freigeister

I would suggest as a methodology for investigating the oral origin of the Gospels that they be compared to the Talmud. We know that the Talmud was oral. I have already given an example of how this could be done by showing how Hillel is mythologized in the Talmud but is not therefore judged mythical; this compares with the way that Christ is mythologized in the Gospels, and yet is judged mythical by some.

freigeister

I haven't a clue.

Amaleq13

How is that a methodology for differentiating oral tradition from created literature?

After reading the Wikipedia article you linked, it would appear that the comparison is quite valid but that comparison does not suggest, contrary to your claim, that anything can be reliably said about historicity for either figure.

"Of this artificially constructed biographical sketch this much may be true, that Hillel went to Jerusalem in the prime of his manhood and attained a great age. His activity of forty years is perhaps historical" (emphasis mine)

If one qualified all one's statements about Jesus in the same way, I would tend to agree.

If you have no clue where the Gospel stories were written, then how can you have a clue about the "environment" in which they originated?

jonesg

HE was forgiving sins, that was thought to be Gods job.

freigeister

We could certainly compare the Gospels and the Talmud to "created literature" in order to identify the qualities which mark a literature as deriving from oral antecedents. The important thing for my main argument, however, is not the specifically oral origin of the Talmud and the Gospels, but rather the very close literary connections between them. It just seems bizarre that everybody finds correspondences between the Gospels and every kind of obscure mythology, but no one ever talks about the obvious correspondences they have with the Talmud.


Provided you follow the article in not denying the basic historicity of either person, we may have an agreement

We know nothing whatsoever about the conditions under which the Gospels as we know them came to be written. But we do know that they have correspondences with the Talmud, including that they originated in an oral environment.

Diogenes the Cynic

What does that have to do with the question?

Actually, I would argue that the saying attributed to Jesus is that he claimed that the "sons of Adam" (i.e. all human beings) had the ability to forgive sins. This point was garbled in the gospels, which incorrectly attributed a titular, Messianic meaning to the phrase "son of Adam/man" which didn't exist in Hebrew/Aramaic vernacular. I think that more than one of the 'son of man" sayings were originally intended as statements about humanity, not specifically Jesus or the Messiah.

None of that has anything to do with whether Jesus ever claimed to be a literal "son of God," though. even if he were to give himself that title, it would have been nothing more significant than a claim to be the Anointed (or perhaps to be a prophet). It would not have been a claim to literal descendency from God or to personal Godhood. Those concepts would have seemed completely incoherent and ridiculous in HJ's cultural and religious context.

Amaleq13

I think you would first have to demonstrate that the methodology works with known examples of written versions of oral traditions. This is what Crossan did in considering the passion narratives. He compared patterns in Irish oral funeral laments with written versions. He found nothing similar in the passion narratives.

This is an entirely different claim from the one I have been questioning.

I have no idea where you obtained this notion since the author of the Wikipedia article clearly does not assert the historicity of the stories about Hillel. One need only consider the portions I put in bold to understand this.

Given everything you've admitted is not known about the Gospels, I'm afraid you're going to have to be much more specific than "correspondences" to support your assertion that they originated in an oral environment.

dost

Thank for for your comment joneseg

I have read on this issue in the few books in my possession and am not presently convinced with the argument that Jesus thought of himself as much more than a man because he forgave sins.

I think Sanders deals with this topic quite well. To briefly summarise his argument, in Mark 2:2-12, Jesus announces that the paralytic man' sins are forgiven, "your sins are forgiven". This leads to a charge of blasphemy. However, such a pronouncement on the part of Jesus cannot be regarded as blasphemy by any Jewish law or interpretation. Jesus does not say in the text "I forgive your sins" but "your sins are forgiven" in the passive voice. sanders says that in the culture of Jesus, "the passive voice was used as a circumlocution for God: 'your sins are forgiven' means 'they are forgiven by God.'" Therefore, as Sanders explains, Jesus only announces the fact, he does not take God's place. mentioned also is Honi, who had a special relationship with God and was not considered a blasphemer. The charge of blasphemy against Jesus in Mark is more likely a retrojection into the early ministry of Jesus if a charge that was made later.

[Sanders, The Historical Jesus, p. 213-214]

Geza Vermes has a more detailed reply and I think I read something on this in Thiesen, but I will have to check up on that.

freigeister

I am suggesting that instead of "Irish funeral laments", we look at the Talmud.


Let me put my argument in the form of a syllogism:

A. The Talmud is a written version of oral literature.
B. The Gospels are of the same source as the Talmud.
C. Therefore, the Gospels are written versions of oral literature.

A is undisputed. It remains to prove B. If B is true, then C is true.

My participation in this thread is based on B, that the Gospels are of the same literary source as the Talmud. Once we have agreed on that, we do not really have to argue about C: it will be proven.


The Wikipedia article clearly does assert the historicity of Hillel.


I have provided an example by comparing the treatment of Hillel in the Talmud to that of Christ in the Gospels. Naturally, there is a great deal of work to be done here.

andrewcriddle

There may be an ambiguity about historicity here. IMO there certainly was a historical Hillel the founder of the rabbinic school known as the 'House of Hillel' but we know almost nothing about him. The stories about him are mostly sheer fiction.

When you talk about the historicity of Hillel do you mean his bare existence ? or are you argiung for some sort of historical basis to the typical Talmudic stories about Hillel ?

Andrew Criddle