Assuming that Jesus/Yeshua was an actual historical figure, let’s take a much closer look at the evidence available stating he was who the Gospels say he was.
Was Jesus/Yeshua really a carpenter as the Gospels would have us believe? About 2-billion Christians assume he was a carpenter after Joseph, Mary, and Jesus/Yeshua fled surrounding Nazareth. For over 2,000 years Christians have just assumed he was a carpenter. Why? As it turns out there is very scant evidence, if not non-existent evidence, that Jesus was ever a carpenter, let alone Joseph. To date archaeologists have uncovered no indications whatsoever of any wealth there (e.g., nice kitchen ware, mosaics, large residences, etc.); no public buildings (synagogue, school, town hall, or whatever), and have concluded that it was—like so many other rural villages in Galilee—an agricultural community. Where is the convincing evidence there were carpenters present in Galilee?
The fact is there is none other than one verse in the ENTIRE New Testament:
“They said, “Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” (Mark 6:3).
All Nazarenes—that is in a literal geographic sense, not the Jewish sect called the Nasara/Nazirites—would have had their own land to farm and harvest making their living this way. From Dr. Bart Ehrman, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill, renown biblical scholar, critic of a historical Jesus, and of the origins and earliest movement of Christians states:
“Some people may have done other occasional work on the side: a community like that would probably need someone who worked with metal (they would need farm tools), and stone (to help in constructing the houses), and wood (for yokes, plows, gates, handles for tools, etc.) So there is nothing inherently implausible in Jesus being a wood-worker, even if he did spend most of his time working the fields. But was he?”
Dr. Ehrman goes on to dissect this assumption:
“There are lots of interesting questions raised by this passage [Mark 6:3]. For example, why are they asking if this is the carpenter (I’ll deal with the actual meaning of the word later: it could also mean stone mason or metal smith, e.g. But its specific meaning won’t be important for my assessment here)? He grew up in that very small community there, he worked among them for years, he left just recently: weren’t they his well-known neighbors and customers? Why are they asking if it’s him if he’s only been away for a few months? Also it’s odd that they never knew what a bright guy he was before this. Did he acquire this wisdom overnight after he had left town? Why is he also called “the son of Mary” – weren’t people normally identified as the son of their father? And these brothers and sisters – were they actually his biological siblings?”
The shotty, vague, ambiguous few verses about Jesus’/Yeshua’s life after 12-years old in Nazareth, Galilee, raises serious questions about veracity. It is almost as if the early Greco-Roman Church Fathers and their scribes/editors are dancing around the historical facts about WHO Jesus/Yeshua really is. Why? Is it because they don’t really know? Is it because the character in the Gospels isn’t really the super-human Son of God, born from centuries of Messianic prophecy, miracles, and bloodline? Is it because there is just a simple ordinary Jew somewhere in Galilee and Judea only trying to reform Late Second Temple Judaism?
Jesus proposed by the Gospels as a carpenter cannot be corroborated or is simply false.
Dr. Ehrman goes on to critique the Gospels with a fine tooth comb:
“It is interesting that the other Gospel writers all changed the wording. It’s also interesting that scribes who were copying Mark in the following centuries sometimes also changed it, into conformity with Matthew’s version, so in Mark too Jesus is called “son of the carpenter” rather than “the carpenter.” This was apparently the reading of our oldest manuscript P45 (from around 200 CE – I say “apparently” because there is a gap in the manuscript but by counting the number of letters it would have taken to fill the gap, the longer reading “son of the carpenter” appears to have been there), along with some manuscripts from later.
Why would scribes change Mark’s wording? It was not unusual. Copyists often conformed Mark’s Gospel to Matthew’s when there were small differences between them. This kind of scribal change is called “harmonization.” It is possible that later scribes wanted to harmonize the texts and this is what led to the alteration. But even before the scribes, Matthew and Luke both changed it as well. One wonders if there was something problematic about Jesus being “the carpenter,” motivating copyists (including Matthew and Luke!) to change it to say he was the “son of the carpenter.”
It’s a puzzling question for Matthew in particular because by making the change he created a problem in his narrative. The birth narrative of Matthew 1-2 goes out of its way to show that Mary conceived as a virgin, so that Jesus was NOT the son of Joseph (the carpenter). (If Luke originally had a birth narrative – i.e. chs. 1-2 – which, as I have pointed out, is debated, he created the same problem for himself). Why change a text that said nothing about the matter (Mark) to make it say something that contradicts your own account?”
Personally, I have always seriously doubted the Gospel accounts of Jesus/Yeshua after the age of twelve when he and his parents fled nearby Jerusalem for Nazareth in Galilee and then became a mere carpenter for 17-years, not doing a damn thing for the entire world. Why waste so much time with the blessings, forgiveness, and miracles of the Holy Yahweh or God with His ultimate plan of salvation for human-kind?
For a more expanded examination on Jesus’/Yeshua’s seventeen missing years and that grave scriptural oversight go to my March 2018 blog-post: The Incarnation of G-Man.
Here are the facts plain and simple from any secular evidence, of which there is essentially none, and the four Gospels of which there is hardly any corroborating hints or evidence of where and what Jesus/Yeshua was doing between the age of 12–29:
“Textual scholars have little doubt that Mark originally did say “carpenter” instead of “son of a carpenter.” That’s the reading of nearly all our oldest and best manuscripts (P45 is the apparent exception, and it can be a bit quirky in places); it is the reading that scribes would have been more likely to change (since scribes tended to harmonize toward Matthew, not to create disagreements with Matthew). We don’t, as a side note, have any manuscripts that change Matthew’s reading to “carpenter” in conformity with Mark – so the phrase “son of a carpenter” wasn’t a concern for scribes?
