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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Many Nestorian and some Seventh Day Adventist scholars assert that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic (such as Paul Younan and George Lamsa). What scholarly arguments exist that would refute this claim?

I am not looking for a refutation of the Q theory, but rather against the argument that entire books or even the entire New Testament was originally written in Aramaic.

share|improve this question
As an aside, my personal theory is that Matthew (the exception noted by Eusebius), the tax collector (and thus used to keeping records), was keeping notes in Hebrew/Aramaic at the time of Christ being alive, and thus had this background material he worked from when later composing the inspired Greek text we have. Of course I cannot prove this. I also hold to independent composition of the gospels (no significant literary dependence between them, just one Divine Author behind them), with Matthew being earliest (as tradition holds), which happens to fit well with my theory about Matthew. – ScottS May 29 '14 at 17:49
@ScottS very interesting. I vacillate between a similar position and the latest ideas from higher criticism. – Dan May 29 '14 at 18:29
Most of the "latest ideas from higher criticism" are too infected with presuppostional errors (such as rejecting the possibility of miracles, the statements of the Bible's testimony itself, etc.) for me to pay much heed to them (other than to refute, but I don't spend much energy on that either). Being too influenced by unbelievers (Jam 1:5-6) will leave one in an unstable, vacillating position (v.8); not that all higher critical discussions are from unbelievers, but the field is highly influenced by them. – ScottS May 29 '14 at 18:43
@ScottS In my experience, higher criticism is the realm of scholars who don't attempt to make claims either way about miracles. The notion that Matthew wrote the book bearing his name has been largely abandoned. – Wad Cheber Aug 15 '15 at 22:00
@Dan - From what I have seen at Princeton Theological Seminary and Union Theological Seminary, the Aramaic primacy argument is a minority position, at or near the fringe of the academic community. It isn't taken very seriously by the majority of scholars. The evidence just isn't there. – Wad Cheber Aug 15 '15 at 22:02
up vote 21 down vote accepted

My impression is that Aramaic primacy is not taken very seriously among experts, so there's not much in the way of scholarly works debunking it. (This is not unusual, compare to say mythicism or the theory that Jesus and Mary Magdaline were married, neither of which had scholarly debunkings until recently.) So rather than citing experts, I'm just going to give a few arguments that seem pretty solid to me (though I'm not an expert).

  • It is very unlikely that the readers of Paul's letters were Aramaic speakers. Rome, Greece, and western Asia Minor were Greek speaking and not Aramaic speaking.
  • The oldest Aramaic bibles (the Old Syriac and Peshitta) are written in Syriac which was spoken in the area around Edessa and is a different dialect of Aramaic than the one that Jesus and his disciples would have spoken in Galilee.
  • The synoptic gospels have large overlaps in Greek. This suggests that some of the gospel writers had access to one of the other gospels in Greek. (This does not preclude one of them being originally in Aramaic and the others having access to a translation, but it means they can't all of been in Aramaic originally.)
  • Many of the scripture quotations in the New Testament are from the Greek Septuagint.

On the other hand, it's certainly plausible that some parts of the New Testament used sources that were originally Aramaic. It's likely that the author of Mark was a native Aramaic speaker, and he may be drawing on Aramaic sources. It's possible that Q had an Aramaic original, although it appears that Matthew and Luke shared a Greek version (or that Luke had access to Matthew). There may have been a lost early written account of the passion, which could very well have been in originally in Aramaic and used by Mark and John.

share|improve this answer
An excellent, well-balanced answer. Thank you! – Jon Ericson Feb 19 '13 at 20:51
up vote 14 down vote

Noah has given an excellent answer, but I would like to give other issues with Aramaic primacy.

  • There are NT fragments in Greek that are older than anything in Aramaic. Very early fragments. The John Rylands fragment of John's Gospel, P52 (AD ~125), is older by centuries than any copy of the Peshitta that has survived, and even older than the work in the colophon that the Peshitta claims to come from. There is a fragment of Mark in Greek that has not been publicized yet that almost "certainly" comes from the first century. That's huge. Altogether, the 17 second and 1 first century manuscripts contain 43% of the Greek New Testament. None of them are in Aramaic.
  • Aramaic Primacists claims that Titus and Timothy are Aramean gentiles based on that word being used in the Peshitta. However, the New Testament teaches that Timothy is of Jewish descent (Acts 16:1). His mother being a Jewess made Timothy a Jew (2 Chron. 2:13-14; Mishnah Kiddushin 3:12; 4:2, 4, 7, 10, 11; BT Kiddushin 68b; Yevamoth 45b). For that reason, Paul circumcised him (Acts 16:3). However, Paul refuses to have Titus and Trophimus circumcised because they are Greeks (Acts 21:29; Galatians 2:3).

