Unraveling the Family History of Jesus: History of the Extended Family of Jesus from 100 BC

Introduction

There have been literally thousands of books written about Jesus. Most have to do with His teachings, His ministry, His ethics, or His effect on the history of the world. Very few, however, deal with the actual personal ancestral history of Jesus, and how He was affected by it. In particular, few deal specifically with the singular issue that led to His death: that He claimed to be the King of the Jews.

This work is not a theological discourse on the life of Jesus. In fact, while there are issues that are presented as historical, there is no attempt in this work to proselytize. Instead, I have made every effort to make this an historical narrative, well-documented and clearly understandable by anyone interested in learning more about Jesus from an historical point of view.

Specifically, it is my goal to present as clearly and as well-documented as possible a nearly complete history of the life of Jesus in its own sitz im leben,¹ to borrow a phrase from the great theologian, Hermann Gunkel. However, my focus is entirely different than what Gunkel attempted to do. His focus was on the pericopes,² or short sayings and stories in the New Testament, and his endeavor was to place them in their proper setting in life. In doing so, he changed theological discussion in the latter part of the 20th century. My goal, however, in borrowing Gunkel’s phrase sitz im leben, or setting in life, is more broadly based. It is my intention to present a setting in life of Jesus Himself, beginning several generations before His birth, and continuing two generations after His death and resurrection. Rather than accepting that Jesus was the Messiah because He was a son of David in a generic sense, my goal is to show exactly how he was a son of David, and how He had the right to the claim that he was King of the Jews. Instead of looking at the genealogies of Matthew and Luke as just lists that lead back to King David, my intention is to put the flesh on those names by identifying in history those specific persons who made that list.

Furthermore, since no individual exists in a vacuum, I will present a fully elaborated history that will show not only who His ancestors and successors were, but also how they may have affected Him. By revealing more about the lives of His ancestors and successors, the reader will gain a more in depth understanding of the forces that brought Jesus to His particular place in history.

Begining with His immediate parents, Mary the Virgin and Joseph of Nazareth, I will present the historic documentation that elaborates on this unique couple. I will precisely discuss the events that led to the actions of Joseph of Nazareth and Mary the Virgin, and show the reasons why they occurred.

Beyond that, however, I will delve into the ancestry of both Joseph of Nazareth and Mary the Virgin, although more completely on the line of Mary the Virgin, for reasons which I will show, and present a full history of the persons and factors that led Herod the Great, the nemesis of the Holy Family, to do what he did to destroy the Holy Family. The record will show that Jesus was directly related to the last Kings of Judea and the High Priests of the Temple of Jerusalem. His connection to the Hasmoneans, who reclaimed Judea in the second century BC, will be shown as well. Furthermore, I will show how this ancestry is consistent with the genealogy of Jesus presented in the Gospel of Luke. In addition, I will also cover the genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew and show that it, too, reflects the ancestry of Jesus accurately, although with some gaps.

In the process, I will present a case that will lay out, in detail, my views on the factors that most affected Jesus, not only on where He agreed with some of his peers, but also where He dramatically separated Himself from his peers.

In the latter part of this work I will deal with the generation of the ministry of Jesus and offer conclusive proof that there were several key players outside the Biblical record who were not only very close relatives of Jesus, but who also supported Him in His ministry. To my knowledge, none of this information has been presented before in direct connection with the ministry of Jesus. More importantly, however, within that same family, connected to Jesus, were those who did not believe in Him as the Messiah. Furthermore, it was through this very part of His extended family that the destruction of Jerusalem eventually occurred. All of this will be revealed and discussed in detail.

The connection of Jesus to the Hasmoneans and the role of Herod the Great to wipe out the Holy Family will be presented chronologically so that the reader can see the process unfold that led to the ministry of Jesus. In this presentation it will become evident just how closely Herod the Great came to his goal, with his own death alone prohibiting him from succeeding.

Chapter 1

Mary, the Daughter of Heli and the Mother of Jesus

The Virgin Mary would never have known or remembered her parents. Her father, Heli Joachim, died shortly after her birth in about 17 BC. Her mother, Anne (Hanna), also died at about the same time, both of them having been executed by Herod the Great. Upon the mother’s death, assuming that Heli Joachim and Anne weren’t executed together, Mary the Virgin was taken to the Order of the Temple Virgins, where she was to be raised as a virgin. There were few of her relatives remaining alive when her parents died who could have taken her in. Her older brother, Zebedee (as will be shown) was only about 13 to 16 years old at the death of their parents. Mary had two aunts, sisters of her mother Anne, but nothing is known of their families. On her father’s side, she had an uncle, Joseph of Arimathea, who could have taken her in. He was already about 43 years old at that time. Yet he did not take her in. He was a wealthy tin merchant, as will be shown, and he travelled from Jerusalem to Rome and on to Britain regularly. Her deceased grandfather, Matthan, through her mother Anna bint Matthan, had been the father of Jacob the Patriarch, the father of Joseph of Nazareth, by his marriage to Estha bint Levi. This meant that Joseph of Nazareth, as he was later known, was related to Mary the Virgin, both having the same grandfather, Matthan. Joseph of Nazareth was about 36 years old at the time of the death of Mary’s parents.

