Daniel Unterbrink’s theory:
Jesus, as portrayed in the New Testament , is really a composite figure, an individual shaped by many differing agendas, combining the actual life of Judas the Galilean with Paul’s life and theology . I also concur that the historical Jesus was married and had important family ties. He followed the Law— the Torah— just like his brother James, and would not have condoned the teachings of Paul. He was an apocalyptic teacher, but was not the Jesus of the gospels. In short we all believe that “Jesus” was a human being and not a god.
So did Jesus really exist? In his latest book, Did Jesus Exist?, Ehrman clearly proves that a Messiah figure existed in the first century CE. However, mythicists *8 can rightly argue that the gospel Jesus did not exist. Even Ehrman admits that much of the gospel Jesus cannot be accepted as fact. My viewpoint , which will be argued throughout this book, is that a Messiah did preach the kingdom of heaven to the Jews. So, yes, there was a historical Messiah, but his teachings were absorbed into what we now know as Jesus of Nazareth, reconstructed along lines that would resonate with a late first-century Gentile audience. So, in a sense, my viewpoint is a middle ground
This “Jesus” was the Messiah known to the earliest disciples.
Unterbrink, Daniel T.. Judas of Nazareth: How the Greatest Teacher of First-Century Israel Was Replaced by a Literary Creation (Kindle Locations 346-347). Inner Traditions/Bear & Company. Kindle Edition.
Middle ground? Unterbrink is a Jesus historicist. i.e. he, like Ehrman upholds an “apocalyptic teacher” as being the historical Jesus figure. His gospel Jesus is a composite literary figure. A composite that includes “combining the actual life of Judas the Galilean with Paul’s life and theology”. Thus, the gospel figure is a literary creation that includes reflection on the “actual life of Judas the Galilean”.
First stop here, of course, is Unterbrink’s acceptance of the Josephan story of Judas the Galilean as being historical. There is no historical evidence to support this assumption. Without that historical support Unterbrink’s composite gospel Jesus has no relevance.
Yes, it's back to Josephus and how one views his writing....One way would be to apply the type of approach that Thomas Brodie has suggests for the New Testament.
Since then Richard Hays has become a pioneer in narrative theology-in
showing how New Testament narrative often builds a story or narrative that
is grounded on that of the Old Testament, and his work is now complemented
by that of many others, for instance, N.T. Wright of Durham, Francis Watson
of Aberdeen, and in another way by Carol Stockhausen of Marquette University, Milwaukee. Such writers often say the New Testament contains 'echoes' (Hays's word) of the Old Testament, or has 'allusions' to it. Their
work is a real advance for New Testament research. Page 126
Narrative Allusion/Echoes/Reception
In this case the presence of the older text is generally less clear, less direct,
but it can evoke a whole narrative and theology. The exact meaning of terms
such as 'allusion' and 'echo' is debated, but workable summaries are available.
Somewhat like quotation, so also allusion and echo generally require
recognition; if hearers or readers do not catch the sound of the older text, do
not recognize the source, the effectiveness is largely lost. Page 130
Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus.
The question then becomes - has the Josephan writer, in telling the story about Judas the Galilean, used an earlier source. i.e. are there illusions in the Judas Galilean story to earlier Josephan history?
Wikipedia condensed Josephan history:
Aristobulus_II
Pompey defeated the Jewish armies in multiple battles, and took the fortresses of Judea. Aristobulus and his sons Alexander and Antigonus were captured in 63 BC. Aristobulos, suspicious of Pompey, entrenched himself in the fortress of Alexandrium, but when the Romans defeated his army again, he surrendered and undertook to deliver Jerusalem over to them. However, since many of his followers were unwilling to open the gates, the Romans besieged and captured the city by force, badly damaging city and temple. Hyrcanus was restored as High Priest, but deprived of political authority.
Aristobulus II escaped in 57 BC, instigating rebellion against Rome in Judea, until he was finally holed up by Aulus Gabinius, consul of the Roman province of Syria, in Machaerus. Marc Antony, commander of the cavalry under Gabinius, led several men to scale Aristobulus' fortifications and subdue his forces.[3]
Taken prisoner, Aristobulus was released by Julius Caesar in 49 BC in order to turn Judea against Pompey. He was on his way to Judaea with his son Alexander, when "he was taken off by poison given him by those of Pompey's party".[4] His son Alexander was beheaded by the Roman commander Scipio at Antioch.[5]
His son Antigonus led a rebellion against Rome, with help from the Parthians, and became king and high priest in 40 BC, but was defeated and killed by the Romans in 37 BC.
After Fadus came his successor Tiberius Alexander, the son of Alexander the alabarch of Alexandria, who was noted both for his family and his wealth and was also more pious than his son Alexander, who did not continue in our ancestral customs. Under these procurators the great famine happened in Judea, when queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense and distributed it to those who were in want, as I have said. Then too, the sons of Judas of Galilee were killed, that man who caused the people to revolt when Quirinius came to assess the estates of the Jews, as we mentioned in an earlier book; the sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander had crucified. Josephus: Ant.20.5.2
First point to notice is that Josephus has placed his Judas the Galilean story 70 years from the events of 63 b.c.e. Secondly, the two sons of Aristobulus were beheaded. Antigonus, re Cassius Dio, being first hung on a cross and scourged.
Antigonus II Mattathias
Josephus states that Marc Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8-9). Roman historian Dio Cassius says he was crucified. Cassius Dio's Roman History records: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him."[4] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king.
A third point of interest is that Josephus places a son (grandson) of Judas at the revolt of 66 c.e. At Masada in 73/74 c.e. a cousin of this grandson of Judas is placed. i.e. a 7 year period.
Bottom line in all of this: If one wants to view elements of the Josephan figure of Judas the Galilean in the literary construct of the gospel Jesus - one is, in effect, ascribing reflections of Hasmonean history to the gospel figure of Jesus and the gospel story. Hasmonean history is the undercurrent of the gospel story - as it is the undercurrent of the Josephan history of the early first century.
(
footnote: Aristobulus spent some time, after escaping from Rome, at Machaerus, "a fortified hilltop palace". Built by Alexander Jannaeus - and the place where the story of the beheading of John the Baptist is placed around 36/7 c.e. - 100 years from the events of 63 b.c.e.)
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats