ARAMAIC PRIMACY IN NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES: A BALANCED EVALUATION FROM AN OVERVIEW OF MODERN ASSYRIAN SOURCES

St. Paul Preaching on Mars Hill to the Greeks and Romans, and St. Peter Preaching in Mesopotamia to the Jews and the Arameans

By Bp. Joseph Boyd (Ancient Church of the West) 

INTRODUCTION

In recent decades, a growing number of scholars, particularly within the Assyrian and Aramaic-speaking Christian communities in the United States, have advanced a provocative thesis: that the New Testament was originally written, not in Greek, but in Aramaic. Proponents of this view, often called “Aramaic Primacists”, or more controversially “Aramaic Supremacists” by their critics, argue that the earliest and most authentic texts of the New Testament are preserved in the Aramaic-Syriac tradition, specifically in the Peshitta, which is the received textual authority of the Syriac-speaking Churches. This theory challenges the conventional western scholastic consensus that the New Testament was composed in Koine Greek by bilingual or Hellenized Jews in the first-century eastern Mediterranean world.

To understand this debate, it is important to take seriously the arguments of Aramaic Primacists while also examining the complex historical, linguistic, and textual evidence in favor of a Greek primacy. In this article, I will seek to explore both perspectives respectfully and on their own merit, offering a comprehensive overview of the debate and its broader implications for us in the field of biblical scholarship.

I. THE CASE FOR ARAMAIC PRIMACY

A. George Lamsa and the Modern Aramaic School

The most well-known modern advocate of Aramaic Primacy is George M. Lamsa (1892–1975), an Assyrian Christian and native speaker of the Aramaic dialect used in the Peshitta. I was gifted many of his original works while I lived in Modesto among the Assyrians, and still have his Bible translated from the Aramaic with his signature on the front page. In works such as “Gospel Light” and “The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts”, Lamsa argued that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. He based this on several pillars:

1. Linguistic Coherence: Lamsa contended that many idioms and difficult passages in the Greek New Testament make more sense when rendered back into Aramaic. For example, the famous “camel through the eye of a needle” (Matthew 19:24) is thought to stem from a confusion between the Aramaic words gamla (camel) and gamla (rope).

2. Continuity of Language: Jesus and the Apostles were Aramaic-speaking Jews. It would seem natural, Lamsa claimed, that their sayings and teachings were first recorded in their native language.

3. Antiquity of the Peshitta: Lamsa and his followers argued that the Peshitta (the standard Syriac Bible) predates many Greek manuscripts and preserves a purer, uncorrupted text.

4. Reliability of the Aramaic Church Tradition: The Church of the East, which preserved the Peshitta, did so in isolation from Greco-Roman controversies and without the textual corruptions they believe crept into the Greek tradition through ecclesiastical politics.

The scholar Rocco A. Errico, a Lamsa disciple and influential thinker in contemporary Assyrian circles, has extended this tradition by promoting Aramaic as a tool for unlocking deeper meanings in Scripture, especially the sayings of Jesus. These ideas have won adherence in the Protestant world, especially amongst more charismatic-leaning and Messianic Jewish-leaning movements, which strive to eradicate the imbalances that they feel an over reliance on Hellenism has introduced into the context of the Christian tradition. 

B. Early Aramaic Translations and the Diatessaron

Beyond Lamsa, there is a strong scholarly tradition acknowledging the antiquity of Aramaic versions of the Gospels, most notably the Diatessaron, compiled by Tatian in the 2nd century. Tatian, a student of St. Justin Martyr, produced a harmonized gospel in Syriac, which became the standard gospel text for many Aramaic-speaking Christians for several centuries, and exists in plenteous quotations and several nearly complete manuscripts. 

The Diatessaron suggests not only the early presence of Aramaic translations but also that a unified Syriac tradition was developing independently of the Greek West, as Mesopotamian Jewish communities converted to Christianity, outside of the Greco-Roman sphere of cultural influence. The early Syriac versions eventually developed into two main strands: the “Old Syriac” (including the Curetonian and Sinaitic manuscripts), and the later, standardized Peshitta, meaning “Simple Reading”, which may date to the late 4th or early 5th century.

II. THE GREEK PRIMACY VIEW AND MIDDLE POSITIONS

A. Linguistic and Textual Evidence for Greek Originals

The overwhelming consensus among modern Western biblical scholars is that the New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek, albeit by authors from a Semitic cultural and linguistic background. This view is supported by:

1. Manuscript Evidence: The earliest and most complete New Testament manuscripts (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus) are in Greek. The Aramaic Peshitta manuscripts are centuries later.

2. Stylistic Greek: The Gospels, Epistles, and Revelation are composed in literary Greek, often employing rhetorical devices, Septuagintal quotations that do not exist in other textual streams to form apologetic scriptural arguments to Jesus’ fulfillment of prophecy as Messiah, and Hellenistic vocabulary.

3. Greek-Speaking Audiences: Many of the early Christian communities (Corinth, Rome, Ephesus) were Greek-speaking. The epistles of St. Paul, addressed to these communities, clearly presuppose Greek linguistic contexts for these letters, so the Assyrian claims that they were Aramaic-speaking Jews tends to be less convincing (along with the fact that the “Judaisers” who were early Christians attached to the Semitic language and tradition of the Pharisees, were antagonistic to these Hellenized communities, forming much of the conflict around St. Paul’s ministry). 

Yet, there is also widespread acknowledgment that Aramaic was the native language of Jesus and his early followers, and that several sayings and idioms reflect Semitic substrates that only make sense in an Aramaic context - as Lamsa and Ricco have pointed out. This has led some scholars to adopt a “middle position”:

• The oral teachings of Jesus were preserved in Aramaic and later transcribed in Greek.

• Some books, particularly Matthew and Hebrews, may have had Semitic originals or source material. Eusebius of Caesarea (Eccl. Hist. 3.39.16) quotes Papias as saying that “Matthew compiled the sayings in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone translated them as he was able.” Mark also quotes many of the sayings of Jesus in transliteration from Aramaic to Greek. 

This middle ground is also reflected in scholars like Matthew Black, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Raymond Brown, who explored the Semitic underpinnings of the Greek texts. This understanding of early New Testament texts had become more mainstream and better accepted over the last few decades, and promises to expand as more western Christian scholars interact with biblical and Christian Syriac. 

III. THE PESHITTA AND THE ARAMAIC TRADITION

A. The Peshitta’s Unique Role

The Peshitta has a unique place in biblical history. Its Old Testament aligns remarkably with both the Septuagint (LXX) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) in key places, indicating that it preserves ancient textual traditions. Some scholars, like the much loved and respected Oxford professor, Dr. Sebastian Brock, have suggested that the Peshitta reflects a very early biblical textual tradition, soundly grounded in a deeply conservative, Semitic Christian tradition, even if not original in composition. The Semitic approach to texts, which can be seen in the textual reverence, literalism, and “jot and title” attitudes of both Judaism and Islam, is clearly seen in the Assyrian and Syriac Orthodox cultures of biblical interpretation as well. 

The Peshitta New Testament excludes 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, and Revelation, which were later added in the “Philoxenian” and “Harklean” revisions in the 6th–7th centuries. This absence further suggests an early and independent textual stream within the Aramaic tradition, that was not dependent upon the West for validity or certification. It is an independent stream and one that maintained high levels of fidelity, conservatively interpreting and applying the Biblical texts as they received them. 

B. Aramaic Christianity and Stability

The Aramaic-speaking communities of Mesopotamia (Assyrians, Arameans, Maronites, Chaldeans, and West Syriacs) have preserved uninterrupted liturgical and biblical usage of Aramaic for nearly two millennia, with Eucharistic prayers directly tied to the Second Temple worship in Jerusalem, and a hermeneutical approach that ties into early Hebraic and Pharisaical traditions of teaching and biblical interpretation. In contrast to the theological turbulence of the Greco-Roman world (with its ecumenical councils, schisms, and imperial interventions), the Church of the East developed in relative isolation, allowing a conservative textual and theological tradition to form. The fact that it is still as comprehensible to the Greek world and shares so much of its attitudes, sacramentally, structurally, and doctrinally, with all the other Ancient and Apostolic Churches, proves how old and universal these attitudes are within the Early Church! 

