John 20 and 21, and 'the other disciple' whom Jesus loved

[Stuart]

So far I know the view that the term „Rabbi“ is an anachronism in the Gospels (not only for the „time of Jesus“, but also for the usual date of GMark around 70 CE) assumes that this title was not in usage before 70 CE, probably not before 80 CE. It assumes that the title „Rabbi“ was a new creation among the Tannaim after the Jewish war, perhaps by Yohanan ben Zakkai, his colleagues and his students in Yavne. Some advocates of this view may believe that in regard to the title „Rabbi“ the „good“ rabbinical writings are more trustworthy than the „bad“ early Christian writings in regard to the title „apostle“ or the term „Christians“ (as in Acts 11:26). But I do not, because the rabbinical writings reflect mainly the later canonical usage of the title „Rabbi“.

I would not rule out that the origin of the title „Rabbi“ had a longer history and I tend to think it’s more likely that the term „Rab“ in the Hebrew bible is part of that history. It’s not only Daniel 5:11, but also titles or names as „Rab-Shakeh“ ("chief of the princes") and „Rab-Saris“ („chief of officers“) in 2 Kings 18 and Isaiah 36.

There is scant indication Mark knew the Hebrew Scriptures or used them. His knowledge of Rabbi is clearly not from here. He made a deliberate choice to use the word.

For sure. But this „deliberate choice to use the word“ is not in the context of teaching, the Jewish law or scriptures. The use of „Rabbi“ in GMark does not reflect the assumed rabbinical context (transfiguration, healing of a blind, fig tree, Judas' betrayal).

Look, we both accept that mark is outside the Hebrew speaking world. And the question is not the origin of the word or it's Hebrew or Babylonian roots. Rather when would Mark have known it.

Rabbi could only have come into his world as a term that had made it's way into Greek, at least in Christian circles and more probably in general Greek speaking society. It is extremely unlikely that this term would have entered into the Greek mainstream of speakers until well after the Jewish-War. There is a necessary lag and a need for context or commonality. For the term to have started to be employed beyond Great sages as Matthew comments on, we need to be farther than just a single generation from the formation of post War era. Mark used it because his audience knew the reverence of the name. Well when would they have known that? We are past the Flavians at least. I would argue we are much further on, that the common use was not until the mid-2nd century.

But I also argue that this evidence, which is not stand alone, needs to be placed alongside other evidence such as the use of κυρίος in place of the tetragrammaton in the LXX which is not witnessed before the 2nd century.

The Mishnah indicated only that the term was now standard by the start of the 3rd century, as Rabbinic Judaism was now already somewhat formed. And yes Mishnah referring to Yohanan ben Zakkai as Rabbi is almost certainly anachronistic. By the time of Bar Kokhba the term was probably in general use for great sages. Acts 5:34 doesn't even refer to Gamaliel as a Rabbi, merely a "pharisee" or ordinary priest, just as a "teacher of the Law" (νομοδιδάσκαλος) "respected by all the people" and on the Sanhedrin -apparently with leading authority-. Would Acts have realized that even the Simeon ben Gamliel (assuming he is not confused here with his son Gamaliel who served toward the end of the first century as Nasi) whom was recognized as a Tanna ("great sage") was not called Rabbi? Josephus doesn't use the term. So how common would it have been in the 1st century? Everything points toward a time after the 1st century.

[Ben C. Smith]

The Mishnah indicated only that the term was now standard by the start of the 3rd century, as Rabbinic Judaism was now already somewhat formed. And yes Mishnah referring to Yohanan ben Zakkai as Rabbi is almost certainly anachronistic. By the time of Bar Kokhba the term was probably in general use for great sages.

I have tried to get a foothold in the evidentiary trail for the terms "rabbi" and "rabban" — both before and now again because the topic has come up on this forum — but the evidence seems so sketchy that I am not sure how any firm conclusions could be made. You say that "rabbi" is probably late, and I do not know how to refute you. But, if some people were to argue (as has been argued) that "rabbi" was a term of respect in common early use before it came to be applied more exclusively in some circles just to certain sages, I would not know how to refute them, either.

