That's not true is it?Bernard Muller wrote:There is nothing to say the rural Galileans were starving most of the time
Cordially, Bernard
You know all the passages that speak of hunger?
Eating poorly does not does not increase the mortality rate below 5 years of age, like disease, in this case malaria. And starvation.
These people had it tough.
Zealots did not take the temple down on theological reasons alone, their lives were miserable under oppression. Enough so suicide was not a bad option, knowing death was certain going against the temple.
Also it is not just lack of food here that makes it not as plausible. Jesus would have learned from Johns mistakes of what happens when one gathers a large crowd. Heads seem to become loose and then they seem to fall off much easier. He had a plan, and being killed by John was probably not one of them. He was a traveling teacher taking his message to strangers. The largest most popular gospel only has him with 4 apostles, as that makes sense surviving off dinner scraps [flat bread dipped in olive oil or vinegar, and lentil's if they were lucky]