The prevailing opinion is the symbolical value of the number 40 about the prediction of the destruction of the temple: 70 — 40 = 30 CE.
I would give another answer to the problem.
Josephus refers about a particular Joshua-emulator, the Samaritan Prophet:
I read the following comment about the fact:“But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived everything so that the multitude might be
pleased. So he bade them get together upon Mount Gerizim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy
of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there. So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together. But Pilate prevented their going up by seizing upon the roads with a great band of horsemen and footmen, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of
whom, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain".
"But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had been consul, and who was now president of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed; for that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate. So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome to answer before the Emperor to the accusation of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tamed ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before he could get to Rome, Tiberius was dead.”
http://www.livius.org/articles/religion ... n-prophet/The Samaritan prophet may be called a Messiah, because he announced the restoration of the cult in the Samarian temple, which was on Mount Gerizim. But he was not a Messiah in its original sense, because that is a Jewish concept. The Samaritan equivalent is the Taheb, the Restorer-prophet "like Moses" announced in Deuteronomy 18.15-18. The two concepts were related, however, and were used as synonyms in the Gospel of John, where a Samaritan woman says:
This comes close to the Jewish idea that the Messiah will show the true meaning of the Law of Moses."I know that the Messiah is coming. When he will come, he will show us all things."
There was a heretical tradition about Samaritans as Simon Magus and Dositheus. Their crime, in the eyes of proto-catholics, is to claim to be ''the Christ'' or ''Jesus''. It is not necessary to identify Dositheus with the Samaritan Prophet, only to point out the fact that in Samaria at least someone was posing as Joshua/Jesus.
About Simon Magus, in particular, there are three way to interpret his figure:
1) he never existed but he is only a fiction of Acts.
2) he was a real usurper of the identity of Jesus Christ.
3) he was only posing as Joshua redivivus (just as the Samaritan Prophet).
In order to accept the point 2 with some not-apologetical plausibility, Roger Parvus is moved to equalize Simon with Paul and to show him as someone who perceived enigmatically ''Christ in me'': a real Jesus-Christ-emulator.
But what if, instead, the point 3 is true? In that case the Christians at the origin of the our Gospel tradition would have a serious problem. Someone on the earth was claiming to be Joshua redivivus. Someone from Samaria.
By inventing a Jesus killed by Pilate, the first euhemerizer could offer a direct Jewish equivalent of the Samaritan ''Joshua'' killed by Pilate. And therefore the only one worthy of consideration and respect by the Christians.
In this way it is possible to give an explanation about the strange coincidence that Mark and Josephus both record the judicial death, under sentence of Pontius Pilate, of one who claimed to be a prophet of the Lord and the ''true'' Joshua.
Apart the curious antitheses between the Gospel Pilate and the historical Pilate:
| the historical Pilate | the Gospel Pilate |
| he lost the rank of governor | he preserved the rank of governor |
| he was cruel | he was good |
| he was insistent against the desire of the crowd (see also the insignia episode) | he was easily persuaded by the crowd |
...I see a curious clue in Mark about Barabbas:
(15:7)A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the insurrection.
1) what is the need of emphasizing the ''murder'' by Barabbas, if his crime is already to be ''in prison with the insurrectionists''?
2) why is the insurrection introduced with the determinative article ''the insurrection'' (and not a generic insurrection) ?
It is possible that Mark is alluding to the only Messianic insurrection happened under Pilate, and in reaction to the account of Josephus, Mark is pointing that during that insurrection (of the Samaritan Prophet), there was really at least a murder, against the apology given by the survived Samaritans before the Emperor against Pilate, an apology designed to show that the Samaritan followers of the Taheb ''did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate''.
Therefore is it possible to derive the conclusion that the Gospel Jesus was invented under Pilate in reaction againt the historical memory (then merged into a Christian heretical tradition) of a Samaritan Joshua really killed by Pilate?
In other terms, the corollary of the thesis would be that if the historical Samaritan Joshua had been killed under the Governor x (for any x different from Pilate), then the Gospel Jesus would also be killed by x and not by Pilate.