Historical Background: The Aramaic Language and Its Biblical Role

Aramaic, a Northwest Semitic language closely related to Hebrew, played a significant role in the biblical world. It was the lingua franca of the Neo-Assyrian and Persian Empires and became the everyday spoken language of Jews in Palestine from approximately the sixth century B.C.E., following the Babylonian exile (587 B.C.E.). By the time of Jesus (born 2 or 1 B.C.E., crucified 33 C.E.), Aramaic was the common tongue among Jews in Judea and Galilee.

Portions of the Old Testament were originally written in Aramaic, such as Daniel 2:4b–7:28, Ezra 4:8–6:18; 7:12–26, and a few other scattered phrases (e.g., Jeremiah 10:11; Genesis 31:47). The predominance of Aramaic in Jewish and early Christian circles created the need for biblical versions in this language. Among the most influential Aramaic versions is the Peshitta, the standard Bible of the Syriac-speaking Church.

The Peshitta: Overview and Origin

The word Peshitta (Syriac: ܦܫܝܛܬܐ) means “simple” or “common,” suggesting that it was a straightforward version of the Scriptures for the use of ordinary believers. It comprises translations of both the Old and New Testaments into Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic used by Eastern Christians.

The Peshitta Old Testament was translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT), not from the Greek Septuagint. This indicates its Jewish origins, likely predating the rise of Christianity in the East. It is generally agreed that the Peshitta Old Testament was produced by Jewish translators sometime before the first century C.E., though exact dates remain uncertain.

The Peshitta New Testament was translated later, likely in the late second to early third centuries C.E., and reflects a carefully executed translation from the Greek New Testament. However, it omits four books that were not yet universally accepted in the Syriac canon: 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. These were later added in the Harclensis and Philoxenian revisions.

Textual Character of the Peshitta Old Testament

The Peshitta Old Testament holds significant value in textual criticism because it was translated directly from the Hebrew. Although influenced by Jewish interpretive traditions, its textual base shows a strong affinity to the proto-Masoretic text rather than the Septuagint. Thus, it often agrees with the Masoretic Text in places where the Septuagint diverges.

For example, in passages where the Septuagint contains notable additions or rearrangements (as in Jeremiah and Daniel), the Peshitta tends to preserve the shorter, more original form, closely resembling the Hebrew Vorlage. This conservative tendency makes it a crucial witness for identifying early Hebrew textual variants and for evaluating readings preserved in other versions, such as the Greek or Latin.

Nevertheless, the Peshitta Old Testament occasionally exhibits interpretive renderings and expansions typical of Targumic paraphrase, though not as extensively. These are typically theological or doctrinal in nature, reflecting Jewish exegetical traditions that predate the Talmud.

The Peshitta New Testament: Translation and Textual Tradition

The Peshitta New Testament was translated from Greek, not from an Aramaic original. While some have historically argued for an Aramaic origin of certain NT books, such as Matthew, scholarly consensus affirms that the Greek text was the base for the Peshitta. This is evidenced by grammatical and lexical structures in the Peshitta that reflect Greek syntax and idioms rather than Semitic originals.

The translation shows signs of ecclesiastical refinement and theological awareness, though it is relatively literal and consistent. Its vocabulary reflects the language and idioms of Syriac Christianity, particularly within the Church of the East.

The absence of five NT books in the earliest form of the Peshitta is telling. The books excluded—2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation—did not achieve universal recognition in the Eastern canon until much later. These books were eventually added in later revisions: the Philoxenian Version (early sixth century C.E.) and the Harclensis Version (616 C.E.) completed by Thomas of Harkel.

The Philoxenian and Harclensis Revisions

The Philoxenian Version was commissioned by Philoxenus, bishop of Mabbug (Hierapolis), around 508 C.E. This version aimed to bring the Syriac text more in line with the Greek canonical form, including the missing books. However, it was quickly superseded.

The Harclensis Version, a revision of the Philoxenian, was completed by Thomas of Harkel in 616 C.E. This version is known for its hyper-literal rendering of the Greek text, often reproducing Greek word order and idioms in ways unnatural to Syriac. It was modeled after Origen’s Hexapla and uses critical signs like asterisks and obelisks to mark differences with the Greek text.