The Order of the Temple Virgins was a temporary place for Mary the Virgin to stay. The Order was not in a position to raise the child indefinitely, but was more of a holding place for orphans until the Order could find a suitable sponsor who would raise the child within the Jewish faith as a virgin, dedicated to God. Assuming that her mother, Anne bint Matthan, had died as late as 13 BC, Mary would have been 3 years old when she was taken to the Order. She apparently remained there for 11 years, until she was 14 years old.

We learn of the youth of Mary the Virgin from The Protoevangelium of James which was written about 200 AD, but which records events leading up to the birth of Jesus. According to this record when Mary the Virgin was three years old her father Joachim took her to the Temple where the priest received her. He set her on the third step of the altar.³

The first and most natural question that one would ask in order to determine whether this were true, or even possible, namely that Mary would be raised with Virgins in the Temple of Jerusalem, is this: Did such an order even exist?

There are three accounts in the Bible that are used to demonstrate that there were special women who ministered at the Temple complex. Exodus 38:8 mentions women who watch (צָבָא) at the door of the tabernacle. The second is in 1 Samuel:

Now Eli was very old; and he heard all that his sons did unto all Israel, and how that they lay with the women that did service at the door of the tent of meeting.⁴

In both of the verses, the Hebrew verb for watch and waited is the same word. It is the Hebrew word צָבָא (tsaba), which is the same verb used to described the liturgical activity of the Levites.⁵ This corresponds to the Latin translation in the Clementine Vulgate, which relates that these women observabant at the temple doors. In other words, they were performing a liturgical function.

These women, then, were pious women who were devoted to a liturgical function. In fact, the Court of Women might have existed formally for these special liturgical women.

The third reference to these liturgical females is found in the Aprocphyphal work 2 Maccabees, in which it says that the virgins, who were locked up in the Temple, rushed forward to the High Pries Onias in prayer.⁶

The unusal part of this passage is that the virgins were shut up. In the Greek it is αἱ δὲ κατάκλειστοι τῶν παρθένων, or the shut up ones of the virgins. In this passage the reference is not to all the virgins of the city, but only to a special set of virgins, that is, those virgins who had the privilege and right to be in the presence of the High Priest and to address him. If these virgins had a special liturgical role at the Temple, it becomes clear that they would have both addressed the High Priest Onias and would also have been featured as an essential part of the intense supplication in the Temple at this liturgical moment.⁷

In the Mishnah it is recorded that there were 82 consecrated virgins who wove the veil of the Temple. Eighty-two virgins wove the veil which was described as two cubits wide and 40 cubits long.⁸

In a Talmud passage we find another reference to the women who made the veils for the Temple, baked the showbread, and prepared the incense.⁹

Rabbinic Jewish sources also record how, when the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70 AD, eventually destroying the Temple there, the Temple virgins leaped into the flames so as not to be abducted by the heathen soldiers.¹⁰ The same sources report that these virgins lived in the three-story building inside the Temple area. However, it is difficult to find any other details about this structure.

The first century document by the name of the Apocalypse of Baruch describes the Temple virgins living in the Temple as weavers of the holy veil. They are warned to throw it into the fire in the case of an enemy attack.¹¹

Therefore, it is evident that an Order of the Temple Virgins did in fact exist at the time Mary the Virgin was born. In addition, we know that her parents were executed when she was an infant. Since she was a descendant of King David, it is highly likely that she would have been taken to the Order of the Temple Virgins for her own protection, especially from Herod the Great, who had had her parents executed.

This substantiates the claims of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church who stated in the next century that the Virgin Mary was presented to the Temple and served there from the age of three until the age of fourteen, as noted from the Protoevangelium of James. To claim that Temple virgins were a myth of celibacy-crazed Catholic bishops does not hold up. Scripture and Jewish tradition record that there were specially commissioned virgins associated with the Temple. We may not know much about them, but we know that they existed.

Joseph of Nazareth had not married, apparently. I will show later how he, too, had dedicated his life to the study of the Torah and to a deeply religious conviction. In any case, we have no record of his having a wife prior to taking in Mary the Virgin. It is also unlikely that he had married, even though he was 36 in 13 BC, because there is no mention of it in the gospels or in church tradition, which would have known of a marriage, if it had existed. As I will elaborate upon later, the children of Cleopas and his wife Mary were thought to be brothers and sisters of Jesus, when in fact we know that they were the children of Cleopas and Mary, not of Joseph and Mary the Virgin. Cleopas was the brother of Joseph of Nazareth. Had there been other brothers and sisters of Jesus, it is surprising that they did not play any part in his ministry as did all of the family of Cleopas and Mary. Therefore, we must assume, with good reason, that Joseph was single when he took Mary the Virgin into his home. Being a single person, it is also likely that he would have waited until she was about 14, so that she could essentially take care of herself.

In about 5 BC, Joseph, who was related to Mary the Virgin, being her first cousin once removed, both sharing the same grandfather, Matthan (see below), made a vow to raise her as a perpetual virgin within his own home. Joseph was about 45 years old and Mary the Virgin was 14 years old.

Matthan was the grandfather of both Mary the Virgin and Joseph of Nazareth

Since both of Joseph’s parents had already died many years prior, and since Joseph was the eldest son of Jacob the Patriarch of Jerusalem, he stood to have inherited the family wealth. Given the fact that his father Jacob had been a Patriarch of Jerusalem, he was probably wealthy. Under Roman Law, the position of Patriarch was considered a significant one, and Roman Law gave to the Patriarch certain tax revenues from the people.¹² This accumulated wealth would have naturally transferred to Joseph on his father’s death in 23 BC.

Therefore, not having married himself, but instead having studied under Hillel the Elder (see later) until he took Mary the Virgin into his home in about 5 BC, Joseph could have become quite wealthy, or at least well off. This would have made it easier for him to bring the orphan Mary the Virgin into his home.

The Order of Temple Virgins seldom allowed a young child to leave the Order for purely secular reasons. After investing 11 years instilling in Mary the goal to be ever virgin it is not conceivable that they would release her to Joseph, a man 31 years older than she was, as a wife. However, if Joseph was betrothed to Mary under a contract stating that he would allow her to remain ever virgin, then this makes sense from the Order’s point of view and is consistent with the Biblical record.

There were two stages to marriage among the Jewish people at this time. The first step was the betrothal, which involved consent before witnesses. This contract was so binding that the woman could be referred to as a wife, as in Matthew 1:20, 24, where Mary is referred to as Joseph’s gynê. The bride remained with her own family for about a year, after which she was taken to her husband’s home. This was not possible in Mary’s case, since her parents were dead. That role was intead played by the Order. In parts of Judea the man was allowed to be alone with his betrothed before she actually came to his house but this was not allowed in Galilee.¹³ Although Matthew situates Mary the Virgin and Joseph in Bethlehem and not in Galilee, Brown observes: Matthew’s story of virginal conception is set in a background of peculiarly Galilean marriage customs.¹⁴

Mary the Virgin is then found to be with child.

Matthew 1:19 relates: Joseph, her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly. The general interpretation is that Joseph assumed that something was wrong. The New American Bible, however, offers this view:

As a devout observer of the Mosaic Law, Joseph wished to break his union with someone whom he suspected of gross violation of the law. It is commonly said that the law required him to do so, but the texts usually given in support of that view, e.g. Deuteronomy 22:20-21, do not clearly pertain to Joseph’s situation. Unwilling to expose her to shame: the penalty for proven adultery was death by stoning; cf. Deuteronomy 22:21-23.¹⁵

The New Jerusalem Bible offers two possibilities:

It is perhaps because Joseph is upright that he does not want to name as his own a child of an unknown father. Another explanation is that he is deterred from proceeding with the marriage by reverence for the mystery of Mary’s motherhood and has to be persuaded by means of the angelic message that it is still God’s will that he should take her to wife.¹⁶

Rene Laurentin endorses the latter explanation:

This account by Matthew contains no hint of any suspicion on Joseph’s part...What Joseph knew, according to Matthew 18, is that this child belonged to God alone. Justice required that he not seek to make his own either the holy offspring that was not his or this wife who belonged to God. He therefore withdrew quietly to avoid putting Mary in an awkward situation.¹⁷

Laurentin does acknowledge that the interpretation described as Joseph’s suspicion has been dominant in exegesis from the time of Justin, Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom, onward.¹⁸

Matthew 1:22-23 states: All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,’ referring to Isaiah 7:14.

Isaiah 7:14 is not Matthew’s source for believing in the virginal conception of Jesus, however. The authors of the ecumenical work, Mary in the New Testament, comment:

[I]t was unlikely that Matthew first came to the idea of the virginal conception of Jesus by reflecting on Isaiah 7:14, a text, that, as far as we know, no Jew had previously seen as indicative of a virginal conception of the Messiah. However, if there was already an idea that Jesus had been virginally conceived, this may have reminded Matthew of Isaiah 7:14 which would then have been reinterpreted as foretelling this conception [emphasis mine].¹⁹

Brown in his work, The Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, likewise affirms:

[I]t is dubious that Isaiah 7:14 was the origin of Matthew’s tradition of a virginal conception; elsewhere, including chapter 2, it is Matthew’s custom to add fulfillment or formula citations to existing traditions. And, indeed, there is no proof that Isaiah 7:14 played any major role in shaping the Lucan account of the virginal conception.²⁰

Matthew 1:25 relates: He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. In Luke it will be Mary the Virgin who calls her son Jesus (Luke 1:32). The word until, eôs, is ambiguous. Matthew’s concern is to explain the virginal conception of Jesus. This same expression is used by the Septuagint²¹ to explain David’s relationship with his wife Michal, Saul’s daughter. According to 2 Samuel 6:23: "And Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child eôs the day of her death."

