Sheshonq

But not in the 1st century timeframe needed by your argument. See my recent post.

No Robots

JOHANAN B. ZAKKAI: The most important tanna in the last decade of the Second Temple.--Jewish Encyclopedia

Zakkai is of the first century and was called by the title "rabbi." The use of "rabbi" as a term of respect precedes him.

Sheshonq

Wrong. It does not say that Zakkai was called by the title rabbi. He was referred to that by his students, which is exactly what your text says: "the term of respectful address came to be used as a title." But not during Zakkai's lifetime - it was used by his students, when referring to him -- but that came later. It clearly says:

....dates from the time of the disciples of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai downward.

The titular usage came after Zakkai. When? During the time of his disciples. When was that? After they went out, became teachers, and started schools of their own. In fact, the entire Jewish Encyclopedia entry for Zakkai you won't see the term "rabbi" anywhere. A curious thing, don't you think, if the title was used for him during his lifetime?

Not according to anything you have presented.

Here's my take on it: you've consistently misread and misunderstood what the Jewish Encyclopedia entry says. And I've patiently led you by the nose, back through your mistakes, and showed each one to you. Maybe it's time you found another source -- one that actually says what you think it says.

You still haven't explained why you thought you could splice together different parts of an article, and ignore the different contexts -- as well as all the other parts of the same article.

No Robots

There is no warrant for your assumption that the use of "rabbi" as a term of respect began with Zakkai's students. The article does not specify when the practice began other than to say that it preceded its use as a title.

spin

Aren't you confusing Shanks with Donaldson?

And Zeitlin dismembered Shanks completely. He was worth reading in that he provided the background for understanding that rabban isn't directly related to the rabbi issue, as the former is an Aramaic rendering of rabba which was the title given to the leading figure in the Bet Din after the position of Ab Bet Din was abolished. Johanan ben Zakkai was in fact the leader of the Bet Din. This leaves us with all the datable literary uses of rabbi as securely post fall of the temple.


spin

Sheshonq

No assumption needed. That is what the article says.

....dates from the time of the disciples of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai downward.

Not from the time of Zakkai.
From the time of his disciples.
They are not the same thing.

And again: if Zakkai had been called rabbi during his life, he would have been the first one to be called thusly. Strange that the Jewish Encyclopedia would leave that out -- you failed to address that point in your response.

Not even Zakkai's mentor, Hillel, was called 'rabbi' during his life -- even though we routinely refer to "rabbi Hillel" nowadays. The titles came after the men. But not necessarily the friendly use of the term by their students. once those students had gone out and established schools of learning on their own. But that was long after Zakkai.


Yes it does:

....dates from the time of the disciples of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai downward.

Why is it that every point has to be drilled into you a minimum of three times, NoRobots?

The bottom line here is that this quotation doesn't prove your claim. I order to do that, you're probably going to have to actually read some of the books/authors that you have been namedropping into this thread.

Yes: you're going to have to do some actual work. Shocking, I know.

spin

As I've pointed out from Zeitlin above, rabban Johanan ben Zakkai is a red herring. One is merely arguing on the appearance of the relationship between rabban and rabbi. They are not directly related. The term rabban describes the head of the Bet Din. So Johanan ben Zakkai has nothing directly to do with the rabbi issue.


spin

Sheshonq

That's a good point.

Ignoring, of course, all the other flaws in his postings for a moment, NoRobots' argument is based upon the fallacy that "rabbi" and "rabban" are equal titles. They are not.

No Robots

The article itself separates discussion of the use of the word "rabbi" into two parts: first as an address of respect, subsequently as a title.

Here again is the quotation from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Of the Prophets, also, who were very eminent, it is simply said, 'Haggai the prophet,' etc., 'Ezra did not come up from Babylon,' etc., the title 'Rabban' not being used. Indeed, this title is not met with earlier than the time of the patriarchate. It was first used of Rabban Gamaliel the elder, Rabban Simeon his son, and Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai, all of whom were patriarchs or presidents of the Sanhedrin. The title 'Rabbi,' too, came into vogue among those who received the laying on of hands at this period, as, for instance, Rabbi Zadok, Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, and others, and dates from the time of the disciples of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai downward.

So the title "Rabban" dates from Gamaliel, and the title "Rabbi", too, dates from the same time. Prior to this, the word "Rabbi" was used as an address of respect. The article leaves open the question of when exactly this usage as an address of respect began.

spin

You aren't reading your source carefully. The term rabbi "dates from the time of the disciples of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai downward", not from the time of Johanan himself per se. The encyclopaedia is consistent with the use of rabbi in the period after the fall of the temple.


spin