By Benjamin H. Freedman: 'A Jewish man writes about the
Jews'
My Dear Dr. Goldstein,
Your very outstanding achievements as a convert to Catholicism
impress me as without a comparable parallel in modern history. Your
devotion to the doctrine and the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church
defy any attempt at description by me only with words. Words fail me for
that.
As a vigorous protagonist preserving so persistently in propagating
the principles of the Roman Catholic Church, -its purposes, its
policies, its programs,- your dauntless determination is the inspiration
for countless others who courageously seek to follow in your footsteps.
In view of this fact it requires great courage for me to write to you
as I am about to do. So I pray you receive this communication from me
you will try to keep in mind Galatians 4:16 "Am I therefor become you
enemy, because I tell you the truth?" I hope you will so favor me.
It is truly a source of great pleasure and genuine gratification to
greet you at long last although of necessity by correspondence. It is
quite a disappointment for me to make your acquaintance in this manner.
It would now afford me a far greater pleasure and a great privilege also
if instead I could greet you on this occasion in person.
Our very good mutual friend has for long been planning a meeting with
you in person for me. I still wish to do that. I look forward with
pleasant anticipation to doing this in the not too distant future at a
time agreeable with you.
You will discover in the contents of this long letter valid evidence
for the urgency on my part to communicate with you without further
delay. You will further discover this urgency reflected in the present
gravity of the crisis which now jeopardizes an uninterrupted continuance
of the Christian faith in its long struggle as the world's most
effective spiritual and social force in the Divine mission of promoting
the welfare of all mankind without regard for their diversified races,
religions, and nationalities.
Your most recent article coming to my attention appeared in the
September issue of 'The A.P.J. Bulletin', the official publication of
the organization calling themselves The Archconfraternity of Prayer for
Peace and Goodwill to Israel. The headline of your article, 'News and
Views of Jews', and the purpose of the organization stated in the
masthead of the publication, "To Promote Interest in the Apostalate to
Israel" prompts me to take Father Time by his forelock and promptly
offer my comments. I beg your indulgence accordingly.
It is with reluctance that I place my comments in letter form. I
hesitate to do so but I find it the only expedient thing to do under the
circumstances. I beg to submit them to you now without reservations of
any nature for your immediate and earnest consideration. It is my very
sincere wish that you accept them in the friendly spirit in which they
are submitted. It is also my hope that you will give your consideration
to them and favor me with your early reply in the same friendly spirit
for which I thank you in advance.
In the best interests of that worthy objective to which you are
continuing to dedicate the years ahead as you have so diligently done
for many past decades, I most respectfully and sincerely urge you to
analyze and to study carefully the data submitted to you here. I suggest
also that you then take whatever steps you consider appropriate and
necessary as a result of your conclusions. In the invisible and
intangible ideological war being waged in defense of the great Christian
heritage against its dedicated enemies your positive attitude is vital
to victory. Your passive attitude will make a negative contribution to
the total effort.
You assuredly subscribe fully to that sound and sensible sentiment
that "it is better to light one candle than to sit in darkness." My
solitary attempts to date "to give light to them that sit in darkness,
and in the shadow" may prove no more successful with you now than they
have in so many other instances where I have failed during the past
thirty years. In your case I feel rather optimistic at the moment.
Although not completely in vain I still live in the hope that one day
on of these "candles" will burst into flame like a long smoldering spark
and start a conflagration that will sweep across the nation like a
prairie fire and illuminate vast new horizons for the first time. That
unyielding hope is the source of the courage which aids me in my
struggle against the great odds to which I am subjected for obvious
reasons.
It has been correctly contended for thousands of years that "In the
end Truth always prevails." We all realize that Truth in action can
prove itself a dynamic power of unlimited force. But alas Truth has no
self-starter. Truth cannot get off dead-center unless a worthy apostle
gives Truth a little push to overcome its inertia. Without that start
Truth will stand still and will never arrive at its intended
destination. Truth has often died aborning for that most logical reason.
Your help in this respect will prove of great value.
On the other hand Truth has many times been completely "blacked out"
by repeating contradictory and conflicting untruths over and over again,
and again, and again. The world's recent history supplies sober
testimony of the dangers to civilization inherent in that technique.
That form of treason to Truth is treachery to mankind. You must be very
careful, my dear Dr. Goldstein, not to become unwittingly one of the
many accessories before and after the fact who have appeared upon the
scene of public affairs in recent years.
Whether unwittingly, unwillingly or unintentionally many of history's
most noted characters have misrepresented the truth to the world and
they have been so believed that it puzzles our generation. As recently
as 1492 the world was misrepresented as flat by all the best alleged
authorities on the subject. In 1492 Christopher Columbus was able to
demonstrate otherwise. There are countless similar instances in the
history of the world.
Whether these alleged authorities were guilty of ignorance or
indifference is here beside the point. It is not important now. They
were either totally ignorant of the facts or they knew the facts but
chose to remain silent on the subject for reasons undisclosed by
history. A duplication of this situation exists today with respect to
the crisis which confronts the Christian faith. It is a vital factor
today in the struggle for survival or the eventual surrender of the
Christian faith to its enemies. The times in which we are living appear
to be the "zero hour" for the Christian faith.
As you have observed, no institution in our modern society can long
survive if its structure is not from its start erected upon a foundation
of Truth. The Christian faith was first erected upon a very solid
foundation of Truth by its Founder. To survive it must remain so. The
deterioration, the disintegration, and finally the destruction of the
structure of the Christian faith today will be accelerated in direct
ratio to the extent that misrepresentation and distortion of Truth
become the substitutes of Truth. Truth is an absolute quality. Truth can
never be relative. There can be no degrees to Truth. Truth either exists
or it does not exist. To be half-true is as incredible as to be
half-honest or to be half-loyal.
As you have undoubtedly also learned, my dear Dr. Goldstein, in their
attempt to do an "ounce" of good in one direction many well-intentioned
persons do a "ton" of harm in another direction. We all learn that
lesson sooner or later in life. Today finds you dedicating your
unceasing efforts and your untiring energy to the task of bringing
so-called or self-styled "Jews" into the Roman Catholic Church as
converts. It must recall to you many times the day so many years ago
when you embraced Catholicism yourself as a convert. More power to you,
and the best of luck. May your efforts be rewarded with great success.
Without you becoming aware of the fact, the methods you employ
contribute in no small degree to dilution of the devotion of countless
Christians for their Christian faith. For each "ounce" of so- called
good you accomplish by conversion of so-called or self- styled "Jews" to
the Christian faith at the same time you do a "ton" of harm in another
direction by diluting the devotion of countless Christians for their
Christian faith. This bold conclusion on my part is asserted by me with
the firm and fair conviction that the facts will support my contention.
In addition it is a well-known fact that many "counterfeit" recent
conversions reveal that conversions have often proved to be but
"infiltrations" by latent traitors with treasonable intentions.
The attitudes you express today and your continued activity in this
work require possible revision in the light of the facts submitted to
you in this letter. Your present philosophy and theology on this subject
seriously merit, without any delay, reconsideration on your part. What
you say or write may greatly influence a "boom" or a "bust" for the
Christian faith in the very near future far beyond your ability to
accurately evaluate sitting in your high "white ivory tower." The
Christians implicitly believe whatever you write. So do the so-called or
self-styled "Jews" whom you seek to convert. This influence you wield
can become a danger. I must call it to your attention.
Your reaction to the facts called to your attention in this letter
can prove to be one of the most crucial verdicts ever reached bearing
upon the security of the Christian faith in recent centuries. In keeping
with this great responsibility I sincerely commend this sentiment to you
hoping that you will earnestly study the contents of this letter from
its first word to its very last word. All who know you will are in the
fortunate position to know how close this subject is to your heart. By
your loyalty to the high ideals you have observed during the many years
you have labored so valiantly on behalf of the Christian faith you have
earned the admiration you enjoy. The Christian faith you chose of your
own free will in the prime of life is very proud of you in more ways
than as a convert.
Regardless of what anyone anywhere and anytime in this whole wide
world may say to the contrary, events of recent years everywhere
establish beyond any question of a doubt that the Christian faith today
stands with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel
figuratively speaking of course. Only those think otherwise who
deliberately shut their eyes to realities or who do not chose to see
even with their eyes wide open. I believe you to be too realistic to
indulge yourself in the futile folly of fooling yourself.
It is clear that the Christian faith today stands at the cross- roads
of its destiny. The Divine and sacred mission of the Christian faith is
in jeopardy today to a degree never witnessed before in its long history
of almost 2000 years. The Christian faith needs loyal friends now as
never before. I somehow feel that you can always be counted upon as one
of its loyal friends. You cannot over-simplify the present predicament
of the Christian faith. The problem it faces is too self-evident to
mistake. It is in a critical situation.
When the day arrives that Christians can no longer profess their
Christian faith as they profess it today in the free world the Christian
faith will have seen the beginning of its "last days." What already
applies to 50% of the world's total population can shortly apply equally
to 100% of the world's total population. It is highly conceivable
judging from present trends. The malignant character of this malady is
just as progressive as cancer. It will surely prove as fatal also unless
steps are taken now to reverse its course. What is now being done toward
arresting its progress or reversing its trend?
My dear Dr. Goldstein, can you recall the name of the philosopher who
is quoted as saying that "Nothing in this world is permanent except
change?" That philosophy must be applied to the Christian faith also.
The $64 question remains whether the change will be for the better or
for the worse. The problem is that simple. If the present trend
continues for another 37 years in the same direction and at the same
rate traveled for the past 37 years the Christian faith as it is
professed today by Christians will have disappeared from the face of the
earth. In what form or by what instrumentality the mission of Jesus
Christ will thereupon and thereafter continue to make itself manifest
here on earth is as unpredictable as it is inevitable.
In the existing crisis it is neither logical nor realistic to drive
Christians out of the Christian "fold" in relatively large numbers for
the dubious advantage to be obtained by bringing a comparatively small
number of so-called or self-styled "Jews" into the Christian "fold".
It is useless to try to deny the fact that today finds the Christian
faith on the defense throughout the world. This realization staggers the
imagination of the few Christians who understand the situation. This
status of the Christian faith exists in spite of the magnificent
contributions of the Christian faith to the progress of humanity and
civilization for almost 2000 years. It is not my intention in this
letter to expose the conspirators who are dedicating themselves to the
destruction of the Christian faith nor to the nature and extent of the
conspiracy itself. That exposure would fill many volumes.
The history of the world for the past several centuries and current
events at home and abroad confirm the existence of such a conspiracy.
The world-wide network of diabolical conspirators implement this plot
against the Christian faith while Christians appear to be sound asleep.
The Christian clergy appear to be more ignorant or more indifferent
about this conspiracy than other Christians. They seem to bury their
heads in the sands of ignorance or indifference like the legendary
ostrich. This ignorance or indifference on the part of the Christian
clergy has dealt a blow to the Christian faith already from which it may
never completely recover, if at all. It seems so sad.
Christians deserve to be blessed in this crisis with a spiritual Paul
Revere to ride across the nation warning Christians that their enemies
are moving in on them fast. My dear Dr. Goldstein, will you volunteer to
be that Paul Revere?
Of equal importance to pin-pointing the enemies who are making war
upon the Christian faith from the outside is the necessity to discover
the forces at work inside the Christian faith which make it so
vulnerable to its enemies on the outside. Applying yourself to this
specific phase of the problem can prove of tremendous value in rendering
ineffective the forces responsible for this dangerous state of affairs.
The souls of millions of Christians who are totally unknown to you
are quite uneasy about the status of the Christian faith today. The
minds of countless thousands among the Christian clergy are troubled by
the mysterious "pressure" from above which prevents them exercising
their sound judgment in this situation. If the forces being manipulated
against the Christian faith from the inside can be stopped the Christian
faith will be able to stand upon its feet against its enemies as the
Rock of Gibraltar. Unless this can be done soon the Christian faith
appears destined to crumble and to eventually collapse. An ounce of
prevention is far preferable to a pound of cure you can be sure in this
situation as in all others.
With all the respect due to the Christian clergy and in all humility
I have an unpleasant duty to perform. I wish to go on record with you
here that the Christian clergy are primarily if not solely responsible
for the internal forces within the Christian faith inimical to its best
interests. This conclusion on my part indicates the sum total of all the
facts in my book which add up to just that. If you truly desire to be
realistic and constructive you must "hew to the line and let the chips
fall where they may." That is the only strategy that can save the
Christian faith from a fate it does not deserve. You cannot pussy-foot
with the truth any longer simply because you find that now "the truth
hurts", -someone you know or like.
At this late hour very little time is left in which to mend our
fences if I can call it that. We are not in a position to waste any of
our limited time. "Beating it around the bush" now will get us exactly
nowhere. The courageous alone will endure the present crisis when all
the chips are down. Figuratively and possibly literally there will be
live heroes and dead cowards when the dust of this secular combat
settles and not dead heroes and live cowards as sometimes occurs under
other circumstances. The Christian faith today remains the only "anchor
to windward" against universal barbarism. The dedicated enemies of the
Christian faith have sufficiently convinced the world by this time of
the savage methods they will adopt in their program to erase the
Christian faith from the face of the earth.
Earlier in this letter I stated that in my humble opinion the apathy
of the Christian clergy might be charged with sole responsibility for
the increasing dilution of the devotion of countless Christians for the
Christian faith. This is the natural consequence of the confusion
created by the Christian clergy in the minds of Christians concerning
certain fundamentals of the Christian faith. The guilt for this
confusion rests exclusively upon Christian leadership not upon
Christians generally. Confusion creates doubt. Doubt creates loss of
confidence. Loss of confidence creates loss of interest. As confusion
grows more, and more, and more confidence grows less, and less, and
less. The result is complete loss of all interest. You can hardly
disagree with that, my dear Dr. Goldstein, can you?
The confusion in the minds of Christians concerning fundamentals of
the Christian faith is unwarranted and unjustified. It need not exist.
It would not exist if the Christian clergy did not aid and abet the
deceptions responsible for it. The Christian clergy may be shocked to
learn that they have been aiding and abetting the dedicated enemies of
the Christian faith. Many of the Christian clergy are actually their
allies but may not know it. This phase of the current world-wide
campaign of spiritual sabotage is the most negative factor in the
defense of the Christian faith.
Countless Christians standing on the sidelines in this struggle see
their Christian faith "withering on the vine" and about ripe enough to
"drop into the lap" of its dedicated enemies. They can do nothing about
it. Their cup is made more bitter for them as they observe this
unwarranted and this unjustified ignorance and indifference on the part
of the Christian clergy. This apathetic attitude by the Christian clergy
offers no opposition to the aggressors against the Christian faith.
Retreat can only bring defeat. To obviate surrender to their dedicated
enemies the Christian clergy must "about face" immediately if they
expect to become the victors in the invisible and intangible ideological
war now being so subversively waged against the Christian faith under
their very noses. When will they wake up?
If I were asked to recite in this letter the many manners in which
the Christian clergy are confusing the Christian concept of the
fundamentals of the Christian faith it would require volumes rather than
pages to tell the whole story. Space alone compels me here to confine
myself to the irreducible minimum. I will limit myself here to the most
important reasons for this confusion. Brevity will of necessity limit
the references cited to support the matters presented in this letter. I
will do my best under the circumstances to establish the authenticity of
the incontestable historical facts I call to your attention here.
In my opinion the most important reason is directly related to your
present activities. Your responsibility for this confusion is not
lessened by your good intentions. As you have heard said so many times
"Hell is paved with good intentions." The confusion your articles create
is multiplied a thousand-fold by the wide publicity given to them as a
result of the very high regard in which you personally are held by
editors and readers across the nation, Christian and non-Christian
alike. Your articles constantly are continually reprinted and quoted
from coast to coast.
The utterance by the Christian clergy which confuses Christians the
most is the constantly repeated utterance that "Jesus was a Jew." That
also appears to be your favorite theme. That misrepresentation and
distortion of an incontestable historic fact is uttered by the Christian
clergy upon the slightest pretext. They utter it constantly, also
without provocation. They appear to be "trigger happy" to utter it. They
never miss an opportunity to do so. Informed intelligent Christians
cannot reconcile this truly unwarranted misrepresentation and distortion
of an incontestable historic fact by the Christian clergy with
information known by them now to the contrary which comes to them from
sources believed by them to be equally reliable.
This poses a serious problem today for the Christian clergy. They can
extricate themselves from their present predicament now only be
resorting to "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
That is the only formula by which the Christian clergy can recapture the
lost confidence of Christians. As effective spiritual leaders they
cannot function without this lost confidence. They should make that
their first order of business.
My dear Dr. Goldstein, you are a theologian of high rank and a
historian of note. Of necessity you also should agree with other
outstanding authorities on the subject of whether "Jesus was a Jew."
These leading authorities agree today that there is no foundation in
fact for the implications, inferences and the innuendoes resulting from
the incorrect belief that "Jesus was a Jew". Incontestable historic
facts and an abundance of other proofs establish beyond the possibility
of any doubt the incredibility of the assertion so often heard today
that "Jesus was a Jew".
Without any fear of contradiction based upon fact the most competent
and best qualified authorities all agree today that Jesus Christ was not
a so-called or self-styled "Jew". They do confirm that during His
lifetime Jesus was known as a "Judean" by His contemporaries and not as
a "Jew", and that Jesus referred to Himself as a "Judean" and not as a
"Jew". During His lifetime here on earth Jesus was referred to by
contemporary historians as a "Judean" and not as a "Jew." Contemporary
theologians of Jesus whose competence to pass upon this subject cannot
challenge by anyone today also referred to Jesus during his lifetime
here on earth as a "Judean" and not as a "Jew".
Inscribed upon the Cross when Jesus was Crucified were the Latin
words "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum". Pontius Pilate's mother-tongue. No
one will question the fact that Pontius Pilate was well able to
accurately express his own ideas in his own mother-tongue. The
authorities competent to pass upon the correct translation into English
of the Latin "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum" agree that it is "Jesus of
Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans." There is no disagreement upon that by
them.
During His lifetime here on earth Jesus was not regarded by Pontius
Pilate nor by the Judeans among whom He dwelt as "King of the Jews". The
inscription on the Cross upon which Jesus was Crucified has been
incorrectly translated into the English language only since the 18th
century. Pontius Pilate was ironic and sarcastic when he ordered
inscribed upon the Cross the Latin words "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum".
About to be Crucified, with the approval of Pontius Pilate, Jesus was
being mocked by Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate was well aware at that
time that Jesus had been denounced, defied and denied by the Judeans who
alas finally brought about His Crucifixion as related by history.
Except for His few followers at that time in Judea all other Judeans
abhorred Jesus and detested His teachings and the things for which He
stood. That deplorable fact cannot be erased from history by time.
Pontius Pilate was himself the "ruler" of the Judeans at the time he
ordered inscribed upon the Cross in Latin words "Iesus Nazarenus Rex
Iudeorum", In English "Jesus the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans". But
Pontius Pilate never referred to himself as "ruler" of the Judeans. The
ironic and sarcastic reference of Pontius Pilate to Jesus as "Ruler of
the Judeans" can hardly be accepted as recognition by Pontius Pilate of
Jesus as "Ruler of the Judeans". That is inconceivable by any
interpretation.
At the time of the Crucifixion of Jesus Pontius Pilate was the
administrator in Judea for the Roman Empire. At that time in history the
area of the Roman Empire included a part of the Middle East. As far as
he was concerned officially or personally the inhabitants of Judea were
"Judeans" to Pontius Pilate and not so- called "Jews" as they have been
styled since the 18th century. In the time of Pontius Pilate and not
so-called "Jews" as they have been styled since the 18th century. In the
time of Pontius Pilate in history there was no religious, racial or
national group in Judea known as "Jews" nor had there been any group so
identified anywhere else in the world prior to that time.
Pontius Pilate expressed little interest as the administrator of the
Roman Empire officially or personally in the wide variety of forms of
religious worship then practiced in Judea. These forms of religious
worship extended from phallic worship and other forms of idolatry to the
emerging spiritual philosophy of an eternal, omnipotent and invisible
Divine deity, the emerging Yahve (Jehovah) concept which predated
Abraham of Bible fame by approximately 2000 years. As the administrator
for the Roman Empire in Judea it was the official policy of Pontius
Pilate never to interfere in the spiritual affairs of the local
population. Pontius Pilate's primary responsibility was the collection
of taxes to be forwarded home to Rome, not the forms of religious
worship practiced by the Judeans from whom those taxes were collected.
As you well know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, the Latin word "rex" means
"ruler, leader" in English. During the lifetime of Jesus in Judea the
Latin word "rex" meant only that to Judeans familiar with the Latin
language. The Latin word "rex" is the Latin verb "rego, regere, rexi,
rectus" in English means as you also well know "to rule, to lead". Latin
was of course the official language in all the provinces administered by
a local administrator of the Roman Empire. This fact accounts for the
inscription on the Cross in Latin.
With the invasion of the British Isles by the Anglo-Saxons, the
English language substituted the Anglo-Saxon "king" for the Latin
equivalent "rex" used before the Anglo-Saxon invasion. The adoption of
"king" for "rex" at this late date in British history did not
retroactively alter the meaning of the Latin "rex" to the Judeans in the
time of Jesus. The Latin "rex" to them then meant only "ruler, leader"
as it still means in Latin. Anglo-Saxon "king" was spelled differently
when first used but at all times meant the same as "rex" in Latin,
"leader" of a tribe.
During the lifetime of Jesus it was very apparent to Pontius Pilate
that Jesus was the very last Person in Judea the Judeans would select as
their "ruler" or their "leader". In spite of this situation in Judea
Pontius Pilate did not hesitate to order the inscription of the Cross "Iesus
Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum". By the wildest stretch of the imagination it is
not conceivable that this sarcasm and irony by Pontius Pilate at the
time of the Crucifixion was not solely mockery of Jesus by Pontius
Pilate and only mockery. After this reference to "Jesus the Nazarene
Ruler of the Judeans" the Judeans forthwith proceeded to Crucify Jesus
upon that very Cross.
In Latin in the lifetime of Jesus the name of the political
subdivision in the Middle East known in modern history as Palestine was
"Iudaea". It was then administered by Pontius Pilate as administrator
for the Roman Empire of which it was then a part. The English for the
Latin "Iudaea" is "Judea". English "Judean" is the adjective for the
noun "Judea". The ancient native population of the subdivision in the
Middle East known in modern history as Palestine was then called
"Iudaeus" in Latin and "Judean" in English. Those words identified the
indigenous population of Judea in the lifetime of Jesus. Who can deny
that Jesus was a member of the indigenous population of Judea in His
lifetime?
And of course you know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, in Latin the Genitive
Plural of "Iudaeus" is "Iudaeorum". The English translation of the
Genitive Plural of "Iudaeorum" is "of the Judeans". It is utterly
impossible to give any other English translation to "Iudaeorum" than "of
the Judeans". Qualified and competent theologians and historians regard
as incredible any other translation into English of "Iesus Nazarenus Rex
Iudaeorum" than "Jesus the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans". You must
agree that this is literally correct.
At the time Pontius Pilate was ordering the "Iesus Nazarenus Rex
Iudaeorum" inscribed upon the Cross the spiritual leaders of Judea were
protesting to Pontius Pilate "not to write that Jesus was the ruler of
the Judeans" but to inscribe instead that Jesus "had said that He was
the ruler of the Judeans". The spiritual leaders of Judea made very
strong protests to Pontius Pilate against his reference to Jesus as "Rex
Iudaeorum" insisting that Pontius Pilate was not familiar with or
misunderstood the status of Jesus in Judea. These protests are a matter
of historical record, as you know.
The spiritual leaders in Judea protested in vain with Pontius Pilate.
They insisted that Jesus "had said that He was the ruler of the Judeans"
but that Pontius Pilate was "not to write that Jesus was the ruler of
the Judeans". For after all Pontius Pilate was a foreigner in Judea who
could not understand the local situations as well as the spiritual
leaders. The intricate pattern of the domestic political, social and
economic cross-currents in Judea interested Pontius Pilate very little
as Rome's administrator.
The Gospel by John was written originally in the Greek language
according to the best authorities. In the Greek original there is no
equivalent for the English that Jesus "had said that He was the ruler of
the Judeans". The English translation of the Greek original of the
Gospel by John, XIX, 19, reads "Do not inscribe 'the monarch (basileus)
of the Judeans (Ioudaios), but that He Himself said I am monarch (basileus)
of the Judeans (Ioudaios)' ". "Ioudaia" is the Greek for the Latin for "basileus"
in Greek. The English "ruler", or its alternative "leader", define the
sense of Latin "rex" and Greek "basileus" as they were used in the Greek
and Latin Gospel of John.
Pontius Pilate "washed his hands" of the protests by the spiritual
leaders in Judea who demanded of him that the inscription on the Cross
authored by Pontius Pilate be corrected in the manner they insisted
upon. Pontius Pilate be corrected in the manner they insisted upon.
Pontius Pilate very impatiently replied to their demands "What I have
written, I have written." The inscription on the Cross remained what it
had been, "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum", or "Jesus the Nazarene Ruler
of the Judeans" in English.
The Latin quotations and words mentioned in this letter are verbatim
quotations and the exact words which appear in the 4th century
translation of the New Testament into Latin by St. Jerome. This
translation is referred to as the Vulgate Edition of the New Testament.
It was the first official translation of the New Testament into Latin
made by the Christian Church. Since that time it has remained the
official New Testament version used by the Catholic Church. The
translation of the Gospel of John into Latin by St. Jerome was made from
the Greek language in which the Gospel of John was originally written
according to the best authorities on this subject.
The English translation of the gospel by John XIX, 19, from the
original text in the Greek language reads as follows, "Pilate wrote a
sign and fastened it to the Cross and the writing was "Jesus the
Nazarene the monarch of the Judeans' ". In the original Greek manuscript
there is mention also made of the demands upon Pontius Pilate by the
spiritual leaders in Judea that Pontius Pilate alter the reference on
the Cross to Jesus as "Ruler of the Judeans". The Greek text of the
original manuscript of the Gospel by John establishes beyond any
question or doubt that the spiritual leaders in Judea at that time had
protested to Pontius Pilate that Jesus was "not the ruler of the
Judeans" but only "had said that He was the ruler of the Judeans".
There is no factual foundation in history or theology today for the
implications, inferences and innuendoes that the Greek "Ioudaios", the
Latin "Iudaeus", or the English "Judean:" ever possessed a valid
religious connotation. In their three respective languages these three
words have only indicated a strictly topographical or geographical
connotation. In their correct sense these three words in their
respective languages were used to identify the members of the indigenous
native population of the geographic area known as Judea in the lifetime
of Jesus. During the lifetime of Jesus there was not a form of religious
worship practiced in Judea or elsewhere in the known world which bore a
name even remotely resembling the name of the political subdivision of
the Roman Empire; i.e., "Judaism" from "Judea". No cult or sect existed
by such a name.
It is an incontestable fact that the word "Jew" did not come into
existence until the year 1775. Prior to 1775 the word "Jew" did not
exist in any language. The word "Jew" was introduced into the English
for the first time in the 18th century when Sheridan used it in his play
"The Rivals", II,i, "She shall have a skin like a mummy, and the beard
of a Jew". Prior to this use of the word "Jew" in the English language
by Sheridan in 1775 the word "Jew" had not become a word in the English
language. Shakespeare never saw the word "Jew" as you will see.
Shakespeare never used the word "Jew" in any of his works, the common
general belief to the contrary notwithstanding. In his "Merchant of
Venice", V.III.i.61, Shakespeare wrote as follows: "what is the reason?
I am a Iewe; hath not a Iewe eyes?".
In the Latin St. Jerome 4th century Vulgate Edition of the New
Testament Jesus is referred to by the Genitive Plural of "Iudaeus" in
the Gospel of John reference to the inscription on the Cross, -
"Iudaeorum". It was in the 4th century that St. Jerome translated into
Latin the manuscripts of the New Testament from the original languages
in which they were written. This translation by St. Jerome is referred
to still today as the Vulgate Edition by the Roman Catholic Church
authorities, who use it today.
Jesus is referred as a so-called "Jew" for the first time in the New
Testament in the 18th century. Jesus is first referred to as a so-called
"Jew" in the revised 18th century editions in the English language of
the 14th century first translations of the New Testament into English.
The history of the origin of the word "Jew" in the English language
leaves no doubt that the 18th century "Jew" is the 18th century
contracted and corrupted English word for the 4th century Latin
"Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition. Of that there is no
longer doubt.
The available manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century
accurately trace the origin and give the complete history of the word
"Jew" in the English language. In these manuscripts are to be found all
the many earlier English equivalents extending through the 14 centuries
from the 4th to the 18th century. From the Latin "Iudaeus" to the
English "Jew" these English forms included successively: "Gyu", "Giu",
"Iu", "Iuu", "Iuw", "Ieuu", "Ieuy", "Iwe", "Iow", "Iewe", "leue", "Iue",
"Ive", "lew", and then finally in the 18th century, "Jew". The many
earlier English equivalents for "Jews" through the 14 centuries are
"Giwis", "Giws", "Gyues", "Gywes", "Giwes", "Geus", "Iuys", "Iows",
"Iouis", "Iews", and then also finally in the 18th century, "Jews".
With the rapidly expanding use in England in the 18th century for the
first time in history of the greatly improved printing presses unlimited
quantities of the New Testament were printed. These revised 18th century
editions of the earlier 14th century first translations into the English
language were then widely distributed throughout England and the English
speaking world among families who had never possessed a copy of the New
Testament in any language. In these 18th century editions with revisions
the word "Jew" appeared for the first time in any English translations.
The word "Jew" as it was used in the 18th century editions has since
continued in use in all elections of the New Testament in the English
language. The use of the word "Jew" thus was stabilized.
As you know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, the best known 18th century
editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition
and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of
the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word
"Jew" did not appear in it. The King James Authorized translation of the
New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in
1611. The word "Jew" did not appear in it either. The word "Jew"
appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised
versions for the first times.
Countless copies of the revised 18th century editions of the Rheims
(Douai) and the King James translations of the New Testament into
English were distributed to the clergy and the laity throughout the
English speaking world. They did not know the history of the origin of
the English word "Jew" nor did they care. They accepted the English word
"Jew" as the only and as the accepted form of the Latin "Iudaeus" and
the Greek "Ioudaios". How could they be expected to have known
otherwise? The answer is they could not and they did not. It was a new
English word to them.
When you studied Latin in your school days you were taught that the
letter "I" in Latin when used as the first letter in a word is
pronounced like the letter "Y" in English when it is the first letter in
words like "yes", "youth" and "yacht". The "I" in "Iudaeus" is
pronounced like the "Y" in "yes", "youth", and "yacht" in English. In
all the 4th century to 18th century forms for the 18th century "Jew" the
letter "I" was pronounced like the English "Y" in "yes", "youth", and
"yacht". The same is true of the "Gi" or the "Gy" where it was used in
place of the letter "I".
The present pronunciation of the word "Jew" in modern English is a
development of recent times. In the English language today the "J" in
"Jew" is pronounced like the "J" in the English "justice", "jolly", and
"jump". This is the case only since the 18th century. Prior to the 18th
century the "J" in "Jew" was pronounced exactly like the "Y" in the
English "yes", "youth", and "yacht". Until the 18th century and perhaps
even later than the 18th century the word "Jew" in English was
pronounced like the English "you" or "hew", and the word "Jews" like
"youse" or "hews". The present pronunciation of "Jew" in English is a
new pronunciation acquired after the 18th century.
The German language still retains the Latin original pronunciation.
The German "Jude" is the German equivalent of the English "Jew". The "J"
in the German "Jude" is pronounced exactly like the English "Y" in
"yes", "youth", and "yacht". The German "J" is the equivalent of the
Latin "I" and both are pronounced exactly like the English "Y" in "yes",
"youth" and "yacht". The German "Jude" is virtually the first syllable
of the Latin "Iudaeus" and is pronounced exactly like it. The German
"Jude" is the German contraction and corruption of the Latin "Iudaeus"
just as the English "Jew" is the contraction and corruption of the Latin
"Iudaeus". The German "J" is always pronounced like the English "Y" in
"yes", "youth", and "yacht" when it is the first letter of a word. The
pronunciation of the "J" in German "Jude" is not an exception to the
pronunciation of the "J" in German.
The English language as you already know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, is
largely made up of words adopted from foreign languages. After their
adoption by the English language foreign words were then adapted by
contracting their spelling and corrupting their foreign pronunciation to
make them more easily pronounced in English from their English spelling.
This process of first adopting foreign words and then adapting them by
contracting their spelling and corrupting their pronunciation resulted
in such new words in the English language as "cab" from the French
"cabriolet" and many thousands of other words similarly from their
original foreign spelling. Hundreds of others must come to your mind.
By this adopting-adapting process the Latin "Iudacus" and the Greek
"Ioudaios" finally emerged in the 18th century as "Jew" in the English
language. The English speaking peoples struggled through 14 centuries
seeking to create for the English language an English equivalent for the
Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios" which could be easily
pronounced in English from its English spelling. The English "Jew" was
the resulting 18th century contracted and corrupted form of the Latin
"Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios". The English "Jew" is easily
pronounced in English from its English spelling. The Latin "Iudaeus" and
the Greek "Ioudaios" cannot be as easily pronounced in English from the
Latin and Greek spelling. They were forced to coin a word.
The earliest version of the New Testament in English from the Latin
Vulgate Edition is the Wyclif, or Wickliffe Edition published in 1380.
In the Wyclif Edition Jesus is there mentioned as One of the "iewes".
That was the 14th century English version of the Latin "Iudaeus" and was
pronounced "hew-weeze", in the plural, and "iewe" pronounced "hew-wee"
in the singular. In the 1380 Wyclif Edition in English the Gospel by
John, XIX.19, reads "Ihesus of nazareth kyng of the iewes". Prior to the
14th century the English language adopted the Anglo-Saxon "kyng"
together with many other Anglo-Saxon words in place of the Latin "rex"
and the Greek "basileus". The Anglo-Saxon also meant "tribal leader".
In the Tyndale Edition of the New Testament in English published in
1525 Jesus was likewise described as One of the "Iewes". In the
Coverdale Edition published in 1535 Jesus was also described as One of
the "Iewes". In the Coverdale Edition the Gospel by John, XIX.19, reads
"Iesus the Nazareth, kynge of the "Iewes". In the Cranmer Edition
published in 1539 Jesus was again described as One of the "Iewes". In
the Geneva Edition published in 1540-1557 Jesus was also described as
One of the "Iewes". In the Rheims Edition published in 1582 Jesus was
described as One of the "Ievves". In the King James Edition published in
1604-1611 also known as the Authorized Version Jesus was described again
as one of the "Iewes". The forms of the Latin "Iudaeus" were used which
were current at the time these translations were made.
The translation into English of the Gospel by John, XIX.19, from the
Greek in which it was originally written reads "Do not inscribe `the
monarch of the Judeans' but that He Himself said `I am monarch' ". In
the original Greek manuscript the Greek "basileus" appears for "monarch"
in the English and the Greek "Ioudaios" appears for "Judeans" in the
English. "Ioudaia" in Greek is "Judea" in English. "Ioudaios" in Greek
is "Judeans" in English. There is no reason for any confusion.
My dear Dr. Goldstein, if the generally accepted understanding today
of the English "Jew" and "Judean" conveyed the identical implications,
inferences and innuendoes as both rightly should, it would make no
difference which of these two words was used when referring to Jesus in
the New Testament or elsewhere. But the implications, inferences, and
innuendoes today conveyed by these two words are as different as black
is from white. The word "Jew" today is never regarded as a synonym for
"Judean" nor is "Judean" regarded as a synonym for "Jew".
As I have explained, when the word "Jew" was first introduced into
the English language in the 18th century its one and only implication,
inference and innuendo was "Judean". However during the 18th, 19th and
20th centuries a well-organized and well- financed international
"pressure group" created a so-called "secondary meaning" for the word
"Jew" among the English- speaking peoples of the world. This so-called
"secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" bears no relation whatsoever to
the 18th century original connotation of the word "Jew". It is a
misrepresentation.
The "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew" today bears as little
relation to its original and correct meaning as the "secondary meaning"
today as for the word "camel" bears to the original and correct meaning
of the word "camel", or the "secondary meaning" for the word "ivory"
bears to the original and correct meaning of the word "ivory". The
"secondary meaning" today for the word "camel" is a cigarette by that
name but its original and correct meaning is a desert animal by that
ancient name. The "secondary meaning" of the word "ivory" today is a
piece of soap but its original and correct meaning is the tusk of a male
elephant.
The "secondary meaning" of words often become the generally accepted
meanings of words formerly having entirely different meanings. This is
accomplished by the expenditure of great amounts of money for
well-planned publicity. Today if you ask for a "camel" someone will hand
you a cigarette by that name. Today if you ask for a piece of "ivory"
someone will hand you a piece of soap by that name. You will never
receive either a desert animal or a piece of the tusk of a male
elephant. That must illustrate the extent to which these "secondary
meanings" are able to practically eclipse the original and correct
meanings of words in the minds of the general public. The "secondary
meaning" for the word "Jew" today has practically totally eclipsed the
original and correct meaning of the word "Jew" when it was introduced as
a word in the English language. This phenomena is not uncommon.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized the "secondary
meaning" of words. The highest court in the land has established as
basic law that "secondary meanings" can acquire priority rights to the
use of any dictionary word. Well-planned and well-financed world-wide
publicity through every available media by well-organized groups of
so-called or self-styled "Jews" for three centuries has created a
"secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" which has completely "blacked
out" the original and correct meaning of the word "Jew". There can be no
doubt about that.
There is not a person in the whole English-speaking world today who
regards a "Jew" as a "Judean" in the literal sense of the word. That was
the correct and only meaning in the 18th century. The generally accepted
"secondary meaning" of the word "Jew" today with practically no
exceptions is made up of four almost universally-believed theories.
These four theories are that a so- called or self-styled "Jew" is (1) a
person who today professes the form of religious worship known as
"Judaism", (2) a person who claims to belong to a racial group
associated with the ancient Semites, (3) a person directly the
descendant of an ancient nation which thrived in Palestine in Bible
history, (4) a person blessed by Divine intentional design with certain
superior cultural characteristics denied to other racial, religious or
national groups, all rolled into one.
The present generally accepted "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew"
is fundamentally responsible for the confusion in the minds of
Christians regarding elementary tenets of the Christian faith. It is
likewise responsible today to a very great extent for the dilution of
the devotion of countless Christians for their Christian faith. The
implications, inferences and innuendoes of the word "Jew" today, to the
preponderant majority of intelligent and informed Christians, is
contradictory and in complete conflict with incontestable historic fact.
Christians who cannot be fooled any longer are suspect of the Christian
clergy who continue to repeat, and repeat, and repeat ad nauseam their
pet theme song "Jesus was a Jew". It actually now approaches a
psychosis.
Countless Christians know today that they were "brain washed" by the
Christian clergy on the subject "Jesus was a Jew". The resentment they
feel is not yet apparent to the Christian clergy. Christians now are
demanding from the Christian clergy, "the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth". It is now time for the Christian clergy to tell
Christians what they should have told them long ago. Of all religious
groups in the world Christians appear to be the least informed of any on
the subject. Have their spiritual leaders been reckless with the truth?
Countless intelligent and informed Christians no longer accept
unchallenged assertions by the Christian clergy that Jesus in His
lifetime was a Member of a group in Judea which practiced a religious
form of worship then which is today called "Judaism", or that Jesus in
His lifetime here on earth was a Member of the racial group which today
includes the preponderant majority of all so- called or self-styled
"Jews" in the world, or that the so-called or self-styled "Jews"
throughout the world today are the lineal descendants of the nation in
Judea of which Jesus was a national in His lifetime here on earth, or
that the cultural characteristics of so- called or self-styled "Jews"
throughout the world today correspond with the cultural characteristics
of Jesus during His lifetime here on earth and His teachings while He
was here on earth for a brief stay. Christians will no longer believe
that the race, religion, nationality and culture of Jesus and the race,
religion, nationality and culture of so-called or self-styled "Jews"
today or their ancestors have a common origin or character.
The resentment by Christians is more ominous than the Christian
clergy suspect. Under existing conditions the Christian clergy will find
that ignorance is not bliss, nor wisdom folly. Christians everywhere
today are seeking to learn the authentic relationship between the
so-called or self-styled "Jews" through-out the world today and the
"Judeans" who populated "Judea" before, during and after the time of
Jesus. Christians now insist that they be told correctly by the
Christian clergy about the racial, religious, national and cultural
background of the so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world
today and the basis for associating these backgrounds with the racial,
religious, national and cultural background of Jesus in His lifetime in
Judea. The intelligent and informed Christian are alerted to the
exploded myth that the so- called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the
world today are the direct descendants of the "Judeans" amongst whom
Jesus lived during His lifetime here on earth.
Christians today are also becoming more and more alerted day by day
why the so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world for three
centuries have spent uncounted sums of money to manufacture the fiction
that the "Judeans" in the time of Jesus were "Jews" rather than
"Judeans", and that "Jesus was a Jew". Christians are becoming more and
more aware day by day of all the economic and political advantages
accruing to the so-called or self- styled "Jews" as a direct result of
their success in making Christians believe that "Jesus was a Jew" in the
"secondary meaning" they have created for the 18th century word "Jew".
The so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today represent
themselves to Christians as "Jews" only in the "secondary meaning" of
the word "Jew". They seek to thereby prove their kinship with Jesus.
They emphasize this fiction to Christians constantly. That fable is fast
fading and losing its former grip upon the imaginations of Christians.
To allege that "Jesus was a Jew" in the sense that during His
lifetime Jesus professed and practiced the form of religious worship
known and practiced under the modern name of "Judaism" is false and
fiction of the most blasphemous nature. If to be a so- called or
self-styled "Jew" then or now the practice of "Judaism" was a
requirement then Jesus certainly was not a so-called "Jew". Jesus
abhorred and denounced the form of religious worship practiced in Judea
in His lifetime and which is known and practiced today under its new
name "Judaism". That religious belief was then known as "Pharisiasm".
The Christian clergy learned that in their theological seminary days but
they have never made any attempt to make that clear to Christians.
The eminent Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, the head of The Jewish
Theological Seminary of America, often referred to as "The Vatican of
Judaism", in his Foreword to his First Edition of his world-famous
classic "The Pharisees, The Sociological Background of Their Faith", on
page XXI states:
"...Judaism...Pharisiasm became Talmudism,
Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became
Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes in name...the spirit
of the ancient Pharisees survives, unaltered...From Palestine to
Babylonia; from Babylonia to North Africa, Italy, Spain, France and
Germany; from these to Poland, Russia, and eastern Europe generally,
ancientharisaism has wandered...demonstrates the enduring importance
which attaches to Pharisaism as a religious movement..."
The celebrated Rabbi Louis Finkelstein in his great classic quoted
from above traces the origin of the form of religious worship practiced
today under the present name "Judaism", to its origin as "Pharisaism" in
Judea in the time of Jesus. Rabbi Louis Finkelstein confirms what the
eminent Rabbi Adolph Moses states in his great classic "Yahvism, and
Other Discourses", in collaboration with the celebrated Rabbi H.G. Enlow,
published in 1903 by the Louisville Section of the Council of Jewish
Women, in which Rabbi Adolph Moses, on page 1, states:
"Among the innumerable misfortunes which
have befallen...the most fatal in its consequences is the name
Judaism...Worse still, the Jews themselves, who have gradually come
to call their religion Judaism...Yet, neither in biblical nor
post-biblical, neither in talmudic, nor in much later times, is the
term Judaism ever heard...the Bible speaks of the religion...as
"Torah Yahve", the instruction, or the moral law revealed by Yahve...in
other places...as "Yirath Yahve", the fear and reverence of Yahve.
These and other appellations CONTINUED FOR MANY AGES TO STAND FOR
THE RELIGION...To distinguish it from Christianity and Islam, the
Jewish philosophers sometimes designate it as the faith or belief of
the Jews...IT WAS FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS, WRITING FOR THE INSTRUCTION OF
GREEKS AND ROMANS, WHO COINED THE TERM JUDAISM, in order to pit it
against Hellenism...by Hellenism was understood the civilization,
comprising language, poetry, religion, art, science, manners,
customs, institutions, which...had spread from Greece, its original
home, over vast regions of Europe, Asia and Africa...The Christians
eagerly seized upon the name...the Jews themselves, who intensely
detested the traitor Josephus, refrained from reading his
works...HENCE THE TERM JUDAISM COINED BY JOSEPHUS REMAINED
ABSOLUTELY UN- KNOWN TO THEM...IT WAS ONLY IN COMPARATIVELY RECENT
TIMES, AFTER THE JEWS BECAME FAMILIAR WITH MODERN CHRISTIAN
LITERATURE, THAT THEY BEGAN TO NAME THEIR RELIGION JUDAISM."
(emphasis supplied).
This statement by the world's two leading authorities on this
subject clearly establishes beyond any question or any doubt that
so-called "Judaism" was not the name of any form of religious
worship practiced in Judea in the time of Jesus. The Flavius
Josephus referred to in the above quotation lived in the 1st
century. It was he who coined the word "Judaism" in the 1st century
explicitly for the purpose recited clearly above. Religious worship
known and practiced today under the name of "Judaism" by so- called
or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world was known and practiced
in Judea in the time of Jesus under the name "Pharisaism" according
to Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, head of the Jewish Theological Seminary
of America, and all the other most competent and qualified
recognized authorities on the subject.
The form of religious worship known as "Pharisaism" in Judea in the
time of Jesus was a religious practice based exclusively upon the
Talmud. The Talmud in the time of Jesus was the Magna Charta, the
Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights,
ALL ROLLED INTO ONE, of those who practiced "Pharisaism". The Talmud
today occupies the same relative position with respect to those who
profess "Judaism". The Talmud today virtually exercises totalitarian
dictatorship over the lives of so-called or self-styled "Jews" whether
they are aware of that fact or not. Their spiritual leaders make no
attempt to conceal the control they exercise over the lives of so-called
or self-styled "Jews". They extend their authority far beyond the
legitimate limits of spiritual matters. Their authority has no equal
outside religion.
The role of the Talmud plays in "Judaism" as it is practiced today is
officially stated by the eminent Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer, the Director
of Inter-religious Activities of the North American Jewish Committee and
the President of the Jewish Chaplains Association of the Armed Forces of
the United States. In his present capacity as official spokesman for the
American Jewish Committee, the self-styled "Vatican of Judaism", Rabbi
Morris N. Kertzer wrote a most revealing and comprehensive article with
the title, "What is a Jew" which was published as a feature article in
"Look" Magazine in the June 17, 1952 issue. In that article Rabbi Morris
N. Kertzer evaluated the significance of the Talmud to "Judaism" today.
In that illuminating treatise on that important subject by the most
qualified authority, at the time, Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer stated:
"The Talmud consists of 63 books of legal, ethical and historical writings of the ancient rabbis. It was edited five centuries after the birth of Jesus. It is a compendium of law and lore. IT IS THE LEGAL CODE WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW AND IT IS THE TEXTBOOK USED IN THE TRAINING OF RABBIS." (emphasis supplied).
In view of this official evaluation of the importance of the Talmud
in the practice of "Judaism" today by the highest body of so-called or
self-styled "Jews" in the world it is very necessary at this time, my
dear Dr. Goldstein, to inquire a little further into the subject of the
Talmud. In his lifetime the eminent Michael Rodkinson, the assumed name
of a so-called or self-styled "Jew" who was one of the world's great
authorities on the Talmud, wrote "History of the Talmud." This great
classic on the subject was written by Michael Rodkinson in collaboration
with the celebrated Rabbi Isaac M. Wise. In his "History of the Talmud"
Michael Rodkinson, on page 70, states:
"Is the literature that Jesus was familiar with in his early years yet in existence in the world? Is it possible for us to get at it? Can we ourselves review the ideas, the statements, the modes of reasoning and thinking, ON MORAL AND RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS, which were current in his time, and MUST HAVE BEEN EVOLVED BY HIM DURING THOSE THIRTY SILENT YEARS WHEN HE WAS PONDERING HIS FUTURE MISSION? To such inquirers the learned class of Jewish rabbis ANSWER BY HOLDING UP THE TALMUD. Here, say they, is THE SOURCE FROM WHENCE JESUS OF NAZARETH DREW THE TEACHINGS WHICH ENABLED HIM TO REVOLUTIONIZE THE WORLD; and the question becomes, therefor, an interesting one TO EVERY CHRISTIAN. What is the Talmud? THE TALMUD, THEN, IS THE WRITTEN FORM OF THAT WHICH, IN THE TIME OF JESUS WAS CALLED THE TRADITION OF THE ELDERS AND TO WHICH HE MAKES FREQUENT ALLUSIONS. What sort of book is it? (emphasis supplied)
Stimulated by that invitation every Christian worthy of the name
should immediately take the trouble to seek the answer to that
"interesting" question "to every Christian". My dear Dr. Goldstein, your
articles do not indicate whether you have taken the time and the trouble
to personally investigate "what sort of book" the Talmud is either
before or after your conversion to Catholicism. Have you ever done so?
If you have done so what is the conclusion you have reached regarding
"what sort of book" the Talmud is? What is your personal unbiased and
unprejudiced opinion of the Talmud? Is it consistent with your present
views as a devout Roman Catholic and a tried and true Christian? Can you
spare a few moments to drop me a few lines on your present views?
In case you have never had the opportunity to investigate the
contents of the "63 books" of the Talmud so well summarized by Rabbi
Morris N. Kertzer in his illuminated article "What is a Jew", previously
quoted, may I here impose upon your precious time to quote a few
passages for you until you find the time to conveniently investigate the
Talmud's contents personally. If I can be of any assistance to you in
doing so please do not hesitate to let me know in what manner you can
use my help.
From the Birth of Jesus until this day there have never been recorded
more vicious and vile libelous blasphemies of Jesus, or Christians and
the Christian faith by anyone, anywhere or anytime than you will find
between the covers of the infamous "63 books" which are "the legal code
which forms the basis of Jewish religious law" as well as the "textbook
used in the training of rabbis". The explicit and implicit irreligious
character and implications of the contents of the Talmud will open your
eyes as they have never been opened before. The Talmud reviles Jesus,
Christians and the Christian faith as the priceless spiritual and
cultural heritage of Christians has never been reviled before or since
the Talmud was completed in the 5th century. You will have to excuse the
foul, obscene, indecent, lewd and vile language you will see here as
verbatim quotations from the official unabridged translation of the
Talmud into English. Be prepared for a surprise.
In the year 1935 the international hierarchy of so-called or
self-styled "Jews" for the first time in history published an official
unabridged translation of the complete Talmud in the English language
with complete footnotes. What possessed them to make this translation
into English is one of the unsolved mysteries. It was probably done
because so many so-called or self-styled "Jews" of the younger
generation were unable to read the Talmud in the many ancient languages
in which the original "63 books" of the Talmud were first composed by
their authors in many lands between 200 B.C. and 500 A.D.
The international hierarchy of so-called or self-styled "Jews"
selected the most learned scholars to make this official translation of
the Talmud into English. These famous scholars also prepared official
footnotes explaining unabridged translation of the Talmud into English
where they were required. This official unabridged translation of the
Talmud into English with the official footnotes was printed in London in
1935 by the Soncino Press. It has been always referred to as the Soncino
Edition of the Talmud. A very limited number of the Soncino Edition were
printed. They were not made available to any purchaser. The Soncino
Edition of the Talmud is to be found in the Library of Congress and the
New York Public Library. A set of the Soncino Edition of the Talmud has
been available to me for many years. They have become rare "collector's
items" by now.
The Soncino Edition of the Talmud with its footnotes is like a
double-edged sword. It teaches the Talmud to countless millions of the
younger generation of so-called or self-styled "Jews" who are not able
to read the Talmud in the many ancient languages in which the Talmud was
written by its authors between 200 B.C. and 500 A.D. It also teaches
Christians what the Talmud has to say about Jesus, About Christians and
about the Christian faith. Someday this is bound to back-fire.
Christians will some day challenge the assertion that the Talmud is the
"sort of book" from which Jesus allegedly "drew the teachings which
enabled him to revolutionize the world" on "moral and religious
subjects". The rumbling is already heard in places.
Verbatim quotations from the Soncino Edition of the Talmud are
required to illustrate the enormity of the Talmud's iniquity. My
comments with verbatim quotations will prove inadequate to do that. In
spite of the low language I will of necessity therefore include in this
letter to you I have no compunctions in the matter because the United
States Post Office authorities do not bar the Soncino Edition of the
Talmud from the mails. Nevertheless I apologize in advance for the
language which will of necessity appear in this letter to you. You now
understand.
The official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud published in
1935 was "Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices" by
such eminent Talmudic scholars as Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, Rabbi Dr. Samuel
Daiches, Rabbi Dr. Israel W. Slotki, M.A., Litt.D., The Reverend Dr. A.
Cohen, M.A.', Ph.D., Maurice Simon, M.A., and the Very Reverend The
Chief Rabbi Dr. J.H. Hertz wrote the "Foreword" for the Soncino Edition
of the Talmud. The Very Reverend Rabbi Hertz was at the time the Chief
Rabbi of England.
The following are but a few of the many similar quotations with
footnotes from the Soncino Edition of the Talmud, the "sort of book"
from which Jesus allegedly "drew the teachings which enabled him to
revolutionize the world" on "moral and religious" subjects:
(Book)
SANHEDRIN, 55b-55a: "What is meant by this? - Rab said: Pederasty
with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a
child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years
is not treated as with a child above that (2) What is the basis of their
dispute? - Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual
intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilty (upon
the actual offender); whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual
intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty (in that respect)
(3). But Samuel maintains: Scriptures writes, (And thou shalt not lie
with mankind) as with the lyings of a woman (4). It has been taught in
accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; (55a)
(he) who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally: or a
woman who causes herself to be beastially abused, whether naturally or
unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5)."
(footnotes) "(1) The reference is to the passive subject of sodomy.
