Editor’s Note: This ATJFTP Series was first written and published beginning in late 2017. Most recent update and revision 2025.

Welcome readers to ATJFTP Part 6: “The Confusion of Faces.” Given the considerable amount of material we have looked at in this series so far I am pleased to inform you this post will be short in comparison to those which have preceded it. We start with The Book of Daniel…

“Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near, and accused the Jews.” Daniel 3:8 KJV

“There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” Daniel 3:12 KJV

Now, I think you can see quite clearly what I can see? We have ‘Jews’ being accused by the Chaldeans. We get clarification of who these “certain Jews” are too: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. How interesting! Do the Chaldeans know something we don’t? Do they know whom they are accusing?

“What’s the problem?” I hear you ask.

Well, the problem is what it suggests in the KJV:

“This is the people whom Nebuchadrezzar carried away captive: in the seventh year three thousand Jews and three and twenty: In the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar he carried away captive from Jerusalem eight hundred thirty and two persons: In the three and twentieth year of Nebuchadrezzar Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carried away captive of the Jews seven hundred forty and five persons: all the persons were four thousand and six hundred.” Jeremiah 52:28-30 KJV

“And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the princes; Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king’s meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king. Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego.” Daniel 1:3-7 KJV 

Folks, you can plainly see for yourself what it says. These are children of Israel, of no blemish, of the kings’ seed and among them were children of Judah; Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah; that their names were changed respectively to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. So, let me put it to you, is that or is that not what it says, that Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego are of the Royal Lineage? How could it then be that they are ‘Jews’? Furthermore, why would the king appoint them a daily provision of meat and of “the wine which he drank” if they were just commoners? Folks, it cannot be. If they are of the king’s seed and of the House Royal of Judah then, they MUST be Judahites – royal Judahites indeed! Therefore, what we have here is another case of what should have been used but wasn’t: ‘Israelite’ and ‘Judahite’ for Daniel 3:8 & 3:12 respectively, for that is what they were. So, what gives? Well, I think we’re beginning to get the picture aren’t we. I’m sorry to say, but as I begin to learn my way around the KJV I now contemplate that this whole ‘confusion of faces’ offered up in Daniel is one big intentional monstrous deception.

“Why is that?” you ask.

Well, do you really think that the esteemed vaunted translators of the KJV were just ignorant or bereft of the true facts? After all, they insisted on what you see; they translated it thus.

So, having had this brainwave, my first thought was to go to Bible Hub and see what other translations had to say, and of course they pretty much all seem to use ‘Jews’ in Daniel 3:8 and Daniel 3:12. Then I realised that though there are now so many translations, of course there are very high odds that most translations are first, likely to be based from the same source material as the KJV and second, likely to be making the same basic translation errors into English with the development of new sounds and letters and third, essentially of the same rhyme and reason or theological premise as the KJV. That got me thinking I needed to look somewhere else. So I did. I had a wee gander to see if there were any Book of Daniel in the Aramaic Peshitta but no, just New Testament. Then I was struck as if by a bolt of lightning, and thought: “I should check the Septuagint!“ To be honest, I am not altogether that familiar with said Septuagint (really not at all), but nonetheless the call came so I answered and sure enough what do you suppose I found? Well, I think you already know, but before we get to that let’s just have a look at what the translation offers in preface in regards to it’s origins:

So, with that succinct bit of fine print noted, let’s get back to the main menu of what the Septuagint has to say on this pressing issue:

Once again, more accurate than the KJV with ‘Judean’ but should really read ‘Judahite’ as they are of the House Royal after all.

Regardless, we will press on despite the error of KJV ways:

“Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry?” Daniel 5:13 KJV

First, Daniel is addressed as of ‘the captivity of Judah’. This states clearly what we know to be true, that Daniel is legitimate Israel (of Judah). Yet, just as the KJV gets one thing right they drop another stinker with “brought out of Jewry?” So, what is going on? Folks, if you said: ‘confusion of faces’ you’d be right! So, why is this term ‘Jewry’ in the KJV here? Did someone just make up this term? What does it mean and how old might it be? Well, as things would have it, I was doing my looking about and happened to notice another verse that used this same term ‘Jewry’ and decided I should get Strong’s Concordance into gear and search up the term. Drum roll please……

Ladies and Gentlemen, there are only THREE usages of ‘Jewry’ in the entirety of KJV scripture!

How very interesting. Daniel 5:13 we are already familiar with. Here are the other two:

“And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.” Luke 23:5 KJV (underline mine)

“After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.” John 7:1 KJV (underline mine)

So, there we have them folks: “brought out of Jewry”, “teaching throughout all Jewry”, and “for he would not walk in Jewry”. Folks, I wouldn’t walk in Jewry either for I’m not even sure such a thing exists!

Now Strong’s doesn’t actually give us anything useful with its particular definitions but more reference material that relates this word back to Judah. The fact that this word might derive from Judah is not relevant. It is all too important to understand that the word ‘Jewry’ and in particular it’s usage is translator fraud; pure make believe; casting aspersions and creating false impressions. ‘Jewry’. It almost sounds regal doesn’t it? 

So, here just for reference is what I found in my trusty dictionary:

“Jewry n. pl. 1. a. Jews, collectively. b. the Jewish religion or culture. 2. a. a quarter of a town in habited by Jews.” The Angus & Robertson Dictionary

Just for the sake of total disclosure, that is about what I took the word to mean and despite KJV tomfoolery, still do. This means that of the three KJV uses of ‘Jewry’, all are junk. Are you beginning to see how these KJV hombres roll?

At any rate, once again here is the Septuagint:

So, you can see for yourself, the one source does not have any more material, which is why the translation abruptly ends, but the other states: “the sons of the captivity of Judea, which my father the king brought?” Well golly! Imagine that?

Now, as for the age of this term ‘Jewry’, I have to conclude at this point with nothing found elsewhere that Daniel 5:13 is the first usage of this term. So, there we have it folks. I guess the translators of the KJV just made it up and shoved it in? Let’s just see what other translations have to offer for perspective on the matter:

“So Daniel was brought before the king, and the king said to him, “Are you Daniel, one of the exiles my father the king brought from Judah?” Daniel 5:13 New International Version

“Then Daniel was brought in before the king. The king answered and said to Daniel, “You are that Daniel, one of the exiles of Judah, whom the king my father brought from Judah.” Daniel 5:13 English Standard Version

“So Daniel was brought before the king, who asked him, “Are you Daniel, one of the exiles my father the king brought from Judah?” Daniel 5:13 Berean Study Bible

“Then Daniel was brought in before the king. And the king spoke, and said to him: Art thou Daniel of the children of the captivity of Juda, whom my father the king brought out of Judea?” Daniel 5:13 Douay-Rheims

“Then Daniel was brought in before the king. The king spoke, and said to Daniel, “Are you that Daniel who is one of the captives from Judah, whom my father the king brought from Judah?” Daniel 5:13 New KJV

Folks, the KJV is clearly in a league of it’s own! I don’t reckon I’d actually like to be in that league either. Even the New KJV manages to correct this bit of treachery.

So, just to tidy up a loose end before pressing on, sometime before I called Strong’s Concordance into action, I did a previous search on this term ‘Jewry’ and discovered an interesting item from a kosher approved site no less that we should stop and include in our deliberations:

“The history of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel is about the history and religion of the Jewish people who originated in the Land of Israel, and have maintained physical, cultural, and religious ties to it ever since. First emerging in the later part of the 2nd millennium BCE as an outgrowth of southern Canaanites,^[1][2][3][4]” (Wikipedia)

There it is in black and white. You can see for yourself it is quite plainly admitted that the Jewish people first emerge in the later part of the 2nd millennium as an outgrowth of southern Canaanites. Well, thank you Wikipedia for that frank admission!

Therefore, with all of this now established, I must divulge that it remains most interesting that I found myself out one night, shortly after beginning the research for this post, with a friend, and for some particular reason our conversation drifted somewhere such that he had occasion to remark: “Babylon is where everything becomes confused.“

Well, here we are with Daniel in Babylon and everything is indeed confused! It would also appear to be the case that such confusion was crafted by design.

So, to get our heads on straight with this let’s first look at one more festering mess in the KJV:

“O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee.” Daniel 9:7 KJV (underline mine)

Whoa! Hold the phones right there folks. Are the KJV translators basically telling us what they are up to i.e. deliberately confusing faces? Well, let’s just check in with our Septuagint versions for reference once more:

Folks, do you see what I see? Do you see the massive fraud right there in the pages of the KJV called “confusion of faces”? Now, I think the referees are conferring and about to issue a new ruling so, let’s have a listen:

“Ladies & Gentlemen, the KJV will now serve a game misconduct.”

Forget the penalty box folks, its game over.

Did you ever have the experience of going to a movie theatre and the film didn’t run through the projector correctly and there were images coming up on screen at odd angles; intermittent snippets; random flashes of white light; handwriting scribbled on film; melting film; technical assistance required? I have a vision of a KJV projector cranking out garbled nonsensical scenes. Have we gathered enough evidence to put the KJV down? Owing to KJV authority is this why despite the many theological fights and new translations over the years this ‘confusion of faces’ remains to this very day?

Not any more. The confusion of faces is finished.