2/16/91 #2 HATONN
In the existing crisis it is neither logical nor realistic to drive Christians out of the Christian "fold" in relatively large numbers for the dubious advantage to be obtained by bringing a comparatively small number of so-called or self-styled "Jews" into the Christian "fold".
It is useless to try to deny the fact that today finds the Christian faith on the defensive throughout the world. This realization staggers the imagination of the few Christians who understand the situation. This status of the Christian faith exists in spite of the magnificent contributions of the Christian faith to the progress of humanity of civilization for almost 2000 years. It is not my intention in this letter to expose the conspirators who are dedicating themselves to the destruction of the Christian faith nor to the nature and extent of the conspiracy itself. That exposure would fill many volumes.
The history of the world for the past several centuries and current events at home and abroad confirm the existence of such a conspiracy. The world-wide net-work of diabolical conspirators implement this plot against the Christian faith while Christians appear to be sound asleep. The Christian clergy appear to be more ignorant or more indifferent about this conspiracy than other Christians. They seem to bury their heads in the sands like the legendary ostrich. This ignorance or indifference on the part of the Christian clergy has dealt a blow to the Christian faith already from which it may never completely recover, if at all. It seems so sad.
Christians deserve to be blessed in this crisis with a spiritual Paul Revere to ride across the nation warning Christians that their enemies are moving in on them fast. My dear Dr. Goldstein, will you volunteer to be that Paul Revere?
Of equal importance to pin-pointing the enemies who are making war upon the Christian faith from the outside is the necessity to discover the forces at work inside the Christian faith which make it so vulnerable to its enemies on the outside. Applying yourself to this specific phase of the problem can prove of tremendous value in rendering ineffective the forces responsible for this dangerous state of affairs.
The souls of millions of Christians who are totally unknown to you are quite uneasy about the status of the Christian faith today. The minds of countless thousands among the Christian clergy are troubled by the mysterious "pressure" from above which prevents them exercising their sound judgment in this situation. If the forces being manipulated against the Christian faith from the inside can be stopped the Christian faith will be able to stand upon its feet against its enemies as firmly as the Rock of Gibralter. Unless this can be done soon the Christian faith appears destined to crumble and to eventually collapse. An ounce of prevention is far preferable to a pound of cure you can be sure in this situation as in all others.
With all respect rightly due to the Christian clergy and in all humility I have an unpleasant duty to perform. I wish to go on record with you here that the Christian clergy are primarily if not solely responsible for the internal forces within the Christian faith inimical to its best interests. The conclusion on my part indicates the sum total of all the facts in my book which add up to just that. If you truly desire to be realistic and constructive you must "hew to the line and let the chips fall where they may". That is the only strategy that can save the Christian faith from a fate it does not deserve. You cannot pussy-foot with the truth any longer simply because you find that now "the truth hurts",--someone you know or like.
At this late hour very little time is left in which to mend our fences if I can call it that. We are not in a position to waste any of our limited time. "Beating it around the bush" now will get us exactly nowheres. The courageous alone will endure the present crisis when all the chips are down. Figuratively and possibly literally there will be live heroes and dead cowards when the dust of this secular combat settles and not dead heroes and live cowards as sometimes occurs under other circumstances. The Christian faith today remains the only "anchor to windward" against universal barbarism. The dedicated enemies of the Christian faith have sufficiently convinced the world by this time of the savage methods they will adopt in their program to erase the Christian faith from the face of the Earth.
Earlier in this letter I stated that in my humble opinion the apathy of the Christian clergy might be charged with sole responsibility for the increasing dilution of the devotion of countless Christians for the Christian faith. This is the natural consequence of the confusion created by the Christian clergy in the minds of Christians concerning certain fundamentals of the Christian faith. The guilt for this confusion rests exclusively upon Christian leadership not upon Christians generally. Confusion creates doubt. Doubt creates loss of confidence. Loss of confidence creates loss of interest. As confusion grows more, and more, and more, confidence grows less, and less, and less. The result is complete loss of all interest. You can hardly disagree with that my dear Dr. Goldstein, can you?
[H: Now it would appear from the pronouncement of "polls" and the rolls of the so-called Christian Churches that there is a great renewal of faith and seeking and coming back into the Christ-path in all "faiths" of whatever the "Christ" is called. This is not so in the "Western cultures"--THERE IS ONLY A RETURN INTO THE CHURCH HOUSES AND INTO NEW DOCTRINES WRITTEN FOR THIS NEW AND "MODERN RELIGION"--whatever that might be?!? Most of the church houses do not house Christianity. They DO hold bigoted, unforgiving and misled parishioners who anticipate a momentary "lift-off" to some nebulous being in the clouds the minute the Zionists get the temple going in Jerusalem and the temple is desecrated. Let me assure, good people--the temples of God have been so desecrated that there is naught left with which to desecrate them--and the Zionists have simply led you a merry chase through the primroses.]
The confusion in the minds of Christians concerning fundamentals of the Christian faith is unwarranted and unjustified. It need not exist. It would not exist if the Christian clergy did not aid and abet the deceptions responsible for it. The Christian clergy may be shocked to learn that they have been aiding and abetting the dedicated enemies of the Christian faith. Many of the Christian clergy are actually their allies but may not know it. This phase of the current world-wide campaign of spiritual sabotage is the most negative factor in the defense of the Christian faith.
Countless Christians standing on the sidelines in this struggle see their Christian faith "withering on the vine" and about ripe enough to "drop into the lap" of its dedicated enemies. They can do nothing about it. Their cup is made more bitter for them as they observe this unwarranted and this unjustified ignorance and indifference on the part of the Christian clergy. This apathetic attitude by the Christian clergy offers no opposition to the aggressors against the Christian faith. Retreat can only bring defeat. To obviate surrender to their dedicated enemies the Christian clergy must "about face" immediately if they expect to become the victors in the invisible and intangible ideological war now being so subversively waged against the Christian faith under their very noses. When will they wake up?
If I were asked to recite in this letter the many manners in which the Christian clergy are confusing the Christian concept of the fundamentals of the Christian faith it would require volumes rather than pages to tell the whole story. Space alone compels me here to confine myself to the irreducible minimum. I will limit myself here to the most important reasons for this confusion. Brevity will of necessity limit the references cited to support the matters presented in this letter. I will do my best under the circumstances to establish the authenticity of the incontestible historic facts I call to your attention here.
In my opinion the most important reason is directly related to your present activities. Your responsibility for this confusion is not lessened by your good intentions. As you have heard said so many times "Hell is paved with good intentions". The confusion your articles create is multiplied a thousand-fold by the wide publicity given to them as a result of the very high regard in which you personally are held by editors and readers across the nation, Christian and non-Christian alike. Your articles constantly are continually reprinted and quoted from coast to coast.
[H: And thinking back to the PROTOCOLS, I am sure you will instantly remind me that "The press is controlled!" Ah, indeed, we are making progress! Only the infiltrators from the Zionist element would be given such ear and forum.]
The utterance by the Christian clergy which confuses Christians the most is the constantly repeated utterance that "Jesus was a Jew". That also appears to be your favorite theme. [H: LISTEN UP PLEASE, TO THIS NEXT FOR IT IS FAR BEYOND JUST IMPORTANT!] That misrepresentation and distortion of an incontestible historic fact is uttered by the Christian clergy upon the slightest pretext. They utter it constantly, also without provocation. They appear to be "trigger happy" to utter it. They never miss an opportunity to do so. Informed intelligent Christians cannot reconcile this truly unwarranted misrepresentation and distortion of an incontestible historic fact by the Christian clergy with information known by them now TO THE CONTRARY WHICH COMES TO THEM FROM SOURCES BELIEVED BY THEM TO BE EQUALLY RELIABLE. (Emphasis mine.)
This poses a serious problem today for the Christian clergy. They can extricate themselves from their present predicament now only by resorting to "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". That is the only formula by which the Christian clergy can recapture the lost confidence of Christians. As effective spiritual leaders they cannot function without this lost confidence. They should make that their first order of business.
My dear Dr. Goldstein, you are a theologian of high rank and a historian of note. Of necessity you also should agree with other outstanding authorities on the subject of whether "Jesus was a Jew". These leading authorities agree today that there is no foundation in fact for the implications, inferences and the innuendoes resulting from the incorrect belief that "Jesus was a Jew".
Incontestible historic facts and an abundance of other proofs establish beyond the possibility of any doubt the incredibility of the assertion so often heard today that "Jesus was a Jew". [H: Now aren't you glad you stuck with us through that boring introduction? PUT THE STONES BACK ON THE GROUND LEST YOU SHOW YOUR TOTAL IGNORANCE OF FACTS!]
