else? And why is Cleopas forgotten?
since Jesus revealed himself to him too?
Still, on the way, these two men encounter one.
third that they do not recognize, because "their eyes were
prevented from recognizing him," as mentioned above. Unlike Mary
from Magdala, they do not even recognize him by his voice, although he is speaking to them
long discourse "covering all the Prophets [...] and all the Scriptures"
to demonstrate what concerns him. Even with good will, it is
difficult to give credit to such a story. Our pilgrims therefore invite the unknown
dine with them, and it is only when he breaks the bread that they
They finally recognize Jesus by his actions.
Then, in Jerusalem, Jesus reappears once again to the Eleven and to their
companions. As they do not seem convinced and fear that he will not
he is a ghost, he asks them for food and eats 'a piece of fish'
grilled.
The twists are not over: Jesus then takes all of this
world towards Bethany and instructed the Eleven and their companions to remain
in Jerusalem 'until they are clothed with power from on high.' No
evangelical mission as in Matthew nor Mark. Then Jesus is taken away
in the sky.
No mention is made of Emmaus or Bethany in the account of
John; this one begins on the Monday when Jesus is recognized by Mary of
Magdala by an apparition to the disciples, during which Thomas
Didyme (for an unspecified reason) expresses his incredulity. The mention
of Thomas with the Greek word "Didyme" attached is another indication of a
late writing by an author unfamiliar with the events and poorly mastering it
the Aramaic. Indeed, 'Didyme', supposedly meaning 'twin' in Greek, would be
of bad Greek, the exact term being didumogenis; then, it is the product
from a misunderstanding between the name 'Thomas', in Aramaic 'tw'm', and the word
"twin" in the same language,tm; finally, this nickname alone means nothing,
because it must be accompanied by the name of the one with whom you are a twin.
Eight days later, during a new appearance, Thomas is
allowed to touch the scars of Jesus, including the wound in his chest. Then Jesus
appears again to seven disciples on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias and there,
mysteriously, they do not recognize him: "The disciples did not know
"It was Jesus" (John, 21:4).
Strange affair whose symbolism is indecipherable. Why, after he
It has already appeared to them twice, do they not recognize it the third time? Their
eyes only open after the miraculous catch, which is followed by a
enigmatic exchange: Peter, seeing "the disciple whom Jesus loved" approaching,
always presumed to be Jean, asks Jesus a question whose meaning we do not grasp
sense: 'And him?' The answer is hardly more convincing: 'If I want to'
What does it matter to you if he stays until I come?" Formula for the
less cavalier, which in contemporary language would equate to: 'mind your own business'
your stuff!" The text reports that "the rumor spread among the brothers that
this disciple would not die," but the author, taking on the voice of John,
explain: "Jesus did not say to Peter: 'He will not die,' but: 'If I
He wants him to remain until I come" (Jn, XXI, 21-23).
Two passages of this Gospel give the impression that
The author assigns himself particular importance. In the first, he writes:
Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not
are not written in this book" (Jn, XX, 30), which may seem like a way
to stimulate curiosity. In the second, he repeats: "There is still quite
other things that Jesus did. If we were to write them one by one, I
I thought that the world itself would not be enough to contain the books that come from it.
would write." A way of saying that he holds truths that he keeps to himself. And
It is on these disappointing words that the Gospel of John concludes.
It is not about the apostolic mission, except when reduced to its most
As the Father has sent me, so I send you.
send"), nor of the Ascension.
It contains a lot of contradictions and enigmas.

170. The Abrupt Disappearance of Jesus: An Unbelievable Ending

After each in their own way recounted the life of Jesus as the moment
who was to decide the universal fate, the evangelists interrupt themselves from one
so abrupt that the plausibility of their accounts is called into question
cause.
The Gospel of Matthew stops at the meeting of the eleven disciples and
Jesus in Galilee, on the mountain. 'When they saw him, some were'
They worshipped him, but some doubted" (Matthew 28:17). Jesus commands them
to go into the world and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
That's all.
According to the Gospel of Mark, the last encounter is said to have taken place on the way.
leading from Jerusalem to 'the countryside', and the terms of the message are very
different: Jesus promises there to those who will have believed the power to cast out the
demons, to speak in new tongues and to handle snakes. Then he is
taken up to heaven and sits at the right hand of God. No description of the vision.
According to the Gospel of Luke, the last meeting takes place in Bethany.
While Jesus gives his blessing to the disciples, 'he is taken up to the
Heaven » (Lc, XXIV, 51). No mention of the fact that he is sitting at the right of
God.
According to the Gospel of John, it is by the shores of the Sea of Tiberias that it is said to have taken place.

the last meeting. No mention of heavenly disappearance.

The four Gospels do not agree on the location where the Apostles
will have seen their master for the last time, when he should have been engraved
in their memories forever and designated for the veneration of generations
futures. However, two of them do not even mention such an episode.
more important than the Ascension. So many divergences can only provoke the
perplexity. The only explanation that appears is that the Apostles did indeed
saw Jesus in Palestine, no doubt in different places, but that they
ignored what had happened to him afterwards34.
Did they not care about it? The hypothesis seems unlikely. It seems
more likely that Jesus commanded them not to follow him and that he
so took the key to the fields.
The evangelists were not memorialists, and their accounts, sometimes
compared to epic poems, were meant to be read aloud, for
to evoke emotion. Therefore, it is not in their texts that one should look for
information about the period, crucial for the history of Christianity, which
elapsed between the crucifixion and the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans. This
The forty years were, indeed, decisive for the Christian community.
primitive.

171. What is the meaning of the phrase 'The one whom Jesus loved'? And who
Does it designate?

This formula appears five times in the text, always in that of the Gospel.
of Jean. The first is during the Last Supper, after Jesus announced
that one of the Apostles would betray him: "One of his disciples, the one whom Jesus
loved, was at the table, right next to Jesus." At a sign from Simon Peter,
Jean, because if it is him, he refers to himself in this way, "leaning towards
the chest of Jesus, said to him: 'Lord, who is it?'" (Jn, XIII, 22). The
the second time is when Jesus sees at the foot of the cross "the disciple he
"loved" (Jn, XIX, 26). The third time is when Mary of Magdala goes
to warn Simon Peter and "the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved," that the
the tomb is empty (Jn, XX, 2). The fourth is when Jesus joined the
Apostles on the shore of the Lake of Tiberias and 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'
warns Peter that it is the Lord (John 21:7). The fifth is when
Pierre sees 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' behind him and asks Jesus the
mysterious question: "And him?"
What could 'loved' mean, a verb already used in reference to Lazarus?
"Lord, he whom you love is sick," Martha had warned him [Jn, XI,
3]) ? And who is this privileged one?
Besides, the term used to refer to him is derogatory to others.
Apostles, and that, based on a biased iconography, it has inspired
ridiculous sexual suppositions, besides still smelling
self-glorification, it raises the following question: why would Jesus have
preferred Jean? We do not know any reason. If he benefited, as he claims
arguments, from privileged lights on the ministry of Jesus, they did not earn him
no special status in the first Church. The Apostles, including Peter and
James, leaders of the first Church, did not take this into account.
According to tradition and available data, his role was secondary there.
must reject the assumptions that he would have, from his new residence
from Ephesus, oversaw the seven churches of Asia Minor after the death of Paul (66 or
67), and even more so the one according to which he would have been a victim of persecution.
of Domitian (94-96). If he was about twenty years old when Jesus began his
public prosecutor, around 27 or 30, he would have been close to sixty in the
first case, which was a nice age for the time, and nonagenarian in the
second case.
The reasons for his privilege would therefore have been personal and modesty.
would have required that he did not take advantage of it35.

172. A fundamental contradiction: the latent anti-Judaism of the Gospel

by Jean
 One of the most puzzling contradictions in the four Gospels,
considered as a whole, is their latent anti-Judaism. Indeed, after
that Matthieu and Luc painstakingly reconstructed his genealogy, in order to
confirming as the legitimate heir of David, king of the Jews, they present
everyone Jesus as a victim of the Jews and are keen to dissociate him from it. The
the historical consequences were not light: evangelical anti-Judaism
quickly engenders anti-Semitism, in the sense that we now know this
word (indeed improper). For a contemporary reader, whether or not Jewish
like the author of these pages, the impression is unpleasant.
Matthew uses the words 'the Jews' only once: it is at the end of
the Gospel of his name, concerning a 'fabricated intoxication' by 'the big ones
"priests" to explain that Jesus' tomb would have been found empty; the
disciples would have stolen his body (Mt., XXVIII, 11-13). The commentary on
This story has been circulated among the Jews to this day.
would suggest that other peoples did not believe in it. Neither Marc nor
Luc does not use these terms, but Jean does, and abundantly. Regarding the weddings.
of Cana, he wrote thus: 'There were six stone jars, intended for
"purifications of the Jews" (John, II, 6). One would think he is speaking of a foreign country.
A few verses later, he speaks of "the Passover of the Jews" (Jn, II, 13).
What else could it be? And, after Jesus had driven out the merchants
Then the Jews spoke up and said to him: 'What sign will you give us?'
why do you act this way?" (John 2:18); he could have written "the faithful",
for example, since there were no pagans in the Temple; no, it
insists: "the Jews." A few verses later: "There were among the
Pharisees a man Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews" (Jn, III, 1). He fell
Yet under the meaning that if he was a Pharisee, Nicodemus was a Jew.
Telling the healing of a disabled person at the pool of Bethesda, John
It begins thus: "There was a festival of the Jews" (V, 1); would he belong to
Another religion? Little aware that Jesus also celebrates Passover, he writes:
"Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near" (VI 4); one would think they were reading the account
of an ethnologist in a foreign land. When Jesus travels through Galilee, it is because he
did not have the power to move about in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to
"to kill him" (VII, 1). "Now, the Jewish festival of Tents was near," he continues
(VII, 2). And again, "no one spoke openly about him
[the one of Jesus], out of fear of the Jews” (VII, 13). Was it not he after all
that followed crowds of Jews?
And yet Jesus goes to Jerusalem and teaches in the Temple: "The Jews,
Astonished, they said to themselves: “How does he know the letters without having studied?”
It should be noted that if one preached in the Temple, one could not be
Which Jew? When Jesus preaches 'to the Jews' (VIII, 31), almost every time
that they answer him they are referred to as 'the Jews' (VIII, 48, 52, 57).
After the healing of the blind man, who is brought before the Pharisees, it is
yet "the Jews" who are unbelievers (IX,18 and 24).
This stubborn distancing is becoming tiring; in total, Jean uses thirty-
three times these terms (X, 19, 24 and 31, XI, 19, 31, 36, 45, 54 and 55, XII, 9, XIII,
33, XVIII, 14, XIX, 7, 12, 14 and 40, XX, 19... in addition to the cited references
higher), while the Synoptics use them only once.
Some exegetes have argued that it was addressed to Greek-speaking listeners.
Yet, many of them were Jews who had changed.
language during the diaspora. Was it necessary to designate the Jews
collectively as responsible for the presumed death of Jesus? And,
major inconsistency, to have Jesus say: "As I told the Jews"
To whom else did Jesus address throughout his life?
ministry and what was he himself? Would the evangelist like to make
to hear that Jesus would not be Jewish, he who was acclaimed as the
descendant of David who organized his royal entry into Jerusalem?
Even if Jean (or the author bearing that name) was addressing audiences
non-Jews or ignorant of the Jewish people, the intention to cast disgrace upon him -
it is only too obvious.
The number of readers and listeners of the Gospels do not differentiate between the
authors, assuming that their versions of the story of Jesus are
complementary and supportive, since they have been approved by the Church. If
it is the text of Jean that they read or hear, they are therefore and naturally
led to think that his anti-Judaism would be shared by the other evangelists.
One does not need to be a great Hebraist to be astonished by the
lack of understanding of life in Palestine that is revealed by the authors of
Gospels. Not only do they all use the phrase 'the chief priests',
but they also give their subjects fanciful information. Thus of
John, writing about Caiaphas, said that "he was the high priest that year."
as if it were a position of chairman of the board: we
was high priest for life, all the inhabitants of the country knew it, and Caiaphas,
successor and son-in-law of Anne, had been high priest since the year 15.
*
 Contradictions, implausibilities, discordances, unfounded traditions and
gaps, absurdities like in the case of Barabbas, leave the reader
aware of the sentiment that there would have been an original text of the life of Jesus that
future modified many times by additions and deletions, in order to correspond to the
wishes of the leaders of the first Church and the growing demands of the
theology. However, this was not the conviction of the countless linguists,
e century, even since Saint Jerome,
philologists and exegetes who, since the 19th
focused on independent analysis of the Gospels. Too many clues
contribute to proving that the early accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus
Initially transmitted orally and therefore subject to the uncertainties of that mode.
of transmission. The work of biblicists consisted in detecting the modifications
from one text to another through translations.
It would therefore be futile to hope that an original manuscript lies in secrecy.
from a library. Nearly two centuries passed before the most
Ancient written testimonies appeared in the early communities.
One fact remains: the canonical Gospels are human works that
do not deserve more reverence than other literary works of all the
times, even if they relate to a moment in history where identity was forged
western. In this regard, they deserve to be analyzed and scrutinized with
attention. The exegetes have focused on it. They have not resolved the
contradictions and the historical implausibilities of these four narratives, but
above all, they did not clarify the contradictions of Jesus himself, such as
its meticulous organization of the royal entrance to Jerusalem, as for a
sacred descendant of David, and the answer he would have given to Pilate: 'My
The kingdom is not of this world." Or even his antagonistic proclamations.
on the preponderance of sweetness and its determination to ignite the fire on
the earth. Has he been penetrated by the conviction of his divinity, as when he
he said: "I came down from heaven" (John 6:38)? But then, why does he object-
He said to those who tell him that he is good: 'Why do you say that I am good?'
God alone is good" (Luke, XVIII, 18-19)? Has he been the Lamb of God, destined for
sacrifice by the fury of defied powers, or on the contrary, has he gone
willingly to the torment to fulfill the Scriptures, as of
Numerous citations (notably at the Last Supper) seem to indicate this?
Did he want to restore the Law, as he claimed, or had he come to establish
A new Alliance? From its obvious ties and those of John the Baptist
with the Essenes, established by many exegetes and biblical scholars, the
Gospels offer only tiny traces.
 The need for information that they generate and even excite through their
parsimony and their contradictions do not stem from an inappropriate curiosity
for the biography, but for a deeper understanding of the message
that he delivered to spirits that were visibly ill-prepared.
However, the constant ambiguity of the character is reflected in texts from elsewhere.
Very dissimilar is the fundamental problem of the history of Christianity.
Unless the texts themselves are unfaithful, as happens
for so many human texts.

1. Louis-Charles Prat, "The prologue of the Gospel of John", cf. bibl.

2. Cf. note 18, p. 316.
3. Cf. John Rogerson, The New Atlas of the Bible, cf. bibl.
4. Gys-Devic, "Investigation on Nazareth", see bibl. See note 7, pp. 308-309.
5. Cf. Rogerson, The New Atlas of the Bible, op. cit.
6. See note 6, p. 308.
7. See note 9, p. 310.
8.See notes 10 and 11, pp. 310-311.
9. Cf. note 9, p. 311.
10.See note 12, p. 312.
11. Cf. bibli.
12. Christian apocryphal writings, I, cf. bibl.
13.See note 16, p. 314.
14.Cf. Barbara Thiering, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, cf. bibl.
15. Cf. Jean Daniélou, The Manuscripts of the Dead and the Origins of Christianity, cf. bibl.
16. Cf. note 17, p. 315.
17. The Sources, see p. 4.
18.See note 6, p. 308.
19. In the Gospel according to the Nazarenes, Christian apocryphal writings, I, cf. bibl.
20. The Gospel According to John, XIII-XXI, cf. bibl.
21. Cf. Martin Schlegel, Crucifixion, cf. bibl.
22.See note 14, p. 313.
23. Cf. A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Nabu Press, 2010.
24. Cf. John Allegro, The Mushroom and the Cross, cf. bibl. and note 8.
25. Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament, cf. bibl.
26. See p. 296.
27. Cf. note 15, p. 313.
28. Op. cit., cf. bibliog.
29. Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, cf. bibl.
30. Hengel, Crucifixion, op. cit.
31. Joachim Jeremias, Life in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus, cf. bibl.
32. See note 19, p. 317.
33. A stade, a variable Greek measure depending on the region, was worth 600 feet, or 180 meters. 60 stades thus represented 10.8.
kilometers. Of the various possible sites of Emmaus, only one seems plausible: it is Motza, indicated by the Mishnah, which
corresponds to the Amassa mentioned by Josephus (War, VII, 217), in Greek Ammaous, which is located 30 stadia, or 5.5 kilometers away.
from Jerusalem.
34. See note 19, p. 317.
35. The uniqueness of this designation has sparked numerous studies. Let us mention that of Jacques Winandy, OSB, who discusses the
alternatives to identifying this disciple with John of Zebedee, 'The disciple whom Jesus loved: for a broader vision of
problem, see bibli. Also see note 13, pp. 312-313.
 II. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

Tradition attributes them to Luke, and modern biblical scholars agree.

e 12th century, they were also included in the manuscripts.
Until the middle of the
the continuation of the third Gospel. Then, when the Christian communities
wanted to have the four Gospels in a separate manuscript, they
they were separated and it was then that they were given the title that has remained.
When were they written? Opinions differ between the late 60s.
and that of thehe 18th century. Convinced of having detected the tone of testimony,
several biblicists have chosen the first hypothesis. For them, the author had
well attended the events he described, particularly his reports
detailed on Paul's travels in Asia Minor. In this case,
One should assume that a second version of the Gospel and the Acts was
written later, since it showed knowledge of Jewish Antiquities
by Flavius Josephus, a work dating from 93. But this does not exclude any
manipulations by later copyists. It seems difficult to believe in any case
that Luc witnesses, for example, sudden deaths, at three hours apart,
of Ananias and Sapphira, two disciples who offered to the Apostles part of
only from the proceeds of the sale of a property, instead of the whole. Their
The mistake was that they would have thus diverted part... of their own money!
Questionable incident with a morality that remains elusive. And many others.
incidents described in his text are more fantastic than
reliable testimony; as of the one where the Spirit of the Lord took Philip away,
in a chariot, with the eunuch of the queen of Ethiopia and he drops him off at Azor.
It is worth remembering that at the time, the sphere of influence of a text, even if it was
as important as the Gospels have become, was limited. Thus the
Two books of Luke were unknown to a large part of Christianity:
Clement of Rome seems to ignore them in 95, and Ignatius, despite being a bishop
of Antioch, where Luc was stationed, does not mention it in 110. The first citation
The one that took place in Rome is that of Polycarp, between 120 and 135.
Who was Luke? A tradition presents him as a Syrian from Antioch,
of pagan origin, a doctor and deeply immersed in Hellenic culture.
He was Paul's travel companion, who calls him 'the good doctor'
loved
the last eight chapters of Acts constitute an apology, if not a
hagiography of the latter. His text, like the three other Gospels, was
reworked in the early centuries, and some biblical scholars even suspect
that a woman contributed to it1.
Despite their obvious bias towards Paul, one of the major interests of
Acts resides in the wealth of their information about this Apostle, whose role
in the foundation of the first Church was much more decisive than that of
Peter, for it was he who contributed the most to detach Christianity from
Judaism. Its complex and even dark personality, however, escapes
in the ordinary framework of hagiography.

