Peter Wakefield Sault's telling comment on Robert Fisk


----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 2:11 PM
Subject: Robert Fisk
My life's work is concerned with demonstrating that a large body of scientific knowledge pre-dated the 'dawn of history' (circa 4000BC).
Please read Chapter 2 of my book which is online at 
I have upset the assyriological establishment just a little, not because I can show that I'm right but because the name 'Atlantis' occurs in the title of my work.
They are, however, using that as an excuse to ignore the actual content.
 It's a bit like claiming that the 'Protocols' is a forgery in order to avoid discussion of the contents.
As for Fisk - why doesn't he make the same noises when he sees a Bible for sale?
Unlike the 'Protocols' the entire Old Testament is a proven forgery created by some Babylonian Jew by the name of Ezra.
Please feel free to comment on matters raised above.
Peter Wakefield Sault

NB: I have people writing to me now thinking that it is my work and research that leads to this conclusion and I am having to put them right and refer them to Peter Myers' webpage


on the subject that provides further details, for example he precises Richard Elliot Friedman Who Wrote The Bible, pub. Jonathan Cape 1988, which summarizes the work done on the subject by scholars since 1711. I do not have a copy of this book. It is available through Amazon at



There is another book on the same subject, some of which can be read at


----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 2:45 AM
Subject: Re: Robert Fisk's personal blind spot and the alleged forged Protocols

Dear Peter Wakefield:

  Since the NT is my speciality, I am very careful to wade into Old Testament issues of documentary provenance and Hebraic linguistic debates, but my two years of Classical Hebrew [1961-3] in graduate school and associated studies enable me to have a modicum of critical evaluation skills.

 Question: What is your material evidence that “the entire Old Testament is a proven forgery created by some Babylonian Jew by the name of Ezra”?

  Now, Ezra and Nehemiah have some passages that are in Aramaic [the parent to Hebrew which is a NW Semitic dialect]; Daniel 2:4b-7:28 is in Aramaic.  I do not believe that any expert scholar has a convincing explanation as to why both are used.   Ezra and Nehemiah do raise difficult problems about ethical issues of intermarriage and mandated divorce for purity reasons.
   But, in terms of linguistic matters and provenance of the documentary evidence, the scholar is shut up to a rather limited corpus of manuscripts dating back to around 800 AD or so, the Massoretic Text, unless we include the Dead Sea Scrolls—a field of study that continues to be in its early stages of development.  Unless one possesses some of the linguistic skills of a William Foxwell Albright [John Hopkins], one must be rather restrained in making dogmatic declarations about authorial sources.   Also, one must be careful to distinguish Talmudic statements about Ezra and Nehemiah and Daniel [all placed in the Fifth Century BC normally] from the narrowly sectarian purposes of the Talmudic rabbinate with their distortions and legalistic bent of mind.

  For the present, I reiterate my QUESTION above since I have a serious interest in the material evidence that “EZRA” composed the Pentateuch and the Historical Books and am open to your argument.

Robert H. Countess, Ph.D.
Ancient Greek
28755 Sagewood Circle
Toney, AL 35773  USA
Phone: (256) 232-4940  Cell: (256) 653-7598
Fax:  (256) 232-4940

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 3:44 AM
Subject: Re: Robert Fisk's personal blind spot and the alleged forged Protocols


Dear Dr Countess
Thankyou for your comments, which are well-taken.
I have rather naively made that judgment based upon the extracts from 'Who Wrote The Bible' by Richard Elliot Friedman available on Peter Myers' website at
My purpose was to present a contrast to the claim that the 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' is a forgery.
That the Old Testament starts off with a set of contrived falsities, not to say bare-faced lies, is plain to see for anyone who is not suckered by the absurd tales contained therein. I'm sorry if you credit tales of talking burning bushes but I myself can only assume that the character Moses, if he even ever existed, was either a liar or a psychotic (or both). The whole sorry saga proceeds with various tales of genocidal mania on the part of the Hebrews.
In my opinion for anyone to take this stuff literally, let alone to base their lives upon it, is a sign of grotesque mental weakness and aberration. Not only do I personally not need any laws, be their origin divine or human, to behave in a decent manner towards all living beings but these laws are akin to gun control - they are obeyed only by the intrinsically decent person anyway. And my observations of both historical and contemporary events lead me to conclude that the followers of this trash are the most maniacal, bloodthirsty lot one could ever hope not to meet, George W. Bush being the perfect example of a man whose extreme delusional behaviour based upon this material has led to the deaths of at least tens of thousands of innocent people - people who would still be alive and well under the 'evil' Saddam Hussein's rule.
Kind Regards
Peter Sault                                            

Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute