Tags
Aramaic has been in some ways a forgotten language in biblical studies, except at a very high academic level. The New Testament is written in Greek; nearly all the Old Testament is written in Hebrew, while the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the LXX) is significant to biblical studies. Yet 268 verses of the Bible were written in a language called Aramaic.
The portions of Scripture that were written in Aramaic include Ezra 4:8–6:18 and 7:12-26 (67 verses), Daniel 2:4b–7:28 (200 verses), Jeremiah 10:11, and various proper names and single words and phrases scattered throughout the Old and New Testaments. Despite the relatively small percentage of Scripture that is written in this language, the Aramaic portion of the Bible is disproportionately significant because of the importance of the book of Daniel to biblical prophecy. Aramaic is also important for New Testament studies, as several direct quotes from Jesus and others are preserved in the original Aramaic that was spoken by Palestinian Jews of the Second Temple period. New Testament verses which include Aramaic words transliterated by Greek letters are: Matt 5:22; 27:46; Mark 5:41; 7:34; 10:51; 14:36; John 1:42; 20:16; Acts 9:36, 40; Rom 8:15; 1 Cor 16:22; Gal 4:6.
In the Old Testament, four verses make a direct reference to the Aramaic language: 2 Kings 18:26, Ezra 4:7, Isaiah 36:11, and Daniel 2:4. Each of these verses calls Aramaic “Aramaic” (אֲרָמִית, an adverbial form of אֲרָמִי), though this used to be translated as “Syrian” or “Chaldee” in English. Aramaic is called “Hebrew” (Ἑβραΐς or Ἑβραϊστί) in the New Testament, since it was the tongue of the Hebrews (John 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20; 20:16; Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14). Some newer translations render the Greek word for “Hebrew” in these verses as “Aramaic,” which recognizes that these verses refer to the language we now call Aramaic.
Aramaic was originally the language of the Arameans, who were comprised of tribes that lived along the Euphrates River. Two of the most prominent of these tribes were the Syrians to the northwest, and the Chaldeans to the southeast. The word Aramaic is derived from Aram, a son of Shem who was the progenitor of the Arameans. In the earliest stages of the history of Aramaic, the language was only spoken in Aramean locales, including the area where Laban lived (cf. Gen 31:47; Deut 26:5). However, as the Syrians and Chaldeans gained prominence in the ancient Near East, their tongue became established as an international language of commerce and diplomacy, gradually displacing Akkadian. Akkadian was still the official language of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, although 2 Kings 18:26 indicates that Aramaic was already becoming established as a lingua franca of the ancient Near East by 700 BC. When the Chaldeans subsequently conquered Assyria, it was natural for them to use their own language of Aramaic as the administrative language of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, rather than adopting Akkadian. This is why Daniel 2:4 says the wise men of Babylon addressed the king in Aramaic, and why the following section of the book of Daniel is written in Aramaic. After the conquest of Babylon by Persia, the Persians also established Aramaic as the official language of their vast empire. This is why the portions of Ezra which record official correspondence are written in Aramaic.
At the time when the books of Daniel and Ezra were written, most Jews could speak and understand both Hebrew and Aramaic. They understood Hebrew as the language spoken at home, among themselves, and in the reading of the Scriptures, while Aramaic was the language spoken in broader society. Over time, Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the primary language spoken by the Jews who lived in Palestine and regions to the east. The Jews had not learned Aramaic in Palestine (cf. 2 Kgs 18:26), but they had to learn it in exile, since it was the language of their captors. Thus, the parts of the Old Testament which were composed in Aramaic were written in that language as a result of the Babylonian captivity.
Because of this, Aramaic was the native tongue of our Lord; Hebrew was rarely used as a spoken language by Jews of the first century AD.[1] There are several places where the Gospel writers preserve quotations from Jesus in the original Aramaic, including His cry from the cross, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani? (Mark 15:34). These words expressed Christ’s deepest feelings at a time of great personal anguish and emotion. That He spoke these words from Psalm 22:1 in Aramaic, rather than from the Hebrew original or the Greek Septuagint translation, shows that Aramaic was the language that He knew most intimately. Thus, the New Testament preserves Aramaic words because Aramaic was the mother tongue of Palestinian Jews in the first century AD.
