Aramaic Primacy of the New Testament

Introduction
Within Messianic and Messianic-adjacent (Torah-Observant) communities, one frequently encounters some variation of the claim that "the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic, which resolves apparent contradictions found in the Greek text." While this represents just one rationale behind the Aramaic Primacy theory, it remains particularly prevalent in our circles. This article aims to provide an objective examination of the Aramaic Primacist position, exploring it with greater depth than is commonly presented.

Proponents of an Aramaic original New Testament often advance several key arguments, which I will give here as sort of generic statements:

• "Early Church Fathers stated Matthew wrote in Aramaic."
• "Numerous Aramaic words appear in the Greek New Testament."
• "The Greek text contains contradictions absent from Aramaic versions."
• "Scholars universally acknowledge Yeshua spoke Aramaic."

And let’s not forget what may be my favorite: "Aramaic qualifies as a holy language like Hebrew, appearing in all portions of the Tanakh (OT), whereas Greek is a pagan language employing terms like 'Theos' for 'Elohim' and 'Kurios' for the Tetragrammaton (YHWH)."

Aramaic Primacy theory posits that the Apostolic writings (New Testament) were originally composed in Aramaic rather than Greek. It is important to note that even among Aramaic Primacists, disagreement exists regarding exactly which Aramaic language or dialect represents the "original." This dispute generally divides into two competing theories: Syriac and Galilean Aramaic. Galilean Aramaic utilizes a script closely resembling Classical Imperial Aramaic and Hebrew, and is more closely related to Biblical Aramaic. Syriac, however, employs its own distinct script with multiple variants.

For clarity, this phenomenon resembles how Mexican Spanish differs from Castilian Spanish—despite sharing a language name, they constitute different dialects. Similarly, Aramaic encompasses numerous dialects: Chaldean (Babylonian), Syriac (divided into Eastern and Western), Galilean, Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, and others. Aramaic also generated derivative languages including Nabataean and Arabic. While exhibiting similarities, these represent distinct linguistic entities.

​A Matter of Dialects
If this sounds strange, I'll put it this way: do people from Mexico speak Spanish? Of course! Do people from Spain speak Spanish? Of course! Yet ask any Mexican if they speak the same "dialect" of Spanish as those from Spain (called Castilian) and you'll quickly come to learn they do not. That's how it is for Aramaic. There are many different dialects of Aramaic: Chaldean (Babylonian), Syriac (which itself is split into Eastern and Western), Galilean, Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, and more. Aramaic even gave birth to other languages such as Nabataean and Arabic. While these are all very similar, they are nonetheless different languages.

For what it’s worth, I personally concur that Yeshua likely spoke Aramaic in His day-to-day life—a reasonable conclusion for any Jew traveling throughout Judea in the early first century CE. However, our investigation concerns which language the New Testament writings were originally composed in—a crucial distinction. Proposing that the New Testament must have been written in Aramaic because Yeshua spoke it would parallel arguing that everything concerning Abraham must have been written in Chaldean since he originated from Ur of the Chaldeans (Gen. 11:31). Yet Moses wrote Genesis in Hebrew.

In the interest of intellectual honesty, certain portions of the Tanakh (Old Testament) do in fact exist exclusively in Aramaic rather than in Hebrew. In fact, it is most likely that these sections were never composed in Hebrew originally. The middle sections of Daniel (2:4b-7:28) appear solely in Aramaic, as do Ezra 4:8-6:18 and 7:12-26. For Daniel, the scholarly debate continues regarding this linguistic shift. For Ezra, the Aramaic sections likely represent recorded correspondence between Jews and the Persian empire. These portions constitute what scholars designate as Biblical Aramaic, forming the basis for classifying Aramaic as a "holy language." Aramaic Primacists also frequently cite the Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 7.2: "Let not the Aramaic be esteemed by you lightly my son; as the Holy One, blessed be He, has seen fit to give it voice in the Torah and the Prophets and the Writings."

This reference acknowledges Aramaic words appearing in the Torah (Genesis 31:47, where Laban names a place in Aramaic while Jacob provides the Hebrew equivalent), Prophets (Jeremiah 10:11, containing an Aramaic sentence denouncing idolatry), and the aforementioned sections of Daniel and Ezra in the Writings. While this may seem fascinating – and possibly even compelling – there is more to consider.

