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

[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.

But none of this is Greek. .... 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.

What view are you referring to?

[Stuart]

I feel so tempted to pull a typical Stephen Huller antisocial response: "the view I am referring to of course"

I mean the view that the passages in Mark could be first century that use Greek "Rabbi" and still be the original hand. Of course making them a later hand introduces additional complications of their own. What I am saying is there is zero evidence that Mark knew how to read Hebrew and transliterated (correctly too) the term Rabbi into Greek. So giving him this capability to get around the lack of 1st century witnesses (beyond claiming books of the NT are 1st century in a sort of circular logic) for the term Rabbi in common Greek usage. That is the concept I refer to.

[Ben C. Smith]

I mean the view that the passages in Mark could be first century that use Greek "Rabbi" and still be the original hand.

I do not actually hold that view, which is why I was asking. I am not sure how early or late the term "rabbi" (or its Greek transliteration) have to be, based on the available evidence. You gave evidence which apparently sways you, but which I find to be tenuous at best. The other side does not yet have it any better, in my current judgment. It appears that the gospels may well hold the earliest extant attestations for the term "rabbi" (depending on how we interpret that ossuary) and are the very first in Greek, bar none; neither late dating them to 150 nor early dating them to 40 is going to change that, so we are left with "how much time do we think we need?" arguments, which seldom persuade me.

I do not think that Mark knew Hebrew. I also do not think that Mark (whoever that may be) originated all of the materials in his gospel, so the term "rabbi" may not be his at all. And yes:

Of course making them a later hand introduces additional complications of their own.

This is possible, and of course it will be complicated. To my eye, the gospel materials are already exceedingly complicated, with or without individual issues like the dating of an individual term. I see more than one hand at work in any given gospel, including at least some of the noncanonical ones, as well.

There are passages in Mark that I believe have to postdate 70, and there are passages in Mark that I believe probably predate 70. If you were to persuade me that his use of the term "rabbi" has to postdate 135, that would simply add to the layers. (I have come close before to being persuaded that some passages have to be dated that late before, but the argument has so far always fallen through.)

[Bernard Muller]

In Mark's gospel, "rabbi" is used four times for Jesus (only by his disciples), but not because he is a Pharisee turning into a teacher. Actually, in the four instances of rabbi, there is no allusion of Jesus as a teacher (nor Jesus being described as a Pharisee in gMark).
It simply means "master". Maybe that term was used in Mark's community for Jewish leaders.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Whenever "rabbi" is used in gMatthew for other than Jesus (23:7,8), it is not only for Pharisees, but for also scribes (literate Jews other than Pharisees). So it is not a title for exclusively Pharisees.

Cordially, Bernard

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

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.

Essentially I agree. But I tend to think that Mark was in some sense interested in Hebrew. It seems to me it' was a deliberate choice by Mark that Jesus is speaking Aramaic in GMark and not Hebrew.

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.

I could imagine different scenarios for this. imho one possibility could be that the term had it's origins among the Babylonian/Mesopotamian/Assyrian Jews and became prominent when men like Ananelus (the first high priest under Herod the Great) or Hillel came from Babylon (so far it is correct that they were Babylonians). A second possibility could be an origin in the kingdom of Adiabene when Jews acted as statesmen.

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.

First, the Mishnah called Gamaliel the Elder a Rabban and all Tannaim of Jamnia were called Rabbi (or Rabban). I think it could be anachronistic in both directions.

[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.