173. Where does the contradiction between the Davidic lineage of Jesus reappear and
its miraculous conception

In a bold construction, absent from the Gospels, but faithful to

their principle of predestination, Luke makes David himself the prophet of
the coming of Jesus, boldly assuring that 'God had sworn to him by
oath to seat a descendant of his blood on his throne" (Act., II,
30), which is a pure invention and, in any case, has no interest,
Jesus, according to the Gospels, including that of Luke, was born of the Holy Spirit and not
the flesh and blood son of Joseph. Incidentally, it is Luke who makes the blunder
mentioned above (102), that of bringing down Joseph from Nathan, son of
David.
It is the same principle of predestination that will be developed in a
long summary of the Exodus, the proto-martyr Stephen before the Sanhedrin,
before his stoning, signifying that the long history of the people of Israel had to
lead to the coming of Jesus.
Incidentally, in his recap of the Exodus, Stephen takes a few
freedoms with the texts of Genesis and Exodus. He thus argues that the
the body of Jacob was transferred to Shechem, in the tomb that Abraham had
bought from the sons of Hamor in Shechem (VII, 16), while Abraham had bought
the Cave of Machpelah, near Hebron, not to the sons of Hamor, but to Ephron
the Hittite (Gen., XXIII, 19, XLIX, 29-30 and L, 13). It is Jacob and not
Abraham who bought a piece of land from the sons of Hamor (Gen., XXIII, 19). Or
Either Étienne's memory was failing or he had gotten confused in
his readings. In any case, he is mistaken.

174. What new faith could the first Christians have at the Temple?
to kiss?

The Acts of the Apostles describe the works of Jesus' missionaries.

announcing the Good News, that is to say the Gospel. The purpose of their
Missions remain, however, difficult to pinpoint.
After the draft constitution of the first Church, the Christians of
Jerusalem, according to Luke, "day after day, with one heart, they were frequenting
diligently the Temple" and "Peter and John were going up to the Temple for the
prayer of the ninth hour" (Acts 2:46 and 3:1). The Christians in the Temple,
supreme place of Judaism, therefore strictly adhered to the rites of
Judaism. Peter even performed miracles there, such as restoring a disabled person.
on its feet and eight thousand "converts" just in Jerusalem (Acts, II, 41 and III,
4). Now, this takes place after the crucifixion of Jesus, where the Temple clergy
watched the activities of the disciples closely. It is therefore unlikely
that Pierre and Jean had the leisure to "convert" eight thousand disciples before
to provoke a reaction from this clergy, the Sanhedrin, and to have oneself arrested.
If Luc does not use the specific term 'convert', he says that neophytes
" embraced the faith " (Lk, IV, 4), which comes to the same thing. But what faith
new could they embrace, since these conversions were taking place in
the very enclosure of the Temple, citadel of Judaism? The Gospels were not
not yet written, they would only be near a century after the destruction of the
Temple, and the liturgy of the Mass and the Eucharist did not yet exist (the
the Eucharistic mass would only appear at the end of the e4th century): if the chaburoths
or "Judeo-Christian friend groups" from Palestine and neighboring countries
gathered for dinners where bread and wine were blessed, in memory of
the Last Supper was a voluntary custom and not an obligatory rite that existed
by the way in Judaism. The established expression was 'breaking bread',
like in French 'casser la croûte'. Wine only appeared in these meals at
on the occasion of the Sabbath meal; the rest of the week, we
contained water. Indeed, the synoptic Gospels agree on
the notion that the Eucharist was instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper
(Mt., XXVI, 26-29, Mc, XIV, 22-25, Lc, XXII, 14-20), but it should be noted
here that the written versions of the four canonical texts appeared
 e
in the century; and the phrase of Jesus, "Do this in remembrance of me" (Luke,
XXII, 20), is considered an addition by some exegetes.
Moreover, the references of the Apostles remained the texts of the Old Testament.
The Testament and the only new rite was that of baptism, which was not
practiced at the Temple. The Judeo-Christians continued to observe the rest of
Sabbath, as evidenced by numerous passages from the Acts, such as this one-
On the following Sabbath, almost the whole city [Jerusalem] gathered to
listen to the word of God [from the mouths of Paul and Barnabas]" (Acts, XIII,
44). But had they not heard it from the mouths of the priests since the
construction of the building and in the synagogues?
If we are to believe the Acts, we must similarly ask, what
distinguished from Judaism the faith that Luke speaks of. For the Jews who had adhered
the teaching of Jesus was both Jewish and 'Christian'. But neither the
Acts or other sources do not enlighten us on what could distinguish the faith.
news from the old.
It is one of the most important gaps in the Gospels.

175. Jesus never received the anointing of king or Messiah

But in their prayer of protest, which follows their release, the disciples
and their community declares, according to Luke: "They gathered in this
city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed" (Luke 4:26) Now, Jesus
never received the anointing of king or Messiah. However, there is not a single
event that indicates that Jesus received this anointing, neither formally, nor
symbolically.

176. Which 'persecuted' prophets is Stephen talking about?

In the speech he addresses to the Sanhedrin, Stephen declares: 'Such

As your fathers were, so are you! Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?
Persecuted? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One" (VII, 51-52).
Groundless accusations: no written evidence and no tradition
do not indicate that any Prophets were persecuted or killed by the Jews,
Hebrews or Israelites, despite the furious curses they shouted at
everything is going well. The Old Testament only indicates that their most formidable enemies
vehement were... prophets! 83) The accusations against Étienne
thus seem to fit into the line of the nascent anti-Judaism of
evangelists and especially John.
 It should be noted that the stoning of Stephen has a dark point: the
the reason was, according to the Acts, that he had seen Jesus at the right hand of God (VII,
56). Or, to claim that the crucified one from Golgotha sits at the right hand of the Lord
constituted a blasphemy for the Jews. They therefore seized Stephen, "the
they pushed him out of the city and began to stone him"; "Saul, on the other hand, approved
this murder" (VII, 58 and VIII, 1). It was around 35. It turns out that, for the
the same crime of blasphemy, two men would have, about two years
of the interval, were executed by different tortures.
Questions arise. Why have the Jewish extremists not been prosecuted?
Étienne before the Roman authorities, as they had done for Jesus? And
Why did they take the risk of defying them, since they did not have the
Right of the sword? Was the crime attributed to the two men indeed
the blasphemy?

177. The strange episode of the Ethiopian eunuch

It is acknowledged that many episodes from both Testaments are

parables whose meaning cannot be understood literally. Some however, if
the texts had just been discovered, would be rejected by the most faithful
defenders of tradition like apocryphal tales. Thus that of
the Ethiopian eunuch. "The Angel of the Lord spoke to Philip and said:
Leave and go away, at noon on the road that goes down from Jerusalem to
Gaza; it is deserted.” He then left and went there. Just then an Ethiopian,
a eunuch, high official of Candace, queen of Ethiopia, and superintendent
of all his treasures, who had come on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, was returning,
sitting on his chariot, reading the prophet Isaiah. The Spirit said to Philip:
"Catch up with that chariot." Philippe ran towards it and heard the eunuch
he was reading the prophet Isaiah" (VIII, 26-40).
The tale is long, so we only quote the beginning, already kneaded.
implausibilities. One would have to ignore everything about the history of Ethiopia to
imagine that a eunuch could be a high official there. And by virtue of what
Did a senior Ethiopian official go on a pilgrimage to
Jerusalem? Judaism was never the religion of Ethiopia, nor that of the
Queen Candace, a historical figure of the er1st century BC, who had built a
pyramid on its tomb. Christianity was introduced into the country
what in 340. In what language, by the way, could this eunuch have read Isaiah,
otherwise in Hebrew? We learn further on, when Philip catches up to this chariot, that
Although he read it aloud, the eunuch understood nothing. Philip taught
so the Ethiopian and the baptized. But hardly has he gotten back into the chariot that
The Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, who found himself as if by
enchantment at Azor. Did the faithful of the time believe in this fabric?
of fantastic absurdities? For a modern reader, this episode presents a
defect: it compromises the credibility of the rest of the Acts.

178. Where Peter contradicts the Old Testament... and himself

Called to Caesarea by the centurion Cornelius, Peter gives the speech.

Next: 'God shows no favoritism, but in every nation'
"He who fears him and practices justice is pleasing to him" (X, 34-35).
In other words, God has no favorites. Yet it is a contradiction of
several passages from the Old Testament witnessing favor
God's particular one for certain men and for Israel: "It is Jacob that
Yahweh has chosen, Israel whom he has made his own
And now, listen, Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen
Yahweh has attached Himself only to your fathers, out of love for them,
and after them he chose among all the nations their descendants, yourselves
until today" (Deut., X, 15). "You are a people consecrated to Yahweh your God
God and Yahweh have chosen you to be His people among all the peoples.
who are on the earth" (Deut. VII, 6 and XIV, 2). "You will receive more than
blessings that all the peoples" (Deut., VII, 14). In David's Prayer:
You have given yourself forever to the people of Israel, your people, and you, Yahweh, you are
made him his God" (I Chr., XVII, 22). And finally: "Yahweh has deigned to make of
"You are His people" (I Sam., XII, 22).
And despite these confirmations of divine choice, Peter argues that it is from
Jesus that "all the prophets bear witness that whoever believes in
he will receive by his name the remission of his sins" (X, 43). It would have been well
in pain of proving that Ezekiel, for example, had announced the coming of
Jesus.
However, he contradicts himself in his first Epistle. Addressing
to the Jews, he declares: "But you, you are a chosen race, a priesthood
royal, a holy nation, a people acquired, to proclaim the praises of
He who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (I P., II, 9). He
therefore presents the Jews as a chosen people.
He is not the only one trying to reconcile antinomic notions,
validity of the old Covenant with Israel and that of the New Covenant,
while Paul, for his part, rejects the prescriptions of the Law.

179. The reinterpretation of baptism

Arriving in Ephesus, Paul discovers the Johannites, disciples of John the

Baptist – 'a total of twelve', the Acts specify (XIX, 7). Perhaps
Did he see or want to see only a dozen, but there were many more.
numerous, and at the end of thee 16th century, one of their communities, near
Basra, in present-day Iraq, was thriving and had sixteen thousand souls, according to
the reports of Portuguese missionaries. Called Nazoreans, Mandaeans and
also Sabeans2they represented one of the branches of original gnosticism
Essene.
Paul declares to them: "John baptized with a baptism of repentance" (XIX, 4).
Indeed, John baptized for repentance, but the baptism he gave to
Jesus could not have this goal, since it did not have - according to
the evangelist - of a motive for repentance. It was administered, in the logic of
Gospels, in the name of the Holy Spirit, and that is why Jesus had to
forcing Baptiste's hand, Jean considers himself unworthy to call upon the Holy Spirit
about himself. Paul, for his part, tells the Johannites that, because they do not know
what the Holy Spirit is, they must be baptized in the name of Jesus; they
then request a second baptism.
It was the only time in the history of the Church that two were administered.
baptisms for the same people. The underlying question was not resolved: was it...
this for repentance or in the name of the Holy Spirit that was given the
baptism?

180. The trip to Damascus: implausible pretexts, a mission

impossible and a mysterious fiction

In the array of pious legends maintained by tradition, the

Paul's journey to Damascus is one of the most famous, because it illustrates the
sudden revelation of faith that transforms a destiny. A vision
luminescent that would have thrown Paul off his horse and, from persecutor of
first Christians would have changed him into a fervent apostle. An examination of this
History reveals that it is implausible.
Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples
of the Lord, went to find the high priest and asked him for letters for the
synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any adherents of the Way,
men or women, he brought them back chained to Jerusalem." Such is the beginning
from the account of the Acts (IX, 1-2). The date of the episode is obviously not
data, but it is located after the stoning of Stephen, therefore after the
Crucifixion of Jesus and his disappearance from Palestine, that is to say between one and five.
or after 30 or 33.
The few lines from the author of the Acts already betray their
implausibility. According to him, Paul would have offered, armed with
recommendations of the high priest, to go arrest Christians in Damascus and them
brought back chained to Jerusalem. Firstly, the high priest of the Temple of
Jerusalem had no authority over the synagogues of Damascus and did not
could therefore not delegate it to Saul, even less to arrest Christians,
since by principle they were no longer subject to the Jewish authorities. In
Secondly, Syria was then governed by the Roman consul Lucius.
Vitellius and Damas by the eparch (and not ethnarch, as Saul calls him in
II Cor., XI, 32) of the Nabataean king – that is to say Arab – Aretas IV. He would have done
beautiful to see a Judean going to arrest residents of a Roman territory
neighbor, Christians or not, to bring them chained to Jerusalem; he would have been
stopped in the hour. No high priest would have subscribed to such a project
disheveled. It is a laughable fable.
Paul was therefore going to Damascus for other reasons. Which ones? We are
reduced to conjectures. But we cannot rule out the hypothesis that its objective
had been to establish contact with the dissident Essenes who had taken refuge
in Syria and who also proclaimed the necessity of a New Alliance.
As for his vision on the Road to Damascus, he has given three versions of it.
different (IX, 3-9, XXII, 6-11 and XXVI, 12-15) that they inspire the
skepticism, particularly the second: he would have requested the appearance
Luminous: "Who are you, Lord?" and the voice would have answered him "in language
Hebrew: "I am Jesus the Nazarene whom you are persecuting." He is highly
improbable that, from high above in the sky, Jesus defined himself as a Nazarene. From
besides, he spoke Aramaic.

181. An apocryphal quote from Jesus

During his farewell to Ephesus, Paul reminded them to 'remember the

words of the Lord Jesus, who said himself: there is more happiness in
"give only to receive" (XX, 35). One will search in vain for these words of Jesus
in the Gospels.

182. Where the Holy Spirit gives contrary advice...

Addressing his disciples and the Elders of Ephesus, Paul announces to them:
And here, being bound by the Spirit, I go to Jerusalem, not knowing what
who will advise me, except that, from town to town, the Holy Spirit warns me that
chains and tribulations awaited me" (XX, 22). It is contradictory:
The Spirit that 'chains' Paul leads him towards danger? A little further,
we see the same disciples, "driven by the Holy Spirit", recommending to
Paul not to go to Jerusalem (XXI, 4). Luke, Paul or the disciples have
apparently heard different Holy Spirits, one advising the
the opposite of the other.

183. … and where Paul clears himself a bit too easily

During the same farewells, Paul declares: "I attest to it today before
you: I am pure from the blood of all" (XX, 26). However, upon returning to Jerusalem,
after the famous trance on the road to Damascus, he has well kept the memory of
its atrocities against the disciples of Jesus. In his dialogue with God, which
he urges him too to leave the city quickly, he exclaims: 'Lord, they'
yet well aware that, from synagogue to synagogue, I was being thrown out
prison and beat with rods those who believe in you; and when one was spreading the
said Étienne, your witness, I was there too, agreeing with those who do it
they were killing and I was keeping their clothes" (XXII, 18-20). It is noted incidentally
the disconcerting implication of these words: it is that the people of Israel, they,
would not have believed in God.
How can he then declare himself 'pure of the blood of all'? He will say it again.
yet in the Epistle to the Corinthians: 'My conscience does not accuse me
nothing (I Cor., IV, 4).

184. The contradictions and mysteries of Paul's autobiography, 'Jew'

without Torah" and Pharisee, and Roman citizen besides

Presenting himself to the Jews of Jerusalem, Paul offers them his autobiography.
Next: "I am Jewish. Born in Tarsus in Cilicia, I was however raised here"
in this city, and it is at the feet of Gamaliel that I was trained in the exact
observance of the Law of our fathers, and I was filled with the zeal of God, as
you all are today" (XX, 3).
Later, he will claim to a tribunal that he says he bought his citizenship.
"Runner-up in the Grand Prix: 'I was born with it' (XXII, 28-29). This means
that his father, except for his parents, was a Roman citizen, which is quite
exceptional for a Jew. And on two occasions, he will claim to be from the tribe of
Benjamin (Rom., XI, 1; Phil., III, 5). And even later, appearing
before the Sanhedrin, he will exclaim: "Brothers, I am a Pharisee, son of

Paul, originally named Saul, would therefore be a Jew of descent.

Benjaminite, Pharisee, and Roman citizen, originally from Tarsus. Now, in this
City, capital of Cilicia, whose status had not changed since the beginning of er
By the middle ofe the II century, Roman citizenship was only granted to people
of a certain rank; they were compelled to participate in pagan rites, which
it excluded them automatically from the Jewish community. Such is the reason why
the Ebionites, sects of Jews disciples of Jesus established in Syria and close to
maintained that the Nazarenes rejected the allegations of Paul's Jewishness and the
tinrent for a pagan. Indeed, Paul overlooks the obligation for all.
the Roman citizens to participate in the Roman rites, under penalty of perjury
can lead to the death penalty.
His claims of belonging to the tribe of Benjamin are also
suspects. After the Exile, the Benjaminites had so intermingled with the
tribe of Judah that they had lost their identity. In the 20thercentury, it had become
illusory to claim a Benjaminite ancestry3.
Could Paul have lied about his Roman citizenship? It is more than unlikely.
for he could not ignore that this identity theft was punishable by
capital punishment. This point is established. It is therefore his Jewishness that is questionable; and
The doubt increases upon reading these lines from the Epistle to the Corinthians:
Yes, free with regard to everyone, I have enslaved myself to everyone, in order to ...
to gain the largest number. And I have become for the Jews as a Jew,
in order to win the Jews; for those who are under the Torah - without being myself-
even under the Torah – in order to win those who are under the Torah. I am
become for those without the Torah as without the Torah, being not under the Torah
of Elohim, but under the Torah of the Messiah, in order to win the without-Torah
Cor., IX, 19-21).
This nonsensical statement is confounding with untenable assertions: it does not exist.
of Jews without Torah (the Law), and there can be no difference between the
Torah of the Messiah and that of God, Jesus having formally declared: 'I do not
I did not come to abolish the Law." And if he had become "like a Jew," that
means that he was not and that he acted.
of implausibility, he will later declare that he would be a Pharisee, belonging
So to a rigorous sect, and that without being subject to the Torah! And it
will demand again later, before Herod Agrippa II, great-grandson
of Herod the Great.
Paul openly acknowledges that he is not subject to the Torah and,
in barely veiled terms, that he feigned to be Jewish to win over the Jews. A fact
house: he is indeed a Roman citizen, since he will obtain the privilege of being
judged by Caesar, that is to say, Nero. One then questions the purpose of these
civil status distortions.
In the e 4th century, Epiphanius of Salamis, reporting the accusations of
Ebionites against Paul, writes: 'They claim that he was Greek by father and'
mother, but that he had gone to Jerusalem, had stayed there for some time and had
wanted to marry the daughter of the high priest. He had therefore become a proselyte and
had been circumcised. But since he could not get that kind of girl, he ...
he irritates and wrote against circumcision and the Sabbath and the Law4, I, 2,
16-18).
In thee century, Saint Jerome, in his catalog of Christian authors, From
to illustrious men, writes on his part: 'The apostle Paul, previously called Saul,
must be counted outside the number of the twelve apostles. He was from the tribe of
Benjamin, from the city of Giscala, in Judea. When it was taken by the
Romans, he emigrated with his parents to Tarsus in Cilicia, then was sent by
them in Jerusalem to study the Law, and he was taught by Gamaliel, a man
very learned of which Luc has a memory.
Jérôme strives to reconcile opposites and formally contradicts.
the Tarsian origin of Paul. In doing so, he removes from him any possibility of having the
Roman citizenship. Paul's father - who is not mentioned anywhere - does not
could have acquired his citizenship as an exiled Jew. The rest of
Jérôme's argumentation does not hold up to examination either. Palestine
was conquered by the Romans in 63 BC; if Paul and his parents were
left on that date, he would have, at the time of his arrest, in 58, at least
one hundred and eleven years! Incidentally, Giscala, the current El Jish, is located in Galilee.
and not in Judea.
As for the reference to Gamaliel, Gamaliel I, known as the Elder, it is not
sustainable: this famous doctor of the Law taught only to doctors of
solid training, which Paul never had, and the expression 'at the feet of
Gamaliel can only provoke a shrug. Gamaliel did not hold
not a primary school. Moreover, he left the image of a man spreading a
a deep and rigorous notion of justice, and it certainly was not him
who encouraged Paul to persecute the Christians.
"Brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of Pharisees!" Paul exclaims.
the address of the Sanhedrin, after his arrest in Jerusalem; but strangely,
he never says who his father and mother were, while almost everyone
Bible characters are designated by their lineage. Paul, however, is never.
say "son of". Revealing silence which we will see the reasons for below.
The importance of this point is that it demonstrates Paul's ability to mask.
the truth to achieve one's ends. In modern language, the piling up of
his approximately and his concealments would define him as a fabulist.
And how can one not wonder why he suddenly decided to
defend - in his own way - the teaching of Jesus?

185. Paul's wealth and social status: the facts and allegations

Paul says he is a tent maker (Acts, XVIII, 3). This is a women's profession or
of slaves, which is only profitable in the areas of transhumance and
nomads do not correspond well to the schedule of this former member of the
Temple police. It corresponds even less to his obvious social status.
First, when the Orthodox Jews of Corinth, exasperated by his sermons
schismatics, want to have him stopped, Gallion, proconsul of the province of
Achaea and who sits in Corinth, drives them out of the praetorium. Movement of
generosity towards Paul? Partiality rather, for when Sosthene, chief of
the local synagogue converted by Paul presents itself in turn, Gallio lets him in
to kill in the middle of the courtroom. Therefore, Paul must have imposed it on him.
XVIII, 2-17.
Then, in Jerusalem, when the temple Levites seize Paul,
they accuse of having desecrated a holy place by allowing a non-Jew to enter it,
Trophimus of Ephesus, and as they prepare to stone him, he is saved just in time:
Claudius Lysias, tribune of the cohorts and governor of the citadel of
Antonia, neighbor of the Temple, rushes in with several centurions and their
men, or still several centuries of legionnaires, hundreds
of men, and, exceptionally, allows Paul to tell (in 'language
Hebrew") to the angry crowd, his conversion on the way to Damascus...
all this under the protection of the Roman army. Surprising leniency in
regarding a troublemaker, even if he is a Roman citizen. Everything happens therefore
as if the tribune Lysias was the guarantor of Paul and his message
evangelical (Acts, XXI, 27 and XXIII, 10).
Finally, when Paul is safe at the Antonia Tower and learns
by his nephew, forty Jews commit to fasting until they have
obtained from the Sanhedrin the promise of his death sentence, he calls for a
of the centurions and said to him: 'Take this young man to the tribune; yes, he has a'
"announcement for him" (Acts, XXII, 14-17). The tribune Lysias does not depart from
his kindness towards Paul and makes an equally surprising decision
what precedes: he sends him safely to Caesarea to Prefect Felix.
It is likely that Luke's account is biased. First, the Sanhedrin does not
did not have legal powers outside the Temple, as one has
seen in the case of Jesus. Then, Luke, like the other evangelists, tends to
to represent Roman power as favorable to Christianity, and the
Jewish community as fanatically hostile.
It remains that Paul is definitely a citizen who has
the authority. Jesus did not benefit from such protections.

186. The extraordinary military procession of Paul and its relations with the
visitors of Governors Félix and Festus

Concerned about saving him from the anger of the Jews, who had committed themselves to him.
kill, Lysias sends Paul to Governor Antonius Felix, who was at
Caesarea. He assigns her an escort that is sure to astonish a familiar.
of Roman history. If we are to believe Luc, it is indeed composed of
two hundred soldiers, seventy cavalrymen and two hundred men-at-arms.
There are four hundred and seventy soldiers; now, the usual escort of Herod.
Antipas, for example, is composed of four hundred men, the Galatians. He
Paul must therefore be, in the eyes of Roman power, a character of
great importance. Once again, Jesus did not receive such considerations from
the part of Pilate. Nothing justifies such honors, the accused being described
as "the leader of the party of the Nazoreans" (Acts 24:5), therefore a
troublemaker.
Better: Paul comes across as a wealthy man, since Luc writes that the
Governor Félix "hoped that Paul would give him money"
(Acts 24:26). It must be assumed that, for a tent maker, Paul had
decidedly great means, because it was not with coins that he would have
can corrupt a Roman governor. Luc specifies that Paul also benefited from
special considerations, including 'some facilities', not specified.
And Paul would have stayed for two years – "two complete years" (Acts, XXIV,
27) - in Caesarea, until Festus, the new governor, succeeded Felix.
So we are in 58. During this long stay, Paul seems to have been well
more privileged resident than prisoner: we see Félix and his partner Drusilla
to speak with him, then Herod Agrippa II and his sister Berenice asked to
to see him. Strange interest that of this king and his sister for a wrongdoer
troubles.
Paul's proselytizing action ended with this two-year pause, heralding the
this tête-à-tête with Nero would have been the culmination of his career, but
that he never obtained. As a Roman citizen, he was beheaded. Luke did not say
nothing of the measures taken by the members of the Apostolic Council of
Jerusalem, nor those that Paul himself took during his captivity in Caesarea,
since he was allowed to receive visitors.
The account of the Acts appears increasingly suspicious, especially when we know this
What the writer does not say: Herod Agrippa II was the son of Agrippa I.erwho,
In 41, exasperated by the troubles caused by the Nazarenes, he had them made.
powerful mediator (Jos., Ant. jud., XIX, 6). The character is a conciliator.
sometimes ambiguous. He thus tries to make coexist Rome and the Jews, the Jews and
the first Christians, Rome and the Christians; in modern language, one would say
that he does not want any trouble. Luc does not say either that Agrippa II maintains
an incestuous affair with his sister, which became notorious since the death
of Herod of Chalcis, of whom she was the wife. Moreover, Berenice is the
mistress of the Roman Titus, who was madly in love with him (which maintained in the
Herod Agrippa and his sister the crazy dream of seeing a Jewish empress in Rome.
Incestuous sister and mistress of a pagan, she is obviously despised by the
Jews. Luke cannot ignore it, but he does not want to harm these characters.
favorable to Paul. Neither he nor the later editors will say otherwise that
Bérénice, exasperated by the attacks from the Jews, will become a Nazarene in the year 66.
(Jos., Jewish War, II, 313). In fact, in 60, she has many reasons to
taking an interest in this character who is also being preyed upon by the
Jewish community.
The account of Paul's interview with Agrippa II is therefore a detached screen.
historical facts. We will verify below that it is mainly intended to
to hide.
 The interview is crucial, as Paul hopes to obtain from Agrippa and Festus not
not his release, but the permission to have his case judged by Caesar, in
the occurrence Nero, in Rome, privilege of Roman citizens.
He is certainly not the poor zealot unjustly accused by some.
blunt enemies. After having long told his noble interlocutors
the episode of the Road to Damascus, where the voice of Jesus allegedly called out to him "in
Hebrew language," and his conversion from persecutor to defender of
disciples of Jesus, he addresses Agrippa II: "Do you adhere to the inspired ones?"
"Yes, I know that you adhere to it!"
(Acts, XXVI, 27).
There is a lot of familiarity with a king while being a 'prisoner'.
And Agrippa concluded: "This man could have been released if he had not..."
"called upon Caesar" (Acts, XXVI, 32).
The evangelical scheme consisting of representing Roman power as
favorable to the disciples of Jesus and the Jews as fanatical enemies of
Jesus asserts Himself.
It should be noted, regarding the address by the voice of Jesus, on the
Damascus road, that Paul does not have very clear memories. In his
in the first account, he says that it was he who fell to the ground (Acts, XXII, 7), but
In his account to Agrippa II, he says: 'All of us fell to the ground.'
XXVI, 14.
*

Paul is therefore a character of exceptional rank. Why?

Two clues are offered by the texts. The first is found in the
Acts of the Apostles themselves. At the beginning of his mission, Paul finds himself in Antioch.
And, Luke writes (in one of the common versions of this text): "There was in
the church established in Antioch of prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon
called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Menahem, childhood friend of Herod the
tetrach, and Saul " (Acts, XIII, 1).
The Hellenist Robert Ambelain5Answer this translation from Manahn to you
Herod the tetrarch's companion and Saul, which should be: 'Menahem'
who had been raised with Herod the tetrarch and Saul." Now, if Menahem had
raised with Herod the tetrarch and Saul, this excluded any Tarsian childhood,
No Herodian having been raised in Tarsus. But who was this Menahem?
that the Acts cite without further indication? Could it be the son of Judas the
Galilean, 'formidable doctor of the Law,' according to Flavius Josephus.
War of the Jews, II, 17, 8), he who led the revolt of the Jews of
67-73 against Rome? What did it have to do with a future tetrarch? And what about Paul?
Was he there? Because it meant that Paul had been raised with Herod
Tetrarch.
To the first question, it should be answered that a tetrarch was the chief
from the Jewish community and it was normal for him to maintain relations with
the enlightened and influential men of his community.
Now the second question remains: how could Paul have been raised with a
Herod?
He himself provides the indirect explanation in the final address.
from the Epistle to the Romans: "Greet those who belong to the household of Aristobulus, greet
Herodion my relative, greet Rufus, the chosen one in the Adôn, and his mother who is
also mine" (Rom., XVI, 10-13).
The letter is written from Corinth, intended for the Christians of Rome, where
Paul hopes to get there. It probably dates back to 52 or 53, before his
arrest in Corinth by the consul Gallio. The names of Aristobulus and
d'Hérodion, 'young Herod', are typical of the Herodian dynasty:
Four of its members carried the first name and four others the second.
Those familiar with Roman history will have understood that these are names of
Herodian princes raised in Rome, virtual hostages of imperial power, who
understand them to familiarize them with the customs and interests of the Roman civitas.
Herodian can indeed only reign in the East if he is on good terms.
with the imperium. Thanks to the Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus,
We are aware of the paths of many of them.
There was indeed an Aristobulus in Rome in 52/53: it is Aristobulus III, son
Herod of Chalcis and Mariamme, and cousin of Herod Agrippa II and
Berenice. He is a favorite of Nero, who will grant him the kingdom in 54.
Little Armenia and will add a part of Greater Armenia in the 60s.
There is also a Herodian in Rome: it is precisely the future Herod.
Agrippa II, who will be formally received in Rome by Emperor Vespasian,
pacifier of Judea, in 67, after the death of Nero. The deduction is
evident: if Paul is a relative of Herodian, it means he is himself a
Herodian.
It is therefore a reunion of old acquaintances that the meeting of Paul,
of Herod Agrippa II and Berenice. The phrase from the Acts quoted above and
according to which Paul would have been raised with Herod the tetrarch then takes a
particular resonance. For this tetrarch could only have been Herod Agrippa.
Ierfather of the visitor, later banished to Gaul. And the resonance strengthens
when we know - what the Acts do not say either - that the wife of
Félix, Drusilla, is the sister of Agrippa II and Berenice. The writer of the
Acts simply states that she was Jewish (Acts, XXIV, 24).
This explains the exceptional solicitude of Félix, and then of Festus,
regarding Paul.
As for Rufus and his mother, who would also be Paul's, we do not have any information on
their identities than conjectures. What would Paul's mother be doing in Rome?
For the biography of this character is definitely quite dark. His father
his mother, let's insist on this point, is never mentioned.
*

Subsidiary question: how is Paul a Herodian? The two clues

there it is, the phrase from Acts and its acknowledgment of kinship with Herodion,
without mentioning his exceptional status among the Romans, confirms it,
but do not specify it.
The history of the dynasty is complex and often bloody, punctuated
of assassinations, poisonings, and banishments in a long series
struggles for power. Herod the Great had executed, in 29 BC,
his wife Mariamme the Hasmonean, in 7 BC, his sons Alexander and
Aristobulus and in 4 BC, another son, Antipater. His nephews Joseph and
Costobar had been executed in 34 and 25 BC. These murders
had been committed at the instigation of Salome, the sister of the monarch - not to
confused with her namesake stepdaughter, daughter of Herodias and Philip.
Salome was indeed pursuing a policy of eliminating all the
descendants of his sister-in-law, the Hasmonean Mariamne. Now, Antipater had
I "a son and a daughter", mysteriously unnamed by Flavius Josephus,
yet precise in these genealogies (but we know that all the manuscripts
antiques that have come down to us were copied by monks and that those-
they certainly would not have allowed evidence of the ancestry to persist
Herodian of the founder of the Church.
After the execution of Alexander, his widow Glaphyra, daughter of the king of
Cappadocia (including Cilicia, where Tarsus is located), lost all power
about his two children, Alexandre and Tigrane. Flavius Josephus writes that
Herod sent her back to her father and returned her dowry from his own purse.
so that they could not have any quarrel
returned several times to Jerusalem to see her children. Then she remarried.
with the king of Libya, Juba II, who repudiated her, and she returned again to
Cappadocia. Flavius Josephus describes her as a sentimental woman, who
died of melancholy two days after seeing in a dream her first husband,
Alexandre, who reproached her for remarrying. She had indeed taken a
third husband: the brother of the deceased Alexandre, the ethnarch Archelaus, who
had seen her in Cappadocia, had fallen madly in love with her and had
brought back to Judea.
Or, other children victims of Salome's intrigues were at
Jerusalem, in great danger of elimination: it was those of Antipater and of
the Hasmonean Berenice, whose first husband, Aristobulus, had also been
a victim of Salome. These are the very ones that Joseph does not give.
the names. They had been abandoned by their mother, remarried for the third time.
marriage, she too, with Theudion, brother of Herod's first wife
Grand, Doris.
Our hypothesis is that Glaphyra thus took Saul to safety in
Cappadocia. He would only have returned to Jerusalem under the protection of
Glaphyra, after the death of Salome. Paul would thus have been the same age as his.
cousins, do not Herod Agrippa IerShe was the most likely link for Paul.
with Asia Minor. And it was only because of his Herodian quality that he
acquire Roman citizenship.
It would be during his years in Cappadocia, a Hellenized province, that he
would have acquired this decidedly Hellenistic style that is recognized by the
exegetes, among masters themselves Hellenized.
It is a reality very different from that depicted by the Acts.
Paul's world. And it is not the laconic ending of the Acts that would allow one to...
report: 'Paul remained in the dwelling he had for two whole years.'
rented. He received all those who came to find him, proclaiming the Kingdom of
God and teaching what concerns the Lord Jesus Christ with fullness
assurance and without obstacle.
The conclusion is definitely a bit short. After describing in detail the
Less stops on his journeys, Luc observes a cautious silence on what
advance when the one who is considered the founder of the Church arrived at
to the final destination.

___________________
1. Cf. Randel Helms, Who wrote the Gospels?, cf. bibl.
2. Cf. note 17, p. 315.
3. Cf. Hyam Maccoby, Paul and the Invention of Christianity, cf. bibl.
4. Cf. bibl.
5. The Secret Life of Saint Paul, cf. bibl.
 III. THE EPISTLES

Pastoral letters intended for regional communities, the Epistles

only engaged the responsibility of their authors. They were therefore less
remodeled than the Gospels, which were addressed to all of these
communities. That is why one deciphers there, through
their contradictions with each other and within themselves, the conflicts between the
currents that ran through the early Churches, particularly regarding the definition
and the role of Jesus and on the necessity of abandoning the Mosaic Law. They
must therefore be read in accordance with events as well as movements
political and ideological, often rushed, of the time.
Their admission into the canon was late, around thee 4th century, due to these
discrepancies, reflections of the theological upheavals that presided over the elaboration
of dogmas, but also to the separation of Churches.

Epistles of Paul

It is through his Epistles as much as through the Acts of the Apostles that the action of
Paul, founder of the Church, is the best known. One measures it, twenty centuries
later, the fervor of his eloquence, which was the great weapon of his talent
of organizer. They are the most numerous and also the richest
Information on some of the questions that arose for
early Christians. Contradictions and gaps reveal, however, that the
the aspirations and theological inspirations of the Thirteenth Apostle were sometimes
overwhelmed by the enormity of a task that would occupy eight until the year one thousand
councils, from that of Nicea in 325 to that of Constantinople in 869.