The most prevalent Aramaic Primacist position advocates what is known as Peshitta Primacy. "Peshitta" (פשיטתא) means "simple" or "common" in Aramaic, semantically equivalent to the Latin term "Vulgate," which suggests accessibility for common readers. Simply put, it was written in the “common tongue” of the average person. The less common alternative proposes Galilean Aramaic as the original dialect for the New Testament, or at minimum the Gospels. The primary challenge facing Galilean Primacy theory is the complete absence of extant textual evidence—not a single New Testament manuscript in Galilean Aramaic exists, excepting some late lectionaries and similar writings which cannot claim originality.

Conversely, while numerous Syriac Peshitta New Testament manuscripts exist, Syriac emerged as a dialect approximately 200 years after the New Testament's completion, with no evidence of its presence in Judea during the period that the New Testament writers were composing their letters. The available manuscript evidence postdates the completion of all New Testament books.

These dialectal distinctions prove critically important. A dialect's classification as "Aramaic" does not equate it with all Aramaic dialects.

Now the debate between Greek Primacists and Aramaic Primacists has been waged for quite a few years. I will be presenting some of the main points used for Aramaic Primacy, in an attempt to assist the reader in seeing the bigger picture. Chances are, either this article is the first you’re hearing some of this, or you’re actively engaging in the research on this very topic. In nearly any and every article I have found on the subject, there are slants and biases: Greek Primacists seek to uphold thousands of years of tradition and Church teaching, while Aramaic Primacists feel the need to prove that Aramaic is holier than Greek and resolves discrepancies in the Greek. This is why I have chosen to write this article.

As a quick side-note, since the Syriac Aramaic font is not very web-friendly, I will be writing all Semitic words (Hebrew and Syriac) in the standard Hebrew Ashuri script. The two languages do, after all, share an alphabet.
It should also be noted that when quoting from the "Aramaic NT" it will be taken as quotes from the Syriac Aramaic Peshitta, as it is the only dialect of Aramaic that contains the entire NT.

[If, during any point of your reading of this article, you would like to "fact check" my work with the Peshitta, please feel free to do so. If you do not have access to a Peshitta, you can view one online (along with 3 different English translations and a lexicon) at www.dukhrana.com/peshitta. I would also recommend my fellow Logos users check out this resource library bundle on Logos for working with Syriac, as it also include many other resources. Affiliate link supplied.]

So, let's get down to the text itself. Since Greek Primacy is already the common theory, I'll start by presenting the common examples that Aramaic Primacists claim disprove Greek Primacy. This article will focus on some of the important differences and show what goes on behind the scenes. Aramaic Primacy articles can be found all over the Internet, with many purported "proofs" found at the Peshitta.org forum (at least as of 4/18/25). I highly recommend you visit there if you want to see very long discussions on the Peshitta. Most members there are, in fact, Peshitta Primacists, though not all. I am a member there, and I have been greatly edified by many of the posts. It also helps you to do the research yourself so that you know I am not simply making things up, or else strawman-ing the argument. Some of the points here are found as "proofs" on the forum site, and as such I want to give the reader to opportunity to view all available information. Just remember that on the site, most people have noticeable bias leaning towards Peshitta Primacy.

At First Glance: Examining Key Examples

Matthew 1:15-17 – "15Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob. 16 Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Yeshua was born, who is called the Messiah. 17So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations."

This passage presents two apparent difficulties: 1) If Joseph's father was Jacob, why does Luke 3 identify Heli as Joseph's father, providing an entirely different genealogy? 2) While fourteen generations correctly span Abraham to David and David to the Babylonian deportation, counting from the deportation to Yeshua yields only thirteen generations.

Aramaic Primacists propose a solution: the Aramaic text indicates Joseph was not only Mary's husband's name but also her father's name as well. We will examine this claim in detail later.

Matthew 19:24 – "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Elohim."

