Our Aramaic Sources
Our translation uses ancient Aramaic texts (sometimes specified as the Syriac dialect) alongside those in Koine Greek. Here we explain why.
An Early Second Witness
The Aramaic texts are widely believed to be translations from the 2nd century AD (the 100s), which is extremely early. This makes them an early second witness to the Greek text; they may preserve some original readings that are now lost in the Greek text through very early corruption.
Less Likely to Suffer Early Corruption
You see, Aramaic texts were less likely to have suffered corruption than the Greek texts; Christians in the east were initially less persecuted than those in the west (this changed dramatically later, of course). Therefore, their documents were less likely to be destroyed, meaning more copies were around to compare against and correct. Wider distribution acts as a protection against errors through copying.
That’s why when the Aramaic differs from the Greek, it may be because the Aramaic preserves an original reading that was lost in the Greek text. This is especially so when the Aramaic solves some puzzling problems or clarifies difficult passages. For example, the mystery quote in 2 Timothy 2:19 is entirely resolved by the Aramaic text.
Possible Originals
Some evidence suggests that certain New Testament books may, perhaps, have been originally written or drafted in Aramaic before being translated into Greek. Or were, perhaps, contemporaneous with the Greek versions for Aramaic-speaking Christians. This is hard to prove, but the evidence is very thought-provoking.
Jesus, the Apostles, and Aramaic
Jesus and his Apostles spoke Aramaic. We can see this clearly in the Greek texts, which preserve Jesus’ original Aramaic words before translating them. For example:
- ‘Talitha koum’ (Mark 5:41)
- ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani’ (Mark 15:34)
- ‘Abba’ (Mark 14:36)
Yes, even if the New Testament books were all originally written in Greek, they’re preserving stories, sayings, and dialog that were originally said Aramaic. The early Christian community in Jerusalem likely had Aramaic as their mother tongue, and the first oral traditions about Jesus were almost certainly passed down in Aramaic. We also believe that Paul was familiar with Aramaic, even quoting an Aramaic version of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8.
This means that the Aramaic text can sometimes clarify what the Greek text is trying to say, because it may give us the original words, or phrasing that is likely to be closer to the original.
Aramaic and the Early Church
Several interesting historical points show how important Aramaic was in early Christianity:
- Ancient writers like Papias and Irenaeus tell us that Matthew’s Gospel was first written ‘in the Hebrew dialect’ (which likely meant Aramaic).
- Acts describes a divide between ‘Hebrew-speaking’ and ‘Greek-speaking’ believers (Acts 6:1).
- Archaeological evidence shows Aramaic was widely used in the 1st-century Near-East.
How We Use Aramaic Sources
For the above reasons, our translation defers to the Aramaic readings over the Greek text in these New Testament books:
- Matthew
- John
- Romans
- 1 Corinthians
- 2 Corinthians
- Galatians
- Ephesians
- Philippians
- Colossians
- 1 Thessalonians
- 2 Thessalonians
- 1 Timothy
- 2 Timothy
- Titus
- Philemon
- Hebrews
- James
- 1 Peter
- 1 John
We do this partially because the Aramaic may preserve the originial readings, but also partly as an experiment, to see what happens; will it still make sense? Well, yes, it does.
Our translation does not, however, defer to the Aramaic for the following books:
- Mark
- Luke
- Acts
- 2 Peter
- 2 John
- 3 John
- Jude
- Revelation
Why not for Mark, Luke, and Acts?
We don’t defer to the Aramaic for Mark, Luke, and Acts because:
- They appear to have been originally written for a Greek audience.
- Arguments for possibly being originally in Aramaic are weaker.
- It’s unclear whether the Aramaic versions are early enough to be useful.
However, these books still quote Aramaic speakers, so the Aramaic text may still be helpful. As a rule, however, we don’t automatically defer to the Aramaic for these books.
Why not for 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation?
As for the other five books, they are known as the ‘Western Five’ books, and were not accepted as part of the New Testament canon by Aramaic speakers until much, much later. Therefore, scholars believe that the Aramaic versions of those books are very late translations from Greek.
For example, 2 John 1:7 in Aramaic transliterates the Greek word for ‘antichrist’, antichristos, as ‘ahntiykriystaws’ instead of using the correct Aramaic term ‘meshiyhah d'agala’ which was used in 1 John 2:1.
Their late dates mean they would just contain any earlier corruption present in the Greek, and are much less helpful. These late translations are available in the Crawford Codex.
So, usually, when the Greek and Aramaic readings differ, we go by the Aramaic, except where the Aramaic translations are too late (in 8 books).
