Discover Aramaic Book PDF

1
2 Discover A RAMAIC – TH E BIBLE' S SECOND HOLY LANGUAGE
Discover
ARAMAIC
The Bible's
SECOND Holy Language
By Ewan MacLeod, B.Sc. Hons, M.Sc.

3
Ewan MacLeod is the creator of the following websites:

JesusSpokeAramaic.com
JesusSpokeAramaicBook.com
BibleManuscriptSociety.com
Copyright © Ewan MacLeod, JesusSpokeAramaic.com, 2016.

All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in, or
introduced into, a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means
(electronic, mechanical, scanning, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without
prior written permission from the copyright holder.
The right of Ewan MacLeod to be identified as the author of this work has been
asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or
otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the copyright
holder's prior consent, in any form, or binding, or cover, other than that in which it is
published, and without a similar condition, including this condition, being imposed
on the subsequent purchaser.
Jesus Spoke AramaicTM is a Trademark.
TA B L E OF CO N T E N TS
Introduction............................................................................. 6
The Importance of Aramaic..................................................... 9
A Brief History of Aramaic...................................................... 11
In the beginning... Aramaic!..................................................... 17
Aramaic and the Old Testament............................................20
Aramaic and the Assyrian Empire..........................................26
Aramaic and the Babylonian Empire......................................35
The Babylonian Exile............................................................ 45
Aramaic and the Medo-Persian Empire..................................55
Aramaic and the Greek Empire.............................................. 64
The Maccabean Revolt...........................................................75
Aramaic and the Roman Empire.............................................90
A.D. 70 – The End of an Age................................................. 97
The Bar Kokhba Revolt......................................................... 112
Aramaic, Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint Translation.......123
What Does Josephus Say?................................................... 130

5
Aramaic – The Language of Egypt...................................... 140
Aramaic in the New Testament...............................................145
Aramaic – The Language of Jesus........................................ 155
Did Jews speak Greek?........................................................ 164
Aramaic and the Church Fathers............................................ 171
Aramaic and the Dead Sea Scrolls.......................................180
What About Hebrew?!........................................................... 186
Was Latin spoken amongst Jews?.........................................192
Aramaic – Judaism’s Second Holy Language........................197
What is Biblical Aramaic?..................................................... 200
What are the Aramaic Targums?...........................................204
What is the Aramaic Peshitta OLD Testament?...................... 211
What is the Aramaic Peshitta NEW Testament?......................218
Armenian Bible – From Aramaic, not Greek!......................... 226
The Arabic Bible – From The Aramaic New Testament!..........231
From Aramaic to Arabic........................................................ 235
Aramaic into Crusader Times............................................... 239
Aramaic (and the Gospel) Spread EAST............................248
The (Aramaic) Church of the East...................................... 260
Dialects of Aramaic............................................................. 270
The Syriac Dialect of Aramaic..............................................276

Aramaic is Still Spoken Today.............................................. 282
How Different are Hebrew and Aramaic?.............................284
Glossary...............................................................................289
About Ewan MacLeod.......................................................... 291
Visit JesusSpokeAramaic.com.............................................. 293

I N TRODU CTION 7
Introduction
T HANK YOU for your interest in Aramaic, and for being

interested enough to read this book. Before you get started,
however, please take a few minutes to read this Introduction.
It may help to put a few things into context.
From a great deal of experience in talking to people about Aramaic, I
invariably find that nearly everyone falls into one of two camps:
➔ Some people are reasonably open to, and interested in, the
idea that Aramaic forms such a central part of the Holy
Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments. Whether atheists
or Bible believers of one sort or another, they have little
resistance to Aramaic, and are eager to learn more.
➔ I have learned from bitter first-hand experience, however,
that other people are incredibly hostile against Aramaic,
with attacks becoming very personal, very malicious, very
illogical, very unpredictable and rather surprising.
How so? Why the stark contrast? Why should it be such a divisive
subject? Why are some people so vehemently against Aramaic? Well,
I am well placed to answer that, because I used to be one of those
people!
I was (and still am) extremely pro-Hebrew. I believed (and still do)
that Hebrew is the Holy Language. I was aware, of course, that
portions of the Old Testament were written in Aramaic (Biblical
Aramaic). But when I started to hear that Aramaic should be central
to Bible studies and was the source of the New Testament, I initially
attacked that idea. My resistance came, I suppose, because I felt that
emphasizing Aramaic somehow detracted from the importance of
Hebrew. Similarly, I often find that those who are pro-Hebrew are
often very anti-Aramaic.
That's a great pity. If you love Hebrew, you should love Aramaic for
exactly the same reasons. There should be no resistance to another
Semitic, Jewish, Biblical language being important. And Aramaic is
important – it already forms part of the Hebrew Bible! It has been
used down through Bible times for thousands of years!
Therefore, if you feel some resistance to Aramaic because you are
pro-Hebrew, please just respectfully read this book and understand
that Aramaic is also important. There really is no reason why you
should be anti-Aramaic. The two languages are both important.
They are friends. They are on the same side.
On the other hand, many people (especially Christians) feel that the
concept of an Aramaic New Testament is completely new to them.
You may never have heard of this idea before, you may have no
framework in your mind to interpret that idea, you believe that the
New Testament was originally written (only) in Greek, and that any
claim of Aramaic being the 'original' is an insult, an outrage, a
blasphemy, a heresy, and such a person should be hounded,
persecuted, and ex-communicated. I know many people have
treated me this way.
But a Bible believer once said:
“Men who will not investigate, yet denounce, are either fools or
knaves. There are multitudes of this sort of people in all parts of
the world. Their unwillingness to investigate what they
denounce arises from a diversity of causes: pride, avarice, love of
ease, dullness of intellect, indifference to truth and error, to right
and wrong, etc. are among the conditions that involve men in
such folly and wickedness.”
In other words, truth should have nothing to fear from error.
So, if you are currently anti-Aramaic, why don't you gird up the
loins of your mind, temporarily set aside your enmity, and honestly
investigate the evidence presented in this book? If it turns out that
you were wrong, then the sooner you correct that error, the better.
But if you are right, investigation into the matter can only help your
spiritual journey. We always instinctively resist new ideas. I know I
did. But investigating new ideas is the only way to learn.
Or maybe you feel that, if there is an Aramaic New Testament, this
I N TRODU CTION 9
fact somehow implies that the Greek New Testament has no value.
You recoil at such a thought. But why does there have to be a
conflict? Does one have to be a winner, and the other a loser? Can we
not use both Greek and Aramaic to help us understand the Bible
better? The apostles were inspired, and they had the Holy Spirit gift
of tongues. So why would you assume that if there is an Aramaic
New Testament, then the Greek New Testament must not be
inspired, that it is a duel to the death between one or the other?
Instead of forcing sides and artificially pitting Aramaic and Greek
against each other as an either/or choice, is it not more honest and
resourceful to get what we can from each language, and benefit from
both where appropriate?
So, if you are currently very pro-Greek and very anti-Aramaic, I
would respectfully ask you to put aside your hostility, be honest, and
simply look at the evidence presented in this book. Give the
evidence a fair hearing. Probably, in your search for Truth, you will
find that you have gained a friend (Aramaic) to help you in your
Bible studies, and that you have not really lost a friend (Greek). It is
better to have more friends, especially faithful ones.
On the other hand, if you already know and understand how
Aramaic can benefit you as you study the Bible, you are going to
love this book! It goes into lines of evidence that you might never
even have thought of. Enjoy!
If you read through this book sequentially (chapter after chapter),
you will probably notice that there is some repetition, where
important points are often repeatedly brought out in multiple
lessons. There is intentional, and there are two reasons for doing it.
First, repetition will instil those ideas deeper in your mind. Second,
some readers will cherry-pick the chapters that are of most interest
to them, and by mentioning important points in several chapters, it
makes it more likely that you will learn those key points.
Finally, unless otherwise stated, all Bible passages are taken from the
King James Version.
The Importance of Aramaic
W
ELCOME TO this book, Discover Aramaic – the Bible's
SECOND Holy Language! Hebrew, of course, is the Bible's
FIRST Holy Language. And, as we shall see, Hebrew and
Aramaic are very closely related.
Everyone interested in the Bible should study this book – there are
no exceptions! These chapters are designed to take you step-by-step
through the history of Aramaic down through the centuries, starting
from the early chapters of Genesis, through all the major empires of
the Biblical world, showing you how Aramaic was used at the time
of Jesus in Israel in the first century, and progressing onwards from
that time right through to the Crusades and beyond. Did you know
that Aramaic was used continuously throughout all that time? And
yet, Aramaic is still spoken today! It’s amazing, isn’t it? Along with
Hebrew, Aramaic is the language with the oldest recorded history.
It is highly recommended that you go through every chapter in this
book carefully, because each chapter provides a wealth of
background material that you will almost certainly find both
fascinating and useful. All the questions that people typically ask
about Aramaic are covered somewhere in these chapters.
Experience has shown that most people coming to the
JesusSpokeAramaic.com website typically have a good knowledge
of some aspects of Aramaic, but might know very little about other
aspects. By going through all these chapters systematically, you will
have the best possible understanding of the context of Aramaic and
how Aramaic relates to the Bible, Old Testament history – and
especially the background of the New Testament.
It is more than likely that, if you have a question about Aramaic, it
will be answered here, in the chapters of this book.
T H E IMPORTAN CE OF AR A MA I C 11
It is also likely that, if you are coming to this book or

JesusSpokeAramaic.com for the first time, some of the history
presented here, and some of the ideas covered, might be completely
new to you. Or you might have been aware of certain facts before,
but not really thought about the full importance of them. That is
why going through all these chapters will be of great benefit to you.
You will understand the importance of Aramaic for the study of the
Bible more than ever before. And it will be a fun experience! The
chapters are all in digestible chunks, so they should not be too long
or overwhelming.
These chapters are carefully designed to build upon each other, step
by step. There is some overlap and repetition, but this is intentional
and designed to reinforce the material covered.
If you look down the list of chapters available, you will most likely
find some that jump out at you as being particularly interesting. If
you want to go ahead and jump to the individual chapters that you
find most interesting, feel free to do that. Equally, if you want to start
from the very beginning and systematically work your way through
the chapters and read each one in turn, that approach will also work
well.
But it is very important that you do read ALL the chapters of this
book. These chapters are essential material for everyone interested in
the Bible and Aramaic. You will learn many concepts discussed here
that make other ideas presented in the JesusSpokeAramaic.com
website much more obvious.
So I sincerely hope you enjoy this book on the rich cultural heritage
that Aramaic holds in the Scriptures of Truth, and do make sure you
read through each chapter individually!
A Brief History of Aramaic
I N THE FOLLOWING chapters on Aramaic – the Bible's Second

Holy Language – we are going to take a look at Aramaic down
through the centuries. These chapters will steadily build on each
other, and will provide a good introduction to much of the
background of the Bible itself, as well as introducing many ideas that
are more fully discussed on the JesusSpokeAramaic.com website. We
strongly recommend that you go through these chapters thoroughly,
especially if some of this history is new to you. These chapters will
give you a correct cultural understanding of Aramaic and its deep,
intimate connection with the Holy Scriptures.
You can get free access to an entire video lesson about the history of Aramaic,
entitled A Brief History of Aramaic, by following the link below:
http://JesusSpokeAramaic.com/Lessons/History-of-Aramaic/History-of-
Aramaic
Before we introduce Aramaic, however, let’s think about a language

you already know very well – English. The chances are that you
come from an English-speaking country, or from a country where
many of the citizens speak English. It’s hard to imagine a world
without English, because English has become a common language,
for a number of reasons. Aramaic, too, was once like English is
today. Aramaic was spoken across a massive portion of the world’s
land mass, just as English is today.
But despite its popularity, English (as we know it today) is actually
quite a young language. If you read popular books written in
Victorian times, just 150 years ago, let’s say books written by the
famous author Charles Dickens, English has changed enough so that
most people would find those books difficult to read today. If we go
back maybe 400 years, to William Shakespeare’s day, most native
A BR I E F HISTO RY OF AR AMAIC 13
English speakers today actually struggle to read and understand

Shakespeare. A lot of native English speakers, even educated people,
say they do not understand the King James Bible, for example,
except for people who have grown up in a home where the Bible has
been read for years. And the King James Bible was written only
about 400 years ago.
If we go back to the 1500s, to the time when William Tyndale was
translating the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into English (just 500
years ago), we find that English is dramatically different from
modern English today. Modern native English speakers would have
a really hard time understanding an old printed Tyndale Bible today,
at least without some training and a lot of practice.
And if we go back about 700 years – not that long ago really – to the
time when Wycliffe translated the Bible from Latin into English, the
situation only gets worse. Most native English speakers, if they
looked at an old facsimile edition of a Wycliffe Bible, would say they
just didn’t understand it, and that it looked like a foreign language.
If they made a little more effort, they would see that it was still
recognisably English, but just a very, very different form of English.
We are now in the time period known as Middle English, roughly
between the late 12th and late 15th centuries. English is, at this time,
so different from modern English, that it actually needs a dictionary
to cover the time period! There are actually dictionaries of Middle
English available!
If we go back a further couple of centuries, we come to Old English,
say from about the 11th century to the late 12th centuries, to the time
when the Normans invaded England. English, now, is so different
from modern English that it really does need a separate dictionary –
a Dictionary of Old English. Several are available. Even with a lot of
experience, understanding written documents in Old English is a
real struggle, even for native English speakers.
If we go back any further than that, English is so different from
today, that it is almost unrecognisable. It starts to become Anglo-
Saxon, and for that you really do need a dictionary and some
specialist training. Without training, almost no native English
speaker today would understand any Anglo-Saxon, except for
maybe the occasional word here and there. Anglo-Saxon is a very
different animal from modern English.

So, we have seen that English has a time frame of about 1000 years,
about a millennium. In that time the language has been completely
transformed, from a language that is barely recognisable, to the
modern form of English we have today. That shows how much
English has changed. Century after century, it has mutated and
changed and transformed itself.
The same story could be repeated for nearly every language on this
planet – for French, for German, for Italian, for Spanish – for them
all.
But there are two notable exceptions – one is Hebrew, and the other
is Aramaic...
While Hebrew is not the focus of this book, Aramaic is. And when
we look at the history of Aramaic, we find a most remarkable history
indeed. A story unlike every other modern language.
We find that Aramaic has been around (as the same recognisable
language) for more than 4000 years, probably much longer than that,
although that becomes difficult to prove. In that time, there has
obviously been change. Nothing remains static for 4000 years or
more. Words have changed their meaning, maybe. Idioms have
perhaps been introduced. But Aramaic has remained a single,
recognisable language, one which would be mutually
understandable century after century, and showing a remarkable
consistency never experienced by English. Unlike the examples of
English which we gave earlier, Aramaic has remained remarkably
consistent over time.
There are dialects, certainly, there are changes of scripts over the
centuries, but the same basic language remains in a form that people
down through time would still recognise. Compare that with what
we saw in English earlier, where even going back a few hundred
years means that modern speakers struggle to understand what they
read.
Let’s look at a quick example. In the chapter about Biblical Aramaic,
we will see that Laban spoke an Aramaic phrase, Jegar Sahadutha, in
Genesis, approximately 4000 years ago. We saw that Jegar, a heap or
pile, is a word which is used throughout the Targums and the
Aramaic Old Testament. When we come to the New Testament, we

find that Sahadutha is used constantly, and is translated testimony or
witness, over and over again.
So over a period of 2000 years, let alone a few hundred, Aramaic has
remained relatively intact. Still recognisable. Still understandable.
Unlike English. It is truly amazing.
And so, in these chapters on the rich Biblical heritage of Aramaic, we
will trace the use of Aramaic from the very beginning, down through
the pages of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament), until we get to
Aramaic today. We will find that Aramaic has a long and
distinguished history, already a recognisable language in Ur of the
Chaldees, in Mesopotamia, at the time of Abraham.
We will find that Aramaic was the language of the Assyrian Empire,
one of the most interesting and important empires of the ancient
world. The Assyrian Empire is discussed extensively in the Bible, as
Israel had a great deal of contact with the Assyrians. We will also see
the interaction that Israel had with Aramaic, and how the situation
transformed from Aramaic being a foreign language to Israel, to
being the primary language spoken by the Jews as the centuries
rolled on.
We will work our way with Aramaic down through the next few
centuries, looking at its use as the official language of the Babylonian
Empire. This brings us to Biblical Aramaic, and Aramaic as it exists
in the books of Daniel and Ezra. Exiled from Israel, Jews now had to
learn Aramaic, and their history has never been the same since.
As the Greek Empire started to appear on the world scene, the
Jewish nation was once again affected by a foreign power. Whereas
with the onslaught of the Assyrians and Babylonians, Jews had
succumbed to Aramaic as a companion language to Hebrew, we find
that with Greek it was different. The Greeks, under the Seleucids,
persecuted Jews heavily. They desecrated the Temple, set up statues
of Zeus, and forced Jews to sacrifice to foreign gods, and to eat
swine’s flesh. While some Jews inevitably adopted the Greek
language and customs rather than face death, we find that the
Hasmoneans revolted against the mighty Greek army. Against
apparently impossible and insurmountable odds, Jews overcame
and managed to cleanse the Temple and reinstate Jewish worship
again.
This is such an interesting time for Aramaic, and in particular the
complicated interaction between Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, that
we devote several chapters to different aspects of this fascinating
time. There are chapters on the Maccabees, on Aramaic in the New
Testament, on what language was spoken in Egypt, and on the
testimony of Josephus.
As we continue our journey into Aramaic, we find that Aramaic was
spoken all throughout New Testament times, and well into the next
few centuries. Gradually, as Islam started to spread through the
Middle East, Arabic slowly started to supplant Aramaic. We have a
chapter looking into this interesting transition.
But since Aramaic had already been used and spoken for at least
3000 years by this time, it was not easy to replace it entirely by this
time. Arabic slowly start to supplant Aramaic in the Middle East, but
the transition took centuries.
Undaunted by the passage of time and world empires, Aramaic
continued its journey down through the centuries. Next we come to
Crusader times, where a number of historians at the time recorded
their histories in Aramaic. We look into this fascinating period too.
But Aramaic did not end there. It continued in use, although clearly
diminishing in importance as Arabic (and English!) vied for
dominance in the Middle East and the rest of the world generally.
The churches of the East continued to use Aramaic in liturgy, using
the Aramaic New Testament ever since the first century, as well as
the Aramaic Old Testament. The Greek New Testament and the
Greek Septuagint simply passed them by.
Today, as we shall see, Aramaic is still spoken in small communities
in the Middle East and throughout the world.
Together, Hebrew and Aramaic have defied all the odds of world
languages. Whereas just about every other language in the world has
either died out completely, or (like English) changed unrecognisably
over a few centuries, Hebrew and Aramaic have been preserved
down through at least 4000 years of human history, to remain still
recognisably the same languages. It is an amazing fact, quite unlike
all other world languages.
Why should Hebrew and Aramaic be so different from other

languages? Why should they have been preserved so miraculously,
for centuries, for upwards of four millennia?
The answer is not just an unusual quirk in human history. The
answer is that both Hebrew and Aramaic are the languages of the
Holy Scriptures. The two languages together have their place in the
Holy Bible. Hebrew to the Jews, and Aramaic to the Gentiles, is the
pattern of Scripture. That is why Aramaic is so important. Alongside
Hebrew, it was the language that God chose to reveal His message to
mankind.
As you read through these chapters on the rich Biblical heritage of
Aramaic, you will see just how long and fascinating a history
Aramaic has, how inextricably it is linked to the Holy Scriptures, and
how it has been used to reveal God’s Word for four thousand years.
Welcome to the world of Aramaic! And enjoy the journey!
In the beginning... Aramaic!
A
S WE SAW in our introductory chapter, A Brief History of
Aramaic, Aramaic has a long and distinguished history,
going back at least 4000 years. But there is one language
with an even longer history than that – Hebrew.
Hebrew is the world’s oldest language, and goes right back to the
creation of the world, when God said, “Let there be light!” And there
was light (Genesis 1:3). At the beginning of the Creation, we are told
that:
“And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.”
(Genesis 11:1)
Linguists might disagree, and claim that the origins of language go
back to an Indo-European root such as Sanskrit or a Germanic
language. Some might disagree with that, and say that the origins of
language go back even further, to cavemen making primitive grunts
to each other.
But the Holy Scriptures are clear that language did not evolve from
primitive grunts, and did not derive from an Indo-European
language, but rather Hebrew was spoken from the very beginning.
Several fascinating and detailed studies have confirmed this, such as:
1. The Word: The Dictionary That Reveals The Hebrew Source of English ,
by Isaac Mozeson.
This book painstakingly and carefully documents several
thousand English words that are clearly of Hebrew origin, once
some consistent pronunciation differences are uncovered. It means
that Indo-European languages have come from Hebrew, not the
other way round. Hebrew is older than Indo-European languages.
IN T H E B EGIN N IN G... AR A MA I C! 19
2 . The affinity between the Hebrew language and the Celtic, by Thomas
Stratton.
This is an even older book than Isaac Mozeson’s. It explains in
detail that Celtic languages, which are at least 1000 years older
than Old English, already show clear signs that they were derived
from Hebrew. There are a number of similar detailed books which
explore the very clear connections between Hebrew and Celtic
languages.
3. How the Hebrew Language Grew, by Edward Horowitz.
This book shows how Hebrew words derive from their roots, and
how Hebrew roots are related to each other in a deliberate, logical,
planned fashion. This rules out the idea that Hebrew evolved from
other more primitive languages, or that modern languages
evolved from cavemen communicating in primitive grunts.
And so, clear evidence shows that in the beginning, Hebrew was a
recognisable spoken language. But the harmonious situation
recorded in Genesis, where “The whole earth was of one language,
and of one speech”, was not to last. The above passage goes on to
explain that the inhabitants of the earth started to build a great tower
to reach up to heaven. But the LORD said, “Behold, the people is one
and they have all one language.” And so, about 4000 B.C. at the
Tower of Babel, “the LORD did there confound the language of all
the earth” and He “scattered them abroad from thence across the
face of all the earth.” (Genesis 11:6-10). This was the incident that led
from Hebrew being a pure language spoken by all peoples, into just
one of a number of languages in existence in the Ancient Lands of
the Middle East.
After the Tower of Babel, the people of the earth began to speak in
different languages. The most important of these was Aramaic. We
have seen that Aramaic was already a known, established,
recognisable and mature language by the time of Abraham, in Ur of
the Chaldees, in Ancient Mesopotamia, around 2000 B.C.
We are told that, at the Tower of Babel, “the LORD did there
confound the language of all the earth”. The word “confound”
means “to mix up, to confuse”. “The language of all the earth” was
Hebrew, and Hebrew was mixed up, or confused, to form Aramaic.

And in fact, as we shall see in the lessons about leveraging Hebrew
to learn Aramaic that are available at JesusSpokeAramaic.com,
Hebrew and Aramaic have a very great deal in common. They share
a large amount of common vocabulary and have very similar
grammar. While at first they appear as completely different
languages (mutually unintelligible) once the veil is removed and you
systematically uncover the differences, you find that the situation is
exactly as it is described in Genesis. Without knowing what
happened at the Tower of Babel, Hebrew and Aramaic would seem
to contain a great deal of puzzling similarities which could not
otherwise be explained. But God made certain systematic tweaks, or
differences, to mix the languages together, making them difficult to
understand unless you are aware of what changes have been made.
And so, as we have seen, Hebrew and Aramaic together are the
world’s oldest languages. Together they go right back to the early
days of the Bible, to the book of Genesis. No other languages have
been around for so long, and no other languages have been as
recognisable for so long. Together, they are the languages in which
God chose to reveal His Holy Scriptures.
As we have seen, then, Aramaic is a very special language. If God
chose to reveal His Word through Aramaic, we would do well to
learn this wonderful language.
Make sure to work your way through all the chapters of this book to
find out more.
A R A MA I C A N D THE OL D TE STAME N T 21
Aramaic and the Old

Testament
I N THE chapter, In the beginning – Aramaic!, we saw that prior to

the Tower of Babel, the Scripture records that, “The whole earth
was of one language, and of one speech”, and that one language
and one speech was Hebrew. Hebrew became uniquely and
identifiably associated with the Land of Israel and the people of
Israel. We find many references throughout Bible times
demonstrating this close connection between Hebrew and the Jewish
people. Hebrew is referred to as:
“The language of Canaan” (Isaiah 19:18)
“The Jews’ language [Judean]” (Isaiah 36:11; 2 Kings 18:26,28)
“Hebrew”, under the Roman Empire.
“Hebrew Language”, Mishnah, Gittin 9:8
Hebrew has remained the Holy Language of the Jewish people ever
since. But, as we will see in the chapter, Aramaic – Judaism’s Second
Holy Language, the Jewish people also adopted Aramaic, and
Judaism has a long and intimate connection with Aramaic too.
And so, whereas Hebrew was recognised as being a distinct
language associated with the Land of Israel and the Jews, during all
this time Aramaic was the language of the nations surrounding
Israel. Let us demonstrate this by tracing the use of Aramaic in the
pages of the Old Testament, as we follow Aramaic on its journey
through the nations surrounding Israel.
The first mention of Aramaic in the Bible is in Genesis. In Genesis
chapter 12, God calls Abraham out of Mesopotamia, from Ur of the
Chaldees, and commands him to go to a land that he will be shown.

After stopping at Haran, Abraham is again told to go to the land of
Israel (Genesis 12). Abraham marries Sarah, and they remain in the
Land of Israel. In time, they give birth to Isaac, the son of promise.
Not wanting to marry a daughter of the Canaanites, Abraham sends
his servant (Eliezer of Damascus) back to Haran to find a wife from
Abraham’s kindred. Through God’s blessing on his journey of faith,
the servant returns with Rebekah, who marries Isaac. Now, the
region of Syria (and in particular Damascus where Eliezer came
from) and Ur of the Chaldees in Mesopotamia, and the whole region
around Haran, were all Aramaic strongholds. Eliezer would have no
problem communicating, in Aramaic, with everyone he met on his
long journey to Haran and back. He communicates with Abraham’s
kindred there, indicating that they too spoke Aramaic.
Isaac and Rebekah give birth to Jacob, to whom the promises and
blessings of faithful Abraham were passed. In turn, they too, seek a
wife for their son, Jacob. But again, rather than marrying an
unbelieving pagan wife of the Canaanites, they seek a wife from
Abraham’s kindred. Jacob is sent back to his mother Rebekah’s
family, who have now moved from Ur of the Chaldees, and are in
Haran. After a long journey, he goes to Laban, and meets Rachel,
whom he later marries, along with Leah. Their children gave rise to
the twelve tribes of Israel.
But after twenty years of serving Laban, the time comes for Jacob to
leave Laban. Knowing Laban’s deceit and treachery, he packs up his
family’s goods, and seeks to leave quietly and peaceably. Laban soon
discovers he has gone, and pursues after him. Laban is warned in a
dream, by God, not to do Jacob any harm.
Genesis chapter 31 tells us the events surrounding their final parting
from each other. They erect a heap of stones as a memorial, or
witness, of the promises they have made to each other. But,
interestingly, in verse 47 we are told they speak different languages:
“And Jacob said unto his brethren, Gather stones, and they took
stones, and made an heap: and they did eat there upon the heap.
And Laban called it Jegar Sahadutha: but Jacob called it Galeed.
And Laban said, This heap is a witness between me and thee this
day. Therefore was the name of it called Galeed; and Mizpah...”
(Genesis 31:46-48)
In these verses, we find that Laban speaks Aramaic, in the phrase

Jegar Sahadutha, which we discuss again in other chapters. Jacob,
however, speaks Hebrew, and calls it Galeed, the equivalent Hebrew
expression. From these simple verses, we can make a number of
conclusions:
1. Laban, coming from Ur of the Chaldees, in Mesopotamia,
speaks Aramaic.
2. Abraham, coming from that region himself, must also have
spoken Aramaic.
3. It follows that Laban’s whole family (Rachel, Leah, Rebekah
previously) must all have been able to speak Aramaic.
4. Eliezer, previously, was a native Aramaic speaker, and so he
would have had no difficulty talking to Laban.
5. To communicate with them, Jacob also must have been able
to speak Aramaic, although he prefers Hebrew.
Thus, we find that the patriarchs and matriarchs could all speak
Aramaic, although Hebrew was their first choice.
Just as Aramaic is Judaism’s second holy language, it was also the
second language of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the kindred of
Abraham. As followers of faithful Abraham today, should we also
not learn Aramaic, to follow in faithful Abraham’s footsteps?
The use of Aramaic in these early chapters of Genesis reminds us of
the close contact Israel has had with the Aramaic-speaking nations
around them. Aramaic, too, is a holy language used to reveal God’s
Word. Alongside Hebrew, the two languages together form the
Hebrew Bible. One without the other is like a bride without a
bridegroom. Together, they remind us that through faithful
Abraham, all nations of the earth will be blessed.
On our journey through the pages of the Old Testament, we next
come to the mighty Assyrian Empire, which stood against Israel and
Judah. The ten northern tribes (Israel) came to an end under the
powerful onslaught of the Assyrian Empire. But Judah as a nation-
state, and Jerusalem as the Holy City, managed to hold out against
all odds, through the faith of Hezekiah and the prophet Isaiah.
But eventually, the Assyrian Empire came against Jerusalem to
besiege it, to conquer it as it had done to all the surrounding nations.

We read about these dramatic events in the book of Isaiah. But a
careful consideration of the passage in Isaiah 36 is interesting.
Sennacherib, the king of Assyria, is preparing to attack the cities of
Judah. He has sent Rabshakeh to conquer Jerusalem in the reign of
king Hezekiah.
Let us read what the passage says:
“Then said Eliakim and Shebna and Joah unto Rabshakeh,
Speak, I pray thee, unto thy servants in the Syrian language, for
we understand it: and speak not to us in the Jews’ language, in
the ears of the people that are on the wall... Then Rabshakeh
stood, and cried with a loud voice in the Jews’ language, and
said, Hear ye the words of the great king, the king of Assyria.”
(Isaiah 36:11-13)
The phrase “the Syrian language”, in the KJV translation of this
verse, simply means Aramaic. The phrase, “the Jews’ language”, is
Hebrew, since we have seen that Hebrew was uniquely associated
with the Jewish people, and Aramaic with the surrounding nations.
And so, in verse 11, Eliakim, Shebna and Joah ask Rabshakeh not to
speak to them in Hebrew, but rather in Aramaic, since then the
Jerusalemites on the city wall would not be able to understand what
they were saying. This passage shows clearly that at the time of the
Assyrian empire, Hebrew was a distinct language associated with
the Jewish people, and the everyday language in which the Jews
spoke. It also shows that Aramaic and Hebrew were different
languages, in that they were mutually unintelligible – that is, people
who spoke Hebrew did not automatically understand Aramaic.
Nevertheless, a few people could speak both languages. Eliakim,
Shebna and Joah remark that they understand Aramaic as well as
Hebrew, and Rabshakeh likewise has taken the trouble to learn
Hebrew prior to attacking the city.
As we leave the Assyrian Empire and come to the Babylonian
Empire, we next come to the book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah’s whole
book of prophecy is aimed at the Jews, and is therefore written in
Hebrew – except for one curious verse:
“Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the
heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and
from under these heavens.” (Jeremiah 10:11)

This verse is written in Aramaic, surrounded by a sea of other verses
in Hebrew. Why should that one verse be written in Aramaic, when
everything else in Jeremiah is written in Hebrew?
The answer is that Jeremiah directs this one verse to the nations, to
warn them of the coming judgement. It is therefore written in
Aramaic, whereas the surrounding passages (to the Jews) are written
in Hebrew.
We have seen, then, that Aramaic is to be found in the Law (Genesis
31:46-48) and the Prophets (Jeremiah 10:11). But Aramaic is also
found in the Writings, the third division of the Hebrew Bible. The
book of Daniel, although containing prophecy, is regarded as one of
the Writings. Ezra, too, is part of the Writings. As we shall see in the
chapters mentioning Biblical Aramaic, both Ezra and Daniel contain
several entire chapters written in Aramaic, rather than Hebrew in the
remaining sections.
In the chapter Biblical Aramaic, we explore why this should be the
case. We conclude that Aramaic is used because the Jews are, in these
books, part of the Babylonian exile, and are no longer in their land.
Daniel, also, narrates prophecy related to the Gentile nations around
Israel, to the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman empires.
Thus, the portions of these books which relate to the surrounding
nations, and when the Jews are no longer in their land, mean that
God chose Aramaic to reveal these messages rather than Hebrew.
As the Babylonian empire spread across the Middle East, Aramaic
gains a stronger and stronger foothold. When king Nebuchadnezzar
conquered Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E. and started the Babylonian exile,
Jews in large numbers were transported from Israel and brought to
Babylon. They are now encouraged, or forced, to speak Aramaic, as
the official language of the Babylonian empire. Slowly, over the next
few hundred years, Aramaic became the dominant spoken language
both with all the surrounding nations, and also with the Jewish
people. Aramaic continued in use down through the intervening
centuries, right through New Testament times, and beyond.
Gradually, therefore, as the centuries after the exile rolled by and
Aramaic took a stronger and stronger hold, Hebrew became less
popular as a spoken language, but remained the sacred language of
the Jewish people, used for liturgical purposes. Even then, in

worship there remains a mixture of the two holy languages of
Hebrew and Aramaic. Expressions such as bar mitzvah are half-
Hebrew and half-Aramaic. The important Jewish Kaddish prayer is in
Aramaic.
Aramaic and Hebrew have thus grown up together, like vines whose
branches intertwine. They are like a bride and a bridegroom, each
individuals, yet incomplete without the other. Together, they form
the complete Hebrew Bible. When we take into account the wider
picture of Biblical studies, and include the Aramaic Targums, the
Aramaic Old Testament and the Aramaic New Testament, Aramaic
takes on an even more conspicuous and important role.
To fully understand the Old Testament, therefore, we need to
understand Aramaic. There should be no resistance to Aramaic for
those interested in the Holy Bible.
A R A MA I C A N D T H E AS SY R IAN EM P I R E 27
Aramaic and the Assyrian

Empire
I N THESE CHAPTERS on Aramaic (the Bible's Second Holy

Language), we have seen that Aramaic has a long and ancient
history. Aramaic goes right back to the early days of the book of
Genesis in the Bible, where it was spoken by Laban and the
patriarchs who came from Mesopotamia. As we shall see,
Mesopotamia was the heart of the ancient kingdom of Assyria, an
empire which is intimately connected with both the Bible and
Aramaic.
In fact, as we trace through the pages of the Bible, we find that God’s
people, centered in Israel, nearly always spoke either Hebrew – the
Holy Language of Judaism – or Aramaic, or both. Together, Hebrew
and Aramaic are the languages of the Bible, the Holy Scriptures.
But the nations surrounding Israel did not speak Hebrew. Instead,
consistently, century after century, for millennia, they spoke
Aramaic. As we shall see, the first major world empire of Biblical
interest is the Assyrian Empire, and they spoke Aramaic as their
official language.
The next world empire of interest to the Bible is the Babylonian
Empire, and they also spoke Aramaic as their official language. Then
came the Medo-Persian Empire, and they also spoke Aramaic as
their official language.
Next came the Greek Empire, and even though the Hellenisation
process was starting to occur, and small pockets of Greek speakers
could be found outside of Greece and Macedonia, Aramaic was still
the spoken language over the whole geographical extent of the
previous Assyrian, Babylonian and Medo-Persian Empires.

And by the time of the Roman Empire, Aramaic was still the spoken
language across the Middle East. Despite the rise and fall of kings for
many centuries, and wars and more wars, the ordinary people across
the Middle East still spoke Aramaic. The more things change, the
more things stay the same.
And so, let us begin our journey into the major empires of the Bible
by looking more closely at the Assyrian empire. We first find
mention of Assyria, or Asshur as it is in Hebrew, in the table of the
nations in Genesis chapter 10. This chapter, with its detailed
genealogy, has been extensively studied in the fascinating book,
After the Flood, by Bill Cooper.
After decades of painstaking research, Cooper found that the Biblical
records agreed in astonishing detail with the ancient written
histories of many nations. Genesis chapter 10 was true. The truth
and accuracy of the Bible was vindicated.
And in Genesis 10, we read the following:
Gen. 10:11; “Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded
Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah.”
Gen. 10:22; “The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and
Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.”
Thus, we find that Asshur is the original Hebrew word. To this day, it
has come down to as in English as Assyria. You can hear the
similarity, Asshur and Asur-iya. If we do a search with modern Bible
software on the Strong’s Key Number, we find that this word is
sometimes translated as Asshur, and sometimes as Assyria. They are
interchangeable.
But we find several other important points from these two verses:
➔ Asshur is Assyria, which would become the mighty
Assyrian Empire.
➔ Their capital city was Nineveh. Nineveh is famous. It was
the city that Jonah preached to, when he was swallowed by
a great fish, and told to preach that in 40 days Nineveh, that
great city, would be overthrown.
➔ We find that Asshur was a descendant of Shem, one of the
sons of Noah, after the flood. In other words, ethnically and

culturally, they were a Semitic people, like the Jews. This is a
critically important point. Just as the Jews used Hebrew (a
Semitic language), so the Assyrians used Aramaic – another
Semitic language.
➔ We also find that Aram was a descendant of Shem, with
Asshur. From the name Aram, we get Aramit, which is the
Hebrew/Aramaic word for Aramaic. In fact, in the word
Aramaic, we can hear the ancient Hebrew word Aram.
Aram, Aram-aic.
We therefore find that the Assyrian empire was founded on the city
of Nineveh, that it was a very ancient kingdom going back to the
early days of Genesis (even before Laban from Mesopotamia spoke
Aramaic with Jacob), that they were a Semitic people, and that they
spoke Aramaic.
Not only was the Assyrian Empire a very ancient empire, it was a
very geographically extensive empire indeed. At its peak, it
stretched across the whole of the Fertile Crescent, the very cradle of
civilisation, as it is often referred to.
The Assyrian Empire stretched down through time, from the early
days of Genesis – even before the Tower of Babel in Genesis chapter
11 – from around 2000 B.C. – right down through century after
century of interaction with the patriarchs, and later the Israelites.
The Assyrian Empire went right down through time until their
capital city, Nineveh, was destroyed by the Babylonians in 625 B.C.
The Assyrians themselves took captive the ten tribes of Israel – the
northern kingdom – in 723 B.C.
But let us examine some more about the Assyrian Empire through
the pages of the Bible. At the height of its power, the Assyrian
Empire included the lands of the northern Tigris, Armenia, Media,
Babylonia, Elam, Mesopotamia, Syria, Israel, Judah, and the
northern portion of Egypt.
The greatest Assyrian Kings were Shalmaneser, Sargon, Sennacherib,
Tiglath-Pileser and Esarhaddon, all of whom are mentioned
throughout the Bible, in books such as 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Micah
and Isaiah. Jonah the prophet preached to the Assyrians in the book
of Jonah, asking them to repent of their deeds. While at first they did
repent, 150 years later Nahum the prophet again had to be sent to
them, to preach the ultimate end of their kingdom, telling them that
Nineveh would shortly be destroyed.
As well as Isaiah the prophet, Micah the prophet also contains many
references to the Assyrians, and the kings who would come against
Israel to do battle with them, punishing them for turning away from
God.
As we read through the pages of the Bible, we find constant
references to the Assyrian Empire in the divine record.
(A note about dates here… All dates are from the well-researched
book The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, by Edwin Thiele.)
• The Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (859-824 B.C.) is
contemporary with the Israelite kings Ahab, Jehoshaphat,
Joram, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Jehu, Ahaziah, as well as the ill-
fated usurpation of Queen Athaliah.
• The Assyrian king Shamshi-Adad V (824-811 B.C.) is
contemporary with the Israelite kings Jehu, Joash and
Jehoahaz.
• The Assyrian king Adad-Nirari III (811-783 B.C.) is
contemporary with the Israelite kings Joash, Jehoahaz,
Jehoash, Jeroboam II, Amaziah and Azariah.
• The Assyrian king Shalmaneser IV (783-773 B.C.) is
contemporary with the Israelite kings Jeroboam II, Amaziah
and Azariah.
• We next have the Assyrian kings Ashur-Dan III (773-756
B.C.) and Ashur-Nirari V (755-745 B.C.) before coming to
Tiglath-Pileser III, known as Pul in the Bible. (Pul is a
shortened form of Pileser). Pul is contemporary with the
Israelite kings Pekah, Pekahiah, Jotham and Ahaz.
• Next, there is king Shalmaneser V (727-722 B.C.) who is
contemporary with king Hoshea and king Ahaz of Israel.
• Finally, there is king Sargon II of Assyria (722-705 B.C.)
before coming to the famous (or infamous) Sennacherib
(705-681 B.C.).
The fall of Samaria, the end of the northern kingdom, happened in
723 B.C., when the Assyrian army brought an end to the ten northern
tribes, leaving only Judah to stand alone against a sea of conquered
nations and peoples.
The Assyrian empire had conquered everything else in the Middle
East, and was at this time at the height of its power. The Assyrians
would fight on, determined to conquer the last stronghold, Judah,
with its capital at Jerusalem. But the God of Israel was mightier than
the gods of the Assyrians, and Sennacherib would meet his end as
foretold by the prophet Isaiah, and the kingdom of Assyria would
have its capital city (Nineveh) destroyed as foretold by Nahum the
prophet.
Thus, the Assyrian empire has a long and intimate connection with
the Bible, and the ancient Israelites. While the Israelites spoke
Hebrew, the Assyrians spoke Aramaic, as we have already seen.
Some of the history of this time is so fascinating, and so tied up with
the history of Hebrew and Aramaic, that we would do well to review
it here. While there are many chapters that could be chosen to show
the interaction between Israel and Assyria, the events surrounding
Hezekiah’s reign are one of the most interesting.
In 2 Kings chapter 18, we find that the Assyrian army, the might of
the Assyrian empire, comes with a huge army and lays siege to
Jerusalem. They had conquered everywhere else in the Middle East,
and only Judah was left, with Jerusalem as its capital city. Humanly
speaking, it looked inevitable that the Assyrians would conquer
Jerusalem too, and would bring an end to the Israelite nation and
their worship of the God of Israel.
We read:
2Kings 18:9-12; “And it came to pass in the fourth year of king
Hezekiah, which was the seventh year of Hoshea son of Elah
king of Israel, that Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against
Samaria, and besieged it. And at the end of three years they took
it: even in the sixth year of Hezekiah, that is the ninth year of
Hoshea king of Israel, Samaria was taken. And the king of
Assyria did carry away Israel unto Assyria, and put them in
Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the
Medes: Because they obeyed not the voice of the LORD their
God, but transgressed his covenant, and all that Moses the
servant of the LORD commanded, and would not hear them, nor
do them.”
Under Shalmaneser, those events meant that Israel, the northern
kingdom, the ten tribes, were conquered, and went into captivity.
This happened in 723 B.C.
A while later, Sennacherib, the next Assyrian king, again comes
against Judah to battle. All the fenced cities of Judah are now taken,
and only Jerusalem is left. Hezekiah, one of the most faithful kings in
Israel’s history, is forced to pay Sennacherib tribute:
v.13-16; “Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did
Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities
of Judah, and took them. And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the
king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from
me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of
Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred
talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. And Hezekiah gave
him all the silver that was found in the house of the LORD, and
in the treasures of the king’s house. At that time did Hezekiah
cut off the gold from the doors of the temple of the LORD, and
from the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and
gave it to the king of Assyria.”
Even though Hezekiah gives Sennacherib all the gold and silver they
have, still it is not enough. Before long, a huge Assyrian army comes
to Jerusalem and lays seige against it:
2Kings 18:17-25; “And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and
Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a
great host against Jerusalem. And they went up and came to
Jerusalem. And when they were come up, they came and stood
by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the
fuller’s field. And when they had called to the king, there came
out to them Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, which was over the
household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the
recorder. And Rabshakeh said unto them, Speak ye now to
Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What
confidence is this wherein thou trustest? Thou sayest, (but they
are but vain words,) I have counsel and strength for the war.
Now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me?
Now, behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed,
even upon Egypt, on which if a man lean, it will go into his
hand, and pierce it: so is Pharaoh king of Egypt unto all that
trust on him. But if ye say unto me, We trust in the LORD our
God: is not that he, whose high places and whose altars
Hezekiah hath taken away, and hath said to Judah and
Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem? Now
therefore, I pray thee, give pledges to my lord the king of
Assyria, and I will deliver thee two thousand horses, if thou be
able on thy part to set riders upon them. How then wilt thou
turn away the face of one captain of the least of my master’s
servants, and put thy trust on Egypt for chariots and for
horsemen? Am I now come up without the LORD against this
place to destroy it? The LORD said to me, Go up against this
land, and destroy it.”
But interestingly, as previously mentioned, we find that while the
Jews in Jerusalem speak Hebrew, the Assyrians speak Aramaic. A
few of the influential Jews are able to speak Aramaic, but they want
to continue speaking with the Assyrians in Aramaic, to make sure
that the ordinary Jews do not understand the threats that the
Assyrians are making, and how serious the situation is:
v.26; “Then said Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebna, and
Joah, unto Rabshakeh, Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the
Syrian language; for we understand it: and talk not with us in
the Jews’ language in the ears of the people that are on the wall.”
In the next chapter, 2 Kings chapter 19, Hezekiah, the king of Israel,
knows he cannot possibly stand against the might and power of the
Assyrian army. He takes Sennacherib’s letter to the Temple, to God
in prayer, and then shows the letter to Isaiah the prophet:
2Kings 19:1-3; “And it came to pass, when king Hezekiah heard
it, that he rent his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth,
and went into the house of the LORD. And he sent Eliakim,
which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and the
elders of the priests, covered with sackcloth, to Isaiah the
prophet the son of Amoz. And they said unto him, Thus saith
Hezekiah, This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and
blasphemy: for the children are come to the birth, and there is
not strength to bring forth.”
But Isaiah the prophet tells him that Jerusalem, the Holy City, will
not fall to the Assyrian army:
v.6-7; “And Isaiah said unto them, Thus shall ye say to your
master, Thus saith the LORD, Be not afraid of the words which
thou hast heard, with which the servants of the king of Assyria
have blasphemed me. Behold, I will send a blast upon him, and
he shall hear a rumour, and shall return to his own land; and I
will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land.”
And so, that very night, the angel of death went out and smote the
Assyrian army, and king Sennacherib is killed by his own sons:
v.32-34; “Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the king of
Assyria, He shall not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow
there, nor come before it with shield, nor cast a bank against it.
By the way that he came, by the same shall he return, and shall
not come into this city, saith the LORD. For I will defend this
city, to save it, for mine own sake, and for my servant David’s
sake.”
2Kings 19:35-37; “And it came to pass that night, that the angel
of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians
an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose
early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses. So
Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned,
and dwelt at Nineveh. And it came to pass, as he was
worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech
and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword: and they
escaped into the land of Armenia. And Esarhaddon his son
reigned in his stead.”
And so, to conclude this chapter, we see that Aramaic is closely
connected with the very dawn of civilisation itself, with the Fertile
Crescent, the cradle of civilisation, going back all the way to Genesis
10 in the establishment of the Assyrian kingdom, which would later
become one of the most powerful and mighty empires the world has
ever known.
Just as Hebrew and Aramaic are like two vines growing together and
becoming inter-twined, so too the ancient Israelites grew together
with the nations around them, becoming intertwined with the
Assyrian Empire, Israelite kings becoming intertwined with the
Assyrian kings, the fate of the one becoming the fate of the other.
At this time, as we have seen, the Jews, the Israelites, did not
generally speak Aramaic, and except for a select, educated, few, the
common people did not understand the Aramaic language of the
invading Assyrians.
But, as we shall see in the next chapter, the Babylonian Empire also
spoke Aramaic. They would take the Israelites captive to Babylon,
where things would change permanently, where the Israelites would
have to learn Aramaic, and Aramaic would ultimately become more
commonly spoken than Hebrew.
But we shall leave that fascinating history to the next chapter.
Aramaic and the Babylonian

Empire
I N THESE CHAPTERS on Aramaic, the Bible's Second Holy

Language, we have looked at just how ancient the Aramaic
language is. In fact, we saw that Aramaic appears right back in
the early chapters of Genesis. We looked at the Assyrian Empire,
which arose out of the table of nations in Genesis chapter 10, and we
saw that the Assyrians spoke Aramaic, in their many dealings and
interactions with the Israelites in the Old Testament.
But the next Empire of the Bible which we want to examine is the
Babylonian Empire. Like the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian
Empire is very ancient. Its origins, too, also go back to the table of
nations in Genesis chapter 10.
v.8-10; “And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in
the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore
it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.
And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and
Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.”
Babel in this verse is Babylon, and if we do a search on the Strong’s
Number, we find that it is translated almost everywhere as Babylon.
Both the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires, therefore, arose out of
the Fertile Crescent, the cradle of civilisation. The origins of Babylon
go back to Nimrod, who would be a mighty hunter before the Lord,
or in opposition to God. That Babylonian kingdom was always a
snare in Israel’s side, and false religious ideas arising out of Babylon
led Israel astray into idolatry. So too, thousands of years later,
Christians also would be led astray by the false religion of Babylon.
A R A MA I C A N D T H E BABYLON IAN EM P I R E 37
We find in the book of Revelation chapter 17, it is written:

v.5; “And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY,
BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND
ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.”
The origins of Babylon, therefore, go right back to Genesis chapter
10. After the fall of the Assyrian Empire, which we looked at in the
previous chapter, the Babylonian Empire rose to even greater heights
and powers. Just as Aramaic was spoken by the Assyrians, so too,
the Babylonians also spoke Aramaic. In fact, large portions of the
books of Daniel and Ezra are written in Aramaic, because it was the
official language of both the Babylonian and Medo-Persian Empires.
But we also find more about Babel, or Babylon, in Genesis chapter
11. After the flood, when God destroyed every living creature from
off the face of the earth because they had become corrupt, only Noah
and his family were saved. But mankind soon returned to their evil
ways, and in Genesis chapter 11, they rebelled further by building an
enormous tower – the Tower of Babel – probably intended to be so
immense that it would never be destroyed if God sent a flood again,
and also so high that it would reach into heaven and challenge God,
as a further rebellion.
We read:
Gen. 11:5-9; “And the LORD came down to see the city and the
tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said,
Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and
this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from
them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down,
and there confound their language, that they may not
understand one another’s speech. So the LORD scattered them
abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left
off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel;
because the LORD did there confound the language of all the
earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon
the face of all the earth.”
Thus, Babel, or Babylon, is intimately associated with rebellion
against God. Babel is a play on the word balal, which means to mix,
or mix up, or confuse. Bab-El in Semitic languages also means the Gate
of God. In their idolatrous minds, they were building a tower, a
stairway, thinking they could reach the gods that ruled heaven itself.
As we continue to go through the Holy Scriptures, we find almost
300 references to Babylon. Jeremiah the prophet pleads with the
people, telling them that the Babylonians will soon be coming, that
they will conquer Jerusalem, that they will be taken away to Babylon
for 70 years (an event known as the Babylonian exile) but at the end
of the 70 years, they will return to Jerusalem, to Israel once again.
But the people do not believe Jeremiah. Just as Hezekiah had
withstood the might of the Assyrian army a few generations earlier,
the people assume that God will vanquish the Babylonians this time
round as well. But the people were mistaken. Jeremiah was right,
because Jeremiah was a faithful prophet of the living God.
Ezekiel the prophet is also sent to plead with the people. At the
command of God, he turns himself into a living parable, faithfully
portraying all the terrifying events that would happen to Jerusalem,
and how the Babylonians would conquer Israel and take the people
captive. But the people would not believe.
And so, the inevitable happened. The Babylonians came against
Jerusalem, they laid siege against it, and they conquered it. The
prophets were vindicated. Daniel, being of the royal household, is
taken captive to Babylon, just as Jeremiah and Ezekiel had said
would happen.
The most important and interesting connection which the
Babylonian Empire had with ancient Israel is through the powerful
king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. He is famed in history for creating
the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, which became one of the Seven
Wonders of the Ancient World.
But Nebuchadnezzar is just as famous for an amazing dream which
he had one night. This dream was no ordinary dream, but was a
prophecy of things to come, of civilisations and empires that would
stretch down through time until that day when God would establish
his everlasting kingdom upon the earth, and send his only begotten
Son, Jesus, to rule the nations.
Let us, then, examine Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.
Dan. 2:1-4; “And in the second year of the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith
his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him. Then the
king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and
the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his
dreams. So they came and stood before the king. And the king
said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was
troubled to know the dream. Then spake the Chaldeans to the
king in Syriack, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream,
and we will shew the interpretation.”
We note here that the Chaldeans spoke to the king in Syriac, or
Aramaic. This demonstrates clearly that Aramaic was the normal,
spoken language in the Babylonian Empire. This whole section of
Daniel, in the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament, is written in Aramaic.
We find that the king dreamed a frightening dream, and he was
deeply troubled by it:
Dan. 2:31-36; “Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image.
This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before
thee; and the form thereof was terrible. This image’s head was of
fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his
thighs of brass, His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of
clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands,
which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay,
and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass,
the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became
like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; and the wind
carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the
stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled
the whole earth. This is the dream; and we will tell the
interpretation thereof before the king.”
Although the king could remember the dream, he did not
understand its meaning. All the magicians and astrologers in the
whole kingdom can offer no explanation.
But Daniel, an Israelite, prays to God, and the meaning of the dream
is revealed to him. It foretells not only about the Babylonian Empire,
but also of other world empires that would come, right up until God,
the Ancient of Days, would send Jesus, the Messiah, back to the
earth to establish His kingdom.
v.37-45; “Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven
hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And
wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field
and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and
hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and
another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all
the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron:
forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things:
and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and
bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of
potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but
there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou
sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet
were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly
strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed
with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of
men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not
mixed with clay. And in the days of these kings shall the God of
heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and
the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in
pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for
ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the
mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the
brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made
known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the
dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.”
Thus, the king’s dream relates to the important Biblical empires that
would follow the Babylonian Empire.
➔ The head of gold represented Babylon, with
Nebuchadnezzar as its king.
➔ Next came the arms of silver, the two arms representing the
two halves of the Medo-Persian empires. We shall look at
that Empire in a later chapter.
➔ Then came the belly and thighs of brass, representing the
Greeks. From classic Greek history such as Homer’s famous
Iliad, the Greeks were known as the brazen-coated Greeks.
➔ Then came the legs of iron, the two legs representing the
next empire – the Roman Empire, with (down through time)

its two historical legs, in Rome and Constantinople. Again,
the might and strength of iron is associated with Rome.
➔ Finally, the iron legs do not disappear, but are changed to
become feet of iron and clay. The might of the Roman
Empire would not be replaced suddenly and totally like the
previous empires had, but would become the fragmented
Holy Roman Empire and latter-day European Union, a
disunited kingdom, partly strong but partly weak, yet still
recognisably Roman in its character.
These kingdoms must all stand again in the latter days, united, only
to be destroyed by the stone cut out of the mountain without
(human) hands, representing Jesus, the stone that the builders
rejected, who will soon return to establish the kingdom promised by
his Father.
The divine order of these empires in the Scriptures of Truth is
therefore the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, the Medo-
Persian Empire, the Greek Empire and the Roman Empire. In later
chapters, we shall examine each of these Empires in turn, and show
that Aramaic was at the heart of them all, spoken by the everyday
peoples of those mighty kingdoms.
But having seen that Aramaic was spoken in Nebuchadnezzar’s day,
that it was the official language of the Babylonian Empire, and that
this whole section of Daniel the prophet was written in Aramaic, let
us now jump to another fascinating event in the history of the
Babylon empire.
Let us go a few kings later to Belshazzar, and look at the events
described in Daniel chapter 5, and examine the writing on the wall:
Dan. 5:1-4; “Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a
thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.
Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the
golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had
taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king,
and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink
therein. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken
out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem;
and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines,
drank in them. They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold,
and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.”
As we have seen already, and as the above passage brings out,
Babylon was an adulterous and idolatrous empire, in constant
opposition to the things of God. Belshazzar drinks from the very
cups that pertained to worship of the true God in Jerusalem, from
the very cups that were used for worship in the Temple. It was an act
of total blasphemy against the God of heaven. And the God of
heaven had had enough. He was going to bring an end to the
Babylonian Empire. That very night. We go on to read:
v.5-9; “In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and
wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall
of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that
wrote. Then the king’s countenance was changed, and his
thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed,
and his knees smote one against another. The king cried aloud to
bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers.
And the king spake, and said to the wise men of Babylon,
Whosoever shall read this writing, and shew me the
interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a
chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the
kingdom. Then came in all the king’s wise men: but they could
not read the writing, nor make known to the king the
interpretation thereof. Then was king Belshazzar greatly
troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords
were astonied.”
Daniel, an old man by this time, was brought in to explain the
meaning of what the king, and everyone around him, had seen with
their own eyes.
v.13-16; “Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the
king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art
of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my
father brought out of Jewry? I have even heard of thee, that the
spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding
and excellent wisdom is found in thee. And now the wise men,
the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they
should read this writing, and make known unto me the
interpretation thereof: but they could not shew the interpretation
of the thing: And I have heard of thee, that thou canst make
interpretations, and dissolve doubts: now if thou canst read the
writing, and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou
shalt be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about thy
neck, and shalt be the third ruler in the kingdom.”
Daniel continues:
v.17-28; “Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy
gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; yet I will
read the writing unto the king, and make known to him the
interpretation. O thou king, the most high God gave
Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory,
and honour: And for the majesty that he gave him, all people,
nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom
he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom
he would he set up; and whom he would he put down. But
when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride,
he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory
from him: And he was driven from the sons of men; and his
heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the
wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was
wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God
ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it
whomsoever he will. And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not
humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this; But hast
lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have
brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy
lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them;
and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron,
wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the
God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways,
hast thou not glorified: Then was the part of the hand sent from
him; and this writing was written. And this is the writing that
was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. This is the
interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy
kingdom, and finished it. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the
balances, and art found wanting. PERES; Thy kingdom is
divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.”
Again, in this passage, we observe the use of Aramaic, rather than
Hebrew, in the events which are narrated. We shall examine this

passage more fully in the chapters on Biblical Aramaic, but the
Aramaic words Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin meant Number, Number,
Weight, Divisions.
Daniel explains the meaning of the words to the terrified king and
his blasphemous people. The writing was on the wall. The
Babylonian Empire would end that very night, to be replaced by the
Medo-Persian Empire:
Dan. 5:30-31; “In that night was Belshazzar the king of the
Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom,
being about threescore and two years old.”
And so, to conclude this chapter, we see that Aramaic is closely
connected with the very dawn of civilisation itself, with the Fertile
Crescent, going back all the way to Genesis chapter 10 in the
establishment of the Babylonian kingdom.
The Babylonian Empire always stands in opposition to God, in both
the Old and New Testaments. It was a system of iniquity and
idolatry which put mystery religion, or false religion, at its very
heart.
But, like the mighty Assyrian Empire before it, the powerful
Babylonian Empire had Aramaic as its official language.
Whereas at the time of the Assyrian Empire the Israelites spoke
Hebrew and only a few were able to speak Aramaic, by the time of
the Babylonian Empire Aramaic was becoming more widely spoken.
The Jews were exiled into Babylon still generally only speaking
Hebrew, but by the time they returned 70 years later, Aramaic had
become just as well known as Hebrew. In fact, as we shall see in the
next chapter, the Babylonian exile created a profound shift in the
ordinary language spoken by the Israelites. Hebrew was diminishing
as a spoken language, and Aramaic was increasing.
By the time of Jesus, Aramaic had largely won the day, and was the
language most commonly spoken amongst ordinary people. That
does not mean that Hebrew died out as a spoken language. Far from
it. But Aramaic was now unmistakably the second Holy Language of
Judaism. It was here to stay.
We too, should make sure that Aramaic is here to stay in our lives. If
we make this ancient and beautiful language part of us, if we let the
Holy Scriptures permeate our lives, we shall be guided directly by
the Holy Scriptures. We shall not see through a glass darkly as we
might do with a translation, but we shall see clearly, as never before.
The Babylonian Exile
I N THE previous chapter, we looked at the Babylonian Empire.

Like the Assyrian Empire before it, the Babylonian Empire arose
very early in the dawn of civilisation. Both empires spoke
Aramaic, with Aramaic being both the official language (the
language spoken by the ruling elite) and the language spoken by the
ordinary people.
Let us now take a closer look at the Babylonian empire, and in
particular the exile of the Jews into Babylon. As we have seen, in the
land of Israel, prior to being exiled into Babylon, the Jews spoke
almost entirely Hebrew, with a few educated people speaking both
Hebrew and Aramaic. But in Babylon, the Jews had to learn
Aramaic. It became their normal language of communication with
the Babylonians. And by the time the exile finished seventy years
later, the Jews were so familiar with Aramaic that it had become a
second language to them, even to the extent that (for many) it was
the language they were most familiar with. And because Aramaic
was the spoken language of all the nations around them, Aramaic
became even more commonly spoken as the centuries went by.
Let us start by reminding ourselves of the history of this period. We
have already met king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon in the previous
chapter on the Babylonian Empire. As we saw, Nebuchadnezzar was
the king who had a dream, a vision, of the empires that would
follow his own, in Daniel chapter 2.
King Nebuchadnezzar was the head of gold in the dream. He was a
powerful king and his empire was huge.
King Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem in a siege with his
army and conquered it. Jerusalem had fallen. He burned the city. In
fact, parts of the walls which were burnt can be seen to this day in
T H E BABYLON IAN EX I L E 47
the City of David archaeological excavations in Jerusalem. The

Temple built by Solomon, known as the First Temple, had now been
destroyed.
Nebuchadnezzar carried large numbers of the Jews in Jerusalem and
Judea into captivity in Babylon, a far away land which they were not
familiar with. We can read more about Nebuchadnezzar’s siege
against Jerusalem and the beginning of the deportation in Daniel
chapter 1:
Dan. 1:1-2; “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of
Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem,
and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into
his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he
carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he
brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god.”
We can read more about the Jews being taken into exile in Babylon
in, for example, Jeremiah chapter 52:
v.28-30; “This is the people whom Nebuchadrezzar carried away
captive: in the seventh year three thousand Jews and three and
twenty: In the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar he carried
away captive from Jerusalem eight hundred thirty and two
persons: In the three and twentieth year of Nebuchadrezzar
Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carried away captive of
the Jews seven hundred forty and five persons: all the persons
were four thousand and six hundred.”
Further deportations into Babylon also took place, and they are
described in detail in other parts of the Holy Scriptures. Over time,
large numbers of Jews were taken into captivity to Babylon.
The Jews, of course, always viewed Israel as their homeland, and
Jerusalem as the Holy City. They longed to return to Zion, as we read
in Psalm 137:
Psa. 137:1-6; “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea,
we wept, when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps
upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there they that carried
us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us
required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
How shall we sing the LORD’S song in a strange land? If I forget
thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do

not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my
mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.”
Thus, in Babylon, Jews began their new life. As we have seen,
Aramaic was the official language of the Babylonian empire, and the
language of the common people. Thus, the Jews had, of necessity, to
learn Aramaic. But Hebrew and Aramaic are closely related, and so
there would have been little resistance to Aramaic, and the Hebrew-
speaking Jews would have not have found it difficult to learn
Aramaic.
Amongst the people who were deported into Babylon were those in
the royal household. Daniel the prophet, who we have already
looked at in the previous chapter on the Babylonian Empire, was
amongst those taken into captivity. Let us continue reading from
Daniel chapter 1:
Dan 1:3-5; “And the king [Nebuchadnezzar] spake unto
Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain
of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the
princes; Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured,
and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and
understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand
in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the learning
and the tongue of the Chaldeans. And the king appointed them a
daily provision of the king’s meat, and of the wine which he
drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof
they might stand before the king.”
Here, we see that the Jews from Israel were taught “the learning and
the tongue (or language) of the Chaldeans” – in other words, they
were taught Aramaic and the culture and customs of the
Babylonians.
We need to understand the significance of these events clearly. While
at first there would be enormous turmoil and the Jews must have
hated the idea of being exiled into Babylon, the above verses show
that the Jews were (deliberately) treated extremely well. The best of
them, the most intelligent and attractive looking, were taken into the
king’s palace and treated well. They were fed from the king’s
household, given the best of everything, treated like royalty, and
were taught the language and customs of Babylon. Aramaic, of

necessity, became the language they would speak in everyday life.
Once you are immersed in a language like this, it becomes part of
you. It changes you, and it becomes the language that you think in.
And so it was with the Jews in Babylon. Aramaic became their
everyday language, the language in which they thought.
Why were the Jews treated like this? The reason is not kindness on
the part of king Nebuchadnezzar. Rather, it was because he wanted
the Jews to feel that Babylon was now their home, that they would
be treated well, that they were privileged, that they belonged in
Babylon, and to make sure there were no thoughts of revolt or return
to Israel. He wanted them to be loyal to him, and to the ruling elite
in Babylon.
As we read further in Daniel, we find that Daniel and his three
friends were amongst those taken into captivity:
v.6-7; “Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel,
Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: Unto whom the prince of the
eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of
Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of
Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego.”
This verse is very informative. It tells us that the Jews were given
new names – Aramaic names. Their old Hebrew names (Daniel,
Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah) were replaced with new Aramaic
names (Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego). Some
social conditioning was happening here. Their loyalty to Israel and
to the Hebrew language was being replaced with a new culture and
a new language. While most people would succumb to the blessings
and privileges of a new life under the new royal household, and
start to become loyal to the king, Daniel and his three friends did not
want to succumb. They wanted to remain loyal to the God of Israel,
in whom they put their trust.
As we read on in Daniel, coming to chapter 2, we find that
Nebuchadnezzar has his famous dream, as we read about in the
previous chapter on the Babylonian Empire.
Dan. 2:1-4; “And in the second year of the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith
his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him. Then the
king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and

the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his
dreams. So they came and stood before the king. And the king
said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was
troubled to know the dream. Then spake the Chaldeans to the
king in Syriack, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream,
and we will shew the interpretation.”
Here we find further evidence that Aramaic was the language
spoken by everyone in Babylon. The verse explicitly says that the
Chaldeans spoke to the king in Syriac, or Aramaic. The king speaks
Aramaic. Those around him – the magicians, astrologers, sorcerers
and the Chaldeans – all spoke to the king in Aramaic. And, when
Daniel appears before the king to tell him the meaning of the dream,
he also speaks to the king in Aramaic, a language in which he has
now been thoroughly immersed. In fact, in the Hebrew Bible or Old
Testament, these entire chapters in Daniel – Daniel 2:4 to Daniel 7:28,
are all written in Aramaic because that was the language spoken by
the Jews at this time, as well as the language of Babylon.
And so, as we have seen, the Jews were now in exile, in the diaspora,
in Babylon. But, as Jeremiah had prophesied, the captivity in
Babylon was not permanent, but would last for seventy years.
Jer. 25:11-12; “And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an
astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon
seventy years. And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are
accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that
nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the
Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.”
Jer. 29:10; “For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be
accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good
word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.”
Daniel was taken into captivity at the very start of the exile into
Babylon, at the very start of those seventy years. And he remained in
Babylon for the whole period, and was alive at the end of it. Thus,
we read at the end of Daniel chapter 1:
Dan 1:21; “And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king
Cyrus.”
But more importantly, Daniel, as a Jew faithful to the God of heaven,

knew well the earlier prophecy of Jeremiah that the captivity would
last seventy years. He must have been counting down the days, one
by one. By the time the seventy years had passed, Daniel knew that
the captivity was over:
Dan. 9:2; “In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by
books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD
came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy
years in the desolations of Jerusalem.”
Daniel knew that the time had come. It was time for the Jews to
return back to the land of Israel. If they wanted, that is. Many of the
faithful ones would return. Others would now regard Babylon as
their home, the land they had lived in for the past seventy years. The
land many had grown up in. The land they had children in. The land
in which they had married wives. Many never came back, and
continued to speak Aramaic as they settled throughout the
Babylonian empire.
But some of the faithful ones did come back.
Unfortunately, though, many had now started to forget Hebrew. For
the past seventy years, as they were scattered throughout the
Babylonian empire, they had adopted the customs and local
language dialects of the peoples in which they lived. On their return
from Babylon, Nehemiah laments that so many no longer knew
Hebrew, the Holy Language:
Neh. 13:23-24; “In those days also saw I Jews that had married
wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: And their children
spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the
Jews’ language, but according to the language of each people.”
We see in this verse that Hebrew, for many, was a language they
could no longer speak. Nehemiah laments this fact, to their shame.
As a faithful Jew, he believed that the Holy Language, Hebrew,
should never be forgotten.
And because so many people could no longer speak Hebrew, but
now spoke Aramaic as their everyday language, after the exile, when
Ezra re-builds the Temple and re-establishes the worship of the one
true God in Jerusalem once again, and when Nehemiah re-builds the
walls of the city, we find that Ezra has to make special provision to
make sure that the people understood the Law of Moses that is read
out to them.
Ezra was a priest as well as a scribe, one highly skilled in the Law of
Moses – or the books of the Torah – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers and Deuteronomy. He knew Hebrew inside out, but he
knew that many of the people were more familiar with Aramaic.
And so, when he reads out the Law of Moses to the people, we read
that Ezra has to translate the Law from Hebrew to Aramaic for them,
to make sure they understand it. We read the following:
Neh. 8:1-8; “And all the people gathered themselves together as
one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they
spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses,
which the LORD had commanded to Israel. And Ezra the priest
brought the law before the congregation both of men and
women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the
first day of the seventh month. And he read therein before the
street that was before the water gate from the morning until
midday, before the men and the women, and those that could
understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto
the book of the law. And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of
wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him
stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and
Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand,
Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and
Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam. And Ezra opened the
book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the
people;) and when he opened it, all the people stood up: And
Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people
answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they
bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces
to the ground. Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin,
Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad,
Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to
understand the law: and the people stood in their place. So they
read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense,
and caused them to understand the reading.”
Because the Law of Moses was written in Hebrew but the people are
by this time more familiar with Aramaic, he has to make sure that
the Levites “caused the people to understand the Law.” As they read
in the book of the Law of God, they have to read “distinctly, and
gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.”
Reading the law in Hebrew alone was not enough. Ezra had to read
each verse in Hebrew, but then interpret it in Aramaic, to make sure
that the people understood it correctly.
Jews understand these verses to mean that the tradition of Targum
had begun. As we shall see in the chapter about the Aramaic
Targums, the Targums were the “official” translations of the books of
the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic. In other words, to make sure that the
Jews understood the Hebrew Bible, translations were made into
Aramaic. Jews were expected to read both the Hebrew Bible and the
Aramaic translation, or Targum.
As time went on, the Targums became written down. They became
official, or recognised translations. Obviously Jews never forgot the
Hebrew Bible. They never abandoned it. They always revered it.
They always held it as the original revelation from God. But they
also read the Aramaic Targums, to make sure that they “gave the
sense” and were “caused to understand the reading”.
Ever since the days of Ezra, the Jews have a tradition, that one
should read the Hebrew text twice and the Aramaic text once.
This comes from the Talmud, where it says, “Rabbi Huna ben
Yehudah says in the name of Rabbi Ammi: “A man should always
complete his Torah portions together with the congregation, reading
the Hebrew [text] twice and the [Aramaic] Targum once.”
The phrase is Shnayim Mikra ve-echad Targum. The Mikra is The
Reading, that is, from the Hebrew Bible. The Targum is the Aramaic
Targums.
And so, to conclude this chapter, let us review the interaction
between Hebrew and Aramaic, and the gradual shift from Hebrew
to Aramaic.
At the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Land of Israel, the
ancient Israelites spoke Hebrew, although from their interaction with
Mesopotamia, they would have been able to speak Aramaic.
Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldees after all, the Chaldees being
the land that would later be at the heart of the Babylonian Empire.
Isaac and Jacob, too, would have been able to speak Aramaic. When
Isaac’s servant Eliezer goes to Padan-Aram to look for a wife for
Isaac, he must have spoken Aramaic to Laban and his family. And
when Jacob also goes to Padan-Aram, he also must have spoken
Aramaic with Laban. Laban, after all, speaks Aramaic in calling their
memorial Jegar Sahadutha in Genesis 31:47.
But continuing on through time, Hebrew was by this time the
normal spoken language amongst the Israelites. Through the time
that Joseph goes into Egypt to serve Pharaoh, through to the time of
Moses and coming out of Egypt, the Israelites continued to speak
Hebrew. Through the times of David and the divided kingdom, the
Israelites continued to speak Hebrew. When the Assyrians came to
invade Israel, the Jews also spoke Hebrew. And by the time of the
Babylonians, the Jews also spoke Hebrew, except for a few educated
people who could speak Aramaic as well.
But when the Jews were exiled into Babylon, that all changed. The
Israelites HAD to learn Aramaic, but for them it would have been a
natural fit, because Hebrew and Aramaic are such closely related
languages.
After the exile, as we saw when Ezra had to translate the Law of
Moses to the people, many of the people were by this time more
familiar with Aramaic than Hebrew. They had adopted the
languages and accents of the people around them. And as time went
on, they became less and less familiar with Hebrew, and more and
more familiar with Aramaic. Around the time of Ezra, the tradition
of creating Targums, or Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible,
was already happening.
Around the time of Jesus, the Aramaic Targums were still in use.
Most likely, the Aramaic Old Testament was in use too, possibly
even going back to the Jews’ time in Babylon. And in the first and
second century, as the Jews started to write the Talmud, the Talmud
(the Gemara, the commentary on the Mishnah) was also written in
Aramaic. The Mishnah, although technically Hebrew, has a lot of
features of Aramaic, meaning that Hebrew and Aramaic had heavily
influenced each other. And going further still into the times of the
Massoretes in the 6th to the 11th centuries, the Massoretes adopted
Aramaic notes on the Hebrew text, preserved in the Massorah which

we have today.
It is important to understand, however, that Hebrew never died out.
Hebrew always was, and always will be, the first Holy Language of
the Jewish people. While Aramaic became historically very
important, Hebrew was even more important. Religious Jews will
always revere Hebrew. The communities living around the Dead Sea
area no doubt wanted to speak Hebrew rather than Aramaic, and
Yigal Yadin (the Israeli archaeologist) has presented evidence that
around the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt in the second century, there
was a revival of Hebrew at that time.
But all these facts show that Aramaic had become an important
language in its own right. It had become Judaism’s second Holy
Language. May we treat it with the respect and reverence it is due.
For it, too, is holy. It, too, is used by the Almighty to reveal His
Divine Word.
Aramaic and the Medo-

Persian Empire
I N THE LAST few chapters, we looked at the Babylonian Empire,

as well as the exile of the Jews into Babylon. Aramaic was the
normal spoken language of both the Assyrian and Babylonian
Empires, and when the Jews were exiled into Babylon, Aramaic
became more widely spoken amongst Jews than Hebrew, as their
everyday language. Hebrew was regarded as the Holy Language,
sacred, and it was used for worship, for reading the Hebrew Bible,
and for prayers. Aramaic was used instead for secular, everyday use.
In fact, the Talmud, in Pesachim 87b, tells us that, after the
destruction of the First Temple, God specifically chose to exile the
Jews into Babylon because of how similar the Aramaic language was
to Hebrew, to make the exile easier. Ur of the Chaldees, after all, was
where Abraham had come from. The Jews were not yet ready to be
exiled by the Romans, a people with a completely different language
– one which the Jews, unlike Aramaic, never adopted as a national
language. But banishment of the Jews by the Romans was coming –
first in A.D. 70 when the Second temple was burnt to the ground,
and again in A.D. 135, when Hadrian ploughed Jerusalem as a field.
And so, as we saw in our earlier chapters, the Jews were now in
exile, in the diaspora, in Babylon. But, as Jeremiah had prophesied,
the captivity in Babylon was not permanent, but would last for
seventy years.
Jer. 25:11-12; “And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an
astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon
seventy years. And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are
accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that
A R AMAIC AND THE ME D O- PE R S I AN EM P I R E 57
nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the
Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.”
Jer. 29:10; “For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be
accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good
word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.”
Daniel was taken into captivity at the very start of the exile into
Babylon, at the very start of those seventy years. And he remained in
Babylon for the whole period, and was still alive by the end of it.
Thus, we read at the end of Daniel chapter 1:
Dan 1:21; “And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king
Cyrus.”
Daniel, as a Jew faithful to the God of heaven, knew that Jeremiah’s
prophecy meant that the captivity would last seventy years. When
the seventy years had passed, Daniel knew that the captivity was
over:
Dan. 9:2; “In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by
books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD
came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy
years in the desolations of Jerusalem.”
Daniel now understood that the time had come, and the exile was
over. It was time for the Jews to return back to the land of Israel. But
something else happened to bring the end of Jeremiah’s seventy year
prophecy.
God had warned that the Medes and the Persians would bring an
end to the Babylonian Empire. Babylon, one of the Seven Wonders of
the Ancient World, would be destroyed completely for all time –
never to be re-built, never to be inhabited, and to remain desolate for
the rest of eternity. We read of this remarkable prophecy in Isaiah
chapter 13.
v.17-22; “Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which
shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in
it. Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they
shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not
spare children. And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty
of the Chaldees’ excellency, shall be as when God overthrew
Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall
it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the

Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their
fold there. But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their
houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell
there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the
islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their
pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days
shall not be prolonged.”
Jeremiah chapter 51, too, describes the destruction of the Babylonian
Empire at the hands of the Medes and the Persians:
Jer. 51:11-12; “Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the
LORD hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his
device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the
vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance of his temple. Set up the
standard upon the walls of Babylon, make the watch strong, set
up the watchmen, prepare the ambushes: for the LORD hath
both devised and done that which he spake against the
inhabitants of Babylon...”
v.28-29; “Prepare against her the nations with the kings of the
Medes, the captains thereof, and all the rulers thereof, and all the
land of his dominion. And the land shall tremble and sorrow: for
every purpose of the LORD shall be performed against Babylon,
to make the land of Babylon a desolation without an inhabitant.”
And if we remind ourselves of the events of the previous chapter on
the Babylonian Empire, that in the reign of king Belshazzar of
Babylon, part of a man’s hand appeared on the wall, and wrote the
fate of the Babylonian Empire, that it would be destroyed by the
Medes and the Persians that very night. As we read in Daniel
chapter 5:
Dan. 5:1-4; “Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a
thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.
Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the
golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had
taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king,
and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink
therein. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken
out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem;
and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines,
drank in them. They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold,
and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.”
v.5-6; “In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and
wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall
of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that
wrote. Then the king’s countenance was changed, and his
thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed,
and his knees smote one against another…”
v.24-28; “Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this
writing was written. And this is the writing that was written,
MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of
the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and
finished it. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art
found wanting. PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to
the Medes and Persians.”
Thus, the Babylonian empire came to an abrupt end, to be replaced
by the Medo-Persian Empire. In Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, which
we looked at previously, the Medo-Persian Empire consisted of the
arms of silver.
Daniel was now made the third ruler in the kingdom, and he was
elevated into a position of power and authority. With the idolatrous
king Belshazzar killed, when the Medes and Persians took control of
the palace, Daniel would greet them. As we continue reading:
Dan. 5:29; “Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed
Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and
made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third
ruler in the kingdom.”
Dan. 5:30-31; “In that night was Belshazzar the king of the
Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom,
being about threescore and two years old.”
Dan. 6:1-3; “It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an
hundred and twenty princes, which should be over the whole
kingdom; And over these three presidents; of whom Daniel was
first: that the princes might give accounts unto them, and the
king should have no damage. Then this Daniel was preferred
above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was

in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm.”
In the Medo-Persian Empire, therefore, Jews rose to new positions of
authority very quickly. Daniel was set first over all the three
presidents, and all the princes of the realm had to give account to
him.
As we read through the book of Esther, Esther is elevated into the
position of queen, or second on the throne to the Persian monarch.
Mordechai also rises to a significant position of authority and was
trusted by the Persian king.
And so it is, as the scales of time and justice now start to tip towards
the Jews at the end of Jeremiah’s prophecy that they would be exiled
into Babylon for seventy years, Cyrus the king now decrees that
Jews should be allowed to return to Israel, to re-build both Jerusalem
and the Temple.
Ezra 6:1-5; “Then Darius the king made a decree, and search was
made in the house of the rolls, where the treasures were laid up
in Babylon. And there was found at Achmetha, in the palace that
is in the province of the Medes, a roll, and therein was a record
thus written: In the first year of Cyrus the king the same Cyrus
the king made a decree concerning the house of God at
Jerusalem, Let the house be builded, the place where they
offered sacrifices, and let the foundations thereof be strongly
laid; the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof
threescore cubits; With three rows of great stones, and a row of
new timber: and let the expenses be given out of the king’s
house: And also let the golden and silver vessels of the house of
God, which Nebuchadnezzar took forth out of the temple which
is at Jerusalem, and brought unto Babylon, be restored, and
brought again unto the temple which is at Jerusalem, every one
to his place, and place them in the house of God.”
The events recorded in the book of Ezra and Nehemiah describe
these amazing events in more detail. Ezra returned to Israel to re-
build the Temple. Nehemiah returned to re-build the walls and
restore Jerusalem to its former glory. They are helped by Haggai and
Zechariah the prophets. It is one of the happiest and most amazing
periods in Biblical history.
But, as we have seen, after seventy long years in Babylon, many of

the Jews had now started to forget Hebrew. For the past seventy
years, as they were scattered throughout the Babylonian empire,
they had adopted the customs and local language dialects of the
peoples in which they lived. On their return from Babylon,
Nehemiah laments that many no longer knew Hebrew, the Holy
Language:
Neh. 13:23-24; “In those days also saw I Jews that had married
wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: And their children
spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the
Jews’ language, but according to the language of each people.”
Nehemiah laments that the Jews could no longer speak Hebrew, the
Jews’ language. Aramaic had become the language they now spoke.
Ezra, too, has to make special provision for the people, now that
Aramaic (rather than Hebrew) is so commonly spoken. Ezra has to
translate the Law from Hebrew to Aramaic for them, to make sure
they understand it. In Nehemiah 8, we read the following:
Neh. 8:1-8; “And all the people gathered themselves together as
one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they
spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses,
which the LORD had commanded to Israel. And Ezra the priest
brought the law before the congregation both of men and
women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the
first day of the seventh month. And he read therein before the
street that was before the water gate from the morning until
midday, before the men and the women, and those that could
understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto
the book of the law… And the Levites caused the people to
understand the law: and the people stood in their place. So they
read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense,
and caused them to understand the reading.”
Thus, after the exile, the people no longer understood Hebrew
properly. Ezra and the Levites have to targum (or translate), the
Hebrew Scriptures for them, into Aramaic, to make sure they
understand what is being read to them. In this way, the tradition of
the Aramaic Targums, or translations, came about. Whereas at this
stage these Targums were spoken, they soon became written down,
to form the Aramaic Targums which we have today.

As we saw in the chapter on the Babylonian exile, ever since the
days of Ezra, the Jews have a tradition that one should read the
Hebrew text twice and the Aramaic text once.
And so, the Jews, now in positions of power and authority in the
Medo-Persian Empire, continued to speak Aramaic as their everyday
language. Let us take a closer look at how mighty and how vast that
Empire was, with Aramaic at its heart and as its lingua franca, or
common language.
The Medo-Persian Empire was a vast empire indeed, stretching from
Egypt and Ethiopia all the way to India, an even further extent than
the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires before it. It consisted of a vast
network of 127 provinces, as we read in Esther chapter 1:
Esth. 1:1-4; “Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this
is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over
an hundred and seven and twenty provinces:) That in those
days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his
kingdom, which was in Shushan the palace, In the third year of
his reign, he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants;
the power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the
provinces, being before him: When he shewed the riches of his
glorious kingdom and the honour of his excellent majesty many
days, even an hundred and fourscore days.”
We also find that official correspondence in the Medo-Persian
Empire was carried out in Syriac, or Aramaic. As we read in Ezra:
Ezra 4:6-7; “And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of
his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the
inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. And in the days of
Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of
their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the
writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and
interpreted in the Syrian tongue.”
This whole section of Ezra (Ezra 4:8–6:18 and 7:12–26) is written in
Aramaic. It is the section related to the Medo-Persian Empire.
These verses show that the official royal correspondence of the
empire was in Aramaic. Aramaic was used to explain the official
decree into any local Aramaic dialects, and to ensure that everyone
fully understood the official decrees.
As we have seen, the Medo-Persian Empire was vast, covering a
huge area of land from Ethiopia and Egypt, right across as far east as
India. The Elephantine Papyri date to this period. They are a vast
collection of ancient Jewish manuscripts dating from the 5th century
B.C., and covering a period of 1000 years. Elephantine was an island
in the Nile at the border of Nubia.
The Wikipedia article on the Elephantine papyri confirms that
Aramaic was used for the majority of these, and that Aramaic was
the lingua franca, or common language, of the Persian Empire:
“The dry soil of Upper Egypt preserved documents from the
Egyptian border fortresses of Elephantine and Syene (Aswan).
Hundreds of these Elephantine papyri, written in hieratic and
Demotic Egyptian, Aramaic, Greek, Latin and Coptic, span a
period of 1000 years. Legal documents and a cache of letters
survived, turned up on the local ‘gray market’ of antiquities
starting in the late 19th century, and were scattered into several
Western collections.”
“Though some fragments on papyrus are much older, the largest
number of papyri are written in Aramaic, the lingua franca of
the Persian Empire, and document the Jewish community
among soldiers stationed at Elephantine under Persian rule, 495-
399 BCE. The Elephantine documents include letters and legal
contracts from family and other archives: divorce documents,
the manumission of slaves, and other business, and are a
valuable source of knowledge about law, society, religion,
language and onomastics, the sometimes surprisingly revealing
study of names.”
Thus, all the way from Egypt to India, Aramaic was used for official
correspondence as well as for everyday communication. With
Aramaic being used during the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian
Empire, and now the Medo-Persian Empire, it is clear that Aramaic
was here to stay. And as we shall see when we look at the use of
Aramaic in the Greek and Roman Empires that would follow,
Aramaic remained in use, in the Middle East, as the language of the
everyday people right down through the following centuries,
through Moslem times, and going as far as the times of the

Crusaders.
And so, to conclude this chapter, we have seen that Aramaic was the
language used for official correspondence throughout the vast
network of the Medo-Persian Empire. When the Jews went into the
Babylonian exile, Aramaic was largely new to them, and they still
spoke Hebrew. But seventy years later, at the end of the Babylonian
captivity, several generations had gone by, and the Jews now spoke
Aramaic as they normal language.
Afterwards, continuing on through time in the Medo-Persian
Empire, the use of Aramaic simply increased. As the Talmud
suggests, the Jews by this time possibly even preferred to speak
Aramaic as their secular, or everyday, language, and reserved
Hebrew for prayers, worship in the Temple, and for reading the
Hebrew Bible.
Aramaic, by this time, had gained such a firm grip on Jewish life and
customs, that it was here to stay. While Hebrew was certainly still
the Holy Language, Aramaic was Judaism’s second Holy Language.
And just a few centuries later, at the time of Jesus, Aramaic was still
very much still in use amongst Jews both in the Land of Israel and in
Babylon. The Talmud, after all, was being written down at this time.
The two versions of the Talmud, the Jerusalem Talmud and the
Babylonian Talmud, were both written in Aramaic.
Aramaic was, therefore, the normal, everyday language spoken by
Jesus and the disciples, and the language in which he preached to
those who would hear him. And if Aramaic was good enough for
Jesus, should it not also be good enough for us? If Jesus preached in
Aramaic, should we not listen to his words in Aramaic? And if Jesus
used Aramaic to reveal the parables, should we not make an effort to
understand those parables in Aramaic?
Let us then, come to the Aramaic New Testament with reverence and
awe, and let our lives be blessed as we read the words of Jesus… in
Aramaic.
A R AMAIC AND THE GR E E K EM P I R E 65
Aramaic and the Greek

Empire
I N THE LAST few chapters, we have been walking through time,

taking a look at Aramaic as we progress through the early
chapters of Genesis, examine Aramaic in the pages of the Old
Testament, and see that Aramaic was the language of the Assyrian
Empire, the Babylonian Empire, and the Medo-Persian Empire.
We can follow these great Biblical empires down through the
centuries by looking at the incredible prophetic dream of king
Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, in Daniel chapter 2.
In his dream, the king sees a massive and terrifying image,
frightening to behold, which towers above him. None of the
magicians, soothsayers, Chaldeans or wise men of Babylon can tell
him the dream, or its interpretation. But Daniel, after praying to the
God of heaven, has the dream revealed to him. The dream tells of
events that would follow Nebuchadnezzar – a series of world
empires that would end in the stone cut out of the mountains
without hands, a reference to the return of Jesus to the earth.
As we follow through these empires, the next one we come to is the
Greek empire. Let us examine the Greek Empire more closely, and in
particular its effect on the Middle East, and especially its bearing
upon the language spoken by Jews in Israel at the time of Christ.
In Bible prophecy, we can find out more about the Greek Empire,
and how it came about, by looking at Daniel chapter 7. This
prophecy is similar to Nebuchadnezzar’s dream that we looked at in
Daniel chapter 2, but contains further details. We read:
Dan. 7:1-7; “In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon
Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then
he wrote the dream, and told the sum of the matters. Daniel
spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the
four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea. And four
great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The
first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings: I beheld till the
wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth,
and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was
given to it. And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear,
and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the
mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it,
Arise, devour much flesh. After this I beheld, and lo another, like
a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl;
the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.
After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast,
dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great
iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the
residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts
that were before it; and it had ten horns.”
In this important prophecy, the metals in the previous vision (gold,
silver, brass and iron), representing the Biblical world empires, are
replaced with beasts, with animals.
The first beast, a lion with eagle’s wings, represents Nebuchadnezzar
and the Babylonian Empire.
The next beast, a bear, higher on one side, represents the lop-sided
power of the Medo-Persian Empire. The three ribs represent the
three presidents of the Empire, of which Daniel was the first.
But the next beast, a leopard with the wings of a bird, represents the
Greek Empire. A leopard is an incredibly swift, powerful animal. The
Greek empire, travelling so fast that it appeared to fly through
country after country, swept all the way from the west, from Greek,
Macedonia, as far east as India – just like the Persian Empire before
it. The four heads of the Greek beast represent the four generals who
would inherit, and divide, the Greek empire after the sudden and
unexpected death of Alexander the Great, as we shall see in more
detail in our next chapter about The Maccabean Revolt.
But we find even more details about the rise of the Greek Empire in
the next chapter of Daniel. This chapter, too, is an incredible

prophecy, one in which the rise and subsequent fall of world empires
are all laid out in spectacular detail beforehand, by the God of
heaven in whose breath we have our life and being.
We read the following, therefore, in Daniel chapter 8:
Dan. 8:1-9; “In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a
vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which
appeared unto me at the first. And I saw in a vision; and it came
to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is
in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the
river of Ulai. Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold,
there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the
two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the
higher came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, and
northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before
him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand;
but he did according to his will, and became great. And as I was
considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face
of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat
had a notable horn between his eyes. And he came to the ram
that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the river,
and ran unto him in the fury of his power. And I saw him come
close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him,
and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no
power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to
the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that
could deliver the ram out of his hand. Therefore the he goat
waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was
broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four
winds of heaven. And out of one of them came forth a little horn,
which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the
east, and toward the pleasant land.”
As it is written in Amos the prophet:
Amos 3:7; “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he
revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.”
And so, in this prophetic passage of the Holy Scriptures, the ram
represents the Medo-Persian empire. Its two horns represent the
Medes and the Persians, who together defeated the Babylonian

Empire. Even while Belshazzar of Babylon is still king, God told his
saints about world events in the future – the coming of both the
Medo-Persian Empire and the Greek Empire.
As it is written in Daniel the prophet:
Dan. 4:17; “This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the
demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the
living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of
men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it
the basest of men.”
As we saw in the chapter on the Medo-Persian Empire, that vast
empire spread in all directions and rose to great power, with
seemingly nothing to stop it. As we saw, it spread over 127
provinces, all the way from Egypt and Ethiopia in the west, to India
in the east. The two horns were not balanced and were not equal in
size, just like the Medo-Persian Empire, where the Persians would
eventually gain the ascendancy and became greater than the Medes.
The ram with two unequal horns, therefore, was a perfect symbol for
the Medo-Persian Empire, the separate powers of the Medes and the
Persians who together defeated the Babylonians.
As Daniel considers these things, he sees a he-goat, a male goat,
coming out of nowhere, with a single large horn on its head. The
goat arises from the west, and travels so fast and so speedily that its
feet appear not to even touch the ground. The goat charges at the
ram (the Medo-Persian empire) and attacks it swiftly, as if with great
anger and speed and power. The goat comes from the west, out of
nowhere, and attacks the ram so decisively and quickly that the ram
is destroyed and killed, and his two horns are broken. The goat
continues in strength, and just when he seems to be at the height of
his power, his horn is broken off, destroyed, and four other lesser
horns grow in its place. The four horns are divided, but one of them
stretches towards the pleasant land – the land of Israel.
We shall examine the significance of these prophetic events in more
detail in our next chapter, The Maccabean Revolt. But for now, we
note that whereas the ram represents the Medo-Persian Empire, the
goat represents the Grecian, or Greek Empire. The goat comes from
the west, out of nowhere, so fast and furious that it hardly seems to
touch the ground, and completely, suddenly and decisively destroys

the power of the Medo-Persian empire. The single notable horn of
the Greek Empire represents Alexander the Great, who, at the height
of his power and when he seemingly has the world at his feet, dies
unexpectedly, leaving the Greek kingdom and empire to be split up
by his four generals. One of these generals, representing the Seleucid
kingdom, would stretch forth towards the pleasant land (the Land of
Israel). He would impose Greek language and customs on the Jews,
who in turn would refuse to submit and would rise up in the
Maccabean Revolt.
To make sure the reader interprets these events correctly, and
understands the significance of them, Daniel himself asks the angel
what is the meaning of this prophetic vision. In Daniel chapter 8, it
goes on to tell us the meaning:
v.19; “And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be
in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the
end shall be. The ram which thou sawest having two horns are
the kings of Media and Persia. And the rough goat is the king of
Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first
king.”
And so, with this prophetic understanding of the destruction of the
Medo-Persian Empire and the subsequent rise of the Greek Empire
with Alexander the Great as its first king, let us go on to examine the
rise of the Greek Empire in more detail. In particular, we are
interested in its effect on the language, beliefs and customs of the
Jews in the Land of Israel, and of the inhabitants of the Middle East
more generally.
We first need to examine the early origins of the Greek Empire.
Greece as a nation-state had a long history, and much of this history
is interesting for those who enjoy studying the Classics. Greece’s
ancient period goes back to around 800-600 B.C., to the time of some
of the Greek Classical authors such as Homer (who wrote the Iliad
and the Odyssey), as well as Greek philosophers such as Socrates
and Plato (who wrote The Republic). Greece’s classical period runs
from around the 5th to 4th centuries B.C., covering philosophers
such as Aristotle. The early Greeks had some success repelling the
Persians from progressing further west.
But outside of Classical Studies, nothing about Ancient or Classical

Greece is of importance or relevance as far as the Bible is concerned.
It is only when Alexander the Great comes on the scene that an
empire is formed, and at this point it becomes relevant to the
Scriptures of Truth, because the Greek Empire’s deeds had an
important impact upon God’s people, the Jews, and the Land of
Israel.
Greece’s early history started just north of modern Greece today, in
Macedonia. We can see from looking at a map that this is a relatively
small section of land, and Greece is not a large country. Greece is
small indeed, when compared with the vast Persian Empire, which
stretched as far west as modern-day Turkey and as far east as Iran,
India and Afghanistan.
But when we look at a larger-scale map, we see just how far away
Greece and Macedonia are, in relation to the Middle East, either from
Ur of the Chaldees and the origins of the Assyrian and Babylonian
Empires, and even further east when we consider that the Persian
Empire stretched as far as India.
Truly, as Daniel’s prophecy tells us, that goat-power arose from the
west, indeed, very far west in relation to the Holy Land. And just as
the prophecy tells us that the goat-power, with its first king
(Alexander the Great) flew with anger and rage at the Medo-
Persians – travelling so far and so fast that its feet seemed to hardly
touch the ground – so, too, Alexander the Great came out of nowhere
and conquered everything before him.
In just a few short years, Alexander had gone from an unknown
prince, to the revered leader of an Empire, only to be cut off and
killed in his prime, just as Daniel’s prophecy had foretold.
Alexander the Great was born in 356 B.C. and died in 323 B.C., at the
age of just 33 years old. He came to the throne at just twenty years of
age. Here is what the Wikipedia article says about him:
“He [Alexander] spent most of his ruling years on an
unprecedented military campaign through Asia and northeast
Africa, until by the age of thirty he had created one of the largest
empires of the ancient world, stretching from Greece to Egypt
and into northwest India. He was undefeated in battle and is
considered one of history’s most successful military
commanders.”
Thus, in just a little over a decade, coming all the way from Greece
and Macedonia in the west, Alexander the Great and his small army
had conquered the vast and powerful Medo-Persian Empire.
Alexander’s decisive victories, and his unique strategy, are studied
even today in military schools around the world. His life and
achievements are worthy of the description in Daniel’s prophecy, of
a leopard with wings appearing to fly half way across the world, in
rage and anger conquering everything in its path, and decisively
destroying the power of the ram, or Medo-Persian kingdom.
But Daniel’s prophecy also said, “Therefore the he-goat waxed very
great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken.”
Alexander the Great, the horn of the he-goat in the prophecy, died in
his prime, unexpectedly, in Babylon, but not in battle. Depending on
the historian, he succumbed either to alcoholic liver disease after a
particularly nasty drinking bout, or to poisoning, or to an infectious
disease such as typhoid fever.
But what of the impact of Alexander’s military campaigns? Many
people would suggest that following Alexander the Great’s victories,
Greek language and culture swept through the then-known world,
and everyone became Greeks.
But we need to distinguish here between the Hellenisation process,
and the adoption of the Greek language.
Alexander’s victories, and the speed with which he had
accomplished them, were so impressive that people wanted to know
more about the Greek and Macedonian cultures and beliefs. Greek
philosophy, and beliefs, and customs, certainly spread far and wide.
That was the Hellenisation process. People adopted Greek names,
including many people and cities which adopted or adapted the
name of Alexander himself, such as the city of Alexandria in Egypt.
But adopting the Greek language was a different matter. In just over a
dozen years, Alexander and his small army had ridden on horseback
over tens of thousands of square miles, defeating armies many times
their size and with greater military experience. But Alexander was a
military strategist, a soldier, an army general, a leader, but not a
teacher of the Greek language.
Learning and mastering a new language, especially one as radically

different as Greek when compared with Aramaic and the way that
Aramaic works, is a learning process that takes not just years – but
decades, even when an intelligent person applies themselves to the
task. As we shall see in the chapter, What Does Josephus Say?,
Josephus says that even after years of diligent study, he still could
not even pronounce Greek properly and he still struggled with the
language:
“I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the
Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I
have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot
pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness…”
In fact, a cultural shift from one national language to another is a
shift that typically takes several generations, if it happens at all. The
shift of the Jews’ language from Hebrew to Aramaic, for example,
took more than seventy years to take place. That was a very short
period of time, and there were many positive reasons for it to
happen so quickly – Aramaic and Hebrew are very closely related
languages and therefore Aramaic would have been easy to learn, the
Jews were forced to learn Aramaic because they were forcibly
immersed in the language and culture of the Chaldeans, and they
would have had little or no resistance to learning Aramaic because
they were treated extremely well in Babylon. Aramaic may even
have been a deliberate choice, in that it allowed the Jews to make a
distinction between the Holy (worship of God, reading the Hebrew
Bible, the Temple service) in Hebrew, and the secular (using Aramaic
for everyday purposes). Even today in Israel, Ultra-Orthodox Jews
reserve Hebrew for holy use, and use Yiddish for everyday secular
purposes.
But the widespread adoption of the Greek language across the
Middle East, from Aramaic, was a wholly different matter. As
anyone who has tried to learn New Testament Greek will testify,
Greek is fundamentally a very complicated language. It has a whole
series of noun declensions, and verb paradigms, that simply do not
have any parallel at all in Aramaic. The sounds of the two languages
are also fundamentally different. This is what Josephus says he
found as he struggled with the Greek language.
For these reasons, a language shift from Aramaic to Greek, in the
time of Alexander, simply did not happen. With Greek and Aramaic
being such different languages, it was impossible for that
fundamental shift to take place.
As we shall see in the chapter on The Maccabean Revolt, the Jews
actually resisted the Hellenisation process, and actively resisted
Greek rule. They rose up against the very idea of learning the Greek
language and Greek culture.
That does not mean, however, that no Jews spoke any Greek. On the
contrary, as we shall see in some of our later chapters, pockets of
Jews in Israel in the first century had adopted Greek culture and the
Greek language, but they were despised as apostate Jews because of
it. They are referred to in the New Testament as the Grecian Jews,
and the ‘Hebrew’ Jews despised them. In their eyes, the
Hellenisation process brought only foreign and unwanted ideas,
beliefs and practices into Judaism. The events of the Maccabean
Revolt proved that the Greeks would only destroy their religion.
As we said earlier, we have to remember that a fundamental shift
from one national language to another, if it takes place at all,
happens only over a very long period of time, measured not in
decades, but in hundreds of years.
The gradual shift from Aramaic in the Middle East to Arabic, for
example, took literally hundreds of years – and that was despite the
fact that Aramaic and Arabic are related Semitic languages!
Similarly, when the Roman Empire invaded Britain, they ruled the
country with an iron rule for more than four hundred years. The
Romans were a Latin-speaking people. Yet despite this, and even
although many of the names of towns and cities in Britain still bear
Latin names, the ordinary people in Britain never spoke Latin.
When the Vikings invaded, the people of Britain did not adopt the
Swedish or Norwegian languages.
Similarly, when the Norman French invaded Britain in 1066, French
became the language of the kings and the court in Britain. The first
few kings of England, for example, did not even speak English! They
spoke French. Yet despite this pressure, the people of Britain never
spoke the French language, even though that French influence lasted
for literally hundreds of years.
Many other examples around the world could be brought forth to

show that the army of one country invading another country, and
ruling over it for a period of decades or even hundreds of years,
rarely if ever causes the ordinary people to voluntarily and naturally
adopt the language of the invading foreigners. Overturning one
language and replacing it with another is just too complex a process,
and it takes too long.
Thus, when the Greek empire swept across the Middle East, there is
no doubt that the military conquests of Alexander the Great
impressed people. They wanted to know more about these people,
the Greeks, and the Macedonians. The process of cultural
interchange was starting to happen. Hellenisation, or the process of
learning and adopting Greek philosophies and ideas, was
unavoidable. People and places may have adopted Greek names.
The language of business may have changed, in adopting Greek
words for coins and other artefacts. And a smattering of common
Greek words and ideas no doubt infused the spoken language,
Aramaic, of the peoples living across the vast territory of the Middle
East and beyond.
But in terms of a wholesale adoption of the Greek language, and the
ousting of the Aramaic language – a language that had been spoken
throughout the Middle East for the past two thousand years
amongst the ordinary people – no, that just did not happen.
We do not find the proud peoples of the Middle East adopting the
Greek language just because Alexander and his army rode across the
area on horseback. Nor do we find that the proud peoples of the
Middle East adopted the Latin language, when the Roman Empire
invaded the Middle East, settled there, ruled there, and lived there.
And so, by the time we come to Jesus of Nazareth in Israel in the first
century A.D., we find that the peoples in the Middle East still spoke
the same language they always had spoken – Aramaic. Jews still
clung tenaciously to the Hebrew language, with Aramaic as their
everyday language. Small pockets of mainly apostate Jews and
others may well have spoken Greek, but that was certainly not the
norm.
And so Jesus spoke Aramaic, along with Josephus after him, along
with the disciples, along with the people Jesus preached to. Aramaic
in the Middle East was very much here to stay – for at least another
one thousand years. Even into the times of the Crusades, Aramaic
was still widely spoken in the Middle East, until itself supplanted by
Arabic – another Semitic language.
It is to Aramaic, then, that we must turn, if we want to get back to
the Bible, to the language in which Jesus preached, and the language
in which we can find rest for our souls in this violent and adulterous
generation.
The Maccabean Revolt
I N THE LAST chapter, we looked at the spread of the Greek

Empire, all the way from the west (Greece, or Macedonia) to the
east (as far as India). Following the rise of Alexander the Great,
the Greek Empire spread very rapidly, conquering everything in its
path, until Alexander’s unexpected death at the age of 33.
As we have seen, in Nebuchadnezzar’s prophetic dream in Daniel
chapter 2, where Nebuchadnezzar sees a great image made of four
metals, the head of gold represents the Babylonian Empire, the two
arms of silver represent the Medo-Persian Empire, and the belly and
thighs of brass represent the Greek Empire.
And in Daniel’s prophetic vision of the four beasts, or world
empires, rising up out of the sea (the Mediterranean), the Greek
Empire corresponds to the leopard, with four wings of a fowl, and
four heads. We read in Daniel chapter 7:
v.6; “After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which
had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also
four heads; and dominion was given to it.”
But we find more detail about the rise of the Greek Empire, the
sudden death of its king (Alexander the Great) and the dramatic
events after Alexander’s death, in the next chapter of Daniel. We see
God’s guiding hand in world events, setting up kings, and making
kings fall before Him, as He guides events leading up to His Son,
Jesus, in the coming centuries.
As we turn to Daniel chapter 8 to read about the events surrounding
the Greek Empire, therefore, we read the following:
v.5-12; “And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from
the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the
T H E MACC AB E AN REVO LT 77
ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. And
he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen
standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his
power. And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was
moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake
his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand
before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped
upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of
his hand. Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he
was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four
notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of
them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great,
toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant
land. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast
down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and
stamped upon them. Yea, he magnified himself even to the
prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away,
and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was
given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression,
and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and
prospered.”
As we continue to read the chapter, Gabriel the angel is sent to
explain to Daniel the meaning of the vision.
We find that the he-goat, or male goat, represents the Greek Empire,
and its single notable horn on its head represents Alexander the
Great, the first notable king of the Greek Empire.
Alexander was moved with choler, that is, anger and fury, against
the ram with two horns, representing the combined power of the
Medo-Persian Empire.
Alexander, or the Greek Empire, destroyed the power of the Medo-
Persian Empire suddenly, decisively, and completely.
Next, the he-goat waxed great. Thus, the Greek Empire grew in
power and strength, spreading eastward as far as India.
But “when he was strong, the great horn was broken”, meaning that
Alexander the Great, that notable horn, would be killed suddenly
and unexpectedly, at the age of just 33.
After the death of Alexander, four other horns would grow from
nowhere. These represent Alexander’s four generals, to whom the
Greek Empire would be divided after the unplanned death of
Alexander.
But we read that, while three of the horns were unimportant, one of
them in particular was worthy of note. It would start small but grow
large. It would grow towards the south, toward the east, and
towards the pleasant land (the Land of Israel).
That new horn, one of the four, would reach up unto heaven,
desiring to challenge the powers of heavens, and cast them down,
and trample them. And he would magnify himself, causing the daily
sacrifice to be taken away (that is, the Jewish priesthood and the
sacrifices they made under the law of Moses). The place of the
sanctuary would be cast down – that is the Holy of Holies under the
law of Moses. He would have an army, and he would carry out all
these things, and prosper.
Furthermore, as we read the angel Gabriel’s explanation of the vision
later on in Daniel chapter 8, we read the following:
v.21-25; “And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great
horn that is between his eyes is the first king. Now that being
broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand
up out of the nation, but not in his power. And in the latter time
of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a
king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences,
shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his
own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper,
and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his
hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace
shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of
princes; but he shall be broken without hand.”
Thus, although that fourth horn would wax great, and although he
would magnify himself against God himself (the powers of heaven),
and although he would destroy the holy people (the Jews in the
Land of Israel, God’s chosen people), and although he would cause
craft (deceit) to prosper, and although he would magnify himself in
his pride and arrogance, and although he would stand up against
God himself – yet he would be destroyed and his power broken.

