AN ARAMAIC JESUS

The Jesus I know seems quite different than the Jesus of my friends, whether they be more traditional or liberal in their theology. Although I am a mystic, the main point of contention is one of scriptural translation. Whereas most translations are skewed toward a dominant Greek influence, my own preference is to adhere to the Aramaic of the Peshita, the Bible of the Middle Eastern Semitic, Syrian and Egyptian Christians. Here is my reasoning.

Ones view of the world is conditioned by the native language of the culture one is born into. When one learns a second language, it is natural that one understands its concepts through the filter of ones native speech and its subtle worldview. Translation is an art and different languages embody nuances of meaning that are not automatically carried forward in translation. This is true in comparing the Greek and the Aramaic languages as spoken during the time of Jesus.

Many assert that the Bible is properly a Greek text and seminary students learn their theology from those who are primarily following the lead of scholars of the Greek language. However it is more than likely that Jesus spoke Aramaic to people who were raised speaking Aramaic as their native tongue. It is True that Greek was the international language of commerce at this time and so many Jews understood Greek at some level. Yet those who Heard Jesus likely understood His meaning through the mindset of their Aramaic speaking culture, which has metaphysical nuances unique to that culture, that the Greek language would not convey.

It was probably for this reason that the Nazoreans (followers of the Way), somewhere toward the end of the 4th century, probably became disenfranchised with the Christianity that was growing among the gentiles, with its theology derived from the Greek texts. As they were Aramaic speaking peoples, who still heard the Gospel message through the filters of native speakers of that language, as all native speakers of a language do, they wanted a Bible in their own language so that they could take in its subtlety and richness and preserve the message for following generations. Thus the Peshita was born.

One of the problems with appreciating this view is the figure of Paul. He was a Roman citizen who probably had Greek as his native tongue. He was a self-appointed apostle to the gentiles and a cosmopolitan Jew, both of which spoke Greek predominantly. Thus we can infer, by simply examining the differences in the language of the disciples and the language of Paul, how there came to be theological disputes between the disciples of Jesus and himself. What I am suggesting is that Pauline theology was conditioned by the Greek language itself, a language embodying a very different cultural mindset, which I believe, actually distorts the message of Jesus.

There are key words and concepts, which distinguish the message of Jesus. Misunderstanding or watering down but a few of these key concepts would, and I believe has, distorted the message. For example, consider how a change in the half dozen words below, could completely alter the meaning of the Gospel - as presented in the speech of Jesus - because they are so central to its message.

Love
Sin
Soul
Life
Heaven
“Kingdom”

Understanding the Aramaic Jesus is critical to understanding the teaching and the teacher we profess to follow. I am sad to report that the churches and ministers I speak to are mostly to “religiously” resistant to examining the issue. It therefore falls on the ordinary believer to see for himself.

I think it would be good to get together with friends in our own communities and discuss what difference, if any, an understanding of these terms in the context of the Aramaic language might have for us as followers of Jesus.

Arjay

Recommended Reading: The Hidden Gospel by Neil Douglas-Klotz
(With a Biblically pertinent glossary of Aramaic words in English translation.)