John Enarson’s response is thoughtful and serious. He argues that Jesus belonged to a Jewish continuum from Hillel through Yavneh, that the title “rabbi” was still informal in the first century, and that Gospel usage reflects historical reality. He also suggests that acknowledging Jesus as a rabbi helps Christians develop respect for Judaism.
But beneath the historical nuance lies a more basic question:
Who gets to define Jewish categories?
Second Temple Judaism was diverse and messy. Vocabulary overlapped. Teaching methods overlapped. Disputes were fierce and often internal. But rabbinic Judaism ultimately defined itself not by resemblance or proximity — but by transmission.
Not shared style.
Not polemical closeness.
Transmission.
The rabbis after Yavneh saw themselves as heirs of Hillel and Shammai through a recognized chain of Torah authority. They did not see themselves as heirs of the Jesus movement. That omission is not polemic. It is self-definition.
Yes, the Gospels show people calling Jesus “rabbi.” But confessional texts describing their own teacher as “rabbi” are not institutional ordination records. Being addressed as “rabbi” proves social respect. It does not prove inclusion in the mesorah that later defined rabbinic continuity.
In Judaism, “rabbi” is not merely a compliment for a Torah teacher. It implies placement within a chain of recognized authority. That chain did not include him.
The “parting of the ways” between Judaism and Christianity may have been gradual and complex. Granted. But messy history does not erase boundaries. The theological divergence was structural, not cosmetic. A long divorce is still a divorce.
It may be pastorally helpful for Christians to see Jesus as a Torah-observant Jew. That is good. But usefulness does not redefine Jewish titles. Jews can affirm his Jewish context without granting rabbinic legitimacy that rabbinic Judaism itself never conferred.
This debate is not about denying complexity. It is about authority.
Resemblance is not ordination.
Proximity is not recognition.
Confessional literature is not certification.
Jewish categories are defined by Jewish transmission.
And by that standard, the rabbinic title does not apply.
Dear Rabbi Wander, thank you for the thoughtful reply. A few points of clarification:
*On “Who Gets To Define a Rabbi"
I'm not arguing who gets to define Jewish categories. But the question you're framing — who has authority over the title — applies an anachronistic standard. You are measuring a first-century figure against a post-Yavneh institutional definition that did not yet exist in his lifetime. The chain of transmission you describe is real, but it was formalized after Jesus, not before him.
You acknowledge that the title was still informal in his day, but then judge him by the formal standard anyway. That's the tension in your argument.
You write that "a long divorce is still a divorce." Granted. But the point is that this divorce did not exist in his time. Jesus lived and taught before the parting of the ways. Applying the post-divorce categories retroactively to a pre-divorce figure is precisely the anachronism I'm cautioning against.
*On Popular Treatments vs. Scholarship
A recent article on “Jew in the City” (Abromovitz 2023) addresses this same question and makes some similar arguments to yours: "rabbi" is defined as X, and Jesus doesn't meet that definition; therefore: no. But here's the problem: this argument essentially concedes the historical point while pretending that later rabbis after Jesus essentially coined the title ex nihilo. They didn't. As Hershel Shanks demonstrated, the word had a prior Jewish history and development—one which included Jesus. It was not mere slang. It was an emerging title within a living tradition, and the Gospels are primary evidence of its use.
After defining Jesus out of the title rabbi, R. Abromovitz further argues the title is improper because later Rabbinic Judaism is essentially “Pharisaic Judaism” and the Pharisees were Jesus’ main opponents. Therefore the informal title “rabbi” doesn’t fit either.
The idea that the Pharisees were simply Jesus' 'opponents' and that he stood outside their tradition is, ironically, a popular Christian misreading that many Jewish and Christian scholars have worked to correct. It is a misreading I work to correct in the Church continually. As I argued above regarding the “polemical affinity” between Jesus and the Pharisees, the primary sources point in the opposite direction.
It is noteworthy that popular Jewish treatments really make an issue of calling Jesus a rabbi, while Jewish historical scholarship does not share the same difficulty. Scholars like David Flusser and others have found ways to acknowledge the historical reality without implying that later rabbinic Judaism endorsed him.
Call him an “unorthodox,” “unauthorized” first-century rabbi, or even an early “heretical” rabbi of his time. There is language for this that is both historically honest and respectful of rabbinic self-definition.
*On the Real Question
While you contend the basic question is “who gets to define?”, I keep coming back to another fundamental: why make this a hill to fight on?
Why argue against Jews finding ways to discuss this history with Christians, when it is clearly of great benefit to the conversation and to the Christian relationship with the Jewish people? When a Christian hears from an Orthodox Jew that historically, Jesus was an unorthodox rabbi of his time who kept Torah, it does more to dismantle centuries of anti-Jewish theology than almost anything else I can think of.
The deeper question, as I suggested in my article, is whether you see Christians as partners in redemption (cf. Wolicki above). If you do, then there is great value in finding acceptable ways to express the realities of Second Temple history together. If you don't, I can respect that. But then the argument is really about that larger framework, not about a title.
Who Gets to Define a Rabbi?
John Enarson’s response is thoughtful and serious. He argues that Jesus belonged to a Jewish continuum from Hillel through Yavneh, that the title “rabbi” was still informal in the first century, and that Gospel usage reflects historical reality. He also suggests that acknowledging Jesus as a rabbi helps Christians develop respect for Judaism.
But beneath the historical nuance lies a more basic question:
Who gets to define Jewish categories?
Second Temple Judaism was diverse and messy. Vocabulary overlapped. Teaching methods overlapped. Disputes were fierce and often internal. But rabbinic Judaism ultimately defined itself not by resemblance or proximity — but by transmission.
Not shared style.
Not polemical closeness.
Transmission.
The rabbis after Yavneh saw themselves as heirs of Hillel and Shammai through a recognized chain of Torah authority. They did not see themselves as heirs of the Jesus movement. That omission is not polemic. It is self-definition.
Yes, the Gospels show people calling Jesus “rabbi.” But confessional texts describing their own teacher as “rabbi” are not institutional ordination records. Being addressed as “rabbi” proves social respect. It does not prove inclusion in the mesorah that later defined rabbinic continuity.
In Judaism, “rabbi” is not merely a compliment for a Torah teacher. It implies placement within a chain of recognized authority. That chain did not include him.
The “parting of the ways” between Judaism and Christianity may have been gradual and complex. Granted. But messy history does not erase boundaries. The theological divergence was structural, not cosmetic. A long divorce is still a divorce.
It may be pastorally helpful for Christians to see Jesus as a Torah-observant Jew. That is good. But usefulness does not redefine Jewish titles. Jews can affirm his Jewish context without granting rabbinic legitimacy that rabbinic Judaism itself never conferred.
This debate is not about denying complexity. It is about authority.
Resemblance is not ordination.
Proximity is not recognition.
Confessional literature is not certification.
Jewish categories are defined by Jewish transmission.
And by that standard, the rabbinic title does not apply.
Dear Rabbi Wander, thank you for the thoughtful reply. A few points of clarification:
*On “Who Gets To Define a Rabbi"
I'm not arguing who gets to define Jewish categories. But the question you're framing — who has authority over the title — applies an anachronistic standard. You are measuring a first-century figure against a post-Yavneh institutional definition that did not yet exist in his lifetime. The chain of transmission you describe is real, but it was formalized after Jesus, not before him.
You acknowledge that the title was still informal in his day, but then judge him by the formal standard anyway. That's the tension in your argument.
You write that "a long divorce is still a divorce." Granted. But the point is that this divorce did not exist in his time. Jesus lived and taught before the parting of the ways. Applying the post-divorce categories retroactively to a pre-divorce figure is precisely the anachronism I'm cautioning against.
*On Popular Treatments vs. Scholarship
A recent article on “Jew in the City” (Abromovitz 2023) addresses this same question and makes some similar arguments to yours: "rabbi" is defined as X, and Jesus doesn't meet that definition; therefore: no. But here's the problem: this argument essentially concedes the historical point while pretending that later rabbis after Jesus essentially coined the title ex nihilo. They didn't. As Hershel Shanks demonstrated, the word had a prior Jewish history and development—one which included Jesus. It was not mere slang. It was an emerging title within a living tradition, and the Gospels are primary evidence of its use.
After defining Jesus out of the title rabbi, R. Abromovitz further argues the title is improper because later Rabbinic Judaism is essentially “Pharisaic Judaism” and the Pharisees were Jesus’ main opponents. Therefore the informal title “rabbi” doesn’t fit either.
The idea that the Pharisees were simply Jesus' 'opponents' and that he stood outside their tradition is, ironically, a popular Christian misreading that many Jewish and Christian scholars have worked to correct. It is a misreading I work to correct in the Church continually. As I argued above regarding the “polemical affinity” between Jesus and the Pharisees, the primary sources point in the opposite direction.
It is noteworthy that popular Jewish treatments really make an issue of calling Jesus a rabbi, while Jewish historical scholarship does not share the same difficulty. Scholars like David Flusser and others have found ways to acknowledge the historical reality without implying that later rabbinic Judaism endorsed him.
Call him an “unorthodox,” “unauthorized” first-century rabbi, or even an early “heretical” rabbi of his time. There is language for this that is both historically honest and respectful of rabbinic self-definition.
*On the Real Question
While you contend the basic question is “who gets to define?”, I keep coming back to another fundamental: why make this a hill to fight on?
Why argue against Jews finding ways to discuss this history with Christians, when it is clearly of great benefit to the conversation and to the Christian relationship with the Jewish people? When a Christian hears from an Orthodox Jew that historically, Jesus was an unorthodox rabbi of his time who kept Torah, it does more to dismantle centuries of anti-Jewish theology than almost anything else I can think of.
The deeper question, as I suggested in my article, is whether you see Christians as partners in redemption (cf. Wolicki above). If you do, then there is great value in finding acceptable ways to express the realities of Second Temple history together. If you don't, I can respect that. But then the argument is really about that larger framework, not about a title.
With respect and appreciation,
John Enarson
__
Abramowitz, Rabbi Jack. “Was Jesus a Rabbi?” Jew in the City, 17 July 2023, jewinthecity.com/2023/07/was-jesus-a-rabbi/ (access Feb 15, 2026).