JC...Are you implying that there exist "historical records" that affirm the existance of Nazareth early first century or were you speaking in generalities. As you maybe remember pointed out in gumby's thread that Nazareth was not found in any tax records or lists prior to the third century. So what we have is an agreement between archeaology and textural documentation. Nazareth to all available evidence did not exist in the early first century.
As to the eunuch thing, well, aside from the "angelic personality" angle I agree that there is a possible historical kernel to Jesus' sexual ambiguity. There are other factors in the story (noncannonical)that suggest as much. However, the Essenes also endorsed celebacy and had distain for the sexual union as unclean. Early Church fathers shared these opinions (even to the point of castrastion-Origen)and this may be seen as additional evidence of an Essene influenced Jesus. Perhaps he became disillusioned waiting for the expected return of the "Righteous Teacher" as found in their writings and decided to take action himself. When others styled him as the "expected one" he may have begun to believe it himself. This goes back to the original post and theme of this thread.