Which Came First – Aramaic or Greek?

This series of web pages provides free lessons on the Aramaic New Testament or Peshitta.

Home | Aramaic New Testament | Introduction | Which Came First – Aramaic or Greek?

Everyone understands that the New Testament was not originally written in English, or whatever modern language is your mother tongue, but was originally written in something else. Greek Primacists say it was originally written in Greek. Aramaic Primacists say it was originally written in Aramaic. Who is right?

Rather than just tell you the answer, let's do an interesting thought experiment. Suppose you had two documents – one written in Chinese, the other in English. They are so closely related that one must have come first, and the other must be a translation. The languages involved are very different. The citizens of both countries tell you that their version is the original, and the other is a translation. Your task is to find out who is right.

This is a very close analogy to the original language of the New Testament. Some say Greek is the original. Others say the Aramaic Peshitta is the original. They are very different languages. Who is right?

To continue our thought experiment, let's suggest some ideas to help you decide what factors would help you decide which is the original:

Historical context. If the document is about China, about things relevant to China or in China, there's a very good chance that Chinese is the original language.
Foreign words. If there are a smattering of foreign words from neighbouring countries, such as Japanese or Korean, it sounds like it was originally a Chinese document.
Idioms. Let's say the document had lots of idioms that all made sense in Chinese, but not in English. Then you would have strong evidence that Chinese was the original language.
Puns. If the document had puns or plays on words that were only puns in Chinese, you would again have strong evidence that Chinese was the original language.
Poetry. Poetry is very language-specific. If the document was only poetic in Chinese, it is evidence that the original was in Chinese.
Translation Errors. Suppose some elements of the translation made perfect sense in Chinese, but were very garbled in English. This would suggest that Chinese was the original language.
Variation. Suppose all copies of the document in Chinese all agreed, but in English there were lots of variations. That would suggest Chinese was the original, but there had been multiple attempts at translation into English, with later corrections and modifications, some better than others.

Now, suppose the opposite was the case. Suppose the document is in perfect English, it has no real variations, and it contains puns, plays on words, idioms and poetry that only work in English. The document is found everywhere in England, and talks about English cities such as London. This would strongly suggest the document was originally written in English. It would be even more convincing if the Chinese version was garbled in places, had lots of variations, and contained phrases that made no sense in Chinese, but made perfect sense in English. Even if the Chinese insisted that their version was the original, the evidence would suggest otherwise.

If you apply the above analogy to the question: Which came first – Aramaic or Greek?, you will have the tools necessary to decide for yourself where the evidence points. When you start looking into the evidence, the Aramaic Peshitta has all the hallmarks of authenticity. In our lessons on the History of Aramaic, we demonstrated that Jews in 1st century Palestine and the surrounding area spoke Aramaic, not Greek. For the most part, they hated Greek and the Greek influence on Judaism, following the Macabbean revolt. Archaeological evidence points to Aramaic being the most influential language in the region. The Aramaic Peshitta is absolutely full of Aramaic idioms, Aramaic puns and plays on words, poetry that rhymes in Aramaic, (only) a few foreign words from Greek and Latin, and there are no real variations between manuscripts. The Koine Greek New Testament, on the other hand, has major problems. There are numerous significant variations that point to an Aramaic original, places where it explicitly says it is translating from Aramaic, idioms that make little sense in Greek, and many similar problems.

When you look at the evidence, it points overwhelmingly to the Aramaic Peshitta being the original language of the New Testament, rather than Koine Greek. That is what churches in the East have always believed. Prior to Westcott & Hort and their theories of New Testament criticism, Greek was widely studied in universities because Greek has so many manuscript variations that generations of students can spend their entire lives picking the Greek text apart for the rest of eternity, dreaming up new and more elaborate theories of textual criticism, writing PhD papers, getting funding, and generally making a career for themselves. That whole edifice falls apart if the Aramaic Peshitta is the original language, because there are no meaningful variations to spend a career analysing. No wonder that the academic establishment tries to ignore the Aramaic Peshitta and clings to Greek Primacy at all costs.

For some, the idea that the Greek New Testament was translated from the Aramaic, and that the Aramaic Peshitta is the original, will be revolutionary and (at first) ludicrous. But hear Aramaic primacists out. Listen to the evidence.

Let us finish this lesson with a simple challenge. Carefully, diligently and honestly examine the evidence for yourself. Leave no stone uncovered. Do not rest until you find the answers. After your investigation, if your original beliefs prove to be correct, you will be even more convinced of them following your investigation. If, however, you find out that what you assumed to be true is in fact a huge lie, then the sooner you correct your belief, the better. Truth, for a Bible believer, is all that matters in the end.

Home | Aramaic New Testament | Introduction | Which Came First – Aramaic or Greek?