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

[Godscreated]

Min I believe the site Pfann excavated and the site I mentioned are two different sites. 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. Also from what I've read the roman bathhouse is of an earlier design that was used during the time of Jesus. I never will quit searching only those who do not want to understand their faith to a greater degree would do that. I know that you have mentioned many times that most christians do not read the scriptures, well as for my family, church family and myself we do actually study scripture so you see there are christians who care about knowing what they believe.
As for Josephus I do not put a great amount of stock in what a traitor has to say about his people or what he says about his former enemies. To confuse history might be his greatest motive. We do know that he mentions Jesus in his writings and for what reason no one knows. We also know that part of what was written was by Josephus and some was added later by another writer.

[KichigaiNeko]

And this from, the missing, books that were thrown out when jebus was deified to replace the Summer King??

[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.

[Godscreated]

Min I understand that Nazareth was a small place some say as small as 500 acres. Only a few families could have possibly lived there. This would explain Jn. 1:46 where Nathanael says what good thing could come out of Nazareth. Seems the remark by Nathanael does put Nazareth in the catagory of a little hamlet. You are right in saying that the gospels refer to Jesus as more than a teacher, Natanael three verses later Jn. 1:49 calls Jesus teacher and Son of God. Min I'm not trying to minimize Nazareth to a little town it was a little place, actually so small historians did not bother to mention it or if they did those writtings are lost. Going by the definition you give to the word polis why Luke called Nazareth a polis is then yet to be understood. I've not research that word but I will. So you see I believe that Nazareth was a very small place indeed, yet according to the gospels Nazareth did have a synagogue as you have shown in Luke 4:16 and 28. Matt.13:54-58 tells the same story with the use of the words town and synagogue. Mark 1:1-6 tells the same story with the same words, I know that Matt. and Marks gospels give the event in very similar wording and I see nothing wrong with that, two men recalling the same event one using the others recall why should that be bothersome, do not story tellers do the same thing. Do not historians use each others writtings in the telling of the same historical events.

If I'm not mistaken the Jews were not allowed to live within 100 feet of a grave not such a great distance.

Do not those tablets say that the priest were relocated when the temple was distroyed in 70 AD. Isn't it the tablets themselves dated to the second century AD.

As for Paul his ministery was to the gentiles and they would not have an interest in Israels history. Most of Pauls teaching was to the poor though Paul did speak to the elite in places like Greece. Pauls focus was on the ministry of Christ not the history.

You say that the romans did not occupy Galilee until 44 AD and that Antipas who died in 39 AD rebuilt Sepphoris as a roman town then the time line is off some where. Antipas would have had to start the rebuilding of Sepphoris some time before the death of Christ to have completed the city and it would have had a roman bathhouse because no self respecting roman would go to a city without one.

[Minimalist]

The Mishnah (which is rabbinic) specifies even less than that...50 cubits which is about 75 feet or so, but from the border of the town. Therein lies the rub. No one has found a town. Could wealthy families from Sepphoris or Jotapata have made use of the limestone formation to dig tombs? Sure. For that matter a family living on Pfann's farm may well have had the time to scrape out the tombs for deceased ancestors as well. It was their land and, as you say, it didn't have to be THAT far away from the home as to make the thing impossible. The first trick remains to find evidence of a town dating to the time you need. Somewhere around 15 BC-10 AD.

I understand that Nazareth was a small place some say as small as 500 acres. Only a few families could have possibly lived there.

Then here is your dilemma: You need to decide which of your allegedly inerrant gospels is wrong. Were it that small it would not have a synagogue in the first place. (There is a notable school of Israeli scholars who doubt that there would have been synagogues anywhere while the temple was in operation but let's not go there just yet.) Moreover, were it that small, all of those families would have been related by blood or marriage or both. What "Luke" would be suggesting is that one of jesus' kinsman "Is that not Joseph's son...." did not know who he was and moreover that they they were willing to take one of their kinsmen and throw him off a cliff. Come on.

Either it was a city/town with a synagogue and a population which was not all interrelated or it was a little shithole of a couple of families. Like the contradiction between "Luke" and "Matthew" concerning the date of the nativity it is not possible for both stories to be true.

Do not those tablets say that the priest were relocated when the temple was distroyed in 70 AD. Isn't it the tablets themselves dated to the second century AD.

