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.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Dave Allen arguing for a genuine Testimonium Flavianum: a criticism

Post by Giuseppe »


The Jesus passage is right in the middle of the rebel passages, arguing against ex nihilo interpolation, it was not a good place to interpolate the passage.

https://www.academia.edu/keypass/YjhEK2 ... card=title

The force of Allen's argument is all there.

For a criticism:
Why was it not a good place to interpolate entirely the passage?
Afterall, the Gospel writers have invented the crucifixion of Jesus among two lesthai.
Allen is obliged to consider the particular of the two lesthai as historical in virtue of the same principle. Paraphrasing him, I may well say:

The Gospel Jesus passage is crucified in the middle of two crucified rebels, arguing against ex nihilo invention, it was not a good place to crucify the Gospel Jesus.

Really, it was (an ex nihilo invention). The two crucified thieves, by being a midrash from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, make the point that Jesus is crucified "from the creation of the world", or alternatively, that, by Jesus's death, there is a new creation (see the darkness theme, the place of the skull of Adam, also) and a new garden (Getsemani) etc. In Luke this midrash is even more evident, since one of the two thieves is good while the other is evil.

Hence, if there was no embarrassment at all to invent two rebels crucified with Jesus in their middle, so also there was no embarrassment at all to prevent Eusebius from interpolating entirely the Testimonium Flavianum in the middle of the rebel passages.

The rest of the article of Dave Allen is bullshit.
Last edited by Giuseppe on Sat Aug 07, 2021 11:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Really, the Christian interpolator of the entire TF was so idiot that he read the following words immediately after the TF:

In the same time, another disgrace fell on the Jews...

...as Josephus himself conceding that the death of Jesus by Pilate was a "disgrace" that would have provoked the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

Hence, that interpolator was so blinded by his theological interpretation of that continuation, that he didn't realize that his entirely interpolated TF would have interrupted blunty the flow of the Josephian original narration.
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 »

Error of Allen: it is not even true that the passages surrounding the TF are rebel passages. The victims of Pilate in the previous passage were only partially seditious, and the Paulina episode is even not about seditionists at all.

Hence, the entire Allen's premise being false, the rest of his theorem falls in a microsecond.

The TF is totally an interpolation.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

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

Post by Irish1975 »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Aug 07, 2021 11:40 pm
The Jesus passage is right in the middle of the rebel passages, arguing against ex nihilo interpolation, it was not a good place to interpolate the passage.

A skillful interpolator would select a “good place” to insert an interpolation, but a sloppy one wouldn’t. The interpolator of the TF was, by anyone’s account, not a skillful interpolator.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

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

Post by Irish1975 »

The theory of the partial authenticity of the TF, promoted most notably by the Catholic priest John Meier, has to be one of the most gobsmacking stratagems in the history of apologetic scholarship.

Imagine a letter from your dead grandmother that confers all of her property on one of your relatives. A forensic specialist proves it to be a forgery, and is able to demonstrate a similarity in language and style to one of her genuine letters. Would you then say to yourself, “Aha, my greedy relative inserted portions of granny’s genuine letters alongside the parts that were forged”? If she had been a famous public person, and you were publishing her correspondance, would you include a purified version of the forged letter?
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: Sat Aug 07, 2021 11:46 pm Really, the Christian interpolator of the entire TF was so idiot that he read the following words immediately after the TF:

In the same time, another disgrace fell on the Jews...

...as Josephus himself conceding that the death of Jesus by Pilate was a "disgrace" that would have provoked the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

Hence, that interpolator was so blinded by his theological interpretation of that continuation, that he didn't realize that his entirely interpolated TF would have interrupted blunty the flow of the Josephian original narration.
An interpolator with gLuke in front of him would be a lazy interpolator to place the TF prior to 19 c.e. Even with an interpolator having gMatthew in front of him would be a lazy interpolator to place the TF prior to 19 c.e. (gMatthew with Archelaus mention - placing the birth narrative late in the rule of Herod. ) But take away the mention of Archelaus (viewed as a late edition) and gMatthew's birth narrative could be otherwise placed in the time of Herod. For instance, Slavonic Josephus places the birth of an anointed one prior to the 15th year of Herod. Counting from 40 b.c. and one gets to around 25 b.c. for a birth narrative. Add in 19 c.e. and the anointed one of Slavonic Josephus is around 44/45 years old (and gJohn stating JC is not yet 50). Thus, an interpolator with the Slavonic Josephus nativity story in front of him - and an early dating for Pilate (as is now supported by a number of scholars) an interpolator could well consider 19 c.e. to be an appropriate dating to interpolate the TF.