So, back to my question: why did Matthew, Luke, (potentially John), and some scribes decide to change Mark’s identification of Jesus as “the carpenter” to “the son of the carpenter.” I’ll pick up that question in my next post. Two of the questions I’ll be addressing is whether the Greek word translated “carpenter” necessarily meant carpenter, and if so, or if not, why it might have been seen as a problem by later Gospel writers and scribes.”
The severe lack of textual and archaeological evidence that a man named Yeshua/Jesus was a carpenter in Galilee is just not there. And to make matters worse the Gospels only convolute and confuse the question with too many occupational titles or patriarchal labels. And if the earliest Greco-Roman Church Fathers and their scribes/editors knew this, it explains the intentional motive to confuse readers. Therefore, to say that the Gospels are extremely short of validation is a monumental gross understatement. It just isn’t there. Period. Why believe in an intentional cover-up or flat out lie?
Live Well – Love Much – Laugh Often – Learn Always
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 1st-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?
Ancient Jerusalem and Herod’s Temple, the Second Temple for the Jews
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.
1st century Jews in the Lower Levant were ethnically diverse with many various forms of worship and Hellenistic influences
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.
For these reasons, the issue of Hellenism can be viewed as a larger issue of openness to foreign cultures and influences, a conflict which was foremost in biblical times and which continued into the Late Second Temple period and Jesus’ lifetime. As the landscape of world politics and culture changed and expanded, Homeland Judaism first found itself in confrontation with the Canaanite culture and then with the phenomenon and permeation of Hellenism and the Roman Empire.
Because of the blending of many cultures and influences from centuries of conquering kingdoms and empires from 423 BCE and the Babylonians to 69 CE and the Romans, the Jewish people in general formed five (5) distinct groups or sects within Palestine during the Hellenistic period. Who were they?
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 2nd and 1st 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.
Saul/Paul the Herodian Hellenized Jew
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.
Second Temple Jewish Messianism The Messianic concept in Judaism has a very complex history in the Hebrew Bible, in the interpretation of those scriptural passages, and was of course further compounded by Jewish sectarianism over traditions, doctrines, practices, and most of all the struggles with Hellenism closing in from all sides. Therefore, Messianism developed in various forms among the Jewish sects. Within those disputes emerged two separate trends, a restorative versus a utopian Messianism.
With the restorative Messianism it sought to reunite with ancient Jewish splendor. It was a practical approach where the present world was expected to become more improved and ideal. This trend was likened to God’s Kingdom on Earth.
On the other hand the utopian Messianism shaped a better future transcending anything existing previously. It was layered with an apocalyptic nature and seeking widespread catastrophes ushing in major changes with the arrival of the Jewish Messiah or Messiahs, plural.
During early Second Temple times the prophets Haggai and Zechariah foretold a Davidic kingdom was to be restored under the reign of Zerubbabel. Both of the trends had the same Messianic conclusion, however, there was one significant difference:
““Behold, a man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the Lord. Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the Lord, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.”’ Now the crown will become a reminder in the temple of the Lord to Helem, Tobijah, Jedaiah and Hen the son of Zephaniah.” — Zechariah 6:12-14 (my emphasis)
The Zechariah passage clearly implies there will be two Messiahs, not one. One is to be a priest (Levitical?) and the other will be a king (Davidic?). By the end of the Late Second Temple Period the restorative Messianic approach would fuse into the utopian/apocalyptic approach of the Qumran Dead Sea sect. This evolved mixture would cause more debate, more division/sectarianism far into the future of the nature of Judaic Messianism, which certainly crept into early Christianity and its highly complicated theology for seven centuries. One final summation about Messianism can be made beyond any doubt; in time the concept of Messianism became heavily convoluted and confusing, whether in a Jewish sense or a Christian sense, so much so it still very much exists today in the two religions. It exists for the simple reason that Judaism fathered Christianity. The blood line, so to speak, is patently contaminated with ancient Second Temple partisanships.
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:
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.
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?
Proximity to Greek Cities: Major Hellenistic urban centers like Sepphoris and Tiberias were just miles from his hometown of Nazareth.
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.
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.
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.
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 who 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 Vatican in Rome representing the Universal church of Christ – Massimo Sestini/Italian National Police via Getty Images
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 total alignment with his strict Torah-abiding Homeland Judaism, with his family background in and around 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 Apotheosisin 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 greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the [willful] illusion of [divine] knowledge [and revelation].” — Stephen Hawking, modified by me
Actually I want to better clarify the title of this post: “Theological or Factually Historical?” No, no, no… better yet, “Theologically Canonical or Factually Historical & Widely Verified?” Yes, that is much better.
Agnotology. What is it? What does it mean? What is its significance to us today?
I think I can help you get a general, in-depth understanding of what agnotology is, what it means, and why it is very significant to us in the 21st-century and beyond. Just go to my 4-part series, Games of Unknowledging. However, if you are incredibly impatient with a lacking attention span, then here’s a simple quick definition of Agnotology:
Agnotology is the process of intentionally creating or encouraging doubt or ignorance (or lack of knowledge), for example by spreading false information, in order to influence opinion, sell an ideology, sell a product, or gain an advantage, or the study of these processes.
But keep in mind my impatient followers and readers, that may not be enough.
For the purpose of this blog-post I want to distinguish the growing chasm between religion (Abrahamic religions especially) and historical fact that is verified and corroborated by the majority of scholars and experts in all the many, many scientific fields of human history.
