ARTICLES

THE ORIGINAL ARAMAIC FORM OF

JESUS' INTERPRETATION OF THE CUP
JESUS' interpretation of the Cup at the Last Supper has survived
in more than one form (Matt. 26: 28, Mark 14: 24, Luke 22: 20,
1 Cor. 11: 25). T h e Marcan form occurs in our oldest narrative

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Cornell University Library on May 30, 2012

account of this occasion, but it has been argued that it cannot be
the original form, on the ground that it cannot be reconstructed in
Aramaic. In three earlier articles in this Journal, J. A. Emerton
offered a solution to this problem, and this caused Jeremias to offer
a different solution in the last edition of his standard monograph. 1
The purpose of this article is to argue that the solutions of
Emerton and Jeremias are improbable for linguistic reasons, and
to suggest a new solution to the same problem. I conclude by
reflecting on the methods which may be used in tackling problems
of this kind. I assume that Jesus normally spoke Aramaic, and that
he did not switch into Hebrew when trying to communicate with
Aramaic-speaking disciples on this important occasion. These
assumptions may still be controversial, but they are not the subject
of this technical note.
The problem is created by the occurrence of the word \io\) after
a?|i(X and before xf|q 5ia0fiKr|q. The obvious way to turn this back
into Aramaic is to put a suffix for 'my' on the end of the word for
blood, to give us something like I W p l VJ1. This is not however
satisfactory Aramaic, because a suffix cannot be attached to a noun
in the construct state (as also in Hebrew), nor can a noun with a
suffix generally precede T, ovi, when this is the standard word for
'of. This is the problem which Emerton sought to solve. He
argued that a noun with a suffix can precede 1. He first offered a
1
For the view that it cannot be reconstructed, cf. J. Jeremias, JTS I (1949), 7,
'The words TO atuot \iox> Tf|<; 8ia9r|icr|<; cannot be retranslated into Aramaic, for in
Aramaic a noun with a personal pronoun TO atjia uou cannot be followed by a
genitive. So xf\c, 8ioc9r|icr|i; may be an interpretative expansion dating from the first
decade after Jesus' death.' For the proposed solution, J. A. Emerton, 'The Aramaic
Underlying TO atuot nou Tf^i; 8ia8T)KT|<; ' n Mk XIV. 24', JTS NS vi (1955), 238-40:
'TO AIMA MOT T 0 I AIA0HKHI: The Evidence of the Syriac Versions', JTS
NS xiii (1962), 111-17: 'Mark xiv. 24 and the Targum to the Psalter', JTS NS XV
(1964), pp. 58-9; cf. J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (ET 2nd edn.,
London: SCM, 1966), esp. pp. 193 ff. The problem has consequently been
considered solved, e.g. by G. D. Kilpatrick, The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy
(The Moorhouse Lectures (1975) (CUP, 1983)), p. 24: I. H. Marshall, Last Supper
and Lord's Supper (Exeter: Paternoster, 1980),p. 164 n. 67.

© Oxford University Press 1990

(Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 41, Pt. 1, April 1990)
2 MAURICE CASEY
more precise definition of the problem: 'Jeremias is presumably
not objecting to the common idiom in which a pronominal suffix
anticipates an immediately following genitive, but to a suffix which
stands for a noun in the genitive different from the one which
follows it.' 2 Emerton then brought forward some Syriac examples
of the proposed construction.
Emerton's examples are not wholly convincing. Too much
weight was given to expressions such as J1JCUX>» «Z«i and (JLaoJ* otl»{:
the examples are genuine, but since they are more numerous than
all other known examples put together, they may be interpreted as

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Cornell University Library on May 30, 2012

