Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • @curiousdannil-I agree with you and I hoped you could expand on that....I believe the clue is "but I say this..", in other words not looking for a consensus of opinion but having a revelation of the truth. The fact that the scribes had authority isn't the question, but how they used it is...+1 Commented Mar 10, 2014 at 11:45
  • What do you mean with "rabbis of the time"? Simeon b. Eleazar lived a long time after Jesus. Commented Mar 11, 2014 at 19:59
  • Fair point. Do we have the words of the rabbi's of Jesus' time? I'm not familiar with this very much at all. Commented Mar 11, 2014 at 22:14
  • 1
    Rabbis (in the sense that this term acquired after the destruction of the second Temple) did not exist at the time of Jesus. "Rabbis of the time" is an anachronism. Commented Mar 12, 2014 at 20:06
  • @ curiousdannii, @ fdb, "Rabbis" certainly did exist during the time of Jesus and the Apostles! And before. The two rabbis quoted existed 30 B.C.-10A.D. (Hillel and Shammai). Other pairs were Jose ben Joezer 160 B.C. and Jose ben Johanan...Joshua benPerahyah and Nittai the Arbelite (120 B.C.), etc. Then Rabban Gamaliel, Simeon ben Gamaliel, etc. For a short list of rabbis, see J. Julius Scpott, Jr., Jewish Backgrounds of the N.T. chapter 9, "Scribes and Tradition".---"Rabbis of the time" is NOT an anachronism! Commented Jan 16, 2025 at 21:18