No. The Jews were not excluded from Judaea until after the bar Kochba revolt c 135 AD. As noted here:

The first non-Christian reference to Nazareth is an inscription on a marble fragment from a synagogue found in Caesarea Maritima in 1962.[11] This fragment gives the town's name in Hebrew as nun·tsade·resh·tav. The inscription dates as early as c. 300 CE and chronicles the assignment of priests that took place at some time after the Bar Kokhba revolt, 132-35 CE

In the aftermath of the Great Revolt the Sanhedrin relocated to Yavneh, west and slightly north of Jerusalem on the coast. The modern site is just south of Tel Aviv. When Hadrian's army suppressed the bar Kochba revolt the Jews were evicted from Judaea and a new Roman city, Aelia Capitolina was built on the ruins of Jerusalem with an initial population of Hadrian's retired soldiers...as was Roman custom.

As an aside the inscription is question is little more than 3 fragments...one, if I recall has only 5 letters. It's pretty tough to make much out of it. By comparison, the shattered tel Dan stele is in pristine condition.

As for Paul his ministery was to the gentiles

One, I am more and more of the conclusion that "Paul" was, at best, a composite character but again, lets save this for another time since we are doing so well. Two, let's stick with your argument for a moment. Assuming that to be accurate, why would "Paul" not use the Greco-Roman style to address that audience. The Greeks used the "Joe" of (place) [Epicharmus of Cos] for example. The Judaeans used the patronymic form "Jesus bar (son of) Joseph" etc. Were "Paul" speaking to Gentiles it would be more likely rather than less likely for him to have referred to "Jesus of Nazareth".

I can only suggest that you widen your reading to include Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" to see how xtian doctrine evolved. I have electronic versions of that and Jesus Interruped (another good effort by Ehrman) which I could send you if you are interested.

Antipas would have had to start the rebuilding of Sepphoris some time before the death of Christ to have completed the city and it would have had a roman bathhouse because no self respecting roman would go to a city without one.

By George, I think you've got it.

http://virtualreligion.net/iho/sepphoris.html

The lesson which Varus taught was not wasted on Sepphoris. When Josephus showed up wanting them to join the Great Revolt they told him to go fuck himself. One has to wonder if he began to see the handwriting on the wall at that point. The City of Tiberias had similarly shut him out. Starting a revolt against the Romans in the first century was not good for longevity.

[Godscreated]

Min I've read your reply but do not have much time to reply tonight, there is one thing you did not address and that is the time line for the rebuilding of Sepphrois, the death of Antipas and I'll add one.If the romans were in Syria until about 44 AD and Syria being north of Galilee and Galilee north of Jerusalem then why did they occupy Jerusalem before the death of Christ. Why wouldn't they go ahead and occupy Galilee it is a small area and they would have more security along a road that would have been well traveled from Egypt to Syria.

Yes I would be interested in both of those.

[Minimalist]

As the web site says, Antipas began the reconstruction as soon as he became king....(really "tetrarch") as he wanted Sepphoris to be his capital. While it eventually grew to 150 acres no one really knew how much of that was developed by Antipas and how much by later builders. It is safe to say that Antipas' building projects would have provided employment to the locals and IF jesus was in the area he or his family would have benefited from the project.

On the second point I think you have to study a little Roman history. Beginning in 67 BC, the Roman senate gave an extraordinary command to Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great.) Pompey's primary mission was to eradicate piracy from the Eastern Med. He was given an enormous fleet and 8 legions of infantry aside from the army of Licinius Lucullus who had been operating in Asia Minor all along. He was totally successful. With a few political machinations Pompey arranged to have himself made commander in the war against Mithridates, King of Pontus. By 64 he had not only won that but had added Armenia and its king Tigranes as a client state.

Then...he turned south.

http://www.unrv.com/roman-republic/pompey.php

After settling affairs in Syria, the people of Judaea called upon Pompey for assistance in their own internal conflicts. The Jews had enjoyed nearly 2 centuries of independence * from the Seleucids, but a power struggle that was leading to civil war threatened their stability. Two brothers, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, both vied for the Jewish throne and Pompey offered to play the mediator. Hyrcanus eventually received Pompey's endorsement, and Aristobulus apparently conceded, but his followers did not.

