The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

[neilgodfrey]

Is there any detail about Hillel that is not a product of "late rabbinical reflection"? How does one decide between late and later accounts when none can be independently verified from the time in question? Where is Josephus when we need him?

FWIW Mishnah Hagigah refers to Menahem as a contemporary of Hillel

Hillel and
Menahem did not differ, but Menahem went forth and Shammai entered
in.

This Menahem may be the same as Menahem the Essene mentioned by Josephus.
See viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2572 on this site for a discussion.

Andrew Criddle

I don't see how such a detail adds any degree of certainty to the historicity of Hillel.

If we don't at some point rely upon evidence from the time and place in question then what control do we have to enable us to sift between "historical event" and "subsequent manufacture"?

In addition to Hillel, what historical period or persons are seriously investigated by historians that do not have any control that goes back to primary sources, those that belong to the time and place addressed?

[neilgodfrey]

Idem for Demonax and Hillel: how can we be sure that who wrote about them loved soundly them (at the manner of a disciple with the his master)?

Lucian expresses strong admiration for Demonax -- he tells us that he is writing about him because of his wonderful and inspiring qualities; and he claims to have been personally with Demonax, observing and hearing him.

I think that makes it hard to say that Lucian did not love him or was not a disciple at any stage of his life.

[neilgodfrey]

It is a sine qua non of historical studies that we rely upon primary sources first and foremost; that is on documents, artefacts, stuff from the actual time we are investigating. That principle is the foundation of the modern (from the nineteenth century to today) approach to historical studies.

I have read probably only about three handbooks or guides for students wanting to study history at a postgrad/doctoral level and they all stress the fundamental importance of primary sources. Other books by historians discussing the methods they use and principles they follow stress the same point.

So if we have a medieval manuscript of Josephus, that is not primary evidence for the Jewish War. Through a wider knowledge of the origin of the manuscript and who Josephus was and when he composed his work, Josephus becomes secondary evidence for the Jewish War.

Josephus's works are direct evidence for Josephus and his audience and wider world in the late 70s and 90s.

Steve Mason understands this basic principle perfectly and in his latest book on the Jewish War he reads and interprets Josephus through his perspective in the late 70s and 90s as a privileged survivor in Rome.

He does not read Josephus naively as an "essentially reliable with usual caveats about exaggeration and bias" account of events decades earlier.

People's memories of past events are shaped by present interests; they are not faithful recordings of the past. Before reading Josephus Steve Mason understands the need to first understand Josephus's personal situation, interests, pressures, fears, needs, etc. Everything Josephus says about the war needs to be contextualized in Josephus's situation as an author and tested against independent information.

That's how many historians believe history should be undertaken professionally.

It is the same for Christian origins -- including Jesus (and Hillel).

[neilgodfrey]

Or read Steve Mason's own more detailed explanation of historical method:

What is History? Using Josephus for the Judaean-Roman War

[Ben C. Smith]

I have read probably only about three handbooks or guides for students wanting to study history at a postgrad/doctoral level and they all stress the fundamental importance of primary sources. Other books by historians discussing the methods they use and principles they follow stress the same point.

So if we have a medieval manuscript of Josephus, that is not primary evidence for the Jewish War. Through a wider knowledge of the origin of the manuscript and who Josephus was and when he composed his work, Josephus becomes secondary evidence for the Jewish War.

Josephus's works are direct evidence for Josephus and his audience and wider world in the late 70s and 90s.

Steve Mason understands this basic principle perfectly and in his latest book on the Jewish War he reads and interprets Josephus through his perspective in the late 70s and 90s as a privileged survivor in Rome.

Do we not have to distinguish between the kinds of statements being taken as evidence for or against a proposition? To deny that Josephus (once we have pinpointed him in history) is good evidence that a war between Judea and Rome took place, and even of the overall flow and outcome of said war, would seem silly; to accept Josephus at face value when he imputes various motives to the participants in that war, on the other hand, would seem rather risky. And surely there would be a spectrum of credibility in between those two kinds of statement. There is, in other words, no absolute answer to the question of how reliable Josephus' works are as "evidence for the Jewish War" (since different kinds of statements differ as to their evidentiary value), right?

[Charles Wilson]

Unless we can't find a boneyard outside the (then) City Limits of Jerusalem that contains about 100,000 skeletons.

[Bernard Muller]

So if we have a medieval manuscript of Josephus, that is not primary evidence for the Jewish War. Through a wider knowledge of the origin of the manuscript and who Josephus was and when he composed his work, Josephus becomes secondary evidence for the Jewish War.

According to these criteria, almost all history of antiquity would come from secondary evidence.

Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

To deny that Josephus (once we have pinpointed him in history) is good evidence that a war between Judea and Rome took place, and even of the overall flow and outcome of said war, would seem silly

We don't rely upon Josephus to inform us that there was a war between Judea and Rome. We have non-Josephan sources for that, including primary evidence (hard stones in both Rome and Jerusalam) to tell us that.

