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: 2891
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 9:14 am 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/
I'm not on Facebook... resisted for years..... Oh well, maybe you will post here or on your blog.- which I've added to my news reader....

____________
Just read Crossley's 10 approaches to a New Quest for the Historical Jesus. Obviously... Starting from the assumption of historical Jesus is a non starter for an historical investigation into the early Jewish roots of early Christianity. Its a dead end approach. One starts with the gospel story. - - then one reaches for a History book. Assumptions should be left at the door. Consequently.... Crossley's propose New Quest will end up like all those that preceeded it..... going around around in circles..... blindfolded....
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2891
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

Richard Carrier might have run the ahistoricists position into a cul de sac.... but the ahistoricists position is alive and well and continues to move forward .. as this open forum demonstrates... Carrier not withstanding..
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 »

You have my blog, I’ll keep posting there. I was a mythicist so I’m not one of those anti mythicist types. In fact for everything I like the questions mythicists ask.

All the best Dave.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2891
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 11:03 am You have my blog, I’ll keep posting there. I was a mythicist so I’m not one of those anti mythicist types. In fact for everything I like the questions mythicists ask.

All the best Dave.
👍
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
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 intriguing quote comes, via Dave, from Ivan Prchlík:

...Koestermann wondered whether, when describing the years of 29–31, thus somewhere in the lost book V, Tacitus had not mentioned even the crucifixion of Jesus. One possible hint he saw in Tacitus’ mention of Pilate lacking any specification as to his term of office. The loss of the book V would also become well explicable then: some monk angry about the way Tacitus had spoken of Jesus in it would have damaged it.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ristianity

Mythicist Patrick Boistier argues that the Paulina episode (and/or the scandal of the four Jews in Rome) reports a so frivolous gossip that it was placed where it is now to distance the Testimonium Flavianum from the report about the Samaritan tumult (18:4). Preventing so the reader from doing a possible connection between Jesus and the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2891
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 11:08 am Another intriguing quote comes, via Dave, from Ivan Prchlík:


Mythicist Patrick Boistier argues that the Paulina episode (and/or the scandal of the four Jews in Rome) reports a so frivolous gossip that it was placed where it is now to distance the Testimonium Flavianum from the report about the Samaritan tumult (18:4). Preventing so the reader from doing a possible connection between Jesus and the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate.
Giuseppe...... Dave Allen has used the word King in his TF reconstruction. However many Josephan figures you suggest might be the historical Jesus they fail the test of genuine Kingship. However many rebels or zealots were active they were only pretenders not the genuine article. Jewish history has only one King of the Jews executed.... crucified by Rome. Antigonus in 37 bc. Thats it.. There is no other..

All Josephus has been doing is replaying the historical tape in time slots that remember that historical event..... Just as we today have various remembrance days.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

My correction:
  • More precisely, Boistier thinks that originally Josephus had written only the cruel acts of Pilate against the Jews, followed by his final repression of the Samaritan tumult.
  • Then, in a second moment, the Christians interpolated the episode of the antinomian Jew deceiver working in Rome: a parody of Simon Magus based on the Pseudo-Clementines.
  • Then, in a third moment, the Testimonium Flavianum was interpolated by Eusebius.
  • Finally, out of embarrassment to have the TF too much close to the report about Simon Magus, the gossip about Paulina/Saturninus was interpolated between the TF and the report about Simon Magus.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2891
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 11:38 am My correction:
  • More precisely, Boistier thinks that originally Josephus had written only the cruel acts of Pilate against the Jews, followed by his final repression of the Samaritan tumult.
  • Then, in a second moment, the Christians interpolated the episode of the antinomian Jew deceiver working in Rome: a parody of Simon Magus based on the Pseudo-Clementines.
  • Then, in a third moment, the Testimonium Flavianum was interpolated by Eusebius.
  • Finally, out of embarrassment to have the TF too much close to the report about Simon Magus, the gossip about Paulina/Saturninus was interpolated between the TF and the report about Simon Magus.
The Josephan TF is dated around 19 ce. Only a Jewish writer would have found that dating relevant.

The alternative.... that Eusebius played stick the tail on the donkey..... blindfolded.. struck it lucky and found the donkey's tail..... Nope.... that dating was there long before Eusebius. Why on earth would a Christian be interested in 19 ce.?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

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).
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2891
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.... Work from what is known history. Interpretations are all very well but first one must get one's ducks in a row. History is primary. Without it interpretations are simply blowing in the wind.

Also best to keep in mind that 'Josephus says so' is no more an historical argument than 'the gospels say so'.
Post Reply