Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 02-09-2012, 02:59 PM

Quote:

t seems odd that we get a variant spelling/pronunciation in John and Mark when somebody outside the disciples tries to say the word. Was this deliberate for some reason?

Well, the blind beggar in Mark 10 appears to me to be a later addition to the text. So that might explain the variant spelling in that passage.

It could also be that use of Rabbi in Mark is a back-insertion from John or Matt (I;m suggesting, not advocating).

Vorkosigan

sotto voce · 02-09-2012, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Matthew says that rabbi is what the Scribes and Pharisees wish to be called. Jesus tells the disciples not to use the word. Judas is the only disciple to use the word in reference to Jesus.
It seems clear that Matthew does not like the word "rabbi" and does not want it applied to Jesus or the disciples.

Would that be because he believed that Jesus was no better than anyone else?

sotto voce · 02-09-2012, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Dumb question. What word should have been used if "rabbi" is too early to be used for teacher or master? Skimmed through the thread so I may have missed it.

Excellent question

Israel was not supposed to have teachers, because, according to the texts, all were to be personal representatives of YHWH to Gentiles.

PhilosopherJay · 02-09-2012, 04:11 PM

Hi judge,
Regarding abba, raca, sikera, mammon, qorban

Quote:

Abba, an originally Aramaic form borrowed into Modern Hebrew[23] (written Αββα in Greek, and 'abbā in Aramaic), is immediately followed by the Greek equivalent (Πατηρ) with no explicit mention of it being a translation

Raca

Quote:

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother [without a cause] shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire...
Raca, or Raka, in the Aramaic of the Talmud means empty one, fool, empty head.

The use of Raca in Matt 5:22 is similar to the use of Rabbi in Matthew 23:8

Quote:

"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one teacher and you are all brothers.

You get the meaning of the word from the next part of the sentence.
In that sense it is like someone writing:

She said, "Como Estas?" I answered that I was well and asked her how she was. The context reveals the meaning of the foreign word, so there is no need for the author to translate it.

sikera:

Quote:

Luke 1:15

for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He must never drink wine or strong drink; even before his birth he will be filled with the Holy Spirit.

Quote:

strong's Lexicon: strong drink, an intoxicating beverage, different from wine; it was a artificial product, made of a mixture of sweet ingredients, whether derived from grain and vegetables, or from the juice of fruits (dates), or a decoction of honey.

This would be seen as a proper name of a local drink like wine.
The equivalent would be something like saying, "I went to a pub in Athens, and I got drunk on wine and Ouzo." One could figure out it was a drink like wine from the context.

mammon:Gospel of Matthew 6:24

Quote:

No one can serve two masters: for either they will hate the one, and love the other; or else they will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon...
In the New Testament the word Μαμωνᾶς — Mamōnâs — is declined like a Greek word, whereas many of the other Aramaic and Hebrew words are treated as indeclinable foreign words.

In this context Mammon would have been taken as the proper name of another God.

Korban: Matthew 27:5,6

Quote:

5. And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, ‘It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money.’

In Aramaic (קרבנא) it refers to the treasury in the Temple in Jerusalem, derived from the Hebrew Korban (קרבן), found in Mark 7:11 and the Septuagint (in Greek transliteration), meaning religious gift.

This is another word that could easily be known from the context and therefore did not need translation.

Again, the Aramaic words that are not translated are easily known from the context or can be treated as proper nouns.

regarding the solid case for an anachronism.

Besides in the writings of Philo and Josephus where we would expect the word "Rabbi" to be used, the Dead Sea scrolls also never use the term. Outside the three gospels, even the Christian texts of the Second century like Polycarp, Justin Martyr, or Shepherd of Hermas does not use the term. Since we never find the word in text from this time period where we would expect to find it, it seems to me good evidence.

I agree it is not steel or titanium solid, but it seems "probable" solid.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Thanks for this link, judge, it seems that the aramaic words or expressions that are not proper names are followed by Greek translations in the Gospels. It makes the usage of "rabbi" even more unusual.

No there are plenty of other words not translated, abba, raca, sikera, mammon, qorban to name some. You will find these in the link I posted.
It is phrases that tend to be translated. Words may or may not be.

Quote:

It seems that the usage of the word “rabbi” in the gospels create a nexus of problems.

It is true that Philo, Josephus, the rest of the New and Old testament and no other texts or archaeological evidence attests to the word being in use in the First century. This does make the hypothesis that it is an anachronism a solid one.

Two writers dont mention it from the period. How does that make it "solid"?

I think its as solid as we can be but maybe not "solid" in a strong sense.

judge · 02-09-2012, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

mammon:Gospel of Matthew 6:24

In this context Mammon would have been taken as the proper name of another God.

But it doesn't mean that.

Mammon , from the etymological dictionary.
And from Wiki , mammon.

So here the context might mislead

Iskander · 02-09-2012, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

mammon:Gospel of Matthew 6:24

In this context Mammon would have been taken as the proper name of another God.

But it doesn't mean that.

Mammon , from the etymological dictionary.
And from Wiki , mammon.

So here the context might mislead

Yes, Mammon means wealth in the Greek Testament.

In Paradise Lost, Milton cast mammon in the role of a lowly rebellious angel who was more impressed by the gold in heaven’s pavement than by the glory of God.

Quote:

Mammon led them on,
Mammon, the least erected Spirit that fell
From heav’n, for ev’n in heav’n his looks and thoughts
Were always downward bent, admiring more
The riches of Heav’ns pavement, trod’n Gold,
Then aught divine or holy else enjoy’d
In vision beatific: by him first

maryhelena · 02-09-2012, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Thanks for this link, judge, it seems that the aramaic words or expressions that are not proper names are followed by Greek translations in the Gospels. It makes the usage of "rabbi" even more unusual.

It seems that the usage of the word “rabbi” in the gospels create a nexus of problems.

It is true that Philo, Josephus, the rest of the New and Old testament and no other texts or archaeological evidence attests to the word being in use in the First century. This does make the hypothesis that it is an anachronism a solid one.

Each of the gospels presents us with more unique problems.

John: He uses the term 8 times apparently to mean "Teacher":

Quote:

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
Nathanael answered Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel."

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--well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him."

John 4:31
Meanwhile the disciples were urging Him, saying, "Rabbi, eat."

John 6:25
When they found him [John the Baptist] 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 tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?"

John 20:16 jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).

All the disciples and Mary use the term in reference to Jesus. John's disciples also refer to John the Baptist as "Rabbi." (This supports my hypothesis that the Jesus character was the John character rewritten)

John translates the term into the Greek Διδάσκαλε (teacher) but he has Mary saying Rabboni instead of Rabbi. Since the translation is the same, why the difference in spelling/pronunciation? It would have been easier to just have her use the term "rabbi" and not translate it, because he had translated it previously. Were the Mary text perhaps from a different source than the rest of the editor's text. Perhaps, he wanted to keep the exact term "Rabboni," so he translated it again into the Greek word Διδάσκαλε (teacher).

Mark uses the term four times, but does not bother to translate it:

Quote:

Mark 9:5 Then Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it's good that we're here! Let's set up three shelters-one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah."

Mark 10:51 Then Jesus asked him, "What do you want me to do for you?" The blind man said to him, "Rabbouni, I want to see again."

Mark 11:21 Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!"

Mark 14:45 NIV: Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Rabbi!" and kissed him./ Aramaic in Plain English Version: And immediately he approached and he said to him, “Rabbi, Rabbi”, and he kissed him.

Why doesn't he bother to translate the word into Greek? Does he assume that his readers have already read the gospel of John and therefore don't need a translation? Perhaps, he believed that his Greek readers would be familiar with the term and not need a translation. The first seems more likely.
Only Peter and Judas use the term among the disciples. As with Mary in John, we get a variant spelling/pronunciation from a blind man.

It seems odd that we get a variant spelling/pronunciation in John and Mark when somebody outside the disciples tries to say the word. Was this deliberate for some reason?

Matthew uses the term four times, but quite differently:

Quote:

Matthew 23:7 they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

Matthew 23:8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one teacher and you are all brothers.

Matthew 26:25 Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, "Surely not I, Rabbi?" Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you."

Mattthew 26:49 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him.

Matthew says that rabbi is what the Scribes and Pharisees wish to be called. Jesus tells the disciples not to use the word. Judas is the only disciple to use the word in reference to Jesus.
It seems clear that Matthew does not like the word "rabbi" and does not want it applied to Jesus or the disciples.

Luke does not use the word at all. Did he notice the negative connotation in Matthew and deliberately decide not to use it?

Logically, the term seems to change in each of the four gospels.
It is a term of affection is John. It is more neutral and barely a positive term in Mark. It is decidedly negative in Matthew and it has disappeared in Luke.

My hypothesis would be that the attitudes of the gospels towards the word "rabbi" reflects the attitudes of writers towards actual rabbis.

John (120's) is happy to have Jesus and John the Baptist associated with the positive term "rabbi." Mark (140's) is more neutral. Matthew (160's) sees the term only negatively and sees the rabbis as the elitist enemies of Jesus. Luke (180's) writing for a primarily Greek audience doesn't mention them at all.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Thanks for this post, PhilosopherJay. It's great to see the usage set out like this. It would seem, to my thinking anyway.....that the 'story' re the use of rabbi starts with gJohn. That is the gospel which makes most use of the term.

I think that this progression of the 'story' re the use of rabbi - from a very positive usage, gJohn, to a more limited usage in gMark, to gMatthew's negative usage, to gLuke's failure to use the term - could well indicate the social, or politically correct, developments in usage of the term. From an earlier, pre-70 c.e. general usage to a post 70 c.e. usage where 'politics' comes into play. Perhaps it's that transition we are observing in the gospel usage of the term. A pre-70 c.e. usage and a post-70 c.e. usage.

It's either a careless gJohn writer - writing very late - after the term rabbi becomes a politically correct issue - leading to the charge of it being an anachronism. Or, gJohn reflects a historical time period in which the term rabbi was socially acceptable to use towards someone meriting it. The gospels are reflecting a development in usage - from positive to negative to avoidance. To turn this around and assume gJohn is the last gospel, it's writer knowing the negative usage in gMatthew and the avoidance in gLuke - and is careless enough to spoil his work by disregarding his sources and inserting an anachronism in his own work, is perhaps to assume too much. From a negative to a positive usage - surely, that, in and off itself, should raise questions? So, a careless, thoughtless writer of gJohn - or a writer writing within his own historical time frame - pre 70 c.e.

I do side with earlier dating for gJohn and gMark - pre-70 c.e. Dating gMatthew post-70 c.e. but prior to Antiquities in 95 c.e. (Herodias being previously married to Philip in both gMark and gMatthew - Antiquities telling a different 'history'. One can take this charge of careless writers, gMark and gMatthew re the Herodias and Philip statements, too far and miss out on info the 'careless' writer is telling. )

Dating manuscripts is never going to be the deciding factor in the historicist/ahistoricist debate. Following the storyline developments has far more potential...

aa5874 · 02-09-2012, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

.....I do side with earlier dating for gJohn and gMark - pre-70 c.e. Dating gMatthew post-70 c.e. but prior to Antiquities in 95 c.e. (Herodias being previously married to Philip in both gMark and gMatthew - Antiquities telling a different 'history'. One can take this charge of careless writers, gMark and gMatthew re the Herodias and Philip statements, too far and miss out on info the 'careless' writer is telling.)....

It is entirely chronologically illogical that gJohn was written before the Jesus story in the Short-Ending gMark.

A detailed study of gJohn shows that the author attempted to CORRECT many errors in the Synoptics.

For example, all the so-called Failed prophecies by Jesus about "this generation" are Missing in gJohn.

gJohn's Jesus was UPGRADED to be God the creator and a universal Savior by his crucifixion.

Elijah · 02-10-2012, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Excellent question

Israel was not supposed to have teachers, because, according to the texts, all were to be personal representatives of YHWH to Gentiles.

There should still be a word though... if not rabbi. For them to reject the concept of a teacher/student relationship they would need to identify the teacher concept by label to reject it, wouldn't they?

sotto voce · 02-10-2012, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Israel was not supposed to have teachers, because, according to the texts, all were to be personal representatives of YHWH to Gentiles.

There should still be a word though...

There is and there was a word for teacher, one who explains the ordinary things of life to the young, in every language, including Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek koine, because every society had ordinary teachers. What they did not all have was a class of mentors or gurus. Israel was not permitted to have such a class among them.

Quote:

if not rabbi. For them to reject the concept of a teacher/student relationship they would need to identify the teacher concept by label to reject it, wouldn't they?

No, they would not. Once they knew what they were supposed to be, they knew that a mentor class was not only irrelevant, but highly undesirable. If Moses had set up such a class of self-perpetuating mentors, it would have been seen as absurdity, as self-contradiction. Even a monarch, that all other nations possessed, was not to reign in Israel. Most people just do not grasp how different Israel was supposed to be. It may seem strange to modern minds, but early Israel after the death of Moses had no hierarchies. It was imv almost certainly the model of democracy adopted by Greece.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.