What is historical about that time is there were many named "Jesus" that were crucified by the Romans.
I can agree with you on that; but see below about the crucifixion details in the last paragraph.
The time and events represented in the Gospels is very limited by any standard
I suppose you mean by any modern standard. For ancient writings to be as prolific as these are about any individual seems very unlikely to me.
The name Jesus was so popular to the extent that every tribe had numerous sons bearing the name of Moses' brother
Not to nitpick, but Joshua, Moses' protege, was not related to him but was of a different tribe, Ephraim.
Whether to cast stones and raise swords against the Romans ...to revolt and invite the wrath of the Caesars or avoid total destruction & enslavement , was very much on the minds of the Hebrew tribes at the time . Martyrdom , revolt and the belief in the "end of times" was rampant.
I can agree with that too.
As to your overall assertion: Correct me if I am not summarizing it accurately: that there is a blending of some named Jesus (Yeshua) into one aggregate Jesus of the Gospels:
Here are some details in the record which I think refute your point:
Luke describes the methods of how he writes his own account taken largely from eyewitnesses, in chapter one of his gospel, verse 3: "it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."
He was called Jesus of Nazareth in all four Gospels, as well as in Acts 9 in the vision of Saul and in chapter 10 by Peter and by Paul in Acts 26. In Matthew 13:55-56 He is called the carpenter’s son and His mother is called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas and His sisters, "are they not all with us," say the locals. This narrows it to a unique small town and a large family within it. Miracles that were being reported of Him was the occasion of this identification. The Jesus crucified in the Gospels, assigns his mother to the care of one of His disciples. His aunt is there as well as two other Marys. Pilate wrote an inscription that was posted on his particular cross in three languages, "Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews" (all in John 19). He traveled with disciples who are named. The odds of another Rabbi having twelve disciples with the same names, one of whom betrays him, is stretching credibility beyond reason. Two of these disciples are credited with Gospel accounts. Are we to assume that these eyewitnesses were confused as to who they traveled with and wrote of? These few details are too definitive about a single personality to give rise to the confused accounts you feel explains the Gospels. |
