The Khazar Polemic

In my last blog on the Khazar I discussed the later editing which occurred to the original Khazari document starting in the eleventh century. Whether the original document will ever be uncovered will have to wait to be seen. Until that time we have to contend with the fact that there are four different versions of the Khazar Polemic. The most widely circulated and well known version is the one that I discussed in the earlier blog that has been attributed over the last few hundred years to the Sephardic poet and scholar, Judah ha-Levi. The other three version never made it to the top of the best sellers list. There are some obvious reasons for this which I'll mention.
Because the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism is a well known historical fact, two of the other versions did not particularly make a lot of sense and therefore they never were universally read. One of these is the Muslim version, the other a Christian version. In both of these there is acknowledgement that the Khazars did accept Judaism but only for a time until they found the one true religion which was their own respectively. You can see why these two versions weren’t widely accepted since both Islam and Christianity suffered terribly in their wars against the Khazars and to suddenly claim that they eventually converted to each one after having killed so many Christians and Muslims in tens of thousands just doesn’t mesh with the actual facts.
The remaining two versions were both Jewish but they were as different as night and day. One had an obvious Rabbinic Judaism influence and became the polemic that Judah ha-Levi widely circulated. But the other had definite Karaite overtones and if I may say so was unabashedly a love story. Coincidentally, both the Christian and Muslim versions do touch to a degree on the love story and therefore provide it with support from unexpected sources. I tend to believe what is likely a Karaite version, not only because that is my faith but because women have always had the greatest influence on history whether they were directly responsible or the one standing behind the man that supposedly made it.

The Rabbinical Jewish Version of the Polemic
Since Judah ha-Levi’s version of the Polemic is the one that history has accepted, I might as well discuss it first and then dismiss it first as well. You see, in any version that would have been touted by the Rabbinical colleges, there could be no mention of a woman as the central figure. That would have to be expunged from the story even if it meant reinventing the story from scratch. According to all the Polemics there was a political motivation behind the conversion of the Khazars. They ruled a great empire stretching from west of the Black Sea to east of the Caspian Sea; from the steppes of central Russian to the northern regions of Mesopotamia. They controlled the flow of goods and traffic across the known routes and grew rich in the taxes they charged the caravans for safe passage. Empires need allies and yet, to choose the Byzantine over the Arab empire or vice versa would have meant a possible interruption to the flow of goods and a cessation of trade. A wise king would choose a religion that presented a threat to neither of the two empires. And although Judah ha-Levi would like to convince the reader that decision was based on a careful assessment of religious law and devotion to God by the Khazar king, the reasons were more likely to have to do with political astuteness.
The Khazari as I mentioned previously is divided into five books. It goes on for hundreds of pages and although the debater, attributed as being Rabbi Isaac Sangari in ha-Levi’s version does an excellent job of capturing the essence of Judaism and the spirituality of Jewish beliefs the fact is that the shorter version problem hit closer to home. The short version goes like this; the Khazar king invited scholars from all three of the religions to tell him why he and his people should convert to their respective religion. And after each went on for days explaining the advantages and beauty of their own religion he would ask them a single hypothetical question.
To the Muslim scholar he asked, “If you could no longer follow Islam, which would you choose, Christianity or Judaism?” The Muslim scholar never hesitated stating immediately that he would become a Jew. When asked why by the King he responded as follows:
“Christianity fails to accept that there is one God. Though they try to make themselves believe that the Trinity can be a single manifestation of God the fact is that they pray to all three separately. They think of all three as being separate versions and even have all three communicate with one another as distinct entities. Therefore no matter how much they try to deny it they are pagans and only Muslims and Jews are true followers of the one and only God. The Prophet never denied that the Jews had a place in God’s heart only that they had turned from him and he waits patiently for them to return. Therefore I could be a Jew.”
After the Christian scholar had spoken for days, the King of the Khazars asked him the same question. “If you could no longer follow Christianity, which would you choose, Islam or Judaism?” The Christian scholar never hesitated stating immediately that he would become a Jew. When asked why by the King he responded as follows:
“Islam spread its word by the sword. It is a religion that sees God as wrath and vengeance. They have no tolerance and know not to turn the other cheek. Jesus, our Lord, said that there would come those after him that spread false words and proclaim themselves to be prophets of God. But they are liars for Jesus was the last and stated there were none to follow. But all that proceeded him he declared to be the words of God and even proclaimed that he had not come to change the Laws of Moses but to affirm them. All our apostles were Jewish and Jesus too was born as a Jew. Therefore I could be a Jew.”
After the Jewish scholar of the Rabbinical version of the Polemic had spoken for days, the King asked him the question. “If you could no longer follow Judaism, which would you choose, Islam or Christianity?” The scholar replied simply, “I would be dead.” When asked by the King to explain, he said the following:
“When a Jew is told that he can no longer be a Jew, he is given only two options. Either convert to the religion of the person posing the threat, whether he be Christian or Muslim, or die. If I was to say to the Christian with a sword to my throat, that I agree to be a Christian, then he would follow me all the days afterwards to see if I betray the new faith. And the moment he suspects that I still practice Judaism he will kill me. And if I was to say to the Muslim with a scimitar to my throat, that I agree to be a Muslim, then he too would follow me all the remaining days of my life to see if I betray my new faith. And the moment he too suspects that I still practice Judaism he will kill me. And since both Christianity and Islam have branched off from Judaism there will be at some point in time something I do that I perform in the Jewish way rather than in the manner they have changed it. And when that happens they will kill me. So you see, rather than live all my remaining days in fear of death, I would be better off to choose it immediately and thereby never betray myself or God.”
As the Rabbinical version of the Polemic would have us believe, the King saw the Jewish scholar’s logic as impeccable and made his choice immediately following the explanation. Perhaps it was but what isn’t logical is for a King to choose that he and his people follow a religion that was obviously despised by the two other religions. As the Jewish scholar had made it clear, to choose Judaism would have been the equivalent to putting a noose around your neck. So at first, it would appear to be a foolish and reckless decision made by the king. But the more you examine the choice, even from this simple version you can eventually appreciate the King’s wisdom. It was obvious from all three scholars’ answers that Judaism could survive and be accepted throughout the other Empires. Although it was not looked upon kindly, it was still permitted to exist though highly restricted. Both other religions were willing to trade with Jews and often used Jews as their intermediaries even if they considered them a despised race. But more importantly both the Byzantine and Muslim Empires usually had highly placed Jews in their governments that were responsible for keeping the machinery of government operational. Often these ‘Royal Jews’ would attain the second highest position in both of the Empires. That being the case, being an intermediary Jewish empire made both good political and business sense, making it possible to have both of the other Empires as trading partners and allies.