The Greek of the New Testament was influenced by Aramaic, and so contains some Aramaic idioms and forms of expression, such as the phrase “answered and said.” Although the degree of Aramaic influence on the Greek of the New Testament has been a subject of much debate, it is fair to say that the style of New Testament Greek is Semiticized to one degree or another. But it is not true that parts of the New Testament were originally written in Aramaic, as some have claimed. No manuscript of any part of the New Testament has ever been discovered that is written in the Jewish Palestinian Aramaic dialect known to Jesus and the apostles.
After the resurrection of Jesus, the Syriac dialect of Aramaic became the language of the Syrian church. Aramaic also remained an important language for the Jews. Because of this, there are two major Aramaic translations of the Old Testament, the Jewish Targums and the Syriac Peshitta. There are a number of important Syriac versions of the New Testament. Much of Jewish rabbinic literature, and nearly all Syrian Christian literature, is written in Aramaic. Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were also written in Aramaic.
Both Aramaic and Hebrew are West Semitic languages. Thus, Aramaic and Hebrew share many of the same linguistic characteristics and modes of expression. Overall, Hebrew grammar and morphology is somewhat closer to proto-Semitic, especially in its patterns of vocalization, though Aramaic has a fuller complement of distinct verbal stems. Some distinctive characteristics of Aramaic include the frequent use of the participle for a finite verb, the versatile particle דִּי, the use of a determined form instead of a prefixed definite article, and such idioms as “son of man” (for “man”) and “answered and said” (for “said”). Because of the importance of Aramaic in the Second Temple period, Hebrew gradually began to be written in Aramaic letters during that time, and Hebrew has used the Aramaic square script ever since.[2] However, Syriac and other dialects of Aramaic use different scripts, while the Targumim have a system of pointing that differs from the Masoretic pointing of the Old Testament.
One of the peculiarities of biblical Aramaic is that the divine name יהוה (Yahweh) is never used. For some reason, this name was only used in Hebrew. However, the term אֱלָהּ שְׁמַיָּא (the God of heaven) occurs very frequently in Aramaic, much more than in Hebrew. It is also interesting that there are no Old Testament books written entirely in Aramaic. This is apparently to retain the character of the Old Testament as a Hebrew text.
Because of the very long linguistic history of Aramaic, and the diverse number of groups that have spoken it, there are quite a variety of Aramaic dialects, of which Syriac is the most prominent. Some eighty percent of extant Aramaic writing is in Syriac, a language which is still spoken today (in various dialects) and is used in the liturgy of some Eastern churches. There are also distinct differences between different chronological periods of Aramaic. Although liberal scholars have long attempted to deny it, the Aramaic of both Daniel and Ezra is of the Imperial Aramaic dialect that would have been in use in the sixth century BC. It is noticeably different from both the Aramaic of Qumran and from first-century AD Jewish Palestinian Aramaic.
While Hebrew was used sparingly outside of the Bible, Aramaic was used very broadly. There is a huge corpus of Aramaic literature. From about 600 BC until AD 700, Aramaic was the primary trade language of the ancient Near East. It was also the primary spoken language of Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia at the time of Christ. Aramaic was only displaced by Arabic when the Muslims conquered the Middle East—though the language never died out completely, and is still spoken in pockets of Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. Aramaic is possibly the language with the longest continuous written record in the world. Because of the broad use of Aramaic outside of the Bible, there is rarely any doubt about the meaning of words or constructions in biblical Aramaic, as there are many opportunities to research their usage in extrabiblical literature.
Although there is only a limited amount of biblical material composed in Aramaic, the influence of the Aramaic language is felt throughout the Old and New Testaments, as it was present in the background from Genesis until Revelation. Aramaic also had a prominent place in the early church and in postbiblical Judaism. But insofar as it is directly used in the Bible, Aramaic is the language of the captivity and of the Redeemer.
Postscript: Aramaic is a much more cross-disciplinary language than Greek or Hebrew. It is highly relevant to OT studies, NT studies, intertestamental studies, Jewish studies, Patristics, historical theology, archaeology, Semitics, ancient Near Eastern history, and Middle Eastern studies. As a bridge between diverse fields of study, and the original language of a very important section of the Old Testament, Aramaic is a very useful language to know. For recommended resources for the study of Biblical Aramaic, see this post.
Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee.
[1] Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, there has been a debate over the extent to which Aramaic had displaced Hebrew in Palestine by the first century AD. However, first-century AD inscriptions in Palestine are almost exclusively in Aramaic (or Greek), and Aramaic is consistently used by Jesus, rather than Hebrew. Jesus probably understood Hebrew, but as a literary, rather than spoken, language. He would have known Greek as well and spoke it on some occasions (as when dealing with Gentiles), but He would have been more at home in Aramaic.
[2] The Aramaic square script is also called the “Jewish script,” the “square script,” or the “Assyrian script.” Three stages in the development of this script at Qumran are called the “archaic script” (250-150 B.C.), the “Hasmonean script” (150-30 B.C.), and the “Herodian script” (30 B.C. – 70 A.D.). Despite the prevalence of the square script in Hebrew writing, twelve Qumran fragments were found written in a paleo-Hebrew script similar to the original Hebrew script in which most of the Old Testament was written, while several other Qumran manuscripts used the square script for the main body text and the paleo-Hebrew script for nomina sacra. See E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 206-7.
TruthOnlyBible 
I’m coming to this article very late; but want to thank you for your erudition. I spent a lot of time looking for the answers you provided above. Your comments are clear, concise, and make a lot of sense.
Pingback: Resources for Biblical Aramaic | TruthOnlyBible
Thank you very much for the article!
Is it not anachronistic to talk about the Jews in Palestine and then in the next paragraph to talk about the language that Jesus spoke? If you’re talking about the Jesus era, wasn’t it called Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, etc.?
Yes, this is an anachronism, although it is one that is commonly used. Linguists refer to Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, for example, instead of the Jewish Aramaic of Judea-Perea-Samaria-Galilee.
Aramaic is the sister to the Arabic language.
Yes, Aramaic and Arabic are both part of the Semitic language family, and knowledge of Arabic will help one learn Aramaic. However, Biblical Aramaic is actually much closer to Biblical Hebrew in terms of vocabulary, phonology, and grammar.
Thank you for all of this information, which is just amazing to learn and to read about!
Why, do you think, were not the scriptures written in Aramaic during the time periods when this was the language spoken in Israel and even in trade? I understand why the epistles would be written in Greek – for the Gospel was being shared with “the Greeks”. But why would the O.T. scriptures not be written in what was then the vernacular, and also, Jesus’ words?
It’s rather sad to read what Jesus said in a translation of a translation of the original…When we do word studies on His sayings, I would love to know that the words being explored were the very ones used by Our Lord. It just makes me feel sad to know that we’re not authentically studying the Bible in a translation that was made directly from the original.
Also, we say: “The Bible is infallible in the original languages”, not “in the KJV” (although some do say this!), nor “in the NASB” nor “in the NIV”. However, it turns out now that the Bible cannot be said to be infallible in the Greek FROM WHICH are derived our English translations! (At least, when it quotes Jesus and anyone else speaking in Aramaic during His lifetime.) There are 4 words for “love” in Greek, and 5 words for “sin”. How do we know for certain that the writers in Greek always chose the exactly perfect word in the Greek to translate what Jesus, Herod, and others spoke in Aramaic? I guess because God moved upon the men to write and guided their writing? Some of the disciples were uneducated fishermen. How did they come to be able to write precisely in Greek? Did someone assist them in writing it down?
So many questions arise as I ponder this process. I would be so interested in your thoughts, Dr. Anderson! Many thanks, once again, for providing this valuable information above for all of us!
Hi, Antonia! Here are a few responses to your questions.
The last books of the Old Testament were written at a time of linguistic transition, when both Hebrew and Aramaic were understood by most Jews in Israel/Judah. Thus, while either language could have been used, Hebrew was generally preferred as the traditional national language.
Some scholars have attempted to do word studies based on what they think were the Aramaic words behind the Greek words used in the Gospels, but these studies are too conjectural. We know that Jesus spoke Greek as well as Aramaic, but the Gospels normally do not state which language he was speaking on a particular occasion. Since the inspired text that we have is in Greek, it is best to just do exegesis from the Greek text, with an awareness of Aramaic influence or background. As an inspired text, the Greek Gospels are the Word of the Lord, even if they may be recorded in a different language (at times) than what speakers in the narrative originally used. The black letters of the Bible are no less the Word of God than the black letters; thus, the inspired words are the ones that are written. The Old Testament contains similar instances of translated dialogue, such as in Genesis 42:23.
Jews living in Israel/Palestine in the first century AD would have understood both Aramaic and Greek, although most were more proficient in Aramaic. Some of the uneducated disciples, such as Peter and John, certainly had help in writing their epistles. In John’s case, he did not have help when he wrote Revelation, since he was alone when he saw that vision. Thus, Revelation has a completely unique style of Greek in comparison with any other work of Greek literature, and it contains many grammatical irregularities. It is interesting that two of the NT epistles with the highest literary Greek, James and Jude, were written by brothers of Jesus.
Could you answer the following questions?
How rich in vocabulary was Aramaic language as Jesus spoke in comparison to Greek or later Latin?
Could there be a relationship between the limited vocabulary of the common people and the need to use parables, idioms and hyperbole to paint pictures of ideas for which no words existed in that language?
The Aramaic that Jesus spoke did not have as many technical terms as Greek or Latin. However, translation from Greek to Aramaic was possible, as demonstrated by the Syriac translations of the New Testament. Thus, I think Jesus’ use of parables may be viewed as a general pedagogical device, rather than something that was required by the nature of the Aramaic language.
This language is still spoken in modern day, btw. By Chaldeans in and from Iraq . So yes, Aramaic is rich language.
Hello Anya,
The fact that people still speak certain language is no indicator of richness of that language. Otherwise, one would have to conclude that emoticons or other texting slang is a rich language merely because millions of people worldwide use it every day.
The richness of a language has much more to do with hermeneutics and lexicon than with demographics.
To Inaki Viggers, from my experience I wouldn’t compare Aramaic language to “emoticons” . I’d be offended if I was Chaldean. And I’d have to add that I believe Aramaic is richer than English.
Nobody is comparing Aramaic to emoticons. My mention of emoticons only illustrates what is flawed about the rationale that concludes with “So yes, Aramaic is rich language”. The fact that Aramaic (or any language) remains alive is largely irrelevant for assessing its richness.
Hi Steven, thank you for your article.
I’m neither a Bible scholar nor a person who has a specific religion.
I landed to your page from the Google search result as I would like to know when was the OT Aramaic Peshitta translated.
You wrote : “He spoke these words from Psalm 22:1 in Aramaic, rather than from the Hebrew original or the Greek Septuagint translation”.
From your sentence above, I conclude that it seems before Jesus was born, there were three version OT language —> the original Hebrew, the Greek (Septuagint) translation and the Aramaic (Peshitta) translation.
From the internet, it seems the time when the Aramaic OT translated has a various opinion. Some just say (A) it is unknown, some say it’s probably (B) in the late first century AD, other say it’s probably (C) in the second century AD and some say that (D) the Aramaic OT translation was already there before Jesus was born.
I’m interested in D, but I can’t find a satisfying result after Google search. Maybe there are in a form of E-book, but one have to buy it :). Do you happen to have some references about D ?
Thank you once again.
And I’m sorry for my broken English.
Here is a quote from an authoritative work, Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 151. “S” stands for “Syriac Peshitta.”
