How do we know X existed?

[neilgodfrey]

I have a problem with some discussions here that attempt to identify or establish the hsitorical existence of figures like Paul, James son or brother of x y or z, Teacher of Righteousness, and others whose names escape me at the moment.

In other areas of ancient history it seems to me that a person is known to have existed or event known to have happened where the following conditions are found:

1. a source that is justified in some way (justified as being from eyewitness or other contemporary person known to have been in a position to know) is referred to;

2. there is an independent contemporary source confirming the first or at least reassuring us of the credibility of the claim in the first source (#1 above). This confirmation may not always refer explicitly to the person whose historicity we are questioning, but it will help us evaluate the overall reliability of source #1.

Socrates, for example, can be reasonably inferred to have existed because we have at very minimum a writing claiming to be from one of his followers, Plato, (i.e. #1); and we have another writing from another known contemporary, Aristophanes, mocking elements of Plato's portrayal of Socrates (i.e. #2).

That's not proof that Socrates existed. There is still some room for doubt. But it's surely a reasonable case for historicity.

Sometimes #1 can be met but not #2. Example, we have the claim of Philostratus that he used the eyewitness testimony of Damis for his information about Apollodorus of Tyana but we have no independent evidence to confirm the reliability of this eyewitness source. Ditto for Dares' claim to have been an eyewitness of the Trojan war.

Do all figures in ancient (or any) historical time whose historicity is beyond question (I'd like to add, "and having a significant place in historical narratives", but that's optional for now), meet the conditions #1 and #2 in the sources used by historians?

Or are there exceptions?

[mlinssen]

One would need to define "independent" as well as "contemporary".
Needless to say, Plato isn't exactly an independent source to Socrates a he allegedly was his pupil, but perhaps you have an alternative definition of independent that befits your example there

Contemporary - is Josephus contemporary to Jesus? Two great variables there, and it would seem that we need attestation to those who attest to any historical figure as well - and then some, perhaps

On a side note: you're looking for objective eye witnesses here, in plain English. And then those objective eyewitnesses must be established by other objective eyewitnesses.
At the end of the line that clearly erodes any basis to any historical Jesus whatsoever, so I wouldn't expect any love from some of the frequent visitors here

[Paul the Uncertain]

One would need to define "independent"

The quality the OP refers to is related to the idea of conditional independence rather than "just plain" independence. Something like "Witness A's testimony about uncertain event E is the same as it would have been whether or not witness B's testimony about E existed."

That's a very strong condition, and nobody tosses out scarce witnesses solely because they've exchanged information about the uncertainty of interest. All most folks would really demand is that there be something about A's testimony that isn't wholly determined by B's testimony, but that is influenced by A's experience related to E.

You could call the desired quality something like partial conditional independence. But most fields have their jargon, and the word independent is notioriously overused among the learned with different meanings in different contexts. As long as historians have some idea what the word means to other historians, I suppose all is well.

[billd89]

For recent events in the modern period, let us say X is plausibly stated as a 'fact' whereas it is actually an historical claim. Isn't the rule-of-thumb that two or more credible 'outside' or independent confirmations ('facts') would establish the claim as fact?

I think the same approach works on myth. Moses parted the Red Sea? Of course not. But what establishes the highest probability this particular myth came directly from Egyptian folklore is known Egyptian examples, namely
1) Setne I parting the Nile to find the Book of Thoth {Pap. Cairo 30646)} and
2) the marvel produced by the lector-priest Djadja-em-ankh in 'The Boating Party' tale {Papyrus Westcar col. 5, line 25, through col. 6, line15}.