  • The early Christians do not mention all of the originals being in Aramaic. Instead, Papias, as quoted by Eusebius, points out the Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language but says nothing about the language of the other books:

And this the Presbyter used to say [this is in the plural implying John the Elder would employ this argument multiple times in defense of Mark's Gospel]: "Mark, being the recorder of Peter, wrote accurately but not in order whatever he [Peter] remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord; for he [Mark] had neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to make teachings according to the cheias, [a special kind of anecdote] but not making as it were a systematic composition of the Lord's sayings; so that Mark did not err at all when he wrote certain things just as he had recalled [them]. For he had but one intention, not to leave out anything he had heard, nor to falsify anything in them". This is what was related by Papias about Mark. But about Matthew's this was said: "For Matthew composed the logia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able" (Eusebius, Church History, Book 3, Chapter 39.15-16)

One may reasonably infer from the fact that Papias does not mention the other books' language, that Matthew was unique in this regard. Thus, the other Gospels would have been written in a more common language such as Greek, the lingua franca of the day.

  • It should also be noted that Papias states this was written in the Hebrew language and not Aramaic. The language of Ebraios (Hebrew) and Suristi (Aramaic) are related as French and Spanish are; however, they are also different.

How to Spread the Gospel?

The point of the New Testament was to spread the Gospel as quickly as possible to as many people as possible. To do this, you need to use the lingua franca. In the first century, this was Greek. Greek was the commerce language of the Roman Empire which spread from Spain, through northern Africa, across the Tigris/Euphrates rivers, over Constantinople, and most of the European continent. Aramaic (any flavor) had ceased to be the commerce language centuries before when Alexander the Great conquered the Medio-Persian empire (ca 330 BC) and forcing the inhabitants to learn Greek (which they spoke alongside their Aramaic). The Aramaic that it supplanted was not even the Syriac Peshitta Primacy advocates hold up. Alexander defeated the Royal/Imperial Aramaic (sometimes called Chaldee in older works), not the later dialect of the Peshitta. That dialect was never a lingua franca. And the differences between Royal and Syriac are obvious to even the rawest beginner.

No flavor of Aramaic, be it Royal/Imperial Aramaic, Syriac, Palestian Aramaic, or any language from the Northwest Semitic family is going to fulfill that qualification (including Mishnaic Hebrew). Indeed, it is the commandment given by Jesus in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20). The language to choose to fulfill this command would be Greek. Even those who postulate that Matthew wrote first in Hebrew say it was quickly translated into Greek so that more communities could read it.

A geographical analysis of the ancient world by language shows that Greek had the land mass and people. Aramaic, no dialect of, no longer reached as many or as far.

Mishnaic Hebrew as a Common Person's Language in the Land

Aramaic primacists claim that Hebrew was not a living language in use among the common people of the Land. Instead, they claim it was a scholarly or liturgical language. However, more and more evidence is coming to light that this is not so. That Mishnaic Hebrew was in use by the common people is a difficult problem for Aramaic primacy as they repeatedly claim it was not.

(Please note that I am not arguing that Aramaic did not exist in the Land in the time of Jesus. On the contrary, it was there and spoken alongside Mishnaic Hebrew.)

New Testament scholars have for years translated the Greek Ebraios into "Aramaic" when it appears in the NT instead of "Hebrew." They do this because the prevailing theory for many years was that Hebrew was only used by religious people and scholars. However, the weight of evidence says otherwise.


From the return from Exile onward, there was a concerted effort to restore Hebrew as the national language. It had been lost among most of the people during the Exile. Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi are all written exclusively in Hebrew (Ezra has a few Aramaic sections, but these are correspondence with a foreign King). Daniel's middle section is in flawless, Imperial Aramaic (from 2:4a to the end of ch 7), but the rest of the book is in Biblical Hebrew (and it's good Hebrew). Those middle sections needed to be in Aramaic to reflect the original language of the decrees and events.