a particular Syriac idiom. T , pa*1, and "?ND!P had all been in
widespread metaphorical use for centuries. Idiomatic uses else-
where included im* T in biblical Hebrew (e.g. Gen. 48: 17), and
similarly WO* "J"V for 'his right thigh' (Judg. 3: 16). The frequency
of anticipatory possessive suffixes in Syriac makes the develop-
ment of expressions such as \'->* -« «»»/ particularly natural.
Consequently, Emerton's argument is weakened, not reinforced,
by reference to U*aa~» o»aa^. at Judg. 3: 16, 21 pesh., for such
phrases have been recorded only in Syriac. Aphrahat, Dem. II, 19
(col. 89 line 19), | ^ v * ^Ila is barely comparable, since ? is so near
to its common relative usage: 'our nature which [is] dust', for feu/
);<*•>-1 'you are dust' (God to Adam at Gen. 3: 19, pesh.). Hence
Noldeke/Chrichton translate, 'our nature which is of dust'. 3 We
are on firmer ground withUii* •.;°>rr a* Ps. 69: 29 pesh. This is not,
however, enough. Even Emerton was constrained to remark that
'the vernacular of Jesus was certainly not Syriac', and the pro-
posed construction was 'not common in Syriac, in which the same
meaning can be expressed in other ways'. 4 Hence his conclusion is
very restrained. Genuine examples are, moreover, fewer than he
stated. Thus Emerton's work cannot be said to have made "731
KB'pT a probable expression in the mouth of Jesus.
Returning to the fray in a subsequent article, Emerton brought
forward two examples from the Targum to Psalms, and one from
the Babylonian Talmud. 5 If the examples were sound, a significant
step forward would have been taken, for the proposed construc-
tion would have been found in two other dialects of Aramaic,
albeit both of them later than the time of Jesus. The examples are
not, however, satisfactory. At b T Ber. 18b, a late and legendary
2
Op. cit. JTS NS vi (1955), 238-9.
3
Aphrahat, Demonstrations, ed. I. Parisot, in Patrologia Syriaca, ed. R. Graffin,
vols. 1 and 2 (Paris: Firmin-Didot et Socii, 1894): E. Noldeke, Compendious Syriac
Grammar (ET J. A. Crichton. London: Williams and Norgate, 1904), 205 E.
4
Op. cit., JTS NS vi (1955), 240: JTS NS xiii (1962), p. 113.
5
Op. cit., JTS NS xv (1964), 58-9.
 THE ORIGINAL ARAMAIC FORM OF JESUS 3
story may include the expression N^irm ''NrO'U, 'my tube of eye
make-up', but there is an alternative reading from which the suffix
is absent. This illustrates the unreliability of small details in the
transmission of the text of the Babylonian Talmud: it is too fragile
to count as evidence of the required construction.
The proposed example at Targ. Ps. 68: 36 is surely incorrect.
Emerton gives it as VlOlin W p n *|BnpB fP3 , but he does not
translate it, so it is difficult to see how he understood it. The
masoretic text has:

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Cornell University Library on May 30, 2012

This text is difficult because of the sudden occurrence of the
second person singular suffix, but it may reasonably be rendered,
'You are awe-inspiring, O God, from your holy places, God of
Israel . . .' Whatever we do, *?N must be taken with 'jintf'1 to give us
'God of Israel': it cannot be taken closely with the preceding
. The peshitta renders intelligibly and literally, . . . "^—»?
/? o>o>^./ >f» .nv» ^ )o»^7 &-»/• Here the suffix on the end of
, and the use of?, make it the more obvious thatcxoC^./ should
be taken with "^.i-ao*/?, 'God of Israel', and there is nothing to
make us take it closely with the preceding phrase. The insertion of
fcoi' further ensures that the opening of the verse is interpreted as
addressed to God: it must be translated as I have translated the
masoretic text. The LXX removes the difficulty of the masoretic
text, whether because it read a better text, or because it improved
the text we read: Gaonacrcoq 6 Gsoq ev totq avion; auToC" 6 0eo<;
lapar\k . . . . Here too, 6 0£6<; lapar\X belongs together, and since
6 0£O<; is in the nominative, as the subject of its sentence, it cannot
be taken in the genitive with the preceding phrase. Since the
Targum translates either the masoretic text or something like it,
we must interpret it in a similar way:

Erpn -\vnpn iva ]» KH^N Vrn

1
Here ?}* has been rendered ND^pn, as e.g. at Targ. Ps. 50: 1, to give
the expression ^NIWT ND^n, 'The Mighty One of Israel', as e.g. at
Targ. Isa. 1: 24. As in the masoretic text, pesh and LXX, it should
not be taken too closely with the preceding"]BnpD rC3. We may not
follow Maloney, who renders 'the house of your mighty temple of
Israel', a rendering which ignores the nature of the Targum as a
translation of the masoretic text. 6 The Antwerp Polyglott, and
that of Walton, offered as good a translation as possible: 'Terribilis
6
E. C. Maloney, Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax (SBL Dissertation
Series 51. Chico: Scholars, 1981), p. 60.
4 MAURICE CASEY
es tu Deus a domo sanctuarii tui, fortis Israel.' 7 We must render it
on the same lines: 'You are awe-inspiring, O God, from the house
of your holiness, Mighty One of Israel.' It follows that Targ. Ps.
68: 36 is not an example of the proposed idiom.
It might none the less be argued that at least KD'pn "\W1pJi are
successive words in the sentence, and the point is of sufficient
methodological significance to require discussion. The problem is
caused by what has been called 'an immediately following geni-
tive'. 8 The classification of linguistic phenomena in Semitic
languages as if they were Latin seems to be too widespread to shift,

