What has intrigued me in Dave's article is his reference to Stephen C. Carlson's post:
I’m hooked on the Testimonian Flavian interpolation, it is such a curious interest. I see four different versions, Arabic, Syriac, Slavonic and Eusibius. It shows layers of interpolation. No wonder people are just so interested in it.
I’ve built on Carlson’s reconstruction, with reasons stated at the end of the OP.
Stephen C. Carlson ( see link at end of post) has followed up a curious footnote in Meiers book “A Marginal Jew” Vol 1 page 101, footnote 12, where it has been studied ( by Franz Dornsieff, “Lukas der Schriftsteller. Mit einem Anhang: Josephus und Tacitus,” ZNW 35 (1936): 148-55.), that Tacitus has used Josephus as one of his sources. Because of this he may have preserved the original TF. ( before Eusibius got his dirty hands on it)! Here is what the reconstruction may have looked like:
TESTIMONIAN FLAVIAN RECONSTRUCTION FROM TACITUS:
>>>
Now there was about this time a man, an innovator and deceiver of the people. Through his sorcery and innovations he drew over to him many Galileans and by them he was seen to be a King: For fear of the influence of a great many people, he suffered the extreme penalty at the hands of governor (ἡγεμών) Pilate who condemned him to be crucified. Many of his followers, the Galileans were slain and thus checked for the moment. The movement again broke out with wild fury and mischievous superstition not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
<<<
———————————————
As can be seen from Annals15:44, the entirety of Tacitus’s information about Jesus is paralleled in Josephus, AJ 18, if not in the Testimonium, then nearby in the book. Even more significant, Tacitus’ use of Josephus explains the erroneous title for Pontius Pilate as a governor (ήγεμών). The Greek term Josephus uses for Pilate elsewhere (ἡγεμών), [An example of Josephus using “ἡγεμὼν” is in Ant18.3.1 as a title for Pilate], was non-specific, and Tacitus had to guess (and guess incorrectly) what Pilate’s Latin title would have been. (This would argue against Tacitus having a Roman source and would argue in favor of Josephus being his source).
[As a side note:
His title is given as procurator in Tacitus. Pontius Pilate's title was traditionally thought to have been "procurator of Judea" since the Roman historian Tacitus (writing in the second century AD) refers to him as such. However, the Pilate stone refers to him as "prefect of Judea". Pilate would have been a prefect at the time of Jesus. “Prefects" were governors in charge of parts of larger provinces. As it turns out, it was not until the rule of the emperor Claudius (who governed from 41 to 54 AD) that the title of the Roman governors changed from "prefect" (ἔπαρχος) to "procurator".(επίτροπος)]
——————————————————
I've built on top of Carlson's reconstruction with the following reasons:
•On one of the four points where the TF meets the Annals, it uses the phrase "mischievous superstition". I thought that was rather Tacitean and replaced it with 'innovator' and 'deceiver' which is more Josephean.
•I replaced the line, “He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.” With “ He drew over to him many Galileans” as the original line sounds Paulinist. Also the early followers of Jesus were known as Galileans, as attested by Epitetus, Diss.4.7.6. Circa110-115AD (Cf Luke13.1-2; Mark14:70).
Diss. 4.7.6: "Well then, if madness can cause people to adopt such as attitude towards these things [not being scared at the swords of tyrants] and habit too, as in the case of the Galileans, can't reason and demonstration teach people that God ha made all that is in the universe, and the universe itself as a whole, to be free..." This passage shows that Christians were known to be persecuted by the Emperor Nero, and Epictetus had been within close proximity to the Emperor's household.
•As with many messianic figure followers reported in Josephus works, they usually declared the would be leader a King, this is reflected in the reconstruction.
•The TF could not have been neutral because of what was written before and after it. I stated the Galileans were slain because of the opening line of this Ant 18.3.4 “About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder: ~Ant18.3.4 and also see what was written before it:- "Who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them; and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not. Nor did they spare them in the least."~ Ant18.3.2
•Agapius Arabic version it does not blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. The key phrase "at the suggestion of the principal men among us" reads instead "Pilate condemned him to be crucified".
•The interpolation of the TF into Slavonic Josephus Wars also does not name Jesus in the passage but refers to him as "there appeared a certain man"~Slavonic Wars2.9.3/4. This could have been a more primitive interpolation than Eusebius' interpolation. The most telling part about Slavonic Josephus, is they said everything about Jesus but his name. This separate transmission could have preserved that very fact, that he wasn’t named in the original. I have gone for this in the reconstruction above. This could explain why Origen never cited this passage in all his works.