The silence of Josephus probably means precisely nothing in a case like this, since he is under no obligation to use terms in languages foreign to his readership.

[Bernard Muller]

Mt 23:6-8 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues,
and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men.
"But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren."

Jn 1:38 "Jesus turned, and saw them following, and said to them, "What do you seek?" And they said to him, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?""

It looks to me that, in the times of the gospels, "rabbi" meant (honored) teacher.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi:

The first sage for whom the Mishnah uses the title of rabbi was Yohanan ben Zakkai, active in the early-to-mid first century CE.

(emphasis mine)

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

I have some preliminary notes I have gathered for a post on this -

Rabbi is not an occupation found in the Hebrew Bible, and ancient generations did not employ related titles such as Rabban, Ribbi, or Rab to describe either the Babylonian sages or the sages in Israel.^[6] The titles "Rabban" and "Rabbi" are first mentioned in the Mishnah (c. 200 CE). The term was first used for Rabban Gamaliel the elder, Rabban Simeon his son, and Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai, all of whom were patriarchs or presidents of the Sanhedrin.^[7] The title "Rabbi" occurs (in Greek transliteration ῥαββί, rhabbi) in the books of Matthew, Mark, and John in the New Testament, where it is used in reference to "Scribes and Pharisees" as well as to Jesus [ Matthew 26:25, Mark 9:5, and John 3:2 ].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi

• 6 ... Hillel I, who came from Babylon, did not have the title Rabban prefixed to his name.
  
  7 The title Ribbi came into vogue among those who received the laying on of hands at this period, as, for instance, Ribbi Zadok, Ribbi Eliezer ben Jacob, and others, and dates from the time of the disciples of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai downward. Now the order of these titles is as follows: Ribbi is greater than Rab; Rabban again, is greater than Ribbi; while the simple name is greater than Rabban. Besides the presidents of the Sanhedrin no one is called Rabban.

And

[ref] 1. Hezser, Catherine (1997). The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine. Mohr Siebeck. pp. 64–.

... the avoidance of the title "Rabbi" for pre-70 sages may have originated with the editors of the Mishnah. The editors attributed the title to some sages and not to others. The avoidance of the title for pre-70 sages may perhaps be seen as a deliberate program on the part of these editors who wanted to create the impression that the “rabbinic movement" began with R. Yochanan b. Zakkai and that the Yavnean "academy" was something new, a notion that is sometimes already implicitly or explicitly suggested by some of the traditions available to them. This notion is not diminished by the occasional claim to continuity with the past which was limited to individual teachers and institutions and served to legitimize rabbinic authority.

Also see See http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12494-rabbi

and
Jonathan Bourgel The Holders of the “Word of Truth”: The Pharisees in Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27–71 Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 25, Number 2, Summer 2017, pp.171-200. -

... This article explores not only the representation of the Pharisees itself, but also several apparent analogies between Recognitions and rabbinic tradition. It should provide new insights, not only for the group in which this text originated, but also on the relations of the group with the rabbinic movement ...

... I shall propose that this document was composed by mid-to late second-century c.e. Jewish believers in Jesus who were also committed to the rabbinic tradition⁹.

• 9 The precise relationship between the Pharisees and the rabbinic movement remains opaque. Until recently, it was unanimously accepted that the pre-70 c.e. Pharisees became the rabbis after the destruction of the Temple. Yet since the 1980s, scholars like Shaye Cohen and Peter Schäfer have challenged this conventional view by stating that early rabbinic writings do not clearly confirm that connection and that the Tannaim do not explicitly call themselves Pharisees.
  
  It is only in later rabbinic texts that we find a clear claim to the Pharisaic legacy. See Shaye J. D. Cohen, “The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis and the End of Jewish Sectarianism,” Hebrew Union College Annual 55 (1984): 27–53; Peter Schäfer, “Der vorrab-binische Pharisäismus,” in Paulus und das antike Judentum, ed. Martin Hengel and Ulrich Heckel, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 58 (Tübin-gen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 125–72.
  
  However this proposition is not unanimously accepted, and I agree with scholars like Albert Baumgarten that “the conventional explanation remains the best way to understand the data,” (“Rabbinic Literature as a Source for the History of Jewish Sectarianism in the Second temple Period,” Dead Sea Discoveries 2 [1995]: 14–57, at 16n6), and Daniel Schwartz who assumes a basic continuity from the Pharisees of the Second Temple period to the rabbis post-70 c.e. (Judeans and Jews: Four Faces of Dichotomy in Ancient Jewish History, The Kenneth Michael Tanenbaum Series in Jewish Studies [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014], 123–24n3).
  
  Furthermore, the Nazorean commentary on Isa 8.14, ascribed to the mid- to late second century c.e., proves that by this time the pre-70 c.e. Pharisees were identified with the rabbis in Jewish-Christian sources.

... the Nazorean³¹ commentary on Isaiah 8.14 quoted by Jerome is of particular interest.³² According to this statement, the “scribes and Pharisees” are to be identified with several Tannaim. All the rabbis mentioned (except for Hillel and Shammai) lived during the Yavneh period³³ and we may take the mention of R. Meir³⁴ as our terminus ad quem, and date the setting of this tradition to the mid- to late second century, that is to say, approximately the time of the composition of Rec. 1.27–71.³⁵ Remarkably enough, in this account, the main charge levelled against the scribes and Pharisees is that they have “scattered and defiled” the Law by their “tradition and δευτερώσεις.”³⁶

This passage, which has some resemblances to the order of transmission of the Oral Law in m.’Avot, was aimed at demonstrating that rabbinic tradition went back, not to Moses as the rabbis claimed, but only to Hillel “the impious” and Shammai the “scatterer (of the Law).”³⁷ Thus, in this conflict over the crucial question of spiritual authority, the position of Rec. 1.54.7 (Lat.), is diametrically opposed to that of the contemporaneous Nazoreans and concurs with the view of the rabbis.The differences between the Syriac and Latin versions of Rec.1.54.7 are also very enlightening; the Syriac states that the scribes and Pharisees were

• ... convinced (ܦܛܬ) that the word of truth is like the key to the Kingdom of Heaven, which they received from Moses in order to hide it.

It is clear that there is no explicit allusion here to the tradition of the scribes and Pharisees; Rec. 1.54.7 (Syr.) merely mentions their claim, but does not endorse it. There would seem to be no motive for Rufinus to add an explicit reference to the tradition of the scribes and Pharisees to the original text. It is more likely that the Syriac translator omitted it, presumably out of disapproval or embarrassment.


CONCLUSION

This paper has dealt with two features of Rec. 1.27–71:

1. Its relatively positive portrayal of the Pharisees, including its endorsement of their claim to hold the true interpretation of Torah from Moses;
2. The fact that it displays both general and specific parallels with rabbinic material.

Several cardinal questions arise here. Are these features merely coincidental? Or are they connected to each other? And if this is the case, do they reflect some kind of relationship between the rabbis and the author of Rec. 1.27–71?

Acts (15.5) refers to Pharisees who joined the mother church not long after its foundation; they held to a strict line on Jewish observance, demanding that Gentile converts should be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. Robert A. Wild has rightly stressed that these Pharisees are pictured as having been influential in the Jerusalem church.¹⁴³ While it may be too far-fetched to establish a direct relation between the first-century c.e. Pharisaic Christians and the members of the community of Rec. 1.27–71, could it be that the latter were, likewise, Jewish believers in Jesus attached to Pharisaic/rabbinic tradition?

Hans-Friedrich Weiss has gone so far as to state that the authors of the Pseudo-Clementines considered themselves not just the true Israel but “the true Pharisees.”¹⁴⁴ As noted above though, one should be careful not to treat all passages about the Pharisees in the Pseudo-Clementine writings as issuing from the same redactional source; all the more so since some of them are clearly hostile to the Pharisees. But could it be, as Weiss put it, that the authors of Rec. 1.27–71 considered themselves “the true Pharisees”? This proposition needs to be reconciled with the fact that there is a clearly stated differentiation between Pharisees and the members of the community in Rec. 1.27–71. We might indeed propose that these members of the community in Rec. 1.27–71 were rabbinic Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and that debates about the status of Jesus led them to separate themselves from rabbinic Jews who did not accept Jesus’s messiah-ship.

Nonetheless, they continued to regard the tradition of the rabbis as authoritative and remained committed to it (at least to some degree). Again, as already noted, Rec. 1.27–71 does not refer to any other major points of controversy between its community and the rabbis/ Pharisees. These considerations should prompt us to reconsider our views on the relationship between the rabbinic and Jewish-Christian movements in the mid-to late second century c.e.: true, certain Jewish-Christians like the early Nazoreans harshly condemned the rabbis, rejecting their traditions and denying their authority in halakhic matters. It is also a fact that second-century c.e. Tannaim issued numerous warnings and restrictions against those whom they regarded as dissidents, the Minim (םינימ).

Although this term has a broad meaning, several Tannaitic rulings referring to the Minim were clearly directed against Jewish-Christians, aimed at largely forbidding social contact with them.¹⁴⁵ Analysis of Rec. 1.27–71, though, confirms that prohibitions on socializing with Jewish-Christians may in fact attest to the persistence of such contacts; as Ludwig Blau says, “the halachic negation is a historical affirmation.”¹⁴⁶

In fact, despite their dispute with the rabbis concerning the status of Jesus, the members of the community in Rec. 1.27–71 continued to hold them in high esteem and also, it appears, maintained close social and intellectual ties with them. Thus, in the decades following the Bar-Kokhba war, the relationship between the rabbinic and Jewish-Christian movements of Judaea and/or its environs turns out to have been multifaceted and can no longer be simply regarded as a relationship of mutual aversion.

As it appears, this situation was not peculiar to the historical milieu in which Rec. 1.27–71 was produced. Recently, Lily C. Vuong has argued that the Protoevangelium of James’s endorsement of regulations (especially on purity matters) found in early rabbinic literature may indicate that Syrian Christianity was influenced by rabbinic halakhah in the early third century c.e.¹⁴⁷ Likewise, works of scholars like Annette Y. Reed on the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies have shown that in fourth century c.e. Syria, Jewish-Christians continued to have contacts with rabbis whose halakhic authority they accepted.¹⁴⁸

Strikingly enough, when it is brought together, this evidence gives a diachronic picture of continuous interactions between Jewish-Christian and rabbinic movements from the mid- to late second century c.e. to the fourth century c.e.

[MrMacSon]

According to the classic midrash in Avot D'Rabbi Nathan (4:5):

The Temple is destroyed. We never witnessed its glory. But Rabbi Joshua did. And when he looked at the Temple ruins one day, he burst into tears. "Alas for us! The place which atoned for the sins of all the people Israel lies in ruins!" Then Rabbi Yohannan ben Zakkai spoke to him these words of comfort: "Be not grieved, my son. There is another way of gaining ritual atonement, even though the Temple is destroyed. We must now gain ritual atonement through deeds of loving-kindness."

[Ben C. Smith]

According to the classic midrash in Avot D'Rabbi Nathan (4:5):

The Temple is destroyed. We never witnessed its glory. But Rabbi Joshua did. And when he looked at the Temple ruins one day, he burst into tears. "Alas for us! The place which atoned for the sins of all the people Israel lies in ruins!" Then Rabbi Yohannan ben Zakkai spoke to him these words of comfort: "Be not grieved, my son. There is another way of gaining ritual atonement, even though the Temple is destroyed. We must now gain ritual atonement through deeds of loving-kindness."

Yes, the later Jewish materials (like the Talmud or the various Midrashes) are not shy about calling important people from before the fall of the Temple "rabbi" or "rabban" — the trick is to figure out whether or not they are retrojecting titles from their own time onto their forebears.

There is apparently an ossuary inscription from before 70:

CIIP 1.1 693 (= CIJ 2, 1285), lines 6a & 25: 6a/25 בן רבי [= ben Rabbi].

Hannah M. Cotton, CIIP 1.1, pages 684-685: The form of the cursive letters indicates a date in the first half of the 1 c. CE. .... ll.6 and 25: rby = Rabbi, the father’s title of respect, but not an official title or profession in this period....

[MrMacSon]

Yes, the later Jewish materials (like the Talmud or the various Midrashes) are not shy about calling important people from before the fall of the Temple "rabbi" or "rabban" — the trick is to figure out whether or not they are retrojecting titles from their own time onto their forebears.

Yep. I'm intrigued by Jonathan Bourgel tying rabbinic tradition to Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions [1.27–71], and I'd like to know more about 'Rabbi Joshua' who Rabbi Yohannan ben Zakkai spoke to these words of comfort: ".. We must now gain ritual atonement through deeds of loving-kindness."

[Ben C. Smith]

The term Rabbi appears to have come about no earlier than the very end of the 1st century, and more probably in the early 2nd century. Give it a generation or so to become widely known in the empire and you arrive at dates no earlier than the 2nd quarter of the 2nd century for Gospel usage, that is after Trajan. This is similar to LXX use of κυρίος for the tetragrammaton which also is not seen until the 2nd century, but the only form the NT knows. These are among the many signals that point toward 2nd century authorship for the Gospels and Paul.

I wouldn't be completely sure about that. The term "Rab" is used in Daniel 2:43, 5:11 for a "great one", captain or leader. In 5:11 it's a religious leader. That may be not far away from the use of "Rabbi" in the Gospels.

5:11 There is a man in your kingdom who has the spirit of the holy gods in him. In the time of your father he was found to have insight and intelligence and wisdom like that of the gods. Your father, King Nebuchadnezzar, appointed him chief (רַ֧ב - raḇ) of the magicians, enchanters, astrologers and diviners.

Here are the examples of rab (as meaning "chief" or "captain" or whatnot) from the Hebrew scriptures that I can find without too terribly much trouble:

רַב־שָׁקֵה (= "chief of the officers" or "chief officer"): 2 Kings 18.17, 19, 27, 28, 37; 19.4, 8; Isaiah 36.2, 4, 11, 12, 13, 22; 37.4, 8.

רַב־סָרִיס = ("chief of the eunuchs" or "chief eunuch"): 2 Kings 18.17; Jeremiah 39.13; Daniel 1.3.

רַב־טַבָּח (= "chief of the guards" or "chief guard"): 2 Kings 25.8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 20; Jeremiah 39.13; 52.12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 24, 26, 30; Daniel 2.14.

רַב בֵּיתוֹ (= "chief of the house"): Esther 1.8.

רַב־מָ֑ג (= "chief of the magi" or "chief mage"): Jeremiah 39.13.

רַבֵּי מֶלֶךְ־בָּבֶל (= "chief officers of the king"): Jeremiah 39.13.

רַבֵּי הַמֶּלֶךְ (= "chiefs of the king"): Jeremiah 41.1.

רַב חַרְטֹם אָשַׁף כַּשְׂדָּי גָּזְר (= "chief of the magicians, enchanters, astrologers, and diviners"): Daniel 5.11.

רַב הַחֹבֵל (= "chief of the sailors" or "chief sailor"): Jonah 1.6.

ETA: Apparently the Tosefta Eduyot has a neat explanation for the titles Rabbi and Rabban:

He who has disciples and whose disciples again have disciples is called Rabbi; when his disciples are forgotten [if he is so old that even his immediate disciples belong to the past age] he is called Rabban; and when the disciples of his disciples are also forgotten he is called simply by his own name.

[MrMacSon]

John 20
12 And [Mary Magdalene] saw two angels in white sitting; one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

13 Then they said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?”

She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.”

14 Now when she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus.

15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?”

She, supposing Him to be the gardener, said to Him, “Sir, if You have carried Him away, tell me where You have laid Him, and I will take Him away.”

16 Jesus said to her, “Mary!”

She turned and said to Him [in Hebrew], “Rabboni!” (which is to say, Teacher).

17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’”

18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things to her.
.

... Verses 20:24-29 are added just so Thomas can be at a closed door meeting. This is an especially clumsy interpolation. The "first ending" in verses 20:30-31 are more or less replicated in 21:24-25, but with different emphasis (clearly a different writer). Verses 20:1-9 is a tangle of traditions, extremely hard to separate all the conflicting themes. Same with 20:11-17, where Mary sees two angels who then seem to turn into Jesus whom she doesn't recognize. It's a complete mess. Verses 20:8-10 are clearly secondary, as, unlike the rest of John, it suddenly turns on Scripture, ie., the same OT [that] Jesus rejects repeatedly in the earlier part of the Gospel, ending with the disciples, you know kinda bored, so just went home, a real "nothing-burger." Weird stuff. Almost all later interpolations.

My big fat WAG is the original had Mary go to the tomb, because she is depicted in the early part of the gospel obsessed with the physical burial. Finds the tomb empty and is speaking to a stranger in dazzling white she takes for a grave attendant or gardener (I guess Romans had manicured graveyards like we do), but importantly doesn't perceive (οὐκ ᾔδει) that it is him, continuing the theme of John's rejection of Mariology. I am kind of on the fence about 20:19-23, slightly leaning toward original. The Holy Spirit comes back from verses 1:33 and 14:25. It suggests a Gnostic like passing of the torch, Jesus in secret to his Apostles, his death and resurrection being a baptism. 20:29 and some form of 20:30 probably ended it.

Everything else are secondary traditions and competing for ink space in the Gospel. I just find it shocking who clumsy the interpolations are compared to the deliberate composition in Luke ...

Robert Price's comments are interesting -

Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene ([John] 20:1, 11-18)

This story owes much to the self-disclosure of the angel Raphael at the climax of the Book of Tobit (Helms, pp. 146-147). When Tobias first saw Raphael, he “did not know” he was really an angel (Tobit 5:5), just as when Mary, weeping outside the tomb, first saw Jesus there, she “did not know” who he really was (20:14).

Having delivered Sarah from her curse, Raphael reveals himself to Tobit and his son Tobias and announces, his work being done, that “I am ascending to him who sent me” (Tobit 12:20), just as Jesus tells Mary, “I am ascending to my father and your father, to my God and your God” (John 20:17).

Why does the risen Jesus warn Mary “Touch/hold me not, for I have not yet ascended to the father” (20:17a)? This is probably an indication of docetism, that Jesus (at least 'the risen Jesus') cannot be touched, not having (any longer?) a fleshly body (the story was not originally followed by the Doubting Thomas story with its tactile proofs, hence need not be consistent with it; note that in 20:17b Jesus seems to anticipate not seeing the disciples again). The reason for seeing docetism here is the parallel it would complete between John 20 and the Raphael revelation/ascension scene, where the angel explains (Tobit 12:19), “All these days I merely appeared to you and did not eat or drink, but you were seeing a vision” (i.e., a semblance).

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm

Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1989.

Jesus warning Mary “Touch/hold me not, for I have not yet ascended to the father” (20:17a) is at odds with the John 20:24-28

.
24 Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.”

So he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”

26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
.

John 20:27b suggests one had to be believing to, well, believe.

[Stuart]

The term Rabbi appears to have come about no earlier than the very end of the 1st century, and more probably in the early 2nd century. Give it a generation or so to become widely known in the empire and you arrive at dates no earlier than the 2nd quarter of the 2nd century for Gospel usage, that is after Trajan. This is similar to LXX use of κυρίος for the tetragrammaton which also is not seen until the 2nd century, but the only form the NT knows. These are among the many signals that point toward 2nd century authorship for the Gospels and Paul.

I wouldn't be completely sure about that. The term "Rab" is used in Daniel 2:43, 5:11 for a "great one", captain or leader. In 5:11 it's a religious leader. That may be not far away from the use of "Rabbi" in the Gospels.

5:11 There is a man in your kingdom who has the spirit of the holy gods in him. In the time of your father he was found to have insight and intelligence and wisdom like that of the gods. Your father, King Nebuchadnezzar, appointed him chief (רַ֧ב - raḇ) of the magicians, enchanters, astrologers and diviners.

Here are the examples of rab (as meaning "chief" or "captain" or whatnot) from the Hebrew scriptures that I can find without too terribly much trouble:

רַב־שָׁקֵה (= "chief of the officers" or "chief officer"): 2 Kings 18.17, 19, 27, 28, 37; 19.4, 8; Isaiah 36.2, 4, 11, 12, 13, 22; 37.4, 8.

רַב־סָרִיס = ("chief of the eunuchs" or "chief eunuch"): 2 Kings 18.17; Jeremiah 39.13; Daniel 1.3.

רַב־טַבָּח (= "chief of the guards" or "chief guard"): 2 Kings 25.8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 20; Jeremiah 39.13; 52.12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 24, 26, 30; Daniel 2.14.

רַב בֵּיתוֹ (= "chief of the house"): Esther 1.8.

רַב־מָ֑ג (= "chief of the magi" or "chief mage"): Jeremiah 39.13.

רַבֵּי מֶלֶךְ־בָּבֶל (= "chief officers of the king"): Jeremiah 39.13.

רַבֵּי הַמֶּלֶךְ (= "chiefs of the king"): Jeremiah 41.1.

רַב חַרְטֹם אָשַׁף כַּשְׂדָּי גָּזְר (= "chief of the magicians, enchanters, astrologers, and diviners"): Daniel 5.11.

רַב הַחֹבֵל (= "chief of the sailors" or "chief sailor"): Jonah 1.6.

ETA: Apparently the Tosefta Eduyot has a neat explanation for the titles Rabbi and Rabban:

He who has disciples and whose disciples again have disciples is called Rabbi; when his disciples are forgotten [if he is so old that even his immediate disciples belong to the past age] he is called Rabban; and when the disciples of his disciples are also forgotten he is called simply by his own name.

But none of this is Greek. And Mark wrote in Greek, as did Philo and Josephus. There is nothing to indicate Mark knew the Scriptures, and that he knew them in Greek. There are just a couple of OT quotes, and they are LXX. Arguably those about John are from a source document, where Mark even incorrectly identifies the book it came from (to be fair, I think Malachi 3:1 snuck in from a Marginal note creating the confusion). The one unique OT "quote" (though not tagged with a "for it is written") is verse 9:48 and it includes a LXX variant against MT. Many are simply built in allusions that are common with Matthew and not attributed, very possibly from a common source; the same true with the attributed quotes (e.g., Mark 7:6-7 of Isaiah 29:13 LXX is identical with Matthew 15:7-9, and so on). There is just zero evidence Mark knew the Hebrew script you refer to.

There need to be some non-NT examples of the use of the term Rabbi prior to the mid-2nd century to make any difference against my complaint.

To be honest adding this extra language that Mark needed to know, or culture he had to have and inside into, which is otherwise invisible in his writing ... well it's way too complicated and wildly speculative. If that is what it takes to keep your view afloat, then you need to rethink your view before adding these extra layers of complexity and hidden knowledge not found in the Gospel itself.