Aramaic Primacists contend this metaphor makes little sense. They note the Aramaic word for "camel" (גמלא, gamala) shares identical spelling with gamla, meaning "thick rope." Therefore, they argue, the text should read "thick rope" rather than "camel," suggesting this implies a rich person must "unravel" the threads binding them to worldly concerns before passing through the needle's eye.

Next: Matthew 27:9 – "9Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: 'AND THEY TOOK THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER, THE PRICE OF THE ONE WHOSE PRICE HAD BEEN SET' by the sons of Israel."

This quote cannot be located in Jeremiah but appears in Zechariah. Why would the Greek New Testament incorrectly attribute it to Jeremiah? Aramaic Primacists note that most Peshitta manuscripts omit the prophet's name entirely, reading simply "that which was spoken through the prophet was fulfilled..."

Matthew 26:6 – "6Now when Yeshua was in Bethany, at the home of Simon the leper…"

According to Leviticus 13:46, lepers must live alone outside the camp. How could a leper reside within the city? Aramaic Primacists explain this apparent contradiction, noting that the word for “leper” is actually a mistranslation from the Aramaic into Greek.

Additionally, there are several Aramaic words and phrases found in the New Testament text.

Talitha kum. Mark 5:41 And taking the hand of the child, He said to her, "Talitha kum", which translates as, "Little girl, I say to you, get up." [The image above is a photo of the Greek Codex Sinaiticus. The highlighted sections in red read, ΤΑΛΙΘΑΚΟΥΜ, or, "talitha koum."]

Ephphatha. Mark 7:34  And looking up to heaven, He sighed and said to him, "Ephphatha," which is 'be opened.'

Raca. Matthew 5:22  But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council.

Boanerges. Mark 3:17 and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, "Sons of Thunder");

These phrases appear even in the Greek text. Since Greek equivalents for these words differ completely, Aramaic Primacists question why, if the New Testament were originally written in Greek, we don't encounter original Greek phrases instead.
​
To begin, let's go back over our example verses. ​

Digging Deeper: Analyzing the Evidence
Matthew 1: Peshitta Primacists maintain that Matthew 1:16 identifies Joseph not as Mary's husband but as her father, suggesting Mary's father and husband shared the same name. This would resolve the fourteen-generations issue, with Joseph as twelfth, Mary thirteenth, and Yeshua fourteenth. But why does the text read "husband"? In Greek, the term ανερ (aner) simply means "man; male," with possessive forms (e.g., "Mary's man") indicating "husband." Many ancient languages including Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek lack separate words for "husband" and "wife" distinct from "man" and "woman."
However, the Peshitta employs גברה (gavrah), typically defined as "man; male," occasionally used for "husband" and sometimes for "father" (as in Matthew 7:9). Aramaic Primacists suggest this resolves the apparent contradiction, indicating Joseph was Mary's father's name and her husband's. This would yield fourteen generations and reconcile Matthew's genealogy (Mary's) with Luke's (Joseph's).
While that sounds like an absolute win, several problems arise with this interpretation. First, if identifying Joseph as Mary's father, why not use אב (av, "father") or state that Joseph "begat" (Syr.: ילד) Mary, following the pattern established throughout the chapter? Why disrupt the consistent structural pattern? Second, other instances where gavrah allegedly means "father" (e.g., Matthew 7:9, 8:9) more appropriately translate as "man." This explains why every major scholarly Peshitta translation (Etheridge, Murdock, Lamsa) renders the word as "husband" rather than "father" in Matthew 1. Classical Syriac scholars have never advocated this interpretation of Matthew 1 from any source I have seen, which appears predominantly in the Aramaic English New Testament (AENT)—possibly the primary contemporary source of this theory within Hebrew Roots / Torah Observant communities.

Matthew 19:24: Regarding the camel passing through a needle's eye, Aramaic Primacists suggest the original text referred to a "thick rope" (gamla) rather than "camel" (gamala), both spelled identically in Syriac but distinguished by vowels added later. They propose this scribal error transferred into Greek during translation.

