Sheshonq

I already saw that. It does not excuse you from making the accusation in the first place. Nor does it absolve you of the need to post a retraction - especially since you indicated you would do so.

I'm beginning to wonder if you can be trusted to play honestly and fairly in this discussion, Jeffrey. You're striving quite hard to avoid admitting that you made a mistake --- even when you clearly know you have, by virtue of the fact that you cited Toto's post proving that I'm not Ted Hoffman.

When you're through with the admission of mistaken identity, we can also talk about your claim that:

a. Price's assertion concealed the facts
vs.
b. Price concealed the facts

are somehow different. Then finally, we can discuss Ted Hoffman's post, which you continue to run from like a scalded dog.

If we finish all that, and if your behavior in the interim persuades me that you are sincere and can be trusted to be an honest participant, we might move on to your most recent post.

Your move.

Sheshonq

What's the old saying? "Small dogs bark the loudest"?

Alas, I'm certainly not going to be goaded by "Me, Too"; you simply don't rate high enough.

You obviously can't differentiate reluctance from holding one's ground. And since there is zero evidence that you even understand my position, I'm not too terribly worried about what you think.

Sheshonq

Yes. That is why it was a title, and not a term of endearment.

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.

For me, I don't think so. I think the passage addressed both scribes and Pharisees, but that doesn't mean that all the things (activities) listed applied equally to both scribes and Pharisees. For example, they both might get the best seats at the synagogue. But being called 'rabbi' refers to the Pharisees alone

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

Solitary Man

Hilarious site. Which one are you?

No Robots

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

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.

JoeWallack

JW:
There appears to be no need to summarize the argument that the use of RBY as an Address in the Christian Bible is anachronistic as to date
no counter example has been presented in this Thread. Another category of evidence for Anachronism is the Grammatical presentation. The use of transliteration for RBY is evidence that the authors intended the word to have special significance, such as a title, which this Thread has demonstrated is clearly achronistic compared to use of the offending word as only an address.



Joseph

Gamera

This is the issue I've asked you and Sheshonq to address. But it's like pulling teeth.

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.

Gamera

I don't know about the old saying, but I do know that you seem adrift.

Mark and the gospel writers are writing in Greek, not Hebrew, so the niceties of Hebrew morphology don't really matter to them. What matters is did the word rabbi exist before then in the sense of master or teacher. It appearently did according to Jeffrey's citation. Since you didn't rebut that, we can now move on.

Since the word was available for use in a transcribed form for a Greek writer, it is hardly anachronistic on its face that a Greek writer would use a Hebrew term that means more or less teacher or master, to mean teacher or master, as a title or otherwise. You seem to keep missing the fact that Matthew is written in Greek, not Hebrew.

Now why would the gospels writers transliterate a Hebrew term and use it instead of the perfectly good Greek term didaskalos? We can speculate on this, and I have. But the point is, the fact that a Greek author used a transliterated Hebrew word in a manner that means master or teacher, isn't evidence of anachronism based on the claim that a Hebrew author would never use the Hebrew word that way.

The whole argument is flawed from start to finish. So I can see why you aren't engaging my objections, but instead are funishing axioms.

Sheshonq

Since I haven't addressed anything related to the language of the writings, I have no idea why you're directing this at me.

ROFL.

And you had the misplaced audacity to accuse *me* of being adrift, while you can't even associate the proper argument with its respective original poster.

Sheshonq

Pulling teeth? Yawn. Exaggeration is sometimes useful when there is a valid point underneath. Without such a point, it merely smells bad. As in this case.

You want me to address this point? It merely requires that Jeffrey finish the can of worms he's already opened.

If you're interested in seeing me address the point, then your argument is with Jeffrey, not me. I would think you'd be interested in seeing his responses anyhow.