Recent discoveries of first-century Aramaic texts and advances in linguistic analysis have revolutionized the study of the New Testament. By tracing transliterations, reconstructing possible Aramaic antecedents, and comparing themes with contemporary Jewish Aramaic literature, we see that the Gospels reflect diverse oral traditions shaped by both Aramaic and Greek cultural contexts. Rather than pointing to a single “Aramaic Jesus,” the evidence reveals multiple streams of memory and identity that influenced how Jesus was remembered and written into history.
See also Aramaic Jesus: Tradition, Identity, and Christianity’s Mother Tongue (Baylor University Press, 2025; use promo code 17PROMO for a discount).
See also Writings of Bruce Chilton.
By Bruce Chilton
Bernard Iddings Bell Professor of Religion
Bard College
August 2025
Aramaic is not the same language that I learned just over fifty years ago.
Two factors, different in kind but roughly equivalent in importance, have revolutionized the field. The first is that Aramaic finds from the first-century have been assessed, so that evidence that is contemporaneous with the New Testament has become available. The quantity and quality of these discoveries have transformed all study of the history of the language. The second factor follows from the first, but also benefits from advances in philology and semantics: analysis of the language as it evolved over the centuries has come into focus on a sound linguistic basis. The result of both advances is that a comparison with wording in the New Testament is feasible in a way it has not been before. Researchers can now know where to look for — and how to look at — examples of Aramaic from the New Testament period.
By the time the oral traditions that contributed to the New Testament arose, Aramaic’s place among the tongues of the ancient Near East had been deeply established. It cannot be assumed to have been the only language spoken, and indeed some scholars of the New Testament today would much prefer to think of Jesus and his followers as speaking Greek at all times and for all purposes. But that assumption ignores the linguistic diversity of the Middle East. Specifically, the hypothesis of pan-Hellenism cannot account for the simple facts that examples of Aramaic are literally transliterated in the Greek text of the Gospels, and that at times their grammar and wording shows the influence of Aramaic usage. Eusebius acknowledged early in the fourth century that Aramaic was Christianity’s mother tongue; so should we.
Aramaic Jesus provides a history of critical discussion, designed not only to establish that the observations of the kind that Eusebius made should be taken seriously, but also to explain the reach and power of Aramaic as an international language. Its resilience over time, however, means that there have been many different forms of the language. That is one reason why discoveries in the Judean Desert, including but not limited to the Dead Sea Scrolls, have proven so significant. When placed chronologically between biblical Aramaic, such as is represented in the biblical book of Daniel, and the Aramaic of Rabbinic Judaism instanced in the Targums, the new evidence offers insight into the historical development of a vital Jewish language over time, and permits specification of the form of the language used in particular periods and places.
When Aramaic is assessed in light of its development, it becomes plain that past assessments in regard to the New Testament need to be revised. Sixteenth-century scholars claimed that Jesus and his movement spoke a dialect of Syriac, while their twentieth century counterparts made that claim for the Aramaic of a Targum known as Neofiti I. Both Syriac and Neofiti’s Aramaic are now known to be far too late for direct linguistic comparison with the New Testament. Unfortunately, that has not prevented these outdated assertions from being marketed anew in recent publications, and these now falsified claims represent obstacles to critical understanding. Yesterday’s findings are often incorporated into the service of today’s apologetic arguments, in the interpretation of the New Testament as well as other fields. Similarly, the linguistic complexion of Roman Galilee and Judea as well as of surrounding regions appears much too varied to allow for any convenient assumption that only Greek or only Aramaic was spoken. The most ancient recorded evidence for the New Testament, meanwhile, has not supported the once fashionable claim that the Gospels were actually written in Aramaic. The formative influence of the language must have been exerted at an oral stage of development, when Aramaic was an influence at all. The Gospels reflect developments both within their Greek linguistic culture and within their Aramaic linguistic culture, interactions between those cultures, and the fascinating process of transition from a spoken to a written message.
Assessment within Aramaic Jesus unfolds in three stages, moving from stricter to looser connections between the Greek Gospels and Aramaic. At each of the stages, precise Aramaic forms, consistent with first-century usage, are identified and compared with the New Testament. This abstract of the linguistic territory covered and how it is surveyed can only offer a few examples of the analysis and the principles involved: the argument proper is developed in the book, together with a discussion of precise Aramaic forms and secondary literature.
First, specific cases in which Aramaic is identifiably transliterated within the Greek New Testament texts are treated. For that purpose, New Testament texts are assessed in the order of their resort to such transliteration, from the greatest frequency to the least. As that stage of analysis proceeds, the settings in which the Aramaic terms and phrases involved also emerge, and the streams of tradition in which they were transmitted also provide evidence to be considered. Unlike previous considerations, this first stage of analysis is not simply a list of Aramaic usages, although they are indeed listed, but also an assessment of how usages of Aramaic terms were deployed within the social environment of the speakers and reciters. In Mark’s Greek at 5:41, the Aramaic phrase ṭalîta’ qûmî is given as Talitha koum, a reasonable although not quite accurate approximation of the Aramaic form. Some Greek manuscripts adjust the spelling to Talitha koumi, which shows a continuing awareness of Aramaic grammar by the correctors, since they give the feminine imperative — the final -î sound in Aramaic qûmî. Not all the cases are easily identified, and in a few instances discussion has been considerable. For that reason, more than a listing has to be involved in the cases of full transliterations that are discussed, involving over two dozen Synoptic passages. The predominance of the Synoptic Gospels reveals that their proximity to Aramaic streams of tradition was closer than John’s, although — as is also shown in Aramaic Jesus — part of John’s literary artistry involves an awareness of and recourse to Aramaic.
Some transliterations are not complete, but are fractured in terms of their presentation, so that at times the meaning of the purported transliteration remains unclear. Indeed, in fractured transliterations the derivation from Aramaic might not be specifiable in the present state of knowledge, and on occasion Aramaic does not seem really to be the basis of the usage at all. Some fractured transliterations become routine, and are familiar to English readers of the New Testament in the form “rabbi” applied to Jesus and in the use of “amen” at the beginning of a saying, rather than at the end. Dozens of passages are involved in the discussion of fractured transliterations, which include Matthew’s recourse to the Aramaic term zizana’ (for “tare”) in the uniquely Matthean parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-40). Although that is an example of an incidental usage, some Aramaic forms become routinized, such as nezêra’. In the Greek Gospels the term becomes nazarênos or nazôraios. Typically rendered “Nazarene” or “Nazorean” in English versions, when not transformed into “of Nazareth,” the Aramaic term bears a distinctive sense. The meaning is explained by its deployment in a stream of tradition associated with Mary Magdalene, referred to below. While Synoptic passages involving fractured transliteration predominate, John’s Gospel takes the process of routinization much further, in its deployment of terms such as rabî/rabuni and ’amen, and shows a fondness for the odd Aramaic term. Throughout, there is a pattern of awareness of Aramaic as the medium of traditions received, both in particular instances and in the assimilation of usages in order to convey meanings and emphases that feature in each of the Gospels.
Second, analysis that takes account of cultural settings of Aramaic usage invites a new approach to a long-deployed technique: that of retroversion. Because no known ancient text of the New Testament prior to its Greek version exists in Aramaic, only a reconstruction of the Aramaic original is possible. Moreover, since the Gospels and associated literature were composed in Greek, there is no assurance that any complete text extant today, or any source within an extant text, actually had an Aramaic antecedent. Cumulative evidence from Part I makes it far more plausible that the remembrance of Jesus had already made the transition from Aramaic to Greek in the period prior to the active formation of the Gospels. For this reason, retroversion can only be recommended when (a) some linguistic indication of an Aramaic antecedent is given by the text in a particular case, (b) a plausible Aramaic-speaking tradent of the material can be identified, and (c) the result of retroversion is a clearer understanding of the Greek that ultimately emerged than would have been possible on the basis of the Greek text alone. That is the procedure in Part II, marking a considerable refinement of previous approaches. The fallacy of some assertions in the past, that equated anything that could be stated in Aramaic with the finding that Jesus made the statement, is put to rest.
There are too many examples to enumerate here, but a few citations will give a sense of the findings, which in the book are embedded within passages fully retroverted into Aramaic. Readers of The Bible and Interpretation will be well familiar with discussion of the source called “Q.” One of the few certain observations that might be made in regard to this material is that it was not called by that name originally; rather, it represents halakhic teaching in Jesus’ name committed to the Twelve. As a body of material, it is comparable to the individual mishnah that a rabbi might promulgate, a number of which were incorporated during the second century CE within the literary compendium called the Mishnah. How this stream of tradition was supplied to the Gospel-writers is still a matter of dispute.
At times, however, sayings in this stream of tradition deviate in the use of particular words in a way that suggests that a single Aramaic term produced different renderings. Should we say with Matthew 11:12 that the kingdom of God exerts force such as to avail itself, or with Luke 16:16 that it is messaged triumphantly? The verb taqphah in Aramaic would explain both turns of phrase. Across a broad swath of material, Peter is associated with a stream of tradition that focuses on the issue of forgiving sins, explained (for example at Mark 2:10) in such a flexible way that the Aramaic verb šebaq, meaning “to let go” or “release,” seems to lie behind a variety of expressions in Greek. Mary Magdalene is specifically associated with the announcement of Jesus’ resurrection in all the Gospels. Mark, the earliest of the Gospels, has the young man at the tomb identify Jesus as “the Nazarene” (Nazarênos in Mark 16:6), a designation that reflects Nezêra’ in Aramaic, conveying the sense in that language of a consecrated person, a theme especially prominent in the Magdalene stream of tradition. In contrast, the stream associated with James the brother of Jesus concerned itself more tightly with the Temple in Jerusalem. The controversy in regard to qûrbana’ is a representative instance of that, and the argument turns on how the Pharisees and scribes “duly” use their teaching to distort Scripture (Mark 7:6, 9). The usage in Greek (kalôs) is a reach since it would ordinarily mean something like “nicely,” but as a rendering of Aramaic ya’ut, the sense becomes straightforward. When Jesus is remembered as labeling Antipas as “that fox” within a stream of tradition associated with Barnabas that shows awareness of the politics of Herod the Great’s son Antipas (Luke 13:31-33), the expression is easily understood as reflecting Aramaic ta‘la’ dêk and articulates a prophetic Christology also characteristic of the stream.
In most cases, the streams of tradition show signs of having been updated, probably still at an oral stage prior to organized written sources and in any case within an Aramaic environment. The kingdom of God becomes more apocalyptic by coordinating it strictly with gêhina’ (Mark 9:47); Peter is solemnly designated as a foundational figure by means of the name Kêpha’ (Matthew 16:18); the restrictive understanding of forgiveness that James championed is buttressed with the formal claim that while many are called only a few are selected (beḥîrîn, in Matthew 22:14); by the close of the oral stage of Barnabas’ stream of tradition, Jerusalem is imagined as threatened with destruction by means of the Aramaic metaphor of a vineyard (Luke 13:6-9). These extensions of the streams already identified can also be associated with named teachers, although the process of identification is more inferential for these ancillary developments of streams. It appears that James the son of Zebedee extended the teaching of the Twelve, that Peter’s follower named Mark (not to be confused with the Evangelist) accorded him preeminence, that Silas focused the approach of James the brother of Jesus, and that Symeon Niger carried on the prophetic perspective of Barnabas. This summary cannot develop the arguments concerned, which to some extent turn on the analysis of patterns of presentation and rhythms in Aramaic developed in Part II of the book. It is worth observing, however, that the Magdalene stream does not show signs of such extension, but appears to have been coopted within others, especially the Barnaban stream, representing a tendency to qualify Mary Magdalene’s role despite her undeniable importance in relation to Jesus’ resurrection.
Third, by the time that Part I and Part II have unfolded, a foundation is laid to assess noticeable overlaps that have been discovered between the New Testament and Aramaic literature that was in the process of composition during the first century. Those overlaps, thematic emphases that relate Jesus’ movement to Second Temple Judaism (and vice versa), have in recent years been a topic of investigation in their own right, but here (in a manner somewhat similar to the approach in Part II) a principle of restraint is deployed. Interest centers in Part III, therefore, not on all shared emphases, but on those that presuppose a demonstrable connection to Aramaic usage elucidating a feature or features of the Greek texts concerned in the presentation of Jesus.
The pattern of those overlaps is stunning. Thematic emphases are coherent, but equally important — different aspects of those themes are developed, depending upon the stream of tradition and stage of development of the stream. That is, social identity is conveyed by the configuration of Jesus’ teaching that is transmitted. God’s kingdom might be viewed as exerting a current force in the early stage of the Twelve’s transmission (Luke 16:16; Matthew 11:12), but at the later phase it is seen principally in its contrast with Gehenna (Mark 9:47). Starker contrasts are also instanced: is purity, for example, a triumphant force, as in the Magdalene stream (Mark 16:6), or a status to be protected from impurity, as in the Barnaban stream (Luke 13:32-33)? And is the eschatological feast with God a promise for “many,” as in the Petrine stream (Mark 14:24), or a limited promise, as in the Silan version of the stream associated with James the brother of Jesus (Matthew 22:14)? Forgiveness is offered proactively in the interests of healing in the Petrine stream (Mark 2:10), but two chapters later in the same Gospel a different stream, associated with James the brother of Jesus, explicitly limits the possibility of being forgiven by recourse to an Aramaic locution (Mark 4:11, 12). The means by which judgment is exercised might be existential return on the standard a person deploys (Matthew 7:2), or an objective threat to an entire city (Luke 13:6-9).
The themes of the kingdom, purity, eschatological banquet, forgiveness, and judgment are broadly shared, then, but at the same time Aramaic connections cannot be said to offer a uniform depiction of Jesus’ teaching. The multiple conceptions in the New Testament of how Jesus was raised from the dead should long ago have alerted scholars to the fact that communities that recollected him did so with distinctive conceptions and differing senses of their own identity. The direct equation between Jesus and Aramaic reconstruction is a fallacy. Rather, the streams of Aramaic tradition, reflecting the identities of the tradents involved in those streams, need to be assessed critically, so as to infer what actions and teachings provoked or encouraged the results. The three stages of analysis here outlined produce an understanding of the Aramaic Jesus that illuminates him, but also the settings that produced him and his memory, and the people and processes that brought that memory forward over time. Although the path to this understanding is principally by means of the primary texts involved, cited as investigation is pursued, secondary literature is also taken into account in Aramaic Jesus. Any such project needs to be located within the history of the discipline as well as within the history of the development of Aramaic and of the Gospels.
The Epilogue then applies the insights of the history of discussion, particularly as enriched by the detailed analysis of cases, to the issue of the Aramaic Jesus within history. The assumption that evidence of engagement with the Aramaic language indicates a direct connection with “the historical Jesus” is challenged. Indulging an idea of history that in other fields passed with the nineteenth century, some scholars of the New Testament continue to behave as if Jesus could be equated directly with certain privileged texts. Paying attention to the Aramaic dimension of development makes it clear that traditions are always embedded in the cultural identity of those who pass them on. Tradents other than Jesus were associated with the development of streams of Aramaic tradition within the New Testament, and contributors to the texts were quite capable of historical insight with or without competence in Aramaic. The Aramaic Jesus, therefore, emerges with differing but related representations within identifiable streams of tradition, which contribute to an evaluation of Jesus in history while requiring further historical assessment. That further assessment involves a consistent application of inference to all the evidence available, including — but by no means limited to — the Aramaic evidence.
By means of many specific examples, considerations of cultural and historical context, and engagement of the underlying linguistic issues, Aramaic Jesus aims to explain how recourse to Aramaic may prove an effective tool in the critical study of Jesus as a whole. Equally important, the characteristics and textures of the traditions that fed the New Testament begin to come into focus. Because the linguistic basis of this inherently comparative study will be subject to development for some time to come, the book sets out terms of reference that adjust previous findings, but also offers prospects of further analysis, adjustment, and discovery.
So: Aramaic has indeed changed, and the transitions involved mean that the Gospels have changed, too. Even if that has escaped the notice of most conventional scholarship, old “assured results” of critical study appear precarious. Transformation is often most difficult to discern when you are living through it; in this case the attention required to understand how and why Gospel study is changing is well worth the effort.