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Cornell University Library on May 30, 2012

but the underlying point is secure. What is wrong with Na'pT 'OT
together is only a relationship between them in which V3~l func-
tions like a noun in the construct state, with iWpn dependent upon
it, despite having a suffix: in English, 'my blood of the covenant*.
If there is no such relationship, there is nothing the matter with it.
We usually indicate such separation with a full stop. For example,
we may blink at the first sight of 11Q Targ. Job II. 4">n»N w a
^Sl1? but all is well when we realise that TDK does not go with
VP3. Sokoloff translates correctly, 'of my house. My maidser-
v a n t s ) as a stranger . . .' 9 Aramaic texts had neither full stops nor
commas. If we can do something to justify a pause separating ' m
and Na'pT, but a pause which a translator would ignore, and if at
the same time we can take the words separately, we shall be on safe
ground. I shall not propose this, but it is of methodological
significance that it would be an adequate solution.
Emerton's remaining example is Targ. Ps. 110: 3, JV3T "|»1?
*?N*1BV. Here again, he does not offer a translation, so we cannot see
exactly how he understood it, but it is not satisfactory. The
masoretic text has simply »]??», pesh. yxw : the LXX evidently
vocalized this word T|!3S;, for it rendered nexd 00O. The Targum
can only be understood as a defining gloss, the masoretic text 'your
people' being defined as 'the house of Israel', possibly to clarify
the fact that they are not the Christian Church. Even in this text,
therefore, the use of "7 is significantly different from the construc-
tion needed for Jesus' interpretation of the cup. Moreover, JV3T
VN"W can be used independently, both in Targ. Pss. and in Syriac.
For example, at Targ. Ps. 135: 19, it renders the masoretic text iva

7
B. A. Montanus (ed.), Biblia sacra, Hebraice, Chaldaice, Craece et Latine (8
vols. Antwerp: Platinus, 1569-73), vol. 3: B. Waltonus et al. (eds.), Biblia Sacra
Polyglotta (6 vols. London: Roycroft, 1655-7), vol. 3.
8
Emerton, op. cit., JTS NS vi (1955), 238, discussing Jeremias, op. cit., JTS I
(1949), 7 (quoted supra, n. 1).
9
M. Sokoloff, The Targum tojobjrom Qumran Cave XI (Ramat-Gan: Bar-IIan
University, 1974).
 THE ORIGINAL ARAMAIC FORM OF JESUS 5
at the beginning of a sentence, as a way of addressing those
of the house of Israel: there follow similar renderings of pinx rP3
and "hn ira with p n « n-m and 'KV1? rrat respectively (Targ. Ps.
I
35 : 19-20, and pesh. likewise).
We should note also that at Targ. Ps. 110: 3, Emerton's text is not
the only one. Of the conventional printed editions, Lagarde and
Walton have the 1, but the Antwerp Polyglott omits it, reading "]M?
10
VK-IB?" ITS. As with bT Ber. 18b, Emerton's example is based on
only one version of a late textual tradition: unlike bT Ber. 18b, even
the most congenial text is not a sound example of the proposed

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Cornell University Library on May 30, 2012

idiom. We must therefore conclude that Emerton's hypothesis is in-
correct. His discussion illustrates the fragility of an argument
contrary to the basic structure of a language, based on a few examples
in it. It is symptomatic of such an argument that Emerton also
suggested textual corruption in two separate Syriac versions of Matt.
26: 28, to avoid the implication that they did not translate literally
because that would have been unnatural from an idiomatic point of
view. His suggestion is not impossible, but again it is fragile. We
must find more natural Aramaic, which Jesus might have spoken.
In his response to Emerton, Jeremias suggested the Hebrew DT
W*13or the Aramaic 1|0'lj? DTK , '(" m y covenant blood"), which in
Greek could be rendered regularly and correctly only with the
transposition of the personal pronoun'.11 Emerton noted that this
is ambiguous. It could mean 'the blood of my covenant', and
Emerton suggested that Jesus might have avoided saying this since
the covenant was God's. 12 This objection is more serious than
Emerton indicated. The rendering 'the blood of my covenant' is a
perfectly natural one, and Jeremias' view that this expression
would be rendered 'regularly and correctly' only with the transpo-
sition of the personal pronoun sets a standard of regularity and
correctness which is remote from reality. The obvious rendering
of 'a'p DIN p is TOOTO (£cmv) TO otijia (xfjq) 8ia9f|icr|c; uoo, 'This is
the blood of my covenant.' This is too functional for an ancient
Christian translator to be likely to alter the position of ^00. From
the perspective of a Gentile Gospel writer, if Jesus said 'This is the
blood of my covenant', he must have meant Christianity, founded
through Jesus' death and Resurrection. This is just as good as the
'new covenant* of Paul, the longer text of Luke, and some
10
P. de Lagarde (ed.), Hagiographa Chaldaice (Leipzig: Lipsius, 1873. Rep
Osnabruck: Zeller, 1967). For the polyglotts, n. 7 supra. There is no proper critical
edition, nor is there good reason to believe that an Urtext could be recovered.
" Jeremias, op. cit., The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, p. 195.
12
Op. cit.,JfTSNSxiii(i962), 116-17, responding to the discussion of Jeremias,
Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (3rd edn., i960), pp. 133-6.
6 MAURICE CASEY
manuscripts and versions of Matthew and Mark. If the translator
had found it, he could hardly have resisted it. We must conclude
that Jeremias' reconstruction is wrong.
It is perhaps surprising that attempts to justify more literal
reconstructions have not made more of Dan. 2: 34, ""T '•mVli
NBDm xVnB. This text dates from earlier than the time of Jesus,
and what was possible in Daniel's Aramaic is likely to have been
possible in the Aramaic of Jesus, even though these two dialects
were not identical. 13 However, this is still not enough to make
IWpT 'OT plausible Aramaic. Dan. 2: 34 repeats, in abbreviated

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Cornell University Library on May 30, 2012

form, the perfectly normal Aramaic of the previous verse, TliVn
^On 'T pnim VtiD "H pnin, 'its feet partly of iron and partly of clay'
(Dan. 2: 33). It is part of the transition to mentioning only the
materials, ' r n a , NDOH and others, without the parts of the image, at
Dan. 2: 35. It is therefore a quite exceptional passage, not a
justification for a grammatical rule contrary to the normal struc-
ture of the Aramaic language, not even when it is combined with a
little Syriac. It is thus not sufficient to undermine the inference
from a massive quantity of Aramaic texts that N^pT V2~l , 'my
blood of the covenant', would have been a grammatical mistake. It
is not as though we lack examples of one noun dependent on
another, with the first one in the construct or with the conven-
tional link of 1 or ""T. These constructions are common enough for
examples to be numerous, so that our inferences about normal
Aramaic are soundly based on a large quantity of evidence.
Furthermore, we should not attribute to Jesus some very odd
grammar, simply because that is what emerges from extremely
literal translation of Mark 14: 24 into Aramaic. Finally, it should
not be necessary to add that a grammatical error would not
increase the solemnity of his utterance, nor would it demonstrate
the sovereignty of the Son of God over human grammar. 14 It
would sound mundanely peculiar. We must continue our search
for natural Aramaic, which Jesus might have spoken.
One other preliminary matter must be dealt with. Picking up on
the earlier work of Dalman, Jeremias argued that Cj?, 'covenant',
'had not penetrated into everyday speech. Jesus could know the
Aramaic word from the synagogue service.' 15 We should infer
13
It is treated as decisive by R. H. Fuller, The Mission and Achievement of Jesus
(SBT 12. London: SCM, 1954), pp. 69-70. Cf. Jeremias, op. cit., Eucharistic
Words, p. 193 n. z: Maloney, op. cit., p. 60.
14
Cf. J. E. David, £16.48(1967) p. 291, citing J. Dupont, N.R.Th. Ixxx (1958),
1032.
15
Jeremias, op. cit., Eucharistic Words, p. 197 n. 3, citing G. Dalman, Jesus—
Jeschua (ET London: SPCK, 1929), p. 163.
 THE ORIGINAL ARAMAIC FORM OF JESUS 7
from the following evidence that Wp was used in normal Aramaic.
First, it is normal in Syriac. For example, it is used with reference
to the Jewish covenant at Aphrahat, Dem. xix. i (col. 848/line 6), 16
and earlier than this in the peshitta, rendering JVna, e.g. at Gen.
15: 18; Exod. 24: 8. Secondly, Dalman and Jeremias already noted
its use as a translation of 1V13 in Targums. These now include
Neof. I (e.g. Deut. 4: 23, 31), Targ. Sam. (e.g. Gen. 15: 18; Deut.
4: 23), and 11Q Targ. job XXXV. 7 (Job 40: 28). Thirdly, no
other word is used in extant Aramaic texts until a later period. All
this evidence can be explained only if D'j? was the Aramaic

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Cornell University Library on May 30, 2012

equivalent of JVH3, and 1 iQ Targ. Job XXXV. 7 only if it was so
before the time of Jesus. Later use of both 5ia0fjKri and m a as
loanwords in Aramaic should be regarded as later development.
We may infer that Jesus would use Wp as the everyday Aramaic
equivalent of IVH3.
The way is now clear for a new suggestion. Jesus must have said
something very much like this: /

I shall argue first that this is a perfectly feasible sentence for Jesus
to have used: and secondly, that a normal translator faced with this
was bound to produce something very close to what we read in
Mark 14: 24.
Jesus began by interpreting the third cup of wine: NH 'M makes
the main point, that the wine symbolizes his blood, that is, his
forthcoming death. As leader of the passover group, Jesus had to
interpret the main elements of the meal.17 His contemporary
Gamaliel I specified the Passover offering, the unleavened bread
and the bitter herbs (M. Pes. X. 5, cf. Exod. 12: 8, 27; 13: 7-8), but
Gamaliel would not have made this pronouncement if customs
were already universal. The interpretation of a cup of wine was
natural both because drinking four cups of wine was obligatory,
16
On Aphrahat's usage, cf. G. Richter, 'Uber die alteste Auseinandersetzung
der syrischen Christen mit den Juden', ZNW xxxv (1936), 101—14.
17
I assume here the clearly expressed view of Mark, that this was a passover
meal. For the main scholarly arguments, Jeremias, op. cit., Eucharistic Words. The
matter remains controversial, but additional arguments, and exposition of the rest
of Mark's Aramaic source(s), must be left for another occasion. For detailed
discussion of the Aramaic source of another Marcan pericope, arguing that it is
comprehensible only if a set of Jewish assumptions are made, P. M. Casey,
'Culture and Historicity: the Plucking of the Grain (Mark 2: 23-28)', NTS xxiv
(1988), 1—23. For present purposes, it would make no difference if Jesus inter-
preted the fourth cup rather than the third, but I have not been convinced by the
arguments of D. Cohn-Sherbok, 'A Jewish Note on TO IIOTHPION THE
ETAOriAZ', NTS xxvii (1980-1), 704-9.
 8 MAURICE CASEY
and because of the similarity of (probably red) wine to blood (cf.
e.g. Gen. 49: 11; Isa. 63: 3). The absence of any copula is natural
in Aramaic, but it is chiefly the symbolic context which would
ensure that no-one would feel they drank blood. The giving of this
interpretation after the wine was drunk will also have helped to
make the symbolism dramatic rather than revolting (Mark 14:
23—4, altered by Matt. 26: 26—7 and Luke 22: 19—20). Following
the interpretation of the unleavened bread as Jesus' body, the
interpretation of a cup of wine as his blood intensifies the
presentation of the sacrificial death which he had previously

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Cornell University Library on May 30, 2012

