Take the 2-minute tour ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am wondering what portions of the New Testament are purported to have originally been written in Aramaic, and by whom. I am aware that Seventh Day Adventist and Nestorian scholars often assert Aramaic primacy, but they generally assert that the entire New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. I am interested in scholarly (non-doctrinal, as far as possible) literature that would support Aramaic primacy in specific portions of the New Testament. I am aware of the Q theory, but I am looking for those who claim that entire books or even the entire New Testament was originally written in Aramaic.

This is not the place to refute this claim.

share|improve this question
1  
Check out James R. Edwards' book, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition. –  James E. Sedlacek Feb 21 '13 at 20:27
    
@JamesE.Sedlacek thanks for the recommendation! –  Daи Feb 22 '13 at 0:24
    
I'm not aware of any significant portion of the New Testament to have been written in Aramaic, but a sizable chunk of the Book of Daniel is (for literary and stylistic purposes). –  Jamin Grey Mar 6 '13 at 2:30
    
OTOH, There was a proto gospel, called variously as “The Gospel of the Hebrews” or “The Gospel of the Eabionites” or the “Gospel of the Nazorians” that were very close to Matthew, but lacking the first two chapters. –  Robert Rey Black Oct 17 '13 at 18:23
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 6 down vote accepted

The oldest and most studied claim of this sort is that there was an Aramaic gospel which served as a source for the synoptics. In particular, many early church fathers believed that the original version of Matthew was written in Aramaic based in part on the writings of Papias who said: "For Matthew composed the logia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able." This claim is less popular now, because most scholars think that Mark was the first gospel written, not Matthew, nonetheless it is a venerable claim with some decent evidence behind it. (Note that this is quite different from Q, Q requires Markan priority, while Aramaic original of Matthew requires Matthean priority.)

Similarly, several ancient authors argued that the book of Hebrews was a letter written by Paul in Aramaic to Jews, and that the Greek version was a translation made by Luke (explaining why the Greek style is different and superior to Paul's other writings).

More modern scholars have identified smaller snippets which they think were translated from Aramaic sources. In particular, many individual sayings of Jesus are sometimes thought to be translated from Aramaic, though it's a bit hard to be sure on any particular saying. Another example is the creed in Romans 1:3-4.

share|improve this answer
1  
Can you point me to any scholarly books or articles about the things you've mentioned in your post? I'd like to learn more (beyond Wikipedia). –  Daи Feb 16 '13 at 3:17
2  
@Dan, Bivin and Blizzard have written Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus. It approaches it from a Hebrew perspective (and they argue against Aramaic). –  Frank Luke Mar 9 '13 at 16:23
add comment

Check out James R. Edwards' book, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition. From my review in the Stone-Campbell Journal, 14:2 Fall, 2011:

This volume presents an older idea concerning the formation of the Synoptic Gospels, while connecting the data in a new way. The current volume resurrects an older idea concerning the formation of the Synoptic Gospels, which had been laid aside in favor of theories that relied either on Markan priority and “Q,” or Markan posterity. This older theory held that Matthew was the first Gospel and written originally in Hebrew and not Greek. This theory was discounted by most NT scholars in the earlier days of Gospel criticism partly due to a preference for Greek originals and partly due to the lack of an extant copy of the Hebrew Gospel. The idea of a Hebrew Gospel received much criticism by later NT scholars because the canonical Greek Matthew was shown to be a composition originally in Greek and not to be a Greek translation of an earlier Hebrew document. Combine these factors with anti-Semitism in Germany in the 1800s and 1900s, and one can appreciate why Hebrew Gospel theories did not receive much scholarly attention. Edwards reexamines the data and connects the data differently to illustrate how the Hebrew Gospel is a source for Luke and not Matthew.

This volume is laid out in eight chapters and includes an introduction, an epilogue, and three appendices. Edwards begins by citing and discussing various references to the Hebrew Gospel in the first nine centuries. Full text citations for these references are found in the first appendix (263-291). Next, he treats actual quotations from the Hebrew Gospel. The full text of these citations is found in the footnotes of the second chapter (44-96). Then he defines the Hebrew Gospel in the third chapter. In the fourth chapter, Edwards directs the reader to the Gospel of Luke, where he treats the Semitisms in that gospel. The full text of these citations is found in the second and third appendices (292-335). He decides that Luke’s source must be a Hebrew source and not an Aramaic source in the fifth chapter. Edwards’s list of nine classifications of Hebraisms in Luke’s gospel will convince students of the Hebrew language that Luke’s source is not Aramaic (185). The last three chapters explain why this theory has been neglected by most NT scholars, discuss sources for “double tradition” material, and relate the Hebrew Gospel to the canonical Matthew.

Edwards proposes a view that gives credence to the Patristic witness, while also giving the modern critical scholars a fair treatment. This view allows the Early Church Fathers to be taken at face value stating that Matthew came first, while illustrating how Mark is the most prior Greek document, based on modern studies. Canonical Greek Matthew came later, and its date of production is not treated by the Early Church Fathers by and large. This volume illustrates the benefit of having a NT scholar who is adept in both Hebrew and Greek.

The strength of this volume lies in the collation of quotations from and about the Hebrew Gospel and relating those to the Hebraisms of Luke. This volume “bids adieu” to “Q” (240-242), but the typical scholar will be unconvinced of the need to do this. Using the diagram provided in this volume, one might conclude that the “double tradition” is equivalent to “Q” (262), while the Hebrew Gospel might also be labeled “L.” The appendices in this volume enable the student quick access to the data. While it would be nice to have another appendix of the actual citations from the Hebrew Gospel, these are still accessible in the footnotes of the second chapter. Interestingly, this volume does not treat Shem Tov’s Matthew, which is in Hebrew, or other Hebrew versions of Matthew. This volume is likely to spark discussion or even controversy regarding the Synoptic Gospels. No student of the formation of the Gospels should be without this up-to-date treatment of the Hebrew Gospel as a source for special Luke.

share|improve this answer
    
James, I found a copy of your review and copied most of it here. Please review my edit since I likely copied too much. Edwards' compromise of placing the Greek translation of Matthew after Luke is ingenious. I'll have to think on it for a while. –  Jon Ericson Mar 5 '13 at 22:33
add comment

"Eastern Churches like Church of the East and Assembly of Jerusalem and Aramaic Peshitta Primacists believe that New Testament is written in Aramaic."

