Bøker av Gerard Gertoux

The Egyptian king lists were commissioned, as early as the first dynasty, by kings wishing to legitimise their royal descent from Narmer (2838-2808), the founder of the Egyptian empire. On the other hand, Sumerian king lists were commissioned by Shulgi (2002-1954), a powerful king of Ur III in the last Sumerian dynasty, who presented himself as the heir of the famous Gilgamesh (2447-2401), attributing to him the role of founder of the Sumerian empire, even though Gilgamesh, king of Uruk, knew that his city had been founded by EN AMAR.UTU (c.3000-2950), called Bel Marduk by the Babylonians. What's more, he also knew from the Akkadian governor of Babel (a word meaning "Gate of God" in Hebrew, later translated into Sumerian as KA.DINGIR.RA) that Marduk had built a temple next to the gigantic four-storey ziggurat, called E.TEMEN.AN.KI ("temple of the foundation of the sky/heavens and the earth") by the Sumerians, the famous Tower of Babel. The Sumerian king lists therefore completely obscured the role of Babylon's founder Marduk, a powerful hunter called Nimrod ("we will rebel") in the Bible (Gn 10:9-10), in order to conceal the collapse of his empire, referred to by archaeologists as the "Uruk expansion" (c.2950-2900). The Akkadian scribes of Shulgi, informed by some descendants of Noah (ZI.U4.SUD.RA "life of prolonged days" in Sumerian) living in Ur (like Abraham's family), traced the beginning of the mythical unified Sumerian kingship back to the 10th and last antediluvian king of Shuruppak, the famous survivor of the universal flood, named Ziusudra, or Noah, who lived 350 years after the universal flood (Gn 9:28), in 3170 BCE (LXX), and died in 2820 BCE, the beginning of the first Sumerian dynasty (Kish I). Marduk's role did not reappear until Hammurabi (1657-1654), who chose to glorify his capital "Babylon the Great" (Dn 4:30; Rv 17:18; 14:8), dedicating it to its founder: the Lord (Bel) Marduk (Jr 50:2), the powerful hunter whom the Sumerians had originally represented as the "Master of the Animals" clasping two lions in his arms. So, history did indeed begin at Sumer, but only the biblical text explains the role of its founder (Marduk).

Historical truth progresses by relying on authentic documents validated by absolute dates just as scientific truth progresses by relying on theories validated by measurements. However, the history of origins eludes historians because of the lack of authenticated documents and reliable dates. The first king of the first Egyptian dynasty was Narmer (2838-2808), however he was preceded by ten predynastic kings who are mentioned at the beginning of three very damaged Egyptian king lists (Palermo Stone, Turin Canon and that of Manetho). Archaeological excavations have shown that at least ten of these mythical kings did exist and are qualified as predynastic kings (Dynasty 0). These kings belong to the Egyptian protohistory, and their reigns are dated only by 14C which places them in a period between 3300 and 3100 BCE. The period that precedes this protohistory is called prehistory "before history". Paradoxically, the only predynastic king of Mesopotamian protohistory, called Priest-King (c. 3000-2950) by archaeologists, is never mentioned in the Sumerian king lists, corresponds exactly to Lord Marduk of the Babylonian tradition (called Nimrod "we will rebel" in the Bible), the king who built the Tower of Babel ("Gate of God"), a ziggurat called Etemenanki ("temple of the foundation of heaven/sky and earth") by the Sumerians. The mighty empire built by Marduk suddenly collapsed around 3000 BCE, causing the "Uruk expansion" and the almost simultaneous appearance of the three oldest languages of mankind: Sumerian, Egyptian and Proto-Elamite. The period from 10000 to 3300 BCE, called Neolithic, was populated by prehistoric men who left no written documents, who built no temples or cemeteries, whose representations are based solely on the imagination.

Egyptian king lists make it possible to elaborate a chronology of all kings up to Narmer (2838-2808), because the numerous synchronisms between Egyptian and Mesopotamian reigns make it possible to anchor the 30 dynasties of this Egyptian chronology. These synchronisms with the Achaemenid and Babylonian chronologies, which are anchored on absolute dates obtained by astronomy over the period 2243-340 BCE, allow to anchor the Egyptian chronology and to note that the Egyptian lunar calendar began at the full moon and not at the first invisibility as believed by Richard A. Parker in 1950. The Egyptian lunar calendar, based on a 25-year cycle with 9 intercalary years, was used before the 11th Dynasty to date important events according to the number of censuses, not according to the number of reign years. These censuses were carried out during the non-intercalary years, which implies a ratio of 1.6 (instead of 2) between the number of reign years and the number of censuses. Astronomical events, such as eclipses or the rising of Sirius, dated in their civil (365 days) or religious (lunar) calendar, can be retro-calculated by astronomy, allowing the reconstruction of an absolute chronology up to King Djer (2788-2752).The comparison of dates obtained by carbon 14 shows a growing gap from 2200 BCE, and exponentially, with the absolute dates obtained by astronomy. Consequently, the Urukean expansion that took place around 2950 BCE in Sumer is at the origin of predynastic Egypt at Abydos (Dynasty 0). In annex: Comparison of absolute dates and carbon-14 dates; Comparison of absolute dates and biblical dates.

