The siege and fall of Masada in 73 CE provides us with an almost unparalleled opportunity to draw on both literary and archaeological information to understand one of the best-known events in ancient Jewish history. In 5-7 double-spaced pages(Times New Roman, size 12 font), analyze the following two readings in light of the below instructions.
Yigael Yadin, Masada: Herod’s Fortress and the Zealots’ Last Stand. Translated by Moshe Pearlman; New York: Random House, 1966.
Yadin, Masada (1).pdfDownload Yadin, Masada (1).pdf
*Important: The file contains excerpts from different parts of Yadin’s book, and as such, the flow is sometimes interrupted. Even so, you should be able to follow the flow and logic of his argumentation. Read the following pages: pp. 54, 96-100, 193-201, 209-37. Note that pages 209-25 (the long section on the Roman camps) may be skimmed.
Shaye Cohen, “Masada: Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains, and the Credibility of Josephus,” Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 385-405.
Cohen, Masada, Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains, and the Credibility of Josephus_rotated.pdfDownload Cohen, Masada, Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains, and the Credibility of Josephus_rotated.pdf
The assignment: Scholars often disagree about how to interpret evidence. Although this may seem obvious, it is not so easy to master two divergent points of view and present a fair case for both. With this paper you will try to weigh differing and at times contradictory analyses of historical evidence. Write a detailed account of the dispute encountered in the readings (listed above and provided on Canvas). It is up to you to decide how best to organize your essay. Do not write as if I already know the contents of the readings and the subject of the debate. The goal is to distill and analyze the main points related to the debate at hand (do not summarize or recount the readings at length). When relevant, you should not shy away from discussing nitty-gritty details (such as the nature and location of the discovery of skeletal remains). Explain the problem and present the essential evidence at stake. Make sure that you understand what positions are held, and at what specific point(s) the writers agree and disagree. Observe the particular patterns in the discussion, such as:
– who wrote first/second, and the effect of the statement/response (are they talking exactly about the same thing)?
– what is their approach and the logic of their argument?
– what evidence do they use and what evidence do they omit?
– do they categorize the evidence in the same manner?
– what is considered decisive by each writer?
Do not choose sides. For this paper, I am more concerned that you show a detailed and fair understanding of each position. It is sometimes said that one cannot begin a fair rebuttal of any position until one can present that position in terms that its own advocate would accept as accurate. Apply your critical thinking to the way(s) in which the writers develop their cases. In addition to the fulfillment of the above instructions, your paper will be graded on the basis of the following criteria:
coherent organization, and clear, grammatical writing that is free of spelling errors.
Warning: You may encounter in these readings names of places and people as well as technical terms and foreign words that are unfamiliar to you. The fact that you do not know these will represent initial barriers to understanding the readings, but this is very much part of the point to this paper. Your job is to read for the structure of thinking, to follow the flow of an argument, and then to figure out each category of information and how it fits into the larger purpose of the reading. The significance of most of the evidence can be figured out this way. You should look up unfamiliar words in a dictionary. Most other technical information (such as references to other scholars’ articles or books and foreign words) can be figured out from context. Despite such features regularly found in scholarly literature, it should still be possible to follow the reasoning of the reading.
HERE IS THE ESSAY I HAVE RIGHT NOW:
The Siege and Fall of Masada: Differing Scholarly Perspectives
The Masada siege and the fall of the same in 73 CE are one of the most important events in the history of ancient Jews. Thanks to the preservation of both literary and archaeological materials, this event is a rare opportunity to have a multidimensional view of this event. Two leading exponents such as Yigael Yadin and Shaye Cohen have analyzed it in a very profound way with this article on Masada each alternatively giving certain facts. In this work, Yadin indicates that the details of the excavation carried out at the palace of Masada are his main revelation in the book “Masada: Herod’s Fortress and the Zealots’ Last Stand.” On the other hand, Cohen’s essay, “Masada: Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains, and the Credibility of Josephus,” deals with the analysis of the truthfulness of Josephus’s information in comparison with the archaeological material. This essay seeks to discuss the most important arguments and to contrast the views of Yigael Yadin with those of Shaye Cohen and others in order to explain their propositions and the reasons they have come to.
