>>19960043Actually, Jesus wasn't a jew because he didn't exist. But if he had existed, he would have looked like these hook nosed Samaritans. He would have had a unibrow and brown skin and probably stood around 5'3"-5'5"
The Church edited the gospels to say Jesus was from Nazareth in order to help historicize him. Most instances either said nothing at all or said "Nazorian" which doesn't mean "from Nazareth".
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/25967#>A final example is the problem of what “Nazarene” means in the oft-repeated moniker “Jesus the Nazarene.” Because that’s largely a contrivance of modern scholarship. The manuscripts don’t quite vindicate this reading. Most Gospel texts don’t say “Nazerene” at all. They mostly say “Nazorian.” Which does not refer to someone from Nazareth. And how could dozens of verses all get switched from Nazarene to Nazorian? The collective evidence suggests, on text-critical grounds, that it went the other way around: only after it was decided that this word is supposed to refer to Nazareth did it start getting switched out for the correct form for that sense. Nazorian was probably everywhere the original reading. How else would Matthew never have heard of any other form of the word? Just as with “Jesus Barabbas,” it is more likely Mark also consistently wrote Nazorian, and that his text was “fixed” more successfully, owing again to their being fewer manuscripts to control (then and extant). 