Without any fear of contradiction based upon fact the most competent and best qualified authorities all agree today that Jesus Christ was not a so-called or self-styled "Jew". They now confirm that during His lifetime Jesus was known as a "JUDEAN" and not as a "Jew". Contemporary theologians of Jesus whose competence to pass upon this subject cannot be challenged by anyone today also referred to Jesus during His lifetime here on Earth as a "Judean" and not as a "Jew".
[H: Satan always must wear a sign and our old fraud is beginning to show his a bit? Ah, you say, "Hatonn, but you said that once you experienced as a Jew!" Ah and so I did--both--I said it and I did so. I come this time in company with the one you should know as Emmanuel. Jesus is even incorrect for that label was given this perceived Christed being by Paul the apostle who was both confused and scrambled throughout his days and remains so in many ways, unto this very day and yet efforts to bring clarity to that confusion. So be it, let us continue.]
During his lifetime here on Earth Jesus was not regarded by Pontius Pilate nor by the Judeans among whom He dwelt as "King of the Jews". The inscription on the Cross upon which Jesus was Crucified has been incorrectly translated into the English language only since the 18th century. [H: Now just who do you think would change such important facts to mislead the generations and species of human?) Pontius Pilate was ironic and sarcastic when he ordered inscribed upon the Cross the Latin words "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum". About to be Crucified, with the approval of Pontius Pilate, Jesus was being mocked by Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate was well aware at that time that Jesus (Emmanuel, son of Mary) had been denounced, defied and denied by the Judeans who alas finally brought about His Crucifixion as related by history. (Hatonn: And incorrectly at that! I suggest you read, And They Called His Name Immanuel--I Am Sananda. The correct spelling would have been represented as Jmmanuel had it been correctly translated.]
Except for His few followers at that time in Judea all other Judeans abhored Jesus and detested His teachings and the things for which He stood. That deplorable fact cannot be erased from history by time. Pontius Pilate was himself the "ruler" of the Judeans at the time he ordered inscribed upon the Cross the Latin words "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum: in English "Jesus the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans". But Pontius Pilate never referred to himself as "ruler" of the Judeans. The ironic and sarcastic reference of Pontius Pilate to Jesus as "Ruler of the Judeans" can hardly be accepted as recognition by Pontius Pilate of Jesus as "Ruler of the Judeans". That is inconceivable by any interpretation.
At the time of the Crucifixion of Jesus Pontius Pilate was the administrator in Judea for the Roman Empire. At that time in history the area of the Roman Empire included a part of the Middle East. As far as he was concerned officially or personally the inhabitants of Judea were "Judeans" to Pontius Pilate and not so-called "Jews" as they have been styled since the 18th century. In the time of Pontius Pilate in history there was no religious, racial or national group in Judea known as "Jews" nor had there been any group so identified anywhere else in the world prior to that time.
Pontius Pilate expressed little interest as the administrator of the Roman Empire officially or personally in the wide variety of forms of religious worship then practiced in Judea. These forms of religious worship extended from phallic worship and other forms of idolatry to the emerging spiritual philosophy of an eternal, omnipotent and invisible Divine diety, the emerging Yahve (Jehovah) concept which predated Abraham of Bible fame by approximately 2000 years. As the administrator for the Roman Empire in Judea it was the official policy of Pontius Pilate never to interfere in the spiritual affairs of the local population. Pontius Pilate's primary responsibility was the collection of taxes to be forwarded home to Rome, not the forms of religious worship practiced by the Judeans from whom these taxes were collected.
As you well know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, the Latin word "rex" means "ruler, leader" in English. During the lifetime of Jesus in Judea the Latin word "rex" meant only that to Judeans familiar with the Latin language. The Latin word "rex" is the form of the noun from the Latin verb "rego, regere, rexi, rectus". The Latin verb "rego, regere, rexi, rectus" in English means as you also well know "to rule, to lead". Latin was of course the official language in all the provinces administered by a local administrator of the Roman Empire. This fact accounts for the inscription on the Cross in Latin.
With the invasion of the British Isles by the Anglo-Saxons the English language substituted the Anglo-Saxon "king" for the Latin equivalent "rex" used before the Anglo-Saxon invasion. The adoption of "king" for "rex" at this late date in British history did not retroactively alter the meaning of the Latin "rex" to the Judeans in the time of Jesus. The Latin "rex" to them then meant only "ruler, leader" as it still means in Latin. Anglo-Saxon "king" was spelled differently when first used but at all times meant the same as "rex" in Latin, "leader" of a tribe.
