When he lived on earth, Jesus spoke Syriac—or Aramaic, as western Christians often call it; or Chaldee, as western Christians used to call it. Aramaic-speakers call it Syriac, as does the King James Version.
It’s the language ancient Syrians spoke. “Aramaic” comes from
Thing is… the bible’s in Hebrew. Except for the parts which are actually in Syriac, it had to be translated into Syriac so the Syriac-speaking public could understand it. It’s why
Syriac still exists as a spoken language, spoken in Germany, India, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Sweden, Syria, and Türkiye. It’s still the language used in the worship services of the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Maronite Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church and other eastern Catholics who use a Syriac rite, the Malabar Independent Syrian Church, the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Assyrian Pentecostal Church, and other ethnic Assyrian Christians. Some linguists consider Syriac and Aramaic two different languages, and claim Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic, if not a whole different language with Aramaic at its root. Syriac doesn’t use the Ashurit alphabet like Hebrew does; it has
Naturally there are Syriac translations of the bible. But the most important one is the one which predates nearly every other bible translation. Parts predate
We refer to the most ancient Syriac bible as the
What’s in it.
The Peshitta’s New Testament didn’t originally include 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, and Revelation. The Antioch church didn’t consider these books to be bible till the 500s, so obviously the first Peshitta was translated before that time. These books were later translated in the Harclensis, or “the Harklean version,” translated in 616 by Syrian bishop Thomas of Harqel in Alexandria, Egypt. That’s why you’ll find ’em in today’s Peshittas.
The Old Testament may have been adapted from Pharisee targums; we don’t really know, because they don’t wholly match the targums we have. But unlike the targums, they include
Sometimes you’re gonna find Syriac liturgies which are clearly quoting bible, but not quoting Peshitta. Sometimes that’s because they’re quoting other ancient Syriac translations of the bible. Yes, there were others! Paul of Tella translated Origin’s Hexapla, his 240 analysis of
Yes there are English translations of the Peshitta. Probably the best-known is the Lamsa Bible—properly
The original bible?
Part of the controversy around Lamsa was his insistence the original bible was written in Syriac. Not Hebrew and Greek. His language.
It’s what the Assyrian Church of the East had taught him as a child. Syriac was Jesus and Paul and the apostles’ language; why wouldn’t they write it in Syriac? True, your
So, they reason, why would the Holy Spirit have all these teachings and letters be composed in Syriac, translated into Greek, then re-translated back into Syriac? Seems like unnecessary steps. Ones which’d cause confusion; if you’ve ever seen English translated into another language then back, you’ll see obvious errors creep into the language. And they’re pretty sure there are plenty of errors in the Greek New Testament: When they compare the Peshitta to the GNT, they’re pretty sure their bibles are right, and the Greek bibles are wrong.
So, they reason, Greek bibles are translations of their bibles. Not the other way round. Further, they claim the Hebrew Old Testament is also a translation of their bibles; they claim the Hebrew text was lost at some point in the past, and the rabbis were forced to re-translate it back into Hebrew, which they did from the Peshitta not the Septuagint.
Yep, that’s what Lamsa believed about his bible. And I believe this as much as I believe
Lamsa was mighty vocal about his beliefs, and that’s why he got so much pushback from bible scholars, who knew he was full of beans. Does it invalidate his bible? Nah. It’s a good enough translation. Especially since it’s really a translation of a translation.
And regardless of those folks who believe their favorite translation is inspired: Any good translation can share the gospel just as effectively as the original. (Sometimes even bad translations! Not that this excuses bad ones. But remember, all we really need is the good Holy Spirit.) We don’t need to add outrageous claims to make our favorite translations sound extra-holy—as if people need to follow the translation instead of the Holy Spirit.
A relevant bible.
Sometimes I bring up the Peshitta, or Jesus’s words as stated in the Peshitta, because it is the language he originally taught in. If you want the exact words Jesus spoke when he taught, we’re never gonna have the exact words:
So yeah, if you want a quote which sounds as close as you’re gonna get to the original statements of Jesus, there’s the Peshitta. But for accuracy, look at the Greek New Testament. That’s the original; that’s what I, and every other bible translator, looks at.
Why do scholars care what’s in the Peshitta? Well, same as the Septuagint, it helps us understand words in the Hebrew and Greek which we may not be as familiar with in the 21st century, as people were in the 2nd and 4th. And if a passage in the Peshitta looks too different from a passage we find in the Hebrew scriptures or the Greek New Testament, it’s a sign its translators were looking at a whole different manuscript—one we oughta track down and compare with what we have, because there’s always a chance it might be more accurate than what we have. Or, y’know, less. But we oughta at least look at it!
Lastly we oughta care what’s in it, because sometimes we Christians of different churches struggle to understand one another. Usually that’s because we, or they, or both of us, are being selfish. But yeah, sometimes that’s because we’re interpreting the bible different ways—and sometimes that’s because we’re reading very different bibles. We need to be aware of this factor; they might be earnestly trying to follow what they think the scriptures are telling them, and while we might disagree with their interpretation, we need to respect their earnestness. They wanna follow Jesus! So do we, right?