During the Hasmonean/Maccabeen Revolt, even more emphasis was placed on Hebrew. Coins from this period (and other bilingual periods) are Greek/Hebrew and not Greek/Aramaic (with one exception in the middle). Literature from the period and place is almost never Greek or Aramaic but Hebrew.

That literature includes: 1 Macabees (originally in Hebrew), the Dead Sea Scrolls (almost exclusively Hebrew), all of the Palestinian apocrypha and pseudopigrapha, all Palestinian rabbinic literature (the Mishnah, the Tosefta, the Jerusalem Talmud, all the Midrash). The Midrash can be compared to sermon illustrations that would be used in a preaching environment. Note that they were to be told to the common people and were in Hebrew.

The only collections of rabbinic literature in Aramaic is the Babylonian Talmud. This should not be surprising because it was compiled in Babylon where Aramaic was spoken. However, even this Talmud preserves its Mishnah in Hebrew. The commentary on the Mishnah (called Gemerah)is in Aramaic, but the Mishanh remains in Hebrew. In addition, whenever a later, Palestinian rabbi is quoted in the Gemerah, the quote will be in Hebrew while the discussion of the quote is in Aramaic. Parables are also preserved in the Gemerah in Hebrew. Parables were intended to be taught to the common people. They were far from academic exercises. Not one parable in the Talmud or anywhere else is in Aramaic.

The Targumim (Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible) date to the second and third centuries after Christ and came about because of an Aramaic-speaking Jewish immigration from Babylon to Israel.

The early rabbis forbade the teaching of Greek to one's sons and insisted that only Hebrew be used for religious instruction. The forbidden nature of Greek applied only to religious matters as commerce with the west required Greek.

The New Testament includes Hebrew idioms that do not exist in Aramaic and makes wordplays that only work when a Hebrew source is considered. It also never uses the word Suristi to describe the language used. It only uses Ebraios.

Even though modern scholarship is admitting that Hebrew existed in the academies and temple, the rabbinic literature says that even children and women (who were not allowed to obtain formal, rabbinic instruction) spoke Hebrew.


  • Joseph A. Fitzmyer, one of the world's more prominent Aramaic scholars, admitted in 1975 in hindsight: "...the way in which claims are sometimes made for the Aramaic substratum of the sayings of Jesus, when the evidence is merely 'Semitic' in general, or, worse still, derived from some other Semitic language, e.g., Hebrew, should no longer be countenanced." [Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Study of the Aramaic Background of the New Testament” (1975), reprinted in Joseph A. Fitzmyer, A Wandering Aramaean: Collected Aramaic Essays (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979): 5.]
  • Rabbinic Literature composed in the Land is almost exclusively in Hebrew.
  • MH Segal in his Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (see pp. 5 and 9-10) demonstrates that this was a spoken language and not an artificial language of the academy.
  • Writings from the time have been found that show us Hebrew was a living language. These include the Masada Fragments, which have 6 items that are definitely not biblical material written in Hebrew. (There are other pieces which are biblical [numbering 7] or unidentifiable [numbering 2].)
  • Likewise, the huge cache of documents from the Dead Sea Scrolls (~250 BC - ~AD 50) shows that Hebrew was in use for centuries while it was thought unknown. While the Qumran caves uncovered copies of the Hebrew Bible and some apocryphal works, the vast majority was sectarian literature unique to the Qumran community. This material was written in Mishnaic Hebrew. The Dead Sea writings were not intended for use only by scholars but for all Jews willing to become an Essene.
  • The Dead Sea Scrolls have also shown that many of the Jewish apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works were originally written in Hebrew. These works were intended for the common person to be able to read (the synagogues did not preach on them). As such, an understandable language was needed. That language was Hebrew.
  • An example of the above is Tobit, the apocryphal work. For centuries, it was assumed that Tobit had been first written in Aramaic. However, both Aramaic and Hebrew versions have been discovered in the Dead Sea Scroll caves. It was further determined, based on comparisons between the two, that the Hebrew Tobit was the original.
  • Documents from Nahal Hever are in Mishnaic Hebrew.
  • There is also the Targum Neofiti and Hebrew fragments of Ben Sira.
  • Even though Greek has a perfectly good word for Aramaic (Suristi), the Greek New Testament never once uses it. Instead, the Greek New Testament refers to Ebraios (or cases thereof) (Luke 23:38; John 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20; Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14; Rev. 9:11; 16:16).
  • Suristi appears in the epilogue to the book of Job in the Septuagint. It also appears in the text of the Septuagint (2 King 18:26; Ezra 4:7; Isaiah 36:11; Daniel 2:4). Hence, it was known that Ebraios and Suristi were distinct languages.
  • Josephus in Antiquities 10 1.2 says this: "When Rabshakeh had made this speech in the Hebrew tongue, for he was skillful in that language, Eliakim was afraid lest the multitude that heard him should be disturbed; so he desired him to speak in the Syrian tongue." Josephus clearly draws a line between Ebraios and Suristi. More on Josephus' use of Hebrew can be read here.
  • A very important piece of evidence here is the Letter of Aristeas 11, "The Jews are supposed to use Syrian [Aramaic] language, but this is not so, for it is another form [of language]." The author of the letter clearly states that the Jews do not use Aramaic. While some claim that he is speaking of the script used, this cannot be. Mishnaic Hebrew shared a script with Aramaic. Both languages used the Aramaic Square Script for writing. Paleo Hebrew writing had fallen into disuse during and after the Exile.

