Peshitta Forum
Comparing Lamsa with Etheridge - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Comparing Lamsa with Etheridge (/showthread.php?tid=1669)

Pages: 1 2


Comparing Lamsa with Etheridge - Stephen Silver - 07-06-2008

Shlama Forum:
I'd like to compare the translation work of Dr. George Lamsa vis-a-vis John Wesley Etheridge. First, I'd like to open a discussion on Romans 8:1. In all cases that are mentioned I will defer to the Khabouris Codex as the source text. My source for Lamsa's text is taken from
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Lamsa/6_Romans/Romans8.htm">http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicN ... omans8.htm</a><!-- m -->

Romans 8:1
Khabouris
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0xy4m (w4yb rsbb Nyklhm fd Nyly0l Fwbyx tyl Lykm[/font]

Lamsa
There is therefore no condemnation to them who walk in the flesh after the spirit of Jesus Christ.

Etheridge
Hence, there is no condemnation to them who do not walk according to the flesh, in Jeshu Meshiha.

Is this a typo, or has Lamsa taken liberty to ignore the negative "loh"?

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->


Re: Comparing Lamsa with Etheridge - Paul Younan - 07-08-2008

Shlama Akhi Stephen,

Lamsa missed this, the negative "lah" is even in the printed versions. Etheridge has the correct reading.

-Shamasha


Re: Comparing Lamsa with Etheridge - Dawid - 07-08-2008

I know this will put me in the minority, but I really appreciate Etheridge and Murdock because they are not Peshitta primacists. Thus they are more unbiased. While this does cause them to miss things, they also catch things that other translators are more likely to mistranslate because of a theological bias.
Please don't take this as an accusation, Mr. Younan, or Mr. Bauscher, or Mr. Roth. I love the translations of the former two and am very much looking forward to the latter's translation. However, I readily admit that when I have translated portions of the TN"K (with my limited skills in Hebrew) I know my theological bias gets in. It's something I think the honest scholar admits about himself. But these two translators had nothing at stake theological and philosophically. So they could be extremely honest in their translations.


Re: Comparing Lamsa with Etheridge - Paul Younan - 07-08-2008

Dawid Wrote:I know this will put me in the minority, but I really appreciate Etheridge and Murdock because they are not Peshitta primacists. Thus they are more unbiased. While this does cause them to miss things, they also catch things that other translators are more likely to mistranslate because of a theological bias.
Please don't take this as an accusation, Mr. Younan, or Mr. Bauscher, or Mr. Roth. I love the translations of the former two and am very much looking forward to the latter's translation. However, I readily admit that when I have translated portions of the TN"K (with my limited skills in Hebrew) I know my theological bias gets in. It's something I think the honest scholar admits about himself. But these two translators had nothing at stake theological and philosophically. So they could be extremely honest in their translations.

Shlama Akhan Dawid,

Did I read you correctly? If so, I fail to understand how theology plays into Peshitta primacy.

The people who hold to Peshitta primacy do so because of the internal evidences, and not because of theology. There is a plethora of creeds amongst Peshitta primacists.

Lamsa was a "Unitarian", I am a "Nestorian", Andrew is a "Jew", Dave is something I'm not sure has a label. =)

Honest translators admit they make mistakes. Even the scribes who copied the manuscripts begged for our forgiveness and prayers for their errors. And they didn't even translate.

Mistakes are one thing: bias, is another thing altogether. I don't see how being a Peshitta primacist affects translating anymore than being a Greek primacist affects translating.

+Shamasha


Re: Comparing Lamsa with Etheridge - Dawid - 07-08-2008

Akhi Paul,
I'm afraid you've misunderstood me. I didn't mean that theology plays a part in Peshitta primacy. I meant that for a Peshitta primacist, the Peshitta must fit with his theology. For a Greek primacist, if the Peshitta's theology disagrees with his own, he doesn't care. In reading the Peshitta you have a preconception of what it says on a lot of issues. Murdock and Etheridge did not. They could be brutally honest in translating because they had no need to read their theology into the text.
I'm sorry if you find it offensive for me to say that scholars have bias. But I really think that it is dishonest for a scholar to pretend he doesn't have one. Our biases affect our works, whether we like it or not. We really start with conclusions and then build proofs to back them up. as much as we like to think we start with evidence and reach conclusions it just isn't true.

