Was the “New Testament” originally written in Jesus’ language?

Maybe you think: "What a dumb question, doesn't everyone know that the "New Testament" was written in Greek?" But how sure are we that this is really the case? Why is there so little emphasis on the fact that the Greek text repeatedly shows that Jesus spoke Aramaic?

Many Christians believe that Jesus' disciples wrote the Christian Scriptures in Greek. There is however one problem with this idea. Even though this is commonly accepted in the Western world, there is absolutely no proof for it. On the contrary, Christians in the East have always known and accepted that Jesus and his disciples spoke and wrote in a Palestinian dialect of Aramaic, which was the real lingua franca in the East for centuries before and even for centuries after Jesus' death. This is even evident in the Greek versions at several places where Jesus is quoted as speaking in Aramaic.

Jesus spoke to his disciples in Aramaic

Think for example of the exclamation: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani." In the Greek text this is first transliterated and then translated. The Aramaic Gospel of Mark shows that this is a literal quote not of the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures but of what Jesus said in Aramaic. It is followed by an explanation because not all Aramaic speakers spoke the same Galilean dialect as Jesus. This in fact was the reason why some thought he was calling for "Elijah" ().

Recently I've come across evidence that not just a few of Jesus' sayings but the whole "New Testament" has been preserved in Aramaic as part of the "Peshitta" that contains the "Old Testament" as well as the "New Testament" in Aramaic. In the Aramaic "New Testament" a lot of Jesus' words become much clearer. For example, why did Jesus according to the Greek text first say to Peter "Feed my lambs" and then another two times "Feed my little sheep"? This sounds strange in the Greek and in other languages. Often this is explained as "repetition" for emphasis" but in the Aramaic it clearly stands out what Jesus said originally:

15 When they had broken their fast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me more than these things? He said to him, Yes, my Lord, you know that I love you. Jesus said to him, Feed my lambs.

16 He said to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me? He said to him, Yes, my Lord, you know that I love you. Jesus said to him, Feed my sheep.

17 He said to him again the third time, Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me? It grieved Peter because he said to him the third time, Do you love me? So he said to him, My Lord, you understand well everything, you know that I love you. Jesus said to him, Feed my ewes. — John 21:15-17, Lamsa Translation

Jesus spoke of lambs, sheep and ewes. In this way Jesus emphasised that every individual of God's flock, young and old, male and female, is important and needs to be strengthened spiritually. Jesus therefore admonished Peter that he should care for all, men, women and children. This detail was lost completely in the Greek because the Greek translators sometimes did not recognised the subtleties of the Aramaic language.

The Peshitta solves contradictions in the Greek

The Greek text has major contradictions between the accounts of Jesus' genealogies according to Matthew and Luke. Here are a few of them:

1. mentions that the generations listed follow a 14-14-14 structure. However when we check the generations from Babylon to Jesus there appear to be only 13, which would make a 14-14-13 structure. Therefore the Greek text contradicts itself.
   
   
2. According to the Gospel writers both genealogies are of Joseph, so why do they list different names? Some have tried to explain that Luke actually gives the genealogy through Mary, while Matthew through Joseph, but this is a desperate attempt to make the text say something different than what it really does say.
   
   
3. If in fact no genealogy of Mary is provided, then how could we be sure that Jesus is indeed a descendant of king David?

The reading of the original Aramaic solves this conundrum at once. Whereas the Greek in Matthew 1:16 calls Joseph the "husband" of Mary, the Aramaic text calls him the "gowra" of Mary. This term can mean husband but it can also mean "man" or "father". A few verses later the Aramaic uses a different word when Matthew is talking about "Joseph, the husband of Mary". Apparently Matthew was speaking of two different Josephs and wanted to make clear the difference by using different terms. The Joseph of verse 16 being the father of Mary solves all contradictions:

1. It explains why the genealogies are different: Matthew actually gives Mary's genealogy whereas Luke gives her husband Joseph's.
   
   
2. It provides the "missing" generation so that Matthew's structure of 14-14-14 is correct.
   
   
3. It shows that Mary really was a descendant of David, making Jesus a legal heir to David's throne.
   
   

Evidence for Aramaic Primacy

We have considered just a few examples among many where our understanding is enhanced by consulting the English translation of the Peshitta. But there is yet much more evidence for Aramaic Primacy like:

1. Jesus' and the disciples' use of poetry and wordplay that is often lost in the Greek translations.
   
   
2. Semitic idiom: particular sayings that are unique to Semitic languages and don't translate well to Greek.
   
   
3. Split words: words that have multiple meanings in the Peshitta resulted in different translations in Greek. In one example one Aramaic word caused seven different Greek translations; undeniable proof of Peshitta primacy.
   
   
4. Historical proof. The external testimony of early Christians confirms Aramaic Primacy.
   
   
5. Loan words, bad Greek grammar, etc.

The evidence for Aramaic primacy is very extensive. We have presented just a few examples that have been adapted from information found on this web site: Aramaic Peshitta Bible Repository. We will highlight some more examples in future articles. Meanwhile I would like to encourage anyone, who would like to know more about what Jesus said originally, to visit this web site where you can find free online English translations of the Aramaic Peshitta, among which the Lamsa translation is very recommended.

If you would like to first examine more extensively the Aramaic Primacy issue, then you should read the document Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek? on the above web site. This document is very thorough, but quite long. If you're in a hurry and would like to read something a bit more condensed, then you should choose the document Aramaic Peshitta Primacy for Dummies.

Maybe you're wondering whether the Peshitta resolves any major issues concerning Bible teachings that effect our faith. Yes, it does indeed. One issue that it resolves is the question whether Jesus provided signs for his "presence" or for his "coming". I have examined this issue by comparing the Greek text with the Peshitta. Read about the results of this research in this article: