Dave Allen: an analysis
Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:09 pm
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
First let us analyze the TF word for word and set forth reasons for thinking there was an original negative TF. Whealey [4] has said Origen made an assertion that Josephus did not believe Jesus as the Christ (Contra Cels.1.47), and that it shows that his copy of Josephus’ Antiquities had a negative treatment of Jesus. It’s not good enough to say Josephus would not have acknowledged Jesus as the messiah because he is Jewish -- why would he even mention this assertion unless Jesus was mentioned? There is no reason to bring that up and weaken his own argument unless in Origen’s copy there was a mention about Jesus, missing the line “he was the Christ.”
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
For the first word in the passage, ‘γίνεται’(there arose), Robert Eisler has observed,“The verb Γίνεται (Ginetai) does, however, occur quite frequently in Josephus, particularly at the beginning of paragraphs; but the subject of the sentence is then almost without exception a word suchas θόρυβος (tumult), or στάση(rebellion), or ταραχή (trouble), or some such term.....”.[7]He then goes on to give many examples in footnote2: War 1,4,7 § 99; 1.4.2 § 85; 1.12.1 §236; 1.33.2 § 648; 1.8.6 § 171; 1.10.10 § 216; 4.3.13§ 208; Antiquities 18.9.1 § 310; 19.9.2§ 366; 20.2.6 § 51; 20.6.1 § 118; 20.8.7 § 173. [8]As the passages before and after the TF are negative, describing tumults and as Eisler observed that many a time Josephus put in a word describing a tumultuous situation, I have included the word ‘agitator’ ταραχτικός in the reconstruction.
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"
The interpolation of the TF into Slavonic version of Josephus’ War also does not name Jesus in the passage but has “there appeared a certain man” (Slavonic War 2.9.3/4). It is not unusual for Josephus not to know the name of a popular messianic figure. A case in point is the “Egyptian” (War 2.13.5) who led a revolt of thousands and is featured in both Antiquities and War yet he could only call him the “Egyptian.” The same goes for the “Samaritan” (Ant 18.5.1). A variant found in Codex A of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7 (Dem. ev. 3.5.105) offers the pronoun τις after Ίησούς referring to “a certain Jesus.” I have used this word “certain” in the reconstruction, but instead of “a certain Jesus,” I have suggested “a certain man.” This is the same reading as the Slavonic. This derogatory expression argues against the TF being made up of whole cloth. (This word τιςwas also used for Judas the Galilean, War 2§118). No scribe would have interpolated the word τις, but this phrase could have escaped a copyist attempting to interpolate the original TF. The use of “certain” suggests a figure not well known. The qualification of “certain” would be omitted only if the figure was well known.
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:
Neither Tacitus nor Lucian is aware of Jesus’ name, Tacitus calling him “Christos,” [31]whereas Lucian calls him the “crucified sophist.” This suggests that they are not using Christian literature or getting their information from Christians as they would have been able to obtain his name from them. Calling him a sophist suggests Lucian was drawing from a source different from the gospels, such as the original TF that I have just reconstructed.
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"
In the third phrase, I have substituted σοφὸς ἀνήρ, “a wise man” for ταραχτικός τεσοφιστής “sophist and agitator.” Josephus usually uses the expression σοφὸς ἀνήρ as his highest praise for people. There are only two cases where he uses it: King Solomon and the prophet Daniel; it is not a phrase he uses for the messianic leaders he reports. Usually it is not σοφὸς (wise) but σοφιστής (sophist). For example, in
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.
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"
Ken Olson [11] evaluates this phrase in the wider context of Eusebius’ use of thisphrase in an argument contained in Demonstratio Evangelica, book III. He cites the TF at Dem. Ev. 3.5.106. Olson: “Eusebius is carrying onan extended defense of the incarnationand answering the charges of critics of Christianity.One of these is Porphyry’s argumentagainst the divinity of Jesus.” [12] But if Eusebius fabricated this statement in the interests of defending the divine and human natures, why would he not also affirm the humanity of Jesu salongside his divinity?
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
Whealey [14] explains that this is not a preferred description Eusebius would have used for Jesus, and therefore it looks like he inherited this from the original TF. In Eusebius’ Commentaria in Psalmos (PG23 1033d-1036a) he comments on Psalm 85:8-10LXX. He “characterises many of the prophets as παραδόξωνἔργων ποιητής”, ([those who]wrought surprising feats). He “thereby indicates that παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής was not aterm that adequately conveyed the full stature of Jesus, since for Eusebius Jesus was God’s pre-existent logos and not just παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητήςlike all the prophets before him.”[15] An original TF has influenced Eusebius to use this phrase. Olson’s argument that it was made up by Eusebius is refuted by Whealey’s investigation of how Eusebius used this description elsewhere.
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
The second line is witnessed by the recension found in Eusebius’ Demonstratio evangelica iii 5. Whealey does say that the MSS of the Demonstratio is later than that of the Theophania MSS, but that does not tell us which is the later reading. Josephus usually usesthe words διδάσκαλος, “teacher,” and σεβομένων “whoreveres or worship” in a sarcastic, negative way. A Christian copyist who had noticed this and replaced “who worship” (σεβομένων) with “who receive” (δεχομένων).
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.
There was a two-fold advantage for Eusebius to replace the word “Galileans’’ with the word “Greeks.” First, he would get rid of a negative connotation of rebellion by getting rid of a “Galilean” reference (cf, Judas the Galilean). Second, having “Greeks” makes this movement sound universal, Eusebius wished to confirm Jesus’ “letter” (this was made up by Eusebius) to King Agbar. (H.E. I.13.1). Also the early followers of Jesus were known as “Galileans,” asattested by Epictetus, Diss. 4.7.6, circa 110-115CE (Cf Luke 13:1- 2; Mark 14:70)
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:
In a lecture, Henry Abramson explains why Josephus could not have written “Christos” in this passage: When Josephus uses the word Mashiach, [Hebrew for Christ] that’s like game over, end of time, that’s like resuscitation of the dead. The world ends as we know it. We go into a brand new period of history unlike anything we had before. For him to go on to write another few volumes with only one passage about this one event is just beyond belief... a modern analogy is to say we have found intelligent alien life but we will finish this lecture. Another impossible event.
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
As the textus receptus now reads, no reason is given for Jesus’ crucifixion. There must have originally been a reason which I suspect was cut out: tax revolt. Hence I have added anew line in brackets, The theme is well attested in all the canonical as well as many of the apocryphal gospels. Many feature a controversy overpaying tribute to Caesar (Matt.22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26; Papyrus Egerton2:3). “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be a King Messiah” (Luke 23:2). there could have been a mention of this in the original TF that was cutout. If Josephus had originally described Jesus as a messianic rebel, in particular one who had advocated tax resistance, there would have been a strong motive to eliminate that from the record. The following sentence contained in the Slavonic TF could have come from an original TF. “And many souls were roused, thinking that thereby the Jewish tribes could free themselves from Roman hands.”
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
Paul Winters, an expert in Jewish and Roman Law in first- century Palestine, sees this line as genuine.
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.
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
The next section: οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτονἀγαπήσαντες, “those who loved him from the beginning did not forsake him. ”When Celsus was quoting the TF, he did not see that line in his copy, but the following line could have been there: οὐκ [ἂν] ἐπαύσαντο[σέβειν] οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες, “those that loved him at first did not cease [worshipping],εἰ μὴ καὶ τοῦτον, ὁσπερ ́ ἐστὶν αὐτοῖ τῆςστάσεως ἀρχηγέτης “only him, who is their leader in sedition.”
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):
If you should tell them that Jesus is not the Son of God, but that God is the Father of all, andthat He alone ought to be truly worshipped, they wouldnot consent to discontinue their worship of Him who is their leader in the sedition.”
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
In a survey of Eusebius’ use of the term φῦλον (“tribe/group”) we find he usually used it for groups of people he disliked such as the examples Whealey [25] provides: Contra Hieroclem 22; praeteritio XIII 15.5; d.e. IV 9.12; Eusebius’ disparaging use of this term makes it likely the term τὸ φῦλον came from the hand of Josephus. Eusebius used his own phrase for “still to this day,” εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν, when interpolating the word “Christians.” It was Louis Feldman who noticed this and saw this as evidence of Eusebius’ tampering. [26] It’s unlikely Josephus used the word “Christians,” as Feldman also noted, “The passage refers to ‘the tribe of the Christians,’ but it is unlikely that Josephus referred to the Christians as a new nation, distinct from Jews and gentiles. The word “Christians” is found nowhere else in the works of Josephus.”
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
But Josephus as caught in another manuscript had used his own phrasefor “still to this day,” εἰς νῦν, asWhealey has detected and so reconstructed the originalJosephan phrase for “until now” asthe phrase εἰ τε νῦν was found in Oecumenius’ Commentarianin Apocalypsium that quotes the final sentence of the TF. Whealey thinks the sigmafrom εἰ was dropped as two of theoldest MSS have the phrase εἰς τε νῦν (W and A).[28] It’s a minor change but does showtampering. Eusebius used the phrase “still to thisday” when Josephus used “until now.”
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
“In the Codex Vossianus, now in the University Libraryof Leyden, … we have the Testimonium at the end of the second book of the War....The whole insertion is not the work of the scribe but an addition written by a second hand, from which it follows that the original scribe had purposely left a blank for such an insertion. Of the curious fact that the space thus provided was far too large for the insertion of the usual Testimonium Flavianum I can offer no other explanation than that the scribe found a passage of just this length in his original[version].....”[29]
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.