Was Jesus really a Jewish rabbi?

[oldbadger]

Jesus didn't attempt to raise a rebellion. He said that his kingdom is not of the world.

He made a pretty good job of it. A serious Temple incident. Two days picketing the temple Courts. Baptising folks so they didn't need to go to the Temple.

But I am not challenging what you believe, ok?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

My though would be that Jesus was given innate knowledge from G_D.

As such, from birth He would have shown extraordinary potential of that innate knowledge and astounded many learned men. This in turn would have given the people cause to see Jesus as learned and called by such titles the learned like to place upon themselves.

Regards Tony

 

[Skywalker]

He made a pretty good job of it. A serious Temple incident. Two days picketing the temple Courts. Baptising folks so they didn't need to go to the Temple.

But I am not challenging what you believe, ok?

Jesus was against the legalism of the Pharisees but he wasn't trying to start a rebellion against their leadership.

 

[Skywalker]

You're going in circles now. I simply wanted to know based on what evidence you believe that non-Pharisee sects had authoritative figures known as "rabbis" and how do you know that they served as "pastors"?

A pastor teaches the Scriptures, guides, and corrects.

 

[Skywalker]

He made a pretty good job of it. A serious Temple incident. Two days picketing the temple Courts. Baptising folks so they didn't need to go to the Temple.

But I am not challenging what you believe, ok?

Jesus wasn't rebelling. He turned his tables to show his indignation to the behavior of the religious leaders. He didn't do anything that was harmful, though. Gandhi and Martin Luther King patterned their pacifism after Jesus.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

OK, that is true. Yet the term 'rabbi' is generally understood as teacher. Today yes, it would seem that the accepted use would be as a graduate (?) from a rabbinical institution of whichever branch of Judaism one likes. I suppose.
Chabad.org gives an explanation. In part, "It was not until the second century that “rabbi,” which literally means “my master” or “my teacher,” became an official title. Until that time even the greatest Jewish sages and prophets were not given an honorific."
Honorific I glean in what would be a degree, or bestowed title by an institution of sorts. Until the second century. Rabbi literally means 'my master' or 'my teacher,' says that website.
What Is a Rabbi? - A Brief History of Rabbinic Ordination (Semicha) - Jewish History (chabad.org)

 

[Vouthon]

But in other instances went against the sages.
He seemed to be inconsistent...

Pharisaism, if I'm not mistaken, was largely restricted to Jerusalem and the larger towns of Judea. Thus, in Galilee where Jesus lived and started gathering his initial following, the Pharisees may not have had all that much of a 'base'.

As such, I think its to be expected that Jesus's understanding of Torah would not align entirely with the Sages (Pharisees), inasmuch as he was Galilean and not Judean.

I would distinguish two things here, if I may: 'doctrine' from 'halakot' (behaviour). As E.P. Meier notes: "Debate between Jesus and the Pharisees tended to be of a halakic (legal, behavioral) rather than of a doctrinal nature. Such debate probably involved questions like divorce, fasting, tithing, purity rules, observance of the sabbath, and in general the relative importance of various external observances" (p.339)

'Doctrinally': Jesus's own theology was pretty close to that of the rabbis out of the myriad of Second Temple sects. I mean, Jesus was clearly antithetical to the thought of the Sadducees - and his teachings in this regard are pretty indistinguishable from Pharisaism.

Jesus acknowledges the Pharisees’ Torah knowledge and authority as keepers of authentic Oral Torah, the ancestral tradition of the fathers: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it" (Matthew 23:1-3) (cf. Pesiq. Rav Kah. 1.7).

In m. Sanhedrin 10:1, the Mishna excludes from a share in the Olam Haba any Jew who claims there is no resurrection of the dead: "One who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, the Torah was not divinely revealed, and a heretic.”

Josephus informs is that the Pharisees, in contradiction to the Sadducees, had a belief in the immortality of the soul, a place of reward and punishment after death, and the resurrection of the body (2.8.14 §163). Jesus agreed on each one of those points of cardinal 'doctrine' that distinguished the sages from other contemporaneous sects of Judaism at that time.

Thus, Jesus defends the resurrection of the dead in dispute with the Sadducees: "18 Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him a question, saying, 19 “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. 20 There were seven brothers; the first married and, when he died, left no children; 21 and the second married the widow and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise; 22 none of the seven left children. Last of all the woman herself died. 23 In the resurrection whose wife will she be? For the seven had married her.”

