Zone1 The difference between Hillel and Jesus’ “Golden Rule”

[Lisa558]

For those who don’t know, Jesus was a great admirer of Hillel and used his teachings in many of his own sermons. The most famous of all is The Golden Rule, which Jesus switched around to put it in the positive:

Hillel: “That which is hateful to you, do not do unto others.”
Jesus: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Which is easier to accomplish?

Elon Harvey - "Do unto others!" in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Sources

There is a famous story found in the Talmud about a person who came to Hillel the Elder, the famous Jewish sage (d. 10 CE), and asked him to teach him "the entire Torah," i.e. all of Jewish law, in a nutshell. Hillel replied by invoking what is known as the Golden Rule, the notion that people

sites.google.com

 

[Picaro]

He certainly agreed with a lot of what the school of Hillel taught. He was probably too young to be have been taught by the Elder himself.

 

[luiza]

Jesus was an Essene as I am sure you know and their traditions existed before the birth of Hillel .

So it was Hillel who likely used the Essene monk's learning .
Not the other way round, though they were all so called Jews . .

 

[Meriweather]

Hillel: “That which is hateful to you, do not do unto others.”
Jesus: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Which is easier to accomplish?

The reason I like Hillel's version is I am great at not doing to the point I can slip into and out of socializing with people barely noticing I'm there. I'm no bother to anyone and I bother no one.

Now with Jesus, that word 'do' is my stumbling block. Can't I just stay out of trouble without bothering to do?

For me, Hillel's philosophy is easier to accomplish, which (ironically) is why I should make the greater effort to attain the second philosophy of "do".

From my observations, others should focus more on the first philosophy. Some people are great at interacting with others and truly cannot help but be a part of things (versus my way of being apart from things). This often means when they feel "slapped" (metaphorically speaking) they will sometimes "slap" back. My husband tends to fall into this latter group. Since he hates being 'slapped' at, it would be good if he would refrain from 'slapping' at others. In certain situations, he is more of the mind of "Do unto others before they do unto you" and therefore should work more with Hillel's philosophy of That which is hateful to you, do not do unto others.

I'm thinking that which we find easier to do, should nudge us into practicing the other as well.

 

[Lisa558]

The reason I like Hillel's version is I am great at not doing to the point I can slip into and out of socializing with people barely noticing I'm there. I'm no bother to anyone and I bother no one.

Now with Jesus, that word 'do' is my stumbling block. Can't I just stay out of trouble without bothering to do?

For me, Hillel's philosophy is easier to accomplish, which (ironically) is why I should make the greater effort to attain the second philosophy of "do".

From my observations, others should focus more on the first philosophy. Some people are great at interacting with others and truly cannot help but be a part of things (versus my way of being apart from things). This often means when they feel "slapped" (metaphorically speaking) they will sometimes "slap" back. My husband tends to fall into this latter group. Since he hates being 'slapped' at, it would be good if he would refrain from 'slapping' at others. In certain situations, he is more of the mind of "Do unto others before they do unto you" and therefore should work more with Hillel's philosophy of That which is hateful to you, do not do unto others.

I'm thinking that which we find easier to do, should nudge us into practicing the other as well.

Your thinking aligns with mine, and is a topic we actually discussed some months ago in my class.

It is easier to NOT do something negative to another person than it is to proactively seek out the positive to do. So, yes….Hillel’s version is easier to accomplish.

Jesus’ version is more altruistic and more difficult. So, I also agree that it is easier to start with the first and, as one becomes a kinder more thoughtful person as a result, take steps into meeting the latter, at least in some ways.

 

[Lisa558]

He certainly agreed with a lot of what the school of Hillel taught. He was probably too young to be have been taught by the Elder himself.

True. Their lifespans overlapped, but Hillel was a very old man when Jesus was not yet Bar Mitzvah.

 

[irosie91]

He certainly agreed with a lot of what the school of Hillel taught. He was probably too young to be have been taught by the Elder himself.

Hillel died in Jerusalem at about the time Jesus is said to have
been born. In the time of Jesus, HILLEL was very much a "thing"
in Jerusalem and quoted incessantly. Don't tell anyone but I find
it a little amusing that HILLEL stuff is not only attributed to Jesus but
it has actually been cited to demonstrate the "anti-judaism" of Jesus

 

[Lisa558]

Hillel died in Jerusalem at about the time Jesus is said to have
been born. In the time of Jesus, HILLEL was very much a "thing"
in Jerusalem and quoted incessantly. Don't tell anyone but I find
it a little amusing that HILLEL stuff is not only attributed to Jesus but
it has actually been cited to demonstrate the "anti-judaism" of Jesus

For the most part, Jesus preached traditional Jewish concepts, sometimes with a “twist.” From a Jewish point of view, I don’t think he was all that different from many who came before or after: a bit of rabble-rouser, but still a traditional Jew, who espoused Jewish teachings.

I’m not even sure that he said not to keep kosher.

 

[irosie91]

For the most part, Jesus preached traditional Jewish concepts, sometimes with a “twist.” From a Jewish point of view, I don’t think he was all that different from many who came before or after: a bit of rabble-rouser, but still a traditional Jew, who espoused Jewish teachings.

I’m not even sure that he said not to keep kosher.

He didn't----the not kosher thing comes from an Hypnagogic hallucination
of PAUL-----the man who sought to bring the WHOLE WORLD to Jewish
ethos. He is probably turning over in his grave based on what his innovative
ideas that he imposed on Jesus came to.

 

[Picaro]

Jesus was an Essene as I am sure you know and their traditions existed before the birth of Hillel .

Actually he probably wasn't. 'Essenes' was a generic reference to several sects living outside Jerusalem, not just one. John The Baptist wasn't an Essene' either, he was much further out in 'the wilderness', where more exiles lived and preached. He baptized Jesus.

 

[Picaro]

For the most part, Jesus preached traditional Jewish concepts, sometimes with a “twist.” From a Jewish point of view, I don’t think he was all that different from many who came before or after: a bit of rabble-rouser, but still a traditional Jew, who espoused Jewish teachings.

I’m not even sure that he said not to keep kosher.

He was a fan of the 'pre-Ezra' theology.

 

[Picaro]

Hillel died in Jerusalem at about the time Jesus is said to have
been born. In the time of Jesus, HILLEL was very much a "thing"
in Jerusalem and quoted incessantly. Don't tell anyone but I find
it a little amusing that HILLEL stuff is not only attributed to Jesus but
it has actually been cited to demonstrate the "anti-judaism" of Jesus

Which is why I said 'school' and not the man himself; Jesus was not 'anti-Jewish', in fact the Babylonians were more 'anti-Jewish' than Jesus are any of the other sects then split off, of which there were several. They were very exclusionary and bigoted.

 

[irosie91]

Actually he probably wasn't. 'Essenes' was a generic reference to several sects living outside Jerusalem, not just one. John The Baptist wasn't an Essene' either, he was much further out in 'the wilderness', where more exiles lived and preached. He baptized Jesus.

no doubt that Jesus was not an Essene----but Essene's were, IMO---Pharisees who took themselves out into the "midbar" in order to get away from "ROME"
and they developed socialist, "monastic type" communities. Jesus did not go.
As for cousin John----he does seem to be THE TYPE---but as far as I know---
his actual journey is not known and no trace of him has been found YET. He must have been important or Herod would not have bothered to kill him.

 

[Picaro]

True. Their lifespans overlapped, but Hillel was a very old man when Jesus was not yet Bar Mitzvah.

At best Jesus was maybe 10 years old or so, give or take a couple of years, when the Elder died..

 

[Picaro]

but Essene's were, IMO---Pharisees who took themselves out into the "midbar" in order to get away from "ROME"

I would say they were fleeing the corrupt Temple cult, not 'Rome'.

 

[irosie91]

At best Jesus was maybe 10 years old or so, give or take a couple of years, when the Elder died..

yes----their CONTACT was based on the popularity of Hillel during his life-time and his popularity even after his death---during the life-time of Jesus---
from early childhood and on.------kinda like Benjamin Franklin of the ethos of
americans

 

[irosie91]

I would say they were fleeing the corrupt Temple cult, not 'Rome'.

oh---you are a sunday school valedictorian. FYI----at the time of
the life of Jesus----the Temple was very corrupted----by Roman
control. The Pharisees were AGHAST. The good guys----
like Caiaphas and Annas were Roman appointees as was HEROD
(the king) and the much maligned "tax collectors" like Matthew.
Pontius Pilate emerges a SAINT!!!!

 

[irosie91]

oh---you are a sunday school valedictorian. FYI----at the time of
the life of Jesus----the Temple was very corrupted----by Roman
control. The Pharisees were AGHAST. The good guys----
like Caiaphas and Annas were Roman appointees as was HEROD
(the king) and the much maligned "tax collectors" like Matthew.
Pontius Pilate emerges a SAINT!!!!

Picaro disagrees-----I wonder why. I made only a few statements
of fact. 1) the "high priest Caipahas was a Roman appointee. 2) Herod
the Roman educated Edomite was a installed as king by Rome and 3)
the tax collectors were Roman appointees. 4) the Pharisees hated the situation. As far as "corrupt temple 'cult' " other than the Roman
controltherein-----I have no idea as to the "corruption" or even the
chracterization as "cult"

 

[Picaro]

Picaro disagrees-----I wonder why. I made only a few statements
of fact. 1) the "high priest Caipahas was a Roman appointee. 2) Herod
the Roman educated Edomite was a installed as king by Rome and 3)
the tax collectors were Roman appointees. 4) the Pharisees hated the situation. As far as "corrupt temple 'cult' " other than the Roman
controltherein-----I have no idea as to the "corruption" or even the
chracterization as "cult"

You mean the '2nd Temple' built by the Persians that set the Babylonians up as a puppet state on their frontier and then made themselves the only 'real Jews' and the 'master race' of Jews? I guess you've never read Ezra and somehow think they were never corrupt until the Romans came along a few hundred years later and pissed on their wheaties or something.

 

[Meriweather]

For the most part, Jesus preached traditional Jewish concepts, sometimes with a “twist.” From a Jewish point of view, I don’t think he was all that different from many who came before or after: a bit of rabble-rouser, but still a traditional Jew, who espoused Jewish teachings.

Are you familiar with the Book of Tobit? Protestant Christians removed it from their Bible, but it remains in the Old Testament of the Catholic Bible as it was a story included in the scrolls of Jesus' day. It was written about two hundred years before Jesus was born, so also before the birth of Hillel, and is said to have been very popular among Jews.

The story was set at the time Jews were living in exile, and some turned to the worship of idols/foreign god. Tobit and his family remained faithful to God and His Commandments, and was an example of how faithful Jews should be/should have been living. Chapter 4 includes a Father's instructions. Verse 15 is astounding, and the verses following it are amazing as well. He tells his son:

(14) - Do to no one what you yourself dislike....
It continues with advice on what to do.

Since both Hillel and Jesus were traditional Jews who stood by Mosaic teachings and pointed to Jews who, even in times of exile, lived their faith. Further, if Hillel was calling to mind a verse in Tobit's story (Do to no one what you yourself dislike) he would expect his students/disciples to call to mind the verses following that instruct what one should do. Could it be both Hillel and Jesus were influenced by an earlier writer, the author of the Book of Tobit?