Epistle to the Romans

187. Are the Jews and the Greeks favored by God or not? One
a tangle of contradictions

Paul repeats the same contradiction as Peter according to the Acts. 178).
On one hand, he says that 'God does not show favoritism' (Rom., I,
11), in other words, that God has no favorites, while on the other hand He writes
that 'the Gospel is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes,
to the Jew first, and then to the Greek" (Rom., I, 16). And he repeats it: "Tribulation and
anguish to every human soul that indulges in evil, to the Jew first, then to
Greek; glory, honor, and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first, and then
to the Greek" (Rom., II, 9-10). Why would the Jews and the Greeks have
precedence over the rest of humanity if all humans are equal?
Further on, he confirms the divine favoritism and the aversions that come from it.
they resulted. He writes thus: "… As it is written: I have loved Jacob and I have hated
Esau" (Rom., IX, 13) without explaining why God would not only
loved Jacob, but hated Esau.
Aware of questioning divine justice, he reasons like this,
undoubtedly producing one of the most impenetrable tangles of
contradictions in his Epistles: "What does this mean? Would God be unjust?"
Certainly not. For he says to Moses: 'I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.'
and I feel pity for whom I feel pity." Therefore, it is not a question of the man who wants
but of God who shows mercy. [...] Therefore, he makes
mercy to whom he wants and he hardens whom he wants" (Rom., IX, 14-18).
Does he realize that by claiming to dispel it, through divine words that he has
invented, does it thus reinforce an image of divine injustice? Indeed, it gives
an example of divine injustice as proof of justice. Success or
the failure of human actions would therefore be subject to divine whim. In a
In another Epistle, Paul will nonetheless write: "Do you not know that in the races
From the stadium, everyone runs but only one wins the prize? So run for it,
"to win" (I Cor., IX, 24).
Has he forgotten that he wrote to the Romans that there's no need to rush?

188. Contradictory and distorted quotes

The New Testament, as we have seen, is inclined to quotes from the Old Testament.
often distorted from their meaning, even contradictory. The Epistles of Paul
do not make an exception, the apostle being undoubtedly more familiar with Greek and
Latin that comes from Hebrew.
 Thus, he writes: "God must be truthful and every man a liar,
as the Scripture says, 'so that you may be justified in your words, and prevail
if one is brought to trial" (Rom., III, 4). It is an injunction
addressed to the unfaithful. The text in question is taken from the Miserere of Psalm 51.
It is a plea from the sinner, in fact from the prophet Nathan, to God: "For
that you show your justice when you speak and that your victory appears when you
judges. » It is completely diverted from its meaning, for in the version of
Paul, he is the sinner who is being judged and in the original, it is God.
who judges.
Further on appears another diversion, even more erroneous: "It is written:
Here I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and a rock that makes
fall; but whoever believes in him will not be put to shame" (Rom., IX, 33). On
it cannot be said that this is a quote from Isaiah, as it is so disfigured: "Thus speaks
the Lord Yahweh: "Here I am laying a stone in Zion, a stone
of granite, precious cornerstone, well-established foundation stone, the one who
shall not be shaken" (Is., 28:16-17). The cornerstone is
become a stumbling block!
Isaiah's quotes do not bring him luck. Thus, from this one: "According to
as it is written, we announce: "What the eye has not seen, what the ear has not heard"
not heard, what has not ascended to the heart of man, all that God has
"prepared for those who love it" (I Cor., II, 9). Isaiah, for his part, wrote: "Of
For a long time, we had not heard, we had not seen, and the eye had not seen.
a God, you excepted, to act in favor of the one who trusts in him" (Is.,
LXIV, 3). To make a good measure, Paul adds: "what has not been raised to
"heart of man." The words of Isaiah were those of a thanksgiving.
those of Paul want to translate the wonder caused by the fact that God has
sacrificed his son on the cross. This is a distortion of meaning.
When he invokes the Scriptures, Paul seems to forget them as soon as they are mentioned and the
immediately contradicts. For example, he quotes David: "Blessed are those whose
offenses have been remitted and sins covered. Blessed is the man to whom the
Lord does not impute any sin" (Rom., IV, 7-8). He has however declared more
none is righteous, not even one, there is no sensible one, not one who
search for God" (Rom., III, 10). How can there then exist men
Happy, if none of them seeks God?

189. Enigmatic and contradictory assertions about the Law

 We believe that man is justified by faith without the practice of
Law," says Paul (Rom., III, 28) to demonstrate that the Law only governs the
Jews. This is the extension of his effort to detach from Judaism the
nascent Christianity: "It is not the hearers of the Law, but those
who observe the Law will be justified before God. Indeed, when the
pagan who are deprived of the Law naturally fulfill the prescriptions of the
Law, these men, without possessing a Law, stand to themselves as Law.
Thus, he illustrates the notion of immanent 'natural law', which
it will be the source of endless theoretical debates. But he will say later, in
the Epistle to the Galatians: "Christ has delivered us from this curse of the
Law, which has become a curse for us
Would the Law be a curse? Paul seems to have forgotten the words of
Jesus: "I have not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it." And also:
Before heaven and earth pass away, not one iota, not one dot on the iota
will not pass from the Law until all is fulfilled" (Mt., V, 18). Paul contradicts
formally the words of Jesus.
But independently of this fundamental conflict between what Jesus said and
what Paul teaches in his name, a reader of the two Epistles to the Romans and
the Galatians would have a hard time understanding what he said about the Law,
even if he had possessed his rhetorical talent. His speech on the role of the
Law (Rom., VII, 7-12), in which he first asks whether "the Law is sin",
to reach the conclusion that "without the Law, sin is just a word"
while he wrote above that 'the Law only gives knowledge of the
"sin" (Rom., III, 20) seems to defy understanding, and one can
to ask what the listeners of his time understood who were not
broken in the casuistry. What can be deduced, in fact, from statements that contradict each other
constantly? On one hand, the apostle writes that it is those 'who observe the Law'
who will be justified" before God (Rom., II, 13), and on the other hand that "no one
will be justified before him by the practice of the Law" (Rom., III, 20).
How the practice of justice and respect for the law serve to
nothing. What is the point of declaring that 'charity is the Law in its fullness'
(Rom., XIII, 10) ? In reality, this dialectic can only be understood in relation to
historical events of the time: Paul does not want to alienate
the audience of Christianized Jews, who were numerous in the Empire, but he did not
does not want to limit its audience to only the converted Jews 'of the first
"time", seeking to extend it to the pagans who would have no knowledge
of what the Law was for the Jews and who would have refused their adherence to a
teaching based on this unknown Law.
The idea that works of justice cannot guarantee salvation seems
dominant in its conception of Christianity, as it reappears in its
Epistle to Titus, where Paul writes that 'the day when the goodness of God our
Savior and his love for men, he did not care about our works.
of justice, but driven solely by His mercy, He saved us through the bath
"of regeneration" (Titus, III, 4-5).
Once again, the works of justice would carry no weight in light of
God.

190. Contradiction about self-contempt

The emphasis that seemed natural to him undoubtedly pushed Paul to

lowering excessively: "I know that no one lives in me, I mean, in my
chair," he wrote in a moment of humility, "since I do not do the good that
I want and commit the evil that I do not want " (Rom., VII, 18). But then,
How can he write in another Epistle: 'I am crucified with
the Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" (Gal., II,
20). How could he say that no one lived in him if it was Christ who
Did it live in him?
Compared to these assertions, the dilemma of Stavrogin, the hero of
Dostoevsky seems clear: "If Stavrogin believes, he does not believe that he believes.
but if he doesn't believe, he doesn't believe that he doesn't believe.

191. Paul rejects the divine conception of Jesus

It is permissible to be surprised by the role that Paul played in the edification of

the Church when, in reading its Epistles, one notes that it rejects the
conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. He announces it right away when, by
presenting as a servant of Christ Jesus, Son of God and "descended from the lineage
of David according to the flesh" (Rom., I, 3). He repeats it later in a sentence
whose logic seems wavering and where he writes "from whom Christ is derived according to
the flesh" (Rom., IX, 5), without understanding which flesh it is referring to.
He had indeed declared it during his sermon in Antioch, when he had
I have found David, the son of Jesse, a
man after my heart" and that he had concluded: "It is from his offspring
that, following his promise, God has raised Jesus as Savior for Israel
He forgot that it is he himself who maintains that the
Descendance does not include descendants! (201)
Clearly, Paul had not checked or had the genealogies verified.
Jesus. It is true that he forbids to take an interest in it: 'Avoid discussions
stupid, the genealogies, the divergences and the quarrels over the Law, for they
are sterile and futile," he urged Titus (Titus, III, 9-10).
But we would be hard-pressed to draw up a list of all those he contradicts, for
the only Epistle to the Romans is a selection. Condemning once again
the Jews, whom he had nonetheless designated as the Chosen People, but who "do not
"not obeyed the Good News," he thus quotes Isaiah: "All day long, I have..."
"stretch out your hands towards a disobedient and rebellious people"
forgetting the Numbers: "I have not seen evil in Jacob, nor suffering in
Israel. Yahweh his God is with him" (Num., XXIII, 21).

Epistles to the Corinthians

192. The Praise of Folly and Anti-Intellectualism

One of the most strongly developed points in this Epistle is the praise
repeatedly lacking wisdom, at least in the ordinary sense of the word: "He is
I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and the intelligence of the intelligent and I
I will reject it." Where is the wise man? Where is the educated man? Where is he
reasoner of this century?" (I Cor., I, 19). "Has God not struck with madness the
wisdom of the world? […] While the Jews ask for signs and that
Greeks seek wisdom, we proclaim, we, a crucified Christ,
scandal for the Jews and folly for the pagans. […] For what is folly of
God is wiser than men" (I Cor., I, 20-25). "I did not come
to announce the mystery of God with the prestige of the word or of the
wisdom » (I Cor., II, 1). « We are fools, we because of Christ, but
you, you are cautious in Christ” (I Cor., IV, 10). “If anyone
If any of you thinks he is wise in the ways of this world, let him become a fool in order to
become wise, for the wisdom of this world is foolishness in the sight of God
(I Cor., III, 18-19).
Did he not know that wisdom consists precisely in not following the example of
world? "Yet, it is indeed wisdom that we speak of among the perfect,
but not with a wisdom of this world... [...] what we are talking about is a
wisdom of God, mysterious, remained hidden” (I Cor., II, 6-7).
These speeches immediately place Paul among the mystics, and more
precisely among the followers of Gnosis, as indicated by his statements
confounding and paradoxical about the insufficiency of the Law in the Epistle to the
Romans. Founder of religion, he asks the followers to renounce
the use of reason: 'The psychic man does not welcome what is of
the Spirit of God: it is foolishness to him and he cannot know it, for it is
spiritually one judges. The spiritual man, on the contrary, judges everything,
and he himself is judged by no one" (I Cor., II, 14-15).
It would be difficult to define one or the other of the categories that Paul
invoke here, in the most rationalist way incidentally said, "the man
"psychic" and "the spiritual man." As for the assertion that the
the last would be judged by no one, it is her doing, everyone can judge it.
But how could the believer who has silenced his reason apply
Jesus' warning: 'Beware of false prophets? They come to you'
you look like sheep from the outside, but inside they are
truly like greedy wolves" (Mt., VII, 15). If the wisdom that teaches
Paul is 'mysterious and remains hidden', how would we recognize him?
In reality, the substance of this statement is a message clearly
derived from the great Eastern Gnostic current that then competes in influence with
the primitive Church and with which it will eventually come into conflict55Paul
exhorts his listeners to renounce consciousness so that God may reveal himself
them; his notion of faith was meant to lead to the heresies of Marcion and Valentin.
These are not Jesus' ideas that he spreads with this anyway.
vehemence. Paul highlights here one of the most glaring contradictions in the
New Testament.
And the God he describes is a challenge to believers: "What is foolish in
the world, this is what God has chosen to confound the wise; what there is of
weak in the world, this is what God has chosen to confound what is
fort " (I Cor., I, 27).
How to reconcile a world of fools and idiots supposed to represent the
divine will with the wisdom of the Old Testament? For they are
countless pages of this Testament that Paul tramples underfoot. He has never
he reads the Proverbs
If you keep my precepts with you,
making your ears attentive to wisdom,
incline your heart towards intelligence,
yes, if you appeal to understanding,
if you seek intelligence,
So you will understand the fear of the Lord. (Prov., II, 1-6)
 Blessed is the man who has found wisdom,
the man who acquires intelligence! (Prov., III, 13)

Beginning of wisdom: acquire wisdom

Acquire wisdom at the cost of all you have.
(Prov., IV, 7)

Had he read Daniel? Had he forgotten that, in his favor, God granted him
as well as to his three brothers, Ananias, Misael, and Azarias, 'knowledge and instruction
in letters and in wisdom?" (Dan., I, 17). But it is true that, quick to
changes of opinion, he was going to preach exactly the opposite to
Ephesians.
One can clearly perceive what convictions, beyond an anti-intellectualism
forced, underpin these exalted discourses: they are those of Gnosticism,
vast philosophical-religious current that celebrated spontaneous knowledge
and non-rational of the lower world and the upper world and, as has been
seen in the prologue of the Gospel of John, divided the world into entities
incompatibles, matter and spirit, darkness and light. "I affirm it,
Brothers, he writes, flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" (I
Cor., XV, 50). And he will repeatedly say it in his Epistles: 'The letter kills,
"The Spirit gives life" (II Cor., III, 6). How did he then reconcile the Incarnation?
with the irreparable pain of matter?
e
Gnosticism flourished in the Mediterranean world since the 2nd century.
B.C. In this line of thought, foreign to the Law and antagonistic to Judaism,
Paul was about to embark on paths parallel to those of the future Church, but
close to shamanism. "Thus, he would advise the Corinthians,
"desire the gift of prophecy and do not forbid speaking in tongues" (I Cor.)
XIV, 30). Alarming incitement.

193. Contradictory allegations about the vision of the Road to Damascus: sometimes
he heard Jesus, and soon he saw him

The account of the trance on the Road to Damascus, in the Acts of the Apostles,
was already uncertain; Paul unexpectedly enriched it. In a version of
in this trance, he says that all the travelers had fallen to the ground and that he
He heard a voice speak to him (Acts, XXVI, 14). In another, he is no longer
the question of a collective fall to the ground; Paul only says that his
companions had seen the light, but had not heard the voice. But
Here it is better: "Am I not an apostle? he declares to the Corinthians. Am I not
Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (I Cor., IX,
1). Nothing of the sort had been alleged in the accounts of the Acts. Worse, when he
had risen again, Paul had lost his sight and only regained it after
three days (Acts IX, 4-9 and XXII, 7-9).
Such a narrative in modern times would warrant a neurological examination.
Paul's attack resembles an epileptic seizure.

194. A challenge to logic

After telling its recipients that they were "the building of God,"
Paul adds: "According to the grace of God that has been granted to me, like a good
architect, I laid the foundation." Then: "From the foundation, no one can
"lay another foundation than the one that is already laid, which is Jesus Christ" (I Cor., III,
10-11). How can one lay a foundation that is already in place?
It is also difficult to discern the logic of statements such as this one.
He who knew no sin [Jesus], he made sin for us,
so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (II Cor., V, 21).

195. "It is good for a man to abstain from a woman" and "that the
women remain silent

No text in the New Testament mentions the sexuality of Jesus, but

Three episodes from the Gospels sketch the image of him as a tolerant man.
in matters of love or sex. First, his terse warning
to those who wanted to stone a "sinner": "Let he among you who
"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Then the supposed conversation with
the Samaritan at the well, who had five "husbands". Finally, the lesson of
psychology given to Marthe, who is getting impatient with her sister's behavior
Marie.
The character of Paul seems to be completely opposite. 'It is good for man to
"to abstain from the woman," he affirms in the first Epistle to the Corinthians,
advising then single people and widows to remain as he is, it is-
to say singles (I Cor., VII, 1 and 8).
Perhaps this rigorism can be partly explained by the rumors that
were proliferating in the Roman world about the 'bad morals' of Christians,
accused, said Suetonius, of cannibalism and incest; very dubious rumors and
especially motivated by Roman xenophobia towards a new religion
that she judges threatening. Perhaps Paul also hopes to charm those of his
auditors who would lean towards Gnosticism, which indeed advocates
sexual abstinence. But it is certain that this rigorism is not tempered
by Paul's tolerance towards women. "As in all the
churches of the saints, let the women be silent in the assemblies," it decrees-
If they want to learn about any point, let them ask their
married at home, as it is inappropriate for a woman to speak in a
"assembly" (I Cor., XIV, 34-35). This reflects the Gnostic sectarianism:
Once again, Paul is in contradiction with Jesus and with the doctrine as a whole.
later of the Incarnation that redeems the flesh.
His opinion on women is established, we can judge it from his
interpretation of the myth of Eve: 'It was not Adam who was seduced,'
but the woman who, seduced, became guilty of transgression
It is the scheme of elementary misogyny, the one that nourishes the
conversations of the Cafés du Commerce and their successors since
centuries. One would struggle to detect the breadth of views that would suit a
champion of the Church.
By what favor, then, did a woman hold an ecclesiastical position?
in a Christian church of his time? And why was he paying homage to him?
homage? "I recommend Phebe, our sister, deaconess of
the Church of Cenchrées, he writes addressing the Romans; offer it to her in the
Lord, give her a welcome worthy of the saints and assist her in every matter where she
would need you" (Rom., XVI, 1-2). It was undoubtedly not him who
had her appointed. And yet, she had to speak in the
assemblies.
The fact remains that this rejection of marriage and the disfavor of women in
numerous statements by Paul would make him the precursor of these
e
heretics of the second century known as Encratites who professed that the
Marriage is a debauchery introduced by the Devil.

Rhetorical acrobatics for the break with the Law and Judaism

We behave with a lot of confidence, and not like Moses.

who put a veil over her face to prevent the children of Israel from seeing her
end of that which is transitory. Until this day, […] when reading the Old
Testament, a veil remains. It is not removed, for it is Christ who does it.
disappear. Yes, to this day, every time we read Moses, a veil is
put on their hearts [the children of Israel]. It is when one converts to the Lord
that the veil is taken away. For the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of
Lord, there is freedom" (II Cor., III, 12-17).
An intention emerges from these somewhat vague remarks about the veil of
Moses: the one to discredit Moses, who then appears as the author of
Pentateuch, and the entirety of the Old Testament. It is intrinsically
antithetical to the teaching of Jesus and constitutes the first statement
of a break with Judaism. The text above means that the Jews had
a veil over the heart and had not converted to the Lord. We will see that
Paul will push his attacks against Judaism much further.
This is just one aspect of the stubborn argumentation of the Epistles against the
Law, where Pauline rhetoric, sharpened by Hellenism, does not prevent it
however do not stumble into the blatant contradiction. Thus he declares
that "until the Law, sin was in the world, but [that] one cannot
impute sin where there is no Law" (Rom., V, 13); further on,
he asserts that 'when there is no Law, there is no transgression'
(Rom., IV, 15). But sin being a transgression, how could it
exist in the world, since there was no transgression?
The one who relentlessly presents himself as the Apostle of Jesus testifies in
maintains passages from the Epistles that he ignores his teaching and even his life;
this is undoubtedly the reason why he allows himself to tell stories
falsehoods: "You know […] the generosity of our Lord Jesus"
Christ, who for you became poor although he was rich.
Where did he find that Jesus was ever rich?
By discrediting the Jews, of whom Jesus had nonetheless tried to be the king, the
Second Epistle to the Corinthians is in formal contradiction with the
Gospels.

