Was Jesus a carpenter? Nearly everyone assumes he was – not just the two billion Christians but also the other billions who have ever thought or heard about it. And they have done so for 2000 years. As it turns out, the evidence for it is very thin.
I just came to think seriously about this recently. I’ve been doing a lot of reading and reflecting on what it would be like to grow up and live in a place like Nazareth, a small rural village of maybe fifty small houses that together accommodated maybe 400-500 people altogether. Archaeologists have uncovered no indications of any wealth there (e.g., nice kitchen ware, mosaics, large residences, etc); no public buildings (synagogue, school, town hall, or whatever), and have concluded that it was – like so many other rural villages – an agricultural community.
Everyone would have had
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
In your 2nd paragraph above, it’s stated, “Archaeologists have uncovered no indications of any wealth there (e.g., nice kitchen ware, mosaics, large residences, etc); no public buildings (synagogue, school, town hall, or whatever), ” concerning the town of Nazareth.
In Mark, Mathew, & Luke, it states that Jesus was teaching in the synagogue there in Nazareth.
Which is it? Was there a synagogue in Nazareth, or wasn’t there?
“Synagogue” in ancient usage referred to the group of people gathered together (in later rabbinic writings, there needed to be ten men), not to the building. Later, of course, it came to mean the building. But the word itself means something like “gathering together”
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
I have an unrelated question regarding one of your Misquoting Jesus videos.
You mentioned that Luke omits the doctrine of atonement and explained that, during the Last Supper, Jesus does not say that his body is given “for you.”
However, when I checked Luke 22:19, I found that the phrase “given for you” is actually present in the text.
Could you clarify this apparent discrepancy? Were you referring to differences between early manuscripts, with some containing the phrase and others omitting it? Or am I misunderstanding your argument?
I think you’re probably looking at an English translation, one that is based on a scribal change of the text (vv. 19b-20 were probably added by scribes).
Would carpenters be a common occupation can’t imagine their was much wood in Nazareth?
It was a forested area, as it turns out.
Why does this blog post seem to end abruptly, mid-sentence, mid-thought?
I don’t think it does? The last sentence is indicating what I will be dealing with in the next post.
Are you logged in? Maybe you’re only seeing the preview?
Yes I am logged in. It ends with:
“Everyone would have had”
No period at the end.
Begs the question, everyone would have had WHAT? What did they have?
That’s where it ends for me if I’m not logged in so it might be worth double checking?
There is a lot more text after that.
Got it figured out. All is well … My subscription had expired 🤦🏻♀️ At least it was an easy fix.
Yup, that’s usually it!
If the post ends with “Everyone would have had…” then you are seeing the post preview, which cuts off mid-sentence. If you were on the post and then clicked “Log in” and then clicked back in your browser to return to this post, it will still show only the preview unless you reload the page now that you’re logged in. Not sure if this is your situation, but that’s what happens to me.
I can’t remember where I read this, but I remember looking at the economics of the period that there would be have been a lot of building work happening in Sepphoris in the early years of the century under Herod Antipas. That would have created a great deal of work for local people and taken them away from home – however, it would have then dried up and, in conjunction with the increasing accumulation of land and wealth by the richest, created a lot of the economic insecurity. Is it possible that an out-of-work builder would seem like a good way of selling him to new converts in the early days and then that would seem a bit shabby to later converts who may have been up-market?
Yes, he did build the city back up; most of the major projects were after Jesus’ death (esp. after the year 30). We don’t have any indication how the inintial projects affected unemployment in the area.
That was going to be my comment: what makes us so sure a tekton (τέκτων) was necessarily a carpenter?
Right! It sometimes didn’t.
Some scholars have proposed that Joseph was a stonemason and a General Contractor. There was no sub-contracting, so Joseph and Sons did everything. There were clues. Good builders evacuated to the bedrock and did not build on “shifting sand”. The importance of the “Chief Cornerstone” is not appreciated unless you are stacking physical objects in a prescribed fashion in a limited “footprint”. Jesus made references to preserving the Fish Harvest. He made references to tending grapevines. Jesus praised a wicked steward who embezzled funds and fabricated a cover-up but not the lazy steward. Even then, the rich had money managers and mutual funds. I agree. The evidence is thin.
The “real” Jesus emerged as a protege of John the Baptist after a decade with John – the last years at a site on the Jordan River in the middle of Samaria. Have a good day.
With Sepphoris being rebuilt a few miles away, men from the surrounding countryside may have been picking up work there, which could perhaps be the origin of it?
I certainly wish we had evidence of that in the 20s! And of whether a local fellow who makes yokes and plows would have been chosen to work on building projects…
It is interesting that Jesus’ neighbors had not recognized his genius while he lived among them, but entirely possible. Maybe he was staying low key till his ministry actually began. And it fits with Mark’s Messianic secret.
I’ve been wondering how Jesus, growing up in a modest artisan family in a tiny village like Nazareth, could have acquired such a remarkable knowledge of Jewish scripture and the ability to debate religious scholars, as portrayed in the Gospels.
Given the low literacy rates in first-century rural Galilee, and the likelihood that he may also have participated in agricultural work alongside his family or community, how might Jesus have received his religious education? Could synagogue teaching, oral traditions, and the experience of working in the fields alone have provided the background for such knowledge, or do you think the Gospel writers exaggerated his scriptural expertise?
Yes, it’s hard to konw (impossible, I suppose) how well he did know the Scriptures. He certainly quotes a number of them in the surviving Gospels, but not a wide range of them. And we can’t be sure how many of these quotatoins actually go back to him, or how much more he knew. It’s a bit hard to imagine Torah scrolls in Nazareth (there wasn’t a synagogue building); if he did learn the scriptures, it may have been orally — as happens!
You make two statements here as follows: ‘Archaeologists have uncovered… no public buildings (synagogue, school, town hall, or whatever)’ and ‘he returns to his hometown Nazareth and preaches in the synagogue.’
Thus, does this mean, in light of the fact that there was no synagogue in Nazareth as far as is known, that the story of Jesus preaching there could not have happened and so this pericope is entirely fictitious? Thank you.
“Synagogue” in early sources refers to the gathering of Jews for worship; only later did it come to mean the building they met in. Synagogues did not require buildings. But in the Gospels, it appears that the authors thought Jesus did go into a building, at least in the version found in Luke 4. Not necessarily Mark though.
I know I’m talking about somewhat later (70s), but I have read in non-reliable sources 🙂 about the 18th Priestly Course (e.g. from the Caesarea inscription) taking foot in Nazareth.
1) In mainstream scholarship (neither apologetics nor Carrier 🙂 ) is that reading (independently reached by Klein in 1909, it seems?) considered reasonably definitive, or at least non-controversial?
1A) Apparently Jerry Vardaman’s role in the publication doesn’t necessarily add credibility?
2) Assuming the answer to 1) is “yes”, does it have any implication for the relative importance of Nazareth 50+ years earlier?
I believe it comes from the Mishhah around 200 CE. I don’t know what Carrier or others think, but they are not the sources I would turn to in order to evaluate the claim. Simply read what scholars of ancient Judaism say instead.
To me ‘ is this the carpenter…” question is rhetorical because they cannot believe Jesus is so wise. I think Mark illustrating the power of the spirit of YHWH which descended on Jesus at his baptism.