Aramaic New Testaments
George Lamsa’s English translation of the Aramaic Bible (both OT & NT) was published by Harper & Row, © 1933. Lamsa follows fairly closely with the KJV, so I don’t know how much this is an actual translation of the Aramaic. Lamsa also follows the book order that we are familiar with in Christian bibles for both the OT and NT, making it familiar to its readers. Lamsa’s translation is based on the Peshitta, which is sort of the “Textus Receptus” [14] of the Syriac church of the east.
One of the primary advantages of the Aramaic NT is that we don’t have to learn a whole new alphabet. The modern Hebrew alef-bet is actually the Aramaic alphabet. Aramaic is a different language, but is very obviously related to the Hebrew, both being Semitic languages. Abraham came originally from Ur of the Chaldees, and no doubt spoke an ancient version of Aramaic. Hebrew was actually the language of the Canaanites! Quoting the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Judaica,[15] p.247, “Pre-biblical Hebrew was spoken in Canaan before the Israelite conquest.”
In the Babylonian Captivity beginning about 600 BCE, generations of Jews became more fluent in the Aramaic of their adopted land than they were in the Hebrew of their ancestors. After returning to Israel, many Jews continued speaking Aramaic. However, even among those who returned to Israel and resumed speaking Hebrew, the ancient Hebrew alef-bet fell into disuse, as it has to this day.
An excellent NT translation was completed by James Trimm, the Hebraic-Roots Version “New Testament.” [16] Some of this volume is word-for-word from other earlier translators. However, it is convenient in that Trimm has assembled the scholarship of many earlier writers in one convenient volume, although he doesn’t always give them credit. I strongly disagree with Trimm in his connections with Kabbalah, much of which is Jewish occult, but occult nonetheless. Nevertheless, I do find Trimm’s NT to be the most useful and readable of any English translation of the Aramaic NT.
Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia Judaica:
The Language of the New Testament:
Although the language of the New Testament, in the form that it exists, today is Greek, two earlier influences are discernible.
1.) The Influence of the Aramaic-Hebrew Original. Because most of the authors were Jewish Nazarenes, they spoke, for the most part, Aramaic, and some also Mishnaic Hebrew. This influence, which was detectable particularly in the original versions of Mark and Matthew, survives to some degree in their extant Greek versions and in several of the Epistles as well, including James and Jude. The rest of the works were originally written in Greek.
2.) The Septuagint. Since this translation was used by many authors, the NT contains not only Aramaic words and phrases, which the disciples heard from Jesus and took care to remember out of reverence for their master (e.g., Talitha Kumi – Marke 5:41; Kum; Rabboni; and Eli, Eli lama sabachthani – Mat. 27:46), but also expressions and phrases which retain their Hebrew flavor although they were transmitted through the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.
Trimm’s NT occasionally gives insights that we would never get from a Greek NT. For instance, Acts 11:27-30 (KJV) reads, “And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world, which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea, which also they did, and sent it to the elders by hands of Barnabas and Saul.”
As Trimm points out, this makes no sense. Why would those in Antioch send relief to those in Judea if the famine were to strike the world? They would soon be facing famine themselves.
The solution lies in the fact that the word for world in the Aramaic manuscripts is a’ra, related to the Hebrew word eretz, which can mean world, as in Prov. 19:4, earth, as in Daniel 9:35, or land, as in Daniel 9:15. Even today, the Israeli euphemism HaEretz (“the Land”) is used to mean not “the world,” but “the Land (of Israel).” Therefore, the good folks at Antioch were happy to send aid to Judea, because they themselves were not going to be afflicted by the famine.
Another difficult passage is Matthew 26:6. “And when Jesus was in Bethany, at the house of Simon the leper…” According to Leviticus 13:46, “lepers” were not permitted to live in the city. Since ancient Hebrew and Aramaic were written without vowels, there was no distinction in spelling between the Aramaic gar’ba (leper) and garaba (jar merchant). As Trimm points out, in the very next verse (Mat. 26:7), a woman pours oil from a “jar.” It is apparent that Simon was a jar merchant, and not a leper.
