Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Lamsa vs. Younan questions
I was going to have a thread on Lamsa questions and errata.

The opening one was going to be on Jesus encounter with Legion. Where Lamsa says the demoniac "attacked" the swine herd. Rather than saying the demons entered or possesssed the swine. I actually thought the Greek text was a little easier to understand on this. And it seems like the PAul's interlinear also seems to interpret it along those lines.

Well I don't have my study Bible with its handy lexicon. But I recall that the verb for possess has a range of meanings from attack to enter. It seems to express a variety of types of assault, invasion etc.

Anyway LAmsa claimed the way it was used was very literallly attack, because of the tense or whatever grammatical. So "I was wonderiing if LAmsa was being too picky, too literal, or just confused about some of his grammar?"

It seems to me our concept of demonic possession, which is a kind of spiritual invasion and assault, would fit the popular rendering. It is both an attack/invasion, forceable entery etc. But the way Lamsa worded it implies that the demoniac went out and simply attacked the swine (like punching, kicking etc. them).

Anyway I thought it would be helpful to hear why Younan did his translation and theorize why LAmsa did his. And I'm sure in the future I will have other questions on other verses.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)