Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 12-06-2007, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

This cite wasn't mine. It was Jeffrey's and it seemed to rebut your position. Your current response seems characteristically off center. Mark is in Greek. The gospel writers don't care about how pronominal suffixes relate to the word rabbi. He is coining a word instead of using the obvious Greek equivalent -- for whatever reason. If the word rabbi existed a hundred years earlier with more or less the meaning of teacher, whether it was used with a pronominal suffix at that time or not, wouldn't change the fact that a Greek writer might for a whole variety of reasons I mentioned want to transliterate the word and use it for the equivalent of teacher or master.

If so, there is no anachronism. The fact that you cite evidence that rabbi would not be used in this way until later, something I'm happy to accept, doesn't change the fact that Mark is writing in Greek, not Hebrew, and may not care about the niceties of Hebrew morphology.

JW:
Perhaps another member of the "Fantastic" Four (Gibson, SM, NR) trying to Defend against error in this thread could translate this. Than again, perhaps not.

Joseph

Sheshonq · 12-06-2007, 06:34 PM

Quote:

The term of endearment is in the teacher-student environment. But the Matthew verses show 'rabbi' being used beyond that environment, and into society at large. That fits with the explanation of it being a title - and thus the charge of being an anachronism.

I think it's safe to say that at this point the term of endearment is becoming a title:

Matthew's attitude towards this term, however, indicates that in his own setting this title was undergoing development. It seems that even in these early days of formative Judaism the scribes and Pharisees were beginning to appropriate this title for themselves.--The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community By David C. Sim, p. 123.

This development is not yet formalized, however.

No. That does not support the conclusion that at the time of Christ, this was the case. What was "Matthew's setting" mentioned above? It was not the Palestine of the AD 20s and 30s. The author of Matthew most probably had not been born yet at that time.

According to the Oxford Companion, GMatthew was written around 85 or 90 CE. GMatthew depends upon the earlier GMark; yet GMark contains no such passage as this one. It's also noteworthy that they say:

Although the apostle Matthew may have been active in founding the church in which the gospel story attributed to him arose, it is unlikely that he was the story's author. On the contrary, the author [of GMatthew] exhibits a theological outlook, command of Greek, and rabbinic training that suggest he was a Jewish Christian of the second rather than the first generation.

Note the red.

So I think the evidence is far stronger that the story reflects the titular usage of rabbi that was common at the end of the 1st and into the second century, which would have been the timeframe for the writer of GMatthew to have put pen to paper.

spin · 12-06-2007, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

But if that's your position, you'll need to find evidence that scribes were ever addressed as 'rabbi'.

No, it seems that it was the Pharisees who were called 'rabbi,' not the scribes, even though most scribes were Pharisees.

Quote:

The term of endearment is in the teacher-student environment. But the Matthew verses show 'rabbi' being used beyond that environment, and into society at large. That fits with the explanation of it being a title - and thus the charge of being an anachronism.

I think it's safe to say that at this point the term of endearment is becoming a title:

Matthew's attitude towards this term, however, indicates that in his own setting this title was undergoing development. It seems that even in these early days of formative Judaism the scribes and Pharisees were beginning to appropriate this title for themselves.--The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community By David C. Sim, p. 123.

This development is not yet formalized, however.

Page 123 is not available in your Google link.

To understand the significance of the term rabbi in the gospel, you should note the Matthean equivalent to the Marcan use of the term in 9:5 is kurie (Mt 17:4). Note this is simply "lord" (vocative), not "my lord". This means that rabbi is not a descriptive "my teacher" indicating respect, but already the titular usage.

spin

Solitary Man · 12-06-2007, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Perhaps another member of the "Fantastic" Four (Gibson, SM, NR) trying to Defend against error in this thread could translate this. Than again, perhaps not.

Hrm, what does Jeffrey Gibson, Solitary Man, No Robots, and Gamera have in common?

No Robots · 12-07-2007, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Page 123 is not available in your Google link.

Yeah, actually it is. Just a little tricky to get to. Try here.

No Robots · 12-07-2007, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

No. That does not support the conclusion that at the time of Christ, this was the case. What was "Matthew's setting" mentioned above? It was not the Palestine of the AD 20s and 30s. The author of Matthew most probably had not been born yet at that time.

Whatever the time of the actual writing of gMt as we have it, I hold with Birger Gerhardsson that the Gospels in general reliably transmit the words of Christ.

No Robots · 12-07-2007, 08:06 AM

There is one other possibility, namely, that "rabbi" was in fact a title in the time of Christ. Hezser (p. 63ff) examines this possibility.

No Robots · 12-07-2007, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

No. That does not support the conclusion that at the time of Christ, this was the case. What was "Matthew's setting" mentioned above? It was not the Palestine of the AD 20s and 30s. The author of Matthew most probably had not been born yet at that time.

Yeah, Sim does say that "Matthew's setting" was post-70, thereby implying anachronism in the use of "rabbi" in the Gospel. My own view, though, is that what Sim ascribes to a post-70 situation actually applies to the time of Christ, and that the passage in Matthew reflects authentically Christ's words.

gurugeorge · 12-07-2007, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Perhaps another member of the "Fantastic" Four (Gibson, SM, NR) trying to Defend against error in this thread could translate this. Than again, perhaps not.

Hrm, what does Jeffrey Gibson, Solitary Man, No Robots, and Gamera have in common?

Rearguard action over minutiae as a rhetorical tactic to distract people from the obvious - that they lost the main argument long ago

Clivedurdle · 12-07-2007, 09:51 AM

Quote:

"Paul's identification of himself as a Pharisee

Hang on, does that not also raise doubt's about when the works attributed to Paul were written?

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

12-07-2007, 08:06 AM	#127
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	There is one other possibility, namely, that "rabbi" was in fact a title in the time of Christ. Hezser (p. 63ff) examines this possibility.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.