Dave Allen arguing for a genuine Testimonium Flavianum: a criticism

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Dave Allen arguing for a genuine Testimonium Flavianum: a criticism

Post by neilgodfrey »

DaveAllen wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:03 am . . . . In fact for everything I like the questions mythicists ask.

All the best Dave.
Even when they attempt to draw attention to the arguments of non-mythicist scholarship that call for a re-reading of the evidence that has been used as the basis for the view that popular messianic movements were a feature of first-century Palestine?
DaveAllen
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Dave Allen arguing for a genuine Testimonium Flavianum: a criticism

Post by DaveAllen »

Giuseppe, Joseph is a later tradition not known by Paul or Mark. Robert M Price thinks the title “messiah Ben Joseph” got mashed in as his father.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Dave Allen arguing for a genuine Testimonium Flavianum: a criticism

Post by neilgodfrey »

DaveAllen wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 1:31 pm Giuseppe, Joseph is a later tradition not known by Paul or Mark. Robert M Price thinks the title “messiah Ben Joseph” got mashed in as his father.
In 2005 David Mitchell published in Review of Rabbinic Judaism an article setting out the evidence allowing for, even inviting, the possibility that the slain messiah (of Joseph) was part of Jewish debates at least as early as 65 CE. https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ian_Talmud Mitchell doesn't prove the case in a watertight manner but he does make it impossible to insist that the tradition was "unknown" to the earliest evangelist. From the insights advanced by Mitchell one must permit the hypothesis Giuseppe proposes into the discussion (with the argument coming down to a step-by-step analysis of probabilities.)

I discussed Mitchell's observations on the evidence at https://vridar.org/2017/04/19/how-early ... n-messiah/

A more general discussion of scholarship that makes the case for a "typically Jewish" concept of a slain messiah is at https://vridar.org/2017/04/16/suffering ... h-beliefs/
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Dave Allen arguing for a genuine Testimonium Flavianum: a criticism

Post by Giuseppe »

Eisenman pointed out this 'coincidence', also.
So a commenter of his book on Amazon:
A Samaritan Messiah described as "the son of Joseph" also seemed to have existed (pp.101-106) and was reportedly crucified by Pontius Pilate (see Eisenman's preface, p.xxiii). The author also points out that the patriarch Joseph plays a role among the Samaritans analogous to that of David among the Judeans. This is an interesting observation given that the Jesus of the NT is in some sense both a son of David and a son of Joseph.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-revi ... 1944066101
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Dave Allen arguing for a genuine Testimonium Flavianum: a criticism

Post by neilgodfrey »

What would make the TF relevant to the question of the historicity of Jesus?

I'm of that school of historical methods as exemplified by the great classicist and historian of ancient times, Moses I. Finley. Historians today, at least when doing serious work, most of them no doubt, no longer read sources at face value but bring to them a critical eye. Uppermost in the historian's mind when reading ancient works is the question: Why is the author telling his readers this piece of information? And right behind that question is: How does the author know this piece of information? Or, where does this information come from? What is its source?

To cut to the chase, even if we were to uncover the original manuscript of Josephus's Antiquities that was complete with some form of the TF, we would be none the closer to resolving the question of the historicity of Jesus. No, that's not quite true. If we found a very early manuscript of Antiquities with a version of the TF in which Josephus gave his readers some clue, directly or indirectly, about his source of information, we would in that case be in a position to assess the historical value of its contents. Alternatively, if we at the same time unearthed another manuscript that independently indicated to us how such information that we read in the TF came to the knowledge of Josephus, then we would be again in that fortunate position of being able to make a reasonable assessment of the historical value of its contents.

Until that happy discovery, if someone following the methods so commonly found in the realm of biblical scholarship (question begging, circularity, rhetorical questions, mind-reading, appeals to authority, face-value acceptance of other sources alternating with reading "beneath" the text, using sections where a concept is not used as evidence for its use, ad hoc rationalisations, etc) could at the same time reconstruct an "original TF" that included a hint that Josephus informed readers of his source and it was reliable, then wham!, that would seal the case for the historicity of Jesus.
Last edited by neilgodfrey on Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Dave Allen arguing for a genuine Testimonium Flavianum: a criticism

Post by MrMacSon »

tl;dr - an ancient Jewish benediction, dating to the first century AD, invokes wrath on Jewish internal and external enemies and has a petition for the coming of the Davidic Messiah

The Birkat Ha-Minim, a "benediction concerning the heretics", the twelfth benediction of the weekday Amidah (the Shmoneh Esreh prayer) which belongs to the latter part of the Amidah petitions and which beseech the redemption of the people of Israel. Worded more like an imprecation (see Tanḥuma [Buber ed.], Vayikra 3) in its invocation of divine wrath against internal enemies to Jewish integrity, and against external enemies of the Jewish people.

Its formulation is either (i) attributed to Samuel ha-Katan at the explicit request of the Nasi, Rabban Gamliel (Ber. 28b) or (ii) that Rabban Gamliel's request simply concerned the updating of an already existing benediction among the eighteen [ -whose content spoke out in general against separatists (see T. Ber. 3:25) – to incorporate explicit mention of the minim].

Now, the proponents of this [latter] view submit that the nineteen-benediction form of the Amidah in the Babylonian rite reflects a Babylonian custom of splitting the petition for the building of Jerusalem and for the coming of the Davidic messiah into two separate benedictions. In Palestine, both subjects were combined in a single benediction regarding Jerusalem.

This benediction is said to have intense scholarly attention because of perceived exceptional importance in Christian-Jewish relations from the first century C.E. to the present. It is thought that the "relatively crystallized wording of the benediction in the extant early siddurim (ninth to twelfth centuries) makes it likely that the text preserved there closely resembles its original formulation."

via https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/birkat-ha-minim
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2860
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Dave Allen arguing for a genuine Testimonium Flavianum: a criticism

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:01 pm My reluctance to accept a partially authentic negative TF derives from the presence of the passage about the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate, where we have the incredible "coincidence" of a "Messiah Son of Joseph" (remember that the Samaritans claimed to be "descendants of Joseph" according to Josephus himself, and even more so their Taheb would have claimed that title for himself) killed by Pilate, hence, unless the historical Jesus was just the Samaritan false prophet, it would be immensely improbable that two distinct "Messiahs Sons of Joseph" were killed by the same Roman governor (Pilate).
Giuseppe - looking for a Messiah son of Joseph is no different than looking for a Messiah son of David. These are concepts and not identification labels. i.e. we no more look, if we are looking, for a historical man descendent from a biblical Joseph as we don't look for a historical man descendent from the biblical David. We deal with the concepts not with claims of ancestry.

Two messianic concepts. A Davidic man of war concept and a Joseph man of peace concept. The gospels have combined these two concepts; an underlying rebel/zealot concept combined with an overlay of a turn the other cheek man of peace concept. Dave Allen, in his paper, has simply pointed out that the Josephan TF corresponds to what has already been discerned in the gospel Jesus figure. An earlier man of war figure is the underlay of the TF and the gospel Jesus story. That figure can be viewed as a figure living in the time of Alexander Jannaeus - hence the time period of the Toledot Yeshu. The Roman execution of Antigonus in 37 b.c. fits this scenario i.e. the Davidic messianic concept of a man of war.

That leaves the Joseph messianic concept of a man of peace. A non-crucified messiah figure. One does not have to look very far. Josephus has already put his cards on the table. Josephus has identified this Joseph type messiah figure as Agrippa I. While Josephus's account of Agrippa I is primarily allegory - Agrippa I was a historical figure; coins testify that he referred to himself as The Great King Agrippa.

Josephus has used the Joseph story with his account of Agrippa I.

Genesis 41: 41-46


So Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” Then pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck……Joseph was 30 years old when he entered the service of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Ant book 18 ch.6 (re Agrippa I)

“I think it fit to declare to thee the prediction of the gods. It cannot be that thou shouldst long continue in these bonds; but thou wilt soon be delivered from them, and wilt be promoted to the highest dignity and power, and thou wilt be envied by all……”
“However, there did not many days pass ere he sent for him to his house, and had him shaved, and made him change his raiment; after which he put a diadem upon his head, and appointed him to be king of the tetrarchy of Philip. He also gave him the tetrarchy of Lysanias, and changed his iron chain for a golden one of equal weight.”

Daniel 9: 25

..to restore and rebuild Jerusalem….

Ant book 19 ch.7 (re Agrippa I)

“As for the walls of Jerusalem, that were adjoining to the new city [Bezetha], he repaired them at the expense of the public, and built them wider in breadth, and higher in altitude; and he had made them too strong for all human power to demolish, “…….

Numbers 24:17


I behold him, but not near;
A star shall come forth from Jacob,
A scepter shall rise from Israel,

Ant.book 19 ch.8 (re Agrippa I)

…”he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theatre early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, (though not for his good,) that he was a god; and they added, “Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature”.



Daniel Schwartz: Agrippa I. The last King of Judaea: page 48 and 105.

