Not tomb of Jesus

[archaeologist]

Noone has suggested miriam is translated into magdelene.

if you watched the documentery you would have seen them try.  i should have edited that post, i see where i forgot a couple things

[archaeologist]

you are also forgetting that the greek word 'kai' means and that miriam does not translate into magdelene

this should read:

'kai' means 'and'  and the inscription (miriam + and) cannot be translated into 'magdelene'

[falasha]

you are also forgetting that the greek word 'kai' means and that miriam does not translate into magdelene

this should read:

'kai' means 'and'  and the inscription (miriam + and) cannot be translated into 'magdelene'

Magdal is a village in the Galilee. It was well known as the place to get temple doves and thusly Greek influenced. These doves were bred to return home after they were released at public functions. Madalenes are probably responsible for European pidgeon problem..

The line I believe you are referring to and that you have translated as "kai" has been determined by Rahmani to be translated "also known as" or "as". Mariamne is the Aramaic version of Greek Mariamnou which was engraved on ossuary. Mariamne has been referred to in several early christian writings, as I am sure you are aware. These references of Mary Magdelene as Mariamne were never disputed until this tomb was discovered. Now scholars are rushing to discredit the Phillip and Hypolatus references.

[SpiritMatter]

Response to reply #13.

I agree that there are myriads of possibilities, and if we value the truth above all, we do ourselves a disservice if we exclude possibilities that we would prefer not to be true. New pieces of significant information tend to strengthen one possibility over another. Not all things are possible, and one possibility is that the purpose of the tomb before the death of Yahshua differed from its purpose and actual use after His death. The 40 year period from 30 C.E. to 70 C.E. was probably very tumultuous and fluid for everyone in the area, even for those who would do their best to maintain their traditional behaviors. It is not inconsistent that Zacharias or any of his family would not be in this tomb. He had probably already taken care of his family's needs in some other way. Even if Zacharias was involved before Yahshua's death, because he was probably not a believer, he probably had nothing to do with the tomb afterwards. The followers of Yahshua initially lived in a communal arrangement like a large family. If Yahshua, to their surprise, did not need the tomb or premade ossuary, it is possible that either some of His groupies, who were especially close emotionally to Him, and/or who had a need for a burial place for their unresurrected bodies, were allowed to be placed there.

NJB Mark 3:35 Anyone who does the will of God, that person is my brother and sister and mother.

NJB Acts 2:44 And all who shared the faith owned everything in common;

[Balderdash71964]

There are FAR too many Jesus’s mentioned in Josephus' Antiquities for us to suppose Jesus Christ was the Jesus of this family tomb.  Other Jesus's were rich enough to have that family tomb carved but not Joseph the carpenter's family, he would not likely have been rich enough to have commissioned the tomb.  The name Jesus was very common AND a common name for powerful rich men to have in first century Judea (and before)… Lets look for powerful men in Josephus’ writings named Jesus who the tomb could have been carved for.

Josephus’ Antiquities
Book XII chapter 5 verse 1

...upon the death of Onias the high priest, they gave the high priesthood to Jesus his brother; for that son which Onias left [or Onias IV.] was yet but an infant; and, in its proper place, we will inform the reader of all the circumstances that befell this child. But this Jesus, who was the brother of Onias, was deprived of the high priesthood by the king, who was angry with him, and gave it to his younger brother, whose name also was Onias; for Simon had these three sons, to each of which the priesthood came, as we have already informed the reader. This Jesus changed his name to Jason, but Onias was called Menelaus. Now as the former high priest, Jesus, raised a sedition against Menelaus, who was ordained after him, the multitude were divided between them both. And the sons of Tobias took the part of Menelaus, but the greater part of the people assisted Jason; and by that means Menelaus and the sons of Tobias were distressed, and retired to Antiochus, and informed him that they were desirous to leave the laws of their country, and the Jewish way of living according to them, and to follow the king's laws, and the Grecian way of living. Wherefore they desired his permission to build them a Gymnasium at Jerusalem.  And when he had given them leave, they also hid the circumcision of their genitals, that even when they were naked they might appear to be Greeks. Accordingly, they left off all the customs that belonged to their own country, and imitated the practices of the other nations.

Josephus’ Antiquities
Book XV chapter 9 verse 3
And while Simon was of a dignity too inferior to be allied to him, but still too considerable to be despised, he governed his inclinations after the most prudent manner, by augmenting the dignity of the family, and making them more honorable; so he immediately deprived Jesus, the son of Phabet, of the high priesthood, and conferred that dignity on Simon, and so joined in affinity with him [by marrying his daughter].