In Luke 1:34, Mary’s response to the angel’s message that she will have a child is: I do not know a man’ (epei andra ou ginôskô). To know is the Semitic expression for sexual relations. The same word is used in Matt 1:25, "He did not know (eginôsken) her."

Luke makes it clear that Mary is a virgin. However, virginity was not valued by the Jews. Thus the daughter of Jephthah goes to the mountains to bewail her virginity because She had never known a man (Judges 11:39). Similarly, Judges 12:12 speaks of four hundred virgins who never slept with a man as though they were unfulfilled.

Ignace de la Potterie raises the question whether Mary had intended to preserve her virginity despite her marriage to Joseph. He writes:

We do not think that it is a question of a conscious decision to keep one’s virginity. That would be putting too much into the text. At this moment in salvation history that would be an anachronism. It is rather a question of orientation, of a profound attraction to a virginal way of life, a secret desire for virginity, proved and existentially experienced by Mary, but which could not yet take the form of a decision, because that was impossible in the milieu in which she lived.²²

Although I will deal with this later when discussing those immediately surrounding Jesus, still at this point a question arises regarding the brothers and the sisters of the Lord. If they are Mary’s children, then Mary’s virginity relates only to Jesus’ conception and His birth.

References to the brothers and at times also the sisters of Jesus are found in various places in the New Testament.²³ The authors of Mary in the New Testament point out:

The term adelphos, which is used in Mark 6:3, would normally denote a blood brother, ‘son of the same mother,’ frater germanus. It is well known that in the NT adelphos at times denotes other relationships: e.g. ‘co-religionist’ (Rom 9:3, where it is in the plural, and further specified as referring to kinsmen [syngeneis] according to the flesh); ‘neighbor’ (Matt 5:22-24) - but these instances do not help with the problem at hand, for here Jesus’ mother and sisters are mentioned also. More pertinent would be the use of adelphos for step-brother in Mark 6:17-18. In the Greek adelphos is sometimes used in the broad sense of ‘kinsmen, relative’ e.g., in the LXX [Septuagint] of Gen 29:12, Jacob tells Rebekah ‘that he is her father’s adelphos (Kinsman);’ also Gen 24:48. The Greek usage here obviously reflects the underlying Hebrew in which ‘ah means both (blood) brother and ‘kinsman.’ The same range of meaning seems to be attested for Aramaic.²⁴

There is an indication in the text that clearly raises the possibility that those who are described adelphoi are not Jesus’ blood brothers. In Mark 6:3, his brothers are spoken of as James, and Joses, Judas and Simon. Then when Mark identifies the women at the Cross when Jesus died, he states: Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome. (Mark 15:40). Is this a coincidence? In Matthew 13:55, His brothers are James, Joses, Simon and Judas. When Matthew names the women at the cross, he lists: Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

The authors of Mary and the New Testament reach these conclusions:

We did agree on these points: 1) The continued virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus is not a question directly raised by the NT. 2) Once it was raised in subsequent church history, it was that question which focused attention on the exact relationship of the ‘brothers’ (and ‘sisters’) to Jesus. 3) Once that attention has been focused, it cannot be said that the NT identifies them without doubt as blood brothers and sisters and hence as children of Mary. 4) The solution favored by scholars will in part depend on the authority they allot to later church insights.²⁵

A thorough study of the issue was made by Joseph Blinzler entitled Die Bruder und Schwestern Jesu. His conclusion was that those described as brothers and sisters were cousins.

The question remains: Did Mary have other children? The clearest answer, it seems, comes from an argument made by Athanasius (295-373), bishop of Alexandria, referring to the Gospel of John:

If Mary would have had another son, the Savior would not have neglected her nor would he have confided his mother to another person, indeed she had not become the mother of another. Mary, moreover, would not have abandoned her own sons to live with another, for she fully realized a mother never abandons her spouse nor her children. And since she continued to remain a virgin even after the birth of the Lord, he gave her as mother to the disciple [John], even though she was not his mother; he confided her to John because of his great purity of conscience and because of her intact virginity.²⁶

St. Hilary (315-367), Bishop of Poitiers, who was a defender of the Creed of Nicea against the Arians, also argued regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity on the basis of John’s Gospel:

Indeed many depraved men give authority to their opinion that our Lord Jesus Christ was known to have brothers (and sisters). While if these were really the sons of Mary and not those of Joseph from a former marriage, never would our Lord at the time of his passion have given Mary to the apostle John to be his mother by saying to both of them, ‘Woman behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother,’ unless he were leaving the charity of a son in the disciple for the solace of his now desolate mother.²⁷

Both of these scholars were referring to Jesus’ statement while hanging on the cross:

When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold, thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home.²⁸

This simple fact, that Jesus entrusted His own mother into the care of John the Apostle, who was a son of Zebedee and Mary Salome, and therefore not one of his own brothers, is prima facia proof that Jesus had no brothers. Otherwise, He would have entrusted His mother Mary the Virgin into a brother’s care rather than into the care of John the Apostle, who was a first cousin of Jesus. Furthermore, it is also evidence that Joseph did not have other children, since if he had, from a previous marriage, Mary would have been entrusted to them instead of to the Apostle John, who was a cousin.

Returning now to the act of Joseph of Nazareth taking Mary the Virgin into his own home, it makes sense that he would do so from his own point of view as well. He saw what he was doing as an act of obedience to God to protect Mary.

According to the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal book written shortly after the Christian church came into being, Joseph created a chapel for Mary within his own home, where she could commune with God any time she wished, in private.²⁹ In doing so he was fulfilling his committment to the Order of the Temple Virgins and to God, to protect Mary in her virginal state.

Shortly after Mary moved in with Joseph she had a visitation from the Archangel Gabriel:

Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee. But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this might be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God. And behold, Elisabeth thy kinswoman, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that was called barren. For no word from God shall be void of power. And Mary said, Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.³⁰

It is in this passage that we see that Mary the Virgin and Joseph were living in Nazareth. It is possible that Joseph moved into the household of his brother Ptolas and Escha, Ptolas’ wife, who were living in Nazareth, or that he lived nearby their home. This would explain why Joseph, a Prince of Judea, who would normally be living in Jerusalem, ended up living in Nazareth. Another possibility is that Joseph himself had moved to Nazareth to hide from Herod the Great, who had killed all of the pretenders to the throne while he (Herod) was still living. By moving to the village of Nazareth, in Galilee, Joseph would have been off the radar of the authorities under Herod the Great in Jerusalem. If, as I have surmised and will elaborate upon later, Joseph was wealthy, it is also likely that Ptolas was wealthy as well, their father Jacob the Patriarch having been wealthy. In many cases the family would live together in a larger home rather than have separate homes, at that time. I will show this definitely to be the case later.

Within 5 months, or possibly less, Joseph could tell that Mary was pregnant. He may well have become a contractor sometime after his own father died as a part of his attempt to remain low key. If so, it is possible that he could have been in another Israeli town supervising the construction of a building (this is specifically stated to be the case in the Protoevangelium of James³¹). Therefore he could have been away from home for a few months. In the next chapter I will show how this is unlikely to have been the case.

He most likely became extremely stressed when he found out that Mary was pregnant. The situation would have been very embarrassing for him, since he had vowed to protect Mary from this very thing. In addition, it was likely that Ptolas and Escha were aware of the problem as well. Furthermore, the solution to the problem was bleak, to say the least. If the community found out about her being pregnant she could be stoned to death. Similarly, if he claimed to have taken her to wife to solve the problem it would have been embarrassing, to say the least, since Mary the Virgin was 31 years younger than Joseph; it would be as if he were marrying his own daughter.

Here is the way the story is presented in the book of Matthew:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins. Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us. And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name Jesus.³²

This passage indicates on the surface that, as Matthew thought to be the case, Joseph had taken Mary in and espoused her with the intention of making her his wife. Matthew obviously was not aware of the fact that Mary had been raised to be ever virgin at the Order of the Temple Virgins, nor of the vow that Joseph had made to the Order and to God. Matthew may not have been aware that Joseph had taken Escha as his wife sometime later after Ptolas died in 6 AD, according to the Levirate Law. We need to recall that Matthew wrote his gospel about 65 years after this event. Therefore he was not privy to all of the facts.

In any case, we see that Joseph initially was going to make Mary go away, or so Matthew suspected. This, however, was not an option to Joseph, because of his vow. The fact that Joseph received the visitation from the angel probably didn’t make him feel much more comfortable in the morning.

We have no record of the actual marriage of Joseph and Mary, and in fact the Bible makes it clear that they never did marry:

Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to enrol themselves, every one to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David; to enrol himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child. And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.³³

Joseph was fulfilling his vow to raise Mary as ever virgin. His betrothal to Mary was actually a pledge that was fulfilled even 9 months after taking her from the Order of the Temple Virgins, or longer. The child Jesus was born with no marriage having occurred. Had Joseph’s intentions been purely secular, he would have married Mary when he first discovered her pregnancy, in order to protect her from stoning, or even earlier when he took her from the Order of the Temple Virgins. However, once he had received the dream about the infant in her womb, plus her own testimony of the visitation of the angel Gabriel to her, it became clear to him that he was not to touch her, as he had initially vowed to the Order. As difficult as this was in terms of how the public may have seen the issue, Joseph kept his vow. We have no evidence, however, that he ever intended to have sex with Mary. It is likely that Mary was secreted away in the house in Nazareth for those last few months out of fear that the people would ask questions that could have led to her being stoned to death. It is hard to imagine this happening without the knowledge of Ptolas and Escha who would have seen the changes in the body of Mary the Virgin.

When the command came from the government for him to go to his home town, the town of Bethlehem, because he was a Davidite, Joseph must have become quite anxious. He went with Mary, 31 years his junior, and she herself being only about 14 years old. One can imagine the people looking on with disgust as this man came to be registered, especially with Mary the Virgin ready to give birth. Yet Joseph must have held his head high and almost certainly offered no explanation for the situation. He was a stranger in Bethlehem and had no need or desire to explain his situation to them. By this apparent coincidence, Jesus was born in the town of David, as had been prophetically stated several hundred years prior to the event.³⁴

In support of Luke’s description of the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, it is confirmed that Augustus did decree a 5% world-wide inheritance tax to support the military. This was sometime before the second taxing in 6 AD and likely before Herod the Great’s death in 4 BC; it was at some point discontinued. When this census took place cannot yet be determined, and Quirinius’ official status at that time is unknown. Although the Biblical text indicates that Quirinius was the governor of Syria, it can be interpreted to mean that he became the governor of Syria subsequently, which he did. Therefore, an alternate translation suggests that Luke was actually saying that the census was only the one before that when Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6 AD. Luke was not saying he was governor when the first census was taken. This view is supported by the fact that Luke mentions a second census that was taken by Quirinius in 6 AD. This second census caused an outbreak by the Zealots, led by Judas of Gamala, the uncle of Joseph of Nazareth. I will have more on this later.

Now when they were departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I tell thee: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. And he arose and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I call my son. A voice was heard in Ramah, Weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; And she would not be comforted, because they are not. But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying,

Arise and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead that sought the young child’s life.

And he arose and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither; and being warned of God in a dream, he withdrew into the parts of Galilee, and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene.³⁵

From this record we see that Joseph had originally intended to return to Jerusalem, rather than Nazareth, where his brother Ptolas and Escha lived. Why would he not return to Nazareth? Perhaps he felt that he might have a chance to assert his claim to the royal throne. We will, of course, never know, but it would have made sense for him to go to Jerusalem if that were his intention. Since Ptolas and Escha did live in Nazareth, Joseph, on his return from Egypt, might have moved back into the house of Ptolas and Escha with his pledged wife Mary. His apparent marriage to Mary would have appeared unusual, due to the differences in age, but otherwise legal according to Jewish law. Of course, since he had his own source of income, it is also possible that he moved into his own home rather than into the home of Ptolas and Escha. Nazareth was a small village, so they probably lived quite close to each other. Also, it appears that he had not lived in Nazareth very long before Mary became pregnant. In addition, the child Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Therefore, when he returned to Nazareth, while eyebrows might have been raised, nothing illegal had occurred in the eyes of the people.

We don’t know exactly when Jesus was born but I have indicated that it was about 4 or 5 BC. Herod the Great died in 4 BC, so it is likely that Joseph and Mary didn’t have to stay in Egypt very long. In fact they may have been there only several weeks or a couple of months before Herod the Great died. On the other hand, Herod Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great, reigned after Herod the Great in Judea until 6 AD, when the Romans took over the province directly. This was the same year that Ptolas died and that Joseph took Escha into his home as protector under the Levirate Law. Therefore, we have no way of knowing how long Joseph and Mary stayed in Egypt. We do know that they were in Nazareth when Ptolas died. We also know that the angel of the Lord instructed them to return shortly after Herod the Great died in 4 BC. Therefore it is safe to assume that Joseph and Mary returned a short time after the death of Herod the Great. The fact that Herod’s son Herod Archelaus ruled Judea for another 10 years could not have made Joseph feel comfortable.

Herod Archelaus, called Archelaus II, was the son of Herod the Great. Archelaus received the kingdom of Judea by the last will of his father, though a previous will had bequeathed it to his brother Antipas. He was proclaimed king by the army, but declined to assume the title until he had submitted his claims to Caesar Augustus in Rome. Before setting out, he quelled with the utmost cruelty a sedition of the Pharisees, slaying nearly three thousand of them. In Rome he was opposed by Antipas and by many of the Jews, who feared his cruelty; but in 4 BC, after the death of his father Herod the Great, Caesar Augustus allotted to him the greater part of the kingdom (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea) with the title of ethnarch, until 6 AD when Judea province was brought under direct Roman rule at the time of the Census of Quirinius.

Joseph and Mary must have been aware of the cruelty of Herod Archelaus so they wisely took the advice of the angel and returned to Nazareth in Galilee rather than enter into Jerusalem where, by right of his position, Joseph certainly could have dwelt. Nazareth, then, is where Jesus was raised.

And when they had accomplished all things that were according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.³⁶

Joseph’s brother Ptolas died in 6 AD when Mary was about 23 and Joseph was 54 years old. According to the Jewish custom of Levirate Law,³⁷ upon the death of Ptolas, Joseph took his brother’s widow Escha as protector, along with her daughter Anne, who was 9 years old at that time. Joseph would not have had to take in Escha and Anne had Ptolas and Escha had a son before Ptolas died. Because they did not have a son, the Levirate Law applied. Jesus would have been about 10 years old at that time. This would have all occurred in Nazareth, where both Joseph and Mary were living, as had been Ptolas and Escha. Once Escha and Anne joined the household of Joseph and Mary, the young Anne would have been like a sister to Jesus, even though she was His first cousin.

We do not know whether Escha and Anne moved into the home of Joseph and Mary and Jesus, or whether Joseph, Mary and Jesus moved in with Escha and Anne at their home. Another possibility, as I noted above, is that they were all living in the same home prior to Ptolas’ death. In any case, it would not be surprising that the decision to bring Mary and Joseph into the family was welcomed by Escha, as a widow. It seems clear that Joseph had decided to remain celebate himself, having dedicated his life to God through the influence of Hillel the Elder, his mentor (more on this later). It was also clear that he and Escha would not bear children of their own due to their ages. However, as would be usual, Escha probably welcomed another daughter. Bringing Mary into her family as a sort of older sister to Anna seemed to be the perfect solution. Mary was 23 years old at this time. Escha would have been about 48 years old at the death of her husband Ptolas. We also know that there were no other children, except possibly daughters, in the family of Escha. As I noted before, had there been a son born to Escha and Ptolas then the Levirate Law would not apply, and Joseph would not have taken Escha in as his Levirate wife.

Ordinarily a man could not marry his brother’s wife (divorced or widowed, Lev 18:16; 20:21), so the conditions necessitating the marriage only applied when the deceased brother had ein ben (no son), i.e., no male heir at all. The Hebrew word ben, which occurs over 5,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, basically, but not exclusively, means son.³⁸

The intent of the Levirate law was that the name of the brother not be blotted out from history. The law included the right of inheritance as well. Should the brother who took in the widow have a son, that son would be considered the son of the first marriage and have all of the rights of inheritance as if he had been the original brother’s own son.³⁹

Therefore, if Escha had other children with Ptolas, they would have all been daughters. Had there been any additional daughters, they would likely have been minors, as Jesus was at that time, and would have been raised as sisters of the Lord.⁴⁰

Of course Escha and Joseph never were married in a traditional sense. Instead, according to the Jewish Levirate Law, she was just taken in as if she were his wife. We may reasonably expect that Joseph and Escha had already discussed the problem of Mary years ago, when Mary was pregnant and prior to the birth of Jesus. Escha would almost certainly have been the first to notice that Mary was pregnant in 5 BC, especially if during that year Mary had not shown signs of puberty, something that Escha would normally have had to discuss with Mary as the closest maternal figure in the family. So we may assume that Escha had already come to terms with the options when Joseph found out about Mary being pregnant. Therefore, when Joseph confided to Escha, and obviously to Mary herself, that he had had a visitation from an angel, it would only be appropriate at that time for Mary to reveal that the Archangel Gabriel had visited with her several months prior. The fact that everyone was on the same page at this critical moment made the final decision obvious: Joseph would have to keep and protect Mary. Given the fact that the parents of Joseph and Ptolas had been dead for some time (18 years for Jacob), there was no patriarch in the family with whom to discuss this. Joseph, being the oldest surviving member of the family, had to make the decision on his own.

Joseph became the trainer of Jesus. Everything that Jesus learned as a small child must have come almost exclusively from Joseph. Mary was very young herself, so she had no apparent wisdom to pass along to her son. However, Joseph, on the other hand, had studied under Hillel the Elder, one of the most famous teachers of the Law at this time. Having studied under Hillel, Joseph himself also had become quite well trained, and wise. We may safely assume that he passed along large portions of this training and wisdom to his son, Jesus. I will deal with this in greater detail later.

And his parents went every year to Jerusalem at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up after the custom of the feast; and when they had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and his parents knew it not; but supposing him to be in the company, they went a day’s journey; and they sought for him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance: and when they found him not, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking for him. And it came to pass, after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both hearing them, and asking them questions: and all that heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. And when they saw him, they were astonished; and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? knew ye not that I must be in my Father’s house? And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth; and he was subject unto them: and his mother kept all these sayings in her heart. And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.⁴¹

Joseph was diligent to follow the Jewish custom in going to Jerusalem every year during the Passover Feast. He respected the law. We also see that the training of Joseph had paid off well. The young boy Jesus, only 12 years old, turned out to be wiser than the teachers at the temple themselves. Yet the passage does not indicate that Jesus obtained this wisdom directly from God. Instead, it clearly is stated that he grew in wisdom. We may safely conclude that this wisdom was imparted to him by Joseph, who had been taught by Hillel the Elder.

Summary

There is no way in which we can, today, determine without any question, the veracity of the position I have offered here with regard to Mary the Virgin. There is simply no proof that she even existed, from the most pessimistic perspective. However, from the view of preponderance of evidence as presented here, it is evident that both the Biblical representation and the immediate post-Biblical statements regarding Mary the Virgin should be taken seriously. In particular, the fact that an Order of Temple Virgins existed, and had existed since the beginning of the Hasmonean Dynasty (about 175 BC), and the fact that this Order was specifically referred to within only a few decades after the death and resurrection of Jesus, should give some credence to the historical value of the statements made later. Furthermore, the very fact that Jesus Himself, while hanging on the cross, dying, did not mention any brothers in a biological sense but instead offered his cousin to protect and care for His mother Mary the Virgin, goes a long way toward convincing most rational thinkers that perhaps, just perhaps, Jesus didn’t have any blood brothers or sisters after all.

Chapter 2

Joseph, the Son of Jacob, Patriarch of Jerusalem

Joseph was commonly known as Joseph of Nazareth. However, Joseph was the son of a Prince of Judea, Jacob the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and his mother Cleopatra VII, the Queen of Egypt.⁴² Therefore, his association with Nazareth was only because he was hiding there from Herod Archelaus II, the ruler who was, like his father, Herod the Great, a madman who sought to destroy all of his potential competitors.⁴³

Joseph was the firstborn son of Jacob and Cleopatra VII. His father’s name comes from a genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew.⁴⁴ The name of his mother, Cleopatra VII, is not mentioned in the Bible but has become known from information that I will present shortly. Joseph was born in 49 BC in Alexandria, Egypt. We know this because his mother, Cleopatra VII, was in Egypt in that year when Gaius Julius Caesar, the Emperor of the Roman Empire, came to Egypt. We also know that his father, Jacob the Patriarch, was there as well.

The marriage of Joseph’s parents had been arranged by the Emperor Julius Caesar. Their marriage was, therefore, a dynastic marriage. It helped Caesar maintain control over both Egypt and Judea through this marriage. The young couple, Jacob and Cleopatra VII, were married in Alexandria in about 50 BC and they were each only about 20 years old. Joseph was born the next year. When I discuss Jacob and Cleopatra VII, I will explain more fully the events that led Jacob to be in Alexandria and eventually to become her husband. However, I first want to stay with Joseph.

We know little about Joseph, the betrothed of Mary and the foster father of Jesus, from the Biblical record. Over time several non-Biblical records appeared that added some information about Joseph. However we need not go to these apocryphal legends in order to obtain some basic knowledge of this man.

The Biblical record states that he was a carpenter, taken to mean a working man, for the skeptical Nazarenes asked about Jesus, saying Is this not the carpenter’s son?⁴⁵ Yet we know that Joseph was the son of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Jacob ben Matthan, and Cleopatra VII, the queen of Egypt, a fact that will be proven shortly. The common misconception that Joseph was a carpenter is a mis-translation of the Greek word tekton, which more accurately should be called general contractor, or even scholar. The early Christian apocryphal book, the Protoevangelium of James,⁴⁶ which concerns the lives of Jesus’ parents, specifically identifies Joseph as a general contractor.

When one looks at the parables which Jesus told, they were often about constructing a building rather than making an object. This indicates that his experiences along these lines were more architectural (i.e., as a builder) rather than as an artisan (a maker of furniture).

To go a step farther, the word tekton may also be translated as scholar, since the original Aramaic word is naggar, which translates as craftsman or scholar.⁴⁷ Several notable authors believe that Joseph is best understood as a scholar, and it is as the son of a scholar that Jesus is more readily understood, rather than the son of a simple carpenter or even of a general contractor.⁴⁸

Certainly this image of Joseph being a scholar is more consistent with Luke’s recording of the 12 year old Jesus in the Temple, where …all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.⁴⁹ If, as I will show, Joseph taught Jesus, and Jesus was so bright at the age of 12, then this means that Joseph had to have been well educated as well, since he must have been the primary influence on the young Messiah.

Joseph’s mother, Cleopatra VII, died of a self-imposed bite from an asp in 30 BC, and his father, Patriarch Jacob, died by execution from Herod the Great⁵⁰ in 23 BC, so Joseph was between 18 and 26 when these two events happened. Furthermore, he had been born in Egypt, but was taken to Jerusalem at a fairly young age as Cleopatra VII persued her international intrigues with other lovers, including Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. Jacob had returned to Jerusalem where he was appointed Patriarch of Jerusalem in 32 BC by Herod the Great.⁵¹ This designation recognized Jacob as a son of David, meaning that the young Joseph was recognized as a contender for the thrown of Judea. Jacob’s title was most likely without any great authority behind it, as will be demonstrated shortly, due to the change in the way King Herod the Great administered Judea. By this time, 32 BC, Cleopatra VII had moved on and was in love with Mark Antony. She may have lived in Jerusalem briefly, but more likely remained in Egypt where she was the Queen of that country. It is unlikely that the young adult, Joseph, attended her there often, given her tendency to seek power and influence through her liasons. In any case, by the time he was 26 years old, at the death of his father Patriarch Jacob, Joseph was making his own way in the world. He was also clearly aware of the threat to himself from Herod the Great, since Herod the Great had executed his father.

On the death of his mother Cleopatra VII in 30 BC, it is unlikely that Joseph was in Egypt. Nor would it have been likely that he would return there, since there was no future for him in Egypt. Without Cleopatra VII as his wife any longer, Jacob was at risk, since Herod the Great, the King of Judea, considered Jacob to be a threat to his own throne. As I will show later, Cleopatra VII was highly instrumental in protecting all of the Davidans, including the family of Jacob the Patriarch. Once she was dead, however, Herod the Great made every effort to remove these potential claimants to his throne.

Jacob the Patriarch was executed by Herod the Great in 23 BC. The death of his father may give us a clue as to why Joseph, as the oldest son, did not immediately pursue an attempt to become either a prince of Judea or a Patriarch of