SMYRNA

ENTER THE MODERNIST REVISIONISTS

Actually, Thomas Hobbes, English philosopher (1588-1679), was the first known advocate of "higher criticism". Some say he was an atheist, others that he was a deist. He questioned Moses' authorship of the Pentateuch (Gen.-Deut.) and dated the historical books of the Old Testament much later than did tradition and orthodoxy. This beginning had its full flower in the Graf-Wellhausen theory later on.(4)

(4) Will & Ariel Durant, "The Age of Louis XIV", Simon & Schuster, 1963, pp. 558-559. It is interesting that though Hobbes was a materialist & rationalist, saying that "'the nature of God is incomprehensible'", he admitted that "'God himself, by supernatural revelation, planted religion' among the Jews."

The point that SMYRNA wishes to make is that the efforts of the "higher critics" (Modernists) to revise the Bible were (and are) rooted in the personal bias of each of the critics; they did not result from superior scholarship. Modernist liberals like to believe they are better scholars but they are often more arrogant than objective. As Pope Pius X noted about Modernists: "...for them the scholarship of a writer is in direct proportion to the recklessness of his attacks on antiquity...here we have some of the artifices employed by Modernists to exploit their wares. What efforts they make to win new recruits! They seize upon chairs in the seminaries and universities, and gradually make of them chairs of pestilence. From these sacred chairs they scatter, though not always openly, the seeds of their doctrines...Under their own names and under pseudonyms they publish numbers of books, newspapers, reviews, and sometimes one and the same writer adopts a variety of pseudonyms to trap the incautious reader into believing in a whole multitude of Modernist writers..." He said that the results of this are that many young men, once full of promise for the Church, go astray.(5)

(5) The Encyclical of Pius X on "The Doctrines of the Modernists", 1965

This brings us to the place where we can demonstrate the fallacy of the arguments of the "higher critics". We already noted that Thomas Hobbes was an atheist or deist (some might call deism "practical atheism"), not because he had come to a conclusion based on a scientific refutation of the Bible, but that he started from his personal bias and reasoned from that point. Later revisionists did the same, and those of today are no different.

COMPETENT SCHOLARS

(6) Protocol 2

ALFRED EDERSHEIM

Edersheim recorded in some detail the errors of Modernist revisionists. Their central error was their lack of evidence for ancient docu- ments and redactors (those who modify writings) that they claimed were precursors of the Pentateuch. Those documents and redactors were simply figments of their imaginations. As Edersheim put it: "The theory reflects great credit on the industry, and especially the ingenuity of its author...A work so elaborately tesselated, into which so many different documents, redacted and re-redacted, have been so cunningly inserted, that one piece breaks off in the middle of a chapter, or even of a verse, to which a piece from a different document is joined, and so on, till the mind becomes bewildered amidst documents and redactions: such a piece of literary mosaic has never been done, so far as we know, and we refuse to believe that it could have been done."(7) He stated that much of the reasoning of the revisionists was grounded on a priori conclusions about the possibility of miracles, prophecy, etc. "The whole basis of our religion is being seriously shaken."(8)

(7) "Prophecy & History", pp. 208-209.

(8) Ibid., p. 213

The scholarly Edersheim, usually reserved in his expressions concludes: "...there is in plain language only one word to designate all this. That word is "fraud."(9)

(9) Ibid., p. 220.

MERRILL UNGER

"Higher criticism"(10) questioned the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. But Unger states: "The Pentateuch as it has come down to us in the Hebrew Bible is generally admitted to be a unity...The traditional view, practically unchallenged until the rise of modern criticism from the eighteenth century until the present, is that the Pentateuch was written by a single writer, that writer being Moses. This position was universally held by the ancient Jewish Synagogue, the inspired New Testament writers, the Early Christian Church and by virtually all commentators, both Jewish and Christian, until challenged by modern higher criticism."(11)

(10) We have been using quotation marks around "higher criticism" because we think this is a misnomer. In reality it is intentionally "destructive criticism".

(11) "Introductory Guide to the Old Testament", Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1951, p.213.

Unger devoted 91 pages of his 409 page work to the Pentateuch, and refuted the "higher critics". He stated: "...much of the literature advocating the theory of late documentary sources for the Pentateuch is highly speculative and subjective, and arbitrarily sets aside the concrete objective facts of history and the testimony of the ancient manuscripts themselves, which overwhelmingly favor the Mosaic authorship." (pp. 214-215) As to the partition of the Pentateuch, it rests on "...the shaky foundation of four untenable presuppositions." (See pp. 249-251)

Here is a basic rule to observe when examining any proposition on any subject: If the assumption(s) can be located and isolated, the idea stands or falls on the assumption(s). That's elementary, my dear Watson. However, suppose two opposing propositions on the same question are both based on presuppositions, which really is the case with all beliefs, including our belief in God. Does God exist? What evidences are there to empirically demonstrate His existence? Well, there is a principle that answers that, too. The theory that contains the least number of presuppositions is preferable. The external evidences for the existence of God are overwhelming, not to mention the internal witness of God's Spirit once a person has submitted to Jesus Christ.

AN IMPORTANT ASIDE

BACK TO UNGER

"Neither the Code of Hammurabi (c.1700 B.c.) nor the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic (seventh century s.c.), which display the same stylistic phenomena as the Pentateuch, is divided into sources by the critics." (p. 261)

"Thanks to modern excavations evidence for the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch has been greatly increased and strengthened." (p. 265)

Higher criticism...has its far-flung roots in other widespread philosophic errors of the nineteenth century, such as the anthropocentric view of the universe, the evolutionary idea of development in history and culture and the merely subjective conception of religion and religious experience." (p. 266)

"The purely naturalistic scientist, however, is utterly intolerant and skeptical of any phenomena which do not exist for him. Because they do not exist for him, he hastily concludes that they do not exist at all. This is his basic error." (p. 271)

This last observation by Unger reminds this writer of another scholar's analogy that runs in the same vein. Anthony Standen, a scientist of a few years ago, made an excellent point when he stated: "...you can still hear people say, 'Surely, science has proved that there are no ghosts.' And yet, is that so? Suppose, just suppose for the sake of argument, that ghosts can occasionally appear when the psychological conditions are just right, and suppose, what might quite well be true, that one necessary condition for the appearance of a ghost is the absence of a scientist: well then, 'Science' (that is to say, scientists) would go on investigating ghost after ghost, and would 'disprove' every one of them, and yet ghosts would continue to appear whenever the scientists were not looking."(12)

(12) Anthony Standen "Science is a Sacred Cow", E.P. Dutton & Co., 1950, p.33

This brings to mind something from the Bible: "For it behooves him who approaches God, to believe that He is..."(13) Like the scientists and ghosts, God may go right on "appearing" to those who believe in Him while denying those who do not believe.

(13) Heb. 11:6b.

The bottom line of Bible revisionism is this: "...if the theory in question [Wellhausen's], with all that it implies, were true, it would seem logically impossible to maintain the claims of Christ as the Old Testament Messiah of Moses and the Prophets, and the Son of David."(14) Smyrna agrees with the great scholar Edersheim that the Modernist, Humanist Bible revisionists possess a perverted ingenuity. They are bright. They are persistent. They are destructive.

(14) Edersheim, p. 212.

ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

(15) John, last of the Apostles, died sometime after A.D. 95-96.

"The development of the canon was a slow process substantially completed by [A.D.] 175 except for a few books whose authorship was disputed." According to Cairns(16) and Latourette,(17) Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, was the first that we know of to publish a list of the 27 books that we now have in our New Testament. This was in A.D. 367. All of these 27 books had been in circulation and used by different churches even though not fixed under one cover.

(16) Earle E. Cairns, "Christianity Through the Centuries", Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1954 & 1961, p.127

(17) Kenneth Scott Latourette, "A History of Christianity", Harper & Brothers, NY, 1953, p. 134.

WESTAR INSTITUTE AND DESTRUCTIVE REVISIONISM

One would think that New Testament revisionists would be more careful about subjective methods after the "higher critics" of the 1800's were exposed by objective scholars and later archeological finds, but it seems that Christian-bashers never give up. Critics of the New Testament are playing the same tune. Recall that the Pentateuch critics imagined that many documents and redactors were responsible for the text that we now have. The dreamed up documents were thought to have existed at one time but had perished or been discarded by later redactors. Remember that the critics invented those documents simply because they could not believe that God revealed Himself miraculously to humans. Their unbelief was parent to their wish - a wish to revise Scripture to accommodate atheistic/agnostic/deistic/humanistic thinking.