24 Jesus said to them, “Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 26 And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the story about the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? 27 He is God not of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong.” (Mark 12:18-27).

He upholds a belief in the post-mortem survival of the soul: "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul" (Matthew 10:28) and believed in an interim place of punishment or reward after death in Sheol or Hades, as is suggested in his parable about the poor beggar Lazarus: "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side" (Luke 16:22-23)

In terms of 'halakot', however, this is where Jesus engaged in a good bit of dispute with the sages.

As an eschatological prophet, for example, Jesus came down very strongly against divorce. We all know about the consternation over this between the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai but Jesus' own position was based on an interpretation of Genesis which held that the Creator's intention from the beginning had been the permanent union of man and woman in marriage (Mark 10:1-12).

He rejected voluntary fasting:

"Then the disciples of John came to Him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but Your disciples do not fast?" And Jesus said to them, "Are the sons of the bridechamber able to mourn while the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast."

(Matthew 9:14-15)​

And he also neglected or possibly rejected familial obligations and purity rules. In Mark 7:14, 18-23 Jesus says, “There is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile...Nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him, because it does not enter his heart, but it goes into the stomach and then is eliminated....What comes out of a man, that is what defiles him. For from within the hearts of men come evil thoughts...All these evils come from within, and these are what defile a man".

Luke's gospel and St. Paul (decades before Mark) attested to different, independent variations of this same teaching (making it one of the most authoritative and ancient Jesus sayings by multiple attestation):

"Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? Instead, give for alms those things that are within; and see! everything will be clean for you" (Luke 14:39-41)

St. Paul appeared to know of this Jesus tradition as well, prior to the writing of the canonical gospels: "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean" (Romans 14:14)

 

[YoursTrue]

Pharisaism, if I'm not mistaken, was largely restricted to Jerusalem and the larger towns of Judea. Thus, in Galilee where Jesus lived and started gathering his initial following, the Pharisees may not have had all that much of a 'base'.

As such, I think its to be expected that Jesus's understanding of Torah would not align entirely with the Sages (Pharisees), inasmuch as he was Galilean and not Judean.

I would distinguish two things here, if I may: 'doctrine' from 'halakot' (behaviour). As E.P. Meier notes: "Debate between Jesus and the Pharisees tended to be of a halakic (legal, behavioral) rather than of a doctrinal nature. Such debate probably involved questions like divorce, fasting, tithing, purity rules, observance of the sabbath, and in general the relative importance of various external observances" (p.339)

'Doctrinally': Jesus's own theology was pretty close to that of the rabbis out of the myriad of Second Temple sects. I mean, Jesus was clearly antithetical to the thought of the Sadducees - and his teachings in this regard are pretty indistinguishable from Pharisaism.

Jesus acknowledges the Pharisees’ Torah knowledge and authority as keepers of authentic Oral Torah, the ancestral tradition of the fathers: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it" (Matthew 23:1-3) (cf. Pesiq. Rav Kah. 1.7).

In m. Sanhedrin 10:1, the Mishna excludes from a share in the Olam Haba any Jew who claims there is no resurrection of the dead: "One who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, the Torah was not divinely revealed, and a heretic.”

Josephus informs is that the Pharisees, in contradiction to the Sadducees, had a belief in the immortality of the soul, a place of reward and punishment after death, and the resurrection of the body (2.8.14 §163). Jesus agreed on each one of those points of cardinal 'doctrine' that distinguished the sages from other contemporaneous sects of Judaism at that time.

Thus, Jesus defends the resurrection of the dead in dispute with the Sadducees: "18 Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him a question, saying, 19 “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. 20 There were seven brothers; the first married and, when he died, left no children; 21 and the second married the widow and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise; 22 none of the seven left children. Last of all the woman herself died. 23 In the resurrection whose wife will she be? For the seven had married her.”

24 Jesus said to them, “Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 26 And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the story about the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? 27 He is God not of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong.” (Mark 12:18-27).

He upholds a belief in the post-mortem survival of the soul: "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul" (Matthew 10:28) and believed in an interim place of punishment or reward after death in Sheol or Hades, as is suggested in his parable about the poor beggar Lazarus: "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side" (Luke 16:22-23)

In terms of 'halakot', however, this is where Jesus engaged in a good bit of dispute with the sages.

As an eschatological prophet, for example, Jesus came down very strongly against divorce. We all know about the consternation over this between the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai but Jesus' own position was based on an interpretation of Genesis which held that the Creator's intention from the beginning had been the permanent union of man and woman in marriage (Mark 10:1-12).

He rejected voluntary fasting:

"Then the disciples of John came to Him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but Your disciples do not fast?" And Jesus said to them, "Are the sons of the bridechamber able to mourn while the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast."

(Matthew 9:14-15)​

And he also neglected or possibly rejected familial obligations and purity rules. In Mark 7:14, 18-23 Jesus says, “There is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile...Nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him, because it does not enter his heart, but it goes into the stomach and then is eliminated....What comes out of a man, that is what defiles him. For from within the hearts of men come evil thoughts...All these evils come from within, and these are what defile a man".

Luke's gospel and St. Paul (decades before Mark) attested to different, independent variations of this same teaching (making it one of the most authoritative and ancient Jesus sayings by multiple attestation):

"Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? Instead, give for alms those things that are within; and see! everything will be clean for you" (Luke 14:39-41)

St. Paul appeared to know of this Jesus tradition as well, prior to the writing of the canonical gospels: "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean" (Romans 14:14)

I enjoyed much of what you wrote. When I got to the part about Jesus and the soul, as if he were saying the soul is immortal, here is what I have learned: the word 'soul' is one's life. (Matthew 10:28) So even though it can be said that one sleeps at death, the reality of the situation is that one's life-force, or ability to live, be restored to life, is with God. And He will make alive those He wants to. The Greek for soul there at Matthew 10:28 is psyche, and Strong's has a good translation of it.

 

[Harel13]

A pastor teaches the Scriptures, guides, and corrects.

Yes, we know Jesus did these things according to the NT. But how do you know that such individuals were referred to as "rabbi"? I hypothesize in the OP that the disciples borrowed the term from the Pharisee authorities, being unlearned and not properly knowing what the term meant at the time. In the Hebrew of the time, he would have likely been more correctly defined as a "Melamed" with hints of a "Darshan", not a "Rabbi".

 

[Harel13]

OK. I was seeking to discover if he was a Levite.

He wasn't. On his father's side, from the Tribe of Benjamin, on his mother's - from Judah, a descendant of the House of David, likely through Zerubavel.

Surely, but he got up there by being very bad, very dangerous, very successful, or so I have gathered.

Okay, but the Romans were also ruthless at times. Take Pilate, for example. Or Caligula. Etc.

Then the Romans elevated him because he was the most useful client King.

Yes, exactly. But not because brigands had potential. Because military men and/or politicians had potential.

Thank you! So he was a Levite.

He was, but I think that there were more non-Levitic or non-kohanic sages.

Figures. Most leaders were Levites.

I don't think that's true. And though he was an important sage, he wasn't head of the court or prince of Judea/Galilee. During his time, there were two princes: Rabban Gamliel the Younger (aka of Yavne) and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah. Rabban Gamilel, as a descendant of Hillel, had the same lineage as him, so non-Levite. Rabbi Elazar was a kohen and descendant of Ezra the Scribe, but he was a kind of secondary prince. The main prince was almost always Rabban Gamliel and his descendants followed. And, of course, Rabbi Yehoshua's source of income came from the coal industry, not a leadership position...

Ok, but Western Aramaic or Hebrew was the southern language of the superior Levites.

And?

Yes! Absolutely!
Ten boatmen and a couple of publicans, all very hard men, not the weakly wailing softies depicted in some stories.

Softies in terms of Torah knowledge, spirituality and learning capabilities...a partial comparison might be made from when the sage Reish Lakish began to study Torah: For years he was an armed robber and physically very strong. When he committed to Torah study, he was said to have lost some of his strength. In trade, the disciples were rough 'n' tough. In study and spirituality they were the opposite.

 

[oldbadger]

Jesus was against the legalism of the Pharisees but he wasn't trying to start a rebellion against their leadership.

Hi Skywalker....
The Pharisees didn't lead anything.
Many of them were not even Levite Priests.

The Baptist and Jesus were against the corruption, corruption, hypocrisy and greed of the Temple and its Priesthood because their currency-changing, sacrifice selling and other scams were ripping off poor working (mostly) Northern Jews at every opportunity.

The Baptist and Jesus were cutting off money to the Temple by offering redemtion and cleansing FOR NOTHING and thus they very very popular while they could keep going.

But your point about Pharisees is very pertinent here on @Harel13 's thread imo because some of the gospels got that wrong as well..... Whereas G-Mark shows an uprising that was against Temple and Priesthood gospel's like John's turned that in to some great struggle against 'THE JEWS'! John claimed that it was 'The Jews who plotted against, debated against and hated Jesus. John didn't know any better or I'd call him wicked, but look at the millenniums of adversity that Jews suffered (afterwards) because most Christians clung to John's (and Luke's) gospels first.

So Jesus wasn't particularly worried about the Pharisees, was never a rabbi (there weren't many about, I think), wasn't up against 'The Jews' and his mission lasted for 11-12 months in which he and his only visited Jerusalem once in attempt to raise an 'uprising'.

 

[oldbadger]

Jesus wasn't rebelling. He turned his tables to show his indignation to the behavior of the religious leaders. He didn't do anything that was harmful, though. Gandhi and Martin Luther King patterned their pacifism after Jesus.

You don't think he was.
I think that Jesus (and the Baptist) were most definitely acting against Temple corruption and greed.
Even the Temple coins were disgusting for Jews to have to touch. If Christian churches had their own coinage, stuffed images on to them that disgusted you (like maybe an image of Satan, and a sexy model in bikini on the rear, with the initials of the CEO of (say) Lenin?) and were ripping you off on the money exchange anyway I think that you would either not go there or push for change. Just the coinage was a disgrace even before the corruption etc.

It's nice that Gandhi and King took notice of Christianity but the history of Christianity is not of pacifism. Most of the thugs that support Trump think they have Christianity right and they are not pacifists.....

 

[oldbadger]

He wasn't. On his father's side, from the Tribe of Benjamin, on his mother's - from Judah, a descendant of the House of David, likely through Zerubavel.

OK. But I definitely believe that some folks in Galilee were Levites, mostly of lower orders. I feel quite sure that Officials such as Taxation bosses were recruited from Southern Provinces and Levites (because Romans would not have allowed local people to be taxing their own) . Am I right in saying that the 6000 Temple Guards (for example) were Levites of lower order? Etc?

Okay, but the Romans were also ruthless at times. Take Pilate, for example. Or Caligula. Etc.

Romans were ruthless all the time! They wanted the silver (and gold) to flow nice and smoothly, with as little trouble as possible. Herod was a perfect choice for them although not all his sons fitted their agendas.

Yes, exactly. But not because brigands had potential. Because military men and/or politicians had potential.

For sure. Romans picked their ideal 'local' leaders...... but Herod had come up through being totally wicked and brutal before........
He was a total psycho.......

He was, but I think that there were more non-Levitic or non-kohanic sages.

Yes. Yes. Some Pharisees were not Priests. But up in Galilee it was all about day to day survival for the peasantry and Galilean boatmen would not have been particularly interested in what any had to say unless it could gain them some bread, or money, or save from the dreadful taxation.
On the side...... have you seen a diagram of how a researcher believes that the taxation system worked on the Lake? I've got a copy somewhere if you want sight of it.
I will bet that the boatmen had many scams to get round the heavy taxation. It's been too long now imo but if a large weighted box pierced with holes is ever recovered from the silt, or wedge-on oarlocks, or separate oar blades..... stuff I am familiar with, then I'll know that lake boatmen were just like our own ..... humans.

I do go....... sorry. Why do you think that Jesus and his friends were visiting the Gadarenes on the SE side of the lake? Mostly Pagans down there? I've always wondered what the boatmen did when they caught a huge catfish (massive) because it was worthless on Jewish foreshores. A night trip down the Gadarenes ..... there's some that we will never know.

I don't think that's true. And though he was an important sage, he wasn't head of the court or prince of Judea/Galilee. During his time, there were two princes: Rabban Gamliel the Younger (aka of Yavne) and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah. Rabban Gamilel, as a descendant of Hillel, had the same lineage as him, so non-Levite. Rabbi Elazar was a kohen and descendant of Ezra the Scribe, but he was a kind of secondary prince. The main prince was almost always Rabban Gamliel and his descendants followed. And, of course, Rabbi Yehoshua's source of income came from the coal industry, not a leadership position...

OK....
I must google all this to find a date to fit it in.

And?

Well..... that helps me get an idea about individuals mentioned in the gospels.
If I see a name ..... any name....... Barabbas for instance, I get a better idea about where he might have come from. Eastern Aramaic speaker for sure. That man's first name was 'Jesus' in early bibles. It got removed.
Jesus Barabbas. Jesus Son of the Father. A rioter involved in an uprising .....so loved by the people that Pilate released him (to save a real problem?). Hmmm..... that couldn't possibly fit anywhere I guess.....

Softies in terms of Torah knowledge, spirituality and learning capabilities...a partial comparison might be made from when the sage Reish Lakish began to study Torah: For years he was an armed robber and physically very strong. When he committed to Torah study, he was said to have lost some of his strength. In trade, the disciples were rough 'n' tough. In study and spirituality they were the opposite.

OK.... but I reckon those men had been and were hard all the time.
I honestly don't think that they were ever the meek, humble sheep depicted in some gospels.
It's all too far back....... look at the expert scholars. If you put them all in a room and handed out feather pillows to all they would all soon be suffocated with feathers. Tommy guns would be much more exciting.

 

[Harel13]

OK. But I definitely believe that some folks in Galilee were Levites, mostly of lower orders. I feel quite sure that Officials such as Taxation bosses were recruited from Southern Provinces and Levites (because Romans would not have allowed local people to be taxing their own) . Am I right in saying that the 6000 Temple Guards (for example) were Levites of lower order? Etc?

I don't understand based on what you define "higher" and "lower". Serving in the Temple was an honor. Sure, some roles were more important than others...but there were those that didn't serve at all.

Romans were ruthless all the time! They wanted the silver (and gold) to flow nice and smoothly, with as little trouble as possible. Herod was a perfect choice for them although not all his sons fitted their agendas.

Yup. We can agree on that.

He was a total psycho.......

I wouldn't say he was a total psycho...he redesigned the entire Temple...

have you seen a diagram of how a researcher believes that the taxation system worked on the Lake? I've got a copy somewhere if you want sight of it.

Never heard of it. It'd be cool to see.

I do go....... sorry. Why do you think that Jesus and his friends were visiting the Gadarenes on the SE side of the lake? Mostly Pagans down there? I've always wondered what the boatmen did when they caught a huge catfish (massive) because it was worthless on Jewish foreshores. A night trip down the Gadarenes ..... there's some that we will never know.

I'm not familiar with the story...

I must google all this to find a date to fit it in.

It was many decades after Jesus. Maybe twenty to forty years before the Bar Kochva Revolt.

Well..... that helps me get an idea about individuals mentioned in the gospels.
If I see a name ..... any name....... Barabbas for instance, I get a better idea about where he might have come from. Eastern Aramaic speaker for sure.

I see.

 

[oldbadger]

@Harel13 I must answer Post 94 tomorrow morning.
But that lake taxation diagram, and an article about the control of fishing boats and rights on the Lake is included here for your perusal.

Oppressive or what?

Ah...... the fishing article is in RTF and not recognised.
I will copy-paste it tomorrow.

 

[Skywalker]

Yes, we know Jesus did these things according to the NT. But how do you know that such individuals were referred to as "rabbi"? I hypothesize in the OP that the disciples borrowed the term from the Pharisee authorities, being unlearned and not properly knowing what the term meant at the time. In the Hebrew of the time, he would have likely been more correctly defined as a "Melamed" with hints of a "Darshan", not a "Rabbi".

The difference between a rabbi and a pastor is that rabbis also taught Jewish law besides being spiritual leaders.

 

[Harel13]

The difference between a rabbi and a pastor is that rabbis also taught Jewish law besides being spiritual leaders.

That's great, but you seem to still be avoiding what I actually asked you...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Jesus is a rabbi in the same sense that Luke Skywalker is a knight.

 

[Skywalker]

That's great, but you seem to still be avoiding what I actually asked you...

People called Jesus rabbi. 16 Bible verses about Rabbi

Jesus would not hold the title rabbi as defined in modern day Judaism because the definition of rabbi evolved.

 

[Harel13]

People called Jesus rabbi. 16 Bible verses about Rabbi

Jesus would not hold the title rabbi as defined in modern day Judaism because the definition of rabbi evolved.

Okay, I'll take this as: No, you don't have non-NT evidence for your definition of "rabbi".

Thank you, nice chatting.