Where a number of other elements of the Exodus myth are likewise linked almost exclusively to particular Egyptian precursors the combination rules out coincidence, a slam-dunk. From Gary A. Rendsburg's "Moses the Magician" in Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective [2015].

regardless of how we envision the production of the book of Exodus (multiple sources, single unified text, etc.), and no matter to when we date these sources and/or the final product, ... an educated Israelite writer and his well-informed Israelite audience would have been familiar with the Egyptian cultural context which motivated a good portion of the dramatic narrative of Exodus 1–15.The second control is that almost without exception the parallels to the Exodus narrative are known only from Egypt, and not from other sources, such as Canaan (especially Ugarit) and Mesopotamia. Motifs such as the hidden name of the deity, turning an inanimate object into a snake or a crocodile, the casting of darkness, the death of the firstborn, the splitting of the waters, and the drowning theme find a home in Egyptian culture only, without an echo ... in other ancient Near Eastern societies.

I think we can go further than that. In all likelihood, the primary author of Exodus was a either converted priest of Thoth or a well-educated student (who had carefully studied Thoth myth) from a Thoth temple: the Jewish author possessed much more than a passing familiarity with a few random factoids about Thoth's cult. However, I wonder how much the average Palestinian Jew would have known about Thoth c.270 BC - wouldn't Jews have widely rejected this Egyptian myth if it was so well-known in their own community? This suggests - to me - that 'Exodus' was intended for Diaspora proselytes rather than indigenous Jews in Judah.

I am interested in these 'controls' - how to verify (within reason) claims that lack hard evidence.

[mlinssen]

For recent events in the modern period, X is plausibly stated as a 'fact' whereas it is actually an historical claim. Isn't the rule-of-thumb that two or more credible 'outside' or independent confirmations ('facts') would establish the claim as fact?

I think the same approach works on myth. Moses parted the Red Sea? Of course not. But what establishes the highest probability this particular myth came directly from Egyptian folklore is known Egyptian examples, namely
1) Setne I parting the Nile to find the Book of Thoth {Pap. Cairo 30646)} and
2) the marvel produced by the lector-priest Djadja-em-ankh in 'The Boating Party' tale {Papyrus Westcar col. 5, line 25, through col. 6, line15}.

Where a number of other elements of the Exodus myth are likewise linked almost exclusively to particular Egyptian precursors the combination is a slam-dunk. From Gary A. Rendsburg's "Moses the Magician" in Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective [2015].

regardless of how we envision the production of the book of Exodus (multiple sources, single unified text, etc.), and no matter to when we date these sources and/or the final product, ... an educated Israelite writer and his well-informed Israelite audience would have been familiar with the Egyptian cultural context which motivated a good portion of the dramatic narrative of Exodus 1–15.The second control is that almost without exception the parallels to the Exodus narrative are known only from Egypt, and not from other sources, such as Canaan (especially Ugarit) and Mesopotamia. Motifs such as the hidden name of the deity, turning an inanimate object into a snake or a crocodile, the casting of darkness, the death of the firstborn, the splitting of the waters, and the drowning theme find a home in Egyptian culture only, without an echo ... in other ancient Near Eastern societies.

I think we can go further than that. In all likelihood, the primary author of Exodus was a either converted priest of Thoth or a well-educated student (who had carefully studied Thoth myth) from a Thoth temple: the Jewish author possessed much more than a passing familiarity with a few random factoids about Thoth's cult. However, I wonder how much the average Palestinian Jew would have known about Thoth c.270 BC - wouldn't Jews have widely rejected this Egyptian myth if it was so well-known in their own community?

That's pretty much exactly how Russell Gmirkin went about in his Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible, demonstrating that a particular set of laws in the Tanakh doesn't have similarities anywhere else but... in ancient Greek

For recent events in the modern period, X is plausibly stated as a 'fact' whereas it is actually an historical claim

I get really excited about those who freely "quote from Q" as if it were an extant text, only to compare its text with other texts.
I bet that some of those don't even know it's just made up from scratch - longwinded and voluminous scratch, but scratch nonetheless

[neilgodfrey]

One would need to define "independent" as well as "contemporary".

A source is independent of another where it does not derive from the other source. So if I read a story in our local newspaper and can identify that it is derived from a major news network then I have two copies of one story from the one source, not two independent sources.