Westar Institute's "scholars" have also come up with imagined ancient writings, one of which is called "Q", that Stephen Patterson says was contemporaneous with the so-called Gospel of Thomas which was allegedly found in 1945.(18) Patterson is ambiguous at one point: While stating that "Q" and Thomas belong to an earlier period than the synoptics, he then says that Thomas may have known "the New Testament gospels and may have been affected by that knowledge."(19) It isn't clear how Thomas's writings belonged to an earlier time and yet were affected by later documents.

(18) "The Fourth R", published by Westar Institute, May/June 1993, pp. 8, 10

(19) Ibid.

Patterson has a section entitled, "Thomas Christianity" in which he claims that the earliest phase of the "Jesus movement"(20) was "characterized by itinerant wandering" and ideas critical of "socially constructed boundaries". But by the time of the New Testament gospels this social radicalism had lost much of its edge; it had left the earlier "socially radical Jesus movement". This idea assumes that there was in fact a socially radical Jesus movement and that it preceded what the revisionists conjecture as a more evolved culture. Once again, presuppositions abound.

(20) Patterson says on p. 10 that the term "Jesus movement" was coined by the German scholar Gerd Theissen.

Unsatisfied with one non-existent source of misinformation they named "Q", "Scholars now commonly speak of Q1 and Q2, the second of which alone bears the apocalyptic orientation..."(21) What they mean is that later writers such as the Apostle Paul had fully developed apocalyptic doctrines that did not exist in the primitive "Jesus movement". That undoubtedly is why a "Los Angeles Times" writer, John Dart, could get published in the "Sacramento Bee" newspaper with the headline, "Jesus didn't claim he'd be back, biblical scholars say",(22) or, "Did Jesus Really Die on the Cross?" a question answered in the negative by Barbara Thiering of Sidney University. We do not know if she is one of the "scholars" with Westar, but her ideas are even more bizarre.(23)

(21) Patterson, p. 12

(22) March 5,1989

(23) See "Biblical Archeology Review", Sept/Oct. 1992

Westar Institute's "scholars", because they refuse to believe the incarnation and the resurrection, are left with no alternative but to evoke texts which they excruciatingly manipulate into plausible verbiage. Their efforts are based on subjective, unscientific methods, what we mentioned earlier as presuppositions, and therefore are to be rejected as untenable. As the scholar Rabbi Jacob Neusner of the University of South Florida remarked about Westar's conclusion, "[It is]...either the greatest scholarly hoax since the Piltdown Man or the utter bankruptcy of New Testament studies..."(24)

(24) "Time", Jan. 10, 1994, p. 39.

*******************************************************************
You may say that the Bible is false and be called a "scholar",
but if you say that the "holocaust" claims are false,
you are viciously attacked as an anti-Semite.
*******************************************************************

*******************************************************************
Quotations from the New Testament are so extensive among early Christian writers
that it could be virtually reconstructed without the use of manuscripts.
*******************************************************************

It is much less complex and far more scientific to accept the empirical evidence by proxy of he early church fathers who testified to the veracity of the New Testament as we now have it. In fact, quotations from the New Testament are so extensive among early Christian writers that it could be virtually reconstructed without the use of manuscripts.(25)

(25) Josh McDowell, "Evidence That Demands a Verdict", Here's Life Publishers, San Bernardino, CA, 1972, 1979, p. 50.

In light of all this, is it not reasonable to claim that New Testament revisionists are committing a hate crime against Christians?

THE CONSTANT DOUBLE STANDARD

SMYRNA asks: Why cannot this same logic be applied to the Palestinians who were driven from their homes by the Israelis? Apparently, the Palestinians are not allowed to play by the same rules. Is it because the media are not willing to criticize Israeli atrocities or justify any natural inclinations on the part of the Palestinians to defend themselves? Here again we encounter the double standard enjoyed by the Israelis.

SUBTERFUGE - HOW MANY TIMES?

We don't know what percentage of these acts of "anti-Semitism" has been self-inflicted by Jewish activists for sympathy purposes, but at least some have. Recently, in Cooper City, Florida, Jamie Roedel, a Jewish woman, was charged with fraud and grand theft because she collected $30,000 from Allstate Insurance Co. for the burglary and vandalism of her home by alleged anti-Semites. She and her husband Jerome said they came home in April 1993 and found it burglarized and trashed by thieves who painted swastikas on the walls as a calling card.(26)

(26) "Chicago Tribune", Jan. 2,1994

Outraged community leaders, police and residents moved quickly to stem what they thought was the start of a trend in hate crimes. Within two weeks, an interfaith council to promote unity among ethnic and religious groups was organized"(27) However, local police, FBI, and the state Dept. of Insurance investigators learned that the whole thing was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by Jamie in order to collect the insurance.

(27) Ibid.

We can't know how many times Jewish activists have laid blame on others for what they have done. In the above case it was for personal gain, but the principle is the same: blame the "anti-Semites". This strategy may be more widespread than most people realize. The Communists used it effectively, and Jews were numerous in the Communist Party. For example, Benjamin Gitlow, in his book "The Whole of Their Lives"(28) described how the Communists would sacrifice their own people (physically or otherwise) in order to cover up the Party's involvement or gain some other worthwhile objective. This kind of action made it appear that the anti-Communists were the perpetrators.

(28). Scribner edition, 1948; Western Islands, Belmont, MA, 1965

Jewish activists have also practiced this stratagem. In fact, Benjamin Gitlow was a Jew who helped organize the Communist Party in the U.S., and became a world ranking Communist leader until he broke with Stalin in 1929.

In today's Germany where Jewish influence is enormous, the super secret police intelligence division known as BfV is blaming the American Constitution for the rising tide of "anti-Semitism". Its director says that American freedom of speech and press make it possible for right-wingers to export "hate" literature to Germany. That government does not allow such liberty. Hate literature, of course, is anything critical of Jews or the Israeli government.

Thanks to the new Director of the FBI Louis Freeh, this cherished American freedom may be curtailed. He said, "We will look into the case to see if we can help the German authorities pursue any criminal acts under [German] laws or decide whether there has been any violation of U.S. Laws."(29) If one-worlders attain their goals, Americans may be arrested and tried before an international tribunal; they will have no constitutional rights. Freeh continued: "there is a fairly fine line where an individual may go beyond mere speech or expressions and begin to aid or abet" a crime in Germany.(30) Who decides where that "fine line" will be drawn? In America it is the Justice Dept. where Jewish influence is very strong.

(29) "Chicago Tribune", Dec. 19,1993]

(30) Ibid.

WHAT A TERRIBLE TRAGEDY!

A policeman is dead and his family grieved because two "patriots" were trigger happy, Now they are in jail awaiting trial, rendered useless in the struggle for constitutional government, and all for what? Because they failed to see the big picture, and they lacked moral principles. Moreover, they are not alone in the "right-wing" movement; there are any number of "patriots" who are majoring on the minors, fighting brush fires that lead to nothing but personal grief, useless expenditure of time and money, and a bad name for the whole movement.

Can we imagine the anti-Nazi underground in Germany during World War Two being stupid enough to operate without personal papers such as drivers' licenses? Or Russians opposing the Communists in the Soviet Union being jailed for refusing to get a vehicle operator's license? It is obvious that we have lost many liberties in America guaranteed by the Constitution, but being required to obtain a license to drive a car is one of those lesser "infringements" that can wait for correction until we cure the really important issues such as religious, economic and political freedom! Attempting to win an insignificant battle by sacrificing the war is sheer stupidity. And taking a human life without moral and lawful reasons is inexcusable!

You gather by now that the story surrounding the dead policeman above has something to do with a driver's license. You're right. The two "patriots" shot and killed him because he asked to see a driver's license or some other identification. When the driver hesitated and wanted to get papers from the car, the police officer went on red alert. He can't be blamed, given the insanity that prevails in the jungle "out there." He placed his hand on his gun and started moving to his patrol car. The "patriot" opened fire and pursued him, whereupon the female "patriot", unknown to the officer, came up behind the patrol car and fired 3-4 shots at him. He managed to drive away but died later. The two "patriots" ran into a road block, surrendered the woman's child, and sat in their car for four hours trying to decide whether or not to commit suicide. All the while the authorities had them surrounded.

This kind of behavior forces this writer to distance himself from the name "patriot". It almost causes him to quit publishing out of total frustration. His heart goes out to the family of that police officer who in his own mind was simply trying to uphold the law. Any blame accruing to authorities for the mess the country is in must be placed at the feet of those in high places who have brought us to this awful time of impending world government and surrender of American Constitutional sovereignty. Our local law enforcement officers are simply ignorant of international conspiratorial forces. They should be educated, not eliminated. We would rather spend a life time in prison on a false conviction than to kill one innocent person.

There were other matters in the above case which are hidden from SMYRNA. The two "patriots" were fleeing from another state because of an impending arrest on charges of assault on her estranged husband. But regardless of those issues, it is difficult to conceive of moral persons pursuing a fleeing police officer and firing first, and it is even more intolerable to shoot the officer from behind. What a sad, sad, tragedy!

Wake up, "patriots"! Some of you don't comprehend the nature of the struggle for moral and lawful sanity.

[While BeWISE agrees that this was an unfortunate situation that with a better understanding of LAW, could have been handled differently, we would like to point out that the officer could have been in violation of these person's Rights by restricting their RIGHT to travel... If they indeed didn't voluntarily accept a PRIVILEGE by getting a license, then this officer "of the law" was clearly wrong.... BeWISE would also like to point out that this "officer of the law" was also carrying a deadly weapon and we were not there to see this incident unfold. BeWISE would ask the reader "are rights really worth dying for?" While many believe this is simply one of those lesser infringements that can wait for correction...; we firmly believe that in a productive educative manner, it can be corrected NOW. BeWISE believes this is a matter of a LAWFUL GOD GIVEN Right. It can be asked of everyone as to how they will deal with someone who is armed, and under COLOR OF LAW attempts to deprive you of your GOD-GIVEN Rights - no matter what Right is being taken away. BeWISE feels that ALL RIGHTS are equally important, and MUST be vigorously pursued and asserted in order to be retained. We would pray that this can happen without violence, but as out of control as our government has proven itself to be, that doesn't seem to be realistic . . .However, we also firmly believe that we MUST make sure that we fight the battles that will win the war, amen? This was a tragedy that *cannot* be justified and BeWISE agrees with SMYRNA in that respect!]

OLLIE NORTH

Although it is acceptable for North to be questioned about his past and present behavior, the extreme irony is that the liberals never mention the characters of Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Such is the essence of the contradictory, inconsistent, immoral minds of liberals/ leftists. Don't misunderstand. They are not stupid; they are simply intellectually dishonest.

U.S. Sen. John Warner of Virginia, friend of Pat Robertson and one of the many former husbands of Liz Taylor, is also opposing North. Many Conservatives and traditional Southerners are unhappy with his politics.

NEWS & VIEWS

Luchins, although an Orthodox Jew, prefers to be called a "leftist" because he is ultra liberal. But Rabbi Balkany hopes to secure an orderfrom the rabbinic court to make him behave more sympathetically to Orthodox requests. ("Forward" Jewish newspaper, 1/14/94)

SMYRNA: If Christians tried such a tactic (which would be impossible because they don't have religious courts) the mass media and Congress would hit the ceiling and the Supreme Court would bar any further infringement on the "separation of church and state" doctrine.

* "...five of the eight Ivy League universities have Jewish presidents." ("Forward" Jewish newspaper, 1/14/94, p. 1)

* In an editorial of the Jewish "Forward" newspaper (1/21/94) Bill Clinton and his administration were said to be out of touch with Russian, Ukrainian, and Middle East affairs. The "Forward" stated that Clinton "seemed oblivious to the fact that oldfashion nationalist anti-Semites are surging far beyond the extent reported in the West..."

SMYRNA: Isn't it just possible that the rising anti-Semitism in the former Soviet Union is due to the 73 years of essentially Jewish rule there that the people see as the cause of their woes? It was the Bolshevik Jews who seized power in Russia in 1917 and, many believe, held on to that tyrannical dictatorship for the whole time, even though it went through changes which Jews would deny were their fault.

Furthermore, the backlash of "Yankee go home" coming from many Russians is probably linked to their feeling that the U.S. is controlled by Jewish interests. We know that many Middle Eastern inhabitants feel that way, right along with many Americans.

* Remember Menachem Mendel Schneerson? He was the Jewish rabbi that "our" Congress and President George Bush honored in 1991 by proclaiming the Seven Noahide Laws as the foundation of civilization, and resolving to promote them. The Seven Noahide Laws come from the Jewish Talmud and are to be used to rule over non-Jews in the coming Jewish Utopia.

Schneerson is 91 and confined to his bed, partly paralyzed. Some of his followers have proclaimed him as the Messiah. The Jewish "Forward" stated that he is tended only by "his personal secretary, his servants and his all-male and mostly black and Christian nurses...".(1/21/94)

SMYRNA: This is amazing. Why would an ultra-orthodox Jewish "king" (for that's what he really is) have Christian nurses to tend him? SMYRNA phoned the "Forward" but they had no idea.

* According to the latest reports from the Populist news aper "The Spotlight" and the Institute For Historical Review, they have come to a parting of the ways. The Spotlight, in its Jan. 21,1994 issue stated that Willis Carto founded the IHR and was its driving force, but that Tom Marcellus, paid employee, took over the historical revisionist organization and fired Carto. "The Spotlight" further claimed that one of the members of the Board of Directors of IHR is also a member of the Anti-Defamation League, and that Marcellus "is a longtime, high-ranking member of a bizarre, mind-bending cult with a very strange history."

Marcellus, reached at IHR offices in Costa Mesa, CA said that the Spotlight charges are ludicrous. He said that Carto couldn't have been fired because he was not a board member nor an officer. The dispute, several issues, one of which was Carto's desire to change the IHR's Journal focus from its holocaust revisionism to one of genetics and eugenics which its board didn't want.

Another spokesman at IHR, Mark Weber, told SMYRNA that the "cult" referred to by the "Spotlight" is Scientology, to which Marcellus has belonged for years, a fact which has never been a secret.

[BeWISE finds this extremely interesting and believes other IHR leaders may also be members. The Scientology cult is nothing but another viscious tentacle in the pro-Zionist, anti-German (i.e. Nationalism) and anti-Christian campaign of disinformation and deceit. They need to be watched closely, and their "anti-Semitic" warnings and rantings need to be exposed for what they are. We find it extremely odd that ANYONE from the IHR would be a member of this pro-Zionist anti-American group. -BeWISE]

* Did Vincent Foster really commit suicide? SMYRNA has from the beginning used the word "alleged" when referring to Foster's "suicide" Now some new evidence is emerging.

Christopher Ruddy, investigative reporter for "The New York Post", in an audio interview with Rush Limbaugh 2/4/94, says that the establishment media have been "asleep at the switch". He said that the Park Police who handled the investigation is completely unequipped and untrained to do such work. They originally told him that they had the gun tested by the Washington, DC Police Dept., but that dept. denied doing the test. When he confronted the Park Police with this evidence they admitted that they had misinformed him.

Not surprisingly, a panel of establishment media reporters and columnists on the McLaughlin Group 2/4/94 claimed that the police tested the gun and that the "right-wing" radio shows were having a field day with conspiracy theories. Eleanor Clift, extreme liberal of "Newsweek" mag exhibited the haughtiest and most adamant attitude against the "right-wingers". But McLaughlin stated that the authorities had said that Foster's white shirt was almost "perfectly white", without blood stains. This was corroborated by Limbaugh and "The New York Post's" Chris Ruddy. "The New York Daily News", owned by Mortimer Zuckerman who also owns "U.S. News and World Report"; has published a refutation of Ruddy's claims, but a call to Ruddy revealed that their's is without documentation.

Another bizarre feature of the position of Foster's body and the gun were: he was found lying on his back with the gun in his right hand at his side with his finger on the trigger as if he were going to fire it. However, the police say that he placed the gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger with his thumb. How did he manage to change from his thumb on the trigger to his index finger AFTER he shot himself and also place his hand at his side?

Several more interesting facts: William Sessions, former head of the FBI, was fired the day before Foster's death. He told Ruddy that this caused a compromised decision in the hierarchy as to who would investigate the incident. Everyone admits that the FBI should have been called in, but was not. And, of course, Foster's office was not sealed off till 10 a.m. the next morning, after at least three White House aides and Bernard Nussbaum had been in the office, the latter removing papers from Foster's files.

The drawing at right [in original -BeWISE] was taken from the "Green Egg" magazine, the same source from which we got the "Christo- Pagan Panel" reproduced in last month's Smyrna. Remember what we said about the Christmas tree not being appropriate for Christians? This shows what pagans think of Christianity, i.e., that we have always condemned paganism but nonetheless have used their symbols. This makes us hypocrites in their eyes, with some justification.

SMYRNA received a complaint last month about our using the drawing of the naked woman representing the goddess Astarte in the "Christo- Pagan Panel". We apologize for any offended sensibilities. We merely wanted to reproduce what the enemies of Christianity are publishing and explain to our fellow Christians the implications so that we may be better informed.