Biblical Genders

This is not about the modern cultural war between the Biblical and Scientific fact that gender is binary and genetic and cannot change (no matter how much you mutilate your body), and the pseudoscientific left-wing lunacy that gender is fluid and can be changed.  It is instead the controversial subject of Adam’s gender at creation – and a couple of other related subjects.

You might be thinking, “Well, Adam was created a male, wasn’t he?  Problem solved.”  Not quite.  As we shall see from the Hebrew grammar, while Adam was not created female, he was not created male, either.  Dr A Nyland, a language scholar, explains in an endnote of her book Complete Books of Enoch: 1 Enoch (First Book of Enoch, 2 Enoch (Secrets of Enoch), 3 Enoch (Hebrew Book of Enoch):

Adam, the first human.  Adam is a word which simply means “human.”  The above statement demonstrates the confusion between the English language and the original languages of Scripture.  The verse actually reads, “God created adam (the word for the race of human beings) in God’s image – God created it in the image of God, God created them male and female.”  Genesis 5:2 states, “God created them male and female and blessed them and called them human (adam) on the day they were created.”  The word “Adam” that we see in English translations of Genesis is merely a “transliteration”, the result of putting the Hebrew letters into English letters.  The translation is “human”, person/s of both genders.  Hebrew has grammatical gender.  Many languages have grammatical gender but English does not.  In English, we only use words like “he” and “she” when we are speaking of persons, and we try to find out the biological gender of those persons so we know whether to refer to a particular person as “he” or “she.”  In languages which have grammatical gender, all nouns, whether or not they refer to persons, have a gender.  Hebrew has two genders and Greek has three.  These languages use pronouns like “he” and “she” with nouns, such as table, tree and lake.  The pronoun goes with the noun to which it refers.  This is what is meant by “the pronoun agreeing with its antecedent.”  We need to learn the grammatical gender of the noun to know which pronoun to use.  It is exceptionally important to note that grammatical gender does not match biological gender – it may, but by coincidence only.  Thus, in ancient Greek, the word for “old woman” is neuter gender.  Yet if we were translating a Greek sentence about an old woman into English, we would not refer to the old woman as “it,” we would refer to the old woman as “she.”  The Greek word for a trench is feminine gender, but in English it would be silly to refer to the trench as “she.”  We just don’t do that in English.  English is different from Hebrew and Greek.  In Hebrew, the word adam is masculine grammatical gender.  That means it has to have a masculine pronoun, just as the word for hand (even a man’s hand) in Hebrew is feminine and must have a feminine pronoun.  Again, this has nothing to do with biological gender.  In the account of the adam in Genesis, Genesis 1:27 states, “God created human in God’s image.  In the image of God, God created oto.”  Oto is the singular masculine accusative pronoun agreeing with adam, the human.  It has to be masculine grammatical gender to agree with the gender of the noun.  It simply replaces the word adam.  In English we say “him” because tradition holds that the biological gender of the adam was male and the English language does not refer to a person as “it.”  The verse continues, “Male and female God created otam.”  Otam is the plural gender-unmarked accusative pronoun.  Grammatically, this refers to the adam, humanity.  Thus the verse means, “God created humanity in God’s image.  God created it in God’s image, God created them male and female.”  Thus God did not create the male first, God created the human first, humanity.  God did not create a male first and identify humanity with that male’s name.  The previous verse, 26, states, “Let us make adam … and let them rule.”  Adam is here treated as a collective noun, agreeing with a plural verb, that is, the human race.  Again, the account does not mention a singular male.

Genesis 1:27 speaks of the creation of the adam.  If the noun is a collective it could either agree with a plural or singular pronoun.  That means that we do not know, from the grammar, whether the noun means “human” and thus the first human was androgynous (as the ancient tradition holds), or whether the noun means “humanity”.  That is, we do not know whether a single androgynous “human” was created, or whether “humanity”, males and females, were created.  Further on, the account consistently refers to males and females under the term adamAdam is the general term for humans, both male and female.  At the end of chapter 1, all the references to adam are in the plural.  Genesis 2:5 states that there was no adam to cultivate the soil.  There is no reference to maleness in the verse.  Genesis 2:7 tells us that God formed the adam from dust, breathed into its nostrils the breath of life, and that the adam was a living being.  We do not know if the noun is collective or singular (as grammatically it could be either), and no gender is specified.  Genesis 2:8 says God put the adam in the garden.  Again, the masculine pronoun is used as it must agree with the grammatical gender, unlike English, where a masculine pronoun would indicate a male person.  In verses 16-17, God speaks to the adam.  At this point, the term adam still encompasses male and female.

In Genesis 2:18-19 God says, “It is not good for the adam to be alone, I will appoint a suitable helper for it.”  Again, the masculine personal pronoun in Hebrew simply agrees with the grammatical gender of the Hebrew noun adam.  It is usually translated as “he” in English, as people have assumed that the adam was a male.  There is nothing in the grammar to indicate that the adam was a male, and animals are first brought as suitable companions.  There was no initial idea that a female of the species was lacking.  There is no idea, grammatical or otherwise, that the adam is a male.  In Genesis 2:20, the adam gave names to the animals.  The adam here is now presented in the Hebrew as a singular person, but still there is nothing to suggest that the adam was not both male and female.  In verse 21, God put a deep sleep on the adam, and withdrew the female portion from it.  (Hebrew tsal’ot, Greek pleura, referring to the factor the portion, it was only later Rabbinic tradition that had “rib”.)  In verse 22, God shaped that which he had taken from the  adam into an isha (female) and brought her to the adam.  In verses 23 and 24, the word isha (female) is distinguished from the ish (male).  This is the first time the words for female and male have appeared in the account.  The adam is now an ish, and becomes the individual Adam.  However, the meaning of the word adam has not changed, he is a human.  Yes, he is now, at this point, also a male, but the word adam means “human.”  The  female portion was taken out of the human, the adam, and became an isha.  That which was left was still called a human, adam.  Someone can remove a piece of pie from a whole pie, but the remaining pie is still called a pie.  It does not have to be renamed just because a piece of it was removed.  The following verse refers to the new two individuals as ish and isha, male and female.  However, Adam as a name does not appear until Chapter 5.  This has similar language to chapter 1, where the adam is created in God’s image, male and female.  However, this is followed by a significant statement.  After the male and female are introduced, God blessed them, and named them adam: “God created them male and female and blessed them and called them human (adam) on the day they were created.”  Thus it is clear that the word adam bears no connotations of maleness.  Thus Adam is now a male, but the word “Adam” does not mean male, it still means “human”.  The Hebrew word adam did not refer to male humans in particular; it means “human,” “humanity,” and did eventually refer to the husband of Eve, but his name was “Human”.  Yes, at this point, he was a male human being, but his name was not “Male” in Hebrew, it was “Human.” (Endnote 49)

So, the gist of all that is that Adam was created a hermaphrodite, with both male and female organs.  Eve was created by removing Adam’s female portion, not his rib.  Note also that God (or YAH) created Adam a hermaphrodite in His own image – and that it was perfect.  So what does that make God?

Then there is the Holy Spirit (Ruach ha’Kodesh), commonly referred to as a “he” or “it”.  It can be established that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic (which I hope to write about in a later post).  This was the nearly universal declaration of the early church fathers, and is also supported by the Greek New Testament manuscripts themselves – they are written in very poor Greek grammar, but very good Hebrew and Aramaic grammar.  The Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts, on the other hand, have no such problems.  It is a historical fact that the first century AD Jews spoke primarily Hebrew, with Aramaic as the language of commerce.  Most Jews simply did not speak Greek – Josephus said he went to great pains and expense to try and learn the language, but never fully mastered it.  Which doesn’t match the traditional language.  Anyway, as James Trimm explains in the preface to his Hebraic Roots Version (HRV) of the Bible:

One problem that presents itself in translating the New Testament from Hebrew and Aramaic into English, is the gender of the Ruach Ha’Kodesh (Holy Spirit).  English is very different from Hebrew and Aramaic.  To begin with, English had three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter (i.e. he, she, and it).  Hebrew and Aramaic have no neuter gender.  In Hebrew and Aramaic everything is either a “he” or a “she”, and nothing is an “it”.  Also gender plays a much more important role in Hebrew and Aramaic, than in English.  In English, gender is usually only an issue when dealing with pronouns.  But in Hebrew and Aramaic, nouns and verbs are also masculine or feminine.  And while there are no true adjectives in Hebrew (nouns are used as adjectives), noun modifiers must agree in gender with the noun.  Now the Hebrew word RUACH (Aramaic RUCHA) is grammatically feminine, as is the phrase Ruach Ha’Kodesh.  This is matched by the role of the Ruach Ha’Kodesh as “comforter” (John 14-16), and the identification of the “comforter”, with YHWH acting as a “mother” (Is. 66:13).

Now in English, the Ruach is often referred to as “he” or “it” as also in the Greek New Testament.  However this seems very odd indeed, to the Semitic mind.

Now it is very clear that the gender of the RUACH has been revised in many passages of the Aramaic, to agree with the Hellenistic concept of the Holy Spirit as being either a “he” or an “it”.  Thus the pronouns used for the Ruach Ha’Kodesh in John 14-16 in the Peshitta  [standard Aramaic text of both Testaments], are all in masculine.  However the hand of revision is very clear.  For example, while both the Peshitta and Old Syriac have “he” in John 16:8, the Old Syriac has “she” just a few verses further down in 16:13, while the Peshitta has “he”.

Moreover there are passages in which the Peshitta itself, pairs the Ruach Ha’Kodesh with feminine verbs and/or feminine modifiers: Mk 1:10; John 1: 32, 33; 6:63; 7:39; Acts 8:29, 39; 16:17; Rom. 8:9, 10, 11, 16, 26a, 26b, 1 Cor. 3:16; 1 Tim. 4:1; 1 Pet. 1:11; 4:14 and 1 Jn 5:6.  In fact the Peshitta Aramaic of Rom. 8:16, opens with:


And she the Ruach gives testimony….

While it is clear the Ruach Ha’Kodesh has no literal gender, it is also clear that the Ruach Ha’Kodesh is grammatically and figuratively a “she”.

So… Adam was created a hermaphrodite, Eve was created from his female organs, the Holy Spirit is technically a female… and then there’s the interesting hint about God’s (Yah’s) gender mentioned above (hermaphrodite).  While no doubt somewhat controversial, the above is simply what the original Hebrew and Aramaic of the Bible literally says.

Restored English Translation of Genesis: Chapter 1

I have embarked on a quest to translate the entire Bible into English.  Or, more accurately, revise and correct previous translations in light of the Hebrew word meaning and ancient manuscripts.  It is (currently) called the Restored English Translation (RET).  This translation preserves all of the Hebrew names.  It also includes the Aleph Tavs


– the revelation of Yeshua ha’Mashiach (Jesus the Christ) throughout the Tanakh (Old Testament).  More info on the ongoing project will be posted later.  A glossary is at the end of the chapter.

The following is my RET translation of Beresheet (Genesis) chapter 1.  You will notice some differences from traditional translations – particularly when our Creator commands creation into existence.  Most English translations say that God (whose Hebrew title is ELOHIM) said, “Let there be…”  In fact, if you look up the Hebrew words, the more accurate translation is “And ELOHIM [God] commanded, ‘Light, exist!'”, which fits much better.  He didn’t need to “ask” creation to exist; he literally COMMANDED it to exist!

Another difference is the lack of the word “man”.  This is because the Hebrew word for man (Strong’s #H776 “Ishah”) simply does not appear in the chapter.  The word that appears is Strong’s #120 “adam”, which simply means a human – no specified gender.  As Dr A Nyland explains (in an endnote of his Complete Books of Enoch: 1 Enoch (First Book of Enoch), 2 Enoch (Secrets of Enoch), 3 Enoch (Hebrew Book of Enoch)) – going entirely by the Hebrew grammar – Adam was originally a hermaphrodite – both male and female!


1 In the beginning created ELOHIM את the heavens and את the earth. 2 And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Ruach of ELOHIM moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And ELOHIM commanded, “Light, exist!” And light existed. 4 And Elohim saw את the light, that it was good; and ELOHIM divided the light from the darkness. 5 And ELOHIM named the light “Day”, and the darkness He named “Night”. And there was evening, and there was morning, day one.

6 And ELOHIM commanded, “Firmament, exist in the midst of the waters, and divide the waters from the waters.” 7 And ELOHIM made את the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8 And ELOHIM called the firmament “Heaven”. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

9 And ELOHIM commanded, “The waters under the heavens, be collected to one place; and dry land, appear!” And it was so. 10 And ELOHIM named the dry land “Earth”, and the gathering together of the waters He named “Seas”. And ELOHIM saw that it was good. 11 And ELOHIM commanded, “The earth, sprout tender sprouts, the herb seeding seed and fruit trees producing fruit after its kind, whichever seed is in it on the earth.” And it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb seeding seed after its kind, and tree producing fruit, whichever seed is in it, after its kind. And ELOHIM saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

14 And ELOHIM commanded, “Lights, exist in the expanse of the heavens to divide the day from the night! And be for signs, and for appointed Feasts, and for days, and years. 15 And be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And made ELOHIM את two the great lights: את the light greater to rule the day, and את the light smaller to rule the night, as well as the stars. 17 And ELOHIM set them in the heavens to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And ELOHIM saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

20 And ELOHIM commanded, “Waters, bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life; and fowl, fly above the earth, on the face of the expanse of the heavens.” 21 And created ELOHIM את the sea dragons great, and את all having a living soul that creeps which swarmed the waters after their kind, and את every bird with wing after its kind. And ELOHIM saw that it was good. 22 And ELOHIM blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill את the waters in the seas and the birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

24 And ELOHIM commanded, “The earth, bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and crawling things, and beasts of the earth after its kind.” And it was so. 25 And made ELOHIM את the beasts of the earth after its kind, and את cattle after its kind, and את all crawlers of the ground after their kind. And ELOHIM saw that it was good. 26 And ELOHIM said, “We will make humankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and they will rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth and over all the crawlers crawling on the earth.” 27 And created ELOHIM את the human in His image, in the image of ELOHIM He created it; male and female He created them. 28 And ELOHIM blessed them, and ELOHIM said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill את the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over all beasts crawling on the earth.” 29 And ELOHIM said, “Behold, I have given you את every herb seeding seed which is on the face of all the earth, and את every tree in which is the fruit of a tree seeding seed. It shall be for food to you. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to every crawler on the earth which has a living soul in it, את every green herb is for food.” And it was so. 31 And saw ELOHIM את all which He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.



Ruach – (Holy) Spirit

The Truth About Adolf Hitler, Part 1

Adolf Jacob Hitler was one of the most infamous – and evil – men in history.  The leader of the Nazi Party, he took power as Chancellor (Prime Minister) of Germany in 1933, and as head of state or “Führer” the next year.  He ruled until 1945, when his mistress-turned-wife and himself apparently committed suicide.  He ruled Germany with an iron fist, and notoriously carried out the Holocaust, the mass, inhumane slaughter of the Jewish people.  His concentration camps killed some 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews.  He started World War II through his invasion of Poland.  Most of the nations of the world – led by the United Kingdom, France and the United States – rose up and went to war with him.  The war he started killed some additional 50-85 million innocent people.  He has rightly become the universal analogy for pure evil.


But what was the real story behind the man?  Who were his bosses, what was his real motivation, and how authentic was the leaders’ of the Western World’s opposition to him?

His religion

Adolf Hitler is always presented as an anti-Church New Ager.  And he really was into the occult.  But, according to now-dead former Jesuit priest Alberto Rivera (who was murdered for what he revealed), he was a Roman Catholic and served the Vatican!

This is not mere conspiracy theory.  It is a FACT that Hitler was raised a Catholic, and wanted to become a priest as a boy.  Hitler came into power on the Catholic vote, as did Italy’s Mussolini.  In fact, after the 1933 hung parliament, it was the Catholic Church’s Centre Party which gave the Nazis the necessary support to pass the Enabling Act, which abolished all other political parties, and gave Hitler unprecedented political power.

Pope Pius XI signed a concordat with Nazi Germany in 1933 – after the Enabling Act had been passed – effectively legitimising Hitler’s dictatorship and mandating German bishops take an oath of allegiance to the Governor or President of the German Reich (which office Hitler took in 1934).  Movies such as The Scarlet and the Black try to sugarcoat this fact, but it was nothing less than a deliberate endorsement of tyranny.

300px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R24391,_Konkordatsunterzeichnung_in_RomRepresentatives of Hitler and the Pope sign the Concordat

Representing Pope Pius XI at that meeting was Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, who would become Pope Pius XII in 1939.  David Kertzer’s excellent book The Pope and Mussolini: The Secret History of Pius XI and the Rise of Fascism in Europe not only reveals how Pope Pius XI helped bring Mussolini to power and start Fascism, but how Cardinal Pacelli – Pope Pius XII – was very pro-Nazi.  He deliberately refused to condemn Nazism, and was himself anti-Semitic.  As was Pius XI.

John Cornwall was raised a Roman Catholic.  After a dinner conversation – which blew into an argument between two of his students over Pius XII’s alleged Nazism – Cornwall prepared to write a book defending Pius, and refuting the idea he sympathised with the Nazis.  He was given access to the Vatican archives to write the book.  He pored over thousands of pages of documents for weeks – and was shocked to the core by what he discovered.

Instead of exonerating the Pope, the documents proved he was at heart a Nazi – that he had helped silence any Catholic political opposition to the Nazis, and even denied and trivialised the Holocaust despite having information from accurate sources about the atrocities being committed against the Jews.  (Similar to Jean-Marie Le Pen claiming that the Holocaust was merely a detail of World War II.)  He was openly anti-Semitic and had helped Hitler to power.

Instead of writing a book defending Pius, he wrote Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, based on his astonishing findings.  The documents proved that Pius lied after the war when he claimed to have spoken out against the Nazi persecution of the Jews – he mainly stayed silent.

Pacelli/Pius was anti-Semitic.  In a 1917 letter from Germany, he made derogatory reference to the “Jewish cult”.  In travelling (as a diplomat or “nuncio”) to Germany, Cardinal Pacelli extravagantly brought some 60 cases of foodstuffs for himself.  Yet when approached by a Jewish rabbi about importing palm fronds from Germany for Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles), Pacelli responded that it would be too difficult – they could easily transport 60 cases of food, but not a few palm fronds.  In the above-mentioned letter, racist hypocrite Pacelli stated that the Vatican should not assist the Jews in observing their “cult”.  Pietro Gasparri, the Cardinal Secretary of State for the Vatican, replied that he agreed with Pacelli, and praised his “shrewdness”.  Pacelli responded that the rabbi “was perfectly convinced of the reasons I had given him and thanked me warmly for all that I had done on his behalf.”  Of course, he hadn’t done anything – or even tried to do anything – on the rabbi’s behalf.  He had simply quashed his request.  This incident alone undermines Pius’ later claims that he loved the Jewish religion, “and was always motivated by its best interests.”

This anti-Semitism would rear its head again just after World War I, when Pacelli mimicked Hitler in equating Jews with Bolsheviks/Communists.  His observation was made during an attempted socialist revolution in Germany after the war.  Writing from Munich, he wrote:


The scene that presented itself at the palace was indescribable. The confusion totally chaotic, the filth completely nauseating; soldiers and armed workers coming and going; the building, once the home of a king, resounding with screams, vile language, profanities. Absolute hell. An army of employees were dashing to and fro, giving out orders, waving bits of paper, and in the midst of all this, a gang of young women, of dubious appearance, Jews like all the rest of them, hanging around in all the offices with provocative demeanor and suggestive smiles. The boss of this female gang was Levien’s mistress, a young Russian woman, a Jew and a divorcée, who was in charge. And it was to her that the nunciature was obliged to pay homage in order to proceed.

This Levien is a young man, about 30 or 35, also Russian and a Jew. Pale, dirty, with vacant eyes, hoarse voice, vulgar, repulsive, with a face that is both intelligent and sly.

Pius/Pacelli revealed his racism again.  As John Cornwall notes:

Not long after this, Pacelli campaigned to have black French troops removed from the Rhineland, convinced that they were raping women and abusing children—even though an independent inquiry sponsored by the U.S. Congress, of which Pacelli was aware, proved this allegation false. Twenty-three years later, when the Allies were about to enter Rome, he asked the British envoy to the Vatican to request of the British Foreign Office that no Allied colored troops would be among the small number that might be garrisoned in Rome after the occupation.

What a bigot!

Pacelli firmly believed in Papal authoritarianism, as did the head of the Catholic Centre Party, Ludwig Kaas, who was close friends with Pius.  In fact, Kaas’ belief in papal totalitarianism drew him to support the Fascist style of government.  It was also a factor in the Vatican’s endorsement of Italy’s fascist government – which they helped to power (during the reign of Pius XI).

Heinrich Brüning was a Catholic politician from the Centre Party who served as Chancellor of Germany from 1930 until 1932.  In 1931, he visited the Vatican.  He quarreled with Pacelli as Pacelli was lecturing him on why he needed to form government with the Nazis in order to reach a concordat satisfactory to the Vatican!  Brüning told him not to interfere with German politics – so Pacelli threw a tantrum.  Brüning then observed that “the Vatican would fare much better at the hands of Hitler [as German leader]… than with himself, a devout Catholic.”  How chillingly prophetic!

As Cornwall further observed:

After Hitler came to power in January 1933, he made the concordat negotiations with Pacelli a priority. The negotiations proceeded over six months with constant shuttle diplomacy between the Vatican and Berlin. Hitler spent more time on this treaty than on any other item of foreign diplomacy during his dictatorship.

The Reich Concordat granted Pacelli the right to impose the new Code of Canon Law on Catholics in Germany and promised a number of measures favorable to Catholic education, including new schools. In exchange, Pacelli collaborated in the withdrawal of Catholics from political and social activity. The negotiations were conducted in secret by Pacelli, Kaas, and Hitler’s deputy chancellor, Franz von Papen, over the heads of German bishops and the faithful. The Catholic Church in Germany had no say in setting the conditions. In the end, Hitler insisted that his signature on the concordat would depend on the Center Party’s voting for the Enabling Act, the legislation that was to give him dictatorial powers. It was Kaas, chairman of the party but completely in thrall to Pacelli, who bullied the delegates into acceptance. Next, Hitler insisted on the “voluntary” disbanding of the Center Party, the last truly parliamentary force in Germany. Again, Pacelli was the prime mover in this tragic Catholic surrender. The fact that the party voluntarily disbanded itself, rather than go down fighting, had a profound psychological effect, depriving Germany of the last democratic focus of potential noncompliance and resistance. In the political vacuum created by its surrender, Catholics in the millions joined the Nazi Party, believing that it had the support of the Pope [which it did]. The German bishops capitulated to Pacelli’s policy of centralization, and German Catholic democrats found themselves politically leaderless.

After the signing of the concordat, Hitler observed in a Cabinet meeting that the concordat was “especially significant in the urgent struggle against international Jewry”.  And, under the terms of the concordat, any opposition by German Catholics to the Nazis could be labelled “foreign interference”.  Oh, yes: and any complaints Catholics had about the Nazis must be channeled through Cardinal Pacelli.

The German Catholic Church – a minority in the country – were drawn into collaboration with the Nazis, and Catholic priests assisted the Nazis in weeding out those with Jewish ancestry.  Pacelli had immense centralised power over these priests per the concordat.  Yet he did nothing to discourage such activities.  It was this that led to the singling out of many Jews for the death camps.

When Hitler began persecuting Jews who had converted to Catholicism, Pacelli said it was a matter of German internal policy and refused to do anything.  When 3 cardinals and 2 bishops from Germany came to the Vatican in 1937 and begged the Pope to do something about the persecution of Catholics, Pius XI capitulated and issued an encyclical titled With Deep Anxiety, in which he condemned Nazi persecution of the church.  But he did not condemn Nazi persecution of the Jews – even Catholic Jews.

Pacelli worked to soften the blow of the encyclical – assuring the German ambassador that friendly relations with Germany would be shortly restored.

Cornwall says:

In the summer of 1938, as Pius XI lay dying, he became belatedly anxious about anti-Semitism throughout Europe. He commissioned another encyclical, to be written exclusively on the Jewish question. The text, which never saw the light of day, has only recently been discovered. It was written by three Jesuit scholars, but Pacelli presumably had charge of the project. It was to be called Humani Generis Unitas (The Unity of the Human Race). For all its good intentions and its repudiation of violent anti-Semitism, the document is replete with the anti-Jewishness that Pacelli had displayed in his early period in Germany. The Jews, the text claims, were responsible for their own fate. God had chosen them to make way for Christ’s redemption, but they denied and killed him. And now, “blinded by their dream of worldly gain and material success,” they deserved the “worldly and spiritual ruin” that they had brought down upon themselves.

The document warns that to defend the Jews as “Christian principles and humanity” demand could involve the unacceptable risk of being ensnared by secular politics—not least an association with Bolshevism. The encyclical was delivered in the fall of 1938 to the Jesuits in Rome, who sat on it. To this day we do not know why it was not completed and handed to Pius XI. For all its drawbacks, it was a clear protest against Nazi attacks on Jews and so might have done some good. But it appears likely that the Jesuits, and Pacelli, whose influence as secretary of state of the Vatican was paramount since the Pope was moribund, were reluctant to inflame the Nazis by its publication. Pacelli, when he became Pope, would bury the document deep in the secret archives.

David Kertzer establishes that the head of the Jesuits (whom Alberto Rivera revealed was the REAL ruler of the Vatican and the Church) was very anti-Semitic, and presumable pro-Hitler.

On Pacelli’s orders – not long after he became Pope Pius XII – the Berlin nuncio hosted a gala reception for Hitler’s 50th birthday.  It became a yearly tradition until the end of World War II for Germany’s Catholic bishops to send birthday greetings to the Fuhrer.

In 1939, months after he became pope, Pius XII tried to get the Poles to concede to Hitler’s territorial demands.  And then, when Hitler invaded Poland on September 1st, Pius simply declined to condemn the act.

Cornwall continues:

Pacelli’s first wartime act of reticence in failing to speak out against Fascist brutality occurred in the summer of 1941, following Hitler’s invasion of Yugoslavia and the formation of the Catholic and Fascist state of Croatia. In a wave of appalling ethnic cleansing, the Croat Fascist separatists, known as the Ustashe, under the leadership of Ante Pavelić, the Croat Führer, embarked on a campaign of enforced conversions, deportations, and mass extermination targeting a population of 2.2 million Serb Orthodox Christians and a smaller number of Jews and Gypsies. According to the Italian writer Carlo Falconi, as early as April, in a typical act of atrocity, a band of Ustashe had rounded up 331 Serbs in a place called Otočac. The victims were forced to dig their own graves before being hacked to death with axes. The local priest was forced to recite the prayers for the dying while his son was chopped to pieces before his eyes. Then the priest was tortured. His hair and beard were torn off, his eyes were gouged out. Finally he was skinned alive. The very next month Pacelli greeted Pavelić at the Vatican.

Throughout the war, the Croat atrocities continued. By the most recent scholarly reckoning, 487,000 Orthodox Serbs and 27,000 Gypsies were massacred; in addition, approximately 30,000 out of a population of 45,000 Jews were killed. Despite a close relationship between the Ustashe regime and the Catholic bishops, and a constant flow of information about the massacres, Pacelli said and did nothing. In fact, he continued to extend warm wishes to the Ustashe leadership. The only feasible explanation for Pacelli’s silence was his perception of Croatia as a Catholic bridgehead into the East. The Vatican and the local bishops approved of mass conversion in Croatia (even though it was the result of fear rather than conviction), because they believed that this could spell the beginning of a return of the Orthodox Christians there to papal allegiance. Pacelli was not a man to condone mass murder [really?], but he evidently chose to turn a blind eye on Ustashe atrocities rather than hinder a unique opportunity to extend the power of the papacy.

In December 1941, the Nazis began deporting Jews to the death camps in what was known as the final solution.  The next month – January 1942 – Pope Pius was informed of what was happening.  In March, Jewish groups sent a memorandum to the Vatican documenting the anti-Semitic atrocities – in both Germany and her conquered territories – and begging Pope Pius XII to intervene, as in the occupied territories his voice might still have an effect.  While Pius intervened in Slovakia – only because the president, Josef Tiso, was a Catholic priest – he simply ignored both the request and the atrocities committed by the Nazis.  He received reliable information from various representatives of different countries throughout 1942 and beyond of the atrocities.  He received information in the months following the Jews’ initial request of the fates of some 90,000 Jews.  Yet when a representative of America’s Roosevelt administration – one of many that begged him to act or at least speak – begged him to do something, he replied that he was above the belligerents.  When the knowledge of the atrocities became public and protests and gatherings against the Nazis began in America, Pope Pius still refused to say anything.

In December 1942, Pius finally gave in to pressure to say something in his Christmas speech.  But he merely gave a watered down condemnation of persecution and racism in general – not once did he mention the Jews or the Nazis.  And he reduced the MILLION being murdered down to “hundreds of thousands”.  In fact, Hitler himself could not have come up with a better NEUTRAL statement to appease all sides.

Cornwall provides a summary of what the documents show:

  1. He had nourished a striking antipathy toward the Jews as early as 1917 in Germany, which contradicts later claims that his omissions were performed in good faith and that he “loved” the Jews and respected their religion.
  2. From the end of the First World War to the lost encyclical of 1938, Pacelli betrayed a fear and contempt of Judaism based on his belief that the Jews were behind the Bolshevik plot to destroy Christendom.
  3. Pacelli acknowledged to representatives of the Third Reich that the regime’s anti-Semitic policies were a matter of Germany’s internal politics. The Reich Concordat between Hitler and the Vatican, as Hitler was quick to grasp, created an ideal climate for Jewish persecution.
  4. Pacelli failed to sanction protest by German Catholic bishops against anti-Semitism, and he did not attempt to intervene in the process by which Catholic clergy collaborated in racial certification to identify Jews.
  5. After Pius XI’s Mit Brennender Sorge, denouncing the Nazi regime (although not by name), Pacelli attempted to mitigate the effect of the encyclical by giving private diplomatic reassurances to Berlin despite his awareness of widespread Nazi persecution of Jews.
  6. Pacelli was convinced that the Jews had brought misfortune on their own heads: intervention on their behalf could only draw the church into alliances with forces inimical to Catholicism.

And during the Nazi occupation of Rome, the Pope refused to condemn the rounding up of city’s Jews for deportation to Auschwitz – because “communist” partisans might take advantage of it.  Really?  He simply wanted to keep the Nazi status quo in the city until the Allies could take it – no matter how many innocent lives it unnecessarily cost.

Some final words from Cornwall:

But there was a more profound failure than Pacelli’s unwillingness to help the Jews of Rome rounded up on October 16. Pacelli’s reticence was not just a diplomatic silence in response to the political pressures of the moment, not just a failure to be morally outraged. It was a stunning religious and ritualistic silence. To my knowledge, there is no record of a single public papal prayer, lit votive candle, psalm, lamentation, or Mass celebrated in solidarity with the Jews of Rome either during their terrible ordeal or after their deaths. This spiritual silence in the face of an atrocity committed at the heart of Christendom, in the shadow of the shrine of the first apostle, persists to this day and implicates all Catholics. This silence proclaims that Pacelli had no genuine spiritual sympathy even for the Jews of Rome, who were members of the community of his birth. And yet, on learning of the death of Adolf Hitler, Archbishop Adolf Bertram of Berlin ordered all the priests of his archdiocese “to hold a solemn Requiem in memory of the Führer. ”

There were nevertheless Jews who gave Pacelli the benefit of the doubt. On Thursday, November 29, 1945, Pacelli met some 80 representatives of Jewish refugees who expressed their thanks “for his generosity toward those persecuted during the Nazi-Fascist period.” One must respect a tribute made by people who had suffered and survived, and we cannot belittle Pacelli’s efforts on the level of charitable relief, notably his directive that enclosed religious houses in Rome should take in Jews hiding from the SS.

By the same token, we must respect the voice of Settimia Spizzichino, the sole Roman Jewish woman survivor from the death camps. Speaking in a BBC interview in 1995 she said, “I came back from Auschwitz on my own. I lost my mother, two sisters, a niece, and one brother. Pius XII could have warned us about what was going to happen. We might have escaped from Rome and joined the partisans. He played right into the Germans’ hands. It all happened right under his nose. But he was an anti-Semitic Pope, a pro-German Pope. He didn’t take a single risk. And when they say the Pope is like Jesus Christ, it is not true. He did not save a single child. Nothing.” …

And yet there was still something worse. After the liberation of Rome, when every perception of restraint on his freedom was lifted, he claimed retrospective moral superiority for having spoken and acted on behalf of the Jews. Addressing a Palestinian group on August 3, 1946, he said, “We disapprove of all recourse to force . . . just as we condemned on various occasions in the past the persecutions that a fanatical anti-Semitism inflicted on the Hebrew People.” His grandiloquent self-exculpation a year after the war had ended showed him to be not only an ideal Pope for the Nazis’ Final Solution but also a hypocrite.

With the above FACTS and EVIDENCE, can anyone seriously deny Alberto Rivera’s insider claim that Hitler worked for the Pope?  I think not.

The Forgotten Jews, Part 2

The following is genealogical charts based on the information in the previous post.

From Adam to Judah

  1.  Adam, m. Eve
  2. Seth, m. Azura (his sister)
  3. Enos, m. Noam (his sister)
  4. Cainan, m. Mualeleth (his sister)
  5. Mahalalel, m. Dinah
  6. Jared, m. Baraka
  7. Enoch, m. Edna
  8. Methuselah, m. Edna
  9. Lamech, m. Betenos
  10. Noah, m. Emzara
  11. Shem, m. Sedeketelevav
  12. Arpachshad, m. Rasueja
  13. Cainan, m. Melka
  14. Shelah, m. Muak
  15. Eber, m. Azurad
  16. Peleg, m. Lomna
  17. Reu, m. Ora
  18. Serug, m. Melka
  19. Nahor, m. Ijaska
  20. Terah, m. Edna
  21. Abraham, m. Sarah (his half-sister)
  22. Isaac, m. Rebecca
  23. Jacob, m. Leah
  24. Judah

From Judah to Dardanus

  1. Judah, had sex with Tamar
  2. Zerah
  3. Mahol
  4. Darda/Dardanus, King of Dardania

From Dardanus to Laomedon

  1. Darda/Dardanus, King of Dardania, m. Princess Batea of Teucri
  2. King Erichthonius of Dardania, m. Astyoche
  3. King Tros of Troy, m. Callirrhoe
  4. King Illus of Troy
  5. King Laomedon of Troy

From Laomedon to Memnon

  1. King Laomedon, m. Strymo
  2. Prince Tithonus of Troy, m. Eos
  3. King Memnon of Ethiopia, m. Princess Troanis of Troy

From Laomedon to Troanis

  1. King Laomedon of Troy
  2. King Priam of Troy, m. Hecuba
  3. Princess Troanis of Troy, m. King Memnon of Ethiopia

From Memnon and Troanis to Odin

  1. King Memnon of Ethiopia, m. Princess Troanis of Troy
  2. King Tror/Thor of Thrace, m. Sif/Sibyl
  3. Hloritha/Loridi
  4. Einridi
  5. Vingethor
  6. Vingener
  7. Moda/Mode
  8. Magi
  9. Sceaf
  10. Bedwig
  11. Hwala
  12. Hathra
  13. Itermon
  14. Heremod, King of the Danes and the Angles
  15. Scyld
  16. Sceldwa
  17. Beaw
  18. Taetwa
  19. Geat
  20. Godwulf
  21. Finn
  22. Frithuwulf
  23. Frealaf
  24. Frithuwald
  25. King Odin/Woden

There are so many lines stemming from King Odin that it is impossible to document them all here.  I encourage the reader to do their own research in this matter.

From Dardanus to Brutus

Line 1

  1. King Darda/Dardanus of Dardania, m. Princess Batea of Teucri
  2. King Erichthonius of Dardania, m. Astyoche
  3. King Tros of Dardania and Troy, m. Callirrhoe
  4. King Assaracus of Dardania, m. Hieromneme
  5. King Capys of Dardania, m. Princess Themiste of Troy
  6. Prince Anchises
  7. Prince Aeneas, m. Lavinia
  8. King Ascanius of Alba Longa
  9. King Silvius of Alba Longa
  10. King Brutus I of Great Britain

Line 2

  1. King Darda/Dardanus of Dardania, m. Princess Batea of Teucri
  2. King Erichthonius of Dardania, m. Astyoche
  3. King Tros of Dardania and Troy, m. Callirrhoe
  4. King Illus of Troy, m. Princess Eurydice of Argos
  5. Princess Themiste of Troy, m. King Capys of Dardania
  6. Prince Anchises
  7. Prince Aeneas, m. Lavinia
  8. King Ascanius of Alba Longa
  9. King Silvius of Alba Longa
  10. King Brutus I of Great Britain

From Brutus to Beli Mawr

 (Note: some sources provide conflicting genealogies for Beli Mawr; the following is the widely accepted traditional version)

