No Robots

As we have seen "rabbi" connotes both an early usage as an address of respect and subsequently as a title. The reference to the disciples of Zakkai applies explicitly to the title, not to any prior usage as an address of respect.

There is admittedly a bit of a balancing act going on in the article.

spin

This doesn't deal with the issue. The encyclopaedia is giving a generic time for the use of rabbi to that of rabban then provides a more specific time indication. The text clearly shows that rabbi post-dates the start of use of rabban and specificaly to the time of the disciples of Johanan ben Zakkai. Any hypothetical use of rabbi for respect prior to Johanan's disciples isn't dealt with by the encyclopaedia.


spin

No Robots

It does say that 'rabbi' was used for respect prior to its use as a title by Johanan's disciples.

Sheshonq

No, not in the way you think it does. And certainly not in the manner that your dishonest cut-and-splice indicates. You cut from the first part and spliced to the second, because you couldn't find a chronological benchmark, or time-marker.

And you did all this, while ignoring what that selfsame paragraph very clearly stated:

Sherira's statement shows clearly that at the time of Jesus there were no titles; and Grätz ("Gesch." iv. 431), therefore, regards as anachronisms the title "Rabbi" as given in the gospels to John the Baptist and Jesus, Jesus' disapprobation of the ambition of the Jewish doctors who love to be called by this title, and his admonition to his disciples not to suffer themselves to be so styled (Matt. xxiii. 7, 8).

It doesn't get much clearer than this.

Don't bother; I've already seen it multiple times. And I've been forced to quote it back to you, because you can't see the obvious point, below:

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.

Do you know what that "period" was? The period of Zadok, ben Jacob, and the disciples of ben Zakkai? It was not the time of Christ. It was afterwards. These people (Zadok/ben Jacob/disciples of ben Zakkai) were all late 1st century or early 2nd century figures in history.

Which means that Sherira is correct: the title rabbi in the gospel is an anachronism.

But that "time" is after Christ and after the destruction of the 2nd Temple.

Moreover, Zakkai, whom you are trying to pin your hopes upon, was never called rabbi anyhow. Zakkai was of the Sanhedrin, so his title was rabban. From the article:

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.

Yes, the term "rabban" dates from Gamaliel. But Gamaliel didn't get this title until 10 years after the destruction of the 2nd Temple; i.e., the year 80 AD.

No Robots

'Rabbi' is used in the Gospels not as a title, but as an address of respect, which fits splendidly with the pre-Gamaliel chronology that the Encyclopedia affirms for such usage.

Sheshonq

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

spin

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


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_9:5

"And Peter answereth and saith to Jesus, Rabbi, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah"

Note that "Mark" introduces the term "Rabbi" for Jesus immediately after Moses' cameo appearance. Moses is commonly referred to as "Moses Rabbeinu" in Talmudic literature. A subtle Literary touch that "Mark's" Jesus had replaced Moses as Israel's Teacher as reflected (so to speak) in the Transfiguration story. Another category of evidence, Literary style, which goes against Historicity, and argues for a creation date of long after c.70.

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.



Joseph

"From Moses unto Moses there arose none unto Moses." - God.

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

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!

dog-on

Iggi don't help ya ....spurious...