|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Jesus the rabbi ? | |||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6260 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
The great Jewish masters who lived in the age of Jesus Christ,Hillel,Shammai,Gamaliel,are all called "elders" not "rabbis'. I suspect anachronism!
Perhaps you mean "Rabban Gamaliel the Elder"? I found the following of interest: Rabbi
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jes Inactive Member |
Thank you ConsequentAthiest.I shall take some time to digest this article.At first glance it seems to reinforce my suspicion that the term is an anachronism .I must say that I attach little value to the thoughts of Herschel Shanks since I read his comments re Finkelstein,and his obdurance re the alleged "James Ossuary".
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Zealot Inactive Member |
Crash, what was the date of the wedding.. Just interested
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
August 2nd.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RebWlmJames Inactive Member |
ConAtheist: Thanks for that outstanding article. Hegg's conclusion is that calling Jesus a rabbi is probably anachronistic, though calling Rabban Gamliel the Elder presents a problem with that conclusion. Was that your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6260 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia referenced above notes:
Evidently the scribe in his own estimation belonged to a higher caste. And so it was understood by the people who, after the time of Hillel introduced the custom of saluting them "Rabbi". The word, derived from the Hebrew Rab, "great", originally seems to have been equivalent to "my lord"; when it became the distinctive title of the scribes the specific force of its pronoun was lost, and "Rabbi" was used very much like our "Doctor". That this title was far from unpleasant in the ears of the scribes we know from Matt., xxiii, 7. In point of fact a pupil never would omit it when speaking to or of his teacher (Berach., xxvii, 1), and it became a universal usage never to mention the name of a doctor of the Law without prefixing "Rabbi". Nay more, in order to show the person greater honour, this title was intensified into "Rabban", "Rabboni", so that in the course of time custom established a kind of hierarchy among these various forms: "Rabbi", the doctors said, "is more than Rab, Rabban more than Rabbi, and the proper name more than Rabban." The latter part of this traditional regulation has particularly in view the two great Doctors Hillel and Shammai, always designated by their unqualified proper names; the successors of Hillel, as Gamaliel were titled Rabban, and so also was by exception Johanan ben Zakkai; Palestinian doctors are commonly known as Rabbi So-and-so, yet Rabbi Judas the Saint, who composed the Mishna, is not infrequently called merely Rabbi (par excellence); in the same manner, Rab, without the proper name, designates Abba Arika (died A. D. 247), the founder of the School of Sora, while Rab is the title prefixed to the names of the Amoras of Babylon. [emphasis added - CA]
gMat's use of the term 'Rabbi' may well be an anachronism, but the case is hardly certain. To argue that a term in use after 70 CE was unknown in 30 CE seems pretty week. [This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 11-16-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RebWlmJames Inactive Member |
Your point is well taken. It is unlikely, though possible, that a relatively unknown itinerant preacher in 30 C.E. or so, would be called "rabbi" by anyone other that his closest and devout disciples, if even they would have used the term.
We don't have any evidence that I know of that Jesus received "semikhah" (as Hegg points out so well). If, as the Cath Ency. says, the term would be like "doctor" today, calling someone a "doctor" (as in one who is permitted to teach doctrine) who had not been licensed with the title by some legimate granting authority would be highly irregular, if not faintly fraudulent. Calling oneself doctor/rabbi would be worse. I doubt that Jesus would have allowed himself to be called Rabbi, had he not been granted semikha, like Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, etc. And if he had been granted semikha, one would think that he would have been called Rabbi throughout the New Testament. I would still hold that calling Jesus rabbi is more than an unfortunate anachronism; it is an attempt to license him with a public title of authority that he probably did not have, and indeed, probably did not seek.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6260 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
I doubt that Jesus would have allowed himself to be called Rabbi, had he not been granted semikha, like Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, etc. And if he had been granted semikha, one would think that he would have been called Rabbi throughout the New Testament.
I suspect that the term was used to denote "master" long before it became institutionalized. It is this sense of the term that is found in Matthew 23:8 and John 1:38. Talk of semikha is irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6260 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
I had promised earlier that I would post the following ...
quote: So, according to the Encyclopaedia Judaica, the introduction of term Rabbi "employed as a title" is to be dated to "the generation after Hillel", i.e., the generation of the Jesus cult. Conversely, the Jewish Encyclopedia notes:
quote: Given the above, the best that can be said, in my opinion, is that the case for anachronism is unsettled and unproven.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jes Inactive Member |
Hi,I,d like to reopen the speculation that the term "rabbi" being applied to Jesus is an anachronism.CA posted that "it was only during the tannaitic period ,in the generation after Hillel,that it [rabbi] was employed as a title for sages.." [from the Encyclopaedia Judaica ,I think.]I know this is revealing my learner status ,but I had never come across the term "tannaitic" before and I'm wondering just what date this period begins.Does it start AFTER 70c.e.?If so does this support the idea that "Jesus as rabbi" is an anachronism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6260 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
The Jewish Encyclopaedia suggests that the period runs from 10-220 CE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jes Inactive Member |
Thank CA,your conclusion seems unavoidable.But I learned something and will continue to pursue the topic generally.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024