The Christian Version of the Polemic
It might appear strange that there even would be a Christian version of the story considering that the Khazars became Jews. Even the burial sites at Chelarevo Yugoslavia demonstrate that the Khazars had adopted Judaism. The graves in this cemetery which dates from the 7th to the 11th century have menorahs and other Jewish symbols engraved as well as Hebrew lettering but there is a definite Tartar influence that suggests Khazars. So it should have been obvious to most Christians of the time that the Polemic of the Khazars did not have a Christian ending but nevertheless the story exists. Sources say that the Christian scholar of the polemic was Constantine of Thesalonica (826-869 A.D.) who was the seventh child of Leo the Drungar. According to the story he refuted both the arguments of the Rabbi and of the Dervish representing Islam and won the King over to Christianity.
We are fortunate that the Christian version of the Polemic has some secondary information that does record something about a woman being influential in the matter of the conversion. Unlike the Jewish Rabbinic version, the Christian writers were not afraid to speak of this woman and her breathtaking beauty. They referred to her as Ateh, saying that she lived in the 9th century and was a Khazar Princess. There is a claim that she was a pious woman and that she took on the Jewish scholar in the debate and defeated him when Constantine of Thessalonica was failing. This report was written in Daubmannus and in some respects it is reminiscent of the political advantage I mentioned in regards to the Rabbinic version. Apparently the Rabbi says to the King, “Of the three of us the only one you have no need to fear is me. For neither a Caliph with the green sails over his fleet, or the Byzantine Emperor with the red cross over his armies stands behind the Jews. Behind Constantine of Thessalonica comes spears and cavalry but the only thing that trails behind me is a prayer shawl.” So once again the argument that as Jews they could deal with both Empires freely would appear to have been very convincing. Fearing that the Rabbi had won the debate it is then that Princess Ateh interferes by alluding to the fact that the Jews are abandoned by God and live in misery. That God has punished them and scattered them across the world. The argument is the traditional Christian condemnation of the Jews and nothing new or startling that would have swayed the king. But the story goes that she then adopted Christianity and had the King do so as well with all the remainder of the court. Well, history proved that was false but we do at least learn that in some way there was a princess involved and she was important to the conversion of the Khazars.
There is another story amongst the Christian version that gives us a further insight. It continues on from the previous paragraph in that it says Constantine wins the argument and the King accepts that Christianity was superior but to everyone’s surprise he goes to war against the Byzantines instead of adopting their faith. They say the King explained his controversial actions by saying, “you do not beg for faith, you obtain it by the sword.” After winning the battle the Khazar King then asks for the daughter of the Greek Emperor to take as his wife. The Byzantine Emperor apparently says yes but only on the condition that the Khazar king accepts Christianity. He does so and everyone lives happily ever after. This is our first hint that the Princess of the Polemic actually was from the faith that eventually the Khazars converted to. It would suggest that Ateh was actually a Jewish Princess.


The Muslim Version of the Polemic
Not to be outdone, Islam also has its own version of events at the Khazar Polemic. According to this version the Khazar king or Kaghan had a female relative at the palace who was renowned for her beauty. Her name was Ateh and she had silver colored eyes. She was highly intelligent but could never converse on a single subject for very long always flitting from one thing to another. They wrote that she could not differentiate between important and marginal subjects but when it came to the polemic they say she wrote love poems in reference to it. Similar to the Christian version she came to the rescue of the Islamic representative, Farabi Ibn Kora, out-arguing the Jewish and Christian scholars in his behalf. The King then decided that everyone would convert to Islam, which made the Christian and Jew so irate that they used their magical powers and condemned the princess to the two hells, that of Belial and Satan.
Besides this fantastic version of the Polemic there are other Muslim writings which have a more historical and researched perspective. One of the is by Masudi the Elder and in it he writes that during the reign of Harun al-Rashid (786-809 A.D.) the Jews were being expelled from the Byzantine Empire and from the Caliphate as well. The Jews migrated north to Khazaria where they were welcomed. They came in such numbers that all of Khazaria became Jewish.
Another Arab historian, Ibn Rustah mentions that Khazaria was a two-fold kingdom with those who followed the Kaghan becoming Muslim and those that followed the Khazar King becoming Jewish. It is the first time that there is mention that there were two rulers in Khazaria and that the King and the Kaghan were not the same person. Historically this may have been true with the Kaghan being a governor appointed by the King.
Al-Bakri gives us another very important clue. He writes that the conversion to Judaism occurred in 763 under the Kaghan known as Sabriel-Obadiah which just happen to be Hebrew names. Perhaps these were the names by which the Kaghan called himself after the conversion. He claims that they chose Judaism only because the Islamic representative failed to attend the polemic because he was poisoned on route. He doesn’t even consider Christianity as having been a possibility. Al-Bakri did claim that in the final days of the Khazar kingdom they all converted to Islam. The date mentioned around 760 is the earliest for the polemic but is significant to the final version of the Polemic that I will soon discuss.
Another Islamic story of the Polemic suggested that the Jewish scholar was a Jew that had been associated with the Caliph but expelled from Baghdad. This would indicate that the individual was highly placed politically and had to be an aristocrat to be associated with the Caliph. In this same version it remarks that Princess Ateh had instructed some of her people to carry boundary stones as she intended to set up a new region or province would be marked by these frontier stones once the new faith had been chosen. Though this even would appear completely irrelevant you will see how this correlates with the final version of the Polemic that I will discuss.


