What does the term Jewish mean?

The question was raised – in a very interesting reader's letter on page 16 of the 17^th March, 2004 issue of Népszabadság – by the writer Rudolf Ungváry. The reader's letter presents a logical analysis of the notion (in relation with the resignations from the writers' association), but the answer – although it is partly furnished – is not fully given. I continued with the train of thought a little further, as set down below.

The word (term) Jewish is a homonym, that is it has two – independent – meanings. Homonymy is a Greek grammatical term: identical form with different meanings (Dictionary of foreign words and expressions Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 1986. page 343.). Homonyms are frequent, eg. the Hungarian word óra (hour or watch), or nap (day or sun). The nature of homonyms is that the different meanings are sharply separate. If for example I say that a nap 24 órából áll (a day consists of twentyfour hours), I am using the time-related meanings of the two words, and I am not claiming that the sun in the sky is composed of 24 watches. Thus it is evident that if I say that someone has tíz hold földje (ten acres of land; hold = moon or acre, föld = earth or land), I did not say that the earth of ten moons revolve around the Earth, or if I say július hó (the month of July; hó = snow, month) I did not mean to say that it snows in July.

The term Jewish too has two independent meanings: on the one hand it denotes certain people's Jewish origins, and on the other it denotes their Jewish – or Israelite – faith. These obvious homonyms however, as a result of several millennia of anti-Semitism, have been mixed up; the word is sometimes understood to mean someone's faith, at other times it is understood to mean someone's origins, but often not in keeping with the intentions, will, interests of the person referred to as Jewish – the term is more often determined by the loathing will of the person who utters the term with a hostile intent. Therefore the two – entirely independent – meanings are mixed, most often for the purpose of inciting hatred against the person referred to as Jewish.

It is peculiar that this homonymy, or its deliberate confusion can only occur with the term Jewish, but the term for other religions or extractions never form a homonyms, thus even the possibility of such a confusion is excluded. Let us observe some examples: someone could have dark skin, be black, be Chinese on the basis of the eyes and facial features, be white, for example European or North American, one could be Hindu, Japanese, Saracen, Eskimo, etc. on the basis of their extraction.

Someone could be Christian, which includes Catholic, Evangelical, Reformist, Adventist, Baptist, Congregation of the Faith member, Scientologist etc, someone could be Mohameddan, of the Islam faith, but could be faithless, eg. atheist, materialist, refuser of all unproven extraterrestrial faiths, etc.

All this means that origins and faith (or lack of it) are coexistent terms, one does not bear relevance to the other. A black person can be Christian, Muslim or atheist, etc. This is true of all origins, of white people, of Chinese people, etc. I have seen in Hungary that certain youths, following fads, take up the faith of Islam, become Scientologists or follow the Congregation of the Faith, become Jehova's witnesses, follow Krishna etc, while others are completely without faith, are atheists or materialsts (the two terms do not denote the same).

All this does not refer to Jewish people. It is the only origin or faith, where the meaning of the term depends most on those who hate Jews, and incite to hatred against them (eg. call for their destruction). The interpretation is a two thousand year-old prerogative of the anti-Semites, and in most cases the authentic interpretation is the one that is understood by the inciter to hatred, and not the interpretation of the person referred to, the Jewish person or the person regarded as Jewish by others.

Jewish people are qualified this was in Hungary, on the basis of the legal continuity of the thousand year-old Christian Hungarian state. This is the abritrary interpretation of the term Jewish, this is how it is understood in the third millennium, this is how it is understood in the judiciary of the independent, democratic EU member Republic of Hungary. This is attested to by the Budapest City Court's ruling of 26^th February, 2004, referenece number 52.Pf.29.063/2003/4., the Supreme Court ruling Pfv.E.21.020/2004/2 of 25^th May, 2004 by Dr Mátyás Mészáros, and the Budapest Arbitration Court's 3.Bf.III/2003/10 ruling. All three rulings were in the matter of the ”Christian Hungarian State!”, the open letter by the MIÉP vice chairman in which he called for the exclusion of Jews from society – and practically called for their destruction –, and said rulings disregarded the interests of Jews living in Hungary, and Hungarians regarded as Jewish by others, legalised the the open letter calling for the exclusion of Jews – possibly even their murder.

Anti-Semitism has therefore been legal for a thousand years in Hungary. In the words of (Hungarian poet from the early 20^th century) Endre Ady: Hungarian nationalism is dumb, and vile, loathing, anti-Semitic. Some Judges of the Hungarian judiciary – following these principles to this day – rule in favour of those inciting to hatred, against the defenceless Jews, ignoring the judiciary's guiding principle, which states that the rights of those inciting to hatred must be curbed in order to protect the rights of those defending themselves, thus the person termed Jewish has the right to seek legal amends for the hateful words.

Belief as a homonym

According to the Hugarian Academy of Sciences' Dictionary belief (hit) is: Conviction of something, which cannot be proven empirically (scientifically) yet is held as true and proven. (vol 3. Akadémiai Kiadó, 1960. p 273.) This definition describes the sacral belief. It does not deal, however, with the other meaning of belief, which is: a person only believes something that is empirically or scientifically proven, or credible. We – solicitors – only regard this second interpretation as belief, and do not accept sacral belief. For the sake of objective precision I shall note that the dictionary defines the term credible (hiteles) a few pages on: In keeping with reality, an expression of truth and therefore believable and reliable (page 275.). When defining belief, the other meaning of belief should also have been determined. It is beyond doubt that the atheist and materialist also believes, but not that which is unproven, but precisely that – and only that – which can be empirically and logically proven. I – the author of the present study – am a materialist, I do not believe that there is a heaven, where there is God (or Gods), Jehova or Allah, thus I do not believe that Jesus is the son of God, or that there is a Holy Spirit, or angels, or devil, etc, but I do believe that which is proven. This too is belief, in fact this is – I believe – the only real, non-sacral belief, while the religious meaning is rabulistic – disregarding the rules of logic – it can claim impossible things, as sacral belief is not subject to proof, a mere statement will do. This completely rabulistic logic gave rise to religions' incitements to anti-Semitic hatred, to murder, which are included for instance in the New Testament and the Koran. The religious background of anti-Semitism was explained by Dr Márton Pákozdi the following way in a radio broadcast entitled Law and Justice in the Bible: Jesus did not come to erase the law and prophets but to fill in. Filling in is the interpretation of the law in the spirit of love and humanity, as dictated by the prophets and Amphiktyonian law. This is exemplified by certain passages of the Sermon on the mountain. The essence of the law was explained by Jesus with two quotes from the Old Testament: (Matthew 22:35-40) love God and love they neighbour like you love yourself (5 Moses 6:5 and 3 Moses 19:18). Following this road of interpretation of the law, his collision with the laws of his times and peoples became inevitable because of the breach of rules of cult. On the way to the charge he was observed for at least one year, but more likely three years, and delegates posed tricky questions to him in keeping with laws of heresy, and he was thoroughly and conscienciously investigated. In this case setting traps were accepted, as the charge was blasphemy. In this trial, conducted regularly in spite of all the extraordinary traits, finally not the witnesses, but Jesus's own confession (Matthew 26:7) was the basis of the inevitable verdict. Jesus burst apart his time's concepts of the prophets and the Messiah. The Roman governor's approval was needed for the execution of the death sentence. New Testament documents are noticeable weighted, they are constructed so as to lay a minimum of blame on Pilate, and a maximum of blame on the Jews, because the Christian mission would have been greatly hindered by the fact that the founder of this Jewish sect was crucified by the Roman authorities – which is why Pilate's washing of his hands had to be remembered in the Passion of the Gospel. Jesus, however, walked his path deliberately. The biased interpretation became the main source of anti-Semitism. (A Biblia világa (The World of the Bible) edited by László Rapcsányi, Minerva kiadó 1981. pp. 153-154.)

Yet the citizens of The Christian Hungarian State remain governed by this sacral belief, and they believe and follow the Christian Hungarian priest's incitements to exclusion and some – as over a thousand years of Hungarian history – condone exclusion which ends in mass murder, and thus simply await the opportunity to obey the anti-Semitic calls.

All this is based on the New Testament, which features 27 letters, all of which are about the sins of the Jews, but never specify what is understood as sin. All this is most noticeable in the New Testament in part 3, points 9-31, in part 6, points 1.23 and part 7, points 4-24 of St Paul's letter to the Romans (attached).

In the cited text the term sin and all its synonyms are included in almost every point, but sin is never defined, only who the sinners are and who are graced by God's mercy. Sin however, according to the Bible's logic, is inherited, thus the – undetermined – sins of the fathers are inherited down three generations, or four generations, and in cardinal sins down seven generations. However, for Jesus's crucifixion the Jews are forever guilty, that is, as long as they exist.

This nonsense is set down in 27 writings in the New Testament: the four Gospels, 21 letters and two descriptions (the deeds of the Apostles and St John's revelations). To this the Christian Hungarian priest wrote his letter to the Christian Hungarian State! as the 28^th letter in the third millennium. This letter said: If their (the Jews') Sion of the Old Testament was lost becase of their sins and attacks against God…

Thus the New Testament's rabulistic logic continues, according to which there is no answer to what the sin was, which was committed – it is said, against God – but it is not even proven that God exists. Yet this incitement to exclusion has a histoy of a thousand years in Hungary. Sixty years ago 10 per cent of Hungarian citizens were sent to their deaths or pushed to the brink, but a continuation of the murderous incitement has appeared again in the open letter. This incitement to exclusion by Christian priests has always found fertile soil in Hungary, and, again, every form of exclusion and discrimination has been implemented in Hungary. Let me ask: how long do Hungarian citizens have to tolerate this, fearing about the tomorrow, without word, because they still have no right to demand amends from the inciters, only the inciters have rights against the persons regarded as Jews. In this spirit was the Hungarian Future Group born, a hungarista (Hungarian nationalist) movement led by Diána Bácsfi. Diána Bácsfi – who was welcomed by the group's members with the exclamation Endurance, hail Szálasi and a nazi salute – said at a meeting of the group in Sopron in September 2004 that she was happy to see the media there. She explains: The more we are vilified by the Jewish press the better it is for us, as more and more people will hear of us and our plans. Thus the Jewish papers just dig their own graves with every article they write. Diána Bácsfi sums up to her views to the press on the basis of the thoughts of the martyred nation-leader brother. She feels the time will come when we shall smile at tales of people shot into the Danube, propagated by Talmudist Courts fuelled by a lust for vengeance. There were no deathcamps in the as yet unfinished second world war of freedom, only labour camps. Bácsfi continues: they want to seize the means of power, but at least five years are needed for the formation of a party, and another ten years are needed to achieve complete power. Their goal is to compose and impose a hungarist consitution, the nationalisation of certain material goods, the deportation of Jews from the country, with those remaining in the country forced to work for the good of the nation. Of the brothers only the ones who have taken the oath remain in the chairs arranged in a semicircle for the photocall. The fuehrer gives loud advice to those standing aside: being a hungarist is to live life as a hero. A hungarist always wears his beliefs on his sleeves. On photographs as well. At any cost. Prison and freedom are blood brothers. At the start of the meeting they all stand erect and sing the hungarist anthem: Ébredj, magyar! is sung falsely, but with warlike enthusiasm. Then Diána Bácsfi begins her lecture, she quotes brother Goebbels, spreads enthusiasm and the word with wild gestures. Quoting Szálasi she refers to national socialism as a youthful Hercules, which will erase all that is diseased, dying and perverse.” (Népszabadság 10^th September, 2004. page 8., report by Ferenc Hajba.) This too is evidently the Christian Hungarian priest's letter – addressed to the Hungarian State – calling for discrimination.

Who answers for the sins of the fathers?

I cannot leave unaddressed the opinion incorporated into religious belief that punishment for sin – whatever it may be – is meted out on the descendants. This notion is circa two hundred thousand years old, and was born in the Paleolithic, at the time of the endogamous families. An endogamous family was a group marriage, which was created under a matriarchy during the hunts of the chipped stone age. In this period the member of the group was a specimen – separate from homynids – while the whole group was a human community (communal existence, communal thought, communal succession, etc.). Such families represented a huge development compared to the homynid (animal man) tribes. All endogamous groups were hostile towards all other groups, but – and this is essential – did not attack other groups unless it was harmed first by the other group (eg. murder, kidnapping of women, cannibalism). This is when an unliminted blood vengeance would be started, which meant the destruction of every member of the other group (if the campaign was successful), thus descendants also answered for the sins of the fathers. This was one of the greatest achievements of the process of becoming human. This later evolved into the limited blood vengeance, then approached talia, but descendants continued to answer for the sins of the fathers. This sacral belief continued in Antiquity. This was demonstrated by Greek mythology, most notably by populating the mountains (primarily Olympos) with Zeus and other Gods, and the depths of the Earth with devils and satans. The Jewish-Christian one God is not alone either, according to the Bible, he is in the company of angels and archangels, and in the New Testament he was joined by the Son and the Holy Spirit, – how, it is never explained –, but sacral belief does not require it, never did and still has not.

This belief is continued by Islam with the Koran, Allah and prophets, amongst them Jesus, who, it insists, was a man, not God's son and that he was not crucified, but another man. (Koran, 4 Sura 157.). Islam does not need to prove this, because it is not based on the logics of thought, but on unproven belief.

The Christian priest of the sacral belief believes – because he does not have to prove anything using the rules of logic – that he can smuggle the ideas of the stone age into the workings of an independent democratic state in the third millennium, thus spreading the murderous air of the Holocaust, the unlimited anti-Semitic propaganda without any responsibility! He is assisted in this by several Jduges of the judiciary, although, thank God the Hungarian judiciary is no longer united in this opinion.

Dr György Ádám