Line 1

  1. King Brutus I of Great Britain
  2. King Locrinus of Britain, m. Queen Gwendolen of Britain
  3. King Maddan of Britain
  4. King Mempricius of Britain
  5. King Ebraucus of Britain
  6. King Brutus II “Greenshield” of Britain
  7. King Leil of Britain
  8. King Rud Hud Hudibras of Britain
  9. King Bladud of Britain
  10. King Leir of Britain
  11. Princess Regan of Britain, m. Henwyn, Duke of Cambria and Cornwall
  12. King Cunedagius of Britain
  13. King Rivallo of Britain
  14. King Gurgustius of Britain
  15. King Sisillius I of Britain
  16. Prince Antonius, Duke of Cornwall
  17. Aedd Mawr, Duke of Cornwall
  18. Prydain, Duke of Cornwall
  19. Dyfnarth, Duke of Cornwall
  20. Crydon
  21. Cerwyd
  22. Eneid
  23. King Capor/Capior of the Druids (some omit this generation)
  24. King Manogan of the Druids
  25. King Beli Mawr of Britain

Line 2

  1. King Brutus I of Great Britain
  2. King Camber of Kamber of Cambria
  3. Gorbonian, Duke of Cambria and Cornwall
  4. Dyfnwal Hen, Duke of Cambria and Cornwall
  5. Cyngen or Bleiddud, Duke of Cambria and Cornwall
  6. Asser, Duke of Cambria and Cornwall
  7. Bleiddud or Cyngen, Duke of Cambria and Cornwall
  8. Henwyn, Duke of Cambria and Cornwall, m. Princess Regan of Britain
  9. King Cunedagius of Britain
  10. King Rivallo of Britain
  11. King Gurgustius of Britain
  12. King Sisillius I of Britain
  13. Prince Antonius, Duke of Cornwall
  14. Aedd Mawr, Duke of Cornwall
  15. Prydain, Duke of Cornwall
  16. Dyfnarth, Duke of Cornwall
  17. Crydon
  18. Cerwyd
  19. Eneid
  20. King Capor/Capior of the Druids (some omit this generation)
  21. King Manogan of the Druids
  22. King Beli Mawr of Britain

From Beli Mawr to Bran the Blessed

  1. King Beli Mawr of Britain
  2. Princess Penarddun of Britain, m. Llŷr
  3. King Bran the Blessed of Britain, m. Anna

From Judah to Anna

Line 1 

  1. Judah, had sex with Tamar
  2. Perez
  3. Hezron
  4. Aram
  5. Amminadab
  6. Nahshon
  7. Salmon, m. Rahab
  8. Boaz, m. Ruth
  9. Obed
  10. Jesse
  11. King David of Israel, m. Bathsheba
  12. King Solomon of Israel, m. Naamah the Ammonitess
  13. King Rehoboam of Judah, m. Princess Maacah of Israel
  14. King Abijah of Judah, m. Michaiah
  15. King Asa of Judah, m. Azubah
  16. King Jehoshaphat of Judah
  17. King Jehoram of Judah, m. Princess Athaliah of Israel
  18. King Ahaziah of Judah, m. Zibiah of Beersheba
  19. King Joash of Judah, m. Jehoaddan of Jerusalem
  20. King Amaziah of Judah, m. Jecholiah
  21. King Uzziah of Judah, m. Jerusha
  22. King Jotham of Judah
  23. King Ahaz of Judah, m. Abijah
  24. King Hezekiah of Judah, m. Hephzibah
  25. King Manasseh of Judah, m.  Meshullemeth
  26. King Amon of Judah, m. Jedidah
  27. King Josiah of Judah, m. Zebidah
  28. King Jehoiakim of Judah, m. Nehushta
  29. King Jehoiachin of Judah
  30. Prince Shealtiel of Judah
  31. Governor Zerubbabel of Judah
  32. Abiud
  33. Abner (some omit this generation)
  34. Eliakim
  35. Azor
  36. Sadoc
  37. Achim
  38. Eliud
  39. Eleazar
  40. Matthan
  41. Jacob
  42. Joseph
  43. Mary, m. Joseph (it is disputed as to whether the above genealogy from Matthew 1 is Joseph’s or Mary’s; there are manuscripts supporting both)
  44. Anna, m. King Bran the Blessed of Britain

Line 2

  1. Judah, had sex with Tamar
  2. Perez
  3. Hezron
  4. Aram
  5. Amminadab
  6. Nahshon
  7. Salmon, m. Rahab
  8. Boaz, m. Ruth
  9. Obed
  10. Jesse
  11. King David of Israel, m. Bathsheba
  12. Prince Nathan of Israel
  13. Mattatha
  14. Menan
  15. Melea
  16. Eliakim
  17. Jonam
  18. Joseph
  19. Judah
  20. Simeon
  21. Levi
  22. Matthat
  23. Jorim
  24. Eliezer
  25. Jose
  26. Er
  27. Elmodam
  28. Cosam
  29. Addi
  30. Melchi
  31. Neri
  32. Shealtiel
  33. Zerubabbel
  34. Rhesa
  35. Joannan
  36. Judah
  37. Joseph
  38. Semei
  39. Mattathias
  40. Maath
  41. Nagge
  42. Elsi
  43. Naum
  44. Amos
  45. Mattathias
  46. Joseph
  47. Jannai
  48. Melchi
  49. Levi
  50. Matthat
  51. Eli
  52. Joseph, m. Mary (it is disputed whether the above genealogy from Luke 3 is Joseph’s or Mary’s; from the wording, it could be both)
  53. Anna, m. King Bran the Blessed of Britain

From Aeneas to Romulus

  1. Prince Aeneas, m. Lavinia
  2. King Ascanius of Alba Longa
  3. King Silvius of Alba Longa
  4. King Aeneas Silvius of Alba Longa
  5. King Latinus Silvius of Alba Longa
  6. King Alba Silvius of Alba Longa
  7. King Atys of Alba Longa
  8. King Capys of Alba Longa
  9. King Capetus of Alba Longa
  10. King Tiberinus Silvius of Alba Longa
  11. King Agrippa of Alba Longa
  12. King Romulus Silvius of Alba Longa
  13. King Aventinus of Alba Longa
  14. King Proca or Procas of Alba Longa
  15. King Numitor of Alba Longa
  16. Princess Rhea Silvia of Alba Longa
  17. King Romulus of Rome

From Judah to Érimón

  1. Judah, had sex with Tamar
  2. Zerah
  3. Mahol
  4. King Calcol/Cecrops I of Athens, m. Princess Aglaurus of Attica
  5. Gaithelus, m. Princess Kemi (Scota) of Egypt
  6. Asruth/Esasru
  7. Srú bin Easru
  8. Heber the Scott
  9. King Boamhain of Scythia
  10. King Oghaman of Scythia
  11. King Tait of Scythia
  12. Agnon
  13. Prince Lamhfionn of Scythia
  14. King Heber Glunfionn of Getulia
  15. King Agnan Fionn of Gothia
  16. King Febric Glas/Ermhear Glas of Gothia
  17. King Nenuall of Gothia
  18. King Nuadhad of Gothia
  19. King Alladh of Gothia
  20. King Arcadh of Gothia, m. Lowra
  21. King Deaghata of Geulia
  22. King Brath of Gothia
  23. King Breoghan of Galicia
  24. King Bilé mac Breoghan of Galicia, m. Baun of Galicia
  25. Milesius/Míl Espáine/Pharaoh Smenkhkare of Egypt, m. Princess Meritaten/Scota of Egypt
  26. High King Érimón of Ireland 

The lines of descent from King Érimón are numerous, and too many to record here.  I encourage the reader to do their own research.

