Hello all,
I have a question for you. In Matt. 23, Jesus seems to be against the use of religious titles, including the term "rabbi", which quite literally means "my great one", applied to anyone but himself. It is interesting because Jesus uses three of the main terms applied to the religious leadership at his time.
The "Av"/Father would be a term used for the de-facto spiritual leader of the Sanhedrin, as the "Nasi" was more administrative than anything else.
The terms "Rabbi" and "Rabban", literally "My/Our Great One", were applied to teachers who gathered many followers. A "Rabbi" whose teachings became greatly widespread would become a "Rabban" in latter generations.
The term "Master" would most likely refer to the term "Moreh", which was the Essene title for their own leader, the "Teacher of Righteousness".
There seems also to be a sort of a mild word-play on the term "cohen harosh" (head priest, which is the same as "cohen hagadol", that is "high priest"), when it is said that Christ is the "head", which would probably be seen as a call not to submit to the corrupt leadership of the Sadducees. The Essenes had a similar word-play, calling such a leader the "cohen hareisha" (evil priest), rather than the "cohen harosh".
In fact, this seems consistent with the rest of the narrative of the New Testament. I don't see Paul, Peter and James displaying or making use of any religious title whatsoever. I hear a lot of Messianics calling Paul "Rabbi Shaul" and while it is certain he was educated as such, why does he not refer to himself as such?
When looking at the "titles" in display in the New Testament, such as shephard/pastor, deacon and bishop, they all seem much more like roles than titles.
A shephard was simply one who oversaw the welfare of people, either physically or spiritually. It would most likely refer to those who did bikur cholim, or who patiently sat with others to tend to their needs.
A deacon in the Aramaic is called a "shamash", which is the older word for the office of a "gabbai". Essentially, people who helped in the preparation/execution of the liturgy of a religious meeting. Those people would likely distribute prayer books, control attendance, maybe clean the place, get the food ready, etc. Again, much more a role than a title.
A bishop is likely to be the word "zaken", which is basically a person who is older and thus more mature in religious affairs. Such people usually served as judges and members of the Beit Din for the purpose of orienting the younger. Again, not a title at all.
So my questions are:
1) Am I missing something here? If so, would you kindly point me to understanding?
2) How do you see this issue of religious titles?
3) Why does Christianity with so many titles seem so far off from the teachings of Jesus in this respect?
Kol tov,
Fremen
__________________ Jewish, Zionist, and Free Thinker.
Hello all,
I have a question for you. In Matt. 23, Jesus seems to be against the use of religious titles, including the term "rabbi", which quite literally means "my great one", applied to anyone but himself. It is interesting because Jesus uses three of the main terms applied to the religious leadership at his time.
The more ancient understanding of that text is somewhat different here. He is not speaking against titles, but against ascribing roles to men which ultimately apply to God. There's a whole bunch of articles supporting the more ancient understanding and explaining it deeper on the web.
So my questions are:
1) Am I missing something here? If so, would you kindly point me to understanding?
2) How do you see this issue of religious titles?
3) Why does Christianity with so many titles seem so far off from the teachings of Jesus in this respect?
Kol tov,
Fremen
The use of titles is not forbidden, as Jesus Himself (eg. calling Nicodemus "teacher") and His apostles used titles. The words used to describe roles are also used as titles in Christianity- eg. bishop (episcopos). I think that this position pretty much answers all three questions. The point Jesus was making is that God is Our Father, our Teacher etc. We regard earthly fathers and teachers as subject to Him and open to questioning. The incident mentioned in Matthew's Gospel addresses a scenario where this principle had been forgotten or abused.
__________________
"Here lies an atheist; all dressed up and no place to go." Epitaph in Maryland cemetery
Hello all,
I have a question for you. In Matt. 23, Jesus seems to be against the use of religious titles, including the term "rabbi", which quite literally means "my great one", applied to anyone but himself. It is interesting because Jesus uses three of the main terms applied to the religious leadership at his time.
You would be correct in raising an eyebrow at Matthew 23:8. It's hard to imagine a Jewish Pharasaic Rabbi telling his talmidim not to be called Rabbi. It's worthy to note that the earliest Greek manuscripts don't have the words "the Mashiach" in that verse at all.
You would be correct in raising an eyebrow at Matthew 23:8. It's hard to imagine a Jewish Pharasaic Rabbi telling his talmidim not to be called Rabbi. It's worthy to note that the earliest Greek manuscripts don't have the words "the Mashiach" in that verse at all.
I seriously doubt Jesus was a Pharisee. Yes, some of his teachings agree with that of the Pharisaic sect. Others differ greatly, and are closer to other sects. In fact, there are more parallels with the Qumran sect than with the Pharisees.
The term "Rabbi" was not exclusive to the Pharisees in the times of Jesus.
Even if he wouldn't apply the term to himself, he didn't seem to object it. But that's beside the point of my question, as Jesus does play a prominent role in the faith of Christianity.
Kol tov,
Fremen
__________________ Jewish, Zionist, and Free Thinker.
The more ancient understanding of that text is somewhat different here. He is not speaking against titles, but against ascribing roles to men which ultimately apply to God. There's a whole bunch of articles supporting the more ancient understanding and explaining it deeper on the web.
With all due respect, if Jesus wanted to say such a thing, why didn't he say it clearly? It seems to me that at face value his teaching is against religious titles.
The use of titles is not forbidden, as Jesus Himself (eg. calling Nicodemus "teacher") and His apostles used titles. The words used to describe roles are also used as titles in Christianity- eg. bishop (episcopos).
I don't think forbidden, I think discouraged. I don't see any examples in the NT of his disciples making use of religious titles. I am aware that the words are used in Christianity as titles, but it seems to be a change in their original purpose, doesn't it? A zaken (elder) is not a title. A zaken is a role which is restricted to one community, not a title. In fact, in some communities the zakanim serve terms which expire.
Kol tov,
Fremen
__________________ Jewish, Zionist, and Free Thinker.
Hello all,
I have a question for you. In Matt. 23, Jesus seems to be against the use of religious titles, including the term "rabbi", which quite literally means "my great one", applied to anyone but himself. It is interesting because Jesus uses three of the main terms applied to the religious leadership at his time.
The "Av"/Father would be a term used for the de-facto spiritual leader of the Sanhedrin, as the "Nasi" was more administrative than anything else.
The terms "Rabbi" and "Rabban", literally "My/Our Great One", were applied to teachers who gathered many followers. A "Rabbi" whose teachings became greatly widespread would become a "Rabban" in latter generations.
The term "Master" would most likely refer to the term "Moreh", which was the Essene title for their own leader, the "Teacher of Righteousness".
There seems also to be a sort of a mild word-play on the term "cohen harosh" (head priest, which is the same as "cohen hagadol", that is "high priest"), when it is said that Christ is the "head", which would probably be seen as a call not to submit to the corrupt leadership of the Sadducees. The Essenes had a similar word-play, calling such a leader the "cohen hareisha" (evil priest), rather than the "cohen harosh".
In fact, this seems consistent with the rest of the narrative of the New Testament. I don't see Paul, Peter and James displaying or making use of any religious title whatsoever. I hear a lot of Messianics calling Paul "Rabbi Shaul" and while it is certain he was educated as such, why does he not refer to himself as such?
When looking at the "titles" in display in the New Testament, such as shephard/pastor, deacon and bishop, they all seem much more like roles than titles.
A shephard was simply one who oversaw the welfare of people, either physically or spiritually. It would most likely refer to those who did bikur cholim, or who patiently sat with others to tend to their needs.
A deacon in the Aramaic is called a "shamash", which is the older word for the office of a "gabbai". Essentially, people who helped in the preparation/execution of the liturgy of a religious meeting. Those people would likely distribute prayer books, control attendance, maybe clean the place, get the food ready, etc. Again, much more a role than a title.
A bishop is likely to be the word "zaken", which is basically a person who is older and thus more mature in religious affairs. Such people usually served as judges and members of the Beit Din for the purpose of orienting the younger. Again, not a title at all.
So my questions are:
1) Am I missing something here? If so, would you kindly point me to understanding?
2) How do you see this issue of religious titles?
3) Why does Christianity with so many titles seem so far off from the teachings of Jesus in this respect?
Kol tov,
Fremen
The terms rabbi, master, and father, are warnings. Ask yourself, what do those three have in common?
With all due respect, if Jesus wanted to say such a thing, why didn't he say it clearly? It seems to me that at face value his teaching is against religious titles.
I thought it was clear given the context. Oh well.
I don't think forbidden, I think discouraged. I don't see any examples in the NT of his disciples making use of religious titles. I am aware that the words are used in Christianity as titles, but it seems to be a change in their original purpose, doesn't it? A zaken (elder) is not a title. A zaken is a role which is restricted to one community, not a title. In fact, in some communities the zakanim serve terms which expire.
Kol tov,
Fremen
I don't think this is a good approach to the science (if you could call it that) of etymology. Titles almost always come from role/function. Take for example a "doctor". The word "doctor" comes from the Latin word docere which means to "teach". So, "doctor" means teacher. As far as I know the first people given the formal title of doctor were all church theologians- people who taught got the official role and thus the title. Now, of course someone can say that they want to be a doctor when they grow up- and we tend to think of the medical profession although teacher still applies too.
We know that Jesus wasn't opposed to the use of titles as pointed out earlier in His conversation with Nicodemus. He even allowed Caesar his title. Likewise, His followers used terms like "the Twelve" or "The Apostles" as titles for the apostolic group.
So, words like epsicopos mean "overseer", but the overseer of a group of churches does more than just "look over" them, right? He ordains (as shown in the Book of Titus), baptises, celebrates the eucharist etc. Thus, the word episcopos in scripture (and thus tradition follows) means more than just overseer, and therefore it is not merely a role description but clearly a synecdoche-one of those words where the part describes the whole. Being that kind of word, it is a title. It certainly is regarded as one now.
The same principle is even more clear in the word presbyteros. It literally means elder in terms of age. Obviously this is title, not a role. The church doesn't ordain men to be "old of age", but to do the job of a presbyter. The church recognises their maturity in the faith to do the job, not their length of years.
So- here's the bottom line from the Christian perspective on the Christian text: Jesus doesn't forbid the use of titles. Titles are used in scripture for certain roles.
__________________
"Here lies an atheist; all dressed up and no place to go." Epitaph in Maryland cemetery
Linear Mode
