I get the impression that IzzyR thinks, or even wants, me to be cribbing this from some website so he can blast into the citations and discredit the website. However, as I said, it is the similarity that I perceive that led me down this path. I was looking for comments from knowledgable folks to see if the idea is absurd on its face or if it has been discussed in perhaps scholarly works.
I appreciate the comments from everyone. I guess I’ll just have to accept the seeming consensus that there is no obvious connection.
I’m loathe to remuddy the waters, Homebrew. But I think there is an obvious connection — it just isn’t necessarily causal, and if it is, it is as likely that one or the other preceded.
Wrong impression. I am not out on a campaign to discredit websites. But somehow I have this strong suspicion that you are not quite familiar with these matters from studying source material, so you must have picked up these notions somewhere. And as I am familiar enough with the subject to know that your assertions are incorrect, I am disputing them, and asking for the source of your assertions.
This is not exactly a revolutionary concept in these forums, you know. Basically if you are going to spew out a bunch of assertions about a topic about which you know little or nothing, you might expect a challenge or two. Deal with it.
FWIW, I believe it has been. I remember reading an article in Time Magazine some years ago about someone who put forth such a theory. Thought it was junk then too.
IzzyR: In all fairness he did say that he didn’t really know that much about the subject, and you did come down kind of hard on him for it, whereas many other people also knowledgeable on the subject let him down much easier.
Because the school of Shammai only permits divorce if the husband finds his wife in “an immoral matter”? You’re right, that’s true. Jesus’s teachings on divorce are more similar to the school of Shammai than the school of Hillel.
Well, Izzy, most people with “religious upbringing” but not of Jewish heritage get exposed to the text of the Tanakh as the Christian Old Testament, but as far as thinkers on the subject go, we hear a smidgen about Hillel and Shammai, chiefly through whether there were similarities or differences in their thought from Jesus and Paul, learn about Philo of Alexandria (don’t know how Orthodox you’d consider him, though) through is contributions to John’s thought, have Gamaliel (the elder) mentioned in passing, might hear something vague about Akiva, and that more or less is the end of it – except that the Talmud is (we’re told) full of the sort of pettifoggery about the Law that Jesus condemned.
This is not, of course, my opinion on the significance of those teachers – it’s reportage on a typical Christian of Methodist heritage’s exposure to Judaic thought.
With the important distinction being that the Shammai school would not consider it adultery if they got divorced anyway - they were only addressing when is the proper situation to do it, but if it’s done it’s done.
It was intended to address your response to Homebrew, in terms of the degree to which I (and I’m fairly confident he) are only partially aware of the works of the various famous historical scholars w/r/t Judaism.
And hence the questions … I was asking for opinions precisely because I can’t find much depth on the issue on the web and was hoping knowledgable posters would help. However if you’d rather grab your builder’s rod and channel Shammai, I’ll be pleased to just move along.
Sorry, that is not what happened. Reread your OP. You made several statements about Hillel’s teachings. You then suggested that Hillel “seems” to have influenced JC. My primary objection was to your incorrect assertions, not to your speculation.
Captain Amazing,
No expert on Christianity here - what I’ve said is based on what numerous seemingly-knowledgable posters (& linked websites etc.) have asserted in the recent threads on the subject. My point was about Shammai.
For the sake of context, it’s important to point out that Jesus was merely giving His perfect interpretation of the law. He was not, however, condemning adulterers.
No, if you reread my OP, you’ll see that in the first paragraph I used the phrase “seems to me”, which I continued to repeat in almost every post of mine in the thread. It seems to me that point is clear to everyone but you.
When I first started your response and saw the word “Sorry”, I thought that perhaps we’d be able to get back on track and that you were acknowledging that you had misinterpreted me. But I guess you would rather be “right” then have an honest discussion.
What you’ve consistently done - in your first paragraph and elsewhere - is to be tentative about asserting that JC was influenced by Hillel. You did not equivocate when saying what Hillel’s teachings were. (Second to last paragraph of the OP)
Actually, my primary interest here is in contradicting your false assertions. If we are now in agreement that most of your assertions about Hillel’s (& Shamai’s) teachings, as well as your statements about “strict constructionalists” were baseless and false, then by all means go back to your theory. But if you continue to insist - with no evidence and little knowledge of the topic - that your characterizations were correct, then I am going to keep on being “right”.
I stated my impressions of their positions based on my admittedly somewhat limited exposure to them were. I’m sorry that you’ve found offense in what I’ve written. I never presented my thoughts as a Scholarly Tome worthy to be studied in the Schools of Theology the world over. I have admitted the gaps in my knowledge and the possible confusion of different people.
You can choose to provide useful insight as Zev and Captain Amazing did; provide alternate views as Lib did; or you can continue to be bellicose, stamp your feet and look petty. It’s your decision to make.
I couldn’t care less which you choose, though, as my mouse has a scroll wheel and it doesn’t take long to move past your irrelevant “contribution”.
But I think there is an obvious connection — it just isn’t necessarily causal, and if it is, it is as likely that one or the other preceded.
- what I’ve said is based on what numerous seemingly-knowledgable posters (& linked websites etc.) have asserted in the recent threads on the subject. My point was about Shammai.