Jewish History, Jewish Religion - Israel Shahak's shocking revelations

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
In another thread I posted
There is a recent interview with Russel Gmirkin in which he has time to put forward his findings about the origin of the Bible and it's borrowings from the templates put forward by Plato. [...]
And received the answer:
thorbiorn,

I think this really relates to another thread you posted to especially here, here, here and here.

I don't know if you think it relates enough to cross post or not.
Good advice and I hope to write a more informative post, so rather than reposting, I will redo.

The interview mentioned is on youtube on a channel called Dagger Squad. Initially there are sound problems, but it gets better after 13 minutes. Overall the interview is very informative and Gmirkin mentions, he is planning to publish two more books, one apparently soon.

Gmirkin talks about how the Bible is influenced by Greek culture from about 17 min. He mentions that the foundation stories of the type found in the Old Testament are not found anywhere else in the ancient Middle Eastern literature, but in Greek literature there are many. He says that the cosmology of Genesis 1 appears to be based on Plato's book Timaeus. For context, Timaeus is a dialogue between Socrates, Critias, Timaeus and Hermocrates; see for instance the Stanford entry or the translated text.

Likewise when it comes to the laws in the Old Testament, there is no constitutional literature to be found in the ancient Near East but there is much available in Greek. (This is around minutes 19-21). The idea of a sacred national law is from Plato's laws (min 21-22) How the laws of Moses were written in Alexandria under the influence of Greek thought is mentioned in minutes 22-25:30).
From minute 27-29 he speaks about the history of Israel and Judea, and that there were never 12 tribes. The idea of 12 came from the Greeks among whom Plato recommended 12 tribes for the ideal state. Plato also had the idea that there should be a national literature and that everything else should be forbidden (minute 31-32).

The writing of the Books of Moses was a cooperative work between the Samarians and the Judeans in Alexandria, while the books that followed were written by Judeans in Jerusalem, when the alliance with the Samarians was no longer recognized (minute 32-33). The formation of the Pentateuch is elaborated on from about minute 37-42. Apparently Hecateus of Abdera wrote a history og Egypt in around 315 BC according to which an Egyptian named Moses was sent out to colonize Judea, Moses built Jerusalem, built the temple, conquered the surrounding territory and gave the Jews, the people of Judea their constitution and laws.

Later in Alexandria they, wondered why they had no copy in their library of the Laws of this Moses, and under Ptolemy II Philadelphus they requested a copy of the laws of Moses fom the areas of Israel and Judea. They invited scholars, basically Greeks from the Seleucid empire in the part that is now Israel and Ptolomaeic Greek form the South. None of these had heard of the laws of this Moses, but they created a fitting text in Alexandria, based on laws from Athens, based on Plato's Laws, and on a handful of Near Eastern laws. (Minute 37-42).

Then comes a question and answer about why the Jews or the Samarians and Judeans at the time decided to adopt this story. Gmirkin responds by elaborating on the idea presented earlier that Plato had laid out a plan for how to establish a nation by controlling the narrative of the formation of the state. The idea is that one has to convince people that it was given by God and goes way back, so that they believe in it and they can not even think of an alternative (min 43-47). The strategy has worked very well as one can read in the book by Shahak.

Then at about minute 56:30-1:01 they go into the story about Abraham and how the elements from Babylon and Mesopotamia came into the picture. Gmirkin argues that many of the scholars at the time, who constituted part of the ruling class had origins in the East. He says that the Assyrians in the 7-8th century swapped the ruling class of Samaria and Babylon. This might explain why "Abraham" came from Babylonia.

At 1:02 they discuss Berossus as a source for some of the Biblical material and Gmirkin agrees. Berossus, a Babilonian scientist translated much of the Babylonian myth and stories into Greek around 280 BC ready for the scholars in Alexandria to incorporate. For an example of what Berossus is supposed to have written about the flood, see this link. It reads like the story of the Ark of Noah.