That king who would arise would be of a fierce countenance, and
would understand dark sentences – a language hard to understand.
And so, this incredibly detailed and precise prophetic vision, given
in Daniel chapters 7 and 8, and following on from the prophetic
dream of Daniel chapter 2, actually explains itself, for those who
would listen. The angel Gabriel explains the vision to Daniel, so that
we too can understand it.
The historical fulfilment of these chapters of remarkable prophecy is
found in the events that would follow Alexander the Great’s death.
Alexander’s death was so sudden that no preparation was made for
an heir. He had no son. And so, of necessity, the vast Greek Empire
was split into four parts, to be ruled over by his four generals.
As Daniel’s prophecy tells us, of the four generals, three of them
were unimportant as far as Biblical history is concerned. In the south
of Israel, in Egypt, were the Ptolemies, forming the Ptolemaic
kingdom. But in the north there were the Seleucids, with the
Seleucid kingdom. It is the Seleucid kingdom that is described in
some detail in Daniel’s prophecy. As time went by, the Seleucids,
under that notorious king, Antiochus Epiphanes, would wax strong.
He fought the Ptolemies in Egypt, overcoming them, but then
stretched forth his hand against the Land of Israel. He brought the
full force of his wrath down on the Jews.
He wanted the Jews to stop worshipping the God of heaven, the God
of the Bible. He wanted them to abandon the worship of God at the
Temple in Jerusalem, and to stop Jewish customs such as
circumcision and eating foods that were clean under the Law.
Instead, he wanted the false gods of Greece to be worshipped, Greek
language and customs to be adopted, and for all Jews to abandon
their religion. In short, he gave the Jews in Israel a stark choice
between worshipping God, and worshipping devils, between their
Bible-based culture, or Greek culture.
These events are so fascinating, and so important to our
understanding of how Aramaic and Greek fit together in the
language puzzle of the centuries before and after Christ, that we will
explore the history of the period further in this chapter.
The Maccabean Revolt took place in 168 B.C., just a few generations
before Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, in the Land of Judea. The
history of this period comes from several historical sources,
including the Talmud, but the most complete account can be found
in the book of 1 Maccabees. This book is historical, but not canonical.
Let us read the first chapter of 1 Maccabees together:
1 Mac. 1:1-64; “And it happened, after that Alexander son of
Philip, the Macedonian, who came out of the land of
Chettiim, had smitten Darius king of the Persians and
Medes, that he reigned in his stead, the first over Greece,
And made many wars, and won many strong holds, and
slew the kings of the earth, And went through to the ends of
the earth, and took spoils of many nations, insomuch that
the earth was quiet before him; whereupon he was exalted
and his heart was lifted up. And he gathered a mighty
strong host and ruled over countries, and nations, and kings,
who became tributaries unto him. And after these things he
fell sick, and perceived that he should die. Wherefore he
called his servants, such as were honourable, and had been
brought up with him from his youth, and parted his
kingdom among them, while he was yet alive. So Alexander
reigned twelves years, and then died. And his servants bare
rule every one in his place. And after his death they all put
crowns upon themselves; so did their sons after them many
years: and evils were multiplied in the earth. And there
came out of them a wicked root Antiochus surnamed
Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king, who had been an
hostage at Rome, and he reigned in the hundred and thirty
and seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks. In those
days went there out of Israel wicked men, who persuaded
many, saying, Let us go and make a covenant with the
heathen that are round about us: for since we departed from
them we have had much sorrow. So this device pleased them
well. Then certain of the people were so forward herein, that
they went to the king, who gave them licence to do after the
ordinances of the heathen: Whereupon they built a place of
exercise at Jerusalem according to the customs of the
heathen: And made themselves uncircumcised, and forsook
the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathen,
and were sold to do mischief. Now when the kingdom was

established before Antiochus, he thought to reign over Egypt
that he might have the dominion of two realms. Wherefore
he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots,
and elephants, and horsemen, and a great navy, And made
war against Ptolemee king of Egypt: but Ptolemee was
afraid of him, and fled; and many were wounded to death.
Thus they got the strong cities in the land of Egypt and he
took the spoils thereof. And after that Antiochus had smitten
Egypt, he returned again in the hundred forty and third
year, and went up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great
multitude, And entered proudly into the sanctuary, and took
away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all
the vessels thereof, And the table of the shewbread, and the
pouring vessels, and the vials. and the censers of gold, and
the veil, and the crown, and the golden ornaments that were
before the temple, all which he pulled off. He took also the
silver and the gold, and the precious vessels: also he took the
hidden treasures which he found. And when he had taken
all away, he went into his own land, having made a great
massacre, and spoken very proudly. Therefore there was a
great mourning in Israel, in every place where they were; So
that the princes and elders mourned, the virgins and young
men were made feeble, and the beauty of women was
changed. Every bridegroom took up lamentation, and she
that sat in the marriage chamber was in heaviness, The land
also was moved for the inhabitants thereof, and all the house
of Jacob was covered with confusion. And after two years
fully expired the king sent his chief collector of tribute unto
the cities of Juda, who came unto Jerusalem with a great
multitude, And spake peaceable words unto them, but all
was deceit: for when they had given him credence, he fell
suddenly upon the city, and smote it very sore, and
destroyed much people of Israel. And when he had taken
the spoils of the city, he set it on fire, and pulled down the
houses and walls thereof on every side. But the women and
children took they captive, and possessed the cattle. Then
builded they the city of David with a great and strong wall,
and with mighty towers, and made it a strong hold for them.
And they put therein a sinful nation, wicked men, and

fortified themselves therein. They stored it also with armour
and victuals, and when they had gathered together the
spoils of Jerusalem, they laid them up there, and so they
became a sore snare: For it was a place to lie in wait against
the sanctuary, and an evil adversary to Israel. Thus they
shed innocent blood on every side of the sanctuary, and
defiled it: Insomuch that the inhabitants of Jerusalem fled
because of them: whereupon the city was made an
habitation of strangers, and became strange to those that
were born in her; and her own children left her. Her
sanctuary was laid waste like a wilderness, her feasts were
turned into mourning, her sabbaths into reproach her
honour into contempt. As had been her glory, so was her
dishonour increased, and her excellency was turned into
mourning. Moreover king Antiochus wrote to his whole
kingdom, that all should be one people, And every one
should leave his laws: so all the heathen agreed according to
the commandment of the king. Yea, many also of the
Israelites consented to his religion, and sacrificed unto idols,
and profaned the sabbath. For the king had sent letters by
messengers unto Jerusalem and the cities of Juda that they
should follow the strange laws of the land, And forbid burnt
offerings, and sacrifice, and drink offerings, in the temple;
and that they should profane the sabbaths and festival days:
And pollute the sanctuary and holy people: Set up altars,
and groves, and chapels of idols, and sacrifice swine’s flesh,
and unclean beasts: That they should also leave their
children uncircumcised, and make their souls abominable
with all manner of uncleanness and profanation: To the end
they might forget the law, and change all the ordinances.
And whosoever would not do according to the
commandment of the king, he said, he should die. In the
selfsame manner wrote he to his whole kingdom, and
appointed overseers over all the people, commanding the
cities of Juda to sacrifice, city by city. Then many of the
people were gathered unto them, to wit every one that
forsook the law; and so they committed evils in the land;
And drove the Israelites into secret places, even wheresoever
they could flee for succour. Now the fifteenth day of the
month Casleu, in the hundred forty and fifth year, they set
up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and
builded idol altars throughout the cities of Juda on every
side; And burnt incense at the doors of their houses, and in
the streets. And when they had rent in pieces the books of
the law which they found, they burnt them with fire. And
whosoever was found with any the book of the testament, or
if any committed to the law, the king’s commandment was,
that they should put him to death. Thus did they by their
authority unto the Israelites every month, to as many as
were found in the cities. Now the five and twentieth day of
the month they did sacrifice upon the idol altar, which was
upon the altar of God. At which time according to the
commandment they put to death certain women, that had
caused their children to be circumcised. And they hanged
the infants about their necks, and rifled their houses, and
slew them that had circumcised them. Howbeit many in
Israel were fully resolved and confirmed in themselves not
to eat any unclean thing. Wherefore the rather to die, that
they might not be defiled with meats, and that they might
not profane the holy covenant: so then they died. And there
was very great wrath upon Israel.”
We read here the terrible atrocities that were committed by the
Greeks, under Antiochus Epiphanes. Just as Daniel’s prophecy said
would happen, his policy, like the Nazis after him, was one of ethnic
and cultural cleansing. He wanted to eradicate all traces, practices
and memories of the Jews and stop all worship of the God of heaven.
Men, women and children who refused to submit to his yoke were
simply killed. Greek language and customs were spread on pain of
death. Armies were sent in to enforce this. Jews were forced to eat
swine’s flesh, the Temple was desecrated, and statues and images of
Zeus were set up in the Temple to worship. Everything in the
Temple of value was looted. The priesthood was dismantled by
force.
If we carefully read through Daniel chapter 11, it tells us in even
more prophetic detail the events of this time period. Those who were
faithful would understand exactly what was going on.
And so, as we continue reading through Maccabees, we find that

there rose up a faithful priest, called Mattathias, who refused to
submit to Greek rule. With his five sons, he fought against Greek
rule. These faithful priests rose up to challenge the entire Greek
army. Victory by victory, battle after battle, others joined them, until
soon they had overcome the Greek army. While reading the whole
account in its glorious detail is beyond the scope of this chapter, we
can get a flavour of these events by reading chapter 2 of the Book of
the Maccabees.
Let us continue where we left off:
1 Mac. 2:1-30; “In those days arose Mattathias the son of John,
the son of Simeon, a priest of the sons of Joarib, from Jerusalem,
and dwelt in Modin. And he had five sons, Joannan, called
Caddis: Simon; called Thassi: Judas, who was called Maccabeus:
Eleazar, called Avaran: and Jonathan, whose surname was
Apphus. And when he saw the blasphemies that were
committed in Juda and Jerusalem, He said, Woe is me! wherefore
was I born to see this misery of my people, and of the holy city,
and to dwell there, when it was delivered into the hand of the
enemy, and the sanctuary into the hand of strangers? Her temple
is become as a man without glory. Her glorious vessels are
carried away into captivity, her infants are slain in the streets,
her young men with the sword of the enemy. What nation hath
not had a part in her kingdom and gotten of her spoils? All her
ornaments are taken away; of a free woman she is become a
bondslave. And, behold, our sanctuary, even our beauty and our
glory, is laid waste, and the Gentiles have profaned it. To what
end therefore shall we live any longer? Then Mattathias and his
sons rent their clothes, and put on sackcloth, and mourned very
sore. In the mean while the king’s officers, such as compelled the
people to revolt, came into the city Modin, to make them
sacrifice. And when many of Israel came unto them, Mattathias
also and his sons came together. Then answered the king’s
officers, and said to Mattathias on this wise, Thou art a ruler, and
an honourable and great man in this city, and strengthened with
sons and brethren: Now therefore come thou first, and fulfil the
king’s commandment, like as all the heathen have done, yea,
and the men of Juda also, and such as remain at Jerusalem: so
shalt thou and thy house be in the number of the king’s friends,
and thou and thy children shall be honoured with silver and
gold, and many rewards. Then Mattathias answered and spake
with a loud voice, Though all the nations that are under the
king’s dominion obey him, and fall away every one from the
religion of their fathers, and give consent to his commandments:
Yet will I and my sons and my brethren walk in the covenant of
our fathers. God forbid that we should forsake the law and the
ordinances. We will not hearken to the king’s words, to go from
our religion, either on the right hand, or the left. Now when he
had left speaking these words, there came one of the Jews in the
sight of all to sacrifice on the altar which was at Modin,
according to the king’s commandment. Which thing when
Mattathias saw, he was inflamed with zeal, and his reins
trembled, neither could he forbear to shew his anger according
to judgment: wherefore he ran, and slew him upon the altar.
Also the king’s commissioner, who compelled men to sacrifice,
he killed at that time, and the altar he pulled down. Thus dealt
he zealously for the law of God like as Phinees did unto Zambri
the son of Salom. And Mattathias cried throughout the city with
a loud voice, saying, Whosoever is zealous of the law, and
maintaineth the covenant, let him follow me. So he and his sons
fled into the mountains, and left all that ever they had in the city.
Then many that sought after justice and judgment went down
into the wilderness, to dwell there: Both they, and their children,
and their wives; and their cattle; because afflictions increased
sore upon them.”
As we pick up the detail in Daniel chapter 11 in the Bible, we read
through one of the most remarkable prophecies in the whole of the
Bible. Chapter 11 described the exact events that we read about in 1
Maccabees, written about five hundred years before in happened,
while Daniel was still captive in Babylon. God’s hand was at work,
in the rise and fall of empires.
We read in Daniel chapter 11 that they would be “holpen with a little
help”:
v.32-36; “And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he
corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall
be strong, and do exploits. And they that understand among the
people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and
by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days. Now when they

shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall
cleave to them with flatteries. And some of them of
understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make
them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a
time appointed. And the king shall do according to his will; and
he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god,
and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and
shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is
determined shall be done.”
In the end, the Maccabees were that line of faithful priests who rose
up against the imposing of Greek language and customs against the
Jews. Once they had overcome the Greek armies, they gained the
Temple again. History records that they found a small amount of oil
which had not been desecrated and polluted by the Greeks, with
which they were able to light the Candlestick in the Temple, to
cleanse the Temple, and to restore the worship of God in Jerusalem.
But that small amount of oil should only have lasted one day. As
they were told in Daniel, “they shall be holpen [helped] by a little
help.” God would make that oil last eight days – just long enough to
obtain further clean supplies and continue the lighting of the
Candlestick, as an everlasting memorial to the Word of God burning
perpetually as a witness of light in that degenerate age.
To commemorate these events, the Jews added an extra branch on
each side of the Menorah or Candlestick. Instead of three branches
on each side, there were now four – eight in total, to commemorate
the eight days which the oil burned for.
These fabulous events are known as the Maccabean Revolt. Ever
since then, Jews have celebrated it every year, even down to the
present day. As we read in 1 Maccabees, these events happened on
the 25th day of the Hebrew month Kislev, which corresponds to
around December in the western calendar. Ironically, at the very time
of year that the pagans celebrated the winter solstice on December
25th, the Jews celebrate victory over the pagans at Hanukkah.
“Hanukkah” is the Hebrew word for “Dedication”, meaning the
dedication of the altar, which the Jews accomplished as a result of
the Maccabean Revolt. Hanukkah is also known as the Festival of
Lights, because candles are kept burning for eight nights. And so
today, at the time of Hanukkah, all across Israel and the entire Jewish
world, candles or lights are kept burning for eight days to
commemorate the victory of the Maccabean revolt.
The Maccabeans are also known as the Hasmoneans, because the
Hebrew word for eight is shmoneh.
When we come to the New Testament, we find that the Maccabean
Revolt was celebrated by the Jews in Israel, almost two hundred
years after the event. They had not forgotten their victory over the
Greeks – over the infiltration of Greek culture and ‘wisdom’, over
the Greek language, and over those things being imposed upon
them.
The events of Hanukkah, the Feast of Dedication, had not been
forgotten by the Jews, by the disciples, and by Jesus himself. Since
Jesus was himself the son of David, in the lineage of David, in the
line of the kings of Israel going right through the Maccabean period,
he would have been in line to the throne of Israel – if Herod and the
Romans had not come on the scene. Thus, Jesus of all people would
have understood how important that victory was against the Greeks,
against those foreign invaders in the Land of Israel, against
Antiochus Epiphanes, how that Antiochus had magnified himself
against the host of heaven (even to the Almighty God, the Father of
Jesus), and caused craft or deceit to prosper in the Land of Israel.
Jesus, a Jew in the line of king David and the Maccabeans, would
have understood more than anyone else how important that victory
against Antiochus was, and against Greek culture and language.
And so, in John chapter 10, as Jesus preaches to the Jews, we find
that John adds further spiritual importance to the events described.
We read:
John 10:19-21; “There was a division therefore again among the
Jews for these sayings. And many of them said, He hath a devil,
and is mad; why hear ye him? Others said, These are not the
words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the
blind?”
John 10:22-23; “And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the
dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in
Solomon’s porch.”
As the Jews wonder whether Jesus has a devil, whether he is like
Antiochus Epiphanies, causing craft and deceit to prosper in the
Land, John records that it is “the feast of dedication”, and it is
winter. In other words, the Jews, including Jesus, are, at this very
time, celebrating Hannukah, “the Feast of Dedication”, as Jesus
walks through the Temple. That very Temple that Jesus is walking
through, is the very Temple that was desecrated by the Greeks, the
very Temple that his ancestors had fought for and won their victory.
It was the very Temple that the priests, under the Maccabean victory,
had risen up to defend, to throw off the shackles of Greek tyranny
and culture and language, and gain their independence, the freedom
to worship the God of Heaven.
And yet here were the priests of Jesus’ day, in that very Temple,
unable to tell whether Jesus was the Messiah, the descendant of
those who were faithful and victorious against the Greeks, or
whether he had a devil, and should be killed like Antiochus
Ephiphanes. In the end, instead of rising up against the Romans and
throwing off the shackles of Rome as they had done against the
Greeks not long before, instead of hailing Jesus as the Messiah and
falling down before him, and gaining their Land back from the
oppressor – instead, the priests choose to kill and crucify the Prince
of Princes, to oppress and kill the disciples, to cause craft to prosper
in the Land, and to rise up against the host of Heaven and rebel
against God himself.
Ironically, in a cruel twist of fate, and demonstrating their shocking
hypocrisy and guile, as Jesus walks through the Temple and
celebrates Hanukkah, the Feast of Dedication, and its victory over
the Greeks, the priests are doing the very things that Antiochus
Epiphanies was earlier condemned and destroyed for, by those
faithful priests under the Maccabean Revolt.
And so, many today wonder whether Jesus would have spoken
Greek, or Aramaic, or Hebrew. Would Jesus, as a faithful Jew, as a
future king in the line of David and the Maccabean kings, have
spoken Greek, that language that the Greeks under Antiochus had
imposed upon them, as he desecrated the Temple, sacrificed swine’s
flesh, and raised up images of Zeus in the Temple that Jesus walked
through on that cold winter’s day?
Surely, even if Jesus could have spoken Greek, it was the language of
the enemy, of the desecrators of the Temple, of the ones who had
risen up to challenge his Father’s dominion in heaven. Surely Greek
was the last language that Jesus, as a faithful Jew, would have
wanted to speak.
Aramaic, on the other hand, was the language of the everyday
people, who had won their victory over the Greeks. Surely that was
a more fitting language, as indeed Josephus the Jewish historian tells
us?
And would not Jesus have loved going to the synagogue, to speak
Hebrew, the Holy Language, as he read from the scrolls in the
Temple?
And does not this have a bearing on the language in which the
gospels would first have been written down – Aramaic, or Greek?
Why would Jesus and the disciples have preached and spoken in
Greek, the language of the foreign invaders whose oppressions they
had earlier revolted against?
Does it not make sense that Aramaic came first, that Aramaic was the
language that Jesus and the disciples first preached in, and the
language the gospels and letters of the New Testament were first
written down in, and that Greek was translated from the Aramaic
afterwards?
That after all, was exactly the case with the writings of Josephus –
Aramaic first, and then translated into Greek. It was a parallel to the
Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament – first in Hebrew,
then translated into Greek.
Should we really be surprised, therefore, if there is evidence that the
Aramaic New Testament came first, and Greek was shortly
afterwards derived from it? As we shall see in the chapter about the
Aramaic New Testament, that is exactly what we indeed find.
The Hebrew Old Testament, and the Aramaic New Testament.
Together, those two Holy Languages make up a perfect whole. One
is incomplete without the other. Jew without Gentile is incomplete. It
was always within God’s plan and purpose for the Gentiles, that
wild olive tree, to be grafted in to the hope of Israel, into the good
olive tree. And just as Aramaic was the language of the Gentile
nations surrounding Israel all throughout the Old Testament, so

when we come to the New Testament, it makes perfect sense that
Aramaic should be used as the language used to preach (once again)
to the nations surrounding Israel.
Hebrew is the Holy Language for Israel, and Aramaic is the Holy
Language for the Gentiles. Whether Jew or Gentile, therefore, should
we all not study Aramaic?
A R A MA I C A N D T H E RO M A N EM P I R E 91
Aramaic and the Roman

Empire
I N THE LAST few chapters, as we traced through the history of

Aramaic from the very beginning of Creation down through the
pages of the Old Testament, we have looked at the major
Empires of the Bible, including the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian
Empire, the Medo-Persian Empire, and the Greek Empire.
We come now to look at the next – and final – Biblical empire, that is,
the Roman Empire.
The Roman Empire is extremely important and interesting for
Aramaic, because it was the Empire into which Jesus of Nazareth
was born. These times are very important for Bible prophecy too,
because they are the times in which the Temple in Jerusalem is
destroyed by the Roman armies in A.D. 70, the destruction of
Massada in A.D. 73, and Micah’s prophecy that Jerusalem would be
ploughed like a field, which happened in A.D. 135 under the Roman
Emperor Hadrian, as a result of the Bar Kokhba Revolt.
The first prophecy that mentions the Roman Empire coming against
God’s people, Israel, is in the well-known chapter of the Blessings
and the Cursings to the Jewish people in Deuteronomy chapter 28.
The Jews were told that if they obeyed God, they would be blessed
with all manner of blessings. But if they disobeyed God, they would
be cursed with even more cursing. This entire chapter outlines in
incredible prophetic detail all the events surrounding the history of
Israel and the Jewish people.
But, in particular, it also prophesies that the Roman Empire would
come against Israel, and ultimately destroy it. We read in
Deuteronomy chapter 28:

Deut. 28:48-52; “Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which
the LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in
nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a yoke of
iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee. The LORD
shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the
earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou
shalt not understand; A nation of fierce countenance, which shall
not regard the person of the old, nor shew favour to the young:
And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land,
until thou be destroyed: which also shall not leave thee either
corn, wine, or oil, or the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy
sheep, until he have destroyed thee. And he shall besiege thee in
all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down,
wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall
besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the
LORD thy God hath given thee.”
These verses foretell the following remarkable details:
➔ That nation would put a yoke of iron around the neck of
Israel. Iron was the symbol of the Roman Empire. They
made their weapons from iron, and talked about the iron
might of Rome.
➔ That nation would come from afar – from Rome, from Italy,
even further west than the Greek Empire.
➔ That nation would be as swift as the eagle flieth. The eagle
was the banner of the Roman Empire when they went into
battle.
➔ The Jews would not understand the language, or tongue, of
the invading Romans. The Jews never spoke Latin, nor were
they required to, even although the Romans ruled Israel for
literally hundreds of years.
➔ That Roman Empire would be cruel to the Jews, and would
persecute them heavily. The chapter goes on to foretell some
of the horrifying details of what would happen in A.D. 70
under the Roman Empire.
➔ It foretold that the Roman Empire would besiege cities all
throughout the Land of Israel, including the Holy City,

Jerusalem. Ultimately, Jerusalem would fall.
As we read through Micah’s prophecy, it too foretells that Jerusalem
would be destroyed. While the Romans in A.D. 70 only destroyed
the Temple, the Romans in A.D. 135 destroyed Jerusalem entirely,
flattening it and destroying it, and ploughing over Jerusalem like a
field, to build the new Roman city, known as Aelia Capitolina.
Reading from Micah chapter 3:
Mic. 3:8-12; “But truly I am full of power by the spirit of the
LORD, and of judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his
transgression, and to Israel his sin. Hear this, I pray you, ye
heads of the house of Jacob, and princes of the house of Israel,
that abhor judgment, and pervert all equity. They build up Zion
with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity. The heads thereof judge
for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the
prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the
LORD, and say, Is not the LORD among us? none evil can come
upon us. Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field,
and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the
house as the high places of the forest.”
The next two chapters, A.D. 70 – The End of An Age and The Bar
Kokhba Revolt, discuss these events in more detail. They are
fundamental to understanding many aspects of the interaction
between Hebrew and Aramaic, but also understanding why we
should expect very few Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts from the
first and second centuries A.D. from the Roman Empire. Quite
simply, the Romans systematically destroyed everything they could
find related to the Jews or Jewish writings.
And so, just like the Greek Empire before it, we have seen that the
Roman Empire would come against the Land of Israel, to rule over
it, and ultimately to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and
soon thereafter to destroy Jerusalem utterly at the time of the Bar
Kokhba Revolt.
But that is not all we read about, in the pages of the Holy Bible,
related to the Roman Empire.
In previous chapters, we looked at king Nebuchadnezzar’s
prophetic dream in Daniel chapter 2.
Dan. 2:31-36; “Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image.

This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before
thee; and the form thereof was terrible. This image’s head was of
fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his
thighs of brass, His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of
clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands,
which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay,
and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass,
the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became
like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; and the wind
carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the
stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled
the whole earth. This is the dream; and we will tell the
interpretation thereof before the king.”
Daniel goes on to explain that the head of gold was the Babylonian
Empire with Nebuchadnezzar as its head, the breast and arms of
silver represents the Medo-Persian Empire, and the belly and thighs
of brass represent the Greek Empire. The legs of iron represented the
Roman Empire, down through time, with the two halves of the
Roman Empire in Rome and Constantinople.
Verse 40 tells us more about this fourth empire:
v.40; “And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch
as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron
that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.”
Again, we see a reference to iron, meaning the iron strength of the
Roman Empire. It would break in pieces and bruise the Jewish
people, in the Land of Israel.
As we go on to Daniel chapter 7, these empires of the Biblical world,
described here as different metals, are instead portrayed as beasts,
wild animals, rising up out of the sea – the Mediterranean.
That fourth kingdom, the Roman Empire, is described in terrifying
terms:
v.7-8; “After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth
beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had
great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped
the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the
beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the
horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little
horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up
by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of
man, and a mouth speaking great things.”
That beast kingdom, the Roman Empire, is more terrifying that
anything that had gone before it. It would destroy everything in its
path. Although the full interpretation of the prophecy is beyond the
scope of this chapter, it is a spectacular prophecy which describes the
way that the Roman Empire would become the Holy Roman Empire,
from which a blasphemous horn (or power) would arise which
would oppose God, and act as though he was God.
That beast kingdom would not be replaced by another kingdom, and
although it would change its form from legs of iron to feet of iron
and clay, it would ultimately remain in power until the Ancient of
Days cast down his Judgement Seat and judged the nations:
Dan. 7:9-10; “I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the
Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and
the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the
fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued
and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered
unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before
him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.”
This, then, is the Roman Empire, as seen through the eyes of the
Almighty God. Many look on the Roman Empire with respect, in the
tremendous way that the Romans built roads, and viaducts, and
were disciplined soldiers, and had incredible engineers who
achieved many great things.
But through God’s eyes, from the perspective of the Truth and of the
faithful saints who will ultimately inherit the earth, those Bible
believers who have been faithful to the Scriptures of Truth down
through the centuries, the Roman Empire is that fourth beast system,
a terrifying monster that would crush underfoot the saints of the
Living God – both faithful Jews and faithful Christians alike in the
reigns of Nero and Domitian, to Titus and Vespasian who would
destroy the Temple in Jerusalem and bring an end to the Law of
Moses, to Hadrian who would plough Jerusalem like a field, and
emperors like Constantine who killed and destroyed anyone he

disagreed with.
That fourth beast was more terrifying and destructive than anything
that went before it, and it would change its form, but ultimately
survive to become the feet of iron and clay, partly strong and partly
weak, until Christ returns to destroy that wicked kingdom, and set
up God’s kingdom on this earth, with Jerusalem as its center.
And so, as we conclude this chapter on the Roman Empire, let us
remind ourselves of the words of the prophecy in Deuteronomy. We
saw earlier in chapter 28:
Deut. 28:49-50; “The LORD shall bring a nation against thee
from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a
nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand; A nation of
fierce countenance…”
In this remarkable prophecy, written approximately one and a half
thousand years before it happened, and divinely preserved down
through time for the Jews to understand, Moses wrote that the
Roman Empire would come against the Jews in the Land of Israel,
and that the Jews would not understand the language that the
Romans spoke.
And so, the Romans invaded the Land of Israel. The Romans were
from Rome, from Italy. They spoke Latin. But even although the
Romans ruled Israel with an iron fist for hundreds of years, and even
though the Jews were subject to the Romans, the Jews never spoke
Latin, they could not understand the Latin language, nor were they
required to learn Latin. They no doubt knew a sprinkling of Latin
words and phrases which became part of their everyday language,
but they did not speak Latin as a daily language.
It is similar to the time when the Romans invaded Britain. The
Romans ruled Britain for about four hundred years, and Latin words
and phrases did become adopted into English to an extent, but the
peoples of Britain did not actually speak Italian, or Latin, despite the
presence of the Romans in the country for centuries.
And so, during the Assyrian, Babylonian and Medo-Persian
Empires, the nations surrounding Israel all spoke Aramaic, while the
Jews themselves had a fundamental shift from Hebrew to Aramaic
after the Babylonian exile. During the Greek Empire, some Greek
words may well have entered into everyday language (such as the
names of coins and words related to commerce) and some pockets of
Greek speaking Jews did emerge, especially following the reign of
Antiochus Epiphanes, as we saw in the chapter about the Maccabean
Revolt. But the ordinary Jews, especially faithful Jews, continued to
speak Aramaic as their everyday language, as well as Hebrew for
reading the Hebrew Bible, for prayers, and worship in the Temple
and synagogue (just as Jews do today!).
But Aramaic was the normal, everyday language. When the Romans
came on the scene, the use of Aramaic only continued, because the
citizens of the Roman Empire were not required or forced to learn
Latin.
Aramaic continued, then, as a spoken language amongst the
ordinary people for centuries, both amongst the Biblical nations
surrounding Israel, and the Jews themselves.
Aramaic, therefore, is the backdrop through which we must see the
Holy Scriptures, and especially the interactions between Israel and
the nations in the pages of the Bible.
It is entirely natural, indeed unsurprising, that the New Testament
should have been preserved in Aramaic. It was the obvious choice
for a witness to be given to the nations, until Jesus the Messiah
would return, to establish His Father’s kingdom upon the earth.
Let us therefore appreciate Aramaic, learn Aramaic, and enjoy
Aramaic – for it is the language that Jesus spoke. But let us also
remember Hebrew, the Holy Language.
A.D. 70 – The End of an

Age
I N THE LAST chapter, we looked at the Roman Empire. We saw

that the Roman Empire was the fourth beast system of Daniel’s
prophecy. It would crush underfoot the saints, devour and brake
in pieces, and stamp on the residue. But in this chapter, we will
discover one very important aspect of the Roman Empire which
would shatter the Jewish world, bringing in repercussions down
through time to the present day.
That Roman Empire would bring an end to the Jewish priesthood, to
the Law of Moses. It would crush underfoot the saints – first with
the killing of Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah, then by persecuting and
killing Christians to the death, and then by systematically killing
Jews in a massive anti-Semitic assault across the whole of Israel from
the north to the south, finally ending in the destruction of the Jewish
Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70, followed by the destruction of the
last stronghold of Jewish resistance at Masada, in A.D. 73.
These events are described in detail in the historian Josephus’
famous description of these incredible and shocking events – The
Wars of the Jews. Josephus was an eye-witness of these events. He
personally started fighting against the might of the Roman army, but
then later was captured and became the official historian for the
Romans. Josephus’ works provide harrowing details of the terrible
events of the siege against Jerusalem, and the triumphant victory of
the Romans against Jerusalem.
These events marked the end of an age – the age of Judah’s
commonwealth, the end of the Jewish priesthood, and the end of the
Law of Moses. It became impossible to fulfil the Law of Moses,
A.D. 70 – T H E EN D O F A N AG E 99
because there was no priesthood. Jesus the Messiah had come to

fulfil the Law and the Prophets, and he had done so in exact detail.
Let us begin our story by looking at these events first through the
pages of Bible, through Bible prophecy, before we discover how
these astonishing events were fulfilled through the eye-witness
descriptions of Josephus and other historians at the time.
We begin our story by going back to the Law of Moses, to the book
of Deuteronomy. Written around 1500 B.C., around one a half
thousand years before the events described would take place,
Deuteronomy chapter 28 lists the blessings and cursings that would
befall the Jewish people.
The cursings provide exact details of how the Romans would come
against Jerusalem, to destroy the city and take away the priesthood.
But, in particular, it also prophesies that the Roman Empire would
come against Israel, and ultimately destroy it. We read in
Deuteronomy chapter 28:
Deut. 28:48-57; “Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which
the LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in
nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a yoke of
iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee. The LORD
shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the
earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou
shalt not understand; A nation of fierce countenance, which shall
not regard the person of the old, nor shew favour to the young:
And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land,
until thou be destroyed: which also shall not leave thee either
corn, wine, or oil, or the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy
sheep, until he have destroyed thee. And he shall besiege thee in
all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down,
wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall
besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the
LORD thy God hath given thee. And thou shalt eat the fruit of
thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters,
which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in
the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee: So
that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye
shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his
bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall
leave: So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his
children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in
the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall
distress thee in all thy gates. The tender and delicate woman
among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her
foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye
shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her
son, and toward her daughter, And toward her young one that
cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children
which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things
secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall
distress thee in thy gates.”
Deuteronomy describes how the Roman Empire would come against
the Jewish people, a nation from afar, as swift as the eagle flight, and
put a yoke of iron around their neck. The “iron might” of Rome
describes the Romans perfectly, answering to the iron legs of the
Roman Empire in Nebuchadnezzar’s prophetic dream in Daniel
chapter 2, which we have looked at previously. The eagle was the
ensign, or banner, of the Roman army when they went to war. The
passage describes the terrible siege against Jerusalem, when the
people resorted to cannibalism out of utter desperation. These
shocking events are all described in Josephus.
In Daniel chapter 9, further secrets are revealed about these events.
Daniel was told the exact prophetic time period from when
Nehemiah would re-build the walls of Jerusalem, after Ezra re-built
the Temple – events which we have looked at in the chapter on the
Medo-Persian Empire. After that time period expired (under a day
for a year principle), the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, would be cut off
(killed, that is, crucified) but not for himself (not for anything he had
done wrong), and the Romans would then come and destroy the city
(Jerusalem) and destroy the sanctuary (the Temple), and the end
thereof would be with a flood (sudden and decisive, with huge
numbers of people), and the war would cause desolations against
Jerusalem. The end result would cause the sacrifice and oblation to
cease, that is, the Jewish priesthood would be destroyed, and Law of
Moses would come to an end.
Thus, we read the following in Daniel chapter 9:
v.24-27; “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and
upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an

end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring
in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and
prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and
understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to
restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall
be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall
be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after
threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for
himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall
destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be
with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are
determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for
one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the
sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of
abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the
consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the
desolate.”
Many of the parables that Jesus told, shortly before his untimely end
(before he would be “cut off” as Daniel had foretold) were also about
the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in A.D.
70.
Consider, for example, the parable of the vineyard.
Matt. 21:33-43; “Hear another parable: There was a certain
householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round
about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it
out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the
time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the
husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the
husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another,
and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the
first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto
them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the
husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is
the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and
slew him. When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what
will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will
miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his
vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the
fruits in their seasons. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read
in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same
is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it
is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The
kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation
bringing forth the fruits thereof.”
This parable refers to the way that the Pharisees, Sadducees and
scribes of Jesus’ day relentlessly persecuted both Jesus and the
apostles, seeking to make sure that they would retain power for
themselves. Once they kill the Son of the Father, Jesus himself, the
heir in the parable, their doom is sealed. The king (God) would send
his army to miserably destroy those wicked men.
We read more of the fate of those wicked people in the parable of the
wedding guests, in Matthew chapter 22:
Matt. 22:1-7; “And Jesus answered and spake unto them again
by parables, and said, The kingdom of heaven is like unto a
certain king, which made a marriage for his son, And sent forth
his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and
they would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants,
saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my
dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are
ready: come unto the marriage. But they made light of it, and
went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them
spitefully, and slew them. But when the king heard thereof, he
was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those
murderers, and burned up their city.”
In the parable, the king (God) sent forth his armies (the Roman
soldiers) to destroy those murderers (of his Son and the apostles)
and burn up their city (Jerusalem).
As we read through Matthew 24 and Luke 21, which we shall do
shortly, we find that these well-known passages also refer to the
destruction of A.D. 70. They draw a parallel between what happened
at A.D. 70 and similar events that will happen again in the latter
days.
Before it happened, Deuteronomy chapter 28, Daniel chapter 9 and

many of the parables of Jesus had foretold that Jesus the Messiah
would be killed, that the destruction of Jerusalem would take place,
that the city would be burned up and destroyed, that the Temple
would be torn down stone from stone, that the daily sacrifice would
be taken away, that the priesthood would come to an end, and that
the Law of Moses would therefore (of necessity) also come to an end.
The Old Covenant (the Law of Moses) had passed away, to be
replaced with something better (the New Covenant, under Jesus).
Other guests (the Gentiles) would be found for the wedding feast.
And so, with that introduction and background, let us examine more
closely the destruction of A.D. 70. We shall not only look at the
history of the period, but we shall also understand the significance
and importance of these events in our story about Aramaic, the
Bible's Second Holy Language. These events not only have profound
significance to Jerusalem and the Jews, but they also have profound
significance to the Aramaic and Hebrew manuscripts that can be
found in Israel in the first and second centuries A.D.
In the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, Josephus estimates that
almost 1.2 million people were killed. In a final end to the
destruction of the Jews’ aspirations to live as a free people in Israel
under the Roman Empire, Masada was subsequently destroyed in
A.D. 73. Masada was that fortress near En-Gedi close to the Dead
Sea. It was the last bastion of Jewish resistance. Thus, forty years
after the death of Jesus at the hands of the Romans, all Jewish
resistance was destroyed, all hope had ended, and the law of Moses
had come to an end.
Let us walk through Matthew chapter 24, where the events leading
up to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple are depicted in
graphic detail. That coming terrible judgement was foretold by Jesus
himself.
Matt. 24:1-3; “And Jesus went out, and departed from the
temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the
buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all
these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here
one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as
he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him
privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what
shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?”
In these verses, as Jesus and the disciples looked across at the
Temple from the Mount of Olives, the disciples beheld the Temple
and its beautiful buildings. Jesus said that it would all be destroyed,
speaking of the coming Roman invasion of A.D. 70, where one stone
would not be left upon another. The disciples wanted to know when
these things would happen – or, when the end of their world (or age)
would be, that is, the age of the law of Moses.
Jesus told them that the events leading up to the A.D. 70 destruction
would be a terrible time. It would be a time of great upheaval, and
not a sudden event coming out of nowhere:
Matt. 24:4-6; “And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take
heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my
name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall
hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled:
for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.”
Jesus foretells that there would be wars and convulsions all across
Israel before that end would come. He tells them things would get
worse and worse, more and more painful, like a woman coming
close to giving birth:
v.7-8; “For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against
kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and
earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of
sorrows.”
Jesus told them that beforehand, they would face persecutions unto
death. Think, for example, of the persecutions of Nero (A.D. 54-68),
where he would mercilessly persecute Christians, blame Christians
for the fire of Rome, and say they were everybody’s enemy. Under
Nero’s cruel persecutions, nobody wanted to be accused of being
either a Jew or a Christian. It meant only death.
v.9-11; “Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall
kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.
And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another,
and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise,
and shall deceive many.”
Jesus told them that, because of these things, the love of many would
wax cold. Yet despite these persecutions, the gospel would be

preached all across the Roman Empire – before that destruction of
A.D. 70 would come. Ironically, in fact, persecution in Israel only
made people flee and spread the gospel far and wide:
v.12-14; “And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many
shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same
shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached
in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the
end come.”
These events, then, were the general run-up to the final destruction
of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. But then Jesus tells the disciples of more
specific things...
He says that there would be the “abomination of desolation”, which
we shall look at shortly in this chapter.
v.15; “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation,
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso
readeth, let him understand:)”
But he also says they would have a window of opportunity to flee:
v.16-21; “Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the
mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to
take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the
field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are
with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye
that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the
beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.”
Christ tells them, that when that end comes, it will be very obvious:
v.27; “For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth
even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man
be.”
He tells them that the eagles (the ensign of the Roman army in
battle) would be gathering over the carcase of Israel, that is, over
Jerusalem, which was now doomed to death and destruction:
v.28; “For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be
gathered together.”
It would be a time of massive spiritual and political upheaval:

v.29; “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the
sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the
stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall
be shaken...”
Let us now look at the historian Josephus, and the historical fulfilling
of these amazing events. Here is a timeline, showing the violent and
dramatic events leading up to the destruction in A.D. 70.
• In A.D. 33-34, Stephen was martyred, and Christians across
the Roman Empire, and especially in Israel, were heavily
persecuted.
• In A.D. 41, Caligula, that psychopathic emperor, was
murdered – answering to the wars and rumours of wars that
would follow.
• In A.D. 43, Emperor Claudius starts conquest of Britain,
leading to Boudicca’s revolt in A.D. 60. There would be wars
and rumours of wars in distant lands.
• In A.D. 54, the Emperor Claudius was poisoned by his wife,
succeeded by her son Nero, another psychopath.
• In A.D. 59, the Emperor Nero orders the death of his mother.
• In A.D. 60, Nero murders his wife.
• In A.D. 62, we have the murder of “James the Just”, who was
Christ’s brother.
• In A.D. 64, the Great fire of Rome broke out, and Nero
blamed Christians for starting it.
• In A.D. 65, Nero murders his second wife.
• In A.D. 66, the Roman procurator of Judea, Gessius Florus,
murders 3,600 Jews (crucifying about 2,000) in May.
Christians flee Judea.
By this time, as recorded in Josephus’ The Wars of the Jews, the
Romans started a massive campaign of killing Jews across the Land
of Israel, starting in the north (in the Galilee) and working their way
southwards. Immense numbers of Jews were killed. Everywhere
they were found, Jewish books and Hebrew scrolls are burnt in
massive quantities.
The Jewish Revolt against Rome begins with massacre of the
Jerusalem Roman garrison in October of that year (A.D. 66). The
Romans of Caesarea kill 20,000 Jews.
The Jewish army (the Zealots) defeats and massacres the Roman
garrison at Masada. The Romans, in just a few short years, came
back for revenge, leading to the destruction of Masada in A.D. 73.
Meanwhile, the Gentiles of Damascus massacred 10,000 Jews.
Roman-occupied cities across Judea, Samaria, Egypt, Syria and Asia
attack Jews en-masse. The Jews even fought each other. There were
three different factions, with each leader claiming to be ‘messiah.’ It
was exactly as Jesus had earlier foretold in Matthew chapter 24 and
Luke chapter 21, as we read earlier.
In March, A.D. 66, numerous earthquakes and signs in the heavens
are recorded by historians. Josephus records:
“Besides these [signs], a few days after that feast, on the one-
and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Iyar,] a certain
prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the
account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by
those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so
considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-
setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen
running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.
Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests
were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their
custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said
that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great
noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude,
saying, “Let us remove hence” (The Jewish Wars, VI-V-3).
“A supernatural apparition was seen, too amazing to be
believed. What I am now to relate would, I imagine, be
dismissed as imaginary, had this not been vouched for by
eyewitnesses, then followed by subsequent disasters that
deserved to be thus signalized. For before sunset chariots were
seen in the air over the whole country, and armed battalions
speeding through the clouds and encircling the cities.” (rendered
in Chilton)
Tacitus, the Roman historian in A.D. 115, records:

“Prodigies had occurred, but their expiation by the offering of
victims or solemn vows is held to be unlawful by a nation which
is the slave of superstition and the enemy of true beliefs. In the
sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armour.
A sudden lightning flash from the clouds lit up the Temple. The
doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice
was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the
same instant came the rushing tumult of their departure. Few
people placed a sinister interpretation upon this. The majority
were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests
alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would
triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule
the world.” (Histories, Book 5, v. 13).
In May, A.D. 66, the Roman Procurator Florus demanded 17 talents
from the Jewish Temple treasury. This was the event which triggered
insult for the Jews to begin their revolt. The Roman garrison in
Jerusalem was overrun by rebels (Zealots), who took control of the
city. The rebels cause cessation of all sacrifices to the Roman
Emperor, thus challenging Rome head-on. But this was merely the
beginning of the end for the Jews.
Florus, the Roman Governor, could not control the situation, so the
(Roman) Syrian Governor, Cestius Gallus, is called in to subdue the
rebellion. He attacks Jerusalem, gets up to the walls of the city, then
unexpectedly withdraws, suffering heavy losses in retreat.
This was what Matthew 24 means by saying, when you see the
abomination of desolation, when Jerusalem is circled by armies, that
was the time to flee. There was now a window of opportunity for the
faithful Jews and Christians to retreat.
After the withdrawal of Gallus and the Battle of Beth-horon (a battle
against the Jews, which the Romans lost), a great number of people
fled the city of Jerusalem, and headed east over the Jordan River to
safety in the area of Pella, Jordan. Early Christian settlements sprung
up all over the Roman Decapolis. During the flight out, a large
number of documents were hidden in the Dead Sea area along the
route, to become the Dead Sea Scrolls that we know of today.
In A.D. 67, General Vespasian and his son Titus come across the
A.D. 70 – T H E EN D O F A N AG E 1 09
Euphrates River. They arrived in Judea from Syria with four Roman
legions to destroy the Jewish revolt. Vespasian and the Roman army
instigate a campaign of terror against Jews, killing Jews everywhere,
starting from Galilee and working their way southwards.
Meanwhile, there were revolts against Rome in Gaul and Spain.
Again, we see wars and rumours of wars.
In A.D. 68-69, known in history as “The Year of Four Emperors”,
Nero committed suicide and was succeeded by Galba, Otho, and
Vitellius who was succeeded by General Vespasian. Vespasian is
named Emperor by Roman Senate.
Around this time, the Roman army destroyed Qumran, where the
Dead Sea Scrolls were found.
In March of A.D. 70, General Titus began the siege of Jerusalem.
Josephus says that the siege started at Passover, when the highest
possible number of Jews from all the surrounding area would be in
Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover.
The destruction itself is a long and fascinating story – but it was
horrific for the Jews. They had no food. They were desperate. They
resorted to cannibalism, just as Deuteronomy chapter 28 had said.
Any caught escaping were crucified – up to 500 per day. There were
so many crucifixions, in fact, that the Romans ran out of wood.
Inside, any Jews who suggesting surrender as an option, were killed
by the Zealots.
The Temple, and Jerusalem itself, were destroyed by the Roman
army on the 9th day of the Hebrew month Av. The 9th of Av has ever
since been a day of mourning for Jews. Ironically, it was the very
same day that the First Temple had been destroyed by the
Babylonian Empire, in 586 B.C. as we saw in the chapters on the
Babylonian Empire and the Babylonian Exile.
When the Temple was set on fire, a single Roman soldier threw a
firebrand into one of the Temple’s windows, starting a raging fire. As
the temple burned, the Romans looted it and massacred the
defenders. Titus passed through a curtained opening, and entered
the Holy of Holies. It was the desecration spoken of by Daniel the
prophet, as mentioned in Jesus’ earlier prophecy in Matthew chapter
24.
Josephus estimated the dead of Jerusalem to be 1,197,000, much

higher than normal because so many Jews had come to Jerusalem to
celebrate the Passover. He estimates that 97,000 Jews who survived
the revolt were sold into slavery. Tacitus (Roman historian) says
Jerusalem had 600,000 Jews when it fell. These were truly immense
numbers, given the smaller population of the world at that time.
September 11th, with the Twin Towers disaster, is a day of mourning
for Americans. On that fateful day, three thousand American
civilians were killed. But on Jerusalem’s day of mourning, in
comparison, 1.2 million were killed. The destruction of Jerusalem
was four hundred times greater. The destruction was so complete,
and so horrifying, that it is difficult to comprehend. It was almost
certainly the largest single destruction there had ever been in the
history of the world, save only for the destruction of Noah’s flood.
These, then, are the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem,
and the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, in A.D. 70. It was the end of an
age. There was no priesthood after that fateful day. It became
impossible to keep the Law of Moses.
But what is the significance of these events, as we continue our
journey through time, looking at Aramaic down through the
centuries?
We need to understand the enormity of the destruction that the
Romans unleashed on Jerusalem, and Israel generally, and on the
Jews in particular. That Roman Empire was the fourth beast system
of Daniel’s prophecy. To quote from Daniel chapter 7:
v. 7; “After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth
beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had
great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped
the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the
beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.”
That Roman Empire destroyed, without mercy, everything to do
with God and the people of God. Jews were killed almost without
number. Christians were killed and persecuted without mercy by
Caligula, Nero, Domitian, and other Roman Emperors.
As the Roman army swept through the Land of Israel, they
destroyed everything in their path. Jews and Christians alike were
destroyed, because in those early days the Romans regarded

Christianity as just another Jewish sect. Not only were Jews and
Christians literally crucified and burnt to death and cities set on fire
everywhere, but all Jewish and Christian books and scrolls alike
were burnt. Everything that looked Jewish, whether it was Hebrew
or Aramaic, was consigned to the flames. The Romans wanted it all
destroyed. The Romans did not care whether what they set on fire
was the Hebrew scrolls on the Old Testament, or the Aramaic
writings of the New Testament. It all looked alike to them.
And so, we should expect that any existing copies of the Hebrew
Bible or the Aramaic New Testament from the first century, in Israel,
would have been set on fire and destroyed by the Romans. We
should not expect anything to survive.
But God’s Hand is always at work in human history. The Hebrew
Bible survived. Copies were spread far and wide across the Jewish
world, and copies were safely protected in the caves around the
Dead Sea, near Qumran, to become what we now call the Dead Sea
Scrolls.
And in the case of the Aramaic New Testament, as we shall discuss
in a number of other chapters, the Aramaic New Testament was
preserved and protected. Shortly after the death of Jesus, it was
copied into the Estrangela script and taken north of Israel. It was not
only free from persecution by the Roman armies, but the Estrangela
script does not look like the Ashuri script. It looks different. And
therefore, even if the Romans were aware of it, they did not
systematically destroy it. God’s Word, in the Aramaic New
Testament, survived the destruction of A.D. 70 by going north to
Syria, and spreading eastwards – outside of the cruel persecutions of
the Roman Empire in the Land of Israel. God’s guiding hand in
history truly is a miracle. God’s Word will be preserved, regardless
of what man may try to do.
And as we shall see in our next chapter, The Bar-Kokhba Revolt, the
persecution of Jews in the Land of Israel would continue for almost
another century. Banished from Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the Jews would
slowly come back, to form yet another revolt under the Emperor
Hadrian. Hadrian put down that revolt, too, at the loss of even more
Jewish blood. Copies of anything to do with Jews and Christians, in
Hebrew and Aramaic, was burnt (again). But, yet again, the Word of
God survived. The Word of God lived on, divinely preserved, down
through time, even to the present day.
God’s Word is indeed a miracle. It survives all attempts to destroy it.
As its enemies go down to their graves, the Word of God survives.
As those who try to destroy it are themselves destroyed, still the
Word of God lives on. Everything else passes on – but the Word of
God endures forever. All things are mortal – except for the Word of
God. The Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, the Medo-
Persian Empire, the Greek Empire, and now the Roman Empire – all
have come and gone, but the Word of God is still living, breathing,
and with us to this day. Blessed be the Word of the Lord.
May God bless us as we study His Word.
T H E BA R KO K H B A REVO LT 113
The Bar Kokhba Revolt
I N THE LAST chapter, we looked at the Jewish Wars with the

Romans in the first century, leading up to the destruction of the
Temple in A.D. 70., as described by the historian Josephus in his
amazing history of these events, The Wars of the Jews.
The events of A.D. 70, as well as the fall of Masada in A.D. 73, had
massive repercussions for the Jewish people. Forty years after the
death of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, the Messiah, destruction came
on the Jews – exactly as the prophecy in Deuteronomy chapter 28
said would happen. As we saw in our last chapter, these events were
all recorded beforehand by the prophets of Israel – throughout the
book of Daniel, in Micah, as well as Deuteronomy.
Josephus records that in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and the
destruction of the Temple, almost 1.2 million Jews were killed. With
the exception of Noah’s flood, this had to have been the largest
single loss of life in human history, especially with a world
population a fraction of what it is today. With the destruction of the
Temple in Jerusalem, the priesthood could no longer continue. This
meant that the Law of Moses had ended. After A.D. 70, it was
impossible to keep the Law of Moses.
These events have a direct bearing on the Hebrew and Aramaic
scrolls and manuscripts we would expect to find in Israel, in the first
and second centuries A.D. Not only did the Romans kill hundreds of
thousands of people, of Jews, but they also destroyed everything
related to the Jews that they could find. Emperors like Nero
destroyed everything related to Christians too. As the Romans
wreaked their campaign of terror across Israel, they burned villages,
destroyed yeshivas (religious schools), killed men, women and
children, and burned all Hebrew and Aramaic scrolls and
manuscripts they could find. Nothing was spared.
Therefore, when people look for the oldest known manuscripts and
fragments of the Holy Bible, whether the Old Testament or the New
Testament, we should not expect to find anything in Israel, dating to
the first and second centuries. The Romans systematically destroyed
all Hebrew and Aramaic documents they could find, whether
belonging to Jews or Christians (the early converts from Judaism).
While many manuscripts were stored away safely in the numerous
caves around the Dead Sea, to become the Dead Sea Scrolls that we
know of today, the earliest fragments of the Old and New
Testaments often arise outside of Israel.
And so, the destruction of A.D. 70 was utterly devastating. It
resulted in the destruction of the Temple, the fall of Jerusalem to the
Romans, and the loss of Jewish life on a scale that is almost
impossible to comprehend.
But as if that was not enough, worse was to come. Just as the
cursings in Deuteronomy chapter 28 had said would happen, still
worse was to befall the Jewish people.
After the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, the Zealots – those
who still wanted to rise up and defeat the Romans, and gain back
their homeland – fled to Masada, a fortified mountain-top near the
Dead Sea. Knowing that this was the last bastion of Jewish
resistance, the Romans knew they had to destroy it. Otherwise, there
would always be a remnant of Jews who could rise again. And so,
the Roman army camped around Masada with 15,000 troops, and for
many long months they besieged it. In a fascinating story which is
outside the scope of this chapter, in A.D. 73, Masada fell to the
Romans. The ruins can still be visited to this day. History records
that the remaining Jews, around one thousand in total, committed
mass suicide rather than be crucified, or raped, or tortured, or killed,
or become slaves to the Romans, as had happened to so many of
their loved ones. The story is a tragic one, of how a religious people
wanted to remain free to worship the God of Heaven.
And so, after these terrible events, the Jews had no homeland. They
had no priesthood. They found no rest for the soles of their feet.
They were persecuted everywhere they went. They were banished
from Jerusalem, and the Temple destroyed.
But still the Jewish people yearned to return to their homeland
again. They still yearned for Jerusalem. They still yearned to fight
against the Romans, to regain Jerusalem, to re-build the Temple
again, and to establish the priesthood, and the Law of Moses.
This has been the hope and yearning of the Jewish people ever since,
as recorded in the heartfelt words of Israeli national anthem:
As long as in the heart, within,
A Jewish soul still yearns,
And onward, towards the east, eastwards,
An eye gazes toward Zion;
Our hope is not yet perished,
The hope of two thousand years,
To be a free people in our own land,
The land of Zion… and Jerusalem.
And so, following the terrible destruction of Jerusalem and the
Temple in A.D. 70 and the end of the last stronghold of rebellion at
Masada in A.D. 73, Jews in general, and the Zealots in particular, did
not give up on their dream of returning to Jerusalem and re-
establishing the Temple and the priesthood once again.
Slowly, steadily, over the coming years Jews returned to the Land of
Israel. They could no longer offer sacrifices or obey the Law of
Moses – but at least they could return and live in Israel.
After the passage of many decades, as the numbers of Jews able to
come back to Israel and live in Jerusalem increased, as Jews felt that
yearning to re-establish Jerusalem as their capital once again, and to
re-build and re-establish the Temple from the Roman army just as
their Maccabean ancestors has done with the Greek army around
two hundred years earlier, steadily the pressure to fight the Romans
became stronger and stronger.
Let us briefly catch up with the history of the Roman Empire, from
the time of Jesus, through the persecutions of Nero, the destruction
of the Temple in A.D. 70, and onwards to the Bar Kokhba Revolt.
At the time of Jesus, Tiberius (A.D. 14-37) was the Roman Emperor.
Then we have:
➔ the insane Caligula (A.D. 37-41),
➔ the sick but probably sane Claudius (A.D. 41-54),
➔ the psychopathic Emperor Nero (A.D. 54-68) who probably

started the Great Fire of Rome and is renowned for his
merciless persecution of Christians,
➔ the Year of the Four Emperors in which three Emperors
(Galba, Otho and Vitellius) were all either murdered or
committed suicide, followed by
➔ Vespasian (A.D. 69-79) who destroyed the Temple in A.D. 70
when he conquered Jerusalem,
➔ Titus (A.D. 70-81), the son of Vespasian,
➔ the insane and psychopathic Domitian (A.D. 81-96) who
again mercilessly persecuted Jews and Christians,
➔ Nerva (A.D. 96-98),
➔ Trajan (A.D. 98-117), until finally, the reign of
➔ Hadrian, from A.D. 117-138.
After the brutal and tyrannical reigns of those previous Roman
Emperors, Hadrian is generally regarded by history as a “good”
Emperor, and according to Edward Gibbon (the author of The
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) his reign marks the start of “The
Age of the Antonines”, a period of relative calm and peace for the
Roman Empire, answering to the White Horse period of the Roman
Empire, foretold in the prophecy of Revelation chapter 6:1-2. We
read:
Rev. 6:1-2; “And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals,
and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four
beasts saying, Come and see. And I saw, and behold a white
horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given
unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.”
Following that earlier period of bloodshed, murders, suicides,
tyrannical persecutions and insanity, Hadrian, then, marks that
period of the Roman Empire which entered a period of peace, where
the Roman Empire went forth to conquer. The white horse with a
bow signifies the Roman Empire conquering through Pax Romana –
the Peace of Rome.
This Emperor Hadrian is the same Emperor who, early in his reign,
built Hadrian’s Wall in Britain, that massive stone defensive wall
which broadly separates Scotland from England. The north of

England, at Hadrian’s Wall, marked the farthest northern extent of
the Roman Empire.
But, under Emperor Hadrian, the Jews once again rebelled against
Roman rule. That tragic event led to what is known as the Bar-
Kokhba Revolt, from A.D. 132-136, in the middle of Emperor
Hadrian’s reign. While the Jews inflicted heavy casualties on the
Roman armies, as the prophecy in Revelation chapter 6 had foretold,
the Roman Empire was now in the White Horse Period. It was the
white horse on whom sat an archer with a bow. A crown was given
unto him, and he would go forth conquering and to conquer.
The result, tragically, was once again the total annihilation of the
Jewish forces at the hand of the Roman armies. Once again, the
numbers would be staggering. The Wikipedia article on the Bar
Kokhba Revolt suggests that, alongside massive Roman military
casualties, some 580,000 Jews were killed, along with the destruction
of 50 fortified towns and 985 villages being razed to the ground.
The blow was so severe that Jews were permanently banished from
Jerusalem, never to return in significant numbers until the latter
days, when in 1948, the Jewish people declared the State of Israel. In
1967, following the Six Day War, Jerusalem would once again be in
the hands of Israel, in preparation for the coming of their Messiah.
Whereas in the destruction of A.D. 70, the Temple in Jerusalem was
destroyed, in A.D. 135, the Romans went one stage further.
Jerusalem, the Holy City, was utterly and completely destroyed. It
was razed to the ground, ploughed over like a field, and the Romans
re-built a completely new Roman city on its ploughed ruins. That
new city was known as Aelia Capitolina. It was the New Jerusalem.
It was dedicated to the gods of Rome, rather than the God of Israel.
All these events, of course, were long ago foretold by the prophets of
Israel. As it is written in the prophet Amos:
Amos 3:7; “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he
revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.”
And so, hundreds of years before it came to pass, Micah had foretold
that that Jerusalem would be destroyed, that Jerusalem would be
flattened completely, that Jerusalem – the Holy City – would be
ploughed over like a field. Reading from Micah chapter 3:

Mic. 3:8-12; “But truly I am full of power by the spirit of the
LORD, and of judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his
transgression, and to Israel his sin. Hear this, I pray you, ye
heads of the house of Jacob, and princes of the house of Israel,
that abhor judgment, and pervert all equity. They build up Zion
with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity. The heads thereof judge
for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the
prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the
LORD, and say, Is not the LORD among us? none evil can come
upon us. Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field,
and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the
house as the high places of the forest.”
Thus, the Bar Kokhba Revolt ended up as a disaster for the Jewish
people. Having lost the Temple in A.D. 70. They now lost the Holy
City, Jerusalem. Jews were banished from ever again entering
Jerusalem. Jerusalem was destroyed, flattened, ploughed over, and
rebuilt as a Roman city. It remained that way for centuries. Prior to
Jerusalem once again being in the hands of the Jewish people after
the Six Day War in 1967, the closest Jews ever got to the Temple was
the Western Wall in Jerusalem – the remains of the massive wall that
Herod had built around the Temple before the Romans destroyed it
in A.D. 70. Today, that Western Wall is an iconic image in modern-
day Jerusalem. It is nearly all that remains from the vast destruction
by the Romans.
The Temple in A.D. 70 was destroyed on the 9th day of the Hebrew
month Av. The destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian Empire
also took place on the 9th of Av. When the Romans finally conquered
Jerusalem again under the Bar Kokhba Revolt, it too happened on
the 9th of Av. Many other tragedies have also befallen the Jewish
people on the 9th of Av. It has been a national day of mourning ever
since.
But let us return to the Bar Kokhba Revolt, to discover some more
about those tragic events. The Revolt was led by Simon Bar Kokhba,
hence the name. Let us provide some quotes from the Wikipedia
article on the subject, to provide a flavour of how horrifying these
events were. We read:
“The Bar Kokhba revolt resulted in an extensive depopulation of

Judean Jewish communities, more so than the Great Revolt of
Judea of 70 CE. Despite easing persecution of Jews following
Hadrian’s death in 138 CE, the Romans barred Jews from
Jerusalem, except for attendance in Tisha B’Av. [The 9th of Av,
the date of the destruction of the Temple]. The Jewish
community of Judea was devastated in events some scholars
describe as a genocide.”
Mainstream Jews hailed Simon Bar Kokhba as the Messiah, just as
Jesus had promised would happen when he said in Matthew chapter
24 that “false Messiahs will appear…” But interestingly, we then
read:
“Although Jewish Christians hailed Jesus as the Messiah and did
not support Bar Kokhba, they were barred from Jerusalem along
with the rest of the Jews. The war and its aftermath helped
differentiate Christianity as a religion distinct from Judaism.”
Thus, importantly, the Romans did not differentiate between truly
Jewish believers, and Jewish converts to Christianity (i.e. those who
believed Jesus was the Messiah), and converts to Christianity from
the Gentiles, the nations surrounding Israel. To the Romans, both
Jews and Christians alike were the enemy, to be destroyed, and their
Holy Writings burned. Caligula, Nero and Domitian are well known
in history for their persecution of Christians. Vespasian, Titus and
Hadrian are well known in history for their persecution of Jews.
But together, Hebrew and Aramaic scrolls, documents and
manuscripts, whether of a Jewish or Christian character, were
destroyed and burnt by the Romans. Thus, while many people ask
the question, “What is the earliest known Hebrew or Aramaic
originals?”, we cannot really expect to find any “original” Hebrew or
Aramaic manuscripts arising out of Israel, out of Roman Judea or
Roman Palestine, in the first and second centuries A.D. The Romans
simply destroyed whatever they could find. The Dead Sea Scrolls
provide us with an insight into what was available at the time, but
they are all that was rescued from the destruction.
As we continue to read the Wikipedia article, the following quotes
provide an insight into the terrible destruction:
“The reasons [for the Revolt] seem to centre around the
proscription of circumcision, the construction of a new city, Aelia

Capitolina, over the ruins of Jerusalem, and the erection of a
temple to Jupiter on the Temple mount.”
“Works on Aelia Capitolina, as Jerusalem was to be called,
commenced in 131 CE. The governor of Judea, Tineius Rufus,
performed the foundation ceremony, which involved ploughing
over the designated city limits. “Ploughing up the Temple”, seen
as a religious offence, turned many Jews against the Roman
authorities. The Romans issued a coin inscribed Aelia
Capitolina.”
Simon Bar Kokhba started the revolt from the city of Modi’in – the
same city in Israel from which the priest Mattathias and his sons,
including one called Simon, had earlier started the Maccabean
Revolt.
“Eusebius of Caesarea wrote that Christians were killed and
suffered “all kinds of persecutions” at the hands of Jews when
they refused to help Bar Kokhba against the Roman troops.”
Thus, the Bar Kokhba Revolt was likely to be one of several factors
involved in Christianity and Judaism parting and going their
separate ways. Prior to this, the Romans treated Jews and Christians
as much the same. But after this, the Romans continued to despise
Jews, and Christianity gained a more favoured place, leading up to
the Emperor Constantine converting to Christianity.
Quoting from Wikipedia again:
“The Jerusalem Talmud relates that the number of dead in Betar
was enormous, that the Romans “went on killing until their
horses were submerged in blood to their nostrils.” According to
a Rabbinic midrash, in addition to Bar Kokhba himself, the
Romans executed eight leading members of the Sanhedrin… The
Rabbinic account describes agonizing tortures: R. Akiba was
flayed, R. Ishmael had the skin of his head pulled off slowly, and
R. Hanania was burned at a stake, with wet wool held by a
Torah scroll wrapped around his body to prolong his death.”
“According to Cassius Dio [a Roman historian]… 580,000 Jews
were killed in the overall operations, and 50 fortified towns and
985 villages were razed to the ground, with many more Jews
dying of famine and disease.”

“He [Hadrian] prohibited the Torah law and the Hebrew
calendar, and executed Judaic scholars. The sacred scroll was
ceremonially burned on the Temple Mount. At the former
Temple sanctuary, he installed two statues, one of Jupiter,
another of himself. In an attempt to erase any memory of Judea
or Ancient Israel, he wiped the name off the map and replaced it
with Syria Palaestina. By destroying the association of Jews to
Judea and forbidding the practice of Jewish faith, Hadrian aimed
to root out a nation that inflicted heavy casualties on the Roman
Empire. Similarly, he re-established Jerusalem, but now as the
Roman pagan polis of Aelia Capitolina, and Jews were forbidden
from entering it, except on the day of Tisha B’Av [or the 9th of
Av].”
Following the Bar Kokhba Revolt, Jews and Judaism fundamentally
changed. Whereas before, Jews, Jerusalem and Judaism were all
intimately connected and focused around the keeping of the Law of
Moses and the Temple in Jerusalem, after the destruction, Judaism
(of necessity) became a more “portable” religion centred around
synagogues. Rabbinic Judaism prevailed, and the centres of Jewish
learning became the Galilee (where enough Jews remained) and the
Babylonian Jewish community. Jews were now a dispersed people,
and the Jewish diaspora had begun.
Wikipedia continues:
“Modern historians view the Bar-Kokhba Revolt as being of
decisive historic importance. The massive destruction and loss of
life occasioned by the revolt has led some scholars such as
Bernard Lewis to date the beginning of the Jewish diaspora from
this date. They note that, unlike the aftermath of the First
Jewish–Roman War chronicled by Josephus, the majority of the
Jewish population of Judea was either killed, exiled, or sold into
slavery after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, and Jewish religious and
political authority was suppressed far more brutally. After the
revolt, the Jewish religious center shifted to the Babylonian
Jewish community and its scholars. Judea would not be a center
of Jewish religious, cultural, or political life again until the
modern era, although Jews continued to live there and
important religious developments still occurred there. In Galilee,
the Jerusalem Talmud was compiled in the 2nd–4th centuries.”

In considering the Bar Kokhba Revolt in relation to the Hebrew and
Aramaic languages, we find that Hebrew and Aramaic were both
used at this time. Archaeologists such as Yigael Yadin suggest that
there was a resurgence of Hebrew at this time. This would be
entirely natural, since the Jews were fiercely nationalistic and
patriotic and wanted to regain Jerusalem as their Holy City, to
restore worship at the Temple, and to re-establish the Law of Moses.
As well as a longing for those things, a longing for Hebrew would
not be surprising.
But still, Aramaic was heavily used, even amongst those patriotic
Zealots. This is perhaps exemplified by the very name of the revolt
itself – it is recorded in history as the Bar Kokhba Revolt. This is
Aramaic, in the use of the Aramaic bar (for ‘son’) rather than the
Hebrew ben, and the Aramaic kokhba (for star), rather than the
Hebrew kokhav. In fact, the Talmud records that while at first the
Jews had hailed Simon Bar Kokhba as their Messiah at the start of
the Revolt, when the revolt decisively failed, his name was changed
from Bar Kokhba (“the Son of a Star” in Aramaic) to Bar Koziva (“the
Son of a Lie”, also in Aramaic).
Thus, the debate whether Hebrew or Aramaic was “the spoken
language at the time” will no doubt continue. The evidence is that
both were spoken languages. Religious Jews, or Zealots, no doubt
longed for Hebrew to be the predominant language again, just as
they longed for the Law of Moses to be established in the Temple
again and Jerusalem to be the Holy City again, but ever since the
Babylonian exile, they were fighting a losing battle against the rising
tide of the Aramaic language.
Both Hebrew and Aramaic are important languages. Hebrew will
always remain the Holy Language of the Jews, the language in
which God Himself gave the Law of Moses, the preferred language
of patriarchs, the spoken language of Moses, the language spoken by
all the prophets of Israel and the kings of Israel, and the Holy
Language in which the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible was divinely
revealed and preserved.
But Aramaic is Judaism’s second Holy Language, the language of the
nations around Israel in Biblical times, the language in which the
divine message was revealed to the Gentiles, and the Holy Language
of the New Testament.
Hebrew and Aramaic together are the original Holy Languages of
the Holy Scriptures. We should honour them both, learn them both,
and respect them both. Like Jew and Gentile, they are like two
brethren dwelling together down through time. Let us not cause
division between these two holy brethren, and may we pray for that
blessing for them to dwell together in unity, as we are exhorted in
Psalm 133:
Psa. 133:1-3; “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for
brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious
ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even
Aaron’s beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments; As
the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the
mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing,
even life for evermore.”
In conclusion, Aramaic and Hebrew are both important languages.
They are both the Holy Languages of the Scriptures.
Let them dwell together in unity!
As spoken by David at the death of Saul and Jonathan:
2Sam. 1:23; “Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their
lives, and in their death they were not divided: they were swifter
than eagles, they were stronger than lions.”
Thus, Hebrew and Aramaic are lovely and pleasant in their lives. In
the death of so many Jews during the Bar Kokhba Revolt, they were
not divided. They were swifter than eagles, and stronger than lions.
Behold how good and how pleasant it is for Hebrew and Aramaic to
dwell together in unity! Let them not be divided!
Aramaic, Hebrew and the

Greek Septuagint
Translation
A
NUMBER OF chapters in this book have already provided
solid evidence to shown that, contrary to popular belief,
Aramaic, rather than Greek, was the commonly spoken
language across the Middle East.
Despite this evidence, however, many people still promote the idea
that Greek was the normal, everyday, spoken language in Egypt and
across the whole Middle East in general, at the time of Christ. While
there certainly were small pockets of Greek speakers (as we will see
in the chapter Aramaic – The Language of Egypt), who are referred to
in the New Testament as Grecian Jews, Aramaic was still the
predominant language of Egypt.
Nevertheless, some people might point to the Septuagint, or LXX, as
evidence that Greek must surely have been spoken widely enough
for the Hebrew Old Testament to have been translated into Greek.
(The Septuagint, of course, is the Greek translation of the Hebrew
Bible, made in Alexandria in Egypt, and supposedly carried out in
250 B.C.)
While a study of the Septuagint is obviously beyond the scope of this
book, combating the myths and misconceptions that have grown up
around the Septuagint is definitely important to a fuller
understanding of Aramaic. In particular, the relative importance of
Greek and Aramaic, and the extent to which these languages were
used, and where and why they were spoken, is critical to an
A R A MA I C, HE B R EW A N D T H E GR E E K SE P TU AGIN T TR AN S LATION 125
understanding of the background to the New Testament.

With these points in mind, let us take a closer look at the Septuagint,
the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, and determine
where, why, and when it was translated.
To start with, it is important to understand three crucial points:
➔ First, only the Torah (the five books of Moses, or the Jewish
Law) was translated into Greek at this time, and not the
whole of the Hebrew Old Testament! The canon of the
Hebrew Bible would not be fixed for another 300 years,
around the time of the Council of Jamnia at the end of the
first century A.D.
➔ Secondly, the date of 250 B.C. is widely accepted as being far
too early. In his extremely detailed and well-researched book
The Text of the Old Testament, Ernst Wurthwein puts the
correct date around 185 B.C. or earlier, which is
contemporary with the Maccabean revolt, and the
imposition of Greek language and culture on the Jews.
➔ Thirdly, the Torah was translated into Greek not because
Jews needed it, but because King Ptolemy wanted it; he
wanted copies in Greek, of all the books in the world, for his
personal library in Egypt!
However, let us return to the Jewish scholar and historian of the day,
Josephus, to paint a picture of these events. Josephus records the
facts as he understood them in his day, without the pious myths and
fables that the Church Fathers would add over the following four or
five centuries.
The following, then, is the account of the early history of the Greek
translation of the Hebrew Torah, by Ptolemy II, taken from Josephus’
Antiquities of the Jews:
1:10 “I found, therefore, that the second of the Ptolemies was a
king who was extraordinarily diligent in what concerned
learning, and the collection of books; that he was also peculiarly
ambitious to procure a translation of our law, and of the
constitution of our government therein contained, into the Greek
tongue.”
As stated earlier, this passage shows that King Ptolemy wanted the
translation of the Jewish Law (the Torah) into Greek. The Jews
themselves did not request it. They did not need it. The translation
into Greek was for a pagan king, and was only of the Torah, the Five
Books of Moses, and not the entire Old Testament as is commonly
promulgated.
But Josephus goes on to say:
12:12 “Demetrius Phalerius, who was library keeper to the king,
was now endeavouring, if it were possible, to gather together all
the books that were in the habitable earth, and buying whatever
was anywhere valuable, or agreeable to the king’s inclination,
(who was very earnestly set upon collecting of books,) to which
inclination of his Demetrius was zealously subservient.”
This passage shows that the translation into Greek was because
Ptolemy wanted copies of all books, everywhere. Jews neither
wanted nor requested this translation.
12:13 “And when once Ptolemy asked him how many ten
thousands of books he had collected, he replied, that he had
already about twenty times ten thousand; but that, in a little
time, he should have fifty times ten thousand.”
Again, we see that the library was simply a showcase collection of all
the books in the world, into Greek. Demetrius was doing the king’s
bidding, and the king’s bidding was to translate everything into
Greek for his own edification and vanity.
Josephus continues:
12:14 “But be said he had been informed that there were many
books of laws among the Jews worthy of inquiring after, and
worthy of the king’s library, but which, being written in
characters and in a dialect of their own, will cause no small
pains in getting them translated into the Greek tongue;”
This passage provides clear evidence that even at this time, around
the time of the Maccabean revolt, Jews were still able to read the
Hebrew Bible. Hebrew was seen at the time as being unique to the
Jews, and still used by them. Jews themselves could therefore still
understand Hebrew at this time, and had no need of a translation
into Greek.
A R A MA I C, HE B R EW A N D T H E GR E E K SE P TU AGIN T TR AN S LATION 127
12:15 “that the character in which they are written seems to be

like to that which is the proper character of the Syrians, and that
its sound, when pronounced, is like theirs also; and that this
sound appears to be peculiar to themselves. Therefore he said
that nothing hindered why they might not get those books to be
translated also; for while nothing is wanting that is necessary for
that purpose, we may have their books also in this library.”
This fascinating paragraph shows the similarity, and distinction,
between Hebrew and Aramaic (called Syrian or Syriac in Josephus).
Ptolemy is told that the Hebrew Bible is written in a language
similar to Aramaic (which he must therefore have been familiar
with), and that Aramaic and Hebrew sound similar, but that Hebrew
is unique to Jews (thus implying that Aramaic is more widely
spoken).
If you go through the video lessons on the Aramaic alphabet that are
available at JesusSpokeAramaic.com, you will see that Hebrew and
Aramaic share the same letters of the alphabet, but that Aramaic has
other scripts which Hebrew does not use.
Let us continue to read what Josephus says:
12:34 “Now when this had been done after so magnificent a
manner, according to the king’s inclinations, he gave orders to
Demetrius to give him in writing his sentiments concerning the
transcribing of the Jewish books; for no part of the
administration is done rashly by these kings, but all things are
managed with great circumspection.”
12:35 “On which account I have included a copy of these letters,
and set down the multitude of the vessels sent as gifts [to
Jerusalem], and the construction of everyone, that the exactness
of the craftsmen’s workmanship, as it appeared to those that saw
them, and which workman made every vessel, may be made
manifest, and this on account of the excellency of the vessels
themselves. Now the copy of the letter was to this purpose:--”
12:36 “Demetrius to the great king. When you, O king, gave me a
charge concerning the collection of books that were still required
to fill your library, and concerning the care that ought to be
taken about such as are imperfect, I have used the utmost
diligence about those matters. And I let you know, that we want
the books of the Jewish legislation, with some others; for they
are written in the Hebrew characters, and being in the language
of that nation, are to us unknown.”
These paragraphs clearly state that the books which were translated
into Greek were the books of the Torah or Jewish Law (legislation),
not the entire Hebrew Bible, because of course the canon of the Old
Testament had not been fixed by this early stage!
Josephus continues:
12:37 “It has also happened to them, that they have been
transcribed more carelessly than they ought to have been,
because they have not had hereto royal care taken about them.
Now it is necessary that you should have accurate copies of
them. And indeed this legislation is full of hidden wisdom, and
entirely blameless, as being the legislation of God:”
This paragraph says that other books in the library had been poorly
translated into Greek, and he wants the books of the Torah to be
translated into Greek well by royal decree, because they are full of
wisdom. This suggests that bad, poorly done copies of the Torah into
Greek were circulating at this time.
Josephus goes on to say:
12:38 “for which cause it is, as Hecateus of Abdera says, that the
poets and historians make no mention of it, nor of those men
who lead their lives according to it, since it is a holy law, and
ought not to be proclaimed by profane mouths.”
12:39 “If then it please you, O king, you may write to the high
priest of the Jews, to send six of the elders out of every tribe, and
those such as are most skilful of the laws, that by their means we
may learn the clear and agreeing sense of these books, and may
obtain an accurate interpretation of their contents, and so may
have such a collection of these as may be suitable to your
desire.”
12:40 “When this letter was sent to the king, he commanded that
a letter should be drawn up for Eleazar, the Jewish high priest,
concerning these matters; and that they should inform him of
the release of the Jews that had been in slavery among them. He
also sent fifty talents of gold for the making of large basins, and
A R A MA I C, HE B R EW A N D T H E GR E E K SE P TU AGIN T TR AN S LATION 1 29
vials, and cups, and an immense quantity of precious stones.”

These paragraphs show that the High Priest was commanded, by
royal decree of Ptolemy, to help with the translation of the Torah into
Greek. The Jews, however, were paid well for co-operating. It is
important to understand that Jews, generally, neither required nor
requested the translation of the Jewish Law or Torah from Hebrew
into Greek, because so few Jews spoke Greek.
So there you have it! Contrary to the widespread myth that Jews
themselves wanted to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek because
they could no longer understand Hebrew, we find quite the reverse:
➔ Jews at this time could understand Hebrew perfectly well,
and had no need of a translation into Greek. They were
still able to read the Hebrew Bible. That is why Ptolemy
had no difficulty getting six Jews from every tribe, who
could understand Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible.
➔ Ptolemy (not the Jews) wanted the Torah, or Jewish Law,
translated into Greek for the immense showcase library of
books he was collecting.
➔ Jews did not want a translation into Greek. They were
commanded to help with the translation by royal decree,
and had to be paid to co-operate.
It should be remembered that Jews generally had very strong anti-
Greek feelings. The Maccabean revolt was still fresh in their minds,
when Greek language and culture was forced upon them by
Antiochus, and the Temple was desecrated. Ever since the
Maccabean victory, Jews strongly rejected Greek philosophy and the
Greek language, and discouraged the speaking of Greek. The
chapters about Josephus and the Maccabean Revolt go into these
events in further detail.
Despite this, some Jews had succumbed to Greek learning and had
allowed Greek philosophical ideas of heaven and hell to enter
Judaism. They had started to Hellenize Judaism, and were despised
for it. They are known in the New Testament as Grecian Jews:
Acts 6:1; “And in those days, when the number of the disciples
was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against
the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily
ministration.”
Contrast that attitude with the Jewish translations of the Targums,
from the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic. Aramaic and Hebrew are
similar languages, and after the exile, Aramaic gradually began to be
more widely spoken than Hebrew. Because the influence of Aramaic
on Hebrew was already significant, Jews had little resistance to an
Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible. The Targums arose
according to need and were welcomed and encouraged by Jews, and
met with their general acceptance and approval. Aramaic was
welcomed, even encouraged. A knowledge of Greek was actively
discouraged.
To understand the influence which Aramaic has had on Judaism
down through the centuries, and how the Aramaic translations of
the Hebrew Bible arose, make sure you read all the later chapters in
this book about Biblical Aramaic, the Aramaic Targums, the Aramaic
Old Testament and the Aramaic New Testament.
You might also consider subscribing to JesusSpokeAramaic.com to
learn more and benefit fully from your experience.
W H AT DO E S JOS E P H U S SAY? 131
What Does Josephus Say?

“The Language of Our Country”
W
ELCOME TO this exciting chapter in our look at
Aramaic, the Bible's Second Holy Language. In this
chapter, we are going to take a look at what the
commonly-spoken language was in Israel in the first century A.D., or
what Josephus calls “the language of our country”.
You can get free access to an entire video lesson about Josephus, entitled
What Does Josephus Say, by following the link below:
http://JesusSpokeAramaic.com/Lessons/History-of-Aramaic/Josephus
By this, Josephus meant the language that people generally spoke in

Israel, that is, their language, not the language of the current foreign
occupiers (the Romans) or the Hellenistic invaders who had shortly
beforehand wreaked havoc under the hand of Antiochus Epiphanes,
leading to the Maccabean revolt, which we covered in a previous
chapter. Rather, by “the language of our country”, Josephus meant
the language spoken in Roman Judea, or first century Israel.
So, first of all, who was Josephus? Josephus was born Joseph ben
Matityahu, his birth-name, or Hebrew name. But in A.D. 69, he was
re-named Titus Flavius Josephus by the Roman Emperor Vespasian
who decided to keep him as a hostage and an interpreter. Josephus
was a Jew, who lived around 37-100 A.D., in other words, within
living memory of Jesus, and an eye-witness of the events
surrounding the disciples of Jesus preaching the gospel in Israel and
to the whole world.
In fact, as Wikipedia says, “[His] works provide valuable insight into
first century Judaism and the background of early Christianity” and

“[his works] provide crucial information about the First Jewish-
Roman war and also represent important literary source material for
understanding the context of the Dead Sea Scrolls and late [Second]
Temple Judaism.”
Josephus was born to a father of priestly descent, and to a mother
who claimed royal ancestry. He was therefore well educated, and
was a scholar as well as a historian. In fact, Josephus works include
Antiquities of the Jews, (a monumental work recording the history of
the Jews from the creation of the world down through to his own
day) and The Jewish Wars.
Josephus was the most important and well-known historian in
Roman Judea – or Israel in the first century, as we would call it
today. He carefully recorded the painful events around the
destruction of the Jewish Temple in A.D. 70 and the subsequent
ransacking of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans, followed by the
siege of Masada.
Josephus has been criticised as perhaps being too friendly with the
Romans, but his love and patriotism towards his own people, the
Jews, comes across clearly in his writings. If anyone is qualified to
speak about this time, it was Josephus. He knew his people. He
knew the country. And as a scholar and a historian, he knew the
language of his country better than anyone else.
So what exactly does Josephus say about the language normally
spoken by Jews in the first century in Israel? Surely the answer to
this question must be critical to an understanding of the culture in
which the New Testament was born, and the culture and context in
which it must be understood.
Well, it is true that the documents which we have preserved of
Josephus today, were written hundreds of years ago in Greek. In fact,
William Whiston’s classic translation of 1732, from the Greek edition
of Josephus, was a classic book in Victorian times and is still, even
today, the version of Josephus’ works that most people will be
familiar with.
But we would have to go to Josephus himself, rather than a later
Greek copy, to discover what Josephus himself refers to as “the
language of our country”. It is at this point that many are surprised
by what Josephus actually says...

In fact, Josephus is at pains to point out that he originally wrote in
Aramaic, and only later did he translate his extensive writings into
the Greek language. Furthermore, Josephus admits that he still could
not pronounce Greek well, even after years of learning it. Even more
amazingly, he says that only a few people he knew could even speak
Greek, and that Greek learning was actually frowned upon by the
Jews.
So let us open up the pages of Josephus’ classic writings, and
examine for ourselves the evidence presented by Josephus, or Joseph
ben Matityahu, a Jew, a scholar, and the classic historian of Roman
Judea.
First, let us examine Antiquities of the Jews. Josephus says:
1:7 “but because this work surrounded a great deal... in process
of time, as usually happens to such as undertake great things, I
grew weary and went on slowly, it being a large subject, and a
difficult thing to translate our history into a foreign, and to us
unaccustomed, language.”
[All quotes from Josephus have been taken from William Whiston’s
translation].
Here, Josephus clearly states that Greek (into which he was
translating his history) was, to Jews, a foreign language that they
were unaccustomed to. In fact, the whole idea of translating his
monumental work into Greek was, to him, a very daunting task, one
which would take many years and which would progress only
slowly, and which would be wearisome and tiring to him.
But Josephus continues:
1:129 “for such names are pronounced here after the manner of
the Greeks, to please my readers; for our own country language
does not so pronounce them;”
Again, Josephus emphasises that neither he, nor his countrymen,
actually speak Greek. He is translating names purely for the benefit of
his Greek readers. He is at pains to point out that Jews emphatically do
not pronounce names according to the way that Greeks do. Greek
was, to Josephus, a foreign language – one that he had to make an
effort to learn.
20:262 “And I am so bold as to say, now I have so completely
perfected the work I proposed to myself to do, that no other
person, whether he were a Jew or foreigner, had he ever so great
an inclination to it, could so accurately deliver these accounts to
the Greeks as is done in these books.”
Josephus, rightly or wrongly, says that he is the only person (Jew or
foreigner), who was able to competently translate his history into
Greek so accurately. This illustrates clearly, just how few people, Jew
or Gentile, in Roman Judea, knew Greek well enough to attempt a
translation.
But was Josephus correct in saying that he was the only one who
could attempt a task as great and burdensome as translating his
work into Greek? Let him answer the question for us:
20:263 “For those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far
exceed them in the learning belonging to Jews: I have also taken
a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and
understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have
so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I
cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness;”
Coming from noble birth, with a priestly father and a mother
descended from royalty, we have seen that Josephus was educated,
intelligent and already an acknowledged scholar. Yet even with that
background, Josephus admits that he struggled to learn the Greek
language, he admits that he does not speak Greek well, and that he
had to go to great pains to learn it. This is because Aramaic is
Josephus’ mother tongue and he has spoken Aramaic all his life.
With that Aramaic background, Josephus admits that he can hardly
even pronounce Greek properly.
All those who, as adults, have struggled to learn a foreign language
will know exactly what Josephus means! Learning the grammar and
vocabulary of a foreign language is a difficult task in any century,
and first century Roman Judea was no different. Josephus proves
that Greek was a foreign language to the Jews, one which they did
not speak and were not familiar with.
But as we read more of Josephus’ testimony, we discover that there

was another reason why Josephus struggled to learn Greek:
20:264 “for our nation does not encourage those who learn the
languages of many nations,”
Josephus says that Jews actually discouraged learning the languages
of the nations around them. This was because Jews had learned from
painful, bitter, history, that the nations around them only caused
problems and only led them away from God. Jews did not want
assimilation. The Maccabean revolt was still fresh in their minds,
Antiochus Epiphanes, when the Temple was desecrated, and Jews
were forced to eat swine’s flesh and worship statues of Zeus. Ever
since the Maccabean victory, Jews largely rejected Greek philosophy
and the Greek language, and discouraged the speaking of Greek,
keeping the Maccabean revolt and subsequent victory at the front of
their minds.
allowed pagan Greek philosophy such as wisdom, devils, false ideas
of heaven and hell, and so on, to enter Judaism. Some Jews had
started to Hellenize Judaism and absorb ideas from the Greek pagan
culture around them, and mainstream Judaism despised them for it.
Those Hellenistic Jews are known in the New Testament as Grecian
Jews:
ministration.”
But let us return to the subject of the language in which Josephus
wrote his classic works. In his The Wars of the Jews, Josephus writes:
1:3 “I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under
the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the
Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our
country.”
Josephus says that his works were originally written in Aramaic, the
language of his country, of Roman Judea or Israel. But that he
translated those works into Greek later. They were not originally
written in Greek, since Josephus has already told us that he was

unfamiliar with that language. The later translation into Greek was
necessary because the Romans carried out a wholesale destruction of
all Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts in the destruction of A.D. 70.
Greek copies were all that remained.
Josephus also draws a distinction between his histories and those of
other Jews, all of which were written in Aramaic, and other histories
of Judaism which Greeks had (by this time) attempted:
1:17 “Many Jews before me have composed the histories of our
ancestors very exactly; as have some of the Greeks done it also,
and have translated our histories into their own tongue, and
have not much mistaken the truth in their histories.”
In Against Apion, another of Josephus’ works, Josephus also explains
that his work was translated into Greek:
1:1 “My books of the “Antiquity of the Jews” ... Those
Antiquities contain the history of five thousand years, and are
taken out of our sacred books; but are translated by me into the
Greek tongue.”
In translating into Greek, Josephus testifies that he originally wrote
in a language other than Greek – Aramaic, in other words.
And despite being a renowned scholar, Josephus even had to obtain
help in learning the Greek language:
1:50 “Afterward I got leisure at Rome; and when all my
materials were prepared for that work, I made use of some
persons to assist me in learning the Greek tongue.”
Thus, once Josephus was determined to translate his works into
Greek, he could not at that time even speak Greek. Having (and
needing) a certain amount of leisure time, he has to go to Rome to
obtain assistance in learning Greek, before he could begin the
onerous task of translation. A lengthy journey to Rome was
necessary because Greek was not spoken locally.
Why did Josephus have to go to Rome? Was Greek not spoken in
Alexandria, in Egypt? Was the Septuagint, the Greek translation of
the Torah, not made in Alexandria? Was there nobody with a
proficiency in Greek living in Egypt at that time who could have
assisted Josephus in learning Greek, and thus avoid a journey to

Rome?
Well, Josephus continues:
1:73 “I shall begin with the writings of the Egyptians... But
Manetho was a man who was by birth an Egyptian, yet had he
made himself master of the Greek learning, as is very evident:
for he wrote the history of his own country in the Greek
tongue.”
Not only was Greek not spoken in Israel, but this testimony tells us
that Greek was not spoken in Egypt either! Here, Manetho is an
Egyptian, yet he (like Josephus) bucks the trend and decides to learn
Greek. Greek, therefore, was clearly not the lingua franca, or common
language, of Egypt, or Israel, or indeed anywhere else in the Middle
East.
Now, you might think that when Josephus talks about “our own
language” or “our own tongue” or “the language of our country”, he
means Hebrew rather than Aramaic. Well, let’s examine whether that
is, in fact, the case.
In his extensive writings, Josephus is very precise in identifying
when he means Hebrew, or the Hebrew language, as opposed to
Aramaic, which he consistently refers to as “the language of our
country”. In fact, Josephus frequently makes the distinction between
Aramaic, which is what he originally wrote in, and Hebrew. When
he means Hebrew, Josephus explicitly says so, in contrast to Aramaic.
Here are a few examples from The Antiquities of the Jews to illustrate
this point:
“and call it the Sabbath; which word denotes rest in the Hebrew
tongue.”
“This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue
signifies one that is Red.”
“Now a woman is called in the Hebrew tongue Issa.”
“He also commanded him to be called Israel, which in the
Hebrew tongue signifies one that struggled with the divine
angel.”
“Now the former of those names, Gershom, in the Hebrew
tongue, signifies that he was in a strange land;”

“Adonibezek, which name denotes the Lord of Bezek, for Adoni,
in the Hebrew tongue, signifies Lord.”
“Deborah, a certain prophetess among them, (whose name in the
Hebrew tongue signifies a Bee,)”
“Now Barak, in the Hebrew tongue, signifies Lightning.”
“Now Naomi signifies in the Hebrew tongue happiness, and Mara,
sorrow.”
“to a certain city called Mizpeh, which, in the Hebrew tongue,
signifies a watch tower;”
“Now Nabal, in the Hebrew tongue, signifies folly.”
In these examples, Josephus makes reference to these words being in
Hebrew, because these are all examples of words which are different
to the equivalent word in Aramaic. Josephus, writing in Aramaic,
gives the Hebrew word, but then has to explain what the word means
to his Aramaic readers. If he had been writing in Hebrew in the first
place, a translation would obviously not have been necessary! This
proves that Josephus must have written in Aramaic rather than
Hebrew.
And so, when Josephus means Hebrew, he uses the phrase “the
Hebrew tongue”. By contrast, when he means Aramaic, he says the
“language of our country” or “our own language” or similar phrase.
Here are some further examples:
“He also placed a partition around the temple, which in our
tongue we call Gison, but it is called Thrigeos by the Greeks”
“although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own
tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek.”
“to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I
formerly composed in the language of our country.”
But did Josephus really mean Aramaic when he says, “the language
of our own country”? Is it still nevertheless possible that he meant
Hebrew? Well, here is a verse from the New Testament, from the
book of Acts, which settles the matter for once and all.
Acts 1:19; “And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem;
insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue,

Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.”
Here, after the death of Judas, the inhabitants of Jerusalem call the
field where he died, Aceldama. They call it Aceldama “in their
proper tongue”, in other words, in their own tongue, that is, in the
language in which the people of Jerusalem spoke.
And so, if we can identify which language Aceldama is in, we can
identify the language that Josephus refers to as “the language of our
country” and “our own tongue”. Josephus uses the same phrase,
“our own tongue” (as opposed to the languages of the nations
around them), the same phrase as the New Testament itself uses here
in the book of Acts.
So, in which language is Aceldama? Well, this phrase is made up
from the Aramaic hakel meaning field, and dama meaning the blood.
(The KJV is translated from Greek, and Greek has no letter h, and so
hakel becomes acel or akel when written in Greek).
Grammar Note: “The field of blood” is in the construct state, where
the word “the” goes with the second noun, i.e. literally in Aramaic it
is “field of the blood” whereas in English we would say “the field of
blood”.
But, critically, Aceldama cannot be Hebrew. It can only be Aramaic. In
Hebrew, the word for field is not hakel – it is sadeh. In Hebrew, the
equivalent phrase would be sadeh haDam. Aceldama uniquely and
precisely identifies “our own tongue”, the phrase used by both
Josephus and the New Testament, as Aramaic, rather than Hebrew.
Aramaic was, therefore, the language generally spoken in first
century Israel, by Jews in Roman Judea. Both Josephus and the New
Testament are in harmony. “By the mouth of two or three witnesses,
shall the matter be established.” (Deu. 19:15)
We have seen, then, that Aramaic was the language of Josephus, the
language of the New Testament, the language of Israel and
Jerusalem, and therefore the language spoken by Jesus and the
disciples. Aramaic should therefore command our respect. Aramaic
should command our love. It is the Holy Language of the New
Testament, just as Hebrew is the Holy Language of the Old
Testament. If we love the Scriptures, we will love Aramaic, for the
Scriptures were given (in part) in Aramaic.
Studying Aramaic and the Aramaic background to the Holy Bible

brings us back to a deeper, richer and more authentic understanding
of God’s Word. We owe it to ourselves to understand Aramaic. Jesus
spoke Aramaic, and we, too, should take the time to understand this
wonderful language.
Aramaic is an exciting journey into the world of Jesus, of Roman
Judea, of the history of Israel, and of the New Testament. Make sure
you study all the amazing video lessons that are available at
JesusSpokeAramaic.com to help you understand and appreciate the
wonderful world of Aramaic and what it can offer you. We also offer
DVDs, Workbooks, Aramaic and Hebrew Bibles, Study Guides,
Meditational Audio CDs and Aramaic books to help you in your
journey into the wonderful world of Aramaic.
A R A MA I C – TH E LAN GU AGE OF EGY P T 1 41
Aramaic – The Language of

Egypt
I N THESE chapters about Aramaic, the Bible's Second Holy

Language, we have seen how widely Aramaic was spoken –
across millennia, down through the centuries, across several
world empires, and across many countries. Aramaic must surely be
one of the world’s most important cultural languages.
In this particular chapter, we are going to take a look at what
language was spoken in Egypt in the first century A.D.
Why would this be important? Well, it is a commonly held belief
that, following the conquests of Alexander the Great, Greek had
became the lingua franca, or common language, across the Middle
East by the first century A.D. In fact, many grammars of New
Testament Greek routinely suggest that Greek was commonly
spoken all the way from Greece, throughout the Middle East, and as
far afield as India.
People who hold this view also suggest that Greek was spoken in
Egypt in the first century A.D. This is suggested because the
Septuagint was written in Alexandria, in Egypt, supposedly around
250 B.C., which suggests that Greek “must” have been spoken there.
But in these chapters about Aramaic, the Bible's Second Holy
Language, we provide detailed and conclusive evidence that
Aramaic (not Greek) was the common language spoken across the
Middle East in the first century A.D., and continued to be spoken for
many centuries after Christ until it was eventually displaced by
Arabic around the time of the Moslem conquests.
What, then, is the evidence for the language that was spoken in
Egypt around the time of Christ? Was it Greek, or Aramaic?

Those who believe that Greek was spoken in Egypt might bring
forth the following evidence:
➔ Alexander the Great conquered Egypt first, which
introduced Greek to Egypt.
➔ The Hebrew Law, or Torah, was translated into Greek (the
Septuagint) at Alexandria in Egypt.
While at first that might sound like a good case, we need to examine
the evidence in more detail, to establish the facts. When we
investigate the facts, we find that the written historical evidence
proves that Greek was not the normal spoken language in Egypt. In
other words, Greek was generally not the language spoken in Egypt.
It was Aramaic.
To demonstrate this, let’s look at a few verses from Acts chapter 21:
Acts 21:37-39; “And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said
unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst
thou speak Greek? Art not thou that Egyptian, which before
these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness
four thousand men that were murderers? But Paul said, I am a
man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no
mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the
people.”
Read those verses again, carefully. Yes, Paul does speak Greek to the
Roman soldier. But by speaking Greek, the Roman soldier is actually
surprised, and instantly knows that Paul could not possibly be an
Egyptian, simply because he spoke Greek. Therefore, this proves that
the people of Egypt did not speak Greek.
In an earlier chapter, we looked at the evidence of Josephus.
Josephus was a scholar and a Jew who lived in the first century A.D,
and the foremost historian of his day. In the chapter about Josephus,
we saw that Josephus repeatedly says that Aramaic was the
language spoken in Israel in his days, as well as being spoken
throughout the whole Middle East.
However, in Josephus’ writings, he is careful to draw a distinction
between the Greek tongue and the Egyptian tongue. In Against
Apion 1:73, he mentions a certain Manetho, who despite being an

Egyptian, is unusual for learning Greek (just as Josephus says that
he, too, is unusual for learning Greek).
Josephus records:
“Manetho was a man who was by birth an Egyptian, yet had he
made himself master of the Greek learning, as is very evident:
for he wrote the history of his own country in the Greek
tongue.”
In other words, this passage shows that Greek was very much a
foreign language to Manetho, an Egyptian. He had to make an effort
to learn Greek, since people in Egypt at this time did not normally
speak Greek.
As we examine in a number of other chapters in this book, it is
important to understand that Jews generally had very strong anti-
Greek feelings. The Maccabean revolt was still fresh in their minds,
Antiochus, they were forced to sacrifice to Zeus and eat swine’s
flesh, and the Temple in Jerusalem was desecrated. Ever since the
Maccabean victory against Greek culture, Jews strongly rejected
Greek philosophy and the Greek language, and discouraged the
speaking of Greek.
allowed Greek philosophical ideas such as the immortality of the
soul, and heaven and hell, to enter Judaism. They had started to
Hellenize Judaism, and were despised by mainstream Judaism
because of it. They are known in the New Testament as Grecian Jews:
ministration.”
These Grecian Jews, those who had succumbed to pagan Greek
influence and culture, and who spoke Greek, were very much a
minority in Judaism at this time. Mainstream Judaism despised these
Grecian Jews because they were seen as betrayers of true Judaism
who had adopted the language and culture of the enemy of the
Jewish people in the Maccabean revolt.
And as we saw in the chapter about Josephus, Aramaic was what

Josephus calls “our language” and “the language of our country”
(Israel).
There is one further point that demonstrates clearly that Aramaic
was the normal, spoken language in Egypt. This, too, comes from the
writings of Josephus.
I n Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus wrote the history of the Hebrew
nation from the time of Creation, through the Exodus from Egypt,
right up until his own day. In his historical record, Josephus writes:
3:32 “Now the Hebrews call this food manna; for the particle
man, in our language, is the asking of a question, What is this?”
This is a very interesting verse. The bread that came down from
heaven, as Josephus says, is called manna, from the word man,
meaning what, because the Hebrews leaving Egypt said ‘what is it’?
Now, it so happens that man is Aramaic, not Hebrew. The equivalent
of what in Hebrew is ma.
This suggests that, not only was Aramaic spoken in Egypt (as we
have already seen), but the Israelites coming out of Egypt must have
spoken (at least some) Aramaic, in order for them to use the Aramaic
word man in the use of the word manna. Just as the Jews in the
Babylon had started to speak Aramaic and their use of Hebrew was
declining, so too, the Jews spending four hundred years in Egypt
was resulting in them speaking Aramaic and the declining use of
Hebrew. The Israelites wanted to be just like the nations around
them, who all spoke Aramaic.
The conclusion of this chapter, then, is this. The evidence proves that
Aramaic was spoken in Egypt, and that the Israelites coming out of
Egypt also spoke Aramaic, and were familiar with Aramaic. As we
will see in the chapter about Aramaic and Judaism, Aramaic is the
second holy language of the Hebrew Bible, and the second holy
language of Judaism. It must therefore command our respect and
attention.
Make sure you watch all the video lessons that are available at
JesusSpokeAramaic.com about Aramaic, the Bible's Second Holy
Language, and the rich cultural heritage and tradition that it holds.
If we want to truly understand the correct cultural background of
the Holy Scriptures, we must understand Aramaic, as well as

Hebrew. Both Aramaic and Hebrew have a part to play.
Aramaic in the New

Testament
I N PREVIOUS chapters of this book, we have travelled through

time to look at Aramaic at the beginning of Creation, Aramaic as
it is used in the Old Testament, and Aramaic through the
Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian empires. We also looked at the
Maccabean revolt and its impact on Hebrew and Aramaic.
The last few books of the Old Testament were completed several
centuries B.C., and on our journey through time we soon come to the
Roman Empire, and to the times of the New Testament. This is an
extremely interesting time in terms of languages, since it represents
the complicated interaction between the influences of the Greek
language, Greek mythology and philosophy, the Greek Empire, the
continued use of Aramaic by Israel and the surrounding nations, the
use of Hebrew by the Jews, and the impact of the Roman Empire and
its use of Latin.
As this is such an interesting and important time, we devote several
chapters to these fascinating issues. There are chapters on what
Josephus says, on Aramaic as the language of Egypt, and a look at
the Greek Septuagint.
Around the time of the New Testament, there is considerable
disagreement as to which language was the predominant one at the
time – with Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin being the potential
candidates. It seems certain, though, that all of these languages were
spoken to some extent by one group of people or another, with
different ones being more common in different parts of the country
among different groups. To illustrate this, consider the following
verse from the New Testament:
A R A MA I C I N T H E NE W TE STAME N T 147
Luke 23:38; “And a superscription also was written over him in

letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF
THE JEWS.”
This verse shows which languages were the ones that Pontius Pilate
felt were important enough to write on the sign above Jesus’ head
when he was crucified.
In this chapter, therefore, we look at Aramaic and how it is used in
the New Testament. For those who have not considered these issues
before, it will be quite an enlightening chapter. And when added to
the other chapters showing the importance of Aramaic, we continue
to build a picture of the importance of Aramaic amongst Jews in the
time of the New Testament.
Let us, then, look through the pages of the New Testament to find
evidence for whether Aramaic was the predominant spoken
language at the time, or not...
First, we come to the famous words of Jesus on the cross:
Matthew 27:46; “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a
loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
The New Testament is at pains to record the exact words spoken by
Jesus. But although he is clearly quoting from Psalm 22, the Hebrew
of Psalm 22 is not exactly being quoted. The Hebrew word for
“abandon” is azav, so the expression in the Hebrew of Psalm 22 is
“azavtani”. But here, Jesus says “sabachthani”. This is from the
Aramaic verb “sabach” which is used over and over again in the
Aramaic New Testament. It is a very common Aramaic word,
meaning “to leave, forsake, abandon”. It is approximately equivalent
to the Hebrew verb “azav”, although the Aramaic verb does have
other nuances of meaning which are not present in the Hebrew. This
is clear evidence that, on the cross, Jesus spoke Aramaic.
It should also be noted that the pronunciation of “Eli”, meaning “my
God”, is interesting in that it varies in different gospels. In Mark, it is
recorded differently, as “Eloi, Eloi”. Why the difference? In Aramaic,
“my God” is “alahi”, but as this is being transliterated into Greek,
and Greek has no letter for “h”, there is a problem in how to write
(or transliterate) it into Greek. Dropping the “h”, or aspirate, entirely,
leads to “Eli”. Trying to represent that an “h” or aspirate is at least

present, leads to “eloi”. But again, this emphasises that, on the cross,
Jesus was certainly speaking Aramaic. The evidence could not be
clearer.
Let us look at another well-known passage:
Mark 5:41; “And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto
her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto
thee, arise.”
Now, “talitha” is an extremely common Aramaic word for “girl”.
Over and over again, the Aramaic New Testament uses the Aramaic
word for “boy” (“talya”) and “girl” (“talitha”). They are the Aramaic
equivalent of the Hebrew “yeled” (for “boy”) and “yalda” (for
“girl”). “Kumi” means “arise” when addressing a female, and is the
same in Hebrew or Aramaic. But again, by using such a common
and obvious Aramaic word, it is obvious, again, that Jesus spoke
Aramaic. The Greek New Testament is at pains to point out that
Jesus spoke Aramaic. His Aramaic words are literally being
transliterated from Aramaic into Greek, so that there can be no
doubt.
Another example is:
Mark 7:34; “And looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to
him, “Ephphatha,” which is “be opened”.
Depending on how the Aramaic is understood here, this is either a
passive of the Aramaic verb “to open”, hence the translation, “be
opened”, or the Aphel (causative) verb, that is, “be opened” as an
imperative. Note that both of these forms are characteristically
Aramaic – the way that passives verbs are conjugated in Hebrew
(the Niphal) and causative (Hiphil) are completely different to
Aramaic.
Let us look at another well-known example, quoting from the King
James Bible:
1Cor. 16:22; “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him
be Anathema Maranatha”.
The word “Maranatha”, short and sweet though it is, is a fascinating
triple word-play in Aramaic. In Aramaic, and specifically Syriac,
A R A MA I C I N T H E NE W TE STAME N T 1 49
with only slight pauses to break up the words, it can mean either:
➔ “Maran atha”, our Lord comes, or our Lord is coming.
➔ “Mara natha”, our Lord will come.
➔ “Mara na atha”, our Lord, please come!
Either way, this incredible single word is characteristically Aramaic.
It cannot be Hebrew. It is a beautiful and amazing play on words,
and it is easy to see how the word would become popular, being so
rich in related meanings.
Let us look at another example of an Aramaic phrase in the New
Testament which is definitely Aramaic, and cannot be Hebrew.
After Judas betrays Jesus, he realizes the enormity of what he has
done, and (as the Scriptures spoke beforehand) he kills himself. The
place where he dies is called Aceldama:
Acts 1:19; “And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem;
insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue,
Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.”
This verse says that Aceldama, is the name of the field, “in their own
[or proper] language”, i.e. in the language that the people of
Jerusalem spoke. If we can identify that language, we identify which
language was spoken by the people of Jerusalem – be it Latin, Greek,
Hebrew, or Aramaic.
And we find that “Aceldama” is (and can only be) Aramaic. It is a
construct form of “Hakel Dama”, from “Hakel”, the very common
Aramaic word for “field”, and “dama” meaning “the blood”. This
phrase cannot be Hebrew. The Aramaic word for “field” is hakel,
whereas in Hebrew the equivalent word is “sadeh”. “The field of
blood” in Hebrew would be “Sadeh haDam”. Thus, if words mean
anything at all, this verse proves that the people of Jerusalem spoke
Aramaic, not Hebrew. The debate is settled. End of argument. The
Scriptures have spoken. To disagree would be to “kick against the
pricks” (Acts 9:5), the pricks being the words of Scripture
themselves, the goads or nails fastened by the masters of assemblies
(Ecclesiastes 12:11).
But if we continue our search in the New Testament, we find many
more Aramaic words and expressions. It is as though these words
have been left there on purpose, to prove (for once and all) that
Aramaic is the language of the New Testament.
A further example is the word Raca in Matthew’s gospel:
Matt. 5:22; “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with
his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:
and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger
of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in
danger of hell fire.”
It is sometimes said that Raca is related to the Hebrew word Rek,
meaning empty, and there may well be a play in words in both the
Hebrew and Aramaic languages, but the form of the word Raca
indicates that it is Aramaic. In Aramaic, it is from the verb to spit,
meaning that spitting on someone as a sign of contempt was a
practise which could bring you in danger of the judgement.
A further example is the word Mammon in the gospels:
Matt. 6:24; “No man can serve two masters: for either he will
hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one,
and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”
Mammon is an Aramaic loan-word which became adopted into
medieval Hebrew, and hence into modern Hebrew to mean
“finance”. However, the original Aramaic word meant money, or
wealth. Thus, you cannot worship (serve) both God and money.
A further example is the word Rabboni:
John 20:16; “Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and
saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.”
While this does sound like the Hebrew word Rabbi, the Hebrew
equivalent is Rav (not the English word Rabbi), while the form
Rabboni is characteristically Aramaic. Thus, once again, we have an
indication in the pages of the New Testament that the ordinary
people spoke Aramaic, rather than Hebrew.
As well as the Aramaic words throughout the text of the New
Testament which we have just looked at, that Aramaic was the
common language of the time is demonstrated by the widespread
choice of Aramaic names for people in the New Testament.
An obvious example is when Jesus calls Peter Cephas, which is from
the Aramaic Keyfa, meaning Rock. Again, this is an Aramaic word,

with no Hebrew cognate equivalent. The Hebrew words are either
even (stone) or tsur (rock).
And it is well-known that the Aramaic word for son, is bar, as in bar-
mitzvah. The Hebrew equivalent is ben, as in Ben Zion or Ben Gurion.
Thus, demonstrating once again that Aramaic was the common
language of the people in New Testament times, we have a whole
host of peoples’ names which are Aramaic, all starting with bar.
Examples include:
➔ Bar abbas, the name of the robber released instead of Jesus.
His name (ironically!) means “the son of the father”.
➔ Bartholemew, or Bar Tulmai in Aramaic.
➔ Simon bar Jonah, for Peter.
➔ Bartimaeus, as in the blind beggar Bartimaeus.
➔ Barnabas, meaning “the son of consolation” in Aramaic.
➔ Bar-Jesus, the name of the false prophet, a Jew, the sorcerer
in Acts 13:6.
Of course, many more examples could have been given, but these
should suffice to show that Aramaic was in extensive use, with
Aramaic names being commonplace.
As well as the names of people, there are many place names which
are clearly Aramaic, rather than Greek or Hebrew. Examples include:
John 19:13; “When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought
Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is
called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.”
The term “Hebrew” here refers to the Hebrew (Judean) dialect of
Aramaic, as demonstrated by the form of the word Gabbatha, which
is easily identifiable as Aramaic. The ending “atha” is the very
common ending for feminine nouns in Aramaic, as is explained in
the series of video lessons on Learning Aramaic for Beginners that are
available to subscribers of JesusSpokeAramaic.com.
Another example is:
John 19:17; “And he bearing his cross went forth into a place
called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew

Golgotha:”
Again, here, we see the common feminine ending to the Aramaic
word Golgotha.
A final example is:
John 5:2; “Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool,
which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five
porches.”
The word, or place-name, Bethesda, is again an Aramaic form.
Although many more examples could be given, these examples
should be sufficient to demonstrate that Aramaic is the authentic
cultural context in which the New Testament was written.
In addition, there are many instances when the New Testament itself
explicitly states that it is translating from Aramaic. It actually says
that it is interpreting from a written Aramaic source!
Let us look at a few examples:
Mark 5:41; “And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto
her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto
thee, arise.”
Mark 15:22; “And they bring him unto the place Golgotha,
which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.”
Mark 15:34; “And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud
voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being
interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
John 1:38; “Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and
saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi,
(which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?”
John 1:41; “He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith
unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted,
the Christ.”
John 1:42; “And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus
beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt
be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.”
John 9:7; “And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam,
(which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and
washed, and came seeing.”
Acts 4:36; “And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed
Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a
Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,”
Acts 9:36; “Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named
Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was
full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.”
Acts 13:8; “But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by
interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy
from the faith.”
In these examples, there is a written Aramaic word or name, and the
Greek translation actually tells you that it is translating.
How much more obvious does it have to get? If words are to mean
anything, these words have to mean what they say they mean,
which is that the Greek New Testament is translating from an
Aramaic original source.
And so, in this chapter, we have seen clear and obvious evidence
that Jesus spoke Aramaic, that Aramaic was the language commonly
spoken by everyone around Jesus, and that Aramaic was (by their
own admission) the native language of the people of Jerusalem.
People around Jesus were named in Aramaic. Place names were in
Aramaic. The New Testament itself often explicitly states that it is
translating from Aramaic.
But all this evidence is, as it were, on the surface level. It is all
explicitly stated. Without doing any real work or analysis, we find
(just by observation) all the evidence we need, that Jesus spoke
Aramaic, and that Aramaic was the language used by everyone
around Jesus.
But if we work just a little bit harder, and scratch very gently at the
thin veneer of Greek in the New Testament in Greek, we find that the
Greek unmistakably gives way to the Aramaic underneath. While
that is beyond the scope of the current book, all the evidence is
available in the numerous video lessons about the Aramaic New
Testament which are available to subscribers of
JesusSpokeAramaic.com.
Indeed, much of the groundwork has already been done by previous
generations of Bible scholars. These ideas are not revolutionary
beams of light from Outer Space, coming from nowhere, and
unexpected. We are only standing on the shoulders of giants,
stepping in the places where others have stood, presenting evidence
that is already known, but presenting it all in bite-sized chunks for
easier spiritual digestion.
Many others have already analysed the New Testament in extreme
detail, uncovering the evidence that it was originally written in
Aramaic, later to be translated into Greek.
An example of a previous work investigating the Aramaic origins of
the New Testament is the book, The Aramaic Origins of the Fourth
Gospel by Charles Burney. It provides ample evidence that John’s
gospel was originally written in Aramaic. But while that book is
limited in its scope to the Fourth Gospel, many of its methods and
conclusions can equally be applied to every other book in the New
Testament.
In fact, such a study has already been done, and the results are
already available. For instance, the book, The Aramaic Origins of the
New Testament by Andrew Gabriel Roth, uncovers much more
evidence that Aramaic is demonstrably behind all the books of the
New Testament, not just John’s gospel.
Similarly, the book Was the New Testament REALLY Written in Greek?
uncovers very detailed evidence which reveals that the Greek New
Testament was, indeed, translated from an Aramaic original. Not just
a spoken original, but an original that was already in written form at
the time the translation into Greek took place.
As we will see in the chapter on the Aramaic Peshitta New
Testament, this is what the Churches of the East have always known.
We will present specific and detailed evidence to show that it is what
the West believed for centuries, until modern revisionist theory took
a complete U-turn, when churches and Bible societies were
undermined by academics who neither believed the Scriptures, nor
thought it to be the inspired Word of God, nor respected their own
earlier theories and principles.
If we get back to the Aramaic origins of the New Testament, we get

back to true and authentic Biblical roots. We engraft ourselves back
into the root-stock of the Scriptures, and we re-gain our moorings,
anchoring our faith to the Scriptures – rather than being adrift at sea,
not knowing who to believe or what to think.
Get back to the Aramaic, and we get back to the language in which
(alongside Hebrew) God chose to reveal His Word.
The Bible’s second Holy Language.
Aramaic – The Language of

Jesus
I N THIS book so far, we have looked at Aramaic in its cultural

context, tracing its use through time and down through whole
world empires. Many of these chapters have established the fact
that Aramaic was the normal, everyday, spoken language across the
Middle East at the time of Jesus, in New Testament times. Thus, just
as Aramaic was spoken for centuries – even millennia – before the
New Testament, in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Empires –
so, too it was spoken during the time that the Roman Empire ruled
over Israel, and so, too, it continued to be spoken in the Middle East
for centuries afterwards – in fact, as we shall see, well into Crusader
times, and Aramaic continues to be spoken today.
You can get free access to an entire video lesson about Aramaic being the
language of Jesus, entitled Aramaic - The Language of Jesus, by following the link below:
http://JesusSpokeAramaic.com/Lessons/History-of-Aramaic/Aramaic-Jesus
With all this historical background and context, it should therefore

come as no surprise that Aramaic was the normal, everyday, spoken
language at the time of Jesus. Many other chapters have established
this fact beyond doubt. However, to bring all this evidence together,
and to introduce other more detailed chapters which will explore
these issues further, in this chapter we shall bring together some of
the main lines of evidence that Jesus, as a religious Jew in Israel in
the first century A.D., would have spoken Aramaic.
First, let us examine what is written in mainstream, independent,
encyclopaedias. While encyclopaedias are not always correct and
they are revised over time as new evidence comes to light, or as new
A R A MA I C – TH E LAN GU AGE OF JE S U S 157
scholars revise previous opinions, nevertheless Solomon the wise in

the Book of Proverbs tells us that “in the multitude of counsellors
there is safety.” The Law of Moses also says “at the mouth of two
witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be
established.” Solomon also tells us in the Book of Proverbs that, “a
threefold cord is not quickly broken.”
Thus, if at least three reliable mainstream encyclopaedias all tell us
the same thing, it should settle the matter. What then, do
independent encyclopaedias tell us about the language that Jesus
spoke? Let us examine a number of encyclopaedias from various
backgrounds, both religious and secular.
In Wikipedia, there is a whole (interesting!) article on the “Language
of Jesus”. Let us quote from this article:
“It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily
spoke Aramaic, the common language of Judea in the first
century A.D., most likely a Galilean dialect distinguished from
that of Jerusalem. The towns of Nazareth and Capernaum in
Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were Aramaic-
speaking communities.”
Wikipedia’s research is good enough for me. But let’s go on to
examine other sources.
The New Advent Encyclopaedia, which is an online Catholic
encyclopaedia, has numerous references all throughout to the fact
that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Like Wikipedia, it confirms that Aramaic
was the commonly spoken language in the first century in Judea.
Now admittedly, this is a Catholic encyclopaedia and therefore
biased towards Catholic doctrines, but on neutral issues it is
nevertheless well researched with articles which have copious
references and the reasoning behind their conclusions.
Let us look at a few examples:
“It is obvious that our Lord, who spoke an Aramaic dialect, gave
to some of his disciples an Aramaic title.”
“This verbal agreement in the Greek Gospels is all the more
surprising, as Jesus spoke in Aramaic.”
“Still, considering the fact that Aramaic was the language
commonly spoken in Palestine at that time, we must conclude

that Our Blessed Lady’s secret was originally written in
Aramaic, though it must have been translated into Greek before
St. Luke utilized it.”
“Papias says that Matthew wrote the Logia in the Hebrew
language; St. Irenæus and Eusebius maintain that he wrote his
gospel for the Hebrews in their national language, and the same
assertion is found in several writers. Matthew would, therefore,
seem to have written in modernized Hebrew, the language then
used by the scribes for teaching. But, in the time of Christ, the
national language of the Jews was Aramaic, and when, in the
New Testament, there is mention of the Hebrew language
(Hebrais dialektos), it is Aramaic that is implied. Hence, the
aforesaid writers may allude to the Aramaic and not to the
Hebrew. Besides, as they assert, the Apostle Matthew wrote his
Gospel to help popular teaching. To be understood by his
readers who spoke Aramaic, he would have had to reproduce
the original catechesis in this language, and it cannot be
imagined why, or for whom, he should have taken the trouble to
write it in Hebrew, when it would have had to be translated
thence into Aramaic for use in religious services. Moreover,
Eusebius (Church History III.24.6) tells us that the Gospel of
Matthew was a reproduction of his preaching, and this we know,
was in Aramaic. An investigation of the Semitic idioms observed
in the Gospel does not permit us to conclude as to whether the
original was in Hebrew or Aramaic, as the two languages are so
closely related... However, we believe the second hypothesis to
be the more probable, viz., that Matthew wrote his Gospel in
Aramaic.”
There are many, many similar quotations throughout the New
Advent encyclopaedia to show that Jesus and the disciples spoke
Aramaic as their usual everyday language.
Note also that Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ was made
famous partly for the fact that all the actors spoke Aramaic. That
Jesus spoke Aramaic is therefore the widely accepted, mainstream,
view.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia similarly agrees
with this testimony. Let us read its testimony:
A R A MA I C – TH E LAN GU AGE OF JE S U S 1 59
“See ARAMAIC LANGUAGE for proof that Jesus spoke that

language as the vernacular of the people of Palestine.”
“The name (Aramaic) is given to a form of Semitic speech, most
nearly related to Hebrew and Phoenician, but exhibiting marked
peculiarities, and subsisting in different dialects. Its original
home may have been in Mesopotamia (Aram), but it spread
North and West, and, as below shown, became the principal
tongue throughout extensive regions. After the return from the
Captivity, it displaced Hebrew as the spoken language of the
Jews in Palestine.”
The Encyclopaedia Brittanica, similarly, adds its testimony that Jesus
spoke Aramaic, and that Aramaic was the commonly spoken
language in Israel at the time that the New Testament was written. It
says:
“Aramaic dialects survived into Roman times, however,
particularly in Palestine and Syria. Aramaic had replaced
Hebrew as the language of the Jews as early as the 6th century
B.C. Certain portions of the Old Testament—i.e., the books of
Daniel and Ezra—are written in Aramaic, as are the Babylonian
and Jerusalem Talmuds. Among the Jews, Aramaic was used by
the common people, while Hebrew remained the language of
religion and government and of the upper class. Jesus and the
Apostles are believed to have spoken Aramaic, and Aramaic-
language translations (Targums) of the Old Testament circulated.
Aramaic continued in wide use until about A.D. 650, when it
was supplanted by Arabic.”
Thus, the venerable and highly-regarded Encyclopaedia Brittanica
confirms the main points which we have made in this book.
And so, mainstream encyclopaedias all agree that Jesus, and the
disciples, and Jews in Israel in general, spoke Aramaic – that
Aramaic was the dominant, generally spoken language in Judea, in
Israel, in the first century.
But let us go a step further. There are many, many independent
books, written by unrelated authors, that provide further evidence
for this very fact. These authors come from different backgrounds,
different walks of life, with different religions and beliefs, yet they
have all written entire books showing that Aramaic was the
dominant language of first century Israel, and that Jesus spoke it.
These are not single web pages, or a single article, or a valid point
here and there – but entire books on the subject, each book generally
being hundreds of pages long.
Let us continue our study of the evidence, then, by providing
examples of entire books that have been written on the subject. You
are welcome to read these books for yourself and learn more about
the subject!
NOTE: As these books were not written by ourselves at Jesus Spoke
Aramaic, we do not necessarily agree with everything written in
them!
First, Stephen Missick has written a number of books on the subject.
His books include:
➔ The Words of Jesus in the Original Aramaic.
➔ De-Coding the Language of Jesus: Spiritual Insights from the
Aramaic.
➔ Aramaic: the Language of Jesus of Nazareth.
Stephen Missick’s books are well worth reading. They have been
widely circulated and have received good reviews on Amazon.
Although his views are controversial, James Trimm’s book, The
Hebrew and Aramaic Origin of the New Testament also establishes the
Semitic (and Aramaic) origins of the New Testament, in its correct
cultural context.
An older, but incredibly well-researched book into the Aramaic
Origins of John’s Gospel is, The Aramaic Origins of the Fourth Gospel
by Charles Burney, published as early as 1868. This painstakingly
goes through the evidence to establish that John’s Gospel must have
come from a written Aramaic source. We need look no further than
the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament text.
And it takes no imagination or leap of faith to realize that if John’s
Gospel was first written in Aramaic, it makes perfect sense that
John’s other writings must also have been first written in Aramaic –
John’s Epistles (1 John, 2 John and 3 John) and the book of
Revelation, which was given to John on the island of Patmos, being
Christ’s last and final prophetic revelation.
But with just a little more research and digging around to find the
facts, entire books have been written to show that it is not just John’s
Gospel that was written first in Aramaic. Book by book, verse by
verse, by carefully examining the text of the Aramaic New Testament
and comparing it to the Greek New Testament text, we can establish
that the entire New Testament (that is, every single book) was also
first written in Aramaic.
This has already been done. The results are available for all to see, if
we would only look.
First, the book, Was the New Testament REALLY Written in Greek?,
written by Christopher (Raphael) Lataster, provides detailed,
systematic and conclusive evidence that Jesus not only spoke
Aramaic, but that the Aramaic New Testament contains the best
record the New Testament text, and that the Greek was derived from
the Aramaic.
Continuing along this same line, Andrew Gabriel Roth has also
written a similar book, Ruach Qadim: Aramaic Origins of the New
Testament. This book contains ample evidence for the Semitic roots of
the New Testament, that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and that the Aramaic
New Testament is the original and most authentic text from which
the Greek was subsequently derived.
These then, are a number of detailed books, each hundreds of pages
long, which provide a wealth of detailed evidence that Aramaic was
the dominant language at the time of Jesus, that Aramaic was the
primary language spoken in Israel in the first century A.D., that
Jesus spoke Aramaic, and that the New Testament has Aramaic
origins – and specifically, that it was first written in Aramaic and
shortly afterwards translated into Greek for a wider audience – just
as the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek for a wider audience,
to form the Septuagint or LXX.
These books are by no means exhaustive, and there are many more
that could have been quoted.
What we find, then, are all the mainstream encyclopaedias agreeing
that Jesus spoke Aramaic and that Aramaic was the dominant
language in first century Israel. As we have seen, entire books have
been written to provide further detail, if you care to find out more. If
you believe these things, you are on safe ground. There is a wealth of
evidence backing up your beliefs. But if you do not believe these

things, then you are flying in the face of all the evidence.
But in addition to the books and encyclopaedia articles which we
have quoted previously, this book provides a number of detailed
chapters which explore the key lines of argument in further detail.
Let’s introduce the main chapters of this book, as we steadily learn
just how widespread Aramaic was, and the impact Aramaic has had
on the New Testament and on Judaism. Many of these chapters focus
on the time around the first century A.D. and Israel in particular,
because this is such a heavily disputed time.
Having examined the use of Aramaic in the Assyrian, Babylonian
and Persian Empires, we look at Aramaic (and Hebrew) after the
Babylonian Exile, and in the Dead Sea Scrolls. These key chapters
establishes Hebrew and Aramaic as dominant languages amongst
Jews, rather than Greek, and look at the transition from Hebrew as
the primary spoken language, to Aramaic becoming dominant.
We examine the Maccabean revolt, and learn that Jews rebelled
against Greek domination. Greek culture, language and philosophy
(or ‘wisdom’) became hated among mainstream Jews following these
atrocious events. Pagan Greek practices were forced on them, and
they fought back, and gained the victory. Jews wanted to get away
from Greek paganism and language, and back to their Semitic
(Hebrew and Aramaic) roots.
We take a look at the idea that Jesus spoke Greek, and examine the
historical evidence against this view. Instead, we find that, while
there certainly were pockets of Greek speakers (even amongst Jews),
Jews as a whole rebelled against Greek culture following the events
of the Maccabean revolt. We look at historical statements in the
Talmud and other writings which show this.
We examine what Josephus says about Aramaic. Josephus was an
important historian at the time, and calls Aramaic, “the language of
our country”, and “our language”. He says that he struggled to learn
Greek, and that even after many years he never learned to
pronounce it correctly, and that Jews did not encourage the learning
of foreign languages such as Greek.
We look at the Bar Kokhba revolt, and the impact this had on
Hebrew and Aramaic.
Since New Testament times are so pivotal and important, we spend

an entire chapter devoted to the use of Aramaic in the New
Testament – a very eye-opening chapter which will shed light on
many words and phrases in the New Testament. We learn that the
New Testament (in Greek) actually says it is translating from
Aramaic!
We explore the testimony of “the Church Fathers” – the early
believers in the first and subsequent centuries – and read for
ourselves what they said about the Aramaic origins of the New
Testament writings. Examining these early historical writings is very
instructive.
However, we also uncover the early history of the Church – the early
believers themselves. Whereas (in the West) we think of “the
Church” spreading only West – into Europe with Paul’s missionary
journeys – we find that the Church spread East as well. In fact, it
might surprise you just how far east the early disciples went, and
how early, and how well established the Aramaic New Testament
was amongst those early believers. It is a fascinating story – but one
that is almost never heard in the West, due to our bias towards
hearing our own history endlessly repeated, but ignoring the history
of everyone else.
We look at the cultural affinity that Aramaic has with Judaism. We
see that, while Hebrew obviously has a special place in that it is the
Holy Language, Aramaic, too is intimately associated with Judaism.
It is the second holy language. One without the other would be
unthinkable. Hebrew and Aramaic have grown together like two
vines, becoming inter-twined down through the centuries in the
pages of the Bible. But Christianity is an extension of Judaism. The
Gentiles were “grafted in” through belief in the hope of Israel. They
too, should have Hebrew and Aramaic as their two holy languages,
and they, too, should rebel against the pagan influences of Greek.
As we establish just how well-entrenched Aramaic was in the first
century, and how the Aramaic New Testament was at the heart of the
early believers, we examine the earliest translations that were made.
We discover that the earliest Bibles, like Armenian, were translated
from “the Syriac”, from the Aramaic New Testament, and not from
Greek as many would assume. The early Arabic Bibles, too, were
translated partially from the Aramaic New Testament.
As we examine these many facets of Aramaic, like a jewel held up to

the light which reveals many beautiful colors as the light of Truth
shines through it, you will note just how intertwined Aramaic is
with the Holy Scriptures. Aramaic is intimately intertwined with the
Bible, God’s Word, with the Jewish people, with Judaism, and with
all the nations that had dealings with Israel. We are on safe ground
as we study Aramaic. We can trust it. We are tied to a safe Biblical
rock. But once we leave our moorings, once we let loose the anchor,
we sail adrift at sea, driven by every wind of doctrine and tossed by
the wild waves of the Gentile sea of nations and their pagan, anti-
Biblical ‘wisdom’.
Jesus spoke Aramaic, and in Aramaic we will find rest for our souls.
By contrast, Jews fought against pagan Greek influence. They
rebelled. The rejected the Greek language. They did not encourage
learning the language of the pagan nations around them. Jews were
discouraged, even forbidden, from speaking Greek. So if Jesus, a
religious Jew, and the disciples, unlearned men as they were, would
have been discouraged from speaking Greek and would have
avoided learning and using Greek, how could the New Testament
have been first written in a language they did not speak or
understand?
Does it not make more sense that the New Testament was first
written in Aramaic, and then translated (later) into Greek for a wider
audience, as the gospel spread West and Greek became the dominant
language of the West? That, after all, is the pattern which we find in
the Greek Septuagint or LXX. As with the Old Testament (first
Hebrew, then Greek), so with the New Testament (first Aramaic,
then Greek).
And so, chapter after chapter, enjoy this book on Aramaic – the
Bible's Second Holy Language. Study these chapters well, because
these fascinating topics will crop up again and again. They are at the
very heart of the Bible, the Holy Scriptures, the inspired Word of
God...
D I D J E W S S P E A K GR E E K? 165
Did Jews speak Greek?
T HE TITLE of this book, Discover Aramaic – The Bible's Second

Holy Language, and the name of the accompanying website,
JesusSpokeAramaic.com, obviously reflects the fact that
Aramaic was the dominant language of Israel (Palestine) in the first
century A.D., which is the context in which the New Testament was
written. There is a wealth of evidence in this book showing that
Aramaic was the language of several entire empires across the
Middle East, that the Jews fought against Greek influence in the
Maccabean revolt, that Aramaic continued in use for many centuries
afterwards – hence the Armenian Bible and early Arabic Bibles being
translated from the Aramaic New Testament – and that Aramaic
continued for many centuries after that, including right through
Moslem and Crusader times, and indeed, right through to the
present day.
You can get free access to an entire video lesson about whether Jews spoke Greek,
entitled Did Jews speak Greek?, by following the link below:
http://JesusSpokeAramaic.com/Lessons/History-of-Aramaic/Jews-Greek
Nevertheless, because of the fact that the New Testament in Greek

has gained such dominance in the West, it is a commonly held belief
that Jesus spoke Greek, and that Greek was the lingua franca, or
common language, of the whole Middle East, following Alexander
the Great’s conquests.
Most, if not all, New Testament Greek grammars, for instance, will
contain a statement that either Greek was the lingua franca of the
Middle East, or that Jesus spoke Greek, which is why the New
Testament was written in Greek. It must be understood that this,
however, is a circular argument. In other words, this argument states
that the New Testament was written in Greek because Jesus spoke
Greek. And because Jesus spoke Greek, the New Testament was
written in Greek.
But it could just as easily be argued that Jesus spoke English,
because we have the New Testament in English. English New
Testaments have outsold every other version by a substantial
margin. They have dominated the West. They have become more
popular than every other version. But that does not mean that Jesus
spoke English, or that English was the lingua franca of the Middle
East!
Instead, to understand whether Jesus really did speak Greek, and
whether Greek was the normal spoken language amongst Jews at the
time, we have to take a step back, and examine the context of when
and where the New Testament was written. How did people in
general (and Jews in particular) at the time feel about Greek, and
would they have spoken it?
We have to remember that the Middle East, in the first century A.D.,
was made up of many different peoples, languages and nations.
There were Jews and non-Jews. And within Jews, there were many
different groups which are well known and well-documented. They
include the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the scribes, secular Jews, and
other lesser-known groups such as the Essenes.
Unfortunately for the Jews, the Romans ruled in Palestine. The
Roman Emperors are well-known from history, including the
excesses of despots such as Nero and Domitian, who relentlessly
persecuted Christians. Titus and Vespasian are also well-known from
history as the destroyers of the Temple in A.D. 70. Now, the Romans
had their own language – Latin. They used Latin for official duties,
and Latin was the language used by the Romans to write their
histories, including those of Julius Caesar, Pliny, Livy, Tacitus and
Seutonius, and the various histories which they wrote.
It therefore seems highly unlikely that Jews in Israel, or anyone else
in Israel, would have needed Greek to conduct business with the
ruling Romans, since they used Latin.
Amongst Jews, therefore, what was the feeling towards Greek? Was
it a language that they learned, respected, and used for everyday
conversation? We need to do some historical research to answer this
question.
But we first need to understand that not all Jews were the same. Just
as today we have Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Orthodox Jews, Reform
Jews, and so on, so too in Palestine in the first century A.D. there was
a mixture of Jews. There were religious Jews and secular Jews. There
were Zealots. There were Essenes. There were Pharisees. There were
Sadducees. There were scribes, and other groups. They were not all
the same.
As we saw in the chapter about the Maccabean revolt, the Greek
language and culture were imposed on Jews under Antiochus. Jews
were forcibly persecuted. Eventually the Jews rebelled – and won the
victory against the Greek army. But in the process, many Jews died
and succumbed to Greek culture, Greek wisdom and the Greek
language.
We therefore find that, at the time of the New Testament, some Jews
had succumbed to Greek learning and had allowed pagan Greek
philosophy such as wisdom, devils, false ideas of heaven and hell,
and so on, to enter Judaism. These Jews had started to Hellenize
Judaism and absorb ideas from the Greek pagan culture around
them, and mainstream Judaism despised them for it.
They are known from history as Hellenized Jews, or in the New
Testament as the Grecian Jews. We read about them in the book of
Acts:
ministration.”
The hellenizing influence amongst Jews at the time was significant
enough that Wikipedia has a whole article about it.
Let us quote from Wikipedia, from the article on “Hellenistic
Judaism”:
“Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in the ancient world
that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek
culture. Until the fall of the Roman Empire and the Muslim
conquests of the Eastern Mediterranean, the main centers of
Hellenistic Judaism were Alexandria (Egypt) and Antioch
(Northern Syria—now Turkey), the two main Greek urban
settlements of the Middle East and North Africa area, both

founded at the end of the 4th century BCE in the wake of the
conquests of Alexander the Great. Hellenistic Judaism also
existed in Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period, where
there was conflict between Hellenizers and traditionalists
(sometimes called Judaizers).”
It is easy to see from this and the New Testament passages that there
was significant antagonism between mainstream Jews and these
Grecian, or hellenized, Jews. They didn’t like each other. Mainstream
Jews felt that the Grecian, hellenized Jews, were corrupting Judaism,
polluting it with their false ideas and pagan culture. Jews had earlier
fought against the Greeks in the earlier Maccabean revolt.
There was therefore intense anti-Greek feeling amongst traditional,
religious Jews. To understand the nature and intensity of these
feelings, let us consider a statement from the Babylonian Talmud:
Babylonian Talmud, Tract Baba Kama (The First Gate), Chapter
7, “At that time it was declared that cursed be he who raised
swine and cursed be he who taught his sons Greek.”
In other words, religious Jews believed that learning Greek was
something that should be cursed. It was avoided. It was disapproved
of. Greek was the language of the enemy. It represented everything
that religious and nationalistic Jews had fought for just two centuries
earlier, at the time of the Maccabean revolt.
In fact, the Talmud contains other statements that illustrate how
mainstream Jews had turned against the Greek language and Greek
culture, following the shocking events of the Maccabean revolt.
For instance, the Talmud in Soferim 1:7-8, says that the day in which
the Torah was translated into Greek, “was as difficult for the Jewish
people as the day when the Golden Calf was made.” In other words,
it was a day for national mourning and repentance. It was a disaster.
Also in the Talmud, it says that on the eighth day of the Hebrew
month Tebet the Law was written in Greek in the days of king
Ptolemy. But in says that, as a result, “And for three days darkness
covered the world.” (Gaonic additions to Megillat Ta’anit, 13).
These statements demonstrate just how strongly mainstream,
religious, Jews felt about Greek. To them, Greek was the language of
the enemy, the language and culture of everything that was

corrupting Judaism. That is why the book of Acts shows that there
was a conflict between mainstream Jews and these “Grecian Jews”.
Into this culture, then, we find that Jews in Palestine, in Israel, were
actually very anti-Greek. Josephus, the famous Jewish historian at
the time, contains many statements that demonstrate this. See the
chapter “What does Josephus say?” for further detail.
Josephus is at pains to point out that he originally wrote in Aramaic,
and only later did he translate his extensive writings into the Greek
language. Furthermore, Josephus admits that he still could not
pronounce Greek well, even after years of learning it. Even more
amazingly, he says that only a few people he knew could even speak
Greek, and that Greek learning was actually frowned upon by the
Jews.
For instance, in Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus says:
1:7 “but because this work surrounded a great deal... in process
of time, as usually happens to such as undertake great things, I
grew weary and went on slowly, it being a large subject, and a
difficult thing to translate our history into a foreign, and to us
unaccustomed, language.”
Josephus here says that Greek was to his people, the Jews, a foreign
and unaccustomed language. Translating his works from Aramaic
into Greek was a great burden for him.
20:263 “For those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far
exceed them in the learning belonging to Jews: I have also taken
a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and
understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have
so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I
cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness;”
Josephus here confirms that it took enormous difficulty for him to
learn Greek, and even after doing so, he still could not pronounce it
properly.
20:264 “for our nation does not encourage those who learn the
languages of many nations.”
We see from these statements in Josephus, and the earlier ones from
the Talmud, that amongst mainstream, religious Jews, Greek was not
spoken. Indeed, it was something which was to be avoided, and any
attempt to do so was cursed, as we saw.
Into this cultural context, therefore, let us ask the question again, Did
Jews speak Greek?
Now, the Internet is full of badly researched articles whose simplistic
argument is based on the circular argument we saw earlier, in other
words, that Greek was the lingua franca of the Middle East and
therefore Jesus spoke Greek, which is why the New Testament was
written in Greek.
As we saw earlier, there was certainly a significant minority of Jews,
called Grecian Jews in the New Testament, and Hellenized Jews
from history, who had succumbed to Greek language and culture.
They spoke Greek, and were no doubt proud of their sophisticated
wisdom and superior learning. As we saw in the Wikipedia article
earlier, Alexandria in Egypt and possibly Antioch in Turkey, were
centers for these Grecian Jews.
But first of all, Alexandria and Antioch were cities. They were not
countries, let alone whole regions. Just because those cities had
significant numbers of Greek-speaking Jews, does not mean that all
Jews everywhere else also spoke Greek. After all, New York has a
significant number of Hebrew-speaking Jews. But that doesn’t mean
that all Jews in New York speak Hebrew, or that Hebrew is the
national language of the people of New York, or that all Americans
speak Hebrew just because some Jews in New York do.
Similarly, just because there were significant numbers of Greek-
speaking Jews in Alexandria and Antioch, does not mean that all
Jews in Egypt and Syria spoke Greek, or that all Jews in those
countries spoke Greek, or that Jews in Israel spoke Greek, or that
everyone in general in the Middle East spoke Greek?! Of course not!
In particular, as we have seen from both the historian Josephus and
the Talmud, Jews in Israel, in Palestine, generally did NOT speak
Greek. They avoided it. It was frowned upon. It was considered
better to eat swine’s flesh than to learn Greek. It was a thing to be
cursed. They openly despised Greek learning and culture. Jews in
Israel didn’t need Greek to converse with the ruling Romans,
D I D J E W S S P E A K GR E E K? 1 71
because the Romans spoke Latin. Jews in Israel might occasionally

have needed some Greek words for commerce, but actually learning
Greek to speak it as their common language – no, that is impossible.
We also have to remember the cultural context into which the New
Testament was written. Jesus, of course, was a religious Jew par
excellence. He was the Messiah, and he came to fulfil the Law. He was
in the line of David, and he would have been king if the Maccabean
dynasty had not been ended by the Romans. As religious Jews, Jesus
and the disciples, of all the Jews in Israel at the time, would have
been the most unlikely to have spoken Greek.
And if they did not speak Greek, if they would have avoided it, how
could the gospels and the other New Testament writings have been
first written in Greek, and only later translated into Aramaic? That
would be a cultural anomaly.
Does it not make more cultural sense, as religious Jews in first-
century Palestine, that the gospels and the other New Testament
writings were first written in what Josephus calls “our language”
and “the language of our country”, and then (later) translated into
Greek for a wider audience, just as the Hebrew Old Testament was
later translated into Greek for a wider audience?
In summary, we need to understand the culture and context of the
New Testament. Just because the Greek New Testament has become
entrenched in the West today, and just because there were pockets of
Greek-speaking Jews in major cities such as Alexandria and possibly
Antioch, we should not make the false leap of logic to assume that
everyone across the Middle East, religious Jews included, spoke
Greek as their common language.
That just was not the case. Jews, in Palestine, in the first century
A.D., spoke Aramaic as their normal, everyday language.
And therefore, as the Messiah, as a religious Jew and not a Grecian
Jew, in Palestine, in the first century A.D., Jesus spoke Aramaic. As
Josephus says, it was the language of his country.
But Greek? No. As Josephus says, that was a foreign language and
Jews were not encouraged to learn the languages of the surrounding
nations. It was better to eat swine’s flesh than to learn Greek.
Aramaic and the Church

Fathers
O
VER THE LAST few chapters, we have been looking at the
use of Aramaic in Israel in the first century A.D. We saw
that Josephus, the most important Jewish historian at the
time, records clearly that Aramaic was “the language of his country”
(meaning Israel!)
We also explored the use of Aramaic in the New Testament, seeing
that there are a smattering of words and phrases in the New
Testament which are Aramaic in origin. Most of these are uniquely,
and specifically, Aramaic, rather than Hebrew.
We also explored the wider use of Aramaic in Israel, seeing that
Aramaic was used by Jews generally at the time of Jesus and all
throughout the Land of Israel. We also saw that Aramaic was the
normal language of Egypt – although Alexandria, specifically, seems
to have had a Greek-speaking population, and in fact, developed
over time to become a centre of apostasy against the Bible and the
true faith in God.
We also saw that Jews, generally, rebelled against Greek, and actively
discouraged the speaking and teaching of Greek, because it
invariably led the Jews away from the Hebrew Scriptures and
towards the pagan practices and beliefs of the nations around them.
The Jews rebelled against the imposition of Greek language and
customs in the Maccabean Revolt.
With that background in Aramaic, it is instructive to continue our
studies by looking at the “Church Fathers” and what they wrote. It is
important to understand that only the Bible should be our source of
A R AMAIC AND THE CH U RC H FATH E R S 173
authority on doctrinal matters, and in Matthew’s gospel, Jesus

specifically speaks against calling those in authority “Father”,
because we have one Father, that is, God:
Matthew 23:8-12; “But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your
Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man
your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in
heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master,
even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your
servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and
he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.”
Nevertheless, the “Church Fathers” are an important source of
history, and the historical records they wrote are instructive for
many reasons.
Let us, therefore, examine the writings of the Church Fathers to see
what they wrote, in the context of Aramaic, and specifically, the
language in which the New Testament was given.
One of the earliest and best source of information for the early
history of the Christian Church, and how it spread, is Eusebius’
classic Ecclesiastical History.
Wikipedia has a whole article about Eusebius, and the opening
sentence tells us about him:
“Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 260/265 – 339/340), also known as
Eusebius Pamphili, was a Roman historian, exegete, and
Christian polemicist of Greek descent. He became the bishop of
Caesarea about 314. Together with Pamphilus, he was a scholar
of the Biblical canon and is regarded as an extremely well
learned Christian of his time.”
Eusebius, therefore, is acknowledged as an extremely well learned
and respected Christian, and one of his specialities was in the
Biblical canon. Living much closer to those times than we do now, if
anyone ought to know how the Bible was handed down by the
apostles, it was surely him.
As we noted more fully in our introduction to the Estrangela script
(available at JesusSpokeAramaic.com), Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical
History contains the record of King Abgarus of Edessa, who wrote to
Jesus to ask him to come and heal him of his disease, knowing that
Jesus had already cleansed many lepers, and healed the lame, the
blind and the sick.
But Eusebius tells us that these royal records were written in Syriac,
the dialect of Aramaic which is used to preserve the Aramaic New
Testament and the Aramaic Old Testament. This provides further
evidence for much of what has been explained in other chapters of
this book – namely, that Aramaic, and Syriac in particular, was
extensively used at the time, including for communication in the
Land of Israel, even including communication with Jesus himself!
Let us read what Eusebius says in regards to the letter of King
Abgarus:
1Euseb. 13:5; “And all that our Savior had promised received
through him its fulfillment. You have written evidence of these
things taken from the archives of Edessa, which was at that time
a royal city. For in the public registers there, which contain
accounts of ancient times and the acts of Abgarus, these things
have been found preserved down to the present time. But there
is no better way than to hear the epistles themselves which we
have taken from the archives and have literally translated from
the Syriac language in the following manner.”
Eusebius then goes on to provide the letter of Abgarus to Jesus and
his disciples, with their response. Again, Eusebius records that all
this communication was in Syriac.
We read as follows:
“Copy of an epistle written by Abgarus the ruler to Jesus, and
sent to him at Jerusalem by Ananias the swift courier.”
1Euseb. 13:11; “To these epistles there was added the following
account in the Syriac language. “After the ascension of Jesus,
Judas, who was also called Thomas, sent to him Thaddeus, an
apostle, one of the Seventy. When he was come he lodged with
Tobias, the son of Tobias. When the report of him got abroad, it
was told Abgarus that an apostle of Jesus was come, as he had
written him.”
As we saw in the chapter about Syriac, Syriac is a massively
important and influential dialect of Aramaic, going from several
centuries B.C., going right through the times of Jesus and beyond,
being used for writing contemporary histories of the Crusades as

late as the 1200s and 1300s, and has continued in use ever since.
With the importance of the Syriac dialect of Aramaic being what it is,
and with the classic historian Eusebius (“an extremely well learned
Christian of his time”, as we read earlier) recording that the
communication between King Abgarus and Jesus and the disciples
was written in Syriac, there can surely be no doubt that Jesus knew
Syriac, and used it for communication. Should it not be expected,
then, that the teaching of Jesus and the disciples would be first
written in Syriac, the most important dialect of Aramaic in the first
century?
But Eusebius continues:
1Euseb. 13:22; “These things [i.e. Eusebius writing his history]
were done in the three hundred and fortieth year. I have inserted
them here in their proper place, translated from the Syriac
literally, and I hope to good purpose.”
As late as the third and fourth century A.D., therefore, Eusebius is
saying that earlier writings, going back to the time of Jesus, were
written in Syriac.
It makes perfect sense, therefore, for the Aramaic New Testament to
have been written in Syriac, by the disciples of Jesus, at the time of
Jesus. No other language would have been a more obvious choice.
But Eusebius goes on to record how, following the death of James the
Just, heresies began to arise in the early Christian Church:
4Euseb. 22:1; “Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which
have come down to us has left a most complete record of his
own views… The same author also describes the beginnings of
the heresies which arose in his time… after James the Just had
suffered martyrdom…”
But in those early days, before those heresies which Eusebius records
had developed to become full-blown apostasy, Eusebius records that
the Gospels were actually written in Syriac, and preserved by the
Hebrews (i.e. by the Jewish converts, rather than by Greeks or other
nations):
4Euseb. 22:8; “And he wrote of many other matters, which we
have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in

their appropriate places. And from the Syriac Gospel according
to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue,
showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews, and he
mentions other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of
the Jews.”
This, then, is clear evidence, as Eusebius clearly states, that the
Gospels were first written in the Syriac dialect of Aramaic – that
same Syriac which King Abgarus had used to write letters to Jesus,
and the same Syriac in which the disciples had replied. Could
“ignorant and unlearned” fishermen in Galilee read and write
Aramaic? Of course! Aramaic was their mother tongue! And Galilee
was very close to Edessa in Syria! They used Syriac to
communicate… Why should it be any surprise to hear that the New
Testament was first written in Syriac, and later translated into other
languages as appropriate?
If we simply follow through the evidence given by the early
historians, we can clearly see that Syriac (Aramaic) was the language
in which Jesus and the disciples wrote, and in which the Gospels and
the remainder of the New Testament were first given. These are the
facts which Eusebius is telling us.
Syriac, then, was the language of Jesus and the disciples, and in
which the New Testament was first written and divinely preserved.
The evidence is that it was later translated into Greek and other
languages, including Coptic, Latin, and other languages. Eusebius
records that this order, first Syriac and then Greek, was the order for
other faithful writings at the time:
4Euseb. 30:1; “In the same reign, as heresies were abounding in
the region between the rivers, a certain Bardesanes, a most able
man and a most skillful disputant in the Syriac tongue, having
composed dialogues against Marcion’s followers and against
certain others who were authors of various opinions, committed
them to writing in his own language, together with many other
works. His pupils, of whom he had very many (for he was a
powerful defender of the faith), translated these productions
from the Syriac into Greek.”
From Syriac, that all-important dialect of Aramaic, ecclesiastical
writings at the time (including the New Testament) were

subsequently translated first into Greek, then from Greek to other
languages such as Latin. But it all started with Syriac! And that
Syriac is preserved down to the present day in the Aramaic New
Testament!
Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History contains other indications that the
books of the New Testament were first written in Syriac (i.e.
Aramaic!) and then later translated into other languages (such as
Greek):
3Euseb. 38:2; “Wherefore it has seemed reasonable to reckon it
with the other writings of the apostle. For as Paul had written to
the Hebrews in his native tongue, some say that the evangelist
Luke, others that this Clement himself, translated the epistle.”
Thus, from all the evidence so far, it should be clear that “the native
tongue” of Paul, a Jew from Tarsus, an Israelite indeed, was
Aramaic. Therefore, Eusebius is saying that Paul’s extensive writings
in the New Testament were written in Aramaic.
But Eusebius goes on to say:
6Euseb. 14:2; “He says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the
work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the
Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and
published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of
expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.”
Although Eusebius says “the Hebrew language”, it means the
Hebrew dialect [of the native language], that is, the Aramaic dialect
used by the Hebrew people, the Jews, in Israel. The Greek word used
by Eusebius in this passage is not the word glossa, or language, but
fona, or sound, i.e. the sound, or pronunciation, used by the Hebrew
people, the Jews, in Israel.
Similarly, let us look at the next quotation from Eusebius:
3Euseb. 39:16; “These things are related by Papias concerning
Mark. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then
Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every
one interpreted them as he was able.”
Again, the word Eusebius uses for Hebrew “language” here is not
language, but rather the Greek word dialecta, i.e. it is the dialect of
Aramaic spoken by the Hebrews, the Jews, to distinguish it from the
Aramaic spoken by the surrounding nations, both far and wide.
Eusebius, however, confirms this in other places:
6Euseb. 25:4; “Among the four Gospels, which are the only
indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have
learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who
was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ,
and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and
published in the Hebrew language.”
Again, if we examine the Greek word used by Eusebius in this
passage, he uses the word “Hebrew arrangement” for “Hebrew
language”. He is saying that the New Testament is being recorded
according to how Jews locally, write and preserve it, in their own
language. And, as we have seen from both Josephus and the New
Testament itself, that local language was Aramaic.
In other words, just as Josephus was at pains to point out, everything
in Israel was spoken “in the language of their own country”, that is,
in the dialect of Aramaic spoken in Israel.
This is why studying the words of the Aramaic New Testament is so
important. As far as we can best determine, it contains the local
preaching and words of the Lord Jesus himself, and the disciples, as
near as they were to the words and phrases originally used.
It is surely wonderful and exciting to have this same preaching
available to us today! May we learn and study from the Aramaic
New Testament and the other available Aramaic writings! They are
as close as we can possibly get to the very words of Jesus himself.
Along with the New Testament writings and those of Josephus, we
are seeing a pattern emerge here. First, writings in Israel are written
in Aramaic, and then they are translated into other languages such
as Greek and Latin, potentially much later. As we examine the
Aramaic New Testament and compare the Aramaic directly with the
Greek, we will see direct evidence of exactly this – that the Aramaic
came first, that the Greek came later, with Latin later still. Over time,
Greek and Latin simply became more common and more popular –
at least in Europe. In the East, Aramaic retained its place as the
original and only source of the New Testament.

Before we conclude this chapter, let us think some more about the
term “Church Fathers”. The Church Fathers were the early historians
of the Christian Church, recording how church doctrine changed
and steadily departed from the Holy Scriptures, from “the faith once
delivered unto the saints”, as the Epistle of Jude describes it.
Eusebius records this falling away, as heretical ideas start to enter
into the church, as the apostles die and can no longer defend the
Holy Scriptures against the heretics.
But when most people think of “the Church Fathers”, they will think
of the voluminous records of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers and
the Post-Nicene Church Fathers. Those Church Fathers wrote
primarily in Greek and Latin.
But, once again, those Church Fathers only tell half the story. There is
another whole group of Church Fathers that is largely ignored in the
West today – and those are the Syriac Church Fathers.
In Wikipedia, there is a main page about the Church Fathers:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers
It spends most of its time discussing the Greek and Latin Church
Fathers, with only a small section on the Syriac Church Fathers – i.e.
those early believers and historians who wrote in the Syriac
language.
But those early Syriac Church Fathers, though they are largely
ignored in the West today, wrote voluminous records. They include:
➔ Aphrahat
➔ Ephrem the Syrian
➔ Isaac of Antioch
➔ Isaac of Nineveh
They are discussed in further Wikipedia articles, for those who want
to investigate further.
Thus, because the Greek and Latin Church Fathers are well known
in the West today, many will assume that Greek and Latin were the
earliest recorded writings of the Church Fathers, and hence the
earliest languages used by the early believers.
But, as we have seen through the writings of Eusebius, Syriac

writings go even further back, and are earlier still than both Greek
and Latin. And many of the earliest historians, the earliest believers,
and the Church Fathers themselves, all wrote in Syriac.
Once again, we are seeing a picture of how important Syriac is. To
ignore Syriac, that all-important dialect of Aramaic used at the time
of Jesus and the disciples, is to ignore the earliest and most
important witness of the text of the New Testament.
Let us rejoice as we read the Aramaic New Testament. Because by all
accounts, and by all the evidence, it is not only the earliest text of the
New Testament, but the original God-breathed preaching of the Lord
Jesus and the disciples. And just as the Holy Scriptures of Truth tell
us would happen, God’s Word has been preserved faithfully down
to the present day.
Let us open up its pages and drink freely from the fountain of life.
A R AMAIC AND THE DE A D SE A SC RO L L S 181
Aramaic and the Dead Sea

Scrolls
P REVIOUSLY, we have seen how Aramaic was the normal,

everyday language used by Jews in Israel around the time of
Jesus. We saw that, following the Babylonian Exile, there was
a fundamental shift from Hebrew to Aramaic. While Hebrew
continued to be spoken, and was used especially in the synagogue
and for the Hebrew Bible, Aramaic was by now becoming more
dominant and more commonly spoken.
By the time of the Maccabean Revolt, as we saw, Jews fundamentally
resisted the Greek language, Greek customs, Greek learning and
Greek philosophy. There were pockets of Greek-speaking Jews, but
Jews in Israel, specifically, were discouraged from learning Greek.
As we saw, the historian Josephus repeatedly refers to Aramaic as
being “the language of our country” (Israel). We also saw that the
New Testament itself contains many words and phrases in Aramaic,
and repeatedly refers to translating or interpreting Aramaic phrases.
In the chapter about Aramaic and the Church Fathers, we saw that
early historians such as Eusebius (in his classic Ecclesiastical History),
and the Church Fathers, repeatedly refer to the Gospels and other
New Testament writings as having been first written in Syriac
(Aramaic) and then translated into Greek (and later, of course, into
Latin and English).
We see a pattern emerging, then, of the very widespread use of
Aramaic in everyday use around the time of the New Testament –
not just in Israel, but across the Middle East generally.
We should not be at all surprised, therefore, to find that so many of
the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Aramaic. In a story that is now
famous, the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in caves near Qumran in
the 1940s and 1950s. These ancient manuscripts were found in
pottery jars, preserved intact in the dry heat of the desert,
undisturbed for almost two thousand years.
Whereas the initial discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls were from the
caves near Qumran, since then many other similar discoveries have
taken place across Israel, to build up a much more comprehensive
picture of the life and culture of these important times, around the
time of Jesus.
These further discoveries occur in caves all around the Dead Sea area
and the Judean desert in Israel. Photographs and discussion around
these discoveries were published by the Oxford University Press as
the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (or DJD). They stretched to an
almost complete 40 volume series, showing just how comprehensive
the collection of parchments and manuscripts were.
Other similar archaeological remains have also taken place, such as
the discoveries at Nahal Hever, or Wadi al-Khabat in Arabic:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahal_Hever
These contain two caves, The Cave of Letters, and The Cave of
Horrors in which 24 human skeletons were found. These provide
archaeological evidence of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, which we
discussed in a separate chapter.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have been fraught with political and academic
intrigue from the moment they were first discovered due to the
many claims from different peoples, groups and institutions for
ownership and access to them.
An overview of the controversies can be found on Wikipedia, on the
article about the Dead Sea Scrolls:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were first discovered, the State of Israel
(formed in 1948) did not exist, and the manuscript fragments came
into the hands of academics associated with the Catholic Church,
where they remained for the remainder of the 20th century, generally
with no access to anyone else outside of the elite group of academics
who kept tight restrictions on access to the scrolls. It is only in very

recent times, with the help of Israel and certain notable scholars, that
access to the Dead Sea Scrolls has finally been available to others.
Since the Catholic Church was so heavily involved with the initial
access to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the early theories about the origins of
the Dead Sea Scrolls rested on Qumran being a scriptorium where
scrolls were copied out, much like a Medieval monastery, which was
a concept that the Catholic Church understood.
Those theories remained unchallenged for decades, with access to
the scrolls limited to only a few scholars. Once access to the Dead
Sea Scrolls became possible for others, those early theories have been
challenged and other evidence has come to light.
More recently, archaeologists such as Professor Norman Golb have
published comprehensive, well-researched and well-argued theories
for the origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, in his excellent
book Who Wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls? The Search For The Secret Of
Qumran, Professor Golb argues that given the large numbers of
scrolls, and the many different sites in which they have now been
found, and the different handwriting, and given what we know of
other historical events happening at the time (such as the destruction
of the Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the Bar Kokhba Revolt in
A.D. 135), it is better to understand the Dead Sea Scrolls as
manuscripts belonging to different groups, largely independently,
stored in caves by different groups of people at different times, to
prevent them from being destroyed in the destruction of both A.D.
70 and A.D. 135, rather than by one single group, the Essenes, as the
Jesuits of the Catholic Church proposed.
The overview of Professor Golb’s book provides a very useful
summary of the Dead Sea Scrolls:
“Since their discovery in the Qumran caves beginning in 1947,
the Dead Sea Scrolls have been the object of intense fascination
and extreme controversy. Here Professor Norman Golb
intensifies the debate over the scrolls’ origins, arguing that they
were not the work of a small, desert-dwelling fringe sect, as
other scholars have claimed, but written by different groups of
Jews and then smuggled out of Jerusalem’s libraries before the
Roman siege of A.D 70.”
“Golb also unravels the mystery behind the scholarly monopoly

that controlled the scrolls for many years, and discusses his role
as a key player in the successful struggle to make the scrolls
widely available to both scholars and students. And he pleads
passionately for an academic politics and a renewed
commitment to the search for the truth in scroll scholarship.”
However, in the context of Aramaic, the Dead Sea Scrolls provide a
very valuable insight into the various languages spoken and used
during this important time. That is, the scrolls dated from the first
few centuries B.C., right through to the destruction of the Jewish
Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and some to the later Bar Kokhba
Revolt.
Obviously, Hebrew features heavily in the languages used in the
Dead Sea Scrolls. This is not surprising, given that the preservation
of the Hebrew Scriptures themselves (that is, the Hebrew Bible or
Old Testament) was a fundamental goal for hiding the scrolls in the
first place, given the imminent destruction of the Temple by the
Romans in A.D. 70, and the later (possibly even more destructive
and decisive) loss of life at the Bar Kokhba Revolt.
Hebrew texts, including extensive copies of the Hebrew Scriptures,
make up about 80% of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Being religious Jewish
believers, this again should not really be a surprise. They would
want to encourage the use of Hebrew as a religious language,
amongst these religious Jews.
Scrolls written in Aramaic make up almost the remaining 20% of the
overall Dead Sea Scrolls. This again demonstrates the importance of
Aramaic in everyday use, as both a spoken and written language, as
we have seen throughout the previous chapters on the Assyrian,
Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman Empires.
By contrast, according to the Wikipedia article, Greek uncial script,
with Greek manuscripts and papyrus, as part of the Dead Sea
Scrolls, represents less than 3% of the overall scrolls found – and the
use of Greek Uncial script dates those particular manuscripts to
between the 3rd and 8th centuries A.D., well outside the time period
in which the New Testament was given.
Nabatean, a dialect of Aramaic which was used by the Nabataeans
(an ancient Arab people of the Negev, east bank of the Jordan, and
the Sinai Peninsula), is also represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

