The quest for the historical Jesus is, at least in theory, a 'rational enterprise' which assumes that Jesus of Nazareth indeed existed and was a historical actor .
I wonder how long it's going take before Bermejo-Rubio, as a historian, to begin to question this assumption.
Only those hypotheses which provide the most likely reconstruction of Jesus as an intelligible actor within the first-century Palestine under Roman and Herodian rule are adequate from an epistemological standpoint and deserve being taken seriously into account.
Roman control of Judaea began in 63 b.c. Herod was appointed King in 40 b.c. and captured Jerusalem in 37 b.c.
Bermejo-Rubio, as a historian, knows all this - yet seeks to confine his quest for the historical Jesus to the first century.
Sedition, rebellion, against Roman control of Judaea began long before the time of Tiberius and Pilate. To neglect that history is unworthy of any historian seeking a seditionist under Roman rule. Bermejo-Rubio needs to reject the assumption keeping him from fully doing what historians are supposed to be doing - history.
As things now stand, Bermejo-Rubio's seditious Jesus theory, while demonstrating that a seditious element is within the gospel Jesus story - can't move beyond that. It is unable to challenge the 'man of peace' interpretation of the gospel Jesus, an interpretation that has far more selling power for Christians. Yes, a 'man of war' can become a 'man of peace'. (Mandela being one such figure). The problem for that scenario, in related to a historical Jesus figure, would be that 'all was quite under Tiberius' - there was no major rebellion, sedition, against Rome at that time. (a point made by Lena Einhorn in her book, A Shift in Time)
Bermejo-Rubio is up against a brick wall with a seditious Jesus under Tiberius and Pilate. (as his recent article, linked to above, demonstrates.) Rather than get frustrated - he must surely realize that fighting for a seditious *Jesus* must take him away from Tiberius and Pilate and into the dark, tragic, last days of the end of Hasmonean rule in Judaea.
===========
From a post of mine to a thread on Lena Einhorn's book:
A man of violence, a man of war = A Davidic prototype.
A man of peace and love = A Joseph prototype.
Rather than run with the idea that individuals are complex characters and can thus display both violence and love.....(after all, such an argument as a tool for historical research into the NT story gains nothing at all) perhaps consider the idea that the gospel figure of Jesus is a composite literary figure. That way opens up the discussion to an historical approach rather than a purely NT interpretive approach.
A composite literary figure reflecting two historical figures; two historical figures that display or reflect the two elements, violence and peace, as primary characteristics of their historical roles.
A prominent man of war was the last Hasmonean King and High Priest. Executed by the Romans in 37 bc.
Antigonus II Mattathias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonus_II_Mattathias
Josephus states that Mark Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8–9). Roman historian Cassius Dio says he was crucified and records in his Roman History: "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."[6] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king."[7]
A prominent man of peace was Philip the Tetrarch - who, re Josephus, died around 33/34 c.e. after ruling 37 years in a land outside of Judea.
Josephus Ant.18.ch.4.par.6
6. About this time it was that Philip, Herod's ' brother, departed this life, in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius, after he had been tetrarch of Trachonitis and Gaulanitis, and of the nation of the Bataneans also, thirty-seven years. He had showed himself a person of moderation and quietness in the conduct of his life and government; he constantly lived in that country which was subject to him; he used to make his progress with a few chosen friends; his tribunal also, on which he sat in judgment, followed him in his progress; and when any one met him who wanted his assistance, he made no delay, but had his tribunal set down immediately, wheresoever he happened to be, and sat down upon it, and heard his complaint: he there ordered the guilty that were convicted to be punished, and absolved those that had been accused unjustly. He died at Julias; and when he was carried to that monument which he had already erected for himself beforehand, he was buried with great pomp. His principality Tiberius took, (for he left no sons behind him,) and added it to the province of Syria, but gave order that the tributes which arose from it should be collected, and laid up in his tetrachy.
These two historical figures, I would suggest, are the two prototypes used by the gospel writers in the creation of their literary, composite, Jesus figure.
Why? Well now, that is the million dollar question.....