predicted.18
Jesus continued, Kin NO^pT. This takes his interpretation of the
cup much further. It asserts that his death will be significant in
• God's relationship to Israel, and the words have a massive pull of
traditional Jewish imagery. When the people of Israel took upon
themselves the observance of the Law, Moses threw sacrificial
blood over them and declared, 'Behold the blood of the covenant
. . .' (Exod. 24: 8). The blood shed at circumcision could be called
the blood of the covenant (e.g. T. Shabb. XV. 9), and the blood of
the Passover sacrifice had been fundamental in the deliverance of
Israel from Egypt (Exod. 12: 6-7, 12-13, 21—7: cf. Mekh Pisha V
(Exod. 12: 6): Exod. R. XV. 12; XVII. 3). Jesus made creative use
of this complex of tradition. Consequently, it does not matter that
some of our sources for it are later than his lifetime. The early
sources establish the presence of the tradition. We do not need to
argue that Jesus copied tradition which is extant only from a later
period, but rather that our later sources exemplify the develop-
ment of the tradition in which he participated. With the words
Kin NO^pT, Jesus asserted that his death would be significant in the
redemption of Israel. He concluded, ftCVD bv "TONnB , 'shed for
many'. This amplifies the atoning significance of his death.19
We may therefore conclude that the proposed Aramaic underlay
has a perfectly satisfactory Sitz im Leben where Mark puts it, on
the occasion of Jesus' final Passover with his disciples. How could
it be translated into Greek? We may begin with a perfectly literal
rendering: ouua |xou xouxo 8ia8f)Kr|<; xf|<; £cmv £KXOVV6|1EVOV urcep
nokX&tv. Oh my, what a mess! It is not sufficient to move if|<;
before 8ia9fjKT|<; (where it must obviously go), because two basic
faults remain. The symbolic identity statement with which Jesus
began has been lost, and feoriv can be taken withfeK^uvvojievovto
18
Again, general matters of this kind cannot be dealt with here. Cf. P. M.
Casey, JSNT xxix (1987), 40-9.
19
More profound discussion is not attempted here, to confine this note to
technical matters.
 THE ORIGINAL ARAMAIC FORM OF JESUS 9
form a periphrastic present. Both problems can be solved by
moving £oriv near to the front of the sentence, and once we think
of this, we can see what a simple and straightforward solution to
the potential chaos was adopted by Mark, or by his translator.
TOOTO Ecmv TO aiuoc uoo begins the sentence with a statement of
symbolic identity which is as near to nn ' m as a translator could
hope for. The moving of feoxiv, and the insertion of TO, removes
the unwanted periphrastic present. The rest of the sentence has
been left alone, apart from the essential placing of xt\q before
8ia0fiKri<;. xf\q 5iaQf\KT\q attaches itself to TO aiua uoo naturally

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Cornell University Library on May 30, 2012

enough in Greek, as it does not in Aramaic.
The modern grammarian can work out a rule for monoglot
Greek speakers, which this violates.
Das Schwierige bei diesem Ausdruck ist, dass wir ein Substantiv vor uns
haben, das zwei Genitive regiert. Das ist keine sehr gewohnliche Kon-
struktion, und wenn sie vorkommt, pflegt das regierende Substantiv
zwischen den beiden Genitiven zu stehen, vgl z.B. 2 Kor. 5, 1; Phil. 2. 30;
Apok. 7. 17.20
This rule is however too abstract for it to be likely that a bilingual
would feel it strongly enough to translate any differently. We can
see this clearly at Matt. 26: 28, for Matthew kept TO atua uoo xf\q
5ia8f|Kr)<; intact, despite editing the passage considerably. It does,
however, mean that there is a linguistic reason why xf\c, 8ia0f)KT)<5
is wwlikely to be a secondary gloss,21 just at the point where
difficulties with the Aramaic substratum might make us suppose
that it is. The remainder of the sentence is no longer problemati-
cal, following the removal of koxiv. TO £K%UVV6U£VOV drcep noXX(hv
amplifies the symbolic interpretation in Greek in very much the
same way as the original ]WXD V» Ittwno.
We can now see how simply the translator solved the potential
problem caused by differences in word order and linguistic
structure between his host and receptor languages. The basic
change he had to make was to move iaxiv, an obvious equivalent
of Kin, near to the beginning of the sentence, and at one go he
produced an equivalent of the identity statement with which Jesus
began, and prevented an unwanted periphrastic tense from ap-
pearing. Other changes are small and standard. We must infer that
the proposed reconstruction is approximately sound.
How certain should this conclusion be considered to be? It
20
H. Gottlieb, T O A I M A M O Y T H I A I A 0 H K H I 1 , St.Th. xiv (i96o), 115-18
(the quotation is from p. u s ) : cf. Maloney, op. cit., pp. 57—62.
21
As suggested e.g. by W. Wrede, 'Miscellen. 2. "To al^ot \iov tf|<; 8ia8f)KT|<;" ',
ZNW i (1900), 69—74: cf. Jeremias, JTS 1 (1949), 7 (quoted supra, n. 1).
10 MAURICE CASEY
should be regarded as certain in all important particulars, but not a
guarantee of Jesus' ipsissima verba in the most literal sense. What un-
certainties are there? As always, there is some uncertainty at a purely
verbal level. I have suggested that Jesus used the Aramaic IVR .
Dalman and Jeremias both gave him "|D1P, and we cannot prove
them wrong, because this common Hebrew word is used in Ara-
maic texts already at i Enoch 2: 3; 89: 2, and perhaps 1 Enoch 9: 1;
4Q Giants. 22 This degree of uncertainty is, however, of no concern,
since the meaning of the sentence is not affected. More interesting-
ly, there is some uncertainty over the exact order of words. The