As stated in supra 54a, guilt is incurred by the active participant even
if the former be a minor; i.e., less than thirteen years old. Now,
however, it is stated that within this age a distinction is drawn. (2)
Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a
child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the
minimum. (3) At nine years a male attains sexual matureness. (4) Lev
XVIII, 22 (5) Rashi reads ("xxx") (Hebrew characters, Ed.) instead of
("zzz") (Hebrew characters, Ed.) in our printed texts. A male, aged nine
years and a day, who commits etc. There are thus three distinct clauses
in this Baraitha. The first-a male aged nine years and a day - refers to
the passive subject of pederasty, the punishment being incurred by the
adult offender. This must be its meaning: because firstly, the active
offender is never explicitly designated as a male, it being understood,
just as the Bible states, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, where only
the sex of the passive participant is mentioned; and secondly, if the
age reference is to the active party, the guilt being incurred by the
passive adult party, why single out pederasty: in all crimes of incest,
the passive adult does not incur guilt unless the other party is at
least nine years and a day? Hence the Baraitha supports Rab's contention
that nine years (and a day) is the minimum age of the passive partner
for the adult to be liable." (emphasis in original, Ed.)
Before giving any more verbatim quotations from the "sort of book"
from which it is falsely alleged Jesus "drew the teachings which enabled
him to revolutionize the world" on "moral and religious subjects" I wish
to here again recall to your attention the official statement by Rabbi
Morris N. Kertzer in `Look' Magazine for June 17, 1952. In that official
statement made by Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer on behalf of The American
Jewish Committee, self- styled "The Vatican of Judaism", informed the
20,000,000 readers of "Look' magazine that the Talmud "IS THE LEGAL CODE
WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW AND IT IS THE TEXTBOOK
USED IN THE TRAINING OF RABBIS". Please bear this in mind as you read
further.
Before continuing I wish also to call your attention to another
feature. Confirming the official view of Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer, the
New York `Times' on May 20, 1954 ran a news item under the headline
"Rabbis Plan a Fund to Endow Two Chairs". The news item itself ran as
follows: "Special to the New York Times, Uniontown, Pa. May 19 - Plans
for raising $500,000, for the creation of two endowed chairs at the
`Jewish Theological Seminary of America' were announced today at the
fifty-forth annual convention of the `Rabbinical Assembly of America'.
THE PROFESSORSHIPS WOULD BE KNOWN AS THE LOUIS GINSBERG CHAIR IN
TALMUD..." This is further proof that the Talmud is not yet quite a
dead-letter in the "TRAINING OF RABBIS". Is further proof needed on that
question?
The world's leading authorities on the Talmud confirm that the
official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud translated into
English follows the original texts with great exactness. It is almost a
word-for-word translation of the original texts. In his famous classic
"The History of the Talmud Michael Rodkinson, the leading authority on
the Talmud, in collaboration with the celebrated Reverend Dr. Isaac M.
Wise states:
With the conclusion of the first volume of this work at the beginning
of the twentieth century, we would invite the reader to take a glance
over the past of the Talmud, in which he will see... that not only was
the Talmud not destroyed, but was so saved that NOT A SINGLE LETTER OF
IT IS MISSING; and now IT IS FLOURISHING TO SUCH A DEGREE AS CANNOT BE
FOUND IN ITS PAST HISTORY...THE TALMUD IS ONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE
WORLD. During the twenty centuries of its existence...IT SURVIVED IN ITS
ENTIRETY, and not only has the power of its foes FAILED TO DESTROY EVEN
A SINGLE LINE, but it has not even been able materially to weaken its
influence for any length of time. IT STILL DOMINATES THE MINDS OF A
WHOLE PEOPLE, WHO VENERATE ITS CONTENTS AS DIVINE TRUTH... The colleges
for the study of the Talmud are increasing almost in every place where
Israel dwells, especially in this country where millions are gathered
for the funds of the two colleges, the Hebrew Union College of
Cincinnati and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York,
in which the chief study is the Talmud... There are also in our city
houses of learning (Jeshibath) for the study of the Talmud in the lower
East Side, where many young men are studying the Talmud every day."
This "divine truth" which "a whole people venerate" of which "not a
single letter of it is missing" and today "is flourishing to such a
degree as cannot be found in its history" is illustrated by the
additional verbatim quotations which follow:
(Book)
SANHEDRIN, 55b: "A maiden three years and a day may be acquired in
marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with
her, she becomes his. The penalty of adultery may be incurred through
her; (if a niddah) she defiles him who has connection with her, so that
he in turn defiles that upon which he lies, as a garment which has lain
upon (a person afflicted with gonorrhea)." (emphasis in original text of
Soncino Edition, Ed.)
(footnotes) "(2) His wife derives no pleasure from this, and hence
there is no cleaving. (3) A variant reading of this passage is: Is there
anything permitted to a Jew which is forbidden to a heathen. Unnatural
connection is permitted to a Jew. (4) By taking the two in conjunction,
the latter as illustrating the former, we learn that the guilt of
violating the injunction `to his wife but not to his neighbor's wife' is
incurred only for natural but not for unnatural intercourse." (emphasis
in original, Ed.)
(Book)
SANHEDRIN, 69a " `A man'; from this I know the law only with respect
to a man: whence do I know it of one aged nine years and a day who is
capable of intercourse? From the verse, And `if a man'? (2)-He replied:
Such a minor can produce semen, but cannot beget therewith; for it is
like the seed of cereals less than a third grown (3)."
(footnotes) (2) `And' (`) indicates an extension of the law, and is
here interpreted to include a minor aged nine years and a day. (3) Such
cereals contain seed, which if sown, however, will not grow."
(Book)
SANHEDRIN, 69b "Our rabbis taught: If a woman sported lewdly with her
young son (a minor), and he committed the first stage of cohabitation
with her, -Beth Shammai say, he thereby renders her unfit for the
priesthood (1). Beth Hillel declare her fit...All agree that the
connection of a boy nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst
that of one less than eight years is not (2); their dispute refers only
to one who is eight years old.
(footnotes) (1) i.e., she becomes a harlot whom a priest may not
marry (Lev XXL,7.). (2) so that if he was nine years and a day or more,
Beth Hillel agree that she is invalidated from the priesthood; whilst if
he was less than eight, Beth Shammai agree that she is not."
(Book)
KETHUBOTH, 5b. "The question was asked: Is it allowed (15) to perform
the first marital act on the Sabbath? (16). Is the blood (in the womb)
stored up (17), or is it the result of a wound? (18).
(footnotes) "(15) Lit., `how is it'? (16) When the intercourse could
not take place before the Sabbath (Tosaf) (17) And the intercourse would
be allowed, since the blood flows out of its own accord, no would having
been made. (18) Lit., or is it wounded? And the intercourse would be
forbidden."
(Book)
KETHUBOTH, 10a-10b. "Someone came before Rabban Gamaliel the son of
Rabbi (and) said to him, `my master I have had intercourse (with my
newly wedded wife) and I have not found any blood (7). She (the wife) to
him, `My master, I am still a virgin'. He (then) said to them; Bring me
two handmaids, one (who is) a virgin and one who had intercourse with a
man. They brought to him (two such handmaids), and he placed them on a
cask of wine. (In the case of ) the one who was no more a virgin its
smell (1) went through (2), (in the case of) the virgin the smell did
not go through (3). He (then) placed this one (the young wife) also (on
the cask of wine), and its smell (4) did not go through. He (then) said
to him: Go, be happy with thy bargain (7). But he should have examined
her from the beginning (8)."
(footnotes) "(1) i.e., the smell of wine. (2) One could smell the
wine from the mouth (Rashi). (3) One could not smell the wine from the
mouth. (4) i.e., the smell of wine. (5) Rabban Gamaliel (6) To the
husband. (7) The test showed that the wife was a virgin. (8) Why did he
first have to experiment with the two handmaids."
(Book)
KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. "Rabba said, It means (5) this: When a grown up
man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl
is less than this (6), it is as if one puts the finger in the eye (7),
but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown up woman, he makes her
as `a girl who is injured by a piece of wood' ".
(footnotes) "(5). Lit., `says'. (6) Lit., `here', that is, less than
three years old. (7) Tears come to the eyes again and again, so does
virginity come back to the little girl under three years."
(Book)
KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. "Rab Judah said that Rab said: A small boy who
has intercourse with a grown up woman makes her (as though she were )
injured by a piece of wood (1). Although the intercourse of a small boy
is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it
as by a piece of wood."
(footnotes) "(1) Although the intercourse of a small boy is not
regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by
a piece of wood."
(Book)
HAYORATH, 4a. "We learnt: (THE LAW CONCERNING THE MENSTRUANT OCCURS
IN THE TORAH BUT IF A MAN HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A WOMAN THAT AWAITS A DAY
CORRESPONDING TO A DAY HE IS EXEMPT. But why? Surely (the law
concerning) a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day is
mentioned in the Scriptures: He hath made naked her fountain. But,
surely it is written, (1)- They might rule that in the natural way even
the first stage of contact is forbidden; and in an unnatural way,
however, is (that the ruling might have been permitted) (3) even in the
natural way (4) alleging (that the prohibition of) the first stage (5)
has reference to a menstruant woman only (6). And if you prefer I might
say: The ruling may have been that a woman is not regarded as a zabah
(7) except during the daytime because it is written, all the days of her
issue (8)." (emphasis appears in Soncino Edition original, Ed.)
(footnotes) "(13) Lev. XV, 28. (14) Cf. supra p. 17, n. 10. Since she
is thus Biblically considered unclean how could a court rule that one
having intercourse with her is exempt? (15) Lev XX, 18. (1) Ibid. 13.
The plural "xxxx" (Hebrew characters, Ed.) implies natural, and
unnatural intercourse. (2) Why then was the case of `a woman who awaits
a day corresponding to a day' given as an illustration when the case of
a menstruant, already mentioned, would apply the same illustration. (3)
The first stage of contact. (4) In the case of one `who awaits a day
corresponding to a day'; only consummation of coition being forbidden in
her case. (5) Cf. Lev XX, 18. (6) Thus permitting a forbidden act which
the Sadducees do not admit. (7) A woman who has an issue of blood not in
the time of her menstruation, and is subject to certain laws of
uncleanness and purification (Lev XV, 25ff). (8) Lev XV, 26. Emphasis
being laid on days."
(Book)
ABODAH ZARAH, 36b-37a. "R. Naham b. Isaac said: They decreed in
connection with a heathen child that it would cause defilement by
seminal emission (2) so that an Israelite child should not become
accustomed to commit pederasty with it...From what age does a heathen
child cause defilement by seminal emission? From the age of nine years
and one day. (37a) for inasmuch as he is then capable of the sexual act
he likewise defiles by emission. Rabina said: It is therefore to be
concluded that a heathen girl (communicates defilement) from the age of
three years and one day, for inasmuch as she is then capable of the
sexual act she likewise defiles by a flux.
(footnotes) (2). Even through he suffered from no issue.
(Book)
SOTAH, 26b. "R. Papa said: It excludes an animal, because there is
not adultery in connection with an animal (4). Raba of Parazika (5)
asked R. Ashi, Whence is the statement which the Rabbis made that there
is no adultery in connection with an animal? Because it is written, Thou
shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog etc.; (6) and
it has been taught: The hire of a dog (7) and the wages of a harlot (8)
are permissible, as it is said, Even both of these (9) - the two
(specified texts are abominations) but not four (10)...As lying with
mankind. (12) But, said Raba, it excludes the case where he warned her
against contact of the bodies (13). Abaye said to him, That is merely an
obscene act (and not adultery), and did the All-Merciful prohibit (a
wife to her husband) for an obscene act?" (emphasis in the original
text, Ed.)
(footnotes) "(4) She would not be prohibited to her husband for such
an act. (5) farausag near Baghdad v. BB. (Sonc. Ed.) p. 15, n.4. He is
thus distinguished from the earlier Rabbi of that name. (6) Deut. XXIII,
19. (7) Money given by a man to a harlot to associate with his dog. Such
an association is not legal adultery. (8) If a man had a female slave
who was a harlot and he exchanged her for an animal, it could be
offered. (9) Are an abomination unto the Lord (ibid). (10) Viz., the
other two mentioned by the Rabbi. (11) In Num. V. 13. since the law
applies to a man who is incapable. (12) Lev. XVIII, 22. The word for
`lying' is in the plural and is explained as denoting also unnatural
intercourse. (13) With the other man, although there is no actual
coition." (emphasis appears in original Soncino Edition, Ed.)
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 55b. "Raba said; for what purpose did the All- Merciful
write `carnally' in connection with the designated bondmaid (9), a
married woman (10< and a sotah (11)? That in connection with the
designated bondmaid (is required) as has just been explained (12). That
in connection with a married woman excludes intercourse with a relaxed
membrum (13). This is a satisfactory interpretation in accordance with
the view of him who maintains that if one cohabited with forbidden
relatives with relaxed membrum he is exonerated (14); what, however, can
be said, according to him who maintains (that for such an act one is)
guilty? The exclusion is rather that of intercourse with a dead woman
(15). Since it might have been assumed that, as (a wife), even after her
death, is described as his kin (16), one should be guilty for
(intercourse with) her (as for that) with a married woman, hence we are
taught (that one is exonerated).
(footnotes) (9) Lev. XIX,20. (10) Ibid. XVIII,20 (11) Num. V, 13.
(12) SUPRA 55a. (13) Since no fertilization can possibly occur. (14)
Shebu., 18a, Sanh. 55a (15) Even though she dies as a married woman.
(16) In Lev. XXI, 2. where the text enumerates the dead relatives for
whom a priest may defile himself. As was explained, supra 22b, his kin
refers to one's wife." (emphasis in Soncino Edition original, Ed.)
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 103a-103b. "When the serpent copulated with Eve (14) with
lust. The lust of the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai (16) came to
an end, the lust of idolators who did not stand at Mount Sinai did not
come to an end."
(footnotes) "(14) In the Garden of Eden, according to tradition. (15)
i.e., the human species. (16) And experienced the purifying influence of
divine Revelation."
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 63a. "R. Eleazar further stated: What is meant by the
Scriptural text, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh
(5)? This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal
but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve.
(footnotes) "(5) Gen. II, 23. emphasis on This is now." (emphasis
appears in original Sonsino Edition, Ed.)
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 60b. "As R. Joshua b. Levi related: `There was a certain
town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was
disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Ramanos who conducted an inquiry and found
in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years
and one day (14), and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest
(15)."
(footnotes) "(13) A proselyte under the age of three years and one
day may be married by a priest. (14) And was married to a priest. (15)
i.e., permitted to continue to live with her husband."
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 59b. "R. Shimi b. Hiyya stated: A woman who had intercourse
with a beast is eligible to marry a priest (4). Likewise it was taught:
A woman who had intercourse with that which is no human being (5),
though she is in consequence subject to the penalty of stoning (6), is
nevertheless permitted to marry a priest (7).
(footnotes) "(4) Even a High Priest. The result of such intercourse
being regarded as a mere wound, and the opinion that does not regard an
accidentally injured hymen as a disqualification does not so regard such
an intercourse either. (5) A beast. (6) If the offense was committed in
the presence of witnesses after due warning. (7) In the absence of
witnesses and warning."
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 12b "R. Bebai recited before R. Naham: Three (categories
of) woman may (7) use an absorbent (8) in their marital intercourse (9),
a minor, a pregnant woman and a nursing woman. The minor (10) because
(otherwise) she might (11) become pregnant, and as a result (11) might
die...And what is the age of such a minor? (14). From the age of eleven
years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day. One who is
under (15), or over this age (16) must carry on her marital intercourse
in the usual manner."
(footnotes) "(7) (so Rashi. R. Tam; Should use, v.Tosaf s.v.) (8)
Hackled wool or flax (9) To prevent conception (10) May use an
absorbent. (11) Lit., `perhaps'. (14) Who is capable of conception but
exposed thereby to the danger of death. (15) When no conception is
possible. (16) When pregnancy involves no fatal consequences."
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 59b. "When R. Dimi came (8) he related: It once happened at
Haitalu (9) that while a young woman was sweeping the floor (10) a
village dog (11) covered her from the rear (12) and Rabbi permitted her
to marry a priest. Samuel said: Even a High Priest.
(footnotes) "(8) From Palestine to Babylon (9) (Babylonian form for
Aitulu, modern Aiterun N.W. of Kadesh, v. S. Klein, Beitrage, p. 47).
(10) Lit., `house'. (11) Or `big hunting dog' (Rashi), `ferocious dog'
(Jast.), `small wild dog' (Aruk). (12) A case of unnatural intercourse.
(Book)
KETHUBOTH, 6b. "Said he to him: Not like those Babylonians who are
not skilled in moving aside. (7), but there are some who are skilled in
moving aside (8). If so, why (give the reason of) `anxious.? (10)- for
one who is not skilled. (Then) let the[m] say: One who is skilled is
allowed (to perform the first intercourse on Sabbath), one who is not
skilled is forbidden? -Most (people) are skilled (11). Said Raba the son
of R. Hanan to Abaye' If this were so, then why (have) groomsmen (12)
why (have) a sheet? (13)- He (Abaye) said to him: There (the groomsmen
and the sheet are necessary) perhaps he will see and destroy (the tokens
of her virginity) (14).
(footnotes) "(7) i.e., having intercourse with a virgin without
causing a bleeding. (8) Thus no blood need come out, and `Let his head
be cut off and let him not die!' does not apply. (9) If the bridegroom
is skilled in `moving sideways'. (10) He need not be anxious about the
intercourse and should not be free from reading Shema' on account of
such anxiety. (11) Therefor the principle regarding `Let his head be cut
off and let him not die!' does not, as a rule, apply. (12) The groomsmen
testify in case of need to the virginity of the bride. V. infra 12a. If
the bridegroom will act in a manner that will cause no bleeding, the
groomsmen will not be able to testify on the question of virginity. (13)
To provide evidence of the virginity of the bride. Cf. Deut. XXII,17.
(14) It may happen that he will act in the normal manner and cause
bleeding but he will destroy the tokens and maintain that the bride was
not a virgin; for this reason the above mentioned provisions are
necessary. Where however he moved aside and made a false charge as to
her virginity, the bride can plead that she is still a virgin (Rashi)."
After reading these verbatim quotations from the countless other
similar quotations which you will find in the official unabridged
Soncino Edition of the Talmud in the English language are you of the
opinion, my dear Dr. Goldstein, that the Talmud was the "sort of book"
from which Jesus "drew the teachings which enabled him to revolutionize
the world" on "moral and religious subjects"? You have read here
verbatim quotations and official footnotes on a few of the many other
subjects covered by the "63 books" of the Talmud. When you read them you
must be prepared for a shock. I am surprised that the United States Post
Office does not bar the Talmud from the mails. I hesitate to quote them
in this letter.
