Anti-Semitic Bible Study

Posted By on February 1, 2013

I often get asked about the “true pronunciation of the divine name” or “the authentic meaning of YHWH, the Tetragrammaton.” I’ve often wondered why people care — why is it that they can’t be content with the scholarly convention of “Yahweh” in this regard, especially if they aren’t scholars, the people who typically argue about such things. I got at least one answer to this question this week as a guest on an internet podcast, and it turned my stomach. I’d normally reserve a post like this for my other blog, PaleoBabble, but since this story involves explaining the Tetragrammaton, I’m posting it here. Please bear with me; I know this is unfamiliar fodder for this blog.

Anti-Semitic Conspiracy as a Hermeneutic

I was guest this week on a blog talk radio show called “Search Engine International.” It’s apparently out of the UK. The hosts were two men who referred to themselves as “Elder Rawchaa” and “Brother Gaja”. The show is ostensibly some sort of Christian broadcast, but these two are committed to anti-Semitic thinking. I know this is going to sound crazy, but I was basically on the show so they could teach me the great truth that the name “Yahweh” had been inserted into the Old Testament by some sort of ancient demonic conspiracy, and that this name actually pointed to Baal. Consequently, Yahweh is a false god, and so the Jews are worshipping an evil entity and, presumably, are therefore evil. The “real” name of God was “Ahyah” (this pronunciation tells you they couldn’t read the biblical Hebrew text, but bear with me). I know some of you will think this is just Gnosticism, but it’s more complicated (or dumber) than that. The hosts danced around their nutty idea for about 40 minutes of the hour interview (that alone tells you something — why try to be coy if what you think is legitimate?), but as soon as Elder Rawchaa quoted from a book by Henry Makow, I knew where they were headed. Henry Makow is the force behind a website that promotes the “truth” of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic propaganda hoax that promotes the idea of a Jewish plan for global control. Wikipedia is worth a quick reference here for those to whom The Protocols is new: “It was first published in Russia in 1903, translated into multiple languages, and disseminated internationally in the early part of the 20th century. Henry Ford funded printing of 500,000 copies that were distributed throughout the US in the 1920s.”

I nearly ended the interview by signing off with a “Heil Hitler,” but only refrained from doing so because it was recorded — no telling what people whose minds are so poisoned might do with that. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a well-known, demonstrable hoax. My hosts of course denied this.  As David Redles notes in his scholarly work, Hitler’s Millennial Reich: Apocalyptic Belief and the Search for Salvation (NYU Press, 2005):

“The Protocols is, of course, a hoax. But it was, and for some anti-Semites, still is, a believed hoax. The forgery, a concoction of the Czarist secret police, the Okhrana, combined an obscure nineteenth century anti-Napoleon III satire, Maurice Joly’s Dialogue aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu (1864), with The Rabbi’s Speech, a portion of a novel by Hermann Goedsche titled Biarritz (1868). The Rabbi’s Speech is a millennial, with references to the imminent coming of the Jewish messianic age that will see the House of David assume leadership of the world in fulfillment of the covenant of Jehovah. The covenant is realized by Jews through manipulation of the evils of modernity,  including capitalism, which is portrayed as centralizing wealth and power in the hands of the Jews, and both democracy and socialism . . . The Protocols became a key element in Hitler’s conspiratorial thinking, for it was used to explain the apocalyptic chaos (of the Weimar Republic — MSH). The international Jewish bankers, he argued, had created the hyperinflation that had forced Germans into epidemic hunger, making them pliant in the face of a Jewish -Bolshevik type revolution and thereby taking another step toward the creation of the Jewish millennial paradise of world domination. Hitler’s conspiratorial mentality, and its peculiar logic, is also seen in his reaction to the disclosure that The Protocols were a fake. He charged that, since the press was controlled by the Jews (part of the plan revealed in The Protocols), the accusations of forgery by the press only proved that The Protocols were true” (pp. 55, 58).1

Hitler of course talks about The Protocols in Mein Kampf.  A detailed scholarly analysis of The Protocols was published by Hadassa Ben-Itto, a lawyer and judge in Israel for over thirty years. Her work is called The Lie that Wouldn’t Die: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Vallentine-Mitchell, 2005). I would also recommend The Paranoid Apocalypse: A Hundred-Year Retrospective on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (ed. Richard Landes and Steven T. Katz, NYU Press 2012). This book is a collection of scholarly essays on The Protocols  and the subsequent academic focus on the hoax. It’s a wonderful academic investigation into Jewish conspiracy thinking. For those who follow my fiction, one of the essays (by Michael Barkun) will be of special interest: “Anti-Semitism from Outer Space: The Protocols in UFO Subculture.” How about that?

