When an Arabic speaking Muslim friend saw Mel Gibson’s movie Passion of the Christ with most of the dialogue in Aramaic, he was very surprised that he did not need most of the subtitles in English to understand the movie!

This connection is a critical bridge builder: sister languages, Arabic, and Aramaic, the written language which was once the global language, stretching from the Near East to Malabar in India and East China.

Dr. Sidney Griffith, a Catholic priest and noted Syriac scholar, states that, “neither Qur’anic nor Aramaic scholars have seen fit to make the linguistic connection and it is about time that connection was made.”

Western academia has been primarily concentrated on Biblical Greek. What we need to now consider is the Aramaic/Syriac New Testament, written in the language Jesus actually spoke, as an additional tool for comparative analysis. I have found this an invaluable tool working with the Islamic world in seeking bridges to the common ground.

Muslims respect the similarity of words, meanings, and relate to the Eastern traditions and idiomatic nuances of the Aramaic. They are very similar to the Arabic of the Qur’an and the Hebrew of the Torah; and can help unlock useful mysteries within the Eastern Holy Books.

The Prophet Muhammad and Aramaic

Some Islamic historians tell us that trusted Assyrian and Syriac speaking believers in Jesus interacted with the Prophet Muhammad and likely read to him from the Aramaic Eastern Text. The very word Qur’an, which means “The Recital,” is derived from an Aramaic/Syriac word qiriana.

Original Revelation of the Holy Books: Why the Aramaic has special meaning for Muslims

The most compelling logic for use of the Aramaic New Testament in building bridges to the Common Ground deals with the Muslim view of “original revelation.”

Islam holds that God, through the angel Gabriel, spoke the revelation to the Prophet Mohammed in Arabic and is considered the official language of “The Recital.” Thus, the only accepted written version is Arabic.

Since Jesus spoke Aramaic, Muslims believe (consistent with Islamic logic) the “Holy” written version of the Gospel would be in Aramaic.

It is helpful to note that Aramaic was the first written Semitic script of the three, followed by Hebrew and finally, Arabic. The ever widening “gulf” separating us is unfortunate, but it is my hope that studying the related Semitic languages of the East will serve as a key foundation, providing evidence that our faiths have more in common than we have believed in the past.

Did Jesus Really Say, “I Come to Bring a Sword”?

“Do not suppose I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword” (Matt. 10:34). At first blush, this verse seems to contradict to all of Jesus’s teachings. How could the man who taught us to “turn the other cheek” and “love our enemies” claim that he came to bring a sword? In fact, this verse has even been used by some to justify violence against “nonbelievers.”

The truer meaning here is not sword, but division. This is more accurately rendered in the common English translations of the corresponding passage in Luke: “Do you think I have come to bring peace on earth? I say to you, No, but divisions” (Luke 13:51).

The teachings of Jesus were so revolutionary and contrary to the political, social, and religious order of the day that when people followed them, divisions among families, friends, and institutions inevitably ensued. Dr. Lamsa comments that the Greeks did not understand the Eastern idiomatic aspect of these verses. Jesus never suggested that his followers ought to “take up the sword,” but meant rather that following him would inevitably cause “divisions” and persecutions—as history has in fact shown to be the case.

Examples of Aramaic Terms that Clarify Long-standing Biblical Misinterpretations

In chapter 3 of the book we detail several examples where the Aramaic terms of the Peshitta version of the New Testament clear up long-standing textual puzzles and misinterpretations. The examples there involved the passages “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” and “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother . . . he cannot be my disciple.” Both passages were found to be garbled versions of the original intent—and in each case it was a single Aramaic term that provided the solution to the riddle. This same process occurs over and over in the New Testament. In this blog we will deal each day with various differences from the Greek manuscripts to the Aramaic.

Here are further examples of passages where Aramaic, the “secret language of the Bible,” provides valuable clarification and sorts out long held misunderstandings.

Is the Lord’s Prayer wrong?

Of all the apparent contradictions in the text of the Bible, none is more intriguing than instances where Jesus’s own words appear to contain contradictory teachings. One such example occurs in the wording of the famous Lord’s Prayer, the prayer Jesus taught his followers in Matthew 6:9–13. The problematic passage is the prayer’s concluding words: “And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (Matt. 6:13 nkjv).”

Here is the issue: In James 1:14 the New Testament says, “Let no man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted by God, for God cannot be tempted with evil; neither does he tempt any man.” But if it’s true that God never tempts us, why would Jesus instruct us to pray that God not lead us into temptation?

The Aramaic Peshitta text corrects this substantial inconsistency: “And do not let us enter into temptation, but deliver us from evil” (emphasis added).