The Harclensis NT includes all 27 books of the New Testament and provides a more eclectic textual witness, preserving Western and Byzantine readings depending on the book. Its detailed marginal notes and Greek transliterations provide valuable insights for Greek textual history.

The Old Syriac Gospels: Curetonian and Sinaitic Manuscripts

Prior to the standardized Peshitta, there existed an earlier Syriac Gospel tradition represented in two important manuscripts:

The Curetonian Gospels (Syriac MS. 14455, British Library): Discovered by William Cureton in the mid-nineteenth century, this fifth-century manuscript contains portions of all four Gospels and represents an independent translation tradition.

The Sinaitic Palimpsest (Codex Sinaiticus Syriacus): Discovered by Agnes Smith Lewis in 1892 at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai, this manuscript dates to the late fourth or early fifth century and is older than the Curetonian. It preserves much of the four Gospels beneath a later overwriting.

These two Old Syriac manuscripts differ significantly from the Peshitta and agree more closely with Western Greek texts, especially Codex Bezae (D). They contain unique readings, harmonizations, and variant orderings of verses, suggesting a free translation tradition influenced by early Gospel harmonies like Tatian’s Diatessaron.

The Old Syriac versions are vital for textual criticism because they offer a glimpse into a pre-Peshitta Syriac textual tradition and confirm that the Peshitta is not the earliest Syriac version. They show signs of being translated directly from Greek, albeit from a Western-type text characterized by paraphrase and harmonization.

The Diatessaron of Tatian

Tatian’s Diatessaron, composed around 170 C.E., was a Gospel harmony that combined the four canonical Gospels into a single narrative. Though originally written in Syriac or Greek (modern scholars debate which), it became the standard Gospel text for Syriac-speaking Christians for nearly two centuries.

The Diatessaron was eventually replaced by the four separate Gospels of the Peshitta in the late fourth to early fifth century. While the original Diatessaron is lost, its contents can be partially reconstructed from later Arabic, Latin, and Syriac witnesses, as well as quotations in early Christian writers such as Ephrem the Syrian.

From a textual perspective, the Diatessaron likely reflected a mixed Western text-type with heavy harmonization, and possibly incorporated some Old Latin and Old Syriac readings. Though no longer extant in full, its influence is undeniable and forms an important background to the formation of the Syriac Gospel tradition.

Textual Value of the Aramaic Versions for NT Criticism

From a textual critical standpoint, the Aramaic versions—especially the Peshitta and the Old Syriac Gospels—provide indirect yet valuable witness to the Greek text of the New Testament. The Peshitta generally aligns with the Byzantine text-type, particularly in the Gospels, though its base text shows signs of Alexandrian and Western influence in certain books.

The Old Syriac manuscripts are more eclectic and preserve several Western readings not found in later Greek manuscripts. For example, Luke 23:34a (“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”) is omitted in both the Sinaitic and Curetonian Gospels, aligning with early Alexandrian witnesses like P75 and B. In contrast, the Peshitta includes the passage.

Similarly, Mark 16:9–20 (the long ending of Mark) is present in the Peshitta, but early Syriac evidence is ambiguous. The Old Syriac versions likely lacked this passage, though this remains uncertain due to manuscript damage.

Though the Peshitta is later than the Greek autographs and must be assessed accordingly, it reflects a relatively stable textual tradition and is especially valuable when the Greek manuscript evidence is divided. However, one must exercise caution: the Peshitta’s fidelity to the Greek Vorlage is high but not perfect, and harmonizations or Syriac idioms occasionally obscure the original Greek meaning.

Conclusion: Summary of the Aramaic Textual Tradition

The Aramaic version of the Bible, centered on the Peshitta, constitutes one of the most important ancient translations of the Scriptures. Its Old Testament provides a conservative reflection of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, while the New Testament shows an ecclesiastically refined translation of a Greek base text, absent of a few books in its earliest form.

The earlier Old Syriac Gospel manuscripts, the Diatessaron of Tatian, and the later Harclensis revision together provide a broad and textured picture of Syriac biblical transmission. These witnesses, while secondary to the Greek manuscripts in establishing the autographs, are nonetheless essential for identifying early textual variants and understanding the development of the New Testament text in Aramaic-speaking Christian communities.

You May Also Enjoy

Does the Abundance of Manuscript Variants Undermine the Reliability of the New Testament Text?

About the author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS