Neither Tacitus nor Lucian are aware of Jesus’ name, Tacitus calling him “Christos,”  whereas Lucian calls him the “crucified sophist.” This suggests that they are not using Christian literature or getting their information from Christians as they would have been able to obtain his name from them. Calling him a sophist suggests Lucian was drawing from a source different from the gospels, such as the original TF that I have just reconstructed.
The opponents of the church father apologetists all seem to be working off an original TF. For example, Justin Martyr answers his opponent, “He was no sophist, but His word was the power of God.” (1Apol.14 Cf Lucian, Peregr. Proteus, ch. xiii.). Justins interlocutor has got his charge that Jesus was described as a sophist, probably information that was contained in the TF. Judas the Galilean was also described as a sophist by Josephus War2 §118. Celsus is under the impression that Jesus was the leader of a seditious movement as described by Origen:
“Again Celsus proceeds: “If you should tell them that Jesus is not the Son of God, but that God is the Father of all, and that He alone ought to be truly worshipped, they would not consent to discontinue their worship of him who is their leader in the sedition…..[Origen denies what Celsus has just said by adding the following]… Jesus is, then, not the leader of any seditious movement, but the promoter of peace….”(Contra Celsum 8.14)
Here are some more examples that will build a picture of how the anti Christian polemicists viewed the Jesus movements. Firstly a quote of the pagan Caecilius Natalis written by one of the earliest of the Latin apologists for Christianity, namely Minicius Felix:
“that a man fastened to a cross on account of his crimes is worshipped by Christians, for they believe not only that he was innocent, but with reason that he was God. But, on the other hand, the heathens invoke the Divine Powers of Kings raised into Gods by themselves; they pray to images, and beseech their Genii.”(Minucius Felix, Octavius ch29).
“he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men, that they may worship what they deserve.” (Minucius Felix,Octavius, ch9)
Lactantius a Christian writer and an advisor to the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine I, complains about his interlocutor:
“But he affirmed that Christ, driven out by the Jews, gathered a band of nine hundred men and committed acts of brigandage’: ‘Christum … a Iudaeis fugatum collecta nongentorum hominum manu latrocinia fecisse.’ (Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book v. Ch. 3.)
He also stated in the same chapter:
“If Christ is a magician because He performed wonderful deeds, it is plain that Apollonius, who, according to your description, when Domitian wished to punish him, suddenly disappeared on his trial, was more skilful than He who was both arrested and crucified.” And of course Lactantius hits back at these pagan critics, “…than from that very cross which you as dogs lick”. (ibid, Div. Inst. v.3).
In the next passage quoted in full below Celsus makes the following claims, that Christ and members of his church have been put to death in a way appropriate to robbers and Celsus also asks what makes the two “robbers” crucified with Jesus any different from Jesus. Bear in mind the term ‘robbers’ (lestai, λῃσταί:sing; λῃστής, lestes: plural) was a term used by Josephus to mean brigands.
“Celsus in the next place says, with indescribable silliness: “If, after inventing defences which are absurd, and by which you were ridiculously deluded, you imagine that you really make a good defense, what prevents you from regarding those other individuals who have been condemned, and have died a miserable death, as greater and more divine messengers of heaven (than Jesus)?” [Origen interjects here]: Now, that manifestly and clearly there is no similarity between Jesus, who suffered what is described, and those who have died a wretched death on account of their sorcery, or whatever else be the charge against them, is patent to every one. For no one can point to any acts of a sorcerer which turned away souls from the practice of the many sins which prevail among men, and from the flood of wickedness (in the world). But since this Jew of Celsus compares Him to robbers, and says that “any similarly shameless fellow might be able to say regarding even a robber and murderer whom punishment had overtaken, that such a one was not a robber, but a god, because he predicted to his fellow robbers that he would suffer such punishment as he actually did suffer,” it might, [Origen tries to answer the charge by Celsus] in the first place, be answered, that it is not because He predicted that He would suffer such things that we entertain those opinions regarding Jesus which lead us to have confidence in Him, as one who has come down to us from God. And, in the second place, we assert that this very comparison has been somehow foretold in the Gospels; since God was numbered with the transgressors by wicked men, who desired rather a “murderer” (one who for sedition and murder had been cast into prison) to be released unto them, and Jesus to be crucified, and who crucified Him between two robbers. Jesus, indeed, is ever crucified with robbers among His genuine disciples and witnesses to the truth, and suffers the same condemnation which they do among men. And we say, that if those persons have any resemblance to robbers, who on account of their piety towards God suffer all kinds of injury and death, that they may keep it pure and unstained, according to the teaching of Jesus, then it is clear also that Jesus, the author of such teaching, is with good reason compared by Celsus to the captain of a band of robbers. But neither was He who died for the common good of mankind, nor they who suffered because of their religion, and alone of all men were persecuted because of what appeared to them the right way of honouring God, put to death in accordance with justice, nor was Jesus persecuted without the charge of impiety being incurred by His persecutors.” (Origen, Contra Celsum 2.44).
The Sefer Toledot Yeshu (Generations of Jesus), a Jewish anti gospel is also under the impression that the Jesus movement comprised of insurgents:
34 Now as he was fast in their hands, he answered and said to his fellows before the queen, Concerning me it was said, Who will rise up for me against the evil-doers ? And of them he said. The proud waters. Yea, of them he said, They have made their faces harder than a rock.
35 When the queen heard this she threatened the insurgents, and said to the wise men of Israel, See, he is in your hands. (Toledot ch iii, 34-35).
The Queen here is a literary invention of the Toledot, but depending on what various manuscripts you use, she is either based on Queen Helena of Adiebene (who chronologically matches the historical framework of the Toledot) or Helena Augusta, Constantine I’s mother.
As Hasan-Rokem said:
“The “textual milieu” where Toledot Yeshu best fits in is neither Rabbinic literature nor the canonical gospels, but rather some texts of the early Christian literature known as apocryphal, both the gospels and in particular some of the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, which carry on the prose tradition of the Hellenistic novel, which has also been found to reverberate, although in less consistent modes in late antique Jewish, rabbinic, literature.” 
While the Toledot is a late composition first mentioned in the nineth century by two different bishops, Agobard and Amulo, it drew from early apocryphal gospels. Robert M Price has said, “the Toledoth Jeschu [is] (dependent on a second-century Jewish-Christian gospel)”.  Hugh Schonfield speculates this could be the lost Gospel according to the Hebrews, of which we have only fragmented quotes. Schonfield has a tantalizing prospect with the following reasoning:
This is all the more likely when it is remembered that it was the Jewish custom to name their books from the opening words. Thus Exodus is in Hebrew Shemoth from the opening words of this book ‘ we-ekh shemoth.’ The title Toldoth Jeshu (Generations of Jesus) must then have been taken from a book beginning with these words, The only known Gospel which does so is of course Matthew which opens with “The book of the Generations of Jesus,’ Now it was commonly held that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was the lost Hebrew Gospel of Matthew ; and it is possible that if this work should ever be recovered entire, it will show itself to be the basis of many of the Toldoth stories.” 
Let us examine Mark and Matthew who also used the term “robbers,” lestai, the same term that is used in Josephus for brigands:
“Then were there two robbers — (dyo lēstas ) crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. (Matthew 27:38).
“And with him they crucify two robbers (dyo lēstas); the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.” (Mark 15:27)
“And there were also two other malefactors (kakourgoi dyo), led with him to be put to death.” (Luke 23:32).
“And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha: Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus and the midst.” (John 19:17-18).
After the Roman Jewish war, all literature became the literature of fear. Note that it would have been absolutely critical for the movement to erase any recollection of disciples dying with Jesus. If they had, it would indicate that the movement at large had been condemned by the Romans. It would reveal the entire “conviction for blasphemy by the Sanhedrin” as a fraudulent fabrication. As Bart Ehrman  said when Jesus said to the High Priest that he will see the son of man coming on clouds, Caiaphas shouted – blasphemy, but it wasn’t blasphemy at all. (Mark 14:62-64). Neither was claiming to be the messiah blasphemous, that is only delivering the people into gods kingdom. Many before and after Jesus claimed this title and never got accused of blasphemy (many got accused of sedition). As the religion developed, it would also undermine the salvation concept of Jesus’ death as a unique sacrifice. As Paul Winters says, “No grounds must be given for the inference that Jesus was in any way connected with subversive activities such as those which had resulted in the recent rising. The Evangelists therefore contrived to conceal that Jesus had been condemned and executed on a charge of sedition.”  So we see a vigorous attempt by the Synoptic writers to disparage the two who died with Jesus, or in Luke’s case to disparage one and show the other as a random soul saved at the last minute.
The Synoptics wanted to brand those crucified with Jesus as “robbers”, whereas John would be more historical and see the others crucified as their own and would refer to them as others. John’s gospel also shows the real reason why Jesus ended up on the cross. “John’s gospel, in other words, depicts no full priestly council the night of Jesus’ arrest and, even more strikingly, no charge of blasphemy. For John, what motivates the Sanhedrin’s decision about Jesus—taken even before Jesus comes up to the city for the last time—is politics, not piety. The Sanhedrin fears Rome.” 
It is quite likely the two who died with Jesus were followers. John says flat out that they were subject to arrest. The Synoptics show it was only Jesus, not the disciples, who was arrested — the conviction for blasphemy, the dramatic kiss of Judas which isolates Jesus only as the one to be arrested and led away, the invention of the moral corruption of the two who died with him. The remarkable thing is that the idea that the disciples were subject to arrest, and the inference that two may have been crucified with Jesus, survives in the gospel of John.
TRACES OF THE REBELLION PARADIGM IN PAUL’S EPISTLES:
Paul says that Jesus was born “from the line of David” (Rom 1:3). This is repeated later in Romans as the “root of Jesse” [Davids father]:
And again, Isaiah says, “The Root of Jesse, will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; in him the Gentiles will hope.”(Rom 15:12)
To apocalyptic Jews of the time the messiah was going to be of “the seed of David” i.e. somebody descended from the line of David. All messianic movements claimed their line from King David. This was all over Jewish literature as seen from Jeremiah:
“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land.” (Jeremiah 23:5)
Like other apocalyptic Jews, early Christians thought that Jesus was the messiah that came from the branch of David. Jews went to these two verses in the Hebrew Scriptures to say that the messiah would come from the branch of David:
“bless the house of your servant, that it may be in your presence forever—since you, Lord GOD, have promised, and by your blessing the house of your servant shall be blessed forever.” (2 Samuel 7:29)
“For this is what the LORD says: ‘David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of Israel..” (Jeremiah 33:17).
In the Talmud, the rabbis had it as a given statement:
“Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi once said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: Go to a place called Ein Tav and sanctify the New Moon there, and send me a sign that you have sanctified it. The sign is: David, king of Israel, lives and endures.” (b.Talmud Rosh Hashanah 25a);
According to Eusebius, Emperor Domitian was hunting down the grandchildren of Jude, a brother of Jesus as they claimed to be descendants of David. (Eusebius,EH 3.19; 3.20.1-6).
In the Dead Sea Scrolls we also see a set of apocalyptic Jews who wanted the restoration of the Davidic line. In 4Q174 Col. I lines 10-13 we have a Midrash on 2 Samuel 7:10-14 (and the use of Exodus15:17-18, Amos9:11) for the restoration of Davids house (dynasty). The branch of David is going to rise as somebody in Zion (Jerusalem) as an interpreter of the law. This branch is going to be the righteous messiah:
“10 [And] Yahweh has [de]clared to you that he will build you a house (2 Sam 7:11c). I will raise up your seed after you (2 Sam 7:12). I will establish the throne of his kingdom
11 f[orever] (2 Sam 7:13). I wi[ll be] a father to me and he shall be a son to me (2 Sam 7:14). He is the branch of David who will arise with the interpreter of the Law, who
12 [ ] in Zi[on in the la]st days according as it is written: “I will raise up the tent of
13 David that has falle[n] (Amos 9:11), who will arise to save Israel.” (4Q174 I 10-13).
The Psalms of Solomon written sometime in the first century BCE, showed the hope for a Davidic end time messiah, very similar to that of Paul. . The only difference is that to Paul, Jesus is not an expectant figure but a figure that has already been realized, the ‘first fruits’ as I discuss later, in the meantime it is worth reproducing the extract of the psalms here:
“See, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David, to rule over Israel, your servant, in the time which you chose, o God, Undergird him with the strength to destroy the unrighteous rulers, to cleanse Jerusalem from gentiles who trample her to destruction; …….And he will bring together a holy people whom he will lead in righteousness. And he will judge the tribes of the people that have been made holy by the Lord their God. He will not permit unrighteousness to pause among them any longer, and any man who knows wickedness will not live with them. For he will know them that they are all children of their God. He will distribute them in their tribes upon the land; the sojourner and the foreigner will no longer dwell beside them. He will judge peoples and nations in the wisdom of his righteousness. …… And he will be a righteous king over them, taught by God. There will be no unrighteousness among them in his days, for all [will be] holy, and their king [will be] the Lord Messiah. (Psalms of Solomon 17:21-32).
Lord Messiah, christos kurios is the same phrase Paul uses for Jesus. Paul has a “continuing recognition of God as ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Rom. 15.6; 2 Cor. 1.3; 11.31; Col. 1.3; Eph. 1.3, 17).”  As Paula Fredriksen notes, “Paul, as others before him, refers this honorific Christos to Jesus. In texts roughly contemporary with his letters, Christos most commonly stands for an End-time Davidic warrior and ruler. Traditions visible both in Paul’s letters and in the later gospels also present Jesus as such a redemptive End-time figure: returning with angels, coming on clouds of glory to gather his elect, bringing in the Kingdom with power.” 
Frank Moore Cross  believes the doctrine of the two messiahs found at Qumran has its roots in the restoration of a diarchy, that of a perfect King and a perfect High Priest, who shall take office standing by the side of the Lord of the whole earth. (Zechariah 4:14). People had hoped that these would come about at the end of days. This is known as an eschatological concept coming from the Greek ἔσχατος eschatos meaning “last” and -logy meaning “the study of”. These eschatological Jews hoped to establish a new kingdom right here on earth in the last days.
Before the first century CE, Priesthood became restrictive to the tribe of Levi. We can track the shift in Numbers:
“I have taken the Levites from among the Israelites in place of the first male offspring of every Israelite woman. The Levites are mine,” (Numbers 3:12).
In Leviticus we have God speaking through Moses, letting it be known that the priestly class was then restricted further within this group, namely the descendants of Erin, Moses brother. (Lev 16). 
There is a pattern of messianic types being made a King, (a priestly messiah would be out of the question for any peasant charismatic Jew as you had to come from the line of Levi and achieve high priest status such as Onias III who was also known as a messiah). It was much easier for a peasant rebel to achieve the status of a “king messiah”.
Many of the messianic rebels throughout Josephus’ works were declared a king. Judas the Zealot (Ant 17.10.5), Simon of Peraea, a slave of Herod the Great (Ant 17.10.6) and Athronges the shepherd (Ant 17.10.7 ) were all supported by multitudes, both Simon and Anthronges were declared King at a drop of a hat, by their rebel followers, just like it was suggested that Jesus was ‘King of the Jews’. (No royal blood necessary, but as King David has so many sons it is at least possible). The ‘Egyptian’ (War 2.13.5) may have called himself “king Messiah”, because Josephus uses the Greek verb tyrannein (τυραννεῖν “to be sole ruler”). Many others such as Simon Ben Giora, John of Gischala and Menehan were all declared King in Josephus. As shown from book 17 and 18 of Josephus Antiquities it was extremely dangerous for messianic types to gather a crowd. They usually got easily squashed by the Romans. Jesus was no exception, the Romans crucified Jesus for being ‘King of the Jews’. To be accused of being a King meant you were an insurrectionist. (Mark 15:2 “Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate. “You have said so,” Jesus replied).
In Judaism the title messiah has royal connotations. There are some instances in the psalms and prophets in the LXX that express messianic beliefs and “the strongest claims for the status of the King as God or son of god are found in the royal psalms, especially psalms 2,45, 72, 89 [LXX 88:27] and 110[LXX 109]” 
In the Pauline epistles there are references to Jesus’ kingdom’ basileian (βασιλείαν), which indicates that he was somehow considered a king .
Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom (βασιλείαν) to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (1 Cor. 15:24-25, cf. 6:9-10, 15:50, 4:20; Gal. 5:17; Rom. 14:17).
Burton Mack sees the term “handed over” παρεδίδετο in first Corinthians as a militaristic term, (many modern translations wrongly translate this as ‘betrayed’, when in fact it really means ‘handed over’):
“For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over (παρεδίδετο), took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Cor. 11:23-25).
As Mack says, “In this case the mythic features are that Jesus himself explained the symbols and that it happened “on the night he was handed over.” Handed over was a term taken from the history of warfare and used in martyrologies to indicate the shift in power that set the situation up for a martyrdom. It did not need any narrative elaboration.”  To explain the etymology of the term παρεδίδετο and see it is used for “deliver over” and for a militaristic “surrender”, you have to get to the heart of the term which is to “give over something that you posses (even yourself) against your will. (against = παρά, give = δίδω).
Before Paul converted he writes of persecution of the Christian church in retrospect in his letters and therefore would have looked at these activities differently from when he was writing them. As he said in Galatians:
“For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the assemblies of God and tried to destroy it.” (Gal.1:13; Cf 1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:23; Phil 3:6).
Acts expands on this:
“But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.” (Acts 8:3).
This has perplexed many a scholar who sees the Jesus movements as only religious and they don’t see any authorities or Paul (by his own admission in his letters) getting in on the act to persecute a religious sect, it’s just implausible under a Roman jurisdiction.  Fredriksen struggles with Pauls use of the word persecution. She tries to compare the persecution Paul receives with his use of persecution he directed against the Jesus movements. She states when Paul refers to the persecution he receives, namely the 39 lashes is an internal punishment, given by leaders of the synagogues. (2 Cor. 11:24-25) This is done as a correction to somebody that is of their own movement. Yet the persecution Paul tries to dish out to the assemblies of James’s organization is not internal and not done as a correction but an attempt to destroy this movement. 
A clue is given in Acts 9:1-2, (cf Acts 26:9-11) that Paul worked for the High Priest. High Priests were appointed by Roman governors to help in collaborating the rule of Rome. In effect they were their own chief of police and could flog offenders. Any serious offense such as sedition and the prisoner would be handed over to Rome. As Hyam Maccoby writes in his book:
“Thus, if Jesus’ movement had been a heretical one, espousing theological doctrines that contradicted the traditional tenets of Judaism, the High Priest would have been entirely unconcerned, being no theologian. If the movement had been opposed to the Pharisees in matters of religion, the High Priest would even have been pleased, for that was his position also. …..The only circumstances under which the High Priest would employ his police force to arrest and imprison people would be if they had shown themselves in some way to be a political threat to the Roman regime. If Paul was employed by the High Priest to arrest people and imprison them, it can only mean one thing: that Paul was a member of the High Priest’s police force and his job was to arrest anyone who constituted a threat to the occupation…..The only solution that makes perfect sense is that Paul ….. persecuted the Christians for exactly the same reason that the High Priest persecuted them – because they were opposed to Roman domination of the Holy Land.” 
The Psuedo-Clementines Recognitions says of Paul, that he:
“had received a commission from Caiaphas, the high priest, that he should arrest all that believed in Jesus….” (Ps. Clem. Rec. 1 LXXI)
This reflects an organization that had started out from rebellious beginnings. (This position is also supported by the anti Christian polemic such as Origen, Contra Celsum 8.14, 2.44; Minucius Felix, Octavius xxix; Lactantius, Divine Institutes, v. 3, 4; all discussed above). This has better explanatory power on Paul’s King Aretus IV incident mentioned in second Corinthians:
“In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.” (2 Cor. 11:32-33).
Paul working outside his legal jurisdiction, on direction of the High Priest, chasing a nascent Nazorean movement, would have landed him in hot water with the nabatean ethnarch king. This incident also provides an anchor date for Paul’s epistles in general. 
The alternative Ebionites tradition (obvious polemic story that was attributed to Paul) as reported by Epiphanius is even more interesting:
“They declare that he (Paul) was a Greek…”He went up to Jerusalem, they say, and when he had spent some time there, he was seized with a passion to marry the daughter of the priest (High Priest). For this reason he became a proselyte and was circumcised. Then, when he failed to get the girl, he flew into a rage and wrote against circumcision and against the sabbath and the Torah” (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30.16. 6- 9)
This story reflects Paul’s association with the High Priest.
Eisenman suggested that Paul was a Herodian  but I think Maccoby’s suggestion is stronger that he worked for the high priest originally. Eisenman makes some good points showing the connections Paul has made with the Herodians, all this would fit in with Paul being on the opposing side of this nascent Nazorean group originally before he changed sides.
“After Jesus’ execution, the movement was still persecuted. [This is where Paul comes in]. Jesus’ movement remained a political threat in the eyes of the Romans. There is no reason to assume that the Romans stopped viewing the movement as a threat to their rule in the midst of a highly volatile region, merely because its leader had been killed.” 
Christianity was born out of the messianic fervour that existed before the Roman Jewish war. The apocalyptic worldview was all part of this messianic fervour, a sense of urgency that god’s kingdom was at hand. (Romans 13:11-12). As John J Collins notes in a forward he wrote for Anathea E. Portier-Young’s book that “ Scholars have long recognized that apocalyptic literature originated as resistance literature,”.  It was Ernst Käsmann that made the famous statement: “apocalyptic was the mother of all Christian theology”  Apocalyptic Jews were even more dangerous than just disgruntled peasants. They thought the end of the world was approaching, they also thought that they could abandon their way of life and become revolutionaries. As Porter-Young stated “The apocalyptic worldview envisioned a radical relocation of power and in this way redefined the possible and the real, thus clarifying the context for action and empowering the work of resistance.”  This egged on many piecemeal revolutionaries to initiate a revolt against Roman maladministration, even with little prospect of success.
The apocalyptic eschatology in Paul’s epistles “shows traces of the warlike messiah transferred to Jesus, and in the ethical admonitions images of war are found from the start”  Apocalyptism was always mixed up with military action expecting God’s intervention.
Even as this movement moved away from its rebellious past, many of the military metaphors are retained in the epistles and Pastorials. Examples such as found in1 Thess 5:8; 2 Cor. 6:7; [Rom. 6:23 has wages, ὀψώνια = opsōnia which is a military wage]) Many of the images have their origins in the prophets, sayings that had driven on previous messianic movements in their wars with Rome, now Paul had spiritualised them to battling their demons. .
In Philippians 2:8 it says that Jesus died on a Stauros. Josephus uses this term Stauros to tell of Romans crucifying Jews. The Romans did not crucify petty thrives but those who broke the law of Treason, lex maiestatis. Crucifixion was done as a deterrent to others not to rebel. 1 Thess. 2:14-15 has Jesus crucified in Judea. “Those who died as insurrectionists against the system of this age and refused to be ‘conformed to this world’ (Rom. 12:2) are now the resurrected”  It was resurrection that secured Paul’s authority and somehow (in his own head at least) put him above those super apostles and put his particular ‘gospel’ (or good news doctrine) ahead of that belonging to the Jesus movements.  Pauls message of resurrection had transformed the failure of Jesus’s life and failure in an ignominious revolt that would disqualify Jesus from being a messiah. The failed promised intervention of God has now in fact been initiated by Jesus’ resurrection, turning his failure in life to a success by Paul’s interpretation. Bart Ehrman has shown how Paul transformed Jesus from being a failed militaristic messiah to being a savior messiah. This is more in line with the savior deities of the Greco Roman world and similar to the mystery religion cults. Pauls thinking was like that of Computer technicians using “reverse engineering” in order to tap into their competitors knowledge:
“Paul started with the “fact” that Jesus was alive again. Since Paul also knew that Jesus had died by crucifixion, his reappearance meant that he had experienced a resurrection. God performed a miracle by raising Jesus from the dead. If God raised Jesus from the dead, that would mean that Jesus really was the one who stood under God’s special favor, the one chosen by God. But if he was in God’s special favor, why would God let him be executed?…… Paul drew what for him was the natural conclusion: Jesus must not have died for anything he himself had done wrong, since God favored him. He was not being cursed for his own deeds. He must have been cursed for the deeds of others.” 