During the lifetime of Jesus it was very apparent to Pontius Pilate that Jesus was the very last Person in Judea the Judeans would select as their "ruler" or their "leader". In spite of this situation in Judea Pontius Pilate did not hesitate to order the inscription of the Cross "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum". By the wildest stretch of the imagination it is not conceivable that this sarcasm and irony by Pontius Pilate at the time of the Crucifixion was solely mockery of Jesus by Pontius Pilate and only mockery. After this reference to "Jesus the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans" the Judeans forthwith preceeded to Crucify Jesus upon that very Cross.
[H: Dharma, I am sorry, chela, but this is GOING TO BE WRITTEN AND WE ARE GOING TO WRITE IT, DEAR ONE. Beloved Joy may now go and rejoice with Peace within her heart for I was going to ask her and NB to pen these truths. It can wait no longer for it has been buried in the lies piled upon lies and now you have the proof of who and why it has been dumped upon humanity. Do not cower, child, for I stand at your front, back, and both sides and none shall strike you except for their foolish words--i.e. Mr. Cooper, who only shows his ignorance beyond all belief unto the world. Oberli, make sure that NB and Joy receive this as it comes forth. Can you now see how a whole civilization can be victims of a lie begun with intent for world control? So be it. We will herein cover a lot of territory in historical importance--better yet, it is laid forth by one who would be referred to as "Jew"--my, "What a tangled web ye weave when first ye practice to deceive!"]
In Latin in the lifetime of Jesus the name of the political subdivision in the Middle East known in modern history as Palestine was "Iudaea". It was then administered by Pontius Pilate as administrator for the Roman Empire of which it was then a part. The English for the Latin "Iudaea" is "Judea". In Latin "Iudaeus" is the adjective for the noun "Iudaea". In English "Judean" is the adjective for the noun "Judea". The ancient native population of the subdivision in the Middle East known in modern history as Palestine was then called "Iudaeus" in Latin and "Judean" in English. Those words identified the indigenous population of Judea in the lifetime of Jesus. Who can deny that Jesus was a member of the indigenous population of Judea in His lifetime?
And of course you know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, in Latin the Genitive Plural of "Iudaeus" is "Iudaeorum". [H: I believe our "Friar Pope" will enjoy checking this out for all you non-Latin "Priests" of the Holy Church!] The English translation of the Genitive Plural of "Iudaeorum" is "of the Judeans". Inscribed upon the Cross on which Jesus was Crucified was "Iudaeorum". It is utterly impossible to give any other English translation to "Iudaeorum" than "of the Judeans". Qualified and competent theologians and historians regard as incredible any other translation into English of "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum" than "Jesus the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans". [H: Further, there is no mistaking the label "Iesus" by which he was called in many places as in "Esu, Issa, Iisa," etc., Christ, Christos, Christed, etc.--you can even now get away with Iesus Sananda and be in the correct "ball-park".] You must agree that this is literally correct.
At the time Pontius Pilate was ordering the "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum" inscribed upon the Cross the spiritual leaders of Judea were protesting to Pontius Pilate "not to write that Jesus was the ruler of the Judeans" but to inscribe instead that Jesus "had said that he was the ruler of the Judeans". The spiritual leaders of Judea made very strong protests to Pontius Pilate against his reference to Jesus as "Rex Iudaeorum" insisting that Pontius Pilate was not familiar with or misunderstood the status of Jesus in Judea. These protests are a matter of historical record, as you know.
The spiritual leaders in Judea protested in vain with Pontius Pilate. They insisted that Jesus "had said that He was the ruler of the Judeans" but that Pontius Pilate was "not to write that Jesus was the ruler of the Judeans". For after all Pontius Pilate was a foreigner in Judea who could not understand the local situations as well as the spiritual leaders. The intricate pattern of the domestic political, social and economic cross-currents in Judea interested Pontius Pilate very little as Rome's administrator.
The Gospel by John was written originally in the Greek language according to the best authorities. In the Greek original there is no equivalent for the English that Jesus "had said that He was the ruler of the Judeans". The English translation of the Greek original of the Gospel by John, XIX, 19, reads "Do not inscribe ' the monarch (basileus) of the Judeans (Ioudaios), but that He Himself said I am monarch (basileus) of the Judeans (Ioudaios)". "Ioudaia" is the Greek for the Latin "Iudaea" and the English "Judea". "Basileus" is the Greek "monarch" in English. "Rex" is the nearest word in Latin for "basileus" in Greek. The English "ruler", or its alternative "leader", define the sense of Latin "rex" and Greek "basileus" as they were used in the Greek and Latin Gospel by John.
