 |
 |
The Virgin And The Priest - The Making Of The MessiahContents Preface Church attendance in developed nations has been on a downward spiral for the best part of a century. The strong likelihood is that it will continue to decline. In the past, almost everyone was a churchgoer. But today, irrespective of whether or not they believe in God, the majority of the population regards organized religion as an anachronism. Increased levels of education since the end of World War II brought with them a greater demand for intellectual satisfaction. Now, most people will only accept something as 'true’ if it can be explained by reason or else resonates with their experience. Absolute 'truths’ must pertain to reality. Not reality as perception, but reality which is the same for everyone. Doctrines that insist on faith in the irrational and unfamiliar no longer have mass appeal, because by implication, they are not true. Formerly, the Church could withdraw some of its erroneous tenets, for example, that the sun orbits the earth, because they were incidental to its central theology. In the modern era, as potential embarrassments cropped up with increasing regularity, the Church adopted the position that religion and science were mutually incompatible. Therefore, any attempts to reconcile them were futile. The idea that life allowed for the existence of contradictory laws did not impress Einstein, who famously stated that “God does not play dice with the universe.” His comment that “science would provide a surer path to God than religion,” reflects a widely held opinion that religious institutions are paralyzed by the instinct for self-preservation and reluctance to acknowledge error. As far as most people today are concerned, the Church has not only ceded to science the ability to interpret the physical world, but also the world unseen, and all that that implies. Despite public skepticism toward the Christian Church, the indisputable fact of history is that Western civilization is a Judeo-Christian legacy. The predominant culture is actually based on a complex synthesis of Hebraism and Hellenism, but its catalyst was provided by events in the life of one man -- Jesus. And we simply cannot understand the modern world without first understanding our Judeo-Christian past. The phenomenal success of the movies, The Passion of Christ and The Da Vinci Code, prove that the desire to know what happened two thousand years ago has not diminished. Still, from whatever point of view Jesus is presented, we don’t know who he was. For traditionalists, the focal point of ‘genuine’ Christianity is Christ, the risen God.‘Christ’ transcends human attributes, so in the grand scheme of things, the historical man Jesus is incidental. At the opposite end of the spectrum, liberal academics cite a lack of documentation to prove much of anything about Jesus, and being good scholars they only go where the ‘facts’ lead. Making sense of Jesus then, is not easy. Apparently, he was rejected by those ‘in charge of religion’ as an ordinary man with blasphemous delusions of grandeur. But now that he is regarded as God, or as a character to be defined only on the limited basis of a few prose narratives, Jesus cannot be legitimately considered as an actual human being with normal physical, spiritual, emotional and intellectual needs. The Virgin and The Priest does not directly address the issue of Jesus’ marital status, or even if he had children. Researching the possibility of a surviving bloodline without first identifying Jesus’ parents, not only puts the genealogical cart before the horse, it perpetuates the confusion over his status. Jesus’ ‘divinity’ has been the foundation of Christian theology ever since Church councils began, and still conditions public perception of him today. For that reason, Jesus’ ancestors, rather than his descendants, ought properly to be the starting point of any investigation of his life. Officially, Protestant Churches do not insist on the virgin birth doctrine as do Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Mary’s miraculous conception, however, is taken for granted by most of their membership, and by a large percentage of the general population. Even non believers jump on the bandwagon when Christmas comes around. Who can blame them? It is a beautiful story. A young virgin conceives a child miraculously. She gives birth to God’s only Son in a humble stable. Wise men travel from afar to offer gifts to the newborn king. The word ‘miracle,’ however, can only be used legitimately when describing events that lack a rational or scientific explanation, and as an absolute principle, all forms of life are created by, and therefore preceded by, a relationship or interaction between opposites: male/female or positive/negative. So regardless of any theological claims, if Jesus existed then he must have had biological parents. His birth, therefore, was not a miracle. Moreover, if Jesus’ father were identified it might help explain other aspects of his life, and inject a dose of much-needed reality into the study of Christian origins. To protect the early church, the gospel writers deliberately crafted explanations of Jesus’ birth to mystify the uninformed and obscure the truth from those deemed incapable of receiving it. To achieve this, they used an ancient ‘messianic’ scribal code belonging to an esoteric strand of Judaism. Later, as the church developed in the Gentile nations, ignorance of this code proved disastrous. Centuries of pointless and unnecessary That the name of Jesus’ father has never been publicly disclosed attests to the existence of a controlling and pervasive conspiracy of silence by those who knew it, both inside and outside the Church. The perpetrators were aided and abetted by the suffocating power of preconceived ideas, working hand in hand with history’s largest ever propaganda campaign, incessantly and repeatedly broadcast throughout the world for seventeen centuries. And, in common with modern sales and marketing promotions, the message was both deceptive and illusory, designed solely to benefit vested interests. Deep down we knew it, but still bought the product. Christianity’s sacred cows have been challenged many times before, but never as comprehensively as in The Virgin and The Priest. Perhaps above all else, the spotlight falls on the life of Saint John the Baptist -- one of the most neglected areas of New Testament studies and Dead Sea Scrolls research -- and the part he played in Jesus’ tragic life. Hopefully, any errors along the way are minor and thus peripheral to the book’s central arguments. For readers raised on the tenets of traditional religious teaching, The Virgin and The Priest will be a journey into unchartered waters. Bon voyage! Ubud, Bali Introduction Before diving straight into Jesus’ story, it is essential to know the background. That means having a grasp of the basic fundamentals of Jewish history -- if only because Jesus allegedly claimed to be its fulfillment. The next few pages provide a general outline, but further reading is strongly recommended. A great deal of argument exists among modern historians, archeologists, and biblical scholars about the historical reliability of the Old Testament. Similarly, in ancient Palestine much debate surrounded the sacred texts, but it was not about separating fact from fiction. Disputes were centered on how to interpret the narratives to correctly discern ‘truth.’ Holy Scriptures were considered guidebooks to the truth, not truth itself. The most significant groups in Jewish society, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes -- all contemporaneous to Jesus often took different meanings from the same writings. There was general agreement, however, that the books of the Hebrew Bible comprised a reliable and inspired record of Israel and its relationship with God. There were no archives, and no way to chart ancient chronology, so recorders of the past prioritized archetypes over actual names, places and events. History began with the Fall. Adam and Eve, the original ancestors, broke God’s commandment to not “eat the fruit.” As a result, they and their descendants were banished from the Garden of Eden. The writers of Genesis described the events of the Fall with references familiar to an agrarian society: ‘tree,’ ‘plant,’ ‘garden,’ ‘fruit,’ ‘seed,’ and so on. This agricultural metaphor was systematically repeated in later books of the Old and New Testament to explain the workings of Providence in the affairs of men. To the ancient Jews, salvation was an organic process to restore the Garden paradise. Religion, therefore, was not a matter of individual conscience, but the birthright of Israelite families. The prerequisite was not faith or deeds, but blood lineage. Salvation history would end with the global sovereignty of the Jewish savior/king, or Messiah. No consensus existed on the specifics of how this new world order would materialize, but it was widely accepted that the Messiah would be a victorious warrior king, who would govern through his representatives -- the Jewish people. After first liberating Israel, the Messiah would subjugate the other nations. With pagan worship eradicated, the world would serve only Yahweh, the Hebrew God. In the ensuing brotherhood of man, ‘swords would be turned into ploughshares,’ and ‘the lion would lay down with the lamb.’ According to Genesis, people were so corrupt that God “regretted he had made man,” so He brought a flood judgment to wipe them out. Only the family of Noah was spared from the deluge. This was intended to be a new start for humanity, and after the flood they received the same instruction to “be fruitful and multiply” that was given Adam and Eve. However, things did not work out. The biblical text is guarded as to the reasons why, but like Adam before him, Noah’s “nakedness” implied a sexual transgression had led to the loss of grace. God’s next attempt to rescue humanity involved making a unique covenant with one man, from whom a chosen people would descend. The man was Abraham, founding father of the Hebrew race. The Jews were and still are the only people in the world who have their genealogical origins written down and traced back to one individual, but not all of Abraham’s descendants were Jewish -- only those who came through a specific bloodline. This is the most crucial aspect in understanding ancient Judaism; everything was based on ancestry. Ishmael, Abraham’s first son, is understood by Arabs to be their common ancestor, but the chosen bloodline passed through Isaac, Abraham’s second son. Isaac also had two sons, Esau and Jacob, and again it was the younger brother, Jacob, through whom the providential lineage passed. Jacob, the third-generation patriarch, founded the Israelite nation. ‘Israel,’ literally meaning ‘he who struggles with God,’ was simply another name for Jacob. Jacob had twelve sons, and Joseph was his favorite. Resented by his brothers for a dream that the entire family would one day bow down before him, Joseph was kidnapped by them and sold to Ishmaelite merchants, who took him to Egypt. The brothers told Jacob that Joseph was dead. While in Egypt, Joseph’s star rose. And after successfully interpreting the meaning of one of the Pharaoh’s dreams, he was appointed Grand Vizier -- a type of Prime Minister. Due to a severe famine, Jacob moved his family south to Egypt in search of food. Not long afterward, and much to his father’s delight, Joseph revealed himself to them. The reunited children of Israel remained in Egypt to eventually become a nation within a nation. The Book of Exodus states that “they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them.” The Pharaoh began to fear their numbers and doubt their loyalty, and that was his justification for forcing them into manual slavery. Despite a life of hardship, the Hebrew population continued to increase and constitute a threat. So much so, that the Pharaoh ordered all male Hebrew infants to be drowned at birth in the River Nile. This event began the story of Moses. One of the Pharaoh’s daughters found Moses floating down the Nile in a basket of bulrushes. She adopted the baby and raised him in the royal household. But just as the story line seemed to be leading up to Moses becoming Pharaoh, he killed an Egyptian taskmaster whom he had witnessed abusing Hebrew slaves. Fearing the consequences of his actions, Moses escaped into the desert wilderness of Midian and lived the life of a nomadic shepherd. The biblical narrative explains that while he was in exile, God instructed Moses to return to Egypt and, in tandem with his older brother Aaron, liberate the Israelites and lead them into the Promised Land of Canaan. After many trials and tribulations, the brothers eventually succeeded, and the Hebrew slave population was rescued. The journey into Canaan, however, was complex and protracted, taking forty years to accomplish. During this period, Moses received the Ten Commandments, formulated the official Israelite religion, and instituted its priesthood. Aaron was the first High Priest of Israel and all future priests were drawn only from Aaron’s direct descendants. Others belonging to the tribe of Levi, one of the twelve sons of Jacob, were designated as a lesser priesthood, responsible for organizing ceremonial functions. Priests and Levites lived on tithes collected from the remaining tribes but were prohibited from owning land. Theoretically, as they did not have to work, Priests and Levites were dedicated to a life of service to the community. Moses did not survive to witness conquest of the Promised Land, and Joshua was appointed to lead the military campaign. In a relatively short period of time, his armies won a series of stunning victories over the enemy. The land of Palestine was taken from the Canaanites and divided among the twelve tribes of Israel. It was not a totally comprehensive defeat, however, and several enclaves of unconquered territory remained. The period after occupation and resettlement was characterized by continuous war with Canaanite kings and external enemies. Known as the age of ‘Judges’ -- divinely inspired prophet-warrior leaders, who emerged periodically to prevent the Hebrews from drifting into assimilation with foreign neighbors -- it formally ended when Samuel anointed Saul as the first ever King of Israel. Later, Saul was deposed, and in his place the legendary David was anointed king, followed by his son Solomon, who purportedly built the original Jerusalem Temple. Future generations would view this time nostalgically as the golden age of Israel. But it did not last long. After Solomon’s death, civil war erupted and the formerly unified nation was split into two opposing kingdoms, north (Israel) and south (Judah). The southern kingdom was home for the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and the northern kingdom comprised the remaining ten tribes. The priesthood and the Levites remained for the most part in the south, because that was where Jerusalem was located. The Bible records that the northerners drifted in and out of idolatry and built their own competing cult centers, and that this ultimately led to their destruction. It is extremely difficult to put dates on any of these occurrences, because a paucity of supporting evidence exists to verify either the historicity of events or of the characters involved. Moreover, biblical chronology followed an esoteric numerology, so important time periods were often recorded as forty years or multiples of forty, seven years or multiples of seven, and so on. All of which indicates that the writers never intended to compose historical journals. Details of the narratives were specially constructed so as to comply with fundamental principles that proved a divine connection. With its larger population and more fertile land, Israel was always richer than Judah in the south, and made an irresistible target for any expanding empire. The rise of the Assyrian Empire during the eighth century B.C.E. meant disaster for the northern kingdom. Surviving Assyrian archives corroborate much of the biblical account. By 720 B.C.E., the Assyrians had not only invaded and conquered Israel; they had deported all of its citizens, and transmigrated settlers from other parts of the empire to take possession of the land. What happened to the lost northern tribes remains a source of intense speculation, but from this time onward, as far as the biblical scribes were concerned, the only true ‘Israelites’ were in the south, and the majority belonged to the tribe of Judah. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the Bible prophesies Judah will rule the other tribes of Israel and that the Messiah will come from the line of Judah. In fact, the Old Testament is so pro-Judah that it must have been compiled and edited only after the purge of the northern tribes. One hundred years later, when Babylon had overtaken Assyria to become the dominant power in the region, the army of King Nebuchadnezzar marched into Judah and laid siege to Jerusalem, an event described in the Bible and in Babylonian records. In 597 B.C.E. Jerusalem collapsed, and the victors took the usual spoils of war. More significantly, the priesthood, aristocracy, and skilled craftsmen were taken captive and exiled in Babylon. In the decade that followed, the population left behind rallied against Nebuchadnezzar, but to no avail. In 587 B.C.E., the Babylonians attacked Jerusalem again, and this time the city was totally devastated and the Temple left in ruins. Outlying cities of Judah were similarly destroyed. Most of the inhabitants fled to Egypt, leaving Judah virtually uninhabited. Zedekiah, the last Judahite king, was blinded, chained in fetters, and taken back to Babylon after first witnessing the public execution of his sons. The fate of the Hebrew religion was left with the exiles in Babylon. If they had integrated with the local culture, it would most probably have meant the end of Judaism. But the course of history took a dramatic twist in 539 B.C.E. when the Persian King Cyrus invaded and conquered Babylon. He issued a royal decree permitting both the return of Jewish exiles and the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple. Whether Cyrus was motivated by altruism or pragmatism, the homecoming to Palestine was not a speedy process. Reportedly, three great waves of returnees spread over several generations, culminated in approximately 458 B.C.E. when Ezra the Scribe (who was also a priest) arrived in Jerusalem armed with a letter of authority from Darius, the King of Persia. Not all the Jews wished to return, however, and a significant number chose to remain in Babylon. In due course a new Temple was constructed and the Palestinian Jews had themselves a semi-independent homeland. The Davidic monarchy, however, was not restored, and the priesthood became the de facto new ruling class. The foundations were made at this time for what would later become known as Second Temple Judaism. Alexander the Great defeated the Persian Empire in the fourth century B.C.E., and in 332 B.C.E. the Jewish state was incorporated into the Greek dominated world and became known as Judea. After about 150 years of Greek rule, Jewish resistance against the forces of Hellenization erupted into a full scale war. When the dust finally settled, a period of relative independence followed that lasted for a hundred years, coming to an end with the arrival of the army of the Roman General Pompey in 63 B.C.E. After three decades of Roman administration through a series of proxies, the Emperor Augustus installed Herod the Great as the client king of Judea in 37 B.C.E. As a convert to Judaism, Herod was not accepted by the majority of the population as a legitimate king, but nevertheless he embarked on an extensive reconstruction project that made the Jerusalem Temple into possibly the most magnificent building in the world. During the final years of Herod’s rule, the birth of Jesus took place. Jewish society and its core beliefs survived this incredible history because written records and oral traditions of their past were preserved, and the sayings of the prophets were recorded. In the main, their historical tragedies had not led to widespread cynicism or to the adoption of religions of their foreign masters, as was customary for subject peoples. This made the Jews fascinating to outsiders. But although the Jewish idea of a worldwide messianic kingdom was well known throughout the region, it did not endear Jews to their neighbors. To most outsiders, the racial and religious separation ethic of Judaism meant that non-Jews were considered inferior, even subhuman. Messianic expectation reached fever pitch during the early Roman period. The rebuilt Temple had become a wonder of the ancient world and wealthy Diaspora Jews (the name given to Jews living outside Palestine) made constant pilgrimages to Jerusalem. The Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek and circulated widely among the Greek speaking Diaspora population, estimated to be at least double the two million strong inhabitants of Palestine. Gentiles, impressed by the moral and ethical lifestyle of the synagogue, were converting to Judaism in ever increasing numbers. Yet by 70 C.E. the Temple had been destroyed and the priesthood totally obliterated. Neither institution has ever been restored. The nation of Israel finally re-emerged in 1948, and it might easily be described as a protectorate of the new Rome -- the United States of America, complete with Emperor/President, Senate, eagle standard, and capital city where the government buildings follow the Greco-Roman style and are adorned with pagan gods and goddesses. The prosperous Diaspora Jews have resettled in the new Rome. And as before, the restored Israel is surrounded by unsympathetic neighbors, and survives with the help of a siege mentality. Although Jewish prophecy was committed to the advent of the Messiah, no hard and fast details were given. Much of scripture, however, was compiled to meet the criteria of a covert messianic formula or code, essential to protect heaven’s secrets. Understanding this messianic code was the first qualification of an ancient scribe. But when the crucial time came two thousand years ago, the code was not followed. Old Testament prophecy predicted a glorious future for the Jews in the coming messianic era, “all who see them shall acknowledge that they are a people whom the Lord has blessed.” In reality, the Jews endured nineteen hundred years of exile and persecution that culminated in the Nazi inspired genocide. Meanwhile, Christianity -- the Gentile religion -- claimed the Jewish Messiah. And even though the New Testament recorded a travesty of ignorance, prejudice, and injustice, the Church declared that messianic prophecy was fulfilled. New and revolutionary theologies were developed to explain why the Messiah did not restore the Garden of Eden, why there was no peace on earth, and why swords were not turned into ploughshares. Needless to say, none were Jewish explanations. Serendipitously, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered at the same time as Israel was granted statehood. Found hidden in desert caves, numerous first century Jewish manuscripts specializing in messianic prophecy, constitute the final installment of the Hebrew Bible. Finally, the bridge linking the Old and the New Testaments can be crossed. Let us now go back to first century Palestine, unravel the secrets of the messianic code, and find out what really happened. Chapter 1: Importance of Blood For modern westerners, it is impossible to comprehend the extent to which life in today’s world differs from life in first-century Jewish Palestine. In Western civilization, the development of law, politics, and religion has combined to make the individual the supreme unit of society. Most definitely, a human being is not considered as the living representative of a sacred ancestral bloodline ordained by God, as the individual Jew was regarded in the society of ancient Israel. Nowadays, most people know nothing about their forbears beyond three or four generations at the most; and everyone is free to make a family with whomever they choose. In stark contrast, the social order of Second Temple Judaism was distinguished by a rigid patriarchal caste system, where more than in any other civilization in the history of the world; maintenance of the purity of one’s family line was the principle duty of every member of the community, and the foundation stone of the culture. To guarantee the well being of the nation as a whole, the pure blood Jew was obligated to comply with the decrees on marriage passed down by scriptural tradition in the Torah -- the first five books of the Old Testament, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers. According to tradition, the Torah was written by Moses. The overwhelming consensus of modern textual critics, however, is that the Torah was composed and edited several centuries after Moses by numerous scribes across several generations. But irrespective of who authored the texts and when, the chief cause of misfortune to the Israelites was identified in them as sexual contact with non-Israelites, or Gentiles. This activity was deemed responsible not only for corrupting the community’s bloodstock, but for introducing the worship of foreign pagan gods, considered deeply offensive to Yahweh. Consequently, all matters sexual in Israelite society were rigorously codified in the Mosaic Law; the genders were kept strictly segregated, and sexual contact with Gentiles was anathematized. By Jesus’ time, the religion of Moses had developed into the phenomenal cult of the Jerusalem Temple. Strictly speaking, the acceptance of Gentile converts proved that the term ‘Jew’ -- a nickname derived from ‘Judah,’ the name of the dominant tribe in the post exilic era -- was no longer a racial classification. Nonetheless, the majority view was that the final salvation of the Jews, promised in the coming messianic era, would come firstly to Israelite families of untainted lineage. Gentile converts and mixed bloods, therefore, were officially prohibited from marrying into Israelite families of pure ancestry. The Caste System Within this legalistic structure, the population of the different tribes was divided into three castes of pure blood descent -- priests, who were descended from Aaron; Levites, who were members of the tribe of Levi; and a third group comprised of legitimate Israelites from the remaining twelve tribes. A fourth social caste was for those judged to be of impure blood -- illegitimate Israelites born from sexual unions prohibited by the Law. The result was a nation defined by genealogy and obsessed with ancestry. Before a fellow countryman would acknowledge another, he needed to know his pedigree, and the importance of caste increased relative to one’s proximity to the Temple. The four classes that divided society can be summarized as follows: Priests Legend has it that the priesthood resulted from fraternal cooperation between Moses and Aaron, whom Moses anointed as the first High Priest of Israel in the Sinai desert. Thereafter, the priesthood was strictly limited to the sons of Aaron and their descendants. During the Second Temple era, priests could marry only the daughters of other priests (which was the preferred option), Levites, or pure-blood Israelites. By the first century, there were an estimated 7,200 priests, all understood to be direct descendants of Aaron. The modern surnames Cohen, Cahn, Kohn, derive from the Hebrew Kohen meaning priest, though not everyone today with one of these surnames is necessarily a descendant of the priestly clan. The centrality of the priesthood in Second Temple Judaism was established in the middle of the fifth-century B.C.E. by the priest known as Ezra the Scribe, who determined that the way to prevent future national catastrophes was to strictly enforce the Law of Moses. This applied specifically to the hereditary priesthood, whose propensity for taking Gentile wives and concubines was declared the most significant factor in bringing about God’s judgment on His people. As a result, Ezra implemented a policy that required all priests to provide a genealogical listing to prove purity of descent. If a priest failed to meet the stringent criteria, he lost all rights to priestly office, not only for himself but for his descendants. In the Old Testament, several genealogical listings are given for priests, and an archive was maintained at the Jerusalem Temple where records of priestly families were kept. Writing about 100 C.E., the Jewish historian Josephus, himself the son of a priest, listed several generations of his ancestors in order to establish his credentials with the reader, “thus I have set down the genealogy of my family as I have found it described in the public records, and so direct adieu to those who would slander me.”1 Significantly, Josephus explained that the priestly caste was the Israelite aristocracy, “as the nobility among several nations is of a different origin, so with us to be connected with the priesthood is an indication of the splendor of a family.”2 The High Priest was not only the most prominent member of the priesthood but, in times when there was no king, he was the pre-eminent person in the land and effectively the ruler of a theocracy. His duties were mostly ceremonial but the real importance of the High Priest was as figurehead and symbol of the Jewish nation. By the time of Jesus’ public ministry, the political power of the High Priest had been substantially weakened by Herod the Great and two decades of direct Roman rule. Beneath the High Priest were the Chief Priests, who held different ranks according to their responsibilities. The Chief Priests oversaw management of the Temple, which included finances, security, and overseeing the daily and weekly ceremonial rites of the ordinary priests, who formed the bulk of the priesthood. There were twenty-four priestly clans, each in turn serving one week at the Temple, performing liturgical duties. This meant that an ordinary priest spent only two weeks of the year serving at the Temple, and the rest of the time they lived throughout Judea and Galilee as farmers, merchants, landlords, craftsmen, etc. Levites Levites were theoretically the descendants of Levi, from whom Aaron was also descended, thus they were closely related to the priesthood. They constituted a lesser clergy, and were likewise divided into twenty-four courses, each serving one week at the Temple. Levites were singers, musicians, and attendants in the daily services, and carried out necessary menial tasks in the Temple. There were approximately 10,000 Levites at the time of Jesus. Many people today with the surnames of Levy and Levi are among descendants of the Levite tribe. Pure-Blood Israelites The lay population consisted primarily of members of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. Included in their number was a remnant from the lost northern tribes, exiled and scattered after the Assyrian invasion of 722 B.C.E. Purity of descent, which required the production of a genealogy, was essential for any applicant to hold an official position of trust or authority in society. Daughters of pureblood Israelites also needed to prove an unblemished ancestry in order to be married into priestly families, which was often the hope of parents. Israelites of Impure Birth People with unknown fathers, undocumented orphans, children of adulterous or incestuous relationships, Gentile proselytes, slaves and freedmen who were converts to Judaism -- these were all considered illegitimate. Officially, no one with impure blood was permitted to hold public office, and they were refused full participation in Temple ceremonies. In reality, many people inhabited the twilight zone between the pure and the defiled. Not least of which were children of concubines and slave girls -- women kept by wealthier Israelites, priests as well as laity, who could afford them. Predictably, a convenient system was developed that ranked illegitimate Israelites into a hierarchy to differentiate between the varying degrees of impurity. Among the impure grades, the least sullied were illegitimate children of priests -- born from a priest and a concubine or a woman of impure descent. Sons from such unions were forbidden from becoming priests and from marrying the daughters of priests, though they could marry into the rest of Israelite society. The lowest grade was the mamzerim or bastards. There was disagreement as to how to define a mamzer, but once a person was known as such, he was barred from participating in public life and from marrying into the pureblood community. Descendants of mamzers were similarly excluded in perpetuity. Proselytes were the most numerous illegitimate grouping. Herod the Great, from the mixed Semitic race of Idumeans, was the most famous or infamous proselyte. Herod’s kingship and dynasty were considered unlawful by most pureblood Jews, who demanded the king be a direct descendant of King David. Like most converts, Herod’s brand of Judaism was not fundamentalist or Pharisaic, but he respected the influence that the Pharisees wielded over the people and he did not seek to eradicate them from public life. Civic rights were denied to anyone even suspected of being of dubious heritage. And to enforce this code of cleanliness on society, Pharisees had installed themselves as a self-appointed ‘blood police.’ Nobody with high public profile could escape investigation into his family background. On one notorious occasion, the Pharisees unsuccessfully attempted to remove the High Priest on the grounds that his mother had once been a prisoner of war, and thus was potentially ‘soiled,’ so unfit to be a legitimate wife and mother.3 The ordinance forbidding a person of illegitimate status from marrying into priestly families was strictly enforced by the priesthood, who even disallowed the illegitimate sons of priests. Candidates for the priesthood had to prove purity of blood descent at twenty years of age in front of the Sanhedrin -- the Jewish Supreme Court -- in order to be ordained. This policy was in direct opposition to traditions of the Scribes, who recognized precedents that allowed illegitimate sons of priests into the priesthood. Samaritans Although the Samaritans insisted that they were descended from the Jewish patriarchs, this claim was contested by most observant Jews. Despite their strict adherence to Mosaic Law, Samaritans were classed as a mixed race and excluded from membership of the Israelite community. This was largely due to their perceived idolatrous veneration of Mount Gerizim, where they had built their own parallel version of the Temple, and which the Jews destroyed during the first century B.C.E. Effectively, Samaritans were the outcast caste. No Jew was allowed to marry a Samaritan. Jewish hostility toward the Samaritans probably reached its peak during Jesus’ time. Herod the Great had taken a Samaritan wife and, in defiance of the Pharisees, he had permitted Samaritans access to the inner court of the Temple, a privilege withdrawn shortly after his death. Josephus recounts that during the administration of the Roman Procurator Coponius (6-9 C.E.), Samaritans defiled the Temple grounds by scattering human bones throughout the sanctuary during the night.4 No explanation was given for the reasons behind this action, but it resulted in the renewal of their outcast status. Although the New Testament illustrated Jewish antipathy toward Samaritans, it also showed that Jesus did not harbor them the same ill will. Along the road between Galilee and Samaria, he reportedly healed ten lepers, but only one of them, a Samaritan, gave thanks. Now he was a Samaritan. Then said Jesus, "Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?" And he said to him, "Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well." Luke 17:17-19 John’s gospel alleged that many Samaritans believed in Jesus. On one occasion, Jesus was even accused of being a Samaritan, a charge he did not bother to deny in response. Nevertheless, when he met a Samaritan woman at the well, Jesus let her know that “salvation is from the Jews.” So, as a first-century Palestinian Jew, Jesus believed in the concept of the ‘chosen people.’ Consequently, he regarded Samaritans as “foreigners” whose ancestry disqualified them. But Jesus himself could not escape being stigmatized by his birth status. The model of Samaritan as pariah was used in the famous Parable of the Good Samaritan to show how the Israelite caste system conspired against Jesus so that only outsiders acknowledged his messianic status. A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion, and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.' Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers? He said, ‘The one who showed mercy on him.’ And Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise.’ Luke 10:30-37 The aim of Jesus’ parables was not to teach a higher moral ethic, as is commonly thought. His public ministry had a singular message and unique focus -- the kingdom of God. Everything else was secondary. Although confusion still surrounds the meaning of “the kingdom of God,” first and foremost it meant acceptance of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. And this was the purpose behind the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Addressed to a lawyer (a title for a scribe), it was a scathing condemnation of the caste system and was never intended as a sermon on compassion. The lawyer must acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, and use his privileged position to teach others the same thing. In the kingdom of God, the rank of Messiah transcended all caste designations. Hence, the unidentified victim on the road represented Jesus. By refusing to help, the priest and Levite rejected him as the Messiah, when, as leaders of Israel, they ought to have been the first to recognize him. Their justification for doing so derived from Jesus’ social rank. He was considered impure, and to avoid contamination, the pureblood priest and Levite crossed the road. In direct contrast, the Samaritan’s positive response to the injured man signified that only those similarly ostracized by caste status could readily accept Jesus. Jesus' Father Jesus’ social status depended on the identity of his parents. Mary was known as his mother, but although New Testament scholarship has been on a quest to uncover the historical Jesus for over two hundred years, there has been no breakthrough yet on the issue of his paternity. The name of Jesus’ father remains unknown and -- to all intents and purposes -- unknowable. When it comes to interpreting ancient texts, professional academics, who read them in the original languages, have a right to expect a certain amount of due deference. However, the general approach of biblical scholars is conditioned by a tradition of fear and extreme caution that goes back almost two thousand years. In the past, ‘dissenters’ of orthodoxy would be tortured, jailed, or killed. Today, when scholars cross that invisible line, they lose their jobs. Consequently, few ‘experts’ are willing to debunk cherished popular myths in public, and most are quick to distance themselves from those who do. And as the Christmas story is the most beloved myth of all time, so the name of Jesus’ father remains the greatest mystery of all time. One classic case in point occurred about twenty years ago, when Jane Schaberg of the Catholic University of Detroit, published The Illegitimacy of Jesus. The book caused a genuine storm of controversy in the late 1980s. The author was deluged with hate mail, abusive calls, and demands for her resignation. Even her car was set alight and burnt to a cinder. Meanwhile, her academic peers ran for cover. All this was because Schaberg dared to suggest that the text of the infancy narratives in the gospels of Matthew and Luke implied that Jesus was illegitimate. More specifically, that Mary had conceived Jesus after being raped or seduced by a person unknown. She now freely admits underestimating the negative reaction her thesis would generate among fellow Catholics. Perhaps, as an avowed feminist, Schaberg was by nature inclined to regard Mary as an exploited victim living in a brutal male-dominated society. But while adamant Jesus was not conceived miraculously, she found no clues to the identity of his biological father. The standard academic text on this subject is Raymond Brown’s Birth of the Messiah. Although it contains a great deal of valuable research, it is nevertheless the paramount scholarly affirmation of the ancient notion, still held by many contemporary scholars, that Matthew and Luke promoted the doctrine of virgin birth. This, despite the idea of virgin birth having no precedent anywhere in Jewish Scriptures, canonical or otherwise, and being totally alien to Judaic thought and rationale. More importantly, the concept of virgin birth negated the genealogical basis of blood descent upon which Judaism was founded. Strangely enough, Matthew and Luke provide the only surviving genealogies of Jesus. And the very existence of an ancestral listing, however theologically contrived it be may have been, would constitute proof that Jesus had a known father. GENEALOGIES Expectancy that the Messiah would come from the line of David, a descendant of Judah, meant that stringent records were kept by the Davidic family, the leading lay family at the time of Jesus. Matthew and Luke claimed that both Joseph and Mary were Davidic, and that Jesus was a direct descendant of David. Yet the names mentioned in the respective lists of Jesus’ ancestors differ dramatically, and no attempt to harmonize them has ever been successful. Each genealogy was composed to suit the writer’s theological purposes, and neither list of names is likely to be historically accurate. Separate genealogies, however, would have already existed for Joseph and Mary. And if each gospel was based on one or the other’s genealogy, then this would explain the huge discrepancy between the names given. Authentic Jewish genealogies proved the paternal line of descent, but Luke, being a less strictly “Jewish” gospel than Matthew, used Mary’s genealogy as his source for ancestral names. Both writers insist that Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father, but identifying the father was apparently not a viable option. The father must have been a source of severe embarrassment; otherwise his name would have been used to validate Jesus’ credentials. No doubt the early Jewish Christians had reasons to conceal it, but it was a strategy that backfired in the long term. In the First Letter to Timothy, the author warned against listening to “fables” and “godless and silly myths” associated with Jesus that had spread among the Gentile church outside Palestine. In a transparent attack on writers such as Matthew and Luke, he demanded that church members did not “occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies that promote speculation rather than divine training that is known by faith.”5 This type of literature sparked a great deal of interest among new converts. Evidently, the tendency of these Gentile novices was to interpret them naively and draw the wrong conclusions. If they mistakenly assumed that Jesus had no human father -- that his birth was a miracle -- then belief in him was made all too easy. Genuine faith sprung from ‘divine training,’ not from “silly myths.” Plainly, this was an argument that fell on deaf ears. VIRGIN BIRTH Insiders, who remained loyal followers despite knowing the facts, lacked confidence in the ability of outsiders to do likewise. Paul, for example, decided the best way to deal with Jesus’ paternity was to avoid any mention of it. He knew that such a strategy could never succeed in converting Palestinian Jews, but they were not his target audience. In any case, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. effectively ended the influence of the Palestinian Church on the future development of Christianity. Thereafter, the missionary focus was overwhelmingly on the Gentile nations. Nevertheless, the problematical subject of Jesus’ father lingered, and the Roman church needed to unravel it. It could not claim that Jesus was God outright because he had addressed God as Abba or ‘Father.’ This was taken as proof that he was at least the ‘Son of God.’ But this was not good enough. Gentiles were accustomed to legends of gods descending from heaven to impregnate women on earth, and so already had a long tradition of worshipping ‘sons of gods.’ The danger existed that Jesus would be understood as just another son of Zeus. A human father, however, would have contradicted Jesus’ divinity. Worse still, it would have meant that the unmarried Mary had participated in an adulterous sexual tryst to conceive him. And that was unthinkable. The solution was to transform “fables” and “myths” into absolute truths. Mary, it was decided, had conceived a child miraculously and given birth as a virgin. But if Jesus had no human father, then exactly who, or what, was he? Ironically, the dynamics of how Mary conceived while preserving her virginity intact provided fertile breeding ground for all manner of cerebral hypotheses by Greekspeaking intellectuals. After a great deal of deliberation and heated dispute, the Church eventually nailed its mast to the high theological concept of the Trinity. No longer could he be regarded as a first century Palestinian Jew. Simultaneously God, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit, Jesus was Master of the Universe. The world’s first and only hermetically sealed individual; spontaneously generated inside the womb of his mother; without sexual intercourse, lacking the sperm, chromosomes, and DNA of a human father, and devoid of the particular genetic signature of a paternal ancestry. Pagan legends of virgin births were simply satanic imitations of the real thing. The devil, it was argued, always preempts God in order to lead the ignorant masses astray. SON OF GOD? The Jews, meanwhile, had heard it all before. Alexander the Great had claimed to be the son of God, and even though he was still venerated as a quasi prophet among many Jews,6 they were not about to tolerate the same idea about one of their own kind. Yahweh did not impregnate women. He was spirit only, and had given the responsibility for human reproduction to Adam and Eve when He commissioned them to “be fruitful, multiply, and have dominion.” 7 The precondition for the creative process was that “the two shall become one flesh,” otherwise Adam was superfluous. Since the earliest Christians were Jews, they did not believe nor did they teach that Mary conceived a child without a human sexual partner. On the other hand, an event of such monumental significance for Judaism and the whole world -- a woman producing a child directly by God -- would surely have been proclaimed ceaselessly and unambiguously by those who knew it. That God’s only Son was living on the earth would have had immense repercussions for everyone alive at the time. He would be tracked down and followed everywhere, twenty-four hours a day. His words would be Law; every syllable recorded instantly, copied, and disseminated as quickly as technology allowed. No Emperor, King, or Priest would dare contradict him. Human society could never be the same again. But the truth is that while Jesus was alive, nobody knew him as the Son of God. Had they done so, he would not have been left to die alone. None of his disciples, or even the members of his own family (according to Mark, Matthew and Luke), were present at his public execution. Reportedly, Mary and her other children even tried to “seize” Jesus to prevent him from speaking in public.8 So either his mother had forgotten about the miraculous nature of his conception, or there was nothing miraculous about it. Others, who supposedly knew the truth of Jesus’ divine status, did little or nothing constructive to help him while he was alive. The so called ‘wise men’ dropped off their gifts and sped back home never to show again, leaving Mary alone with the baby and at the mercy of Herod. Joseph played no part whatsoever in Jesus’ adult life. John the Baptist did not become a disciple, but maintained his own separate group of followers who constituted a rival sect. Peter, supposedly the ‘rock’ upon which Jesus built his church, denied any knowledge of him once the going got tough. Such embarrassing information was only included in the gospels because it was common knowledge and, despite the awkward questions it raised, could not be edited out. PRIMACY OF DOCTRINE Absence of clear and explicit statements on Jesus’ parentage enabled the Church to force its own interpretation onto the biblical texts. The doctrine of virgin birth was justified mainly by the inclusion of the Greek word for “virgin” in the nativity accounts of Matthew and Luke. However, the literal reading of “virgin” adopted by the Church was entirely out of context. All Jewish girls were described as virgins before marriage, and nothing special or extraordinary was invoked by use of the word. Conveniently overlooked, ‘virgin’ was no longer used by the gospel writers to describe Mary after Jesus was born, which was the whole point of the doctrine. Mark’s gospel, usually dated the earliest, recorded nothing of the circumstances of Jesus’ birth. The author afforded no special honor to Mary, and Joseph was not even mentioned. Mark recorded an incident when neighbors used the highly unorthodox genealogical phrase, “son of Mary” to describe Jesus, an insult in a society where maternal identification was used only for somebody whose father was either unknown or unmentionable. “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. Mark 6:3 The idea that Jesus’ father was incognito among his own townsfolk is not credible. The neighbors’ comments simply reflected the common gossip that Jesus’ father was not the father of Mary’s other children. People living in tightly knit communities, especially in first century Palestine, generally thrive on scandal of this sort. Realistically, the reason why they “took offense” at Jesus was linked to his status in the community, which was derived from his parentage, not from his employment. The Gospel of John mentioned no details of Jesus’ birth, and the famous logos introduction circumvented it. Paul wrote only that Jesus was “born according to the flesh,” 9 which carried no implication of supernatural involvement whatsoever. Following ratification of the Nicene Creed in 323 C.E. the official Church position was that the truth was signed, sealed, and delivered. Although most new converts were illiterate, they still needed protection from manipulation by unscrupulous heretics, who might exploit apparent contradictions in the New Testament. The Church, therefore, banned the reading and disseminating of Holy Scripture to all who were not its own officers. Even low-ranking priests were restricted access to many texts. Now that the general public has unfettered access to the scriptures, the nativity stories of Matthew and Luke are probably the two most widely read sections of the entire Bible. The colossal Christmas phenomenon has evolved out of them, and even if people know little about the Old Testament, and next to nothing about Jesus’ life, at least they know something about his birth. And the popular interpretation of the Christmas story still rests on precisely the same pseudo-literal reading of the narrative, isolated from any historical, sectarian, or literary influences that the ancient Church stipulated. MATTHEW AND LUKE -- JEWISH SCRIBES Because their accounts of Jesus’ birth referenced ancient Jewish texts, Matthew and Luke kept within the parameters of Jewish tradition. Clearly, both understood that the circumstances of Jesus’ birth proved he was the Messiah, but if he were not the child of a normal married Israelite couple, then they also understood that in certain special cases an illicit sexual union could produce divinely ordained progeny. This was not mainstream Jewish philosophy. Sexual relationships outside the confines of the Law could be life-threatening for Second Temple Jews, and extremely prejudicial against the child itself. The Bible, however, contains numerous tales of sexual intrigues and shenanigans. Seduction and betrayal were constantly recurring themes in the lives of Jewish heroes, and even if much of the content was obviously mythologized, most of the stories have credible human characterization and incident, and often portray the central figures unflatteringly. These illicit sexual activities baffle modern readers of the Bible, but the specialty of Jewish scribes was to interpret and explain issues not directly covered by the Law of Moses. And the extraordinary circumstances of Jesus’ birth necessitated an explanation based on these extra-legal scriptural precedents. This is the key to understanding the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke. Responsible for preserving the literary heritage of the community, scribes were also the keepers of an important legacy of oral traditions closely guarded secret teachings, knowledge of which contributed to the scribes’ aura of wisdom and learning, and gave them an elevated status in society,10 not just in Palestine, but also in the large Jewish communities of the Diaspora. The works of Josephus, the New Testament, and the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that first century scribes were not limited to any particular branch of Judaism. It was forbidden to write down the oral teachings, and they could not be divulged to ordinary people lest they be misused. After the destruction of the Temple some of the oral traditions were recorded, surviving in the rabbinic writings of the Mishnah and the Talmud, which date between 150 C.E. and 450 C.E. The most secret teachings were not written down until early medieval times, when the literature of the Kabbalah was compiled. Evidence this policy of cautious discretion permeated early Jewish Christian literature comes from the letters of Clement of Alexandria (c.150 -- 250 C.E.), a leading apologist and missionary to the Gentiles. Clement wrote to man named Theodore, and though only parts of his letter remain, he throws light on the origins of Mark’s gospel. As for Mark, then, during Peter’s stay in Rome, he wrote an account of the Lord’s doings, not, however, declaring all, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting those he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed…he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teachings of the Lord. In a short treatise entitled The Mysteries of the Faith not to be Divulged to All, Clement expanded on this tradition; The wise do not utter with their mouth what they reason in council. “But what you hear in the ear,” says the Lord, “proclaim upon the houses,” bidding them receive the secret traditions of the true knowledge, and expound them aloft and conspicuously; and as we have heard in the ear, so to deliver them to whom it is requisite; but not enjoining us to communicate to all without distinction, what is said to them in parables. One of the scribes’ most important duties was to compose the mandatory genealogies required of candidates for public office. As the lawyers of their day, they were adept at camouflaging harsh truths and putting a spin on information to suit their clients. As highly educated scribes, albeit from different schools, Matthew and Luke wrote genealogies of Jesus principally for clients familiar with an esoteric methodology of scriptural exegesis. Gentile readers and uninformed Jews were unlikely to grasp the deeper meaning embedded in the narrative. Creative scribes, as opposed to copyists, had to satisfy the soul of the reader. This meant conforming to certain conventions. As with sacred architecture, religiously inspired manuscripts were constructed on symmetrical principles. A text required a subtle inner harmony to complement its obvious outer structure; or else it read as nothing more than inventory. Code, symbol, and cryptic allusion were among the literary techniques used to preserve the sanctity of core truths and protect them from outsiders. An effective composition was far greater than the sum of its parts. The Church, on the other hand, was primarily concerned that the content of any given text did not threaten the Church’s theological underpinnings. It was believed, rightly or wrongly, that the four gospels selected for inclusion in the New Testament fulfilled this need better than any others. Each gospel had a different emphasis, but the Church intended that its appeal would come only from a fundamentalist reading of the prose. In some ways, this succeeded in gratifying the religious impulse of the masses, but by stressing only the blatant externals of the narrative, its subtle internal qualities were neglected. Consequently, half-truth became the foundation of Christian faith; belief, not understanding, the traditional message of the Church. Most people today read scripture in the same way as they read biography or journalism. Even if sacred literature is appreciated in general terms, readers usually remain ignorant of the point intended by the author. This is never truer than of the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke. Both writers made extensive use of Mark’s gospel to compose their much longer versions, but included identical sayings of Jesus not found in Mark, believed to originate in a lost collection of teachings known for convenience sake as ‘Q.’11 The significance of this is that they did not borrow one from the other; each was unaware of the other’s account. Their respective infancy narratives and genealogical lists are radically dissimilar because they were drawn from unrelated sources. The only obvious thing they have in common is the affirmation that Joseph was not Jesus’ father. But as they accepted that Jesus’ ancestry was the determinative factor in fixing his messianic status, the implicit identification of his father was the central component of their opening chapters. It is worth repeating -- every Palestinian Jew belonged to a social caste. Jesus was no exception. His comment, “the harvest is great, but the laborers are few,” was a typical agricultural metaphor to bemoan the lack of manpower his ministry had attracted. It would be naïve to imagine that, in a society obsessed with bloodline, the reason why Jesus was snubbed by fellow Jews had nothing to do with his birth status. Mathew and Luke wrote that “nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known.”12 Two thousand years have passed -- it is time we knew the truth, and let the chips fall wherever they may. 1 Josephus, Vita, 1:6 Chapter 2: Family of the New Abraham Nobody knows exactly who the author of Luke’s gospel was or where it was written, but historical research dates its composition to sometime during the last three decades of the first century C.E. Written in a sophisticated literary style of the Greek language, it emulated the style of language used in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch, which proves the author was highly educated. The Septuagint, regarded with awe during ancient times, was generally accepted as being divinely inspired.1 So Luke used the same manner of expression to demonstrate that his account of Jesus’ life reflected the same divine modus operandi. A considerable amount of content was unique to Luke, and this material provided the spine of his gospel. Specifically, it was used in the infancy narratives of Jesus and John the Baptist to illuminate the ‘truth’ of Jesus’ parentage. In the formal preface to his gospel, and without impugning any other writers by name, Luke suggests that he is the most trustworthy chronicler of events.2 It would be a serious mistake, however, to expect totally accurate history. Luke’s sources, both for his gospel and the Book of Acts, would have been a combination of fact, speculation, proclamation, and fabrication, and the historicity of names and events were always of secondary importance to the schematization he applied to present his case. Not only that, Luke wrote in the time-honored way typical of religiously motivated texts -- so newcomers and lower ranks of the sect would not be offended by its content. He subscribed to the view that cold hard facts don’t gain adherents to a cause as effectively as dramatic invention, so his manuscript was composed accordingly. For example, Luke needed to show that Jesus’ birthplace was Bethlehem, Judea, because of a prophecy in the Old Testament which early Christians interpreted as meaning that the Messiah would be born there.3 The problem was that Jesus was well known for having been raised in Galilee. His solution was to create a storyline with impossible facts. In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. Luke 2:1-5 Earlier in his gospel, Luke stated that Jesus was born “in the days of Herod, King of Judea. Herod died in 4 B.C.E. The supposed journey from Galilee to Bethlehem was in response to a census called by the Roman Emperor Augustus. This particular census, however, is known by historians to have occurred in 6-7 C.E., more than ten years after the death of Herod. And to compound matters further, it only applied to Judea, not Galilee. Stranger still is the claim that the Romans required people to travel to their ancestral villages to register for taxation purposes. There is no record of any such requirement for any tax census in the history of the Roman Empire. Needless to say, Luke’s intention was not so much to deceive the reader as it was to impress upon him that Jesus was the Messiah of prophecy. Every religion had its mysteries and secrets, and Christianity was no different -- on the contrary, it had more secrets than most. This was highly sensitive material that could never be casually revealed lest it be misunderstood, or much worse, fall into the hands of the Church’s enemies. Only after a novice had grown sufficiently in faith, and gained the trust of others, was he granted access to the group’s closely guarded secrets. Usually, this was a slow and deliberate process because the higher ranks derived status, wealth, and respect from the lower orders by manipulating these hidden ‘truths.’ And the one thing that the early Church never wanted made public was the truth of Jesus’ origins. Yet this information, which contained the power to undermine its credibility and challenge its authority, is precisely what Luke revealed. THE NATIVITIES Luke’s opening chapter was devoted entirely to a complex theological rationalization of Jesus’ conception. And it was no coincidence that his account began with an identification of the parents of John the Baptist. In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. Luke 1:1-5 This was followed by two separate annunciations from the angel Gabriel to herald first the birth of John the Baptist and second Jesus. The details of the two nativities were intertwined and carefully constructed, but went much further than was necessary to simply inform the reader that John was the forerunner of Jesus. Most Bible commentaries note that Luke’s infancy narratives were patterned on birth legends of Jewish heroes of the past. And the introduction of John’s parents was a clear pointer to that. Zacharias and Elisabeth represented the return of Abraham, the original Hebrew patriarch, and his wife Sarah. Key components in the story of Abraham’s family, as recorded in Genesis, were copied by Luke and insinuated into the lives of Zacharias and Elisabeth. Both couples were elderly; Abraham and Zacharias “walk blameless;” as Sarah was “childless,” so Elisabeth was “barren.” God told Abraham that his wife will bear him a son and also named the child; the angel Gabriel gave the same message to Zacharias and also named his son. Both men responded with incredulity [Table 2]. Annunciations, ‘old age,’ and ‘barren’ motifs, also formed part of the birth accounts of Isaac, Samson, and Samuel. And the consensus view among scholars is that Luke lifted his characterizations and plotlines from the Hebrew Bible to show that God’s providence had now passed from the old era of Israel to the new era of Jesus. Close analysis of the text, however, reveals that the birth annunciations and infancy narratives within Zacharias’ family were integrated into a unity specifically designed to replicate the dynamics of Abraham’s family. So rather than symbolizing a break with the past, the ‘new era’ represented a return to former times. Luke, as an ancient historian, believed that the direction of salvation history was cyclical and not linear. The relevance of intricate family-based plot mechanics in the stories of Old Testament legends has largely been neglected due to the predisposition of both clergymen and scholars to regard Jesus as a self-contained unit -- regardless of whether he is understood as the Son of God, a wandering holy man, a political revolutionary, an itinerant preacher, or a Mediterranean peasant. In Jewish tradition, each person was by definition part of a complex web of blood relationships from which they could not be separated -- father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, and so on. No man was an island. Principal actors in the sacred texts thrived on human interaction. And the reason so many protagonists and dramas from the Bible have held the popular imagination for so long is that they resonate with ordinary people. The scribes who wrote Genesis explained that it took three generations to establish the nation of Israel. In the Old Testament, therefore, the preferred divine self-appellation was not “God of Abraham” but “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Likewise, the new Israel would be made by descendants of the new Abraham. Each member of Luke’s cast of characters -- Zacharias, Elisabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, and Jesus -- had its counterpart in Abraham’s family [Table 1]. The necessity of providential archetypes was the basic theological premise underlying Luke’s opening chapter. Table 1. FAMILIES OF FAITH
THE VISITATION Luke might not have been an historian in the modern sense of the word, but he knew how to structure his sources to fit a chronological plan that allowed him to chart a detailed scheduling of events. So in Luke-Acts, the time and place of incidents was never haphazard as it was in other gospel accounts. It is surprising, therefore, to notice that between the time of Gabriel’s annunciation to Mary and the birth of Jesus, an apparent contradiction exists between the storyline and the sequence of events that requires explanation. The timeline is as follows: Gabriel announces to Zacharias that his elderly wife Elisabeth is to give birth to a son who shall be named John. Luke 1:13 Six months later, Gabriel announces to Mary that she will give birth to a son who shall be named Jesus. Luke 1:26 Mary goes “with haste” to the house of Zacharias. Luke 1:39 Three months later, Mary leaves the house of Zacharias. Luke 1:56 Elisabeth gives birth to John. Luke 1:57 Mary gives birth to Jesus in a manger in Bethlehem. Luke 2:7 Elisabeth was already six months pregnant with John the Baptist when Gabriel told Mary to go to the house of Zacharias. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus… And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?" And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible. "And Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her. In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. Luke 1:31-40 The Greek phrase “meta spoudes,” is normally translated as “with haste,” but this does not suit the context here. Mary would hardly have rushed to congratulate Elisabeth on her pregnancy when six months had already elapsed. If they were “kinswomen” or sisters, then Mary would have already known, and her response to Gabriel did not suggest otherwise. Mary would be even less enthusiastic to give news that she had just conceived a child out of wedlock. But she only consented to her future pregnancy. Luke’s use of future tenses ruled out the possibility that she conceived at the moment the angel spoke, and nothing in the narrative implies that it had already occurred. Jane Schaberg explained that the phrase meta spoudes was an idiom used several times in Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible, used to denote anxiety and a disturbed psychological or spiritual condition.4 Any movement implied was from a peaceful state of mind toward one of high stress. The only other occasion where meta spoudes was used in the New Testament is in Mark’s famous banquet scene when Herod Antipas, bewitched by the dancing of Salome, daughter of his newly acquired wife Herodias, promised to give her whatever she wished. After consulting with her mother, Salome returned “with haste” and asked the king for the head of John the Baptist. For when Herodias' daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests; and the king said to the girl, "Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will grant it." And he vowed to her, "Whatever you ask me, I will give you, even half of my kingdom." And she went out, and said to her mother, "What shall I ask?" And she said, "The head of John the baptizer." And she came in immediately with haste to the king, and asked, saying, "I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter." Mark 6:22-26 The translation of meta spoudes as “with haste” is particularly redundant here, because it is preceded by “came in immediately,” which means exactly the same thing. In the context Mark used it, meta spoudes described Herodias’ mental state, the result of her mother’s extraordinary request. A journey from Galilee, through the dangerous gauntlet of Samaria and into the hill country of Judea, in a society where betrothed women did not normally go out in public, was not something that could be done without considerable logistical preparation. Luke’s use of meta spoudes implied that Mary’s trip was not sanctioned by Joseph’s family. Her psychological condition was unlikely to have been one of unbridled joy, as church tradition would have us believe. Realistically, Mary was extremely apprehensive about visiting the house of Zacharias. Moreover, her cause for concern was connected to the angelic message she had received. Gabriel did not specify with whom Mary was to conceive a child, but his statement, “your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son,” suggested it would be in the same way as John was conceived. As soon as Mary entered the home, the fetal John the Baptist heard the sound of her voice, recognized her as the future mother of Jesus, and leapt for joy inside the womb. His mother Elisabeth exclaimed, Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?... Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord. Luke 1:42-45 At a stroke, Luke fixed the superiority of Jesus over John. Most New Testament scholars consider that Luke’s repeated references to John the Baptist were intended to emphasize his inferiority to Jesus. But this notion misses the deeper implications Luke drew from the nature of their relationship. Because Elisabeth was described as Mary’s sungenis, variously translated as “kinswoman”, “relative,” or “sister,” this has been taken as evidence that John the Baptist and Jesus were cousins. Skeptics cite Luke as the sole source to attest to this, and that its significance was far too great for other writers to disregard. In the end, this is moot because any familial connection between the two mothers-to-be was incidental to the reason for Mary’s visit. Mary’s visit was not a Jewish family protocol. While in the betrothal period, a woman was expected to remain at the husband’s home. By showing up at Zacharias’ house, Mary showed Elisabeth that she had “believed” what she had been told. That “there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken” meant that Mary had agreed to complete her mission. This ‘mission’ required action and not simply lip service. Her deeds would result in her being the “mother of the Lord.” As the younger ‘sister’, the reader might assume that Mary had come to help with chores and take the burden off Elisabeth during the final months of her pregnancy. As the time of John’s birth drew near, Mary’s responsibilities would increase, and her assistance would be vital during labor and in the days immediately following childbirth, especially in view of the mother’s supposed old age and that the newborn child purportedly had no elder siblings. All these things might normally be taken for granted. Priestly families, however, usually kept slaves or servants who took care of menial tasks. But more importantly, Mary did not actually stay for the full term of Elisabeth’s pregnancy. She left the house after about three months; before John was born, and did not return. Luke gave no reason for her abrupt departure: And Mary remained with her about three months, and returned to her home. Now the time came for Elizabeth to be delivered, and she gave birth to a son. And her neighbors and kinsfolk heard that the Lord had shown great mercy to her, and they rejoiced with her. Luke 1:56-58 If her visit was a providential necessity, why was Mary absent precisely at the time she was needed the most? It made no sense for her to leave before John’s birth. Her next appearance in the narrative was to give birth to Jesus at Bethlehem six months later. Based on the timeline of events, as Mary was not yet pregnant at the time of the angelic announcement, conception must have occurred during her stay at the house of Zacharias. THE FATHER OF MARY’S CHILD Luke’s plot mechanics derived from the template of Abraham’s family that he had adopted for Zacharias. Implicit in Mary’s sudden and unexplained exit was a corresponding parallel with the banishment of Hagar from the house of Abraham. Hagar was Sarah’s servant girl who became pregnant by Abraham. As Sarah was ‘barren,’ she was initially compliant with the idea of Hagar bearing her husband’s child, but eventually she threw out both the maid and her son in a fit of jealous rage. Luke explained that Mary left the house of Zacharias after “about three months,” which is when her pregnancy would have started to become noticeable. Elisabeth reacted in the same manner as Sarah. Mary was expelled. In this strictly patriarchal society, wives had a religious duty to be obedient to their husbands. The wife’s dependence on her husband was total. No matter what the circumstances, the right to divorce belonged to the husband alone. Polygamy was practiced at the time, and if a husband could afford a concubine, the wife had to tolerate it. If Elisabeth was no longer comfortable with Mary’s presence, the most she could do was to force her to leave the house. Gabriel’s original message to Zacharias was to inform him that he would father a son by his wife, Elisabeth. Gabriel’s second message was about Mary’s child, but the father was not specified, “the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” This famous phrase has been interpreted naively to mean that Luke described a spontaneous conception in Mary’s womb by supernatural powers. Nothing, as they say, could be further from the truth. To the ancients, an unseen force was present in all conceptions of human life. The concept of sex with the divine was a familiar one in the Mediterranean world, and lay behind the ritual practices of temple prostitution and heiros gamos, which still prevailed in some parts. The spirit of the god or goddess would enter the body of one or both participants during intercourse, and offspring from such unions would be considered holy. Although such practices were officially anathema in Second Temple Judaism, the process of sexual reproduction and birth was nevertheless closely linked to the divine will. Jews frequently invoked God’s participation to increase fertility and particularly to produce male heirs. The idioms “The Most High,” “Son of God,” and “Holy Spirit,” were titles used by Jewish scribes (used regularly by the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the period shortly before Luke wrote), to signal a providential association between people and events. As a priest who “walks blameless in the Lord,” Zacharias was recognized as God’s representative in the conception of his children. From the instant Mary’s impending pregnancy was announced, to the moment it was acknowledged, the only man mentioned by name in the narrative was Zacharias. On the evidence of Luke’s gospel, Zacharias is the sole candidate to be the father of Jesus. MARY, HANNAH, AND RUTH To show a precedent for the conception of a holy child from an illicit sexual relationship between a priest and a younger woman, Luke exploited the story of Hannah and Eli from the First Book of Samuel [see Table 3]. Hannah went to the temple to pray for a son: It would have been expected for Elizabeth to join Zechariah at the Temple during his time of executing his duties - unless she was pregnant: at which time, a fill-in (surrogate) such as Mary would have taken her place. O Lord of Hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thy maidservant, and remember me, and not forget thy maidservant, but wilt give to thy maidservant a son. 1 Sam 1:11 remember = Zeker The Greek word doule, used to describe Hannah, is usually translated as “maidservant,” “handmaid,” or “bondswoman,” but technically the closest meaning is “slave girl.” Mary was also described as a doule in Luke 1:38, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word,” to link her with Hannah. The Lord here in Mary's reference might very well have been Zechariah, as he was the closest to a king that traditional Jews would have had Eli, the priest on duty while Hannah prayed, noticed her quietness, and initially believed she had been drinking. She denied it, and implored Eli, “not to regard your maidservant as a base woman.” Accepting what she told him, Eli granted her prayer request. This curious exchange ended with Hannah saying, “Let your maidservant find favor in your eyes.” She became pregnant and gave birth to a son, Samuel, whose destiny was to be one of Israel’s greatest prophets. Samuel anointed Saul as the first ever King of Israel, and later anointed David as Saul’s replacement. As such, Hanna thus referred to Eli the priest as her Lord The relationship between Hannah and Eli was well out of the ordinary. As a “slave girl,” her desire for a son was facilitated by her ‘master.’ But in this instance, her master was clearly not her husband, Elkanah. Who then, was her master? Hannah identified herself as the doule of both God and Eli. The expression, “Let your maidservant find favor in your eyes,” suggests that she hoped Eli would find her physically attractive. After Samuel was born, Hannah returned to Eli and handed him over to be brought up ‘in the service of the Lord.’ Elkanah could only have agreed with this plan if Samuel were not his own son. Apart from the reality that precious sons would never have been given away, the Law of Moses stated that first-born sons were to be given to the priesthood and purchased back for a ransom payment.5 Priests could not adopt male heirs. Membership of the priesthood was inherited through direct blood descent, and by no other means. Even prophets were not permitted to carry out priestly duties. Eli already had two sons, Hophni and Phineas. But an angel told Eli that although the Lord had promised that his “house and the house of your father should go in and out before me forever,” his sons had shown themselves unworthy. Accordingly, they were killed in battle as punishment for their sins. The angel added that “the man of you whom I shall not cut off from my altar shall be spared….And I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who will do according to what is in my heart and in my mind.”6 As Samuel carried out priestly ritual duties, which are plainly described in the biblical text,7 the “faithful priest” could only be a reference to Samuel, son of Eli and Hannah. Here then, was a nativity story of one of Judaism’s most important figures -- and he was the illegitimate son of a priest and a doule. This explains why scribes in the time of Jesus differed with priests on the question of allowing illegitimate sons into the priesthood. Obviously, they understood that Samuel was a priest. Although the meaning behind the story of Hannah and Eli is transparent enough, orthodox Jews in the Second Temple period tried to cloud the issue of Samuel’s parentage to conform to their own religious sensibilities. Samuel was regarded so highly in Pharisaic tradition that he could not possibly have been of impure blood. Fundamentalist Pharisees would have drawn considerable discomfort from the idea that he was a priest. Samuel was illegitimate if Eli, and not Elkanah, was his biological father. And according to the stipulations of Ezra 2:61-63 and Nehemiah 7:63-65, illegitimate sons of priests could not hold priestly office. For this reason, Samuel was identified as a Levite in I Chronicles. Modern textual scholars, however, agree that Chronicles was written as a later attempt to redact embarrassments from the Book of Samuel. Liberals at the time of revolution, yet conservatives when it comes to holding onto power: obviously that is man's behavior, not God's. Likewise in Greek dramas, it is often the deity whom seduces the maiden, such as Zeus-Peter (Jupiter) - Ptah
Jupiter immaculately conceived a child in Venus? Cynics, who regard this entire episode as an invention with no historical value whatsoever, still need to provide a convincing explanation as to why scribes chose to describe Samuel’s conception in this way. The most logical reason to disclose his illegitimacy was to bear witness to a deep-seated principle that transcended the Law of Moses to consecrate his birth. And by using the model of Samuel’s conception by Hannah and Eli to throw light on Jesus’ conception by Mary and Zacharias, Luke testified to the same principle. Was this likewise the case with Moses and Aaron, and if so, who were their real fathers? A sexual relationship between a doule and her master was also recounted in the Old Testament story of Ruth and Boaz, great grandparents of King David. As described in the Book of Ruth, Ruth’s husband died leaving her childless, so her mother-in-law Naomi decided to fix her up with Boaz, a wealthy family relative. One night, Naomi instructed Ruth to wait until Boaz had finished dining and to “observe the place where he lies; go and uncover his feet and lie down.” In ancient Hebrew, ‘feet’ was often used as a euphemism for genitals.8 Ruth “came stealthily and uncovered his feet, and lay down,’ Boaz awoke startled and asked who she was. Her response was, “I am Ruth; spread your wings over your maidservant, for you are my redeemer.” Eventually they married and produced a son, Obed, who became the grandfather of David. David did likewise to Uriah's wife: regicide via rape? The stories of Hannah and Mary followed the pattern established by Ruth. In each account, none of the women were described as victims of predatory male overlords. Each woman sacrificed herself willingly, risking her life and reputation, to give birth to a child of providential significance. This likewise sounds like a human behaviorism, perhaps a groupie - type relationship as leaders were the ''rock stars'' of the ancients, and what better way to be immortalized than by giving birth to the son of a High Priest or king... CANTICLES OF PRAISE Mary’s song of praise, known as the Magnificat, is generally acknowledged to have been based on Hannah’s own celebratory hymn from 1 Sam 2:1-10. There is some scholarly argument whether or not Mary’s verses were originally recited by Elisabeth, in honor of John the Baptist, but that is tangential. Luke associated Hannah with Mary to highlight the parallel nature of their pregnancies. In the opening verse of the Magnificat, Mary repeated Hannah’s recognition of herself as God’s slave girl. "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden." Luke 1:47-48 If Mary was a daughter of Aaron (and David?), how would her estate be considered ''low''? Remember, redeemer, regarded... Despite the illegitimacy of their children and the negative societal consequences it could hold for mother and child, each woman expressed delight in their reward from heaven. They thanked God profusely, and heralded their children in terms of messianic prophecy [Table 3]. Luke also attributed a song of thanksgiving to Zacharias. Known traditionally as the Benedictus, it began with a proclamation on the unborn Jesus: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people, and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David. Luke 1:69 The odd phrase ‘horn of salvation’ further cemented Zacharias’ relationship with Mary/Hannah. This expression was drawn from Hannah’s song at the birth of Samuel: And Hannah prayed, and said; my heart rejoiceth in the Lord, mine horn is exalted in the Lord: my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies; because I rejoice in thy salvation. I Sam 2:1 “Horn” was a symbol used regularly in many ancient cultures to denote abundance or fertility, but more often than not to represent lineage. “Mine horn is exalted” referred to Hannah’s bloodline, to which God had granted a special honor. The “horn of salvation” mentioned by Zacharias signified the messianic lineage. But although he was referring to the unborn Jesus, this accolade was curiously given at the occasion of John’s birth. Because John was the True Christ. note that the messianic lineage passed through Zechariah Did Zacharias know about the miraculous conception of Jesus? Does this explain how he understood Mary was three months pregnant when John was born - which was likewise around the time when Mary ''headed back to her home'' In the Magnificat, Mary referred to her pregnancy as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, “he has helped his servant Israel… as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his posterity forever.” Likewise, Zacharias praises God for remembering, “the oath which he swore to our father Abraham.” The union of Mary like Hagar was the slave - Elizabeth like Sarah was the legitimate mother. In the NT case, John's conception would have been the fulfillment of prophecy - Jesus would have been a later add-on in an attempt to subvert the messianic legacy. And that is why Mary waited until Elizabeth had become pregnant and then made haste to her home to sleep with Zechariah. Chapter 2 FAMILY OF THE NEW ABRAHAM In the Abraham-Zacharias parallel, each was the father of two sons of dispensational relevance. One son by his wife, and the other by his wife’s maid, or doule. Isaac was the son of Abraham and Sarah, Ishmael the son of Abraham and Hagar. Similarly, John the Baptist was the son of Zacharias and Elisabeth, and Jesus was the son of Zacharias and Mary. Despite Abraham’s pleading, God favored Isaac over Ishmael the first born, who was later banished into the wilderness. In the family of the new Abraham, God favored Jesus, “and the child grew strong, filled with wisdom and the favor of God was upon him,” over John the Baptist, the first born, who was “in the wilderness” until his public ministry began [Table 2]. The sons of Abraham prefigured the sons of Zacharias. No they did not: Jesus would have been illegitimate at best (if he even existed). After all, as ''sisters'', what could Mary have given Zechariah's lineage that Elizabeth had not since Elizabeth was already pregnant with a legitimate offspring by the time Mary conceived according to the NT? If anything, Jesus was Ishmael's lineage's revenge on Isaac's. There were many influences at play in the first century AD - many of which did not have the messianic legacy's best interest at heart. Also keep in mind that Zechariah, John and Elizabeth were messianic Jews, whereas Jesus was hell-bent on creating a Christian Judaism at the expense of the traditional bloodline from which he supposedly came. Chances are extremely high that Mary either seduced or outright raped Zechariah. According to Genesis, Isaac also had two sons, Esau and Jacob, who were twins. Once again, the second born was preferred by God. While Isaac’s wife Rebecca was pregnant, the unborn twins jostled for position inside her womb. God’s message to her at that time was, “the one shall be stronger than the other; the elder shall serve the younger”. Though Esau was the first born, Jacob was the founder of the nation of Israel. Luke described the unborn John the Baptist leaping in the womb of Elisabeth to make the association with Esau and Jacob. Therefore, Aaron was born before Moses, and he was granted the priesthood. Moses was the third-born child (Miriam and Aaron were his older siblings). Why did Mary rush to Zechariah's house when she heard that Zechariah's first-born son was in Elizabeth's womb? And why would Zechariah have waited until after Elizabeth had become pregnant to impregnate Mary? Once Elizabeth became pregnant, Zechariah's lineage would have been safe, as opposed to prior to then, when Mary would have possibly been used as a concubine in order to procreate an heir. Jacob was not one to brag about: his name itself means liar, and his fables bear reference to him going on grave-robbing expeditions (Jacob's Pillow, Jacob's Ladder). Later, Jacob's name was changed (destroyed) in favor of Israel to hide his vulgar acts. Still further, who would have told Luke about John leaping in the womb of Elizabeth? John the legitimate brother should not serve his illegitimate half brother. Table 2. THE SONS OF ABRAHAM AND ZACHARIAS FIRST-BORN SONS Ishmael - God was with the boy, and he grew up; and he lived in the wilderness. Gen 21:20 John the Baptist - And the child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the wilderness. Luke 1:80 SECOND-BORN SONS Isaac - “O, that Ishmael might live in Thy sight.” No…I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year. Gen 17:18-21 Jesus - Blessed be the Lord God…he has raised for us a horn of salvation…to remember the holy covenant, the oath which he swore to our father Abraham. Luke 1: 69-73 The fraud is that in reality, John and Jesus were one and the same entity: same father, ''two mothers'' referring to one of spirit, and one of matter. Once ''old and barren'' and once a ''virgin''. Once in the womb of Nephthys - the consort of Earth, and once in the womb of Isis - the eternal virgin wife of the Almighty. Thus, John was first-born as John, and second-born as The Christ (Jesus Christ = IUSA KRST = IU Socharis = Seker = Zechariah. The Clementine literature is a collection of ancient writings originating from a Jewish-Christian sect, which purported to be a transcript of a series of discourses given by the apostle Peter. Most scholars date its composition somewhere between the second and third centuries, but the original source material was likely to be much earlier. The curious scene between Peter and Simon Magus described in the Book of Acts 9 betrayed a distinct familiarity on Luke’s part with the Clementine writings, large sections of which consisted of a debate between the two men. One of Peter’s main arguments was that history progressed according to a divine plan, which entailed specific pairs with providential significance. For, as I was beginning to say, God has appointed for this world certain pairs; and he who comes first of the pairs is evil, he who comes second, of good.10 This theory was further elaborated as a paradigm of sibling rivalry, the first born son intrinsically inferior to the second born. Ishmael and Isaac are cited as examples along with Esau and Jacob. Cain (Canis) and Abel (El Baal) as well? As in the beginning God, who is one, like a right hand a left, made the heavens first and then the earth, so also He constituted all the combinations in order; but upon men He no more does this, but varies all the combinations. For whereas from Him the greater things come first, and the inferior second, we find the opposite in men - the first worse, and the second superior. This is errant literalization of allegory: the first-born man is of the human nature - the second-born man is of the spiritual nature, which is why one must be ''born again'' unto the spirit of the Almighty. Therefore from Adam, who was made after the image of God, there sprang first the unrighteous Cain, and then the righteous Abel….From Abraham also, the patriarchs of our nation, two sprang - Ishmael first, then Isaac, who was blessed of God. And from Isaac himself, in like manner, there were again two -- Esau the profane, and Jacob the pious. So, first in birth, as the first born in the world, was the high priest Aaron, then the lawgiver Moses.11 Cain became righteous when he ''murdered'' the Baal aspect of his own being. The High Priest was unrighteous? Further, Moses climbed Mount Zion only to be told ''This is my Zeker unto all generations''... Aaron and Moses were one and the same just as Abram and Abraham, Sarai and Sarah and Jacob and Israel were in each instance, one and the same. The act of dissecting entities from one into two was done mainly in order to be able to attribute all good things to one aspect or semi-entity, and all bad things to another. Secondly, it was done in order to assimilate more prospective adherents to the epic. Peter described John as “a day-Baptist, who was also, according to the method of combination, the forerunner of our Lord Jesus.” The first-born son is not inferior to the second-born son in any culture - Jewish or Gentile. In fact, it could be said that if such were true, every woman of dubious honor would attempt to sleep with a ruler whose wife had just conceived in order to corrupt the lineage. Further, a second son is not guaranteed, so why would such a tradition ever arise? John's father's name is derived from the term for daybreak (sakhar): dawn conceives the day. Day is ended by the evening: Salome means ''evening''. Thus, John (day) was ''beheaded'' (cut off) by Salome's dance (evening). This is most likely why Peter correlated John with the day. As he drew from scriptural tradition to explain the relationship between Jesus and John, Luke described John’s birth as the fulfillment of a famous prophecy from the Book of Malachi that predicted the prophet Elijah would return in the days before the Lord’s coming: And he will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared." Luke 1:16-17 Malachi's prophecy does not predict the coming of a fore-runner to a son of God on earth. The Lord whom Malachi refers to is the Almighty himself. Further, perhaps Malachi was a loyalist to a certain ruler (in Malachi's day, rulers were often considered God manifest). Malachi had prefaced his prediction with a reminder to remember “my servant Moses”.12 This is key to Lucan theology, because a tradition existed that the Messiah and the returning Elijah would together repeat the fraternal cooperation between Aaron and Moses.13 The greatest Jewish hero of all time, the younger Moses was the undisputed leader of the two brothers. Cognizant that John the Baptist, ‘in the spirit and power of Elijah,’ was a priestly descendant of Aaron, the older brother, Luke sought a way to link Jesus with Moses. He made the connection in Jesus’ genealogy, while delineating his descent from King David. David is a dry canal: there is no historical record of a Hebrew king David outside of Hebrew fables used to justify their theft of the pre-Semitic levant. Although Moses had a more fortunate post-birth circumstance, Moses was not the undisputed leader of the two brothers. It was Aaron's staff which beat out the pharaoh's magicians'. It was Aaron's staff which parted the waters and caused the plagues. The OT states that Aaron spoke often for Moses as Moses was a poor speaker. And likewise, as the brother of Moses, the priestly descent of Zechariah meant that Zechariah's DNA was not only akin to that of Aaron, but also of Moses. Luke assimilating Jesus with Moses was wordcraft in that John is assimilated with Moses as well. Further, David was an regicidal usurper - he murdered Uriah by proxy in order to rape his already pregnant wife. When David was king of Israel [tenth century B.C.E.], belief developed that his ancestral house would reign forever, not only over Israel but over all nations. And Forty-three generations are listed from David to Jesus. The significance of this number comes from the Jewish exile in Egypt, which lasted exactly four hundred and thirty years, “at the end of four hundred and thirty years, on that very day, all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt.”14 Consequently, the missions of Moses and Elijah were to be consummated by Jesus and John the Baptist. So it is not surprising that Luke described the appearance of Moses and Elijah together at the Mount of Transfiguration, where they allegedly communicated with Jesus about his course of action. Clearly, this was an event loaded with theological import.15 HOLY BIRTHS Suggestion of a sexual relationship between Hannah and Eli may have been hard for Second Temple Jews to accept, but it pales in comparison to the difficulty of Christians to acknowledge the same thing of Mary and Zacharias. But no way could Luke have predicted the enormous theological impact made by the naïve interpretation of his opening chapter. For Luke, the harsh facts of Jesus’ conception were not so much grounds for awe and wonder, they were reasons to appreciate the core principles that operated in salvation history. Ancient Jewish scribes were not too embarrassed or ashamed to describe illicit sex triangles in Genesis and other books. Yet for Judeo-Christians, these tales are often the cause of puzzlement or righteous indignation. They are not read in synagogues, are rarely heard from church pulpits, and are never taught in Sunday school. Because they are not meant in strictly literal sexual-moralist context: they were theological allegories alluding to conception with the divine - that is, the conception of the spirit spark that laid dormant within a tomb of flesh. Some have tried to make sense of these stories as examples of God’s inclusiveness. Redemption is possible for all sinners, no matter how murky their past. This view, however, disregards the school of Judaism to which the scribes who wrote these questionable narratives belonged. Everything was composed to be in harmony with rudimentary laws. Not to be confused with the Mosaic Law, these basic principles were the mechanics through which God interacted behind the scenes in human affairs. Again, the product of wordsmithing (dissecting the sacred into two entities in order to reach both the sacred and profane) makes scripture more palatable to common folk. This is not exclusive to Judaism or Christianity: the births of many deities in Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Sumerian traditions were perceived on the surface as being rapes and/or orgies because the eyes of commoners saw only through the regimental mortal flesh. These underlying laws were developed in the medieval Kabbalistic literature, in particular by Nahmanides (1194 - 1270), who composed the famous Letter on Holiness. Nahmanides explained that the circumstances of conception determined the quality of the child, not the pedigree of the parents. The “holiness” of a child depends not on legalistic rules defining kinship, inheritance, and social order, but on the attitude of the parents during the sexual act. Purity comes from the intention and motivation behind conception, not from the technicalities of the Torah. “When the sexual relationship points to the Name, there is nothing more righteous and more holy than it.” When this is understood, one “will then grasp a great secret regarding the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.” Therefore, the key to understanding the messianic lineage is found in the conception of “holy” children, not in the legal identification of their birth status. That said, note the supposed distinction between Gabriel's two annunciations: with regards to Zechariah, it was a foretelling that if Zechariah laid with Elizabeth, she would become pregnant. In the case of Mary, by Christian decree, she need not lay with anyone. As such, Gabriel would have been both a prophet and a messenger - he spoke of something with Zechariah which Gabriel himself could not have known to be true unless Zechariah laid with Elizabeth. In Zechariah's case, the act was dependent on Zechariah's will, in contrast to Mary who was to be submissive to a power beyond her own. Gabriel empowered Zechariah, whereas he subjugated Mary. All of that said, which child's conception was more holy - that of a married priest and his wife, or that of a slave being subdued and manipulated? This artist(s) depicted Mary’s “Visitation” to send a specific message. Though forbidden for Jews to touch women in public, Mary holds hands with Zacharias, as Elisabeth “introduces” her to him. A pregnant woman behind Mary makes a hand sign suggestive of the female sexual part. The man above Zacharias folds his hands in an “X,” a traditional esoteric symbol for the union of masculine and feminine. Zechariah and Elizabeth raised Mary, so the need for a latter ''introduction'' is ridiculous. Further, if John were the first-born, it would only make sense that after Elizabeth conceived, she would NOT have ''introduced'' Mary to Zechariah, as Elizabeth certainly would have known - if such be true - that the second-born of her womb would have been the messiah. One can be certain that most Second Temple Jews living in the time of Jesus, like their modern Judeo-Christian successors, would not approve of sexual trysts outside the accepted norms of civil society and beyond the limits of the Law. But from where did Luke get his information? Was it invented simply to fit his theological concepts? And if he used a pre-existent tradition of Jesus’ parentage, how come nobody else knew it? Evidence exists that others did know it. In fact, rumors of the relationship between Mary and Zacharias reached the early Church fathers. It was an oral tradition that was kept alive in the Middle East for over a thousand years. Eventually it spread to Western Europe, where it formed the basis of an underground heretical movement centered not on Jesus, but on John the Baptist. Table 3. Actually, it was not unheard of in Judaism for an aging High Priest to take a concubine for the sake of lineal harmony. This, of course, would be the case if his wife were barren, which itself would indicate that Mary's conception would have most likely happened first, as was the case with Hagar. As the High Priest, Zechariah would have been accompanied to Temple - unless she was pregnant, at which time a surrogate would have taken Elizabeth's place. The fact of the matter (keeping in mind that Christianity itself is a derivative of Judaism) is that the writers of the gospels were obviously not learned Jews, or else they would have known about such priestly Jewish traditions. The reason why Isaac was preferred by God over Ishmael, is that Abraham and Sarah (like Zechariah and Elizabeth) were married. In the eyes of God, a bastard cannot be legitimized. Facts are not cruel: lies and half truths are cruel. Parallels between Luke and 1 Samuel
Note Luke's (1:40-41) intentional vagueness regarding where Zechariah and Elizabeth lived. Also, in 1 Sam 1:11, the perceived redundancy regarding ''remember'' and ''not forget'' - the reason why is in the Hebrew term for ''remember''. Note how ''remembering'' her is synonymous with giving her a son. Luke 1:56 is subversive in speaking about Mary leaving Elizabeth for her home: Mary was raised by Zechariah and Elizabeth, and therefore, their home was her home. Note also that the literary redundancy found in Samuel 2:1 is likewise absent in Luke 1:70. This further indicates that Luke had no deeper understanding of the source from which he was plagiarizing. Note that 1 Sam 2:18-19 speaks of the High Priest and his wife, indicated by the Passover sacrifice, whereas if Luke 2:41 is a reference to Jesus, it would indicate that Elizabeth's concubine Mary joined Elizabeth and HER husband (the High Priest Zechariah), whose station is likewise indicated by the circumstances surrounding John's Autumn Equinox conception. Note that in Samuel, the boy resided in Jerusalem - perhaps even at the temple. No overt mention of Jesus living in Jerusalem is made by Luke. Still further, as the legitimate son of Zechariah, John the Baptist would have been brought into the priesthood, meaning that the passage Luke 2:41 would be a covert (or maligned) reference to John, not Jesus. Table 4. Parallels between the Families of Abraham and Zacharias
Although God told Abram to be blameless, according to the OT, Abram was by no means blameless, regardless of how many times he changed his name, whereas Zechariah was never accused of any sinister event. Still further, since Abram did change his name, not to mention Saul becoming Paul and Simon becoming Peter, such would mean that Zechariah would have most likely changed his name as well - or at the very least, would have been referred to by another title or name than Zechariah... such as Lazarus. If the OT was a foreshadowing of the NT, then it should be acknowledged that Elizabeth's name would have been subject to change as well. Since Elizabeth is derived from El Isa Beth (Lady Isis of the House), and one of Isis' ''nicknames'' was Meri (Beloved), Elizabeth changing or interchanging her name with the name Mary is easy to see. This in turn explains the Mary who was present at Lazarus' house during his ''raising''. Further, the root of the name Sarai is synonymous with ''dry'' - such as the barren desert known as the Sahara, which in turn equates with the Caanite god of dawn (Sahar) whose name was often spelled Sachar. Of course dawn refers to the youth of the day... the virgin day. Luke 1:18 is a ridiculous exertion: why would Zechariah have asked a question that he alone had the power to answer - unless John was immaculately conceived as well? Sarah gave Hagar to Abram as a wife because Sarah was barren does not equate to Elizabeth giving Mary to Zechariah after she (Elizabeth) became pregnant. Which babe in which woman's womb leaped? Luke 1:56 fails to mention the years leading up to this point that Mary lived with Elizabeth and Zechariah. More than likely, Elizabeth sent her away when she realized she (Elizabeth) was pregnant. Why did Luke find it necessary to state that Mary stayed at Elizabeth's house for about three months? Your name shall be Abraham - He shall be called John. 1 Septuagint means “seventy,” usually abbreviated to “LXX.” The name is derived from a tradition that 72 Jewish scholars translated the Torah into the Greek language in Alexandria, for one of the Ptolemaic kings. Generally considered to have been completed Most likely it was the opposite: Egyptian priests most likely ''shared'' (''translated'') the secret Egyptian religion with the Jews due to duress - or else the first (true) Jews were in fact Egyptians whom the Hebrews later overtook or corrupted. 2 Luke 1:1-4, “In as much as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me 3 Micah 5:2, “You Bethlehem in Ephrathah, small as you are to be among Judah’s clans, out of you shall come forth a governor for Israel, one whose roots are far back in the past, in days gone by.” Most Jews understood this to mean that the future king will have 4 Jane Schaberg: The Illegitimacy of Jesus, p 86-87 5 Numbers 18:15:16, “the firstborn of human beings you shall redeem…. Their redemption price, reckoned from one month of age, you shall fix at five shekels of silver.” This is obviously a reference to a ''second life (being born again)'', not literally the first child. Further, if the firstborn is the sinister, then why does the passage show preference for the ''first-born''? 6 1 Sam 2:30-35 7 Samuel is described three times in 1 Samuel as “ministering to the Lord.” Furthermore, he makes burnt offerings [1 Sam 7:10], which are the preserve of the priesthood as mandated in Leviticus 21:6, “They shall be holy to their God…for they offer the 8 The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 2001, p 39 9 Acts 8:9-24 10 Clementine, Recognitions, 3:39 11 Clementine, Homilies, 2:16 12 Malachi 3:1 -- 4:4-5, “See I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me….the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight - indeed, he is coming… Remember the teaching of my servant Moses… Lo, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes. He will turn the heart of the parents to their children and the hearts of the children to their parents.” The Almighty's messenger was Gabriel, not John the Baptist. Why does he speak of himself in the third-person? And Malachi is contradicted by Matthew 10:35: "For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." - Jesus' words. 13 The Kabbalah, a collection of Jewish mystical traditions, states that the brothers Moses and Aaron are the model for the Messiah and Elijah. “They all arose and said to Moses. ‘Who is your expert disciple? We have heard that it is said, ‘everything should be put 14 Exodus 12:42 15 Luke 9:30, “Two men talked with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem.” 3 Zacharias and Mary The paternity of Jesus was always a highly sensitive subject, and we will never know how much relevant material was lost or destroyed in the past. What is certain, however, is that once the victorious Roman Church had made the virgin birth an absolute, only those with a death wish would have dared to suggest otherwise in public. Mary was much maligned by enemies of the early church, but as far as we know, she was never accused by them of a having had an illicit sexual relationship with a priest. Conversely, one would hardly expect Jewish anti-Christian propaganda to accuse a priest of fathering Jesus.1 Even if that were known, it would not be widely disseminated lest it ruin the myth of the priestly status. This is untrue: it is well established that High Priests and rulers whose wives were unable to conceive a child, took concubines in order to assure that their lineage not die out. The writer of this piece expects the reader to ignore things that are so apparent: the significance of the first-born son, the concubine contingency, etc. As mentioned previously, the notion that Jesus’ contemporaries were ignorant of his parentage is absurd. He would have explained it to his followers in light of scriptural tradition, because that was how everything was justified in ancient Palestine. The highly educated, whom Jesus might otherwise have expected to have supported him, failed to do so. Consequently, he resorted to healings, and teaching in parables because his audience was, for the most part, illiterate or uneducated in the scriptures. But even for normal Jews sympathetic to Jesus’ message, the issue of his illegitimacy would have been a major stumbling block. John was by no means the favorite of the Herodian priests, who were appointed in a bid to usurp Zechariah's influence. The rulers and their vassals hater John because the people loved him. PROTOVANGELIUM OF JAMES Zacharias and Mary feature prominently in the non-canonical Protovangelium (pre-Gospel) of James. Purportedly written by James, the brother of Jesus, it is a pseudipigraphical work (not authored by the name attributed to it). Dated early-mid second century C.E., it was rejected for inclusion in the New Testament most probably because of its fantastic tales of Jesus’ childhood, which invited ridicule into the Church. In addition, it exalted John the Baptist in a manner that would have been uncomfortable for most Christians. For example, the Massacre of the Infants was described as a product of Herod’s desire to kill the infant John, and not Jesus, as Matthew explained it. The Protovangelium is essentially a devotional infancy gospel, and displays the typical stylizations of the genre. Although heavy on apologetics, doctrine, and myth making, its main appeal was likely as an early source of Mary veneration. The reader is provided with information, missing from other gospels, to strengthen the developing cult of Mary that had begun to form outside Jewish-Christian circles in the second-century C.E. It may also have been written in response to accusations against Mary’s character from opponents who accused her of harlotry. Although most scholars dismiss it as a work of pure fiction, more Greek manuscripts of the Protovangelium have survived than of any other gospel, which indicates that it had a high level of popularity at one time. Of special relevance is the inclusion of elements that suggest the writer was familiar with Baptist traditions that paid tribute to Zacharias. Today, in southern Iraq, an ancient religious sect known as the Mandaeans claims to be the ancestral remnant of John the Baptist’s original disciples. They possess several Aramaic texts centered on John the Baptist, which are difficult to date accurately, but some are believed to go back to the second-century C.E. In all likelihood, John’s disciples kept written records, and some early Christians were acquainted with these texts. This material was twisted, revamped, and expanded upon, but traces of it are perceptible in Christian literature, including Luke’s gospel. The first seven chapters of the Protovangelium are an account of Mary’s elderly and childless parents, Joachim and Anna, based loosely on the model of Abraham and Sarah. When Mary was born, her special destiny was immediately recognized and, at three years old, she was given to the care of the Temple priests. In Jewish tradition, however, only first-born sons were presented at the Temple. This was done forty days after birth to fulfill a specific requirement of the Mosaic Law. The existence of a kindergarten or an orphanage on Temple grounds is unlikely, and is not mentioned in relevant archives. If a type of boarding school existed, it would unquestionably have been for boys only, and limited to the training of priests and Levites.2 Most emphatically, young girls would not have been placed into the care of the all-male priesthood. All the same, we are told that when Mary was twelve years old, a council of priests decided she would no longer be able to stay, as she was approaching puberty and her continued presence could defile the Temple. Evidently, the writer knew little about the workings of the Jerusalem Temple. This ignorance was further compounded by his claim that Zacharias was High Priest when he entered the Holy of Holies to pray about Mary. Not only was Zacharias While inside the Holy of Holies, an angel appeared to Zacharias and instructed him to organize a lottery of eligible widowers to choose Mary’s husband. Joseph was the widower selected. But he refused to take Mary, saying that she was too young and he will become a laughing stock for marrying her. Zacharias convinced him to accept after threatening him with God’s punishment. At the start of their betrothal period, Joseph instructed Mary to stay at his house, and wait until he returned after his work at a building project was finished. The angel would have been Gabriel - the same one who revealed the impending conception of John. Basically, Zechariah had been saving Mary for himself, but when he found out that Elizabeth was with child, and being alert to the fact that Mary was reaching puberty, he sent her away. Note that Mary went against Joseph's instruction by going to Elizabeth's house. Meanwhile, at a further meeting of the council of priests, it was decided to make a new veil for the Temple. Seven virgins were summoned to weave the thread in the special colors as required by the Law. Mary was one of the virgins chosen, And the priest remembered the child Mary, that she was of the family of David, and undefiled before God. And the officers went away…And they brought them into the temple of the Lord. And the priest said: Choose for me by lot who shall spin the gold, and the white, and the fine linen, and the silk, and the blue, and the scarlet, and the true purple. And the true purple and the scarlet fell to the lot of Mary, and she took them, and went away to her house. …And Mary took the scarlet, and span it. And at that season Zacharias became dumb, and Samuel was in his stead until the time when Zacharias spake again. But Mary took the scarlet and began to spin it.3 Mary's house was until the time that Joseph sent her to his home, the house of Zechariah and Elizabeth. Next, the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary to announce that she will give birth to Jesus. At first she doubted, but later accepted her fate, “behold the handmaid of the Lord is before him: be it unto me according to thy word.” Mary went home, spun the thread, and returned. Which home did she go to? Mary was chosen by lot to have affairs with Zechariah. And she made the purple and the scarlet and brought them unto the priest. And the priest blessed her and said: Mary, the Lord God hath magnified thy name, and thou shalt be blessed among all generations of the earth. And Mary rejoiced and went away unto Elizabeth her kinswoman: and she knocked at the door. And Elizabeth when she heard it cast down the scarlet and ran to the door and opened it, and when she saw Mary she blessed her and said: Whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come unto me? For behold that which is in me leaped and blessed thee. And Mary forgot the mysteries which Gabriel the archangel had told her, and she looked up unto the heaven and said: Who am I, Lord, that all the generations of the earth do bless me? 4 This section is reminiscent of Luke’s Visitation scene, except that for some reason colored threads have been drafted into the narrative. Scarlet was an essential color of the Temple veil and in the tapestries of the Temple. It also figured in the Yom Kippur scapegoat ritual and other Temple sacraments. The Hebrew phrase for scarlet thread, chut hashani, occurred twice in the Old Testament. The first instance was recorded in Tamar’s story as described in Genesis. Disguising herself as a temple prostitute, Tamar seduced Judah, her father-in-law, and was made pregnant with twin boys. During childbirth, one of the unborn twins, Zerah, extended his arm through the birth canal, and the midwife tied a scarlet thread around his wrist to identify him as the first-born. But in the birth struggle, the second twin Perez emerged first. And the midwife took and bound a scarlet thread, saying, “this one came out first.” But as he drew back his hand, behold, his brother came out…….his name was called Perez. Afterwards his brother came out with the scarlet thread upon his hand; and his name was called Zerah. Gen 38:28-29 Following in the footsteps of his grandfather Jacob, Perez assumed the birthright of his older brother. According to Jewish tradition, the messianic bloodline descended from Perez, and he was listed by Matthew and Luke as an ancestor of Jesus. Scarlet thread was also mentioned in the story of Rahab from the Book of Joshua. Rahab invited two Hebrew spies to stay in her home in Jericho, but when questioned by the king’s men, she denied knowledge of their whereabouts. In return, the Hebrews spared Rahab and her family from the massacre of the city’s inhabitants. She was told to display a scarlet thread from her window to distinguish her house from the others. The men said to her… Behold, when we come into this land, you shall bind this scarlet cord in the window through which you let us down: and you shall gather into your house your father and mother, your brothers, and all your father’s household. …and they departed; and she bound the scarlet cord in the window. Joshua 2:17-21 Note that the men were carrying the scarlet cord with them. Note also that this interaction between the spies and Rehab occurred after they sneaked out the window but before but before the men left. Perhaps the significance is not in the color scarlet, but what the term scarlet denotes. In later rabbinic traditions, Rahab was highly venerated -- even to the extent that she was described as the ancestor of some of the greatest prophets of Israel. Matthew listed her as a maternal ancestor of Jesus, and in a tradition not found elsewhere, claimed that Rahab married Salmon, a prince of the tribe of Judah. The color scarlet has an obvious association with blood. In the stories of Tamar and Rahab, it was used to signify the messianic bloodline. In the Protovangelium, Elisabeth “cast down the scarlet,” and rushed to greet Mary. Jettisoning the scarlet thread was the signal that the messianic birthright had passed from the first-born John to the second-born Jesus. So because someone knocked on her door, Elizabeth gave up John's birthright even before answering the door? At the time Elizabeth did not know who was at the door, and she certainly did not know that Mary was pregnant! Yet according to NT accounts, this was not the only time when Elizabeth renounced John's birthright: for he shall be called John... Purple was a color long associated with priestly authority throughout the Mediterranean region. The distinguishing color of the divine Roman Emperor as head of the state religion, purple was also adopted as the official color of the Pope and of the British monarch as head of the Anglican Church. That Mary made the scarlet and the purple threads meant that her son would fulfill a dual purpose. Jesus’ destiny was to unify the roles of both messianic king and High Priest. Although Elisabeth had been given a special responsibility as a mother in the providential family, she was linked only briefly with scarlet thread, and Mark recorded that soldiers ridiculed Jesus by putting a purple robe on him before his crucifixion. Matthew, on the other hand, stated that the robe was scarlet. Either he possessed a more accurate source than Mark, or more likely, Matthew correctly understood that scarlet was the color representative of the Davidic Messiah. Most likely they were both wrong because they obviously were not there - and yet they wrote about it as if they were, indicating sinister manipulation on their parts. And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe upon him, and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on his head, and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him they mocked him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!” Matt 27: 28-30 The Protovangelium explained that Mary stayed at Zacharias’ house for three months, but left lest “the people of Israel” discovered her condition and “accused her of fornication.” Six months after leaving his fiancé behind, Joseph returned home to find her pregnant. If he exposed Mary she could be stoned to death, but if he were to hide her away to conceal the sin, he would be violating the law of God. What was Joseph to do? Remarkably, an angel appeared to him in a dream and provided a solution based on Christian theology. Mary’s child “will save the people from their sins.” Joseph awakened, “glorified the God of Israel,” and the matter was thus satisfactorily resolved. THE KORAN Non-Islamic scholars maintain that certain materials in the Koran have their sources in the apocryphal books of Christianity. In the time of Mohammed, the majority of Christians in Arabia belonged to sects deemed heretical by the Church, and many had taken refuge outside the borders of the Roman Empire. These groups clung to some noncanonical writings and unorthodox oral traditions, and theoretically, compilers of the Koran used them to appeal to Christians in the region. In particular, the third Surah, which contains references to Zacharias and Mary, is suspected of having directly drawn sections of its content from the Protovangelium. Mary’s parents are described giving their daughter “to the care of the Lord.” In return, the Lord put Mary into the custody of Zacharias: And her Lord accepted her with full acceptance and vouchsafed to her a goodly growth; and made Zachariah her guardian. Surah 3:37 If the Koran borrowed from the Protovangelium, then this storyline was adopted for the same reason -- to sanction a relationship between Zacharias and Mary. In the next verses, Zacharias asked the Lord to “Bestow upon me of Thy bounty goodly offspring.” Angels responded that his wife Elisabeth will have a son named John. They then announced that Mary had been especially chosen and sanctified by Allah, Then Zachariah prayed unto his Lord and said: My Lord! Bestow upon me of Thy bounty goodly offspring. Lo! Thou art the Hearer of Prayer. And the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a son whose name is John, who cometh to confirm a word from Allah lordly, chaste, a prophet of the righteous. He said: My Lord! How can I have a son when age hath overtaken me already and my wife is barren? The angel answered: So it will be. Allah doeth what He will. He said: My Lord! Appoint a token for me. The angel said: The token unto thee shall be that thou shalt not speak unto mankind three days except by signs. Remember thy Lord much, and praise Him in the early hours of night and morning. And when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah hath chosen thee and made thee pure, and hath preferred thee above all the women of creation. O Mary! Be obedient to thy Lord, prostrate thyself and bow with those who bow in worship. Surah 3:38-43 Why would Zechariah ask for something that, when it is offered, he doubts the validity of its existence? How did Allah make Mary pure - other than if she were born again! Mary was asked to “be obedient to thy Lord” which carries the same meaning as the biblical doule or “handmaiden of the Lord.” The essence of obedience is self sacrifice, precisely what was required from Mary. She was a “preferred” woman because she will conceive Jesus, and her “obedience” was substantiated in the sacrificial act of conception. In the Protovangelium, Joseph was selected from a group of eligible widowers called to take part in a lottery to decide who would be Mary’s husband. In the Koran, not only is Joseph never mentioned, the lottery described (throwing of pens) was to select a priest, not a widower. The chosen one would be the “guardian” of Mary, not the husband. Zacharias was the priest selected. Such a significant alteration in the plot dynamic indicates that the writers of the Koran also drew from traditions outside the Protovangelium. This is of the tidings of things hidden. We reveal it unto thee (Mohammed). Thou wast not present with them when they threw their pens to know which of them should be the guardian of Mary, nor wast thou present with them when they quarreled thereupon. And remember when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near unto Allah. Surah 3:44-45 As Mohammed was not present at the “throwing of pens,” he did not witness the controversy it had caused. As a euphemism, “guardian” barely conceals the sexual aspect of Zacharias and Mary’s relationship that was undoubtedly the reason for the priestly outrage. The “tidings of things hidden” related to the birth of Jesus, and the hitherto secret identity of his father, now revealed as Zacharias. Mohammed is reminded that Mary’s “obedience,” linked to the outcome of the lottery, resulted in the birth of Jesus. The lottery was not to see who was to raise Mary, but rather to see who would play surrogate wife to Zechariah since Elizabeth was then thought to be barren to the detriment of the lineal progression of High Priests. It was a desperate time since Herod was installing his political appointees into the priesthood in place of the ''Sons of Aaron''. HERETICAL ART The secret of Jesus’ parentage endured in the region. Europeans, who had visited the Holy Land during the crusades of the twelfth and thirteen centuries, brought it back it back home, where it took root in non-conformist intellectual circles and was a crucial part of a powerful anti-establishment heresy. But to publicize blasphemous ideas during this time was tantamount to signing one’s death warrant. At the beginning of the fourteenth century, even an institution as influential as the Knights Templar -- a major participant in the crusades -- was brought down following charges of heresy. In the stringently controlled feudal theocracy of medieval Europe, painting was the obvious medium to express subversive ideas. The Renaissance provided the occasion and the opportunity to broadcast unorthodox opinions as never before. As European civilization grew richer, its private citizens and public institutions increasingly commissioned paintings with religious themes both for decoration and prestige. The most talented artists became society celebrities, and a select few, who held heterodox religious views, took advantage of the assumed gullibility of their patrons to include profane images and symbols in what were supposedly wholly devotional works with conventional Christian themes. Folklorists and Jungian psychologists tell us that through art, the psychological truth emerges as it is shared by the collective unconscious. In great paintings, the psychic background of our ancestral and primal past is revealed. In reality, many great artists of the past manipulated symbols and archetypes of the “collective unconscious” to advocate specific “truths.” And the most famous perpetrator was Leonardo Da Vinci. In recent years, many people have come to acknowledge that Leonardo’s brilliant artwork was not the product of a devout Catholic, but rather the work of a strident anti-church heretic who delighted in undermining, even ridiculing, traditional Christian beliefs whenever an opportunity presented itself for him to do so. Yet he was far from being an atheist. Leonardo definitely held religious views, but they were so radical he could never declare them openly. Although most current interest has centered on Leonardo’s representation of Mary Magdalene, his greatest obsession was John the Baptist. In their book , The Templar Revelation, Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince brought attention to Leonardo Da Vinci’s apparent infatuation with the figure of John.5 In his religiously inspired paintings, it was the Baptist and not Jesus who featured most often, and their traditionally accepted roles appear to be reversed. Leonardo’s final painting, for which he was not commissioned, was a portrait of John the Baptist [Plate 1]. A particularly significant element in Leonardo’s art is what Picknett and Prince describe as “the John gesture,” made by pointing the right hand forefinger directly upward.
Plate 1. Leonardo Da Vinci, John the Baptist, c 1513, Louvre, Paris Earlier artists had shown John the Baptist more subtly making this same hand signal, but Leonardo chose to make it the dominant feature of his famously enigmatic portrait of John. But nobody is sure what it means. Probably the gesture’s most baffling appearance is in his unfinished work known as Madonna and Child with Saint Anne and Saint John the Baptist [Plate 2]. Above and between the infants Jesus and John, a mysterious, almost masculine, hand gives the “John gesture.” Controversially, Jesus’ two blessing fingers rest on the elbow fold of Anne’s arm. Fingers positioned in this way constitute an extremely offensive gesture in Western Europe, particularly in Italy, where it is used specifically to denote the sex act. And the look on Anne’s face suggests this is precisely her meaning. This is an unlikely coincidence because, although Leonardo rarely finished his projects, nothing in them was left to chance. Ariadne (meaning ''Most Holy'' in Greek) was equated in Roman as Arianna (also Libera: Libra). Again, Ariadne - the wife of Zagreus-Dionysus - is equated to Isis - the wife of Seker-Osiris - and thus to Elizabeth - the wife of Zechariah-Lazarus.
Plate 2. Leonardo Da Vinci, Madonna and Child with St. Anne, c 1510, National Gallery, London The large hand makes the “John gesture.” Note Anne’s knowing smile as her arm and Jesus’ fingers combine to give the well known sign for sexual intercourse. Raphael, a younger contemporary of Leonardo, painted the figure of Plato in The School of Athens, clearly modeled on Leonardo Da Vinci making the “John gesture” [Plate 3]. He also famously painted a young John the Baptist as a boy in the desert, making the same sign. Other renowned artists of the period, including Ghirlandaio, Caravaggio, Guercino, and Fontana also painted John giving this sign. Manifestly, it represented an idea or principle that had important connotations for members of an elite group.
Plate 3. Raphael, The School of Athens (Detail), 1511 , Vatican, Rome The German artist Andrea Mantegna, working at the same time as Leonardo, painted a disturbing scene of the Holy Family [Plate 4].In the center foreground, Mary looks on adoringly as she holds the baby Jesus. Standing on her left is the elderly Elisabeth, and on her right side is Zacharias, clean shaven and bald. Not to be mistaken for Joseph, because Mantegna had already painted Joseph in his Adoration of the Shepherds, a much younger man, bearded and with a head full of hair. In the lower right-hand corner of the painting, the infant John the Baptist looks straight ahead, while raising his right-hand forefinger. Elisabeth’s expression as she looks past Jesus is one of bitterness, even contempt, while Zacharias stares forward dispassionately. Mouths turned down at the sides, they do not make a picture of the happy couple. Actually, in the painting Mary is not present: the author has mistaken Saint Anne for Mary, leading one to ask: where was Mary, and why wasn't she in the painting? The forefinger and index finger raised together constitute the “blessing gesture,” which Popes give to crowds during their public appearances. Jesus was often depicted making this sign, but the single raised forefinger is not part of any recognized Christian iconography.6 However, Hermes, the Greek god of shepherds, was frequently depicted by medieval alchemists making this exact same gesture. Moreover, Botticelli -- one of Leonardo’s mentors -- also painted Hermes in this way. Ancient hermetic mystical traditions experienced a revival during the Middle Ages, and Hermes was revered by initiates as “the revealer of all wisdom.” In the Middle East, Hermes was equated with Enoch, the father of Methuselah, who reputedly never died but was taken directly by God to be instructed in the deepest secrets of heaven.7
Plate 4. Andrea Mantegna, The Holy Family, 1495, Dresden In popular culture, however, the “John gesture” always had a well recognized meaning. Customarily given for emphasis -- “mark my words” -- an upright forefinger also conveys the message, ‘number one,’ or ‘first.’ Thousands of cartoon raised forefingers, waved by spectators at sports events in the United States, prove that the “John gesture” made publicly, is still used to assert supremacy. In Renaissance art, this sign was contrived by heretics to show that John the Baptist was superior to Jesus. John was first, the original and true Christ, and the fount of all knowledge. Jesus, on the other hand, was the false Christ. Though schooled by John, he not only betrayed his teacher but usurped his birthright to claim everything for himself. It was fraud on the grandest scale, and the Roman Church was a co-conspirator. Leonardo Da Vinci produced two separate paintings of the same scene. Known as The Virgin on the Rocks, one currently hangs in the Louvre Museum in Paris, the other in the National Gallery in London. The subject matter is a non-canonical Christian myth, in which the Holy Family flees to Egypt to escape Herod’s legendary “Massacre of the Infants.” On the journey, they meet the infant John and his protector angel Uriel, in a remote mountain cave. According to the Church, this was the time when Jesus bestowed upon John the authority to baptize him in later life. This was supposed to explain why the adult Jesus, as a member of the Holy Trinity, had allowed himself to be baptized. The Virgin on the Rocks was originally commissioned by Milanese monks as a celebration of the “Immaculate Conception,” but Leonardo contemptuously mocked that idea in his finished work. His first canvas was rejected, and only after a lengthy dispute mediated by Leonardo’s sponsor, King Louis XII of France, was a later second version deemed acceptable. In the original artwork, Jesus and John were painted to resemble brothers. Indeed their features are so similar that they could be taken as identical twins. Mary sits with her arm around Jesus. The angel Uriel sits with John. However, Jesus directs his prayer toward John, who blesses him in return. This inversion of their customary roles would have horrified Leonardo’s customers [Plate 5]. In the later version of the painting [Plate 6], the infant with Mary appears exactly as in the original except that he has been given the familiar staff of John the Baptist to hold. His identity was switched, so that Mary is now understood to be holding John, not Jesus. The baby formerly known as John the Baptist, and who sits with the angel Uriel, is now Jesus. The face of Jesus, however, has been radically altered from the original to be less cherubic and not as appealing as John. Although he featured prominently in the original myth on which the commissioned artwork was based, Joseph does not figure in either painting. As it was Joseph who purportedly received the instruction to take Jesus and Mary to Egypt, his omission from the scene is strange. However, the father of Jesus is represented in The Virgin on the Rocks. In both versions, towering above Mary and emanating from behind her, is a huge phallic rock formation. To compensate for changing the positions of Jesus and John, Leonardo highlighted the rock in the second painting to replicate the correct proportions of a phallus. This rock structure cannot have been accidental or copied from nature. It is not a crystalline stalagmite, and is impossible to find inside caves. Besides, nothing was accidental in Leonardo’s work. Even the cave itself is symbolic of the womb. Rather than affirm Mary’s virginity, the phallus behind Mary was an outrageously bold statement to contradict it. The phallus symbolized the real, or biological, father of Jesus. And the first (third) member of the Holy Trinity is denoted... Ptah, whose name means ''Father'', and whom lent his name to Peter as the ''Father of the Catholic Church'' was likewise the first member of the Ptah-Seker-Osiris sacred triune deity of Egypt from which the Holy Trinity is derived. Peter was the rock that the Catholic Church was to be built upon, just as the Qubbat aṣ-Ṣaḵra (Dome of the Rock) is the sacred mount upon which the al-Saḵrah al-Mušarrafah (the Noble Stone) of Islam (The Foundation Stone of Judaism and Christianity) is located. This location is better known to Christians and Jews as the Dome of the Rock, where rests the foundation stone - the Most Sacred and venerated location in all three western religions. So just as Ptah (Peter) transliterates to "Rock", likewise, Seker (Sakrah) equates to "Stone". Thus, the stone standing in back of Mary represents Zechariah.
Plate 5. Leonard Da Vinci, Virgin on the Rocks, Louvre Paris John and Jesus have identical features. Jesus (left) prays to John. But for reasons of theological correctness, their positions were later reversed (Plate 6). Jesus was given the staff of John the Baptist and thus became John. The new Jesus (right) lost his blonde curls and cherubic face, replaced with a much less attractive and darker look. The large phallic rock formation is highlighted more in the second version.
Plate 6. Leonardo Da Vinci, Virgin on the Rocks, National Gallery, London Two smaller phallic rock formations in the background of the painting are noticeably patterned after the large central phallus. As Leonardo originally depicted John and Jesus as brothers, he assumed Zacharias was Jesus’ father. The two background rock formations, therefore, represented Zacharias’ two male offspring. Presumably, John and Jesus both fathered children. Before Leonardo, Fra Filippo Lippi (1406-1469) was the prototype of the rebellious Florentine Renaissance artist. Lippi was raised in a Carmelite friary and took vows as a friar in 1421. Following an affair with a nun, he was released from his vows and married shortly afterward. Celebrated today as an innovative and accomplished painter, his work was widely respected in his time, receiving constant patronage from the wealthy and powerful Medici family. He specialized in Cathedral frescoes, including one famous series of scenes depicting the life of John the Baptist. One section, The Birth of John the Baptist [Plate 7], shows a young woman staring disconsolately at the floor and away from the newborn baby, as midwives take him from Elisabeth. The aggrieved woman is Mary. Even though Luke’s gospel stated that Mary left Zacharias’ home before John’s birth, she was often included in birth scenes of John. Lippi’s sympathies are clearly with Elisabeth, who wears a halo, and not Mary. In 1490, Domenico Ghirlandaio painted the Naming of John, with even less ambiguity [Plate 8]. On the right, Elisabeth holds the baby John, but she gazes, ashen-faced, away from the scene. Zacharias looks at her as if to say, “What is the problem?” Above Elisabeth, is an obviously pregnant woman with a similar face. She is also downcast, and clearly unhappy, as a friend advises or consoles her. This is a depiction of the spurned Mary. Elisabeth’s refusal to acknowledge Mary and her child had left Mary distraught and fearful. The painting makes sense only if Zacharias was the father of Mary’s child. The Italian Parmigianino (1503-1540), like most Renaissance masters, painted scenes of the Holy Family. Though it was commonplace for artists to omit Joseph, it was not standard practice to include Zacharias. The Holy Family [Plate 9] shows Zacharias casting a watchful eye over Mary’s shoulder at the young Jesus and John, which taken by itself might not be especially meaningful, were it not for the astonishing boldness of the Madonna and Zacharias - another of his Holy Family paintings [Plate 10]. In this picture, Mary sits outdoors with Zacharias, as she holds Jesus. A young girl kisses Jesus, who is generally believed to be Mary Magdalene, as a maid holds a jar of anointing oil over their heads. A concerned looking Zacharias watches the scene. A certain level of familiarity between Mary and Zacharias is clearly observable. Mary’s attire is extremely inappropriate for a woman in Jewish society, even if the man with her was supposed to be her brother-in-law. Only in the privacy of the home, and with her husband, could a woman be so dressed. The intent behind Parmigianino’s picture was to imply that they were as a conjugal couple, and Zacharias was the father of her son. Did Zechariah leave Elizabeth for Mary? Did Elizabeth pass away, leaving Zechariah to Mary?
Plate 7. Fra Fillipo Lippi, The Birth Of John, c. 1460
Plate 8. Domenico Ghirlandaio, Naming of John, 1490 Plate 9. Parmigianino, Holy Family, 1535
Plate 10. Parmigianino, Madonna and Zacharias, 1535 Zacharias was often the only man in depictions of the “Holy Family.” In this scene, Zacharias’ wife, Elisabeth, is conspicuous by her absence. Or was she really there? As he casts a watchful eye over Mary’s shoulder at John and Jesus, is Zacharias checking on the welfare of his sons? Jewish women were required to wear veils and to cover themselves unless in private with their husbands. Hijabs? In his paintings, Parmigianino portrayed a familiarity between Mary and Zacharias that was inappropriate. What was his purpose? Inside the Museum of Fine Arts in Dijon, France, is an anonymous fifteenth century wood carving believed to be of south German origin. It is an astonishing wood sculpture of Zacharias holding a type of shrine in the form of a miniature house or room. Inside the shrine is a bed [Plate 10a]. On the exterior, the figures of Elisabeth and Mary are painted together in greeting -- the famous Visitation scene from Luke. Zacharias looks down at the two women, as he holds the bedroom ‘shrine.’ The meaning implied by this sculpture is self-evident, as is the reason why the artist remained incognito. Isis and Nephthys PRESENTATION AT THE TEMPLE November 21 is the Feast Day of the Roman Catholic Church to commemorate the Virgin Mary’s non canonical ‘Presentation at the Temple.’ In the Orthodox Church, this day is one of the twelve holiest in the calendar. The Presentation was also a common theme for artists during the Renaissance. Usually, Mary was depicted as being prompted by her parents, Joachim and Anna, to climb the Temple steps as Zacharias waited for her. Certain artists, however, chose not to portray Mary as the three year old girl mentioned in the Protovangelium, the sole source for this tradition. Instead, they painted Mary as a young woman. Again, Ariadne (Greek) and Arianna (Roman) are synonymous Plate 10a. Wood Carving of Zacharias, Anonymous, c. 15th The Venetian artist Vittore Carpaccio (1455-1525) painted a cycle on the Life of Mary that included a scene of Mary’s Presentation [Plate 11]. As a teenage Mary approaches, Zacharias’s arms are outstretched in greeting. Beneath Mary, a horned antelope rests tethered to a young boy, and to the right of him sits a rabbit. Above the archway in the background, an alchemical sun symbol is depicted with the customary hermetic/mystical representation of Adam and Eve at either side.
Plate 11. Vittore Carpaccio, Presentation at the Temple, 1505 The sexual or reproductive principle is implied by the rabbit, and the horned antelope emphasizes the same point. As previously stated, horns were used as symbols of fertility in a variety of ancient cultures. In medieval art, Adam and Eve, as the primordial man and woman, were often represented together with horned animals (rams, deer, goats, and so on) to symbolize their role as the original ancestors of humankind [Plate 12]. Carpaccio’s illustration of Adam and Eve, and his inclusion of the rabbit and the horned antelope, was to signify that Zacharias and Mary had the same responsibility to reproduce. Plate 12. Anonymous twelfth century woodcut Adam and Eve were a recurrent theme in esoteric medieval imagery. Depicted here with horned animals, which signified their destiny as the original ancestors of all humankind. Horns were symbols of fertility and lineage in diverse cultures. Vikings, for example, displayed their ancestral pride, by attaching horns to their battle helmets. Dionysus, the Greek fertility god, with female worshippers who hold a rabbit and a horned deer (center right). Vase, 6th century BCE Domenico Ghirlandaio’s version of the Presentation of the Virgin is even more demonstrative [Plate 13]. Mary, as a fully developed woman, hurries enthusiastically up the Temple steps to greet Zacharias. She holds a book of Scripture to signal her actions are the fulfillment of prophecy. At the top of two broad columns in the center, is a statue of the naked Adam and a partly obscured Eve with the serpent. Beneath then, at the top of each column, babies are carved into a decorative trim. Zacharias waits to receive Mary with open arms, as pregnant young women scurry behind him, suggesting her immediate destiny should she enter his orbit. In the bottom right, a forlorn John the Baptist watches the scene with obvious misgivings. In the bottom left, three female spectators watch as Mary ascends the steps. Ghirlandaio loaded their physical postures with palpable meaning [see note, Plate 13a]. The Spanish artist Juan Sevilla (1643-1695) painted a Presentation at the Temple that currently hangs in the Museo del Prado in Madrid [Plate 14]. In his version, Mary has clearly reached child-bearing age. As Zacharias is set to embrace her, Mary offers him her hand. However, people in the foreground seem troubled by the scene. And although Mary’s mother holds an obligatory scroll to signal the fulfillment of scripture, she and her husband have worried, not joyful expressions. Meanwhile, an androgynous looking character in the bottom left of the canvas, turns away from the scene to face the viewer. He or she displays a highly ornate jar, the type used to hold something precious. In other words, a container for anointing oil or ointment. Such a blatant insertion in the picture must have been intended as a reference to Jesus’ anointing by Mary Magdalene/Mary of Bethany as described in all four gospels. The overt message of Sevilla’s painting was that the union of Zacharias and Mary produced Jesus. Artists such as Carpaccio and Sevilla knew that the general public saw in a painting only that which it was preconditioned to see, and disregarded the rest. This maxim is as true as ever today.
Plate 13. Domenico Ghirlandaio, Presentation of the Virgin, 1486 The girl on the left makes a gesture with her fingers that can only be construed as a crude reference to the sex act. The girl in the center puts her hands together, to represent the union of two bodies coming together. The girl on the right stands with her knee bent and hand on hip, in a classic coquettish pose. The only reason to incorporate these characters and gestures into the picture was to suggest that Mary’s relationship with Zacharias was sexual. Plate 14. Juan Sevilla, Presentation of Mary at the Temple (Art Resource). THE PINE CONE Within the Vatican’s museum complex is a courtyard known as the Giardino della Pigna, or Place of the Pine Cone, named after a four meter high bronze statue of a pine cone that stands there (below). The cone was modeled and cast during the first or second century C.E. by Publius Cincius Calvius whose signature is on the base. Historians understand that it was originally used in the pre-Christian era as a water fountain and was confiscated several centuries later by the Papacy who used it for ornamental purposes. The provenance of the two bronze peacocks that flank the pine cone is unknown. Pine cones became an important element in Catholic iconography. Decorative cones were sculpted into Church and Cathedral masonry, and were incorporated into the designs of candlesticks and ceremonial artifacts. The Pope’s staff still includes a silver pine cone. The official Church explanation is that the pine cone, as a symbol of regeneration, represents new life in Christ. But this was not its original meaning. All ancient cultures had male fertility deities who it was believed could increase the rate of child birth, improve the livestock count, and make the land more productive. In Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Indian, Greek, and Roman art, these fertility gods or their cultic priesthood were often depicted with pine cones (below). So much so, that the pine cone was universally understood as the symbol of a divine or especially blessed bloodline. Assyrian bas relief, dating from the 6th century B.C.E. The bearded winged figure holds a pine cone in his right hand. The bucket is thought to hold water, or a special fluid, with which he purified the devotees. Note the horns of fertility on his cap. Greek vases, dating between the sixth and fourth centuries B.C.E., feature the fertility god Dionysus (the Roman Bacchus) with his female consort Ariadne. In the example below, which is a typical illustration, Dionysus holds the cornucopia or “horn of plenty” with his left hand and a sprig of pine cones with his right. Although historians still debate the suitability of the term “Renaissance,” it is undeniable that artists with heretical leanings drew inspiration from ancient sources. In The Presentation at The Temple, Andreas Mantegna painted Zacharias and Mary after the model of Dionysus and Ariadne [Plate 14a]. Zacharias wears a robe decorated with pine cones, and Mary wears a dress with a similar five-pointed floral motif to that which Ariadne wears. In this non-canonical scene, reminiscent of Hannah giving the infant Samuel to Eli the priest, Mary hands over the baby Jesus to Zacharias. The pine cone symbolizes the aged Zacharias’ virility and the sacred nature of his lineage. Note how Jesus is wrapped up like a mummy - or Lazarus... spirit entombed in matter
Plate 14a. Andreas Mantegna, The Presentation at the Temple, 1460. In his Birth of The Virgin, Vittore Carpaccio used the pine cone to signify Mary’s special status in the messianic bloodline but also to refute the theological notion that she was conceived “immaculately.” Accordingly, he painted a pine cone motif above the door of her parent’s bedroom. Furthermore, two rabbits were painted on the bedroom floor, in front of the doorway. Needless to say, rabbits were not typical items of decoration or background detail, especially indoors. Known popularly for their unrestrained breeding, Carpaccio inserted rabbits into the scene to subliminally suggest sexual activity and thus ridicule the doctrine of Immaculate Conception. Conventional historians blithely assume that Renaissance artists promulgated mainstream Roman Catholicism, but this contradicts the evidence of the artwork itself. Moreover, the Church did not, and could not, brainwash everybody. By nature and tradition, intellectually astute artists everywhere tend to hold anti-establishment views, especially in tightly controlled societies as existed in medieval Europe where freedom of expression was severely restricted. Art was censored by the Inquisition, so heretical messages had to be cloaked by the artists so as to be unrecognizable to unsubtle minds.
Vittore Carpaccio, Birth of The Virgin, 1504 Fertility gods were always venerated in the Middle East, even among the Israelites. During the Second Temple era, Jews living in rural areas clung to traditions that predated formal Judaism. Ezekiel complained that Jewish women cried for Tammuz, a Babylonian fertility deity, outside the gates of Jerusalem. Later, as Christianity and Islam emerged, Zacharias was adopted by women in the region as a fertility “god,” over the claims of Abraham, Jacob, and other patriarchs with seemingly better track records of producing offspring. The Grand Mosque at Aleppo, the largest city in northern Syria, is known as ‘Jami'a Zakariyyeh.’ According to legend, a shrine located inside the mosque contains the head of Zacharias interred within a wooden pulpit after his martyrdom. On most days, it is surrounded by large numbers of female pilgrims kneeling in prayer, touching and kissing the outside of the shrine, because it is widely believed that women who pray there will improve their chances of a successful pregnancy, especially of having a boy. This is clearly a legacy from the pre-Islamic era. Evidence an oral tradition existed, before, during, and after the lifetime of Mohammed, that Zacharias was the father of John the Baptist and Jesus, beloved by God and admired by millions worldwide. Every mother wanted sons like these. The Death of Zacharias Zacharias has no part in any accounts of Jesus’ adult life. He might not have survived to witness his son’s public ministry. Early Christians, however, had traditions that Zacharias was martyred. Several ancient cave churches in Cappadocia, Turkey, have frescoes on the walls and ceilings painted in a fashion similar to the Sistine Chapel. After centuries of neglect, the authorities have recently made efforts to preserve and restore them in recognition of the income potential they represent. The oldest church in the area, the Church of St. John the Baptist at Cavusin, and its paintings, date back to the 5th century. This is speculative of the author, based on Catholic pretext. Obviously Zechariah would have played a huge part in Jesus' upbringing unless Jesus and/or Zechariah were banished Western tourists might be surprised to see among scenes from the New Testament, a depiction of sword-bearing soldiers attacking an elderly priest, titled The Killing of Zacharias. The image is based on an episode from the Protovangelium. Herod hears of John’s birth, and decides to kill him. Elisabeth takes John into the mountains to hide. Herod’s men ask Zacharias for John’s whereabouts, but he claims not to know. For his defiance, Zacharias is slaughtered while performing his duties at the Temple. The other priests search but, as with Jesus, Zacharias’ body was never found, but as he delayed to come, they were all afraid: and one of them took courage and entered in: and he saw beside the altar congealed blood: and a voice saying: Zacharias hath been slain, and his blood shall not be wiped out until his avenger come. And when he heard that word he was afraid, and went forth and told the priests. And they took courage and went in and saw that which was done: and the panels of the temple did wail: and they rent their clothes from the top to the bottom. And his body they found not, but his blood they found turned into stone.8 Why was a non-canonical scene painted alongside recognized episodes from the New Testament? The answer lies partly in the geographical location of the cave churches, because for an indeterminate period, the cult of John the Baptist was strong in the region. Their numbers dwindled over time, but doubtless many joined the growing Christian church and brought with them a legacy of veneration for John, and the death of Zacharias was preserved in their works of art. The Orthodox Church, therefore, believes that the killing of Zacharias is canonical and is a part of New Testament tradition. It was mentioned by Jesus during a heated confrontation with scribes and Pharisees: The blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it shall be required of this generation. Luke 11:50 This may be in reference to the OT prophet Zechariah, whom was murdered at the temple much like Hiram Abiff. According to the Orthodox view, Jesus referred to Abel and Zacharias to signify the span of all historical time. From Adam’s family to the present day. Jesus was bringing all salvation history to fruition, so restitution for all wrongdoings of the past had to be made. By this definition, Zacharias must have been a contemporary of the current generation. Abel’s death was a murder in the first dispensational family. Zacharias’ death was a murder in the final dispensational family. The Orthodox interpretation of Luke 11:51 was rejected by the Western Church on the grounds that the story of Zacharias’ death originated from the Protovangelium, a dubious non-canonical text. The Catholic Church, however, maintains that Joseph was a widower when he married Mary, and still celebrates Mary’s Presentation at the Temple -- concepts whose only source is the same Protovangelium. Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars argue that the Zacharias whom Jesus mentioned was as an obscure figure from the distant past. The Second Book of Chronicles records the story of a priest, Jehoida, whose son Zacharias was stoned to death in the Temple by an angry crowd, after he demanded they change their ways. This took place during the First Temple era, before the exile and return from Babylon, and over seven hundred years before Jesus. Theoretically, both Jesus and his audience would have understood that the slaying of the ancient Zacharias was the last known or recorded event of its kind.9 Accordingly, even though Jesus excoriated the current generation, he considered it responsible only for murders that occurred before, and not after, the death of the Zacharias in 2 Chronicles. This argument does not merit serious consideration. The Hebrew Bible as a unified form did not even exist in the time of Jesus, and the chronology of events was obscure. Luke had already identified Zacharias earlier in his gospel, so there was no reason for him to do so again. Clearly, the details of Zacharias’ death as described in the Protovangelium are questionable, as the story patently owes its source to a devotional Baptist tradition. But Jesus’ saying is likely to be authentic, as there was nothing to gain by its inclusion. Critics have suggested that these verses were invented to explain the slaughter of Jews that accompanied the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 C.E. But that event followed two generations after Jesus. If indeed his father had been murdered, then his harsh words resonate. Jesus demanded justice. Other legends of Zacharias’ passing have survived, and one cannot help but get the distinct impression from them that he did not die of natural causes. The church father Epiphanius (c. 320-403 C.E.), was a renowned heresiologist10 who traveled extensively to track down and record unorthodoxies wherever he discovered them. He quoted an account of Zacharias’ death from a lost book known as The Descent of Mary that originated from a Christian Gnostic sect in Egypt. According to Epiphanius, this sect believed that God appeared in the shape of an “ass.” This was a common allegation thrown at Jews by their enemies. In The Descent of Mary, Zacharias was offering incense at the Temple when he had a vision that shocked him. He wanted to disclose it to the people, but he had been struck dumb. What he had seen was a vision of a man, standing in the form of an ass. And the figure that appeared to him took away his power of speech. Once verbal communication had been restored, Zacharias declared what had happened, and the people killed him for blasphemy. Gnostics viewed Zacharias as a martyr because Gnostics themselves believed God often materialized as an ‘ass.’ In point of fact, many cults in antiquity represented God as an ‘ass.’ Evidently, these Gnostics reinvented the story of Zacharias’ death to serve their own purposes, as John the Baptist’s followers also built a fanciful myth around it. Tertullian (c. 155-230 C.E.) was one of the earliest Church fathers and a giant of the pre-Nicene period. He lived in Carthage all his life, from where he wrote at length against heresies and paganism, and advocated the strictly disciplined religious life. Although married, he saw no contradiction in that. His reputation was for scrupulous honesty, practicality, and commitment, which is apparent in his writings. Toward the end of his life, he broke with the Catholic Church and joined the stricter Montanist movement. His quest for perfectionism eventually forced him to leave the Montanists and found his own church. The name of Tertullian was restored to its former glory by future Church leaders, but his defection always prevented him from attaining sainthood. In a letter to his wife, Anastasia the Deaconess of Antioch, Tertullian addressed the issue of the identity of Zacharias slain in the Temple. He rejects the notion that it was Zacharias from 2 Chronicles, forcefully makes the case that Jesus was concerned with contemporary events, and concludes that Zacharias was the father of John the Baptist. To support his argument, he relates an oral tradition that Zacharias was killed because he had allowed Mary into the Temple while she was pregnant, which was in violation of the Law: Whom a tradition not contained in Scripture relates that the Jews slew between the temple and the altar, because he plainly prophesied or rather showed the God-bearer to be a virgin, and him that is born of her, the great God and Savior Jesus Christ, like some King and chief and Lord over their people, and did not remove the holy Virgin herself after the incomprehensible conception by the Holy Spirit from the virgins' place in the temple, between the temple and the altar, as one that was married, but knew her to be still a virgin, and allowed her to stand in the same accustomed place as usual. For this reason (they say) those who heard of it fell into a rage and took weapons in their hands against him. The final sentence is instructive, “for this reason (they say) those who heard of it fell into a rage and took weapons in their hands against him.” The insinuation is that Tertullian did not think Zacharias was killed for the reason given. That is not surprising because it was clearly a fabrication. Under no circumstances would a priest have allowed a pregnant girl into the sacred Temple area, and neither would a pregnant girl have wished to go there. Death at the hands of a Jewish mob was almost always for reasons of adultery and fornication. But as Tertullian believed in the “incomprehensible conception” of Jesus, he had no desire to publicize details of the accusation against Zacharias. Nevertheless, Zacharias, as a Jewish priest, could not have proclaimed the Gentile doctrine of the virgin birth, as Tertullian states. The meaning behind this story is clear. Zacharias was accused of adultery. He had impregnated Mary while she was betrothed to another man. For breaking the Law of Moses, he was punished accordingly. Mary herself would only have escaped capital punishment if she were considered an innocent victim, and not a willing participant in the sexual act.11 Zacharias sealed his own fate by prophesying to the crowd that the child of his unlawful tryst would be their future king and redeemer. Although Tertullian stated that this tradition was not “contained in Scripture,” Zacharias’ made precisely the same prophecy about Jesus in the Benedictus (see Page 39). Priests whose wives were barren were allowed to have concubines. In fact, High Priests were often accompanied by their wives, concubines and surrogates. The story of Zacharias’ death spread far and wide. It traveled eastward to reach Persia, and was recorded in The Prophets, Their Lives, and Their Stories, by Abdul-Sâhib AlHasani Al-'âmiliis, a Shiite work from the early Middle Ages that is a collection of biographies of the prophets of Islam based on much earlier sources.12 Zacharias is honored as both the father of John the Baptist and the guardian of Mary. Even though both Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam accept the doctrine of the virgin birth, the author detailed a sexual accusation made against Zacharias: They say that when Mary the daughter of Imram got pregnant with Jesus and her pregnancy showed up, they accused Zacharias and that the Satan made them imagine and induced them to believe so and made them think truly that the one who made her pregnant was Zacharias because no one can enter her place except of him because he is her guardian… This matter was carried in their hearts and they never saw a woman that gets pregnant without a man, so the silly folks of the Jews chased him until he left Jerusalem. When he went out, the evil got even greater and the charge got bigger in the hearts of the bad people and they talked about the sin of Zacharias, so their silly folks chased him, and he went to a valley and they followed him, and when he was in the middle of it he saw a tree so he went to it and it opened up for him and he went inside it and then it closed upon him, and then the Satan came chasing him with the others until he reached the tree and he said to them: he is inside it here, and he put his hand on the position of his (Zacharias') heart, so he ordered them to saw it and so they did and he was sawn with the tree from the middle, and then they left him apart. Then God sent the angels to wash him up and pray upon him for three days before being buried, and then the good people of the Israelites took him and buried him, and the details about that shall come later by God's will. The biographer refers twice to Zacharias’ accusers as “silly folks,” presumably because they failed to recognize that Mary’s conception of Jesus was miraculous. Evidently, these Jews did not share the peculiar Gentile theology that insists God exists apart from the laws by which He creates. But in stating that Zacharias was the only man with access to Mary, “no one can enter her place except of him because he is her guardian,” the writer gives enough reason to doubt the validity of his thesis. Despite being a mythological account of Zacharias’ death, two realities were at its heart. First, Zacharias fathered Jesus, and second, he was murdered because of it. PHARISEES To some extent, the killing of Zacharias might account for Jesus’ antipathy toward the Law. In his confrontations with Pharisees, there is a hint that both sides were distrustful of each other because of past events. Pharisees, who knew the circumstances of Zacharias’ death, would be apprehensive of Jesus because his followers included some who might easily be persuaded to violence. And Jesus might seek revenge. In that case, getting rid of him would have been a priority for some Pharisees. In John 8:41, Jesus accused the Pharisees of trying to kill him; and their response was telling, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.” This could be interpreted as an accusation that Jesus was illegitimate, and if so, the Pharisees must have known details of his parentage to make that charge. As the family background of public figures was subject to a great deal of scrutiny, chances are that many could not accept lessons from Jesus because they considered him a mamzer, and worthy only of disdain. The charge of illegitimacy was the most damning of all because it summarily disqualified Jesus from leadership of the Israelite community. This, apparently, was a source of deep frustration, Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning. John 8:43-44 Abel’s was the first murder, which Jesus had linked elsewhere with Zacharias’ death. He now suggests that the Pharisees have the same fate in store for him. Assuming the saying is genuine, it betrays a profound resentment and, considering the numerous other instances where Jesus showed contempt for Pharisees, the underlying reasons must have been more than a difference of theological opinion. Jesus accused them of “shedding the blood of the prophets,” but there is no record in scriptures of Jews killing any of their prophets. According to Josephus, Essenes were reputedly “prophets” during the Pharisaic era, but were expelled from the Temple and mainstream Jewish society around the turn of the century. Possibly, blood was shed over this event. Whether Jesus had the Essenes in mind is unknowable, but he charged the Pharisees, You witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. Matt 23:31-32 The simple explanation for Jesus’ scorn was that Pharisees had killed his father, Zacharias, who he acknowledged as a prophet. The Pharisees were a religio-political movement with diverse factions. Dissenters from the party line were tolerated so long as they did not threaten to overthrow the leadership. Although they were not a monolithic bloc, a hard-line fundamentalist Palestinian faction was dominant. The movement had its origins in the Temple, and many priests were Pharisees. One of the main aims was to spread practice of the purity laws among the general population as well as the priesthood. By the time of Jesus, their opposition to the puppet Herodian dynasty and the aristocratic rule of the Sadducees had built the Pharisees a reputation as champions of the people. As a result, the general public trusted their leadership, and if encouraged to do so, would doubtless have supported the killing of a recalcitrant priest who had transgressed the law on adultery. The temple and priests themselves were corrupted by Herod by this time, so the Pharisees were likewise compromised If Mary were in her period of betrothal, then she would not have been recognized as a concubine, so by definition Jesus was born a mamzer. As the illegitimate son of a priest, he would have been barred from holding priestly office. Pharisees were strong advocates of this principle, and in the past had demanded that High Priests resign on account of their presumed illegitimacy.13 A family register kept in Jerusalem recorded details of births, and it is certain that illegitimate births were registered for the sake of the purity of the community.14 The genealogy of the priesthood was of the utmost importance and the relevant documentation could be accessed by anyone with appropriate credentials. Families with this blemish would of course have tried to keep it secret whenever possible, and the genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke were formulated with this in mind. Of course it was - that is why they were allowed surrogates in order for procreating an heir if their wife was barren. There is a mention of this family register, and a possible corroboration of John 8:41, in a reference to Jesus in the Mishnah, the oldest and most authoritative part of the Talmud. In rabbinic literature, Jesus is habitually referred to as peloni, usually translated as “so and so,” an expression reserved exclusively for Jesus and for no one else. One passage revolved around a Simeon ben Azzai, who according to tradition was one of most respected holy mystics of Israel before the destruction of the Temple. He read the birth of “so and so” recorded in Jerusalem and he was clearly a “mamzer,” Simeon ben Azzai has said: I discovered a family register in Jerusalem; in which it was written: That so and so is a mamzer (bastard), son of a married woman.15 Likewise Anubis Today the English equivalent of mamzer -- ‘bastard’ -- is a strong insult, but it had far more serious ramifications in first-century Palestine. Anyone using the word incorrectly was sentenced to thirty-nine lashes with the whip. So the “mamzer” charge was not made lightly. Based on Deuteronomy 23:2, the stigma of mamzer marked a man’s descendants forever, “Those born of an illicit union shall not be admitted into the assembly of the Lord. Even unto the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.” Jesus’ birth status was the obsession of rabbis, but Jewish Christians would have strongly contested any mamzer charge. In the Mishnah, there is a reference to a dispute over an unnamed mamzer: He who says, “This, my son, is a mamzer,” is not believed. And even if both parties say concerning the foetus in the mother’s womb, “It is a mamzer,” they are not believed. Rabbi Judah says, “They are believed.”16 Frequent references in rabbinic literature claim that Mary admitted her adultery, so the “foetus in the mother’s womb” was most likely a reference to her child. The first line reads as though Zacharias -- “He who says,” -- publicly acknowledged Jesus’ status, which gels with the oral tradition Tertullian recorded. Those who refuse to believe Jesus was a mamzer, despite both parent’s confession, are the Christians whose theological arguments failed to impress Rabbi Judah. The facts speak for themselves. The parents corroborate them. The child is a mamzer. The circumstances behind Zacharias’ death must surely have influenced the relationship between the Pharisees and John the Baptist. Despite his widespread popularity, John did not have much support from them. Jesus was even reported to have used the fact that the Pharisees did not believe in John to score a point against them. John was also not well disposed towards the Pharisees: But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” Matt 3:7 Whether or not John took his hereditary right to the priesthood is uncertain. As a rule, the son of a priest would be ordained at the age of twenty, but first his legitimate descent would first have to be proved, and that could have been problematic in John’s case. He was probably not ordained because the judgment against his father had disqualified him in the eyes of the Pharisees who controlled the Sanhedrin. One thing seems certain -- the Pharisees were well aware of both John and Jesus, and kept track of their activities in adult life. As Jesus had a much smaller support base than John, he was the more cautious in public. Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), he left Judea and departed again to Galilee. John 4:2-3 SUMMARY The notion that Jesus had a biological father no longer belongs in the contemplative realm -- where many would prefer it remain. It has crash landed with a resounding thud, and is narrowed down to one distinct individual. But knowing that Zacharias was the father of Jesus is much more than just another interesting tidbit of information. Not only does it turn two thousand years of Christian theology upside down, the truth of Jesus’ parentage opens up the possibility to understand other aspects of his life. Although the Church always denied him a genuine father-son relationship, awareness of Jesus’ origins was not detrimental to the faith of early disciples. The Lucan school of Christianity explained events through the prism of Abraham’s family. But what about the branch of Christianity to which Matthew belonged? How did Matthew reconcile Jesus’ messianic status with the apparently sordid details of his birth? The answer is so simple as to be inconceivable. And though Matthew was unaware of Luke, in essence he told the same story. 1 In the rabbinic writings, there are numerous stories of Mary, which revolve around the accusation that she was an adulteress. One charge in particular that spread was that Mary had been impregnated by a Roman soldier, Pandera. This was picked up and repeated by 2 See Tim Wallace Murphy and Marilyn Hopkins. Rex Deus: The True Mystery of Rennes-Le-Chateau. The authors propose an interesting theory that there were boarding schools for both boys and girls on the Temple grounds. They also theorize that the girls 3 Protovangelium 10:1 4 Ibid 12:1-2 5 See Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ, pp 30-42 6 In the absence of any obvious meaning, it has been suggested that the “John gesture” is a reference to Jesus’ second coming, meaning he will return literally from the skies above. This theology, however, would have been alien to Renaissance thinkers. 7 Genesis 5:18-24, Hebrews 11:5 8 Protovangelium 24:2 9 2 Chronicles is the last book in the order of the Hebrew Bible. However the Books of Chronicles are ranked among the Kethubim, the third section of the Tanach, because they are considered the least important books and not because of dating. The books of the 10 Epiphanius, Adv Haer. xxvi. 12 11 Deuteronomy 22:25-26, “But if …a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But to the young woman you shall do nothing; in the young woman there is no offense 12 The original Arabic text has not yet been published in English translation. However, it is available online at www.sacredtexts.com. Translation by Taher Al-Shemaly. 13 Josephus, Antiquities, 13:10,5, 13:13,5. The Hasmonean high priests John Hyrcanus (134-104 B.C.E.) and his son Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 B.C.E.), were rejected by the Pharisees on the charge that they were both illegitimate. They were the son and grandson of the wife of a high priest who had been taken captive in war, which meant she could no longer be considered the legitimate wife of a high priest. 14 Joachim Jeremias: Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, page 340 15 See Jacob Neusner: The Mishnah, A New Translation, Yebamot 4.13, p 348 16 Mishnah, Quiddishim, 4:13 Chapter 4 - Angel of the Lord Matthew is considered the most “Jewish” gospel. The author displayed extensive knowledge of Hebrew Scriptures and traditions, which he used liberally throughout the narrative. Written in Greek, possibly in translation from a Hebrew original, it was aimed primarily at Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews. The gospel’s unique record of Jesus’ instruction to his disciples to “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” suggests that it was not written for Romans. It is ironic, therefore, how much the Roman church derived from it. The introduction of Matthew is a genealogical listing designed to provide a theological explanation for Jesus’ conception. Most readers skip these seventeen verses for two reasons. First, it does not make for scintillating reading (so and so begat so and so, etc), and second, the common presupposition that Jesus had no human father makes a list of his ancestors meaningless. This is unfortunate. Only after the reader has digested the To prove purity of blood descent, it was not necessary for a genealogy to go back as far as Matthew had done for Jesus. People were not expected to possess accurate records of ancient history, nor would they be believed if they produced them. Besides, since the narrative stated that Joseph was not Jesus’ father, it was taken for granted that the names of Jesus’ ancestors were given purely for pedagogical reasons. To prove that Jesus’ birth took place according to heaven’s tradition, Matthew had to break with the established custom of listing only male names in a genealogy. In addition to Mary, he mentioned four other maternal predecessors -- Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and the wife of Uriah (Bathsheba) -- all of whom produced forefathers of Jesus. As their stories were recorded in Scripture, each was celebrated in popular folklore as a matriarch of the The reason why Matthew included only the names of these four women, and no others, has often been debated. There is a general agreement that somehow they were analogous to Mary, but exactly how remains a mystery. THE FOUR MATRIARCHS Tamar Tamar’s story is the subject of Genesis 38. She was married to Er, oldest son of Judah, from whose descendants the Messiah was to come. Er died childless, and Tamar was given to his brother Onan, according to the custom of levirate marriage, where the brother of a dead husband took his widowed wife. Not wanting children by Tamar, Onan “spilled his seed on the ground.” As this “was displeasing to the Lord,” Onan was put to death. Judah was reluctant to allow a consummation of this union due to his suspicions that Tamar was somehow responsible for the death of his two other sons. So Tamar took matters into her own hands. Disguising herself as a prostitute, she wore a veil, and waited in the appropriate location. Unaware of her true identity, Judah approached Tamar for sexual favors. For payment, she asked for his signet, cord, and staff. Three months later, news of her pregnancy reached Judah. “Tamar your daughter in law has played the harlot; and moreover she is with child by harlotry.”1 In righteous indignation, Judah demanded that she be burned in public for betraying her husband. Tamar produced Judah’s signet, cord, and staff to identify him as the man responsible. Judah acknowledged them, and his statement that Tamar “is more righteous than I, in as much as I did not give her to my son Shelah,” was made in reference to Jacob’s prophesy that the Messiah would come from a descendant of Judah, “the scepter shall not depart Since Judah’s sons were childless, he had no male heir. Therefore, his relationship with Tamar was essential to guarantee the prophecy. Tamar gave birth to twin boys, Zerah and Perez. King David was descended from Perez. Rahab In Jesus’ genealogy, Rahab is listed as the wife of Salmon, although their child-bearing union has no biblical source, and does not feature in any other known Jewish tradition. It may be exclusive to Matthew and his school of Jewish Christianity. Rahab’s story is in the Book of Joshua. Before the Israelite army attacked Jericho, two spies were sent to explore the city and report back. In Christian tradition, Salmon, a prince of the tribe of Judah, was one of the two spies sent by Joshua. While in Jericho, the Hebrew spies stayed with Rahab, who is described as a “harlot,” which presumably attracted them to her. The King of Jericho soon discovered their whereabouts, but his plan to capture the spies was thwarted by Rahab’s cunning. In gratitude, the victorious Joshua spared Rahab’s family from the devastation of the city. Boaz, the son of Rahab and Salmon, was the great grandfather of King David. Ruth Ruth was a Moabite woman married to an Israelite. When her husband died leaving her childless, she left her homeland and returned with Naomi, her mother-in-law, to settle in Bethlehem. This was a bold move, as she would probably have been labeled a prostitute in her new land. Moses had forbidden the Israelites sexual relations with Moabite women on account of their reputation for loose morals. Nonetheless, Ruth soon attracted the attention of Boaz, a wealthy older relative in Naomi’s family. Naomi persuaded Ruth that Boaz would make her a good husband, and his responsibility as a kinsman was to marry her. One night, acting on Naomi’s instruction, Ruth sneaked into Boaz’s bed, and asked him to marry her. Although Boaz wanted her to stay, he tried to wriggle out of marriage by suggesting that another kinsman was more eligible than he. Ruth 3:12-13 If the kinsman refused, Boaz promised to marry Ruth. The next day, Boaz gave Ruth a payment of “six measures of barley,” and instructed his staff that “it not be known that the woman came on the threshing floor”. Aware Naomi was the instigator, he told Ruth she “must not go back empty handed to your mother-in-law.” So Boaz paid Ruth and Naomi for his evening, and tried to keep it a secret. At a meeting of the city elders, the nearer kinsman rejected an offer to take Ruth as his wife. Boaz honored his promise and married Ruth. Witnesses to his acceptance speech declared, “May your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah.” Both women put themselves at considerable risk to entrap men of high standing in the community, and produced male heirs in the messianic lineage. Obed, the son of Ruth and Boaz, was the grandfather of David. Bathsheba The legend of Bathsheba, from the Second Book of Samuel, is the most well known of the four women. She is not mentioned by name, only as “the wife of Uriah,” because Matthew wants to draw attention to her adulterous relationship with King David, and not her subsequent marriage to him. As David was “walking upon the roof of the king’s house”, he noticed a beautiful woman bathing [Plate 15]. On inquiry, he was told that she was Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite, a soldier in the king’s army. All the same, David summoned her to his presence and “he lay with her.” She conceived a child from this union and sent news of her pregnancy to David. His immediate reaction was to recall Uriah from the frontline so that Plate 15. Jan Massys, David and Bathsheba, 1562, Louvre, Paris Most artists depicted Bathsheba as a seductress, not as David’s submissive victim After a period of mourning, Bathsheba married David and gave birth to a son. But the child died because “this thing that David had done displeased the Lord.” Later, Bathsheba gave David a second son, Solomon, listed by Matthew as Jesus’ ancestor. Typically, commentators on this story regard Bathsheba as David’s unwitting victim, and for this reason she is not categorized with the other women in Jesus’ genealogy. However, the custom of Middle Eastern women was to be covered from head to toe whenever in public. Women in Jerusalem did not bathe naked outdoors, and have never done so. Even within the family compound, women took the greatest care possible to be out of sight. Matthew would not have referred to Bathsheba if he understood her as an ingénue. Knowing that David took regular walks on the palace rooftops, she deliberately positioned herself to be in his line of view. Bathsheba manipulated David’s weakness in order to seduce him; not the other way around. PATTERN OF CONCEPTION The specific details in the accounts of the four women differ, but they were listed because of the common themes they shared with Mary. These may be briefly summarized as follows: (1) The woman was the initiator of a sexual relationship that led to the birth of a forefather in the messianic line. She was proactive, using different techniques of seduction, risking her life and reputation in the process. Tamar dressed as a prostitute to deceive Judah; Rahab drew the Hebrew spies into her house, and married into the Israelite community; Ruth went directly into Boaz’s bed and propositioned him; Bathsheba bathed naked in full view of David to spark his passion. (2) The father of her child was of considerable status in the community; most definitely of a higher social rank than the woman (at least three and possibly all four women were of Gentile origins). Judah was the wealthy and powerful head of his clan; Salmon was a leader in the tribe of Judah, trusted by Joshua; Boaz was a wealthy businessman and an elder of Bethlehem; David was the King of Israel. (3) Another man, intended for or married to the woman, failed to consummate a sexual relationship with her. Shelah and Tamar had no conjugal relations while betrothed. The nearer kinsman had first refusal on marrying Ruth, but declined to do so. Uriah turned down the opportunity to sleep with Bathsheba, his wife. In the case of Rahab, there is a lack of clear supporting information in the narrative, but she deceived the King of Jericho. Matthew most probably understood that the King had unrequited designs on Rahab, perhaps from the same source by which he knew Salmon was her husband. At first, only the third premise seems to apply to Mary. She was betrothed to Joseph, and their relationship was not consummated either before or during her pregnancy with Jesus, “but knew her not until she had borne a son.” But once Mary’s pregnancy was established, Joseph, “being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce Mary.” None of the matriarchs had conceived miraculously, and the likelihood never occurred to Joseph. As Mary’s child was described as being of the “Holy Spirit,” the father ranked higher than Mary. The second premise, therefore, also applied. The circumstances of Jesus’ birth were prefigured by the births of his illustrious ancestors. His father’s name was a delicate and controversial matter, so it was withdrawn to protect those not qualified or able to accept it. But Matthew informed like-minded Jewish Christians that Jesus’ father was an Essene priest. ANGEL OF THE LORD Matthew held the most advanced angelology of all the New Testament writers. His gospel alone contains twenty-eight angelic references. Three times, the “angel of the Lord” appeared in a dream to give Joseph instruction. While he mulled over the fate of his pregnant fiancé, the angel told Joseph that the child was ‘conceived of the Holy Spirit.’ After Jesus was born, the angel revisited with a direction to take the Holy Family to Egypt to escape Herod. After Herod’s death, the angel informed Joseph that it was safe to return the family home. Considering that Jesus’ family did not support his ministry and disapproved of his public speaking,3 it is extremely unlikely that Joseph testified to having received a series of divinely inspired messages about Jesus. More likely, Joseph’s association with the “angel of the Lord” was a device to explain events in the narrative. The conventional understanding of an angel is as a spirit, normally invisible to the human eye. Angels that assume a physical form, usually remain incognito while doing so. Occasionally, they appear to saints or prophets bringing messages from God, but the rest of us have to take the existence of angels on faith. In works of art, angels are normally depicted with wings, which is not to suggest that they fly like birds, but that they are not subject to the normal restrictions of time and space. In ancient literature, angels were regularly mistaken for or confused with people. For example, in the early books of the Bible, angels were described as men. Jacob wrestled a man, and not an angel, at the Ford of Jabbok, and three men, not angels, visited Abraham and Sarah. Later translations changed them into angels as the popular culture was influenced by Hellenism. The root of “angel” is the Greek word angelos, which means ‘messenger.’ Significantly, angels only have male gender in Judaism. Matthew’s fascination with angels was symptomatic of a particular strand of Jewish thought that flourished during the later stages of the Second Temple period. This is best described as Enochic Judaism, after the angel-obsessed non-canonical literature known collectively as the Book of Enoch. Until recently, historians assumed that the origins of the Book of Enoch were in the beginning of the Christian era, because so much of its content was paraphrased, even quoted, in the New Testament. This theory was shattered by the discovery of Enoch manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran in 1947. Although the roots of Enochic literature remain shrouded in obscurity, the New Testament did not influence it. The Book of Enoch influenced the New Testament. PRIESTS AND ANGELS Much of Second Temple angelology derived from Zoroastrian influences during the period of exile in Babylon. Angels were central to the religion of the Persian rulers of Babylon, but the perception of angels was not as beings living only in the spirit world. An important tenet of Zoroastrianism was the concept of angelomorphism. Specifically, angels and priests (Magi) were interchangeable. Magi were priestly angels, or Yazads, who took part in the sacred liturgical rites that reconciled God and man. They interacted between the physical and spiritual worlds to mediate between the occupants of both [Plate 16]. Plate 16. Classic depiction of a Zoroastrian Priest-Angel, mediator between earth and heaven The same idea of angels was expressed in the literature of the Second Temple period. The Book of Malachi stated that, “the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger (angelos) of the Lord of Hosts.”4 Scribes used messenger or “angelos” only in the masculine form, because the priesthood was an entirely male institution. In the Book of Jubilees, literature treasured by the Qumran sect, Isaac is described blessing Levi, from whom the priesthood descends, and likening his “seed” to the angels. May the Lord give you and your seed greatness and great glory. May he draw you and your seed near to him from all flesh to serve in His sanctuary as the angels of the presence and the holy ones.5 The Qumran community had Judaism’s most sophisticated view of angels. In a fragment of the “Blessings” scroll, the priests were given an angelic blessing by the Master at Qumran, May you be as an angel of the presence in the Abode of Holiness to the glory of God of the hosts… May you attend upon the service in the Temple of the Kingdom and decree destiny in company with the angels of the presence.6 In the rabbinic writings, the Jerusalem Temple was portrayed as an earthly reflection of heaven, a holy sanctuary where angels, organized in hierarchical ranks, worshipped God. The earthly hierarchical Temple priesthood was the physical counterpart of the heavenly angelic priesthood. As ancestral forefathers in the messianic lineage, Judah and Boaz gave prophetic blessings to their progeny. Likewise, Matthew’s “angel of the Lord” gave a messianic prophecy for his child, “he will save his people from their sins.” ZACHARIAS AS ANGEL In the Protovangelium, Mary receives news of her impending pregnancy from the angel of the Lord, and asks if she would conceive directly from God; The angel’s response was unequivocal -- ‘Not so, Mary’ -- she would not be impregnated miraculously. “A power of the Lord” would “overshadow” her, but the child would be conceived and delivered naturally. When Joseph returned home to find Mary pregnant, he compared himself to Adam, “Is not the story of Adam repeated in me? For as at the hour of his giving thanks the serpent came and found Eve alone and deceived her, so hath it And Joseph was sore afraid and ceased from speaking unto her (or left her alone), and pondered what he should do with her. And Joseph said: If I hide her sin, I shall be found fighting against the law of the Lord: and if I manifest her unto the children of Israel, I fear lest that which is in her be the seed of an angel, and I shall be found delivering up innocent blood to the judgment of death. What then shall I do?8 His concern was that Mary’s child might be “the seed of an angel.” Alternatively, he wondered if a priest was the father, and thus the child was the result of a divinely ordained union. The father could only have been the angel/priest Zacharias, in whose home Mary had stayed while Joseph was away. In the gospel of Thomas, Jesus asked his disciples to describe him. Jesus said to His disciples, “Compare me to someone and tell Me whom I am like.” GABRIEL The angelic priesthood was a hierarchical order, and the name Gabriel was a rank designation for an archangel or high ranking priest. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the priestly/angelic leadership is described as being “in the presence of the Lord,” and Luke introduced the angel of the Lord in the same manner, “I am Gabriel, who stand in the presence of God.” Luke used Gabriel to suggest that a priestly authority figure orchestrated the dual births of John the Baptist and Jesus. The angel displayed only human characteristics, so there was no reason to interpret him in terms of a supernatural being. Zacharias was instructed to keep his counsel until the appropriate time: “And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things come to pass.” Zacharias complied because “when he came out, he could not speak to them…and remained dumb.”9 As a ranking priest, Zacharias himself would have qualified as a Gabriel. In his last years, Leonardo Da Vinci made a sketch of Gabriel in preparation for a painting to be titled Angel of the Annunciation, which was never completed [Plate 17]. The posture is remarkably similar to his portrait of John the Baptist. And Gabriel’s features, facial expression, and hair resemble an elderly version of John. Apparently, Leonardo suggested a connection between Gabriel and John the Baptist. The depiction of a phallus on Gabriel is the giveaway. Leonardo would not have received a commission to show an angel with an erect penis. Despite the likelihood that Leonardo was homosexual, he was hardly a producer of homo-erotic art. This drawing was part of his alternative religious iconography. What it proves is that Leonardo did not consider the angel a purely spiritual being. He had an overtly sexual or reproductive function. The face on the most famous portrait in history, Leonardo’s Mona Lisa [Plate 18], has similarities to his portrait of John the Baptist and the drawing of Gabriel. All have the same mysterious smile, as though they shared the same secret -- we know something that you will never know. The title Mona Lisa was first mentioned thirty years after Leonardo’s death by Giorgio Vasari, who wrote a biographical Life of the Artists. Mona Lisa was an abbreviation of ‘Madonna (my lady) Elisabeth.’ Leonardo worked on the painting for a decade, but he left no references on it, and Mona Lisa‘s identity remains a mystery to art historians. Her dress is plain and timeless, and she wears no contemporary jewelry. Who then, was the anonymous Elisabeth to whom Leonardo was so obviously devoted? Contracts exist for all Leonardo’s commissioned works, but not for the Mona Lisa. Art “experts,” speculate that as Mona Lisa was a labor of love, it must have been a portrait of the wife or daughter of a contemporary Italian merchant or nobleman, for whom Leonardo had a soft spot. This idea is plausible only if one disregards Leonardo’s true spiritual passion. On his deathbed, Leonardo was found with three of his works, the Mona Lisa, John the Baptist, and the Madonna and child with Saint Anne. None were commissioned. These paintings were deeply personal. Mona Lisa was his riposte to the ubiquitous Virgin Mary, for whom he had little regard. She was Elisabeth, mother of his beloved John the Baptist, and the true ‘Holy Mother.’ Mona Lisa had given birth to the genuine Christ. This explains why Leonardo kept her portrait close at hand, carried it with him on his travels, Plate 17. Leonardo Da Vinci, Sketch of the Angel Gabriel Leonardo Da Vinci, John the Baptist Plate 18. Leonardo Da Vinci,Mona Lisa THE PEACOCK ANGEL In representations of the annunciation to Mary, Gabriel was sometimes depicted as a “Peacock Angel” [Plates 19 & 19a]. Or alternatively, peacocks were painted in the background. Worship of the Peacock Angel is an integral part of the secretive Yazidi religion of ethnic Iraqi Kurds, and is mentioned in the sacred books of the Iraqi Mandaeans, but its origins are believed to be Zoroastrian. Reverence for the Peacock Angel has led outsiders to accuse Yazidis of ‘Satan’ worship because both are identified with an archangel, assumed to be Lucifer. But the anthropologist E.S. Drower, who lived with both the Yazidis and the Mandaeans, was convinced that the meaning of the “Peacock Angel” is as a symbol of man in perfection and not an external supernatural entity.10 Plate 19. Fra Fillipo Lippi, The Annunciation, 1450, National Gallery, London The beautiful luminescent colors of a peacock's tail feathers derive from different angles of light and not from pigmentation, so made an ideal symbol for high spiritual status in a part of the world where “light” was commonly used as a metaphor for godliness and truth. Within the same context, medieval alchemists used the peacock as a symbol of generation into one of the transformative stages. In Indian mythology, peacocks are vehicles for the Hindu gods. The golden throne of the former Kings of Delhi was known as the peacock throne. Kings of Babylon and Persia sat on peacock thrones, and today an ornate peacock throne in Golestan Palace, Teheran, remains a symbol of the former Shah of Iran. Ancient Egyptian priests were depicted wearing peacock feathers hats, and Renaissance artists often portrayed the Magi similarly Plate 19a. Fra Filippo Lippi, Annunication, 1443, Munich, Germany A depiction of the Adoration of the Magi was de rigueur for early Renaissance artists. Many painted several versions, and some incorporated peacocks into the scene. Art historians explain that the peacock was meant as a symbol of Christ’s Resurrection. But the reason given -- that the ancients believed that peacock flesh never died -- is farfetched. Even if bodily renewal were the message intended by the artists, peacocks would have been featured in crucifixion scenes when Jesus’ death was imminent, not at the moment his life was beginning. In a Botticelli version of the Adoration of the Magi, a huge peacock was painted in the top right-hand-corner observing events below [Plates 20 & 20a]. Jesus’ father is absent from the picture, but the peacock symbolized his paternal descent from the peacock lineage of Zacharias. In a collaborative painting by Fra Angelico and Fra Fillipo Lippi [Plate 21], an exaggerated peacock looms over Mary and her child. As the Magi genuflect, a peahen swoops down from the rooftop, as the male bird watches. The peahen represented Elisabeth, wife of Zacharias. The demeanor of the female bird signified Elisabeth’s resentment toward Jesus. In the Hora Church in Istanbul, Turkey, a fourteenth century Byzantine mosaic shows Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anne, preparing to hand her over to Zacharias. As they hold Mary lovingly, a large peacock stands to the right, next to a building representing the Temple. The peacock symbolizes Zacharias and the messianic lineage that was to be Mary’s destiny [Plate 24]. Plate 24. Mosaic, Scene from the Life of Mary, 14 th century, Hora Church, Istanbul, Turkey (Art Resource) FORBIDDEN FRUITS One of the boldest Renaissance artists was the Venetian master Carlo Crivelli (c.1435 - c.1495). Crivelli painted numerous versions of the ‘Madonna and Child,’ and most share the same distinctive feature -- branches of oversized ripe fruit, more often than not apples, painted above Mary’s head, and beneath her feet. Usually, the baby Jesus sits in Mary’s lap, holding an apple. Art historians suggest that apples symbolized Mary’s special fertility, and that Jesus was the ‘fruit’ of her womb. But Crivelli also liked to include another ‘fruit’ in his paintings. It resembled a zucchini or cucumber in Plate 20. Sandro Boticelli, Adoration of the Magi, 1485, National Gallery, London Plate 20a. Detail of Peacock Plate 21. Fra Angelico and Fra Fillipo Lippi, 1445, Adoration of the Magi, National Gallery of Art, Washington. Traditionally, the apple was designated as the sexually suggestive ‘forbidden fruit’ of the Garden of Eden, ‘eaten’ by Eve. The Church claimed that the apple signified that Mary had restored Eve’s sin. For Crivelli, a zucchini paired with an apple represented the masculine and feminine reproductive principle by which Jesus was created. Plate 22. Carlo Crivelli, Virgin and Child, c. 1480 Plate 23. Carlo Crivelli, Madonna and Child, c. 1485 In his painting, The Madonna of the Swallow, Crivelli painted a lone swallow in the top left-hand corner [Plate 25]. Predictably, the Church interpretation of the swallow, which often featured in Renaissance art, was as another symbol of the resurrection. Swallows disappeared every year and nobody knew where they went. Jesus similarly departed before he too returned. This notion conveniently overlooks the popular connotation of a In Crivelli’s Annunciation with St Emidius [Plate 26], a ray of light, showing Mary’s divine calling, descends from the skies and rests on her head, while a large peacock is perched overhead. At the base of the picture, in the center foreground, are the two everpresent fruits, an apple and a zucchini. Representing male and female, they symbolized the sexual relationship between the peacock/Zacharias and Mary that fulfilled her divine mission. MISCEGENATION The idea of miscegenation, or inter-species breeding, between supernatural beings and humans has been around a long time. In ancient Palestine, it may have held some currency among the common population, but not among the scribes and intellectual elite. Only man was made in the image and likeness of God. Adam was the son of God, and as such only he had the divine spark that made him a co creator. In the Second Temple era, the greatest care went into aligning families by marriage for the sake of lineage and the purity of the community. This elaborate and painstakingly built foundation would be rendered obsolete if beings from other dimensions or other worlds could create human children. References to sexual relationships between angels and women were made in the Enochic literature, in the sixth chapter of Genesis, and also by early Christian writers.11 Apparently, these angelic liaisons produced offspring that caused havoc in human society. The first thirty-six chapters of the Book of Enoch, known collectively as the Book of the Watchers, contain details of how these fallen angels taught women the secrets of makeup and jewelry in order to beautify themselves. These angels seduced, married, and even had children by earthly women. The meaning of this type of religious literature, when taken only at face value, can never be fully grasped. Inevitably, it is classed as imaginative fiction, having little, if any, basis in reality. For Jewish scribes, however, the religious and the secular were indistinguishable one from the other. And the often neglected political component of sacred texts was usually the driving force behind their composition. When read as a polemic against a sexually corrupt priesthood, the Book of Watchers makes sense. “Fallen angels” were priests who had married Gentile women or taken Gentile concubines, and had illegitimate children by them. As a result, they were judged to have ruined the sexual and racial purity of the Israelite community. Plate 25. Carlo Crivelli, Madonna of the Swallow, 1480, National Gallery, London Plate 26. Carlo Crivelli, Annunciation with St. Emidius, 1485, National Gallery, London This was a betrayal of heaven’s purpose, for which these rebellious priest/angels incurred the wrath of God. The Enochic writings were composed after the return from Babylon, when it was determined that a sexually corrupt priesthood had been responsible for previous Israelite misfortunes. Misbehavior by the Temple priesthood was probably a concern ever since the days of Solomon, but reformers during the Second Temple period consistently blamed society’s trials and tribulations on the priestly leadership’s failure to follow the laws on sexual purity. The Qumran sect, who greatly revered the Enochic literature, was a prime example of a dissident movement that believed a morally corrupt Temple SON OF BARACHIAH? The theological formula that Matthew wove into Jesus’ genealogy was intended to prove the same thing as the Lucan nativities -- the father of Jesus was a respected priest. Zacharias qualified as a man of high standing in the community, older and wiser than Mary. Mary was proactive in their relationship in that she visited the house of Zacharias while still betrothed to Joseph. And to complete the triangulation model, Joseph was Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all this will come upon this generation. Matthew 23:34-35 The insertion of the extra identifier, “son of Barachiah,” is suspiciously out of place. As previously noted, Zacharias was a contemporary figure, bracketed with Abel to cover the span of chronology in its entirety. The author of the Book of Zechariah (Hebrew spelling of the Greek ‘Zacharias’), a minor prophet in the Old Testament, was known as the son of “Berechiah.”12 The introduction dates its composition as the second year of the reign of Jesus, therefore, had no interest in this particular Zacharias. Moreover, there is no record anywhere of him being murdered. So why then, did Matthew add “son of Barachiah” to the original quotation? He didn’t. It was a clumsy attempt by a later Christian editor to alter the meaning of the original to derail unwanted speculation on the identity of Zacharias.13 There are several instances of this practice in the gospels, and the prime motivation was usually to cover up potential embarrassments. Those who knew the facts were determined, for reasons of theological necessity, to keep them hidden. His interpretation of illicit sexual triangles did not originate with Matthew. It was an ancient oral tradition inherited by the Essene movement. But certain Essenes, who understood the dispensation of holy births, had an extraordinary commitment to the messianic ideal. Convinced they were God’s agents, they meticulously planned to ‘create’ the Messiah. At the root of their philosophy was the opinion that God would not do everything for the Jews. Rather than wait for the Messiah, people had to take responsibility. The Messiah had to be brought into the world and nurtured for his life’s Chapter 5 - The Kingmakers No one can accurately date all the books of the Old Testament. All we know for sure is that ancient writers produced works of poetry, prose, and law over many centuries based on oral traditions, which later editors used as sources to fashion the books of the Bible. There is agreement from experts in various disciplines, based on internal evidence from the texts and supported by archeological discoveries, that this process was begun in earnest during the period of enforced exile in Babylon. Scrolls from the library of the First Temple, which had managed to survive the destruction of Jerusalem, were taken into Babylon by the exiled Jewish leadership. Over time, the scribes structured the literature into a coherent and non-contradictory format, and the Law was officially recorded. This was the period in history when the importance of Jewish scribes was first established. And though the general consensus is that the exiles, far from home and without their beloved Temple, were united by the written word of Holy Scripture, the evidence of history suggests this was not the case. ROOTS OF DIVISION When the opportunity to return to Jerusalem was given them by Cyrus the Great, a great many Jews, perhaps even a majority, preferred to stay in Babylon. No doubt some had developed successful businesses and established themselves in the community, so were reluctant to leave. Others might have felt that it was simply too dangerous to go back to Palestine, considering its violent and unstable reputation. But the chief reason was that Ezra returned from Babylon with the recently overhauled sacred books, which now included lots of legalistic rules and regulations on animal sacrifices and cultic rites -- all supposedly dictated by God directly to Moses. Under the new government of the priestly reform faction, the rebuilt Temple, as God’s dwelling place on earth, was made the absolute focus of national life. The Temple priesthood was the undisputed mediator between God and the rest of the population. Ezra did not advocate a return to the glory days, because he did not believe any had existed. On the contrary, he demanded that This period of Jewish history witnessed the beginnings of biblical fundamentalism, when the written word was held to be the literal expression of the unchanging, eternal, and absolute truth of God. A place for oral tradition existed only if it did not contradict the written Law. The priesthood developed into a hereditary ruling class that controlled both the religious and political aspects of society. The High Priest, which was also an inherited office, was essentially the head of state. Only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin had survived the wars with Assyria and Babylon - that is why the ten other tribes are known as ‘the lost tribes of Israel.” But as most Israelites claimed to belong to the tribe of Judah, their religion became known as Judaism, or Judah-ism. “Jews” became the catch-all word for the Israelite nation, used indiscriminately by Gentiles. But the priesthood was not descended from the tribe of Judah. Ezra was a scribe and a priest, but not all scribes were priests. Key sections of the Torah and other books were composed by scribes from the tribe of Judah. No one but descendants of Judah would have made such an elaborate effort to trace King David’s ancestral line back to Judah. And no one else would have written Jacob’s deathbed prophecy that the future salvation of Israel and the whole world will come from a descendant of Judah. As far as the Palestinian priesthood was concerned, deliverance for the Israelites would come only with the blessing of the Temple authority. They had the final word. One can easily imagine, therefore, that most priests would have raised no objections to the thirtyeighth chapter of Genesis. Its representation of Judah is far from flattering. The description of how he cemented the messianic lineage showed not only that he was a Famous stories of families in the messianic/patriarchal line that were insinuated into Holy Scripture have nothing to do with the Law of Moses, and have no connection whatsoever to the Temple. These narratives prove the existence of a parallel form of Judaism that rejected the supremacy of the Law and the Temple. Judaic scribes communicated this tradition using different techniques of plot, symbol, analogy, and metaphor which, for the Babylonian Jews who remained behind co-existed peacefully with the Zoroastrian Persians, and continued to thrive. Babylon became the world’s second-most important Jewish community outside Jerusalem. Babylonian Jews did not have the same enthusiasm for the Temple cult as their Palestinian counterparts, and did not regard the Law of Moses in the same absolutist terms. They emphasized other aspects of their religion. For Esther, a Babylonian Jewess and the heroine of the story, conspires with her scribe ‘uncle’ to marry the world’s leading Gentile -- Xerxes, king of Persia. The Law was violated for a higher purpose. From her exalted position as Queen, Esther prevented the wholesale slaughter of Babylonian Jews planned by the king’s prime minister. During the reign of Herod the Great, many Babylonian Jews came to live and study in Jerusalem. The most famous was Rabbi Hillel, known today as the spiritual father of modern Judaism, and regarded as one of the most important figures in Jewish history. After the Temple was destroyed, and the priesthood eradicated, the philosophy of the famous “School of Hillel” was adopted as mainstream rabbinic tradition. With the benefit of hindsight, Hillel’s liberal and inclusive interpretation of the Law was considered the most appropriate. SEPARATE TRADITIONS Ezra and the priestly leadership were backed financially and militarily by the Persian authorities, happy to use Palestine as a buffer zone on their western borders. After the Greeks conquered the Persian Empire, things began to slowly change. Whereas the Persians were content to leave the Jewish culture alone, the Greeks constantly sought opportunities to Hellenize them. Among Palestinian Jews who benefited from trade and business in the Greek world, some had grown skeptical of the Jerusalem priesthood and the trappings of its religion. In these people, the Greeks found an ally to their cause. Wherever possible, sympathetic Jews were installed in positions of power. But change was slow, and eventually the Greeks grew impatient. Antiochus IV (175-164 B.C.E.) attempted to wipe out the Jewish religion, and this triggered a huge popular backlash, recorded in the Books of I & II Maccabbees.1 The Greek rulers were overthrown, and an independent Jewish state was established that lasted for a hundred years. Different religious sects emerged during this time whose precise origins are still ambiguous. The Pharisees, whose philosophy epitomized the legalism of Ezra, were one such group. The main source of information on the Pharisees comes from Josephus and the New Testament. But even though both are considered historically unreliable by modern scholars, Josephus’ description of the Pharisees harmonizes with the gospel accounts. Josephus claimed to have been a Pharisee at one time, which might explain why he called them “accurate interpreters of the Law.” In the New Testament, they are portrayed as sticklers for cultic minutiae, and obsessed with matters of bodily purity. From the evidence of later rabbinic writings, Pharisees also had many “extra” oral laws and customs not found in the written Torah, which were similarly oriented at purification through ritual observances. The Pharisaic movement represented the rise of fundamentalism, and their opposition to the rule of Herod the Great raised their stock among ordinary Palestinian Jews. The other significant religious group was the Essenes. According to the available sources -- Josephus, Philo, and the Dead Sea Scrolls -- Essenes were comparable in many aspects to Pharisees. Personal purity was paramount and achieved through ceremonial practices. Both were regimented to a degree, but the Essenes were more idealistic, more revolutionary, than the Pharisees. They believed that the Essene community itself was the MENAHEM Josephus recorded that Menahem was an Essene prophet who met Herod, who was still a schoolboy, and told him that he would be king of the Jews and rule for at least thirty years. When the prediction eventually came true, Herod accorded special privileges to the Essenes. Herod was satisfied with these replies; and gave Menahem his hand, and dismissed him with a friendly gesture; and from that time he continued to honor the Essenes.2 The Jerusalem Talmud refers to Menahem as a member of the king’s court,3 and the Mishnah states that he was president of the Sanhedrin. 4 The Essenes, under Menahem’s leadership, were the establishment party. Consequently, they wielded considerable influence on Herod’s policy of outreach to Diaspora Jews, who were encouraged to make financial contributions to the general reconstruction of Israel. Herod was known to give Toward the end of the Second Temple period, common Israelites had come to believe that they could be united together into a powerful nation only by a king. They yearned nostalgically for the time when David ruled, when Israel was a strong nation feared and respected by its neighbors. Prophecies circulated that predicted the Messiah would come in the tradition of a Davidic warrior king. The emergence of Herod as king of the Jews, even if he was installed by the Romans, was taken as a sign by many that the time was close when Israel would be ready to accept a genuine king. Although Herod was considered an Arab imposter, he served to presage the real thing. No doubt Herod the Great had his own views on the subject. But if he believed himself the Messiah, as some historians suspect, then he must have known that Palestinian Jews did not and never would. Herod rebuilt the Temple in Jerusalem into arguably the world’s most impressive construction outside of the pyramids, not to earn the respect and admiration of the locals, but to impress the much wealthier Diaspora Jews, whose population easily doubled that of Palestine. Contemporary Jewish scholars calculated that seventy-six generations had passed since the Creation, and a prophecy in the Book of Enoch, a favored Essene text, foretold that the Messiah would deliver Israel in the seventy-seventh generation since the fall of the angels.5 The time had now arrived. By reputation, Menahem was a kingmaker, and the Essenes were accurate prophets, but the simplest way to answer the most important questions -- the when, where, and who of the Messiah -- was to have inside information. By adhering to the dispensational timetable, selecting the qualified personnel, and following the conception formula of holy births in the messianic lineage, Menahem’s Essenes conspired to fulfill prophecy. The plan depended upon, and was rationalized by, Judaism’s messianic code. THE MYTH OF JUDAH The story of Judah and Tamar is probably the most neglected chapter in the entire Book Priestly Father Mother Fiancé First Son Second Son Judah Tamar Shelah Zerah Perez Zacharias Mary Joseph John Jesus THE ETERNAL TRIANGLE Priest Woman Betrothed First Second Serpent/Angel Eve Adam Cain Abel Judah Tamar Shelah Zerah Perez Zacharias Mary Joseph John Jesus The scheme was audacious, but necessary to fulfill prophecy. So-called wise men who https://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Books/MakeMessiah-Gibbs/MakeMessiah-Gibbs-05.pdf https://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Books/MakeMessiah-Gibbs/MakeMessiah-Gibbs-06.pdf 7 https://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Books/MakeMessiah-Gibbs/MakeMessiah-Gibbs-08.pdf https://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Books/MakeMessiah-Gibbs/MakeMessiah-Gibbs-09.pdf 10 https://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Books/MakeMessiah-Gibbs/MakeMessiah-Gibbs-00.pdf
For modern westerners, it is impossible to comprehend the extent to which life in today’s world differs from life in first-century Jewish Palestine. In Western civilization, the development of law, politics, and religion has combined to make the individual the supreme unit of society. Most definitely, a human being is not considered as the living representative of a sacred ancestral bloodline ordained by God, as the individual Jew was regarded in the society of ancient Israel. Nowadays, most people know nothing about their forbears beyond three or four generations at the most; and everyone is free to make a family with whomever they choose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
#/media/File:Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Saint_John_the_Baptist_C2RMF_retouched.jpg)
#/media/File:Sainte_Anne_Leonard.jpg)
#/media/File:Andrea_Mantegna_085.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
,_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
#/media/File:Vittore_carpaccio,_scuola_degli_albanesi,_presentazione_della_vergine_al_tempio_01.jpg)
#/media/File:Andrea_Mantegna_-_The_Presentation_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
#/media/File:Vittore_Carpaccio_Birth_of_the_Virgin.jpg)