Chalmers v. Netanyahu

A Holocaust Denier uses a Jewish Historian's work as Anti-Semitic Ammunition

by S. G.

A student essay from Dr. Elliot Neaman's History 210 class (historical methods - spring 2001)

Holocaust denial, in the guise of "historical revisionism", has become increasingly widespread worldwide in the last decade. These deniers run the gamut, from your basic Internet nutcase to educated, intellectually sophisticated individuals. The basic argument of all Holocaust deniers is that the Holocaust of the Jews by Nazi Germany during World War II never happened. Often, they take it further than this and contend that the universally accepted history of World War II, including concentration and death camps, gas chambers and crematories, is in fact a fabrication by scholars (especially Jewish scholars) and Zionists to further the interests of the Jewish people and to manipulate the non-Jewish world socially, politically and economically.

A great deal of evidence is proffered by Holocaust deniers in support of their claims. This evidence is widely varied, in terms of both content and grammar. None of it withstands the scrutiny of trained historians, and often it requires only the most basic common sense to recognize the emptiness of the denier arguments. Most often the deniers have dubious credentials at best, little or no historiographical training, and a knack for manipulating facts and quoting out of context. Their arguments, while often based on fact, tend to twist events and evidence to fit as needed, and ignore facts that would contradict them. There seems to be a trend among deniers to refer to secret proof, that can't be revealed at this time. These weaknesses really undermine any credibility that Holocaust deniers might have. However, the biggest dilemma that Holocaust deniers face is that, although statistics and schools of thought vary regarding the number of Jews killed by the Nazis, precisely where, why, how and by whom they were killed, and with what intent, zealousness and degree of premeditation they were killed, it is an historical fact that they were killed. There exists no accepted or rational historical debate as to the fact that hundreds of thousands, even millions of Jews were taken from their homes, rounded up and sent off to camps where those who did not die of starvation and disease were systematically exterminated by Hitler's Nazis. Neither discrepancies and disagreements on specifics nor contradictory testimonies serve to negate or even cast doubt on these basic truths of the Holocaust. It is ridiculous to say that debate over the exact nature of the crime is an indication that no crime took place.

In light of the ludicrous nature of the claims made by Holocaust deniers, it is not surprising that they are dismissed as a nuisance by most legitimate historians. Deniers frequently challenge historians to debate the Holocaust with them, and are refused. Deniers say that this refusal proves that their arguments have merit and are a threat to the establishment, but the truth is that historians generally feel no need to debate the absurd.¹ Many also fear that to acknowledge the deniers' arguments long enough to refute them might give them some semblance of legitimacy, as an acceptable, alternative view of the Holocaust. Even though the vast majority of people would dismiss their arguments without hesitation, Holocaust deniers would still be getting undeserved exposure.

Although Holocaust denial has become more and more widespread, the attitudes of most historians remain unchanged. Holocaust deniers are, quite rightly, treated as an annoying lunatic fringe with absolutely no historiographical validity. Some of the more sophisticated deniers, in a new strategy to gain the legitimacy and validity they lack, have taken to entering into the accepted historical debates which exist around other controversial historical subjects. By doing so, they hope to associate themselves with the respected historians who are also debating these subjects, thus gaining some respectability through association. By extension, the Holocaust deniers hope to add the existence of the Holocaust to the list of common historical debates. Essentially, the hope is that if they enter the same debates as real historians, people will start to think that they are real historians. Thus, people will think that the opinions of deniers regarding the Holocaust are the opinions of real historians and are worthy of the same respect as proper history.

One of the historical debates being used by Holocaust deniers, in this strategy to further their interests, is the debate surrounding the Spanish Inquisition. Spain was invaded by the Muslims in the year 711, and the Christian population spent the next eight centuries slowly driving them out.² This unwelcome foreign rule served to magnify the differences between native Spaniards and the other groups living in Spain, and fueled existing resentments. One of these groups was the Jews, who further aggravated the problem by cooperating somewhat with the Muslim invaders. They often acted as tax collectors, a role which by nature associated the Jews with the economic struggles native Spaniards faced under Muslim rule.³

Hatred of Jews was already rampant in Spain, as it was in all of Europe, and the actions of the Jews allied them with the hated Muslim infidels in the minds of most Spaniards, exacerbating existing tensions. When the last of the Muslim rule was finally put down in 1492, their Catholic Majesties King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain issued an edict banning all Jews from Spain. Jews were allowed four months to leave, without any of their valuables, or given the option to stay and convert to Christianity. Many Jews had already converted, in the face of discrimination and persecution. The converted Jews were known as "Conversos", "Marranos" or "New Christians". These Conversos stayed in Spain and excelled across the board. They rose quickly to infiltrate the highest echelons of society, aided by their wealth and superior level of education. New Christians also routinely intermarried with "Old Christians", as the Catholic Spaniards were known.

While for all intents and purposes the Conversos appeared to be devout and practicing Christians, there was much debate as to whether they had truly converted. This is one of the controversies that has carried through to the present day, and about which the opinions of respected historians differ. At the time, it was thought that the some Conversos retained their Jewish rituals and customs in private, and were merely pretending to embrace Catholicism in order to avoid persecution. A great deal of evidence exists to support this, including the fact that many groups of Conversos later left Spain and, upon settling elsewhere, immediately resumed open practice of Judaism.⁴ On the other hand, it is almost universally accepted that some of the New Christians truly did reject their old ways and become true Christians. Scholars routinely accept that both of these things happened. The debate exists over the degree to which there was true conversion or false conversion. Essentially, historians just disagree on percentages.

Another related debate exists among scholars as to the reasons behind the Spanish Inquisition, which began in 1478, ostensibly as an effort to root out all of the heretics in Spain.⁵ This was done through many creative methods of interrogation and torture, which cast fear into the hearts of all, as accusations were frequent and not limited to New Christians.⁶ Thousands were hauled in for interrogation, and many were tortured. It should be noted though, that only about 5,000 were actually convicted as heretics and killed over the 356 year span of the Inquisition.⁷ Although the Inquisition was officially instituted by the monarchs with papal permission and in the name of the cross, it is interesting to note that the Pope Sixtus IV and his successors actually came to condemn the venture after 1483, on the basis that it was "exceeding due moderation in its prosecutions."⁸

In addition to religion, economic and political factors certainly played into the Spanish Inquisition, either consciously or subconsciously. The Conversos had money and social status, and with those came some power. Many also held high positions in government and in the Church.⁹ They were certainly a threat on many levels. In addition to the above factors, historian Henry Kamen, whose 1998 book, The Spanish Inquisition, is popularly held to be the current authority in Spanish Inquisition history, sees the Inquisition also as a tool used by the monarchs and church officials of Spain to strike fear into the hearts of their own people and as a warning to their enemies.¹⁰ This makes sense, as Ferdinand and Isabella were ruling over a nation just recently reunited, one likely retaining some divisive, residual infidel influences. This would also help to explain why, although thousands were accused, so few were convicted. The overwhelming majority got off with paying a fine or providing the Inquisitors with a piece of information which was sought. This should not necessarily be taken as an indication that the Inquisition was not undertaken for religious reasons, but it may indicate that the Inquisition's purposes were not always based on religion. Or it may simply show that the leaders of the Inquisition were multi-tasking, combining the hunt for heresy with fundraising and government intelligence work.

Again, it is generally accepted among historians that the aforementioned religious, social, economic and political factors existed, and together contributed to the rise of the Spanish Inquisition. The debate is over to what degree each was responsible, and whether the influence was conscious or unconscious on the part of the Inquisitors. Basically, the question is this: was the Inquisition primarily a farce in which religion was used as an excuse for social, political and economic persecution, or were most Inquisitors truly seeking to eliminate heresy, while only a few were corrupt and had ulterior motives. Alternatively, all may have believed the Spanish Inquisition to be God's work, but have been subconsciously biased against the Conversos for these other reasons.

It is into this fray that one Holocaust denier, Brian Chalmers, has leapt, with his review of Benzion Netanyahu's 1995 book, The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain. Benzion Netanyahu is a respected Jewish historian, and a professor emeritus at Cornell University. He is also the father of Benjamin Netanyahu, former Prime Minister of Israel. Benzion Netanyahu has long been a highly visible and outspoken proponent of Zionism, and is well thought of in his native Israel. He is a prolific historian; this is his third book addressing the plight of the Jews during the Spanish Inquisition, and he has written volumes more on all aspects of Jewish history.

The focus of Benzion Netanyahu's argument in The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain is that, at the inception of the Spanish Inquisition, all of the Conversos were true converts to Catholicism, and none of them practiced Judaism in secret. Furthermore, he contends that everyone in Spain knew this and fully believed it to be true, thus making it impossible that the Spanish Inquisition really was instated with the intention of rooting out heretics among the New Christians, for the Spanish knew that no heretics existed. Thus, Netanyahu maintains that the Spanish Inquisition must have really been about socioeconomic resentment stemming from deep-seated racial and ethnic hatred of the Jews.¹¹ He then proceeds to draw a direct correlation between the racial-ethnic hatred which he says led to the Spanish Inquisition, and that which led to the Holocaust of the Jews in Hitler's Third Reich.

In an effort to address one of the most glaring problems with his argument, Netanyahu does allow that pockets of crypto-Jews certainly existed in Spain in the centuries prior to the founding of the Inquisition.¹² He also concurs with historians that some New Christians did secretly practice Judaism after the Inquisition was underway, but maintains that this was in reaction to their having been rejected by the Christian establishment and driven back to their old ways.¹³ Netanyahu's thesis requires that there be a five to ten year period where these crypto-Jews suddenly ceased to exist, reappearing a couple of years later. In this way, he attempts to show that heresy could have in no way legitimately motivated the founders of the Inquisition. Netanyahu states:

…in seeking to identify the Marrano group with a secret Jewish heresy, the Spanish Inquisition was operating with a fiction. …it was driven to this operation by racial hatred and political considerations rather than by religious zeal. …My contention that the Inquisition was based upon, and operated with, a fictitious charge must emerge as a necessary conclusion. And, what must be equally obvious in this event is that this fiction was in no way a product of misinformation or self-delusion, but of deliberate and careful calculation.¹⁴

As Chalmers is quick to point out, Netanyahu's attempt to draw a direct parallel between the racial ethnic hatred he cites as the primary cause of the Spanish Inquisition, and that which later played into the Holocaust, is weakened by the fact the most historians agree that the concept of race was drastically different in the fifteenth century. Historian Norman Roth explains:

It has become fashionable…to label as "anti-Semitism" any real or imagined manifestation of anti-Jewish sentiment in any period of history. This is anachronistic, of course; in a literal sense because the term and concept did not come into existence until the nineteenth century, and in a descriptive sense because "anti-Semitism" refers to the hatred of Jews as a people because of imagined "racial" characteristics which are judged to be inferior or subversive. Non-Jewish expressions of disagreement with, or even hostility to, what is (incorrectly) perceived to be the "Jewish religion" is not anti-Semitism. Second, there was not, before the modern period, a theory of biological race, or the understanding that the Jews constituted such a race. Even the Spanish term raza, infrequently employed in some medieval texts, does not carry this connotation…¹⁵

Thus, the thread Netanyahu tries to weave through these historical events is flawed. However, it is generally accepted that the Spanish doctrine of limpieza de sangre, or "purity of blood", which was adopted beginning in the 1480's as a tool to keep Jews from holding positions of power, was an early precursor of the type of modern day anti-Semitism which culminated in the Third Reich.¹⁶ However, as this postdated the rise of the Inquisition by several years, it is likely that it was not a cause of the actual inception of the Spanish Inquisition, but rather a result of it.

Netanyahu's book is chock full of valuable facts and meticulous research, but its conclusions have glaring problems and fly in the face of generally accepted historiography on the subject. It is dangerous in historical writing to indulge in absolutes, which is what Netanyahu does by dismissing the possibility that any of those instrumental in bringing about the Inquisition had pure motives. Worse, he patently denies that any of the no false conversions existed at the time the Inquisition began, when tremendous evidence exists to support that crypto-Judaism was alive and well in Spain. Essentially, by choosing to ignore facts and factors which undermine his thesis, Netanyahu has rendered his arguments worthless and a bit absurd. Accordingly, this book was panned by respected historians. Now it is being panned by Holocaust deniers, and rather well, at that.

This brings us back to Brian Chalmers who, in the pages of The Journal of Historical Review, reviews Netanyahu's The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain. In doing so he attempts to establish himself as a legitimate historian, and The Journal of Historical Review, which is essentially just propaganda for educated Holocaust deniers, as a legitimate historical journal. Neither is true, but the imitation is convincing. It is a clever strategy, and one which will likely succeed in lending some semblance of validity to the material usually found in the pages of The Journal of Historical Review, at least among persons not well versed in the facts surrounding the Third Reich. In this particular instance, Brian Chalmers has written a thorough and carefully researched review of Netanyahu's controversial history. Each weak argument is refuted, point-by-point, and Chalmers' rebuttal is meticulously footnoted back to a really beautiful bibliography. He also takes pains to give credit where credit is due, emphasizing the value of Netanyahu's thorough research. The book review is well written, and its style is that of a legitimate academic historian.

It should be noted that I was unable to locate any biographical information whatsoever on Brian Chalmers, nor does his article offer any clues as to who he is or what his educational background might be. It was also impossible to locate other articles written by him on any subject, neither in The Journal of Historical Review nor in any other available source.

One of the reasons that Chalmers' review of Netanyahu's work is so effective a tool in furthering the cause of legitimizing Holocaust denial is that, in choosing to endorse a theory which totally opposes the generally accepted views on the subject, Netanyahu has allowed Chalmers to align his views with the views of many respected and legitimate historians. There is certainly controversy surrounding the Inquisition and differing theories abound, but none would deny that at least some of the Conversos consistently retained their Jewish ways in secret. It is simply too well documented that some did. This renders Netanyahu's conclusions farfetched at best, as has been pointed out by several noted historians in comments on this book. Chalmers, a Holocaust denier, has positioned himself so that he is in agreement with the overwhelming majority of legitimate historians, unified in fervent disapproval of this work by Netanyahu, a Jewish historian. Chalmers is one with the establishment; Netanyahu is out in the cold. It is made even worse by the fact that Netanyahu is about as respected and established a Jewish historian as exists. Chalmers hints that Jewish historians of course cannot be trusted to be rational and unbiased on matters of Jewish history, as the subject is too personal for them. He proceeds to cast subtle, yet effective aspersions on the Jewish historians' views of World War II which he believes, like the Spanish Inquisition, may be simply too close to home for them to take an unbiased look at the facts.¹⁷ Netanyahu has left the door open for this, as historians are generally scathing about the weakness of his conclusions in this book, as well as his historical methods in reaching them. He also has made the mistake of attempting to draw a direct historical correlation between arguments about the Spanish Inquisition which have been summarily dismissed by scholars, and his views on the Holocaust. The non-historian reader might certainly be inclined to take all of Netanyahu's views with a grain of salt, or at least to consider the seemingly rational views of Brian Chalmers to possibly be more valid. Netanyahu comes across as a man with an agenda, who is willing to mold the truth in order to further his cause. He does, in fact, endorse and justify the practice of past Jewish historians twisting the truth in order to portray a clearer picture of the treatment of Jews throughout history:

Their "falsification" of the records could appear to them, in their overall considerations, as the presentation of the inner truth of history, while the fuller and ostensibly truthful presentation could be judged by them as leading to misunderstandings and hence to a distortion of the basic facts … Obviously, such a form of revision would involve a flagrant distortion of the truth. But historical truth was less important in their eyes than the consequences it entailed for the welfare of their group. … if they chose the course of full exposure, they could easily see themselves as unwitting parties to the vilification of their own people.¹⁸

All of this enables Chalmers to portray himself as the voice of reason, in contrast to Netanyahu, the irrational Jewish historian. As Netanyahu is so much a leading scholar of Jewish history, it is not difficult for Chalmers to imply that, by extension, all Jewish historians have hidden agendas which render any of their historical findings suspect.

As previously noted, Netanyahu gives the appearance of being willing to bend the most basic rules of historiography in order to achieve his ends, and Chalmers exploits this quite expertly. Chalmers is able to interpret this trait of Netanyahu's as being a dishonorable way to write history, and so portray Netanyahu as a man willing to be dishonorable. This is key, as a large part of the reason behind Netanyahu's flawed thesis is the desire to restore the honor of the Jews of the Spanish Inquisition period, which was sullied somewhat by universal acceptance of the fact that some Jews lied and said they had converted to Christianity when they in truth had not. Both the traditional Jewish and Christian views are against profession of a false faith, and see it as heretical and immoral. They tend much more toward an endorsement of martyrdom. That is all very well in theory, but the reality of martyrdom is horrible, and people can scarcely be blamed for doing what they have to survive. I would think that the more modern view in each religion has expanded to accept this. However, Jews certainly did lose some face over the issue, especially as so many other Jews went unshirking to their deaths for reasons of faith. Lying does not look good, and therefore Netanyahu contends that the Conversos did not lie. He is willing to admit that the Jews were perhaps weak minded and lacked the courage of their convictions, as they were willing to completely change faiths when put under pressure. However, he absolutely maintains that the vast majority of all Conversos were truly Christians, and that all New Christians at the time that the Inquisition came into being were sincere. The problem arises in the fact that so much evidence exists to support the conclusion that this is just not entirely accurate. That pockets of Crypto-Judaism consistently existed in Spain is well documented and generally accepted as fact. Netanyahu's efforts to refute this allow Chalmers to draw a parallel between the Crypto-Jews, who clearly lied back then, and Netanyahu, who is clearly willing to lie now in an attempt to restore their honor. He uses this to very subtly imply a pattern of dishonor in Jews, and an inherent willingness to lie. As he himself is a Holocaust denier, I imagine Chalmers hopes that this picture will remain with the reader and color their interpretation of accounts of the Holocaust, especially those written by survivors or Jewish historians.

All in all, Chalmers' techniques are frighteningly effective. He writes like an historian, he supports his arguments like an historian, and his approach to his review of Netanyahu's work gives the appearance of objectivity on first glance. Chalmers carefully dissects Netanyahu's weak arguments, while giving credit where credit is due. The review is well written and never seems to be a direct attack on Netanyahu or on Jews. The attack is done subtly, using just well chosen words or phrases to insinuate the bias of the writer into the piece. Chalmers almost seems mild, when juxtaposed against the scathing comments he includes from noted historians. He has a knack for knowing when the unspoken works better than the blatant, and he uses this to his advantage.¹⁹ He comes off as almost sympathetic to the plight of the Jews and to Netanyahu's need to rewrite the past, but unable as an "historian" to let the misinformation in Netanyahu's book slide.

Chalmers' review does have a few weaknesses which undermine its aims, although they are slight and easily missed. He makes the mistake of emphasizing some instances where Netanyahu might be seen to have contradicted himself, and stretches a bit in the process. In one specific instance, Netanyahu allows that one or two of the judges in the Inquisition could have been motivated by religious factors.²⁰ Chalmers jumps on this as being in direct conflict with Netanyahu's thesis, which technically maintains that all of the Spanish knew that the conversions of the New Christians were true. While Netanyahu did make the mistake of speaking in absolutes, this minor infraction does not in and of itself render the basic arguments of his thesis invalid. As there are so many major historical facts that do, Chalmers would have done better not to nit-pick over small lapses in historical method. In doing so, he comes off as petty. He seems not to know when he has won. This seems like poor sportsmanship. A more effective tactic would have been to rely solely on the most universally accepted historical truths to refute Netanyahu's glaringly weak arguments, and not to resort to this unnecessary strategy. In doing so, he reminds one of the worst faults of Holocaust denier arguments, which often focus on minor discrepancies as proof that the whole Holocaust is a lie and a plot. All in all, it is annoying and it undermines an otherwise clever article.

Another mistake that Chalmers makes is that he chastises Netanyahu for alternately embracing and dismissing the views of the same historians to suit his purposes. Chalmers uses this to support his assertion that Netanyahu is completely willing to manipulate facts and information as necessary in his misguided quest to further his thesis and thus the cause of the Jewish people. That Chalmers then proceeds to indulge in the identical practice himself, renders what might have been a rather effective argument utterly useless and worse, slightly entertaining. It no longer matters whether or not Netanyahu is guilty of inconsistency, as the mistake casts doubt on the reliability of both parties. Chalmers comes off the bigger loser, since to identify the flaw and then repeat it is excruciatingly bad strategically. It is a critical error, painful to watch, and much worse than Netanyahu's original mistake.

In conclusion, this strategy by Holocaust deniers to validate themselves by entering the arena of legitimate historical debate may prove to be successful. In this instance, Brian Chalmers makes remarkable use of the opportunity given him by Benzion Netanyahu. The benefits to him are many, as he is not only able to draw subtle parallels between the debate over the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust, but is also able to insinuate that the quality of arguments advanced here by Netanyahu is typical of Jewish historians. Netanyahu is given the appearance of being overly zealous and willing to bend the historiographical rules in his efforts to mold the history of his people. Readers not familiar with the scope of his work as an historian may judge him based on this single weak argument and dismiss the overwhelming value of many of his histories out of hand. It is also unfortunate that, to a reader not well acquainted with the history of these periods, Chalmers' views on the Spanish Inquisition may seem more valid than Netanyahu's. As an extension these readers might be inclined to give Chalmers' views on the Holocaust more credence than Netanyahu's, and consider them an alternative opinion to the universally accepted history of the period. As Chalmers emulates the style of scholarly academics quite well, his article in The Journal of Historical Review reads like a real historical journal, and for many, may serve to lend undeserved legitimacy to this publication. All in all, this new tactic is by far the cleverest I have seen and will likely prove to be the most dangerous, in terms of influencing future misrepresentations of Holocaust history in the minds of the general populace.

NOTES

¹ Geoffrey Wheatcroft, "Bearing False Witness," New York Times, 13 May 2001, sec. 7, p.13.

² Stanley G. Payne, Spanish Catholicism: An Historical Overview (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984), 3.

³ Henry Kamen, Inquisition and Society in Spain (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 8-9.

⁴ Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 40-44.

⁵ Newman C. Eberhardt, C.M., A Summary of Catholic History (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1962), 63.

⁶ Bartolome Bennassar, "Patterns of the Inquisitorial Mind as the Basis for a Pedagogy of Fear," in The Spanish Inquisition and the Inquisitorial Mind , ed. Angel Alcala (Barcelona: Ariel, 1984), 178-181.

⁷ Payne, 37.

⁸ Eberhardt, 63-64.

⁹  Payne, 32-33.

¹⁰ Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition, 7.

¹¹ Netanyahu, Origins , 1043.

¹² Netanyahu, Origins, 931.

¹³ Benzion Netanyahu, "The Primary Cause," in The Spanish Inquisition , ed. Paul J. Hauben (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), 43-44.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ Norman Roth, Conversos, Inquisition, and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1995), 229-230.

¹⁶ Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition, 231-237; Roth, 229-230.

¹⁷ Brian Chalmers, review of The Origins of the Spanish Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain , by Benzion Netanyahu, The Journal of Historical Review 16: 4.

¹⁸ Benzion Netanyahu, The Origins of the Spanish Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain (New York: Random House, 1995), 660-661.

¹⁹ Chalmers. See particularly pages 20-23.

²⁰ Netanyahu, Origins, 1085-1086.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alcala, Angel.(ed) The Spanish Inquisition and the Inquisitorial Mind . Barcelona: Ariel, 1984.

Chalmers, Brian. Review of The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain , by 

Benzion Netanyahu. The Journal of Historical Review volume 16: 2-24.

Eberhardt, Newman C., C.M. A Summary of Catholic History . St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1962.

Hauben, Paul J.(ed) The Spanish Inquisition . New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1969.

Kamen, Henry. Inquisition and Society in Spain . Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985.

___________.  The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998.

Lipstadt, Deborah. Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory . New York: Penguin Books USA, Inc., 1994.

Netanyahu, Benzion. The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain . New York: Random House, 1995.

___________. The Marranos of Spain: from the Late 14^th to the Early 16^th Century . New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1966.

Payne, Stanley G. Spanish Catholicism: An Historical Overview . Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1984.

Roth, Norman. Conversos, Inquisition, and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain . Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1995.

Weber, Mark, "The Conference of the Persecuted: A Bulwark of Truth and Sanity Against the Enemies of Free Speech," The Journal of Historical Review volume 19: 12-18.

___________. "Jews: A Religious Community, a People, or a Race?," The Journal of Historical Review volume 19: 63-64.

Wheatcroft, Geoffrey, "Bearing False Witness," New York Times , 13 May 2001, sec. 7, 12-13.