Professor Mauro Biglino, a former Vatican biblical translator, is known in Italy as a very popular philosopher and expert scientist. When he refused to submit to the manipulation of the Bible by the Catholic Church, he lost his job.
He worked as a translator of ancient biblical Hebrew at the prestigious Catholic publishing house Edizioni San Paolo, which has a tradition of almost one hundred years. Since his open and independent research of the Bible led him to conclusions different from those of the Catholic Church, he was dismissed from his position and has since dedicated himself to writing and public education. He points out that the word Elohim, which is translated as God, is mostly plural in the Bible and the meaning of this word is something other than God. He draws attention to Bible translations that confirm the hypothesis that the Jews did not communicate with God, but with an extraterrestrial civilization. He is a popular figure in the Italian media, and his lectures on YouTube have approximately 300,000 views. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauro_Biglino
I am also publishing these exhaustive long lectures and videos. However, it is my goal to make a brief lecture where I will summarize everything concisely.
Heartfelt thanks to the anonymous contributor Otonic (nickname) for the article and subtitled videos with Mauro Biglin. I hope everything is translated correctly.
2015 – There is no trace of God in the Bible http://www.egiziotrombetta.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=363&Itemid=1
His website is https://maurobiglino.it
There is no trace of God in the Bible. Mauro Biglino reads the holy scriptures
Prepared by Egizio Trombetta (September 2015)
http://www.egiziotrombetta.com/
Mauro Biglino worked with the publishing house Edizioni San Paolo as a translator for about ten years. One fine day, he decided to start telling what he thought he was reading in the so-called sacred texts. He immediately lost his job at Edizioni San Paolo. Now Mauro has only one perspective: to continue and prove to everyone that he is not a fantasist. Biglino firmly claims that, as far as the Old Testament is concerned, we have been told a completely different story. His thinking, in maximum brevity, can be understood from the title of his latest book published by Mondadori: The Bible Does Not Speak of God . The text includes some excerpts from Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni, the chief rabbi of the Jewish community in Rome.
Mauro, I will present some of your claims here: The Bible (editor's note: meaning the Old Testament) does not speak of God, the Bible is a historical book like all others, the Bible became a reference scripture after the manipulation of key terms, the creators of this manipulation were partly the Masoretes (educated Jewish scribes who between the 6th and 9th centuries AD were entrusted with "fixing" the meaning of ancient codices) and partly theologians over the centuries. As a synthesis, your statement to the weekly Oggi seems sufficiently explanatory to me: "I understood, during the literal translation, that the Old Testament tells of a pact between one warrior of the Elohim, Yahweh, and the family of Jacob. Nothing more. The entire rest is a theological reworking." The term Elohim has a plural ending, it refers to a group of people. According to you, is there anything to add to this attempt of mine to summarize the key aspects of your work?
"You have made a valid and fundamental complete synthesis because you have touched upon fundamental things. The Bible does not speak of God, which does not mean that God does not exist, it simply means that the book does not care about him. The terms associated with God were translated on a theological basis, not on a linguistic or philological basis, and from that moment on they develop, we would say they develop by themselves, in the sense that the fact that it speaks of God was something certain, otherwise the Bible is something completely different. The Bible, in my opinion, is one of many books that humanity has written throughout its history and which tells stories of events like all historical books. It has the typical characteristics of historical books, it contains truths, it contains parables, it contains emphasis, of course it also contains omissions and contradictions. All analyses develop from this."
I think it would be good to clarify the concept of "God's names". Not everyone knows that the term "God" is not in the original texts; there are Hebrew terms that are translated into Italian as God, Lord, the Most High, and the Eternal. In the original texts, on the other hand, we find terms such as Elohim, Elion, El Shaddai, El, Eloha, and finally also the tetragram, JHVH (???? read from right to left JOD HE VAV HE), which are four consonants, subsequently vocalized in various ways, but most often vocalized as Yahweh.
"First of all, there is one undeniable thing here. I know it may sound very strange, but in the language in which the Old Testament was written, that is, in biblical Hebrew, there is no term that means God. There is no concept of divinity as we understand it in religious thought. You have essentially listed all the terms used in the Old Testament. All of them are terms that refer to certain attributes of a number of persons, some of whom are undoubtedly individuals, such as Elion and Yahweh. Others, such as those referred to by the term Elohim, undoubtedly refer to a plurality of persons. Translating with 'God' means translating on a theological basis, not on a linguistic basis. This is one of the few things about which I would say there should be no doubt. No one knows the true meaning of the term Elohim; there are many hypotheses. It is translated as 'Those from above', 'The Mighty', 'The Shining Ones', 'The Overseers', 'The Judges'. It is also often translated as 'The Supreme Lawgiver' or 'The Supreme Lawgivers', but none of the exegetes – and here I mean Jewish exegesis – translate using the term 'God' as we (editor's note: Catholics) understand it. Concepts are always used for translation, which are adjectives serving to define attributes ascribed to certain persons, especially when it comes to the term Elohim. You correctly mentioned Elion, which is translated as 'The Most High', which is perhaps the most appropriate translation of all those used, because it truly means 'that which is above'. To translate it as 'The Most High' actually means to introduce an absolute superlative, which, on the contrary, is not present in the Hebrew language. Let's say, however, that translating Elion as 'The Most High' can be considered acceptable, because the Hebrew term means 'the one who is above'." Translating Yahweh as God or as Lord or as the Eternal is a complete artificiality, because it is not known what the tetragram means.
You collaborated on the preparation of seventeen beautiful books for the Edizioni San Paolo publishing house; it is impressive to read the thanks to Monsignor Piergiorgio Beretta on the opening pages. Then the employment relationship with the San Paolo publishing house ended, how was that?
"In total, I translated nineteen books, but only seventeen of them were published. When the publisher found out that I had started saying these things publicly, the employment relationship was immediately terminated. And by the way, in some volumes, there is a dedication where I only did editorial work, both on the book of Genesis and on the book of Exodus. Then there are two other volumes containing the seventeen books I translated, where my name is on the cover."
Which are these two volumes?
" The Five Scrolls and the Twelve Prophets , these volumes have on the cover: translated by Mauro Biglin, because the published translation is actually mine."
For you, this collaboration also meant receiving some remuneration, is that right?
"Yes, of course, it was work."
And didn't you foresee that if you started saying these things, you would get into trouble with your publisher?
"I was sure I would lose my job as soon as I started saying my things, but it was a choice I made. If you will, it was a frivolous choice, although not: a conscious one. It was a really difficult choice, but I made it. I would like to add that in those books at Edizioni San Paolo, the term Elohim is not translated, but it is transcribed as Elohim, as it is, because that is the only correct thing to do."
Regarding the translation of the term Elohim, I noticed that in the book of Psalms – recently published by Edizioni San Paolo – in Psalm 82, Elohim is translated as "Gods", instead of the Hebrew term, in clear contrast to other translations of this work, where the names of God are not translated. Still in Psalm 82, it is impossible not to notice that Elion is not translated into Italian, but Elohim is, with the term "Gods". Perhaps to confuse the reader?
"Psalm 82 is very problematic for theology, very problematic! In Psalm 82, theology has to try very hard when it comes to exegesis and interpretation and the attempt to explain. Psalm 82 speaks of the assembly of Elohim, it says that there is one chairman of the assembly who is very angry with his lower colleagues Elohim because they do not rule as they should. At the end of the assembly, this chairman says to those assembly participants: yes, it is true, you are Elohim, sons of Elion, but remember that you must die like all Adams. This is really problematic for theological exegesis. In the light of the Bible, however, when it comes to Elohim, the interpretation of that psalm is, on the contrary, very easy."
I'm going to do a little advertising for the Edizioni San Paolo publishing house now, but I think it might be useful to get the volumes with the interlinear translation of the Bible to understand what you're saying. By flipping through the pages of texts translated with an interlinear translation, one discovers a completely different world, don't you agree?
"It's a different world."
I tried to prepare well before this meeting and conversation. I tried to consult with a biblical scholar regarding your understanding of the Bible. I asked two Catholic biblical scholars for support, but unfortunately, they were not receptive. Then I contacted the Roman Rabbinical College, and after a few days, to my surprise, I was told that even Rav Riccardo Di Segni, the Chief Rabbi of the Roman Jewish community, would meet with me. I was received in his rabbinical office a few days later, and the first thing I asked – as you will be able to see in a video – was about his availability to meet and confront you. I repeated my invitation with the camera off before saying goodbye, and he confirmed his agreement. Rav Di Segni showed extraordinary openness to these topics. Would you be willing to meet and confront him?
