Duvduv

Here is a list of places where the term "rabbi" is used in the gospels. It's really interesting since the term rabbi was not used among the "orthodox" Jews until after the destruction of the Temple, one of the best known being "Rabbi Akiva." So this is a further suggestion that the gospels did not exist in the 1st century. For instance, Hillel and Shammai are not identified as "rabbi". The other term used for several people is Rabban but was pretty much restricted to the family of Rabban Gamliel after Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai.

GJohn 1:38, 49; 3:26 3:2, 4:31, 6:25; 9:2 and 11:8
GMatt 26:25, 49
GMark 9:5; 11:21; 14:45

Someone must have informed the author(s) of the epistles to this fact which is why the term rabbi is never mentioned.

No Robots

You might want to look at a thread where all this was hashed out. You might also want to look at some recent scholarship:

While S.Zeitlin maintained that the term "Rabbi" is anachronistic in the Gospels and came into use only after the destruction of the Temple, almost all almost all scholars nowadays agree with Ferdinand Hahn that that the term is applied to Jesus "in an old stratum of the traditions behind the gospels of Mark and John" and may well reflect actual practice [Hahn, Ferdinand, The Titles of Jesus in Christology. Their History in Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk). London, 1969 (= German ed. Gottingen, 1963) See also Lohse (1968) 964; Vermes 30; Hengel (1968) 46; Norman 23; Riesner 247; Shanks (1963) 342: "Why would the Gospel writers or later editors insert a Jewish title for Jesus when at the time they wrote the principle [sic] missionary activities of the new religion were already directed to Gentiles?"] .--The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine / Catherine Hezser.

The Jewish leadership wanted to make it look like the whole notion of the rabbi emerged like a Phoenix from the ashes of Jerusalem.

Toto

This anachronism was last discussed in Anachronisms in the gospels.

I don't think that the author of the epistles was motivated to avoid anachronisms. Notice that those author(s) never have anyone address Jesus as anything. Where would you expect to see the term?

Toto

Your recent scholarship is more like recent apologetics. It is entirely speculative.

Duvduv

Point noted. Rabban Gamliel has no title in Acts either.
It sounds as if the "Pharisees" didn't use titles for anyone according to either Acts or the epistles, in contrast with the gospels. A "doctor of the law" means a rabbi, though the author of Acts apparently did not know that he was the leader of the Sanhedrin, which his Paul most certainly would have known.

"Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space..."

“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today..."

judge

While that is possibly true it is silly to try to argue that rabbi, a variation of a very old Akkadian word could not have been used in the 1st century.

I argued that here.

Maybe the gospels were written in the first century. I wouldn't be a christian even if they were.

aa5874

In the Pauline letters the author never claimed he visited the Jewish Temple or that he met Gamaliel or even the supposed Jesus before the resurrection.

No Robots

Much of this work is being done by Jewish scholars of Judaism. Are these the people you mean to call apologists? If so, that would be weird, because they are bucking the orthodox line that the term rabbi is strictly post-exilic.

Unsurprisingly, the mythicists side here with the right-wing religious fringe.

Duvduv

Interestingly neither Acts nor the epistles show "Paul" being the least bit interested in visiting Bethlehem, Golgotha, Nazareth, Capernaum, or anywhere the supposed historical NT Jesus walked.

That's because their Christ was not the historical gospel Jesus, nor was the historical Jesus the Christ of the folks in Jerusalem according to the epistles either because we see that NOT A SINGLE person identified as pillars etc. or "Paul" show any interest in the life and geography of the historical Jesus, his aphorisms or teachings.

And of course Paul shows not the slightest awe or reverence for those who he is said to believe saw and walked with the historical Jesus.........

aa5874

May I remind you that the Quest for the historical Jesus is ONLY 250 years old and is NOT the Jesus of the Canon.

Jesus in the Canon is the Jesus of FAITH--Myth Jesus.

The Pauline writer simply INVENTED a story with fraudulent letters to DUPE people of antiquity into believing the Jesus of FAITH did exist.

It must be noted that NO Canonised source, NOT even the author of Acts, the supposed close companion of Paul, ever claimed Paul wrote any Epistles to Churches.