The Meaning of the Tetragrammaton for Conspiratorial Anti-Semites

So how did my hosts defend the idea that the name “Yahweh” was forged into the Hebrew Bible as a (believe it or not) demonic/Jewish conspiracy? I’ll trace how my hosts argued their point, but understand up front that it’s a journey to non sequitur land.

1. Their first point was the the real name of God was “Ahyah.” This of course is taken from Exo 3:12, 14, but it’s a mis-transliteration of the Hebrew (= ‘ehyeh = אֶהְיֶה). Since this is the way God pronounced his own name, nothing else is God’s name. The Tetragrammaton (YHWH; יהוה) cannot, therefore, be God’s name. The YHWH word was forged into the Hebrew Bible. I went through the fact that ‘ehyeh (אֶהְיֶה) was simply the grammatical first person of the verbal root h-y-h (hayah; in ancient Semitic also h-w-h since y/w are often interchanged) and that yahweh would be the third person form. It would be expected that when God refers to himself he would use the first person (don’t we?) and when others referred to God’s name using the h-y/w-h root it would be in the third person. This didn’t phase them. They asked me what “translation” I was using to get all this, and I told them it wasn’t a translation and that it was Hebrew grammar — I was using the Hebrew text, known as the Masoretic text. Their response was “ahhhh [play creepy music here] the Masoretic text …”).

2. At this point Elder Rawchaa read a passage from Makow’s book, which, among other things, asserted that the YHWH had been inserted (yes, thousands of times) into the Old Testament by the Pharisees (whom Elder Rawchaa apparently confused with the Masoretes in his comment above about the Masoretic text). This forgery operation was part of a conspiracy (I’m still fuzzy on which motive they preferred) to change God’s name and thus make it lost to history or to honor a demonic god, Baal (who of course was who they worshipped — after all the Jewish Masoretes were enemies of Jesus).

3. After this “teaching point,” Elder Rawchaa proceeded to read me a few more quotations from occult sources (other members of the Jewish global conspiracy – the Illuminati, the Freemasons, Rothschilds, etc.) where the Tetragrammaton was used in occult formulae in connection with Baal and other gods.

4. Elder Rawchaa also referred me to Exod 6:3, where the text says (in most, perhaps all, English translations that the patriarchs did not know God by the name Yahweh, but as El-Shaddai. He also produced several passages like Hos 2:16 (“And in that day, declares the Lord, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal’) to further make his point that the Tetragrammaton was a name for Baal and thus evil.

Everything clear?

Well, let’s think about this just a bit, point by point.

Points 1, 2

In response to the issues of ‘ehyeh (“I am”) versus the form yhwh / yahweh, I’ve written up an explanation of the forms of the word and how they relate on a permanently posted page on this site. You can click through for that. That page contains a link to 17 pages of excerpted portions of three resources for much more technical discussion. I won’t backtrack on the morphology here. Instead, I want to focus on the response of Elder Rawchaa (“ahhhh the Masoretic text …”) and the logical flaws of his view.

First, the Pharisees are not the Masoretes of the Masoretic Text tradition. The Pharisees and scribes of the NT were around before the Masoretic Text was produced (ca. 100 AD). Consequently, the Pharisees did not insert the Tetragrammaton into the Hebrew Bible (HB). The HB was around long before the Pharisees. How do we know? The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). Several of the scrolls include the Tetragrammaton (in paleo-Hebrew or Phoenician-style script, no less), so unless one wants to ignore things like space and time, you’t not getting a Pharisee-led divine name insertion campaign. (But who knows; I’ve learned with these sorts of “thinkers” to expect the unexpected, no matter how bizarre). I managed to point this out to the Elder. That led a bit later on to “other people” committing the forgery — but no surrender of his original point. Other people … like the Moabites? (Yahweh appears in the Moabite Stela / Mesha Stela; 9th century BC) as the god of Israel). The Kuntillet Ajurdu inscriptions? The Khirbet el-Qom inscriptions? (Both from the 8th century BC). I’m guessing the Elder would say these are paganized (or heterodox) inscriptions and so they must support his position. He’d be correct with respect to the former, but not the latter. The point is that the name, associated with Israel, predates the Pharisees. That the divine name is found in texts outside the HB does not mean the HB got it as an import from other cultures. That is a non sequitur. Why couldn’t it be the other way around — that the non-biblical texts were written by people *about* Israel and its national deity? Answer: it could and was, since the name of Israel’s god is known from even older sources. But the thinking is flawed even without this. Saying there was “importation” in this one direction is like saying the name “Baal” in Canaanite texts was imported into them by Phoenicians since Baal shows up in those texts as well. You have to assume omniscience (against much more reasonable answers) to think like this. Or, you create an idea that reinforces your anti-Semitic position and proceed therefrom.

The divine name appears in Egyptian texts as well. As the ABD article on “Yahweh” notes:

To move outside of the Levant, we find Egyptian name lists which include a Syrian site, Ya-h-wa (No. 97), which is identical to Yahweh. A Rameses II (1304–1237 b.c.) list is found in a Nubian temple in ˓Amarah West with six names (Nos. 93–98) following the designation “Bedouin area.” Nos. 96–98 have been found at Soleb in Nubia on an Amon temple of Amenhotep III (1417–1379). No. 93, Sa-˓ra-r, has been identified with Seir (Edom) and related to the biblical references (Deut 33:2) which associate Yahweh with Seir and Paran. This could be taken as evidence the name was known in Edom or Midianite territory ca. 1400 b.c. (EncRel 7: 483–84).

However, Astour (IDBSup, 971) notes that the writing “S-r-r” is incorrect as opposed to the spelling in other Egyptian inscriptions. Furthermore, three of the sites, including Yi-ha, on Rameses III’s temple in Medinet Habu, are in a Syrian context suggesting that Ya-h-wa/Yi-ha was also in Syria. Thus the name is not associated with Edom or Midianites but does seem to appear as early as 1400 b.c. in Syria.2

So, now we’re back to 1400 BC – and other scholars would associate the term in these texts with Edom and Moab. Hess notes:

Some scholars see here the origins of the worship of Yahweh in the southern desert of what are today the regions of the Sinai and the Negev. In the topographical list of Pharaoh Amenophis III (c. 1395–1358 BC) is found the expression t3 š3sw yhw, which can be interpreted, “the Shosu-land of Yahweh” or “Yhw in the land of the Shasu.” Shosu/Shasu was an Egyptian term for groups of nomadic peoples who were located in the desert areas east of Egypt. If this is to be interpreted as the name of a place or people in the area of Seir (Edom) and the southern desert, rather than to the north, then the biblical theophanies mentioned above, the associations in Exodus of Yahweh worship with Midianites and with Sinai, and the revelation of Yahweh in Exodus 3 and 6 may be related. This does not necessarily relate the Egyptian term to Israelites (although that is possible). It simply argues that Yahweh was known and worshiped in the deserts south of Canaan in the fourteenth century BC. However, there are those who question the identification of this place name with Yahweh.52 Even so, Smith is correct in affirming the early identification of Yahweh with sources in the southern desert (Judg. 1:16; 4:11; 5:4–6, 24). He suggests that the desert origins parallel those of the Ugaritic god Athtar (rather than Baal), who is both a warrior deity and a precipitation-producing deity associated with inland desert sites. He notes that Numbers 23:8, 22 and 24:8 associate the god of the exodus with El, and argues that El should be distinguished from Yahweh.533

So, for the sake of Elder Rawchaa and this conversation, the case can indeed be made the divine name goes all the way back to the biblical Mosaic period. What a surprise. But that’s only a segue to Point 4 below.

Point 3

This one hardly needs comment. That occultist literature uses names of pagan deities and demons in the same sentences, formulae, incantations, etc. with Yahweh does not mean that either the occult writer saw them as all the same, or (!) the biblical writer who lived millennia earlier saw them the same. What a writer living between the Renaissance and the contemporary era thought cannot be used to produce the same thought in the mind of a second or first millennium BC writer. You’d think that would be obvious …. you’d think a lot of other things, here, I know.

Point 4

Elder Rawchaa’s use of Exod 6:3 is unique. However, it is related to a much more common notion, that Exod 6:3 tells us the patriarchs didn’t know their god by the name Yahweh. I’ll give two approaches that undermine the Elder’s use of this to separate Israel from the name Yahweh – one that disputes this understanding of Exod 6:3 and one that presumes it.