The Assyrian chronology of the first millennium BCE is well established, especially for the period 912-609 BCE, but it is difficult to determine whether there were overlapping reigns due to possible co-regencies. Assyriologists have assumed that there were no co-regencies among the Assyrian reigns. Based on this assumption, Edwin R. Thiele, in his thesis published in 1951, established a chronology of the Hebrew kings, relying on the numerous synchronisms with the Assyrian kings, but several of the required synchronisms exhibited gaps ranging from 10 to 45 years. He solved this problem by assuming the existence of nine co-regencies among the Hebrew reigns. Despite this choice, which destroys the chronological coherence of the Hebrew reigns, Thiele's chronology still serves as a reference for scholars. However, a careful examination of these synchronisms shows that there were several co-regencies among the Assyrian reigns, which they have been correctly dated in the biblical chronology, such as those of Sennacherib and Tiglath-Pileser III. These kings played a crucial role in Israel's history during their co-regencies, such as Sennacherib's campaign in Judah (his 3rd) with the siege of Lachish and Jerusalem, which took place in 712 BCE during the 10th campaign of Sargon II (722-705) with whom he was co-regent (715-705). This agrees exactly with the biblical account stating that all these events occurred during the 14th year of Judean King Hezekiah (726-697) also dated 712 BCE. Similarly, the Israelite king Menahem (771-760) had to pay a tribute (in 765 BCE) to an Assyrian king Pul (2Ki 15:19-20). The Assyrian word pulu, from apil/aplu, means "the heir (i.e., crown prince)". King Pul(as) reigned 36 years, according to Josephus (Jewish Antiquities IX: 283-287), which corresponds exactly to the Assyrian king Pulu (co-regent) known by his Aramaic name Bar-Ga'yah "Son of the Majesty" who reigned from 782 to 746 BCE.

The pivotal date of 465 BCE for the death of Xerxes has been accepted by historians for many years without notable controversy. However, according to Thucydides, a historian renowned for his high chronological accuracy, Themistocles met Artaxerxes, who had succeeded Xerxes, his father, just after the fall of Nexos (The Peloponnesian War I:98;137) which occurred after the fall of Skyros dated at the beginning of the archonship of Phaedo in 476 BCE, according to Plutarch (Life of Theseus §§35,36). Thus, the meeting with Themistocles would have occurred soon after 475 BCE, not 465.The present Achaemenid chronology comes mainly from official Babylonian king lists, which ignore coregents and usurpers. This official version is contradicted by contracts dated in "year, month, day" proving the existence of frequent co-regencies and usurpers. In addition, according to the astronomical tablet referenced BM 32234, the death of Xerxes is dated 14/V/21 between two lunar eclipses, one dated [14/III]/21 (26 June 475 BCE), which was total, and a second dated 14/VIII/21 (20 December 475 BCE), which was partial (in 465 BCE, the reverse happened). Thus, the death of Xerxes must be dated 24 August 475 BCE. Likewise, the death of Artaxerxes I is fixed precisely by Thucydides (The Peloponnesian War IV:50-52) just before a partial solar eclipse (21 March 424 BCE) which would imply an absurd co-regency of Darius II with a dead king for at least one year! In fact, Plutarch and Justinus effectively described a long co-regency of Artaxerxes but with his first son Darius B (434-426), not Darius II, and afterward two short reigns: Xerxes II (425-424) for 2 months then Sogdianus for 7 months, which occurred before the reign of Darius II.The arrangement of the intercalary months in a chronology without co-regency has several anomalies, especially the presence of two months Ulul in a single cycle. By contrast, in a chronology with co-regency, and thus two distinct cycles, the abnormal intercalary month in Year 30 of Darius (Persepolis) corresponds to another cycle ending in Year 4 of Xerxes. The titulature of Xerxes (496-475) in Egypt and the data of Diodorus confirm the co-regency of 10 years with Darius (522-486), as do Elephantine papyri with many double dates with civil and lunar calendars.

