„I am opposed to Judaism on purely theological grounds”

Tak jak obiecałem – oto fragment (autoryzowanego tym razem) wywiadu przeprowadzonego przez Herszela Szanksa (HS) z Johnem Strugnellem (JS) a opublikowanego przez Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR), July/August 1994:

JS: At the very beginning of the interview [with Israeli journalist Avi Katzman] I said, I do not want my critical statements to be viewed as anti-Semitic. They’re not. Mr. Katzman straight away went and interpreted them and discussed them as anti-Semitic. I suspected behind Mr. Katzman a worry whether Christian scholarship could deal impartially with the nature of the scrolls, being documents of a Jewish sect. I wanted to say, “Nonsense, there’s no difficulty here. It is in the nature of exegesis to be able to understand impartially documents from groups other than your own.” Actually, Jewish scholars would be even more disqualified to work without bias on the scrolls than Christian scholars. It wasn’t the Christians who were the principal enemies of the Dead Sea Scroll sect. It was the ancestors of Phariseeism. I’m amused when I hear people like [Lawrence] Schiffman [of New York University] saying how sad it is that Jewish scholars have not been working on these texts. In a sense, Jewish scholars would be the ones most likely to express an exegesis that is hostile to the thought of the Qumran sect, more so than Christian scholarship. [The essential thing is that oneshould be aware of one’s own biases, whether Jew or Christian.

HS: But it is true that as a result of that interview, you have been branded an anti-Semite. You said things in that interview, like calling Judaism “a horrible religion” …

JS: Yes.

HS: … like saying that the answer to the Jewish problem is mass conversion to Christianity, like saying that Christianity should have been able to convert the Jews, like saying that Judaism was originally racist. Those things have been interpreted, and understandably so, I think, to characterize you as an anti-Semite. After that was published, about 70 of your former students signed a letter in your support, which we printed in BAR [BAR 17:02], and they were careful to distance themselves from what you said. I believe they characterized what you said as the result of your …

JS: Wasn’t it sickness or something?

HS: Yes, but they made it clear that they didn’t agree with what you said.

JS: Yes, they explained it as sickness.

HS: Is that your explanation, too? Just a moment ago, I didn’t think you were explaining it on the ground of sickness.

JS: Now we’re getting dangerously near the point where I stop answering these things. I’m willing to discuss what I might have been thinking of, but I am not willing to discuss the framework in which I’m thinking of these matters. I agree that these [words] caused great troubles for me. They’ve since pained a lot of my friends and alienated them from me, and this has grieved me greatly. All that is true. But I’m not willing simply to abandon my views, even to the point of just saying all right, I was wrong, what should I substitute for it. [That’s not how we deal with a religious dilemma.]

HS: You characterized yourself in that interview as an anti-Judaist. Do you stick by that?

JS: It is a tricky word. What is an anti-Judaist? Is he a person opposed to Jews, or is he a person opposed to Judaism? I am opposed to Judaism [on purely theological grounds].

HS: Why?

JS: Obviously that is asking me to get into the whole matter of the traditional Christian teaching, and that’s where I took my stand.

HS: And that’s where you stand today, too?

JS: That’s where I basically am today. You know, the Catholic Church is changing. They’re teetering between changing and not changing. But basically I take my stand on the stance of the New Testament on this question.

HS: Which is?

JS: At various places in the New Testament you get varying positions about the total conversion [or future] of all the Jews. A lot of people talk about how my position is supersessionist. I have a much more positive viewpoint. I’m looking for a largeness in Christology, I’m looking for making higher claims for Christ [and the consequences of these for the Jews].

HS: What are those higher claims?

JS: [They vary.] You can look at them in Matthew. You can look in Mark. You can look in Luke. You can look in the beginning of John, especially in the beginning of John. You can find them in Paul, you can find them in some of the earliest pre-Pauline fragments, talking about how every knee should bend and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, and so on. Wherever I look, I find a higher Christology. This becomes for me canonical, the canon of what I should believe. But these are things that I really don’t want to discuss. I’ve gone further than I had intended to, but I wanted to show you that my intention is to find positive and larger, higher Christology. You know, it’s funny that a person is under so much attack for his Christology. I understand that letter [from 70 of my former students], how shall I put it, represented a consensus position. Some of them wanted to say “Never,” some of them wanted to say “Practically never,” [laughs] and some of them …

HS: “Never” and “Practically never” what?

JS: They never heard me take an anti-Semitic position. So it was a consensus letter— everyone could sign, but some with greater enthusiasm than others. Still I appreciate very much their kindness in coming to my aid at a time when I needed it.

I don’t think that at any time when I was editing the scrolls, or especially at any time when I was the chief editor of the scrolls, I don’t think I thought of these matters. I brought in Jewish scholars. I brought them in before I was chief editor. I never used that as a criterion. I didn’t ask them what sort of Judaism they practiced or anything like that. I brought in [Elisha] Qimron, for instance, because he knew middle Hebrew so well. I brought in Devorah Dimant because she seemed to be the most gifted among the younger Israelis in reconstructing a literary document. I brought in Joe Baumgarten. I can’t claim any particular virtue for choosing the Jewish scholars that I brought in, except that I chose them as the most qualified scholars living around Jerusalem or able to come and help in the work. I discover by surprise that I have become also the great Liberator of women in bringing women into the project. Some day someone will put up a statue in my honor in this regard. But there again, I didn’t go out to find women and to bring them into the project. They were the ones who were available and who were showing competence in this field.

HS: But I take it from what you say, you have nothing to retract or apologize for in the Katzman interview.

JS: No, that’s not so, because I say that I would not have said it in that way, I would not have said it that way if I had not been under manic depression, probably also under alcoholism, at least a certain amount of alcoholism, but probably too much. [But for that] I would have walked far more carefully. [I should have kept to the effects of Judaism or Christianity on each editor’s work.] That’s how I’m trying to do in this interview.

HS: What’s coming through to me as I listen to you is that what you’re saying is that you’re really anti-Semitic, or anti-Judaist, as you call it, but if you had not been manic-depressive and if you had not been alcoholic at the time, you might have expressed yourself more sensitively, more delicately, but still your views are anti-Judaist and what the world calls anti- Semitic. You are regarded as an anti-Semite and you’ve never retracted, you have never apologized, you’ve never been very specific as to what you said that you shouldn’t have said and that you don’t believe. On the contrary, you seem to be affirming it right now.

JS: [If you are unwilling to make the distinction I try to make, between opposition to a viewpoint and a group, etc., etc., you disqualify yourself from discussing my views.] If you notice the question that was asked by Mr. Katzman, he was asking a question about the group of Qumran editors. I was trying not to give an answer about what I was thinking, but to give an answer that would liberate the editorial group from the charge of being incompetent, of showing bias in the editing of the scrolls. To find something that [Frank M.] Cross and I and [J.T.] Milik and [Emile] Puech would agree to is an impossibility. So I tried to sail right through. I took refuge behind the traditional position of Christianity.

HS: What is the traditional position of Christianity?

JS: It’s not essentially what people call supersessionism. It is maximalistic Christology. It is claiming the most for the rights of the Messiah, claiming the most rights for Jesus, to put it in a nice simple framework that your Southern Baptist readers will appreciate.

HS: What does being anti-Judaist mean?

JS: It means, probably, being against the religion of Judaism. It’s not being against individual Jews or the Jewish people. The Cardinal Archbishop of Paris is a Jew and he gets on perfectly well with his archdiocese, which is not Jewish.

HS: What you’re saying is you don’t like the religion of Judaism, but you don’t mind Jews?

JS: Yes, yes, that’s one thing. But I’m not really concerned whether I dislike or like the religion of Judaism. I want more things for the religion of Christians. I want the reign of Christ to be more glorious, which it would be certainly by having 20 million more Jews on board.

HS: As Christians?

JS: Yes, yes. That, to me, is a description of the traditional view of the Christians. There have been attempts to interpret modern synodical doctrines [Vatican II] as meaning something very different from this. There are other people who are trying to interpret the synodical statements in a minimalist way.

We are in the early stage of the interpretation of Vatican II. Varying groups are pushing or pulling one way and the other. It’s not yet clear how it’s going to go.

HS: How do you prefer it to go?

JS: Really, I am a humble little editor of Dead Sea Scrolls living in my corner. Not for me these great battles.

HS: In the Katzman interview, you defined anti-Semitic as being against Semites, not against Jews. I think that’s a bit disingenuous. Anti-Semitic really means anti-Jewish. When someone says to you, “Professor Strugnell, are you an anti-Semite?” what is your response?

JS: First of all, I say that I don’t like that word because it’s not precise. If it were to mean against all Semites …

HS: No, it means against all Jews. That’s what it means in the dictionary.

JS: If you want to say, “Are you against Jews?” of course I am not. That is why I say I am an anti-Judaist, but not one who is against individual Jews. [As a matter of fact, the monstrousness of Hitler’s anti-Semitism was the first abomination I became keenly aware of.]

HS: Do you think there is any relationship between being anti-Judaist, that is, being opposed to Judaism as a religion on the one hand, and anti-Semitism?

JS: You see, there clearly have been huge amounts of persecution of Jews, so you have to ask yourself, “Are these persecutions related to the fact that most parts of Europe are also in large measure Christian?” I ask myself, “Is there any relationship?” Yes and no. Take Hitler’s Germany, for instance. The Christians were a principal opposition to Hitler’s Germany. But a lot of so-called Christians got caught up in Hitler’s Germany.

HS: In many people’s minds, the views you hold about the Jewish religion have led to anti- Semitic acts and to anti-Semitism. Do you want to comment on that?

JS: I don’t know anyone who has gone and read my interview in BAR [“Chief Dead Sea Scroll Editor Denounces Judaism, Israel; Claims He’s Seen Four More Scrolls Found by Bedouin,” BAR 17:01] and has then gone out to defile a synagogue just because they read my interview. You can’t say that the interview produced anti-Semitic revulsion and the burning of synagogues and the like.

HS: Is that all you have to say?

JS: [My answer was perhaps flippant, but no answer can be given until you are willing to make the distinction I ask for.] My positive statements about a high Christology have nothing to do with individual Jews whom I may happen to like or dislike.

HS: You are aware, are you not, that you are regarded as an anti-Semite?
JS: Well, I am not regarded as an anti-Semite by those who sat through my lectures. I mean, some of them regard me as a little fuddy-duddy in the form of my Christology.

HS: Would it be fair to say that you’re an intellectual anti-Semite?

JS: [Of course not, if you persist in using the term “anti-Semite,” which I have specifically abjured.] I was wondering, yesterday I think it was, what’s wrong with desiring to convert another group of people to your own religion, [of course without force, ] to your own style of life? In philosophy [and in politics] we do this all the time.

HS: Is this philosophy of yours affected at all by the fact that for the last 1,500 or 2,000 years the views that you have been espousing have resulted in the oppression and even murder of millions of Jews? Does that have any effect on your thinking?

JS: Whew! [sighs]

Does the fact that Judaism has been, as it were, the lower person on the totem pole for the last 1,500 years have any influence on my view? I don’t think so. [In any case, the role played by Christian theology, as compared with other causes, requires precise analyses and distinctions that you are not letting me make.]

HS: Do your Jewish students find offensive the views that you hold?

JS: No. [laughs] You must remember that I hardly ever discuss this in class, so they wouldn’t have had much chance.

HS: How do you think that the [Dead Sea Scrolls editorial] project is being run today?

JS: I really don’t want to criticize it. When I have things to criticize, I talk to [Emanuel] Tov [the new editor-in-chief].


ª The bracketed additions in italics were made by Professor Strugnell when he reviewed the manuscript of this interview.—Ed.


Obawiam się, że profesor Strugnell poniekąd padł także ofiarą Soboru Watykańskiego II…


Cienka czerwona linia… czyli I Brygada, Kielce i Grecy

Cienka czerwona linia to propagandowy mit Imperium Brytyjskiego z 1854. A Szkoci potrafią dbać o tradycję – oto ten ich tak sławny regiment, Argyll_and_Sutherland_Highlanders, niemal 200 lat później wkracza do Katedry Kanterberyjskiej:

My moglibyśmy być niegorsi – mamy przecież najpiękniejszy marsz świata: Marsz Kielecki nr 10, utwór zapisany w śpiewniku orkiestry Kieleckiej Straży Ogniowej pod numerem 10. Prawdopodobnym jego autorem był kpt. Andrzej Brzuchal-Sikorski, który od 1905 roku był kapelmistrzem orkiestry Kieleckiej Straży Ogniowej, a potem, orkiestry I Brygady Legionów Polskich Józefa Piłsudskiego. Był on pierwszym wykonawcą i aranżerem tego utworu[2].

Szkoda tylko, że współczesne polskie jego wykonania są takie nędzne – trzeba lecieć aż na Korfu, gdzie kilka razy (sic!) w roku dochodzi do tak spektakularnych wydarzeń:

Warto przy tym przypomnieć parę istotnych kontekstów:


oraz poezja-czyli-śledź-po-kielecku/.

Niech rozgrzmiewa pieśń zwycięstwa (ros. Гром победы, раздавайся!) – nieoficjalny, pierwszy hymn Imperium Rosyjskiego od 1791 do 1816. Muzyka została opracowana przez polskiego kompozytora Józefa Kozłowskiego, znanego w Rosji jako Osip Antonowicz Kozłowski. Słowa do hymnu napisał rosyjski poeta Gawriła Dzierżawin. Hymn jest polonezem skomponowanym na cześć Imperium Rosyjskiego i zwycięstwa cesarzowej Katarzyny II w wojnie rosyjsko-tureckiej (1787-1792), zdobycia Krymu, Kaukazu, ujścia Dunaju i twierdzy Izmaił:

Zabójczy wywiad

John Strugnell's anti-Semitic comments led to denunciations, but some attributed his remarks to 'mental imbalance.' John Strugnell’s anti-Semitic comments led to denunciations, but some attributed his remarks to „mental imbalance.” (MONIQUE O’CONNELL)


John Strugnell był niewątpliwie kimś nadzwyczajnym – w 1954 miał 24 lata i właśnie kończył magisterkę z orientalistyki w Oksfordzie, kiedy sir Godfrey Rolles Driver, profesor tamże, nominował swojego – nie mającego żadnego doświadczenia – studenta do prac nad Zwojami z Qumran. W efekcie Strugnell, który jako ostatni dołączył do elitarnego zespołu ojca Rolanda de Vaux i jako jedyny był w 100% opłacany przez Fundację Rockefellera, zajmował się tym przez następne 40 lat… z tym, że w listopadzie roku 1990 jego karierę złamał „wywiad” jakiego udzielił izraelskiej gazecie Ha’aretz.

Wcześniej, w 1958 Strugnell ożenił się z córką*** byłego premiera Belgii Huberta Pierlot i przeszedł na katolicyzm. Nie mając obronionej magisterki, nie mówiąc już o doktoracie, John Strugnell został w 1967 profesorem na Harvardzie! A w 1984 został, po kolejnym francuskim dominikaninie, redaktorem naczelnym wydawania Zwojów z Qumran. I był nim do roku 1990, kiedy to izraelski dziennikarz Avi Katzman opublikował ów (nieautoryzowany) wywiad z nim. Przedtem Strugnell był bardzo ostro atakowany za powolne tempo publikacji i nieudzielanie szerokiego dostępu do prac nad Zwojami**. Oczywiście po wyrzuceniu Strugnella sytuacja uległa natychmiastowej zmianie, a pewną rolę odegrał w tym także pewien polski „entuzjasta”, do czego jeszcze wrócę.

Oto inkryminowany fragment „wywiadu”, w oryginalnym brzmieniu:

I asked him what annoyed him about Judaism. He replied, “The fact that it has survived when it should have disappeared. Christianity now uses much more irenic language for all this. These are brutal terms; I’m putting it in harsh terms. For me the answer [to the Jewish problem] is mass conversion.”

“But what annoys you about it?” I asked.

It’s the subsistence of the group, of Jews, of the Jewish religion. It’s a horrible religion. It’s a Christian heresy, and we deal with our heretics in different ways. You are a phenomenon that we haven’t managed to convert—and we should have managed.”

I believe that the answer for Islam, and Buddhism, and all other religions is to become Christian. Judaism disturbs me in a different sense, because, whereas the others became Christians when we worked hard on them, the Jews stuck to an anti-Christian position.”

Odpowiedź na to Johna Strugnella zamieszczę niebawem, czyli CDN.


**) Kłopoty narastały od 1960, roku śmierci J. D. Rockefellera juniora – wszak jego syn już tak nie wspierał prac w Palestynie. A do tego doszła oczywiście wojna 1967, i jej skutki…

***)Screenshot 2020-01-04 at 14.40.32.pngScreenshot 2020-01-04 at 14.42.13.png

Złoty appendix

Produkcja złota w tonach/rok


Według United States Geological Survey  z 2016 od początku cywilizacji wyprodukowano około 178 tysięcy ton złota, z czego 85% pozostaje w użyciu. W 2017 największym producentem złota na świecie były Chiny z 440 tonami. Drugi co do wielkości producent, Australia, wydobył 300 ton w tym samym roku, a następnie Rosja z 255 tonami…

Jak już pisałem z owych 151 tysięcy ton „w obiegu” aż 20 noszą na sobie Hindusi. Z kolei światowa „konsumpcja” nowo wyprodukowanego złota to w około 50% biżuteria, 40% to inwestycje a tylko 10% to przemysł.

Chociaż złoto odgrywało istotną rolę płatniczą od czasów starożytnych, to podstawy systemu waluty złotej zostały stworzone w Wielkiej Brytanii w roku 1844 (Ustawa Bankowa z 1844, zwana także aktem Peela, od nazwiska ówczesnego premiera sir Roberta Peela). Wtedy to Bank Anglii został zobowiązany do wykupywania swoich banknotów za złoto oraz uchylono restrykcje w przetapianiu monet i przesyłaniu złota.

Wstępem do standardu złota w Anglii było przyjęcie standardu monety złotej (gold specie standard) w 1821 roku, kiedy to na żądanie było możliwe wymienianie pieniądza papierowego na złotego suwerena emitowanego przez Royal Mint w Tower Hill od 1816 roku. W późniejszym okresie, między rokiem 1870 a rokiem 1880, system waluty złotej został przyjęty przez dużą liczbę państw.

Wybuch I wojny światowej w 1914 roku i wzrost wydatków rządowych finansowanych za pomocą emisji pieniądza fiducjarnego spowodował trudności z utrzymaniem wymienialności walut. W wyniku tego prawie wszystkie państwa porzuciły system waluty złotej. Powrócono do niego na kilka lat w okresie międzywojennym. Próba ta podjęta przez Wielką Brytanię odniosłaby prawdopodobnie większy sukces, gdyby nie ustalenie zawartości złota w funcie na zbyt wysokim poziomie oraz gdyby nie wystąpiły niekorzystne wydarzenia zewnętrzne…  W tych warunkach utrzymanie systemu waluty złotej przez Wielką Brytanię okazało się niemożliwe i zaowocowało dewaluacją funta we wrześniu 1931 roku.”

During the governorship of Montagu Norman, from 1920–44, the Bank made deliberate efforts to move away from commercial banking and become a central bank. In 1946, shortly after the end of Norman’s tenure, the bank was nationalised by the Labour government.

Under Norman, the bank underwent significant change. In 1931 the United Kingdom permanently abandoned the gold standard, at which point the bank’s foreign exchange and gold reserves were transferred to the British Treasury. Norman was a close friend of the German Central Bank President Hjalmar Schacht, who was a supporter of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, and served in Hitler’s government as President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics. As such, Schacht played a key role in implementing the policies attributed to Hitler. Norman was also so close to the Schacht family that he was godfather to one of Schacht’s grandchildren. Both were members of the Anglo-German Fellowship and the Bank for International Settlements… careful investigation by historian David Blaazer into the Bank of England’s internal memos has established that Norman knowingly authorized the transfer of Czech gold from Czechoslovakia’s No. 2 account with the Bank for International Settlements to the No. 17 account, which Norman was aware was managed by the German Reichsbank. Within ten days the money had been transferred to other accounts. In the fall of 1939, two months after the outbreak of World War II, Norman again supported transfers of Czech gold to Hitler’s Germany. On this occasion His Majesty’s Government intervened to block Norman’s initiative. He retired from the bank in 1944.

Following his retirement, he was raised to the peerage as Baron Norman, of St Clere in the County of Kent, on 13 October 1944.”

Rowland Baring, 3rd Earl of Cromer… After serving as private secretary to the Freeman Freeman-Thomas, 1st Marquess of Willingdon in 1938, he joined Barings Bank, founded by his ancestor Sir Francis Baring, as a clerk. After military service during the war, he was managing director of Barings between 1949 and 1959. He then served as Economic Minister at the British Embassy in Washington as well as holding executive directorships at the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the International Finance Corporation.

In 1961, he was appointed Governor of the Bank of England, a position he held until 1966. During his governorship, he clashed with the incoming Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, over Cromer’s desire to see government spending contained, which may have contributed to his decision not to seek a second term. He was subsequently appointed to the Privy Council. He was responsible for the Cromer Report into Lloyd’s of London.

From 1971** to 1974 he served as British Ambassador to the United States. Following his appointment he became a Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George, and was raised to the rank of Knight Grand Cross in 1974. He was a Governor of the pro-NATO Atlantic Institute, and a member of the Pilgrims Society executive committee.

Przed dymisją w 1966, napisał przedmowę do historii Bank of England…***


**) April 1 – The United Kingdom lifts all restrictions on gold ownership.

August 15 – President Richard Nixon announces that the United States will no longer convert dollars to gold at a fixed value, effectively ending the Bretton Woods system. He also imposes a 90-day freeze on wages, prices and rents.

***) Bardzo intrygująca jest postać obecnego gubernatora BoE – Marka Carneya:

Carney attended St. Francis Xavier High School, Edmonton before studying at Harvard University. …Carney spent thirteen years with Goldman Sachs. He worked at the investment bank’s London, New York City, Tokyo, and Toronto offices. His progressively more senior positions included co-head of sovereign risk; executive director, emerging debt capital markets; and managing director, investment banking. He worked on South Africa’s post-apartheid venture into international bond markets, and was involved in Goldman’s work with the 1998 Russian financial crisis…

Carney returned to the Bank of Canada in November 2007 after his appointment as Governor, and served as advisor to retiring Governor David Dodge before formally assuming Dodge’s position on February 1, 2008. Carney was selected over Paul Jenkins, the Senior Deputy Governor, who had been considered the front-runner to succeed Dodge. Carney took on this role during the depths of the recent global financial crisis. At the time of his appointment, Carney was the youngest central bank governor among the G8 and G20 groups of nations…

Carney’s actions as Governor of the Bank of Canada are said to have played a major role in helping Canada avoid the worst impacts of the financial crisis that began in 2007. The epoch-making feature of his tenure as governor remains the decision to cut the overnight rate by 50 basis points in March 2008, only one month after his appointment. While the European Central Bank delivered a rate increase in July 2008, Carney anticipated the leveraged-loan crisis would trigger global contagion. When policy rates in Canada hit the effective lower-bound, the central bank combatted the crisis with the non-standard monetary tool: „conditional commitment” in April 2009 to hold the policy rate for at least one year, in a boost to domestic credit conditions and market confidence. Output and employment began to recover from mid-2009, in part thanks to monetary stimulus. The Canadian economy outperformed those of its G7 peers during the crisis, and Canada was the first G7 nation to have both its GDP and employment recover to pre-crisis levels… In October 2012, Carney was named „Central Bank Governor of the Year 2012” by the editors of Euromoney magazine.

On November 4, 2011, Carney was named Chairman of the Basel-based Financial Stability Board. In a statement, Carney credited his appointment to „the strong reputation of Canada’s financial system and the leading role that Canada has played in helping to develop many of the most important international reforms”… Carney served as Chairman of the Bank for International Settlements’ Committee on the Global Financial System from July 2010 until January 2012. Carney is a member of the Group of Thirty, an international body of leading financiers and academics, and of the Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum. Carney attended the annual meetings of the Bilderberg Group in 2011 and 2012.

On November 26, 2012, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, announced the appointment of Carney as Governor of the Bank of England. He succeeded Sir Mervyn King on July 1, 2013. He is the first non-Briton to be appointed to the role since the Bank was established in 1694. The Bank of England was given additional powers from 2013, such as the ability to set bank capital requirements… Carney has warned multiple times that Brexit is expected to negatively influence the UK economy. Consequently, pro Brexit activists accused him of making pro-remain statements in the British EU-membership referendum. He replied that he felt it was his duty to speak up on such issues…

In addition to Canadian citizenship, Carney also holds UK citizenship and Irish citizenship.”

Wielka wojna o Zwoje z Qumran

  Zwój Izajasza (1QIsaa) zawiera prawie całą Księgę Izajasza.


W 1925 Jakub Hebry Breasted, z Van Breestede’ów, założyciel i członek Instytutu Orientalnego przy Uniwersytecie Chicago, odwiedził Palestynę. Zaskoczony brakiem muzeum archeologii w Jerozolimie i zachęcony przez brytyjskiego Wysokiego Komisarza, Lorda Plumera, uzyskał 2 mln USD (dzisiaj to ponad 50 milionów) od Johna D. Rockefellera młodszego**. Dzięki temu, w 1938 otwarto dla publiczności Muzeum Archeologii Palestyny.

Do ostatnich dni mandatu brytyjskiego Muzeum było zarządzane przez Brytyjski Rząd Palestyny. 1 kwietnia 1948 zostało zamknięte dla publiczności, a 20 kwietnia Wysoki Komisarz powołał radę międzynarodowych powierników do zarządzania Muzeum. Rada składała się z dwunastu członków*** i prowadziła Muzeum do 1966. W latach 50tych pojawiły się kontrowersje dotyczące przedmiotów, które dwie strony konfliktu usunęły odpowiednio do Ammanu i na stronę izraelską.

Po wojnie arabsko-izraelskiej w 1948 Muzeum stało się także wtórną siedzibą Jordańskiego Departamentu Starożytności, kierowanego do 1956 przez Geralda Lankestera Hardinga. W 1966 muzeum zostało znacjonalizowane przez króla Husajna (w czasie jordańskiej aneksji Zachodniego Brzegu, 1948-67). A siedem miesięcy później, kiedy wybuchła wojna sześciodniowa, Muzeum zostało przechwycone przez izraelską brygadę spadochronową. I zostało oficjalnie przemianowane na Muzeum Rockefellera.

Od 1967 Muzeum jest wspólnie zarządzane przez Muzeum Izraela i Izraelski Departament Starożytności i Muzeów (później zreorganizowany jako Israel Antiquities Authority). W 1967, po zajęciu przez Izrael Jerozolimy Wschodniej, Zwoje z Qumran przeniesiono do Sanktuarium Księgi, specjalnie zaprojektowanego budynku na terenie Muzeum Izraela. Jedynie tzw. Miedziany Zwój został zabrany do Muzeum Archeologicznego w Jordanii w Ammanie.



**) Previously, he had offered to build an archeological museum in Cairo, Egypt,[7] but he was turned down, possibly due to pressure from the British government, which was anxious to keep America from establishing a foothold in the region.

***) Dwóch reprezentujących Wysokiego Komisarza, jednego z Akademii Brytyjskiej, jednego z Muzeum Brytyjskiego, jednego z Francuskiej Akademii Narodowej, jednego z Francuskiego Ministerstwa Spraw Zagranicznych, dwóch z Departamentów Starożytności Egiptu, rządów Syrii, Libanu, Iraku lub Transjordanii; jeden z Hebrew University w Jerozolimie, jeden z Royal Swedish Academy, jeden z American Institute of Archaeology i jeden z American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem.


Lista uniwersytetów które wydają poważne książki o Polsce – update


Fundacja Noble, znana wcześniej pod nazwą Oxford Noble Foundation, została oficjalnie założona w październiku 2012 roku przez dr. Leszka Czarneckiego, jednego z wiodących polskich przedsiębiorców, przy należącym do niego Noble Banku. Propagowanie wiedzy o współczesnej Polsce jako dynamicznym i nowoczesnym kraju, poważnym graczu w europejskiej gospodarce, kulturze i polityce zawsze było jednym z głównych celów Fundacji. Sztandarową działalnością Fundacji jest wspieranie działań akademickich i badawczych dotyczących Polski na wiodących uniwersytetach poza granicami kraju.

W pierwszym etapie Fundacja utworzyła w 2012 roku Program Studiów o Współczesnej Polsce na Uniwersytecie w Oxfordzie. W latach 2013-2016 uczestniczyli w nim wybitni naukowcy i autorytety w tematyce polskiej transformacji ustrojowej, tacy jak prof. Timothy Garton Ash, prof. Norman Davies, oraz prof. Margaret MacMillan. Honorowymi patronami Fundacji zostali: premier Tadeusz Mazowiecki (1927-2013), symbol sukcesu polskiej transformacji oraz emerytowany profesor Zbigniew Pełczyński, wybitny polski profesor na uniwersytecie w Oxfordzie, który od lat wspiera studiujących tam Polaków. …

Członek Zarządu Prof. Norman Davies” (boson.szkolanawigatorow.pl/czy-norman-davies-był-wystarczająco-dobrym-filosemitą)



Londyn (+ Harvard itp.):

Nasz obecny profesor prowadzący ze Szkoły nauk słowiańskich i wschodnio-europejskich (SSEES) w Londynie, czasowo działający także w Natolinie, czyli Kubik, Rostowski i inni:


+ kiedy prof. Nowak jeszcze był swojakiem.



Dr Bill pracuje głównie nad polską literaturą i kulturą XX wieku, ze szczególnym zainteresowaniem nad religią, teorią sekularyzacji, stosunkami polsko-ukraińskimi, kulturą polsko-żydowską i postkolonialnymi interpretacjami polskiej historii kultury. Pisał o Czesławie Miłoszu, Bruno Schulzu, teorii postkolonialnej w kontekście polskim, a także o problemach religijnych w powieściach Fiodora Dostojewskiego. www.mml.cam.ac.uk/polish/about/people



St Andrews:

Dr Tomasz Kamusella, Szlonzok** którego badania poświęcone są głównie porównawczej historii wzajemnych wpływów między polityką a językiem we współczesnej Europie. Obecnie pracuje nad Atlasem Polityki Językowej w Nowoczesnej Europie Środkowej i monografią, która analizuje polityczne podstawy językowej klasyfikacji języków słowiańskich. www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/staff/tomaszkamusella.html



Prof. R. Frost (Dyrektor)***: Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów; historia unii między Polską a Litwą. Historia polityczna i militarna północno-wschodniej Europy i Bałtyku www.abdn.ac.uk/sdhp/members-255.php#panel1583

Prof. K. Friedrich: Polsko-litewskie i niemiecko-polskie pogranicze we wczesnym okresie nowożytnym. Wczesne współczesne tożsamości. Historia religijna i miejska. Historia idei politycznych



Piotr Górecki received his B.A. in economics (1977) from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, M.A. in history (1979) and J.D. in law (1983) from Stanford University, and his Ph.D. in history (1988) from the University of Chicago.

He was born in Kraków, Poland. He moved with his parents to the United States (Urbana, Illinois) when a teenager. He was a Visiting Assistant Professor of History at the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1988/89 before accepting his current position at UCR.


**) Szlonzocy (Ślązacy) i ich język. Pomiędzy Niemcami, Polską a szlonzskim (śląskim) nacjonalizmem. 2009. Zabrze, Poland

O Schlonzsku i nacjonalizmie 2008. Zabrze, Poland

Maski i twarze nacjonalizmu. 2008. Zabrze, Poland: NOS, 284 pp.


***) Born and brought up in Edinburgh, I was educated at St Andrews University, the Jagiellonian University, Kraków, and the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London, where I wrote my doctorate under the supervision of Professor Norman Davies.

PS. boson.szkolanawigatorow.pl/krótka-refleksja-na-rok-1918

John Dee, Bond i Swedenborg

Wedle Donalda_McCormicka vel Ryszarda Dreacona, Ian Fleming (z którym ów Donald pracował w pewnym momencie…) swój słynny bondowski numer 007 wziął z Johna Dee – McCormick twierdził, że Dee tak podpisywał swoje listy do Elżbiety I. Ponadto ów Donald uważał, iż owe „nawiedzone” teksty enochiańskie dr. Dee to po prostu zaszyfrowane raporty**. I zupełnie nie był w tym oryginalny, bo sam Robert Hooke o tym pisał*** i to jeszcze w XVII wieku!! Ciekawie w tym kontekście wygląda zaciekłość wielkiego maga, Isaaca Newtona, w zwalczaniu owego Hooke’a…

Przy tym uderzające jest to, że Swedenborg w swoich wizjach też nawiązuje do Enocha. I tak to się plecie…


**) Podręcznik szyfrów Johna: pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_recta#Szyfr_Tritemiusza

***) To come then to the book it self. Upon turning it over, and comparing several Particulars in it one with another, and with other Writings of the said Dr Dee … so far as I can be informed, I do conceive that the greatest part of the said Book, especially all that which related to the Spirits and Apparitions, together with their Names, Speeches, Shews, Noises, Clothing, Actions, and the Prayers and Doxologies, &c. are all Cryptography … that is, under those feignd Stories, which he there seems to relate as Matters of Fact, he hath concealed Relations of quite another thing; and that he made use of this way of obsconding it, that he might the more securely escape discovery, if he should fall under the suspition as to the true Designs of his Travels … conceiving that the Inquisition that should be made, or Prosecution, if discovered, would be more gently for a Pretended Enthusiast, than for a real Spy.

The Posthumous Works of Robert Hooke. Robert Hooke, published London, 1705.