FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-27-2007, 04:41 PM   #1
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BFE
Posts: 416
Default

Price's argument actually goes beyond the synagogue question. He seems to say here that even the Pharisees were sparse in Galilee during that time, as well as the term "rabbi" being anachronistic:

We also begin to take a second look at all those scenes set in Galilean synagogues where Jesus is shown disputing with the Pharisees and tying them in knots. Our archaeological evidence, as Mack notes, gives no hint of there having been synagogues in Galilee in the first century. Nor does the pious Pharisee movement seem to have existed there until after 70 C.E., when Jews were forced out of Jerusalem and headed north. Before that, the scribes had only taunts for Galilee, calling it "Galilee of the Gentiles,", denying that any prophet could appear there, calling a biblical ignoramus a Galilean ("Are you from Galilee, too? Search the scriptures and you will see that no prophet is to rise in Galilee." John 7:52), calling it "Galilee, who hatest the Torah." One rabbi, having lived there for a year or so, bemoaned, upon his return, that in all the time he had sojourned there, only once did anyone so much as ask him a single question about the Torah. Not exactly Pharisee turf, then - till decades after Jesus. Likewise, the use of the term "rabbi" for scribes and teachers seems to have become current only toward the end of the first century C.E. And yet already in Mark, Jesus is called "Rabbi", and is debating with Pharisees in Galilean synagogues! What we seem to have here is an anachronistic reading back of the circumstances of religious debate in late first-century Galilee into the time of Jesus.

"Deconstructing Jesus", pg. 66

Michael
Mythra is offline  
Old 11-27-2007, 05:19 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mythra View Post
Price's argument actually goes beyond the synagogue question. He seems to say here that even the Pharisees were sparse in Galilee during that time, as well as the term "rabbi" being anachronistic:

Likewise, the use of the term "rabbi" for scribes and teachers seems to have become current only toward the end of the first century C.E. And yet already in Mark, Jesus is called "Rabbi", and is debating with Pharisees in Galilean synagogues!

"Deconstructing Jesus", pg. 66
Is he now? Is "teacher" and "scribe" the sense with which Mark endows the term? And is Jesus called Rabbi when he is in Synagogue debates with Pharisees?

Let's see.

A quick perusal of Mark shows that Mark uses rabbi three times and rabbouni (rabboni) once (10:51); all four instances convey a sense of Jesus’ particular greatness (Mark 9:5; 11:21 [Peter]; 14:45 [Judas]; 10:51 [Bartimaeus, who follows Jesus]). In three of the four instances, Jesus is called rabbi in response to a miraculous action on Jesus’ part: the Transfiguration (9:5), the withering of the fig tree (11:21), and the healing of the blind (10:51).

Hmm. Not in any synagogue debates let alone Galilean debates with Pharisees.

Note too that Bartimaeus’ reference to Jesus as rabbouni is coupled with the address “son of David” (10:47, 48), suggesting that the term should be thought of as meaning “sir” or perhaps “lord,” and not “teacher” (cf. 9:17, in which “teacher” is used in a case of healing).

Didaskalos, “teacher,” on the other hand, is used as a more general form of address by both disciples (4:38; 9:38; 10:35; 13:1) and nondisciples (9:17; 10:17, 20; 12:14, 19, 32).

So where in Mark is Jesus called teacher by means of the term Rabbi? And where is he called Rabbi in synagogue debates with Pharisees?

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 11-27-2007, 05:37 PM   #3
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
. . And is Jesus called Rabbi when he is in Synagogue debates with Pharisees?

. . .
I do not read Price as saying that Jesus was called Rabbi in Synagogue debates. Those are just two separate instances of anachronisms. :huh:
Toto is offline  
Old 11-27-2007, 05:43 PM   #4
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BFE
Posts: 416
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Is he now? Is "teacher" and "scribe" the sense with which Mark endows the term? And is Jesus called Rabbi when he is in Synagogue debates with Pharisees?
I think you misread that. Price isn't saying that Jesus was called Rabbi when he was debating with Pharisees.

And here in Mark 2 is certainly what appears to be debates with Pharisees, presumably in Galilee, since the locale is Capernaum just a few passages prior:

When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."
Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."


Michael Dravis
Mythra is offline  
Old 11-27-2007, 05:50 PM   #5
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BFE
Posts: 416
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
A quick perusal of Mark shows that Mark uses rabbi three times and rabbouni (rabboni) once (10:51); all four instances convey a sense of Jesus’ particular greatness (Mark 9:5; 11:21 [Peter]; 14:45 [Judas]; 10:51 [Bartimaeus, who follows Jesus]). In three of the four instances, Jesus is called rabbi in response to a miraculous action on Jesus’ part: the Transfiguration (9:5), the withering of the fig tree (11:21), and the healing of the blind (10:51).
I just don't understand this argument at all. It doesn't matter who called Jesus "Rabbi" or why. Price's argument is that the term wasn't used that early. Yet it was in common use towards the end of the first century, presumably when the Gospels were written.

Michael
Mythra is offline  
Old 11-27-2007, 05:58 PM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mythra View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Is he now? Is "teacher" and "scribe" the sense with which Mark endows the term? And is Jesus called Rabbi when he is in Synagogue debates with Pharisees?
I think you misread that. Price isn't saying that Jesus was called Rabbi when he was debating with Pharisees.
Granted.

But what about his point that Mark uses Rabbi with the sense of teacher?


Quote:
And here in Mark 2 is certainly what appears to be debates with Pharisees, presumably in Galilee, since the locale is Capernaum just a few passages prior:

When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."
Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."


