+++ title = "ドルメ聖書翻訳" description = "ドルム聖書は、フランスのアッシリア学者で半生物学者のエドゥアール・ドルム（1881–1966）によって行われたフランス語聖書翻訳で、フランス語の元の意味をそのままに保った直訳スタイルで知られています。" template = "wiki-page.html" toc = true [extra] category = "Methodology" editorial_pass = "2026-05" entry_type = "biographical and methodological" claim_type = "direct" alternative_names = ["Bible de la Pléiade (Dhorme)", "La Bible: L'Ancien Testament (Dhorme)", "Dhorme Old Testament", "Bible Dhorme"] [extra.infobox] type = "French scholarly translation of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament" translator = "Édouard Dhorme (1881–1966), with collaborators Frank Michaéli and Antoine Guillaumont" publisher = "Éditions Gallimard, Bibliothèque de la Pléiade" publication_dates = "Tome I (1956); Tome II (1959)" source_text = "Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible, with consultation of the Septuagint and the broader cuneiform-and-Semitic philological apparatus" distinguishing_features = "Literal preservation of original vocabulary including *Élohim* (not *Dieu*) and *Iahvé* (rendering of the Tetragrammaton); extensive philological footnotes; introduction surveying the textual history; collaboration with specialists for certain books (Michaéli: Ezra, Nehemiah; Guillaumont: Maccabees)" framework_significance = "The version Claude Vorilhon reports having with him during his 1973 contact; the textual mediator through which the Raëlian source material's Hebrew-Bible references reach contemporary readers" status = "Out of print in the original Pléiade edition; secondhand copies remain widely available; the translation is referenced extensively in subsequent French-language neo-euhemerist scholarship" +++ The **Dhorme Bible** is the French translation of the Old Testament prepared by the French Assyriologist and Semitologist **Édouard Dhorme** (1881–1966), published by Gallimard in the Bibliothèque de la Pléiade in two volumes — Tome I in 1956 and Tome II in 1959. The translation is widely regarded among scholars as one of the most philologically rigorous French versions of the Hebrew Bible, the product of a fifty-year career of professional study of Hebrew, Akkadian, Ugaritic, and the broader Semitic and ancient Near Eastern philological tradition. The translation is distinguished from the standard French Catholic versions (notably the *Bible de Jérusalem*, in production at the same École Biblique during the same period) by its literal preservation of the operational vocabulary of the original Hebrew text — including the preservation of the plural form ***Élohim*** rather than the conventional theological translation *Dieu*, and the preservation of the Tetragrammaton as ***Iahvé*** rather than the conventional *l'Éternel* or *le Seigneur*. The Wheel of Heaven framework engages the Dhorme translation for specific reasons. Most importantly, the version is the one Claude Vorilhon (Raël) reports having had with him during his 1973 contact in Clermont-Ferrand, when Yahweh referenced specific passages and Vorilhon read them in the Dhorme rendering. The framework's reading of the Raëlian source material's Hebrew-Bible references is consequently mediated by Dhorme's specific lexical choices: the preserved *Élohim*, the preserved *Iahvé*, and the philologically literal renderings of the operationally significant terms (the *kavod*, the *raqia*, the *ruach Elohim*) that contemporary neo-euhemerist work depends on. More broadly, Dhorme's translation is the foundational French-language exemplar of the philological-historiographic approach that the corpus's broader interpretive lineage (Sendy, Biglino, Wallis) develops, with the corpus reading Dhorme's career trajectory — a Catholic Dominican priest and biblical professor who left the order in 1931 because, in his own words, "having climbed too high in knowledge, he could no longer teach what he no longer believed in" — as the earliest 20th-century instance of the recurring pattern in which professional philological work on the Hebrew Bible drives serious scholars into positions incompatible with the theological reception of the same texts. ## Translation methodology Dhorme's own statement of his translation principles, appearing in the preface to Tome I (1956), is the foundational methodological document of the translation. Dhorme wrote, in French: > Le premier souci du traducteur doit être la fidélité non seulement à la pensée, mais encore à l'expression de l'original. Sans tomber dans un mot-à-mot intolérable, il faut