07-05-2008, 12:31 AM
July 4, 2008, God Bless America
There are two parts to Lamsa???s statement. One is about the meaning of the sentence in Aramaic, his native language. The Second is about Lamsa???s personal view of how to interpret the Messiah???s statement.
Part 1: Concerning ???rope??? versus ???camel,??? it is important to remember that Lamsa was a native Assyrian who thought in Aramaic. He did not translate the Peshitta, per se. Rather he created an English version of the Peshitta based on his native understanding of the Aramaic text. I know of no one on this forum who has these credentials. I talked with Lamsa about his view of his work, and he firmly believed that God lead him and that God was responsible for making it possible. I have no doubt that "rope" is the correct meaning. It makes perfect sense.
Part 2: Lamsa was not a theologian, to my knowledge. However, in his commentaries he does state some personal views that might be considered to have a theological context. Lamsa was trained at Anglican schools and his overall theology was quite orthodox, but some side issues were personal views. One such issue is the business of the possibility of a rope passing through the eye of a needle. I disagree with Lamsa???s view that there is a loophole in the Messiah???s statement since some rope might squeeze through some large needle. The context and statements are clear, that is impossible for a large rope to pass through a sewing needle.
I think it is important to separate these two parts. Lamsa???s statement about the context of the statement leading Aramaic speakers to hear ???rope??? rather than ???camel??? stands firm. His loophole to salvation is unlikely.
Otto
There are two parts to Lamsa???s statement. One is about the meaning of the sentence in Aramaic, his native language. The Second is about Lamsa???s personal view of how to interpret the Messiah???s statement.
Part 1: Concerning ???rope??? versus ???camel,??? it is important to remember that Lamsa was a native Assyrian who thought in Aramaic. He did not translate the Peshitta, per se. Rather he created an English version of the Peshitta based on his native understanding of the Aramaic text. I know of no one on this forum who has these credentials. I talked with Lamsa about his view of his work, and he firmly believed that God lead him and that God was responsible for making it possible. I have no doubt that "rope" is the correct meaning. It makes perfect sense.
Part 2: Lamsa was not a theologian, to my knowledge. However, in his commentaries he does state some personal views that might be considered to have a theological context. Lamsa was trained at Anglican schools and his overall theology was quite orthodox, but some side issues were personal views. One such issue is the business of the possibility of a rope passing through the eye of a needle. I disagree with Lamsa???s view that there is a loophole in the Messiah???s statement since some rope might squeeze through some large needle. The context and statements are clear, that is impossible for a large rope to pass through a sewing needle.
I think it is important to separate these two parts. Lamsa???s statement about the context of the statement leading Aramaic speakers to hear ???rope??? rather than ???camel??? stands firm. His loophole to salvation is unlikely.
Otto