This post is adapted from one I made on the Historical Jesus Facebook group on September 9, 2023:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1038530 ... /525953597
Sorry, this is a long one -- It appears that Dave Allen has, at least for the moment, departed the FB group and deleted the page “Testimonium Flavianum useless?’ from his blog. Chris M E Hansen and I had severely criticized some of the arguments he made there, especially his argument that the word τις, found in the quotation of the Testimonium in one manuscript of Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, necessarily has a negative connotation and could not have been inserted by a Christian (see the thread from September 9, 2023).
I am now going to criticize another page from Allen’s blog, or, rather, his published paper ‘A Model Reconstruction of What Josephus Would Have Realistically Written About Jesus’, which contained a serious problem for Dave’s thesis which the blog post is intended to fix.
https://davesblogs.home.blog/2023/03/18 ... j-OmyL3IA_
Allen argues in the paper that there are three witnesses to a pre-Eusebian version of the Testimonium (Origen, De Excidio Hierosolymitano (‘On the Destruction of Jerusalem’) of Pseudo-Hegesippus, and the Slavonic Josephus) and this proves Eusebius could not have been the original author. The problem with Allen’s argument is that Origen does not quote the Testimonium, so his knowledge of it is not established, and the Excidio and the Slavonic Josephus are later than Eusebius so the independence of their versions of the Testimonium is not established.
http://jgrchj.net/volume18/JGRChJ-18_Allen.pdf
I have previously addressed Origen and the Slavonic Josephus on my blog (and on this forum):
https://kenolsonsblog.wordpress.com/202 ... as-christ/
https://kenolsonsblog.wordpress.com/202 ... flavianum/
So now I will point out the problem with Allen’s treatment of the Excidio in his ‘Model Reconstruction’ paper from the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism which his blog post is intended to correct.
Allen argues that the Excidio is independent of Eusebius (p.124) and then goes on to reconstruct a hypothetical Josephan original text of the Testimonium (128-142), which he hypothesizes looks like this:
The problem with Allen’s argument is that a good deal of the content of the version of the Testimonium known to the author of the Excidio is found in the version of the Testimonium Flavianum known to us from our manuscripts of Josephus Antiquities and Eusebius Ecclesiastical History (i.e., the Eusebian version or textus receptus), but not in Allen’s hypothetical reconstruction, at least some of which (such as the word Greeks or Gentiles) Allen attributes to Eusebian redaction. This would mean that the author of the Excidio does know the Eusebian version of the Testimonium.
Here is a translation of the section of the Excidio in which the author of the discusses the Testimonium, with the agreements between the textus receptus against Allen’s Model Reconstruction in bold:
Allen’s blog post cited above is meant to fix this problem. Allen retracts what he argued in the published paper about Eusebian redaction and hypothesizes a pre-Eusebian Christain redactor who rewrote the Model Reconstruction and was then used by Eusebius and the author of the Excidio. The existence of this Christian redactor must, by Allen's logic, be deduced from the impossibility of the author of the Excidio knowing the Eusebian version of the passage.
I think it more likely that the author of the Excidio did know the Eusebian version of the passage, but arguing that will take a post as long as this one. But the point I want to make is here is that the argument Allen makes against Eusebian authorship of the Testimonium in the published ‘Model Reconstruction’ paper cannot be judged a success.
He cannot shows that the τις in one manuscript of Eusebius Ecclesiastical History must carry a hostile sense (and therefore be non-Christian).
He cannot show that Origen must have known a version of the Testimonium.
The author of the Slavonic Josephus knew the Eusebian version of the Testimonium through George Hamartolos.
Allen has to retract some of the claims he made in the paper about some of the content of the Testimonium being Eusebian redaction because they show up in the Excidio, and that would show the Excidio’s dependence on the Eusebian version of the Testimonium.
This does not necessarily mean that Allen’s position that there was an originally hostile form of the Testimonium before Eusebius is wrong. A position may be correct despite bad arguments having been made for it. It does mean that Allen’s argument that there was a pre-Eusebian version of the Testimonium in the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism fails to show his position to be correct.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1038530 ... /525953597
Sorry, this is a long one -- It appears that Dave Allen has, at least for the moment, departed the FB group and deleted the page “Testimonium Flavianum useless?’ from his blog. Chris M E Hansen and I had severely criticized some of the arguments he made there, especially his argument that the word τις, found in the quotation of the Testimonium in one manuscript of Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, necessarily has a negative connotation and could not have been inserted by a Christian (see the thread from September 9, 2023).
I am now going to criticize another page from Allen’s blog, or, rather, his published paper ‘A Model Reconstruction of What Josephus Would Have Realistically Written About Jesus’, which contained a serious problem for Dave’s thesis which the blog post is intended to fix.
https://davesblogs.home.blog/2023/03/18 ... j-OmyL3IA_
Allen argues in the paper that there are three witnesses to a pre-Eusebian version of the Testimonium (Origen, De Excidio Hierosolymitano (‘On the Destruction of Jerusalem’) of Pseudo-Hegesippus, and the Slavonic Josephus) and this proves Eusebius could not have been the original author. The problem with Allen’s argument is that Origen does not quote the Testimonium, so his knowledge of it is not established, and the Excidio and the Slavonic Josephus are later than Eusebius so the independence of their versions of the Testimonium is not established.
http://jgrchj.net/volume18/JGRChJ-18_Allen.pdf
I have previously addressed Origen and the Slavonic Josephus on my blog (and on this forum):
https://kenolsonsblog.wordpress.com/202 ... as-christ/
https://kenolsonsblog.wordpress.com/202 ... flavianum/
So now I will point out the problem with Allen’s treatment of the Excidio in his ‘Model Reconstruction’ paper from the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism which his blog post is intended to correct.