At 1:07 the interviewer asks why the Greeks would allow the Jews to write that they were chosen people? Gmirkin responds by saying the Plato believed in one cosmic monotheistic god who created the Universe, but he also believed in the Olympian gods, any gods they wanted to have running around on Earth. People should be able to get along and be nice to every ones else's gods. The idea was that the world was peacefully divided up among all the gods, and that everyone respected that. Every god had their own land, they were like patron gods, they protected special people. Every people was a chosen people by that particular god and they all got along. It was a concept of inclusive polytheism.

Perhaps the last few lines gives an idea of why in Shahaks book some Zionists are not strictly monotheistic. It was simply not part of the base from which they arose.
 

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Hmmm... a little high strangeness just happened here respecting this topic.

I had just written the above comment, closed the browser and wanted to check my email quickly before going downstairs for Reiki night. Well, the last email I received was just 4 minutes BEFORE I wrote the above comment, though I had not seen it. It was an announcement from Academia.edu that Etienne Nodet, bible scholar, had just uploaded a review of Gmirkin's book "Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible."

I went to check; it's in French, but I figured I would download it, print it, Pierre could read it and tell me the gist of it.

Just as I was opening the downloaded file to print, Pierre walked in my office and announced that he had just read confirmation from Gershom Sholem that Jews had fomented the French Revolution and he was gobsmacked by that; he had long suspected it, but to hear from a Jew, that it was Cabbalistic Jews behind it all, was astonishing. He then commented that it is the Cabbalistic business that was pure Satanism.

Which, of course, brings me back to my comment about Plato and the Satanic system he designed and passed of as "philosophy", and there has been, according to Stove, a "Cult of Plato" ever since.

Yikes.
That's really fascinating. I'm really behind on reading about Talmudic Judaism, but one author I've been following (mostly online) is E. Michael Cummings, who wrote a large number of books on Judaism and the behavior of Jews in history. The one I read the most and watched the most about (regret to say I haven't read this yet) are The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit (and @Pierre's comment above made me think of it explicitly), and Libido Dominandi (which is about cultural/sexual subversion and its political dimension). He talks about a lot of things in it here:


A review of the book is here.
A series of select readings from it is here.

He's a devout Catholic, and brings a lot of Catholic and medieval religious and political history into his discussion about Jewish behavior during those time periods. I found it interesting that some information he pulled together about the 2 compilations of the Talmud (one in Babylon and another in Palestine) essentially made this codified Judaism a younger religion than Christianity, similar to Islam. And it is interesting that the both the Talmud and Koran were compiled specifically to negate Christianity and its tenants.

Cummings also cites Henirch Graetz, who lived in the 19th century and was considered the father of Jewish historiography. But apparently even Graetz did say that the Polish Jews were corrupted by the teachings of the Talmud, teaching them to be deceitful and exploitative when dealing with outsiders, and also said the Zohar itself was a very wicked book. He also extends criticism to Popes and principalities that began to accommodate usery and so exploit and drain the surplus value the peasants of the land produced via money lending and alcohol production (most specifically in Poland, I'm not sure how common the latter was elsewhere). He ties this in with the decadence of Pope Alexander VI and the Italian city states, the Spanish Netherlands, Lutheranism/Calvinism/Anglicanism, etc. essentially all resorting to usery and expropriation of Church land to enslave the peasants.

What I found kind of interesting was how he managed to tie communism to neoconservatism by way of Irving Kristol, who is considered the father of neoconservatism while being a Trotskyite in his youth. When you think about the US upending as many ex-Soviet client states as it can, it doesn't seem like so big a stretch when you consider that both ideologies want to impose their view on whole regions of the world and upend governments and peoples the world over.

All of this could be wrong for all I know, since I don't know as much as others here.
 

Anthony

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
I am half way the book and just like Konstantin I am astonished and shocked. It is as though through these rules they are perfectioning the lying and cheating.
I also feel sorry for the majority of the Jews to have to live like that, the more because , according to Shahak , most of them don't know about the orgin of these rules.
Same here, it's basically psychopathic thinking hiding behind a religious mask, and Shahak shows how it is that they managed to maintain a mask of sanity for so long.
 
Top Bottom