Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 12-04-2007, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

If the term "rabbi" as an address started to be used late first century and was well established by early second century this indicates an early second century date for Mark 9:5 is Likely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Which is patently ridiculous, since we have the terminus ante quem for Matthew with Ignatius, and we must allow enough time for Matthew to circulate for it to reach Ignatius, and even longer for Mark to circulate in order for it to reach Matthew. This places it in the late 1st century at the latest.

Moreover, Mark doesn't exhibit the signs of rabbi as a title. He isn't Rabbi Jesus, but Jesus Christ, and sometimes called Rabbi. This antedates 2nd century usage as well, placing Mark firmly within the late first century at the latest. Lo and behold, where do most scholars place Mark? Either immediately before or immediately after the Jewish War which destroyed the Temple... mid-to-late first century. By golly, I think we have some correlation here!

JW:
Hmmm, I thought you were ignoring me. I guess that's just Chris Weimer. I deliberately wrote "Mark 9:5" instead of "Mark" but I can see now that my use of "indicates" implies that I Am proof-texting my related point to conclude that Mark 9:5 is second century, which I should not do. I should have used "is evidence" rather than "indicates".

Broadening the discussion to the dating of "Mark" as a whole distracts from the OP so I won't go into my other reasons to date "Mark" later here, but is hard to avoid here and is a category of evidence that the offending verse is anachronistic.

Now, do you think "Mark" 9:5 is likely anachronistic? If not, why not?

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Solitary Man · 12-04-2007, 07:30 AM

If you would have read my second paragraph, you would have read answers to your questions you now pose.

JoeWallack · 12-04-2007, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Which is patently ridiculous, since we have the terminus ante quem for Matthew with Ignatius, and we must allow enough time for Matthew to circulate for it to reach Ignatius, and even longer for Mark to circulate in order for it to reach Matthew. This places it in the late 1st century at the latest.

Moreover, Mark doesn't exhibit the signs of rabbi as a title. He isn't Rabbi Jesus, but Jesus Christ, and sometimes called Rabbi. This antedates 2nd century usage as well, placing Mark firmly within the late first century at the latest. Lo and behold, where do most scholars place Mark? Either immediately before or immediately after the Jewish War which destroyed the Temple... mid-to-late first century. By golly, I think we have some correlation here!

Quote:

Originally Posted by JW

Now, do you think "Mark" 9:5 is likely anachronistic? If not, why not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

If you would have read my second paragraph, you would have read answers to your questions you now pose.

JW:
I don't see an answer to my question there and that's why I asked. I'm not going to guess your position. Homily don't play that game.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

No Robots · 12-04-2007, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Incorrect. It is used as a title, especially in describing the Pharisees and the leaders of the temple.

Pharisees and leaders of the temple are nowhere referred to in the NT as rabbis. In Mt. 23:7-8 Christ specifically exhorts his disciples not use the term among themselves. In all other instances, the term is applied to him alone. In John 1:38 the term is directly equated with its Greek equivalent "didaskale," meaning "teacher." Btw, Zimmermann (p. 69ff) shows that "didaskale" was inscribed on some pre-A.D. 70 Judean tombs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I don't really understand No Robots's recalcitrance. His source text clearly disagrees with his stated interpretation.

Think of it as an exercise in close combat reading.

No Robots · 12-04-2007, 10:36 AM

Correction

The passage in Matthew does say that the "scribes and Pharisees" love "to be called by men, Rabbi." This is the only instance where the term is used for anyone other than Christ himself.

No Robots · 12-04-2007, 12:29 PM

Found another one: John the Baptist is called Rabbi by his disciples (John 3:26).

Gamera · 12-04-2007, 12:37 PM

The Hebrew philology in this thread has been impressive, but the methodology of the OP and those defending it seems to have some important unexamined issues because we talking about a Greek text, not a Hebrew text.

First, while the Greek rhabbi is clearly a transliteration of Hebrew origin, Mark and the other gospel writers are writing in Greek. This is important since the Greek use of the term may have been borrowed earlier from the Hebrew and then had its own independent development. I would suggest that Septuagint would be the first place to look for such a cross-linguistic development. We know that the related Hebrew word "rab" appears in the Hebrew scriptures as a title meaning "captain." I don't believe that it is transliterated into Greek in the LXX. However, Greek culture would have been aware of "rab" as a title, and may have independently developed the sense in the Greek Christian scriptures.

Second, the assumption in the OP is that the transmission of the word would have been directly from current Jewish usage to Mark's Greek to the gospel texts. But there is another possibility. That Mark (or his Helenized Jewish predecessors) "coined" the term (because he is writing in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic) in order to describe a particular teacher/disciple relationship that didn't exist in Greek, or that was slightly different, or that he wanted to emphasize was Jewish, not Greek. Presumably Mark spoke good enough Greek to have used the Greek word for teacher or master, but he wanted a new term. Therefore, he borrowed a virtually contentless term rabbi, and transliterated it. Later in the first century, the word got reimported back into rabbinical texts, due to the influence of Christian texts, with a new, more specialized meaning.