But if VAgr's genre is that of the Joseph and Esther novels, then one must register doubts about its historical worth. Note, for example, two other works written in the image of these biblical books: the Testament of Joseph and Ill Maccabees. These too are fascinating novels, but the historical worth of even the latter, which claims to be historiography, is open to serious doubt.
……..Josephus, for his part, following VAgr, reports a lavish banquet Agrippa threw for Gaius, whereupon the emperor allowed him to ask for any favor he desired; Agrippa asked that the project be canceled. However, both versions are suspect, for Philo obviously composed the epistle himself (see Appendix VI) and Agrippa's banquet sounds suspiciously like Esther's; we have already noted how one Diaspora novelle imitates another.


Niehoff, Maren R.. Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library) (p. 45). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

‘’Turning the historical Agrippa into his own mouthpiece, Philo appropriates the image of the king, who enjoyed exceptional popularity not only with Josephus, but also among Jews in general, including the rabbis. Philo’s Agrippa is no longer a successful, independent, and widely appreciated politician on behalf of Second Temple Jewry, but a humble extension of Philo’s own religious self. Inventing a letter by Agrippa to Gaius, Philo puts on another mask, namely, that of the Judean king, who turns out to be politically impotent but deeply pious. Given the drastic changes that Agrippa’s image has undergone, Philo must have published his account after Agrippa’s sudden death in 44 CE. He does not anticipate the possibility that the king can respond and publicly clarify that he neither fainted nor wrote the letter attributed to him.


Did Agrippa write a letter to Gaius Caligula? Solomon Zeitlin.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1453330?se ... b_contents..........

‘’The letter of Agrippa to Gaius, as recorded by Philo, was composed by Philo in accordance with his theology. The speech of Agrippa to Gaius, as recorded by Josephus, was composed by Josephus in the spirit of his historiography of the Greeks.’’


Agrippa First: The Last King of Judaea: Daniel R Schwartz

Pages 158 and 159

Many problems beset those who would use rabbinic literature for historical purposes in general, and regarding Agrippa in particular.
..no one should expect to find in rabbinic literature what we find in Josephus and Philo: Jewish perspectives on Agrippa more or less contemporary with him....

....Rabbinic literature speaks not infrequently of “King Agrippa” but does not specify father or son. Do all traditions refer to the same one? If so, which one? Or do some traditions refer to one and some to the other? If so, which should be assigned to whom? Or should we prefer to assume that the lack of rabbinic concern to identify the king indicates that the fact that there had once been two Kings Agrippa has been forgotten.....

The problem is quite a difficult one, and we have no unambiguous solution to offer.

So.....two historical Kings - two historical Kings that reflect the concepts of two Messiah concepts - a warlike Davidic King in Antigonus, killed by the Romans in 37 b.c. and The Great King Agrippa of whom Josephus uses messianic concepts towards. What more does anyone want in a search for the Jewish roots that grew into what we know today as Christianity. ? It's Jewish history we have to deal with - get the history on the table and then run with interpretations, understanding, insights etc as to the why and the how of what led to that history being reflected in the gospel story.

One 'why' reason would be that the focus had to be removed from Jewish nationalism before a philosophical message of neither Greek nor Jew could become viable - and on that, the NT writers were successful. However, today, if we want to understand the Jewish roots of early Christianity then we have to go back in time, we have to focus on Jewish/Hasmonean history. Otherwise we can't move forward in our understanding of early Christian origins.

Yep, Dave Allen has a way to go - a man of war, a Davidic messiah figure, in the TF is only part of the TF scenario - as it is only a part of the gospel Jesus figure. As to when Agrippa I died - one can go the scholarly route that uses Josephus and his allegorical Agrippa story - or one can go with Tacitus who places the death of Agrippa around 49 c.e.

Tacitus: Annals 12

‘’In the year of the consulship of Caius Pompeius and Quintus Veranius,

…………….‘’Narbon Gaul, for its special reverence of the Senate, recei(ved a privilege. Senators belonging to the province, without seeking the emperor's approval, were to be allowed to visit their estates, a right enjoyed by Sicily. Ituræa and Judæ, on the death of their kings, Sohæmus and Agrippa, were annexed to the province of Syria.’’

User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2860
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Dave Allen arguing for a genuine Testimonium Flavianum: a criticism

Post by maryhelena »

I'd like to make my thinking clear on one point. The Josephan TF, even if it has an original, an authentic core, does not support a historical gospel Jesus. If Dave Allen thinks that his TF reconstruction supports a historical gospel Jesus then he is mistaken. What his TF reconstruction does do is reflect what is in the gospel Jesus story ie. an undercurrent of rebel/zealot activity. As there are layers to the gospel Jesus story - a turn the other cheek development - so - one would expect this layering to have also been part of the development of the Josephan TF. The question then becomes - who did what update where and when.

The general scholarly consensus seem to be that the Josephan TF contains an original Josephan core. Dave Allen's reconstruction identifies this Josephan original core as referencing a rebel/zealot type figure. Unfortunately, mythicists, in their hurry to establish a literary gospel Jesus, have gone after the Josephan TF as though knocking that down will also knock down the historicists gospel Jesus. But - a TF with an authentic Josephan core is their friend not their enemy. The TF supports not a historical Jesus but a fictional gospel Jesus. It is, like most of the gospel Jesus story, allegory. It's layers, it's development from an underlying rebel/zealot figure to a wise man, wonder worker, figure, demonstrates, like the gospel Jesus, that the TF is reflecting a composite Jesus figure. The two, the gospel literary Jesus and the Josephan TF are mirror images.

The big question - in actuality the elephant in the room - is what connection, what relationship, the Josephan writer - or the 'school' of writers around this figure - had in the creation of the NT material. Maybe, it's not just one elephant but two. As already mentioned in a post above, Philo has been involved with the Agrippa I story - a story which Josephus has expanded by utilizing OT stories. These two figures, Philo and Josephus, need far more attention paid to them. The two leading Jewish writers of the first century - and yet far more ink is spent on debates over the church 'fathers' - as though these 'fathers' had any more idea of what went on in Jewish/Hasmonean history than most of their modern day counterparts.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Dave Allen arguing for a genuine Testimonium Flavianum: a criticism

Post by andrewcriddle »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:45 pm What would make the TF relevant to the question of the historicity of Jesus?

I'm of that school of historical methods as exemplified by the great classicist and historian of ancient times, Moses I. Finley. Historians today, at least when doing serious work, most of them no doubt, no longer read sources at face value but bring to them a critical eye. Uppermost in the historian's mind when reading ancient works is the question: Why is the author telling his readers this piece of information? And right behind that question is: How does the author know this piece of information? Or, where does this information come from? What is its source?

To cut to the chase, even if we were to uncover the original manuscript of Josephus's Antiquities that was complete with some form of the TF, we would be none the closer to resolving the question of the historicity of Jesus. No, that's not quite true. If we found a very early manuscript of Antiquities with a version of the TF in which Josephus gave his readers some clue, directly or indirectly, about his source of information, we would in that case be in a position to assess the historical value of its contents. Alternatively, if we at the same time unearthed another manuscript that independently indicated to us how such information that we read in the TF came to the knowledge of Josephus, then we would be again in that fortunate position of being able to make a reasonable assessment of the historical value of its contents.

Until that happy discovery, if someone following the methods so commonly found in the realm of biblical scholarship (question begging, circularity, rhetorical questions, mind-reading, appeals to authority, face-value acceptance of other sources alternating with reading "beneath" the text, using sections where a concept is not used as evidence for its use, ad hoc rationalisations, etc) could at the same time reconstruct an "original TF" that included a hint that Josephus informed readers of his source and it was reliable, then wham!, that would seal the case for the historicity of Jesus.
Are you arguing that establishing a belief in a historical Jesus in Judea before the Jewish war would not prove that Jesus existed ? If so this is technically correct but not IMO very interesting.
Or are you arguing that an authentic original form of the TF would not establish a belief in a historical Jesus in Judea before the Jewish war ? If so, then given the other Josephan reference to James the brother of Jesus called Christ, I think this is wrong. I don't think the two references (if authentic) can plausibly be explained without there being a pre-Jewish War Judean tradition about Jesus.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Dave Allen arguing for a genuine Testimonium Flavianum: a criticism

Post by neilgodfrey »

andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 8:03 am
Are you arguing that establishing a belief in a historical Jesus in Judea before the Jewish war would not prove that Jesus existed ? If so this is technically correct but not IMO very interesting.
No. That's not what I wrote at all, nor even implied. Did you notice the point I made about the establishment of the source of what authors write? (Your point might be clearer if you were more direct. A "belief" does not exist alone; people have beliefs. Be specific.)
andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 8:03 amOr are you arguing that an authentic original form of the TF would not establish a belief in a historical Jesus in Judea before the Jewish war ? . . . .

Andrew Criddle
I am arguing exactly what I argued and expressed. Why are you taking my words to mean far more than I say to make them sound illogical? Why not address what I have actually written? No less, but no more, either.

Is what I have written contrary to justifiable historical methods and interpretation of source material or not? I trust we won't fall back on the old furphy/chestnut "but everything we know about ancient history will have to be tossed out if we use that 'method'!? ;)
Post Reply