aa5874

Your reasonning is flawed since you have PRESUMED the Pauline writings are historically reliable when you have ZERO corroboration from antiquity for Paul.

It is just not logical that the Pauline writings could be unavoidably anachronistic if they were really historically accurate.

May I remind you that the Pauline writings have NO dates of writing affixed to them so you cannot just PRESUME you know when they were written when you are arguing against persons who REJECT assumptions without corroboration.

The Pauline writings in the NT Canon are ALL after the Fall of the Jewish Temple and were UNKNOWN by apologetic sources up to the 2nd century.

Duvduv

All I have said is that no Jewish sources refer to the use of the term rabbi before 70 CE.

sotto voce

Not so. The gospels are quintessentially Jewish sources. Arguably, with the NT letters, the last of them.

Duvduv

The gospels are not authentic Jewish sources and the sources of the rabbis do not use this term for teachers before the destruction. And the gospels were not written in the first century anyway.

sotto voce

They are the logical culmination and completion of the process that began in Genesis. Nothing else makes any sense. They refer to the informal use of the word 'rabbi' in the early 1st century many times.

No Robots

You at odds here with all contemporary scholarship, including all Jewish scholarship.

The reason for this is that is the post-Temple period the rabbinate wanted to portray itself as the pristine normative establishment without roots in previously existing streams of Judaism.

The Gospels as we have them derive from occasional writings and oral transmission. They provide a clear picture of first-century Judaism.

Duvduv

So you believe that the entire body of Jewish religious literature is of no value compared to four stories about Jews written by non-Jews? This is utterly preposterous.

The fact is that there is nothing in any Jewish text written and accepted by Jews suggesting that the term rabbi was used until after the destruction of the Temple. Not even Josephus or Philo mention the term Rabbi.

You simply want to grab at straws to establish the church doctrine and claims of the hired apologists that the Christ stories were written in the first century.

judge

Well Im not christian and dont give fuck about apologists or church doctrine, but to argue that because "orthodox" jews (as you call them) may not have rabbi as a title until a relatively short time later, therefore aramaic speaking judeans couldn't have used the aramaic term, rabboni, in any sense, doesn't seem to have legs.

Of course they could have.

mountainman

The epic poem "Song of Hiawatha" by Longfellow was not originally written in the Ojibway language. The gospels are Greek manuscripts produced by Greek literate authors who had before them the Greek LXX. The authors data mined the Greek LXX for the wonderful prophecies of Jesus, and put the Greek LXX into the mouth of the apostles. There are no authentic Jewish or Hebrew sources for the new testament literature - its all Greek.


Pious forgery ?





Really?

Duvduv

Could have doesn't could.t.
There is no evidence for your hypothesis.