judge

Which verse are you referring to here?

Duvduv

Meaning that English translators would use the word rabbi in order to give the story a more authentically Jewish flavor than just using "master " or "teacher".

No Robots

Erm, rabbi is in the Greek manuscripts.

maryhelena

Hi, PhilosopherJay

All very interesting!

Let me add a small point that is not being considered here. The ahistoricist/mythicist position denies that the gospel JC was a historical figure. OK. Once that position is upheld there is no rhyme or reason to confine the use of rabbi to a predominantly Jewish cultural setting. And in point of fact, the gospel JC story takes in areas that are not predominantly Jewish. Casearea Philippi and Bethsaida - some disciples coming from Bethsaida. As I have posted many times... - I think the gospel JC figure is a composite figure. A composite figure reflecting the life stories of two prominent historical figures. One of which undertook a very similar 'travelling man' outreach. So, for a moment consider this man and what he would be called by either his chosen friends that traveled with him - or those who approached him for help.


As to Philip the Tetrarch being considered a rabbi/teacher - he was educated in Rome - so one is not dealing with a nobody, possible illiterate, preacher type here to which the term rabbi/teacher would be inappropriate. And, of course, if this title of rabbi/teacher can be applied to Philip - then it's major usage in gJohn - could well indicate that it is this gospel that is the earliest gospel.........

Elijah

Dumb question. What word should have been used if "rabbi" is too early to be used for teacher or master? Skimmed through the thread so I may have missed it.

Toto

Note: You can report posts if you think they are proselytizing.

Toto

sotto voce split

PhilosopherJay

Thanks for this link, judge, it seems that the aramaic words or expressions that are not proper names are followed by Greek translations in the Gospels. It makes the usage of "rabbi" even more unusual.

It seems that the usage of the word “rabbi” in the gospels create a nexus of problems.

It is true that Philo, Josephus, the rest of the New and Old testament and no other texts or archaeological evidence attests to the word being in use in the First century. This does make the hypothesis that it is an anachronism a solid one.

Each of the gospels presents us with more unique problems.

John: He uses the term 8 times apparently to mean "Teacher":

All the disciples and Mary use the term in reference to Jesus. John's disciples also refer to John the Baptist as "Rabbi." (This supports my hypothesis that the Jesus character was the John character rewritten)

John translates the term into the Greek Διδάσκαλε (teacher) but he has Mary saying Rabboni instead of Rabbi. Since the translation is the same, why the difference in spelling/pronunciation? It would have been easier to just have her use the term "rabbi" and not translate it, because he had translated it previously. Were the Mary text perhaps from a different source than the rest of the editor's text. Perhaps, he wanted to keep the exact term "Rabboni," so he translated it again into the Greek word Διδάσκαλε (teacher).

Mark uses the term four times, but does not bother to translate it:

Why doesn't he bother to translate the word into Greek? Does he assume that his readers have already read the gospel of John and therefore don't need a translation? Perhaps, he believed that his Greek readers would be familiar with the term and not need a translation. The first seems more likely.
Only Peter and Judas use the term among the disciples. As with Mary in John, we get a variant spelling/pronunciation from a blind man.

It seems odd that we get a variant spelling/pronunciation in John and Mark when somebody outside the disciples tries to say the word. Was this deliberate for some reason?

Matthew uses the term four times, but quite differently:
Matthew says that rabbi is what the Scribes and Pharisees wish to be called. Jesus tells the disciples not to use the word. Judas is the only disciple to use the word in reference to Jesus.
It seems clear that Matthew does not like the word "rabbi" and does not want it applied to Jesus or the disciples.

Luke does not use the word at all. Did he notice the negative connotation in Matthew and deliberately decide not to use it?

Logically, the term seems to change in each of the four gospels.
It is a term of affection is John. It is more neutral and barely a positive term in Mark. It is decidedly negative in Matthew and it has disappeared in Luke.

My hypothesis would be that the attitudes of the gospels towards the word "rabbi" reflects the attitudes of writers towards actual rabbis.

John (120's) is happy to have Jesus and John the Baptist associated with the positive term "rabbi." Mark (140's) is more neutral. Matthew (160's) sees the term only negatively and sees the rabbis as the elitist enemies of Jesus. Luke (180's) writing for a primarily Greek audience doesn't mention them at all.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

judge

No there are plenty of other words not translated, abba, raca, sikera, mammon, qorban to name some. You will find these in the link I posted.
It is phrases that tend to be translated. Words may or may not be.

Two writers dont mention it from the period. How does that make it "solid"?

I think its as solid as we can be but maybe not "solid" in a strong sense.

judge

Excellent question