Dale Allison using Paul Jewett’s scholarship shows three different stages of the Jesus movement as it transformed from followers of a militaristic Davidic type messiah to a salvation mystery type messiah. This is shown in a critical study of Rom. 1:3-4, this is worth quoting in full as it shows each of these stages encapsulated in a pre Pauline tradition:
“The earliest form, on his analysis, contained or consisted of: “who was of the seed of David [and] appointed Son of God by resurrection of the dead.” This line, Jewett thinks, originated in the “Aramaic-speaking early church.” Its Sitz im Leben was celebration of the eucharist. Its sponsors understood “Son of David” to be a royal messianic title, and they held an adoptionistic christology like that in Acts 2:36 and 13:33, a christology derived from an application of Ps. 2:7 (“You are my Son, today I have begotten you”) to Jesus’ resurrection.
At a secondary stage, Hellenistic Christians shaped the confession by adding the dichotomy between flesh and spirit. This devalued Jesus’ Davidic origin and diminished the importance of the historical, bodily Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 12:3; 15:44-46).
Finally, Paul formulated the present opening (“concerning his Son”), inserted “in power,” qualified “spirit” by “holiness,” and composed the ending (“Jesus Christ our Lord”). Through these alterations, the apostle aimed to block adoption- istic ideas and to oppose a possible libertine reading of the dualistic, Hellenistic add-on.” 
I would have to add a preliminary stage to Paul Jewetts three stages. This preliminary stage involves Jesus adoption before his resurrection or execution. He was anointed like the Psalm Jewett cited (Psalm 2 and also Psalm 72). He was king and the king was the Son of God – it was a royal title. When Jesus got crucified the belief in him as “son of god” as a royal title must have evaporated, like so many before and after him the spell of being a messiah where god did not intervene got shattered. This was rectified with his believed resurrection and only then did this belief get reinstated.
Dr R M Price has often said when you peel away all the layers, you are left with nothing of the historical Jesus, but this is only because too many layers are peeled away. K L Knoll recognised this when commenting on J J Collins who wrote “How Jesus came to be identified as the Davidic messiah remains one of the great puzzles of early Christianity”  Knoll said, this is only a mystery if you favour a peaceful Jesus and peel away his violent layer. “….the Jerusalem pillars preached a Jesus who claimed to be a son of David and expected to wage holy war on behalf of the Jewish god in the near eschatological future (in other words, a Davidic messiah similar to those in Ps. 2, the Qumran texts or Psalms of Solomon). The proclamation of the cross fits very nicely with this hypothetical ‘Gospel according to the Jerusalem Pillars’, for any Roman governor would have viewed this type of Jesus as a foolish but potentially dangerous criminal, and the pillars would have used the story of the resurrection to affirm how wrong that Roman governor had been (1 Cor. 1:20–25)” .
Dale Allison cannot figure out who the 500 were that Jesus appeared to in his ressurection appearances, ἔπειτα ὤφθη… πεντακοσιίοις ἀδελφοῖς, after that he appeared to…five hundred brothers (1 Cor. 15:6). But then he gives us a hint of who they might be but as a Christian scholar cannot conceive of it: “with reference to the five hundred, speaks of “brothers” (ἀδελφοί), not “brothers and sisters” (ἀδελφοί καὶ ἀδελφαί),”  I bet that these were the remnants of the group that had revolted in Jerusalem. Dr Price had thought this part as interpolated as the gospels do not report such an incident. I would say that the suppression of this had more to do with the gospels trying to suppress the movements rebellious past, a movement trying to survive persecution in the aftermath of the Roman Jewish war. “Whereas the apostle was writing to people in Greece, the appearance to the five hundred must have occurred in Israel, where surely the majority of surviving witnesses still lived.” .
The Pastorials show a need to move away from any rebellious past, they say the rebellious sons or sons of disobedience, υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας are controlled by the demon in the sky. It is no surprise that this past is spiritualized to mean those moving away from god will bring the wrath of god.
“in which you formally walked in the course of this world according to the prince of power of the air, the spirit who is now at work in the sons of the disobedient/ rebellious.” (Ephesians 2:2, cf Ephesians 5:6; Col. 3:6)
TRACES OF THE REBELLION PARADIGM IN THE GOSPELS
It was S. F. G. Brandon who stated the most damning piece of evidence for the rebel paradigm is Jesus getting “crucified by the Romans as a rebel against the government in Judea.” He showed the gospels tried to cover up this fact and it was also mentioned by Tacitus. 
The kiss of Judas is only the dramatic story telling of the gospels. The only dealings the Roman administration would have with a movement like the Jesus movement is through the payment of informers, whether Judas is a literary invention or not – that is what he represents. Paul’s epistles only say on the night Jesus was handed over without naming Judas. (1 Cor. 11:23-25). Tom Dykstra sees Judas used by Mark (Mark being a Paulinist downplays Jesus’ family and the twelve) to emphasize the 12 before Paul were inferior. “The most straightforward interpretation is that the evangelist wanted to place extra heavy emphasis on the fact that Judas was one of the twelve; or, in other words, he wanted to leave no possibility that his hearers would miss the point that one of the twelve betrayed Jesus. The reader must naturally infer that mere membership in the ranks of “the twelve” – or, in the context of a
Pauline epistle, mere status as one of “the apostles before me” -should not automatically confer authority on anyone.”
Many scholars today think that Iscariot means man of Kerioth as the “Is” in Hebrew means “ish” in English, implying Judas was Keriothish, (transliteration of Is-Qeriyot). Given there was no village Kerioth at the time of Jesus it is more likely that this is a Greek rendering of the Sicarii, (an assassin group who had small daggers under their clothing on the pretense of a sacrifice), this implying the name meaning “man of the daggers.” Judah Sicarii became Jude Iscariot, then Judas Iscariot – sicarii after their knife (sicae-Latin/ sikkah-Aramaic).  As discussed later in this chapter, many more disciples had descriptive names associated with the zealots.
