Diogenes the Cynic

It wouldn't have been blasphemy even if Jesus had said "I forgive you." Blasphemy had a very narrow application and basically was only defined as vocalizing the Tetragrammaton. If you didn't say "YHWH," you hadn't committed blasphemy.

freigeister

Let's just start with bare existence. There is no purpose in moving beyond that without it first being considered settled. You accept the historicity of Hillel, and therefore I would be glad to continue a discussion about what we can truly know of him. But this discussion is about the historicity of Christ, which is disputed by some here.

Amaleq13

You don't seem to understand what is necessary to establish that a methodology is reliable. You have to use known examples of oral traditions and establish that the methodology can reliably identify those traditions from written versions. How might one do this with the Talmud?

'B' assumes what you are trying to prove so your syllogism is not helpful in establishing your claim as true.

You asserted 'B' but have not offered any support for the assertion. This should probably involve creating a thread devoted to arguing for your claim that the Gospels are based on oral tradition. As far as I can tell, you have no basis for the claim except an assumption of "correspondence" with the Talmud.

Please provide a specific quote to support your claim because it does not appear to make any sense given that the article clearly describes the available biographical information as "artificially constructed" and repeatedly qualifies all statements about the reliability of those claims with "may be true" and "perhaps historical".

I agree with Andrew that there was likely a man named 'Hillel' who founded a rabbinic school but we have no reliable historical information about him beyond that. This effectively renders any assertion of his historicity entirely meaningless and I think the same can be said of Jesus but, arguably, with even less confidence. To assert that this Hillel was historical is to really say nothing of any substance and does absolutely nothing to establish the historicity of the character described in the stories. Likewise, to assert that a man named "Jesus" was a religious leader of some men in Galilee is equally meaningless and does absolutely nothing to establish the historicity of the character in the Gospel stories.

I agree. After that work is done, your assertion might be justified.

freigeister

We have to go in the reverse direction and assume that the written Talmud is a reasonably faithful account of the now-longer extant oral antecedent.

As I said, I have no immediate interest in proving the oral origins of the Gospels. I consider the matter self-evident myself. My real interest is promoting a comparison between the Gospels and the Talmud. I do not claim to have proved anything on this score, but I am claiming that it is a valid demand that scholars examine this question thoroughly before asserting that the origin of Gospels is a settled question.

The article assumes throughout the existence of Hillel:

(bolding mine)





If it is so meaningless, then why don't you just do it?


I make the assertion as a hypothesis. Surely it is more likely to bear fruit from research than any of the Hellenizing fantasies that circulate around here.

Amaleq13

That appears to be an example of circular reasoning which is logically incapable of establishing reliable conclusions.

Then, rather than boldly asserting it as though it was a fact you could support, you should have qualified it as a personal belief. I'm not as interested in beliefs as I am in conclusions that can be supported by evidence and rational arguments.

The article assumes nothing more than the ultimately meaningless conclusion I've already mentioned. The article goes on to acknowledge that nothing of substance can be reliably obtained from the stories about this figure. To acknowledge that there was a man named "Hillel" who started a highly influencial rabbinic school does absolutely nothing to establish the historicity of the stories about him. Likewise, to acknowledge that there was at least one man named "Jesus" who was a religious leader does absolutely nothing to establish the historicity of the Gospel stories.

When have I said that I don't? I find it extremely likely that a man called "Jesus" was a religious leader in Galilee. In fact, I think it is highly likely there were several. As I already stated, this is entirely meaningless for any effort to establish the historicity of the Gospel stories.

That was not clear when you initially made it since it appeared to be more of a conclusion presumably based on something other than your personal beliefs. Thank you for clarifying the actual situation.

freigeister

Howso? We have the Talmud. We know it was oral. We can be fairly sure that it is a faithful rendition of the oral. We can then use it to as a means to assess whether documents formed in the same milieu have similar oral antecedents.




I have supported my claim to oral antecedents to the Gospels with a quotation from Crossan. I do not claim to have definitively proved it, but nor was it presented as mere personal opinion.



This was the sole claim I made in my first post.

Wallener

I think I finally see the point you're trying to make. I'm not sure how it can be conclusively proven, but yes, I agree the christian texts most likely derive from mostly oral traditions. My personal theory at this point is that the fables about Hillel were conflated with the Samaritan "messiah" Pilate's boys killed on Mount Gerizim in 35 CE.

Amaleq13

Are you assuming it is a faithful rendition of an oral tradition or do you have evidence to support the claim? If the former, you are simply assuming what you are trying to prove and that is circular reasoning. Actually, you are doing it twice if your subsequent assumption (Gospels "correspond" to the Talmud) also lacks supporting evidence.

You seem to be missing the point that the question is explaining exactly HOW you establish oral antecedents for written texts. Assuming it is circular reasoning.

As I already noted, the quote does not support your claim. All it actually supports is the notion that the sayings tradition (ie Q and Thomas) have an oral antecedent. That is far from establishing that "the Gospels" have an oral antecedent. It is also far from establishing that the oral tradition can be reliably traced to the Jesus described in the Gospel stories.

You haven't even supported it, let alone "proved" it and you've offered no evidence to suggest it is anything other than an opinion.

That is incorrect. In your first post in this thread you referred to "evidence that Christ lived". That it is likely a man called "Jesus" was a religious leader in Galilee offers absolutely no support for the notion that "Christ" (presumably as described in the Gospel stories) ever lived.

Do you really not understand the difference? It is the difference between the existence of a guy with a very common name acting in a fairly common role and the specific, superpowered, divinely ordained character described in the Gospel stories. To assume the former says absolutely nothing about the existence of the latter.

Amaleq13

I would be happy with "persuasively argued".

Aside from the apparently independent sayings tradition, the Gospel stories seem to me to be literary constructs. Certainly Crossan was unable to establish any oral basis for the passion narratives.

Wallener

That something is a "literary construct" doesn't mean - or even imply - it isn't based on oral sources.