But the very small numbers of Greek scrolls found in the Dead Sea
Scrolls, and the fact that those date to between the 3rd and 8th
centuries A.D., surely brings at end to the argument that Greek was
t he lingua franca, or normal spoken language, of Jews in Israel in
New Testament times. Since there are so few Greek scrolls found, it
demonstrates that Greek was not commonly spoken amongst Jews,
or at least anything written in Greek was not worth keeping or
saving. That also brings an end to the idea that the Greek Septuagint
or LXX, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament,
was commonly used amongst Jews in the first century, such as Jesus.
By and large, Jews didn’t use the Greek Septuagint. Jews continued
to use the Hebrew Bible, with the Aramaic Targums being used
alongside the Hebrew, to make sure they fully understood the
Hebrew Scriptures.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have fascinated and intrigued people for
decades, mainly due to the academic scandals involved in their
publication (or lack of publication). But when the dust settles and
the arguments come to an end, the main points to be taken away
from the Dead Sea Scrolls, from that very large number of hidden
scrolls and manuscripts found all throughout the Judean Desert (not
just at Qumran), are as follows:
➔ Overwhelmingly, the Dead Sea Scrolls relate to Jewish
religious texts, to the Jewish people, in the land of Israel.
➔ The Dead Sea Scrolls are most likely to relate to different
Jewish groups, and were hidden by different people at
different times, for different reasons, but mostly as a result of
trying to preserve what could be preserved, as the Roman
destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and the
later destruction of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, became more
and more inevitable.
➔ The majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls are written in Hebrew,
because preserving the Hebrew Bible was of prime
importance.
➔ Both Hebrew and Aramaic are heavily represented in the
non-Biblical scrolls, indicating the importance of both these
languages in the lives of religious Jews in New Testament
times.
➔ The very small number of Greek scrolls, and the
comparative lateness of those scrolls, shows that Greek was
just not a language that was heavily used by mainstream,
religious Jews at this time.
Yet again, we see the importance of both Hebrew and Aramaic, those
two related languages that have grown intertwined together
throughout the pages of the Holy Scriptures.
The Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Aramaic.
Hebrew and Aramaic, together, have both been the languages in
which God chose to reveal His Word. May we honour both
languages, and seek to study the Words of the Most High God.
W H AT AB O U T HE B R EW? ! 187
What About Hebrew?!
T HE FOCUS OF this book is obviously on Aramaic. We have

presented a wealth of evidence to show the dominance of
Aramaic amongst mainstream Jews, in Palestine, in the first
century A.D., as well as the continuing dominance of Aramaic long
after that. Aramaic, then, is the cultural context into which the New
Testament was given.
However, there is a very strong “Hebrew roots” movement, which
seeks to show that Hebrew was the dominant language amongst
Jews in Israel in the first century A.D., that Hebrew was the normal
spoken language amongst Jews, and that, if the New Testament was
written in a language other than Greek, it would have been Hebrew.
In this chapter, therefore, we investigate these issues. The name of
the accompanying website, JesusSpokeAramaic.com, may lead some
people to wrongly assume that Jews in general, and Jesus in
particular, ONLY spoke Aramaic, and did NOT speak Hebrew.
But Hebrew, as has been stated many times in this book, is the “holy
language” of Judaism. As the language of the Hebrew Scriptures, it
has a special place in the heart of Jews. Hebrew is the national
language of Israel today. It has always been the sacred language. It is
therefore natural to believe that Hebrew has always been foremost in
the hearts and minds of Jews for all time. Could there have been a
time (in the first century, in Israel) when Jews spoke Aramaic more
widely than they spoke Hebrew?
Let’s answer the question by asking another question. Outside of the
land of Israel, around the world, how many Jews use Hebrew as
their normal, everyday spoken language? How many Jews speak
Hebrew, the holy language, so fluently that they can hold a
sustained conversation in it, and converse freely in it?
The answer, unfortunately, is that while the majority of Jews claim to

hold Hebrew as a special place in their heart, the reality is that very
few actually learn Hebrew well enough to read the Scriptures easily,
or well enough to hold a conversation in Hebrew. The majority of
Jews have learned the language of the countries they live in, and
while they aspire to learn Hebrew and may know a fair number of
Hebrew words and phrases, learning Hebrew fluently remains an
aspiration.
And if that is true for Jews today, it was also true for Jews in Israel in
New Testament times. They learned Aramaic after the Babylonian
exile. In fact, the Talmud, in Pesachim 87b, specifically states that the
Jews were exiled to Babylon because the Aramaic language was
close to Hebrew, and it made the assimilation process easier for the
Jews.
After the exile, Aramaic started to supplant Hebrew as the dominant
language of Jews in Israel, in other words, as the normal, everyday
language they would use to hold conversations, conduct general
business, and generally discuss secular subjects.
Let us quote from a number of encyclopaedias which demonstrate
this:
First of all, let us read the testimony of the International Standard
Bible Encyclopaedia:
“See ARAMAIC LANGUAGE for proof that Jesus spoke that
language as the vernacular of the people of Palestine.”
“Aramaic became the principal tongue throughout extensive
regions. After the return from the Captivity, it displaced Hebrew
as the spoken language of the Jews in Palestine.”
The Encyclopaedia Brittanica, similarly, adds its testimony that Jesus
spoke Aramaic, and that Aramaic was the commonly spoken
language in Israel at the time that the New Testament was written. It
says:
“Aramaic dialects survived into Roman times, however,
particularly in Palestine and Syria. Aramaic had replaced
Hebrew as the language of the Jews as early as the 6th century
B.C. ... Among the Jews, Aramaic was used by the common
people, while Hebrew remained the language of religion and
government and of the upper class. Jesus and the Apostles are
believed to have spoken Aramaic, and Aramaic-language
translations (Targums) of the Old Testament circulated.”
By the time of the first century, therefore, Hebrew was no longer the
dominant language. That does not mean that Jews only spoke
Aramaic, or that Hebrew was no longer spoken. In fact, there is
plenty of evidence to show that Hebrew was still alive and well, still
actually spoken as a living language, at this time. This was the case
especially amongst religious Jews. Hebrew did not die out as a
spoken language.
For instance, consider the passage in the New Testament when Jesus
reads from the scroll of Isaiah:
Luke 4:16-21; “And he came to Nazareth, where he had been
brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue
on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was
delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when he
had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me
to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the
brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and
recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are
bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he
closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat
down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were
fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this
scripture fulfilled in your ears.”
Since Jesus was reading from the Torah scroll in Hebrew, it is entirely
possible that this whole incident was spoken in Hebrew.
We can also look at the Dead Sea Scrolls. Obviously the Biblical
scrolls were in Hebrew because they were copies of the Hebrew
Scriptures, but (for example) the Community Scroll was also written
in Hebrew, suggesting that Hebrew was the language the
community used for normal conversation. But as this was a religious
community, it would not be surprising for them to want to use
Hebrew (as the Holy Language) in distinction to Aramaic, which
was the everyday secular language.
Likewise, the Mishnah was written in Hebrew, albeit not quite the
same Hebrew as Biblical Hebrew. The Gemara, the extensive

commentary on the Mishnah, however, is written in Aramaic.
Together, they form the Talmud.
To underline the continued importance of Hebrew, in the Bar
Kokhba revolt, we find a resurgence of Hebrew. For instance, in the
Wikipedia article on “The Language of Jesus”, we read:
“According to Dead Sea Scrolls archaeologist, Yigael Yadin,
Aramaic was the spoken language of Jews until Simon Bar
Kokhba tried to revive Hebrew and make it as the official
language of Jews during the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 AD).
Yadin noticed the shift from Aramaic to Hebrew during the time
of Bar Kokhba revolt. In his book Bar Kokhba: The rediscovery of
the legendary hero of the last Jewish Revolt Against Imperial Rome,
Yigael Yadin notes, “It is interesting that the earlier documents
are written in Aramaic while the later ones are in Hebrew.
Possibly the change was made by a special decree of Bar-Kokhba
who wanted to restore Hebrew as the official language of the
state” (page 181).
In the book A Roadmap to the Heavens: An Anthropological Study of
Hegemony among Priests, Sages, and Laymen (Judaism and Jewish Life) by
Sigalit Ben-Zion (page 155), Yadin remarked, “It seems that this
change came as a result of the order that was given by Bar Kokhba,
who wanted to revive the Hebrew language and make it the official
language of the state.”
Thus, the fact that there is a documented “resurgence” or “revival”
of Hebrew at this time, or an attempt to “get back” to Hebrew, only
serves to emphasize the point that Aramaic, at this time, was the
normal, everyday, language spoken by Jews in Israel. The existence
of the New Testament in Aramaic (the Aramaic Peshitta), therefore,
should not come as a surprise.
When debating whether Hebrew or Aramaic was the spoken
language in Israel when the New Testament was written, many
people try to make the case for either Hebrew, or Aramaic, as though
it was a stark, black-and-white choice of one or the other, as though
one was correct and the other wrong.
Instead, both Hebrew and Aramaic were certainly spoken at the
time. The importance of Hebrew should never be forgotten. Hebrew
was, and will always remain, the Holy Language. Amongst religious
Jews, such as Jesus, Hebrew no doubt held a special place. It was the
language of the Hebrew Bible. How could it be anything less than
important?
But in the effort not to forget Hebrew, neither should Aramaic be
forgotten. This is what is meant by the statement in the Palestinian
Talmud:
“My Son, let not the Aramaic be lightly esteemed by you as the
Holy One, blessed be He, has seen fit to give it voice in the Torah
and the Prophets and the Writings.” (Palestinian Talmud, Sotah
7:2)
Hebrew is the holy language, but Aramaic, too, has a place. It also is
important, as we saw in the chapter Aramaic – Judaism’s Second Holy
Language. Hebrew and Aramaic have grown up, together, inter-
twined down through the centuries. If Hebrew is the language of the
Jews, then Aramaic is the language of the Gentiles, making it a very
appropriate language for the New Testament to be revealed in.
To understand the balance between Hebrew and Aramaic, let us ask
some simple questions, and provide some simple answers.
➔ Is Hebrew important? Yes, of course, it is the holy language.
➔ Had Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language in New
Testament times? No, definitely not.
➔ Was Hebrew, at the time, an actual SPOKEN language, as
opposed to a liturgical language, one used only to recite the
Hebrew Scriptures? Yes, the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls
and the Mishnah shows that Hebrew was still a living,
spoken, language.
➔ Was Hebrew the ONLY language that was spoken by Jews?
No.
➔ As a religious Jew, would Jesus have spoken Hebrew? Yes, of
course.
➔ As a religious Jew, would Jesus ONLY have spoken Hebrew?
No, he would have had to know Aramaic to read the
Aramaic portions of Daniel and Ezra, and to converse with
the Aramaic-speaking people around him. He gave Simon
bar Jonah an Aramaic name (Keyfa, or Cephas) so he must

have spoken Aramaic!
➔ As a religious Jew, would Jesus have PREFERRED to speak
Hebrew? That is entirely possible.
➔ Was there an effort amongst religious Jews to “get back” to
Hebrew? Yes, Jews knew that Aramaic was becoming
dominant and that people were starting to lose their
knowledge of Hebrew, so yes, many wanted to fight this
process. The fact that they wanted to fight it, is the proof that
it was happening.
Hopefully this chapter helps to put the importance of Hebrew into
context. Those in the Hebrew Roots movement, or who advocate
Hebrew primacy over Aramaic primacy, should not forget the
importance of Aramaic, and the long cultural connection between
the Holy Scriptures, Jews, and the surrounding nations. Aramaic is
the glue that binds everything together.
W A S LAT I N S PO KE N AMO N GST JE W S? 193
Was Latin spoken amongst

Jews?
A
S WE CONTINUE our journey into Aramaic down through
the centuries, we come to the Roman Empire – a fascinating
time in world history. This was also a critical period for the
New Testament, since Israel at this time was ruled by the Roman
Empire, and the interaction with the Romans has so many
interesting references in the New Testament.
A number of earlier chapters of this book have looked at the extent
to which Jews in Israel – in Roman Palestine in the first century A.D.
– would have spoken Greek. We also investigated whether Jews, at
this time, still used Hebrew as a spoken language. In this chapter, for
comparison, we investigate the extent to which Latin was spoken in
Israel, and in particular whether it was spoken by Jews.
As the Greek Empire fell apart after the death of Alexander the
Great, there were battles between the Ptolemies to the south of Israel,
in Egypt, and the Seleucids to the north of Israel, in Syria. As we saw
in a separate chapter, this led to Antiochus Epiphanes invading
Israel and imposing Greek language and culture on the Jews, leading
to the Maccabean revolt. The Jews won and gained their victory, but
it was short-lived and Israel was soon overrun again – this time by a
more persistent sequence of dictators, ones who also would impose
their will, and force the Jews into submission, eventually leading to
the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70.
Following the end of the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire now
ruled Europe and the Middle East, starting with Julius Caesar and
leading to a series of dictators or Emperors who would become
notorious in history. The Romans formed a vast and cruel Empire
which would be larger than all the Empires that preceded it. The
Roman Empire, split into the West and East, became the legs of the
great image seen by king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon in his dream
in Daniel chapter 2. The Roman Empire was also the fulfilment of
Daniel’s vision of the fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, described in
the prophecy of Daniel 7.
Into this Roman Empire was born Jesus of Nazareth, destined to be
the king of the Jews, the saviour who would redeem mankind from
the curse of sin and death that resulted from Adam and Eve’s
transgression in the garden of Eden.
The official language of the Roman Empire was, of course Latin. The
Romans used Latin for administration of their vast empire, and Latin
was the language in which Roman historians wrote their histories.
Thus, we find that famous early Roman histories such as The Gallic
Wars by Julius Caesar, The Twelve Caesars by Seutonius, The Annals [of
Imperial Rome] by Tacitus, and The History of Rome by Livy, were all
written in Latin.
But despite the fact that Latin was the official and administrative
language used by the Romans across their vast Empire, history
shows that the vast populations that accepted “Pax Romana” or
“The Peace of Rome” continued to speak their own languages, and
were not forced to learn Latin.
For instance, the Roman Empire spread across Europe, as far north
as Scotland. Although Italy, specifically, was the motherland of the
Roman Empire and they spoke Latin (later to become Italian), other
countries continued to speak their own languages, although those
languages would be influenced by the adoption of many Latin
words. English, for instance, contains many words of Latin origin.
But the English do not speak Latin today. Neither do the French, the
Spanish, the Portuguese, the Germans, nor any of the other host of
countries that encompassed the Roman Empire. Interaction with the
Roman rulers may have needed a knowledge of some Latin words,
but the ordinary people across the Roman Empire did not learn
Latin.
Similarly, when we come to the New Testament, Jews in Palestine
did not make any particular effort to learn Latin, not were they
required to. In fact, as we saw in the chapter What Does Josephus Say?,
the Jewish historian Josephus specifically says that Jews did not
encourage the learning of many languages. In other words, Jews had
no desire to learn the languages of the nations around them, since
that would only encourage assimilation which Jews have always
resisted, and would ultimately lead the Jewish people away from
their Hebrew and Biblical roots.
And so, in the New Testament we find only one explicit reference to
Latin. The sign above the cross when Jesus was crucified was written
in letters of Greek, Hebrew and Latin:
Luke 23:38; “And a superscription also was written over him in
letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF
THE JEWS.”
Similarly, in Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of the Christ, the
Romans speak Latin amongst themselves, while the Jews speak
Aramaic.
There is a smattering of Latin words in the New Testament, which
shows clearly the interaction (unfortunately sometimes a rather
unpleasant interaction) which the Jews had with the ruling Romans.
Thus, in both the Greek New Testament and the Aramaic New
Testament, we find several words of Latin origin such as:
➔ assarion – a farthing, a Roman coin.
➔ denarion – a denarius, another Roman coin.
➔ flagellum – the whip used to flog both Jesus and Paul, to give
them the 39 lashes.
➔ Kaisar, or Caesar.
➔ kenturion – a centurion, the soldier in charge of other
soldiers.
➔ kensos – a census.
➔ kodrantes – a quadrans, a Roman coin.
➔ kolonia – a Roman colony for veterans.
➔ koustodia – custody, a Roman sentry or watch.
➔ legion – a Roman legion.
➔ lention – a linen cloth, towel or apron.
➔ litra – a Roman pound (in weight).

➔ mila or milion – a Roman mile.
➔ porpura – or purple.
➔ praitorion – or Praetorium, the judgement hall where the
Roman garrison was stationed.
➔ stratiotes – or soldier, where we get our word ‘strategy’.
In addition, there are quite a few Latin proper names such as Aquila,
Amplias, Apelles, Appios, Augustus, Gaius, Gallion, Julius, Justus,
Claudius, Clemens, Cornelius, Quartus, Crispus, Cyrenius, Loukas,
and others.
Furthermore, Latin inscriptions and other official documents have
been found in Israel, or Roman Palestine.
Despite these connections with Latin and the ruling Romans, we do
not find that the common people spoke Latin as part of their
everyday language, despite the Romans ruling for hundreds of
years. Latin was just too different from Aramaic, and the Romans
were too despised, for ordinary people (Jews) to make the effort to
learn that foreign language.
And so, if that was the case with Latin, why would it not be the case
with Greek, too?
For those who think that Greek was the ‘lingua franca’, or common
language, of the entire Middle East, just because Alexander the Great
‘conquered’ the Middle East, if Latin did not become the lingua
franca of the Middle East (even though the Romans ruled with an
iron fist for upwards of five centuries) why would Greek become the
lingua franca when the Greek army was there for far less time, and
Jews despised the Greeks just as much as the Romans?
Instead, we find that the Greeks, and later the Romans, caused a
cultural interchange, in that words to do with commerce and
administration started to be used, but there was not a wholesale shift
in language use across an immense population, geographically
dispersed.
Aramaic continued to be spoken in the Middle East just as it always
had been, and Aramaic continued to be spoken long after the Greeks
and Romans had gone, right up until the Moslem conquests, and
later the Crusaders. We look at the shift from Aramaic to Arabic, and
the use of Aramaic at the time of the Crusaders, in later chapters of
this book.
Aramaic – Judaism’s Second

Holy Language
I N PREVIOUS chapters, we have looked at the long history of

Aramaic and its close connection with the Bible, in both the Old
and New Testaments. We have seen that Aramaic has an
extensive and intimate connection with the Jewish people down
through the centuries, as well as all the nations surrounding Israel,
covering the entire time in which the Bible was written.
In this chapter, however, we look more closely at the connection that
Aramaic has with Judaism. Although Hebrew has always been the
Holy Language, Aramaic too has a part to play and remains essential
to a full understanding of Jewish beliefs and practices. If everything
written in Aramaic was taken away from Judaism, it would be as
though Judaism was breathing on only one lung. Let us examine,
therefore, the Aramaic texts that form an essential part of Judaism.
First and foremost, as we demonstrate in the series of video lessons
about Biblical Aramaic that are available at JesusSpokeAramaic.com,
several entire chapters in Daniel and Ezra are written in Aramaic, as
well as words and phrases in the Law (Genesis), the Writings (Daniel
and phrases in Job) and the Prophets (Jeremiah). It is therefore
impossible to fully read and understand the Hebrew Bible (the Old
Testament) without understanding those sections which are written
in Aramaic. In fact, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 38b) even says that Adam
conversed in Aramaic, and in the Talmud (Pesachim 87b) it says that,
after the destruction of the First Temple, God specifically chose to
exile the Jews to Babylon because of the similarity of the Hebrew
and Aramaic languages, thereby reducing the culture shock they
would experience.
A R AMAIC – JU DAI S M’ S SECO N D HO LY LAN GU AGE 199
And of course we have the Aramaic Targums, which were the official
Jewish translations of the books making up the Hebrew Bible. We
examine the Targums in more detail in an entire series of video
lessons that are available at JesusSpokeAramaic.com.
As we move on a few centuries later, some of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
closely connected to Jewish worship, are written in Aramaic,
showing the use of Aramaic during this time too.
While the Mishnah (the systematic compilation of the teachings of
the Jewish sages based on the Law of Moses) is written in Hebrew,
the Gemara (the commentary on the Mishnah) is written almost
entirely in Aramaic. Together, they form the Talmud, the
fundamental basis on which traditional Judaism is based. Aramaic
had, by this time, became so widespread in Jewish life that both the
Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud are dominated by
Aramaic. Today, literally tens of thousands of Jews around the world
read the Talmud, studying both the Mishnah, and the Gemara
commentary in Aramaic. The website Daf Yomi (My Page of the Day)
brings Jews together from around the world to study these classic
Hebrew and Aramaic texts, one page per day. This could mean that
there are more Jews learning these Aramaic texts today than even
during the Babylonian exile!
Many of the most important texts of the Kabbalah, including the
Book of Zohar, are also written in Aramaic. This demonstrates that
Aramaic has been in constant use amongst Jews, for commentaries
and related works, from before New Testament times right through
to Medieval times and beyond.
While Hebrew was known as “Lashon HaKodesh” or “The Holy
Language” for the Torah and Hebrew Bible itself, Aramaic was used
for commentaries, prayers and other works. In a similar way,
Yiddish (rather than Hebrew) was used amongst Jewish
communities as the ordinary language for conversation and secular
matters, while Hebrew remained the Holy Language.
Thus, we find that the traditional Ketubah (marriage contract) and the
Jewish divorce document are written in Aramaic.
Many hymns and prayers are also written in Aramaic, such as the
opening paragraph of the Passover Haggadah (“This is the bread of
our affliction”), and the song about the goat at the end of the
Passover Haggadah (“Chad Gadya”), as well as the Kaddish (the

prayer of mourning for the dead).
And so, given the close connection that Judaism has with Aramaic
which we have seen in this chapter, it is entirely natural and
appropriate that Jesus and the disciples would feel completely at
home with Aramaic. It is wholly fitting that the New Testament
would be written in Aramaic. The combination of Hebrew in the Old
Testament and Aramaic in the New Testament, or Hebrew for the
Jews and Aramaic for the Gentiles, is an extremely beautiful picture
that fulfils the Scriptures in the most appropriate language for each
people. Thus, through this combination of Hebrew and Aramaic, all
Israel (both Jew and Gentile) will be saved, as the Scripture explains
in Romans 11:
Rom. 11:25-26; For I would not, brethren, that ye should be
ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own
conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the
fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be
saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer,
and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.”
W H AT I S BIB L IC AL AR A MA I C? 201
What is Biblical Aramaic?
B IBLICAL ARAMAIC refers to specific words, phrases, verses

and passages in the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, which
are written in Aramaic rather than Hebrew. Since Biblical
Aramaic appears in the Hebrew Bible, it is written in 'Hebrew'
(Ashuri) characters. To learn this important script, make sure you
watch the extensive series of video lessons on the Aramaic Alphabet
that are available from JesusSpokeAramaic.com!
You can get free access to an entire video lesson about Biblical Aramaic, entitled
What is Biblical Aramaic?, by following the link below:
http://JesusSpokeAramaic.com/Lessons/Biblical-Aramaic/What-is-
Biblical-Aramaic
You can also get access to many sample video lessons on the Hebrew/Aramaic
Alphabet by following the link below:
http://JesusSpokeAramaic.com/Lessons/Aramaic-Alphabet/How-Difficult-
to-Learn
Biblical Aramaic, especially the Aramaic portions in Daniel and Ezra,

are often referred to as 'Chaldee', for example in the classic Hebrew &
Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament by Wilhelm Gesenius. The
Chaldeans were the ruling elite in the Babylonian Empire at this
time, and Aramaic was the official language of the Babylonian
Empire, hence the term Chaldee refers to the Aramaic found
particularly in Daniel and Ezra.
The passages of the Hebrew Bible which are definitely written in
Aramaic are as follows:
• The phrase (place name) Jegar Sahadutha in Genesis 31:47.
• The single verse in Jeremiah 10:11.
• Large passages in Daniel (chapters 2:4b-7:28).
• Large passages in Ezra (chapters 4:8-6:18 and 7:12-26).
These passages are obviously written in Aramaic, rather than

Hebrew. However, there is strong evidence that many other words
and verses in the Hebrew Bible are either heavily influenced by
Aramaic, or could perhaps be better understood as being Aramaic
rather than Hebrew.
Examples of passages such as these include:
• Genesis 15:1, where the Zohar (1:88b) says that the word ba-
machaze (“in a vision”) in this verse is Aramaic, since the
usual Hebrew word would be ba-mareh.
• Numbers 23:10, where the Hebrew word “roba” (usually
translated “stock” or “fourth part”) is unusual. Rabbi J. H.
Hertz, in his commentary on this verse, suggests that this is
an Aramaic word meaning dust, which makes complete
sense in the context.
• Job 36:2, where Rashi, in his commentary on this verse,
states that the phrase “katar-li za'er” is Aramaic.
However, these should not be considered as isolated examples, or a
complete list. When you systematically read the Hebrew Bible with a
knowledge of Aramaic, you will find many similar examples where
individual words or phrases often make more sense as Aramaic,
rather than Hebrew. Common names of people and places in the
Bible are also often Aramaic, rather than Hebrew.
As well as these examples, the highly recommended book A History
of the Hebrew Language written by Shelomo Morag, Angel Saenz-
Badillos and John Elwolde, and published by the Cambridge
University Press, provides a very comprehensive look at the history
of the Hebrew language. This detailed and fascinating book provides
a considerable number of examples showing how (over the
centuries) Hebrew, including the Hebrew of the Bible, has been
heavily influenced by Aramaic – both in individual words and in the
presence of grammatical features of the Hebrew Bible which show a
clear influence from Aramaic.
The Hebrew of the Jewish Mishnah, dating to the first few centuries
A.D., also, similarly, shows a clear influence from Aramaic. There are
countless examples in Mishnaic Hebrew, for instance, where the
masculine plural ending “-een” is used instead of the equivalent
W H AT I S BIB L IC AL AR A MA I C? 203
Hebrew ending “-eem”, plus many other features of Aramaic.

With the above background, it is important to understand that
Hebrew and Aramaic are sister languages. Although they are
separate languages and not dialects, they have both shared a
common history amongst the Semitic nations of the Middle East.
Hebrew and Aramaic have grown alongside each other for
millennia, and over the centuries they have often touched each other,
influenced each other, and even become partly inter-twined, like two
vines growing together.
If Hebrew is the Bible's first Holy Language, then Aramaic is the
Bible's second Holy Language. Hebrew and Aramaic have grown up
together, like two faithful sons of the same Father, to become inter-
mingled. Even today, for instance, the connection between Hebrew
and Aramaic is apparent. Jews refer to a “bar mitsva” when Jewish
boys come of age, which is a combination of the Aramaic word “bar”
(meaning son) and the Hebrew word “mitsva” (meaning
commandment). A “bar mitsva” or “son of the commandment” is a
combined Hebrew and Aramaic phrase!
It should therefore be obvious how important an understanding of
the Aramaic language is. Hebrew and Aramaic, together, are the
languages that God has chosen to reveal His Word in the Hebrew
Bible. It is impossible to understand the entire Hebrew Bible unless
you also understand Aramaic – at the very least, to understand the
sections of the Hebrew Bible which are written in Aramaic, and also
to understand many words and phrases in the Hebrew Bible better.
In fact, so important is Aramaic to Jews, that the Palestinian Talmud,
in Sotah 7:2, says:
“My Son, let not the Aramaic be lightly esteemed by you as
the Holy One, blessed be He, has seen fit to give it voice in
the Torah and the Prophets and the Writings”.
This means that Jews, in elevating Hebrew to the status of Holy
Language, might forget how important Aramaic is. The admonition
from the Palestinian Talmud is to remind Jews that Aramaic also
holds a place of importance in the Holy Scriptures. Specifically, as
we saw at the start of this chapter, Aramaic is found in the three
major divisions of the Hebrew Bible – in the Law, or Torah (Genesis
31:47), in the Prophets (Jeremiah 10:11) and in the Writings (the
Aramaic portions of Daniel and Ezra).

Since God Himself has chosen to make Aramaic part of the Holy
Scriptures, in His inspired Word, we, too, should realize the critical
importance of Aramaic. We, too, should honor the Aramaic and seek
to understand it, alongside Hebrew, as the two holy languages in
which God has chosen to reveal His Word.
With this background showing how important Aramaic is in the
Hebrew Bible, how Aramaic forms an inherent part of the Hebrew
Bible and therefore deserves to be studied, it should come as no
surprise whatsoever that God would choose to reveal His Word to
the Gentiles (through the New Testament) in the Aramaic language.
Aramaic was the language God chose to reveal His Word to the
Gentiles in Jeremiah and in the prophecies in Daniel, and therefore
Aramaic is the most appropriate language to reveal His Word to the
Gentiles in the pages of the New Testament. We should not be
surprised, then, that the Aramaic New Testament shows all the
hallmarks of authenticity, integrity and originality, because it too is
the inspired Word of God.
Hebrew to the Jews, and Aramaic to the Gentiles, is the pattern of
the Holy Scriptures. Greek, by contrast, was the language of the
enemies of the Jews, those who fought against Judaism, those who
forced Jews to worship statues of Zeus (or Deus, Theos) and who
forced Jews to eat swine's flesh. Greek is the language of 'sophia' or
worldly 'wisdom', of pagan practices and ideas, and humanist
philosophies, of everything that is against God's Word.
As Jews were admonished to do in the Palestinian Talmud, let us not
lightly esteem the Aramaic language. But rather, let us honor it and
respect it. Because it is not only the language that God has seen fit to
give a voice to in the Torah, and the Prophets, and the Writings, but
is also the language that God has seen fit to give voice to, in the
pages of the New Testament. Aramaic was the language spoken by
Jesus and the disciples. We should therefore honor it, respect it, and
learn it.
W H AT A R E T H E AR A MA I C TARGU MS? 205
What are the Aramaic

Targums?
T hroughout this book, we have mentioned the Aramaic

Targums. The Targums (or Targumim in Hebrew) are the
official translations of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic,
considered authoritative by Judaism. “Targum” simply means
“Translation”, and “Targumim” is plural in Hebrew, and therefore
means “Translations”.
You can get free access to an entire video lesson about the Aramaic Targums,
entitled What are the Aramaic Targums?, by following the link below:
http://JesusSpokeAramaic.com/Lessons/Aramaic-Targums/What-are-
Aramaic-Targums
The Targums were translated by Jews as the need arose for

translations of the books of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic. They
have an 'official' (or approved) status within Judaism, whereas the
Peshitta Tanakh (the Aramaic Old Testament) is an independent (but
still Jewish) translation of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic which has
not gained official acceptance or approval amongst Jews. Generally,
the Targums are preferred by Jews whereas the Aramaic Peshitta Old
Testament seems to have been adopted or preferred by the early
Christians.
The Targums have an interesting history. After the Babylonian exile,
Jews were exiled into Babylon, where Aramaic was the official
language of the Babylonian Empire. Since the exiled Israelites were
forced to speak Aramaic rather than their traditional Hebrew, over
the years they became more familiar with Aramaic in everyday
usage. Hebrew, of course, continued to be used in religious worship
because it was the language in which the Hebrew Bible was written.
However, as time went by and the decades turned into centuries,
Hebrew steadily declined as a spoken language in favour of
Aramaic. Over time, Jews translated individual books (or groups of
books) of the Hebrew Bible, into Aramaic, for wider availability in
what had by now become their everyday spoken language. These
ancient Targums, or translations, are still available today. They are
still used by Jews, yet are almost entirely ignored by other Bible
students.
As we demonstrate later in this chapter, the Aramaic Targums are
very important and have a huge amount to offer Bible students.
They reveal the context of the New Testament writings and how
Jesus and the disciples would have understood the parables Jesus
spoke and the debates he had with the scribes, Pharisees and
Sadducees. And yet, despite these valuable insights, the Aramaic
Targums remain heavily under-utilized and under-valued by most
Bible students today.
The origins of the Aramaic Targums go back to Nehemiah's time,
where we read in the Hebrew Bible:
Nehemiah 8:1-8; “And all the people gathered themselves
together as one man into the street that was before the water
gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book
of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to
Israel. And Ezra the priest brought the law before the
congregation both of men and women, and all that could
hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh
month. And he read therein before the street that was before
the water gate from the morning until midday, before the
men and the women, and those that could understand; and
the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the
law. And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which
they had made for the purpose; . . . . And Ezra opened the
book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the
people;) and when he opened it, all the people stood up:
And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the
people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands:
and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD
with their faces to the ground. . . . . and the Levites, caused
the people to understand the law: and the people stood in

their place. So they read in the book in the law of God
distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to
understand the reading.”
Thus, seventy years after the exile into Babylon, the Jews started
returning to the Land of Israel under Ezra and Nehemiah. Forced to
speak Aramaic in Babylon, they were by now much more familiar
with Aramaic than with Hebrew. The above passage from the
Hebrew Bible records how the Law (Torah) was read in public in
Hebrew, but that the people were made to understand the sense, i.e.
the Hebrew was translated for them into Aramaic to make sure they
understood what was being said. Over time, these oral Aramaic
translations became written down, forming the Aramaic Targums
that we have today.
By the end of the Babylonian exile, Aramaic as a spoken language
had become so widespread that Jews were no longer accustomed to
speaking Hebrew. In fact, Nehemiah laments that an understanding
of Hebrew could no longer be taken for granted:
Nehemiah 13:23-24; “In those days also saw I Jews that had
married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab. And
their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could
not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the
language of each people. And I contended with them, and
cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off
their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not
give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their
daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves. Did not
Solomon king of Israel sin by these things?...”
Here, the phrase, “the Jews' language” is referring to Hebrew, the
everyday use of which was, by this time, starting to decline.
It is important to realize that the Aramaic Targums arose according
to need, i.e. the individual books of the Hebrew Bible were
translated into Aramaic as and when required, at different times, and
by different people. The Targums are therefore not a single
translation of the whole Hebrew Bible as a single effort. Instead,
there are different Aramaic translations of different books of the
Hebrew Bible, varying in quality and how good they are. Over time,
some of these Targums have gained an authoritative status, and

some have not.
This overview of the Aramaic Targums is enough to show that the
history of the Targums is very different from that of the Aramaic Old
Testament. Although the Aramaic Old Testament is still an Aramaic
translation of the Hebrew Bible, unlike the Targums (which are
individual translations of individual books), the Aramaic Old
Testament is a single coherent translation of the entire Hebrew Bible,
done at a single point in time. It was still translated by Jews (just like
the Targums). However, it fell into disuse amongst Jews because it
seems to have been adopted by the early Christian believers,
whereas the Targums were adopted by mainstream Judaism – the
Pharisees and scribes, and later, the Rabbinical authorities.
Finally, a note on the use of the words Targums and Targumim may be
helpful. Targum is singular, meaning “Translation”. English has
adopted the original Hebrew word. The plural of Targum is Targums
in English, but Targumim is Hebrew.
The Aramaic Targums have a great deal to offer Bible students. A
study of them will be richly rewarded, as they yield up their
treasures in the many video lessons that are available from
JesusSpokeAramaic.com. The Targums are the traditional
translations in Judaism, into Aramaic, of the books of the Hebrew
Bible. These Targums, or Translations, arose over time according to
need, rather than being a single concerted effort to translate the
books of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic at one single point in time.
To understand the importance of the Aramaic Targums, we first need
to understand the importance they hold in Judaism in general,
before we look at the importance to Bible students from other
backgrounds.
Due to the close connection that Judaism has with Aramaic, in that
Aramaic is Judaism's second Holy Language, the Aramaic Targums
have always held an esteemed position amongst Jews. Thus, in the
Talmud (the Gemara), in Tractate Berakhot 8a, it is written:
Rav Huna bar Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Ammi:
“One should always complete the reading of one's weekly
Torah portion with the congregation, twice from the Mikra
and once from the Targum.”
The phrase in Hebrew is “shnayim mikra ve-echad targum.” Here,

the Mikra (“Reading”) is the Hebrew Bible, and the Targum is of
course referring to the Aramaic Targum, or Targum Onkelos in
particular. In other words, so important did the Targums become to
Judaism, and following the tradition which Nehemiah established,
the Targum is traditionally read alongside the Hebrew text, to ensure
a thorough understanding. Maybe this is a tradition which all Bible
students should adopt! Rather than reading a commentary, read the
Aramaic Targums instead!
There are many reasons why the Aramaic Targums are extremely
important to Jews, and why they should be just as important to Bible
students in general:
• The Targums are an immensely valuable and under-utilized
resource to help in understanding obscure words and
phrases, and difficult passages in the Hebrew Bible.
Consulting the Aramaic Targums shows how Jews
traditionally understood the Hebrew text, around two
thousand years ago. Those were people who lived and
breathed the Holy Scriptures, who deeply understood the
culture and background of the Hebrew Bible, who intimately
understood Aramaic and the language of the original
Hebrew, and who were much closer in time to those writings
than we are today. Whenever, therefore, there are difficult
words or passages in the Hebrew Bible, consulting the
Aramaic Targums (and the Aramaic Old Testament) should
be the first place to look, rather than seeking more modern
translations.
• When faced with difficult verses in the Hebrew Bible,
Aramaic often clarifies these difficult Hebrew words.
However, most Bible students would rather consult either
the Greek Septuagint or Latin translations, or in fact just
about anything other than the Targums, such as other
modern English translations. This is partly because of an
anti-Jewish bias, partly because of a pro-western bias in
focussing on Greek and Latin academic traditions, and
partly because of how easy it is to consult a modern
commentary in English. However, all of these traditions are
far removed from the Aramaic Targums, both in terms of
time (coming much later than the Targums), and their

knowledge of the original Hebrew text. It is generally much
more profitable to consult either the Aramaic Targums or the
Aramaic Old Testament, when faced with difficult or
obscure passages in the Hebrew Bible. Few textual critics
and Bible students even consider the Aramaic Targums, let
alone give the Targums the authority they deserve.
• The Aramaic Targums shed valuable light on Jewish thought
and Judaism, yielding fascinating insights into the historical
background and culture of the Hebrew Bible. Thus, to
understand the discussions which Jesus had with the
Pharisees and scribes, it is often helpful to look at words and
phrases in the Targums.
• Studying the Aramaic Targums is particularly useful for
understanding the background of the New Testament.
Despite that, due to anti-Semitic bias and a bias towards
western academic culture, the Targums have largely been
ignored by Christians and most seminaries do not even
mention them. How can you hope to understand the Bible
without understanding its historic context and its Semitic
roots?
• For Bible students, studying the Targums is a resource that is
almost entirely untapped. There are many studies which, for
example, compare the Greek New Testament with the Greek
Septuagint, attempting to show that the Greek New
Testament quotes from the Septuagint. In contrast, however,
the possibility that the Aramaic New Testament (or even the
Greek New Testament!) quotes from the Aramaic Targums is
almost entirely ignored. Despite this, there are many
occasions where the Targums have some very unique and
interesting readings, and the New Testament (both the
Aramaic New Testament and the Greek) definitely quotes
from the Aramaic Targums, or leans heavily upon them. In
the video lessons that are available from
JesusSpokeAramaic.com, we show many examples
demonstrating this. You will be very excited and interested
by the discoveries that we have made! Despite this
fascinating, unique and profitable line of Bible study, very
few people have even looked into this area, and are unaware
that the New Testament may, in fact, be quoting from the
Aramaic Targums!
• The Aramaic Targums are essentially Jewish in origin, and
arose as required, i.e. they are not a single Aramaic
translation of the entire Hebrew Bible done at one particular
point in time. As such, they are distinct from the Aramaic
Old Testament, which is a single translation of the entire
Hebrew Bible done at a single point in time. Therefore, the
Aramaic Targums are a useful adjunct and important
contrast to the Aramaic Old Testament. Comparing the
Aramaic Old Testament with the Aramaic Targums is
incredibly interesting and useful.
For these reasons, there is a desperate need to study and understand
the Aramaic Targums more widely – not just by Jews, but by all Bible
students. Christians, in particular, would benefit enormously from
abandoning Greek philosophy, Greek mythology and humanism, all
of which are detached from the culture and background of the First
Century origin of the New Testament, and getting back to the true,
original, authentic, Semitic (Hebrew and Aramaic) roots of the New
Testament. The Semitic roots of the New Testament provide much
richer and truer veins of interpretation than the sterile fruits of Greek
'sophia' or 'wisdom', which the New Testament itself warns against!
Learning Aramaic will open the vast treasure of the Aramaic
Targums to you, allowing you to see the Hebrew text through the
eyes of people who were much closer culturally to the Hebrew Bible
than we are today, who knew and understood the Hebrew text
intimately, and who translated the Hebrew text into Aramaic at a
time when they were much closer to difficult words and passages in
the Hebrew text than we are today.
For all these reasons, a knowledge and understanding of the
Aramaic Targums is more important today than it has ever been.
Bible students, of whatever background, can have their
understanding and appreciation of the Bible richly enhanced by
studying the Targums, and viewing the New Testament through a
correct cultural understanding.
What is the Aramaic Peshitta

OLD Testament?
T HE ARAMAIC Old Testament (also called the Peshitta

Tanakh) is an early translation of the Hebrew Bible into
Syriac. Syriac is an Eastern dialect of Aramaic, the same
Aramaic dialect in which the Aramaic New Testament was written.
You can get free access to an entire video lesson about the Aramaic Peshitta OT,
entitled What is the Aramaic Peshitta Old Testament?, by following the link below:
http://JesusSpokeAramaic.com/Lessons/Aramaic-Peshitta-Old-
Testament/What-is-Peshitta-OT
As we saw in the chapter on the Aramaic Targums, the Targums are

the 'official' Jewish translations of the books of the Hebrew Bible into
Aramaic, which have (at least partly) become authoritative in
Judaism. The Targums were not translated in one go, at one point in
time, by one person or a single group of people. Instead, different
Translations, or Targums, arose over time according to need. Targum
Onkelos, for instance, is the official Targum of the Law, or Torah.
By contrast, the Aramaic Old Testament has a completely different
(independent) history. Almost certainly the Aramaic Old Testament
was translated early on (that is, several centuries before Christ)
probably in or around Babylon (hence the Syriac, or Eastern dialect
of Aramaic in which it is written) or while the Jews were still
scattered across the Babylonian Empire. The Aramaic Old Testament
is an accurate, consistent and coherent translation, meaning that it is
a translation of the books of the Hebrew Bible as a whole, at one
point in time, by one translator or a single group of translators,
whereas the Targums were translated over time, according to need,
W H AT I S T H E AR AMAIC PE S H ITTA OLD TE STAME N T? 213
by different people.
It is likely that the Targums and the Aramaic Old Testament
influenced each other, since both were translated into Aramaic at
approximately the same time. But whereas the Aramaic Targums
became approved or adopted by mainstream Judaism, the Aramaic
Old Testament, by contrast, seems to have become adopted by the
early Jewish converts (Christian believers), and in fact was
subsequently ignored and rejected by mainstream Judaism.
There are a number of factors why this may have been the case:
1. As mainstream Judaism and early Christianity both went
their separate ways, there may have been a deliberate
intention not to accept the translation of the other, or to
differentiate between the translations of the two opposing
camps.
2. The Targums vary in quality and the intention behind the
translation, with some being interpretative in nature. By
contrast, the Aramaic Old Testament is a simple, literal,
direct translation with no interpretation. The midrashic
translation of the Targums appealed to mainstream Judaism,
and later to Rabbinical Judaism.
3. In being an independent translation, the Aramaic Old
Testament is perhaps more 'favourable' to the belief that
Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, in that passages which are
traditionally understood as Messianic passages remain
unchanged, whereas mainstream Judaism in the Targums
was more free to change the translation in Messianic
passages.
4. The earliest Christian believers were located in Turkey and
Syria, where the Aramaic Estrangela script was used. This is
the script which the Aramaic New Testament soon adopted.
Likewise, the Aramaic Old Testament adopted the
Estrangela script, for instance in Codex Ambrosianus. As the
Estrangela script looked visibly different from the normal
Hebrew (Ashuri) characters, it provided a further reason for
the Aramaic Old Testament and the Aramaic Targums to go
their separate ways – with the Targums being favoured by
Jews, and the Aramaic Old Testament being favoured by the
early Jewish/Christian believers.

The highly recommended book, The Text of the Old Testament by Ernst
Wurthwein, contains a great deal of interesting and useful
information on the manuscripts and traditions that make up the
Hebrew Bible. It contains individual chapters on the history and
manuscript tradition of the Aramaic Targums, as well as that of the
Aramaic Old Testament. Like us, it concludes that the Aramaic Old
Testament has early (Jewish) origins, that the Targums and the
Aramaic Old Testament are likely to have influenced each other, and
that the early Jewish believers (Christians) adopted the Aramaic Old
Testament as their favoured translation of the Hebrew Bible into
Aramaic.
The Aramaic Old Testament, then, is a single coherent translation
done at approximately the same time as the Aramaic Targums.
“Peshitta” is the Aramaic word meaning straight or simple (like the
Hebrew word “pashut”), meaning that the Aramaic Old Testament is
a straightforward, fairly literal translation of the Hebrew Bible. In
other words, and in contrast to some of the Targums, it is not a
paraphrase, nor an embellishment, nor a pesher (explanation), nor
midrash (homiletic interpretation) of the Hebrew Bible.
This makes the Aramaic Old Testament an early and very valuable
witness of the Hebrew Bible. It is an accurate, honest and reliable
translation that can and should be consulted whenever questions
arise about the Hebrew Old Testament text. Furthermore, because
both the Aramaic Old Testament and the Aramaic New Testament
are both in the Syriac (Eastern) dialect of Aramaic, and because both
are used by Churches of the East today, they are often grouped
together. They are sometimes bound in a single volume, known as
the Peshitta Bible or Biblia Peshitta. The Lamsa Bible, for example, is a
translation of the Peshitta Bible (both the Old and New Testaments).
As well as being an important work in its own right, the Aramaic
Old Testament is an important alternative to the Aramaic Targums.
Comparing the Aramaic Targums and the Aramaic Old Testament is
often a fascinating exercise, with the differences always of interest.
So, we have seen that the Aramaic Old Testament was translated
from the Hebrew Bible several centuries before Christ. Whereas the
Aramaic Targums were adopted by mainstream Judaism, the
Aramaic Old Testament was subsequently adopted by Christian

believers as well as Jewish converts to Christianity.
This makes the Aramaic Old Testament a vital witness to the
Massoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible. Whenever the text of the
Hebrew Bible is unclear or the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain,
consulting the Aramaic Old Testament shows how Jews at the time
understood the Hebrew. People who knew Hebrew inside out,
thoroughly steeped in its culture and worship, who had respect for
the Holy text and did not want to change or corrupt it, and who
were more than 2000 years closer to the original text than we are
today, translated the Hebrew Bible into the Aramaic Old Testament.
The testimony of the Aramaic Old Testament is therefore extremely
valuable. When there are suspicions that the Massoretic Text of the
Hebrew Bible has been copied incorrectly, the Aramaic Old
Testament provides a vital witness, since (assuming it has been
preserved as faithfully as the Hebrew Bible and that it is free of
corruption) it is an early, honest and very reliable witness to the
Hebrew text.
The Aramaic Old Testament is also important in helping towards the
understanding of difficult or obscure words and passages in the
Hebrew text. Oftentimes a word in the Hebrew Bible is difficult to
understand, perhaps because it is rare or has an unusual form which
might be ambiguous. In cases like this, rather than checking how
modern translations have guessed the meaning of the Hebrew word,
the best approach is instead to consult the primary sources of the
time – in other words, the Aramaic Old Testament and the Aramaic
Targums. The Aramaic translations will tell you how Jews at the time
understood the word. The Aramaic Old Testament and the Aramaic
Targums do sometimes disagree with each other.
The Aramaic Old Testament is important in understanding many
passages in the New Testament, and providing a much richer depth
and dimension to the cultural background to the New Testament. It
is difficult or impossible to understand the debates which Jesus had
with the Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes without a good (and
relevant) understanding of the Old Testament, and the law of Moses
in particular. As well as a knowledge of the Hebrew Bible itself, a
knowledge of the Aramaic Old Testament will provide that
understanding, and provide the authentic Semitic (Hebrew and
Aramaic) context necessary to fully understand the words and

teachings of Jesus.
In addition, there are certainly places where the Aramaic Old
Testament and the Aramaic New Testament quote each other. This
possibility is almost entirely ignored, not even studied, by Bible
believers today. So little is the Aramaic Old Testament studied, read
and understood, that the possibility of the Aramaic New Testament
quoting from it, is almost entirely overlooked. Yet, there are
definitely times where this is the case, and we look at many
examples of this at JesusSpokeAramaic.com.
Furthermore, since the Aramaic Old Testament and the Aramaic
New Testament are both written in the same Syriac dialect of
Aramaic, together they provide an extensive body of literature
which allows us to understand the vocabulary and grammar which
they use. If your interest lies in the Aramaic New Testament,
studying the Aramaic Old Testament will be of immeasurable help in
broadening your knowledge of the language, and in seeing how
words are used in a wider context. It will also help you to see
connections between the Aramaic Old Testament and the Aramaic
New Testament that you would otherwise miss. It will shed new
light on the language in which Jesus spoke and in which his words
were recorded. Conversely, if you are primarily interested in the
Aramaic Old Testament, understanding the Aramaic New Testament
will also benefit you.
The importance and practical benefits of the Aramaic Old Testament
can hardly be over-estimated. For students of the Hebrew Bible and
Biblical Aramaic, for students of the Targums, for students of the
Aramaic New Testament, and for all Bible students everywhere, it is
a hugely under-utilized resource whose treasures lie mostly
unknown and almost entirely untapped by Bible students in the
West today. Saying it has not been fully studied has to be the under-
statement of the century. By comparison, the Septuagint (Greek
translation of the Hebrew Bible) is a mass-market popular
phenomenon which has had immense volumes of scholarly time and
money poured into it. The Aramaic Old Testament, by contrast, is
essentially ignored in the West, whereas in the East it has been
faithfully used for centuries.
And would you like to know the best thing about the Aramaic Old
Testament? Like the Hebrew Bible and the Aramaic New Testament,
the level of variation amongst existing manuscripts is very small.
The Hebrew Bible, the Aramaic Old Testament and the Aramaic
New Testament simply do not contain the mass corruption, changes,
conflicts, blatant errors and insertions, variant readings, and
everything else that is the hallmark of the Greek New Testament and
the Septuagint. In the Hebrew and Aramaic world, there is no need
for countless theories of textual transmission, the endless theorizing
over different textual types and geographical origins, the careers
built on promoting one manuscript over another, pontificating over
whether the majority manuscripts are more original than the corrupt
'early' ones, and multitudes of similar phenomena which abound in
the world of Greek textual criticism. The level of variation in
manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, the Aramaic Old Testament and
the Aramaic New Testament are on a microscopic level compared to
the Greek, and generally consist of grammar variations and spelling
alternatives.
Think about the implications of this for a moment! Down through
more than twenty centuries of human history, though world empires
have come and gone, across cities, countries and continents, the
Hebrew Bible, the Aramaic Old Testament and the Aramaic New
Testament have been miraculously and meticulously preserved.
Wars have ravished. Cities have been plundered. Rulers have come
and gone. Religious leaders have long since arisen, died and been
buried. Schisms have split both church and state. No single empire
or nation has conquered the whole great territorial expanse covered
by all those manuscripts over time and geography. Yet amazingly,
miraculously, the Hebrew Bible, the Aramaic Old Testament and the
Aramaic New Testament have been preserved intact down through
all those centuries, remaining as free from corruption and variation
as mortal man is capable of. Compare manuscripts separated by
whole centuries, countries, continents and cultures, and you will
find that all the many thousands of extant copies of the Aramaic Old
Testament and Aramaic New Testament exhibit that same reliable
uniformity that is so characteristic of the Hebrew Bible.
Copies of the Greek Septuagint and the Greek New Testament differ
widely, and doctrinally, in thousands (nay, hundreds of thousands)
of places. Greek variant readings of the Scriptures abound. Yet the
Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures stand far apart in how uniformly
they have been preserved. Copied for thousands of years with

scarcely a variation between them – preserved the same across all
continents. Is not this a testimony to how great the Word of God is,
how He has preserved His Word as a sign and a testimony in the
midst of this evil and adulterous generation? As it is written in
Isaiah 8:20; “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not
according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”
So, is the Aramaic Old Testament important? Is it worth studying? It
most certainly is. Open its pages and find out for yourself!
Be sure to subscribe to JesusSpokeAramaic.com to learn more about
the Aramaic Old Testament, the Aramaic New Testament, the
Aramaic Targums, and everything else in connection with Aramaic.
JesusSpokeAramaic.com is the biggest and best website in the world
dedicated to learning Aramaic in the context of the Holy Scriptures.
Take a look today!
W H AT I S T H E AR A MA I C PE S H ITTA NEW TE STAME N T? 21 9
What is the Aramaic Peshitta

NEW Testament?
I N THIS chapter, we are going to take an introductory look at the

Aramaic New Testament, also known as The Syriac or the
Aramaic Peshitta. We are going to find out what the Aramaic New
Testament is.
You can get free access to an entire video lesson about the Aramaic Peshitta NT,
entitled What is the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament?, by following the link below:
http://JesusSpokeAramaic.com/Lessons/Aramaic-Peshitta-New-
Testament/What-is-Aramaic-Peshitta
In the many exciting video lessons available at

JesusSpokeAramaic.com, we expand on this chapter by taking a look
at the history of the Aramaic New Testament, it's canon, and why it
is so critically important today. We will compare the Aramaic New
Testament with the Greek New Testament, and show you some of
the many wonders and amazing things about the Aramaic New
Testament. It is going to be an exciting journey!
So let's start at the very beginning, which is always a good place to
start.
When people think of the New Testament, they usually think of a
copy in their local modern language (English, Spanish, French,
German, or whatever). Most people will have heard that the New
Testament was not originally written in these modern languages, but
was translated (or so we are told) from Greek, and Koine (or
Common) Greek in particular. Koine Greek is different from
Classical Greek. Classical Greek is an earlier form of Greek which the
Greek classics, such as Plato and Socrates, were written in.
So what, then, is the Aramaic New Testament? Obviously, this is a

version of the New Testament written in Aramaic (rather than
Greek).
Now, if you dig a little deeper, you will find several interesting
things about the Aramaic New Testament. Prior to the 1850s (or
about the time of Westcott and Hort), the following facts were
universally accepted, in the West, about Aramaic and the Aramaic
New Testament:
➔ It was accepted that Aramaic was the commonly spoken
language in Israel, by Jews, in the first century A.D., and
therefore Aramaic was the language normally spoken by
Jesus, the disciples, and Jews in general.
➔ It was believed that the Aramaic New Testament dated to at
least as early as the first or second century A.D., and was
therefore just as old as the earliest Greek manuscript
fragments.
➔ It was understood that the Aramaic New Testament was
essentially free from all the myriad of variations that are
found in manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. Many of
the variations in the multitude of Greek texts are very
significant, often doctrinally important. By contrast,
variations of significance are almost entirely missing in the
Aramaic New Testament, and the Aramaic text is almost
identical across many centuries and entire continents.
➔ It was known that the Aramaic New Testament contained
many idioms, puns and plays on words – all of which are
idiomatic and completely natural in Aramaic.
➔ Since it was accepted that Jesus and the disciples spoke
Aramaic, as did Jews generally in the first century A.D., it
was understood that the Aramaic New Testament must
therefore be as close as it is possible to get to the original
words spoken by Jesus himself, and as close as possible to
the original autographs of Scripture.
Evidence for the above views can be found in the detailed Appendix
of the 1852 Murdock Translation of the Aramaic New Testament, which is
available for free download to subscribers on the
W H AT I S T H E AR A MA I C PE S H ITTA NEW TE STAME N T? 221
JesusSpokeAramaic.com website. Even though Murdock believed

that the Aramaic New Testament was a translation from the Greek,
he pays the Aramaic New Testament many amazing and surprising
compliments such as those above. He says it is hard to believe that
the Aramaic New Testament is a mere translation. The Introduction
to the Norton Translation of the Peshitta also contains a lot of
additional evidence for the above views.
If you read through books and commentaries prior to Westcott and
Hort in about the 1850s, you will find very frequent references to the
Aramaic New Testament. In the West, it was a well-respected early
Aramaic witness of the text of the New Testament, and was
commonly used to resolve problems in the Greek New Testament
text.
That was how the Aramaic New Testament was regarded in the
West. With Christianity in the East, however (meaning churches east
of Constantinople, covering countries such as Turkey, Lebanon,
Syria, Iraq, Iran, even as far as India and beyond), it turns out that
basically all Eastern Christian churches, across all countries and
continents, and down through the centuries, universally hail the
Aramaic New Testament as the original written form of the New
Testament, the actual inspired Word of God, and thus not a
translation from the Greek at all.
Eastern Christian churches believe, and have historical records
showing, that the books of the Aramaic New Testament were handed
down to them by the very apostles themselves. They have always
believed that the Aramaic New Testament is the original inspired
Word of God. They have never believed anything different. They
have simply never used the various Greek texts.
It is only in the West (Europe, America, etc.) that the idea of the
original New Testament being in Aramaic is controversial. But in
turns out that there is an immense body of evidence for this view. In
the video lessons on the Aramaic New Testament which we have
available at JesusSpokeAramaic.com, we will go through the
evidence, the history and the facts with you – step by step.
So which view is correct? Is the Aramaic New Testament merely a
translation from the Greek, albeit an exceptionally ancient, reliable
and authentic translation, or is it the original text from which the
Greek was translated?

For many people, the idea that there exists a version of the New
Testament written in Aramaic will be completely new. But please
thoroughly go through all the evidence presented at
JesusSpokeAramaic.com and decide for yourself. Reading through
the evidence and watching all the evidence presented will take time.
You will probably need to watch the videos again and again, to make
sure you fully understand and assimilate the material we present at
JesusSpokeAramaic.com because there is such a lot of ground to
cover.
If you don't know much about the Aramaic New Testament, or if
you didn't know that there even exists a version of the New
Testament written in Aramaic, then many of the ideas presented at
JesusSpokeAramaic.com will be new and challenging for you. But
we will present solid evidence all throughout our video lessons. We
provide detailed transcripts of the lessons so that you can study the
material at your leisure, as well as watching the videos and listening
to the audio.
Once you understand what the Aramaic New Testament is, once you
start to read it for yourself, once you see the astonishing beauty it
contains, once you understand just how many problems in the Greek
text it helps to explain or shed new light on, you will find that your
faith is immensely strengthened.
Rather than being a challenge to your faith, an understanding of the
Aramaic New Testament will provide a huge boost to your faith. You
will find that worrying and troubling variations in the Greek texts
disappear, over and over again. You will find that criticisms of the
New Testament based on problems in the Greek texts disappear
altogether. Suddenly obscure passages of the New Testament will
make sense. Verses will take on exciting new meanings. There will be
a depth, originality and vibrancy to the New Testament that you just
will never see in a Greek text or an English translation. Related
passages in the Hebrew Old Testament become clearer and more
obvious.
The Aramaic New Testament is much closer to the traditional KJV
text than the huge number of variants in the Greek texts. Faith is
increased by understanding just how internally consistent the
Aramaic New Testament is, how essentially all manuscripts across

all countries and across whole centuries, all agree with each other
(just like the Hebrew Bible). The Aramaic New Testament has all the
hallmarks of being divinely preserved down through time, kept
unchanged from all the doctrinal battles that raged in the Greek
world, preserved from textual interference by those same doctrinal
battles.
And so, far from being a challenge to your faith, the evidence
provided by the Aramaic New Testament should strengthen the
feeble knees, embolden the heart and soul of all students of God's
Word, and prepare this generation for the time when Israel's Messiah
will come to save his people and judge those nations who stand
against the Lord's Anointed and who have touched the apple of his
eye.
Just as the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament) contains both Hebrew
and Aramaic, the New Testament has been divinely preserved in
Aramaic, down through the centuries. Together, Hebrew and
Aramaic were the vehicles by which the Lord has revealed His Word
to Jew (Hebrew) and Gentile (Aramaic). Greek is the language of the
apostasy and the enemies of the Jews. Greeks polluted the Holy
Temple at Jerusalem, introduced Greek philosophy to Judaism, and
the Maccabees waged war against their evil influence. Jews will
never accept a Greek New Testament that calls upon Theos, Deus, or
Zeus by another name. They will bow the knee only to the One True
God. “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one Lord.” Christians
should accept nothing less.
So, we have seen that the language in which the New Testament was
written – Aramaic or Greek – is a point of controversy. There is a
difference of opinion as to which one came first. Either Aramaic
came first and the Greek was translated from it, or Greek came first
and the Aramaic was translated from it.
If the popular view in the West is correct, the New Testament was
originally written in Greek, and somewhere in the first few centuries
A.D., it was translated into Aramaic.
Let's imagine (for a moment) that the popular view was correct.
Where does that leave the Aramaic New Testament? If nothing else,
the Aramaic New Testament is all of these things:
➔ The Aramaic New Testament is as close as you can get to the

actual words spoken by Jesus and his disciples, since they
spoke predominantly in Aramaic.
➔ As we saw in the chapter, What Does Josephus Say?, following
the Maccabean revolt, Jews had a revulsion to Greek
learning and philosophy. Jesus and his disciples therefore, as
religious Jews, would not have spoken Greek even if they
could.
➔ The Aramaic New Testament is as close as you can get to the
original Aramaic and Semitic idioms that underpin the
Greek New Testament.
➔ Time and again, the Aramaic New Testament explains
variant readings in the Greek New Testament.
➔ The Aramaic New Testament explains a multitude of
difficult, obscure, problematic, or conflicting words in the
Greek New Testament.
➔ The Aramaic New Testament comfortably and logically
explains passages that are commonly attacked by Bible
critics, because those conflicts just do not occur in the
Aramaic New Testament.
➔ The Aramaic New Testament contains a whole bunch of
features that are entirely missing in all translations including
the Greek, such as poetry, puns, rhymes, plays on words,
idioms, and similar features.
➔ The Aramaic New Testament means that you do not need to
use the names of pagan deities in worship and Bible study,
such as the names of Greek gods (Theos = Deus = Zeus!) and
Kurios.
➔ The Aramaic New Testament is the only New Testament
universally recognized in the Church of the East, and
therefore essential for a complete understanding of Bible
history. Ignoring the Aramaic New Testament is therefore
like trying to breathe with only one lung.
If nothing else, the Aramaic New Testament is all of those things,
and more. And that is if the Aramaic New Testament is only a
translation.
However, many people are unaware of the Aramaic New Testament.
Some Christians do not even know that a version of the New
Testament in Aramaic even exists.
We have presented a great deal of evidence on this web site showing
that Aramaic must have come first, and that Greek was translated
from it (not the other way round). We have not even scratched the
surface, but only supplied a few examples. Whole books have been
written presenting this evidence in greater detail, with many more
examples.
Aramaic Primacy is not the most popular view in the West, but it is
universally believed in the East. Bible believers all the way from
Turkey to India and beyond, conduct their liturgies in Aramaic and
have done so since their churches were founded. Those believers
have only ever known the Aramaic New Testament. The Aramaic
New Testament is all their liturgies have ever known. They have
simply never adopted Greek New Testament manuscripts. In fact,
some early translations such as Armenian, were made from the
Aramaic New Testament because the translators could not find any
Greek New Testament manuscripts in their country.
The evidence, therefore, points to the Aramaic New Testament as
being the original text in which the New Testament was given. At an
early stage, Greek translations were made, and probably revised
over time. This explains the preponderance of variations in the
Greek New Testament, and the astonishing and noteworthy lack of
them in the original Aramaic.
Just as Bible students go back to the Greek for clarity on their
English translations, so we should go back to the original Aramaic
for clarity on the Greek. Time and again, the Aramaic New
Testament helps to clarify the Greek text. The Aramaic New
Testament explains differences and textual variants. The Aramaic
New Testament sheds light on the Semitic idioms used in the New
Testament. Aramaic breathes life into Bible study like no other
source.
If you believe the message of the New Testament, ignoring the
Aramaic New Testament means that you are floating adrift at sea.
You have lost your moorings. Your faith will be battered by lower
textual criticism, higher textual criticism, Bible skeptics, humanists,

pagan philosophies, and much more. The Aramaic New Testament is
your anchor. The Aramaic New Testament will correctly stabilize
your faith and re-root your beliefs back to the Semitic origins of the
New Testament. The Aramaic New Testament will breathe new life
into familiar passages, explain quirks and other obscure passages,
and will withstand all the poison that Bible skeptics and critics can
throw at it.
Read the Aramaic New Testament in the original Aramaic, and you
will see an original beauty leap off the page that translations just do
not have. It's like the difference between seeing a photograph of a
loved one, and meeting them face to face.
Start learning Aramaic today, and put the Aramaic New Testament
at the center of your Bible faith. Reconnect your heart and mind to
the Holy Scriptures, breathed by the Living God, and forming the
words of the Aramaic New Testament. A translation is just not the
same, whether it be in Greek, Latin, English, or any other language.
Many will be unable to divorce themselves from the popular view
that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. I was once
like that. I dismissed out of hand any claims that the New Testament
was originally written in Aramaic. But one day I looked into the
evidence. And it scared me how much that evidence started to
mount up. Slowly, the barriers came down, and I started to see that
the Aramaic New Testament had to be the original text, and the
Greek derived from it. Far from rocking my faith, and much to my
surprise, my faith was enormously boosted and strengthened. When
reading the Aramaic New Testament, it was like reading the Holy
Scriptures without a veil, coming face to face with the words of the
Holy Spirit, not seeing through a glass darkly or through the words
of a translation.
Learn the Aramaic New Testament, dear Bible believer. Let yourself
be guided by the Father, and you will see the words of the Living
God, the pearl of great price. The wonders of the Aramaic New
Testament await you. Open its pages and read!
A R ME N IAN BI B L E – FRO M AR A MA I C, N OT GR E E K ! 227
Armenian Bible – From

Aramaic, not Greek!
I N CONSIDERING the question of how early the Aramaic New

Testament is, and just how early on it was considered authentic
and canonical, it is fascinating and very instructive to investigate
the earliest translations of the Bible. When we do so, we invariably
find that they were translated from the Aramaic New Testament
(that is, what is often referred to as “The Syriac”). By “The Syriac” is
meant the Syriac version of the New Testament, that is, the Aramaic
New Testament, because Syriac is the Aramaic dialect in which it
was written.
As an example, consider one of the earliest translations ever made –
of the Bible into the Armenian language. Now, Armenia is the
mountainous region stretching from Eastern Turkey to the west,
Georgia to the north, Azerbaijan to the east, and Iran to the south. It
is a very large area, with a proud and independent history. The
Wikipedia article tells us that Christianity spread there as early as 40
A.D.
So, let us see... Just how far back does the Armenian Bible go, and
what was it translated from?
Let us quote from the brief history of the Armenian Bible on
Wikipedia:
“The Armenian Bible is due to Saint Mesrob’s early 5th century
translation. The first monument of Armenian literature is the
version of the Holy Scriptures. Isaac, says Moses of Chorene,
made a translation of the Bible from the Syriac text about 411.”
Thus, we find that the Armenian Bible was produced in about 411
A.D., and was actually an instrumental step in the development of

the Armenian language.
But astonishingly, we find that, as late as the fifth century A.D., the
Armenian translation was made from Syriac (that is, the Aramaic
New Testament) and NOT from the Greek New Testament, as might
be expected.
The Syriac, or the Aramaic New Testament, was therefore in
widespread, established use well before this time, in order for it to be
regarded as canonical, authentic and authoritative, with an
established written text from which translations could be made.
But the Wikipedia article does not tell us WHY the Armenian Bible
was translated from Aramaic. For that, we have to go to historians of
the Armenian Bible itself, where the reason is well documented and
well known.
If, for example, we go to the International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, an independent encyclopaedia which is well
respected throughout the academic world, we find that NO
MANUSCRIPTS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT COULD BE
FOUND IN THE WHOLE OF ARMENIA!
Let us quote from the ISBE article about the history of the Armenian
Bible:
“A council of the nobility, bishops and leading clergy was held at
Vagharshapat in 402, King Vramshapouch being present, and
this council requested Isaac to translate the Scriptures into the
vernacular. By 406, Mesrob had succeeded in inventing an
alphabet--practically the one still in use--principally by
modifying the Greek and the Pahlavi characters, though some
think the Palmyrene alphabet had influence. He and two of his
pupils at Samosata began by translating the Book of Proverbs,
and then the New Testament, from the Greek. Meanwhile, being
unable to find a single Greek manuscript in the country, Isaac
translated the church chapters from the Peshitta Syriac, and
published this version in 411. He sent two of his pupils to
Constantinople for copies of the Greek Bible. These men were
present at the Council of Ephesus, 431 AD. Probably Theodoret
(De Cura Graec. Affect., I, 5) learned from them what he says
about the existence of the Bible in Armenian. Isaac’s messengers
brought him copies of the Greek Bible from the Imperial Library
at Constantinople--doubtless some of those prepared by
Eusebius at Constantine’s command. Mesrob Mashtots and
Isaac, with their assistants, finished and published the Armenian
(ancient) version of the whole Bible in 436.”
Lest any doubt that this is a reliable history of the Armenian Bible,
this same historical account is confirmed by those who use the
Armenian version – for instance, see the website:
armenianbible.org
Thus, we find that there were simply no copies of manuscripts of the

Greek New Testament that could be used for the translation, and so
the earliest translation of the Armenian Bible was made from the
Syriac (Aramaic) Peshitta New Testament.
Although the earliest translations of the Armenian Bible were made
from the Aramaic New Testament, later (subsequent) translations of
the Armenian Bible were made from Greek, but for that to be
possible, the translators had to go as far afield as Constantinople to
even find copies of the New Testament in Greek!
This historical record demonstrates that the Aramaic New Testament
had gained widespread acceptance, authority, and dominance right
through the first few centuries. The Greek New Testament, by
contrast, and according to the evidence, had not (at this early stage)
gained dominance or widespread geographical acceptance. This, of
course, should be no surprise if you have followed all the evidence
provided in this book. If, on the other hand, the Aramaic New
Testament is new to you, and you had previously assumed that the
Greek New Testament arose in the first century and gained universal
acceptance across the whole of Christendom, then the evidence
provided by the history of the Armenian Bible will be puzzling and
difficult to explain.
In fact, as we shall see when we examine the early history of the
Arabic Bible, the Aramaic New Testament continued in widespread
use right through for many centuries later, until Crusader times,
when the Bible was first translated into Arabic.
However, the article about the Armenian Bible in the International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia goes further. After explaining that
copies of the Greek New Testament were searched for and that later
Armenian Bibles were translated from the Greek manuscripts, it goes
on to say:
“In the 6th century the Armenian version is said to have been
revised so as to agree with the Peshitta [Aramaic New
Testament].”
Let us pause for thought and consider what this early history of the
Armenian Bible is telling us. The earliest Armenian Bible was
translated from the Aramaic New Testament because no copies of
the New Testament in Greek could be found. Then, search was made
for Greek New Testament manuscripts, but the search had to go as
far afield as Constantinople to find any. Then, about a century later,
the translation of the Armenian Bible was changed to agree with the
Aramaic New Testament. So, what is that telling us?
In other words, after making a translation from the Greek copies of
the New Testament, why would those translations be abandoned, in
favour of a revised translation based (once again) on the Aramaic
New Testament?
We are surely justified in drawing several conclusions from these
historical facts:
➔ First, the conclusion must surely be that the Greek New
Testament copies were regarded as unreliable. Why else
would they be abandoned in favour of going back to the
Aramaic New Testament?
➔ Second, it is obvious that the differences between the Greek
copies and the Aramaic New Testament must have been
significant enough to make the translation worth revising, in
favour of the Aramaic New Testament.
➔ Third, we must also ask the question which, historically
(Aramaic or Greek), was regarded as the most authoritative,
most authentic, most reliable, version? Because in the history
of the Armenian Bible, we have clear evidence that the
Aramaic New Testament was there right from the beginning,
already established and regarded as authoritative. No Greek
New Testament manuscripts could be found in the whole of
Armenia. Search had to be made, but they had to travel as
far afield as Constantinople, outside the vast region of

Armenia, to find copies of the Greek New Testament. Even
then, after copies from the Greek were made, about a
century later, the translation from Greek was revised again,
going back to authoritative manuscripts of the Aramaic New
Testament itself.
Surely this tells us all we need to know about how highly regarded
the Aramaic New Testament was in the early centuries after Christ.
We ignore the Aramaic New Testament at our peril. It has stood the
test of time. It has proved itself reliable, authoritative, authentic,
throughout centuries, across different sects, across different countries
and jurisdictions.
We can trust the Aramaic New Testament. It is the inspired Word of
God.
The Arabic Bible – From

The Aramaic New Testament!
I N THIS BOOK about Aramaic, the Bible's Second Holy

Language, we have seen how extensive the history of Aramaic is,
covering (as it does) a period of several millennia. We have seen
that Aramaic was the language of the New Testament, and was the
commonly spoken language of Jews in the land of Israel, and
therefore of the disciples and Jesus himself. It is thus entirely natural
that the New Testament would be written in Aramaic since, as we
have seen, Greek was a foreign language to the Jews, and Josephus
tells us that Jews were discouraged from even speaking it.
It is entirely natural, therefore, for the Aramaic New Testament to be
the first written record of the documents that would become the
New Testament. As we shall see, the Aramaic New Testament
quickly established itself and gained universal acceptance and
authority as the authentic Word of God in all churches in the Middle
East, and later the church of the East. The Greek New Testament, of
course, spread quickly in the West and soon gained dominance in
the West, but the Aramaic New Testament remained the dominant
New Testament in the East.
Given these facts about the early establishment of the Aramaic New
Testament in the Middle East, in the chapter The Armenian Bible –
from Aramaic, we saw that Armenia is the vast region of the Middle
East, at its peak stretching from Turkey to Iran, and covering
modern-day Lebanon and Syria.
But, in what may surprise many people, the Armenian Bible was
initially translated from the Aramaic New Testament, because no
Greek manuscripts could be found in the whole of Armenia! The
T H E AR A B I C BI B L E – FRO M TH E AR A MA I C NE W TE STAME N T! 233
translators had to go as far afield as Constantinople to even find

copies of the New Testament in Greek, and even then, about a
century later, the Armenian translation was changed to bring it back
into line with the Aramaic New Testament!
These facts show how well-entrenched the Aramaic New Testament
was, in the Middle East, in the centuries following the first century
A.D. In fact, the Aramaic New Testament continued in use and
became the universal and authoritative New Testament used all
throughout the East.
Nevertheless, in the chapter From Aramaic to Arabic, we saw that
Arabic slowly started to become more popular than Aramaic as the
spoken language of the Middle East. By the time of the Moslem
conquests, at least in the areas that Mohammed’s followers were
located, Arabic was the more common spoken language. Hence, the
Koran was written in Arabic.
Despite this, however, the Aramaic New Testament retained its
foothold. For example, just as the early Armenian Bibles were
translated from Aramaic, so too the early Arabic Bibles were
translated (at least partly) from the Aramaic New Testament. This
testifies as to how well established and authoritative the Aramaic
New Testament was considered, in the Middle East, some 900 years
after Jesus had preached.
Thus, if we examine the history of the early Arabic Bible translations,
we find that Wikipedia confirms that the early Arabic translations
were made (at least partially) from the Aramaic New Testament:
“Translations of the Bible into Arabic are known from the early
Christian churches in Syria, Egypt, Malta and Spain. Some of
these translations are from Syriac (the Peshitta), Coptic or Latin.
The earliest fragment of the Old Testament in Arabic is a text of
Psalm 77, found in the Umayyad Mosque, dating from the 8th
century. The first Jewish translations of the Hebrew Bible, and
the Bible translations by Roman Catholic clergy date from c.
A.D. 1000. One of the oldest Arabic Bibles was discovered in the
19th century at Saint Catherine’s Monastery. The manuscript
called Mt. Sinai Arabic Codex 151, was created in AD 867. It
includes the Biblical text, marginal comments, lectionary notes,
and glosses, as found in the manuscript.”
This historical account is interesting because it shows that the

earliest translations into Arabic were made from the Syriac (Aramaic
New Testament), the Coptic and the Latin. The Coptic, of course, is
not surprising because it was an early Bible translation made in
Egypt. A translation from Latin is also not surprising, given that the
Vulgate was very popular in the West by this time, especially as
there was a widespread Arab population in Spain, where the
Catholic Church held universal dominion, and the Latin Vulgate was
held in high regard.
But note, that in these early translations of the Bible into Arabic,
Greek is noticeably absent! Later Arabic translations from Greek
were made, but not these early translations! Instead, other than
translating from existing popular translations such as Coptic and
Latin, the early Arabic translations were all made from the Aramaic
New Testament, just as the earlier Armenian Bible had been...
Surely, this, once again, demonstrates how respected and trusted the
Aramaic New Testament was. Nearly a full one thousand years after
Jesus preached, the earliest Arabic translations were made from the
Aramaic New Testament – even in Europe (Spain), thousands of
miles away from the Middle East. This demonstrates how reliable
and authentic the Aramaic New Testament was regarded. It
demonstrates how early, and how widespread, the Aramaic New
Testament had gained respect across a wide geographical area. It
was not just restricted to the East. Even in the West, extending
through Moslem times, into the Arab kingdoms, and into Crusader
times and beyond, the Aramaic New Testament was understood,
venerated, respected and canonized – regarded as something which
could be trusted, respected and authentic. In other words, the Word
of God.
Since the Aramaic New Testament has stood the test of time, since it
has been venerated over such a wide geographical area from such
early times, we would do well to understand its history. We would
do well to treat the Aramaic New Testament with the respect it
deserves, as the living Word of God.
And so, we have seen that the Armenian Bible was translated from
the Aramaic New Testament.
And the early Arabic translations were translated from the Aramaic
T H E AR A B I C BI B L E – FRO M TH E AR A MA I C NE W TE STAME N T! 235
New Testament.
But why not bypass translations altogether, and study the Aramaic
New Testament for yourself? Drink from the very fountain of the
Water of Life itself, and leave aside the muddy pool of translations,
with man-made biases and opinions, and in doing so, you will have
rest for your soul, and your heart will know that it has come home…
From Aramaic to Arabic
I F YOU HAVE followed thus far on these chapters about

Aramaic, the Bible's Second Holy Language, you have seen that
Aramaic has a very long history indeed. Aramaic’s journey starts
nearly at the beginning of Creation, in the very opening pages of the
book of Genesis, and continues through the Assyrian, Babylonian,
Greek and Roman Empires.
We have carefully traced the use of Aramaic around the time of the
New Testament, and seen that Aramaic was the common spoken
language at the time of Jesus. Indeed, after the Maccabean Revolt,
when Jews rebelled against Greek culture and the Greek language,
Aramaic only strengthened in importance. Josephus provides
testimony that Aramaic was the generally spoken language at the
time, in distinction to Hebrew, and the New Testament itself testifies
that Aramaic was the spoken language of the inhabitants of
Jerusalem. In fact, as we saw in the chapter about Aramaic in the
New Testament, the New Testament provides a great deal of
information about the use of Aramaic at this time.
And as we continue our journey through time in the centuries after
the New Testament, Aramaic continued constantly in use. However,
slowly, Arabic started to become more popular across the Middle
East, and Aramaic steadily started to lose its foothold. And so, if we
examine every history and grammar of Arabic, we find that they all,
universally, explain that Arabic took over from Aramaic – in other
words, Aramaic was the language spoken across the Middle East
right up until the time that Arabic started to gain the ascendancy. If
you have read through all the chapters of this book, that of course
should come as no surprise. However, just to make the point,
consider a few examples from independent, authoritative sources:
The Wikipedia article on the Arabic language:
F RO M AR A MA I C TO AR A B I C 2 37
“The most important sources of borrowings into (pre-Islamic)

Arabic are from the related (Semitic) language Aramaic, which
used to be the principal, international language of
communication throughout the ancient Near and Middle
East…”
Encyclopedia Britannica online, article on Aramaic Language:
“Aramaic continued in wide use until about A.D. 650, when it
was supplanted by Arabic.”
And so, while Aramaic continued in widespread use across the
Middle East for hundreds of years after the New Testament was
written, by the time we come to the Moslem conquests in the
seventh century A.D., we find that Arabic was becoming the
dominant spoken and written language – at least by the followers of
Mohammed. Thus, we find that the Koran was written in Arabic,
rather than Aramaic.
However, a spoken language across a wide geographical area is not
displaced by another language easily, and the process takes
hundreds of years. Thus, while Arabic was the Middle East’s
dominant language by Islamic times, Aramaic still continued in use
long after that. In fact, the language of the Koran has been
extensively studied, and there are still traces of Aramaic in it.
For example, the book, The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran, by
Christoph Luxenberg, shows that many words and phrases in the
Koran can be better understood as Aramaic, rather than Arabic.
Although this book is controversial amongst Moslems because it
implies that the Koran was not written entirely in classical Arabic, in
some ways, it should not be controversial at all. Aramaic and Arabic
were both spoken languages at the time, and because they are both
Semitic languages, they have a great deal in common. It would be
natural for many words to be shared, and for many words to be
understandable as either Aramaic or Arabic. Thus, having Syriac or
Aramaic words in an otherwise Arabic Koran, should be natural,
rather than surprising. The same process happens in the New
Testament, where some (but not all) of the phrases of Christ could be
understood as either Hebrew or Aramaic.
In fact, as you study the Aramaic Alphabet video lessons that are
available at JesusSpokeAramaic.com, you will start with the
'Hebrew' Ashuri script (originally Aramaic!), then progress to the

Estrangela script, then to the Serta script, and then to the Swadaya
script. As the Aramaic Alphabet progresses from one script to the
next over a period of centuries, it starts to change. The letters start to
join on to each other – slowly and only sometimes in the case of
Estrangela, then systematically in the case of Serta. Written Arabic is
a step further on from Serta, with letter forms being systematically
joined to the letters before and after, in standardised ways, leading to
the beautiful calligraphic script that Arabic is known for. We see in
Arabic, therefore, the Estrangela and Serta scripts taken one step
further. But again, this emphasises the steady evolution from
Aramaic to Arabic in both the spoken language, as well as the
written language.
However, although Arabic started to gain a foothold over Aramaic, it
was still a slow process. Entirely supplanting one language with
another often never really happens entirely, and the supplanted
language manages to retain a foothold. The same happened with
Aramaic. Aramaic refused to die, and continued to be spoken
throughout the Middle East, albeit in smaller and smaller numbers,
to the present day. As we shall see in the chapter Aramaic Still Spoken
Today, Aramaic still continues to be spoken in scattered villages
across various countries in the Middle East today.
In fact, Lebanese Arabic is different from other dialects of Arabic in
the Middle East, and Lebanese speakers have repeatedly told me
that it is very close to Aramaic.
In any case, consider the continuity that Aramaic has had across the
Middle East. It was the official spoken language across all the
Assyrian, Persian and Babylonian empires, it was spoken right down
through the period between the Old and New Testaments, it was
widely spoken in Israel (both in Galilee and in Jerusalem) in the first
century A.D., it continued many centuries after that, and it was the
spoken language right up through, and beyond, the Moslem
conquests until it gave way to Arabic. Given all the other chapters
about Aramaic in this book, the longevity and continuity of Aramaic
makes perfect sense, since it is the Second Holy Language of the
Scriptures.
But those who believe that Greek was the “lingua franca”, or
commonly-spoken language, in the Middle East as a result of
F RO M AR A MA I C TO AR A B I C 2 39
Alexander the Great’s expeditions, and that Greek was the normal
spoken language in Israel in the first century A.D., and that Jesus (as
a religious Jew!) would have spoken Greek, have an extreme
difficulty at this point. They have a cultural and historical anomaly
on their hands that cannot be explained.
Because if Greek was the normally spoken language in the first
century A.D., spoken widely enough by the common people that
even Jesus spoke it, then we have a bizarre situation... It would mean
that Aramaic was the widely spoken language across the Middle
East in the centuries leading up to the first century A.D., only to be
supplanted entirely by Greek in the first century A.D. for Jesus to
speak Greek, only for Greek itself to be supplanted entirely once
again by Aramaic so that Aramaic could be the language that history
tells us came just before Arabic.
Aramaic, then Greek, then Aramaic again? That is impossible.
Instead, the only reasonable explanation is that, while Greek was
spoken amongst minority groups of people, referred to as Grecian
Jews in the New Testament, Greek is so different from Hebrew,
Aramaic or Arabic, that it simply never became widely spoken
enough amongst mainstream Jews for it to replace Aramaic.
That is why Aramaic continued to be spoken right up until Arabic
supplanted it by the time of the Moslem conquests. As the title of
this chapter says, From Aramaic to Arabic – not “from Aramaic, to
Greek, then to Aramaic again, then to Arabic…”
Aramaic into Crusader

Times
I F YOU HAVE been following thus far on these chapters on

Aramaic, the Bible's Second Holy Language, you will have seen
that Aramaic has a very long history indeed. We have traced
through Aramaic’s journey nearly at the beginning of Creation, all
the way through the Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman
Empires. For several thousand years, Aramaic continued its journey
down through time. It was the language used by all the nations
surrounding Israel, throughout the pages of the Holy Bible.
Let’s provide a timeline of Aramaic as it became increasingly
important, following the Babylonian exile.
➔ 586 B.C., Jerusalem captured and the Babylonian exile starts.
Jews, in large numbers, are exported to Babylon and across
the Babylonian Empire, where they are forced to learn
Aramaic. But they are well treated, and because of the
similarity of Aramaic to Hebrew, there is little resistance to
Aramaic and the task of learning it is not difficult.
➔ Seventy years later, according to Jeremiah’s prophecy, Jews
return to Jerusalem again, establish the Temple worship
again, and re-build the walls of Jerusalem under Ezra and
Nehemiah. Aramaic and Hebrew are now both spoken,
although Aramaic starts to become dominant, and Aramaic
is still spoken by Jews outside of Israel.
➔ Meanwhile, in the Persian Empire, Aramaic continues to be
used.
➔ In 168 B.C., the Maccabean Revolt takes place, where Jews
A R A MA I C I N TO CR U SADE R TI M E S 2 41
rebel against the imposition of Greek rule, Greek language

and Greek customs across Israel. Aramaic is the spoken
language. Jews in Israel do not want Greek – although many
do adopt Greek customs.
➔ The Roman Empire extends to Israel. Aramaic continues to
be spoken by the common people, although Hebrew is still a
minority spoken language, especially amongst religious
Jews.
➔ Jesus of Nazareth is born.
➔ Around the time of Jesus and living through the Jewish wars
against the Romans in A.D. 70, Josephus the historian writes
his many detailed and long histories – The Antiquities of the
Jews and The Jewish Wars. Josephus documents that Aramaic
is “the language of our country”, i.e. the dominant language
of Israel. His history was initially written in Aramaic, but
then translated into Greek – a foreign language which
Josephus says that he struggles with, and still can’t
pronounce properly.
➔ A.D. 70. The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple takes
place. Many important manuscripts are smuggled out of
Jerusalem and taken to safety to the Dead Sea. In addition to
the books of the Hebrew Bible (obviously in Hebrew), there
are a combination of Aramaic and Hebrew manuscripts,
showing the continued use of Aramaic during this time.
➔ A.D. 135, the Bar Kokhba Revolt takes place. Aramaic is still
the dominant language in Israel now, although religious
Jews and Zealots no doubt wanted a resurgence of Hebrew.
➔ Second to fourth centuries A.D., the Talmud is composed by
the Jewish authorities, both in Israel (the Jerusalem Talmud)
and in Babylon (the Babylonian Talmud). The oral traditions
of the Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes, which Jesus
preached against, are recorded in written form. The Mishnah
is in Rabbinic Hebrew (heavily influenced by Aramaic),
while the Gemara (the commentary on the Mishnah) is
written in Aramaic, showing the importance of Aramaic for
discussions and conversations.
➔ Meanwhile, around the third to fourth centuries A.D., at a

time when Constantine becomes a ‘Christian’ emperor,
Greek manuscripts of the New Testament start to become
available, especially in Alexandria in Egypt, which is a
hotbed of Gnostic and other heretical views. In Europe,
Greek manuscripts of the Bible become more common, but
the Aramaic New Testament is very much still available!
➔ In the west, in Europe, towards the end of the fourth century
A.D., Jerome produces the Latin Vulgate translation, and this
is pushed by the ruling religious authorities above all other
versions – above the Hebrew Old Testament, above the
Greek New Testament, above the LXX (or Septuagint), and
above the Aramaic New Testament.
In this brief timeline, then, we have seen that Aramaic has a
continuous connection with Jews and the Land of Israel, with Jesus,
with Josephus, and across the whole of the Middle East and beyond,
all the way from the very beginnings of history, all the way through
to the fourth century, when Jews are busy writing the voluminous
records of the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds (both of which are
in Aramaic!).
And so, by the time that Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate, we see
a clear split between Aramaic STILL being used by Jews in Israel,
and Aramaic being used across the Middle East and beyond (further
east), and Greek and Latin now becoming the preferred languages in
Europe, as decreed by the Roman Catholic Church.
But let’s continue our timeline. We will see that Aramaic continued
to be used!
➔ First, one of the earliest translations of all – the Armenian
Bible in the early fifth century – was made from Aramaic,
and not Greek! As we saw in the chapter on the Armenian
Bible, in the whole of the land of Armenia, not a single
Greek New Testament manuscript could be found. The
Aramaic New Testament was all there was.
➔ Later, we come to Arabic Bible, starting around the 8th
century A.D. Like the Armenian Bible before it, yet several
centuries later, the Arabic Bible too was translated primarily
from the Aramaic New Testament and Aramaic sources.
A R A MA I C I N TO CR U SADE R TI M E S 243
We see, then, an entire continuous history of Aramaic across the

Middle East, certainly in Israel, but across the whole Middle East
and beyond, all the way from Armenia (Turkey, or Asia Minor)
through to India and beyond. Even by the time that Christianity is
being introduced in China and Mongolia, around the time of the
Armenian and Arabic Bibles, the Aramaic (or Syriac) is what was
used, and what was preached.
Greek and Latin may have become dominant in Europe due to the
influence of the Roman Catholic Church and their desire to create a
translation which they could control, influence and change to suit
their doctrinal perspectives. But outside of Europe, outside of the
limits of the Roman Church, Aramaic was all there was. Aramaic
was the language used to preach the Gospel message, from the time
of Jesus onwards.
But Aramaic did not stop there. Aramaic was used all throughout
the Middle East for almost one and a half thousand years after the
birth of Jesus of Nazareth.
We have seen that Aramaic was very much still in use when the
Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds were written in Aramaic (second
to fourth centuries A.D.), when the Armenian Bible was created
(early fifth century A.D.), and when the Arabic Bible was created
(around the 8th century A.D. onwards).
But what happened in history after that?
Well, mainly in Galilee in Israel, we have the Massoretes, that
faithful generation of Karaite Jews who meticulously, and very
faithfully, copied and preserved the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament.
History tells us that they worked from around the sixth century to
beyond the 10th century. The Aleppo Codex, that great exemplar of
Massoretic tradition, was made around 850 A.D. The famous
Leningrad Codex, the oldest known COMPLETE edition of the
Hebrew Bible, dates to around 1008 A.D. These are beautiful and
high quality Hebrew Old Testaments, facsimile editions of which are
still available today.
The Massoretes preserved the Hebrew Bible, but their marginal
notes and references were all written in Aramaic. They clearly
thought in Aramaic, or at least recorded in Aramaic, as well as
knowing Hebrew.
So what happened to the Massoretes after the tenth and eleventh

centuries? Why do we not hear more from them? What happened
after the Arabic Bible was translated from Aramaic?
What happened next in history?
Tragically, the next major event, or series of events, was the
Crusades. The Crusades, alas, were devastating, and brought an end
to the work of the Massoretes.
Let us quote the introductory paragraph from the Wikipedia article
on the Crusades:
“The Crusades were military campaigns sanctioned by the Latin
Roman Catholic Church during the High Middle Ages and Late
Middle Ages. In 1095, Pope Urban II proclaimed the First
Crusade with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to holy
places in and near Jerusalem. Following the First Crusade there
was an intermittent 200-year struggle for control of the Holy
Land, with seven more major crusades and numerous minor
ones. In 1291, the conflict ended in failure with the fall of the last
Christian stronghold in the Holy Land at Acre, after which
Roman Catholic Europe mounted no further coherent response
in the east.”
Thus, just a few short decades after the Massoretes had written the
Leningrad Codex, no doubt while the Massoretes were still alive and
well, their work was brought to a sudden and dramatic end by the
Crusades.
➔ The First Crusade (A.D. 1096–1099) started shortly after the
Leningrad Codex was written. Immense numbers of foreign
invaders spilled into the Middle East, ready to kill Jews and
Moslems alike wherever they could be found, at the behest
and blessing of the Roman Catholic Church.
➔ The Second Crusade was from A.D. 1147–1149. A
combination of French and German armies marched
towards Jerusalem.
➔ The Third Crusade, from A.D. 1187–1192, featured the
famous Moslem leader Saladin, who created a single
powerful Moslem state and defeated the Crusaders, re-
taking Jerusalem in 1187. The equally famous Richard I of
A R A MA I C I N TO CR U SADE R TI M E S 245
England, known as Richard The Lionheart, organised the

Crusader forces.
Many other Crusades followed. It is generally acknowledged that
there were nine Crusades in total, lasting until almost A.D. 1300.
That does not include a number of smaller, perhaps “less official”
Crusades. Christianity and Islam battled each other, with Jews (and
Aramaic) caught in the middle.
The history of the Crusades are both fascinating and tragic for all
manner of reasons. They are well documented in a number of
histories.
However, in our journey into the world of Aramaic, the Bible's
Second Holy Language, what is the importance of the Crusades in
connection with Aramaic?
Consider that Josephus, a Jew in first century Israel, wrote his
famous history of first century Israel in the Aramaic language. Well,
what language would you expect to be used to record the history of
the Crusades?
Would it surprise you to learn that much of the contemporary
history of the Crusades was written in Aramaic (in Syriac)? We see
from this just how important, and extensive, Syriac is. It is the most
widespread and dominant dialect of Aramaic. By the time of the
Crusades, Syriac was still being used extensively.
One of the most important historians at the time of the Crusades was
Gregory Bar Hebraeus. Bar Hebraeus was a very famous historian
and convert from Judaism to Christianity. Articles about him can be
found in all the major encyclopaedias. And he was a convert to
Syriac, or Aramaic, Christianity.
Let us read what Wikipedia says about him:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Hebraeus
“Gregory Bar Hebraeus (A.D. 1226-1286) was a bishop of the

Syriac Orthodox Church in the 13th century. He is noted for
his works addressing philosophy, poetry, language, history,
and theology; he has been called “one of the most learned
and versatile men from the Syriac Orthodox Church” (Dr.
William Wright).”
“He collected in his numerous and elaborate treatises the

results of such research in theology, philosophy, science and
history as was in his time possible in Syria. Most of his
works were written in Syriac. However he also wrote some
in Arabic, which had become the common language in his
day.”
The New Advent Catholic Encyclopaedia also contains an article
about him:
www.newadvent.org/cathen/02294a.htm
“[Bar Hebraeus was] a Jacobite Syrian bishop, philosopher, poet,

grammarian, physician, Biblical commentator, historian, and
theologian, born at Meletine (Malatia), Asia Minor, 1226; died at
Maragha, Persia, 1286. He was the son of a Jewish physician,
Aaron, a convert to the Jacobite faith; hence his surname of Bar
‘Ebraya (Bar Hebræus), “Son of the Hebrew”. Under the care of
his father he began as a boy the study of medicine and of many
other branches of knowledge, which he pursued as a youth at
Antioch and Tripoli, and which he never abandoned until his
death. In 1246 he was consecrated Bishop of Gubos, by the
Jacobite Patriarch Ignatius II, and in the following year was
transferred to the See of Lacabene. He was placed over the
Diocese of Aleppo by Dionysius (1252) and finally was made
Primate, or Maphrian, of the East by Ignatius III (1264). His
episcopal duties did not interfere with his studies; he took
advantage of the numerous visitations, which he had to make
throughout his vast province, to consult the libraries and
converse with the learned men whom he happened to meet.
Thus he gradually accumulated an immense erudition, became
familiar with almost all branches of secular and religious
knowledge, and in many cases thoroughly mastered the
bibliography of the various subjects which he undertook to treat.
How he could have devoted so much time to such a systematic
study, in spite of all the vicissitudes incident to the Mongol
invasion, is almost beyond comprehension. The main claim of
Bar Hebræus to our gratitude is not, however, in his original
productions, but rather in his having preserved and
systematized the work of his predecessors, either by way of
condensation or by way of direct reproduction. Both on account
A R A MA I C I N TO CR U SADE R TI M E S 2 47
of his virtues and of his science, Bar Hebræus was respected by

all, and his death was mourned not only by men of his own
faith, but also by the Nestorians and the Armenians.”
From these and other similar articles in encyclopaedias, it is clear
that Bar Hebraeus was a historian and scholar of immense
importance at the time of the Crusades. He documented a great deal
of the history of his time and earlier. He is regarded as a saint by the
Syriac Orthodox Church, who hold his feast day on July 30 each
year.
But, importantly, Bar Hebraeus was important in Aramaic
Christianity. He lived in the Middle East, demonstrating once again
that, even as late as the Crusades, Syriac (or Aramaic) was the
normal spoken and written language at the time, across an immense
landmass from Israel, Syria, across to Iraq and Iran, and beyond
even as far as India.
In fact, many Syriac grammars have reading exercises where the
writings of Bar Hebraeus are studied. The Chrestomathy (Reading
Exercises) often cover the work of Bar Hebraeus as well as Biblical
texts such as the Aramaic Old Testament and the Aramaic New
Testament.
Consider, then, how important Aramaic continued to be – all the
way from the time of Jesus, onwards through the centuries when the
Talmud was written, through the centuries of the Massoretes,
through Moslem times, through to the Crusades, and beyond.
And Aramaic is still used today. It is still a liturgical language in
many churches across the world. The Aramaic Bible is still studied,
read and used.
Surely it is time to give Aramaic the reverence it deserves. It is time
to make sure that Aramaic regains its rightful place, first and
foremost in Biblical studies in the west, a place which it already has
in the east.
Without understanding Aramaic and the Aramaic background to the
Holy Scriptures, we wander around in the dark, like the blind
leading the blind. Without Aramaic, we have detached ourselves
from the Rock of salvation. Without Aramaic, we become like a ship
without an anchor, adrift across a tempestuous sea, cast about by
every wind of doctrine.

But, rooted to the Aramaic background of the Bible, we arrive at a
safe harbour. Our souls will find rest in understanding the Holy
Scriptures in the context in which they were originally given.
And that, at the end of the day, is the only way we will ever
understand God’s inspired Word.
Let our focus our minds on Aramaic, therefore.
Let us make sure we arrive at a safe harbour, and not be cast adrift at
sea. Our eternal salvation is at stake.
A R A MA I C (A N D T H E GOS P E L) SP R E A D EAST 2 49
Aramaic (and the Gospel)

Spread EAST
I N THIS chapter, we would like to take a look at the idea that the
Gospel – that is, the spread of Christianity – spread EAST, as
well as west.
Now, for some people reading this chapter, that (at first) will seem
like a very strange subject to discuss. For many Christians, a
statement saying that the Gospel spread East is so incredibly obvious
that it is hardly even worth mentioning, let alone having an entire
chapter about it.
But for other people reading this chapter, some of the ideas
presented to you will be a revolution – something you might never,
ever have considered before.
So let’s give a very quick summary of what this chapter is all
about…
Everyone brought up in the west (that is, in the developed world, in
Europe, Britain, America, Australia and so on) will be very familiar
with the history of how the Gospel message, and therefore
Christianity, spread west – from Israel, through Asia Minor (modern
day Turkey), then west into Europe under the Roman Empire.
These events are well known, and they are recorded in the New
Testament. They are described, for instance, in Paul’s missionary
journeys in the book of the Acts of the Apostles. Paul’s letters –
Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians
and Thessalonians) were written to the early congregations of
believers in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae and
Thessalonica, as Paul embarked upon his first, second and third
missionary journeys. The Book of Revelation contains letters, or

epistles, to seven of the early churches, or congregations, across Asia
Minor.
In summary, Christianity spread across Turkey (or Asia Minor at the
time) into the various countries of Europe. The Roman Empire
ultimately converted to Christianity. Christianity spread into Britain
and Ireland and many other countries on its way across Europe.
From there, much later, Christianity spread to America. This is all
well-researched and well-documented history.
But that is just one half of Christianity. The other half of the story is
that Christianity also spread east. The Gospel spread east of Israel,
just as readily as it spread west of Israel into Europe. In fact, the
Gospel message was taken very far east, very quickly. The Gospel
message was taken as far as India by as early as A.D. 52, where early
congregations were established. It went even further, into China and
Mongolia – again, very early on.
Now, here is where it gets interesting. Most people in the west have
absolutely no idea at all that Christianity spread east. It is an
untold story. We are so familiar with our own world – with
Christianity in the west – that we simply have no idea that the
Gospel message spread very quickly to the rest of the known world.
But here is where it gets even more interesting. As the Gospel
message was taken east, it was the Aramaic New Testament that
was taken east. It was not the Greek New Testament! Even to this
day, those Churches in the east trace their early history back to the
Aramaic New Testament, to the disciples who brought it to them.
This is completely new to the vast majority of people in the west
today! Most people in the west today don’t know anything about the
Gospel spreading east! Half the story is blanked out!
In the west, the history is a little more blurred. The early history, as
we shall see all throughout this book, is very much that the Aramaic
New Testament was what was originally available. But very early
on, the Aramaic was translated into Greek. And since then, the west
has become so familiar with the Greek New Testament, that most
people in the west in these last days, simply have no idea that an
Aramaic New Testament even exists!
But as we trace the history of the Gospel and early Christianity
A R A MA I C (A N D T H E GOS P E L) SP R E A D EAST 251
spreading east, it is always a history of Aramaic and the Aramaic New

Testament spreading east. We are therefore forced to come to the
conclusion that the Aramaic New Testament is the earliest and most
reliable form of the text… That might be a new concept for many in
t h e west, but in the east – well, in the east, the Aramaic New
Testament is all they have ever known!
And so, with that introduction, let’s retrace our steps and look at the
“official story” of how Christianity spread – that is, how the Gospel
spread, by the disciples, after the death of Jesus.
As the perfect place to start, because it illustrates the problem
perfectly, let’s start by looking at one of several Wikipedia article on
the spread of Christianity.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity
These articles have a map showing how Christianity spread in its

early history. Here is the map:
Map of the spread of Christianity, Courtesy of Wikipedia

While the map, and the articles, are no doubt historically accurate
and not wrong, it is strikingly notable that the map is just one half
of the story.
The map, after all, is supposed to show the history of early
Christianity, how Christianity spread outwards from Apostolic
times. Did you spot anything wrong, or strange, about this map?
Well, it only shows Christianity spreading west – that is, through
Turkey (Asia Minor) into Europe, as far as Britain. Did Christianity
not spread anywhere else? Was there an Iron Curtain that stopped
Christianity spreading in any other direction? Was there a Berlin
Wall that stopped the apostles and disciples going in any direction
other than west? Did a barbed wire fence thousands of miles long
prevent them going east? Did their legs suddenly stop working if
they walked east? Was west the only direction they could travel?
The answers to all these questions is No.
But, “history is always written by the winning side”. The history of
Christianity is largely the history of the dominant western empires
that make up Europe. Everything else is either forgotten or air-
brushed out of history, as though it was unimportant and did not
exist.
This lop-sided view of history, that Christianity only spread west
and in no other direction, may be because the writings of the New
Testament largely contain the experiences of Paul the Apostle and
his missionary journeys in the Book of Acts, plus the epistles to the
early congregations, written by him and brought with him on his
journeys.
So let’s take a closer look at Paul’s missionary journeys, so that we
can clearly see that Paul went west in his journeys. These journeys
are so well known from Bible studies that we may be forgiven for
getting the impression that the Gospel message only spread west,
taken there by Paul and his companions.
And so, we have seen that the dominant history of the west records
that Christianity spread west. Paul the Apostle spread Christianity
west on his missionary journeys. This is well documented and well
known history. It is repeated in every Sunday School, and taught in
every Bible seminary and church. It is so well known, in fact, that
most people do not realize that there is a whole other side of

Christianity, one in which Christianity spread EAST, just as far and
as fast as it spread west.
That history is perhaps not as well known, but it is known, and it is
historically documented, for those who care to look, and to
investigate.
In fact, if we “read the small print” on some of the many articles in
Wikipedia, for example, we find that the documented history of
Christianity spreading east is a history that is told, known, and
documented. It is a history that most people do not know, but it is
real nevertheless.
In fact, if we go back to the Wikipedia article on the History of
Christianity:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity
We find a small and apparently unimportant section recording that

Christianity did spread east as well.
And in fact, it spread all the way east – literally all the way, all the way
east across the entire Middle East, as far as India, and even further
into China and Mongolia. Most people in the west have absolutely
no understanding of the history of Christianity spreading east. It is
completely unknown to them. It is not the history of the dominant
Roman Catholic Church and the dominant European Empire, so the
history is forgotten, downplayed or ignored, as though it did not
exist.
But, as we investigate further, we find some fascinating facts.
That whole movement of the Gospel message, and the Aramaic New
Testament, to the east (not just to the west) is well known in history.
There are many Wikipedia articles on the subject. For example, there
is a whole article on Syriac Christianity, explaining how Christianity
spread east, through the spread of the Aramaic New Testament:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Christianity
Interestingly, as Christianity spread east, that whole history is largely

a history of how Syriac – that is, Aramaic, the Aramaic New
Testament – spread east. Right from the middle of the first century
A.D., the Aramaic New Testament was taken east, preached as far as
India and beyond, and Aramaic has been used ever since then.
That history is one of the Aramaic New Testament – not the Greek
New Testament. Who knew? If you didn’t know that already, half the
story of how Christianity spread east, taking the Aramaic New
Testament with it, has been withheld from you. It is the unknown,
untold story. The Greek New Testament isn’t the only show in
town…
Let’s take a look at some quotes from other Wikipedia articles.
For example, here is the article on the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
[of India]:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Malabar_Catholic_Church
It says:
“The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church or Church of Malabar
Syrians is a Major Archiepiscopal Church in full communion
with the Catholic Church… The members of the Church are
known as Mar Thoma Nasranis or Syrian Catholics. It is the
largest of the Nasrani denominations with around 4.6 million
believers and traces its origins to the evangelistic activity of
Thomas the Apostle in the 1st century.”
In other words, this is a mainstream Church in communion with the
Catholic Church. It is large, with 4.6 million believers. They trace
their history to the disciple Thomas, in the first century. It was
founded on the Aramaic New Testament, not Greek or any other
language. Their liturgy is still conducted in Syriac, in Aramaic, to
this very day. They have been faithful to that Aramaic New
Testament that was preached to them in A.D. 52 by Thomas himself.
In fact, if we investigate further, we find that Thomas is the Patron
Saint of Christianity in India. He reached there as early as A.D. 52.
Here is the Wikipedia article on Thomas the Apostle:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle
We read:
“Thomas the Apostle, (called Didymus which means “the
twin”), was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ, according
to the New Testament. He is informally called doubting Thomas
because he doubted Jesus’ resurrection when first told, (in the

Gospel of John), followed later by his confession of faith, “My
Lord and my God”, on seeing Jesus’ wounded body.”
“Traditionally, he is said to have traveled outside the Roman
Empire to preach the Gospel, traveling as far as India. According
to tradition, the Apostle reached Muziris, India in AD 52 and
baptized several people, founding what today are known as
Saint Thomas Christians or Nasranis.”
Thus, as the Gospel message spreads East, we find that Syriac
(Aramaic) is the language that was preached. It was the Aramaic New
Testament that was preached. Quite apart from a multitude of other
evidence, this alone proves that the Aramaic New Testament is the earliest
gospel that was preached – in Aramaic, in A.D. 52, as far as India.
Is that not truly amazing? It is a fascinating story which is almost
entirely unknown in the west. And that story is intimately tied up
with the Aramaic New Testament, the same Aramaic New Testament
that is used by those churches today.
Wikipedia also has a number of fascinating articles about the early
history of how Christianity spread into China and Mongolia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_East_in_China
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_among_the_Mongols
We find that, just a few centuries after the Gospel spread into India
by Thomas, as early as A.D. 52, Syriac Christianity – that is, the
Aramaic New Testament – had started to spread further east into
China and Mongolia.
Now, if you have been following the story so far, what language
would you expect the Gospel message to be preached in, to those
early converts in China and Mongolia? Not Greek. Not the Greek
New Testament. Instead, we find that, just as Aramaic was preached
to the early believers in India, so too, Aramaic was preached to the
early believers in China and Mongolia. As late as the 7th to 11th
centuries, the Aramaic New Testament was still being preached in
those countries far away in the east.
Does that not suggest that the Aramaic New Testament was the
earliest form of the text – the form that was preached right from the
very beginning, from the first century, as early as A.D. 52 in India,
and right through to the 12th centuries?
We read:
“The first documentation of Christianity entering China was
written on an 8th-century stone tablet known as the Nestorian
Stele.”
It was called the Nestorian Stele because the Nestorian Church was
the first contact with those Chinese and Mongolians. The Nestorian
Church used the Aramaic New Testament.
The Wikipedia article goes on to say:
“Some modern scholars question whether Nestorianism is the
proper term for the Christianity that was practiced in China,
since it did not adhere to what was preached by Nestorius. They
instead prefer to refer to it as “Church of the East”, a term which
encompasses the various forms of early Christianity in Asia.”
Whether the correct term was the Nestorian Church or the Church of
the East, either way, the fact remains that both the Nestorian Church
and the Church of the East both used the Aramaic New Testament,
and continue to use it right down to the present day. They simply
never used the Greek New Testament.
In the Wikipedia article on the history of Christianity amongst the
Mongolian tribes, the article says:
“The Mongols had no churches or monasteries, but claimed a set
of beliefs that descended from the Apostle Thomas, which relied
on wandering monks. Further, their style was based more on
practice than belief.”
“The Mongols had been proselytised since about the 7th century.
Many Mongol tribes… were Nestorian Christian.”
We have seen, then, that starting from the first century onwards, the
Gospel spread west under the missionary journeys of Paul the
apostle. But the Gospel also spread east – just as far and fast as it
spread west. That history, of Christianity spreading east, is almost
entirely unknown and ignored in the west today, with its bias on the
west and Paul’s missionary journeys.
A R A MA I C (A N D T H E GOS P E L) SP R E A D EAST 2 57
But as early as A.D. 52, Thomas the disciple went as far east as India,
preaching and converting as he went. He certainly reached India by
that date, and established congregations of believers that have
remained there to this day. And from India, within a few centuries,
Aramaic Christianity had reached China and Mongolia – as far east
as it is possible to get.
But the most interesting fact of all, and one that is undeniably true,
and established in history after history, is that the early history of
Christianity spreading in the east is almost exclusively the history of
Syriac Christianity, of the Aramaic New Testament spreading east,
and Syriac and the Aramaic New Testament together being the
vehicle for that early preaching of the Gospel.
Whether it was Thomas the disciple arriving in India as early as A.D.
52 with the Aramaic New Testament, or whether it was that same
Gospel being preached in Aramaic in China and Mongolia many
centuries later, the fact is that Aramaic was what was preached.
That surely tells us that Aramaic is the earliest form of the text, and
that it was still in use, and still being preached, one thousand years
later. All those early Churches of the East used Aramaic in their
liturgy, even although Aramaic was not the normal everyday
language of India, China or Mongolia. Why? It can only be because
that was the language in which that the early preaching was done,
and so Aramaic was the language they used ever since. There is no
other reasonable explanation.
But, many people will ask if there is any evidence for this in the New
Testament. There is indeed.
For example, while Paul, Silas and Barnabas are known for being the
apostles to the Gentiles because they went west into Asia Minor and
Europe, Peter and many of the other disciples were the apostles to
the Jews. They went east, preaching the Gospel to communities of
Jews scattered in the diaspora, scattered far and wide after the
Babylonian exile and other events. Because those Jewish
communities had Aramaic as the language that united them
historically over time, because the disciples themselves in Israel
spoke Aramaic, and because those scattered Jews now spoke
Aramaic as a result of the Babylonian exile, it was entirely natural for
Aramaic to be the language for the preaching to be done. The
Gospels were first written in Aramaic, and Aramaic was the

language used for Paul’s epistles and the other New Testament
writings.
It is therefore entirely natural for Aramaic to be the language that
Thomas preached in, as he went to the communities of Jewish
believers along the way, finally ending up in India. In turn, those
early believers would continue their preaching and liturgy in
Aramaic to the early converts. It has remained that way ever since,
with Aramaic still being the language they use today.
And so, in Peter’s first epistle, as Peter himself went east to the
Jewish communities to preach, we find that an early community had
formed either in or near Babylon:
1Pet. 5:13; “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with
you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.”
We also find that, while Jesus lived, in addition to the twelve
disciples, Jesus appointed an additional seventy who went out
preaching:
Luke 10:1-16; “After these things the Lord appointed other
seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into
every city and place, whither he himself would come. Therefore
said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers
are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would
send forth labourers into his harvest. Go your ways: behold, I
send you forth as lambs among wolves. Carry neither purse, nor
scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way. And into
whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house. And
if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it
shall turn to you again. And in the same house remain, eating
and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy
of his hire. Go not from house to house. And into whatsoever
city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set
before you: And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto
them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But into
whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways
out into the streets of the same, and say, Even the very dust of
your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you:
notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is
come nigh unto you. But I say unto you, that it shall be more
tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. Woe unto thee,
Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had
been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they
had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment,
than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to
heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell. He that heareth you
heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that
despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.”
Luke 10:17-20; “And the seventy returned again with joy, saying,
Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And
he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and
scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing
shall by any means hurt you. Notwithstanding in this rejoice not,
that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because
your names are written in heaven.”
While the New Testament itself does not record the details of those
journeyings, it is clear from history that the seventy disciples went
both east and west, as we have seen. They went primarily to the
Jewish communities scattered around the then-known world, to the
lost sheep of Israel, and Aramaic was the natural common language
for all those communities of believers. After the death of Jesus, as we
have seen in the case of Thomas the disciple, they went again on
other preaching missions, going even further east. And Aramaic,
once again, was the language that was used. The Aramaic New
Testament was what was preached.
Thus, in the text of the Aramaic New Testament, we find the earliest
form of the text. It was all that those early believers knew. The
Syriac, or Aramaic text, was what was brought to them.
It is to the Aramaic New Testament that we must look, therefore, if
we want to find the earliest, original, and most authentic form of the
New Testament text. That is what the external evidence suggests. But
as we come to examine the Aramaic New Testament itself, and
compare it with the Greek New Testament, that is when things get
really exciting. Over and over again, the internal evidence suggests
(once again) that the Aramaic New Testament is the original, from
which the Greek New Testament afterwards arose.

We shall examine that evidence minutely in the many video lessons
on the Aramaic New Testament that are available to subscribers of
It is a story that deserves to be told.
T H E (AR A MA I C) CH U RC H O F T H E EA ST 26 1
The (Aramaic) Church of

the East
I N THE LAST chapter, we saw that the Gospel – that is,

Christianity – spread EAST, as well as west. We saw that the
Gospel message, and the Aramaic New Testament, had spread as
far east as India, as early as A.D. 52. It was taken there by the
disciple Thomas, who became the patron saint of Christianity in
India. From there, it spread even further east, into China and
Mongolia, just a few centuries later.
In this chapter, we take a closer look at the Church of the East. We
will see that while in the west, Christianity has a mixed history of
Aramaic (Syriac), Greek and Latin, in the east (by contrast), there is
really only one history. It is the history of Aramaic, of the Aramaic
New Testament – not Greek, and not Latin.
So let’s start this chapter by explaining a little more about what we
mean by ‘west’ and ‘east’. This is very important, because the terms
are used differently by different people, in different contexts, in
different time periods.
Put very simply, in the history of Aramaic and the Aramaic New
Testament, think of ‘west’ as being everything west of Israel. Think
of ‘east’ as everything east of Israel. Jerusalem, after all, is the centre
of the world, both geographically and religiously.
Now, let’s first think about what we mean by Christianity spreading
‘west’. It is, of course, very well known that the Gospel message
spread west. ‘West’ means west of Israel – that is, the Gospel spread
west into Asia Minor (now Turkey) and further west into Europe
(Greece, Macedonia and Italy). This all happened very early on –
within the first century, under Paul’s missionary journeys, as well as

the journeyings of other apostles after the death of Jesus. As we saw
in the previous chapter, this history is repeated again and again, in
all Sunday School chapters, in all churches. It is the history that is
recorded in the New Testament itself, in the Acts of the Apostles, and
Paul’s many epistles.
But the idea that the Gospel spread east is not so well known. This is
partly because that history is only mentioned in passing in the New
Testament. But it is also because history is always the history of the
dominant, or winning side. And the Roman Catholic Church has
been the dominant and winning church throughout most of the
history of Christianity. Therefore, the history of Christianity has a
tendency to be the history of western Christianity, that of the Roman
Catholic Church.
And so, when many people think of the history of eastern
Christianity, most people will immediately think of the Eastern and
Western legs of the Roman Empire. Again, from history, it is well
known that ultimately the Roman Empire was split into two parts.
The western half of the Roman Empire was centred in Rome, to
become the Holy Roman Empire. The eastern half of the Roman
Empire later became centred around Constantinople, around the
time of the Emperor Constantine – in fact, Constantinople (or ‘City
of Constantine’) was named after Constantine ‘The Great’.
These two parts of the Roman Empire – the western and eastern legs
of the Roman Empire – are familiar to many because of Daniel’s
prophecy in chapter 2, which we have already looked at in earlier
chapters. In Daniel’s day, in Babylon, king Nebuchadnezzar of
Babylon had a dream, which was actually a prophecy of empires that
would follow his own. The huge statue which he saw in his dream
had a head of gold (signifying king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon),
arms of silver (signifying the two ‘arms’ or powers of the Medo-
Persian Empire), belly and thighs of brass (signifying the brazen-
coated Greeks under the Greek Empire) and legs of iron (signifying
the two legs, eastern and western, of the iron might of the Roman
Empire).
And so, when many people think of an eastern Church, or the
Church in the east, they will probably think of the eastern half of the
Roman Empire, ruled over from Constantinople. This is known as
T H E (AR A MA I C) CH U RC H O F T H E EA ST 263
the Byzantine Empire, and a very important Empire it is too.

But this is still not what is meant by “the Church of the East”. Let’s
illustrate this by looking again at a map of the world.
If we draw a vertical line through Israel, we will call everything west

of Israel ‘the west’. And we will call everything east of Israel ‘the
east’.
What we call ‘the west’ consists of the territory largely included in
the Roman Empire. This includes all the territory included in Paul’s
missionary journeys as he spread Christianity west through Asia
Minor and further onwards into Europe, as far as Greece and
ultimately to Rome itself, when Paul appealed unto Caesar.
Ultimately, Christianity spread all throughout Europe and further
westwards. It had spread as far as Gaul (France) and Britain by the
first century. Therefore, as early as the first century, under the Roman
Empire, Christianity had already spread several thousand miles west
of Israel, into Britain. Why should it be surprising, therefore, if
Christianity had spread an equal distance (several thousand miles)
in the opposite direction (east)? It should not be surprising at all.
Indeed, it would be surprising if the Gospel message had not spread
in both directions. This, after all, was the whole point of Christ’s
preaching mission to the disciples and apostles:
Matt. 24:14; “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached

in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the
end come.”
Matt. 26:13; “Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel
shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that
this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.”
Mat 28:18-19; “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All
power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore,
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”
Mark 13:10; “And the gospel must first be published among all
nations.”
The disciples were told to go into the whole world, to teach all nations,
not just those in the west. The Gospel was to be preached in all the
world, not just in the west.
And this is exactly what happened – very early on, but certainly
during the first century. In Romans, Paul writes that their faith was
spoken of throughout the whole world:
Rom. 1:8; “First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you
all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.”
If we look back at the Roman Empire, and look at the split between
the ‘western’ and ‘eastern’ legs of the Roman Empire, we see that
both the western and eastern halves of the Roman Empire are still the
west. That is, under our definition of ‘west’ being ‘west of Israel’,
both the traditional western Roman Empire and the Byzantine
Empire are still ‘the west’.
If we go back to our map of the world, then, we see that ‘the west’
consists of everything west of Israel – basically the Roman Empire
under its western and eastern extent. And ‘the east’ consists of
everything east of Israel.
Now, it starts to get very interesting when we look at the language in
which the New Testament is best known, in ‘the west’ and ‘the east’.
In the comprehensive video lessons on the history of the Aramaic
New Testament that are available at JesusSpokeAramaic.com, we
carefully trace through the history of the Aramaic New Testament in
intricate and amazing detail. We find that the Aramaic New

Testament has always been there. It has been around from the very
beginning. It was the version of the New Testament that was used
for the early translations, such as the Armenian Bible – because no
Greek New Testaments could be found in the whole of Armenia,
even several centuries after Christ. The Aramaic New Testament was
the main source of the Arabic Bible – around the 7th to 9th centuries
A.D. As we trace through the history of the Aramaic New Testament
in the west, we find that it has always been around, has always been
held in the highest esteem, and has always been regarded as
authentic and high quality.
But, in the west, the Greek and Latin New Testaments have generally
become the dominant versions. The Greek Old Testament (the
Septuagint) has also become dominant in the west, even although it
is only a translation of the Holy, inspired, God-breathed Hebrew Old
Testament. And the Latin Vulgate – even although it is merely a
translation and not a God-breathed inspired original – itself became
dominant in the west for around 1500 years.
Thus, the history of ‘the Bible’ in the west is mixed. The Aramaic
New Testament has always been there throughout recorded history.
But both the Greek and Latin New Testaments, the Greek Old
Testament (the Septuagint) and the Latin Old Testament, have
together become more dominant, or more popular, in the west.
In the series of video lessons on the Aramaic New Testament that are
available at JesusSpokeAramaic.com, we carefully and painstakingly
present an abundance of evidence that the Aramaic New Testament
is the original New Testament from which the Greek was translated,
not the other way round as many in the west might suppose. The
Latin New Testament was itself a translation from the Greek. And
the Greek Old Testament and Latin Old Testament were both
translations of the inspired, original Hebrew Old Testament.
The dominant Roman Catholic Church in the west, therefore, has a
known history of making translations from God-breathed original
inspired Holy Scriptures, and passing these off as the version to be
used officially, degrading the God-breathed inspired originals to an
inferior place, and promoting the man-made translations as the
official version to be used. That is a harsh and maybe controversial
assertion, but it is nevertheless what has happened. History proves
it. Examining the different versions in detail will also prove it.
In the west, translations of the Bible became dominant, and not the
God-breathed inspired originals. It was the case in ancient times, and
it is still the case today. Mostly all Christians in the west use
translations these days. If you live in the west and don’t believe me,
just look at the version of the Bible you use! The chances are that it is
a KJV, an NIV, or one of a number of other modern translations.
The history of Christianity in the west, therefore, has a mixed history
of Aramaic, Greek and Latin, and later English. The Greek and Latin
translations became more popular. They became dominant. Today,
English translations have become more popular. They have become
dominant. The west has always loved translations.
But… in the east, it is an entirely different story. In the east, meaning
‘east of Israel’, the history of Christianity is almost exclusively the
history of Aramaic, and of the Aramaic New Testament. Everywhere
we go, right from the very beginning, it was always the Aramaic
New Testament that was used. Except maybe in relatively recent
times, the Greek New Testament and the Latin New Testament have
both been conspicuous by their absence. In modern times, of course,
translations have subsequently been introduced. But the Aramaic
New Testament was always what churches across the east used,
right from the beginning, across thousands of miles of unrelated
countries.
Does that not tell us everything we need to know about the
importance and authenticity of the Aramaic New Testament? In the
east, the Aramaic New Testament is all there has ever been. In the
west, other translations such as Greek and Latin became dominant,
became popular, but the Aramaic New Testament has always been
there, and has always been highly regarded. The Aramaic New
Testament is the common denominator. It is the original, from which
others derive. Churches in the east have been more conservative,
more likely to stick to that Aramaic gospel that was first preached to
them. The west is more liberal, abandoning the Aramaic gospel that
was preached to them, and adopting first the Greek New Testament,
and later the Latin New Testament, and soon after just about any
other translation, English or otherwise, in preference to that original
Aramaic gospel that was once preached by the disciples and
apostles.
What should that tell us? Should we not recognise the importance,
originality and authenticity of Aramaic, and especially of the
Aramaic New Testament? Should we not stick to the Aramaic, even
if it takes time and effort to learn it? Should we abandon the
inspired, God-breathed original language and adopt a man-made
translation, or should we cleave unto what God has given us? Surely
we should make the time and effort to study what Almighty God has
given to us. If Aramaic was good enough for Jesus and the disciples
and apostles, should it not also be good enough for us?
But let us return to the focus of this chapter, to the Church of the
East. In our previous chapter, we saw that the gospel in Aramaic was
taken as far as India, as early as A.D. 52, by the disciple Thomas.
From there, it spread further east, to China and Mongolia. The
Aramaic New Testament was what was taken to those places. The
history of Christianity in the east is the story of the Aramaic New
Testament.
While the history of the church in the west is well known, the history
of the church in the east is less well known. It is not the history of
Byzantine Christianity, because that is still the history of western
Christianity under the Roman Empire.
Instead, the history of the church in the east is completely different.
It is well documented, but just less well known by people in the
west.
Wikipedia is a good place to find out more. It has a whole article
about The Church of the East:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_East
As we read through this article, we see that it is the history of

Christianity spreading east, taking Aramaic (or Syriac) with it. It is
the history of the Aramaic New Testament, spreading all the way
east, as far east as it is possible to go, very early on.
Despite the huge time periods involved, of two thousand years,
despite the immense geographical land mass included, despite the
ravage of wars and empires coming and going, despite the different
countries involved, despite people of many different types and
temperaments being involved, despite the west undergoing its own
history, despite the inevitable splits in beliefs and practices, the
history of the east has always had one thing in common – Aramaic,
and the Aramaic New Testament.
As we follow through the related Wikipedia articles, we find a whole
wealth of detailed articles about the history of the Church of the
East, and Eastern Christianity, that is largely unknown or
disregarded in the west today. It is all the history of Syriac, or
Aramaic, Christianity.
Let us look at some quotes from Wikipedia’s article on the Church of
the East:
“The Church of the East, also known as the Nestorian Church, is
a historical Christian church within the Syriac tradition of
Eastern Christianity. Originating among early Christian
communities in Assyria (Parthian ruled Athura [or Assyria]), it
was the Christian church of the Persian Sasanian Empire (224
AD to 651 AD) (although the Persians themselves were largely
Zoroastrians), and quickly spread widely through Asia. Between
the 9th and 14th centuries it represented the world’s largest
Christian church in terms of geographical extent, with dioceses
stretching from the Mediterranean to China and India. Several
modern churches claim continuity with the historical Church of
the East, notably the Assyrian Church of the East, which remains
unaffiliated with other Catholic or Orthodox Christian Churches,
as well as the Chaldean Catholic Church, in communion with
the Catholic Church.”
Thus, the Church of the East was, for centuries, the largest Christian
church in terms of geography, and possibly numbers too. It goes
back to Assyria, and was the Christian church of the early Persian
Empire. It has remained faithful to its Aramaic heritage ever since,
still using the Aramaic New Testament in liturgy and worship today.
We go on to read:
“The Church of the East was headed by the Patriarch of the East,
continuing a line that, according to tradition, stretched back to
the Apostolic Age.”
In fact, if we read the article on the Patriarch of the East, we find that
the Church of the East traces its earliest history back to the disciples
of Jesus:
From the Apostolic Age, we have:

➔ Shimun Keepa (Saint Peter) (33–64)
➔ Thoma Shlikha, (Saint Thomas) (c. 33–c. 77)
➔ Tulmay (St. Bartholomew the Apostle) (c. 33 – ?)
➔ Mar Addai, (St. Thaddeus) (30–45)
➔ Aggai (Mar Aggai) (c.66–c.87 / 120–152 AD)
➔ Saint Mari (Mar Mari) (c. 87–c. 120 / 152–185 AD)
Thus, while Paul, Silas and Barnabas went west and took the Gospel
west into Asia Minor and Europe, as recorded in the Acts of the
Apostles, we find that the other disciples went the opposite
direction. Peter, Thomas, Bartholomew and Thaddeus went east,
taking the Gospel all across the east all the way to India in their own
lifetimes, and even further east later. Aramaic was the language they
preached. In those days, it was the only language they needed. They
no doubt went initially to Jewish communities as they went, who,
following the Babylonian exile, also spoke Aramaic.
We see, therefore, that the history of the Church of the East is the
history of both Aramaic, and the Aramaic New Testament. It is the
history of Syriac, or Aramaic, Christianity. While Aramaic spread in
the east under the direct command and knowledge of the disciples of
Jesus, in the west, Aramaic was also spread – but the west soon
replaced the Aramaic New Testament with first Greek, then the Latin
New Testament, then other vernacular translations, before ending up
with the hundreds of translations that we have in the west today.
Instead, why don’t we be faithful to the Aramaic gospel that was
first preached by Jesus, then by his disciples and the apostles? Why
don’t we cleave to the original message that God delivered unto his
saints? We need nothing else. Why turn to the right hand, or to the
left hand, as we search for Truth? Why not follow the narrow path
that leads to life, rather than the broad path that leads to
destruction? Why have a translation, when we can have an original?
The Church of the East, then, has remained largely faithful to that
original Gospel message that was preached in Aramaic. They
preserved that Aramaic, revered it, and have used it ever since.
While the detailed history of the Church of the East is interesting,
examining it more fully is outside the scope of this book. However,

for those wishing to know more, searching for “Church of the East”
in book stores such as Amazon, will produce a number of excellent
and informative histories.
These all confirm that Aramaic (or Syriac) and the Aramaic New
Testament, are all intertwined with the history of the Church of the
East. And a fascinating history it is, too, one which is almost
completely unknown in the west. But its roots lie with Aramaic, and
with the very disciples and apostles of Jesus themselves.
For the roots of the Gospel message, it is to Aramaic that we must
turn.
It is to Aramaic that we must cleave if we wish to uncover the true,
authentic and original message of the Bible. The Aramaic New
Testament is of the utmost importance to all those wishing to be
faithful to Jesus, and to the Gospel message. Translations, however
good, are just not the same as an inspired, God-breathed original.
D IAL ECTS OF AR A MA I C 271
Dialects of Aramaic
A
S WE HAVE SEEN throughout these chapters on Aramaic,
the Bible's Second Holy Language, Aramaic has a long
history, down through many centuries. It touches entire
world empires. Aramaic has been the dominant language of the
Middle East for millennia, as well as touching both the people of
Israel and the nations surrounding Israel.
But throughout this time, although Aramaic has remained a single
recognisable language, no language can remain completely
unchanged for such a long period of human history, and Aramaic is
no exception. Aramaic has been spoken across an immense
geographical area, it has spanned nations, countries and empires, it
has survived wars and revolutions, and it has been spoken by
friends and foes alike. But in all those centuries, over such a huge
expanse of time, several acknowledged dialects have emerged, or
been identified – although Aramaic has still remained a single
coherent language, despite these dialects.
In this chapter, therefore, we examine the main dialects of Aramaic
that are important to a study of the Holy Scriptures today, and we
provide some additional background by looking at some of the other
dialects of Aramaic.
But before we do that, let’s first investigate two critical questions.
First, what exactly is meant by a dialect of a language? And what is
the difference between a dialect and a language? In other words, when
do variations in a language qualify as a dialect, and when do those
changes become a separate language altogether?
While linguists no doubt use more formal definitions, for the
purpose of these chapters, the following explanations are accurate
and helpful:
➔ DIALECTS are variations, or flavours, of a language, such

that the dialects are all mutually understandable, even if (at
times) they use different words, or different phrases, and
even if it is sometimes difficult to understand each other.
➔ LANGUAGES, on the other hand, are NOT mutually
intelligible – that is, they are so different that a native
speaker of one language would not automatically be able to
understand the other language.
To make this clearer, let’s illustrate the differences between dialects
and languages by looking at a few examples.
Take Spanish, for instance – a language that is spoken in Spain
(obviously), but also across several countries in South America. The
United States also has a very extensive Spanish-speaking population.
Although they can all speak Spanish and can therefore make
themselves understood, there are differences (sometimes significant
differences) between the Spanish spoken across these locations.
Spanish, as spoken in Spain, is pronounced differently and has many
words and phrases that would not be used elsewhere. Similarly,
even within Spain, there are many variations and dialects. Spanish in
South America is significantly different from the Spanish spoken in
Spain, with each country having its own variants (or dialects). In
fact, there is a whole article on Wikipedia explaining the dialects of
the Spanish language and giving examples of pronunciation
differences, different words and phrases, and so on.
This, then, is an example of dialects within a language. It is all
Spanish, all recognisably the same language, but with variations
depending on regions and countries. A different accent or dialect can
even identify where you come from. But despite these differences,
despite difficulties at times, Spanish is a single coherent language
and Spanish speakers will all be able to make themselves
understood.
Another example is the English language. English is spoken across
whole swathes of the globe today – in the United Kingdom, in the
Channel Islands, across the United States, in the Caribbean,
throughout Canada, across Australia and New Zealand, in many
other places, and as a second language across even more countries.
But even though English is a single language, in the sense that
D IAL ECTS OF AR A MA I C 2 73
everyone speaking English would understand each other, or make

themselves understood, there are many differences between the
English spoken across these various countries. Even across a single
country such as the United States, there are many variations in
pronunciation and accent, even down to the words and phrases
used. Your use of English, and the way you speak, can easily tell
people which part of the country you come from. The differences can
be amusing sometimes, especially differences between US English
and UK English. Many a standup comedian has based an entire
performance on the differences between the flavours, or variations,
or dialects of the English language. The differences sometimes lead
to confusion or misunderstanding. But despite all these differences,
English (like Spanish) is nevertheless a single, coherent language
spoken for centuries across a very wide geographical area.
Just like Spanish and English, Aramaic, too, is a single, coherent
language that was spoken for centuries (millennia!) across a very
wide geographical area. And just like Spanish and English, there
were pronunciation differences which would identify where
someone came from, and words and phrases were used differently.
Things were sometimes expressed in different ways. The dialects in
Aramaic are important, potentially significantly different – but
despite these many differences, Aramaic can be considered as a
single coherent language, just like Spanish or English.
As an example of a dialect in Aramaic, consider a familiar passage
from the gospels, on the fateful night when Jesus is betrayed by
Judas. The shepherd is smitten, and the flock scatters. The disciples
all go their separate ways. But Peter follows Christ as the mob leads
him away to be interrogated, beaten, condemned and eventually
crucified.
Peter warms himself by a fire in the cold night air of Jerusalem. A
maid nearby accuses him of being with Jesus of Nazareth, and Peter
denies – three times. But Peter, and Jesus, and the other disciples
were from the Galilee, and they spoke Aramaic. In Jerusalem, they
also spoke Aramaic, as we saw in the chapter What does Josephus say?.
But the dialects they were using were different – although clearly
they were able to understand each other. This incident is recorded in
Mark 14:68-70.
Verse 70 says, “Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean,
and thy speech agreeth thereto.”

This verse shows that, while they both spoke Aramaic (Peter from
the Galilee and the others in Jerusalem), they had different dialects.
They were able to understand each other, but the maid knew (from
the way he spoke) that Peter was not from Jerusalem, but from the
Galilee. This illustrates the point that while dialects may sound
different and have some rather specific differences, the different
dialects of Aramaic still mean that Aramaic as a whole is a single
language which can be mutually understood.
With this background, let us then investigate the most important
dialects of Aramaic from the perspective of understanding the Holy
Scriptures, the Word of God, in its entirety.
The first major dialect is Biblical Aramaic, or Aramaic as used in the
Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament). In the chapter about Biblical
Aramaic, we saw that Biblical Aramaic mostly consists of several
chapters in Daniel and Ezra, as well as isolated words, phrases and
sentences in the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Daniel and
Ezra, however, form the bulk of Biblical Aramaic, an extensive
enough body of work to study and write a grammar about.
Biblical Aramaic is often referred to as Chaldee, as in the classic
reference work, Gesenius’ Hebrew & Chaldee Lexicon to the Old
Testament, or Davidson’s The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon.
Although the Chaldeans were the ruling elite in Babylon at the
height of the Babylonian Empire, it is not strictly accurate to call the
Aramaic dialect spoken in Babylon as Chaldee or Chaldaic.
However, the term was commonly used in Biblical reference works
throughout the 1800s. The language of the Babylonian Empire is
referred to as Imperial or Official Aramaic.
Next, we come to Palestinian Aramaic. This is the dialect of Aramaic
which most of the Targums were written in, including Targum
Onkelos and Targum Jonathan.
Although not directly the focus of this book, Babylonian Aramaic is
the dialect of the Babylonian Talmud.
We also have the Syriac dialect of Aramaic. Syriac is one of the most
important dialects of Aramaic, because it not only has a very
extensive body of literature spanning centuries – and can therefore
D IAL ECTS OF AR A MA I C 2 75
be comprehensively studied – but it was the dialect of Aramaic

which the Aramaic New Testament and the Aramaic Old Testament
were written in. In fact, so important is Syriac that we have devoted
an entire chapter to it.
These three main dialects of Aramaic (Biblical Aramaic, Palestinian
Jewish Aramaic and Syriac) all have a number of their own, separate,
dedicated grammars, dictionaries and lexicons written for them.
Some of these are available to subscribers for free download on the
JesusSpokeAramaic.com website. There would be no point in us
writing our own grammars and lexicons when this has already been
done by others.
We are on safe ground when we call these dialects of Aramaic,
because they each have very extensive bodies of literature with
entire chapters, even entire books and major historical works,
written in them. This allows us to compare the grammar of these
Aramaic dialects carefully, precisely enough for people to write an
entire book on how these dialects differ.
However, on the JesusSpokeAramaic.com website, rather than
treating these important dialects as if they were separate,
independent, isolated, unconnected dialects, we feel that a better
approach is to treat Aramaic as a whole, as a cohesive and integrated
language. When we come to the series of video lessons on learning
Aramaic that are available at JesusSpokeAramaic.com, we provide
separate groups of lessons for Beginners, Intermediate and
Advanced. We compare and contrast the differences between the
main Aramaic dialects as we go along. Not only is this approach
much more fun and interesting, but you will gain a much better
understanding of Aramaic as a whole, because you will see where
the dialects are different, and where they are the same. You will find
that the differences tend to unify the Aramaic language, rather than
driving a wedge between the different dialects.
Later, if you want to specialize in a specific Aramaic dialect, you can
refer to the separate grammars and reference works which are
available to subscribers for free download on the
JesusSpokeAramaic.com website.
In this chapter, then, we have examined the main dialects of Aramaic
which are important to studying the Word of God. If you want a
more comprehensive understanding of all Aramaic dialects, we

recommend that you take a look at the second part of our video
lesson, A Brief History of Aramaic, which is available on the
JesusSpokeAramaic.com website, in which we look at the CAL, the
Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, which is an online lexicon of
machine-readable Aramaic texts available for browsing and
morphological analysis. The Aramaic texts are listed by dialect,
providing you with a superb overview of the Aramaic dialects and
what each of them consists of.
Attempts to form a comprehensive list of Aramaic dialects can be
done by time period, or by geographical location, or a combination
of both.
This will help you to better understand the dialects of Aramaic.
T H E SY R I A C DI AL ECT O F AR A MA I C 277
The Syriac Dialect of

Aramaic
I N THESE chapters on Aramaic, the Bible's Second Holy

Language, we have seen just how long and distinguished a
history Aramaic has. But in this chapter, we will take a closer
look at the Syriac dialect of Aramaic, which must surely be the most
important Aramaic dialect of all, as we shall see.
Aramaic is present almost at the very beginning of human history.
Aramaic is there in the early chapters of the book of Genesis, in the
Book of Beginnings. Laban spoke Aramaic to Jacob, and the
patriarchs in Ur of the Chaldees would have known, and no doubt
have also spoken, Aramaic.
Aramaic appears all throughout the Old Testament. It is present in
the three major divisions of the Hebrew Bible – the Law, the
Prophets and the Writings. It is the second Holy Language of
Judaism.
Aramaic was the normal spoken and written language for nearly all
the nations surrounding Israel. The Assyrians and the Babylonians
all used Aramaic as their official language, as well as the ordinary
spoken language of the everyday people. The pages of the Old
Testament are full of records of the interactions between Israel (who
classically spoke Hebrew) and the nations around Israel (who
primarily spoke Aramaic).
Aramaic, then, has a very long history indeed. At the very least, it
was a recognisable language, different to Hebrew but parallel with
it, as early as the times of Abraham – around 2000 B.C. but almost
certainly well before that. And as we go through the pages of the
Bible, we find that from the time of Abraham, Aramaic continued to

be spoken through the four hundred years that the Israelites were in
Egypt, through the coming out of Egypt, through the times of the
Judges, through the times of the Kings of Israel and Judah, and
through the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires (as we have seen on
the chapters about those subjects).
In the Maccabean Revolt, mainstream Jews fought hard against the
Greek language, and thus Aramaic continued to be spoken
throughout this time. The Jewish Targums, the official translations of
the Hebrew Bible, and the Aramaic Old Testament, were used
around this time. As we approach the Roman Empire, Aramaic
continued to be spoken – as we saw in our chapters about the
historian Josephus and the language that was spoken in New
Testament times. As we progress from New Testament times, the
Talmud was written (in which the Gemara, or commentary on the
Mishnah, is in Aramaic). And still Aramaic continued as a written
and spoken language.
Centuries after Jesus of Nazareth, Aramaic continued in use. As we
approach Islamic times around A.D. 600, we find that Arabic started
to gain a foothold and eventually, after many hundreds of years,
Arabic became the dominant language of the Middle East,
supplanting Aramaic from its exalted position.
Nevertheless, Aramaic continued its journey onwards through time.
As we approach Crusader times, some of the classic historians
around that time recorded their histories in Aramaic, showing that
Aramaic was still alive and well.
And Aramaic is still in use today, with many people in villages
across the Middle East in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Israel still
speaking Aramaic down to the present day. Aramaic is also the
liturgical language of the many congregations and denominations
that make up the Church of the East today, with the Aramaic New
Testament being the language they use for worship and service.
Aramaic, therefore, has a consistent and recognisable history
spanning at least 4000 years. Aramaic was spoken across a massive
area of the Middle East, stretching as far as India and into Mongolia
under the early Christian missionaries who went East. Clearly, no
language can remain unchanged throughout that vast period of time
T H E SY R I A C DI AL ECT O F AR A MA I C 2 79
and distance. It was inevitable that differences would emerge.

Biblical Aramaic, for example, is somewhat different to the Aramaic
of the Jewish Targums.
Out of all the dialects of Aramaic, the most important is
undoubtedly Syriac. On the one hand, Syriac is “just” one of the
many dialects of Aramaic. But on the other hand, Syriac is one of the
most important dialects – perhaps the most important dialect.
Syriac was the most important, the predominant, dialect of Aramaic
across a vast swathe of the Middle East, from around 500 B.C. all the
way through and beyond the times of the Crusades. Indeed, as we
saw in the chapter Aramaic in Crusader Times, Syriac was the dialect
of Aramaic in which many of the classic histories of the Crusades
were written.
Syriac is also the dialect of Aramaic in which the Aramaic Old
Testament (the translation of the Hebrew Bible) was written in,
probably either around the time of Jesus, or with its origins
potentially several centuries beforehand.
The Aramaic New Testament is also written in the Syriac dialect of
Aramaic. And the Aramaic Old and New Testaments have been
preserved carefully ever since. Many churches across the world still
use and revere the Aramaic New Testament as the very original
Word of God, personally handed down to them by the apostles and
disciples themselves, and still read and used in the liturgy today.
Syriac then, is a critically important dialect of Aramaic. Let us
examine a little more of the history of Syriac, as we seek to better
understand its significance.
Let us provide some quotes from Wikipedia, a well-respected
modern online encyclopaedia:
“Syriac was originally a 5th century BC local Assyrian-Akkadian
influenced Aramaic dialect of Assyria in northern Mesopotamia
that evolved under the influence of Assyrian Church of the East
and Syriac Orthodox Church into its current form. Before Arabic
became the dominant language, Syriac was a major language
among Christian communities in the Middle East, Central Asia
and Kerala, and remains so among the Assyrians and Syriac-
Arameans to this day. It has been found as far afield as
Hadrian’s Wall in Ancient Britain, with inscriptions written by

Assyrian and Aramean soldiers of the Roman Empire.”
Is that not amazing? In the Roman Empire, as we have already
looked at in our chapter on the subject, Aramaic was still a spoken
language – as far afield as Britain! Soldiers in Britain actually spoke
and wrote Aramaic – Syriac in particular, the very language in which
the Aramaic New Testament was written! Syriac was spoken all
across the Middle East, but as far west as Britain, and as far east as
Kerala in India! And Syriac also goes back in time as far as the fifth
century B.C.! Its origins lie with the Assyrian Empire, just as we have
seen in our chapters, as we walked through the use of Aramaic in the
Assyrian and Babylonian Empires!
But let us continue to see what else Wikipedia says:
“Syriac, also known as Syriac Aramaic, is a dialect of Middle
Aramaic that was once spoken across much of the Fertile
Crescent and Eastern Arabia. Having first appeared as a script in
1st century AD Assyria after being spoken there as an unwritten
language for five centuries, Classical Syriac became a major
literary language throughout the Middle East from the 4th to the
8th centuries, the classical language of Edessa, preserved in a
large body of Syriac literature. Indeed, Syriac literature
comprises roughly 90% of the extant Aramaic literature.”
Thus, with Syriac being such as an extensive language, going back to
the fifth century B.C., with it being in use over such a vast
geographical area from Hadrian’s Wall in Britain, at the farthest
extent of the Roman Empire, all the way to Kerala in India and
beyond, with it remaining in use as a written language well into
Crusader times, with it still being spoken today, with the fact that
90% of existing Aramaic literature is written in Syriac, should there
be any surprise at all that Syriac would be the dialect of Aramaic that
the Aramaic New Testament should have been written in?
Syriac was clearly the normal, natural, everyday spoken language
for hundred of thousands of people in the Middle East (and way
beyond) at the time. Why would any other dialect of Aramaic be
chosen by our Heavenly Father to preserve His Word in? Only Syriac
makes sense. It is unmistakably Aramaic, yet remained in use, rooted
in time, long enough for the Aramaic Old Testament, and especially
T H E SY R I A C DI AL ECT O F AR A MA I C 281
the Aramaic New Testament, to be both preserved for all of that

time, and more importantly, actually used and read. It is no wonder
that Syriac is the Aramaic dialect used in the Aramaic Old Testament
and the Aramaic New Testament.
Quoting again from Wikipedia:
“From the 1st century A.D., Syriac became the vehicle of Syriac
Christianity and culture, and the liturgical language of the Syriac
Orthodox Church and subsequently Assyrian Church of the
East, together with the later offshoots of the Assyrian Church;
the Nestorian Church, Chaldean Catholic Church, Ancient
Church of the East, Saint Thomas Christian Churches, and
Assyrian Pentecostal Church. Syriac Christianity and language
spread throughout Asia as far as the Indian Malabar Coast and
Eastern China, and was the medium of communication and
cultural dissemination for the later Arabs and, to a lesser extent,
the Parthian Empire and Sassanid Empire Persians. Primarily a
Christian medium of expression, Syriac had a fundamental
cultural and literary influence on the development of Arabic,
which largely replaced it towards the 14th century. Syriac
remains the liturgical language of Syriac Christianity to this
day.”
Indeed, as we look at the map in the Wikipedia article showing the
extent of how far Syriac went, we see that it went as far East as India,
and even into Mongolia and China with the early Christian
missionaries, who took Syriac, and the Aramaic New Testament,
with them. The early missionaries took the Aramaic New Testament,
not the Greek New Testament!
Thus, once the Aramaic Old and New Testaments were preserved in
Syriac, Syriac became intimately associated with Christianity. As the
Aramaic New Testament spread, the script used to write it also
changed. Whereas early on, the ‘Hebrew’ or (more accurately) the
‘Ashuri’ script, was used, the Estrangela script was soon adopted,
and later Serta, and later still, Swadaya. We cover all these classic
scripts, and show you how to read and write them, in the amazing
video lessons on the Aramaic Alphabet that are available at
This, then, provides an overview of the Syriac dialect of Aramaic.
Before you finish your consideration of Syriac, it is recommended

that you go to the CAL, the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, to
provide a flavour of just how vast and comprehensive Syriac
literature is.
The web address of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon can be
found at:
cal1.cn.huc.edu
A R AMAIC IS ST I L L SPO K E N TO DAY 283
Aramaic is Still Spoken

Today
I N THIS book on Aramaic, the Bible's Second Holy Language, we

have seen that Aramaic has a history of more than 4000 years. It
was already a recognised language in Ur of the Chaldees in
Mesopotamia, when Jacob met Laban, right back in the book of
Genesis, or the Book of The Beginning.
By contrast, English does not even come close, since in a mere 1000
years, English is almost unrecognisably different from the modern
language spoken today. Nearly all the other world’s languages have
been ravished through time, either changing out of all recognition,
being absorbed through assimilation, or otherwise disappearing into
the mists of time.
But as the world’s language graveyards fall into disrepair, littered
with the corpses of ghosts of languages past, two languages in
particular have outlived them all, outgrown them all, survived
through several world empires, and watched them all go to their
graves, to continue their own immortal journeys through time.
One of these languages is Hebrew. The other is Aramaic. Both
languages, intertwined and growing alongside each other like a
bride and bridegroom, like two vines growing together, are
inextricably linked to the Holy Scriptures, to the inspired Word of
God.
Just as Hebrew is still spoken today, so too, Aramaic is still spoken
today, although its use has declined a great deal, as it clings for
existence against an onslaught of English as the world’s dominant
language, and Arabic as the Middle East’s dominant language.
But despite the pressure from other languages, small villages across
the Middle East, in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Iran and other countries, have
tenaciously clung on to their Aramaic language despite the
encroachment of Arabic. Pockets of Jews in Israel also, mainly those
who have come from Arabic-speaking countries, have also fought to
retain their Aramaic language and cultural.
One example of a village that still clings to Aramaic, and still uses
the Aramaic New Testament for its worship to this day, is Ma’aloula.
You can watch a video clip about Ma’aloula from YouTube using the
link provided in this chapter.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW6Q2wzCElU
You can also listen to the Lord’s Prayer being spoken in Aramaic at
Ma’aloula using the link shown in the chapter:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxL9M8URu7o
However, it is not just the Churches of the East and small villages in
the Middle East that use the Aramaic New Testament. Steadily, the
west is starting to wake up to the Aramaic New Testament's claim to
be the original New Testament from which the Greek New
Testament was derived.
More and more Bible believers long to get back to a more authentic
and original form of Christianity, to a faith based more firmly on the
gospel that was preached by Jesus and the disciples in the first
century A.D., to a New Testament written in the language that Jesus
and the disciples spoke, to phrases and idioms they would have
used, to words they would have spoken.
The Aramaic New Testament is where you need to be if you want to
get back to a more authentic form of Christianity, and base your
beliefs on the sure foundation of the Bible and Aramaic. And Jesus
Spoke Aramaic is your key and compass to the vast and exciting
world of Aramaic and everything in it.
Let your journey into Aramaic begin today. Continue to walk in the
way every day. Your understanding of Aramaic will grow day by
day, here a little, and there a little.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
H O W DIFFER EN T ARE HE B R EW A N D AR A MA I C? 285
How Different are Hebrew

and Aramaic?
T HROUGHOUT these chapters on Aramaic, we have

frequently drawn comparisons between the Hebrew and
Aramaic languages. We have seen that, in many ways,
Hebrew and Aramaic are sister languages, and down through the
centuries they have grown together like two vines as they interact
with the Holy Scriptures, and with the Jewish and Gentile nations.
With such a close cultural connection between the Hebrew and
Aramaic languages, the following questions are frequently asked:
➔ Are Hebrew and Aramaic different DIALECTS, or are they
different LANGUAGES?
➔ How similar (fundamentally) are Hebrew and Aramaic?
➔ What do Hebrew and Aramaic have in common?
➔ What are the differences between Hebrew and Aramaic?
➔ How easy is it to learn Hebrew if you know Aramaic, or to
learn Aramaic if you know Hebrew?
➔ What is the best (or easiest!) way to learn one language if
you know the other?
In this chapter, therefore, let us explore the answers to these
questions in more detail.
In the chapter Dialects of Aramaic, we first investigated what is meant
by a “dialect” of a language. We explored what exactly a dialect is,
and gave some examples. We saw that the various dialects of a
language should, in general, all be mutually understandable. In
other words, there will be differences, and some of those differences

could be significant, and they may even make it difficult for people
speaking in those dialects to understand each other. But,
nevertheless, dialects of a language mean that people using those
dialects ultimately WILL be able to understand each other.
By contrast, two LANGUAGES will, in general, NOT be mutually
understandable. There will be differences between them just like
there are with dialects, but those differences are important and
significant enough to mean that people will not understand each
other. Under this definition, Hebrew and Aramaic are different
LANGUAGES, not just different DIALECTS. If you learn one, it does
not automatically mean that you will understand the other. You have
to make a deliberate and conscious effort to actually LEARN the
other language.
This is illustrated clearly in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), under
the Assyrian Empire, when Sennacherib and his army come against
Jerusalem to besiege and conquer it, in the days of king Hezekiah of
Judah.
2Kings 18:26-29; “Then said Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and
Shebna, and Joah, unto Rabshakeh, Speak, I pray thee, to thy
servants in the Syrian language; for we understand it: and talk
not with us in the Jews’ language in the ears of the people that
are on the wall. But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master
sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he
not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat
their own dung, and drink their own urine with you? Then
Rabshakeh stood and cried with a loud voice in the Jews’
language, and spake, saying, Hear the word of the great king,
the king of Assyria...”
We see from this passage that, as expected, the invading Assyrians
spoke Aramaic (called “the Syrian language” in the above quotation
from King James Bible). Although Eliakim, Shebna and Joah speak
Aramaic and can therefore talk to the Assyrian army, the ordinary
people in Judah (the Jews) only understand Hebrew (referred to as
“the Jews’ language”) and do not understand the threatening words
of the Assyrians. Eliakim wants the Assyrians to speak Aramaic so
that the ordinary people will not understand the threats, but
Rabshakeh deliberately (and provocatively) speaks Hebrew to make
sure that the ordinary people fully understand the threat they are
facing.
This passage demonstrates that, in general, Hebrew and Aramaic
were different languages and understanding one did not
automatically mean that you would understand the other. Despite
this, educated people such as Eliakim, Shebna and Joah had made
the effort to learn Aramaic, and the invading general (Rabshakeh)
had made the effort to learn Hebrew.
This passage, therefore, settles the question decisively. Hebrew and
Aramaic are not just different dialects – they are different languages,
and an effort must be made to learn each one. Being different
languages, they are not mutually understandable – that is, someone
who speaks or understands Hebrew would not automatically be able
to understand Aramaic without studying it, and vice versa. Aramaic
is not an ancient or archaic version of Hebrew, or the other way
round.
To make the point more emphatically, consider the Hebrew Bible
published in the 1990s by the British and Foreign Bible Society in
Israel. The Aramaic section of the book of Daniel actually has a
translation of Daniel (in Aramaic) into modern Hebrew, so that
Israelis can understand it. Again, this shows clearly that educated,
native Hebrew speakers do not automatically know Aramaic. The
two languages are different enough to need a translation.
However, Hebrew and Aramaic are sister languages and have much
in common, and a knowledge of one can certainly be leveraged to
learn the other. The two languages are closely related, in much the
same way that Italian and Spanish are related, or how English and
Latin are related.
While at first Hebrew and Aramaic appear totally different, if you
know one language well and start to study the other language, that
appearance of being different and not understandable starts to
evaporate. You begin to understand that the differences between the
two languages are more at the surface level, rather than being
fundamentally different languages. And once you start to chip away
at the surface, to scrape away the veneer to find what makes Hebrew
and Aramaic different, you can suddenly make enormous progress
in better understanding and learning both languages.
Let us therefore take a closer look at the similarities (and differences)

between Hebrew and Aramaic.
➔ First, they share a large pool of vocabulary that is common
to both languages. Perhaps around a third of words are
common to both Hebrew and Aramaic.
➔ Often there are systematic differences in certain letters which
(at first) make words appear different – until you realize
these words are an old friend in unfamiliar clothes.
➔ Perhaps about another third of the vocabulary in Hebrew
and Aramaic is related, where there is a definite connection
between two words, but those words have slightly different
meanings which are related in some way.
➔ Maybe about a third of the vocabulary is new or different, or
unique to one language, or not easy to relate between the
two languages. Overall, the vocabulary differences make the
two languages sound very different and not mutually
understandable – at least at first, until the differences are
pointed out.
➔ Aramaic and Hebrew share many features of their grammar,
with the grammar working in a very similar way, with
strong parallels in both languages. The shared grammar
means that nouns, adjectives, verbs and tenses work in a
similar way in both languages. While there are obviously
differences in the grammar, the differences tend to be
complimentary, where an understanding of Hebrew
grammar is easy to apply to Aramaic – and vice versa.
➔ The structure of Hebrew and Aramaic is very similar,
meaning that the word order, and the way you ‘think’ in
both languages, has many obvious similarities.
➔ Both Hebrew and Aramaic, and Semitic languages in
general, are based on roots with (typically) three letters.
➔ Both Hebrew and Aramaic have the same number of letters
in their alphabets. Although the scripts are sometimes
different, the letters of the alphabet correspond exactly, one-
to-one.
Thus, once you get over how different Aramaic and Hebrew initially
appear, learning one language with a knowledge of the other is
relatively easy. For instance, it doesn’t take long before someone who
knows Hebrew makes massive progress in learning Aramaic. It is
similar to meeting an old school friend after 25 years. At first you
don’t recognize them. You don’t know who they are. Then slowly
the penny drops and you realize you do know this person. Then you
become fascinated by them, wondering if it really can be the same
person. You become eager to hear what they have been doing for all
those long years, and eager to remember old times, and to share
memories. Soon you welcome your old school friend with open
arms, the years melting away, and the differences between you
becoming a point of interest. You are delighted to meet your old
familiar friend again, whom you already know. After the initial
awkwardness and learning curve, your memories carry you away,
and it soon feels like you have always known this person, as though
they have always been with you all through the intervening years.
If you know Hebrew, meeting an old friend is exactly what it feels
like when you start learning Aramaic. It’s a wonderful feeling. It’s
easy to understand why Jews felt it was easy to adopt Aramaic when
they were exiled to Babylon, why they had no resistance to it, and
why the Maccabees fought long and hard against the Greek
influence, the Greek language and Greek culture.
It also explains why the Jews in Palestine never learned Latin,
despite the Roman Empire being imposed on them for centuries.
Greek and Latin, by contrast, are completely foreign languages and
work in a totally different way. Their vocabulary and grammar are as
different as different can be. And when something is different, it
brings resistance.
But between Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no resistance – only
harmony, and only joy.
Glossary
B ECAUSE SOME of the words and terms used in this book

may be new to some people, this Glossary is intended as a
quick and helpful definition of words which will quickly
bring you up to speed with the terminology used.
Aramaic. Aramaic, of course, is the subject of this book and the
JesusSpokeAramaic.com website. As a Biblical language, Aramaic
has stood alongside Hebrew for more than 4000 years.
Aramaic New Testament. The Aramaic New Testament, also called
the Peshitta, is a version of the NT written in Aramaic, going back to
the first century A.D., and universally held to be the original NT in
the east and amongst many in the west.
Biblical Aramaic. The portions of the Hebrew Bible, or Old
Testament, written in Aramaic.
Chaldee. Older grammars and lexicons referred to Biblical Aramaic
a s Chaldee, such as in Gesenius' Hebrew & Chaldee Lexicon of the Old
Testament. However, Chaldee is simply Aramaic.
Greek New Testament. A version of the NT written in Greek,
generally regarded in the west as the 'original' NT.
Hebrew Bible. Otherwise known as the Old Testament by
Christians, including the Law (Torah), the Prophets and the Writings,
and written in a combination of Hebrew and Aramaic.
Old Testament. The Old Testament, as opposed to the New
Testament, is a term used by Christians. Jews refer to the 'Old
Testament' as the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible.
Peshitta. In the context of the New Testament, the Peshitta is another
term for the Aramaic New Testament. In the context of the Old
G LOS SARY 29 1
Testament, the Peshitta is an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew

Bible.
Syriac. Syriac is the word which the KJV and older reference works
use for Aramaic; Syriac just means Aramaic. More accurately,
however, Syriac refers to the most common and historically the most
widely used dialect of Aramaic.
Tanakh. Another term for the Hebrew Bible; it is an acronym made
up of Torah (Law), Neviim (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings).
Targum(s). The Aramaic translations of the books of the Hebrew
Bible, translated and used by Jews.
About Ewan MacLeod
T HE JesusSpokeAramaic.com web-
site is run by Ewan MacLeod, B.Sc.
Hons., M.Sc.
Ewan is an experienced Bible student who
has studied the Holy Scriptures intensely
since being baptised about 25 years ago. He
took an immediate interest in the
manuscripts of the Holy Bible and the
Original Languages in which the inspired
Scriptures were given, and is the director of the Bible Manuscript
Society (BibleManuscriptSociety.com), a privately-funded
organization specializing in the protection and preservation of the
Holy Bible down through the centuries.
Ewan's main interests lie in Hebrew and Aramaic. He speaks
modern Hebrew fluently, having studied Hebrew intensively at
Ulpan Akiva in Netanya (Israel) for six months, followed by living in
Israel for a further five years, and continuously studying Hebrew
ever since.
In addition to a comprehensive knowledge of the Tanakh (Hebrew
Bible) and the Hebrew Massorah, Ewan's knowledge of Hebrew
soon developed into a passion for Aramaic. As well as studying the
Aramaic Targums and the Peshitta Tanakh (Aramaic Old Testament),
he has a particular love for the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament as
the inspired Word of God. JesusSpokeAramaic.com arose out of that
love for the Peshitta, and the desire to share the benefits of Aramaic
with the world.
In addition to creating JesusSpokeAramaic.com, Ewan has worked
extensively in other areas of Hebrew and Aramaic (and, to a lesser
A B O U T EWA N MA CL E O D 293
extent, Biblical languages such as Greek and Latin). As well as

studying Biblical manuscripts, working on transcriptions, and much
more, he has worked with Bible Software companies such as
BibleWorks to add new texts and modules. His knowledge and skills
are available to work in these areas, or related work in connection
with the Biblical languages and Bible manuscripts. He is also
available for public speaking appointments in the field of Biblical
Hebrew and Aramaic.
And be sure to check out Ewan's other book:
Jesus Spoke Aramaic: The Reasons Why & Why It Matters
Go to JesusSpokeAramaicBook.com for more information.
Visit
I F YOU REALLY want to know more about Aramaic and why you
should learn it, and if you want to discover the Aramaic Bible and
learn why Aramaic is revolutionizing and transforming the study of
the Old and New Testaments, then be sure to visit
Go to the website and discover all the amazing reasons why YOU
should subscribe to Jesus Spoke Aramaic TODAY!
Aramaic was the language of the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires,
and is Judaism's second Holy Language, alongside Hebrew. The
Aramaic language became dominant amongst Jews after the
Babylonian exile, and was spoken by Jesus and the disciples. By
learning the Aramaic language and studying the Aramaic Bible, you
will get back to more authentic and original roots of both the Old
and New Testaments.
L e t Jesus Spoke Aramaic be your guide as you navigate the
fascinating world of the Aramaic language, the Aramaic Bible, and
better understand the Holy Scriptures.
“My Son, let not the Aramaic be lightly esteemed by you
as the Holy One, blessed be He, has seen fit to give it voice
in the Torah and the Prophets and the Writings”
(Palestinian Talmud, Sotah 7:2)
As a subscriber to Jesus Spoke Aramaic, you will benefit from:

Unrestricted access to all of our lessons and resources about
the Aramaic Old and New Testaments, which are growing
V I S I T JE S U SS PO K EA R AMAIC. C O M 295
all the time.

Fascinating audio-visual lessons on the Aramaic Bible,
giving you an exciting, fun and vibrant way to learn about
the Aramaic language down through the centuries.
Amazing lessons on the History & Background of the
Aramaic language, to help you understand the significance
and importance of the Aramaic Old and New Testaments.
Step-by-step videos lessons that literally walk you through
every letter of the Aramaic alphabet in the Ashuri,
Estrangela, Serta and Swadaya scripts, showing you how to
write each letter in turn, and how to pronounce it.
Lessons on the Aramaic Bible suitable for all stages from
beginner, intermediate to advanced Aramaic studies.
Discover the amazing puns, plays on words and poetry of
the Aramaic New Testament, and find out why the Aramaic
New Testament resolves many problems, variant readings
and inconsistencies in the Greek New Testament.
Read our wonderful Aramaic Bible Study Guides – on The
Lord's Prayer, with more coming!
Fascinating lessons comparing the Hebrew and Aramaic
languages, so if you know any Hebrew, you can leverage
your existing knowledge to learn Aramaic even faster.
Study our video lessons on the Aramaic Peshitta New
Testament, Biblical Aramaic, the Aramaic Targums and the
Aramaic Peshitta Old Testament.
Interactive forums on the Aramaic Bible, where you can
discuss the Lessons and Resources in a community of like-
minded students who are also interested in Aramaic.
Participate in our polls and online quizzes, to test your
growing understanding of the Aramaic language and the
Aramaic Bible.
Exclusive additional material about Aramaic and the Bible,
including several full-color PDF Hebrew Old Testaments,
our special Partner Offers, and our unique collection of Rare
and Out-of-Print Aramaic books – providing you with all the
tools, grammars, lexicons and dictionaries you will ever

need to study Aramaic!
“Did you know that Aramaic is still spoken by
communities throughout the Middle East and the
diaspora today?”
As well as offering literally hundreds of step-by-step video
lessons, be sure to visit the Jesus Spoke Aramaic website to see
what else we offer. We have:
A whole range of video lessons on DVD to accompany the
online lessons.
Aramaic Study Guides.
Aramaic Workbooks, which accompany the DVDs and video
lessons, or work stand-alone for individual study at home or
in groups.
Books about Aramaic.
Audio books on CD.
Exclusive Aramaic and Hebrew Bibles, available nowhere
else.
Jesus Spoke Aramaic will further your knowledge of the Aramaic
language and the Aramaic Bible through our exciting video lessons,
and help you get back to true, original and authentic Aramaic
Biblical roots.
So why not Subscribe to Jesus Spoke Aramaic TODAY?
Make sure you take a look at our Top Reasons to Subscribe, and find
out what awaits you once you have your own access to this
incredible and unique website.
May God bless you as you study His Inspired Word.
Ewan MacLeod, B.Sc. Hons, M.Sc.

V I S I T JE S U SS PO K EA R AMAIC. C O M 297

Discover Aramaic Book PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Discover Aramaic Book PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Discover Aramaic Book PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

2 Discover A RAMAIC – TH E BIBLE' S SECOND HOLY LANGUAGE

By Ewan MacLeod, B.Sc. Hons, M.Sc.

Ewan MacLeod is the creator of the following websites:

Copyright © Ewan MacLeod, JesusSpokeAramaic.com, 2016.

The Importance of Aramaic..................................................... 9

A Brief History of Aramaic...................................................... 11

In the beginning... Aramaic!..................................................... 17

Aramaic and the Old Testament............................................20

Aramaic and the Assyrian Empire..........................................26

Aramaic and the Babylonian Empire......................................35

The Babylonian Exile............................................................ 45

Aramaic and the Medo-Persian Empire..................................55

Aramaic and the Greek Empire.............................................. 64

The Maccabean Revolt...........................................................75

Aramaic and the Roman Empire.............................................90

A.D. 70 – The End of an Age................................................. 97

The Bar Kokhba Revolt......................................................... 112

Aramaic, Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint Translation.......123

What Does Josephus Say?................................................... 130

Aramaic – The Language of Egypt...................................... 140

Aramaic in the New Testament...............................................145

Aramaic – The Language of Jesus........................................ 155

Did Jews speak Greek?........................................................ 164

Aramaic and the Church Fathers............................................ 171

Aramaic and the Dead Sea Scrolls.......................................180

What About Hebrew?!........................................................... 186

Was Latin spoken amongst Jews?.........................................192

Aramaic – Judaism’s Second Holy Language........................197

What is Biblical Aramaic?..................................................... 200

What are the Aramaic Targums?...........................................204

What is the Aramaic Peshitta OLD Testament?...................... 211

What is the Aramaic Peshitta NEW Testament?......................218

Armenian Bible – From Aramaic, not Greek!......................... 226

The Arabic Bible – From The Aramaic New Testament!..........231

From Aramaic to Arabic........................................................ 235

Aramaic into Crusader Times............................................... 239

Aramaic (and the Gospel) Spread EAST............................248

The (Aramaic) Church of the East...................................... 260

Dialects of Aramaic............................................................. 270

The Syriac Dialect of Aramaic..............................................276

Aramaic is Still Spoken Today.............................................. 282

How Different are Hebrew and Aramaic?.............................284

About Ewan MacLeod.......................................................... 291

Visit JesusSpokeAramaic.com.............................................. 293

T HANK YOU for your interest in Aramaic, and for being

The Importance of Aramaic

It is also likely that, if you are coming to this book or

A Brief History of Aramaic

I N THE FOLLOWING chapters on Aramaic – the Bible's Second

Before we introduce Aramaic, however, let’s think about a language

English speakers today actually struggle to read and understand

different animal from modern English.

Aramaic Old Testament. When we come to the New Testament, we

Why should Hebrew and Aramaic be so different from other

In the beginning... Aramaic!

Hebrew, and Hebrew was mixed up, or confused, to form Aramaic.

Aramaic and the Old

I N THE chapter, In the beginning – Aramaic!, we saw that prior to