maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 11:52 pm Could you supply a quote from Guerra naming the leaders in Judaea that Pilate killed. ?
For John Guerra, the fact that Pilate spared the followers is only part of the argument:
Towards the end of Pilates’ procuratorship there was an incident with a Samaritan prophet, he too was killed along with “the principle leaders” (Ant. 18.4.1-2); the rest were “put to flight.” Perhaps the fact that Jesus’ followers fled and hid preserved them from being killed, but Pilate did not pursue them as Varus hunted the followers of the uprisings in 4 B.C.E. Regardless of the reason, Jesus’ followers were allowed to live and this fact is not unique to his uprising. Therefore, we cannot conclude that is was the distinctive issue that occasioned the continuation of Jesus uprising. But it is significant in the final hypothesis.
(p. 74-75, my bold)
What was decisive, according to John Guerra, was the tacitian
"sub Tiberio, quies":
The reason Jesus’ uprising had an afterlife was timing. Jesus’ uprising took place at the opportune time, at a time that was advantageous for an uprising to continue. I propose that Jesus’ uprising was able to continue after his death because the environment was stable and relatively trouble free and there was peace and cooperation between the ruling parties. The uprisings that arose during the period examined in this thesis occurred at significant points in the history of the first half of the first century, junctures of transition and uncertainty. Jesus’ uprising took place at a time of relative peace.
(p. 75, my bold)
It is relatively easy to advance the same argument from a Mythicist POV: if you want to distance your original Jesus (Antigonus, if your name is 'Maryhelena'; the "Egyptian", if your name is 'Lena', "Jesus ben Sapphas", if your name is "Frans") from any connection with revolt, then you would do well to place him under Pilate. I think that the great merit of Lena Einhorn is precisely this argument:
"Jesus" was placed under Pilate for diplomatic reasons.
But then where is the contribution of John Guerra? What is worse, until now it seems that John Guerra has never abandoned his historicist paradigm.
I think that this may be called his contribution:
Philo gives a similar episode when the Jewish leaders followed through on a threat to notify Tiberius of what they perceived as misconduct by Pilate (Embassy 299-305). Pilate must have felt vulnerable with Tiberius hunting down Sejanus’ supporters and had to find a way to placate the Jewish leaders and not attract the attention of Tiberius [218]
Note [
218] specifies:
Under Pilate there were several disturbances but only three involved bloodshed. [...] In fact, Barnett suggests that the three incidents could “be different aspects of the one disturbance.” [...] Pilate’s response to these incidents was relatively measured.
(my bold)
The conclusion of John Guerra:
The precarious predicament of Pilate made him tentative to act in a manner that would exacerbate his situation in relation with Tiberius.
(p. 78)
In conclusion:
- 1) I consider very strong the argument that Pilate feared the reaction of Tiberius therefore Pilate had to refrain from inflicting on the followers of the rebels.
- 2) in virtue of (1), the fact that Pilate spared the followers of the Samaritan false prophet is not an isolated case or an exception, since it is precisely what we would have expected from someone who feared the reaction of his superior Tiberius.
Therefore, I think that, in the light of the evidence, the conclusion of John Guerra is correct: the relative calm of the Pilate's governorship, united to the
proved Pilate's reluctance to exterminate the followers of a rebel leader, make it very probable the survival of the followers of the rebel leader.
I would add that
the post-70 existence of the Dositheans, i.e. the followers of the Samaritan Dositheus,
identified by prof Etienne Nodet with the unnamed Samaritan false prophet, makes precisely the case of John Guerra, and it is unfortunate (!!!) that Guerra has not made this further argument supporting his thesis.
The Dositheans are an example of followers survived to their leader (the Samaritan impostor killed by Pilate).
The logic of the writer of the Earliest Gospel would have been: if Pilate is an excellent guarantee of the
survival of a movement that arose under him, as proved by the existence itself of the Dositheans after the 70 CE,
then why not Pilate?