Jesus spoke Aramaic, the common language of Galilee in the first century. The Gospels preserve traces of this in words like Abba and ṭalîta’ qûmî, even though they were written in Greek. But the real significance goes beyond vocabulary: Aramaic-speaking circles that contributed to the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John remembered Jesus in distinct ways. For example, Peter’s circle emphasized forgiveness, that of Mary Magdalene focused on purity, and so on. Together, they form overlapping but distinct “streams of tradition” in the Gospels, revealing that no single community preserved the whole picture of Jesus. In this interview, Bruce Chilton discusses his book Aramaic Jesus and what it reveals about the language Jesus spoke, memory, and the earliest church.
Get New Articles Delivered Straight to Your Inbox!
Don’t miss interviews with Bruce Chilton about his other books, including Rabbi Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
The Aramaic Jesus and His Linguistic World
Why does it matter that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and how does it shape our reading of the Gospels?
Aramaic is one of the biblical languages, alongside Hebrew and Greek, because it was a major common language of the ancient Middle East. Although most of the Hebrew Bible had been formed before Aramaic became a major influence, it is widely used in Rabbinic literature.
Discoveries associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that it was spoken and current within Judaism by the first century CE. This Judaism, rooted in sacrificial practices focused on the Second Temple, differs markedly from any Judaism known today; Aramaic sources help us understand it.
Jesus finds his place among Aramaic speakers in his depiction within the New Testament, as recognized by the Church historian Eusebius since the fourth century. His identity was developed within the largely oral culture of Aramaic-speaking Judaism, and his teaching was translated into another international language, the Greek known as Koinê, a process reflected in the Gospels known today.
You gain a clearer and more accurate reading by recognizing that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are deep texts, reflecting the evolution of distinct traditions from Aramaic to Greek — and eventually into English. This makes reading the Gospels an immersive experience in their meaning.
How do the Gospels use Aramaic words and traditions in their Greek narratives?
During the mid-twentieth century, it became fashionable to assert that the Gospels were written in some form in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. My book, Aramaic Jesus, demonstrates that the Gospels are written from a Greek perspective and do not exhibit the characteristics of direct translations of entire documents.
The Gospels absorb Aramaic — in the form of words, phrases, traditions, and themes — into the Greek tapestry of their language.
For example:
- Jesus describes the “weeds” that ruin a crop using an Aramaic term (Matthew 13:24–30, 36–40).
- On the cross, he calls out to God in Aramaic (Mark 15:34; Matthew 27:46).
- In the Temple, he confronts commercialism with an Aramaic perspective on sacrifice (Mark 11:15–17 and parallels).
- He announces God’s “kingdom” in the familiar Aramaic conception (Mark 1:15 and parallels).
These examples—developed more fully in Aramaic Jesus—illustrate a consistent pattern: Aramaic elements surface within Greek presentations rather than as direct translations from an original Aramaic text.
What are transliterations of Aramaic words in the Gospels, and what examples reveal Jesus’s spoken language?
A transliteration represents a word in one language using the alphabet of another language. The well-known case of the Greek Abba in the New Testament, for example, represents Aramaic אבא, transliterated today as ’Aba’.
(By the way, the old argument of Joachim Jeremias, that the usage of this term for God was unique to Jesus, is debunked in Aramaic Jesus. Rather, he availed himself of a well-established usage.)
Sometimes, the fact that Jesus used Aramaic is recalled in the context of his actions. For example, speaking to a twelve-year-old young woman who had died to all appearances, he is remembered as saying, ṭalîta’ qûmî = טליתא קומי (meaning, “Girl, raise!”).
Mark 5:41 gets that almost right, quoting the Aramaic phrase ṭalîta’ qûmî as Talitha koum, a reasonable although not quite accurate approximation of the Aramaic form. Some Greek manuscripts adjust the spelling to Talitha koumi, which shows a continuing awareness of Aramaic grammar by the correctors, since they give the feminine imperative — the final -î sound in Aramaic qûmî.
What do Aramaic transliterations indicate about the Synoptic Gospels and early Christian tradition?
The predominance of transliterations in the Synoptic Gospels reveals that their proximity to Aramaic streams of tradition was closer than John’s, although — as is also shown in Aramaic Jesus — part of John’s literary artistry involves an awareness of and recourse to Aramaic.
Not all the cases are easily identified, and in a few instances, discussion has been considerable. For that reason, more than a listing has to be involved in the cases of full transliterations that are discussed, involving over two dozen Synoptic passages.
Even when transliterations are mangled, partial, or absorbed to embellish an expression, they reveal an awareness of Aramaic as a formative influence in how the Gospels were shaped.
How did earlier scholars trace an Aramaic substratum behind the Gospels?
Scholars such as Gustaf Dalman, Rudolf Meyer, Matthew Black, and others provided a necessary correction of earlier work, which confused first-century Aramaic with the later dialect known as Syriac. Confusion with this later form of the language is still a feature of some apologetic approaches to Jesus that are not critical.
Dalman and Meyer provided a critical orientation, although they did not have the advantage of access to the Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls and related finds. Black did have some familiarity with them, but unfortunately, his view of the development of the Aramaic language, which has since been rejected, caused him to treat much later medieval texts as if they were evidence of first-century usage, and to sideline the Scrolls.
Part of the purpose of Aramaic Jesus is to locate discussion within the present state of knowledge in terms of textual evidence and linguistic analysis — both fields that have been revolutionized during the past fifty years.
Don’t Miss Our Latest Interviews!
Stay connected with fresh content and scholarly insights every week.
How does Aramaic Jesus build on earlier scholarship?
Aramaic Jesus: Tradition, Identity, and Christianity’s Mother Tongue builds on that earlier scholarship by moving beyond fixed-script theories and showing how Aramaic-speaking circles transmitted Jesus’ teaching through evolving “streams of tradition,” a process clarified through careful retroversion into Aramaic.
Gustaf Dalman made another observation that has seemed to me well worth developing further. (For context, he wrote early in the twentieth century at a time when vigorous, sometimes contentious discussion of the sources behind the Gospels — especially the Synoptics — was in vogue.)
Dalman pointed out that, whatever those sources were, they must have been influenced by the Aramaic speakers who developed them as Synoptic traditions emerged and evolved. Unlike other interpreters of his time (and later times), he offered the prospect of getting beyond the notion of fixed, written scripts lying behind everything in the Gospels.
It fed my conception of “streams of tradition.”
His comment is not fully fleshed out, but it fed my conception of “streams of tradition.” By this I mean the contributions of Aramaic speakers associated with figures such as:
- The Twelve
- Peter
- Mary Magdalene
- James, the brother of Jesus
- Barnabas
Each of these figures is identified in the New Testament as playing a central role in preserving and advancing the memory of Jesus.
When these circles of memory are involved in transmitting Jesus’ teaching, we can reasonably ask whether Aramaic was a factor in its formulation. We do not have direct access to their Aramaic traditions, but we can retrovert from the Greek text we have into Aramaic.
What principles guide the retroversion of Greek Gospel texts into Aramaic?
Because there is no known ancient text of the New Testament in Aramaic prior to its Greek version, the most we can do is reconstruct the Aramaic original. Moreover, since the Gospels and associated literature were composed in Greek, there is no assurance that any complete text extant today — or any source within it — actually had an Aramaic antecedent.
Cumulative evidence from transliterations makes it far more plausible that the remembrance of Jesus had already made the transition from Aramaic to Greek in the period prior to the active formation of the Gospels.
For this reason, retroversion can only be recommended when:
- Some linguistic indication of an Aramaic antecedent is given by the text in a particular case.
- A plausible Aramaic-speaking transmitter of the material can be identified.
- The result of retroversion is a clearer understanding of the Greek than would have been possible on the basis of the Greek text alone.
That is the procedure in Aramaic Jesus, marking a considerable refinement of previous approaches. The fallacy of some assertions in the past (even the recent past), which equated anything that could be stated in Aramaic with the finding that Jesus made the statement, is put to rest.
What can retroversion into Aramaic reveal about Jesus and the Gospels?
At times, retroversion into Aramaic—used as a tool of exegesis—clarifies how Jesus was remembered in the Gospels.
Three examples illustrate this:
- Kingdom of God: Should we say with Matthew 11:12 that the kingdom of God “exerts force such as to avail itself,” or with Luke 16:16 that it “is messaged triumphantly”? The Aramaic verb taqphah would explain both turns of phrase.
- Forgiveness of sins: Across a broad swath of material, Peter is associated with a stream of tradition that emphasizes the forgiveness of sins. At Mark 2:10, for instance, this theme is explained in such a flexible way that the Aramaic verb šebaq, meaning “to let go” or “release,” seems to lie behind a variety of expressions in Greek.
- The Nazarene: Mary Magdalene is specifically associated with the announcement of Jesus’ resurrection in all the Gospels. In Mark, the earliest Gospel, the young man at the tomb identifies Jesus as “the Nazarene” (Nazarênos, Mark 16:6). This designation reflects Nezêra’ in Aramaic, which conveys the sense of a consecrated person—a theme especially prominent in the Magdalene stream of tradition.
Streams of Tradition Behind the Aramaic Jesus
How do different streams of tradition remember Jesus in diverse ways?
Social identity and the recollection of what was said are conveyed in the configuration of Jesus’ teaching. That can be seen in the following examples of streams of tradition which present contrasting interpretations:
- Kingdom of God: God’s kingdom might be viewed as exerting a current force in the early stage of the Twelve’s transmission (Luke 16:16; Matthew 11:12), but at the later phase it is seen principally in its contrast with Gehenna (Mark 9:47).
- Purity: Is it a triumphant force, as in the Magdalene stream (Mark 16:6), or a status to be protected from impurity in the way a fox would be avoided, as in the Barnaban stream (Luke 13:32-33)?
- Eschatological feast: Is the eschatological feast with God a promise for “many,” as in the Petrine stream (Mark 14:24), or a limited promise, as in the Silan version of the stream associated with James, the brother of Jesus (Matthew 22:14)?
- Forgiveness: Forgiveness is offered proactively in the interests of healing in the Petrine stream (Mark 2:10), but two chapters later in the same Gospel, a different stream, associated with James, the brother of Jesus, explicitly limits the possibility of being forgiven by recourse to an Aramaic locution (Mark 4:11-12).
- Judgment: The means by which judgment is exercised might be existential return on the standard a person deploys (Matthew 7:2), or an objective threat to an entire city (Luke 13:6-9).
Why did groups like Peter’s followers and Mary Magdalene’s community preserve distinct Aramaic sayings and stories?
The streams of tradition were worked out by Jesus’ followers. These people were initially Aramaic speakers but gradually became Greek speakers, inheriting streams of tradition. They encountered different challenges, mined the distinctive memory of Jesus available to them, and represented Jesus for audiences in times and places unique to each stream.
Whether God’s kingdom should be understood as a present offer or more as a future vindication, for example, has been a persistent issue in the interpretation of Jesus’ message. Both views are represented as early as the body of teaching curated by the Twelve that modern scholarship has called “Q.”
The emphasis of the Magdalene stream on how Jesus’ purity could be extended to others inevitably clashed with a protective view of purity, according to which uncleanness needed to be avoided. And Peter’s emphasis on forgiveness appears qualified by the teaching of James, the brother of Jesus, which is equally at home in an Aramaic environment.
Core Themes of the Aramaic Jesus
How do diverse Aramaic traditions about the kingdom, purity, and judgment complicate assumptions about Jesus’s core message?
Five themes emerge in Aramaic Jesus because they are prominent in the Gospels’ portrayal of Jesus, while also being deeply embedded in the practices of Second Temple Aramaic Judaism.
The positions presented are not uniform, but there is a noticeable coherence in the focus on these themes:
- Kingdom
- Purity
- Eschatological banquet
- Forgiveness
- Judgment
Streams of tradition were curated by communities that applied themselves to these issues through actual practices.
They needed to determine for themselves what it meant to participate in God’s kingdom, establish its purity, celebrate it in communal meals, extend forgiveness according to Jesus’ principles, and prepare for God’s judgment.
To do that in environments that were rarely supportive and sometimes hostile meant that memory and practice went hand in hand, and needed to be robust in their staying power.
How did the Aramaic concept of “forgiveness” expand from personal practice to a central theological theme?
One of the most important retroversions into Aramaic presented in Aramaic Jesus is the Lord’s Prayer.
I have analyzed the particular forms involved before, but the wider scope of the book enabled me to refine an understanding of the linguistic setting and the relationship of the Prayer to other streams beyond that of the Twelve (which transmitted the Prayer as it is known to us).
The idea of forgiveness, of course, by no means originated with Jesus or anyone within what came to be called Christianity. But his Prayer establishes the need to be forgiven as germane to the regular practice of worshipping and acknowledging God.
In other words, asking for forgiveness is not to be limited to an awareness of having committed some egregious act or to specific occasions of public repentance. The need to be forgiven comes from the frailty of being human, and God anticipates it.
No wonder, then, that the stream of Peter, whose founder really did have something to be forgiven for as a result of his denial of knowing Jesus at the time of the crucifixion, focused on the necessity of extending the power of forgiveness as a matter of regular practice.
After the destruction of the Temple, how did Aramaic sayings about “judgment” evolve into apocalyptic warnings?
The destruction of the Temple in 70 CE was an incalculable disaster for all of Second Temple Judaism — and to many observers at the time, that included what later came to be called Christianity.
Nowhere was the disaster felt more acutely than in the community gathered in the memory of James, the brother of Jesus, who had been executed at the instigation of the high priest in 62 CE. James centered his devotional practice by means of the Nazirite vow in the Temple, so that both his death and the Temple’s destruction appeared to the followers of James as intolerable injustices to which God must and would respond.
Apocalyptic judgement (in the style of the response to the earlier catastrophe imposed on the Temple that the book of Daniel reflects) became the characteristic emphasis of James’ disciple Silas, as well as of several teachers of the later first century.
How do modern conceptions of heaven compare to what Aramaic traditions say Jesus taught by Jesus?
It seems to me that current Christian theology is far too wistful in its conception of God’s kingdom as compared to the Aramaic usage that Jesus joined in. Jesus described the kingdom of heaven not as a distant place to someday enter, but as God already taking action — his reign, power, and presence breaking into the world right now.
In the Gospels, the kingdom begins with God — not with us.
I wrote my doctoral dissertation on the topic at Cambridge, and on that basis, after its publication, a brief article that I entitled Regnum Dei Deus Est — or, “The Kingdom of God is God.” The point is that Aramaic literature, including Jesus’ teaching as represented in the Gospels, begins with God, not with us.
The phrase concerns God’s activity, and activity is what Jesus masterfully depicts in his parables, rather than human achievement.
If we understand the kingdom as beginning with God’s action rather than human effort, it leads to a more grounded view — less like a perfect utopia and more like God’s work unfolding in the real world.
The Aramaic term malkûta’ (kingdom) could mean both God’s reign in action and a realm or place to be entered. How does that help us better understand what Jesus meant by the “kingdom of God”?
I am glad you picked up on that inflection, between God’s exertion of the force of his realm, and consequently the creation of space for that domain. That captures a thematic point of Aramaic Jesus in regard to the kingdom that applies more widely.
In particular, many of the distinctions in regard to God’s kingdom — made, for instance, between activity and entry, now and not yet — are not contradictory. Indeed, they are not even paradoxes, except when one of the options is read as if it expressed the totality of reference, without the possibility of further meaning.
C. F. Burney wrote a book called The Poetry of Our Lord. It has not aged well, as I explain in the history of discussion that opens Aramaic Jesus. But Burney did capture a facet of Aramaic as used within the literature of Judaism: its capacity for multivalent meaning, such as we associate with poetry.
Jesus was not a poet in a specific sense, but he and the traditions that developed in his name availed themselves of the metaphorical resonance of the Aramaic of their time. That resonance continues to echo in the resulting Greek texts.
The Historical Jesus, Memory, and Aramaic Influence
Your book emphasizes that Aramaic helps us understand how Jesus was remembered in different streams of tradition. What does this tell us about memory in the early church?
Memory in the early church was not merely an academic exercise. Memorizers did their best to be accurate, using the techniques available to them. Insights from the development of Rabbinic traditions, oral compositions from the Middle East and beyond, and the oral emergence of the Hebrew Bible (and related traditions) all help to illuminate those techniques.
But the figures we’re talking about operated in less settled ways than did the tradents (the agents of tradition) of many other literatures.
Memory was an existential act for the early generations of tradents of the Jesus traditions. What they remembered informed what they did, whether they survived, and how generations after them would see Jesus.
Studying the New Testament takes you into that nexus of social dynamics.
What cautions should historians keep in mind when connecting Aramaic traditions to the historical Jesus?
A perennial mistake has been to assume that putting Jesus’ teaching into Aramaic makes it more authentic. Even the recent work of Maurice Casey, helpful in several linguistic regards, winds up caught in this fallacy, which is not — and cannot — be viable.
