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
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: Mon Aug 09, 2021 5:41 am
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
Luckily I said "If I look at what you quote" ;-)

παραδόξ- occurs 24 times in Eusebius' ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΗ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ, ποιητὴ- 7 times, ἔργω- 9 times.
παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητὴν occurs twice.
παράδοξα ἔργων occurs once

...ὁ θεῖος καὶ οὐράνιος τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος, δι᾿ ἀνθρώπου κατὰ μηδὲν σώματος οὐσίᾳ τὴν ἡμετέραν φύσιν διαλλάττοντος ἀρχομένης τῆς Ῥωμαίων βασιλείας ἐπιφανείς, τοιαῦτα ἔδρασέν τε καὶ πέπονθεν, οἷα ταῖς προφητείαις ἀκόλουθα ἦν, ἄνθρωπον ὁμοῦ καὶ θεὸν ἐπιδημήσειν τῷ βίῳ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητὴν καὶ τοῖς πᾶσιν ἔθνεσιν διδάσκαλον τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς εὐσεβείας ἀναδειχθήσεσθαι τό τε παράδοξον αὐτοῦ τῆς γενέσεως καὶ τὴν καινὴν διδασκαλίαν καὶ τῶν ἔργων τὰ θαύματα ἐπί τε τούτοις τοῦ θανάτου τὸν τρόπον τήν τε ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τὴν εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἔνθεον ἀποκατάστασιν αὐτοῦ προκηρυττούσαις.

«γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴ γε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή. ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο. ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν, καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾿ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου, οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες· ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν, τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων. εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένων οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον»

I'd call Paradox a very regular and typical Eusebian word, although Jesus occurs a hundred times in the same document.
But if Eusebius is quoting Josephus on the second ocassion here, doesn't he only have it once, his "doer of paradoxical works"?
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 »

mlinnsen asked:
But if Eusebius is quoting Josephus on the second ocassion here, doesn't he only have it once, his "doer of paradoxical works"?
Once in the Ecclesiastical History, yes, but he has other works surviving in Greek, so ten times outside his three known quotations of the Testimonium (though the Theophany survives only in Syriac):

Ecclesiastical History 1.2.23; Demonstration of the Gospel 3.4.21, 3.5.59, 3.5.103, 3.7.4; Commentary on Isaiah 2.57.62; Life of Constantine 1.18.2; Commentary on Psalms PG 23 cols. 541, 984, 1033.

This is N. 23 from:

https://chs.harvard.edu/chapter/5-a-eus ... lson/#n.23
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: Mon Aug 09, 2021 12:41 pm mlinnsen asked:
But if Eusebius is quoting Josephus on the second ocassion here, doesn't he only have it once, his "doer of paradoxical works"?
Once in the Ecclesiastical History, yes, but he has other works surviving in Greek, so ten times outside his three known quotations of the Testimonium (though the Theophany survives only in Syriac):

Ecclesiastical History 1.2.23; Demonstration of the Gospel 3.4.21, 3.5.59, 3.5.103, 3.7.4; Commentary on Isaiah 2.57.62; Life of Constantine 1.18.2; Commentary on Psalms PG 23 cols. 541, 984, 1033.

This is N. 23 from:

https://chs.harvard.edu/chapter/5-a-eus ... lson/#n.23
That's a very fine piece Ken! Impeccable research, and a convincing case made that this phrase is Eusebius'. The direction of dependence, as likely that there is dependence here, can not flow from Josephus to Eusebius, that would pretty much be identical to signing my posts with "Best, Martijn" and claiming that you got that from me
Further, arguments about negative tone and ironic or ambiguous readings are almost entirely subjective. Our ability to perceive them depends on who we think wrote the text in the first place.


I liked that quote, as the second part portrays the usual analysis of texts indeed: the point of departure is not the content of the text, but but it's from the context of whom we think that wrote it.
In the other hand, the interpretation of tone and irony always are subjective, of course - in both directions. A hundred people can say "I love you Ken" but you'll likely judge only a few of them to be sincere :cheeky:
Noobishh
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:56 am

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

Post by Noobishh »

Scholars also noted that shortly before quoting the Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius quotes a passage about John the Baptist from the Josephus, writing:

"After relating these things concerning John, he [Josephus] makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words..."

So was the passage about John placed before the Testimonium Flavianum? In our manuscripts this passage about John appears 2 chapters after the TF, not before.
rgprice
Posts: 2037
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

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

Post by rgprice »

I doubt seriously it was a deliberate interpolation. More likely it was simply the incorporation of a marginal note.
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 »

As usual Ken is a pure gentleman on these threads. Anyone getting animated is probably too involved to objectively criticise this. My paper is closer to Ken’s position, rather than Whealeys. I don’t agree that only one or two words were changed like Whealey.

As Ken claimed himself, “ Eusebius either composed the entire text or rewrote it” (Olson, “A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum” in Eusebius of Caesarea Tradition and Innovations Ed. by Aaron Johnson, Jeremy Schott, Center for Hellenic Studies : 100) Ken favors one side, I favor the other, that Eusebius rewrote it.

All the best, Dave.


https://davesblogs.home.blog/2021/05/12 ... cal-jesus/
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 »

DaveAllen wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:44 am As Ken claimed himself, “ Eusebius either composed the entire text or rewrote it” (Olson, “A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum” in Eusebius of Caesarea Tradition and Innovations Ed. by Aaron Johnson, Jeremy Schott, Center for Hellenic Studies : 100) Ken favors one side, I favor the other, that Eusebius rewrote it.
https://davesblogs.home.blog/2021/05/12 ... cal-jesus/
Hi Dave,

Welcome to the discussion. Sorry for the slow reply. I’m not checking this forum as regularly as I had been. I didn’t know you were a member (I see this is your first post on the forum) or I might have alerted you to this thread earlier. Your partial quotation of my sentence above loses the point I was making when I wrote it:
The most likely hypothesis is that Eusebius either composed the entire text or rewrote it so thoroughly that it is now impossible to recover a Josephan original
.

I was not holding out the two possibilities as equally well grounded in the evidence. I was claiming that one of the possibilities (that Eusebius wrote the extant text) has evidence for it and the other (that there is an original Josephan Testimonium) does not. If there ever were such a thing as an original Josephan Testimonium, it’s undetectable now. I understand the limitations of epistemology and realize I can’t prove absolutely that Josephus never wrote about Jesus, in Antiquities 18 or perhaps somewhere else, but I’m claiming that the case that he did does not meet its burden of proof.

Of course, I could be wrong about that, as any of us could possibly be wrong about nearly any of the beliefs we hold. I might have to change my mind if presented with additional evidence or a better argument.

I appreciate that you are closer to my position than Whealey’s in saying that much of the extant text is not the work of Josephus, but you are also much closer to Whealey’s position than to mine about saying that some form of the text does come from Josephus. Also, while you say you are closer to Whealey than to me in your position, it seems to me that in your “Use of the Testimonium” 2021 paper you are disagreeing with me every time you cite me (and often when you don’t) and appealing to Whealey as an authority to establish several points.

I found many of Whealey’s points, including a few of those you cite her on, to be weak and ad hoc. I discussed the example of παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής ‘maker of miraculous works’, above. There are other points, such as Origen’s mention of Josephus, τὸ φῦλον ‘the tribe’, and εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν ‘still to this day', for which I think Whealey’s case, and hence your case which is grounded on hers, is weak.

Are you willing to discuss specific cases here on this forum?

Best wishes,

Ken

P.S. I’ve read your 2021 “Use of the Testimonium” paper that you provided on your blog, and I’d be interested in reading your 2020 “Original Negative Testimonium” paper. I’ve tried sending you a Private Message on the forum requesting it, but for some reason the message is hanging around in my Outbox and hasn’t moved to my Sent Messages folder.
Last edited by Ken Olson on Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

DaveAllen wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:44 am As usual Ken is a pure gentleman on these threads. Anyone getting animated is probably too involved to objectively criticise this. My paper is closer to Ken’s position, rather than Whealeys. I don’t agree that only one or two words were changed like Whealey.

As Ken claimed himself, “ Eusebius either composed the entire text or rewrote it” (Olson, “A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum” in Eusebius of Caesarea Tradition and Innovations Ed. by Aaron Johnson, Jeremy Schott, Center for Hellenic Studies : 100) Ken favors one side, I favor the other, that Eusebius rewrote it.

All the best, Dave.


https://davesblogs.home.blog/2021/05/12 ... cal-jesus/
Dave
Could you post your reconstruction of the TF - in English. I appreciate you have arguments for your proposed reconstruction but I'd like to consider the reconstruction without distraction by your argumentation. It's what conclusions can suggest, what forward movement they might contain, that demonstrates their value or lack thereof.
Thanks
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 »

I read in Dave's blog:

the one mention of Jesus in the first century outside the Bible is right in the middle of the rebel passages.

https://davesblogs.home.blog/2021/10/05 ... -the-jews/

The claim is simply, objectively, false.

certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome

(Ant. 18:4)
....don't sound really as "rebel passages" at all.

As I imply in the first post of this thread, the Dave's argument would have had real force if only it was true, that the TF was found precisely between two "rebel passages". But it is not so, pace Dave.
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 found the reconstructed TF in the Appendix on Dave Allen's blog. Here it is - without the Greek and without Dave Allen's insertions re tax and Judaens could free themselves from the Romans. (using the Luke Emmaus story - which is also referenced in the Slavonic Josephus story.)

Greek language arguments, arguments over Eusebius or over interpolations aside - what Dave Allen's reconstruction of the TF amounts to is an attempt to support a 'negative' Jesus, i.e. a rebel leader against Roman occupation. However, that argument, gospel Jesus as a rebel leader - does not need the TF at all. There is enough indication in the gospel story to suggest that a historical rebel leader is part of the gospel construction of it's composite, and figurative, Jesus figure. Reza Aslan and Fernando Bermejo-Rubio arguing for a rebel/zealot Jesus.

What Dave Allen has now done is to suggest that the TF was originally dealing with a rebel Jesus and only later (by whoever) softened to a wise man Jesus image. I don't know Greek - but the non Greek argument would make sense if one considers a composite gospel Jesus figure. i.e. the gospel Jesus figure reflects more than a rebel leader against Rome. Yes, many rebel leaders as war with Rome became a prospect. But the Josephan TF places it's crucifixion story in 19 c.e. - years before 70 c.e. (a time when, re Daniel Schwartz, Pilate was already in Judaea).

19 c.e.? As I posted earlier in this thread - this dating suits a birth date for the gospel JC prior to the 15th year of Herod the Great. However, allegory aside, the 19 c.e. dating does have a historical relevance for Hasmonean history. Rather than always moving forward - earlier history can provide a possible reason why Josephus (or whatever interpolator or updater one chooses) would find this date of relevance. If one goes back 49 years (7x7) one gets to 30 b.c. A big date in Roman history - and a big date for Marc Antony who died (suicide) in that year. Marc Antony being the Roman leader responsible for the execution of the last King of the Jews 7 years earlier in 37 b.c. What this does do is indicate that the TF - like the gospel crucifixion story, is a story reflecting that Roman execution, crucifixion, of Antigonus II Mattathias.

The 19 c.e. dating of the Josephan TF would indicate that an original TF was not the product of a Christian hand - whoever put the TF - of whatever composition - in a connection to that date is someone with an interest in Hasmonean history - especially the Roman execution, via Marc Antony, of the last King and High Priests of the Jews.

''Dion Cassius says, 'Antony now gave the Kingdom to a certain Herod, and having stretched Antigonus on the cross and scourged him, which had never been done before to a king by the Romans, he put him to death'. The sympathies of the masses for the crucified king of Judah, the heroic son of so many heroic ancestors, and the legends growing, in time, out of this historical nucleus, became, perhaps, the source from which Paul and the evangelists preached Jesus as the crucified king of Judea.'' (History of the Hebrew's Second Commonwealth, 1880, Cincinnati, page 206)

Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise (1819-1900), scholar and novelist.

Rabbi Wise and Antigonus II Mattathias

viewtopic.php?t=8099


https://davesblogs.home.blog/2021/06/03 ... ket_mylist


Here is the model textus restitutus of Ant 18.3.3:


And there is about this time a certain man,
a sophist and agitator.
He was one who wrought surprising feats.
A teacher of men
who revered him with pleasure.
Many of the Judaens,
and also many of the Galilean element, he led to himself;
he was believed to be a King:
And, when on the accusation of the first men among us
Pilate condemned him to be crucified.
Many of his followers, the Galileans and Judaens, were slain and thus checked for the moment.
The (movement) again broke out with great abundance, when it was believed he appeared to them living again
Those that followed him at first did not cease [worshipping]
only Him, who is their leader in sedition.
and this tribe has until now not disappeared.”

-------------

Here is the textus receptus of Ant 18.3.3 as found in all Greek manuscripts of the Antiquities by Josephus:

And there is about this time Jesus,
a wise man, if indeed it is necessary to say that he is a man;
for he was a doer of miraculous works,
a teacher of men
who receive true things with pleasure,
and many Jews,
and also many of the Greek element, he led to himself;
He was the Christ.
And, when on the accusation of the first men among us
Pilate had condemned him to a cross,
those who had first loved him did not cease;
For he appeared to them
on the third day
Living again
the divine prophets having said both these things and myriads of other wonders
concerning him.
Still to this day the tribe of Christians, named from this man, has not been lacking.

Post Reply