Jesus, Son of ... an architect?

[sabriner]

I thought this was really interesting:

Article Here

Some excerpts (do read the article… there’s a lot more):

In the English translation of the Bible Joseph has always been described as a ‘just man’. Dr Bradford discovered that the word ‘man’ has been added and is not in the original Greek text at all. He also found that the origins of the word translated into ‘just’ more accurately translates to describe Joseph’s position in society- most likely as a scholar who helped teach the Torah and was involved in the judiciary.
Further to this, Dr Bradford re-examined Joseph’s position as a carpenter. Again, he concluded there had been a mistranslation and that the Greek word ‘tekton’- which describes Joseph’s work- more accurately means master builder or architect.

In about 22BC, King Herod ordered that a gigantic Jewish temple should be built in Jerusalem, the remains of which makes up the Wailing Wall. Because only Jewish priests could build the sacred parts of the building, Herod conscripted ten thousand skilled craftsmen to assist and instruct one thousand Jewish priests in the skills of master craftsmen.
Dr Bradford said: 'Statistically, given that ten thousand skilled craftsmen were employed there is every likelihood that Joseph, who was a devout Jew, was one of these ‘tektons’, skilled at working with large structures of stone and wood…

How credible are the statements about scripture? It does seem to make a lot of sense, but for 2000 years and the Church never really pointed this out (at least to my limited knowledge).

Paints a slightly different picture of Jesus than I usually hold in my mind. Though, if it turns out to be true I’d accept it. It doesn’t mean that Jesus wasn’t poor. Right?

 

[NotWorthy]

Would a rich man resort to having his son born in a cave? I mean, “Money talks” was just as true back then as it is now.

Also, the problem with this is that the Greek didn’t NEED to be translated for 350 years. Did the original Greek-speaking Church Fathers “mis-read” this as well?

 

[speight]

my thought is that if god is the master architect/ craftsman then yeah so is god the son

 

[patrick457]

How credible are the statements about scripture? It does seem to make a lot of sense, but for 2000 years and the Church never really pointed this out (at least to my limited knowledge).

Paints a slightly different picture of Jesus than I usually hold in my mind. Though, if it turns out to be true I’d accept it. It doesn’t mean that Jesus wasn’t poor. Right?

The second one’s nothing really surprising. That the word tekton has a broader range of meaning than the traditional ‘carpenter’ was already known for quite some time.

Sorry for the rather shameless plug, but I’ll quote from a former post of mine:

Tekton, the word traditionally translated as ‘carpenter’ in the New Testament, actually just meant ‘someone who works with his hands’, i.e. a laborer or a craftsman. If you wanted to say someone was a woodworker or a stonemason, you would have to be more specific: something like ‘a tekton who works in wood/stone’.
I guess Joseph and Jesus were like that. They were not just woodworkers like how many carpenters are today, but were probably also something like stonemasons or construction workers. In a place where stones were more numerous than high-quality wood - which were mostly imported and are thus unlikely to surface in a small town such as Nazareth (the wood they got at their backyard is enough to make yokes, plows and simple furniture, but that’s about it) - these would have been decent ways to make a living.
Some even think it likely that Jesus was also a boat builder and repairer at one point, citing His close relationship with the fishermen in the Capernaum area.

The first one is a bit new to me, and I’m a bit hesitant to accept it without researching it further. But considering that many sages of the time - just because one is a scholar on the Law does not automatically make one wealthy at the time; many Pharisees were commoners who lived simple lives, for example - also had jobs to support themselves (for instance, St. Paul was a tentmaker, Shammai was a carpenter, and Hillel was a woodcutter) it does not seem so strange to me if St. Joseph was actually a sort of rabbi who doubled as a tekton in his spare time.

Personally, I don’t believe Jesus was filthy rich - despite desperate attempts by some ‘prosperity preachers’ out there to make it appear like so - but I also don’t think that the Holy Family was ‘dirt poor’ either.

 

[patrick457]

Would a rich man resort to having his son born in a cave? I mean, “Money talks” was just as true back then as it is now.

