I have a draft of part three of my recent series… it’s already longer than usual although only half written, it’s not very good, and I’m not in the mood for writing it anymore. I don’t know when I will be again. But in the meantime, I have something else to share…
I was reading an article on skeptical site Doubtful News, about the “Jesus’ wife papyrus” being in the news again, when the absurdity of one of the comments smacked me upside the head… This, by an author named Ralph Ellis:
If Jesus became High Priest, as it says he did in Hebrews 7, then the Talmud says he must have two wives (II Yoma i ). And his two wives were Mary and Martha of Bethany. Note that this Bethany residence was called the House of Simon.
The reason for the secrecy?
a. Mary and Martha were actually Mary and Martha of Simon Boethus, the richest ladies in Judaea, just as Prof Robert Eisenman has proven. This is why Mary and Martha lived at the House of Simon. The Talmud records that Mary Boethus got a million gold denarii dowry when she married here husband. And the name of her husband? ….. Jesus, of course – Jesus the high priest of Jerusalem in about AD 62. So the Church not only does not like the great wealth of this Mary, they don’t like the late date of their marriage either.
b. The second reason for the secrecy is that Mary and Martha were the sisters of Jesus. This was not unusual in this era. King Agrippa II married his sister, as did the Patriarch Abraham, and Queen Helena of Adiabene-Edessa, and Simon Magus. And Simon Magus was the primary pupil of John the Baptist. And St Paul (Saul) asked to have a sister-wife in 1Cor 9:5. (you need the right Bible to see this).
See ‘The King Jesus Trilogy’.
Yes, he has written three books on the subject. More madness can be found at his website.
I just find it all very fucked up. Here I am struggling to finish writing a series of anecdotes, and this lunatic and conspiracy theorist has written three books and is commenting on random websites about his pet subject.
If you go to the trouble of reading Hebrews seven, you’ll soon see that the context is about Jesus as high priest in Heaven, sitting at the right hand of the father, not a literal high priest. There are many verses of the Bible that apologists like to perceive selectively as allegory when it suits their argument… But this is not one of them. In this case, it really is not meant to be taken literally.
Anyway, Ralph’s comment quickly descends the slippery slope, and from what I’ve read online, his theories get weirder and wackier further down. Yep, there’s a rabbit hole at the bottom of this slope that leads to further madness. Apparently he translates ancient languages too, but doesn’t know what he’s doing.
So if you’re in a mood for some accidental comedy, research Mr Ellis’s pet subject. It looks like an amusing and entertaining waste of time, to be sure.
Edit: I still haven’t continued my series because yesterday was a busy day. But this conspiracy intrigues me… There’s a lot I didn’t state, some of which is assumed implicitly by Mr Ellis’ comment: The literal reading of an obvious metaphor to make Jesus a high priest after his death assumes that he wasn’t crucified. Then the illogical leap that according to the Talmud, he required having two wives. This is clearly nothing more than Mr Ellis’ crazed logic used to rationalize how his version of Jesus was alive and well decades after the biblical accounts. They’re clearly conflating two different people named Jesus, one of which may never have existed in the first place. But if you investigate his conspiracy further, it gets crazier. Also, I’m not sure where the conspiracy leads, because if taken at face value, this Jesus was not divine. Yet the man’s writing is referenced by others, who like the idea of Jesus having descendants, as “evidence” for their own elitist, confusing and often racist narratives featuring themselves as living descendants of God. So they accept that he had descendants without realizing that the conspiracy also undermines their belief that they are “divine” somehow. Conspiracy theorists truly believe some bizarre and contradictory ideas, and are apparently unaware of how funny their beliefs are to others.