Christianity Cracking, Crumbling, and Collapsing as a Truthful Faith
The most significant of these failures is the historical reality of widely diverse “Christianities” or denominations, today over 40,000 plus. The political process of deciding the New Testament canon over a 400–700 year period, known as Ecumenical Counsels of the Early Catholic Church (circa 4th-century) by their highest ranking Greek priests, Greek bishops, Greek archbishops, and Greek cardinals caused immeasurable amounts of ambiguity. The first counsel you may have heard about was the First Council of Nicaea from May to July of 325 CE. After the Nicene Council it was followed-up by no less than seven (7) more counsels all the way into 754–787 CE last at the Palace of Hieria near Constantinople of the Eastern Roman Empire. Why so many counsels to decide what theology was correct, was truthful, was divine revelation over 400+ years after Jesus’ death and then everything that was later found wrong? What were the many disagreements, fractures, mistakes, false testimonies of the nature of “Christ the Messiah?” The still present enigma of Christ’s nature begs the bigger question of What was all of the mass confusion among the earliest Christian followers? Let’s get some historically verified background.
From the table above we see the major problem of earliest Christianity in the 4th-century and 5th-century was:
Divine Inspired Unity vs. Human (or Roman) Politics and Welfare — the traditional religious narrative suggests that Jesus established a single, clear doctrine passed down perfectly through his apostles. However, historical and archaeological discoveries—most notably the Nag Hammadi library found in 1945—proved that early Christianity was a chaotic web of competing groups with radically different beliefs about Jesus’ purpose.
The “Orthodoxy” — the heavy indoctrination we know today did not naturally emerge as the sole truth; it was codified through centuries of intense political maneuvering, theological debates, and Roman Imperial intervention by Greek-Roman men.
The Selection of Scripture Was Absolutely Political from the Start: The books of the New Testament were not bound together immediately after Jesus’s death. They were not tossed down from the heavens from God either. For the first few centuries after Jesus’ execution, different Christian sects used completely different gospels. The choice of which books to include (and which to burn or banish) into a codified Bible was a slow, human process finalized centuries later. Books like the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary were rejected not because they lacked historical merit, but because their theology didn’t align with the specific authoritarian faction that eventually won political power.
Imperial Intervention (The Council of Nicaea): In 325 CE, the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great—a political ruler, not a religious prophet—convened the Council of Nicaea. He did this because Christian infighting was threatening the stability of the Roman Empire. The council voted on foundational doctrines, such as the exact nature of Jesus’s divinity (the Arian controversy). This solidified the reality that modern Christian orthodoxy was heavily shaped by Roman statecraft, not Jesus’ reform movement.
The “Synoptic Problem” and Textual Evolution: Textual criticism shows that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses as eyewitness accounts. They were written decades later (between 70 and 110 CE) by anonymous, Greek-speaking authors, not Mishnaic Hebrew-speaking Jews such as Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Matthew and Luke heavily copied from Mark and a lost source known as “Q,” changing details, theological emphasis, and even historical timelines to fit or retrofit their specific interests and audiences.
Ultimately, whether these facts “undermine” or dismantle Christendom as I think they do, it all depends on the individual faith-believer, not an All-knowing, All-present God and Son. For fundamentalists or Christian Nationalists today who require literal, historical inerrancy, these historical facts pose a severe challenge. For the progressive or mainline theologians, they simply show that God worked through the messy, complex reality of human history, a bit of a cop-out in my opinion. Why? Because if you collect the entire whole of everything related to Earliest Christianity up to the last seventh ecumenical counsel, which certainly includes Roman Empire recorded, extant history (of which they were obsessed with) and all Jewish literature such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Tannaim Period of Jewish rabbinic-sage literature—that does indeed still exist between 10–220 CE—and during the lifetime of Yeshua bar Yosef, or Jesus, they overwhelmingly show just how messy, erroneous, retro-fitted via hindsight to cover problematic (false?) theology of the new Roman Catholic Church, and how the person named Jesus or Iisoús in Koine Greek in the canonical New Testament, was in fact NOT the divine resurrected messiah the Roman Empire (via Greco-Roman tradition of Apotheosis) fabricated. For example, there were many, many regional pagan and Jewish historians of the time during Jesus’ lifetime or within less-than 100-years of his life that wrote NO INDEPEDENT RECORDS whatsoever of a “Jesus Christ.” That is damning of Christianity. Furthermore, within a century of Jesus’ life do any of these known authors/historians make any mention of the later twelve disciples or apostles. Who are they? They are:
So this begs the question, Why the literal hiding of such a supposed Lord and Savior for all humankind to the rest of the world? What’s the purpose of the cloak and dagger? The answer? There is none and it is very, very poor foresight for an All-knowing, All-present theological God.
The Stark Comparisons and Distinctions Within Christianity Then and Today
historical fact
Christian belief
historical reality
The New Testament
A divinely inspired, unchanging set of books.
A curated collection from dozens of competing texts by early church leaders/men.
Early Church Doctrine
A unified, universally agreed-upon faith.
A fractured landscape of Gnostics, Marcionites, & Ebionites who fiercely disagreed on the nature of Jesus Christ.
Rise of Roman Orthodoxy post-320 CE
The Holy Spirit naturally guided the “true faith” to world victory.
Roman Imperial enforcement outlawed, suppressed, and destroyed competing Christian sects.
To surmise, 1) the above table, 2) the lack of independent historical sources, 3) the widely diverse, disagreeing, sometimes fighting sects over the nature of who Jesus actually was from a Greco-Roman tradition, versus 4) the historical realities of the time-period between 63 BCE and 70 CE known as the Jewish Late Second Temple Period, all show as a whole that 5) the roots of earliest Christianity (i.e. The Way Movement) through the end of the Seven Ecumenical Counsels in 787 CE reveal at best Christianity’s flimsy foundation. At worst it clearly reveals no unified theology, doctrine, or orthodoxy of practices or faith. Why?
Plain and simply, the vast chasm that existed between imperial Greco-Roman (Hellenistic-Herodian) traditions, language (Koine Greek), and culture was factually incompatible with Jesus’ beliefs, his Jewish background, he and his people’s Mishnaic Hebrew language that also included Syro-Aramaic at times, and their long established Jewish literature and traditions on who, what, and why the Jewish Messiah was to arrive for them.
Because of these deep chasms mentioned between two clashing, adversarial cultures—Roman Empire vs. Judaism—when the earliest Roman Catholic Church began to ascend, the rewritten, hijacked, edited, redacted, ambiguous, suppressive manmade orthodoxy of forming the Biblical canon over seven Roman counsels in a 300-400 year period was failing and failing bad, particularly after the siege and sacking of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE killing most Homeland Jews royally screwed any hope of total unity. As a result, the Christian canons became so heavily contaminated and contradictory later that it caused incessant confusion among all Christians then and to this day over a meager, simple 1st-century CE Jewish rabbi-reformer who failed to be the Jewish Messiah according to Jesus’ own people, then and today.
Live Well – Love Much – Laugh Often – Learn Always
It is the Christmas holidays now and we all know what takes place for the month of December, or actually immediately after Thanksgiving Day. No, check that. I am wrong: Christmas today as it has been for the last 2-3 decades in America now begins at Halloween, or weeks before then. Ugh. 🙄 So I thought this blog-post would be a good reminder to those who willingly choose to not do their historic homework about their own faith and beliefs.
At least once a month I receive Dr. Bart Ehrman’s blog emails on various subjects of Christianity, Jesus or Yeshua, and biblical history, particularly in regard to the four Gospels, Pseudographic, and non-Canonical manuscripts of Late Second Temple Judaism and earliest Christianity. One of his latest blog-posts was entitled, Why Should We Think Jesus Called Himself the Messiah? posted November 10, 2024.
I have always found this question to be of great intrigue and controversy. Why? Because so few modern Christians have an adequate knowledge and understanding of Jewish Late Second Temple Messianism during Jesus’ life, hereafter to be called Yeshua bar Yosef or Yeshua/Yeshuah. And without this Jewish knowledge and understanding there is no possible way modern Christians can truly know who their “Messiah,” their Yeshua actually was and who he thought he was to his fellow Jews and disciples at the time. Who Yeshua was and his role in Yahweh’s or God’s scheme of things in 20-35 CE were far from straightforward. It was all further muddled up and convoluted by the prevalent Hellenistic or Greco-Roman impositions, particularly from Saul of Tarsus, or Paul.
∼ ∼ ∼ § ∼ ∼ ∼
Dr. Ehrman clearly believes that Yeshua bar Yosef believed himself to be the long awaited Jewish Messiah. However, I am not so convinced. Following are two points Bart Ehrman makes for Yeshua considering himself “the Jewish Messiah”:
Jesus was considered the messiah by his followers after his death, so much so that “Christ” became the most common designation for him. Nothing about his crucifixion, or the belief in his resurrection, would have led anyone to think he was the messiah (since the messiah was not supposed to be raised from the dead, let alone humiliated and crucified). So he must have been called the messiah *before* his followers came to believe in his resurrection. But the question is: did Jesus himself tell his followers this? To get to *that* question we have to consider what we know about what Jesus told his followers in general.
Jesus’ proclamation was all about the coming kingdom of God. He was an apocalypticist who believed that God would soon intervene in the course of history, overthrow the forces of evil, and establish a good (and very real, political) kingdom here on earth. His listeners had to turn to God in preparation for this imminent end.
The immediate problem I have with Ehrman’s conclusion is that he bases it upon just one literary source: the Greco-Roman Synoptic Gospels of which were copied some 40–78 years after Yeshua’s execution in 31-33 CE. Ehrman does not utilize other very relevant Jewish sources of the same time period! For example, Ehrman makes the common grave mistake of sourcing strictly the Greek Septuagint which eventually passes down to us as the Greco-Roman Old Testament. However, the Greek Septuagint is not the Hebrew Tanakh and Yeshua was clearly Hebrew! There are significant differences. What are some key differences?
Jewish Requirements to be the Messiah
The literal and proper translation of the Hebrew Messiah is “Moshiach – מָשִׁיחַ.” It simply means “anointed” referring to the Jewish Bronze and Iron Age ritual of anointing and consecrating someone or something with oil. In the Hebrew Tanakh (1 Samuel 10:1-2) such as a Jewish king (1 Kings 1:39), Jewish priests (Leviticus 4:3), prophets (Isaiah 61:1), the Jewish Temple and its utensils (Exodus 40:9-11), unleavened bread (Numbers 6:15), and a non-Jewish or Gentile king (Cyrus king of Persia, Isaiah 45:1). However, “Moshiach” is never translated as a Messiah; it is always a verb describing an action or occurrence, it is never a noun. There’s the first major screw-up of the Greco-Romans and the Septuagint.
If Christians are going to lay claim to a Hebrew-Jewish heritage for their Christos, or Yeshua, then it is completely fair that we examine closely what the Hebrew-Jewish literature says about the Messiah, yes? The Hebrew Tanakh makes it explicitly clear what and/or how the “Moshiach” will be completely and correctly fulfilled:
He must be Jewish (Deut. 17:15, Num. 24:17). This is obvious.
