This is the page where we will discuss topics and answer questions from your emails. We will not be able to post all of them, but we will do as many, as often as we can, to keep the discussion lively and interesting. Please send your email comments/questions to rep4301@netscape.net
____________________________________________
Q. 1/9/06 What evidence is there that Jesus had a twin? A.S. from NY, NY.
A. It is important to remember that we are attempting to identify the historical Jesus, and not the myth. Furthermore, there were many men who used the appellation of "Jesus," and even the name, during many periods in Jewish history. When we examine the time frame in question, and compare that information to the gospels, we see some startling constructs. First, in the gospels, there is a list of Jesus' brothers: Joses, Jude, Simon, and Jacob. We know who Jude was, we know Simon (Peter or Kefa), and we know Jacob as James. Who was Joses? This is the character around which there is so much confusion. Using the information in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gospels, Josephus, and other extant but lesser known writings of the period, we can identify James, Jude, and Simon with almost a 100% certainty and ascribe to them historical status. But, what about Joses? Who was he? He and Jesus are likely one and the same person. These are not half-brothers as many try to argue (and that did not begin until well after a century later). This is the family. So, all the brothers talk about each other, but the name "Joses," is missing. Again, he is one and the same person with Jesus; the subject of their admiration. Now, the "Apostle," Judas Thomas Didymus is an important clue. "Tom" in Hebrew means twin, as does "Thoma" in Aramaic. "Didymus" in Greek means twin. This repetition is not an accident, but an emphatic. The question is whose twin was he? If the gospels are about Jesus, if he is the subject of the narrative, then the answer is clear. And, having a twin, Jesus falls into the prophetic profile of the Israelite leader according to the types and shadows of Genesis. One point of interest about this knowledge in earlier times is evident in the Doges Palace in Venice, Italy where there is a painting of the Madonna -with twins. The historian, Eusebius, states plainly that Jude was the "brother of the Lord." Finally, the mention of Judas as a twin of "Jesus" is made in the Nag Hamadi Texts, the Gospel of Thomas, the Book of Thomas the Contender, and the Acts of Thomas. REP
Q.1/20/06 I do not believe that Jesus did not perform miracles. H.B. Seattle, WA.
A. It is interesting how you have phrased your statement. But, I understand what you are trying to say. While I do not question the reality of spiritual gifts, it is evident we have placed too much emphasis on them to the exclusion of other issues, and evidence. So, my intent in the book is to present this man as one who is struggling to find the truth rather than being born with it wholly evident to him. As such, he would have studied and exercised the knowledge and skills of his time, many which would have seemed as miracles to the uneducated or inexperienced. We see these things even today in our own lives. Just because we cannot understand something doesn't make it supernatural. We merely need to catch up to the understanding of the technology, etc... However, I also realize this can work for spiritual healing gifts, etc... Here, too, things are often beyond explanation until we attain the proper knowledge. So, why do I not call his actions miracles? Because I do not see them as supernatural. Furthermore, these things are done by many who have such gifts, and that does not make them "god incarnate." Also, as I go to great pains to show, many of these events are actually codes for an initiated, closed society. These, also, we see today in intelligence operations, in celebrity protection, and even our own families (when we do not want young ears to understand). The important thing to do is look at the overall actions of this man and see his dedication, committment, and unselfishness. These are his true gifts, and legacy, to mankind. Significantly, these we can emulate with but little effort. REP
Q. 2/17/06 I do not believe Jesus was a soldier or advocated any such thing. He was our Savior. You are a blasphemer. J.L. Omaha, Nebraska
A. I understand your feelings on this, but I will just give you a few things to consider. From the King James Version of the New Testament, we read several occasions where Jesus mentioned the use of weapons. Remember when he told his disciples to sell an extra cloak they may have to buy a sword? Or the time he said he was not here to send peace, but a sword? The most important quote from him in this regard, however, and in regards to my book, is this one from Luke 19:27; "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." REP Update 3/19/06 I have received other questions/comments like this and will wait until my sequel to address them. For now, suffice it to say that a significant event happens in 63 CE to counter the "blasphemer" accusation.
