Aramaic primacy is the view that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic, not Greek. Advocates of this view believe that the original texts of the New Testament books were written by the apostles and early Christians in Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus and his disciples. The Greek New Testament that we have today is then thought to be a translation of these original Aramaic texts.
There are several key arguments made in favor of Aramaic primacy:
- Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, not Greek. As first century Jews living in Galilee and Judea, their native tongue would have been Aramaic.
- There are a number of Aramaic words and phrases preserved in the Greek New Testament, like “Abba” (Mark 14:36), “talitha koum” (Mark 5:41), and “Ephphatha” (Mark 7:34). This suggests the texts were based on Aramaic originals.
- The Greek of the New Testament has an Aramaic influence and includes semitisms, suggesting translation from Aramaic.
- Early church tradition holds that Matthew’s gospel was originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic. For example, 4th century scholar Eusebius wrote “Matthew…composed the oracles in the Hebrew tongue.”
Scholars who favor Aramaic primacy argue that the original Aramaic texts written by the apostles and earliest Christians have since been lost or destroyed. The Greek New Testament we have today is a later translation of these lost Aramaic writings. This translation work, they contend, occurred sometime in the late first or early second century AD.
However, the dominant scholarly view is that the New Testament was originally written in Greek, not Aramaic. There are several reasons for this:
- Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire in the 1st century AD and was widely spoken and understood across the Mediterranean world. The apostles and early Christians would have used Greek to spread their message to the broader culture.
- The Greek of the New Testament does not read like translation Greek, but rather original composition Greek. Many New Testament books are highly literate and rhetorical in quality.
- No original Aramaic manuscripts of the New Testament or early Christian literature have ever been discovered, unlike the thousands of ancient Greek manuscripts.
- Early church fathers like Papias and Irenaeus affirm Matthew’s gospel was originally in Greek. The majority of quotations from the gospels in early church writings are from Greek texts.
- The places, people, and institutions in the New Testament are referred to using their Greek names (e.g. Gerasenes not Gergesa). This implies original Greek composition.
While Aramaic primacy is not accepted by most scholars, there is evidence that at least some portions of the New Testament may have originally been composed in Aramaic before being translated into Greek. For example, the distinctiveness of John 1:1 in Greek (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”) suggests it may be a translation of an earlier Aramaic text. And there are differing literary styles and word choices in certain passages that some contend comes from an Aramaic original. But for the vast majority of the New Testament, the scholarly consensus is that it was originally written in Greek.
Key Figures and Groups Supporting Aramaic Primacy
While Aramaic primacy remains a minority viewpoint, there are several notable scholars and groups who have promoted this perspective and produced work arguing for original Aramaic New Testament texts:
- Frank Zimmerman – 19th century scholar who wrote a book titled “The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels.” He argued that the gospels were originally anonymous writings in Aramaic that were later adapted and translated into Greek.
- George Lamsa – 20th century author of the popular translation “The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts.” He claimed the Peshitta (the standard Aramaic Syriac Bible) was based on original Aramaic gospels.
- Charles Cutler Torrey – Yale scholar who wrote “Our Translated Gospels” in the 1930s. He argued that Greek Matthew and Luke were translated from Aramaic originals.
- Joseph Pashka – Contemporary scholar and author of “Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel.” He theorizes Mark was compiled from earlier Aramaic texts.
- Peshitta Institute – Organization that studies the Syriac (Aramaic) Peshitta Bible and promotes it as superior and more original than the Greek NT.
- Institute for Scripture Research – South African group that has published The Aramaic English New Testament, arguing the Peshitta is from the original Aramaic.
These scholars and groups vary in their precise arguments and claims about how much of the New Testament was originally in Aramaic versus Greek. But they all generally believe that at least some portion of the New Testament documents – potentially including the gospels – originated in Aramaic and were later translated into the Greek texts we have today.
Key Arguments Against Widespread Aramaic Primacy
While some limited Aramaic influence on parts of the New Testament is acknowledged by most scholars, the majority do not accept widespread Aramaic primacy. There are several key counterarguments against the idea that the entire New Testament – or even significant portions of it – were originally written in Aramaic.
- There is no manuscript evidence – no original Aramaic texts of the New Testament have survived, whereas thousands of ancient Greek manuscripts exist.
- The Greek of the NT does not read like translation Greek, and even very sophisticated passages like Luke 1:1-4 are in sophisticated Greek.
- Koine Greek was perfectly capable of expressing complex theological ideas and was widely used in the 1st century Mediterranean world.
- Some books like Hebrews and Luke-Acts contain complex Greek literary features like wordplay and puns that likely reflect Greek originals.
- The Aramaic influence on the Greek NT is minor and largely confined to a few transliterated words and some semitic language style.
Additionally, if entire books were translations from Aramaic originals as Aramaic primacy contends, we would expect uniformity in things like geographical references. But the gospels vary in referring to places by either their Aramaic or Greek names, undermining the translation theory.
Further, early church testimony largely affirms Greek originals for most NT texts. So while Aramaic influence from oral transmission is plausible in parts of the NT, widespread composition in Aramaic has minimal scholarly support.
Key Areas of Debate
There are a few books and passages in the NT that Aramaic primacy advocates focus on most and where the debate over potential Aramaic origins tends to center:
- The Gospel of Matthew – The church father Papias said Matthew compiled the “oracles” in the “Hebrew language.” Aramaic primacy theorists see this as evidence Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Aramaic.