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Cornell University Library on May 30, 2012

crucial factor which ensures both normal Aramaic for Jesus, and the
production by comprehensible translation of Mark 14: 24, is the
presence of Kin after KQ^p. It would be possible to do this, yet put
the word n n at the beginning of the sentence, as other scholars have
done. We might therefore suggest that the first two parts of the
sentence were Kin KB^pn. ' m H. This has KO^pl '»T placed side by
side, but as with KD^pfl "|EnpO at Targ. Ps. 68: 36 they should not be
taken together, and as with Y10N W 3 at 1 iQ Targ. Job II. 4, there is
an obvious pause between them. A literal translation would have the
same problems as suggested above. Here too they can be solved by
the transposition of £cmv (as well as xf\q). Again, an additional
Kin could be inserted. Jesus might have said, Kin tmyi, 'm. Kin n n .
Mark's kaxiv would then be simply a literal translation of the first
Kin in its original position, but this suggestion has the disadvantage
that the translator would probably not leave out a translation of the
second Kin just because he had rendered the first.
I hope these variations illuminate the main point. A natural
Aramaic origin of Jesus' word over the cup can be found. The
central point is that Jesus must have said Kin after KO'p. This is
exegetically interesting, because it puts his interpretation more
clearly within the existing framework of God's covenant with
Israel. 23 Otherwise, however, there is some uncertainty over the
exact order in which he said the words, just as there is some
uncertainty about exactly which words he used. The degree of
significant uncertainty is, however, negligible. There is no signifi-
cant difference between n n VST and ""M | 1 , since either could form
the basic symbolic statement at the heart of Jesus' interpretation.

22
Dalman, op. cit., p. 171: Jeremias, op. cit., Eucharistic Words, p. 226: J. T .
Milik (ed., with the collaboration of M . Black), The Books 0/ Enoch. Aramaic
fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976). Milik, p. 237, is confident
of the reading at 4Q Enoch 3 i 20 (part of 4Q Giants), but I cannot read it on his
photograph. Cf. Maloney, op. cit., pp. 6 1 - 2 , with n. 47.
23
T h e more general significance of this, and the related matter of the exegesis of
P, requires fuller treatment on another occasion.
 THE ORIGINAL ARAMAIC FORM OF JESUS 11
Equally, it does not matter whether his word for 'shed' was the
Aramaic "TtPN or the Hebrew loanword ~\t>V. It does matter that a
natural Aramaic original can be reconstructed, and that it involves
making the statement about the covenant separate from the first
part of the interpretation of the wine.
Finally, some points of method. No-one really believes that, to
reconstruct the words of Jesus in the original Aramaic, we should
translate a Gospel saying back into Aramaic as literally as possible.
Yet, in practice, that is what scholars have usually done, and that is
what created the problem which this note has endeavoured to

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Cornell University Library on May 30, 2012