Shalom,
Dawid


Re: Comparing Lamsa with Etheridge - Andrew Gabriel Roth - 07-08-2008

Shlama to you both...

Akhi Dawid, I think what Shamasha Paul is trying to say is that all of us in the Peshitta Primacist movement are of different religious backgrounds but that we have come together in agreement based on well established textual analysis principles. Looking at something like the Gowra Scenario should not have anything to do with one's religion for example. Seeing split words, poetry and other lines of evidence that shows early mistranslation on the Greek side is likewise not a faith based decision but an empirical and analytical mode of interpretation. Paul and I might disagree on some deeper meanings within the text but not about the originality of that text.

Further Akhi Dawid, I would be careful how you phrase these things because to assert objectivity on the part of Murdock and Etheridge (and I am huge fans of both of these men) is not correct in that by your theory they would be coming from a Protestant traditon of interpretation and so to say it is not true of their tradition but somehow true of ours is not fair. I doubt you mean this--especially since you and I are of the same faith--but that's how it came across and that I believe is what Shamasha Paul is responding to.

Shamasha Paul, I agree with you, but I think that what Dawid is saying--somewhat roughly to be sure--is that since Murdock and Etheridge were not Peshitta Primacists (Lamsa was of course, as are we) that he thinks they translated in a way that was less about their Masorah and more about how they thought it should read. That does NOT mean of course, that they were any less prone to influence from their faith than we may be. However, you are correct that all translators should apologize for errors and be on the lookout for bias and that it is not an a priori leap to just say X faith equals X intrerpretation AWAY from pshat.

And for the rest of you who may be reading this: yes all translators should admit their imperfections. No translation is perfect. But I know Paul and I know myself (haven't seen Dave's work yet but I believe him honest and consistent in his methods) and can attest that both of us really, really strive to avoid these pitfalls. We put out our conservative base readings up top and other issues in the footnotes, and that's the best we can do. We may not achieve perfection, but we are certainly zealous in pursuing it.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth


Re: Comparing Lamsa with Etheridge - Dawid - 07-08-2008

I think the only way I can explain this is by giving an example. When you read Murdock you regularly come across what I call "snicker notes." Murdock snickers at what he perceives as mistranslations in the Peshitto. However, in the text he translates it as the Peshitto has it. It is irrelevant to him if the Peshitto does or does not support his doctrines. If it does, great. If it does not, it's a mistranslation. So he is able to achieve a greater level of objectivity than a Peshitta primacist is.
Does that make more sense? I think I am really addressing a completely different issue than the one that you and akhan Paul are addressing.


Re: Comparing Lamsa with Etheridge - ograabe - 07-08-2008

Romans 8:1

I think Lamsa may not have missed the ???lah,??? but it is possible that he somewhat inverted the thought to reflect his understanding of the statement. Lamsa may have wanted to express the the right concept rather than just a word-for-word translation.

Compare Murdock and Lamsa:

Murdock: ???There is therefore no condemnation to them who, in Jesus Christ, walk not after the flesh.???

Lamsa: ???There is therefore no condemnation to them who walk in the flesh after the spirit of Jesus Christ.???

Otto

P.S.

Lamsa was not a Unitarian. He felt a lifetime personal sense of connection with the Church of East and also with the worldwide Anglican communion. Lamsa was a Assyrian trained in Anglican Schools in Turkey and Iran leading to the equivalent of a Doctor of Theology degree. When he came to the United States he attended the Episcopal Virginia Theological Seminary on a scholarship awarded by the Episcopal Bishop of New York (this was around 1918). After the first world war, Lamsa attended the Episcopal Church and was active with the Episcopal Church Mission House in raising funds for a project sponsored by the Archbishop of Canterbury to rebuild Anglican schools in Turkey and Iran that were damaged during the war.

It is true that Lamsa lectured in and accepted financial support from a wide variety of churches and did not openly favor any particular church organization. He is has been quoted to have believed in ???the ecumenical Christian Church.??? However, when I met him 40 years ago, he made it clear to me that he maintained special faithful feelings for both the Church of the East and the Episcopal Church.


Re: Comparing Lamsa with Etheridge - gbausc - 07-08-2008

Shlama all,

By Akhi Dawid's logic, a translation of the Hebrew Bible by an atheist should be more reliable than one done by an orthodox Jew; a Greek NT translation by a Greek primacist should be less reliable than a Greek NT translated by an Aramaic primacist.

Please correct me if I am wrong.I know theology is not the main issue for Dawid, but the primacy issue is not really relevant or emotionally important to those with no theology whatsoever, so such translators should be sought out to translate The Bible, for whom its text has no personal significance or ramifications.

Such logic seems fallacious to me. I would think that the more important the text is to the translator, the more seriously the translator will take the task of translating, and conversely, the less important it is to him or her, the less will be the concern for accuracy and precision.

If a person could "care less", he will be "careless".
If he is motivated by great care, he will be "careful".
This is common sense.

Objectivity is overrated; it is also falsely touted by opponents of a particular viewpoint to recommend the opposite viewpoint, as if they are indifferent to said viewpoint.

Since when is a Greek primacist indifferent to Peshitta primacy? Is such a person immune to bias, especially in such a work as translating The New Testament? Would not a Greek primacist lean toward toning down any possible superior readings in The Peshitta if he were translating it, as compared to the Greek, and give preference (even if unconsciously) to Greek readings?

What was Murdock thinking when he consistently translated "Marya" as "Lord" 239 times in The New Testament? That is exactly the same as any translation of the Greek reading "Kurios" would produce. Etheridge did the same. Is that objectivity, or simple Greek bias? They assumed Greek "Kurios" was behind the Aramaic "Marya" (Lord Yehovah) and therfore translated the Greek term and ignored the Aramaic name, supplying the Greek title "Lord,Master".

This kind of bias is easily demonstrated in Etheridge and Murdock.

Dave


Re: Comparing Lamsa with Etheridge - Dawid - 07-08-2008

Your first point is one I definitely agree with. I've very much hoped to find a translation of the Bible by an atheist for quite a while. I think it would be a fascinating read, and an excellent reference for giving perspective to Biblical study.

True, it can lead to carelessness. However, I really don't think that we can overall classify Murdock or Etheridge as careless translations. On the contrary, I think they're rather careful. I think that there are risks on both sides. That's why I would not recommend that anyone rely on a single translation, or a single type of translation, if they cannot speak or study the original languages. I would never suggest that someone should use a translation by an atheist as their only Bible. I would simply recommend that it be one of their translations.

Yes, it is possible. As I said, each has its advantages. I simply stated that in some cases Etheridge and Murdock are very good because they have a greater degree of objectivity.
I seriously doubt that Murdock would translate YHWH in the Hebrew Bible any other way than LORD or Lord. So the fact that he translated MRYA "Lord" is really no surprise, especially since the origin of MRYA has not gone undisputed. It is not half so straightforward as you make it sound.


Re: Comparing Lamsa with Etheridge - Paul Younan - 07-09-2008

Akhi Dawid,

I get the gist of what you are saying now. Technically, I am not a translator. I offer no English translation of the Peshitta on this website. There are aspects of exegesis that are impossible with an interlinear text. It is a very raw type of literal "translation"...to use the term very loosely.

The very reason I chose to do an interlinear format, and only an interlinear, is because I did not want to translate what I consider to be an untranslatable text. The reasons are many, and I've stated them in the past. The task is an impossible one. You can never translate accurately, keeping the full meaning, from two different languages. Not even with two languages as close as Hebrew and Aramaic are. Hence, the imperfection of the Targums (and Peshitta Tanakh).

I make no effort to hide the Aramaic, either. I simply offer the closest English equivalent that conveys a somewhat similar meaning. In the vast majority of cases, the words are cognates. A "house" is a "house", a "fish" is a "fish." In other cases, it's not quite that simple.

Again, no translation is perfect. None are even close.

Why I chose an interlinear format is to show you the Aramaic - pay as little attention to the English as is possible within your capability. But, by all means, the original is right there in front of you. There's no reason to be suspect.

In that sense, you can be suspect with Etheridge and Murdoch, because they did not show you what they are translating.

I also agree with Dave - how would an Aramaic Primacist translating the Greek New Testament have any less bias in his translating, just because he doesn't feel the text in front of him is the original? In order to go through the trouble of translating, no easy task mind you, anyone with a bias (all of us) will not prevent it from showing.

Dawid Wrote:(snip)....especially since the origin of MRYA has not gone undisputed. It is not half so straightforward as you make it sound.

BTW - Are you aware of any example where MRYA is used to translate anything other than YHWH, or is used in any context other than referring to God?

If so, I would be very interested in seeing it since many a professor and many a priest has failed to find a single example at my request.