Yadin’s book is such a notable work that in addition to historical data, it also includes the story of Masada in a very interesting and true way. Another point worth mentioning is that Yadin headed the dig at the site plus he utilized the evidence from the site to support the historical context Josephus develops in his work. Much of the work is based on a solid steadiness of the material uncovered at Masada including the defense walls, the Roman camps, and the dead people. He goes into a lot of specifics to outline the discoveries at Masada. These contributed to the proof of Josephus’s depictions of the siege and the conditions at the hilltop fortress.
What Yadin is actually saying is that the skeletal remains found are the evidence of mass suicide as described in Josephus, which he insists on. These are typically enclosed in the text with the heading “Before the Summary.” Outlining these meta-rules is the main purpose of this chapter. Yadin insists that it is the particular arrangement and construction of the camps both inside and outside Masada that are definite evidence that Masada was a concentration camp. He aims to show that they are one of the essential pieces of the puzzle that would help us to comprehend the catastrophic structure of the Zealots’ last stand.
Shaye Cohen presents an article that is more on the doubtful side on whether Josephus was a reliable historical narrator. Cohen directly implies that the credibility of the oral tradition is the main issue by opposing it with the archaeological evidence and the dubious nature of Josephus’ account. Cohen, too, points out the literary style and objectives of Josephus, claiming that the historian might be subjective or melodramatic. He stresses the necessity of an unprejudiced approach to Josephus as a Jewish writer who wrote ancient works which were sponsored by the Romans.
Masada is viewed by scholars as a place of great historical and symbolic significance and the center of Jewish rebellion against the Roman authority. Both include the significance of archaeological finds in reconstructing the events at Masada, though their emphases on its interpretation of them is different. In contrast to Cohen, who is more dubious about the accuracy of Josephus’s account, Yadin embraces it and uses the findings to back up the narrative of the ancient historian. On the other hand, Cohen is not so easy and suggests to others to be cautious when they read the ancient text of Josephus. Yadin decodes these bones as evidence of the mass suicide recounted by Josephus. Cohen opposes this conclusion and gives his versions, pointing out that some parts of the evidence are ambiguous. Yadin relies mainly on the archaeological evidence and the physical finds to validate his historical account. Cohen’s way of proceeding is very critical and comparative, the researcher explores the credibility of the written sources as well as their possible influences on the historical descriptions.
The method of Yadin is seen to be linked directly to the findings of the archaeological phase he has conducted at Masada. The settlement he puts forward stems from the material traces he has discovered which he uses to retell the events in such a way as Josephus had reported them at the time. His consecutive logic is commonsense and backed up by the concrete evidence found by the researchers. On the other hand, Cohen is more inclined towards an analytical and skeptical approach. He goes into the literary aspects of Josephus’s writings, juxtaposing them with archaeological evidence in order to identify any discrepancies. Cohen’s method, one of questioning the known aspects and challenging them, is a way to recognize the history behind it or potential reasons for writing it.
Yadin and Cohen’s disagreement about the events at Masada draws attention to the intricacies of historical evidence interpretation. Yadin is certain that the results of the excavations greatly support what Josephus says but Cohen is very skeptical and critically analyzes the literature and the hard evidence. The chasm between the two is rooted in the imperativeness of the multifaceted and methodological approach established in historical research. Through dissecting the areas where Yadin and Cohen converge and diverge in their discussions, we come to fathom more deeply the pitfalls in creating the past and the subjective essence of historical sources.
IT NEEDS MAJOR EDITING. I AM HAVING TROUBLE GETTING THE SOURCES ADDED IM WORKING ON IT. DO NOT USE ANY AI
