Tuesday, December 1, 2009

I just finished reading Maurice Casey's An Aramaic Approach to Q. It was a great book which I recommend to anyone interested in Q and an Aramaic approach to the gospels and sources. I had personally let my thoughts wander into Aramaic translations explaining the variants but never went into it. Other than having reservations about the extent of the conjectures, and the fact I don't really have the competency in Aramaic to test everything said, I was impressed. I think I'll be getting my hands on his Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel. (I wrote something on this not too long ago, apparently not on this blog, and was very disappointed to read in Raymond Brown's Intro to the NT that he didn't believe there was any evidence of an Aramaic background in Mark!?)

Anyway, I know, not much of a post. However, over the next few days I'll try and finish off a review.


  1. There is a huge amount of evidence of the Aramaic background to the New Testament, not just Mark's gospel. The Aramaic Peshitta goes back just as far as the Greek New Testament, yet is largely ignored in the West. A book such as "Was the NT Really Written in Greek?" is a fantastic resource for studying the Aramaic background of the New Testament.

  2. Thanks for the comment. I am not convinced of Aramaic primacy for the New Testament. With regard to the Gospels, I have no doubt about an Aramaic background - but I do not think this background is necessary reflected in the Peshitta.

    Thanks for the suggesting, I will try and get my hands on it. I think that one of the issues with pursuing an Aramaic background is that many scholars don't have the Aramaic proficiency.