With respect to the former, I’ve pointed out elsewhere on this blog (in footnotes, granted) that the consensus translation (” I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the Lord I did not make myself known to them”) is only one syntactical possibility. Another much less familiar option was pointed out by Francis Andersen years ago in his book, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. On syntactical grounds, Andersen argues for a translation that is basically opposite in its meaning to the accepted view:  “I am the Lord (YHWH).  I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai. And my name is the Lord (YHWH); did I not make myself known to them?” The verse in this translation expresses a rhetorical question. At the very least, Andersen’s seminal work on sentence structure and its implications for this crucial text should be part of the conversation.

With respect to the latter, I would draw readers’ attention to Hess’ quotation cited above. This portion is relevant:

“Some scholars see here the origins of the worship of Yahweh in the southern desert of what are today the regions of the Sinai and the Negev. In the topographical list of Pharaoh Amenophis III (c. 1395–1358 BC) is found the expression t3 š3sw yhw, which can be interpreted, “the Shosu-land of Yahweh” or “Yhw in the land of the Shasu.” Shosu/Shasu was an Egyptian term for groups of nomadic peoples who were located in the desert areas east of Egypt. If this is to be interpreted as the name of a place or people in the area of Seir (Edom) and the southern desert, rather than to the north, then the biblical theophanies mentioned above, the associations in Exodus of Yahweh worship with Midianites and with Sinai, and the revelation of Yahweh in Exodus 3 and 6 may be related.”

The implication of Hess’ comment is that the patriarchs didn’t know their god by the name Yahweh, but by other names. Yahweh was the name used in Midian – precisely where Exodus 3 has Moses for the burning bush experience when he reveals the divine name. Elder Rawchaa wants to restrict that name to “Ahyah” but the archaeological material (not to mention the biblical material) inform us that “Yahweh” wouldn’t have need forging or importing – it was the name by which the god of the mountain was know, even before we had a Hebrew Bible. This difference between the two (‘ehyeh and yahweh) is only morphological (once again, see my page on this for an explanation).

With respect to Hos 2:16 (“And in that day, declares the Lord, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal’) I’d suggest that the verse does not at all say that “the name Yahweh wasn’t original to the Hebrew Bible.” Rather, it … well … says what it says – that the *8th century BC* Israelites to whom Hosea was writing were committing evil by calling Yahweh Baal (co-identifying the two). Here’s the logic teaching moment: that some Israelites did this does not mean (a) that all Israelites did it, or (b) that Israelites before the 8th century all the way back to the patriarchal era did it.

I’m not sure how Elder Rawchaa would handle the fact that Hosea was Jewish, either.

Lastly, to mop up, there are some other logical disconnections related to the Elder’s viewpoint.

(1) Elder Rawchaa never explained why the Old Testament’s “non-Ahyah” El-names in the Bible were okay and not demonic names. I’m guessing they’re demonic, too, but that’s only a guess.

(2) Going back one last time to the “aaahhh … the Masoretic Text” response of suspicion, Elder Rawchaa never explained how the Masoretic Text outside Exodus 3 (for his Yahweh-Baal links) was a perfectly fine text when it reinforced his idea (or so he thought) but not when I used it for rebuttal.

Well, I know this was long, but I thought it worth blogging. I’m still asking what lessons I should take away from this interview (other than to quit doing interviews; still considering that). One thing that isn’t really a lesson, but which hit home again to me, was how easily these two guys could have destroyed the average church-goer today. If folks like them can devote the amount of time and industry to anti-Semitic Bible study that they obviously have, what does that say for the people occupying the pews now? Kind of disturbing.


  1. Incidentally, Redles’ work is the *best* book I’ve ever read for understanding Hitler’s worldview. It really ought not be any mystery as to what motivated him or his inner circle with respect to the holocaust — and his thinking was molded and set in place before he came to power. I can’t recommend this book more highly for those interested in understanding the mind of Hitler.
  2. Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6:1012, 1992.
  3. Richard S. Hess, Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. The footnotes within the quotation are those of Hess and are as follows. 49 – See Savran, Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narratives. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 420. New York: T&T Clark, 200; 50 – The southern origin is supported by Görg (1976); Mettinger (1988, 24–28); Axelsson (1987, 58–61). For the northern view, see Astour (1979); de Moor (1990b, 111–12); 51 – Van der Toorn (1993) traces Yahweh’s origins outside Canaan to Edom and Midian. Following Axelsson, he argues that the earliest biblical texts demonstrate that, despite southern desert origins, Yahweh first appeared in the hill country of Israel rather than Judah. Van der Toorn follows Edelman and Blenkinsopp in arguing that the Gibeonites were originally Edomites. He concludes that the Gibeonites introduced Yahweh to Israel through Saul. This last point is least convincing although the Gibeonites may have known of Yahweh before Israel’s appearance. Additional attempts have been made to locate the divine name Yahweh in a Ugaritic myth (spelled as yw), in a personal name from a fourteenth-century BC (Amarna) text from Tyre, or in the personal name of a contemporary text from far to the north of Palestine (de Moor 1990b; 1997). Due to the fragmentary nature of all these texts and the possibility of other interpretations, none can be regarded as certain or even probable. Cf. Hess (1991a). Even the Egyptian geographic name discussed above cannot be asserted without doubt as containing the name of God; 52 – M. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, 276; and 53 – Ibid., 145–47.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

About The Author


48 Responses to “Anti-Semitic Bible Study”

  1. Patrick says:

    As odious as their logic is, I think tons of other believers do the same basic thing with the text. I have before in a less willful manner by using specific texts outside their contexts to support my pre conceived notions. That was done in sincere textual stupidity.

    Regarding some of the evidence relating to potential early use of the name “Yahweh” in other languages in the southern desert area, does this indicate Gentile worship or at least knowledge of Yahweh before Abraham or would they be deemed around the same era ?

    • MSH says:

      to this point nothing extra-biblical in regard to the name Yahweh goes back into the patriarchal era, only ca. 1400 (which dovetails with the biblical storyline of the name being revealed in connection with the exodus event). “El knowledge” is much older and widespread (and the OT of course connects the two).

  2. haibane13 says:

    Listened to the interview and there is a lot of good input by Dr Heiser , it’s not a complete waste time .

  3. seren says:

    Please don’t quit doing interviews. It’s an important part of your ministry.
    Once I heard you describe in an interview how you settled on your thesis. You said at first you didn’t want to deal with the Divine Council idea. But then, you were convicted by the thought that you had chosen the most difficult and antagonistic academic programs at God’s prompting.
    You’re still going down the most difficult and antagonistic paths. Why have you been a guest on Coast to Coast more than twenty times? I’m constantly amazed at how patient you are with even the most extreme questions you field on those shows.
    This latest interview probably didn’t change the minds of your interviewers or their listeners (if they have any, let’s hope not), but it prompted you to write this blog post. It showed you again how much dangerous thinking is out there, even sometimes in the pews.
    If you weren’t out there confronting it, I don’t know who else would be.

    • MSH says:

      you’re probably right; maybe I’ve just been reading too much Nazi occult ideology (prep for my fiction sequel) and that raised the irritation level.

  4. John says:

    No comeback for the Dead Sea scroll references to the tetragamaton by the hosts, case closed. Dr, I do have a question, if you could only read one commentary on the Torah, which would you choose. Can’t wait for the Facade 2!

    • MSH says:

      which book of the Torah? thanks.

      • John says:

        Any commentary that stands out the most as one you really learned alot from on any of the 5 books. Thanks

        • MSH says:

          It depends on whether you know Hebrew or not. And I’ll just assume you’re after something that engages the text.

          Generally, I’ve commented on commentaries in a couple of posts. Here’s one:

          If you don’t know Hebrew, I think Ross’ commentaries on Genesis and Leviticus are good ones:

          Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis
          Holiness to the Lord: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus

          Any of the volumes in the Jewish Publication Society Torah commentary are recommended. Fairly detailed, but not overwhelmingly so, and Hebrew is in transliteration. They are aimed at a non-specialist Jewish audience. Lots of good appendices. I’ve used all of them and read the majority of the content in all of them.

          JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis by Dr. Nahum M. Sarna
          The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus by Nahum M. Sarna
          The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus by Baruch A. Levine
          The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers by Jacob Milgrom
          The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy by Jeffrey H. Tigay

  5. terry the censor says:

    Nice post! It’s rare for experts to engage kooks in such detail.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Sounds akin to black Hebrew Israelites nonsense, the weird names and the anti Jewish sentiments, makes me wonder if the wore headbands and funky wastecoats, maybe not the BHI wouldnt let a white devil on their show i guess. Conspiracy theories are powerful. Why is that ?

