By: Brother Mathew Sammie Religious publications in our day frequently contain reviews and critiques of the seemingly endless number of new Bible translations appearing in print. Some of these reviews are favorable while others are critical. Of those that are critical, the negative evaluations are sometimes soundly based, appealing to matters of text or translation with regard to manuscript evidence, lexical matters or points of grammar based on the original languages of the Bible. Others give irrelevant, unsound, or simply ignorant and foolish arguments for their rejection. Often it is those who defend the King James Version as the only valid translation of the Bible in English who fall into this last category. This characterization is not true of every defender of the KJV, but it is true of many, perhaps most. One very bizarre reason for rejecting the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, or the New King James Version is that these--and apparently all other major versions since 1881--have been copyrighted. The argument is that the publishers, by copyrighting their new Bibles, insured themselves a hefty royalty from every copy sold, and in fact made the new translations with the sinister motive of making a profit on the gullibility of religious people who buy every new Bible that comes along. The KJV, in contrast, is characterized as being far superior to any other version because it is "the only Bible published without a copyright!" (as one recent publication stated). God just won't use a copyrighted Bible, some insist. That there may be valid reasons for copyrighting new translations (e.g., to recover the expense of translation and typesetting, which can run into millions of dollars, or to prevent corruption of the text in pirated editions) is rarely considered. But a far more important consideration is the fact that in the matter of being copyrighted, the KJV is not different from other versions--it was and is a copyrighted translation. We would do well at this point to consider something of the origin, nature, and extent of the practice of copyrighting printed works. The 15th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (1977), in its excellent article on "Copyright Law," presents the following pertinent information: Copyright in the modern sense was born in the late 15th century, the offspring of Gutenberg's invention of printing and of the expansion throughout Europe of the learning and religious ferment accompanying the Renaissance and Reformation. At about the time William Caxton established a printing press in Westminster in 1476, the city of Venice inaugurated a system of granting "privileges," or monopoly rights, to print certain books. The practice of sovereign grants of exclusive publishing rights spread quickly to other countries and became a common trade practice during the 16th and 17th centuries. The printer or publisher seeking the monopoly was willing to pay for the privilege and to submit the work for official approval. For the ruler making the grant, the system was thus a source of revenue and, more important, an opportunity for exercising political or religious censorship. For more than 200 years this inchoate form of copyright was a matter involving tradesman and sovereign, and the individual author was rarely even an indirect beneficiary of the transaction. At the same time, the unauthorized reproduction of books, which had once been considered merely reprehensible, was gradually coming to be recognized as an illegal act. In England the system of royal licenses to individual printers was organized into a definite procedure with the restoration of Roman Catholicism under Mary I. In 1555, reaction to the widespread persecution of Protestants under the reinstated heresy laws led the crown to seek methods for enforcing tighter censorship. In 1556, Queen Mary chartered the Stationers' Company, giving the members of this guild of London printers monopoly rights in the books they published. All books were required to be submitted for official approval and to be entered on the company's register; both unauthorized printing and failure to register were punished by the Court of the Star Chamber. Granting, yea, requiring the copyrighting of books was a firmly established practice in England long before the publication of the KJV in 1611. Therefore, it is no surprise that the title page of the New Testament of the original edition of the KJV reads, at the bottom, Cum Privilegio, Latin words which literally mean "with privilege" or "right"; that is, with the right of reproduction retained, or, in a word, "copyrighted." I confirmed this with my own eyes in November, 1976, at the library of the University of Chicago, which has a 1st edition KJV in its collection. The Oxford University Press in 1911 produced "an exact reprint in Roman type, page for page of the Authorized Version published in the year 1611." It naturally has precisely the same words on the New Testament title page. (It was this Oxford 1911 reprint which was re-issued by Thomas Nelson in the 1980s.) A personal inspection of the 2nd edition of the KJV (1613), in the collection of the Vick Memorial Library at Baptist Bible College, Springfield, Missouri, reveals the words Cum Privilegio on both the title page to the whole Bible and the title page to the New Testament. No doubt later editions read the same or similarly. This copyright on the King James Version merely placed it in the mainstream with numerous earlier English versions, which were also copyrighted. William F. Moulton, in his singularly superb volume The History of the English Bible (5th edition, 1911), informs the reader that in 1537, "a second and a third edition of Coverdale's Bible was published by Nycolson, of Southwark [a section of London]; and here we at last read at the foot of the title-page, 'Sett forth with the Kynges most gracious license,' " (p. 99). Then, after noting that "In 1539 Taverner published his edition of the Bible," Moulton quotes the title page of that edition which reads in part, "Prynted at London in Flete strete at the synge of the sonne by John Byddell, for Thomas Barthlet. Cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum. M.D.XXXIX." (p. 133). John Hutchinson relates concerning the Great Bible, completed in April of 1539, that the title page included the words, "Prynted by Rychard Grafton and Edward Whitchurch. Cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum" ("English Versions," The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, volume II, p. 949, 1937 revised edition). Moulton also informs us, "On the 14th of November, 1539, [King] Henry [VIII] bestowed on [Thomas] Cromwell, for five years, the exclusive right to grant a license for the printing of the Bible in the English tongue" (p. 141), and that around 1542, "Anthony Marler, a haberdasher of London, who had borne the expenses of the earlier editions of the Great Bible, received from Henry a patent, conveying to him the exclusive right of printing the English Bible during four years" (p. 143). Regarding the Geneva Bible of 1560, we are told by Moulton: The expense of the publication of the Genevan Bible was borne by the English community in that city. In 1561 [John] Bodley obtained from the Queen a patent for the exclusive printing of this version during seven years....In the course of Elizabeth's reign as many as seventy editions of the Genevan Bible and thirty of the New Testament, in all sizes from folio to 48mo, some in black letter and others in the ordinary character, were issued from the press. A few of these were printed abroad, but the large majority at home. On the same subject, Hutchinson states, "Bodley had received the patent for its publication; and upon his asking for an extension of the patent for twelve years, the request was generously granted by Archbishop Parker and Grindly, bishop of London). One printer, Richard Harrison, because he printed an edition of Cranmer's New Testament without license from Queen Elizabeth I to do so, was fined eight shillings (Moulton, p. 166). The Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament was also copyrighted when it appeared. Its title page read in part, "Printed at Rhemes by Ioan Fogny. 1582. Cum privilegio" (Moulton, p. 182). An edition of the Bishops' Bible bearing the date 1585 in the Baptist Bible College collection lists the printer's name, Christopher Barker, and the fact that he was printer to the Queen's most excellent majesty, accompanied by the words "cum gratia et privilegio"--"with grace and privilege." And, we note, though it is not an English Bible, that Erasmus' Greek text in its first edition of 1516 was published under copyright. An exact reproduction of the title page is to be found in Schaff's Companion to the Greek Testament and English Version, p. 532, where we clearly see "CVM PRIVILEGIO." It is apparent that the only English Bibles which were not copyrighted upon publication were the very earliest ones, including the translations of Tyndale and Coverdale, when Bible publication in England was an illegal act. All translations made since legalization have been routinely and regularly copyrighted. With such a history of copyrights and licenses from the monarch for the printing of earlier English Bible translations, it is no surprise to find that the KJV was also copyrighted. In fact, we would be not a little surprised if it had not been. Gustavus Paine in The Men Behind the King James Version discusses the printing and copyright of the KJV: There was no competition for the job of printing the new Bible. It went to Robert Barker, the royal printer who also published it. His father, Christopher Barker, had received from Queen Elizabeth the sole right to print English Bibles, books of common prayer, statutes, and proclamations. On the death of Christopher Barker in 1599 the queen had given to his son, Robert Barker, the office of Queen's Printer for life with the same monopoly. The Barkers and their heirs were to keep their right to publish the King James Bible for a hundred years. The heirs of Robert Barker went on printing [the KJV] as sole owners of the right for a hundred years. Henry Richard Tedder, in his biographical sketch of Robert Barker in The Compact Edition of the Dictionary of National Biography, gives further information about Robert Barker, his Bible copyright, and the printing of the King James Version: The letters patent of Queen Elizabeth 1 of 8 Aug., 1589, granted him the reversion for life, after his father's death, of the office of Queen's printer, with right of printing English Bibles [emphasis added], books of common prayer, statutes, and proclamations.... The most important publication we owe to him was the first edition of the authorized version of the English [B]ible of 1611, sometimes known as King James, printed by virtue of the patent. Two issues, both handsome folios, were produced in the same year. Tedder further relates how Robert Barker paid the printing costs for these two folio editions of the KJV: "[he] paid for the amended or corrected translation of the [B]ible 3,500 [pounds]: by reason whereof the translated copy did of right belong to him and his assignes," and that in 1660, an anonymous author "ac-cused the Barkers of having kept in their possession the original manuscript of King James version" (p. 94/1128). For more than 100 years the Barkers held the exclusive copyright to all English Bibles, as Tedder informs us: "The [B]ible patent remained in the family from 1577 to 1709, or 132 years" (p. 94/1128). But the copyright on the KJV did not expire after 100 years, when the Barker's copyright passed into other hands. Philip Schaff, in Companion to the Greek Testament and English Version, wrote of later matters respecting the copyright of the KJV. He noted that "No English Bible was printed in America until after the Revolution, in 1782....Before that time the English copyright prevented the reprint" (p. 329, note 1). F. F. Bruce confirmed this fact in The Canon of Scripture: "Before the Declaration of Independence American Christians were debarred by British copyright regulations from printing the English Bible" (p. 111, note 24). It is of particular interest to find that after the American Revolution had created a new nation, "an effort was made in its first Congress to restrict the printing of the [Bible] to licensed houses," but this effort "was cut short by the first amendment to the Constitution, and the book was thrown into the hands of the trade at large, with anything but a beneficial effect on its general integrity" (Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological,and Ecclesiastical Literature, edited by John M'Clintock and James Strong, vol. I, p. 563). We must take note at this point of what is usually considered to be the first English Bible printed in America (though this is expressly denied by Isaiah Thomas in his 1810 volume, The History of Printing in America, pp. 103-4, 196, 401) because there is some confusion and misunderstanding surrounding it. I received a letter some time ago that claimed that the KJV was authorized and its publication licensed by the United States' Congress, as no other Bible has ever been. What was offered as proof of this assertion? A letter sent to Mr. Robert Aitken of Philadelphia concerning the English Bible he undertook to publish in 1782. That letter, from the Congress to Mr. Aitken read: RESOLVED, THAT the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion, as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper. Anyone who will give this letter a careful reading can readily see that it does not authorize or license the printing of the English Bible in any way, but only lauds Aitken for this undertaking and grants him permission to publish their letter of recommendation. There is not a word or hint of the authorizing of Bible printing. It is evident, then, that the KJV was under worldwide copyright in all countries ruled by the British Empire from its first publishing in 1611 until 1782, or 171 years, longer by far than any of the English Bibles copyrighted and published from 1881 to the present. God apparently does use copyrighted Bibles sometimes, then, since the Bible of the Puritans--of Goodwin, Owen, Manton, Watson, Flavel, Brooks, Baxter, Bunyan, Poole and Henry--and of the Great Awakening--of Edwards, Whitefield, the Wesleys, Brainerd, and Dr. Gill--was a copyrighted Bible. At the turn of the nineteenth century, the KJV remained under British copyright. Colin Clair tells us that "the exclusive copyright in Bibles was then [i.e., 1804], as now, in the hands of the University Presses of Oxford and Cambridge and the Royal Printers, who, at the beginning of the [19th] century, were George Eyre and Andrew Strahan" (A History of Printing in Britain, p. 250; since Clair's book was published in 1966, it bears testimony to the persistence of Bible copyrights as late as that date, but I am getting ahead of myself). Not only so, but the KJV was still under copyright in England much later in the century. In the article on the "Authorized Version," in M'Clintock and Strong's, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (1871 edition), it is stated as a then-present fact that "in England, for the sake of insuring accuracy as far as possible, the book [i.e., the Bible] can only be printed by the universities [i.e., Oxford and Cambridge], the king's printers, and persons by them licensed," (vol. I, p. 562). Further, Schaff records, in a letter written by Bishop Wordsworth, May 25, 1881, a statement concerning who has the right in England to publish the KJV: I see it stated in some books on copyright, not, however, without some hesitation, that `the Sovereign, by a prerogative vested in the Crown, has the exclusive privilege of printing inter alia the Holy Bible for public use in the divine service of the Church' (Godson on Copyright, p. 432, 437, 441, 454), and that the Queen's printer and the two ancient Universities [i.e., Oxford and Cambridge] now exercise the right by virtue of patents from the Crown....[T]he Queen's printer, who now, concurrently with the two Universities, enjoys the exclusive right of supplying all copies of the Bible (in the Authorized Version of 1611) for general use in the public service of the Church. The Bible of Carey, Fuller, Rippon, McCheyne, the Bonars, Hudson Taylor, Livingstone, Ryle, Spurgeon, and Maclaren was a copyrighted Bible. What has a copyright got to do with whether God will use a translation? Apparently nothing at all. So, as of 1881, the KJV had been under exclusive copyright in Great Britain and its colonies for 270 years. But there is more. To the present day the KJV is published in England under copyright. In private conversation, Sam Moore, president of Thomas Nelson Publishing of Nashville, Tennessee, the world's largest Bible publisher, informed Robert L. Sumner that there are currently four license holders with legal authority in England to publish the KJV: the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, as well as William Collins Sons & Co., Ltd, and Eyre & Spottiswoode. In illustration of this fact, let me note that my father owns two KJV New Testaments, both printed in England, with one published by Oxford and the other by Cambridge. Both were purchased new in 1971. Below the respective coat of arms of each university are the words "cum privilegio." These New Testaments were printed under copyright. Jack Lewis, in his book, The English Bible: From KJV to NIV, gives further testimony on the matter: Those who objected to [the Revised Standard Version's] being copyrighted should know that all English Bibles, including the KJV and ASV, were copyrighted when first issued. The King James still enjoys copyright protection in Britain. It is only right that the purity of the text be protected and that the investment made by the publisher be safeguarded. As if the preceding were not enough to prove the case, let me quote from the back of the title page of an edition of the KJV Bible distributed by the Trinitarian Bible Society, and dated 1984, said Bible having been personally examined by me: LICENSE In terms of the Letters Patent granted by Her late Majesty Queen Victoria to Her Printers from Scotland, and the Instructions issued by Her said Majesty in Council, dated Eleventh July and Twenty-eighth December, Eighteen Hundred and Thirty-nine, I hereby License and Authorize WILLIAM COLLINS SONS AND COMPANY LIMITED, Glasgow, to Print and Publish, as by the Authority of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, but so far as regards the Text only, an Edition of the Holy Bible in the New Brevier type decimo-sexto size, as proposed in their Declaration dated the Twenty-sixth day of December Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-seven, the terms and conditions of the said Instructions being always and in all points fully complied with and observed by the said WILLIAM COLLINS SONS AND COMPANY LIMITED. Dated at Edinburgh the Second day of January, Nineteen Hundred and fifty-eight. All rights in respect of the Authorized (King James) Version of the Holy Bible are vested in the Crown in the United Kingdom and controlled by Royal Letters Patent. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in ny form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature without written permission. I could quote the same or similar words from several other copies of the KJV printed in Great Britain in the 1980s and 1990s, but I do not wish to weary the reader. Possession of KJV copyright privileges by the University presses of Oxford and Cambridge has brought them massive amounts of revenue over the centuries and this revenue has been used in part to subsidize publishing of many of the expensive scholarly works, often with very low press runs, which the University presses have become famous for. And consistent with their holding the copyright on the KJV, when the English Revised Version (New Testament, 1881; whole Bible, 1884) and the New English Bible (New Testament, 1961; whole Bible, 1970) were published, the University presses were granted copyright privileges for these versions also. I have copyrighted versions of each, from the University presses, beside me as I write. The facts are clear. The KJV is or has been throughout its existence a Bible under copyright with much money made by the copyright holders through its publication and sale. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the accuracy of the translation, just as the matter of a copyright on the NASB, NIV, or NKJB is wholly irrelevant to the issue of the accuracy of those versions. The accuracy of any English translation of the Bible depends not on whether it is copyrighted, or even if it agrees or disagrees with the translation we are used to, but rather, whether it accurately conveys in English the meaning of the inspired and inerrant Scriptures in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. When the facts are so clear and wholly devoid of any dispute concerning the KJV and its copyright, it must be asked, "How did the false notion that the KJV was copyright-free gain such a wide dissemination? How did so many people become so misinformed on the matter?" The cause is immediately evident. The fountainhead or source from which this gross error regarding Bible copyrights sprang is Peter Ruckman and his first misguided foray into the subject of Bible texts and versions, The Bible Babel, published in 1964. Though some had used the "no copyright" argument in denouncing the copyrighted Revised Standard Version when it appeared in 1952, this argument gained no wide currency in the early 1950s. It was only after Ruckman published his book that now one undiscerning writer, now another began to parrot his inaccurate claims concerning English Bible copyrights. In his book, Ruckman addressed the subject in an inaccurate and self-contradictory manner, and the careless reading of this and subsequent books from his bilious pen have widely diffused this argument. Speaking of the KJV, he writes, "The Book has no financial copyright. It had [note the past tense] the 'Crown copyright,' which only applies [note the present tense] to Bible Publishers in the United Kingdom, and this copyright does not demand money from anyone who wishes to quote, cite, reproduce, or print any passage from the A.V." (p. 15); and again, "The King James Bible is the only Bible in the world that anyone can reproduce, print, or copy without consulting anyone but God. All other 'bibles,' without exception, are copyrighted COMPETITORS whose motive was to destroy the A.V." (p. 16; I wonder how a translation can have a motive); and once more, "And although the A.V. has a 'Crown copyright' on it, this in no way affects the USE or the REPRODUCTION of the Book." (p. 17); and yet once again, "The trouble is that the AV is an honest translation. It has no copyright." (p. 19). He seems unsure whether the KJV was or is under Crown copyright, and he is certainly wrong about the freedom to publish the KJV in the United Kingdom. His readers ignored even his limited and inaccurate caveats regarding the copyright of the KJV and have simply reproduced the remark that the KJV alone of all earthly Bibles is copyright-free. It is appalling to see so many led so very far astray by one incredibly inaccurate writer. It is a veritable theater of the absurd. No longer should this foolish argument concerning copyrights be employed. It is groundless, irrelevant, and totally untrue. The tragedy with most of the present Bible translation controversy is that it is based almost entirely on similarly groundless, irrelevant, and untrue arguments. HISTORY OF GOD'S HOLY BIBLE AND THE SO-CALLED JEWS BY: BROTHER MATHEW SAMMIE The Etymology of the Word "Jew" In his classic Facts are Facts, Jewish historian, researcher and scholar Benjamin Freedman writes: Jesus is referred 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 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 the editions of the New Testament in the English language. The use of the word "Jew" was thus stabilized. . . 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 times. 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" nor did they care. They accepted 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 one studies Latin he is 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 the 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," "youth," and "yacht." The same is true of the "Gi" or the "Gy" where it was used in the place of the letter "I." The present pronunciation 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 than the 18th century the word "Jew" in English was pronounced like the English "you" or "hew," and the word "Jews" like "youse" or "hews." The present pronunciation of "Jew" in English is a new pronunciation acquired after the 18th century. The German language still retains the Latin original pronunciation. 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 of 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 pronunciation of the "J" in German "Jude" is not an exception to the pronunciation of the "J" in German. . . 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. "Ioudaia" in Greek is "Judea" in English. "Ioudaios" in Greek is "Judeans" in English. There is no reason for any confusion. 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." 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. . . There is not a 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 of the word in the 18th century . . . (Facts Are Facts, by Benjamin H. Freedman, p. 15-21). The meaning of the word "Jew" in our Bible is not the same as the colloquial idiom. In the Bible the word "Jew" means a resident of the land of Judaea regardless of their tribe, race or religion just as an Australian or Englishman may in fact be a Chinese, Negro or an Eskimo, or perhaps a member of the tribe of Judah (Judahite). According to the Greek Lexicon in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance: Jew: Greek word #2453 Ioudaios (ee-oo-dah'-yos); from #2448 (in the sense of #2455 as a country); Judaean, i.e. belonging to Jehudah ["Judah" in Hebrew language of Old Testament]: KJV Jew (-ess), of Judaea. Greek word #2448 Iouda (ee-oo-dah'); of Hebrew origin [Hebrew word #3063 or perhaps #3194]; Judah (i.e. Jehudah or Juttah), a part of (or place in) Palestine: KJV Judah. Greek word #2455 Ioudas (ee-oo-das'); of Hebrew origin [Hebrew #3063]; Judas (i.e. Jehudah), the name of ten Israelites; also of the posterity of one of them and its region: KJV Juda (-h, -s); Jude. Genesis 49:10 prophesied, "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be." Judah was the largest and the most influential of the twelve tribes with the governing right. Jacob prophesied it would maintain its pre-eminence until Shiloh, or Messiah, came. He would then take headship and receive the allegiance of true spiritual Israel as Isaiah 9:6-7 foretold. Matthew 1 and Luke 3 trace Jesus' human lineage to David, Judah, Jacob and Abraham. Jesus took the sceptre from Judah and we who receive Him as Messiah give Him our allegiance. In the days of His flesh few of the citizens of Judea were Judahites. Some belonged to one of the other tribes of Israel, and many were descendants of Esau (Edomites) who had assimilated and become co-religionists with the Judahites and remnants of the other tribes in the hybrid religion of Pharisaism developed during the captivity in Babylon. This is the religion of the Talmud is called Judaism today; it was condemned by Jesus since it is the antithesis of the Mosaic Law and the prophets and makes the Word of God of no effect (Matthew 15:1-9). John 7:1, "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for He would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill Him." According to Strong's Greek Lexicon, the English word "Jewry" in this verse was translated from the Greek word #2449 Ioudaia {ee-oo-dah'-yah} feminine for the land of Judea. Modern translations no longer use the word "Jewry" but the correct translation, "Judea," as in the New American Standard Bible: "And after these things Jesus was walking in Galilee; for He was unwilling to walk in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill Him." The New International Version uses the same word. However, these translations continue to improperly use the word "Jews" in the same verse. A consistent translation would read: ". . . He was unwilling to walk in Judea, because the Judeans were seeking to kill Him." Today most people think of Jews as the people of Israel, but that is not correct. An Israelite was one who had descended from Jacob. In Jesus' time individual Jews may or may not have descended from Jacob, but they all recognized Pharisaism and not the Law of Moses. A Jew is properly a Judean. The point is that one who is called a "Jew" in the Bible is not necessarily a chosen man of God, a follower of Moses and the prophets, a member of the tribe of Judah, an Israelite, or even a Semite, but one who is a resident of Judea. A Judean. But a well-organized and well-financed international "pressure group" created a so-called "secondary meaning" for the new word "Jew" which is not the understanding intended by the Scripture of truth. Those who call themselves Jews today falsely imply they are somehow descendants of the tribes of Israel and chosen of God. Yet few of them are Jews as they are not "Judeans," or residents of Judea. So if modern day so-called Jews are not the Jews of the Bible, who are they? When asked, "Who is Israel? - Who is a Jew?" the Israeli Government's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) unhesitatingly answered: "The term Israelite is purely Biblical. An Israeli is a citizen of Israel, regardless of religion. A Jew is a person anywhere in the world born to a Jewish mother, or converted to Judaism, who is thus identified as a member of the Jewish people and religion" (Information Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem; February, 1998). The Jewish Almanac concurs: "Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew." Or to call a contemporary Jew [an] "Israelite," or a "Hebrew." The first Hebrews were not have been Jews at all, and contemporary Palestinians, by their own definition of the term "Palestinian," have to include Jews among their own people" (The Jewish Almanac, October, 1980, page 3, Bantam Books, Inc). The Online Etymology Dictionary describes the etymology of the word 'jew,' but perhaps because its editor is not a Bible student it exhibits an ignorance of the meaning of the original Greek word Ioudaios derived from the Aramaic jehudhai which did not refer to members of the tribe of Judah but to Judeans, the residents of the Babylonian province of Judea. The spelling of our present-day English word Jew is a transliteration of an abbreviation or slang word coined by their Babylonian conquerors for Judeans without reference to the race or religion of the captives. The editor has inadvertently discriminated the Semitic tribesmen of the sons of Israel from the diverse mass of races and religions then resident in Judea by applying the incorrect colloquial idiom, not having recognized the true and Biblical meaning of the original words. THE INTRODUCTION OF THE WORD "JEW" INTO GOD'S HOLY BIBLE In 1604, James VI, King of Scotland from his youth, became King James I of England, the first ruler of Britain and Ireland. Because of the growing animosity of James toward the Puritans, a leading Puritan spokesman, Dr. John Reynolds, proposed that a new English Bible be issued in honour of the new King. King James saw an opportunity to bring about a unity with the church service in Presbyterian Scotland and Episcopal England. Completed and published in 1611, the new Bible became known as the "Authorized Version" because its making was authorized by King James. It became the "Official Bible of England" and the only Bible of the English church. There have been many revisions of the King James Bible, 1615, 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769. The most important changes occurred in the eighteenth century. In 1762 Dr. Thomas Paris published an extensive revision at Cambridge. In 1769 Dr. Benjamin Blayney, after about four years of work, brought out another at Oxford. The latter work included much modernization of spelling, punctuation, and expression. These changes were due to printing errors and spelling changes in many words. This update represents the exact words in the 1611 Bible first edition, only the spelling is changed. This 1769 update is the basis of the King James Bible of our time and use; the Apocrypha was officially removed in 1885. Any so-called "1611" King James Version you buy today at the local Christian Bookstore is absolutely NOT the 1611. . . it is the 1769 revision, even though it admits that nowhere, and may even deceivingly say "1611" in the frontpiece to promote sales . . . it is just not true. The spellings have been revised and some words changed in almost every printing done since 1769, and fourteen entire books plus extra prefatory features have been removed from almost every printing done since 1885! If you really love the King James Version the way to own a true, unaltered, unedited, unabridged, original 1611 version as authorized by King James, is to spend US$125,000 to US$400,000 and purchase a genuine original, US$250 for an exact photographic facsimile edition, or US$1,995 for The Deluxe Full-Size Limited Edition 1611 King James Bible Facsimile. The early editions of the Authorized Version contained the Apocrypha, not because the translators believed - they listed seven reasons why the apocryphal books were to be categorically rejected as part of the Inspired canon - but because the king asked that it be included. So, instead of scattering the Apocryphal books all through the Old Testament as in the Rheims-Douai and other Roman Catholic Bibles, they placed all of the Apocryphal books by themselves between the Testaments. There is not now nor was there ever an equivalent letter "j" in the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Nor is there any Hebrew letter that carries even an approximate sound of the