In the Gospels, Jesus is sometimes called “Rabbi”:

50 Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus.
51 “What do you want me to do for you?” Jesus asked him.
The blind man said, “Rabbi, I want to see.”
52 “Go,” said Jesus, “your faith has healed you.” Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.
(Mark 10:50-52, NIV)

20 In the morning as they passed by, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. 21 Then Peter remembered and said to him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered.” 22 Jesus answered them, “Have faith in God.
(Mark 11:20-22, NRSV Updated Edition)

44 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” 45 So when he came, he went up to him at once and said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. 46 Then they laid hands on him and arrested him. (Mark 14:44-46, NRSV Updated Edition)

24 The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born.” 25 Judas, who betrayed him, said, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” He replied, “You have said so.” (Matthew 26:24-25, NRSV Updated Edition)

I don’t doubt that this actually happened on some occasions, assuming there was an actual historical Jesus.

However, Jesus was NOT a rabbi. That is to say, the term “rabbi” in the English language has a different meaning than the ancient Greek term rhabbi that is translated as “rabbi” in the above passages from the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew.

Being a “rabbi” has for the past 14 centuries or so, involved being a Jew who was knowledgeable about the traditions of Rabbinic Judaism. But Rabbinic Judaism DID NOT EXIST in Jesus time! Rabbinic Judaism began to develop largely as a response to the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE, about four decades after Jesus was crucified. It took a number of centuries for the basic texts of Rabbinic Judaism to be developed:

Rabbinic Judaism …has been an orthodox form of Judaism since the 6th century CE, after the codification of the Babylonian Talmud. Rabbinic Judaism has its roots in the Pharisaic school of Second Temple Judaism and is based on the belief that Moses at Mount Sinai received both the Written Torah (Torah she-be-Khetav) and the Oral Torah (Torah she-be-al Peh) from God. The Oral Torah, transmitted orally, explains the Written Torah. At first, it was forbidden to write down the Oral Torah, but after the destruction of the Second Temple, it was decided to write it down in the form of the Talmud and other rabbinic texts for the sake of preservation.

Rabbinic Judaism contrasts with Sadducee Judaism, Karaite Judaism, and Samaritanism, which do not recognize the Oral Torah as a divine authority nor the rabbinic procedures used to interpret Jewish scripture. Although there are now profound differences among Jewish denominations of Rabbinic Judaism with respect to the binding force of halakha (Jewish religious law) and the willingness to challenge preceding interpretations, all identify themselves as coming from the tradition of the Oral Law and the rabbinic method of analysis. (“Rabbinic Judaism” in Wikipedia)

Because Rabbinic Judaism “has its roots in the Pharisaic school of Second Temple Judaism” Jesus had contact with Jews who were the predecessors of Rabbinic Judaism: the Pharisees. But it took about five centuries for the traditions of the Oral Law and the rabbinic method of analysis to develop and be written down in the Babylonian Talmud and in other rabbinic texts. This development happened after Jesus was crucified and after the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed.

The word “Rabbi” now implies a Jew who is familiar with the Babylonian Talmud and other rabbinic texts, and who understands and is familiar with the rabbinic method of analysis. That is NOT what the word “Rabbi” means in the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of Matthew, because there was no Rabbinic Judaism during Jesus lifetime.

This is a fairly simple and obvious point. However, I believe there are significant implications from the fact that “Rabbi” in the Gospels does NOT mean what “Rabbi” means today, nor what “Rabbi” has meant for the past 14 centuries:

We must be careful when reading the Gospels to avoid assuming that English words used to translate Greek words in the Gospels have the same meaning as the Greek words did back in the first century.

This is not just a problem for uneducated, Bible-thumping fundamentalists. This is also a problem for serious biblical scholars and for serious historical scholars who study ancient Palestine or ancient Rome.

For example, the English word “cross” in translations of the Gospels has been taken to be a correct and accurate translation of the Greek word stauros. Almost all Christians, including most Christian scholars have simply assumed that the Gospels state that Jesus was nailed to a cross.

Most Christians think that to be “crucified” means to be “nailed to a cross” as a form of execution. But this is wrong. The Gospel claim that Jesus was “crucified” does NOT imply that Jesus was nailed to a cross. It does NOT imply that Jesus was nailed to anything, and it does NOT imply that Jesus was attached (in any way) to a cross.

There is no Greek word that means “cross”! That is to say, the Greek word stauros that is typically translated as “cross” does NOT mean what the word “cross” means in the English language, and thus it is incorrect and misleading to translate the word stauros as “cross”:

The most basic meaning of stauros is a pole placed in the ground that was used for capital punishment. It was made of wood and dropped into a hole dug into the ground so that it could stand in an upright position. (“CROSS” in Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, p.147)

The Evangelical Jesus scholar Craig Evans, unlike most Christians, understands what the word “crucified” means:

Jesus was put to death by crucifixion, a form of execution that was practiced in late antiquity, whereby a person was tied or nailed to a pole or cross. To be crucified is, literally, to be “staked”. (Jesus, The Final Days, p.28)

Thus, to say that “Person X was crucified” does NOT imply that person X was nailed to a cross. He or she might have been tied to a pole, or nailed to a pole, or tied to a cross. All of those would count as being “crucified”. None of the descriptions of the crucifixion of Jesus in the Gospels say anything about Jesus being “nailed” to anything. None of the descriptions of the crucifixion of Jesus in the Gospels say anything about Jesus being hung from a “cross”. So, the nearly universal belief of Christians that Jesus was nailed to a cross is NOT based on the Gospel descriptions of Jesus’ execution.

The words “crucify” and “crucifixion” in the Gospels are not strictly speaking wrong or incorrect translations, since, as the quote from Craig Evans above illustrates, we can understand the term “crucifixion” as applying even when somone is NOT attached to or hung from a “cross”.

However, the words “crucify” and “crucifixion” are MISLEADING because they come from the Latin root cruce, which means: “cross”. But the Greek word that is translated “crucify” does not have any connection to the word or idea of a “cross”. Again, the Greek word that is translated as “crucify” in Mark 15:20 is: staurōsōsin. This is related to the Greek noun stauros, which means an upright pole, not “cross”. So, in using the words “crucify” and “crucifixion” to translate staurōsōsin, translators chose to use words that have a close linguistic connection to the word “cross”, and thus this translation is MISLEADING.

Even the writers of English dictionary definitions think that “crucifixion” means being hung from a “cross”:

The widely accepted Christian belief that Jesus was nailed to a cross is based mainly upon two things:

• Christian art and literature has for centuries depicted Jesus as having been nailed to a cross.
• English translations of the Gospels typically use the inaccurate and misleading translation “cross” for the Greek word stauros, and use the misleading translation “crucify” for the Greek word staurōsōsin.

Christian art and literature are NOT reliable sources of historical facts and data. Artists and writers have many aims and goals that have nothing to do with historical truth, and historical accuracy. So, they frequently ignore or sacrifice historical truth or historical accuracy for dramatic or aesthetic or ideological purposes.

Although English translations of the Gospels are usually constructed by well-educated and well-informed bible scholars and linguists, translators still often make word choices that are based more on fitting in with, or supporting, traditional Christian beliefs, rather than making word choices that are based on careful and objective study of the use and meanings of ancient Greek words and phrases.