Historical Jesus

A tweedy poetaster who spent his time spinning out parables and Japanese koans, a literary aesthete who toyed with 1st-century deconstructionism, or a bland Jesus who simply told people to look at the lilies of the field – such a Jesus would threaten no one, just as the university professors who create him threaten no-one. The historical Jesus did threaten, disturb, and infuriate people – from interpreters of the Law through the Jerusalem priestly aristocracy to the Roman prefect who finally tried and crucified him. This emphasis on Jesus’ violent end is not simply a focus imposed on the data by Christian theology. To outsiders like Josephus, Tacitus, and Lucian of Samosata, one of the most striking things about Jesus was his crucifixion or execution by Rome. A Jesus whose words and deeds would not alienate people, especially powerful people, is not the historical Jesus.

John P. Meier, Marginal Jew, vol. 1, p.177

I will expand on a number of papers I released including three that passed peer reviewed by the both the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism (JGRChJ) and Revista Biblica in Argentina, an essay I wrote on memory studies for the SBL series John, Jesus and History initiated by Paul Anderson and among my amateur papers I wrote for Robert Prices JHC. I am going to start blogging a multi part series on the historical Jesus, the man behind the myth. The people who generally threatened the Roman Govenors were Sign troublemakers, usually a self declared prophet who gathered a crowd to witness a momentous event where God would intervene and restore Isreal as his land tenants.

These are the papers I will be expanding on:

Dave Allen, “An Original Negatve Testimonium”, R M Price, ed., Journal of Higher Criticism 15/1 (Spring 2020), 67-90.

Dave Allen, “The Use of the Testimonium Flavianum by Anti-Christian Polemicists”, R M Price, ed., Journal of Higher Criticism 16/1 (Spring 2021), 42-105.

David Allen, “A Model Reconstruction of what Josephus would have realistically written about Jesus”, Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 18, 2022, 113-143.

Dave Allen, “A Proposal: Three Redactional Layer Model for the Testimonium Flavianum”, RevBib 85 Núm. 1-2, (2023), 211-232

David Allen, “How Josephus really viewed Jesus”, RevBib 85 Núm. 3-4, (2023), 333-357 – this paper is a comparative study with other sign prophet passages.

David Allen, “Jesus and the Sign Prophets”, Journal of Higher Criticism 18/4 (2024)

David Allen, “Exposing the Pre-Eusebian Strata of the Testimonium Flavianum, JHC 20 (2025 forthcoming):

My best paper so far is “Jesus realpolitik”

This paper shows the best hypothesis for the Jesus of History.

This is a multi-part series and I have also added an appendix of the TF, see links below, so you can compare the textus receptus found in the manuscripts of Josephus Antiquities to the model TF that I have reconstructed in Testimonium Flavianum parts. Rather than a textus restitutus, I have opted for a model reconstruction as the original words of Josephus cannot be recovered. The advantage of the model is that through textual variants and indirect quotes we can make out what type of passage this really was. Once this is seen, I will compare this passage to other similar passages Josephus has written. In my peer review paper “How Josephus really viewed Jesus” RevBíb 85.3-4, I compare an earlier form of the TF to other passages Josephus wrote about the Sign Prophets. For a taster of what this paper will be about you can read the following blog here and here. One final comment, once you see Jesus as one in a series of sign prophets that Josephus writes about you will find that the TF was not too short but about average, some sign prophet passages were shorter, some longer.

In the meantime enjoy my test case of a realistic reconstruction of what Josephus would have really written about Jesus.

As a historicist, it is important not to presume the historicity of Jesus, so I look at some instances in Paul’s letters and after critically examining them, I come down in favor of historicity here and here and here and here. The passages I examine make much better sense on a Sign Prophet that came to a sticky end. Also by recognising that to second Temple Jews only actual people resurrect turns the odds from 1/3 chance as espoused by Carrier to 100% in favour of historicity. It’s obvious the letters are on about a recently executed person.

Prologue Who was Jesus.

Part 1 All Things Testimonium Flavianum

Part 2 Jesus and the Sign Prophets

Part 9 Christ, Christianity and Jewish Messianists

Part 10 Nazareth/Nazorean Question

Part 11 Josephus’ Sources

Part 12 James and John the Baptist passages in Josephus Antiquities.

Part 13 Attributing the fall of Jerusalem

Part 14 TITULUS CRUX “KING OF THE JEWS”

Part 15 Pauls Revelatory Being

Part 16 Kingdom of God.

Part 17 Paul the missionary. (Includes “The circumcision question” “Persecution” “The Antioch Incident”)

Part 18 Divorce! Jesus was quoted against Paul by his opponents.

Part 19 The Opponents of Paul as seen through Mirror Reading.

Part 20 Paul’s Sources (Including Pre-Pauline traditions)

Appendix 1 Reconstructed TF