This is a follow-up to my previous blog-post, Theological or Historical? I thought it important to distinguish clearly just how conflicting, how antithetical 1^st-century CE Messianic Judaism was to Hellenism. They were/are so polar-opposite that they fit perfectly the cliché “Apples to Oranges.” Why? Why is this sharp distinction so important to write about, to understand comprehensively, and to equip ourselves today with the actual historical truth and reality of Christianity’s factual soil, if you will, or context of its very first roots in Near East Antiquity?

The sharp contrast is critically important to know and understand because Christianity today is not what its (assumed) founder, i.e. Jesus Christ, wanted it to be after his execution and death. In fact, “Christianity” over the last 1,978 years is today very, very different than what Jesus’ little sect named The Way and his teachings and reforms were meant to be. It can be very well argued, even convincingly concluded that what we know as “Christianity” for the last 2,000 years is nothing similar to what Jesus of Nazareth had in mind nor what he felt or thought was his life’s true purpose.

Hellenism in Contrast to Messianic Judaism
of the 1st Century CE

What exactly is Hellenism? Today it is often unknown, equally misunderstood, and often overlooked or dismissed. Putting ancient Hellenism in historical context can be generally defined this way:

“Hellenism refers to the culture, ideals, and civilization of ancient Greece, or the spread and adoption of those Greek customs and language across the ancient world.”

There are generally two components to this definition. First, the devotion to ancient Greek culture and ideals with classical values in thought, art, philosophy, and civic standards of ancient Greece, such as reason, moderation, and the pursuit of knowledge as well as a national character of distinct spirit and traits associated with the ancient Greek people.

Second, the historical spread where the diffusion of Greek language, literature, and culture into non-Greek societies following the conquests of Alexander the Great and that historical influence was a shared civilization that dominated the Mediterranean and Near East from the 4th century BCE until the rise of the Roman Empire. The infusion or clash of these cultures, ideals, and religions in ancient Palestine were tolerated in several regions, but greatly unwelcomed in other Jewish regions. With the latter, those areas were primarily rural interior towns and villages whereas Hellenism was more dominant in coastal cities, urban centers, and the frontier border regions of Palestine. For example, Hellenism existed heavily in the Decapolis, or “Ten Cities,” all along the Mediterranean coastline such as Ptolemais (Acre), Ascalon (Ashkelon), Gaza, and Caesarea Maritima. Hellenism was also in Samaria, and the urban pockets of Galilea and Judea, specifically Sepphoris and Jerusalem respectfully. In Judea where Homeland Jews resided they began refusing all things Greek or Roman.

During the Late Second Temple Period (27 BCE – 70 CE) in Judea, Samaria, Galilea, Perea, and Idumea, Jewish Messianism was widely varied for several reasons. The most major conflict was the very nature of the Israelite religion, Was the God of Israel to be worshipped alongside other gods, or was He to be venerated exclusively? Along side this controversy was the question of centralization of Jewish worship. Was it to be strictly limited to the Temple in Jerusalem as with the Deuteronomic tradition, or were those Jews believing that the God of Israel was to be one among many who saw no reason to centralize worship or to limit membership in a legitimate priesthood not bound to the Temple? And furthermore, many other Jewish believers (Sectarians) argued a larger religious cultural question, Should the Israelite religion be a total way of life leaving no room for outside (Hellenistic) elements, or was Judaism to be only a part, a mix of the life of the individual and their resident national culture, wherever that may be? Be that as it may, the sectarian conflicts were by no means black and white. Dr. Lawrence Schiffman, professor at New York University and renown scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls states:

“The issue [for Jews] was never whether or not to reject outside influence. The question was rather whether to assimilate some elements not considered harmful or to allow the wholesale entry of foreign elements into the way of life of the Jews. Those seeking exclusive worship of God felt that adoption of foreign elements without restriction was nothing more than apostasy and the abandonment of Judaism. Others [post Second Temple], against whom our sources so often polemicize [Hellenize], disagreed.”

