Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Free]

The conclusion of a 2013 paper posted at Academia.edu on the status of so-called "Nazareth."

The best explanation seems to be a very small settlement, populated by Jews who had relocated from Judea as part of an intentional program to strengthen the Jewish character of the Galilee. Nazareth probably did not have a synagogue in the first two decades of the first century.  In the time of Jesus the population may have been fewer than 300 persons, and we might imagine that the majority of them would have been children

https://www.academia.edu/3988852/The_Que...view-paper


The author speculates that such "relocation" might have taken place at the beginning of the Heroidan Era around c 38 BCE.  What he fails to consider is the historical/political situation at that time.  In 40 BCE the Parthians with an assist from a Pompeian general, Quintus Labienus, invaded the Levant and Asia Minor and actually installed a pro-Pompeian/Parthian ruler, Antigonus II, on the throne of Jerusalem.  To make a long story short, two years later, Mark Antony evicted the Parthians from Judaea (and Syria) and set up Herod I as king.  Meanwhile his lieutenant, Ventidius Bassus defeated and killed Labienus and that was the end of the great Parthian invasion.  Thus, rather than any "intentional program to strengthen the Jewish character of Galilee" it is far more probable that a handful of refugees, fleeing one side or the other, decided that what later became Nazareth was a good place to park their asses.

The author did a god job reviewing the existing archaeological evidence and the lack of early textual references to any place called "Nazareth." He also notes that there are 29 references to Nazareth in the NT ( none in the OT) and all of them are in either the gospels or  Acts all of which are generally considered later than the epistles of this "paul" guy.  He also notes that the Apostolic Fathers never mention it and there are only a handful of references from late 2d century writings.  He specifically notes that the first non-xtian reference to it is a partial inscription from the 4th century.  Josephus campaigned extensively in the area during his futile attempt to stop Vespasian (67 CE) without ever seeing fit to mention it.

If "Nazareth" did exist in the early first century it was either an insignificant shithole, called something else, a farmstead for a single extended family, or a vacant lot.

I always suspected that it was a small community of less than 300 people. I also suspect the people were Nazarenes, hence the name Nazareth. And finally, I also suspect they were a priestly community, some weird off-shoot of the weirder Essene. 

The Gospel records depict Jesus saying things uncommon with the two other major sects, the Sadducee and the Pharisee. They also depict him harshly condemning those two sects, an indication he didn't belong to either of those and if he didn't then that means he belonged to something else. Josephus also describes the Essene practicing rituals that the Gospel records also show from Jesus. 

It's just a wild guess that if this Jesus from the gospels was based upon a historical person, and he was as I described, his religious philosophy would not be well received by Judaic powers that be at that time. I suspect he was as much hated as he was loved.

I still think it would be cool if we found his bones and nailed them back up on a cross for a good laugh.