While plausible, there exists no compelling reason to reject "camel" as the original meaning. In fact, I would argue that the opposite is true: the “thick rope” claim is the reading that make less sense. The Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot 55b) contains a similar metaphor: "They do not show a man a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle," illustrating impossibility through the metaphor of a large animal unable to fit through a needle's eye. Yeshua likely employed a familiar cultural reference: the largest domestic animal in Judea (camel) representing physical impossibility, just as Babylonian Jews used elephants.

Moreover, interpreting the text as "thick rope" potentially contradicts the subsequent verses. When the disciples ask, "who then can be saved?" Yeshua responds, "with men, this is impossible." The passage emphasizes complete impossibility, not a methodical process of "unraveling" the threads of one’s wealth. If we wanted to go even further, Cyril of Alexandria suggested that καμελος (kamelos, "camel") represented a misprint of καμηλος (kamilos, "cable"),[1] indicating either reading technically could have originated in Greek. Most problematically though, accepting the "thick rope" interpretation potentially reverses Yeshua's intended meaning.

Matthew 27:9: While the prophet Jeremiah indeed did not make the referenced prophecy (Zechariah did), the solution requires nuance. Ancient citation practices sometimes combined multiple scriptures without naming each author or naming only one. Mark 1:2-3 exemplifies this, attributing quotes from both Isaiah and Malachi to Isaiah alone in both Greek and Syriac texts (meaning this issue is, at least, one shared by Greek and Syriac sources).

Matthew 27:9-10 shares conceptual links with Zechariah 11:11-13 but is not identical. The attribution to Jeremiah may reflect Yeshua combining multiple textual elements, including Jeremiah 32's field-purchasing context. Scribal practices generally tended toward harmonization by adding explanatory material rather than removing it. The Syriac omission of Jeremiah's name more likely represents a later harmonization attempt than evidence of originality.

David Stern's Jewish New Testament Commentary offers another explanation: in certain arrangements, the scroll of the prophets began with Jeremiah, potentially indicating Yeshua referencing the entire prophetic collection through its opening book.[2]

Matthew 26:6: Aramaic Primacists claim the text cannot reference "Simon the leper" since Leviticus 13 prohibits lepers from communal living. They suggest the Aramaic word for leper (גרבא, garba) was confused with garaba (supposedly meaning "potter" or "jar-maker"), spelled identically but with different vowels (the same sort of scribal error as the aforementioned camel / cable issue).

This analysis requires a level of intellectual honesty that many Aramaic Primacists seem to lack. The Greek words for "leper" (λεπρου, leprou) and "potter" (κεραμεως, kerameos) bear no resemblance, so it certainly is not a matter of mixing up the Greek terms. More significantly, all vocalized Syriac texts (ie. those with vowel marks) read "leper," not "potter," and the Aramaic word for "potter" is actually פחרא (p'chara), while garaba merely means "jar, bottle, pot, skin"—not someone who makes these items. At best, a literal reading would yield "Simon the jar," not "Simon the jar-maker."

Furthermore, the purported contradiction dissolves under careful examination. Leviticus 13 prescribed wilderness protocols, not permanent urban arrangements. Once Israel settled in the land, the restricted area would be limited to the Temple precincts. The prohibition specifically aimed to prevent defiling "their camp where I dwell in their midst" (Numbers 5:3). After the Temple's construction, the divine presence concentrated there rather than throughout the entire community. Additionally, Simon lived in Bethany, not Jerusalem, further weakening this objection. 

Loan Words
The presence of Aramaic words in the Greek New Testament fails to prove originality either way. Modern English writing frequently incorporates foreign terms without suggesting original composition in those languages.

While numerous Aramaic words appear in the Greek New Testament, Greek loan-words abound in the Syriac texts. The Greek term νομος (nomos, "law") enters Syriac as נמוסא (n'musa), despite Aramaic possessing אוריתא (ora'iyta), a word that most typically refers to the Torah. Curiously, the Peshitta inconsistently employs ora'iyta three times (Matthew 11:13; 12:5; 22:40) while using the Greek-derived term elsewhere, even when clearly referencing Torah. By the same logic, this would suggest the Syriac derives from Greek.

