THE WORDS OF JESUS IN THE LIGHT OF POST-BIBLICAL JEWISH WRITINGS AND

THE ARAMAIC LANGUAGE

BY GUSTAV DALMAN

“MASTER” AS A DESIGNATION OF JESUS

It is unnecessary to give proofs that “rabbi” was the usual form of address with which the learned were greeted. For the time of Jesus its use is expressly attested in Matthew 23:7.

The official statement of the Gaonim, Sherira and Hai (c. 1000 A.D.), concerning rabbinic titles has been the source of much confusion. According to Aruch, their verdict was as follows: “The earliest generations, who were very exalted, required no rabbinic title, neither “rabban” nor “rabbi” nor “rav”, and there was no difference in respect of this usage between Babylon and Palestine. For, take Hillel, who came from Babylon; no rabbinic title was coupled with his name. These were esteemed like the prophets, of whom it was said, ‘As Haggai the prophet has said’, ‘Ezra came not from Babylon’; in their case no rabbinic title is given when the name is mentioned. And, so far as we know, this custom of adding a title begins with the “princes” (the presidents of the Sanhedrin) from the time of Rabban Gamaliel the elder, and of Rabban Shimeon his son, who perished at the destruction of the Second Temple, and of Rabban Yokhanan ben Zakkai, who were all “princes”, and in the same period the title “rabbi” began to be used among those who were duly ordained--Rabbi Zadok and Rabbi Eleazor ben Yakov, and the custom extended itself through the scholars of Rabbn Yokhanan ben Zakkai. And by general consent, “rabbi” is reckoned to be higher than “rav”, and “Rabban” higher than “rabbi”; and still higher than “rabban” is the simple name; and we find none called “Rabban” except in the number of the “princes”. At the close of the Talmud tractate Eduyyoth, in a Tosephta there is given also the following explanation: ‘He who has scholars and his scholars likewise have scholars, is called Rabbi; if his own scholars are forgotten, he is called Rabban; if both the first and the second generation of scholars are forgotten, he is called merely by his own name.’ Nevertheless we find that the title Rabban is given only to “princes”, Rabban Gamaliel, Rabban Shimeon, Rabban Yokhanan ben Zakkai, Rabbneu ha-kodesh (Judah I).”

But this rabbinic attempt to arrange the various titles in an order of merit is made to depend upon the estimate formed by successors of the personages who receive the titles, and is consequently of no historical value.

The actual condition of the rabbinical literature itself requires a different explanation. Since only Gamaliel I, Shimeon ben Gamaliel I, Yokhanan ben Zakkai, Gamaliel II, Shimeon ben Gamaliel II, are called Rabban, while after their time the title “Nasi” appears to take the place of the former designation, it may be concluded that “Rabban” was the earlier Jewish name for the head of the Jews recognized by the Roman government. In Latin his title was “patriarcha”, in Greek “ethnarch”. In theory the only strange circumstance is that Gamaliel I and his son, who lived before the destruction of Jerusalem, should also receive the title Rabban, while apart from their case the magnates of that age not only do not receive this title, but no corresponding epithet at all. To meet this, however, the conjecture is allowable that in their case the title was subsequently transferred to them from their successors. This explanation is more plausible because on other grounds it is impossible to be always certain whether the first or the second of the persons who bore the same names is really meant.

The fact that after the destruction of Jerusalem the teachers of the Law always received the title “rabbi” is supposed to be explained by the custom of referring to one’s own teacher as such (and those who did not have an uninterrupted succession of disciples could not possibly be spoken of as “rabbi”). According to Sanhedrin 100a, Yokhanan (c. 250 A.D.) said that Gehazi was punished because, in the presence of the king (II Kings 8:5), he had spoken of his teacher Elisha simply by name. In actual fact, of course, men spoke of and to the learned using the form “rabbi” even before 70 A.D., as the gospels themselves prove.

From the fact that the gospels so frequently employ “teacher” as a form of address (and we assume that “rabbi” was the original word), it must be inferred that even then this was a current designation of a teacher. It must not, however, be forgotten that “rav” was also capable of other uses, in accordance with its literal meaning, “great”. In Hebraising style “rav” means the “master”, as distinguished from the “slave” (“ebed”), Avot 1.1, Taanith 25b, Shir. Rabba 1.1 In Onkelos we find “rab” substituted for “nasi” (“prince”), in Gen. 3:24, Numbers 3:24, Exodus 22:27, Exodus 16:22, Numbers 7:2. A “brigand chief” is referred to as “rabbi”, in Baba Mezia 84a. In Palmyra the leader of a caravan is called “rav” (de Vogue, 7). The proper style of a king of Israel is “adonenu rabbenu” (Tosephta Sanhedrin 4.4), and this title “rabbenu” is considered the equivalent of the royal title. The Samaritans addressed God Himself as “rabbi” (“my master”). Hence “rabbi” is a deeply-deferential form of address, the full force of which is nowhere expressed by the Greek for “teacher” (“didaskale”). “My commander” would barely be sufficient to translate the term. Someone addressed as “rabbi” is thereby acknowledged to be the superior of the speaker. To some extent the Latin “magister” corresponds, as it denotes superiors of various kinds, among others the teacher especially.

The term Rabban is a derivative from “rav”, and not, as has sometimes been suggested, from a plural suffix added to “rav” (to form “our teacher”). In the Targum of Onkelos this word is sometimes used for the Hebrew “sar” (“prince”), Gen. 37:6, Exodus 18:21,25; Deut. 20:9, and especially for a military commander. In Avot 1.10, “rabbanut” means “mastery”, “lordship”. As already observed, Rabban was the title of the Palestinian patriarchs in the second century.Later, however, Rabban became in Palestine a very common designation of “teacher” generally; see Jerusalem Baba Mezia 8d, Ter. 46a.

THE SYNOPTIC USE OF THE TERM “MASTER”

Jesus forbade his disciples to be called “rabbi” on the ground that he alone was their “Master” (Matt. 23:8). In so doing he recognized that in reference to himself the designation was expressive of the real relation between them. The form of address, “good master”, however, he refused to allow (Mark 10:17ff, Luke 18:18ff). This address was at variance with actual usage and, moreover, in the mouth of the speaker it was mere insolent flattery. It is related (Taanith 24b) how Eleazor of Hagronya (c. 340 A.D.) dreamed that a voice called out to him, “Good greeting to the good Rabbi from the good Lord, who in his goodness does good to his people”. Here, of course, the epithet “good master” is reckoned a high distinction, especially as it bestows to him the same quality as to God. The like designation was declined by Jesus, because he was unwilling that anyone should thoughtlessly deal with such an epithet; and here, as always, the honor due to the Father was the first consideration with Jesus.

Further, the address “good” need not lead anyone to think specifically of moral goodness. It need not refer to God’s moral perfection, but to his kindness. When it is maintained that God is good (Psalm 25:8, 34:9, 135:3), it is His benevolent character that is emphasized. In this sense also Jewish literature uses “tov” (“good”) of God. If the word should be so understood in the case of Jesus (i.e., that only God is “good”, the source of all kindness and benevolence), then there is no need to assume that either Jesus or the young man who inquired of him was referring to moral perfection, as opposed to kindness.

Jesus also forbids his disciples (Matt. 23:8-10) to have themselves called “father”. We never find “my father” as an address to a teacher. The Targum to the prophets has even set aside the reverent address (II Kings 2:12, 5:13, 6:21, 13:14) used in reference to Elijah and Elisha, and inserted, where Israelites are speaking, “rabbi”; and when a heathen is speaking, “my lord”. Perhaps this strange procedure may be explained by a passage in Beracoth 16b. A baraitha is there understood in accordance with the context to imply that in naming only Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob “fathers”, it is forbidden to call anyone else by the name. What this baraitha really implies is that these three alone should bear the honorary title of Patriarchs of Israel. But the wise men of the ancient world are sometimes called “the fathers of the world”. (Eduy. 1.4, Jerusalem Shaklim 47b).

The form “rabboni” (Mark 10:51; also in John 20:16) cannot have been materially distinguished from the form of address, “rabbi”. In addition to this, the context in John implies that by using this form of address, Mary desires to resume the old attitude towards the “Master”, which is not permitted by Jesus; whereas the appeal of Thomas, “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28) is accepted.

In the narrative of John’s gospel there may be seen intimations of the important fact that the primitive community never ventured to call Jesus “our teacher” after he had been exalted to the throne of God. The title “rabbi”, expressing the relation of the disciple to the teacher, vanished from use; and there remained only the designation “Lord”, the servant’s appropriate acknowledgement of his Lord.

“THE CONSOLATION OF ISRAEL”

The expression “to look for the consolation of Israel” has its parallels in Bar. Apoc. 44:7, “You will see the consolation of Zion”, and in the Targumic, “they who long for the years of the consolations” (Tar. II Samuel 23:4, Jer. 31:6). In these instances, according to Targum II Samuel 23:1, “the days of the consolations” are identical with “the end of the age”, that is, the establishment of the messianic kingdom. A formula put into the mouth of Simeon ben Shetach in Shebu. 34a (as early as 100 B.C.), which is also used by Eleazor ben Zadok (Jerusalem Keth. 35c, circa 100 A.D.), is thus expressed, “I shall see the consolation!” And a baraitha in Taanith 11a pronounces the following verdict against anyone who in a time of distress separates himself from the community: “Let him not see the consolation of the community!”. See also the Targum Isaiah 4:3, “he shall see the consolation of Jerusalem”, and 33:20, “your eyes shall see the consolation of Jerusalem”. “Consolation” means, throughout these instances, not just the resurrection, but redemption in its fullest extent.

THE FATHER IN HEAVEN

This expression is not known in the dicta of the rabbis until the end of the first Christian century, and afterwards. The “heavenly Father” is conceived as a counterpart of the “earthly father”, as appears from a saying of Shimon ben Yokhai (c. 130 A.D.) He declares that a wise son not only makes his “earthly father” glad, but also his “heavenly father”. Akiva (c. 120 A.D.) says (Avoth 3.14), “The Israelites are beloved (by God), for they are called God’s children; [it is due to] the exceptional love [of God that] it was made known to them that they are called God’s children, as it is said (Deut. 14:1), ‘You are the children of the LORD, your God.’ “ The same idea is expressed by Gamaliel II (c. 100 A.D.), who declared concerning Israel, “since the beloved children provoked their heavenly Father to anger, He set over them an impious king.” the Israelites are full of confidence in having recourse to this “heavenly Father”. It is said in Rosh ha-Shana 3.8, that during the battle with Amalek it was not the uplifting of the hands of Moses that procured the victory for Israel, nor yet the serpent set up by Moses that brought them healing, but the fact “that the Israelites lifted up their eyes and directed their hearts towards their heavenly father”. He it is who hears the prayer of Israel; hence the Kaddish says, “May the prayers and tears of all Israel be accepted before their heavenly Father”. When every other refuge and hope fails, there remains for Israel nothing but the cry, “upon whom shall we put our trust? upon our Father in heaven.”

Yehuda ben Tema (before A.D. 200) gives the exhortation, “Be bold as a leopard, quick as an eagle, swift as a gazelle, and strong as a lion, to do the will of your heavenly Father”. (Avot 5.20; Pesachim 112a) Nathan (c. 160 A.D.), commenting upon Exodus 20:6 in the light of the persecutions under Hadrian, said (Mechilta 68b; Vay. Rabba 32; Midrash Psalms 12.5), “ ‘those who love Me and keep My commandments’--these are the Israelites who dwell in Palestine and give up their life for the commandments. Why are you killed?--because I circumcise my son. Why are you burned? Because I have read in the Torah. Why are you crucified? Because I have eaten unleavened bread. Why are you scourged? Because I have done the will of my heavenly Father. This is what is written (Zech. 13:6): And they say to him, what mean these wounds? And he answers, they were inflicted upon me in the house of those who caused me to be beloved--these wounds have brought it about that I am beloved by my Father in heaven.”

Simon ben Eleazor (c. A.D. 200) explained the statement in the Law regarding mixed textures, as implying that whoever wears such a garment “alienates himself from his heavenly Father”. (Kil. 9.8) In the Aramaic Haggadah for the Feast of Weeks, it is said of the Joseph of the Old Testament story that “his face was turned towards the wife of his master, but his heart was directed to his heavenly Father.”

The gradual adoption of the expression “our Father in heaven” as a popular substitute for the name of God is shown only after the life and ministry of Jesus. Did Jesus adopt a mode of expression common in his own day, or was this his own contribution, which then influenced the rest of Judaism?

Whatever the answer, it should be remembered that Judaism as it existed in the time of the Second Temple should not be depicted according to the developed system of subsequent rabbinism, least of all when the excesses of the latter are set up as the norm of Judaism, or when all traces of genuine religious feeling are either overlooked or eliminated.

BEFORE THE ANGELS, BEFORE GOD

Over the sinner that repents there is “joy in the presence of the angels of God”. (Luke 15:10) By this is meant that there will be joy in the presence of God, or, strictly: God will rejoice.

The Son of Man will acknowledge his confessors and disown those who have denied him before the angels of God. (Luke 12:8ff) Matthew 10:32 has, “before my Father in heaven”, which is probably the original, whereas the angels are substituted merely to avoid the use of the divine name.

Even the sparrows are not forgotten “in the sight of God” (Luke 12:6). Here Matthew has “in the sight of your Father’ (Matt. 10:29). This recalls Jerusalem Shebi. 38d, “not a bird perishes apart from heaven”. [Perhaps this is another instance, of which so many could be cited, of an expression used by Jesus finding its way into the common Jewish usage.--ed]

According to Ishmael ben Elisha (c. 110 A.D.), “there is joy in the presence of ‘the Place’ when those who provoke Him to anger disappear in the world.” (Siphre Numbers 117). [The younger Ishmael ben Elisha was a pupil of R. Akiva, and a fierce opponent of the Jewish-Christian “heretics”. It is possible, therefore, that he is here simply paraphrasing a well-known statement of Jesus as a riposte to the Jewish Christians.--ed.] Similarly, it is said (Siphre 139a) that when “the Place” judges the nations, there is joy in His presence; but that when he judges Israel, it is only with regret.”

THE SON OF MAN WHO COMES WITH THE CLOUDS

A Messianic interpretation of Daniel 7:13 appears to have been assumed by Akiva (c. 120 A.D.) when he spoke of the “thrones” of Daniel 7:9 as prepared for God and for David (i.e., the Messiah)--Sanhedrin 38b. This statement of Akiva recalls the description of the Sefer Hechaloth, which says that David, adorned with a crown in which are embedded the sun, the moon, and the twelve signs of the zodiac, takes his seat in heaven upon a throne which is erected for him in front of the throne of God. Joshua ben Levy (c. 250 A.D.) brought forward the alternative that, if Israel were worthy, then the Messiah could come as in Daniel 7:13, with the clouds of heaven; but if Israel were unworthy, then he would come riding upon an ass, as said in Zech. 9:9. (Sanhedrin 98b) Samuel ben Nachman (c. 270 A.D.) says (Midrash on Psalms, 21:7) that, according to Daniel 7:13, the angels accompany the Messiah as far as their precincts allow, while God then conducts him to Himself, according to Jeremiah 30:21.

It is a mere suggestion of Daniel 7:13 that appears in the Jerusalem Targum II on Exodus 12:42, which says that the Messiah will lead his people like Moses, “on the summit of the cloud”. The cloud is there conceived as accompanying the Messiah during his activity. On account of the word “cloud” (“anan”), it is said that the person named “Anani”, who is the last in the Davidic line in I Chronicles 3:24, will be the Messiah (Midrash Tanhuma; Ber. 70b; and in the Targum on the passage). Probably we should also mention here the Messianic name, “Son of the clouds” (“bar nifle”).

As for the Messiah, two ways of regarding him were possible. On the one hand, he might be looked upon as indispensable in the scheme of the world, so that it could be said that God had not only, long ages ago, contemplated the provision of a Messiah, but had actually created him. On the other hand, it was also possible to assume from the wonderful manner of his advent, that he was not an ordinary child of earth. As a matter of fact, the earlier rabbinism was content with holding, on the basis of Psalm 72:17ff, the pre-existence of only the name of the Messiah. Since the Messiah had to appear as a fully-developed man, the opinion generally was that until his manifestation he should remain unknown upon the earth. (See John 7:27; Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 8.110; Targum Micah 4.8; Jerusalem Ber. 5a) Before his appearance he had to undergo some sudden metamorphosis. Others supposed that he should be translated into Paradise, and should then return to make his advent. [Perhaps this was a source for one of the Samaritan names for the Messiah, “He who will come again”.--ed ] This was regarded as all the more likely if he were considered to be a return to earth of David (Jerusalem Beracoth 5a--baraitha) or Hezekiah (Ber. 28b).

MESSIAH

There is no doubt that Jesus solemnly acknowledged as his own the position which prophecy ascribes to the Messiah of Israel. He affirmed his Jewish kingship before Pilate; and before the Sanhedrin he gave to his Messianic confession such a form as offered them a pretext for delivering him up to death according to Jewish law. If the assertion of a Messiahship could not, per se, have led in itself to a death sentence, the following procedure suggests another way such a case may be seen. A legend related in Sanhedrin 93b says, “Bar Koziba held sway for two and a half years. When he said to the Rabbis, ‘I am Messiah’, they answered him, ‘It is written of the Messiah that he discerns and judges; let us see whether he can do so.’ When they perceived that this was beyond his power, they then put him to death.” [Recall the incident when the soldiers struck a blindfolded Jesus, and asked him to prophesy, and tell them who had struck him.--ed.] A verdict such as we are dealing with would therefore not result from any stipulation of law, but from the duty of a law court to take precautions according to circumstances for the well-being of the people, even by inflicting an exceptional sentence of death. A mere claim to the Messianic title would never have been construed as “blasphemy”. [However, it is possible that Jesus pronounced the Divine Name when he said that he came “at the right hand of Power”--Matt. 26:64); that is, that “Power” here is only a euphemism for the tetragramaton, which Jesus actually employed. Immediately after this the High Priest declared that he had heard blasphemy--of which unauthorized speaking of the Divine Name was one example.-ed.]

In any case, there can be no doubt as to which role Jesus assigned himself, or that he saw himself as the Messiah. He assumed the right to judge the world, and to forgive sins--an act which was also considered blasphemous. (Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24) He claimed to be a new lawgiver (Matt. 5:21-48), and that in a manner which Jewish feeling regarded as an invasion of the divine prerogative; for, unlike Moses, who spoke in the name of the Lord, he announced in his own name what should henceforward be regarded as law. His miracles were done not through prayer, still less by muttering spells with the names of God, angels, and demons, but by bidding the lame to walk, the deaf to hear, the leprous to be clean, the dead to arise, and the storm to be stilled. To follow him was of more consequence then even parental duties, and on one’s relation to him depends eternal weal and woe. He held himself to be exempt from the payment of the Temple tax because his was not a subject’s position. (Matt. 17:26) He entered into the Temple as its Master. (Matt. 21:12ff; Mark 11:15ff; Luke 19:45ff). Clothed in divine majesty, he will return again. And in full agreement with this position comes the declaration before the Sanhedrin. He was the Messiah, but in a sense which appeared blasphemous to the narrow horizon of contemporary Judaism.

SON OF DAVID

The criterion for deciding a right of succession in a family is, according to Baba Bathra 8.6, whether or not the father is willing to recognize anyone as his son. A case such as that of Jesus was, of course, not anticipated by the law; but if no other human fatherhood was alleged, then the child must have been regarded as bestowed by God upon the house of Joseph, for a betrothed woman, according to Israelitish law, already occupied the same status as a wife. The divine will, in the case of this birth, conferred upon the child its own right of succession whic, once Joseph recognized it, would not have been disputed even by a Jewish judge.

But perhaps the most convincing evidence that the Holy Family was really possessed of Davidic descent is offered by Paul. As the scribes held that the Messiah must be a descendant of David, it is certain that the opponents of Jesus would make the most of any knowledge they could procure, showing that Jesus certainly or probably did not fulfill this condition. And there can be no doubt that Paul, as a persecutor of the Christians, would be instructed in regard to this point. As he, after mingling freely with members of the Holy Family in Jerusalem, shows that he entertained no such doubt on this point, it must be assumed that no objection to it was known to him. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find a single trace of conscious refutation of Jewish attacks, based on the idae tha the descent of Jesus from David was defective.

There is, moreover, nothing very improbable in the fact that families known to be Davidic should have existed in the time of Jesus. Little stress, of course, can be laid on the pretensions to be Davidic advance by the Jewish families of Abrabanel and Yakhya in Spain. Nor can we trust much to the pedigrees which trace the family of the princes of the captivity in Babylon back to David. Five discordant genealogies of this sort are known, the most ancient among them being given in Seder Olam Zota, which dates perhaps from the ninth century. But despite the worthlessness of these data, it may be concluded that at least Huna (c. 200 A.D.), the chief of the exiles, was really reckoned to be a descendant of David. This, indeed, is not proved by the baraitha (Hor. 11b; Sanhedrin 5a), known even to Origen (De princip 4.3), which found a fulfillment of Genesis 49:10 in the fact that the chief of the exiles in Babylon had a recognized legal authority, and that the patriarchs of Palestine possessed a faculty of teaching approved by the State. From this at most could be inferred merely the belief in a descent from the tribe of Judah. And Judah I says that his contemporary, Huna, merely that on his father’s side he was descended from the tribe of Judah. (Jerusalem Kil. 32b; Jerusalem Keth. 35a; Ber. Rabba 33) But if Judah I was reckoned a descendant of David in the judgement of Rab of Babylon (Sanhedrin 56b), while Judah himself, on a previous occasion, only called himself only a descendant on his mother’s side of Judah, one might suppose that he really meant Davidic descent in his own case, as in that of Huna. (Huna was a kinsman of Khiyya (Jerusalem Kil. 32b), who was likewise considered to be a descendant of David. )

In regard to the paternal descent of Judah I, he declared himself to be of the tribe of Benjamin; and thus, Paul, being also of the tribe of Benjamin, was of kindred descent with his teacher Gamaliel, the ancestor of Judah. A family register found in Jerusalem derived Hillel, an ancestor of Judah (Hor. 11b), from David; and Khiyya from Sephatiah, son of David and Abital; whereas,, according to Keth. 62b, Judah springs directly from this son of David, while Khiyya is traced to Shimei, a brother of David (II Sam. 21:21). This representation admits of being reconciled with the statement of Judah himself in this fashion, that either Hillel himself was descended from David on the mother’s side, or else that the patriarchs were only maternal descendants from Hillel; the latter being quite possible, because the connection between Hillel and Gamaliel I cannot be fully exhibited.

Further, Hillel and Khiyya belonged by birth to Babylon, so that all these traditions of Davidic origin point to a region where particular certainty was attached to family traditions. From all this it is not, of course, to be concluded that Khiyya, Judah I, and Huna were certainly descendants of David; but it is obvious that about 200 A.D. there were several families to which the tradition of Davidic descent still clung.