  • The Bar Cochva Letters proved conclusively that Hebrew was still a living language and was used as the primary means of communication among Jews in Israel a century after Jesus. Scholars do not divide the letters into Early and Late. They all came from the same period. There were 26 letters uncovered: 2 are in Greek, 8 are in Aramaic, 3 could be either Aramaic or Hebrew (the text is too short too conclude), and 13 are unambiguously Hebrew. These letters are not all religious (some discuss items needed for religious observance) but are of military conquests and other non-religious matters.

  • Wisdom is passed on to the common people in Hebrew. Shmuel Safrai writes:

The parable was one of the most common tools of rabbinic instruction from the second century B.C.E. until the close of the amoraic period at the end of the fifth century C.E. Thousands of parables have been preserved in complete or fragmentary form, and are found in all types of literary compositions of the rabbinic period, both halachic and aggadic, early and late. All of the parables are in Hebrew. Amoraic literature often contains stories in Aramaic, and a parable may be woven into the story; however the parable itself is always in Hebrew (b. Baba Qam. 60b; or b. Sotah 40a). There are instances of popular sayings in Aramaic, but every single parable is in Hebrew.

“Spoken and Literary Languages in the Time of Jesus,” in Jesus’ Last Week: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels, Vol. 1 [ed. R. S. Notley, M. Turnage and B. Becker; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005], 238; see also Randall Buth and Brian Kvasnica, “Temple Authorities and Tithe Evasion: The Linguistic Background and Impact of the Parable of the Vineyard, the Tenants and the Son,” in Jesus’ Last Week, 58, n. 17.

  • Epigraphical material from the Second Temple Period is more often in Hebrew than Aramaic. A recent sarcophagus contained these words: ben hacohen hagadol, that is, "son of the high priest." While some may say that this shows it was a religious language (being on a priest's son's tomb), it should be noted that this was on a tomb and meant for the common person to know who was interred within.

  • Josephus (War 5:269-272) points out that Jewish soldiers used a play on words that only makes sense in Hebrew. In 272, whenever a stone was on its way (being thrown from ballistea), the watchmen would shout "in their native language, 'The Son Cometh!'" While translators are confused by the Greek text, the answer makes sense in Hebrew. The translator even admits how the words could be confused in Hebrew but not Aramaic. The watchmen would have shouted, in Hebrew, Ha-even ba’ah ("the stone is coming!"). Hwoever, because of urgency, the words would be clipped to ben ba ("son comes!"). They reduced the syllables due to time constraints. This pun is known in Hebrew and even appears in the NT (Matthew 3:9 and Luke 3:8) "God is able from these avanim [stones] to raise up banim [sons] to Abraham."

This wordplay is unambiguously Hebrew. In Aramaic, the phrase would be kefa ate ("the stone is coming") or the more literary avna ata. Neither sounds like bara ate ("the son is coming"). Another option for Aramaic would be to use the word aven, which is related to the Hebrew. However, aven would change the gender of the verb and still not work to make a pun on "son," bar/a.

