On the Etymology of the Name Judas

Judas does not come from the root YOD-DALET-HE either. Historically, the root is HE-VAV-DALET. I admit that popular etymology could have connected it with the root YOD-DALET-HE, and I admit that a speaker of Hebrew in the first c. A.D. would have FELT it as having a connection with this root. The verb IS NEVER USED IN THE QAL. It is always in the Hif’il when it means to thank or acknowledge. These forms are NOT similar enough to Yehudah to make a Hebrew-speaker feel a COMPELLING connection even if historical considerations are left out. That means past tense hodah, future tense yodeh, and participle modeh. The name Yehudah is too far from the hif’il participle for the feeling of connection to be strong. The hitpa’el is used to express the concept of admitting or acknowledging something outside but of personal concern This means past tense hitvaddah, future tense yitvaddeh, participle mitvaddeh, but these forms aren’t strongly enough connected either. No forms other than the Hif’il and Hitpa’el are used.

Disregard what Jastrow says about the root YOD-MEM-NUN. No, it would be better to say take notice of what he says the way he meant it. Jastrow’s root entries are not always real words. They are the root, which can’t stand in isolation. Even when he gives what looks like the past tense of the Qal, it is often just an abstraction. Quite often the meaning assigned to the root is NOT ANY ATTESTED MEANING, only a reasonable assumption about the history of the meaning before its use in written records. So his root YOD-MEM-NUN certainly exists, but what looks like an actual form, the first word of the second column of p. 580, with the vowels of the past tense Qal, IS NOT A REAL VERB. What is really used is the pi’el, cited straight after this. Look at the examples. You will see that even of the pi’el, only THE PASSIVE PARTICIPLE (i.e. the pu’al participle) is actually used, and even that bears a meaning NOT THE SAME AS JASTROW’S ASSUMED ORIGINAL MEANING. The meaning “skilful” is dubious. The meaning “the one actually meant if some other is not actually specified” or “the one naturally thought of, because the most eminent holder of the title” fits every cited instance. If the verb is to mean “to go to the right” it must be in the hif’il. That means past tense hemin, future tense yemin, participle memin (MEM-YOD-MEM-YOD-NUN). The corresponding Aramaic word must be in the Af’el. [[There is an alternative set of forms in Biblical Hebrew, but still in the hif’il, from a variant derived root ALEF-MEM-NUN, but this is not the same as the root ALEF-MEM-NUN In the Qal stative participle amen means certain (but said of a concept, not a person, and used as a single word meaning “it is certain”). The nif’al participle ne’eman means faithful (said of a person). This word is applied to Moses in Numbers XII. The hif’il means to believe. None of these are connected with the Biblical Hebrew hif’il forms meaning to go to the right. It is true that the forms are the same: past tense he’emin (HE-ALEF-MEM-YOD-NUN), future tense ya’amin (YOD-ALEF-MEM-YOD-NUN), participle ma’amin (MEM-ALEF-MEM-YOD-MEM).]].

So I come back to the point that there is no past tense yaman with three letters in any meaning at all, and no participle yamen with three letters in any meaning at all at all. {That was not a typing mistake. It is a literal translation from Gaelic commonly used in countries where proper English is spoken] To find the intended word with the numerical value of a hundred you will have to think about the theory a bit more and look for an important technical or symbolic term. Can it really be thought that the term would have been hidden so inadequately as to be guessed in a few minutes? No, only deep knowledge of the SYSTEM OF THOUGHT will give the answer. The answer will turn out to be impossible to guess if you don’t think in terms of the symbolic structure, and easy to see if you do think in that way. More work is needed.