Jesus reviled in home community - Nazareth and Capernaum - supports their close proximity

[Steven Avery]

Adrian C. Grant

Fabricating Christianity: some Clues are in the Names

This paper extends and refines discussion of and suggests a context for the names Nazareth, SimonPeter, Magdalene and Arimathea most of which I have mentioned in previous papers. While not coming to many firm conclusions, I hope it will serve to

www.academia.edu

In the story of Jesus being reviled and threatened by his own community, tw’o gospels place this in Nazareth
while the other places it in Capernaum. I have no doubt that Jesus was brought up in amongst the Nazirite
community in Capernaum. I see that other writer/researchers have already reached this Capernaum
conclusion for themselves before me - so I am not exactly breaking new ground here.

 

[Steven Avery]

Pure Bible
https://www.academia.edu/s/4b4fa366c8#comment_#{comment.id}

Hi Adrian, allow me to comment on your "Name" section on Nazareth. You nicely note that in two spots the home community reviling Jesus is in Nazareth, the third is in Capernaum. The real Nazareth is in Har Nitai, across from Arbel (both have steep cliffs that match Luke 4:29 and there is a history of execution ). From Har Nitai you can actually see "down to Capernaum" visually, it is not a circuitous roundabout. This proximity between Nazareth and Capernaum would allow for some home base overlap between the two spots. Note: While my general evangelical Bible belief does not follow your general approach to the New Testament, I definitely appreciate your attempt to connect dots on the background of New Testament individuals and then forward to Bar Kochba. And I encourage others to make the distinction and look at each study with a tabula rasa. Steven Avery researcher Dutchess County, NY USA

Hello again Steven,

It is an interesting idea. So I think what you are suggesting is that there was a Nazarene community in a settlement close to but not actually in Capernaum. This I can buy into.

Next I think you are suggesting that Jesus did actually go to Capernaum for this event. It is about 5 miles, but within living memory young lads and lasses have walked farther in order to attend a dance - and then walked back again. So in principle I have no difficulty with this either. [Or are you suggesting that the reference to Capernaum in the Bible is also in error?]

The problem I have is this: There are many gallows sites in Scotland and usually they are a mile or so (and not more than two miles) away from the settlement they serve. I can see the people at Tiberius using the site you suggest for execution, but trying to drag someone 5 miles from Capernaum for this purpose seems to be stretching it well beyond reasonable.

There is one get out: if they wanted to demonstrate something to the whole Nazorean community then that would put a wholly different slant on it. The problem is that this is not implied in any of the accounts.

There seems to be a "high hill" with a suitable precipice at
32°54'7.13"N
35°32'42.80"E
which is just less than 2 miles from Capernaum immediately to the west of Vered HaGalil.

What think you of this one?

Adrian
1 day

Pure Bible
Hi Adrian,
Yes, no Bible error involved.
And I think the attempted execution event in Luke 4:29 takes place in Nazareth (Har Nitai). Short walk to the cliff (although we do not have the exact synagogue spot, minimal excavation has been done, and I don't think they used ground penetrating radar, although I can check, my friend Kevin Kluetz in Arizona is the pioneer on this, he used ihs army ranger background to check out all Galilee topography.).

Do you see such an event that has to be explained in Capernaum?
Are you perhaps combining two separate events?

Which verses should I look at?

1 day

Adrian C Grant
The basic story in which the crowd says in terms "Who does he think he is? We know his family!" is repeated in every gospel.
Luke says this was in Nazareth, John (6:59) says it was in Capernaum.
I do not think that the Jews in Nazareth and in Capernaum would both have known his family that intimately.
So there IS a problem. The Bible itself is contradictory.

On the one hand I am delighted that we agree that it was not where "Nazareth" is today.
Luke refers to taking him out of the "City" - so I think that Capernaum is to be preferred over your version of Nazareth.
I can see that your case is sustainable, but I think Capernaum is stronger, partly for that reason and partly because of who Joseph and Mary really were.

 

[Steven Avery]

John 6:58 (AV)
This is that bread which came down from heaven:
not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead:
he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue,
as he taught in Capernaum.

Luke 4

23 And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.
24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.
25 But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land;
26 But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.
27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.
28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,
29 And 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.
30 But he passing through the midst of them went his way,
31 And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days.

Matthew 13
53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this manall these things?
57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Mark 6:
And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.

2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
Matthew 13:55-57, Mark 6:4). :

 

[Steven Avery]

Pure Bible
Is the Bible contradictory? In the old theory if the very same event is at Nazareth and also in Capernaum, that would be a problem. You would have to see that they are the same event.

However, in the true geography, Capernaum and Nazareth are close by, and could both be considered "his own country". So the possible contradiction is largely obviated.
13 hours

Adrian C Grant
I do not accept this because of the reference to his parents and siblings.
11 hours

Pure Bible
My point is that you have not make the claimed supposed contradiction clear. Even when I looked for it on the skeptic realm, it wss hard to pin down.

Do you agree that Capernaum and Har Nitai (Nazareth) could ultimately be considered "his own country" since you can literally see Capernaum from Har Nitai.

That may or may not affect supposed contradictions but it is an interesting point that would normally not be considered.

==============================
Sorry, but I think you did not read my previous message.
Actually I am not at all aware of the nature/details of the argument you make for Har Nital being Nazareth.
I suspect some nifty acrobatics. but I am somewhat open minded about EXACTLY where the family lived.

The point is NOT about what constitutes "his own country" where broadly a 5 mile radius might be fair enough (the problem being that it is imprecise and context dependent - ie it depends on what counts as NOT "his own country").

The point IS about the reference to his parents and his siblings. According to the various stories (ie in the different gospels) in every case the people who listened to Jesus knew the family well. When I think about villages 5 miles away from me I do not accept that I would know the villagers 5 miles away in the same way as I would know them in my own village.

So if, as you want to do, you want to try to claim that there were two separate events - one in Capernaum (John) and one in Nazareth (the others). You need to be able to explain how come the people in Capernaum would be so intimately knowledgeable about Jesus' family as those in Nazareth were claimed to be. And this is exacerbated by the claim that both Jesus and his father were humble carpenters.

This is exacerbated by the fact that we DO know where Capernaum was whereas so far as I am concerned Nazareth did not exist and indeed you are manifacturing somewhere and calling it Nazareth broadly on the basis of no evidence at all - except for the nearby precipice, which might be a fair enough starting point except that there does appear to be a good enough one a lot closer to Capernaum.

Now I DO agree with you that Jesus would have tried out his rabble rousing in several nearby synagogues, so the principle of the idea that the Bible records two separate events is fair enough. The problem lies with the references to Jesus' family.

There is another problem... Of course all the gospels have been mangled beyond the possibility of restitution, but it is my opinion that the ORIGINAL version of "John"'s "gospel" PREDATES the others. Matthew and Luke must be the latert because they include eg the birth narrative.

So I think that John DID include this story, based, correctly, in Capernaum and the other gospels, were written later after the conspiracy to have Jesus brought up in "Nazareth" had been invented. When the gospel conspirators came, quite late in the day, to update John (eg to include the crucifixion narrative) they overlooked changing Capernaum to Nazareth. There are many examples of this sort of thing - where the conspirators failed to get their ducks in a row (the mutually incompatible ancestries are just one case in point - or where Jesus was born).

====================

Pure Bible
Hi Adrian,

There is nothing like the Har Nitai and Arbel execution cliffs north or east of Capernaum. They have a vertical drop of c. 110 meters.

In John, Jesus and his family go "down to Capernaum", all very natural from Har Nitai, where you can actually see down to Capernaum.

As to the evidence for Har Nitai, I think one or both of the websites is in Archive.org, I can check, we are preparing to put it back up. (One is called The Real Nazareth by my friend Kenneth Kluetz, the other was by an Italian gentleman Frederic Parpinel.) I walked around Har Nitai in 2017.

Mark 3:20-21 and Luke 8:19-21 are the Capernaum synagogue events where his family appears. There is no difficulty with such a ministry visit by his family, it is a simple walk (unlike such a laborious travel from rolling hills Nazareth way to the southwest.)

You have actually helped us see additional scriptural reasons for the proper location of Nazareth.