  7. Richard Brown says:

    Mike, this: “….easily these two guys could have destroyed the average church-goer today” is a great reason why I would want you to continue to do the occasional interview and do secular conferences.
    As I was reading the post, I was thinking… “the sad thing is, 95% of western christians would not know why this is even important…”. after all, everybody knows that “God is one, the God of all, and we are all brothers” …. right? !!! yikes

    because I don’t have another place here to say this, I highly recommend your/Logos Bible App for Android!! I’ve been ‘pushing’ it to all my android and iphone-toting friends and family. terrific app, and I’m growing fond of the LEB.

    as more pressure comes on the church in the USA, things like “which God” will find new importance – people don’t take their faith too seriously until the heat is applied

  8. Malkiyahu says:

    “so unless one wants to ignore things like space and time…” lol perfect! I agree with the other comments: you should keep doing interviews. We need more intelligent, knowledgeable people invading the insular bunkers of kookdom, launching knowledge-missiles and dropping logic-bombs.

    • MSH says:

      I loved the work “kookdom” here; I’ll have to steal that at some point!

    • James says:

      If you think this dude is knowledgable you are in trouble. YHWH is the same as Jehova. This is the God of calamity, mischief, ect. This is known history, do some research. This so called biblical scholar is leading yall in the wrong direction.

      • MSH says:

        awesome how all the Protocols acolytes are replying. Join the anti-Semite record here. I don’t mind taking your names (at least some of you aren’t anonymous).

      • Malkiyahu says:

        I can tell by your comment that I have done way more research than you, and I would be glad to prove it to you if you have the requisite organs, James. But I don’t think you do. I don’t think you are able to back up your beliefs. Come on over to my blog and spread your “knowledge.” Just be aware that the facts will rip your arguments to shreds.

        Dr. Heiser backs up everything he says. All these ignorant comments are backed up by hot air and brainwashing.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Just listened to the interview…its unfortunate and painful to listen to a man who is unteachable due to deception. My above comment was a joke but i googled the name out of curiosity and what do you know. Kudos for sticking it out and walking away at the right time. Dont you just love people who want word for word proof texts for every theological thought. I know your not keen on creeds but you have to admit Westminster got it right with: “good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture”

    but i doubt logic would have held any sway either.

    • MSH says:

      yeah; I hear you.

      • Fred Sims says:

        “Well, I know this was long, but I thought it worth blogging. I’m still asking what lessons I should take away from this interview (other than to quit doing interviews; still considering that).”

        I am glad you are considering not doing interviews becuase, you sir are a liar.

        • MSH says:

          I’m letting comments like this through so that there’s a record of the anti-Semitic hate (not to mention the incoherence).

  10. Anonymous says:

    I saw the show i’m afraid this jewish guy is lieing again what a surprise…

    • MSH says:

      it’s “lying” but the comment is otherwise incoherent – I’m not Jewish and of course neither were they. You can tell your handlers now that you replied.

  11. James says:

    I have to say for a biblical scholar, you seemed unlearned in the interview. I listened to the interview and didnt hear anything anti semetic at all. The GOCC church seemed very learned in Hebrew history. You were not disrespected once. The lesson was strictly on the name of the Hebrew god. Nothing anti semetic at all. Nothing was even mentioned about Jewish people at all. You are misleading the people on this blog when in actuality you brought nothing but confusion the whole interview. I would sugests people should listen to the interview themselves before passing judgement because Sheiser is not telling the truth.

    • MSH says:

      First, if you can’t identify my last name correctly, you’re no one to comment on the material. Henry Makow (Google him – please do some homework) is the force behind one of the web’s most apologetic sites for the Protocols. That the hosts were trying to veil this is their own issue. I exposed it because I’ve actually done the reading on the Protocols. The GOCC is anything but learned — except in anti-jewish conspiracy theory.

  12. James says:

    why do Jews such as Sheiser cry anti semetic with known history is being produced? Why cant people disagree with Jewsih behavior without being called a anti semite.

    Im sorry but this picture is worth a thousand words and is very disturbing.

    • MSH says:

      Let’s learn my last name and learn how to spell. The issue wasn’t Jewish “behavior” so you can quit hiding behind that. Because of your comments (and others’) and the broadcast, more people will know who Henry Makow is and will learn about his conspiratorial spew, and then see it for what it is. Thanks!