In support of the contention by the top echelon among the outstanding
authorities on this phase of the present status of the Talmud, further
proof of the wide influence exerted by the Talmud upon the so-called or
self-styled "Jews" is supplied by Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer's article
"What is a Jew" in the June 17, 1952 issue of `Look Magazine'. Rabbi
Morris N. Kertzer's article contains a lovely picture of a smiling man
seated in a chair with a large opened book upon his lap. Seated around
him on the floor are about a dozen smiling men and women. They are
paying close attention to the smiling man in the chair with the opened
book upon his lap. He is reading to the persons on the floor. He
emphasizes what he is reading by gestures with one of his hands. Beneath
this photograph of the group is the following explanation:
"ADULTS STUDY ANCIENT WRITINGS TOO. RABBI, IN THIS PICTURE, SEATED IN
CHAIR, LEADS GROUP DISCUSSION OF TALMUD BEFORE EVENING PRAYER."
(emphasis supplied)
This picture and explanation indicate the extent the Talmud is the
daily diet of so-called or self-styled "Jews" in this day and age. The
Talmud is first taught to children of so-called or self- styled "Jews"
as soon as they are able to read. Just as the Talmud is the "textbook by
which rabbis are trained" so is the Talmud also the textbook by which
the rank-and-file of the so-called or self- styled "Jews" are "trained"
to think from their earliest age. In the translation of the Talmud with
its texts edited, corrected and formulated by the eminent Michael
Rodkinson, with its first edition revised and corrected by the
celebrated Reverend Dr. Isaac M. Wise, on page XI, it states:
"THE MODERN JEW IS THE PRODUCT OF THE TALMUD" (emphasis supplied)
To the average Christian the word "Talmud" is just another word
associated by them with the form of religious worship practiced in their
synagogues by so-called or self-styled "Jews". Many Christians have
never heard of the Talmud. Very few Christians are informed on the
contents of the Talmud. Some may believe the Talmud to be an integral
part of the religious worship known to them as "Judaism". It suggests a
sort of bible or religious text book. It is classed as a spiritual
manual. But otherwise few if any Christians have an understanding of the
contents of the Talmud and what it means in the daily lives of so-called
or self-styled "Jews". As an illustration, my dear Dr. Goldstein, how
many Christians have any conception of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer
recited in synagogues on the Day of Atonement?
In Volume VIII of the Jewish Encyclopedia on page 539 found in the
Library of Congress, the New York Public Library and libraries of all
leading cities, will be found the official translation into English of
the prayer known as the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer. It is the
prologue of the Day of Atonement services in the synagogues. IT is
recited three times by the standing congregation in concert with
chanting rabbis at the alter. After the recital of the "Kol Nidre" (All
Vows) prayer the Day of Atonement religious ceremonies follow
immediately. The Day of Atonement religious observances are the highest
holy days of the so-called or self-styled "Jews" and are celebrated as
such throughout the world. The official translation into English of the
"Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer follows"
"ALL VOWS, OBLIGATIONS, OATHS, ANATHEMAS, whether called `konam', `konas', or by any other name, WHICH WE MAY VOW, OR SWEAR, OR PLEDGE, OR WHEREBY WE MAY BE BOUND, FROM THIS DAY OF ATONEMENT UNTO THE NEXT, (whose happy coming we await), we do repent. MAY THEY BE DEEMED ABSOLVED, FORGIVEN, ANNULLED, AND VOID AND MADE OF NO EFFECT; THEY SHALL NOT BIND US NOR HAVE POWERS OVER US. THE VOWS SHALL NOT BE RECKONED VOWS; THE OBLIGATIONS SHALL NOT BE OBLIGATORY; NOR THE OATHS BE OATHS." (emphasis supplied)
The implications, inferences and innuendoes of the "Kol Nidre" (All
Vows) prayer are referred to in the Talmud in the Book of Nedarim,
23a-23b as follows:
(Book)
"And he who desires that NONE OF HIS VOWS MADE DURING THE YEAR SHALL
BE VALID, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, `EVERY
VOW WHICH I MAKE IN THE FUTURE SHALL BE NULL (1). (HIS VOWS ARE THEN
INVALID,) PROVIDING THAT HE REMEMBERS THIS AT THE TIME OF THE VOW."
(emphasis in original and supplied, Ed.)
(footnotes) "(1) This may have provided a support for the custom of
reciting Kol Nidre (a formula for dispensation of vows) prior to the
Evening Service of the Day of Atonement (Ran)...Though the beginning of
the year (New Year) is mentioned here, the Day of Atonement was probably
chosen on account of its great solemnity. But Kol Nidre as part of the
ritual IS LATER THAN THE TALMUD, and, as seen from the following
statement of R. Huna b. Hinene, THE LAW OF REVOCATION IN ADVANCE WAS NOT
MADE PUBLIC. (emphasis supplied and in original text, Ed.)
The greatest study of the "Kol Nidre" (all Vows) prayer was made by
the eminent psycho-analyst Professor Theodor Reik, the celebrated pupil
of the famous Dr. Sigmund Freud. The analysis of the historic, religious
and psychological background of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer by
Professor Reik presents the Talmud in its true perspective. This
important study is contained in Professor Reik's "The Ritual,
Psycho-Analytical Studies". In the chapter on the Talmud, on page 168,
Professor Reik states:
"THE TEXT WAS TO THE EFFECT THAT ALL OATHS WHICH BELIEVERS TAKE BETWEEN ONE DAY OF ATONEMENT AND THE NEXT DAY OF ATONEMENT ARE DECLARED INVALID." (emphasis added)
Before explaining to you how the present wording of the "Kol Nidre"
(All Vows) prayer was introduced into the Day of Atonement synagogue
ceremonies, my dear Dr. Goldstein, I would like to quote a passage to
you from the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. The Universal Jewish
Encyclopedia confirms the fact that the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer
has no spiritual value as might be believed because it is recited in
synagogues on the Day of Atonement as the prologue of the religious
ceremonies which follow it. The secular significance of the "Kol Nidre"
(All Vows) prayer is indicated forcefully by the analysis in the
Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. In Volume VI, on page 441, it states:
"The Kol Nidre HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL IDEA OF THE DAY OF ATONE- MENT...it attained to extraordinary solemnity and popularity by reason of the fact that it was THE FIRST PRAYER RECITED ON THIS HOLIEST OF DAYS."
My dear Dr. Goldstein, prepare for the shock of your life. Compelled
by what you may now read here about the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer
you must be shocked to learn that many Christian churches actually "peal
their bells" on the Day of Atonement in celebration of that holy day for
so-called or self- styled "Jews." How stupid can the Christian clergy
get? From what I have learned after a cursory inquiry I am unable to say
whether it was a case of stupidity or cupidity. With what you already
know, together with what [you] will additionally know before you finish
this letter, you will be able to judge for yourself whether it was
stupidity or cupidity. There is not one single fact in this entire
letter which every graduate of a theological seminary did not have the
opportunity to learn.
The following news item was featured in the New York `World Telegram'
on October 7th only a few days ago. Under a prominent headline "JEWISH
HOLIDAYS TO END AT SUNDOWN" the New York `World Telegram' gave great
prominence to the following story:
"Synagogues and temples throughout the city were crowded yesterday as the 24 hour fast began. Dr. Normal Salit, head of the Synagogue Council of America, representing the three major Jewish bodies, had called on other faiths TO JOIN THE FAST... Cutting across religious lines, MANY PROTESTANT CHURCHES IN THE CITY PEALED THEIR BELLS LAST NIGHT TO SOUND THE KOL NIDRE, TRADITIONAL MELODY USED AT THE START OF YOM KIPPUR. THE GESTURE OF GOOD- WILL WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE MANHATTAN OFFICE OF THE PROTESTANT COUNCIL" (emphasis supplied).
That just about "tops" anything I have ever had come to my attention
revealing the ignorance and indifference of the Christian clergy to the
hazards today facing the Christian faith. From my personal contacts with
the Manhattan Office of the Protestant Council in the recent past I hold
out very little hope for any constructive contribution they can make to
the common defense of the Christian faith against its dedicated enemies.
In each instance they buckled under the "pressure" exerted upon them by
the "contacts" for so-called or self-styled "Jews". If it was not so
tragic it would be comic. It was a joke indeed but the joke was on the
Christian clergy. Ye Gods! "Many" Christian churches "pealed their
bells", as the Protestant Council reports the event, "TO SOUND THE KOL
NIDRE, TRADITIONAL MELODY USED AT THE START OF YOM KIPPUR". Just where
does betrayal of a trust and breach of faith begin?
The present wording of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer dates from
the 11th century. A political reversal in eastern Europe compelled the
so-called or self-styled "Jews" in eastern Europe to adopt the present
wording of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer. That story involves the
history of the so-called or self-styled "Jews. Before relating here as
briefly as possible the history of the so- called or self-styled "Jews"
of eastern Europe I would like to quote here another short passage from
the Jewish Encyclopedia. In analyzing the course of history which
resulted in the present wording of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer the
Jewish Encyclopedia in Volume VII, on page 540, states:
"AN IMPORTANT ALTERATION IN THE WORDING of the `Kol Nidre' was made by Rashi's son-in-law, Meir ben Samuel, WHO CHANGED THE ORIGINAL PHRASE `FROM THE LAST DAY OF ATONEMENT TO THIS ONE' to `FROM THIS DAY OF ATONEMENT UNTIL THE NEXT' ". (emphasis supplied)
You will agree, my dear Dr. Goldstein, that Meir ben Samuel knew what
he was doing. The wording of that altered version of the "Kol Nidre"
(All Vows) prayer makes the recital of the prayer a release during the
coming year from any obligations to respect any oath, vow or pledge
during the coming year. Like any one-year license obtained from the
Federal, State or Municipal governments, the altered version of the "Kol
Nidre" (All Vows) prayer extends immunity in advance for one year from
all obligations to observe the terms of oaths, vows and pledges made in
the year following the date of the Day of Atonement when the prayer was
recited. Each year however it becomes necessary to renew this "license"
which automatically revokes in advance any oath, vow or pledge made
during the next twelve months, by again appearing in a synagogue on the
next Day of Atonement and reciting the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer
again. Do you approve of this?
The passage in the Talmud referring to "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer
certifies to several serious situations. It certifies that "Kol Nidre"
(All Vows) prayer was added as a prologue to the Day of Atonement
religious services long after the completion of the Talmud between 500
A.D. - 1000 A.D. by the statement, "as part of the ritual is later than
the Talmud." It confirms that Meir ben Samuel who authored the present
altered version of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer lived in the 11th
century. Furthermore, the so- called or self-styled "Jews" in eastern
Europe believed it served their purpose better to keep secret from their
Christian conquerors their attitude on oaths, vows and pledges, "the law
of revocation in advance was not made public."
With a complete and accurate knowledge of the origin and history of
the so-called or self-styled "Jews" in eastern Europe, my dear Dr.
Goldstein, it is quite impossible for yourself or for anybody to
intelligently understand the harmful influence the Talmud has exerted
for ten centuries , and the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer for seven
centuries upon the course of world history. These two little known
factors are the hub and the spokes of the "big wheel" rolling merrily
along the road to complete world domination in the not distant future,
without arousing suspicion, and wearing the innocent disguise of an
alleged religious belief as their only defense mechanism. This insidious
intrigue creates a most effective camouflage for the conspirators. The
virility of their plot presents a problem in the defense of the
political, economic, social and cultural ideologies developed under a
Christian civilization.
You will probably also be an astonished as the 150,000,000 Christians
years ago when I electrified the nation with the first publication by me
of the facts disclosed by my many years of research into the origin and
the history of the so-called or self- styled "Jews" in eastern Europe.
My many years of intensive research established beyond the question of
any doubt, contrary to the generally accepted belief held by Christians,
that the so-called or self-styled "Jews" in eastern Europe at any time
in their history in eastern Europe were never the legendary "lost ten
tribes" of Bible lore. That historic fact is incontrovertible.
Relentless research established as equally true that the so- called
or self-styled "Jews" in eastern Europe at no time in their history
could be correctly regarded as the direct lineal descendants of the
legendary "lost ten tribes" of Bible lore. The so-called or self-styled
"Jews" in eastern Europe in modern history cannot legitimately point to
a single ancient ancestor who ever set even a foot on the soil of
Palestine in the era of Bible history. Research also revealed that the
so-called or self-styled "Jews" in eastern Europe were never "Semites",
are not "Semites" now, nor can they ever be regarded as "Semites" at any
future time by any stretch of the imagination. Exhaustive research also
irrevocably rejects as a fantastic fabrication the generally accepted
belief by Christians that the so-called or self-styled "Jews" in eastern
Europe are the legendary "Chosen People" so very vocally publicized by
the Christian clergy form their pulpits.
Maybe you can explain to me, my dear Dr. Goldstein, the reason why
and just how the origin and the history of the Khazars and Khazar
Kingdom was so well concealed from the world for so many centuries? What
secret mysterious power has been able for countless generations to keep
the origin and the history of the Khazars and Khazar Kingdom out of
history text-books and out of class-room courses in history throughout
the world? The origin and history of the Khazars and Khazar Kingdom are
certainly incontestable historical facts. These incontestable historic
facts also establish beyond any question of doubt the origin and history
of the so-called or self-styled "Jews" in eastern Europe. The origin and
history of the Khazars and Khazar kingdom and their relationship to the
origin and early history of the so-called or self-styled "Jews" in
eastern Europe was one of history's best kept secrets until wide
publicity was given in recent years to my research on this subject. Do
you not think, my dear Dr. Goldstein, that it is time this whole subject
was dragged out of its hiding place?
In the year 1948 in the Pentagon in Washington I addressed a large
assembly of the highest ranking officers of the United States Army
principally in the G2 branch of Military Intelligence on the highly
explosive geopolitical situation in eastern Europe and the Middle East.
Then as now that area of the world was a potential threat to the peace
of the world and to the security of this nation I explained to them
fully the origin of the Khazars and Khazar Kingdom. I felt then as I
feel now that without a clear and comprehensive knowledge of that
subject it is not possible to understand or to evaluate properly what
has been taking place in the world since 1917, the year of the Bolshevik
revolution in Russia. It is the "key" to that problem.
Upon the conclusion of my talk a very alert Lieutenant Colonel
present at the meeting informed me that he was the head of the history
department of one of the largest and highest scholastic rated
institutions of higher education in the United States. He had taught
history there for 16 years. He had recently been called back to
Washington for further military service. To my astonishment he informed
me that he had never in all his career as a history teachers or
otherwise heard the word "khazar" before he heard me mention it there.
That must give you some idea, my dear Dr. Goldstein, of how successful
that mysterious secret power was with their plot to "block out" the
origin and the history of the Khazars and Khazar Kingdom in order to
conceal from the world and particularly Christians the true origin and
the history of the so-called or self- styled "Jews" in eastern Europe.
The Russian conquest in the 10th-13th centuries of the
little-known-to-history Khazars apparently ended the existence for all
time of the little-known-to-history 800,000 square mile sovereign
kingdom of the so-called or self-styled "Jews" in eastern Europe, known
then as the Khazar Kingdom. Historians and theologians now agree that
this political development was the reason for the "IMPORTANT CHANGE IN
THE WORDING OF THE `KOL NIDRE' by Meir ben Samuel in the 11th century,
and for the policy adopted by the so-called or self-styled "Jews" that
"THE LAW OF REVOCATION IN ADVANCE WAS NOT MADE PUBLIC". Will you be
patient with me while I review here as briefly as I can the history of
that political emergence and disappearance of a nation from the pages of
history?
Prior to the 10th century the Khazar Kingdom had already been reduced
by Russian conquests to an area of about 800,000 square miles. As you
can see on the map from the Jewish Encyclopedia [Reproduced in the book
form of this tract, "Facts are Facts"] the territory of the Khazar
Kingdom in the 10th century was still by far the largest of any nation
in Europe. The population of the Khazar Kingdom was made up for the most
part of Khazars with the addition of the remnants of the populations of
the 25 peaceful agricultural nations which had inhabited this
approximately 1,000,000 square miles before their conquest by the
invading Khazars. In the 1st century B.C. the Khazars had invaded
eastern Europe from their homeland in Asia. The Khazars invaded eastern
Europe via the land route between the north end of the Caspian Sea and
the south end of the Ural Mountains. (see map.)
The Khazars were not "Semites". They were an Asiatic Mongoloid
nation. They are classified by modern anthropologists as Turco-Finns
racially. From time immemorial the homeland of the Khazars was in the
heart of Asia. They were a very warlike nation. The Khazars were driven
out of Asia finally by the nations in Asia with whom they were
continually at war. The Khazars invaded eastern Europe to escape further
defeats in Asia. The very warlike Khazars did not find it difficult to
subdue and conquer the 25 peaceful agricultural nations occupying
approximately 1,000,000 square miles in eastern Europe. In a
comparatively short period the Khazars established the largest and most
powerful kingdom in Europe, and probably the wealthiest also.
The Khazars were a pagan nation when they invaded eastern Europe.
Their religious worship was a mixture of phallic worship and other forms
of idolatrous worship practiced in Asia by pagan nations This form of
worship continued until the 7th century. The vile forms of sexual excess
indulged in by the Khazars as their form of religious worship produced a
degree of moral degeneracy the Khazar's king could not endure. In the
7th century King Bulan, ruler at that time of the Khazar Kingdom,
decided to abolish the practice of phallic worship and other forms of
idolatrous worship and make one of the three monotheistic religions,
about which he knew very little, the new state religion. After a
historic session with representatives of the three monotheistic
religions King Bulan decided against Christian and Islam and selected as
the future state religion as the religious worship then know as
"Talmudism", and now known and practiced as "Judaism". This even is well
documented in history.
King Bulan and his 4000 feudal nobles were promptly converted by
rabbis imported from Babylonia for that event. Phallic worship and other
forms of idolatry were thereafter forbidden. The Khazar kings invited
large numbers of rabbis to come and open synagogues and schools to
instruct the population in the new form of religious worship. It was now
the state religion. The converted Khazars were the first population of
so-called or self-styled "Jews' in eastern Europe. So-called or
self-styled "Jews" in eastern Europe after the conversion of the Khazars
the descendants of the Khazars converted to "Talmudism", or as it is now
know "Judaism", by the 7th century mass conversion of the Khazar
population.