Here are some quotes of famous people and scholars about the importance of Aramaic and Aramaic Peshitta (Aramaic NT).

"Christ, after all spoke in the language of His contemporaries. He offered the first sacrifice of the Eucharist in Aramaic, a language understood by all the people who heard Him. The Apostles and Disciples did the same and never in a language other than that of the gathered faithful." - Latin Patriarch Maximus, Vatican.

With reference to the originality of the Peshitta text the Church "received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself...which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision." - Mar Eshai Shimun, California, Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, April 5, 1957.

"I have no reason to doubt that the Peshitta is superior to that of the Greek. It was handed down to us by the Apostles through the scribes and preserved to us in our very own generation. No other version written in any other language can claim such authenticity and antiquity." - Patriarch Mar Dalin I, China in the 1800's, Assembly of Jerusalem

"Undoubtedly the Peshitta, written in the Aramaic language of the East, contains the pure and untainted Word of the Messiah." - Mar Yokhanan Dalin III, Portugal in 1980, Assembly of Jerusalem

"We have in the Aramaic Peshitta the preserved word of Our Lord unchanged from the time of the Apostles." - HH Patriarch Mar Michai, Detroit in 1989, Assembly of Jerusalem.

One topic often used as supporting evidence of Greek primacy, is that many of the important early Christians were Greek, such as Timothy and Titus. The Greek NT says that they were Greek (in Acts 16:1 and Galatians 2:3 of Greek NT), but the original Aramaic NT (Aramaic Peshitta) tells us that they were actually Arameans (in Acts 16:1, Galatians 2:3 of Aramaic Peshita). Arameans are Aramaic speaking Gentiles.

In Hebrew, "Ben" means Son. But in Aramaic, "Bar" means Son.

By the time of Jesus, Aramaic was the language of Israel. Not Hebrew. Just look at the names in English NT Bible- "Bar"tholomew, "Bar"abbas, Simon "Bar" Jonah, "Bar" Jesus, "Bar"nabbas, "Bar"sabbas, "Bar"timaeus, etc. A common female name during the time of Jesus was Martha which in Aramaic means "Mistress or Lady."

In Josephus' Jewish Wars, we see that Simon Bar Giora was one of the three leaders who fought against Romans in Jewish Wars. "Bar Giora" means "son of a proselyte" in Aramaic.

In Antiquities of Jews (XX, XI), Josephus points out that Jewish Nation didn't speak Greek language and they didn't encourage the learning of Greek language.

According to Josephus, the Romans had to have him translate the call to the Jews to surrender into "their own language" (Jewish Wars 5:9:2).

In Jewish Wars (Book 1, Preface, Paragraph 1), we also read that Josephus wrote "Jewish Wars" formerly in the language of his country before he translated it into Greek tongue for the sake such as live under the government of Romans.

In Our English Bible, We see Jesus speaking Aramaic. For Example, We see Jesus saying "Talitha Cumi." Talitha is Aramaic. If it was Hebrew, then "Yaldah" would have been used instead of Talitha.

People might ask why does it say Hebrew instead of Aramaic in New Testament? When Jews say "Hebrew", they are referring to their "Hebrew tongue." Just like, we call Deutsch "German", because it is the language of German People. Jews are called Hebrews, because they are the descendants of Abraham who is called a Hebrew (Genesis 14:13, Philippians 3). Even today, many Iraqi jews call their aramaic "hebrew" (Hebrew is called "Ibraith" in Aramaic), because it is the language of Hebrews.

But you may ask how can Apostle Paul write Aramaic to People in Greek regions like Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, etc? From Acts 16 to 18, we read that Apostle Paul preached at the Jewish synagogues in Greek regions. So we see that there were Jewish communities living in Greek regions during that period. We also read that Jews lived in Rome until Claudius Caesar (41-54 AD) ordered the Jews to leave Rome in Acts 18.

For more informations on Peshitta Primacy, here is the link.

http://ellhn.e-e-e.gr/books/assets/NewTestament.pdf

share|improve this answer
    
Actually, there are inscriptions of Aramaic that date back to 1,000 BC. The wiki article on it's history accurately reflects the archeological findings of Aramaic from the BC era. –  Frank Luke Mar 10 '13 at 22:55
    
"One of the largest collections of Imperial Aramaic texts is that of the Persepolis fortification tablets, which number about five hundred." That's a BC find of Imperial Aramaic. [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language#Ancient_Aramaic] –  Frank Luke Mar 10 '13 at 22:57
    
I know very well about the inscriptions that are written in Aramaic in 1000 BC. What I meant by earliest surviving Aramaic is in terms of speaking it. There are people who speaks Aramaic that was spoken during the time of Jesus. That's not the same case with Aramaic that was spoken in 1000 BC. –  konwayk Mar 10 '13 at 23:19
1  
What you obviously do not realise is that the Pshitta is written in Eastern Aramaic (Edessan Syriac), but the spoken language in Palestine was Western Aramaic. The difference between the two is quite considerable. So the Pshitta cannot contain Jesus' exact words. –  fdb Apr 13 at 1:09
add comment

protected by Daи Apr 13 at 1:40

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.