He must descend from the Tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10) and a direct male descendant of both King David (1 Chron. 17:11, Psalm 89:29-38, Jerm. 33:17, 2 Sam. 7:12-16) and King Solomon (1 Chron. 22:10, 2 Chron. 7:18).
He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel (Isaiah 27:12-13, Isaiah 11:12).
He must rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (Micah 4:1).
He must bring world peace (Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 11:6, Micah 4:3).
He must influence the entire world to acknowledge and serve one G-d (Isaiah 11:9, Isaiah 40:5, Zeph. 3:9).
All of these written requirements for the true “Moshiach” are best summed up in Ezekiel 37:24-28:
“And My servant David will be a king over them, and they will all have one shepherd, and they will walk in My ordinances, and keep My statutes, and observe them, and they shall live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant…and I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their G-d and they will be My people. And the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever.”
Therefore, according to Yeshua’s own scriptures, if the Jewish individual fails to fulfill even one of these requirements, he cannot be the “Moshiach.” Period, no exceptions. Being as well studied and versed in Mishnaic Hebrew scriptures of his people during fervent Messianism of the day as Yeshua certainly was… he would’ve known that he could not possibly be the fulfilled Moshiach or Messiah.
The 12-year old boy Yeshua bar Yosef (Jesus) at the Temple in Jerusalem astounding the priests, scribes, rabbis
“Jesus did think of himself as the messiah. But not in the sense that later Christians said. For Jews of his day, and Jesus himself, the messiah was to be the king of the coming kingdom. Jesus understood the coming kingdom in completely apocalyptic terms. That is the key. He did not think that the nation of Israel would rouse a military opposition to the Romans and drive them out of the Promised Land. God himself was going to bring destruction on his enemies by sending the Son of Man from heaven (a cosmic savior; Jesus did not think that he himself was this one). The Son of Man would establish God’s kingdom on earth. And he would appoint Jesus to be its ruler. Jesus was the messiah of the coming kingdom.”
But in my opinion Dr. Ehrman doesn’t go far enough with the distinctions between the authentic Jewish Moshiach and the later created (or hijacked?) Greco-Roman extrapolation of Messiah. Additionally, I don’t think Ehrman is giving Yeshua enough scriptural credit to know that he could NOT be the Greco-Roman version of Messiah/Christos. I am convinced that Yeshua knew he was not the Moshiach/Messiah. I also think that a critical question is overlooked in Ehrman’s portrayal of the Messiah/Christos: why did Yeshua not proclaim publicly, to his own people, he was the real Messiah. He only proclaimed it—at least according to the Gospels—to his twelve disciples. Why create more drama and controversy by keeping the anointed-elect a secret? That is a Pandora’s Box or can of worms that given how the Jewish people had been long suffering under Roman authority and oppression just did not need! Is that how you unite and “gather the Jewish people” into world peace? No, it is not, especially if G-d has ordained you as Moshiach.
Why Yeshua/Jesus Was Not the Jewish Moshiach-Messiah
Of the six (6) criteria above to fulfill the role and title of Moshiach-Messiah, Yeshua fulfilled only one, that he was Jewish. There are many problematic accounts of Yeshua’s (Jesus’) genealogy in fulfilling #2 above, i.e. from the Tribe of Judah, from King David and King Solomon. The immediate obvious problem, according to the canonical Gospels, is that Yeshua did not have a biological father. And if that wasn’t disqualifying enough, the Greco-Roman Gospels claim that Joseph was a descendant of King Jeconiah. In the Tanakh King Jeconiah was cursed to never have any descendants (Jer. 22:30). These Hebrew passages further disqualify Yeshua as the Moshiach-Messiah.
Closer examination of Yeshua’s (Jesus’) genealogy according to the Greco-Roman New Testament Gospels show that in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 cause more serious contradictory narratives about his genealogy. Here the later Greco-Roman Church Fathers jump through hoops to explain away these contradictions! Using Yeshua’s mother, Mary, as legitimate lineage is completely unfounded in Jewish Messianism. This is shown even in the Greek Septuagint. Jewish lineage for the Moshiach-Messiah is passed down strictly through the father, not through the mother. Furthermore, the same Gospels claim that Joseph was a descendant of King Jeconiah. This is more damaging to Yeshua’s lineage because of Jeremiah 22:30:
“As I live, says the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim [Jeconiah], king of Judah, be a signet on My right hand, from there I will remove you. […]
So said the Lord: Inscribe this man childless, a man who will not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David or ruling anymore in Judah.”
It is safe to assume that either 1) for this problem the Greco-Roman New Testament scribes and copyists chose to trace Yeshua’s genealogy through Mary his mother, breaking from long established Jewish Messianism, or 2) didn’t know about the passage in Jeremiah 22 until it was too late to change it. Then there is further problems tracing Yeshua’s lineage through Mary and that is Luke 3:23-38. For the sake of brevity I will focus just on verse 31:
“…the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David…” — NASB 1995
Mary, being supposedly a descendant of David through Nathan, Solomon’s brother, and not through Solomon himself as mandatory by long established Jewish Messianism and 1 Chronicles 22:10, then this further disqualifies Yeshua (Jesus) as the Moshiach-Messiah. It simply isn’t possible. And we have only examined the first two Jewish Messianic requirements above! The remaining four criteria above have never been fulfilled—not in Yeshua’s lifetime nor since. Any retrofit imposed upon these six criteria by Greco-Roman Christians, including the earliest Church Fathers, by a “Second Coming” are purely irrelevant because authentic Jewish Moshiach-Messianism has no scriptural basis of the anointed one coming twice. This is merely a later invention by the Early Christian Church, that by the way, is completely Greco-Roman, not Homeland Messianic Judaism or Yeshua’s heritage at all.
Early Greco-Roman Christian Church Fathers — notice they appear with pale skin & nothing like Jewish Rabbis or Priests and none of them were even half Jewish
The later Christian inventions and fabrications of the Messiah in Yeshua differ so much from authentic Jewish Moshiach-Messianism that they are not even in the same orbit or solar system. The stark differences developed as a result of the Church’s Greco-Roman influences, or superimposing, during the time of Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicaea. This council eventually drew up the Nicene Creed in 325 CE and forced one central authority and doctrinal orthodoxy, thus making Greco-Roman Catholicism the official religion of the Empire.
Be that as it may, according to authentic Jewish Messianism of the time (Yeshua’s lifetime and prior), the Moshiach (or Greek Messiah) was never meant to be an object of worship. The “anointed one’s” primary mission and final accomplishment was/is to bring global peace and to fulfill the entire world with the knowledge and awareness of only one G-d, and no others. Period. Full stop.
If Not the Jewish Messiah, Then Whose Messiah?
Imagine a hypothetical scenario for a moment. Imagine that you want to take advantage of the recent reparations offered by the U.S. government to the Native American Indian descendants due to America’s harsh atrocities done to them during the early and mid-19th century. The benefits, grants, and return of sacred lands to all the various tribes you have recognized as very advantageous and gaining an economic edge and eventual wealth accumulation. You want a part of it all, however, you also know full well that you possess no DNA of any Native American Indian ancestors, only white Anglo European-American. But you really envy desire all the reparations and benefits being handed out. Hmm, what to do… how to finagle?
Ah-HAH! 💡You rewrite and change history as well as the main and secondary characters to fit your best interests and your own agenda. While doing so you trash and/or eliminate the factual history and characters; wipe it out completely. Rome often did precisely that, simply destroy or distort the conquered and their culture so much that it is unrecognizable in the end.
∼ ∼ ∼ § ∼ ∼ ∼
While traveling through a forest, a person noticed a circle marked on the tree with an arrow shot precisely into the center of the circle. A few yards away he noticed several more targets marked on other trees, each with arrows perfectly in the center of the circles. Eventually, the traveler met the talented archer and asked him, “How did you become such an expert archer that you always shoot your arrows into the very center of the bull’s eye?”
The archer replied, “It’s not difficult. First, I shoot the arrow into the tree and then I draw the circle around the arrow.”
When one unbiasedly and equitably scrutinizes 2nd thru 4th-century CE Christian “proof texts” of Yeshua (Jesus) being their promised Messiah, you must ask the question: Has an arrow been shot into a circle or has a circle been drawn around the arrow? To put it another way, has the passage or passages been mistranslated, wrongly extrapolated, misquoted, taken out of context, or completely fabricated? Let’s take a close look at the several common proof texts Christian Apologists offer for their Yeshua-Jesus being the foretold Messiah.
Matthew 2:23 and Nazareth: One of the easiest ways to fulfill a prophesy is one you yourself invented. The Gospel of Matthew claims that Yeshua was the Messiah because he lived in the town of Nazareth:
“…and [Jesus] came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: “He shall be called a Nazarene.””
Because a Nazarene might be interpreted as a resident of Nazareth, vaguely he could be called a Nazarene. However, there is a huge problem with an actual town called Nazareth in the time period of the Jewish Tanakh; it did not exist. Hence, there are no references to Nazareth in the Hebrew Bible. Nowhere. This was later fabricated by early Church Fathers drawing a circle, as it were, around the arrow. What modern Christian apologists will offer is to work with crude English retranslations of earlier Greek mistranslations while avoiding the original, authentic Hebrew scriptures.
Romans 11:26 and Isaiah 59:20: The passage in Isaiah in several English translations states, “The deliverer will come from Zion, he will remove ungodliness from Jacob…” This is an attempt to establish Old Testament support for the Christian belief that their Messiah will take away our sins. But this is not what the original Hebrew Isaiah says. The correct translation from the Hebrew is “A redeemer will come to Zion and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob, declares the Lord.” No, in authentic Jewish Messianism the Moshiach-Messiah’s role is not to take away all our sins, but instead when we choose to turn away from our sins, the Moshiach-Messiah will then arrive on Earth. Christian apologists translate Isaiah 59:20 correctly, but mistranslate it in Romans 11:26. Why? The obvious reason is that Romans was written/copied in c. 55-57 CE by Saul/Paul. Isaiah was written/copied c. last half of the 8th-century BCE to the last half of the 6th-century BCE. A massive time-lapse there of later answering and rebutting many critics of early Christianity authenticity! Or as it were, drawing the circles around the arrows.
Matthew 1:22-23 and a Virgin Birth: In the Gospel of Matthew is states, “Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” Christian apologists claim this fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 which says in the correct, original Hebrew: “Behold, the young woman is with child and will bear a son and she will call his name Emmanuel.”
The current Christian translation of this Isaiah verse is simply inaccurate for three reasons:
The Hebrew word, “almah -אלמה,” means a young woman, not a virgin. All Jewish biblical scholars recognize this fact.*1
The verse says “ha’ almah -הא עלמה” or “the young woman,” not a young woman, specifying a particular woman that was known to Isaiah during his lifetime; and
The verse says “she will call his name Emmanuel,” not “they shall call.”
Aside from these three inaccuracies above, if you read the entire chapter of Isaiah 7, from which this verse is taken, it is glaringly obvious that Christians have intentionally taken the verse out of context.
