Three Assumptions

[GakuseiDon]

I posted some information upthread which to my eye calls into serious question whether Hillel ever claimed Davidic descent for himself. That Judah the Prince claimed Davidic descent seems more secure, but I am not 100% certain about that.

Thanks Ben, that was interesting. You're right, there is a difference between someone claiming (Davidic or any other) descent for themselves, and it being applied to them retrospectively by future generations. I think I've misunderstood Neil's point on that, if he means just the former. But we'd be restricted to using fairly contemporary literature in that case.

[neilgodfrey]

I was quite surprised to find appeals to the Talmud and Eusebius to justify "the assumption" that Second Temple persons claimed genealogical links to David. Since I've mentioned Steve Mason in this thread I'll draw on him again to propose a more valid way to approaching the sources:

As historians, that is, we cannot claim to know what happened unless we can show colleagues how we acquired this knowledge, and we can only do that after a systematic investigation. This point is often neglected. Historians either feel compelled to believe something (“Until someone can show otherwise, I am happy believing X. ...”) or the public expects us to believe things, as though not knowing what happened were a moral failure. But belief is the province of religion, not history. Ancient historians must make their peace with uncertainty because that is where the nature of surviving evidence requires us to live much of the time. Our job description is to investigate responsibly, not to know what happened.

Another consequence of understanding history as methodical inquiry is that we must receive all claims about the past, whether ancient or modem, with skepticism and methodical doubt, kicking their tires and looking for their limitations in relation to the questions we are pursuing. They will have limitations, and so there is never a prospect of declaring any ancient source adequate or “reliable” for our inquiry. This lesson was hard to leam when the great Thucydides and Livy were knocked off their pedestals as “authoritative” accounts. It remains a problem in areas of ancient history with religious connections (#3 below). But history, as one application of critical thinking, must rest on ceaseless probing, questioning, and therefore doubt about what has been given.

When a historical argument survives scrutiny and is thought to explain a range of overlapping, independent evidence better than other hypotheses, our acceptance is only ever provisional. We then look for ways to connect it with other provisional scenarios, constantly comparing and revising our views of whole and part to see what needs refinement or complete rethinking.

p. 63 of A History of the Jewish War, A.D. 66-74

Here's the followup (pages 67-68) ... the "#3 below" referenced above:

3. Finally, all historical research is shaped by modem contexts, and the study of Roman Judaea is no exception. Contemporary political, social, and religious concerns can shape discussions in ways both obvious and subtle. For one thing, scholars who specialize in this field do not uniformly work in departments of history or classics, as historians of other parts of the Roman empire usually do. Their departmental homes are just as likely to be in religious studies, Jewish studies, archaeology, biblical studies, or theology. If even those who understand themselves to be historians and nothing else differ significantly in method, the potential for disagreement over aims and methods is likely to be all the greater in this field. On top of that he all the potential stakes in this period held by Jews and Christians of various kinds, religious and non- and anti-religious scholars, Zionists, post-Zionists, and anti-Zionists.

Consider two examples of what might seem innocuous debates about semantics, which can both create misunderstandings of a kind not found in the study of Roman Egypt or Britain. First is the spillover of concerns about the Bible and its authority. Only in this area do we encounter debates over what are styled maximalist and minimalist approaches to ancient history. These categories extend disagreements about the usefulness of biblical accounts for Israelite history to involve the post-biblical and “New Testament” or even later periods. Minimalists are said to nurture what their opponents consider an unhealthy “hermeneutic(s) of suspicion,” a failure to trust sources that have done them no harm and do not merit suspicion.

These debates cause confusion to no purpose. If history means disciplined inquiry into the human past (above), then we investigate problems by interpreting and explaining whatever evidence is available, all of it but no more than that. Methodical doubt of all claims, our own as well as others’, is the animating principle of critical inquiry.

Any source we used needs to be understood in terms of its sources, the aims of its author, the context and audience of the author, the literary and intellectual conventions of the time of the author, etc etc etc. No source can be approached as a stone monument with the heading, "List of Historical Facts".

The further from the time period being researched a source is, the more overwhelming will be the justification required for its use.

Mason in the above quote refers to those "who understand themselves to be historians" and hints at a difference between historians who work in ancient history departments and those who work in religious studies. A regrettable example of the latter as for method of research is Peter Schafer. To repeat his statement of method that I posted in another thread:

But Schafer, to my mind, opens himself up to serious criticism with his statement of methodology in Jesus in the Talmud p.7:

Unlike Maier and many of his predecessors, I start with the deliberately naive assumption that the relevant sources do refer to the figure of Jesus unless proven otherwise. Hence, I put the heavier burden of proof on those who want to decline the validity of the Jesus passages. More precisely, I do not see any reason why the tannaitic Jesus ben Pantera/Pandera (“Jesus son of Pantera/Pandera”) and Ben Stada (“son of Stada”) passages should not refer to Jesus, and I will justify this claim in the book.

Does that not come across as a classic introduction to the sin of confirmation bias?

[neilgodfrey]

But we'd be restricted to using fairly contemporary literature in that case.

Indeed. That's what historians do. That's how they work. At least if they are serious professionals. Too many biblical scholars seem to feel that rigorous standards are too limiting.

[neilgodfrey]

But no-one claimed descent from David in ancient times? Seems unlikely. I think the Talmud does provide evidence that some thought it to be the case and maybe even made that claim, poor as it might be towards firmly establishing the idea as a fact.

We have no evidence that anyone in the Second Temple era claimed to be descended from David. Given the claims made by many readers of Josephus about so-called messianic figures in the lead up to 70 that is surely a significant fact.

The Talmud provides us with evidence of the literature and ideological claims of the Talmud authors/compilers. That is the point of my statement about the function of genealogies -- you keep telling me I am making an irrelevant point. No, I am trying to point out that Talmudic claims have certain functions other than to genuinely document facts about Second Temple persons for us.

[Secret Alias]

We have no evidence that anyone in the Second Temple era claimed to be descended from David.

I am sure these claimed existed in the Hasmonean period. Regev points to the Temple Scroll for proof in this regard.

[Secret Alias]

1 Maccabees 2:51f:

“Remember the deeds that our ancestors did in their times,
and you shall win great honor and an everlasting name.
52 Was not Abraham found faithful in trial,
and it was credited to him as righteousness?
53 Joseph, when in distress, kept the commandment,
and he became master of Egypt.
54 Phinehas our ancestor, for his burning zeal,
received the covenant of an everlasting priesthood.
55 Joshua, for executing his commission,
became a judge in Israel.
56 Caleb, for bearing witness before the assembly,
received an inheritance in the land.
57 David, for his loyalty,
received as a heritage a throne of eternal kingship."

In what sense was David's kingship 'eternal' ?

[neilgodfrey]

We have no evidence that anyone in the Second Temple era claimed to be descended from David.

I am sure the Hasmoneans claimed descent from David.

Do you have a source?

Archaeological evidence indicates that if there were a King David around 1000 BCE then he was not of any such status as to have spawned a notable family line protecting and promoting its descent from him. He was little more than a minor warlord.

It follows that it would have been difficult to introduce oneself as a descendant of David. People would ask questions about one's parents and their parents.

If Bar Kochba claimed to be a Davidic messiah he was using David as an ideological figure, and not a literal biological ancestor. And as far as I am aware there were no Davidic claimants prior to him (i.e. in the Second Temple era).

[neilgodfrey]

1 Maccabees 2:51f:

“Remember the deeds that our ancestors did in their times,
and you shall win great honor and an everlasting name.
52 Was not Abraham found faithful in trial,
and it was credited to him as righteousness?
53 Joseph, when in distress, kept the commandment,
and he became master of Egypt.
54 Phinehas our ancestor, for his burning zeal,
received the covenant of an everlasting priesthood.
55 Joshua, for executing his commission,
became a judge in Israel.
56 Caleb, for bearing witness before the assembly,
received an inheritance in the land.
57 David, for his loyalty,
received as a heritage a throne of eternal kingship."

In what sense was David's kingship 'eternal' ?

Psalm 89 is the probable source for David's "eternal kingship". But other "historians" did narrate the demise of David's dynasty. It did not rule forever in our sense of the word 'forever'.

[neilgodfrey]

That Judah the Prince claimed Davidic descent seems more secure, but I am not 100% certain about that.

My point is about the Second Temple era. The second century (or post 70 ce) is an entirely different world when we really do begin see messianic and Davidic claimants.

[Ben C. Smith]

We have no evidence that anyone in the Second Temple era claimed to be descended from David.

I am sure these claimed existed in the Hasmonean period. Regev points to the Temple Scroll for proof in this regard.

Where does the Temple Scroll even mention David?

There are certainly Dead Sea scrolls attesting a hope for a future Davidic figure, called a Messiah in at least one spot, who will appear in the last days both to save and to rule over Israel; but that is not the same thing as a specific claim that a particular individual is of Davidic descent.