The choice made by Themistocles to meet Xerxes (in 476 BCE) remains an enigma for most historians. Why did this brilliant strategist, who defeated the imperial armies of Xerxes at Salamis and was a fervent defender of a workers' democracy rather than an owners' democracy, go to Persia to make a pact with the enemy? Why did Artaxerxes (485-425), when he arrived at the imperial court in 474 BCE, welcome him as a hero, appoint him governor of Magnesia and even give him the right to mint his own currency? Why did Themistocles (536-471) want to confer with Amestris, i.e. Queen Esther (510-426), mother of Artaxerxes I (Ne 2:6), and why did Socrates encourage his faithful follower, the strategist Alcibiades, before the Peloponnesian War began (in 431 BCE), to benefit from Amestris' wisdom?An absolute chronology of this period gives the answer to all these puzzling questions: Zoroaster (614-536), whom Socrates considered the first magus, was the diviner whom Cyrus met after the fall of Babylon (Daniel). Impressed by this "magus" who had revealed to him that God himself had appointed him to rule the world (Is 44:24-45-4), his co-regent issued an imperial decree (Dn 6:24-28) stipulating that: "From now on, the Persians are to worship the Lord Wisdom (Ahura Mazda), the only god, creator of heaven and earth, creator of man's happiness", which was the motto of all the Achaemenid kings. Themistocles, who had wanted to meet with Xerxes to secretly replace the Persian protectorate with a partnership, in order to avoid war with the imperialist Athenians, was convinced by Amestris' much wiser secret plan of a non-interventionist policy.

Que l'humanité ait eu un ancêtre commun, tout le monde en convient, mais depuis l'arrivée de Darwin l'identité de ce premier homme a été bouleversée, le Noé du déluge universel devant être remplacé par le Néandertal de la dernière période glaciaire.La vérité sur l'origine de l'homme est-elle accessible à l'historien? Oui, car la chronologie est l'¿il de l'Histoire. La chronologie absolue permet ainsi de faire subir un "test de paternité" aux deux prétendants, en ce qu'elle permet de déterminer précisément l'avènement de l'espèce humaine: quelques milliers d'années seulement (Noé) ou des centaines de milliers d'années (Néandertal), voire même de plusieurs millions d'années pour le dernier arrivé (Toumaï).Comme on peut l'imaginer la question des origines est sensible: il est toutefois possible de réunir témoins, suspects et victimes devant le tribunal de l'Histoire. L'audience est ouverte.

LÕalt¿ration dÕun texte original est un point fondamental pour le croyant, car si ce texte comportait des erreurs ¿ lÕorigine il ne peut pas provenir dÕun Dieu suppos¿ parfait. Le but de cette ¿tude est d'¿tablir une reconstitution historique pour savoir quand, pourquoi et par qui le texte h¿breu a ¿t¿ modifi¿ et de constater que les donn¿es chronologiques provenant du Pentateuque et du Nouveau Testament sont en excellent accord. Elles proviennent donc dÕun texte original qui a ¿t¿ pr¿serv¿ sans alt¿ration majeure. Par cons¿quent les variantes actuelles (2% du texte) proviennent de corrections effectües par les scribes hasmon¿ens dÕorigine pharisienne, de -160 ¿ -63, valid¿es ensuite par les rabbins entre 90 et 130, quand celles-ci ¿taient en accord avec leur enseignement (Talmud). Ces corrections rabbiniques ont ensuite ¿t¿ recopi¿es fid?lement par les Massor?tes qui ont vocalis¿ ce texte h¿breu entre 600 et 930.

For Egyptologists as well as archaeologists, and even now Bible scholars, the answer to the question: Who was the pharaoh of the Exodus, the answer is obvious: there was nobo because the biblical story was a myth (Dever: 2003, 233). Consequently, who to believe: Moses or Egyptologists? Several scholars (Finkelstein, Dever and others) posit that the Exodus narrative may have developed from collective memories of the Hyksos expulsions of Semitic Canaanites from Egypt, possibly elaborated on to encourage resistance to the 7th century domination of Judah by Egypt. For these scholars the liberation from Egypt after the "10 plagues", as it is written in the Book of Exodus, is quite different from the historical "war of liberation against the Hyksos". What are the Egyptian documents underlying this hypothesis: none, and what is the chronology of this mysterious war: nobody knows! Consequently, who to believe: Moses or Egyptologists? This study will give the answer.

Very few Bible scholars believe now in the historicity of the book of Esther. There is no chronological investigation despite the fact that chronology is the backbone of history and there has been no historical research among archaeological witnesses. Worse still, to establish their chronology, historians have blind faith in the Babylonian king lists which are nevertheless false (reporting no usurpation and no co-regency). Yet it is easy to check in the tablets of Persepolis that Mordecai was an eminent royal scribe called Marduka who worked with Tatennai, the governor beyond the River, under the direction of U¿tanu, the satrap of Babylon, during the years 17 to 32 of Darius. Similarly, the narrative of Herodotus regarding Amestris (a name meaning 'vigorous woman' in Old Persian), Xerxes' unique wife and only queen known in Persia, corresponds in many ways to Esther ('star' in Old Persian") despite the unfavourable and biased description of the Persian queen.

God's name is fundamental to all monotheistic religions. Paradoxically, religions prefer to translate God's name as Yahweh 'He Is,' Adonay 'my Lord,' Allah 'The God,' rather than a transcription of the name, which is more usual.