Hillel. Born in 110 BCE. Notable sayings include:
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn" - Hillel
Jesus: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Mathew 7:12
Is this evidence that the Jesus figure was a compilation of other figures with more historical reliability?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Plagiarism, perhaps?
Yep. He's a pastiche of bits and pieces from other religions. His "Golden Rule" can also be found in much older religions and philosophies, including Buddhism, Confucianism, and Zoroastrianism.
@ Chimp Re Hillel
The whole Hillel shebang was brought up when I was looking into this whole historical Jesus fabrication. Hillel is and was revered teacher and some theologians/'historians' accept that he was a seminal influence on the young Jesus as well the influence of buddhism 'tainting' the purity of Judaism at the time ( quite a lot of angst by the Rabbis about foreign influence). Some have put Hille up as the prototype Jesus and some other wandering ruffian got the rough end of the pineapple after preaching Hillels verses to a hostile Jerusalem crowd...and so a legend was born!
Chimp 3 ....
Agreed ....
The more you look the more you find that there is very , very little that is truly original in the (so called) Judeo - Christian and Abrahamic traditions ....
I love the Rabbi Hillel story, especially the bit about him standing on one foot.
This is the oldest version of the maxim of reciprocity I could find.
Possibly the earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity, reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess Ma'at, appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
It’s far older than Christianity and common to cultures all over the ancient and modern world- monotheist ones, pantheist ones and atheist ones.
The "eye for an eye" law codes of Hammurabi from the 18th century BC are argubly founded around the Golden Rule principle.
Well, considering Jesus came not to replace the old law but to fulfill it, it makes a lot of sense that he would use similar language.
Notice however than Hillel's language uses passive words like, "DO NOT DO ..." As opposed to Jesus' language which uses active words, "DO ALSO TO THEM ..."
@JoC Notice however than Hillel's language uses passive words like, "DO NOT DO ..." As opposed to Jesus' language which uses active words, "DO ALSO TO THEM ..."
Neither command is in the passive voice grammatically. One is negative, the other positive.
All true rights are expressed in negative language.
I agree with you... grammatically.
But with Hillel's language, all you need to do is not harm other people (Passive). Jesus' language asks us to do things for other people (Active).
@ JoC so much more contemporary evidence for a Hillel than a Jesus...wow. How can we all be reading that out of context?
When it comes down to evidence Hiillel the Elder is real, jesus isn't.
Please produce this contemporary source of yours. Also, when did contemporary sources become a requirement for people existing in the ancient world?
Hannibal Barca didn’t have any contemporary sources as well but no one doubts he existed. Please, educate me, old man.
The historian Sosylus of Lacedaemon travelled with Hannibal on one of his campaigns and some of his writings about it survive to this day.
Yeah. Sosylus’ work on Hannibal is a lost work. Only fragments survive. If you wanna consider lost works as permissible as “contemporary sources” then sure.
Remember Matthew and John also traveled with Jesus during his ministry. And those works are better attested to.
@JoC: You told us in one post there aren't any contemporary sources for Hannibal.
Before the ink was dry on that you admitted the existence of written fragments from Sosylus.
Guess what JoC: those fragments are a contemporary source. A contemporary source you JUST told us doesn't exist!
--------------------------------------------------------
eta:
Basically I'm just curious: when you told us there was no contemporary source for Hannibal, were you lying or just repeating someone else's lie (without checking it)?
Were these contemporary sources? They may have existed but most of what we know about Hannibal isn’t even from these fragments. Polybios is our main source for Hannibal.
Also, how certain are you that these were written during his lifetime and not afterwards? One would mean they are a contemporary source (as defined by most). The other would mean they’re not a contemporary source.
@JoC :They were written during one of Hannibal's military campaigns by someone who participated in the campaign! If that isn't contemporary, nothing is.
So again I ask: why did you tell us there were no contemporary sources for Hannibal, when in seems you already knew of one? How does this not make you a liar?
If you are reading the Old Testament it is based on Hilles interpretation of the Talmud and Torah.
The two 'houses' or schools of jewish thought ( Hillel and Shammai) were in competition until 'Bat Kol" ( a voice from heaven) was claimed and decided in favour of the Hillel school of thought.
As to evidence for the existence of Hillel and his teachings...read the Talmud, it is Hillel whose commentaries to the large part make up the current, modern day interpretation of that book.
Historically Hillel ( Born in Babylon) and his school of thought are attested to not only by fragments but considered very reliable viz 'Ethics of the Fathers (Pirkei Avot) as the last of the ‘Pairs’, the five sets of two spiritual heads in succession until the leadership of the people was in the hands of Hillel’s descendants',For a good read about Hillel and his influence read this
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7698-hillel
Further if you understand that all the discussions and decisions handed down re Jewish Law were referenced to the great teachers at the time ( hence my contemporary documents comment) then there is little doubt that such a figure existed historically.
I will stand corrected and say a "multiplicity of contemporary references to Hill and his decisions exist"
@JoC
Telling people to do things for other people is demanding a sacrifice on their part. That's no basis for harmony based on mutual respect for rights. True rights should always be negative (or as you say, "passive"). The real meaning of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is that nobody should take away your life or freedom or prevent you from pursuing happiness as you see fit.
As a cult of sacrifice, Christianity inevitably leads to the erosion of human rights. The church didn't request tithes.
If you say so. Though you have no evidence of that claim.
JoC "Jesus' language asks us to do things for other people "
Like "slaves obey your masters"?
Mosquoting Jesus, Sheldon. That wasn’t said by Jesus. It was St. Paul who said that. Then you’d have to look at context. Do you know why Paul said this at all?
@JoC: Though you have no evidence of that claim.
Your core myth is the story of a man who meekly allowed himself to be tortured and killed by a totalitarian state but was resurrected and gained eternal life. When Peter tried to fight back in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus told him to put away his sword. The message is reinforced by the stories of the martyrs. Isn't that evidence?
In addition to its own tyrannical history, your church has aligned itself with some of the worst tyrants in modern times, including Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Pinochet, Salazar... It offers the downtrodden the illusion of eternal bliss in exchange for tolerating in the intolerable in this life.
Human rights aren't gained or protected through meekness, but through protest and struggle. Individual members of your church have engaged in that struggle, but the organization has always favored stability and the status quo.
what else did the intervened writer stole from other books or stories?? did he cherry picked it too??