The gospels are the opposite of the background they were set in, they were describing a kingdom of god that Jesus was ushering in. A land of milk and honey where everybody gets healed and fed. There are clues left in the gospels of the real background, the one full of trouble and revolts, such as reported by Josephus. The background atmosphere you could cut with a knife. Not only downplayed by the gospels but even downplayed by translations, one downplaying is held in Matthew 4:12 where Jesus retreats to Galilee as a safe haven. As Bruce Chilton writes, “Many translations water down the meaning of anakhoreo [ἀνεχώρησεν, anechōrēsen] in Matthew’s Greek, giving us “he withdrew.” That is because they ignore the fraught political context that the execution of John by Herod Antipas produced for all John’s disciples.” 
Paula Fredriksen gives an overview of the political entities under Roman rule at the time of Jesus:
“…for the whole of Jesus’ lifetime, the Galilee was an independent Jewish territory ruled by Herod Antipas, one of the sons of Herod the Great. Another of Herod’s sons, Archelaus, had once ruled Judea. The reign of both sons began only with their father’s death, in 4 “B.C.E. But Archelaus proved inept, and Augustus finally removed him in 6 C.E. Thereafter, Judea—and Judea alone—was placed under Roman provincial rule. No Roman authority presided over the Galilee.
The Roman provincial governor or “prefect,” together with his three thousand troops—local pagans in the employ of Rome—exercised authority only in Judea.” 
In Mark 8:15 Jesus tells his disciples to watch out for the yeast of Antipas and Luke 13:32 describes him as ‘that fox’. Another allusion is the “reference to ‘a rod, shaken by the wind’ in Matthew 11.7 may have contained a critical reference, barely veiled, to Antipas itself, which used that symbol on the coins he minted.”.
The gospels are aware of the rebellion that Jesus was a part of, they presumed the readers already knew of the rebellion, but downplay it in the shame of crucifixion. Here is the original Greek of Mark 15:7: ἦν δὲ ὁ λεγόμενος Βαραββᾶς μετὰ τῶν συστασιαστῶν δεδεμένος, οἵτινες ἐν τῇ στάσει φόνον πεποιήκεισαν.
This translates to: “There was (in prison) the one named Barabbas, tied together with the co-insurrectionists, that at the rebellion, they committed murder.”
This verse says ‘the’ rebellion. “στάσει” means rebellion, mutiny, insurgency or insurrection. It also says “the one” named Barabbas. The Greek text has insurrectionists [plural] that committed murder, not just Barabbas alone. In historical context as seen in Josephus, the number of rebels the gospels allude to would have been substantial.
Some manuscripts of Matthew 27:16 have ‘Jesus Barabbas’ prompting some people to see Barabbas (literally means in Aramaic ‘son of the father’) as an alter ego for Jesus. Another Markan literary construct.  Tischendorf thought that this was a Greek corruption, but that was before the discovery of the Sinatic palimpsest of the of the Old Syriac Version where the name Jesus is before Barrabban. (This is ‘son of a teacher’).  Later scribes found it detestable that Barabbas bore the same name as the son of god and would have discarded it. As Matthew copied his trial narrative from Mark he must have found ‘Jesus Barabbas’ in his copy of Mark.  Therefore the earliest copies of Mark originally had Jesus Barabbas. As the Paschal Pardon is not historical this incident too is an obvious literary construct. Robert Merritt discusses similar Greaco festivals such as Dionysus Eleuthereus that may have been used to recreate this literary construct. 
In the gospel of Luke Jesus advises his disciples to buy swords:
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfilment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.(Luke 22:36-38, NIV).
At the arrest those around him, seeing what was going to happen, said:
“Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” (Luke 22:49).
The word used here is μαχαίρῃ machairē. The machairē was a single edged sword, larger than a Xiphos and could refer to a gladius. “Let us remember that Luke mentioned both swords. Here the singular word sword clearly appears as distributive, [having the same meaning as], ‘Do we take our swords?’. The author of Luke wishes to say that Jesus’ companions were willing to offer armed resistance.”  Even if machairē refers to the sacrificial knives as suggested by many scholars such as Paula Fredriksen and Dale Martin, this does not discount them being used in any resistance operations. These sacrificial knives would be carried by many at the Passover. It was these types of weapon, easily concealed, that the Sicarii used when they assassinated the high priest Jonathan.
The son of man became a fixed title with eschatological connotations in the Synoptics. Originally this term just meant “human being” but developed in Daniel 7 (cf 4Q246) into an eschatological figure who would judge mankind at the end of days. The book of Enoch developed on this concept. “…..those behind the Parables of Enoch [1 Enoch 37-71] are Jews who were interpreting the Son of Man in Daniel in creative ways about 100 years after the composition of Daniel. These Jews seem to be the ones who alone developed the concept of the Son of Man who will come in the near future to serve as the cosmic and eschatological Judge.”  Christians derived this title from the book of Daniel, a known Jewish resistance apocalyptic book, resisting the Seleucid persecution of Jewish culture. As discussed above, apocalyptism was usually mixed up with planned military action as seen from the war scroll in the DSS. This apocalyptic redeemer, used by the gospels, was influenced by a resistance book. As Ehrman stated Jesus’ later followers assumed the son of man referred to Jesus himself, but yet earlier strata of the gospels show that Jesus himself was referring to a cosmic judge at the end of the age, example in Mark:
“If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels. ‘”(Mark 8:38)
Ehrman has shown as this goes against the general gospel references that show the title applied to Jesus, this gives it a greater likelihood of belonging to a more original tradition of Jesus expecting this “son of man” to come. 
With the ““efflorescence of apocalyptic writings: Daniel, the Dead Sea Scrolls, various pseudepigrapha. The production of such texts, and the missions of various charismatic figures who left no writings—John the Baptizer, Jesus of Nazareth, Theudas, the Egyptian, and those men whom Josephus refers to collectively as the “signs prophets”—continued as Israel was caught up in Rome’s bumpy transition from republic to empire, in the uncertainties of Roman hegemony (especially following Herod’s rule, 37–4 B.C.E.), and ultimately in two devastating wars against Rome (68–73 C.E. and 132–35 C.E., Bar Kokhba’s revolt).” 
