@Mithrandir I'll have to look for that one, when my book moratorium ends.

(Trying to force myself to exercise a bit in my free time prior to the start of the fall soccer season. )

I think its likely that NPR interview I posted was done in support of that book.

BTW: This day in history was not a good one. So instead of talking about that today, I'm going to post a video of cute puppies.

I'm wondering how a question like Is Josephus Flavius a reliable source? would go over here.

@Mithrandir Phrased that way, sounds subjective to me.

Seeing as he was originally on the Jewish side but then defected to the Romans, can he be trusted to have represented either side correctly?

I like history but I've never felt an attraction to History.SE really, for some reason.

It might be because people don't back up their answers well.

I'm trying to see if I can work part that and give the site a chance.

My general feeling on that is that I'd generally prefer to see answers along the lines of: "This is the current scholarly thinking, and here are the arguments being made for and against".

This shouldn't generally be the place for completely original arguments and research.

So an answer of "X absolutely happened, and here's a ton of my research as to why", completely ignoring that there are lots of respected scholars on X who are arguing something else, is to me a bad answer, even though it may show way more backup than other competing answers.

I think that if you can pull together enough evidence for your answer, and aren't ignoring the existing views... than whatever, it shows that you did a lot of work.

If you do ignore existing views on the subject, then you're ignoring half the story and so that's a bad answer.

Original research isn't necessarily bad. But it's hard to do correctly.

Well, I will say its just a general principle. For example, here's an answer of mine where I violate the hell out of it.

In my defense, I don't think you see this particular question directly addressed by scholars in a lot of places. And where it is, I get the feeling they tend to be wishy-washy about it, in respect to the Liberty Valance principle.

("When the legend becomes fact...print the legend")

I'm trying to figure out how to wiggle a question about Josephus Flavius not distorting the story into a proper SE question...

It will be a bit tricky. We have people who want to close anything having to do with the history of Christianity out of a firm belief that the whole kit-and-caboodle was made up.

That fact that you are actually thinking about it puts you one up over most of our questioners though. :-)

(I'm Jewish, so I was just reading some stuff about this and started wondering :D)

Honestly, as a Christian that entire era is just as important to us, if not moreso, even though almost nobody studies it. His lifetime was when a lot of the Gospels were being written down and the early churches were being formed, and to think those events aren't somehow internalized in them is just foolishness.

But of course the Diaspora at the end of those wars was arguably the true foundational event of the modern Jewish people, so I can see where you'd want to study it too.

*Josephus Flavius was a Jewish soldier in the Jewish War against Rome in 67. After being defeated by Vespasian, he said that the Messianic prophecies said that Vespasian would be king. Vespasian decided to keep him around as a slave and interpreter for Hebrew. After Vespasian became emperor, he granted Josephus his freedom and gave him citizenship. Josephus chronicled the wars between Rome and the Jews.

He opens Antiquities of the Jews with this:

> Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Does this mean that he wrote them specifically for the Greeks and so presented the Jews in a worse light, or was he unbiased in his account?

Seeing as he was a citizen of Rome at the time right after a war I don't think presenting the revolters in a positive light would have gone over so well...

Quite right.

...now I can't decide if History or Literature would be a better place to post it...

It was a really bloody revolt on both sides, and for a while Jews in the Roman Empire had roughly the social standing of Muslims in my country 16 years ago today.

...I'm not old enough to remember 9/11 (wasn't born then) but yeah, that was pretty awful. But prejudice against all Muslims isn't the right way to go about it.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't seem to recognize that.

Sorry, that's off topic.

That's just been bothering me for a bit.

Well yes, that should be a given (even if it sadly isn't already). But we can use modern behavior to give us insights into how ancient people would have thought. Humans haven't changed that much.

Good point.