If you put it that way, I'm inclined to look at the rest of the article to check whether it's just BS. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
https://www.academia.edu/47243189/The_U ... card=title
(1) Origen's reference
Is this BS? It is a fact that Origen said that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ, and this reference is definitely particular enough to suggest that Josephus, from Origen's perspective, said something regarding Jesus. The way I read this, Allen is setting up the discussion by justifying the conclusion that Josephus said something about Jesus. So this is not BS. It is possible to read this more instead as a statement that Origen's mention here is evidence of an "original negative TF," which would be BS because it goes beyond the evidence, but I don't read it that way.
(2) Cites Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus
It's idiosyncratic to refer at the outset of the article to this book, when there is plenty of literature on the TF in journals and other books that is far more relevant, but it's not BS.
(3) Argues that "there arose at this time" was followed by something negative
This could be getting a little ahead of itself. It would be nice to see Allen connecting the evidence for a reference of some kind to Jesus in Josephus, to the conclusion that this means there was likely an original TF, since some people attempt to argue that the 20th book has a genuine reference while there is nothing in the 18th book. This is a gap in the structure of the argument as presented.
In the context of the idea that there was an original TF, this isn't BS. It's always been odd that Josephus switches voice in the TF, from talking about negative events, to giving a brief and mostly gushing blurb about Jesus, to again discussing challenges. If a passage in Josephus about Jesus were also negative, it would fit better in context and (as shown by the references cited) fit the expectation set by similar language elsewhere from Josephus.
(4) Argues that the description was of "a certain" (tis) "man"
Allen does not spend proper effort justifying the use of "a certain man" (Slavonic War) over "a certain Jesus" (Codex A variant of Eusebius). To the extent that the decision between the two is not justified, this could be called BS. It's also poor editing because the train of thought here is continued below: "I did not name Jesus in this reconstruction as the Slavonic version which is so bloated, has in fact preserved this point (Slavonic War 2.9.3-4). The most telling part of the Slavonic is the fact that it says so much about Jesus excep this name. This suggests that this recension is on a different transmission line to the textus receptus (working from a very early Greek exemplar). A number of Greek words are taken over literally by the Russian, e.g., igemon, metropolja, archierei, skinopigja, katapetasma,aramatji." It would be nice if the discussion of the Slavonic Josephus were presented better and considered the alternatives more thoroughly.
Allen also doesn't take notice of the strangeness of a fact about his view, where Origen is evidence that Josephus spoke about Jesus, even though Allen is saying that Josephus doesn't mention Jesus by name in this passage. Instead, Allen says this: "If Jesus is not named and if the TF is a negative original, we could explain why Origen never cited this passage in all his works (though he did acknowledge it)." Another strange fact about his discussion of whether Josephus referred to Jesus by name is that Allen doesn't bring in the 20th book as an additional point of discussion, even though the name Jesus may have been there also. To the extent that these lacunae in the discussion are confusing at best, this could be called BS. The root of the problem seems to be a very high estimate of the value of the Slavonic Josephus. If the variant in Eusebius is preferred instead ("a certain Jesus"), all of this strangeness goes away.
Allen later argues again for the original TF not having the name of Jesus:
This isn't just BS, but I don't agree with it. The name that Tacitus uses is also not in Josephus, per Allen's hypothesis, so Tacitus must have a source other than Josephus. Moreover, Pliny the Younger tells us verbatim that he extracted information from Christians and they said that they "sang hymns to Christ as to a god," proving that the name of Christ (instead of Jesus) could be supplied by Christians and reported by Romans. Tacitus and Pliny were in correspondence, so (speaking generally) Tacitus may have gotten his information from another Roman, who may have gotten information from Christians, making Christians a plausible direct or indirect source of Tacitus' information, at least regarding the name of Christ. Lucian was a gifted satirical author and needed no special prompting to brand a religious innovator a "sophist." He was capable of finding his own descriptive nouns.
Allen is better here when arguing that τις appeared in the original, since it is obviously easy to understand this being removed by a Christian interpolator or copyist, while it is also obviously easy to understand it being written by Josephus, for whom the figure of Jesus wasn't well known (like he was for later Christians). Likewise, Allen is good about pointing out that, if this is the sequence of textual history, it supports the existence of an original, more negative TF from Josephus. Overall, this is not BS. It's appropriate critical work.
(5) Argues that the description of Jesus was of a "sophist"
War 2 §118, Judas the Galilean is described as having σοφιστὴς ἰδίας αἱρέσεως (sophisticated ideas). Justin Martyr supplies a clue that this word “sophist” was original to the text: “He was no sophist, but His word was the power of God.” (1 Apol.14). Justin had heard from his interlocutor that Jesus was a sophist, information his opponent may have derived from the TF. Cross reference this with what Lucian wrote in his satire The Passing of Peregrinus: “Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once, for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws.” (Lucian, Peregr. Proteus, ch. xiii).It is common knowledge that Jesus was a sophist, information that was easily accessedand out in the public, information easily got from Josephus’ Antiquities.
Here, Allen argues successfully that non-Christians viewed Jesus as a sophist, with a direct example from Lucian and from Justin's denial. Allen also argues against a very common view (among those who believe there was a genuine TF) that Josephus would have described Jesus as a "wise man," showing how it is not paralleled for messianic leaders and would elevate Jesus to the same level as Solomon and Daniel, which seems inappropriate. These points are consistent with the view that Josephus didn't write anything about Jesus. However, if there were an original TF, they do argue in favor of the view that the original described Jesus as a sophist, instead of a wise man. Since this is the context in which Allen is discussing these points, it's not BS.
(6) Doubts the reason for the interpolation of "if one may properly call him a man"
Allen also strikes this from his reconstruction but not before asking a rhetorical question about Olson's work. Alas, the question is left dangling, and Allen does not offer any different suggestions for why the phrase was added. The question also lacks a certain punch. I'm sure it could be answered in very plausible ways. For example, an extended theological discussion may have seemed inappropriate for a Jew to express, since that would contradict Josephus still being a Jew and not a full Christian, even more so than other things like seeming to attest to the miracles, the resurrection, and his innocence. Since the brief discussion here is of little value, given that nothing is resolved and that Allen also sees this as an interpolation, it could be called BS.
(7) Doubts Eusebius would have used "surprising feats" to describe Jesus' miracles
This isn't convincing to me. I feel like something might be missing in the restatement of Whealey's argument, but it's far from obvious why Eusebius could not use the same terms to refer to the miracles of Jesus and the prophets before him. To the extent that this isn't explained better, it could be called BS.
(8) Finds another textual variant regarding the "worship" of Jesus that is argued to be original
If Allen would just provide some examples of his point about how Josephus uses these terms, this could be a persuasive point. I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt here and suggest that Allen has seen such examples, maybe in Eisler or another scholar's work, and just hasn't reproduced them here. If so, the structure of the argument seems sound, and it's not BS.
(9) Suggests that a reference to "Galileans" in Josephus was replaced by a reference to "Greeks"
Allen says that the Jew/Greek distinction, which is very Pauline, isn't found in Josephus, referencing a 2015 article from Ishay Rosen-Zvi and Adi Ophir. If so, that alone seems like a good reason to support the idea that the phrase currently found in the TF isn't from Josephus.
In the context of trying to find what the original TF was, this argument makes sense. It doesn't seem to be BS. This evidence is also consistent with there being no original TF.
(10) Suggests that the original said "he was believed to be king" instead of "he was [believed to be] the Christ."
Again, in the context of trying to find what was in an original TF, this argument makes sense:
This evidence is also consistent with there being no original TF, but it's not BS.
(11) In the most daring move, Allen suggests that the original TF portrayed Jesus as leading a tax revolt
Broadly speaking, the idea is plausible. There are many examples of similar revolts listed on the Wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_h ... resistance - and the Gospel of Luke isn't misquoted.
It's still a daring move because it reaches into the great variety of material written about Jesus in early Christian literature, picks out one theme, and elevates it to the essential fact that is noticed by Josephus. Essentially, this is a theory of who the historical Jesus was. Not many people will work forward from this reconstruction of the TF to sharing Allen's view here. The logic works backward, from the view to the reconstruction. So it will not be possible to resolve this with the evidence from the TF itself. It might be more appropriate to bracket and qualify this conclusion here more, in an article ostensibly about the TF. Given the fact that this suggestion isn't contextualized properly into the larger debate over the significance of the historical Jesus, it could be called BS, even though it is plausible.
(12) Mentions an argument from Paul Winters about the reference to the accusation being less likely from Christians
The balanced distinction between ἐνδείξει (verb ένδείχνυμι)writ of indictment, attributed toJewish leaders, and the act of awarding sentence (επιτιμάνσταυρῷ) is not likely to be the work of a Christian interpolator …Such an interpolator would scarcely have been content with reproaching Jewish leaders for drawing up an indictment against Jesus whilst stating that the imposition of sentence by crucifixion was an act of Roman justice.
This argument isn't conclusive, but it does seem appropriate when taken in proportion and considered with the rest of the evidence. Not BS.
(13) Makes a point about what Celsus did and did not see in the TF
This paragraph is another victim of poor editing. The passage in question, which is not necessarily a quote of the TF, is in the next paragraph (Origen, referencing Celsus, Contra Cels. 8.14):
Allen makes an implicit assumption out of the most important question here: is Celsus referencing the TF / Josephus at all here? Given that there is no discussion of the key point, which is shrugged off by calling this passage (ambitiously) an example of "quoting the TF," this could use a lot of work to improve the presentation. However, since there does seem to be the seed of a decent argument here regarding the language of Contra Celsum 8.14 that could well be valid, I'll be generous here and won't categorize it as BS.