The Hazon Gabriel or Gabriel’s vision is an inscription on the stone discovered in 2000 (also known as the messiah stone) and is believed to have been created by followers of the Messianic leader, a group of people who followed him and he was killed during his war against the Romans. Israel Knohl  believes the messiah claimant to be Simon of Peraea (Ant. 17.10.6) who died four years before Jesus was born. This movement also tried to survive upon the death of their messiah claimant. This is the only literature left for this particular messianic movement, so we are spoiled with the amount of literature left in the aftermath of the Jesus movements, epistles, gospels and an apocalyptic piece by John of Patmos.
“the kingdom of the heavens is taken by violence, and the violent claim it” (Matt. 11:12).
Figures like Jesus
Jesus fits the mould of other self styled prophets who rose up against Roman maladminstration. The ‘Samaritan’ who promised to show the crowds “sacred vessels which were buried [at Mt. Gerizim], where Moses had deposited them”…. are all similar type of movements to the Jesus movement. His movement was also cut down by the Pilates administration just like the Jesus movement.
The ‘Egyptian’ claims to make the “walls come tumbling down” in Jerusalem which is a clear allusion to the battle of Jericho. (Joshua 6:20). Theudas’ claim to be able to divide the river is a clear allusion to Joshua 3.14-17, which has everything to do with the redemption of Israel. Even the gospels play out this Joshua theme for Jesus with his 12 disciples using midrash on Joshua 3:12-13:
“Now therefore take you twelve men out of the tribes of Israel, out of every tribe a man. And it shall come to pass, as soon as the soles of the feet of the priests that bear the ark of the Lord, the Lord of all the earth, shall rest in the waters of Jordan, that the waters of Jordan shall be cut off from the waters that come down from above; and they shall stand upon an heap.”
As Joshua is spelt the same as Jesus in the Septuagint, Ιησούς, some modern scholars such as Richard Carrier have suggested that many have belonged to some type of Joshua cults.  They all saw Joshua’s success as an inspiration in their own fight with Rome. “If Jesus equals Joshua, then it follows that Jesus is “the prince of the military forces of the Lord,” as Origen said in his homily on Joshua. (Hom. in Jesu Nave 6) 
Many a messianic rebel was inspired by the role model of Joshua. In Joshua 5 they would have seen god’s intervention through an angelomorphic figure commanding the army of god fighting on Joshua’s side:
“When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man stood before him with his drawn sword in hand; and Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you for us, or for our adversaries?” And he said, “No; but as commander of the army of YHWH I have now come.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and worshipped, and said to him, “What does my adonai bid his servant?” And the commander of YHWH’s army said to Joshua, “Put off your shoes from your feet; for the place where you stand is holy.” And Joshua did so. (Joshua 5:13-4).
These signs prophets in desperate times looked into their scrolls for inspiration, for some, Joshua was the perfect role model in their battle with Rome, Paula Fredriksen sums this up lovely with the following passage:
“All of these promised miracles recalled biblical episodes from Israel’s foundational history. Theudas’s parting the waters of the Jordan echoed both Moses’s leading Israel across the Red Sea and Joshua’s leading the twelve tribes across the Jordan on into the promised land. Going into the desert to seek deliverance would recapitulate the liberation from Egypt and the giving of the Torah on Sinai. The miraculous crumbling of Jerusalem’s walls recalls the miraculous fall of Jericho, Joshua’s point of entry into the Land. Enacting key moments in the birth of the nation, these signs prophets signaled the eschatological nearness of final redemption. Their grounding in biblical miracle also accounts for the size of their popular followings. Scriptural authority undergirded not only their own message; it also supported the hopes and convictions of their followers.” 
WORKS OF WONDER!
“These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretence of divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there shew them the signals of liberty.” (War 2.13.4).
Paul tells us practically nothing of the miracles of Jesus but there are hints of it. As Paul tells us practically nothing about any of Jesus’s life, any traces will suffice to show it was part of Jesus’s ministry. As Jesus’s messianic goals were a failure, (not restoring Israel from the hands of the Romans, same as with all other messianic figures, it is very understandable that Paul would not talk about Jesus’s life but about his success, which is, in Paul’s mind, that God raised him). Here are two hints that Jesus ministry practiced signs of wonder:
- when Paul says, what Christ has accomplished
“through me … by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit,” (Rom 15:18-19)
it shows here that his ministry, which included miracles, was a reflection of Jesus’ ministry.
- Paul says that the kingdom of God depends not on talk but on power, dunamei. (1Cor. 4:20) With the close association between powers, or miracles, and the kingdom of God in the Synoptic Gospels, it is not unreasonable to assume that Paul here is reflecting a knowledge of this association in the life of Jesus. 
Jesus’ opponents saw him as a magician of some sort. All these self-styled prophets gathered crowds with deeds of wonder and promised to overthrow the Romans with God’s intervention. Jesus, too, was seen to perform wonders, putting him in the same comparative type as these religious resistance leaders:
“Was Christ not a magician? But lest any one should meet us with the question, What should prevent that He whom we call Christ, being a man born of men, performed what we call His mighty works by magical art, and by this appeared to be the Son of God? We will now offer proof, not trusting mere assertions, but being of necessity persuaded by those who prophesied [of Him] before these things came to pass, for with our own eyes we behold things that have happened and are happening just as they were predicted; and this will, we think appear even to you the strongest and truest evidence.”
(Justin Martyr 1 Apology XXX).
And from Tertullian: “As, then, under the force of their pre-judgment, they had convinced themselves from His lowly guise that Christ was no more than man, it followed from that, as a necessary consequence, that they should hold Him a magician from the powers which He displayed.” (Apology XXI)
And from Celsus: “Continuing to pour abuse upon Jesus as one who, on account of his impiety and wicked opinions, was, so to speak, hated by God, he asserts that ‘these tenets of his were those of a wicked and God-hated sorcerer.’” (Origen, Contra Celsum 1.71)
The anti-Christian polemic comes close to recovering the historical Jesus, as can be seen from these three ancient quotes:
Cf John 6:15. “Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.”
Cf Ant 17.10.8 “And now Judea was full of robberies. And as the several companies of the seditious light upon any one to head them, he was created a King immediately, in order to do mischief to the publick.”
