Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I think I might have found an anachronism in the Catholic (or Orthodox) gospels.

Matthew 23:7 - they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
Matthew 23:8 - “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.
Matthew 26:25 - Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, “Surely you don’t mean me, Rabbi?” Jesus answered, “You have said so.”
Matthew 26:49 - Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed him.
Mark 9:5 - Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”
Mark 10:51 - “What do you want me to do for you?” Jesus asked him. The blind man said, “Rabbi, I want to see.”
Mark 11:21 - Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”
Mark 14:45 - Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him.
John 1:38 - Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?” They said, “Rabbi” (which means “Teacher”), “where are you staying?”
John 1:49 - Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.”
John 3:2 - He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
John 3:26 - They came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—look, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him.”
John 4:31 - Meanwhile his disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat something.”
John 6:25 - When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”
John 9:2 - His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
John 11:8 - “But Rabbi,” they said, “a short while ago the Jews there tried to stone you, and yet you are going back?”

I know the Marcionite tradition couldn't have accepted the idea of Jesus PROPERLY being addressed as a rabbi. But then I started wondering - is there any evidence from Jewish sources that there were 'rabbis' before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple? I am fairly confident this is a second century anachronism. The term used in reports about the pre-70 CE period make reference to 'scribes' https://books.google.com/books?id=WlIDt ... CE&f=false

The archaeological evidence points to the end of the first century for the use of the term rabbi https://books.google.com/books?id=K-TUA ... CE&f=false

To this end it seems that the texts were either written or edited in the period after the first century CE. I tend to think edited because I see the term being incompatible with the Marcionite god Jesus. Indeed it seems rather silly to suppose that Marcionite - not knowing that the term was anachronistic developed a narrative featuring the second god of Israel (i.e. a belief that went back before the Common Era viz. Philo etc. but somehow developed a 'counterpoint' where the Jewish religion being depicted in the same narrative reflected second century values - this given the destruction of the temple was the central interest of the same narrative (i.e. something which had little or no relevance in the second century).

There is a long discussion of this in the archive http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... l?t=311362

Andrew Criddle

judge wrote: The original word is Akkadian rab, meaning chief or overseer.

The latest known text in cuneiform Babylonian is an astronomical text dated to 75 AD, according to Lesley Adkins
It is interesting, perhaps, to note that in Middle Persian, “rad” = “master”. Single phoneme substitution. Looks like a winner to me.

Reading further in the archives, (thanks, Andrew, and thank you Peter), here's an attempt by Philosopher Jay, to calm the turbulence:
http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... 362&page=6

It seems to me we have two general hypotheses:
1. a) The term "rabbi" (teacher, master, authority, etc.) was not used until after 70 CE and
b) therefore its use in the gospels is anachronistic. It points to a late First century or Second century origin for the gospels.
2. a) The term "rabbi" was in general use before 70 CE and
b) its use was first recorded in the gospels.
I wonder why the term was not translated for Greek readers, but left in its original form? Even if the word was known among Aramaic Jews, why wouldn't the term be translated for Greek speakers. It seems to assume a knowledge of Aramaic that is not assumed elsewhere in the gospels.

Looks to me, as though the participants in this august forum, have forgotten that Persia ruled the former Egyptian empire, including Jerusalem, for a significant number of centuries, until Alexander arrived on the scene. I would have thought that the influence of Middle Persian may have had a far more significant impact on the life of intellectuals in Alexandria, than Aramaic!!! (I assume that gMark was the first text describing Jesus as “rabbi”, and that he wrote it in Alexandria. Both assumptions may be incorrect, of course.) I visualize the situation in Britain, after the Normans invaded. What happened to Old Norse, former lingua franca of merry England, for a couple of centuries?

I think we underestimate the influence of the Persian empire on the origin of Christianity. This word “rabbi” looks an awful lot like it has a Persian flavor to it. The ancient kingdom of Sargon, (code of Hammurabi), source of this Akkadian language, progenitor of “rab”, meaning “master”, logically transferred to the Persians when they conquered Babylon. As No_Robots pointed out, in the archives, posting right after Philosopher Jay, in 2012,

Actually, Mt 23:8 uses both rabbi and the Greek equivalent, didaskalos ,leading one to suspect that ordinary, uneducated, folks did not know the meaning of “rabbi”.

Andrew had a salient comment on page 10, which must be reproduced here:

Actually in two places:
Mark 9:5/Matthew 17:4
Mark 10:51/Matthew 20:23
Matthew replaces Mark's rabbi/rabboni with Lord.
The only places where Matthew uses rabbi in the same way as Mark are that both have Judas (ironically) addressing as rabbi the master whom he is betraying and/or the teacher whose message he is rejecting.
Hence Matthew probably regards Mark's use of rabbi as meaning Lord/master rather than teacher.

I wonder if the Akkadians had a different word for “lord”, because “master” in English (and its progenitor, German) generally refers to a workman/artist of great skill and accomplishment, rather than a wealthy landowner. (Meistersinger von Nuernberg). I think that the earliest Christians regarded Jesus as a supernatural deity, to whom one owed allegiance, with head bowed, hands outstretched, while kneeling in front of a potentate, someone holding the person's life in his hands, not a plebian, skilled craftsman—therefore, Jesus was a “lord”, not a “master”.

slevin wrote:. . . As No_Robots pointed out, in the archives, posting right after Philosopher Jay, in 2012,

Actually, Mt 23:8 uses both rabbi and the Greek equivalent, didaskalos ,leading one to suspect that ordinary, uneducated, folks did not know the meaning of “rabbi”.

. . .

Didaskalos is used in the NT a total of 58 times. The term didaskalos has also been found inscribed on pre-A.D. 70 ossuaries.

Give me a break. It is most likely an anachronism. The implication from the gospel is that it was commonplace in Judea and Galilee c 30 CE. No evidence for that

Is there evidence of the term Rabbi being used in the second century outside of the NT?

Edit: Found one use of term Rabbi in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho


Not sure if this writing dates from the second century. . .

Joe Atwill, Caesar's Messiah, ISBN 978-1461096405, p. 375:

"Since the Romans inserted the Maccabees into Christianity, it is at least logical to wonder if they also removed them from Judaism, which was being reestablished at about the same time. As Eisenman points out in James, the Brother of Jesus, Rabbi Yohanon ben Zacchai is described in the Talmud as having worked to reestablish a form of Judaism after the 70 C.E. holocaust. He worked at an academy at Yavneh, established with the authorization of Rome. He is also claimed to have applied the Star prophecy, the Messiah or world ruler prophecy, to Vespasian exactly as Josephus had done. These facts provide a basis for speculation about the extent to which Rome was also involved in the creation of Rabbinical Judaism..."

Also, FWIW, I believe we have a note as to the origin of the Rabbinical School in Acts. If Acts is, as I believe, about Mucianus and the Legions at the Interregnum, we have a Claim made as to Rabbinical origin:

Acts 5: 36 - 40 (RSV):

[36] For before these days Theu'das arose, giving himself out to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was slain and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.
[37] After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered.
[38] So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail;
[39] but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!"
[40] So they took his advice, and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

Very well reasoned and very Non-Messianic.

CW

Charles. ---- off. No one cares what you or Atwill (assuming of course - and highly unlikely I might add because you act as a virtual 'press agent for Atwill and his ignored thesis - that you are a different persons) have to say regarding how this or any other topic fit into a Flavian conspiracy. This thread CONTRADICTS a Flavian conspiracy at least implicitly because the earliest date for the implicit assumption of the gospel is that referring to leading figures in the Jewish community as 'rabbis' is commonplace. As such it necessarily presumes that the 'rabbi' references were at the earliest written in 100 CE but more likely IMO 100 - 150 CE or later.

I do not subscribe to the idea that the gospels were originally written at the time of Bar Kochba revolt. I assume that:

a. the gospels were edited in that period by either Polycarp or Irenaeus (the former is clearly an extension of Trobisch's model)
b. the Marcionites predate that effort and the name 'Marcionite' was a development of a reference to the sect being associated with Mark

None of these possibilities (or any other combinations or permutations of anything to do with the use of the title 'rabbi' in the gospels can have any relevance to a Flavian conspiracy theory other than it disproves that assumption if the gospels as we have them are authentic or more or less pristine copies of that ur-text. Again --- off.

Atwill must really have nothing better to do (other than promoting his book through free PR services and appealing his message to complete morons if he sends 'you' (i.e. himself) to a forum of losers like this in order to introduce an idiotic theory even when such an introduction is completely inappropriate.

Stephan Huller wrote:Charles. ---- off. No one cares what you or Atwill have to say regarding how this or any other topic fit into a Flavian conspiracy.

OK by me. I don't need Atwill's specific theory to support what I have written. His theory has great explanatory power but it may be wrong. If it is, then that's OK. I can pick up the pieces of his research and pull together a consistent and nearly complete History that fits the facts most favorably.

This thread CONTRADICTS a Flavian conspiracy at least implicitly because the earliest date for the implicit assumption of the gospel is that referring to leading figures in the Jewish community as 'rabbis' is commonplace. As such it necessarily presumes that the 'rabbi' references were at the earliest written in 100 CE but more likely IMO 100 - 150 CE or later.

'N that contradicts what I see...how?

I do not subscribe to the idea that the gospels were originally written at the time of Bar Kochba revolt.

If it is your understanding that I believe "... that the gospels were originally written at the time of Bar Kochba revolt" then there is positive proof that you have not read nor understood a word of what I have written.

I assume that:

a. the gospels were edited in that period by either Polycarp or Irenaeus (the former is clearly an extension of Trobisch's model)
b. the Marcionites predate that effort and the name 'Marcionite' was a development of a reference to the sect being associated with Mark

Good. Nice to read. You get a Gold Star and a Certificate of Participation.

None of these possibilities (or any other combinations or permutations of anything to do with the use of the title 'rabbi' in the gospels can have any relevance to a Flavian conspiracy theory other than it disproves that assumption if the gospels as we have them are authentic or more or less pristine copies of that ur-text.

With this, we conclude our discussion with No Points given to Huller. Having not considered nor even understood the argument, it's time to move on again. Maybe maryhelena can explain something to you, something about which you appear to have no knowledge.

Atwill must really have nothing better to do...

Many people start with Lithium Carbonate to moderate those nasty mood swings. Sertraline (Zoloft) can be helpful as can Klonopin. See your doctor for details. PLEASE...

CW

Stephan Huller wrote:Give me a break. It is most likely an anachronism. The implication from the gospel is that it was commonplace in Judea and Galilee c 30 CE. No evidence for that

Clearly no evidence for that. What's with similar terms and ministries? There was the "teacher of righteousness". Were there other teachers and masters?