  13. Sadie says:

    “I often get asked about the “true pronunciation of the divine name” or “the authentic meaning of YHWH, the Tetragrammaton.” I’ve often wondered why people care — why is it that they can’t be content with the scholarly convention of “Yahweh” in this regard, especially if they aren’t scholars, the people who typically argue about such things.” You should have only posted this statement for your blog. The rest of what you said was total and complete nosense. If you knew all that info you should have stated these conclusion during the interview instead you ran off in a huff. Back to the above statement. The fact that you would even wonder why the “true prounciation of the divine name “would matter to a believer shows you don’t believe in the True God of the bible. And to follow that up with why cant they just be content with what the scholars say proves your motives for the belief in the name YHWH which is deception. Believe what someone tells you and dont ask questions. Sad.

    • MSH says:

      I had two hours and gave them 2:15. I actually have a job that I had to return to. So much for your powers of investigation. I’m not hard to learn about on the web. The divine name stuff is sophistry and a disguise for Jew-hating and Jew-baiting. Own it.

  14. Jerome says:

    Why dont you post all comments not just the ones who are backing you to me this is total madness.

  15. TruthPLZ says:

    I just listened to the whole sho…They didn’t say anything ‘anti-Semitic’, are you kidding me?

    Michael Heiser, you are the who brought up the ‘elders of Zion’!! WEAK

  16. kennethos says:


    Listen to about half an hour of it so far…excellent work!
    It’s also fairly entertaining to read all the “trolls” coming here, thinking they can easily debunk your work, based solely on what they “feel” is true.
    Thanks for putting up with it all.

  17. Chris says:

    I see this nonsense from time to time, especially when discussing eschatology. The adherents are typically so full of logical fallacies (logic may or may not be a Jewish conspiracy) it’s exasperating.

  18. jeff says:

    Sir, would you please explain the entry in Funk and Wagnall 1904 publication, volume 8, page 653 of the “Jewish Encyclopedia” regarding molech, yahu/jehova/yahwey etc. As it claims itself that this deity is anti christ and the advesary specifically “satan” whom human sacrifice was made. I did not write the jewish encyclopedia, jewish people did. So please do not refer to me as anti semitic for knowing. If you do you will certainly discredit yourself in the minds of all of your readers. Let us stay on topic. Explanation please. Thank you in advance. Jeff

    • MSH says:

      maybe if I had the entry I’d read it. Frankly, something written in 1904 on these subjects isn’t worth reading – it’s a source written prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Ugaritic tablets, and a host of other materials relevant to comparative semitic morphology and semantics.

    • terry the censor says:


      It does not impress to cite out-of-date scholarship that has been negated by new data discoveries and more rigorous analyses. Refusing to engage modern scholarship is the mark of cranks such as ancient astronaut proponents, the Aetherian Society, Scientology, flood “geologists,” and Stanton Friedman (just ask him if the HIPPARCHOS star chart data supports the Hill-Fish map identification of Zeta Reticuli — and he will fall silent because the answer is a big fat “no”).

      Reading a variety of expert opinions tends to have a moderating effect on undue feelings of certainty. Give it a try.

  19. Jeff Turner says:

    The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, page 653, published in 1904, “The fact, therefore, now generally accepted by critical scholars, is that in the last days of the kingdom, human sacrifices were offered to Yhwh (Yahu, or Jehovah), as King of Counsellor of the Nation, and that the Prophets disapproved of it.”

    Yahu also is interchangeable with Satan, who is thought to have been a minor god of the Jews, and an instrument of Baal.”

    His ultimate development is as the arch-enemy of the Messiah: the Anti-Christ.

    • MSH says:

      So, the prophets of Yahweh disapproved of perverted worship of Yahweh? No kidding. I think that’s what led to the exile in the biblical story (Yahweh didn’t like it either – and so how is that bad?).

  20. Jeff Turner says:

    That is from wikipedia

    • MSH says:

      We all know the quality of Wikipedia research. Hard to believe you’d admit that’s where you got your material.

      Readers should know I deleted your pasting of Wikipedia on my blog. Wikipedia is for Wikipedia. My blog isn’t the place to re-post its content, which is frequently poor (still). I know that for a fact since I’m not allowed to edit my own Wikipedia page, which I did not write (and still don’t know who did). Sorry, Wikipedia, but I really am an authority on what I think and don’t think. Duh.

  21. Jeff Turner says:

    Ancient hebrew learning center.

Leave a Reply

Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.