Other Greek and Latin words appear in the Peshitta, just as the Hebrew Tanakh incorporates Akkadian and Egyptian terms without compromising its Hebrew origin. Mark 15:34 illustrates a particularly revealing case:
"At the ninth hour Yeshua cried out with a loud voice, 'Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?' which is translated, 'My God, My God, why have You abandoned Me?'" (TLV)

From the Murdock Peshitta translation: "And at the ninth hour, Yeshua cried with a loud voice, and said: Il, Il, lemono shebakthone; that is: My God, my God; why hast thou forsaken me?"

If Aramaic were the original language, why would the text need to explain an Aramaic phrase in Aramaic? Why would it have the parenthetical addition of “that is” if it were already original?

Aramaic Primacists respond that the text transitions between spoken and written dialects, necessitating explanation. They note "Eloi" (or "Eli") represents Hebrew for "My God," while Syriac uses אלהי (Alahi). But this causes other issues. We are told in the Gospels that bystanders mistakenly thought Yeshua called for Elijah (Eliyahu), which is plausible with "Eli" but less so with "Alahi." This itself provides evidence that the vernacular in Judea was not Syriac.

Manuscript Evidence and Its Absence
The earliest known Syriac New Testament fragments—Syriac Sinaiticus and the Curetonian Gospels—date to the late 4th century CE and contain only Gospel fragments. These texts exhibit significant variations from the Peshitta and align more closely with the earlier Greek Alexandrian text-type than with the Byzantine text-type favored by the Peshitta.

Most Syriac Peshitta manuscripts emerge after the 5th century. The notable Khabouris Codex contains the entire New Testament except the "Western Five" books (2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation), which even most Peshitta Primacists acknowledge were translated from Greek into Syriac. The Syrian Church of the East historically rejected these five books.

While some scholars have dated the Khabouris Codex as early as the 3rd century CE, the scholarly consensus now places it no earlier than the 6th century.

Some Aramaic Primacists attribute the absence of early Aramaic New Testament manuscripts to reverent scribal practices—copying texts and then burning the originals. This claim lacks substantiation and contradicts historical evidence. The Cairo Genizah exemplifies how manuscripts were preserved rather than destroyed when they became fragile. Genizah ("treasury") functioned as repositories for aging texts. Consequently, no physical evidence exists for original New Testament Syriac texts from the first three centuries. A curious problem, especially since we have Greek fragments from that time period. If Syriac were original, one would expect more, older fragmentary pieces of it than of the Greek it was later translated into, if that were the case.

[Note: at the time this article was originally written there was a link here to a website and statement published by A. G. Roth and B. Daniel. This site is no longer active and the last I heard, at least B. Daniel no longer upheld the same beliefs regarding the Peshitta. I have removed this portion of the article and the dead link, but do not want the reader to be led to believe this was for some sort of cover-up or otherwise nefarious purpose]

Internal Evidence
Examining the texts themselves reveals meaningful differences between Greek and Aramaic versions.
As stated above, the Syriac Peshitta borrows n'musa ("law") from the Greek nomos. In the Gospels, it refers to Peter as "Kepha," consistent with some Greek passages calling him Cephas:
"Also I say to thee, that thou art Cephas: and upon this rock, I will build my church: and the gates of death shall not triumph over it." — Matthew 16:18 (Murdock Peshitta NT)

"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it." — Matthew 16:18 (NASB95)

In Syriac, Peter's name (כאפא, kee-pha) matches the word for "rock" in "upon this rock," also spelled כאפא. However, in Greek, Yeshua calls Peter "Πέτρος" (Pe-tross) while using "πέτρᾳ" (pe-tra) for "rock"—semantically distinct terms. Petros means "rock" or "pebble," whereas petra indicates "great rock" or "cliff," theologically distinguishing between Peter and Messiah as the true foundation. The Syriac lacks this distinction, potentially supporting the Catholic interpretation of Peter as the church's foundation (though in full disclosure, this internal evidence requires theological extrapolation).

Interestingly, in Acts 1:13 and 1 Peter 1:1, the Syriac records Peter's name not as Kepha but as פטרוס (Petros)—a Greek transliteration. Why would an original Aramaic text use a Greek form of Peter's name? While Aramaic terms appearing in Greek texts makes sense for Aramaic speakers, Greek transliterations in purportedly original Aramaic texts require explanation that seems to fail the Aramaic Primacists. If the Syriac were original, one would expect the original semitic Kepha to be found in all places, but that is not the case.
Similarly, "Christian" appears in Acts 11:26 in Syriac as כרסטינא (Krystiani), derived from Greek rather than employing a term based on the Aramaic משיחא (meshicha, "Messiah"). This appears again in Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16. So again, we must ask: why would an original Aramaic composition use the Greek term?
The Greek word διαθηκη (diatheke, "covenant"), representing Hebrew ברית (b'rit), appears in Syriac as דיתיקא (diatee’qe)—another Greek transliteration. Various Aramaic dialects employ קים (qyam) or ברית (b'rit) for this concept, raising questions about why the Peshitta adopts Greek terminology for such fundamental Hebraic concepts when native Aramaic terms existed.

Additional Greek loanwords in the Peshitta include:

• אונגליון (euwangeiliahn), from Greek εὐαγγελίον (euangelion, "gospel" or "good news"), appearing in Mark 1:1 rather than a term related to ther Hebrew besorah.
• אפיסקופא (epiysquwpa), from Greek ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos, "overseer" or "bishop"), used in Acts 20:28 but inconsistently employed elsewhere.
• פרקליטא (paraqleeta), from Greek παράκλητος (parakletos, "comforter" or "advocate"), used in John 14-16 and 1 John 2:1.
• פנטקוסטא (penteqosta), from Greek Πεντηκοστῆς (pentekostes, "fiftieth"), referencing Shavuot in Acts 2, despite the Peshitta Tanakh using ובעאדא דשבועא (weba'eda d'shavua, "feast of weeks") in Deuteronomy 16:16.
• תרנוס (thranos), from Greek θρονος (thronos, "throne") in Matthew 19:28, though the same verse later employs the Syriac כורסון (koowrsown, "seat" or "chair").

In textual criticism, readings that best explain subsequent variations typically represent originals. Consider the term "Eucharist," derived from Greek for "giving thanks" but later denoting communion elements. 1 Corinthians 11:24 in Greek uses εὐχαριστήσας (eucharistesas, "having given thanks"), while the Syriac employs ברך (b'arek, "blessed"), consistent with expectations for an Aramaic document.

However, Acts 2:42 presents a puzzling scenario:
"They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." (NASB95)

Greek renders "to the breaking of bread" as τη κλάσει του αρτου, while the Murdock Peshitta reads: "And they persevered in the doctrine of the legates; and were associated together in prayer, and in breaking the eucharist."

The Peshitta phrase "breaking the eucharist" (ובקציא דאוכרסטיא) contains w'bqatsaya ("and in breaking," used only for breaking bread) and eukarristiya—a Greek transliteration. Why would an original Aramaic text employ this Greek term? It likely reflects later Christian terminology substituted during translation from Greek. Conversely, if Syriac preceded Greek, why wouldn't the Greek maintain this usage?

Historical and Geographical Context
Syriac was not present in Judea during New Testament composition. Edward Lipinski, renowned Semitic linguist, notes in Semitic Languages, Outline of a Comparative Grammar:
"The earliest Syriac inscriptions come from the region of Edessa, modern Urfa, go back to the 1st-3rd centuries A.D. and are all of pagan origin. Their script resembles that of the contemporary cursive Palmyrene inscriptions, but their language occupies an intermediate position between West and East Aramaic."[3]

Thus, during the 1st-3rd centuries, Syriac existed exclusively in Edessa (not Judea) and derived entirely from pagan sources—complicating claims of its status as a "holy tongue."

Queen Helena of Adiabene's Jerusalem tomb features an Old Syriac inscription but notably includes a later Galilean Aramaic translation scratched below it—likely because locals couldn't read Syriac, suggesting Galilean Aramaic predominated among first-century Jews.

John 20:16 presents another curiosity: "'Jesus said to her, 'Mary!' She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, 'Rabboni!' (which means, Teacher)." (NASB95)

While scholars debate whether "Hebrew" here indicates Hebrew or Aramaic, רבני (Rabboni) could derive from either language. However, Peshitta manuscripts read:
"Jesus said to her: 'Mary!' And she turned, and said to him in Hebrew: 'Rabbuni;' which is interpreted Teacher." (Murdock Peshitta NT)

The actual Syriac word isn't Rabbuni but רבולי (rabuli), containing a lamed (ל) instead of a nun (נ). "Rabbuli" appears in no known Jewish Aramaic dialect or Hebrew and doesn't mean "Teacher." This likely represents a copyist error, but why would all Peshitta texts contain it?

An additional point worth considering here, is the reach of the language itself. The Roman empire did not possess near universal literacy rates like we in the Modern West enjoy today. On this point, Craig Blomberg notes, “Older guesses of only about 10 to 15 percent of adults in the Empire having satisfactory reading and/or writing skills, still often cited without awareness of more recent scholarship, must almost certainly be revised upward in light of the prevalence of graffiti in well-preserved ancient sites, documents chronicling business transactions of many kinds, informal writing on papyri, and countless messages on potsherds or ostraca.”[2] He goes on to say that in Judea, the percentage of Jewish men (as women were not often afforded an education) could reasonably have reached up to 40%.[4] This is worth pointing out as Syriac was a minority language even as it began to grow. For this 40% male literacy rate (which we can take as the upper bound), we are looking mainly at those educated in Hebrew, the liturgical and ecclesiastical language of the Jewish people. Many tradesmen and merchants would no doubt know Greek as that was the trade language, and their day-to-day was still like a Galilean Aramaic, but Syriac? There simply remains no evidence that Syriac was the lingua franca of Judea.

And why does this matter? If I speak English, German, and Spanish, and I am composing a letter to a group of people in Monterrey Mexico, would I write that letter in German? Now, if I were only writing to a small minority community in Monterrey, a community that I knew was fluent in German, that would make sense. But if I expressly expected that that group of people would create copies of the letter and share it around other areas, and it would spread to Saltillo and Ciudad Victoria and Durango and Guadalajara and all across the country, then surely it would make little sense to write that letter in German. In order to maximize the reach and effectiveness of my teaching in the letter, I need to write it in Spanish, as that is the language that will cover the most ground without delay. The same goes for the New Testament: Greek covered the most ground, whereas Syriac (or even Galilean Aramaic or Hebrew for that matter) would have had a very limited reach.

Writings of the Church Fathers
Many Aramaic Primacists also claim that the early church fathers affirmed Matthew's Aramaic authorship. Consider these frequently cited quotes:

"Matthew collected the oracles in the Aramaic language." — Papias (150-170 CE)

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language." — Ireneus (170 CE)

"The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who having it published for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Aramaic." — Origen (c. 220 CE)

"Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Aramaic, when on the point of going also to the other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings." — Eusebius (c. 315 CE)

"Pantaenus...penetrated as far as India, where it is reported that he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had been delivered before his arrival to some who had the knowledge of Christ, to whom Bartholomew, one of the apostles, as it is said, had proclaimed, and left them the writing of Matthew in Aramaic letters." — Eusebius (c. 315 CE)

"They [the Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Aramaic, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Aramaic letters." — Epiphanius (370 CE)

"Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an apostle first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Aramaic language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed; who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Aramaic itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Berea to copy it. In which is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist... makes use of the testimonies of the Old Testament, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators [the Greek Septuagint], but that of the Aramaic." — Jerome (382 CE)

Similarly, Clement of Alexandria maintained the belief that Paul wrote Hebrews, with Luke translating it into Greek. Eusebius concurred, suggesting either Luke or Clement of Rome as translator.

The Greek term in these references and in New Testament passages like Acts 22:2 (that is, the word rendered above as either “Hebrew” or “Aramic”) is Εβραΐς (hebrais), literally meaning "the language of the Hebrews" or "the language of the Jews." Scholars typically render this as "Aramaic" since historical evidence indicates Aramaic predominated in first-century Judea. However, even if we accept that Matthew composed a preliminary Semitic Gospel before a more extensive Greek version, there exists no evidence suggesting Syriac as the original language. Even Hebrew Primacists advocating medieval Hebrew Matthew manuscripts like DuTillet, Munster, or Shem Tov maintain Hebrew—not Aramaic or Syriac—as the original language.