While Pompey was conducting a minor campaign against the Nabataeans, the followers of Aristobulus seized the principal city of Jerusalem and refused to recognize Hyrcanus' authority. The Romans reacted swiftly and laid siege to the city. Within 3 months, Pompey took Jerusalem and put Hyrcanus on the Judaean throne. While still independent, Hyrcanus now owed his crown to the Romans, and was established as a tribute paying client kingdom, much like Armenia.

* Actually....less than one century. UNRV is usually better than that!

Thus, Jewish duplicity set the stage for Roman intervention in their affairs. There is a rumor (probably true) that a large bribe was paid to Pompey or his assistant, Scaurus, for such intervention but settling the region down would have been high on Pompey's priority list. Dynastic problems invited foreign intervention and that was the last thing Rome wanted. BTW, when Pompey installed Hyrcanus on the throne he also allowed Hyrcanus' general to become one of the most powerful men in Judaea. That man's name was Antipater and he is today best known as the father of Herod the Great.

For reasons which have never been terribly clear to me the Romans had an aversion to direct rule of Palestine. Herod the Great not only survived changing sides during the Roman civil wars he actually seemed to thrive. He was handed his crown for the last time by Augustus himself. The Judaeans had to petition Augustus to remove one of Herod sons, Archelaus, to become a Roman prefecture and Augustus agreed....apparently because Archelaus was such a shmuck that he was actually causing problems. From 6 ad to 41 BC, Judaea was a prefecture under the auspices of the governor of Syria, who hung out in Antioch. The Judaean prefects, including Pontius Pilate, had a force of perhaps 3,000 men...most in garrison duty either in Jerusalem or Caesarea. Anyone who wanted to start trouble had only to look towards Syria to know what was waiting for them.

Syria was thus the key position. Damascus sat at the western terminus of the silk road, arguably making it the most valuable piece of commercial real estate in the world. I can't tell you why the Romans did not seem to want anyone other than a Herod to rule Palestine. It is certainly not the model they used elsewhere in the empire. But for 150 years, with few interruptions, they trotted out one Herod after another to be "king." Go figure.

BTW, Antipas did not die in 39. He was removed by Caligula and pensioned off to Gaul so that Herod Agrippa I, Caligula AND Claudius' boyhood friend, could be installed as king. In 41, they added Judaea to Galilee and thus rid themselves of the prefecture. Herod Agrippa I died in 44 and his son was too young to take over. A series of Roman procurators were assigned and the shit did hit the fan.
As soon as Herod Agrippa II was old enough they made him "king."

Perhaps the Romans simply did not like the Jews?


On the other two things, PM an email address that can handle large attachments. I think Lost Christianities is a 6 meg file. The other one is smaller. It's a .pdf file so you'll need Adobe Acrobat to open it.

[C.H. Tongueek]

Returning to the original question.... On the balance of probabilities, I always assumed that there was actually a Jesus, son of Mary & Joseph. They were very common names so maybe there is simply lots of confusion. My reasons are/were:

1. The many gospels, not just Matthew, Mark, Luke & John - I mean all the Gnostic gospels which no one seems to have mentioned. Paul, Philip, Judas, Mary Magdelen, etc. I am unaware of any completely contemperaneous record but oral traditions usually have some factual elements.

2. Some Jewish theologians make the case that Jesus was executed for being a trouble making Zealot. Although he seems to me more likely to have been an Essene the groups are constantly being mixed up. I have no idea what 1st century Jewish records actually exist but just maybe that Jewish Theologian does. I find theologians even more difficult to pin down than theists.

3. The dead sea scrolls and other fairly recent finds record Jesus as being a Zealot which fits in with him telling his disciples to, "come with a sword, if you don't have one sell your cloak and buy one". Whether he was meek and mild or a trouble maker is another question.

4. The mixing up with the Mithras stories (if you have not read them, you really must) would have appealed to the Romans who had Mithras as the soldiers god for centuries but then banned other gods when they thrust Christuanity upon the unsuspecting world. Adding Mithras to the Jesus story in the religion that they created would have helped quell some of the uprisings - Jesus died for you, now behave yourself - it would also have kept some soldiers on side - sorry chaps, we got the name wrong, it was Jesus, not Mithras.

5. Anyone who challenged the strong Jewish traditions would have been a 'god send' to the Romans so if they did have early records of a peace loving rabbi or teacher challenging Jewish authority they are likely to have promoted him as much as they could. Far better to have the Jews fighting each other than fighting the Romans.