Aramaic Primacists often argue that this high level of stability protects the integrity of the biblical tradition and certifies its approach as being “original.” They point to linguistic continuity, the ancient liturgical use of the Peshitta, and the theological consistency in Christology and ecclesiology, unburdened by some of the controversies that shaped Byzantine Christianity and caused many eras of doctrinal debate, heresy and infidelity. They point out that this instability was only solved by Greeks and Romans finally settling on a sacralized identity that applied the attitudes of Semitic Christianity to their own previously pagan, secular, and immoral cultures and languages. This created a new locus of holiness, love for language, and respect for liturgical practices that, for Mesopotamian Jews, had already existed in the Old Testamental practice and was directly imported into their New Testamental Christian practice. 

IV. EVALUATING THE CLAIMS: STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

The Aramaic Primacy theory raises important and sometimes neglected questions:

• It forces scholars to pay more attention to Semitic idioms, background, and cultural context.

• It emphasizes the diversity of early Christianity and the importance of the Eastern Churches in preserving ancient traditions.

• It highlights the historical marginalization of Aramaic-speaking Christianity in Western scholarship and promotes a wider and more healthy interest into Semitic Christianity. 

However, several challenges remain:

• Absence of Early Manuscripts: No Aramaic manuscript of the New Testament predates the earliest Greek papyri (e.g., P52, c. AD 125).

• Greek Literary Form: The New Testament shows signs of Greek composition, including LXX references and Hellenistic rhetorical forms.

• Theological Development: The Peshitta reflects a canonical shape that emerged in the later Syriac tradition, and is not necessarily earlier than the canonical Greek New Testament.

CONCLUSION

While Greek primacy remains the majority view, the arguments of Aramaic Primacists, especially from within the Assyrian and Syriac communities, deserve serious and respectful consideration. The Semitic background of the New Testament, the early Aramaic translations, and the enduring witness of the Peshitta all underscore the need for a richer, more inclusive view of Christian origins, that truthfully retells Christian history without a canonical agenda or a denominational attempt to misrepresent others. Rather than viewing Aramaic and Greek as adversaries, it may be more fruitful to see them as complementary witnesses: echoes of a multilingual, multicultural, and truly catholic Christian movement rooted in the Jewish world and flowering across the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian worlds.

COLLECT

O ALMIGHTY GOD, who in thy manifold wisdom didst cause thy saving Word to be spoken by the tongues of men, and didst commit the oracles of truth both to the Greeks and to the Arameans, we bless thee for the light which hath shone from the East, and for the many tongues wherein thy Gospel hath been proclaimed: Grant, we beseech thee, that thy Church, remembering the Semitic roots of her Redeemer and the catholic fullness of thy revelation, may neither despise the ancient nor idolize the novel, but humbly receive all truth which proceedeth from thee, the Father of Lights. Strengthen us, O Lord, to cherish the testimony of thy saints of Mesopotamia, of Greece, and of every nation, that in due time all peoples may be brought to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of thy glory. Through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.

FOOTNOTES

1. George M. Lamsa, Gospel Light (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman, 1936), 21–38.

2. Rocco A. Errico, Let There Be Light: The Seven Keys (Noohra Foundation, 1994).

3. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16.

4. Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967).

5. Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, Rev. Ed. (New York: Doubleday, 1993).

6. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Semitic Background of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997).

7. Tatian’s Diatessaron is best studied through the Arabic and Latin witnesses; cf. William L. Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship (Brill, 1994).

8. Sebastian P. Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition, 3rd ed. (Gorgias Press, 2006).

9. Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977).

10. Jan Joosten, “The Peshitta and the Versions,” in The Textual History of the Bible, ed. Armin Lange (Brill, 2016), Vol. 1B.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Brock, Sebastian P. The Bible in the Syriac Tradition. Gorgias Press, 2006.

• Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament. Doubleday, 1997.

• Fitzmyer, Joseph A. A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. SBL, 1979.

• Lamsa, George M. The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts. A. J. Holman, 1933.

• Metzger, Bruce M. The Early Versions of the New Testament. Oxford University Press, 1977.

• Petersen, William L. Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship. Brill, 1994.

• Black, Matthew. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. Oxford, 1967.

• Joosten, Jan. Language and Textual History of the Peshitta. Brill, 2016.

• Errico, Rocco A. Let There Be Light: The Seven Keys. Noohra Foundation, 1994.

• Walton, Jonathan H. Greek and Aramaic in the New Testament: A Linguistic Survey. Cambridge University Press, forthcoming.