The Khabouris Codex
Our primary Aramaic source is the Khabouris Codex, a remarkable manuscript that preserves the Eastern tradition of the text. This beautifully scripted document uses the Estrangelo script and contains most of the traditional Christian books.
What makes the Khabouris special? It’s a careful copy of much older manuscripts, maintained by communities that have used Aramaic continuously since the time of Jesus.
The scribal quality is exceptional; out of the entire manuscript, only a handful of scribal errors have been found, and all but one were corrected by later scribal hands.
- You can download a full copy of the Khabouris Codex from the Dukhrana Project.
Were the Books Originally in Aramaic?
Some people argue that all or parts of the New Testament were originally written in Aramaic. These advocates are known as ‘Peshitta Primacists’.
They point to several intriguing pieces of evidence:
-
Some unexplained differences between different Greek manuscripts could be explained by Aramaic ‘split words’ — cases where an Aramaic word has two different meanings, and two different Greek translators chose different meanings. However, the same could be said to support Greek (e.g. in Luke 14:5).
-
The presence of Aramaic expressions written phonetically in Greek texts (like ‘Talitha kum’ in Mark 5:41).
-
Geographical details present in the Aramaic texts but missing from Greek manuscripts.
However, most modern scholars maintain that while Jesus likely spoke Aramaic and some source materials may have been in Aramaic (especially for the Gospels), the New Testament books were likely composed in Greek. They point to the sophisticated Greek constructions in many passages and the early widespread use of Greek in the eastern Mediterranean.
Surprisingly good arguments can be made for both sides of this debate.
It may also be possible that some books were originally in Greek and others in Aramaic, but that both were translated into the other language immediately by different people. This would explain the split words, certain patterns in the text, and the traditions around them.
This could well be true, as the Syrian churches claim an extremely early compilation of their canon — around AD 55-60! While this traditional dating is debated, it could easily be true if most Christian texts were translated into the other language immediately after they were written.
Rather than taking a position in this debate, we can focus on what we know for certain:
- Jesus and his earliest followers spoke Aramaic.
- The stories about Jesus were very likely first told in Aramaic.
- The Aramaic texts are very early valuable witnesses.
- Some books (like Matthew) may have Aramaic origins.
- The traditional view that the texts were always in Aramaic may have been maintained by Aramaic-speaking communities continuously since the time of Jesus.
So whatever actually happened, the Aramaic versions remain invaluable witnesses to how these texts were understood in the earliest centuries of Christianity.
Key Differences in the Aramaic Text
When comparing the Aramaic and Greek texts, we’ve noticed some suspicious patterns of difference, particularly in three key areas:
1. Trinitarian Verses
Some passages that are often used to support trinitarian doctrine read differently in the Aramaic. For example, the Aramaic often maintains a clearer distinction between God the Father and Jesus his Son, where some variant Greek readings could be viewed as equating them.
2. The Term ‘Maryah’
The Aramaic word maryah (the full spelling of ‘Lord’) appears in interesting patterns. This full spelling is often used when replacing YHWH (God’s Name).
However, in some books (particularly Mark, Luke, and Acts), it’s used as a title (although not a name) for Jesus in ways that may suggest later binitarian influence (the earliest belief that Jesus was the same entity as God the Father). This is one reason we believe these books in particular were probably later translations from Greek into Aramaic, rather than being Aramaic originals or made at the same time as the original.
3. Religious Authority
Perhaps most intriguingly, verses about religious authority often read differently in the Aramaic.
For example:
- Where Greek texts might say ‘leaders,’ Aramaic often says ‘shepherds’.
- Where Greek suggests submission to authority, Aramaic often indicates more gentle guidance.
- Where Greek elevates apostolic authority, Aramaic often emphasizes their role as helpers or servants.
These differences paint a picture of early Christian communities that were less hierarchical than in later centuries, and raise serious questions about possible textual corruption of the Greek text.
4. Resolved Problems
Some puzzling parts of the Greek are cleared up by the Aramaic.
For example:
- The mystery quote that appears in 2 Timothy 2:19 is entirely resolved by the Aramaic text.
- The mystery quote of Jesus in John 7:38 is also resolved by the Aramaic text.
- Whether there should or should not be a comma in Luke 23:43 (‘today you will be with me in paradise’) is greatly helped by an older Aramaic manuscript which words it such a way to support there being a comma after ‘today’.
- A difficult-to-translate phrase in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is clarified by the Aramaic text.
You can explore these differences in detail in our translator notes.