judge

The evidence is that it is a form of an old Akkadian word that had been around for centuries before the 1st century. This word found its way into Aramaic.
To suggest that because some religious jews didnt use the hebrew term rabbi until very shortly afterwards in a very specific usage, that therefore Aramaic speakers couldn't have used the Aramaic term in any sense, doesn't add up.

Once you admit that Aramaic speakers could have used rabboni, in some sense, the whole argument falls apart.

aa5874

Your statement is of NO real significance and is mere speculation. What they could have done is NOT evidence that they did.

The argument that the Gospels which used the word "Rabbi" are at least 2nd century is COMPATIBLE with the evidence and cannot be overturned by speculation.

By the way, there were probably non-Christians that believed the earth was flat.

sotto voce

Language has nothing to do with it.

Modern 'Judaism'? Tall mud, I'd say.

Sheshbazzar

The evidence? You have these old Akkadian and Aramaic writings from the first century and before? and can show us exactly where within these texts the word 'rabboni' occurs?

Or does your 'evidence' simply consist of the fact that the NT uses the word, thus you need to employ circularity to support the word?

JoeWallack

JW:
Personally I Am mainly interested in "Mark" because it is the original Gospel. Regarding the question of whether "Mark's" use of "Rabbi" is anachronistic, all of the key points can be found in this Thread:

Anachronistic Rabbis and Pharisees in Mark split from Synagogues in Galilee

The problem students are having here is that the points have not been organized. So let the Master illuminate:

1) RB = "Master" in Hebrew.

2) RBY = My Master. The Yod (Y) at the end is a singular possessive.

Mark 9:5

Of note is that "Mark" uses a Greek transliteration for Rabbi (as opposed to a translated word):

http://biblos.com/mark/9-5.htm

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	And	Conj
611 [e]	apokritheis	ἀποκριθεὶς	having answered,	V-APP-NMS
3588 [e]	ho	ὁ	–	Art-NMS
4074 [e]	Petros	Πέτρος	Peter	N-NMS
3004 [e]	legei	λέγει	says	V-PIA-3S
3588 [e]	tō	τῷ	–	Art-DMS
2424 [e]	Iēsou	Ἰησοῦ	to Jesus,	N-DMS
4461 [e]	rhabbi	ῥαββί*	Rabbi,	Heb
2570 [e]	kalon	καλόν	good	Adj-NNS
1510 [e]	estin	ἐστιν	it is	V-PI-3S
1473 [e]	hēmas	ἡμᾶς	for us	PPro-A1P
5602 [e]	hōde	ὧδε	here	Adv
1510 [e]	einai	εἶναι	to be.	V-PN
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
4160 [e]	poiēsōmen	ποιήσωμεν	let us make	V-ASA-1P
5140 [e]	treis	τρεῖς	three	Adj-AFP
4633 [e]	skēnas	σκηνάς	tabernacles,	N-AFP
4771 [e]	soi	σοὶ	for you	PPro-D2S
1520 [e]	mian	μίαν	one,	Adj-AFS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
3475 [e]	Mōusei	Μωυσεῖ	for Moses	N-DMS
1520 [e]	mian	μίαν	one,	Adj-AFS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
2243 [e]	Ēlia	Ἠλίᾳ*	for Elijah	N-DMS
1520 [e]	mian	μίαν	one.	Adj-AFS

The problem here is the simplicity of the Hebrew language where RB has the general, broader meaning of "Master", which includes the narrower meaning "Teacher" (with a context of Teacher and Student). So what is the likely context of "Mark" 9:5? The likely context is "Teacher" because:

1) This story is during Jesus' Teaching Ministry.

2) The parallel invoked by "Mark" is Moses, known as the Teacher of Israel (not the Master).

3) The transliteration is evidence of a specialized meaning.

4) If a general context and more specific context both apply, it is more likely that the specific context is intended.

The supporting Thread shows that before the Temple crash there is no example of any Jewish Teacher being referred to as RBY in the 1st century or anywhere close. Post crash, on the other washed hand, RBY becomes the standard reference. Therefore, it is likely that "Mark's" use of RBY is anachronistic. This is consistent with the overall evidence that "Mark" was written well after 70.

In trying to defend "Mark" the issue than becomes is it possible that Jesus was historically addressed as RBY in the story? To do so you need a context of "Master". Of course it's possible since RBY does mean "my master" and Jesus was the Authority in his relationship with Peter. Even using a context of "Master" though RBY here still seems unlikely:

1) There is no example of RBY for the 1st century or anywhere close.

2) Related writing is more likely to have a context of religious teacher rather than master. But the normal address for a context of master would be RB, "master". That's why RBY become the title for religious teacher, it's not the normal address for "Master".

3) There could be a context for "my Master". Let's say a witness is presented with a line up of RBs and asked, "Okay, which one bitch-slapped Jesus?" The witness answers "My Rabbi" (RBY). There's no context in 9:5 though for Peter to distinguish which RB it is.

The other uses of RBY by "Mark" also support a context of Teacher:

Here the plural form is used. For a guy who was not a disciple, "Our teacher" works better than "Our master".

Teaching context.

Meaning of "Master" doesn't really work here, does it (surprised Santorum doesn't quote this).

So all uses of RBY by "Mark" support a context of religious teacher. If you are trying to defend "Mark" than, just keep in mind that you are defending the possible and not the probable. Error! On to ErrancyWiki.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki.

Iskander

Mark 10:51-52


“Rabbouni” or “my master”


Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk)
Adela Yabro Collins
Fortress Press, 2007
ISBN 978800660789
Page 511



The Tannaim (Hebrew: תנאים, singular תנא, Tanna "repeaters", "teachers"[1]) were the Rabbinic sages whose views are recorded in the Mishnah, from approximately 10-220 CE.

The period of the Tannaim, also referred to as the Mishnaic period, lasted about 210 years. It came after the period of the Zugot ("pairs"), and was immediately followed by the period of the Amoraim ("interpreters")[2]

Origin
The Tannaim operated under the occupation of the Roman Empire.

During this time, the Kohanim (priests) of the Temple became increasingly corrupt and were seen by the Jewish people as collaborators with the Romans, whose mismanagement of Iudaea province (composed of Samaria, Idumea and Judea proper[3]) led to riots, revolts and general resentment


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannaim#Origin

JoeWallack

JW:
If you are trying to dispute my post the referenced Thread makes clear that c. 70 distinguishes when RBY started for Tannaim. Are you trying? If so, what do you have?



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Iskander

Judaism (or via: amazon.co.uk)
Dan Cohn-Sherbok
Routledge, 2003
ISBN 9780415236614


Chapter 23

JoeWallack

JW:
That's two strikes. One more and you're out. Like I said, there is no known use of RBY to describe a pre 70 religious teacher. After 70 it becomes the norm. That's why your source can't site one. As spin would say, your source is "crap". Using a general description to imply that RBY was used before 70 here is naughty. If it is not dishonest than it is misleading (you). It should be a sign to you that there is no reasonable defense. Please try again.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

andrewcriddle

Hi Joe

The Titles Rabbi/Rabbouni and Mark 9:5 argues that in Mark rabbi means master not teacher.

Andrew Criddle