Exploring Aramaic Source Criticism
Most scholars agree that Jesus of Nazareth’s mothertongue was Aramaic. It then follows that when someone reads a modern English Bible, that they are reading a translation of a text that was compiled in Koine Greek but in turn records a tradition that originally played out in the Aramaic language.
Aramaic Source Criticism (also known as Aramaic Primacy) is the position that the New Testament as we have it today, whether in whole or in part, traces back to original Aramaic sources (be these lost written documents, or old oral traditions).
AramaicNT.org seeks to investigate this hypothetical Aramaic layer through scholarly methodology and framework.
If you are looking for the Syriac Keyboard for Mac OS X, download it below:
Syriac Phonetic Keyboard Layout for Mac OS X
If you would like to support AramaicNT.org, please consider the following:
 Donate $15 once. |
 Buy a translation at Aramaic Designs. |
 Donate $5 a month. |
February 9th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
In your FAQs section, you make the comment: “On the contrary, this may be evidence that the New Testament was compiled in Greek by way of Aramaic source documents. Extant Aramaic copies of the New Testament quote Aramaic Old Testament sources where Hebrew copies of the New Testament that exist tend to quote the Massoretic text.” You also mention “Aramaic source documents” in another FAQ.
I’ve never heard of these Aramaic and Hebrew source documents before. Can you please tell me which documents you are referring to and some information about them?
While I am an opponent of Aramaic Primacy, because, contrary to the viewpoint you expound, it seems to me that archaeology and Scripture point to Jesus and the New Testament authors as bi- and tri-lingual, nevertheless, I would like to see proof of your viewpoint.
Also, how do you answer the assertion that certain quotations in the Greek text from the Septuagint only apply in context with the Septuagint version of Scripture and not the Hebrew? (For example, the quote concerning the virginity of Mary.)
Another issue that piques my curiosity is how so many of the Aramaic Primacy or Hebrew Primacy enthusiasts don’t realize the vast differences between the Aramaic language and the Hebrew language. Persons that spoke Aramaic at the time of Christ did not necessarily understand Hebrew, unless they were also taught that language. Do you take that into account in your theory?
Feel free to e-mail me…
February 10th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Thanks for commenting John. The extant copies of the Aramaic New Testament I am referring to are the Old Syriac and Peshitta manuscripts, and the Hebrew are scattered books such as the DuTillet and Munster Matthew, etc..
Although all of these are a very far cry from anything that could be original, they (and other early New Testament versions that are not in Greek) do show a tendency for translators, when translating a quoted verse from the Old Testament, to copy extant established traditions in the target language in many cases, rather than freestyle it themselves. The conclusion would then follow that such claims as evidence for any one particular language could be made on either side, making the point moot.
My standpoint in compiling this website was that, although the New Testament as we have it today was most likely compiled in Greek, that it has (in many demonstrable places) a very strong Aramaic layer that should not be neglected. With that said, most of the “Aramaic source documents” that I refer to in these articles are hypothetical texts or oral traditions much like the concept of Q (multiple phenomena pointing towards an underlying source).
I am not one who ascribes to Hebrew Primacy (the Hebrew in the section in question was merely mentioned as an example). I side with the vast majority of scholars who believe that Jesus and his contemporaries conversed in Aramaic with a little Hebrew, and enough Greek that was appropriate for what individual spheres they were involved with (i.e. where Paul probably knew a fair deal, Jesus probably knew very little).
I am also not one who ascribes to Peshitta Primacy, or the belief that any one extant text is The New Testament as it originally was. What I do believe is best categorized as Aramaic Source Criticism.
So, now when you do look over the articles hosted here, I hope you can better understand the viewpoint they are coming from, and if there is any ambiguity I won’t hesitate to make things clearer.
Peace,
-Steve Caruso