I'm learning more about this issue of anti-language the more I read into the New Testament and its scholarship. All of the facets of this issue are mentioned time and again but are never spoken of explicitly in the terms "anti-language" and that's what makes it such a great study. I can see why Sheffield U. approved of this topic so eagerly.

Just dug into Matthew's gospel and the issues it brings along with the term "Rabbi." Now, one would think with the mass of scholarship out there that affirms the Jewish nature of the Gospel material through this gospel that the term "rabbi" would be viewed in a positive light, but when we look at Matthew's material, however, we find a very different notion indeed, and one, I might say, in perfect accord with the redefining nature of anti-language.

First, in all the spots where Jesus is spoken of as "teaching the people," activity specifically assigned to rabbis in the NT period with the Jewish people in the synagogues, Jesus is spoken of as associating it directly with the issue of miracles, and healings. This activity anti-linguistically redefines the essence of what it meant to be a Jewish teacher, rabbi, of his day. In the one spot where it says Jesus "could not perform might acts," (in his home town) the area is described as one which would not receive his teaching. So even the miraculous, therapeutic nature of Christ is spoken of as being limited by the receptivity of his teachings. Then comes the term "rabbi".

First, rabbi's are not painted in a positive light in the gospel. Redefining the cultural impact of the word from one of esteem, to one of disdain. The very qualities that established the term with esteem are redefined according to Christ's values: They are spoken of as outside of Jesus' movement, people who love the limelight (not a positive trait for Matthew's picture of a Christian), who are whitewashed tombs full of dead bodies inwardly. Though they look, and speak with appeal and eloquence, Jesus is recorded as deriding them for these very qualities. Jesus is quoted as not allowing the disciples to call anyone "rabbi," as they have one teacher, "the Christ". So the term is not held in a positive regard according to Matthew's gospel. The term disappears from the narrative until Jesus returns to Jerusalem, where the mainstay of his opposition awaits.

It is here that Jesus' reference as "rabbi" meets its anti-linguistic point of climactic irony, with the most references in the Gospel material to this term being here. The Jewish leaders refer to him as "rabbi", the crowds refer to him with it, and lastly, Judas himself is spoken of as identifying Jesus as "rabbi" (probably to alert the authorities which one to arrest). Jesus, however, takes for himself the term "didaskolos" another term for "teacher," but with little cultural equivalence amongst the Jewish people and traditions. Jesus is being called the very thing he has stood against all along, sought to redefine, and keep his movement from using according to Matthew's gospel.

Anti-language is a sub-culture within a culture that seeks to offer merely and solely a deliberate alternative to the main culture under which it operates. It is not a stand-alone entity. It seeks to redefine, recontextualize, and metaphorically utilize the resources currently in place according to the movement it attempts to offer. This was the modus operandi of Christianity which had begun in the first century and has continued to this very day. The way new groups legitimize themselves within Christianity, they seek to justify their movement as being the "true" Christianity by doing the very thing Jesus did--redefine, recontextualize certain key elements of the current culture that they believe need readjustment according to "the will of God." This has been the source of "revival" movements since the beginning and has kept Christianity fresh and self-examining since its inception--socio-religious anti-language.