Cf Against Celsus 3.7 “that in the days of Jesus others who were Jews rebelled against the Jewish state, and became His followers.”
Crazy messianic claims:
“These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretence of divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government;” (Josephus, War 2.13.4).
Gamaliel’s speech in Acts 5:34-39 associates the Jesus movement with those of Theudas and Judas the Galilean. Theudas also enacted prophetic actions and expected God’s intervention. Judas the Galilean wanted to set up a theocracy. He called the people “cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans, and would, after God, submit to mortal men as their lords.” (War 2.118). All our sources point to Jesus’ eschatological concepts, all of which fit the historical context of these messianic figures.
Jesus making the claim of the Temple being destroyed and restored miraculously, may have been a pesher (commentary finding meanings in the scriptures for today’s events), on the first Temple destruction in Daniel 9:26 or Jeremiah 7. This is exactly the type of claim these messianic figures made.
Let us examine in the first person from Josephus, the miraculous messianic claims made in order to convince their followers with prophetic promises:
“Come follow me to the river Jordan, for I am a prophet and on my command I will divide the river like Moses so that you can cross” ~ Theudas as reported in Ant 20.97
“Just like with Joshua and the walls of Jericho, on my command the walls of Jerusalem will come tumbling down, I’ll lead you in to conquer the city of David”.
~ The ‘Egyptian’ as reported in Ant 20.170
“Come to Mount Gerizim, on your arrival, I’ll show you sacred vessels that are buried there since Moses deposited them there.” ~ The ‘Samaritan’ believed to be the Taheb, as reported in Ant 18.5.1
“On my command, this corrupt Temple, built by human hands will be destroyed, not one stone shall be standing on another, in three days a pure Temple will be restored not by human hands”
~ Jesus the Nazorean, whitewashed from Josephus but recovered as explained above.
John the Baptizer, thought the kingdom of god was held up by people’s sins, you could imagine him saying, “We’re going to go out into the desert and re-enact the exodus, waters wash your body and sins, once pure, god will come.”
On top of all these crazy claims Josephus reports another along the same lines:
“A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!” (War 6.5.3).
This was said by Jesus ben Ananias four years before the war began. This prophecy only became interesting as it rang true. This was a prophecy of a madman who was not a messianic rebel, so it would not have made it into Josephus War book, only that it happened to have come true to events of the war. To Josephus this prophecy became memorable and interesting in the aftermath of the Temple destruction. It would have been another worthless prophecy made by a madman (not worth reporting or writing about) if the Temple hadn’t been destroyed. The same is happening to the gospel of Mark. A prophecy by Jesus that half came true made Jesus more interesting as a remembered war hero (messianic rebel) over other remembered war heroes.
If the gospel of Mark had invented the prophecy or had heard of Jesus ben Ananias prophecy he would not have written what did not happen, “not one stone shall be standing on another” but instead have written “nothing shall remain except the ruins of a wall”. Mark trying to refute this prophecy argues in favour of a failed prophecy circulating that triggered Mark’s gospel in the aftermath of the real Temple destruction. (Mark 15:37).
Of all the claims made by the messianic figures, it’s Jesus’s prophecy that got remembered- destroy a corrupt temple, build a pure one in three days. The reason Jesus’ prophecy got remembered over the other messianic figures is that his prophecy came half true. The destroying but not the restoring.
James Sweeney sees a connection between Paul and Jesus with the Temple metaphors used by Paul.  This crazy messianic claim has support in the earliest layers of NT literature. Paul has reworked this claim as a metaphor:
“Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are” (1 Cor. 3:16–17).
Marks attempted refutation of the crazy messianic claim suggests it actually goes back to a messianic rebel and was currently circulating. When Paul was writing one very obvious point is that the Temple was still standing.
Eisenman  made some good observations that can be used to date the epistles:
-In his epistles to the Romans, Paul referred to and greeted “his kinsmen Herodian, the littlest Herod”. This was a reference to Herod of Chalcis, King Herod Agrippa’s brother. (Romans 19:7,10)
-Paul also greeted all those in the household of Aristobulus. This was a reference to Herod Agrippa’s son.(Romans 16:10)
Douglas Campbell  shows Paul’s King Aretus IV incident discussed above provides an anchor date for Paul’s epistles in general.
A third anchor date is provided by the Erastus stone found in Corinth with the inscription: “Erastus, Commissioner of Public Works”. Romans says:
“Gaius, my host and the host of the whole church, greets you. Erastus, who is the city’s director of public works, and our brother Quartus send you their greetings.” (Romans 16:23).
Goodrich’s  paper goes into detail on this inscription, “Erastus (Rom 16.23) has featured prominently …. how one renders his title (ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως)”. The associations of both Erastus’ with the city of Corinth and their job titles referring to a city “financial manager” position of some kind plus the timing make it likely that these two people were the same. Goodrich posits he served as a quaestor. Goodrich then argues that a provable link between Oikonomos (οἰκονόμος) and Quaestor means that it is highly probable that Paul’s Erastus from his letter to the Romans was, at the time Paul writes, the Quaestor of Corinth.
So this was not Jesus replacing the Temple idea in the aftermath of its destruction. So these metaphors Paul uses, is Pauls genius in reworking a failed crazed messianic claim (especially where god was supposed to intervene). Pauls asks a rhetorical question:
“Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? “ ( 1 Cor. 6:19)
This shows you why this Jesus movement survived where most other messianic movements collapsed. Dunn acknowledges that the traditional categories of temple, priesthood, holiness, and purity have been reworked by Paul. His suggested explanation is that the aforementioned cultic categories have been “replaced by the image of the body of Christ.” 
So a different take on oral tradition. All the prophecies of these mad messianic figures were circulating. Jesus’s prophecy hit a chord when the Temple got destroyed.
It’s the reason why Jesus is remembered and popularized in NT Literature and not the Egyptian or Theudas. Oral tradition was not about “Jesus only” traditions. Other messianic prophecies were circulating and stories of other messianic figures were circulating. That is why we have composite stories in the gospels. This is real life, people love prophecies and they get repeated much more than anecdotal stories do.
Footnotes link here: