Who was historical Jesus? This is something that has always puzzled me. If gospels are right, he is such a unique figure. And if Christian theology that developed out of it is right, he is the incarnation of second person of the Trinitarian God, God the Son or Word of God. If that is true, he is such a huge figure not to be noticed by anyone outside his followers. Among the non-historical sources that has been given for historical Jesus, only Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger are worth considering in my opinion. None of the other sources seems to me referring to Jesus as understood from the gospels.
Personally I don't think that mythicist positions regarding historical Jesus should be completely ignored. I think that there is some merit even in what Joseph Atwill says, in that first gospel in its most primitive form could have been written in the aftermath of siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE at the end of First Jewish-Roman War. But one observation that I found fascinating was what Daniel Underbrink made in his book Judas of Galilee. He argued using Josephus' works that historical character on which Jesus in the gospels are based was Judas of Galilee or Judas, the Galilean. If that is true, the references of Messiah or Christus in both Suetonius and Tacitus most likely refers to the fourth movement started by Judas of Galilee called Zealot (earlier three being Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes) and it makes more sense than to Jesus. I will explain why later.
Now there are some similarities between Jesus in the gospels and Judas of Galilee as observed by Daniel Underbrink. Both of them developed lot of followers based on the philosophy that they advocated for and hence had a huge influence on what followed their death. Both of them were executed by Pontius Pilate. Both of them advocated for a kingdom of God ruled by his anointed. Both of them attempted a temple cleansing. Both of them made a stance in regards to giving of tax to Caesar. But there are differences too. Jesus in gospels was advocating for heavenly kingdom of God and peaceful realization of that while Judas of Galilee was advocating for earthly kingdom of God free from Roman supremacy if that meant through violent struggle. Judas of Galilee categorically stated not to pay taxes to Caesar while Jesus in gospels took a moderate stance of give to Caesar what he owes and to God what He owes.
What is obvious from Josephus' descriptions of Zealot movement started by Judas of Galilee is that Josephus hated that movement. He terms it the most pernicious superstition that could have affected his fellow Jews and that would most likely result in a catastrophe that would affect entire community of Jews when Romans decide finally to suppress it once and for all, once they have crossed the limits of their patience. Now this is the exact term that Tacitus used to describe the Christian movement. It almost seems that even though Judas of Galilee was executed, the movement he started continued through his sons (Simon and James) and his grandson (Menahem who initiated First Roman-Jewish war) and his followers who were influenced by his philosophy until the movement was finally suppressed around 70 CE. So Tacitus was right in mentioning that even though it was suppressed during time of Pilate, it again continued until his day.
Here is where the connections between Josephus, future Roman Emperors of Flavian dynasty like Vespasian and Titus, Herodians like Agrippa, Alexandrian alabarchs like Tiberius Julius Alexander (nephew of Philo of Alexandria), that Joseph Atwill alluded to in his book comes to the fore. It seems to me that there were elite Jews who like Herodians and Jews having allegiance to Romans like Josephus (who took Flavian family title) and Jewish high priest like Joshua ben Gamala who wanted a peaceful Jewish community who lives in harmony with Romans and their laws. They badly wanted Zealot movement started by Judas of Galilee to fail and be suppressed. Joshua ben Gamala was a big friend of Josephus and gives a emotional speech and appeal to Zealots to end the siege of Jerusalem Temple or worst consequences are going to happen to them and entire Jewish community. But instead, he was killed by Zealots and Idumeans. Many Jews who did not Zealot movement mourned the death of Joshua ben Gamala. Even Josephus was highly emotionally affected by the death of Joshua ben Gamala and badly wanted the Zealot movement to fail. The worst encounter that followed afterward between Zealots and Idumeans on one side and Roman army on the other side finally ends up in Zealot movement being crushed and Temple being destroyed. One interesting factoid in relation to this is that Alexandrian Jew Tiberius Julius Alexander was the main army general of the army of Flavius Titus.
So it is very much a good possibility that the victors especially Jews among them (with ample blessings from newly ordained Roman Emperor from Flavian dynasty, Vespasian) wanted to write a story about peaceful Messiah that would erase the memory of the movement started by the Messiah, Judas of Galilee so as to create a group of Jews who does not believe in violence and are submissive to Roman supremacy. So they could have rewritten the story of Judas of Galilee in a new way, this time hero of the story being Joshua ben Gamala who advocated for peace and was martyred by Zealots for it. So Jesus becomes new true Messiah in place of Judas of Galilee. If the above situation is true, this seems to me a good reason to write the earliest edition of the protogospel which underwent further redactions and legendary embellishments to reach the gospel of Mark that we have today. The original writer could have been Josephus or someone closely connected to him or his work. Just a thought!
Now if original Christus or Messiah was indeed Judas of Galilee, then both Suetonius and Tacitus' references to Christus makes perfect sense. Suetonius talks about Emperor Claudius expelling Jews who created problems at the instigation of a Christus out of Rome. During the time of Claudius, sons of Judas of Galilee, Simon and James might have been leading the zealot movement and they were finally crucified by procurator, Tiberius Julius Alexander in 46 CE. I don't see any reason why followers of a peaceful Messiah like Jesus of Nazareth as understood in gospels would create disturbances in Rome. It would make perfect sense if they were actually Jewish sympathizers of Zealot movement in Rome. The same goes for Tacitus reference. Tacitus terms Christian movement as a pernicious superstition, the same term used by Josephus for Zealot movement. So if Judas of Galilee was executed by Pontius Pilate, it makes sense when Tacitus says he was the originator of the movement as Josephus clearly says Judas of Galilee was the originator of the Zealot movement in Judaism. Maybe Zealot movement were termed Christian movement by Roman historians as they seem to want to establish a Jewish king (Messiah or Christus) in Judea, who knows!
One observation that Daniel Underbrink made that made sense to me was this: Josephus spent a lot of paragraphs talking about Judas of Galilee, his exploits, how he started the fourth philosophy in Judaism. He is portrayed as an influential figure in first century Judaism. But interesting fact is that he doesn't talk about his death. But interestingly the character of Gamaliel in Acts, talks about his death: "
After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered." (Acts 5:34). Note the phrase that his followers were scattered, the exact term used by gospel writers to denote what happened to followers of Jesus when he was arrested and killed. So if Josephus mentions a lot about Judas of Galilee and he did not fail to mention the deaths of all other Messiah claimants, why did he miss the death of Judas of Galilee. Daniel Underbrink has an explanation that makes rational sense. The original placement of death of Judas of Galilee might have been where Testomonium Flavianum was. It follows two revolts organized by Jews in opposition to two things that Pontius Pilate did that they opposed. First, Pilate tried to place some images of Caesar in Jerusalem temple which they strongly opposed and he had to take it down following opposition from group of Jews. Second, he tried to take some money out of Jerusalem temple treasury to bring an aqueduct to Judea. Again, he faced a huge opposition from Jews, but this time, he had a counter plan. He sent his soldiers with daggers hidden within them into the crowd and they stabbed huge numbers of them into death. Thus the sedition was suppressed (exact term used by Tacitus in Annals 15:44). It is almost possible that these two revolts were works of Zealots. So the instigator of these, might have been Judas of Galilee. So next paragraph might have been the execution of Judas of Galilee in connection with the incidents, who knows. Maybe those who changed it did not want others to hear about his death, but instead hear about the death of a new peaceful Jewish Messiah, Jesus.
The more I think about it in context of gospels, it makes lot of sense. Cleansing of temple was what Jesus is said to have done last and which got him arrested. Judas of Galilee did the same. The charge against Jesus was that he was making himself the king of Jews, Messiah. Judas of Galilee was considered the Messiah by his followers and hence the same charge might have been brought against him. Only difference is that in narrative about Jesus, gospel writers change the answer to his kingdom being heavenly kingdom and not earthly kingdom. One other gospel verse that makes much sense in the new context is what elite Jews in priesthood and power say about Jesus: "If we let him go on
like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come
and take away both our temple and our nation.” Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” (John 11:48-50) This is something that elitist Jews with allegiance to Roman supremacy would have said about Judas of Galilee as Zealot movement grew in influence among first century Jews. What they feared was exactly what happened eventually and of course this was written after the said incident.
But in spite of this, I have to say that whoever wrote the gospel story about Jesus, in fact wrote a very good story about a righteous man. In this regard, I tend to agree with John Dominic Crossan when he says that gospels are a parable about Jesus. When we have in Old Testament, many figures who doesn't get it fully right all the way through, gospels presents a righteous man who gets everything right to the extent that God is well pleased at him and hence he is adopted by God as His son. On one side, we have Adam who disobeyed God's command and brought death into the world. On the other side, we have the Jesus, who obeyed God's commands so that he is raised from death by God and forms an example for everyone to follow. Additionally, there is Daniel's prophesy that kingdom of God will be given to a figure that looks like "Son of Man" which is interpreted by Daniel himself as those righteous ones of God. So Jesus might have been representative figure of all righteous ones who would inherit kingdom of God if they follow his example.
So I have to agree with the scholars who say that Jesus of history need to be differentiated from Christ of faith. But many of current evangelical Christians are very much obsessed with whether Jesus as understood in gospel accounts existed as such in history. But to me, it is not a significant thing. One could just treat the story of Jesus as an exemplar of a righteous one of God, as a model to follow without worrying about whether such a character existed as such in history. Jesus of gospels will most likely be amalgam of many characters in history, but that shouldn't deter those who seek spiritual transformation to follow gospel accounts as spiritual guide.
