Truth About Khazars

Benjamin Freedman's explanation of Khazarian Jews
The Truth about Khazars

by Benjamin H. Freedman
Benjamin Freedman wrote the following in 1954 for Dr David Goldstein, LL.D. of Boston,
Massachusetts, to explain the history of Khazarian Jews.
It has been printed as a booklet with the title Facts are Facts.
Talmudic Pharisaism
Kol Nidre
Iustinus Bonaventura Pranaitis
Map of Khazaria
http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (1 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

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 Benjamin H. Freedman
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, 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, ancient Pharisaism 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.
TALMUDIC PHARISAISM
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)
KOL NIDRE
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 ATONEMENT...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:
"CHAZARS: A people of Turkish origin whose life and history are

interwoven with THE VERY BEGINNINGS OF THE HISTORY OF THE
JEWS OF RUSSIA...driven on by the nomadic tribes of the steppes and by
THEIR OWN DESIRE FOR PLUNDER AND REVENGE...In the second half
of the sixth century the Chazars moved westward...The kingdom of the
chazars was firmly established in MOST OF SOUTH RUSSIA LONG
BEFORE THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE RUSSIAN MONARCHY BY THE
VARANGIAN (855)...At this time the kingdom of the Chazars stood at the
height of its power AND WAS CONSTANTLY AT WAR... At the end of the
eighth century...the chagan (king) of the Chazars and his grandees,
TOGETHER WITH A LARGE NUMBER OF HIS HEATHEN PEOPLE,
EMBRACED THE JEWISH RELIGION... The Jewish population in the
entire domain of the Chazars, in the period between the seventh and tenth
centuries, MUST HAVE BEEN CONSIDERABLE... about THE NINTH
CENTURY, IT APPEARS AS IF ALL THE CHAZARS WERE JEWS AND
THAT THEY HAD BEEN CONVERTED TO JUDAISM ONLY A SHORT
TIME BEFORE... It was one of the successors of Bulan named Obadiah, who
regenerated the kingdom and STRENGTHENED THE JEWISH RELIGION.
He invited Jewish scholars to settle in his dominions, and founded
SYNAGOGUES AND SCHOOLS. The people were instructed in the bible,
Mishnah, and the TALMUD and in the 'divine service of the hazzanim'.. In
their writings the CHAZARS USED THE HEBREW LETTERS ... THE
CHAZAR LANGUAGES PREDOMINATED... Obadiah was succeeded by his

son Isaac; Isaac by his son Moses (or Manasseh II); the latter by his son
Nisi; and Nisi by his son Aaron II. King Joseph himself was a son of Aaron,
AND ASCENDED THE THRONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF
THE CHAZARS RELATING TO SUCCESSION... The king had twenty-five
wives, all of royal blood, and sixty concubines, all famous beauties. Each one
slept in a separate tent and was watched by a eunuch...THIS SEEMS TO
HAVE BEEN THE BEGINNING OF THE DOWNFALL OF THE CHAZAR
KINGDOM ... The Russian Varangians established themselves at Kiev...
until the final conquest of the Chazars by the Russians...After a hard fight
the Russians conquered the Chazars... Four years later the Russians
conquered all the Chazarian territory east of the Azov ... many members of
the Chazarian royal family emigrated to Spain... Some went to Hungary,
BUT THE GREAT MASS OF THE PEOPLE REMAINED IN THEIR NATIVE
COUNTRY."
The greatest historian on the origin and the history of the so-called or self-styled "Jews"
in eastern Europe was Professor H. Graetz, himself a so-called or self-styled "Jew".
Professor H. Graetz points out in his famous "History of the Jews" that when so-called or
self-styled "Jews" in other countries heard a rumor about so-called or self-styled "Jews"
in the Khazar Kingdom they believed these converted Khazars to be the "lost ten tribes".
These rumors were no doubt responsible for the legend which grew up that Palestine was
the "homeland" of the converted Khazars. On page 141 in his "History of the Jews"
Professor H. Graetz states:
"The Chazars professed a coarse religion, which was combined with

sensuality and lewdness...After Obadia came a long series of Jewish Chagans
(kings), for ACCORDING TO A FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE STATE
ONLY JEWISH RULERS WERE PERMITTED TO ASCEND THE
THRONE...For some time THE JEWS OF OTHER COUNTRIES HAD NO
KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONVERSION OF THIS POWERFUL KINGDOM
TO JUDAISM, and when at last a vague rumor to this effect reached them,
THEY WERE OF THE OPINION THAT CHAZARIA WAS PEOPLED BY
THE REMNANT OF THE FORMER TEN TRIBES."
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 5 1/2 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.
Iustinus Bonaventura Pranaitis

"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 (I, 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 (I, 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 (I, 38b,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 underestimated. 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
http://iamthewitness.com

Truth About Khazars

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Truth About Khazars

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Truth About Khazars

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Benjamin Freedman's explanation of Khazarian Jews

The Truth about Khazars

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (1 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

My Dear Dr. Goldstein,

Your very outstanding achievements as a convert to

As a vigorous protagonist preserving so persistently in

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (2 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (3 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

Whether unwittingly, unwillingly or unintentionally many of history's most noted

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (4 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (5 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (6 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (7 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (8 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

unwarranted misrepresentation and distortion of an incontestable historic fact by the

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (9 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (10 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

Latin, "leader" of a tribe.

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (11 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

There is no factual foundation in history or theology today for the implications,

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (12 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (13 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

The present pronunciation of the word "Jew" in modern English is a development of

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (14 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (15 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (16 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (17 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

Countless intelligent and informed Christians no longer accept unchallenged assertions

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (18 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

"...Judaism...Pharisiasm became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval

"Among the innumerable misfortunes which have befallen...the most fatal in

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (19 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (20 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

"The Talmud consists of 63 books of legal, ethical and historical writings of

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (21 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (22 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (23 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (24 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (25 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (26 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

her from the beginning (8)."

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (27 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

(footnotes) (2). Even through he suffered from no issue.

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (28 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (29 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

Sonsino Edition, Ed.)

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (30 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (31 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

"ADULTS STUDY ANCIENT WRITINGS TOO. RABBI, IN THIS PICTURE,

"THE MODERN JEW IS THE PRODUCT OF THE TALMUD" (emphasis

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (32 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

"ALL VOWS, OBLIGATIONS, OATHS, ANATHEMAS, whether called

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (33 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

"THE TEXT WAS TO THE EFFECT THAT ALL OATHS WHICH

"The Kol Nidre HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (34 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

RECOMMENDED BY THE MANHATTAN OFFICE OF THE PROTESTANT

"AN IMPORTANT ALTERATION IN THE WORDING of the 'Kol Nidre' was

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (35 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM

http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm (36 of 63)6/20/10 7:35 PM