Books by Gerard Gertoux

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.