After the conversion of King Bulan none but a so-called or
self-styled "Jew" could occupy the Khazar throne. The Khazar Kingdom
became a virtual theocracy. The religious leaders were the civil
administrators also. The religious leaders imposed the teachings of the
Talmud upon the population as their guide to living. The ideologies of
the Talmud became the axis of political, cultural, economic and social
attitudes and activities throughout the Khazar kingdom. The Talmud
provided civil and religious law.
It might be very interesting for you, my dear Dr. Goldstein, if you
have the patience, to allow me to quote for you here form Volume IV,
pages 1 to 5, of the Jewish Encyclopedia. The Jewish Encyclopedia refers
to the Khazars as "Chazars". The two spellings are optional according to
the best authorities. The two are pronounced alike. Either Khazar or
"Chazar" is pronounced like the first syllable of "costume" with the
word "Czar" added onto it. It is correctly pronounced "cos(tume)Czar".
The Jewish Encyclopedia has five pages on the Khazars but I will skip
through them:
When the Khazars in the 1st century B.C. invaded eastern Europe their
mother-tongue was an Asiatic language, referred to in the Jewish
Encyclopedia as the "Khazar languages". They were primitive Asiatic
dialects without any alphabet or any written form. When King Bulan was
converted in the 7th century he decreed that the Hebrew characters he
saw in the Talmud and other Hebrew documents was thereupon to become the
alphabet for the Khazar language. The Hebrew characters were adopted to
the phonetics of the spoken Khazar language. The Khazars adopted the
characters of the so-called Hebrew language in order to provide a means
for providing a written record of their speech. The adoption of the
Hebrew characters had no racial, political or religious implication.
The western European uncivilized nations which had no alphabet for
their spoken language adopted the alphabet of the Latin language under
comparable circumstances. With the invasion of western Europe by the
Romans the civilization and the culture of the Romans was introduced
into these uncivilized areas. Thus the Latin alphabet was adopted for
the language of the French, Spanish, ENGLISH, Swedish and many other
western European languages. These languages were completely foreign to
each other yet they all used the same alphabet. The Romans brought their
alphabet with their culture to these uncivilized nations exactly like
the rabbis brought the Hebrew alphabet from Babylonia to the Khazars
when they introduced writing to them in the form of the Talmud's
alphabet.
Since the conquest of the Khazars by the Russians and the
disappearance of the Khazar Kingdom the language of the Khazars is known
as Yiddish. for about six centuries the so-called or self- styled "Jews"
of eastern Europe have referred to themselves while still resident in
their native eastern European countries as "Yiddish" by nationality.
They identified themselves as "Yiddish" rather than as Russian, Polish,
Galician, Lithuanian, Rumanian, Hungarian or by the nation of which they
were citizens. They also referred to the common language they all spoke
as "Yiddish" also. There are today in New York City as you know, my dear
Dr. Goldstein, many "Yiddish" newspapers, "Yiddish" theaters, and many
other cultural organizations of so-called or self-styled "Jews" from
eastern Europe which are identified publicly by the word "Yiddish" in
their title.
Before it became known as the "Yiddish" language, the mother-tongue
of the Khazars added many words to its limited ancient vocabulary as
necessity required. These words were acquired from the languages of its
neighboring nations with whom they had political, social or economic
relations. Languages of all nations add to their vocabularies in the
same way. The Khazars adapted words to their requirements form the
German, the Slavonic and the Baltic languages. The Khazars adopted a
great number of words from the German language. The Germans had a much
more advanced civilization than their Khazar neighbors and the Khazars
sent their children to German schools and universities.
The "Yiddish" language is not a German dialect. Many people are led
to believe so because "Yiddish" has borrowed so many words from the
German language. If "Yiddish" is a German dialect acquired from the
Germans then what language did the Khazars speak for 1000 years they
existed in eastern Europe before they acquired culture from the Germans?
The Khazars must have spoken some language when they invaded eastern
Europe. What was that language? When did they discard it? How did the
entire Khazar population discard one language and adopt another all of a
sudden? The idea is too absurd to discuss. "Yiddish" is the modern name
for the ancient mother-tongue of the Khazars with added German, Slavonic
and Baltic adopted and adapted numerous words.
"Yiddish" must not be confused with "Hebrew" because they both use
the same characters as their alphabets. There is not one word of
"Yiddish" in ancient "Hebrew" nor is there one word of ancient "Hebrew"
in "Yiddish". As I stated before, they are as totally different as
Swedish and Spanish which both likewise use the same Latin characters
for their alphabets. The "Yiddish" languages is the cultural common
denominator for all the so-called or self-styled "Jews" in or from
eastern Europe. To the so-called or self-styled "Jews" in and from
eastern Europe, "Yiddish" serves them like the English language serves
the populations of the 48 states of the United States. Their cultural
common denominator throughout the 48 states is the English language, or
wherever they may emigrate and resettle. The English language is the tie
which binds them to each other. It is the same with the "Yiddish"
language and so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world.
"Yiddish" serves another very useful purpose for so-called or
self-styled "Jews" throughout the world. They possess in "Yiddish" what
no other national, racial or religious group can claim. Approximately
90% of the world's so-called or self-styled "Jews" living in 42
countries of the world today are either emigrants from eastern Europe,
or their parents emigrated from eastern Europe. "Yiddish" is a language
common to all of them as their first or second language according to
where they were born. It is an "international" language to them.
Regardless of what country in the world they may settle in they will
always find co-religionists who also speak "Yiddish". "Yiddish" enjoys
other international advantages too obvious to describe here. "Yiddish"
is the modern language of a nation which has lost its existence as a
nation. "Yiddish" never had a religious implication, although using
Hebrew characters for its alphabet. It must not be confused with words
like "Jewish". But it is very much.
Directly north of the Khazar Kingdom at the height of its power a
small Slavic state was organized in 820 A.D. on the south shore of the
Gulf of Finland where it flows into the Baltic Sea. This small state was
organized by a small group of Varangians from the Scandinavian peninsula
on the opposite shore of the Baltic Sea. The native population of this
newly formed state consisted of nomad Slavs who had made their home in
this area from earliest recorded history. This infant nation was even
small than our state of Delaware. This newly-born state however was the
embryo which developed into the great Russian Empire. In less than 1000
years since 820 A.D. this synthetic nation expanded its borders by
ceaseless conquests until it now includes more than 9,500,000 square
miles in Europe and Asia, or more than three times the area of
continental United States, and they have not stopped.
During the 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries the rapidly expanding
Russian nation gradually swallowed up the Khazar kingdom, its neighbor
directly to the south. The conquest of the Khazar Kingdom by the
Russians supplies history with the explanation for the presence after
the 13th century of the large number of so-called or self-styled "Jews"
in Russia. The large number of so-called or self-styled "Jews" in Russia
and in eastern Europe after the destruction of the Khazar Kingdom were
thereafter no longer known as Khazars but as the "Yiddish" populations
of these many countries. They so refer to themselves today.
In the many wars with her neighbors in Europe after the 13th century
Russia was required to cede to her victors large areas which were
originally part of the Khazar Kingdom. In this manner Poland, Lithuania,
Galicia, Hungary, Rumania, and Austria acquired from Russia territory
originally a part of the Khazar Kingdom. Together with this territory
these nations acquired a segment of the population of so-called or
self-styled "Jews" descended from the Khazars who once occupied the
territory. These frequent boundary changes by the nations in eastern
Europe explains the presence today of so-called or self-styled "Jews" in
all these countries who all trace their ancestry back to the converted
Khazars. Their common language, their common culture, their common
religion, and their common racial characteristics classify them all
beyond any question of doubt with the Khazars who invaded eastern Europe
in the 1st century B.C. and were converted to "Talmudism" in the 7th
century.
The so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today of
eastern European origin make up at least 90% of the world's total
present population of so-called or self-styled "Jews". The conversion of
King Bulan and the Khazar nation in the 7th century accomplished for
"Talmudism", or for "Judaism" as "Talmudism" is called today, what the
conversion of Constantine and the western European nations accomplished
for Christianity. Christianity was a small comparatively unimportant
religious belief practiced principally in the eastern Mediterranean area
until the conversion to the Christian faith of the large populations of
the western European pagan nations after the conversion of Constantine.
"Talmudism", or "Judaism" as "Talmudism" is known today, was given its
greatest stimulus in all its history with the conversion of the large
pagan Khazar population in the 7th century. Without the conversion of
the Khazar population it is doubtful if "Talmudism", or "Judaism" as
"Talmudism" is known today, could have survived. "Talmudism", the civil
and religious code of the Pharisees, most likely would have passed out
of existence like the many other creeds and cults practiced by the
peoples in that area before, during and after "Pharisaism" assumed its
prominent position among these creeds and cults in the time of Jesus.
"Talmudism", as "Pharisaism" was called later, would have disappeared
with all its contemporary creeds and cults but for the conversion of the
Khazars to "Talmudism" in the 7th century. At that time "Talmudism" was
well on its way towards complete oblivion.
In the year 986 A. D. the ruler of Russia, Vladimir III, became a
convert to the Christian faith in order to marry a Catholic Slavonic
princess of a neighboring sovereign state. The marriage was otherwise
impossible. Vladimir III thereupon also made his newly-acquired
Christian faith the state religion of Russia replacing the pagan worship
formerly practiced in Russia since it was founded in 820 A.D. Vladimir
III and his successors as the rulers of Russia attempted in vain to
convert his so-called or self-styled "Jews", now Russian subjects, to
Russia's Christian state religion and to adopt the customs and culture
of the numerically predominant Russian Christian population. The
so-called or self- styled "Jews" in Russia refused and resisted this
plan vigorously. They refused to adopt the Russian alphabet in place of
the Hebrew characters used in writing their "Yiddish" language. They
resisted the substitution of the Russian language for "Yiddish" as their
mother-tongue. They opposed every attempt to bring about the complete
assimilation of the former sovereign Khazar nation into the Russian
nation. They resisted with every means at their disposal. The many forms
of tension which resulted produced situations described by history as
"massacres", "pogroms", "persecution", discrimination, etc.
In Russia at that period of history it was the custom as in other
Christian countries in Europe at that time to take an oath, vow or
pledge of loyalty to the rulers, the nobles, the feudal landholders and
others in the name of Jesus Christ. It was after the conquest of the
Khazars by the Russians that the wording of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows)
prayer was altered. The new altered version of the "Kol Nidre" (All
Vows) prayer is referred to in the Talmud as "the law of revocation in
advance". The "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer was regarded as a "law". The
effect of this "LAW OF REVOCATION IN ADVANCE" obtained for all who
recited it each year on the eve of the Day of Atonement divine
dispensation from all obligations acquired under "oaths, vows and
pledges" to be made or taken in the COMING YEAR. The recital of the "Kol
Nidre" (All Vows) prayer on the eve of the Day of Atonement released
those so-called or self-styled "Jews" from any obligation under "oaths,
vows or pledges" entered into during the NEXT TWELVE MONTHS. The "oaths,
vows and pledges" made or taken by so-called or self-styled "Jews" were
made or taken "with tongue in cheek" for twelve months.
The altered version of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer created
serious difficulties for the so-called or self-styled "Jews" when its
wording became public property. It apparently did not remain a secret
very long, although the Talmud states "the law of revocation in advance
was not made public". The altered version of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows)
prayer soon became known as the "Jews Vow" and cast serious doubt upon
"oaths, vows or pledges" given to Christians by so-called or self-styled
"Jews". Christians soon believed that "oaths, vows or pledges" were
quite worthless when given by so-called or self-styled "Jews". This was
the basis for so-called "discrimination" by governments, nobles, feudal
landholders, and others who required oaths of allegiance and loyalty
from those who entered their service.
An intelligent attempt was made to correct this situation by a group
of German rabbis in 1844. In that year they called an international
conference of rabbis in Brunswick, Germany. They attempted to have the
"Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer completely eliminated from the Day of
Atonement ceremonies, and entirely abolish from any religious service of
their faith. They felt that this secular prologue to the Day of
Atonement ceremonies was void of any spiritual implication and did not
belong in any synagogue ritual. However the preponderant majority of the
rabbis attending that conference in Brunswick came from eastern Europe.
They represented congregations of Yiddish-speaking so-called or self-
styled "Jews" of converted Khazar origin in eastern Europe. They
insisted that the altered version of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer
be retained exactly as it was then recited on the Day of Atonement. They
demanded that it be allowed to remain as it had been recited in eastern
Europe since the change by Meir ben Samuel six centuries earlier. It is
today recited in exactly that form throughout the world by so-called or
self-styled "Jews". Will the 150,000,000 Christians in the United States
react any differently when they become more aware of its insidious
implications?
How genuine can the implications, inferences and innuendoes of the
so-called "brotherhood" and "interfaith" movements be under these
circumstances? These so-called movements are sweeping the nations like
prairie fires. If the Talmud is the axis of the political, economic,
cultural and social attitudes and activities of so-called or self-styled
"Jews" participating in these two so-called movements, how genuine are
the "oaths, vows or pledges" taken or given in connection with these two
so-called movements by so-called or self-styled "Jews"? It would be a
superlative gesture of "brotherhood" or of "interfaith" if the National
Conference of Christians and Jews succeeded in expunging from the Talmud
all anti-Christ, anti-Christian, and anti- Christianity passages. At a
cost of many millions of dollars the National Conference of Christians
and Jews succeeded in expunging from the New Testament passages which
so-called or self-styled "Jews" regarded as offensive to their faith. A
great portion of the cost was supplied by so-called or self-styled
"Jews". Christians might now supply funds to expunge from the Talmud
passages offensive to the Christian faith. Otherwise the so-called
"brotherhood" and "interfaith" movements are merely mockeries.
The National Conference of Christians and Jews might look into the
millions of dollars being invested today by so-called or self-styled
"Jews" to insure that the Talmud shall remain the axis of political,
economic, cultural and social attitudes and activities of so- called or
self-styled "Jews" today, and future generations. Violating the basic
principle of "brotherhood" and "interfaith" so-called or self-styled
"Jews" are spending millions of dollars each year to establish and equip
quarters where the teachings of the Talmud can be indoctrinated into the
minds of children from the time they are able to read and write. These
few news items were selected from hundreds like them which are appearing
daily in newspapers clear across the nation:
"Two new Jewish Centers, built at a cost of $300,000 will be opened to 1000 students for daily and Sunday school activities next month, it was announced by the Associated Talmud Torahs." (Chicago Herald-Tribune, 8/19/50.) "The Yeshiva School Department now provides daytime an approved English-Hebrew curriculum for grades 1 to 5 (aged 51/2 to 10). The afternoon Talmud Torah has opened a new beginner's class and is accepting enrollment of advanced as well as beginner students." (Jewish Voice, 9/18/53.)
"RABBI TO TALK ON TALMUD TO SHOLEM MEN.
Dr. David Graubert presiding rabbi of Bet Din, and professor of rabbinical literature at the College of Jewish Studies, will present the first of his series of four lectures, ``The World of the Talmud'. (Chicago Tribune, 10/29/53.)
"MARYLAND GRANTS DEGREE IN TALMUD.
Baltimore, (JTA). New Israel Rabbinical College has been granted here authority by the Maryland State Board of Education to issue degrees of Master of Talmudic Law and Doctor of Talmudic Law." (Jewish Voice, 1/9/53.)
"TALMUD LESSONS ON AIR FROM JERUSALEM.
Weekly radio lectures on the Talmud, in English, will be available shortly on tape recordings for local stations in the United States and Canada, it was announced today." (California Jewish Voice, 1/11/52.)
Earlier in this letter, my dear Dr. Goldstein, you remember reading a
quotation by the most eminent authority on the Talmud to the effect that
"THE MODERN JEW IS A PRODUCT OF THE TALMUD." Would it surprise you to
learn that many Christians also are the "PRODUCT OF THE TALMUD". The
teachings of the Talmud are accepted by Christians in the highest
echelons. I will only quote one of the subject of the Talmud, the former
President of the United States. In 1951 President Truman was presented
with his second set of the "63 books" of the Talmud. On the occasion of
his acceptance the newspapers carried the following news item:
"Mr. Truman thanked us for the books and said that he was glad to get
them as `I have read many more of the ones presented four years ago than
a lot of people think'. He said that he did read a lot and that the book
he read the most is the Talmud which contains much sound reasoning and
good philosophy of life".
Former President Truman says he benefits by "much sound reasoning"
and his brand of "good philosophy of life" which absorbs from the "book
that he reads the most." His recent term in office reflected his study
of the Talmud. No one familiar with the Talmud will deny that. But does
our former President Truman known that Jesus did not feel the way he
feels about the Talmud? The "much good reasoning" and the "good
philosophy of life" in the Talmud were constantly and consistently
denounced by Jesus in no uncertain terms. Former President Truman should
refresh his memory by reading the New Testament passages where Jesus
expresses Himself on the question of the Pharisees and their Talmud.
Will Mr. Truman state that in his opinion the Talmud was the "sort of
book" from which Jesus "drew the teachings which enabled him to
revolutionize the world" on "moral and religious subjects"?
Before leaving the Talmud as my subject I would like to refer to the
most authentic analysis of the Talmud which has ever been written. You
should obtain a copy of it and read it. You will be amply rewarded for
your trouble in finding a copy of it. I can doubly assure you. The name
of the book is "The Talmud". It was written almost a century ago in
French by Arsene Darmesteter. In 1897 it was translated into English by
the celebrated Henrietta Szold and published by the Jewish Publication
Society of America in Philadelphia. Henrietta Szold was an outstanding
educator and Zionist and one of the most notable and admirable so-called
or self- styled "Jews" of this century. Henrietta Szold's translation of
Arsene Darmesteter's "The Talmud" is a classic. You will never
understand the Talmud until you have read it. I will quote from it
sparingly:
"Now Judaism finds its expression in the Talmud, which is not a remote suggestion and a faint echo thereof, but in which it has become incarnate, in which it has taken form, passing from a state of abstraction into the domain of real things. THE STUDY OF JUDAISM IS THAT OF THE TALMUD, AS THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD IS THAT OF JUDAISM . . . THEY ARE TWO INSEPARABLE THINGS, OR BETTER, THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME . . . Accordingly, the Talmud is the completest expression of religious movement, and this code of endless prescriptions and minute ceremonials represents in its perfection the total work of the religious idea .