The Karaite Jewish Version of the Polemic
Of course I’ve saved the best for last. Even though the Rabbinical Jewish version promulgated by Judah he-Levi has become the standard version there are still hints and traces of an earlier version having more similarities to the Christian and Muslim versions than to that later one. At no time does it specifically mention Karaites but there are enough indicators that there was Karaite involvement and for this reason these earlier traces were expunged by the Rabbinical version.
This older tale does talk of Princess Ateh. The name is meaningless in that it merely translates as “You” in the feminine from the Hebrew, similar to other cultural stories that refer to “She with no name,” or “Her”. Whatever the reason that her name has been obliterated even that has been lost to us. These older tales also say that the Princess was punished for supporting the Jewish scholar. Firstly she was punished by an Islamic demon that made her forget how to speak the Khazar language. A clear indication that the real story was that this princess was not Khazar at all and spoke an entirely different language. These old tales also say that she was a protectoress of the powerful sect of Khazar priests and that her lover was a celebrated member of this sect. He was young and his eyes were still new according to the description of him. The Christian scholar was jealous of this love affair and sought to have the priest and the Princess punished, pleading to the Kaghan that the competition was unfair since the Princess had other motives for her choice. At that point the Jewish representatives (it is now plural indicating a delegation) interceded and the pair was banished but the Kaghan remained firm in his selection of Judaism.
According to this older tale as well, the Kaghan was only given that title after the polemic and it was derived from the Hebrew word “Kohen” or priest. This we know to be inaccurate since reference to Kaghanate exist long before this but it is interesting that there would be reference t the old priesthood which would be contrary to Rabbinical efforts of conversion where they had created their teaching of Judaism without dependency on the priesthood. This tale also claims the name of the Kaghan was Sabriel, his wife was Sara and their daughter was Ateh.
In the year 800 Druthmar of Aquitane refers to the Khazars as a people that are circumcised, living by the laws of Moses and strong warriors. This is confirmed by Cinnamus in the 12th century who claims they live only by the laws of Moses but not the Orthodoxy of the rabbinical Jews.
So what do we have that supports that the conversion that took place was to Karaite Judaism? From the Rabbinic Jewish version we have the complete exclusion of the female component. If ever there was an attempt to obliterate the existence of the Princess from the record of history, this was it. The attempt only confirms that she played a far more vital role than could ever be imagined and the male dominated rabbinate resented this fact. The Christian version tells us that the Princess was not Khazar at all but the daughter of the Emperor of the faith he eventually selected. Since we know the Khazars adopted Judaism, the Christian version may be masking the fact that she was a Jewish princess. The Christian version also gives indication that the conversion may have been both politically and strategically motivated, which also would support that the alliance through marriage was a major component of the polemic.
From the Muslim version we have a date. It’s around the 760’s. We know also from this version that she played a major role which was worthy of condemnation by the other religions. She was punished though the punishment in the Islamic version is in the realm of the fantastical and not the historical. Fortunately the Islamic historians do provide us with enough information to know that the Jews came in numbers or a delegation and that they came from the Caliphate. We also hear that the leader may have been an associate of the Caliph and appears to have been banished. The princess goes with the delegation carrying boundary stones to carve out a new nation or province. And that the King and Kaghan were two entirely different people, the last being a governor reliant on the approval of the King but having almost equal authority.
And lastly we have from older Jewish legends, predating the polemic of the Rabbinate that there was a love affair that resulted in the Princess and her lover being forced to leave the land of the Khazars. That she was in charge of the priests of the religion which possibly indicates that it was she that brought this new religion to the Khazar which just happens to be described as being dependant on the Laws of Moses only; very Karaite. The punishment by the Islamic demon suggests she knew not the Khazar language at all, again a major hint suggesting she was a foreign princess. And finally there is one more mysterious comment that the term Kaghan only arose after the polemic and was directly tied to the new Jewish faith being a reference to the priesthood.
If we put all these together we have the following: A Jewish Princess came with a delegation to the Khazars in the 760’s and not only brought the new religion with her but set up her own kingdom with the Kaghan with whom she fell in love with. That she had to set up this kingdom outside of the King’s region, setting her own boundary stones and the religion she established followed the traditional priestly Judaism and not the more modern rabbinical Judaism of that time. Do we have any indication of such a person? As I have always mentioned in my blogs, I am descended from a very old Karaite family with numerous stories and traditions that have been passed on. One such story concerns the Princess Thaliah, daughter of the Exliarch. But in the later 760’s the Rabbis had created quite a problem. There were suddenly three Exilarchs all trying to rule at the same time. The one with the legitimate claims to the Jewish throne was sitting in the Caliph’s prison. The next in line was even more despised by the Rabbis because he refused to obey their commands, especially those of his father-in-law who was the Chief Rabbi in Baghdad. And finally their cousin, whom was less entitled to the throne but was smart enough to also recognize when he was being used as a tool of the rabbinate.
Thalia, whose actual name was most likely Nataliah meaning a gift from God, has her own story which I will take directly from Blood Royale and print in my next hub. http://legendsofthekahana.webs.com/2onthecharts.htm . It is a tale of love and courage and you won’t want to miss it.

The Khazar Enigma

The Khazarim are an enigma. From what we understand of ancient Khazaria, it was a Tartar Kingdom on the borders of the Black and Caspian seas that thrived between the eighth and tenth centuries and as quickly as it arose, it vanished even more spectacularly by the late twelfth century. During its existence it minted its own currency, controlled the trade routes from East to West and back again, and was responsible for stopping the spread of Islam into Europe by defeating the Muslim armies in fiercely fought battles.
During the 7th and 8th centuries the Khazars fought several battles against the Umayyad Caliphate, which was attempting to expand its domination into the Caucasus. The first war was fought in the early 650 and ended with the defeat of the Arab forces led by Abd ar-Rahman ibn Rabiah just outside the Khazar town of Balanjar. But once again the Caliphate tried to expand through conquest between 710 and 730 but finally the Khazars, led by a prince named Barjik, invaded northwestern Iran and defeated the Umayyad forces at Ardabil in 730. The Arab governor Al-Djarrah al-Hakami was killed and the Khazars occupied the town. But Arab armies led by Prince Maslamah ibn Abd al-Malik and later Caliph Marwan ibn Muhammad crossed the Caucasus and eventually defeated a Khazar army led by Hazer Tarkhan in 737, briefly occupying the Khazar city of Atil. But shortly afterward the Arab armies were forced back and Khazar independence was re-established. The last major battle between Khazar and Arab forces took place in 758, when the Khazar army under Ras Tarkhan invaded and occupied parts of Azerbaijan and Arran. The Arab pursuit of a Muslim empire through warfare never managed to penetrate into Khazaria after that. There are records that by the tenth century King Joseph of the Khazars reported to the Jewish histographer Hasdai ibn Shaprut that the Khazars had established trade relations with the Caliphate suggesting that the state of war had ended. King Joseph also indicated in his communications that his Kingdom practiced Judaism as its state religion which immediately led to rumors that it was one of the lost tribes of Israel.
That in itself was a mystery and it was later discovered through subsequent communications between Khazaria and Jewish scholars that there had been a mass conversion in the eighth century to Judaism, the story of which has been told in many books, the most famous being The Khazari which appeared in the twelfth century and was widely known a few hundred years later.
It is strange that events which are a thousand years old have now come back to haunt us today. Besides the Khazars being one of the most feared enemies of the Muslim world and still held in much disdain by that population, seeing them as the reason that Islam failed to stretch across the known world, they are now being revived into the Islamic propaganda machine for an entirely different purpose. It is the argument today, in regards to the Mid –east crisis that the Ashkenazi Jews that formulated the Zionist philosophy for the reestablishment of Israel, ethnically weren’t Jews at all, and therefore were never entitled to have the restoration of their ancient homeland. What these Muslim propagandists are claiming is that the Ashkenazi Jews are nothing but the descendants of the Khazars and they never actually disappeared as a civilization, merely migrated westward into Europe where they became recognized as being the Jewish populations of Poland, Ukraine and Romania that manifested in the twelfth century. Hence their new argument that Israel should not exist since it was established by a race that weren’t Jews. Of course the corollary would then be true that if they were Jews then the State of Israel has the right to exist and they have to realize that showing a picture of an Israeli soldier and writing on it that this is a Khazar does not mean he is any less entitled to live in the land of his religious beliefs. But for all others, whether they be Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, Karaite, Bene Israel or Fellashim, they are entitled to live in the land of their origins. A land where they have been a continuous presence for three thousand years in one form or another even though Muslim historians attempt to gloss over that fact.
I am surprised at how many adherents this faulty theory of Ashkenazi being Khazars has garnered over the last couple of decades. Despite the genetic typing of Ashkenazi Jews as Semites, not to mention phenotypic characteristics which are more common to the eastern Mediterranean than to the Caucasus, there would still appear to exist this determination of these Muslim propagandists to insist that their flawed theory is the truth. One of their arguments being that amongst the Jew’s own books there was nothing but Sephardic Jews (North African and Spanish) in existence in the late eleventh century or why else would the meeting with the King of Khazaria have to be conducted by Sephardic Jews if he had close by Ashkenazi neighbours? Conveniently they choose to ignore the Mizrahi Jews in Arab lands who were very much a presence in that part of the world and who now live predominantly in Israel.
But let’s deal with the misconception of Ashkenazi’s not being descendants of original Jewish stock. I will admit that this book, The Kazari, does give that impression on first reading, and the emphasis that it was a great Sephardic sage from Toledo Spain that had to travel all the way to Khazaria to conduct the interview would suggest that there was an absence of East European Jews at the time. Hopefully, this is where I can put an end to any misconceptions that the Ashkenazi Jews were only the product of Khazars that had migrated west. Some probably were but far more Khazars probably became Karaites due to the similarities in language and beliefs between the two populations. A commentary amongst the Karaite authors lists the population of our people measuring around 400,000 at the time of Saadiah Gaon. This sudden burst in Karaite population made the Gaon furious as he considered the battle for Jewish minds being lost by the Rabbinate. I would think that the most likely explanation for this population explosion in the tenth century was the fact that the Khazars were being numbers amongst the Karaites.
One of the advantages of descending from a very old family is that in my personal library I happen to have some very old books that have been passed down into my possession from various family members. This one I’m about to discuss in particular was printed in Berlin in 1795. I know some of you are probably looking at the photographs of this book and probably cursing me for not taking better care of a two hundred plus year old book and keeping it under sealed glass, etc, etc, but books are meant to be held, to be touched, to be read. I have some even older than this one and I’m not ashamed to say that I finger through them often. But that is not the point of this article and any bibliophiles that wish to admonish me on proper book care please save it for another time. The point I wish to make is that the beauty of these older books is that they have not undergone the distortions and alterations of later translations. As much as old books should be considered sacred and should not be subject to adulteration, sadly that is not the case. In later attempts to embellish and perhaps even clarify as may have been the belief of these latter day editors the fact is that with every change something is actually lost, not gained.
For example, I have enclosed the front page of my book and what should be the identical front page from a copy over a hundred years later from Warsaw which I’ve taken off the web.
The translation of my older Berlin copy of the title and first paragraph is roughly as follows:

Book of the Khazari
Between the king of the nation of the Khazars and between the (associate/colleague/partner) whose name is blessed many times in heaven in dialogue about the details (history) of the king and his people.
The ancient and wise Judah son of Saul the Levite, knowledgeable of the languages of the Arabs recording and guarding that all is correct.

Whereas the same section translated from the younger Warsaw copy is as follows:
Book of the Khazari
Rabbi Isaac the Sangari whose name is blessed in heaven in honest dialogue.
Translated from the Arabic by Rabbi Judah Ha Levi the Sephardi


Immediately it can be seen that these two opening paragraphs, although having some words in common are for the most part entirely different. Judah Ha Levi was a famous Jewish poet, scholar and writer in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Born in Spain, he was naturally Sephardic and would have spoken Arabic fluently, living in an Arabic ruled society. Because he was famous, his name would lend authenticity to any book and it would appear that is what the later editors were trying to achieve. Without a high profile name, there would have been the fear that the book, the Khazari would have been accused of being a fake, or even worse, a fairy tale. My German copy of the book if you notice mentions a Judah ha Levi but he is the son of Saul. The father of the famous Judah ha Levi of Spain was named Samuel, not Saul. This would have created an immediate problem if someone was trying to attribute the original book to Judah ha Levi of Spain. We do know that Judah did write his own version of the Khazari and we also know that he based his book on earlier versions that he had come across. I would postulate that my German copy is based on one of those earlier versions. There is no mention of a Rabbi Isaac Sangari in its cover page because the person discussing the issues with the King of Khazaria was far greater than any rabbi. The word actually used in my older version of the book is suggestive of someone who could sit across from a king and be considered an equal or as a partner, colleague, etc. This individual’s name was blessed numerous times in heaven suggesting that he was a great leader of the Jews. Multiple blessing would infer that he was carrying an inherited blessing which I’ll discuss later in this article. As for Judah ben Saul the Levite, he was there for one reason only; his ability to translate everything both fluently and accurately between Arabic and Hebrew. He was a scribe and translator with no mention of him being the great poet and scholar, nor is there any mention of this person being Sephardic. Why? Because all that was a later addition and deliberate alteration in an attempt to have the book gain recognition by attributing it to someone famous at that time. As for Isaac of Sangari, it is thought this may be a reference to the region in Turkey known as Sangaros, but no one knows for certain. His addition to the manuscript came much later and the only letters or poems proving his existence were held in the possession of Avraham Firkovich, a leading Karaite scholar which only further emphasizes the Khazar-Karaite connection.
Therefore, my older version of this famous book would suggest that the Sephardic connection was a later addition and that it may have been Karaite influences on the Khazarim that actually took place in the eight century as the development of Karaite teachings were occurring simultaneously at that time.
Even in Judah ha-Levi, the Sephardic poet’s version, he admits that there were many things that the Jewish sage in discussion with the King of Khazaria said that were in common with his own beliefs. This would also imply that there were many things the sage said in the original document that weren’t. The Sephardic poet therefore decided to exclude these points of difference from his version. In itself this would imply that the Sage of the story had certain beliefs and practices that were contrary to Judah ha-Levi’s rabbinic Judaism. The act of exclusion is an admission by the poet that the original story wasn’t rabbinic. Although Judah ha-Levi does let it slip that the King of the Khazars only follows the Torah and the Prophets (Book 2 first paragraph) suggesting that his beliefs were more in line with Karaite doctrine as there is no belief in the Talmud he never bothers to expand on this statement.
Another point of interest is the division of the Khazari into five chapters or books. Each book focusing on a different aspect of the dialogue. These roughly correspond to the five books of Moses in the Torah, looking first at the reasons for Monotheism with similarities to Genesis, then a History of the Khazar Nation with similarities to Exodus, then religious outline as defined by a pious man similarities to Numbers, then the requirements of God and religious laws similar to Leviticus and finally the laws of Jewish practices and philosophies similar to Deuteronomy. This parallel to the adherence of the Torah as the main article of faith is quite enlightening and despite numerous comments that are considered anti-Karaite these would appear to have been added by ha-Levi to the original book in the twelfth century as in many cases their insertion seems out of context.
It is also very interesting that the Judah ha-Levi version concludes with the following Blessing:
Completed is the book with the help of God and His assistance. Praise without end be to the Giver of Help
This is very different from the Berlin version in my possession which concludes with the following:
Blessed is He who has a contract with Holy Israel
Who has gifted it with active salvation
Although complete with the welfare of the Lion of God,
There were speakers without wisdom desired by a foreign invitee.