"However, there is great openness in the Jewish world. There is an openness that is not at all comparable to the dogmatism that exists in the Christian church. The Jewish world is a world that studies… it is a world that knows the need for understanding; within Jewish culture, by the way, all possible attitudes are expressed. Within Jewish culture, one goes from the purest, proclaimed atheism, to the most reactionary ultra-orthodoxy. Within Jewish culture, there is a place for all attitudes. As for the confrontation, I can tell you that my publisher has been trying to organize something like this for months, and we have already received approval from the chief rabbi of the Jewish community in Turin and a Protestant theologian. Now we are looking for a Catholic theologian. The estimated date is March 2016."
But is the participation of a Catholic theologian so important? Your work is basically based on the Old Testament, so I consider the confrontation with the Jewish world to be the main basis…
"Yes, but it is necessary, considering that we are in a Christian environment, we are in Italy, the Vatican is here, it is necessary that both Jews and Catholics are on the same stage, because people need to understand. Not to reach the truth, which they won't have anyway. Within the Jewish world itself, all potential truths are held, but people need to understand how each stream creates its own. Since Catholicism prevails here in Italy, it is necessary that it is represented in the confrontation."
In your opinion, however, do Catholic biblical scholars have sufficient preparation to be able to confront you?
"There are Catholic biblical scholars, there are professors at pontifical universities. So far we have received negative answers, but we hope that sooner or later we will get one."
Do you think that sooner or later some Catholic biblical scholar will appear?
"I think so."
In case no Catholic biblical scholar shows up, could you do a confrontation only with Jewish biblical scholars?
"We'll see. I don't have to do a personal confrontation. It's important to see how religions are created based on a text."
So, would you be willing to confront Rav Ricardo Di Segni?
"We are already preparing it with the Chief Rabbi of the Jewish community in Turin. Just as I will do with the Chief Rabbi of the Jewish community in Turin, I have no problem doing it with the Chief Rabbi of the Jewish community in Rome. Of course, I agree."
Now, please listen to Rabbi Di Segni's commentary on several points of your thinking. I ask him to read page 119 of your latest book, "The Bible Doesn't Speak of God," and I want him to express an opinion on it. In the presented text, you illustrate some basic concepts of your thinking: Elohim does not mean God; Elohim were individuals of flesh and blood; Elohim sexually united with women—Adam and begot children; Elohim divided the lands according to a decision made by their commander Elion; Yahweh was none other than one of many Elohim operating in the Middle Eastern arena; Yahweh was assigned a part of one family, Abraham's, while other branches of the same family were assigned to at least three different Elohim. Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni's response was as follows: " To this, I can answer that what he says is nothing new; these are very well-known concepts. The word Elohim can mean different things; it can mean special persons, it can mean Judges, and it can be a way to refer to God. So, the term also means God. The fact that the term Elohim is grammatically plural has been known since the beginning of history; it is not new at all, and indeed old exegesis noted that in this name, which appears in the first phrase of Genesis, there is a discrepancy: in the beginning, Elohim created heaven and earth. He created it in the singular, Elohim is plural. There is nothing new in what he says. As for the Hebrew term 'bara,' Biglino says that 'bara' means to change something that already exists, but there are different terms in Hebrew that denote creation or transformation, so these are not discoveries. The religious exegetical tradition focuses on a certain kind of interpretation; the Jewish tradition focuses not on one single kind of interpretation, but on a set of diverse interpretations ."
Mauro, what do you think about these claims by Rav Di Segni?
"Fantastic. One thing is crucial, Rav Di Segni says that they have known certain things for millennia. I will not comment on that. At my conferences, I always say: I have discovered nothing and I do nothing but interpret what I read. However, the fact that it has been known for millennia should be common knowledge. When you ask people, they don't know these things. Not even all Jews know this. So, if we have known these things for millennia, let's tell people, otherwise this information remains within a circle of researchers and people still believe what is publicly said. This, if you will, is the stupidity of my work, to openly say things that the Chief Rabbi of the Roman community is saying here. So let's say these things, let's say them."
As for the term Elohim – which, as we have seen, is in the plural form – it is accompanied by a verb in the singular, as we find in the first line of Genesis, how should it be translated?