- The Gospel of Mark – Some scholars believe Mark may have compiled stories that were originally circulating orally in Aramaic communities before being written in Greek.
- First Corinthians – The passage in 1 Corinthians 16:22, “Marana tha” is seen by some as a fragment from an earlier Aramaic text.
- The Passion Narratives – Because this part of the gospels deals closely with the actual words and events of Christ’s ministry, some argue they originated in Aramaic before being translated into Greek.
So while widespread Aramaic primacy has limited support, there is lively scholarly debate about potential Aramaic influence in certain books and passages like these. Citing church father testimony, Aramaic phrases preserved in the Greek text, and linguistic analysis, some argue these sections likely originated in Aramaic before later Greek authorship.
Dating When the New Testament Was Translated from Aramaic
Most scholars reject the notion of the entire New Testament being translated from Aramaic originals. But Aramaic primacy advocates propose varying theories on when hypothetical Aramaic writings might have been translated into the Greek NT we have today.
Some date an Aramaic-to-Greek translation very early – as early as the mid-first century. On this view, books like Matthew were first written in Aramaic by the apostles, then translated into Greek a few decades later. This potentially allows for authorship by the traditional authors.
By contrast, some Aramaic primacy theorists argue the Aramaic originals were not translated into Greek until the early-to-mid second century. In this timeline, anonymous writings in Aramaic circulated for decades before later translation. This opens up broader questions of authorship and original audiences.
Overall, even among those advocating Aramaic origins for portions of the NT, there is disagreement about precise dating and implications for authorship. But most theories place an Aramaic-to-Greek translation, if it occurred, no later than the mid-2nd century.
Relationship to the Peshitta and Other Aramaic Texts
Most Aramaic primacy theories are closely linked to the Peshitta – the standard Syriac Aramaic Bible used by several branches of the Syrian church since the 5th century AD. However, scholars debate how the Peshitta relates to the NT’s origins:
- Some argue the Peshitta represents a translation from original NT Aramaic texts that have since been lost.
- Others contend the Peshitta itself is the original, composed in Aramaic by the apostles.
- Most scholars instead assert the Peshitta was translated from Greek NT manuscripts, not vice versa.
There are also a few other ancient Aramaic texts and fragments containing NT portions – such as the Old Syriac texts. While important resources, most scholars do not view them as preserving original Aramaic NT writings. Their relationship to the debate over Aramaic primacy continues to be studied by experts.
Implications if Aramaic Primacy Proven True
If strong evidence emerged validating widespread Aramaic origins for the NT, it would have profound implications:
- It would bolster the historical-critical view that the gospels were originally anonymous works that circulated orally in Aramaic before later authorship attribution.
- It would allow for broader questions over authorship, dating, and original audiences.
- Reconstruction of the original Aramaic NT texts would become an urgent scholarly task.
- The authority and reliability of the Greek NT would come under scrutiny if it is merely a secondary translation.
However, proving such sweeping Aramaic primacy remains a challenge with minimal scholarly support currently. Most experts maintain that while possible in a few passages, the original language of authorship for the vast majority of the NT was Greek, not Aramaic.
Current Status of Aramaic Primacy in Scholarship
Among critical biblical scholars, Aramaic primacy currently remains a minority perspective. Most scholars firmly maintain the dominant view that the NT was originally written in Greek. However, there are dissenting voices. For example:
- New Testament scholar Maurice Casey continued to argue for Aramaic originals for some NT books in his career.
- Details like Mark 5:41 retaining “talitha koum” point to some Aramaic origins for a few passages.
- Cambridge scholar C.F. Burney’s 1920s work raised arguments for Aramaic roots that are still cited today.
So while the consensus view remains Greek primacy, some scholars do advocate that the theoretical possibility of Aramaic origins deserves more consideration. They urge colleagues to remain open to growing evidence from linguistic analysis and other fields that may reveal more nuance to the debate in coming decades.
Reasons Why a Consensus Hasn’t Been Reached
Scholars studying this issue point to these key factors that hinder wider agreement:
- Lack of surviving manuscripts – original Aramaic NT manuscripts haven’t been found.
- Ambiguity over church father testimony – for example, “Hebrew” could refer to Aramaic or just Semitic style Greek.
- Complexity of first century Galilee – multilingualism makes definitive judgments difficult.
- Limited knowledge of development of NT texts – more research on oral transmission stages is still needed.
So the realities of limited textual evidence, the ambiguity of patristic comments, and gaps in knowledge about the earliest communities have prevented firmer conclusions on Aramaic origins. But this leaves room for those advocating Aramaic primacy in certain passages to make their case heard.
Looking Forward: Potential for Future Advances
Looking forward, there are several developments that could bring more clarity to the debate over Aramaic primacy:
- New manuscripts discoveries – finding even fragments of Aramaic NT texts would be significant.
- Advances in computer analysis – improved models for detecting translation Greek versus original Greek.
- Ongoing study of early Christian Aramaic writings – non-NT writings may provide more linguistic clues.
- More patristic scholarship – better understanding of fathers’ testimony about Semitic origins for books like Matthew.
Overall, future discoveries and emerging research may tip the scales to provide firmer answers. While widespread Aramaic primacy remains unproven, many experts urge keeping an open and critical eye to this ongoing biblical debate.