Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Translated version question
I am looking to purchase for my first book the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament Translation - Messianic Version by Janet M Magiera which covers the new testament. My question is is the full Bible by George Lamsa worth getting even with all the bias I read about? Or is there another book to pick up to fill in the gaps missing from the New Testament to complete the Bible?

I am new to the whole Torah and want to get the most accurate Bible and I read some passages from Janet's and it's quite literal but yet easier to understand than many verses in the KJV.
It's said more often here. If you want the best Bible, learn to read Syriac or Hebrew. But since this is not feasable for all people, there are lots of translations around for which hot discussions arise, often.

The Lamsa Bible is not a 'as literal as possible' translation and I regret some personal believes which he included in the translation.
If you want my opinion regarding the best translation of the Torah, I don't have one. I usually just check more translations including the KJV.
Lamsa's translation is a really good translation (which I personally recommend), but instead of translating literally in some places, he instead translates with his interpretation of the word/idiom. He sometimes translates daywah and daywana as "insane" or "lunatic", rather than "demon" and "demon possessed", but this only happens a few times in the Gospels and Acts (he sometimes translates it as "demon" and "demon possessed" also). He also uses King James Version and New King James Version style, which isn't that much of a problem. Sometimes he uses Greek readings, but this isn't very common. His translation of the Tanakh is really good, and I read a lot of the Old Testament in the Lamsa Bible. There are a few strange readings:

"And you, Bethlehem Ephratah, though you are little among the thousands of towns of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth a ruler to govern Israel; whose goings forth have been predicted from of old, from eternity."- Micah 5:2, The Lamsa Bible

"But as one of them was felling a beam, the axehead fell into the water; and he cried and said, I beseech you, my lord! it was borrowed by your servant. And the prophet of God said to him, Where did it fall? And he showed him the place. And he cut off a stick and thrust it in there; and it stuck in the hole of the axehead. And he said, Take it up to you. And he put out his hand and took it."- II Kings 6:5-7, The Lamsa Bible

Janet Magiera's translation (both the original and Messianic Version) come highly recommended, along with her interlinear. The Way International's Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament is also great! My personal favorite Aramaic to English New Testament translation is Andrew Gabriel Roth's Aramaic English New Testament, but it also has a couple of places with theological bias. David Bauscher's The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English and The Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament are also very good.

Also take a look at the translations by James Murdock and John Wesley Etheridge at if you don't mind reading online. Here are the links to where you can buy them off of Amazon: Murdock Etheridge Volume 1: The Gospels Etheridge Volume 2: Acts-Revelation
So even though there is a lot of BIAS from what I read about the AENT it is still a good Bible. Do you think it would be better than the Janet M Magiera due to the footnotes? I see some really informative footnotes that explain things for someone new to reading the Peshitta like in Matthew 23.

207 A very late and unattested reading in Shem Tob Matthew states: ?everything ?he? (Moshe) tells you to do, do it.? This rendering is nonsense; Y?shua would not mention Moshe when the Pharisees are ?they? who sit in Moshe?s seat. Peshitta and Greek texts agree that since the Pharisees sit in Moshe?s seat they should teach Moshe but, instead, they elevate their oral traditions above Torah. The fact of the matter is, if they would actually study Torah, they would know Y?shua is Mashiyach.

Seems footnotes like that explains better about the translation meanings and errors.
Shlama Molitar,

Get them all, if you can't read the Original....but none are going to be perfect in their translations....then check those verses that you think might be translated wrong, against the actual text, using the Peshitta Tool at unless you are proficient enough to spot the problems just by looking at the Aramaic text.

Magiera is the best choice overall, at this time, for a complete NT...but it has some Western readings from the altered "Peshitto" version of the Peshitta, and of course has the Western 5 books. It is pretty literal, yet very smooth reading, and corrects the problems Lamsa has in his version, which is one of the big reasons Magiera took on the project. Also, she has some of the best helps available at her website.

Roth's edited version of Yonan's and Murdock's work is the 2nd best choice overall, at this time, for a complete NT. It has the Western 5 books added, from the "Peshitto" version. It is very literal, yet readable, while not as smooth as Magiera, and it has all the Eastern readings of the original Peshitta. It does still contain a number of typos, even in the 5th edition, and the Aramaic text is not really the Khabouris text, but an edited version of some sort, which does not always match the translation itself. His notes and commentaries are from an extreme point of view and very sectarian from his groups perspective, which tends to condemn others views. Many of his helps are valuable, but one must consume with care, as to not swallow something not good for the soul.

Baucsher's version is not the Eastern Peshitta NT. It is the Western Peshitto version in every respect. If you like that and don't mind some of his ideas creeping into the text, then it is a pretty literal translation, and some of his notes are helpful. I would say that overall...and all things is the 3rd best choice.

For the older ones, Ehteridge is more Eastern in it's text, and more literal than Murdock, which is more Western and less literal.

In a few years, we hope to see a true Eastern Peshitta NT and OT translation in English...until then...we wait, as today it is not ready, but being worked on by a few.
There is not really very much bias. For the most part he does a good job at keeping his theology in the footnotes.
So do you think personally ROTH would be best for the footnotes to explain things? I checked out parts of Magiera but I did not see any footnotes that helped to explain things. Like Lamsa I understand has some idiom footnotes that indicate things like the coat of many colors was not figurative like we are taught but a long sleeve robe often worn by those of position or authority.

Is these kind of notes found in Magiera bible if not it appears even with his theology in the footnotes the AENT has that it would still help to explain and prove useful.
Andrew Roth brings forth the poetry of the Peshitta shows some great scholarship. Bauscher has the best textual footnotes.
Thanks for all the good information.. Ok I decided on Roth for the NT and Lamsa for the full Bible.
Roth' s AENT is pretty much a compilation of the labors of several Peshitta scholars published in one volume. While it is an edited version of the Younan Interlinear and Murdock translation, it feels different from them. I have almost every Peshitta translation, so feel free to PM or Chuck (my buddy on here nAmed ThirdWoe who can actually give a better idea of the accuracy of the translation). We are all still waiting to see the Peshitta being translated in English in a definitive form.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)