Pontius Pilate "washed his hands" of the protests by the spiritual leaders in Judea who demanded of him that the inscription on the Cross authored by Pontius Pilate be corrected in the manner they insisted upon. Pontius Pilate very impatiently replied to their demands "What I have written, I have written". The inscription on the Cross remained what it had been, "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum", or "Jesus the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans" in English.
The Latin quotations and words mentioned in this letter are verbatim quotations and the exact words which appear in the 4th century translation of the New Testament into Latin by St. Jerome. This translation is referred to as the Vulgate Edition of the New Testament. It was the first official translation of the New Testament into Latin made by the Christian Church. Since that time it has remained the official New Testament version used by the Catholic Church. The translation of the Gospel by John into Latin by St. Jerome was made from the Greek language in which the Gospel of John was originally written according to the best authorities on this subject.
The English translation of the Gospel by John, XIX, 19. from the original text in the Greek language reads as follows, "Pilate wrote a sign and fastened it to the Cross and the writing was 'Jesus the Nazarene the monarch of the Judeans' " . In the original Greek manuscript there is mention also made of the demands upon Pontius Pilate by the spiritual leaders in Judea that Pontius Pilate alter the reference on the Cross to Jesus as "Ruler of the Judeans". The Greek text of the original manuscript of the Gospel by John establishes beyond any question or doubt that the spiritual leaders in Judea at that time had protested to Pontius Pilate that Jesus was "not the ruler of the Judeans" but only "had said that He was the ruler of the Judeans".
There is no factual foundation in history or theology today for the implications, inferences and innuendoes that the Greek "Ioudaios", the Latin "Iudaeus", or the English "Judean" ever possessed a valid religious connotation. In their three respective languages these three words have only indicated a strictly topographical or geographic connotation. In their correct sense these three words in their respective languages were used to identify the members of the indigenous native population of the geographic area known as Judea in the lifetime of Jesus. During the lifetime of Jesus there was not a form of religious worship practiced in Judea or elsewhere in the known world which bore a name even remotely resembling the name of the political subdivision of the Roman Empire, i.e. "Judaism" from "Judea". No cult or sect existed by such a name.
[END OF QUOTING FOR THIS SEGMENT]
Please allow to break the writing at this place. I ask that as the portions are given forth, please make sure that our beloved RK be given them in the segments produced.
We realize this is very heavy to accept and absorb but none-the-less the time of Truth is upon the lands and so shall it be written for the hourglass lies empty if Man sees not the errors of his journey and acceptance of the lies.
So be it and may the blessings of peace which passes your understanding see you through this time of confrontation. Saalomé
Hatonn to stand-by.
2/17/91 #2 HATONN
CONTINUATION OF THE FREEDMAN LETTER
I desire to take no time in current comments until we have finished this portion and presented the work in point. There IS NOTHING more important for, if you do not set your thinking to straight, there is no point in anything else about your physical circumstance.
Yes, it will be through those who are considered "JEWS" who will make sure truth prevails from out of the lies of the Zionists for it is they who have suffered most and have been sorely treated by those they were taught were their elders and truth-bearers. It will be these beloved ones from the Judean races who MUST set it to right that Man can see the truth and facts of the deceit. As ones of God's people check into the information as given, the confirmation will flow as from the lifespring.
Let us continue:
TERM "JEW" CREATED
It is an incontestable fact that the word "Jew" did not come into existence until the year 1775. Prior to 1775 the word "Jew" did not exist in any language. The word "Jew" was introduced into the English for the first time in the 18th century when Sheridan used it in his play "The Rivals", II,i, "She shall have a skin like a mummy, and the beard of a Jew". Prior to this use of the word "Jew" in the English language by Sheridan in 1775 the word "Jew" had not become a word in the English language. Shakespeare never saw the word "Jew" as you will see. Shakespeare never used the word "Jew" in any of his works, the common general belief to the contrary notwithstanding. In his "Merchant of Venice", V.III.i.61, Shakespeare wrote as follows: "What is the reason? I am a Iewe; hath not a Iewe eyes?".
In the Latin St. Jerome 4th century Vulgate Edition of the New Testament Jesus is referred to by the Genitive Plural of "Iudaeus" in the Gospel by John reference to the inscription on the Cross,--"Iudaeorum". It was in the 4th century that St. Jerome translated into Latin the manuscripts of the New Testament from the original languages in which they were written. This translation by St. Jerome is referred to still today as the Vulgate Edition by the Roman Catholic Church authorities, who use it today.
