12-20-2011, 07:08 AM
Well,
my 2 cts on the subject <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
Lamsa was too liberal. If he simply did not agree with something, he translated it otherwise. Too many examples of it.
e.g.
The writing above Yeshu's head. Was it a table / tablet? Well, a stone tablet! (According to Lamsa).
WHy so? Because only John mentions this particular word (luwha), for which also the stone tablets (10 commandments) and other texts (2 Corinthians 3:3) are used. So, luwha only was associated with stone tables.
But the word stone (kipa) is _not_ existing in John 19:19.
The luwha, in that verse _could_ have been from wood (plank) but still; Lamsa concludes that the writing must have been written in stone by Pilatos.
I'm afraid that the choice made by Lamsa (John 19:19), has nothing to do with his Aramaic nativity.
He often changes the historical meaning and context of something.
The other thing often mentioned here, is that Lamsa did not believe in evil spirits. So, when somebody was posessed, he/she was just ill/crazy, not 'posessed' (e.g.) . Well, this could have been true, but 2000 years after somebody wrote it down, why reinterpret the original writing? (Lamsa)
Because IF 'being posessed' was Aramaic idiom for being ill/crazy, why did Yeshu in one row, mention 'cast out the demons, heal the sick?'
(Matthew 10:8)
my 2 cts on the subject <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->Lamsa was too liberal. If he simply did not agree with something, he translated it otherwise. Too many examples of it.
e.g.
The writing above Yeshu's head. Was it a table / tablet? Well, a stone tablet! (According to Lamsa).
WHy so? Because only John mentions this particular word (luwha), for which also the stone tablets (10 commandments) and other texts (2 Corinthians 3:3) are used. So, luwha only was associated with stone tables.
But the word stone (kipa) is _not_ existing in John 19:19.
The luwha, in that verse _could_ have been from wood (plank) but still; Lamsa concludes that the writing must have been written in stone by Pilatos.
Quote:"Pilate also wrote on a stone tablet, and placed it on his cross. And the writing was, THIS IS ..."
I'm afraid that the choice made by Lamsa (John 19:19), has nothing to do with his Aramaic nativity.
He often changes the historical meaning and context of something.
The other thing often mentioned here, is that Lamsa did not believe in evil spirits. So, when somebody was posessed, he/she was just ill/crazy, not 'posessed' (e.g.) . Well, this could have been true, but 2000 years after somebody wrote it down, why reinterpret the original writing? (Lamsa)
Quote:The people answered, saying, You are crazy; who wants to kill you?
Because IF 'being posessed' was Aramaic idiom for being ill/crazy, why did Yeshu in one row, mention 'cast out the demons, heal the sick?'
(Matthew 10:8)