Assuming an original negative Testimonium doesn't prove a historical Jesus

[Giuseppe]

Even so, Josephus wrote that Simon was someone who "pretended" to be a magician

a such claim didn't cost him the crucifixion. While the unnamed figure who was described negatively in the place where we read now the Testimonium Flavianum was probably crucified as a rebel by Pilate. My point is that what did really the difference was the seditious feature, not the magician one.

In this way, the first evangelist could have read in Josephus about a such rebel with royal claims to the throne of Judea, and have derived literary inspiration for the titulus crucis for the Passion story. The mythological Jesus of Paul and early Christians was anchored to the real history by identifying partially him with this unnamed messianic pretendent slain by Pilate.

It seems that something of similar happened in the process of euhemerization of John Frum: only when the inquiry was started about the origins of this polinesian deity, many historical candidates to the role of the "historical John Frum" come out.

[Giuseppe]

O'Neill wrote about John Frum:

“John Frum” seems to be a clear amalgam of the god Keraperamun, various colonial and missionary Europeans called “John” (who had introduced themselves as “John from …”, thus perhaps the name “John Frum”), the several “John Frum” claimants like Manehivi and another man called Neloiag and the thousands of American “Johns” in the 300,000 troops stationed on the island in the Second World War with their abundance of “cargo” and seemingly magical technology.

Leaving aside the question of how much we can interpret “John Frum” as a being understood as a historical figure at all, he does seem to have been an amalgam of various white people, traditional religious beings and rumours about the claimants and pretenders like Manehivi and Neloiag. But do we find similar indications that Jesus was just such an amalgam?

surely, if Dave Allen is correct about his reconstruction of the original (negative)Testimonium Flavianum, then the answer is: yes. The reduction of a deity to a man (even if the latter existed) continues to be intrinsically more probable than the exaltation of a man to a divine status.

[GakuseiDon]

Even so, Josephus wrote that Simon was someone who "pretended" to be a magician

a such claim didn't cost him the crucifixion. While the unnamed figure who was described negatively in the place where we read now the Testimonium Flavianum was probably crucified as a rebel by Pilate. My point is that what did really the difference was the seditious feature, not the magician one.

Seditious, yes, but no evidence he was a rebel. So why was Jesus crucified? The Gospel of Luke:

Luk 23:8 And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.

Luk 23:13 And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers [archon] and the people
14 Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people

23.35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers [archon] also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.
...
24.20 And how the chief priests and our rulers [archon] delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.

According to the accusers in the Gospel, Jesus had been walking around declaring himself to be the King of the Jews, Son of God, the Christ. Seditious, yes! But a rebel? No, not necessarily at all. No more than someone who is walking around declaring himself to be King Charles, king of the British, is a rebel. And Jesus was crucified for it, according to the Gospels.

Now, compare that to the first part of the TF:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease.

It matches. Perhaps that's evidence that the TF was a later forgery, but that's irrelevant to my point. It is much easier to form a negative TF based on someone more like a Theudas-type or the Egyptian-type rather than as a rebel like, say, Judas the Galilean.

In this way, the first evangelist could have read in Josephus about a such rebel with royal claims to the throne of Judea, and have derived literary inspiration for the titulus crucis for the Passion story. The mythological Jesus of Paul and early Christians was anchored to the real history by identifying partially him with this unnamed messianic pretendent slain by Pilate.

It seems that something of similar happened in the process of euhemerization of John Frum: only when the inquiry was started about the origins of this polinesian deity, many historical candidates to the role of the "historical John Frum" come out.

I don't disagree with that. I guess I'm quibbling over the use of the word "rebel".

[Giuseppe]

Also Theudas and the "Egyptian" were rebels insofar they did not disdain the use of violence by their followers (more the latter were numerous).