Trimm’s NT is the most useful of all the various translations of the Aramaic NT. For one thing, it is highly readable. Previously, I purchased one English translation of the Aramaic called The Aramaic New Covenant © 1996, published by Exegesis Bibles. It was so literal as to be completely unreadable, whereas Trimm’s translation is very readable. Trimm’s notes alone are almost worth the cost of purchasing his NT. They contain a wealth of information. But the notes (and footnotes) are in tiny fonts that are very difficult to read.
There are many Hebrew-Aramaic idioms used in the NT, such as when Miriam (“Mary”) was told by the angel that she would become pregnant with a baby who would be known as “the Son of the Most High.” She protested, saying, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” That sounds foolish in English, but makes perfect sense in Hebrew. In English, I can say that I know Martha, and it just means that I am acquainted with her. However, in Hebrew idiom, to say that you know someone means that you have known them intimately, that is, carnal knowledge. When Miriam said, “I know not a man (Luke 1:34),” it was her way of saying she was a virgin. In this case, the Greek NT literally translated the Hebrew original, which was in turn literally translated by the KJV translators.
These are only a few of many instances in which it is self-evident that the original languages of most books of the NT were Aramaic or Hebrew. Aramaic continued to be popular among Jews for several centuries, since it also was a sort of lingua franca (or international language) in the ancient world. In the Talmud, the Mishna (commentary on Torah) was written in Hebrew. However, the Gemara (commentary on the Mishna) was written in Aramaic. In fact, the word Gemara is an Aramaic term meaning “completion.” Many other Rabbinic works were also done in Aramaic, including some prayers such as the Kaddish. Also, the wedding Ketubahs are also written in Aramaic. Aramaic has become a Jewish language!
I’m not knocking the Greek. It is certainly more precise than the Hebrew, and can add to some additional understanding of the text. But ancient Greek is even more complex than biblical Hebrew, more like Latin. It’s amazing that people actually spoke such difficult languages. It’s Greek to me! I don’t understand it.
One of the greatest dangers of the Greek language is that the study of Greek often leads to Greek thought patterns, and to study of Greek philosophy and theology, which are often very contrary to a Hebrew mindset, and contrary to the God of the Scripture that we have come to know in the Tanakh and the NT. Even if some books of the NT might have been written originally in Greek, we need to understand them as they were written, from someone with a Hebrew mindset, not a Greek mindset. The Greek gods were fickle and unpredictable, whereas YHWH – the God of the Bible – never changes. As Malachi 3:6 states, “For I am YHWH, I change not…” The Greek mindset has brought in such “heresies” as Replacement Theology and Dispensational Theology. We need to get back to the original intent of the Scriptures, to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We need to know Yeshua, our Jewish Messiah, not the Greek god he has been turned into by much of Christendom.
[1] “Common Era,” the Jewish equivalent to “A.D.”
[2] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III 39, 16.
[3] Ibid., V 8, 2.
[4] Ibid., VI 25, 4
[5] Ibid., III 24, 6
[6] Ve Viris Inlustribus 3.
[7] We hasten to add, there was no nation called Palestine in the First Century. It was called “Israel.” However, after Israel’s defeat in the failed Bar Kochba Revolt in 135 CE, the Romans renamed Israel as “Palestina,” a reference to Israel’s ancient enemy – the Philistines.
[8] Rabbi Raskas is Rabbi-Emeritus of the Temple of Aaron, St. Paul MN.
[9] Published by T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, Scotland.
[10] © 1990, PO Box 471; Hurst TX 76053.
[11] © 1987, Mercer University Press, Macon GA 31207.
[12] “Before Common Era,” equivalent to “B.C.”
[13] Acts 21:39.
[14] I use this term somewhat tongue-in-cheek. The “Textus Receptus” is the text that was used by the King James translators, and favored by many Fundamentalist Christians today.
[15] Keter Publishing House, Jerusalem Ltd.
[16] © 2001, PO Box 471; Hurst TX 76053.
yesheva4me 