gnosis92

I've been reading response to my post "The Torah is boring, am I cretin"? and several wrote about the Talmud as really dull and boring (like much of the Old Testament)

So I've been reading this wiki article on the Talmud

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

Originally Jewish scholarship was oral. Rabbis expounded and debated the law and discussed the bible without the benefit of written works (other than the biblical books themselves.) This situation changed drastically however mainly as the result of the destruction of the Jewish state in the year 70 C.E. and the consequent upheaval of Jewish social and legal norms.

As the Rabbis were required to face a new reality -- mainly Judaism without a temple and Judea without legal autonomy -- there was a flurry of legal discourse and the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It is during this period that Rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing."

Perhaps the absence of documents from the early Christian period is due to Jewish cultural practices that resulted in the Talmud, namely everything oral.

Doug Shaver

That argument might have some merit, if we can assume that only rabbinic scholars would have had any interest in a man whose followers thought he was God incarnate and were telling everyone they had to believe that in order to have eternal life.

DaBuster

It could be a combination of reasons, including reliance on oral tradition as well as widespread illiteracy. But perhaps most importantly, if Jesus was viewed as an apocalyptic prophet whose followers believed in his imminent return to usher in the Kingdom of God, then maybe his earliest followers simply saw no need to preserve Jesus’ message in a way that would survive much beyond the immediate present. Only as the first generation passed from the scene and Jesus failed to reappear came the realization that there was a need to save his teachings in a more permanent form than word-of-mouth. However, by this time (60-70 CE) the problems with the Roman occupation were escalating into full scale rebellion, and that may have served to further disrupt the creation and dissemination of written accounts by those who had first-hand knowledge of Jesus. (All assuming an HJ, of course….)

gnosis92

Rabbinic scholars would presumably be the most literate group in first century Jewish society, and the gospels describes Jesus followers and disciples as common folk, who are even less likely to be literate.

while i'm not an expert, do how do we know rabbi Hillel, Shammai, Gamilel, etc existed, as the Talmud was not written until the second-third century ce?

gnosis92

Sounds historically and culturally plausible to me. Given what we know about anthropology and sociology and ancient cultures, and that the dates of the gospels were around 40-60 years after the purported events, how likely are they to be based on reliable communal memory?

I'm no expert but I've heard on the history channel claims that native americans of the south west, who had no writing, preserved in oral tradition their ancestors first meeting with spanish consquistors for several centuries, before being recorded by missionaries in the early nineteenth century.
if this is true, the claim that the gospel traditions reflect communal memories of a mere 40-60 years does not seem historically implausible.

Doug Shaver

OK. Do you consider them historically reliable on that particular issue?

gnosis92

Depends on the claims, the more extraodinary the claim, the less likely, but the claim a preacher who said certain things and was crucified, and his followers believed he was raised from the dead, and that the gospels are a collection of periocopes that reflect communal "folk" memory, is not an extraordinary claim. Paul *does* make references to gospel material, as I posted elsewhere.

I've heard i think it was Ehrman claim that we have no writings from any Pharisee or Saducee in the second temple period, despite they numbering in the thousands, over many generations and hundreds of years. (the only exception would be paul but he became a christian). If this is true, how do you explain this? Perhaps the pharisees or saducees never existed? perhaps it's all a myth concocted by the new testament and josepheus?

the same would be true for the Essenes were it not for the dead sea scrolls. and we don't have the letters paul received for which he responded to, nor the response of the congregation.

I'm curious as to whether MJ think Hillel is also a mythical character. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder

illel the Elder
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hillel (הלל) was a famous Jewish religious leader who lived in Jerusalem during the time of King Herod; he is one of the most important figures in Jewish history, associated with the Mishnah and the Talmud. He was the founder of the Beit Hillel ("House of Hillel") school, a school for Tannaïm (Sages of the Mishnah); and the founder of a dynasty of Sages who stood at the head of the Jews living in the land of Israel until about the fifth century of the Common Era.

His two best-known statements are probably:
If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am I? And if not now, when? (Pirkei Avot 1:14)
That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest (is commentary, the explanation); go and study it. (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Shabbat 31a. See the ethic of reciprocity or "The Golden rule")

Hillel was born in Babylon and, according to tradition, belonged to the family of David. Nothing definite, however, is known concerning his origin, nor is he anywhere called by his father's name, which may perhaps have been Gamaliel. When Josephus ("Vita," § 38) speaks of Hillel's great-grandson, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel I, as belonging to a very celebrated family (γ�*νους σφόδρα λαμπροῦ); he probably refers to the glory which the family owed to the activity of Hillel and Rabban Gamliel Hazaken. Only Hillel's brother Shebna is mentioned; he was a merchant, whereas Hillel devoted himself to studying the Torah whilst also working as a woodcutter (Hertz 1936).

