Was Jesus a Bastard? (& did the Church hide the Fact with a Virgin Birth Myth based on Isaiah 7:14?
Now remember…keep a civil keyboard under your fingertips...
Obviously it is hard for any critical thinker to take everything in the 4 Gospels literally at face value since, besides the many internal
contradictions between them, it is generally conceded by scholars that the Gospels are not to be meant to be read as “pure history” anyway but were
meant to be “read in the Churches” as haggadic (i.e. legendary) midrashic stories (based on “Messianic” OT verses) set out to prove “that Iesous is
the Christos” to increase faith in the minds of “believers”.
See for example the blatant "give away" in the Gospel of John 20:31
“These things were written so that you might believe that Iesous is the Christos and by believing you might have life in his name…” not exactly the
stuff of historical impartiality…!
Still, there are a number of intriguing historical echoes of (distorted) facts buried within all this Midrashic tapestry about R. Yehoshua bar Yosef
the Galilean (“Jeeezuzz”) which sometimes oddly float up to the surface often where you least expect to find them.
One of these occurs in the Gospel of John (again!) with “Iesous” having a confrontation with some group (Saduccees or Pharisees?, it is not specified
but they seem to be making shall we say hints about “Iesous” parentage somewhere in here: see John 8:39-42
The conversation is clearly not a literal event, but a combination of theological discussion heavily edited and made into a literary poem of sorts,
but buried deep within the gist of the conversation is the odd phrase:
“We were not born of Fornication: [at least] we KNOW who OUR father is...”
(lit. "WE (emphatic in the Greek: HUMEIS) are not bastards: we only have one father") !!!!!!
That’s hitting a little below the belt, even for Pharisees and Sadduccees.
Some pious Chrisitan scribe back in the 3rd century AD seems to have taken it into his head to add in the margin the additional words [“even God”]
kind of out of place, right next to their accusation, probably to take the sharper edge of the obvious insult out of the discussion. They are talking
about Abraham and his seed, not "Ho Theos" ("God"), so the addition is OUT OF CONTEXT.
In other words to make it look like the original conversation was not about “Jeezuz” being a Mamzer,( i.e.born of illicit union, or a “bastard”.
Apparently “Iesous" in the narrative is portrated as having not liking this diatribe very much, according to the author of John’s Gospel (whoever he
was), for in it he retorts,
“Yes… you are the spawn of your own Father the Devil….”
Not exactly the sweet parable of a harmless little rebbe telling harmless little stories.
Whereas his “accusers” were clearly hurling a more personal insult at “Jesus”, he hurls back a more or less class-oriented “collective insult” at
the priesthood in general, claiming that the lot of them were sons of vipers.
It could be that they were making general racist comments about Galileans in general (of mixed blood e.g. Assyrians and Greeks who were re-located
into the area and mixed with the local Phoencian-Israelites: in fact, The Galilee derives from the Hebrew phrase HA GILGAL HA GOYIM ("circle of
Gentiles...") so perhaps theses Sadduccees/Pharisees were actually meant to be saying something like "We in JUDAEA know we are descended from
Abraham, but god-knows where YOU PEOPLE come from!!" etc.) but the text is curiously ambiguous about the "fornication" issue and seems, rather,
shall we say, personal.
But what are we to make of these slanderous accusations?
Was the man "Iesous" truly illegitimate (Heb. MAMZER: "born of an illicit union") as the Talmud would later suggest, the offspring of a Roman
Soldier named Joseph ben Pantera whose grave in Syria (he died around AD 25 and had been posted in the Galilee between BC 12 to AD 6) was found
(Or does the Talmud speak of another “Yeshu”, since there were so many Messiah’s running around at the time organizing armed revolts against
Rome…including JUDAH THE GALILEAN)
Is the fact that “Iesous” may have been illegitimate the reason why he seemed to “fixated” on a “Father Figure” image, as Freud was so fond of
pointing out , since according to Freud’s logic, “Jesus may have had no biological father” to call his own and so used the word ABBA to pray (lit.
“Daddy!”) as a father-substitute….?
It gets WORSE.
In Matthew's version of the lineage of the Messiah (Christ) “Iesous” was descended from a list of male ancestors, oddly, with 5 females mentioned
along with the men—very odd in a Jewish geneaology.
The issue is highly curious to some who have studied this text closely, because ALL FIVE OF THE WOMEN MENTIONED IN MATTHEW’S GOSPEL HAVE ISSUES OF
SEXUAL PROMISCUITY CONNECTED WITH EACH ONE OF THEM !!
The five women included were: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary.
l. Tamar: Genesis 38:6-30
Tamar was the daughter-in-law of Judah. A childless widow, she was given to her brother-in-law after her husband's death. Such a union was later
called a Leverite marriage (Deut 25:5-6).
Tamar's brother-in-law refused to have proper intercourse with her and for this “Elohim killed him”.
Yehudah/Judah would not give Tamar to any of his other sons soTamar disguised herself as a harlot and seduced Judah, became pregnant with his son
Rahab: Joshua 2:1-24 (which Matthew spells RACHAB for some reason)
Rahab was a prostitute who lived in Jericho. She hid the spies of Joshua. Because of this, the Israelites spared her life when they conquered Jericho.
She later became the wife of Salmon, and the mother of Boaz.
Rahab's faith, despite her occupation as a professional whore, was later commended by the writer of Heb 11:30-31.
Ruth: Ruth 1:1-4:22
Ruth was a Moabitess, an enemy of Israel (“no Moabite shall ever enter into the Congregation of Israel, not even beyond the 10th generation!
had married a Judaean named Mahlon. . Her mother-in-law, Naomi, lived in Moab, and the language used to describe their relationship bordered on what
we would call “Lesbian”.
Ruth, the Moabitess, was later married to Boaz, one of Naomi's relatives.
The (Gentile) Moabetess Ruth later became the mother of Obed, the grandfather of David.
Bathsheba: 2 Samuel 11:1-27
Bathsheba was the Jebusite Princess Bath-Shebiti (“Daughter of the 7 gods of Jebus”) and wife of Uriah the Hittite (the Jebusites and Hititites were
blood related and inter-married) , a soldier in the professional standing Hittite (i.e. foreign) army of David, who allegedly seduced her on a
When David discovered Bathsheba (Bath-Shebiti) was pregnant, sent Uriah back into battle, with orders that Uriah should be slain, so that David could
marry Bathsheba who later became the mother of Jedidiah nicknamed "Solomon" (peaceful).
The fifth and last in the long line of promiscuous Females in the Genealogy is Miryam/Mary, the very pregnant bride to be of Joseph, and mother of
One could make a case that even though there was sexual misconduct going on in all of these cases, eventually this women gave birth to heroes or
famous men in some form, so it seems to be the point of the writer to suggest that even if Mary was pregnant, there is ample history to show that
“God’s Plan of Salvation” can still be worked out…in other words, “he works in mysterious ways, and not to judge by appearances...”
As Professor Barrett used to ask us: “What exactly is the writer of Matthew trying to tell us?”
This also begs the Question: If Jesus has no earthly father why do BOTH his genealogies trace their bloodlines through Joseph?
Arguments in favour of “legal” genealogy fall on their face when the prophecies about the Messiah BEING OF THE SEED OF DAVID do not make any mention
The Question is: Did the Church make up the VIRGIN BIRTH story out of Isaiah 7:14 in order to cover up some of these inconsistencies and make a
"physical negative" into a "spiritual positive" for the man they proclaimed as Messiah, such as they did with the way he died?
At any rate, the Hebrew word ALMAH in Isaiah 7:14 does NOT mean VIRGIN anyway:
ALMAH merely means “a young woman of marriageable age.”
It was the Greek translation (the LXX Septuaginta) which chose the word PARTHENOS (“virgin” or “young girl”) which could be construed either way. But
the phrase in Isaiah was NOT messianic originally. It only grew that way over time (read the Dead Sea Scrolls for a taste of what they did with
certain passages in the Hebrew Bible!)
Why did both Matthew and Luke go to such obscene lengths to twist the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 into something more like the birth of a pagan god like
Hercules or even Alexander the Great who was also thought to have been descended from the gods, and “partheno-theodikos” i.e. “a god born of a
Here's something more to think about ref: those pesky Matthean and Lukan Genealogies that "Don’t Quite Match Each Other…"
As most thinking “Christians” must know by now, the two “genealogies” of “Iesous” in the gospels of Matthew and Luke SIMPLY DO NOT MATCH each other
See Matthew 1:1-18 and Luke chapter 3:1-22
The author of Luke (whoever he was) wants to trace the ancestry of “Iesous” back to “Adam” (apparently to make him more Universal for his Gentile
Audience) and names his paternal grandfather as Heli (or Eli).
Matthew’s version is only interested in tracing his “ancestry” in convoluted groups of 14 (the gemmatrial numerological code for the Messiah derived
from the name in Hebrew for DVD or David = Daled = 4, Vav = 6, Daled = 4).
Moreover in order to make all those tidy little near groups of 14, the writer of “Matthew” has to eliminate at least four kings from his list
(Matthew’s king lists lacks a King sitting on the Throne of Israel between BC 680 and BC 630), namely Kings Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Jehoiakim, the
last was cursed never to have any physical descendants to sit upon the throne of David: (see Jeremiah 36:30) !!
In the Matthean version, the paternal grandfather of “Iesous who is called Christos” is Yakkov (Jacob).
So which is it, is Joseph’s father Heli or Yakkov? And who cares anyway since “Iesous” was not even supposed to be related to him by blood anyway?
And no, these two contradictory genealogies are not one for Mary and one for Joseph either because any tracing back to David by bloodline would have
to go through the male lineages.
Moreover to make all those tidy little near groups of 14, the writer of “Matthew” has to eliminate at least four kings from his list (Matthew’s king
lists lacks a King sitting on the Throne of Israel between BC 680 and BC 630), namely Kings Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Jehoiakim, the last was cursed
never to have any physical descendants to sit upon the throne of David: (see Jeremiah 36:30)
The Question is:
Did the Church make up the VIRGIN BIRTH story out of Isaiah 7:14 in order to cover up some of these scndalous accusations of the 2nd centiry rebbes
and other inherent inconsistencies, and somehow turn their Messiah-Rabbi into the kind of god the pagans could revere?
[edit on 28-10-2004 by Amadeus]