Thanks again for the thoughtful exchange. I’ve really appreciated how this conversation has stretched the boundaries of the usual Paul-Jesus debates. And, to give you your credit, you are exploring an angle that I've not seen pursued by many theologians, and I've read quite a few.

I should clarify—I’m not arguing that Jesus had some “pure” or singular message that later got corrupted. I think Jesus was a complex figure, shaped by the cultural, political, and religious tensions of his time. He likely held—and expressed—various positions on political, rabbinical, esoteric, and social matters. In many ways, he’s a snapshot of that moment in history, reflecting the diversity and contradictions of Second Temple Judaism. But, its fun to try to reconstruct what that may have looked like!

Your Herodian hypothesis is fascinating, but it’s one of many lenses through which we try to understand Jesus and the early movement. It reminds me of Albert Schweitzer’s line: “Each successive epoch of theology found its own thoughts in Jesus; that was, indeed, the only way in which it could make Him live.” In other words, the search for the historical Jesus often reveals as much about us as it does about him.

Whether we’re looking for a political revolutionary, a Torah reformer, or a figure shaped by Herodian influence, Jesus remains elusive—both grounded in history and bigger than any one narrative. That’s part of what keeps the puzzle so compelling.