Josephus’ Antiquities
Book XVII chapter 13 verse 1
Nor did this Eleazar abide long in the high priesthood, Jesus, the son of Sie, being put in his room while he was still living.

Josephus’ Antiquities
Book XX chapter 9 verse 1
Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
(Notice that the Jesus above is in the same verse that does mention Jesus the Christ, the brother of James…see my last verse quoted below)

And here we have TWO Jesus’s mentioned in the same verse and both of them would have been powerful and rich enough to have that Jesus’ tomb carved.
Josephus’ Antiquities
Book XX chapter 9 verse 4
…And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other…

Josephus’ Antiquities
Book XX chapter 10 verse 1
Cyrus, king of Persia, sent the Jews from Babylon to their own land again, and gave them leave to rebuild their temple; at which time Jesus, the son of Josadek, took the high priesthood over the captives when they were returned home.

I think all of that is more than sufficient to produce a reasonable doubt that the Jesus tomb is in fact the tomb of Jesus the Christ (who's family couldn't have afforded it anyway IF Jesus wasn't exactly what the gospel portray him to be, and if he was what they portray him to be, then he didn't need the family tomb to be where they found this one anyway).  The burden is on the people who claim this is the Jesus Christ family tomb, there are other far more likely candidates.

FYI: And these two parts are the only ones mentioned which are thought to be the Jesus from the scriptures…
Josephus’ Antiquities
Book XVIII chapter 3 verse 3
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Josephus’ Antiquities
Book XX chapter 9 verse 1
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned

[Brianroy]

One writer speculates:
"Jesus' uncle, Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, was a priest and may have been wealthy. After their son was beheaded and buried, they may have expected a need for a tomb and ossuary for Jesus...."

The problem with this hypothesis -- is that it is clearly refuted by Luke.  The Greek word that Luke places on Zacharias is "probebakotes" or "well advanced in years".  How well advanced?  In the LXX we have it used on the low-end spectrum of age 70 regarding King David, and on the high end of the spectrum in announcing Joshua was 110 years of age.  This wording applies to both Zacharias AND his wife Elizabeth.

In effect, beyond the obvious Messianic overtones, the miraculousness of John's birth was similar to the miracle of Abraham and Sarah having Isaac.

I seriously doubt that Zacharias or his wife were around at the death of Jesus based on the Greek of Luke 1:7, etc.  Further, in regard to a Zacharias,  we find in the 11th chapter that Jesus says he was slain:

 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.  -- Luke 11:51 (50 A.D. - Corinth of Achaia)

5 years after the publishing of Luke's Gospel, Matthew clarifies the testimony more specifically as that generation which witnessed Jesus slaying, had among them those who had "slain" Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist.

That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.  -- Matthew 23:35  (55 A.D. - Jerusalem, Israel)

When reading Luke, we must remember that the obvious implication of Zacharias in chapter 11, must be communicated as Luke writing to Theophilus as to what happened to the Zacharias in Chapter 1.  That is, he was slain by the priests of the Temple, between the altar and the Temple.  Some of the very same priests Jesus leveled charges against -- unrefuted by them -- those being still alive.   Therefore, the priestly age usually ending at 50, and starting at 25, though sometimes extnding to age 60 (as with the high priests) and above age 60 in extenuating circumstances, such as regarding Course sparseness of population (etc.)...it is likely that Zacharias died in John's infancy, or at the latest, his young childhood. 

 I personally project Zacharias death at about the same time as the massacre at Bethlehem in the hunt by Herod I to destroy the baby Yeshua / Jesus.


Zacharias was slain while between the Temple and the Altar.

This tells us that he had again been chosen by lot to burn incense into the Holy Place.  Because he had violated the prerequisite of coming back out of the Holy Place while it was still pre-dawn, because of the meeting with Gabriel, his staying within past the deadline of the rising of the dawn over Olivet, and it being fully morning the last time.  So, certain priests (whom Jesus now directly accuses in A.D. 30  (it seems, according to Matthew) took it upon themselves to slay this old man for little more reason than they lacked were evil priests who lacked patience and hated the holy. 

We must exclude the "Zacharias" theory. 

Further, if Jesus was so poor as to not own a home, or even a shack or a bedroll upon which to lay his head, he certainly would not have been buried in a family tomb.  He was buried in the tomb of a member of the Great Sanhedrin who offered it as a form of charity to someone who had been pronounced and decreed by Caesarian precedent as "King of the Jews"...if only but for a reign of 6 hours while upon the Cross.  Had Jesus a family tomb, he would have been buried there; and accusations of family members stealing him away via a secret passageway theory, or such like, would have been leveled against Jesus' resurrection testimony given by His Disciples.

The tomb of Joseph of Arimathea is probably within a stone's throw of En Rogel, the well on the Southern part of Olivet where two special people once hid from Absalom...and where prophecy points us to.  But that is another subject.  Suffice it to say, if we do uncover Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, we would expect some form of graffiti or special chiseling to note the location...perhaps even being a Roman warning as we have with the Nazareth inscription, by example regarding the protection of tombs, etc.

Hope this helps in the issue.

Peace.

[falasha]

There are FAR too many Jesus’s mentioned in Josephus' Antiquities for us to suppose Jesus Christ was the Jesus of this family tomb.  Other Jesus's were rich enough to have that family tomb carved but not Joseph the carpenter's family, he would not likely have been rich enough to have commissioned the tomb.  The name Jesus was very common AND a common name for powerful rich men to have in first century Judea (and before)… Lets look for powerful men in Josephus’ writings named Jesus who the tomb could have been carved for.

But the ossuary reads "Jesus Son of Joseph".

[Diane]

Re: Brianroy, reply #20

“Matthew clarifies the testimony more specifically as that generation which witnessed Jesus slaying, had among them those who had "slain" Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist.”


There are 31 different Zechariah’s in the Bible, 30 in the Hebrew Scriptures and one, the father of John the Baptist, in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
The description of the murder of the 12th person named Zechariah in 2 Chronicles 24:21 closely matches the statement of Jesus about the Zechariah “whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.” (Matthew 23:35)
Of this Zechariah 2 Chronicles 24:21 says:
“But they plotted against him, and by order of the king they stoned him to death in the courtyard of the LORD's temple.”

The place of death of this Zechariah, “in the courtyard of the LORD’s temple,” corresponds with Jesus’ saying the murder took place “between the temple and the altar.”
The following unrelated scriptures show that the altar of sacrifice was in the courtyard of the temple.
“On that same day the king consecrated the middle part of the courtyard in front of the temple of the LORD, and there he offered burnt offerings.” 1 Kings 8:64
“The bronze altar that stood before the LORD he brought from the front of the temple - from between the new altar and the temple of the LORD - and put it on the north side of the new altar.” 2 Kings 16:14

This 12th Zechariah, a prophet-priest, was the son of High Priest Jehoiada. (See below about Barachiah) After Jehoiada’s death, King Jehoash, who previously had been a worshiper of the true God, turned away from true worship, choosing to listen to those worshiping man-made gods and refused to listen to the counsel of God’s prophets. (2 Chronicles 24:1-2, 17-19)
Zechariah warned the people about this, but instead of repenting, they stoned him in the temple courtyard. The the altar of sacrifice was in the courtyard. 2 Chronicles 24:20-22
Incidently there were 2 men named Jehoash who lived and ruled at the same time. Jehoash the King of Judah was the son of Judah’s King Ahaziah. The other Jehoash was the King of Israel the son of Jehoahaz.  According to 2Kings 13:10 during the first part of the reign of this Jehoash (son of Jehoahaz) over the northern kingdom of Israel, Jehoash son of Ahaziah was king over the southern kingdom of Judah. It was this king of Judah who had Zechariah killed.
Interestingly, in Jesus’ day the book of Chronicles was listed last in the traditional Jewish canon of the Scriptures.
This canon lists Abel in the first book of the Bible as the first righteous man recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures as having been murdered and Zechariah the last murdered in the last book. 
Looking at this canon, Jesus’ phrase, “from Abel . . . to Zechariah,” is similar to other first to last expressions.
But what about Jesus words at Matthew 23:35 that Zechariah was  son of Barachias?
By the way, the name of the father of Zechariah is spelled differently in various Bible translations. Berekiah NIV, Berechiah NAS, Barachias KJ, Berechiah NKJ, Barachiah NRS, Berekhyah, HN.
For your post I will go with the KJ version of Barachias. This could possibly be another name for Jehoiada or it could be that he is Zechariah’s grandfather. Or perhaps like other persons mentioned in the Bible Jehoiada had 2 names. (Compare Matthew 9:9, 10:2-3 and Mark 2:14 for examples) Something to think about.
Though some feel that Jesus was referring to the prophet “Zechariah the son of Berechiah,” who wrote the book of Zechariah, (Zechariah 1:1) there are no accounts indicating that he was murdered.

[Brianroy]

Diane,

If you read Luke as the 1st Gospel account written,
(as I show in the redating the NT thread),
and that the Gospel of Luke  is firstly a letter of historical accountability to a new convert (called Theophilus) having some sort of Roman civil authority...you will want to limit his knowledge of any other Zacharias to that contained within Luke's gospel.

 The focus: limit the history to the knowledge or grasp of a Romanized new convert to Christianity, unfamiliar with Judaism, and looking for technical medical and legal terms familiar to a Gentile...of which Luke uses over 80 (in distinction from the other Gospels that would come later on)...and you will be limited to either the Zacharias spoken of at length in chapter 1 of Luke's Gospel, or a maybe and less likely candidate who wrote an OT book after his own name. 

In order to dismiss this second possibility, or of any prior Zacharias such as in 2 Chronicles, etc.;  I included Matthew's clarification, because it is a Zacharias who was slain by the same certain priests who Jesus convicted... those who killed the man Zacharias were of that recent generation (as if Jesus were striking them down with a guilt conscience for their personal misdeed to a man within their lifetimes).

It would make no sense that no righteous blood of any prophet or man had not been spilled in hundreds of years...which is precisely the point of Judgement.  By slaying in the court of the priests, at the door-way of HASHEM's own House...it was as if sin's curse of all murders were uncovered by the one deed, and Israel would have to atone for such with its own blood.  Jesus' call for repentance, as a prophet, went unheeded, when the priests should have torn their clothes and lamented and fasted and prayed and sought for HASHEM's forgiveness...that the Judgement might be averted.   That was the theme...but like Jeremiah, these were proud and unrepentant manslayers before Yeshua / Jesus (at the time).

The accusation of destroying an innocent life before HASHEM and in disregard to HASHEM has to be leveled only upon the generation responsible...but like the OT, it was the children and the grand-children's generation that paid the ultimate penalty.

That is why we see a very present "aorist indicative active" in "(h)ephoneusate" -- of  Zacharias being "murdered" which is leveled by Matthew in Jerusalem among hostile living witnesses...while yet clarifying Luke's use of  the aorist participle passive "apolomenou" of the Zacharias... "(he who was) destroyed".

In regard to the Temple ritual and location, you may find this of interest by the same institute that now trains Kohen and prepares the instruments of the coming Temple.  These, who include members of the current revised Sanhedrin, will one day rebuild the next Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

The Temple Institute: A Day in the Life of the Holy Temple: The Division of Priestly Labor: 24 Shifts

This link will help you understand the daily ritual of the priests at the Temple.  You'll want to focus on slides 17-19 in regard to Zacharias.

Peace.

[jgermaine]

As fascinating as this speculation is, it overlooks one point. Why would Jesus have a tomb in Jerusalem, or why a tomb at all. All he needed was a weekend rental. If he or his family had a tomb it would likely be in Nazareth or Capernaum, where he lived. Thanks for your insights.

[Brianroy]

jgermaine,
   good points.  We also might ask why not Bethlehem as well?  But one thing those who speak on an affirmative of the tomb overlook...is what histories are left us in Eusebius' History of the Church.  For example: Hegissippus is quoted by him as regarding James, the half-brother of Jesus when he testifies at the Temple during Passover.

 James was buried on the very spot he landed after being tossed off the Temple parapet and then clubbed to death.  He was never removed to another location as of the second century.  Why? 

Because even if it was ritual religiously possible to do, there was no tomb and no finances to do so. What little money was available in Jesus ministry, was community monies to feed 70 disciples and their families who constantly moved about with Jesus. They had sold, and given to the poor, until they were poor themselves...having given away all monies from selling their lands and houses BEFORE Jesus came to Jerusalem.

 Even Judas Iscariot was so poor that he thought 30 days wages was a fortune to hand Jesus in.  The stone tomb would have easily dwarfed that by 100 fold and more.   What little money was held by the extended family of Jesus (i.e., grand-nephews, etc.) in later years, such as in Domitian's reign (Eusebius again preserves for us),  was tied up in 30 plus acres of land; and even those relatives had heavily calloused hands from working the land as poor folks themselves.

My reply #41 in another thread cites the Hegissippus testimony of the 2nd century of no bone relocation (by inference) of James as of that time.

Luke 2:2's census  and Codex Siniaticus 1's word order, etc.


We can perhaps find out for sure if we can dig up in the proximity I cite in the link above...the site that is next to the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount...  within 17 feet of  Dome of the Rock, from the 10 o'clock to 12:30 hour-hand positions of the Dome itself.

 If archaeologists are permitted to excavate the aforesaid location...and if they do uncover a stone memorial marker in this location citing Yacov the Nazarene, or an expression to this effect, that would automatically disqualify the Talpiot tomb beyond all question as relating to Jesus or to his family in any capacity.

Peace.
   

[falasha]

In regard to the Temple ritual and location, you may find this of interest by the same institute that now trains Kohen and prepares the instruments of the coming Temple.  These, who include members of the current revised Sanhedrin, will one day rebuild the next Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

The Temple Institute: A Day in the Life of the Holy Temple: The Division of Priestly Labor: 24 Shifts

This link will help you understand the daily ritual of the priests at the Temple.  You'll want to focus on slides 17-19 in regard to Zacharias.

Peace.

I looked at this website but could not figure out who these people were. Another temple will NEVER be built on the temple mount. I know most Christians cannot wait to be raptured but if you are waiting for another temple you will have a long wait.

The reason is before partition, one of the conditions was that Jews would respect the holy places of all other religions. Al Aqsa mosque was supposedly the location Mohammend flew to Mecca. This mosque will remain on the temple mount for eternity.

[Diane]

Every Scripture referring to the rebuilding of the temple is in reference to the temple destroyed by the Babylonians. All were fulfilled when it was rebuilt after Cyrus  released the Jews from their 70 year Babylonian exiile.
Any references in the Christian Scriptures to the restoration of Jerusalem refer to “heavenly Jerusalem,” “New Jerusalem,” “Jerusalem above,” “the Israel of God,” heavenly “Mount Zion.”  All of these refer to the kingdom of God, his heavenly government that will restore pure worship of God on the earth. It will aslo restore the earth to the paradise conditions he created for his human family in the beginning.

Another reason the temple will never be rebuilt is because Jesus stated that God had ended his relationship with the Jewish nation.
While at the temple he told the chief priests, “I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.”—Matthew 21:43
After condemning the religious leaders he said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate.”—Matthew 23:37-38 NIV

(Other versions say: “Now you are left alone in your house.”  “Your house is abandoned to you.” “Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate.”)

After telling them their house or temple would be left desolate,  “Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."— Matthew 24:1-2
This was fulfilled in 70 C.E. when the Roman armies wiped out Jerusalem and most of its people, destroying also the temple, along with genealogical, historical and other records pertaining to the Jewish system of things. To this present day, there has been no restoration of a theocratic kingdom in earthly Jerusalem. Nor will there ever be.

When he was being tried before the Sanhedrin the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" Jesus answered, “I am.”—Mark 14:61-62
They condemned him to death thus rejecting him as the Messiah.
Years late Paul would tell the Jews who were still rejecting Jesus that,  "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.”—Acts 13:46
Previously God had dealings with only the nation of Israel.
Today individual Jews can come to accept Jesus and be accepted by God. Any person in any nation can come into a relationship with him. As Peter said, "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.”

[falasha]

Diane: I agree. The kingdom is here and now.  But some Christians are pushing for it.

[Brianroy]

Diane,
  I have to disagree with you assessment on totally casting off Israel and denying a possibility of a coming Temple.  History teaches that mind-numbing and world shaking change (for those who live it) can happen at any time...be it the buying of Eastern Germany from the Russians leading to the withdrawl of Warsaw Pact (Eastern)  Europe Soviet troops and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall...or a single shot starting a World War.

Years after the utterance of Acts 13, after Peter had likely reached age 60, and therefore given his ministry of going to the Gentiles over to Paul..we have a clarificationof Israel's role in First Century Christianity described by Paul.

Romans 11
 1  I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

 2   God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.

25  For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

 26  And so all Israel shall be saved...

 29  For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

And as I document in my Redating the NT thread, Paul approved the Apocalyse at least 3 years before his own demise, limiting even the number of Churches he wrote to...and refers to that work in 2 Thessalonians when he addresses the insight into anti-Christ via eschatological doctrinal verbatim.  If you read the Greek of 2 Thessalonians 2:1ff. with the Greek of the anti-christ passages in Revelation, you can get what I mean.

Both the Books of Ezekiel and Revelation predict a coming Temple beyond the last one.  Will it come to pass?   I believe that Paul and John, in the historical context, knowing the prophecies, suspected that another Temple might be built beyond the one they knew.  I cannot be absolute, but only say that the preponderance of the Scriptures they write do lean more heavily toward that analysis.   

For this reason, John, as a Kohen, would have kept sacrificing the Pesach lamb...and taken his Communion (the broken second matzoh and third cup of wine) in the Passover meal, in remembrance of Yeshua...in the hope also, that one day, others like him would return and rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem, and the traditions NOT be lost.  But that is simply my informed hypothesis.  No offense, but based on the literary historical record, I've yet to hear one better. 

Thanks for your thoughtful reply though...even if we disagree.

Peace.