Jesus is referred to as a so-called "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century. Jesus is first referred to as a so-called "Jew" in the revised 18th century editions in the English language of the 14th century first translations of the New Testament into English. The history of the origin of the word "Jew" in the English language leaves no doubt that the 18th century "Jew" is the 18th century contracted and corrupted English word for the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition. Of that there is no longer doubt.
The available original manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century accurately trace the origin and give the complete history of the word "Jew" in the English language. In these manuscripts are to be found all the many earlier English equivalents extending through the 14 centuries from the 4th to the 18th century. From the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" these English forms included successively "Gyu", "Giu", "Iu", "Iuu", "Iuw", "Ieuu", "Ieuy", "Iwe", "Iow", "Iewe", "Ieue", Iue", Ive", "Iew", and then finally in the 18th century, "Jew". The many earlier English equivalents for "Jews" through the 14 centuries are "Giwis", "Giws", "Gyues", "Gywes", "Giwes", "Geus", "Iuys", "Iows", "Iouis", "Iews", and then also finally in the 18th century, "Jews".
With the rapidly expanding use in England in the 18th century for the first time in history of the greatly improved printing presses unlimited quantities of the New Testament were printed. These revised 18th century editions of the earlier 14th century first translations into the English language were then widely distributed throughout England and the English speaking world among families who had never possessed a copy of the New Testament in any language. In these 18th century editions with revisions the word "Jew" appeared for the first time in any English translations. The word "Jew" as it was used in the 18th century editions has since continued in use in all editions of the New Testament in the English language. The use of the word "Jew" thus was stabilized.
As you know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, the best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word "Jew" did not appear in it. The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word "Jew" did NOT appear in it either. The word "Jew" appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first time.
Countless copies of the revised 18th century editions of the Rheims (Douai) and the King James translations of the New Testament into English were distributed to the clergy and the laity throughout the English speaking world. They did not know the history of the origin of the English word "Jew" as the only and as the accepted form of the Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios". How could they be expected to have known otherwise? The answer is they could not and they did not. It was a new English word to them.
When you studied Latin in your school days you were taught that the letter "I" in Latin when used as the first letter in a word is pronounced like the letter "Y" in English when it is the first letter in words like "yes", "youth" and "yacht". The "I" in "Iudaeus" is pronounced like the "Y" in "yes", "youth", and "yacht" in English. In all the 4th century to 18th century forms for the 18th century "Jew" the letter "I" was pronounced like the English "Y" in "yes", "young", and "yacht". The same is true of the "Gi" or the "Gy" where it was used in place of the letter "I".
The present pronounciation of the word "Jew" in modern English is a development of recent times. In the English language today the "J" in "Jew" is pronounced like the "J" in the English "justice", "jolly", and "jump". This is the case only since the 18th century. Prior to the 18th century the "J" in "Jew" was pronounced exactly like the "Y" in the English "yes", "youth", and "yacht". Until the 18th century and perhaps even later the English "you" or "hew", and the word "Jews" like "youse" or "hews". The present pronounciation of "Jew" in English is a new pronounciation acquired after the 18th century.
The German language still retains the Latin original pronounciation. The German "Jude" is the German equivalent of the English "Jew". The "J" in the German "Jude" is pronounced exactly like the English "Y" in "yes", "youth", and "yacht". The German "J" is the equivalent of the Latin "I" and both are pronounced exactly like the English "Y" in "yes", "youth" and "yacht". The German "Jude" is virtually the first syllable in the Latin "Iudaeus" and is pronounced exactly like it. The German "Jude" is the German contraction and corruption of the Latin "Iudaeus" just as the English "Jew" is the contraction and corruption of the Latin "Iudaeus". The German "J" is always pronounced like the English "Y" in "yes", "youth", and "yacht" when it is the first letter of a word. The pronounciation of the "J" in German "Jude" is not an exception to the pronounciation of the "J" in German.
The English language as you already know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, is largely made up of words adopted from foreign languages. After their adoption by the English language foreign words were then adapted by contracting their spelling and corrupting their foreign pronounciation to make them more easily pronounced in English from their English spelling. This process of first adopting foreign words and then adapting them by contracting their spelling and corrupting their pronounciation resulted in such new words in the English language as "cab" from their original foreign spelling. Hundreds of others must come to your mind.