Several scholars identified presumably Christian elements in S (contested by Weitzman* 1999, 240–44) and, accordingly, believe that S originated with the early Christians in the 1st or 2nd century CE, possibly in the 2nd century CE at the time of the conversion to Christianity of Abgar IX, King of Edessa. Other scholars (among them Maori*) showed that this translation contains a distinct substratum of Jewish exegesis, especially in the Torah. The evidence was reviewed in detail by Dirksen*, Mikra, 295 and Weitzman* 1992. Dirksen concluded that “no decisive arguments for either Christian or Jewish authorship have been advanced.” Since the individual books of S derived from different circles, it nevertheless should be concluded that the Jewish element is clearly visible, be it Jewish-Rabbinic as claimed by Maori* or Jewish-non-Rabbinic as claimed by Weitzman* 1999, 239–40 and ter Haar Romeny*.
The oldest dated manuscript of S is the MS London, British Library, Add. 14,512, written in 459–60.
Here is a quote from Ellis R. Brotzman and Eric J. Tully, Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2016), 83.
We do not know the exact date or circumstances of the translation. The OT must have been translated before the fourth century, when the Syriac church fathers Aphrahat and Ephrem quote from it. Most scholars place it in the first or second century CE. Internal evidence suggests that the translators were somehow connected to both Judaism and Christianity. The translation was made from Hebrew and sometimes reflects Jewish exegetical traditions. This suggests that the translators were Jewish since it would be very unusual for non-Jews to know Hebrew. On the other hand, the Peshitta was used and transmitted in the Christian church, and it appears to be uninterested in rabbinic dietary laws and other Jewish theological emphases. Therefore, Michael Weitzman has argued that it was created by nonrabbinic Jews who converted to Christianity.
Scholars seem to agree that Jesus was trilingual — Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic — but that he and his disciples conversed almost exclusively in Aramaic. I understand there are no extant copies of the New Testament in Aramaic, but that does not mean such copies never existed. Most scholars think (educated guess) the New Testament was written primarily in Greek. Other scholars maintain that the New Testament was written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. They point to archaic names (the city of Ptolomei being referred to as Acu), awkward grammar and syntax, and the use of certain phrases. Isn’t it fair to say that no one knows for certain. That highly educated multi-lingual biblical scholars are making their best guess based on incomplete information?
Nearly all evangelical New Testament scholars believe that the New Testament was written entirely in Greek, and this is not just an educated guess. As you mentioned, there are no copies of a “lost Aramaic original” of any book of the New Testament. The lack of manuscripts is no small problem, as the church began in Aramaic-speaking parts of the Roman Empire, so the churches in those parts would almost certainly have preserved the Aramaic originals. There is an early Syriac translation of the New Testament, but it is clearly a translation of the Greek. Of course, there would be no need to make an Aramaic translation of the New Testament if it was originally written in Aramaic. The New Testament book that is most often suggested to have originally been written in Aramaic is Matthew, based on references in the church fathers. However, many linguistic studies have demonstrated that Matthew’s Gospel cannot be a translation of an Aramaic document, not even of an Aramaic original that has not yet been discovered. The thoroughgoing use of Greek idioms and style and Matthew’s quotations from the Septuagint (especially 12:21; 13:14-15; 15:8-9) all point convincingly to a Greek original. The theory of a lost Aramaic original of parts or all of the New Testament also creates a theological problem. It would mean that the Greek text we have today is not the original inspired text, and therefore may be unreliable and contain mistranslations or historically suspect redactional material. At a minimum, the precise nuances of the original Aramaic could not be known. However, the linguistic and manuscript evidence overwhelmingly supports the authenticity of the Greek text as the original text of the New Testament.
However, the Aramaic Targums certainly had pre-Christian oral roots, and this was the form of Aramaic spoken by Jesus (not Syriac).
I am so fascinated by this and really want to learn more. Unfortunately, I am still somewhat confused and not sure how to determine which Aramaic dialect Jesus spoke. I am wanting to search specific words used (enunciation and written language) by our Lord, but not sure how to proceed.
