RibꞋi Ribi øáé in Ta•lᵊmudꞋ. In modern publications, written unvoweled with the "helpful é" as: øéáé.

It is doubtful that sᵊmikh•âhꞋ of øéáé was conferred subsequent to 70 CE. The Pᵊrush•imꞋ-only attempt to convene in YaꞋvᵊn•ëh after the 70 CE destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ neither convened in its rightful location (the no longer existent Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ) nor, because it excluded the Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ, was it any longer regarded as a full-fledged Συνέδριον.

It is clear that the title, transliterated into Greek in The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) as ῥαββί  (and in Καινής Διαθήκης as ῥαββί and ραββονι) that had occurred within ËrꞋëtz Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ and c 20-30 CE, can only refer to øéáé, not to Greek-transliterated titles adapted centuries later by Hellenist Roman gentiles of the 4^th century Church with their 4^th century redacted and Hellenist-syncretized Καινής Διαθήκης.

A priori, the documentation in the ancient mss. sources of The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) and elsewhere documents (see NHM note 23.7.1) that, since RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was recognized c 27 CE, and in YᵊhudꞋâh, the proper title could only have been 'øéáé'; not RabꞋi nor Rav. This necessarily implies that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa received sᵊmikh•âhꞋ directly from the Nâ•siꞋ and the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dolꞋ — far and away greater authority than any rabbinic ordination today!!!

The unavoidable conclusion is that The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) documents (note 23.7.1) that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was called by the title of 'øéáé' – in ËrꞋëtz Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ and in the 1^st century C.E. This proves that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa had impeccable ordination as a Pᵊrush•iꞋ RibꞋi directly from the Nâ•siꞋ and the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dolꞋ—superior in authority to any rabbinic authority since 70 C.E.!

In the times of Hi•leilꞋ (pop. Hillel, 1^st century B.C.E. to beginning of 1^st century C.E.) and the patriarchs of Beit-Hi•leilꞋ, ordination in ËꞋrëtz Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ was distinct from ordination in the Gâl•utꞋ (principally BâvëlꞋ), with ordination in ËꞋrëtz Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ carrying clear superiority. "[îÄðÌåÌé (not ñÀîÄéëÈä, see below)] could only be granted by scholars residing in ËꞋrëtz Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ to scholars present in the ËrꞋëtz Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ at the time of their ordination… The appellation of [øÇáÄé] rabꞋi (Hellenized to "rabbi"; actually øéáé, as demonstrated below) is therefore never used for the Babylonian •mor•âꞋim since they did not possess [îÄðÌåÌé (not ñÀîÄéëÈä, see below)], and they have the title [øÇá] "rav." As a result, the Babylonian sages were dependent upon their [colleagues in Yᵊhud•âhꞋ]. 'We submit to them' was the Babylonian attitude (PësꞋakh. 51a)" ("Sᵊmikh•âhꞋ," EJ, 14:1140-47).

In the time of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, this partriarch was Rab•ânꞋ Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ ha-Zâ•qeinꞋ, grandson of Hi•leilꞋ. "According to Acts, Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ was tolerant toward the first [Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, not "Christians" who didn't even come into existence until 135 CE; ybd] and Paul was one of his pupils (22:3)… 'When Rab•ânꞋ Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ the elder died the glory of the Tor•âhꞋ ceased, and purity and saintliness [lit. "separation"] perished' (Sot•âhꞋ 9:15)" ("Gamliel, Rabban," EJ, 7:295-6).

It is clear from this that the îÄðÌåÌé (cf. 21.23.2) conferred upon RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, previously demonstrated, was conferred by Rab•ânꞋ Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ ha-Zâ•qeinꞋ.

"In ËꞋrëtz Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ it also became necessary for individual scholars to obtain the consent of the patriarch before ordaining their pupils. On account of the high regard entertained for the patriarchs of the house of Hi•leilꞋ, who were the recognized heads of the Jewish community of the ËrꞋëtz Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ during the centuries subsequent to the demise of Rab•ânꞋ Yo•khâ•nânꞋ Bën-Za•kaiꞋ, no ordination was considered valid without the patriarch's consent. The patriarch himself was at first permitted to confer it without consulting the Sanhedrin. Later, the patriarch could only grant the degree in cooperation with the court (TJ, Sanh. 1:3, 19a).

The term used in the ËrꞋëtz Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ in the days of the Jerusalem Tal•mudꞋ for ordination was [îÄðÌåÌé]. In Babylonia the designation of ñÀîÄéëÈä (sᵊmikh•ut•âꞋ in Aramaic) was retained" ("Sᵊmikh•âhꞋ," EJ, 14:1140-47).

Rab•ânꞋ Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ ha-Zâ•qeinꞋ, grandson of the original patriarch Hi•leilꞋ, belonged to the 'later' category in which the approval of the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dolꞋ was obtained. From this it is clear that the îÄðÌåÌé ‭ ‬ (21.23.2) conferred upon RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa not only was conferred by Rab•ânꞋ Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ, but in concert with the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dolꞋ of which Rab•ânꞋ Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ was Nâ•siꞋ.

This brings us to the question of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa's ordination when "the ordination itself, which required the presence of three elders, one of whom was himself ordained, was originally performed by every ordained teacher upon his pupils (Sanh. 1:3; TJ, Sanh. 1:3, 19a)" ("Sᵊmikh•âhꞋ," EJ, 14:1140-47) [emphasis added; ybd].

This demonstrates that not only was îÄðÌåÌé ‭ ‬ (21.23.2) conferred upon RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa as a tal•midꞋ of Rab•ânꞋ Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ ha-Zâ•qeinꞋ, but that îÄðÌåÌé is, in turn, conferred upon his authentic tal•mid•imꞋ—legitimate Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Jews, i.e. recognized by the Beit-ha-Din shël ha-Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ (in Ra•a•nanꞋa) within ËꞋrëtz Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, of the authentic and historical øéáé, and Tan•âꞋ, Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ Bën-Dâ•widꞋ. (This is confirmed in NHM 10.1.). Again, this explains the events in "Acts" 2.

The documentation clearly demonstrates that, far greater than ñÀîÄéëÈä, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was recognized here as having received îÄðÌåÌé from both the patriarch of Beit-Hi•leilꞋ "in cooperation with" the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dolꞋ!!!

This is further corroborated by the following: "The Ta•nâ•imꞋ were both scholars and teachers. They expounded the law and taught it to the people in academies and synagogues" ("Tanna, Tannaim," Ency. Jud. 15.800). Holders of îÄðÌåÌé were Ta•nâ•imꞋ. It's immediately clear how often this is confirmed of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa in NHM.

Moreover, if RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa lacked îÄðÌåÌé, he would not have been tolerated as a teacher in the country (NHM 21.23.2), nor in the Bât•eiꞋ-ha-KᵊnësꞋët, much less in the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ . This further corroborates that the historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, in contrast to the syncretized Yësh"u (Jesus) of Christianity, was sho•meirꞋ-Tor•âhꞋ. This was, understandably, buried by the Hellenist Christian (Roman) redactors who couldn't afford to acknowledge that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was so inextricably linked to Jewish, and Judaic, hegemony.