197. The most beaten Apostle of all, or the most mythomaniac

Paul has found himself in a difficult situation more than once, like when he...
was jostled by the crowd in Jerusalem or slapped in front of the Sanhedrin. But reading
his own account of his tribulations, one would wonder how he is still
in life: 'Often I have faced death. Five times I have received the Jews the thirty-'
Nine lashes; three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned.
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
Although they are favorable to him, the Acts report nothing of the sort. It is necessary
remind that only the Romans were allowed to have administered
corporal punishment; or, Paul has rightly invoked his status of
Roman citizen to escape it (Acts, XXII, 25-29). Two hundred fifteen blows
whip and three beatings would hardly have left him the leisure to
pursue his career. As for stoning, it is an invention: it does not exist
did not survive.

Epistle to the Galatians

198. False and contradictory allegations

When he addresses this population of central Asia Minor, Paul

It seems that one is little or poorly informed about one's character, their
career in the service of the Temple and his position among the Apostles of the Church
primitive. He declares to them: "That the Gospel which has been announced by me is
not from man, for I did not receive it nor learn it from man, but through a
revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal., I, 11-12).
When and how would he have learned it? He never knew Jesus; the only
contact, moreover dubious, that he would have had with him took place during the vision
on the Road to Damascus, and he limited himself, according to Paul's own admission, to a
Only question: 'Why are you persecuting me?'
But he continues: "You have certainly heard about my behavior in the past
in Judaism, of the relentless persecution that I waged against the Church of
God and the havoc I was causing him, and my progress in Judaism, where
I surpassed many compatriots my age, as a staunch supporter of
traditions of my fathers.
His 'progress in Judaism' is unverifiable and resembles much more
to an inappropriate boastfulness. Riding on this, he declares: "But when
He who, from my mother's womb, set me apart and called me by his grace, deemed it
to reveal in me his Son so that I might announce him among the Gentiles, immediately, without
consult the flesh and blood, without going up to Jerusalem to find the apostles my
predecessors, I went to Arabia, then I returned again to Damascus
I, 15-17).
Contradiction borders on nonsense. How can one who, "from the womb
"motherly", would have been distinguished by God to announce His Son among the
pagans, has he spent years persecuting the disciples of the Son? And
When did the revelation he talks about take place? Not content to...
to contradict, Paul resorts to fanciful allegations, which in less formal language
reverend we would call lies.

199. An incoherent chronology

The continuation of the Epistle is no more convincing: what was he going to do in Arabia
so that he should have joined the Apostles? He said he stayed there for three years;
why do the Acts make no mention of it, while they describe its
journeys in detail? Then he would have returned to Jerusalem for fifteen
days and would have returned to Syria and Cilicia, where he would have stayed fourteen years
before returning to Jerusalem "following a revelation" (Gal., II, 2). Paul
Aura certainly enjoyed the privilege of many revelations.
But the analysis of this timeline reveals that it is a fabrication. If one
Admit that Paul's conversion took place in the year following the establishment of
death of Étienne between 32 and 34, presided over by Paul, either between 33 and 35, and if he has
spent three years in Arabia, then fourteen in Syria and Cilicia, he would not be
returned to Jerusalem before 52 or 54, his brief stay in Jerusalem, with Peter,
would be between 35 and 37. However, we learn from the Acts (XI, 28-30)
that Paul had been delegated to Jerusalem to deliver funds intended for
buy wheat, during the famine that occurred in this city, and while
Claude was emperor, around 46, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
This does not match his words at all: by that date, he should have been in
Syria or in Cilicia.
If we take this date of 46 as a reference and accept that Paul has not...
has not set foot in Jerusalem since his previous visit, fourteen years ago
previously, and since he will have spent an additional three years in Arabia, his conversion
would have taken place two to four years before the stoning of Stephen, which is
obviously excluded.
Paul therefore created a fictional timeline. Can we attribute the error to the
distraction? No, because he cannot have forgotten his return to Jerusalem, when he
had been tasked with a significant fund transfer. Its goal is to distance itself
totally from the group of the Apostles and to present himself as an Apostle
independent. He intends to assume sole responsibility for leading the primitive Church.
He also describes that Church as a bunch of laggards and
intriguing, denouncing "false brothers who had secretly infiltrated
and slipped among us [the apostles] with the intention of enslaving us [Paul and
Then he criticizes Peter and John who remained attached to
principle of circumcision, and Jacques, previously designated as
"the brother of the Lord" (Gal., I, 18-20), is accused of having led Peter astray
the straight path (Gal., II, 11-14).
The brother of Jesus would be a corrupter! But Paul is poorly informed, because
this 'brother of the Lord' is none other than James the son of Alphaeus, who cannot be
brother of Jesus since he is the one from Matthew the Tax Collector.
Having never seen or heard Jesus, remained far from the witnesses of him.
for seventeen years, Paul claims exclusive knowledge of his
teaching. And as he keeps distancing himself from it, the reminders to conform from the
The Council of Jerusalem multiplied until the final arrest of Paul in 58.
(as evidenced by Acts, IX, 15 and XXII, 12; I Cor., IX, 1 and XV, 9).

200. New attacks against the Law, described as a 'curse'

Man is not justified by the practice of the Law, but only by

faith in Jesus Christ," Paul affirms (Gal., II, 16), and: "All those who
"Those who rely on the practice of the Law are under a curse" (Gal., III, 10).
This is an astonishing excess, as it condemns all Jews to a curse.
It is true that Paul presented himself as a 'Jew without Torah'.
That the Law cannot justify anyone before God, it is a
evidence, since the just shall live by faith; now, the Law itself does not come from
the faith" (Gal., III, 11). He does not cease to launch his attacks against the Law: "If
The Spirit guides you, you are not under the Law" (Gal., V, 18). And: "The
Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law...
It meant that, for more than fifteen centuries, no Jew had been
justified. Once again, he betrayed the teachings of Jesus who, speaking of
the Law had said: "Whoever violates the least of these precepts [of the Law] and
will teach others to do the same, will be held for the least in the
Kingdom of Heaven (Mt., V, 19).
But Paul kept reinventing at his convenience the teaching of the one he
claimed to have seen.

201. Where the descendants are not the lineage!

In a memorable exercise in casuistry, Paul declares: "It is to

Abraham to whom the promises were addressed and to his offspring. The Scripture
do not say: "and to the descendants" (Gal., III, 16). For him, the "descendant"
does not refer to the descendants, but would exclusively refer to 'the Christ'.
It is one of the most memorable nonsense in the New Testament.
But Paul continues: "So why the Law? It was added for the purpose of
transgressions, until the coming of the descendant to whom it was destined
promise" (Gal., III, 19). In summary, it would have been merely a stopgap
commode for the fishermen. A shameless reinterpretation of
Pentateuch and such a denial of the Covenant is equivalent to a declaration of
nullity. No misunderstanding is possible, Paul having declared to the Corinthians
that the Law was a "curse".
In the reasoning that follows, Paul declares that faith has come: does he mean
Before Jesus, did the Jews not have faith in God? Two thousand years later,
Such a speech can only evoke incredulity in any reader of the Old Testament.
Testament, believer or not.

Where Pierre and Paul do not say the same thing

When the question of the evangelization of the pagans arose in Jerusalem,

After a long discussion, Pierre stood up and said: 'Brothers, you know it, ever since
In the first days, God chose me among you so that the pagans could hear.
from my mouth the word of the Good News and embrace the faith
(Acts, XV, 7). Paul was undoubtedly not informed of the choice, for after
the obscure vituperation against the 'false brothers' mentioned above, he declares:
Seeing that the evangelization of the uncircumcised was entrusted to me, as to
"Peter the one of the circumcised" (Gal., II, 7) and likewise self-proclaims himself.
as chosen by God for this task. In short, Peter and Paul were in
deep opposition.
The reality that is emerging is that both were eager to expand.
the teaching of Jesus, as they imagined it, to the non-believers of
the Empire. But in his strategy of conquest, Paul had to push his
argumentation to the point of claiming that its rivals, delegated by the Council
apostolic of Jerusalem, violated the Law (204).

203. Ignorance of the Old Testament

It is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the servant, the other by the
free woman; but the one of the servant is born according to the flesh, that of the
free woman, by virtue of the promise. There is an allegory here: these women
represent two alliances; the first is linked to Sinai and gives birth to
the servitude: it is Hagar [...] and it corresponds to the present Jerusalem, which of
But the Jerusalem above is free and she is
"is our mother" (Gal., IV, 22-26).
For the record, the child of the maidservant, Hagar, was Ishmael, and that of the
free woman, Sara, was Isaac. This tortuous search for an allegory reveals
especially a remarkable ignorance of the Old Testament: the covenant of Sinai,
who bore Ishmael, was not a source of servitude.

204. And the height of paradox: those who get circumcised do not observe
not the Law!

In his polemical frenzy against the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, which

demanded respect for the Law, Paul will write these paradoxical lines until
the absurd: "People eager to make a good impression, those are the ones who you
impose circumcision. […] For those who get circumcised do not observe
themselves the Law; they only want you to be circumcised to make themselves
glorify in your flesh” (Gal., VI, 12-13).
In doing so, demanding the enforcement of the Law was... contrary to the Law. Without
Did Paul's supporters have any difficulty in getting accepted?
this paradox to their audiences. But this does not weaken his tenacity in the
struggle against the Council.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS

205. Contradiction of the character about himself

It is difficult to know which of Paul's judgments about himself to trust.

to accord faith. In the first Epistle to the Corinthians: 'I am the least'
of the apostles; I do not deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted
the Church of God" (I Cor., XV, 9). But addressing the Ephesians, he
present yourself as a completely different character: "By reading me, you can..."
to account for the intelligence I have of the mystery of Christ. This Mystery
had not been communicated to men of past times as it comes now
to be revealed now to his holy apostles and prophets, in the Spirit
(Eph., III, 4).
He will then tell the Philippians that his 'chains' had acquired in the
Christ "a real notoriety" (Phil., I, 13). Let him who can understand.
Does he claim notoriety? Then, in the Epistle to Timothy, he will describe himself.
like 'formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, an insolent man' (I Tim., I,
Undoubtedly, he could not foresee that his modesty and pride would be
both tested in the following centuries.
It is in the same Epistle that Paul resorts to an image that leaves
perplexed: 'The structure that you are has the apostles as its foundation and
prophets and for a cornerstone, Christ Jesus himself. In him all
construction adjusts and grows into a holy temple, in the Lord; in him,
you too, you are integrated into the construction to become a home of
God in the Spirit" (Eph., II, 20-22).
Jesus would be the cornerstone of a construction that would become a
temple of his Father? It is true that Paul’s literary images are often
risky; thus he argues that the "celestial spaces" are inhabited by "the
"spirits of evil" (Eph., VI, 12).
And it is without perceptible irony that he asks the Ephesians to pray "so that
that I may be given the opportunity to open my mouth to speak and boldly announce the
mystery of the Gospel of which I am an ambassador in chains (Eph.,
VI, 19-20).

206. Radical contradiction with the speech to the Corinthians

After preaching folly to the Corinthians, Paul preaches wisdom to the

Ephesians: 'Take good care of your conduct; let it be such that not
"not as unwise, but as wise" (Eph., V, 15).
Perhaps the Corinthians were too wise and the Ephesians, not wise enough.
Or perhaps Paul was still practicing the philosophy of the bat: "I
I am a mouse, see my teeth, I am a bird, see my wings.

Epistle to the Colossians

207. A new theogony and a new contradiction

Erasing the Book of Genesis, Paul proposes for the first time in
the history of Christianity is an entirely unprecedented image of Jesus. He
indeed affirms that "it is in him that all things were created, in the
heaven and on earth," and that "everything was created by him and for him" (Col., I, 16).
Jesus is thus identified with the Creator, without any regard for all that has been
broadcast in the early Churches about his messianity and which will be taken up by the
Gospels, obviously still in gestation. However, Paul continues to
to call him "Christ", but he adds an unknown notion in the New
Testament: it is that Christ came 'to make every man perfect
in Christ" (Col., I, 28), in other words, to divinize human beings. He
take up this idea in the same terms in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews,
I, 28).
The repercussions of this "announcement," as Paul puts it,
would call for comments exceeding the scope of these pages. This
the announcement is only noted here to highlight the total contradiction of
Pauline messages with the entirety of the New Testament as it has been
constituted. The numerous successors of the evangelists who will appear
in the decades following the death of Paul, around 64 it is assumed, had
certainly perceived echoes, but only the author of the Gospel of John has them
recorded, as evidenced by the Prologue of this Gospel (99), with its
notion of the presence of the divine in the human being.
This concept constitutes the essence of the message of this Epistle, on which
Paul rejects all customs and religious prescriptions.
previous. He confirms this rejection in the first Epistle to Timothy: 'All
What God has created is good, and no food is to be rejected.
This is the end of the prohibition of pork, as developed in the Epistle to the Hebrews:
May no one venture to criticize you on issues of food or
drink, or in terms of annual festivals, new moons or Sabbaths
And once again, he will reject the obligation further on.
circumcision.
If Jesus had then reappeared, he would no longer have had the license to dispatch the
demons of the Gadarenes in a herd of pigs.
However, the rhetorical device on which Paul bases his theogony suffers
logical flaws from its premises. He thus writes that 'He [Jesus] is the image
of the invisible God, Firstborn of all creation" (Gal., I, 15). How
Can Jesus be the firstborn of all creation since he was already identified by
Paul himself to the creator God, who has no beginning?

Epistles to the Thessalonians

208. A resurrection in two stages

Entirely new notion in the New Testament: 'at the signal

given by the voice of the archangel and the trumpet of God [...] the dead who
will rise first in Christ resurrected" (I Thess., IV, 16).
Donning the prophet's robe, Paul creates a hierarchy of future resurrected ones.
He does not say whether the Jews, whom he has earlier condemned to the curse (200),
will be admitted to the resurrection.

209. The reappearance of the God master of evil spirits

In the small apocalypse he describes, Paul warns that before the end of the
the world 'must come the apostasy and reveal the ungodly Man,' of which
the boldness will go "as far as sitting in person in the sanctuary of God, to
"producing himself as God" (II Thess., II, 3-4). Then appears again a
theme abandoned since the Old Testament, that of a God master of
bad spirits. For to punish the wicked, according to Paul, 'God sends them a
influence that leads them astray, that drives them to believe the lie" (II Thess., II,
11).
He will return to this in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where without accusing
expressly the Creator, he asserts that the descendants of Abraham
“they all died without having received the object of the divine promises” (Heb., XI,
This means that God had lied to them.
The idea of a God capable of lying, however, will not withstand the
debates of the councils.

Epistles to Timothy

210. Advice to slaves and defense of slavery

No text by Paul confirms more clearly the fact that he is dependent.

ideas of his time that the passage from the Epistle to Timothy where he declares:
"All those who are under the yoke of slavery must consider their
masters as worthy of complete respect, so that the name of God and the
doctrine may not be blasphemed" (I Tim., VI, 1).
It follows that any slave rebellion would call into question both the name of
God and the doctrine (without knowing which doctrine). And it would be nice to see.
that this text is read in the pulpit today. There is no doubt about it.
legitimacy of slavery and the fact that it is a violation of dignity
human. Paul seems to have forgotten Jesus' injunction: "You shall worship the
You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve" (Mt., IV, 10). He even emphasizes
the duties of the slave: "As for those who have believing masters,
that they should not despise them on the pretext that they are brothers; that at
On the contrary, they serve them all the better because they are believers and friends.
of God who benefit from their services" (I Tim., VI, 2).
Here a flaw in the argumentation is inserted. Paul admits that the slaves
could consider believing masters to be hypocrites, since their faith does not
does not prevent them from keeping human beings in slavery; this under-
understood that slaves had reasons to think that a Christian did not
do not keep another man in slavery. And here, Paul is in contradiction.
with himself, for he claimed earlier to free himself from the prescriptions
archaic, but it respects the ancient practice of slavery.
However, it would not be good these days to reread this Epistle in
certain countries that were victims of the slave trade, nor in others that
opposed the abolition of slavery: it was designed for another
temps.

211. Contradiction on works of justice

In the Epistle to Titus as in several others, Paul reiterates his

attacks against the Law and the notion that the works of justice accomplished here-
they are the guarantors of the individual's salvation. He mentions the God "who has us
saved and called us with a holy calling, not according to our
"works, but according to his own design and his grace" (II Tim., I,
9).
In other words, it doesn't matter whether our actions are good or bad,
it is God's design that will prevail for our salvation. He contradicts there.
the teaching of Jesus: "The works that I do in the name of my Father
"witness about me" (Jn, X, 25). If earthly actions do not secure the
Hello, why does Jesus say: "Of every idle word that people...
men will have to account for it on the Day of Judgment (Mt.)
XII, 36) ?
And what are the efforts of Paul himself and his disciples for then,
so that they [the elected] may also obtain salvation which is in Christ Jesus
(2 Timothy 2:10)
Their dispersion throughout the Epistles does not lessen the contradictions;
they make them only less obvious.
 Epistle to the Hebrews

212. Jesus 'heir' of God?

This Epistle opens with an astonishing blunder: "God, in these

days that are the last, spoke to us by the Son, whom he appointed as heir of
all things" (Heb., I, 1). Would Jesus be the heir of God? Does that mean
that God plans to die and has appointed a successor? Yet, more
Paul had identified Jesus with the creator of all things.
How can one not conclude that his theology was as imperfect as his
theogony?

213. Where the mythification (or mystification) of Melchizedek is perpetuated

Prompt to reject the Law and the Old Testament with, Paul retains it.
however, some mythical themes, such as that of Melchizedek, the king
from Salem, which the Genesis made such a big deal of (15). It reinforces the symbolism
legendary of the character, to make him a king "without father, without mother, without
genealogy, whose days have no beginning and whose life is without
end", to ultimately equate it with the Son of God (Hebrews 7:1-3). A
to be without father and without mother whose life is without end? It can only be a
angel, or rather the prefiguration of Jesus himself, who would have gone, fifteen
centuries earlier, to congratulate Abraham on a military victory.
Followed by very elaborate speculations on the tithe that Abraham paid and
who would have actually been paid – symbolically – by the entire Jewish people.
Better: in a reasoning that is at least to say that it is
specious, Paul believes he deciphers a repeal, then a change in the
Law. An ambitious peroration concludes these considerations and unfolds in
call to a new priesthood: "Yes, that is precisely the great priest that he
was needed, saint, innocent, immaculate, separated now from sinners
(Hebrews, VII, 26-28).
This entirely mythical construction, to say the least
unraveled, contains a serious historical error. Paul claims that the sons of
Levites who receive the priesthood must, according to the Law, collect the tithe from the...
people. It is an anachronism because the Law had been enacted before
the establishment of the Levitical priesthood (previously reserved for the firstborns
of all the tribes and granted to the Levites after the episode of the Golden Calf)
does not foresee any role for the Levites.
 For someone who claimed to be a Pharisee by birth and knowledgeable
An eminent figure in Judaism, Paul had not read the Pentateuch much.

214. Where Paul contradicts himself on the coming of faith

Before the coming of faith, Paul writes in the Epistle to the Galatians, we were
locked under the custody of the Law, reserved for the faith that was to be revealed
(Gal., III, 21). And according to him, it was revealed with Jesus. But in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, he concedes faith to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, to Esau, to Gideon,
To Barak, to Samson, to Jephthah, to David, as well as to Samuel and the Prophets, and said
that time would be lacking for him to tell the works of these men,
achieves "through faith" (Heb., XI).
If faith existed since Abraham, how could it have revealed itself from
centuries later?
The Epistles provide much more information about the character of Paul than about
the teaching of Jesus. In their own way, these are historical documents about
the journey of an ambitious person who intended to sever the last ties with the Church
with Judaism and conquering the seat of pagan power: Rome. But near
Three centuries passed before Christianity conquered Rome.

THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES

These are the seven Epistles of Saint James, Saint Peter, Saint John and Saint
Jude. Unlike those of Paul, they address the community.
Christian in the broad sense, hence their name, and not to distinct communities.
They clearly belong to the vast corpus of evangelical literature.
which developed in the early centuries of our era and whose greatest
the part was rejected from the canon of the Churches; they themselves were not in it anyway
admits that late, in the 4th century, e due to compliance
satisfactory with the dogmas. The attributions are conventional and make
still the subject of research and studies. Thus, no one knows who Jacques is
to which the Epistle that bears his name is attributed, traditionally designated
like the "brother of the Lord", and should therefore be distinct from the son of
Zebedee, James the Greater, brother of John, and of James the Less, said
Jacques the Minor. It is appropriate then to consider the title of 'brother' as
referring to other links than those of blood kinship and as a
elective appointment. This Jacques could then be the son of Zebedee,
to be an ancient companion of Jesus during his stay with the Essenes.
As for Jude, the uncertainty is greater, as it is not known whether to identify him as
Judas of James, who is not mentioned by any of the Synoptics, but
only by Jean, or to Thomas, who was revered in the East under the name
of... Judas.
These Epistles are included here only based on the divergences they ...
present with the other texts of the New Testament.
Thus, in the Epistle of Saint James, it is appropriate to highlight the passage
follows, which openly contradicts Paul's statements on the uselessness of
works and the primacy of faith: "What is the use of it, my brothers, that
Can someone say, 'I have faith,' if he does not have works? Can faith save him?
save? […] Do you want to know, foolish man, that faith without works is
sterile?" (Jcq., II, 14 and 20).
Another passage resembles a refutation of Paul: "If you judge the Law,
you are not the one who observes the Law, but its judge. [...] And who are you to
"Judge the next?" (Jcq., IV, 12).
At the beginning of his first Epistle, Peter repeats his contradiction about the fact
that God does not show favoritism (178). After affirming
that "God judges each person without partiality" (I Peter, I, 17), he declares
to his audience: "But you, you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood,
a holy nation, a people acquired
In their evangelical fervor, the writers do not easily master the
images of their mythic narratives. Thus Pierre asserts that "God did not
spared the angels who had sinned, but sent them to Tartarus.
[Hell] and delivered to the depths of darkness, where they are confined until
Judgment" (II Peter, II, 4). In the first Epistle, however, he advises to...
faithful to be vigilant, for their adversary, "the Devil, like a
roaring lion, goes seeking someone to devour." (I P., V, 8). The wicked
Are angels yes or no confined in Tartarus? And since when?
Pierre had clearly not solved the problem of Evil.

___________________
55.Cf. note 17, p. 315.
 IV. THE APOCALYPSE

It is a common license to speak of the Apocalypse, as if there is no

there was only one. The literature of the two Testaments is rich in apocalypses,
from Isaiah to the brief Epistle of Saint Jude, where the day of Judgment,
The Lord flanked by his holy myriads will put an end to a world that is definitely
too corrupt and will establish holiness and joy, abolishing even death
herself.
But the term drifted, as modern language teaches.
revelation, which is its primary etymological meaning, the apocalypse became
synonym of terror and represented the vengeance of the visionary. Indeed, the
the original Greek word means "revelation," and that of the Lord was to
accompanied by indescribable destruction caused by fighting
between the powers of evil and those of the heavens.
Few have realized that the apocalypse is a manual for the monotheist.
fanatic, for whom those who do not conform to his vision of a God
unique must be exterminated. It is therefore not surprising that the Essenes,
for example, were fond of sinister prophecies. The canonical texts and
apocryphal texts overflow with descriptions of the horrors triggered by anger
divine, of impaled sinners, torn to pieces and thrown into excrement,
castles collapsing in the crash of trumpets for having evaded the
wills of a single God. These are pamphlets of intolerance, bearing
the germs of religious wars.
The most famous text attributed to Saint John is said to have been written in
the Greek island of Patmos, by the author's own admission. However, it is unknown from
which John it could be, "the one Jesus loved" or a homonym. The
first, probably from Jerusalem and Palestine in 50, settled in
Ephesus, of which he became the presbyter, which, in contemporary terms,
would be equivalent to the rank of bishop. The tradition, or rather the legend,
assure that it would have been the same man who, under the reign of Domitian, was
plunged into a vat of boiling oil, but emerged unscathed and was, in
effect, exiled to Patmos. Admirable, but improbable story, the persecutions
from Domitian taking place between 94 and 96, while John of Zebedee, if it was
he must have been nearly a hundred years old. The most plausible hypothesis is that
his text was at least completed by a disciple. The latter was not
certainly not Jewish, because he did not correct one of the most glaring blunders of
his master, unless he committed it himself...

215. A tribe of Israel is forgotten! And the count is wrong!

In chapter VII, having seen four angels standing 'at the four corners of the
Earth" - Did God create a quadrilateral? -, Jean learns how many
servants of the Lord "were then marked with the seal." And he enumerates the
tribes in each of which twelve thousand men were chosen; these are
Ruben, Gad, Acher, Nephtali, Manasseh, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, Zebulun
Joseph and Benjamin, that is eleven tribes. The tribe of Dan is forgotten, brother of
Naphtali, another son of the servant Bilhah.
The height of it is that he specifies the total: 'One hundred and forty-four thousand, of all
the tribes of the sons of Israel" (VII, 4). Now, 12,000 × 11 = 132,000.
It is one of the many flaws that demonstrate that holy books are
first books of mortal subjects prone to error.
Rivaling with Ezekiel of strange visions, where the famous Four
Cavaliers play a heroic role, the Apocalypse was not included in the
canon of the Churches of Syria, Cappadocia, and Palestine. One can conceive
that the first authorities of these Churches were taken aback by the
description of human-faced grasshoppers, as big as horses and
hairy... It is, indeed, a fantastic story that, moreover, has been revised
to the point of appearing incoherent in its current state. It would be useless to...
point out the other contradictions: this is a saga announcing destruction
of a Babylon that clearly appears to be Rome.
Rome was indeed conquered, but not destroyed, and monotheism was not there.
for nothing.
But how could this delirious literature open to the
transcendence?
 V. THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS

The temptation would be great for the layperson to think that the apocrypha
Christians rejected by church authorities would include elements
likely to fill gaps in the New Testament and resolve
certain incongruities noted in the pages we just read. The
a vaguely sultry connotation that is attached to the word "apocryphal"
would lead some to think that they contain secrets reserved for the initiated.
However, this is rarely, very rarely the case, given that, most of the time,
the scraps of unknown elements that can be scratched there pose themselves a
new problems, as seen in the Gospel of Mark, by
example. The missing passages, indeed, do not explain the relationships
between Jesus and Lazarus, Martha and Mary and if they strengthen the hypothesis of links
of Jesus and Lazarus with the Essenes, they do not constitute any
evidence.
The reason why the hope of an original Gospel, pure of all
alteration due to parish considerations or imperfect translation
is illusory, is that it has probably never existed.
considerable studies of texts carried out in contemporary times
indicating that the first accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus were
passed orally for nearly a century1. Like the judged texts
canonical, a part of the found apocrypha dates back to the 2nd e century

most of the others are much later.

The reason is obvious: the early witnesses could not write and
probably not read either. The first literate author of the New Testament
but Luc. His description of the Apostles, whom he has not known, since he
was not one of the Twelve, is eloquent: of Peter and John, for example, it
wrote that they were "people without education or culture", literally
illiterate and ordinary men, uneducated people [...] and idiots (Acts.)
At most, Matthew, as a tax collector, knew without
doubt count and maybe scrawl a few words, but certainly not write
a coherent account. None of the Apostles ever took up the pen to write down
on the parchment the exact words spoken by Jesus or the details
summary of the events of a day. The first written transcriptions
were carried out by auditors who had heard their stories.
These tales varied from one time to another, depending on the whims of memory, and
were not always well understood or accurately transcribed... hence the
variants, contradictions, implausibilities, anachronisms, and without
doubt the alterations of texts.
This explains the style of popular literature in the canonical Gospels,
much more pronounced in many apocryphals, as well as the recourse to
the heroic and the miraculous, intended to capture imaginations. Such is the case
of the History of the childhood of Jesus, which borders on the ridiculous as the young Jesus there
multiplies the wonders, and is teeming with extravagant assertions, such as the one that
claims that Jerusalem was built by Melchizedek (one only lends to those.
riches!), or even the Life of Jesus in Arabic, a true compendium
absurdities. For example, we see "an old Jewish woman" gathering the
foreskin of Jesus and kept it in a flask of nard that 'the sinner
Marie-Madeleine will then pour it on the head of Jesus! The metamorphoses there
abundant, like that of a young man transformed into a mule; one can find it
even sordid elements, like that of a woman being penetrated
by a serpent. The evangelical content is practically absent.
No surprise that such texts had no chance of being included.
in the canon. Among the few useful pieces of information one can find in
the gospels of childhood, there are those which, in the History of Joseph the
carpenter, relates to Joseph and his family. The work is in Coptic.
Sahidique. It is learned that Joseph had been a widower for two years of a woman.
called Marie (Miriam), who had given him six children, four boys,
Judas, Joset (or Justus), James and Simon, and two daughters, Lysia and Lydia.
he was forty years old when he got married and his wife had lived for forty-
nine years with him; he would have therefore reached the respectable age of ninety years
when Mary, the mother of Jesus, became pregnant under her roof, but we know
that the numbers of ancient Judeo-Christian literature should not be
taken literally (note 12).
These elements are never mentioned in the canonical gospels. If
the brothers, or rather the half-brothers of Jesus, are mentioned there - and it is moreover
the only point that would lend some credibility to this text – Joseph's age and the
sisters have been completely silenced. It would obviously be risky
to conclude on the authenticity of the elements of a text that dates at the earliest from
IVe century, even if it allows to reconstruct the family constellation of
Jesus, born under obscure circumstances during Joseph's absence. But
the casualness, even negligence, to use the term of an exegete,
Montague Rhodes James2, with which the writers use their
sources, urges caution. Even ancient ecclesiastical sources
sometimes transmit contradictory information to the point of absurdity. Thus,
e
in his 20eDiscourses, Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived in the 4th century, offers the
The following speech, attributed to Mary, mother of Jesus, and supposedly given by
she to Cyrille himself: 'I was a child promised to God and my parents
had dedicated me to him even before I was born. My parents
[...] were of the tribe of Judah and of the family of David. My father was
Joaquim, whom we interpret as Cleopas. My mother was Anna [...] whom
was usually called Mariham. I am Mary Magdalene because the name
The village where I was born was Magdalia. My name is Mary of Cleopas. I
I am Marie of Jacques, the son of Joseph the carpenter.3. »
e
How could this priest have spoken with Mary in the fourth century? And
how could she have been Mary Magdalene, sister of Lazarus? Such a
rambling nonsense would discourage even the most ardent reader. It presents
however, two interests. The first is to indicate that the faithful of the time
were aware of the obscurities of the canonical texts, such as the confusion
what is raised by the enumeration of the women present at the crucifixion, mentioned
higher. Some had therefore tried to remedy this by founding all the
Marie in one. The second interest is to reveal the overflow of
religious imagination, which faith led to falsifications defying meaning
commun. Thus, clearly embarrassed by the absence of Mary, mother of Jesus, at
starting from the crucifixion in the canonical Gospels, the editor of the same
Does the manuscript replace Mary Magdalene with Mary mother of Jesus in
the episode of the appearance after the crucifixion.
As can be judged, the reading of the apocrypha is filled with surprises.
*

Other apocryphal texts may be intriguing, such as the Questions of

Barthélémy, The Resurrection of Barthélémy, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, the
Acts of Thomas, the Acts of Peter and Simon.
In the Questions of Bartholomew, a text written in Coptic, we see this Apostle.
interrogate the risen Christ, the Virgin Mary, and even the Devil in some
circumstances that are at least romantic, but one hardly finds any
light on the questions inspired by the two Testaments. There is space for it.
devoted to apocryphal apologetic statements imitated from the New Testament,
it is in fantastic episodes where the Devil appears on the Mount of Olives
and recount how he was cast out of heaven, or still in statements
foul of Jesus, like the one where he tells that a part of Paradise
the earth was assigned to Adam and the other to Eve (and we skip over here
smoky allegations, like the one where the moon would be filled with mud
because of the fault).
A passage from The Resurrection of Bartholomew, another text written in Coptic and
from the same period, is enough to convince that this book encompasses borrowings
in the canonical Gospels in a late and completely fictional narrative. Dealing with
the discovery of the empty tomb, he writes thus: "On Sunday morning, then
that it was still dark, the Holy Women went out to go to the
tomb: Mary Magdalene and Mary of James, the one he had saved from
Satan's hands, and Salome the temptress, and Mary – the one who serves – and Martha
his sister, and Suzanne, the wife of Chouza, the steward of Herod, who had
away from the marital bed, and Bérénice, she whose blood flow had
ceased at Capernaum, and Lia the widow, she whose son God had raised from the dead.
of the dead...
Evidently, the writer was inspired by the passage from Luke, VIII, 3 which does not
mention only women, for the reasons of translation that we have
indicated But then, he adapts the story to his way,
totally romantic: the gardener's name is Philogène and he does this
assembly of women an extraordinary story where, having gone to the tomb,
he realized that "the entire army of angels was deployed."
The entire text is a pastiche of the canonical Gospels enriched with
developments on themes such as the power of the blood of Jesus and the
parallel between the earthly community of believers and that of the angels in heaven.
The writer used an epic tone that could reach the grandiose, or
grandiloquence, according to the point of view.
Again, this is undoubtedly a complete and coherent text. But of
the Gospel of the Nazarenes, as that of the Ebionites, it is not to us
arrived at fragments whose journey is more about deciphering than
of what is generally understood by reading. A non-specialized reader does not
will only gather minimal information, such as the fact, mentioned above, that
The Jews understood 'Barabbas' as 'son of their master'.
 The Acts of Thomas, finally, are one of the most apocryphal
disconcerting. They consist of a narrative of the Apostle's adventures, sold
as a slave in India, and of his dealings with the potentates of that country, from
King Goudnaphar to King Mazdaï and to his confidant, Karish, whose
Thomas converted the wife Magdonia. These are the conversions of women.
against the wishes of their husbands who will lead the apostle to execution. This
book of Encratic inspiration4dating as early as the 20the century, experienced success,
as evidenced by the Latin translations that were made. But it
hardly sheds light on the character or the life of Jesus.
We question the mindset of certain text writers.
supposed to disseminate teachings of divine inspiration. One finds, by
for example, in the Acts of Peter and Simon an episode that would not be out of place
e
not an animated film of the 21st century. It is set in Rome, where the community
newcomers press Pierre to scold Simon, whose actions
disturbs them; Pierre therefore goes to Simon's house, where the guard servant tells him
reply that his master ordered not to receive him. So, 'Peter,
turning to the people who were following him, he said: "You will see a great and
extraordinary prodigy." And Pierre, looking at the big dog tied to a
big chain, approached it and unfastened it. Now, the unfastened dog, taking a
human voice said to Peter: "What do you want me to do, servant of God"
living ineffable?
Pierre tells you: go out into the street, because it's because of you that I came to
Rome, to be dishonest and a seducer of simple souls." And the dog left in
current, enters, fits into Simon's circle, raises the front legs
and said in a very loud voice: 'You, Simon, Peter, servant of Christ, who is to
the door tells you: go out into the street, for it is because of you that I came to
Rome5.” »
The said Simon is Simon the Magician, the gnostic master who practiced in
Samarie with Dosithée and with whom Peter had had a disagreement in the
Acts of the Apostles (Acts, VIII, 5). He was also a great rival of Jesus,
had many followers and its theology greatly opposed the Church
primitive. He was attributed the power to fly in the air. In the story that
there you go, after a final challenge to Pierre, he soars before the crowd, but a
Pierre's prayer makes him fall from his height and break his legs afterwards.
what he dies. The story reports that Simon, whom religious delirium had to
having devastated as much as ambition, died in no less an absurd way:
to prove that he was the equal of Jesus, he would have been buried alive and
would have suffocated in a premature tomb.
It is difficult to prevent oneself from thinking that the above episode, which evokes
an imaginary ending of Batman after the heroic intervention of a dog
Believing and endowed with speech, it fits poorly into Christian eschatology.
It is the Gospel according to Mickey Mouse.

