"FACTS ARE FACTS"
The historic facts revealed here for the first time provide incontestable evidence that their
continued suppression will prove inimical to the security of the nation, the peace of the world,
the welfare of humanity, and the progress of civilization.
To all men of good will
of all racial origins and
of all religious faith
Knowledge is a collection of facts.
Wisdom is the use of knowledge.
Without facts there is no knowledge.
Without knowledge there is no wisdom.
Facts prevent what nothing can cure.
Facts are Man's best defense mechanism.
Without them men fumble, falter and fail.
Without them nations decline and fall.
Wisdom wins wars before they start.
Knowledge aborts national hostilities.
Wisdom obviates racial antipathies.
Knowledge effaces religious animosities.
Emancipation from bigotry prefaces peace.
Intolerance takes all and gives nothing.
Peace rewards reciprocal respect and regard.
To all Men of Good Will, "Pax Vobiscum!"
Benjamin H. Freedman
THE TRUTH ABOUTKHAZARS
"Facts Are Facts"
A facsimile reproduction of a letter addressed to Dr. David Goldstein, LLD., of Boston, Mass by
its author Benjamin H. Freedman of New York City. A little patience with the early pages will
be rewarded with the startling truths revealed herein.
960 Park Avenue
New York City
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
As a vigorous protagonist persevering 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
when you receive this communication from me you will try to keep in mind Galatians 4:16, "Am
I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" I hope youwill 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 reflected in the
present gravity of the crisis which now jeopardizes an uninterrupted continuance of the Christian
faith in its struggle as the world's most effective spiritual and social force the Divine mission of
promoting the welfare of mankind without regard for their diversified races, religions, and
Your most recent article coming to my attention appeared 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 article, News and Views of Jews and
the purpose of the organization stated in the masthead of the publication, "To Promote Interest in
the Apostolate 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 hesitated to do so but I find it the
only expedient thing 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 the 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 forwhich 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 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 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 thrifty 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 one 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 other 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 well 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 eves 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 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 oversimplify
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 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 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 defensive 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
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 beingmanipulated 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 firmly 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 rightly 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
worldwide campaign of spiritual sabotage is the most negative factor in the defense of the
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 historic 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 "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 by resorting to "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 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
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 now
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
be challenged 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 was the author of that infamous inscription. Latin was 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 the 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 the 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 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 that
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 (Jehovah)
concept which predated Abraham of Bible fame 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 youwell know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, the Latin word "rex" means "ruler, leader" in English.
During the lifetime 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 theMiddle 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 Genetive Plural of "Iudaeus" is
"Iudaeorum". The English translation of the Genetive 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
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 (basilcus) of the Judeans (Ioudaios), but that
He Himself said I am monarch (basileus) of the Judeans (Ioudaios)'". "Ioudaia" is the Greek for
the Latin "Iudea" and the English "Judea". "Basileus" is the Greek "monarch" in English. "Rex"
is the nearest word in 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 by 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 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 by 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 geographic 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 by 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 original 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",
"low", "Iewe", "Ieue", "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
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 editions of the New Testament in the English language. The use of the word "Jew" thus
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", "young", 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
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 "ludaeus" and is pronounced exactly like
if. The German "Jude" is the German contraction and corruption of the Latin "ludaeus" just as
the English "Jew" is the contraction and corruption of the Latin "ludaeus". 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 "Iudaeus" 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
The earliest version of the New Testament in English from the Latin Vulgate Edition is the
Wiclif, or Wickliffe Edition published in 1380. In the Wiclif Edition Jesus is there mentioned as
One of the "iewes". That was the 14-th 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 Wiclif 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 "lewes". In the Coverdale Edition published in 1535 Jesus was also
described as One of the "lewes". In the Coverdale Edition the Gospel by John, XIX.19, reads
"Iesus of 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
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
The "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew" today bears as little relation to its original and
correct meaning as the "secondary meaning" today for the word "camel" bears to the original and
correct meaning of the word "camel", or the "secondary meaning" today 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 off a male elephant.
The "secondary meanings" 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
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 our 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 this 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 selfstyled
"Jews" throughout the world today and the "Judeans" who populated "Judea" before,
during and after the time of Jesus. Christians now insist that they he 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 Christians are alerted to the exploded myth that the so-called or selfstyled
"Jews" throughout the world today are the direct descendants of the "Judeans" amongst
whom Jesus lived duringHis lifetime on earth.
Christians today are also becoming more and more alerted day by day why the so-called or selfstyled
"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 becomingmore 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 socalled
"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 "Pharisaism". 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 worldfamous
classic "The Pharisees, The Sociological Background of Their Faith", on page XXI
"... Judaism . . . Pharisaism 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 AdolphMoses, 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 'Torath
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 UNKNOWN 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 "Judaism" by so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world was known
and practiced in Judea in the time of Jesus under the name "Pharisaism" according to Rabbi
Louis Finkelstein, head of The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, and all the other most
competent and qualified recognized authorities on the subject. The form of religious worship
known as "Pharisaism" in Judea in the time of Jesus was a religious practice based exclusively
upon the Talmud. The Talmud in the time of Jesus was the Magna Charta, the Declaration of
Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, all rolled into one, of those who practiced
"Pharisaism". The Talmud today occupies the same relative position with respect to those who
profess "Judaism". The Talmud today virtually exercises totalitarian dictatorship over the lives of
so-called or self-styled "Jews" whether they are aware of that fact or not. Their spiritual leaders
make no attempt to conceal the control they exercise over the lives of so-called or self-styled
"Jews". They extend their authority far beyond the legitimate limits of spiritual matters. Their
authority has no equal outside religion. facts.htm