Gamera

Here, this might help. Fill in the blanks.

Do you agree with the OP that the use of "rabbi" in Mark is "anachronistic"? Yes____. No____

If so, explain what an analysis of Hebrew morphology tells us about Mark's use of the transliterated term "rabbi", given that he wrote in Greek, not Hebrew.

Explanation here:_________________

Good luck!

Sheshonq

What is it about the simple phrase:

I told you previously, attempts by "Me, Too" to bait me are a waste of your time.

is hard to understand? The linguistic argument was not *my* argument, I'm not responsible for it. Until Jeffrey finishes what he started earlier, I don't owe him a response.

Moreover, since you're apparently incapable of answering spin's objections -- indeed, you've not responded at all -- what would motivate *anyone* to respond on a topic where you've apparently already admitted failure by reason of forfeit?

spin

Tunnel vision doesn't deal with what you claim to want to. Try to look at the issues.

The dating of Mark is an important issue. If the work was indeed written after the war, you need to establish how content including dialogue was derived. Our Latinist complains about speeches in Tacitus being ostensibly constructed by Tacitus. Are those in Mark any different? Doesn't the language in Mark reflect the language of the time of writing? And a post war date would point to the anachronistic use of rabbi.

We have after all the rabbinical indications as to when rabbi came into usage. There are no dated Greek texts to support the view you want. You misunderstand Jehoshua ben Perachiah's adage about getting a master, which is advice to pharisees to get schooled. You accept that Mark wasn't written close to Jesus's reputed times. I don't see why you persist in trying to defend what strongly seems to be an anachronism.


spin

Gamera

The answer is, your discussion of the history of the usage of the Hebrew word has little or nothing to do with a Greek transliteration of the term. Mark, writing in Greek, was not limited by the morphological or lexical restrictions the Hebrew term may or may not have had.

The Greek equivalent of rabbi can be used as a title. Indeed, in the LXX we have numerous examples of translations of a related Hebrew word to mean "commander" or "captain" So, there is nothing that you have said in your discussion of the Hebrew word that indicates that Mark was using the Greek transliteration anachronistically. He was using it differently, which is to be expected since he was writing in Greek.

Whether Mark was a late or early work is a separate issue. The OP is about anachronistic usage, which it fails to substantiate, since it conflates a Hebrew word with a Greek word (borrowed from Hebrew).

The real issue is, why did Mark transliterate a Hebrew term when he had a perfectly good Greek term? Indeed, John is perplexed at that himself and feels obliged to translate it for us. I suspect the resolution to that question will tell us more about the social millieu and hence the dating of Mark than alleged anachronistic transliterated terms from Hebrew.

To summarize, the OP has failed to make its case, and all the Hebrew philology in the world won't help it, since Mark was writing in Greek.

spin

You can beat yourself sick Gamera with this lame defense. Yeah sure, Mark was written in Greek. When is your first datable use of rabbi? With the post-war Hebrew sages. When was Mark written? Ummm... I can see why it doesn't matter for you when Mark was written. Why would the writer use such a transliterated Hebrew term? If you think it matters to your cause, why not make a case rather than suspecting? While you're there, you might like to say why the other sundry snatches of Semitic languages are in Mark ("little girl, get up", etc). And why did Inspector Clouseau use French words?


spin