If what Josephus wrote did not have at least some independent evidence to at least corroborate that a war of the scale he wrote about did take place then we would really have to wonder about his narrative. But we do have independent confirmation.

And surely there would be a spectrum of credibility in between those two kinds of statement. There is, in other words, no absolute answer to the question of how reliable Josephus' works are as "evidence for the Jewish War" (since different kinds of statements differ as to their evidentiary value), right?

Depends. I'd rather discuss specific examples for clarity.

I don't think we can go very far past Mason's description of what is involved. One reads of the same methods by historians by other historians, too, but Mason is singled out because he addresses a time and event of interest to most of us here.

[neilgodfrey]

So if we have a medieval manuscript of Josephus, that is not primary evidence for the Jewish War. Through a wider knowledge of the origin of the manuscript and who Josephus was and when he composed his work, Josephus becomes secondary evidence for the Jewish War.

According to these criteria, almost all history of antiquity would come from secondary evidence.

Cordially, Bernard

And yes, much of the history, especially popular history, that has been written has indeed come from secondary evidence. And those who do biographical histories of Hillel are relying on post-secondary sources.

But if we are going to be serious about applying valid historical methods then we can emulate those historians who are more critical and don't just accept ready-made narratives at face-value.

And not all history has been written from a naive reading of secondary sources. More scholars now are able to read, say, the stories of Moses, David, Nehemiah from the starting point of asking who wrote those stories and why. That is, reading them as "primary evidence" for the times they were actually written. That's what we study when we read them: what the authors believed, their values and interests, expectations of their audiences, etc. If there is also independent evidence corroborating their narratives, then that's a bonus.

That's why, again, Mason's latest history of the Rome-Judean War is a classic example of what can and should be done, imo.

The popular (and invalid) way to approach a historical source is to naively assume that its narrative is historical. Historians would be a bit naive if they took the claims on every ancient monument as a true account of what happened. But progress can be made if they first ask who produced the monument, why, under what circumstances, etc. and then read it through those questions, and look for independent corroboration of specifics.

Ditto for the gospels. It is naive to take the narrative at face value, merely allowing for a bit of poetic licence, exaggeration, etc. If we take the gospels as "primary" sources for the times they were actually composed, as witness to what somebody wanted to write at that time, and why, etc. --- starting from that perspective, and not from the naive default ideological assumption that the writer was a "saint" of some sort who surely wanted to glorify the memory of his saviour.

[Bernard Muller]

to Neil,

Twisting the evidence?

May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. - Galatians 6:14

For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. -- 1 Corinthians 2:2

There is a difference between "offence" and "embarrassment". They have different meanings and it is wrong to conflate them.

I covered that already: Paul was overlaying the embarrassing crucifixion by suggesting some redemptive value of it, going against the grain, that is against the negative perception of Jews & Gentiles about Christ crucified.

Here are the verses in the Pauline epistles where there is an occurrence of 'skandalon' (as in Galatians 5:11):

Rom 9:33 "As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence ['skandalon']: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."

Rom 11:9 "And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock ['skandalon'] and a recompence unto them:"

Rom 14:13 "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall ['skandalon'] in his brother's way."

Rom 16:17 "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences ['skandalon'] contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock ['skandalon'], and unto the Greeks foolishness;"

Gal 5:11 "And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence ['skandalon'] of the cross ceased."

I do not see where 'skandalon' would refer to (as you wrote): "The offence was over the significance of the crucifixion -- what Paul said it meant for the Law.".
'skandalon' is always negative, as bad and detrimental.

For Gal 5:11 (RSV "But if I, brethren, still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? In that case the stumbling block of the cross has been removed") the overall meaning of the verse would be: if Paul preached orthodox Judaism, then the "scandal"/offence/stumblingblock about a Christ crucified would not be part of his preaching (because Jews --and Paul as a hypothetical conventional Jew-- would not think a Christ could be crucified).

I use the term primary evidence to refer to concrete, material evidence situated in the time and place in question. Coins, for example, official public monuments.

A Jewish peasant, preacher and credited to be healer, would not be expected to be depicted in coins and monuments during or soon after his lifetime.

If Paul thought that crucifixion of a messiah was an embarrassment because Jews thought a messiah could never be crucified then we would expect Paul to make arguments at some point addressing that concern. He doesn't. He nowhere attempts to address a belief that a messiah could not possibly be crucified. But he does address the controversy over his teaching that the crucifixion of the messiah meant an end to the law for salvation for gentiles. That's where the offence was.

Paul did not have to make arguments at some point addressing that concern, because he superimposes/transforms Jesus' demise (shameful death) with the concept of a glorious crucifixion for salvation of all.
But he did regardless: Christ could be crucified because that enables salvation for the believers:
1Co 1:18 "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

Cordially, Bernard