solve. What we should do, in practice as well as in theory, is to
fulfil two criteria: (a) the saying should consist of satisfactory
Aramaic: (b) it should be feasible that a normal translator would
translate it to form the Gospel saying. The difference will not
always be visible, because some Gospel sayings will in fact have
been translated literally from Aramaic into Greek (e.g. Mark 10:
45): also, some sayings will not go (e.g. Mark 9: 31), and others
have been subjected to heavy editing (e.g. Mark 8: 31). 2 * None the
less, the methodological principle remains important. Words have
semantic areas, not single meanings, and neither semantic areas
nor syntax nor word order are the same in Aramaic and Greek.
Too rigid an approach gives a false sense of security when it works,
and creates unreal problems when it does not. 25
A much worse approach is simply to take Greek sayings and
interpret them as they stand. This is generally done by New
Testament scholars who cannot read the language which Jesus
spoke, and it is sometimes done by the few who can. 26 If Jesus
spoke Aramaic, this cannot be right. If we do not reconstruct the
original Aramaic of his sayings; we do not know what he said; if we
do not exercise the greatest care in interpreting them against the
background of first century Judaism, we do not know what he
24
For discussion of possible Aramaic originals of these sayings, P. M . Casey,
JSNTxxix (1987), 42-8.
25
Cf. in general L. D . Hurst, ' T h e Neglected Role of Semantics in the Search
for the Aramaic Words of Jesus', JSNT xxviii (1986), 6 3 - 8 0 .
26
T h i s is most striking in dealing with the outstanding Semitism in the New
Testament, 6 uio<; t o o ivflptbitou: cf. e.g. C. C. Caragounis, The Son of Man
(WUNT 38, 1986), e.g. p p . 196 ff., discussing 8ei at Mark 8: 3 1 , blissfully unaware
that it has no close equivalent in Aramaic: O. Betz, Jesus und das Danielbuch. Band II.
Die Menschensohnuiorte Jesus und die Zukunftserwartung des Paulus {Daniel 7, 13-14)
(Arbeiten zum NT und Judentum 6/2. Frankfurt im Main/Bern: Land, 1985),
perfectly capable of reading Aramaic, but discussing every saying without consider-
ing any reconstructed versions, and thereby avoiding the main arguments against his
conviction that Son of Man sayings are 'Hoheitsaussagen, die auf eine einzigartige
Vollmacht weisen', and that 'deutete Jesus mit der Selbstbezeichnung ,,der Men-
schensohn" seine besondere, singulare, Sendung und Vollmacht an' (p. 15).
12 MAURICE CASEY
intended to convey to those who listened to him. It is no argument
against this that it may produce significant uncertainty in cases
where we thought we knew what the biblical text means. We can
read Mark 8: 31, and its interpretation does not appear difficult:
we must none the less face the fact that we do not know exactly
what Jesus said, and consequently we can find out only the main
points of the interpretation, not all of the details that we read in the
existing text.27 More controversially, there will be examples where
a shift of meaning has taken place in the translation from Aramaic
into Greek, and if we can recover the original meaning, it will be

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Cornell University Library on May 30, 2012

different from the biblical text. In such cases, there should be no
doubt as to what we interpret. The text of Mark, or of 'Q', will tell
us what Mark or 'Q' said and meant: but only the Aramaic
original, where it can be properly reconstructed, can tell us what
Jesus himself said and meant.28
The following conclusions may therefore be suggested. Jesus'
interpretation of the cup at the Last Supper can be reconstructed
on the basis of our oldest narrative source, Mark 14: 24. This
reconstruction requires some change in the order of words, but it
fulfils the desirable criteria for Aramaic reconstructions of the
words of Jesus. It makes excellent Aramaic, perfectly feasible in
the mouth of Jesus, and we can see how a normal translator might
produce from it the saying now found in Mark 14: 24. With some
uncertainty in minor details, we can see that Jesus said,
yvrw bv -ivxnn tKin wpi ,nn "m
MAURICE CASEY
27
Cf. Casey, JfSNT xxix (1987), 43-6.
28
For the difference, cf. e.g. Casey, op. cit., NTS xxxiv (1988), 1-23, arguing
that the Aramaic source of a very difficult Marcan narrative makes perfectly good
sense when Jewish assumptions are applied to it. And for the problem, cf. e.g.
Caragounis, op. cit., p . 33, criticizing B. Lindars, Jesus Son of Man (London:
SPCK, 1983): 'The theory is based on unsubstantiated claims regarding a
hypothetical Aramaic original which is beyond scientific scrutiny, on reconstruc-
tions which have no basis in any textual tradition, but which give the impression of
being dictated by the theory.' Aramaic reconstructions are open to scholarly
scrutiny, not beyond it. T o be satisfactory, they must be based on the evidence
both of the Gospels and of Aramaic sources, and they should not be done without a
clear theoretical basis. Lindars endeavoured to substantiate his claims with a whole
book: he used Aramaic originals open to scholarly scrutiny, based on Gospel
sayings, and made in the light of clearly stated theory. Whatever the final verdict of
scholarship on the truth or falsity of his theory, there should be no doubt that it was
properly presented to us. If in any case an Aramaic reconstruction of a genuine
saying is beyond us, we know neither what Jesus said nor what he meant.
Assessment of Aramaic reconstructions does, however, require technical expertise,
which Caragounis does not possess. For the most recent positive work,
G. Schwarz, 'Und Jesus sprach': Untersuchungen zur aramaischen Urgestalt der
Wortejesu (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. BWANT n 8 , = F6, H 18. 2nd edn., 1987).