No Robots

The point is that there is plenty of scholarship opposing Price's position which Price does not mention.

The Jewish Encyclopedia indicates that Sherira's account of the origin of "rabbi" precludes pre-Christian usage. The article goes on to make clear that there are other accounts.

The preponderance of scholarship rejects Price's claim that the NT's use "synagagogue" and "rabbi" is anachronistic.

No Robots

Regarding the Jewish Encyclopedia article, I should say rather that it indicates that Graetz interprets Sherira's account as precluding pre-Christian usage of the term "rabbi." The article itself affirms with Horsley that the term gradually changed from an epithet of respect to a religious title.

Sheshonq

No, the point is that you were trying to portray Price as a bad scholar by name-dropping books and authors. It backfired on you, because:

1. name-dropping books and sources does not work when you don't even know what they have to say. For all you know, they might *agree* with Price.

2. Even if they don't agree with him, you can't assume that Price doesn't know about them merely because he doesn't cite them. As I said earlier - which you ignored - he may simply not find their arguments convincing. Or, of 2 or 3 of them have essentially the same argument, he may deal with them all at one time. Price isn't required to list *all* the adherents to a particular point of view, when discussing that point of view in his book.

No, it doesn't. In fact, Sherira's account explicitly says:

The more ancient generations, however, which were far superior, had no such titles as 'Rabban,' 'Rabbi,' or 'Rab,' for either the Babylonian or Palestinian sages.

This is the danger in allowing you to just name-drop books, articles and authors: you fail to read them or understand their arguments.

But none of those accounts help your argument, because they address other questions; i.e., the vocation of the rabbi, the rabbi's wife, etc.

Nice try at assuming your conclusion into evidence. But it won't work. This is the conclusion you're trying to prove, obviously. But so far all you've provided is:

1. two quotes that backfired on you because they supported Price;
2. a name-dropped list of books and authors, whom you aren't familiar with so you cannot tell us what they have to say.

If you want to make claims about "preponderance", you're going to have to show "preponderance". Two backfired quotes and a list of books you are not acquainted with -- well; that falls light-years short of 'preponderance.'

Sheshonq

Still wrong. Graetz isn't quoted until the second half of that sentence. The first half isn't dependent (or derived from) Graetz.

But not within the timeframe that you need, to show usage in the first century.

No Robots

The Jewish Encyclopedia states that the title was first applied to Gamaliel the Elder in the middle of the first century. It also states that prior to being used as a title it was used as an epithet of respect. Thus we know that it was used as an epithet of respect in the time of Christ.

Sheshonq

No, it does not say that. I'm beginning to think you can't read your own sources, NoRobots:

...others have the title 'Mar,' e.g., Mar 'Uḳba, Mar Yanuḳa, etc.; others again bear the title 'Rab,' e.g., Rab Huna, Rab Judah, etc.; while still others have the title 'Rabban.' e.g., Rabban Gamaliel and Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai.

Rabban is not the same as Rabbi.

Where do you think it says that in relation to "prior to being used as a title"?

No, we do not "know" that. Your own source has contradicted you twice now.

No Robots

The article affirms that the title "Rabbi" as distinct from "Rabban" is also from the middle of the first century:

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.

The article states:

In the Palestinian schools the sages were addressed as "Rabbi" (my master). This term of respectful address gradually came to be used as a title.

spin

And I don't give a damn about your names. If you want to provide evidence then do so. Don't push others' opinions. I have a nice Mishnah in front of me at the moment (trad. Neusner et al. and I can dig out the original if you really want to go there). Feel free to quote from it.

Rabbi Eliezer b. Jacob was a tanna; tannaim are generally thought to have been in activity after the fall of the temple. In fact his contemporaries, eg Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, were also late first, early second century. Rabbi Zadok was a contemporary of rabbi Joshua (b. Hananiah), the latter in activity in the half century after the fall of the temple.

M.Abot places Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai as a pupil of Hillel (note: not "rabbi" or "rabban"), known in other tradition as the youngest pupil of Hillel. Rabbi Eliezer b. Hyrcanus was his pupil before the fall of the temple, so the latter could not yet have been a rabbi. The title must have been conferred on him after the fall of the temple, as with Johanan's other pupils. This means that of the people cited above only Johanan is in the running for being a master prior to the fall of the temple. What is certainly more likely the case is that with the fall of the temple a new tradition was started acknowledging rabbis who had taken religious power with the loss of the status of the priesthood with the fall of the temple. One would therefore expect it to have been applied to other learned figures who survived the the loss of the temple.


spin

No Robots

Shanks (1968) concludes:

Aside from the Gospels themselves, the use of the philological sibling Rabban among the Jews at the time of Jesus' ministry is the most significant datum available suggesting that the title Rabbi was also in use.

Sheshonq

And that's the part that you failed to comprehend the significance of (red). It isn't just the middle of the 1st century. It specifically dates from ben Zakkai's disciples downwards. What we know about ben Zakkai is that he was influential in the last decade before the destruction of the 2nd Temple; ~ 60 AD. He was also a disciple of Hillel, who as great as he was, still wasn't called rabbi.

So the usage of 'rabbi' mentioned in your citation applies to a man's disciples, who called him that. That requires that the man be a teacher first, and establish a following. That takes time. If Christ was crucified ~ AD 34, the timeframe for Zakkai is too late; it comes after the timeframe you need.

Moreover, there is no evidence that *anyone* in the 1st century was called this before Zakkai, not even his own mentor, Hillel. So NoRobots, you'll need to come up with an explanation why this was mentioned in the gospels as being allegedly used 40 years before even the greatest rabbi of the time started to be called by that title.

Note that during the timeframe when the gospels were written down, this term could have been known to the writers of the gospels, since it was after Zakkai, after the destruction of the 2nd Temple, and well into the period when this term was common.

I'll ask my question again, since your answer did not address it:

Where do you think it says that in relation to "prior to being used as a title"?