Prophecies or passages in the Hebrew Tanakh or Old Testament
Isaiah 7:16 and 8:4: Isaiah 7 speaks of a prophecy made to the Jewish King Ahaz to lessen his fears of two invading kings—those of Damascus and Samaria—both of whom were preparing to invade Jerusalem some 600 years before the birth of Yeshua (Jesus). Isaiah’s prophecy is meant for the very near future, not 600 years later as Christians wrongly claim. Verse 16 makes this quite clear:
“For before the na’ar (boy) shall understand to refuse the rah (evil), and choose the tov (good), the adamah (land) will be desolate, of whose two melachim (kings) thou art afraid.”
This can in fact be verified in the next chapter, Isaiah 8:4:
“For before the child shall know to cry, ‘My father and my mother’ the riches of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.”
Thus, this verse completely rules out any possible connection to Yeshua (Jesus) six millennia later. The verse doesn’t even hint in the least it is meant for six millennia later. There is further proof in fact that the verse could not have referred to Yeshua.
2 Samuel 7:14 and Hebrews 1:5: Christian apologists often refer to 2 Samuel 7:14 to refer to Yeshua as the Son of God in Hebrews 1:5. But when the entire passage is examined it doesn’t end with the phrase of Hebrews 1:5, it goes on to say:
“When he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men.”
In 3rd and 4th-century CE Christian theology of Yeshua’s sinless birth and boyhood, this cannot possibly fit the doctrine of a pure, holy Son of God and Lamb of God. No, instead the verse is speaking specifically about King Solomon, as 1 Chronicles 22:9-10 refers. It must be remembered too that the Hebrew Tanakh frequently refers to individuals as God’s “son,” even to the entire nation of Israel:
“Israel is My son, My firstborn.” — Exodus 4:22
Once again, drawing the circle around the arrow to appear as it’s not.
Micah 5:2 and Bethlehem: Christian evangelicals and apologists frequently attempt to use Micah 5:2 as a proof-text of Yeshua fulfilling the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. However, in the original Hebrew the passage simply states it has been preordained that the Jewish Messiah would trace his lineage back to Bethlehem. Being born there and being a resident there are not exclusively the same. This verse in Micah is consistent with the Messiah being a descendant of King David as properly read in 1 Samuel 16:18:
“And one of the young men answered and said, “Behold, I saw a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who knows how to play, a mighty man of valor, and a warrior, and prudent in affairs, and a handsome man, and the Lord is with him.””
That does not possibly mean the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem.
Furthermore, there is another major problem with this Christian proof-text. There is a huge difference between a scripture passage that serves as a proof, and one that serves as a requirement of the Messiah. A proof must be something so specific, so exclusive that only one individual can represent it or fulfill it. For example, one criterion of the Jewish Moshiach-Messiah is that he must be Jewish. If he is Jewish, like so many were at the time, then that is one and ONLY one requirement met. But in and of itself that doesn’t mean that one individual is the Moshiach-Messiah, for there were millions of Jews that met that criterion. Thousands of Jewish children were born in Bethlehem. That doesn’t prove a Messiah.
Conclusion: Not the Jewish Or the Christian Messiah
Because I have shown sufficiently that Yeshua bar Yosef (Jesus) could not have possibly been the foretold Jewish Moshiach-Messiah according to the original, authentic Hebrew Tanakh and Late Second Temple Judaism, then where does that leave Greco-Roman Christianity and all its tenets, inventions, and fabrications? The simple answer is Christianity is only as valid, or as factual as Greco-Roman mythology in Zeus and Quirinus, Mars and Venus, Jupiter and Juno, or Apollo and Diana. Nothing more. Why? I’ll briefly summarize.
Yeshua bar Yosef (Jesus) was not the fulfilled or foretold Jewish Messiah according to authentic Judaism.
Christianity lays claim to (or hijacks) Jewish Moshiach-Messianism, as their own. However, does so completely wrong based on authentic Judaism of the time and later invents their own Roman version.
If #1 is true (and it is), then #2 cannot be right or factually, accomplished or validated.
Therefore, Christianity’s basic core foundations of the fulfilled Messiah are invalid, bogus, and become Greco-Roman mythology at best.
Regarding Dr. Bart Ehrman’s blog-post Why Should We Think Jesus Called Himself the Messiah?, knowing well the Jewish history of the Late Second Temple Period, the Hebrew Tanakh in proper translation, and the contemporaneous Jewish literature of Yeshua’s time-frame, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, I’m convinced that Yeshua (Jesus) never admitted he was the hoped Jewish Messiah, not within Jewish sources—the Greco-Roman Gospels as only one source are nowhere near sufficient corroboration to Ehrman’s conclusion.
Yeshua bar Yosef (Jesus) is not the Jewish or the Christian Messiah. Period. He is no one’s Messiah.
* Some Christian apologists argue that in an ancient translation of the Bible called the “Septuagint,” 70 great rabbis translated the word “almah -אלמה” in Isaiah 7:14, as “parthenos –παρθενος ´ ,” and that this Greek word means a virgin. This claim is false for several reasons: 1) The 70 rabbis did not translate the book of Isaiah, only the “Pentateuch,” the five books of Moses. In fact, the introduction to the English edition of the Septuagint states concerning the translation, “The Pentateuch is considered to be the part, the best executed, while the book of Isaiah appears to be the very worst;” 2) In Genesis 34:2-3 the word “parthenos” is used in reference to a non-virgin, a young woman who had been raped; 3) The entire Septuagint version that missionaries quote from is not the original, but from a later, corrupted version. ↩︎
After a wait of about 20-minutes, they called my 84-year old neighbor, originally from Spain and France, back to a patient room. She was there to see the neurologist about pain shooting up both arms into her neck when squeezing things with either hand or both hands, like her steering wheel when driving. This is why I took her to the neurologist.