chercher à conserver à la phrase sa saveur et sa couleur, autant que faire se peut, sans violer les lois de la langue française. Il est difficile de trouver le juste milieu entre un littéralisme étroit et une trop large interprétation. C'est pourquoi, dans les cas où nous avons dû paraphraser un peu, nous donnons en note le sens propre des termes traduits. Lorsque le mot hébreu doit être cité, nous avons usé du système de transcription généralement adopté et que nous employons depuis un demi-siècle. > > — Édouard Dhorme, Préface, *La Bible: L'Ancien Testament*, Tome I (Gallimard / Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, 1956), p. IX In English translation: > The translator's first concern must be fidelity not only to the original thought but also to its expression. Without falling into an intolerable word-for-word translation, one must seek to preserve the sentence's flavour and colour as much as can be done, without violating the laws of the French language. It is difficult to find the right balance between narrow literalism and overly broad interpretation. This is why, in cases where we have had to paraphrase somewhat, we provide in a footnote the literal meaning of the translated terms. When the Hebrew word must be cited, we have used the transcription system generally adopted and which we have been using for half a century. The methodology has several features the framework's interpretive work depends on. **The commitment to fidelity to the *expression* of the original.** Many translation traditions treat translation as the rendering of the original *meaning* into the target language with such reformulation as the target language's idiom requires. Dhorme's principle is stronger: the translator should preserve the original *expression* (the specific lexical choices, the syntactic shape, the rhetorical features) as much as can be done within the target language's constraints. This commitment is what produces the preserved *Élohim* (a Hebrew expression preserved as such rather than translated into French theological vocabulary), the preserved *Iahvé* (the Tetragrammaton rendered phonologically rather than substituted with French theological titles), and the broader preservation of the specific operational vocabulary the framework's interpretive work engages. **The use of philological footnotes to register paraphrased content.** Where translation into French necessarily involves some paraphrasing — because the French language cannot accommodate a strictly word-for-word rendering — Dhorme's apparatus provides footnotes giving the literal philological meaning of the translated terms. The footnote apparatus is one of the translation's most distinctive features and is what makes the translation a research tool as well as a reading text. The framework's broader philological work (developed in the [List of etymological readings](../list-of-etymological-readings/)) draws substantially on the footnote apparatus. **The cumulative authority of half-a-century of professional philological practice.** Dhorme's reference to a transcription system "we have been using for half a century" registers the depth of his professional formation. The translation is the work of a scholar at the end of a long career, drawing on what he had learned across five decades of work on Hebrew, Akkadian, Ugaritic, and adjacent traditions. The translation's specific decisions are not first-pass choices but the cumulative product of a lifetime of professional engagement with the relevant source-language materials. ### The translation of Genesis 1:1 The Dhorme translation's opening verse exemplifies its distinctive method: > « Au commencement Élohim créa les cieux et la terre. » > > — Genèse 1:1, traduction Dhorme In English: "In the beginning Élohim created the heavens and the earth." The contrast with the standard French Catholic translations is sharp. The *Bible de Jérusalem* (1956, the same year as Dhorme Tome I) renders the same verse: « Au commencement Dieu créa le ciel et la terre. » The standard Louis Segond Protestant translation renders: « Au commencement, Dieu créa les cieux et la terre. » Both treat the Hebrew *Elohim* as best translated by the French *Dieu* (singular, theologically standard). Dhorme alone, of the major mid-twentieth-century French translations, preserves *Élohim* as the operational vocabulary the Hebrew text actually uses — registering the plural form, declining to substitute the French theological term, and leaving the philological question of what *Élohim* refers to operationally for the reader to engage rather than presupposing the standard theological answer. The Dhorme rendering of Genesis 1:1 is consequently one of the framework's central textual instances. The translation does not endorse the framework's neo-euhemerist reading of the Hebrew text — Dhorme himself, writing within the conventions of mid-twentieth-century academic biblical scholarship, did not develop the operational interpretive frame that subsequent neo-euhemerist work would develop. But Dhorme's translation preserves the philological vocabulary that the operational reading requires, making the framework's reading textually accessible in French in a way that the standard Catholic and Protestant translations actively obstruct. ## Édouard Dhorme: biographical outline Édouard Paul Dhorme was born on **15 January 1881 in Armentières (Nord)**, in northern France, the third of seven children of an artisan carpenter and a tavern-keeper. Orphaned of both parents before the age of ten, he was separated from his siblings and raised by a country family. He showed exceptional academic aptitude from his earliest schooling, with the principal of the Armentières collège advancing him three classes in two years. In **1899, at age eighteen**, Dhorme entered the **Dominican Order** at the convent of Amiens, taking the religious name **Paul** (he would be known professionally as Paul Dhorme during his Dominican period, c. 1899–1931). He was almost immediately sent to the convent of Saint-Étienne in Jerusalem to complete his formation at the **École Biblique et Archéologique Française**, the Dominican-run centre of Catholic biblical scholarship founded in 1890 by Marie-Joseph Lagrange. Dhorme's formal Dominican formation continued at Saint-Étienne through his solemn profession in 1903 and his priestly ordination on **28 May 1904** (the eve of Trinity Sunday). At the École Biblique, Dhorme was initiated into Hebrew and Akkadian by Lagrange. He devoted himself with particular intensity to cuneiform texts, and especially to the Code of Hammurabi, which had been discovered by the de Morgan mission at Susa in 1902 and published the same year by Father Vincent Scheil. The Code of Hammurabi work established Dhorme as one of the leading Assyriological-philological talents of his generation. Dhorme's professional positions across the subsequent four decades: - **Director of the *Revue Biblique*** at the École Biblique de Jérusalem (1923–1931) — the principal scholarly journal of Catholic biblical archaeology, a position of substantial institutional and scholarly authority - **Director of studies at the École pratique des hautes études** (EPHE), Sorbonne (1933–1951) — the leading French research institution in the humanities - **Doctorate ès Lettres at the Sorbonne** (1937) - **Professor at the Collège de France**, chair of Philologie et Archéologie assyro-babyloniennes (1945–1951) - **Member of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres** (elected 1948) Dhorme retired from the Collège de France in 1951. He spent the subsequent fifteen years principally in retirement at **Roquebrune-Cap-Martin** on the Côte d'Azur, where he produced the two-volume Pléiade Old Testament (Tome I in 1956; Tome II in 1959) — the culminating work of his career — and several additional studies, including his final book on Saint Paul (1965). He died at Roquebrune-Cap-Martin on **19 January 1966**, four days after his 85th birthday. ## The 1931 crisis: leaving the order The most significant event in Dhorme's biography is his departure from the Dominican Order in 1931 — a departure that takes him out of the institutional structure of Catholic biblical scholarship after thirty-two years of formation and service, and that occurred at the height of his professional eminence (he was the sitting director of the *Revue Biblique*, the principal journal of Catholic biblical archaeology). The corpus reads this departure as the earliest 20th-century instance of a recurring pattern in which serious philological work on the Hebrew Bible drives professional scholars into positions incompatible with the theological framework of their original institutional affiliations. The proximate circumstances of the 1931 departure include several converging factors. From 1929 onward, Dhorme had been engaged in an intense period of work on the **cuneiform alphabetic inscriptions discovered at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit)** by the French archaeological mission under Claude Schaeffer. The Ugaritic tablets — Northwest Semitic religious texts written in a previously unknown alphabetic cuneiform — opened a window onto the Canaanite religious tradition that directly precedes and influences the Hebrew Bible. Dhorme worked on the decipherment in parallel with (and in productive competition with) the German philologist **Hans Bauer**, with both scholars publishing decipherment results in 1930–1931. The decipherment of Ugaritic is one of the major philological achievements of the inter-war period; **Dhorme and Bauer are jointly credited with the breakthrough**. The Ugaritic material is theologically consequential. The Ugaritic texts describe a Canaanite divine council headed by El, with a divine son named Baal, attended by a complex pantheon — preserving in detailed form the religious environment from which the Hebrew Bible's distinctive monotheism was developed. The texts include figures (El, Asherah, Mot, Yam, the bnei El) whose names and roles correspond to figures in the Hebrew Bible that subsequent theological tradition had progressively detheologised or reinterpreted. The framework reads this as part of why Dhorme's Ugaritic work was decisive for him personally: the philological texts demonstrate at first-hand the deep Canaanite-religious-environment matrix from which the Hebrew Bible emerged, in a way that complicates the Catholic theological reading of the Hebrew Bible as the unique revelation of monotheistic God. Dhorme reportedly said to his family that, "having climbed too high in knowledge, he could no longer teach what he no longer believed in" (in the original French: *« étant monté trop haut en connaissance, il ne pouvait plus enseigner ce qu'il ne croyait plus »*). The statement is preserved in family tradition rather than in any published source, and its precise wording may have varied across the family's retellings, but the substance — that his philological work had moved him to a position incompatible with continued teaching of Catholic biblical scholarship as a Dominican priest — is consistent across the surviving accounts and consistent with the documented external facts of his 1931 departure. The institutional response was substantial. Dhorme's resignation from the *Revue Biblique* and his withdrawal from the École Biblique left the institutional centre of Catholic biblical archaeology without its sitting director. He was summoned to Rome by Pope Pius XI; the details of the meeting are not preserved in any published source. Following the meeting, he departed the Dominican Order definitively, registered in the Order's records as "Sortie de l'Ordre: 1931." The family tradition holds that he was excommunicated during the Rome meeting, though formal excommunication documentation has not been produced in any published source available to the corpus, and the standard biographical sources record his departure from the Order rather than formal excommunication. Around 1930, on a return voyage from Egypt, Dhorme had met a cultured widow named **Maria Françoise Lepoint** (known to family as Mia). The relationship developed across the period of the institutional crisis. After his departure from the Order, Dhorme married Mia Lepoint and they lived together for the remaining thirty-five years of his life, principally at Roquebrune-Cap-Martin. Despite his formal departure from the Dominican Order, Dhorme reportedly retained personal attachment to Catholic faith and practice. He attended Mass with some regularity at Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, especially in his later years, and he is said to have remarked to his cousins that "we owe the truth only to ourselves" (*« nous ne devons la vérité qu'à nous-mêmes »*) — a remark whose precise meaning the family tradition has preserved without resolving. The framework reads the 1931 crisis as documentarily and historically significant for several reasons: - **It marks the earliest 20th-century instance of the philological-departure pattern.** Subsequent scholars in the broader neo-euhemerist tradition — Sendy (Catholic-formed, departed Catholicism for a philological-historical reading of the Hebrew Bible); Biglino (Catholic translator working on official Church publications, left the Church for an independent philological-historical reading); Wallis (Anglican Archdeacon, left the Church for a neo-euhemerist reading of the Hebrew and Christian textual traditions) — all repeat the pattern Dhorme established. Dhorme's departure is fifty years before Sendy's published work and eighty years before Biglino's. - **The proximate cause is philological rather than theological.