Obviously, a warning of dire straits needs to be quick and in the common language. (American soldiers would yell, "INCOMING!" to warn of mortar fire.) That the pun works in Hebrew but not Aramaic means the soldiers spoke in Hebrew.


  • Coins from the period are in Hebrew. They did not have Aramaic writing on them with one exception. As money requires a common language of the people, Hebrew must have been known.

During the Hasmonean period, Alexander Jannai (78 BC) minted one set of coins that had Armaic on them (oddly enough, in the Paleo Hebrew script). However, at other times (before and after) he minted coins in Hebrew.

  • The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan were once thought to reflect the language used in the time of Jesus. However, we now know these targums are centuries later than Jesus.
  • Most of the inscriptions around Jerusalem dating from the first century have been in Hebrew.
  • A tomb inscription from the second century BC has Aramaic that translates and incorporates spoken Hebrew idioms also found in the Mishnah.
  • A recent, in progress, cataloging of inscriptions from archeological finds shows that from the Second Temple Period (the time we are discussing), there were 116 clearly Aramaic inscriptions and 137 clearly Hebrew. There were many that overlap in the languages due to common words and the common script used for both. Also, personal names are not included in this tabulation as they are inconclusive.


We should not speak of one language predominating over another. Both Aramaic and Hebrew were in use in the Land at the time of Jesus. However, while we cannot say one predominated, we can say that Mishnaic Hebrew was very much a living language used by people of all walks of life in Judea and Galille.


David Biven, Hebrew as a Spoken Language in First-century Israel, posted November 18, 2008.

Waverly Nunnally, Hebrew as the Primary Language of Jesus, an email exchange.

__. Peshitta Primacy, an email exchange.

Baltes, Guido. "Hebrew or Aramaic? Some Evidence from Inscriptions," Jerusalem Perspective Online, November 28, 2008.

share|improve this answer
Outstanding! Thanks for taking the time to post this research! – Dan Mar 12 '13 at 23:56
Another part of the problem with Aramaic primacy (and I should edit this in) is that there are NT fragments in Greek that are older than anything in Aramaic. Very early fragments. P52 (AD ~125) is older by centuries than any copy of the Peshitta that has survived, and even older than the work in the colophon that the Peshitta claims to come from. There is a fragment of Mark in Greek that has not been publicized yet that "almost certainly" comes from the first century. That's huge. – Frank Luke Mar 13 '13 at 1:36
@Sarah, I've seen their examples. Those problems can be answered just as easily by Jesus speaking Mishnaic Hebrew and the Apostles thinking in it. For example, sone' exists in Hebrew from the (OT) Biblical period throughout the Mishnaic (it may be in Modern Hebrew as well, but I have not studied that language). Likewise, "son of peace." The Hebrew would be "ben shalom." Shalom carries the same range of meaning as its Aramaic cousin. – Frank Luke Mar 13 '13 at 2:39
@Sarah, my most recent edit addresses some of this. Almost wherever Aramaic was spoken, so to was Greek. Going into that one language covered a lot of territory and hit many more people. Most people to the west of Judea didn't speak Aramaic. However, both directions spoke Greek. In theory, both of your items are possible. They could have been translated early into Aramaic, but we have no manuscript evidence of this. What we have is the tradition of a group who want their work to be first. Most books of the NT have an audience in mind. Those first audiences were in Greek cities. – Frank Luke Mar 13 '13 at 2:47
@Sarah - Coins with Hebrew Symbols on them are not indicative that Hebrew was spoken any more than Latin on U.S. currency indicates that Latin is spoken in the U.S. In Papias, however, and in Acts, it is clear: Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ, is a clear reference to the Dialect of Aramaic spoken in Israel, just as Δωρίδι διαλέκτῳ, is a reference to the Doric Dialect of Greek. – elika kohen Nov 25 '14 at 16:16