There is obviously a considerable difference between the two conclusive blessings. Judah ha-Levi removed almost all the reference from those present in my version.
Why would he change it so dramatically? Because of what it inferred. Following the adoption of Judaism, there was a contractual obligation in one form or another. The king of the Khazars made this contract with the representative of Holy Israel. It was an actual contract between men, not with God as ha-Levi has tried to alter. And finally we have a reference to who the Jewish representative in the debate may have been. The reference is an old one. Much in the way my Hebraic name is Aryeh-Zuk meaning the Lion of Righteousness, this person was Aryeh-El, the Lion of God. Aryeh has been used often in the family of the Kahana. It was originally used as a name of honor by those in the Kahana that achieved a status of greatness an honor which this person richly deserved as the representative of Holy Israel. Even that title is quite unique, being all inclusive of Judaism across the globe and not rabbinic in nature. The Rosh Gelutha was the representative of Holy Israel. The Rosh Gelutha was the monarchical and spiritual head of Israel as a unified entity. He was both king and priest. He was the Exilarch, the descendant of King David ruling in exile. If we look at the time of the conversion, the initial similarities to Karaism and the fact that this person moved freely between the Islamic speaking world and Khazaria, these would point to Anan ibn David as the likely spokesperson. This would be in accordance to the mysterious reference world that he was a colleague or partner of the King of Khazaria. Who else but another King could be an equal?
So, in reference to the original premise that the Khazari implied that only Sephardic Jews existed at the time and that there was no Ashkenazi presence indirectly assumed from the exclusion of any mention of them in the book, a device which as absurd as it might sound is now being used in a very active propaganda campaign by Muslim clerics, the truth of the matter is that there wasn’t even an original reference to Sephardic Jews. The universal representative of Holy Israel is the only indicator of a Jewish presence and therefore the well established existence of this community world-wide was implied. A universal community that infers that there are many Jewish communities and sects and that they are all being represented here at the time of the discussion with the Khazar King. Whether some Khazar became Ashkenazi later on is not an issue. Some probably became Muslim too.
I think that I’ll follow this hub with several more on the Khazar history. The next article will be on the original adoption of Judaism by the Khazars. Several stories exist in that respect and two of them concern a woman, which is very contrary to the Judah ha-Levi version. I’ll call it A Khazar Love Story.

An Author's Pride

I wondered what it would be like to walk into a bookstore and see your books neatly filed on a shelf with a little blurb beneath it, saying 'manager's choice' and a short synopsis of the book? Today I found out. Believe it or not, there is a similar feeling to when you hold your newborn baby in your arms for the first time. Far more intense when you look down into the eyes of your baby staring back up into yours, but similar I would say. You look upon the shelf with pride and a sense of accomplishment. You are tempted to stand beside the book and hope that someone in the store will pick it up and then you can say something like, "that's my book, you know." They'd probably be so shocked they'd replace the book and run from the store thinking you're some kind of nutcase but it would still feel good.
Above the rows of shelves was the sign 'New Releases' and they were given the premier wall where everyone first looks to see what's available. Local author writes terrifying horror novel 'Shadows of Trinity' the manager's blurb stated. It's a small start, a humble beginning but it's a moment that will always be remembered and cherished. With a sigh and a silent 'life is good' comment you turn and walk away. And suddenly you can smile the rest of the day knowing nothing will bring you down.

Explaining Karaite Teachings (A Short History)

Karaites are an oddity unto themselves. Whereas my adherance stems from the Karaite families located around the Black Sea, from Romania all the way into the Ukraine, you also had similar parcels of families in other locations such as the Baltic, Egypt, Turkey and Byelorussia. You would think being as small as we are, that there'd be uniformity in beliefs and customs, but that is hardly the case. In reading an interesting blog from a Latvian Karaite, I found that besides believing that her community was one of the last outposts of Karaim in the world, that her community had also adopted some Christian and Muslim teachings into their customs. I guess that this is to be expected considering the isolation of the communities and the fact that as a paternal hereditary society, the effects of intermarriage would be more pronounced.