It would take more than these quick glimpses of some apocryphal texts.
make justice to the diversity of the vast and eclectic collection of texts
designated by this name. One of the most famous of them is the one that one
designated by the name of the Gospel of Thomas, the initial elements of which were
e century and at the beginning
discovered at the end of the 19th e of the 20th; known as

Oxyrhynchus papyrus, they were in Greek. In 1959, a more

the complete was discovered and translated; it included the Greek fragments.
The dating particularly interested him: it dated back to the e11th century and, as
the Greek fragments and the Coptic text both seemed to derive from a text
original Greek, it was permissible to suppose that this Gospel would have taken shape at
beginning of e the II century, if not at the endhe of I. Thus was born the name of
"Fifth Gospel" which is often associated with this text.
Modern exegesis has demonstrated that nearly all of this collection is
made up of paraphrases of the Synoptics. And 'Gospel' is a term that
corresponds poorly to this collection of one hundred and fourteen sayings of Jesus, saidlogy. One
finds neither biographical details nor accounts of episodes, and the miraculous in
is therefore absent. He would therefore offer a summary of the teachings of Jesus.
Even though he is familiar with the enigmatic nature of certain parables of
Jesus, the profane will undoubtedly be taken aback by many of these sayings. Thus
from this: "I will choose you, one out of a thousand and two out of ten thousand, and they will be
will stand together as one" (Log. 23).
Did Jesus really make such enigmatic statements? One feels
however less distance toward him in these simple words: 'Jesus has
"become a passerby" (Log. 42). Indeed, we find here the invitation to engage in
considered as a traveler in the world, with the mind of which the
Canonical Gospels had familiarized us.
One also finds his common sense in a part of the dialogue that follows:
His disciples asked him, 'Is circumcision useful?' He replied to them
He replied: "If it were useful, their Father would have already begotten them circumcised."
mother. On the contrary, it is the true circumcision, that of the spirit, which has become
really useful" (Log. 53).
But what can the 'circumcision of the spirit' be? And why is it...
Has she become useful? Wasn't she before? And what would ultimately be the
What is the symbolism of the foreskin that so many biblical texts claim?
We find elsewhere and exactly such statements already noted for their
provocative character (124): "Anyone who does not hate his father and mother
cannot become my disciple. And anyone who does not hate their brothers and sisters
And he who does not take his cross and follow me will not be worthy of me." (Log. 55)
Or, not only this cruel exclusion, which contradicts the commandment
divine, is not clarified, but still, it is burdened in a way
unbearable: "Jesus said: 'He who knows his father and mother, one
He will call him the son of a prostitute" (Log. 105).
It is then necessary to admit that no light will come from this Gospel.
there and that this word, which means 'good news', seems quite ill-fitting for
this text. For it is a text of rejection and not of redemption: "Days
Blessed are the womb that has not conceived and the breasts
"who have not breastfed" (Log. 79).
The inspiration for these enigmatic and apparently apocalyptic remarks
somewhat clarifies – if one can say – when reading the following text:
When you make the two into one, and make the inside like
the outside, and the outside like the inside, and the top like the bottom, and that
you will make the male and the female one being, so that the male does not
let it be more male and the female no longer be female, when you do some
eyes instead of an eye, a hand instead of a hand, a foot instead of a foot,
an image instead of an image, that is when you will enter into the
Kingdom (Log. 22).
This denial of earthly reality and identities reflects the themes of
great gnostic current that swept over Christianity since the early
years of the II ecentury and nearly overwhelmed him6It is confirmed by this other one.
Logion: "Jesus said: 'Perhaps men think that I have come
to bring peace to the world; they do not know that I have come to bring the
divisions on earth: fire, sword and war" (Log. 16).
One recognizes a take on the Gospel of Matthew: 'Do not believe'
that I came to bring peace on earth; I did not come to bring the
peace, but the sword" (Matt., X, 34). Is this the comforting Christ who dominates
What about Christian teaching? And what could be the audience that
revealed a Christ of fire and blood? History has not revealed it to us yet.
 It was announced by one of the previous logias: "Jesus said: 'I have thrown'
a fire on the world, and behold, I keep it until the world burns
(Log. 10).
In their formulation according to Thomas, these words are even more disturbing.
what is in the canon: if Jesus is part of the Trinity and that he is the Son
O God, why does he want to destroy what the Father has created? This apocryphal text
is not that of an Apostle: it is a gnostic proclamation, close to
Encratism. These sayings of Jesus reject the flesh and exalt solitude and
suffering. They were selected in the canons to highlight
the destructive and violent aspect of Jesus' teaching already present in
the four Gospels, provocative and incomprehensible because it is in
flagrant contradiction with the discourse of redemption.
The suspicion arises as the same Gnostic influences permeate
the entire Gospel of Thomas could have slipped into the writings, then
in the revisions of the canonical Gospels and inspire, for example, the
prologue of the Gospel of John, as well as certain sayings of Paul.
The influence of the "Fifth Gospel" was considerable, the canon of
The Church having not yet ruled on the admissible Books. Thus
that we find numerous passages in the Stromata of Clement
e e
of Alexandria (2nd-3rd centuries), master of Origen. Gnostic in the full sense
by this term, Clement of Alexandria represented the discerning reader of
the Gospel of Thomas in a time of full confusion of ideas: it
argued that Plato found his ideas in the Prophets of the Old Testament
Testament.

___________________
1. Rudolf Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, see bibliography, and Werner H. Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel, see bibliography.
2. Montague Rhodes James, The Apocryphal New Testament, cf. bibl.
3. Ibid.
4. Heresy dating from the year 150, which claimed that marriage was a debauchery introduced by the Devil, and whose supporters
abstained from animal meat and wine.
5.M. Rhodes James, The Apocryphal New Testament, op. cit.
6.See note 17, p. 315.
 NOTES

The term "Bible" does not refer to the same sets of texts for
all religions and denominations.
For Christian Churches, the Old Testament, also called the Bible
Hebrew generally consists of four groups of Books: the legislative or
Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), the
historical (sixteen books), the poetic (seven books), and the prophetic (ten-
eight books). But it also contains texts that are not found in the Bible.
Hebrew, so-called deuterocanonical: these are Baruch, Ecclesiastes or Sirach,
Judith, Tobit, Maccabees I and II, Wisdom of Solomon and Letter of Jeremiah.
The Catholic canon consists of a total of forty-six books. The Bibles
Orthodox Christians also include Ezra and other books of the Maccabees.
Armenian Bibles include the Testaments of the Twelve Prophets,
lives of the Prophets and other non-canonical texts such as Joseph and
Aseneth.
The Bible of the Ethiopian Church, the most extensive, consists of eighty-one.
books, several of which are called pseudepigrapha such as the Book of Jubilees,
sometimes nicknamed 'Little Genesis', written around 100 BC, which was in
favor in the Essene communities, and the first book of Enoch, which
does not appear in the Hebrew canon or in the Christian canons.
The canon of the Hebrew Bible, adopted by Protestants, comprises thirty-
nine books: the Pentateuch or Torah (five books); the Former Prophets and
posterior (twenty-one books), and the Writings (thirteen books).

The current consensus on the issue of currents can be summarized as follows.

The oldest current was the Yahwist, which, in the 9th e century BCE,

record in writing the oral traditions, until then the only ones that
allowed the transmission of traditions. It should be recalled in this regard that the
the oldest Semitic alphabet only appears in the 13the century BC, and that
cursive writing only appears in the 9th century, e a time when the
Hebrew characters take their form. It should also be noted that a very
a small minority of people could read and write at that time; the sacred texts did not
could obviously have a wide reach: they were only known
by the readings made by the priests. The Yahwist writers were from
south, Jerusalem and Judea, and their ideology was monarchist; the patriarchs-
prophets, Abraham, Jacob and Moses, are included as mediators
chosen by God between Him and the Jews, but the legitimate authority is that of
Throne of David, whose seat is Jerusalem.
The Elohist current, which appeared in ethe 9th century in the north, was the current
Israel's legitimate ruler in the strict sense, as opposed to the south, Judah. For its
partisans, the legitimate lineage of the kings chosen by God was that of Ephraim,
grandson of Jacob, and the capital of Israel was not Jerusalem, but
Shechem, which was in fact the capital of the schismatic king of the north, Jeroboam. They
added their contributions to the Pentateuch according to their viewpoints.
e century BC, put an end to
The collapse of the northern kingdom, Israel, in the 8th
the rivalry between Israel and Judah, but if it minimized the differences between
Yahwists and Elohists, giving rise even to a secondary current, known as
Jehovist, he did not remove them.
The Deuteronomist current is the one that poses the most problems to
bibliographies, because it is more difficult to place it in the chronology
history. It seems certain that it existed even before the 7the century, like in
witnesses the Book of the Law of Yahweh, discovered in 632 BC in the
temple caves, during the restoration of the building under the reign of Josiah.
This would have been a version of Deuteronomy that has reached us, but it is
difficult to set the date when it was written and the circumstances in which
the ones whose authors intervened in the texts of other books of the
Pentateuch, including the Exodus. On the other hand, it seems certain that the
Deuteronomy is the one of the five books that has received the least inclusions from
three other currents (these are solely the work of writers from the current
priestly.
Contemporary with the Deuteronomist movement, the priestly movement differs from the
three others in that it presents the priestly establishment and the rites as
the fundamental instruments of the redemption and salvation of Israel. It is approaching
however, from the Deuteronomist current in that it aims at preservation
from Israel of external influences and other religions; these, in fact,
provided visible supports for religious sentiment, while the Jewish God
is essentially metaphysical and that we know nothing about it, except for the
manifestations of his will.
This summary obviously cannot capture the magnitude of the hypothesis.
documentary and its importance in the reading of the Pentateuch1She alone
allows us to understand certain singularities of the Pentateuch, such as some
repetitions otherwise incomprehensible, for example those of verses IX,
15-23 of the Book of Numbers, of Deuteronomic origin, concerning the divine cloud
who was stationed at the Residence.

The role of the prophet Nathan with David is not at all a point of
detail, as a casual reader might be inclined to think or
superficial of the Bible: it is essential for understanding the reasons
for which David was simultaneously denied the privilege of building the
The temple and he was granted a perpetual lineage. The text of II Sam.
XII, 7 and 12-16 have thus been the subject of philological and exegetical studies.
in-depth studies whose scope and volume would undoubtedly surprise the public
ordinary.
The answer to the question here is due to an intervention from the editors.
of the Deuteronomic current (note 2), which refused to accept that it was David
who decided to build for Yahweh a terrestrial dwelling, a "house"
of cedar" as it is said. As the supreme sovereign, Yahweh indeed consented to
David has a long lineage, but he refused the right to decide on
the erection of the Temple.
It should also be noted that the promise of offspring did not imply
not the coming of a Messiah, but rather that of a messianic era,
contrary to what the evangelical movement of the 1st er
century aimed to achieve
to believe, claiming the prophetic authority of the Scriptures (cf.
B. Renaud, 'The Prophecy of Nathan: Theologies in Conflict', Review
biblical, 1heJanuary 1994.

The essential information comes from The New Atlas of the Bible,
John Rogerson (see bibliography).

Some authors have disputed this limitation of the powers of the Sanhedrin.
It has, however, been verified by many others and is certified by the record.
even from Pilate in the story of Jesus: if the Sanhedrin had had the power
to execute him, he would not have deprived himself of it, given the abuses he already inflicted on him
inflicted when he summoned him: insults, slaps and strikes (Mt., XXVI, 67-68). If
the Sanhedrin handed Jesus over to Pilate because he could not do
otherwise.

6. We have mentioned the problems in the preface of these pages.

It should be noted that they are not limited, as in languages
modern, to the difficulties of finding equivalents for terms, but in the
cases of translations from Hebrew and Greek, to misunderstandings that can alter
entirely the meaning of a text. The Hebrew of religious texts, indeed, is
bearer of a parallel system of meanings through the relay of gematria
note 12), originating from the Kabbalah, also called Hebrew Gnosis; a word can therein
to take on a completely different secondary meaning from its primary meaning and therefore
impossible to translate.
Thus in the episode of Jesus' judgment by Pilate, it is written in the version
Greek: "Pilate said to them: Do you want me to release the king of the Jews?" A
a translator from Hebrew to Greek would have a hard time conveying the fact that the
The name "Pilate" and the verb "release" have exactly the same root: PLT.
Pilate did indeed exist in history, but his very name would imply that he is
the key to Jesus' liberation. And it is undoubtedly the misunderstanding of a
translator who caused the monumental blunder of the crowd that would have
asked to release rather Barabbas, "son of the father".
It follows that the account of the Gospels could have been entirely different.
of the original Hebrew text, which has been lost to this day. Thus the crowd
seems to have, contrary to what is said, demanded the release of Jesus and that
it was Pilate who opposed it. The washing of hands would then have been done by
Caiaphas and not by Pilate.
Long ago,Hebraists and Hellenists noted that the texts of the two
Testaments in the version of the Septuagint were clumsy and heavy.
Hebraisms that often made them incomprehensible. In 1910, Jean
Psichari, son of Ernest Renan (quoted by Bernard Dubourg in The Invention
from Jesus, cf. Bible), judged that many passages meant nothing in
Greek.
Symbols and myths have been constructed in this way, such as that of the
fish which, in the early days of Christianity, represented the Messiah. The
The reason was that Joshua, "Yahweh saves", an archaic form of the name.
"Jesus" was the son of Nun, a Hebrew word meaning "fish." This caused
to attribute to Saint Augustine another monumental blunder, Piscis assus
Christ is, "The Christ is fried fish" ("Some reflections on the
subject of 'The Invention of Jesus', cf. bib.

7. The question of the Nazarenes has generated numerous studies, of which we

we will keep the following elements.
First, the Hebrew word nazar, with unzein, must be distinguished from denetzer, with
untsadé, which means 'branch' or 'surgeon', and denosri, also with
untsadé, "the one who observes" or "the one who watches"; it means "devoted to God."
collusions were made, indeed, training, identifying the branch
from the tree of David to the man devoted to God, who would be the Messiah. They
equivalent to what would be called nowadays word games.
Then, the Nazarite, condition of the Nazir, existed well before the coming of Jesus,
as evidenced by the Numbers (VI, 1-21) and the passage from Judges that
inspires, badly suited, to the evangelists the idea that Joseph chooses
the hypothetical Nazareth as the birthplace of Jesus. Pliny the Elder,
citing reports from General Agrippa, who died in -12, therefore before the birth
of Jesus, speaks of Nazarenes who lived in Coelo-Syria, near the Orontes
(Natural History, V, 81, 19). In the 4the century, Epiphanius of Salamis confirms
that there were Nazarenes before the coming of Christ (Panarion, heresy 29);
they spoke Aramaic and had an evangel that is believed to have
influenced that of Matthew? This author, a saint in the Greek Church,
indeed considered the Nazarenes as heretics, as they did not
did not recognize the divinity of Jesus.
The Jews also considered them heretical; Jerome, in the 4th century, e said

that they reviled the Christians under the name of Nazarenes.

It remains to establish what the relationships were before and after the birth of Jesus.
among the Nazarenes, the Essenes, and the Christians of John the Baptist, three
sectarian movements that exhibited many similarities between
them (Gys-Devic, Inquiry on Nazareth, cf. bibli.).

8. In his revolutionary study The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, (cf.
John Allegro, a specialist in Oriental languages and one of the first
decoders of the Dead Sea Scrolls propose the following thesis: the
words that Jesus would have spoken on the cross would have actually been Elauia,
Elauia, the invocation ritual of a sect of Sumerians
pickers and consumers of a "sacred mushroom," the death cap mushroom,
limash ba(la)ganta, hallucinogen consumed by the followers of a vast
religious sect to which Jesus is believed to have belonged.
Allegro's etymological studies do not rally all biblical scholars, but
It must be acknowledged that many of his analyses help to elucidate
certain enigmas of the New Testament and, for example, the nickname of
Boanergès given to the sons of Zebedee, John and James. This word, wrote Allegro,
"does not mean and cannot mean 'son of thunder'." In fact, it would be
a alteration of the Sumerian words sumérienspu-an-urges, which means 'man'
powerful (who supports) the celestial vault" and which would also designate the
sacred mushroom.

9. Like many other characters in the New Testament,

there is no extrabiblical evidence for the existence of John the
Baptiste (he was also nicknamed the Immerser), whose birth would also have
miraculous summer, which the evangelists attach great importance to.
In the Gospel of John, his character rivals that of Jesus.
Several authors invoke, to prove it, a passage from the Antiquities.
Jewish Antiquities by Flavius Josephus. This passage (XVIII, 5, 2) has nevertheless appeared
quite suspicious to historians to be considered as an interpolation
late; Joseph interrupts the account of Herod's military difficulties
Antipas to speak of the Baptist. Herod had indeed just divorced his
woman, daughter of King Aretas, to marry Herodias, the wife of his brother
Philippe. Furious, Arétas declared hostilities against Herod and defeated him;
Herod then requested help from Emperor Tiberius, who dispatched to him
help Vitellius, governor of Syria. But in the meantime, exasperated by
imprecations of the Baptist against the quasi-incest committed by the tetrarch,
Herod would have had him arrested and offered his head to the daughter of Herodias,
Salome (which inspired a play by Oscar Wilde and an opera to
Richard Strauss). A Romanesque story evoking the Italian commentary,
it's not true, it's well found. We are nonetheless inclined to think that at that moment,
Herod had other worries than the curses of a hermit. The monks
copyists of ancient texts had every license to 'enrich' or censor
the texts at the whim of their superiors, and they did not deprive themselves of it.
This does not mean, however, that the Baptist did not exist, but
Simply that the character depicted in the Gospels is a fabrication.
Like many literary creations, it undoubtedly derives from a
real character, linked to Essene beliefs. A preliminary observation is necessary: the
Essenians were surrounded by a whole hierarchical apparatus and they did not...
were certainly not preaching and baptizing indiscriminately in the desert. Now, the
Baptiste is a loner. This indicates either that he left voluntarily
Qumran, whether it has been expelled from it. The rules of belonging to this
the community was very strict, and the outcasts were numerous. It has been found in
the Qumran scrolls of fragments in poor condition2enumerating the reasons
for which one of the members had been expelled: 'He was furious… He
diverted the spirit of the community and also mixed the… Moreover, he
loved its bodily emissions...
It was obviously an exclusion that needed to be justified, because the
the condemned enjoyed a certain prestige. It may have been the Baptist. There was no...
it remains nonetheless that the association of John the Baptist and Jesus did not take place
within the Qumran community, but in dissent.

