. The obvious mistake in the inadequate use of “prosecute” in the translation of the French Rabbinate can be analysed as an unconscious confession and denunciation of the falsification committed by the rabbinical ancestors.

TABFor when he dictates his Commandments, the Eternal does not play with double meanings. Then here on the Sinai, the historical context is that of abandonment of circumcision until Gilgal. Therefore, only the bad faith of the fanatic victims of circumcision could twist the text in a misinterpretation that nobody should ever have imagined. For in order to restore circumcision, the rabbis were compelled to conceal the veritable meaning of the Second Com-mandment through falsifying the sense of the most sacred text of the Torah since directly written by God. The manipulation of the faithful is obvious. The sole attenuating circumstance would be pathological denial of the reality of the meaning of the Second Commandment, due to blind faith in Abraham’s commandment and to the deep psychological trauma its implementation provokes. It is indeed high time to put an end to it.

TABBesides, it is possible to word a hypothesis about the two versions of the Second Commandment, that which forbids circumcision and that which does not mention it. Until today, the authenticity of the Book of Deuteronomy has been considered warranted by the fact that the manuscript was found again buried in the temple of Jerusalem at the return from the exile in Babylon. But it is impossible that God should have varied in his formulation of the Ten Commandments; the Levite rabbis varied, not God. The redaction of the book of Deuteronomy has certainly been altered, truncated from the ban of circumcision. One must think that the discovery in the temple was a whole performance intended to warrant the return to circumcision. For the rabbis only knew the book of Deuteronomy, a book of rules of boring reading whilst the book of the Exodus was well-known to the people; it was the source of religious education and it was impossible to falsify it, only its interpretation could be changed. The version of the Book of the Exodus is both the authentic version and the one written at the intention of Nebuchadnezzar. Indeed, at the time of captivity, those who obeyed the divine will to respect the human body were likely still numerous. The Jews were divided about this point and the version of the Exodus enabled the rabbis to explain the fact to Nebuchadnezzar, while distinguishing the Jews from the Egyptians in order to avoid slaughter. The version of the Book of Deuteronomy was made up at the return from exile in order to warrant the new orthodox interpretation of the Second commandment of the Book of the Exodus.

TABAbolishing the commandment of Abraham, the Second Commandment makes the right to physical integrity the first of the rights of man. One can even think that in the Third Commandment that comes right after this condemnation of circumcision:

“You will not invoke the name of the Eternal your God to support lie...” (20: 7, French Rabbinate),

Moses reproaches Abraham for having perjured saying that God would have ascribed him circumcision. A shrewd reader of the Bible, Mohammed took up this accusation in verses 4: 118-119 of the Koran (see below). For if God ever ordered Abraham circumcision, he forbade Moses to do it. Either it was not the same God or he changed his mind between both Alliances, or still Abraham lied and no God ever ordered circumcision. The Book of the Deuteronomy confirms that God did not impose circumcision to Moses