By this adopting-adapting process the Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios" finally emerged in the 18th century as "Jew" in the English language. The English speaking peoples struggled through 14 centuries seeking to create for the English language and English equivalent for the Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios" which could be easily pronounced in English from its English spelling. The English "Jew" was the resulting 18th century contracted and corrupted form of the Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios". The English "Jew" is easily pronounced in English from its English spelling. The Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios" cannot be as easily pronounced in English from the Latin and Greek spelling. They were forced to coin a word.
The earliest version of the New Testament in English from the Latin Vulgate Edition is the Wiclif, or Wickliffe Edition published in 1380. In the Wiclif Edition Jesus is there mentioned as One of the "iewes". That was the 14th century English version of the Latin "Iudaeus" and was pronounced "hewweeze", in the plural, and "iewe" pronounced "hew-wee" in the singular. In the 1380 Wiclif Edition in English and Gospel by John, XIX.19, reads "ihesus of nazareth kyng of the iewes". Prior to the 14th century the English language adopted the Anglo-Saxon "kyng" together with many other Anglo-Saxon words in place of the Latin "rex" and the Greek "basileus". The Anglo-Saxon also meant "tribal leader".
In the Tyndale Edition of the New Testament in English published in 1525 Jesus was likewise described as One of the "Iewes". In the Coverdale Edition published in 1535 Jesus was also described as One of the "Iewes". In the Coverdale Edition of the Gospel by John, XIX.19, reads "Jesus of Nazareth, kynge of the Iewes". In the Cranmer Edition published in 1539 Jesus was again described as One of the "Iewes". In the Geneva Edition published in 1540-1557 Jesus was also described as One of the "Iewes". In the Rheims Edition published in 1582 Jesus was described as One of the "Ievves". In the King James Edition published in 1404-1611 also known as the Authorized Version Jesus was described again as one of the "Iewes". The forms of the Latin "Iudaeus" were used which were current at the time these translations were made.
The translation into English of the Gospel by John, XIX.19, from the Greek in which it was originally written reads "Do not inscribe ' the monarch of the Judeans' but that He Himself said 'I am monarch". In the original Greek manuscript the Greek "basileus" appears for "monarch" in the English and the Greek "Ioudaios" appears for "Judeans" in the English. "Ioudaios" in Greek is "Judea" in English. "Ioudaios" in Greek is "Judeans" in English. There is no reason for any confusion.
My dear Dr. Goldstein, if the generally accepted understanding today of the English "Jew" and "Judean" conveyed the identical implications, inferences and innuendoes as both rightly should, it would make no difference which of these two words was used when referring to Jesus in the New Testament or elsewhere. But the implications, inferences, and innuendoes today conveyed by these two words are as different as black is from white. The word "Jew" today is never regarded as a synonym for "Judean" nor is "Judean" regarded as a synonym for "Jew".
As I have explained, when the word "Jew" was first introduced into the English language in the 18th century its one and only implication, inference and innuendo was "Judean". However during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries a well-organized and well-financed international "pressure group" created a so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" among the English-speaking peoples of the world. This so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word "Jew". It is a misrepresentation.
The "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew" today bears as little relation to its original and correct meaning as the "secondary meaning" today for the word "camel" bears to the original and correct meaning for the word "camel", or the "secondary meaning" today for the word "ivory" bears to the original and correct meaning of the word "ivory". The "secondary meaning" today for the word "camel" is a cigarette by that name but its original and correct meaning is a desert animal by that ancient name. The "secondary meaning" of the word "ivory" today is a piece of soap but its original and correct meaning is the tusk of a male elephant.
The "secondary meanings" of words often become the generally accepted meanings of words formerly having entirely different meanings. This is accomplished by the expenditure of great amounts of money for well-planned publicity. Today if you ask for a "camel" someone will hand you cigarette by that name. Today if you ask for a piece of "ivory" someone will hand you a piece of soap by that name. You will never receive either a desert animal or a piece of the tusk of a male elephant. That must illustrate the extent to which these "secondary meanings" are able to practically eclipse the original and correct meanings of words in the minds of the general public. The "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" today has practically totally eclipsed the original and correct meaning of the word "Jew" when it was introduced as a word in the English language. This phenomena is not uncommon.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized the "secondary meaning" of words. The highest court in the land has established as basic law that "secondary meanings" can acquire priority rights to the use of any dictionary word. Well-planned and well-financed world-wide publicity through every available media by well-organized groups of so-called or self-styled "Jews" for three centuries has created a "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" which has completely "blacked out" the original and correct meaning of the word "Jew". There can be no doubt about that.
There is not one person in the whole English-speaking world today who regards a "Jew" as a "Judean" in the literal sense of the word. That was the correct and only meaning in the 18th century. The generally accepted "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew" today with practically no exceptions is made up of four almost universally-believed theories. These four theories are that a so-called or self-styled "Jew" is (1) a person who today professes the form of religious worship known as "Judaism", (2) a person who claims to belong to a racial group associated with the ancient Semites, (3) a person directly the descendant of an ancient nation which thrived in Palestine in Bible history, (4) a person blessed by Divine intentional design with certain superior cultural characteristics denied to other racial, religious or national groups, all rolled into one.
The present generally accepted "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew" is fundamentally responsible for the confusion in the minds of Christians regarding elementary tenets of the Christian faith. It is likewise responsible today to a very great extent for the dilution of the devotion of countless Christians for their Christian faith. The implications, inferences and innuendoes of the word "Jew" today, to the preponderant majority of intelligent and informed Christians, is contradictory and in complete conflict with incontestible historic fact. Christians who cannot be fooled any longer are suspect of the Christian clergy who continue to repeat, and repeat, And repeat ad nauseam their pet theme song "Jesus was a Jew". It actually now approaches psychosis.
Countless Christians know today that they were "brain washed" by the Christian clergy on the subject "Jesus was a Jew". The resentment they feel is not yet apparent to the Christian clergy. Christians now are demanding from the Christian clergy "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". It is now time for the Christian clergy to tell Christians what they should have told them long ago. Of all religious groups in the world Christians appear to be the least informed of any on this subject. Have their spiritual leaders been reckless with the truth?
Countless intelligent and informed Christians no longer accept unchallenged assertions by the Christian clergy that Jesus in His lifetime was a Member of a group in Judea which practised a religious form of worship then which is today called "Judaism", or that Jesus in His lifetime here on Earth was a Member of the racial group which today includes the preponderant majority of all so-called or self-styled "Jews" in the world, or that the so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today are the lineal descendants of the nation in Judea of which Jesus was a national in His lifetime here on Earth, or that the cultural characteristics of so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today correspond with the cultural characteristics of Jesus during His lifetime here on Earth and His teachings while He was here on Earth for a brief stay. Christians will no longer believe that the race, religion, nationality and culture of Jesus and the race, religion, nationality and culture of so-called or self-styled "Jews" today or their ancestors have a common origin or character.
The resentment by Christian is more ominous than the Christian clergy suspect. Under existing conditions the Christian clergy will find that ignorance is not bliss, nor wisdom folly. Christians everywhere today are seeking to learn the authentic relationship between the so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today and the "Judeans" who populated "Judea" before, during and after the time of Jesus. Christians now insist that they be told correctly by the Christian clergy about the racial, religious, national and cultural background of the so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today and the basis for associating these backgrounds with the racial, religious, national and cultural background of Jesus in His lifetime in Judea. The intelligent and informed Christians are alerted to the exploded myth that the so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today are the direct descendants of the "Judeans" amongst whom Jesus lived during His lifetime here on Earth.
Christians today are also becoming more and more alerted day by day why the so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world for three centuries have spent uncounted sums of money to manufacture the fiction that the "Judeans" in the time of Jesus were "Jews" rather than "Judeans", and that "Jesus was a Jew". Christians are becoming more and more aware day by day of all the economic and political advantages accruing to the so-called or self-styled "Jews" as a direct result of their success in making Christians believe that "Jesus was a Jew" in the "secondary meaning" they have created for the 18th century word "Jew". The so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today represent themselves to Christians as "Jews" only in the "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew". They seek to thereby prove their kinship with Jesus. They emphasize this fiction to the Christians constantly. That fable is fast fading and losing its former grip upon the imaginations of Christians.
To allege that "Jesus was a Jew" in the sense that during His lifetime Jesus professed and practised the form of religious worship known and practised under the modern name of "Judaism" is false and fiction of the most blasphemous nature.
If to be a so-called or self-styled "Jew" then or now the practise of "Judaism" was a requirement then Jesus certainly was not a so-called "Jew". Jesus abhored and denounced the form of religious worship practised in Judea in His lifetime and which is known and practised today under its new name "Judaism". That religious belief was then known as "Pharisaism". The Christian clergy learned that in their theological seminary days but they have never made any attempt to make that clear to Christians.
[END OF QUOTING FOR THIS SEGMENT]
Dharma, here is a good point at which to break the writing. We will continue at the section regarding the Jewish Theological Seminary of America--often referred to as "The Vatican of Judaism". Thank you. Salu.