In 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.Contents [hide]
1 His position
2 Hillel and Shammai
3 The Golden Rule
4 Love of peace
5 The study of Torah
6 Hillel's influence: "House of Hillel" vs. "House of Shammai"
7 Sandwich
8 See also
9 External links
10 References


[edit]

His position

According to the Mishnah Hillel went to Jerusalem with the intention of studying Biblical exposition and tradition. The difficulties which Hillel had to overcome in order to be admitted to their school, and the hardships he suffered while pursuing his aim, are told in a touching passage (Talmud, tractate Yoma 35b), the ultimate purpose of which is to show that poverty cannot be considered as an obstacle to the study of Torah. Some time later, Hillel succeeded in settling a question concerning the sacrificial ritual in a manner which showed his superiority over the Benei Betheira (literally, sons of Betheira), who were at that time the heads of the Sanhedrin. On that occasion, it is narrated, they voluntarily resigned their position as Nasi (President) in favor of Hillel. After the resignation of the Benei Betheira, Hillel was recognized as the highest authority among the Pharisees (predecessors to Rabbinic Judaism). Hillel was the head of the great school, at first associated with Menachem, a scholar mentioned in no other connection, afterward with Shammai, Hillel's peer in the teaching of Jewish Law.

Whatever Hillel's position, his authority was sufficient to introduce those decrees which were handed down in his name. The most famous of his enactments was the Pruzbul, (προσβολή), an institution which, in spite of the law concerning the year of jubilee (Deut. xv) ensured the repayment of loans. The motive for this institution was the "repair of the world", i.e., of the social order, because this legal innovation protected both the creditor against the loss of his property, and the needy against being refused the loan of money for fear of loss. A likewise tendency is found in another of Hillel's institutions, having reference to the sale of houses. These two are the only institutions handed down in Hillel's name, although the words which introduce the pruzbul show that there were others. Hillel's judicial activity may be inferred from the decision by which he confirmed the legitimacy of some Alexandrians whose origin was disputed, by interpreting the marriage document (ketubah) of their mother in her favor (Tosef., Ket. iv 9; B. M. 104a). Of other official acts no mention is found in the sources.
[edit]

Hillel and Shammai

In the memory of posterity Hillel lived, on the one hand, as the scholar who made the whole contents of the traditional law his own (Soferim xvi. 9), who, in opposition to his Judaean colleague, Shammai, generally advocated milder interpretations of Halakha (Jewish law and tradition) and whose disciples stood in like opposition to Shammai's disciples. It was in this time that the rabbinical tradition was established, with Hillel as its 'founder'. Many great rabbis today can boast descent from the "School of Hillel".

He was known as the saint and the sage who in his private life and in his dealings with people practised the high virtues of morality and resignation; just as he taught them in his maxims with unexcelled brevity and earnestness. The traditions concerning Hillel's life harmonize completely with the sayings which are handed down in his name, and bear in themselves the proof of their genuineness. No wonder that the Babylonian Talmud is richer in traditions concerning Hillel than the Jerusalem Talmud, since the Babylonians were especially careful to preserve the recollection of their great countryman; and in the Babylonian schools of the third century was proudly quoted the saying of the Judean sage Simeon ben Lakish, in which he placed the activity of Hillel on a level with that of Ezra, who also went up from Babylon to Jerusalem.
[edit]

The Golden Rule

The saying of Hillel which introduces the collection of his maxims in the Mishnaic treatise Pirkei Avoth mentions Aaron Hakohen (the high priest) as the great model to be imitated in his love of peace, in his love of man, and in his leading mankind to a knowledge of the Law (Pirkei Avoth 1:12).

In mentioning these characteristics, which the Haggadah then already ascribed to Moses' brother, Hillel mentions his own most prominent virtues. Love of man was considered by Hillel as the kernel of the entire Jewish teaching. When a gentile who wished to become a Jew asked him for a summary of the Jewish religion in the most concise terms, Hillel said: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man: this is the whole Law; the rest is the explanation" (Shab. 31a). With these words Hillel recognized as the fundamental principle of the Jewish moral law the Biblical precept of brotherly love (Lev. xix. 18).

From the doctrine of man's likeness to God, Hillel deduced man's duty to care for his own body. According to Midrash Leviticus rabbah he said "As in a theater and circus the statues of the king must be kept clean by him to whom they have been entrusted, so the bathing of the body is a duty of man, who was created in the image of the almighty King of the world." In this work Hillel calls his soul a guest upon earth, toward which he must fulfill the duties of charity.

In Avot, Hillel stated "If I am not for myself, who is for me? and when I am for myself, what am I? and if not now, when?" The second part of this sentence expresses the same idea as another of Hillel's teachings (Avot 2:4): "Do not separate yourself from the congregation." The third part contains the admonition to postpone no duty, the same admonition which he gave with reference to study (Avot 2:4): "Say not, 'When I have time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any leisure."