Thank you,
Sheri
Jesus spoke Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. There is a Grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic by William Baron Stevenson that is available for free online at Archive.org or as a hard copy reprint by various publishers, such as Wipf and Stock, or with modern revisions in Accordance Bible Software. The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon is a great free resource for finding Aramaic words; look for the “Jud” or “JPAEpig” labels for word usage in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. For less technical answers about grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation, the Jesus Spoke Aramaic website offers lessons and coaching.
Pingback: SUNDAY 27 JULY 2021: THE THIRTEENTH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME. – Sunday Mass Readings
Hello, my name is Douglas Collins.
This article was very informative. Enjoyed it.
I have a couple of questions that you may be able to help me with.
#1. I had read (I think I have the book somewhere in my bookcase) that the Hebrew language was almost a dead language that had revived. That this is the only language that has come back from the brink of death like this. Is this true?
#2. Do you know anything about jussives in Hebrew? I am studying and teaching on the book of Job. 3 commentaries and 1 study bible state that the verbs in Job 24:18 – 24 can be read jussives. Is there anyway to confirm this? If so, do you know where I can get or read this information online?
Any and all help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. God Bless.
Hi Douglas!
There have been some other languages on the brink of death that have been revived, such as some of the indigenous languages of the Americas. However, I believe Hebrew is the only language that ceased to be used in regular daily speech for more than a thousand years that was later revived on a large scale.
A good place to ask your question about jussives is the Biblical Language Majors Facebook group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/224415954327748). You should get some detailed responses from guys who can explain the significance of Hebrew jussives and whether it is grammatically or exegetically possible to read the verbs in Job 24:18-24 that way.
Thank you for the information. Unfortunately, I don’t have a facebook account, so that won’t help me. I have found out that the NKJV translates the verbs as jussives, so maybe there is something to this after all (at the moment, I can’t find any other versions that translate it that way). Anyway, again, I thank you for the info. God Bless.
Thanks for this interesting article. I would likewise be interested in hearing your thoughts on the following issue.
Some of the theories the Zohar advances in regard to the creation are premised on visual features of the Aramaic square script, and impliedly the Ktav Ashuri. Some of these features are not even present in the paleo-Hebrew alphabet. See for instance Haqdamat 1:3a (in reference to zain), and arguably 1:2b (tzadi).
It seems to me that the Jews’ belatedness of adopting the square script debunks the archetypal value that the Zohar and related sources attribute to the Hebrew alphabet. To some extent this is akin to interpreting Mayan theosophy on the basis of the shape of characters of the Roman alphabet despite the fact that Mayans ended up adopting their conquerors’ alphabet for strictly historical reasons.
Yes, I agree. Those sorts of theories are just the speculations of clever rabbis, with no historical basis or exegetical basis in the text of Scripture.
One of the major governing hermeneutical principles used by the Rabbis was omnisignificance, which means that even the slightest detail in the biblical text has a divinely inspired meaning. That would include the shapes of the letters. Of course, these interpretations go far beyond, and sometimes contradict, the literal meaning of the biblical text.
Pingback: Passionately NOT a Bible Translation! | Faith Seeking Understanding
Ciao Steven, hopefully you can help me with a dilemma. Have you any idea why the authors left some words/terms in Aramaic? Most appear to have the translations or interpretations added. My question refers to Jesus’ prayer in Gethsamane, “Abba, Father”. Is “Father” a translation of Abba or did Jesus pray “Father, my Father” (Aba, Abi). If the answer is the latter, why was “Abba” transliterated in Greek?
Probably all of Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane was in Aramaic, but since the Gospels were written in Greek, they give a Greek translation of the prayer. It is interesting that Mark 14:36 preserves one Aramaic word from this prayer, “Abba” (אַבָּא), which Mark translates as “Father” (ὁ πατήρ). This term was familiar to many of Mark’s readers, and would have been of special interest to them, as it was the term of intimate familiarity that Aramaic speakers used to address their fathers. The use of this term by Jesus indicates that He is God’s Son.
In general, many Aramaic terms are preserved in the New Testament because they communicated a special significance to the original readers.