+Shamasha


Re: Comparing Lamsa with Etheridge - Dawid - 07-09-2008

Akhi Paul,
I really do appreciate the format you've chosen. I also agree that you cannot get a translation that is even close to containing the original. Like the Talmud says, if a person translates literally, he is a liar. If he translates according to the meaning, he is a blasphemer and a libeler.

True, they didn't show the text they were translating. This, though, is also partly because they did not think that text was original. There was no particular need to show the text if it was simply a translation from the Greek.


Re: Comparing Lamsa with Etheridge - gbausc - 07-09-2008

Shlama Akhi Dawid,

Quote:I simply stated that in some cases Etheridge and Murdock are very good because they have a greater degree of objectivity.

They have no such thing. They simply had an opposite bias toward Greek primacy.

As to those translators, I did not accuse them of carelessness. What I am saying is that the more important the text is to the translator, the more careful he is likely to be in his handling of it, and vice versa. That is self evident. The objectivity standard you are setting actually would mitigate against reliability and accuracy, all else being equal. Indifference breeds indifference, not diligence and excellence.

Why can you not find an atheist translation of the Bible?

Because an atheist could "care less". And if you could find one, he would produce a "careless" translation, because he would have "no fear of God before his eyes" concerning his work of translating and representing the word of God. If there is no such translation known after 3500 years of Torah history, it seems unlikely one will be forthcoming anytime soon.

Bias can be a good thing.

I want to read Moses' biased writings, David's, Isaiah's, Solomon's, Paul's,Peter's,John's. Each one of them wrote with as much bias as is possible to have, no doubt.

Where is the objective best seller? Where is the objective classic? Even the news is written with strong bias, one way or the other. I don't believe we know how to be objective; it is simply a high sounding word journalists like to throw around by which to impress readers. It is a Chimera. We can try to be objective, but the more important the topic we're discussing, the less objective we are. If we find a topic easy to discuss objectively we will probably find no audience to listen to us and we will bore everyone to death, including ourselves, like the autistic savant who can rattle off a train schedule for the next month for any city on the Eastern coast. It is impressive that he can do it, but no one wants to hear the entire list. We just want a few samples. He will not sell a book with simply the objective information. Someone might write a story ("Rainman") about him or someone like him, giving biography and historical context.

Everyone is interested in interpretation and viewpoint, which are subjective. Many think "subjective" is bad and "objective" is good. This is a fallacy.

They are neither. A subjective report can be trustworty and valuable. A more objective one can be untrustworthy and worthless.

Imagine we had only one report of The life of Yeshua in which only the mass, volume and motion of each person (body) were described. No names were used, either of person or place, but coordinates (latitude,longitude) were used; no dates or time frame. An objective report can omit much critical information and still be objective. Completely objective; completely useless.

A completely objective translation would be no translation at all, simply the original text. Even then, a native Aramaic speaker must interpret each word and phrase in order to make sense of the text. Two Aramaic speakers will have somewhat different views of the same original text.

Dave


Re: Comparing Lamsa with Etheridge - Stephen Silver - 07-09-2008

Shlama Forum:
What great responses to my query! <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin --> Can anyone fully appreciate the inevitable differences between any two translations of the Peshitta New Testament? No one translates the Peshitta without a fervent desire to know and reveal the truth. All translators are deeply religious men and women with a fanatical patience. No short attention spans here, folks!
That to say this. Both John Wesley Etheridge and Dr, George Lamsa left a legacy which is enjoyed by all those that love the truth. Is it "a subjective thing" to love the New Testament Peshitta more than any single English translation of it? So be it. Etheridge and Lamsa are guides only. If we can look at "translation and transcripton" side by side, or "word for word" as interlinear, and get a grasp of the Aramaic "autograph", then this is the real prize.
What is it like when the "autograph" is revealed? It is like sitting in a comfortable chair by a fire-place, sipping hot toddy, rather than standing outside in the cold with one's nose pressed hard against the window-pane. The WORD of God is for our comfort and edification.
Without doubt, the Khabouris Codex is the closest we have come to the "autograph" of the New Testament. Still, the gospel must be translated in all languages of the world for the edification of all humanity.

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->


Re: Comparing Lamsa with Etheridge - ograabe - 07-09-2008

Thanks, Stephen, for your astute and profound remarks...

Sincerenly,

Otto