During the nineteenth century, from the printing presses in Turkey there were printed a beautiful edition of the Karaite bible, consisting of the five Books of Moses or the Chumash. This edition was printed in Hebrew with a Turkish Tatar translation in parallel columns. It was arranged and paid for by the Karaite community in Ortakoi, a town near Constantinople, around 1835. To undertake such a project would indicate that barely 170 years ago, the Tatar influence on Karaite history would have been extremely strong. The reasons behind this will be touched upon briefly in my novel ZUTRA, a book that I hope to have released in the near future as soon as I find a new literary agent.
As Karaites, we also refer to ourselves as the B'nai Mikra (Children of Scripture), and as I had mentioned in previous blogs we attribute are beginnings to the imprison Exilarch, Anan ibn David (Kahana family) around 769 AD. The main differentiating point to Rabbinic Judaism is that the only authority accepted is that of the Bible but we reject the Talmudic rabbinic tradition. The major reason for this can also be viewed in some of my blogs but the overriding principle is that the Talmud is nothing but the contentions and impressions of men whom basically wished to enforce their beliefs of scriptural analysis above the direct word of God. Or put even in simpler terms, as soon as God needs an interpreter there's a problem. From its onset, Karaism constituted a serious challenge to traditional rabbinic Judaism, and as time went on Rabbinic Judaism felt it had to react in order to stem the flow and one of these was the slaughter of Karites instituted by Saadiah Gaon around 940AD which is touched upon in Shadows of Trinity http://www.eloquentbooks.com/ShadowsOfTrinity.html . Following the dispersal of this catastrophic event, the numbers dwindled and were concentrated in a few centers. If the main body of Jews and the Karaites differed in matters of faith, they shared the persecutions and pogroms until the incorporation of the Crimea and Lithuania into the Russian Empire at the end of the eighteenth century, when the situation began to change. In 1795, the Empress Catherine 11 permitted the Karaites to purchase land and relieved them of the double taxation imposed upon rabbinic Jews. In 1827, Karaites were not only exempted from the military draft, which meant twenty-five years of military service but also permission to circulate freely in centres of Russian culture. This situation only furthered the animosity that existed between the two Jewish communities and it was only prudent that Karaites distanced themselves as far as possible from Rabbinic Judaism. Fortunately when it came to the Czarist government all you had to dow was emphasize that there were fundamental differences between us and the Rabbic Jews, not only in beliefs and in history, but also from the genetic makeup as well. There is some truth to this n that phenotypically, there are quite a few differences between Ashekenazi Jews of Europe and Karaite Jews with their origins from Mesopotamia. They argued that they were not Jews but "Russian Karaites of the Old Testament Faith," which became their official designation according to the Czarist government. In 1840 they were granted equality of status with the Muslims, and in 1863 with native Russians, a considerable achievement which led to the appointment in 1843 of my ancestor Jakob Goldenthal as the Principal of the Jewish Districts around the Black Sea and based in Kishinev. Unfortunately this appointment did not go over very well, since it meant not only was Jakob in charge of those districts with large Karaite populations but also those with rabbinic populations. What the Rabbinic Jews viewed as his cosmopolitan assimilated makeup, his bastardized Judaism, and his tendency to write commentaries that emphasized the univerasility of Jewish beleifs within a Christian world led to his departure to greener fields in 1846, when he took a position at the University of Vienna and private tutor to the Empress Elisabeth. A position he would not have gained if not for his Karaite beliefs.
During the first decades of the nineteenth century, Russian Karaites increased in The Tatar translation of this Chumash was obviously for a select population of Karaites only. The group of Karaite scholars who edited the text and prepared the translation was headed by Abraham Firkowitz (1786-1874), an antiquarian scholar and bibliographer who as a leader of the separation campaign wrote messages to the Czarist government and collected documents to bolster the Karaite position.
It is rumoured that on occasion Firkowitz doctored the written record to support the Karaite claims of being a distinct ethnic group. So in retrospect the printing of this Chumash was a message being sent to the Czarist authorities that would have proclaimed, "We are very different from the Jews, even having our own veresion of the Bible which is a completely different language." For the intent and purpose of relieving the persecutions suffered by Jewish communities you can hopefully appreciate the motivation behind such an act.

The Trial of Jesus: Toldoth Jeshua

You're probably wondering what am I talking about this time. Well, it's pretty simple. I'm going to talk about another book I happen to have in my collection. You guessed it, it's called “Toldoth Jeshua". But what's it mean. Translated, it means the Generations of Jesus. Odd title you'd think since according to the New Testament, Jesus didn't have any generations to speak of. But this book that was written in about the 14th century and based on material from the second century had a lot of interesting things to say. I came into possession of this document after I wrote and published Caiaphas Letters, so its quite amazing that it confirms many of the statements I make as fact in my book.
One of the most serious libels made against the Jews was the blame for killing Jesus. Pope John Paul II fortunately condemned this libel and expunged it from the Roman Catholic teachings, and this should be appreciated, but it was long in coming and over the last two thousand years the number of Jews that died because of this libel was astronomical, especially when one considers it as a premise to the Nazi holocaust.
Now this may sound a little controversial coming from me but what if I was to say that it wasn’t really all the Church’s fault for fostering this belief in the first place? What if I was to say that the great sages of Judaism in the second century,the Tannim or these Rabbis of reverence that put together the Talmud were responsible for the libel themselves! That in an effort to show the world how strict they were as enforcers of God’s will, they were willing to spread a lie that either because their brains were too addled with age, or as a Karaite I beleive they were only interested in hearing the sounds of their own voices and were more than too happy to tell everyone a lie.”
What most people don't realize is that these so called paragons of virtue and Judaism actually wrote a section into the Talmud concerning their role in Jesus’ death! Let me tell you quickly what it said:
“It is taught that for all others liable for the death penalty, except for the enticer to idolatry, we do not hide witnesses. They light a lamp for him in the inner chamber and place a witness in the outer chamber so that they can see and hear him while he cannot see or hear them. One says to him,” Tell me again what you said to me in private.” If the prisoner repents, then good, but if he says, ‘This is our obligation and what we must do,’ then he is to be brought into the courtroom and stoned. And then they hung him on the eve of Passover.”
If you're trying to follow the connection let me explain that these Rabbis were trying to recall a very special meeting of the Sanhedrin that happened a couple of hundred years earlier. I'll point out some of their controversial comments. It was a night meeting, hence the need for the lamp. The courts of the Sanhedrin were held in buildings that relied on natural light, therefore it was prohibited to meet at night unless it was an emergency. In this case it obviously was one. But they got it wrong. The witnesses placed outside were there to come in and defend the accused. They already had their numbers to make up the tribunal inside. They were the judges, not the witnesses. As we know from the stories about that night, Jesus's witness refused to enter into the chamber and three times Peter denied not knowing him. Without his second witness, (it took two to prove you innocent of the charges), Jesus was condemned. Now the rabbis in this particular paragraph never refer to Jesus, only to an idolator, so the question should be how do I know they’re not talking about another case? Because they refer back in the Toldoth Jeshua to this section of the Talmud as being the trial of Ben Stada. Now I probably have you completely confused. It would have been more correct to refer to what is a Ben Stada in order to understand their play on words. The Rabbis loved to do that back then. They thought they were quite funny. They did it with the next messiah too, Simon Bar Kochba. As soon as he lost the war, they referred to him as Simon Bar Kosiba, or ’the son of lies’. Somehow they forgot that it was one of their own that proclaimed him as the messiah in the first place. So they did the same thing to Jesus as well. He would have been referred to as Jesus Ha Stadlan. The intercessor by his followers. Because that’s what he did. He was the intercessor for people to reach God. Remember that he said everyone seeking God must come through him.
So, now that you have an appreciation for their sense of humor, these rabbis don’t refer to him as an intercessor for God but instead call him Ben Stota or Stada in an alternate dialect; the ‘son of absolute utter nonsense’ or as we would say today, the son of bullshit.”
Also remember that in the Talmud is says that he was taken out and stoned and then hung from a tree on the eve of Passover.”
There are three important things you should notice right there. Firstly, if he was stoned to death, why were they bothering to hang him on a crucifix? Couldn’t kill him twice. And then secondly there’s the matter that the Roman authorities only let the Sanhedrin stone people, they didn’t have the authority to crucify a prisoner. And lastly, notice how it was the eve of the Passover. Just as I described it in Caiaphas Letters. The Gospels all say the crucifixion happened on the Passover. So this passage from the Talmud is in harmony with what I've written.
In another passage of Toldoth Jeshua it is written: ‘On the eve of the Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that Yeshu is to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him. But no one came forward in his defense and they hung him on the eve of Passover. Yeshu was different because he was close to government.’ So now you have the Toldoth Jeshua in harmony with that passage from the Talmud and both confirming it was the eve of the Passvoer and that this individual was named Jeshua or Jesus.
Once again the Toldoth Jehsua is providing some interesting aspects that other than in Caiaphas Letters, no one else has ever mentioned. For almost a month and a half there’s this attempt to try and create a case so that he can’t be touched. The emphasis in Toldoth Jeshua was they they tried to prove him innocent asking people to come forward to clear and exonerate him. Very different from the condemning version in the Talmud. But when it came to the night of the trial, those that were supposed to exonerate him never came through. In other words, Peter didn’t do his part of the plan. The writer of the Toldoth Jeshua tries to explain this special treatment of trying to save him was due to the fact that he was close to government. Well, they might as well have said because he was related to the High Priest because the only Jewish government at the time was the High Priest, and to be close was another way of implying a familial relationship. It also says that he was being helped by the High Priest at the time who just happened to be Caiaphas. Again this confirms the High Priest family connection I described in Caiaphas Letters.

The question one has to answer is why, if as in the Toldoth Jeshua there is recorded a definite attempt by the officials in Judea to save Jesus, and this book was based on original documentation from much earlier times, why would a group of supposedly educated men, paragons of virtue write such a stupid and inaccurate thing in the Talmud that actually suggests the Sanhedrin wanted to kill Jesus. The answer is simple; they couldn’t stop themselves. The whole idea behind the Talmud was to write as much down as they could remember because there was no central stores or archives left following the destruction of the Temple. Then they would analyze and embellish what they had written. But in a lot of the cases, this embellishment was merely the addition of hearsay and innuendo. Their memories of events may have been poor, but their imaginations certainly were not. They were in overdrive. They didn’t even try to be accurate. By the time the Talmud was being written, Christianity was already becoming the new power and Jews were already being persecuted by this new religion. So why not tell a very disparaging story and gloat about the death of the Christian messiah. Human nature has remained a constant throughout history. And this was one way of saying, “in your face, buddy! Stupid, yes, but then these supposedly intelligent men never thought the Talmud would be read by anyone that wasn't Jewish.
In their minds they were disproving the claims of Christianity by saying they were responsible for the death of Jesus. After all, how could he be the son of God, or for that matter, even the messiah, if they could kill him? So this invented story of theirs became our own undoing. We suffered because they gloated. But worst of all, they gloated over an entirely false and ludicrous story that they created for their own personal egos.”
Now one might point out that as a Karaite, I have no fondness for the Rabbis of old, I certainly don't give any credence to the Talmud and therefore I view them in a negative light. True, I admit it. We suffered for two thousand years because of their misguided beliefs. Had they only stayed to the facts, I think they would have found that most educated people would have understood what occurred in the framework of the time and circumstances. I'm not naive and saying that the early Church would not have pursued its policy of deicide if they hadn’t written the inaccurate story of Jesus into the Talmud but I don’t believe the persecutions would have been conducted as vehemently as they were. What you have in the Gospels is the story of Caiaphas sending Jesus to Antipas, and then to Pilate. Pilate pronounced sentence and Roman soldiers performed the execution. You actually have evidence of the Jewish authorities abdicating their responsibility and handing it over to these other powers. Therefore the role of the Jewish authorities is minimalized.
When you read about the confrontation between the Maharal, Rabbi Judah Loew, and the Nasi, Yakov Kahana in Shadows of Trinity, you are seeing the two worlds of Karaism and Judaism clash. The former regarding the Talmud as the work of foolish men and the latter that deemed themselves worthy of interpreting Gods words, convinced that there were hidden meanings, detailed instructions, and numerous restrictions behind every word. But as the above story has pointed out, words can be very dangerous when they used improperly. Less would have definitely been better!

Fighting Windmills

Why should we bother to challenge the accepted historical beliefs if it only means that we in turn become the target of those offended that we 'dared' to confront the established truths? Why is it that in order to protect the established historical beliefs, threats and prejudice are perfectly acceptable? Is it that accepted history is built on so fragile a platform that those dedicated to preserving it know that at any given moment it could crumble to dust?
Those familiar with my writing, blogs and books know that I am classified as an alternative historian. It doesn't mean that my material is any less factual, it only indicates that I'm constantly challenging the norm. And why not? I'm the one in possession of the facts,the dates, the material that demonstrates what they classify as alternative history is in most probability actual history and that which is being taught in many respects is the glorified hype of those that held the reigns of power to make their version the standard. It happens every day. In Japan, you will never hear of the atrocities committed by their army in World War II, though you can read of what occurred on my friend Patrick's blogspot http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=112016879904&h=5F36D&u=70E45&ref=nf to read of some ot these horrible deeds. In Germany one year my friend Hans Hildebrand gave me a completely different version of the holocaust in much of it was laid at the feet of the Poles as their doing, and even now as I speak, the Arab world and Russia are busily rewriting their national histories in order "educate" their populations in the truth. It's common practice. History is a political tool and always has been.
So when I write from a Karaite perspective of events in Jewish history, I expect to feel the backlash. A minority within a minority has no real authority at all. In fact,how little it registers was made perfectly clear in a conversation with an Israeli girl that I had yesterday. She was down here in New Zealand marketing a product and was surprised when I began to speak a little Hebrew to her. It was the limit of my vocabulary so even describing it as a little Hebrew may be too generous It was the first she heard from anyone in this country and wanted to know where I had picked it up. When I explained that I was Karaim, her eyes lit up and she told me how she once dated an Egyptian Jew. In her mind, all Egyptian Jews were Karaites and that was the definition of the word. And then she commented that I didn't look Egyptian.
I could have taken the time to explain that the roots of the Karaim were in Mesopotamia. That the Egyptian population was only one little segment. I could have explaiined the migration history of how we were slowly pushed further and further from centres like Baghdad and Mahoza after Anan ibn David established the tenents of Karaite Judaism in 769 and how in 940 we were attacked and driven from our homes by Saadiah Gaon to the North West to take up residence in the lands around the Black Sea. I even could have spoken of how the Crimean Peninsula became one of the larger population centres of Karaites to be seconded by Bessarabia and Romania. I even could have spoken of how the Rabbinate forbade marriages between rabbinate Jews and Karaite Jews unless the latter abandoned its beliefs and declared them to be false. During World War II, there were recorded findings by the Nazis as they invaded Romania of their enounter with the Karaite population and a request from Berlin to send orders as to whether they should be treated no differently from the rabbinate Jewish populations. You see, the Karaites presented a problem. As the Nazi's were ingrained with their stereotypical version of what Jews should look like, they were not prepared to find a subpopulation that were six feet tall, some with blonde hair and more eastern features. Berlin's final decision was to not include them in it's persecution as it had determined they were actually Tartars and not Jews at all. How ironic that Hitler's final solution would never have been final at all. As Karaites we would have survived.
But, there wasn't the time to try and explain this, and considering that her entire exposure to Karaite history was that she had an Egyptian Jewish boyfriend and that was the only defining point made me realize that even in Israel there is a failure to provide the 'alternative history'. There is no intention to highlight the differences; the goal being that you melt and blend everyone and everything into a singualar pot.
So in answer to my initial questions of why do we do it? Why do we challenge the windmills only to know that we will be beaten back again and again? We do it because it is right or should I say 'write'. Even Don Quixote had his moments of victory.