Which reminds me since we’re talking about possible popular misconceptions : despite the quite well-known image of Joseph and Mary being turned away by the innkeepers, the word usually translated as ‘inn’ in Luke 2:7 is actually different from the one Luke later uses to describe the inn where the Good Samaritan dropped the badly-beaten man off (pandocheion). The word, katalyma - the same word in the gospel used to refer to the ‘upper room’ where Jesus and company held the Last Supper in 22:11 - most likely probably meant an area in a private house where guests are entertained.

So, there was no rude innkeepers shooing the Holy Family off as we commonly think of it: there was a family who offered them the stables of their own house (which could be a cave!) because a room filled to the brim with other guests would simply not be suitable for childbirth.

Also, the problem with this is that the Greek didn’t NEED to be translated for 350 years. Did the original Greek-speaking Church Fathers “mis-read” this as well?

Now this is the crucial question.

 

[LilyM]

The second one’s nothing really surprising. That the word tekton has a broader range of meaning than the traditional ‘carpenter’ was already known for quite some time.

Sorry for the rather shameless plug, but I’ll quote from a former post of mine:

The first one is a bit new to me, and I’m a bit hesitant to accept it without researching it further. But considering that many sages of the time - just because one is a scholar on the Law does not automatically make one wealthy at the time; many Pharisees were commoners who lived simple lives, for example - also had jobs to support themselves (for instance, St. Paul was a tentmaker, Shammai was a carpenter, and Hillel was a woodcutter) it does not seem so strange to me if St. Joseph was actually a sort of rabbi who doubled as a tekton in his spare time.

Personally, I don’t believe Jesus was filthy rich - despite desperate attempts by some ‘prosperity preachers’ out there to make it appear like so - but I also don’t think that the Holy Family was ‘dirt poor’ either.

Remember, though, that when they went to present Jesus in the Temple they offered the absolute minimum sacrifice required.

Remember too, that the sacrifice to be offered when one’s child was presented was specified in scripture, divided according to wealth. A wealthy person gave X, a moderately well-off person gave Y and the poor gave two turtle doves, as did Joseph and Mary. Remember too that Jesus said two birds were worth a penny, ie very cheap.

The whole episode implies that they weren’t even moderately well-off, let alone wealthy.

Remember, too, how Jesus was treated with disdain by those in Nazareth, who well knew His family. If He’d been from a nice respectable middle- or upper-class family then they certainly wouldn’t have heaped quite so much scorn on Him.

Remember too His own attitude to wealth. It would’ve been easy for people to call Him out for hypocrisy if, for example, He had told the rich young man to sell everything he owned and He Himself, or His family, hadn’t lived up to this professed ideal of real poverty.

Finally, remember what happened to Mary after Jesus’ death - she went to live with John. Why would it be necessary or desirable for her to live with him if, as any moderately well-off woman would’ve done, she’d had a house of her own?

 

[wardrandolph]

Remember, though, that when they went to present Jesus in the Temple they offered the absolute minimum sacrifice required.

Remember too, that the sacrifice to be offered when one’s child was presented was specified in scripture, divided according to wealth. A wealthy person gave X, a moderately well-off person gave Y and the poor gave two turtle doves, as did Joseph and Mary. Remember too that Jesus said two birds were worth a penny, ie very cheap.

The whole episode implies that they weren’t even moderately well-off, let alone wealthy.

Remember, too, how Jesus was treated with disdain by those in Nazareth, who well knew His family. If He’d been from a nice respectable middle- or upper-class family then they certainly wouldn’t have heaped quite so much scorn on Him.

Remember too His own attitude to wealth. It would’ve been easy for people to call Him out for hypocrisy if, for example, He had told the rich young man to sell everything he owned and He Himself, or His family, hadn’t lived up to this professed ideal of real poverty.

Finally, remember what happened to Mary after Jesus’ death - she went to live with John. Why would it be necessary or desirable for her to live with him if, as any moderately well-off woman would’ve done, she’d had a house of her own?

Very good points.

 

[purplesunshine]

Remember, though, that when they went to present Jesus in the Temple they offered the absolute minimum sacrifice required.

The were still in a forgien land

Remember too, that the sacrifice to be offered when one’s child was presented was specified in scripture, divided according to wealth. A wealthy person gave X, a moderately well-off person gave Y and the poor gave two turtle doves, as did Joseph and Mary. Remember too that Jesus said two birds were worth a penny, ie very cheap.

The whole episode implies that they weren’t even moderately well-off, let alone wealthy.

Again, they were travelers in a land that was not theirs

Remember, too, how Jesus was treated with disdain by those in Nazareth, who well knew His family. If He’d been from a nice respectable middle- or upper-class family then they certainly wouldn’t have heaped quite so much scorn on Him.

Umm…they heaped scorn becuase Jesus was preaching and making the uncomfortable, not because he was poor.

Remember too His own attitude to wealth. It would’ve been easy for people to call Him out for hypocrisy if, for example, He had told the rich young man to sell everything he owned and He Himself, or His family, hadn’t lived up to this professed ideal of real poverty.

Joseph had died by this point. Mary and Jesus were soley dependant on Jesus’ work. Even though Jesus was in his 20’s he still would of been seen as young and inexperianced. That he had not taken a wife would also have invited scorn. So it’s quite possible that Jesus and Mary lived quite comfortably while Joseph was alive but had a sparser living once Joseph died.

Finally, remember what happened to Mary after Jesus’ death - she went to live with John. Why would it be necessary or desirable for her to live with him if, as any moderately well-off woman would’ve done, she’d had a house of her own?

No, she wouldn’t. This isn’t modern day America. Women couldn’t own property. Only males could. It didn’t matter if the male was 50 years old or 5 months old. She could of been the richest woman in the world but without a male around she would be penniless.

 

[timotheous123]

I checked this out and there is an mp3 link to a lecture the guy gave at www.templehouse-publishing.com
Seems the new connection is that Joseph Jesus’ (step)father trained the priests which King Herod needed to build the Temple. If so that would place Jesus at the heart of the Temple, which was the place of learning. Seems that 30 is the age Rabbis are given the all-clear to go public. So maybe the ‘missing years’ are not so mysterious after all. Jesus was called Rabbi often enough. What if he really was ordained as one? It wouldn’t alter the effect of what he did but it might help explain the way people related to him.
Remember, The holy family made the offering for the poor before receiving the Magi with their gold. This story is amazing as it elevates Jesus to a much more central place in his society. Wow!!

 

[patrick457]

I checked this out and there is an mp3 link to a lecture the guy gave at www.templehouse-publishing.com
Seems the new connection is that Joseph Jesus’ (step)father trained the priests which King Herod needed to build the Temple. If so that would place Jesus at the heart of the Temple, which was the place of learning. Seems that 30 is the age Rabbis are given the all-clear to go public. So maybe the ‘missing years’ are not so mysterious after all. Jesus was called Rabbi often enough. What if he really was ordained as one? It wouldn’t alter the effect of what he did but it might help explain the way people related to him.

I’d nitpick this, if I may.

In the 1st century, the title rabi was not used in the same sense as it is used today within modern Judaism.

The Hebrew word literally means “my lord” or “my great.” At the 1st century, the word was merely an unofficial and generic honorific which did not indicate any official appointment, usually used for teachers by their circle of students and adherents. Other terms for wise men and Torah scholars in use were “sage” (Hebrew: hakham, plural hakhamim; Greek: sophos) or “father” (Aramaic: 'abba). Out of these, only rabbi was exclusively used for Jewish teachers; non-Jewish scholars and holy men were also applied the title of sage and 'abba (the latter also being in use amongst Christians of the late Roman period).

It was apparently only after AD 70 that the meaning of the word changed slightly, when the focus of scholarly and spiritual leadership of the Jews shifted almost entirely to the sages of the Sanhedrin at the wake of the destruction of the Temple and the end of its cult. Only from that time did the term started to become an official title, borne by ordained and officially recognized scholars. The office of ‘rabbi’ and the whole concept of rabbinic ordination is thus one that only came to be after the time of Jesus.

 

[patrick457]

Remember, though, that when they went to present Jesus in the Temple they offered the absolute minimum sacrifice required.

Remember too, that the sacrifice to be offered when one’s child was presented was specified in scripture, divided according to wealth. A wealthy person gave X, a moderately well-off person gave Y and the poor gave two turtle doves, as did Joseph and Mary. Remember too that Jesus said two birds were worth a penny, ie very cheap.

The whole episode implies that they weren’t even moderately well-off, let alone wealthy.

Remember, too, how Jesus was treated with disdain by those in Nazareth, who well knew His family. If He’d been from a nice respectable middle- or upper-class family then they certainly wouldn’t have heaped quite so much scorn on Him.

Remember too His own attitude to wealth. It would’ve been easy for people to call Him out for hypocrisy if, for example, He had told the rich young man to sell everything he owned and He Himself, or His family, hadn’t lived up to this professed ideal of real poverty.

Finally, remember what happened to Mary after Jesus’ death - she went to live with John. Why would it be necessary or desirable for her to live with him if, as any moderately well-off woman would’ve done, she’d had a house of her own?

When I said ‘dirt poor’ it meant that Jesus was not destitute - somebody who was so stricken with poverty that begging was the only available option.

I’ve read that back then there was no true ‘middle class’ since the chasm was so great: you were either varying shades of ‘rich’ or ‘poor’. Jesus, His disciples and their associates were most likely belonging to what is called the ‘working poor’ class: those who did manual labor and earned just enough for their sustenance. Sometimes they could also be small landowners.

 

[John7]

That the word tekton has a broader range of meaning than the traditional ‘carpenter’

yea

1 Samuel 13:19 Now there was no blacksmith (tektwn sidhrou / worker of iron)…

2 Samuel 5:11 And Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, and carpenters, and masons…(tektonas xulen / workers of wood, tektonas lithwn / workers of stone respectively)

1 Kings 7:14 He was the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in bronze (tektwn kalkou)…

2 Kings 24:14 And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen (tektona)…

2 Kings 12:11 And they gave the money, being told, into the hands of them that did the work, that had the oversight of the house of the LORD: and they laid it out to the carpenters (tektosin xulwn / worker of wood)…

-Seems that in the LXX if tekton is by itself its translated as a ‘craftsman’, if followed by another word then its ‘worker of’ (eg worker of iron, worker of wood, worker of stone, worker of bronze etc.). So that if Jesus and his father were tekton’s then I’d guess they were like general craftsmen (able to work with any material).

 

[timotheous123]

Patrick 457. ‘‘It was apparently only after AD 70 that the meaning of the word changed slightly, when the focus of scholarly and spiritual leadership of the Jews shifted almost entirely to the sages of the Sanhedrin at the wake of the destruction of the Temple and the end of its cult. Only from that time did the term started to become an official title, borne by ordained and officially recognized scholars. The office of ‘rabbi’ and the whole concept of rabbinic ordination is thus one that only came to be after the time of Jesus.’’

According to our Lord the word was in (apparently official) use in Jesus’ time for spiritual masters - see Matthew 23:8 - ‘But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.’

LilyM ‘‘Remember too, that the sacrifice to be offered when one’s child was presented was specified in scripture, divided according to wealth. A wealthy person gave X, a moderately well-off person gave Y and the poor gave two turtle doves, as did Joseph and Mary. Remember too that Jesus said two birds were worth a penny, ie very cheap.’’

And ‘Remember too His own attitude to wealth. It would’ve been easy for people to call Him out for hypocrisy if, for example, He had told the rich young man to sell everything he owned and He Himself, or His family, hadn’t lived up to this professed ideal of real poverty.’

Actually his comments to the rich young man would have been much more meaningful if he was speaking from experience, and had given up wealth to adopt a poor lifestyle, as St Francis was to do. Remember St Paul: ‘For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.’ (2 Cor 8:9). Rich here is plousio meaning material wealth, which the context (giving) confirms. Remember the magi’s gifts? Jesus gave it up!

Cast your mind back to Christmas - remember the coming of the three kings? This occurred after the ‘offering of the poor’. Wealthy men brought to the Holy Family gifts fit in quality + surely also in quantity for an infant they knew to be a King.

And ‘‘Jesus was treated with disdain by those in Nazareth’’ - ''Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. (Mark 6:3) They were offended at his acquisition of amazing spiritual knowledge. He was not ‘disdained’ by them.

And: ‘‘Finally, remember what happened to Mary after Jesus’ death - she went to live with John. Why would it be necessary or desirable for her to live with him if, as any moderately well-off woman would’ve done, she’d had a house of her own?’’

Mary went to live with John because that is what her Son had said she should to, and also said to John. It is nothing to do with wealth, rather to do with holy obedience.

 

[timotheous123]

Patrick 457. ‘‘It was apparently only after AD 70 that the meaning of the word changed slightly, when the focus of scholarly and spiritual leadership of the Jews shifted almost entirely to the sages of the Sanhedrin at the wake of the destruction of the Temple and the end of its cult. Only from that time did the term started to become an official title, borne by ordained and officially recognized scholars. The office of ‘rabbi’ and the whole concept of rabbinic ordination is thus one that only came to be after the time of Jesus.’’

According to our Lord the word was in (apparently official) use in Jesus’ time for spiritual masters - see Matthew 23:8 - ‘But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.’

LilyM ‘‘Remember too, that the sacrifice to be offered when one’s child was presented was specified in scripture, divided according to wealth. A wealthy person gave X, a moderately well-off person gave Y and the poor gave two turtle doves, as did Joseph and Mary. Remember too that Jesus said two birds were worth a penny, ie very cheap.’’

And ‘Remember too His own attitude to wealth. It would’ve been easy for people to call Him out for hypocrisy if, for example, He had told the rich young man to sell everything he owned and He Himself, or His family, hadn’t lived up to this professed ideal of real poverty.’

Actually his comments to the rich young man would have been much more meaningful if he was speaking from experience, and had given up wealth to adopt a poor lifestyle, as St Francis was to do. Remember St Paul: ‘For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.’ (2 Cor 8:9). Rich here is plousio meaning material wealth, which the context (giving) confirms. Remember the magi’s gifts? Jesus gave it up!

Cast your mind back to Christmas - remember the coming of the three kings? This occurred after the ‘offering of the poor’. Wealthy men brought to the Holy Family gifts fit in quality + surely also in quantity for an infant they knew to be a King.

And ‘‘Jesus was treated with disdain by those in Nazareth’’ - ''Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. (Mark 6:3) They were offended at his acquisition of amazing spiritual knowledge. He was not ‘disdained’ by them.

And: ‘‘Finally, remember what happened to Mary after Jesus’ death - she went to live with John. Why would it be necessary or desirable for her to live with him if, as any moderately well-off woman would’ve done, she’d had a house of her own?’’

Mary went to live with John because that is what her Son had said she should to, and also said to John. It is nothing to do with wealth, rather to do with holy obedience.

The AMAZING thing about this (have you listened to the lecture at www.templehouse-publishing.com yet?) is the connection with the role of tekton’s (whatever they were exactly) in training 1000 Jewish priests to build in the sacred areas of the Temple of Herod - Joesphus says they were trained as tektons. A devout Jewish tekton like Joseph wpuld have been ideal + out of 10,000 total it is highly likely population-size wise that Joseph was included (in 18BC). If that is so it is one of the most important findings ever about our Lord and St Joseph. It puts them at the heart of the Temple, and explains why Jesus went there when lost age 12, + who looked after him (the priests Joseph had trained), and how he was so comfortable around the Doctors of the Law. It means he would have been highly educated, and an ‘insider’ to the Jewish system, rather than an uneducated itinerant. Does that make sense? It turns the conventional understanding on its head!

 

[NotWorthy]

Which reminds me since we’re talking about possible popular misconceptions : despite the quite well-known image of Joseph and Mary being turned away by the innkeepers, the word usually translated as ‘inn’ in Luke 2:7 is actually different from the one Luke later uses to describe the inn where the Good Samaritan dropped the badly-beaten man off (pandocheion). The word, katalyma - the same word in the gospel used to refer to the ‘upper room’ where Jesus and company held the Last Supper in 22:11 - most likely probably meant an area in a private house where guests are entertained.

So, there was no rude innkeepers shooing the Holy Family off as we commonly think of it: there was a family who offered them the stables of their own house (which could be a cave!) because a room filled to the brim with other guests would simply not be suitable for childbirth.

I agree, but “money makes the world go round” and enough money would have found SOMEBODY with an open room which would have been better than a stable (actually, I believe it was a cave), even if that somebody would have had to kick out 6 other guests to accommodate a person of wealth.