Quotes from the Tanakh
The manner in which the Peshitta New Testament quotes Old Testament passages provides additional insights. Example comparisons:
Hebrews 10:5 quoting Psalm 40:6

• Psalm 40:6 (NASB95): "Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; My ears You have opened; Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required."
• Hebrews 10:5 (NASB95): "Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: 'Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me...'"
• Psalm 40:6 (LXX in American English): "Sacrifice and offering you would not; but a body have you prepared me: whole burnt offering and sacrifice for sin you did not require."
• Psalm 40:6 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English): "With sacrifices and with offerings you have not been pleased, but you have pierced the ears for me; burnt peace offerings for sin you have not requested."
• Hebrews 10:5 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English): "Because of this, when he entered the universe, he said, 'Sacrifices and offerings you did not want, but you have clothed me with a body...'"

The Peshitta New Testament, following the Greek NT text, quotes the Greek Septuagint (LXX) rather than either the Peshitta Old Testament or the Hebrew text.

Acts 7:43 quoting Amos 5:26

• Acts 7:43 (NASB95): "You also took along the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of the god Rephan, the images which you made to worship. I also will remove you beyond Babylon."
• Amos 5:26 (NASB95): "You also carried along Sikkuth your king and Kiyyun, your images, the star of your gods which you made for yourselves."
• Amos 5:26 (LXX in American English): "Yes, you took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Raephan, the images of them which you made for yourselves."
• Amos 5:26 (translation from Peshitta OT): "But you carried along the tent of Milkom, and Kewan, your images, the star of your gods which you made."
• Acts 7:43 (from Peshitta NT): "But you carry the tabernacle of Malcom and the star of the god Rephan, images which you have made to worship. I shall remove you farther than Babel."

Again, the Peshitta New Testament follows the Greek Septuagint variant "Rephan" rather than following the the Peshitta Old Testament.

Matthew 15:8-9 quoting Isaiah 29:13

• Matthew 15:8-9 (NASB95): "This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."
• Isaiah 29:13 (NASB): "Because this people draw near with their words, And honor Me with their lip service, But they remove their hearts far from Me, And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote."
• Isaiah 29:13 (LXX in AE): "This people draw near to me with their mouth, and they honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men."
• Isaiah 29:13 (translation from Peshitta OT): "This people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is distant from Me; their fear of Me is a teaching taught by men."
• Matthew 15:8-9 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English): "This people is honouring me with their lips but their heart is very far from me. And they revere me in vain while they teach the doctrines of the commandments of man."

The Dead Sea Scrolls support the Masoretic reading, as does the Peshitta Old Testament. Yet the Peshitta New Testament breaks with these and instead follows the Greek Septuagint. If the Peshitta New Testament represents the original Gospel text, why quote the Greek translation rather than the Hebrew or Aramaic text?

Conclusion
While I maintain high regard for the Peshitta as a valuable tool in textual criticism and consult it frequently, the evidence does not support Syriac as the original language of the entire New Testament. I find it implausible that any New Testament book was originally composed in Syriac. This analysis aims to demonstrate that the question of New Testament linguistic origins involves greater complexity than the Aramaic Primacy theory typically acknowledges. Both Greek and Aramaic texts present textual challenges requiring careful examination.

My primary concern with contemporary Aramaic Primacy proponents centers on incomplete presentation of evidence. While appreciating the Peshitta and welcoming renewed Syriac scholarship, intellectual honesty requires acknowledging the full scope of evidence rather than selectively presenting favorable aspects.

Be Berean. Shalom.
​
Updated 4/19/2025

---

[1] Hilarion Alfeyev, The Beginning of the Gospel, vol. 1, Jesus Christ: His Life and Teaching (Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2018), 462.
[2] David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary : A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament, electronic ed. (Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1996), Mt 27:9.
[3] Edward Lipinski, Semitic Languages, Outline of a Comparative Grammar (London: Peeters, 1997), 65.
[4] Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey, Third Edition (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), 63.
[5] Ibid.