I'm not saying this happened. I'm saying that this kind of transliterary cross-pollination happens all the time with words when language groups collide, and thus, the word tells us nothing about "anachronisms." As far as we know, Mark is an early work, and Jewish authors later borrowed his term which he borrowed from Jewish culture and put to his own use. Or it could be the other way around. There's no way to tell. So it is a thin reed indeed to make claims for dating any of these texts.

Note that I have no dog in this fight -- I don't care about anachronisms in the gospels, and don't care if the texts were later or earlier or interpolated. Generally my bias is for later dating, since early dating is almost always tendentious. It just seems to me the methodology here is flawed.

As to the existence of synagogues in Galilee, that's an archeological question. But my review of the use of the term rhabbi in the gospels doesn't conclude the authors ever use it in the special sense of a master of a synogogue. Am I missing that reference?

Toto · 12-04-2007, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

As to the existence of synagogues in Galilee, that's an archeological question. But my review of the use of the term rhabbi in the gospels doesn't conclude the authors ever use it in the special sense of a master of a synogogue. Am I missing that reference?

The synagogue thread has references to masters of the synagogue, but the term used was "ἀρχισυνάγωγος," not rabbi.

Sheshonq · 12-04-2007, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Incorrect. It is used as a title, especially in describing the Pharisees and the leaders of the temple.

Pharisees and leaders of the temple are nowhere referred to in the NT as rabbis.

Sadly incorrect, and easily disproven:

Quote:

MAT 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
MAT 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
MAT 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
MAT 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
MAT 23:6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
MAT 23:7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

Sheshonq · 12-04-2007, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Incorrect. It is used as a title, especially in describing the Pharisees and the leaders of the temple.

I don't really understand No Robots's recalcitrance. His source text clearly disagrees with his stated interpretation.

spin

Indeed. He might even be able to prove his point -- but not with the Jewish Encylopedia citation. He's milked that one for all it is worth, and it's done nothing except backfire in his face.

He would be better advised to find another source, rather than expending so much energy on trying to rescue his current one.

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

12-04-2007, 07:30 AM	#72
Solitary Man Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: ירושלים Posts: 1,701	If you would have read my second paragraph, you would have read answers to your questions you now pose.

12-04-2007, 10:36 AM	#75
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Correction The passage in Matthew does say that the "scribes and Pharisees" love "to be called by men, Rabbi." This is the only instance where the term is used for anyone other than Christ himself.

12-04-2007, 12:29 PM	#76
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Found another one: John the Baptist is called Rabbi by his disciples (John 3:26).

12-04-2007, 12:37 PM	#77
Gamera Banned Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Palm Springs, California Posts: 10,955	The Hebrew philology in this thread has been impressive, but the methodology of the OP and those defending it seems to have some important unexamined issues because we talking about a Greek text, not a Hebrew text. First, while the Greek rhabbi is clearly a transliteration of Hebrew origin, Mark and the other gospel writers are writing in Greek. This is important since the Greek use of the term may have been borrowed earlier from the Hebrew and then had its own independent development. I would suggest that Septuagint would be the first place to look for such a cross-linguistic development. We know that the related Hebrew word "rab" appears in the Hebrew scriptures as a title meaning "captain." I don't believe that it is transliterated into Greek in the LXX. However, Greek culture would have been aware of "rab" as a title, and may have independently developed the sense in the Greek Christian scriptures. Second, the assumption in the OP is that the transmission of the word would have been directly from current Jewish usage to Mark's Greek to the gospel texts. But there is another possibility. That Mark (or his Helenized Jewish predecessors) "coined" the term (because he is writing in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic) in order to describe a particular teacher/disciple relationship that didn't exist in Greek, or that was slightly different, or that he wanted to emphasize was Jewish, not Greek. Presumably Mark spoke good enough Greek to have used the Greek word for teacher or master, but he wanted a new term. Therefore, he borrowed a virtually contentless term rabbi, and transliterated it. Later in the first century, the word got reimported back into rabbinical texts, due to the influence of Christian texts, with a new, more specialized meaning. I'm not saying this happened. I'm saying that this kind of transliterary cross-pollination happens all the time with words when language groups collide, and thus, the word tells us nothing about "anachronisms." As far as we know, Mark is an early work, and Jewish authors later borrowed his term which he borrowed from Jewish culture and put to his own use. Or it could be the other way around. There's no way to tell. So it is a thin reed indeed to make claims for dating any of these texts. Note that I have no dog in this fight -- I don't care about anachronisms in the gospels, and don't care if the texts were later or earlier or interpolated. Generally my bias is for later dating, since early dating is almost always tendentious. It just seems to me the methodology here is flawed. As to the existence of synagogues in Galilee, that's an archeological question. But my review of the use of the term rhabbi in the gospels doesn't conclude the authors ever use it in the special sense of a master of a synogogue. Am I missing that reference?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.