10. Esseneism was not, as is often mistakenly believed, a sect.

unified. In thee 1st century BC, a priest, whose name is kept secret and who
the existence was revealed by the Qumran manuscripts, founded a faction
dissident. Known by the nickname Master of Justice, he was executed and may-
to be crucified under the reign of Hyrcanus II, hence the hypotheses according to which
Jesus would have identified himself as a new Master of Justice. The supporters of
first had exiled themselves to Damascus, where their beliefs were influenced by the
Hellenistic Gnosticism. It is known, based on the Document of Damas, found
in the e19th century, that this sect was based on the belief that the Alliance
had fallen into disuse and that a new one needed to be proclaimed.
This element and other points of their argument foreshadow many
regards the action and teaching of Jesus.
It remains to be noted that some Essenes stayed in Palestine and that the sect
and prospered. In the current state of research and translations, it is not
Is it possible to know if Jesus belonged to the dissident sect of Damascus or not?
to the one who remained in Palestine.

11. The term 'Christians of John the Baptist' dates back to the discovery of
their existence, at the end of the e16th century, and it was inspired by their reverence
for the Baptists, their total ablutions in running water and the fact that they do not
dressed only in white, two points of similarity with the Essenes.
Commonly identified with the Sabians, another sect, due to the great
similarities between their beliefs and their rites, they shared with them the
same territories, primarily Mesopotamia and the Middle East. Their
The name 'Christians' is inappropriate, given their hostility towards the Church.
primitive and, after the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325), to Jesus Christ, of whom they do not
did not recognize the divine nature: they call it Anoush and their literature
replace the word "Messiah" with "The Byzantine". In their most
important, the Ginza of the right hand, it is said that the true Messiah, Anoush
Another did not need to be baptized, while Anoush had to ask for the
baptism of John the Baptist.
12. The numerical indications in the two testaments must be the most
often be deciphered using gematria, which one would designate
commonly by numerology. Thus, each number constitutes a symbol
and, in a simplified manner here, we will say that the one, ah’at, represents unity, the
two, two, the difference, three, three, the unfolding and the tradition, the
four
human body, but also the threat of rupture. The multiples of these numbers
have different meanings depending on the multiplier. Finally, each letter
The alphabet also has a parallel meaning, varying depending on the
context.
Gematria allows us to illuminate certain obscure or doubtful points of
testaments. Thus the "thirty pieces of silver" that Judas received for his betrayal: the
The name "Judas" is written in Hebrew as IHWDH; by adding the value
the numeric value of each letter gives us 10 + 5 + 6 + 4 + 5 = 30. The betrayal
was therefore included in her name.
But we also discover more disturbing coincidences. Thus, the name of
the angel Gabriel, "God is strong", is written in Hebrew GBRY'L and its value
gematria is 3 + 2 + 20 + 10 + 1 + 12 = 48.
The name Joseph is written YWSP and its gematria value is 10 + 6 + 15.
+ 17 = 48.
Gematria is one of the three linguistic disciplines of Kabbalah.
two others being the notarial, which is a coding of the initials, medials and
endings of several words to create another, and the themoura, which is a
letter substitution process3.

13. Besides the numerous hypotheses about this mysterious disciple, a man
at least claimed the identity: Clement of Rome, Saint Clement, supposed
was bishop of Rome, therefore pope, from 88 to 97 or 92-101, second
Successor of Saint Peter, between Evaristus and Anacletus. In one of his letters,
supposed to remain secret, "because they contain things
mystics," he writes, indeed, "I was one of the twelve" and "he loved me more.
that the others." He argues that it was not Peter who asked him to
to find out the identity of the traitor at the Last Supper, but that it was him-
even who took the initiative. And it was not also to Peter that Jesus
predicted that he would deny him three times before dawn, but to him4Daring
affirmations.
The question of dates arises then. According to official tradition, Clement
would have been born in 30, and he would therefore have been between one and three years old at the time of the crucifixion –

whose date remains uncertain – which would dismiss its allegations among the
impostures or senile delusions. But for some authors, tradition is not
not always reliable, and perhaps it was meant to rejuvenate a pope
definitely quite old. Clément could have been born in 15 and he could then have been
"the disciple whom Jesus loved." But what would have been his original name,
since it couldn't be Clément? He doesn't say it. And why the others
Did the apostles not identify him by his true name? Why finally, if he had
if he really was who he said, does Paul not greet him in the long list of
relatives and parents mentioned at the end of the Epistle to the Romans and living in
Rome in 60? As a favorite of Jesus, he should have benefited from a
exceptional prestige, and Paul would not have ignored it.
Dark matter that does not contribute to clarifying the Gospels.

The character of Simon of Cyrene has inspired a myth of proportions.

forgotten in thee 21st century, but whose repercussions were significant,
until the 19thecentury. A hypothesis had taken shape, according to which Simon de
Cyrene had been crucified in place of Jesus. The theme of Jesus succumbing.
under the weight of the cross and replaced by Simon who has settled in the
imaginations as "historical evidence", some assumed that the
Roman soldiers, seeing Simon carrying the patibulum, had led him to the
torture after requisitioning it. Indeed, Roman law stipulated that the
the condemned was to carry the patibulum to the place of execution, and since
it would have been Simon who carried it, he would have been crucified. Besides that this
invention completely nullified all the accounts of the crucifixion, as well as that one
They really underestimated the resurrection, its authors and supporters.
the intelligence of Roman soldiers as much as the likelihood. These soldiers
had no power to requisition a bystander and make him bear
a part of the sentence of a convict.
This fable would have died of starvation if it were not for the two sons of Simon,
Alexandre and Rufus, mentioned in the Gospel of Mark (Mk, XV, 21) the
they perpetuated, without a doubt, to exalt their characters.

15. The anomalies and discrepancies in the accounts of the Crucifixion have given
bodies to a hypothesis according to which they could have been written on
the model of the crucifixion of the Essene character named Master of Justice,
It is also supposed that he inspired Jesus.
This hypothesis is based on linguistic foundations: studies of a
renowned Hebrew scholar, Jean Carmignac, dedicated to the translation of the scrolls
Essenes of Qumran indicate that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark,
then we thought that the oldest version was in Greek, in fact
were written in Hebrew (the Gospel of Luke would derive from a Greek text,
the Evangelion, now lost and of which we only have fragments). The
Carmignac's conclusion is that the Hebrew of Matthew and Mark is identical.
to that of the Qumran scrolls. It would emerge that these would be
Essenees who would have written the original version from which these two derive.
Synoptic, a version that German research had designated as
from source Q, forWhich, "source", today lost. The anomalies
Reportedly infiltrated the texts during the transcription into Greek.
It's just a hypothesis, but the identical nature of the original Hebrew
The synoptic texts and the Essene manuscripts already demonstrate the interest that the
Essenian environments carried to Jesus. It would take on a decisive weight if it were.
demonstrated that the Master of Justice was indeed crucified (cf. Jean Carmignac, The
Birth of the synoptic gospels, see bibl.).

16. Clement of Alexandria recommended to his correspondent Theodore

to exclude the possibility that Jesus and Lazarus found themselves 'naked to naked', this
which indicates that Théodore had heard allegations made
tendentious.
These can be partially explained by certain particularities of
recruitment among the Essenes; the instructors in charge of it
were based on astrological beliefs to assess recruits not
only from a spiritual point of view, but also physical. Thus, a subject
election born under the sign of Taurus should have a hairless body, the
long and thin thighs and narrow and long toes; a candidate for
thick and hairy thighs with short and big toes were therefore at a disadvantage.
Similar beliefs would later be found in sects.
heretics such as the Priscillianists and the Origenists.
Comparable to the aptitude exams of modern armies, that of the Essenes
demanded that the candidate be naked, in order to verify that he was also free of
sexual malformations. The ratio of good to evil was rated from 6 to 3 if
the recruit's appearance was satisfactory. It undoubtedly followed that the
the community stood out among other traits by the aesthetic quality of its
adepts5.
Associated with the ablutions, where the recruits were obviously naked, and the fact
that in principle the community did not welcome women, these requirements did not
did not fail to raise rumors of homosexuality. Such interest in
the body would surprise in a community professing that the flesh was
contemptible and that only the spirit mattered, but it is explained by the conviction
that a noble soul could not reside in a coarse body. This notion
would surprise in turn in the Jewish cultural context, to which she was
entirely foreign; but it is understood in the light of the theories
Pythagoreans according to whom nature has placed souls in bodies in
function of the tasks that will be assigned to them. However, some authors have indicated
the reasons to think that the Essenes were influenced
Hellenistic6, perhaps through the relay of Egypt and especially Alexandria, where
a Neo-Pythagorean school was thriving.

Gnosticism is a mystical religious movement that developed

e
in the early years of the 12th century and reached its peak towards the end of
e
Third century. His knowledge, even if it is very summarized as it is the case here, is
essential to the understanding of the history of Christianity and perhaps also
of these pages. Its influence was considerable and rivaled that of the Churches
e
primitives, but it declined in the 4th century. Then it was succeeded by Manichaeism,
that the Church of Rome was far better able to thwart, as
several other heresies.
The word 'gnosticism' can be misleading as it derives from Greek.
gnosis, knowledge; it would thus lead one to believe that it was a movement
exalting intellectual capabilities. In fact, it was the opposite, the gnosis in
the question being identified as a revelation of the nature of the universe,
comparable in many respects to irrational, spontaneous, and blind faith, the
"madness" that Paul demanded from the Corinthians (192).
One of the main ideas of Gnosticism was that the world is divided.
between the earthly matter, seat of Evil, and the spiritual, celestial world, seat of
Good. For the Gnostics, the soul was capable of traversing the underworld.
materials and to rise towards the sky, then to come back down to earth, at the
condition that she was detached from this world. Hence the exhortations to
renunciation of the world that embellish the New Testament and many
apocrypha.
At its origin, the similarities between Gnosticism and Christianity would have...
foreshadowed a merger between them - moreover, Christianity influenced
also Gnosticism. But the disagreement arose over the question of the
Redemption, which was for the Gnostics only a perspective
hypothetical, while for Christians the Redeemer had already come. From
Then, the positions hardened and when one of the proponents of Gnosticism,
Marcion, around 140 in Rome, defended the idea that the God of the Old
The Testament was a God of Justice and that of the New Testament was
a God of Love, therefore a bad God, because Love was rooted in the
material, he was excommunicated. A long dispute broke out and the Catholics
burned a large part of the Gnostic texts widely disseminated in the
Christianity.
However, it was much less easy to expunge the Christian texts of traces
Gnostics, and this is how we find in the Epistles of Paul,
example, texts that are similar, otherwise imbued with heresy.

18. The question of Jesus' age during his ministry obviously raises
that of his physical appearance. A question that can only provoke a debate.
sterile, given the weight of the iconographic tradition which, on the basis of
almost nonexistent, multiplied representations more or less
stereotyped of a man in his thirties, quite far removed from types
Semitic, not to mention the delirious imagery of the Nazi era, where the native
of Giscala, on the Sea of Galilee, had been transformed into a Nordic god,
blonde with blue eyes.
It should be reminded that one of the main sources of these representations was a
apocryphal text, the Letter of Lentulus, presumed representative of Rome in
Judea at the time of Tiberius, claiming to have met Jesus, "that his
disciples call the Son of God." He described him as follows: "A man of
average height and pleasant, with a reserved attitude, and that those who it
they could love and fear; her hair was the color of
from an unripe and smooth hazelnut, almost falling to her ears, and falling back
on his shoulders in darker and shinier curls, parted in a parting
central in the manner of the Nazarenes; the forehead [was] smooth and very calm, and
the face without wrinkles or spots that a moderately bright complexion made beautiful; none
no flaw could be found in the nose or the mouth; the beard was thick,
of the color of her hair, not long, but a bit raised at the chin;
the expression was simple and mature, the gray eyes were piercing and clear7. »
We will spare the reader the rest of this portrait clearly written in
presence of a corresponding painting. It is, in fact, a fake made
e
in Italy in the 13th century (and we incidentally regret that it is not
mentioned in the French edition of Christian Apocryphal Writings). The size
of Jesus was given as fifteen and a half palms; the palm being one
subdivision of the Egyptian cubit and five palms equaling a cubit, that is
52.30 centimeters would have meant that Jesus was approximately 1.56 meters tall.
Had Lentulus's imagination then been equipped with a military measure to be
also precise?
Another apocryphal text, much older, the Acts of John, dating from the 2nde century,
offers an indirect description of Jesus, as he appeared in a vision of
the Apostle: "a man of short stature" (Acts Jn, 90). Lastly, the version of the
The War of the Jews by Flavius Josephus also describes Jesus as
a man of a certain age, with a dark complexion, and hunched.

19. Escaped from death, facing the double threat of Roman power and
From the Sanhedrin, Jesus could not be unaware that he would no longer know safety.
in the Roman provinces of Palestine. He would therefore have gone east.
the hypothesis is based on the account of a meeting between the king of a state
northern India, Shalivahan, reported by the Bhavishya
Mahapurana, historical chronicles in Sanskrit; this king reigned from the year 39 to
the year 50. Perhaps Jesus went to India with Thomas. The subject does not enter
not within the scope of these pages, I allow myself to refer the reader to the notes.
from my work Jesus of Srinagar (Robert Laffont, 1996).

___________________
1. Cf. The Five Secret Books in the Bible, by the author, identification of the four currents in the complete text of the Pentateuch.
2.Number IV Q 177, that is to say discovered in Cave IV of Qumran. Cf. Max Campserveux, EPHE, "Meditation on the"
"Excluded Essenes", see bibliography.

3. Cf. Albert Soued, The Symbols in the Bible; Bernard Dubourg, The Invention of Jesus, vol. I and II, cf. bibl.
4. Cf. André Wautier, "The disciple whom Jesus loved", cf. bibli.
5. Cf. John Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reappraisal, cf. bibl.
6. Ibid.
7. Rhodes James, The Apocryphal New Testament, op. cit. Translation of the author.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALLEGRO John, The Mushroom and the Cross, Albin Michel, 1971.
The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reappraisal
The Secret Life of Saint Paul
The Jerusalem Bible in large print, Editions du Cerf, 1995.
The Bible, translated and presented by André Chouraqui, Desclée de Brouwer,
1985.
The Bible, condensed edition based on The Bible in Contemporary French, Selection
Reader's Digest, Paris, Brussels, Montreal, Zurich, 1990.
The New English Bible, Oxford University Press/Cambridge University
Press, 1970.
BORDES Richard, "A few reflections on the subject of The Invention of Jesus"
Cahiers of the Ernest Renan Circle, n° 191, 1995.
BROWN Raymond E., S.S., The Gospel According to John XIII-XXI
Doubleday & Company Inc., Garden City, New York, 1979.
BUCAILLE Maurice, Moses and Pharaoh, Seghers, 1995.
BULTMANN Rudolf, History of the Synoptic Tradition, Seuil, 1973.
CAMPSERVEUXMax, EPHE, "Meditation on the Excluded Essenes", Notebooks
Ernest Renan Circle, No. 190bis, 1995.
CARMIGNAC Jean, The Birth of the Synoptic Gospels, O.E.I.I. Publishing, Paris
1983
CARMIGNAC Jean, GUILBERT Pierre, The Texts of Qumran, Letouzey and Ané,
1961.
DANIéLOU Jean, The Manuscripts of the Dead and the Origins of Christianity,
Editions of the Orante, 1957 and 1974.
DARTJohn, The Jesus of Heresy and History – The Discovery and Meaning of
the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Library, Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1988.
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Early Christianity, 2 vol., Cerf, 1990.
Dio's Roman History, 9 vol., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., and
William Heinemann Ltd., London, Loeb Classical Library, 1982.
DUBOURG Bernard, The Invention of Jesus, vol. I, The Hebrew of the New
Testament, vol. II, The Fabrication of the New Testament, NRF/Gallimard,
1987-1989.
DUFAY Fernand, " New Insights on the Synoptic Gospels ", Notebooks of
Circle Ernest Renan, No. 192, 1992.
DUPONT-SOMMER André, The Essene Writings, Payot, 1986.
Christian Apocryphal Writings I, NRF/Gallimard, 1997.
Gospel of Thomas, translation, presentation, and commentary by
Philippe de Suarez, Metanoïa, Montélimar, 1975.
GIRARD André, Dictionary of the Bible, Robert Laffont/Bouquins, 1989.
GYS-DEVIC, "Survey on Nazareth", Notebooks of the Ernest Renan Circle, n
° 193, 1996.
HABERMAN Garry, FLEW Anthony, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, Harper &
Row, San Francisco, 1987.
HELMS Randel McGraw, Who wrote the Gospels?, Millennium Press,
Altadena, 1998.
HOFFMANNR. Joseph, Jesus Outside the Gospels
New York, 1984.
JAMES Montague Rhodes, The Apocryphal New Testament, Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1924, reprinted 1975.
JEREMIAS Joachim, Life in Jerusalem at the Time of Jesus, Editions du Cerf,
1962.
Josephus, The Jewish War, trans. Pierre Savinel, Éditions de Minuit,
1977.
KELBERWerner H., The Oral and the Written Gospel, Indiana University
Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1997.
MACCOBY Hyam, Paul and the invention of Christianity, Place
Commun/History, 1987.
MCKINSEYC. Dennis, The Encyclopaedia of Biblical Errancy, Prometheus
Books, New York, 1995.
The Mystery of Barabbas
Frome, Great Britain, 1995.
MALAMATA Abraham, "Let my people go and go...", Biblical Archaeology
Review, January-February 1998.
METZGER Bruce M., The Early Versions of the New Testament – Their Origin,
Transmission and Limitations, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1977.
POUILLY Jean, O.C.S.O., "The Rule of the Community of Qumran - Its
 literary evolution, Notebooks of the Biblical Review, J. Gabalda & Co.
1976.
PRATLouis-Charles, "The prologue of the Gospel of John", Notebooks
from the Ernest Renan Circle, no. 207, 1999.
RENAUD Bernard, "The Prophecy of Nathan: Conflicting Theologies", Review
biblical, 1erJanuary 1994.
ROGERSON John, The New Atlas of the Bible, Macdonald & Co, Equinox Ltd.
New York, 1985; New Atlas of the Bible, Editions du Fanal, 1987.
SALDARINI Anthony J., Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1994.
SCHLEGEL Martin, Crucifixion, SCM Press, Philadelphia, 1997.
Albert Soued, The Symbols in the Bible, Jacques Grancher, 1993.
THIERING Barbara, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls
1992.
WAUTIER André, "The disciple whom Jesus loved", Cahiers du Cercle Ernest
Renan, no. 195, 1996.
WILSON Andrew Norman, Jesus, Flamingo, London, 1993.
WINANDYJacques, OSB, "The disciple whom Jesus loved: for a vision
expanded the problem, Biblical Review, 1erJanuary 1998.