consonant letter "j." Neither is there a letter 'j' in the Greek alphabet. As regards proof of the letter 'J' not being in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek alphabets, James Strong's Exhaustive Concordance has the Hebrew and Greek alphabet preceding each respective dictionary therein. Also, there are various grammars, etc., which show the alphabet of these languages, and there is no letter equivalent to "J" in either Hebrew or Greek even today. "J," the tenth letter and seventh consonant in the English alphabet, is the latest addition to English script and has been inserted in the alphabet after "I," from which it was developed. Petrus Ramus (1515-1572) is credited as the first to distinguish I and J as representing separate sounds. Not until the middle of the 17th century did the use of "j" as an initial become universal in English books. Jerome translated the Bible into Latin in the fourth century. John 19:19 refers to the inscription Pilate posted over Jesus' cross. In our modern English Bibles we read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews," translated from the Greek "Ieous Nazoraios Basilius Ioudaios" but the Latin Vulgate reads, "Iesus Nazerenus Rex Iudaeorum." This is usually abbreviated INRI as on all statues and imagery because there was no J. Contrary to what most people believe Shakespeare never saw the word "Jew" nor did he ever use 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, first published in about 1600, Shakespeare wrote as follows "what is the reason? I am a Iewe; hath not a Iewe eyes?" In Samuel Johnson's English Dictionary of 1755 and 1756 words beginning with "I" and the new letter "J" are interspersed. There is no listing for the word "Jew" in either his 1755 or 1756 editions although "To Judaize" is defined as "To conform to the manner of the Jews" in both. The corrected re-issue of the 1933 edition of The Oxford English Dictionary lists the first published usage of the word "Jew" in: Sheridan's 1775 play, "The Rivals," Act II, Scene I, "She shall have a skin like a mummy, and the beard of a Jew." 1653 Greaves' "Seraglio," 150. "In the King's Seraglio, the sultanas are permitted to employ divers Jewes-women about their ordinary occasions". And, 1700 Bishop Patrick's Commentary on Deuteronomy 28:37, "Better we cannot express the most cut-throat dealing, than thus, you use me like a Jew". The earliest version of the New Testament in English from the Latin Vulgate Edition is the Wiclif, or Wickliff 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 "hew-weeze," in the plural, and "iewe" pronounced "hew-wee" in the singular. The 1841 English Hexapla contains six English translations of the New Testament arranged side by side for easy comparison and reference. The six English translations are: The Wycliffe version of 1380 (the first English Scripture, hand-copied prior to Gutenberg's invention of the printing press in 1455), The Tyndale version of 1534-1536 (the first English printed Scripture), and Cranmer's Great Bible of 1539 (the first Authorized English Bible). Continuing across each right-hand page is: The Geneva "1557" translation actually completed in 1560, (the English Bible of the Protestant Reformation), The Rheims 1582 (the first Roman Catholic English version), and the 1611 King James First Edition. In the 1380 Wiclif Edition in English the 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." Also in the Coverdale Edition the Gospel by John, XIX.19, reads "Iesus 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 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 word "Jew" does not appear in any of these Bibles. Jesus is referred to as a so-called "Jew" (which He was not) for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century editions in the English language of the 14th century first translations of the New Testament into English. The first Bibles in which the word "Jew" first appears are: 1729 Daniel Mace New Testament is the first Scripture to contain the word "Jew", here in Romans 2:13 - 3:21. 1750 Douai newly revised and corrected by Richard Challoner according to the Clementin edition of the Scriptures, The Holy Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate, first published by the English College at Doway, Anno 1609. 1752 Douai newly revised and corrected by Richard Challoner according to the Clementin edition of The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Translated out of the Latin Vulgate, first published by the English College of Rhemes, Anno 1582 1755 Wesley, New Testament with Explanatory Notes by John Wesley 1769 Benjamin Blayney modernised the spelling, punctuation, and expression of the 1611 edition of the Authorised or King James Bible. 1770 Worsley New Testament or New Covenant of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ translated from the Greek with notes by John Worsley. The fascinating story of how we got the Bible in its present form actually starts thousands of years ago, as briefly outlined in this Timeline of Bible Translation History. As a background study, we recommend that you first review the discussion of the Pre-Reformation History of the Bible from 1400BC to AD1400, which covers the transmission of the Scripture through the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, and the 1,000 years of the Dark & Middle Ages when the Word was imprisoned in Latin. The starting point in this discussion of Bible history, however, is the advent of the Scripture in the English language with the "Morning Star of the Reformation," John Wycliffe. WHAT IS A JEW? Speaking to His elect Church Jesus said, "I know your affliction and your poverty, but you have heavenly riches, and I know the blasphemy of them who say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan . . . Take note, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, but are impostors who lie, to come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you" (Revelation 2:9; 3:9). Speaking to the so-called Jews who were of the sect of the Pharisees (or Judaism) Jesus said, "You serpents, offspring of vipers, how can you escape being sentenced to hell fire? Therefore take notice, I will send you prophets, and wise men, and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify; and some of whom you will flog in your synagogues, and persecute from town to town, that upon you may come all the righteous blood that has been shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zachariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I assure you, all these things shall come upon this race" (Matthew 23:33-36). Jesus identified these so-called Jews as the descendants of Cain. Speaking to Cain God said, "What have you done? the voice of your brother's blood cries to Me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the earth, which has opened her mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand" (Genesis 4:10-11). Speaking to Christ's end-time Bride regarding the Words of Jesus, the prophet William Branham said, "Here is a verse that will bear considerable thought, not only because it is most peculiar in its contents, but also it is virtually repeated in an age that is over a thousand years later. . . To begin with, the word, Jews, does not describe the religion of the Jewish people. It refers only to the people of Judah and has the same precise meaning if I were to say I am Irish born. These people were saying that they were actually Jews, real Jews by birth. They were liars. They were not Jews by birth and they weren't Jews by religion." (The word Jew was coined by Nebuchadnezzar's troops as an abbreviation of the word "Judean." A Jew or Judean is one who is a resident of Judea regardless of his religion, race, or nationality. Every resident of Palestine is a "Jew" whereas the so-called Jews living abroad are not Jews at all, neither by residence, nor by birth, nor by religion. This is confirmed by the Bible in the Old and New Testaments, Jewish historians such as Josephus, Professor of Medieval Jewish History at Tel Aviv University, A. N. Poliak in his book Khazaria (1944, 1951); American historian Professor Dunlop of Columbia University in his article on the Khazars in the Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971); Noam Chomsky in his book, Fateful Triangle, Arthur Koestler in his masterpiece, The Thirteenth Tribe ; Professor Heinrich H. Graetz in his History of the Jews, p. 141 (1891-98); Soviet archaeologist M. I. Artamonov in Istoria Khazar, Benjamin Freedman in Facts are Facts, Chief Rabbi of the United States, the late Steven S. Wise, the Message of William Branham the Prophet of Malachi 4:5-6 and Revelation 10:7, every Jewish and all Gentile encyclopaedias affirm that barely any so-called Jew is an Israelite let alone Semitic. Note also that Judaism is Pharisaism based on the Talmud, which is the antithesis of pre-exilic Yahweh Torah or Yahwism, the Law and the Prophets, and accursed of God in Matthew 15:1-9, and Moses in Deuteronomy 5:22; 12:32). "If all this is true, what were they? They were a deceived people who were already part of the church. They belonged to the false vine." (Brother Branham is explaining how the Roman Catholic church, which organized at the Hegelian dialectic of the First Nicea Council in AD325, had its beginnings as the First Church of Rome founded in AD36 by the apostles Junias and Andronicus (Romans 16:7). This church apostatised when the elders, who had emigrated from Judea to escape the persecution of the Jews (Acts 8:1), were subsequently expelled from Rome by Emperor Claudius along with all Judeans (Acts 18:2). It was thirteen years before the Judeans could return, and when the Christian elders returned they found the First Church of Rome would not repent). "They were not of the true church, but of the false church because God said "they were the synagogue of Satan." Now the word for synagogue is not the same word we use for church. In the Bible, church means, "the called out ones," or the "summoned ones." The Psalmist said of these elect people, "Blessed is the man whom THOU CHOOSEST, and CAUSEST to approach unto Thee, that he may dwell in Thy courts" (Psalms 65:4). But the meaning of synagogue is "assembly or gathering." This can be good or bad, but in this case it is bad, for these are they whose assembling is not of God but of their own selves. Isaiah said of them, "Behold, they shall surely gather together, but NOT BY ME: whosoever shall gather together against Thee shall fall for Thy sake" (Isaiah 54:15). And since these were surely against the true vine, God will one day deal with them in destruction." "Now why do we have a people mixed in the framework of the church and calling themselves Jews? The reason is this: Since they were liars they could make any claim they wished. They could say what they wanted as though it were a fact and then stick to it. And in this case they could be lying with a very powerful thought in mind. Was it not so that the early church was almost if not entirely composed of Jews, making them the original members of His body? The twelve apostles were Jews, and the later apostles were either Jews or proselytes. Thus for men to swear they were Jews would give them a pre-eminence and a claim to originality. Tell a lie. Stick to it. Never mind fact or history. Just say it and keep saying it to the people, and soon the people will receive it." "Now did you catch something there? Isn't that the same spirit right in the church today? Isn't there a group that claims that they are the original and true church and that salvation is found only in her? Don't they claim that they have the keys of the kingdom which they received from Peter? Don't they claim that Peter was their first pope, and that he resided in Rome when there is ABSOLUTELY NO HISTORICAL FACT FOR IT? And even her most educated and knowing adherents believe her lies. Satan's synagogue! And if Satan be her father, and he the father of lies, then it is not strange that those in his synagogue are liars also." "Consider the thought of blasphemy. These of Satan's synagogue were not blaspheming God in this instance (though that goes without saying) but they were blaspheming the true Church. Certainly. As Cain persecuted and killed Abel because he (Cain) was of that wicked one, and as the dead formal Judaic followers (Jesus said they were of their father, the devil) tried to destroy the Christians in the first few years of the first age, now this same group (the false vine) is even more strongly attempting to destroy the true believer in the second age. That antichrist spirit is growing." "The group that inched its way ever so slowly into the church by its DEEDS (Nicolaitanism) no longer fears exposure but is openly organized in a group of its own assembling and is coming against the true Church in undisguised hostility." "Now when I say this was an organized antichrist church I am giving you the truth from authenticated history. The first church founded in Rome (we will trace its history in the Pergamean Age) had already turned the truth of God into a lie by introducing a pagan religion with Christian names and meaning. By the second age it was so pagan (though claiming to be the true church) that Polycarp came about 1,500 miles at a very old age to plead with them to turn back. They would not do it. They had a solid hierarchy and a solid organization, and a complete departure from the Word. This then, is Satan's synagogue, full of blasphemy, in which were already the seeds of the doctrine of Nicolaitanism, and which would shortly be the actual seat or power of Satanic religion. And this is exactly right for Revelation 2:9b does NOT say these people are OF Satan's