IS THE TERM
“RABBI” AS USED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AN ANACHRONISM?
The current scholarly
consensus is that either the Gospel writers used the term anachronistically
(artificially inserting a later term back into an historical situation when it
didn’t yet really exist) or the term did not really imply the kind of religious
authority it took on once formal ordination developed . Unfortunately,
the documents from the time are seldom specific with respect to their INTENT when
they use the term or related forms. There’s no text that
“tells/announces” to us that the term has moved from a practical/utilitarian description
of function to a technical, formal honorific title. I’m not sure what
the “value-added” element is to adoption of the scholarly consensus, except
that it allows one to question the term’s appearance in the Gospels. That
way, we get to demonstrate their “late date” and question their historical
accuracy.
Should we go in that
direction, however, we create more questions than we solve. For example,
by the time the Gospels are being written, it is almost universally recognized
that early Christianity is attempting to distance itself from Judaism for a
number of reasons: to establish self-identity and reason for being, to create
distance between itself and Judaism and therefore the necessity of adherents to
choose between the one or the other, the political and economic advantage of
disassociation from a rebellious/conquered/now officially oppressed
people-group, etc. Question: if that’s the case, then why would the
Christian community intentionally insert an anachronism in its sacred texts
that would clearly demonstrate a close connection between Judaism and
Christianity?
A related question: if
the texts which use the word rabbi for individuals like John (the
Baptist, Jn 3:26)) and Jesus (Mt 26:25, 49; Mk 9:5; 11:21; 14:45; Jn 1:38, 49;
3:2; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8) are using those terms anachronistically, why would
they do so in seeming direct disobedience to the intentions of their
Master (Mt 23:7-9)? Why does the NT seem to always get the context
right—the function of rabbis (authoritative teachers of the Scriptures,
role-models and instructors of “disciples”), where the term appears (in
Matthew, Mark, and John, but not in the Hellenistically-oriented Gospel of
Luke, not in Acts [rabbis were an exclusively Palestinian phenomenon], and not
in the Pauline Epistles), etc.? Why do related forms exist such as rabbounei
(Mk 10:51; Jn 20:16 [and in this passage, the Greek equivalent offered is the
same as that offered for the term rabbi, “teacher”]) and other rabbinic
forms such as rav and rabban?
Does not the existence
these variations presuppose an original, basic form that would have been
broadly understood by all members of that society? To push this point one
step further, if rabbi was anachronistically inserted by the Gospel
authors inappropriately into a time in which it didn’t really exist, we must
also assume that the same authors had the acumen and the reason to create
related variations such as rabbounei (Mk 10:51 and Jn 20:16) when the
original rabbi would have been sufficient and more consistent
with overall NT usage) and insert it in the appropriate contexts with the right
meaning attached each time it is used. We would also have to assume that
the same variation developed independently and more or less simultaneously in
the Markan and the Johannine communities (or we have to accept Johannine use of
the Markan tradition at this point—another unprovable conclusion). Does
this comply with the rule of scientific inquiry called “Ockham’s Razor” (that
the simplest explanation is likely the correct explanation)?
Another (yet
unanswered) question is, “Why would a later, predominantly western,
Greek-speaking church be interested enough in linguistic and ecclesiastical
developments within Palestinian Judaism to follow those developments carefully
and then inject those developments into its own sacred literature?”
Similarly (and also unanswered), “In light of their target audiences, why would
the Evangelists intentionally use technical terms unfamiliar to their
Greek-speaking readership unless those terms were actually present in the oral
tradition perpetuated by first-generation Christians?
Lastly, there are
numerous authorities in the stream of traditional Judaism upon whom is bestowed
the title rav or rabban or some other morphologically- and
semantically-related form. Some of these authorities (probably most
notably Gamaliel and Yochanan ben Zakkai) demonstrably flourished prior to
the destruction of the temple. Granted, it can and has been argued that
these individuals did indeed exist before the destruction of the temple but had
these titles anachronistically bestowed upon them by later generations. Those
who make this argument, however, have to take issue not merely with the NT
textual tradition, but also with the textual tradition of Rabbinic Literature
as well. They have to ask us to believe that all the authors in
antiquity have made the same historical error in their use of the same word!
Surely they must all have been members of the same Facebook network! (Now
that’s a real anachronism!) In reality, the honorific rav
is attested at least as early the second century BC (about a century and
a half before Jesus and John) in the dictum of Yehoshua ben Perachya, “aseh
lecha rav” (loosely, “Get for yourself a spiritual master/authoritative
teacher,” Mishnah Avot 1:4). This imperative presumes the
existence of such individuals who were known and worthy of such a position of
influence, and yet it does not make the total leap to the more personalized
form rabbi. Naturally, the same voices that raise objections to
Gospel usage will also claim that Yehoshua’s words were put in his mouth by
later generations—another unprovable.
Again the question has
to be asked, “Is this the most likely explanation of the evidence?”
Further, if Rabbinic Literature is guilty of historically inaccurate use
of the terms, why is there such intentional and consistent diversity of
usage? Certain rabbinic authorities are given certain titles and not the
others. In fact, if later rabbinic authorities and scribes are updating
and standardizing the tradition using later honorific terms, surely great
leaders of previous generations such as Hillel and Shammai should be accorded
the honorific rabbi if not rabban (“OUR great teacher/master”
versus the mere “MY great teacher/master”). What we see in the literary
record, however, contradicts this, as Hillel is regularly referred to as HaZaken
(“the Elder”) and Shammai usually appears without title. Rabban would not
come into the tradition until it was bestowed upon Gamaliel I, the grandson of
the great Hillel.
In summation, there
exists a body of substantive, nagging questions raised by the position taken by
the consensus of scholarship that is sufficient to question the conclusion that
the terms rabbi and rabbounei are used anachronistically in the
NT Gospels. Further, the question of whether these terms indicate
some form of “official ordination” or are merely informal honorifics is not a
real matter of concern, since the texts involved do not make this an
issue. There is no place in any Gospel that claims smichah
(formal, public ordination at the successful completion of a prescribed
curriculum, complete with the laying on of hands) for John or Jesus (or
Saul/Paul for that matter), and no mention of such a ceremony in which Jesus so
commissions Peter or any of the other disciples. If such a text did
exist, the search for antecedents and corroboration by extra-biblical evidence
would indeed be warranted. As the evidence stands, however, no such
debate needs to consume our time and efforts. In the final analysis, it
appears that this portion of the current discussion is “much ado about
nothing.”
W.E. Nunnally, Ph.D.
Professor of Early
Judaism and Christian Origins