gnosis92

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder

The Talmud was written long after these famous rabbis died.

"n the Midrash compilation Sifre (Deut. 357) the periods of Hillel's life are made parallel to those in the life of Moses. Both lived 120 years; at the age of forty Hillel went to the Land of Israel; forty years he spent in study; and the last third of his life he was the spiritual head of the Jewish people. A biographical sketch can be constructed; that Hillel went to Jerusalem in the prime of his life and attained a great age. His activity of forty years likely covered the period of 30 BCE to 10 CE."

Makes it sounds like these rabbis are all mythical.

S.C.Carlson

Gamaliel is mentioned in Acts. But then Acts also mentions the existence of Jesus....

gstafleu

Is there reason to assume they didn't exist? Jesus is your typical mythological figure, which is where the doubt for his existence starts. But are these three mythological figures? (It could be, I just don't know).

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

Having read the Wikipedia entry on Hillel, there are clearly some mythological elements in his life story:
Notice the importance of the numbers 40 and 3 (120=3x40). Both are numbers with mythological significance (Jesus was 40 days in the desert, he resurrected after three days). But that could easily be later "attachements."

Then we have:
That has the intent of teaching something, so it has mythological significance as well. I would say you'd have to go over his whole life story as we have it, and try do decide if the elements are there to explain or teach things, in which case they have mythological significance, or if they are just mundane everyday events. The more of the former and the less of the latter you find, the larger the chance he is a mythological figure.

Gerard Stafleu

spin

And you don't see a difference between a christian document mentioning Jesus and it mentioning Gamaliel? Forget I asked -- of course, you don't.

The problem with Acts is when was it written? what were its sources? how do you evaluate its historical claims? These are the sorts of questions so often asked about classical sources.

I've just been reading an article by Glanville Downey on an error in Strabo regarding Antioch. He basically discredits Strabo's information the city's walls in favour of that found in works of several centuries later (Libanius and John Malalas), which show more accurate knowledge of the matter. Of course, it helps to have the knowledge of the place when making one's judgment.

Ancient testimony of all kinds is susceptible to close analysis and evaluation.


spin

neilgodfrey

Many historical persons have had mythical or legendary tales told about them after their deaths (eg Nero, Frederick Barbarossa, Washington, too many to start listing them) but we have other reasons to believe they did historically exist. There is simply no way to know for certain whether others like Hillel did exist or whether they were ideological and literary constructions that took on historical significance. Few are going to lose any sleep if they discover one day any of these never existed. Jesus is different for some reason -- there are some who would argue that that alone is proof he really is who he said he is! But the real question underlying the existence of Jesus is the one about Christian origins. So some people should lose sleep over this one.

But the real

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

andrewcriddle

I have no real doubt that Hillel and Shammai existed however we know little solid about them.

In particular the later stories about Hillel and Shammai in which for example Hillel quotes a version of the golden rule are in all probability much later inventions.

Even in the earlier material the actual views of Hillel and Shammai seem to have been confused with the views of their later disciples.

Andrew Criddle

The Evil One

andrewcriddle's comments made me ponder.

If Hillel didn't live 120 years; didn't have a biography that paralleled that of Moses; didn't teach the views attributed to him...

... then in what sense is it meaningful to say "Rabbi Hillel existed", even if there was a bloke called "Hillel" at roughyl that time who was indeed a rabbi?

The only Rabbi Hillel we have access to is the Rabbi Hillel of the texts. If, in the actual past, there was a Rabbi Hillel who does not resemble the Rabbi Hillel of the texts in a substantial way, then the existence of this Rabbi Hillel does not substantiate the existence of "our" Rabbi Hillel.

IE with all these mythologised characters, if nothing of their story is left once the mythic elaborations and errors are scraped away, then it becomes meaningless to say that they "existed" even if some historical person was ultimately the basis.

King Arthur, for instance. Let's imagine that one day archaeologists dig up evidence to show that there was a man called Arthur, on whom the stories are ultimately based, but he wasn't a king, didn't rule from Camelot, didn't marry Guinevere, didn't own Excalibur, didn't know a magician called Merlin, didn't fight the Saxons, didn't lead a band of knights, etc. etc.

In what way would the historical individual constitute an Arthur "who really existed", apart from the coincidence of names?

Furthermore, I would argue, since we know from analysis of the textual tradition that these elements are very likely to be mythological additions, we know already that if "Arthur" existed then the "Arthur" that existed was not our Arthur, the Arthur of the texts, but some other Arthur. Rendering the question of the existence of an actual Arthur of no relevence to the question of the existence of the textual Arthur, "our" Arthur: we can answer that question with a confident "No", even if there happens to be a historical person somewhere underneath it all.

(Purposefully not commenting on Jesus because I wanted to avoid getting contentious, but the same argumetn could be applied)

ETA: in other words existence is not the important question, the accuracy of the textual tradition is the important question; if the textual tradition is not accurate then "existence" becomes irrelevant.

gstafleu

True enough, and it is this "other reasons to believe they did historically exist" bit that I was getting at when I asked if in Hillel's "biography" we find anything that does not have mythological significance. If not, and there is no other Hillel evidence, we can no longer establish if there was a historical figure, so it is not all that useful to talk about it. That would be like asking for a historical Maui. Who knows, maybe there was a guy called Maui at some point and all these myths just got pasted onto him. But what is the use in speculating that?

Gerard Stafleu

BH

A lot of this is like the Trojan War story found in Homer's Illiad.

Homer preserved a grain of truth about a real war----Paris (Alexandros) really existed and was the prince of Troy during the war. He also got it right that Troy was sacked by people probably coming from Greece.

On the other hand----surviving Hittite documents state that they marched to kick out the Greeks (who may be the "Sea Peoples" of the time) but make no mention of any of the Greek leaders found in Homer. There is no mention of Priam or Hector either. Paris was in fact the ruler at the time and was an old man by the standards of the day too.