synagogue but it says they ARE SATAN'S SYNAGOGUE" (An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages, p. 119:4 - 121:3). Revelation 3:9, "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you." Brother Branham continues: "The natural types the Spiritual. This verse deals with the Jews who have always called themselves the children of God to the exclusion of everyone else. They sought their righteousness after the Law and failed miserably, for by the Law can no flesh be justified. By the Law can no man be made holy. Holiness is of the Lord. I Corinthians 1:30, "But of HIM are you in Christ Jesus, Who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." II Corinthians 5:21b, "That we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." It was Christ or perish, and they perished for they refused Him." "In the Sardis Church Age Martin Luther restored the revelation that justification is by faith and not works, but the Lutherans organized and joined with the state and again we see the synagogue of Satan manifested in denominationalism. As the Jews took refuge in the synagogue form of worship, so in the Philadelphian Age men were taking refuge in the church. It is not joining a church that counts. The life is not in the church. The life is in Christ. "This is the record that God has given us eternal Life and this Life is in His Son. He that has the Son has Life, and he who has not the Son has not Life." Man is made holy by the Spirit. It is the Spirit of Holiness that raised Jesus from the dead that in-dwells us and makes us holy with His holiness." Brother Branham went on to explain, "This problem of the false Jew or false believers was already in existence in the second age. These who falsely called themselves Jews appeared right after the first outpouring of the first age, and now they appear again in the second age after the reformation. This is hardly an accident. Indeed, it is not an accident. It is a principle of Satan. That principle is to organize and claim originality and therefore be entitled to special rights and privileges. Let me show you. Back there in the Smyrnaean Age these people lied and said they were actually Jews (or believers) when they definitely were not. They were of the synagogue of Satan. They were Satan's organized crowd, for it was in that age we saw the start of men in the ministry taking an unwarranted leadership over their ministering brethren. (Bishops set up in districts, over elders). The next thing we saw was that in the third age there was definitely a place called "Satan's seat." That age gave us church and state marriage. With the power of the state behind her the church was literally physically invincible." "But God broke that hold in spite of the power of the state and the reformation brought great light. But what happened? The Lutherans organized and joined with the state and again we see the synagogue of Satan manifested in this sixth age. Now of course this synagogue group wouldn't say they are of Satan. No sir. They say they are of God. But they lie. For he that is a true Jew (that is what they claimed to be) is one who is a Jew inwardly - in the Spirit. (He who is born of the Spirit that was in Jesus Christ, the King of Judah, is a Judahite - not a Jew or Judean, for the Life is in the blood and we are the blood of Christ by the baptism with the Holy Spirit - Ed). So then if they are false Jews it means that they are as Jude 19 says, "having NOT the Spirit." Children of God are born of the Spirit. These have not the Spirit and therefore they are NOT children of God no matter how fervently they protest and to what lengths they go to try to prove that they are. They are DEAD. They are children of organization, and the true fruits are missing. They are built upon their own creeds, dogmas and doctrines and the truth is not in them for they have taken their own counsels above the Word of God." "Let me show you what I have been trying to teach all along about the two vines which come from two different spirits. Take the example of Jesus and Judas this time. Jesus was the Son of God. Judas was the son of perdition. God entered into Jesus. Satan entered into Judas. Jesus had a full Holy Ghost ministry for "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: Who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with Him" (Acts 10:38). It says "For he (Judas) was numbered with us, and had obtained PART of this ministry" (Acts 1:17). Matthew 10:1, "And when He had called unto Him His twelve disciples, He gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease." "That spirit that was in Judas went right along through the ministry of Jesus. Then they both came to the cross. Jesus was hanged upon the cross, gladly giving His Life for sinners and commended His Spirit to God. His Spirit went to God and then was poured out into the church at Pentecost. Judas hanged himself and his spirit went back to Satan, but after Pentecost that same spirit that was in Judas came back to the false vine that grows right along with the true vine. But notice, Judas' spirit never got to Pentecost. It never went up to receive the Holy Spirit. It could not. But what did that Judas spirit go for? It went for the bag of gold. How it loved money. It still loves money. If it goes about in the Name of Jesus doing mighty things and holding great meetings, it still makes more of money and buildings, and education and everything with a material concept. Just watch that spirit that is upon them and don't be fooled. Judas went about as one of the twelve and he did miracles, too. But he did NOT have the Spirit of God as his own. He did have a ministry. He never got to Pentecost as he was not true seed. He was not a true child of God. No sir. And it is that way right now in the synagogue of Satan. Don't be fooled. You won't be fooled if you are of the very elect. Jesus said you wouldn't be fooled." "Yes, these folks say they are Christians but they aren't." "I will make them come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee." I Corinthians 6:2, "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?" Not only will there be twelve apostles on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel but the saints, also, will judge the world. That is when these who claim to belong to God and claim that God loves them will find out exactly who is the child of God and who is loved of the Son. Yes, that day is coming when it will be made manifest. These who are now ruling the world in a measure, and who during the last age will build an image to the beast whereby they will actually rule the world, will one day be humbled when Jesus comes with His saints to judge the world in righteousness. That is exactly what we saw in Matthew 25 when "All" the ones who missed the first resurrection will stand before the Judge and His Bride" (ibid 310:2 - 313:2).