** Dhorme's stated reason is not theological dissent in the abstract; it is the specific cumulative effect of decades of professional philological work, with the Ugaritic decipherment as the proximate trigger. The pattern is one in which careful work on the source-language texts and their historical context drives the scholar to positions the institutional framework cannot accommodate. - **The framework reads the departure as a successful exit rather than a crisis.** Dhorme's post-1931 career is one of substantially expanded scholarly productivity, leading to the Pléiade Old Testament as the culminating work. The framework reads the 1931 departure as the moment when Dhorme acquired the institutional freedom to produce work whose philological rigour the Catholic context had constrained — making his translation a directly framework-relevant document. ## The Dhorme Bible in Raëlism The Dhorme Bible's specific importance to the corpus's interpretive work is its connection to Claude Vorilhon's 1973 contact account in *Le Livre qui dit la vérité* (1974). Vorilhon's account describes the contact at the Puy de Lassolas, an extinct volcano in the Auvergne region of central France, on **13 December 1973**. During the sustained sequence of meetings that followed (Vorilhon reports being read to from the Bible across six successive days, with the visitor providing the operational interpretive frame for the passages read), the source material's account of Genesis, the deluge, the Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Exodus, and other Hebrew Bible content was developed in detail. Vorilhon reports that during these meetings, the Bible he had with him was the **Dhorme translation**, specifically the Pléiade Tome I (1956) volume. The choice of Bible matters for the corpus's reading of the source material in two specific ways. **First, the operational vocabulary is preserved in the text Vorilhon read.** Where the standard French Catholic translation (*Bible de Jérusalem*) would have given Vorilhon "Dieu" and "l'Éternel" — the standard theological vocabulary — Dhorme gave him "Élohim" and "Iahvé." This means that when the source material's visitor referred to the *Elohim* as a plural civilisation, the corresponding term was already present in Vorilhon's text as a plural philological form rather than as a singular theological abstraction. The visitor's account aligns naturally with the Dhorme rendering in a way that would not have been textually available with the standard Catholic translation. The framework reads this alignment as significant — the source material's specific operational vocabulary corresponds to the philological vocabulary preserved in the specific Bible Vorilhon had with him, not to the standard theological vocabulary that he would have had with him if he had been carrying a more conventional French Bible. **Second, the philological footnotes that Dhorme provides serve as a kind of secondary commentary on the visitor's interpretations.** Where the visitor's account gives an operational reading of a Hebrew term (the cherubim as specific operational figures with distinct iconographic features, the *kavod* as preserving operational content about a visible substantial presence, the *raqia* as a specific atmospheric-engineering operation), Dhorme's footnotes preserve the philological grounds for the term that the operational reading depends on. The visitor's account and Dhorme's footnotes provide complementary perspectives on the same underlying texts — the visitor reading the terms operationally, Dhorme footnoting the philological foundation that makes the operational reading textually defensible. The framework reads the Vorilhon-Dhorme connection as one of the structural features of the corpus's relationship to the Hebrew Bible. The Raëlian source material is not a parallel revelation independent of the existing scriptural tradition; it is presented in the source material as an operational interpretive supplement to the existing tradition, with Dhorme's specifically philological translation as the textual instrument through which the supplement is mediated. The corpus's broader interpretive work (developed in the [List of exegetic readings](../list-of-exegetic-readings/) and the [List of etymological readings](../list-of-etymological-readings/)) is, in this sense, a continuation of the philological method Dhorme established into the explicitly operational register that the Raëlian source material's account requires. ## Distinctive features of the translation Several specific features of the Dhorme translation are catalogued here for reference. Readers interested in the translation's full apparatus should consult the original Pléiade editions directly; the present section registers the features the corpus's interpretive work most directly engages. **Preservation of *Élohim*.