Suggest you read the new translation of the peshitta by D Bauscher in which he demonstrates in hundreds of examples of how the theory of aramaic primacy thoroughly explains discrepancies and phrases and words that don't make proper sense in the greek. it also gives a really good explanation as to the differences between the different text type/manuscript types such as byzantine text-type manuscripts and alexandrian text type manuscripts. Revelation is particularly very very interesting. My understanding is that the Greek Orthodox Church has always held that the bible was originally written in aramaic and Greek - a mixture ref the different canonical NT scriptures. From a logical point of view, bearing in mind that the apostles were galileean jews speaking aramaic not greek, why would they even be able to write in greek? do we not also have writings from the church fathers that suggest that aramaic documents were translated immediately into greek. considering that the church was multi-lingual from the start with Hellenist Jews and Hebrew/aramaic speaking Jews, plus latin being spoken in Rome.... my perspective is that some or many of the manuscripts were originally written in aramaic and translated straight away for the Hellenist Christians and I recommend the above book as very interesting and detailed information.

share|improve this answer
To clarify (as an Orthodox Christian), Orthodox Christians hold the Greek Septuagint as the authoritative Hebrew Bible. Orthodoxy has always held the Greek text of the New Testament as authoritative (the Patriarch even having approved a specific Greek text in 1904). – Dan Mar 18 at 18:13

Ever notice how not even Jesus, or the Apostles address textual primacy, accuracy, errors, etc, regarding the Hebrew/Aramaic/LXX Bible?

I sometimes wonder if we place too much significance on this question. ...

Another Argument For Aramaic Primacy:

The greatest argument that I can muster Aramaic Primacy, (other than what has been given), is the Armenian Church, and their massive stockpile of Ancient Aramaic Manuscripts :

These manuscripts are incredibly valuable in textual criticism. However, because of obvious conflicts with the Catholics, and Greek Orthodox, a lot of these manuscripts are undisclosed to the public today.

There were thousands of ancient Aramaic manuscripts used by the Early Church.

No Aramaic Manuscript made it into Canon.

Answer 1: Because of the evident use of Aramaic in the Early Church, and the sheer number of extant manuscripts available, Aramaic was probably the most used language to communicate with in Israel, and other heavily semitic areas.

The Argument for Greek Primacy:

I am not sure anyone contends, in Good Faith, that books like Luke, Acts, etc, were not originally authored in Greek.

Certainly, Aramaic expressions may have been thrown in, but this is hardly "proof" of Aramaic Primacy, as the Authors probably used those same expressions.

Argument for Duality:

As is seen by the plethora of answers, there are very strong arguments for both, (considering textual discrepancies, figures of speech, etc).

So, it seems more than plausible that BOTH are true--depending on the audience of the texts.

However, this lends itself to the third argument--for Aramaic AND Greek Duality, not just Primacy.

It is the case that both Aramaic and Greek, were spoken commonly--and certainly not Hebrew.

It is the case that Paul was fluent in both, Greek and Aramaic.

Acts 21:40, NASB - When he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned to the people with his hand; and when there was a great hush, he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, saying, ...

It is the case that Early Church writers were keenly aware of issues of translation, and would have wanted to ensure proper translations.

Answer: Therefore, it is more than plausible that when early Church writers penned their writings, they used scribes, and transcriptionists to have the texts written side by side with their translations.

Begging the Question:

If we go back, historically, the question of Primacy is impossible to answer--as there was no New Testament when those documents were authored--nor did many writers suspect that we would be having this question sometime in the future.

What is the Bible, what books was the New Testament actually composed of?

Makes you Wonder: How many other texts were extant that the Earliest Church considered authoritative, but were authored in Aramaic, and not included in Canon because they were not authored in Greek?

share|improve this answer
Note that there is another question devoted more to what you addressed here (linked in the question itself): What portions of the New Testament are purported to have originally been written in Aramaic?. – Dan Nov 24 '14 at 22:31

I would contend that the simplest refutation of Aramaic supremacy is the language of the Greek Text. If whole books of the New Testament were written in Aramaic and then translated to Greek, we would have much worse Greek and/or more hold overs from the Aramaic (Eloi, Eloi?). A reading of the LXX is a great example, as the language is slightly stilted because of the Hebrew foundation. The New Testament displays more homogony, and thus an Aramaic supremacy is passed over by most scholars.

share|improve this answer
The Greek of the NT is actually quite diverse, with some authors writing very fluently, and others writing like native speakers of Greek. If any of the books were translations from Aramaic we would just expect the same, depending on the competency of the translator. – curiousdannii Feb 19 at 8:39

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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