Lineage of Yeshai
|Jacob // Hezekiah
|Clopas and Ptolas // Joseph // Judas of Galilee
|Judas beth Halachmee // Yeshai beth Halachmee // Judas Zipporai // James the Just // Jose (Barnabas)
|John of Gamala // Simon Peter // James the Great // Judas Thaddeus // Jacob // Menahem // Eleazar
Jacob and Hezekiah are the sons of Prince Matthan. The twins Clopas and Ptolas are the sons of Jacob and Cleopatra of Jerusalem and brothers of Joseph the carpenter while Judas of Galilee is the son of Hezekiah. Now, there are many other alternatives to this lineage. Some have Judas of Galilee as the younger brother of Hezekiah, however, I am going by Josephus and I see no evidence that Hezekiah had a younger brother. Author Tony Bushby has Judas of Galilee as the twin brother of Jesus, and goes by the canonical dating, accepting 'Acts of the Apostles' as history. However, this places Judas of Galilee somewhere in the early part of the mid first century. This dating totally contradicts Josephus who reports that Hezekiah was killed by Herod c 44-43 BCE. What confuses matters even more is the fact that there were 2 Judas of Galilees. The first being the son and twin of Jesus who tore down the Golden Eagle erected by Herod and the second being his and Jesus' father. He also states that Judas and Yeshai were the illegitimate twins of Mariamne Herod III, granddaughter of Mariamne I and Herod the Great. He claims that the father was a Roman soldier of Phoenician descent who later became the Roman Emperor Tiberius. Of course, this would make Judas Zipporai and Judas of Galilee one in the same person and would create a gap of many years in the narrative of Josephus, as Mariamne was born way too late for Judas to have been the son of Hezekiah. Bushby's account is incompatible with Josephus as Judas would have been only 6 at the time of the raid on Sepphoris. Now, Josephus clearly states that Judas of Galilee was the son of Hezekiah. Also, although I list John and his brothers as sons of Judas Zipporai, Josephus clearly states that John's brothers Simon and Peter were the sons of Judas of Galilee.
There really is no definitive agreement as to the exact identity of the Apostles James. According to scripture James, son of Alphaeus is often identified with James the Less and James the son of Zebedee is often referred to as James the Greater. James the son of Alphaeus has often been identified as James the Just which was supported by St. Jerome and therefore the Roman Catholic Church, but not the Protestants and Eastern Orthodox. The ambiguity of the following quote demonstrates the problem "Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children."–Matthew 27:56. Just how many women were there? Was Mary only the mother of James and Joses, or was she also the mother of Zebedee's children. Add to this the fact that the Apostle John's relationship to Jesus is never clearly identified. "And he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother of James."–Mark 5:37. Now, one James is clearly identified as the brother of Jesus "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"–Matthew 13:55. Does this mean that the blessed virgin had children by more than one husband?
There is also the distinct possibilty that there was neither a Jacob nor a Joseph and that these were just nicknames, for Hezekiah and Judas of Galilee, delved out by the Essene and the Samaritans who considered Jacob and not Abraham as the father of their country. Therefore, it would only be right if the Jewish Messiah were born into that family. Common sense tells us that if Jesus' brothers are the sons of Judas of Galilee then Jesus also must be the son or, in his case, adopted son of Judas and not Joseph. Also along those lines it is a distinct possibility that Judas beth Halachmee and Judas Zipporai are one and the same person, Yeshai's twin brother. Now, the lineage would look like this:
|Clopas and Ptolas // Judas of Galilee
|Yeshai beth Halachmee // Judas Zipporai // James the Just // Jose (Barnabas) // John of Gamala // Simon Peter // James the Great // Judas Thaddeus // Jacob // Menahem // Eleazar
This lineage would explain why Josephus was so vague in his explanation of the relationship of Judas Zipporai and Judas of Galilee. After all, he clearly tells us that Judas of Galilee is the son of Hezekiah the robber and that Simon and Jacob are the sons of Judas of Galilee, but when it comes to explaining the relationship of Zipporai and Judas of Galilee he leaves it up to the reader to discern that the name Zipporai comes from Judas of Galilee's connection to Sepphoris. This evasiveness most definitely shows that Josephus had something to hide when he wrote both "War of the Jews" and "Jewish Antiquities."
"Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery,..." From Josephus' text, it is difficult to discern whether this Judas is the same person responsible for the raid on Sepphoris in "War of the Jews," or possibly his son Judas Zipporai. If he is indeed referring to Judas of Galilee then it is quite possible that Yeshai was actually the twin of the older Judas. In this case, all we have to do is move Yeshai up one level next to Judas of Galilee. Now, you may wonder how I connect this Sadduc with Jesus (Yeshai). Among the Essene, Jesus was considered to be Melchizedek or the incarnate spirit of the Archangel Michael. The Essene also referred to Zadok as Zedek, hence Jesus is Michael Zadok or Sadoc or Sadduc. No matter how it is spelled, Zadok means righteous, and Justus, like in 'James the Just' is the Greek equivalent. Keep in mind that there are variations in the translated spellings of these names.
Although this scenario contradicts the gospel accounts, it is consistent with the Gnostic texts, that most definitely were part of the source material for both the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Luke, which indicate that Jesus (Beni-Amin or Amin-il) was present in the temple at the annunciation of the birth of John. "When the priests heard this, they cast dust on their head. Yaqif the priest weeps and Beni-Amin's tears flow."—Ancient Aramaic Scroll of John the Baptizer. From the following, we can deduce that John the Baptist must have been born much earlier than 4 BCE as indicated in the gospels. "8. And when he had been brought to Archelaus and the doctors of the Law had assembled, they asked him who he is and where he has been until then. 9. And to this he made answer and spake: "I am pure; [for] the Spirit of God hath led me on, and [I live on] cane and roots and tree-food."—Slavonic Josephus. Archelaus served as ruler of Israel only thru 6 CE, so according to the canonical accounts John would have been only 10 years old which seems highly unlikely for him to have developed a reputation worthy of the kings curiosity. So, if you assume that he was say 18 that would place his birth at 12 BCE and for Jesus to have worked in the Temple he would have had to have been at least 13 which would place his birth sometime prior to 25 BCE. This would make him older than his uncle Symeon ben Clopas and possibly even older than his brother "James the Just."
This dating is consistent with the Gnostic text "Thomas the Contender" where Mathaias claims to have traveled with and listened to both Jesus and Thomas whom Jesus refers to as his double. It is also consistent with Irenaeus' claim that Jesus had experienced youth, middle age and old age. The vegetarian nature of John's diet, which contradicts the gospel accounts, "And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey"—Matthew 3:4, strongly suggests that the true authors of Slavonic Josephus were the vegetarian Essene Nazoreans and not the Romans, the Jews or some latter day Slavic translator. However, this dating is not consistent with the Safed scroll which claims that Yeshai was in his 30s at the time of the crucifixion.
This scenario explains why the gospels are so vague about Thomas, while many Gnostic sects consider Thomas to have been Jesus' twin. The fact is that by the time of the crucifixion Thomas (Judas) was long dead and the Thomas that the gospels refer to is Jesus' younger brother Judas Thaddeus or Theudas.
From the following you can discern Josephus' feelings towards both Judas and Sadduc: "for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries,..."—"Antiquities," XVIII-1:1. Josephus goes on to outline the beliefs of the Zealots: "But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord."—"Antiquities," XVIII-1:6. However, as I state elsewhere, Jesus Christ could have been any or all of these individuals conflated into one magical Messianic figure, who Josephus and his cadre of conspirators transform into the Christian 'Prince of Peace.' Keep in mind that these quotes were written only shortly before the infamous 'Testimonium Flavianum.'
Now, I am not 100% certain that Yeshai even had anything to do with the family of Judas of Galilee. This lineage was a late first century redaction made either by Judaizers or in my estimation by the Romans who sought to add to their bounty the title of Messiah. "The balsam shrub is native to Judea but was brought to Rome by "the Vespasian emperors" and "it now serves [Rome] and pays tribute along with its race (cum sua gente) [i.e. Judeans]. The Jews did violence to it as also to their own lives, but the Romans protected it in response, and there has been warfare over a bush!"–Pliny the Elder, who later died during the eruption of Mount Vesuvius (79 CE), dedicated his "Naturalis Historia" to Titus. However, this seems to have been the family making all the Messianic claims so it makes sense that he was a part of this family. The virgin birth narrative which strongly contradicts the Jewish lineage was a second cnetury pagan Hellenizing redaction. The Ebionites strongly refuted the virgin birth. The conflict strongly supports the idea that there were actually two distinctly different individuals at that time who were believed to have been the crucified savior, and as I demonstrate the gospel accounts themselves do absolutely nothing to dampen that theory.