© Yirmeyahu Ben-David, 2005; Updated 2005.08.10
 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋ u |
This paper answers the gentile legend of the "Holy Grail," which has gained renewed momentum from the great controversy, and a spin-off best-selling fiction, inspired by the 1982 New York Times best-selling book 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln.
Christian legend holds that "Mary the Magdalene" used the same goblet from which RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa drank at his final PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër — saying, "This is my blood" — to catch the drops of blood that dripped from his wounds while on the stake. The hypothesis suggests that the quest to identify and possess this "Holy Grail" (and, intriguingly, the "Holy Grail family") containing the "holy blood of Christ" is the basis of the legend of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table.
Baigent, et al., explored the related French Christian legend that "Mary the Magdalene" had been married to Christ and, after his death, fled Israel, in a boat without oars, landing at Saintes Maries de la Mer (St. Mary of the Sea), France; and that she brought their child, the child of Christ — establishing a family bloodline of physical descendants of Christ. According to this hypothesis, because she (her womb) was the crucible of the blood(line) of Christ, "Mary the Magdalene" was, therefore, the true "Holy Grail."
Cryptically employing the post-135 C.E. gentile Hellenist acronym for their Christ as a man-god, Ιχθυς, France's ruling Merovingian family claimed, racistly, to be descended from this "Holy Grail family" — the "bloodline of Christ" — who, they claimed, had landed at Saintes Maries de la Mer. Through subsequent marriages, the legend claims, all of European royalty descended from this "Holy Grail family" "bloodline of Christ." Thus, the hypothesis maintains, European ruling families, as descendants of Christ, inherited the divine right of rule. It shouldn't be difficult to appreciate how this rival threatened the authority of the papacy of the Roman Catholic Church, why the Church eradicated the Knights Templar and why, consequently, this legend had to be shrouded in secrecy and encoded in cryptic symbolism. (It's bewildering, however, why the Merovingian family would assume that the Catholic Church wouldn't recognize the Ιχθυς symbology and, if that wasn't the reason for encrypting their alleged genealogy in Ιχθυς symbology, then why the secrecy?)
The hypothesis holds that secret societies, including the Knights Templar (and, later, the Masons who blurred together with the Knights Templar, and the [fictitious] "Prieuré de Zion") knew the great secret of the identity of these descendants; and that these secret societies were, and continue to be, the guardians of the "Holy Grail" (secret identity of the family) — though whom, Christians extrapolated, the Second Coming of Christ will be embodied. Thus, these secret societies believe, the entire future of Christianity, including the Second Coming of Christ and, therefore, the future of the entire world depends upon their secrecy and guardianship in preserving the "Holy Grail," holy royal family, "bloodline of Christ" in the "bloodlines of the Illuminati."
Contrary to assertions by non-scholars ignorant of Hebrew, in discussions of this hypothesis, that MiꞋrᵊyâm ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ might mean "MiꞋrᵊyâm the Great," it cannot. MiꞋrᵊyâm ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ means "MiꞋrᵊyâm the îÄâÀãÌÈì-itess." As the ABC documentary, "Unlocking Da Vinci's Code, The Full Story" (2004), notes, Israeli archeologists confirm that îÄâÀãÌÈì was, in the first century C.E., a fishing village located on the northwestern shore of Yâm Ki•nërꞋët. The ruins of îÄâÀãÌÈì are found 7 km. (4 mi.) north of TᵊvërꞋyâh (Hebraized from the Roman-Latin "Tiberius").
As Dr. Elaine Pagels correctly points out, MiꞋrᵊyâm ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ was never regarded as a prostitute before "Pope" Gregory erroneously branded her such in the year 591 C.E., more than half a millennium later. Everything chronologically subsequent to his libel (acknowledged false even by the Catholic Church in 1969) is irrelevant. Focus, therefore, shifts to the first century community of religious Jews — which is illuminated by Qum•rânꞋ (Dead Sea) Scroll (4Q) MMT (Mi•qᵊtz•atꞋ Ma•as•ëh′ haTor•âhꞋ).
Investigation then reduces to three elements:
Was MiꞋrᵊyâm ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ married to RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa?
Does a physical descendant of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa live today?
Update 2014: Originally, trying to toe a scientific line, I was a bit overly dismissive: "I will show that, although element a is certainly true, elements b and c are, for all intents and purposes, ridiculous myth — not significantly different from that of Egyptian Pharaohs and Roman Caesars — concocted by royal families seeking to demonstrate racist-based divine right, origin and confirmation of their rule."
But not so fast. Element a certainly is still true. But recent research (2007) at Hebrew University on the emigration of Jews in 70 C.E.
Furthermore, despite the impossibility of identifying documentation (yo•khas•inꞋ), and despite "ridiculous myth… concocted by [gentile] royal families seeking to demonstrate racist-based divine right, origin and confirmation of their rule" as well, significant developments continue to surface preventing ruling-out the possibility of surviving descendants of the Royal House of David – though documentation of individual identification remains an impossibility.
Scholars today are out of touch with the realities of the early Church, which was dependent upon Judaic origins for any validity while they defied, intractably contradicted, usurped and pretended to displace, then proceeded to invalidate and vilify the most central doctrines of those same origins (see my book, Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN)). Some scholars today simplistically claim that there is no contradiction between "Jesus" being married and the alleged divinity that the Church attributes to their image. The earliest Christians, however, owing their learning to Jews, likely knew that even when alone, a nocturnal emission occurring during a dream defiles a religious Jew (until he immerses in a mi•qᵊwëhꞋ according to Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ) — and so does having sexual relations with one's wife.
The divine man-god image of the Christians, however, couldn't be allowed to become defiled since a god must maintain its perfect state. Therefore, contrary to some modern assertions, the Church (at least the early Church) couldn't permit "Jesus" to be defiled by marital relations (despite the obvious contradiction that Christians maintain that "god" inseminated "Mary"). Worse, the offspring of "god" would be yet another "Son of god," and an entire line of "Sons of god" to worship!!! The specter of an endless line of Jews who were all "Sons of god" was the ultimate threat to a Church seeking to displace Jews. So, one must realize that the Church had no choice but to argue any conceivable argument that "Jesus" wasn't married. Since there is no evidence whatsoever that he was unmarried, and the weight of evidence is that he was married (see below; e.g., a prerequisite for being ordained as a RibꞋi, and almost always even for a Rabbi and wives weren't customarily mentioned — we know Shim•onꞋ "KeiphꞋâ" Bar-YonꞋâh was married only by a passing implication: he had a mother-in-law: The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•ti•tᵊyâhꞋu (NHM) 8.14), the only mentioned, most likely, candidate for his wife was MiꞋrᵊyâm ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ! She, "Pope" Gregory would eventually argue in the sixth century C.E., must be transformed into a slut whom Jesus "saved"; but who couldn't possibly be married to their man-god.
The comfort of certainty, rarely achievable in the realm of first century history, must inevitably yield either to the intellectuality of logic or the superstition of blind faith. The greatest of all fallacies of logic is probably argumentum ad ignorantiam, evading the logical burden of proof by fallaciously claiming that ignorance (i.e. lack of evidence) confirms one's argument. Argumentum ad ignorantiam follows the general, and arrogant, pattern, "Until you present incontrovertible proof to the contrary, I'm right." This is similar to the scientific and logical law (equally abused by the sophomoric) that absence of evidence for something doesn't prove its non-existence.
The greatest arguments against RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa being married dangles from the assumption — alien and contradictory to first-century Judaic principles (superimposed on "Jesus" by an axe-grinding Church entirely dependent on defending the "divinity of Christ") — that one must assume "Christ" was unmarried unless "incontrovertible evidence" proves otherwise. That is classical argumentum ad ignorantiam.
What must be assumed is dictated by, not capriciously diverging from, the principles of the first-century community of religious Jews in which RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, his followers and his fellow Pᵊrush•imꞋ interacted: the Tor•âhꞋ and Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ — not the post-135 C.E. Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) of the Roman gentile Christian Church, which, as the eminent Oxford historian James Parkes ably demonstrated (The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, A Study in the Origins of Anti-Semitism), was an intractably contradictory displacement theology, the polar opposite of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and his original Pᵊrush•iꞋ Jewish followers.
"RibꞋi" is a special title that designated a Pᵊrush•iꞋ rabbi who lived (1) in the Holy Land, (2) during the time of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ and (3) each of whom was personally ordained by the Nâ•siꞋ of the Beit Din hâ-Jâ•dolꞋ (Hellenized to "Gâ•dolꞋ , the Great House of Law.','#ffff99', 260)"; onMouseout="hideddrivetip()">Συνέδριον"). It is well documented that Yᵊho•shuꞋa was a "rabbi." What is less known is that this necessarily means he was both a Pᵊrush•iꞋ and a RibꞋi (not a mere "rabbi"). Jews, especially rabbis and far more so RibꞋis, were married and expected to have at least two children, more if necessary to father a son. Therefore, logic demands that the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam be rejected: lacking evidence to the contrary the assumption must be that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was married like all of the other Pᵊrush•imꞋ, especially Pᵊrush•iꞋ RibꞋis. It is any divergence from this 1st century norm for Pᵊrush•imꞋ and RibꞋis that requires special mention, and requires the burden of proof — backed by compelling documentation and evidence.
No such mention or evidence suggesting he was unmarried exists.
Having settled that the logical mind must assume RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was married, the evidence corroborating that he was married is then viewed quite differently, and found compelling.
We may notice that MiꞋrᵊyâm ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ fits the pattern of a typical øÇáÌÈðÄéú. Just as importantly, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa didn't "break barriers and taboos" (as Christians disrespectfully categorize Tor•âhꞋ and (i.e., according to) call Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ). MiꞋrᵊyâm ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ is mentioned only three times: in NHM 27.56, 61 & 28.1. In all three instances, if MiꞋrᵊyâm ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ wasn't a family member then she was included in the group like an onion in a fruit salad. In the first scene, at the foot of the execution stake, we find among the women only his mother, wives of his closest followers — and MiꞋrᵊyâm ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ. In both of the last two instances, at the sepulcher, only she and RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa's mother are there. Only the wife, mother and, possibly, children would be found in such a scene.
With the usual caveat that the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) (null testament) lacks doctrinal authority, nevertheless, the fourth-century writings, even though redacted through evolving misojudaic Christianizing filters, still shed occasional glimpses into the first-century community of religious Jews.
In the 4th century account attributed to Yokhâ•nânꞋ (Hellenized to "John"), it is significant that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa warns MiꞋrᵊyâm ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ not to handle (απτομαι; aptomai; also manipulate or palpate) him because he wasn't yet dead ("ascended to the Father"), as everyone thought. This implies not that "Jesus" had metamorphosed into some palpable part-ghost, part-man but, rather, that he had revived into what religious Jews considered a second, revived (Hellenized to "resurrected"), life.
Exploding a superstition is never pleasant, but RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa wasn't the first Jew to be "resurrected." The origin of "resurrect" is the Hebrew cognate of çÇé, and simply means to enliven, make live, preserve alive or revive. There are a number of examples of Jews in Ta•na"khꞋ who experienced this second, "resurrected," life that follows a near-death experience: Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ after the binding, Yo•seiphꞋ after being sold into slavery, Mosh•ëhꞋ after the committing of the infant into the Nile, et al.
Christians will be even more traumatized to read that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa had revived after being sealed in the sepulcher, but was dying from his wounds and expected to "ascend to the Father" soon. One could speculate that, possibly, MiꞋrᵊyâm ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ was in her period of nid•âhꞋ, during which a wife may not touch her husband (and vice-versa). However, a religious Jewish wife would never make the mistake of touching her husband when she was nid•âhꞋ — even in private, much less in a public place.
One can readily understand how a wife, reunited with the husband she thought had died, would want intimate physical confirmation — a hug. Bear in mind, though, that he was fatally wounded and dying; certainly in pain. She wasn't expecting sexual relations (and certainly not there). Because even mild intimacy can trigger defilement, however, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa feared that he wouldn't be able to heal enough to be halakhically fit to visit a mi•qᵊwëhꞋ and perform the necessary ablution to purify himself before he died.
Only someone outrageously ignorant of first-century Judaism would suggest that an unrelated religious Jewess would run up and defile the most important and revered RibꞋi in the world by embracing him when he was neither her husband (or father). The idea is at once laughable, outrageous, disgusting and offensive in the religious Jewish community; yet another misconception of goy•imꞋ who are unrepentantly alien to the authentic, historical, religion and teachings of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa. Even a woman handling his tzitz•itꞋ of his tunic was so shocking that it merited special mention and explanation.
The story of a woman sprinkling the feet of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa with water, then cologne, and finally wiping away the excess cologne with her hair isn't found in NHM. That means it wasn't accepted as a true account by the original followers of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa. In addition to implying an intimacy no religious Jew, much less a prominent RibꞋi, would have permitted a strange woman, the story is confused and the three accounts contradictory (Lu. 7.38-44; Jn. 11.2 and 12.3), betraying diverse and contradictory versions of a story conceived by gentile Roman Hellenists completely alien to the first-century religious Jewish community. Contrary to the assertions of at least one author, this bears no similarity to any Jewish wedding ritual.
Dr. Elaine Pagels has suggested that the Church sullied MiꞋrᵊyâm ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ because she traveled with men. However, this theory is contradicted by the other women documented to have traveled with the men but were not likewise libeled.
Thus, the most likely picture of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa is a RibꞋi married to MiꞋrᵊyâm ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ, who was a typical øÇáÌÈðÄéú. They probably had children, one or more of whom, when they became an adult, may have been among the 14 successors to Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ". When he taught, "Permit the children to come to me," he was most likely speaking as a father himself. Perhaps the children he spoke of included — or were — his own!
To cling to the improbable picture of an unmarried man-god without evidence is argumentum ignorantium. Preferring Hellenist myth over logic and intellectuality, which are gifts from é--ä, is idolatry.
Free of the Christian assumption that he was unmarried, the flimsiness of traditional arguments holding that he wasn't married become apparent. One Christian argument is that it isn't specifically mentioned that he was married, nor that MiꞋrᵊyâm ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ was his wife. So where does it mention that Shim•onꞋ "KeiphꞋâ" Bar-YonꞋâh was married? Yet, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa visited his mother-in-law's house (NHM 8.14)! It never mentions his wife's name, nor that she is married to Shim•onꞋ "KeiphꞋâ" Bar-YonꞋâh.
"Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate later writes as if everyone knows that all of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ were married (IV Paul = I Cor. 9.5). Yet, there is no mention of their wives either. The argument that the absence of mention in Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was married is empty — argumentum ad ignorantiam that doesn't demonstrate non-existence of his marriage.
Christians place great confidence in "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate excepting RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa. They've never stopped to think how improper it would have been for "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate to declare himself on par with "Christ" by being "married like Jesus." Who would place himself on par with the Mâ•shiꞋakh by saying "If something applies to the Mâ•shiꞋakh then it applies to me"? Most understandably, "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate doesn't dare to write so arrogantly. To assert that this implies "Jesus" wasn't married is inexcusably ignorant.
Jews have always been commanded in Tor•âhꞋ, if they were able, to (marry and) have at least one son. Thus, all of these married Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ either had sons and daughters or were in the process of having them. Yet, there is no explicit mention of their children either.
The inhabitants of Qum•rânꞋ, whether or not they were òåÉùÒÄéï ("Essenes"; still hotly debated among scholars), were the legitimate Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ (as contrasted with the Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ Ko•han•eiꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa ("Wicked Priests") who controlled their Hellenized Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ in collaboration with, and backed by, the Hellenist Roman occupiers. Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ, Ko•han•imꞋ were Hellenists who predominated Jewish aristocracy (who were also Hellenists collaborating with the Hellenist Roman occupiers).
Unlike RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, Yokhâ•nânꞋ 'ha-Ma•tᵊbilꞋ' Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ Bën-Tzâ•doqꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ was a Ko•heinꞋ — almost certainly not a Hellenist. A priori, he was almost certainly an òåÉùÒÄéï.
Ko•han•imꞋ have different, stricter, standards than Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ. RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, however, was of the tribe of Yᵊhud•âhꞋ — Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, not a Ko•heinꞋ. As his title, RibꞋi, makes abundantly clear, he was a Pᵊrush•iꞋ, not a Tzᵊdoq•iꞋ like his cousin, Yokhâ•nânꞋ 'ha-Ma•tᵊbilꞋ' Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ Bën-Tzâ•doqꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ.
There is some evidence that the inhabitants of Qum•rânꞋ were transient, coming for a temporary stay. Since Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ weren't celibate, it seems likely that these Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ-on-sabbatical were likewise celibate only during their stay there. The argument that they were celibate is powered almost solely by Catholics who have an existential need to demonstrate a basis for the celibacy of their priests and popes. There is no evidence that the Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ were celibate when they returned home. Quite the contrary, Tor•âhꞋ commands that they marry and have sons.
Therefore, the argument that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa might be celibate like "John" is doubly foolish. First, applying the evidence above, Yokhâ•nânꞋ 'ha-Ma•tᵊbilꞋ' Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ Bën-Tzâ•doqꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ wasn't celibate and, second, Ko•han•imꞋ standards weren't applied (nor even the standards of Lᵊwi•yimꞋ), to Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋbb.
Beyond all of these, the argument long employed by the Christians is now shown to turn against them. Silence implies the norm. However, unlike the Christian community, the norm of the first century religious Jewish community of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was for a religious Jew, especially a RibꞋi, to be married. In fact, Ta•lᵊmudꞋ requires, in addition to being married, that a rabbi have children. It would certainly have been mentioned had a prominent RibꞋi been unmarried or childless. Here, silence implies the norm and arguers of a departure from that norm shoulder the burden of proof. Without proof to the contrary, the weight of evidence is the 1st century Pᵊrush•iꞋ RibꞋi norm: that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was married and had children!!!
As several historians have noted, the "Gnostic Gospels," while not doctrinally authoritative, like the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) may shed some light on the likely marriage of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and øÇáÌÈðÄéú MiꞋrᵊyâm ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ.
The history of the period preceding the death of Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ", ca. 62 C.E., shows that the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ lived in harmony with the Pᵊrush•imꞋ, while all of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ, including the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, were opposed by fellow Jews: the Roman-sympathizing (and Roman-backed) Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•iꞋ "Wicked Priests" who are described in the Qum•rânꞋ (Dead Sea) Scrolls. (For background historical information on the Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ and Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ "Wicked Priests," see my book, Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN)). There was no reason for flight by any Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ (or other Pᵊrush•iꞋ) prior to the death of Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ", by which time she would likely have been in her sixties.
Update 2014: In 2007, in my overeagerness to toe a scientific line, I overlooked the need to distinguish between most Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ in contrast to the few, mostly leaders, who descended from the Royal Beit-Dâ•widꞋ. The family of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa are documented to have been of Royal descent. Ergo, like most of the other Pᵊrush•imꞋ, most Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ were not under threat in Yᵊhud•âhꞋ (outside of Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim, from whence all Jews had been expelled). Thus, while most Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ continued to live in Yᵊhud•âhꞋ (outside of Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim) among the other Pᵊrush•imꞋ, relatives of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa – which included MiꞋrᵊyâm ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ and any of her male children, being of the Royal Beit-Dâ•widꞋ, would have had to flee to avoid being hunted down and killed between ca. 68 C.E. (when Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ" was killed) and 333 C.E. by Roman Christians.
Following the death of Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ", the Pᵊrush•imꞋ rebelled against the Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ "Wicked Priests," insisting that the Romans censure the Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•iꞋ "High Priest" for murdering Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ"; proof positive of the harmonious relationship between the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ and other Pᵊrush•imꞋ.
Updated 2014: During this period, by contrast, the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ began to be bitterly opposed and persecuted by the budding proto-Christian movement of Hellenist Roman idolaters: proto-Christian Hellenist Ëvᵊyōn•imꞋ, who had originated with
Στέφανος, and the original first Christians, who had originated fromΠαύλοςthe Hellenizer. Conversely, because these original first Christians were rabid Hellenists like their respective founders, they were increasingly viewed by all Pᵊrush•imꞋ, including the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, as Hellenist-collaborating spies, like the Hellenist Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ except frequenting the synagogues where they informed to their Roman patrons.Thus, until 135 C.E. (when MiꞋrᵊyâm ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ would have been about dead for perhaps half a century), relations with other Pᵊrush•imꞋ were harmonious and there was no more reason for Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ to flee than for any other Pᵊrush•imꞋ to flee – except for those of the Royal Beit-Dâ•widꞋ, who began to be hunted down, most likely after ca. 68 C.E. (when Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ" was killed), because the Hellenist Roman occupiers (and their Hellenist-collaborator Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ Jews) increasingly felt threatened by the Royal Beit-Dâ•widꞋ Lineage of Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ leaders, some (likely, all) of whom were relatives of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa.
Mother MiꞋrᵊyâm Bat Eil•iꞋ Bën-Dâ•widꞋ Distinguished From Daughter-In-Law MiꞋrᵊyâm ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ If MiꞋrᵊyâm Bat Eil•iꞋ Bën-Dâ•widꞋ
To every complete Jew, Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ is the only kâ•sheirꞋ place to live and Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim is his or her heart. MiꞋrᵊyâm ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ, an apprentice of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, most certainly didn't take off with the apostate Hellenists to Πέλλα. But, after ca. 68 C.E. (when Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ" was killed), France and other regions of the Roman Empire, distant from both Rome and Yᵊhud•âhꞋ, would have been safer for her and any male children than Yᵊhud•âhꞋ – the most obvious place the Roman Christians were hunting down and exterminating Beit-Dâ•widꞋ.
We might expect that a wife of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa might be a couple of years or so younger than himself. Since he died at the age of 37 in the year 30 C.E., in 68 C.E., when the campaign to exterminate Beit-Dâ•widꞋ first began to ramp up enough to kill the most obvious Royal descendent (Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ"), MiꞋrᵊyâm ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ would have been about 65 years old – exceeding the typical lifespan in 1st-century Yᵊhud•âhꞋ by more than double the life expectancy (estimated by historians at around 30 years) – and any children would have been adults – likely dead of old age themselves. Both her ossuary and the ossuary of at least one of her sons, Yᵊhud•âhꞋ Bar YᵊshuꞋa bear this out: they rest today not in Europe (not France, and certainly not Rome where authorities had issued orders to exterminate Beit-Dâ•widꞋ) but in the Talpiot Complex in Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim.
Updated 2014: However, the above does not rule out that some of their youngest children, or grandchildren, may have fled in one or more of these emigrations.
It is well documented that the Romans tracked down and murdered all of the Davidic descendants they could find. Before 70 C.E. this was more talk than action, as the unhidden (most of the) life of Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ" Bën-Dâ•widꞋ demonstrates.
However, in 135 C.E. the Jews were expelled from Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim and hunting down Jews of the Royal Beit-Dâ•widꞋ became more earnest.
As Bagatti noted (The Church from the Circumcision), in 333 C.E., under penalty of death, the Church, having obtained power upon the nationalization of Constantine, forbade Jews to observe the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër and required them, instead, to attend Church on the festival to Esotera — and eat pork on the way out. Judaism became illegal. Tor•âhꞋ Scrolls were burned, Jews of Beit-Dâ•widꞋ were hunted down and murdered and the Hellenist Romans destroyed all of the yo•khas•inꞋ of Beit-Dâ•widꞋ, except for two: the father and mother of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa (NHM 1).
Without the archeologically authenticated yo•khas•inꞋ — and none exist, no claim of Davidic (or Kohanic, for that matter) descent is legitimate. Nᵊkhëm•yâhꞋ 7.63 demonstrates that they would all be annulled even if DNA or some other method were able to "discover" some miraculously claimed descendant.
Recall that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa declared that if race (genetic or DNA bloodline descendants) were the issue, "Ël•oh•imꞋ is able to raise up physical children to Av•râ•hâmꞋ from these stones" (NHM 3.9) — in fact, He did, at the "Big Stretch Apart. The descendants of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa are those he stipulated: "Whoever shall do the wish of my Father Who is in the heavens, he is my brother and sister and mother" (NHM 12.50). What is the wish of his Father Who is in the heavens? There can be only one answer: Tor•âhꞋ as ordained at Har Sin•aiꞋ, necessarily implying the interpretive authority of the beit din of the main body of historical and Biblical Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, and the ensuing Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ (see my book, Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC)).
What Leonardo da Vinci or the Knights Templar believed derives from the Hellenist gentile Christian Church; entirely disconnected from, and unrelated to, the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ. So, whether or not da Vinci painted "John" or "Mary Magdalene," and whether or not he encoded some message by omitting the "Holy Grail" in his painting of "The Last Supper" [sic], relates only to what gentile Christian (however unorthodox) da Vinci believed. His beliefs, however, have no relevance to the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa or MiꞋrᵊyâm ha-Mi•gᵊdâl•itꞋ. Question #1: Aside from da Vinci's other ignorances relative to a PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër, twelve "apostles" means he omitted twelve chalices, not one. Question #2: If da Vinci depicted the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër after Yᵊhud•âhꞋ (Hellenized to "Judas") had already left, then the effeminate figure would most likely be "Mary Magdalene." Still, da Vinci's beliefs have no relevance beyond his painting.
One of the living witnesses to a recent "discoverer" of some unidentified treasure allegedly hidden by the Knights Templar testified that he had been told that the treasure was documents written in Old Latin. First, Latin means any such document didn't even originate with the original, Greek-speaking, gentile Christian Church, (much less, lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdilꞋ, with RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa or the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ who used exclusively Hebrew and Aramaic in religious liturgy and discourse). Second, any document found by the recent priest or the medieval Knights Templar in the "Temple Mount" didn't have to be authentic to make them rich, as long as the Vatican believed the documents could be ruinous. Such documents could even more easily have proven the historical fact: that there was never any connection, other than enmity, between the gentile Hellenist gentile Roman Christians and, lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdilꞋ, the Torah-observant Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Jews. That would have been far more ruinous—and, inevitably will be.
Some aspects may be true. But proof, since the destruction of the yo•khas•inꞋ, is impossible. For example, Google my birth surname – Van Nest (Van-Nest or VanNest) with "Knights-Templar OR Masons" – in enough depth and you'll find that my family has some interesting connections; not only with the Masons and Knights Templar but also, via the Netherlands, with the St. Clair family (hence the Merengian royal family who, the Dossiers Secrets forgery maintains, are descendants of Beit-Dâ•widꞋ). My family also comes from the general neighborhood, in the Netherlands, of, and has at least one apparent association with, Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ Ab•u•hâvꞋ, author of the Tei•mân•iꞋ work Mᵊnor•atꞋ ha-Mâ•orꞋ.
Another possibility: my family coat of arms heralds three golden "Stars of David" on a field of black. The three golden "Stars of David" on my coat of arms could parallel the three levels of Masonry and Knights Templar that, in turn, correspond to (three stories of the Solomonic Temple hypothesized by Masons and) body, spirit and soul—and there are far more profound keys that I am aware of that the no Masons even imagines (see The Mirrored Sphinxes). Perhaps it is the Masons, Knights Templar and (fictitious) Prieuré de Zion who should join me? Many of my relatives, including an uncle, were Masons. My mother was in Eastern Star (women's branch of Masonry). I have several times been invited by potential sponsors, including one 33rd degree Mason, to join the Masons, but I declined to join an organization of secrets that couldn't tell me openly what it is I would be joining.
Astronomical phenomena pinpoint the birth of historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, not to the idolatrous Christmas festival of the Sun-God, which is impossible (documented in my book, NHM), but to May 29 (of B.C.E. 7). There's no way I could arrange astronomical phenomena in B.C.E. 7 or destine my own birth date. Nevertheless, May 29 also "happens" (for those who believe in coincidences) to be my birthday.
Bottom line: it is flat-out, irreversibly and intractably, impossible for any scientifically-verifiable, Biblically-valid, genealogical descendant of Dâ•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh to prove their lineage from Beit-Dâ•widꞋ today; and that is the ineluctable Biblical requirement before anyone can make a serious (i.e., valid) claim to be Mâ•shiꞋakh. Possibilities short of claims to be Mâ•shiꞋakh? Who knows? Legitimate interpretations must harmonize with the facts, not gloss over them.
 |
|
 |