What were Jesus and early Christians like?

[watchamadoodle]

... Nazarene may have more to do with the vow of the Nazarite or the Hebrew word for branch, NZR, which I believe is featured in a Davidic psalm attributed to Jesus by early Christians.

Here is the prayer to say before drinking the communion wine in the Didache which dates somewhere between 50 CE and 120 CE.

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html
There is no mention of Jesus' blood and atonement, but there is mention of the holy vine (i.e. branch) of David. Maybe Jesus came from a family who claimed descent from David and called themselves the Nazarene (branch) family? Or maybe there was a Jewish sect called Nazarene (branch) who were expecting a descendent of David to deliver Israel?

On the other hand, Tim O'Neill made a post in Rob's blog thread claiming evidence for a village of Nazareth (post #116).

---

1. Nazareth - Christopher Hitchens was not inclined to believe much about Christianity. But he did believe it was most likely that a historical Jesus existed. And the thing that convinced him of this were the nativity stories in gLuke and gMatt. That's because both of these stories fall over themselves to find a way to "explain" how the Messiah came to be born in Bethlehem (where he was supposed to be born according to Micah 5:2) and yet was a Galilean from the tiny village of Nazareth. Not only do they go to elaborate lengths to explain how this could be, but they actually tell two totally different and completely contradictory and mutually exclusive stories.

In gLuke we get told his parents lived in Nazareth, just happened to be in Bethlehem when Jesus was born because of the census of P. Sulplicius Quirinius, and then returned to Nazareth. Except in gMatt they are depicted living in Bethlehem to start with and have to flee persecution by Herod and then settle in Nazareth later. Not only are both these stories fraught with problems in themselves, they are set ten years apart. Herod died in 4 BC and Quirnius' census was in 6 AD. So they can't both be true.

The fact is that they are both most likely untrue and are two different ways that developed to deal with the awkward fact that Jesus was from the wrong town in the wrong part of Palestine. John 7:41-42 even depicts some Jews making precisely this objection to the idea that he was the Messiah.

If Jesus existed and was from Nazareth in Galilee, all this makes sense. But if he didn't exist or didn't come from Nazareth and/or Galilee, it's very weird that the gospel writers (or their sources) are going to such trouble to fit Nazareth into their stories, while still trying to shoehorn Jesus into their Messianic expectations.

In the late second century Sextus Julius Africanus wrote about the descendants of Jesus' family:

"Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of the Jews, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible. Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its support, we have nothing better or truer to offer."

---

http://atheistforums.org/thread-31417-page-12.html