There were thousands upon thousands of Aramaic speakers, many of whom had a stake in how Jesus was remembered. Further, many idiomatic Greek expressions in the New Testament are helpful in assessing material that does reflect an Aramaic background.
For example, Jesus calls Antipas (the son of Herod the Great) “that fox” (Luke 13:32-33), a vivid metaphor that expresses a view of purity as avoiding uncleanness. Many passages in the Greek Gospels — and Josephus, come to that — provide context: Antipas was a master of the unclean, as the Gospels and Josephus explain (and the saying merely assumes).
Considering the dimensions of Aramaic meaning does not imply that others can be excluded.
How does your work challenge the assumption that the Greek Gospels perfectly capture the Aramaic Jesus?
I know very well that many of my colleagues in the discipline of New Testament would much prefer not to have to take Aramaic into account. Graduate school is sufficiently challenging with Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, without adding yet another ancient language.
That challenge is precisely the point. As the Introduction of Aramaic Jesus explains, Aramaic was a lingua franca of the ancient Middle East during the time of Jesus and the first generations of his followers.
The book demonstrates how:
- Genuine transliterations reveal how Aramaic was absorbed into the Greek Gospels.
- Retroversions into Aramaic can resolve (or at least illuminate) exegetical questions and reveal streams of tradition.
- Thematic clusters in Jesus’ teaching are explicable within Aramaic terms.
Nothing in the book supports an Aramaic-only account of how the New Testament arose.
In earlier secondary literature, this kind of evidence has often been explained away as coincidental or as too sporadic to matter. When the evidence is analyzed as well as gathered, however, evasion is no longer a plausible strategy.
Nothing in the book supports an Aramaic-only account of how the New Testament arose, especially in light of the increasing evidence for a multilingual Middle Eastern context.
But neither does a considered appraisal support what Maurice Casey called “a fundamentalist’s dream:” that the Greek Gospels can be taken as handing on Jesus’ actual words — his ipsissima verba.
What do you hope readers take away from Aramaic Jesus?
The Aramaic language is a hard master, despite many new helpful resources that Aramaic Jesus mentions. Even after one has come to grips with the language, the origins of Christianity can only be assessed when many other considerations, linguistic and historical, are also factored into consideration.
However, analysis along the lines of Aramaic Jesus clarifies a historical principle that applies across the entire spectrum of Jesus and Christian origins studies: the nature of the available evidence, regardless of the language, period, or stage of development, means that no single, objective Jesus is attested.
Rather, the traditions reflect the identities of their originating communities, and inference reveals the connection to Jesus as well as to the practices that emerged in his name and memory.
The process of inference is demanding, even when the Aramaic dimension is explained for non-specialists (as in Aramaic Jesus), but it is an irreplaceable means for grasping what the traditions regarding Jesus stand for and how they relate to him.
Want More Scholar Interviews in Your Inbox?
Be part of a growing community exploring history, religion, and scholarship.
About the Scholar
Dr. Bruce D. Chilton is a leading scholar of early Christianity and Judaism and serves as the Bernard Iddings Bell Professor of Religion at Bard College. His research focuses on the historical Jesus, the New Testament, and the Jewish world of the first century, with special attention to the role of Aramaic in shaping Christian origins. He is the author of numerous influential works, including Aramaic Jesus: Tradition, Identity, and Christianity’s Mother Tongue. Chilton’s scholarship has been widely recognized in academic and religious circles, with his books cited in both scholarly and popular discussions of Jesus and the Bible. His insights into the Aramaic Jesus illuminate how language and memory shaped the diverse ways Jesus was remembered in the earliest church.
Further Reading
Explore more From the Desk articles about Aramaic, Second Temple Judaism, and early Christianity:
- Was Jesus a Rabbi?
- Were the Pharisees Bad People?
- Who Is Melchizedek in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
- Do the Dead Sea Scrolls Contain the New Testament?
- Who Was Mary Magdalene?
Aramaic Jesus
Read what other scholars and publishers say about the language spoken by Jesus:
- Aramaic Jesus: Tradition, Identity, and Christianity’s Mother Tongue (Baylor University Press)
- Jesus’ Teaching in Aramaic and the Books of the Canon (Bart Ehrman Blog)
- Saving Aramaic, the Language Jesus Spoke (Biblical Archaeology Society)
- Why Is Abba in the New Testament? (Religious Educator)
- Aramaic and the Making of the Gospels (Arizona Center for Judaic Studies)