Allen argues that the Excidio is independent of Eusebius (p.124) and then goes on to reconstruct a hypothetical Josephan original text of the Testimonium (128-142), which he hypothesizes looks like this:
And there was about this time a certain man, a sophist and agitator. For he was a deceiver and an imposter. A teacher of men who worship him with pleasure. [He claimed the Temple would be destroyed and that not one stone would be standing on another and that it would be restored in three days.] Many of the Judaeans, and also many of the Galilean element, he led to himself in a tumult; he was believed to be a King: [For he opposed paying the tax to Caesar.] Many were roused, thinking that thereby the tribe could free themselves from Roman hands. And, on the accusation of the first men among us, Pilate condemned him to be crucified. Many of his followers, the Galileans and Judaeans, were slain and thus re-pressed for the moment. The movement again broke out with great abundance when it was believed he appeared to them alive. Those that followed him at first did not cease to worship him, their leader in sedition and this tribe has until now not disappeared (Proposed original model of Ant.18.63-64). [p. 142].
The problem with Allen’s argument is that a good deal of the content of the version of the Testimonium known to the author of the Excidio is found in the version of the Testimonium Flavianum known to us from our manuscripts of Josephus Antiquities and Eusebius Ecclesiastical History (i.e., the Eusebian version or textus receptus), but not in Allen’s hypothetical reconstruction, at least some of which (such as the word Greeks or Gentiles) Allen attributes to Eusebian redaction. This would mean that the author of the Excidio does know the Eusebian version of the Testimonium.
Here is a translation of the section of the Excidio in which the author of the discusses the Testimonium, with the agreements between the textus receptus against Allen’s Model Reconstruction in bold:
XII. They indeed paid the punishments of their crimes, who after they had crucified Jesus the judge of divine matters, afterwards even persecuted his disciples. However a great part of the Jews, and very many of the gentiles believed in him, since they were attracted by his moral precepts, by works beyond human capability flowing forth. For whom not even his death put an end to their faith and gratitude, on the contrary it increased their devotion. And so they brought in murderous bands and conducted the originator of life to Pilatus to be killed, they began to press the reluctant judge. In which however Pilatus is not absolved, but the madness of the Jews is piled up, because he was not obliged to judge, whom not at all guilty he had arrested, nor to double the sacrilege to this murder, that by those he should be killed who had offered himself to redeem and heal them. About which the Jews themselves bear witness Josephus a writer of histories saying, that there was in that time a wise man, if it is proper however, he said, to call a man the creator of marvelous works, who appeared living to his disciples after three days of his death in accordance with the writings of the prophets, who prophesied both this and innumerable other things full of miracles about him, from which began the community of Christians and penetrated into every tribe of men nor has any nation of the Roman world remained, which was left without worship of him. If the Jews don't believe us, they should believe their own people. Josephus said this, whom they themselves think very great, but it is so that he was in his own self who spoke the truth otherwise in mind, so that he did not believe his own words. But he spoke because of loyalty to history, because he thought it a sin to deceive, he did not believe because of stubbornness of heart and the intention of treachery. He does not however prejudge the truth because he did not believe but he added more to his testimony, because although disbelieving and unwilling he did not refuse. In which the eternal power of Jesus Christ shone bright because even the leaders of the synagogue confessed him to be god whom they had seized for death. (Pseudo-Hegesippus, De Excidio, 2.12, translation Wade Blocker).
Allen’s blog post cited above is meant to fix this problem. Allen retracts what he argued in the published paper about Eusebian redaction and hypothesizes a pre-Eusebian Christain redactor who rewrote the Model Reconstruction and was then used by Eusebius and the author of the Excidio. The existence of this Christian redactor must, by Allen's logic, be deduced from the impossibility of the author of the Excidio knowing the Eusebian version of the passage.
I think it more likely that the author of the Excidio did know the Eusebian version of the passage, but arguing that will take a post as long as this one. But the point I want to make is here is that the argument Allen makes against Eusebian authorship of the Testimonium in the published ‘Model Reconstruction’ paper cannot be judged a success.
He cannot shows that the τις in one manuscript of Eusebius Ecclesiastical History must carry a hostile sense (and therefore be non-Christian).
He cannot show that Origen must have known a version of the Testimonium.
The author of the Slavonic Josephus knew the Eusebian version of the Testimonium through George Hamartolos.
Allen has to retract some of the claims he made in the paper about some of the content of the Testimonium being Eusebian redaction because they show up in the Excidio, and that would show the Excidio’s dependence on the Eusebian version of the Testimonium.
This does not necessarily mean that Allen’s position that there was an originally hostile form of the Testimonium before Eusebius is wrong. A position may be correct despite bad arguments having been made for it. It does mean that Allen’s argument that there was a pre-Eusebian version of the Testimonium in the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism fails to show his position to be correct.
Statistics: Posted by Ken Olson — Wed May 15, 2024 7:09 pm