No Robots

There is at least one other writer who considers it possible that it is Hillel the Great.

My earlier citation examines the context for glosses in this passage. There has been considerable censorship of the Talmud due to Christian pressure and anti-Christian sentiment. This may be at play in the attribution that the text editor assigns to the passage.

Yes. And all the more recent material that I have cited corroborates it.

No, I do not read Hebrew. But I provided a link for a page that does have the the Hebrew text. You tell me what the verb is.

Toto

A request regarding housekeeping:

1. Please use the standard amazon format. It's easy == use the amazon tag and the 10 digit isbn number. The full explanation is here, which was written before the amazon tag was implemented.

2. Please do not post deep links into google books. Those have a tendency to degrade over time (based on my experience.)

I prefer that people not post links with cryptic titles that force people to click on the link to find the basic information about the book. Use the book title at least, or preferably the full title and author. This will make it easier for others to follow the argument and decide how much time they want to invest in it.

Thanks for your cooperation.

No Robots

As I said, I do not read Hebrew, so perhaps you would be good enough to identify the verb in the relevant passage. You do read Hebrew, don't you?

And the fact that the citation is in a work from the 17th century is irrelevant, isn't it, considering that we are dealing here with a simple matter of translation?

spamandham

Simply because we have records of Marcion and other competing Christian sects later than the Gospels, does not imply these competing sects did not exist at the time of the Gospels. The Gospels show signs of heavy editing by competing sects, even the mere existence of multiple differing Gospels is evidence of that.

In regards to various forms of Judaism, there is indeed mention of different forms of Judaism within the Gospels (Pharisees, Nazarenes, and Sadducees), but the Gospels are certainly not the primary source of information about that.

aa5874

There is no mention of any belief of Nazarenes in the Gospels, the author who used the word Nazarene, it would appear, thought Nazarene refered to people who came from Nazareth.

Further, there is no significant belief structure mentioned in the Gospel for Sadducees or Pharisees, except in a general sense with respect to the Sabbath, circumcision and sacrifice.

And to say that the Gospels shows signs of heavy editing by competing sects is a gross speculation, since you cannot even state which competing sect edited any part of the Gospel or which sect wrote the Gospels in the first place, or what was not edited or if the editing was done by the original sect, and even when the editing was done.

Jeffrey Gibson

Considering it possible is not the same thing as saying it was. In any case, note that Dodd's discussion of this possibility -- which is within the context of the historicity of the Barabbas episode and the meaning of LHSTAI, and not Jn. 6 -- is intent to note that the Hezikiah spoken of in Sanhedrin 99a is the "Zealot" Hezikiah, the father of Judas of Gamala, not king Hezikiah, in order to explain why Hillel says, as you've neglected to note that he does, that the there is no longer any hope that Messiah will come. Moreover, Dodd sees the verb you think means "eat" (with a good sense) as meaning "devour" and this with the connotation of "destroy the chances for.

So the evidence you adduce to support one aspect of your claim destroys the other, and more important, aspect of it.


You know it's a sure sign of desperation when one resorts to the "censorship" card to explain away data that does not fit with what one wants to believe.

Besides that, the page you cite speaks not of Christian glosses, but of Jewish ones -- and more importantly, glosses which were intent to mitigate Hillel's note that no one should hope for the coming of the messiah since the chance for his coming was destroyed in the days of Hezikiah.

Which, if you pay attention to what is said there shows that both you and Brunner are wrong to think that the idea of "eating of the Messiah" that Hillel spoke of was thought of by Hillel (and by "Judaism") as a good thing, let alone something that people should do.

Your claim. Your job.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

You tell me. In any case, are you really saying that our understanding of Rabbinic Hebrew, not to mention of Talmudic discourse (and it's applicability to the NT) has not advanced one whit since the middle of the 1600's???

Jeffrey

No Robots

Please indicate where he does so. Other sources do maintain that "devoured him" is used in the positive sense. This is evident from its frequent translation as "enjoyed him."

Indeed, that's where the glosses seem to originate, with the Jewish redactor, Rashi. The Methodist Review on page 38 specifically calls Rashi "a glossist." As for the attribution, there is the possibility that the redactor wanted to distance such an outrageous statement from Hillel the Great.

All you were requesting was the passage in the original Hebrew, which the link provides. It also definitely identifies that the verb in question is literally 'devoured', which is not questioned by any authority.

Jeffrey Gibson

In the very footnote on that you pointed us to.

Please name these sources.

Frequent? And is not the use of "enjoyed him" a substitution for Hillel's "ate", and not a translation of the verb he uses, not to mention part of a larger attempt to label Hillel's statement as something that was not to be accepted?

So where does it say that Christians "glossed"/censored this quote from Hillel, let alone that they forced Jews to censor and amend the Talmud? Isn't it a Christian whose work you adduced to provide us with the Hebrew text of the Hillel quote in Sanhedrin 99a?

The possibility? Isn't that exactly what Rashi does? Isn't it exactly what and the other Sages who are reported in Sanhedrin 99a as commenting upon Hillel's statement do as well?. And if Hillel's statement is outrageous, what becomes of your and Brunner's claim that "eating the Messiah" was thought of in Judaism (let alone first century Palestinian Judaism) as a good thing?

Moreover I'd be grateful if you could show me where Rashi says -- or in any way indicates -- that the Hillel of Sanhedrin 99a is Hillel the Great.

That was one thing I requested. You've ignored my requests that you show that Hillel's saying really illuminates, and shows as Jewish" Jesus command that his disciples should/must eat his body/flesh if they wanted to obtain "salvation".

Umm ... didn't you point us earlier (see here) to authorities who did question that the verb means devour and go on to claim that "the correct translation is "ate," and that other translations are glosses"?

In any case, the more important question is whether "devour" has the particular connotations that you claimed it had when you asserted that it shows that the Messiah Jesus could command his followers to eat (of) his body/flesh flesh and not be inconsistent with Judaism?

Obviously "Hillel" does not think so. Nor do the Talmudic commentators on "Hillel's" statement who realize that what he says is not a good thing.

Jeffrey

spamandham

The groups are mentioned in distinct terms. This necessarily implies they are not identical, regardless of the failure of the Gospels to document all the differences between them.

...and to reiterate, the Gospels are by no means the primary source of knowledge about competing Jewish groups in the 1st century. We know that completely independent of the NT.