Similarly, if a political or religious or other ideological community is promulgating various publications, those publications can also all be considered to be from the one source. They are not independent publications.

Needless to say, Plato isn't exactly an independent source to Socrates a he allegedly was his pupil, but perhaps you have an alternative definition of independent that befits your example there

On that reasoning even an eyewitness source has to be discounted before it can even be tested. That's nonsense. I am talking about the independence of sources for the life of a person like Socrates: e.g. Plato and Aristophanes.

Contemporary - is Josephus contemporary to Jesus? Two great variables there, and it would seem that we need attestation to those who attest to any historical figure as well - and then some, perhaps

No, Josephus is not contemporary to Jesus except in a very loose sense. I am not using it in a loose sense but in a sense that is definable and able to be used as a benchmark for source criticism. I am using the terminology as one would expect to understand it in historical discussions that are outside biblical studies.

On a side note: you're looking for objective eye witnesses here, in plain English. And then those objective eyewitnesses must be established by other objective eyewitnesses.

You're just making that up. No, I don't believe in the possibility of "objective eye witnesses". And I made it very clear I am not restricting the reliability of a source to eye-witnesses.

In plain English, as you put it, I am talking about sources as they are used by historians -- of modern, medieval and ancient times -- in scholarly researched publications outside the field of biblical studies. Obviously that discounts many eye-witnesses.

At the end of the line that clearly erodes any basis to any historical Jesus whatsoever, so I wouldn't expect any love from some of the frequent visitors here

What would be wrong with that? The question is directed at how historians in other fields use sources (there are variations in all fields with individuals, but I am talking here about what is generally accepted as reliable in the field). We can't say we don't like a method of inquiry merely because it doesn't give us the answers we want.

[neilgodfrey]

One would need to define "independent"

The quality the OP refers to is related to the idea of conditional independence rather than "just plain" independence. Something like "Witness A's testimony about uncertain event E is the same as it would have been whether or not witness B's testimony about E existed."

That's a very strong condition, and nobody tosses out scarce witnesses solely because they've exchanged information about the uncertainty of interest. All most folks would really demand is that there be something about A's testimony that isn't wholly determined by B's testimony, but that is influenced by A's experience related to E.

I would be interested in examples from the writings of historians in areas other than related to biblical studies.

[neilgodfrey]

For recent events in the modern period, let us say X is plausibly stated as a 'fact' whereas it is actually an historical claim. Isn't the rule-of-thumb that two or more credible 'outside' or independent confirmations ('facts') would establish the claim as fact?

Yes, but at this point condition #2 enters. If, for instance, I see a document saying a certain person was born at such and such a place to certain parents on a certain day and time, etc, then whether I can believe that document will depend on some other source that will give me a reason to believe it. So I look for a stamp or other markings on that document that assure me that it comes from an official body that is responsible to the State or other institution that is willing to guarantee its reliability.

If it is an birth certificate (#1) from a known official source (#2) then I have reasonable grounds to believe its claims. In that case we have knowledge of an official source and its particular interests to give us grounds to believe in the claims of the birth certificate.

(I am not saying anything is ironclad guaranteed. Forgeries are another question that are known from ancient, medieval and modern history to stuff up historians.)

I think the same approach works on myth. Moses parted the Red Sea? Of course not. But what establishes the highest probability this particular myth came directly from Egyptian folklore . . . .

I think what knocks this one out of consideration is the absence of contemporary sources for the event. We have no sources that we can verify as having been produced by contemporaries of the exodus, have we?

[billd89]

Certain sources are more credible than others. Formal Documents or archaeological evidence vastly exceed multiple examples of hearsay.

The existence of most Personalities of Antiquity is a literary form of hearsay. There are many examples of "(Pseudo-)So & So" but we still assume they existed. For me, one 'outside' reference would basically guarantee or prove one's existence beyond mere 'high probability of truth' or basic assumption, in Antiquity.

I'm not a Believer, but I suppose Jesus was a real person; Moses certainly was not. To 'know' is admittedly fuzzy; I 'assume', here. We are in the realm of myth.

To what data are we correlating? Two or three points usually establishes, for me ('subject to change'), the fact that is.

My own project involves a modern book supposedly written by a Mr. X. This is the Simple Fact that everyone accepts.

But Mr. X is a known fabulist (or liar). Mr. X has given at least three VERY different accounts how the book was written. The complex (400 page) book project certainly involved at least 30 other people; it had documented funding from an outside source which paid for other (similar) ghostwritten books. And Mr. X was a nightschool drop-out, a military academy dropout, had never published anything, had never taken any writing courses, was busy in the project's timeframe, lacked the specific expertise of the advanced subject matter, and his wife read aloud Book-of-the-Month-Club literature to him.

Good grief - that's not the true Author! It was readily apparent to me that Mr. X, a known hustler, took credit for the work of hired outside ghostwriters: they were PhDs and professional writers. (In a few weeks' research I found them. They had kept quiet and received professorships for their loyalty, took the secret to their graves.) HOWEVER, there's no shortage of forged letters (some w/ cockamamie flagrantly bogus 'evidence') manufactured for the archive, to "stuff up historians" and support the exclusive copyright claim (i.e. lucrative royalties) of Mr. X. And no one really wants to contradict the Founder's claim to sole authorship of the sacred screed, do they? Ergo: the Simple Fact endures.

A literary mystery. Well, like what's topical here, too. Anonymous scribes wrote most of it.

[neilgodfrey]

Certain sources are more credible than others. Formal Documents or archaeological evidence vastly exceed multiple examples of hearsay.

I am looking at how historians use the written sources. Archaeological evidence can serve as independent confirmation of some element of what is found in a written source. Formal documents are actually a combination of two sources:

1. the content -- usually a political spiel by a potentate, Darius, Augustus, Ashurbanipal, whoever.
2. the evidence that the writing is the product of a larger political institution.

That is, the latter gives credence to the former. To what extent the contents are fiction is another question. But we have reasonable and reliable grounds to believe at least in the historicity of the particular potentate because of those two factors and that they were in a position to make such claims on monuments like those.

The existence of most Personalities of Antiquity is a literary form of hearsay. There are many examples of "(Pseudo-)So & So" but we still assume they existed. For me, one 'outside' reference would basically guarantee or prove one's existence beyond mere 'high probability of truth' or basic assumption, in Antiquity.

The figures a historian refers to as in some way contributing to a historical narrative are more than hearsay, I believe -- but I am here to see if I should learn that I am wrong.

Seneca is a significant figure in the history of Rome at the time of Nero and his existence meets conditions #1 and #2. But Seneca also mentions some other "insignificant" rival philosopher for whom there is no other evidence. The reason we can assume that rival actually existed is because we have confidence in the sort of thing Seneca writes and who he is -- as a result of #1 and #2.

I think -- and I want to know if I am seriously mistaken here -- that all figures a historian of ancient times makes part of his historical narrative derive ultimately from having conditions #1 and #2 backing them at some point.

The "pseudo-so-and-so" source simply means, of course, that we don't know who really wrote it. I don't see that as the same kind of problem I am addressing, though.

To what data are we correlating? Two or three points usually establishes, for me ('subject to change'), the fact that is.

When I think that through I keep coming back to those conditions I offered: we are talking about a contemporary source first of all or at least a source that is traceable to a contemporary source -- not merely assumed without evidence, entirely on presumption, to derive from a contemporary source.

One will find historians lamenting that they cannot vouch for the historicity of a person or event simply because the source for it is not contemporary.

My own project involves a modern book supposedly written by a Mr. X. This is a Simple Fact that everyone accepts. . . . .

. . . .

A literary mystery. Well, like what's topical here, too. Anonymous scribes wrote most of it.

I have no problem with such a conundrum: exploring the identity or character of a book.

I'm thinking of the persons who populate historical narratives, ancient, medieval, modern. (With biblical studies being the exception for now.)