. . The miracle was accomplished by a book, the Talmud . . . The Talmud, in turn, is composed of two distinct parts, the Mishna and the Gemara; the former the text, the latter the commentary upon the text . . . By the term Mishna we designate A COLLECTION OF DECISIONS AND TRADITIONAL LAWS, EMBRACING ALL DEPARTMENTS OF LEGISLATION, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS . . . This code, which was the work of several generations of Rabbis . . . Nothing, indeed can EQUAL THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TALMUD unless it be the ignorance that prevails concerning it . . . This explains how it happens that a single page of the Talmud contains three or four different languages, or rather specimens of one language at three or four stages of degeneracy . . . Many a Mischna of five or six lines is accompanied by fifty or sixty pages of explanation . . . is Law in all its authority; it constitutes dogma and cult; it is the fundamental element of the Talmud . . . The DAILY STUDY OF THE TALMUD, WHICH AMONG JEWS BEGAN WITH THE AGE OF TEN TO END LIFE ITSELF, necessarily was a severe gymnastic for the mind, thanks to which IT ACQUIRED INCOMPARABLE SUBTLETY AND ACUMEN . . . SINCE IT ASPIRES TO ONE THING: TO ESTABLISH FOR JUDAISM A `CORPUS JURIS ECCLESIASTICI'."
The above quotations were culled from a treatise intended to
sugar-coat the Talmud. In painting a nice word-picture of the Talmud the
author could not escape mentioning the above facts also. Coming from
this source under the circumstances the facts stated above do not add
glory to the Talmud.
"The Talmud Unmasked, The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning
Christians," was written by Rev. I.B. Pranaitis, Master of Theology and
Professor of the Hebrew Language at the Imperial Ecclesiastical Academy
of the Roman Catholic Church in Old St. Petersburg, Russia. The Rev.
Pranaitis was the greatest of the students of the Talmud. His complete
command of the Hebrew language qualified him to analyze the Talmud as
few men in history.
The Rev. Pranaitis scrutinized the Talmud for passages referring to
Jesus, Christians and the Christian faith. These passages were
translated by him into Latin. Hebrew lends itself to translation into
Latin better than it does directly into English. The translation of the
passages of the Talmud referring to Jesus, Christians and Christian
faith were printed in Latin by the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St.
Petersburg in 1893 with the Imprimatur of his Archbishop. The
translation from the Latin into English was made by great Latin scholars
in the United States in 1939 with funds provided by wealthy Americans
for that purpose.
In order not to leave any loose ends on the subject of the Talmud's
reference to Jesus, to Christians and to the Christian faith I will
below summarize translations into English from the Latin texts of Rev.
Pranaitis' "The Talmud Unmasked, The Secret Rabbinical Teachings
Concerning Christians". It would require too much space to quote these
passages verbatim with their foot-notes form the Soncino Edition in
English.
First I will summarize the references by Rev. Pranaitis referring to
Jesus in the Talmud in the original texts translated by him into Latin,
and from Latin into English:
- Sanhedrin, 67a -- Jesus referred to as the son of Pandira, a soldier
- Kallah, 1b. (18b) -- Illegitimate and conceived during menstruation.
- Sanhedrin, 67a -- Hanged on the eve of Passover. Toldath Jeschu.
Birth related in most shameful expressions
- Abhodah Zarah II -- Referred to as the son of Pandira, a Roman
soldier.
- Schabbath XIV. Again referred to as the son of Pandira, the Roman.
- Sanhedrin, 43a -- On the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus.
- Schabbath, 104b -- Called a fool and no one pays attention to fools.
- Toldoth Jeschu. Judas and Jesus engaged in quarrel with filth.
- Sanhedrin, 103a. -- Suggested corrupts his morals and dishonors self.
- Sanhedrin, 107b. -- Seduced, corrupted and destroyed Israel.
- Zohar III, (282) -- Died like a beast and buried in animal's dirt
heap.
- Hilkoth Melakhim -- Attempted to prove Christians err in worship of
Jesus
- Abhodah Zarah, 21a -- Reference to worship of Jesus in homes
unwanted.
- Orach Chaiim, 113 -- Avoid appearance of paying respect to Jesus.
- Iore dea, 150,2 -- Do not appear to pay respect to Jesus by accident.
- Abhodah Zarah (6a) -- False teachings to worship on first day of
Sabbath
The above are a few selected from a very complicated arrangement in
which many references are obscured by intricate reasoning. The following
are a few summarized references to Christians and the Christian faith
although not always expressed in exactly that manner. There are eleven
names used in the Talmud for non-Talmud followers, by which Christians
are meant. Besides Nostrim, from Jesus the Nazarene, Christians are
called by all the names used in the Talmud to designate all non-"Jews":
Minim, Edom, Abhodan Zarah, Akum. Obhde Elilim, Nokrim, Amme Haarets,
Kuthim, Apikorosim, and Goim. Besides supplying the names by which
Christians are called in the Talmud, the passages quoted below indicate
what kind of people the Talmud pictures the Christians to be, and what
the Talmud says about the religious worship of Christians:
- Hilkhoth Maakhaloth -- Christians are idolators, must not associate.
- Abhodah Zarah (22a) -- Do not associate with gentiles, they shed
blood.
- Iore Dea (153, 2). -- Must not associate with Christians, shed blood.
- Abhodah Zarah (25b). -- Beware of Christians when walking abroad with
them.
- Orach Chaiim (20, 2). -- Christians disguise themselves to kill Jews.
- Abhodah Zarah (15b) -- Suggest Christians have sex relations with
animals.
- Abhodah Zarah (22a) -- Suspect Christians of intercourse with
animals.
- Schabbath (145b) -- Christians unclean because they eat accordingly
- Abhodah Zarah (22b) -- Christians unclean because they not at Mount
Sinai.
- Iore Dea (198, 48). -- Clean female Jews contaminated meeting
Christians.
- Kerithuth (6b p. 78) -- Jews called men, Christians not called men.
- Makkoth (7b) -- Innocent of murder if intent was to kill Christian.
- Orach Chaiim(225, 10) -- Christians and animals grouped for
comparisons.
- Midrasch Talpioth 225 -- Christians created to minister to Jews
always.
- Orach Chaiim 57, 6a -- Christians to be pitied more than sick pigs.
- Zohar II (64b) -- Christian idolators likened to cows and asses.
- Kethuboth (110b). -- Psalmist compares Christians to unclean beasts.
- Sanhedrin (74b). Tos. -- Sexual intercourse of Christian like that of
beast.
- Kethuboth (3b) -- The seed of Christian is valued as seed of beast.
- Kidduschim (68a) -- Christians like the people of an ass.
- Eben Haezar (44,8) -- Marriages between Christian and Jews null.
- Zohar (II, 64b) -- Christian birth rate must be diminished
materially.
- Zohar (I, 28b) -- Christian idolators children of Eve's serpent.
- Zohar (I, 131a) -- Idolatrous people (Christians) befoul the world.
- Emek Haschanach(17a) -- Non-Jews' souls come from death and death's
shadow.
- Zohar (I, 46b, 47a) -- Souls of gentiles have unclean divine origins.
- Rosch Haschanach(17a) -- Non-Jews souls go down to hell.
- Iore Dea (337, 1). -- Replace dead Christians like lost cow or ass.
- Iebhammoth (61a) -- Jews called men, but not Christians called men.
- Abhodah Zarah (14b) T -- Forbidden to sell religious works to
Christians
- Abhodah Zarah (78) -- Christian churches are places of idolatry.
- Iore Dea (142, 10) -- Must keep far away physically from churches.
- Iore Dea (142, 15) -- Must not listen to church music or look at
idols
- Iore Dea (143, 1) -- Must not rebuild homes destroyed near churches.
- Hilkoth Abh. Zar (10b) -- Jews must not resell broken chalices to
Christians.
- Chullin (91b) -- Jews possess dignity even an angel cannot share.
- Sanhedrin, 58b -- To strike Israelite like slapping face of God.
- Chagigah, 15b -- A Jew considered good in spite of sins he commits.
- Gittin (62a) -- Jew stay away from Christian homes on holidays.
- Choschen Ham. (26,1) -- Jew must not sue before a Christian judge or
laws.
- Choschen Ham (34,19) -- Christian or servant cannot become witnesses.
- Iore Dea (112, 1). -- Avoid eating with Christians, breeds
familiarity.
- Abhodah Zarah (35b) -- Do not drink milk from a cow milked by
Christian.
- Iore dea (178, 1) -- Never imitate customs of Christians, even
hair-comb.
- Abhodah Zarah (72b) -- Wine touched by Christians must be thrown
away.
- Iore Dea (120, 1) -- Bought-dishes from Christians must be thrown
away.
- Abhodah Zarah (2a) -- For three days before Christian festivals,
avoid all.
- Abhodah Zarah (78c) -- Festivals of followers of Jesus regarded as
idolatry.
- Iore Dea (139, 1) -- Avoid things used by Christians in their
worship.
- Abhodah Zarah (14b) -- Forbidden to sell Christians articles for
worship.
- Iore Dea (151,1) H. -- Do not sell water to Christians articles for
baptisms.
- Abhodah Zarah (2a, 1) -- Do not trade with Christians on their feast
days.
- Abhodah Zarah (1,2) -- Now permitted to trade with Christians on such
days.
- Abhodah Zarah (2aT) -- Trade with Christians because they have money
to pay.
- Iore Dea (148, 5) -- If Christian is not devout, may send him gifts.
- Hilkoth Akum (IX,2) -- Send gifts to Christians only if they are
irreligious.
- Iore Dea (81,7 Ha) -- Christian wet-nurses to be avoided because
dangerous.
- Iore Dea (153, 1 H) -- Christian nurse will lead children to heresy.
- Iore Dea (155,1). -- Avoid Christian doctors not well known to
neighbors.
- Peaschim (25a) -- Avoid medical help from idolators, Christians
meant.
- Iore Dea (156,1) -- Avoid Christian barbers unless escorted by Jews.
- Abhodah Zarah (26a). -- Avoid Christian midwives as dangerous when
alone.
- Zohar (1,25b) -- Those who do good to Christians never rise when
dead.
- Hilkoth Akum (X,6) -- Help needy Christians if it will promote peace.
- Iore Dea (148, 12H) -- Hide hatred for Christians at their
celebrations.
- Abhodah Zarah (20a) -- Never praise Christians lest it be believed
true.
- Iore Dea (151,14) -- Not allowed to praise Christians to add to
glory.
- Hilkoth Akum (V, 12) -- Quote Scriptures to forbid mention of
Christian god.
- Iore Dea (146, 15) -- Refer to Christian religious articles with
contempt.
- Iore Dea (147,5) -- Deride Christian religious articles without
wishes.
- Hilkoth Akum (X,5) -- No gifts to Christians, gifts to converts.
- Iore Dea (151,11) -- Gifts forbidden to Christians, encourages
friendship.
- Iore Dea (335,43) -- Exile for that Jew who sells farm to Christian.
- Iore Dea (154,2) -- Forbidden to teach a trade to a Christian
- Babha Bathra (54b) -- Christian property belongs to first person
claiming.
- Choschen Ham(183,7) -- Keep what Christian overpays in error.
- Choschen Ham(226,1) -- Jew may keep lost property of Christian found
by Jew.
- Babha Kama (113b) -- It is permitted to deceive Christians.
- Choschen Ham(183,7) -- Jews must divide what they overcharge
Christians.
- Choschen Ham(156,5) -- Jews must not take Christian customers from
Jews.
- Iore Dea (157,2) H -- May deceive Christians that believe Christian
tenets.
- Abhodah Zarah (54a) --Usury may be practiced upon Christians or
apostates.
- Iore Dea (159,1) -- Usury permitted now for any reason to Christians.
- Babha Kama (113a) -- Jew may lie and perjure to condemn a Christian.
- Babha Kama (113b) -- Name of God not profaned when lying to
Christians.
- Kallah (1b, p.18) -- Jew may perjure himself with a clear conscience.
- Schabbouth Hag. (6d). -- Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge
wording.
- Zohar (1,160a). -- Jews must always try to deceive Christians.
- Iore Dea (158,1) -- Do not cure Christians unless it makes enemies.
- Orach Cahiim (330,2) -- Do not assist Christian's childbirth on
Saturday.
- Choschen Ham.(425,5) -- Unless believes in Torah do not prevent his
death.
- Iore Dea (158,1) -- Christians not enemies must not be saved either.
- Hilkkoth Akum (X,1) -- Do not save Christians in danger of death.
- Choschen Ham(386,10) -- A spy may be killed even before he confesses.
- Abhodah Zorah (26b) -- Apostates to be thrown into well, not rescued.
- Choschen Ham(388,15) -- Kill those who give Israelites' money to
Christians
- Sanhedrin (59a) -- `Prying into Jews' "Law" to get death penalty
- Hilkhoth Akum(X,2) -- Baptized Jews are to be put to death
- Iore Dea(158,2)Hag. -- Kill renegades who turn to Christian rituals.
- Choschen Ham(425,5) -- Those who do not believe in Torah are to be
killed.
- Hilkhoth tesch.III,8 -- Christians and others deny the "Law" of the
Torah.
- Zohar (I,25a) -- Christians are to be destroyed as idolators.
- Zohar (II,19a) -- Captivity of Jews end when Christian princes die.
- Zohar (I,219b) -- Princes of Christians are idolators, must die.
- Obadiam -- When Rome is destroyed, Israel will be redeemed.
- Abhodah Zarah(26b) T. -- "Even the best of the Goim should be
killed."
- Sepher Or Israel 177b -- If Jew kills Christian commits no sin.
- Ialkut Simoni (245c) -- Shedding blood of impious offers sacrifice to
God.
- Zohar (II, 43a) -- Extermination of Christians necessary sacrifice.
- Zohar (L,28b,39a) -- High place in heaven for those who kill
idolators.
- Hilkhoth Akum(X,1) -- Make no agreements and show no mercy to
Christians
- Hilkhoth Akum (X,1) -- Either turn them away from their idols or
kill.
- Hilkhoth Akum (X,7) -- Allow no idolators to remain where Jews are
strong.
- Choschen Ham(388,16) -- All contribute to expense of killing traitor.
- Pesachim (49b) -- No need of prayers while beheading on Sabbath.
- Schabbath (118a). -- Prayers to save from punishment of coming
Messiah.
In the Library of Congress and the New York Public Library, unless
recently removed, you can find a copy of "The Talmud Unmasked, The
Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians" by the Rev. I. B.
Pranaitis. A copy of the original work printed in St. Petersburg, Russia
in 1892 can be made available to you by our mutual friend if you are
interested in reading the above passages in the original Hebrew text
with their Latin translation. I trust my summaries correctly explain the
original text. I believe they do. If I am in error in any way please be
so kind as to let me know. It was very difficult to reduce them to short
summaries.
The National Conference of Christians and Jews need not scrutinize
the "63 books" of the Talmud to discover all the anti- Christ,
anti-Christian, and anti-Christian faith passages in the books which are
"THE LEGAL CODE WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW" and which
is "THE TEXTBOOK USED IN THE TRAINING OF RABBIS". They can also keep
that, as Rabbi Morris Kertzer also points out, as explained earlier,
that "ADULTS STUDY ANCIENT WRITINGS TOO... IN... GROUP DISCUSSION OF
TALMUD BEFORE EVENING PRAYER". If the National Conference of Christians
and Jews are genuinely interested in "interfaith" and "brotherhood" do
you not think, my dear Dr. Goldstein, that they should compel a start at
once to expunge from the Talmud the anti-Christ, anti- Christian, and
anti-Christianity passages from the Talmud in the "brotherly" way they
expunged passages from the New Testament? Will you ask them?
Throughout the world the Oxford English Dictionary is accepted as the
most authoritative and authentic source for information on the origin,
definition and use of words in the English language. Authorities in all
fields everywhere accept the Oxford English Dictionary brings out
clearly that "Judaist" and "Judaic" are the correct forms for the
improper and incorrect misused and misleading "Jews" and "Jewish". You
will agree completely with the Oxford English Dictionary if you consider
the matter carefully. "Judaist" and "Judaic" are correct. "Jews" and
"Jewish" are incorrect. "Jew" and "Jewish" do not belong in the English
language if the use of the correct words is of interest to the
English-speaking peoples.
The so-called or self-styled "Jews" cannot truthfully describe
themselves as "Jews" because they are not in any sense "Judeans". They
can correctly identify themselves by their religious belief if they so
wish by identifying themselves as "Judaists". A "Judaist" is a person
who professes so-called "Judaism" as his religious belief, according to
the Oxford English Dictionary. The origin of "Jew" has not its roots in
"Judaism" as explained. The adjective form of "Judaist" is "Judaic".
"Jewish" as an adjective is just as incorrect as "Jew" is as a noun.
"Jewish" has no reason to exist.
Well-planned and well-financed publicity by so-called or self-styled
"Jews" in English-speaking countries in the 18th, 19th, and 20th
centuries created a wide acceptance and use for "Jewish". "Jewish" is
being used today in many ways that are no less fantastic and grotesque
than incorrect and inaccurate. "Jewish" is used today to describe
everything from "Jewish blood", whatever that may be, to "Jewish Rye
Bread", strange as that may sound. The many implications, inferences and
innuendoes of "Jewish" today resulting from its commercial uses beggar
description.
At the 1954 annual meeting of the St. Paul Guild in the Plaza Hotel
in New York City before more than 1000 Catholics, a Roman Catholic
priest who was the main speaker and the guest of honor referred to "my
Jewish blood". It just happens that this priest was born a so-called or
self-styled "Jews" in eastern Europe and was converted to Catholicism
there about 25 years ago. It seems unique that a priest who has
professed Catholicism that length of time should mention "my Jewish
blood" to Catholics. The radio blasts and the out-door signs blazon
"Levy's Jewish Rye Bread", in the same city at the same time. Between
these two extremes are countless other products and other services which
advertise themselves in print, on radio and television, as "Jewish".
This priest who talks to Catholics about "my Jewish blood" when he
addresses audiences also refers to the "Jewish blood" of Mary, Holy
Mother of Jesus, to the "Jewish blood" of the Apostles, and to the
"Jewish blood" of the early Christians. What he means by "my Jewish
blood" mystifies those Catholics who hear him. They query "What is
`Jewish blood' "? They ask what happens to "Jewish blood" when so-called
or self-styled "Jews" are converted to Catholicism? And in the extreme
case when a so-called or self- styled "Jew" becomes a Roman Catholic
priest? How is "Jewish blood" biologically different from the blood of
persons who profess other religious faiths, they ask. It is hard for me
to believe that there is anything biologically different which
determines characteristics typical of a specific religious belief. Are
the inherent racial and national characteristics determined by religious
dogma or doctrine?
The word "Jewess" raises a similar question. If "Jewess" is the
female for the male "Jew" I must admit that I have been unable to find
female as well as male designation for persons professing any religious
belief other than so-called "Judaism". Are there any other that you
know? I have searched for the female of Catholicism, Protestantism,
Hindu, Moslem, and others but without success. It seems very popular now
to refer to Mary, Holy Mother of Jesus, as a "Jewess". It does seem
unrealistic to identify the sex of members of any religious belief by
appropriate designations. If the word "Jew" is regarded as descriptive
of a race or a nation, as is often the case, it is equally unrealistic
to indicate the sex of members of a race or a nation by a suffix used
for that purpose. I know of no case in that respect except "Negress",
and the Negro race strongly objects to the use of that designation, and
strongly.
Another word is creating more problems among Christians. I refer to
"Judeo-Christian". You see it more and more day by day. Based on our
present knowledge of history, and on good sense applied to theology, the
term "Judea-Christian" presents a strange combination. Does "Judeo"
refer to ancient "Pharisaism", or to "Talmudism", or to so-called
"Judaism"? In view of what we know today, how can there be
"Judeo-Christian" anything? Based upon what is now known
"Judeo-Christian" is as unrealistic as it would be to say anything is
"hot-cold" , or "old-young", or "heavy-light", or that a person was
"healthy-sick", or "poor-rich", or "dumb- smart", or
"ignorant-educated", or "happy-sad". These words are antonyms, not
synonyms. "Judeo-Christian" in the light of incontestable facts are also
antonyms, not synonyms as so-called or self-styled "Jews" would like
Christians to believe. More sand for Christian's eyes.
An "Institute of Judeo-Christian Studies" has been established by
Seton Hall University. It is actually a "one-man Institute". Father John
M. Oesterreicher is the "one-man Institute". The "Institute of
Judaeo-Christian Studies" occupies a small office in a down-town office
building in Newark, N. J. This "one-man Institute", according to their
literature, has no faculty except Father Oesterreicher, and no students.
Father Oesterreicher was born a so- called or self-styled "Jew" and
became a convert to Catholicism. I have had the pleasure of hearing him
talk on many occasions. Addresses by Father Oesterreicher and literature
by mail are the principal activities of the "Institute of
Judaeo-Christian Studies". Father Oesterreicher also plans to publish
books and circulate them throughout the world, in large quantities.
Father Oesterreicher leaves no stones unturned to convince Catholics
that "Judaeo-Christian" is a combination of two words that are synonyms
theologically. Nothing could be further from the truth. Father
Oesterreicher impresses that viewpoint upon his Catholic audiences.
Father Oesterreicher talks to Catholic audiences only, so far as I am
able to tell. In his addresses Father Oesterreicher impresses upon
Catholics the opinion he personally holds on the question of the
dependence of the Christian faith upon so-called "Judaism". His
audiences depart Father Osterreicher's addresses very much confused.
It would make better Catholics out of Father Oesterreicher's
audiences if he would "sell" Jesus and the Catholic Church rather than
try to "sell" so-called "Judaism" to his audiences. Well-planned and
well-financed publicity by so-called or self-styled "Jews" manages to
keep Christians well informed on the subject of so-called "Judaism". If
Father Oesterreicher would concentrate upon "selling" Jesus and the
Christian faith to audiences of so-called or self-styled "Jews" he would
be doing more towards realizing the objectives of Christian effort. The
activities of this "one-man Institute" are somewhat of a deep mystery.
But I am certain that Monsignor McNulty will never allow the "Institute
of Judaeo-Christian Studies" to bring discredit upon the fine record of
Seton Hall as one of the foremost Catholic universities anywhere. But it
will bear watching, and Monsignor McNulty will always appreciate
constructive comment.
The word "anti-Semitism" is another word which should be eliminated
from the English language. "Anti-Semitism" serves only one purpose
today. It is used as a "smear word". When so-called or self-styled
"Jews" feel that anyone opposes any of their objectives they discredit
their victims by applying the word "anti-Semite" or "anti-Semitic"
through all the channels they have at their command and under their
control. I can speak with great authority on that subject. Because
so-called or self-styled "Jews" were unable to disprove my public
statements in 1946 with regard to the situation in Palestine, they spent
millions of dollars to "smear" me as an "anti-Semite" hoping thereby to
discredit me in the eyes of the public who were very much interested in
what I had to say. Until 1946 I was a "little saint" to all so-called or
self-styled "Jews". When I disagreed with them publicly on the Zionist
intentions in Palestine I became suddenly "Anti-Semite No. 1".
It is disgraceful to watch the Christian clergy take up the use of
the word "anti-Semitism". They should know better. They know that
"anti-Semitism" is a meaningless word in the sense it is used today.
They know the correct word is "Judaeophobe". "Anti- Semite" was
developed into the "smear-word" it is today because "Semite" is
associated with Jesus in the minds of Christians. Christians are
accessories in the destruction of the Christian faith by tolerating the
use of the smear-word "anti-Semitic" to silence by the most intolerant
forms of persecution employing that smear word Christians who oppose the
evil conspirators.
It no doubt grieves you as much as it grieves me, my dear Dr.
Goldstein, to see our nation's moral standards sink to new all- time
lows day by day. Of that there is very little doubt. The moral standards
of this nation in political, economic, social and spiritual fields are
the factors which determine the position we will occupy in world
affairs. We will be judged on that basis from afar by the other 94% of
the world's total population. Our 6% of the world's total population
will succeed or fail in its efforts to retain world leadership by our
moral standards because in the last analysis they influence the
attitudes and activities of the nation. The moral standards are the
crucible in which the nation's character is refined and molded. The end
product will never be any better than the ingredients used. It is
something to think about.
There is much for which this Christian country can still feel very
proud. But there is also much for which we cannot feel proud. A correct
diagnosis of our nation's rapidly deteriorating moral standards in all
walks of life will reveal the cause as the nation's current psychosis to
concentrate primarily on how to (1) "make MORE money" and (2) "have MORE
fun". How many persons do you personally know who include among their
daily duties service and sacrifice in the defense against its enemies of
that priceless birthright which is the God-given heritage of all those
blessed to be born Americans? What services? What sacrifices?
With very few exceptions this generation seems to regard everything
as secondary to our accountability to unborn generations for our
generation's breach of the faith and betrayal of our trust to posterity.
The sabotage of our nation's moral standards is more incidental to the
program of that inimical conspiracy than accidental in the continued
march of mankind towards an easier existence. The guidance and control
of this nation's place in history has gravitated by default into the
hands of those persons lease worthy of that trusteeship. This notable
achievement by them is their reward for their success in obtaining
effective and numerous Christian "male prostitutes" to "front" for them.
Too many of these efficacious Christian "male prostitutes" are scattered
throughout the nation in public affairs for the security of the
Christian faith and the nation's political, social and economic
stability.
A "male prostitute" is a male who offers the faculties of his anatomy
from the neck up for hire to anyone who will pay his "asking price"
exactly as the female of the same species offers the facilities of her
anatomy from the neck down to anyone who will pay her "asking price".
Thousands of these pseudo-Christian "male-prostitutes" circulate freely
unrecognized in all walks of life proudly pandering pernicious
propaganda for pecuniary profit and political power. They are the "dog
in the manger". The corroding effect of their subtle intrigue is slowly
but surely disintegrating the moral fiber of the nation. This danger to
the Christian faith cannot be overestimated. This peril to the nation
should not be under- estimated. The Christian clergy must remain alerted
to it.
The international "crime of crimes" of all history, that
reprehensible iniquity in which this nation played the major role, was
committed in Palestine almost totally as a result of the interference of
the United States in that situation on behalf solely of the Zionist
world-wide organization with its headquarters in New York City. The
interference of the United States in that situation on behalf of the
aggressors illustrates the power exerted upon the domestic and foreign
policies of this government by the "male prostitutes" fearlessly
functioning on behalf of the Zionist conspirators. It is the blackest
page in our history.
The responsibility for that un-Christian, non-Christian and
anti-Christian "cause" can be honestly deposited on the door-step of the
Christian clergy. They must assume the full guilt for that inhumane and
unholy crime committed in the name of Christian "charity". Sunday after
Sunday, year in and year out, the Christian clergy dinned into the ears
of 150,000,000 Christians who go to church regularly that Christians
must regard it as their "Christian duty" to support the Zionist
conspiracy for the conquest of Palestine. Well, we "sowed a wind", now
we will "reap a whirlwind".
The 150,000,000 Christians in the United States were "high pressured"
by the Christian clergy to give their unqualified support to the Zionist
program to "repatriate" to their "homeland" in Palestine the so-called
or self-styled "Jews" in eastern Europe who were the descendants of the
Khazars. Christians were exhorted by the Christian clergy to regard the
so-called or self-styled "Jews" in eastern Europe as God's "chosen
people" and Palestine as their "Promised Land". But they knew better all
the time. It was a case of cupidity not stupidity you can be sure.
As a direct result of the activities of the "male prostitutes" on
behalf of the Zionist program, and contrary to all international law, to
justice and to equity, anything to the contrary notwithstanding, the
150,000,000 Christians in the United States, with few exceptions,
demanded that the Congress of the United States use the prestige and the
power of this nation, diplomatic, economic and military, to guarantee
the successful outcome of the Zionist program for the conquest of
Palestine. This was done and the Zionists conquered Palestine. We are
responsible.
It is a well-established and an undeniable historic fact that the
active participation of the United States in the conquest of Palestine,
on behalf of the Zionists, was the factor responsible for the conquest
of Palestine by the Zionists. Without the active participation of the
United States on behalf of the Zionists it is certain that the Zionists
would never have attempted the conquest of Palestine by force of arms.
Palestine today would be an independent sovereign country under a form
of government established by self-determination of the lawful and legal
Palestinians. This was aborted by the payment of countless millions of
dollars to Christian "male prostitutes" by Zionists on a scale difficult
for the uninitiated to even imagine.
With your kind permission anticipated, I beg to respectfully and
sincerely now submit to you here my comments on several passages in your
latest article which appeared in the September issue of the A.P.J.
Bulletin under the headline "News and Views of Jews". Deep down in my
heart, my dear Dr. Goldstein, I truly feel that I can make a modest
contribution towards the big success I wish you in the valuable work you
are attempting, under such discouraging handicaps. My reactions to what
you state in your article may prove helpful to you. My comments here
were conceived in that spirit. May I suggest that you favor them with
your consideration accordingly. I feel that you may be so close to the
"trees" that you cannot see the "forest" in its true perspective. You
may find a genuinely sincere outsider's point of view helpful to you in
orienting your yesterday's attitudes to today's realities and to
tomorrow's seemingly certain probabilities. I believe you will.
You realize, my dear Dr. Goldstein, that all "Laws of Nature" are
irrevocable. "Laws of Nature" can neither be amended, suspended or
repealed regardless how we fell about them. One of these "Laws of
Nature" is fundamentally the basic reason "WHY JEWS BECOME CATHOLICS",
the subtitle in your article which attracted my attention. The "Law of
Nature" to which I refer is the law that "TO EVERY ACTION THERE IS AN
EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTIONS." In my respectful opinion that "Law of
Nature is the alpha and omega of all questions as to "WHY JEWS BECOME
CATHOLICS."
In your article you make this mystery sound very complicated.
However, it really is very simple. The so-called or self-styled "Jews"
who become Catholics today are subconsciously reacting to that "Law of
Nature". The conversion to Catholicism of the so-called or self-styled
"Jews" is the "EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION" of that "Law of Nature".
Their conversion is a "REACTION" not an "ACTION". Can you any longer
doubt that after reading these facts?
Catholicism has proven itself spiritually the "EQUAL AND OPPOSITE
REACTION" of the religious worship practiced today under the name
"Judaism", and prior to that name under the names "Talmudism" and
"Pharisaism". What is spiritually conspicuous in Catholicism is
conspicuous by its absence in so-called "Judaism". What is spiritually
conspicuous in so-called "Judaism" is conspicuous by its absence in
Catholicism, thank God. Anything which may be said by anyone to the
contrary notwithstanding, Catholicism and so-called "Judaism" are at the
opposite extremes of the spiritual spectrum.
Our subconscious mind never sleeps. It remains awake all the while
the conscious mind is asleep. This subconscious mind of so-called or
self-styled "Jews" is "WHY JEWS BECOME CATHOLICS". The more spiritually
sensitive subconscious minds of the so-called or self-styled "Jews" for
2000 years has been seeking a spiritually secure beach-head as a refuge
from the terror of the Talmud. After a lifetime breathing the atmosphere
of the Talmud so-called or self-styled "Jews" found Catholicism a
wholesome and refreshing change of spiritual climate. They could not
resist the spiritual force of the "EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION" WHICH
ATTRACTED THEM TO CATHOLICISM.
Catholicism supplied a sacred sanctuary for the more spiritually
sensitive subconscious mind of the so-called or self- styled "Jew"
seeking security in his escape from the Talmud. Before sailing into the
safe port of Catholicism the subconscious mind of the more spiritually
sensitive so-called or self-styled "Jews" would embark upon that voyage
of their more courageous co-religionists but for one reason. They fear
reprisals by their co- religionists.
In your article you mention just a few of the many penalties imposed
by reactionary so-called or self-styled "Jews" upon their
co-religionists who become converts to Catholicism. Conversion to
Catholicism has even deprived many former so-called or self-styled
"Jews" from earning their living. Many families faced starvation for
that reason. A convert to Catholicism must be ready and willing to
suffer the economic, social and political hardships his former co-
religionists will make him pay as the price for the spiritual wealth he
will acquire with conversion to Catholicism.
Investigation by you will convince you that so-called or self-styled
"Jews" never turn spiritually to Catholicism "BECAUSE SUCH WAS THE
JEWISH RELIGION: BECAUSE SUCH IS THE CATHOLIC RELIGION", as you state in
your article. A so-called or self-styled "Jew" might question the wisdom
of conversion from the original to a copy of the original. Inasmuch as
so-called "Judaism" is a modern name for "Talmudism", and "Talmudism" is
a name given to the ancient practice of "Pharisaism", how can you
reconcile what you state that ". . . SUCH WAS THE JEWISH RELIGION: . . .
SUCH IS THE CATHOLIC RELIGION".
Several so-called or self-styled "Jews" who were recently converted
to Catholicism are my personal friends. Not one of those whom I have
asked became a Catholic because they felt "THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE
JEWISH CHURCH GLORIFIED", as you state in your article. What "JEWISH
CHURCH" they ask me? I am unable to answer. What "JEWISH CHURCH" I ask
you? "Pharisaism"? "Talmudism"? Surely you would not venture the opinion
that the Catholic Church is "Pharisaism" or "Talmudism" now "GLORIFIED"
as Catholicism, would you?
It must be quite apparent to you now that so-called or self- styled
"Jews" who became converts to Catholicism do not believe that the
Catholic Church, as you state in your article, "IS THE CHURCH OF JEWISH
CONVERTS AND THEIR DESCENDANTS". They do not regard Jesus as a "CONVERT"
to the Catholic Church. You include Jesus as a "CONVERT" to the Catholic
Church, in your article. In your article you state, "FIRST CAME CHRIST,
THE JEW OF JEWS". I never heard that designation before. Is it original?
Nor will converted so-called or self-styled "Jews" concur at all with
"THEN CAME THE APOSTLES, ALL JEWS", as you also state in your article.
There is unquestionably too big an area of disagreement here to
disregard the views of those who have become converts to Catholicism.
Nor can these converts to Catholicism be made to believe as truth "THEN
CAME THE THOUSANDS OF THE FIRST MEMBERS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, WHO WERE
JEWS", as you state in your article under discussion here.
My dear Dr. Goldstein, as a former so-called or self-styled "Jew" for
almost half your life, when you became a convert to Catholicism did you
do so for the reasons you state in your article "WHY JEWS BECOME
CATHOLICS"? That would be difficult for me to believe in spite of the
further statements you make in your article "IN FACT THERE WOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN A CATHOLIC CHURCH WERE IT NOT FOR THE JEWS". That statement
appears incredible in view of incontestable facts, but these facts may
not have been available to you when you made it.
If so-called or self-styled "Jews" believed what you state in your
article they would undoubtedly prefer to stay put spiritually in their
"JEWISH CHURCH", by which you mean no doubt so- called "Judaism". They
would query why Catholics expected them to leave their "JEWISH CHURCH"
to enter the Catholic Church. It might appear more logical to expect
Catholics to return to the original of the Catholic Church, the "JEWISH
CHURCH", or so- called "Judaism". On the basis of what you state, that
would not be inconsistent.
You take away my breath when you further state "CATHOLICISM WOULD NOT
EXIST WERE IT NOT FOR JUDAISM". That leaves very little for me to say
after writing these 62 pages of facts and comments. In a certain sense
there is certain sense to what you state if you feel that the existence
of so-called "Judaism", in the time of Jesus and since then, created the
necessity for the existence of Catholicism. But in no sense can the
Catholic Church be adjudicated the projection of "Pharisaism",
"Talmudism", or so-called "Judaism".
We should get together in person to go into this matter more fully. I
hope you will extend that privilege to me in the not too distant future.
In closing this letter I sincerely request that you bear in mind while
reading this letter Galatians, 4:16, "Am I therefor become your enemy,
because I tell you the truth?" And to this I add, "I hope not". I hope
that we shall continue to be the very best of friends. If the Christian
faith is to be rescued from its dedicated enemies we must all join hands
and form a "human lifeline". We must pull together, not in different
directions. We must "bury the hatchet" but not in each other's heads.
Looking forward with pleasant anticipation to the delight of meeting
with you in person whenever you find it convenient and agreeable for
yourself, and awaiting your early reply for which I take this
opportunity to thank you in advance, and with best wishes for your
continued good health and success, please believe me to be,
Most respectfully and very sincerely,
Benjamin H. Freedman
