Josephus Antiquities 20.200 on James: The scholars who doubt

[Chrissy Hansen]

I know this thread has been derailed to hell and back, but attempting to resurrect it.

Ken Olson may find this interesting but, Dave Allen (who has a new paper on reconstructing a negative TF coming out with the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism) has recently said that he does not think that Josephus Ant. 20.200 was authentic and did not originally reference Jesus at all. Said this in a Facebook group.

So he considers the TF partially authentic, but not the James Passage.

[Ken Olson]

Ken Olson may find this interesting but, Dave Allen (who has a new paper on reconstructing a negative TF coming out with the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism)

Dave Allen was kind enough to send me a pre-publication copy of his paper. I've read it, and will respond after it is published, either on my blog, or, possibly, in the JoGRC&J. Briefly, I was delighted that he takes my arguments for Eusebian authorship of the Testimonium seriously and accepts that the current form of the Testimonium in the Antiquities is Eusebius' work, and also that he accepts the challenge to try to demonstrate that there must have been a pre-Eusebian version. This is what I have been waiting to see. But I think there are severe problems with Allen's attempted demonstration.

Best,

Ken

[Chrissy Hansen]

Dave Allen was kind enough to send me a pre-publication copy of his paper. I've read it, and will respond after it is published, either on my blog, or, possibly, in the JoGRC&J. Briefly, I was delighted that he takes my arguments for Eusebian authorship of the Testimonium seriously and accepts that the current form of the Testimonium in the Antiquities is Eusebius' work, and also that he accepts the challenge to try to demonstrate that there must have been a pre-Eusebian version. This is what I have been waiting to see. But I think there are severe problems with Allen's attempted demonstration.

Best,

Ken

Agreed. I was also thinking of writing a response (he also sent it to me during drafting for comments), and particularly focusing on his problematic usage of Tacitus as a witness for a pre-Eusebian variant, and then also using Tacitus for his reconstruction.

[Chrissy Hansen]

New source posted. Kovalev, Soviet academic of ancient history. He declared it probably an interpolation and possibly that it referred to a different Jesus originally.

[Chrissy Hansen]

Another addition, Donini.

[Chrissy Hansen]

New addition, Noll suggests partial interpolation of 20.200.