As a newcomer, I must say that I am very impressed by the (apparent) level of expertise on this web site, less impressed though with insults to anyone who holds a theist view or even has doubts. Surely better to convince them with logic than convince them that atheists are unpleasant louts and all to be avoided. Also, why does everyone seem to knock the poor Christians and not the other faiths? They are mostly as bad as one another - or are we no meant to upset Jews and Muslims etc?

One last point, in the early centuries of pilgrimages there were plenty of maps showing pilgrim routes. I don't think there were any early pilgrim maps showing the location of Nazareth but maybe someone will correct me.

[fr0d0]

As a newcomer, I must say that I am very impressed by the (apparent) level of expertise on this web site, less impressed though with insults to anyone who holds a theist view or even has doubts. Surely better to convince them with logic than convince them that atheists are unpleasant louts and all to be avoided. Also, why does everyone seem to knock the poor Christians and not the other faiths? They are mostly as bad as one another - or are we no meant to upset Jews and Muslims etc?

Hi C.H.T.

I'd like to know where you come from, if anywhere, if you think this place does that much (insults theists). Either that or I've gone soft. This is almost a theist haven! I think if you looked deeper you'd see a different picture. Thanks for the observation anyway. Other religions get knocked too - we have a new Muslim friend, the first to stick around, a polytheist (well at least one), we have a couple of Jews IIRC, erm... who else we got guys?

Whatever... welcome aboard and nice first post

[Minimalist]

Nice first post, CH.

Returning to the original question.... On the balance of probabilities, I always assumed that there was actually a Jesus, son of Mary & Joseph. They were very common names so maybe there is simply lots of confusion. My reasons are/were:

1. The many gospels, not just Matthew, Mark, Luke & John - I mean all the Gnostic gospels which no one seems to have mentioned. Paul, Philip, Judas, Mary Magdelen, etc. I am unaware of any completely contemperaneous record but oral traditions usually have some factual elements.

Yes, all 3 names were common. Why assume that the factual element was the "jesus" part? Perhaps the factual part was that there was religious ferment with jesus later concocted and added into the mix?

The Roman model for dealing with conquered territories was not to exterminate the ruling class but to absorb them. The nobility were granted Roman citizenship as a reward for cooperation and for keeping the commons in order. When the nobility of Judaea wanted Archelaus removed, Augustus agreed. Apparently there were some small scale riots but they were suppressed by local forces. The legions were not needed as they had been upon the death of Herod the Great. Now, lets continue the thought about social conditions.

Herod was one of those people in history for whom the only things we know about him were written by his enemies. Herod was an Arab whose father Antipater had converted to Judaism. The priestly classes ( who were, obviously, the literate class) never accepted him. They would have preferred a ruler from the Hasmonean dynasty but, as noted above, the Romans preferred Herod and the Romans were in charge. But if you look at what Herod did the situation becomes a bit clearer. Herod was a builder. His building projects would have employed tens of thousands and they would not have been from the upper class. They would not have been working with their hands. Herod built the city of Caesarea Maritima to be a port on the Mediterranean coast. It was fantastically successful and did much to enrich the kingdom but Caesarea was a Roman-style town. It had nothing to do with the priests of the nobility. The workers who built it owed their livelihood to Herod's vision and ambition.
So, perhaps what Herod set in motion was a social re-ordering? The commons were no longer dependent on the nobility but rather on the king. When Herod died this re-ordering was endangered and the nobility moved to reassert control. Perhaps what we are seeing in the early first century is a social problem which someone later overlaid with religious trappings? I can see the priests doing that. It would have been in their interest.

2. Some Jewish theologians make the case that Jesus was executed for being a trouble making Zealot. Although he seems to me more likely to have been an Essene the groups are constantly being mixed up. I have no idea what 1st century Jewish records actually exist but just maybe that Jewish Theologian does. I find theologians even more difficult to pin down than theists.

This is an exceedingly complex issue and usually ends up revolving around the alleged "Paul of Tarsus."
There are Talmudic references but the Talmud was written in the 2d to 5th centuries AD. They are even farther removed from the events than the so-called gospels. It probably needs its own thread.

The main first century Jewish scholar in the surviving literature is Philo. He never mentions any jesus. He did write a diatribe against Pontius Pilate but, although accusing him of all sorts of crimes, never makes the slightest reference to his execution of any "messiah."

3. The dead sea scrolls and other fairly recent finds record Jesus as being a Zealot which fits in with him telling his disciples to, "come with a sword, if you don't have one sell your cloak and buy one". Whether he was meek and mild or a trouble maker is another question.

Really? The last thing I read about the DSS was that there is no reference to jesus or xtianity in any of them. Which is not to say that xtians do not harp on any ambiguity they can find and say "Yup...THERE HE IS!!! THAT'S JESUS!!!!!" As a matter of fact the whole Essene thing is under fire. Israeli archaeologists Magen and Peleg have suggested that Qumran was a multi-use facility over the years being, at times, a military post (it does overlook one of the eastern approaches to Jerusalem and so would serve some use as a lookout station) and a pottery factory.

The whole Essenes as monks copying books started with a French monk, Roland de Vaux. Perhaps he took a European vision of what monks did and transported it to Palestine? Josephus gives a discussion of the Essenes. They do not sound particularly bookish. As a matter of fact he describes them as agricultural workers.

4. The mixing up with the Mithras stories (if you have not read them, you really must) would have appealed to the Romans who had Mithras as the soldiers god for centuries but then banned other gods when they thrust Christuanity upon the unsuspecting world. Adding Mithras to the Jesus story in the religion that they created would have helped quell some of the uprisings - Jesus died for you, now behave yourself - it would also have kept some soldiers on side - sorry chaps, we got the name wrong, it was Jesus, not Mithras.

Definitely. The question is "when?" It is reported that Pompey's troops ran into Mithraism while he was suppressing the aforementioned Cilician pirates in the east c 67 BC. Quaint idea but the truth is that the Romans had been active in the area since crushing the Seleucids at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC and they would have been in contact with the ideas through trade long before Pompey got there. The name "Mithradates" [ "Given by Mithras" ] goes back to the 4th century BC at least.

At some point it took off among the Roman military and business classes. Women were excluded. One can speculate that the Mithraic cult would have taken a hit in the mid 3d century when the Romans suffered a series of military disasters in the east. To make matters worse, survivors brought back a plague which killed millions. Xtianity arose in the early 4th century. Coincidence? I don't like coincidences.

5. Anyone who challenged the strong Jewish traditions would have been a 'god send' to the Romans so if they did have early records of a peace loving rabbi or teacher challenging Jewish authority they are likely to have promoted him as much as they could. Far better to have the Jews fighting each other than fighting the Romans.

Hmm.... the trouble here is that it elevates Palestine to something more than it was. What it was, was a relatively poor region which just so happened to occupy a strategic piece of coastline between two of Rome's most valuable territories: Syria and Egypt. There were 4 legions in Syria and another in Egypt.
Roman military force in Palestine was minimal. They used a surrogate to rule and relied on the fact that anyone touching off a revolt would be crushed by the Syrian-based army. All the Romans seemed to want out of Palestine was quiet. Like a noisy downstairs neighbor, sometimes they had to bang on the floor!

I've read some of the "Caesar's Messiah" kind of stuff and while interesting it does not seem to reflect what the Romans actually did. They almost seemed to regard Palestine as an annoyance. They had to control it but they did not want to rule it. Again, Herod and his father were confidants of Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. Herod was also acclaimed king of Judaea by the Senate. Perhaps he convinced them that things would be quieter if a Jew were running the place for them? I don't know. I only know that it was a model they used no where else in the empire.

As a newcomer, I must say that I am very impressed by the (apparent) level of expertise on this web site, less impressed though with insults to anyone who holds a theist view or even has doubts. Surely better to convince them with logic than convince them that atheists are unpleasant louts and all to be avoided. Also, why does everyone seem to knock the poor Christians and not the other faiths? They are mostly as bad as one another - or are we no meant to upset Jews and Muslims etc?

One last point, in the early centuries of pilgrimages there were plenty of maps showing pilgrim routes. I don't think there were any early pilgrim maps showing the location of Nazareth but maybe someone will correct me.

Most of them who show up here are xtians and most are here to preach. It doesn't matter if you use logic, insults or a shotgun blast to the head. They just want to spout their jesus shit. Fundamentalists are the same everywhere.

I personally resent the implication that I won't insult muslims!

I just don't get as much opportunity as I would like.