Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Honor Lamsa
#1
Since Aramaic primacy is our main purpose, it makes no sense and serves no purpose to repeatedly attack. George Lamsa, the pioneer of Aramaic primacy. Well before the age of computers or efficient world-wide communication, he single-handedly translated the whole Peshitta including all of the Old Testament, into English, and wrote extensive commentaries explaining major issues associated with translating from an ancient Aramaic culture to modern English. He accomplished his New Testament in the 1930's and the whole Bible in 1956. These were published by A.J Holman Company, a respected Bible publisher. His translation was probably among the first modern language versions of the Bible.

I met George Lamsa in 1970 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and spent a very pleasant evening conversing with him. We talked about his scholarly journey and his mission to show that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic, not Greek.

George Lamsa was a native Assyrian born in 1890 in Marbisho in northern Iran, His native language was Aramaic and his family was Christian. He did not need a lexicon to ?translate? the Peshitta, since it was the Bible of his youth and culture. It was written in his native language. Also, he was a brilliant and precocious scholar. Lamsa?s translation of his native language is far more likely to be correct than those by people who do not have a native knowledge of Aramaic or Lamsa?s understanding of the ancient cultures of Aramaic-speaking peoples including the followers of Jesus.

Context is important in Aramaic and Lamsa instinctively understood the context of sentences written in his native language. Lamsa has gone to some length to clearly explain this in his published commentaries, all of which I have on my bookshelf.

Lamsa studied in Anglican and Episcopal schools and grew to love the King James Version style and purposely adopted modernized versions of its wordings when they were consistent with his reading of the Peshitta. At that time this style also served the purpose of comfortable reading for Christians who grew up with the King James Version (KJV). Much of the criticism of his work in this forum is associated with his attempt to adhere closely to the KJV, but this was a purposeful tool in the middle of the 20th Century.

In 1947 he published a small book entitled ?New Testament Origin?. The first sentence in the first Chapter reads,? Not a word of either the Old of the New Testament was originally written in Greek or any other European language.? Those were fighting words to all those people who learned Greek so they could better understand the Bible. That is just as true today.

Instead of arguing about various esoteric issues on this forum, we need to muster greater effort to promote Aramaic primacy in all that we do! We need to develop logical and written tools that are effective in this effort.

Otto
Reply
#2
Ograabe,

I use Lamsa translation in my study of the Peshitta- contemporary English, clear translations, a very helpful tool.
But some of his translations are not exact but have liberal deviations. Did you ask him about this?
Concerning
Quote:Lamsa?s translation of his native language is far more likely to be correct than those by people who do not have a native knowledge of Aramaic or Lamsa?s understanding of the ancient cultures of Aramaic-speaking peoples including the followers of Jesus.

I think his native language is Neo-Aramaic, not the Apostolic times Aramaic. Not sure how much they differ but they are different.
Words usually have evolution so do idioms too. People who mastered ancient Aramaic apart from
Neo-Aramaic have advantage in the part that they not mix old and new words meanings etc.

In any way, he is a great scholar and did great input into case of Peshitta primacy.

If you have Lamsa works in electronic format other than the Bible, please share.

Ivan.
Reply
#3
I think that our personal feelings should not cloud our judgment on a translation. What we should do, is see if the translation of any particular verse/passage is indeed accurate, if we are going to use the translation for personal understanding of what The Scriptures teach, and or use it in our teaching to others.

I have found personal/Doctrinal bias in George's, Dave's, Andrew's, and others I've read, who have translated the Peshitta into English.

Does that make then dis-honerable or Dis-Honest? Mabye not, maybe so, depends on their motives for doing so. If they really think that they are seeing something that is there, and its not true, then its their being mislead by their own discernment, but if they know its not saying it the way that they want it to say, then change it in the translation, then that is being deceptive.

This is GOD's Word in Aramaic, so their translations into English must not be twisted into saying what the text does not say, to help promote their held doctrines/beliefs, and what ever the reason it was that lead to their mis-translations, is between them and GOD...but those who study The Scriptures with their translations, should always check it, before they just teach something to others, or even believe something themselves.

I don't blindly trust any translation in English...I look to The Aramaic text itself, to see what it says. And for this, there is nothing better that I have found to help a person do so, than by using the Peshitta Tool at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/">http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/</a><!-- m -->

Our Brother George is doing great with The Lord...I am certain he is not bothered at all, if we find something that is not right in his translations and correct them, in fact, if he knew about it, he would be happy we did.

Don't knock the man, but test all things, prove all things, hold fast to that which is good...

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#4
There is nothing wrong with scholarly criticism of the possible differences in translation and scholarly presentation or alternative and even more appropriate interpretations. I would not claim that Lamsa's translation is perfect. But personal attacks on Lamsa and unfounded accusatioons are un-called-or , undesirable, and quite destructive to the goals of Aramaic primacy.

We need to build upward rather than tearr down
Reply
#5
We should all strive to that end Otto, but as you know, there is little more personal than ones faith and held doctrines, it stirs up heat better than ole fashioned billows... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

I might have missed it, but were there "personal attacks" upon Brother Lamsa here recently? And if I said something that could be seen that way then please point it out, so I can review my statements and correct them, or explain then.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#6
Quote:if we find something that is not right in his translations and correct them, in fact, if he knew about it, he would be happy we did.
Well said.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)