(14) Argues that the "tribe of Christians" reference contains a mix of Josephus' language (tribe) and later, Christian language
Allen here assumes that Eusebius would have been the interpolator if there were one, which doesn't seem to be a completely justified assumption. Since Allen disagrees with Ken Olson on so much, and since Olson is the most articulate defender of the idea that Eusebius was the interpolator, it would make sense for Allen to give his own reasons for this conclusion. I'm also not sure if the examples cited are comprehensive and convincing. This point is not just BS, but the argument certainly could be improved.
(15) A variant phrase that matches Josephus' vocabulary suggests multiple versions of the TF, with a Josephan original
In general, I like the structure of the arguments that note textual variants. A variant implies a change, and, at that point, it's just normal text criticism to ask the question of which was prior, what the setting was for the original text, and what the setting was for the modified text. While there are many possibilities, Allen's argument for an original in Josephus once again seems like the most natural understanding of the variant.
(16) Circumstantial evidence that there was a longer Testimonium
The point is worth noting and, when considered in the right proportions, appropriately cited as evidence.
(17) The location of the Testimonium makes more sense for a negative original than the current form
The point is also worth noting and, when considered in the right proportions, appropriately cited as evidence.
As a counter-argument, you offer, "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 conclusion doesn't follow from the premises (and, as you later correct Allen rightly, the passage immediately following isn't a "rebel passage," being a calamity of another sort). When considering the Gospel story, you speak at length for why it is appropriate as midrash. When considering the placement of the passage in Josephus, there is nothing but an argument from analogy with the Gospel story of the two thieves. One is the content of a story (which you examine); the other is the placement of a passage in a pre-existing work (which you do not). The gospel story does seem to have clues that can be read as symbolism and midrash; the Testimonium passage doesn't have them at all. If anything, you've just made the point even more clearly in favor of Allen's conclusion. Putting the glowing Testimonium here is odd, and it would require a symbolic reading to justify it. However, such a reading is absent, being present neither in the Testimonium itself, nor in Eusebius' use of it. Therefore, it is just odd and unexpected.
However, it does make more sense if an original negative passage about Jesus were present. Accordingly, this is an argument for the existence of a previous, more negative passage that wasn't interpolated by a Christian.
(18) The Gospel of John and other references make it seem, to Allen, as though disciples were crucified with Jesus
This is certainly plausible. It does make the paper unfocused. This would be a good section to break out into a whole separate paper or book. For that reason, it could be painted with the brush of being BS.
(19) To Allen, Paul as a persecutor implies a political movement, not a theological one
Also should be broken out into another work. BS.
(20) To Allen, the Gospels show knowledge of a rebellion
Not appropriate to be tacked onto a paper ostensibly about the Testimonium. BS.
(21) Figures like Jesus and Jewish Messianists
All of this space would have been used better if there were more context for the discussion of the Testimonium and the use of it, the purpose of the article as stated. The result is a shallower treatment of the specific topic, combined with an impossibly abbreviated solution for Christian origins. This might seem harsh, but... BS.
(22) Allen updates Laupot's work to say that Christiani could mean any Jewish messianists
I'd give Allen some credit by saying that it's more appropriate to discuss Tacitus when talking about Josephus, than it is to give a full survey of everything related to the rebellion hypothesis. However, this is still probably deserving of its own article. BS.
(23) Discussion of Josephus' sources
This is alright.
(24) Nazareth / Nazorean question
Should a journal article focused on a textual problem that has a discussion spanning volumes make room for a mostly unrelated appendix? No, and the discussion of the Testimonium suffers for it, as the absence of detail, lack of focus, inadequate context, and frequent lapses in presentation show. BS.
(25) "It also does not agree with the chronology of the gospels as John the Baptist is mentioned later in Josephus."
Another example of poor editing. This should be included in the discussion in the body of the paper, not added on while stating the conclusion. However, it's a fair point. Not BS.
Overall, I end up with 9 of the 25 being categorized as BS. Most of this BS involves veering all over the place in the second half of the paper. Of the parts not labeled BS, there was still a lot that could stand to be edited better and clarified. Getting a BS ratio of around 35% or more isn't great. There's definitely a lot to criticize here.
I am sympathetic, however, to any and all attempts to bust the 1990 Meier consensus of “Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 that the original TF involves bracketing a few phrases. Because of that, I am predisposed to be interested in the arguments made, even if they aren't expressed as well as they could be. I would hope that Allen continues to develop as a writer on these topics, as he does show initiative and insight that is very welcome. I also hope that others take what is useful and good after testing all things, even if the presentation could be improved and some of the things said have to be discarded.