Exactly, and the aniconic is a key phrase, is it not?
Across the Roman empire, everywhere one found icons except in places characterized traditional Jewish practice and an almost no gentiles. Such a place would be aniconic, because it lacked the icons used all over the roman empire but forbidden according to Jewish religious practice.
The proximity of Sepphoris to Nazareth made it likely that Jesus was exposed to the full range of Greco-Roman culture.
There is no way that's true, even if he lived in Sepphoris and travelled from Athens to Rome as frequently as possible. Religion in that time was defined almost entirely of practice and locally received myth. Which meant that their were differences routed in geography between "religions" even when it came to one of the much touted mystery religions. Not only did geographic setting make a significant difference, temporal setting did as well. As the Attic "mysteries" spread like the Greek language itself thanks to Alexander, they changed dramatically. But they did not change consistently. Isis cults in one locale were not the same in another. Even in classic Greece received myth itself had plenty of variations which people knew of and didn't mind, because cultic practice mattered.
This was not true of the Jewish religion. However, diversity in the first century was certaintly there.
The distinctions we make today between culture, politics, religion, philosophy, family, educations, etc. can easily mislead. Today, a person who thinks there should be no seperation of church and state implicitly distinguishes the two. But the words used by different individuals to identifiy themselves show how these categories we have didn't exist. To do something of great "religious" significance" was to do something of great "political" significance" and great "cultural" significance. To violate cultural norms regarding the social dyamics of familial units involved violations of religious customs.
Which is why talking about "hellenized" Judaism as opposed to some other kind is problematic both in the way it deals with hellenism and with the way it does Judaism.
It also wasn't a one way street. As Jewish synagogue became increasingly important in Jewish culture before the temple was rebuilt (and it remained after), it became a place in regions like Alexandria where the Jewish and Gentile populations could interact and the influence of Jewish religious concepts rub off. Some "mystery religions" changed first during the earlier period of the Roman empire, and then again due to the influence of Christianity.
There was however in Judaism Social divisions between the corrupt Jewish government and groups like the Saduceees, and the people of Galilee viewed as Zealots which also had their own cultural divisions with the Sicarii.
The Jewish government
was the Sadducees. Nor is there any clear categorization into which the sicarii all fall. Some were likely just assassins. Again, culture meant religion, and therefore politics can't be seperated from either.
Agreed whole hearted. But he would not have been the only teacher/healer passing through these villages, and its obvious he never had the fame that JtB had
We have texts covering several thousand years of Jewish teachers, exorcists, healers, etc.. Same with other cultures. There is no record anywhere of someone who combined healing and exorcism with the kind of prophetic and moral instruction Jesus did until we get into copycats centuries later. I don't know why you wish to paint him as such a "just your average joe who happened to be killed for being average and then have people start flocking to worship a guy they'd never heard of". There is absolutely no evidence of many leaders of any type, from bandits to prophets, in and around Jesus day. There is clear evidence there were some. And that evidence is unanimous: the people who gained a following like that were known. Period. And the people who were successful were known even after they died.
it was a embarrassment for the gospel authors who tried to cover this up.
No. The theory is that
the baptism and Jesus'
initial relationship with John has been altered in the NT because they made Jesus seem as if he started out as one of John's followers.
But there is no evidence that John the Baptist was more influential and well-known, and certainly no evidence to suggest that this theorized cover-up was to hide the fact that Jesus was less popular.
Once he hit the road, so to speak. he wasn't traveling into places that knew him. So I'm only stating he didn't have that much support as one might think.
About 8 centuries before Jesus there was a story of a cyclops who thought he was so close to the gods that he didn't need to offer hospitality to his guests. He was punished for it. The story is intended to show that
everyone has to follow the guest-friendship model when it comes to hosting strangers. It was a cross-cultural practice around long, long before Jesus.
Additionally, bandits received random support from strangers because they were perceived as folk-heros of sorts. Jesus was a miracle worker and teacher. So in addition to the fact that the way strangers were treated in that time and place is radically different than today, Jesus attracted support through attracting attention from strangers.
I really will not trust the later authors who knew nothing of the movement in Galilee on this, who are more then likely representing a Hellenistic traveler who would have needed support in the diaspora in their description here.
1) That kind of support would be far less likely in the diaspora.
2) It's almost certain that the authors knew quite a bit about Galilee and the movement.
3) As I said before, a guy living at the end of the first and into the second was still actively asking the followers of Jesus' disciples for information. Luke not only knew Paul quite well, but the people who were around when Jesus was.
There are plenty of problems when it comes to seperating fact from fiction in the gospels. But these have far less to do with the authors' knowledge and much more to do with the nature of their genre, the deliberate focus on the miracles, a limited scope of interest, etc.
This strict divide you make between the hellenistic NT authors and Jesus is over half of a century old and whatever the many problems there are when it comes to trusting the gospels, it isn't this divide between the Jesus of Galilee and the Christ of hellenism.
I am using it because its not ignoring Hellenistic Judaism
Hengel showed a few decades ago how completely fictional that notion is. And that was without getting into detail about the fact that the idea of "hellenism" doesn't describe much. What you are doing is ignoring the decades of work that went into carefully trying to determine what "hellenism" can mean and how different elements of it can mean different things for different Jewish social groups, different Jewish regions, different time periods, etc. By
not ignoring "Hellenistic Judaism" you are essentially undoing the extensive work done over the past 30 or 40 years and throwing that work (along with the evidence for it) out the window.
He would have needed Greek to communicate with the city's diverse population, one that included a large number of gentiles.
You have continually cited Reed and a few others about this '"large numbers" and I have not only showed you that there have been quite thorough studies showing this isn't the case, but your prime source for it says there was no such thing. Reed is quite clear that even urban Galilee had few non-Jews.
He is describing the city as having a veneer
The indication of hellenistic influence are all about the nature of the city, which is a reflection of the people. If, for example, there are American flags and crosses everywhere, one doesn't say that the city has a "veneer" of Cristianity and patriotism.
To support you theory about a hellenized, gentile Sepphoris, you've not only quoted the guy who wrote
The Myth of the Gentile Galilee as well as other works showing how wrong this was, but you rely on Reed who completely disagrees with you by interpreting what he says to make it fit what you want.
He says aniconic, and despite the fact that aniconic is a major problem for any theory of hellenistic Sepphoris, somewhow for you it isn't. He describes an almost completely Jewish population with a veneer of hellenistic artifacts, and you interpret that to mean that the city has the veneer, but the people were very hellenized, which can't be correct because the entire point of using archaeology is to see whether the finds of elements of the city show indications of hellenistic influence. If they show only a small amount, then it's because the influence wasn't there.
Reed makes it quite clear the hardship the city placed on nearby villages
Yes, he believes this.
I have also read where Sepphoris had its own laborers and gardens and agriculture as the villagers could not keep up.
Where? Specifically where you read "the villagers could not keep up" was the reason for "gardens"?