• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Was Jesus really a Jewish rabbi?

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
In more recent times, I see more and more Christians claiming that not only was Jesus a learned scholar, but he was actually a rabbi. This is evidenced, in their view, from the fact that he's called "rabbi" by some in the NT.

In Judaism, though, this is not a feasible view. Not because there's no such thing as a heretical rabbi - there were, unfortunately - but because becoming a rabbi in Talmudic times (when Jesus lived and certainly when the authors of the NT lived) was not quite as simple as receiving ordination from one's own rabbi (which isn't a simple process in itself) and having a shiny rabbinical degree to hang up on the wall. During those times there was something called "Smicha". This is short for "Smichat Yada'im" and refers to a special process of ordination which included at least three ordained rabbis laying their hands upon the head of the rabbi-to-be and passing on the traditional ordination of Jewish authority passed down from generation to generation in an unbroken chain, all the way back to Moshe. According to tradition, after the time of Rabbi Yehudah the Prince, the special form of Smicha was canceled and what has since been called rabbinic ordination, also referred to as "Smicha" is not the same process and this has halachic (Jewish law) ramifications to this day. I will not get into all of the fine points about Smicha here. Suffice it to say that the ancient Smicha had more authority than the one we have today and in ancient times, a distinction was made between those sages who had Smicha and those who didn't.

Indeed, there were Talmudic sages who didn't receive Smicha and as such, were not called "rabbi" (I'm not including sages like Hillel and Shammai who as prince and head of the court respectively, of course had ordination but were not called "rabbi" for other reasons), such as Shimon ben Azai, Shimon ben Zoma, Shmuel and so forth. The Talmud is not lacking in descriptions of the greatness of these individuals, but they simply didn't qualify for Smicha, for different reasons. Eventually a new rabbinical status quo was established and sages, upon receiving the lesser Smicha, got the title "rabbi" but again, a distinction was made between the rabbis of the superior Smicha and those of the lesser.

Now, about Jesus: We can agree that we don't know too much about Jesus. The NT's version of the story doesn't provide us with details about who taught Jesus. There's nary a rabbi in sight in the NT to offer any form of support for the man, save, perhaps, for Nicodemus, who no one knows who he was, as he's not mentioned anywhere else, at least not by that name.

It's possible that Jesus was an autodidact. This may explain the various rulings he made on his own account, that don't quite match rulings of contemporary authorities; he may have thought that as a kind of "freelance scholar" he could do what he wished. It's also possible that he was taught by someone, but it is, in my opinion, quite telling, that this mysterious teacher is never named.

According to some views, there are hints in the NT that Jesus didn't really know what he was talking about when he was talking about Judaism.

And of course, we can't forget about the Temple incident, in which Jesus went full-on vigilante, causing havoc around the holiest place of the Jewish people and demanding punishment without following the proper official halachic court proceedings.

Due to all of which I've written so far, it seems highly unlikely that Jesus was ever actually an ordained rabbi: Who was his rabbi? Who would have given him Smicha? How did all of these sages miss out on all of his "quirks"? Why would they even consider giving such a person Smicha?

The Talmud tells us of a man usually called "Acher" - "other", a former sage named Elisha ben Avuyah. He was a great scholar until he fell and turned to Hellenism and then proceeded to do his best to convince other scholars to leave Judaism. Yet, he's mentioned as a sage in the Talmud. The Talmud isn't known for hiding away the sins, mistakes and downfalls of the sages, knowing that there's wisdom to gleaned from these events. Jesus is also mentioned in the Talmud, but not as a sage. At best, he might have been a student of Yehoshua ben Perachyah, but even that is a matter of debate. Were Jesus to have been a sage who had fallen off the path of Judaism, it does not seem to make sense that the Talmud would hide this fact from its historical notes.

Therefore, it seems much more likely that he had never been an actual rabbinical sage to begin with. More likely, either he was self-taught or he had a teacher that was also not a rabbinical sage. But a true, ordained rabbi Jesus likely was not.

So why was Jesus called rabbi in the NT? The most likely reason, in my view, is that "rabbi" means "master" and it was also a term that was becoming more common at the time for revered individuals. Revering their teacher, the disciples, who it seems were not too learned, chose the popular title without really understanding what it truly meant in Judaic terms, past basic Aramaic vocabulary skills.

In John 3:26, John the Baptist is called 'Rabbi'. The context is quite interesting, because it's clear that many Jews came to question John, believing him to be a prophet of God.

There's no indication that John had a formal ordination.

John 3:25-31. 'Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying.
And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth
[Jesus' disciples actually did the baptising], and all men come to him.
John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.
Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.
He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.
He must increase, but I must decrease.
He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.'

Should the Christ, who comes from above, be ordained by men? John, who was called 'Rabbi', said that Christ was greater than he. How can Christ be any less of a teacher?

I don't believe Jesus became a teacher by the authority of men, because his Father was of heaven. He was called 'teacher' because he demonstrated God's authority in word and deed.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
In more recent times, I see more and more Christians claiming that not only was Jesus a learned scholar, but he was actually a rabbi. This is evidenced, in their view, from the fact that he's called "rabbi" by some in the NT.

In Judaism, though, this is not a feasible view. Not because there's no such thing as a heretical rabbi - there were, unfortunately - but because becoming a rabbi in Talmudic times (when Jesus lived and certainly when the authors of the NT lived) was not quite as simple as receiving ordination from one's own rabbi (which isn't a simple process in itself) and having a shiny rabbinical degree to hang up on the wall. During those times there was something called "Smicha". This is short for "Smichat Yada'im" and refers to a special process of ordination which included at least three ordained rabbis laying their hands upon the head of the rabbi-to-be and passing on the traditional ordination of Jewish authority passed down from generation to generation in an unbroken chain, all the way back to Moshe. According to tradition, after the time of Rabbi Yehudah the Prince, the special form of Smicha was canceled and what has since been called rabbinic ordination, also referred to as "Smicha" is not the same process and this has halachic (Jewish law) ramifications to this day. I will not get into all of the fine points about Smicha here. Suffice it to say that the ancient Smicha had more authority than the one we have today and in ancient times, a distinction was made between those sages who had Smicha and those who didn't.

Indeed, there were Talmudic sages who didn't receive Smicha and as such, were not called "rabbi" (I'm not including sages like Hillel and Shammai who as prince and head of the court respectively, of course had ordination but were not called "rabbi" for other reasons), such as Shimon ben Azai, Shimon ben Zoma, Shmuel and so forth. The Talmud is not lacking in descriptions of the greatness of these individuals, but they simply didn't qualify for Smicha, for different reasons. Eventually a new rabbinical status quo was established and sages, upon receiving the lesser Smicha, got the title "rabbi" but again, a distinction was made between the rabbis of the superior Smicha and those of the lesser.

Now, about Jesus: We can agree that we don't know too much about Jesus. The NT's version of the story doesn't provide us with details about who taught Jesus. There's nary a rabbi in sight in the NT to offer any form of support for the man, save, perhaps, for Nicodemus, who no one knows who he was, as he's not mentioned anywhere else, at least not by that name.

It's possible that Jesus was an autodidact. This may explain the various rulings he made on his own account, that don't quite match rulings of contemporary authorities; he may have thought that as a kind of "freelance scholar" he could do what he wished. It's also possible that he was taught by someone, but it is, in my opinion, quite telling, that this mysterious teacher is never named.

According to some views, there are hints in the NT that Jesus didn't really know what he was talking about when he was talking about Judaism.

And of course, we can't forget about the Temple incident, in which Jesus went full-on vigilante, causing havoc around the holiest place of the Jewish people and demanding punishment without following the proper official halachic court proceedings.

Due to all of which I've written so far, it seems highly unlikely that Jesus was ever actually an ordained rabbi: Who was his rabbi? Who would have given him Smicha? How did all of these sages miss out on all of his "quirks"? Why would they even consider giving such a person Smicha?

The Talmud tells us of a man usually called "Acher" - "other", a former sage named Elisha ben Avuyah. He was a great scholar until he fell and turned to Hellenism and then proceeded to do his best to convince other scholars to leave Judaism. Yet, he's mentioned as a sage in the Talmud. The Talmud isn't known for hiding away the sins, mistakes and downfalls of the sages, knowing that there's wisdom to gleaned from these events. Jesus is also mentioned in the Talmud, but not as a sage. At best, he might have been a student of Yehoshua ben Perachyah, but even that is a matter of debate. Were Jesus to have been a sage who had fallen off the path of Judaism, it does not seem to make sense that the Talmud would hide this fact from its historical notes.

Therefore, it seems much more likely that he had never been an actual rabbinical sage to begin with. More likely, either he was self-taught or he had a teacher that was also not a rabbinical sage. But a true, ordained rabbi Jesus likely was not.

So why was Jesus called rabbi in the NT? The most likely reason, in my view, is that "rabbi" means "master" and it was also a term that was becoming more common at the time for revered individuals. Revering their teacher, the disciples, who it seems were not too learned, chose the popular title without really understanding what it truly meant in Judaic terms, past basic Aramaic vocabulary skills.

He seemed to know what he was talking about when it came to tithing herbs.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
I am speaking generally here, but as for religious leaders, there seem to be two types: on the one hand, the "establishment", the "hierarchy", those with the titles received though an authorized procedure; and on the other hand, the charismatic types, who may or may not know the scriptures overly well, but have the potential to communicate them to the general public, and to gather followers though this process. Once a charismatic leader has captured the hearts of his followers, they may call him their "Lord", "master" etc. quite naturally because they love him so much. It doesn't necessarily involve trickery from the leader's part, although there are undoubtedly always charlatans who adorn themselves with titles they have not earned.

Yep, I concur with your distinction here - it's the reason why the scholar Geza Vermes referred to Jesus as a "charismatic man of the spirit".

We see this in Mary Magdalene's exclamation to Jesus, in the garden tomb scene in John chapter 20:


Jesus said to her, ‘Mary.’ She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, ‘Rabbouni!’ (which means ‘Master’ (Διδάσκαλε (Didaskale)).

– John 20:16

What we have here is the Aramaic rab, “master” plus a first person pronominal suffix, “my master”.

Rabbouni has ‘been described as … a form of endearment’, equating to ‘my dear rabbi’ (Brown 1986:991-992). Rabbouni is thus a way of saying rabbi, meaning ‘my master’, with strong emphasis (McKenzie 1965:718), which fits with your description above of a dearly beloved charismatic teacher given the highest titles of authority and endearment by his close band disciples, irrespective of 'formal education' or training on his part.


From Strong's concordance:


Cognate: 1320 didáskalos (a masculine noun derived from 1321 /didáskō, "to teach") – a teacher, an instructor acknowledged for their mastery in their field of learning See 1319 (didaskalia), of those who by their great power as teachers drew crowds about them
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Many sages also worked as craftsmen and traders.
Hi.... again.
Ah! I did not tell you that Jesus was not wise. I expect that he was well versed in the Laws of Moses. He must have been or he would not have insisted upon their reinstatement, whgich I would bet that the Baptist did as well.

Hillel, prior to becoming prince of Judea, sold firewood.
You did not tell me his full name. Do you know it? Who was he the son of?
Merchants could do very well! Many members of the Temple courts were merchants. That was one of the ways that a smart peasant could rise out of the working classes. Being a very successful brigand worked as well.

Didn't the Romans elevate Herod, a successful brigand in his time?

Rabbi Yehoshua sold coal.
No full name?
Another merchant! A man who lives ten miles from me sold coal, or his grandad did. He's one of the wealthiest men in the county.
Merchants can rise.
Jesus was not a merchant.

Rabbi Yitzchak Napacha was a smith.
I already covered Smiths, amazing people back then, lookred upon as wizards almost. Magis? Probably.
Jesus was not a forger of metals.

And so forth. So while Jesus's trade shows he was of lower class, it's not conclusive evidence to his not being a rabbi.
How many Galilean peasants became Rabbis, back then?
How many Rabbis were in the Northern Provinces in early 1st century Palestine?

I know that a Pharisee did not have to be a Levite, of the Priesthood, and there were a good few of those around. Bit how many rabbis were around Galilee back then?

You could extend my horizons on this count, for sure.

It wasn't like knighthood, which was reserved only for the noblemen.
What? All you needed for nobility back then was to be a very very dangerous, ruthless leader of men. Why do you think that the Romans elevated Herod..... when was that, circa 39BC?
Brigands did very well.
Jesus was not a Brigand. :)

----------------------
But really, the Gospel of Mark is probably the most accurate account of an 11-12 month period in Jesus's life. The Baptist may well have been his tutor.

And Celcus (copied by Origen) could actually throw some light upon Jesus and his 'two taxmen and ten boatmen' followers. I think Celcus wrote that his mother had been a (Hellenised) Temple virgin possibly in Sepphoris, and the Roman Patronus his true father? But his step Dad was a handworker.... nagarra?, probably a tented traveller since there were no solid buildings on Nazareth back then (only one).

Ummm.... No........ Peasants who might have called Jesus 'rabbi' (if any did at all) were probably just thinking he was.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
... becoming a rabbi in Talmudic times (when Jesus lived and certainly when the authors of the NT lived) was not quite as simple as receiving ordination from one's own rabbi (which isn't a simple process in itself) and having a shiny rabbinical degree to hang up on the wall. During those times there was something called "Smicha". This is short for "Smichat Yada'im" and refers to a special process of ordination which included at least three ordained rabbis laying their hands upon the head of the rabbi-to-be and passing on the traditional ordination of Jewish authority passed down from generation to generation in an unbroken chain, all the way back to Moshe.
So, once the red part above had been completed, was there some outwardly detectable or physically visible change to the person who had undergone this ceremony and received this "Smicha?" That is to say, if a person walked up to you on the street and claimed that they had it, by what method would you then go about the means of determining that they did, indeed possess the blessing doled out in this ceremony? I understand that you can request that they divulge the identity of 3 rabbis that layed hands on them, and then attempt to check back with those people. But, is it possible for someone to make the claim while having convinced 3 other people to lie and claim to also be rabbis ordained in this manner, so that when their names are given, anyone that checks in with those people would find that they did, indeed claim to have performed the ceremony? Perhaps you have a list you could check to verify that any one of these people's names were on it also?

My point being, its not like a halo or some signifying physicality suddenly appeared to distinguish these people from anyone else. Literally, you have to have the esoteric knowledge of who has been ordained to even know whether or not a person's claim stands. And how easy in that type of case is it for someone to convince anyone who doesn't have access to that esoteric knowledge? That is, they aren't allowed to see "the list?" To the point that perception to those people becomes reality, and then as the lie is handed around more and more, it seems less and less of a lie to the uninitiated. The system in place of "laying hands" and "saying some words" just isn't good enough to prevent something like this from happening.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
In more recent times, I see more and more Christians claiming that not only was Jesus a learned scholar, but he was actually a rabbi. This is evidenced, in their view, from the fact that he's called "rabbi" by some in the NT.

In Judaism, though, this is not a feasible view. Not because there's no such thing as a heretical rabbi - there were, unfortunately - but because becoming a rabbi in Talmudic times (when Jesus lived and certainly when the authors of the NT lived) was not quite as simple as receiving ordination from one's own rabbi (which isn't a simple process in itself) and having a shiny rabbinical degree to hang up on the wall. During those times there was something called "Smicha". This is short for "Smichat Yada'im" and refers to a special process of ordination which included at least three ordained rabbis laying their hands upon the head of the rabbi-to-be and passing on the traditional ordination of Jewish authority passed down from generation to generation in an unbroken chain, all the way back to Moshe. According to tradition, after the time of Rabbi Yehudah the Prince, the special form of Smicha was canceled and what has since been called rabbinic ordination, also referred to as "Smicha" is not the same process and this has halachic (Jewish law) ramifications to this day. I will not get into all of the fine points about Smicha here. Suffice it to say that the ancient Smicha had more authority than the one we have today and in ancient times, a distinction was made between those sages who had Smicha and those who didn't.

Indeed, there were Talmudic sages who didn't receive Smicha and as such, were not called "rabbi" (I'm not including sages like Hillel and Shammai who as prince and head of the court respectively, of course had ordination but were not called "rabbi" for other reasons), such as Shimon ben Azai, Shimon ben Zoma, Shmuel and so forth. The Talmud is not lacking in descriptions of the greatness of these individuals, but they simply didn't qualify for Smicha, for different reasons. Eventually a new rabbinical status quo was established and sages, upon receiving the lesser Smicha, got the title "rabbi" but again, a distinction was made between the rabbis of the superior Smicha and those of the lesser.

Now, about Jesus: We can agree that we don't know too much about Jesus. The NT's version of the story doesn't provide us with details about who taught Jesus. There's nary a rabbi in sight in the NT to offer any form of support for the man, save, perhaps, for Nicodemus, who no one knows who he was, as he's not mentioned anywhere else, at least not by that name.

It's possible that Jesus was an autodidact. This may explain the various rulings he made on his own account, that don't quite match rulings of contemporary authorities; he may have thought that as a kind of "freelance scholar" he could do what he wished. It's also possible that he was taught by someone, but it is, in my opinion, quite telling, that this mysterious teacher is never named.

According to some views, there are hints in the NT that Jesus didn't really know what he was talking about when he was talking about Judaism.

And of course, we can't forget about the Temple incident, in which Jesus went full-on vigilante, causing havoc around the holiest place of the Jewish people and demanding punishment without following the proper official halachic court proceedings.

Due to all of which I've written so far, it seems highly unlikely that Jesus was ever actually an ordained rabbi: Who was his rabbi? Who would have given him Smicha? How did all of these sages miss out on all of his "quirks"? Why would they even consider giving such a person Smicha?

The Talmud tells us of a man usually called "Acher" - "other", a former sage named Elisha ben Avuyah. He was a great scholar until he fell and turned to Hellenism and then proceeded to do his best to convince other scholars to leave Judaism. Yet, he's mentioned as a sage in the Talmud. The Talmud isn't known for hiding away the sins, mistakes and downfalls of the sages, knowing that there's wisdom to gleaned from these events. Jesus is also mentioned in the Talmud, but not as a sage. At best, he might have been a student of Yehoshua ben Perachyah, but even that is a matter of debate. Were Jesus to have been a sage who had fallen off the path of Judaism, it does not seem to make sense that the Talmud would hide this fact from its historical notes.

Therefore, it seems much more likely that he had never been an actual rabbinical sage to begin with. More likely, either he was self-taught or he had a teacher that was also not a rabbinical sage. But a true, ordained rabbi Jesus likely was not.

So why was Jesus called rabbi in the NT? The most likely reason, in my view, is that "rabbi" means "master" and it was also a term that was becoming more common at the time for revered individuals. Revering their teacher, the disciples, who it seems were not too learned, chose the popular title without really understanding what it truly meant in Judaic terms, past basic Aramaic vocabulary skills.
Hello, Harel13. As I understand it, rabbi means teacher in a defacto sense. Jesus certainly was that. It seems that the certification of rabbis, if I may call it like that, was not long being practiced when Jesus was teaching.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Many sages also worked as craftsmen and traders. Hillel, prior to becoming prince of Judea, sold firewood. Rabbi Yehoshua sold coal. Rabbi Yitzchak Napacha was a smith. And so forth. So while Jesus's trade shows he was of lower class, it's not conclusive evidence to his not being a rabbi. It wasn't like knighthood, which was reserved only for the noblemen.

I believe that Jesus wasn't a rabbi by the definition of rabbinic Judaism but he was a rabbi as defined as defined by first century Jewish beliefs.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
@Harel13 @Jayhawker Soule and @Vouthon
One or all of you might be able to help ...... please...

Questions:-
Do you have any ideas about how many Rabbis were practicising in Galilee and Northern Provinces in the early first century 0-30 CE?

How many synagogues existed in the early first century CE?

Several years ago Jayhawker offered this document dedicated to Mrs and Mrs Meyer which featured archaeological finds and sites in the Galilee and surrounding areas. If you would turn to pages 120/121 you can review the sites of synagogues which were known by them at that time.

But all but one were dated at around 2nd-3rd century CE, Gamla being dated to the 1st century CE.

So do you know what has been gathered since that document was produced, because it doesn't look as if so many rabbis were around, Pharisees maybe?

OB
 

Attachments

  • Distribution maps - Copy.pdf
    881.5 KB · Views: 0

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
As E.P. Meier explained in his book series, The Marginal Jew how:
As the scholar John P. Meier explains: ......................

Ah ha! :)
I launched in to a 'why Meier?' response to your post (and your post lower down) as I quoted other gospels and scholars to contrast......... I went on........ and on....

And then I wondered, 'Why does Vouthon like Meier's ideas?' So I 'googled' Meier......... Now I get it!

Meier has more than studied opinion, he has Faith. That stops me dead, because I always acknowledge Faith. But if you want to see my points about what he says I'll PM them to you. They are 'off piste' here. :)
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Should the Christ, who comes from above, be ordained by men? John, who was called 'Rabbi', said that Christ was greater than he. How can Christ be any less of a teacher?
The original ordination, that of Moshe (Moses), according to Jewish tradition, came from God, and meticulously passed down through the generations. You decide whether you think Jesus should have been bestowed that...
I'm here merely to say that whether Jesus should or shouldn't have been bestowed that ordination doesn't matter, because it is highly unlikely that it did not happen either way. :)
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
@Harel13 @Jayhawker Soule and @Vouthon
One or all of you might be able to help ...... please...

Questions:-
Do you have any ideas about how many Rabbis were practicising in Galilee and Northern Provinces in the early first century 0-30 CE?

How many synagogues existed in the early first century CE?

Several years ago Jayhawker offered this document dedicated to Mrs and Mrs Meyer which featured archaeological finds and sites in the Galilee and surrounding areas. If you would turn to pages 120/121 you can review the sites of synagogues which were known by them at that time.

But all but one were dated at around 2nd-3rd century CE, Gamla being dated to the 1st century CE.

So do you know what has been gathered since that document was produced, because it doesn't look as if so many rabbis were around, Pharisees maybe?

OB
Likely because most rabbis at the time lived in Judea or Babylon and not in the Galilee. There's a story in the Jerusalem Talmud that I've brought on RF a couple of times recently about Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai, a 1st century rabbi, going to the Galilee to serve as their posek (the person who decides the various rulings of Jewish law) and he leaves after 18 years, lamenting that he was only ever asked two questions...in other words, Judaism was not very strong in the Galilee at the time. More evidence that Jesus could have easily based himself as a freelance scholar doing as he pleased in the area. I'm not great with the NT, but it seems that he only really started getting into hot water the more he went into Judea and Jerusalem in particular.

It was only after the destruction of the Temple that the Sanhedrin moved to Yavneh and sometime around the 2nd century they moved to Usha, in the Galilee. At the same time, the Galilean cities of Tiberias and Zippori started to become major centers of Torah.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Hello, Harel13. As I understand it, rabbi means teacher in a defacto sense. Jesus certainly was that. It seems that the certification of rabbis, if I may call it like that, was not long being practiced when Jesus was teaching.
Evidence?

In any case, the main point of my OP was to offer criticism of the Christians who claim that Jesus was a rabbi in the modern sense - that is, ordained - as he was most likely not.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
I believe that Jesus wasn't a rabbi by the definition of rabbinic Judaism but he was a rabbi as defined as defined by first century Jewish beliefs.
You are free to believe that, but I wonder why you differentiate between "1st century Judaism" and "rabbinic Judaism"?
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
You did not tell me his full name. Do you know it? Who was he the son of?
I don't think his father's name is ever mentioned anywhere. He's usually referred to just as Hillel or Hillel the Elder or the Sage: Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia
Didn't the Romans elevate Herod, a successful brigand in his time?
Wasn't Herod a military general?
No full name?
He's usually just plain Rabbi Yehoshua in the Talmud, but his full name is Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah.
Another merchant! A man who lives ten miles from me sold coal, or his grandad did. He's one of the wealthiest men in the county.
Merchants can rise.
While that may be true for some, in the Talmudic story from which we learn that he was a coal maker and merchant, he defines it as the sort of work that is not respectable and does not earn him a lot of money.
Ummm.... No........ Peasants who might have called Jesus 'rabbi' (if any did at all) were probably just thinking he was.
Yes, I wrote that in my OP:
"Revering their teacher, the disciples, who it seems were not too learned, chose the popular title without really understanding what it truly meant in Judaic terms, past basic Aramaic vocabulary skills."
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
He seemed to know what he was talking about when it came to tithing herbs.
I'm not saying he was an idiot, I'm saying he was too far off in most of his rulings to have been considered Smicha-material. In modern language - and as many Christians over the millennia enjoyed putting it - he might be described as "the one rebel who dared to face off against the (evil) rabbinical monopolistic control of the law". Sure, that's a nice way of putting it. It makes him out to be a hero - which is exactly what the NT was trying to do.
Now look at it from the other side: Preserving of traditions is a key factor in the continuous survival of the Jewish people. If that tradition is destroyed, then the people will eventually disappear, too, no longer having much of anything to hold them together. The sages have always attempted their best at preserving the traditions. Then along comes this hotshot who thinks he can do whatever he wants, essentially calling for anarchy, a total upturning of the law and the traditions as he sees fit. This is obviously not okay in the eyes of the people who are calling for order. Such a person would never be considered for an acting role among the sages, obviously. It's not some sort of monopoly, it's that he's going against everything they hold dear, which they believe is needed for preserving their people.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
I'm not saying he was an idiot, I'm saying he was too far off in most of his rulings to have been considered Smicha-material. In modern language - and as many Christians over the millennia enjoyed putting it - he might be described as "the one rebel who dared to face off against the (evil) rabbinical monopolistic control of the law". Sure, that's a nice way of putting it. It makes him out to be a hero - which is exactly what the NT was trying to do.
Now look at it from the other side: Preserving of traditions is a key factor in the continuous survival of the Jewish people. If that tradition is destroyed, then the people will eventually disappear, too, no longer having much of anything to hold them together. The sages have always attempted their best at preserving the traditions. Then along comes this hotshot who thinks he can do whatever he wants, essentially calling for anarchy, a total upturning of the law and the traditions as he sees fit. This is obviously not okay in the eyes of the people who are calling for order. Such a person would never be considered for an acting role among the sages, obviously. It's not some sort of monopoly, it's that he's going against everything they hold dear, which they believe is needed for preserving their people.

Well, if the book of Matthew is accurate, he enjoined his followers to obey the Scribes and Pharisees because they sat in Moses' seat.
 
Top