No Robots

No answer, then, on whether Hillel was historical?

Juststeve

Robots:

You make a good point about Hillel and for that very reason you are unlikely to get the mythers to engage. I for one think Hillel probably existed but my reasons for thinking so are no more unassailable than my reasons for thinking Jesus probably existed. Their existence is not at all extraordinary and its the best and simplest explanation for the traditions that grew up about them. Simpler for example than Hillel didn't exist on earth but in some sub-lunar realm.

Steve

dog-on

Present the evidence and your conclusions.

Remember to show your work.

No Robots

I'm asking you, remember?

dog-on

I really do not know why I should view Hillel as historical, or ahistorical.

I have never seen the case.

If you would be so kind as to make it, as you must obviously know of one from which you would judge any response to this question, I will gladly take a look at it.

No Robots

I'm asking those who have a method for determining Christ's historicity to apply that method to Hillel in order to demonstrate that they are not engaged in special pleading.

dog-on

Ok, then I'll ask you some questions. How about these to start.

Do we have any extent physical artifacts that can be traced directly to this person?

Do we have any extent writings by this person?

Do we have any attestations for this person by anyone who personally knew him?

No Robots

Do we have any extent physical artifacts that can be traced directly to this person? No.

Do we have any extent writings by this person? No.

Do we have any attestations for this person by anyone who personally knew him? No.

dog-on

Hmmm, not looking good for poor Hillel. We may be moving towards agnosticism.

What do you think is the best piece of evidence for Hillel's historicity?

No Robots

An honest answer.

I'm not making claims here. I'm testing methods.