Lamsa Bible seems very beautiful

[johnbres2]

I can’t believe I never came across the George Lamsa translation of the Bible until yesterday. It seems quite beautiful. As you may know, he translated it from the Aramaic, instead of from Greek or Hebrew. I checked some of the “key” spots, and was delighted to see Gabriel saying to Mary, “Peace be with you, O full of grace…” I think that is the most beautiful rendition I have heard, much warmer and more touching than “Hail” even. I also find fascinating Lamsa’s translation of what Jesus said on the cross, as “My God, My God, for this I was spared,” instead of “why have you forsaken me?” I think there is a certain ring of truth to that; in any event, it adds depth to the moment and does not appear flawed. I am interested to hear any informed opinions about this Bible, as it looks most sweet, from a Catholic, or any perspective. (no Apcrypha is the only obvious non-Catholic aspect I see so far)

 

[NotWorthy]

I’m not familiar with the Lamsa bible, but were you correct when you said it was translated from the original Aramaic into English? Only Matthew from the NT was originally in Aramaic and there are no copies of it known.

I guess you mean original language (whatever that language may be for each book?).

 

[johnbres2]

It is an argument of Aramaic primacy–where Lamsa compared the Greek back to Aramaic and contends that the Greek was a misinterpretation of the original Aramaic in which the Bible personalities spoke. Apparently, it is a bit controversial… I don’t know much about it…

 

[NotWorthy]

It is an argument of Aramaic primacy–where Lamsa compared the Greek back to Aramaic and contends that the Greek was a misinterpretation of the original Aramaic in which the Bible personalities spoke. Apparently, it is a bit controversial… I don’t know much about it…

I don’t want to take away from the thread, but it seems that if the Holy Spirit inspired an author (like Luke) to write something in Greek, I would be the last person to want to re-translate it back to Aramaic just because it’s what the Apostles spoke.

Man hasn’t been too successful second-guessing the Holy Spirit! :banghead:

 

[thistle]

I can’t believe I never came across the George Lamsa translation of the Bible until yesterday. It seems quite beautiful. As you may know, he translated it from the Aramaic, instead of from Greek or Hebrew. I checked some of the “key” spots, and was delighted to see Gabriel saying to Mary, “Peace be with you, O full of grace…” I think that is the most beautiful rendition I have heard, much warmer and more touching than “Hail” even. I also find fascinating Lamsa’s translation of what Jesus said on the cross, as “My God, My God, for this I was spared,” instead of “why have you forsaken me?” I think there is a certain ring of truth to that; in any event, it adds depth to the moment and does not appear flawed. I am interested to hear any informed opinions about this Bible, as it looks most sweet, from a Catholic, or any perspective. (no Apcrypha is the only obvious non-Catholic aspect I see so far)

Makes no sense. With the possible exception of Matthew, no other book of the New Testament was written in Aramaic.

 

[porthos11]

It’s a bad translation based on a false premise.

Jesus’ cry on the cross, for example, is lifted directly from Psalm 22, which nothing near Lamsa’s rendition.

 

[johnbres2]

if anyone has actual knowledge of this translation, that would help too.

 

[Cajetan]

I’ve heard mostly negative things about it in Catholic and Protestant Biblical scholarly circles, usually pointing to Lamsa’s apparently unfaithful rendering of the Syriac Peshitta text in several places. That said, I have no personal experience reading it.

 

[E.E.N.S]

From the “Scholarly Views” on Wikipedia:

Few mainstream scholars accept Lamsa’s hypotheses and many strongly believe his research to be pseudoscience.[3][4] In particular, his translation has been found to be seriously flawed.

Where many scholars hold that the sources of the New Testament and early oral traditions of fledgling Christianity were, indeed, in Aramaic, the Peshitta appears to have been strongly influenced by the Byzantine reading of the Greek manuscript tradition, and is in a dialect of Syriac that is much younger than that which was contemporary to Jesus.[5]

Lamsa’s view about the Old Testament, too is rejected by most conventional scholars,[citation needed] especially in light of the discovery and character of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I purchased that version a couple of years ago. I do have a great deal of interest in the Aramaic Peshitta that he translated from. I have taken Syriac and have studied the Peshitta to some extent and I often consult it in my studies, especially in the Gospel of Matthew which I believe that it serves the best purpose. But as for Lamsa’s translation, I do find myself disappointed in it. In those places that he breaks away from what has been traditionally understood, he does break away not based upon translating literally but on private interpretation (paraphrase). I personally don’t like that. I was excited at the time when I purchased his translation but I have since been let down.