We might suspect, as well, a nomenclature based typology appearing in the New Testament, for example, where Old Testament figures are referenced in the names of New Testament figures. This would of course conform to a pattern seen clearly in contemporary JEM (Jewish Esoteric Moralization).
Hence New Testament figures who are even indicated as Jewish or “of the House of David” such as Paul and Joseph, if not representing Aryans, like their Old Testament counterparts Saul and Jacob’s son Joseph, may, nevertheless, represent Aryan types or “Messiah ben Josephs.”
With Paul or Saul, in the New Testament, in contrast to Peter, we see explicitly a preacher to Gentiles or a Gentile-facing exponent of Christianity. He is named Saul, we understand, because, like the original Saul, he was also descended of the Benjamites, a semi-mythical or mythical clan identified in this study as Aryan.
With the New Testament Joseph, the servile and cuckold foster parent of Christ, we see, as with the original Joseph, a Messiah ben Joseph, serving the Messiah ben David or line of Judah as represented by Christ. In Matthew, interestingly, the New Testament Joseph, like the old testament Joseph, has a father named Jacob.
Of course here we doubt entirely the historicity of New Testament, with the Miracles of Christ, being absurd in their own right but also plainly taken from the Adonis and Bacchus Cults. Naming convention as well, as indicated in this study, also indicates that we are looking at an intelligently developed parable.
Indeed, even if Paul, for example, was a real historical figure, we do not put it past these master propagandists to have assigned a purposeful name to one of their own, consistent with the JEM, so as to carry out a “Holy mission.” They after all lied about everything else.
As corroboration of this phenomena where Jewish characters are indicated as Aryan or, at least, “spiritual goys,” we find examples of this in contemporary JEM where fictional figures, explicitly indicated as Jewish or hinted to be Jewish are actually Aryan or Messiah ben Joseph figures.
Some examples are Bobby Gold in Mamet’s Homicide, Lee Sussman in the Coen Brothers A Serious Man, Bernie Bernbaum in the Coen Brothers Miller’s Crossing, Donald Kauffman in Charlie Kauffman’s Adaptation and Abe Saperstein in Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby. In all the examples I’ve encountered, these figures are indicated as Messiah ben Joseph’s or unconscious, servile, lower ranking and/or expendable.
On one level these are parables where a relationship between Jews and Aryans is more cautiously obfuscated by the mystical and deliberately ambiguous term, Jew. On another level these parables suggest something especially profound. Indeed, what is suggested here, as well, is a distinction between “true conscious Jews” and unconscious Jews or what we will call Sussmen.
This is made explicit in the film Homicide where the oblivious Detective Bobby Gold is deceived by conscious Jews to protect Jewish group interests being sought illegally. Indeed, in that film, an Orthodox Jew implies that the “non-practicing” Bobby Gold is not a real Jew due to his lack of familiarity with Hebrew, Biblical Parable and Symbol Knowledge or, in a word, JEM.
Since a consciousness of or understanding of JEM is ultimately the acute awareness that Jews are in constant racial and sexual competition with an Aryan host, “True Jewishness” becomes simply the equivalent of what White Nationalists call “Racial Consciousness” or being “J-woke.” It actually bears little correlation with degree of racial Jewishness or Semiticness as can be seen plainly when one contrasts Ashkenazi with Sephardi. Only a fool calls the Ashkenazi less Jewish than the Sephardi. Perhaps the same fool calls the Ashkenazi “Khazars.”
Here the notion of Jews as inherently admixed, racially camouflaged or racially liminal, comes into play. Likewise appears the notion of Jews “going native,” but nevertheless becoming either an unconscious limb in the service of Jewry or even part of the unconscious, exploitable mass of the host.
None of this should dissuade us from the broader understanding that Jewry is Yahweh as is made clear in the JEM and is explicated in this study. Here again we find Mercury or Trivia as liminal type at the “cross roads.” It cannot be doubted: Mercury is the most “interesting” God. This title we will grant him.
 Matthew 1:16
 Writer “Liquor & Christianity,” who reviewed Miller’s Crossing, pointed this instance of the “esoteric non-Jew” out to me. His blog is here: https://thegrandstyleblog.wordpress.com/
2 thoughts on “Nomenclature based Typology in the NT, “esoteric Non-Jews” and Jews as Liminal types”