Consequently, the schism widened between Israel (the North – Galilee & Samaria) and Judea (in the South). The conflicts were so volatile that by the time King Herod was rebuilding the Jewish (Second) Temple in Jerusalem (536 BCE – 20 BCE), the Samaritans offered to help, but the Judeans refused their offer. By this time, therefore, it was clear that the Judeans had chosen to follow in the footsteps of those who believed that only the God of Israel was to be worshipped, no foreign influences, and that this worship was to be done strictly according to the ancient traditions of Israel, not the Samaritan way.

Diaspora Jews
Most Diaspora (dispersed) Jews were saturated in Hellenism. Of these Jews many held that embracing Greek educational and cultural forms ought to be imposed on the biblical heritage so that Jews might enter into the cosmos as Hellenistic citizens. Judaism would then become one of the Hellenistic cults, and the God of Israel just one of the many manifestations of Zeus, the major god of the Greek pantheon. After all, throughout the rest of the Hellenistic world, the local deities were identified with the gods of the Hellenic pantheon. By 167-141 BCE it was against this extreme Hellenization that the Maccabees revolted. In time, those Jews holding these radical views, whether in the Land of Israel or in the Diaspora, probably assimilated completely into the Greek way of life that they and their descendants were lost to Yahweh and to the Torah-loving Homeland Jews in Judea.

Alexandrian (Egypt) Jews of Philo Judaeus
A large population of Koine Greek-speaking Jews lived and worshipped in Alexandria, Egypt and surrounding areas. They were less Hellenized because their fundamental loyalties were to Jewish traditions, however, their culture was significantly influenced by Hellenism with the center of both in Alexandria, founded by Alexander the Great of Macedonia. The single biggest contribution of these Jews was the Greek Septuagint Bible and writings of Philo Judaeus (ca. 20 BCE – 40 CE). These Jews sought to integrate the Torah with Greek Platonic notions. There was also a pocket of these moderate Hellenistic Jews inside Judea such as Josephus and Greek-speaking Jews in the Land of Palestine. Many books of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha came from these Jews and most certainly had numerous wealthy aristocrats and members of the Sadducean and Boethusian priesthood in Judea. Closely aligned with the Sadducees the Boethusian priests are ascribed to Simeon ben Boethus, an appointed high priest by Herod in 24 BCE.

Near Eastern Levitical Pharisees
This Jewish sect will be well-known by most because of the four Gospels in the Greek Septuagint and church Sunday schools. The name of these Jews was derived from the Hebrew perushim, or “separate.” The moniker most probably refers to their separation from Levitically impure food and from the tables of the am ha’arets, the poorer common people, who were not scrupulous regarding the laws of Levitical purity or tithes. This would have included the impoverished rural Jews. That said, the sources for who the Pharisees were exactly is extremely limited and slanted in the sense that no other independent sources outside of the Gospels and during Jonathan Maccabee (ca. 150 BCE) in Talmudic literature exist today.

Dead Sea (Qumran) Zadokite Jews
This Jewish sect was much more anti-Hellenistic than even the Pharisees and thoroughly shunned Greek culture all together. They refused it so much that they settled in distant rural areas around the Dead Sea. The most well-known community was at Qumran and there they hid a series of clay pots filled with scrolls, which have been dated mostly to the 2^nd and 1^st BCE. These scrolls summarized these Zadokite Qumran Jews’ doctrines, rituals, and daily life. Their foremost characteristic of the Qumran sect was their renunciation of extra-biblical traditions to the Torah. The Qumranites derived the laws of the Torah strictly from exegesis which they spent the greater parts of their daily life doing. This was equivalent to the tasks of the Sadducees as well. In fact, a number of their decrees and exegesis typify closely that of Zadokite/Sadducean inclinations of Jewish law.

Herodian Jews
Herodian Jews were a priestly party under the reign of King Herod and his successors; called by the Rabbis “Boethusians,” as adherents of the family of Boethus, whose daughter Mariamne was one of the wives of King Herod, and whose sons were successively made high priests by him. They followed the Sadducees in their opposition to the Pharisees, and were therefore often identified with the Sadduceans.

To summarize then it is abundantly apparent that Syro-Palestine, including Judea, Galilea, and Samaria were in great flux socially, politically, geographically, commercially, and perhaps most importantly, religiously for many centuries as Greek culture and the Roman Empire took hold and reigned supreme. The Jewish sects of Qumran/Zadokite and the Sadducees by the 1st-century CE both rejected wholeheartedly Hellenism and the Romans literally, figuratively, and politically, and no more so than with the corrosive elements creeping into their Torah worship and orthodoxy.

Severing Jesus’ Reforms & Teachings from His Torah-loving Judaism

For the above reasons and many others Jesus (Yeshua) firmly spurned Hellenism as a replacement for or an equal partner to Jewish Torah law, but he operated within a deeply Hellenized world without entirely rejecting its cultural presence. As a first-century Jewish teacher, Jesus’ (Yeshua’s) primary identity, audience, and theological framework were heavily rooted in the Hebrew scriptures and Second Temple Judaism. However, historians view his relationship with Hellenism through four distinct lenses:

1. Retention of a Jewish Identity — Jesus did not advocate for any Hellenization, which was the adoption of Greek culture, polytheistic religion, and philosophical ideals. He maintained core Jewish “boundary markers”—such as observing the Sabbath, honoring the temple, and adhering strictly to monotheism. When Jesus criticized Jewish religious leaders, it was not to replace Judaism with Greek customs or Greek Apotheosis, but rather to call his people back to what he viewed as the true heart of God’s law in the Torah.
2. Living in a Hellenized Environment — Despite his focus on Israel, Jesus lived and ministered more in Galilee, an area heavily exposed to Greek culture. Why?
   1. Proximity to Greek Cities: Major Hellenistic urban centers like Sepphoris and Tiberias were just miles from his hometown of Nazareth.
   2. Language: While Jesus primarily taught in Aramaic, he likely knew just enough Koine Greek—the commercial language of the region—to communicate during his ministry, such as during his trial with the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.
   3. Interaction with Gentiles: The Gospels record Jesus occasionally interacting with and praising the faith of Gentiles and Hellenized individuals (such as a Roman centurion and a Syrophoenician woman), signaling a slight willingness to extend his message beyond traditional Jewish boundaries.
3. Parallels to Greek Philosophy — Some modern historians note that parts of Jesus’ teaching style shared striking similarities with certain Greek philosophical movements, specifically the Greek Cynics. Like the Cynics, Jesus advocated for a simple lifestyle, free from material anxieties, and used pithy, counter-cultural aphorisms to challenge societal norms. However, Jesus’ core message was explicitly theological—focused on the “Kingdom of God“—whereas Greek Cynicism was entirely secular and philosophical.
4. Post-Jesus Hellenization of the Church — While Jesus himself remained a first-century Jew, the reform movement he started became rapidly and deeply Hellenized shortly after his death. Because the early Church shifted its focus predominantly to the Gentile world—the New Testament was written entirely in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic, the two languages Jesus spoke regularly and fluently. Early theologians like Paul (who never met or knew Jesus in the flesh) and Justin Martyr explicitly used Hellenistic concepts (such as the philosophical idea of the Logos, or universal reason) to explain who Jesus was to the wider Roman and Greek world. However, this did not align at all with Jesus’ Torah-loving, Torah-abiding Jewishness.

The Stark Contrasts of Jesus’ Purpose vs Later Hellenism
While early Christianity eventually adopted Greek philosophical language to define its theology, the core teachings and person of Jesus of Nazareth stand in sharp, fundamental contrast to Hellenism (the culture, ideals, and philosophy of the ancient Greco-Roman world). The primary structural, theological, and ethical contrasts include:

• The Incarnation vs. The Impassibility of the Divine
  • The Hellenistic View: In Greek philosophy (especially Platonism and Stoicism), the ultimate divine principle or Logos was completely transcendent, immaterial, and changeless. The physical realm was often viewed as inferior or inherently flawed. To a Greek mind, the idea that a perfect, divine being would take on actual human flesh was absurd.
  • The Contrast in Jesus: The central claim of Jesus is the Incarnation—the Logos becoming vulnerable physical flesh. Jesus lived a concrete, earth-bound life, experiencing hunger, pain, and death, which directly clashed with Hellenistic concepts of divine detachment.
• Definition of Power: Suffering Servant vs. Superhuman Hero
  • The Hellenistic View: Hellenistic culture glorified the epic hero (such as Achilles or Hercules) who exercised power through physical dominance, military triumph, and social status. Greek gods, when they interacted with humanity, magnified these traits, empowering humans to become physically superior and unyielding.
  • The Contrast in Jesus: Jesus completely redefined power through humility, service, and weakness. Instead of conquering his enemies with force, he submitted to a shameful, lower-class execution on a cross. He taught that true greatness comes from being the “servant of all.”
• Concept of God: Relational Monotheism vs. Polytheism and Fate
  • The Hellenistic View: Hellenistic religion was thoroughly polytheistic, demanding reciprocal, ritualistic appeasement of various deities to ensure good fortune in this life. Alternatively, philosophical strains viewed the universe as governed by cold, unyielding Fate (Ananke) or a detached prime mover.
  • The Contrast in Jesus: Jesus preached an exclusive, fiercely personal monotheism rooted in the Hebrew tradition. He taught that God is an intimately relational “Father” who cares for individuals, answers prayer, and acts out of love rather than a rigid system of cosmic reciprocity.
• Linear Redemption vs. Cyclical Time
  • The Hellenistic View: Classical Greek thought generally viewed history as cyclical—an ongoing, repetitive series of cosmic ages with no ultimate physical culmination or “end-game”. Human souls sought escape from the physical world into an immortal spiritual realm.
  • The Contrast in Jesus: Jesus’s message was apocalyptic and historically linear. He preached the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God and a physical, bodily resurrection of the dead at a final judgment. History, in Jesus’s view, moves toward a deliberate point of final redemption and the renewal of the material creation.

How Hellenism Replaced the True Jesus’ Reform Movement

Upon the execution and death of Yeshua bar Yosef (aka Jesus) in c. 33 CE, followed by the stoning-death of James his brother (44 CE), John a disciple of The Way fled, Simon Peter’s death by crucifixion (c. 65 CE), and the beginning of the First Jewish-Roman war (66 CE), the early Jerusalem Church-Council collapsed leaving no real authentic leadership of Jesus’ original Jewish Reform Movement. A large vacuum developed and as was always the case and tradition, Rome and its Hellenized culture took advantage of the opportunity to invent an entirely new and radically different Greek religion of their own.

Enter Saul of Tarsus (aka Paul), a very appropriate acceptable Roman citizen and version to the constant discord sewn by stubborn, bullish, disruptive sectarian Homeland Jews and their monotheism. There was also a nice big perk to Paul and his Hellenistic theology for Rome: Paul for the time being was a likeable Herodian Jew, at the very least heavily connected to the court of King Herod and his family, if not by blood.

Two renown scholars of the Late Second Temple Period, Sectarian Judaism, and the earliest Roman Church and Fathers make this highly controversial connection between Herod, particularly Herod Antipas, the third son to King Herod, and Saul/Paul.

Dr. Robert Eisenman is currently professor of Middle East religions, archaeology, and Islamic law and director of the Institute for the Study of Judaeo-Christian Origins at California State University Long Beach. He has a Master’s degree from NYU in Hebrew and Near Eastern Studies, and a PhD in Middle East Languages and Cultures. He is considered one of the foremost scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran).

Eisenman makes the Herodian connections to Paul by Rabbinic Tannaitic literature, the Roman–Jewish historian and military leader Flavius Josephus, earliest Church literature, and even the Greek New Testament (Septuagint) itself. The fact that it is undeniable that Paul considered himself Jewish—so did the Herodians, generally—but Paul also had significant Herodian ties and loyalties. And though as noted previously the Herodians were quite hated disliked by the majority of Torah-loving Jewish sects, including Jesus’ The Way movement makes Paul’s peculiar twist of Jesus’ Jewish theology and practices even more divided, plausibly heretical, causing more confusion/division among Gentile Christian converts (see my blog-post Theological or Historical?) for over 700-years.

Though I typically avoid religious political types in today’s climate and landscape that are associated with the present federal administration, Dr. Taylor Marshall, like Dr. Eisenman, also makes the clear-cut connections of Paul to the Herodians, Herod Agrippa, and Herod Antipas. Marshall is well studied from Texas A&M University (BA) and Westminster Theological Seminary. He holds a Master’s and PhD from the University of Dallas. Despite my opposition to many of his beliefs and postures Dr. Marshall does the correct and verifiable work on the very Herodian Paul. Here is the brief conclusion he makes:

“Some might counter my arguments by stating that Saul/Paul himself claims to have been a Pharisee and not a Herodian. But this is where things get interesting. The Pharisees and Herodians worked together!

When the Herodians are mentioned in the Gospels (Mark 3:6, 12:13; Matthew 22:16; cf. also Mark 8:15, Luke 13:31-32, Acts 4:27), they are coupled with the Pharisees. For example, in Mark 3:6, the Pharisees plot against Jesus regarding his teaching on the Sabbath day by incorporating the Herodians into their conspiracy. In Mark 8:15, Christ described the alliance of Pharisees and Herod against Him. In Mark 12, the Pharisees and Herodians together, try to trap Christ with their question about paying taxes.

The fact that Saul/Paul was a Pharisee does not disqualify him from being a Herodian. Rather, it substantiates it.”

It is beyond doubt that Paul had great favor from Rome through his close ties and connections with the Herod Dynasty. He was a Roman citizen with those privileges. Much if not most of Paul’s Hellenized neo-theology was a serious contention, a heresy to Homeland Jews opposed to Greco-Roman influences and doctrines changing Torah-Judaism; this included The Way Reform movement founded by Yeshua/Jesus.

The escalating crisis and eventual Jewish-Roman war (66 CE) and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (70 CE) either wiped out most staunch Judean Torah Jews or dispersed them from Judea, or both. This was the time Paul began “preaching” his new Gentile version of Hellenized Christ Apotheosis across Cyprus, Asia Minor, Thrace, Macedonia, Greece, Crete, Sicily, and finally to Rome. As a consequence, primarily by Rome and its heavily Hellenized empire, Yeshua’s/Jesus’ reform movement died with him and with the early Jerusalem Church during the upheaval and war (60–70 CE). By this time there was no one left in Judea, no “pillar” of authority to check or to protect the Torah-loving, Torah-abiding Jewish-Jesus reforms, teachings, and practices he wanted. Paul’s teachings, or apostacy, had an endless audience throughout the Roman Mediterranean and Rome’s ascending Church Fathers would back it.

∼ ∼ ∼ § ∼ ∼ ∼

Now that the significant, stark differences have been contrasted and revealed between Jesus’/Yeshua’s very Jewish purpose in context with his actual strict Torah-abiding Homeland Judaism, his family background within Galilea, Samaria, and Judea regionally, along with the fact he rejected all forms of Hellenism infiltrating traditional Judaism, including the heretical takeover of Jewish theology, laws, and Messianism by Rome and Rome’s alliance to priestly aristocrats such as the Alexandrian and Herodian/Boethusian priestly sects… the question should be asked:

How was the real Jesus/Yeshua distorted and mostly “lost” to a culture he despised and fought to keep out of his strict Jewish laws and worship?

Answer: the power and might of Rome and its Greco-Roman influences within a few Jewish sects. Greco-Rome hijacked a floundering small Jesus-Jewish movement and turned it into a Hellenistic Roman religion that appealed to Gentiles. Saul of Tarsus, or Paul, was one such Jew that Rome favored and he was a Herodian-Boethusian Jew who proselytized to and recruited Roman Gentiles. All they had to do was embrace Greek Apotheosis in Christ (not the real Jesus) and forsake their Torah-abiding Judaism, what Jesus/Yeshua never wanted.

Afterall, Jesus the Jew was apples and Pauline Apotheosis in a Christ was oranges. They still are today.

Live Well – Love Much – Laugh Often – Learn Always

The Professor’s Convatorium © 2025 by Professor Taboo is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0