For several minutes there in the lobby waiting room I was alone, with the exception of the receptionist behind the glass. It was a peaceful, quite relaxing few moments. I quickly browsed some of the WordPress blogs I follow and did a few “Likes,” but no comments, yet. I’ve learned not to comment while in places such as the doctor’s front waiting room. Often too many interruptions by elderly small-town folks, or younger, friendly country people; all strangers of course, at least to me. And the interruptions cause me to lose track of my train of thought. An old habit of mine surfaces too easily: I always give my undivided attention to those engaging me socially. A bad habit, I suppose. 😉
Several minutes later a car with a handicapped tag hanging from the rearview mirror pulls up to the lobby door outside. I watch to see if whoever might be getting out—in a wheelchair?—might need assistance with the two double-doors always wanting to close simultaneously on you while trying to enter. You know, not enough hands to hold both doors AND manage a wheelchair.
No need. The elderly lady who got out was ambulatory and stable. She grabbed her very nice red-n-black shawl out of the back seat then came into the lobby to check-in. I smiled and nodded at her as she sat down to wait. She warmly and politely said hello to me. I responded in the same and told her that I liked her eloquent shawl. She thanked me, saying she sometimes shuts the car door on it, not realizing it until she tries to walk away. We both chuckled, “Your car is very attached to you, huh?” She laughed, “Yes, something like that or I am too often absent-minded” she replied. I guessed she was in her late 70’s or early 80’s, but had good wit and humor about her that I appreciated.
Being the only two people in the lobby, we chatted some more. It was pleasant, short chat with humor sprinkled in. She shared that getting around now without her late husband—a war veteran of no less than THREE wars: WW2, Korean, and Vietnam—was slower, but quite manageable. She slipped in to her story that “God took good care of her and her husband in his last hours alive in her arms.” He had suffered the effects of shrapnel pieces in his head while in combat in Vietnam, then followed by a tumor and lymphoma cancer.
Fortunately, for me at least, the nice lady with clever wit never got on a preacher’s pedestal which all too often here in rural, Hill Country Texas far too many climb on while in public with total strangers, no matter the circumstances. A slight, serious pet-peeve of mine. I enjoyed our brief chatting. She was very well-mannered, kind, polite, and respectful of my own, unspoken beliefs and world-view, despite never asking me what they might be. I am fine with that lack of intrusion. It shows class in my opinion. If I want to boldly share MY own source of happiness—which she had no idea did not include God—then I can speak up. And I certainly would have had I chosen to do so. I can be equally bold and audacious if the situation requires it. I am not shy about it knowing full-well my beliefs, world-view, etc., are VERY unpopular and uncommon in this area of Texas and the South. 😈
I did not however. My better judgement told me to keep this all pleasant and respectful when among total strangers.
But all good things must come to an end, right?
Ten or fifteen minutes had passed and the lobby began filling up with 2-3 other elderly ladies followed by an elderly couple, the man/husband was an obvious showman. He jokingly told the receptionist that he just tags along with her; she’s the boss. And finished the comedy show at the window saying they were “newlyweds.” This got chuckles from all the other ladies in the lobby. Sharing how long they had been married, one lady responded: “Ah, so you’re oldy-weds then.”
This is the type of small-town country “friendliness” one can usually expect here. But beware. It has a double-razor’s-edge to it and can just as easily do a 180 on you. And sure enough our luck, my luck had run out in that peaceful, pleasant lobby chatting with the kind, classy lady.
The bold showman that just entered and sat down with his wife of near 50-years, quickly latched on to the polite lady I was having such an enjoyable time talking with. She was warm and engaging; that’s why he immediately seized the opportunity.
His opening line to the lady was a setup line for his next two audacious questions for a total stranger, and I quote:
Do you believe in God?
Do you believe in Jesus?
He closed his self-made pedestal introduction with “You need God, you need Jesus to get through this life.” And the man never even spent just two or three minutes simply and courteously speaking with the classy, well-mannered lady and listening to her at least twice as long! Had he just done that, he would’ve quickly realized the sheer stupidity of his first two opening questions to her—which ironically bordered on interrogation, in my pissed-off opinion with his lack of basic etiquette!
The lobby waiting room was turning into this…
As I sat there grinding my teeth, biting my tongue listening to this Snake Oil salesman, I said to myself, Mister, you better not address me with your presumptions and scam-sale, because if you do I am going to QUICKLY put you in your place and make you look dumb!
Just about that moment my delightful 84-year old neighbor who speaks five different languages fluently and reads/writes them as well… came out. She was finished with the neurologist, or the neurologist with her. I was literally SAVED by Rose! We call her Spanish Rose, because she is a wonderful firecracker of a tiger she is. 😄 Rose is very refreshing with her raw honesty.
I was so relieved she came out at that moment; my patience, blood, and blood-pressure was rapidly rising listening to this evangelical non-sense from this man. Believe me, my readied salvo-response to him would have silenced the entire lobby and office, including stunned looks from the clerical staff behind the window.
Here is my question to all of you. What would you have said (or not) had this total stranger of a loud-mouthed man asked you those two above questions?
Live Well – Love Much – Laugh Often – Learn Always
I have zero expectation that anything I ever say will end someone’s belief in their God. Not my goal or purpose. That alone belongs to the individual. ~ Zoe