 

[timotheous123]

Re: ‘‘I agree, but “money makes the world go round” and enough money would have found SOMEBODY with an open room which would have been better than a stable (actually, I believe it was a cave), even if that somebody would have had to kick out 6 other guests to accommodate a person of wealth.’’

Joseph went to Bethlehem because that was his town of origin, ie his family was from there. He would not have gone to an inn - the ‘guestroom’ of his father’s house was full but there was room in with the families attached livestock, usually kept in an excavated area under the family home. It was therefore relatively easy for the shepherd’s to locate the unusual sight of a baby in a feed manger.

 

[Ben_F]

:Very good Lily M. You got me convenced. He was poor.

 

[purplesunshine]

I agree, but “money makes the world go round” and enough money would have found SOMEBODY with an open room which would have been better than a stable (actually, I believe it was a cave), even if that somebody would have had to kick out 6 other guests to accommodate a person of wealth.

No one’s saying that Jesus’ family was fiflthy rich, just suggesting that they had some money. We must remember a few things…they were traveling for an unknown amount of time. There were no ATM’s and that they were good stewarts of their money. Also, the “Buy off” rate would be astronomically high by that point as Bethlehem swelled with an influx of people. That they had a physical shelter at all…and weren’t in a tent…does indicate that they had some money.

 

[LilyM]

purplesunshine, what are you going on about? Mary and Joseph were Jews, resident in Israel, going to their own temple in Jerusalem (you know, the same one they went to every year for passover?) They were not foreigners at that stage, nor in a foreign land.

For those mentioning the wise men’s gifts, tradition is that these had to be sold on the way to Egypt to finance their move.

Travel was every bit as expensive then as now, not to mention there would’ve been a period afterwards where Joseph was out of work while looking for a job in Egypt.

Then remember not so long after they had to repeat the expensive process of moving all over again when returning to the Holy Land.

Doubtless they received handsome gifts from the wise men, but that doesn’t mean they lasted long.

Mary went to live with John because that is what her Son had said she should to, and also said to John. It is nothing to do with wealth, rather to do with holy obedience.

No, Jesus did NOT say she was to live with John. Nothing of the sort. He said that John was to take her as his mother, and she to take him as her son. That’s different. I love and honour my mother dearly, and certainly look after her welfare. But I don’t live with her, since we are able to each maintain a separate residence.

Women didn’t directly inherit land or houses, true, but they certainly were left cash, jewels, gold, furniture or whatnot.

The word ‘dowager’, meaning widow, comes from the fact that a solvent husband would always ‘endow’ (bequeath) to his wife either the income (by way of rent or produce that was sold) from a particular piece of land, or else a sum of money or other valuables to support her after his death. The exact nature and value of this ‘dowry’ was often specified in the wedding contract before the couple were even married.

Joseph, if he had had property to leave, and Jesus, having no wife, would certainly have made similar arrangements for Mary had they had anything worth leaving to her.

 

[patrick457]

According to our Lord the word was in (apparently official) use in Jesus’ time for spiritual masters - see Matthew 23:8 - ‘But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.’

The use of rabbi in Matthew 23:8 is not really that strong an evidence for an official title pre-AD 70 IMHO; it just shows that teachers of the Law were popularly given the title, but does not say anything about them being men who obtained semicha (rabbinic ordination) after years of arduous study just like the modern definition of rabbi has it. Again I must warn you against trying to force modern Jewish concepts into 1st century Judaism: a lot of change and development has happened since.

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying, "On the seat of Moses sat down the scribes and the Pharisees: all, therefore, whatever they say to you to observe, observe and do; but according to their works do not, for they say and do not: for they bind up heavy burdens and lay them upon the shoulders of men, but with their finger they are not willing to move them; but all their works they do to be seen by men, and they broaden their phylacteries and enlarge their fringes; and love the first-couches at the banquets, and the first-seats in the synagogues, and the greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘rabbi’.

“But you may not be called ‘rabbi’, for one is your Teacher and you are all brothers. And you may not call your ‘father’ on the earth, for one is your Father - the heavenly; nor may you be called ‘guides’, for one is your Guide: the Christ. Now the greater of you shall be your servant, and whoever shall lift himself high shall be made low, and whoever shall make himself low shall be lifted high.”