And even if not an interpolator - if the Slavonic Josephus birth narrative was the version known to Josephus, then Josephus himself could have been referencing that version of the Jesus story when recording the TF.

Not happy news for the Jesus historicists - just as Aretas III is not happy news for the Paul historicists.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

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

Post by Ken Olson »

Dave Allen also lays out his theory on how the Testimonium is partially Josephan and probably originally hostile to Jesus here:

https://davesblogs.home.blog/2021/05/12 ... nstructed/

Much of it is not actually an argument per se, but an explanation of how the data would fit if we assume a hostile Josephan text in the first place, combined with a lot of appeals to authority (unaccompanied by a recap of the arguments) to establish key points.

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

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

Post by Ken Olson »

In one place Dave Allen rehearses an argument Alice Whealey made against me on παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής
"He was one who wrought surprising feats.”

This could be original and not touched because Christian redactors would have seen the word παραδόξων (paradoxōn) as denoting “miraculous.” Josephus could have used this particular word more negatively to describe Jesus as doing “strange deeds” in the same vein of other false prophets he reported on. It can also translate as “the maker of strange works.” Josephus would not have intended miracles, except as a characteristic of the (failed) promises of would-be wonder workers like Theudas the Magician. But later Christian scribes would have thought that was what Josephus meant, thus ensuring the survival of this particular line. [13] Whealey [14] explains that this is not a preferred description Eusebius would have used for Jesus, and therefore it looks like he inherited this from the original TF. In Eusebius’ Commentaria in Psalmos (PG23 1033d-1036a) he comments on Psalm 85:8-10 LXX. He “characterises many of the prophets as παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής”, ([those who] wrought surprising feats). He “thereby indicates that παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής was not a term that adequately conveyed the full stature of Jesus, since for Eusebius Jesus was God’s pre-existent logos and not just παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής like all the prophets before him.” [15] An original TF has influenced Eusebius to use this phrase. Olson’s argument that it was made up by Eusebius is refuted by Whealey’s investigation of how Eusebius used this description elsewhere [Allen, Use of the TF, 51].
Even a cursory examination of this argument reveals severe weaknesses. Whealey and Allen believe:

(1) Eusebius would not have used the term παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής to describe Jesus if he wrote the Testimonium Flavianum because he uses that term to describe many of the prophets, so it does not adequately convey the full stature of Jesus.

(2) Therefore, Eusebius is likely to have taken παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής from the Testimonium of Josephus (though Josephus does not use it elsewhere in his work) and applied it to Jesus (and also to God) several other times in his works. (Did he choose it on the basis its inadequacy?).

I sometimes wonder whether people read the things they write.

In one sense, Whealey's claim that the term παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής does not convey the full stature of Jesus is trivially true. No language conveys the full stature of Jesus, who is God, and God's full stature cannot be communicated in language. That is one of the principles of cataphatic (as opposed to apophatic theology) theology. One must bring God down to make positive assertion in human language about him. The limitations of human language limit the ways he can be described, when he us unlimited. (Apophatic theology makes claims about what God is not as opposed to what God is).

Eusebius states near the beginning of the ecclesiastical History that no treatise could be sufficient for a statement of full nature of Christ (HE 1.2.2) so we shouldn't expect such. As we can't study the language that expresses Jesus' full stature (because that language does not exist) we are forced to study the language that Eusebius actually does use to describe Jesus, and we find him repeatedly referring to Jesus as a παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής .

Best,

Ken
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

Ken Olson wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2021 5:16 pm In one place Dave Allen rehearses an argument Alice Whealey made against me on παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής
"He was one who wrought surprising feats.”

This could be original and not touched because Christian redactors would have seen the word παραδόξων (paradoxōn) as denoting “miraculous.” Josephus could have used this particular word more negatively to describe Jesus as doing “strange deeds” in the same vein of other false prophets he reported on. It can also translate as “the maker of strange works.” Josephus would not have intended miracles, except as a characteristic of the (failed) promises of would-be wonder workers like Theudas the Magician. But later Christian scribes would have thought that was what Josephus meant, thus ensuring the survival of this particular line. [13] Whealey [14] explains that this is not a preferred description Eusebius would have used for Jesus, and therefore it looks like he inherited this from the original TF. In Eusebius’ Commentaria in Psalmos (PG23 1033d-1036a) he comments on Psalm 85:8-10 LXX. He “characterises many of the prophets as παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής”, ([those who] wrought surprising feats). He “thereby indicates that παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής was not a term that adequately conveyed the full stature of Jesus, since for Eusebius Jesus was God’s pre-existent logos and not just παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής like all the prophets before him.” [15] An original TF has influenced Eusebius to use this phrase. Olson’s argument that it was made up by Eusebius is refuted by Whealey’s investigation of how Eusebius used this description elsewhere [Allen, Use of the TF, 51].
Even a cursory examination of this argument reveals severe weaknesses. Whealey and Allen believe:

(1) Eusebius would not have used the term παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής to describe Jesus if he wrote the Testimonium Flavianum because he uses that term to describe many of the prophets, so it does not adequately convey the full stature of Jesus.

(2) Therefore, Eusebius is likely to have taken παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής from the Testimonium of Josephus (though Josephus does not use it elsewhere in his work) and applied it to Jesus (and also to God) several other times in his works. (Did he choose it on the basis its inadequacy?).

I sometimes wonder whether people read the things they write.

In one sense, Whealey's claim that the term παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής does not convey the full stature of Jesus is trivially true. No language conveys the full stature of Jesus, who is God, and God's full stature cannot be communicated in language. That is one of the principles of cataphatic (as opposed to apophatic theology) theology. One must bring God down to make positive assertion in human language about him. The limitations of human language limit the ways he can be described, when he us unlimited. (Apophatic theology makes claims about what God is not as opposed to what God is).

Eusebius states near the beginning of the ecclesiastical History that no treatise could be sufficient for a statement of full nature of Christ (HE 1.2.2) so we shouldn't expect such. As we can't study the language that expresses Jesus' full stature (because that language does not exist) we are forced to study the language that Eusebius actually does use to describe Jesus, and we find him repeatedly referring to Jesus as a παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής .

Best,

Ken
If I look at what you quote, the point that Allen makes seems to be that Eusebius got inspired by a genuine TF, and used the phrase found there in his own work.
What he says seems to have nothing to do with anything in the reverse direction, such as e.g. Eusebius writing something in one of Josephus' works:

...Eusebius would have used for Jesus, and therefore it looks like he inherited this from the original TF.

You say, on the other hand:

Eusebius would not have used the term παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής to describe Jesus if he wrote the Testimonium Flavianum

There are two quite different things there
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

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

Post by Ken Olson »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2021 9:52 pm If I look at what you quote, the point that Allen makes seems to be that Eusebius got inspired by a genuine TF, and used the phrase found there in his own work.
Yes, that is what he is claiming. But he isn't just presenting it as a possibility. He is claiming to have presented decisive evidence in favor of the direction Testimonium => Eusebius and against the direction Eusebius => Testimonium.
What he says seems to have nothing to do with anything in the reverse direction, such as e.g. Eusebius writing something in one of Josephus' works:

...Eusebius would have used for Jesus, and therefore it looks like he inherited this from the original TF.
He is claiming that Whealey has presented decisive evidence against my argument (which he does not recapitulate) regarding παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής: "Olson’s argument that it was made up by Eusebius is refuted by Whealey’s investigation of how Eusebius used this description elsewhere"

That is hardly "nothing to do with the reverse direction." He is claiming to have demonstrated the reverse direction is implausible.

If you disagree with my construal of Allen's use of Whealey, perhaps you could lay out the steps of the argument yourself, including what Whealey is claiming and how Allen grounds his claim to have refuted me with it.
You say, on the other hand:

Eusebius would not have used the term παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής to describe Jesus if he wrote the Testimonium Flavianum

There are two quite different things there
No, they are not.
Allen: this [ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής ] is not a preferred description Eusebius would have used for Jesus, and therefore it looks like he inherited this from the original TF.


Allen is saying that he has shown that this is not a preferred description Eusebius would have used for Jesus, and thus unlikely to be part of a Eusebian composition., therefore it looks like he inherited this from the original TF. This is the basis for his claim that Whealey has refuted my argument. My paraphrase differs in wording, of course, as paraphrases tend to do (otherwise they would be quotations). But it is an accurate restatement of Allen's claim.

I point out to the contrary that the fact that Eusebius uses the term παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής (which is never found in our manuscripts of Josephus outside the Testimonium) repeatedly to describe Jesus is a much better indicator of whether it is a preferred description Eusebius would have used of Jesus than is Whealey's conjecture that Eusebius would have used some special language to describe Jesus that he does not use of anyone else (except perhaps God, who is arguably not else), especially since Whealey then has to contend that Eusebius borrowed the term παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητήςis from the Testimonium and used it to describe Jesus elsewhere in his works.

This is not to say that Allen's claim is impossible (that is rarely or never possible to demonstrate in such arguments) only that I have the stronger case.

Best,

Ken
Post Reply