[XTalk] Re: Parables in Aramaic?
- On 27 Oct 99, at 20:53, Jack Kilmon wrote:
> The Rabbinic literature is primarily 2 centuries and more *after*Even if this were true, it would seem to me that the fact that
> the time of Jesus when the praxis of writing Targumim became even more
> developed to translate texts in Hebrew into the common language
> The commentaries of the Talmud ARE in Aramaic.
Rabbinic parable material is in Hebrew so near to the transition to
Aramaic as the lingua franca of study argues that earlier material a
fortiori would have been in Hebrew. The Mishnah is redacted in
Hebrew around the close of the second century CE, while the
Babylonian Talmud's discussions (which start from just afterward)
are in Aramaic. However, I'm not sure that we can say that the
Rabbinic literature is "primarily" 2 centuries and more after the time
of Jesus. The Mishnah preserves a great deal of material from
contemporaries of Jesus (Rabban Gamaliel) and other pre-70
> How Prof. Safrai can draw parallels between the late 2nd temple periodHow do you know that the parable form was rare until the time of
> and Rabbinical times is beyond me. The Parable, in fact, was very rare
> until Jesus.
Jesus? The aggadic material preserved in the rabbinic collections
such as Genesis Rabbah is rich in parables. Although these
compilations themselves date to the time just after the Mishnah,
Genesis Rabbah, for example, contains aggadic material also
found in the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, and the works of
Philo and Josephus. Why should we rule out the possibility that
other material in the collection may date from equally early times?