Vampires, Monsters and a Sadistic Pope

There are times I really have to wonder what was actually transpiring in that latter part of the 16th century. For those that have had the opportunity to read Shadows of Trinity you're already aware of the situation in Prague and have a good insight into the personality of Pope Sixtus V, whom was already recongised as a butcher by the time the story took place. But it would appear that he was not alone in his desire to shed blood in the most horrific fashions. In fact, there were those performing acts that defy imagination and yet they were in positions of power and social esteem that renders the atrocities inconceivable. Whatever the Golem did, as explained in the novel, paled in comparison to these paragons of Church and Society.
One such paragon was the Countess Elizabeth Bathory (1560-1614. Residing in her castle in Slovakia,even though she was referred to as being Hungarian, she was not to distant from the events taking place in Shadows of Trinity. With her inherited wealth, she was one of Hungary's wealthiest women and I wouldn't be surprised if she visited Prague on a regular basis. Like many of the aristocracy in Europe, the inbreeding of families left a genetic imprint that disable young Elizabeth from time to time. From the age of four and a half she began suffering from epileptic fits. Despite being arrogant and spoiled, she was still regarded as intelligent and a suitable prize in marriage.
Therefore it was no surprise when Count Fernencz Nadasdy came knocking on the castle door to ask for the then fifteen year old Elizabeth's hand in marriage. They wed and took up residence in Csjethe Castle in Transylvania. Never one to stay at home, Fernencz left Elizabeth on her own frequently but made certain that he was home long enough to father several children. His long absences drove his wife though to the bring of madness.
In the early 1580's, Elizabeth could no longer deal with the loneliness and the boredom and sought entertainment by torturing her servants. Not just any servants. She exhibited a predilection for young teenage females. The level of the torture which I'm about to describe exceeds even what we would consider sadistic. By all accounts, her tastes were monstrous. She enjoyed playing with fire and this translated into placing combustible wads between the toes of the girls and then setting them alight. As the wads burned, the Countess watched the girls do their frantic dance in an attempt to dislodge them. If she was really bored, Elizabeth would just set the girls on fire and burn them alive. Applying red-hot pincers to various body parts was also a common passtime. Not one to keep the entertainment all to herself, the Countess would force the girls to perform their household duties in full view of male guests that she would invite to her castle. Even her husband would participate in the torture of the girls whenever he returned from his travels.
Fortunately for their son and two daughters they were never involved in witnessing the tortures and their nannies made certain to keep them far enough away from their mother that they were never the victims either.
Some will say that as the Countess's sadistic tastes grew wilder and more extreme, not even her husband could stomach them any longer and his absences grew more frequent. By the time the events of Shadows of Trinity were taking place, Elizabeth already had a string of young men that satisfied her sexual needs but like a black widow spider they never had the opportunity to brag about their conquests of the Countess in the castle. Oddly, even though these crimes were quite evident, as young girls and men disappeared from the countryside, this never became a concern for the Pope that summoned the three heroes to stop the Golem's rampage without even a thought of what was happening nearby. Perhaps this was because the Countess never turned her attentions to the clergy and unlike the Golem wasn't responsible for the death of his nephew.
With the continuous absences of her husband the Countess grew steadily convinced that perhas it was because she was no longer young enough or pretty enough to keep him interested. Her victims of her tortures became as a result girls that were younger and whom she considered prettier. The vanity of the stepmother/witch of Snow White couldn't hold a candle to Elizbeth as she invented new forms of torture in which to delight. One day while having her hair combed, he maidservant accidentally pulled her hair and Elizabeth slapped the girl hard across the face cutting her lip. A few droplets of blood had splashed on to the back of her hand and the Countess became convinced that where it had contacted her skin it was now smoother and softer. At that point she consulted with Ana Darvulia, a local witch that provided potions to the Countess for various ailments and Darvulia explained that the blood of virgins had magical properties one of which was the restoration of youth. No sooner did Elizabeth hear that when she ordered the handmaid's throat cut and her blood drained into her bath. Thus began the end for many a young girl in the community as hundreds were kidnapped and used to fill the bath with blood. Rumour had it that Elizabeth would bite their necks and drink the blood that flowed from the puncture marks she made.
Elizabeth continued her sadistic ritual unabated for years. By the time it ended the number tallied over 600, confirmed by the record book that the Countess kept in her writing desk. The bodies had been burned, buried beneath the castle floors, or tossed into the forests to be devoured by wolves.
Not a word was said and especially not by the clergy who's Pope had a tally of closer to thirty thousand victims of his "so called" freeing the highways of bandits campaign. It wasn't until Elizabeth turned her attentions to young noble girls that the cries of murderer were actually made. Desperate to seek new blood, the Countess stablished a boarding school for girls of noble birth. In this case finishing school meant exactly what it claimed.
Emperor Matthias sent Count Thurzo, to conduct a raid of the castle. What he found horrified them all. One dead girl in the central foyer, one whose body had been pierced with holes barely alive. Several more hanging from the basement rafters their blood draining into the Countess's vat.
In 1610, the Countess and her accomplices were placed on trial. Her husband had been dead for six years already thus escaping justice. They were all found guilty and executed except for the Countess whom was ordered to be imprisoned in a small room of her castle until she died.
This real life Dracula finally died in 1614. Her legancy remains in our legends of Vampires and the haunting of Transylvania. Since my ancestors resided in Peatra Neamt for several generations, the stories of Transylvania were quite well known to them. But what is most remarkable is that for a period of fifty years, some of the most horrific evils were being perpretrated under the reign of Emperor Rudolf II. By comparion, the Golem of Prague, later to become Mary Shelly's Frankenstein monster was not even worth considering to be a monster when standing along side Countess Elizabeth Bathory. But the fact that these two distinct and separate episodes occurred almost simultaneously points to the comments made by Pope Sixus V when he summoned the three, Caesar de Nostradame, Giordano Bruno and Yakov Kahana to stop the murders in Prague, that Armegeddon was upon them. And there is no reason to doubt that in the span of years from 1580 to 1600 there was every reason to believe that Pope Sixtus, a monster in his own right was correct.