THE TRUTH ABOUT KHAZARS
960 Park Ave.
New York City
October Tenth, 1954.
Dr. David Goldstein LL.D.,
Astor Post Office Station,
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
As a vigorous protagonist preserving so persistently in
propagating the principles of the Roman Catholic Church,
-its purposes, its policies, its programs,- your
dauntless determination is the inspiration for countless
others who courageously seek to follow in your footsteps.
In view of this fact it requires great courage for me to
write to you as I am about to do. So I pray you receive
this communication from me you will try to keep in mind
Galatians 4:16 "Am I therefor become you enemy,
because I tell you the truth?" I hope you will so
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
In the Tyndale Edition of the New Testament in English
published in 1525 Jesus was likewise described as One of
the "Iewes". In the Coverdale Edition published
in 1535 Jesus was also described as One of the
"Iewes". In the Coverdale Edition the Gospel by
John, XIX.19, reads "Iesus the Nazareth, kynge of
the "Iewes". In the Cranmer Edition published
in 1539 Jesus was again described as One of the
"Iewes". In the Geneva Edition published in
1540-1557 Jesus was also described as One of the
"Iewes". In the Rheims Edition published in
1582 Jesus was described as One of the
"Ievves". In the King James Edition published
in 1604-1611 also known as the Authorized Version Jesus
was described again as one of the "Iewes". The
forms of the Latin "Iudaeus" were used which
were current at the time these translations were made.
The translation into English of the Gospel by John,
XIX.19, from the Greek in which it was originally written
reads "Do not inscribe `the monarch of the Judeans'
but that He Himself said `I am monarch' ". In the
original Greek manuscript the Greek "basileus"
appears for "monarch" in the English and the
Greek "Ioudaios" appears for
"Judeans" in the English. "Ioudaia"
in Greek is "Judea" in English.
"Ioudaios" in Greek is "Judeans" in
English. There is no reason for any confusion.
My dear Dr. Goldstein, if the generally accepted
understanding today of the English "Jew" and
"Judean" conveyed the identical implications,
inferences and innuendoes as both rightly should, it
would make no difference which of these two words was
used when referring to Jesus in the New Testament or
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.