The problem, David, with that scenario is that if Jesus was active during the time of Pilate it is unable to identify him. It's simply a version of the standard historicist approach - a version of the gospel Jesus story that cannot be historically supported.DCHindley wrote:Turning this around, if Jesus was indeed active and executed during the governorship of Pilate (regardless of whatever dates one wants to use to define his period of administration), a point came when the early "Christians" (Gentiles almost exclusively it seems) felt the need to soften Jesus' image and blame the Judeans for his death. What better thing than an unsuccessful full-scale Judean rebellion in which the most horrendous atrocities occurred to trigger the change?
<snip>
At least with a time-shift approach - either pre or post Pilate - attempts are being made to identify 1) historical figures deemed to be relevant for the gospel writers in creating their Jesus story 2) assumed historical figures from Josephus having a relevance for the Jesus story.
By all means reject the time-shift attempt to identify historical figures or even assumed historical figures, from Josephus, as being a valid approach to the gospel Jesus story. But proposing a nobody Jesus active under Pilate is not, in any sense, offering a scenario that holds out any reasonable hope of ever being substantiated. To my mind, such an approach is simply the safe haven of those not prepared to let history, Hasmonean Jewish history, have it's rightful place as the background, the historical canvas, from which the gospel writers drew inspiration for their Jesus story.