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.