Did Jesus Christ exist as a historical human or was he a theological construct?

[Minimalist]

Your correct I'm not catholic but that does not keep me from being interested in the discoveries that are on going. I do try and keep up with what's happening with bibical discoveries not just to as you would put it delude myself but to educate myself.

All right, that's fair. I'll cut you some slack on that basis.

Check out this map, if you can.

http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&cli...loc=A&sa=X


I took it down to a scale of 7/8 inch = 1,000 feet and then copied the link so...hopefully...when you open it we'll be looking at the same thing. If not, click on the plus sign and take it up a step. The purpose is to show what a small area this truly is. Now, the point you need to consider is that Pfann could not have been looking too "far" away and still remain in Nazareth. But "time" must be a factor also. As I said, Nazareth in the first century AD doesn't do you any good. You need it as a going concern in time for "Luke" to describe it as a "polis." A Greek polis did not have to be a city...but it did have to be at least a sizable town. Trying to minimize Nazareth into a shitty little hamlet does not help your story. I want to be clear about this. The gospels do not speak of a shitty little hamlet nor do they speak of a guy who was just a "teacher."
Modern Nazareth is far larger than ancient Nazareth. Unfortunately, this is not a topographic map but as you can see it is only ( maybe ) a half mile square. A significant portion of that is taken up by hillsides where rock cut tombs have been found. Jews would not have lived close to a cemetery.
The issue with Pfann is not so much "where" but "when." He makes a compelling argument for his farm being from the first century but, of course, he works from the assumption that the first century was the time of jesus and, as a xtian scholar I can't blame him for that but still....he would first have to prove that there was a jesus. But the farm seems real. It would have been located between the city of Sepphoris and the town of Jotapata. Pfann's farm does not eliminate or validate anything which came later. It's pretty safe to say that anyone living there would have been caught up in the middle of the marches and counter-marches around Sepphoris and Jotapata during the Great Revolt. War can be tough on civilians. Nonetheless, Pfann calls his farm a 12 acre site. 12 acres would take up a considerable portion of the available space for ancient "Nazareth." And there is no sign of a city or even a good sized town. The Franciscans base their claims on a few broken oil lamps and Israeli scholars call them Late Roman not "Early Roman." Likewise the so-called "jesus house." One house is not a "polis." Especially when there were two good sized towns in the same area until 67 when Jotapata was destroyed. A farm could have a farm house, though. Probably more than one as extended families tended to live together.

We do know that priestly families relocated to Nazareth in the second century but again, this is irrelevant for your purposes. You need a good sized town, with its own synagogue at the beginning of the first century or, per Matthew, at the end of the first century BC.

28And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,

29And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.

--Luke Chapter 4

Again, the Greek word used was "polis" which can mean something less than a city like Athens....but it is pretty safe to say that Sepphoris would have been the "polis" in the area.

Now "Matthew" set at least 10 years earlier than "Luke" does not make such claims.

21So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

- Mathew Chapter 2

P.S. - There does not seem to be any such prophecy in the OT.

Neither of the other gospels mentions the birth story. "Paul" never refers to Jesus of Nazareth. Origen, who lived in Caesarea a scant 30 miles from "Nazareth" in the 3d century did not seem to know where it was. Frankly, it seems as if "Nazareth" was a later addition to the story once the church was in position to dictate "reality" and enforce it with heresy charges.

As far as the bath house goes, the Romans did not occupy Galilee. It was run by Herod and later Herod Antipas. The Roman Army was stationed in Syria. Upon Herod the Great's death revolts broke out and the governor of Syria, Publius Quinctillius Varus did sack and burn Sepphoris. But his mission was to crush the revolts and install Herod's sons on their respective thrones. This he did. The Romans did not occupy Galilee until 44 AD... a little too late for your boy. Antipas did rebuild Sepphoris as a Roman town and I'm sure it had at least one bath house. But until you find evidence of a city ( building foundations, garbage middens, roadways, cisterns, grain silos, etc. consistent with an actual town/city ) you've got a hell of job convincing me that someone would build a bath house in the middle of nowhere.

Let's leave Josephus for tomorrow. I agree with your characterization of him. He was a coward and a traitor. But he's all we've got...sad to say, because xtian scribes did not see fit to copy the history of Justus of Tiberias.