"From my point of view, the meaning of the term Elohim does not change. The fact remains that no one in the world is certain about what Elohim means. So I prefer not to translate it. I say that whatever Elohim means, it remains untouched, whether the verb is in the singular or in the plural. What is it that changes? That probably the scribes, and by that I mean the biblical authors, when they used a verb in the singular, had in mind a group of Elohim acting as a whole; or they had in mind one particular Elohim, when, for example, they named a specific individual, like Yahweh. Just as Elohim Chemosh is named in the Bible, just as Elohim Milkom (= Moloch) is named, just as Elohim Astarte is named, meaning they are naming one of the Elohim. In this case, it is clear that they have one in mind. When they speak of Elohim in general, it is because they are conveying the idea of a plurality of persons. But I will give a very simple example: this afternoon Renzi, the Prime Minister, will have a conference and will literally say: the government has decided, we will lower taxes. Who is the subject of 'has decided'? The government. Who is the subject of 'we will lower taxes'? Still the government. The subject is still the same, we have a verb in the plural and a verb in the singular, nothing changes, there is no mystery in it. We have it before our eyes, it is the same."
Rav Di Segni claims that the verb used in the first signs of Genesis is one of many verbs denoting creation. I think you won't agree.
"I have already said that all attitudes exist within Jewish thought. When you read studies by rabbis officially published by the Jewish Publication Society, it says that the Genesis story of creation is nothing more than a narrative about a series of divisions. Division, what does that mean? To intervene in an already existing situation in order to perform an operation of separation-classification, to organize a situation in which there was no order, or at least the order was not sufficient for the Elohim to use what they needed for their purposes. The term bara, also in this case, when we read studies by epigraphers, university lecturers, and for example, Professor Garbini from the Roman University La Sapienza, says that bara does not mean to create in any Semitic language, not just in Hebrew. So all attitudes are possible. So, what can help us? Context. It is clear that if we take the verb bara and remove it from context and sit down at a table and discuss what it means, we will never get anywhere. We have to go and look at what the Bible says each time the term bara is used. In one of my books, I analyzed more than thirty instances of the use of the term bara, and in all contexts, it never means to create, and certainly not to create from nothing. But then all attitudes are possible, that's fine, but then it is necessary to understand that all attitudes are possible, none is certainly the right one. When it is said: God created, it is better to say: we pretend that God created, because we do not know."
Rav Di Segni – you heard him in the video – believes that the term Elohim has different meanings, it can mean special people, it can mean Judges, it can mean God.
"I disagree with this for the simple reason that different meanings are attributed on a case-by-case basis, according to the need for interpretation of the given text. That's why I say, if we want to be intellectually honest, we should never translate it. And if we never translate it, we can understand many things; this is a recommendation I've been giving at my conferences lately. Otherwise, what happens is that when it suits them, they translate it as God, and when the translation as God is no longer suitable, they translate it as Judges. Such a procedure means that the most advantageous translation is invented each time. I say that's not correct, it's not intellectually correct. Let's always leave Elohim there, without translating. By the way, if we always leave Elohim there, we don't get into a tunnel of contradictions where we have to explain what it means every time. There's no need to explain it because the Bible is very clear."
But isn't it possible that the term Elohim, over time, took on the meaning of God?
"Of course. When it was decided, from a theological point of view, to take Yahweh and make him the highest of the Elohim and then the only one, it is clear that the meaning of God was inserted into him, but that is a subsequent theological elaboration. When we read the text and observe what biblical authors attributed to the Elohim as deeds, as intentions, as behavior, we clearly see that they were individuals of flesh and blood. I have drawn up a precise comparison between biblical passages and a Moabite stele (editor's note: Mesha Stele), who were cousins of the Israelites, where there is one king, King Mesha, whom the Bible knows, quotes him, and he speaks of his Elohim, whose name is Chemosh, and speaks of him exactly as biblical authors speak of their Elohim, whose name is Yahweh. From this precise, parallel analysis, it follows that Elohim Chemosh and Elohim Yahweh did the same things, wanted the same things, had the same demands, behaved in the same way. So it is good not to translate the term Elohim. Do we want to translate it as God? All right, but then let's say that the god Yahweh and the god Chemosh were absolutely the same, nothing changes. For any translation we want to use for the term Elohim, it is necessary to realize that in the Bible, that value is attributed to many Elohim, and to all in the same way, so it changes nothing."
Would you like to hear Rav Di Segni's opinion on a specific biblical passage?