Q. 2/17/06 I agree with H.B. What about Jesus raising the dead daughter of Jarus? A.J. Montgomery, AL.
A. Please look at that one, again. Even Jesus said she was not dead, that she was merely asleep. Do we question his own statement? There are many such "miracles" in the New Testament, and even the Old Testament (Elijah, for instance). Do these actions make him the Messiah, or more importantly, God incarnate? REP
Q. 2/20/06 There is so little proof of the reality of the historical personality of Jesus. The Talmud gives some specifics, but I realize that these were really answers to Christian dogma, possibly not real characters. What did you use to come up with your story if not the gospels? S.Fishbein. LA, CA.
A. Your question cuts to the heart of all the recent furor over this whole subject. When one looks at the historical evidence, one thing stands out perfectly clear. There has been either a massive cover-up by religious and political leaders for two millenia, or the fog of history after the intitial events has clouded the truth. Either way, or even admitting a combination of these two scenarios, the person of "Jesus" is really nonexistent outside religious works. Understanding that the people of those times used personifications of attributes, in other words fictional characters, to deliver a message, we could just say he never existed at all. But, in fact, an examination of history can lead to several deductions that bring us pretty close to the truth, I think, if we just put aside superstition and emotion. Therefore, I think we are looking at a man like Athronges in my story, a real historical character from Josephus, or, as I have pointed out before, another man who was the first brother of the family in question which I have concentrated upon, Joses ben Cleophas.
Also, there is the argument that Rome wrote Jesus out of history. That, I am convinced, is totally absurd as far as the gospel character is concerned. As author Joseph Atwill ("Caesar's Messiah") has pointed out, the "Jesus" of the gospels WAS the Roman twist on the great Zealot to turn the Jews away from their own religion and defeat the resistance by undermining the Messianic Movement. The Jesus of the gospels IS, with few exceptions or quotes from the man that are left inconspicuously in the gospels, the Roman ideal of a citizen. He went along with Roman rule, agreed to pay taxes, emphasized submission to rulers, did not involve himself in politics or political revolution, and was, above all, a pacifist. If he had really been those things, Rome would have ensured his place in secular history. So, if the Romans wrote anyone out of history, it was the real man who engaged in all these activities, not the pacifist. So, there are many possible candidates, truly evident in history, who could have been the actual man. That is the search we must now concern ourselves with, and that is the purpose of my novel and the sequels.
So, what were/are my sources? They are extant and include Josephus, Tacitus, Epiphanius, Celsus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, an appreciation of Jewish culture and tradition (Hellenized or otherwise), and the list in the bibliography of my book. Again, this was an exercise in deductive reasoning as it is difficult to prove the existence of a character that may, in fact, be an amalgamation of many people to teach a moral lesson. But, I think I have correctly identified the only man who could have possibly fit the bill for the person who was the leading man of the Gospels. REP
Q. 3/15/06 What about Paul's Testimony? R.D. Denver, Colorado.
A. Paul is a principle character in my next book and I don't want to really discuss this aspect until after the sequel is out. REP
Q. 3/19/06 You seem to say that Jesus was a mystic of some sort. Can you elaborate? J.E. Birmingham, Al.
A. The best way to answer this is to ask you to read the book. The explanation is far reaching and best understood by the story I present. However, I will state up front that it is reasonably certain, given the historical and religious circumstances of the times and events, that the man we call Jesus was a master of the mystical Hechalot, or the Jewish mysticism of the time. There are even remnants of this in the New Testament. REP
C. 5/3/06 Powerful story. Deep mystical and spiritual teachings within. I certainly accept and appreciate this telling of events FAR more than any other I've ever come across. Mel Gibson has nothing on you. WOW! You rock, dude! W.A. Cheyenne, WY.
A. I am happy you enjoyed it. As I have mentioned, people need to read it before making any hasty judgments. Thanks for the feedback. REP
Q. 6/17/06 I have read your book and you seem to diverge from the truth of Jesus’ lineage as given in the scriptures. What are you trying to do? M.S. SLC, UT.
A. Your question is one that is hard to answer. I struggled with it for a long time as anyone has who has searched this all out. I still don’t know if I have it right. Plus, I would not want to ruin everyone else’s chance to see how the book approaches this, as it is one of the book’s surprises, but the fact is that the lineage of Jesus has always been in question. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke differ, and then there is the rift between the Northern Kingdom and Judah that adds difficulty to the issue. Recently, Dr. James Tabor’s new book, “The Jesus Dynasty,” gave a very good explanation of Jesus’ lineage based on his study of the New Testament and the Old Testament. His conclusion was that Jesus was descended from King David, but not through Solomon as is commonly supposed. He shows that Jesus descended from Solomon’s brother, Nathan (as shown in Luke 3:31, although Mathhew 1:6 shows Solomon. This is another important clue to the priesthood and royal rivalries between Israel and Judah). It seems to me that Dr. Tabor’s explanation is flawless as far as the standard Davidic line is concerned. He even shows a connection of lineage to the priestly line of the Levites. However, it is necessary to understand that while Israelite families kept their genealogies, the official records were lost during the various captivities, especially the Babylonian Captivity. So, questions arise as to the true nature of things. Also, one must keep in mind that once the tribe of Judah gained control, we get only their side of the story, all the way down to Jesus. But, there were other possibilities just as the Bible explains when we look closely enough. This is a very complicated subject, but it deserves close scrutiny. There are secrets here, and there are hidden agendas that do not tell the truth of the matter. One thing to keep in mind is that, despite all the rhetoric and demands for “faith,” Jesus did not do what the Davidic King was expected to do. So, who was he and what did he actually accomplish? REP
Q. 6/19/06 I just read your response to M.S. on your Q&A page. All of you pagan scholars are just unbelievers and want excuses not to follow our Lord and Savior. What do you do about Josephus? He is a witness for Jesus Christ. L.H. Houston, TX.
A. Thank you for the complement of calling me a scholar, but that I am not. As far as your statement that Josephus is a witness for Jesus Christ, we have several problems with that. The first is that he gives no indication of being an eye and ear witness. The second is that many scholars are suspicious that the passage was added to Josephus’ history as it is so short, and it seems so out of place. A man of Jesus’ stature and actions would surely command more than Josephus gives him. Then, there is the possibility that it is tongue-in-cheek to prepare the reader for the adultery story that follows it. But, I will venture a little further. If Josephus believed Jesus was the Messiah ben David, then why did he claim that it was the soon-to-be-Roman Emperor Vespasian who was the Messiah? In this whole thing, he uses the Greek word “Christ” to describe Jesus, but the Messianic Star Prophecy from Daniel (the Messianic Prophecy) for Vespasian. This is very curious and you can’t let Josephus have it both ways. REP
Q. 7/10/06 Several questions have been asked about Jesus' sister/sisters. How many and their names.
A. The New Testament speaks of two sisters, one named Salome. Tradition holds that the other's name was Mary/Miriam, but there seems to be no definitive information on her. In fact, there may have been more sisters, or just one. I based my decision to have one sister in my story because of the trouble the Gospel writers had in discerning who was who as early on as the Gospel of Mark in the 60's CE. If, as several scholars point out, the Gospels were "built," then the problem with names and people in general can get pretty confusing. So, to the bottom line, if I could not corroborate a person from actual historical data (Josephus, etc...), then I went with what I had. It is likely that the sister "Mary" is, as Professor Eisenman points out in all his analyses, an effort to cloud the issue of all the "Mary's" and who they were, with the particular effort, I think, to discredit any claim of Mary Magdalene as Jesus' wife. So, to prevent confusion with another "Mary," I left the story with one sister. REP
Q. 8/11/06 From a comment by "Walrus" off of blogcritics.org:
Ah, just what the world needs. Yet another conspiracy theory.
I find it quite revealing that you publish your "findings" in novel form. Creativity and imagination are essential for novelists but tend to be under-appreciated among serious historical researchers, whose job is not to invent history but to elucidate it.
May I ask what qualifications you have to rewrite history? To the best of my knowledge, training for military and police officers does not include how to evaluate ancient documents.
A. A legitimate comment and question. First of all, "conspiracy theories" are extant in history, as traditional history is, in itself, such a phenomenon as any real history student understands. I published my research in novel form to change pace from the often dry scholarly works that are somewhat laborious to read. The same basic information in novel form is much more entertaining, and we still learn from it. Ever heard of "Discovery Channel," "History Channel," or other novels like mine under the "historical novel" category? Finally, my qualifications; If you knew anything about military training, especially the training officers obtain, and more particularly in the intelligence fields and at the field grade levels, you would appreciate my educated insight into what I have written. No, I am not a a trained historian, but my military training is sufficient for much of what I have gleaned from my studies of the First Century conflicts (ever heard of Clausewitz or Jomini?), and my study of Hebrew and the early mystical systems certainly aided me in my further understanding of the events. But, most importantly, I learned to study and to think for myself. I don't believe that is such a bad thing. REP
Q. 1/31/07 Can you explain how your story could be connected to the Taheb of Samaria? L.B. LA, CA.
A. Only a well-read person could ask a question like that. Maybe I should just ask you to address it. I am a little weak on the subject, but I think I can give some pointers. It seems that Josephus talks about the Samarian Taheb, or Messiah ben Joseph, more often called the Joshua ben Joseph, as a miracle worker who leads the people to an area where he will show them the ritual implements of Moses. Furthermore, as I understand it, this was a man who also promised deliverance from the invaders (Romans), and Josephus calles him a deceiver. In fact, this man is a likely candidate for subsequent stories about Jesus, particularly the crucifixion of him by Pilate. Historically, the Taheb, and several of his followers, were captured and crucified by Pilate in Lydda, which incident eventually ended in Caesar recalling Pilate to Rome. The entire affair, mismanaged by Pilate and a typical example of his ruthless and viscious nature, certainly does not coincide with his actions in the Jesus trial as presented by the Gospels, and, of course, Paul. Finally, the event happens several years after the claimed timeframe for the crucifixion of Jesus. However, the similarities for the possible source material for the Gospels cannot be overlooked. REP
Q. 2/4/06 Jesus hoping for reincarnation? Where did you get that? That is not scriptural. M.B. SLC, UT.
A. We interpret the events of the First Century, indeed even the Judaism of that period, through modern eyes and prejudices. As I have stated before, I chose to write this story as close to the feelings and understandings present with the people in those times as possible, not our own exegesis or interpretations. In particular, even though New Age thinking seems out of touch with Biblical teachings, the fact is that Judaism in ancient times was quite open to the idea of reincarnation and may have even viewed it as a type of resurrection. I could quote from many sources on this including Midrashic parts of the Talmud, as well as the Zohar. So, the point is that I wanted to make every attempt to see through the eyes of the people of the First Century. While a normative resurrection may have been a tenet of certain Pharisees, others certainly had ideas not exactly the same. The Sadducees of the establishment did not even believe in any resurrection, or, in many cases, an afterlife. These were not matters, in those times, that made one unfit to be a Jew, or caused people to consider those with these ideas as renegades. Jewish debate on these issues was even considered healthy. As long as one could competently argue his case, not just make an unsupported statement, the topic was not considered closed. REP
C. 17 FEB 07
The World is NOT Black and White
I do not have the time to address every point of disagreement, but I must simply make a few points:
1. Mr. Potter makes numerous points as if fact, but which have no solid historical documentation. For example, “…contrary to the extant versions of the story they allowed to survive, the historical Jesus was a political and military activist, and the Romans killed him for it.” While there is plenty of room to question the New Testament documents, there is no credible historical data to support this statement. One can refer to scholars like Elaine Pagels and John Crossan all day, but unless others like NT Wright are also consulted/cited, you fail to take into account a balanced presentation. “The Gnostic Gospels” was, in my opinion, the least scholarly work Pagels authored. In that text she bases many of her key arguments on unproven presuppositions and, unfortunately, on emotion. While she has written some excellent scholarly pieces, this was not one of them.
2. I find it interesting that Mr. Potter refers to NT writings as influenced by Rome. While he is correct that the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi texts were heavily influenced by the Roman culture, I am curious to know what he means. I will try to visit to his site for more understanding.
3. My apologies if I missed something on this page, but Jesus was not killed for being a military threat (with what army?) or for claiming to be Messiah (Mr. Potter was correct on this point), but for speaking against the Temple worship of his day. Because of the stir he was making, the Jewish leadership was concerned when he talked about the Temple not being important. He disturbed the economic flow that surrounded the Temple-he was threatening their livelihood. Even though it was a ridiculous notion, the Jewish leadership was afraid that he might muster enough following, especially among the Zealots, to lead an uprising that would bring the Romans down upon them. This happened in 70 AD, but Jesus had no intention of doing this- at least not in the mode that the Zealots wanted. He was probably more inclined to see things in the same way as the War Scrolls point, but not that exactly either. If you would like to read more about this subject from another perspective that is somewhat radical, yet quite different from those Mr. Potter points out, I would suggest “The Challenge of Jesus” by NT Wright. This issue, like most, is not black and white- it is full of grey. The problem with most discussions in our day is that people only read/hear one side of the argument whether it be NBC or Fox News, or like in this issue, the right or the left. Mr. Potter is citing those on the left side only and those scholars do the same thing those on the right do- they cite only the sources that agree with their view. I like NT Wright because he gets attacked from BOTH sides which tells me he is working harder to find the grey, which usually means a more objective approach. My website [www.churchhistory101.com] will have more on these issues in the coming months. Thank you. Al Baker, Ph.D.
A. I want to thank Dr. Baker for taking the time to make his comment, and I hope he will keep in touch with us in the future. He is addressing my article on Blogcritics.org entitled "Jesus: Pacifist Shepherd, or Zealot Warrior" and has raised some interesting points concerning it. But, the thrust of his discussion hinges on a traditional understanding of the person and mission of Jesus, and that without being able to historically identify him other than, apparently, the New Testamant and possibly Josephus. Actually, as Professor Eisenman points out in his numerous works, there are many possible historic figures that could be the actual "Jesus." Unfortunately, none of them, with the possible exception of James (Jacob, the "brother of Jesus") was a pacifist. Furthermore, it was not the Temple practices and rituals which these people objected to (not even "Jesus"), but the fact that they were officiated by priests of questionable authority and purity, they being appointed by the Romans and Herodians. I think my answers to many of the questions in this Q&A address my sources and my reasons for disagreeing with Dr. Baker. But, all of this discussion is important and I hope we continue the dialogue. I will say that I, for one, would be very reticent to question Dr. Pagel's motives or personal agenda, much less her abilities to decipher historical likelihoods. That would also go for all the other sources I cite which balance the heretofore unchallenged position of traditional orthodoxy and the popular interpretation of history. REP
Q. 3/3/07 You say you don't want to discuss Paul because of your sequel. Can you give us a hint? D.H. Santa Barbara, CA.
A. I will say this: There are suspicions that Paul may not have known Hebrew- Aramaic and Greek, yes, but his Hebrew was likely very weak (his claims at being a Pharisee and of the seed of Abraham notwithstanding). Or, he could have been intentionally misinterpreting his enemies' texts. If he was answering accusations calling him a liar (as the Dead Sea Scroll documents call one of their adversaries, and other ancient documents explain about Paul), then what were the issues? The issues seemed to be his denial of Torah, including circumcision, and his deification of someone he calls "Christ Jesus." If he had been answering documents of an anti-establishment group, like those of the Dead Sea Scrolls, he would have seen a "Yeshua oto" or "Yesha," meaning "God's Salvation" or "The Lord of Salvation," much the same as "The Lord of Hosts" type of description of God. It was NOT the name of a person. But, seeing that, he could have mistook it for the name of a messiah, or of a person he may have believed the anti-establishment groups held dear. He then could have built an entire theology based on a mis-reading of the texts of his adversaries. But, enough for now as I really want the book to allow the explanation and the motive. REP
C. 3/4/2007 Mr. Potter’s thesis is also consistent with another recent book on the historicity of ‘Jesus’ called “Judas the Galilean” by Daniel Unterbrink. Many of the readers of Robert Eisenman will notice that this Judas the Galilean performed many deeds similar to that of Jesus, such as cleansing the Temple as per Josephus’ Antiquities 17. 149-167. I personally doubt that Jesus existed by the name of Jesus, but the ‘Jesus figure’ was inspired by the real person, Judas the Galilean. Onias in his comment on Bolgcritics.org concerning “Jesus: Pacifist Shepherd, or Zealot Warrior?”
A. I had to post this as it addresses exactly the point I have been stressing, that the person we think we know as “Jesus” was likely not known by that name, but another, and was absolutely involved in more than preaching “Sermons on the Mount.” Certainly, Judas the Galilean is a contender, as is Joses ben Cleophas that I point to (and who, as Joses ben Joseph, is mentioned in the New Testament). I will ask Onias if he meant Antiq XVII.vi.2-4? Here it is Judas ben Saripheus and Matthias ben Margalothus that Josephus mentions rather than a for sure Judas the Galilean. But, as I mention in my book, the chronologies of Josephus may be in error, as also the confusion of the personalities. So, it is possible, despite the apparent time differentials, that many of these people are the same ones we meet in the New Testament. REP
Q. 3/4/07 Your rendition of the woman taken in adultery was fascinating. I often wondered what Jesus may have written in the sand. Thank you for the explanation. A.W. SLC, UT.
A. Actually, I have a confession to make. The story of the adulteress in John 8: 3-9 is very likely unhistorical, and even unscriptural. In fact, comparing earlier texts with later ones, the story was probably added several hundred years later! In other words, it was not original scripture. So, why did I include it? Primarily, the story is so well known, and often discussed, that I wanted to use it as a vehicle to show the mastery of the Torah that this man would have had and his capability to use it under stress. Furthermore, it would give me a chance, in forums like this, to talk about how the New Testament was changed from its original condition, and even added upon or altered, by others over the course of time. REP
Q. 5/4/07 I was particularly drawn to the character of Mary Magdala. Rather than the sinner/prostitute depicted by so many Christians, you give her dignity, spirituality, and internal strength. How did you come to present her this way? L.M. Washington, D.C.
A. I will not go into the issue here of why I think "Jesus" was married other than to say a good Israelite, particularly a kingly one, would not remain celibate. To your question, the current information from Dan Brown's "The DaVinci Code" to the debate over the Talpiot Tomb obviously surfaced long after I arrived at my conclusions. Of course, there were the early works such as Michael Baigent's, etc..., but what prevailed upon me was actually a conviction that I formulated in my childhood, strange as that may sound. My feelings were more or less corroborated as I studied the issues over the years. In short, no matter who "Jesus" was, I concluded such a master/king would be married and that his companion would be of like moral character. If "Jesus" was an Essene, or if he was as he was portrayed, a keeper of the Torah, then he would shun unclean things (as the Dead Sea Scrolls demand of their Community Members) and, no matter how sorry he may feel for prostitues and sinners, he would never marry one. Marriage and sex were not considered unclean in and of themselves in the Torah, but, considered honorable, if not necessary, as long as engaged in with the proper observances. Mary would have been a noble, possibly even of royal lineage, a mystic in her own right, and a perfect match for "Jesus," if not his female mirror image, a soul mate, if you wish. The concept of the sacred feminine, I think, is not a myth, though often hard to find in today's world of demands for material gain and self aggrandizement. As you will see in the sequels, Mary is not just the "obedient" wife, but shares the same mind as "Jesus." Go back and read the moment when Joses is in a vision and returns to Mary. I think that reveals all as to why I presented her the way I did. Thank you for your comment.REP
Q. 9/22/07 How does your book and the position it takes relate to the current discussion of the discovery of the Talpiot Tomb? Do you think that tomb is the real burial place of Jesus and his family? N.M. Tampa, Fl.
A. I take it you have watched the movie that presents this information. Dr. James Tabor is heavily involved in the research and his blog keeps everyone up to date. I am still not sure about Talpiot, but I have a few observations and I think you will see how my book may relate to it. I am not convinced, personally, that Yeshua ben Joseph was the name of the individual we associate with Jesus. While both names (Yeshua, or Joshua, and Joseph) were common in the time period, my own research points to something entirely different. One of the names on an ossuary in the tomb is Yoseh. This brings us to the name Joseph, Yoseh, or Yosey, which when allowed to assume its Greek form is Joses. This more than anything else is of interest in the Talpiot tomb because that name was, in its form as a nickname, not common like the others. Of course, Joses is one of the main characters in my novel. I don't want to ruin the story in TCT for those who have not read it with too much discussion here. I will just say that the name Yeshua ben Joseph or Joshua ben Joseph, can also be a Messianic title. In my opinion, for what that is worth, the Talpiot Tomb may not actually be Jesus' tomb or that of his family but an effort to throw the Romans off the track using the names of a clan active in the resistance (or even a later fraud). The original orientation of the ossuaries, if that can be ascertained, may be the most important clue to the message of Talpiot.Why so? While I am not privy to the particulars of the research, what if the assumption that the Yeshua ben Joseph ossuary is the father/husband is wrong, and that it may, in fact, be the son, or heir, of the person in the Yoseh ossuary? This puts a whole new approach to the Talpiot Tomb research and reflects, quite closely, the information I present in TCT. In closing on this question, I will also say that the myth of Jesus is a burning question with the recent scholarship focusing on late First Century CE, Second Century CE, and even Third Century CE authorship of the supposed Pauline Corpus, the Gospels, and other texts, as well. The "martyrs" may not have been Christian at all. REP