Michael Dravis
In response to Price's claim (based on what by the way?) I can do no better than to quote Anthony Saldarin, who widely recognized as an authority on the Pharisees:

Quote:
Mark differs from Josephus in placing the Pharisees and their allies, the scribes, in Galilee as potent political and religious forces. Since Mark writes just before or after the war against Rome, he is not anachronistically reading the later rabbis back into Jesus’ life as Pharisees. His traditions reflect the mid-1st century experience of the early Christian community if not the experience of Jesus himself. Galilee was ruled by Herod Antipas during Jesus’ life and was not under the direct control of the Temple authorities. It was divided into upper and lower Galilee by topography and tradition and had several major towns (such as Sepphoris and Tiberias) which served as regional centers for tax collection and security. In view of the complex social and political structure of Galilee, Jesus and his opponents in Galilee, the Pharisees, scribes, and Herodians, must be seen as minor actors in the larger political struggle for control during the 1st century. The Pharisees, one of many political and religious interest groups seeking power and influence over Jewish society, exercise influence on the people and compete with Jesus for social and political control. They enter into political alliances with the Herodians and are associated with the scribes, who have some political control and a presence in Jerusalem. Though we cannot be certain that Mark and his sources give us a completely accurate picture of the Pharisees as a strong community force in Galilee in the early and mid-1st century, such a role in Galilean society for the Pharisees is intrinsically probable.
Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 11-27-2007, 06:07 PM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mythra View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
A quick perusal of Mark shows that Mark uses rabbi three times and rabbouni (rabboni) once (10:51); all four instances convey a sense of Jesus’ particular greatness (Mark 9:5; 11:21 [Peter]; 14:45 [Judas]; 10:51 [Bartimaeus, who follows Jesus]). In three of the four instances, Jesus is called rabbi in response to a miraculous action on Jesus’ part: the Transfiguration (9:5), the withering of the fig tree (11:21), and the healing of the blind (10:51).
I just don't understand this argument at all. It doesn't matter who called Jesus "Rabbi" or why. Price's argument is that the term wasn't used that early.

Price's argument is that the term used to mean "teacher/scribe" or for people who were acting, at the time of the appellation, as scribes and teachers wasn't used early ("the use of the term "rabbi" for scribes and teachers seems to have become current only toward the end of the first century C.E

Quote:
Yet it was in common use towards the end of the first century, presumably when the Gospels were written.
Well, have a look at the ABD article on Rabbi (and its note on the use of the term to designate a "great one" -- which the way that Mark uses it) and see what you make of Price's claim.

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 11-27-2007, 06:21 PM   #8
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BFE
Posts: 416
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Price's argument is that the term used to mean "teacher/scribe" or for people who were acting, at the time of the appellation, as scribes and teachers wasn't used early ("the use of the term "rabbi" for scribes and teachers seems to have become current only toward the end of the first century C.E
Oh. I see. I went back and read it and it seems I got a little ahead of myself. You're right.
Mythra is offline  
Old 11-27-2007, 06:29 PM   #9
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BFE
Posts: 416
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Though we cannot be certain that Mark and his sources give us a completely accurate picture of the Pharisees as a strong community force in Galilee in the early and mid-1st century, such a role in Galilean society for the Pharisees is intrinsically probable.
I haven't heard of Anthony Saldarin before, but that doesn't mean anything.

If this is truly an accurate statement, it does present a drastically different picture than the one given by Price. Price doesn't present the scenario as possible, let alone intrinsically probable.

Interesting.

Michael
Mythra is offline  
Old 11-27-2007, 07:39 PM   #10
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
...
In response to Price's claim (based on what by the way?) I can do no better than to quote Anthony Saldarin, who widely recognized as an authority on the Pharisees:

Quote:
Mark differs from Josephus in placing the Pharisees and their allies, the scribes, in Galilee as potent political and religious forces. Since Mark writes just before or after the war against Rome, he is not anachronistically reading the later rabbis back into Jesus’ life as Pharisees. His traditions reflect the mid-1st century experience of the early Christian community if not the experience of Jesus himself. Galilee was ruled by Herod Antipas during Jesus’ life and was not under the direct control of the Temple authorities. It was divided into upper and lower Galilee by topography and tradition and had several major towns (such as Sepphoris and Tiberias) which served as regional centers for tax collection and security. In view of the complex social and political structure of Galilee, Jesus and his opponents in Galilee, the Pharisees, scribes, and Herodians, must be seen as minor actors in the larger political struggle for control during the 1st century. The Pharisees, one of many political and religious interest groups seeking power and influence over Jewish society, exercise influence on the people and compete with Jesus for social and political control. They enter into political alliances with the Herodians and are associated with the scribes, who have some political control and a presence in Jerusalem. Though we cannot be certain that Mark and his sources give us a completely accurate picture of the Pharisees as a strong community force in Galilee in the early and mid-1st century, such a role in Galilean society for the Pharisees is intrinsically probable.
Jeffrey
Could you please give a source for this quote? (and also answer my PM about copyright?)

What is his basis for the statement "Since Mark writes just before or after the war against Rome, he is not anachronistically reading the later rabbis back into Jesus’ life as Pharisees" (other than wishful thinking?) What is his basis for saying "such a role in Galilean society for the Pharisees is intrinsically probable" other than a need to validate the gospel?

Just asking.

Saldarin appears to be the author of Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society (or via: amazon.co.uk) among other works.
Toto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:39 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.