03-05-2008, 07:47 AM
Dear Albion,
What a sadly ridiculous statement attacking a brilliant dead man. Apparently, you have not read Lamsa???s extensive commentaries or met him or heard his recorded lectures stressing the importance of understanding idioms in any language including Aramaic. Lamsa was a linguist whose main concern was correct understanding of his native Aramaic language. He was not interested in metaphysics or unorthodox theology.
Rocco Errico has his own agenda, and he is no George Lamsa. If you want to discuss the teachings of Errico, that???s fine and we would probably agree that they are not orthodox, but his ideas are irrelevant.
I believe that you have seriously misrepresented Lamsa???s New Testament translation from the Peshitta and other Aramaic sources by taking a few very special cases out of context, unjustly generalizing, and reaching unjustified conclusions.
It is true and well documented that in a few incidents in the New Testament, Lamsa believed that certain specific references to certain persons described as having demons were idiomatic in his native Aramaic language in reference to their insanity. There were insane men who Jesus encountered. That is a statement of fact, and has nothing at all to do with the cause of that insanity. Do you believe that all insane people are possessed by demons? In some Bible examples it is clear that demons were implicated, and Lamsa???s translation does not misrepresent them. In those few cases of this idiomatic interpretation Lamsa put careful footnotes in his translation of the Peshitta, and further documented and explained these linguistic meanings in his commentaries. He was not intending to hide anything and he did nothing secretive or improper. His commentaries explain his choices. If you believe that the literal meaning of every word conveys the true meaning, then how do you handle the many Biblical metaphors.
To claim that Lamsa did not believe in demons or satan or devils or purposely misrepresnted them is just plain wrong! To imply that Lamsa tried to hide the existence of demons or devils or satan is just plain rediculous.
I started counting the number of times that ???demon??? or ???demons??? are mentioned in Lamsa???s New Testament translation, and a found over 2,000 cases in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I found over 1,000 cases of ???devil??? or ???devils??? and over 1,000 cases of ???satan??? and for those I looked only the first half Lamsa???a New Testament translation. I was too tired to go any further, but it is clear that Lamsa did not hide or avoid the clear Biblical references to demons, the devil, or satan as found in the Peshitta. How can you claim that he did?
When the Bible says that Yeshua faced off with the devil in the desert, you can find that well described in Lamsa???s translation. When Yeshua cast demons out of people, Lamsa???s translation clearly describes these cases because Lamsa was a precise and accurate tramslator.
To read the Peshitta just ???AS IT???S WRITTEN??? requires a mastery of Aramic and an understanding of first Century Aramaic idioms. Few NEW STUDENTS meet these requirements.
The best complete translation into English of the whole Peshitta including the Hebrew scriptures is Lamsa???s translation, the result of his life???s work carefully accomplished singlehandedly without the aid of computers. It is primarily a linguistic accomplishment, which he carefully documented in his books and commentaries, of which I think I have every one. Yes, his translation has some flaws and not everyone agrees with his views of some Aramaic idioms, but I have not seen a more complete, accurate, and readable translation in English of the whole Peshitta.
Sincerely,
Otto
What a sadly ridiculous statement attacking a brilliant dead man. Apparently, you have not read Lamsa???s extensive commentaries or met him or heard his recorded lectures stressing the importance of understanding idioms in any language including Aramaic. Lamsa was a linguist whose main concern was correct understanding of his native Aramaic language. He was not interested in metaphysics or unorthodox theology.
Rocco Errico has his own agenda, and he is no George Lamsa. If you want to discuss the teachings of Errico, that???s fine and we would probably agree that they are not orthodox, but his ideas are irrelevant.
I believe that you have seriously misrepresented Lamsa???s New Testament translation from the Peshitta and other Aramaic sources by taking a few very special cases out of context, unjustly generalizing, and reaching unjustified conclusions.
It is true and well documented that in a few incidents in the New Testament, Lamsa believed that certain specific references to certain persons described as having demons were idiomatic in his native Aramaic language in reference to their insanity. There were insane men who Jesus encountered. That is a statement of fact, and has nothing at all to do with the cause of that insanity. Do you believe that all insane people are possessed by demons? In some Bible examples it is clear that demons were implicated, and Lamsa???s translation does not misrepresent them. In those few cases of this idiomatic interpretation Lamsa put careful footnotes in his translation of the Peshitta, and further documented and explained these linguistic meanings in his commentaries. He was not intending to hide anything and he did nothing secretive or improper. His commentaries explain his choices. If you believe that the literal meaning of every word conveys the true meaning, then how do you handle the many Biblical metaphors.
To claim that Lamsa did not believe in demons or satan or devils or purposely misrepresnted them is just plain wrong! To imply that Lamsa tried to hide the existence of demons or devils or satan is just plain rediculous.
I started counting the number of times that ???demon??? or ???demons??? are mentioned in Lamsa???s New Testament translation, and a found over 2,000 cases in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I found over 1,000 cases of ???devil??? or ???devils??? and over 1,000 cases of ???satan??? and for those I looked only the first half Lamsa???a New Testament translation. I was too tired to go any further, but it is clear that Lamsa did not hide or avoid the clear Biblical references to demons, the devil, or satan as found in the Peshitta. How can you claim that he did?
When the Bible says that Yeshua faced off with the devil in the desert, you can find that well described in Lamsa???s translation. When Yeshua cast demons out of people, Lamsa???s translation clearly describes these cases because Lamsa was a precise and accurate tramslator.
To read the Peshitta just ???AS IT???S WRITTEN??? requires a mastery of Aramic and an understanding of first Century Aramaic idioms. Few NEW STUDENTS meet these requirements.
The best complete translation into English of the whole Peshitta including the Hebrew scriptures is Lamsa???s translation, the result of his life???s work carefully accomplished singlehandedly without the aid of computers. It is primarily a linguistic accomplishment, which he carefully documented in his books and commentaries, of which I think I have every one. Yes, his translation has some flaws and not everyone agrees with his views of some Aramaic idioms, but I have not seen a more complete, accurate, and readable translation in English of the whole Peshitta.
Sincerely,
Otto