Frequently Asked Questions
When it comes to the field of Aramaic Source Criticism, certain questions tend to come up more than once. This page will serve as a repository of answers.
Q: What is Aramaic Source Criticism (Aramaic Primacy)?
Aramaic Source Criticism (also known as “Aramaic Primacy”) is the position that when the New Testament was written, the authors utilized Aramaic sources (old written documents, oral traditions, etc.) in their compositions that were translated and then redacted into the texts as we have them today. The study of Aramaic Primacy is to take a critical look at the Greek New Testament and reconstruct those Aramaic sources to gain a better cultural and contextual understanding about the documents, themselves.
Q: What is Peshitta Primacy?
Peshitta Primacy is an extreme, but popular, fringe form of Aramaic Primacy that claims the Syriac Peshitta to be the original New Testament. It is a viewpoint that was founded by the works of the late George Lamsa and propagated throughout the internet. Most modern scholars find this position, although capable of finding a rare insight here and there, completely unacademic and pseudo-scientific.
Q: How do I say X in Aramaic?
Because of the volume of such requests that are received on a daily basis, please forward all translation inquiries to Aramaic Designs.
Q: If the New Testament quotes the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) does this not prove that it was originally written in Greek?
On the contrary, this may be evidence that the New Testament was compiled in Greek by way of Aramaic source documents. Extant Aramaic copies of the New Testament quote Aramaic Old Testament sources where Hebrew copies of the New Testament that exist tend to quote the Massoretic text. This is a common feature of translations and compilations where a well-known translation that already exists is copied word for word where it is quoted in a source document rather than translating it freshly on the fly. Such conventions keep continuity among language traditions.
Q: How could the New Testament have been composed in Aramaic if it contains clarifications? (see Mt 27:33, Mk 7:11, Rm 8:15, etc.)
Once again, this may be more evidence that the New Testament was compiled in Greek by way of Aramaic source documents as clarification is required for Aramaic words and phrases. Furthermore, it is an interesting thing to note that extant Aramaic versions of the New Testament lack most of these clarifications, and where one does find them, they differentiate between Hebrew and Aramaic rather than Aramaic and Greek. Different texts were designed to fit different audiences.