The precept that one should not separate oneself from the community, Hillel paraphrases, with reference to Eccl. iii. 4, in the following saying (Tosef., Ber. ii.): "Appear neither naked nor clothed, neither sitting nor standing, neither laughing nor weeping." Man should not appear different from others in his outward deportment; he should always regard himself as a part of the whole, thereby showing that love of man which Hillel taught. The feeling of love for one's neighbor shows itself also in his exhortation (Avot ii. 4).

In the following maxim is expressed also his consciousness of his own insufficiency: "Trust not thyself till the day of thy death." How far his love of man went may be seen from an example which shows that benevolence must act with regard to the needs of him who is to be helped. Thus a man of good family who had become poor Hillel provided with a riding horse, in order that he might not be deprived of his customary physical exercise, and with a slave, in order that he might be served (Tosef., Peah, iv. 10; Ket. 67b).
[edit]

Love of peace

The exhortation to love peace emanated from Hillel's most characteristic traits — from that meekness and mildness which had become proverbial, as is seen from the saying: "Let a man be always humble and patient like Hillel, and not passionate like Shammai" (Shab. 31a; Ab. R. N. xv.). Hillel's gentleness and patience are illustrated in an anecdote which relates how two men made a wager on the question whether Hillel could be made angry. Though they questioned him and made insulting allusions to his Babylonian origin, they were unsuccessful in their attempt (ib.).
[edit]

The study of Torah

The many anecdotes according to which Hillel made proselytes, correspond to the third part of his maxim: "Bring men to the Law." A later source (Ab. R. N.) gives the following explanation of the sentence: Hillel stood in the gate of Jerusalem one day and saw the people on their way to work. "How much," he asked, "will you earn to-day?" One said: "A denarius"; the second: "Two denarii." "What will you do with the money?" he inquired. "We will provide for the necessities of life." Then said he to them: "Would you not rather come and make the Torah your possession, that you may possess both this and the future world?"

This narrative has the same points as the epigrammatic group of Hillel's sayings (Avot. 2:7) commencing: "The more flesh, the more worms," and closing with the words: "Whoever has acquired the words of the Law has acquired the life of the world to come." In an Aramaic saying Hillel sounds a warning against neglect of study or its abuse for selfish purposes: "Whoever would make a name (i.e. glory) loses the name; he who increases not [his knowledge] decreases; whoever learns not [in Ab. R. N. xii.: "who does not serve the wise and learn"] is worthy of death; whoever makes use of the crown perishes" (Avot. 1:13).
[edit]

Hillel's influence: "House of Hillel" vs. "House of Shammai"

Hillel's disciples are generally called the "House of Hillel", in contrast to Shammai's disciples, the "House of Shammai". Their controversies concern all branches of the Jewish law. Only a few decisions have been handed down under Hillel's name; but there can be no doubt that much of the oldest anonymous traditional literature was due directly to him or to the teachings of his masters. The fixation of the norms of the Midrash and of halakhic Scripture exposition was first made by Hillel, in the "seven rules of Hillel," which, as is told in one source, he applied on the day on which he overcame the Benei Betheira (Tosef., Sanh. vii., toward the end; Sifra, Introduction, end; Ab. R. N. xxxvii.). On these seven rules rest the thirteen of R. Ishmael; they were epoch-making for the systematic development of the ancient Scripture exposition.
[edit]

Sandwich

Hillel the Elder is often credited as having been the inventor of the "sandwich" in the 1st century B.C.E. well over a thousand years before John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich.

This is based on a part of the Passover Seder (the annual commemoration of the Exodus from Egypt), in the section of Korech, where the Haggadah, the ancient liturgy, instructs participants to take the matzo and wrap it around the bitter herbs and eat them together whilst saying in Hebrew: This is a remembrance of Hillel in Temple times - This is what Hillel did when the Temple existed: he used to enwrap the Paschal lamb, the matzo and the bitter herbs and eat them as one. In the Ashkenazi tradition the usual practice is to do this by making a motsa and lettuce/horseradish sandwich.

However, it is more likely that matzo in Hillel's day was not hard and crisp but soft like that of many Sepharadi Jews today. Thus, Hillel would have been eating something more like a lamb, lettuce and lavash (or tortilla-like) "wrap" than a traditional English closed sandwich. The true inventor of the sandwich would have been an anonymous Ashkenazi Jew trying to imitate Hillel's practice using a crisp unbending matzo.

Apikorus

A few months back I participated in a detailed discussion of the value of the rabbinic literature vis-a-vis the historicity of Jesus. Those interested in the previous thread can read it here.

gnosis92

THanks for the link. In the second temple period, how many written documents do we have by Jews, on matters of history, who were located in Israel? Or was everything oral?

I am aware of Philo, although he's not mentioned as apharisee or saducee
or essene.

Doug Shaver

That doesn't quite answer my question.

I think there is more to establishing a document as a source of reliable history than the prima facie plausibility of the events recorded therein.

What do you think is known, with reasonable certainty, about the gospels that tells us we should believe their ordinary claims?