The Forgotten Jews

At first, this title may seem very confusing. I mean, we know who the Jews are, right? And you’d be partly right; the Jews – who they are, where they live (e.g. State of Israel, America, etc) are widely known. But they are only some of the Jews (and yes, they ARE Jews; in a later post I will refute the myth that they are not). They represent the descendants of Judah’s sons Shelah and Perez (albeit not all of Perez’s descendants, as I will cover in this article). Judah had other sons, and other descendants.

Okay, I’d better back up and provide a bit of background. Judah, son of Jacob (Israel) and Leah, married a Canaanite woman. They had three sons: Er, Onan and Shelah. Er and Onan died childless, and their widow Tamar (who married Onan after Er’s death) was promised to Shelah – when he grew up. That didn’t happen, Tamar dressed up as a prostitute, seduced Judah, and became pregnant with twins. These were Perez and Zerah. At birth, Zerah initially put his hand out first, and the midwife tied a scarlet threat to his hand. However, he then withdrew his hand and his brother Perez came out first (hence his name, which means “breach”). Zerah came out afterwards. As we shall see, the scarlet thread is significant.

In the Bible, we are given in detail the descendants of Shelah and Perez. The most famous Perezite Jew was King David. Er and Onan of course had no descendants. But Zerah, while a few of his descendants are mentioned (such as the infamous Achan, whom Joshua stoned), after the Exodus from Egypt, they are almost completely absent from the Biblical record. Why is that? Is it because most of them simply were not there? Where were they? And where are they today?

“And the sons of Zerah: Zimri, and Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol, and Darda; five of them in all.” (1 Chronicles 2:6). “For he [Solomon] was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol.” (1 Kings 4:31). Why the discrepancy? Well, in Hebrew, “son” also means “grandson”, “great-grandson” and “descendant”. Similar with the word for “father”, which also means “grandfather”, “great-grandfather” or simply “ancestor”. So these five brothers were apparently the sons of Mahol, who was obviously the son, grandson or other male-line descendant of Zerah, son of Judah. (“Mahol” is Hebrew for dancing, so that could be the correct translation. However, the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon insists that in this case it is a personal male name.)

Can we find some of these people in the historical record? Yes, we can.

Ancient Greek and Roman historians wrote or a “Dardanus” (Greek form of Darda) who emigrated from across the sea to Greece, and subsequently to Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey).  He founded the kingdom of Dardania, and his descendants became the kings of Troy.  In some translations of the works of Josephus, the 1st century AD Jewish historian, Darda is spelled Dardanos (Antiquities of the Jews 8.2.5; 8.43 in some versions).

According to Greek mythology, Dardanus was the son of Zeus, himself the son of Saturn (also called Kronus). Sanchuniathon was an ancient Phoenician historian who (according to Eusebius and Porphyry) obtained an extremely accurate history of the Jews because he got his information from an Israelite priest of YEHOVAH. He gave the history of many other cultures, particularly their religions. He gave valuable insights into the origins of their “gods”, whom he established were simply mortal men worshipped after theirs deaths (this he got from secretive writings of many nations). He stated that Kronus was none other than Israel/Jacob, and that he had a son named “Jehud”. (Judah in Hebrew is Yehudah.) Israel’s kingly son Judah/Jehud would be identical with Kronus’ kingly son Zeus, the king of the “gods”. And Dardanus was said to have come from “Zeus”. This is extremely interesting.

Dardanus founded the city with that name and became its first king. His paternal grandson, Tros, founded Troy and became the city-state’s first king. Tros’ male-line great-grandsons were Tithonus and Priam, Priam being the last King of Troy. Priam’s daughter Troanis married Tithonus’ son Memnon, King of Ethiopia (which he probably inherited from his mother). Memnon and Troanis had a son, Tror or Thor, apparently a King of Thrace. His male line descendants are traced in various early medieval literature to the historical king Odin, who was later worshipped as a “god” named Woden. Numerous royal families can trace their ancestry to Odin/Woden.

One of Tros’ male line descendants was Aeneas (first cousin one removed from Priam). He was quite a famous Trojan hero (descendant of Tros through both of his paternal grandparents, who were first cousins). His son was Silvius. Silvius’ son Ascanius was the paternal grandfather (dispute as to the exact number of generations) of Brutus, who conquered the island of Britain and named it after himself, and from whom the British (and later Welsh) kings descended for many centuries (through intermarriage, the current British Royal Family descends from him).

However, Silvius had another son, Aeneas Silvias, from whom descended Romulus, the first King of Rome! (His twin brother Remus, of course, had the same ancestry.) The Romans (formerly the Etruscans) openly claimed descent from the Trojans. In other words, the Romans were Jews! (THAT’s a controversial position.)

Thus, it seems that the Zerahites got quite a bit of power and land for themselves. But they’re not all.

Dardanus/Darda’s brother was Calcol. It can be established that this person became none other than Cecrops I, the founder and King of Athens! The idea of Greek Israelites is certainly not unknown to history; for example, the Spartans were explicitly said to have been Abraham’s offspring, presumably through Jacob/Israel (1 Maccabees 12: 5-23; Josephus’ Antiquities 13.5.8 [13.163-170 in some versions]). As one website noted about the correspondence described in the above referenced works, the Jews, in their correspondence to the Spartans, said “to you or to others that were related to us”. Thus, the Jews not only did not rule out the possibility of other nations having Israelite origin, but directly claimed it! The Minoans were related to the Greek royal house(s). In Crete, two ancient scripts have been found – Linear A and Linear B. Linear B is ancient Greek. Linear A is ancient Hebrew. It is worth noting that even Greek sources say the Mycenaean Greeks had the same origins as the Trojans – whom, as I have established, were Hebrews.

Cecrops, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, was said to have “divided the inhabitants into 12 [!] [think of the 12 tribes] communities, to have instituted the laws of marriage and property and a new form of worship.  The introduction of the bloodless sacrifice, the burial of the dead and the invention of writing were also attributed to him.”  (Emphasis mine)  “… on the island Euboea right next to Athens, settled by Athenians, was a region called Chalcis.”  Sounds  like Calcol.

Calcol/Cecrops, according to Scottish tradition (echoed by the Irish) says that Cecrops had a son named Goídel Glas, otherwise known as Gaithelus or Gaythelos. Do to troubles in his own country, Gaithelus was exiled to Egypt during his Israelite kinsmen’s bondage. He married Scota (not her birth name), daughter of the Pharaoh of the Exodus (identified as Neferhotep I by various sources) who drowned in the Red Sea. Neferhotep had a daughter named Kemi, who was almost certainly Scota. Gaithelus and Scota left Egypt with the Israelites (accounts differ as to how or exactly when, only that it was around the Exodus). Gaithelus was bitten by a snake and healed by Moses (not the infamous bronze snake incident; Moses personally prayed for Gaithelus and he was healed). Gaithelus, however, was left with a band of discoloured green green skin around his waist; hence his name, which means “green”. (What he was called beforehand, I don’t know.)

