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
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 »

Dave Allen's reconstructed Josephan TF.


Here is the model textus restitutus of Ant 18.3.3:


And there is about this time a certain man,

Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον ἀνήρ τις

a sophist and agitator.

ταραχτικός τε σοφιστής

He was one who wrought surprising feats.

ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής

A teacher of men

διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων

who revered him with pleasure.

τῶν σεβομένων αὐτὸν ἡδονῇ

Many of the Judaens,

καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους,

and also many of the Galilean element, he led to himself;

πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Γαλιλαίου ἐπηγάγετο

he was believed to be a King:

ἐνομίζετο βασιλεὺς εἶναι

[For he opposed paying the tax to Caesar.]

[ἀντεῖπε γὰρ τὸ διδόναι κῆνσον Καίσαρι.]

And many souls were roused, thinking that thereby the tribe of Judaens could free themselves from the Romans.

πολλαὶ δὲ ψυχαὶ συνεχύθησαν ὡς οὕτως τὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων φῦλον ἐλευθερώσῃ ἑαυτό ἐκ τῶν Ῥωμαίων.

[He claimed the Temple would be destroyed and that not one stone would be standing on another and that it would be restored in three days.]

[ὁ δ’ ἔφη ὅτι καταλυθῇ ὁ ναός τ’ οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ ὧδε λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον τ’ οἰκοδομήσῃ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις]

And, when on the accusation of the first men among us

καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν

Pilate condemned him to be crucified.


σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου

Many of his followers, the Galileans and Judaens, were slain and thus checked for the moment.

πολλοὶ τῶν αὐτὸν ἀγαπησάντων, τῶν Γαλιλαίων τε καὶ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ἀπώλοντο. οὕτως δ’ αὐτίκα κατέσχοντο.

The (movement) again broke out with great abundance, when it was believed he appeared to them living again

αὖθις ἐνεωτερίσθη εἰς ἀφθονίαν, πιστευσάντων ὅτι ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς πάλιν ζῶν

Those that followed him at first did not cease [worshipping]

οὐκ [ἂν] ἐπαύσαντο [σέβειν] οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες,

only Him, who is their leader in sedition.

εἰ μὴ καὶ τοῦτον, ὅσπερ ἐστὶν αὐτοῖ τῆς στάσεως ἀρχηγέτης

and this tribe has until now not disappeared.”

εἰς νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦδε οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον τοῦτον

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

my formatting.
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 »

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

TITULUS CRUX

Here Mark 15:26 lists the inscription as:

“ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων”

“The King of the Jews”

Matthew 27:37 expands it:

“*οὗτος ἐστὶν* ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων”

“*This is* the King of the Jews”

Luke 23:38 reverts back to Mark’s shorter version:

“ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων”

“The King of the Jews”

There were multiple attempts by scribes to harmonize Luke 23:38 towards John 19:20, by enumerating the languages, where several mss say that the inscription was written (in some undisclosed location) in Hebrew, Roman (Latin) and Hellenic (Greek). Other manuscripts omit this reference (perhaps harmonizing with the synoptics). The original order that Textual Critics favor is Hebrew, Latin, Greek, The scribes of Codex Washingtonianus and 1194 actually have “Hebrew, Roman, Hebrew” by mistake.

In John 19:19, Pilate himself wrote:

“Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων”

“Jesus the Nazorian the king of the Jews”

Note that this is not the “Nazarene” spelling (Ναζαρηνός).

Ev. Petr. 11

“καὶ ὅτε ὤρθωσαν τὸν σταῦρον, ἐπέγραψαν ὅτι οὗτος ἐστὶν ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ.”

“And when they had set the cross upright, they inscribed that this is the King of Isreal. “

The gospel of Peter having, “King of Israel” implies a Jewish source or perspective. We find a parallel in the gospel of John.

“Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”. (John 1:49).

The following in the gospel of John fits the historical context:

“Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.” (John 6:15).

This would match what was reported in Josephus’ Antiquities:

“And now Judea was full of robberies. And as the several companies of the seditious light upon any one to head them, he was created a King immediately, in order to do mischief to the publick.” (Ant. 17.10.8).

Obviously, for Christians, a political Jesus would not have been welcome - Jewish nationalism would have to be countered by Paul's focus on neither Greek nor Jew. But the move away from a political Jesus to a peaceful Jesus would not only be necessary for incoming Gentiles - Jewish writers, themselves, would want to sideline their history in order to make their new Pauline philosophy inviting to Gentiles. Maybe Eusebius had a hand in the final Christianization of the TF but to ignore a Jewish need to also make their Jesus figure more welcoming to Gentiles needs consideration.
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 »

What has intrigued me in Dave's article is his reference to Stephen C. Carlson's post:

http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/author/Hypotyposeis

A more interesting reference to Carlson's view on the Testimonium Taciteum being based on the original Testimonium Flavianum is given here:

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.

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 »

Another point of relative interest is the following (I quote from Dave's article):

Even so, there are still traces of the previous Acts of Pilate released by Emperor Maximin contained in the Gospel of Nicodemus. In one of these Pilate informs the Jews that Jesus heals by the god Asclepius:
Pilate saith unto them: By what evil deeds? They say unto him: He is a sorcerer, and by Beelzebub the prince of the devils he casteth out devils, and they are all subject unto him.
Pilate saith unto them: This is not to cast out devils by an unclean spirit, but by the god Asclepius.

The original Acta Pilati is completely lost.

(my bold)

The accusation "he is a sorcerer" against Jesus, not raised by Pilate but by Jews, would suggest that in the original Acta Pilati was raised by Pilate himself.
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 »

Thanks guys for all the attention you are giving my paper, as you can see I am not religious and only put forward a plausible hypothesis from a historicist point of view.

Ken my original paper has too many faults including my original reconstruction. As Steve Mason wrote about his early papers, they are best forgotten. Ken even though I have a degree in history, this is only a hobby horse to me. therefore do not be offended or think I have you refuted. All I’m doing is putting forward an alternative hypothesis to see what Josephus could have wrote provided there was an original mention of Jesus.
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 »

Sources that Mention Jesus from Outside the Circles of Christ-Followers Steve Mason, p.8

“ We do not know where Tacitus learned this information. It is unlikely that such a man read the gospels. More likely, he heard reports at first or second hand from Christians facing trial, though he may have read whatever Josephus wrote about Jesus in Ant. 18.63–64. Josephus was the source in Rome for things Judaean, after all, and there is reason to think that Tacitus used his War elsewhere (Hist. 5.1–13).”
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: Tue Oct 19, 2021 7:46 am Thanks guys for all the attention you are giving my paper, as you can see I am not religious and only put forward a plausible hypothesis from a historicist point of view.

Ken my original paper has too many faults including my original reconstruction. As Steve Mason wrote about his early papers, they are best forgotten. Ken even though I have a degree in history, this is only a hobby horse to me. therefore do not be offended or think I have you refuted. All I’m doing is putting forward an alternative hypothesis to see what Josephus could have wrote provided there was an original mention of Jesus.
So.... Where to now? Finding a rebel/zealot Jesus in the TF is surely not the end but the beginning of a search for identifying that figure. Especially as you say your a historist. Failure to attempt an identification is leaving your work up in the air... unfinished......

So.... Where to now?
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 »

Heinrich Hammer (Traktat vom Samaritanermessias) proposed that Tacitus was based yes on Josephus, only he reported in his own manner what he read about the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate.

Note in particular what Josephus wrote:

But Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon the roads, with a great band of horsemen, and footmen: who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village: and when it came to an action, some of them they slew; and others of them they put to flight; and took a great many alive. The principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain.

Implicit corollary in Josephus's words: the rest of the band survived.

Also that would fit the Tacitus's report about the survival of the sect, and we know from Christian legend that the Samaritan Simon Magus went to Rome to disturb the "Catholic" Christians.
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 »

Mary Helena, 10 more reading before attempting the fourth quest as Crossley put it LOL.

https://medium.com/@Jcrossley/the-next- ... f885537224

Anyone who wants to join my FB group are welcome

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1038530526485151/
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, Eisenman also suggested the Samaritan passage was suspiciously like Jesus in his book Jesus the brother of James.
Post Reply