"For example, in Psalm 8, or Judges 11:24, where the judge of Israel, who by the way is not called Elohim, but is called Shoft (editor's note: judge), by the name of Jephthah, turns to the king of the Ammonites and says: your Elohim gave you those territories and you hold them, our Elohim gave us these territories and we hold them, meaning he puts them both on an equal footing. Or a passage from the Book of Kings, where Yahweh is very angry with Solomon and tells him: I will take the kingdom from you, because you have bowed down before the Elohim of Chemosh, before the Elohim of Milkom, and before the Elohim of Ashtoreth. Does this mean that Solomon was unable to grasp the difference between the god Yahweh and the other Elohim, who according to these translations were supposed to be normal human judges? But how is it possible that Solomon did not grasp that difference? And how is it possible that Yahweh was angry with him precisely because Solomon was so naive that he allowed places of worship to be built for Chemosh and Milkom, that is, for judges? That's why I say, let's not translate Elohim, let's look at what the context says, because the context explains everything."
You can be very convincing when it comes to the Old Testament, but you are not so convincing when it comes to the New Testament, how come?
"I don't actually address the New Testament in public, so when I get the opportunity, I make a remark, people ask me questions, and so, to avoid wriggling out of it, I give short, synthetic answers, but I don't officially deal with it. I have never expressed a comprehensive opinion on the New Testament, and I continue to deal with the Old Testament, if only because I consider it much more magical. Basically, I say that the New Testament seems to me to be the fruit of Greek Hellenistic thought crammed into one figure who was, if he existed, one of many Jewish rabbis and messianic preachers of his time. When I say his time, I mean the period between the 1st century BC and the 1st or 2nd century AD, when messianic activities and messianic preachers flourished. The Christ-like figure was built on Jesus. But I repeat, I don't officially deal with it."
Paul considers Jesus to be one Theos. Elohim is translated into Greek as Theos, could there be some connection between Jesus and Elohim?
"Given that at the cross he himself, in the last sentence, turns to one Elo, which is the singular of Elohim, I would say that he probably had something to do with it. You correctly quoted Paul, who says in the letter to the Corinthians: as it is true that there were many Theoi, but for us there is only one of them. The Greek term Theoi translates Elohim, so he himself recognizes the plurality of these individuals, after all, he was a Jew, so he knew well how things were."
What is your opinion on Maria?
"So, we'll pretend that Jesus existed. It is said that his mother was visited by a certain Gabriel and became pregnant without knowing a man. In Hebrew, Gabriel means Eloh's power or Someone who exercises authority for some Eloh. This raises some suspicion that someone working for some Eloh did something to her, that she then had this son."
Any genetic intervention?
"Or just sexual intercourse."
I can hardly accept your doubt about the existence of Jesus…
"But because there is no real historical evidence, and then, when you ask what I think, I am among those who believe that he really existed."
A Jewish portal, the Consulenza Ebraica forum, often quotes you, and you often mention them at your conferences. In fact, many points of contact have emerged between you, haven't they?
"Yes, I am often quoted on this forum, Consulenza Ebraica. They talk about all these biblical topics, for example, the concreteness of angels, understood not as spiritual entities, about the cherubim of the Ark of the Covenant considered as robots, about the non-existence of Satan, about the Bible talking about genetic engineering. They claim that they have known these things forever. After all, as you just played for me, when Rav Di Segni claims that these are concepts known for millennia, well, if we know these things, let's say them. So, when I say them, no one should get angry, since it has been known forever. Something else is the question of Yahweh, because here are those who recognize in him – and I understand them – the greatest of the Elohim or directly the only one of the Elohim. It is clear that in this last case they cannot agree with me regarding what I read about Yahweh in the text."
And Elohim in the sense of a group of people, how do they understand this term?
"The pages of Consulenza Ebraica state that when it refers to a multitude of persons, it generally means Judges."
I know that you also have direct contact with a researcher from the Roman Jewish community, who is part of a study group dealing with the Torah. Does she also agree with the plurality of persons when it comes to the term Elohim?
"Yes, she agrees too."
And how does this Jewish researcher from Rome understand the term Elohim in relation to a group of individuals? Does she also translate this term as Judges?
"No. This Roman researcher believes that Yahweh was one of many Elohim."