 

[Steven Avery]

The Bible indicates the family of Jesus (his mother and brothers) visited him in Capernaum, which served as his "hometown" or ministry base. The most direct mention of his family traveling to him there is in Mark 3:31-35 (and parallel Luke 8:19-21), where they stand outside a crowded house in Capernaum asking for him. [1, 2]

• John 2:12: Explicitly states, "After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days".
• Mark 3:20-21, 31-35: Records that his family came from their home (likely Nazareth) to Capernaum because they were concerned about his intense ministry activities.
• Context: Capernaum was considered Jesus' adoptive hometown, where he "lived" after leaving Nazareth (Matthew 4:13). [1, 2, 3]

Note: While Jesus lived in Capernaum, his mother and brothers likely maintained their home in Nazareth, making this a visit to his ministry headquarters. [1, 2, 3, 4]

John 2:11-12 (KJV) This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him. After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.

=============================

Which city did these events take place

Mark 3:31-35 (KJV) There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Luke 8:19-21 (KJV) Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press. And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.

Which city synagogue did the events of
Mark 3:31-35 (KJV) and Luke 8:19-21 (KJV)
take place

 

[Steven Avery]

May 8 2026

Adrian C Grant
Well my main concern was battling the idiots trying to advocate for what is NOW called Nazareth. I am still sceptical about your proposal, but I cannot entirely rule it out, not least because the family was not "poor carpenters" but Royalty - and Jesus was named after the High Priest ousted by Herod to put Simon Boethus in place. So if that were accepted then it is possible that the people in Capernaum WOULD know the family even if they did live 5 miles away.

I continue to doubt your proposition because although the rock you cite is spectacular it is greatly unnecessarily too high. High enough is high enough.. And actually we can even ask whether or not the mob actually intended to kill him. Obviously there is much left unsaid in the Bible - because actually he was rescued by a squad of Chrestians....

===============================

Jesus was named after the High Priest ousted by Herod to put Simon Boethus in place. - is that possible

It is historically plausible that Jesus was named after the High Priest removed by Herod, as the name Jesus (Yeshua) ben Fabus (or Phabet) was the direct predecessor ousted to install Simon Boethus, according to Josephus.

Key Details on the Hypothesis:

• The Ousted Priest: Josephus states in Antiquities of the Jews that King Herod removed Jesus, son of Phabet (or Fabus), to make Simon Boethus High Priest, allowing Herod to marry Simon’s daughter, Mariamne II.
• Timing: This event happened in 23 BCE, before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, but the name remained common.
• The Theory: Some researchers suggest that the Gospel Jesus was historically linked to, or confused with, other elite figures of the era, including those from the family of Simon Boethus or this deposed priest, particularly since the high priestly families were in constant turmoil.
• Name Popularity: "Jesus" (Yeshua) was a very common 1st-century Jewish name, meaning "God saves".
  earlywritings.com +3

While there is no mainstream historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was specifically named to honor Jesus ben Fabus, the high priestly family of Simon Boethus and the political dynamics surrounding them are often discussed in alternative historical theories regarding the identity of Jesus.
===================
Yes, it is historically possible and even likely that your premise refers to a real person. Records show that Herod the Great deposed a High Priest named Jesus, son of Fabus (also known as Jeshu ben Phabi) in approximately 23–24 BCE specifically to elevate Simon ben Boethus. [1, 2, 3, 4]
While this "Jesus" was a contemporary of the biblical Jesus’s family, there is no mainstream historical or theological evidence that the Jesus of the New Testament was named after this specific priest. Instead, "Jesus" (Yeshua) was one of the most common Jewish names of that era. [1, 2]

While this "Jesus" was a contemporary of the biblical Jesus’s family, there is no mainstream historical or theological evidence that the Jesus of the New Testament was named after this specific priest. Instead, "Jesus" (Yeshua) was one of the most common Jewish names of that era. [1, 2]

Historical Context

• The Swap: Herod wanted to marry Simon ben Boethus's daughter, Mariamne II. However, Simon was not of high enough social standing for a royal marriage. To fix this, Herod stripped Jesus ben Fabus of his title and gave it to Simon.
• The Name: In the first century, "Jesus" was the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Yeshua (or Joshua), meaning "Yahweh saves". It was shared by several other High Priests of the period, such as Jesus ben Sie and Jesus ben Damneus.
• Alternative Theories: Some fringe historical hypotheses suggest closer ties between the family of Jesus and the Boethusian high priestly line, but these are generally viewed as speculative rather than factual. [1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8]

Would you like to look into other High Priests named Jesus from this period, or perhaps more about the Boethus family's influence?