Gaithelus and Scota’s descendants left the main body of Israelites (it’s not sure exactly when) and traveled through the Mediterranean – naming numerous places and monuments after their ancestor Zerah (one of the main evidences that Calcol was Cecrops), e.g.,  Zaragassa (now Saragossa), meaning “stronghold of Zerah”.  They called Spain Iberia, from Hebrew (Iber or Iver in Hebrew).  From Spain, Gaithelus and Scota’s male-line descendant Míl Espáine (also known as Míl Espáne or the Latinised Milesius) came to Egypt.  He gained great favour with the Pharaoh, and married his daughter Scota (yes, another one).  The medieval historian Walter Bower identified this Pharaoh as Achencres – which ancient Egyptian historian Manetho identifies as the Greek name for Akhenaton, the Pharaoh who famously abolished polytheism in Egypt.  Milesius and Scota had a few children together and traveled to Spain.  After Milesius’ death, his wife and sons conquered Ireland (at that point inhabited by the Tuatha Dé Danann, who were from the Israelite tribe of Dan) and gave their name to it – Iberne (Latinised as Hibernia), derived from the Hebrew name for the Hebrews, Ibrim or Ivrim.  There Milesius and Scota’s son  Érimón (sometimes called Heremon) became the country’s first High King – from whom all subsequent High Kings and local Kings descended (almost always in the male line)!  All of Ireland descends from Heremon’s father Milesius.

At this point I will stray off subject and identify the daughter of Akhenaton who became the second Scota: Meritaten. Akhenaton’s eldest daughter, she was married to Pharaoh Smenkhkare, who co-ruled with Akhenaton. After her father’s death, she simply disappears from the records. No tomb of her has ever been found. In addition, ancient Egyptian boats have been found on the shores of Ireland. Their style and other evidences point to the time of Akhenaton.  She was married to a man identified by the Egyptians as Smenkhkare, who was joint Pharaoh with Akhenaton during the last years of his reign.  After Akhenaton’s death, he disappeared with his wife.  There is no tomb for him – the one traditionally thought to be his has been proved to be Akhenaton’s!  Smenkhkare was Milesius.

Those are the descendants of Zerah, basically. It fulfills the prophecy that “the scepter shall not depart from Judah”; they have ruled constantly since before David! However, there are descendants of the Perezite Jews that have become largely forgotten to (conventional/secular) history. These are the descendants of Jesus Christ’s/Yehoshua ha’Mashiach’s siblings – or one sibling, in particular.

There is a member of the Sanhedrin present at Yehoshua’s crucifixion, mentioned in all four gospel accounts:

“When the evening came, there came a rich man of Arimathea named Joseph, who also himself was Yehoshua’s disciple. He went to Pilate and begged the body of Yehoshua. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre and departed.” (Matthew 27:57-60)

“And now when the evening had come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, an honourable member of the Sanhedrin, who also waited for the Kingdom of Yehovah [God], came and went in boldly to Pilate, and asked for the body of Yehoshua. And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead. And calling the centurion, he asked him if he had been dead awhile. And when he knew from the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph. And he bought fine linen and took Him down and wrapped Him in linen, and laid Him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.” (Mark 15:42-46)

“And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Sanhedrin; and he was a good man, and just. This same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them. He was of Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who also himself waited for the Kingdom of Yehovah. This man went to Pilate and begged the body of Yehoshua. And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, which had never been used.” (Luke 23:50-53)

“And after this Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Yehoshua, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate if he could take away the body of Yehoshua. And Pilate gave leave. He came therefore and took the body of Yehoshua.” (John 19:38)

Nothing more is explained in Scripture about Joseph. However, we find that in Roman law, only the immediate relatives of an executed criminal could bury him. Otherwise the body was simply thrown in a pit. Joseph was clearly Yehoshua’s relative, and this was a well-known fact – when he went to Pilate, Pilate’s only qualm was whether or not He was dead! So, how was Joseph related to Jesus/Yehoshua/Yeshua (I’ll call Him Yeshua from now on for the sake of simplicity)?

That answer can be found in the historical record. Numerous early and later sources identify Joseph as the uncle of Mary (Yeshua’s mother), although a few identify him as the uncle of Joseph (Yeshua’s stepfather). Considering that cousin marriage was common back then, he may have been both – perhaps on their mothers’ sides. Regardless, he was a close relative and a descendant of David.

And what happened to Joseph, and why is this relevant? Well, ancient tradition maintains that Joseph of Arimathea came to Britain after Yeshua’s crucifixion. This tradition is particularly strong in England itself, particularly in Cornwall, where an ancient tradition maintains that he ran a tin mining business there. There is archaeological evidence of Jewish tin mining in Cornwall. Joseph was said to have preached the Gospel there, and numerous non-British sources relay the fact that Britain was one of the first countries where the Gospel was preached after Yeshua’s death and resurrection – before Rome (a tradition also widely reflected in British – English AND Welsh literature). Joseph’s tomb – with his body in it – was actually in Britain until the 1300s, when his body was moved!

And why is that important?

Because many of these reliable traditions state that he took a close relative of his with him; Anna bat Yosef (Anna daughter of Joseph), who married the British king Bran the Blessed. Numerous subsequent Welsh British and then Welsh monarchs descended from him, and the English (not British) has since the 1400s! Anna is variously identified as either the sister, daughter or great-niece of Joseph. Sister is not chronologically possible, and his sister Anna had actually married Bran’s great-grandfather several decades before and was actually Bran’s great-grandmother! (She may have been the same person as Mary’s mother Anna, although that is naturally a matter of dispute.) It is worth noting that traditions maintaining she was Joseph’s daughter were likely inventions by Catholic monks after the myth of Mary’s “perpetual virginity” was made into law by the Roman Catholic Church. An early tradition actually maintained that Anna was Joseph and Mary’s youngest daughter (a fact confirmed by an early Bishop of Jerusalem), and even after the Catholic monks had officially changed the record to read otherwise, it was recorded that the royal families still claimed descent from Mary rather than Joseph of Arimathea. So, Yeshua’s youngest sister married a British KING (who was actually the family’s COUSIN) and had a son, Caradog, who had a son, Saint Cyllin, from whom numerous subsequent kings (including the current royal family) descend. This created the uniting of the two houses of Judah: Bran the Blessed was a male-line descendant of Brutus and therefore of Zerah and Judah, while Anna was a male-line descendant of David and therefore of Perez and Judah. This united line has ruled continually since then. It also fulfills the prophecy that David’s seed would always be on a throne. While they are no longer his male-line descendants (as far as anyone knows, anyway!), they ARE his seed (and Yeshua’s nephews and nieces).

There are other descendants of Judah’s son Perez that have been forgotten: the Ethiopian Jews, specifically the Royal Family.

There is a rather enigmatic figure mentioned in the Bible in connection with King Solomon: the Queen of Sheba. She has remained a mystery. Or is she?

Many people wonder where the land of Sheba was. However, there are two vital clues: our Messiah Yehoshua Himself described this woman as “queen of the south” (Matthew 12: 42), while Josephus described her as the “queen of Egypt and Ethiopia” (Antiquities 8.6.2 (8.159) and 8.6.5 (8.165)). Ethiopian tradition confirms this. (They also have many other interesting details.) According to the Ethiopians, her name was Makeda. She converted to Judaism during her visit. She apparently had a sexual affair with Solomon, for she became pregnant with his child. His name was Menelik (also known as Baina-leḥkem or David). He was the first Emperor of Ethiopia, and subsequent Emperors descended from him. At least some of Ethiopia’s Beta Israel Jews are Menelik’s descendants. Perhaps even all of them.

Ethiopian tradition (recorded in Jonathan Gray’s book Dead Men Secrets, which details huge evidence for technologically advanced civilisations in ancient times) records that Solomon gave Makeda a flying ship, which allowed her to make the months-long journey back to Ethiopia in a day.  They also record that Solomon possessed electric lighting.  This is in line with independent Indian testimony of Solomon’s flying ships, and the ancient witness in general of the advanced technology (ahead of ours) that existed.

That, of course is another subject.

While the Ethiopian legend does appear to contain some embellishments (such as the details about the Ark of the Covenant), I think it is generally reliable.