** Where Hebrew *Elohim* appears as a divine reference, Dhorme renders the term in French as *Élohim* (with French accentuation) rather than translating to *Dieu*. The translation is consistent across the relevant occurrences in Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, and elsewhere. The framework reads this as the translation's single most significant lexical decision. **Preservation of the Tetragrammaton as *Iahvé*.** Where the four-letter divine name YHWH appears in the Hebrew text, Dhorme renders the name as *Iahvé* (rather than as *l'Éternel*, the standard French Protestant translation choice, or as *Yahvé* / *Yahweh*, alternatives in academic scholarship). The transcription system Dhorme uses for Hebrew is the academic-Semiticist convention of his period; the *Iahvé* spelling reflects that convention. **Preservation of *Élyôn*, *Shaddaï*, *Sebaôt*, and other compound divine names.** The Hebrew compound divine titles (*El Elyon*, *El Shaddai*, *YHWH Sebaoth*, etc.) are preserved philologically rather than translated theologically. The framework's broader work on the operational content of these compound names (developed in the [List of etymological readings](../list-of-etymological-readings/)) draws on Dhorme's preserved forms. **Preservation of *kavod*.** The Hebrew *kavod* — etymologically "weight, heaviness," conventionally translated theologically as "glory" — is given philological footnote treatment that preserves the literal weight/heaviness etymology while the body text uses appropriate French rendering. The framework's reading of *kavod* as the observable physical signature of an Elohim presence (developed in the etymological-readings catalogue and the dedicated *kavod* entry) depends substantially on the philological preservation in Dhorme. **The philological-footnote apparatus.** Dhorme's footnotes provide alternative renderings, variant manuscript readings, etymological observations, and references to comparative Semitic material. The footnotes are integrated into the translation's apparatus rather than appearing as a separate critical commentary — making the translation simultaneously a reading text and a research instrument. **The introductory and prefatory material.** Tome I opens with a substantial introduction (cxxiv pages in the original Pléiade edition) surveying the textual history of the Hebrew Bible, the principal critical issues, and the translator's specific methodological choices. Tome II contains parallel material for the prophetic and poetic books. The introductory material is itself a substantial scholarly document and forms part of the framework's engagement with Dhorme. **The collaboration with specialists for specific books.** While Dhorme is the principal translator across the two volumes, certain books were assigned to specialist collaborators: **Frank Michaéli** for Ezra and Nehemiah; **Antoine Guillaumont** for the Maccabees (in Tome II). The collaborators worked within Dhorme's methodological framework; the resulting volumes are consistent in their philological approach despite the multiple-hand contribution. ## Bibliography of Édouard Dhorme The principal scholarly works of Édouard Dhorme, chronologically: - *Les pays bibliques au temps d'El-Amarna* (1908) — early publication on the Amarna correspondence - *Les livres de Samuel* (1910) — critical edition with translation - *Le livre de Job: traduit et commenté* (1926) — the substantial critical edition of Job, with English translation by Francis I. Andersen subsequently published as *A Commentary on the Book of Job* (Nelson, 1983) - *Les religions assyro-babyloniennes* (1927) — survey of Mesopotamian religion - *La poésie biblique* (1931) — published in the year of the institutional crisis - *Le Cantique des cantiques: traduit et commenté* (1946) — critical edition of the Song of Songs - *La Religion des Hébreux nomades* (1937) — study