I wonder how this researcher can reconcile being Jewish with the theory of the plurality of Elohim. So, I'm wondering if a Jew who believes in a multitude of Elohim of flesh and blood can really consider himself a Jew.
"I don't even know if Judaism can be defined as a religion. Christianity is a religion of faith, i.e., I believe in what I don't see. Judaism is a system of thought based on trust, or rather, based on a covenant. So, Judaism correctly says: we have made a covenant because Yahweh offered it to us. We try to literally adhere to our part of the covenant, and Yahweh, sooner or later, must adhere to his. So it's not so much about believing in what I don't see, but about trusting in the covenant, in the other party to the covenant keeping its word. So, these are two completely different ways of thinking. By the way, I understand when it is said that these things have been known forever, as Rav Di Segni says, that Jews do not need or want to communicate them externally, these things, because in this they are right. The Old Testament is a book that concerns them; Christians have appropriated it in a completely artificial way and made it their own book. But that covenant, that alliance, concerns Yahweh and the Jews. So, when Jews see how Christians misinterpret that book, they don't care. They feel neither the need nor the obligation to explain it to Christians, because that book concerns them."
You never said that this Jewish researcher belonged to the Roman community. But was it she who explicitly asked you not to publish her name?
"Yes."
Is this cooperation still ongoing?
"Certainly."
I've noticed that there has been a change in the course of presenting the extraterrestrial hypothesis regarding the Elohim lately. You haven't been highlighting this possibility as much lately, are you concerned that it might damage your work when it comes to a hypothesis that may be considered not very credible?
"Yes, that change has occurred, but it is happening in a natural way, mainly influenced by the fact that my work is critically analyzed and written about. It is necessary to understand that those who – rightly – criticize my work emphasize the question of God, so I have also redirected my interpretation to explain that the Bible does not speak of God. This has been happening for about the last year and a half. Who the Bible speaks of then becomes the next step. But now it was much more important to clarify that the Bible does not speak of God. In the next phase, we can then ask: who are these Elohim, if Elohim is not God?"
Did you make this decision on your own, or did your publisher recommend it to you?
"I do everything myself, independently."
Are you an atheist?
"Agnostic."
What is your attitude towards exorcism and demonic possession?
"The practice of exorcism is based on the devilish and demonic characters originating in the Bible. And since these characters are not actually in the Bible, including Satan, you can guess what I think about it."
So you consider it a fairy tale?
"Rather, I would say that with this type of difficulty, people should turn to a psychologist or psychiatrist."
You often repeat that some stories of the Old Testament are redactions of Sumerian-Akkadian texts. What writings would you recommend to us so that we can verify these claims?
"Atrahasis, or the Epic of Gilgamesh, and Enuma Elish. It's easy to find an edition. These are texts concerning creation and the flood, from which the stories we find in the book of Genesis are primarily derived. As for the creation of Adamu, there is, for example, a very nice publication by UTET on Sumerian mythology, it's about seven hundred pages of translations prepared by academic translators of Sumerian-Akkadian texts."
Some time ago you said that Kabbalah contains certain truths, but then in your lectures you suggest that it was "tailored" to the Torah. I feel that you think something similar about the Talmud and Midrash. Do you want to add anything to that?
"Yes, Kabbalah is one of the sources of mystical-theological elaborations made on an old text. I consider it as such. For me, it is the same as theology, it is the same consideration for me. By the way, assuming that Kabbalah is one, there are many Kabbalistic currents and they are often in mutually unsolvable disputes. So there is no truth there either."
And what do you think about the Hebrew numerological system, gematria?
"If someone interprets it from that point of view, they can get anything… I mean…"
In your last book, you quote Genesis 14:20 about the tithe. You will surely know that in Jewish thought, the tithe has a spiritual value. Practicing Jews give ten percent of their profits to charity. What do you think about that?
"Yes, but I'm talking about the Old Testament, and there the tithe is material. Yahweh always makes a list of things he wants. The spiritual elaboration is subsequent. I would never give a tithe to a militant ruler, unless he forced me to by violence, of course. I mean, now I pay taxes and in fact I pay a tithe of fifty percent, so not just a tithe. He was still good."
According to your calculations and analyses made with biblical texts, how many years could Yahweh have lived?
"Many of our centuries."
But could any Elohim have lived that long?
"I would say yes. If we take the stories of ancient priests, such as Manetho or Berossus, they speak of a possible age there in the order of thousands of our years, and that doesn't surprise me. The fact that there are beings here who can live that long is confirmed on planet Earth. If we take a butterfly that lives forty-eight hours, and we take a turtle that lives two hundred years, we see that the turtle lives several thousand times longer than the life of a butterfly. What's interesting is that they are made of the same DNA, the same biochemistry, the same substances, they live on the same planet, they breathe the same air. Some Elohim, if I were to guess off the top of my head, living thirty thousand years, would only live five hundred times longer than the length of our lives. We shouldn't be surprised by this, especially if these beings had DNA with slightly different properties from ours, and had the ability to interfere with DNA, as current genetics does, which performs interventions on telomerases, which is one enzyme we have. They greatly prolong the lives of mice. So sooner or later, it will be done on humans."
In your last book, you still refer to Numbers 15:32-36, where Yahweh commands to kill the one who did not observe the Sabbath rest. If you speak of Yahweh as a warrior, it does not seem to be related to military issues, what explanation do you have for this?
"I don't provide interpretations. I say that since this man was a warlord here, and he said, 'either you will carry out my orders, or I will kill you,' it was essential for him that those people carried out his orders. The fact that this kind of action, which is absolutely irrational and cruel to us, occurred in the world as it was then, is, in my opinion, completely normal. Let's not forget that we are talking about a time several thousand years ago, when the degree of civilization with its cultural and civilizational level undoubtedly differed from ours. Even 20th-century dictators had people killed for reasons that we consider completely unjustifiable. If it were God, that would be a drama, but if we realize that it was a warlord who had to keep people together, he could not have acted differently."
In your latest book, you point out two names of women who were supposed to be Yahweh's presumed companions. The first is Asherah, the second is Anat-Yahu. Both names are found in extra-biblical documents, which you describe in detail in your latest book. From your point of view, could these two names belong to two different women?
"I can't tell you that. These are inscriptions that were found by archaeologists and then studied by epigraphers, for example, they were published in the works of Professor Garbini from the Roman University of La Sapienza, where he talks about these inscriptions, which explicitly mention Yahweh's consort, who is called Asherah in the Negev locality, in the Jewish community in Egyptian Elephantine – claims Prof. Garbini – she was called Anat-Yahu."
You hold the view that the diversity of races could be explained by different "creators". The so-called Gan Eden could have been scattered across the planet, and thus be able to create different races of Adam. How could this have happened?
"Yes, that is an obvious hypothesis. I wouldn't be surprised if one day genetics reaches the understanding that individual races were created independently of each other, meaning that black people didn't then become white people because there wasn't as much sun, etc. In my last book, I published a study by geneticists and molecular biologists who are beginning to develop hypotheses that consider the possibility that Homo sapiens is the product of guided evolution, meaning that from a certain point, someone intervened and began to manipulate, that is, took accelerating steps to achieve that this being, this hominid, which was evolving slowly on its own, was consequently accelerated in clearly defined directions. It is assumed that many attempts were made and that in the end, those who functioned better prevailed. For example, Neanderthal evidently functioned less well than sapiens, and so was displaced. The fact that there was some acceleration here is very clearly confirmed by genetic studies; the question remains how it happened. It also needs to be explained that we have a number of genetic sequences whose origin is unknown because we do not share them with others, and these are precisely those thanks to which we are Sapiens. Some researchers are beginning to claim that if one were to consider the hypothesis that what is written in ancient texts is true, meaning that the children of the stars came and created man, then it would be possible to hypothesize answers to understand where the things we have inside come from. This is what the peoples of all continents tell us, not just the Bible."
But don't you feel that all this information you're trying to spread might do more harm than good to people?
"Yes, I know they can be harmful because they naturally lead people into a crisis. I always say, if a person has a firm faith, they shouldn't let it be taken away by the things I say, because if God exists, fortunately, He doesn't need the Old Testament. Anyone who reads the Old Testament automatically asks questions about the theology of God. They can't help but ask them, they just can't. It's no coincidence that from 1200 to 1800, for six centuries, the church often and repeatedly forbade reading the Bible, and in some periods even owning it. A person risked ending up in the hands of the Inquisition just for having it. This is no coincidence, because the church knows that when the Bible (editor's note: the Old Testament) is read, questions will simply arise, at the very least. But let's assume that the things I say are true, in which case is it my responsibility, or the responsibility of those who invented them?"