Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 09-12-2011, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

If we wish to be rational, and be led by the evidence with respect to anachronisms, then I believe we need to be careful about making claims that we can't support with evidence.
Many claims about anachronisms are merely possible anachronisms, and if we claim they are we are not doing any better that religious fundamentalists who believe things and encourage others to despite lack of evidence.

Of course, everything in this area is based on possibilities and probabilities. But the case that "rabbi" is an anachronism seems as well evidenced as anything else.

Ok, so now you are backing away from your original claim. This is what im getting at.

Quote:

eta: did you bother to read the link? Do you accept that prominent scholars have scoured the literature of the period?

I'm aware that it is a possible anachronism, I'm aware of the evidence, but you claimed it was, (not that it may be) and as a rationalist I object to that.

Toto · 09-12-2011, 05:42 PM

No, I'm not backing away from anything. The current scholarly consensus is that "rabbi" is an anachronism in the gospels, with the normal qualifications about what we can know of ancient history. But there is a large amount of documentary evidence that has led to this conclusion, and there is no evidence to the contrary. To call this only a possible anachronism is to misstate the quality of the evidence.

judge · 09-12-2011, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No, I'm not backing away from anything.

You most certainly did back away. You calimed it was so and then you backed away and said it was just a possibilty rather than fact.

Quote:

The current scholarly consensus is that "rabbi" is an anachronism in the gospels, with the normal qualifications about what we can know of ancient history.

Scholarly consensus does not costitute a "fact." even if your assertion about thyis is true.

Quote:

But there is a large amount of documentary evidence that has led to this conclusion, and there is no evidence to the contrary. To call this only a possible anachronism is to misstate the quality of the evidence.

In your opinion. But that's all you've got. Some scholars who say its possible , and then your opinion which concludes this is a fact.

Just because it wasnt used in an official sense does not mean it wasn't used. This is what scholars concede and that you don't concede. Or you didnt but you see, to have backed away now.

Toto · 09-12-2011, 05:59 PM

Suppose it's true with 95% confidence? Can I call it a fact without appending an essay on the quality of the evidence in ancient history?

Does anyone else think this is a problem?

Horatio Parker · 09-12-2011, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

A writer living in the year 2011 creating a fictional account of events occurring in the previous century, circa 1900-1940, presumably would have to be careful to avoid including any anachronisms. For example, if the writer included in the account that any characters had access to laptops, the writings could be easily discredited. Therefore, the writers of the synoptic gospels may’ve taken precautions to avoid including any anachronisms in their writings. However, the temptation to include information known by the synoptic authors, then backdated into their writings, may’ve been too great. For example, the account of the destruction of Jewish temple (in the form of a prophetic utterance) was included in the gospels. Are there other examples of anachronisms and/or backdated prophecies in the synoptic gospels?

Pharisees and synagogues in Galilee before the destruction of the temple, IIRC.

judge · 09-12-2011, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Suppose it's true with 95% confidence? Can I call it a fact without appending an essay on the quality of the evidence in ancient history?

Does anyone else think this is a problem?

I don't think we can get anywhere near it being true with 95% confidence, though.

In the gosples we have Aramaic not the Hebrew term .
It has along history there. Rab is an Akkadian term for chief or overseer.
All we can show with probablity (and that may be a strong probablity) is that is wasn't used in an official sense, by jews, as a title for a religious teacher, till maybe later.
We can't suggest as a fact (or even 95% likely) that it can in no way have been used in any sense in Aramaic in the first century, when Rab is in old Akkadian word, that passed to both hebrew and aramaic.
Really, what are the chances of an old Akkadian word that passed to both hebrew and aramaic, vanishing for centuries then suddenly reappearing after 100 CE? Probably closer to zero, I would think.

arnoldo · 09-12-2011, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Picking one of the many results from a simple google search

Wise teaching: biblical wisdom and educational ministry By Charles F. Melchert, p. 220 on google books

Quote:

Solomon Zeitlin flatly asserts that "the title rabbi was not used by the Judeans at the time of Jesus" and thus is an anachronism. ²⁸ Despite the existence of considerable literature from the period, such as the Apocrypha, Josephus, Philo,and the tannaitic literature prior to the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, "in none of this literature does the word Rabbi occur." ²⁹ Thus the founders of the two most important rabbinic schools, Hillel and Shammai, both contemporaries of Jesus, were not themselves called rabbi . . .

Thanks for that source, Toto. Upon further reading, the book states that . . .

Quote:

. . “On the other hand, while Hershel Shanks agrees that “rabbi” was first used later than Jesus’ time as a title for a formal office, it is possible some variant (such as rav) could have been used as a title for an itinerant preacher such as Jesus, even before it became used as a title for ordained scholars and official teachers.’

Thus, the term rabbi will be listed as possible example of an anachronism in the synoptic gospels in addition to the “prophetic” utterance of the destruction of Jewish Temple. In keeping with the latter example, Samuel Tobias Lachs writes in his book entitled, A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament (pg. 32),the following;

Quote:

. .looking for the consolation of Israel Cf. also Luke 2.38, redemption of Jerusalem; looking for the kingdom of God. Said of Joseph of Arimathea, ibid. 23.50,51. This is an anachronism, for the term is applicable only after the destruction of the Second Temple. . .The Destruction of the Temple even created a form of an oath, er’eb benebamab, “may I live to see the consolation.”

Toto · 09-12-2011, 08:40 PM

Hershel Shanks is a lawyer who publishes Biblical Archaeology Review. I think he is stretching things to the limit when he lists some variant of rav as a "possibility."

judge · 09-12-2011, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hershel Shanks is a lawyer who publishes Biblical Archaeology Review. I think he is stretching things to the limit when he lists some variant of rav as a "possibility."

Ok, so we can all accept that this is not an anachronism but a possible one.
Are there any genuine anachronisms in synoptic gospels?

aa5874 · 09-13-2011, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hershel Shanks is a lawyer who publishes Biblical Archaeology Review. I think he is stretching things to the limit when he lists some variant of rav as a "possibility."

Ok, so we can all accept that this is not an anachronism but a possible one.
Are there any genuine anachronisms in synoptic gospels?

A possible anachronism may be a genuine anachronism so your assertion is logically fallacious and unacceptable.

Genuine anachronisms MUST have been FIRST deemed to be possible.

Now, the Synoptic Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost, (Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.35) and could NOT have possibly mentioned anything about the Fall of the Temple during the reign of Tiberius when Pilate was governor of Judea.

Once you accept that the Synoptic authors KNEW or heard that the Jewish Temple had ALREADY Fallen and KNEW or heard of the CALAMITY of the Jewish War BEFORE they wrote about the prediction of the Ghost Child then the supposed prediction is an anachronism.

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

09-12-2011, 05:42 PM	#12
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	No, I'm not backing away from anything. The current scholarly consensus is that "rabbi" is an anachronism in the gospels, with the normal qualifications about what we can know of ancient history. But there is a large amount of documentary evidence that has led to this conclusion, and there is no evidence to the contrary. To call this only a possible anachronism is to misstate the quality of the evidence.

09-12-2011, 05:59 PM	#14
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Suppose it's true with 95% confidence? Can I call it a fact without appending an essay on the quality of the evidence in ancient history? Does anyone else think this is a problem?

09-12-2011, 08:40 PM	#18
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hershel Shanks is a lawyer who publishes Biblical Archaeology Review. I think he is stretching things to the limit when he lists some variant of rav as a "possibility."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.