of early Israelite religion in its broader Semitic context - *Les religions de Babylonie et d'Assyrie* (Mana II, 1945) — the second-edition major survey of Mesopotamian religion; substantially expanded from the 1927 volume - *Recueil Édouard Dhorme: études bibliques et orientales* (1951) — collected studies edited by A. Parrot, G. Dossin, and J. Nougayrol; substantial volume of Dhorme's scholarly articles, published on the occasion of his retirement from the Collège de France - ***La Bible: L'Ancien Testament*, Tome I** (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, Gallimard, 1956) — the foundational volume of the Pléiade translation - ***La Bible: L'Ancien Testament*, Tome II** (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, Gallimard, 1959) — the second volume, completing the Old Testament - *Saint Paul* (1965) — Dhorme's final monograph Posthumous treatments of Dhorme's archives include: - Agnès Spycket, "Les Archives d'Édouard Dhorme (1881–1966) à la bibliothèque du Saulchoir," *Revue Biblique* 104:1 (1997): 5–39 ![Dhorme Bible: Tome I and Tome II](images/dhorme-bible-books.jpg "La Bible: L'Ancien Testament, Tome I (1956) and Tome II (1959) — Édouard Dhorme") ## See also - [Bible](../bible/) - [Hebrew](../hebrew/) - [Elohim](../elohim/) - [Yahweh](../yahweh/) - [Genesis](../genesis/) - [Raëlism](../raelism/) - [Raël](../rael/) - [Jean Sendy](../jean-sendy/) - [Mauro Biglino](../mauro-biglino/) - [Paul Wallis](../paul-wallis/) - [Neo-euhemerism](../neo-euhemerism/) (project topic page) - [List of exegetic readings](../list-of-exegetic-readings/) - [List of etymological readings](../list-of-etymological-readings/) - [Bible de Jérusalem](../bible-de-jerusalem/) ## External links - [*La Bible: L'Ancien Testament* (Édouard Dhorme, 1956), Gallimard, Bibliothèque de la Pléiade — online via the Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/labibleancientes0000unse/mode/2up) - [Notice biographique Édouard Dhorme, *Revue de l'histoire des religions* (1966)](https://www.persee.fr/doc/rhr_0035-1423_1966_num_169_2_8335) - [Édouard Dhorme — Dictionnaire prosopographique de l'EPHE](https://prosopo.ephe.psl.eu/%C3%A9douard-dhorme) - [Édouard Dhorme — Notice du Dictionnaire biographique des frères prêcheurs (Archives dominicaines)](https://journals.openedition.org/dominicains/1141) ## References Dhorme, Édouard. *La Bible: L'Ancien Testament*, Tome I (1956) and Tome II (1959). Paris: Gallimard, Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. With the collaboration of Frank Michaéli and Antoine Guillaumont. Dhorme, Édouard. *Le livre de Job: traduit et commenté*. Paris: Gabalda, 1926. Dhorme, Édouard. *Les religions de Babylonie et d'Assyrie*. Mana II. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1945. Dhorme, Édouard. *Recueil Édouard Dhorme: études bibliques et orientales*. Edited by A. Parrot, G. Dossin, and J. Nougayrol. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1951. Bauer, Hans. *Die Entzifferung der Keilschrifttafeln von Ras Schamra*. Halle: Niemeyer, 1930. [The German competitor decipherment of Ugaritic, published in parallel with Dhorme's.] Schaeffer, Claude F. A. *The Cuneiform Texts of Ras Shamra-Ugarit*. London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1939. [The archaeological context of the Ugaritic discoveries.] Spycket, Agnès. "Les Archives d'Édouard Dhorme (1881–1966) à la bibliothèque du Saulchoir." *Revue Biblique* 104, no. 1 (1997): 5–39. Vincent, Albert. "La Bible de la Pléiade. Tome Ier. L'Ancien Testament. Premier volume." *Revue des Sciences Religieuses* 31, no. 3 (1957): 314–316. [Contemporary scholarly review of Dhorme Tome I.] Lagrange, Marie-Joseph. *Études sur les religions sémitiques*. 2nd ed. Paris: Gabalda, 1905. [The foundational work of Dhorme's principal teacher at the École Biblique.] Vorilhon, Claude (Raël). *Le Livre qui dit la vérité*. Éditions du Message, 1974. English: *The Book Which Tells the Truth*, in *Message from the Designers* (Raëlian Foundation, current English edition). [The Vorilhon source material referring to Dhorme as the Bible read during the 1973 contact.] Sendy, Jean. *La Lune, clé de la Bible*. Paris: Julliard, 1968. [The principal philological-historiographic successor to Dhorme in the French neo-euhemerist tradition.] "Édouard Paul Dhorme." *Wikipedia*. "École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem." *Wikipedia*. "Ugaritic alphabet." *Wikipedia*. "Bibliothèque de la Pléiade." *Wikipedia*.